RealGM

In 82, 2nd year guard Nate "Tiny" Archibald burst onto the NBA consciousness. The following year he stepped it up from that, leading the NBA is both scoring and assists. The Kings were weak outside of Tiny and didn't make the playoffs either season but he was the most exciting player in the NBA. Sadly, he suffered injuries the next year and was never that level of player against but how does his regular season peak match up against the only other NBA small guard to average those kind of minutes and scoring numbers,

Tiny 82 -- 43.1mpg, 28.2pts/9.2ast on .572 ts% (23.0 PER, 12.9 WS, .189 WS/48)
Tiny 83 -- 46.0 mpg, 34pts/11.5ast on .555ts% (25.2 PER, 14.2 WS, .186 WS/48)

Allen Iverson. His best RS was probably 2001 but he played 500 minutes less than 83 Archibald that season. The only year he stayed healthy enough to approach that minute load was 2003 so let's look at both those seasons. His defensive impact is rated considerably higher than Tiny's, with a DWS in 01 of 4.5 and 4.2 in 03 v. Tiny 83 DWS of 0.3 (1.1 in 82)! (Turnovers weren't recorded in 73)

Iverson '01 -- 42mpg, 31.1pts, 4.6ast, .518ts%, (24.0 PER, 11.8 WS, .190 WS/48);
Iverson '03 -- 42.5mpg, 27.6pts, 5.5ast, .500ts%, (21.2 PER, 9.2 WS, .127 WS/48)

This is Archibald, by far. He's arguably top 10 offensive GOAT, at his peak.

This is Iverson by far

He is the better player that single-handily carried his team to the Nba finals and was also more clutch in the biggest moments examples being game 1 of the 2001 finals.




Unlike Nate who was nothing more than a stat padder that played on bad teams that didn't make the playoffs.

coastalmarker99 wrote:This is Iverson by far

He is the better player that single-handily carried his team to the Nba finals and was also more clutch in the biggest moments examples being game 1 of the 2001 finals.




Unlike Nate who was nothing more than a stat padder that played on bad teams that didn't make the playoffs.

He led the best offence in the league . And also Kings turned the worst offence in the league when he got injured .

Edit: His MVP statline to adjusting todays league:

31,4 PPG, 12,1 APG, %62,8 TS, per 80 Poss.

I had forgotten the Kings were the best offense in the league in 73 (with the worst defense); Philly in 91 was 13th out of 29 (with good defense, 6th). That does make a difference in evaluating their impact even if the Kings didn't go to the playoffs.

coastalmarker99 wrote:This is Iverson by far

He is the better player that single-handily carried his team to the Nba finals and was also more clutch in the biggest moments examples being game 1 of the 2001 finals.




Unlike Nate who was nothing more than a stat padder that played on bad teams that didn't make the playoffs.

Iverson was nothing but a miserable little egomaniac chucker. Most OVERRATED player of his era. I'd take Archibald by light years. I hove NO, ZERO, NADA respect for ""you talking bout practice" Iverson.

feyki wrote: Edit: His MVP statline to adjusting todays league:

31,4 PPG, 12,1 APG, %62,8 TS, per 80 Poss.

I'm not sure what you're trying to express here, but it's either not his actual per 80 possessions production or your math is way off.

His per 80 possessions averages would be 26.4 pts and 8.9 ast.
Even if we adjust those figures upward for whatever the difference in FG% is between '73 and '21, it does not come remotely close to bumping his per 80 poss figures to 31.4/12.1. (the 62.8% TS does appear an accurate reflection of his rTS%, at least).


Nonetheless, to answer OP I'm going with Tiny.

He averaged 33.0 pts and 11.1 ast per 100 possessions @ +5.7% rTS.....which is impressive enough on it's own, made more so when you realize he did this while playing a whopping 46.0 mpg.
A 34.0/11.4 statline is also extra-impressive when one further realizes it came while anchoring the #1 offense in the league with Sam Lacey as his 2nd-best player.

Tiny had 44.5% of his team's total WS (even '87 Jordan had only 37.9% of his team's).

Even in light of era, that's super-impressive.

trex_8063 wrote:

feyki wrote: Edit: His MVP statline to adjusting todays league:

31,4 PPG, 12,1 APG, %62,8 TS, per 80 Poss.

