ISH All-time Top 25 Forwards Project #20: Paul Pierce vs Dolph Schayes.

[Kblaze8855]

In a bit of a surprise Pierce beat Jerry Lucas making our list so far:


26. Webber
25. Dantley
24. King
23. Cunningham
22. Worthy
21. Lucas
20. ?

Paul Pierce:

http://negativevorp.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pierce.jpg


9 time all star
4 times all NBA(3 third 1 second)
2008 NBA champion
2008 Finals MVP
Career 22/6/4 player with single season peaks of 27 points, 7 rebounds, and 5 assists.
Led NBA in free throws in 2003
Led NBA in total points in 2002
Second in the NBA in steals per game in 2002


What else they were saying:


"To me, he's probably the best scorer in the league," said O'Neal

That Oneal not being the one who named him the truth(Shaq)...that one is Jermaine. Night after playing the Celtics in 2005.

Pretty straight forward what it means...but ill add...in February of that season he averaged 34ppg on 48% shooting.



Dolph Schayes

http://www.jewishsports.net/BioImages/bookA_Page_035_Image_0001.jpg



12 time all star
12 times all NBA(6 first 6 second)
1955 NBA champion
Career 19/12/3 player with single season peaks of 25 points, 16 rebounds, and 4 assists.
Led the NBA in rebounds per game in 1951
Led NBA in free throws twice
Second in MVP voting in 1958

What they were saying



"He's a true superstar," said Earl Lloyd, the first black man to play in the NBA and former teammate of Schayes. "The only problem I've had with Dolph is that Dolph was so good, when you were on the court with him, you had to guard against becoming a spectator because you were almost tempted to just stand there and watch him play."

Why it matters?

Despite his stereotypical "Skinny white guy" look he was considered quite amazing to watch and his few highlights online kinda show you why. he had more skills than people probably assume. Ive seen him hitting long jumpers, floaters with both hands, running the court, throwing nice no look passes and all. hes likely never gonna get a fair shake far as credit for his skills because most wont look past how he looks and when he played.

[Kblaze8855]

I think this is fairly simple.

If you care about what each player did....Dolph wins. If you care how good they were considered in their era...Dolph wins.

If you choose to vote for the player you would want on your team...right now. In 2011...based on the skills they have and their scoring numbers....Pierce wins.

Comes down to legacy vs what you consider their ability to be. Really no other way to look at it.

[Legends66NBA7]

My vote is for Dolph Schayes.

He played in 16 seasons and helped to lead his team into the playoffs 15 times. Schayes was a great free throw shooter, as he lead the NBA in free throw percentage 3 times (1958, 1960, and 1962).

For a long time he held the NBA Iron Man streak of 706 games.

When Schayes retired, he was the all-time leading scorer in NBA history.

Though he never won an MVP, he was runner up in 1958, finished in the Top 5 3 more times, and was in the Top 10 for MVP voting 6 times.

In contrast to Pierce, he was in the MVP voting only 5 times and only once finished in the Top 10 (7th place).

Though, kblaze did state that this will come down to legacy vs ability, I think this should be a win for Schayes easily.

[Kyle_korver]

Isn't pierce the celtics all time leading scorer???..that's a good accolade to add

[WillC]

Dolph Schayes in a landslide victory.

Schayes was a top 10 (in fact, arguably top 5) player in the NBA for 12 consecutive years between 1950 and 1962. He finished 2nd in MVP voting one year behind Bill Russell.

(Paul Pierce, meanwhile, finished in the top 10 in MVP voting just once in his career)

Schayes had the highest win shares (arguably the best advanced statistic) of any player in the 1950s.

The fact that Pierce will receive any votes at all is a joke and shows the complete lack of respect that many 'fans' have for the history of the game.

Oh, and this is coming from someone who paid $2,000 to travel from the UK to Boston last year to watch the Celtics in person.

[RobertdeMeijer]

Oh, I have great respect for Schayes. I'm very glad he made it this high in the list. He should be remembered.

But putting things into perspective, I believe Paul Pierce has achieved more greatness. I honestly think that being a perennial All-star after the merger counts more than being a perennial All-nba player before Russell joined the league. The fifties were, not only skill-wise, but also legacy-wise, less great than the aughts.
I'll put Bob Pettit higher than Paul Pierce without a doubt, because for a awhile, he was the arguably the best player in the league for awhile. That's pretty special.

What is special about Schayes then?
-He had a shot named "Sputnik" (but Pierce had a great nickname)
-He played a season with his right arm broken (which might say more about the league than him...)
-He's Jewish (which I guess is about as important as being a Celtic)
-He led the Nationals to a championship (and Pierce won a Finals MVP)

Look, if I'm ever going to tell my kids the history of basketball, I'm gonna mention him... eventually. After Mikan, Johnston, Cousy and Pettit.
When I get to the naughts, I'll also first mention a bunch of other guys (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Nash). But it's gonna be much more compelling. My kids are going to remember him much better than Schayes.
Paul Pierce gets my nod, by a small margin.

[Rnbizzle]

Oh, I have great respect for Schayes. I'm very glad he made it this high in the list. He should be remembered.

But putting things into perspective, I believe Paul Pierce has achieved more greatness. I honestly think that being a perennial All-star after the merger counts more than being a perennial All-nba player before Russell joined the league. The fifties were, not only skill-wise, but also legacy-wise, less great than the aughts.
I'll put Bob Pettit higher than Paul Pierce without a doubt, because for a awhile, he was the arguably the best player in the league for awhile. That's pretty special.

What is special about Schayes then?
-He had a shot named "Sputnik" (but Pierce had a great nickname)
-He played a season with his right arm broken (which might say more about the league than him...)
-He's Jewish (which I guess is about as important as being a Celtic)
-He led the Nationals to a championship (and Pierce won a Finals MVP)

Look, if I'm ever going to tell my kids the history of basketball, I'm gonna mention him... eventually. After Mikan, Johnston, Cousy and Pettit.
When I get to the naughts, I'll also first mention a bunch of other guys (Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Wade, Nash). But it's gonna be much more compelling. My kids are going to remember him much better than Schayes.
Paul Pierce gets my nod, by a small margin.
Some of your reasons are pretty shitty but I do agree with you overall. Pierce should take this one.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Is Dolph Shayes really better than the other forwards?

Blaze, I do not get how you determine the order.

It's funny because the order in which **you** place the matchup effects this ranking way more than taking a poll and making a list a la what ESPN did.

[Fatal9]

Paul Pierce

I'm less inclined to voting for players based on accolades in their era, particularly in the 50s when the top flight players just aren't comparable to those of other eras imo. And how well your game translates era to era kind of matters to me. You can look at things like MVP voting, but let's keep the competition for MVP in perspective for when Dolph was getting top 5 finishes, wasn't exactly beating out or going against guys like Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, T-Mac, Iverson, LeBron, Wade etc etc etc year in year out. Based on playing ball? I don't really see what Dolph does better than Pierce other than rebound (though gap not as big as it seems based on the raw numbers...Pierce's rebounding numbers probably come out to 10+ under the same pace).

If the MVP thing is going to be the argument...I'm guessing if we looked at most all-time lists, you'd have ranked most of the elite guys in the league during Pierce's time over guys who were finishing in the top 5 in MVP in voting in the 50s (George Yardley, Mel Hutchins, Cousy...but then again Cousy is a top 10 guard of all-time according to ISH, etc etc). I don't see how that's fair to the player who had to play in a league with a deeper talent pool.

