RealGM Top 100 List #34

[ElGee]

Busy, but trying to respond to (some really enticing posts)...

My problem with Doc MJ explaining away the early NBA simply because there were 7-footers on the roster doesn't resonate with me. Basketball is a game of height, and that element (along with length) is spectacularly powerful. Maybe I overrated this because it was the defining road block in my own basketball career (that and my body impersonating Bill Walton's) but every inch or so counts when you add it up all over the court. I see this heavily in the transition from college to pros and have to think it mattered in the ABA --> NBA development.

What the heck am I talking about specifically?

(1) When I did some statistical analysis on the top ABA players from the years prior to the merger and in 1977, the stars looked great. Now, that doesn't mean everything else in the leagues was equal - the rebounding numbers were the ones that jumped. Why? Because on average, the ABA was a smaller league. Proponents point to a few specific cases of height, but that's not the average. When you play on a court with only one true big, or an undersized big, it generally changes the game above and around the rim.

(2) A great example is Ryan Sidney, someone I'm sure no one here has heard of. He was a touch shorter than me and in sophomore year at Boston College averaged just 8.3 boards per 36. That's possible in college because centers run 6-9 and teams will often play 6-5 to 6-7 players at the "4" who aren't natural secondary interior players. The highest rebounding rate by a player that size in the NBA since is 9.6% by Rajon Rondo, who averaged 5.7 rebounds per 36. That's a massive order of difference, and something we can explain away by assuming Ryan Sidney is an all-time outlying rebounder, or that those numbers were made possible by a shorter environment.

(We can see the same thing with someone like Rondo himself, who posted 7.1 reb/36 his last year at Kentucky.)

To defend Gilmore though, he holds his reb% for many years, including his first in Chicago.

Now, I've come around a little on Gilmore. But I still find so many arguments unconvincing on his behalf. Doc MJ points out his big rookie impact. But where was it the rest of the way? Whey did his MVP appreciation dissipate? Why is he never the dominant force in game recaps?

I'm being picky, because Gilmore was first nominated in the teens. I think he'll settle in the early 40s for me probably. I'm willing to view all the evidence and conclude he did indeed age poorly/was hurt by injury and that his first 4 or 5 years were pretty darn good. I had him as a top-5 player once or twice in the RPOY, and the other few years he's not far off. At this point in the project, that's not a horrible contributor...even if I do think his offensive AND defensive reputation are a little overblown around here by some.

[Doctor MJ]

LG, what are you thoughts on me specifically talking about lack of big men and Gilmore's shot blocking.

-I get why being in a disproportionately perimeter-talented league gives a talented big man essentially a mismatch on offense.

-I get why being in a disproportionately perimeter-talented league gives a talented big man an unusual advantage at rebounding.

-I don't understand though why it would have a particularly strong impact on a player's shot blocking 15 years after its been established that the most valuable players in the game are the tall guy who can keep you from getting a shot off.

Yes shorter players in general have a tougher time which could help a shot blocker, but shorter players aren't just in trouble against the Gilmore's of the world. They are in trouble against that long guy athletic guy a couple inches taller than them.

Were Gilmore someone simply thriving because of these advantages, I'd expect to see scoring and rebounding numbers inflated *more* so than the shot blocking numbers. Instead, his pace adjusted rebounding numbers hold up well, his scoring numbers actually arguably get better, but his shot blocking numbers take a serious tumble.

I'm not claiming I have 100% confidence in all the details of what happened here, but I have a real hard time following along with a narrative that singles out one ABA player as playing in the minor leagues while we don't see other stars in the league that way.

[ElGee]

On McGrady, I've gone over the details multiple times, so I'll point out the key notes:

-His 2004 season looks significantly worse by reputation because that Orlando team literally had a valid case for worst of team of all-time without McGrady. I've pointed out that this is not trivial at all...and that in the 15 games without McGrady the team was -13.4. -13.4!!!! They fired their coach. It was not a good year...and somehow that is levied on McGrady.

-In 2002, a year he was probably underrated, the team was -14.3 without him in 6 games! They scored 98.2 points per 100 in those games without T-Mac. Again, historically bad stuff. from that roster.

-In 2005, his healthiest, primest season in Houston, he actually did play very well with Yao. Doc MJ claims it was a shortcoming in his game -- I've agreed he has a flatter skill curve -- but I don't think it's fair to say he didn't get it or wasn't smart, even despite low % numbers at times. He was a high-volume creator with relatively low turnovers (better than being a high turnover player with better shooting efficiency). And in 05, after a simple trade set the lineup for the new year, Houston played at a +6.9 pace with McGrady playing great.

