penbeast0 wrote: Howard also has the Dwightmare season and the following season of confusion in LA; but Cowens has similar issues in his end career with Boston then the half season and quit again stunt in Milwaukee. .
I really don't see these situations as being remotely comprable. Cowens quit because he didn't think he could play up to expectations/contract. Dwight wrecked two franchises for selfish reasons. You can knock Cowens for how his career ended for sure, but I have a hard time calling it "similar issues".
I will agree that he messed up Orlando but why LA he was traded to them despite no strong desires to go there, they had a bad season and being a free agent he decided to sign elsewhere don't see anything wrong with that
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
penbeast0 wrote: Howard also has the Dwightmare season and the following season of confusion in LA; but Cowens has similar issues in his end career with Boston then the half season and quit again stunt in Milwaukee. .
I really don't see these situations as being remotely comprable. Cowens quit because he didn't think he could play up to expectations/contract. Dwight wrecked two franchises for selfish reasons. You can knock Cowens for how his career ended for sure, but I have a hard time calling it "similar issues".
I will agree that he messed up Orlando but why LA he was traded to them despite no strong desires to go there, they had a bad season and being a free agent he decided to sign elsewhere don't see anything wrong with that
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
He argued with Steve Nash of all people, tried to get Kobe traded, and ignorantly thought he was a better post player than Pau Gasol. He's like the anti-David Robinson as far as portability via ego/attitude...
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
I'm impressed with schayes' longevity and production relative to his era. I'm taking cousy's accolades with a grain of salt as he played on the most dominant team for a decade and his impact in the playoffs was inconsistent. Arizin comes off as a more versatile player in some respects, whereas sharman and jones could give you solid scoring at the guard spots.
I had a chance to scan a copy of a chapter of a book that was mailed to me by an APBR member a few months back (The Lonely Heroes: Professional Basketball's Great Centers; Merv Harris 1975). Worth a read IMO:
I had a chance to scan a copy of a chapter of a book that was mailed to me by an APBR member a few months back (The Lonely Heroes: Professional Basketball's Great Centers; Merv Harris 1975). Worth a read IMO:
4th quarter only, but might be worth a watch, as it's evidently the only game tape of Nate in his prime (outside of highlight videos).
That game from '75 is great. Van Lier has a modern game; I never knew he was that creative offensively and that he could handle like that.
Thurmond's awareness, spatial recognition, and lateral quicks — especially at that age — are better than what I expected. Seems like a cerebral observer of what is occurring around him on both ends. Stays with wings well, boxes out, strong defensive rebounding...looks to have a crazy long wingspan. I think he'd be a good pick-n-roll defender while also being able to shut down the behemoth types and hit the defensive glass.
I wasn't impressed with the actual assists since they were more like Noah-type assists, but passing is probably his best skill. He's severely lacking in scoring skills, however. He had good spacial recognition to be able to hit the offensive glass and roll to the hoop, but doesn't have much touch. Made bad decisions as far as taking those turnaround fadeaways, too. Those shots could be cut down in an era geared towards efficiency optimization though.
Great find, thanks man!
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Okay, so now I can finally vote for Pierce. Honestly, I felt like he was a very deserving candidate also at 38 and 39 (or even as early as 36), but I was trying to be cautious, and rate him fairly (because I may be a little biased, he's my #1 favorite player).
I could really write a lengthy post, describing Pierce's game at any given point of his career, but I don't think it's really necessary - he's a current player and basically all of us saw him play in his prime.
So, I'll say this - Pierce was a top 10 player in the league in a few seasons (2002, 2003, 2006, 2008), very good scorer (usually clearly above average efficiency, even during his volume scoring, 25+ PPG seasons, during a really inefficient era, like the early 2000s). Very good rebounder, decent playmaker (it's never been his best role, and he usually turned the ball over a bit too often, when asked to play like a point forward, but he could certainly create off the dribble in half-court, even without screens, just using his footwork and a vast array of fakes and spin moves), above average defender, career-wise (at times, I even thought that he deserved some All-Defensive 2nd team consideration - 2002 and 2005, in particular, if we're talking about about the pre-Big 3 era). Inconsistent playoff performer, but not a bad one, and it's understandable considering how much pressure opposing defenses were putting on your team's star wing player, in the era where a lot of teams were basically "one man teams", like for example the Raptors with VC, Sixers with AI, Magic with T-Mac, Celtics with Pierce (okay, Toine was certainly talented, but Pierce was a much better player than him, and your primary goal as an opposing coach was to slow down PP).
Truth's best argument may be his overall scoring arsenal (creating off the dribble, pick & rolls, get to the rim, shoot a midrange jumper, 3-ball, post game, amazing footwork, change of pace and direction, and also an excellent ability to get to the foul line, as well as even play some point forward, at times).
Pierce looks pretty well in RAPM (sometimes almost elite, like 2002, 2005, 2008, even 2009) as well as boxscore numbers, and he's remarkably consistent throughout his career. Also a very portable player - had a pretty smooth transition from your typical volume scoring wing, to a 19 point scorer on very high efficiency, with good all-around game and defense (very high basketball IQ and great toughness/competitive nature).
Even his peak was pretty good - IMO just outside the top 5 in 2002 (that's IMO his overall peak, offense + defense), and top 10 in a very stacked year, in terms of the top level talent, like 2006 (I'd say that's his offensive peak, but his defense was clearly worse than usual, so I'd say 2002 was slightly better, overall) - in '06, he also had a stretch when he could totally go toe-to-toe with the very best wings in the league (on February 15, he dropped 50/7/8 on 56% TS against LeBron, then on February 26th he scored 39 against Kobe, who had 40, but PP had higher percentage from the field, and in the very next game, scored 38 against Wade and the Heat, on March 1st) - I know it looks like I'm cherry-picking, but I'm not implying that Pierce was as good as Kobe, LeBron or Wade - he certainly wasn't as athletic as these guys, and as a result, not nearly as capable of performing at that level consistently, but on a good day, he was just as good as any player in the league, and certainly wasn't afraid of any opponent, especially his matchups with Kobe were always pretty intense (http://bkref.com/tiny/CHzSM <------- here are Pierce's career numbers against Kobe - pretty interesting that they're almost equal in the RS - obviously, I'm NOT trying to say that Pierce was as good as Kobe, no, it would be insane, but he certainly stepped up his game in those matchups).
