Peak Nate Archibald or Peak Allen Iverson

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Mckie wasn’t that horrible but by championship team standards Mckie should have been the 4th option not the 2nd option.
Snow was a nice playmaker and the team could offensive rebound but other than that Iverson taking difficult shots was their best offense.

Yes, but offense isn't the whole of the game. They were an elite defensive and rebounding team, and ignoring that doesn't paint the full picture of how the team won. They were 13th on O but 5th on D, remember. They won by stopping the opposition and controlling the glass more than anything else. And obviously Iverson ran their offense, and in-era, it worked out okay.

I loved watching Iverson and the offensively challenged 76ers but I wish I could have tacked peak Curry onto Snow and tacked 1980 Archibald onto Iverson to make Iverson better at finding Curry and any other open men and to make Iverson better at finishing shots while squirming through the giant big men defenders in the paint. That would be a more interesting team but it would still be offensively challenged despite adding peak Curry.

[tsherkin]

Mckie wasn’t that horrible but by championship team standards Mckie should have been the 4th option not the 2nd option.
Snow was a nice playmaker and the team could offensive rebound but other than that Iverson taking difficult shots was their best offense.

Yes, but offense isn't the whole of the game. They were an elite defensive and rebounding team, and ignoring that doesn't paint the full picture of how the team won. They were 13th on O but 5th on D, remember. They won by stopping the opposition and controlling the glass more than anything else. And obviously Iverson ran their offense, and in-era, it worked out okay.

I loved watching Iverson and the offensively challenged 76ers but I wish I could have tacked peak Curry onto Snow and tacked 1980 Archibald onto Iverson to make Iverson better at finding Curry and any other open men and to make Iverson better at finishing shots while squirming through the giant big men defenders in the paint. That would be a more interesting team but it would still be offensively challenged despite adding peak Curry.

That would certainly have made for a very interesting team back then, no doubt!

[Samurai]

Genuinely curious, how many people on this forum actually watched peak Nate?

Every chance I could, which sadly wasn't nearly as much as I would like since the Royals weren't exactly mainstays on TV back then. Frankly I think Tiny was more impressive watching live than on videos since most videos of him are chopped up highlights interspersed with a lot of non-playing activities. So at least from the eye test, I enjoyed watching Tiny play more than Iverson.

Samurai, did you find any Archibald Royals or Kings games?
All I found was an All-Star game and a playoff game against the Bulls that I think was 1975.

No, which is why I maintain that Tiny was more impressive watching live than the limited videos of him. I realize that our brains are fragile and memories can fade and be tinted with non-objective factors. But as long as my memory of watching him is still somewhat there, I stand by that memory being more impressive to me than watching the limited videos of him.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Every chance I could, which sadly wasn't nearly as much as I would like since the Royals weren't exactly mainstays on TV back then. Frankly I think Tiny was more impressive watching live than on videos since most videos of him are chopped up highlights interspersed with a lot of non-playing activities. So at least from the eye test, I enjoyed watching Tiny play more than Iverson.

Samurai, did you find any Archibald Royals or Kings games?
All I found was an All-Star game and a playoff game against the Bulls that I think was 1975.

No, which is why I maintain that Tiny was more impressive watching live than the limited videos of him. I realize that our brains are fragile and memories can fade and be tinted with non-objective factors. But as long as my memory of watching him is still somewhat there, I stand by that memory being more impressive to me than watching the limited videos of him.[/quote

Oh, your situation is different than mine. I was a Celtic fan in 1980 and saw plenty of 1980 Archibald in 1980 and have no need for 1980 video of Archibald. 1980 and 1981 video is easy to find but I don’t need it. I have rewatched 1980s 76ers Celtics Easter Conference finals because I kind of find that more enjoyable that current basketball but I think some sort of cross between current basketball and early 1980s 76ers vs Celtics would be my favorite basketball. Strangely 1990s ball is not a cross between 1980s 76ers vs Celtics and current ball.
I also consider early 1980s western conference very inferior to Early 1980s 76ers, Celtics and Bucks games.

In 1973 I was only watching hockey. Celtics televised 20 games a year in 1973 but they probably would not have televised a game against the lowly Kings. I rarely watched the 20 Celtic games they did show. I found the free throws annoying in 1973 because they players would wander all over the court and buy and eat a bag of popcorn before getting themselves to the free throw line to shoot free throws in 1973.

In about 1977 give or take some years, the league cracked down on players wandering around before free throws.

