RealGM Top 100 List #40

[penbeast0]

BIG MEN: Dikembe Mutombo (or Ben Wallace) is the best defensive big left though Nate Thurmond has an argument. However, Mutombo is at least something of a positive on offense, the other two are zero or active negatives. Neil Johnston or Bob McAdoo are the best offensive bigs left. For two way players, Zo, Dwight or maybe McHale (but I have questions about his rebounding). Would love to see some good big man comps among this set. I don't see Reed or Cowens here yet (I have a quick note comparing at least their box score impact in #36). I really would love someone (someone else) to throw McHale up against Dwight and a couple of others and make a strong comp.

WINGS: Paul Pierce, Reggie Miller, or one of the great SFs of the 80s (English, Dantley, Nique, etc.) seem the frontrunners on the wing. Sam Jones has been mentioned too; in his day he was considered behind Hal Greer but I've always preferred Jones; Paul Arizin would be another old time name to mention. Sid Moncrief, Tmac, or Connie Hawkins are the highest peak left but just couldn't sustain it.

POINT GUARDS. I'm not a fan of Iverson's game at all; same goes for Bob Cousy, Nate Archibald had the most incredible numbers but only for 4 years and for that length of time, I'd certainly rather argue for Moncrief. KJ is another with a nice peak but injury issues. Hardaway, Price, Billups . . . . not sure we are ripe for even discussing them yet compared to the strength in terms of bigs and wings.

[penbeast0]

VOTE: Dwight Howard though I'm open to arguments. Miller and Pierce just don't seem to have the same impact for me although their longevity is certainly a strong advantage.

Howard 10 years, 768 games, 35.9minute per game
18.7reb 2.2ast 4.5to 26.5pts per 100 possessions @ .599ts%
18.7 2.0 4.9 28.3 @.613 for his playoff career
3xDPOY, 4x All-Defense 1st, 1x All-Defense 2nd

Mourning 10 years (+5 injury riddled ones) 31.0 mpg
14.5reb 1.9ast 4.5to 29.1pts per 100 possessions @ .583ts%
14.1 1.7 4.9 27.3 @ .570 for playoffs
2x DPOY, 2x All-Defense 1st (never even made 2nd any other year)

McHale 12 years 31.0mpg
11.4reb 2.7ast 3.0to 27.8pts per 100 possessions @ .605ts%
10.9 2.4 2.8 27.6 @ .618 for playoffs
3x1st All-Defense, 2x 2nd All-Defense

Motombo 16 years (+2 partials) 30.8mpg
17.6reb 1.8ast 3.1to 16.7pts per 100 possessions @ .573ts%
17.2 1.4 2.7 16.4 @ .587 for playoffs
4x DPOY 4x1st All-Defense 3x2nd All-Defense

Just wanted to put the box score numbers up. Except for longevity, Dwight Howard seems to have the edge, Mutombo certainly has the edge there. Howard also played the most minutes during his prime. He did have a system tailored to maximize his impact in Orlando and really ugly A/T numbers (Zo is even worse!), but also plays in an era where the rules have been slanted more to favor perimeter players. Deke had some nice playoff series but Dwight carried less talent farther. I do have some maturity concerns with Dwight that do not exist for any of the others but overall I favor Dwight of these 4 despite the passing which really hurts him.

. . . .

Reed v Cowens v. Beaty

All three shared some things in common . . . undersized, mobile centers with good range and good defense. Reed is the strongest, Cowens the most physical, Beaty has a Bill Laimbeer/Vlade Divac rep for annoying opps with a lot of dirty/veteran tricks.

All had shortened careers, Reed played only 7 years over 20 games in a season, Cowens played 10 but with increasing missed games plus a half year attempted comeback in Milwaukee, Beaty played 12 seasons (2 as reserve) but 2 were cut short by his recurring knee injuries; it's not a coincidence that his best season (72 in Utah) came after being forced to sit out a year. Beaty is considered a step down from Reed and Cowens but seems a reasonable comp to show their strengths.

