What makes a franchise player?

[Supergirl]

As someone pointed out in another thread, very few #1 picks have gone on to win championships (TD, Shaq, D-Rob) and only 2 of those won with the franchise that drafted them.

Also, it takes a lot for 1 player to completely turn a team around. TD did it, and has won 4 championships, Lebron did it and got his team into the playoffs immediately and to the Finals in 2 seasons.

I am not convinced that Oden, Durant, or Horford will be those franchise-changing players. Certainly all three of them won't. Will Oden be the TD of his generation - completely redefining his team, and getting them to the playoffs every year of his career, and winning several championships? Lots of sports writers seem to think he will. Maybe he will, maybe he won't.

Of the top 3 picks, I would not be surprised (just from what I've heard - I've never seen any of these guys play, really) if Horford is the real franchise changer.

Atlanta has more talent and more pieces in place already, and is the most read to benefit from one player to build around, and Horford is reputed to be AMAZINGLY talented. I definitely think Seattle is in rebuilding mode and is still a few years away from making the playoffs, which means Durant isn't really that kind of franchise changer. And Seattle and Atlanta both have very dysfunctional organizations, so I could see either team really fucking things up for themselves, although my money would be on Seattle to fare better, with Presti in charge. So, maybe it'll be Portland after all, since they seem to have put most of their dysfunction behind them.

What do other people think? Will all 3 be franchise changers? None of them?

[Reggie Miller]

As someone pointed out in another thread, very few #1 picks have gone on to win championships (TD, Shaq, D-Rob) and only 2 of those won with the franchise that drafted them.


With the exception of players that turned mercenary late in their careers to get a ring (i.e. Glenn Robinson), all of the #1 picks to win have been bigs.

To me, a perimeter player cannot be a franchise player. Simply put, there aren't very many people in the world (percentage wise) over 6'0". Of that small percentage, only an infintessimally small number are over 6'11". In other words, the talent pool for the guards is quite small, but many thousands of times larger than the talent pool for true centers. Consequently, the range of ability within the two groups is quite different.

Relatively speaking, there are a lot of potential NBA caliber guards. For that reason, while there is a great variety of ability within that group, there is not much overall statistical variation in that group. Put another way, guards cannot be truly dominant, becuase even the very best guard really isn't that much better than the second-best and so forth. (Think MJ and Drexler.)

In contrast, there are so few people over 6'11" that many of them end up playing in the NBA, whether or not they really can play. Just consider how many bigs didn't even play organized basketball before they got tall in late adolescence. There is considerable statistical variation at the center and power forward positions. (Compare the Admiral and Oliver Miller, for example.) In other words, it is possible to be truly dominant at C or PF, because many of the other players at your position do not have a fully developed skill set. (Think Timmy.)

For these reasons, I think that a true "franchise player" has to be a C or PF. Michael Jordan is just the exception that proves the rule.