RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #47 (Paul Pierce)

[HeartBreakKid]

Good write up on McHale, LA Bird. I think that described some of the concerns I had coming late on the project when I found I wasn't going to vote for him quite as high as I had thought. (he's going down slowly for me over the course of these threads)

I don't have a great handle on Bob Lanier. Would like to see some of the arguments for him against some other players who might come around here.


And I think I'd like to stress that if we are talking about players we should talk about them in comparisons if we are making a persuasive argument. Saying that Allen Iverson went to the finals, scored a lot, and had low turnover economy while true - doesn't really determine that he should be in the 50s.

Compare it to another player(s) and say why he is superior because everyone on the top 100 did great things and it will be much easier to contextualize how good they are because this is essentially a giant comparison project. (again, this is just for post that are trying to persuade, just stating quickly why a player is bad ass is still helping the project and can also be informative. I haven't said anything about Willis Reed other than a sentence)

It's harder to do with nominations because you're putting a player up against the field, but just food for thought.

[OhayoKD]

Being quite honest i expected myself to have already been championing draymond at this stage bsck when the project started

But the 1-2 punch of the poole and gobert situations put that on a chokehold

Are we really sure draymond attitudes against rivals -and- teammates wouldnt be much worse in a less stacked team where winning didnt amelloriate thinghs as much?

This is a guy who gets away with murder at phisicallity in the court, at screaming on refs ears and even at attacking teammates. In a non dinasty team would refs and front offices give him as much of a leash?

I may be even lower on his intangibles than i am on dwight intangibles

If you have to cherrypick negatives that show up less frequently than positives(player-development, two-way on-court/off-court coaching/widely credited as the emotional leader) that benefit his team in nearly any game in any situation with any support...than no I do not think there is any real debate to be had about who has worse intangibles.

In fact, unless we are making a moral stand akin to "Malone should not be top 50", Draymond's intangibles are quite clearly the best of anyone on the board

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote Dwight Howard

He's underrated overall. He's probably one of the best defenders of the modern era. I have him #2 behind Hakeem.

His defense was so good Orlando was the #1 defense for several years even with kind of meh players surrounding him.

On offense his reportoire wasn't the best, but he put work on that end as well. Great on PnR as the roll player, ugly but with gravity in the post. He should have been MVP in 2011 the way I see it.

His prime was long enough and he was able to adapt to new roles as well, culminating with a ring in Los Angeles where he was more important than he's given credit. Old Dwight held his own against Joker.... that's not easy.

Alternate Kevin McHale

Nomination Jimmy Butler

[WintaSoldier1]

Speaking of Draymond I can’t see how he got nominated so early, I find a hard time believing he’ll get in, At best I’d have him going in the very late 70’s I’d expect early 90s for him

[penbeast0]

Vote 1: Paul Pierce
Vote 2: Dwight Howard
Nom 1: Jimmy Butler
Nom 2: Bob Lanier

Was going to do a writeup for Pierce but seeing as he has a few first place votes already, I'll write about McHale instead. I feel like his 1989 season doesn't get talked about enough. It's equivalent to the 1994 season for Pippen, the perfect opportunity to prove his value with his team's #1 superstar out. Except Pippen stepped up while McHale didn't. His scoring and shooting efficiency both went down, assists were down, turnovers were up, his defensive metrics were the worst of his career, and the Celtics dropped to 20th of 25 teams defensively. They had a +1.3 SRS overall and were swept in the first round. They did face a tough opponent in the Bad Boys Pistons but McHale didn't have any problems against them just the year prior with Bird around. And the other side of the equation is that while McHale didn't have much success without Bird, the converse is not true. Bird's Celtics won their first two titles without much contribution from McHale (5/3 in 81 Finals and 13/6 in 84 Finals) and they were still a 7+ SRS team in 86 without McHale.

This is a concern for me because without the team success argument, I don't think McHale's numbers by themselves is that great. For example, these are the career stats of McHale vs Nance, another PF from the same era who is usually ranked far below him.