Pierce doesn't really lack anything, legit franchise caliber scorer/offensive player, really good prime (26/7/3, 25/6/4 26/7/4 on really good efficiency while on playoff teams that went as far as the conference finals), great all-around game, lots of clutch moments, won championship/finals MVP, has longevity and durability (only one season under 70 games...and that year the Celtics were 4-31 without him)...the main thing being held against him (accolades) is essentially because the league had better players when he happened to play. And also...it's like if people at a time overlooked a guy like Pierce was early on, Dirk to an extent too before '06 (then again afterwards in '07)...doesn't necessarily mean that is an accurate protrayal of how good they actually were in those years. Guy like Rose has an MVP and Wade doesn't, are you going to be telling me in 20 years that Rose was seen as the better player in those years? MVP voting is very situational, and you're just not gonna be placing that high when in your prime, Antoine Walker taking 8 threes a game is your wingman. It's like situation and context don't even matter.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Isn't pierce the celtics all time leading scorer???..that's a good accolade to add
No, he isn't. But don't let that stop you!

[PTB Fan]

Paul Pierce

Both were great offensive players, but Pierce was just better. He had more clutch performance, is more rounded, has a better skill set and has been better performer in the playoffs.

[Yung D-Will]

Is Dolph Shayes really better than the other forwards?

Blaze, I do not get how you determine the order.

It's funny because the order in which **you** place the matchup effects this ranking way more than taking a poll and making a list a la what ESPN did.

Everyone gave him list and he combined that with like the espn list and came up with the order If I'm correct.

[Gotterdammerung]

Schayes: 16 years, 11 quality, 12 time All-Stars, '58 MVP runner-up. top 5 in 52-55, 57 & 58, & top 10 in 50, 51, 56, 59-61). Best player on '55 Nationals.

The perfect player for the rough & tumble 50s. Once broke his arm during his prime and went ahead to shoot left handed, and clubbed suckers with his right on the way to the basket. Effective both before & after the institution of the 24 second shot-clock.

Put up points (18.6 for 16 years) with high arcing two-hand set shot, and drove recklessly, and had excellent FT accuracy. Actually led the NBA in 1958, 60, 62.

Shrewd passer, and rugged rebounder. Belligerent tho' slow-footed on defense, but always left his opponents with bruises.

PP doesn't stand out as much in his era of great swingmen and doesn't even crack the top 15 small forwards, much less 10. I have Schayes 6th on my alltime power forward list.

[Real Men Wear Green]

PP doesn't stand out as much in his era of great swingmen and doesn't even crack the top 15 small forwards, much less 10. I have Schayes 6th on my alltime power forward list.
May I ask who your 15 better SFs are?

[JohnnySic]

Pierce IS a top-10/15 sf....

[HylianNightmare]

don't want to get into the era argument but i'm rolling with

Paul Pierce

there is no denying he is the 2nd best SF of the 00's, guy has consistently done it ALL for his team and finally got rewarded with some good teammates and a ring. like someone said Dolph has plenty of accolades himself and he will certainly go down in history as a great player.

[Gotterdammerung]

May I ask who your 15 better SFs are?
Bird, Hondo, Pippen, Dr. J, Barry, Baylor, Billy C, Wilkins, Fulks, James, English, King, Dantley, Big Game James, Arizin, Jones. You could make a case against the last few, though. The top 10 are immutable.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Bird, Hondo, Pippen, Dr. J, Barry, Baylor, Billy C, Wilkins, Fulks, James, English, King, Dantley, Big Game James, Arizin, Jones. You could make a case against the last few, though. The top 10 are immutable.
Some of those guys are better. Some are debatable. One of them is ridiculous. (http://databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=FULKSJO01%20) I'm not sure what his exact place on such a list would be, but the only guys I could see dominating prime Pierce over a series are Bird, Pippen and Doc. Most of the guys on the list could outplay him but he could outplay them as well.

[Gotterdammerung]

Most of the guys on the list could outplay him but he could outplay them as well.

No doubt.

But I include far more criteria than just playground logic. Hence the rankings.

[Rnbizzle]

Bird, Hondo, Pippen, Dr. J, Barry, Baylor, Billy C, Wilkins, Fulks, James, English, King, Dantley, Big Game James, Arizin, Jones. You could make a case against the last few, though. The top 10 are immutable.
How old are you?

[G.O.A.T]

Some of those guys are better. Some are debatable. One of them is ridiculous. (http://databasebasketball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=FULKSJO01%20) I'm not sure what his exact place on such a list would be, but the only guys I could see dominating prime Pierce over a series are Bird, Pippen and Doc. Most of the guys on the list could outplay him but he could outplay them as well.

Fulks won a title as the best player on his team and in the league and averaged more than six points per game more than any other player during the regular season. He made three consecutive all-league first teams.

Pierce was arguably never a top-10 player, certainly never top five.

It's anything but ridiculous. You just don't know anything about the era and would rather discount it entirely than learn about it.

If you want to be ignorant and hold the year a man was born against him, fine, but don't discount people who care enough to inform themselves on the entire history of the game and put things into the context of the era they played in, not the context of the modern era which didn't exist then.

[Nelson14]

Not surrised pp is doing well pretty much everyone on wadnt even alive to see dolph play, Shame there isn't more footage available of old school games

[Real Men Wear Green]

Fulks won a title as the best player on his team and in the league and averaged more than six points per game more than any other player during the regular season. He made three consecutive all-league first teams.

Pierce was arguably never a top-10 player, certainly never top five.

It's anything but ridiculous. You just don't know anything about the era and would rather discount it entirely than learn about it.

If you want to be ignorant and hold the year a man was born against him, fine, but don't discount people who care enough to inform themselves on the entire history of the game and put things into the context of the era they played in, not the context of the modern era which didn't exist then.
Speaking of ignorance, did you know that the first half of Fulks career the NBA wasn't even integrated? The NBA is something like 80% black but I'm supposed to view stats accumulated before black people weren't allowed to play seriously? Put that into your context. No, I'm not going to rate this guy over Pierce.

And the argument that Pierce was never top-10 is wrong, FYI.

[Rnbizzle]

If you want to be ignorant and hold the year a man was born against him, fine, but don't discount people who have too much spare time on their hands and inform themselves on the entire history of the game and put things into the context of the era they played in.
Fixed that part for ya grandpa..

Why do people keep on comparing players from the freakin 50s to current players.. It's such a waste of time.

Inb4 people tell me to gtfo this topic because I feel that way. I think some of the comparisons are interesting, but from the 80s up or something. Before that it was just not Basketball in my eyes.

/rant :rant

[G.O.A.T]

Speaking of ignorance, did you know that the first half of Fulks career the NBA wasn't even integrated? The NBA is something like 80% black but I'm supposed to view stats accumulated before black people weren't allowed to play seriously? Put that into your context. No, I'm not going to rate this guy over Pierce.

So then clearly you think someone like Adam Dunn is greater than Babe Ruth in baseball.

There was nothing Fulks could do about that. That is the context. Holding that against him is holding the year he was born against him.


And the argument that Pierce was never top-10 is wrong, FYI.

Pierce made one all-NBA second team and finished in the top 10 of the MVP voting once. Both were when his physical abilities and numbers were past prime levels. There is certainly an argument he was never top 10.

[Kblaze8855]

Goat you really gotta give some people more credit than to assume they wont rank a guy highly due to just his birthday. having posted with him since like...2003 I believe...I dont believe hes nearly that stupid. Its not birthday. He wouldnt put Pierce over Bill Russell im sure. Perhaps...perhaps I say...not even Mikan. Im sure he would at least give credit to his place in history.

But Joe fulks can be argued as inferior...just off ability. Or if that offends you...performance. You always seem to act like its an invalid argument....but how? how does one just sit aside how well you played and do it to such an extent they convince themselves that anyone who considers it is just an idiot or uninformed? Joe Fulks for his 3 best years...

23ppg with 30% shooting and 26 shots a night. 22PPG...25% shooting...taking 29 shots a game. Then 26 on 31% on 28 shots a game.

