The Herd with Colin Cowherd - Hoops Tonight - Top 25 Players of Last 25 Years: Why Paul Pierce & Tony Parker became champions

Episode Date: August 24, 2023

Jason Timpf continues his ranking of the top 25 players in the last 25 years by revealing Nos. 21-18. This group includes NBA champions such as Tony Parker of the San Antonio Spurs, Paul Pierce of the Boston Celtics, Chauncey Billups of the Detroit Pistons, and Pau Gasol of the Los Angeles Lakers. #Volume #HerdSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque.

Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at it podcast. For 1979, that was a big moment for me.

84 was big to me. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it. With our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. 84 was a wild year. It was a wild year.

I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. The Volume. All right, welcome to Hoops Tonight here at The Volume. Happy Wednesday, everybody. Hope all of you guys are having a great week so far. We are also live on Amp. So if you're watching on YouTube or listening on the podcast feeds, don't forget that Amp is the very first place that you guys can get these shows.

We're continuing our player rankings of the last 25 years today with 21, 20. 19 and 18. Taking a look back at some guys that have been out of the league for a little while. You guys know the drill before we get started. Subscribe to the volumes YouTube channel so you don't miss any more of our videos.

Follow me on Twitter. At underscore Jason LT, so you guys don't miss any show announcements. And if for whatever reason, you guys miss one of these videos and you can't get back over to YouTube to finish. Don't forget, you can find them wherever you get your podcasts under hoops tonight.

And last but not least, before we get started, last night I got to run up to Phoenix to watch an early screening of the Grand Terismo movie based on a true story. Super, super interesting story about this contest that Nissan held, where they had all these really good Grand Tremosmo players from around the world,

basically compete for an opportunity to then get to learn how to race real cars and then experience real success in the real racing scene from that, which is interesting based on the simple idea that Grand Tresmo was a racing simulator, not a game. We all played like Need for Speed and Road Rash and all those weird racing games that were more comical and over the top and very unrealistic. And if you played Grand Tremesmo, you couldn't just floor it through every single turn. You had to break. You had to actually embrace some of the realities of racing.

And so it makes some sense that that would translate directly towards the actual racing experience. And I thought it was really cool in the beginning part of the movie how they kind of broke down how the creator of Grand Tremont Tremont He's my worked really, really hard to make it as realistic as possible, which is kind of cool how those two things kind of bridged. But, you know, the entire movie hinges on David Harbor and Archie Medecque, doing just an incredible job acting because it's such a unique kind of premise, right? And David Harbor is just a freak talent. He's absolutely hilarious throughout the entire movie.

And then I thought Archie kind of stole the show. He's super, super talented actor. You have to be like super invested in a storyline like this as a watcher of the movie to enjoy it. And in order for that to happen, you've got to have really, really high-level acting and Archie just straight up

knocked it out of the park. The cinematography is insane. I highly recommend seeing it in theaters. They use a bunch of different camera effects like drones and different camera angles that are up close to the vehicle to really capture the intensity of that type of racing.

Honestly, it's like a visceral experience when you're in the theater, especially when you're invested in the stakes that are at play. But you're like clinging to the seat because it's just this intense, visceral experience because of the high-quality cinematography. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Like I said, I highly recommend you guys see it in theaters. It has a little bit of something for everyone. It's also super fast-paced and keeps you engaged throughout. I was looking just for fun at the Rotten Tomatoes this morning. 98% of audience members who went to go see it gave it a thumbs-up rating, which I think is not the least bit surprising because my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a really cool little date.

night for us. Grand Theresa's Mill, based on a true story, is exclusively in movie theaters tomorrow. Get your tickets today. Rated PG-13. All right, let's talk some basketball. So, before we get into 21, 2019, and 18, a couple of things that I noticed in the comments. As is always the case when I do lists, I immediately piss people off. That's just how it works. I had people complaining about Tracy McGrady not being in the list. I had someone say that I was vastly overrated or under I'm reiterating Paul George in this particular discussion, but by far the biggest one that people got upset about was Chris Paul. So I kind of wanted to elaborate on that really quick.

