Read GM Top 100 List #25

[JordansBulls]

After all, the Pistons weren't a winning franchise before him.

Agreed. Glad to see you change your mind on this to show how important that is in a debate when comparing guys who are the same level.

[Fencer reregistered]

One thing on accolades and so on between eras -- basketball is a much better-paying and more visible sport than it used to be. The competition to be in the league therefore is plausibly tougher.

That's somewhat less relevant to big men than to perimeter players, because if somebody is one of the tallest people on the planet, basketball is a natural pursuit for him, and that's been understood for decades. But even among big men the quality is up due to the international influx. Hakeem, Dirk, Ewing and Gasol all came to the US from other countries. Ditto Yao, Mutumbo, ...

[Baller 24]

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

Ouch, well he's still clearly a better player than any of the wing players you just listed, and I'd clearly say a tier above Pierce (always amongst the top 1-6, with Pierce season by season being 8-15). Allen nor Reggie Miller of all people do not have that argument.

[therealbig3]

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?

Gongxi has responded to this type of reasoning many times before, but basically...they're all incredibly team-dependent and front-office dependent. To use them in individual player comparisons is kind of silly. Just because you can't differentiate Pierce's season from one of Havlicek's doesn't mean you should arbitrarily assign value to something that he needed 11 other guys and a competent front office to achieve.

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

See above.

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

And I've compared him to the likes of Drexler, Gervin, and Nique, and I think Pierce is better.

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).

One person did bring up T-Mac, and many people have hinted at a possible T-Mac nomination in the near future. The whole "better than the numbers suggest" thing should show up in team improvement and APM, no? The team improvement that the Nets went through was due mainly to him, yes, but there were a lot of other factors involved. The offense barely improved, and the defense got a lot better, but guys like Jefferson and Martin were key to that also. Unless you want to credit an entire defensive turnaround to a PG? It wasn't like what Nash did with Phoenix. And in regards to the APM studies that we have, the multi-year studies show that he had a big impact, but it wasn't some inordinate impact, and he was actually behind Pierce.

And Pierce doesn't have absurd longevity? He's been an All-Star caliber player for 12 straight seasons now, and he's still going. Kidd's been one for 14 seasons, and in fact, saying some of those 14 seasons are All-Star caliber is being generous. There's also been a clear dropoff in Kidd's level of play...you can't really say the same thing for Pierce.

Not that much of a difference there.

[pancakes3]

One thing on accolades and so on between eras -- basketball is a much better-paying and more visible sport than it used to be. The competition to be in the league therefore is plausibly tougher.

I'm not entirely buying this. The collegiate ranks have long been a lure for athletes, ever since early 1900's. By the 1950's, the color barrier was broken. Even before '66 when UTEP beat Riley's Wildcats with an all-black squad guys were getting athletic scholarships to big name schools (Wilt to Kansas most notably)... so i'm pretty sure any kid worth a darn athletically was being recruited to play ball left and right at least collegiately.

then by the '60s the NBA was paying tens of thousands of dollars. not millions, but certainly enough to lure big time talent into the league - especially marquee talents. maybe the bench players figured they'd be better off selling cars or teaching school but not if you're a STAR. Hell, even Rhodes scholar and future senator Bill Bradley put his professional career on hold to play ball with the Knicks. I'm sure the Lebron James's of the 1960's isn't going to say "well screw the NBA, i'm going to stay here and work the rubber plant in Akron"

[Fencer reregistered]

One thing on accolades and so on between eras -- basketball is a much better-paying and more visible sport than it used to be. The competition to be in the league therefore is plausibly tougher.

I'm not entirely buying this. The collegiate ranks have long been a lure for athletes, ever since early 1900's. By the 1950's, the color barrier was broken. Even before '66 when UTEP beat Riley's Wildcats with an all-black squad guys were getting athletic scholarships to big name schools (Wilt to Kansas most notably)... so i'm pretty sure any kid worth a darn athletically was being recruited to play ball left and right at least collegiately.

then by the '60s the NBA was paying tens of thousands of dollars. not millions, but certainly enough to lure big time talent into the league - especially marquee talents. maybe the bench players figured they'd be better off selling cars or teaching school but not if you're a STAR. Hell, even Rhodes scholar and future senator Bill Bradley put his professional career on hold to play ball with the Knicks. I'm sure the Lebron James's of the 1960's isn't going to say "well screw the NBA, i'm going to stay here and work the rubber plant in Akron"

I'm thinking more of guys who weren't obviously going to be tall until a late growth spurt. Was hoops going to be their main sport growing up? It's been remarked that the number of black baseball players is going DOWN. Part of the reason may be increased urbanization among the African-American population. But part may be that more of those guys focus on basketball as their sports growing up.

