Higher on GOAT list - Paul Pierce vs. Dominique Wilkins

[tsherkin]

isn't that free-throw rate?
that doesn't say anything about efficiency, he just gets to the line more and still can't gain more point totals

Umm, what are you talking about? TS% explicitly involves raw FTA...

PTS / (2*(FGA+(.44*FTA)))

His higher draw rate is a direct component of his efficiency and, especially because of his FT%, rather significant.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[The Infamous1]

Pierce has the Finals MVP, that's huge. Even though there's been a movement to downplay that award the last few years

[The Infamous1]

Bad example, Gasol won as the #1 or at worst 1A/1A in 2010.

I don't agree with using MVP votes to put Nique over Pierce.
The MVP voters have shown over the years that they can be poor judges of actual talent/impact and value.

In the end they are just the opinions of a few random people (sportswriters / broadcasters) who have their own biases and none of us know what their actual knowedlege and understanding of the game is and how good their ability to determine talent/ability and impact actually is.

They can probably be woo'd by big scoring numbers or exciting highlight plays.
They are the media... and the media has been proven to be unknowedlegabe/stupid when it comes to real basketball knowedlege/opinons.

I'd trust the opinions of some of the better users here way more then anyone from the ESPN/Media... especially after some of the garbage they spew on the air and some of their past votes for NBA awards.

Iverson winning MVP in 01
Kobe finishing 4th last year... just some examples of how you could misuse MVP votes to say a player was much better then they actually were.[/quote]

Jingo wolf/Silkstream still trying to push his his anti kobe agenda yet again

No matter how many times you say it, Pau was not equal to Kobe in 2010

[JordansBulls]

Jingo wolf/Silkstream still trying to push his his anti kobe agenda yet again

No matter how many times you say it, Pau was not equal to Kobe in 2010

As a star on the team he wasn't, but production wise he was and maybe better. He led in the Season in PER and WS and led the entire playoffs in WS as well by a significant margin.

[tsherkin]

And as compelling a thought as raw production stats can be, it should be pointed out that in 2010...

Kobe was still a 29/6/5.5 player on 57% TS, just at a peripheral glance (and of course, weakened overall by his struggles against Boston).

Pau was a 20/11/3.5 player on 59.9% TS. Very good stuff, really, posted a 126 ORTG to Kobe's 115 (which was the same as his RS ORTG).

Those are nice overall averages. But for a better look, especially with raw averages, we peer at the series-by-series results:

Round 1 vs. the Thunder (9th on D):

Bryant: 23.5, 4.0, 4.3, 50.7% TS
Gasol: 18, 12.2, 3.7, 58.4% TS

So, first round series and the averages are pretty close there. You could make a VERY compelling argument, just looking at those averages, that Pau outplayed Kobe. Kobe played like dog crap in games 4 and 5, but was utterly fantastic in games 2 and 6, the latter being the elimination game. In Game 6, Pau rocked a 3/11 shooting night en route to a 9-point, 18-rebound performance. The rebounding was great... the offense belies his series averages. Kobe, by contrast, managed 32 points on 12/25 shooting, going 3/4 from downtown and 5/7 at the line. Things to consider, yes?

Round 2 vs Jazz (10th on D):

Bryant: 32, 3.8, 5.8, 61.1% TS
Gasol: 23.5, 14.5, 2.8, 67.9% TS

Kobe scored over a third again as many points as Gasol and on over 61% TS, while still moving the ball around really well. REALLY hard to call that one a series that Pau carried, especially since Pau was mostly cleaning up garbage as opposed to actively creating shots to initiate the offense. Great series, great second star action, but not really carrying the team.

Round 3 vs Phoenix (23rd on D):

Bryant: 33.7, 7.2, 8.3, 63.7% TS
Gasol: 19.7, 7.2, 3.7, 60.8% TS

Not really an argument here, especially with Gasol's rebounding falling off so sharply. Kobe played out of his mind against Phoenix.

