RealGM 2017 Top 100 #93 (Billy Cunningham)

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Tiny Archibald

Vote 2 - Jerry Lucas

- 13 year career
- 5x All NBA (3 1st, 2 2nd)
- 2 top 5 and 3 top 10 MVP finishes
- Only player to ever lead league in scoring and assists (per 100 he still measures as elite, especially for his era)

His ability to get to the line was pretty special for someone his size. He has a career FT rate of .456 with 5 seasons over .500. His prime basically lasted 6 seasons, but he was highly productive and efficient:

Per game: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/architi01.html#1972-1977-sum:per_game

Advanced: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/architi01.html#1972-1977-sum:advanced

The lack of playoff success before Boston leaves something to be desired, but he wasn’t exactly on teams rich with talent, either. He was an important piece for the celtics for a few seasons, and played a big role in their 81 title run. His transition into that role post prime / injury is impressive to me.

Even though we should take anecdotal commentary on players with a grain of salt, i always find it rewarding to look back at them for players before my time. In clips from the Sports Illustrated article below, we see a dominant guard who was a precursor to the plethora of drive and kick PGs we see in the NBA today.

Archibald was one of the smallest players to come into the NBA in years, being listed at a bit over six feet and weighing about 150 pounds. He had speed, but the trend was to big guards. The first time that Cincinnati Coach Bob Cousy and General Manager Joe Axel-son met Archibald at a Memphis motel they mistook him for a bellboy. Now Cousy says he might quit the Kings—the team was renamed upon being shifted to Kansas City-Omaha last year—if he ever were to lose Archibald.

- - - - -

[Former teammate Norm Van Lier] “The brother's mean, man. He comes to play every day and he does it to death. I don't believe there is anything he can't do, and his moves are inexhaustible. He'll stand out there 25 to 30 feet away from the basket dribbling. It looks so easy to go up and take the ball away, right? Wrong. Nate's just baiting you. He wants you to make a move for the ball because when you do, you're all his."

"Nate's one of the most unselfish players in the game," says Chicago's Bob Love. "I've seen him go a whole quarter without shooting, and he still killed us whistling those passes in underneath. The fact he led the league in assists explains his unselfishness. If anything, he's underrated."

- - - - -

Archibald's style has altered the order of the NBA. Once the behemoths were the intimidators; now they find themselves helpless as Archibald bears in on them. "I feel like I can draw a foul most every time," he says. "You would think that the big man has an advantage, but I would say I have it, because he has his arms up high and he has to come down on you. I get shots blocked, but not very often, because I don't just shoot a layup. I go right at the big man and make him commit himself, then I make my move." Nowadays many of the league's top teams have a small guard.

"Nate has added an extra dimension to the game," says Portland Guard Charlie Davis. "Cousy and them could clear out the ball, pass it, but there's never been one like Nate who could set those dudes up, score and pass." Says Jerry West, "He looks like a high school kid and plays like a superstar. One step and he's at full speed and gone." When asked if Archibald's "dominance" of the ball could hurt Kansas City, Oscar Robertson looked incredulous, then responded drily, "The only way his style could hurt them is if he played against them.”

https://www.si.com/vault/1973/10/15/618390/tiny-does-very-big-things

Highlights (music NSFW):

Watch on YouTube

[Outside]

So to do a sort of reset, I took a look at six guys: Mookie Blaylock, Mitch Richmond, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, Connie Hawkins, and Joe Dumars. Comparisons are difficult with players who played different positions and span multiple eras, but looking at the various guys left, these were the guys who I thought most likely to be viable candidates for me.

The first thing that stands out is longevity. Connie Hawkins and Billy Cunningham are both well under 30K minutes while the other four are over that mark, a couple of them substantially so. Hawkins has only 22K minutes, and looking at his other stats, I don't see enough to make up for that deficit, so he's my first elimination. Cunningham has just under 27K minutes, which puts him on the edge, but he's in for now.

Cunningham and Richmond have the edge in scoring, both at 21 PPG, while Chet Walker is a credible 18 PPG and Dumars is 16. Mookie trails here at only 13.5.

In shooting efficiency, Richmond and Dumars are the leaders at 55 TS%, Chet is 54%, Cunningham is 51%, and Mookie is 49%. Those are good numbers for Richmond and Dumars, but Walker might be the most impressive of the bunch relative to era average. The 49% for Mookie on the lowest scoring average is not good.