[pancakes3]

Gongxi has responded to this type of reasoning many times before, but basically...they're all incredibly team-dependent and front-office dependent. To use them in individual player comparisons is kind of silly. Just because you can't differentiate Pierce's season from one of Havlicek's doesn't mean you should arbitrarily assign value to something that he needed 11 other guys and a competent front office to achieve.

so how should we differentiate Pierce's season to Havlicek's?

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

And I've compared him to the likes of Drexler, Gervin, and Nique, and I think Pierce is better.

another nitpick i have with the pierce talk. it's exclusively arguing the nuances between wing players (and kidd). how do big men like Hayes, Unseld, Dwight, and Rodman fit into the conversation? Also, i'd like to re-read your explanation to why Pierce is better than Drexler and Gervin.

[therealbig3]

so how should we differentiate Pierce's season to Havlicek's?

Well, compare the box score stats, and then account for the fact that Havlicek played in a much higher paced league, and he was less efficient, even for his own era. Havlicek was a better playmaker and defender, and I'm not sure about rebounding, probably Pierce.

Overall, I don't think there's much separation, if at all, between Havlicek and Pierce, and in fact, someone already mentioned they'd take Pierce over Havlicek, while ElGee said that Pierce and Havlicek are in the same boat for him. Personally, I think Havlicek gets a slight edge.

another nitpick i have with the pierce talk. it's exclusively arguing the nuances between wing players (and kidd). how do big men like Hayes, Unseld, Dwight, and Rodman fit into the conversation? Also, i'd like to re-read your explanation to why Pierce is better than Drexler and Gervin.

Dwight will surpass Pierce in a few years, but hasn't put together a long enough career yet. Rodman and Unseld...I just don't see it at all. Rodman is the GOAT rebounder imo, but his defense is overrated, and he was an offensive non-factor. ElGee made a post about how Unseld was a glorified role player, and I agree. The stats also back that up.

Hayes is another guy who was also pretty inefficient for his own era, and his numbers are inflated due to his era and the amount of minutes he played. But great rebounder, and I've heard good things about his defense. But that's about it.

As for Pierce vs Drexler:

BTW, can't you make the case that Pierce>Drexler? Last time I ranked them, I had Drexler like 2-3 spots ahead, but come to think of it, is Drexler better on either side of the ball? He was a better playmaker for sure, but Pierce has a decent edge as a scorer imo. He was stuck on pathetic Celtics teams for a while, and he carried them to mediocrity...and actually advanced past the 1st round multiple times.

He had an underrated peak, he has impressive longevity, and he's one of the best big game performers around. His playoff numbers are great, and he always seems to bring his A-game when his team needs it. Honestly, if I needed a superstar performance in a do-or-die game and I could only pick one current player...and Dirk was already taken...I'd take Pierce, over guys like Kobe, Wade, and LeBron.

Check his numbers in elimination games (haven't accounted for 2011):

24.5 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 4.0 apg, 1.4 spg, .8 bpg, 3.2 TOpg, .566 TS%

Not saying he should be nominated right now, but I have him ahead of guys like Payton, Kidd, Isiah, and Stockton, and until someone can prove otherwise, I'm probably moving him ahead of Drexler and maybe McHale. I think Pierce is massively underrated.

For comparison's sake, here's Pierce's and Drexler's efficiency compared to league average (TS%):

Pierce
01: +4.5
02: +5.0
03: +1.3
04: +0.1
05: +5.4
06: +4.7
07: +3.0
08: +5.9
09: +3.8
10: +7.0
11: +7.9

He's averaged 21.9 ppg over this stretch (878 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.2%. Pierce's TS% over this time was 57.1%, or +3.9.

Drexler
87: +1.4
88: +2.6
89: +1.8
90: +1.4
91: +2.9
92: +2.9
93: -1.9
94: -1.4
95: +3.4
96: +0.9
97: +1.2
98: +0.7

He averaged 22.1 ppg over this stretch (849 games). The league average for TS% over this time was 53.5%. Drexler's TS% over this time was 55.1%, or +1.6.

So Pierce scored on pretty much identical volume, with a good advantage in terms of efficiency, while being a comparable rebounder and was more durable.

Lol, I'm kind of ranting about a comparison that isn't even relevant yet, but for the people voting for Drexler, or one of the PGs that have been discussed...why not Pierce?

EDIT: I know that it seems a little weird that I'm using their numbers during years where they're no longer in their prime...but Pierce's highest efficiency seasons have been in the last two years, and he's still an 18-19 ppg scorer, so it seemed to be unfair to exclude those. Similarly, Drexler in 96 and 97 had pretty efficient scoring seasons and was still dropping 18+ ppg. It wasn't until 98 when his efficiency fell, but if we exclude that, and include 86, which some people might feel was his prime...you get identical results.

