RealGM

Was thinking about it and couldn't come to a decision.

I think George peaked slightly higher but in terms of primes Pierce was slightly better and the more consistent guy to have in the playoffs.

PG was a better 2 way player and I’d say slightly more versatile offensively with better range

I just don't see Pierce doing what PG did on those Pacers teams.

You know, i don’t know. I doubt there’s a consensus, there rarely is with players of a similar level. Paul George probably peaked higher, but Pierce seems more consistent especially in the postseason.

MartinToVaught wrote:I just don't see Pierce doing what PG did on those Pacers teams.

Ehh…i mean the Pacers weren’t really anything special and a hobbled Knicks is probably the best team they actually beat in the playoffs. Similarly don’t see those versions or possibly any version of PG taking the Celtics to a conference finals in 2002. The Pacers were good mostly because of defense, and while George certainly contributed their size with West and Hibert is what made them sort of a tricky matchup for smaller teams.

No-more-rings wrote:You know, i don’t know. I doubt there’s a consensus, there rarely is with players of a similar level. Paul George probably peaked higher, but Pierce seems more consistent especially in the postseason.

That's fair, and probably reflective of my general opinion

I prefer PG's best years of 2014 and 2019 over any Pierce year(s) but Pierce probably edges him out in overall prime quality cuz PG does have a few weird dips like in 2018 and 2020.

Paul Pierce. The Truth is so clutch and has a ring, it's not even close

Pharmacist wrote:Paul Pierce. The Truth is so clutch and has a ring, it's not even close

I mean granted that is true, do you think PG's defensive ability evens the gap?

No-more-rings wrote:You know, i don’t know. I doubt there’s a consensus, there rarely is with players of a similar level. Paul George probably peaked higher, but Pierce seems more consistent especially in the postseason.

Agreed; similar level, hard to say, consensus unlikely.
(As Purch said above too.)

And yet, there ACTUALLY IS is a fairly large gap between the two in terms of overall reputation/assessment.

Pierce, somehow, is in the official Top 75 (at #55 per my consensus tabulation of multiple published sources). And ranked by RGM @ 47.

George, rightly, is not in the official Top 75 (nor the corresponding Top 90 per my consensus tabulation of multiple published sources).
Nor has George ever been included in any of the 6 full iterations of the RealGM Top 100. That means he is at best #139 (behind the 138 players who have been included in RealGM Top 100s).

And yet most folks have said in this thread that they are very similar.
Because they are!
Thus, Pierce is overrated for sure.
And George is underrated for sure.
They are very comparable, though Pierce has the highlights and more noteworthy success.
If George can have a few more very good to great years he will soon be atop the list of best players ever somehow missing out of the Top 100.

Ginoboleee wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:You know, i don’t know. I doubt there’s a consensus, there rarely is with players of a similar level. Paul George probably peaked higher, but Pierce seems more consistent especially in the postseason.

Agreed; similar level, hard to say, consensus unlikely.
(As Purch said above too.)

And yet, there ACTUALLY IS is a fairly large gap between the two in terms of overall reputation/assessment.

Pierce, somehow, is in the official Top 75 (at #55 per my consensus tabulation of multiple published sources). And ranked by RGM @ 47.

George, rightly, is not in the official Top 75 (nor the corresponding Top 90 per my consensus tabulation of multiple published sources).
Nor has George ever been included in any of the 6 full iterations of the RealGM Top 100. That means he is at best #139 (behind the 138 players who have been included in RealGM Top 100s).

And yet most folks have said in this thread that they are very similar.
Because they are!
Thus, Pierce is overrated for sure.
And George is underrated for sure.
They are very comparable, though Pierce has the highlights and more noteworthy success.
If George can have a few more very good to great years he will soon be atop the list of best players ever somehow missing out of the Top 100.

I don't think that's a result of them being/underrated. Some all time greats we can start to see where they'll rank way before they finish their career, but some players just don't stand out that much from their peers during their era. Its only examining them towards the end that they get elevated. Hell I'd argue Pierce was the same way, especially prior to his 08 year. A great player overshadowed by even better players in his era

Ginoboleee wrote:Nor has George ever been included in any of the 6 full iterations of the RealGM Top 100. That means he is at best #139 (behind the 138 players who have been included in RealGM Top 100s).

This reasoning is flawed. It says that he is "at best" behind every player on the 2006 RealGM list because he wasn't on that list. He would have been 16 at that time. This is no basis to think George as of right now (two years since the last poll, though in his case injury hit but one meaningful and both at first glance still showing impact), is (or would be considered) necessarily behind the weaker entries on that list (say Drazen Petrovic).

Purch rightly reminds me that sometimes these things become clear later in the career, and that sounds persuasive. Thanks. I guess we await the PG-13 Renaissance someday. When the Clippers lose to the Bucks next year, that process will likely be in full swing.

