RealGM Top 100 List #28

[therealbig3]

Here's T-Mac's TS% relative to league average, as well as his overall numbers:

01: +0.3
02: +1.2
03: +4.5
04: +1.0
05: -0.3
06: -4.1
07: -2.6
08: -5.3

League average TS% over this time was 52.8%. T-Mac's TS% over this time was 52.4% (-0.4). He played 557 games over this stretch, for an average of ~70 games per season. So he wasn't as inefficient as people seem to think, but he wasn't very durable, missing more than 12 games per season.

Over this stretch, he averaged 26.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 5.5 apg, and 2.6 TOpg.

[therealbig3]

In the playoffs for T-Mac from 01-08 (TS%):

01: -3.5
02: +3.3
03: +4.2
05: +2.7
07: -6.3
08: -6.2

Overall, T-Mac's TS% over this stretch was 51.9% (-0.9). He averaged 29.5 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 6.5 apg, and 3.2 TOpg.

[Fencer reregistered]

I didn't realize, to pick a contemporary one-man-accolade, that Jalen Rose rated Pierce the second-most clutch player in the league for the season just ended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EsiWUoFY5E&NR=1

The rest of his list was Kobe, Wade, Melo, and Dirk. Good company.

This Paul Pierce game-winner mix shows Pierce's pros and cons alike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFf6eDPs ... re=related

He has a bunch of them. A lot of that bunch are from two particular spots on the floor, which is a bit repetitive. On the other hand, he DOES succeed in getting to them and making contested stepbacks/fallaways that Kobe, Dirk, or Bird would be proud to make as well.

I do recall other game winners that aren't as boring, like the straightaway 3 that Stephen Jackson (I think it was) defended so closely Pierce decided to raise the arc and bank in the shot.

[ronnymac2]

McGrady was the superior peak player, and probably prime player as well. However, prime is pretty damn close, and Pierce has a longevity and durability advantage.

therealbig3 said it quite eloquently in the other thread: T-Mac vs. Pierce shows you what you value in a player. It's a comparison that offers you a self-test, where you can figure out what you like and what you don't like. McGrady vs. Pierce is your freshman year of college relationship.


I think I'd still take McGrady. I think his 2001 and 2002 seasons get underrated a bit, and his 2005 season overall is his second best season.

Still keeping my McAdoo nomination, but I don't feel strongly about it.

[pancakes3]

Well choosing TMac and nominating McAdoo keeps you consistent in your tastes, I suppose.

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.

The stats correspond: '01-'07, unless you want argue post-big-3 hyper-efficient 20ppg pierce against prime TMac. The team results? come on... It's not like PIerce transformed into a title-winning machine after 2008 on his own. accolades? well... that's because TMac was blocking his path to higher All-Nba squads. kind of faulty logic there, just a bit?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Hondo

So good points made about him. As I've said I'm shaped by the fact that at his accolade peak, dude was putting up scoring volume/efficiency numbers up there with prime Baylor & Barry with stellar defense. With the B's, part of my problem with them is that sometimes I think their scoring volume gets in the way, and in contrast, Hondo spent the first half of his career taking on a much less glamorous role and the team results were as good as you could want.

RE: Celtics fall off without Russell. Well, yes. I think Russell's the GOAT, and losing him (and Jones) was a big deal. I've been someone not damning stars for a few weak team seasons because I think it can happen to anyone, and of course the Celtics became great again with Havlicek. Obviously that didn't happen until Cowens showed up, and so I could totally understand someone nominating Cowens before Hondo. Haven't seen any of us do that though. To me Hondo was as important to those teams as Cowens was, and that's a pretty big deal.
Nomination: Pierce

Very tough choices right now. Did want to comment though about Pierce. Coming into the project, I expected Pierce to challenger for a Top 50 spot. Having him challenge for a Top 35 spot seemed crazy, and I'm still not fully convinced. However, I fully expected Kidd to be in the 35-40 range, and the more I look at their careers, the more I have trouble even putting Kidd ahead of Pierce.

Kidd obviously has a huge accolade advantage, but early on he had some weak competition, and then later on I think he got too much credit. I'll include myself as being among the people to give him too much credit for quite a few years. I bought into the narrative. Eventually though I realized it just didn't add up.

With the benefit of +/- data, we can now see objectively just how minor the defensive impact is of the modern point guard, and of course the Nets success came with a huge defensive improvement that happened to coincide with Kidd's arrival, and he got the credit for it.

When we then turn to Kidd's +/- data, we see an excellent player...but really for a good number of years now, Pierce has had the APM advantage. Pierce of course also had the edge in all-in-one stat territory, so why exactly do we think Kidd was the clearly better player?

[ElGee]

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?

75 is roughly the number of possessions the average star plays today. It's normalized to a number that is intuitively easy to grasp.

