Read GM Top 100 List #25

[lukekarts]

I'm going to have to vote John Havlicek again.

As I said before, very similar / slightly better than Pippen in stats and accolades; possibly benefitted too much from a great team around him, but still managed to up his game in the Finals (hence the FMVP) and was great at both ends of the court.

He's not the player you pick first if you're drafting these guys from scratch, but he's the guy who made the most of what was put in front of him and consistently played great basketball. He's perhaps the guy here with the fewest question marks; we all look at Ewing and say 'what if'; at Pippen and say 'was he good enough to be the main man'; Stockton and Baylor 'why didn't they?'; etc.

Nobody questions Havlicek because he was pretty close to complete basketball player and didn't fall short.

Nominate: Willis Reed (again).

[therealbig3]

If you look at the "Is Paul Pierce a top 10 SF?" thread, there's a consensus that 7 SFs are ahead of him. But he's also the leading candidate for #8. So that's suggestive of him being a top 40 player. Relatively few people in that thread would put him outside the top 10. So that's highly suggestive of him being top 50.

Of course, that evidence is a bit circular, since it's influenced by the discussions in this project; but at least it's a sanity check.

Few people would now suggest putting more than 7-8 SGs ahead of Pierce, I think: Jordan, Kobe, West, Wade, maybe Drexler, maybe Gervin, maybe Iverson, maybe TMac. Personally, I'd only put the first 3-4 ahead of Pierce. Moncrief and Dumars shone -- but how long did they last?

For PGs, Magic, Oscar, and Nash are obviously going ahead of him; probably Frazier as well, although I'm a little unsure as to why. After that -- well, PGs are a mess. But it's at least reasonable to put Pierce ahead of Stockton, Payton, Kidd, CP3, or anybody else in the group, and I probably would. Oh yeah -- I'm leaning Isiah over Pierce at the moment, but may yet change my mind.

PFs ahead of Pierce -- Duncan, Malone, Garnett, Nowitski, Barkley, Pettit ... and who else? Maybe McHale -- but while he had comparable excellence, he lacked a bit on longevity.

Centers -- a bunch go ahead of Pierce. Exactly how many you put ahead of him depends in part on how much weight you give to the center position.

I'm probably horribly overlooking a guy or two -- but yes, nominating Pierce here CERTAINLY passes a sanity test, whether or not you're actually ready to do it.

I have Pierce at 31.

Assuming Pierce at #8 for SFs (I'm assuming the other 7 are Bird, Baylor, Barry, LeBron, Pippen, Havlicek, and Dr. J), and assuming that only the first 4 SGs you mentioned go ahead of him, that's 11 guys there.

Then moving on to PGs, I'd only rank Magic, Oscar, Frazier, and Nash ahead of Pierce. So that's 15 guys ahead of Pierce for sure.

Then PFs, I agree, those are the only 6 I'd take over Pierce. So now that's 21 guys ahead of Pierce for sure.

On to Cs, I think Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq, Moses, Robinson, and Ewing are duh no brainers. You can throw in Gilmore too. That's 30 guys ahead of Pierce.

I don't see how another player "clearly" goes ahead of Pierce.

And if you put Kidd, Payton, Stockton, Isiah, Lanier, Gervin, McHale, Drexler, and T-Mac ahead of him...Pierce still seems to be in top 40 territory. So projecting him at 35...no, I don't think that's unfounded at all.

[Gongxi]

I'm with Doctor MJ regarding Pierce, for what it's worth. As far as my vote goes, I'm really leaning hard on Baylor, Pippen, and Ewing. Each one of them has such a strong case, and it's really like a game of rock paper scissors in comparing them.

[JerkyWay]

I'll try to figure out who's better than Pierce from each decade, so it'll be easier to rank him properly:

50s:
With George Mikan being excluded from this voting, Bob Pettit is the only one, but I'd rank him over Pierce due to his 60s play rather than 50s. There's no way in hell that Bob Cousy is better than Pierce, at least not in my opinion.

60s:
Wilt Chamberlain
Bill Russell
Oscar Robertson
Elgin Baylor
Jerry West

70s:
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Julius Erving
Rick Barry
John Havlicek
Walt Frazier
Dave Cowens
Elvin Hayes
Billy Cunningham? It's a wash.

