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

[Winsome Gerbil]

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....

Spoiler:

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.

That's the second time Demarcus Cousins has come up out of nowhere, and so I'm going to go ahead and get to work dispelling some of the silly prejudice toward his case his case right now. Save me some work in 40 picks or whenever guys in his range start coming up.

basically the ONLY way DeMarcus Cousins is an unworthy candidate for a Top 100 list is because he has played on crappy teams. That's it. And because win shares intentionally discriminates based on team wins, that singular stat is going to question his candidacy. Because virtually none of the others will.

To whit:

BPM
Career BPM: 2.6 (and if you subtract his wild rookie campaign where he notched a -2.9, his career BPM would be closer to 3.0) . But in any case, 2.6. If you run a search on bballreference for all career BPM's 2.5 or greater for players that have played in at least 15000 minutes, that leaves Cousins 87th. Not wonderful, but within the Top 100. And in addition, here is some of his company:

84. Iverson 2.7
87. Cousins 2.6
89. Grant 2.6 (the immortal Horace worthy of Top 100hood for being somebody's roleplayer)
91. Howard 2.6 (in discussion now)
93. Billups 2.5 (people have started poking around)
94. McHale 2.5 (already taken)

Deke's at a 2.1 BTW.

So by that measure he is sitting right in amongst guys who not only will be taken Top 100, but may be taken inside the Top 50.

PER
You mention "these last 4 years". Yeah, anybody who hasn't been living in a hole knows Cousins has been massively productive these last 4 years. But few, and too few for credit, admit just HOW massively productive he has been. The following is a list of the highest PERs of all time from the 4 year span between ages 23-26 (min 200 gms/50 gms a season):

1) Jordan 31.0
2) Chamberlain 29.9
3) Lebron 29.8
4) Durant 28.2
5) Shaq 28.2
6) Kareem 27.9
7) Petit 27.5
8) Admiral 27.1
9) Barkley 26.7
10) Paul 26.4
11) Oscar 26.2
12) Baylor 25.7
13) Duncan 25.7
14) Johnston 25.5
15) Leonard 25.4
16) McGrady 25.4
17) Wade 25.3
18) Cousins 25.2
19) Westbrook 25.1
20) Howard 25.0
21) Moses 24.9
22) Harden 24.6
23) Dirk 24.6
24) Garnett 24.4
25) Dantley 24.3
26) Bryant 24.2
27) Olajuwon 24.2
28) Schayes 24.1
29) Curry 24.0
30) Amare 24.0

So yeah "these last 4 years" have been pretty damn epic for anybody actually watching them. That's a list not only of HOFs, that's the First Ballot list. Those are the megastars. Every single person on that list with the possible exception of Johnston, who I never know what to do with, and Leonard, who I am damn sure somebody is going to start championing despite a much briefer peak/prime than even Cousins, is going to be in this project. Deservedly. So once again the debate, when it's time to have it, is going to be all those reasons why we are going to treat Cousins differently than EVERY OTHER PLAYER that massively productive in NBA history.

Nor is focusing on the last 4 years any attempt to hide the overall career numbers. Cousins career PER is 22.4, 33rd all time, again well within the Top 100 of all time, and sitting in more elite company:

Career PER
31) Baylor 22.7
32) Garnett 22.7
33) Cousins 22.4
34) Moses 22.3
35) McGrady 22.1

And speaking of Moses there, these are the comparative PERs for Moses and Cousins age 20-26:

Age 20-26 by PER:
Malone: 16.8, 19.8, 21.2, 23.7, 24.1, 25.1, 26.8
Cousins: 14.6, 21.7, 20.2, 26.1, 25.2, 23.6, 25.8

If Moses has just completed his 7th year and this project was underway, you think he would have been worthy of inclusion?


