RealGM

Thread Title. This topic popped up online.

Peak: Butler
2-5 Yr Peak is for Butler 2019-2023

Prime: Pierce
7-10 Yr Prime is for Pierce 2000-2011

Career: Pierce

MiamiBulls wrote:Peak: Butler
2-5 Yr Peak is for Butler 2019-2023

Prime: Pierce
7-10 Yr Prime is for Pierce 2000-2011

Career: Pierce

I would have to agree with this. Peak Butler in the playoffs reached a place Pierce didn’t, but Pierce was pretty much a solid scoring/plus defender from the get go at age 21 until the last two seasons (was actually still pretty good in 2014 and 2015). 15 high quality seasons, every season his team better with him on court than off,16th most games played in NBA history.

Peak Jimmy is hard because he got injured both times he hit a next level peak lol

MiamiBulls wrote:Peak: Butler
2-5 Yr Peak is for Butler 2019-2023

Prime: Pierce
7-10 Yr Prime is for Pierce 2000-2011

Career: Pierce

Jimmy (2015-2023 RS): 90.7 WS (.219 WS/48), 5.9 BPM (4.5 OBPM), 52.9% FTR, 672.6 TS+
Pierce (2001-2011 RS): 111.1 WS (.169 WS/48), 4.2 BPM (3.7 OBPM), 47.2% FTR, 1399 TS+

The Advanced Metrics favor Butler over any 3, 5 or even 9 year Peak/Prime comparison. Pierce was a better scorer--both more efficient and typically at a higher volume.

Where Jimmy separates himself from Pierce as a player (overall) is his ability to get to the free throw line at a high rate and defensive ability and impact.

Pierce played his entire career never reaching Butlers average WS/48, with only two seasons topping .200 WS/48 [.201 and .207 respectively]. He has a 12-year period [Bookended by .160 WS/48 seasons] as a 28 USG% player on 57 TS% [This is very impressive, especially in the 2000s era] but his 3.6 OBPM/4.2 BPM over his period paints him in a light his other numbers say [Clearly an All-star but not really All-NBA level]. Per Basketball-Reference, a 6.0 BPM is estimated to be All-NBA [not an exact science] and Pierce peaked at 5.9 BPM.

Pierce's longevity is so good that even at the Age of 37 he posted a 68.5 TS+ Seasons in 1900 minutes [Jordan at age 38 had 2000 minutes at -155 TS+ ]. That's incredible longevity and value.

Circling back to Butler, he has 4 seasons head-and-shoulders ahead of Peak Pierce [2017 & 2021-2023].

I disagree with Pierce having a better 7-10 year prime, because Jimmy's 9-year Prime blows Pierce away given the best 4 seasons here all belong comfortably to Jimmy Buckets.

The important question is how do you value and weigh Butler from 2021-2023. Can he be the best player on a title team? Pierce proved to be an effective and efficient #2 option but is that more valuable than what Butler could do?

It is an interesting discussion to be had now, as Butler adding 1-2 more seasons at this level really pummels Pierce but right now, it is hard to argue against Pierce's sustained excellence over 12+ seasons.

I’m taking Pierce in a career sense, but Butler’s the better peak player. It’s a shame he got injured this PS. The Bucks series certainly wasn’t sustainable, but I’d bet the farm he fares much better with two working ankles.

I think 2017/18 could very well be his peak as well. Very impressive on/off and WOWY results on pretty mediocre teams (either playing with geezers in Chicago or KAT/chucking Wiggins in MIN)

I'd put Jimmy as far as career and peak at least a tier above Pierce. Pierce was really good for a bit longer, but Jimmy's value is meaningfully better in everything outside of scoring. When healthy his consistent, highly versatile game provides that much higher of a floor for success.

Even though it's a hypothetical, Jimmy's just 3 possessions/botched calls from potential advancing on 3 separate occasions, (Blatt calling a timeout the Cavs didn't have in 15, Kawhi potentially traveling in 19 and the Max Strus 3 being waved despite on the replay him still being inbounds).

Ben AN wrote:I'd put Jimmy as far as career and peak at least a tier above Pierce. Pierce was really good for a bit longer, but Jimmy's value is meaningfully better in everything outside of scoring. When healthy his consistent, highly versatile game provides that much higher of a floor for success.

