Drafting a PG as #1 pick

[Roy H.]

Since 1980, only four #1 picks have been the best player on a championship team: Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem and Lebron.

[ConnerHenry]

Quick question on your analysis: how did you compensate for the overall team roster (quality of lack thereof) when compiling the list? The Celtics situation for this upcoming draft is unlike that of most teams you list. This team did not bottom out and win the lottery due to a roster with limited talent.

For  me, the data says that anyone we select at #1 or #2 will not be a savior who automatically ensures a championship.

[mr. dee]

Mr. Dee, you are looking at some interesting data but drawing the wrong conclusion.

Positional upside is built in to prospect evaluation.

Over the last 36 years you note there have been just 4 #1 pick point gaurds. Thats 1/9 rather than the expected 1/5.

The positional upside you argue for is already built into prospect evaluation.

Since we are only talking about guys who led their teams to titles, the only players in the last 36 years to fit your criteria are the following.

Magic Johnson
Hakeem Olajuwon
Larry Bird
Michael Jordan
Shaq
Tim Duncan
Lebron James
Isaiah Thomas
Kobe Bryant

we will throw thomas out because he did not carry his team, he was only the best player.

Magic--> no-brainer #1 pick
Olajuwon --> #1
Larry Bird --> acquired through auerbach trickeration probably would have gone 1/2 next to Magic --> #1
Shaq --> No-brainer #1
Timmy --> no-brainer #1
Lebron --> obvious #1
Isaiah Thomas #2, point gaurd*
Kobe Bryant--> went 13th no one saw him coming.

*didnt carry team to rings. Was only best player.

So the only time ever, a player like this has not been seen as the obvious #1, was Michael Jordan. He was picked after 2 centers.

This shows that positional upside is built into prospect evaluations.

Lets look at the recent point gaurds:
In 2015 Deangelo Russell went second behind no-brainer #1 center Karl Towns. It was fairly controversial that he was taken ahead of Jahlil Okafor. The move now looks brilliant.

In 2011 Kyrie went #1 overall. The other "elite" prospects? Derrick Williams and Enes Kanter. Advantage Kyrie.

2010 John Wall goes #1, the next two: Evan Turner and Derrick Favors. Advantage John Wall

2008 Derrick Rose goes #1 in an actually fairly controversial decision. They guy he battled it out with: Michael Beasley: advantage Rose

Going deeper in 2005 Deron Williams was selected 3rd behind a Center (Bogut) and a Forward (Marvin Williams). Harder to judge, Williams the obvious bad pick here. Bogut won more and he was a center so he was given a positional boost in the draft. Likely part of the reason he went ahead of Deron.

If a point gaurd is the #1 guy in this draft it is likely that he is the clear cut better prospect. If there is a generational talent in this draft he will distance himself from point gaurds like Fultz and Ball.

Hard to conclude that a guy is a generational talent, especially from PG position. More often than not, almost every best player in the draft is not a PG. You only take a talented PGs if the other talented high upside options are out. Its the same reason Danny went with Brown, instead of any of Murray, Hield and Dunn.

Over the last 37 years, here's the best player in every draft:

1980 - Kevin McHale PF
1981 - Isiah Thomas PG
1982 - Dominique Wilkins SF
1983 - Ralph Sampson C
1984 - Michael Jordan SG/SF
1985 - Karl Malone PF
1986 - Dennis Rodman PF
1987 - David Robinson C
1988 - Mitch Richmond SG
1989 - Shawn Kemp PF/C
1990 - Gary Payton PG
1991 - Dikembe Mutombo C
1992 - Shaquille O'neal C
1993 - Chris Webber PF/C
1994 - Jason Kidd PG
1995 - Kevin Garnett PF
1996 - Kobe Bryant SG/SF
1997 - Tim Duncan PF
1998 - Dirk Nowitzki PF
1999 - very blur line
2000 - Kenyon Martin PF
2001 - Pau Gasol PF/C
2002 - Yao Ming C
2003 - Lebron James SF
2004 - Dwight Howard
2005 - Chris Paul PG
2006 - Lamarcus Aldridge PF
2007 - Kevin Durant SF
2008 - Russell Westbrook PG
2009 - Steph Curry PG
2010 - Paul George SF
2011 - Kawhi Leonard SF
2012 - Anthony Davis PF/C
2013 - Giannis Antentokuonpo SF
2014 - Joel Embiid C
2015 - Karl Anthony Towns C
2016 - Too early

In 36 years, only 6 draft class have PG as their best talent. While wings have 10, Bigs have 19. Logically we would like to get a big as a priority. But if there is no talented bigs available, go for the next higher upside position. PG is only a last resort if the pool of talented wing and bigs are poor.

