RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #43 (Paul Pierce)

[penbeast0]

...
+ Alex English - Case for: High volume scoring threat, once leads league in PPG and finishes top 3 several other times. Above average efficiency. Good passer. Durable and has an over decade long prime. Makes 3 2nd team All-NBAs and finishes top 10 in MVP twice. One of the best mid range shooters in history, in era without 3pt this counts for elite floor spacing for his position. Case against: Not a great defensive player. Plays on the fasted paced team of his era with not much defensive responsibility asked for allowing him to put up inflated stats. Ranks 81st in WS and 72d in VORP, despite being an accumulation friendly player (durable with a long career).

I don't think it is fair to say English had "not much defensive responsibility," it depended on the year. He was actually a reasonably good defender with a decent rep; he got his start in Milwaukee and Indiana as a defensive minded sub (like early Kwahi Leonard). Then, he played with Dan Issel at center for a long stretch . . . zero rim protection backing him up. When he played with Kiki Vandeweghe, he even had sort of a McHale role as the best front line defender covering whoever was the bigger challenge to try to hid Kiki's defense when possible.

As for the offense, Denver was extremely high paced but that didn't seem to hurt English's efficiency. And, unlike Pierce or many of his contemporary peers (King, Dantley, Nique, etc.), he worked within the flow of the offense instead of having it built around him as the star. It's tougher to get big points as part of an ensemble cast who moves the ball around than as the guy the coach designs the offense for . . . which makes up for a lot of pace type issues.

Vote Paul Pierce

Pierce has a high value offensive role as a ball handler, passer, creator and floor spacer with solid defense. His longevity is tremendous still going strong 15 years into his career and has good moments in the playoffs....

Compare to Pierce . . . English was a clearly superior ball handler/passer (more assists, less turnovers, more of a facilitator for teammates, creator (scored on higher volumes at similar efficiency), and even more versatile (strength of Pierce's as well) taking on the role of point forward, primary post up threat, primary outside shooting threat, and front court defensive stopper at various points during the 80s. He has 13 prime years v. Pierce's 15 (close but edge to Pierce) and has superior playoff performances both in terms of raw numbers and compared to his regular season numbers.

[LA Bird]

1. Paul Pierce
Consistently a great all round player throughout his long career. He is 22nd all time in career WS, 23rd in career VORP and also 15th in career points. Led the league in total points in 2002 which is rarely mentioned for some reason. Great outside shooter (3rd all time in 3s) which combined with his versatile skillset make him a very portable player. Excellent at drawing fouls and his 0.475 free throw rate from 01~10 is pretty incredible for a perimeter player. Solid defender although his DRAPM numbers in his later years appear to be somewhat boosted by Garnett's presence.

Alternate: Dikembe Mutombo

[Winsome Gerbil]

The case for Alex English, who was really looking like just a good forward in his early career until he ended up in Denver in the runningest gunningest system in NBA history, over Dominque is a bit dubious.

It's not just the honors/awards that favor Nique on this one, it's also the numbers once you look through the system. English was a great great scorer, but that system he played in was ridiculous. How ridiculous? English's first full season in Denver was 1980-81. His last season with Denver was 1989-90. So he played the entire 80s decade for them. Here were the pace ranks for Denver in the 80s:

1980-81: 1st
1981-82: 1st
1982-83: 1st
1983-84: 1st
1984-85: 1st
1985-86: 1st
1986-87: 1st
1987-88: 1st
1988-89: 1st
1989-90: 2nd

And so yes, English was a great scorer. But those numbers were absolutely inflated. This was the same system that made Kiki Vandeweghe a 2x All Star, including averaging 29.4ppg on .558FG% in his final year there. Add in Dan Issel and those teams routinely had 3 20ppg scorers, of which English was not always the most effective. The year they lost Vandeweghe, they brought in Calvin Natt instead, and he immediately scorer 23.3ppg himself.