Even though it's a hypothetical, Jimmy's just 3 possessions/botched calls from potential advancing on 3 separate occasions, (Blatt calling a timeout the Cavs didn't have in 15, Kawhi potentially traveling in 19 and the Max Strus 3 being waved despite on the replay him still being inbounds).

Pierce has had close calls to winning titles and conference titles as well. Many players have.

HeartBreakKid wrote:Pierce has had close calls to winning titles and conference titles as well. Many players have.

For sure, I don't know if any others were just a singular possession away from going up 3-1 or directly advancing on 3 separate occasions though and in this case, I don't think Pierce has ever lead a team with a similar talent level of the 15 Bulls or 22 Heat to being competitive with teams of the caliber of the 15 Cavs or 22 Celtics. Regardless, this isn't my reasoning for picking Jimmy>Pierce, I just thought that was an interesting side note.

Jimmy is easily the better player, especially Miami Jimmy.

Ben AN wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:Pierce has had close calls to winning titles and conference titles as well. Many players have.

For sure, I don't know if any others were just a singular possession away from going up 3-1 or directly advancing on 3 separate occasions though and in this case, I don't think Pierce has ever lead a team with a similar talent level of the 15 Bulls or 22 Heat to being competitive with teams of the caliber of the 15 Cavs or 22 Celtics. Regardless, this isn't my reasoning for picking Jimmy>Pierce, I just thought that was an interesting side note.

I don't think Pierce ever had a supporting cast that had anyone as good 2015 Pau Gasol--and then that Bulls team also had Prime Noah, Solid Derrick Rose and two very good players in Taj Gibson and Mirotic off the bench. This wasn't a bad cast by any stretch of the imagination.

Colbinii wrote:

Ben AN wrote:For sure, I don't know if any others were just a singular possession away from going up 3-1 or directly advancing on 3 separate occasions though and in this case, I don't think Pierce has ever lead a team with a similar talent level of the 15 Bulls or 22 Heat to being competitive with teams of the caliber of the 15 Cavs or 22 Celtics. Regardless, this isn't my reasoning for picking Jimmy>Pierce, I just thought that was an interesting side note.

I don't think Pierce ever had a supporting cast that had anyone as good 2015 Pau Gasol--and then that Bulls team also had Prime Noah, Solid Derrick Rose and two very good players in Taj Gibson and Mirotic off the bench. This wasn't a bad cast by any stretch of the imagination.

Pau played sub 30 minutes per game and missed 2 of the 6 games in that series, it's hard to take him under those circumstances over Toine. Granted Love was out on the Cavs' end.

Ben AN wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

Ben AN wrote:For sure, I don't know if any others were just a singular possession away from going up 3-1 or directly advancing on 3 separate occasions though and in this case, I don't think Pierce has ever lead a team with a similar talent level of the 15 Bulls or 22 Heat to being competitive with teams of the caliber of the 15 Cavs or 22 Celtics. Regardless, this isn't my reasoning for picking Jimmy>Pierce, I just thought that was an interesting side note.

I don't think Pierce ever had a supporting cast that had anyone as good 2015 Pau Gasol--and then that Bulls team also had Prime Noah, Solid Derrick Rose and two very good players in Taj Gibson and Mirotic off the bench. This wasn't a bad cast by any stretch of the imagination.

Pau played sub 30 minutes per game and missed 2 of the 6 games in that series, it's hard to take him under those circumstances over Toine. Granted Love was out on the Cavs' end.

Okay--Antoine Walker is not a good basketball player. He and Anderson combined 82/210 from the field. Dunleavy and Rose combined 75/183 [Much higher TS%] and then you still has Gibson and Noah helping anchor a great defense [Boston sorely lacked those level of defenders].

Then, in 2022, Bam is significantly better than anyone on 2002 Celtics.

Colbinii wrote:Okay--Antoine Walker is not a good basketball player. He and Anderson combined 82/210 from the field. Dunleavy and Rose combined 75/183 [Much higher TS%] and then you still has Gibson and Noah helping anchor a great defense [Boston sorely lacked those level of defenders].

Then, in 2022, Bam is significantly better than anyone on 2002 Celtics.