Finals vs Boston (5th on D):

Bryant: 28.6, 8.0, 3.9, 52.8% TS
Gasol: 18.6, 11.6, 3.7, 55.6% Ts

So Kobe scored 10 points per game more than Pau and saw reduced efficiency, though Pau dropped off by a roughly comparable margin in TS% from his own averages in the earlier series. Another series where it's really difficult to legitimately argue that Pau was a BETTER player than Kobe. Extremely valuable, sure, but that team was driven by Kobe's scoring, of that there is no doubt. Games 1 and 4-6 were very strong from Kobe, and of course we know that despite shooting like muddy stank in the elimination game, he did actually contribute in other ways (primarily rebounding).

Also, 4Q comparison of the two players in the elimination game:

Kobe: 1/3 FG, 8/9 FT (drew 4 fouls), 2 REB, AST, TOV, 10 points
Gasol: 2/3 FG, 6/9 FT (drew 6 fouls, 1 w/o FTAs), 6 REB (3 offensive), 2 AST, 10 points

They played similarly down the stretch. Not really a lot there to set Gasol apart, especially since he finished the game with 19/18. It means that coming into the fourth, he had 9 points and 12 boards... not a bad game, and damned fine on the glass, but he was as tepid as Kobe entering that quarter, going 4/13 prior to the fourth quarter and shooting only 1/4 at the line prior to the fourth. He played very well in the fourth, of course, but that doesn't really excuse him in a way sufficient to say he was better than Kobe, who essentially did the same thing... struggled for 3 quarters with his offense and then lit it up at the end of the game (meantime, Kobe had only 3 fewer rebounds than Gasol, and had actually outrebounded him going into the 4Q).

Food for thought, in any case. There's no legitimate argument that suggests Gasol was better than Kobe for those Lakers; they filled different roles, their performances suffered or blossomed depending on what exactly was going on in each individual series, but it's functionally clear that the Lakers looked to Kobe for the generation of offense and to carry the overall scoring load, while playing a diverse all-around game.

[bizil]

GOAT wise, I'm good with Pierce being higher than Nique. But All Star game wise, Pierce had 10 to Nique's 9. Pierce has slight edge. BUT Nique was a 7 Time All NBA, one time first team all NBA, and finished 2nd in the MVP voting. And from there, Nique was LEGIT one of Stern's top 6 guys at one point in terms of marketing the game. Nique also scored more career points than ANY SF EVER until Bron passed him by. Melo passed him by as well. So only two SF's in NBA history have scored more points than Nique. Peak-prime wise, I would take Nique over Pierce as well. Pierce is a better ALL AROUND PLAYER.

But the better all around player ISN'T the better player in all cases. Just think Nique was a more dominant force than Pierce. Nique willed those Hawks teams to Central Division title and four straight 50 win seasons in the 80's. He NEVER PLAYED with a legit HOFer in the prime of their career. He got Moses past the prime of his career. So once again, GOAT wise Pierce has the slight edge. BUT I just wanted to give Nique his props. He accomplished a lot AND was a key figure growing the game. When talk about the careers of Bird and MJ, Nique was FOR DAMN SURE a key part of their stories.

Nique in place of Worthy on Showtime has him among the top 5 GOAT SF's EASY! Such a dominant force he assumes the scoring mantle from older Kareem! Riley wouldn't have had to go to Magic to urge him to up the ante scoring. And in given years actually lead the Lakers in scoring. Kareem was averaging 24-26 PPG on those loaded Lakers rosters the first years Magic was on them. I see NO REASON why Nique wouldn't have been putting up those types of numbers when it was time for him to step into the #1 scoring role!

[Cavsfansince84]

I'd say I have Pierce around 20 spots higher. Nique was just too inefficient as a huge volume scorer and didn't bring much else besides off rebounding. Never led his teams anywhere either. Pierce had a much more well rounded game, more efficient(by a lot) and was a fairly strong playoff performer(more so prior to 08).

[bizil]

I'd say I have Pierce around 20 spots higher. Nique was just too inefficient as a huge volume scorer and didn't bring much else besides off rebounding. Never led his teams anywhere either. Pierce had a much more well rounded game, more efficient(by a lot) and was a fairly strong playoff performer(more so prior to 08).