80s:

Magic Johnson
Larry Bird
Moses Malone
Isiah Thomas
Sidney Moncrief? Probably a wash, but honestly, I can see him being higher - longevity is an issue in his case.
George Gervin? I can see him being higher than Pierce.
Alex English? It's a wash.
Dominique Wilkins? It's a wash.
Adrian Dantley? Unlikely.
Chris Mullin? Unlikely.

90s:

Michael Jordan
Hakeem Olajuwon
Karl Malone
John Stockton
Scottie Pippen? Most likely he's a tad better than Pierce.
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Clyde Drexler
Alonzo Mourning? It's a wash.
Gary Payton? Same as Pippen.

00s:

Shaquille O'Neal
Kobe Bryant
LeBron James
Dwyane Wade
Steve Nash
Dirk Nowitzki
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Jason Kidd? It's a wash.
Allen Iverson? I can see him being higher than Pierce.
Tracy McGrady? Rather unlikely, few spots below Pierce
Dwight Howard? I can see him being higher than Pierce.
Chris Paul? Same as Dwight.

That's all. I'm sure I didn't miss anyone who could have a case. In the worst-case scenario, Pierce is #45 greatest player of all-time, in the best-case, he's #34. That seems fine. If I'd have to rank him, he's my #42. (I have Payton, Pippen and Mourning over him, but the difference is very marginal, so he could be #39.)

This list confirmed my initial feelings about PP34...He's fringe top 40.

[Laimbeer]

Bob Cousy is a glaring omission at this point.

We nominated also-rans like Drexler, Payton, Ewing and Gilmore while ignoring a guy who was a first teamer something like ten years in a row, was a key cog in a dynasty, and arguably won a title as the man. Also has a MVP IIRC and absolutely dominated, even defined, his position for a decade.

And before you say era, remember he played with the number 2 guy on our list.

[Laimbeer]

@Doctor MJ

As I mentioned elsewhere, current players like Garnett, Wade, and Nash seemed to take undeserved leaps and rate well above where most major lists have them. Pierce seems to be part of that trend. I guess players are easier to appreciate if their performances are fresher in your mind.

[Rapcity_11]

Laimbeer, I keep seeing you mention that you think the Garnett, Wade and Nash picks are either WTF, or undeserved, etc. And all you do to back that up is point to consensus all-time lists and prior year lists as well as the general public perception. That's not a convincing argument against any of these guys. Frankly I don't see the point in you participating in this project if all you're going to do is point to old/consensus lists and not do any research/offer any arguments yourself.

[Gongxi]

The point of his participation is to get Isiah as high as possible. After all, the Pistons weren't a winning franchise before him.

[ElGee]

As long as you can explain away Detroit's decade of miserable defense with Lanier and how they improved with guys like Otto Moore (Zaid Aziz) and Kent Benson maybe you can convince me that Lanier's a decent defensive center and I'll support you.

As for 1969, Unseld took a last place in the East team and made it the best team in the league with his rebounding, defense, and passing . . . while Gus Johnson missed HALF THE SEASON with injury and there were no other really significant additions. Thats better than Wilt/Baylor/West Lakers, better than Oscar/Lucas Royals, better than the Bellamy/Reed/Frazier Knicks . . . there are guys who had statistically fancier seasons (mainly Elvin Hayes) but Unseld did exactly what Nash did when Amare was injured -- took a team everyone counted out and with his leadership made it a winner (only to an even bigger extent) despite not scoring a lot.

The Bullets didn't continue to overachieve in the playoffs where Russell wrote the story we all remember of that season but MVP is a regular season award and Unseld was not just the consensus choice but the right one. Look at the other candidates team impact, look at what the Bullets did compared to 68, then tell me it's ridiculous.

He may have been a glorified role player but so is Steve Nash and he's going on our list this round.

The whole point about Johnson is that they were +5.5 team before his injury and a +1.8 team after (and it was the opp ppg that suffered). Sorry if I find it hard to believe Unseld wins the MVP on a +1.8 team...and the narrative was heavily driven by finding a Russell-type impact player that was providing value outside of scoring. And you can't completely ignore that Monroe, like 99.9% of players ever, probably improved his value/impact in his second year (Jack Marin looked good to me from the limited stuff I've seen too, 3rd year guy). Overlooking the growth of young key players would be like crediting Oklahoma City's improvement to James Harden.

