Read GM Top 100 List #25

[lorak]

vote: Ewing
(but I'll change my vote to Pippen if Baylor will have one vote advantage or there will be a tie; so far Ewing, Pippen and Baylor have 5 votes each. nominations: Kidd and Gervin 4 and Pierce 3)

[JerkyWay]

That's sometimes funny. Just a popular myth I've heard about:

- T-Mac is an empty stat guy in Orlando but Kobe's stats reflects his real class during 2005 - 07 period. That's pretty interesting...I just don't get the logic behind that. For me, it all comes down to supporting casts. When Jordan average 37 points or 33/8/8 and his team were losing, his stats were empty. When he averaged similar numbers but his team became better, then Jordan's stats are "true".

I'm not familiar with "empty stat" phrase. You need great skills to have great stats. Of course, there are some funny exaggerations, like Wilt's 50 PPG, but that's just what he was asked about to do.

When you say "guy x stats are inflated", then what his "true" stats should be like? Anyone who says that lose credibility in my eyes.
We never fully know what's team x or team y gameplan and what specific player was asked to do so that's nearly impossible to make reasonable statements like "McGrady's stats were empty". You can argue his inefficiency, at most (his volume scoring was just a little bit more efficient than Iverson's).

[TMACFORMVP]

I've already touched on the McGrady/Pierce argument. I don't think Pierce was any better than McGrady from 00-08 aside from '06/'08, and that was because McGrady was injured. I think that reflects in their ability on the court, and All-NBA accomplishments. But in saying that, I understand the argument for Pierce's overall body of work, because of added longevity, and a championship run in '08. I just don't know if being 'underrated' still equates to being better than some of the players that have yet to be nominated.

I still like Ewing at this spot, I think he gets slightly underrated in big games with good longevity, and huge impact on both ends of the floor. ITO nomination, I don't have an inclination towards any way.. I like Kidd here, his defensive impact even for a PG was huge, and while he's probably overrated offensively, his passing, rebounding, and overall team impact is still rather large. *Could still be subject to change.

Vote: Patrick Ewing
Nominate: Jason Kidd

[drza]

My reasoning behind a Pippen vote, copied/paraphrased from a previous thread. Note: I hadn't seen ElGee's on/off calculations from this thread when I originally wrote this, but they seem to support/quantify the impact that I describe for Pippen.

Re: Pippen

There is a general basketball truism that big men can have a big defensive impact that the box scores can't catch, and that point guards can have a big offensive impact that the box scores might miss. We've discussed these types of effects with players like Russell, Walton (RPoY project), Garnett, Magic, Robertson and Nash and were able to demonstrate them quantitatively in some way. I feel like Scottie Pippen, though he played small forward, legitimately had both a point guard effect on offense and a big-man-defender effect on defense. Now, that impact may have been a bit watered down compared to All-time greats like the ones that I mentioned, but still, the point is that I think he qualifies for BOTH of those impacts that aren't easily captured by the boxes. Then, he compounded that by playing in the generation before +/- stats came available and only missing more than 10 games in a season one time before he turned 35. As such, it is very difficult to get a quantitative handle on his impact.

That said, though, just because I can't easily quantify his impact doesn't mean that it wasn't there. I might not be able to put an exact number on his defensive prowess, for example, but from watching him I was quite confident that he was probably the best wing defender that I've ever seen. And that he had a huge help-defense impact, which isn't generally associated with a wing defender. And that he was also an excellent rebounder for his position. Then, when I note some qualitative trends...such as that the Bulls were a top-7 defense every season between 1993 and 1996 (7th, 6th, 2nd, 1st) and the only player to start on all 4 of those teams was Pippen. To me, I have no issue giving Pippen a huge non-boxscore defensive boost when compared to [other elite wings]. That it's not just a case of judging them on their offense and then adding a bit to Pippen's ledger, but that on a fundamental level Pippen's defense gives him a big impact advantage at that end of the court over most wings.

Then, on offense, [I also think Pippen has more impact than he is usually credited with]. During that same '93 - 96 stretch, the Bulls' offense ranked 2nd (w/ Jordan), 14th (no Jordan), 10th (no Jordan until end), and 1st (w/ Jordan). So, unlike on defense, on offense the Bulls clearly suffered without MJ. But on the other hand...is that really damning to Pippen as an elite offensive player? That stretch proves the no-duh assertion that MJ had a monster impact on the Bulls' offense. But that doesn't, of itself, mean that Pippen didn't. And when I look at the offensive players still on the Bulls during '94 and '95...BJ Armstrong was purely a shooter, Ho Grant a garbageman, Purdue/Cartright lesser garbagemen, and Harper (at that stage of his career)/Meyers were just defensive role players. Kukoc was a reasonable shot creator for a 6th man, but nothing special. For the most part, then, this was an offense where Pippen was for all intents and purposes the only shot creator for both himself and his teammates and also the leading scorer. The fact that he led that offense to above-average offensive ratings is of itself an accomplishment and testament to the fact that he was a very strong offensive player.