Where Pierce really shines is his longevity - almost 16 seasons as a meaningful contributor, including about 6 seasons as a superstar, and a very long prime (I'd say 2001-11 was his prime, so 10.5 seasons, counting his 2006-07 season, when he played just 47 games, as half a season).
Looking back at my votes in the previous threads, and this analysis of Pierce, right here, he actually seems to have a very good case against someone like Isiah.
ronnymac2 wrote:I wasn't impressed with the actual assists since they were more like Noah-type assists, but passing is probably his best skill. He's severely lacking in scoring skills, however. He had good spacial recognition to be able to hit the offensive glass and roll to the hoop, but doesn't have much touch. Made bad decisions as far as taking those turnaround fadeaways, too. Those shots could be cut down in an era geared towards efficiency optimization though.
Great breakdown of some legitimate issues for me. His scoring is the reason I'm withholding voting for him at this moment.
I don't believe he had a big ego. From reading some of the articles, and from his late career transition into a defensive specialist, it seems he might've been willing to take on less of an offensive role. I don't think there's a 100% guarantee though, and I'm not sure who he'd resemble with a lower usage offensive game in his prime.
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
Clyde Frazier wrote:Here's a quick look at some of the older candidates left on the board: Dolph Schayes, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Paul Arizin, and Sam Jones
Jones really came later than these guys, but I'll add him in as he's gotten a vote in this thread. Career stat and accolade comparisons:
I'm impressed with schayes' longevity and production relative to his era. I'm taking cousy's accolades with a grain of salt as he played on the most dominant team for a decade and his impact in the playoffs was inconsistent. Arizin comes off as a more versatile player in some respects, whereas sharman and jones could give you solid scoring at the guard spots.
In terms of straight box score impact, Schayes looks like the best (not a good shooter but 90% from FT line and good foul draw) and he has the best defensive rep. Cousy looks like the worst (mainly bad efficiency even relative to the others from his era) though he has the second highest DWS despite his poor defensive reputation; however, his playmaking may be being underrated. I would tentatively rank them Schayes, Arizin, Sharman, Jones, Cousy.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
It's cool to see that I'm not the only one here who loves what Sheed brought to the table. He'll be getting voted into the top 100 this time around, although I wouldn't put him in the top 50.
RebelWithACause wrote:I do not participate in this project, yet I want to make a case for Rasheed Wallace at this time. Yes, Crazy Sheed! The argument for Sheed will resolve around impact stats.
Playing Style:
Offense Immensely talented inside-outside threat. Gets most of his offense by posting up, but spots up on the perimeter pretty frequently as well. Very high consistent release. Capable from hitting shots all the way out past the three point line. Tremendously consistent from that range for his size and skill set. Great post game. Likes to turn over his right shoulder to his reliable hook shot. Tough to spot due to his mixture of length and physicality. Won’t dribble to score. No reason to guard his drive on the perimeter. Needs to be recognized when trailing plays. Lights out when unguarded. Very good midrange game as well. Capable of hitting turnarounds and fade aways with impressive range. Sets very solid screens. Can roll to the rim or pop out to the outside. Great hands. Good offensive rebounder. (From DX)
Defense A real defensive anchor. Great post defender, great help defender. Very mobile in his prime, with the ability to cover much ground.
The question here is, can a 16/7/2 guy with great defense be better than a 22/4/3 guy that is hyperefficient? For me yes, see below.
Non-Boxscore Impact: Here is a comparison of Sheed and others discussed so far at number 40. I only look at a 3 year prime, because we do not have any more prime data for Reggie. Sheed throughout his prime was mostly a 35-36 mpg player, so the Ginobili argument skewed impact etc, does not belong here. He kept displaying that impact in very different roles on different teams as well, so there is absolutely no reason to dismiss that data.
3-year prime (best years) normalized RAPM from 1998 - 2012
On top of his best years Sheed has: 2 more seasons with +6 , 2 more seasons with +5 and 3 more season with +4. This trumps Pierce by far and Miller probably as well. Was his rebounding problematic? Based on his impact I am sure to say no here. Because of his two way impact, he eclipses everyone of those guys here.
Longevity: Sheed shows amazing longevity. He has an extended prime of 13 years (97-09).
Change of roles: From a role player in Portland to more primacy in Portland or a defensive specialist and stretch four in Detroit, Sheed always had really high impact. In his primacy years he generally shot 15-16 FGA which is plenty and since the goal usually is not to volume score this is enough for me.
Portability Unique Player. Reggie Miller is seen as the portability man here, but look at Wallace. A defensive anchor playing the 4 is very rare, even more so how good of an anchor he was. This still gives you the chance to have an even better defense (see Detroit 04) to add a great defensive Center next to him and have an All-Time great defense. His ability as a stretch four provides spacing, which to say the least is very en vogue today. There is no other stretch four that is an elite defender. Rasheed is unique in that sense and you can plug him on any team basically and he will do his thing.
Character/Personality: Yes Sheed was crazy, but it did not hurt his impact. In his later prime years, in Detroit, he was seen as a leader and was extremely liked by his teammates. Also in Boston and New york later on. A guy like Sheed can hurt a team sometimes with his dumb technicals , but his character also energized teammates multiple times. Seeing that he was a good teammate and still was exporating that impact makes his character a much smaller issue. Thoughts on this?
Last question So to those who value impact stats, why Miller, Pierce, Dwight or Mutombo over Rasheed?
Conclusion Ball don't lie
Rasheed wallace?? Wow.
Very insightful response, I did not expect any less of you...
Rasheed Wallace is a guy that will most likely not make the fall of fame and you're talking about him as a top 40 candidate? I don't understand your line of thinking here.