I'm not sure what you're trying to express here, but it's either not his actual per 80 possessions production or your math is way off.

His per 80 possessions averages would be 26.4 pts and 8.9 ast.
Even if we adjust those figures upward for whatever the difference in FG% is between '73 and '21, it does not come remotely close to bumping his per 80 poss figures to 31.4/12.1. (the 62.8% TS does appear an accurate reflection of his rTS%, at least).

I have 27,5 PP80 and 9,3 AP80, and adjust it with %50 to %57 TS and %16,7 to %12,5 TOrate; then you have 31/12. Not the quantum physics .

trex_8063 wrote:

feyki wrote: Edit: His MVP statline to adjusting todays league:

31,4 PPG, 12,1 APG, %62,8 TS, per 80 Poss.

I'm not sure what you're trying to express here, but it's either not his actual per 80 possessions production or your math is way off.

I think he adjusted the shots per 80 to current-day efficiency, and probably did something similar for the assists. It does make sense.

Iverson did play in a stronger defensive era too so that should be taken into account but those two years of Tiny blow away Iverson's best two years offensively -- pre-injury Tiny was a better finisher AND a much better playmaker. To make the case for Iverson you have to weigh era differential and AI's defensive impact quite highly.

countryboy667 wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:This is Iverson by far

He is the better player that single-handily carried his team to the Nba finals and was also more clutch in the biggest moments examples being game 1 of the 2001 finals.




Unlike Nate who was nothing more than a stat padder that played on bad teams that didn't make the playoffs.

Iverson was nothing but a miserable little egomaniac chucker. Most OVERRATED player of his era. I'd take Archibald by light years. I hove NO, ZERO, NADA respect for ""you talking bout practice" Iverson.

The man never took a play off during the game, unlike some of the stars we see today.

coastalmarker99 wrote:This is Iverson by far

He is the better player that single-handily carried his team to the Nba finals and was also more clutch in the biggest moments examples being game 1 of the 2001 finals.




Unlike Nate who was nothing more than a stat padder that played on bad teams that didn't make the playoffs.

Iverson gets more credit for a single finals run on a team that won with great defense and in which he chucked and stat padded like a playground bully than any other player in history. Iverson wasn't clutch in those playoffs, he was a hot and cold player that when hot, could shoot you into games that you wouldn't otherwise win and, when cold, could shoot you out of games that you should have won easily. Remember that his playoff shooting numbers (and this is a guy where 95% of his value is his scoring) were only a .480 ts% in 2001 and a .489 ts% career. That's well below league average and a significant dropoff from even his own numbers (.518 in both 01 RS and RS career). That's not clutch, that's a chucker.

He was fearless, like Russell Westbrook without the rebounding or playmaking, and if was great fun to watch the little guy attacking through a lane full of defenders a foot taller than he was. That was cool. Of course, that was also pre-injury Tiny Archibald's style, he like to drive in among the trees but was both a better finisher and a better drive and dish guy doing so and he was known for his ridiculous motor as well. Safe to say very few guys make at at 6' nothing or smaller in the NBA without having a tremendous drive and motor, it's still a big man's league.

SkyHookFTW wrote:

countryboy667 wrote:

coastalmarker99 wrote:This is Iverson by far

He is the better player that single-handily carried his team to the Nba finals and was also more clutch in the biggest moments examples being game 1 of the 2001 finals.




Unlike Nate who was nothing more than a stat padder that played on bad teams that didn't make the playoffs.

Iverson was nothing but a miserable little egomaniac chucker. Most OVERRATED player of his era. I'd take Archibald by light years. I hove NO, ZERO, NADA respect for ""you talking bout practice" Iverson.

The man never took a play off during the game, unlike some of the stars we see today.

I have respected that about Iverson that despite playing banged up and hurt for his career he always suited up for the fans and tried his guts out on the court and left everything out there.





And about this topic, Iverson 2001 season where he won the Mvp and took a game off one of the top ten teams in history in the finals is better than Archibald entire career in which he padded his stats on bad teams that couldn't even make the playoffs in the weakest era in Nba history.

