RealGM Top 100 List #40

[ElGee]

To compare Pierce and Miller, two players I've written a lot about over the years, I think it's instructive to look at prime vs. prime. I have them like this in terms of title odds over replacement player:

Pierce
2001 10.7%
2002 11.8%
2003 10.2%
2004 9.8%
2005 10.2%
2006 11.6%
2007 0.0%
2008 11.1%
2009 10.7%
2010 10.4%
2011 9.0%

Miller
1990 8.6%
1991 8.6%
1992 8.6%
1993 10.1%
1994 11.1%
1995 11.1%
1996 9.7%
1997 11.0%
1998 10.1%
1999 10.1%
2000 10.1%


So first, peak-to-peak it's close. Neither of these guys are clear top-40 peak players. (FTR, of the peaks guy left at this particular moment in this project: Walton, Hill, McGrady, Mourning, Penny, Thurmond, McHale and maybe Howard I'd say "clearly" peaked higher than this level of player bend discussed.)

Now, look at those prime stretches. Pierce's missed PS is a big deal. Then you add in that Pierce' 3 quality peripheral seasons -- 99, 00 and 12 -- are also outdone by Miller's 88, 89, and 01-05. The end result is that while I don't think there's a huge gap between these players whether you slice it by peak, prime, career, team-building, etc. it's still a clear edge to Miller.

In general, Pierce is a better on-ball creator than Miller. For himself and others. When I think Pierce I think Manu. Good defenders. Offensive players that can shoot. Are crafty. Manu is a better pure passer. Pierce probably better is isolation working around the pinch post. Pierce, when younger, was a phenomenal monster at getting to the line. He can play pick and roll as well. He's a level below the Kobe's and McGrady's of the world, namely because he lacks their explosion and thus his creation is a notch below, but he's a quality creator and offensive player who uses shooting and a fairly good ego scale up well.

To Pierce and his offenses...the 2008-2011 Celtics used a severe defense-over-offense rebounding strategy. My attempt to "normalize" their rebounding -- a method that involved looking for a "team tendency" of OREB strategy by accounting for individual outliers -- gave the Celtics about 2 points of ORtg points. The 2008 Celtics were +2.7 and the 2009 team +2.2. To me, to think of this as anything less than an elite offense ITO execution is to just be too focused on either rebounding strategy or the semantics of "offensive rating" at the expense of the factors TOV%/eFG%/FTR. Now in the playoffs in 08 the Celtics were better (+4.2 on offense). In 09 +1.6 and 10 +1.7. So I don't think Pierce didn't do good work as the best offensive player on those Celtics Big 3 teams.

For perspective, and to be fair, Miller led six playoff teams in a 10-year stretch in his prime of +8 offenses or better. Of course, he was on a +5 RS offense only once.

[ceiling raiser]

You could put them in the next tier -- I don't think they can be taken for granted. Think Tyson Chandler and Amare as bigs finishing around the rim on the roll...there's a big difference between them and Glen Davis in that facet of offense. The same goes for wings on cuts/transition opportunities. Length, strength, speed and the ability to use angles make large differences on these plays. Now, does all this add up the way those top-level skills do? Not IMO. But certainly not an insignificant facet of offense.

Thanks again for the response (and BTW I agree with a lot of what you said about Bird in your previous post).

Last question: Thoughts on Rodman? Is plus-plus level offensive rebounding enough to make one offensively relevant? If so, is there anyone else for whom offensive rebounding legitimately impacts his value on that end?

I've been pretty low on offensive rebounding in general for some time. That article on Basketball Prospectus (I believe), as well as mystic's followup piece, and his posting on this board seems to suggest eschewing offensive rebounding is preferable, given how it improves transitions defense. Teams like the Spurs (and the Heat I suppose, among others) being the obvious examples today (and perhaps the Russell Celtics).

[D Nice]

My attempt to "normalize" their rebounding -- a method that involved looking for a "team tendency" of OREB strategy by accounting for individual outliers -- gave the Celtics about 2 points of ORtg points. The 2008 Celtics were +2.7 and the 2009 team +2.2.