Prime numbers

Reed (67-71) 20.5ppg 13.5reb 2ast .540ts%
Cowens (72-76) 19.5ppg 15.5reb 4ast .495ts%
Beaty* (65-69) 20ppg 12reb 1.5ast .535ts%
*(using NBA numbers only)

As the numbers show, Cowens was the best passer and rebounder, but the worst shooter. Reed is slightly better than Beaty in all areas but only slightly (and the NBA had expansion in these years so Reed was playing against slightly inferior competition). Beaty has the longevity edge. Very comparable players if you consider their defensive abilities roughly equal. I didn't use Beaty's ABA years because I don't want to get into a debate about how much to discount them.

[Notanoob]

You will want to edit the title, it's currently #340 instead of #40- we could never make it that far!

[Basketballefan]

It's between Iverson, Pierce and Kevin Mchale for me.

Out of those 3 only Pierce will get serious traction i suppose. I would cast my vote for him if someone can convince me as to what made him better than Iverson outside of efficiency. Because playmaking cannot be discounted.

I noticed Penbeast voted for Dwight Howard, he is a good candidate here but i'm not sure his longevity is enough. Also, he hasn't been the same since he hurt his back in Orlando, if that never happened and he were a top 3-5 player these last 2 seasons then i would surely put him over those other guys.

[Owly]

You will want to edit the title, it's currently #340 instead of #40- we could never make it that far!

fwiw Slam's #340 (from their 500 in 2011) was Vinnie Johnson. Though if you assume their accidental omission, Gail Goodrich, would have came in above Vinnie it's real 340 would be Jim Chones (listed 339).

Steve Franco, author of the Need to Argue, Make a list basketball book has an online list with Phil Ford there (http://www.apbr.org/forum/viewtopic.php ... =50#p19047).


Anyway...

vote: Gus Williams

Because Isiah is already in ...

Measuring Isiah's meaningfully above average years and the longevity gap disappears (would be smaller if Seattle hadn't let it get to the point where William's heldout a season right in the middle of his prime).
cf: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... m:advanced
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y2=1994

Isiah with a marginal RS edge (though DWS may overrate him here).

But go to the playoff metrics. Gus has a clear lead (despite more drag from non-prime years), he leads in PER and in absolute OWS and has a clear lead in WS/48. Only the fact Isiah is substantially overvalued by DWS (and the fact his best teams went 8-9 deep, thus giving him deep playoff runs in his late-mid 20s) give him more total win shares.

Let's go to their absolute peaks and primes though.

RS stats peaks: Split decision PER: Williams 21.8; Thomas 22.2; WS/48: Williams .187; Thomas .173

RS prime: 7 years '78-84 Williams 20.2 PER; .154 WS/48; 52 WS
7 years '83-'89 Thomas 19.6 PER; .135 WS/48; 58.5 WS
Split. Williams more productive per minute. Thomas staying on court more adds a little extra production in absolute terms (the value of this depends on your backups).

Playoff Peak: Williams ('79) - 23.8 PER; .210 WS/48 clear cut best playoff player on a champion (note WS split shows as expected value is derived primarily on O)
Thomas - (probably '90) - 21 PER; .194 WS/48 clear cut best playoff player on a champion (note WS not as expected)
or
'87 - 22.6 PER; .178 WS/48, best playoff player on a conference finalist (again WS split disproprtionately D)
Playoff Peak: Williams

Playoff Prime: Williams - http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... s_advanced
Thomas - http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... s_advanced
Playoff Prime: Williams

Isiah's in. It's time for Gus.

[Jaivl]

^ Are you really voting for Gus because you think he deserves it? For sure?

I'm 99% voting Deke again, but as always I'll wait a few pages.

[trex_8063]

Vote: Paul Pierce.

Pierce gives you very very good scoring, very good play-making from the SF, pretty good rebounding, and entirely decent (probably underrated) defense.
He can scale it up to lift a poor or mediocre team, yet has the portability to fit in as #2 (or 1B) on a more talent-laden contender. With the exception of one awful series in '04, he pretty consistently upped his game in playoffs during his prime, and in the last handful of years has (imo) been one of the most clutch guys in the league.

His RAPM data is on par with Dwight Howard (what was that you said about impact, penbeast0?), and he's had excellent longevity to boot (16 valuable seasons). Looks good via WOWY data, too.

