RealGM Top 100 #36

[cpower]

Players like AI used to dominate the game the way Pierce could never imagine.

Can you provide an example? Of maybe more than 1 games length? A series or collection of games at least...

During the 2000–01 season, Iverson led his team to wins in the first ten games of the season, and was named starter at the 2001 NBA All-Star Game, where he won the game MVP. The Sixers also posted a 56–26 record, the best in the Eastern Conference that season. He also averaged a then-career high 31.1 points, winning his second NBA scoring title in the process. Iverson won the NBA steals title at 2.5 a game. Iverson was named NBA Most Valuable Player; at 6 feet and 165 pounds, he became the shortest and lightest player to win the MVP award. He had 93 first-place votes out of a possible 124.

He was also named to the All NBA First team for his accomplishments. In the playoffs, Iverson and the Sixers defeated the Indiana Pacers in the first round, before meeting Vince Carter-led Toronto Raptors in the Eastern Semifinals. The series went the full seven games. In the next round, the Sixers defeated the Milwaukee Bucks, also in seven games, to advance to the 2001 NBA Finals against the defending champion Los Angeles Lakers.

Iverson led the Sixers to their first finals since their 1983 championship. In game one of the 2001 NBA Finals, Iverson scored a playoff high 48 points and beat the heavily favored Lakers 107–101. In the game he notably stepped over Tyronn Lue after hitting a crucial shot.[15] Iverson would go on to score 23, 35, 35, 37 in games 2–5, all losing efforts though the Sixers were not swept like many predicted.

In that year AI averaged 32.9 PPG in 22 playoff games.
In his career he averaged 29.7 PPG in 71 playoff games.
4X scoring champion
3X ALL NBA FIRST TEAM
MVP 2001.
He was rated the 5th greatest NBA shooting guard of all time by ESPN in 2008

What's Pierce got on AI?

[ElGee]

Yeah but I asked for you an example of Iverson "dominating the game the way Pierce could never imagine" and you listed a bunch of accolades and team accomplishments...things that don't reflect your statement at all.

I was looking for something like:

2002 G5 (deciding game) v Philadelphia: 46 points 6 assists. 82% TS!!! in his first decisive game. Video evidence here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ64tfHcIek

2002 G4 @ Detroit: 25 points 17 rebounds 6 assists 3 blocks 59% TS
20002 G5 v New Jersey (a loss) 31 points 9 rebounds 66% TS

2003 G4 v Indiana 37 points 10 rebounds 7 assists 67% TS - Pierce destroyed Defensive Player of the Year Ron Artest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M546oa0N ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD796H08J7w

2003 G2 @ New Jersey (a loss) 32 points 10 rebounds 11 assists 68% TS

2005 G2 v Indiana (loss) 33 points 7 rebounds 5 assists 73% TS
2005 G4 @ Indiana 30 points 7 rebounds 8 assists 76% TS

2008 G7 v Cleveland 41 points 5 assists 73% TS - The duel w LeBron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf9Z60uB ... re=related

2008 G6 @ Detroit 27 points 8 rebounds 76% TS
2008 G2 v Lakers 28 points 8 assists 73% TS
2008 G5 v Lakers (loss) 38 points 8 assists 6 rebounds 63% TS - took over in the second half of G4 v peak Kobe and G5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlX1lpwBKwc

2010 G1 v Miami 32 points 8 rebounds 60% TS
2010 G4 v Orlando (loss) 32 points 11 rebounds 52% TS
2010 G6 v Orlando 31 points 13 rebounds 5 assists 80% TS

How good was this game? Just the 23rd playoff in the last 25 years of 30-10-5 and 60% FG shooting. Only the 5th by a non-big (James twice, Jordan and Manu have the others) 3 others used OT. Only two of those games had better TS%.

That's 14 playoff gems.