What's key to me about that year, is that as McGrady adjusts to his new team and ramps up his play, Houston turns out a good offense from him, Yao+PF and a Sura-Wesley backcourt. And without calculating the pace difference, if it held constant in the two halves of the season that would be a 111.5 ORtg post-trade with that lineup. 82games has Hou as a 108.6 ORtg team with McGrady in that season.

In 2007, we see Houston at 110.0 with McGrady on and 102.8 off. That's with high-minute units of Yao-PF-Battier and Alston. If those lineups played at 90.7 pace the averaged (they probably played faster) they would have produced a 116 ORtg according to 82games 5-man units.

So it's hard for me to focus heavily on a flatter efficiency curve as McGrady gets older/more creaky and criticize him for not achieving certain offensive levels with Yao Ming and a fairly defensively oriented coach and roster, when it looks like he did just that.

I don't expect Yao+T-Mac plus those rosters/schemes to produce 113+ ORtgs. But taking them to the ~110 level, well, that is the work of an all-nba level player. And if you think Yao has more to do with that than he's generally given credit for, I'd say go ahead and try and make that case. I don't see it.

[therealbig3]

Another point about T-Mac, that's more anecdotal than anything, but it's something that I've always admired about him when compared to Carter, AI, Pierce, and even Kobe, is that he's a very willing passer, and he really does have great court vision and passing ability. I think with a more balanced offensive lineup, in which he didn't have to score a ton of points (maybe around 20 ppg), he would have put up Pippen-like assists numbers, in the 6-7 range.

EDIT: What I'm getting at is that he did play the "floor general" that Doctor MJ refers to, the guy that can maximize the offense, and I think if he had gotten the right personnel around him (IOW, good offensive teammates), he could have and would have played that role more often.

In fact, in 07 and 08, he averages his two highest apg seasons, while scoring less then 25 and 22 ppg, respectively. The Rockets' offense stays around average, with Yao missing 34 and 27 games, respectively. Outside of McGrady, the big minute players who played 70+ games:

07: Rafer Alston, Luther Head, Shane Battier, Juwan Howard, Chuck Hayes, Dikembe Mutombo

08: Rafer Alston, Luis Scola, Shane Battier, Luther Head, Chuck Hayes (there were some trades I think)

What business do McGrady, that supporting cast, and 50 games of Yao have being around league average offensively?

[lorak]

vote Gervin (but if it would be close between Gilmore and Pierce, I'll change my vote to PP, because I think Gilmore is VERY overrated. he wasn't even better than Lanier, who isn't nominated yet...)
nominate: Iverson - it doesn't seem fair to me that TMac and PP are already in, but AI isn't.


BTW,
Jazz with Dantley during his first three season in Utah won 32.7% of their games. Without Dantley they were 2-15 (11.8%).

In 1983 (60 games missed) offense with him was better by 2.0 PPG, but defense was worse, so overall it seems he had negative impact. But that are results based only on raw PPG scored and allowed, so maybe in reality his impact was positive because with him Jazz had higher winning%: with 40.9%, without 35.0%)

In 1988 (13 games missed) he also had positive effect on Pistons offense (+2.3 ortg), but negative on defense (he was replaced by Rodman).

[Fencer reregistered]

Have we had anybody yet get on the list with his slot matching his number?

Paul Pierce #34 might have a chance.

[drza]

I went back through +/- data also and was very much impressed by how consistently solid he (Pierce) does. He's not a Tier 1 guy, but truly for the data we have, he beats Jason Kidd pretty soundly. Kidd's been in the league longer and so we don't know as much how Kidd would stack up in earlier years, but truly we know that Kidd's impact in Jersey was overrated and that Phoenix actually did fine with Marbury when Kidd left. All-in-one stats like PER don't give Kidd the nod over Pierce, so in the end what exactly do we have to say Kidd even deserves to be ranked higher than Pierce? Accolades. That's it.

I think the bolded are three extremely questionable (if not outright wrong) statements that you just made, Doc, as I don't think the data I've seen supports your stances at all. Let's tackle them in order.