I'm voting Pierce. To me him and Iverson were pretty much a tossup, seing Iverson is getting 0 traction it makes voting for Pierce easier. He's one of the great scorers and clutch shot makers this league has seen. I see arguments for Miller over Pierce, but i'm not buying them. Pierce has a more all around impact on the game than miller, Miller's main strength is his scoring and i don't believe he's even better than Pierce at it. Pierce does everything else better too, playmaking, defense, and rebounding. Pierce has averaged 25+ 5 different seasons on good efficiency, Miller cracked 25 ppg just once.
I wouldn't even put Miller over Ray Allen, but it is a lot closer than i at first realized.
I do not participate in this project, yet I want to make a case for Rasheed Wallace at this time. Yes, Crazy Sheed! The argument for Sheed will resolve around impact stats.
Playing Style:
Offense Immensely talented inside-outside threat. Gets most of his offense by posting up, but spots up on the perimeter pretty frequently as well. Very high consistent release. Capable from hitting shots all the way out past the three point line. Tremendously consistent from that range for his size and skill set. Great post game. Likes to turn over his right shoulder to his reliable hook shot. Tough to spot due to his mixture of length and physicality. Won’t dribble to score. No reason to guard his drive on the perimeter. Needs to be recognized when trailing plays. Lights out when unguarded. Very good midrange game as well. Capable of hitting turnarounds and fade aways with impressive range. Sets very solid screens. Can roll to the rim or pop out to the outside. Great hands. Good offensive rebounder. (From DX)
Defense A real defensive anchor. Great post defender, great help defender. Very mobile in his prime, with the ability to cover much ground.
The question here is, can a 16/7/2 guy with great defense be better than a 22/4/3 guy that is hyperefficient? For me yes, see below.
Non-Boxscore Impact: Here is a comparison of Sheed and others discussed so far at number 40. I only look at a 3 year prime, because we do not have any more prime data for Reggie. Sheed throughout his prime was mostly a 35-36 mpg player, so the Ginobili argument skewed impact etc, does not belong here. He kept displaying that impact in very different roles on different teams as well, so there is absolutely no reason to dismiss that data.
3-year prime (best years) normalized RAPM from 1998 - 2012
On top of his best years Sheed has: 2 more seasons with +6 , 2 more seasons with +5 and 3 more season with +4. This trumps Pierce by far and Miller probably as well. Was his rebounding problematic? Based on his impact I am sure to say no here. Because of his two way impact, he eclipses everyone of those guys here.
Longevity: Sheed shows amazing longevity. He has an extended prime of 13 years (97-09).
Change of roles: From a role player in Portland to more primacy in Portland or a defensive specialist and stretch four in Detroit, Sheed always had really high impact. In his primacy years he generally shot 15-16 FGA which is plenty and since the goal usually is not to volume score this is enough for me.
Portability Unique Player. Reggie Miller is seen as the portability man here, but look at Wallace. A defensive anchor playing the 4 is very rare, even more so how good of an anchor he was. This still gives you the chance to have an even better defense (see Detroit 04) to add a great defensive Center next to him and have an All-Time great defense. His ability as a stretch four provides spacing, which to say the least is very en vogue today. There is no other stretch four that is an elite defender. Rasheed is unique in that sense and you can plug him on any team basically and he will do his thing.
Character/Personality: Yes Sheed was crazy, but it did not hurt his impact. In his later prime years, in Detroit, he was seen as a leader and was extremely liked by his teammates. Also in Boston and New york later on. A guy like Sheed can hurt a team sometimes with his dumb technicals , but his character also energized teammates multiple times. Seeing that he was a good teammate and still was exporating that impact makes his character a much smaller issue. Thoughts on this?
Last question So to those who value impact stats, why Miller, Pierce, Dwight or Mutombo over Rasheed?
Conclusion Ball don't lie
This was an interesting and timely post, because I've been trying to decide when to start looking more seriously at Sheed. As you alluded to, when Doc MJ put together his RAPM 1998 - 2012 spreadsheet this summer, Sheed's huge numbers were one of the bigger eye-catchers. First I had to decide whether there was a reasonable rationale for him to have been impacting the game at that level, and then I had/have to decide what to do if I believe that he was.
Upon closer examination, his RAPM scores seem defendable. A lot of his value is tied to his defensive impact, and I knew him to be very strong on defense. On offense his numbers look reasonable for a stretch 4 with good post moves as well. On the other hand, there is also lots of baggage there. So what to do?
Sheed vs Pierce
Sheed's chronology (eye test/my view of the state of analysis/sentiment of the time) I don't think I'd have quite brought Sheed up on his own just yet. I'm still not quite sure. But if Pierce is getting major traction I feel almost compelled to look strongly at Sheed, because frankly I think Sheed was just better. The chronology is interesting in this comparison, as my initial impressions have been alternatively supported and challenged as more information has come available.
In the early 2000s, I had Sheed in that group of ridiculous Western Conference power forwards that were taking over the game. Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Dirk, Sheed...every non-Lakers team that wanted to compete in the West needed one of these dominant 4s, and I had Sheed right there in the group. And at that time I would have taken any of those PFs, including Sheed, over any of the Pierce/Carter/Ray Allen level of wings that were doing well in the East without a blink.
Then, Sheed's explosions/implosions went beyond distracting into just ridiculous. And the Blazers closed up shop as an elite team and shipped Sheed East. By then I wasn't really thinking of him on that super level anymore. When the Blazers traded him to Atlanta I didn't expect a seismic shift in the landscape, and when Atlanta shipped him to Detroit on the day after they got him I didn't expect all that much either.
But when Sheed got to Detroit...suddenly, the Pistons were un-score-upon-able. They finished that season with some absurd defensive feats, holding teams to scores in the 60s and 70s, and then they topped it off by dominating a Lakers squad that I thought they had no business on the court with. Live action I credited the other Wallace with the defense, and Chauncey took home the FMVP. I thought of Sheed as more of a finishing piece than a catalyst, as his 14 and 7 boxscore numbers were hardly earth shattering and as I said, I attributed the defense more to Big Ben.
