Read GM Top 100 List #25

[Fencer reregistered]

At the risk of repeating myself, Pierce has excelled at some point in his career at absolutely everything you now ask an SF to do. He's excelled in all forms of scoring (not in-traffic catch-and-shoot, but SFs haven't done that for a long time). He's excelled at defense (even if not consistently at those times in his career he was an offensive workhorse). He's excelled at rebounding (ditto). He's been excellent as either half of a PnR (the Celtics should run more of the plays for Pierce and Garnett they used to run for Pierce and Walker).

He's only "barely adequate/we didn't really need a PG anyway" as a PG; in that regard he falls short of Bird, LeBron, Pippen, and perhaps Lamar Odom. But so what? At least he's a solid passer, with frequent nifty ones to balance his annoying turnovers. Similarly, Pierce is barely adequate as a defensive PF -- but again, so what?

[cpower]

Pierce is getting overrate too much, he is in the same tier as Carter or Tmac. Only had one ring playing with two future HOFers, if you think about it. He is at best 60-70 to me.

[ronnymac2]

Fencer Reregistered- Sorry for not responding to the McHale post from the last thread. Good video.

The thing is, it showed one very nice pass, and then some great scoring. I've never disputed that McHale was a great post scorer though.

Great passing is a prerequisite for being a great offensive anchor, because it allows you to directly help your teammates out. I'm not even talking about passing that directly leads to an assist, because hockey assists are just as valuable. But I haven't seen McHale display the willingness, creativity, or recognition of different defenses that I've seen other low-post scoring monsters show, the nice pass in the video notwithstanding.

I really value passing; it's the most important thing in basketball, and if you aren't supreme at using its potential on-court power, then, with few exceptions, you probably aren't an all-time level offensive anchor.

In most discussions I'd say the great passer is the guy being underrated. But I think you're taking the point slightly too far. I think we'd agree that a guy can be hugely effective in a half-court offense if the primary thing he does is catch the ball and score. I think we can further agree that McHale was one of the greatest at that.

I think further that if you look at the videos, McHale was a complete offensive player on the break, finishing or passing (usually touch passes) as the situation required. So the challenge is whether McHale did enough "else" in the half-court offensive.

Well, he was excellent at offensive rebounding/putbacks. I don't recall anything noteworthy in his screen-setting for good or ill; he surely didn't suck at it, given how smart and effective a low post banger he was, but he didn't shine either. If he got the ball in his hands at a place on the floor he couldn't score from, he directed it effectively to where it would do more good.

I'm not sure how much it matters that Shaq or Duncan are more willing passers out of double-teams than McHale, given how well he scored when double-teamed. And if you're demanding Russell/Sixers Wilt/Walton kind of passing from your bigs -- well, I dispute your demand.

Also, just how much better than McHale was Moses Malone? Malone definitely got more offensive rebounds, but I think we agreed he paid a defensive price for doing so ...

Well, the second paragraph hits the crux of our disagreement. The "else" imo needs to be something special. I'm glad you brought up Moses at the end; Moses was one of those "few exceptions" I talked about before, because he was the GOAT offensive rebounder. Even then, I prefer more traditional offensive anchors who excel as passers, but I recognize Malone's effect on the game.

Although McHale was effective at other aspects of offense other than post scoring, he doesn't perform those aspects at a special level (meaning something like Moses and his O-boards).

And yes, it does matter that McHale wasn't the passer/playmaker/offensive hub/offensive creator/visionary that those other guys were.

FWIW, I've been thinking about where I'd put McHale, and he's probably coming up decently soon. I've never gone past 20 on a personal list, but 40ish seems about right. Somewhere in there. It's not like I think the guy is Carlos Boozer or something.

[ronnymac2]

But Barry has a bunch of years that are down seasons, which leaves, as you said:

1967 - Close, but worse than all of Pippen's best years IMO, namely 91-92, 94-97
1974 - Close, but again, I'll take all of Pip's top years
1975 - Here you can argue a better peak.
1976 - I'l only take 92, 94-96, if we're splitting hairs.
1977 - Not quite as close, I'm taking all the good Pip years

Maybe that's just my slight downgrade of those early 70s seasons. Maybe I'm just not as overly impressed with a little of Barry's tendency to become a gunner on offense. Maybe you love his defense and I only kind of like it (great hands). Maybe you don't value the other parts of Pip's game like rebounding and defense. Barry was every the offensive player Kobe Bryant was. He was a fantastic passer, but limited by questionable decision-making at times and probably by not having the 3-point shot in the NBA.