Would you mind explaining in greater depth how you did this? I'm highly curious as to the methodology applied here.

[drza]

Reggie Miller vs Manu Ginobili

I think that the Reggie Miller case that Doc MJ and El Gee have built through the years is a compelling one. That with his elite off-ball ability and ability to scale up volume at call in the postseason, Reggie is a more "perfect" scoring wing complement on a contender than the other major scoring wings of this generation that are still left on the board (e.g. Pierce, Ray, Carter, TMac, Iverson, etc.). These other wings, because of their on-ball abilities, might make them better suited to be the best player on a poor team than Reggie but Reggie's game is ideally suited for both mega offensive impact as well as allowing him to fit in with other offensive talent on a contender.

But as I read those discussions, I always find myself reflecting on those arguments and seeing that they fit so well for Manu Ginobili as well. Unlike Reggie, Manu's perceived weakness isn't the question of whether he could do enough on-ball, but more-so whether his lack of minutes/durability allowed him to have a large enough impact on games to rival his big-minute counterparts. However, much like Reggie, when I look at Manu's skillset he seems absolutely ideal to be a main cog on a contender as an offensive wing even in only 30 - 32 minutes/night. Reggie was ideal because of his hyper-efficient off-ball offense. Manu, on the other hand, is perfect because when he's on the court he has the ability to be the #1 on-ball option or the #1 off-ball option with equal facility. He's excellent at creating off the dribble for both himself and his teammates, he's excellent at playing off the ball as a threat/finisher, he's an elite shooter from range. While he's not as good as Reggie as an off-ball threat, I'd say on a per-minute basis that he's better than a player like Pierce at most aspects of offense. Manu's also an excellent defensive wing, capable of moving the needle with his defense to a larger extent than most wings.

Quick boxscore comp
Reggie has a massive longevity and durability edge over Manu, and perhaps it's an edge that can't be overcome and I respect that. On the other hand, while they were on the court, I think that Manu was the better player. If we just look at overview stats like win shares, which has been used to support Miller, we see that over 9-year stretches covering much of their respective primes:

Miller 1990 - 98: 726 games, 35.7 mpg, 0.193 WS/48, 104.4 WS
Manu 2004 - 2012: 598 games, 28.7 mpg, 0.222 WS/48, 79.4 WS

Reggie's iron-man durability shows up as a clear huge advantage here, which is why he has the overall win shares lead. But Manu had the higher WS/48 than even WS king Reggie.

Quick Non-boxscore stats perusal
We only have the RAPM data back to 1998, which means that we only caught the tail end of Reggie's prime. That said, part of the story of Reggie's durability is that you don't see much slippage in his game over his long, extended prime. Thus, we can at least look at Reggie's 1998 - 2000 RAPM numbers compared to Manu's non-peak prime numbers (e.g. excluding Manu's 2005 - 2007 peak). (note: I applied DocMJ's 77% correction factor for his 1998 normalized RAPM as described on the Stats board). I'll also add Paul Pierce to this, and I'll even let him use all of his best seasons (e.g. I won't do the peak exclusion like I did for Manu):

3-year peak normalized RAPM from 1998 - 2012 (excluding 2005 - 2007 for Manu)
Reggie: +6.4, +5.8, +5.1 (average +5.8, 35.7 mpg)
Manu: +8.8, +8.7, +8.6 (average +8.7, 28.3 mpg)
Pierce: +7.2, +6.3, +5.6 (average +6.3, 35.8 mpg)

If we correct for mpg with a simple ratio, Manu's normalized RAPM would translate to +7.1 over the 35.7 or so minutes that Reggie or Pierce were playing. The numbers obviously aren't that exact to really get too much accuracy out of calculations of this type, but the point was to show that just because Manu was playing fewer minutes didn't mean that he wasn't having just as large (or maybe even larger) of an impact on a game-to-game basis as someone like Reggie or Pierce.