1) +/- data: "but truly for the data we have, he (Pierce) beats Jason Kidd pretty soundly"

There are two relevant multi-year APM studies that I am aware of for comparing Pierce and Kidd: Ilardi's 2004-09 study, and Englemann's "10 year ranking" (which I'm not sure is exactly 10 years, but is at least the most comprehensive long-range study he has). We could use Englemann's 05 - 10 or 06 - 11 studies as well, but since a) it's clear that Kidd's peak was earlier in the decade and b) the 2 shorter/later studies were done by the same person as the "10 year ranking" so presumably should be factored in, it seems to me that the Ilardi '04-09 and the Englemann "10 year" are the 2 to look at. And the results of these two studies are:

Ilardi: Pierce +6.5, Kidd +4.8 (note, this "difference" actually overlaps in standard error)

Englemann: Pierce +4.9, Kidd +4.7 (Englemann doesn't list the standard error, but I see no way these don't overlap)

So, the accurate statistical conclusion that one could make from these 2 multi-year APM studies is...that there is no statistical difference between Kidd and Pierce over these time periods. So, unless there are other multi-year APM studies that you were considering that I have not accounted for, the next step is to then go and look at the best shorter-term APM studies that are available to see if there is relevant info there. As I've alluded to in the past (and as I plan to post in a separate post here, time willing), Kidd consistently measured out higher than Pierce in the RAPM year-to-year data from 03 - 06, with Pierce finally catching him in '07 and passing him in '08.

Considering that, again, Kidd was in the league earlier and thus should be expected to decay sooner than Pierce, it seems very intuitive to me that Kidd being consistently higher than Pierce in RAPM during their early overlapping peaks with a Kidd decline while Pierce maintains would explain how both of the long-term APM studies (one ending in '09 and the other in '11) could have Pierce and Kidd fairly even over a long stretch. And thus, the fact that during their shared peaks Kidd was consistently measuring better tells me that, at least according to the best APM data available, Kidd peaked higher than Pierce. By a reasonable and repeatable degree. This is important to the way that I have ranking in this project based on "how great they were at playing the game of basketball" as my top criterion. And to come full circle, my analysis would seem to run exactly opposite to your statement that Pierce "beats Kidd fairly soundly"...if anything it looks to me like Kidd beats Pierce in APM pretty comfortably.

2) "we know that Kidd's impact in Jersey was overrated and that Phoenix actually did fine with Marbury when Kidd left"

The 2001 Suns featuring Kidd went 51-31 (+2.63 SRS); 22nd ORTG/2nd DRTG
The 2002 Suns featuring Marbury went 36-46 (-0.3 SRS); 19th ORTG/12th DRTG

The 2001 Nets featuring Marbury went 26 - 56 (-5.3 SRS); 24th ORTG/23rd DRTG
The 2002 Nets featuring Kidd went 52 - 30 (+3.67 SRS); 17th ORTG/1st DRTG

Speaking in gross terms, with the point guard swap the Nets went +26 in wins, the Suns -15...the Nets had a massive 9-point SRS jump, the Suns had a significant 3 point drop. And in both cases the team that Kidd was on featured one of the best defenses in the league, that went way down hill with Marbury on the team instead.

Now, these are just broad comparisons and more went on in both cases than JUST the point guard swap. The fact that the differences appear to show up more on team defense than team offense is unusual for a PG, but as I pointed out in a long ago thread (maybe List #21?), it is possible (likely?) that the way we measure O/D-RTGs may not do a great job isolating whether Kidd's impacts should be included with the offense or the defense.

At any rate, I see absolutely no basis for saying that either of those teams was "fine" with Marbury in place of Kidd. Maybe you can't give Kidd ALL of the credit for the turnaround, but he definitely was a massive piece of the puzzle. And consider that we start getting individual +/- data by 2003 (just a season later), and that Kidd consistently measures out among the best in the NBA in +/- on a year-to-year basis immediately (and MUCH higher than any of his Nets teammates). When you put together the massive team changes that occurred in 2002 with the fact that Kidd was a +/- hero from the time that we have available data (which is the exact next year), I can't at all fathom how you could call Kidd's impact overrated. I've seen some refer to Kidd's '02 attention spike as narrative driven...to me, it seems like the anti-Kidd push back looks a lot more narrative than substance. When again, the quantitative substance that we DO have access to pretty consistently argues that Kidd's impact was very large.

3) so in the end what exactly do we have to say Kidd even deserves to be ranked higher than Pierce? Accolades. That's it."

