ESPN series ranking the college programs who have produced the best NBA players

[intlzncster]

Yeah, Coach K is an average developer of talent. You realize how ridiculous that sounds?

The guy has the most wins in NCAA history.
The guy has four national titles.
He has his team in contention every single season.

There is absolutely nothing about K that is close to average... except Final 4 games against Calhoun!

All those points point to the fact that he can get guys to play together and coach a team as well as anyone in America. Look just because you are good at one skill in coaching, doesn't mean you are good at others. So you think Calipari is a good developer of talent too? He's got 3 final fours (ok really 1), and one National Championship. Is he a great developer of talent? Hell no. He can certainly coach a team, especially of studs, which is a talent in and of itself. But, in general, he doesn't put guys in the league. They are already on their way when they get there.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

I'm as big a proponent of Calhoun being considered K's equal as anyone, but diminishing K's accomplishments because he gets McDonald's All-Americans is dumb. He's a fantastic developer of talent.

He is an all-time great coach, but not a great developer of talent. His rosters are loaded every year, but how many pan out at the pro-level. Knight was a great developer of talent. So was Coach and I believe Izzo is too. But K....not so much.

 

[Inyatkin]

Back to Michigan State, this was tweeted out by ESPN today:
"Payne, Harris, Appling, or Dawson...who is Izzo's next great NBA player?"

The implication being that there's somehow been a long line of them. Izzo is a great winner in college, but his NBA output is poor. ESPN feels the need to pretend otherwise.

 

[Mike Honcho]

All those points point to the fact that he can get guys to play together and coach a team as well as anyone in America. Look just because you are good at one skill in coaching, doesn't mean you are good at others. So you think Calipari is a good developer of talent too? He's got 3 final fours (ok really 1), and one National Championship. Is he a great developer of talent? Hell no. He can certainly coach a team, especially of studs, which is a talent in and of itself. But, in general, he doesn't put guys in the league. They are already on their way when they get there.

Had Kobe went to Duke instead of straight to the NBA as is widely speculated, ConnHuskBask's logic would assign his talent development to Coach K.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

That's the point. I don't actually think he's a great developer of talent. I think he's a very, very good coach, who knows how to make a group of kids play well together, be team first, and play exceedingly hard (and hug). That's his skill set. But making better basketball players? He's closer to average in that department imo.

I'm just going to point out that you're talking about the guy who might very well go down as the greatest college basketball coach of all time, and if he's not #1 he's probably 1(a) and certainly - certainly - the best of his generation. You don't get to be that guy by giving good pep-talks and having the market on minimally athletic white guys cornered. And you don't get to be that guy by being "average" at anything. Some of you guys should go in on a table at the next player hater's ball.

 

[intlzncster]

Had Kobe went to Duke instead of straight to the NBA as is widely speculated, ConnHuskBask's logic would assign his talent development to Coach K.

No he would have been considered similar to a John Wall.

(this is a joke, no?)

 

[intlzncster]

I'm just going to point out that you're talking about the guy who might very well go down as the greatest college basketball coach of all time, and if he's not #1 he's probably 1(a) and certainly - certainly - the best of his generation. You don't get to be that guy by giving good pep-talks and having the market on minimally athletic white guys cornered. And you don't get to be that guy by being "average" at anything. Some of you guys should go in on a table at the next player hater's ball.

Of course you can get to be that guy by being average at some things. Because no coach is great at everything, not even Phil Jackson. I'll still take Wooden over K any time. Probably have to split modern era vs oldschool guys though; I think that should be done in all sports/comparisons actually.

Just because he might arguably be the best coach of all time, doesn't mean he's the best or even just good at all the individual skills of coaching. That's like saying he's one of if not the best coach of all time at recruiting, teaching fundamentals, coaching rebounding, in game coaching, stewarding a program, building a program, coaching in a tournament, developing talent, instilling team mentality and play, imposing his will on the team....etc. Obviously this is patently untrue.

For example, guys like Calhoun, Tarkanian...and maybe even lesser coaches like Billy Donavon and Jamie Dixon, are superior developers of talent than coach K.

And I'll tell you this, in a dogfight, I'd take JC over Coach K 100 times out of 100. Methinks I'd win a strong majority.

fwiw, I don't hate K at all. He amuses me. One thing I respect about K is that his teams always, and I mean always, play hard. More so than JC and UConn. I believe JC is better at imposing his will on the team, but K's group plays consistently harder night-in, night-out. JC is a better tourney coach imo.