Rebounding obviously varies greatly due to positional differences, but a few things stand out -- Billy's excellent 10.4 TRB and 14.2 TRB%, Chet's very good 7.1 TRB and somewhat less impressive 8.7 TRB%, and Dumars shockingly low 2.2 TRB and 3.6 TRB%. A clear win for Cunningham here.

Assists also vary due to position/role. Blaylock leads with 6.7 APG and a very good 30.9 AST%, Dumars trails in both categories, and Walker is last in both categories by a significant amount. I could attempt to explain away Walker's deficiencies in this area due to the stingier allocation of assists in earlier eras, but Cunningham's career basically parallels Walker's, and he has double the assist average and almost double the assist percentage. Dumars does okay considering that Isiah was the primary playmaker. Cunningham again looks very good.

In steals, Mookie is excellent in both average and percentage, Cunningham again shows well but this is only for his last season in the ABA, and Chet bottoms out the list, but steals weren't recorded until his last two seasons. The surprise is that Dumars is second to last in both average and percentage.

Blocks isn't a relevant category for this group.

Defense is the toughest area to assess. I know that Mookie and Dumars were very good defenders, but I'm not sure how to assess the other guys. My sense is that Walker at his peak was a good defender, but I don't know how consistently he met that mark over his career. I don't have a good handle on Richmond and Cunningham as defenders.

Advanced metrics on BBRef like BPM and VORP are problematic because some information wasn't available for most seasons for Walker and Cunningham. Walker does lead the group by a significant margin in WS and WS/48. RAPM isn't useful for this group since most of them played prior to data being available.

When it comes to playoffs, it's a bit of a mix. Mookie's scoring goes up slightly, but his shooting efficiency goes down to a bad 47.4 TS%. Cunningham and Richmond lead the group in scoring, but Richmond maintains his efficiency while Cunnigham's drops significantly. Dumars maintains or raises his numbers, and he does it while leading the group in PS games played (112). Walker also maintains very good scoring and rebounding averages for 105 games. Richmond has good numbers, but in only 23 games, none of it on deep runs.

Geez, these guys don't want to make it easy. Every one of them has categories in their favor, and they all have categories where they're weak. On balance, I'm going to go with Billy Cunningham because his production and performance is very good in multiple categories. His biggest weakness is longevity, but he's on the low end of acceptable for me. The biggest question mark in my mind is defense, so if someone can provide info on that, that could either confirm my vote or lead me to consider changing it.

Vote: Billy Cunningham
Alternate: Chet Walker

[trex_8063]

Thru post #22:

Chet Walker - 1 (trex_8063)
Tiny Archibald - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Billy Cunningham - 1 (Outside)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Mookie Blaylock - 1 (pandrade83)

The final heads up; about 15 hours left to get your picks in. Really hoping for one or two more votes which might allow us to narrow the runoff down a bit.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[penbeast0]

And, right now, Walker and Walton are the only ones with 1st and alternative votes (Jerry Lucas has two alternatives but no firsts).

[SactoKingsFan]

And, right now, Walker and Walton are the only ones with 1st and alternative votes (Jerry Lucas has two alternatives but no firsts).

I'm only seeing the alternate vote for Walton.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[trex_8063]

And, right now, Walker and Walton are the only ones with 1st and alternative votes (Jerry Lucas has two alternatives but no firsts).

Thank you for stating this, as it sort of alerted me (in a "that doesn't sound right" kind of way) that I'd mis-reported the vote. I'd for some reason listed pandrade83's alternate vote as his pick. His primary vote is for Mookie (the alternate vote for Walton you're referring to is his, but Walton doesn't actually have a 1st place vote). Edited above.

[pandrade83]

And, right now, Walker and Walton are the only ones with 1st and alternative votes (Jerry Lucas has two alternatives but no firsts).

Thank you for stating this, as it sort of alerted me (in a "that doesn't sound right" kind of way) that I'd mis-reported the vote. I'd for some reason listed pandrade83's alternate vote as his pick. His primary vote is for Mookie (the alternate vote for Walton you're referring to is his, but Walton doesn't actually have a 1st place vote). Edited above.

I talked about Walton more & first because

A) I've talked about Mookie a good amount
B) Walton has a historical value that I think is important to capture somewhere in this project

[SactoKingsFan]

Primary: Vlade Divac
Divac is still my top candidate. One of the more underrated defensive bigs with impact metrics suggesting he was a legit defensive anchor. All-time great passing from a center with some shooting range and solid low post scoring. Known for high BBIQ and good leadership qualities.

