RealGM

I'm counting Connie Hawkins out, otherwise he's probably before Ben as well.

Who is the best undrafted player after Big Ben?

Names I included in the poll: Fred VanVleet, John Starks, Brad Miller, Bruce Bowen, Darrell Armstrong, Austin Reaves, Avery Johnson, Robert Covington, Jose Calderon.

Other notable names: Robert Pack, Udonis Haslem, Raja Bell, Chris Andersen, Earl Boykins, JJ Barea, Seth Curry, among others.

Haslem.

Sign5 wrote:Haslem.

Really? Is a better at peak than FVV or Brad Miller? Does he have all-star value?

For me it's between FVV and Brad Miller. Starks, imo, peaked lower than either of them, and also had a prime of barely a half-dozen seasons.

For full career right now I might still lean Brad Miller; but projecting a little (as Van Vleet is still playing at a reasonably high level), I suspect I might have his career higher before the end.

Darrell Armstrong is intriguing, but prime is too short, imo. Wouldn't argue hard against him though.

Avery Johnson didn't peak high enough, imo. Ditto Calderon or Haslem.

Austin Reaves [as of yet] lacks both the longevity and quality of peak to be a serious consideration. You'd have to project the living hell out of him to vote for him, and personally, I suspect we've already [more or less] seen the best we'll see of Austin Reaves. I think he's going to peak as a fair starter-level player, nothing more.

We could throw in the early guys who gave pro-baseball a go before settling into the NBA - Johnston and Braun?

8x All Defensive and 6x Top 10 (4 of hem top 5) DPOY, 3 rings, this should easily be Bruce Bowen,

Depends if territorial picks count as being drafted. If not, then Wilt would be up there.

I think they do, undrafted would be the guys who weren't taken with those or other picks.

durantbird wrote:I'm counting Connie Hawkins out, otherwise he's probably before Ben as well.

Who is the best undrafted player after Big Ben?

Names I included in the poll: Fred VanVleet, John Starks, Brad Miller, Bruce Bowen, Darrell Armstrong, Austin Reaves, Avery Johnson, Robert Covington, Jose Calderon.

Other notable names: Robert Pack, Udonis Haslem, Raja Bell, Chris Andersen, Earl Boykins, JJ Barea, Seth Curry, among others.

I said Brad Miller. VanVleet would have been my second choice.

With Miller I think the thing people should really understand is that it is quite reasonable to think that Miller was a more effective basketball player than Chris Webber.

Sign5 wrote:Haslem.

Certainly has a case for career because of how singular his Heat career was.

Doctor MJ wrote:

durantbird wrote:I'm counting Connie Hawkins out, otherwise he's probably before Ben as well.

Who is the best undrafted player after Big Ben?

Names I included in the poll: Fred VanVleet, John Starks, Brad Miller, Bruce Bowen, Darrell Armstrong, Austin Reaves, Avery Johnson, Robert Covington, Jose Calderon.

Other notable names: Robert Pack, Udonis Haslem, Raja Bell, Chris Andersen, Earl Boykins, JJ Barea, Seth Curry, among others.

I said Brad Miller. VanVleet would have been my second choice.

With Miller I think the thing people should really understand is that it is quite reasonable to think that Miller was a more effective basketball player than injured Chris Webber.

Fixed that for you.

One_and_Done wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

durantbird wrote:I'm counting Connie Hawkins out, otherwise he's probably before Ben as well.

Who is the best undrafted player after Big Ben?

Names I included in the poll: Fred VanVleet, John Starks, Brad Miller, Bruce Bowen, Darrell Armstrong, Austin Reaves, Avery Johnson, Robert Covington, Jose Calderon.

Other notable names: Robert Pack, Udonis Haslem, Raja Bell, Chris Andersen, Earl Boykins, JJ Barea, Seth Curry, among others.

I said Brad Miller. VanVleet would have been my second choice.

With Miller I think the thing people should really understand is that it is quite reasonable to think that Miller was a more effective basketball player than injured Chris Webber.

Fixed that for you.

A lone injury didn't cause Webber to be horrible at making decisions about taking shots he shouldn't take for his entire career.

On the other hand, a Chris Webber who didn't delude himself into thinking he should volume shoot in the NBA might have been someone I really wanted on a contending team.

Doctor MJ wrote:
A lone injury didn't cause Webber to be horrible at making decisions about taking shots he shouldn't take for his entire career.

On the other hand, a Chris Webber who didn't delude himself into thinking he should volume shoot in the NBA might have been someone I really wanted on a contending team.

Webber's somewhat overrated. Bleh on D. Numbers inflated by heavy minutes and volume shooting. Injuries robbed him of athleticism, but he didn't like the post. Kinda had a bleh middle game but was actually quite proficient on the long two most years. Obviously an excellent passer, especially in Adelman's system. But somewhat overrated there too, as we saw when Brad Miller capably stepped in and the utility of Peja, etc.

Had he been wiser about his shot volume and selection, he could have been more interesting, for sure. And had he stayed both healthy and capable/interesting in slashing, we might be having a different conversation. But he was definitely soft.

Doctor MJ wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
I said Brad Miller. VanVleet would have been my second choice.