For his era it was no doubt considered impressive. But...its a guy missing 70 to 75% of his shots and at times taking 30 shots to score 22 points. I read a recap where he shot like 6 of 35. And I have no doubt it wasnt rare. In the 48 playoffs over 13 games he put up 22ppg on 24% shooting. And he shot 29 times a game. When he led his team to the title he put up 22 on 29%...26 shots a game.

There is an argument for Pierce on performance alone. Just because 20 and change a game missing 75% of your shots can make you all nba first team in the 40s....doesnt mean you are better than Paul Pierce because hes only 3rd team in 2006.

At what point do we just start being real here?

This isnt Babe Ruth vs a modern player. Babe Ruth both for his day...and today...was performing at an all time great level. You can argue he had it easier to do so. But you look at how he performed...then or now...its a great baseball playing.

Joe Fulks going 5-30 as a guy known to be a scorer is not great basketball playing. It just shows they had much different standards.

You have a season like Joe Fulks now...wel forget that. You would be cut before you got 5 games into it. But Ruth? If someone had a ruth like season now...hes the MVP.

Just like if someone had a Wilt like season....or Oscar. Perhaps even Mikan. 28/14 on 43%? not ideal...but it would be a very good player. A great player.

Fulks was shooting 24%. in the playoffs. Its fair to discuss if that is...a problem isnt it? Clearly it wasnt a problem for his team. And things have to be put into context.

But dont you have a point where you can just admit that a guy like Pierce was playing better? And that it has to be considered?

[Gotterdammerung]

How old are you?
Doesn't really matter but ad hominems are par for the course on this board.

Started watching NBA religiously in 1991. Sporadically in 1986 and after but watched almost every finals game live ever since 1991, tho I missed Game 1.

[Kblaze8855]

Inb4 people tell me to gtfo this topic because I feel that way. I think some of the comparisons are interesting, but from the 80s up or something. Before that it was just not Basketball in my eyes.

So what were the guys(plural...) who were still good players/all stars in the 80s who also played in the 60s doing?

Off the top of my head I can think of like 4 guys from the 60s who played the same basic people Isiah/magic/bird types did and were stars while they did it.

Pretty much everyone from the 60s who wasnt 40 by the 80s was fine.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Thanks Blaze. As for the rest of it:
Pierce made one all-NBA second team and finished in the top 10 of the MVP voting once. Both were when his physical abilities and numbers were past prime levels. There is certainly an argument he was never top 10.
The argument is wrong. Which 10 players were better than Pierce when he led the NBA in total points and led the Cs to the EC Finals? Being 3rd team All-NBA doesn't change the fact that he was one of the game's top scorers, one of the best rebounders at his position and a good defender. The All-NBA list isn't a top 10 or even top 15 list, the 3rd-best guard is often better than the #2 center. Nor is the list perfect. There were years when he lost All-NBA to Marion and Kirilenko when the only thing Kirilenko is better at is blocking shots and neither guy coulod be the basis of anyone's offense. And on the flip side, the last time Pierce was 2nd-team All-NBA and to be honest I didn't think he had a better year than some of the guys he beat out.

[magnax1]

Saying Pierce was never top 10 is honestly an awful argument.

[G.O.A.T]

Saying Pierce was never top 10 is honestly an awful argument.

1) It's not my argument
2) It's a legit argument
3) It's a better argument than any someone could make against Joe Fulks

[bizil]

\
Pierce IS a top-10/15 sf....

I agree! Pierce at this point is a top 10-15 SF. If u peep his accolades he has a case. The guys like English, Dantley, and King were awesome players. Peak value wise I think King was better than Pierce. But for a career resume, Pierce has passed, King, Dantley, and English by. An in terms of skillset, Piece has a better all around skillset than those three. He's a hair behind in terms of scoring, and Pierce is very, very clutch.

So peak value wise I think these guys are the top SF's: (no order)

Bird
Bron
Doc
Baylor
Barry
Hondo
King
Nique
Grant Hill
English-Dantley

So I feel Paul just misses the top ten. But in terms of GOAT type shit which includes team accolades, solo accolades, numbers, longevity being great:

Bird
Doc
Bron
Baylor
Hondo
Barry
Nique
Pippen

I think if u ask most, these eight are the greatest SF's of all time. But after that u got:

Pierce
Cunnigham
English
Dantley
King
Arizin



So in the GOAT list, I think Pierce has spot in the top ten. I got him over King, English, and Dantley GOAT wise. And honestly, Pierce's game in built to last and he's hasn't slowed much. I can see Pierce getting at least 25,000 points for his career if he plays three to four more years.

[bizil]

\
Pierce IS a top-10/15 sf....

I agree! Pierce at this point is a top 10-15 SF. If u peep his accolades he has a case. The guys like English, Dantley, and King were awesome players. Peak value wise I think King was better than Pierce. But for a career resume, Pierce has passed, King, Dantley, and English by. An in terms of skillset, Piece has a better all around skillset than those three. He's a hair behind in terms of scoring, and Pierce is very, very clutch.

So peak value wise I think these guys are the top SF's: (no order)

Bird
Bron
Doc
Baylor
Barry
Hondo
King
Nique
Grant Hill
English-Dantley

So I feel Paul just misses the top ten. But in terms of GOAT type shit which includes team accolades, solo accolades, numbers, longevity being great:

Bird
Doc
Bron
Baylor
Hondo
Barry
Nique
Pippen

I think if u ask most, these eight are the greatest SF's of all time. But after that u got:

Pierce
Cunnigham
English
Dantley
King
Arizin


So in the GOAT list, I think Pierce has spot in the top ten. I got him over King, English, and Dantley GOAT wise. And honestly, Pierce's game in built to last and he's hasn't slowed much. I can see Pierce getting at least 25,000 points for his career if he plays three to four more years.

[Droid101]

History, accolades, comparisons to peers... yep, Schayes has it.

[magnax1]

1) It's not my argument
2) It's a legit argument
3) It's a better argument than any someone could make against Joe Fulks
I want to see how you could make a case that Pierce was never top 10. There are years where that just doesn't make any sense.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I want to see how you could make a case that Pierce was never top 10. There are years where that just doesn't make any sense.
I already asked him to list 10 better from the ECF year. If he tries he'll have to come with some silly pick like Fulks.

[bizil]

I want to see how you could make a case that Pierce was never top 10. There are years where that just doesn't make any sense.

I think there were definitely years where Pierce at least had a case for top ten players in the L. I think Pierce got underrated in terms of SG's and SF's cause u had more dynamic or freak athletic guys in Carter, Bron, TMac, Wade. Or u had a dynamo like AI at SG. And u have stud scoring machines in Durant and Melo. So Pierce would get underrated in my book. But skill for skill, Pierce is better all around than Carter, Melo, and Durant.

The 2000s had a vast array of SG's, swingmen, and PF's. PG's even started picking up towards the end of the decade. But Pierce was a top ten caliber player in the L in some seasons. Now make no mistake, guys like Kobe, Bron, prime AI, Wade, and a prime TMac were the cream of the crop. But guys like Carter, Pierce, and Allen were great players who all were right around that top ten area where u could make a case certain seasons.

[magnax1]

I already asked him to list 10 better from the ECF year. If he tries he'll have to come with some silly pick like Fulks.
06 you'd have a really tough time making a case too.

[ShaqAttack3234]

06 you'd have a really tough time making a case too.

Not really, I have Pierce top 8-9 in 2002 and probably 10th in 2003, but he wouldn't make my top 10 in 2006. He's close, but just outside top 10.

[magnax1]

Not really, I have Pierce top 8-9 in 2002 and probably 10th in 2003, but he wouldn't make my top 10 in 2006. He's close, but just outside top 10.
Who would you take over him in 06?

[G.O.A.T]

I want to see how you could make a case that Pierce was never top 10. There are years where that just doesn't make any sense.

2009 was the only season he made the all-NBA second team and/or was in the top 10 of the MVP voting. During that season I would say that Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul and Dirk Nowitzki were all unquestionably better than Pierce.

