acrossthecourt wrote:wigglestrue wrote:therealbig3 wrote:Hmmm, Pierce not a top 5 Celtic?
Russell, Bird, and McHale, I'd say are better. I'd personally take Pierce next, over Havlicek and Cowens. Cousy isn't even in the conversation for me.
Pierce to me is basically a superior version of Havlicek.
That's madness.
Look, Pierce has been great. But, like, Dantley-great. A little better than Dantley, somewhere in the 40-50 range, but perhaps not even that. Not remotely close to
Havlicek's level. For that matter, McHale can't match Havlicek, either. Your standards are bizarre, lol. I won't even get into Cousy, as you are a Cousy-dismisser. As recently as 2003 around here, both Cousy and Havlicek were more or less uncontested Top 15-25 players. Perception was not
so off then and Pierce has not elevated himself so much since that 10+ years later they're now both ranked beneath Pierce. Cowens's defense was greater than Pierce's offense, he won two titles, and an MVP. Cowens > Pierce. Havlicek > Pierce. Cousy > Pierce. Havlicek and Cousy > McHale.
Havlicek's rank on certain lists is really interesting to me. He seems like one of the most overrated players ever, and it's due to the usual factors: lots of titles on deep teams, longevity (i.e. huge volume stats that make one think he was a statistical monster), and pace inflation.
I just don't see how a player who wasn't even a major contender for the MVP in a time when many of the best players were in the ABA should be a top 15 player ever. He got one first place vote in '72 and five another time but still was ranked only fifth.
Dude, it's absurd to do what you're doing there, using MVP voting as a measure for a time when we only have first-place votes, and pretending like the competition for the award was weak. That '72 vote, for example? The first-place votes were divided between Kareem, Jerry West, and Wilt. That's weak? Since we have no clue how many second or third place votes Havlicek got, it's pointless to use that against him.
In lieu of having full MVP voting to parse, how about we look to...All-NBA nods.
Four 1st teams, and
seven 2nd teams.
(EDIT: That's the equivalent of four top-5 MVP finishes, and seven
more top-10.)
That's
automatic Top 30-ness. Maybe higher, still Top 20-25.
Pierce? Three
3rd teams,
one 2nd.
(EDIT: And here are Pierce's MVP finishes...
MVP Award Shares
2000-01 NBA 0.004 (13)
2001-02 NBA 0.017 (11)
2002-03 NBA 0.001 (11)
2007-08 NBA 0.001 (14)
2008-09 NBA 0.017 (7)
...come on. No way Pierce should even sniff Havlicek.)
People hate it when you point out things like pace because you shouldn't decide basketball things based on numbers (but that's what they're doing often with citing these stats, so ... just making it fair.) For example, Havlicek's highest scoring season was 28.9. Hey, that looks great; players have a hard time matching that today. But Boston's pace was 120 (!) and he played 45 minutes a game. Using today's pace of 94, which is the highest in a long time, and 40 minutes a game (the limit for today's players), that's ... 20 points per game.
And if Paul Pierce had to play that many minutes at that pace, what would his stats have been like? Answer:
Not as good. Part of why Havlicek is great is his endless stamina. That isn't just volume or longevity. That's an actual important trait to have in the game of basketball.
His stats look better because he played an unreal amount of minutes, especially for the pre-merger era. You can't just say "top 20 player because he has 26,000 points" and that he has a lot of titles or something. There has to be stronger evidence.
Who on earth is "just" saying that? There's also Havlicek's all-time defense. Pierce has been a pretty good defender at times, sure. Not even close to Havlicek.
Yeah, he's known for defense and intangibles, but he needs an awful lot of those to get close to top 15/20. 36 players have won the MVP award, he played in a pretty weak era for MVP competition, he was on a successful team so he had that bias going for him ... by those contemporary accounts, how is that a top 15/20 guy?
He might not be Top 15-20 anymore. But he sure as hell isn't below Pierce. And yes, he DOES have a lot of those. And the success of his team isn't a mere bias: He was a significant reason for that success!
I assume the typical counter to this is some rote post about his career stats and titles and, strangely, how "stat guys" are ruining the league by only going by the numbers (but that's what you're doing just going by career stats and championships.)
Huh?
If you want to rank him high because he played huge minutes and want your list to look like one of the top guys by minutes played, go ahead. I just prefer to think of how good guys were during a sustained three year peak first to get an idea of how valuable he was.
Uh, okay, and Havlicek still beats Pierce.
I like Havlicek as a player. He's a great piece to a successful team, back then at the very least, but top 15, as I've seen from a few lists? No way.
He was also a first-option for a successful team,
several successful teams, actually, as many as four champions, depending on who you deem to be the first option in the '66 playoffs.
And I'm not sure why Pierce is being compared to Dantley. You calling Pierce a team cancer ... ?
No, just in terms of career production, peak. Pierce isn't that much better than a Dantley.
Obviously the Mavs exist 5 or 6 times as long as them, but the talent level is proportionally good. Okay, let's not derail the thread about the Celtics here.