Owly rightly flags my flawed reasoning.
My reasoning is always flawed.
But in this case in particular I was just moving quickly for fun.
So yeah, fair enough, I guess PG-13 is probably at or near #101 right now for RGM.
Still, I think he has a stronger resume than most would think before looking closely.

Ginoboleee wrote:And yet most folks have said in this thread that they are very similar.
Because they are!
Thus, Pierce is overrated for sure.
And George is underrated for sure.

Ehh, not really.

You're missing a big consideration which is that Pierce's prime and career were A LOT longer than George's [and a lot more consistent].

PG13's extended prime [that is prime, or near-prime] is what?.......maybe 9 seasons [generously, if not counting '15]? Multiple of those being significantly injury-depleted in terms of games played.

By similar [generous] accounting standards we might say that Pierce's prime lasted 14-15 [LESS injury-depleted] seasons.......during which [as many have noted] he was more consistent (particularly in the playoffs).

~5-6 extra prime(ish) seasons is A LOT of extra value for players that are similar in quality, particularly when we're talking about someone as good as these guys. And then Pierce has more valuable role-player years as well.

It adds up to being not at all close for anyone using a Championship Odds Over Replacement-Level Player, or other criteria rooted in meaningful longevity.

trex_8063 wrote:

Ginoboleee wrote:And yet most folks have said in this thread that they are very similar.
Because they are!
Thus, Pierce is overrated for sure.
And George is underrated for sure.

Ehh, not really.

You're missing a big consideration which is that Pierce's prime and career were A LOT longer than George's [and a lot more consistent].

PG13's extended prime [that is prime, or near-prime] is what?.......maybe 9 seasons [generously, if not counting '15]? Multiple of those being significantly injury-depleted in terms of games played.

By similar [generous] accounting standards we might say that Pierce's prime lasted at least 14 [LESS injury-depleted] seasons.......during which [as many have noted] he was more consistent (particularly in the playoffs).

~5 extra prime(ish) seasons is A LOT of extra value for players that are similar in quality, particularly when we're talking about someone as good as these guys. And then Pierce has more valuable role-player years as well.

It adds up to being not at all close for anyone using a Championship Odds Over Replacement-Level Player, or other criteria rooted in meaningful longevity.

Thanks for such a great, substantive, and persuasive reply.
I have a lot to learn about Board Norms regarding criteria, etc.

I just remember Pierce missing the playoffs a lot more than PG - I could be wrong - I usually am lol.

Sounds like Longevity is a big deal for you, or most folks at RPG.
I wonder what the pro's and con's are for over-valuing Longevity, be it the simple kind, or a more advanced-stat-nuanced-kind.
Of course, all else being equal, more is better.
But how much better, when weighing all the apples with the oranges.

Related idea: when we compare Current players with Retired players are we:
(a) pretending that the Current player in effect becomes Retired for the analysis ("if they stopped playing now")
(b) pretending that the Current player will have a "normal trajectory" based on where they are in their career?
(c) to compare apples to apples do we compare the PG Year 10 to Truth Year 10? because if not, then all retired players will have a huge biased advantage.
(d) or even better, compare PG RS Game 700 to Truth RS Game 700? etc.
(e) or do we fudge all this and pretend that we can sensibly compare players like these in a meaningful way? Isn't that the whole point of explicit criteria? I guess I just want a bit more expression regarding the assumptions and interpretations of these given criteria.

Ginoboleee wrote:
Thanks for such a great, substantive, and persuasive reply.
I have a lot to learn about Board Norms regarding criteria, etc.

There isn't a "norm", as such. To each his own.
But a lot of us do feel that [to quote you]: "All else being equal, more is better." (this, of course, presumes what we're getting more of is "good").
Most of us also believe that A LOT of something very good, is probably more valuable than a tiny amount of something that was only slightly better.

Ginoboleee wrote:I just remember Pierce missing the playoffs a lot more than PG - I could be wrong - I usually am lol.

He did miss the playoffs a fair bit. That is: the Celtics missed the playoffs a fair bit (team game, after all). He never really had much help prior to the Boston Three Party. Pierce was a star, but he was never a true MVP-tier player. So when he's your best player, and the 2nd-best is someone like Antoine Chucker---I mean Walker---or Ricky Davis, or a late-prime [early post-prime?] Kenny Anderson (hell, once the person who was 2nd in minutes played was Ron frickin Mercer).....that doesn't bode well for your team, especially when the extended depth is kind of poor.

Pierce was carrying some of those teams. Take a look at '07, for example. They were 24-58, the single-worst record during his time there. Non-coincidentally, it was the ONE year in his prime in which he actually missed relevant time.
That team was 20-27 in the games he was dressed for. Not too good.......but they were 4-31 in the 35 games he missed.

It was an absymal cast being dragged up to mediocrity by Pierce; he just wasn't around to do it for the whole season.