I don't love his defense, but I think he's a useful defensive piece. Kind of like Magic.

I very much value Scottie's D and rebounding (although offensive rebounds are part of offense and defensive rebounds are part of defense to me). Scottie has a large defensive edge over Rick.

As far as attitude goes, I'm ranking players on how they played a kid's game, not putting them up for canonization. That responds to your main point as well, Penbeast.

As far as shooting too much...it got the job done. I'm not talking about the title- I'm talking about the successful offensive teams he captained. He passed when it was the appropriate play- always making the smart basketball play (not saying he's Nash, because he at times had sticky fingers, but he wasn't just jacking shots up and hurting his team). I admittedly give Barry a little credit as a shooter, because I think he had 3 pt. range, which would likely have helped his underwhelming TS percentages.

[ronnymac2]

-In a previous post, you mentioned that Pierce was the only one of the big 3 to have not changed his game that much...isn't that a testament to Pierce's game? It means that his game has always been conducive to championship basketball, the team just needed the right pieces in place.

This is a really good point.

Wilkins, English, Dantley, and King were all mega-scorers who iso score, finish plays, and dominate from the mid-range. Wilkins and King have underrated long range games.

Pierce isn't the constant volume scorer that those guys are, but prime PP (that includes 2008 to me) is still a scoring machine who gets to the line a ton. His ball-handling isn't at Kobe's or LeBron's level, and he wasn't the pick-n-roll player that even McGrady or Carter were, but he was better than any of the '80s guys at those aspects. Better defender, too. And better 3-point shooter and floor spacer. One may conclude these advantages make Pierce a better fit next to other star players.

So which package of skills do you value more? I think a compelling argument can be made for PP, especially with his solid longevity now.

My only problems with the Pierce selection are that he isn't better than Clyde Drexler, and I'm not convinced he was better than Kidd, Carter, Iverson, and McGrady. I'd take prime McGrady over prime Nique.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Rick Barry

Nominate: Jason Kidd

Edit: No to McAdoo...changed my mind. Soon though.

Dwight, Paul, Moncrief, Marques Johnson, Gervin, McAdoo...just names that should be being tossed around imo.

[therealbig3]

-In a previous post, you mentioned that Pierce was the only one of the big 3 to have not changed his game that much...isn't that a testament to Pierce's game? It means that his game has always been conducive to championship basketball, the team just needed the right pieces in place.

This is a really good point.

Wilkins, English, Dantley, and King were all mega-scorers who iso score, finish plays, and dominate from the mid-range. Wilkins and King have underrated long range games.

Pierce isn't the constant volume scorer that those guys are, but prime PP (that includes 2008 to me) is still a scoring machine who gets to the line a ton. His ball-handling isn't at Kobe's or LeBron's level, and he wasn't the pick-n-roll player that even McGrady or Carter were, but he was better than any of the '80s guys at those aspects. Better defender, too. And better 3-point shooter and floor spacer. One may conclude these advantages make Pierce a better fit next to other star players.

So which package of skills do you value more? I think a compelling argument can be made for PP, especially with his solid longevity now.

My only problems with the Pierce selection are that he isn't better than Clyde Drexler, and I'm not convinced he was better than Kidd, Carter, Iverson, and McGrady. I'd take prime McGrady over prime Nique.

What exactly did Carter do better than Pierce? He was probably a little better at creating for others, but other than that, Pierce was the much more efficient scorer, while scoring on similar volume. He was the better rebounder, and he was the better defender.

Vs T-Mac, Pierce is probably about even, if not better, than T-Mac defensively. According to TRB%, T-Mac peaked higher as a rebounder, but Pierce was more consistently great at it. T-Mac was an obviously better playmaker, and he scored on higher volume, but Pierce was way more efficient, and outside of 03 and 04, T-Mac wasn't scoring at levels that Pierce wasn't capable of.