As such, when I look at overall impact, I do believe that Pippen's was larger than he is given credit for, and at least as large as any player that hasn't been voted in yet.

[lorak]

re: Pippen's defensive impact

Could someone explain why in 1998 Bulls defense was almost 4 points better without Pippen? On offense his impact was very good (~7 points), but what happened on defensive end?

[drza]

Reasoning for Kidd, again paraphrased/re-posted from previous thread, but this time from 2 different posts that were part of a conversation about how Kidd compared to Payton, Frazier and Nash.

" (snip) Which brings us to Kidd. What to do about Kidd? Like Payton and Frazier, he is a strong defensive point guard...which I just got done arguing wasn't the most important thing for a point guard. Fair enough, so let's set that aside for now. So, what is Kidd's OFFENSIVE impact? We all know that Kidd is an inefficient scorer, and also that he is a low-volume scorer. So his box scores generally aren't as pretty as others. But what about his offensive impact? Because Kidd IS a true quarterbacking point guard...he potentially COULD be in-line for that point guard impact boost. But, does he deserve it?

Well, Englemann's single season RAPM stats give me some interesting food for thought. His first full season of stats was in 2003, which was 9 years into Kidd's career and missed his near-MVP peak in 2002. At the same time, it did capture the later part of Kidd's prime in NJ, so thus gives us a good ballpark estimate for his prime. Similarly, we get the bonus that there are some seasons where late-prime Kidd is compared directly to MVP-Nash, which should give us some relative info on their offensive impact (note: my understanding is that the actual RAPM numbers can't be compared from year-to-year because of how they were calculated, but the numbers can be compared within year and the relative valuations can at least be compared across years).

In '03: Kidd was 3rd in the NBA in offensive RAPM (just behind Shaq and KG), Nash was about a point behind (2.4 vs 1.4).

In '04: Kidd was still top-10, and he still had Nash by the same 2.4 vs 1.4 margin.

In '05: The fun part, as Nash is the MVP in Phoenix because of his offensive impact. Interestingly, according to offensive RAPM Kidd is still almost his offensive equal, with Nash leading 3.5 to 3.1.

In '06: Just to prove it's not a fluke, Nash wins his 2nd MVP based on his offensive impact and again, his 4.8 isn't very different than Kidd's 4.1.

By '07 Kidd is starting to slide in his 14th seasonwhile Nash is still peaking, so the gap grows, but I already have what I came for. Even when Nash was winning MVPs at his Phoenix peak, Kidd's offensive impact seemed to be right there with him. As such, it seems to me that Kidd DOES get the quarterbacking-offensive-impact-PG boost. Which, when paired with the fact that he really was an excellent defensive point guard as well, puts Kidd firmly ahead of the Fraziers and Paytons of the point guard pantheon in my opinion. "

Part 2: In response to the above post, it was pointed out that RAPM isn't gospel and that Kidd didn't have a history of leading top team-offenses so perhaps he shouldn't be regarded quite that hightly on offense.

"I respect your points, especially the one about RAPM not being gospel, (snip) but I didn't start from the RAPM angle. Instead, I started from the angle that I've watched Kidd and considered him to be in the offensive quarterback mold...then, I noted that offensive quarterbacks tend to make larger impacts than the more lead-guard types historically speaking...then, I used RAPM as a check for whether my impression and that historical trend held up to the best (not perfect, but the current state of the art) single-season +/- stat we have. And it did. As such, I don't feel like I'm just using RAPM as an out-of-the-blue measure...it seems to confirm trends seen elsewhere.

I do find it very interesting that Kidd's offenses have never been at the top of the league, but I don't find that to be compelling in-and-of itself. Same with the part-time on/off numbers. Essentially, and I've spoken of this elsewhere, I see those things as earlier iterations of the APM families that we have now. If we have no +/- numbers, as in previous generations, then team rankings and injury absences are all that we have to estimate impacts and they are better than nothing. But I consider complete records of raw +/- to be a step up from them...and complete on-court/off-court +/- records to be a step up from that...and finally APM to be a step up from that as well, because each iteration accounts for the info in the previous evolutionary step but with more info added and more confounds accounted for. I actually like to look at all of the above, but when a less refined method is in conflict with a more refined method, I tend to believe the latter more than the former unless there's a compelling reason why.