By the time we were doing this Top 11 list in 2011 I could have almost forgotten that I'd ever thought of Sheed on an epic level. He looked good in the APM studies available at the time, but they weren't super in depth. And Sheed was taking a beating in the box score based stats and in the court of RealGM discussion, as his rebounding looked terrible for a big, and his attitude had been widely panned. He became a popular posterchild for those that liked to point out how strong his post moves were then decry his decision to settle for so many long jumpers. "He could have been as good as Duncan or KG but didn't have the head for it" became a popular debate, with some believing that statement while others vociferously arguing that he was talented but never THAT talented and that he just wasn't as good as people thought.
Pierce's chronology (eye test/my view of the state of analysis/sentiment of the time) This wave of sentiment moved Sheed way down the rankings, while in 2011 there was a reverse surge for Paul Pierce up the rankings. Pierce had always been a great player, even when his teams were horrible, but he had always been overshadowed early in the 2000s by the TMacs, Iversons, and Carters of the world. In the mid/late 2000s, just before the Big 3 era, I started seeing my first statistically-based arguments that Pierce was really better than those guys. Ironically (I say this because Wins Produced isn't en vogue around here), it was the Wins Produced stat and associated blog that first made that case. Dave Berri argued that, based upon the story that Wins Produced tells, that Pierce in the early half of the decade was actually on the level of Kobe Bryant. This was mainly a stat geeky type debate, but then Garnett and Allen got traded to Boston and an extremely interesting dynamic happened.
The 2008 Celtics EXPLODED out of the box, coming within a bouncing ball or two of starting the season 32 - 0 (they were actually 29 - 3) and putting up scoring margins that were unheard of outside of the 96 Bulls. The leader of the push was Kevin Garnett, and he started getting a lot of early season plaudits. Interestingly, the groundswell of resistance to KG getting pushed into legend territory came from long-time Celtics fans. I remember Bob Ryan writing an article where he said something to the effect of "It's Larry Legend, not Kevin Legend" because he was offended that Garnett was getting run as the best player to wear Celtics green since Larry. And a lot of the long-time Celtics fans in the blogosphere were saying that while KG was the new thing, that giving him so much credit was disrespectful to Pierce. Then KG missed 9 games and the Celtics kept doing well, and the buzz that Pierce should be getting more credit started getting louder. I remember Bill Simmons had an article around the playoffs about how the Celtics were really still Pierce's team. Then Pierce went on to win that Finals MVP, and among a lot of people this cemented his new level. He was a career-Celtic, challenging for all of the Celtics records, he was a champion, the captain, and it validated that he really had been underrated for all of those years when the team sucked.
By the time the 2011 rankings rolled around, Pierce was a very popular "he was underrated" character around here. Much like KG, the further you looked into advanced stats the better he looked. That Wins Produced argument from 2006 was amplified by the multi-year RAPM studies that were coming out at the time that had Pierce looking pretty strong. At the time those studies were more from the mid/early part of the 2000s on, but Pierce was showing up better than guys like Jason Kidd and I remember in the 2011 project that was used as a major support for Pierce. Plus, in that project, Pierce had a couple of very vocal advocates that put him on the radar well before I expected and created a groundswell where he was voted in early than expected.
My sense of where to rank Pierce was interesting. I was one that frequented the Wages of Wins blog in the mid-2000s, and I thought Berri's argument that Pierce was way better than folks realized was cool and convincing. Then, the state of the APM/RAPM studies around 2011 validated that Pierce was great and had a big impact for a lot of years. On the other hand, those same studies seemed (to me) to indicate that while Pierce was great for a lot of years, they also confirmed that he was never transcendant. He had an excellent career and impacted the game strongly in a variety of different roles, but he never had the kind of impact that would allow him to be a championship centerpiece. He could be the best player on a bad team or an excellent lieutenant on a contender, but you didn't really want to build with him as your best player.
Sheed vs Pierce current bottom line Coming full circle, then, the recent more granular yearly RAPM studies that go back to 1998, help to put Sheed's career in a new light while further verifying what I believed about Pierce. Pierce (and Reggie) have 3-year peaks in DocMJ's RAPM spreadsheet that are in te top-30 measured over the 1998 - 2012 range. They're very strong, below the types of players that we've seen voted in thus far. Payton, Kidd, Stockton and Paul all had higher 3-year marks...Mutombo and Howard are also higher in 3-year peak in this database as well, though it's close.
On the other hand, Sheed's impact on the scoring margins of those late 90s/2000 Blazers really WAS similar in magnitude to the best that we saw from Dirk prior to 2011. Even in for the early 2000s Blazers and mid 2000s Pistons, Sheed was still regularly being credited with scoring margin influences influences at least as large as anything we saw from Webber. He was never as good as Duncan or KG, but Sheed really was a having a huge positive impact on his teams. Despite the attitude, despite the explosions, despite the lack of rebounding, despite the he-doesn't-post-as-often-as-many-would-like...despite all of that, Sheed was having top shelf impact in major minutes on not one but TWO championship contending teams. His defense was game-changing, his offense had positive complimentary impact, and he proved his portability by dint of playing on two different high-talent casts.
This information re-confirms my original eye-test opinions of Sheed and Pierce from a decade ago, and helps me put the analysis and commentary of both players over the last decade into better perspective. I'm not sure if I have Sheed over players like Mourning, Mutombo or Howard that have a lot of Sheed's same advantages and similar measured impacts but without some of the huge question marks that Sheed has. But I am reasonably sure that I've got Sheed comfortably ahead of Pierce, unless I read some new perspectives here that really change my mind.
Good discussion. Sorry I haven't really participated. I've somewhat had my butt handed to me by life the last two days. Will try to be more involved in subsequent threads.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
I do not participate in this project, yet I want to make a case for Rasheed Wallace at this time. Yes, Crazy Sheed! The argument for Sheed will resolve around impact stats.