Paul Pierce in elimination or closeout games. (thru 2010)

Decisive: 6g 27.3 ppg 5.7 rpg 4.0 apg 61.5% TS
Elimination: 10g 25.2 ppg 7.3 rpg 4.2 apg 57.1% TS
Closeout: 23g 23.0 ppg 6.3 rpg 4.5 apg 58.9% TS

*E for elimination, C for closeout, D for decisive (Game 5 or Game 7s)

2002
C @ Phi 20 pts 8 reb 2 ast 7-16 4-6 FT
D v Phi 46-4-6 16-25 6-7 FT *0 TO
C @ Det 18-5-3 5-13 8-9 FT
E v NJ 14-7-4 5-16 2-4 FT

2003
C @ Ind 16-5-8 5-21 5-6 FT
C v Ind 27-8-4 11-21 3-5 FT
E v NJ 27-10-7 7-24 12-14 FT

2004
E v Ind 27-11-1 10-23 4-4 FT

2005
E @ Ind 20-11-6 7-12 6-6 FT *4 steals 1 TO
D v Ind 19-7-3 6-13 7-7 FT

2008
C @ Atl 17-1-6 7-12 2-4 FT
D v Atl 22-8-3 7-20 6-7 FT
C @ Cle 16-5-3 5-15 4-4 FT
D v le 41-4-5 13-23 11-12 FT
C @ Det 27-8-3 8-12 10-13 FT
C @ LAL 38-6-8 10-22 16-19 FT
C v LAL 17-3-10 4-13 7-8

2009
C @ Chi 22-9-2 5-13 11-12 FT
D v Chi 20-9-4 6-17 7-8 FT
C @ Orl 17-9-5 6-14 5-8 FT
D v Orl 16-2-3 4-13 7-10 FT

2010
C @ Mia 16-4-4 6-14 2-3 FT
C v Mia 21-7-6 8-13 3-5 FT
C v Cle 13-5-3 4-13 2-2 FT
C v Orl 32-11-3 11-25 10-13 FT
C @ Orl 18-3-3 3-8 10-10 FT
C v Orl 31-13-5 9-15 9-10 FT

[lorak]

I agree this is too high for Pierce. Never made a first team, highest MVP finish 7, never considered capable of being the guy on a title team. I'm pretty comfortable that Hayes and Cowens are above him, and as much as I dislike him as a team player, Iverson belongs higher for some of his individual accomplishments. All of those were far more impactful in their prime.

Vote: Elvin Hayes
Nominate: Mookie Blaylock (protest vote re:absence of Cousy)

If you would officially vote for Cousy he would have chance to be nominated....

[ronnymac2]

Yeah but I asked for you an example of Iverson "dominating the game the way Pierce could never imagine" and you listed a bunch of accolades and team accomplishments...things that don't reflect your statement at all.

I was looking for something like:

2002 G5 (deciding game) v Philadelphia: 46 points 6 assists. 82% TS!!! in his first decisive game. Video evidence here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ64tfHcIek

2002 G4 @ Detroit: 25 points 17 rebounds 6 assists 3 blocks 59% TS
20002 G5 v New Jersey (a loss) 31 points 9 rebounds 66% TS

2003 G4 v Indiana 37 points 10 rebounds 7 assists 67% TS - Pierce destroyed Defensive Player of the Year Ron Artest. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M546oa0N ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD796H08J7w

2003 G2 @ New Jersey (a loss) 32 points 10 rebounds 11 assists 68% TS

2005 G2 v Indiana (loss) 33 points 7 rebounds 5 assists 73% TS
2005 G4 @ Indiana 30 points 7 rebounds 8 assists 76% TS

2008 G7 v Cleveland 41 points 5 assists 73% TS - The duel w LeBron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf9Z60uB ... re=related

2008 G6 @ Detroit 27 points 8 rebounds 76% TS
2008 G2 v Lakers 28 points 8 assists 73% TS
2008 G5 v Lakers (loss) 38 points 8 assists 6 rebounds 63% TS - took over in the second half of G4 v peak Kobe and G5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlX1lpwBKwc

2010 G1 v Miami 32 points 8 rebounds 60% TS
2010 G4 v Orlando (loss) 32 points 11 rebounds 52% TS
2010 G6 v Orlando 31 points 13 rebounds 5 assists 80% TS

How good was this game? Just the 23rd playoff in the last 25 years of 30-10-5 and 60% FG shooting. Only the 5th by a non-big (James twice, Jordan and Manu have the others) 3 others used OT. Only two of those games had better TS%.