Couple other tiny statistical tid-bits (other aspects have been previously covered):
He's 25th all-time in career rs WS.
He's 38th all-time in career playoff WS.

[RSCD3_]

Thinking of voting Reggie


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[trex_8063]

--snip--

Because Isiah is already in ...

--snip--

Isiah's in. It's time for Gus.

Are you really advocating for Gus Williams at #40, or just trying to make a point?
tbh, I feel like you're being petulant here (as you were pretty avidly against Thomas in the prior two threads). If so, you're far too good a poster for that.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Reggie Miller.

Glad Isiah is settled.

Pierce seems to be the lead contender so I'll talk on Miller vs Pierce.

As noted, last time I rated Pierce ahead of Miller and was one of Pierce's proponents. Since then my opinion has changed.

First the basic framework here:

I see Pierce as essentially a "very good" case scenario for a more unipolar oriented B-list superstar guard. Most guys like that aren't as efficient, and don't adjust so willingly or ably when the time comest to scale down the primacy. I like him a lot.

Miller I've talked to death, but obviously I see him as essentially the best case scenario we've ever scene for an off-ball scoring guard.

Now, to me it's quite clear that the very best offensive perimeter players are almost always on ball. If you can do a great job dictating the play when you have max control, well an offense can be designed to give you that control quite a bit, and hence your impact scales above all others.

On the other hand, if you're not actually a world class decision maker, then being more on ball and scoring is more about forcing the decisions to be "me", and this causes a lot of problems.

Pierce exists on the level where I wouldn't allege problems, but I also wouldn't feel comfortable giving him a clear edge.

Now, team context: I really can't stress enough how much more successful Miller's offenses were than Pierce's.

If we call a "great" offense one that is 3 or more points above average. Miller was on 8 of them, Pierce was never on one. So for anyone giving Pierce the edge thinking about the role he played in the Big 3 as showing him to be more proven, you need to turn around 180. Miller is far more proven as a threat on a great offense, and he plays a role that is inherently more suited to scaling with talent around him.

That's before you even get into how Miller's ability to explode in the playoffs pushes him well ahead of Pierce while still playing a role that gets in the way of others less.

So yeah, to me the debate comes in here based on rebounding & defense. Cases have been made against Miller here, and while there's been some defense, by no means do I insist that everything's addressed. And while we can talk on it more, it's like anything else that comes down to one player being better at X while another's better at Y: How do you weight all that holistically?

Last time around, when I used the best +/- data available, the thing that I forced into the conversation was that Pierce looked to be in serious debate with Kidd. That data surprised me, but I couldn't ignore it, and I wanted everyone to consider it strongly.

We now have more data, and the gap between Pierce and a guy like Kidd is now more clear, which is another way of saying that Kidd with more info looks about the same, but Pierce with more data doesn't look quite as strong as hoped.

We have 3 years available in PI RAPM before Miller's clear end-of-prime. During those years he was ages 32 through 34. He had a scaled rating north of 5 each year, and the earlier year puts him in the mid 6's.

We have basically Pierce's whole year available with this data. He breaks the 5+ barrier only 4 times, and he never broke it consecutive years. He breaks the number in Miller's 32 year old season only once, that was on the '08 Celtics, a collective effort along the lines of which Miller's portability would make him typically a better fit for than Pierce.

Again, I don't want to hate on Pierce. He's in my Top 50. But still the choice of Miller over him isn't one I'm agonizing over.

[Basketballefan]

Vote: Reggie Miller.

Glad Isiah is settled.

Pierce seems to be the lead contender so I'll talk on Miller vs Pierce.

As noted, last time I rated Pierce ahead of Miller and was one of Pierce's proponents. Since then my opinion has changed.

First the basic framework here:

I see Pierce as essentially a "very good" case scenario for a more unipolar oriented B-list superstar guard. Most guys like that aren't as efficient, and don't adjust so willingly or ably when the time comest to scale down the primacy. I like him a lot.

Miller I've talked to death, but obviously I see him as essentially the best case scenario we've ever scene for an off-ball scoring guard.

Now, to me it's quite clear that the very best offensive perimeter players are almost always on ball. If you can do a great job dictating the play when you have max control, well an offense can be designed to give you that control quite a bit, and hence your impact scales above all others.

