RealGM Top 100 List #28

[penbeast0]

Bill Walton best year 19/14/4 on .563ts% (1977) then 19/13/5 on .554ts% (1978 but injured for playoffs as always) plus MVP and Finals MVP in 1977)

Wes Unseld best year 14/18/3 on .513ts% (1969) plus an MVP and ROY (1969); 19/19/1 on .574ts% playoffs; followed by 17/17/3 on .551ts% (1970), a title as team leader and finals MVP (1978) -- 11 seasons starting more games than Walton's best year ever.

In their peak years, Walton took a 37 win team (he'd been injured over half that year of course) and took them to 49 wins then went on a playoff tear to win the title followed by years of disappointment as his injuries racked the team until he left in Free Agency whereupon his injuries destroyed the Clipper hopes until he left them also as a free agent to ring chase as a reserve with the Celtics; Wes took a 36 win team and took it to 57 wins (despite Gus Johnson missing half the year with injury) then kept the Bullets a contender for the next decade eventually leading them to a title (as Finals MVP) in 1978.

Frankly, Wes's rookie season is nearly as impressive as Walton's only healthy one, he took his team to a title, and he was a great player for over a decade. I can't see how Walton ranks over him except as a mythic dream of "what might have been."

[Fencer reregistered]

The pro-Walton argument is like the pro-TMac one, except that Walton was the better player of the two, and Walton actually won a playoff series now and then.

[pancakes3]

similar efficiency,

Other pro-TMac claims may make some sense (e.g. play-making), but that one is a crock.

TMac has rarely had a season that has beaten Pierce's career average in any efficiency metric. (I think there were either one or two, depending on which metric you favor.)

Pierce has rarely had a season that's been below TMac's career average in any efficiency metric.

That's why I never said "better" i said similar. If you think Pierce's 56ish TS% is miles ahead of TMac's 53ish TS% and enough to make the claim "similar" a total crock then... i think you're splitting hairs to prove a point. overall Pierce is a better 3 point shooter by about 3-5 points and a better FT shooter by 3-5 points but really the two are pretty similar in terms of efficiency. mid 40's, mid 30's, 80'sish shooting percentages

However, i will say that post-big3 pierce has transformed into a noticeably better shooter than he was 5-10 years ago. if the current super-efficient pierce could go back and replay his entire career, i would bet that he could have ended being as good if not better a player than TMac.

[Fencer reregistered]

So is the claim now that TMac's best years were slightly better than Pierce's worst ones?

Even if that were true -- so what?

How about comparing their best years to best years? (Regular season only, of course, or otherwise TMac loses by default.)

TMac's best WS year is indeed ahead of Pierce's, and by a big margin.

But TMac's second-best WS year is behind Pierce's. The same goes for 3rd-best year, 4th-best year, 5th-best year, 6th-best year, and so on. Somes the gap is small, sometimes it's better.

If, instead if cherry-picking on the calendar until you can get TMac to come out ahead, you simply order guys' seasons in a way most favorable to them, Paul Pierce beats TMac every year of their respective careers except one.

[Fencer reregistered]

Continuing in that vein, Pierce has been at 7.1 WS or better every season except his rookie year and his injury season -- 11 in all, 8 times in double-digits. TMac has been that higher than 6.6 WS 6 times in all, 4 in double digits.

Of course, Pierce has a huge edge over TMac in playoff WS, to go with his slight edge in playoff WS/48.

[TMACFORMVP]

So is the claim now that TMac's best years were slightly better than Pierce's worst ones?

No, the claim has always been that McGrady was clearly a superior player in '01, '03, '04, '07, and likely the better player in '02, and '05 as well. I've still yet to see any sort of true argument for why Pierce is better than McGrady during their respective peaks outside of TS%. That should certainly be taken into account, and be weighed heavily, but we have to figure in McGrady's greater volume, and that he's a considerably better play-maker and passer. This is not saying that Pierce wasn't good in this aspect of the game; but I don't think he compared with McGrady in this particular aspect of the game. He was essentially the Rockets PG from 05-08. He even started at PG for the Pistons last season. His ability to find the open man and control tempo is what made him the better player during his prime. If we factor this in, that gives him more an offensive value despite a lower true shooting %. It's seen in the eye-test, and has been seen through the number of accolades received during the same stretch. I understand that it's not completely conducive of Pierce's game, but to completely dismiss it when they literally hit their primes at the same time would be taking it to a different extreme.

I sometimes think Mac's '03 season underrates what he did the rest of his career. If you completely eliminated McGrady's '03 season, he would have a six year peak of doing 25.3/6.4/5.5 with 6 All-Star appearances, 5 times making All-NBA, 5 Times finishing within the Top 8 of MVP Voting. I sometimes think that '03 season overrates his peak, but greatly underrates what he did outside that season.