I think that my answers for parts (1) and (2) would argue against this statement. Kidd's impact in '02 was clearly very large, thus the attention and MVP consideration that he got (which dwarfs any that Pierce ever received) looks warranted. And on a year-to-year basis, RAPM quantitatively shows Kidd to be the consistently better player over their shared peaks. Then, when you put that with the fact that Kidd DID consistently do much better than Pierce in the accolades and team success departments over the rest of their careers as well...I definitely don't overrate accolades and team success, but if they still stand up when put into context and the quantified data also agrees I just can't see how you dismiss them completely. And the bottom line, to me, is that no matter what direction you tackle this from it just seems to me that Kidd was a better, more impactful player than Pierce.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'd be interested in a recap of how Kidd's apparent impact on defense could be a misreading of what was actually offensive prowess.

The main mechanism I can think of for that is that you hurt your defense less with an offensive make than a miss, and with a miss than a TO. But I'm not clear on how that would map to Kidd's situation in such a numerically remarkable way.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, my intangibles take on Kidd is favorable:

Bad in Dallas v1, but that's the least important part of his career.
Probably good in Phoenix, but I don't know.
Surely good in NJ.
Surely solid in Dallas v2.

[lorak]

The 2001 Suns featuring Kidd went 51-31 (+2.63 SRS); 22nd ORTG/2nd DRTG
The 2002 Suns featuring Marbury went 36-46 (-0.3 SRS); 19th ORTG/12th DRTG

The 2001 Nets featuring Marbury went 26 - 56 (-5.3 SRS); 24th ORTG/23rd DRTG
The 2002 Nets featuring Kidd went 52 - 30 (+3.67 SRS); 17th ORTG/1st DRTG

Speaking in gross terms, with the point guard swap the Nets went +26 in wins, the Suns -15...the Nets had a massive 9-point SRS jump, the Suns had a significant 3 point drop. And in both cases the team that Kidd was on featured one of the best defenses in the league, that went way down hill with Marbury on the team instead.

Now, these are just broad comparisons and more went on in both cases than JUST the point guard swap.

Much more.
players with at least 1000 minutes:

2001 suns
Kidd, Marion, Robinson, Delk, Rogers, Elie, Gugliota (and then Tsakalidis with 947)

2002 suns
Marbury, Marion, Penny, Outlaw, Tskalidis, Rogers, Majerle, Gugliota (and then JJ with 913 and Voskuhl with 900)

So Marion, Rogers (but only 50 games in 2002), Gugliota, and Tskalidis are the only players, who played regular minutes in both these teams: 2001 and 2002.


nets 2001
Marbury (67 games), Williams, Kenyon, Harris, Newman, Van Horn (49 games), S-Jax, Eschmeyer and Douglas

nets 2002
Kidd (82 games), Kittles (82 games), Kenyon, Van Horn (81 games), R-Jefferson, Harris, Williams, MacCulloch, Collins

So similar story: 2002 team had healthy Kittles, healthy Van Horn and rookie Jefferson. Collins and MacCuloch also were very important additions which for sure helped to improve defense.

[drza]

I'd be interested in a recap of how Kidd's apparent impact on defense could be a misreading of what was actually offensive prowess.

The main mechanism I can think of for that is that you hurt your defense less with an offensive make than a miss, and with a miss than a TO. But I'm not clear on how that would map to Kidd's situation in such a numerically remarkable way.

I don't remember the exacts of my previous post, but the gist was that having Kidd as a point guard changed the way that his teams approached the game and that while the net gain was a positive in the overall team product, it may be difficult to decide whether the improvement was more on offense or defense.

The example I used was the way that those early 00s Nets played, and how that might differ with a Nash type PG. Those Nets played an aggressive, attacking style on offense/defense that was made possible primarily because of Kidd's strengths and also played to the strengths of the personnel. The games were a track-meet, and stylistically probably closer to the old-school 60s style of low-efficiency get-out-and-run-and-stop-your-man-more-than-he-stops-you than we've seen in recent years. Martin and Jefferson, at that stage of their careers, were hyper-athletic finishers offensively that also played get-in-your face defense. They were able to play that style, in large part, because they had a system and point guard that ended an abnormally high number of defensive possessions with the ball. Between his guard-leading rebounding and his near league-leading steals, Kidd was making the defense/offense shift very quickly throughout games. As such, the Nets naturally became more of a fast-breaking team on offense. Because Kidd was able to gather those rebounds, Martin and Jefferson were free to consistently spend more time and energy on their man without worrying about crashing the defensive boards. And the offense that the Nets did generate was strongly dependent upon Kidd, whether it was in initiating the breaks or even in creating whatever shots they did get on offense. But on the whole, it would certainly appear that the Nets were putting more focus and energy into their defense than their offense, and that a significant portion of their offense was coming from the break.