Bottom line
If I didn't have a championship cast, it's possible I'd rather have Reggie due to his proven durability. We never got to see Manu without Pop in game maintenance mode, so maybe he could have played more minutes in a different world, but even in his limited minutes he had more than his fair share of injuries and his international playing schedule definitely left him more brittle and shortened his NBA career. So we don't know that Manu could physically handle being the full-time "man" on a team. But I'd argue that on a contender, I might just rather have 30 minutes of Manu than 36 minutes of Reggie (or Pierce). Which does put Manu firmly on my radar if we're seriously discussing Reggie and Pierce, while I doubt that many others are really even considering him yet.

[ronnymac2]

Bigs: Dikembe Mutombo, Nate Thurmond, Alonzo Mourning, Dwight Howard, Willis Reed, Dave Cowens, Ben Wallace, Bob Lanier, Bob McAdoo, Kevin McHale, Robert Parish

Worms: Dennis Rodman

Wings: Paul Pierce, Vince Carter, Reggie Miller, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Tracy McGrady, Paul Arizen, Alex English, Dominique Wilkins, Penny Hardaway, Manu Ginobili, Sidney Moncrief

Point Guards: Nate Archibald, Kevin Johnson, Chauncey Billups, Deron Williams, Mark Price


1. Shawn Marion, Carmelo Anthony, and Amar'e Stoudemire?

2. Why is Tracy McGrady not the frontrunner here? What makes Pierce and Miller better than T-Mac?

[SactoKingsFan]

Why is Tracy McGrady not the frontrunner here? What makes Pierce and Miller better than T-Mac?

McGrady arguably has the highest peak of all the remaining players, but his durability/longevity is enough of an issue that I'd like to see at least Pierce and Miller get in before I'm ready to vote for T-Mac.

[ronnymac2]

Why is Tracy McGrady not the frontrunner here? What makes Pierce and Miller better than T-Mac?

McGrady arguably has the highest peak of all the remaining players, but his durability/longevity is enough of an issue that I'd like to see at least Pierce and Miller get in before I'm ready to vote for T-Mac.

I count 7 prime seasons (2001-2005, 2007-2008), at least an All-Star season in 2006, and then his 2000 season, which is basically an in-between version of 2012 Paul George and 2013 Paul George. You've also got role player years in his first 2 years, and one in Detroit. That's a legit 9-year prime with the best peak left and then role player years.

I agree Pierce and Miller have strong longevity-based arguments, and them being better-than-average role players in their twilight years certainly is a positive for them. I just don't know if they are close enough to McGrady's best 9 years to overcome T-Mac with longevity.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Reggie Miller.

Glad Isiah is settled.

Pierce seems to be the lead contender so I'll talk on Miller vs Pierce.

As noted, last time I rated Pierce ahead of Miller and was one of Pierce's proponents. Since then my opinion has changed.

First the basic framework here:

I see Pierce as essentially a "very good" case scenario for a more unipolar oriented B-list superstar guard. Most guys like that aren't as efficient, and don't adjust so willingly or ably when the time comest to scale down the primacy. I like him a lot.

Miller I've talked to death, but obviously I see him as essentially the best case scenario we've ever scene for an off-ball scoring guard.

Now, to me it's quite clear that the very best offensive perimeter players are almost always on ball. If you can do a great job dictating the play when you have max control, well an offense can be designed to give you that control quite a bit, and hence your impact scales above all others.

On the other hand, if you're not actually a world class decision maker, then being more on ball and scoring is more about forcing the decisions to be "me", and this causes a lot of problems.

Pierce exists on the level where I wouldn't allege problems, but I also wouldn't feel comfortable giving him a clear edge.

Now, team context: I really can't stress enough how much more successful Miller's offenses were than Pierce's.

If we call a "great" offense one that is 3 or more points above average. Miller was on 8 of them, Pierce was never on one. So for anyone giving Pierce the edge thinking about the role he played in the Big 3 as showing him to be more proven, you need to turn around 180. Miller is far more proven as a threat on a great offense, and he plays a role that is inherently more suited to scaling with talent around him.