That puts him at #7 right away.

There are valid arguments for Yao (played 77 games of 20-10 that year), Carmelo (led his team to conference finals), Duncan (19-11-4-2), Deron Williams (who many thought was nearly as good as Paul), Brandon Roy (career year, also all-NBA second team) and Chauncey Billups (finished above Pierce in the MVP race) and that's not to mention guys like Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose who were young, but more valuable commodities than Pierce.

Just by trusting the voters (and yes their collective opinion should mean more to you than just your own opinion) you can see the outline for a case against him. That's all that was said. That a case can be made that Pierce was never a top ten player and that he certainly never was a top five player. That was brought up in contrast of Fulks who was arguably the best player in the BAA prior to Mikan.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Who would you take over him in 06?

Off the top of my head? Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Lebron, Nash, Duncan, Brand, KG, Iverson, Shaq and other borderlines would be Arenas and Carter.

[magnax1]

Off the top of my head? Kobe, Wade, Dirk, Lebron, Nash, Duncan, Brand, KG, Iverson, Shaq and other borderlines would be Arenas and Carter.
I wouldn't take Dirk or Shaq for sure. Dirk as a scorer is better, but definitely not as an overall player, and Shaq played 20 fewer games while playing on a similar, though probably worse level. Peoples opinions on Brand and Arenas seem to differ pretty greatly, so it's hard to say, but I wouldn't have taken either of them over Dirk.
At very worst, I think Pierce ends up at 11.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I wouldn't take Dirk or Shaq for sure. Dirk as a scorer is better, but definitely not as an overall player, and Shaq played 20 fewer games while playing on a similar, though probably worse level. Peoples opinions on Brand and Arenas seem to differ pretty greatly, so it's hard to say, but I wouldn't have taken either of think over Dirk.
At very worst, I think Pierce ends up at 11.

Dirk led Dallas to 60 wins and the finals that year, averaged 27/9/3/48 FG%/59 TS% in the regular season and 27/12/3/47 FG%/60 TS% in the playoffs. Had a 50 point game in the WCF vs Phoenix and eliminated San Antonio with 37/15 in game 7.

I don't see how Pierce(who led a team to 33 wins in the East that year) has any case over Dirk who was top 3-4, imo.

Shaq is tougher to rank considering his minutes were lowered and he was declining. But still a 20/9/2/2/60 FG% center who was better than his stats suggest. He still had some big games in the playoffs and had a great series vs Detroit.

Second best player on a championship team that was just 10-13 without him(10-11 even when Wade played), and I believe his presence made Wade a better player as Wade's FG% was just 44.7% in 21 games without Shaq and 51.6% in 54 games with him which is a pretty significant sample size, and that was on a pretty similar volume of shots.

No longer in the discussion for best player in the game, but I think his impact was greater than Pierce's in '06. As Chuck Daly put it.

[QUOTE]"It's amusing to me," Hall of Fame coach Chuck Daly said, adding that O'Neal remains one of the top five players in the league regardless of his stats. "Every night, people are playing him with two, 2

[G.O.A.T]

I wouldn't take Dirk or Shaq for sure. Dirk as a scorer is better, but definitely not as an overall player, and Shaq played 20 fewer games while playing on a similar, though probably worse level. Peoples opinions on Brand and Arenas seem to differ pretty greatly, so it's hard to say, but I wouldn't have taken either of them over Dirk.
At very worst, I think Pierce ends up at 11.

Shaq and Dirk were in the NBA Finals and Pierce and Boston won what 40 games?

Shaq should have been MVP in '05 and Dirk had as strong a case (stronger IMO) than Nash for the award in '06.

Pierce was always in that second tier, Dirk and Shaq spent a decade in the top tier.

[L.Kizzle]

LOL if Paul Pierce wins this one too.

[Kblaze8855]

Dolph Should win....looking at his career. But its hard for me to say people should vote for him given my usual stance.

Hes not quiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite one of those guys who does so much you just have to kiss the ring. Hes kinda like Cousy. Transitional player from the days it was fine to shoot 24%...and he played vs Russell. Wilt. Bob. Plenty of great bigmen. But somehow it just doesnt feel right to rank him among them. Cant really put a word on why.

[FF1]

Dolph Schayes

People are really overrating Paul Pierce. Put up decent numbers on a horrible team for most of his career. The one thing that makes him great is his ability to play up to the level of competition in the playoffs, at least in the last few years.

[L.Kizzle]

Dolph Should win....looking at his career. But its hard for me to say people should vote for him given my usual stance.

Hes not quiiiiiiiiiiiiiiite one of those guys who does so much you just have to kiss the ring. Hes kinda like Cousy. Transitional player from the days it was fine to shoot 24%...and he played vs Russell. Wilt. Bob. Plenty of great bigmen. But somehow it just doesnt feel right to rank him among them. Cant really put a word on why.
But unlike your boy Cousy, Dolph did lead him team to a championship. Didn't miss a game for like a decade, 6 All-NBA 1st and 6 All-2nd Teams. Led the league in rebounding once, I think scoring once, and came in 4th in assist once.

It's no reason Pierce should win this, no reason what so ever.

And yes he didn play with those guys, but he came in around the time Mikan did. He just lasted longer and was still All-NBA 2nd team in 1961.

[Kblaze8855]

Well I would rank him over cousy for that reason. But...it feels odd because I dont think general opinion from that time would say he was better than Cousy. But if you asked the average fan in 1957 if Cousy was better than Russell he probably says yes too so.....whatever.

[jacobgoindum]

The Truth

[magnax1]

Dirk led Dallas to 60 wins and the finals that year, averaged 27/9/3/48 FG%/59 TS% in the regular season
and Pierce averaged 27-7-5 on 58% TS% in the regular season while playing much better defense then Dirk. I honestly don't get what you think makes Dirk # 3 or 4 and Pierce not even top 10. Having Pierce lower is understandable to a certain extent, but not that much. It's not like Dirk is full of intangible value either. Quite the opposite actually, as all he is really capable of doing is isolation scoring, and he's not very good at using it to get his team mates shots.

[Miller for 3]

and Pierce averaged 27-7-5 on 58% TS% in the regular season while playing much better defense then Dirk. I honestly don't get what you think makes Dirk # 3 or 4 and Pierce not even top 10. Having Pierce lower is understandable to a certain extent, but not that much. It's not like Dirk is full of intangible value either. Quite the opposite actually, as all he is really capable of doing is isolation scoring, and he's not very good at using it to get his team mates shots.

dont want to get offtopic, but no. Dirk is always among league leader in hockey assists. The spacing he creates by drawing a bigman away from the basket is such a crucial part of what the Mavs have been able to accomplish offensively. The Mavs have been a great offensive team every year Dirk has started. Saying all he can do is iso score and doesn't create for his teammates is just :facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

and Pierce averaged 27-7-5 on 58% TS% in the regular season while playing much better defense then Dirk. I honestly don't get what you think makes Dirk # 3 or 4 and Pierce not even top 10. Having Pierce lower is understandable to a certain extent, but not that much. It's not like Dirk is full of intangible value either. Quite the opposite actually, as all he is really capable of doing is isolation scoring, and he's not very good at using it to get his team mates shots.

Pierce's numbers are nice, but all that got Boston was 33 wins in the East. I can't see Dirk doing that, nor can I see Pierce leading a team to 60 in the West or having a playoff run comparable to Dirk's '06 run. They're really not debatable in '06. Pierce and Dirk really haven't been debatable since about '02.

[D.J.]

Pierce has been underrated throughout his career and got snubbed on some All-NBA teams. Still, he was never a top 5 player ever. Top 10 for sure, but never top 5. He was just never dominant like Schayes was. Pierce was basically a jack of all trades with scoring efficiency being his greatest strength. He could score, shoot from the outside, post up, get to the line, play good perimeter D, and provided good leadership. But aside from his PPG, there was never any aspect of his game that seperated him from guys like Kobe, LeBron, etc. There was nothing he couldn't do, but that's why he quitely put up numbers.