McHale: 30118 MP, 17.9 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 1.7 APG, 0.4 SPG, 1.7 BPG, 60.5% TS, 20.0 PER, 113.0 WS, 34.3 VORP
Nance: 30697 MP, 17.1 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 2.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 2.2 BPG, 58.6% TS, 19.9 PER, 109.6 WS, 43.5 VORP

McHale is clearly a better scorer (especially in playoffs) but Nance is ahead, at least statistically, in all other areas. Hell, Nance's peak scoring average (22.5 ppg on 60.7% TS) is actually almost identical to McHale's in his one season without Bird (22.5 ppg on 60.8% TS) and one could argue Nance's style of scoring is more era portable and easier to build around. If we dig into non-box impact metrics, Nance is ahead in ElGee's prime WOWYR (+5.1 vs +3.6), career WOWYR (+5.6 vs +2.6), and generally looks better in Moonbeam's RWOWY graph too. As a counterpoint, McHale was among top of the league in the limited 1988 RAPM data from squared2020 (even above Bird) but the problem with that is we saw how the Celtics dropped off the following season without Bird. All in all, I think the gap between McHale and Nance is not that big and considering one is usually ranked in the 40s and the other in the 80s in all time lists, the question then becomes whether McHale is moving down, Nance is moving up, or a bit of both. Personally, I don't feel comfortable going super high for Nance yet which means I can't really justify putting McHale in my top 50 while staying consistent.

Re: Nominations
I would actually prefer to have Lanier as my first pick but seeing as he has zero traction at the moment, I've opted to go with Butler instead to send him through first.

FWIW, I'd have Nance over Lanier as well. Not as much scoring or rebounding, better efficiency, better passing, much better defense, in a more competitive era. Others have Lanier as an average or better defensive center, I don't. If Nance had stronger playoff numbers, I wouldn't feel uncomfortable nominating him soon. He used to be the one everyone called the most underrated player of all time, now he's just forgotten by most casual fans.

[AEnigma]

Reposting these:


https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2331466&p=109160578&#p109160578

[penbeast0]

Really surprised at how drastically that graph changes (80+ to almost zero for Reed, 85 to 30 for Lanier) when apparently 4 of the 5 years are the same for each new data point. Any explanation?

Also, notice that Lanier's top numbers coincide with his move to Milwaukee where he was averaging less than 30 minutes and less than 15 ppg. Maybe he just have the stamina to play strong for 35+ minutes or maybe Don Nelson's platooning of him maximized his impact (Nelson loved to do that kind of stuff).

PS. Also surprised 74 is still part of the big dropoff in Lanier's scores when it's the one year Detroit was effective defensively.

[WintaSoldier1]

I keep checking this thread so I’m just gonna post out of habit I guess;

Really Hoping Dwight Takes This, Also really enjoyed seeing Pau Gasol get nominated, although in some weird sense I think it’s too early for him but know it’s still a GREAT nomination.

Dwight getting in here is less about if he deserves this specific spot, but there’s an obvious bias against who he is because of a numerous amount of variables that may make some people feel more negative towards him.

It’s also really tough to tell me in a random sample(N=30) as a GM you’d select some of these other guys over Dwight Howard more often then not.

Dwight deserves this spot, hopes he takes and but if not he deserves the spot soon hopefully.

[trex_8063]

Really surprised at how drastically that graph changes (80+ to almost zero for Reed, 85 to 30 for Lanier) when apparently 4 of the 5 years are the same for each new data point. Any explanation?

Also, notice that Lanier's top numbers coincide with his move to Milwaukee where he was averaging less than 30 minutes and less than 15 ppg. Maybe he just have the stamina to play strong for 35+ minutes or maybe Don Nelson's platooning of him maximized his impact (Nelson loved to do that kind of stuff).

PS. Also surprised 74 is still part of the big dropoff in Lanier's scores when it's the one year Detroit was effective defensively.

