RealGM Top 100 List #38

[RSCD3_]

Vote: Gervin

One of the only players left that are capable of being a #1 option on a championship team

From 1978-84 ( 7 year prime )

He put up 29/5/3 on 57.2 TS and had a 112 ORTG during that span

One of the best offensive players left and good longevity sway me in this runoff




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[SactoKingsFan]

I
Pierce and Miller both have great longevity but I prefer Pierce as a franchise cornerstone for his more impressive overall game which I value more than Miller's super efficient scoring and edge as a playoff performer. With Pierce you get volume scoring (pre big 3) on very good efficiency (02-11 TS%: 57.2 (+3.9) | League Avg TS%: 53.3) solid/underrated defense, and superior playmaking ability and rebounding.

Vote: Paul Pierce

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm going to jump in to hammer a particular thing in here:

In my post I listed out the number of seasons each player played on a +3 ORtg offensive team. That number was:

Miller 8
Pierce 0

It's well and good to chalk up Pierce having a lower number due to him having weaker situations, but I think it's pretty critical to understand our views on Pierce as an alpha are based almost entirely on him doing a lot for teams that were not working on the offensive side of the ball. This isn't a "Pierce's teams need him to do all those things to make it all happen, unlike Miller" thing because Pierce never actually made it all work.

That's not individually damning, but remember that when talent actually joined him in Boston, his individual stats looked pretty damn pedestrian and the offense still wasn't amazing.

I'm not saying that I think Miller clearly could have done better in crappy situations, but what I am saying is that Pierce being a more unipolar guy isn't something anyone should be looking at and saying "Yeah, that's how I want to build my team so they can scale to a championship."

Pierce gets an edge over a lot of volume scorers because he can adjust and play a more streamlined role with a better cast around him in a way they can't, but in that streamlined role, much of what makes people think he's better than Miller disappears or even inverts. And it's not like it's some mystery as to why at least on Pierce's side of the conversation. What Pierce experiences is normal for someone like him.

As far as the defensive edge, well hey, if that tips the scales, so be it. I just think the fixation on non-scoring offense to justify Pierce's edge has all the same problems that his regular season volume edge does.

Last thing I'll say: In the 2011 project at this point, I had been championing Pierce for several threads. I was high on Miller then, but I was even higher on Pierce. So, I like Pierce, but after 3 more years of analysis I have to go the other way this time.

Re: team ORtg

I’m willing to give Pierce the benefit of the doubt for those below average offensive teams since he was generally playing with unimpressive offensive players. From 99-03 his running mate was Antoine Walker, a very inefficient volume scorer with low BB IQ that never saw a shot he didn’t like and regularly took more shots than Pierce. And after they traded Toine, Pierce was stuck playing with poor supporting casts generally lacking offensive talent.

Re: Pierce’s pedestrian Big 3 era stats

I wouldn’t call Pierce’s stats after the formation of the Big 3 pedestrian.

Pierce 02-07 RS: 33.3 PTS, 24.7 FGA, 9.1 TRB, 5.8 AST per 100 on .558 TS%

Pierce 08-12 RS: 29.0 PTS, 20.3 FGA, 7.7 TRB, 5.7 AST per 100 on .596 TS%

What I see is a player that was able to successfully make the transition from being the primary/lone star on teams with subpar supporting casts to a co-starring role on a legit title contender. This is a positive in my book since not all star players would be willing or able to make such a transition.

Ultimately, Pierce vs Miller is close enough that I think it’s reasonable to give the overall edge to the player that provides superior defense and has the more well-rounded skillset.

[trex_8063]

fwiw, I think I'm going to abstain from the run-off.

In the pre-list project I had Isiah at #42 and Gervin at #44. I'm restructuring a lot in my ATL, though, and sort of felt a little higher on Gervin going into this spot. But in the end I'm still uncertain, and in such a close vote I wouldn't feel comfortable with my vote potentially being the difference. I just don't feel too strongly in either direction between these two. Good luck to both.....

[Warspite]

Vote Isiah Thomas

The accolades, stats and performances put him over Gervin (Who I love)


Both players IMHO are about 10-15 spots too low.

[Owly]

Vote Isiah Thomas

The accolades, stats and performances put him over Gervin (Who I love)


Both players IMHO are about 10-15 spots too low.

