CelticsStrong
Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: Androslav on January 05, 2018, 04:25:35 AM
-
My 10 (after I accidantaly deleted my inital, much more detailed post)
Lebron James
Tracy McGrady
Kevin Durant
Giannis Antetokounmpo
Kobe Bryant
Chris Webber
Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Anthony Davis
Anfernee Hardaway
I meant this list not as who was hyped the most prior to NBA, or who had the best career. More in the sense of, pick a guy to start a franchise.
There are no right or wrong answers!
NOTE: Shaq is out :)
-
I think you’re doing it wrong. How can a best prospect be picked 13th? We need to look at the outlook BEFORE they played in the league. To that end, clearly Lebron is at the top. I would follow him with Oden probably, then probably Anthony Davis. From there I would really need to think about it. This is all assuming we’re not including Shaq, who I believe is just outside that 25 year range. He would be second behind Lebron.
Speaking of which, I though this thread was going to be about Ayton. As I was watching the AZ game last night, Walton called him the best prospect since Shaq.
-
At the right side of the players name is their actual pick, I've put it there to have as reference.
Regarding Shaq, '93 is the first/last year and Shaq was drafted as 1st in the '92.
If he was included, he would probably be 2nd to LBJ in my order as well.
Walton is eloquent, articulate, talkative, but also very liberal using some words :)
I didn't include this years prospects as the season is still young and some of them might never even see the NBA. Too many question marks, to side them beside these known greats with ease.
Here is a candle for Greg's NBA career.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep8ewVzvld4
-
This is an excellent question and it takes us back to the year 1992. I can't wait to do this
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
-
This is an excellent question and it takes us back to the year 1992. I can't wait to do this
I think there have been two truly “can’t miss” prospects: Duncan and Lebron. Those two stand headand shoulders over everyone else as a prospect.
#3, based on pre-draft regard, might be Greg Oden.
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
Duncan?
-
If you basically know that everyone will live up to their potential then James is obviously #1, but I don't get why Duncan wouldn't be #2 on everyone's list. He is the greatest PF in league history and was an integral part (if not the most important part) of 5 separate title teams spanning nearly 20 years. His teams won 50 games every single season of his career, except the 50 game season, and that includes a 66 game season. The Spurs won 70% or better of their games 7 times during a span of 9 seasons took a 3 season respite and then reeled off 4 more 70% or better season, before a bad season of 67%, and his final season at 81.7%.
-
If this list were to go back to 1992, then Shaq would clearly be #1. Don't forget, there was still some uncertainty with drafting a kid directly out of high school, as it relates to LeBron.
-
To me, this sounds like a draft of all the #1 overall picks from the past 25 years based on the criteria set forth. Off the top of my head, 1994 may be the exception, where Jason Kidd went 2nd and Grant Hill went 3rd.
Tim Duncan (1997)
LeBron James (2003)
Chris Webber (1993)
Derrick Rose (2008)
Allen Iverson (1996)
Anthony Davis (2012)
Glenn Robinson (1994)
Ben Simmons (2016)
Blake Griffin (2009)
Greg Oden (2007)
-
If you basically know that everyone will live up to their potential then James is obviously #1, but I don't get why Duncan wouldn't be #2 on everyone's list. He is the greatest PF in league history and was an integral part (if not the most important part) of 5 separate title teams spanning nearly 20 years. His teams won 50 games every single season of his career, except the 50 game season, and that includes a 66 game season. The Spurs won 70% or better of their games 7 times during a span of 9 seasons took a 3 season respite and then reeled off 4 more 70% or better season, before a bad season of 67%, and his final season at 81.7%.
There is no right or wrong answer here and it is mostly fun driven.
I get what you are saying, we know how their career played out and order can be made more easily. But imagine this for an example:
swap Kobe and T-Mac. I know they are different draft classes, but stay with me.
T-Mac gets to LA, Shaq is there already molesting the whole league - 3 titles, boom, they don't fight like cat and mouse - boom 5 titles. T-Mamba mentality, best wing since Jordan...
Meanwhile Kobe is in Toronto, gets to a lesser basketball environment and no Diesel there of course. Team results are lacking in his first 4/5 years, maybe an All-star game or two, probably not as east had some shoe-ins at his position. He is having his own ideas of how things should be run, gets into a dispute with management (sounds familiar), trade happens and it all goes in a much different direction.