Yes, I have Havlicek barely ahead of them. Holistically, that includes the elements you bring up...I think he has solid but not spectacular impact his whole career. Those mid 70s Celtics teams really are like the Pistons ITO of build/success. Jo Jo White was no slouch. Charlie Scott, a headcase, could be a scoring machine. These were balanced teams...and I don't think it says anything in particular about Cowens or Hondo. One doesn't need to be a superstar to make that equation run.

[ElGee]

RE: Celtics fall off without Russell. Well, yes. I think Russell's the GOAT, and losing him (and Jones) was a big deal. I've been someone not damning stars for a few weak team seasons because I think it can happen to anyone, and of course the Celtics became great again with Havlicek. Obviously that didn't happen until Cowens showed up, and so I could totally understand someone nominating Cowens before Hondo. Haven't seen any of us do that though. To me Hondo was as important to those teams as Cowens was, and that's a pretty big deal.

I think it's more than that though. The only point about the "down year" wasn't to denigrate Havlicek, it was just to try and illuminate that he looks like he falls short of Tier 1 or Tier 2 impact players who can take dented championship teams and keep them competitive...especially in a super-expanded league.

That team was powered by the Cowens-Silas rebounding combo, good balanced coaching, fast pace (give Hondo's athleticism credit) offense and good scoring guards. Not a star or two. Growing up in Boston, I was NEVER told or given the impression that that was a bipolar team.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Lots of good discussions in this thread. Haven't been able to log on much the past week or so, and I don't think it's fair for me to vote and sway outcomes if I'm not actively involved.

On a side note in reference to Hondo vs Pierce, Drexler, Tmac. I think in overall skill he wins out. And as a team player, he's one of the best ever. Tmac's peak is vastly overrated. No one back in the early 2000's viewed him as having a super elite peak. His defense disappeared when he left Toronto, and he's one of the worst superstar leaders in NBA history. I remember on the old BSPN boards how there were almost daily quotes from him throwing his teammates under the bus after a loss. His talent could never overcome his mental shortcomings. Also, Drexler really has been underrated. If he didn't have to deal with those Laker, Piston, and Bulls teams, then they probably would have had a few titles, and his legacy would be very different.

[Laimbeer]

Anyone have a vote count?

[therealbig3]

My count so far:

Vote:

Havlicek-6 (Dr Mufasa, Fencer reregistered, JordansBulls, Sedale Threatt, Laimbeer, Doctor MJ)

Barry-4 (ronnymac2, DavidStern, fatal9, therealbig3)

Stockton-3 (mysticbb, penbeast0, FJS)

Drexler-1 (JerkyWay)

Payton-1 (ElGee)



Nominate:

Pierce-4 (therealbig3, Dr Mufasa, Fencer reregistered, Doctor MJ)

Hayes-2 (JerkyWay, FJS)

Miller-1 (mysticbb)

Billups-1 (penbeast0)

McAdoo-1 (ronnymac2)

Walton-1 (JordansBulls)

McGrady-1 (ElGee)

Reed-1 (Sedale Threatt)

Cousy-1 (Laimbeer)

McHale-1 (fatal9)

[Fencer reregistered]

The stats correspond: '01-'07, unless you want argue post-big-3 hyper-efficient 20ppg pierce against prime TMac.

Why not? His annual all-star invites aside, Pierce had most of his accolades, most of his team success, and most of his best stats outside of TMac's prime period. So saying TMac had better stats and accolades during TMac's prime is cherry-picking.

TMac was blocking his path to higher All-Nba squads.

What years was TMac selected at forward? I've never been able to identify any.

[pancakes3]

No one back in the early 2000's viewed him as having a super elite peak.

TMac/Kobe/Vince was all people talked about in 2001 as to who was going to be the air apparent and people lost their minds after Tmac's '03 season.

[colts18]

TMac was blocking his path to higher All-Nba squads.

What years was TMac selected at forward? I've never been able to identify any.

He had 3 years as a forward in All-NBA and 4 as a guard.

[ElGee]

McGrady was 4th in MVP voting in back-to-back years on a shoddy Orlando team...he most certainly was regarded with great esteem in those years.

I would like to switch my vote to RIck Barry.

Apparently, no one likes Gary Payton anymore. I'm not sure why or what happened -- he did fine in RPOY last summer and was regularly regarded as a top-5ish player for many years during his prime...never missed time and did well on both good and bad teams. I suspect THIS project has created a bias for QB-PG's after the wave of Johnson, Robertson and Nash arguments...but then again we voted in Walt Frazier a long time who has a significantly shorter prime and in no way shape or form looks much better as a peak player. *shrug*

Maybe we can discuss Payton more next thread, but if nothing changes I want my vote to count since I have Barry next anyway...

[Fencer reregistered]

TMac was blocking his path to higher All-Nba squads.

What years was TMac selected at forward? I've never been able to identify any.

He had 3 years as a forward in All-NBA and 4 as a guard.