I believe that Moonbeam's methodology will have factored into his early Milwaukee years value the drop DOWN that Detroit suffered upon his departure; so that sort of "reverse WOWY" will be boosting those later year(s) up, too.

wrt '74, it's worth noting that he only missed one game that year (which Detroit happened to win), and his regression is otherwise drawing off prior years (wherein he also only missed 3 total games, and they happened to go 2-1 in those). So his RWOWY looks poor.


Note that his percentile begins ratcheting UP as soon as he actually starts missing relevant games.

My theory is that [by fluke] the low early numbers are primarily a function of how the tiny sample of missed games was in his first four seasons was simply insufficient to capture how important he was to them. Once he started actually missing time, it was like "Oh damn! We hardly function without him!"
See the raw WOWY:
‘75: 39-37 (.513) with Lanier, 1-5 (.167) without him/(+28.4 wins added to full 82-game schedule)
‘76: 30-34 (.469) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+11.1 wins
‘77: 38-26 (.594) with Lanier, 6-12 (.333) without him/+21.4 wins
‘78: 31-32 (.492) with Lanier, 7-12 (.368) without him/+10.2 wins
‘79: 21-32 (396) with Lanier, 9-20 (.310) without him/+7.1 wins

......and thus his percentile shoots up, because now the samples are big enough that they aren't being "tricked" by a fluky tiny sample.

[MiamiBulls]

Speaking of Draymond I can’t see how he got nominated so early, I find a hard time believing he’ll get in, At best I’d have him going in the very late 70’s I’d expect early 90s for him

How is Draymond Green a significantly lesser impact basketball player than Allen Iverson?

[Owly]

Vote 1: Paul Pierce
Vote 2: Dwight Howard
Nom 1: Jimmy Butler
Nom 2: Bob Lanier

Was going to do a writeup for Pierce but seeing as he has a few first place votes already, I'll write about McHale instead. I feel like his 1989 season doesn't get talked about enough. It's equivalent to the 1994 season for Pippen, the perfect opportunity to prove his value with his team's #1 superstar out. Except Pippen stepped up while McHale didn't. His scoring and shooting efficiency both went down, assists were down, turnovers were up, his defensive metrics were the worst of his career, and the Celtics dropped to 20th of 25 teams defensively. They had a +1.3 SRS overall and were swept in the first round. They did face a tough opponent in the Bad Boys Pistons but McHale didn't have any problems against them just the year prior with Bird around. And the other side of the equation is that while McHale didn't have much success without Bird, the converse is not true. Bird's Celtics won their first two titles without much contribution from McHale (5/3 in 81 Finals and 13/6 in 84 Finals) and they were still a 7+ SRS team in 86 without McHale.

This is a concern for me because without the team success argument, I don't think McHale's numbers by themselves is that great. For example, these are the career stats of McHale vs Nance, another PF from the same era who is usually ranked far below him.

McHale: 30118 MP, 17.9 PPG, 7.3 RPG, 1.7 APG, 0.4 SPG, 1.7 BPG, 60.5% TS, 20.0 PER, 113.0 WS, 34.3 VORP
Nance: 30697 MP, 17.1 PPG, 8.0 RPG, 2.6 APG, 0.9 SPG, 2.2 BPG, 58.6% TS, 19.9 PER, 109.6 WS, 43.5 VORP

McHale is clearly a better scorer (especially in playoffs) but Nance is ahead, at least statistically, in all other areas. Hell, Nance's peak scoring average (22.5 ppg on 60.7% TS) is actually almost identical to McHale's in his one season without Bird (22.5 ppg on 60.8% TS) and one could argue Nance's style of scoring is more era portable and easier to build around. If we dig into non-box impact metrics, Nance is ahead in ElGee's prime WOWYR (+5.1 vs +3.6), career WOWYR (+5.6 vs +2.6), and generally looks better in Moonbeam's RWOWY graph too. As a counterpoint, McHale was among top of the league in the limited 1988 RAPM data from squared2020 (even above Bird) but the problem with that is we saw how the Celtics dropped off the following season without Bird. All in all, I think the gap between McHale and Nance is not that big and considering one is usually ranked in the 40s and the other in the 80s in all time lists, the question then becomes whether McHale is moving down, Nance is moving up, or a bit of both. Personally, I don't feel comfortable going super high for Nance yet which means I can't really justify putting McHale in my top 50 while staying consistent.