I have no image of peak 1973 Nate. I would settle for college Nate Archibald because between College Nate and 1980 Nate I could get a fairly accurate idea about 1973 Nate.

Nate looked faster and better in the 1972 and or 1963 All Star game than he did in the 1875 Bulls playoff game. I think Nate was playing injured in the 1875 playoffs but Cheeks in the 1980s made Nate look worse than he normally looked so maybe Norm Van Lier, the Cheeks of the 1970s might have been making Nate look worse than Nate looked against average defenders.

But I could use some 1973 Nate Archibald video and feel like something is wrong because that video does not exist. I would feel the same way you feel if 1973 Nate was in my memory but I don’t like relying on other people’s memory. I find a discrepancy between other people’s memories and the video I watched when judging Elgin Baylor. The Memories of 1960s basketball fans have a better version of Elgin Baylor than the videos of Elgin Baylor have.

But if you have Memories of 1973 Nate Archibald, how different was he from 1980 Nate Archibald. His stats are more impressive. Am I right to assume that 1973 Nate Archibald had Iverson quickness?

[Samurai]

Samurai, did you find any Archibald Royals or Kings games?
All I found was an All-Star game and a playoff game against the Bulls that I think was 1975.

No, which is why I maintain that Tiny was more impressive watching live than the limited videos of him. I realize that our brains are fragile and memories can fade and be tinted with non-objective factors. But as long as my memory of watching him is still somewhat there, I stand by that memory being more impressive to me than watching the limited videos of him.[/quote

Oh, your situation is different than mine. I was a Celtic fan in 1980 and saw plenty of 1980 Archibald in 1980 and have no need for 1980 video of Archibald. 1980 and 1981 video is easy to find but I don’t need it. I have rewatched 1980s 76ers Celtics Easter Conference finals because I kind of find that more enjoyable that current basketball but I think some sort of cross between current basketball and early 1980s 76ers vs Celtics would be my favorite basketball. Strangely 1990s ball is not a cross between 1980s 76ers vs Celtics and current ball.
I also consider early 1980s western conference very inferior to Early 1980s 76ers, Celtics and Bucks games.

In 1973 I was only watching hockey. Celtics televised 20 games a year in 1973 but they probably would not have televised a game against the lowly Kings. I rarely watched the 20 Celtic games they did show. I found the free throws annoying in 1973 because they players would wander all over the court and buy and eat a bag of popcorn before getting themselves to the free throw line to shoot free throws in 1973.

In about 1977 give or take some years, the league cracked down on players wandering around before free throws.

I have no image of peak 1973 Nate. I would settle for college Nate Archibald because between College Nate and 1980 Nate I could get a fairly accurate idea about 1973 Nate.

Nate looked faster and better in the 1972 and or 1963 All Star game than he did in the 1875 Bulls playoff game. I think Nate was playing injured in the 1875 playoffs but Cheeks in the 1980s made Nate look worse than he normally looked so maybe Norm Van Lier, the Cheeks of the 1970s might have been making Nate look worse than Nate looked against average defenders.

But I could use some 1973 Nate Archibald video and feel like something is wrong because that video does not exist. I would feel the same way you feel if 1973 Nate was in my memory but I don’t like relying on other people’s memory. I find a discrepancy between other people’s memories and the video I watched when judging Elgin Baylor. The Memories of 1960s basketball fans have a better version of Elgin Baylor than the videos of Elgin Baylor have.

But if you have Memories of 1973 Nate Archibald, how different was he from 1980 Nate Archibald. His stats are more impressive. Am I right to assume that 1973 Nate Archibald had Iverson quickness?

There was a huge difference in quickness between 73 Archibald and the Celtics' Archibald. Although I'd guess that they would be fairly close if they just ran a straight ahead sprint against each other but 73 Tiny just had a much quicker first step. Tiny would try to lull you with his dribble and then, seemingly without any warning or build-up, he was instantly going from zero to full speed as he drove to the rim. No defender could match that initial step so they were forced to play off of him. He wasn't considered a great outside shooter then and I have no memory of him shooting from anywhere close to Curry-like distances, but he was extremely accurate in that midrange area of 15-18 feet. (not saying he never shot from long distance, just that I didn't see it in the games I watched). He shot so well because, despite being 'tiny', he always seemed to have a good open look at those shots because defenders had to play off of him to allow for that quickness. And again, despite being 'tiny' he more often than not managed to get his shots at the rim over the reach of the shot blockers when he made those drives. And he was the best of that era, along with Lenny Wilkens, at driving and kicking since peak Tiny would inevitably get that first step past his defender, it created havoc as other defenders had to drop into the paint to stop him leaving the other Royals open. Off the eye test, most of his assists seemed to be from the drive-and-kick.