Accolades:

MVP Shares- Gervin: 0.911 (35th all time, note this includes only his NBA career); Thomas
(fwiw here Gervin 28th in RealGM PotY Shares with 1.582; Thomas 59th with 0.246)

All NBA First Team: Gervin x 5; Thomas x 3
All NBA Second Team: Gervin x 2 (plus 2 ABA 2nd teams); Thomas x 2

All Star Games: Tied at 12 each

I'd suggest the accolades suggest Gervin with a substantial edge.

Peak PER: Gervin 24.7; Thomas 22.2

Career PER: Gervin 21.4; Thomas 18.1

Peak WS/48: Gervin .201; Thomas .173

Career WS/48: .157; Thomas .109

Stats too seem to lie decisively in Gervin's camp.

Don't know what measure "performances" implies. If I had to guess I'd say it meant eye test or notable moments/games. Obviously not going to argue with someone's eye test and for me, I don't judge players on single moments/games.


Runoff Vote: Gervin: Because high efficiency and volume together are useful. Because he has strong metrics. Because I think you can build a pretty good offense around him, and because of the usage burden he takes on you can fit good defensive (role) players around him too (and his boxscore D suggests at very least he can't have been totally dogging it on that end). Because he's better than the alternative.

[Quotatious]

Isiah Thomas (7) - JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith, drza, Warspite

George Gervin (8) - tsherkin, Clyde Frazier, Quotatious, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, Notanoob, RSCD3_, Owly

Pretty surprising to see Gervin overtaking Isiah so quickly, I thought Thomas would win this time.

[RSCD3_]

Isiah Thomas (7) - JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith, drza, Warspite

George Gervin (8) - tsherkin, Clyde Frazier, Quotatious, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, Notanoob, RSCD3_, Owly

Pretty surprising to see Gervin overtaking Isiah so quickly, I thought Thomas would win this time.

Gervin and miller are the only people left i would consider putting over Isiah. And it wasn't a landslide for Gervin IMO

I like Gervin. A bit more than Reggie and I'm kind of stuck on Thomas vs Miller


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Runoff vote: George Gervin

So, um, remember when we did the runoff between Drexler and Isiah? I rate Gervin ahead of Drexler. While Glide had a beautiful game that was sometimes all around brilliant in a way Gervin's wasn't, Gervin was the better scorer and was far more reliable year in and year out in his alpha role.

So yeah, Drexler over Isiah was a bit tough. Gervin over Isiah isn't really.

Gervin vs Miller is actually an interesting one for me.

What evidence suggests Gervin was more reliable than Drexler as the alpha?

Drexler led his team to the finals twice, and put up better all around seasons than Gervin.

Gervin scored at higher volume and higher efficiency both at peak and at prime, he didn't have the oscillations in scoring over the years that Drexler did where he disappeared and people asked "why is X so passive?", and some coaches have said quite critical things about Drexler's work ethic.

[Doctor MJ]

As far as seeing it as a tossup, it'd be interesting to compare how we see the data, as here's how it looks to me:

Over their first 10 seasons, which is Howard's entire career, Zo was a much higher volume scorer

Well, this is the first point upon which our perception of the data differs.....
I wouldn't call 30.5 vs 26.5 (pts per 100 possessions) "much" higher volume, particularly when the raw number difference is proportionally smaller (the minutes you noted), and also considering some rule change/trends that to some degree occurred AFTER the 10-year Zo sample.
And I thought you didn't care much about volume anyway, or at least didn't think it a noteworthy or lofty offensive goal.

with a much higher efficiency

???
This is the 2nd place our perception differs.......
Howard is 59.9% TS% (+6.1% to league). Zo was 58.3% TS% (+5.5% to league).
Per 100 poss: Howard avg 2.2 ast/4.5 tov; Zo avg 2.1 ast/4.6 tov (although ast%/tov% does slightly favor Zo).
ORtg: Howard is 110.16 (+3.49 to league); Zo is ~109 (~+3.43 to league).

I don't see anyone with a clear lead here (in fact, in most things it's Howard with the lead, but by such a negligible margin that it's barely worth mentioning). To declare Zo has "much" higher efficiency.....

while being much, much bigger shot blocking threat, while playing slightly less total minutes.

Hey, at least we can agree on these two.

