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

[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 ... 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=PyHzt...eature=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 f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck 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 f[COLOR="Black"]u[/COLOR]ck 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 ?