Saying this however, the claim for Pierce is also a strong one (it's just not that he was a better player during his peak). It's that the difference isn't TOO large, and he makes that up with how well he's adapted to a championship caliber team, and has considerably greater longevity -- as Pierce is still going strong, while McGrady completely fell off after the '08 season. Those are strong arguments for Pierce to be ranked higher than McGrady on an All-Time list. But I just don't see what makes Pierce the better player during their respective 7-8 year peaks when McGrady was the better overall offensive player, comparable rebounder (TRB% would claim McGrady had the edge early, Pierce later, but we should keep in mind that McGrady plays a lot more guard than Pierce does as well), with similar caliber defense pre 2008.

[Fencer reregistered]

So is the claim now that TMac's best years were slightly better than Pierce's worst ones?

No, the claim has always been that McGrady was clearly a superior player in '01, '03, '04, '07, and likely the better player in '02, and '05 as well. I've still yet to see any sort of true argument for why Pierce is better than McGrady during their respective peaks outside of TS%.

Pierce wasn't just a more efficient scorer by TS%; he also was by any other efficiency metric.

According to Win Share calculation, Pierce peaked ahead of TMac except for ONE SINGLE YEAR.

[Fencer reregistered]

they literally hit their primes at the same time

That's my problem with this line of analysis. It assumes that Pierce's best years were the same as TMac's, even though that assumption contradicts stats, team results, and accolades alike.

[cpower]

Tmac was clearly the better player.
Are we going to rank players based on the ability to play basketball or some ultimate luck that eventually turned a player around from stat filler to somewhat elite all time great?

[TMACFORMVP]

I don't know if Havlicek's defensive edge is enough for me to give him the edge over Barry. Rick was a considerably better offensive player, IMO. He was more efficient, and scored at a significantly greater volume. He was also the better play-maker/passer, though Havlicek is very good in that regard as well. I'd even take Barry on the boards as well. I possibly overrate his championship season to an extent I shouldn't, but I'm still damn impressed by the sort of run he had in that post-season. His supporting cast was underrated, and I'm not saying he carried a "bunch of scrubs," but it was slightly less inferior than some of the other supporting casts of the elite teams. I think I'd definitely take his peak over Hondo's.

I've also started to get the notion that Hondo is a little overrated defensively. I've always been enamored with how he pressured the ball, and his ridiculous stamina; but from things I've read, in terms of overall team defensive impact, I don't know how special he was. Note, I'm not saying he wasn't good, or even very good, but elite, I'm not sure. I can't really back up that feeling, so I don't know how strong I am on that, but I've seen articles where Russell has had to switch onto guys like Chet Walker b/c a guy like Satch Sanders weren't there to defend the opposing teams best player. Is it possible that Hondo get a sort of "enhanced" reputation defensively because of his role with very good defensive teams with personnel like K.C. Jones, Satch Sanders, and of course Bill Russell? Or even Dave Cowens, Paul Silas, and Don Chaney? Or am I way off base? Again, I'm not even saying that he wasn't a good defender, he was a terrific defender for the most part, but game changing to the extent that I'd take him over the other areas where Barry has the edge, I'm not sure.

@ Fencer, I've already conceded that Pierce was a more efficient scorer (anybody denying that would be delusional). I'm saying McGrady's all round game makes up for that, including his volume. And this OVERALL makes him the greater player during his prime. As for "assuming their best years matching up," I'd take McGrady's Magic years over any of Pierce's best years, and some of his Rocket years (05, 07) over some of Pierce's worse-r sort seasons. I think when we're talking about a eight year stretch, that sort of line of thinking is the same, regardless of what years we want to pick and choose. And it would probably be cheap of me to dismiss WS as a huge head turner after you posted it, but I've never been a huge fan of that stat tbh, especially as a sort of end all argument. McGrady's the higher volume scorer, but with worse efficiency. They're comparable rebounders and defenders, but McGrady's on another level as a play-maker. We'll agree to disagree however, I think the arguments are getting rather repetitive, and really, it's so close that it's merely a matter of preference.

[therealbig3]

The difference is that when both were in their primes, and outside of 03 and 04, you could only make the case that T-Mac was slightly better. In the last few years, Pierce has been much better than T-Mac. In 01, 02, 05, years that people usually award to T-Mac, Pierce was at the very least right there with him in terms of production. T-Mac was clearly better in 03 and 04, and was clearly better in 07 due to an injury to Pierce. Pierce was clearly better in 06, 08, 09, 10, and 11, by a lot imo.

You could make the case that Pierce is still in his prime, because in his last two years, his scoring is still around 18-19 ppg, his rebounding is still great, his defense is very good, and he's more efficient than he's ever been in his last two years.