RPM

In the last 3 years (not 4, because RPM admittedly builds in bias from previous seasons and so dramatically underestimates a player's first big season https://cornerthreehoops.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/explaining-espns-real-plus-minus/) Cousins RPM had been 9th, 14th and 19th in the league. Compare that to some of the other major stars of the era:

Cousins: 9th, 14th, 19th
Harden: 3rd, 16th, 13th
Durant: 24th, 8th, 11th
Davis: 4th, 61st, 17th
Westbrook: 6th, 6th, 9th
Wall: 22nd, 34th, 48th
Griffin: 40th, 55th, 22nd
MGasol: 31st, 96th, 36th
Lillard: 28th, 87th, 28th

and it gives some idea for the company he keeps impact wise. He's not LeBron tier. But he's much closer to the 2nd tier guys than he is to the 3rd tier guys.


Win Shares
Win shares are no friend to a guy stuck on a losing team. They will be held over Cousins' head beyond all reason for those not prone to reason.

And yet, Cousins' career WS/48 is .114. His best mark was .166.

Isiah Thomas's career WS/48 was .109. His best mark was .173. And we just took him a few picks ago.

Quite clearly WS of that level not only are not some sort of universal disqualifier, you can actually be voted into the Top 40 with them. it's a wart, not a blanket disqualifier unless applied in unequal fashion.

All Time Scoring

Cousins is 36th all time in career Pts/Gm:
36) Cousins 21.2pts
37) Admiral 21.1pts
38) Ewing 21.0pts

And he's 13th all time in career Pts/per 100 possessions:
1) Jordan 40.4
2) Durant 36.9
3) James 36.7
4) Bryant 35.8
5) Gervin 35.3
6) Shaq 35.2
7) Melo 34.9
8) Wade 34.8
9) Wilkins 34.7
10) Mailman 34.4
11) Westbrook 33.8
12) Iverson 33.7
13) Cousins 33.3

And again, is there ANY doubt about any of those guys above him being on this list?

Summary
So to summarize, this is a player who is ranked:

33rd all time in career PER
87th all time in career BPM
36th all time in career Pts/gm
13th all time in Pts/per100

And we are compiling a list of 100 guys. Now my assumption, based on lists of this kind that I've seen, is that eventually guys like Blake Griffin are going to be discussed. We already took Curry. Yao Ming has 15808 career minutes. Blake has 16567. Cousins has 15570. Once we start getting out in those ranges am I going to champion Cousins? You're damn right I am. He's an obvious candidate for anybody not stuck mucking around in the Kardashian level media narrative.




As for the current playoff, again I'll take Pierce under protest that it's nonsensical for inferior players to become superior because they get lucky enough to join up with better players late in their careers.

Runoff: Pierce

[trex_8063]

I think there's more than a share procedural flaw in comparing career stats like ppg, PER, BPM of a guy who just finished his 7th season, to the career stats of guys who played 14-19 seasons.......we'll see how high his marks are after he's been in the league another 7-12 years. Also, do we think he'd be putting up these huge volume numbers if he weren't on crap teams?

Re: "out of no where"......I stated exactly why (dedicated a paragraph to it) it relates to player(s) currently having traction. But anyway....

[trex_8063]

Thru post #62 (not close):

Pierce - 10 (trex_8063, Dr Positivity, Doctor MJ, LABird, penbeast0, SactoKingsFan, pandrade83, Pablo Novi, micahclay, Winsome Gerbil)
Reed - 2 (Clyde Frazier, dhsilv2)


Calling it for Pierce, will have the new one up in a jiffy....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[trex_8063]

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.

If basing a list very heavily upon awards/honors, I agree with something of this nature. One major adjustment I'd recommend to what you've suggested is in the portion of era accounting by population. I generally agree that's perhaps as good a way as any to go as any, except I'd modify that part with consideration of size of the league. e.g.:

[US Population + (World Population * % of Foreign Players)]/no. of Teams in League

And personally, I'd favor a pt system something like: All-Def 2nd Teams + (All-Def 1st Teams * 2) + (All Star Teams * 3) + (All-NBA 3rd Teams * 4) + (All-NBA 2nd Teams * 6) + (All-NBA 1st Teams * 8) + (MVP * 10)

...and then maybe:
(Best player on a Title Team * 5) + (2nd-best player on a Title Team * 3) + (3rd-best player on a Title Team * 1).........or something like that.