Too inefficient???? Pierce shot 45% FG while Nique shot 46% FG! 46% for perimeter player ISN'T a bad FG%. It's a good (not great clip) And KEEP IN MIND he shot CLOSER to 50% FG THAN 40% FG! EFG wise, Pierce shot 50% while Nique shot 48%. FT% wise, both shot 81%. WE ARE LOOKING AT DAMN NEAR identical percentages in these categories! Pierce hands down better three point shooter.

And LOOK at the teams Nique played on in his career! He NEVER played with an HOF caliber player in the prime of their career. The fact he pushed that Boston squad to 7 games DESPITE THAT proves how great Nique was. And Nique had the Hawks first in the East when they traded him for Manning in the 90's. One of the dumbest trades of all time. That right there was Nique's best shot to at least get to a the ECF. And from there who knows.

BUT Nique is one of the greatest slashers of all time. One of the gold standard freak athletes of all time. And put MORE FEAR IN A DEFENSE than Pierce did in terms of physical dominance. Nique could do things Pierce could never dream of athletically. So TO ME, that offsets Pierce's 3 ball advantage in a sense. Plus Nique shot 38% from 3 ball land one season in his 30's. So AT LEAST proved he could adapt and get more skilled as he aged. On the block, Nique was just as good or better than Pierce. Even from a technical standpoint, Nique's footwork, up fakes, etc. were EVERY BIT AS GOOD or better than Pierce.

The 80's as the Golden Era of the SF spot. When u look at Bird, Doc, English, Dantley, Aguirre, Worthy, Marques Johnson, and King, Nique had the weakest roster of talent around him during that era. A bit later in the 90's when Nique was still in his prime, Pip was a part of the Bulls dynasty. Mullin got to play on Run TMC. So frankly, it's HELLA SHORTSIGHTED to knock Nique for not taking teams far. IF ANYTHING, the Hawks in the 80's (four 50 win seasons, Central Division crown) OVERACHIEVED a lot of the time!

[Cavsfansince84]

Too inefficient???? Pierce shot 45% FG while Nique shot 46% FG! 46% for perimeter player ISN'T a bad FG%. It's a good (not great clip) And KEEP IN MIND he shot CLOSER to 50% FG THAN 40% FG! EFG wise, Pierce shot 50% while Nique shot 48%. FT% wise, both shot 81%. WE ARE LOOKING AT DAMN NEAR identical percentages in these categories! Pierce hands down better three point shooter. And LOOK at the time teams Nique played on in his career! He NEVER played with an HOF caliber player in the prime of their career. The fact he pushed that Boston squad to 7 games DESPITE THAT proves how great Nique was. And Nique had the Hawks first in the East when they traded him for Manning in the 90's. One of the dumbest trades of all time. That right there was Nique's best shot to at least get to a the ECF. And from there who knows.

BUT Nique is one of the greatest slashers of all time. One of the gold standard freak athletes of all time. And put MORE FEAR IN A DEFENSE than Pierce did in terms of physical dominance. Nique could do things Pierce could never dream of athletically. So TO ME, that offsets Pierce's 3 ball advantage in a sense. Plus Nique shot 38% from 3 ball land one season in his 30's. So AT LEAST proved he could adapt and get more skilled as he aged. On the block, Nique was just as good or better than Pierce. Even from a technical standpoint, Nique's footwork, up fakes, etc. were EVERY BIT AS GOOD or better than Pierce.

His efficiency wasn't bad or terrible but it wasn't great. He was slightly above league average efficiency wise like 5-6 times(maxed out at 106 ts+ and 126 ts add) and is at 100 ts+ for his career which means right at league average. This is also on huge volume though while not being much of a playmaker. You are also underestimating how good some off his teammates were, even in that series with the Celtics, Doc and Willis both had very strong series. Pierce otoh finishes with a career 107 ts+(3.5% above league average) and had 7 seasons better than Nique's best in ts add and did it on much lower volume. So no they were not close in terms of efficiency even though it might appear so on the surface. Pierce's 3 pt shooting is a huge difference maker. Pierce is a guy whose game scales much better towards winning titles imo. Nique's game had too many weaknesses and he was too reliant on jacking up tons of shots. Most all metrics also bear this out. I say this as someone who grew up with friends that had Nique posters on their walls. He was one of the most electric players to ever step on a court but Pierce was better.

[penbeast0]

10 year old thread.