Alt: Billy Cunningham
For my secondary vote I'm going with Cunningham out of all the guys with some support. Very good all around player with decent longevity. Cunningham had exception BBIQ and was super athletic. Provided very effective scoring, good defense, excellent rebounding for SF and had some playmaking ability. Wasn't a great shooter but had range out to 16-17 feet. Key role player on one of the GOAT teams in 67.



Dave DeBusschere is also worth a look if you don't already have him in the mix.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[dhsilv2]

Vote Mookie

Leonard and Walter have better peaks. Both are too short of careers for me for this spot. That said Mookie gives me one of the best peaks left and is a unicorn level player. He also sings to my high value skills and I'll touch this slightly.


My high Value skills
1. Elite shooting. This isn't Mookie but it is imo the most impactful skill if you're ELITE. That said this isn't linear, a good shooter is nice to have. AN elite shooter is a game changer.
2. Passing. To me passing is the best skill for a non elite skilled player. It's much more linear with a nice peaked value after a point. As a player gets better as a passer their value just keeps going up and it's a steeper curve.
3. team defense.
4. Man defense.
5. shot creation. This is where I'm really far off the majority. most would value this first. I believe there are far more players able to create offense than people seem to believe. Having this skill with the above and imo compound value. I'm fine if people disagree but this is my value system.

While the above isn't a well thought out piece, but it's a rough light view, I'm sure there's more going on in my head. Anyway Mookie hits a lot of value points here in a way that i'd expect in this range. He a really really good passer, elite man defender, good to great team defender, and he's got more shot creation power.

Now I know Trex is pushing this idea that we should question Mookie because his TS% is pretty awful. Clearly creating spacing isn't a value add from Mookie, but we have WS (loves TS%), VORP, PER (looks at TS% closely), and RAPM (should capture everything to a degree) and they all tell us that Mookie's peak is pretty darn good for this range and he was good for multiple years. So yes he can't shoot, but he adds value everywhere else.

We've already discussed Cheeks, but there really aren't any other players outside of the really top tier guys (Kidd/Payton) who are long long ago entries. Over the history of the game Mookie might be the best defensive point guard. I'm going to generally give Kidd and Payton the edge....maybe Paul. Though my personally I think Kidd and Mookie are the best two defensive points of all time. There aren't 20 defensive point guard who can move a team defense meaningfully for the better.

Alt Tiny

OK so full disclosure. I had Divac next on my list. WIth all the Sikma votes I actually thought after a quick look at him, that I'd vote for him. I figured I'd just get this vote over with, vote for him, and I'd be completely good with it. The problem is he's a guy I've seen minimal footage of so I could in my mind visualize him as better than he was. So I watched a few video clips and then I did the analysis I posted earlier. Hrere's the thing....if I have for him I have to have Laimbeer and Divac as my top 3 after Mookie. I just can't see there being a gap between those 3 beyond a point as they're all so clearly similar.

Now I saw a good bit of Divac and he was pretty good and I liked him a lot. I also have seen a good amount of Laimbeer games and I never thought that highly of him.

So after that thought I'm back to Tiny who's got a staggering peak offensive peak. As a peak guy Tiny has a case and his career length is just long enough to let me put him here. I can drill in more if there's any discussion here, but for now I'll stop it here.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #29:

Mookie Blaylock - 2 (dhsilv2, pandrade83)
Chet Walker - 1 (trex_8063)
Tiny Archibald - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Billy Cunningham - 1 (Outside)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Vlade Divac - 1 (SactoKingsFan)


So Blaylock is in the runoff. Mel and Vlade are the only single-vote recipients who did NOT also receive a 2ndary vote. So they will be eliminated from the runoff.
As per protocol modifications of 1/6/18 (pertaining to runoffs with four [or more] players), we will now enter a ballot-system runoff to narrow down to two candidates [hopefully]. I want everyone to state both his first choice and his second choice (if not already explicit based on preliminary voting) among Mookie, Walker, Tiny, and Cunningham, with reasons why. 2pts will be awarded to top picks, 1pt to secondary picks. After 24 hours we'll narrow down to the two players with the most points.

Mookie Blaylock
Chet Walker
Tiny Archibald
Billy Cunningham

Again, state your two picks among these four.