Or what if Duncan didn't have Pop by his side? Would he still be great? Yea, sure. 5 titles through 2 decades on one team? Not that probable. Pop gave him a huge boost and stability, perhaps more than any other coach would. What if he went to the worse medical staff in the league? Or if he is being coached by a guy that "logically" thinks he should always play 42 MPG as he is the best player on the floor? You want your best players on the floor.
There are million roads. Ping pong ball here, ping pong ball there - history would rewrite careers easily.
-
When voting for something like this, I think a posters age has an effect on the results. For instance, how could someone understand the hype around Tim Duncan, if they were only 5 years old at the time of the 1997 draft? I just turned 43 yesterday, and this 25 year window feels like it is right in my wheelhouse.
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
You pretty much got your wish fullfilled :)
And then some more.
I liked Adelman too, especially during that Sacramento run.
However, I do resent him just one (but HUGE) thing. And that is benching my childhood idol Dražen "Amadeus" Petrović and treating him like some 3rd class merchandise. It was/is a crime against art to me. He left Mozart without a piano (read minutes).
Joking aside, other than that I like him, he bacame much more creative after that.
-
If you basically know that everyone will live up to their potential then James is obviously #1, but I don't get why Duncan wouldn't be #2 on everyone's list. He is the greatest PF in league history and was an integral part (if not the most important part) of 5 separate title teams spanning nearly 20 years. His teams won 50 games every single season of his career, except the 50 game season, and that includes a 66 game season. The Spurs won 70% or better of their games 7 times during a span of 9 seasons took a 3 season respite and then reeled off 4 more 70% or better season, before a bad season of 67%, and his final season at 81.7%.
There is no right or wrong answer here and it is mostly fun driven.
I get what you are saying, we know how their career played out and order can be made more easily. But imagine this for an example:
swap Kobe and T-Mac. I know they are different draft classes, but stay with me.
T-Mac gets to LA, Shaq is there already molesting the whole league - 3 titles, boom, they don't fight like cat and mouse - boom 5 titles. T-Mamba mentality, best wing since Jordan...
Meanwhile Kobe is in Toronto, gets to a lesser basketball environment and no Diesel there of course. Team results are lacking in his first 4/5 years, maybe an All-star game or two, probably not as east had some shoe-ins at his position. He is having his own ideas of how things should be run, gets into a dispute with management (sounds familiar), trade happens and it all goes in a much different direction.
Or what if Duncan didn't have Pop by his side? Would he still be great? Yea, sure. 5 titles through 2 decades on one team? Not that probable. Pop gave him a huge boost and stability, perhaps more than any other coach would. What if he went to the worse medical staff in the league? Or if he is being coached by a guy that "logically" thinks he should always play 42 MPG as he is the best player on the floor? You want your best players on the floor.
There are million roads. Ping pong ball here, ping pong ball there - history would rewrite careers easily.
You can't just say boom 5 titles. Shaq faded pretty quickly in Miami and I don't really think the Lakers win the 99-00 with TMac instead of Kobe on that team. So the Lakers might in fact have won less titles.
of course, I really have no idea what this has to do with your question. McGrady was no where near a top flight prospect entering the league, and his career wouldn't put him ahead of Bryant (or any other number of players).
-
I overwrote my inital post by accident. Bravo me :-[
I sure wish some had quoted it.
Any moderator to perform a miracle?
-
There's really 4 top prospects in that time. Duncan, Lebron and Shaq top the list (you can argue about the order). The 4th?
Greg Oden. While there were a few people talking about how KD would be great, most thought that Oden was going to be the next great big man of the league. 16 points, 10 boards and 3 blocks per game as a freshman. For cryin' out loud, he BEAT KD's time in the 3/4 court sprint. He'd have been the top pick in 2006 if not for the age limit. When the stage was biggest he was at his best, too. Look at the Vegas Reebok camp final game - he dominated. In Ohio State's loss to Florida in the NCAAs, against Al Horford AND Joakim Noah (both Juniors at the time) Oden went for 25/12 and 4 blocks. He came out with as much hype as anyone in recent years (and it's not his fault his body broke down).