 

[champs99and04]

That's the point. I don't actually think he's a great developer of talent. I think he's a very, very good coach, who knows how to make a group of kids play well together, be team first, and play exceedingly hard (and hug). That's his skill set. But making better basketball players? He's closer to average in that department imo.

Is he as great a developer of talent as Calhoun? No, but Calhoun is one of the best developers of talent ever, at any level. K is still, if not elite, pretty close to it in that department, imo. The facts are, Duke currently has the most kids in the NBA - this is not because K is head and shoulders above everybody else in terms of recruiting. In fact, Howland, Barnes, Williams, and Calipari have all displayed greater potency on the recruiting trail at one time or another. K is not of the Calipari mold, in that he doesn't simply sign half of the top ten every year, but rather he signs a couple of McDonald's All-Americans and mixes them in with top 50 type players who figure to stick around at least a couple years. Obviously, there are inherent advantages to coaching at Duke, and that's one of the reasons he's put so many players in the NBA. But you don't put as many players in the NBA as he has if you're just rolling the ball out and letting them play. Keep in mind, the bulk of K's coaching career took place before the one & done era, when players routinely stuck around for 3 or 4 years. You had to develop players back then, and your players had to show marked improvements every year, otherwise they wouldn't be as coveted by GM's, and that would have a ripple down effect on the desire of future recruits to play for you.

Duke has put at least a few studs in the NBA, moreso than UConn even - Grant Hill and Elton Brand were bonafide superstars in their heyday, Corey Maggette, Luol Deng and Carlos Boozer were/are all-star caliber players in their prime, Battier has morphed into one of the best role players ever, and guys like Latener, Redick, Ferry, and likely many more I'm omitting have gone onto have respectable careers. That's without including Kyrie Irving, who's on the path to stardom, and Jay Williams, who could have very well gotten there without his horrific injury.

Look, the K love in the media does get tiresome, but a lot of it is warranted. The narrative that he "doesn't develop talent all that well" around here just doesn't seem to add up.

 

[intlzncster]

Is he as great a developer of talent as Calhoun? No, but Calhoun is one of the best developers of talent ever, at any level. K is still, if not elite, pretty close to it in that department, imo. The facts are, Duke currently has the most kids in the NBA - this is not because K is head and shoulders above everybody else in terms of recruiting. In fact, Howland, Barnes, Williams, and Calipari have all displayed greater potency on the recruiting trail at one time or another.

Dude, since 1980, K has signed 49(!) McDonald's All Americans. Now you can argue if getting recruited by Duke puts them in that game, but Duke signs a top 5-10 class nearly every year. Fact is Duke is a top 3-5 recruiting school.

K is not of the Calipari mold, in that he doesn't simply sign half of the top ten every year, but rather he signs a couple of McDonald's All-Americans and mixes them in with top 50 type players who figure to stick around at least a couple years.

Calipari has only gotten Top 10 every year since being at UK. Maybe once at Memphis?

Obviously, there are inherent advantages to coaching at Duke, and that's one of the reasons he's put so many players in the NBA. But you don't put as many players in the NBA as he has if you're just rolling the ball out and letting them play.

I didn't say he rolled the ball out. I think he teaches team dynamics like no other. That's also why, given the number of incoming studs and the number of NBA'ers that Duke's produced, there haven't been too many home runs. His team teaching is better than his individual teaching.

Keep in mind, the bulk of K's coaching career took place before the one & done era, when players routinely stuck around for 3 or 4 years. You had to develop players back then, and your players had to show marked improvements every year, otherwise they wouldn't be as coveted by GM's, and that would have a ripple down effect on the desire of future recruits to play for you.

The hype factor was just as big back then. It was all about measurables. Why Sam Bowie got picked over Jordan. GMs were likely to take kids from good schools too. Again, measuring players' effectiveness and ability by NBA GMs evaluatory skills is a mugs game imo.

Duke has put at least a few studs in the NBA, moreso than UConn even - Grant Hill and Elton Brand were bonafide superstars in their heyday, Corey Maggette, Luol Deng and Carlos Boozer were/are all-star caliber players in their prime, Battier has morphed into one of the best role players ever, and guys like Latener, Redick, Ferry, and likely many more I'm omitting have gone onto have respectable careers. That's without including Kyrie Irving, who's on the path to stardom, and Jay Williams, who could have very well gotten there without his horrific injury.

