I'd have a hard time saying one is really much "better" than the other, which is probably how I should have phrased it in the first place. Besides, VORP doesn't work that way. You can't use VORP and then use my argument of someone like McGrady being available because he's not a replacement level player. He's well above average. VORP is used to measure how well a player performs compared to a waiver-wire scrub put in his place. My statement was that Shaq is rarer than Kobe, which is why I'd want him as a first pick. It's the same idea as taking A-Rod (pre-Yankees) over Pujols because you can find a first baseman who will put up respectable numbers to offset Pujols while you won't find a SS who hits over .300 and hits 40 homers to replace A-Rod. Pujols may put up slightly better numbers but only in a vacuum. You can find a fourth round first basemen who will hit .280 and 20 homers without much difficulty.
My point is that when structuring a basketball team, I think it's better to take the dominant big man first and then try to scrape together a decent-to-good shooting guard instead of the other way around. I think a team will do better with Shaq and Billups than it would Kobe and "fill in decent center's name here".
Which, in an extremely roundabout way, is all I'm really saying.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