Dolph Schayes

[Boston C's]

and Pierce averaged 27-7-5 on 58% TS% in the regular season while playing much better defense then Dirk. I honestly don't get what you think makes Dirk # 3 or 4 and Pierce not even top 10. Having Pierce lower is understandable to a certain extent, but not that much. It's not like Dirk is full of intangible value either. Quite the opposite actually, as all he is really capable of doing is isolation scoring, and he's not very good at using it to get his team mates shots.

I'm a huge fan of pierce but theres no comparison between him and dirk in 06... dirk went to the finals and lead his team to 60 wins in the west... pierce was in the east where its pretty much wide open to get a playoff spot and couldnt get in... winning 33 games and putting up nice stats doesnt compare to winning 60 and putting up nice stats idk whats so hard to see about that

[magnax1]

Pierce's numbers are nice, but all that got Boston was 33 wins in the East. I can't see Dirk doing that, nor can I see Pierce leading a team to 60 in the West or having a playoff run comparable to Dirk's '06 run. They're really not debatable in '06. Pierce and Dirk really haven't been debatable since about '02.
You're acting like he was putting up empty stats, which he obviously wasn't. He was playing a team with tons of young players that were being developed like Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Tony Allen, Perkins, West etc, and that's why his team sucked. Getting that team to 33 wins is actually quite amazing looking at the roster. I just don't see where you find this huge separation between the two. If Pierce is #11, then no way in hell Dirk is #4, stats or no stats, they just weren't that different.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You're acting like he was putting up empty stats, which he obviously wasn't. He was playing a team with tons of young players that were being developed like Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Tony Allen, Perkins, West etc, and that's why his team sucked. Getting that team to 33 wins is actually quite amazing looking at the roster. I just don't see where you find this huge separation between the two. If Pierce is #11, then no way in hell Dirk is #4, stats or no stats, they just weren't that different.

No, getting a team to 33 wins in the '06 East wasn't "amazing" regardless for a star. His cast was bad, which explains the record, but we've seen the true elite/top 5 type players get bad teams to better records numerous times during the past decade.

Dirk's Mavs weren't that good for a 60 win team or finals team either. Him leading his team to that success was far more impressive than what Dirk did. There was clear separation between the 2 in '06, very few would've debated it back then as well.

[FF1]

lol @ anyone saying that Dirk doesn't make his teammates better. You do realize why Terry and Peja and Kidd were so wide open in the playoffs, right? You realize that JJB's effectiveness off the pick and roll was due to the attention Dirk was getting, right?

There's a reason they were 72-21 with him last year (including playoffs) and 2-7 without him.. and it wasn't all because of his 25 points and 8 or so rebounds.

[Boston C's]

You're acting like he was putting up empty stats, which he obviously wasn't. He was playing a team with tons of young players that were being developed like Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Tony Allen, Perkins, West etc, and that's why his team sucked. Getting that team to 33 wins is actually quite amazing looking at the roster. I just don't see where you find this huge separation between the two. If Pierce is #11, then no way in hell Dirk is #4, stats or no stats, they just weren't that different.

like shaq attack stated about stars... they find a way to lead teams to the playoffs... look at kobe's cast in 06 for example, that team was just as bad as the celtics and he got them 42 wins in the west no less... if you put kobe or wade etc and put them in boston at the time I would be willing to bet boston gets a playoff spot in the east

[magnax1]

No, getting a team to 33 wins in the '06 East wasn't "amazing" regardless for a star. His cast was bad, which explains the record, but we've seen the true elite/top 5 type players get bad teams to better records numerous times during the past decade.
What team as bad as Pierce was taken to the playoffs? The only one I can think of is TMac's 03 team and maybe Kobe's in 06 and nobody is saying Pierce is as good as TMac or Kobe.... I'm not even saying Pierce was a top 5 player.



Dirk's Mavs weren't that good for a 60 win team or finals team either. Him leading his team to that success was far more impressive than what Dirk did. There was clear separation between the 2 in '06, very few would've debated it back then as well.
They weren't that good for a 60 win team? They definitely seemed like most of the other 55-60 win teams to me. The Spurs, Heat, Pistons didn't have terribly dissimilar casts around their best players. The Spus were actually extremely similar to the Mavs that year (though I think they won a few more games)

[ShaqAttack3234]

What team as bad as Pierce was taken to the playoffs? The only one I can think of is TMac's 03 team and maybe Kobe's in 06 and nobody is saying Pierce is as good as TMac or Kobe.... I'm not even saying Pierce was a top 5 player.

Wade's '09 Heat too. Arguably lebron's '08 Cavs when they Pavlovic and Varejao holding out and the midseason trades to adjust to. They went just 0-7 without him and 45-30 with him.

But you don't even have to look at players that good. It's just that 33 wins in the East isn't any kind of accomplishment regardless. The '09 Nets were expected to finish among the worst teams in the league and they end up 34-48, Vince gets traded and they go 12-70. The '08 team was 0-6 without him and 34-42 with him.

Obviously poor teams and Vince was past his prime, yet even a player of '08/'09 Carter's caliber can get bad teams to 30+ wins the East.

Andrei Kirilenko got a Utah team to 40+ wins in the West and that had almost no talent around him in 2004. Orlando won 40+ in 2000 with Darrell Armstrong as their best player.

The 2000 Nets were 31-43 with Marbury and 0-8 without him. The '05 Knicks that won 34 games wasn't much better either. The '04 Raptors were 33-40 with Vince and 0-9 without him.

I could go on and on. Some of Bosh's Raptor teams had trash around him too. And he got them to 40+ wins 3 times with a low of 33 from '07-'10.


They weren't that good for a 60 win team? They definitely seemed like most of the other 55-60 win teams to me. The Spurs, Heat, Pistons didn't have terribly dissimilar casts around their best players. The Spus were actually extremely similar to the Mavs that year (though I think they won a few more games)

Miami only won 52 games that year. The Pistons had the best starting 5 in basketball and a top 5 defense.

The Spurs definitely had more talent than Dallas. Aside from Duncan, they had Manu and Parker who had both established themselves as all-star caliber players and arguably the best perimeter defender in Bowen.

They had arguably a top 5 player, good size, 3 legitimate scoring options, 4 double digit scorers, great 3 point shooting(2nd in 3P%), the best defense and that included interior defense as well as the game's best stopper on the perimeter.

Simply a much more balanced team with more talent than Dallas.

[Boston C's]

Wade's '09 Heat too. Arguably lebron's '08 Cavs when they Pavlovic and Varejao holding out and the midseason trades to adjust to. They went just 0-7 without him and 45-30 with him.

But you don't even have to look at players that good. It's just that 33 wins in the East isn't any kind of accomplishment regardless. The '09 Nets were expected to finish among the worst teams in the league and they end up 34-48, Vince gets traded and they go 12-70. The '08 team was 0-6 without him and 34-42 with him.

Obviously poor teams and Vince was past his prime, yet even a player of '08/'09 Carter's caliber can get bad teams to 30+ wins the East.

Andrei Kirilenko got a Utah team to 40+ wins in the West and that had almost no talent around him in 2004. Orlando won 40+ in 2000 with Darrell Armstrong as their best player.

The 2000 Nets were 31-43 with Marbury and 0-8 without him. The '05 Knicks that won 34 games wasn't much better either. The '04 Raptors were 33-40 with Vince and 0-9 without him.

I could go on and on. Some of Bosh's Raptor teams had trash around him too. And he got them to 40+ wins 3 times with a low of 33 from '07-'10.



Miami only won 52 games that year. The Pistons had the best starting 5 in basketball and a top 5 defense.