Again, I chose 31 players for this list, and then I had to narrow it down to 25. Chris Paul was on that list of 31 players. From there, I had a list of criteria that I used. And again, like, everyone's criteria is different. Like, I'm sorry, but if I set different criteria, my list could look completely different, and the six guys that don't make it are probably going to be a completely different six guys. Just like if I gave you guys a list of criteria and had you build the list, it could look completely different based on what you guys interpret those specific things to be.

And I had six criteria yesterday that I broke down, and Chris Paul didn't perform well in those specific six criteria, which is why he missed the cut of 25. It doesn't mean he wasn't one of the most impactful players of this era. He absolutely was. obviously I had them in that top 31, right? But the reality is, anytime I set any sort of parameters,

there are going to be people that get squeezed. The best example I can give you guys is like the, I was thinking about this this morning, about the Ticketmaster kind of fiasco. I personally have had issues with Ticketmaster in the past. And so, like, I understand the plight of, like, Zach Bryan being like, I'm not going to use Ticket Master anymore.

I'm going to use a lottery. And I actually happen to get fortunate and win one of those lotteries. and I'm going to see Zach Brian on Friday. But, like, each system has holes, right? Like, the ticket master system favors the people with money. So if you're willing to pay an arm and a leg to go see a show, you can go see whatever you want because you can find a ticket at some price

based on the market value and you can go see a movie or the show. But the people that get squeezed are the people without money, right? And then you go to the Zach Bryan method or it's like, we're going to do a lottery. And all of a sudden it's the people that are willing to pay more that gets. squeeze. So you could be the biggest Zach Bryan fan in the world and you could save up $500 to go see him in Phoenix, but if you lose the lottery, you just don't get to see him. And so the point is, no matter where you set your criteria, no matter where you set your parameters, there are going to be

things that slip through the cracks. And for me, in my list, I was very heavy on, you know, playoff accomplishments and big career-defining achievements. And Chris Paul just doesn't really have one of those. Like, he hit a really big, you know, he hit a really big, shot in a first round series against the San Antonio Spurs in a game seven to win the series and then fell apart down the stretch in that Houston Rocket series, right? Like it's just with Chris Paul, there's just like there's these big moments, but there's just everything is missing the crescendo. And so again, like you guys know how much I value Chris Paul. Those of you guys have been listening to the show for a while. You probably remember the way I talked about him in the playoffs last

year as he was destroying the New Orleans Pelicans and playing so well at the beginning of the Maverick series. You guys have heard me. me talk about Chris Paul and how much I appreciate and respect him. But within this particular list and the specific set of parameters that I set up, he was one of the people that got squeezed out of a list of 31 players. Right. So I just wanted to kind of break that down. Again, like, if I put Chris Paul in and I take Russell Westbrook out, there's going to be a million people pissed off that Russell Westbrook's not in it. If I put Chris Paul in and I take Jimmy Butler out, every single Miami Heat fan is going to be like, what the hell, dude? He has 840 point playoff games and has been the

best player on two NBA finals teams. What the hell are you doing, right? Like there's no satisfying this type of list. But for me personally, I'm going to value playoff winning over just about anything else. There are players on this list that were frequently considered lesser players than Chris Paul, but they were major parts of championship teams. A couple of those guys we're going to talk about today. A couple of guards, right?

So, like, again, this is just my system. It's not a perfect system. If I change the parameters, it's going to turn out different. I know some of you guys disagree with me, but I just wanted to kind of lay out my pathway for you guys so that you understand it a little bit better. So yesterday we had four players who had never won an NBA championship in that 25, 24, 23, and 22. From this point forward, every single player except for two is an NBA champion.

So that kind of gives you an idea of the way that I value that specific accomplishment. Also, the two players that did not win NBA championships were some of the most iconic players from this particular era. Actually, those of you guys in the comments, take a guess. There's two players in the rest of the list that are not champions. I want to see if any of you guys can get that right. Put that in the comments. And none of them are in today's video for whatever that's worth. All right, let's start with number 21.