-
Duh! Completely forgot about Duncan. Really tough between he and shaq as far as prospects go. LeBron still number 1. High school or not, he’s the most hyped and best prospect in my basketball lifetime. He’d be the first pick.
-
The question is best prospects in the last 25 years...not who had the best career.
So, it wouldn't be crazy to say Greg Oden was a better prospect than Blake Griffin, because I think he was.
Anyways, in any top-5 I would have to put Iverson.
-
If Shaq is out (26 drafts), I think Durant has a shot at top 5 even behind Oden:
LeBron
Duncan
Davis
Oden
Durant
There were at least rumblings of some teams preferring him over Oden, who is top-5.
Other guys I'd consider would be Webber & Iverson who were both really dominant college player with (expected) instant star impact.
-
I find that often mentioned Greg Oden is a great prospect and I wish he had a long career, but the way I see it he couln't shoot, dribble or pass and he wasn't Shaq to minimize the importance of these truly basic BB skills. He could have certainly improved those with time.
I think that a lot people sympathize with his unluck and this shows our "human" side.
-
When voting for something like this, I think a posters age has an effect on the results. For instance, how could someone understand the hype around Tim Duncan, if they were only 5 years old at the time of the 1997 draft? I just turned 43 yesterday, and this 25 year window feels like it is right in my wheelhouse.
^^ This!! I'd even debate Duncan over Lebron but I'm sure I'm in the very small, almost obsolete, minority there.
-
When voting for something like this, I think a posters age has an effect on the results. For instance, how could someone understand the hype around Tim Duncan, if they were only 5 years old at the time of the 1997 draft? I just turned 43 yesterday, and this 25 year window feels like it is right in my wheelhouse.
^^ This!! I'd even debate Duncan over Lebron but I'm sure I'm in the very small, almost obsolete, minority there.
Duncan would have been the consensus #1 pick as a freshman, sophomore or junior. He was the bluest of blue chips. I think he was the biggest “sure thing” in the draft since maybe Hakeem.
-
Shawn Bradley needs to be high on this list, his hype train was massive.
-
When voting for something like this, I think a posters age has an effect on the results. For instance, how could someone understand the hype around Tim Duncan, if they were only 5 years old at the time of the 1997 draft? I just turned 43 yesterday, and this 25 year window feels like it is right in my wheelhouse.
^^ This!! I'd even debate Duncan over Lebron but I'm sure I'm in the very small, almost obsolete, minority there.
Duncan would have been the consensus #1 pick as a freshman, sophomore or junior. He was the bluest of blue chips. I think he was the biggest “sure thing” in the draft since maybe Hakeem.
Shaq was definitely more of a sure thing. Also a better all time player than Duncan.
I'd take Garnett over Duncan as well, if you put Garnett in San Antonio and Duncan in Minnesota their careers would be remembered totally differently. Duncan was a higher touted prospect entering the draft, though.
-
When voting for something like this, I think a posters age has an effect on the results. For instance, how could someone understand the hype around Tim Duncan, if they were only 5 years old at the time of the 1997 draft? I just turned 43 yesterday, and this 25 year window feels like it is right in my wheelhouse.
^^ This!! I'd even debate Duncan over Lebron but I'm sure I'm in the very small, almost obsolete, minority there.
Duncan would have been the consensus #1 pick as a freshman, sophomore or junior. He was the bluest of blue chips. I think he was the biggest “sure thing” in the draft since maybe Hakeem.
Shaq was definitely more of a sure thing. Also a better all time player than Duncan.
I'd take Garnett over Duncan as well, if you put Garnett in San Antonio and Duncan in Minnesota their careers would be remembered totally differently. Duncan was a higher touted prospect entering the draft, though.
I think you’re showing an under-appreciation for Duncan. I don’t recall teams tanking for Shaq in the same way.
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
Duncan?
If I were starting a team today, I would prefer a 19-year-old KG over a 19-year-old Tim Duncan. The 3-point range and passing are very important to me (KG had two years shooting a high volume of 3's at ~33%, if I recall correctly). Same goes for Webber's passing and ability to handle the ball. Duncan definitely had the athleticism (which people forget), lockdown ability, and mid-low post scoring, but the threes and playmaking ability (elite in KG and Webber's case, only above average in Duncan's) make the difference in 2018. If all three had stayed healthy, I think KG and CWebb would have definitely been in Duncan territory for both rings and counting stats. Since this is a "prospect rank," I'm giving the big men's knees the benefit of the doubt.