The Spurs definitely had more talent than Dallas. Aside from Duncan, they had Manu and Parker who had both established themselves as all-star caliber players and arguably the best perimeter defender in Bowen.

They had arguably a top 5 player, good size, 3 legitimate scoring options, 4 double digit scorers, great 3 point shooting(2nd in 3P%), the best defense and that included interior defense as well as the game's best stopper on the perimeter.

Simply a much more balanced team with more talent than Dallas.

excellent post... shout out to my sonics in 05... not as trashy as those teams but we were picked to finish last by everyone in the west and some picked us to finish last in the league and we won 52 games :D... that was probably my favorite yr of basketball because i didnt expect shit from my team that yr

[magnax1]

They had arguably a top 5 player, good size, 3 legitimate scoring options, 4 double digit scorers, great 3 point shooting(2nd in 3P%), the best defense and that included interior defense as well as the game's best stopper on the perimeter.
The Mavs had basically everything you just said excluding the Defense, and that was because they had Dirk instead of Duncan.
As for bringing up all those comparisons, I don't really get what point you're trying to make. I don't think many of them were all that similar. The most similar is probably Utah, but that wasn't really even Kirilenko's doing. They won that much because of Sloan (who was robbed of Coach of the year, and should've been named coach of the decade for doing that) VC's team you bring up when he had Devin Harris who was basically his equal and Brook Lopez who was as good as anyone else on Pierce's team. That's not really a fair comparison.

[Fatal9]

Pierce generally led his teams to decent bit of success, enough at least where I don't think that can really be held against him. It's just the fact his teams were not good, at all. Drafted to a team that had 5 consecutive losing seasons, by his first all-star season Pierce turned them into a 49 win team, third seed and led them to a conference finals appearance, and they easily could have gone out in the first round but he put together a crazy performance against the Sixers (one of those ridiculous "he's on fire" games) with 46/4/6 in the do or die game 5.

Celtics made the playoffs for 3 more consecutive years after that. And given what he was working with, it's pretty damn impressive. The year they won 49, he had Antoine Walker taking 8 threes a game, the ghost of Kenny Anderson and really nothing else...and it didn't get any better in the years following that. I don't think you can say Pierce didn't do a good job carrying bad teams, because he did. 4 straight playoff appearances, a trip to conference finals, beating a couple of teams without HCA (and never losing with it), even in a weak conference that is respectable given what he was working with. He had the most efficient 25+ ppg season out of any perimeter player in that nasty '00-'04 stretch (only guy other than T-Mac to post a 25 ppg season on 56+ TS%...and Pierce did it twice...this matters considering what a chucker Walker was). Pierce's efficient volume scoring (relative to league) doesn't get enough credit, and it's not like he's those types who builds his averages off getting spoonfed easy baskets either.


They missed the playoffs in '06 and '07. Again, the team he played on in '06 was just bad...Ricky Davis (one of the ultimate cancer players in history) was his help, then later traded for injury prone Wally. When your team is bad, has no strengths at all it can capitalize on, you're not getting anywhere...ask KG, he played with some of the same guys that Pierce did in that stretch. In '07 they at least had a shot for maybe getting 8th seed if Pierce would have been healthy, only season where he missed more than 10 games (20-27 with Pierce, 4-31 without him).


Again, IMO Pierce has it all. He has carried teams to a decent bit of success on his own, when he got talent...he was the second best player on a championship team and won finals MVP, has a really good peak/prime, all-around/versatile game, durability and longevity. The main thing people are using to penalize is certain accolades that depend entire on your time and how good the quality of players were in your league, and I don't think anyone will argue that during Pierce's time there were more top flight players and a deeper talent pool in the league (combined with the fact he was generally underrated because guys like Vince, T-Mac and Kobe were taking the spotlight).

[Boston C's]

Pierce generally led his teams to decent bit of success, enough at least where I don't think that can really be held against him. It's just the fact his teams were not good, at all. Drafted to a team that had 5 consecutive losing seasons, by his first all-star season Pierce turned them into a 49 win team, third seed and led them to a conference finals appearance, and they easily could have gone out in the first round but he put together a crazy performance against the Sixers (one of those ridiculous "he's on fire" games) with 46/4/6 in the do or die game 5.

Celtics made the playoffs for 3 more consecutive years after that. And given what he was working with, it's pretty damn impressive. The year they won 49, he had Antoine Walker taking 8 threes a game, the ghost of Kenny Anderson and really nothing else...and it didn't get any better in the years following that. I don't think you can say Pierce didn't do a good job carrying bad teams, because he did. 4 straight playoff appearances, a trip to conference finals, beating a couple of teams without HCA (and never losing with it), even in a weak conference that is respectable given what he was working with. He had the most efficient 25+ ppg season out of any perimeter player in that nasty '00-'04 stretch (only guy other than T-Mac to post a 25 ppg season on 56+ TS%...and Pierce did it twice...this matters considering what a chucker Walker was). Pierce's efficient volume scoring (relative to league) doesn't get enough credit, and it's not like he's those types who builds his averages off getting spoonfed easy baskets either.


They missed the playoffs in '06 and '07. Again, the team he played on in '06 was just bad...Ricky Davis (one of the ultimate cancer players in history) was his help, then later traded for injury prone Wally. When your team is bad, has no strengths at all it can capitalize on, you're not getting anywhere...ask KG, he played with some of the same guys that Pierce did in that stretch. In '07 they at least had a shot for maybe getting 8th seed if Pierce would have been healthy, only season where he missed more than 10 games (20-27 with Pierce, 4-31 without him).


Again, IMO Pierce has it all. He has carried teams to a decent bit of success on his own, when he got talent...he was the second best player on a championship team and won finals MVP, has a really good peak/prime, all-around/versatile game, durability and longevity. The main thing people are using to penalize is certain accolades that depend entire on your time and how good the quality of players were in your league, and I don't think anyone will argue that during Pierce's time there were more top flight players and a deeper talent pool in the league (combined with the fact he was generally underrated because guys like Vince, T-Mac and Kobe were taking the spotlight).

he actually lost to the pacers in 04-05 with it in the first round but regardless you made excellent points about pierce

I honestly can't believe worthy hasnt advanced much here...hes very underrated on here

[Dbrog]

It's obviously very hard to gauge Dolph since he played primarily in the 50s...I mean, dude preceded the fking shotclock! However, his production didn't really drop once the 60s hit. I personally think he would've put up pretty much the same numbers if he had been born a bit later. This is basically because he was already ahead of his time. I know there's not much footage, but he had the ability to make some insane magic-esc passes as you can see at about 2:33 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyHztG6tE-U&feature=related. He also had a legit shot and a nice touch with either hand (he had broken his right hand/shooting hand and was forced to develop his left). Idk...Dolph was a force in his era and there's no one who can deny that. I can't say the same for Pierce. This is just a difficult matchup as KBlaze said. I wouldn't be mad at people for choosing Pierce.

[Bigsmoke]

Paul Pierce

who da **** is Dolph Schayes?


My vote is for Dolph Schayes.

He played in 16 seasons and helped to lead his team into the playoffs 15 times. Schayes was a great free throw shooter, as he lead the NBA in free throw percentage 3 times (1958, 1960, and 1962).

For a long time he held the NBA Iron Man streak of 706 games.

When Schayes retired, he was the all-time leading scorer in NBA history.

Though he never won an MVP, he was runner up in 1958, finished in the Top 5 3 more times, and was in the Top 10 for MVP voting 6 times.

In contrast to Pierce, he was in the MVP voting only 5 times and only once finished in the Top 10 (7th place).

Though, kblaze did state that this will come down to legacy vs ability, I think this should be a win for Schayes easily.

OMG. WHERE CAN I SUCK HIS DICK?!??!