Now, were Nash the point guard instead of Kidd, I would expect that the team O-Rtg probably goes up. Very likely the Nets bigs have better rebounding numbers. They still could be a fast-breaking team, but it would be more of a traditional big-man-outlet-pass style, And in the half-court, Martin and Jefferson likely shoot the best percentages of their career at their best volume, with a much larger offensive bent to their games. And by the same token, Martin and Jefferson are likely spending less energy and focus on defense because they are concentrating more on their offensive responsibilities. Instead of pressing up into their man and just boxing out on defense, they now have to leave their assignments more often to crash the boards. And the Nets defense is no longer the top in the league.

Now in these two scenarios, the team O-RTG and D-RTG numbers would suggest that Nash is an offensive wizard while Kidd isn't, and that Kidd just lucked into being on such strong defensive teams. But, at least according to the offensive RAPM numbers from 03 - 06, the individual offensive RAPMs for Kidd and Nash look similar. And their overall team results look similar as well with comparable levels of supporting talent. To me the logical inference is that, as I alluded to above, the way that Kidd played allowed the Nets (and before that the Suns) to run a system that was more defensive in tenure but that still relied upon Kidd's offensive and defensive abilities and overall had a similar OVERALL rating/impact to what a team would have with Nash in his place...but that when trying to break down that impact into offense-vs-defense team ratings the difference is going to show up in the defense. But when taken from team level to individual level, as the +/- stats are designed to do, we can see that Kidd's impact is clearly there and large, on a similar order to Nash's.

[drza]

The 2001 Suns featuring Kidd went 51-31 (+2.63 SRS); 22nd ORTG/2nd DRTG
The 2002 Suns featuring Marbury went 36-46 (-0.3 SRS); 19th ORTG/12th DRTG

The 2001 Nets featuring Marbury went 26 - 56 (-5.3 SRS); 24th ORTG/23rd DRTG
The 2002 Nets featuring Kidd went 52 - 30 (+3.67 SRS); 17th ORTG/1st DRTG

Speaking in gross terms, with the point guard swap the Nets went +26 in wins, the Suns -15...the Nets had a massive 9-point SRS jump, the Suns had a significant 3 point drop. And in both cases the team that Kidd was on featured one of the best defenses in the league, that went way down hill with Marbury on the team instead.

Now, these are just broad comparisons and more went on in both cases than JUST the point guard swap.

Much more.
players with at least 1000 minutes:

2001 suns
Kidd, Marion, Robinson, Delk, Rogers, Elie, Gugliota (and then Tsakalidis with 947)

2002 suns
Marbury, Marion, Penny, Outlaw, Tskalidis, Rogers, Majerle, Gugliota (and then JJ with 913 and Voskuhl with 900)

So Marion, Rogers (but only 50 games in 2002), Gugliota, and Tskalidis are the only players, who played regular minutes in both these teams: 2001 and 2002.


nets 2001
Marbury (67 games), Williams, Kenyon, Harris, Newman, Van Horn (49 games), S-Jax, Eschmeyer and Douglas

nets 2002
Kidd (82 games), Kittles (82 games), Kenyon, Van Horn (81 games), R-Jefferson, Harris, Williams, MacCulloch, Collins

So similar story: 2002 team had healthy Kittles, healthy Van Horn and rookie Jefferson. Collins and MacCuloch also were very important additions which for sure helped to improve defense.

As I said, more went on than just the point guard swap. But compare what we know about Kidd and the Nets in '02 to what we know about the other two huge team-turnarounds of the last decade: Nash and the Suns in '05 or KG and the Celtics in '08. In both of the latter cases, a lot more went on than just one player. But also, in both of the latter cases, the eye test agreed that they were the 2 best players on the team...and the accolades agreed...and we had detailed +/- and APM data to quantitatively show that they were the 2 most impactful players on the team.

Now, consider Kidd in '02. The eye test told us that he was easily the best player on those Nets. The accolades tell us that the "basketball pundits" agreed with that eye test. And while we don't have detailed +/- data for the whole of 2002, we DO have detailed +/- data starting in 2003 showing quantitatively that Kidd was clearly by-far the biggest impact player on his team (and among the best in the NBA) the very next year and moving forward.

Now, just like neither Garnett nor Nash should have gotten ALL of the credit for their teams big turnarounds but DO deserve a big piece of the pie, the same is true for Kidd in New Jersey. The Kidd/Marbury swap was by far the BIGGEST of the changes for both teams, the team results were exact mirror images, AND the individual quantitative info from the very next year confirms Kidd's impact. I don't see the argument for minimizing his role in that turnaround.