I think a player that leads his team to the best offense in the league can't legitimately be called out for padding his stats at the expense of his team by anyone looking at this with even a shred of objectivity. You can call him out for not playing defense or look at his teammates and wonder why the Royals/Kings were unable to get even a minimally competent PF for a decade after Jerry Lucas. But calling this stat padding is just denying reality or a failure to understand what the word generally means.

How can you be so high on Wilt and call 1973 the weakest era in NBA history at the same time?

Second weakest, the 50s were weaker. And Wilt's career was ending; he showed he was a great player during the much stronger era of the early to mid 60s before the great expansion of teams made the average talent appreciably weaker.

feyki wrote:

trex_8063 wrote:

feyki wrote: Edit: His MVP statline to adjusting todays league:

31,4 PPG, 12,1 APG, %62,8 TS, per 80 Poss.

I'm not sure what you're trying to express here, but it's either not his actual per 80 possessions production or your math is way off.

His per 80 possessions averages would be 26.4 pts and 8.9 ast.
Even if we adjust those figures upward for whatever the difference in FG% is between '73 and '21, it does not come remotely close to bumping his per 80 poss figures to 31.4/12.1. (the 62.8% TS does appear an accurate reflection of his rTS%, at least).

I have 27,5 PP80 and 9,3 AP80, and adjust it with %50 to %57 TS and %16,7 to %12,5 TOrate; then you have 31/12. Not the quantum physics .

I see. Still, couple things.....

Not sure how you're rounding off or where, but while the 27.5/9.3 are close(ish), they are NOT quite correct. Again, his actual averages are 26.4 PP80 and 8.9 AP80.
The adjustment [on pts] with 50% to 57% is basically right. I guess I'd forgotten how low league-avg TS% was in the early 70s; I was assuming it was around 51%, but specifically within '73 it was just 49.8% [vs. 57.1% this year]. So it's actually a pretty sizeable [+7.3% adjustment].

But again: off of 26.4 PP80, not 27.5 (comes to 30.3 era-adjusted PP80, fwiw).


wrt the adjustment on assists, I think your methodology is grossly inappropriate.
For one, we don't know what the TOV% of '73 was, because they weren't yet recording turnovers in the NBA. I thought perhaps you were using the TOV% from '74 [nearest year], but that was 16.5%. Avg TOV% in the ABA in '73 was 15.3%, fwiw.

But more importantly, assist rates don't have some reliable inverse relationship with TOV% [which has NEVER factored assists into it's calculation] anyway.

That TS% and ORtg's are higher than ever does not necessarily correlate well with increased assists [or at any rate, it's far from a linear relationship].
The biggest factor related to rising TS% and ORtg's is the proficiency behind the 3pt line [50% more pts per make, but same # of assist recorded].

If you were to use anything to estimate an appropriate adjustment, I would suggest getting an estimate of avg Ast/100, and weight it against the current rate.
I haven't figured an exact estimate for '73, but the median team in '74 avg 22.8 Ast/100. The median team today avg 24.7.

That would adjust 8.9 [not 9.3] up to 9.6, as an example.

Your adjustment would have the AVERAGE team in the league today averaging >30 Ast/100, for example.......which is far and away higher than what even the BEST team in the league is managing.


So with more accurate and realistic adjustments, we'd be talking about 30.3 adj PP80 and 9.6 adj AP80.......not 31.4/12.1.
Not quantum physics, but accuracy is still important for these discussions to move forward in meaningful ways.

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

Not a lot since the Kings weren't on TV much and I wasn't yet a Bullets season ticket holder but yeah, I watched him probably 3-4 times in those two years.

Not that it matter much in terms of evaluation. It was a half century ago and it's not like the memories are that strong or my fan watching of him was analytical.

penbeast0 wrote:Second weakest, the 50s were weaker. And Wilt's career was ending; he showed he was a great player during the much stronger era of the early to mid 60s before the great expansion of teams made the average talent appreciably weaker.

There is a reason why the 71 Bucks and 72 Lakers and 73 Celtics won almost 70 games each season and that's because they all got to feast on the expansion of teams that made the average of talent weaker then the 1960's plus the ABA at the time was also stealing talent away from the Nba which you have too account for.



West and Wilt have both said in interviews that they thought the 1972 Lakers should have won 75 to 76 regular-season games that year instead of 69 and to be quite honest they were not wrong.