On the other hand, if you're not actually a world class decision maker, then being more on ball and scoring is more about forcing the decisions to be "me", and this causes a lot of problems.

Pierce exists on the level where I wouldn't allege problems, but I also wouldn't feel comfortable giving him a clear edge.

Now, team context: I really can't stress enough how much more successful Miller's offenses were than Pierce's.

If we call a "great" offense one that is 3 or more points above average. Miller was on 8 of them, Pierce was never on one. So for anyone giving Pierce the edge thinking about the role he played in the Big 3 as showing him to be more proven, you need to turn around 180. Miller is far more proven as a threat on a great offense, and he plays a role that is inherently more suited to scaling with talent around him.

That's before you even get into how Miller's ability to explode in the playoffs pushes him well ahead of Pierce while still playing a role that gets in the way of others less.

So yeah, to me the debate comes in here based on rebounding & defense. Cases have been made against Miller here, and while there's been some defense, by no means do I insist that everything's addressed. And while we can talk on it more, it's like anything else that comes down to one player being better at X while another's better at Y: How do you weight all that holistically?

Last time around, when I used the best +/- data available, the thing that I forced into the conversation was that Pierce looked to be in serious debate with Kidd. That data surprised me, but I couldn't ignore it, and I wanted everyone to consider it strongly.

We now have more data, and the gap between Pierce and a guy like Kidd is now more clear, which is another way of saying that Kidd with more info looks about the same, but Pierce with more data doesn't look quite as strong as hoped.

We have 3 years available in PI RAPM before Miller's clear end-of-prime. During those years he was ages 32 through 34. He had a scaled rating north of 5 each year, and the earlier year puts him in the mid 6's.

We have basically Pierce's whole year available with this data. He breaks the 5+ barrier only 4 times, and he never broke it consecutive years. He breaks the number in Miller's 32 year old season only once, that was on the '08 Celtics, a collective effort along the lines of which Miller's portability would make him typically a better fit for than Pierce.

Again, I don't want to hate on Pierce. He's in my Top 50. But still the choice of Miller over him isn't one I'm agonizing over.

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

[SactoKingsFan]

Out of those 3 only Pierce will get serious traction i suppose. I would cast my vote for him if someone can convince me as to what made him better than Iverson outside of efficiency. Because playmaking cannot be discounted.

Efficiency is a significant part of why I give Pierce the overall career edge over Iverson but it's not the only reason. In addition to being a far more efficient scorer (Pierce 02-11 TS%: 57.2 (+3.9), Iverson 99-08 TS%: 51.8 (-.7), Pierce provides superior defense, greater longevity, rebounding and higher bb IQ.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

I dunno man. I thought Doc's overall Miller argument was quite compelling and well done.

As he said Miller was consistently leading better offenses then Pierce while generally not being surrounded by a glut of talent.
He also showed (I believe) that Miller was able to consistently maintain the effectiveness of his team offenses when facing great defenses which is certainly another point in his favor.
Reggie is obviously less capable on the ball but that doesn't seem overly relevant to me unless that lack of ability made him a lesser scorer or a lesser offensive anchor overall and I don't think that was the case or it certainly doesn't appear that way to me at the moment.
I am actually a Pierce fan so I don't want to disparage him and would like to see him voted in soon but for now I am leaning towards Miller.
I think his edge as a scorer and as an overall offensive anchor outweighs the advantage Pierce has on the defensive end.

I really am coming to see Reggie as a guy who's impact cant be fully gauged simply by looking at his average box numbers.
I would compare him to Larry Bird who I also feel is undervalued offensively if you just look at his raw box score stats.
Obviously Reggie was probably less dangerous off the ball then Bird (didn't have that godly court vision) but he has some of those Bird like intangibles when looking at that aspect of offense.

[ceiling raiser]

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

Just playing devil's advocate...how many dimensions are there to offense though?

1) Ability to create offense for oneself.
2) Ability to create for others.
3) Offensive rebounding.

Doesn't everything fit into one of these three categories offensively? Drawing double teams with the ball, or keeping the defense honest by spreading the floor/running around screens, or seeing picks, in addition to passing obviously...aren't those all part of (2) in some sense?