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Outside]

Primary: Vlade Divac
Divac is still my top candidate. One of the more underrated defensive bigs with impact metrics suggesting he was a legit defensive anchor. All-time great passing from a center with some shooting range and solid low post scoring. Known for high BBIQ and good leadership qualities.

A couple of questions about Vlade:

-- Which impact metrics are you referring to that suggest he was a legit defensive anchor?

-- What makes you characterize his passing as "all-time great"? He had a nice peak season in 2003-04 and another in 2004-05, but he's really up and down. Doing searches for centers and center forwards for both peak and career assist average and percentage, he's there but not as notable as other guys. (Alvin Adams is the guy who jumps out at me on those searches.)

I want to give him a fair shake, so I'm just looking for a bit more about him. Thanks.

[Outside]

So I get to keep my original votes.

Runoff vote: Billy Cunningham
Runoff alternate: Chet Walker

[dhsilv2]

Primary: Vlade Divac
Divac is still my top candidate. One of the more underrated defensive bigs with impact metrics suggesting he was a legit defensive anchor. All-time great passing from a center with some shooting range and solid low post scoring. Known for high BBIQ and good leadership qualities.

A couple of questions about Vlade:

-- Which impact metrics are you referring to that suggest he was a legit defensive anchor?

-- What makes you characterize his passing as "all-time great"? He had a nice peak season in 2003-04 and another in 2004-05, but he's really up and down. Doing searches for centers and center forwards for both peak and career assist average and percentage, he's there but not as notable as other guys. (Alvin Adams is the guy who jumps out at me on those searches.)

I want to give him a fair shake, so I'm just looking for a bit more about him. Thanks.

On passing, passing is NOT measured in assists. Sadly it is our closest proxy which confuses it. Vlade was a great passer and imo had some of the best hands of all time. Watch his early days with Magic and watch some of the almost reckless laser passes Magic would throw because he knew Vlade could catch them. Those same hands lead to amazing passes as well.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Tiny Archibald

Reasoning in my OP

Vote 2 - Billy Cunningham

Impressive contributions to the incredible 67 sixers in only his second season. Elite athlete, versatile skillset at his size and a reasonably efficient volume scorer for his time. Jumped to the ABA later in his career, winning MVP in 73. The cougars would lose to the pretty stacked colonels (gilmore, issel, dampier, mount) in the finals (7 games). His longevity is average at best, but as we round out the project, I don’t think there are many players left as talented and accomplished as him.

[trex_8063]

My first pick is Chet Walker (as stated in original vote post).

For my runoff alt, I'm going with Billy Cunningham. Pace can inflate things, but using per 100 poss estimates for seasons before '74, and doing some weighting for minutes: Cunningham averaged (roughly, haven't figured the exacts) around 25.0 pts, 12.5 rebs, and 5.5 ast per 100 possessions @ +0.7% rTS, while playing avg 34.9 mpg over an 11-year career (in which only his final season was significantly injury-hit). Defensively he appeared at least capable (if not strictly "good") based on my limited eye test, and it's apparent his quickness and anticipation resulted in a fair number of forced turnovers. Basically he's a guy who provided a bit of everything: decent scoring punch, good [arguably very good] rebounding for a SF [occ PF], very good passing/playmaking for a forward by the later stages of his career (as well as greater range on his jumper), and decent defense.

It's close, but he feels like the next most relevant career of these four (though to be perfectly honest, among all those candidates who received any votes in the preliminary round, Vlade would have been my 2nd pick).

[Outside]

Primary: Vlade Divac
Divac is still my top candidate. One of the more underrated defensive bigs with impact metrics suggesting he was a legit defensive anchor. All-time great passing from a center with some shooting range and solid low post scoring. Known for high BBIQ and good leadership qualities.

A couple of questions about Vlade:

-- Which impact metrics are you referring to that suggest he was a legit defensive anchor?

-- What makes you characterize his passing as "all-time great"? He had a nice peak season in 2003-04 and another in 2004-05, but he's really up and down. Doing searches for centers and center forwards for both peak and career assist average and percentage, he's there but not as notable as other guys. (Alvin Adams is the guy who jumps out at me on those searches.)

I want to give him a fair shake, so I'm just looking for a bit more about him. Thanks.

