Because the goal is not to score the most points, the goal is to win basketball games. And defense is half of the game. Dybantsa, Peterson, and Wilson/Boozer play three different positions so all of them looking decent doesn't put them on an even playing field. We also have to project what their role will be in a team defense and if we have any players we plan on keeping (Murray, Clifford, and Raynaud, for instance. Maybe Cardwell too) then how would each prospect compliment them as well?
Given their very different athletic profiles it could even be argued that Boozer and Wilson play different positions defensively. It matters that Wilson is a defensive anchor big because that is the one position that impacts a team defense the most. And it also matters that Wilson is considerably better than decent on defense. Maybe the right answer here is that you get your primary scorer and fill in around them with guys like Cardwell and Ellis -- defensive specialists. Or we could try that with Dybantsa and spend the next 12 years losing to the rival team that drafted Caleb Wilson and surrounded him with floor spacers and wing defenders.
I don't know the right answer, nobody does. I'm just trying to reason out all of the things a front office should be looking at when trying to make their determination of who the best player available is. It's not as simple as who scores the most or who looks the most athletic. It involves grappling with what you think contributes to wins in the NBA and then estimating based on all available data which prospect comes closest to achieving those criteria and how likely they are to continue improving. How rare and consequently expensive is their skillset compared to the rest? And is there an argument to be made for fit with the roster you are trying to build?