-
When voting for something like this, I think a posters age has an effect on the results. For instance, how could someone understand the hype around Tim Duncan, if they were only 5 years old at the time of the 1997 draft? I just turned 43 yesterday, and this 25 year window feels like it is right in my wheelhouse.
^^ This!! I'd even debate Duncan over Lebron but I'm sure I'm in the very small, almost obsolete, minority there.
Duncan would have been the consensus #1 pick as a freshman, sophomore or junior. He was the bluest of blue chips. I think he was the biggest “sure thing” in the draft since maybe Hakeem.
Shaq was definitely more of a sure thing. Also a better all time player than Duncan.
I'd take Garnett over Duncan as well, if you put Garnett in San Antonio and Duncan in Minnesota their careers would be remembered totally differently. Duncan was a higher touted prospect entering the draft, though.
I think you’re showing an under-appreciation for Duncan. I don’t recall teams tanking for Shaq in the same way.
No, I remember exactly how furious I was when Boston lost out on the Duncan sweepstakes.
But Shaq was something very highly touted. In fact, It was Shaq that had a movie made about him, ironically enough, called "Blue Chips".
Teams didn't really tank back then as much as they do now because the lottery odds were different. It wasn't until after Orlando won the Weber lottery that the odds changed.
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
Duncan?
If I were starting a team today, I would prefer a 19-year-old KG over a 19-year-old Tim Duncan. The 3-point range and passing are very important to me (KG had two years shooting a high volume of 3's at ~33%, if I recall correctly). Same goes for Webber's passing and ability to handle the ball. Duncan definitely had the athleticism (which people forget), lockdown ability, and mid-low post scoring, but the threes and playmaking ability (elite in KG and Webber's case, only above average in Duncan's) make the difference in 2018. If all three had stayed healthy, I think KG and CWebb would have definitely been in Duncan territory for both rings and counting stats. Since this is a "prospect rank," I'm giving the big men's knees the benefit of the doubt.
You’re confusing the topic. Not about starting a team. Question is about the best prospect and KG had four better prospects in his own draft.
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
Duncan?
If I were starting a team today, I would prefer a 19-year-old KG over a 19-year-old Tim Duncan. The 3-point range and passing are very important to me (KG had two years shooting a high volume of 3's at ~33%, if I recall correctly). Same goes for Webber's passing and ability to handle the ball. Duncan definitely had the athleticism (which people forget), lockdown ability, and mid-low post scoring, but the threes and playmaking ability (elite in KG and Webber's case, only above average in Duncan's) make the difference in 2018. If all three had stayed healthy, I think KG and CWebb would have definitely been in Duncan territory for both rings and counting stats. Since this is a "prospect rank," I'm giving the big men's knees the benefit of the doubt.
You’re confusing the topic. Not about starting a team. Question is about the best prospect and KG had four better prospects in his own draft.
He had 4 guys picked before him in the 1995. I'm not sure which 4 prospects were better than him that year.
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
Duncan?
If I were starting a team today, I would prefer a 19-year-old KG over a 19-year-old Tim Duncan. The 3-point range and passing are very important to me (KG had two years shooting a high volume of 3's at ~33%, if I recall correctly). Same goes for Webber's passing and ability to handle the ball. Duncan definitely had the athleticism (which people forget), lockdown ability, and mid-low post scoring, but the threes and playmaking ability (elite in KG and Webber's case, only above average in Duncan's) make the difference in 2018. If all three had stayed healthy, I think KG and CWebb would have definitely been in Duncan territory for both rings and counting stats. Since this is a "prospect rank," I'm giving the big men's knees the benefit of the doubt.
You’re confusing the topic. Not about starting a team. Question is about the best prospect and KG had four better prospects in his own draft.
He had 4 guys picked before him in the 1995. I'm not sure which 4 prospects were better than him that year.
Well after the fact, the answer is none. But if we’re going to use that criteria then why use the word prospect at all? Why not just say the best player and call it a day?