[penbeast0]

Also if there's no official nominee from last thread, then I'll change my nomination from KJ to Paul. Still not wholly convinced about KJ vs Paul, but it seems that KJ isn't on anyone's radar yet, so I'll contribute towards the Paul vote.

Nominate: Paul

You are going the wrong way, KJ has more top seasons and better team success than Paul whose great numbers haven't translated into great team success. I'd switch to KJ over any of the other PGs, but it's too early for Paul though he should get in eventually.

[therealbig3]

Keep in mind that those single-year RAPM studies rank Pierce higher than T-Mac and AI every year that it's available...including 03, a year that I would hope nobody would argue that Pierce had more of an impact than T-Mac.

There's a lot of inconsistencies with the RAPM data, especially the single-year studies, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

The multi-year studies during the relevant years point to Pierce and Kidd having comparable impact, so it doesn't really contradict what Doctor MJ asked. He asked what do we have that points to Kidd being better than Pierce, and it's true, the only thing is accolades. Otherwise, using the RAPM studies, we can make the case that they're about even in terms of impact.

But we can also take into account what we know about Pierce and Kidd. We know that Kidd, despite having great court vision, isn't a great offensive player. I think Pierce has him beat on that side of the ball.

Defensively, Pierce is pretty good, but Kidd has the edge. But I don't think either of them have THAT big of an impact on defense anyway.

Kidd is a slightly better rebounder than Pierce.

Considering their positions, I'd take the better offensive player over the better defender and rebounder.

It also helps that Pierce has Kidd beat in the traditional box score stats too.

EDIT: Although, with regards to "offense vs defense", I get what you're saying about Kidd.

But I also think that Pierce can fit in different situations a lot better. In order to lead a successful team, Kidd needs a very specific set of circumstances, such as athletic wings that can run (Martin, Jefferson, Kittles), as well as other solid defenders around him (Martin, Jefferson, Kittles, Collins). Pierce led successful teams with Antoine Walker and role players. He can lift a bad team more than Kidd, and he can play a bigger role with a stacked team than Kidd, imo.

[therealbig3]

Also if there's no official nominee from last thread, then I'll change my nomination from KJ to Paul. Still not wholly convinced about KJ vs Paul, but it seems that KJ isn't on anyone's radar yet, so I'll contribute towards the Paul vote.

Nominate: Paul

You are going the wrong way, KJ has more top seasons and better team success than Paul whose great numbers haven't translated into great team success. I'd switch to KJ over any of the other PGs, but it's too early for Paul though he should get in eventually.

I agree, I would nominate KJ, but I don't want to waste a vote, and since Paul is the one getting the most love, and nobody but me has mentioned KJ so far, I'll go with Paul for now.

The vote is what really matters to me, the nomination just narrows down the choices. I think KJ will be nominated before Paul gets voted in, so I can make my case then.

[Lever2Beaver]

Gilmore's another that doesn't belong, history has it right, what you write is wrong

Forgotten cause he was forgettable, a footnote to the glory
John Brisker, Marvin Barnes, a bigger part of the story
From his ABA years he towered over his peers
A league without a big man until he appeared.
However diminishing returns after the '72 season
Only a single title, no excuse or valid reason
NBA days were even more forgettable
It's people like you guys who made O.J acquit-able

My case is for Cowens and Unseld and Reed
The heart of the NBA through the 1970's
It's a game for the big men and history is the judge
Cowens would not quit and Unseld and Reed would not budge
In or win the Finals for nine of the decades ten
Gilmore mostly AWOL; must I remind you again

Give me the guys who left an indelible mark
The ones who've proven their bite was worse than their bark
I understand and respect how great Gilmore could have been
I get why picking Chris Paul and Paul Pierce is becoming a trend
But ask yourself this, in 55 years
Will the next generation remember players forgotten by peers?
Open Loose Balls or Breaks of the Game
you'll rarely read of Artis Gilmore's name
Though the numbers suggest a colossal impact
it never really happened, I was there, that's a fact

Then there is Walton, who is consistently overlooked
but in 18 months time he had the basketball world hooked
Now injuries unquestionably devastated his career
But he did more than most ever did in just one single year
The point of the journey is to reach the destination
not to gather elements to get home, but stay on vacation
The ring is the thing, just ask the guys who play the game
A vote for Pierce or Paul or Gilmore is totally lame

[lukekarts]

I feel this Kidd vs. Pierce debate is quite a good one. The difficulty, however, is comparing players whose roles and positions are so different. For the most part, I'll ignore advanced stats, as stats only measure stats and not everything is quantifiable.