In any case, the end result is that if you look at the Per100s and see through the pace:

Per100
Wilkins 34.7pts 9.3reb 3.5ast 1.8stl 0.8blk 3.5TO = 21.6PER .148WS/48, 3.4/-1.1 = 2.3BPM 41.8VORP
English 30.2pts 7.7reb 5.1ast 1.3stl 1.0blk 3.3TO = 19.9PER .127WS/48, 3.0/-1.3 = 1.7BPM 35.6VORP

Wilkins 7x All NBA (1/4/2), .845 MVP Shares (highest 2nd)
English 3x All NBA (0/3/0), .167 MVP Shares (highest 6th)


English was a great scorer and perennial All Star, but he was NOT a greater scorer or player than Nique. And it was hard to separate the player from the system in Denver with everybody in that system putting up wacky numbers. English was great, but he thrived in a system that made lesser players look great offensively too. It was rarely clear that he was truly carrying that team rather than playing a super-scoring role for a system that was doing the real work.

[Winsome Gerbil]

I'll be honest, none of the candidates voted so far this thread appeal to me all that much (though Unseld is a bit of a mystery to me - no idea where I stand on him). Currently, I'm sorting through a slew of centers - Thurmond, Mutombo, Reed, Mourning, and Howard.

Willis Reed is removed for multiple reasons - his prime is shorter than all these guys, I am not convinced his prime or peak are better either, and that most of his being ranked this high is narrative IMO - he'd be viewed a lot differently without an MVP and a leg injury. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but I need convincing to see him as more than I do. Mourning, who is not exactly known for his longevity, has played a bunch more games than Reed - almost 200 more.

Mourning played about 100 or so games less than Dwight and Nate. They all had primes of similar length, so it's not enough to knock him down outright, but both Dwight and Nate have contributed much more value post prime than Mourning did, as a whole. Dwight was also a significantly better rebounder than Mourning, but Dwight is also... Dwight.

Dikembe and Zo both show Dwight up with what RAPM data we have on them, for what it's worth. It does seem to confirm what people have gradually come to believe - that Dwight just wasn't as impactful as he seemed in his prime.

WOWYR from greatest to least:

Dikembe - 8.5, Thurmond - 5.0, Mourning - 4.3, Dwight - 4.2, Reed - 1.2

I'm not as high on Thurmond as I thought I was - he was definitely at least a slight negative on offense. He was just as inefficient as Russell while taking worse shots (midrange) and being a much worse playmaker. Therefore, I think I can safely say Dikembe is at the top of the pack for me.

As for Alonzo vs Dwight vs Nate, it's tough. I honestly think it's super super close. If I could pick a player with a blank slate personality, I'd pick Dwight rather quickly, but he's such a negative spot as a teammate. I think I would have to take Nate over him at the present moment.

VOTE: Dikembe Mutombo
2nd: Nate Thurmond

You have just basically anointed Dikembe Mutombo a Top 10 all time center.

Deke.

I think sometimes in the process of analysis and argumentation that people talk themselves into things sometimes. Because at NO point was Deke at that level, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone, on any forum, at anytime imply that Deke was a Top 10 center. So longevity? But while he had good longevity, that is talked about more than it should be too because he came in to the league so old to start with. Its cool he played until he was so old, but its still just 11 prime years and then a steep decline into bench playerdom. If he'd come in at 22 that would be longevity until he was 33. If he had come in at 20, it would be until he was 31. Good longevity, but his 36791 career minutes are 9000 fewer than Robert Parish, 2000 less than Bellamy, not even 1000 more than Thurmond and Unseld, and fewer than 4000 more than Dwight or 5000 more than Lanier. He actually only has a few thousand more minutes than Admiral (34271), who of course also came in old and is often docked for having a short career.

Deke: 36791min 11729pts 12359reb
Dwight: 33291min 16652pts 12089reb + counting, with an MVP candidate peak

[Doctor MJ]

I'll be honest, none of the candidates voted so far this thread appeal to me all that much (though Unseld is a bit of a mystery to me - no idea where I stand on him). Currently, I'm sorting through a slew of centers - Thurmond, Mutombo, Reed, Mourning, and Howard.

Willis Reed is removed for multiple reasons - his prime is shorter than all these guys, I am not convinced his prime or peak are better either, and that most of his being ranked this high is narrative IMO - he'd be viewed a lot differently without an MVP and a leg injury. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but I need convincing to see him as more than I do. Mourning, who is not exactly known for his longevity, has played a bunch more games than Reed - almost 200 more.

Mourning played about 100 or so games less than Dwight and Nate. They all had primes of similar length, so it's not enough to knock him down outright, but both Dwight and Nate have contributed much more value post prime than Mourning did, as a whole. Dwight was also a significantly better rebounder than Mourning, but Dwight is also... Dwight.

