Robceltsfan wrote:If we're going to vote for Mullin based on his offensive prowess and lack of playoff success.......Alex English is a much better version of that.
He basically had a 9 year stretch of 27/6/5/51%
I'll go with Alex English for the block.
Weak era.
In all seriousness, I have a really hard time picking guys from that time period and before (outside of the obvious ones) because I wasn't watching hoops critically/intellectually when English was at his best.
Robceltsfan wrote:If we're going to vote for Mullin based on his offensive prowess and lack of playoff success.......Alex English is a much better version of that.
He basically had a 9 year stretch of 27/6/5/51%
I'll go with Alex English for the block.
Weak era.
In all seriousness, I have a really hard time picking guys from that time period and before (outside of the obvious ones) because I wasn't watching hoops critically/intellectually when English was at his best.
Mullin and and English's careers overlapped 6 seasons. Mullin's arguable best year (88-89) saw him average 26.5/5.9/5.1 at the age of 25. That same year at the age of 35, English averaged 26.5/4.0/4.7.
Last edited by Robceltsfan on Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
y2ktors wrote:I'm wanting Hill here but if he doesn't Gain much traction here I'll vote differently.
I took a long hard look at my boy Grant....but there simply isn't enough high-end longevity (for obvious reasons) and team success to warrant his choosing.
Had he stayed healthy in his career, he would have made this list quite some time ago.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:If we're going to vote for Mullin based on his offensive prowess and lack of playoff success.......Alex English is a much better version of that.
He basically had a 9 year stretch of 27/6/5/51%
I'll go with Alex English for the block.
Weak era.
In all seriousness, I have a really hard time picking guys from that time period and before (outside of the obvious ones) because I wasn't watching hoops critically/intellectually when English was at his best.
Mullin and and English's careers overlapped 6 seasons. Mullin's arguable best year (88-89) saw him average 26.5/5.9/5.1 at the age of 25. That same year at the age of 35, English averaged 26.5/4.0/4.7.
I was born in 1981, and Mullin peaked late '80's- early '90's. English's last statistically dominant season came the first year I might have been able to understand what was going on-- a year that coincided with the start of Mullin's peak.
That, and we didn't have cable until I was in Jr High, and they weren't playing a lot of Denver Nuggets games on the local Bay Area channels back then.
y2ktors wrote:I'm wanting Hill here but if he doesn't Gain much traction here I'll vote differently.
I took a long hard look at my boy Grant....but there simply isn't enough high-end longevity (for obvious reasons) and team success to warrant his choosing.
Had he stayed healthy in his career, he would have made this list quite some time ago.
Grant, overall, is the best player on the board. What he did pre-injury illustrates that. But it's like you said there simply isn't enough high-end longevity (for obvious reasons) and team success and it is very reasonable not to pick him at this point.
Robceltsfan wrote:Pretty surprised at Mullin over English guys.
Please, explain.
It makes very little sense to me at all. Sure Mullin was definitely the better shooter but his longevity isn't as impressive, scoring output wasn't as impressive, defense certainly was not better and his overall accolades are right in line with Alex. Maybe one can argue portability but Mullin would also suffer in doing so.
It's worth pointing out that English played on teams that played at a stupefying pace.
I think some of Mullin's teams were fast-paced as well, but Denver was particularly famous for it. It probably doesn't cancel out the difference in volume, even at peaks...but it does cut into it somewhat (I would think...my guess is that while both played on fast-paced teams, English probably had more possessions to work with still.).
Add to that Mullin being more efficient taking FT and 3s into account, and playing in a better defensed era, and it's probably be equal on a scoring front. Or very close.
The other stuff (rebounding, passing, defense) strikes me as being pretty equal all combined as well.
Neither had playoff resumes to scream at. Hardward...not a great deal of difference at a glance.
That's a tough one. It is one that demands advanced analytics and a real drill-down of specifics IMO.
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