In terms of scoring, Iverson vs Pierce is about the same as T-Mac vs Pierce. Pierce is clearly a lot better defensively and on the boards. Iverson is a better playmaker, but I don't even think he's as good as McGrady in that regard, so it's not even as big of an advantage as it is for McGrady.

Statistically speaking, Pierce does very well compared to Drexler. Ditto with Kidd.

I don't really have a problem with guys like McGrady, Kidd, and Drexler going ahead of Pierce...but I can't really understand AI or Carter over Pierce...AI was a ball-stopper which kind of limited his abilities as a playmaker, and made him one-dimensional, and he wasn't even that great at that one dimension. Carter seems like a slightly worse Paul Pierce, so I can't see how he goes ahead of him either.

[Fencer reregistered]

Fencer Reregistered- Sorry for not responding to the McHale post from the last thread. Good video.

The thing is, it showed one very nice pass, and then some great scoring. I've never disputed that McHale was a great post scorer though.

Great passing is a prerequisite for being a great offensive anchor, because it allows you to directly help your teammates out. I'm not even talking about passing that directly leads to an assist, because hockey assists are just as valuable. But I haven't seen McHale display the willingness, creativity, or recognition of different defenses that I've seen other low-post scoring monsters show, the nice pass in the video notwithstanding.

I really value passing; it's the most important thing in basketball, and if you aren't supreme at using its potential on-court power, then, with few exceptions, you probably aren't an all-time level offensive anchor.

In most discussions I'd say the great passer is the guy being underrated. But I think you're taking the point slightly too far. I think we'd agree that a guy can be hugely effective in a half-court offense if the primary thing he does is catch the ball and score. I think we can further agree that McHale was one of the greatest at that.

I think further that if you look at the videos, McHale was a complete offensive player on the break, finishing or passing (usually touch passes) as the situation required. So the challenge is whether McHale did enough "else" in the half-court offensive.

Well, he was excellent at offensive rebounding/putbacks. I don't recall anything noteworthy in his screen-setting for good or ill; he surely didn't suck at it, given how smart and effective a low post banger he was, but he didn't shine either. If he got the ball in his hands at a place on the floor he couldn't score from, he directed it effectively to where it would do more good.

I'm not sure how much it matters that Shaq or Duncan are more willing passers out of double-teams than McHale, given how well he scored when double-teamed. And if you're demanding Russell/Sixers Wilt/Walton kind of passing from your bigs -- well, I dispute your demand.

Also, just how much better than McHale was Moses Malone? Malone definitely got more offensive rebounds, but I think we agreed he paid a defensive price for doing so ...

Well, the second paragraph hits the crux of our disagreement. The "else" imo needs to be something special. I'm glad you brought up Moses at the end; Moses was one of those "few exceptions" I talked about before, because he was the GOAT offensive rebounder. Even then, I prefer more traditional offensive anchors who excel as passers, but I recognize Malone's effect on the game.

Although McHale was effective at other aspects of offense other than post scoring, he doesn't perform those aspects at a special level (meaning something like Moses and his O-boards).

And yes, it does matter that McHale wasn't the passer/playmaker/offensive hub/offensive creator/visionary that those other guys were.

FWIW, I've been thinking about where I'd put McHale, and he's probably coming up decently soon. I've never gone past 20 on a personal list, but 40ish seems about right. Somewhere in there. It's not like I think the guy is Carlos Boozer or something.

I don't know that I'd put McHale much better than 40, so we're not far apart at all.

But I'd suggest that guys who didn't do much extra except pass out of the post like Kareem or Duncan weren't doing a "special else" either. Wilt is a guy who improved his offensive contribution when he became much less of a scorer, due to KG-like interior passing. Bird was an astonishing passer. But a lot of the great offensive players were great scorers whose other ball handling amounts to not messing up when it was obvious they should pass.

[Laimbeer]

Here are the tiers I'm seeing now.

Baylor, Havlicek, Cousy, Isiah, and Stockton.
Pippen, Barry, Cowens
Gilmore, Ewing, Payton, Drexler, McHale, Gervin, etc.