Case of 2011 draft. Kyrie went #1 overall. Is he a bust? No. But can he carry  the load alone? No. You can't say the same with Leonard who went 15th overall in the same draft. Not only Kawhi fills the in-demand needs, but he also went to become the best player of that class and now the franchise player of the Spurs. It's also the same reason Danny went with Brown.

In 2014, Danny missed out the chance to grab any of Wiggins, Parker and Embiid. He even offer the treasure vault just to have a chance to get Embiid. Drafting a PG is not a problem if let's say there's only one of Smart, IT and Rozier are in the roster. Its easier to develop talent that way. However, we have a log jam at that position that we have to immediately ship one of them if Danny is to draft guards who can only play at 1 spot. And Danny doesn't like giving away talent for cheap. He'd rather cut them than lose on some low ball offers. Not trading them immediately would only cost player development and might also cause some locker room problems and assets value decline, as already evident with the logjam of Sixers roster.

I wouldn't go as far as Okafor>Russell just yet. They have identical weaknesses on their game. I will agree that he's better than Winslow or Johnson though, but Porzingis is better than Russell so far.

If other teams than Sixers drafted Okafor instead, he will have better numbers as his rookie season suggest.

[Ilikesports17]

Mr. Dee. you are proving my point. Since 1980 6 point gaurds have been the #1 players, while only 4 have been taken #1!!!!

[Ilikesports17]

Lets examine the 4 times a point gaurd was deemed the best player in his class.

1996: Allen Iverson.

A great draft, the next 4 players: Camby, Abdur Rahim, [pg], Ray Allen.

None of them won rings except for Allen, a 1 dimensional sg for his first and an off the bench shooter for his second.

Camby and Abdur Rahim were both terrific. Camby went far in the playoffs 1 time as a backup and Abdur Rahim had 0 playoff starts.

As I said, Iverson won an MVP and carried a bad team to the finals. The only other good player in the top 10 was Antoine Walker. Kobe is obviously the gem of the draft but he went 13th. No one saw him coming. Ridiculous to use him in an argument.

Conclusion: Only guy with resume comparable to Iverson is Ray Allen.

2008: Derrick Rose. Next 4: Beasley, Mayo, Westbrook, Love.

Beasley was expected to go #1 early in the process obviously Rose is better. Mayos way worse than Rose and Westbrook is a point gaurd. So it comes down to Love.

Rose won an MVP and went to an ECF at 22 years of age and then got torn apart by injuries. Im gonna say he clearly had a higher ceiling than Kevin Love based on that alone. Love didnt win untill he settled into a role as the 3rd option.

Conclusion: Rose is correct pick

2010: John Wall.

Next 4: Turner Favors Wes Johnson Demarcus Cousins

Favors Johnson turner is obvious advantage Wall.

Cousins is interesting. Id probably prefer him to Wall and he has a higher upside. I dont remember if he was in the # pick convo, but I do remember Cousins having serious attitude questions out of Kentucky and they have all manifested in Cousins.

Wall has won a playoff series as the best player on his team. Advantage Wall.

Also, get Paul George out of this argument. No one saw him coming. He went 10th

Conclusion: Wall is correct pick

2011: Kyrie Irving

Next 4 Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompas, Jonas Valunciunas

easy. Kyrie

Get Leonard out of here. He went 15th.

Conclusion: Kyrie was right pick.

Conclusion: When a pg is the #1 prospect. Take him.

[OldSchoolDude]

Bird
Johnson
Thomas
Olajuwon
Jordan
Duncan
Bryant
James

Throw shaq in for good measure.

That's the comprehensive list of superstars to lead their teams to multiple championships in the last 36 years.