As for Lanier, I'm almost done with his major in/out runs...and fortunately he provided a really nice amount of missed games every year. In 1977 the opp ppg didn't change much with him out. That team was +1.8 in DRtg. In 1978, on a team that +0.6 in DRtg, Detroit gave up 117.2 ppg without Lanier and just 108.3 with him. And, as mentioned, a team like the 74 Pistons were 3rd in the league in defense...Coupled with what I see on film, that looks like a decent defensive center.

[Laimbeer]

Laimbeer, I keep seeing you mention that you think the Garnett, Wade and Nash picks are either WTF, or undeserved, etc. And all you do to back that up is point to consensus all-time lists and prior year lists as well as the general public perception. That's not a convincing argument against any of these guys. Frankly I don't see the point in you participating in this project if all you're going to do is point to old/consensus lists and not do any research/offer any arguments yourself.

Relax.

Other major rankings are a tool. They aren't the final authority, but they can be a sense check. Like accolades, titles, expert opinion, historical accounts, traditional stats, advanced stats... all pieces of the puzzle. How you connect the dots is up to you.

That said, the trend is clearly toward current players finishing pretty significantly higher here than eleswhere. Here is our ranking of current players thus far versus the consensus list.

RealGM, Consensus

Duncan 8, 8
Kobe 10, 10
Garnett 13, 24
LeBron 18, 25
Wade 22, 29
Nash 24, 43

Now we have Pierce being brought up, which puts him at least #35 on your list if you're doing so - higher if players have made it you don't agree with. Consensus list has him at 73, a huge gap.

[drza]

Because I've had a bad recent track record of missing the final vote, let's get this out here now just in case:

Vote: Scottie Pippen
Nominate: Jason Kidd

(Will change my nomination to George Gervin if it is the deciding vote in a nomination)

[Laimbeer]

The point of his participation is to get Isiah as high as possible. After all, the Pistons weren't a winning franchise before him.

Now that you mention it, a guy that led his team to two titles in a very competitive era should be coming along pretty soon...

[Laimbeer]

For reasons I mentioned in the last thread, Baylor is my pick right now. He's solid at this level and as the runner-up last time has good traction.

Also, Cousy needs to get some attention, and he's a pretty clear choice to me for the nomination, for reasons mentioned above. Subject to change if he doesn't get within shouting distance.

Vote: Baylor
Nominate: Cousy

[Rapcity_11]

Laimbeer, I keep seeing you mention that you think the Garnett, Wade and Nash picks are either WTF, or undeserved, etc. And all you do to back that up is point to consensus all-time lists and prior year lists as well as the general public perception. That's not a convincing argument against any of these guys. Frankly I don't see the point in you participating in this project if all you're going to do is point to old/consensus lists and not do any research/offer any arguments yourself.

Relax.

Other major rankings are a tool. They aren't the final authority, but they can be a sense check. Like accolades, titles, expert opinion, historical accounts, traditional stats, advanced stats... all pieces of the puzzle. How you connect the dots is up to you.

That said, the trend is clearly toward current players finishing pretty significantly higher here than eleswhere. Here is our ranking of current players thus far versus the consensus list.

RealGM, Consensus

Duncan 8, 8
Kobe 10, 10
Garnett 13, 24
LeBron 18, 25
Wade 22, 29
Nash 24, 43

I'm quite relaxed, thank you.

I'm just pointing out some mild frustration that comes up after reading through all the top 100 threads and seeing you contribute zero other than to whine about certain guys going too high.

Sure, recency bias is definitely a concern, however having read through the threads, (hopefully you have...) it's pretty clear that most posters are basing their votes on in depth analysis going beyond the usual narratives and basic box score stats. It isn't as though guys are saying "Bill Russell would suck in today's league" or "Jerry West can't dribble with his left hand", etc, etc. I guess my point is that there are very well thought out and supported reasons why Garnett, Wade and Nash have gone so high. For you to to dismiss those rankings without any kind of support behind your statements and continually whine about it is well, lazy.