That's before you even get into how Miller's ability to explode in the playoffs pushes him well ahead of Pierce while still playing a role that gets in the way of others less.

So yeah, to me the debate comes in here based on rebounding & defense. Cases have been made against Miller here, and while there's been some defense, by no means do I insist that everything's addressed. And while we can talk on it more, it's like anything else that comes down to one player being better at X while another's better at Y: How do you weight all that holistically?

Last time around, when I used the best +/- data available, the thing that I forced into the conversation was that Pierce looked to be in serious debate with Kidd. That data surprised me, but I couldn't ignore it, and I wanted everyone to consider it strongly.

We now have more data, and the gap between Pierce and a guy like Kidd is now more clear, which is another way of saying that Kidd with more info looks about the same, but Pierce with more data doesn't look quite as strong as hoped.

We have 3 years available in PI RAPM before Miller's clear end-of-prime. During those years he was ages 32 through 34. He had a scaled rating north of 5 each year, and the earlier year puts him in the mid 6's.

We have basically Pierce's whole year available with this data. He breaks the 5+ barrier only 4 times, and he never broke it consecutive years. He breaks the number in Miller's 32 year old season only once, that was on the '08 Celtics, a collective effort along the lines of which Miller's portability would make him typically a better fit for than Pierce.

Again, I don't want to hate on Pierce. He's in my Top 50. But still the choice of Miller over him isn't one I'm agonizing over.

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

It's really frustrating dealing with you dude. I write all this and, and the sum total of your thoughts is an allegation that I'm ignoring things that I literally have addressed in great detail all over the place in these very threads that you've been reading?

There's basically nothing I can say other than that you haven't done anything to convince me I should be listening to you - unlike virtually everyone else here.

[SactoKingsFan]

Why is Tracy McGrady not the frontrunner here? What makes Pierce and Miller better than T-Mac?

McGrady arguably has the highest peak of all the remaining players, but his durability/longevity is enough of an issue that I'd like to see at least Pierce and Miller get in before I'm ready to vote for T-Mac.

I count 7 prime seasons (2001-2005, 2007-2008), at least an All-Star season in 2006, and then his 2000 season, which is basically an in-between version of 2012 Paul George and 2013 Paul George. You've also got role player years in his first 2 years, and one in Detroit. That's a legit 9-year prime with the best peak left and then role player years.

I agree Pierce and Miller have strong longevity-based arguments, and them being better-than-average role players in their twilight years certainly is a positive for them. I just don't know if they are close enough to McGrady's best 9 years to overcome T-Mac with longevity.

I think that's being pretty generous extending T-Mac's prime out to 2008. Wasn't close to being on par with his prime level of play. Also only played 47 games in 2006, so I wouldn't give T-Mac credit for a 9 year prime (more like 6.5-7). I guess you could call it a 9 year extended prime, but Pierce and Miller have much longer true primes and more quality post prime seasons.

[john248]

Reggie Miller vs Manu Ginobili

Bottom line
If I didn't have a championship cast, it's possible I'd rather have Reggie due to his proven durability. We never got to see Manu without Pop in game maintenance mode, so maybe he could have played more minutes in a different world, but even in his limited minutes he had more than his fair share of injuries and his international playing schedule definitely left him more brittle and shortened his NBA career. So we don't know that Manu could physically handle being the full-time "man" on a team. But I'd argue that on a contender, I might just rather have 30 minutes of Manu than 36 minutes of Reggie (or Pierce). Which does put Manu firmly on my radar if we're seriously discussing Reggie and Pierce, while I doubt that many others are really even considering him yet.

FWIW, at least as it relates to me, I do rate Miller, Pierce, and Allen higher due to longevity/durability/minutes. But I do see Manu coming up soon. On my own list, I have him in the late 40s. He did play only play a few seasons at or above 30 mpg though in the playoffs he had 5 or 6 seasons above 30 mpg. But we can really only go by what happened, and those RS minutes, or lack thereof, are what they are.

[john248]

McGrady arguably has the highest peak of all the remaining players, but his durability/longevity is enough of an issue that I'd like to see at least Pierce and Miller get in before I'm ready to vote for T-Mac.