On passing, passing is NOT measured in assists. Sadly it is our closest proxy which confuses it. Vlade was a great passer and imo had some of the best hands of all time. Watch his early days with Magic and watch some of the almost reckless laser passes Magic would throw because he knew Vlade could catch them. Those same hands lead to amazing passes as well.

Assists aren't the perfect stat for rating passing and playmaking, but they're not the worst either and (combined with turnovers, are a far better indicator than we have for defense (Durant being a blocks leader this season while showing poorly in defensive metrics, for example). Jokic is a really good playmaker, and people justifiably point to his assist numbers as statistical indicators of his playmaking ability.

We also have secondary assists, which show Curry's playmaking impact as better than his straight assist numbers, but Curry also has pretty good assist numbers. If the argument is that Vlade generated lots of hockey assists, that's fine, but I haven't heard that yet. His Sacramento teams in particular were loaded with shooters and scorers -- Peja, Turkoglu, Webber, Jackson, etc. IIRC, Adelman's offenses tended toward traditional set plays as opposed to motion offense where multiple passes could occur after the initial breakdown of the defense and which would dilute an individual player's assists.

Turnovers and turnover percentage are obviously other stats we can use to assess a player's passing ability. I'm not sure how significant the differential between assist percentage and turnover percentage is, but it's interesting to look at. Jokic (25.5 AST% and 14.9 TOV%) looks remarkable, while Vlade (16.0 AST% and 16.7 TOV%) seems more typical. But that's not necessarily the end of that argument, because I consider Bill Walton (17.1 AST% and 20.6 TOV%) to be an excellent passer. (FWIW, Sikma was 13.7 AST% and 13.9 TOV%.)

You've mentioned his great hands, point anecdotally to his ability to receive passes, and then conflate that as an ability to create passes. That's not a convincing argument for me.

I'm on board with Vlade as a good passer. I watched him play a fair amount, and I know that was one of his strengths, but I think the hype has overshot the reality to an extent. I'm an outlier in this project in how much I rely on the eye test, but even I rely on data to back up my arguments. I'm just not seeing the data to back up the argument in this case. If passing is a point of clear separation for Vlade but the assist and turnover info is similar to Sikma's, it seems reasonable to ask for more to justify the argument for his passing ability. I'd rate Vlade as a better passer than Sikma, but the data I'm looking at doesn't show him to be remarkably better.

[dhsilv2]

A couple of questions about Vlade:

-- Which impact metrics are you referring to that suggest he was a legit defensive anchor?

-- What makes you characterize his passing as "all-time great"? He had a nice peak season in 2003-04 and another in 2004-05, but he's really up and down. Doing searches for centers and center forwards for both peak and career assist average and percentage, he's there but not as notable as other guys. (Alvin Adams is the guy who jumps out at me on those searches.)

I want to give him a fair shake, so I'm just looking for a bit more about him. Thanks.

On passing, passing is NOT measured in assists. Sadly it is our closest proxy which confuses it. Vlade was a great passer and imo had some of the best hands of all time. Watch his early days with Magic and watch some of the almost reckless laser passes Magic would throw because he knew Vlade could catch them. Those same hands lead to amazing passes as well.

Assists aren't the perfect stat for rating passing and playmaking, but they're not the worst either and (combined with turnovers, are a far better indicator than we have for defense (Durant being a blocks leader this season while showing poorly in defensive metrics, for example). Jokic is a really good playmaker, and people justifiably point to his assist numbers as statistical indicators of his playmaking ability.

We also have secondary assists, which show Curry's playmaking impact as better than his straight assist numbers, but Curry also has pretty good assist numbers. If the argument is that Vlade generated lots of hockey assists, that's fine, but I haven't heard that yet. His Sacramento teams in particular were loaded with shooters and scorers -- Peja, Turkoglu, Webber, Jackson, etc. IIRC, Adelman's offenses tended toward traditional set plays as opposed to motion offense where multiple passes could occur after the initial breakdown of the defense and which would dilute an individual player's assists.

Turnovers and turnover percentage are obviously other stats we can use to assess a player's passing ability. I'm not sure how significant the differential between assist percentage and turnover percentage is, but it's interesting to look at. Jokic (25.5 AST% and 14.9 TOV%) looks remarkable, while Vlade (16.0 AST% and 16.7 TOV%) seems more typical. But that's not necessarily the end of that argument, because I consider Bill Walton (17.1 AST% and 20.6 TOV%) to be an excellent passer. (FWIW, Sikma was 13.7 AST% and 13.9 TOV%.)