[Doctor MJ]

And I think you were right, simply looking at where Pierce was ranked in previous years, and then questioning the potential jump is absolutely the wrong way to go about things, so why mention it or even look to it as any sort of credible reasoning? It just opens things up to bias, in the sense that people will think to themselves "oh, there's just no way Pierce can jump 50 spots!"...like you mentioned, in the past, players were mainly judged on resume, and I agree, if that's the criteria, Pierce doesn't make top 50, but since we're supposed to look past that and look at what Pierce actually brought to the table, I think he absolutely deserves a top 35 spot.

A good post. Wanted to respond to this specifically:

I'm bringing this stuff up simply because it's what I'm thinking about and it hadn't been discussed in the threads. To my mind, if I'm thinking about it, so are others, and it doesn't really make sense for us NOT to bring that thinking out into the open.

[ElGee]

The Case for Pippen Over Ewing

I think it's reasonable, depending on criteria and those with big men fetishes, to go the other way here. Payton doesn't seem to have any traction (yet). Rick Barry may be close, so I'll simply point out that besides throwing out the 68 and 69 seasons, I don't think very highly of 71-73 Barry (what would be argument for his excellence there exactly?).

But I have Pippen comfortably ahead of the rest and want to at least share why, because it's certainly a non-intuitive sell with Pippen. The most important aspect is probably peak play, so I want to (again) talk about the 94-95 period without Jordan. NB: Part of Pippen's valuable career is that he has so many other comparable, consistent years like 1992 and 1996. OK, but how good is the peak?

First, Pippen missed 12 games from 94-95 before Jordan returned. In that time, the Bulls were a a -1.4 team, but with Pip they were +4.0 (+5.4 net impact). For perspective, that earns a +4.7 on my SIO scale (viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1128625) and would fall right in line with Alonzo Mourning's In/Out difference and isn't far off from long-term numbers for Kareem and Hakeem. (Ahead of runs for Erving, Kobe, Barkley and even Patrick Ewing.) In his other chunk of missed time, 1998, he lifted the Bulls 3.1 points to a spectacular 8.6 MOV. Again, a stellar +5.9 SIO.

Obviously, it's small sampled from Pippen, so not as impressive/resonant to me, but people should have a picture of what kind of impact Scottie Pippen was having as The Man on those Bulls teams. Usually, 52-win pace (average of 4 SRS team) without another all-star warrants strong MVP consideration unless it's a clear multipolar team like the Pistons title teams...and obviously that wasn't the case with a rotating glut of defensive centers, a few good shooting guards, Toni Kukoc, and no Horace Grant by 95.

Even in 1994, in the 11 games Grant missed, the Bulls were +0.2 with Corey Blount starting for him most of the time. Isn't that what we expect from our grade A superstars with a lineup like Cartwright/Longley - Blount - Pete Myers - Armstrong? As I wrote earlier:

Digging deeper into Pippen's 1994 season as The Man, he increased his scoring role slightly. Not too much, as this was not Pip's forte, and he continued to play an unselfish facilitation (I think the parallels to KG there are good). For eg, Pip never went over 40 that season. He attempted over 27 shots once, in an overtime game no less. With Myers, Grant and Armstrong in the starting lineup with Pippen, Chicago went 44-14 (62-win pace) with a +4.7 MOV. Think about that.

Again, excellent value/impact from a No. 1. It's no wonder Pippen finished 3rd in MVP to peak Olajuwon/Robinson with 7 first-place votes. Ewing was 5th with 1-first place. And as I've mentioned Pippen is clearly IMO the GOAT perimeter defender of all-time, with impact encroaching on all but the best bigs. He's also a ridiculous rebounder:

His rebounding was incredible from the small forward position, posting a 13.3 TRB%, which is in the territory of a big man and 4.5% ahead of the average SF (according to a TrueLA study), which accounts for an estimated 212 extra rebounds than expected. The 94 Bulls rocked a +309 rebounding differential (fantastic, for those unfamiliar with rebounding differentials).

He would regularly change key playoff games with his defensive -- things not found in the box score. Some notables off the top of my head would be disrupting Magic's ability to set up the offense, absolutely destroying Mark Jackson in G1 of the 98 ECF, and sparking a key 4th quarter comeback with Jordan and Grant on the bench in G6 of the 92 Finals with superstars like Bob Hansen in the game.

EDIT: Of the limited old Bulls games I've stat-tracked, Pippen's Defensive EV numbers have all been good and he's posted obscene DEV (something like +10 in 98 ECF G1) at times. Also, I forgot to mention the obvious that he can literally guard all 5 positions, so he's like the greatest switching weapon ever depending on defensive scheme.

