Real GM Top 100 List #27

[Fencer reregistered]

Am I turning into a Celtic whore? I HATE that team.

I think you're stuck.

Probably, as a Piston fan, you value ensemble, team-success-oriented play.

And that kind of orientation leads one to think well of Celtics players.

[penbeast0]

. . .
Re: Howard. Yup, could see going for him now. Longevity's obviously an issue, but not as bad as you might think. However, then I compare him to McAdoo, and Mac does stronger by my POY metrics, while still really having the longevity edge (as many all-star appearances, more career WS, found a way to thrive as a role player on a title winner later on). Of course if you have Howard with a glaring edge at peak you go with him, but I respect Mac's peak a lot. . .

Last, Rodman hasn't been brought up, and I'm interested people's thoughts on him. One blogger did a really astoundingly detailed analysis on him that I think everyone should ponder:

http://skepticalsports.com/?page_id=1222

Re: McAdoo and Rodman. Maybe it's from coaching or maybe because I was never all that talented but I may penalize guys more who are team destroyers/clubhouse cancers. McAdoo was clearly that despite great stats at first once he was dealt away from Buffalo -- and how do you deal away a 5th year big man with an MVP who is averaging about 30/12 with good efficiency and range for a guy with the same age/experience who has been producing 8pts/6reb unless there is something seriously wrong?

Doc, I know you were one of the leaders in penalizing Wilt for mediocre effect on team performance but having selfish addicts on your team has to be incredibly damaging for a team -- as you can see by McAdoo's bouncing around the league from NY to Det to Bos etc. This isn't a guy whose admittedly GREAT stats created team success, this was a guy who was a team wrecker. If he had become injured that 5th year and therefore become a role player like Grant Hill or Sidney Moncrief, it would be a very different story.

Same goes for Rodman to a MUCH lesser extent. I love defensive players and rebounders and think guys who don't score a ton consistently get underrated but Rodman is something of an exception. He was great defensively but not the GOAT rebounder in Detroit for most of his stay there, then was a GOAT rebounder but didn't play nearly the same intensity of defense in San Antonio or Chicago but gets credit for both as if they existed simultaneously. Also, he was a terrible teammate and cancer in San Antonio where he fought with Coach Hill, with David Robinson, and with Sean Elliot -- that I was aware of at the time. He refused to go into games, didn't tie his shoes at practice , etc. That's a big black mark in my book and one reason I have him below Bobby Jones who couldn't hold his jock as a rebounder, something I normally value highly. On the other hand, the Zen Master and the Bulls were able to deal with his idiocy and use his great skills for 3 rings which is a huge plus in my book. Without the San Antonio years, he'd be on my radar now -- as it is, he still will be a guy I consider nominating before we hit the 50 mark.

[drza]

Lots of talk about the nominees, not much about the candidates. Hondo's hard for me to get a hold on. He seems like Pippen's ancestor, but he's not quite as tall and I can't gauge whether his defense was more "good perimeter 1-on-1" or "helping/defensive anchor" type. I'd suspect more the former than the latter, which isn't a small difference. Similarly, with Penbeast's pace adjustments Hondo's career and peak box score numbers don't seem any more impressive than Ewing's (similar scoring on average at peak, Ewing obviously on the glass and Hondo's assists more like a passing swingman than PG-like). I don't recall any kind of estimated impact stats for Hondo (hard since he rarely missed games in his prime), but I do recall that Ewing measured out well in years where he had injury absences. Posting similar box score numbers with a bigger defensive impact would likely mean that Ewing had a larger impact overall. Unless convinced otherwise, that's how I'm leaning.

What about Barry vs Ewing? Well, Barry's pace-adjusted stats (Penbeast) fall off even more sharply, losing about a quarter from the raw stats. He had his historic championship run and someone (RonnieMac?) pointed out that his individual offensive production tended to translate well in terms of team ratings, as far as he could tell. That is important. But again, I haven't seen any kind of actual estimates for Barry's individual offensive impact...if all we have to work with are team ratings, the Ewing-led Knicks team defenses have to be at least as impressive as Barry's teams' offensive ratings. And again, Ewing was scoring (pace-adjusted) at a similar rate to Barry, which I'd imagine was of more value than Barry's defense. Again, unless someone makes a strong counter-case I'm leaning Ewing over him as well.

Which leaves only Isiah, really, as someone that could steal this vote from me. I actually want to be convinced on Isiah...but so far I haven't seen it. Laimbeer's Isiah = Russel-lite analogy falls flat to me because, as has been pointed out, Russ's impact can be found and pointed to. Isiah's...it's harder. He COULD have been having a huge individual offensive impact without necessarily the team having dominant offensive ratings...but we don't have any kind of +/- estimates from his prime/peak to indicate that. And later in his career, his absences didn't lend any proof that the team was relying on him (not damming in short 10 - 12 game absences on good teams, but his absence was a bit longer and at the very least it wasn't evidentiary in his favor of a hidden huge impact). Plus, though I think scoring efficiency can be taken too far, there IS a reason folks look at that. It does tend to often have a positive correlation with success, and I'd think even moreso in a point guard. And efficiency was never Isiah's strong point. Again, not a death sentence, but it's another anti-data point to the idea that Isiah had a thus-far-unseen hidden massive impact.