I count 7 prime seasons (2001-2005, 2007-2008), at least an All-Star season in 2006, and then his 2000 season, which is basically an in-between version of 2012 Paul George and 2013 Paul George. You've also got role player years in his first 2 years, and one in Detroit. That's a legit 9-year prime with the best peak left and then role player years.

I agree Pierce and Miller have strong longevity-based arguments, and them being better-than-average role players in their twilight years certainly is a positive for them. I just don't know if they are close enough to McGrady's best 9 years to overcome T-Mac with longevity.

I think that's being pretty generous extending T-Mac's prime out to 2008. Wasn't close to being on par with his prime level of play. Also only played 47 games in 2006, so I wouldn't give T-Mac credit for a 9 year prime (more like 6.5-7). I guess you could call it a 9 year extended prime, but Pierce and Miller have much longer true primes and more quality post prime seasons.

Agreed. I don't even see much value in TMac's 1st couple years and his season in Detroit. He probably should've just hung it up after that microfracture surgery though I understand why he stayed in the league.

[lukekarts]

With Dwight getting penbeasts vote, I'm surprised there's not been any more discussion there, or indeed a justification as to why Howard, when you have a number of bigs - MVP-winning bigs such as Cowens and Reed, who are both perhaps overdue some discussion.

Penbeast, what's your reasoning for Dwight over those guys?

I have some issues with guys like Pierce and Miller being considered at this point, but presumably that's just due to my personal preference on longevity vs peak. Still, my concern is neither peaked as top 5 players, in fact for most of their careers they've been 'top-10-ish' players.

Right now I feel I'd be leaning towards a number of guys, though I appreciate they do probably still make my top 50.

[DQuinn1575]

Right now it looks like the top two people like are Paul Pierce and Reggie Miller - 2 guys who played a long time without a real high peak - Pierce had one year in top 10 in mvp voting and 2nd team all-pro, otherwise the top people had them in their time was 3rd team and no mvp support.

Compared to Sam Jones, who was top 5 in mvp voting, 2nd best player on the sport's greatest dynasty, and had more WS/48 n the regular season than Miller or Pierce

http://bkref.com/tiny/la0ge

Good defense, the man who was the Celtics' offense

Vote for Sam Jones

[drza]

People keep acknowledging Miller and Pierce as the frontrunners here because they've gotten some mention, and perhaps they are, but I don't think it's a foregone yet that those will be the two finalists. Like Penbeast, I am much more likely to go with one of the big men in this slot. I'm not sure that Howard is the definitely the Big that I'd choose here, but he's in the group. I've been on point guards for it feels like forever with Kidd and Isiah, but with them voted in I could see bigs being worthy of the next several votes.

In the recent generation I'd have Mutombo, Mourning and Howard up before Pierce or Reggie because I think that a) their defensive impact makes their 2-way impact on the game higher than the wings, b) said defensive impact is about the most portable impact that there is (even more than Reggie's off-ball game), and c) that you could build a very successful team with that defensive backbone. For example, I don't think you're necessarily building a top-ranked offense around Pierce as the centerpiece...he's a great piece, but I don't see him as the foundation. On the other hand, all three of the modern bigs that I mentioned could and have been the centerpiece of dominant defensive units. Then, while Mutombo was more of an offensive neutral, both Mourning and Howard were net positives on offense that could contribute there in addition to being the defensive anchor.

I'm willing to entertain the 70s MVP bigs like Cowens or Reed (or the almost MVPs like Hayes or Thurmond) here as well, but I have less of a handle on them and would be relying on others (or some free time) to make their cases.

I'm also open to the headcase power forwards like Rodman or Rasheed Wallace here. Or non-headcase Mchale. Webber too.

And even among the wings, if I'm discussing Pierce there are a lot of others that I don't see much separation from. I've already talked a bit about Iverson and Manu here, RonnyMac has brought of TMac, and guys like Vince Carter or Ray Allen are in that mix as well. And another headcase non-chalk modern wing that could go in that mix is Ron Artest. And that's not even getting into older cats like Paul Arizin who probably deserve mention.

