RealGM

Who would you prefer to draft given the following qualifications:

(a) You get them with their actual injury (and other reasons) availiblity and intangibles
(b) You get each of them in their own times with the refs, rules, and competition of those years
(c) You get them for their whole career

Hm, tough question. I think relative to their respective eras, Tiny has four seasons well above anything from Kyrie. But then outside of those four superstar seasons, he only offers you ~three low-end all-star playmaking seasons. So the question for me is can I build a championship level team around superstar Tiny in such a way that it outpaces the expected value of using Kyrie as a complementary star.

Right now I lean yes. Kyrie essentially only has three quality playoff runs on record, or maybe four if we say he could have been a good playoff performer in 2019 if he had been a second option. If Kyrie can keep this up for a few more seasons, I might flip over to him, but for now I think I am more likely to pull off a title team built around 1972-76 Tiny.

Not much of a discussion.

Both played 13 seasons. Tiny played 6,000 more minutes. That's like 2+ additional seasons of playing time.

His first decade in the league (not including an entire season that he missed) Archibald played 2800+ minutes in a season 7 times, 3000+ minutes 4 times. Irving has yet to play as much as 2800 minutes in a single season, and in 13 seasons has played more than 2300 minutes in a season just 3 times.

They're both PGs right? Irving has never thrown for even 500 assists in a season. Tiny has 7+ seasons with 500+ assists. Lead the league once, was second in the league twice, third twice.

Getting opponents into foul trouble is important, as is getting your team into the bonus quicker. Irving has never attempted more than 365 FTAs in a single season. Archibald has 3 seasons with twice that many FTAs, and 7+ seasons with 400+ FTAs. And he did this going up against some of the greatest defensive Cs in league history like Chamberlain, Thurmond, Jabbar, and Cowens, when there were just 17 teams in the league.

In just his 2nd season in the league Tiny was 2nd in the league in scoring and 3rd in assists. His 3rd season he lead the league in both.

He was all-NBA 1st team 3 times (within his first 6 years in the league), despite not being on a team that won more than 44 games in a season. Irving has yet to be named all-NBA 1st team. Had Irving not teamed up with Lebron would he have been named all-NBA while in Cleveland?

I side with Tiny here too but to be fair to Irving, (a) Tiny was racking up Iverson type numbers of shots in his best years despite the high assist totals and people tend to overrate high volume scorers and (b) his defensive value can be (isn't always but when he's focused) considerably higher than Tiny's, and (c) how many players in the modern NBA rack up those kind of minutes? Remember we are comparing in era.

I back Archibald for greatly superior playmaking and because he was a classy, positive guy to have around while Kyrie is, at best, a flake (which contributed to his much lower minutes in addition to modern era substitution patterns and injuries).

Tiny was racking up Iverson type numbers of shots in his best years despite the high assist totals and people tend to overrate high volume scorers

To be fair to Tiny his two seasons of outrageous scoring (1971-72 and 1972-73) he was one of the very best shooting PGs in the league. As a matter of fact he shot better on 2s those 2 seasons (48.7%) than did the league average C (47.3%).

Iverson was an incredibly bad shooter.

I back Archibald for greatly superior playmaking and because he was a classy, positive guy to have around

I wish people could see highlights of him from his Cincinnati Royals and Kansas City Kings days, not just Celtics highlights when he was already age 30. Playing 40 min/g, never getting tired, quicker than anyone else on the floor, and absolutely fearless going to the basket against anyone and everyone.

And not even 6' tall.

All that and class to boot.

Archibald maybe has the production peak (moreso in terms of accounting for distribution, as Irving actually has the higher PER and WS/48 peak [BPM not available for NA's best years]). Archibald played huge minutes at that point.

Kyrie has bitty injuries that keep him from playing more than 72 games in a season in addition to ...

Kyrie has openly had views that kept him off the court, had views that can make him a toxic asset.

Kyrie has, I think, asked out or worn out his welcome or burned bridges in multiple locations.

Otoh, his impact signal is ... good but not great or superstar level.


Archibald doesn't spend long as a high level production guy (contrast with Irving who has always been productive).

Otoh, don't think his defensive rep is strong.

Beyond crippling his high level peak, injuries just take him off court for a bunch of time.


For the above reasons I wouldn't relish paying or building around either man (especially with health locked in). Which isn't to say they're bad.