That's 14 playoff gems.

Paul Pierce in elimination or closeout games. (thru 2010)

Decisive: 6g 27.3 ppg 5.7 rpg 4.0 apg 61.5% TS
Elimination: 10g 25.2 ppg 7.3 rpg 4.2 apg 57.1% TS
Closeout: 23g 23.0 ppg 6.3 rpg 4.5 apg 58.9% TS

*E for elimination, C for closeout, D for decisive (Game 5 or Game 7s)

2002
C @ Phi 20 pts 8 reb 2 ast 7-16 4-6 FT
D v Phi 46-4-6 16-25 6-7 FT *0 TO
C @ Det 18-5-3 5-13 8-9 FT
E v NJ 14-7-4 5-16 2-4 FT

2003
C @ Ind 16-5-8 5-21 5-6 FT
C v Ind 27-8-4 11-21 3-5 FT
E v NJ 27-10-7 7-24 12-14 FT

2004
E v Ind 27-11-1 10-23 4-4 FT

2005
E @ Ind 20-11-6 7-12 6-6 FT *4 steals 1 TO
D v Ind 19-7-3 6-13 7-7 FT

2008
C @ Atl 17-1-6 7-12 2-4 FT
D v Atl 22-8-3 7-20 6-7 FT
C @ Cle 16-5-3 5-15 4-4 FT
D v le 41-4-5 13-23 11-12 FT
C @ Det 27-8-3 8-12 10-13 FT
C @ LAL 38-6-8 10-22 16-19 FT
C v LAL 17-3-10 4-13 7-8

2009
C @ Chi 22-9-2 5-13 11-12 FT
D v Chi 20-9-4 6-17 7-8 FT
C @ Orl 17-9-5 6-14 5-8 FT
D v Orl 16-2-3 4-13 7-10 FT

2010
C @ Mia 16-4-4 6-14 2-3 FT
C v Mia 21-7-6 8-13 3-5 FT
C v Cle 13-5-3 4-13 2-2 FT
C v Orl 32-11-3 11-25 10-13 FT
C @ Orl 18-3-3 3-8 10-10 FT
C v Orl 31-13-5 9-15 9-10 FT

I value how a player goes out in the end, too. But ****, c'mon...there are other games in a series, too. And you know Iverson had incredible playoff games, too.

[drza]

Yeah but I asked for you an example of Iverson "dominating the game the way Pierce could never imagine" and you listed a bunch of accolades and team accomplishments...things that don't reflect your statement at all.

I was looking for something like:

(snip) ...

That's 14 playoff gems.

Iverson/Pierce in playoffs

The gauntlet has been dropped! Here are 14 ridiculous Iverson playoff games...

1999
o R1 G3 vs Orl, W: 33 points, 10 steals (!), 5 asts, 5 reb, 2 blks, 50% FG, GS 32.6
o R1 G4 vs Orl, W: 37 points, 9 asts, 3 reb, 2 stl, 52% FG, GS 28.5

2000
o R1 G1 @ Char, W: 40 points, 5 reb, 3 ast, 3 stl, 52% FG, GS 29.1

2001
o R1 G2 Ind, W: 45 points, 9 asts, 3 reb, 2 stl, 56% FG, GS 35.7
o R2 G2 Tor, W: 54 points, 5 reb, 4 asts, 1 stl, 54% FG, GS 35.6
o R2 G5 Tor, W: 52 points, 7 asts, 4 stls, 2 reb, 1 TO, 66% FG, GS 45.3
o ECF G6 Mil, Closeout: 44 points, 7 asts, 6 reb, 2 stl, 52% FG, GS 32.8
o Finals G1 @ LAL, W (only win against Lakers that postseason); 48 points, 6 asts, 5 stls, 5 reb, 44% FG, GS 35