[Bigsmoke]

I wouldn't take Dirk or Shaq for sure. Dirk as a scorer is better, but definitely not as an overall player, and Shaq played 20 fewer games while playing on a similar, though probably worse level. Peoples opinions on Brand and Arenas seem to differ pretty greatly, so it's hard to say, but I wouldn't have taken either of them over Dirk.
At very worst, I think Pierce ends up at 11.

ummm... Dirk > Pierce in 06.

I would take off Vince off that list and put Pierce there instead

[Legends66NBA7]

Paul Pierce

who da **** is Dolph Schayes?



OMG. WHERE CAN I SUCK HIS DICK?!??!

Who's Dolph Schayes ? Go learn the damn history of the game.

Oh never mind, just read the title below you're user name. *moving along*

[Kblaze8855]

This is close. Too close. especially since I should probably throw out a couple Pierce votes for pretty much being "**** that guy from the 50s" votes.

Im gonna let this go until I get up tomorrow. Id hate for the difference to be me deciding someone didnt explain themselves well enough to count. Especially since some big matchups are coming up.

[Inception28]

Pierce generally led his teams to decent bit of success, enough at least where I don't think that can really be held against him. It's just the fact his teams were not good, at all. Drafted to a team that had 5 consecutive losing seasons, by his first all-star season Pierce turned them into a 49 win team, third seed and led them to a conference finals appearance, and they easily could have gone out in the first round but he put together a crazy performance against the Sixers (one of those ridiculous "he's on fire" games) with 46/4/6 in the do or die game 5.

Celtics made the playoffs for 3 more consecutive years after that. And given what he was working with, it's pretty damn impressive. The year they won 49, he had Antoine Walker taking 8 threes a game, the ghost of Kenny Anderson and really nothing else...and it didn't get any better in the years following that. I don't think you can say Pierce didn't do a good job carrying bad teams, because he did. 4 straight playoff appearances, a trip to conference finals, beating a couple of teams without HCA (and never losing with it), even in a weak conference that is respectable given what he was working with. He had the most efficient 25+ ppg season out of any perimeter player in that nasty '00-'04 stretch (only guy other than T-Mac to post a 25 ppg season on 56+ TS%...and Pierce did it twice...this matters considering what a chucker Walker was). Pierce's efficient volume scoring (relative to league) doesn't get enough credit, and it's not like he's those types who builds his averages off getting spoonfed easy baskets either.


They missed the playoffs in '06 and '07. Again, the team he played on in '06 was just bad...Ricky Davis (one of the ultimate cancer players in history) was his help, then later traded for injury prone Wally. When your team is bad, has no strengths at all it can capitalize on, you're not getting anywhere...ask KG, he played with some of the same guys that Pierce did in that stretch. In '07 they at least had a shot for maybe getting 8th seed if Pierce would have been healthy, only season where he missed more than 10 games (20-27 with Pierce, 4-31 without him).


Again, IMO Pierce has it all. He has carried teams to a decent bit of success on his own, when he got talent...he was the second best player on a championship team and won finals MVP, has a really good peak/prime, all-around/versatile game, durability and longevity. The main thing people are using to penalize is certain accolades that depend entire on your time and how good the quality of players were in your league, and I don't think anyone will argue that during Pierce's time there were more top flight players and a deeper talent pool in the league (combined with the fact he was generally underrated because guys like Vince, T-Mac and Kobe were taking the spotlight).
Well spoken sir, if I have a vote in this, I'm going with Paul Pierce.

[Inception28]

Saying Pierce was never top 10 is honestly an awful argument.
Pierce had a few seasons where he was top 10, but he was ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS top 15 and top 20 at the very worst.

[G.O.A.T]

Pierce had a few seasons where he was top 10, but he was ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS top 15 and top 20 at the very worst.

Schayes was always top 10, usually top five and for a few seasons arguably the best in the game. He was successful before the shot clock and after, before integration and after, won a title as his teams best player and only star. He could play three positions on offense and guard three positions on defense, he could score in the post, off the dribble and from the perimeter and was the a true iron man, never missing a game. He has a near flawless resume and reputation.

[Legends66NBA7]

Schayes was always top 10, usually top five and for a few seasons arguably the best in the game. He was successful before the shot clock and after, before integration and after, won a title as his teams best player and only star. He could play three positions on offense and guard three positions on defense, he could score in the post, off the dribble and from the perimeter and was the a true iron man, never missing a game. He has a near flawless resume and reputation.

Good to see you back online on ISH G.O.A.T. Will you be participating in the voting ?

[WillC]

This is close. Too close. especially since I should probably throw out a couple Pierce votes for pretty much being "**** that guy from the 50s" votes.

And that is why we should have a voting panel instead of letting anyone vote.

As it stands, the current voting system favours the modern players since they're the ones your average ISH user will have heard of.

[Kblaze8855]

The guard voting list had the same kinds of people though. Hard to remove that element really.

[Gotterdammerung]

The guard voting list had the same kinds of people though. Hard to remove that element really.
False. You let every Tom, Dick, Harry in the Forwards vote. Did not specify how they should vote. Did not tally any votes. Did not do diddly poo like GOAT did.

You rigged this from the beginning. :facepalm

[Kblaze8855]

You were making the same complaints last list when you felt people didnt vote the way you wanted. Its not my place to tell people how to form an opinion. And did not tally votes? What does that even mean? Can everyone not see the same posts I see?

And I rigged it for the purpose of what? And for...who?

Not one speck of that post made sense.

[WillC]

The guard voting list had the same kinds of people though. Hard to remove that element really.

Not true.

GOAT used a very specific list of voters. He didn't count the 'votes' from users not on his list of voters.

[Droid101]

Not true.

GOAT used a very specific list of voters. He didn't count the 'votes' from users not on his list of voters.
That list is still being used. I don't understand. :confusedshrug:

[HylianNightmare]

That list is still being used. I don't understand. :confusedshrug:
i thought in the first one kblaze did he said he would count any vote that was explained?

[Kblaze8855]

He didnt know who was voting. People just had to ask. There was no...process. Just 30 people who asked to vote unless someone had a valid reason not to include them. He had people on his ignore list voting. Plenty of people not voting then made more sense than people who did. There were high school kids(not that being young is a failing...just odd for a guy talking about the 70-80s) voting because of opinions provided by non voters after flatly saying they didnt know much about either side.

And its not the opinion of ISH if you throw out opinions you dont like is it?

A good point is a good point is it not?

Im not to count a guy like Fatals votes for not being on any list last time but should count the votes of the guy who makes 45 Lebron vs wade or "Dwight sucks" topics and makes new topics(multiple) to try to get me to come argue about Lebron? He was on the guard list. And hes been banned like 30 times. He makes a new name every time and keeps posting the same shit. But he should get a say because....why? He was on some list?

If im not on the list...having watched some of these guys live....but someone who never saw them before youtube is..and my opinion may do more to decide who he votes for than his own information....how do I justify him voting in place of me(For the record...ive never actually voted)?

As I said....a good point is a good point. Throwing one out due to not being on a list just cant be justified to me.

[WillC]

Back to the Schayes vs Pierce debate...

Elliot Kalb, in his book "Who's better, who's best?", ranks Schayes as the 23rd best player of all-time.

He ranks him ahead of Pippen, Isiah, Stockton, Havlicek, Frazier, Willis Reed and other superstars.

Just saying.

[albas89]

Pierce generally led his teams to decent bit of success, enough at least where I don't think that can really be held against him. It's just the fact his teams were not good, at all. Drafted to a team that had 5 consecutive losing seasons, by his first all-star season Pierce turned them into a 49 win team, third seed and led them to a conference finals appearance, and they easily could have gone out in the first round but he put together a crazy performance against the Sixers (one of those ridiculous "he's on fire" games) with 46/4/6 in the do or die game 5.