Ginoboleee wrote:Related idea: when we compare Current players with Retired players are we:
(a) pretending that the Current player in effect becomes Retired for the analysis ("if they stopped playing now")
(b) pretending that the Current player will have a "normal trajectory" based on where they are in their career?
(c) to compare apples to apples do we compare the PG Year 10 to Truth Year 10? because if not, then all retired players will have a huge biased advantage.

I completely disagree with how you're looking at this.

Suppose we look at Paul George's full career vs Paul Pierce's thru year 12. Here they'd be pretty close......I'd still give a small edge to Paul Pierce because he was "really good" quicker, was more consistent, and with the exception of 35 missed games in '07 he didn't miss huge chunks of the year like Paul did [more than once]; but I digress.

My point is that if we just stop the comparison there, we're basically wiping like 25% of Pierce's career from the record; pretending as though it didn't happen just to......curve the comparison in PG13's favour.

imo, that's a huge biased advantage to current players.

With regard to "a" vs "b" above, I'm definitely going with "a", as are most people here, I suspect. That's not bias against current players......it's simply comparing what is, not making assumptions about WILL be; not speculating on a future you cannot possibly know.
To me, it doesn't make sense to rank a player based on future speculations, when we could be WILDLY wrong in our assumptions.
I'm not going to rank Luka Doncic top 15 All-Time right now because I speculate that in the next 10 years he'll accomplish this and this and this and this. He could blow his ACL tomorrow and never be the same. He could get mangled in a car accident, or a thousand other things.

I think it's fair say something like: "I have Luka ranked ### right now, but I anticipate he'll make significant climbs yearly and be somewhere top 10-20 all-time---excepting major injury---before his career is done."

But [as someone who values TOTAL career accomplishment] to say I rank Luka #11 all-time right now [based on what I THINK he'll eventually do] is silly. Speculating on such futures is fraught with pitfalls, and doomed to be mildly inaccurate at best, and laughably [can't-hit-water-from-the-deck-of-a-boat] off the mark at worst.

Imagine if in 1975 everyone said Marvin Barnes is a top 30-40 career all-time.....
The reality, when it was all said and done?: he's not even a top 300 career all-time because he fell into a coked-out drug dealer lifestyle and pissed his career away.

We don't know what will happen.
So we rank what IS, what HAS occurred. Just be patient: George's career [and Luka's, or whoever] will be over soon enough. Then you can compare the full measure of his career. But measuring things which have not occurred, and may NEVER occur does not make sense to me. Nor does arbitrarily ERASING what DID occur for other players.

My 2c...

Trex8063, thank you for such an interesting, constructive, friendly, funny, and helpful post.

The only thing I really disagree with you on is when supposedly great players can't even get their teams into the playoffs, when seemingly every decent team makes the playoffs.

Steph coming up a game short last year in the Play-In is sort of the boundary condition. Great player, weak team, you should probably make it anyways, or come super close. But if you repeatedly do not come close? Then maybe you just aren't such a great player after all?!

A bad season here and there is no big deal, happens to everybody, not to mention injuries, or winding down a career.
Bad management can strike at anytime, fair enough.

But multiple seasons missing the playoffs matters to me.

Granted (obviously? lol) it is a team game, and I would say (broad brush strokes here) that to advance in the playoffs, round by round, requires some combination of a hotter, or deeper, or more experienced, or well-coached, or simply more talented team.

But a great player should be able to get a team to the First Round, or close enough lol.

Eventually, I would like to do an analysis of something like the Top 50-75 players and how often they missed the playoffs in a league where half the teams qualify! Just seems like a contradiction in terms to me, at least to my (odd?) way of thinking.

Empty Stats, Bad Team.
I am always on the look out for this scenario.
It should (almost) never be rewarded.
Especially in hindsight.

Whereas, in contrast to the EmptyStatsBadTeamScenario, a great player who gets temporarily stuck on a bad team, happens to (almost) everybody at some point.

But if it happens a lot it really gets me wondering if where there is (mismanagement) smoke there is also some (overrated) fire.

MartinToVaught wrote:I just don't see Pierce doing what PG did on those Pacers teams.

What did they do? They beat a bunch of teams that weren't talented and the added caveat that couldn't deal with their size. I think many players could have gone to the ECF in PG's environment.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

MartinToVaught wrote:I just don't see Pierce doing what PG did on those Pacers teams.

What did they do? They beat a bunch of teams that weren't talented and the added caveat that couldn't deal with their size. I think many players could have gone to the ECF in PG's environment.

They went toe-to-toe with prime LeBron's Heat with Roy Hibbert as their second-best player.

Pierce on a much more stacked team than those Pacers got dragged to Game 7 by a younger LeBron with a much worse supporting cast than he had in Miami.

I also find it strange that PG is discredited for "beating teams that weren't talented," but Pierce is getting praised in this thread for beating some uninspiring Sixers and Pistons teams to get to the conference finals in the ultra-weak 2002 Eastern Conference. I know everyone loves to dump on the Knicks, but were the 2013 Knicks really worse than those teams? I don't think so.