03 and 04 are right in the meaty chunk of the "5 year prime" where TMac is better and by a good margin. 01, 02, and 05 make up the other 3 years of the "5 year prime" where Tmac is still "slightly better." the later seasons, '06-present, discounting pierce's injured '07 season is outside of the "prime" years and so it's not surprising that people aren't on board with your "5 good pierce seasons for 5 good TMac seasons" logic.

I think if we're to really say that this is a list that ranks how GOOD of a player someone was, Tracy was definitely the better player. Kudos to Pierce for having great longevity, and he ranks as a top perimeter player of the 2000's for sure (probably even ahead of Iverson) but TMac was just a better player.

higher volume scorer on similar efficiency, better playmaker on less turnovers, similar rebounding %'s... and frankly PER tells a pretty convincing story here. TMac was a 25 PER guy and Pierce a 20 PER guy. You can say how you don't trust PER but when one player has a 20% edge in PER? that's something you can't just entirely dismiss.

The project is to take into account both how good the players were and how long they sustained it. Walton's been getting mentioned...but I think a lot of people are very reluctant to vote him in anytime soon, because he only had 1.5 great seasons. T-Mac had more longevity (7 healthy, elite seasons: 01-05, 07, 08), and he had a fantastic peak...but if you want to compare that to Pierce, who had a lesser peak, but has a lot more longevity with 10 healthy, elite seasons (01-06, 08-11), that's looking pretty favorable for Pierce imo.

It's part of the reason why Karl Malone was voted in so high. He didn't peak as high as some other guys, but he had insane longevity and durability...do you take Karl Malone for 19 years, who will give you 80+ games a season every year, or a slightly better player for 12 years, who will miss 4-5+ games every year?

It's 7 years of T-Mac, with T-Mac missing anywhere from 4 to 16 games (misses 15+ games twice), 4 years in which it's pretty arguable if he's better than Pierce anyway, vs 10 years of Pierce, who misses 11 games once, and never misses more than 3 games other than that. Are those 3 extra, healthy years from Pierce enough to overcome T-Mac maybe being a slightly better player in his prime, with a considerably better peak? I think so, but I can understand if other people don't agree. Either way though, they're pretty close.

I have T-Mac 3 spots lower than Pierce, and might move them closer, depending on how I feel in terms of T-Mac vs Drexler and T-Mac vs McHale.

[fatal9]

Vote: Rick Barry
Nominate: Kevin McHale

[therealbig3]

And again, if you want to look at impact, the 6 year 05/06-10/11 RAPM study measures Pierce's impact to be +3.8. T-Mac's is measured at +0.8.

The 10-year RAPM study measures Pierce's impact to be +4.9. T-Mac's is measured at +2.4.

Here are their single-year RAPM (Pierce is the first number, T-Mac is the second number); not including 06 or 07, because they were partial seasons for both of them.

03: +1.4 vs +1.1
04: +1.3 vs +0.7
05: +3.4 vs +2.0
08: +4.8 vs +2.2

I'm very cautious with the 1-year studies, because they're relatively small sample sizes, and as you can see, it suggests that Pierce was the higher impact player in 03 and 04, which are two years imo in which T-Mac had his biggest edge over Pierce.

But I was putting that out there to show that none of the RAPM studies show T-Mac as the higher impact player. The multi-year studies, which are the most reliable, have Pierce pretty easily ahead. That is mainly due to T-Mac being a nonfactor from 09-11, but I think it does support the notion that Pierce's extended prime and pretty good peak is more valuable than T-Mac's short prime and great peak. Because both T-Mac and Pierce had entered their prime in 01, but Pierce can still be considered to be in his prime, while T-Mac's prime ended in 08.

[Fencer reregistered]

Tmac was clearly the better player.

Why then, do you suppose, this is reflected neither in stats nor team accomplishments?

Might you be looking primarily at one end of the court?

[Fencer reregistered]

@ Fencer, I've already conceded that Pierce was a more efficient scorer (anybody denying that would be delusional). I'm saying McGrady's all round game makes up for that, including his volume. And this OVERALL makes him the greater player during his prime. As for "assuming their best years matching up," I'd take McGrady's Magic years over any of Pierce's best years, and some of his Rocket years (05, 07) over some of Pierce's worse-r sort seasons. I think when we're talking about a eight year stretch, that sort of line of thinking is the same, regardless of what years we want to pick and choose. And it would probably be cheap of me to dismiss WS as a huge head turner after you posted it, but I've never been a huge fan of that stat tbh, especially as a sort of end all argument. McGrady's the higher volume scorer, but with worse efficiency. They're comparable rebounders and defenders, but McGrady's on another level as a play-maker. We'll agree to disagree however, I think the arguments are getting rather repetitive, and really, it's so close that it's merely a matter of preference.

Agreed on the repetitive part.