Dikembe and Zo both show Dwight up with what RAPM data we have on them, for what it's worth. It does seem to confirm what people have gradually come to believe - that Dwight just wasn't as impactful as he seemed in his prime.

WOWYR from greatest to least:

Dikembe - 8.5, Thurmond - 5.0, Mourning - 4.3, Dwight - 4.2, Reed - 1.2

I'm not as high on Thurmond as I thought I was - he was definitely at least a slight negative on offense. He was just as inefficient as Russell while taking worse shots (midrange) and being a much worse playmaker. Therefore, I think I can safely say Dikembe is at the top of the pack for me.

As for Alonzo vs Dwight vs Nate, it's tough. I honestly think it's super super close. If I could pick a player with a blank slate personality, I'd pick Dwight rather quickly, but he's such a negative spot as a teammate. I think I would have to take Nate over him at the present moment.

VOTE: Dikembe Mutombo
2nd: Nate Thurmond

You have just basically anointed Dikembe Mutombo a Top 10 all time center.

Deke.

I think sometimes in the process of analysis and argumentation that people talk themselves into things sometimes. Because at NO point was Deke at that level, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone, on any forum, at anytime imply that Deke was a Top 10 center. So longevity? But while he had good longevity, that is talked about more than it should be too because he came in to the league so old to start with. Its cool he played until he was so old, but its still just 11 prime years and then a steep decline into bench playerdom. If he'd come in at 22 that would be longevity until he was 33. If he had come in at 20, it would be until he was 31. Good longevity, but his 36791 career minutes are 9000 fewer than Robert Parish, not even 1000 more than Walt Bellamy and Wes Unseld, and fewer than 5000 more than Dwight or 6000 more than Lanier. He actually only has a few thousand more minutes than Admiral (34271), who of course also came in old and is often docked for having a short career.

Deke: 36791min 11729pts 12359reb
Dwight: 33291min 16652pts 12089reb + counting, with an MVP candidate peak

Deke has a great argument for being the 2nd best defender in history.

Deke's stature also suffers from not turning into a volume scoring big man at a time when that was the norm. The more I reflect on him though while thinking about advances in this era, the more I think he played the right way.

The fact that Hakeem and a few others were worthy of volume scoring gives them an edge over Mutombo certainly, but I feel like Mutombo gets seen as less balanced than, say, Nate Thurmond because Thurmond scored more. But Thurmond scored badly. He should have been used more like Mutombo.

So yeah, there's nothing about Deke being a top 10 center all-time that strikes me as that problematic. I don't have a live GOAT center top 10 list, and I'm also not entirely set that I'll keep siding with him over other centers, but I do think he was a special player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Winsome Gerbil]

I'll be honest, none of the candidates voted so far this thread appeal to me all that much (though Unseld is a bit of a mystery to me - no idea where I stand on him). Currently, I'm sorting through a slew of centers - Thurmond, Mutombo, Reed, Mourning, and Howard.

Willis Reed is removed for multiple reasons - his prime is shorter than all these guys, I am not convinced his prime or peak are better either, and that most of his being ranked this high is narrative IMO - he'd be viewed a lot differently without an MVP and a leg injury. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but I need convincing to see him as more than I do. Mourning, who is not exactly known for his longevity, has played a bunch more games than Reed - almost 200 more.

Mourning played about 100 or so games less than Dwight and Nate. They all had primes of similar length, so it's not enough to knock him down outright, but both Dwight and Nate have contributed much more value post prime than Mourning did, as a whole. Dwight was also a significantly better rebounder than Mourning, but Dwight is also... Dwight.

Dikembe and Zo both show Dwight up with what RAPM data we have on them, for what it's worth. It does seem to confirm what people have gradually come to believe - that Dwight just wasn't as impactful as he seemed in his prime.

WOWYR from greatest to least:

Dikembe - 8.5, Thurmond - 5.0, Mourning - 4.3, Dwight - 4.2, Reed - 1.2

I'm not as high on Thurmond as I thought I was - he was definitely at least a slight negative on offense. He was just as inefficient as Russell while taking worse shots (midrange) and being a much worse playmaker. Therefore, I think I can safely say Dikembe is at the top of the pack for me.

As for Alonzo vs Dwight vs Nate, it's tough. I honestly think it's super super close. If I could pick a player with a blank slate personality, I'd pick Dwight rather quickly, but he's such a negative spot as a teammate. I think I would have to take Nate over him at the present moment.