-
Shaq is a good one, definitely top-5.
I would probably have Shaq, Duncan, Lebron, Oden, Iverson in some order for my top-5.
-
I'm unsure of the criteria here, so I'll just list my top 5 players of the past 25 years that I would start a team with in the modern NBA:
LeBron
Durant
Garnett
Webber
Giannis
In that order. I love CWebb as much as anyone (he's my all-time favorite player), but Garnett's defense and switchability (as well as not-quite-as-good-but-comparable playmaking skills) gives him the edge for me. I do think that if CWebb was in his prime now, he'd be, far and away, the best big man in the league.
Random thing: I made a post about 4 years ago about how my ideal Celtics rebuild would emulate the Adelman Kings, complete with a motion offense, big men who can distribute from the high post, and rangy, interchangeable wing players who could run in transition and add excitement. Needless to say, I'm pretty happy with Brad Stevens' and Danny Ainge's vision for the team and how it is coming to fruition. I think the C's just need an elite, Webber-style 4 man to become a dynasty. I haven't seen enough of Bagley to determine if it's him. He seems a little less fluid and bouncy then Webber was at the same age.
EDIT: proof I'm not lying:
http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=73343.msg1728788#msg1728788
Duncan?
If I were starting a team today, I would prefer a 19-year-old KG over a 19-year-old Tim Duncan. The 3-point range and passing are very important to me (KG had two years shooting a high volume of 3's at ~33%, if I recall correctly). Same goes for Webber's passing and ability to handle the ball. Duncan definitely had the athleticism (which people forget), lockdown ability, and mid-low post scoring, but the threes and playmaking ability (elite in KG and Webber's case, only above average in Duncan's) make the difference in 2018. If all three had stayed healthy, I think KG and CWebb would have definitely been in Duncan territory for both rings and counting stats. Since this is a "prospect rank," I'm giving the big men's knees the benefit of the doubt.
You’re confusing the topic. Not about starting a team. Question is about the best prospect and KG had four better prospects in his own draft.
He had 4 guys picked before him in the 1995. I'm not sure which 4 prospects were better than him that year.
Well after the fact, the answer is none. But if we’re going to use that criteria then why use the word prospect at all? Why not just say the best player and call it a day?
I concur. Most of the analysis seems to be best player oriented, but the title is best prospect, which to me means that you have to basically ignore their NBA careers. The 2 not yet mentioned guys that stick out to me are Iverson & Wall.
-
So my nominees for who I or GMs would have bet on for the Hall of Fame coming into the league going back to 1992.....
Ben Simmons
Karl Anthony Towns
Andrew Wiggins
Anthony Davis
John Wall
Derrick Rose
Greg Oden
Chris Paul
LeBron
Duncan
Iverson
M Camby
Jerry Stackhouse
Jason Kidd
Grant Hill
Webber
Shaq
Laetner
Guys I argued with myself about a bit before leaving them out as nominees
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Yao Ming
Jay Williams
Shane Battier
Melo
Emeka Okafor
Dwight Howard
Adam Morrison
Starbury
Ray Allen
Kerry Kittles
Joakim Noah
Steve Francis
Kinda hard to narrow it down or even rank it
-
So my nominees for who I or GMs would have bet on for the Hall of Fame coming into the league going back to 1992.....
Ben Simmons
Karl Anthony Towns
Andrew Wiggins
Anthony Davis
John Wall
Derrick Rose
Greg Oden
Chris Paul
LeBron
Duncan
Iverson
M Camby
Jerry Stackhouse
Jason Kidd
Grant Hill
Webber
Shaq
Laetner
Guys I argued with myself about a bit before leaving them out as nominees
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Yao Ming
Jay Williams
Shane Battier
Melo
Emeka Okafor
Dwight Howard
Adam Morrison
Starbury
Ray Allen
Kerry Kittles
Joakim Noah
Steve Francis
Kinda hard to narrow it down or even rank it
That's an interesting list. But what odds are they betting on. Or is it more of a straight yes/no question?
My guess is that if you could get a GM to answer that kind of question honestly, there would be very few 'yes' answers to the name on that list.
Davis
LeBron
Duncan
Webber
Shaq
I think those are the only names you'd get an honest 'yes' for.