In his favor, on the other hand, are that:

a) he's a great floor general, and historically the super (maybe hidden) high impact PG savants are the great floor generals (Magic, Oscar, Kidd, Nash, Stockon) seemingly regardless of whether they were high scoring or not, or high efficiency or not. The problem is that the only low-efficiency counterexample that I know of is Kidd, and he was low volume with that low efficiency so perhaps that's why his scoring efficiency deficits didn't hurt his team so much. I don't know that there are any high volume/low efficiency/high-hidden-impact PGs out there that we have as a comp for Zeke.

b) Iverson effect. There was an excellent post in the RPoY project, I think in the 2001 thread, where someone made an excellent case for Iverson having a huge positive impact on the Sixers despite his low scoring efficiency. It was one of the strongest pro-Iverson cases I've ever seen, and IIRC it got Iverson into my top 5 for that year. If any true PG could ever have had a similar or greater effect it would be Zeke. The issue is finding a way to consistently quantify such an effect, if it is real. It would be great for someone to break some ground on huge offensive impact from a scoring guard with high efficiency...but again, I've rarely seen that argument presented effectively.

Anyway, in the end, I haven't found the justification yet to vote Zeke. I want to. I would love it if someone can make a convincing enough case to sway me. But for now, I'd have to say I'm leaning Ewing overall.

[Fencer reregistered]

PS -- oh and if you are going to say that his rebounding needs to be adjusted up due to playing next to two guys who rebounded at near 10 reb/36, then you have to also adjust his efficiency down because how many great scoring PFs even played with two frontcourt partners that scored and demanded coverage like Bird and Parish which means McHale probably faced single coverage in the low post more than any other great scorer in history (not always but more often).

But people are doing that in this project.

My opinion on McHale is:

One of the great off-ball scorers. I think his efficiency was "for real" and not a function of his teammates. I base that on how awesome he was to the eye test and how good he was at scoring against double-teams.

Average passer. Downright nifty on the break. If he were a better passer people would say he was a notably good one; after all, it's not like Shaq or Duncan got all that many assists, in an era when their good out-of-a-double-team passes usually led to assists.

Good finisher. Some of the track-and-field athlete types have been better, but when a big guy IS better than McHale at finishing, you say he's very good indeed.

Very good offensive rebounder. Eye test and numbers alike show that.

Solid defensive rebounder. I know the numbers aren't very supportive of that. And the Celtics once lost a Finals because McHale was shoved flailing out of bounds trying to rebound a FT, and Magic made the junior, junior skyhook on the ensuing possession. Still, he was long and he had some hops and he could bang and he had good hands and he wasn't paralyzed deciding where the ball might be going.

Very good, versatile defender. McHale was a very good defender at three positions more than he was a great defender at one position. But his defensive accolades were legitimately come by.

[JerkyWay]

I have weird problems with my computer and I'm not sure if it'll still work later today or tomorrow, so my next vote is Clyde Drexler.

On what theory do you vote for Drexler and not even nominate Pierce?

Drexler led his team twice to the finals as an alpha dog - PIerce never did - it's debatable if he was a first option on 2008 Celtics...For sure, he didn't have nearly as big of a role as Drexler had on Blazer teams. Drexler was more like 2008 Kobe than 2008 Pierce when he led them to the finals, to be honest.
Drexler was the runner-up for MVP award, during a very tough era (Jordan won it, but he had to beat Barkley, Malone, Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing, Pippen, Stockton, Hardaway, Mullin, Wilkins ). He also finished as a top 5 and top 6. PIerce never finished higher than 7th.

Drexler's career MVP shares: 0.778
Pierce's career MVP shares: 0.040

Huge difference.

Drexler was the better all-around player - for that instance, he's one of only three guys in NBA history who scored 20.000 points, 6.000 rebounds and 6.000 assists ( Oscar and Hondo are the other guys ). He's especially the noticeably better playmaker - 5.6 to 3.8 APG.

Drexler won a title in a very similar way as Pierce ( except he had Olajuwon in his team so he couldn't be named Finals MVP ), so that's not an argument for Pierce. Plus, Finals MVP isn't really an argument.

I don't see how a valid argument can be made for Pierce. Efficiency is pretty similar ( Drexler has higher FG% and PER, Pierce has higher TS%). They're very close in WS (135.6 to 124.2, Pierce played in 122 games less, so it's practically sure he'll overtake Clyde in this regard ).

Pierce is my another nomination, after Hayes and McAdoo.

I'm surprised and unhappy with the fact Pippen had been voted at #25...I'd take Drexler over him, Pierce is debatable, but I'd rather take Pippen over Paul. For sure, I wouldn't take Pippen over Hondo, Baylor or Barry.

[FJS]

Vote John Stockton
Nominate: I'm going to wait.

[therealbig3]

I have weird problems with my computer and I'm not sure if it'll still work later today or tomorrow, so my next vote is Clyde Drexler.

On what theory do you vote for Drexler and not even nominate Pierce?

Drexler led his team twice to the finals as an alpha dog - PIerce never did - it's debatable if he was a first option on 2008 Celtics...For sure, he didn't have nearly as big of a role as Drexler had on Blazer teams. Drexler was more like 2008 Kobe than 2008 Pierce when he led them to the finals, to be honest.
Drexler was the runner-up for MVP award, during a very tough era (Jordan won it, but he had to beat Barkley, Malone, Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing, Pippen, Stockton, Hardaway, Mullin, Wilkins ). He also finished as a top 5 and top 6. PIerce never finished higher than 7th.

Drexler's career MVP shares: 0.778
Pierce's career MVP shares: 0.040

Huge difference.