Not all individual efficiency is created equal in value. High efficiency in your own spots is what matters in an organized offense, not your individual efficiency in general in terms of maximizing team possessions. As the saying goes “can’t take away everything,” a defense will concede certain lower efficiency shots over the course of a game and as a result, no opposing team shoots solely all at the rim or from three. Jumpers are mainly shot when they’re the available shot, so a player shooting 60% on exclusively 10 mid ranges maxes out his team's offensive possessions more than a player shooting 60% on exclusively 10 attempts at the rim, despite still having equal TS%. Because the average % at the rim is much higher and a decent amount of said attempts exclusively at the rim are guaranteed easier shots for an offense once in transition. A player not taking those less efficient looks leads to more shot clock violations and other (likely less talented) players having to take said lower % looks, potentially capping the teams’ offense as a whole. Fts matter too because they're the only shot you can't avoid taking. The league as a whole was more efficient in 15 than in 02 as well.

A good example of this is Klay's TS% in the 15-16 regular season, he shot 59.7%, which was about 10% better than the league average at 54.1%. That's good but becomes even more valuable once you consider his shot diet would translate to a 52.42 TS% with a league average 2016 shooter taking his place going off his shot chart data on Statmuse (Making Klay results 13.9% better than average). Another example is how Wizards MJ is considered woefully inefficient with his 48 TS%, yet he shot +3.5% on the attempts he had than a league average 02/03 shooter did in those same spots. By the way the league as a whole was more efficient in 15 than in 02.

You're 100% correct on the 2nd part, however this is why I emphasized relativity in regards to their competition. Would you put the 02 Nets or any eastern conference team then on the level of the 2022 Celtics?

Ben AN wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Okay--Antoine Walker is not a good basketball player. He and Anderson combined 82/210 from the field. Dunleavy and Rose combined 75/183 [Much higher TS%] and then you still has Gibson and Noah helping anchor a great defense [Boston sorely lacked those level of defenders].

Then, in 2022, Bam is significantly better than anyone on 2002 Celtics.

Not all individual efficiency is created equal in value. High efficiency in your own spots is what matters in an organized offense, not your individual efficiency in general in terms of maximizing team possessions. As the saying goes “can’t take away everything,” a defense will concede certain lower efficiency shots over the course of a game and as a result, no opposing team shoots solely all at the rim or from three. Jumpers are mainly shot when they’re the available shot, so a player shooting 60% on exclusively 10 mid ranges maxes out his team's offensive possessions more than a player shooting 60% on exclusively 10 attempts at the rim, despite still having equal TS%. Because the average % at the rim is much higher and a decent amount of said attempts exclusively at the rim are guaranteed easier shots for an offense once in transition. A player not taking those less efficient looks leads to more shot clock violations and other (likely less talented) players having to take said lower % looks, potentially capping the teams’ offense as a whole. Fts matter too because they're the only shot you can't avoid taking. The league as a whole was more efficient in 15 than in 02 as well.

A good example of this is Klay's TS% in the 15-16 regular season, he shot 59.7%, which was about 10% better than the league average at 54.1%. That's good but becomes even more valuable once you consider his shot diet would translate to a 52.42 TS% with a league average 2016 shooter taking his place going off his shot chart data on Statmuse (Making Klay results 13.9% better than average). Another example is how Wizards MJ is considered woefully inefficient with his 48 TS%, yet he shot +3.5% on the attempts he had than a league average 02/03 shooter did in those same spots. By the way the league as a whole was more efficient in 15 than in 02.

You're 100% correct on the 2nd part, however this is why I emphasized relativity in regards to their competition. Would you put the 02 Nets or any eastern conference team then on the level of the 2022 Celtics?

Cool, you explained eFG%. Now can you actually apply it to the context of the Chicago Bulls players and the Boston Celtics players?

Colbinii wrote:

Ben AN wrote:

Colbinii wrote:Okay--Antoine Walker is not a good basketball player. He and Anderson combined 82/210 from the field. Dunleavy and Rose combined 75/183 [Much higher TS%] and then you still has Gibson and Noah helping anchor a great defense [Boston sorely lacked those level of defenders].

Then, in 2022, Bam is significantly better than anyone on 2002 Celtics.

