RealGM

PG: Tim Hardaway, Mark Price, and maybe Mookie Blaylock are the players I'm looking at . . . should mention Penny Hardaway though he never impressed me as much as he did the TV guys of his day.

Forwards: Marques Johnson has the most impressive peak. Bailey Howell and Bob Dandridge also come to mind. Paul Silas impressed me defensively and in terms of anecdotal stories about leadership.

Bigs: Amare Stoudamire and Jerry Lucas bring great scoring and rebounding respectively but defensive questions (Neil Johnston maybe even better numbers in the weak 50s but defensively questionable too). Bill Walton has the highest peak (though that's it for true career value -- 1 year then failed to stay healthy to the playoffs the next and 1 year as a reserve role player). Maybe Yao Ming should get a mention too.

My pick is CHRIS MULLIN. Consistent and efficient scorer, excellent range, smart "coach on the floor" type player, fit himself into multiple systems. Downside is that he's a pretty one way player and not that athletic.

Leaning mullin as well. Busy at work today, so I'll take another look at my list tonight and put in a vote.

Vote: Chris Mullin

I'll go with Mullin since my other top candidate (Kemp) isn't really getting any traction. Mullin had a short prime and wasn't much of a defender, but he was an elite offensive player (very efficient and crafty scorer, pure shooter, excellent passer) with high BBIQ. Also had some good post prime seasons with Warriors and Pacers.

Mullin had an elite 5 year stretch from 89-93:

PER GAME
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:per_game

PER 100
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:per_poss

ADVANCED
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:advanced

Only jordan and barkley put up at least 25/5/4 during that span.

Vote for #93: Jerry Lucas.

Per 100 Possessions and Relative TS%
'64: 17.7 pts, 17.4 reb, 2.6 ast @ +9.37% rts
'65: 20.5 pts, 19.1 reb, 2.3 ast @ +7.26% rts
'66: 19.2 pts, 18.9 reb, 2.4 ast @ +1.24% rts
'67: 16.4 pts, 17.6 reb, 3.0 ast @ +1.48% rts
'68: 20.4 pts, 18.1 reb, 2.9 ast @ +6.75% rts
'69: 18.6 pts, 18.6 reb, 4.2 ast @ +9.88% rts
'70: 17.2 pts, 16.2 reb, 3.0 ast @ +4.32% rts
'71: 20.0 pts, 16.5 reb, 3.8 ast @ +4.37% rts
'72: 19.5 pts, 15.4 reb, 4.8 ast @ +4.41% rts
'73: 15.9 pts, 11.6 reb, 7.2 ast @ +4.18% rts
'74: 13.0 pts, 10.7 reb, 6.6 ast, 0.8 stl, 0.7 blk @ -2.37% rts

Extended Prime of Jerry Lucas ('64-'72)--685 rs games
Rough cumulative Per 100 poss: 18.5 to 19.0 pts, 17.5 reb, 3.0+ ast @ +5.18% rts
PER 19.3, .147 WS/48 in a whopping 41.6 mpg over that span


His scoring volume during his prime---on a per 100 basis---is basically average for the era, however on impressive shooting efficiency that ranged from "fairly good" to "hyper-elite" (was "excellent" overall for his prime). His rebounding per 100 numbers are fairly elite-level for a PF (or PF/C), especially considering the huge minutes.
Caveat in his game: his defense. He doesn't hold a particularly good reputation in that regard.

While he doesn't carry on playing a bunch of role player years, the length of (and durability within) his prime is pretty good, especially for the era.