Drexler was the better all-around player - for that instance, he's one of only three guys in NBA history who scored 20.000 points, 6.000 rebounds and 6.000 assists ( Oscar and Hondo are the other guys ). He's especially the noticeably better playmaker - 5.6 to 3.8 APG.

Drexler won a title in a very similar way as Pierce ( except he had Olajuwon in his team so he couldn't be named Finals MVP ), so that's not an argument for Pierce. Plus, Finals MVP isn't really an argument.

I don't see how a valid argument can be made for Pierce. Efficiency is pretty similar ( Drexler has higher FG% and PER, Pierce has higher TS%). They're very close in WS (135.6 to 124.2, Pierce played in 122 games less, so it's practically sure he'll overtake Clyde in this regard ).

Pierce is my another nomination, after Hayes and McAdoo.

I'm surprised and unhappy with the fact Pippen had been voted at #25...I'd take Drexler over him, Pierce is debatable, but I'd rather take Pippen over Paul. For sure, I wouldn't take Pippen over Hondo, Baylor or Barry.

I posted this about Pierce vs Drexler before:

BTW, can't you make the case that Pierce>Drexler? Last time I ranked them, I had Drexler like 2-3 spots ahead, but come to think of it, is Drexler better on either side of the ball? He was a better playmaker for sure, but Pierce has a decent edge as a scorer imo. He was stuck on pathetic Celtics teams for a while, and he carried them to mediocrity...and actually advanced past the 1st round multiple times.

He had an underrated peak, he has impressive longevity, and he's one of the best big game performers around. His playoff numbers are great, and he always seems to bring his A-game when his team needs it. Honestly, if I needed a superstar performance in a do-or-die game and I could only pick one current player...and Dirk was already taken...I'd take Pierce, over guys like Kobe, Wade, and LeBron.

Check his numbers in elimination games (haven't accounted for 2011):

24.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, .8 bpg, 3.2 TOpg, .566 TS%

Not saying he should be nominated right now, but I have him ahead of guys like Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and Stockton, and until someone can prove otherwise, I'm probably moving him ahead of Drexler and maybe McHale. I think Pierce is massively underrated.

For comparison's sake, here's Pierce's and Drexler's efficiency compared to league average (TS%):

Pierce
01: +4.5
02: +5.0
03: +1.3
04: +0.1
05: +5.4
06: +4.7
07: +3.0
08: +5.9
09: +3.8
10: +7.0
11: +7.9

He's averaged 21.9 ppg over this stretch (878 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.2%. Pierce's TS% over this time was 57.1%, or +3.9.

Drexler
87: +1.4
88: +2.6
89: +1.8
90: +1.4
91: +2.9
92: +2.9
93: -1.9
94: -1.4
95: +3.4
96: +0.9
97: +1.2
98: +0.7

He averaged 22.1 ppg over this stretch (849 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.5%. Drexler's TS% over this time was 55.1%, or +1.6.

So Pierce scored on pretty much identical volume, with a good advantage in terms of efficiency, while being a comparable rebounder and was more durable.

Lol, I'm kind of ranting about a comparison that isn't even relevant yet, but for the people voting for Drexler, or one of the PGs that have been discussed...why not Pierce?

EDIT: I know that it seems a little weird that I'm using their numbers during years where they're no longer in their prime...but Pierce's highest efficiency seasons have been in the last two years, and he's still an 18-19 ppg scorer, so it seemed to be unfair to exclude those. Similarly, Drexler in 96 and 97 had pretty efficient scoring seasons and was still dropping 18+ ppg. It wasn't until 98 when his efficiency fell, but if we exclude that, and include 86, which some people might feel was his prime...you get identical results.

If we simply exclude Drexler's 98 season altogether (in which he's still dropping 18 ppg, mind you), it just makes Pierce's durability advantage even clearer...he would have played in significantly more games through the same amount of seasons...and Drexler's overall numbers probably don't change much at all.

Personally, I don't care much about MVP shares, WS, or PER...what exactly are they measuring, and how reliable are they? You can find some pretty ridiculous implications that all of them make. You can say I'm choosing to ignore stuff that makes Pierce look worse, but I've noticed that people only bring them up when trying to prop up a certain player in a certain comparison; they're not consistently used all the time. For example, Drexler finished better in WS/48 in the playoffs than Hakeem in 95...was he the Rockets' best playoff player? Looking at the career leaders in MVP Shares, the ranking of players is radically different than what most people would suggest.

Speaking specifically to the box score stats, Pierce compares very favorably. Drexler is clearly a better playmaker, but Pierce has the advantage pretty much everywhere else...it's like Pierce vs T-Mac, but at least T-Mac had a clearly better peak...can you say the same for Drexler? And Drexler wasn't as good of a playmaker as T-Mac imo, so that advantage isn't even as great. And looking at more advanced measurements, Pierce does very well in terms of RAPM and on/off.

Leading a team to the Finals, finishing high in MVP voting: that's heavily dependent on media perception and how good your teammates are. I fail to understand why people keep bringing things like that up, when it's obvious that they really don't tell you how good the player is.

For example, imagine Pierce had a much better team around him in 06, but his production was the same. The Celtics win 60 games, with Pierce putting up 27/7/5 on 58% TS. Is he all of a sudden a way better player now? He might win MVP that year...Nash would be his biggest competition.