Tony Parker, the second best player on three championship teams. There was a couple years there where he was a little closer to manage nobody. but if you watch the Spurs, you always feared Tony Parker a little bit more than Manio. I viewed him as like the definitive second best player on that team, basically from 05 on. He was a four-time NBA champion with the Spurs though in 03, 05, 07 in 2014, and he was the MVP of the 2007 NBA Finals. He never made a first team all-MBA, but he did make four all-MBA teams, including back-to-back-to-back second team all-MBAs in the early 2010s.

His prime stats. Now, again, and those of you guys who didn't see the previous video, I'm going to talk about their stats and their prime, their claim to fame, basically the thing that they're remembered for, their archetype, just kind of talk a little bit about what they were like as basketball players, their career-defining achievement, basically whatever their absolute peak was,

and the last but not least, the biggest what-if of their career. So Tony Parker's prime stats. Now, keep in mind, the spurs were kind of like the warriors before the warriors. They were kind of equal opportunity, even more so than the warriors are. And a ton of ball movement, ton of player movement. it wasn't a lot of like just give one guy the ball and let them run the entire offense. And so as a result, their counting stats were never overly impressive.

So the 2014 Spurs, for instance, the last championship of that dynasty, they didn't have a single player average over 17 points for that entire season, and they won the championship. In the 2007 and 2005 seasons, they didn't have a single player average over 21 points. Tim Duncan was right at about 20 in both of those seasons. So statistical production with the Spurs is never going to put. like some of the other players on this list, but they won a shit ton of basketball games,

and Tony Parker was the second best player on that team. So that's why, again, box score numbers can't tell the entire story in this particular case. Even like Tim Duncan, who's near the top of this list, is a guy that didn't necessarily have overwhelmingly eye-popping statistical production over the second half of his career because of the way that team was put together. So I have Tony Parker's prime from 2005 to 2014.

He had 18 points, three rebounds, and six assists per game in that stretch. 56% true shooting. In the playoffs, 20 points per game, three rebounds and six assists on 53% true shooting. So like, again, as is always the case when you get to the later phases of the NBA playoffs, a lot of teams that rely heavily on motion,

teams can scout that and get ahead of it a little bit, and things devolve more into traditional, you know, kind of static shot creation, like pick and rolls, post-ups, and ISOs, right? And so Tony Parker was actually the guy that the Spurs leaned on a lot in those particular situations over the second half. of their dynasty.

So the way I look at it, like the Spurs dynasty is kind of split into three phases. So there's like the first phase where they win the first two titles where Tim Duncan is just arguably the best player in the league, depending on who you ask. I think it was Shaq, but like he was right there with him, right? It was like basically Shaq Kobe and Tim Duncan were the three best players in the league. And it was Tim Duncan's dominance that really carried the Spurs over that stretch. Then there's kind of like this middle phase. And this is where you get to the 0507 championships where Tim,

Tim Duncan is still really, really good, but Manu and Tony Parker are on the rise. And as they're on the rise, you know, things are starting to become a little bit more equal opportunity. And those guys are getting more touches and big playoff moments. And it's more of like a team dynamic rather than leaning heavily, heavily on Tim Duncan, even though Tim Duncan was clearly the best player on the team during that stretch. But then there was that stretch in the early 2010s, right, where they make it to the NBA finals and nearly win against the Miami Heat and then beat the Miami Heat in 2014.

During that stretch, like Tim Duncan was still probably the best. player on the team, depending on who you ask, but it was much more convoluted. And on any given night, Tony Parker could have been the best player on their team. And that gap between Tony Parker and Tim Duncan was actually very small. And so when we say Tony Parker was the second best player on a championship team, this is not, you know, this is not the second best player on the team the way that like Andrew Wiggins was for Steph Curry last year, right? Like this is, we have Tim Duncan and Tony Parker were pretty close to each other

and overall impact at this point in their particular career. So Tony Parker was pretty resoundingly considered one of the 10 best players in the league during the span. He made second team all-MBA twice and was one of the best playoff players in the league at that particular stretch of time. But like I said, things would break down in the playoffs and they'd have to rely more on static shot creation than they do in the regular season. That's where Tony Parker's value came in big in those situations.