2 point guard 2 shooting guards 2 small forwards 1 power forward 2 centers

The problem is not that there haven't been many point guards to lead their team to multiple titles. The problem is that there haven't been many players to lead their teams to multiple titles.

I think the biggest fact about these players is how they made the players around them better.  Kobe and MJ played in the triangle which really focused the game around them, but everyone else on the list did less offensively then they could have to involve the whole team and make their teammates better.  Also, Pippen was ordinary in Portland  but he was extraordinary when he played with MJ.  Odem actually sucked when he left Kobe.  So maybe MJ and Kobe did make the players around them better. 

When I look at this draft and ask who is most likely to elevate the level of those around him, there is really only one answer Ball, a PG.  Fultz could be as dynamic a player as Westbrook is but we've seen that that is not enough to win it all.  In the end this is a team game and even Lebron needed talent around him to win.  When Lebron was the solo show in Cleveland they couldn't get it done.  Howard as the man in Orlando, nada.  Carmello in Denver, zip.   Even Jordan when he was in his early years, he dominated with multiple 50 point games, but couldn't get it done.  He even put up 55 in the game we knocked his Bulls out of the playoffs.   It's not about points, it is a team game and we need a player that can elevate the play of those around him.   Right now our best player is a dynamic scorer and an all star, but he is not the type of player who will ever make this very short list of extraordinary players.  This draft has a lot of really nice talent but only Ball looks like he is destined to make this list. 

[Big333223]

Since 1980, only four #1 picks have been the best player on a championship team: Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem and Lebron.

This is a good point. The analysis by the OP doesn't provide much context and doesn't really prove anything to me. You shouldn't draft an inferior player just because John Wall hasn't won a ring yet and Derick Rose's career was derailed by injuries.

[guava_wrench]

Since 1980, only four #1 picks have been the best player on a championship team: Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem and Lebron.

And what percentage of championships do they account for?

Go back just one additional year (since the 1980 cutoff is completely arbitrary) and you add Magic Johnson and his rings.

Also, we should consider someone like Worthy. He was a #1 pick, but couldn't be the best player on a championship team because he was teammates with Magic. Kyrie may end up with a similar story. And since there are #1 picks every year and only a single championship every year, it would be absurd to expect a high percentage of #1 picks to be the best player on a championship team.

[guava_wrench]

Bird
Johnson
Thomas
Olajuwon
Jordan
Duncan
Bryant
James

Throw shaq in for good measure.

That's the comprehensive list of superstars to lead their teams to multiple championships in the last 36 years.

2 point guard 2 shooting guards 2 small forwards 1 power forward 2 centers

The problem is not that there haven't been many point guards to lead their team to multiple titles. The problem is that there haven't been many players to lead their teams to multiple titles.

I think the biggest fact about these players is how they made the players around them better. 
...

I disagree. The biggest fact about these players is that they were dominant talents. Most had amazing drive and focus, which is usually needed to be a dominant talent. They were all juggernauts on offense and were for the most part very good at defending their positions if not elite.

[guava_wrench]

The problem with drafting a PG #1 is that they are usually shorter. Look at IT. He might be the most talented scorer in the league, but his height makes it that he probably can't even lead the league in scoring and is horrible on defense.

If you can get a guy with Westboork's talent, get him. But if you find a guy with similar talent and another 5 inches, he will play the wing and he will dominate even more and you will get rings.

Look at Lebron. If Lebron was 6'2", he would be a PG. He has a PG tool set, but isn't considered a PG, even when he was practically playing PG in his first stint in Cleveland.

[mr. dee]

Mr. Dee. you are proving my point. Since 1980 6 point gaurds have been the #1 players, while only 4 have been taken #1!!!!

Zeke have a stacked Pistons team. 6 players on that roster were averaging double digit scoring. Other #1 picks who became franchise players failed to lead their team to championships as #1 options. Isiah is the best player on that team, but not by much. And Zeke is definitely not a #1 pick.

Only a balanced roster can make a PG excel on a championship team.

The problem with drafting a PG #1 is that they are usually shorter. Look at IT. He might be the most talented scorer in the league, but his height makes it that he probably can't even lead the league in scoring and is horrible on defense.