And with regards to "it's easy to put up big numbers on bad teams"...not really in terms of efficiency. Yet Pierce was well above league average pretty much every year of his career, outside of 03 and 04. When you're the only real threat on a bad team, the opposing defense focuses in on you moreso, so maintaining your efficiency is even more impressive. And post 08, if the Celtics became contenders, but they didn't have scorers as good as Allen and KG backing up Pierce, I think he could have easily maintained 25+ ppg on a 60-win team.

[therealbig3]

Here's my count so far.

Vote:

Ewing-6 (Snakebites, therealbig3, Gongxi, DavidStern, JerkyWay, ElGee)

Havlicek-5 (penbeast0, Fencer reregistered, JordansBulls, Laimbeer, Doctor MJ)

Stockton-2 (mysticbb, FJS)

Barry-1 (ronnymac2)



Nominate:

Howard-3 (penbeast0, ronnymac2, DavidStern)

Pierce-2 (Fencer reregistered, therealbig3)

McHale-1 (JordansBulls)

Hayes-1 (JerkyWay)

Cousy-1 (Laimbeer)

McGrady-1 (ElGee)

Miller-1 (mysticbb)

[TMACFORMVP]

@therealbig3, do you have the reasoning for the years where they are more or less equal? Like me, you pretty much put them in the same class, so we have a similar line of thinking, but I'm not so sure about '01, or '05 being equal. I don't think it's as simple as claiming it's more or less equal since that's too much a closed way of thinking about a comparison, IMO.

In '01, McGrady did roughly 27/7.5/4 on 46/36/73. Pierce did 25/6/3 on 45/38/74. Then factor in McGrady led his team to the playoffs, had a decent showing on both ends of the floor; shutting down Glenn Robinson and pouring in nearly 34/6/8 himself, I don't see how this is more or less equal. Outside of slightly better three point shooting, I don't think there was anything Pierce did better than McGrady this season. Mac was even getting you 1.5 blocks and steals per game as well.

In '05, McGrady did roughly 26/6/6 on 43/33/77. Pierce did roughly 22/6.6/4 on 45-46/37/83. Higher volume versus efficiency (though if you count the new team, the adjustments, the in season trades, and JVG giving Mac the reigns to the offense, he did roughly 27/6/6 the rest of the season on 44ish% after the first month). Pierce is the slightly better rebounder, but I'd argue McGrady was the considerably better play-maker. Pierce might have taken on "more" of that role for the Celtics as well this season, but McGrady played that role. If you figure in the play-making as offensive sort value, then McGrady was the slightly better offensive player, IMO. And defensively, this was Mac's best season, maybe aside from his one year in Toronto, he was terrific under JVG, and that was seen in the playoffs versus Dirk. I suppose it's close enough, but I think there's enough separation to give this to McGrady.

I'd even argue that 02 is somewhat clearly in favor for McGrady as well. Both put up roughly 26 PPG, Pierce is more efficient as a scorer, so he's got the edge in that department. McGrady was the decently better rebounder (more rebounds in lesser minutes), and he was a considerably better play-maker (1.1 AST/TO ratio for Pierce, this is the same thing some people criticize Nique for). On the other hand, McGrady dished out roughly two more assists, and even turned it over less (for an AST/TO ratio of 2.1). They were comparable defensively this season as well. So in short, Pierce was a better scorer b/c of his efficiency, but McGrady was a noticeably better rebounder, and play-maker. Pierce had his big run in the post-season, but as I had noted in another previous thread, we praise Pierce for advancing doing 25/8.6/4 on 40/28/76 in the post-season, but knock McGrady for not advancing doing 31/6/5.5 on 46% (to note, Walker in that post-season did 22/8.6/3 on 41/39/78 in that post-season).

I suppose I could buy the "more or less equal" but I don't know if Pierce's more efficient offense offsets the advantages McGrady clearly had in other aspects of the game. But yeah, I don't mind that label for this season.

So we're talking about McGrady being potentially better in '01, '02, '03, '04, '05 and '07. Pierce being better in '06, '08 and beyond.

His '08 season despite absolutely putrid all time level low efficiency is a bit underrated in terms of the impact he had on the team. 22 game winning streak playing with an injured shoulder and knees (shot moderately well in that streak, along with 22/5/6) till the season wore him down. But I'm not going to argue it was better than Pierce's past couple of seasons, because it is definitely not.

And Pierce could do things T-Mac couldn't do...namely hit the the 3-point shot consistently, hit the midrange jumper consistently, get to the line and shoot a high percentage consistently, and overall, just score at a much higher efficiency.

How did T-Mac score then, if he couldn't do any these consistently, lol?

Ultimately, I agree with the premise of your post. Pierce still has very good seasons in these years (not as good as McGrady's IMO), while he contributes with more seasons of continued play, and McGrady completely falls off. It comes down to whether you value these extra years by Pierce more (where's been ridiculously efficient, and very good defensively) or McGrady's slightly higher peak. I myself am not sure which I value more, so it's really a matter of preference/toss up (which you allude to as well).

@ Dr. Mufasa, Kobe had a stretch in the '05 season, where his team went 2-19. Wade had a year where his team was 10-41 in the games he played. If we would vacuum that into a single season sort thing, is that a huge red flag where we could base their impacts as being terrible also? No. When you have crap teams, regardless of how good you are, you're going to lose. The only year McGrady underachieved in terms of team success was '07.

