RealGM 2017 Top 100 #94 (Mookie Blaylock)

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Tiny Archibald

Vote 2 - Chet Walker

- 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

[dhsilv2]

I'd rather have 55 games of someone who was the best player on somewhere between the 1st-3rd best team of the decade than someone who was the 10th (or thereabouts) best player in professional basketball - and given that it's RS only for both guys - yes, I'd rather have the '78 Walton year.

Fair enough, though I'd point out Im not aware of any metric that would conclude your scenario would generate more wins for your team. 55 games is a massive number to miss.

I'm not sure your math is right here. Walton played 58 - the break-even is 38%.

But anyway - given that for both guys we're talking RS only, I'd rather have 58 games of someone who was the best player on the 1st-3rd best team of the decade than 80 of someone who was the 10th (or thereabouts) best player in professional basketball.

Math is off since I was thinking it was 55 vs 58. But your statement was that walton had 2 better years than Tiny's best. Yet you're combining Walton's 6th man of the year season with his 78 season. Not sure how that works.

Then you say Tiny was the 10th best player? Tiny had 5 top 10 MVP finishes. His peak winshare was 3rd (3 top 10's). 3 top 5 PER years (4 to top 10). Sporting News (not sure how much value to place on this) had Tiny as the MVP. So the idea that Tiny was only the 10th best player in the league at his best doesn't really make any sense to me.

[dhsilv2]

Vote Mookie

Leonard and Walton 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. Here'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.

[pandrade83]

Fair enough, though I'd point out Im not aware of any metric that would conclude your scenario would generate more wins for your team. 55 games is a massive number to miss.

I'm not sure your math is right here. Walton played 58 - the break-even is 38%.

But anyway - given that for both guys we're talking RS only, I'd rather have 58 games of someone who was the best player on the 1st-3rd best team of the decade than 80 of someone who was the 10th (or thereabouts) best player in professional basketball.

Math is off since I was thinking it was 55 vs 58. But your statement was that walton had 2 better years than Tiny's best. Yet you're combining Walton's 6th man of the year season with his 78 season. Not sure how that works.

Then you say Tiny was the 10th best player? Tiny had 5 top 10 MVP finishes. His peak winshare was 3rd (3 top 10's). 3 top 5 PER years (4 to top 10). Sporting News (not sure how much value to place on this) had Tiny as the MVP. So the idea that Tiny was only the 10th best player in the league at his best doesn't really make any sense to me.

Couple things:

1). I’m unclear how I’m combining seasons here. If Walton stays healthy it’s highly likely win 65-68 games (68 win pace with him) and win the title in 78. That makes them one of the 3 best teams of the decade and that’s the kind of trajectory they were on.

2. Note I said professional basketball. I think You can make reasonable arguments that 8-10 guys were better.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #44:

Mookie Blaylock - 2 (dhsilv2, pandrade83)
Chet Walker - 1 (trex_8063)
Bill Walton - 1 (HeartBreakKid)
Tiny Archibald - 1 (Clyde Frazier)
Mel Daniels - 1 (penbeast0)
Connie Hawkins - 1 (Doctor MJ)

So Mookie is again in the runoff. Based on secondary votes, he'll go up against Bill Walton (who, coming out of no where, had two secondary votes this round).

Mookie Blaylock - 2 (dhsilv2, pandrade83)
Bill Walton - 2 (HeartBreakKid, Doctor MJ)


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

Spoiler:

.

.

.

.

[quote=”HeartBreakKid"].[/quote]

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[dhsilv2]

I'm not sure your math is right here. Walton played 58 - the break-even is 38%.

But anyway - given that for both guys we're talking RS only, I'd rather have 58 games of someone who was the best player on the 1st-3rd best team of the decade than 80 of someone who was the 10th (or thereabouts) best player in professional basketball.

Math is off since I was thinking it was 55 vs 58. But your statement was that walton had 2 better years than Tiny's best. Yet you're combining Walton's 6th man of the year season with his 78 season. Not sure how that works.

Then you say Tiny was the 10th best player? Tiny had 5 top 10 MVP finishes. His peak winshare was 3rd (3 top 10's). 3 top 5 PER years (4 to top 10). Sporting News (not sure how much value to place on this) had Tiny as the MVP. So the idea that Tiny was only the 10th best player in the league at his best doesn't really make any sense to me.

Couple things:

1). I’m unclear how I’m combining seasons here. If Walton stays healthy it’s highly likely win 65-68 games (68 win pace with him) and win the title in 78. That makes them one of the 3 best teams of the decade and that’s the kind of trajectory they were on.