Baylor and Cousy were silly dominant at their positions and Cousy was second guy on several title teams. Havlicek is Pippen times two, was second guy on two very different multiple title teams, was a better character guy than Pippen, and probably a little more capable of a one role when pushed into it. Isiah was the leader and best player on a multiple title team. Stockton's career record is too legendary (all-time leader in two major categories) to let him fall farther.

I'm all over the place on Cowens. He was a special player and won two titles, but the era was weak and there are questions about his longevity and just how good of an indivual player he was as a center, compared to other greats.

Gilmore, Ewing, Payton, Drexler, McHale and Gervin are also-rans at this point and need to come in about another 8-12 spots lower. I don't see their compelling cases when compared to the guys above. They didn't make their mark on the game in the same way.

[cpower]

-In a previous post, you mentioned that Pierce was the only one of the big 3 to have not changed his game that much...isn't that a testament to Pierce's game? It means that his game has always been conducive to championship basketball, the team just needed the right pieces in place.

This is a really good point.

Wilkins, English, Dantley, and King were all mega-scorers who iso score, finish plays, and dominate from the mid-range. Wilkins and King have underrated long range games.

Pierce isn't the constant volume scorer that those guys are, but prime PP (that includes 2008 to me) is still a scoring machine who gets to the line a ton. His ball-handling isn't at Kobe's or LeBron's level, and he wasn't the pick-n-roll player that even McGrady or Carter were, but he was better than any of the '80s guys at those aspects. Better defender, too. And better 3-point shooter and floor spacer. One may conclude these advantages make Pierce a better fit next to other star players.

So which package of skills do you value more? I think a compelling argument can be made for PP, especially with his solid longevity now.

My only problems with the Pierce selection are that he isn't better than Clyde Drexler, and I'm not convinced he was better than Kidd, Carter, Iverson, and McGrady. I'd take prime McGrady over prime Nique.

What exactly did Carter do better than Pierce? He was probably a little better at creating for others, but other than that, Pierce was the much more efficient scorer, while scoring on similar volume. He was the better rebounder, and he was the better defender.

Vs T-Mac, Pierce is probably about even, if not better, than T-Mac defensively. According to TRB%, T-Mac peaked higher as a rebounder, but Pierce was more consistently great at it. T-Mac was an obviously better playmaker, and he scored on higher volume, but Pierce was way more efficient, and outside of 03 and 04, T-Mac wasn't scoring at levels that Pierce wasn't capable of.

In terms of scoring, Iverson vs Pierce is about the same as T-Mac vs Pierce. Pierce is clearly a lot better defensively and on the boards. Iverson is a better playmaker, but I don't even think he's as good as McGrady in that regard, so it's not even as big of an advantage as it is for McGrady.

Statistically speaking, Pierce does very well compared to Drexler. Ditto with Kidd.

I don't really have a problem with guys like McGrady, Kidd, and Drexler going ahead of Pierce...but I can't really understand AI or Carter over Pierce...AI was a ball-stopper which kind of limited his abilities as a playmaker, and made him one-dimensional, and he wasn't even that great at that one dimension. Carter seems like a slightly worse Paul Pierce, so I can't see how he goes ahead of him either.

Carter was the better ball handler, better passer, more clutch, better 3% shooter, better prime and peak
Carter was Rookie of the year, leading scorer in the olympic team 2000
Tmac was better pretty much in all areas so I would not bring up the list.

[Doctor MJ]

In a rush this morning, but wanted to say that I'd like to see more of people's thoughts on Hondo vs Pippen. Very interesting comparison.

[Laimbeer]

In a rush this morning, but wanted to say that I'd like to see more of people's thoughts on Hondo vs Pippen. Very interesting comparison.

Hondo is Pippen times two. He was the second guy on two very different multiple title winners. Probably better at being the first option when pressed into it - he was a top ten scorer about a half dozen years. And a better character guy. Think Pippen with a slight dash of Larry Bird. Hondo fairly easily for me.

[Baller 24]

Again, been real busy. But here are my two cents.

Pierce is getting some very kindly love, and while I agree his career is very impressive, but in what following season can you even consider him a All-NBA First team player? He’s very limited on MVP win-shares, his All-NBA Team awards are well mediocre, media & coaches when they saw him play knew he was obviously something special, but clearly not elite talent like his counterparts were. What makes Pierce even better than—say, Grant Hill? Or Tracy McGrady? Both of whom at peak form are vastly superior players. That’s just my dime.