Regarding scoring efficiency , whilst "an incredibly bad shooter" seems harsh (both in seemingly applying shooting efficiency as the meaning of "shooter" and applying that term as a blanket to Iverson), that Archibald was at a different level in his high volume seasons is indisputable. His two best years (and best TS add years) are 255.0; 277.8 and is almost always positive, most of AI's highest volume Philly years are in the negative, quite often significantly so. This doesn't mean the principle of volume scoreres are overrated can't apply to both but NA is more efficient and more pass inclined so ... he does seem like a very good offensive engine in that league context (one can caveat about lack of impact data and incomplete boxscore - notably turnovers).

Archibald doesn't spend long as a high level production guy (contrast with Irving who has always been productive).

Tiny came back from a torn achilles (missed all of the 1977-78 season) to be the starting PG and at the age of 32 play the 2nd most minutes on the 1980-81 champion Boston Celtics. Was the starting PG on the Celtics for 3 years 1979-80 to 1981-82 ages 31-33, played the 3rd most minutes on the team, they won the most regular season games during that time. He threw for the 3rd most assists in the league those 3 years, and among all PGs in the league attempted the most FTAs.

Regarding scoring efficiency , whilst "an incredibly bad shooter" seems harsh (both in seemingly applying shooting efficiency as the meaning of "shooter" and applying that term as a blanket to Iverson)

Iverson's first 8 years in the league (1996-97 to 2003-04) he shot just 44% on 2s and 31% on 3s, an eFG% of only 44.5%. Among the 178 players that during that time attempted 1000+ FGAs and scored 10+ pts/g, his eFG% ranked 10th lowest (169th highest).

During that 8 year period of the 937 players in the league only 30 attempted more shots than Iverson missed (7143).

Would "substantively ineffective shooter" have been less harsh?

he (Archibald) does seem like a very good offensive engine in that league context

From 1971-72 to 1975-76 (even missing over 1/2 the 1973-74 season) he threw for the most assists in the league (400+ more than any other player) while also scoring the 2nd most points in the league (9586, 27.3 pts/g).

That is literally the definition of an offensive engine.

Kyrie Irving has never come close to that kind of all-around offensive production - passing, scoring, getting to the FT line.

Only intend to go one round on this.

kcktiny wrote:

Archibald doesn't spend long as a high level production guy (contrast with Irving who has always been productive).

Tiny came back from a torn achilles (missed all of the 1977-78 season) to be the starting PG and at the age of 32 play the 2nd most minutes on the 1980-81 champion Boston Celtics. Was the starting PG on the Celtics for 3 years 1979-80 to 1981-82 ages 31-33, played the 3rd most minutes on the team, they won the most regular season games during that time. He threw for the 3rd most assists in the league those 3 years, and among all PGs in the league attempted the most FTAs.

That he's injured isn't in question.

He has three seasons with (to varying degrees) a high PER and WS/48. One each having one of the two. A couple of sub-40 game seasons with one of the two.

The 80-82 Celtics spell you highlight sees him at 14.7 PER; .128 WS/48 and 0.4 BPM (12.7; .096; -0.3 in the playoffs). He's on a good team which helps the latter two (I think moreso WS/48). If you want to look at specific areas you can do so, but then he's at 3.5 TRB%, 20.1 TOV% (or given he's more a passer at this point 4.1 TOV per 100 possessions), usage is below average. And that profile can be useful with several better players but is it "a high level production guy" on the whole ... I'd say generally not.

Fwiw, in a tiny sample (so to speak), his one prime playoff run (one series against a tough defensive opponent) is pretty ugly too. Now I'm a lower playoff weighter. I think that's probably noise and a sample size issue that's outside his control but for those that way inclined that sample is pretty brutal.

kcktiny wrote:

Regarding scoring efficiency , whilst "an incredibly bad shooter" seems harsh (both in seemingly applying shooting efficiency as the meaning of "shooter" and applying that term as a blanket to Iverson)

Iverson's first 8 years in the league (1996-97 to 2003-04) he shot just 44% on 2s and 31% on 3s, an eFG% of only 44.5%. Among the 178 players that during that time attempted 1000+ FGAs and scored 10+ pts/g, his eFG% ranked 10th lowest (169th highest).

During that 8 year period of the 937 players in the league only 30 attempted more shots than Iverson missed (7143).

Would "substantively ineffective shooter" have been less harsh?

To be clear I'm not an Iverson booster. My guess is I'm lower on him than the average here, which in turn is lower than the majority of mainstream coverage and fans. That said ...

Yes it would. Though ineffective doesn't account for any benefits a such a high usage creator might generate. So still harsh.