2002
o R1 G3 Bos, W: 42 points, 5 reb, 4 ast, 5 stl, 10/23 FG, 19/20 FT, GS 34.6

2003
o R1 G1 NOH, W: 55 points, 8 asts, 4 reb, 2 stl, 66% FG (32 shots), GS 44.6
o R1 G6 NOH, Closeout, 45 points, 7 reb, 4 asts, 2 stls, 47% FG (30 shots), GS 31.7
o R2 G4 Det, W: 36 points, 11 asts, 5 reb, 5 stl, 48% FG, GS 30.9

2005
o R1 G3 Det, W: 37 points, 15 asts, 3 reb, 2 stl, 58% FG, GS 34
o R1 G4 Det, L: 36 points, 8 asts, 5 reb, 1 stl, 1 blk, 58% FG, GS 29.8

Analysis One thing that jumped out at me was that in these 14 games Iverson was absurd, not just great. Several of the Pierce games you quote, to me, don't seem to be on the same level as Iverson's...and the best of Iverson's are better than any of Pierce's (seriously, 52 points on 66% shooting from the field?). So, using a rough/ready stat like game score (GS) as a quick way to encapsulate those box scores, I see that...

The lowest of Iverson's 14 "gems" listed has a game score of 28.5. Pierce only eclipsed that score 8 times in his career. On the flip side, Pierce's career-best GS in a postseason game was 41.6 (the only time he ever had a GS as high as 34). Iverson's eclipsed 41.6 twice, but had game scores of at least 34 on 7 occasions.

But let's not stop there.

I expected coming into this that Iverson would have better high-end numbers than Pierce (which already satisfies the criterion of "reached a higher level than Pierce"), but I also came in expecting that Iverson might have lower lows as well. Instead, I find the opposite to be the case over their postseason careers: Pierce's ratio of good games to clunkers is much lower than Iverson's. To whit (again using game score):

Pierce: 110 career postseason games
32 games with a game score <= 10 (including 3 < 0 !)
26 games with game score > 20 (including 7 over 28)

Iverson: 71 career postseason games
15 games with game score <= 10 (including 0 < 0)
26 games with game score > 20 (including 14 over 28)

So in quick summary, over his playoff career Pierce has turned in a clunker almost once every three games. In fact, he's turned in more clunkers than he has really good games.

On the flip side, Iverson has a lower rate of bad games and a higher rate of really good games (and also a much higher rate of awesome games). In fact, Iverson's ratio of really good games vs clunkers is more than twice as high as Pierce's.

So, yeah. Pierce has been a good playoff performer over his career, but Iverson has been a better one. And bringing it back to what the other guy was suggesting, in the postseason Iverson DID hit levels that Pierce never hit.

[penbeast0]

Re: Iverson -- if you jack up 35 shots a game, even if you suck and shoot only 35%, you will score some volume games and will have good games and bad ones. What separates the true stars from the selfish gunners is the ability to shoot AND MAKE the shots. Scoring 35 points on 40 shots rarely helps your team . . . especially if you have a "star" attitude like Iverson and don't believe rules about practice apply to you and take rests on defense.

[drza]

Re: Iverson -- if you jack up 35 shots a game, even if you suck and shoot only 35%, you will score some volume games and will have good games and bad ones. What separates the true stars from the selfish gunners is the ability to shoot AND MAKE the shots. Scoring 35 points on 40 shots rarely helps your team . . . especially if you have a "star" attitude like Iverson and don't believe rules about practice apply to you and take rests on defense.

Go back and look at the games that I posted... he shot well in all of them, and in 11 of them he was over 50% from the field. It's a myth that Iverson was ALWAYS just low-effiency gunning to get his points.

