To date, I'd say Mookie or Hollis. IMO, WW would have to do ALOT this year to pass either of them.
This right here...
I love guys like Corey Brewer and Tim McCallister, but right now the discussion is between Mookie and Hollis.
I think playing four years should factor into it quite a bit, even though I suppose that might be a little bit old school. Hollis was the cornerstone player for Kelvin's two best seasons at OU and I think people have forgotten how clutch he was. You were never worried if he was at the line or if he rose up for a shot in a tight game. He was a top-notch human being and represented us all very well. I find it a little bit odd that many current OU fans came to OU basketball while Hollis was playing and his career has already been diminished a bit by fans.
All that being said, as much as I love Hollis there is no way to really put him ahead of Mook. Even if the four year thing is a major factor in determining who you choose, Mookie still stands out. Looking at their career numbers, I was surprised to find that Mookie shot a higher field goal percentage and was remarkably close in his three point percentage (37.9% to 39.2%), and I was also surprised to see that Mookie actually attempted just as many threes as Hollis. Their junior and senior seasons also compare very similarly in PPG, with Mookie going for 16.4 and 20.0, Hollis going for 16.5 and 18.0. So as scorers, they look very similar by the numbers.
But thats as far as the comparison remains close. I think we forget what a good rebounder Mookie was for a point guard (4.4 career) and we all know how good he was defensively. The areas where Mookie really ends the argument is when you look at assists, turnovers and steals, three really big stats for guards. Mookie had more assists and steals in his two year career then Hollis had in all four seasons he played. His career assist to turnover ratio was 2.3 to 1, while Price's was 1.7 to 1. That is a big enough disparity, but its interesting to note that in Price's final two seasons (when Quannas was the primary ball handler) his assist to turnover ratio was only 1.4 to 1. Mookie clearly had a much larger impact on the game then Hollis did.
If pro careers have any bearing on the argument, I think we all know it isn't really close. Mookie had a solid career in the league, making the All Star game in 94, two All Defensive First Teams and four All Defensive Second Teams. I was a little surprised to learn that on the NBA all time career list he is
7th in steals per game,
8th in three pointers attempted,
11th in steals,
15th in three pointers made,
26th in assists,
27th in assists per game and
90th in minutes played. That is a pretty nice career.
I could only really come up with 2 negatives on Mookie. The first was that he was just an awful free throw shooter (66% career). That's a big no-no for a point guard. The other was the off the court stuff. The first and only time that I cried over an athlete was when I saw the news report that Mookie had been arrested for punching his girlfriend at a convenience store. Hollis definitely did a better job of keeping his nose clean.
Ultimately, I think its pretty obvious that Mookie is the answer. I'm not sure Willie can catch him unless he has an otherworldly sophomore year. And if you still think 4 years vs. 2 years is a major factor, or if you think playing at Billy's pace vs. Kelvin's pace is a major factor, keep this in mind:
Pearl Jam originally wanted the name of their band to be Mookie Blaylock, but they were unable to do it when the Epic was worried about trademark issues. They did, however, name their first album "Ten" as a wink to Mookie's jersey number. If that doesn't convince you to choose Mookie, I'm not sure anything will.