Re: Nominations
I would actually prefer to have Lanier as my first pick but seeing as he has zero traction at the moment, I've opted to go with Butler instead to send him through first.

FWIW, I'd have Nance over Lanier as well. Not as much scoring or rebounding, better efficiency, better passing, much better defense, in a more competitive era. Others have Lanier as an average or better defensive center, I don't. If Nance had stronger playoff numbers, I wouldn't feel uncomfortable nominating him soon. He used to be the one everyone called the most underrated player of all time, now he's just forgotten by most casual fans.

In defense of Nance's playoff numbers:

His team miss the playoffs in three of his top years (2,3,4 by BPM; 1,3,5 by PER; though 3,5,7 by WS/48) and given his solid/strong rWOWY (from Ben's public post) showing I'd guess it's because his teams were pretty poor and couldn't live with him being in the 2200-2600 minute range. There is a cost to not being available but his playoff stats are probably hurt by missing those years.

His playoff career stats are with 5/12 of them accumulated at age 32 and 33. They aren't bad of course but then he's good at that age. Some playoff "ascenders" get away with

I think his solid '89 playoff is, per Wilkens' autobiog, done playing through an injury.

Without a close, serious, thorough overview I've tilted toward perhaps preferring him to McHale (McHale of course is of greater narrative significance due to the teams he plays on, that's not something I care about really). Certainly I struggle to see separation between the two.


Fwiw Nance had good turnover economy but I'm less sure about putting him above Lanier as a passer. I guess Lanier had the ball more though.

[WintaSoldier1]

Speaking of Draymond I can’t see how he got nominated so early, I find a hard time believing he’ll get in, At best I’d have him going in the very late 70’s I’d expect early 90s for him

How is Draymond Green a significantly lesser impact basketball player than Allen Iverson?

It’s less about impact for me and more about actual ability and influence a player has on a game.

Impact stats have led people to believe some players are better than they actually are just because they’re impactful on their team.

If you watch basketball like the box score doesn’t exist( And by extension, Impact Stats & Advanced Analytics); There’s no way you’d EVER believe that Draymond Green is a better player then Allen Iverson.


If you were a general manager for every team in the NBA at a random point in time, How many times out of 30 would you honestly select Draymond Green over Allen Iverson?

[Rishkar]

Induction Vote 1: Dwight Howard
Induction Vote 2: Kevin McHale
Nomination Vote 1: Paul Arizin
Nomination Vote 2: Ray Allen

Induction 1: Man, I really don't like any of these nominees (and would vote for Ray Allen, Bobby Jones, Paul Arizin, Nate Thurmond, Chauncey Billups, and Ben Wallace before any of them). I guess Dwight was likely the best player but I have concerns with how he would fit next to other high end talent (stemming from his IQ and demands for primacy to the detriment of the team). Not at all married to this pick, but he was a fantastic defender and decent enough on offense.

Induction 2 Reasoning: Toss up between McHale and Draymond. I lean McHale because I think his skillset was slightly limited by his team's composition, whereas I can't really picture Draymond having a better team around him to utilize his talents. Could easily be swayed here.
Nominations: I'm pretty torn between Ray Allen, Bobby Jones, Paul Arizin, Nate Thurmond, Chauncey Billups, and Ben Wallace. A couple of all-time great defenders who were limited offensively, and a couple of decent all round guards and wings.

[HeartBreakKid]

Speaking of Draymond I can’t see how he got nominated so early, I find a hard time believing he’ll get in, At best I’d have him going in the very late 70’s I’d expect early 90s for him

How is Draymond Green a significantly lesser impact basketball player than Allen Iverson?

It’s less about impact for me and more about actual ability and influence a player has on a game.