You've mentioned his great hands, point anecdotally to his ability to receive passes, and then conflate that as an ability to create passes. That's not a convincing argument for me.

I'm on board with Vlade as a good passer. I watched him play a fair amount, and I know that was one of his strengths, but I think the hype has overshot the reality to an extent. I'm an outlier in this project in how much I rely on the eye test, but even I rely on data to back up my arguments. I'm just not seeing the data to back up the argument in this case. If passing is a point of clear separation for Vlade but the assist and turnover info is similar to Sikma's, it seems reasonable to ask for more to justify the argument for his passing ability. I'd rate Vlade as a better passer than Sikma, but the data I'm looking at doesn't show him to be remarkably better.

Assist percentage shows a clear gap imp.

Though I'd separate play making and passing as again two skills that have synergy. Case and point a big man posting up who knows when to get rid of the ball and does so accurately is adding a lot of value that a box score won't catch, would it not? VS wasted shot clock time, higher risk of a turnover, and stagnation by teammates. For me the hands allowed Vlade to on hand hold the ball and make quick finger touch passes to bigs while making firm crisp passes out.

For me a lot of Vlade's value is in the eye test, but as I illustrated in #92, their best to worst VORP and WS are reasonably close especially once we move past Sikma's 2 year peak. PER also felt Vlade was the higher value guy well into those later years (which I assume is mostly driven by offensive value as Vlade clearly wasn't rebounding as well).

[Owly]

Not sure on how much people will care, trust WARP, or understand WARP but for whatever it's worth some recent Blaylock mentions

"Which non-Hall of Famer had the best peak as a player?"

This question arose from a conversation during All-Star Weekend and I figured it was worth taking a deep dive in the mailbag. As a first cut, let's take a look at the leaders in my wins above replacement player (WARP) statistic since 1977-78 among eligible players who are not in the Hall of Fame, including a few who might soon get there.
WARP leaders, non-Hall of Famers
Player Season Team WARP VORP
Mookie Blaylock 1996-97 ATL 19.5 7.1
Penny Hardaway 1995-96 ORL 19.3 6.4
Tim Hardaway 1996-97 MIA 19.1 5.6
Chris Webber 1999-00 SAC 18.1 5.7
Steve Francis 2000-01 HOU 18.0 7.0
Gilbert Arenas 2005-06 WAS 17.9 6.4
Mookie Blaylock 1993-94 ATL 17.9 5.4
Mookie Blaylock 1994-95 ATL 17.4 5.8
Tim Hardaway 1997-98 MIA 17.3 5.1
Tim Hardaway 1990-91 GSW 17.2 4.9
Terrell Brandon 1995-96 CLE 17.1 5.2
Since 1977-78

As you can see, WARP highly valued '90s point guards, particularly those with the surname Hardaway. So too does Basketball-Reference.com's value over replacement player (VORP) metric, which I've included for an alternative perspective. Conventional wisdom at the time was not necessarily so high on these players. Blaylock wasn't an All-Star in 1996-97, while Francis -- who led the league in VORP -- didn't make any of the three All-NBA teams.

Taking those subjective assessments into account, a stronger case can be made for Penny Hardaway, who was an All-NBA First Team pick and third in MVP voting during 1995-96, when the Orlando Magic had the league's third-best record despite Shaquille O'Neal missing 28 games because of injury. Hardaway's peak was relatively short because of injuries, but before those injuries he was a phenomenal young player.

That said, a few other candidates are coming down the line. Assuming Derrick Rose isn't voted to the Hall of Fame, he'll be the first NBA MVP ever to miss out. However, Rose's advanced stats from his MVP campaign (16.6 WARP, 6.0 VORP) don't match up to Hardaway's.

The statistical contender who would only be picked for the Hall of Fame on the strength of his international career is Andrei Kirilenko, whose 2003-04 campaign rated off the charts by all-in-one stats. Kirilenko rated as worth 19.9 WARP -- more than any current non-Hall of Famer -- and his 7.5 VORP ranked second in the league behind Kevin Garnett.

I haven't yet mentioned ESPN's real plus-minus (RPM) because it has not been calculated back to the 1990s, but Kirilenko was third in the league in RPM, too. He could never again repeat that success, and wasn't picked for an All-NBA team, but there's a case Kirilenko had the best season of any non-Hall of Famer.

