Unanimous #1 selections since mid-90's - a look back

[sofutomygaha]

My memory isn't perfect, but I definitely don't remember Oden as the unanimous choice. It was 100% certain that Durant and Oden would go 1-2 in some order, but that was a pretty open debate.

The Wiggins-Embiid debate mirrored the Durant-Oden debate in some ways as well. Oden would have been the #1 if there were no health concerns, and that was certainly the consensus at the time. A weaker consensus also circled 2014, with a sizable minority embracing the opinion that a 100% healthy Embiid would be a sure thing and a much better pick than Wiggins (Parker muddied the waters a bit, too, because he was actually the considered the *safest* pick by most everyone).

[GC003332]

TP for the write up

The jury is still out with the recent draftees obviously but my take from the list is that top picks are pretty much going have nice careers at the very least but won't spend all of those years with the team that drafts them.
You have Duncan and Ming(486 games) as the only ones , going back a couple of years from your cut off of 96, you had Johnson 91, Shaq 92,Webber 93 all unanimous picks not see out more than 5 years with the team that drafted them.
So if the Celtics were to luck out and get the first pick next year no use getting too excited about it ha ha

[Csfan1984]

I agree; good post. 

And I'd even add that really only three players in those drafts (Duncan, LeBron, and likely Davis) were even transformative players that change the face of your franchise overnight (i.e. Dwight Howard is a nice player, but he was never guaranteeing you a title shot every year). 

So not only do you need to win the lottery in a year that has a clear number one, you also have to hit it in a year where the clear number one is also a transformative player who will go down in history as a top 25ish player of all time to really guarantee yourself of anything.

I don't agree with Duncan, James and Davis being that far above those other guys. AI was awesome but his teams were not great. Rose, Oden, Yao and Howard had health issues. Health factored in that is like a 50% shot at a game changing player and a 10% shot at a true bust. You should want a #1 bad if your franchise is rebuilding.

The point is that only a few guys over the past 25 years have really been guys that absolutely guarantee you a shot at a title every year. That makes sense. There are only a few every generation and not all of them are first round picks.

Thus, this idea that tanking is some automatic path to contention is a fallacy, as you're more likely to end up in a Michael Olowokandi/Kwame Brown draft than a LeBron/Duncan one.

And quite frankly, how much better Duncan and LeBron were over the likes of Yao and Rose really is a moot point. Regardless of the reason, those guys still never became transformational players, which is the reason teams tank in the first place.

I think that health and team is not something one can dismiss though. AI was a generational player. Rose was a contender almost every year healthy and so were the other players I mentioned fell into the same positons. If you simply ignore the teams or players health it is not doing the talent evalution justice. Fact is that poor teams and health held those players impact back. We can not ignore all the help Duncan has had. Nor can we ignore LeBron won nothing without two other all stars with him. The players I mention would have been contenders every year if they were more healthy and had just a decent supporting cast. They had the ability and talent, they proved themselves very elite players but things broke wrong for them.

[fairweatherfan]

Was Howard really unanimous?  I seem to remember a decent amount of Okafor v. Howard talk back then. 

Regardless, ORL certainly made the right move there.

I think you're right Don... to the point (though i didn't follow the NBA as obsessively back then) that I was a little surprised ORL took Howard over Okafor -- the NCAA player of the year who'd been compared to Bill Russell-like on defense.

As I recall, by the draft Howard was basically near unanimous.  There was more talk during the process, but by draft day it was Howard all the way.  Actually pretty similar to Towns/Okafor this year.  Early on there was a lot more discussion, but by draft day it was Towns all the way.  Now I could be misremembering on Howard, but I am fairly confident he was the general consensus as the top pick because of his significantly higher upside (again like Towns/Okafor).

This is my recollection too, though I think the sports media tried to play it up like it was up in the air throughout, but it was pretty clear Howard was the consensus choice.

It's not well-remembered but Rose vs Beasley followed a similar pattern - a "tough choice" was hyped, mainly because Beasley had just broken most of Durant's freshmen records, but by draft day it was painfully obvious Rose would be the pick.

Doesn't that cloud one of the original points here though?

Like throughout the year, usually nobody knows who was going to be #1, it goes back and forth a lot.

Will it be Howard or Emeka Okafor?