Playing Style:
Offense Immensely talented inside-outside threat. Gets most of his offense by posting up, but spots up on the perimeter pretty frequently as well. Very high consistent release. Capable from hitting shots all the way out past the three point line. Tremendously consistent from that range for his size and skill set. Great post game. Likes to turn over his right shoulder to his reliable hook shot. Tough to spot due to his mixture of length and physicality. Won’t dribble to score. No reason to guard his drive on the perimeter. Needs to be recognized when trailing plays. Lights out when unguarded. Very good midrange game as well. Capable of hitting turnarounds and fade aways with impressive range. Sets very solid screens. Can roll to the rim or pop out to the outside. Great hands. Good offensive rebounder. (From DX)
Defense A real defensive anchor. Great post defender, great help defender. Very mobile in his prime, with the ability to cover much ground.
The question here is, can a 16/7/2 guy with great defense be better than a 22/4/3 guy that is hyperefficient? For me yes, see below.
Non-Boxscore Impact: Here is a comparison of Sheed and others discussed so far at number 40. I only look at a 3 year prime, because we do not have any more prime data for Reggie. Sheed throughout his prime was mostly a 35-36 mpg player, so the Ginobili argument skewed impact etc, does not belong here. He kept displaying that impact in very different roles on different teams as well, so there is absolutely no reason to dismiss that data.
3-year prime (best years) normalized RAPM from 1998 - 2012
On top of his best years Sheed has: 2 more seasons with +6 , 2 more seasons with +5 and 3 more season with +4. This trumps Pierce by far and Miller probably as well. Was his rebounding problematic? Based on his impact I am sure to say no here. Because of his two way impact, he eclipses everyone of those guys here.
Longevity: Sheed shows amazing longevity. He has an extended prime of 13 years (97-09).
Change of roles: From a role player in Portland to more primacy in Portland or a defensive specialist and stretch four in Detroit, Sheed always had really high impact. In his primacy years he generally shot 15-16 FGA which is plenty and since the goal usually is not to volume score this is enough for me.
Portability Unique Player. Reggie Miller is seen as the portability man here, but look at Wallace. A defensive anchor playing the 4 is very rare, even more so how good of an anchor he was. This still gives you the chance to have an even better defense (see Detroit 04) to add a great defensive Center next to him and have an All-Time great defense. His ability as a stretch four provides spacing, which to say the least is very en vogue today. There is no other stretch four that is an elite defender. Rasheed is unique in that sense and you can plug him on any team basically and he will do his thing.
Character/Personality: Yes Sheed was crazy, but it did not hurt his impact. In his later prime years, in Detroit, he was seen as a leader and was extremely liked by his teammates. Also in Boston and New york later on. A guy like Sheed can hurt a team sometimes with his dumb technicals , but his character also energized teammates multiple times. Seeing that he was a good teammate and still was exporating that impact makes his character a much smaller issue. Thoughts on this?
Last question So to those who value impact stats, why Miller, Pierce, Dwight or Mutombo over Rasheed?
Conclusion Ball don't lie
This was an interesting and timely post, because I've been trying to decide when to start looking more seriously at Sheed. As you alluded to, when Doc MJ put together his RAPM 1998 - 2012 spreadsheet this summer, Sheed's huge numbers were one of the bigger eye-catchers. First I had to decide whether there was a reasonable rationale for him to have been impacting the game at that level, and then I had/have to decide what to do if I believe that he was.
Upon closer examination, his RAPM scores seem defendable. A lot of his value is tied to his defensive impact, and I knew him to be very strong on defense. On offense his numbers look reasonable for a stretch 4 with good post moves as well. On the other hand, there is also lots of baggage there. So what to do?
Sheed vs Pierce
Sheed's chronology (eye test/my view of the state of analysis/sentiment of the time) I don't think I'd have quite brought Sheed up on his own just yet. I'm still not quite sure. But if Pierce is getting major traction I feel almost compelled to look strongly at Sheed, because frankly I think Sheed was just better. The chronology is interesting in this comparison, as my initial impressions have been alternatively supported and challenged as more information has come available.
In the early 2000s, I had Sheed in that group of ridiculous Western Conference power forwards that were taking over the game. Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Dirk, Sheed...every non-Lakers team that wanted to compete in the West needed one of these dominant 4s, and I had Sheed right there in the group. And at that time I would have taken any of those PFs, including Sheed, over any of the Pierce/Carter/Ray Allen level of wings that were doing well in the East without a blink.
Then, Sheed's explosions/implosions went beyond distracting into just ridiculous. And the Blazers closed up shop as an elite team and shipped Sheed East. By then I wasn't really thinking of him on that super level anymore. When the Blazers traded him to Atlanta I didn't expect a seismic shift in the landscape, and when Atlanta shipped him to Detroit on the day after they got him I didn't expect all that much either.
But when Sheed got to Detroit...suddenly, the Pistons were un-score-upon-able. They finished that season with some absurd defensive feats, holding teams to scores in the 60s and 70s, and then they topped it off by dominating a Lakers squad that I thought they had no business on the court with. Live action I credited the other Wallace with the defense, and Chauncey took home the FMVP. I thought of Sheed as more of a finishing piece than a catalyst, as his 14 and 7 boxscore numbers were hardly earth shattering and as I said, I attributed the defense more to Big Ben.
By the time we were doing this Top 11 list in 2011 I could have almost forgotten that I'd ever thought of Sheed on an epic level. He looked good in the APM studies available at the time, but they weren't super in depth. And Sheed was taking a beating in the box score based stats and in the court of RealGM discussion, as his rebounding looked terrible for a big, and his attitude had been widely panned. He became a popular posterchild for those that liked to point out how strong his post moves were then decry his decision to settle for so many long jumpers. "He could have been as good as Duncan or KG but didn't have the head for it" became a popular debate, with some believing that statement while others vociferously arguing that he was talented but never THAT talented and that he just wasn't as good as people thought.
Pierce's chronology (eye test/my view of the state of analysis/sentiment of the time) This wave of sentiment moved Sheed way down the rankings, while in 2011 there was a reverse surge for Paul Pierce up the rankings. Pierce had always been a great player, even when his teams were horrible, but he had always been overshadowed early in the 2000s by the TMacs, Iversons, and Carters of the world. In the mid/late 2000s, just before the Big 3 era, I started seeing my first statistically-based arguments that Pierce was really better than those guys. Ironically (I say this because Wins Produced isn't en vogue around here), it was the Wins Produced stat and associated blog that first made that case. Dave Berri argued that, based upon the story that Wins Produced tells, that Pierce in the early half of the decade was actually on the level of Kobe Bryant. This was mainly a stat geeky type debate, but then Garnett and Allen got traded to Boston and an extremely interesting dynamic happened.