Impact stats have led people to believe some players are better than they actually are just because they’re impactful on their team.

If you watch basketball like the box score doesn’t exist( And by extension, Impact Stats & Advanced Analytics); There’s no way you’d EVER believe that Draymond Green is a better player then Allen Iverson.


If you were a general manager for every team in the NBA at a random point in time, How many times out of 30 would you honestly select Draymond Green over Allen Iverson?

You absolutely can feel how good guys who don't score are if they're dominant on defense. You never played basketball against those type of players?

Draymond Green has the actual ability to influence the game, what else would his impact be? I've watched plenty of games especially in the post season where Draymond Green has taken over.

[penbeast0]

It’s less about impact for me and more about actual ability and influence a player has on a game.

Impact stats have led people to believe some players are better than they actually are just because they’re impactful on their team.

If you watch basketball like the box score doesn’t exist( And by extension, Impact Stats & Advanced Analytics); There’s no way you’d EVER believe that Draymond Green is a better player then Allen Iverson.


If you were a general manager for every team in the NBA at a random point in time, How many times out of 30 would you honestly select Draymond Green over Allen Iverson?

You absolutely can feel how good guys who don't score are if they're dominant on defense. You never played basketball against those type of players?

Draymond Green has the actual ability to influence the game, what else would his impact be? I've watched plenty of games especially in the post season where Draymond Green has taken over.

Impact isn't just +/- stats. It's leadership, fit, a willingness to subjugate your ego to the needs of the team. Unfortunately, Iverson showed poorly at those things as well as his on court efficiency and defensive issues, particularly late career after the trade from Philly.

He had great athleticism and at Georgetown he worked on defense and dominated the ball a lot less because he respected John Thompson and truly believed that Thompson would sit him if he didn't play the coach's way. Therefore, you are correct that he would almost always be drafted first if you didn't know how each of them would turn out as a pro. He got to Philly and Katz made it clear that between Iverson and the coach, he would always side with Iverson so Iverson developed the wrong way because there was no accountability or so it seemed to me at the time.

[WintaSoldier1]

How is Draymond Green a significantly lesser impact basketball player than Allen Iverson?

It’s less about impact for me and more about actual ability and influence a player has on a game.

Impact stats have led people to believe some players are better than they actually are just because they’re impactful on their team.

If you watch basketball like the box score doesn’t exist( And by extension, Impact Stats & Advanced Analytics); There’s no way you’d EVER believe that Draymond Green is a better player then Allen Iverson.


If you were a general manager for every team in the NBA at a random point in time, How many times out of 30 would you honestly select Draymond Green over Allen Iverson?

You absolutely can feel how good guys who don't score are if they're dominant on defense. You never played basketball against those type of players?

Draymond Green has the actual ability to influence the game, what else would his impact be? I've watched plenty of games especially in the post season where Draymond Green has taken over.

Against Who?

He’s taken games over with a much much superior team in in almost all instances where he’s had an opportunity to do this, while ALWAYS surrounded by competent defenders[ Which is necessary for him because his floor raising defensively is weak as a talent & Offensively is non-existent]

It’s easy to give him Credit for having a “impact” which led to GSW’s success when the team he’s on(GSW) has a extreme advantage over the teams they’re playing; Which you could attest to “because Draymond is on the team” but realistically if you took Draymond off the ‘17 and ‘18 Teams and replaced him with an championship starting quality player( WHO IS MUCH WORSE THEN A TOP 100 CAREER PLAYER), The warriors WOULD STILL WIN.

Draymond taking over a game when his team is superior & there’s low stakes for his team considering the leverage his team always asserts over the other team.

You saw Draymond without Curry for a full season, albeit he had some questionable personnel beside him;

Synopsis: If you’re a GM in what Situation do you want Draymond over Iverson, Maybe if you’re an established contender already with elite scoring options? Maybe 2-3 teams out of 30 in the NBA?

If I’m taking Iverson in 27/28 out of 30 instances as a GM there’s no way I can truly believe that Draymond as a career deserves to be over Iverson.