Celtics made the playoffs for 3 more consecutive years after that. And given what he was working with, it's pretty damn impressive. The year they won 49, he had Antoine Walker taking 8 threes a game, the ghost of Kenny Anderson and really nothing else...and it didn't get any better in the years following that. I don't think you can say Pierce didn't do a good job carrying bad teams, because he did. 4 straight playoff appearances, a trip to conference finals, beating a couple of teams without HCA (and never losing with it), even in a weak conference that is respectable given what he was working with. He had the most efficient 25+ ppg season out of any perimeter player in that nasty '00-'04 stretch (only guy other than T-Mac to post a 25 ppg season on 56+ TS%...and Pierce did it twice...this matters considering what a chucker Walker was). Pierce's efficient volume scoring (relative to league) doesn't get enough credit, and it's not like he's those types who builds his averages off getting spoonfed easy baskets either.


They missed the playoffs in '06 and '07. Again, the team he played on in '06 was just bad...Ricky Davis (one of the ultimate cancer players in history) was his help, then later traded for injury prone Wally. When your team is bad, has no strengths at all it can capitalize on, you're not getting anywhere...ask KG, he played with some of the same guys that Pierce did in that stretch. In '07 they at least had a shot for maybe getting 8th seed if Pierce would have been healthy, only season where he missed more than 10 games (20-27 with Pierce, 4-31 without him).


Again, IMO Pierce has it all. He has carried teams to a decent bit of success on his own, when he got talent...he was the second best player on a championship team and won finals MVP, has a really good peak/prime, all-around/versatile game, durability and longevity. The main thing people are using to penalize is certain accolades that depend entire on your time and how good the quality of players were in your league, and I don't think anyone will argue that during Pierce's time there were more top flight players and a deeper talent pool in the league (combined with the fact he was generally underrated because guys like Vince, T-Mac and Kobe were taking the spotlight).

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Amen, you said it all man... I don't underestimate Schayes, I just think that basketball was a different sport back then! Anyway, my vote goes to Paul Pierce!

[WillC]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

Amen, you said it all man... I don't underestimate Schayes, I just think that basketball was a different sport back then! Anyway, my vote goes to Paul Pierce!

So why are we even bothering to include old players if you think it was a 'different sport back then'?

Honestly, it's ridiculous that people think Pierce has had a better career than Schayes. It's really not even close.

[Legends66NBA7]

So why are we even bothering to include old players if you think it was a 'different sport back then'?

Honestly, it's ridiculous that people think Pierce has had a better career than Schayes. It's really not even close.

Ignorance is bliss, it seems.

[Dbrog]

Schayes was always top 10, usually top five and for a few seasons arguably the best in the game. He was successful before the shot clock and after, before integration and after, won a title as his teams best player and only star. He could play three positions on offense and guard three positions on defense, he could score in the post, off the dribble and from the perimeter and was the a true iron man, never missing a game. He has a near flawless resume and reputation.

Good to see you back GOAT. Your input was missed :cheers:. BTW, if you couldn't already tell, this forwards list is already ****ed up beyond belief due to posters who have no knowledge on "old" players.

[Legends66NBA7]

Good to see you back GOAT. Your input was missed :cheers:. BTW, if you couldn't already tell, this forwards list is already ****ed up beyond belief due to posters who have no knowledge on "old" players.

I voted for Dolph and gave some good reasonings, but some moron decided to say something so idiotic about one part of criteria and then previously stated "who the f.uck is Dolph Schayes"....

[Dbrog]

KBlaze, you should only include votes where the poster has actually made a case or at least added some new information about the player they want. I thought that's what you originally meant when you started this list. It's just stupid to see people with the, as you say, "**** that guy from the 50s" comments. I also think the votes shouldn't count where posters quote someone who has made an argument and basically say, "ya, what he said." To me, cracking down on this seems like the only way to actually get a bunch of information out in the open in these threads (which I kinda thought was the point).

[Dbrog]

I voted for Dolph and gave some good reasonings, but some moron decided to say something so idiotic about one part of criteria and then previously stated "who the f.uck is Dolph Schayes"....

Ya, I know. It's not like that's a new thing in these lists though (which I'm sure you've seen since you usually vote). I just don't understand why votes like that should count.

[Legends66NBA7]

Ya, I know. It's not like that's a new thing in these lists though (which I'm sure you've seen since you usually vote). I just don't understand why votes like that should count.

Well this is the first time my vote will count, but I have seen the battles before, but nothing compared to what that moron said because it was obvious he was being stupid.

It's the simply matter that today's player are better than those of 50 years ago and were just going to have to "deal with it" and not even going to look at their legacies as a whole.... Brilliant logic.

[DMV2]

Shayes because they brought Syracuse an NBA championship. :cheers:

New York >>>>>>> Boston

[Kblaze8855]

Elliot Kalb, in his book "Who's better, who's best?", ranks Schayes as the 23rd best player of all-time.

He ranks him ahead of Pippen, Isiah, Stockton, Havlicek, Frazier, Willis Reed and other superstars.

Just saying.

I have that book. I enjoy it mostly for little stories and quotes from old players. Im not sure he really knows anything about basketball though. Hes a stats guy who also did books on baseball and golf. I care more for the opinions of guysl ike Charlie Rosen who...while often coming off half crazy...I can at least say I know he knows basketball better than most.

[G-train]

Paul Pierce was an annoying chucker that couldn't carry Vince Carter's jock strap to the gym until he teamed up with Garnett and Allen and won respect.
Not exactly, but a ring somehow made him a top 20 small forward ever.

Dolph Schayes mofos.
















Next.

[magnax1]

I have that book. I enjoy it mostly for little stories and quotes from old players. Im not sure he really knows anything about basketball though. Hes a stats guy who also did books on baseball and golf. I care more for the opinions of guysl ike Charlie Rosen who...while often coming off half crazy...I can at least say I know he knows basketball better than most.
Isn't that the book where Shaq is ranked #1?
Anyway, I want to vote schayes, but I really shouldn't vote at all because I've never seen a full game of him. However, I will say that it's pretty obvious that he was a better player compared to the competition he played against.

[Kblaze8855]

Yep. Shaq #1.

And I guess I should count this now.......

[Kblaze8855]

Unless we count this:


Paul Pierce was an annoying chucker that couldn't carry Vince Carter's jock strap to the gym until he teamed up with Garnett and Allen and won respect.
Not exactly, but a ring somehow made him a top 20 small forward ever.

Dolph Schayes mofos.

or this:


Shayes because they brought Syracuse an NBA championship.

Or even this:


History, accolades, comparisons to peers... yep, Schayes has it.


its tied. But ive been throwing out such things for Pierce.

I suppose I could cast the deciding vote....

[nycelt84]

I vote for Paul Pierce

[WillC]

What's wrong with this?


History, accolades, comparisons to peers... yep, Schayes has it.

[Kblaze8855]

My deciding vote would have been for Dolph anyway. Not because I actually believe he was better than Pierce...but unlike Cousy at least I can say he did something without a better player on his team. He did shoot 36% in the playoffs they won a title though. He did get up to 28/13/5 on 40% a few years later when they ran into the Celtics....but whatever. He probably justifies a highr all time ranking. But there is only one player left id vote for him over.

Prepare to be pissed off about the next matchup everyone.

[D.J.]

Paul Pierce was an annoying chucker that couldn't carry Vince Carter's jock strap to the gym until he teamed up with Garnett and Allen and won respect.


:roll: Pierce averaged 20 FGA only once. He averaged 25.3 PPG/18.5 FGA, 26.1 PPG/19.5 FGA, 23.0 PPG/18.7 FGA, 26.8 PPG/18.5 FGA, and 25.0 PPG/18.1 FGA just for the hell of it.

His teammate Antoine "Because there are no 4's" Walker shot sub 40% twice while playing with Pierce, had seasons of 7.4, 8, and 7.5 threes attempted per game, and led the league in threes attempted three consecutive seasons.