So Tony's archetype, he was just a blazing quick speed guard, just like an absurdly quick little guard. He had one of the nastiest spin moves in the league, a spin move that I think a lot of players have copied from him. There's a specific set of footwork that he can use too. Like he can do it off of two feet, but he also had like a one foot spin that was kind of ridiculous. Or instead of like establishing like firm pivots with both feet, he's kind of like pure wetting through the lane off of one leg. You had a ridiculously good floater. Everyone called it the teardrop at the time.

And it's interesting to me that no one calls it a teardrop anymore because that was basically just the Tony Parker thing, right? Synergy did not start tracking floaters until 2008, so I can't pull it up for the early stretch of his career. But in 2008, Tony Parker shot 74% on floaters. In 2009, he shot 66% on floaters, and in 2010, he shot 64% on floaters. He was like Nicola Yokic with that little pop shot in the lane on the drive. He had to lean on it a lot more in the early 2010s as he started to slow down a little bit, but he was still deadly with it. In 2013, he made 94 of them at a 51% clip. So he's taking them several times a game, but he was making more than half of them. He was always one of the highest volume pick and roll guys in the league.

Super, super gifted passer. Guys were obsessed with kind of going underneath screens on Tony Parker to try to cut off his driving lanes and try to turn him into a jump shooter early in his career. He struggled with jump shooting, but then he kind of figured it out towards the end. In 2005, kind of the beginning of his prime, he only made 66 pull-up jump shots all year and only shot 37% effective field goal percentage on them. But by the time we got to 2013, he made 159 pull-up jump shots on 46% effective field goal percentage. So he just worked incredibly hard to build out a reliable mid-range pull-up jump shot

to use against teams that would go underneath on pick and roll. Then he really started to use that to weaponize his passing as he would kind of like bait guys into coming out, specifically the big man, to come out to show on that pull-up jump shot, and then he'd flip it down to Tim Duncan or Tiago Splitter underneath the basket. He was really, really gifted pick and roll player. In the 2013 season, there were 15 players in the league, similar to this year. There were 15 players in the league who ran at least 1,000 pick and rolls, and Tony Parker ranked second in the entire NBA inefficiency.

First was Chris Paul, which I'm sure all of you Chris Paul fans will want to rub in my face to further make me pay for my outrageous pick. His crowning achievement, 2007 NBA Finals MVP. Tim Duncan was the best player on that team pretty clearly. Like in 2014 it was up for debate. 2007, Tim Duncan was the best player on that team. But Tony Parker's scoring was a huge part in that specific playoff run. It's also one of the big reasons why I'm not a huge fan of the finals MVP award as it's currently constructed.

To me, the finals MVP should always go to the player who is the best player on the championship team. And just because a specific matchup leads to one player performing better in an NBA finals, shouldn't, and a lot of times just statistically, not in what's actually happening on the court, because a lot of times, schematics are what's pushing opportunities to a different player, see Andre Aguadala in the 2015 finals, right? But to me, I would rather call it instead of like a finals MVP, I would just call it like a championship MVP. And then whoever wins the championship, you give the trophy to the player that's clearly their best player,

from the start of the regular season all the way through to the end when they hoist. the trophy. To me, that's what that trophy should be for, but that's not how it works. We have a finals MVP trophy, and Tony Parker was the second best player on that team, but he averaged 21 points per game in that playoff run and averaged 25 points per game in the NBA final series against the Cleveland Cavaliers on 60% true shooting, winning his first and only finals MVP award. Biggest what if of Tony Parker's career, in my opinion, was the Ray Allen three-point shot. So I actually posted a video, not of the three, but of the two shots that preceded it on my Twitter feed. You guys can find it there if you go, look. But this is a huge

what-if, in my opinion, because I just broke down kind of for you guys the crowning achievement of Tony Parker, right? He wins back-to-back-to-back, second-te-all-MBAs, right? He's arguably the best player, second-best player on the 2013-2014 spurs that make it to the finals twice and wins the championship in 2014. But in 2013, there was a moment where the heat were up by three, and the series was the series was 3-2, San Antonio, right? And they're in Miami. So, San Antonio wins, they win the finals. And there's this play.