My breakdown of the 94 series v Ewing's Knicks:

Against an historically defense, Pippen struggled in the first few games. Not having Will Perdue literally could have been the difference too. Some of this series is on youtube, so I caution people who forget the series or who weren't around at the time to avoid box score whoring here. Pip's defense was fantastic as usual and he was setting up teammates from what I recall. In G1 in NY, he was 7-19, but there wasn't a sense of struggling or anything – he just took a few extra shots because of how good the Knick D was and because Chicago really didn't have another player, outside of maybe Kukoc (18 min) who could get his own. Cartwright couldn't work against Ewing, and Armstrong needed picks or usually Pippen to set up a kick out. Chi still mustered 1.07 pts/pos.

In G2, foul trouble and a bad game for Pip. He fouled out, and the Bulls blew a 4th quarter lead, with Pip struggling down the stretch. Ewing had 26-9 on 84% TS. One thing I look for in players is bounce-back games – how they adjust to a strategy or defense or poor approach. In G3, Pip was quite good, with 20-7-4 59% TS helping catapult the Bulls to 1.27 pts/pos! (This was the Kukoc buzzer-beater game.) Pippen responded with an even bigger G4, flying all over the court and basically dominating the Knicks historic defense, a D that help Michael Jordan in serious check in the opening 3 games of the 93 ECF. Pip finished with 25-8-6 56% TS in 35 minutes and Chicago scored 1.12 pts/pos.

G5 was the Hubert Davis game, also on youtube, and was another beyond the box game from Pippen (23-4-4). In MSG in G5, the Knicks jumped out to a 15-4 run. Only Pippen answered with play after play - he knocked down back to back 3s and scored 12 points to spark a 15-3 counter-run, setting up 5 open scoring opportunities for teammates in the run. It was that type of leadership -- basically running a club, anchoring a defense and providing a veteran presence -- that seemed to be present year-round.

G6 was sort of a classic Pippen game. Only 5-16, but he was flying all over the place and finished with 4 steals, 2 blocks, 11 boards and 5 assists. Again, the Bulls score 1.04 pts/100. G7 the Knicks team proved to be too much, as Oakley and Ewing combined for 35 pts 37 reb and 10 ast. Pippen was creating, being active, finishing with 20 pts and 16 rebounds. One NYT piece described him as “sparkling in defeat,” although his offensive limitations were on display to a degree. I don't mean the 8-22, totally understandable in a game like that looking at the defense, his team and shot selection. I mean that he didn't score for the first 8+ minutes of the 4th as the Knicks slowly fortified their lead. That was Scottie in a nutshell: GOAT perimeter defender, could hugely impact a game outside the box, was a very good offensive player, but couldn't ramp up the scoring when needed. Of course, let's keep perspective here, he scored 26% of his team's points against a GOAT-level D without a No. 2 offensive threat.

OK. Deep breath. What about Ewing? He has a nearly identical SIO number of +4.9 from 94-96 in 12 missed games (+5.3 to 4.4 MOV). He too has 6 consecutive extremely consistent seasons in my view from 1990-1995, even if he wasn't the defender in 1990 that he would become in the ensuing years. He too has a similar peak...

We could certainly go to 1992, but I want to stick with 1994 for a second. It was never clear to me, live nor in re-watching the series, that Ewing was a better player on that court than Pippen. The biggest hangup on Pip seems to be that he wasn't a transcendent offensive player -- that while he was versatile and provided good lift with creation and scoring, that he didn't have the ability to generate enough on his own to go to the well at times. It's a fair criticism...but one that isn't far off with Ewing either.

His high game in that Bulls series was 34 points. He averaged 22.9 ppg for the series (impressive 58.1% TS), but I'd argue it was against a weaker defensive front than Pippen faced. And while I give Ewing good credit for his offense, he was a lumbering player who went into solo mode without the ability to often get his other teammates good looks once he started his action. (I think this started to work against him later in his career when he kept trying to maintain high volume.) Conversely, some of Pippen's offensive impact came from his defense, because he could disrupt so much from 15-feet out to the backcourt, with deflections, steals and even his famous help blocks. It's akin to mystic's observations about Nowitzki helping the defense by never turning it over from the mid-post.