Aside from one terrible series in '67, and a sort of meh playoff run his rookie year, he otherwise brought his A-game in the playoffs during his prime, too.
Prime Lucas Playoff adv metrics
PER 17.0, .103 WS/48 in big 42.9 mpg

Take out that one bad series in '67 (4 games), and it goes:
PER 17.4, .117 WS/48 in 42.6 mpg

Take out rookie year playoff run (10 games), too, and the remaining 30 playoff games of his prime look like this:
PER 18.5, .138 WS/48 in whopping 44.5 mpg

*Was a key player (anywhere from 2nd-best to key role player) on two Knick teams that made a finals appearance (winning one).
*Twice finished in the top 10 in the MVP vote (once in the top 5).
*He's 80th in NBA history in career WS (actually, was 77th prior to the start of the 2014/15 season).
*8-Time NBA All-Star (once MVP of that game), 3-Time All-NBA 1st Team, 2-Time All-NBA 2nd Team


He's a totally reasonable candidate at this point, like how his offensive skill-set translates to the modern game, too. May as well stick with him since he's already garnered a run-off.
Could be very happy supporting Bellamy, or perhaps McGinnis, too.
Mullin is a reasonable candidate at this point, too, but I personally rank Lucas higher.

The closer look I had at Howell last thread makes him more intriguing to me as well.

On the topic of Walt Bellamy (as I could easily get behind him here; another excellent candidate at this point, can he get some love?):

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSYtYGYxBFk[/youtube]

Good look at sort of early post-prime version of Bellamy (copied from other recent thread), and he still looks pretty good. Not too impressive defensively, from what we can see in this; not necessarily "bad", but just not impressive either (more or less fits with his reputation). Offensively, though, he still looks very very effective, even this relatively late-career picture of him: works the pick-n-roll well, nice soft hands, can finish at the rim, hit open mid-range shots, nice soft jumper from <10 ft, makes his FT's, etc.

Can re-post my stuff regarding his Per 100 numbers and relative TS% (which was pretty impressive).

Vote for #94 - Chris Mullin

Another busy day, so just wanted to make sure i got my vote in. One of the more impressive 5 year stretches in the modern era as I noted above. Solid longevity albeit rocky durability later in his career. Not a bad playoff resume all things considered (warriors really fell apart mid 90s from a management standpoint). Solid contributor in more limited min for the pacers deeper playoff runs at the end of his career. As noted by others, really complete player who could do a little bit of everything, and score on volume with great efficiency from just about anywhere.

Vote: Chris Mullin

There's a reason he made it on the Dream Team. Portable, smart, selfless, skilled, consistent...he had it all. Because of his skillset, he was able to have some excellent role player seasons after his hellacious prime, adding to his longevity.

Man, in his prime...great shooter and scorer. Efficient, spreads the floor, can score from anywhere. Good passer, too. Wasn't a chucker. I'm cool with Mullin in the top-100.

Yeah... i'm a real sucker for pure shooters

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch98u3KRfDg[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHg736-JiWQ[/youtube]

trex_8063 wrote:On the topic of Walt Bellamy (as I could easily get behind him here; another excellent candidate at this point, can he get some love?):
....

Can you do a comparison of him with the other relatively weak defense bigs that have been getting mentions: Neil Johnston, Jerry Lucas, and Amare Stoudamire . . . and Spencer Haywood too if you think he belongs there.

Vote: Chris Mullin

Mully seems like a worthy candidate. Sidney Moncrief went in at 66, and he only had 5 relevant seasons. Mullin's longevity is better. I think that Moncrief was slightly better in his prime, because of the huge defensive gap, but Mullin was better offensively. Moncrief and Mullin should be ranked much closer to each other, now that I'm looking at it again.

Absolutely great shooter, scorer (averaged 25.8 PPG on 60.2% TS between '89 and '93), good offensive impact (+4.1 OBPM in the same stretch of time), better passer than his APG numbers indicate, excellent off-ball player, but capable of creating his own shot off the dribble, as well. Very crafty player. More or less like a less athletic version of Harden. Slightly below average defender, but not a major liability (really poor 1 on 1 defender, but solid team/help D). Poor man's, "pocket" Larry Bird would be a decent comparison, too.

Walt Bellamy might be a worthy candidate, too (I even voted for him once, around 82 or 83) but I have little faith in his impact. Seems like boxsore numbers really overrate him. Still, I'll probably vote for Bellamy pretty soon, because at least his boxscore production is impressive, and so is his longevity.

With 5 minutes left, looks like Chris Mullin with a walk off win.