The 2008 Celtics EXPLODED out of the box, coming within a bouncing ball or two of starting the season 32 - 0 (they were actually 29 - 3) and putting up scoring margins that were unheard of outside of the 96 Bulls. The leader of the push was Kevin Garnett, and he started getting a lot of early season plaudits. Interestingly, the groundswell of resistance to KG getting pushed into legend territory came from long-time Celtics fans. I remember Bob Ryan writing an article where he said something to the effect of "It's Larry Legend, not Kevin Legend" because he was offended that Garnett was getting run as the best player to wear Celtics green since Larry. And a lot of the long-time Celtics fans in the blogosphere were saying that while KG was the new thing, that giving him so much credit was disrespectful to Pierce. Then KG missed 9 games and the Celtics kept doing well, and the buzz that Pierce should be getting more credit started getting louder. I remember Bill Simmons had an article around the playoffs about how the Celtics were really still Pierce's team. Then Pierce went on to win that Finals MVP, and among a lot of people this cemented his new level. He was a career-Celtic, challenging for all of the Celtics records, he was a champion, the captain, and it validated that he really had been underrated for all of those years when the team sucked.
By the time the 2011 rankings rolled around, Pierce was a very popular "he was underrated" character around here. Much like KG, the further you looked into advanced stats the better he looked. That Wins Produced argument from 2006 was amplified by the multi-year RAPM studies that were coming out at the time that had Pierce looking pretty strong. At the time those studies were more from the mid/early part of the 2000s on, but Pierce was showing up better than guys like Jason Kidd and I remember in the 2011 project that was used as a major support for Pierce. Plus, in that project, Pierce had a couple of very vocal advocates that put him on the radar well before I expected and created a groundswell where he was voted in early than expected.
My sense of where to rank Pierce was interesting. I was one that frequented the Wages of Wins blog in the mid-2000s, and I thought Berri's argument that Pierce was way better than folks realized was cool and convincing. Then, the state of the APM/RAPM studies around 2011 validated that Pierce was great and had a big impact for a lot of years. On the other hand, those same studies seemed (to me) to indicate that while Pierce was great for a lot of years, they also confirmed that he was never transcendant. He had an excellent career and impacted the game strongly in a variety of different roles, but he never had the kind of impact that would allow him to be a championship centerpiece. He could be the best player on a bad team or an excellent lieutenant on a contender, but you didn't really want to build with him as your best player.
Sheed vs Pierce current bottom line Coming full circle, then, the recent more granular yearly RAPM studies that go back to 1998, help to put Sheed's career in a new light while further verifying what I believed about Pierce. Pierce (and Reggie) have 3-year peaks in DocMJ's RAPM spreadsheet that are in te top-30 measured over the 1998 - 2012 range. They're very strong, below the types of players that we've seen voted in thus far. Payton, Kidd, Stockton and Paul all had higher 3-year marks...Mutombo and Howard are also higher in 3-year peak in this database as well, though it's close.
On the other hand, Sheed's impact on the scoring margins of those late 90s/2000 Blazers really WAS similar in magnitude to the best that we saw from Dirk prior to 2011. Even in for the early 2000s Blazers and mid 2000s Pistons, Sheed was still regularly being credited with scoring margin influences influences at least as large as anything we saw from Webber. He was never as good as Duncan or KG, but Sheed really was a having a huge positive impact on his teams. Despite the attitude, despite the explosions, despite the lack of rebounding, despite the he-doesn't-post-as-often-as-many-would-like...despite all of that, Sheed was having top shelf impact in major minutes on not one but TWO championship contending teams. His defense was game-changing, his offense had positive complimentary impact, and he proved his portability by dint of playing on two different high-talent casts.
This information re-confirms my original eye-test opinions of Sheed and Pierce from a decade ago, and helps me put the analysis and commentary of both players over the last decade into better perspective. I'm not sure if I have Sheed over players like Mourning, Mutombo or Howard that have a lot of Sheed's same advantages and similar measured impacts but without some of the huge question marks that Sheed has. But I am reasonably sure that I've got Sheed comfortably ahead of Pierce, unless I read some new perspectives here that really change my mind.
So who do you credit more for detroit a defense Ben or Rasheed and what does the advanced metrics have to say about it
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
I came here to do two things: get lost and slice **** up & I'm all out of directions.
Butler removing rearview mirror in his car as a symbol to never look back
Peja Stojakovic wrote:Jimmy butler, with no regard for human life
Very much open to changing this, but I'll make T-Mac my official vote for now. Perhaps the best peak left. He's got a 5-6 year stretch comparable to Kobe Bryant and nearly as good of a peak. He's got other useful seasons as well. Just a dynamic wing with a desirable skillset.
He's on the Kobe/Wade level as far as playmaking off the pick-n-roll, he can take on incredible volume/USG%, he can shoot coming off screens, he's got range, and he can play legit Point Forward. Solid defensive player, especially early in his career. 2005 was probably his defensive peak and second best season overall.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
I do not participate in this project, yet I want to make a case for Rasheed Wallace at this time. Yes, Crazy Sheed! The argument for Sheed will resolve around impact stats.
Playing Style:
Offense Immensely talented inside-outside threat. Gets most of his offense by posting up, but spots up on the perimeter pretty frequently as well. Very high consistent release. Capable from hitting shots all the way out past the three point line. Tremendously consistent from that range for his size and skill set. Great post game. Likes to turn over his right shoulder to his reliable hook shot. Tough to spot due to his mixture of length and physicality. Won’t dribble to score. No reason to guard his drive on the perimeter. Needs to be recognized when trailing plays. Lights out when unguarded. Very good midrange game as well. Capable of hitting turnarounds and fade aways with impressive range. Sets very solid screens. Can roll to the rim or pop out to the outside. Great hands. Good offensive rebounder. (From DX)
Defense A real defensive anchor. Great post defender, great help defender. Very mobile in his prime, with the ability to cover much ground.