In 05-06, the Rockets were 7-28 w/out McGrady, and 27-20 w/him in the lineup. In 06-07, the Rockets were 2-9 w/out him, 50-21 w/him (including 20-10 w/out Yao). Even in '08, the Rockets were 9-7 w/out him, but 46-20 w/him (19-8 w/out Yao). How is that lacking in impact to team?

And the reason you don't get the same Kobe/Pau feel from McGrady/Yao, is because, neither are better players than their counterparts, I think that's rather obvious. Some would argue Yao is better, but when a player plays more than 20 games in the regular season, doesn't miss the post-season, has similar offensive value, if not greater, I'd definitely say Gasol has more overall value.

In '05, Yao was ridiculously inconsistent, seemingly always in foul trouble, not a big minute player, and not the 20/10 player he became later. In '06, he developed his game, but both he and Mac were injured that season for over 30 games. In '07, Yao once again missed over 30 games in the regular season, and in the post-season; didn't play that well himself - something like 44% from the field and 5 turnovers - some at crucial times, and couldn't guard Boozer effectively at all (huge reason we lost the series, he couldn't guard Okur out on the perimeter, but he couldn't guard Boozer either). In '08, he got injured, and missed the playoffs. So, Mac had "prime Yao" for three seasons, all three in which he missed over 30 games a piece, had a sub par playoff showing, and missed the entire playoffs the other time.

Again, I don't mind Pierce over McGrady, hell I might have that same conclusion as well, but I think the arguments used against McGrady are wrong. The main (and only) arguments for Pierce is how well he's adapted on championship caliber teams (because McGrady's never really had the opportunity), and his considerable edge in longevity.

[Fencer reregistered]

Drexler was the better all-around player - for that instance, he's one of only three guys in NBA history who scored 20.000 points, 6.000 rebounds and 6.000 assists ( Oscar and Hondo are the other guys ). He's especially the noticeably better playmaker - 5.6 to 3.8 APG.

Pierce has already beat that mark in points, and will surpass Drexler's total soon.
Pierce is already close to that mark in rebounds, and will probably surpass Drexler before he retires.
You're right that Drexler gets more assists than Pierce.

[therealbig3]

@therealbig3, do you have the reasoning for the years where they are more or less equal? Like me, you pretty much put them in the same class, so we have a similar line of thinking, but I'm not so sure about '01, or '05 being equal. I don't think it's as simple as claiming it's more or less equal since that's too much a closed way of thinking about a comparison, IMO.

In '01, McGrady did roughly 27/7.5/4 on 46/36/73. Pierce did 25/6/3 on 45/38/74. Then factor in McGrady led his team to the playoffs, had a decent showing on both ends of the floor; shutting down Glenn Robinson and pouring in nearly 34/6/8 himself, I don't see how this is more or less equal. Outside of slightly better three point shooting, I don't think there was anything Pierce did better than McGrady this season. Mac was even getting you 1.5 blocks and steals per game as well.

In '05, McGrady did roughly 26/6/6 on 43/33/77. Pierce did roughly 22/6.6/4 on 45-46/37/83. Higher volume versus efficiency (though if you count the new team, the adjustments, the in season trades, and JVG giving Mac the reigns to the offense, he did roughly 27/6/6 the rest of the season on 44ish% after the first month). Pierce is the slightly better rebounder, but I'd argue McGrady was the considerably better play-maker. Pierce might have taken on "more" of that role for the Celtics as well this season, but McGrady played that role. If you figure in the play-making as offensive sort value, then McGrady was the slightly better offensive player, IMO. And defensively, this was Mac's best season, maybe aside from his one year in Toronto, he was terrific under JVG, and that was seen in the playoffs versus Dirk. I suppose it's close enough, but I think there's enough separation to give this to McGrady.

I'd even argue that 02 is somewhat clearly in favor for McGrady as well. Both put up roughly 26 PPG, Pierce is more efficient as a scorer, so he's got the edge in that department. McGrady was the decently better rebounder (more rebounds in lesser minutes), and he was a considerably better play-maker (1.1 AST/TO ratio for Pierce, this is the same thing some people criticize Nique for). On the other hand, McGrady dished out roughly two more assists, and even turned it over less (for an AST/TO ratio of 2.1). They were comparable defensively this season as well. So in short, Pierce was a better scorer b/c of his efficiency, but McGrady was a noticeably better rebounder, and play-maker. Pierce had his big run in the post-season, but as I had noted in another previous thread, we praise Pierce for advancing doing 25/8.6/4 on 40/28/76 in the post-season, but knock McGrady for not advancing doing 31/6/5.5 on 46% (to note, Walker in that post-season did 22/8.6/3 on 41/39/78 in that post-season).

I suppose I could buy the "more or less equal" but I don't know if Pierce's more efficient offense offsets the advantages McGrady clearly had in other aspects of the game. But yeah, I don't mind that label for this season.

So we're talking about McGrady being potentially better in '01, '02, '03, '04, '05 and '07. Pierce being better in '06, '08 and beyond.

His '08 season despite absolutely putrid all time level low efficiency is a bit underrated in terms of the impact he had on the team. 22 game winning streak playing with an injured shoulder and knees (shot moderately well in that streak, along with 22/5/6) till the season wore him down. But I'm not going to argue it was better than Pierce's past couple of seasons, because it is definitely not.

And Pierce could do things T-Mac couldn't do...namely hit the the 3-point shot consistently, hit the midrange jumper consistently, get to the line and shoot a high percentage consistently, and overall, just score at a much higher efficiency.