I want to say there's about a minute and a half left, if I remember correctly, but there's this play where Tony Parker's working on LeBron James. And, you know, this is prime LeBron, right? Like, he's switching onto any player that he needs to guard, and he's one of the best defensive players in the league, probably the best player in the league defensively and offensively at that phase in his career. He's switched out onto Tony Parker. He's got to shut him down because the game's on the line, right?

Well, they start trying to set picks to get somebody else switched on to Tony Parker. And LeBron just like screw that. He's fighting through every pick. He stays with him. And the shot clock runs out. And Tony Parker has to take this ridiculous stepback three from the top of the key. And he drains it to tie the game. And then on the very next possession, he's working in pick and roll.

And he gets downhill on Mario Chalmers. And Chalmers kind of cuts him off. And he's stuck with his back to the basket, like literally stuck with his left foot pivot foot, with the rim over here with his back to the basket and he just kind of pivots over his shoulder and makes this like ridiculous short right-handed jump shot in the lane. Just a ridiculously difficult shot. And it actually puts the spurs up by two. And from there we get into the free throw contest.

LeBron has those turnovers, but then we get into the free throw contest and then LeBron hits the three and then I think Kauai misses the free throw on the next one. And then Ray Allen hits the three that ties the game. We go to overtime, the heat win, and then the heat end up winning the series. but literally that entire arena was shell-shocked after those two shots. The spurs were up by two, and if they would have made their free throws, they would have literally won the NBA championship. I think Manu Genobley missed one, and I think Kawhi Leonard missed one.

Those were the two guys who missed in that situation. But let's just pretend that Ray Allen doesn't make that crazy corner three. Tony Parker has now stolen the 2013 NBA finals. And again, like obviously you lose that game. Miami's favored in game seven. probably going to win, they end up actually winning in game seven, right? So like game six essentially determines the series. The entire series flips on that particular outcome. And Tony Parker came this close to stealing it. Now let me reframe this era from the standpoint of Tony Parker

making back-to-back-to-back second team all-MBAs a two-time champion, the finals MVP potentially in 2013 and arguably the best player on the team during those two years, depending on who you ask. Suddenly, that vaults Tony Parker into some ridiculous conversations, right? So, like, that's a really interesting what if in Tony Parker's career. But he's one of those guys that, like, because of his statistical production, he's never going to be viewed on the same level as some of his peers. But, like, if you were there, you were terrified of Tony Parker when he had the ball, and there was a big moment where he had an opportunity to beat you.

I remember even after the Ray Allen 3, LeBron James guarded Tony Parker full court. And I still remember as a fan, and you guys, I'm a big LeBron fan. I'm watching that, like, just scared to hell that Tony Parker's going to dribble down and score. He ends up throwing up some crazy shot along the baseline and misses it. But, like, Tony Parker was a terrifying player to root against. He was one of those guys that in any playoff setting could outplay any of the best stars in the league. And if you were there, you'd probably remember Tony Parker in a similar fashion. And he's probably a good example of that thing I'm talking about with Chris Paul, right?

because like most GMs would probably take Chris Paul over those years, right? But like, you know, I'm a big believer in actual playoff results. And just Tony Parker was just there on the biggest stage, just doing it time and time again. And it's a big part of why he's a four-time NBA champion. All right, number 20, Paul Pierce. He was the second best player on one championship team, never made a first team all-MBA. Three all-MBA teams, though, and he won the NBA Finals MVP in 2008. This is another kind of guy that kind of fits that mold, right?

you look at Paul George, and he's got all of the all-MBA selections more than Paul Pierce does right, and he's, you know, the highs are, the regular season highs with Paul George are so high, right? But like anybody who was in the league during Paul Pierce's era thought more highly of Paul Pierce than this era thinks of Paul George in terms of what he's capable of relative to his peers. So it's another good example of this particular dynamic. Um, his prime stats. I put his prime down from 2001 to 2013. In that stretch in the regular season, he averaged 22, 6, and 4 on 57% true shooting.