As I said earlier, guys like Reddick worked their way into solid players; he definitely wasn't when he first got in the league. That's all on JJ, not on Coach K. Irving was going to be a stud if he went to East Allegheny State. He's a Calipari type.

We've got a long list too. Do they have any hall of famers? We got Ray Allen. We've got all stars in Caron, Rudy, Ben Gordon, Donyell (I think), and Uncle Cliffy. Solid role players Emeka, Ollie, Travis and even Jake. And hopefully future allstars in Kemba and Drummond. Maybe get something out of Lamb too.

Look, the K love in the media does get tiresome, but a lot of it is warranted. The narrative that he "doesn't develop talent all that well" around here just doesn't seem to add up.

K just doesn't compare to at least 10 (?) other coaches in the country during his era imo.

 

[UC990411]

Dude, since 1980, K has signed 49(!) McDonald's All Americans. Now you can argue if getting recruited by Duke puts them in that game, but Duke signs a top 5-10 class nearly every year. Fact is Duke is a top 3-5 recruiting school.




Calipari has only gotten Top 10 every year since being at UK. Maybe once at Memphis?





I didn't say he rolled the ball out. I think he teaches team dynamics like no other. That's also why, given the number of incoming studs and the number of NBA'ers that Duke's produced, there haven't been too many home runs. His team teaching is better than his individual teaching.




The hype factor was just as big back then. It was all about measurables. Why Sam Bowie got picked over Jordan. GMs were likely to take kids from good schools too. Again, measuring players' effectiveness and ability by NBA GMs evaluatory skills is a mugs game imo.



As I said earlier, guys like Reddick worked their way into solid players; he definitely wasn't when he first got in the league. That's all on JJ, not on Coach K. Irving was going to be a stud if he went to East Allegheny State. He's a Calipari type.

We've got a long list too. Do they have any hall of famers? We got Ray Allen. We've got all stars in Caron, Rudy, Ben Gordon, Donyell (I think), and Uncle Cliffy. Solid role players Emeka, Ollie, Travis and even Jake. And hopefully future allstars in Kemba and Drummond. Maybe get something out of Lamb too.




K just doesn't compare to at least 10 (?) other coaches in the country during his era imo.

Ok, so you're saying you don't like Duke?

 

[intlzncster]

Ok, so you're saying you don't like Duke?

Well, I certainly don't like Duke, but I think I've also praised K a fair bit in this thread. People seem to think if you criticize K at all, you are in the wrong. He's not good at everything. Period.

Pretty hard to argue that Duke doesn't get one of the top classes year in year out. And if you get one of the top classes, and you can coach, you should win a butt load of games. It ain't difficult.

 

[champs99and04]

Dude, since 1980, K has signed 49(!) McDonald's All Americans. Now you can argue if getting recruited by Duke puts them in that game, but Duke signs a top 5-10 class nearly every year. Fact is Duke is a top 3-5 recruiting school.




Calipari has only gotten Top 10 every year since being at UK. Maybe once at Memphis?





I didn't say he rolled the ball out. I think he teaches team dynamics like no other. That's also why, given the number of incoming studs and the number of NBA'ers that Duke's produced, there haven't been too many home runs. His team teaching is better than his individual teaching.




The hype factor was just as big back then. It was all about measurables. Why Sam Bowie got picked over Jordan. GMs were likely to take kids from good schools too. Again, measuring players' effectiveness and ability by NBA GMs evaluatory skills is a mugs game imo.



As I said earlier, guys like Reddick worked their way into solid players; he definitely wasn't when he first got in the league. That's all on JJ, not on Coach K. Irving was going to be a stud if he went to East Allegheny State. He's a Calipari type.

We've got a long list too. Do they have any hall of famers? We got Ray Allen. We've got all stars in Caron, Rudy, Ben Gordon, Donyell (I think), and Uncle Cliffy. Solid role players Emeka, Ollie, Travis and even Jake. And hopefully future allstars in Kemba and Drummond. Maybe get something out of Lamb too.




K just doesn't compare to at least 10 (?) other coaches in the country during his era imo.

Point one - I'm aware K has had a s*** load of McDonald's All-Americans grace the Duke campus over the years. They're undoubtedly a recruiting juggernaut, I was just saying they've never been head and shoulders above the field, like UK is now. It's a testament to K's ability to develop talent that Duke has so many guys in the NBA, McDonald's All-American or not.

Point two - Yeah, I was talking about his time at UK.