How did T-Mac score then, if he couldn't do any these consistently, lol?

Ultimately, I agree with the premise of your post. Pierce still has very good seasons in these years (not as good as McGrady's IMO), while he contributes with more seasons of continued play, and McGrady completely falls off. It comes down to whether you value these extra years by Pierce more (where's been ridiculously efficient, and very good defensively) or McGrady's slightly higher peak. I myself am not sure which I value more, so it's really a matter of preference/toss up (which you allude to as well).

@ Dr. Mufasa, Kobe had a stretch in the '05 season, where his team went 2-19. Wade had a year where his team was 10-41 in the games he played. If we would vacuum that into a single season sort thing, is that a huge red flag where we could base their impacts as being terrible also? No. When you have crap teams, regardless of how good you are, you're going to lose. The only year McGrady underachieved in terms of team success was '07.

In 05-06, the Rockets were 7-28 w/out McGrady, and 27-20 w/him in the lineup. In 06-07, the Rockets were 2-9 w/out him, 50-21 w/him (including 20-10 w/out Yao). Even in '08, the Rockets were 9-7 w/out him, but 46-20 w/him (19-8 w/out Yao). How is that lacking in impact to team?

And the reason you don't get the same Kobe/Pau feel from McGrady/Yao, is because, neither are better players than their counterparts, I think that's rather obvious. Some would argue Yao is better, but when a player plays more than 20 games in the regular season, doesn't miss the post-season, has similar offensive value, if not greater, I'd definitely say Gasol has more overall value.

In '05, Yao was ridiculously inconsistent, seemingly always in foul trouble, not a big minute player, and not the 20/10 player he became later. In '06, he developed his game, but both he and Mac were injured that season for over 30 games. In '07, Yao once again missed over 30 games in the regular season, and in the post-season; didn't play that well himself - something like 44% from the field and 5 turnovers - some at crucial times, and couldn't guard Boozer effectively at all (huge reason we lost the series, he couldn't guard Okur out on the perimeter, but he couldn't guard Boozer either). In '08, he got injured, and missed the playoffs. So, Mac had "prime Yao" for three seasons, all three in which he missed over 30 games a piece, had a sub par playoff showing, and missed the entire playoffs the other time.

Again, I don't mind Pierce over McGrady, hell I might have that same conclusion as well, but I think the arguments used against McGrady are wrong. The main (and only) arguments for Pierce is how well he's adapted on championship caliber teams (because McGrady's never really had the opportunity), and his considerable edge in longevity.

Nice post, you bring up some great points. But in terms of shooting numbers, I don't think just listing the splits show Pierce's efficiency advantage as well, because they don't show the volume each one shot. A 25% 3pt shooter who shoots 10 3s a game is a lot less efficient than a 25% 3pt shooter who takes 2 3s a game and shoots a higher volume of higher percentage 2pt shots.

Pierce generally got to the line more than T-Mac, and those are the most efficient shots in the game. In addition to that, Pierce is a career 81% shooter from the line, while T-Mac is a career 75% FT shooter. That's mainly where Pierce builds the edge in efficiency (and by scoring efficiency, I'm referring to TS%).

Also, outside of 03 and 04, Pierce has been anywhere from very good to elite in terms of 3pt shooting, and he took a decent volume of 3s as well. Looking at T-Mac's 3pt numbers, he doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought, but he wasn't on Pierce's level.

Looking at their TRB% from 01-08:

01: 10.4% for T-Mac vs 9.8% for Pierce
02: 11.4% for T-Mac vs 9.4% for Pierce
03: 9.5% for T-Mac vs 10.6% for Pierce
04: 8.5% for T-Mac vs 9.6% for Pierce
05: 8.9% for T-Mac vs 10.6% for Pierce
06: 10.3% for T-Mac vs 10.5% for Pierce
07: 8.6% for T-Mac vs 9.5% for Pierce
08: 7.8% for T-Mac vs 8.5% for Pierce

T-Mac peaked higher early on, but Pierce has been remarkably consistent, and according to TRB%, out-rebounded T-Mac from 03-08. Of course, this is also around the time when T-Mac had to take on a much bigger role as a scorer/facilitator, so that's expected to a degree.

You do have a point about 01, 02, and 05, and thinking about it now, I think I was being a little harsh on T-Mac in those years for his inefficient scoring...he was still a beast in every other aspect of the game, and his efficiency wasn't THAT bad. But I think the differences are slight, and the fact that Pierce was remarkably durable while T-Mac always missed at least 4-5 games every year makes it even closer, if not a draw.

But regardless, we agree that T-Mac and Pierce are pretty much interchangeable...personally though, I lean Pierce, because he was a vastly more efficient scorer, which does account for a lot imo.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, I think I'd go McHale over McGrady. Longevity is not an argument to use against McHale in that comparison. Defense favors McHale, even with a positive view of McGrady's defense. Offensive rebounding is a check mark for McHale.

After that it becomes a bit of a gut feel matter about offensive value, since they were VERY different kinds of offensive contributors. The post scorer SHOULD be the more efficient scorer and the lesser playmaker of the two, and we have that here in spades. And there's little hope of comparing their offensive contributions precisely by any kind of on/off metric, given how different their team situations were. My gut feel is that McHale would have been the better offensive contributor than TMac if he were timetraveled to TMac's era, and also vice-versa.