[HeartBreakKid]

It’s less about impact for me and more about actual ability and influence a player has on a game.

Impact stats have led people to believe some players are better than they actually are just because they’re impactful on their team.

If you watch basketball like the box score doesn’t exist( And by extension, Impact Stats & Advanced Analytics); There’s no way you’d EVER believe that Draymond Green is a better player then Allen Iverson.


If you were a general manager for every team in the NBA at a random point in time, How many times out of 30 would you honestly select Draymond Green over Allen Iverson?

You absolutely can feel how good guys who don't score are if they're dominant on defense. You never played basketball against those type of players?

Draymond Green has the actual ability to influence the game, what else would his impact be? I've watched plenty of games especially in the post season where Draymond Green has taken over.

Against Who?

He’s taken games over with a much much superior team in in almost all instances where he’s had an opportunity to do this, while ALWAYS surrounded by competent defenders[ Which is necessary for him because his floor raising defensively is weak as a talent & Offensively is non-existent]

It’s easy to give him Credit for having a “impact” which led to GSW’s success when the team he’s on(GSW) has a extreme advantage over the teams they’re playing; Which you could attest to “because Draymond is on the team” but realistically if you took Draymond off the ‘17 and ‘18 Teams and replaced him with an championship starting quality player( WHO IS MUCH WORSE THEN A TOP 100 CAREER PLAYER), The warriors WOULD STILL WIN.

Draymond taking over a game when his team is superior & there’s low stakes for his team considering the leverage his team always asserts over the other team.

You saw Draymond without Curry for a full season, albeit he had some questionable personnel beside him;

Synopsis: If you’re a GM in what Situation do you want Draymond over Iverson, Maybe if you’re an established contender already with elite scoring options? Maybe 2-3 teams out of 30 in the NBA?

If I’m taking Iverson in 27/28 out of 30 instances as a GM there’s no way I can truly believe that Draymond as a career deserves to be over Iverson.

Against who? You're not aware that Draymond Green is a dominant playoff player? He has dominated teams and has helped win series while Curry wasn't even present. I'm not sure how you can watch basketball and not see his imprint on the game - do you really think everyone ranging from nerds on this forum to mainstream media talks about him for zero reason?

I don't get your point about impact or why you're putting in quotes. Impact means what players are more impactful at helping their team win. By what other measure would someone be a "better" basektball player? Better at playing 1 on 1 or half-court?

What do you mean by the warriors would win without him? The 2017 Warriors COULD win without him, they are the most stacked team of all time. You could literally remove Kevin Durant from the 2017 Warriors and they "would still win".


Draymond Green already won titles outside of 2017 and 2018. They certainly would not win any titles or go to the finals without him in 2015,16, 19 and 23.

Also, all you have done is talk about Green but not Iverson. Iverson has been on many lotto teams. Iverson has also only beaten teams that his teams were more talented than. Iverson has often been out played by the opposing teams best player. Iverson was also often out played by Mutombo in their iconic playoff run. If you took Iverson off the Nuggets and replaced him with Chauncey Billups the Nuggets would they become worse or better? The answer was better.

If I am GM on nearly any team I would pick Draymond Green because he is a better player and thus a better piece for the future. I would only pick Allen Iverson if I was playing for a franchise that made no money and this was the 90s where having a big draw made a tangible difference in the money your franchise made.

The rebuttal I assume is that Draymond Green would suck if he was just your only good guy, even though your team would suck if you only had Allen Iverson also. Maybe Iverson is better at carrying a terrible team to a below .500 record, but I don't see that as very important. The Sixers during the run that everyone talks about were not a terrible team, in case you are going to go there.

If you are trying to build a contender, which is the point, then Draymond Green is better. He is the best defensive player of his generation and a good playmaker. Allen Iverson when scaled back is like a 25-26 PPG caliber scorer on decent efficiency with low turnovers. He doesn't give your team any thing else, that isn't really superior to DPOY. Carmelo Anthony isn't superior to Dikembe Mutumbo.



