1969 Draft
Kareem Abdul Jabbar (Bucks)
Neal Walk (Suns)
1970 Draft
Bob Lanier (Pistons)
Rudy Tomonavitch (Rockets)
1971 Draft
Austin Carr (Cavaliers)
Sidney Wicks (TrailBlazers)
1972
LaRue Martin (TrailBlazers)
Bob Macadoo (Buffalo Bills)
1973
Doug Collins (76ers)
Jim Brewer (Cavaliers)
1974
Bill Walton (TrailBlazers)
Marvin Barnes (76ers)
1975
David Thompson (Hawks)
Dave Meyers (Lakers)
1976
John Lucas (Houston)
Scot May (Bulls)
1977
Kent Benson (Bucks)
Otis Birdsong (Kings)
1978
Mycheal Thompson (TrailBlazers)
Phil Ford (Kings)
1979
Magic Johnson (Lakers)
Dave Greenwood (Bulls)
1980
Joe Barry Carroll (Warriors)
Darell Griffith (Jazz)
1981
Mark Aguire (Mavericks)
Isaiah Thomas (Pistons)
1982
James Worthy (Lakers)
Terry Cummings (TrailBlazers)
1983
Ralph Sampson (Rockets)
Stephen Stipanovic (Pacers)
1984
Hakeem Olajuwon (Rockets)
Sam Bowie (TrailBlazers)
There's a lot of obvious choices such as Kareem, Magic, Hakeem, but are there any underrated picks that would have flipped the way we view teams if the coinflip had landed the other way? Even with the obvious ones, how impactful was it that they went to the teams they did instead of the reciprocal?
What important achievements or events will they decide to focus on, when so much is happening almost every decade since the industrial revolution?
hey people. I was wondering what is the best method when studying history; should I pick a time period and then learn the whole world at that period, or just pick a region and learn it since the beginning to present and then go to another region? what are down & upsides of each? and are there other methods that I should be considering?
To expand upon the question, the idea I have always learned was that there are important dynasties, e.g. Zhou dynasty, Yuan dynasty, Tang dynasty etc., and that these periods of unified government have frequently collapsed into numerous, fragmented states, such as the Three Kingdoms, the Sixteen Kingdoms, the Northern and Southern dynasties and so on. I have always assumed that these fragmented states viewed themselves culturally as "China", but how long has that actually been the case? Did it start with the Qin dynasty and not exist with the Shang and Zhou?
The second part of my question is related. Did states go to war with each other and conquer each other without the desire to have the Mandate of Heaven? Did states resist the concept of being "Chinese" historically? What kind of evidence do we have of cultural divergence and the development of state identity? Chu, Nanyue and Western Xia come to mind as having cultural uniqueness, but I at best have a fuzzy picture of their relationship to the dominating dynastic regimes of their times.
A Jen, duh "Agender Agenda: age ender"
Since the 1980s, specialists in Chinese history have largely rejected the idea that the Opium War should serve as the watershed from which 'modern' Chinese history begins, as part of a general move towards a more Asia-centric understanding of the dynamics of the Ming, Qing, Republican and Communist periods. Alternative candidates for the beginning of the process of Chinese 'modernity' have, for instance, included the outbreak of the Taiping War in 1851 and the Qianlong-Jiaqing transition in 1796-9. My cursory understanding of 19th-century Japanese history, however, seems to suggest that Western influence is afforded a far higher role in contemporary assessments. Is it just that I'm forming this impression from outdated and/or pop-history-leaning views on Japan (similar how to a Eurocentric view of Chinese history remains common in popular spaces despite its rejection from academia) or is there genuinely a significant and current historiographical difference?