Certain player types are still bound to get underrated (and others overrated) by this means, but it likely wouldn't yield anything too outrageous (i.e. likely no results that couldn't be reasonably well-supported by other means).

[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".

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.

pendrade83,
Yes, I recognize that I'm an outlier. (More later).

Before settling on my GOAT system, I considered a number of other ones; first a number based on combinations of basic stats; then based on one or more advanced stats. I found ALL of them not-good-enough. I then tried ones quite LIKE the one you lay out here. My problems with THAT system are:

All-Star Teams - I discount them entirely; ALL-League Teams are far superior (covering whole seasons instead of "half-seasons"); and the results, imo, are close to spot on, whereas All-Star selections have had MANY mistakes.

MVPs: I find the MVP-selections to be inferior to 1st-Team ALL-League selections because: a) They're much more limited; b) I've disagreed with the actual choice a number of years (2 Xs Russell over Wilt; Cowens over KAJ; Nash 2X over others; and other years.) I've seen the "MVP SHARES" list; and feel that while that is DECIDEDLY better than just MVPs; it is clearly inferior to the results my system produces. (There's been a relatively recent thread that addressed this very issue.) viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1605350&start=40#start_here Post #45 includes most of the points made back-and-forth between penbeast0 and myself.

"Best player on a title team": In the FIRST stage of my GOAT-list building system, the Regular Season is THE basis. The Regular Season is 10+ TIMES the sample size for just over half the teams (average games per Play-Offs OF Play-Off Teams: 11 (2 series of 5.5 games each)). The just-less-than-half of teams that don't qualify, play zero games. Combined that makes the Play-Offs 1/15th the size of the Regular Season. But that's just in terms of lengths. In terms of results: factors such as: length of preceding series, match-ups, injuries and other factors play much bigger roles in the Play-Offs. (So I leave all non ALL-League selection factors, including Play-Off performances & results - to my SECOND STEP. In that 2nd step, I would NEVER restrict considerations of other players besides just "the best player on the title team". For me that would be grossly MIS-representative.
-------------
TWO OTHER SETS OF "BETTER RESULTS" DUE TO MY/PABLO'S GOAT-LIST BUILDING SYSTEM:
1) I consider my results SUPERIOR to any other serious list I've ever seen. (Few lists even have one player per position in each descending set of 10 GOAT spots - and I prefer my positional-rankings to anybody else's. Imo, most lists are FAR TOO Center-Centric; AND most are FAR TOO BIASED, one way or others, when it comes to decade vs decade comparisons.

2) I wouldn't be surprised that my GOAT list is closer to the "universal average" of all GOAT lists than most any of those individual lists would be. Particularly when GOAT lists made up til today are compared to each other in the future. I'm betting future analyzers will move more in the direction of one-player-per-position for sets of 5 GOAT spots AND with results that more closely approximate the way my list is now.

This raises the question of: Does holding a position that is an outlier NECESSARILY a bad thing? Naturally, generally, outlier positions do NOT reflect reality better than do consensus positions. But the exceptions to this TENDENCY are legion. In science, the INITIALLY outlier theories, IF more successful in describing nature (than existing theories), ULTIMATELY become mainstream.

I'm NOT trying to argue STRONGLY for anything at all when it comes to NBA-ABA-NBL matters; nor vis-a-vis my GOAT-list building system. I neither place super importance on the sport; nor do I have an ego involvement in my system being right. The ONLY reason I defend my GOAT-list building system is because it IS NEW AND, I THINK it's an improvement.