And in the playoffs, he averaged 21, 6, and 4 on 55% true shooting. His claim to fame, uh, it's funny. I, uh, I saw this the, uh, yesterday or two days ago on Twitter. Someone like took a video of Paul Pierce shooting, um, some random game. and someone goes like, man, you know, Twitter would have you thinking Paul Pierce was just another Jimmy Butler or another Paul George. Now, to be clear, as you guys know, I obviously have Paul Pierce over both, right? Because Jimmy Butler is further back on this list and Paul George is one of the guys who was like in the running but didn't actually make it, right? So I agree in principle in the sense that I view Paul Pierce above those guys, but I think Jimmy Butler is the perfect cop for Paul Pierce.

I wouldn't say he's the Jimmy Butler of this era. I'd say Jimmy Butler is the Paul Pierce of his era, right? Because Paul Pierce came first, and I think Paul Pierce is the better player. But he's another one of those guys who's kind of a super weird archetype and was never truly considered to be on the same level as the guys at the very top of the league. But in any one game setting against those guys, he was capable about playing them. To me, that is like the spitting image of that Jimmy Butler type of archetype. And I think when I saw that tweet, all I thought was like, oh, people are massively underrating

Jimmy Butler. I've said this before on the show, but Jimmy Butler has scored 40 points in a playoff game eight times. He's scored 30 points in a playoff game like 20-something times and more times than Paul Pierce. I think Paul Pierce only has three 40-point playoff games. Now different era, higher usage, higher pace, all those different things. But the point is, it's not an insult to Paul Pierce to put him in the same conversation as Jimmy Butler. You guys know how highly I think of Jimmy Butler. I just think Paul Pierce kind of fits a similar mold in his particular era. And while I've always talked about Jimmy Butler is kind of like a miniature version of LeBron James. To me, Paul Pierce was kind of

like a chubbier, less athletic version of Kobe Bryant. There were a lot of similarities in his footwork and his shot form and the types of shots that he used to take. Like he kind of attacked in a very similar style, which is a big part of what made him so dynamic in playoff situations. He spent the first half of his career playing on some limited Celtics teams and put up a lot of big numbers, had some big playoff series, but never really had the talent necessary to compete. and then KG and Ray Allen came, and he finally had an opportunity to demonstrate it on the biggest stage, and he immediately did.

So I'm just going to go ahead and I'm going to come back to his archetype. I want to skip ahead to his claim to fame and just kind of talk a little bit about what he accomplished with the Celtics, and then we'll go back and talk about what kind of basketball player he was. So in the 2008 playoff run, Paul Pierce averaged 25 and 5 on 57% true shooting. He outplayed a young LeBron James in Game 7, in a game seven where LeBron scored 45 points. In that particular game, Paul Pierce scored 41 points on 23 shots and beat LeBron to a key loose ball at the end of the game.

I thought kind of outplayed him in that particular game. And then in the NBA finals in 2008, I thought he flat out-out out-played Kobe Bryant. Kobe averaged 25 points, but he was super inefficient. In that particular series, Paul Pierce averaged 22, 5, and 6 on 59% true shooting in beating the Lakers and winning the 2008 NBA Finals MVP. Kind of similar to like we were talking about with Tony Parker. I thought Kevin Garnett was the best player on that particular team,

but it was close, and Paul Pierce absolutely played like a superstar on the biggest stage and made a lot of the big plays en route to them winning a championship. He kind of took on that role as the closer, kind of similarly to Tony Parker with the Spurs. His archetype, like I said before, it's kind of is just like a chubbier, like, shifty, like, less athletic version of Kobe Bryant, right? He was only about 6-7, but he had ridiculously long arms. He had a 7-foot-3 wingspan. He was kind of strangely coordinated and weirdly agile.