And when we get out of the stats and into the reasoning portion of your rebuttal, I don't find it compelling. At its heart, I understand your argument to be essentially that Kidd doesn't do it the way that it's usually done so he can't really be an elite offensive player. You note that he isn't an elite scorer and doesn't have a great jumper, but to me those aren't a comprehensive list of skill sets nor a condemnation of being an elite offensive player. Kidd is also large for his position, was extremely fast for his position, has excellent court vision, is a quick and excellent decision-maker, and is extremely intelligent about the strengths/weaknesses of his teammates and where they need the ball to be effective. You say that he doesn't put pressure on defenses like a scorer would, well I'd counter by saying that scorers don't pressure defenses the way that Kidd would either. The methods are different, but that doesn't of itself make one better than the other.

Plus, though we're focusing as much as we can on offense, as Dr. Mufasa likes to point out there is a connection between offense and defense that isn't easy to separate. Having a point guard that is excellent at recovering possessions (crashing the defensive boards, steals) and facile at using that to quick-start the offense is its own kind of pressure. The personnel on those Nets teams were such that they usually weren't built to excel in the half-court offense anyway...the secondary players were finishers like Martin and Jefferson, not go-to scorers of their own right. And while if Nash led those units they might end up with higher offensive ratings, that would also come with catering the offense to suit his strengths/weaknesses more. Styling the Nets as a defensive team that sparked fast-break opportunities doesn't work as well with Nash as it does with Kidd, and not all of that is due to pure offense vs defense capabilities of the individual PG. Kidd's ability to make a strong individual offensive impact on those teams while allowing them to play a style that catered overall to the skillsets of the team shouldn't just be written off, just because the way he did it isn't the way that others might have.

I would say that my pro-Kidd arguments don't rely on RAPM as a standalone measure. As DocMJ has pointed out, his accolades (independent of RAPM) would have him right there with Payton and ahead of Frazier as is. And his box score advanced stats (also independent of RAPM) like PER are also very competitive with both Payton and Frazier. Even the complete non-statheads would agree that Kidd is one of the better point guards in history. From there, I don't see where it's that much of a stretch for the +/- stats (both net on/off court and APM) to agree that he is among the best as well. As I said above, if anything it seems to me that the RAPM results I site just support the trends that I was already seeing from a lot of different angles."

[Laimbeer]

re: Pippen's defensive impact

Could someone explain why in 1998 Bulls defense was almost 4 points better without Pippen? On offense his impact was very good (~7 points), but what happened on defensive end?

Another indicment of stats. Unless we believe Pippen hurt them defensively?

[Laimbeer]

Does anyone have a vote count?

[Gongxi]

What do you mean 'indictment of stats'? Isn't that a stat?

[Laimbeer]

What do you mean 'indictment of stats'? Isn't that a stat?

Of course it is. It's just a demonstration of how misleading they can be.

Then there is the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average depth of six inches. ~W.I.E. Gates


.

[Gongxi]

Or how disastrous it can be to think you're indicting an entire paradigm but it actually turns out you just didn't use them correctly.

People who don't know how to use stats when they talk about basketball and then decide that stats are dumb are idiots.
-Stephen Hawking

You've been very vocal about your hatred for stats for this entire project, but what do you do to prop up your arguments? Just stats, albeit the extremely simplistic kind. And then you act like that's somehow better. We all know it's not, and you hammer that home all the time for us, from Isiah>Wade/Nash to McGrady's peak being Webber to Kobe's peak of Duncan.

[Dr Positivity]

Vote
Ewing (6) - fatal9, Dr Mufasa, Gongxi, Baller24, DavidStern, TMACFORMVP
Baylor (5) - JerkyWay, JordansBulls, penbeast0, Laimbeer, An Unbiased Fan
Pippen (5) - mysticbb, ElGee, drza, Fencer reregistered, therealbig3
Havlicek (1) - lukekarts
Barry (1) - ronnymac2

Nom
Kidd (5)- mysticbb, drza, An Unbiased Fan, ronnymac2, TMACFORMVP
Gervin (4) - Doctor MJ, ElGee, DavidStern, Baller24
Pierce (3) - therealbig3, Dr Mufasa, Fencer reregistered
Hayes (1) - JerkyWay
Walton (1) - JordansBulls
Howard (1)- penbeast0
McHale (1) - fatal9
Reed (1) - lukekarts
Cousy (1) - Laimbeer
Cowens (1) - Gongxi

[Laimbeer]

Thanks Doc

A change in my nomination

Vote: Baylor
Nominate: Gervin

[colts18]

re: Pippen's defensive impact

Could someone explain why in 1998 Bulls defense was almost 4 points better without Pippen? On offense his impact was very good (~7 points), but what happened on defensive end?