VOTE: Dikembe Mutombo
2nd: Nate Thurmond

You have just basically anointed Dikembe Mutombo a Top 10 all time center.

Deke.

I think sometimes in the process of analysis and argumentation that people talk themselves into things sometimes. Because at NO point was Deke at that level, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone, on any forum, at anytime imply that Deke was a Top 10 center. So longevity? But while he had good longevity, that is talked about more than it should be too because he came in to the league so old to start with. Its cool he played until he was so old, but its still just 11 prime years and then a steep decline into bench playerdom. If he'd come in at 22 that would be longevity until he was 33. If he had come in at 20, it would be until he was 31. Good longevity, but his 36791 career minutes are 9000 fewer than Robert Parish, not even 1000 more than Walt Bellamy and Wes Unseld, and fewer than 5000 more than Dwight or 6000 more than Lanier. He actually only has a few thousand more minutes than Admiral (34271), who of course also came in old and is often docked for having a short career.

Deke: 36791min 11729pts 12359reb
Dwight: 33291min 16652pts 12089reb + counting, with an MVP candidate peak

Deke has a great argument for being the 2nd best defender in history.

Deke's stature also suffers from not turning into a volume scoring big man at a time when that was the norm. The more I reflect on him though while thinking about advances in this era, the more I think he played the right way.

The fact that Hakeem and a few others were worthy of volume scoring gives them an edge over Mutombo certainly, but I feel like Mutombo gets seen as less balanced than, say, Nate Thurmond because Thurmond scored more. But Thurmond scored badly. He should have been used more like Mutombo.

So yeah, there's nothing about Deke being a top 10 center all-time that strikes me as that problematic. I don't have a live GOAT center top 10 list, and I'm also not entirely set that I'll keep siding with him over other centers, but I do think he was a special player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

He was a pretty lousy offensive player.

Like Dwight in that coaches and teammates rolled their eyes while they fed him a handful of post feeds for slow motion mechanical post moves to keep him happy, because he always wanted more shots. Like Dwight again with no ball or passing skills. Unlike Dwight though, not a good off the ball player either. It was all defense.

And the defense, while certainly up there amongst the greats, was not clearly above the level of own era competitors like Admiral and Mourning. It's possible it was better than Hakeem and Ewing. But who knows about Thurmond, Big Ben, Dwight, the myth of brief Walton etc. He was a great defender, but there were limitations. He was huge and lanky, but stiff and not a fluid athlete. He didn't chase, he lurked. He's certainly got a strong argument if your phrase it "greatest rim protector of all time", but overall defender = ?

And he just was NOT that level guy. I know. I was there. He was a great complimentary piece -- the prototype of all prototypes of the 11-11 shotblocking/rebounding center -- that with enough other good players could anchor 45-55 win type teams. He couldn't remotely do it alone. Nor could he lift those teams up to actually contenderdom. He was a great defender and an All Star for it, but he wasn't a dominant overall player. He was never an MVP candidate of any kind (take that back, looked it up, and in a single year in 1996-97, he finished 13th).

But we've had this style conversation before with Miller. You seem to have a thing for the "oh he was good too" peripheral guys from the 90s. But Deke? last time we had a rank the all time centers list I think he was listed out beyond #20.

[pandrade83]

We still have centers left who had MVP caliber years and/or won MVPs with at least decent longevity and we're voting for Mutombo here? He has 11 good years, so he's not some sort of longevity monster either - Howard has more good years than him and a substantially higher peak.

Even the one thing Mutombo was great at - defense - he's not anchoring the very best defenses in the league at any point - his lack of mobility really hurts him there. I really struggle with this one.

[Clyde Frazier]

But Deke? last time we had a rank the all time centers list I think he was listed out beyond #20.

In the 2014 project, Mutombo ranked 14th among centers and 49th overall. If voted in here, it'd put him 11th among centers, which I agree is too high.

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Willis Reed

Vote 2 - Dolph Schayes

On their way to the championship in 1970, willis helped the knicks knock off 2 of the most dominant centers of all time in wilt and kareem. Undersized for a center at 6’9”, his brute strength and good defensive instincts were still able to deter them. He also had a great outside shot for a big man, which was very effective against wilt in his later years. He would again get the best of wilt in 73 when the knicks took down the lakers in the finals.