Point three - I know you didn't, I was exaggerating to make a point. I agree with you on your point - K might be the best ever alongside Wooden in teaching the finer aspects of team basketball and generally inspiring kids to sacrifice for the greater good. That's not to say he isn't also a tremendous developer of talent, though.

Point four - I probably worded that wrong, my point was K wouldn't have produced so many high caliber NBA players if they didn't develop while they were in college.

Point five - Even the most talented of players coming out of high school can benefit from quality college coaching. Obviously there is a significant gap between making AJ Price an NBA player and making Kyrie Irving an NBA player, but I'm sure Irving would be the first to tell you he got a hell of a lot better in his one year at Duke. Would he have been a star regardless of where he went? Probably, but there's no way to tell for sure.

Point six - Neither Rudy or Ben was ever an all-star. I suppose it depends on your perspective regarding whether you believe Grant Hill is a Hall of Famer - does his brilliance in the begginning stage of his career push him in, or does the mediocrity (caused by injuries) in the latter half of his career keep him out? I'm not sure it matters in the context of our conversation. Also, how can you take credit for guys like Rudy and Drummond when you don't give Duke and UK credit for their star recruits? You could easily play the "Rudy and Andre would have been stars regardless of where they went to school" card as well.

 

[superjohn]

Point one - I'm aware K has had a s* load of McDonald's All-Americans grace the Duke campus over the years. They're undoubtedly a recruiting juggernaut, I was just saying they've never been head and shoulders above the field, like UK is now. It's a testament to K's ability to develop talent that Duke has so many guys in the NBA, McDonald's All-American or not.

Point two - Yeah, I was talking about his time at UK.

Point three - I know you didn't, I was exaggerating to make a point. I agree with you on your point - K might be the best ever alongside Wooden in teaching the finer aspects of team basketball and generally inspiring kids to sacrifice for the greater good. That's not to say he isn't also a tremendous developer of talent, though.

Point four - I probably worded that wrong, my point was K wouldn't have produced so many high caliber NBA players if they didn't develop while they were in college.

Point five - Even the most talented of players coming out of high school can benefit from quality college coaching. Obviously there is a significant gap between making AJ Price an NBA player and making Kyrie Irving an NBA player, but I'm sure Irving would be the first to tell you he got a hell of a lot better in his one year at Duke. Would he have been a star regardless of where he went? Probably, but there's no way to tell for sure.

Point six - Neither Rudy or Ben was ever an all-star. I suppose it depends on your perspective regarding whether you believe Grant Hill is a Hall of Famer - does his brilliance in the begginning stage of his career push him in, or does the mediocrity (caused by injuries) in the latter half of his career keep him out? I'm not sure it matters in the context of our conversation. Also, how can you take credit for guys like Rudy and Drummond when you don't give Duke and UK credit for their star recruits? You could easily play the "Rudy and Andre would have been stars regardless of where they went to school" card as well.

Grant Hill as a Hall of Famer, where the hell did that come from? Grant Hill is not a Hall of Famer by any stretch.

 

[bobbygt]

JC is to me is what Jesus is to many of you.

And I think that JC is one of the greatest mbb coaches of all time.

BUT, just because some of these guys were selected to the McD all-star team does not mean they really are the best players and the ones who are automatically destined for the nba. I don't think the star rankings are bogus and a lot of the guys on the McD teams are really good.

Look at some of Duke's McD players since 2000:

2000 Chris Duhon
2001 Daniel Ewing
2002 Sean Dockery
2002 J.J. Redick
2002 Shavlik Randolph
2002 Michael Thompson
2003 Luol Deng
2004 Demarcus Nelson
2005 Greg Paulus
2005 Josh McRoberts
2005 Eric Boateng
2006 Gerald Henderson
2006 Jon Scheyer
2006 Lance Thomas
2007 Taylor King
2007 Kyle Singler
2007 Nolan Smith
2008 Elliot Williams
2009 Mason Plumlee
2009 Ryan Kelly
2010 Kyrie Irving

Out of this list there are only about 3 surefire NBA guys: Irving, Henderson, Deng (you could maybe add Duhon, Singler and Reddick to the list).

Now, compare these guys to some of Uconn's non McD NBA players: Caron, Gordon, Emeka, Boone, Hilton, AJ, Adrien, HT, Lamb.

I'm not saying that K could've made Hilton and HT into NBA players, but I know that I damn well can't say that JC could've made Michael Thompson (who the heck is that?), Lance Thomas, Greg Paulus, Eric Boateng, or Taylor King into NBA players either.