Vote: Patrick Ewing

Nominate: George Gervin

[pancakes3]

Sorry, back in the #21 voting thread i said that guys like "rodman, gervin, unseld, elvin hayes, ben wallace, iverson, moncrief, mourning, dwight, gilmore, mcadoo, grant hill's 5.5 spectacular seasons" all deserve to be voted in higher ahead of pierce, and there were some responses and i didn't take a sec to address, mainly:

Rodman was never better than #3 on a championship team, and never would have been.
Gervin -- pretty competitive with Pierce as a scorer, but Pierce did a lot more than score.
Iverson -- ditto
McAdoo -- ditto
Hill, Moncrief -- longevity
Hayes -- lousy intangibles, and not productive enough to overlook that
Unseld -- well, I'd consider granting him -- but take his dubious stats, and add in great man defense, great hockey-assist passing, and great intangibles, and how high does he get?

and

How does Unseld get mentioned, btw? Couldn't get to the line worth a crap, and his efficiency was nothing special. His overall scoring was pretty mediocre. He was a good rebounder and passer, especially considering his position...but why should he clearly be ahead of Pierce?

It's just another case of overrating an older player, and ignoring a player that the media has told us isn't that great. People forget that at his peak, Pierce was a 27/7/5 player with 58% TS. His career low in scoring is 16.5 ppg, has averaged over 18 ppg in every other year of his career, has averaged over 20 ppg in 8 seasons, and has averaged over 25 ppg in 5 seasons. He's 35th all time in career scoring, and If he averages 18 ppg next year, while playing 75 games, he'll rank 31st all time in career scoring, passing Greer, Payton, Bird, and Drexler. He's in the same ballpark as Ray Allen, Tim Duncan, and Dirk Nowitzki.

Simply put, I think Pierce is one of the greatest scorers ever. And as far as rebounding for his position, he ranks 15th all time in TRB% among SFs...he's a very good defender and passer, albeit not elite. He's one of the few players who steps his game up in the playoffs.

In my mind, he's a slightly lesser Dwyane Wade, who was stuck on a bad team, which forces people to forget him.

1 - are we penalizing rodman for never being higher than #3 on a championship team and overlooking the fact that he's the greatest rebounder in the history of the game, a 2x DPOY, and 5x NBA champion for 2 very different squads? No, Rodman alone won't make a team a contender but neither will Pierce. Is it really that hard to swallow that the Worm should get in ahead of a 25/6/4 guy whose teams only finished with a positive SRS twice in 9 pre-KG/Allen seasons?

2 - Gervin is a good deal better than Pierce than scoring. Definitely not "comparable". Career averages of 26/5/3 and playoff averages of 27/6/3 blows pierce's career scoring numbers out of the water by +5 ppg on equivalent TS%'s. +5 ppg is astounding - 20-25% better. That, and the spurs made the playoffs every single year gervin was on the squad except for one.

3 - Like it or not, AI was a good player. Efficient or not, the man got wins - hard fought wins on crappy teams. His philly teams were consistently garbage except for half a season in 2001 when he got to play with Deke. The rest of the time, it was a miracle that his teams would even make the playoffs, much less mark a better record than the C's. A cancerous teammate like Walker would have been a godsend after playing with sucks like Stackhouse and Coleman (kyle korver never had it so good than in '05). If not easily ahead of piece, at least concede that the '01 MVP and 10x-consecutive all-star Iverson is in the running (a monumental concession for this board i'm sure).

4 - again, for McAdoo's case, if a player can top 30ppg, much less 30 ppg in the playoffs, he's by default a better scorer than Pierce. then the argument that "Pierce did a lot more than score" kind of falls flat on its face here since mac was good for at least 12 boards a game and 3-4 assists to boot. furthermore, if any player can get enough hype to win MVP, it's imo that man is automatically better than Pierce regardless of longevity. Bob's MVP in 1975, 3 straight scoring titles, and all that under the interpretation that this list considers how well a player plays - especially peak play, at least gives McAdoo a plausible argument? I'd say it's a rather strong one.