2. Note I said professional basketball. I think You can make reasonable arguments that 8-10 guys were better.

ok I misunderstood your case for number 1. I'd have to look closely at the ABA from that era, but I'm highly suspect that Tiny who had a case for at worst 5th in the league would drop to 10th.

[penbeast0]

Ok, Mookie is a very good, not great while Walton is great but 10 years of very good is better for a franchise than 1 of great.

VOTE: MOOKIE BLAYLOCK

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote - Mookie Blaylock

Part of me wants to abstain from this one as there are a lot of players I’d vote in before blaylock. That said, I can’t get behind a player in walton who has next to no longevity as a star player and terrible durability. Blaylock’s consistently elite defense and solid playmaking over the course of his career are more valuable to me.

[Outside]

Runoff vote: Bill Walton

The argument for Walton is easy -- versatile, complete game and exceptionally high peak. The argument against him is also easy -- very poor longevity, extremely short prime and peak, never even averaged 20 points per game.

I struggled with the Walton issue from the outset. How could we have a top 100 list and not include such a stellar performer, one who to me belongs in an elite group representing the pinnacle of performance? I was assuaged by the notion that there is a separate peaks project, and that he rightly belongs there and can be truly assessed solely on that short, beautiful peak. But as this project nears the end, I'm back to where I started, that any top 100 list should include Walton.

Lo and behold, he pops up in this thread out of nowhere. Who am I to look serendipity in the face and say no?

I'll deal with the issue of a vote for Walton opening the door to other low longevity guys later. For now, Walton it is.

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote - Mookie Blaylock

Part of me wants to abstain from this one as there are a lot of players I’d vote in before blaylock. That said, I can’t get behind a player in walton who has next to no longevity as a star player and terrible durability. Blaylock’s consistently elite defense and solid playmaking over the course of his career are more valuable to me.

Recap of walton’s career:

75 - 35 games played
76 - 51 games played
77 - 65 games (championship season)
78 - 58 games (only played in 2 games of 6 game series loss to sonics)

This is where walton’s career as a star basically ends. It essentially lasted 3 seasons (76-78), where he still missed an average of 24 games per season and part of one postseason. If you want to include his rookie year, that comes out to 29.75 games missed per season.

79 - missed entire season
80 - 14 games played
81 - missed entire season
82 - missed entire season
83 - 33 games played
84 - 55 games played

6 seasons later, he briefly plays close to 2 full seasons:

85 - 67 games played
86 - 80 games played (good role player on celtics championship run)
87 - 10 games played

Do I feel bad for Walton the person who clearly had to endure a career where he spent more time recovering from injury than they actually did on the court? Of course, but i’m not impressed by a guy who couldn’t consistently contribute to his team even in a lesser role.

And yes, that’s why we did the peaks project — to recognize all time great single seasons, not careers. That’s where walton deservedly shines.

[SactoKingsFan]

Runoff vote: Mookie Blaylock

I just can't vote for Walton. He has the great peak but literally no longevity. Still wasn't super durable during the 2 year prime and had one year as a relevant role player. I'd have Divac, Mookie and more than a few other candidates over Walton for total career value.

Sent from my ONEPLUS 3T using Tapatalk

[pandrade83]

Math is off since I was thinking it was 55 vs 58. But your statement was that walton had 2 better years than Tiny's best. Yet you're combining Walton's 6th man of the year season with his 78 season. Not sure how that works.

Then you say Tiny was the 10th best player? Tiny had 5 top 10 MVP finishes. His peak winshare was 3rd (3 top 10's). 3 top 5 PER years (4 to top 10). Sporting News (not sure how much value to place on this) had Tiny as the MVP. So the idea that Tiny was only the 10th best player in the league at his best doesn't really make any sense to me.

Couple things:

1). I’m unclear how I’m combining seasons here. If Walton stays healthy it’s highly likely win 65-68 games (68 win pace with him) and win the title in 78. That makes them one of the 3 best teams of the decade and that’s the kind of trajectory they were on.

2. Note I said professional basketball. I think You can make reasonable arguments that 8-10 guys were better.

ok I misunderstood your case for number 1. I'd have to look closely at the ABA from that era, but I'm highly suspect that Tiny who had a case for at worst 5th in the league would drop to 10th.

I don't think that all of these guys were better per se, but there's a case for:

Kareem
Wilt
Gilmore
West
Unseld
Frazier
Dr J
Hondo
Cowens
McGinnis
Cunningham
Van Lier

10th (+/- 2 spots) feels right.