And in this comparison, it seems that it's a myth that he was having more bad games than good, since as I point out his ratio of postseason great games vs clunkers is a lot better than Pierce's.

[lilojmayo]

jason kidd

[lorak]

vote: Kidd
nominate: Manu

Very interesting. I'd love to see someone else make a case for Manu as well, so that mine isn't the only one out there. What makes you think that Manu deserves this slot over some of the others under consideration? He has the obvious overlapping "weaknesses" of having never played huge minutes or been the entire focal point of his team...in your view, how does he overcome that?

Well, I think that even in less playing time he gives team more than any player left in more minutes.
And I believe his MPG in NBA is a result of system/coach in San Antionio. In different situation he could be a leader playing more minutes. And in some way he proved it outside of NBA - he led his teams to Italian league championships, Euroleague championship and of course gold medal during 2004 Olympics game. Sure, this project is only about NBA and there are many players who were great in Europe but mediocre in NBA (Jasikievicus and Navarro for example, who BTW are playing at European Championships at the moment - great tourney so far, I highly recommended all of you to watch some games, really good basketball with many NBA players), however Manu is not one of these players - he clearly is very good in NBA.

[Lever2Beaver]

Here's a few stats that I'd like to add
they show Pierce not as good and AI not as bad...

In 110 playoff games Pierce shot over 50% 23 times or 20% of the time.
In 71 playoff games Iverson shot over 50% 13 times or 18% of the time.

Pierce shot under 40% in 51 of 110 games or 46% of the time.
Iverson shot under 40% in 35 of 71 games or 49% of the time.

Take the Denver years and AI's percentages go
to 19 and 48 almost exactly what Pierce's show

Additionally

35-point postseason games
Iverson - 21
Pierce - 6

40-point postseason games
Iverson - 10
Pierce - 3

50-point postseason games
Iverson - 3
Pierce - 0

Games with at least 10 rebounds, assists or steals
Iverson - 11
Pierce - 22

At no point in time from 99 to '06 did Paul Pierce receive
as many votes as AI for All-NBA or the MVP

[Laimbeer]

Vote-Elvin Hayes
Nominate-Bob Cousy (Mookie Blaylock protest suspended )

[ElGee]

Wow. That opened up a can of worms.

@ronnymac - did you read the post? seriously...the dude said something preposterous. I never said Iverson didn't have good games or in no way shape or form did I say anything negative about Iverson.

@drza - TS% needs to be included and GS is partial toward higher FGA's I believe, no?

That said, cool post. Iverson's 2001 scoring was just awesome...although I still think it's fair to side with either player for peak. (Peak Pierce was pretty dang good all-around...he just didn't really have a team to play in the PS with)

I like the analysis, although I'm not all the way there with you because scoring 35-40 points on super high efficiency against good defenses in low-pace PS games as an all-around player is pretty damn awesome. And the 08 and 10 games are on multipolar teams where 32 points is a boatload. Really, that game I highlighted against Orlando *felt* like a monstrous performance...

Interesting thought: Iverson's G2 v. the Lakers or Pierce's G5 (08)? Which was better and why?

[therealbig3]

My count so far:

Vote:

Kidd-3 (drza, DavidStern, lukekarts)

Pierce-3 (Dr Mufasa, therealbig3, Fencer reregistered)

T-Mac-2 (ElGee, ronnymac2)

D12-1 (penbeast0)

Hayes-1 (Laimbeer)

Dominique-1 (JordansBulls)



Nominate:

Cousy-3 (JordansBulls, Fencer reregistered, Laimbeer)

Reed-2 (lukekarts, Dr Mufasa)

Miller-2 (ElGee, Doctor MJ)

Ginobili-1 (DavidStern)

KJ-1 (therealbig3)

Moncrief-1 (penbeast0)

King-1 (ronnymac2)



Cousy is actually leading the nomination...although if DavidStern hadn't reminded Laimbeer, Mookie Blaylock would be in a 5-way tie for 2nd place

[Doctor MJ]

Alright, here it is then:

Vote: Paul Pierce

[drza]

Nominate: Willis Reed

[SDChargers#1]

I am in the Pierce is being slightly overrated group.