If we simply exclude Drexler's 98 season altogether (in which he's still dropping 18 ppg, mind you), it just makes Pierce's durability advantage even clearer...he would have played in significantly more games through the same amount of seasons...and Drexler's overall numbers probably don't change much at all.

And for Pierce vs Gervin:

Similarly, nobody is really explaining why Gervin should go over Pierce. Outside of volume scoring, how is he better? And it's debatable if he really did score better, once pace, era, and minutes are adjusted for. In fact, penbeast's post showed that Gervin averaged like 3 more ppg through his first 13 years than Pierce, on practically identical efficiency. And Pierce is probably a better rebounder (based on TRB%), and is definitely a better defender and playmaker.

ADJUSTED (pace adjusted points and efg adjusted ts%)

Drexler (league average 106.5) = 20.2adj ppg (.491 league efg) .556adj ts%
Gervin (league average 109.2) =24.7adj ppg (.482 league efg) .585 adj ts%
Pierce (league average 97.0) = 22.0adj ppg (.485 league efg) .584 adj ts%

The adjusted numbers show that Gervin is barely scoring more, once pace, era, and minutes are taken into account...and then you have Pierce's advantages in the other aspects of the game.

[penbeast0]

Havlicek (Adjusted according to the same formula)

Havlicek – Career 20.4 pp36 @ .537adj. efficiency
But with appreciably better defense

[Doctor MJ]

Oh wow. With my open mind for the next spot, I'd thought I might end up breaking a tie to let us keep moving forward. Looks like I have that opportunity: Baylor & Ewing are tied at 6...but then there's Pippen at 5 and right now I rate Pippen over both those guys. Sorry, can't do it.

Vote: Scottie Pippen. 3 way tie, we has it

(P.S. By no means have I decided on Pippen over Hondo, but Hondo's not winning this time around, and I am willing to be at least *this* pragmatic.)

[Laimbeer]

How about someone flipping Ewing to Baylor? Ewing was first team exactly one time. Never finished higher than fourth in MVP. Didn't play well in his only finals.

[penbeast0]

People that want to change their votes -- I am not going back through the thread keeping track of contingency votes even in case of a tie. You know the deadline, change or don't change before it appears.

That said, since we have ties and I am far more impressed with Scottie Pippen and George Gervin (for different reasons) than Patrick Ewing and Jason Kidd, I will switch my vote from Baylor to Pippen and from Howard to Gervin.

VOTE

Elgin Baylor – Jerky Way, JordansBulls, Laimbeer, An Unbiased Fan, pancakes3

(7)Scottie Pippen – mystic bb, ElGee, drza, Fencer reregistered, therealbig3, Doctor MJ, penbeast0

(6)Patrick Ewing – fatal9, Dr Mufasa, Gongxi, Baller24, David Stern, TMACFORMVP

John Havlicek – lukekarts

Rick Barry – ronnymac2


NOMINATION

Elvin Hayes – Jerky Way

Bill Walton – JordansBulls

(5) Jason Kidd – mysticbb, drza, An Unbiased Fan, ronnymac2, TMACFORMVP

(5) George Gervin – Doctor MJ, ElGee, David Stern, Laimbeer, Baller24, penbeast0

Kevin McHale – fatal9

(3) Paul Pierce – therealbig3, Dr Mufasa, Fencer reregistered

Willis Reed – lukekarts

Dave Cowens – Gongxi

Wes Unseld – pancakes3

[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.

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.

Seriously, I know that we're on opposite sides of this particular debate, but you can't just ignore the lion share of what I wrote and act like all I did was talk about accolades. In that long post that you quoted and the subsequent Kidd post I made just after, I mention:

Advanced box score stats
Plus-minus stats
Individual aspects of the players games and how they translate to different systems
Comparisons of those strengths/weaknesses in style and impact among contemporaries
Peak Play
Longevity
Team Success
Accolades
Supporting cast caliber

In general, I would say that is a pretty comprehensive list of the ways that we can judge a player. We all value different parts of this list in different ways, but I think these are pretty much the tools we have to do any analysis. I know that the frame of reference for your Pierce support is that he has been underrated in accolades, and you may even have a point. But you can't just reduce all of what I said about all of these different things into me all of a sudden looking only at accolades. Because it's just not true.

And MY point is that it doesn't matter which combination of the above I consider, using NONE of them was Pierce ever on the short list of very top in the league. Kidd, on the other hand, was. Yes, accolades are one area in which Kidd was considered among the very best with his top-2 MVP performance and consistent 1st team All NBA/1st team All Defense selections at his peak...but on the flip side, as I point out, Kidd was ALSO consistently finishing among the top-5 in RAPM on a yearly basis up through 2006 as well.