[trex_8063]

Do you put the salary issue on him - or Sterling? Ultimately, Sterling is the one who wrote the check. Sterling is obviously an awful human being who isn't going to draw sympathy from anyone for overpaying for an asset but even setting this aside - isn't that still on him?

True. Perhaps I'm laying too much of this on Walton. Though even assuming "average" salary, you'd like to have player receiving said average salary to not be an empty uniform like 70% of the time.

idk. I kinda have a "holds his nose" feeling wrt both runoff candidates, as I think it's premature for either. Not sure I'll vote at all unless a tie-breaker is required.

[trex_8063]

Eye test mainly; I watched Lucas play a bit late in Cincinnati and in New York; he was an extremely good player.

They're all extremely good players. But does eye-test memory from when you were a teen or pre-teen (I'm guessing you didn't understand the game as well then as you do now), +/- nostalgia, seem like the most reliable indicator(s) of player quality? If so, you definitely had a much more discerning eye than I did at that age.

If you truly feel Lucas > Chet Walker or [insert other more viable candidate] by a very clear margin, then by all means carry on. I was hoping to convince you it's at best a wash; because if it is more or less a wash, may as well go with the one that has a puncher's chance to compete for the spot (in this case: Walker). I didn't get the impression either of the current runoff candidates were close to receiving your alternate vote.

[penbeast0]

I would say it's reasonably close with a few candidates. I just haven't seen an analysis that makes me change my vote yet; I have done it a couple of times this project with good writeups by people.

[pandrade83]

Do you put the salary issue on him - or Sterling? Ultimately, Sterling is the one who wrote the check. Sterling is obviously an awful human being who isn't going to draw sympathy from anyone for overpaying for an asset but even setting this aside - isn't that still on him?

True. Perhaps I'm laying too much of this on Walton. Though even assuming "average" salary, you'd like to have player receiving said average salary to not be an empty uniform like 70% of the time.

idk. I kinda have a "holds his nose" feeling wrt both runoff candidates, as I think it's premature for either. Not sure I'll vote at all unless a tie-breaker is required.

We all have those in these kind of projects I think. There's been a couple of those where I saw the run-off announcement and just thought

[dhsilv2]

I asked earlier but I'll ask again. walton has painted himself as shy and introverted and said he had to force himself out of that later on in life. Did walton add any real value as a team leader? I know players tend to exaggerate to say the least so I never know how to much to take from that. I've always taken that to assume Walton wasn't a locker room value add (though not a negative).

[pandrade83]

I asked earlier but I'll ask again. walton has painted himself as shy and introverted and said he had to force himself out of that later on in life. Did walton add any real value as a team leader? I know players tend to exaggerate to say the least so I never know how to much to take from that. I've always taken that to assume Walton wasn't a locker room value add (though not a negative).

I don't think you win a title, then follow it up with a 68 win pace through 58 games and have positive things said about you by both Bird & McHale about intangibles without having at least some substantial value in that area.

Not that he's the best team leader ever, but he certainly seems to add some positive value.

[dhsilv2]

I asked earlier but I'll ask again. walton has painted himself as shy and introverted and said he had to force himself out of that later on in life. Did walton add any real value as a team leader? I know players tend to exaggerate to say the least so I never know how to much to take from that. I've always taken that to assume Walton wasn't a locker room value add (though not a negative).

I don't think you win a title, then follow it up with a 68 win pace through 58 games and have positive things said about you by both Bird & McHale about intangibles without having at least some substantial value in that area.

Not that he's the best team leader ever, but he certainly seems to add some positive value.

I'd think by Boston he was a much more mature vet. As for winning titles early in your career...I don't think quality intangibles are needed. Shaq was hardly a positive for example.

[pandrade83]

I asked earlier but I'll ask again. walton has painted himself as shy and introverted and said he had to force himself out of that later on in life. Did walton add any real value as a team leader? I know players tend to exaggerate to say the least so I never know how to much to take from that. I've always taken that to assume Walton wasn't a locker room value add (though not a negative).

I don't think you win a title, then follow it up with a 68 win pace through 58 games and have positive things said about you by both Bird & McHale about intangibles without having at least some substantial value in that area.

Not that he's the best team leader ever, but he certainly seems to add some positive value.

I'd think by Boston he was a much more mature vet. As for winning titles early in your career...I don't think quality intangibles are needed. Shaq was hardly a positive for example.

It’s easier when you have 2 of the top 20 guys ever. I don’t think Shaq is apples to apples