Look at his impact in 94. They lost MJ they improved by 4 points in D rating. While he was out, the defense got worse. Then in 95, they finished 2nd in the league without MJ and when MJ came back the defense actually got worse.

[Dr Positivity]

My take on the Pierce thing

I agree with the Dr MJ take that there's something that feel not so standout about him unlike a lot of top 40 players, but I think there can be value in having no holes as much as in having a special strength nobody else has. Kidd, Gervin, Iverson, McHale, Wilkins may have more spectacular strengths, but also bigger holes they leave for the rest of the team to cover. For that reason I think I'd rather have Pierce on my team than them if given the choice with no other variables known

I like the Pierce-Drexler comparison and Drexler is usually placed top 30-35. I also think taking Pierce over Gervin is very reasonable with the more reliable all around game Pierce has. His general ranking of fringe top 8 player + 8-12 WS is about right for this stage. So he passes the smell test against other SGs it would seem. I think this has been a case of Pierce just getting underrated historically until the years added up. I believe Pau is on his way to a top 50 spot on this list and will get the same 'wow, I didn't consider him that high' when we're in the mid 40s and it becomes fairly evident only a few players left have a better case than him (I personally think if Pau had Pierce's longevity and health, he would be nominated at about the same time)

Frankly, I don't know if Pierce over Baylor and Barry is so outrageous. Are Baylor and Barry really on a different level of scoring ability than Pierce? Pierce and Barry doesn't seem like a bad comparison stylistically, actually...

[therealbig3]

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.

I'm actually a little disappointed by some of the arguments that were made in the last page or so. This entire project, we've done a great job of looking past popular perception, accolades, and team success, and just ranking players on how well they play...but now when Pierce is being brought up, the fact that he was never "considered" a top 5 player in the league, the fact that he doesn't have All-NBA love, and the fact that he didn't win with a crap Celtics team before 08 are somehow relevant.

drza, you talked about how Pierce was never thought of to be a top 5 player in the league...so what? I'd argue that Kidd should never have been thought of to be a top 5 player in the league.

Look at the bolded part of your post. You're one of the last people I would think to bring those things up, because they have nothing to do with how good of a player the guy we're talking about is.

Also, single-season RAPM studies are not the most reliable of sources. My understanding of RAPM is that you need a large sample size for it to be suggestive of anything. Otherwise, are you really going to suggest that Kidd was almost Nash's equal offensively during Nash's MVP seasons?

Both multi-year RAPM studies, including the 10-year study, ranks Pierce ahead of Kidd, Carter, and T-Mac. Carter is a poor man's Paul Pierce pretty much, Ginobili has never been asked to carry the offensive load and he plays a lot less minutes, and T-Mac has durability and longevity issues when compared to Pierce, and outside of 03, where could you make the argument that T-Mac was clearly better than Pierce? Pierce has always been a comparable volume scorer, while scoring on much better efficiency. He's been a comparable rebounder. He's been as good or better defensively. The only clear advantage for T-Mac is his playmaking ability. If that's enough to prop him over Pierce, so be it. But some people act like there's no argument here, when Pierce probably has a better argument than T-Mac.

I understand peak is a big deal, but T-Mac had a great 1-year peak, then had 3 years that were pretty great, and then...what? His calling card was scoring, and he was basically Iverson-esque at it.

This statement isn't directed at you, but to a few people in general in the last couple of pages: it seems like there's a double standard here. One minute, when people are trying to prop up their favorite player, they're properly separating the team and the media from the individual, and evaluating their actual play. But now that a player that most people don't think that highly of, but seems to have all the qualifications that you can ask for, his team success and his media recognition is being brought up. Why?

Again, I'm fine with McGrady or Kidd going ahead of Pierce, but to put Pierce on an entirely lower tier, and say he's fringe top 50, while those guys are getting top 35-40 consideration, that's a little frustrating and a little confusing to me.