Couple other points:
*I also think it's worth noting that Howard has been relevant all 10 years of his career. I don't think we can claim Zo particularly relevant in '01, playing just 13 games.
**You pointed out that these 10 seasons constitute Dwight's entire career (implying Zo's got a significant edge on him there)......but that's not really the case: Zo played five additional years, it's true. But in each of those five additional years he was a small minute role player (never avg more than 20.4 mpg); he also played fewer than 40 games in three of the five, 25 or less games in two of the five.
Collectively, these five years add a fairly small amount of career value to his legacy. Really only '06 and '07 are of any particular significance.

Mea culpa: I read the efficiency numbers wrong. They DID really surprise me when I read them.

Re: implying Zo longevity edge. That wasn't what I meant to imply. I just meant that it's not like this is some arbitrary window, this is Howard's whole deal, so giving Howard a serious longevity edge doesn't seem warranted to me.

[DQuinn1575]

Vote: Gervin

One of the only players left that are capable of being a #1 option on a championship team

From 1978-84 ( 7 year prime )

He put up 29/5/3 on 57.2 TS and had a 112 ORTG during that span

One of the best offensive players left and good longevity sway me in this runoff


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Pretty much my case here too - vote for George Gervin

[Doctor MJ]

I
Pierce and Miller both have great longevity but I prefer Pierce as a franchise cornerstone for his more impressive overall game which I value more than Miller's super efficient scoring and edge as a playoff performer. With Pierce you get volume scoring (pre big 3) on very good efficiency (02-11 TS%: 57.2 (+3.9) | League Avg TS%: 53.3) solid/underrated defense, and superior playmaking ability and rebounding.

Vote: Paul Pierce

Sent from my LG-D800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I'm going to jump in to hammer a particular thing in here:

In my post I listed out the number of seasons each player played on a +3 ORtg offensive team. That number was:

Miller 8
Pierce 0

It's well and good to chalk up Pierce having a lower number due to him having weaker situations, but I think it's pretty critical to understand our views on Pierce as an alpha are based almost entirely on him doing a lot for teams that were not working on the offensive side of the ball. This isn't a "Pierce's teams need him to do all those things to make it all happen, unlike Miller" thing because Pierce never actually made it all work.

That's not individually damning, but remember that when talent actually joined him in Boston, his individual stats looked pretty damn pedestrian and the offense still wasn't amazing.

I'm not saying that I think Miller clearly could have done better in crappy situations, but what I am saying is that Pierce being a more unipolar guy isn't something anyone should be looking at and saying "Yeah, that's how I want to build my team so they can scale to a championship."

Pierce gets an edge over a lot of volume scorers because he can adjust and play a more streamlined role with a better cast around him in a way they can't, but in that streamlined role, much of what makes people think he's better than Miller disappears or even inverts. And it's not like it's some mystery as to why at least on Pierce's side of the conversation. What Pierce experiences is normal for someone like him.

As far as the defensive edge, well hey, if that tips the scales, so be it. I just think the fixation on non-scoring offense to justify Pierce's edge has all the same problems that his regular season volume edge does.

Last thing I'll say: In the 2011 project at this point, I had been championing Pierce for several threads. I was high on Miller then, but I was even higher on Pierce. So, I like Pierce, but after 3 more years of analysis I have to go the other way this time.

Re: team ORtg

I’m willing to give Pierce the benefit of the doubt for those below average offensive teams since he was generally playing with unimpressive offensive players. From 99-03 his running mate was Antoine Walker, a very inefficient volume scorer with low BB IQ that never saw a shot he didn’t like and regularly took more shots than Pierce. And after they traded Toine, Pierce was stuck playing with poor supporting casts generally lacking offensive talent.

I want to make clear that I'm not saying Pierce was doing anything wrong. I think Pierce was great in the role that his team wanted him to play, but because of what that team was, it meant him racking up volume stats likely considerably bigger than he gets with stronger teammates.

Does not mean the stats are meaningless, but you can't compare them to Miller without recognizing that Miller was doing all this within a much healthier setup. And yeah, you can use that as an argument back in the other direction, saying it perhaps helped him with his efficiency, but you certainly have to consider what size role you'd expect from Pierce in such a healthy setup.

And also, for those who think a bit like ElGee, it's the healthier setups that are more important in the analysis. If Pierce is the better player when running a team that's often in the lottery but Miller's the better fit for a contender, why would prefer Pierce if you're building a serious team?