Ewing, at the end of the day, also scored 26% of team's points in that series.

So what's the determining factor for me then? If I'm team-building, I'm taking Scottie Pippen more often/ahead of Patrick Ewing. That may fly in the face of the guys who love taking bigs, but consider this:

Consider that without ever really playing with a great defensive big man behind him, Scottie Pippen played on better defenses over his career than Patrick Ewing. http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7239

Pippen, as I've said, is more of a PG to me. But his super versatility means I can populate the backcourt with all kinds of players. I can put Michael Jordan and Ray Allen next to Pip (scary thought) and then get defensively oriented bigs and destroy the world. The knee-jerk response is to think "I need my first guy to be an offensive dynamo," but that's not true. You want every team to have at least one defensively-solid big, even those building around Dirk. And you want No. 2 scoring options of a different variety for balance. And you want shooters. Pip can fill in on so many of these teams, while basically always increasing the defensive value because, well, he's the GOAT perimeter defender. So you aren't interchanging one great defensive big for another, but you are supplementing their presence.

On offense, he can create his own, but he doesn't ned plays run for him. He can run offenses and create for others. And he can carry mediocre teams to really good places and he can clearly boost good teams to ridiculously historical places...probably because of the aforementioned paragraph.

[Gongxi]

The point of his participation is to get Isiah as high as possible. After all, the Pistons weren't a winning franchise before him.

Now that you mention it, a guy that led his team to two titles in a very competitive era should be coming along pretty soon...

30ish, sure. Let's talk about some better basketball player right now though. We already talked about Wade and Nash, who's next?

Starting to lean Ewing, personally.

[ElGee]

Doc - I have plenty to say about Pierce after following his career closely, but I'm tired after my Pippen novel. The short points I would say are:

-Some of the modern players, or non-winning players, were in really bizarre positions in the previous top100s.
-Pierce was underrated playing in a bad situation for many years in Boston
-Pierce was, at the worst, very close to Vince Carter in 2001...and passed him for the rest of his career
-Pierce was a top 8-12 player for a decade, which is very rare, very Stockton/Hondo like, and stacks up well over all but ~35-45 careers
-I struggle with Pierce vs. Havlicek when you stack up talents, career, etc. and Hondo was like 13th in the last list...so consider it a convergence of two horribly outdated ideas.

[andrewww]

the most glaring omission in terms of nominees is bob cousy right now when comparing to contemporary lists, and the biggest drop in order is easily baylor, followed by isiah and hondo. Ewing was good, but I'm not sure he was the difference maker at center that some make him out to be. Pierce has been underrated throughout his career which obviously affects allocades such as all-nba teams, but as thebig3 pointed out, alot of that has to do w/ perception on losing teams and opportunity/marketing when it's clear that the forward slots have had the most competition (as an example imo, dirk should have made it over durant for 1st team this yr but because durant is seen as a potential star for marketing purposes, they have him over dirk).

[Doctor MJ]

Doc - I have plenty to say about Pierce after following his career closely, but I'm tired after my Pippen novel. The short points I would say are:

-Some of the modern players, or non-winning players, were in really bizarre positions in the previous top100s.
-Pierce was underrated playing in a bad situation for many years in Boston
-Pierce was, at the worst, very close to Vince Carter in 2001...and passed him for the rest of his career
-Pierce was a top 8-12 player for a decade, which is very rare, very Stockton/Hondo like, and stacks up well over all but ~35-45 careers
-I struggle with Pierce vs. Havlicek when you stack up talents, career, etc. and Hondo was like 13th in the last list...so consider it a convergence of two horribly outdated ideas.

All good points. To be honest, I expected Pierce to have a jump up this time around...just not to the point where getting voted in in the early 30s was a possibility. Top 50? Sure, I could see that.

Count me as one of the people who always thought Hondo got rated too highly by the Top 100 projects, but there's kind of a key thing here to talk about, which people may or may not agree with:

Hondo, like Pippen or Stockton, always got essentially some "extra credit" for being a team guy. It was perceived that Hondo could have gotten significantly more impressive accolades early in his career if he wasn't busy doing various little things to help the Celtics win title after title.

While it does make sense to give Pierce a touch of the same kind of credit based on his versatility in the Big 3 Celtic era, he actually didn't change his game nearly as much as Garnett or Allen.