Vote: Jason Kidd

He did more as the leader of a team. Though Pierce has had a very good career, and deserves higher than the 70s ranking he got last project, I still don't see him as a top 40 player ever. Kidd on the other hand is a top 5-6 PG ever in my book, is one of the best rebounding PGs ever, one of the best defending PGs ever, and a fantastic passer. If he could score efficiently it would have been amazing to see what he can do.

Nominate: Bob Cousy

[Laimbeer]

My count so far:

Vote:

Kidd-3 (drza, DavidStern, lukekarts)

Pierce-3 (Dr Mufasa, therealbig3, Fencer reregistered)

T-Mac-2 (ElGee, ronnymac2)

D12-1 (penbeast0)

Hayes-1 (Laimbeer)

Dominique-1 (JordansBulls)



Nominate:

Cousy-3 (JordansBulls, Fencer reregistered, Laimbeer)

Reed-2 (lukekarts, Dr Mufasa)

Miller-2 (ElGee, Doctor MJ)

Ginobili-1 (DavidStern)

KJ-1 (therealbig3)

Moncrief-1 (penbeast0)

King-1 (ronnymac2)



Cousy is actually leading the nomination...although if DavidStern hadn't reminded Laimbeer, Mookie Blaylock would be in a 5-way tie for 2nd place

Okay, you've awakened the sleeping giant. I'll change my vote as well with Hayes out of it. A bit high for Kidd, but more so for Pierce.

Vote: Jason Kidd
Nominate: Bob Cousy

[ronnymac2]

I'm changing my nomination to Willis Reed.

[Fencer reregistered]

Well, it looks like Kidd/Pierce and Cousy/Reed. Since I already have a horse in each of those races, no need to change my vote.

Frankly, I they're all underrated by their naysayers, and would each be reasonable choices.

Why Pierce over Kidd, then? Because when I think back to when Kidd's team was better than Pierce's and the comparison meant something head to head, I've flipped to thinking he had much better teammates -- somewhat better among the top 3 on each side, and more quality depth beyond that. Walker was worse than we then thought; Anderson was soon thereafter a total wash-out, suggesting he already wasn't much then; Battie was a nice player but at best no nicer than what the Nets had at the position; and the Celtics had very little after them.

Pierce also has better longevity; I don't think Kidd was capable of being Finals MVP or throwing up huge games as late into his career as Pierce has been.

Pierce also nets out to better intangibles, chiefly because of the awfulness of Kidd's intangibles at the first of his numerous NBA stops.

As for Cousy -- well, he had a HUGE, positive impact on the game of basketball. And he was at least as good for his day as Reed was for his.

[drza]

Well, it looks like Kidd/Pierce and Cousy/Reed. Since I already have a horse in each of those races, no need to change my vote.

I'm pretty sure Kidd won this one 5 - 4:

Kidd (5): drza, DavidStern, lukekarts, SDChargers#1, Laimbeer

Pierce (4): Dr. Mufasa, therealbig3, Fencer reregistered, DoctorMJ

I think you're right about the nominees being tied, though:

Reed 4 (Lukekarts, Dr. Mufasa, drza, RonnyMac)
Cousy 4 (JordanBulls, Fencer reregistered, Laimbeer, SDChargers#1)

Which actually makes things easier, because we have the protocol established. If Kidd and Pierce were tied we'd have to leave voting open for a whole extra day, which last time was pretty tedious since most everyone had voted and there weren't any new ideas put forth all day. But with the nominees, in the case of a tie we just leave them in the pool and re-vote next round with only 9 available to vote on. At least it's a clean slate and we can start the next thread.