My bad. Although even with looking more closely (at Wikipedia's listings) I'm only identifying two as a forward -- 2004-5 (3rd) and 2001-2. Confusing things further, that latter year Pierce made it as a guard (3rd team vs. TMac's 1st).

[Laimbeer]

Hondo is solid and my choice as well, but I'm flipping to Hayes and see if some won't agree he's more deserving than Pierce and flip as well.

He had three first teams, Pierce none. Hayes has 6 top ten MVP finishes, Pierce one at 7th. Hayes finished third twice, also led his team to a title. Top ten all-time in points and rebounds, pretty impressive.

In addition to that, the eye/gut test tells me a big with his low post game and defensive abilities (he made a couple second team all-Ds) pretty easily has more of an impact than Pierce, who's never been considered an elite player in the league.

Unless you just won't vote for him because he was a jerk, this is pretty clearly Hayes.

Vote: Hondo
Nominate: Hayes

[TMACFORMVP]

Why not? His annual all-star invites aside, Pierce had most of his accolades, most of his team success, and most of his best stats outside of TMac's prime period. So saying TMac had better stats and accolades during TMac's prime is cherry-picking.

I'm sorry Fencer, I think you're a terrific poster (I really do enjoy reading your posts), but I'm finding some hypocrisy and contradiction in this post. Isn't "cherry picking" the exact same thing you're doing? Do you really believe that Pierce's best seasons are his past three years, b/c of team success? And if that's the case, your argument almost SUPPORTS McGrady. Because in '08 (the start of Pierce's prime?), they both made the All-NBA third team, with McGrady finishing higher in MVP Voting. So if we would correlate this (as it's being used as an excuse that they didn't match up); McGrady in his absolute worst season of his eight year peak was considered to be roughly equivalent with Pierce in his best season. Isn't that somewhat telling? Pierce didn't even make the All-NBA team last season.

*Note I don't particularly believe this, but this would be the train of thought if one were to follow the sort of logic that Pierce didn't get beat out for All-NBA teams by McGrady because their primes never overlapped with each other.

Then you really think that Pierce these past three seasons would make All-NBA teams over McGrady in his Orlando years, and his '05/'07 Houston years (when he couldn't even get separation in '08)? And you really think that Pierce is that much better post '08 than Pierce in '01, '04, '05, '06 (the seasons Pierce failed to make an All-NBA team)? Doesn't that go against the whole theme of this project; not everything being so cut and dry about who has more wins? And I still haven't seen you address anything about the play-making edge, but rather point to win shares as a large argument. That same stat shows that Pau Gasol was the more impactful player than Kobe Bryant over their two championship seasons. If you do believe that as well, then there's no real argument here, but if you don't, wouldn't that be another example of "cherry picking" stats that favor Pierce.

If you do believe that '08, '09 and '10 Pierce are his peak seasons, and better than any of the seasons he's produced pre '08 (and would conversely make the All-NBA team over a prime McGrady), along with believing that Gasol was better than Kobe during their championship run, then I applaud the consistency used in the argument, and respect your view, but would ultimately disagree.

therealbig3 has made nice arguments for Pierce. His size-able edge in efficiency and longevity trumping the difference between their play during their prime (where McGrady was frankly a better player). If you value that longevity and efficiency over a greater peak/prime, you take Pierce, if you value a greater peak, then you take McGrady.

btw, my vote goes to Rick Barry

*Nomination, I'm still having a real tough time differentiating between some of these guys. Reed, Cowens still compel me, but there are good arguments against them. Then I look at McHale, McAdoo, and like them more as well. Even Hayes gets a tad bit underrated because of his malcontent behavior. Points are taken about perhaps modern medicine extending Walton's prime, and that might move him up a little for me, but that's a bit TOO hypothetical for me to nominate him right now (but man, I don't even think there was a huge difference between Walton's peak some of the guys in our Top 10).

I probably like McGrady slightly over Pierce, but I'm not completely sold on which I value more. I actually think Nique has a compelling argument against these guys too, which I might look more into the next thread. I don't think my vote was counted last time because I failed to get a nomination in, so to get my nomination out of here, I'll give it to Tracy McGrady as a homer vote. This could change next thread. I need to seriously evaluate the remaining candidates and decide whom I have higher.

[Gongxi]

I haven't been around a lot, but my votes are Hondo and McGrady.

[penbeast0]

... Points are taken about perhaps modern medicine extending Walton's prime, and that might move him up a little for me, but that's a bit TOO hypothetical for me to nominate him right now (but man, I don't even think there was a huge difference between Walton's peak some of the guys in our Top 10).
...

Maybe but on the other hand, I don't think there was a huge difference between Walton's peak and Wes Unseld's peak either (though the difference favor's Walton) . . . both strong defensive bigs without huge scoring numbers who were great passers -- Walton scores better, Wes rebounds better, Walton had a better postseason team, Wes had a better regular season team, . . . and then Wes added another 10 excellent seasons.