In my opinion, you have to compare their individual strengths relative to one another, and also relative to their peers.

Offensively, Paul Pierce was a very good scorer in his prime and continues to be one of the most accomplished all round scorers in basketball. Be it some of his early career flashy scoring, his exciting matchups with LeBron James, or more recently, his more efficient scoring, he's always been very good at that side of basketball. In creating for his team-mates, I think 'solid' best describes him. He's a decent, careful passer, though nothing spectacular. Overall, although he has only played with one team, he has adapted to various team-mates and styles and always been a good player.

Defensively and on the boards, he's been ok to pretty good. His rebounding numbers are solid, not spectacular; his defence has improved throughout his career, but he's not a game changer.

Overall I'm not sure he has ever been a 'great' player. There have always been a handful of better players in the league, throughout Pierce's career. He was never even remotely considered for an MVP award, because his impact has never been at that level. It's hard to find flaws in his game, but I question whether we should be valuing longevity and solidarity over ultimate peak; at no point do I feel Pierce has been irreplaceable.

Kidd on the other hand has flaws. Everone says he's inefficient, a bad shooter. But he's perhaps one of those players that boxscore stats don't fully do him justice. Offensively, he was a capable scorer. He stepped it up a little in the playoffs, though his efficiency remained constant. I never thought his inefficiency was to the detriment of his team though, he took an unestablished Nets team and lead them to the Finals. In terms of point guard duties, in his prime he was second to none. An excellent playmaker and passer, good handler, and with a unique fastbreak creating skill - derived mainly from his unusual knack for grabbing rebounds. Throughout his career, he was influential in running teams with winning records.

Defensively he's a step above Pierce. All Defensive considerations. Near league-leading steals; impact at defending 2-3 positions, and almost always the opponents best Guard. He was certainly a step above all his peers in this regard. And likewise, on the boards, he was better than most Small Forwards. That's freakish for a point guard. And as I've already touched upon, being great at rebounding was a big part of his game. Whereas most teams are a pass away from the point guard after picking up a defensive board, Kidd is already running the show. I think it's partly why he was so adept at running fast opportunities with Jefferson and K-Mart, back in the day.

Fundamentally, this unique skillset lifted him above his peers, and he was recognised as an MVP candidate back in 2002. You look at the Suns he left; and the Nets he joined, and the impact on both team's records was testament to this.

And that's why I think Kidd has been the better player than Pierce. And I love Paul Pierce.



Edit: I should note my vote is for Artis Gilmore.

[Lever2Beaver]

He's not a Tier 1 guy, but truly for the data we have, he beats Jason Kidd pretty soundly.

Laughing out Loud as the Kids like to say
Pierce ahead of Kidd, that'll be day
Kidd reached a level Pierce never touched
The leader of contender, a constant plus
Pierce on the other hand a quality #2
But I'll take the guy who who provides the glue

but truly we know that Kidd's impact in Jersey was overrated and that Phoenix actually did fine with Marbury when Kidd left.

You'll have to go back and re-read that chapter
50+ win team with Kidd, 40 wins before and after
Not sure exactly what you mean by overrated
The most important player the Nets ever had
well, since Julius was traded (sold I know)

All-in-one stats like PER don't give Kidd the nod over Pierce, so in the end what exactly do we have to say Kidd even deserves to be ranked higher than Pierce? Accolades. That's it.

The difference in accolades is too great to ignore
unless you disregard all NBA experts because you think you know more...

[drza]

Keep in mind that those single-year RAPM studies rank Pierce higher than T-Mac and AI every year that it's available...including 03, a year that I would hope nobody would argue that Pierce had more of an impact than T-Mac.

There's a lot of inconsistencies with the RAPM data, especially the single-year studies, so it should be taken with a grain of salt.

A couple of things.

1) There's a difference in scale between Kidd/Pierce and Pierce/TMac in those RAPM studies. For the most part, the year-to-year RAPM suggests that Pierce and McGrady were having impacts that were indistinguishable from each other. In 4 of the 5 years from 03 - 07, you'd be seeing values of 1.4 vs 1.1, 1.3 vs .7, 3 vs 3.1, 2.5 vs 2.2 for Pierce and McGrady...no real difference. With Kidd vs Pierce, on the other hand, you're seeing 3.8 vs 1.4 (the difference between top-5 and out of the top-50), 4.5 vs 1.3, 5.4 vs 3.4, 5.2 vs 3...consistent differences of more significant amounts, according to RAPM.