With Miller I think the thing people should really understand is that it is quite reasonable to think that Miller was a more effective basketball player than injured Chris Webber.

Fixed that for you.

A lone injury didn't cause Webber to be horrible at making decisions about taking shots he shouldn't take for his entire career.

On the other hand, a Chris Webber who didn't delude himself into thinking he should volume shoot in the NBA might have been someone I really wanted on a contending team.

Picking Brad Miller over healthy Webber would be something that seems even more egregious than taking Penny over Shaq. Webber proved he could lead a winner when healthy. 2004 Webber, post injury, was a negative.

One_and_Done wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Fixed that for you.

A lone injury didn't cause Webber to be horrible at making decisions about taking shots he shouldn't take for his entire career.

On the other hand, a Chris Webber who didn't delude himself into thinking he should volume shoot in the NBA might have been someone I really wanted on a contending team.

Picking Brad Miller over healthy Webber would be something that seems even more egregious than taking Penny over Shaq. Webber proved he could lead a winner when healthy. 2004 Webber, post injury, was a negative.

I would fully expect the choice of Miller over Webber to be seen as more unusual than taking Penny over Shaq.

Re: Webber proved he could lead a winner. No more than Miller proved it.

Both demonstrated they could start for great teams in that era, but the idea that Webber was the "leader" of that team was always misguided, and frankly this was made pretty clear when the team offense spiked with Webber not available.

One_and_Done wrote:Picking Brad Miller over healthy Webber would be something that seems even more egregious than taking Penny over Shaq. Webber proved he could lead a winner when healthy. 2004 Webber, post injury, was a negative.

Webber was a negative on D the entire time. And basically from 98 forward, was disappointing to inefficient as a scorer. TS+ of 100, 96, 101, 100, 104, and then never above 93 again (and only once above 90).

It wasn't just post-injury in 04.

He was jumper-happy, didn't like working for his points, and very much replaceable in Sacramento's offense. Saying that he "proved he could lead a winner when healthy" strikes me as ignoring how Sacramento actually succeeded.

tsherkin wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
A lone injury didn't cause Webber to be horrible at making decisions about taking shots he shouldn't take for his entire career.

On the other hand, a Chris Webber who didn't delude himself into thinking he should volume shoot in the NBA might have been someone I really wanted on a contending team.

Webber's somewhat overrated. Bleh on D. Numbers inflated by heavy minutes and volume shooting. Injuries robbed him of athleticism, but he didn't like the post. Kinda had a bleh middle game but was actually quite proficient on the long two most years. Obviously an excellent passer, especially in Adelman's system. But somewhat overrated there too, as we saw when Brad Miller capably stepped in and the utility of Peja, etc.

Had he been wiser about his shot volume and selection, he could have been more interesting, for sure. And had he stayed both healthy and capable/interesting in slashing, we might be having a different conversation. But he was definitely soft.

Good insights.

Re: obviously an excellent passer in Adelman's system. I would say Webber displayed more passing chops than your average big, but would note that the time period where Webber was seen as a possible MVP ('00-01, '01-02) isn't the time period where they were racking up the big assists, just like it isn't the time period where they got the biggest ORtg. When they broke ORtg 110 in '03-04, they were first in Assist/100. When they continued above 110 in '04-05, they were second in Assist/100.

And of course the throughline here is that they added Brad Miller before '03-04. It's not that you could replace Webber with just any big and the passing would get better, but yeah, Miller was an upgrade over Webber both as a passer and as a don't-chuck-bad-shots guy, and it's not a big surprise that those two things would coincide.

The 99 Kings were 27-23 while starting Divac, white chocolate, Collins and household name Tariq Abdul-Wadad next to Webber. The only 2 of those guys who are even starters are Webber and Divac. The Kings line-up wasn't much better the next year when they won 44 games. I think it's pretty clear Webber was the driving force behind those teams success.

In Washington Webber also had success. Webber may have been an overrated guy, but I think there's no question you should build around him over Brad Miller.

This has to be Bruce Bowen. Logged big minutes in 3 championships, even outside of that 8x All Defensive, shot it well from outside, lockdown SF etc.

As role players go very much fits the mould of a perfect compliment.

These players routinely have high leverage outcomes across the board historically on champ winning/good/great teams.

My belief is they themselves hold higher base averages then someone else who is dependent on one or a limited thing.

Players that can go 0/4 and still be a net positive outcome is worth a small weight in gold

DCasey91 wrote:This has to be Bruce Bowen. Logged big minutes in 3 championships, even outside of that 8x All Defensive, shot it well from outside, lockdown SF etc.

As role players go very much fits the mould of a perfect compliment.

These players routinely have high leverage outcomes across the board historically on champ winning/good/great teams.

My belief is they themselves hold higher base averages then someone else who is dependent on one or a limited thing.

Players that can go 0/4 and still be a net positive outcome is worth a small weight in gold

The problem is Bowen is unplayable on alot of teams back then. If you don't have Duncan to create overlaps when he's doubled, Bowen kills your offense. The Spurs seemed to manage fine without Bowen too. Like, nice wing defender, a player type somewhat ahead of his time, but only really helps a very specific type of contender.