RealGM Top 100 List: #19

[Dr Positivity]

I hate the guy, but do people really think Wade is better than Pierce all-time? Like people are ready to put Wade as a top 20 player ever and I havent seen one mention of Pierce in the top 30.

Like Im really seeing Steve Nash, Dwayne Wade, Steph Curry and Kevin Durants names mentioned but not Paul Pierce.

Hes a moron, but he was darn good for a loooong time and was the NBA's equivalent of a 5 tool player.

It's worth the discussion. PP's advantage in prime longevity over some of those players is significant. However in terms of elite play he's not close to the peak of the other players and when it comes to winning a championship the difference between the real superstar, MVP caliber guys and the next level can mean everything. Think of teams like Lowry Raptors, Gasol Grizzlies, George Pacers, etc. and how they kept banging against an iron ceiling. When it comes to a player like Pierce who is a fringe top 10 player in his prime, the chances of winning with him in a 94 Rockets, 11 Mavericks, etc. type of role is non-existent. His route to being a champion is either marginal best player on a 2004 Pistons type of team, or being the 2nd option to a superstar like he did to KG in 08. For this reason there is a case to prefer taking a Curry, Wade or Durant shortened MVP caliber prime over long but not as good Pierce. As for Nash considering his Dallas version was doing just as well in measures like MVP and All-NBA as Pierce in early 2000s, along with some other ways to judge it like WS or RAPM, the longevity advantage is minimal

[goodboy]

I hate the guy, but do people really think Wade is better than Pierce all-time? Like people are ready to put Wade as a top 20 player ever and I havent seen one mention of Pierce in the top 30.

Like Im really seeing Steve Nash, Dwayne Wade, Steph Curry and Kevin Durants names mentioned but not Paul Pierce.

Hes a moron, but he was darn good for a loooong time and was the NBA's equivalent of a 5 tool player.

Lmao you're serious?

[Pablo Novi]

Heck, that's what the alternative vote is for

Is it? (I'm genuinely confused).

You can go back and read the voting discussion in the signup thread but basically one reason we put it in is to get around some of the "strategic voting" problems. IF I think that Mikan is the best candidate, I can vote for him and a second candidate who may or may not get traction but with two, it is more likely if far from certain.

I did read the entire voting discussion in the signup thread; but rather than attempt to re-read the entire thing; would you be so kind as to bear with me a bit more here?

For example, in YOUR case; you keep VOTING for Mikan. Have you been using your ALTERNATE to vote amongst those who ARE getting the most traction? In other words, the way this voting system is supposed to work is that each of us is supposed to use our 1st VOTE for the player we personally consider the best remaining one; but we CAN use use our ALTERNATE vote for players OTHER THAN whom we consider the 2nd best remaining player?
Thanx

[penbeast0]

I use my alternate for those I think are next best. When I was voting Jerry West as alternate, neither of my candidates got any traction for a few . . . and that's fine. I am not worried about the ultimate result that much, just enjoying the discussions.

[LivingLegend]

I hate the guy, but do people really think Wade is better than Pierce all-time? Like people are ready to put Wade as a top 20 player ever and I havent seen one mention of Pierce in the top 30.

Like Im really seeing Steve Nash, Dwayne Wade, Steph Curry and Kevin Durants names mentioned but not Paul Pierce.

Hes a moron, but he was darn good for a loooong time and was the NBA's equivalent of a 5 tool player.

It's worth the discussion. PP's advantage in prime longevity over some of those players is significant. However in terms of elite play he's not close to the peak of the other players and when it comes to winning a championship the difference between the real superstar, MVP caliber guys and the next level can mean everything. Think of teams like Lowry Raptors, Gasol Grizzlies, George Pacers, etc. and how they kept banging against an iron ceiling. When it comes to a player like Pierce who is a fringe top 10 player in his prime, the chances of winning with him in a 94 Rockets, 11 Mavericks, etc. type of role is non-existent. His route to being a champion is either marginal best player on a 2004 Pistons type of team, or being the 2nd option to a superstar like he did to KG in 08. For this reason there is a case to prefer taking a Curry, Wade or Durant shortened MVP caliber prime over long but not as good Pierce. As for Nash considering his Dallas version was doing just as well in measures like MVP and All-NBA as Pierce in early 2000s, along with some other ways to judge it like WS or RAPM, the longevity advantage is minimal

IDK I guess I value longevity in all time ranking a LOT. Peak is a healthy step behind longevity for me. If Im starting a team I want to know my window of opportunity with a guy is 12-13 years of good/great All-Star/All-NBA level play and the players who are consistantly at that level for over a decade really impress me and I think people take that for granted.

In essence, if rankings were 2k. Give me the guy rated a 92 for 16 years over the guy rated a 96 for 10.