And, as with Pierce, we have the fact that McHale shone in the deep in the playoffs, including in the Finals while being guarded by Hakeem, while TMac has a best an Incomplete on that item.

[Laimbeer]

Man, it's early for Howard. Five total all-stars. And I don't think Pierce rises to this level. Made second team once, finished top ten in MVP once (7).

If we're loathe to nominate Cousy, how about Hayes, Reed, or Cowens. They all won titles and were bigger impact players than Pierce.

[Fencer reregistered]

If we're loathe to nominate Cousy, how about Hayes, Reed, or Cowens. They all won titles and were bigger impact players than Pierce.

We're disrespecting the 70s in general and its MVP voting in particular, except that for some reason Frazier went high. Except for my support for Havlicek and before him Kareem, I guess I'm part of that. Perhaps not coincidentally, Havlicek had 1960s Celtics values, and also made some of his clutchness bones then, and a declined Kareem was still one of the major players of the 1980s.

[drza]

Re: Howard vs McAdoo vs Mourning

After DocMJ's post earlier (aside: Doc, you're 6-9? Really?) I wanted to take a closer look at Howard vs McAdoo. Then, after some consideration, I added Mourning to the mix as well. And it breaks down pretty evenly longevity-wise, with Howard having 7 seasons in the league, 'Doo' falling off after his 7th season, and Mourning running into his kidney ailment after his 8th season. As a quick stats back-drop, here's a link to a B-R comp of Howard and McAdoo's first 7 seasons and Mourning's first 8:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2000

Stylistically, Howard and Mourning share a lot of similarities. Both are solid scorers but poor passers from the center slot, relying on buckets in the paint and athleticism (rather than shooting ability or touch) to get their points. McAdoo, on the other hand, has often been described as an ancestor of Dirk on offense...a good jump-shot coupled with a strong face-up game as well as ability to score at the rim. McAdoo, therefore, could theoretically provide the type of spacing that has become a buzz word around here lately. On the other hand, Howard and Mourning provide spacing in a different way by drawing defensive attention that opens things up for the perimeter players. Mourning and Howard also did a better job of drawing fouls, averaging about 2 more FT attempts per game than McAdoo. McAdoo wasn't an especially prolific passer himself, averaging more turnovers than assists, though his ratio was still much better than his counterparts.

Statistically, though, on offense the three were about a wash in the boxscores. Much of McAdoo's scoring advantage can be attributed to pace and higher scoring teams, as Mourning actually sported a higher usage percentage than Mac with Howard not far behind. Their PER's were 22.3, 22.3 and 22.4 and Howard had the highest O-Rtg (111), followed by Mourning (109) and McAdoo (106). Presumably, Howard and Mourning's shooting efficiency and offensive rebounds were enough to counteract their turnovers in these particular efficiency stats.

I can buy that McAdoo could have still been the more potent offensive performer of the three due to his higher volume on still excellent efficiency and (relatively) better passing, but it seems that on offense their net benefits are at least comparable.

On defense, they aren't.

Once adjusted for pace, McAdoo's rebounding falls back to Mourning's pace, which is pretty significantly behind Howard who measures out as the dominant rebounder of the trio. On the flip side, Mourning is clearly the best shot-blocker in the group. Both Howard and Mourning won multiple Defensive Player of the Year awards. McAdoo is blown out of the water at this end.

As such, at the moment I'd have both Howard and Mourning over McAdoo. Defensive anchor big men, like floor general PGs, tend to have larger impacts than the box scores measure. I'd estimate that both Howard and Mourning were having larger total impacts than McAdoo was over similar time periods. Of course, both Mourning and McAdoo's careers extended beyond those prime seasons, and both were able to adapt to their situations and become super-sub role players on champions. Maybe they could earn a tidge of longevity here, but the meat of all of their values are in those first 7 - 8 years.

So, at least among these 3, I currently have Howard and Mourning battling it out with McAdoo a step behind.

[drza]

If we're loathe to nominate Cousy, how about Hayes, Reed, or Cowens. They all won titles and were bigger impact players than Pierce.

We're disrespecting the 70s in general and its MVP voting in particular, except that for some reason Frazier went high. Except for my support for Havlicek and before him Kareem, I guess I'm part of that. Perhaps not coincidentally, Havlicek had 1960s Celtics values, and also made some of his clutchness bones then, and a declined Kareem was still one of the major players of the 1980s.

I've noticed that earlier as well, which is part of why I tried to generate some conversation up-thread about Hayes and Walton (and now McAdoo) and several threads ago mentioned Reed, Cowens and Unseld. I know that we consider the 70s a weaker era, and for some good reasons, but it does seem like they should have more representation than they've been given. At least more consideration, and some thought as to why in particular the best players of that generation so routinely look bad when compared to stars from other generations.

[penbeast0]

Re: Howard vs McAdoo vs Mourning

After DocMJ's post earlier (aside: Doc, you're 6-9? Really?) I wanted to take a closer look at Howard vs McAdoo. Then, after some consideration, I added Mourning to the mix as well. And it breaks down pretty evenly longevity-wise, with Howard having 7 seasons in the league, 'Doo' falling off after his 7th season, and Mourning running into his kidney ailment after his 8th season. As a quick stats back-drop, here's a link to a B-R comp of Howard and McAdoo's first 7 seasons and Mourning's first 8:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y3=2000

Stylistically, Howard and Mourning share a lot of similarities. Both are solid scorers but poor passers from the center slot, relying on buckets in the paint and athleticism (rather than shooting ability or touch) to get their points. McAdoo, on the other hand, has often been described as an ancestor of Dirk on offense...a good jump-shot coupled with a strong face-up game as well as ability to score at the rim. McAdoo, therefore, could theoretically provide the type of spacing that has become a buzz word around here lately. On the other hand, Howard and Mourning provide spacing in a different way by drawing defensive attention that opens things up for the perimeter players. Mourning and Howard also did a better job of drawing fouls, averaging about 2 more FT attempts per game than McAdoo. McAdoo wasn't an especially prolific passer himself, averaging more turnovers than assists, though his ratio was still much better than his counterparts.