I don’t have a problem with questioning his 2 finals MVPs relative to Clyde’s level of play in those series. However, I don’t doubt that reed was a player whose impact went beyond the box score, and I’d say that’s what voters were recognizing when selecting him as finals MVP in both seasons. This was best exemplified in the famous moment when reed came through the tunnel in game 7 of the 70 finals:

Watch on YouTube

As the lakers were warming up, they froze as they saw willis coming onto the court (he had previously missed game 6 with a torn muscle in his thigh, and no one expected him to play). He hit his first 2 jumpers, and the rest was history. Dramatic narrative? Of course, but Clyde himself said they wouldn’t have had the confidence to go out there and perform like they did without their captain leading the way. When you have the talent to back it up as willis did, that makes a difference.

He was certainly deserving of winning reg season MVP in 1970, leading the knicks to a 60-22 record and the #1 ranked SRS in the league. He put together season averages of 21.7 PPG, 13.9 RPG, 2 APG, 50.7 FG, 75.6% FT, 55.2% TS (+4.1% above league avg) and .227 WS/48.

From 69-73, reed would anchor a knicks defense that ranked in the top 3rd of the league for 4 seasons:

69 - 4th
70 - 1st
71 - 2nd
73 - 4th

The season after reed retired, the knicks dropped to 11th (of 18) in DRTG. His impact on that end of the floor was clear, as was the ability to lead a group of players to what’s often considered one of the best stretches of “team play” in NBA history.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #49 (12 votes, 7 required for true majority):

Paul Pierce - 4 (Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, LABird, trex_8063)
Willis Reed - 2 (Clyde Frazier, dhsilv2)
Wes Unseld - 1 (pandrade83)
Bob Cousy - 1 (Pablo Novi)
Alex English - 1 (penbeast0)
Allen Iverson - 1 (Winsome Gerbil)
Dikembe Mutombo - 1 (micahclay)
Elvin Hayes - 1 (scabbarista)

In eliminating those six with one vote each, one vote transfers to Pierce, the other five become ghost votes (having been for Howard, Schayes (2), Westbrook, and Thurmond).

Pierce - 5
Reed - 2

Since I cannot (even with secondary votes) narrow this field down to just three, we're going to go into runoff between just the top 2, which we will do from here on out (to save time, but also because I now see we're likely to have several threads that go like this, and we can't very well have runoffs between 6-8 players).

So the runoff between Pierce and Reed starts now. If you cast one of your votes for either, you do not need to repeat. Everyone else please state your choice between these two, with some brief reasons why.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

re: Dikembe
Here again I think you take a fairly hyperbolic licence with semantics and narrative to drive opinion in the direction you want it to go....

He was a pretty lousy offensive player.

Eh......while I don't disagree in any large way to your other description of his offensive game, I do object to use of the word "lousy". Ben Wallace was a "lousy" offensive player; Mark Eaton was "lousy". Dikembe was merely mediocre.

And I don't feel this narrative of him demanding so many touches to be happy extends much beyond his rookie season. The entire rest of his prime he averaged basically 7-9 FGA per 36 minutes (i.e. NOT a large number of touches): he was scoring a little BELOW league average volume (on very GOOD efficiency).

And the defense, while certainly up there amongst the greats, was not clearly above the level of own era competitors like Admiral and Mourning. It's possible it was better than Hakeem and Ewing. But who knows about Thurmond, Big Ben, Dwight, the myth of brief Walton etc. He was a great defender, but there were limitations. He was huge and lanky, but stiff and not a fluid athlete. He didn't chase, he lurked.

This depends on just how far you want to stretch this statement. Compared to bigs like David Robinson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kevin Garnett, or Ben Wallace, yeah, he was "stiff" and "not fluid". Compared to bigs like Smits, Eaton, Laimbeer, Oliver Miller, Shawn Bradley, Kendrick Perkins, post-2004 Shaq, NBA Sabonis, or post-1997 Patrick Ewing.......Mutombo was plenty fluid and mobile.

And it's just not true that he merely lurked in the paint (never coming out to the perimeter) or that he couldn't chase down. I need only look as far as this collection of all his blocks from the '94 1st round series against Seattle to cast some doubt on that statement:

Watch on YouTube

The famous one at the end of G5 is at 12:38.
Can also see him staying with the much quicker Shawn Kemp at 0:47.
At 1:24 (starting from the perimeter on this play), Kemp beats him off the dribble, but he has enough quickness to recover and stay with the play, combined with his remarkable length to come up with the block. And Kemp was an athletic outlier, let's not forget.
There are several other plays within this video.