Actually, maybe a better question:

How many players are still on the board that do all three of those things at an all-time great level? Are there any remaining?

Maybe this thread is a good opportunity for us to delve deeper into offensive theory. Would be nice to have some abstract conversation here.

[RayBan-Sematra]

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

Just playing devil's advocate...how many dimensions are there to offense though?

1) Ability to create offense for oneself.
2) Ability to create for others.
3) Offensive rebounding.

Doesn't everything fit into one of these three categories offensively? Drawing double teams with the ball, or keeping the defense honest by spreading the floor/running around screens, or seeing picks, in addition to passing obviously...aren't those all part of (2) in some sense?

Actually, maybe a better question:

How many players are still on the board that do all three of those things at an all-time great level? Are there any remaining?

Maybe this thread is a good opportunity for us to delve deeper into offensive theory. Would be nice to have some abstract conversation here.

Pierce is better at creating for others but he isn't exceptional at doing it so I think one could actually argue that Reggie (especially on a good team) would aid his teammates more by being able to play off the ball so effectively.

Imagine Reggie on the late 00's C's.
He'd be able to provide similar volume scoring on better efficiency while needing the ball in his hands way less allowing Rondo, Allen & Garnett to dominate the ball more and maintain their own offensive rhythms and probably improve their 1v1 abilities by allowing them to utilize them more frequently.

When it comes to #2 I am not convinced that Pierce was more effective at creating his own shots even if he created his shots in a different and more on-ball fashion.

[ElGee]

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

Just playing devil's advocate...how many dimensions are there to offense though?

1) Ability to create offense for oneself.
2) Ability to create for others.
3) Offensive rebounding.

Doesn't everything fit into one of these three categories offensively? Drawing double teams with the ball, or keeping the defense honest by spreading the floor/running around screens, or seeing picks, in addition to passing obviously...aren't those all part of (2) in some sense?

Actually, maybe a better question:

How many players are still on the board that do all three of those things at an all-time great level? Are there any remaining?

Maybe this thread is a good opportunity for us to delve deeper into offensive theory. Would be nice to have some abstract conversation here.

If Global Offense = all the offensive actions totaled, then the first level of grouping to me is:

-shooting ability
-passing ability
-ability to create for others
-ability to create for self
(I would put offensive rebounding and screen setting -- skills of moving the body w/out the ball -- on the next tier or level of analysis)

Shooting ability is the most important offensive skill IMO, and in this case we're mostly talking about "unguarded" shooting ability. Passing, along with shooting ability, are the cornerstones of portability (and thus building elite offenses), because instead of being redundant they are reinforcing. A team of good shooters who moves the ball constantly is...well, see the 2014 Spurs.

The ability to create for others is a hugely valuable skill -- perhaps the single most valuable in an average situation. But this is also a redundant skill, especially if it is on the ball, because typically a team only can exploit 2 guy at a time with this skill because there isn't enough ball to go around. (As an aside, that's another reason I love Bird's offense -- I think he's the GOAT off-ball player ITO of activity. Kobe is another great off-ball player in the same vein.) If you combine one or two great creators with excellent shooters (or "finishers) you can get a GOAT-level offense ala Magic's Lakers or Nash's Suns. But I wouldn't expect the GOAT offense with say, Magic, Nash and Jordan on the court.

OTOH, I would expect a GOAT-level offense with players like Bird + Miller + offensive_star. Especially if that offensive star could pass.

[ceiling raiser]

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

Just playing devil's advocate...how many dimensions are there to offense though?

1) Ability to create offense for oneself.
2) Ability to create for others.
3) Offensive rebounding.

Doesn't everything fit into one of these three categories offensively? Drawing double teams with the ball, or keeping the defense honest by spreading the floor/running around screens, or seeing picks, in addition to passing obviously...aren't those all part of (2) in some sense?

Actually, maybe a better question:

How many players are still on the board that do all three of those things at an all-time great level? Are there any remaining?

Maybe this thread is a good opportunity for us to delve deeper into offensive theory. Would be nice to have some abstract conversation here.