I tend not to value volume scoring as much as efficiency. Yes, efficiency has a lot to do with teammates, but so does volume -- perhaps even more so. E.g., look at the period when Kobe had neither Shaq nor Gasol to play with. His volume, unsurprisingly went up. But his efficiency didn't go down.

It IS fair to say against Pierce that, if a guy has 20 possessions per game, and has one TO "too many" that's like a 2 1/2% haircut to his efficiency stats (5% of 50%), so maybe Pierce isn't really the more efficient after all. And indeed Pierce has some bad TOs, rather than just the ball handling equivalents of "forced" late-shot-clock shots.

But that still leaves me with my longevity, win share, and post-season-proving-it arguments.

One Pierce argument that HASN'T been rehashed much recently -- until Pierce/Garnett/Allen did it, people thought that egos would prevent that kind of combo from working. Positive intangibles marks to all three for having the whole team hit the court running. Miami took longer to click, by contrast, and arguably hasn't done so yet.

[therealbig3]

FWIW, I am re-evaluating exactly how important playmaking with low TOs is, like what T-Mac and Drexler brought to the table. It can compensate greatly for another guy scoring on higher efficiency, like Pierce.

Pierce vs Drexler vs T-Mac is something I'm internally debating. Will probably end up with:

1. Pierce
2. T-Mac
3. Drexler

I'm not overly impressed with Drexler compared to these two guys. Not that efficient, especially not in the playoffs, his rebounding and defense wasn't any better than Pierce's or T-Mac's, and I think his playmaking falls somewhere ahead of Pierce but somewhere behind T-Mac.

But since Drexler is already nominated, it's down to Pierce vs T-Mac, which is getting more and more even the more I think about it.

[ElGee]

I just don't understand how in the world people are getting John Havlicek as this much better than Paul Pierce. I continue to ask, incredulously, as, you know, one of the two Celtics fans in the project, where people are drawing these conclusions from.

So I'm going to try and look at this from a different perspective. When Bill Russell retired, if Hondo were some superstar impact player, wouldn't that be his Pippen moment? Well, the Celtics won 34 games (-1.6 SRS). Why? Because they lost Sam Jones too, who was a better offensive player than Hondo in his prime. And of course, despite a good reputation as a perimeter defender, Havlicek wasn't having close to the impact of a defensive anchor.

And contemporaries didn't think he was all that. A small blip for a period on the MVP radar during the most diluted league in history...and on a high-profile successful team, no less, with the career good guy (media darling) thing working on his side.

I'm with those who question Havlicek's defense. He looks like a good man defender on film -- that's great. But people talk about him like he's Ron Artest or Pippen...and I see no evidence he has the team defensive impact from that position. His adjusted rebounding numbers aren't even that good...

Speaking of which, I feel like people marvel at his raw numbers, but they aren't that good either. The guy definitely had a little gunner in him, and as such averaged per 75:
1966 17.6 pts/75 -3.7% rel TS
1967 18.7 pts/75 +0.7% rel TS
1968 17.3 pts/75 -1.2% rel TS
1970 17.7 pts/75 +2.2% rel TS
1971 18.9 pts/75 +1.3% rel TS
1972 18.8 pts/75 +0.8% rel TS
1973 17.2 pts/75 +0.4% rel TS
1974 18.2 pts/75 +0.6% rel TS
1976 16.7 pts/75 +0.4% rel TS

Why is he scoring less than guys like Pierce, Drexler and T-Mac? Because he can't generate as much as them. He doesn't pressure defenses as much as them. And he wasn't exactly a beacon of efficiency... He's just not the offensive players those guys were at their peak IMO. And yes, that's sort of the difference here, is it not?

[Fencer reregistered]

If these Havlicek doubts are correct -- and he was before my time as a Celtics fan, so I'm going off indirect information just as most of you are -- then is Cowens' peak perhaps being underrated?

The two championships are not conclusive proof -- the Pistons had two different title teams that won't place their guys on our list much better than Hondo/Cowens, and perhaps not as well. Other championship teams in those days aren't looking good on our list either. And there were some solid teammates (e.g. Jo Jo White). Hmm ...

Part of the problem is that few guys in those days had longevity. Hondo and Kareem are the two obvious exceptions.

[therealbig3]

Vote: Barry

Nobody is really discussing Gilmore at this point, and him and Barry are the next two guys on my list. I've seen great arguments for Barry, and since he's the only one of the two getting votes, I'll go with him.

[therealbig3]

ElGee, do you think Havlicek is better than Pierce, Drexler, and T-Mac, albeit barely? For example, he's not as good of a scorer, but how does his playmaking, defense, and rebounding compare? How much impact did he have on those Celtics teams?

I ask, because I don't know where to find those numbers. Do you have Havlicek's rebounding and assists numbers adjusted to 75 possessions?

And another question, why do you adjust to 75 possessions, and not say, 100?