While the Warriors are usually elite on both sides of the ball, their offense often fell off while their defense remained consistent. The Warriors are a better defensive team than offensive team, and that isn't just because of Steph Curry. You're making it seem like the Warriors are some one-way team.





Maybe this is abstract because you're comparing a volume scorer (an inefficient one) to a defensive oriented player. What volume scorers do you think Allen Iverson is better than? Do you think he is better than Paul Pierce?

[HeartBreakKid]

Maybe this is abstract because you're comparing a volume scorer (an inefficient one) to a defensive oriented player. What volume scorers do you think Allen Iverson is a better player than? Do you think he is better than Paul Pierce for example?

You're trying to say that Allen Iverson would be better on another team or something, but I don't know what that means. . How good of a volume scorer do you think Allen Iverson is?

[WintaSoldier1]

You absolutely can feel how good guys who don't score are if they're dominant on defense. You never played basketball against those type of players?

Draymond Green has the actual ability to influence the game, what else would his impact be? I've watched plenty of games especially in the post season where Draymond Green has taken over.

Against Who?

He’s taken games over with a much much superior team in in almost all instances where he’s had an opportunity to do this, while ALWAYS surrounded by competent defenders[ Which is necessary for him because his floor raising defensively is weak as a talent & Offensively is non-existent]

It’s easy to give him Credit for having a “impact” which led to GSW’s success when the team he’s on(GSW) has a extreme advantage over the teams they’re playing; Which you could attest to “because Draymond is on the team” but realistically if you took Draymond off the ‘17 and ‘18 Teams and replaced him with an championship starting quality player( WHO IS MUCH WORSE THEN A TOP 100 CAREER PLAYER), The warriors WOULD STILL WIN.

Draymond taking over a game when his team is superior & there’s low stakes for his team considering the leverage his team always asserts over the other team.

You saw Draymond without Curry for a full season, albeit he had some questionable personnel beside him;

Synopsis: If you’re a GM in what Situation do you want Draymond over Iverson, Maybe if you’re an established contender already with elite scoring options? Maybe 2-3 teams out of 30 in the NBA?

If I’m taking Iverson in 27/28 out of 30 instances as a GM there’s no way I can truly believe that Draymond as a career deserves to be over Iverson.

Against who? You're not aware that Draymond Green is a dominant playoff player? He has dominated teams and has helped win series while Curry wasn't even present. I'm not sure how you can watch basketball and not see his imprint on the game - do you really think everyone ranging from nerds on this forum to mainstream media talks about him for zero reason?

I don't get your point about impact or why you're putting in quotes. Impact means what players are more impactful at helping their team win. By what other measure would someone be a "better" basektball player? Better at playing 1 on 1 or half-court?

What do you mean by the warriors would win without him? The 2017 Warriors COULD win without him, they are the most stacked team of all time. You could literally remove Kevin Durant from the 2017 Warriors and they "would still win".


Draymond Green already won titles outside of 2017 and 2018. They certainly would not win any titles or go to the finals without him in 2015,16, 19 and 23.

Also, all you have done is talk about Green but not Iverson. Iverson has been on many lotto teams. Iverson has also only beaten teams that his teams were more talented than. Iverson has often been out played by the opposing teams best player. Iverson was also often out played by Mutombo in their iconic playoff run. If you took Iverson off the Nuggets and replaced him with Chauncey Billups the Nuggets would they become worse or better? The answer was better.

If I am GM on nearly any team I would pick Draymond Green because he is a better player and thus a better piece for the future. I would only pick Allen Iverson if I was playing for a franchise that made no money and this was the 90s where having a big draw made a tangible difference in the money your franchise made.

The rebuttal I assume is that Draymond Green would suck if he was just your only good guy, even though your team would suck if you only had Allen Iverson also. Maybe Iverson is better at carrying a terrible team to a below .500 record, but I don't see that as very important. The Sixers during the run that everyone talks about were not a terrible team, in case you are going to go there.