Re: Pierce’s pedestrian Big 3 era stats

I wouldn’t call Pierce’s stats after the formation of the Big 3 pedestrian.

Pierce 02-07 RS: 33.3 PTS, 24.7 FGA, 9.1 TRB, 5.8 AST per 100 on .558 TS%

Pierce 08-12 RS: 29.0 PTS, 20.3 FGA, 7.7 TRB, 5.7 AST per 100 on .596 TS%

What I see is a player that was able to successfully make the transition from being the primary/lone star on teams with subpar supporting casts to a co-starring role on a legit title contender. This is a positive in my book since not all star players would be willing or able to make such a transition.

Ultimately, Pierce vs Miller is close enough that I think it’s reasonable to give the overall edge to the player that provides superior defense and has the more well-rounded skillset.

Well, fist by averaging the years out, you get numbers that look less extreme in their difference. Pierce's biggest numbers came right before the Big 3 arrived, and he had a drop of around 7 points per 100 possession plus a decrease in minutes with the transition. That's a big shift to me.

And then if we look at the still-dominant all-in-one stat which focuses on volume scoring (PER) over efficiency, Pierce dropped from a guy who was consistently in the 20s, often in the 22-23 range, to a guy who never broke 20 again.

Now, I"m not trashing a guy for not having a monster PER, because obviously I"m championing a guy I think vastly underrated by it, but what I am saying is that if Pierce was putting up numbers like that his whole career, no one would have the impression he had some clear edge on that front over Miller. And so the whole basis for perceiving Pierce above Miller on that front is essentially based on a toy model we have every reason to believe wouldn't scale.

[Doctor MJ]

Pretty surprising to see Gervin overtaking Isiah so quickly, I thought Thomas would win this time.

It's interesting isn't it?

I think Isiah, like Miller, is a very polarizing figure, while Gervin being a more classic volume scorer, isn't so much.

[ElGee]

^^^^^

While I don't entirely agree with your conclusion or final "valuation" of things, I love the content. Very pertinent hypothetical, very thought-provoking.

Agreed. I know I don't agree with judging players the way ElGee does at all, but it's an interesting exercise in hypotheticals.

I wonder then what he makes of a guy like Ray Allen who plays like player A when he is on a bad team, but then plays like player B on a good team. Seems like a guy who would be clearly more valuable than the Reggie Miller who can't do as much for the bad teams, but doesn't really do much more for the good teams.

But this kind of thinking certainly is part of why I hold David Robinson in such high regard. He lifted bad teams as much as just about anyone ever did and then slid over to play a different role when Duncan showed up and he had a great team. KG to a lessor extent did the same thing. Kidd as well.

For the record, I've steadily moved Robinson up over the years (well, first down in the 00's and then back up recently) and now have him at 13th in my peaks list, right behind KG. They are close enough that if a a competent GM builds a team around each 100 times, I don't think the championship difference between the teams would be > 1. If Robinson had better longevity, I'd be one of the "unreasonable" people putting him in the top-10 with Garnett.

re: Ray Allen. I find the separation with him and Miller on offense to be small, but I do think Miller "does Miller" a little better. Allen himself had a few great offensive teams (with excellent talent around him) and he raises his game in the PS too. But a big part of Miller's edge is his foul draw (he was craftier) and how that gives him a little efficiency edge. Allen was also a streakier player, which is another ding (Neil Paine ran some simulations once on consistency and the takeaway is that for a good teams, being consistent is better.) Of the players in the "good/bad" defense study from earlier in the project, Allen is among the streakiest in the PS on a game-to-game basis. Perhaps more importantly, he was crazy streaky on a series-to-series basis. (You can see all series since 1986 here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 2018130200)

Game Score Standard Deviation by PS Series, prime years only
available since 1986, adjusted BEV STD in parens

