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

[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. 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. 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

[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.