What's the general consensus on who's better between Prime Paul Pierce and Prime Paul George?

[SHAQ32]

It really depends on the definition of "prime". Paul George's one-year peak was better than any of Pierce's seasons, but Pierce was generally the better player for the rest of their respective careers. So if "prime" means their best 5 years or more, I'd give the edge to Pierce. But if "prime" means their best 2 or 3 years, I think George wins because of the brilliance of his peak season.

Since when is prime interpreted as 2-3 best seasons, lol.

[Joao Saraiva]

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.

I'd also add that star players on bad casts might have more trouble nowadays making the playoffs on their own.

The role players are way better nowadays so if your team isn't producing... you can't escape with one superstar doing it all every night. It's just the truth about the league.

On the opposite side you don't have to be that great of a superstar to even win it all. I'm sorry but Tatum and Brown are good but not at the heights of Bron, Kobe, Curry... The team is just an oiled machine and the role players play their roles to perfection.

Doncic and Kyrie struggled big time to even make it a series.

I think the NBA will head towards Celtics teams like being champions, because the gap between stars and role players will be less and less over time.

People complain it is too easy nowadays for role players to have outbursts in points scored... for me that just speaks volumes on the shooting ability arround the league.

I might not enjoy the product as much nowadays but I think overall the quality of the players is just absurd.

[KingofTheClay]

On defense it's PG by a mile, and on offense it's PG too. Pretty clear who was better. Compare PP from 01-09 to PG from 14 to 22, and PG wins in pp100, TS% and Ortg. He was also higher in MVP voting at his peak, and was the best player on multiple contenders. PP was never the best player on a real contender. That's the truth.

Besides that 2018 blip, Pierce was a better player than George.

Much more efficient with respect to his era, much much better intangibles and defensive gap was not big, especially besides 05,06 (when Pierce had scrub rosters, heavy offensive lift, and lost foot speed)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One_and_Done]

A blanket TS% adjustment for era is not appropriate as I've discussed before many times.

[KingofTheClay]

A blanket TS% adjustment for era is not appropriate as I've discussed before many times.

Of course it is, especially considering the fact that most iso players now have the luxury of mismatch hunting bigs, whereas back then it as rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[One_and_Done]

A blanket TS% adjustment for era is not appropriate as I've discussed before many times.

Of course it is, especially considering the fact that most iso players now have the luxury of mismatch hunting bigs, whereas back then it as rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some players would benefit, others would not. Let's say Bob Cousy was efficient for his era, does that mean he would be efficient if we teleported him into today's league? Obviously not. Hibbert or Tony Allen types wouldn't become more efficient today, more likely they wouldn't get many minutes to begin with. You can't just say 'it was X% above average at the time, so it would be that same % above average now'.

[KingofTheClay]

A blanket TS% adjustment for era is not appropriate as I've discussed before many times.

Of course it is, especially considering the fact that most iso players now have the luxury of mismatch hunting bigs, whereas back then it as rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some players would benefit, others would not. Let's say Bob Cousy was efficient for his era, does that mean he would be efficient if we teleported him into today's league? Obviously not. Hibbert or Tony Allen types wouldn't become more efficient today, more likely they wouldn't get many minutes to begin with. You can't just say 'it was X% above average at the time, so it would be that same % above average now'.

Yeah but I’m not talking about Bob Cousy or Roy Hibbert or Tony Allen.

It’s pretty obvious prime Pierce would thrive in this era on higher efficiency, if you know anything about his game at all.

You’d have to be blind to think otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjgp111292]

A blanket TS% adjustment for era is not appropriate as I've discussed before many times.

Of course it is, especially considering the fact that most iso players now have the luxury of mismatch hunting bigs, whereas back then it as rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some players would benefit, others would not. Let's say Bob Cousy was efficient for his era, does that mean he would be efficient if we teleported him into today's league? Obviously not. Hibbert or Tony Allen types wouldn't become more efficient today, more likely they wouldn't get many minutes to begin with. You can't just say 'it was X% above average at the time, so it would be that same % above average now'.

Paul Pierce is NOT Bob Cousy, Roy Hibbet, or Tony Allen. What in the world are you doing????? I've heard of strawmen, but this is the scarecrow from Wizard of Oz.

Paul Pierce had the exact skll set and play style that would be even better today. Earlier in this thread his 2002 stats were brought up - the guy was playing like a modern wing even in the deadball midrange chucking era! If you think Pierce wouldn't slide right into this era you're just blinding yourself. The only question mark is his conditioning, but even then I know a 6'8 Slovenian who shows otherwise there, too.

[Purch]

2013 Knicks: 3.73 SRS
2002 Celtics: 1.75 SRS
2002 Pistons: 1.69 SRS
2002 Sixers: 1.27 SRS

SRS isn't everything, obviously, but it does back up that the '13 Knicks were better than both that Celtics team and the teams they beat by a decent margin.

I think this always brings up an interesting question? What's more significant, an Individual playing in a weak conference or an individual playing with a stronger supporting cast?

I'd definitely say Pierce played in a weaker eastern conference than George did..However, he also had worse supporting cast.

So does it all just even out?

[Purch]

Of course it is, especially considering the fact that most iso players now have the luxury of mismatch hunting bigs, whereas back then it as rare.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some players would benefit, others would not. Let's say Bob Cousy was efficient for his era, does that mean he would be efficient if we teleported him into today's league? Obviously not. Hibbert or Tony Allen types wouldn't become more efficient today, more likely they wouldn't get many minutes to begin with. You can't just say 'it was X% above average at the time, so it would be that same % above average now'.

Paul Pierce is NOT Bob Cousy, Roy Hibbet, or Tony Allen. What in the world are you doing????? I've heard of strawmen, but this is the scarecrow from Wizard of Oz.

Paul Pierce had the exact skll set and play style that would be even better today. Earlier in this thread his 2002 stats were brought up - the guy was playing like a modern wing even in the deadball midrange chucking era! If you think Pierce wouldn't slide right into this era you're just blinding yourself. The only question mark is his conditioning, but even then I know a 6'8 Slovenian who shows otherwise there, too.

I don't know if I'd say he played like a Modern Wing. Pierce spent a decent amount of possessions in the post and shot a good amount of long twos. He was pretty efficient at shooting threes. Top 5 or so in the league for attempted/made at his peak. I think the biggest difference between 00's wings and modern day wings , is the 00's wings wouldn't just continue shooting 3's if they weren't knocking then down, that was considered "settling". They really would go to work in that in-between area. Pierce was really good at it