Still had a lot of poster dunks over the top of people, even though he wasn't a great athlete just because his arms were so damn long. And he was just one of the best rise-and-fire guys in the league. Now, to me, rise-and-fire is like get to your spot, even if you don't have a ton of separation, just elevate over the top of everyone and knock. down a jump shot. That to me is what reminds me the most of Kobe. Like if you just go pull up a bunch of footage of Paul Pierce scoring on YouTube, you're going to notice a lot of similarities

in the footwork and the pivots and the pump fakes and the, even like, even the long, drawn out release on his jump shot where he's kind of like elevating as high as he can and like holding onto the ball a little bit longer. A lot of that stuff just kind of reminds me of Kobe. Obviously Kobe's a much better player. But like a lot of, there was a lot of, there was. some similarities there, and I think that led to some of his high-level impact in that specific playoff environment. He was consistently viewed as one of the 15 best players in the league during his era and one of the 10 best playoff players in the league during his era. He's also one of the best foul grifters in the league. Utilize the pump fake extremely well to get to the line.

Here's a crazy stat for you. Paul Pierce made 6,918 free throws in his career. That is 10th in NBA history, regardless of era, not just the last 25 years, but regardless of. regardless of era. He was just one of those guys, you know, and again, it's a similar kind of thing, like those of you guys who are in your 30s or older are going to remember that, like, when you had to root against Paul Pierce in a playoff series, he was terrifying. He was just one of those guys, kind of like Jimmy Butler, that you just knew that even if you had the best player in the series, that he was capable of going toe to toe with your guy in beating you. And he did on several occasions over the course of his career. Biggest what if of Paul Pierce's career,

in my opinion, what if KG... did not get hurt at the start of the 2009 season. A lot of people don't remember this, but the Celtics started the year after they won the title. They started 27 and 2. Now, to give you some perspective, the 2016 Warriors are the best regular season team of all time, and they started 28 and 1. So they were one game behind the Golden State Warriors to start that particular season before Kevin Garnett goes down with the injury.

You end up missing the playoffs and then they end up losing to Orlando in the conference semis. But again, that was the best Celtics team. That was better than the 2007 team. And, you know, obviously, if Paul Pierce becomes a guy with two NBA championships and two finals, MVP, it gets a lot more complicated in terms of him in all-time conversations. Especially if you, like, we look back at that era as like, you know, the Lakers Celtics era, and Kobe got two, Paul Pierce got one. What if it was Paul Pierce got two and Kobe got one?

You could see how that would kind of make things a little bit more complicated. Number 19, Chauncey Billups. Mr. Big Shot, best player on. one championship team, never made a first team all-M-B-A, but he did make three all-MBA teams. He had two all-defense teams as well. He also won the NBA Finals MVP in 2004. I thought he was the best player on the Pistons in that particular era.

Obviously, it's convoluted because it's similar to the Spurs situation with Tony Parker where, like, nobody on the team averaged over 20 points in 2004. It was more equal opportunity. They had a lot of really good players on the team. So, like, obviously, it's not the same type of statistical production that you see from some of his peers, but he was the best player on a team that hoisted the trophy. And that has to be worth a ton, as you guys know, in my particular list. So I put down on his prime 2003 to 2010, 17 points, three rebounds and six assists on

