Baylock Hi, new member to this forum. Just wondering what kind of player M.Baylock was...he led the league in steals for consecutive seasons. Is he still in the league? Thanks
Just for the record, it's Mookie "Blaylock". I think he retired, what 2 years ago? His last team was the Warriors I believe, but I may be wrong.
Yes his last team was the Warriors. He had a pretty good career. Avged 17 2 times but thats as far as how good he was... Just wonderin, why bring him up now?
Blaylock was great. I can't remember whether or not he was an All-Star because he played on the same team as Dikembe Mutumbo and Steve Smith, but he was definitely the catalyst for the Hawks' success. He was a short quick point guard who could dish and steal like no one else in the league. A good comparison would be Gary Payton with less scoring ability.
Blaylock was solid. He could score, shoot, pass, and D. He was similar to Van Exel, except Nick doesn't really D and is a lefty....Blaylock shot a lot of 3's, he hit big shots, but his fg% was also pretty low, like 40%. His shot selection was always questionable. He was a good player nonetheless...
He was an all-star, I think in '94. I think that was with the Hawks, if it was then it was before Smith and Deke. He was a great point guard, and started to lay the foundations of a great team in Jersey with DC and Petro before he was shipped out in favor of Kenny Anderson(who started his career as Mook's backup). Mookie came in with the great point guard rookie class of '90, with Timmy, Sherman Douglas, Dana Barros, Pooh Richardson, and BJ Armstrong, so I think he was often overlooked, but he remains the 2nd best defensive point guard(after Glove) of the 90's.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MVPlaya:</div><div class="quote_post">Avged 17 2 times but thats as far as how good he was...</div> Why do you knock players for their scoring? Mookie was a very solid point guard that other point guards would not look forward to playing because of his defense and shooting ability. He was a very ntense/physical point guard, loved taking the big shot. Be a little more professional, you act like 17 points is a laugher.
The thing about Mookie that I remember most was his quality defense and outstanding team play. He was NBA All-Defensive First Team twice (94, 95) and All-Defensive Second Team three times (96-98). Real credit to the game. Let's not start a "Should Mookie Blaylock go in the HOF thread" please?!?!?!?!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MVPlaya:</div><div class="quote_post"> Yes his last team was the Warriors. He had a pretty good career. Avged 17 2 times but thats as far as how good he was... Just wonderin, why bring him up now?</div> So? John Stockton averaged 17 ppg for only 3 seaons out of his 19 year career. Only 3! Is John Stockton not one of the best PGs ever? His(Stockton) career average of 13.1 ppg is lower than Blaylock's (13.5 ppg). So is Blaylock better than Stockton?
I don't know what you guys are talking about comparing him to Payton (Blaylock didn't have Payton's defensive or offensive ability) or Van Exel (completely different offensive mindset and unlike Van Exel played hard defense 24-7.) Blaylock was a good but not great defensive-minded point guard. If I had to make a comparison I'd say he was most like Darrell Armstrong, except he could keep himself under better control.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting bling bling bli:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't know what you guys are talking about comparing him to Payton (Blaylock didn't have Payton's defensive or offensive ability) or Van Exel (completely different offensive mindset and unlike Van Exel played hard defense 24-7.) </div> Dude, read my post over. I mentioned that Nick doesn't play defense. Offensively, they do play similar. Mookie took a lot of 3's, a lot of those shots were on breaks. A lot of his shots were questionable shots, but he was a gutsy player. As for their mindset, I believe you're thinking of Van Exel the dallas Mav. That Van exel was a 2 guard. Van exel the point (L.A., denver, G.S.) is a pass first guard. He only tries to score when he teammates aren't getting anything done. I think my comparison is fair...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sandman:</div><div class="quote_post">NVE has always been a scorer, that has never changed.</div> My point was that he's a pass first PG, not whether he was a scorer or not.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting notMuchgame:</div><div class="quote_post">My point was that he's a pass first PG, not whether he was a scorer or not.</div> I know, NVE has always put scoring first, not sure where you got that from.
Nick has always looked to score first.He is a scorer...He can dish the ball but he is more effective when he takes over the offense.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sandman:</div><div class="quote_post">I know, NVE has always put scoring first, not sure where you got that from.</div> Where did I get what from? Are you referring to my belief that Van Exel is pass-first or My post response to your previous post... not sure what you mean but i'll answer both.. Like Blaylock (tryin to stay on topic) NVE has always been pass first (except maybe in Dallas), but he scores in bunches. Blaylock avg. 13 fga per game for his career, and NVE averages 14fga. Blaylock avg. almost 7 ast and NVE avg. over 7 assist dispite primarily being a 2 guard in Dallas for a couple of years (where he avg. 4 assist). His assist to shot attempt ratio supports the idea that he passes first. NVE seems like a shoot-first guy only because at times, he forces 3's up in transition, but if you have had the chance to watch him throughout the game you would know he defers and creates for his team for the most part. If you were refering to my post where I said My point was that he's a pass first PG, not whether he was a scorer or not., you said <u>NVE has always been a scorer, that has never changed.</u> so I got the idea that you were saying that I didn't think Nick was a scorer, which I believe he is, but that's not my point. Hope that cleared things up...probably made it more confusing tho
Van Exel has always been a score-first point guard and the fact that he gets high assists #'s doesn't controvert it. Marbury puts up high assists #'s and is the same way. I've followed Nick since he and Eddie Jones were coming up. It killed me when the Lakers had to break up Jones/Van Exel/Kobe. But I think you're comparison is off. Van Exel could always shoot Blaylock under the table, but then again, scoring wasn't what made Blaylock such a good player.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting bling bling bli:</div><div class="quote_post">Van Exel has always been a score-first point guard and the fact that he gets high assists #'s doesn't controvert it. Marbury puts up high assists #'s and is the same way. </div> I understand you disagree with me, which is cool. I would be boring if we all agreed. But you keep pulling out parts (2nd time this thread) of my post without reading the rest of it. When I threw out the assist numbers, I was using it as assist-to-fga ratio. Blaylock's and Van Exel's ratios are comparable. i wasn't just looking at JUST assist. And in Mookies last few years at ATL, he was the offensive player that nick is today.