5 - Grant Hill's got 5.5 (lockout) seasons of intensely awesome play, which is pretty much as many seasons as Wade has under his belt. Also, if we're going to look at peak play, I think 5-6 seasons worth of play is enough to check the box and move on. Grant Hill did everything that the Pierce-supporters are claiming except much more so. Scorer? 20-25 ppg. Get to the rim? ~8 fta/game. Rebounding? 7-10 boards a game. Assists? Penny-esque. Finished top 3 in MVP voting in '97 (Pierce never topped 7th) and has more All-NBA teams and higher all-NBA teams than pierce despite his lack of longevity. He was just a flat out better player.

6 - Moncrief - same argument as Hill. 5 seasons of 20/5/5 production, 5 seasons of all-NBA, and 5 all-D teams, and 2 DPOYs. pierce in his long and illustrious career only has 4 all-nba teams, all 3rd teams. if you want to talk about peak play as the primary criterion, i really don't see how 5 seasons worth of production isn't enough to be judged upon.

7&8 - Elvin Hayes has lousy intangibles? So... Unseld must have god-like intangibles to balance it out and combine for a championship in '78 right? Before the big 3, Pierce was mired in "good stats, bad career"-land too. Then he wins a championship and he's celebrated but Hayes is continued to be reviled? Sure Hayes was a ball hog, sure he was insularly moody, but is this a popularity contest or is it a ranking of basketball skill? Clearly Hayes wasn't so poisonous as to not win a championship so why else continue to dock him for "intangibles"? he didn't win enough championships? that's just irrational. In Hayes's earlier years he was putting up 23-27 shots a game. When he went to the bullets he grumbled about the lack of touches, but he still cut down his shots to sub-20. i don't think being cantankerous should stain Hayes's legacy so much that he be ranked below Paul Pierce.

As for Unseld? He's got both an MVP and a Finals MVP, and he won that MVP as a rookie no less. As a player he's closest thing to Russell as the color TV era has ever seen. He wasn't just a brute enforcer, he was the floor general. He led the team to four finals, a championship, took pride in setting PICKS... if nothing else we should vote him in just for that. For the children. To teach kids that solid, non-scoring fundamentals will eventually be rewarded.

9 - in summary - look at the arguments for Pierce. Career this. career that. Yes, he has had a fantastic career. However, look at his other career stats. 24th amongst active players in MVP shares. 106th in career MVP shares. more kindly, but still not justifiable for the current nomination (much less a nom back in the 21st spot thread): 37th in career win shares. He's been Mr. Consistent for sure but does his peak play warrant such this ranking? It's a much closer debate here at #25 than 21 for sure, but I still stick by my statements that the aforementioned as well as other players like TMac for peak play outshines Pierce, and rather easily.

[drza]

Re: Pierce vs his contemporaries

Despite that their careers overlapped chronologically, I don't think that Kidd is a "contemporary" for Pierce in this project. I think Kidd was just a better, higher impact player. To me, from his generation Pierce should be compared to the Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady and Manu Ginobilis more-so than the Kidd types. Allow me to explain.

Pierce is a unique player, both in style of play and circumstances. That makes him an interesting player to discuss here, as there are lots of directions one can take. Pierce has the unique distinction of being one of the few wings, certainly in the modern era, that we got to see in his prime with both poor supporting casts and with great casts in which he could play a secondary role. The trend that I've seen in the Pierce discussion, though, is that his supporters seem to be combining those two portions of his career in ways that take the best aspects from each part and putting it together to Pierce's advantage.

To whit, as the best player on several poor teams we saw that Pierce could be a high volume, good efficiency scorer with solid rebounding, reasonable/low efficiency playmaking, and average defense (ability to step up at times, but not the energy/interest to play at that level consistently which led to long stretches of below average D).

Then, in recent years, as an important player on several great teams we've seen that Pierce can be a good volume, higher efficiency scorer with solid rebounding, reasonable/low efficiency playmaking and consistently solid defense.