The question here is, can a 16/7/2 guy with great defense be better than a 22/4/3 guy that is hyperefficient? For me yes, see below.
Non-Boxscore Impact: Here is a comparison of Sheed and others discussed so far at number 40. I only look at a 3 year prime, because we do not have any more prime data for Reggie. Sheed throughout his prime was mostly a 35-36 mpg player, so the Ginobili argument skewed impact etc, does not belong here. He kept displaying that impact in very different roles on different teams as well, so there is absolutely no reason to dismiss that data.
3-year prime (best years) normalized RAPM from 1998 - 2012
On top of his best years Sheed has: 2 more seasons with +6 , 2 more seasons with +5 and 3 more season with +4. This trumps Pierce by far and Miller probably as well. Was his rebounding problematic? Based on his impact I am sure to say no here. Because of his two way impact, he eclipses everyone of those guys here.
Longevity: Sheed shows amazing longevity. He has an extended prime of 13 years (97-09).
Change of roles: From a role player in Portland to more primacy in Portland or a defensive specialist and stretch four in Detroit, Sheed always had really high impact. In his primacy years he generally shot 15-16 FGA which is plenty and since the goal usually is not to volume score this is enough for me.
Portability Unique Player. Reggie Miller is seen as the portability man here, but look at Wallace. A defensive anchor playing the 4 is very rare, even more so how good of an anchor he was. This still gives you the chance to have an even better defense (see Detroit 04) to add a great defensive Center next to him and have an All-Time great defense. His ability as a stretch four provides spacing, which to say the least is very en vogue today. There is no other stretch four that is an elite defender. Rasheed is unique in that sense and you can plug him on any team basically and he will do his thing.
Character/Personality: Yes Sheed was crazy, but it did not hurt his impact. In his later prime years, in Detroit, he was seen as a leader and was extremely liked by his teammates. Also in Boston and New york later on. A guy like Sheed can hurt a team sometimes with his dumb technicals , but his character also energized teammates multiple times. Seeing that he was a good teammate and still was exporating that impact makes his character a much smaller issue. Thoughts on this?
Last question So to those who value impact stats, why Miller, Pierce, Dwight or Mutombo over Rasheed?
Conclusion Ball don't lie
Spoiler:
This was an interesting and timely post, because I've been trying to decide when to start looking more seriously at Sheed. As you alluded to, when Doc MJ put together his RAPM 1998 - 2012 spreadsheet this summer, Sheed's huge numbers were one of the bigger eye-catchers. First I had to decide whether there was a reasonable rationale for him to have been impacting the game at that level, and then I had/have to decide what to do if I believe that he was.
Upon closer examination, his RAPM scores seem defendable. A lot of his value is tied to his defensive impact, and I knew him to be very strong on defense. On offense his numbers look reasonable for a stretch 4 with good post moves as well. On the other hand, there is also lots of baggage there. So what to do?
Sheed vs Pierce
Sheed's chronology (eye test/my view of the state of analysis/sentiment of the time) I don't think I'd have quite brought Sheed up on his own just yet. I'm still not quite sure. But if Pierce is getting major traction I feel almost compelled to look strongly at Sheed, because frankly I think Sheed was just better. The chronology is interesting in this comparison, as my initial impressions have been alternatively supported and challenged as more information has come available.
In the early 2000s, I had Sheed in that group of ridiculous Western Conference power forwards that were taking over the game. Duncan, Garnett, Webber, Dirk, Sheed...every non-Lakers team that wanted to compete in the West needed one of these dominant 4s, and I had Sheed right there in the group. And at that time I would have taken any of those PFs, including Sheed, over any of the Pierce/Carter/Ray Allen level of wings that were doing well in the East without a blink.
Then, Sheed's explosions/implosions went beyond distracting into just ridiculous. And the Blazers closed up shop as an elite team and shipped Sheed East. By then I wasn't really thinking of him on that super level anymore. When the Blazers traded him to Atlanta I didn't expect a seismic shift in the landscape, and when Atlanta shipped him to Detroit on the day after they got him I didn't expect all that much either.
But when Sheed got to Detroit...suddenly, the Pistons were un-score-upon-able. They finished that season with some absurd defensive feats, holding teams to scores in the 60s and 70s, and then they topped it off by dominating a Lakers squad that I thought they had no business on the court with. Live action I credited the other Wallace with the defense, and Chauncey took home the FMVP. I thought of Sheed as more of a finishing piece than a catalyst, as his 14 and 7 boxscore numbers were hardly earth shattering and as I said, I attributed the defense more to Big Ben.
By the time we were doing this Top 11 list in 2011 I could have almost forgotten that I'd ever thought of Sheed on an epic level. He looked good in the APM studies available at the time, but they weren't super in depth. And Sheed was taking a beating in the box score based stats and in the court of RealGM discussion, as his rebounding looked terrible for a big, and his attitude had been widely panned. He became a popular posterchild for those that liked to point out how strong his post moves were then decry his decision to settle for so many long jumpers. "He could have been as good as Duncan or KG but didn't have the head for it" became a popular debate, with some believing that statement while others vociferously arguing that he was talented but never THAT talented and that he just wasn't as good as people thought.
Pierce's chronology (eye test/my view of the state of analysis/sentiment of the time) This wave of sentiment moved Sheed way down the rankings, while in 2011 there was a reverse surge for Paul Pierce up the rankings. Pierce had always been a great player, even when his teams were horrible, but he had always been overshadowed early in the 2000s by the TMacs, Iversons, and Carters of the world. In the mid/late 2000s, just before the Big 3 era, I started seeing my first statistically-based arguments that Pierce was really better than those guys. Ironically (I say this because Wins Produced isn't en vogue around here), it was the Wins Produced stat and associated blog that first made that case. Dave Berri argued that, based upon the story that Wins Produced tells, that Pierce in the early half of the decade was actually on the level of Kobe Bryant. This was mainly a stat geeky type debate, but then Garnett and Allen got traded to Boston and an extremely interesting dynamic happened.