Will it be Rose or Beasley?

Will it be Wiggins or Parker or Embiid?

Will it be Towns or Jahlil Okafor?


Once the ping pong balls are pulled though, isn't it less about who the consensus best player is and more about who whoever has the #1 pick is likely to take?

If a well run organization like the Knicks has the #1 pick in '08, they're probably taking Beasley.

There's some (though highly disputed) belief that Danny is taking Durant #1 in '07.

Is Philly taking Embiid #1 if they had that pick in '14?

So I don't think this is always that clear cut, though in some cases it definitely is.  But I do agree with most of Moranis's selections and will say the majority of GMs are picking the players he said #1. 

Except Iverson, back in '96 the last time a guard was taken #1 was Magic in '79 and he was 6'9", the last normal sized guard taken #1 was 6'3" John Lucas in '76.  A lot of people thought Camby might go #1 (that's who ML Carr would have taken), and I would say everyone had Duncan #1 if he were to come out.  Taking a 6'0" scoring point guard #1 in '96 was not something that happened at that time, though today that would seem pretty normal.  I think most GMs are taking Camby there.

That's a good point - it's easy in hindsight to confuse "a sure thing by draft time" with "a sure thing throughout".  If you had to boil it down to guys who were definitely the #1 pre-lotto, to the point it might be called the "LeBron lottery" or whatever, I think the list shrinks to:

Duncan (would've been consensus #1 for 3 straight years)
Martin (pretty much by default)
LeBron
Griffin
Wall
Davis

Iverson's a maybe - he was the most-hyped player by far but there was a lot of concern about his size and game translating to the NBA.  But those are the guys I remember being consensus #1s before the lottery.

[pearljammer10]

I'd add Elton Brand for '99 as a consensus #1 and would asterisk Kenyon Martin who, while being the concensus #1, it was because he was the best player coming out in a dreadful draft.  You could also make a case for Bogut in 2005 -- wasn't much debate about anyone else being taken first.

You could go back one more year and use Joe Smith in '95 too as a concensus top pick.

for the most part, I think you're right that in the redrafts, a concensus #1 typically would still be the first player drafted again (Smith being another one of the exceptions).  As others have mentioned in other threads, it's not just about having a top pick, it's about having a top pick in a quality draft and using it on a player that pans out.  a lot of #2 picks left a lot to be desired considering their draft position:
MKG - 12 (good player but many better players taken later)
Derrick Williams - 11
Evan Turner - 10
Hasheem Thabeet - 09
Michael Beasley - 08
Marvin Williams - 05
Darko - 03
Jay Williams - 02
Stromile Swift - 00
Steve Francis - 99 (good player but many better players taken later)
Mike Bibby - 98 (good player but many better players taken later)
Keith Van Horn - 97

Its amazing all these names were taken as the number two pick in the draft.

[gift]

It's hard to really prove a consensus when only one team actually chooses the first pick.

Also, there tends to seem to be a consensus most years when you really get down to the draft. Very few surprises. However, this is different from a player who is seen as a consensus #1 for most or all of the year (or even going back to previous years).

[Csfan1984]

I'd add Elton Brand for '99 as a consensus #1 and would asterisk Kenyon Martin who, while being the concensus #1, it was because he was the best player coming out in a dreadful draft.  You could also make a case for Bogut in 2005 -- wasn't much debate about anyone else being taken first.

You could go back one more year and use Joe Smith in '95 too as a concensus top pick.

for the most part, I think you're right that in the redrafts, a concensus #1 typically would still be the first player drafted again (Smith being another one of the exceptions).  As others have mentioned in other threads, it's not just about having a top pick, it's about having a top pick in a quality draft and using it on a player that pans out.  a lot of #2 picks left a lot to be desired considering their draft position:
MKG - 12 (good player but many better players taken later)
Derrick Williams - 11
Evan Turner - 10
Hasheem Thabeet - 09
Michael Beasley - 08
Marvin Williams - 05
Darko - 03
Jay Williams - 02
Stromile Swift - 00
Steve Francis - 99 (good player but many better players taken later)
Mike Bibby - 98 (good player but many better players taken later)
Keith Van Horn - 97

Its amazing all these names were taken as the number two pick in the draft.

Only more proof that, "If you ain't first, you're last!"