Playing in these two circumstances, of necessity, changed the aspects of Pierce's game that he emphasized. On a poor team, a talented multi-faceted scoring wing WOULD be called upon to score at a higher volume at the expense of some efficiency and energy for defense (i.e. '07 and before Pierce, TMac, Vince, mid-2000s Kobe). As a key cog on an excellent team, a talented multi-faceted scoring wing WOULD be called upon to score at lower volumes but with higher efficiency and with more emphasis on the other aspects of the game (i.e. Big Three era Pierce, Manu, early-2000s Kobe). These changed circumstances do NOT, however, change the caliber of the player himself. However, when compared to Carter/TMac Pierce is being given the boost of "good defense, even higher scoring efficiency, and style conducive to success" while Manu is hardly mentioned at all (I think David Stern brought him up) because Pierce is given the "proven ability to be a high-volume scorer on a lesser team" advantage over him.

But the thing is, during the pre-2008 portion of Pierce's career there is nothing to indicate a separation to Pierce's advantage over McGrady and Carter. Strong arguments could be made for all involved using combinations of advanced stats (box score and +/-), accolades, peak vs longevity, team success and supporting cast caliber. And on the flip side, I'll flat out say that Big Three Era Pierce has NOT been as good as Manu Ginobili at playing a very similar role on contenders built in similar ways. And again, there are interesting debates to be had here. As someone else mentioned, another present-day Pierce contemporary if we aren't considering position could be Pau Gasol. These are the players that, to me, I would be interested in seeing in-depth discussions about.

Pierce isn't, on the other hand, on Kidd's level. It's hard to compare box score stats across position effectively, but the APM stats really tell the story that Kidd was solidly better than Pierce on a yearly basis up to 2007 (at which point Kidd was in his mid 30s/post-microfracture surgery), then played at a very similar level with Kidd in his mid/late 30s from 07 - '10 before falling off at age 37 this season. Kidd was just a better, higher impact player in his prime. And for those that use these things to evaluate, the accolades and team success fully back up the APM findings (or, perhaps, the APM findings fully back up the accolades/team success findings?) that Kidd was just on a higher tier than Pierce.

Pierce was never in the conversation for best player in the league...he was rarely if ever in consideration as a top-5 player...he had a consistent career in the top 8 - 15 players in the league range, which is honorable. But it's just not on Kidd's level, or on some of the other players that have not yet been nominated. Again, this is no diss to Pierce, who I always respected and have become more of a fan of in recent years. It just isn't his time yet, IMO.

[Laimbeer]

Pierce was never in the conversation for best player in the league...he was rarely if ever in consideration as a top-5 player...he had a consistent career in the top 8 - 15 players in the league range, which is honorable. But it's just not on Kidd's level, or on some of the other players that have not yet been nominated. Again, this is no diss to Pierce, who I always respected and have become more of a fan of in recent years. It just isn't his time yet, IMO.

Pretty much nails it.

[ElGee]

Kind of amazed at how much talk is around Pierce. I figured I would vote him in higher than anyone in this project because I've followed his career closely and don't have some preconceived attachment to winning. The quality of discussion has been awesome the last few pages so I wanted to respond to...

Jason Kidd - I don't understand where this reverence for his peak is coming from. It wasn't there in the RPOY project, right? SInce we're talking about contemporaries, let's stick to ranking players as a ballpark measurement and note that in 1999 I have Kidd 6th...higher than Pierce in any year IMO. BUT - and it's a big but - I don't think Kidd's 1999 season is better than Pierce's best year (comparable). It's just that that year was missing prime T-Mac, Kobe, Garnett, etc. My Kidd rankings through 04 based on RPOY-style criteria:

00 9th
01 9-11th
02 8-10th (behind Pierce, who I think I have 7th that year)
03 7-8th right with Pierce
04 12th-15th (behind Pierce, I'm not feeling Kidd as much in 04 - maybe that's wrong)

We know Kidd got this huge narrative boost in MVP when he went to NJ...for the wrong reasons (it wasn't offense). He has a 5th, 8th, 8th and 9th finish as well in that period...not too inconsistent with my RPOY ranking of him given his role on some of those teams. Pierce was 13th, 11th, 11th...what we might expect from an a new, under-the-radar star on a weak team. So no problem taking Kidd in that period, as was the perception (he was way older, obviously), but I don't think it's right to act like they were in different strata -- Jason Kidd has NEVER been in the conversation for best player in the league either...But in 2002, Pierce did win POM twice and Kidd only once. Food for thought.