Now as it notes Kirilenko will be eligible, probably won't get in (don't know about European perception and how much influence could come in from that direction but he doesn't have a big "club" career in Europe) so Blaylock probably isn't really top ... but he does have a lot of seasons up there. IIRC he does quite well for career WARP, could dig out the limited career leadership boards that Pelton has put out, if anyone really wants to know.

I haven't heard it mentioned (could have missed it) and as I'm discussing him, to be balanced, is Blaylock's alcoholism an issue for anyone?

[post edited to include the name, website of the source of the quote]

[dhsilv2]

Not sure on how much people will care, trust WARP, or understand WARP but for whatever it's worth some recent Blaylock mentions

"Which non-Hall of Famer had the best peak as a player?"

This question arose from a conversation during All-Star Weekend and I figured it was worth taking a deep dive in the mailbag. As a first cut, let's take a look at the leaders in my wins above replacement player (WARP) statistic since 1977-78 among eligible players who are not in the Hall of Fame, including a few who might soon get there.
WARP leaders, non-Hall of Famers
Player Season Team WARP VORP
Mookie Blaylock 1996-97 ATL 19.5 7.1
Penny Hardaway 1995-96 ORL 19.3 6.4
Tim Hardaway 1996-97 MIA 19.1 5.6
Chris Webber 1999-00 SAC 18.1 5.7
Steve Francis 2000-01 HOU 18.0 7.0
Gilbert Arenas 2005-06 WAS 17.9 6.4
Mookie Blaylock 1993-94 ATL 17.9 5.4
Mookie Blaylock 1994-95 ATL 17.4 5.8
Tim Hardaway 1997-98 MIA 17.3 5.1
Tim Hardaway 1990-91 GSW 17.2 4.9
Terrell Brandon 1995-96 CLE 17.1 5.2
Since 1977-78

As you can see, WARP highly valued '90s point guards, particularly those with the surname Hardaway. So too does Basketball-Reference.com's value over replacement player (VORP) metric, which I've included for an alternative perspective. Conventional wisdom at the time was not necessarily so high on these players. Blaylock wasn't an All-Star in 1996-97, while Francis -- who led the league in VORP -- didn't make any of the three All-NBA teams.

Taking those subjective assessments into account, a stronger case can be made for Penny Hardaway, who was an All-NBA First Team pick and third in MVP voting during 1995-96, when the Orlando Magic had the league's third-best record despite Shaquille O'Neal missing 28 games because of injury. Hardaway's peak was relatively short because of injuries, but before those injuries he was a phenomenal young player.

That said, a few other candidates are coming down the line. Assuming Derrick Rose isn't voted to the Hall of Fame, he'll be the first NBA MVP ever to miss out. However, Rose's advanced stats from his MVP campaign (16.6 WARP, 6.0 VORP) don't match up to Hardaway's.

The statistical contender who would only be picked for the Hall of Fame on the strength of his international career is Andrei Kirilenko, whose 2003-04 campaign rated off the charts by all-in-one stats. Kirilenko rated as worth 19.9 WARP -- more than any current non-Hall of Famer -- and his 7.5 VORP ranked second in the league behind Kevin Garnett.

I haven't yet mentioned ESPN's real plus-minus (RPM) because it has not been calculated back to the 1990s, but Kirilenko was third in the league in RPM, too. He could never again repeat that success, and wasn't picked for an All-NBA team, but there's a case Kirilenko had the best season of any non-Hall of Famer.

Now as it notes Kirilenko will be eligible, probably won't get in (don't know about European perception and how much influence could come in from that direction but he doesn't have a big "club" career in Europe) so Blaylock probably isn't really top ... but he does have a lot of seasons up there. IIRC he does quite well for career WARP, could dig out the limited career leadership boards that Pelton has put out, if anyone really wants to know.

I haven't heard it mentioned (could have missed it) and as I'm discussing him, to be balanced, is Blaylock's alcoholism an issue for anyone?

[post edited to include the name, website of the source of the quote]

I don't recall a lot of discussions about his alcoholism. If it hurt his teams, that should be accounted for. If he was just an idiot who hurt himself, not a concern for me.

[trex_8063]

Just a reminder for you two pertaining to this initial ballot-system runoff: I know who your top pick in the runoff is, but unless you stipulate a secondary pick (with brief reasons why) before the deadline, your top picks will only be assessed as 1 pt (as apposed to 2 pts).

.

.