And though I didn't quote it, you mention that multi-year APM studies are the best. And you're absolutely right. The thing is, context is everything. In order for the APM studies to be effective, you have to be comparing people at similar aspects of their careers. Kidd entered the league 4 years before Pierce and was very productive in that time...in those 4 years he was the RoY and a 2-time All Star. The two multi-year studies we have access to both start well into Kidd's prime and extend well into Kidd's late 30s after he started slowing down. As such, they are comparing several of Pierce's peak years to Kidd's decline years, which I hope you would agree aren't what we're talking about here. So, in this particular comparison, I think that the single-season studies (using RAPM, which are in theory the best single-season APM studies currently out there) more accurately convey that Kidd in his prime was consistently measuring out as the solidly higher impact player than Pierce in his prime.

[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.

Seriously, I know that we're on opposite sides of this particular debate, but you can't just ignore the lion share of what I wrote and act like all I did was talk about accolades. In that long post that you quoted and the subsequent Kidd post I made just after, I mention:

Advanced box score stats
Plus-minus stats
Individual aspects of the players games and how they translate to different systems
Comparisons of those strengths/weaknesses in style and impact among contemporaries
Peak Play
Longevity
Team Success
Accolades
Supporting cast caliber

In general, I would say that is a pretty comprehensive list of the ways that we can judge a player. We all value different parts of this list in different ways, but I think these are pretty much the tools we have to do any analysis. I know that the frame of reference for your Pierce support is that he has been underrated in accolades, and you may even have a point. But you can't just reduce all of what I said about all of these different things into me all of a sudden looking only at accolades. Because it's just not true.

And MY point is that it doesn't matter which combination of the above I consider, using NONE of them was Pierce ever on the short list of very top in the league. Kidd, on the other hand, was. Yes, accolades are one area in which Kidd was considered among the very best with his top-2 MVP performance and consistent 1st team All NBA/1st team All Defense selections at his peak...but on the flip side, as I point out, Kidd was ALSO consistently finishing among the top-5 in RAPM on a yearly basis up through 2006 as well.

And though I didn't quote it, you mention that multi-year APM studies are the best. And you're absolutely right. The thing is, context is everything. In order for the APM studies to be effective, you have to be comparing people at similar aspects of their careers. Kidd entered the league 4 years before Pierce and was very productive in that time...in those 4 years he was the RoY and a 2-time All Star. The two multi-year studies we have access to both start well into Kidd's prime and extend well into Kidd's late 30s after he started slowing down. As such, they are comparing several of Pierce's peak years to Kidd's decline years, which I hope you would agree aren't what we're talking about here. So, in this particular comparison, I think that the single-season studies (using RAPM, which are in theory the best single-season APM studies currently out there) more accurately convey that Kidd in his prime was consistently measuring out as the solidly higher impact player than Pierce in his prime.

My apologies if I made it seem like I thought that was all you were using, I understand that you go way deeper than that when you make a point...I was just surprised that you used them at all, because I always respected the way you separated team results from a player, and taking media-based recognition in context. For example, Kidd would never have gotten serious MVP consideration if the 02 Nets finished with 45 wins instead of 52, which is a highly team-dependent criteria. If Pierce was a high-flyer like T-Mac, or he was such a charismatic personality like AI, his All-NBA love would be much higher, there's no doubt in my mind about that.

Simply put, I don't think team success and accolades like MVP voting and All-NBA really belong in this discussion, because they're influenced by way more than just "how good of a player is this guy?", and I think that just makes them inaccurate to a degree.

Some people just don't use stats to rank players...I just don't use accolades/resume. I used to, but honestly, after reading Gongxi, ElGee, Doctor MJ, and yourself argue for much better methods of player analysis, I've decided to use APM (when available), box score stats (although I do hold reservations about some of those stats, like PER and WS/48), and on/off. I feel it's made my player analysis more accurate, because I'm actually measuring their production and impact, rather than what other people think of them, or how good their teammates are.

For example, when you mentioned team success, I was taken aback, because you're probably the biggest KG supporter here, and you made great arguments as to why team success does not indicate how good the player is, or how poor team success can cloud just how good a player is. And I think it's safe to say that most people recognize how flawed comparing individual accolades can be...otherwise, I can say Kobe might be the greatest perimeter defender of all time, or at least top 5, and the All-D accolades and media perception backs me up.

I think every other criteria you mentioned is absolutely a legitimate way to compare players, and obviously I disagree with you that Pierce falls short in those areas, but to each his own.