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

[Moranis]

I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how the unanimous (or near-unanimous) #1 picks ended up in their respective draft class (I did go by memory so perhaps some of them weren't actually near-unanimous).  I went back to look at the drafts from the mid-90's on because those drafts have players still playing.

96 - Iverson
97 - Duncan
00 - Martin
02 - Ming
03 - James
04 - Howard
07 - Oden
08 - Rose
09 - Griffin
10 - Wall
11 - Irving
12 - Davis
14 - Wiggins
15 - Towns

Now if you were to re-draft all of those drafts based on what we know now, only Iverson and Oden would not be the #1 pick in that draft.  Iverson would probably go #2 to Kobe, who was just at the start of the high school era.  Oden obviously would fall a great deal as a result of his injuries, but the few games he played relatively healthy definitely showed the potential to live up to the #1 pick ahead of Durant. 

It is arguable that Rose (injury and strong competition from Westbrook and Love) and Griffin (Curry and Harden) might not still go #1, but I think the general consensus would be they would.

The reason I bring this is up, is two-fold.  One, it proves historically that when all the experts have the basically the same player as the #1 pick, that player by and large ends up being the best player in the draft and if you are the best player in your draft you are at a minimum going to have a very nice career, but.  Two, just because a player is the best player in a draft, does not mean the player is going to be a historically great player.   The next Lebron James, might just end up as the next Kenyon Martin instead.  Nothing wrong with Kenyon Martin, he just isn't Lebron James. 

Also of note, the years where there wasn't a near-unanimous player at the top of the draft, the drafts are all over the place, but generally speaking the player that went #1 would not go #1 in a re-draft.  In fact, in many of those seasons, the actual #1 pick would not even be a top 5 pick in a re-draft (Anthony Bennett, Andrea Bargnani, Michael Olowokandi, and Kwame Brown - just Andrew Bogut and Joe Smith would likely be top 5 picks in the re-draft).  Thus, getting the #1 pick is great if there is a near-unanimous person sitting at the top, but isn't so nice in the other years.

[D.o.s.]

Good post.

I will have more to add, I swear -- just crunched for time right now.

[Jon]

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.   

[slamtheking]

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

[Csfan1984]

Just saw this today good one tp

[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.

[chambers]

I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how the unanimous (or near-unanimous) #1 picks ended up in their respective draft class (I did go by memory so perhaps some of them weren't actually near-unanimous).  I went back to look at the drafts from the mid-90's on because those drafts have players still playing.

96 - Iverson
97 - Duncan
00 - Martin
02 - Ming
03 - James
04 - Howard
07 - Oden
08 - Rose
09 - Griffin
10 - Wall
11 - Irving
12 - Davis
14 - Wiggins
15 - Towns

Now if you were to re-draft all of those drafts based on what we know now, only Iverson and Oden would not be the #1 pick in that draft.  Iverson would probably go #2 to Kobe, who was just at the start of the high school era.  Oden obviously would fall a great deal as a result of his injuries, but the few games he played relatively healthy definitely showed the potential to live up to the #1 pick ahead of Durant. 

It is arguable that Rose (injury and strong competition from Westbrook and Love) and Griffin (Curry and Harden) might not still go #1, but I think the general consensus would be they would.

The reason I bring this is up, is two-fold.  One, it proves historically that when all the experts have the basically the same player as the #1 pick, that player by and large ends up being the best player in the draft and if you are the best player in your draft you are at a minimum going to have a very nice career, but.  Two, just because a player is the best player in a draft, does not mean the player is going to be a historically great player.   The next Lebron James, might just end up as the next Kenyon Martin instead.  Nothing wrong with Kenyon Martin, he just isn't Lebron James. 

Also of note, the years where there wasn't a near-unanimous player at the top of the draft, the drafts are all over the place, but generally speaking the player that went #1 would not go #1 in a re-draft.  In fact, in many of those seasons, the actual #1 pick would not even be a top 5 pick in a re-draft (Anthony Bennett, Andrea Bargnani, Michael Olowokandi, and Kwame Brown - just Andrew Bogut and Joe Smith would likely be top 5 picks in the re-draft).  Thus, getting the #1 pick is great if there is a near-unanimous person sitting at the top, but isn't so nice in the other years.

good post TP.
I wonder if we look at the total busts that were number one picks-is there a correlation between the franchise being pathetic and their #1 pick reflecting that incompetence?  (Injuries aside).

I'd probably put Cousins and or Paul George ahead of John Wall even though Wall's already been a 2X All Star and was an All Star at age 23 (or 22? ). I just think Cousins has more impact on your championship hopes although Wall may still pass as the consensus #1 pick.

Good post.

[Jon]

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.

[Donoghus]

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.

[Gainesville Celtic]

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.

[Moranis]

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). 

[PhoSita]

Re-drafting aside, the only player on that list who wasn't a really great piece for the team that drafted him is Oden, and it's entirely due to injuries.

I think the point about how the top of the draft ends up in a year without a consensus #1 is interesting.  I think it's similar to the phenomenon we see with the #2 pick so often being really bad. 

It's almost like when teams don't have a consensus, they make poor decisions trying to come away with the clear cut best choice (i.e. they try to "win" the draft) instead of going with the guy who is most likely to turn into a quality piece.


Very hard to find a draft without 5 or 6 really good players that came out of it.  So if you get a top pick, the opportunity is always there to get a really nice building block.  You've just got to make a good decision and then develop the player properly.

[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.

[fairweatherfan]

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). 

Shaq seems like a glaring omission here.

EDIT: Oops, outside the range of drafts being discussed.  Ignore me!

[bdm860]

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.