Statistically, though, on offense the three were about a wash in the boxscores. Much of McAdoo's scoring advantage can be attributed to pace and higher scoring teams, as Mourning actually sported a higher usage percentage than Mac with Howard not far behind. Their PER's were 22.3, 22.3 and 22.4 and Howard had the highest O-Rtg (111), followed by Mourning (109) and McAdoo (106). Presumably, Howard and Mourning's shooting efficiency and offensive rebounds were enough to counteract their turnovers in these particular efficiency stats.

I can buy that McAdoo could have still been the more potent offensive performer of the three due to his higher volume on still excellent efficiency and (relatively) better passing, but it seems that on offense their net benefits are at least comparable.

On defense, they aren't.

Once adjusted for pace, McAdoo's rebounding falls back to Mourning's pace, which is pretty significantly behind Howard who measures out as the dominant rebounder of the trio. On the flip side, Mourning is clearly the best shot-blocker in the group. Both Howard and Mourning won multiple Defensive Player of the Year awards. McAdoo is blown out of the water at this end.

As such, at the moment I'd have both Howard and Mourning over McAdoo. Defensive anchor big men, like floor general PGs, tend to have larger impacts than the box scores measure. I'd estimate that both Howard and Mourning were having larger total impacts than McAdoo was over similar time periods. Of course, both Mourning and McAdoo's careers extended beyond those prime seasons, and both were able to adapt to their situations and become super-sub role players on champions. Maybe they could earn a tidge of longevity here, but the meat of all of their values are in those first 7 - 8 years.

So, at least among these 3, I currently have Howard and Mourning battling it out with McAdoo a step behind.

Excellent post and yes, I have Zo over McAdoo as well and quite possibly my next big (though guys like McHale, Hayes, and Cowens are in the mix as well). One more reason Howard compares favorably to the other two . . . look at the playoff numbers. Howard stays the same and even elevates his efficiency a little, the other two both suffered significant playoff efficiency drops.

[penbeast0]

As for the whole "disrespecting the 70s thing" . . . the 70s were an era without an NBA dynasty. Kareem only led his team anywhere once, the Knicks and Celtics got two titles (most in the decade) but were nonfactors for half the decade, the Bullets were the only team to make 3 finals (one title), certainly not the Russell years, the Jordan years, the Bird/Magic years or even the Duncan/Kobe years. In the ABA the great teams were Indiana early (Mel Daniels would get mentioned but he burned out early and wasn't an NBA player), then New York (Erving) with Kentucky (Gilmore) as the 1 ring challengers.

Best players from the top teams were Frazier (in) and Reed (getting some mentions), Havlicek and Cowens from Boston (Hondo is going soon, Cowens challenging for nomination), Hayes and Unseld from Washington (neither challenging yet and both sufferring, like Reed and Cowens, from statistical issues), then Erving(in), Gilmore (nominated), and Daniels (short peak).

Of the top scorers, key ones include Rick Barry (nominated), George Gervin (nominated), and Nate Archibald (who doesn't get much respect -- big numbers for bad teams). But the real issue for the 70s is all the guys who flamed out due to substance abuse issues. Bob McAdoo, Spencer Haywood, and David Thompson all are either MVPs or have multiple 1st team All-NBA awards but who burned themselves out with drugs. Add to this expansion popping up big numbers from short term wonders and the culture where stars like Gervin could make comments like defense is for guys who can't score and it isn't surprising the 70s get disrespected.

[BattleTested]

I didn't see Baylor get voted in. I'm kind of surprised he's fallen so low.

[Fencer reregistered]

I've noticed that earlier as well, which is part of why I tried to generate some conversation up-thread about Hayes and Walton (and now McAdoo) and several threads ago mentioned Reed, Cowens and Unseld. I know that we consider the 70s a weaker era, and for some good reasons, but it does seem like they should have more representation than they've been given. At least more consideration, and some thought as to why in particular the best players of that generation so routinely look bad when compared to stars from other generations.

One reason could be terrible longevity. Some of that was era-related (drugs, and career disruption from team-hopping related to the ABA/NBA stuff). Some may have been era-related and unfair (inferior medicine?).

However, our list isn't actually skewed against the 70s at all. At least, it's almost not skewed at all.

Guys on the list who entered pro ball in the period from 1955-65 or so include Russell, Wilt, Oscar, West, and Baylor, with Hondo coming soon.

Guys on the list who entered from 1966-76 or so include Kareem, Erving, Moses, and Frazier, with Barry and Gervin nominated.

That's hardly a skew at all.

For the next decade we have Jordan, Magic, Bird, Barkley, Hakeem, with Ewing, Isiah, and Stockton nominated. But both Hakeem and Ewing were born outside the US, and I have considerable doubt as to whether they'd have moved to the US to play ball in earlier generations. If you look at US-born players only, there's still no skew.