If you can get a guy with Westboork's talent, get him. But if you find a guy with similar talent and another 5 inches, he will play the wing and he will dominate even more and you will get rings.

Look at Lebron. If Lebron was 6'2", he would be a PG. He has a PG tool set, but isn't considered a PG, even when he was practically playing PG in his first stint in Cleveland.

Someone finally gets it. If you have high ceiling wing  or big players on board, you grab him ahead of high ceiling PG.

Some things to consider before drafting though:

- skillsets
- basketball IQ
- work ethic
- health
- character
- body build

There are reason, some people like Avery Bradley slid because of his lack of NBA-ready game. Zach Lavine also slid down to 14th spot. Thing is, its not hard to find high ceiling PGs. Even most HOF PGs aren't even drafted in the lottery, let alone top 3.

List of HOF (and future HOF) who was never drafted in the top 3 lottery:

Dennis Johnson (29th)
Nate Archibald (19th)
Tony Parker (23rd)
Mark Price (25th)
Steve Nash (15th)
John Stockton (17th)
Walt Frazier (5th)
KC Jones (13th)
Calvin Murphy (18th)
Lenny Wilkins (6th)
Hal Greer (13th)
Bill Sharman (17th)
Jojo White (9th)
Bob Wazner (10th)

Vs HOF who were top 3 picks (minus Magic):

Isiah Thomas (2nd)
Dave Bing (2nd)
Pete Maravich (3rd)
Oscar Robertson (1st)
Gary Payton (2nd)
Allen Iverson (1st)
Bob Cousy (3rd)

History suggest that you better spend the #1 pick on other positions, especially if the draft is considered deep and talented wings are on board, unless you're drafting another 6'9" guards.

[MBunge]

List of HOF (and future HOF) who was never drafted in the top 3 lottery:

Dennis Johnson (29th)
Nate Archibald (19th)
Tony Parker (23rd)
Mark Price (25th)
Steve Nash (15th)
John Stockton (17th)
Walt Frazier (5th)
KC Jones (13th)
Calvin Murphy (18th)
Lenny Wilkins (6th)
Hal Greer (13th)
Bill Sharman (17th)
Jojo White (9th)
Bob Wazner (10th)

Vs HOF who were top 3 picks (minus Magic):

Isiah Thomas (2nd)
Dave Bing (2nd)
Pete Maravich (3rd)
Oscar Robertson (1st)
Gary Payton (2nd)
Allen Iverson (1st)
Bob Cousy (3rd)

History suggest that you better spend the #1 pick on other positions, especially if the draft is considered deep and talented wings are on board.

That is not at all what history suggests.  Gary Payton was the number 2 pick, for example, in 1990.  There isn't another guy in that entire draft who was better than Payton or more important to his team winning.

What history suggests is that there are relatively few franchise players, so it's kind of ridiculous to pretend that you really need to worry about picking one over another in the draft.  History also suggests that reaching for guys in the draft based on need or any other temporary or arbitrary quality is a pathway to disaster.

Mike

[Ilikesports17]

Mr. Dee, your conclusions are ridiculous.

If you are arguing that bigger players have more upside, then yes. This is an obvious and well known conclusion.

When you evaluate a 6'8" player vs. a 6'3" player that height advantage is taken into account. If there was a 6'8" Lebron and a 6'2" Lebron the 6'2" Lebron would be ranked as a completely inferior player.

If you are looking for a franchise guy to carry a team to multiple titles than history suggests that this player would be able to stand out over any point gaurd.

As I noted the 4 point gaurds selected 1st overall were all in drafts where the top ranked wings and bigs were generally garbage.

It is obvious that a 6'2" player cant impact the game the same way a similarly talented 6'8" player can, but a 6'2" player can impact the game more than a less talented 6'8" guy. Its why you take Kyrie Irving over Enes Kanter and Derrick Williams all day long.

Your point is a nonpoint. It either makes the assumption that player heights are not taken into account in evaluating players, or it is stupid.

If you evaluate a bunch of prospects and conclude the best one is a point gaurd. It is far more likely that you have scouted correctly and that there is no franchise carrying player in that group than it is likely that you have just missed a franchise carrying talent in your scouting.