RealGM 2017 Top 100 #91 (Tim Hardaway)

[trex_8063]

Thru post #20:

Tim Hardaway - 1 (pandrade83)
Jack Sikma - 1 (trex_8063)
Mookie Blaylock - 1 (dhsilv2)
Tiny Archibald - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Vlade Divac - 1 (SactoKingsFan)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)

Based on secondary votes, Timmy and Mookie are the only two who received any. So we'll move to runoff between those two:

Tim Hardaway - 2 (pandrade83, SactoKingsFan)
Mookie Blaylock - 1 (dhsilv2)


If your name isn't shown ^^^here, please state your pick between these two with reasons why.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote: Tim Hardaway

I’ll give hardaway the nod here. As I was taking a closer look at tiny, I saw a lot of parallels between their careers. Hardaway was a dynamic PG in his prime who did make a full return after a season ending injury, which by no means is easy to do. He had to re-invent his game a bit post injury, but still had some effective years beyond that.

[Outside]

Runoff vote: Mookie Blaylock

For some reason, probably lack of familiarity, I didn't have Mookie in the mix when I did a spitball ranking to start the project. He wasn't even in the 25 guys I had outside my top 100.

But the arguments others have made for him have swayed me. Everyone is so close at this point, but I particularly value defense, and besides being a decent scorer and good assist guy, Mookie is a defender. Guys who bring value to both ends are worth more than the sum of the offensive and defensive parts.

Hardaway in his was a level better offensively than Mookie, both as a scorer and playmaker, and he did a great job coming back from injury, but it ultimately caught up with him. Mookie maintained his prime for longer, and that plus defense tips the scales in his favor.

[trex_8063]

Run-off vote: Tim Hardaway

Sorry to his supporters, but I'm just not sold on Mookie this high quite yet. His offensive game just looks too questionable. I know a PG doesn't necessarily have to be an effective or efficient scorer to be a positive on offense, but Mookie never struck me as one of the most elite passer/playmakers of his own era, nor do I remember him being uniquely capable of breaking down defenses to create easy scoring opportunities for teammates.
And meanwhile, his shooting efficiency isn't just mediocre-poor......it's often startlingly poor. He basically averaged about -5% rTS for his career (his "bad" seasons were more like -8%). People have ragged on the shooting efficiency of guys like Bob Cousy and Isiah Thomas.....but Mookie's effciency makes those guys look like Steve Nash. Obviously I'm being a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I'm saying; for example: Bob Cousy's single-worst season in terms of rTS% (his final season) is basically equal to Mookie's career average rTS%.
Atlanta had a few decent offenses (though never elite) with Blaylock marshalling the troops; but they also had some good (underrated, imo, especially Smith) offensive pieces in guys like Steve Smith and Christian Laettner.


I don't doubt that Mookie likely moved the needle defensively about as well as any PG has during his prime. How much that is (bigs vs PG's defensively and all...), idk. But I'm just not ready to take that over Tim Hardaway (an OK defender in his own right), who was heads and tails better offensively.

And whereas a longevity edge had previously been mentioned for Mookie, I'm not really seeing it. Mookie's got an edge of 22 rs games (<500 minutes, iirc). And whereas Timmy was legitimately into his prime by his 2nd season and still a "good" player as late as '01 (just his final 1+ seasons relatively ineffectual), Mookie took until at least his fourth season to hit his prime.

[penbeast0]

I like watching Mookie better but, all else aside, he was never a particularly effective playmaker. I enjoyed the defense but he was more a pest (and a damned good one) than a shut down defender and Hardaway was a willing defender as well. Didn't like Hardaway's shot selection, he often went for flashy over fundamental and his shooting efficiency was also unimpressive (though better) but if I am putting together a team and need something more than a minimal 3 and D from my PG, I'd take Timmy first. If 3 and D is enough though; Mookie is one of the best you could get.

RUNOFF VOTE: TIM HARDAWAY

[dhsilv2]

Just a note on Mookie, but this is a guy who peaked at 9.7 assists per game on 2.4 turnovers or 13.8 and 3.4 per 100. I think his play making while note great, was a bit better than people are giving him credit for, and his turnover numbers are really stellar. 3.7 steals per game while only turning it over 3.4, that's a seriously impactful difference.

For his career he is at 3.5 steals per 100 to 3.4 turnovers. Even stockton who is also career 3.5 turnovers per 100 is at 4.2 turnovers.

Mookie also managed to avoid fouls. For his career he is at 2.8 PF per 100 despite his aggressive defensive style.