Not all individual efficiency is created equal in value. High efficiency in your own spots is what matters in an organized offense, not your individual efficiency in general in terms of maximizing team possessions. As the saying goes “can’t take away everything,” a defense will concede certain lower efficiency shots over the course of a game and as a result, no opposing team shoots solely all at the rim or from three. Jumpers are mainly shot when they’re the available shot, so a player shooting 60% on exclusively 10 mid ranges maxes out his team's offensive possessions more than a player shooting 60% on exclusively 10 attempts at the rim, despite still having equal TS%. Because the average % at the rim is much higher and a decent amount of said attempts exclusively at the rim are guaranteed easier shots for an offense once in transition. A player not taking those less efficient looks leads to more shot clock violations and other (likely less talented) players having to take said lower % looks, potentially capping the teams’ offense as a whole. Fts matter too because they're the only shot you can't avoid taking. The league as a whole was more efficient in 15 than in 02 as well.

A good example of this is Klay's TS% in the 15-16 regular season, he shot 59.7%, which was about 10% better than the league average at 54.1%. That's good but becomes even more valuable once you consider his shot diet would translate to a 52.42 TS% with a league average 2016 shooter taking his place going off his shot chart data on Statmuse (Making Klay results 13.9% better than average). Another example is how Wizards MJ is considered woefully inefficient with his 48 TS%, yet he shot +3.5% on the attempts he had than a league average 02/03 shooter did in those same spots. By the way the league as a whole was more efficient in 15 than in 02.

You're 100% correct on the 2nd part, however this is why I emphasized relativity in regards to their competition. Would you put the 02 Nets or any eastern conference team then on the level of the 2022 Celtics?

Cool, you explained eFG%. Now can you actually apply it to the context of the Chicago Bulls players and the Boston Celtics players?

Made rim attempts and midrange attempts have equal value once calculated in efg%, efg% doesn't factor in league average %s at different shot locations and FTs aren't factored into efg% at all, so no I didn't, you should read it again. As far as the other part, DRose shot -7.8% than a league average 15 playoff shooter would (45.2 vs 49.03), which is worse than Toine that series. Dunleavy average 11 pts, volume matters. Also if you're a fan of comparing TS% without context, what was Pierce's in that ECF? That's what makes basketball players good, right?

By the way, would you put the 02 Nets or any eastern conference team then on the level of the 2022 Celtics?

Ben AN wrote:
By the way, would you put the 02 Nets or any eastern conference team then on the level of the 2022 Celtics?

Of course not. I also wouldn't put the casts of 2022 Miami/2015 Bulls on the same level as 2002 Celtics [Or any Pre-KG Celtics team].

Ben AN wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

Ben AN wrote:For sure, I don't know if any others were just a singular possession away from going up 3-1 or directly advancing on 3 separate occasions though and in this case, I don't think Pierce has ever lead a team with a similar talent level of the 15 Bulls or 22 Heat to being competitive with teams of the caliber of the 15 Cavs or 22 Celtics. Regardless, this isn't my reasoning for picking Jimmy>Pierce, I just thought that was an interesting side note.

I don't think Pierce ever had a supporting cast that had anyone as good 2015 Pau Gasol--and then that Bulls team also had Prime Noah, Solid Derrick Rose and two very good players in Taj Gibson and Mirotic off the bench. This wasn't a bad cast by any stretch of the imagination.

Pau played sub 30 minutes per game and missed 2 of the 6 games in that series, it's hard to take him under those circumstances over Toine. Granted Love was out on the Cavs' end.

I'm still taking that version of pau with 2 missed games over Antoine Walker who posted playoff o ratings of 97,89,92,91,97, finally 109 his last playoff on miami. If your worried bout sample size all but 3 of his regular seasons are also under 100. The 3 not under were 100 101 101idk how he tricked so many people into thinking he was a good player

Peak is Butler, and career likely will be as well.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I have Pierce's career higher as of now.

I voted "equal," because the criteria wasn't clarified.

MiamiBulls wrote:Peak: Butler
2-5 Yr Peak is for Butler 2019-2023

Prime: Pierce
7-10 Yr Prime is for Pierce 2000-2011

Career: Pierce

This is the correct answer