In general though just see above.

"Shooting" isn't just efficiency. And as here it's not just efficiency from the field. Iverson getting to the line helped.

Then too, see "blanket". You've highlighted a particular spell. I have already granted "most of AI's highest volume Philly years are in the negative, quite often significantly so", I'm not sure it's necessary to repeat them back. But you make a choice to cut off at a particular point ... after that he has 4 more relevant, prime years over which he's +145.8 TS add. Not amazing but above average 3 of the 4 years, only marginally below in the other. This further suggests "an incredibly bad shooter" and even "substantively ineffective shooter" as blanket statements fail to reflect variation across context.

kcktiny wrote:

he (Archibald) does seem like a very good offensive engine in that league context

From 1971-72 to 1975-76 (even missing over 1/2 the 1973-74 season) he threw for the most assists in the league (400+ more than any other player) while also scoring the 2nd most points in the league (9586, 27.3 pts/g).

That is literally the definition of an offensive engine.

Kyrie Irving has never come close to that kind of all-around offensive production - passing, scoring, getting to the FT line.

Not quite sure where you're going with this, given the broader tone of this post. I am saying he does seem to be a really good offensive engine and pedantry about "literally the definition" aside ... I think you're just telling me something I have broadly stated.

I wasn't particularly arguing about Kyrie at this point rather regarding efficiency but fwiw, as I noted his own box peak ... just in terms of the composite scores, and not regarding distribution in the league context (which I noted would swing things back to Archibald's benefit, and as I said Archibald was on court much more at his best years ...) peak rate production Irving's 25.0 PER; .222 WS/48 actually exceeds Archibald's best. As I said I think his impact lags behind his production. Per the above post I don't particularly want to be a booster for Irving. This has come with a number of caveats. But he was capable of creating a good amount for himself and others, shooting efficiently and keeping turnovers down. I don't know for sure how best to compare fairly across eras, Archibald looks more of a standout versus his pg peers (maybe some would frame that as weaker competition?) ... I just think in terms of offensive production ... Kyrie has been pretty good.

He's on a good team

Don't you believe he was on a good team due in good part to his contributions?

And that profile can be useful with several better players but is it "a high level production guy" on the whole ... I'd say generally not.

Consider the time. Archibald started at PG those 3 seasons for the Celtics (1979-80 to 1981-82) at a time when very few PGs age 30 or older were even playing in the league let alone starting. And he was coming off an injury.

From the ages of 31-33 he played 2000+ minutes each season, and there were just 5-6 other PGs age 30+ in the rest of the league that started and played 2000 minutes in a single season those 3 years (Don Buse, Kevin Porter, John Roche, James Silas, Jojo White, and if you consider him a PG then Ron Boone too).

Was even named all-NBA 2nd team in 1980-81.

This "old" PG came back from injury and over the 3 seasons was 3rd in the league in assists and 1st among PGs in FTAs. At the ages of 31 and 32 he played in 80 games and 2864 and 2820 minutes. Did you know that at that time other than one season of Dave Bing (1975-76) there had not been a PG age 30+ played 2800 minutes in a season since 1972-73, and Archibald did so twice.

I'm thinking that's awfully good production.

Though ineffective doesn't account for any benefits a such a high usage creator might generate.

Like what? And how do those benefits offset such poor shooting?

"Shooting" isn't just efficiency. And as here it's not just efficiency from the field. Iverson getting to the line helped.

Iverson's first decade in the league he not only missed the most shots of any player (9194, 13.5 misses/g), he also committed the most turnovers (2539, 3.7 to/g). He scored 28 pts/g over 10 years.

If for every quarter your team scored 28 points, your team missed 13.5 shots and committed 3.7 turnovers, you think you'd be winning a lot of games?

But you make a choice to cut off at a particular point

In his career he shot 45% on 2s and 31% on 3s, scored 26.7 pts/g, 12.5 misses/g, 3.6 TO/g.

Again, if your team did this every quarter, you going to win a lot of games?

This further suggests "an incredibly bad shooter" and even "substantively ineffective shooter" as blanket statements fail to reflect variation across context.

Tell us, in what context is 45% on 2s, 31% on 3s, 3.6 TO/g, a good thing?

Not quite sure where you're going with this

Emphasizing your point, put numbers to it.

I think you're just telling me something I have broadly stated.

Correct. You and anyone else reading this thread. Just added the numbers.

Per the above post I don't particularly want to be a booster for Irving.

He's a great player. He's just no Tiny Archibald.