I think what JC has over K is that he sees better talent and is a better developer, but he has few peers. Coach K is a really good coach, though.

 

[champs99and04]

Grant Hill as a Hall of Famer, where the hell did that come from? Grant Hill is not a Hall of Famer by any stretch.

It's ignorant to completely dismiss him. His numbers in his first seven seasons are on par with those of LeBron, Magic, and Oscar. His legendary first seven years in addition to his ability to lynch on as a useful role player after his injury and his storied college career at least make it a conversation.

 

[Gurleyman]

Grant Hill probably makes it. He was the first person to really make the point forward position a real thing. Injuries kept his career numbers lower than they could have been.

 

[superjohn]

It's ignorant to completely dismiss him. His numbers in his first seven seasons are on par with those of LeBron, Magic, and Oscar. His legendary first seven years in addition to his ability to lynch on as a useful role player after his injury and his storied college career at least make it a conversation.

Holy moley Grant Hill's numbers in his first 7 seasons are on par with Lebron, Magic and Oscar....dude that's just wrong. Grant Hill hasn't exactly done much the past decade and has never won a playoff series until very late in his career as a Sun. You don't make the Hall of Fame as a small forward who hasn't won anything and only averaged like 16 ppg for your career.

 

[Gurleyman]

He was routinely putting up seasons like 23-9-7 before injuries sidetracked him. He played a long time out of his prime, which weighs down his career averages. It is also the Basketball Hall of Fame, not the NBA Hall of Fame, so his college success will factor in.

 

[superjohn]

Grant Hill probably makes it. He was the first person to really make the point forward position a real thing. Injuries kept his career numbers lower than they could have been.

The first to make the point forward a real thing, what does that mean? What exactly were Marques Johnson, Rick Barry, Paul Pressey, Larry Bird, Scottie Pippen etc.?

 

[superjohn]

He was routinely putting up seasons like 23-9-7 before injuries sidetracked him. He played a long time out of his prime, which weighs down his career averages. It is also the Basketball Hall of Fame, not the NBA Hall of Fame, so his college success will factor in.

That's almost always taken into account with foreign legends like Arvydas and Ginobili, not a guy who won it at an American College.

 

[champs99and04]

Holy moley Grant Hill's numbers in his first 7 seasons are on par with Lebron, Magic and Oscar....dude that's just wrong. Grant Hill hasn't exactly done much the past decade and has never won a playoff series until very late in his career as a Sun. You don't make the Hall of Fame as a small forward who hasn't won anything and only averaged like 16 ppg for your career.

Seven time all-star, two time national champ, ROY, five time all-NBA, top ten in PER four times, etc. There are valid reasons to keep him out, but he also has the credentials to be seriously considered.

 

[superjohn]

No matter how you slice it I just can't see Hill as a Hall of Famer, he put up great stats early in his career on some really bad teams and injuries ruined him. The 5 time all-NBA is nice but he only made 1st team once. I really think it cheapens the Hall if Grant Hill was elected. Winning championships isn't the end all be all in my opinion but you have to have some playoff success or memorable moments, Hill has nothing.

 

[intlzncster]

Point six - Neither Rudy or Ben was ever an all-star. I suppose it depends on your perspective regarding whether you believe Grant Hill is a Hall of Famer - does his brilliance in the begginning stage of his career push him in, or does the mediocrity (caused by injuries) in the latter half of his career keep him out? I'm not sure it matters in the context of our conversation. Also, how can you take credit for guys like Rudy and Drummond when you don't give Duke and UK credit for their star recruits? You could easily play the "Rudy and Andre would have been stars regardless of where they went to school" card as well.

I'll concede the Drummond point, and even rudy, who was highly rated, but not number 1. BG really wasn't an allstar at least one year? I'm shocked. For a while there, he was the dogs balls.

 

[champs99and04]

I'll concede the Drummond point, and even rudy, who was highly rated, but not number 1. BG really wasn't an allstar at least one year? I'm shocked. For a while there, he was the dogs balls.

No, though he did place second in ROY voting and win sixth man of the year in the 04/05 season. He also averaged over 20 a game on 45/41/88 shooting splits from 07 to 09, so I assume he must have at least come close some years (as did Rudy).

It's a mystery to me what's happened to his career. Hopefully he'll find his niche again soon.