[Fencer reregistered]

Plus, though we're focusing as much as we can on offense, as Dr. Mufasa likes to point out there is a connection between offense and defense that isn't easy to separate. Having a point guard that is excellent at recovering possessions (crashing the defensive boards, steals) and facile at using that to quick-start the offense is its own kind of pressure. The personnel on those Nets teams were such that they usually weren't built to excel in the half-court offense anyway...the secondary players were finishers like Martin and Jefferson, not go-to scorers of their own right. And while if Nash led those units they might end up with higher offensive ratings, that would also come with catering the offense to suit his strengths/weaknesses more. Styling the Nets as a defensive team that sparked fast-break opportunities doesn't work as well with Nash as it does with Kidd, and not all of that is due to pure offense vs defense capabilities of the individual PG. Kidd's ability to make a strong individual offensive impact on those teams while allowing them to play a style that catered overall to the skillsets of the team shouldn't just be written off, just because the way he did it isn't the way that others might have.

On the eye-test level, that's a compelling argument. But if a team has dubious overall stats, it doesn't help much to say their stats were great in transition but really bad in half-court, averaging to dubious.

It IS reasonable to note that of Kidd's teammates who anybody would consider giving accolades to, Martin was a defensive guy first and foremost, while Jefferson was a 2-way player, and the offense-first guys weren't all that awesome at offense. However, if we go too far down the supporting case road, we note that Pierce's supporting cast was yet worse than Kidd's when the Celtics and Nets battled it out for what could laughably be called "supremacy" in the East.

[Dr Positivity]

I'm not voting for Tmac for a long time. Even ignoring the fact that he's a mental loser, he really only gives you 6 elite seasons and the Rockets paid the price dearly for his lack of kicks at the can. He's going after Ray Allen, Reggie Miller, Grant Hill, Robert Parish, Chris Webber, Alonzo Mourning on my list, to name a few

[lorak]

re: Pippen's defensive impact

Could someone explain why in 1998 Bulls defense was almost 4 points better without Pippen? On offense his impact was very good (~7 points), but what happened on defensive end?

Look at his impact in 94. They lost MJ they improved by 4 points in D rating. While he was out, the defense got worse. Then in 95, they finished 2nd in the league without MJ and when MJ came back the defense actually got worse.

I know how good defensively were Bulls in '94 and '95, but that don't explain what happened in 1998 (and when he was out in '94 and '95 it's much smaller sample than with/without in 1998). Why Pippen's impact on D was negative, when on offense very positive (so it's very unlikely he was bothered by injury or out of shape)?

[pancakes3]

I'm actually a little disappointed by some of the arguments that were made in the last page or so. This entire project, we've done a great job of looking past popular perception, accolades, and team success, and just ranking players on how well they play...but now when Pierce is being brought up, the fact that he was never "considered" a top 5 player in the league, the fact that he doesn't have All-NBA love, and the fact that he didn't win with a crap Celtics team before 08 are somehow relevant.

accolades, hardware, team success, and "all-nba" love have been consistently used to compare players in different eras. if not, then how do we differentiate Pierce's 27/6/4 from Havlicek's or Dantley's?

drza, you talked about how Pierce was never thought of to be a top 5 player in the league...so what? I'd argue that Kidd should never have been thought of to be a top 5 player in the league.

except he has, both in popular opinion and MVP finishes.

Both multi-year RAPM studies, including the 10-year study, ranks Pierce ahead of Kidd, Carter, and T-Mac.

what about other good players from bygone years? I personally don't agree that Vince nor TMac should get a nomination here, but there are plenty of legends that do

This statement isn't directed at you, but to a few people in general in the last couple of pages: it seems like there's a double standard here. One minute, when people are trying to prop up their favorite player, they're properly separating the team and the media from the individual, and evaluating their actual play. But now that a player that most people don't think that highly of, but seems to have all the qualifications that you can ask for, his team success and his media recognition is being brought up. Why?

one could argue that the inordinate amount of PIerce talk before his time is a form of "propping up". if there was a more convincing argument like there was for KG (that i personally still blindly oppose) i'm sure there would be more people on board the Pierce train than not.

Again, I'm fine with McGrady or Kidd going ahead of Pierce, but to put Pierce on an entirely lower tier, and say he's fringe top 50, while those guys are getting top 35-40 consideration, that's a little frustrating and a little confusing to me.

I don't think anyone's brought up TMac, and if they have, they've got a great '03 season to point to. Kidd's been in the conversation because he rivals Russel in the "way better than his numbers suggest" department and his absurd longevity - 15 seasons of being in the top 5 of apg (1 more than stockton, though stock does have 9 assist crowns to Kidd's 5).

My real problem with this particular quote is that i don't think Tmac should be getting top 40 consideration and instead of finding other more deserving candidates from the annals of bball history, guys like Pierce and Carter is getting a lot of weird, undue chatter.




VOTE: Baylor
NOM: Unseld