If you are trying to build a contender, which is the point, then Draymond Green is better. He is the best defensive player of his generation and a good playmaker. Allen Iverson when scaled back is like a 25-26 PPG caliber scorer on decent efficiency with low turnovers. He doesn't give your team any thing else, that isn't really superior to DPOY. Carmelo Anthony isn't superior to Dikembe Mutumbo.

Working backwards because I’m on a phone,

I think the biggest difference in comparison( Melo v Mutombo) V (Draymond V Iverson)

Mutombo is a pretty traditional rim protector who regardless of circumstance will always hold a tremendous amount of value based on him just guarding the 5 and being around the rim for the entire duration of the game.

A LOT Draymond’s value defensively comes from the context of his teammates( Having good enough perimeter defenders & a Solid Rim Presence around him so he can do his OLB things)

If I had to articulate the difference it’s the difference between a Great Defensive Tackle who can control the game just by merit of presence and a GREAT OLB who can really choke your defense out and force you not to do certain things on the field.

But a great OLB can be neutered by poor line up front, and end up giving consistently a solid 4 Yard gains because his Line is weak. This isn’t a fault of the OLB because it’s an impact sport by position and he can only do so much.

Rim Protectors/ Rim Presence have the D-Line presence I was referring to, While Draymond is a OLB who needs his line to stifle the action a bit so he can be effective.

Sorry for the long rant but the point is there’s so many contextual and situational pieces that Draymond needs to be successful I find it hard to value his impact at a similar level to traditional All time Rim protectors when they don’t have the same level of conditions to clear to have Elite Impact.

—
As for definition of impact, impact isn’t who’s better or worse it’s who has a bigger influence on the game.

Being impactful is important and ultimately what you want in a player but it’s also something that is extremely conditional and also based on the 4 teammates around you and the 5 players you’re playing against, and just because you as a player exhibit the most influence it does not mean you’re the best player on the team; It just means the variables available make you potentially a more important player

Situational Importance and Player-Quality are not synonymous.

In Raptor Analytics( 538); Alex Caruso was the 9th most impactful player, That means over the course of the season based on the opportunity he was given he was the most important player for his teams success; But that doesn’t mean he’s the best player on the bulls.

Importance V Quality of Player

More Examples in the Season(22-23)

JRUE Holiday #12th(5.7) > Giannis #15th( 5.4)
FVV#17th(+5) > Siakam#108(+.6)

Mike Conley #57(+2.3)>Rudy Gobert #68(+1.8)
__
Your impact is heavily dependent on the opportunity around you, it isn’t because of Draymond solely he’s a impactful player; He’s impactful because Draymond and his teammates allow him to have a highly successful level of impact while he’s on the floor.


My last part would be basketball is still a heavy matchup sport, characters and skill sets mix and mesh in a way that can aid or hurt your team; Which is why ceiling raising and floor raising alike are valued so highly when referring to a quality of a player.


Draymond is a Great player and was/is ultimate “Glue Guy” in the GSW Dynasty, but that doesn’t mean the glue is the supporting beams of the Dynasty; He is the glue that holds it together and you seem to be accrediting a lot of the support to the glue

[WintaSoldier1]

Maybe this is abstract because you're comparing a volume scorer (an inefficient one) to a defensive oriented player. What volume scorers do you think Allen Iverson is a better player than? Do you think he is better than Paul Pierce for example?

You're trying to say that Allen Iverson would be better on another team or something, but I don't know what that means. . How good of a volume scorer do you think Allen Iverson is?

That’s tough, I don’t really think about it as in A>B

I think of basketball players alike to Boxers, there are some boxers who will beat other boxers due to matchup and other factors.

I think PP is better if you’re seriously trying to assemble a championship team( His size and the way he leverages it is so important when it comes to generating quality shots and handling that offensive load responsibly) and he’s one of the pieces that you have to hold onto;

But if there’s a draft and It’s between Iverson & PP and I’m on my first pick as a GM; I’d probably pick Iverson 7/10 Times.

But nearly any other pick for my team I’d choose PP to be on my team.