The 2008 Celtics EXPLODED out of the box, coming within a bouncing ball or two of starting the season 32 - 0 (they were actually 29 - 3) and putting up scoring margins that were unheard of outside of the 96 Bulls. The leader of the push was Kevin Garnett, and he started getting a lot of early season plaudits. Interestingly, the groundswell of resistance to KG getting pushed into legend territory came from long-time Celtics fans. I remember Bob Ryan writing an article where he said something to the effect of "It's Larry Legend, not Kevin Legend" because he was offended that Garnett was getting run as the best player to wear Celtics green since Larry. And a lot of the long-time Celtics fans in the blogosphere were saying that while KG was the new thing, that giving him so much credit was disrespectful to Pierce. Then KG missed 9 games and the Celtics kept doing well, and the buzz that Pierce should be getting more credit started getting louder. I remember Bill Simmons had an article around the playoffs about how the Celtics were really still Pierce's team. Then Pierce went on to win that Finals MVP, and among a lot of people this cemented his new level. He was a career-Celtic, challenging for all of the Celtics records, he was a champion, the captain, and it validated that he really had been underrated for all of those years when the team sucked.
By the time the 2011 rankings rolled around, Pierce was a very popular "he was underrated" character around here. Much like KG, the further you looked into advanced stats the better he looked. That Wins Produced argument from 2006 was amplified by the multi-year RAPM studies that were coming out at the time that had Pierce looking pretty strong. At the time those studies were more from the mid/early part of the 2000s on, but Pierce was showing up better than guys like Jason Kidd and I remember in the 2011 project that was used as a major support for Pierce. Plus, in that project, Pierce had a couple of very vocal advocates that put him on the radar well before I expected and created a groundswell where he was voted in early than expected.
My sense of where to rank Pierce was interesting. I was one that frequented the Wages of Wins blog in the mid-2000s, and I thought Berri's argument that Pierce was way better than folks realized was cool and convincing. Then, the state of the APM/RAPM studies around 2011 validated that Pierce was great and had a big impact for a lot of years. On the other hand, those same studies seemed (to me) to indicate that while Pierce was great for a lot of years, they also confirmed that he was never transcendant. He had an excellent career and impacted the game strongly in a variety of different roles, but he never had the kind of impact that would allow him to be a championship centerpiece. He could be the best player on a bad team or an excellent lieutenant on a contender, but you didn't really want to build with him as your best player.
Sheed vs Pierce current bottom line Coming full circle, then, the recent more granular yearly RAPM studies that go back to 1998, help to put Sheed's career in a new light while further verifying what I believed about Pierce. Pierce (and Reggie) have 3-year peaks in DocMJ's RAPM spreadsheet that are in te top-30 measured over the 1998 - 2012 range. They're very strong, below the types of players that we've seen voted in thus far. Payton, Kidd, Stockton and Paul all had higher 3-year marks...Mutombo and Howard are also higher in 3-year peak in this database as well, though it's close.
On the other hand, Sheed's impact on the scoring margins of those late 90s/2000 Blazers really WAS similar in magnitude to the best that we saw from Dirk prior to 2011. Even in for the early 2000s Blazers and mid 2000s Pistons, Sheed was still regularly being credited with scoring margin influences influences at least as large as anything we saw from Webber. He was never as good as Duncan or KG, but Sheed really was a having a huge positive impact on his teams. Despite the attitude, despite the explosions, despite the lack of rebounding, despite the he-doesn't-post-as-often-as-many-would-like...despite all of that, Sheed was having top shelf impact in major minutes on not one but TWO championship contending teams. His defense was game-changing, his offense had positive complimentary impact, and he proved his portability by dint of playing on two different high-talent casts.
This information re-confirms my original eye-test opinions of Sheed and Pierce from a decade ago, and helps me put the analysis and commentary of both players over the last decade into better perspective. I'm not sure if I have Sheed over players like Mourning, Mutombo or Howard that have a lot of Sheed's same advantages and similar measured impacts but without some of the huge question marks that Sheed has. But I am reasonably sure that I've got Sheed comfortably ahead of Pierce, unless I read some new perspectives here that really change my mind.
So who do you credit more for detroit a defense Ben or Rasheed and what does the advanced metrics have to say about it
Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
I still tend to think of those Pistons defenses as Ben Wallace-led, and the RAPM data seems to support that though as much more of a 1A/1B than an individual anchor with support. To whit, in 2004 Ben's normalized defensive RAPM is +6.8 while Sheed's is +5.4 (note Sheed only spent half the year in Detroit). In 2005 Ben's normalized DRAPM is +4.1 while Sheed's is +4.0. In 2006 Ben starts to get a little bit of separation on defense, with a +4.6 to Sheed's +2.7.
A couple of interesting things, here.
1) Overall RAPM from 2004 - 2006: While Ben's normalized DRAPM from 04 - 06 was slightly higher than Sheed's (average +5.2 for Ben, +4.0 for Sheed), Sheed's average overall RAPM in that stretch (+5.3) is slightly higher than Ben's (+5.1) because Ben was a net negative on offense while Sheed was a small positive.
2) Overall career DRAPM comp: While Ben had the slightly better defensive RAPM numbers than Sheed during their times in Detroit, over their entire careers Sheed looks just as good as Ben in that stat. Sheed's '98 - 2000 defensive RAPM numbers in Portland look very similar to Ben in Detroit, showing that Sheed was able to have this big defensive impact in multiple environments which strengthens the result. All told, looking at 5-year peaks, the best six big-minute defenders according to defensive RAPM from 1998 - 2012 were *:
Dikembe Mutombo (+7.3) Kevin Garnett ( +6.5) Tim Duncan (+6.2) David Robinson (+6.2) Rasheed Wallace (+5.5) Ben Wallace (+5.5)
The only reason Zo isn't in that group is because he only had three good years in that period before the kidney issue, but in those three years his +6 average would have fit right into that group.
(* note: the 1998 normalization is a bit off, so the absolute numbers above might change very slightly once corrected)