Manu Ginobili - I've actually brought up Manu before, as I think he and Pierce have been similar at their peak and really love a lot of what they do on a court. Healthy, peak Manu is a top-8 to 12 guy just like Pierce...only Manu doesn't have the longevity. I really see no basis for saying peak Manu is anything other than a fraction better, and if you are going to point to APM, I'm going to remind you that most of Manu's APM numbers are from playing 30 mpg...while Pierce is logging closer to 40.

Tracy McGrady - I have weighed in detail here. I'm reconsidering McGrady's Rockets years, and I've unofficially moved him past Pierce on my list. His peak blows Paul's out of the water -- he could just do stuff on the court Pierce couldn't.

Vince Carter - Basically the impetus for this post is Carter. I'm really floored by what people are saying about him in comparison to Pierce. There was a fairly large brew-ha-ha among Celtics fans when Carter won ROY with 113 votes and Pierce 2. Carter was clearly better, but there was also this draft class rivalry that existed.

Pierce injured his ankle in the middle of the season, but in his first 15 games was averaging 18 ppg 6.5 rpg 2.5 apg 53.4% TS 2.1 TOV 2.9 steals. In Carter's first 15, he averaged 15.5 ppg 5.5 rpg 2.0 apg 52.3% TS 1.9 TOV 1.2 steals...Pierce was rookie of the month, but Carter set the drooping, locked out league afire with his dunks. That meant he was super-high profile and Pierce was boring and more old-school. Then, after some time coming back to form, Pierce's averages vs. Carter's to close the year

Pierce (24g): 18.8 ppg 6.7 rpg 2.7 apg 56.7% TS 2.6 TOV 1.5 steals
Carter (26g): 19.8 ppg 5.5 rpg 4.0 apg 51.4% TS 2.3 TOV 1.1 steals

They were close all year. I didn't have a problem with VC winning, but the perception was driving in opposite directions because of, basically, their dunking gap.

Carter took a leap fast the next year, and 2001 is arguably his peak season. But in 2001, how much better was he than Pierce? I'd argue he was clearly better...but not by a large margin. Again, VC had McGrady blossom and help the Raptors improve, meaning even more high-profile games. Pierce was at home watching with Antoine Walker. Big props to Carter's 4 40-point games and his 50 in the PS. Of course, Pierce quietly had 8 40-point games that year. He was named NBA POM in March.

In 2002 I think Pierce passed Vince Carter and never looked back. And for a few years, Carter at least has some solid seasons. But Pierce engulfed him as the decade wore on...so comparing their peak is one thing -- hey Bernard King's peak kills them both -- but Carter's career to Paul Pierce? Or looking at a sustained period of Carter vs. Pierce in their primes? Waaaaay off to me. Vince Carter hasn't been very good for a very long time.

[Baller 24]

I can give a more full analysis of McGrady later on, but for simple terms when you're comparing Pierce & TMac, think of it like this. One in terms of impact, dominance at their respective positions, and style of play rivaled the likes of Kobe Bryant. Pierce has never even been closed to being mentioned in magnitude, ever. It's just like John Stockton, great long career, just never was an elite superstar caliber player.

[Laimbeer]

I can give a more full analysis of McGrady later on, but for simple terms when you're comparing Pierce & TMac, think of it like this. One in terms of impact, dominance at their respective positions, and style of play rivaled the likes of Kobe Bryant. Pierce has never even been closed to being mentioned in magnitude, ever. It's just like John Stockton, great long career, just never was an elite superstar caliber player.

I don't think TMac rivaled Kobe any more then Webber rivaled Duncan. He was pretty much recognized as an empty stat guy throughout his career. Stats aren't everything, and TMac is the poster child for that.

[Baller 24]

I don't think TMac rivaled Kobe any more then Webber rivaled Duncan. He was pretty much recognized as an empty stat guy throughout his career. Stats aren't everything, and TMac is the poster child for that.

Actually what you just stated is the complete opposite from an objective stance, the impact very well went beyond his numbers, and it can be dissected (I'm sure ElGee has more analysis on this too), but I'm not going in-depth until the discussion really begins.. and we're talking about at peak-form in comparison. That's just YOUR opinion, that doesn't make you accurate by any measures, especially when 0 acknowledgement is made based on objective evidence.