From what I remember, his outside (what we'd call a midrange today) shot wasn't much different in the 80's than at his peak. It was just that in the 80's, he seemed to have a hand in his face (or at least a defender closer to him) more often than in 73. In the 70's they all seemed to be open shots. I'm guessing its because without that turbo boost on his first step, defenders no longer had to sag off of him as much. He was never the fastest guy in the league - I'm convinced Randy Smith would beat him in a flat out sprint anytime/anyplace. It was that first step before his Achilles injury that made him so special and so difficult to guard. Kinda sad that so few talk about him much these days or only discuss him in the 80's since the Celtics were in the playoffs. Tiny just wasn't the same player by that time.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Celtics Tiny would hit 17 footers if defenders sagged off. Celtics Tiny did not have 3 point range. His Teammate Chris Ford lead the league in the first 3 point shooting percentage.

[Samurai]

Celtics Tiny would hit 17 footers if defenders sagged off. Celtics Tiny did not have 3 point range. His Teammate Chris Ford lead the league in the first 3 point shooting percentage.

73 Tiny also did not have 3-point range (or more accurately did not demonstrate to me that he could have been a great 3-point shot if such a rule were in place at the time). I just think defenders sagged off of him more in the 70's than in the 80's since he was a much better penetrator before he was hit with age and injuries.

[tsherkin]

Celtics Tiny would hit 17 footers if defenders sagged off. Celtics Tiny did not have 3 point range. His Teammate Chris Ford lead the league in the first 3 point shooting percentage.

73 Tiny also did not have 3-point range (or more accurately did not demonstrate to me that he could have been a great 3-point shot if such a rule were in place at the time). I just think defenders sagged off of him more in the 70's than in the 80's since he was a much better penetrator before he was hit with age and injuries.

I think he had rhe tools, he just never tried. He maxed out at 24 3PA in a season once the option existed. It simply wasnt his game at the time. He was a good enough FT shooter that he likely would have been fine with reasonable selection and practice.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Celtics Tiny would hit 17 footers if defenders sagged off. Celtics Tiny did not have 3 point range. His Teammate Chris Ford lead the league in the first 3 point shooting percentage.

73 Tiny also did not have 3-point range (or more accurately did not demonstrate to me that he could have been a great 3-point shot if such a rule were in place at the time). I just think defenders sagged off of him more in the 70's than in the 80's since he was a much better penetrator before he was hit with age and injuries.

Defenses were sagging off Nate in 1980 pretty routinely because while he was not 1973 Nate he was still hurting defenses with drive and kick in 1980. Nate was a reluctant outside shooter in 1980 which made some sense when playing with Bird and Maxwell. But if teams were going to act like Nate could not shoot deep mid range then Nate had to knock down open shots to force them to come out and guard him.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Celtics Tiny would hit 17 footers if defenders sagged off. Celtics Tiny did not have 3 point range. His Teammate Chris Ford lead the league in the first 3 point shooting percentage.

73 Tiny also did not have 3-point range (or more accurately did not demonstrate to me that he could have been a great 3-point shot if such a rule were in place at the time). I just think defenders sagged off of him more in the 70's than in the 80's since he was a much better penetrator before he was hit with age and injuries.

I think he had rhe tools, he just never tried. He maxed out at 24 3PA in a season once the option existed. It simply wasnt his game at the time. He was a good enough FT shooter that he likely would have been fine with reasonable selection and practice.

Maybe with practice but in 1980 there was a range of long 2s that Nate always missed just beyond the edge of Nate’s shooting range.

[tsherkin]

73 Tiny also did not have 3-point range (or more accurately did not demonstrate to me that he could have been a great 3-point shot if such a rule were in place at the time). I just think defenders sagged off of him more in the 70's than in the 80's since he was a much better penetrator before he was hit with age and injuries.

I think he had rhe tools, he just never tried. He maxed out at 24 3PA in a season once the option existed. It simply wasnt his game at the time. He was a good enough FT shooter that he likely would have been fine with reasonable selection and practice.

Maybe with practice but in 1980 there was a range of long 2s that Nate always missed just beyond the edge of Nate’s shooting range.

Sure, but threes are a bit of a different beast for most players. You're talking the equivalent of an unassisted above-break 3, which is like a 33-36% shot for most players. Of course you'll remember him shooting piorly on those, most players do even today.