Or here's the entire G4 from that series:

Watch on YouTube

....to get a more play by play feel for his mobility.

He's certainly got a strong argument if your phrase it "greatest rim protector of all time", but overall defender = ?

Just so I'm clear, you're not actually trying to imply that Dikembe's "overall" defensive impact wasn't great, are you? He's got, iirc, the top 2-3 DRAPM's that have been recorded in the last 20+ seasons.
And frankly, being [arguably] the greatest rim-protector of all-time, plus a more than capable defensive rebounding anchor, plus an excellent low-post defender......and then merely "not bad" at other aspects of big-man defense will be sufficient to put one on the short short list of all-time greatest defenders.

And he just was NOT that level guy. I know. I was there. He was a great complimentary piece -- the prototype of all prototypes of the 11-11 shotblocking/rebounding center -- that with enough other good players could anchor 45-55 win type teams. He couldn't remotely do it alone. Nor could he lift those teams up to actually contenderdom.

No one does it alone.
And while I generally agree Mutombo is more of a complimentary star, I again think you underrate non-scorers. And a "one-sided" defensive big can hypothetically be the best player on a contender team [even in the modern era]. I think we more or less saw this with Ben Wallace in Detroit.
Further, you've implied previously that an 11-11 shotblocking big (Deke was more like a 12-13 shotblocking big, fwiw) cannot be a top 10-15 player, but I don't think that's necessarily the case (certainly many would disagree with you).

He was a great defender and an All Star for it, but he wasn't a dominant overall player. He was never an MVP candidate of any kind (take that back, looked it up, and in a single year in 1996-97, he finished 13th).

I'm going to again harken back to prior DeMarcus Cousins discussion (and diverge from Mutombo for a moment, too), because I know you've championed him in the past, and I seem to recall you saying you may give him some support in this project (please correct me if I am mis-remembering/misquoting you). You stated you thought discussion of Cousins was irrelevant at this time, but it was relevant in speaking directly to you wrt Paul Pierce's candidacy.

You feel what Cousins has done so far in his four "star-level" seasons for putrid teams warrants top 100 (or even 120-125) consideration, so I noted that Paul Pierce did similar (in production and impact) for putrid to mediocre casts for twice [literally TWICE] as long in Boston, followed by 2nd-best status on an all-time great title-winning team, and ~2nd-3rd best on ~3 more contenders, and then four more "pretty good" seasons besides. Thus, if what Cousins has done warrants such high ranking as fringe top 100, surely it's not inconsistent AT ALL to suggest top 50 [perhaps easily] status for Pierce.

And fwiw, where MVP award shares are concerned, I'd note Cousins has yet to garner ANY.

And as an alternate measure of value (one that's based on actual on-court impact), Dikembe ranked 3rd in the league in PI RAPM in '00, was 14th in the league in '99. colts18's APM on rs data had Mutombo tied for 10th in the league in '94 (ps data would likely elevate him higher that year).
So he does have some seasons where he's reasonably close to the top of the heap in impact, despite being a fairly one-sided player.


I'm not supporting him here, and I too think this is a little too high for him; but I don't like overstating negative arguments as a means of [somewhat falsely] tearing him down.

[Doctor MJ]

You have just basically anointed Dikembe Mutombo a Top 10 all time center.

Deke.

I think sometimes in the process of analysis and argumentation that people talk themselves into things sometimes. Because at NO point was Deke at that level, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone, on any forum, at anytime imply that Deke was a Top 10 center. So longevity? But while he had good longevity, that is talked about more than it should be too because he came in to the league so old to start with. Its cool he played until he was so old, but its still just 11 prime years and then a steep decline into bench playerdom. If he'd come in at 22 that would be longevity until he was 33. If he had come in at 20, it would be until he was 31. Good longevity, but his 36791 career minutes are 9000 fewer than Robert Parish, not even 1000 more than Walt Bellamy and Wes Unseld, and fewer than 5000 more than Dwight or 6000 more than Lanier. He actually only has a few thousand more minutes than Admiral (34271), who of course also came in old and is often docked for having a short career.

Deke: 36791min 11729pts 12359reb
Dwight: 33291min 16652pts 12089reb + counting, with an MVP candidate peak

Deke has a great argument for being the 2nd best defender in history.