2) As always, I fully concede your point that APM studies (especially single year, even with the RAPM modification) aren't gospel and should be factored into the whole. But that doesn't mean that you just discard them if the results don't agree with your stance. You still have to look at everything when making your decision. All of the data is potentially flawed alone, but when taken in concert you get a more complete view.

With TMac vs Pierce, most people's eye test concludes that TMac was better in '03. The accolades argue for TMac. The box score numbers argue for TMac pretty much across the board, and the box score comp makes sense because they play similar positions and had similar roles. Then, we have this RAPM data says that they were difficult to distinguish in that time period. To me, my conclusion from all of the above would be that I thought and think TMac is the better player, but perhaps there wasn't as much difference between he and Pierce as I previously thought. The RAPM data helps me give Pierce more benefit of the doubt. I might not be convinced that Pierce was as good as '03 TMac, but I do keep that in mind as I filter in the rest of the data.

With Kidd and Pierce, my eye test at the time told me that Kidd was better before Kidd declined. The accolades argue for Kidd. The box score stats can tell different stories depending on the strengths/weaknesses of the method that you choose, but for the most part Kidd and Pierce measure out similarly with those especially accounting for positional differences. And the available +/- data from that time period also argues clearly for Kidd. To me, when I look at the full story, my conclusion is that Kidd was indeed better than Pierce. Just about all of the available data, warts and all, tells the same story without any real area of dissenting vote.

But I also think that Pierce can fit in different situations a lot better. In order to lead a successful team, Kidd needs a very specific set of circumstances, such as athletic wings that can run (Martin, Jefferson, Kittles), as well as other solid defenders around him (Martin, Jefferson, Kittles, Collins). Pierce led successful teams with Antoine Walker and role players. He can lift a bad team more than Kidd, and he can play a bigger role with a stacked team than Kidd, imo.

Again, I'm not really seeing where the data supports your opinion. It's usually difficult to accurately compare supporting casts, so on the whole I tend to trust +/- stats more than an opinion about how bad a cast was. And again, the +/- data from that time period would seem to favor Kidd. And if we step back into more broad strokes assessments (which you open the door to when you say that Pierce can lift a bad team more than Kidd and don't want to rely on the +/- data), then we have to look at things like Pierce leading his team to 35, 36, 49, 44, 36, 45, and 33 wins from 2000 - 2006...I agree that his cast was bad, but 3 seasons above .500 in 9 tries and an overall team record of 321 - 385 pre-BigThree doesn't scream that Pierce was lifting his teams to the heights by himself. Kidd's team results look a lot better. And again, as you know, I'm the first that says to look beyond the team results. But the best and most logical way to estimate a player's individual impact on team results is with the +/- stats, and again, Kidd's results look better.

And Pierce's best team results obviously come in the Big Three era. Kidd never got to play with nearly that type of cast in his prime. But we saw what he was able to accomplish with Martin and Jefferson as his 2 best teammates...would you really argue that if you turned Martin into KG and Jefferson into Ray Allen that the Nets (who were already winning 50+ games/year) wouldn't make the significant leap to contenders? We've seen Kidd play a starting/supporting role on a contender next to Dirk the last few years, long after Kidd lost his fast ball...would you really argue that Kidd wouldn't have fit in as well or wouldn't have strongly improved a team that already was a perinial mid-50s win team (and won a title) with old Kidd up to an even more legit contender? If you can't make a legit argument against that, I don't see how you can support your statement, because that is the level of talent that Pierce was playing next to when his teams went from 30s/40s wins up to 60s wins/contender status.

[colts18]

I'm going to stick with my Paul Pierce vote. Pierce consistently makes a team a LOT better by being on it, as he's demonstrated across several very different eras of Celtics teams. He's done it for an impressively long time. His stats are exceptional. His defensive eye tests are excellent, and he's been on a whole lot of good defensive teams.

His teams weren't always good. It's not like he was making a huge impact pre big 3. He didn't much with Antoine Walker.

Here are the SRS of Pierce's team pre-Big 3:

99: -1.75 (22nd)
00: -1.00 (20th)
01: -2.40 (22nd)
02: 1.75 (9th)
03: -0.74 (19th)
04: -1.99 (20th)
05: 0.34 (14th)
06: -1.59 (20th)
07: won't count it because he was injured

So the average ranking is 18.3 and average SRS was -0.92. We punish McGrady because of his lack of team success, but Pierce barely had any success pre Big 3 except for a ECF in the worst conference in history. He put up big numbers on losing teams. Only 2 positive SRS seasons.