If Global Offense = all the offensive actions totaled, then the first level of grouping to me is:

-shooting ability
-passing ability
-ability to create for others
-ability to create for self
(I would put offensive rebounding and screen setting -- skills of moving the body w/out the ball -- on the next tier or level of analysis)

Shooting ability is the most important offensive skill IMO, and in this case we're mostly talking about "unguarded" shooting ability. Passing, along with shooting ability, are the cornerstones of portability (and thus building elite offenses), because instead of being redundant they are reinforcing. A team of good shooters who moves the ball constantly is...well, see the 2014 Spurs.

The ability to create for others is a hugely valuable skill -- perhaps the single most valuable in an average situation. But this is also a redundant skill, especially if it is on the ball, because typically a team only can exploit 2 guy at a time with this skill because there isn't enough ball to go around. (As an aside, that's another reason I love Bird's offense -- I think he's the GOAT off-ball player ITO of activity. Kobe is another great off-ball player in the same vein.) If you combine one or two great creators with excellent shooters (or "finishers) you can get a GOAT-level offense ala Magic's Lakers or Nash's Suns. But I wouldn't expect the GOAT offense with say, Magic, Nash and Jordan on the court.

OTOH, I would expect a GOAT-level offense with players like Bird + Miller + offensive_star. Especially if that offensive star could pass.

Thanks for the response, great stuff here.

Quick question: Where would you place ability to finish on non-shooting plays created by others? Things like alley-oops, ability to finish inside/while cutting after receiving a pass, transition finishing, etc. Would those be on the next level/tier with offensive rebounding, screen setting and the like? Or do you think those are qualities we can take as given?

[ElGee]

Just playing devil's advocate...how many dimensions are there to offense though?

1) Ability to create offense for oneself.
2) Ability to create for others.
3) Offensive rebounding.

Doesn't everything fit into one of these three categories offensively? Drawing double teams with the ball, or keeping the defense honest by spreading the floor/running around screens, or seeing picks, in addition to passing obviously...aren't those all part of (2) in some sense?

Actually, maybe a better question:

How many players are still on the board that do all three of those things at an all-time great level? Are there any remaining?

Maybe this thread is a good opportunity for us to delve deeper into offensive theory. Would be nice to have some abstract conversation here.

If Global Offense = all the offensive actions totaled, then the first level of grouping to me is:

-shooting ability
-passing ability
-ability to create for others
-ability to create for self
(I would put offensive rebounding and screen setting -- skills of moving the body w/out the ball -- on the next tier or level of analysis)

Shooting ability is the most important offensive skill IMO, and in this case we're mostly talking about "unguarded" shooting ability. Passing, along with shooting ability, are the cornerstones of portability (and thus building elite offenses), because instead of being redundant they are reinforcing. A team of good shooters who moves the ball constantly is...well, see the 2014 Spurs.

The ability to create for others is a hugely valuable skill -- perhaps the single most valuable in an average situation. But this is also a redundant skill, especially if it is on the ball, because typically a team only can exploit 2 guy at a time with this skill because there isn't enough ball to go around. (As an aside, that's another reason I love Bird's offense -- I think he's the GOAT off-ball player ITO of activity. Kobe is another great off-ball player in the same vein.) If you combine one or two great creators with excellent shooters (or "finishers) you can get a GOAT-level offense ala Magic's Lakers or Nash's Suns. But I wouldn't expect the GOAT offense with say, Magic, Nash and Jordan on the court.

OTOH, I would expect a GOAT-level offense with players like Bird + Miller + offensive_star. Especially if that offensive star could pass.

Thanks for the response, great stuff here.

Quick question: Where would you place ability to finish on non-shooting plays created by others? Things like alley-oops, ability to finish inside/while cutting after receiving a pass, transition finishing, etc. Would those be on the next level/tier with offensive rebounding, screen setting and the like? Or do you think those are qualities we can take as given?

You could put them in the next tier -- I don't think they can be taken for granted. Think Tyson Chandler and Amare as bigs finishing around the rim on the roll...there's a big difference between them and Glen Davis in that facet of offense. The same goes for wings on cuts/transition opportunities. Length, strength, speed and the ability to use angles make large differences on these plays. Now, does all this add up the way those top-level skills do? Not IMO. But certainly not an insignificant facet of offense.