 

[Gurleyman]

The first to make the point forward a real thing, what does that mean? What exactly were Marques Johnson, Rick Barry, Paul Pressey, Larry Bird, Scottie Pippen etc.?

Someone like Larry Bird was certainly a great passer at the forward position, but he didn't play like a point guard. He was a guy who operated from the wing and made people pay for double teams. Pippen tended to play off Jordan, making plays against defenses that were broken down. He sometimes played like a point and ran some plays here and there, but it wasn't like he was in charge of the show. That was the other guy in the 23 shirt. Pressey was a 6-5 two guard who could pass.

Hill was different in that he was legitimately the sole initiator of the offense for his team for large segments of games - running everything, getting isolated in 1-4 sets, or getting high screens as he broke the defense down, and continually doing it. He wasn't slashing from the wing and making great passes, or playing off the ball and taking advantage of a scrambling defense. He was at the point. In his brief, uninjured prime, he played like Isiah Thomas, only as a 6-8 forward. Or like Derrick Rose does now. He was on the verge of becoming a transformative figure in the league strategically - someone who you had to develop particular schemes to try to stop.

He could be left out because he hurt too soon in his career to put up big numbers. Looking more thoroughly at his stats, I'm less convinced then I was at first writing. I was going off my memory of people trying to deal with the nightmare of defending him in his prime. His prime might have been cut short too soon to get in, especially without ever getting his Detroit teams out of the first round.

 

[progrocks]

cheapens the hall? have you ever noticed who gets into that thing, it is hardly the NFL Hall of Fame. I wouldnt be surprised if there were some ball boys enshrined up in Springfield.

No matter how you slice it I just can't see Hill as a Hall of Famer, he put up great stats early in his career on some really bad teams and injuries ruined him. The 5 time all-NBA is nice but he only made 1st team once. I really think it cheapens the Hall if Grant Hill was elected. Winning championships isn't the end all be all in my opinion but you have to have some playoff success or memorable moments, Hill has nothing.

 

[ihatepants]

That's almost always taken into account with foreign legends like Arvydas and Ginobili, not a guy who won it at an American College.

You don't know what you're talking about. It's the basketball hall of fame, not NBA hall of fame. The basketball hall of fame definitely takes college (and international) success into account when deciding who gets in or not. I didn't even look that far, but of the recent inductees whose play in college (and Olympics) had a role in their induction into the hall: Chris Mullin, Ralph Sampson, and Jamaal Wilkes.

That said, I think Grant Hill will make the Hall.

 

[ihatepants]

Other factors in Grant Hill's favor for induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame:

NBA co-Rookie of the Year (1995)
7× NBA All-Star (1995–1998, 2000–2001, 2005)
All-NBA First Team (1997)
4× All-NBA Second Team (1996, 1998–2000)
NBA All-Rookie First Team (1995)
3× NBA Sportsmanship Award (2005, 2008, 2010)
2× NCAA champion (1991–1992)
ACC Player of the Year (1994)
NABC Defensive Player of the Year (1993)
Consensus NCAA All-American First Team (1994)
Consensus NCAA All-American Second Team (1993)

• There aren't many players that went to at least 7 all-star games and aren't in the HOF. (Only two that are eligible and not in: Jojo White and Jack Sickma)
• He was able to play regularly despite passing his prime and had a long 19-year career.
• His PER among guards/forwards for that time was second only to Jordan, and his total WS is second only to Reggie Miller.
• His numbers for the first few seasons of his career came during an era where wing players weren't as emphasized as they are today. And during this time, he was arguably the best player at his position. He was definitely better than Chris Mullin, Glen Rice and Detlef Schrempf. When he is eventually eligible for the hall, he'll probably be the best one available at his position. There weren't many very good SFs from the 90s.
• In pure career win-shares, his closest comparison is Chris Mullin, who's already in.
• His age 22-27 years were among the 10 best by a swingman since the introduction of the 3 point line.

• After all his injuries and reinventing his game to become a defense-first off the ball wing who complemented Steve Nash by making smart cuts and spacing the floor with shots from the short corners, Grant became one of the most effective and productive veteran swing men ever towards the end of his career.

 

[Jerry1714]

Its the Basketball Hall of Fame, not NBA Hall of Fame. Grant Hill is a hall of famer.

 

[HooperScooper]

Wow, Kansas is only 14th.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/85304/path-to-the-draft-no-14-kansas

They've had a gazillion McDonald's All Americans so you'd think they'd be higher. They have quantity but not a lot of quality.