So all told, at the moment I'm leaning Mourning/Mutombo/Howard. But I'm wide open for good cases to be made on a wide variety of players.

[Doctor MJ]

Reggie has a massive longevity and durability edge over Manu, and perhaps it's an edge that can't be overcome and I respect that. On the other hand, while they were on the court, I think that Manu was the better player.

This is where I am. I definitely consider Ginobili the better player when he plays, but the durability issues are really huge. Miller over Ginobili is thus a pretty easy call for me, and the same for a bunch of other guys whose names haven't come up yet.

[RebelWithACause]

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.


Boxscore Stats:
1997-2006: 10 year prime: 16/7/2 , 726 games, 80 WS, 0.15 WS/48

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

Sheed: +8.8, +7.9, +6.8(average +7.8)
Reggie: +6.4, +5.8, +5.1 (average +5.8)
Pierce: +7.2, +6.3, +5.6 (average +6.3)
Mutombo: +8.5, +6.1, +5.3 (average +6.6)
Dwight: +7.4, +7.0, +5.6 (average +6.7)

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

[Basketballefan]

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.


Boxscore Stats:
1997-2006: 10 year prime: 16/7/2 , 726 games, 80 WS, 0.15 WS/48

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

Sheed: +8.8, +7.9, +6.8(average +7.8)
Reggie: +6.4, +5.8, +5.1 (average +5.8)
Pierce: +7.2, +6.3, +5.6 (average +6.3)
Mutombo: +8.5, +6.1, +5.3 (average +6.6)
Dwight: +7.4, +7.0, +5.6 (average +6.7)

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.

[RebelWithACause]

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.


Boxscore Stats:
1997-2006: 10 year prime: 16/7/2 , 726 games, 80 WS, 0.15 WS/48

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

Sheed: +8.8, +7.9, +6.8(average +7.8)
Reggie: +6.4, +5.8, +5.1 (average +5.8)
Pierce: +7.2, +6.3, +5.6 (average +6.3)
Mutombo: +8.5, +6.1, +5.3 (average +6.6)
Dwight: +7.4, +7.0, +5.6 (average +6.7)

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...

[penbeast0]

With Dwight getting penbeasts vote, I'm surprised there's not been any more discussion there, or indeed a justification as to why Howard, when you have a number of bigs - MVP-winning bigs such as Cowens and Reed, who are both perhaps overdue some discussion.

Penbeast, what's your reasoning for Dwight over those guys?

I have some issues with guys like Pierce and Miller being considered at this point, but presumably that's just due to my personal preference on longevity vs peak. Still, my concern is neither peaked as top 5 players, in fact for most of their careers they've been 'top-10-ish' players.

Right now I feel I'd be leaning towards a number of guys, though I appreciate they do probably still make my top 50.

Of those three, their careers are of pretty similar length so no big advantage there. Dwight clearly has better career numbers (except for Cowens's huge playmaking advantage but there's an even larger efficiency difference); especially when looking at per 100 or similar era adjustment. That's my starting point. Then I look at how good they were compared to their peers. Neither Reed nor Cowens was ever the best C in the league, even in their MVP years there as always someone like Kareem or Wilt who everyone would prefer though the best team narrative (and MVP fatigue with Kareem) went the other way; Howard has been the best center in the NBA for almost half his career. Similarly, Howard has at least as many seasons as a top 5 player as either of the others. Howard never won an MVP but he has led a weak team to the finals . . . it's a clear advantage for both Reed and Cowens. 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. Reed has the intangibles advantage.

So, overall, Howard has a clear edge in efficiency, a less clear edge in rebounding, is the weakest playmaker, and the intangibles favor the others. However, looking at the picture as a whole, to me Howard gives you the best center for an NBA championship/contender; Cowens is too inefficient, Reed to injury prone, and Howard seems to be the most impactful defender as well though I don't have data to back this up and am open to argument on it.

[Texas Chuck]

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".