Deke's stature also suffers from not turning into a volume scoring big man at a time when that was the norm. The more I reflect on him though while thinking about advances in this era, the more I think he played the right way.

The fact that Hakeem and a few others were worthy of volume scoring gives them an edge over Mutombo certainly, but I feel like Mutombo gets seen as less balanced than, say, Nate Thurmond because Thurmond scored more. But Thurmond scored badly. He should have been used more like Mutombo.

So yeah, there's nothing about Deke being a top 10 center all-time that strikes me as that problematic. I don't have a live GOAT center top 10 list, and I'm also not entirely set that I'll keep siding with him over other centers, but I do think he was a special player.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

He was a pretty lousy offensive player.

Like Dwight in that coaches and teammates rolled their eyes while they fed him a handful of post feeds for slow motion mechanical post moves to keep him happy, because he always wanted more shots. Like Dwight again with no ball or passing skills. Unlike Dwight though, not a good off the ball player either. It was all defense.

And the defense, while certainly up there amongst the greats, was not clearly above the level of own era competitors like Admiral and Mourning. It's possible it was better than Hakeem and Ewing. But who knows about Thurmond, Big Ben, Dwight, the myth of brief Walton etc. He was a great defender, but there were limitations. He was huge and lanky, but stiff and not a fluid athlete. He didn't chase, he lurked. He's certainly got a strong argument if your phrase it "greatest rim protector of all time", but overall defender = ?

And he just was NOT that level guy. I know. I was there. He was a great complimentary piece -- the prototype of all prototypes of the 11-11 shotblocking/rebounding center -- that with enough other good players could anchor 45-55 win type teams. He couldn't remotely do it alone. Nor could he lift those teams up to actually contenderdom. He was a great defender and an All Star for it, but he wasn't a dominant overall player. He was never an MVP candidate of any kind (take that back, looked it up, and in a single year in 1996-97, he finished 13th).

But we've had this style conversation before with Miller. You seem to have a thing for the "oh he was good too" peripheral guys from the 90s. But Deke? last time we had a rank the all time centers list I think he was listed out beyond #20.

Well, regarding offense, I'll absolutely concede that he's quite weak on offense compared to most of the others were talking about right now. i don't want to sugar coat it, but i do also want people to realize that the Thurmond's of the world weren't scoring more because they were good at it. Mutombo shot as much as you should expect your center to shoot based on what we see of the game now, which means that he wasn't getting in the way of things like others have.

Re: not clearly above. Well I'll just say: Deke won 4 DPOYs and the DRAPM numbers we see of him is the highest we've seen from anyone. It's fine to me to say that you think others are in the same tier as him, but he was an incredible defensive player and that's not something to be taken lightly.

Regarding other guys you mention:

I think Zo has a great case over Deke. He was undeniably the better all-around player, but Deke has the longevity edge by a good margin. Up to you what you think. Personally, I go back & forth on it and am not set on siding with Deke here.

Thurmond, to me, he's a more problematic Mutombo. That doesn't mean I don't like him. He's someone I may well champion soon, but I don't think I'll have him as high as Mutombo.

Big Ben? To me he's a bit weaker on both sides of the ball. Deke's not a very good offensive player, but Ben was really inept.

Howard? I won't be surprised at all if he gets in soon, and I get the case for him, but well, I think I've made clear why I'm not so high on him.

Re: he was a complimentary piece. I don't disagree with that, but I really don't see any of the other guys people are talking about right now as much different from that, unless it's different in a bad way.

As I say this though: I absolutely do see Zo as something more than a complimentary piece, and that's a good reason to give him more consideration.

[SactoKingsFan]

My run-off vote goes to Pierce. He's my top candidate and provides more total career value than Reed due to a sustained prime that lasted over a decade and more high quality post prime seasons. Not convinced Reed should be in the mix for one of the next few spots. He just doesn't have the prime or career longevity. In addition to Pierce, guys like Howard, Mourning, Thurmond, Billups and Mutombo have good cases over Reed.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

[pandrade83]

Copying & pasting relevant parts of the last thread:

So now it's Pierce & Reed. I take Reed's best two years ('69 & '70) over Pierce's peak - the back to back WS years of nearly 15 are very impressive as is the overall team success and the high team defensive metrics.