[drza]

Pierce vs Iverson

This is an interesting comp, because in many ways they're at the extremes of the "scoring wing" continuum. Pierce is big, rugged, versatile, and can do everything pretty well. Iverson is small, lightening quick, aggressive, and has both major strengths (stronger than Pierce) and big weaknesses (weaker than Pierce). I'll borrow a bit from things that I've written about this comp in the past for a quick summary of how I see this comp:

*Pierce is clearly more portable, and can do a lot more things on the court. He has the ability to be an offensive focal point on the wing, and his excellent long range shot has proven to make him a great off ball option whose efficiency can scale upwards at still good volume. And importantly, Pierce's size and ability to defend his position works much to his advantage here

*On the other hand, Iverson was clearly a higher impact offensive performer than Pierce in the world that was. Despite the scoring efficiency advantage for Pierce, Iverson was able to put more pressure on defenses and create more offense for his team than Pierce. Some of this was because Iverson could operate as a lead guard while Pierce was more of a big wing with a handle, which is different. We also need to account for assist/turnover volume and efficiency just like we account for scoring volume and efficiency...said another way, while it's debatable whether Pierces scoring volume could scale up to Iverson I am reasonably certain Pierce couldn't scale up to Iversons level of offensive creation. Now, Iverson gave up all of his offensive advantage and then some on defense, but on offense alone Iverson had more impact than Pierce

*This leads to interesting outcomes. I feel like Pierce might make more teams better than Iverson, but that with each in their optimal settings Iverson would make his team more better than Pierce would. I think that Iverson could be the best player on a team that could win the championship, while Pierce couldn't. But that Pierce could be the much more robust #2 option on a championship team than Iverson.

Interestingly, I think that the Big 3 Era Celtics are a situation where Iverson could have produced better results than Pierce. Especially after KG's injury, I think that Iverson's ability to create more offense would have been more beneficial (in conjunction with a Rondo-level small forward) than what the actual Pierce and Rondo produced. I think they still win in '08, and have better chances in '10 and '12

[john248]

Pierce>Miller.

Let's not continue to ignore that Miller is one-dimensional, while ignoring that Pierce was an all around player.

Let's not continue to ignore what Miller's actually done in this league. I get it. Our eyes are trained to follow the ball that we miss what's happening with the other players on the court. Easy to be dismissive of an off-ball player yet this is a guy who's made a career out of scoring at an efficient rate where the separation between him and the league is just that wide. That single dimension that you point to is a huge reason as to why the Pacers had team success during his time there whether it's a part of great offenses and a few ECF runs, including a title run, which speaks to the type of impact Miller had which was the spacing he created by coming off screens. Now I say this with the premise that his volume went up during the playoffs over the entirety of his career rather than a series or 2 where the lack of RS volume was a reason Miller lacked in accolades during his time. This leads to me to playoffs Reggie. The guy was just that good. I'm not crowning him to be best player in the league, mind you. The level of play, the disruption was extraordinary and one that is better appreciated as you watch and solely focus on him even if the ball is somewhere else on the court.

Now, I won't fault anyone for voting Pierce here. I actually have him rated much earlier than where we are currently and think highly of him as a player. His fundamentals are so sound, and simply put, he's a complete player. But even with that said, I don't view his impact as being as great as Miller's. My viewpoint on Miller changed in the last year or 2 mainly from reading what El Gee and Doc MJ have posted. So naturally, this curiousity led me to seeking vids of him playing and coming away more impressed than I was as a teenager watching him in his prime. The thing with Miller that I had though incorrectly of before was that I viewed him as a guy who had to rely on his teammates a lot. In some sense, it's true since he runs off screens. But there's an ocean's wide difference on offense between him and a current guy like Klay. We can see Klay benefiting from Curry's attention on the floor. But as we know, Miller is a different animal. The guy is clutch because he's consistently good regardless of the type of defense.

And I will just throw this out there of this guy who played in a small market who has seen roster turnover during his time. 15 playoff appearances of which 7 were past the 1st round; includes 6 ECFs, 1 Finals appearance.

#2 career ORTG, #16 career WS

Vote: Reggie Miller