I rarely get into turnovers, fouls, and steals in these comparisons...honestly rarely do players really jump out as shocking outliers, but here the stats are impressive.

[trex_8063]

Just a note on Mookie, but this is a guy who peaked at 9.7 assists per game on 2.4 turnovers or 13.8 and 3.4 per 100. I think his play making while note great, was a bit better than people are giving him credit for, and his turnover numbers are really stellar. 3.7 steals per game while only turning it over 3.4, that's a seriously impactful difference.

For his career he is at 3.5 steals per 100 to 3.4 turnovers. Even stockton who is also career 3.5 turnovers per 100 is at 4.2 turnovers.

Mookie also managed to avoid fouls. For his career he is at 2.8 PF per 100 despite his aggressive defensive style.

I rarely get into turnovers, fouls, and steals in these comparisons...honestly rarely do players really jump out as shocking outliers, but here the stats are impressive.

His turnover economy is indeed very good, though I wouldn't go so far as to suggest "shocking outlier", and it really isn't something to differentiate him from Hardaway. His modified TOV%----TO/[TO+(2*Ast)+TSA+(0.04*Rebs)]----is basically the same as Tim Hardaway's, and only marginally better than that of Mo Cheeks or John Stockton:

Blaylock career rs: 7.83%
Timmy career rs: 7.93%
Stockton career rs: 8.13%
Cheeks career rs: 8.15%

Chris Paul is "shocking outlier": career rs (thru '17)--->6.30%.

[dhsilv2]

Just a note on Mookie, but this is a guy who peaked at 9.7 assists per game on 2.4 turnovers or 13.8 and 3.4 per 100. I think his play making while note great, was a bit better than people are giving him credit for, and his turnover numbers are really stellar. 3.7 steals per game while only turning it over 3.4, that's a seriously impactful difference.

For his career he is at 3.5 steals per 100 to 3.4 turnovers. Even stockton who is also career 3.5 turnovers per 100 is at 4.2 turnovers.

Mookie also managed to avoid fouls. For his career he is at 2.8 PF per 100 despite his aggressive defensive style.

I rarely get into turnovers, fouls, and steals in these comparisons...honestly rarely do players really jump out as shocking outliers, but here the stats are impressive.

His turnover economy is indeed very good, though I wouldn't go so far as to suggest "shocking outlier", and it really isn't something to differentiate him from Hardaway. His modified TOV%----TO/[TO+(2*Ast)+TSA+(0.04*Rebs)]----is basically the same as Tim Hardaway's, and only marginally better than that of Mo Cheeks or John Stockton:

Blaylock career rs: 7.83%
Timmy career rs: 7.93%
Stockton career rs: 8.13%
Cheeks career rs: 8.15%

Chris Paul is "shocking outlier": career rs (thru '17)--->6.30%.

If we were JUST talking about turnovers, I would agree. However more steals per game than turnovers? And from a primary ball handler?

[trex_8063]

In steals, Mookie is definitely an outlier.

fwiw, as far as averaging more steals than turnovers: Mo Cheeks has a career Stl:TO ratio of 1.0185 (Blaylock's is 1.0039).

[dhsilv2]

Cheeks and Mookie certainly are very similar players imo. Cheeks imo was a bit better offensive player. I tend to value Mookie's on ball defense more.

As for the turnover percentage, I'm not saying that formula isn't a good one, it is. I would point out that simply being in absolute terms a lower turnover player has some value perhaps not capture there. After all the act of taking the ball up the court doesn't get taken into account in the ratio and I'm not sure what the "impact" of that is. Higher scoring point guards as a result I think get a bit of a "discount".

Anyway the real point is I think the points that Mookie was a poor TS% guy is very fair, but his low turnover numbers are especially meaningful.

Anyway either guy imo is fine here. I think I leaned towards Mookie more just because he's less remembered and thought of, as Cheeks, Timmy, and Porter all are pretty much even with mookie in my view.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #30:

Tim Hardaway - 5 (penbeast0, trex_8063, Clyde Frazier, pandrade83, SactoKingsFan)
Mookie Blaylock - 2 (Outside, dhsilv2)


Calling it for Timmy. Will have the next up in a minute.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Chris Paul 23 and Tim Hardaway 91. I love their games. I loved Nate Archibald and all the little guys who could weave their way through the big trees and finish off the back board or pass to an open man. Classic point guards. If they could hit 3s even better.

Without looking at stats or who is inbetween Chris Paul and Tim Hardaway my memory does not have them being so far apart in talent. But I remember Warriors Hardaway and others may be remembering not quite as quick Miami Hardaway.