Kevin Garnett 2.20 (1.34)
Isiah Thomas 2.74 (2.21)
Larry Bird 2.77 (2.19)
Tracy McGrady 2.80 (3.04)
Karl Malone 2.87 (1.8)
Gary Payton 2.92 (1.88)
Clyde Drexler 3.05 (1.87)
Allen Iverson 3.14 (2.73)
Kevin Durant 3.27 (2.4)
Scottie Pippen 3.28 (2.13)
Steve Nash 3.44 (2.23)
Tim Duncan 3.76 (1.93)
Magic Johnson 3.85 (2.3)
Patrick Ewing 3.90 (2.33)
Reggie Miller 4.02 (2.77)
Dirk Nowitzki 4.04 (3.32)
Paul Pierce 4.12 (2.98)
Kobe Bryant 4.13 (2.33)
Shaquille O'Neal 4.25 (2.24)
Dwyane Wade 4.29 (3.07)
John Stockton 4.30 (2.03)
David Robinson 4.38 (2.48)
Hakeem Olajuwon 4.45 (2.78)
Vince Carter 4.56 (3.87)
Michael Jordan 4.69 (2.45)
Dwight Howard 4.83 (3.23)
LeBron James 5.03 (3.29)
Ray Allen 5.50 (4.07)

The adjusted BEV (Box Score Expected Value, adjusted for opponent strength) is even more striking since it loves good 3-point shooters. Allen fell apart in the first two rounds of the 08 PS (off-court issues). In 2009, running a bipolar role alongside Pierce, he had a great series in the 1st round against Chicago, then an absolute disaster against Orlando. The same thing happened the next year, when he was excellent in round 1 vs. Miami, but in the Finals terrible, and basically a train wreck from games 3 to 7 (I personally think this is because he was charlie-horsed by Derek Fisher at the outset of G3, but durability counts and Allen's was weaker than Miller's).

Allen was a better passer off that down screen curl and on ball, but I don't really value his on-ball advantage. I also find Miller to be a better defender, which in this case, is a big deal. Allen's greatest defensive moment was 2010 in the Finals against Kobe Bryant -- I think this shows that with great defensive support and the right situation, Ray wasn't a sieve defensively. He was smart and worked hard. But again, I think Reggie, who was much longer and in general feistier (*cough* flop *cough) has better defensive value, despite Allen being a better defensive rebounder. To me, Allen's properly rated as a weak defender (unless people think he was a disaster -- for example, I think Glen Rice was worse) but Miller is generally underrated and seen as a "weak defender" when it's really hard for me to find evidence that's the case.

[Basketballefan]

Ill vote Thomas in the runoff. These 2 players have a fairly even impact to me, but Thomas led a team to 2 championships and 3 straight finals so i give him the nod. Also, i put less value on ABA so i can't give Gervin a ton of credit for those few seasons he had there. Once he got to the NBA his scoring did go up but his rebouning went down and his assists were still minimal. Thomas is a better defender too.

Both are surefire top 40 players to me though.

[colts18]

(Indeed, why Stockton over Miller? I have Miller over Stockton, but I have them very close. And the only reason I ask is that these players are very similar in career profile to me -- similar level peaks, similar level longevity.)

The reason why I have Stockton ahead of Miller is that for every year we have plus/minus stats, Stockton finishes ahead of Reggie Miller in RAPM, half the time by a huge margin.

[penbeast0]

CALLING IT FOR GERVIN

Isiah Thomas (8) - JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith, drza, Warspite, Basketballefan

George Gervin (9) - tsherkin, Clyde Frazier, Quotatious, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, Notanoob, RSCD3_, Owly, DQuinn1575

[Doctor MJ]

CALLING IT FOR GERVIN

Isiah Thomas (8) - JordansBulls, ronnymac2, lukekarts, batmana, Jim Naismith, drza, Warspite, Basketballefan

George Gervin (9) - tsherkin, Clyde Frazier, Quotatious, penbeast0, Doctor MJ, Notanoob, RSCD3_, Owly, DQuinn1575

Well, this is awkward.

[penbeast0]

Runoff vote: George Gervin

So, um, remember when we did the runoff between Drexler and Isiah? I rate Gervin ahead of Drexler. While Glide had a beautiful game that was sometimes all around brilliant in a way Gervin's wasn't, Gervin was the better scorer and was far more reliable year in and year out in his alpha role.

So yeah, Drexler over Isiah was a bit tough. Gervin over Isiah isn't really.

Gervin vs Miller is actually an interesting one for me.

Why awkward?

[Doctor MJ]

Why awkward?

Because Isiah really, really seemed to have this one sewn up, and since Isiah first got in a runoff at spot #32 and this is still happening now, we've got a particularly strong schism on this one.