The problem for Reed of course, is longevity. After those two years, you have '02, '08 & '11 Pierce trumping '68 & '71 Reed for sure - with '09, '03, '05, '01 & '06 being of comparable quality to those seasons.

Ultimately, the volume of Pierce is too much for Reed to overcome for me.

Run-off Vote: Paul Pierce

[Pablo Novi]

VOTE: Pierce I have at GOAT #98 (ZERO 1st-Teams, 1 2nd-Teams)
(I pick him by default, because of these two, he's the only one I have in my GOAT Top 100. Frankly, I can't believe he's going in before Cousy! I've seen a lot of lists of Celtics' GOAT players, Cousy's been on ALL of them, Pierce is ALWAYS 2nd-Team on them!).

Willis I have at GOAT #103 (ONE 1st-Teams, 4 2nd-Teams) (His lack of longetivity is decisive for me)

Why are these 2 so low on my GOAT list? Because of the players we have not yet voted in, there have been at least 56 other players with more 1st-Team and 2nd-Team selections than they got. (And my #1 criteria is dominating your own position during your own era as exemplified by ALL-League selections).

In my GOAT list "Points" system:
Pierce 7.7 Points
Reed 7.5 Points

I have some FORTY other not-yet-selected players with at least 10 "Points".

[THKNKG]

Pierce is my vote.

I have him roughly a half step below Deke/Mourning, whereas Reed is mich lower. His terrible longevity keeps him pretty low for me.

[Clyde Frazier]

Pierce is my vote.

I have him roughly a half step below Deke/Mourning, whereas Reed is mich lower. His terrible longevity keeps him pretty low for me.

Reed's longevity isn't terrible -- it's below average. Walton's longevity is terrible.

[THKNKG]

Pierce is my vote.

I have him roughly a half step below Deke/Mourning, whereas Reed is mich lower. His terrible longevity keeps him pretty low for me.

Reed's longevity isn't terrible -- it's below average. Walton's longevity is terrible.

I mean, I'm not trying to argue semantics over arbitrary claims. Just meant that compared to those other guys, it's bad. 8-11 year primes essentially double his prime. It's not just "below average" at this level though - it's a good bit below average. Yes, though, I would fully agree that no one who will garner consideration in this project have longevity as bad as Walton.

[pandrade83]

VOTE: Pierce I have at GOAT #98 (ZERO 1st-Teams, 1 2nd-Teams)
(I pick him by default, because of these two, he's the only one I have in my GOAT Top 100. Frankly, I can't believe he's going in before Cousy! I've seen a lot of lists of Celtics' GOAT players, Cousy's been on ALL of them, Pierce is ALWAYS 2nd-Team on them!).

Willis I have at GOAT #103 (ONE 1st-Teams, 4 2nd-Teams) (His lack of longetivity is decisive for me)

Why are these 2 so low on my GOAT list? Because of the players we have not yet voted in, there have been at least 56 other players with more 1st-Team and 2nd-Team selections than they got. (And my #1 criteria is dominating your own position during your own era as exemplified by ALL-League selections).

In my GOAT list "Points" system:
Pierce 7.7 Points
Reed 7.5 Points

I have some FORTY other not-yet-selected players with at least 10 "Points".

Pablo - I agree that Reed is going WAY too early & Pierce isn't at the top of my list. But I have Pierce going around 50? & Reed is someone I would be supporting in the 60's or so.

So, if we assume that of the group I'm relatively low on them - you're an outlier. Have you thought about something like a version of:

All-Star Teams + (3rd Team All NBA * 2) + (2nd Team All NBA * 4) + (1st Team All NBA * 6) + (MVP * 10) + (Best Player on a Title Team * 5) - and then index those values against:

US Population + (World Population * % of Foreign Players)

For years where the league was segregated, you could use some sort of way to scale back the US Population for those years too.

If you did it that way, I think you'd get a system that would yield better results.

[Doctor MJ]

Pierce is my vote.

I have him roughly a half step below Deke/Mourning, whereas Reed is mich lower. His terrible longevity keeps him pretty low for me.

Reed's longevity isn't terrible -- it's below average. Walton's longevity is terrible.

Ftr, Reeds best year is 1/5th his total win shares.

Waltons is a little more than 1/4th

Zo is a little more than 1/7th

Deke is less than 1/10th

Just something to consider. It's not the whole story, but Reeds longevity issues are pretty far outside the norm.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app