59% true shooting. And then in the playoffs, 18 points, three rebounds and six assists on 58% true shooting. His claim to fame, he was the offensive engine of one of the best defensive teams of all time. So he filled a very important role for a team that tried to win with defense, but needed to get baskets, obviously he was the engine that made that all work. Every kind of player, you know, it's funny, when I think back and think about the Detroit Pistons, they were team I watched a lot when I was young because obviously I was rooting for LeBron

in the Eastern Conference, and I think they made it to five consecutive Eastern Conference finals, if I remember correctly. But like each, they had like this perfect starting five where like each guy kind of filled a different archetype, right? Like Chauncey Billups was this like unbelievable skill guard who just had this ridiculous pull-up jump shot and he was kind of the point guarder ran the show and like ran a lot of pick and roll, things like that. Richard Hamilton was like the classic throwback two guard that was just flying off of screens. I looked up this stat today in 2005, which is when they started tracking

this particular data, Rip Hamilton shot 264 shots flying off the screens. That's more than nine NBA teams did this year. So Rip Hamilton by himself would have been right around the 22 spot in the NBA this year in total off-screen attempts going against the other 30 NBA teams. So that just gives you an idea of how the league has changed a lot. But Rip Hamilton was a lot of off-ball stuff, a lot of flying off screens. He did a little bit of post-up ISOs as well. Tashon Prince was just this terrifying defensive wing with a ridiculous wing span. He did most of his work in transition and in spot-up situations, but he also could score

a little bit as well. Rashid Wallace was a post-up fulcrum. They throw the ball down to him on the block a lot. He also could knock down a spot-up jump shot. he was also a great rim protector. And then Ben Wallace was just far and away the best defensive player in the league at the time. And so at the front line, you had Tashon Prince, who's one of the very best defensive players in the league, Rashid Wallace, who was an excellent defensive player, and then Ben Wallace, who was the best defensive player in the league.

And those three guys just completely screwed up every single team they played against offensively and caused all sorts of problems. And that was the bread and butter for how they won. But Rip Hamilton and Chauncey Billups had to carry most of the offensive load. and Chauncey in particular did the most in terms of scoring and facilitating for his teammates. Now, he was a big strong guard. He was about 6'3-and-weighted into about 210 pounds. He was an absolutely dead-eye pull-up shooter. Now, pull-up shooting data was not tracked on Synergy before 2005, so I can't go back that far.

But in the 2005 season, Chauncey Billups shot 45% on pull-up jump shots and 52% when you weighed it for three. So he had this – everything for Chauncey Billups was built out of a high. high hesitation in his left hand. So like he would kind of go through his legs or in a crossover and he'd kind of sit in a high hesitation in his left hand. This is a move that I teach a ton to the younger players that I coach. And a big part of it is it's the bridge move that bridges everything together. When you're in that high hesitation in your left hand, you can rise up into a jump shot,

you can continue to push the ball forward as a drive to the left, you can hit it in an out dribble, you can cross over to the right, you can go between your legs, you can go behind the back. You can literally do anything. out of a high hesitation dribble. It is the bridge move that connects everything else. And so with Chauncey, he was just like a pretty damn reliable pull-up jump shooter

out of that left-handed high hesitation. Now, he almost exclusively drove left. He drove left about 70% of the time. But it was still too super hard to guard because it was a given-a-take. You could press up to take away the jump shot and he's dusting you to his left hand, or you can play off,

and he's going to rise up and knock that shot down. You use that threat of that shot to generate a lot of rim pressure. He was also a great passer. He also was pretty big and strong, so he was a great post-up player among guards. Just kind of would back smaller guards down, get closer to the basket, and take like little short fadeaway jump shots. It was a big-time short jump shot maker out of the post. His crowning achievement was winning finals MVP in 2004.

He averaged 21 points, three rebounds, and five assists on that series on 70% for shooting. knocking out the vaunted shack Kobe Lakers in five games. The biggest what if of Chauncey Billups' career, in my opinion, is what if Robert Ory misses the three-point shot with six seconds left in game five of the 2005 NBA finals? The Pistons were up by two and the series was tied at two, so they were gone to San Antonio with two opportunities to win an NBA championship. Now, once again, kind of like I was talking about Tony Parker and Paul Pierce, let's reframe this as a back-to-back champion in 2004-2005 with two finals MVP's,

knocking out literally the Spurs and the Lakers along the way, you can imagine how that would put Chauncey Billups and really that whole Pistons team all time if that's how it would have gone down. But that's not how it went. Robert Ory made the shot. Spurs 1 and 7, and the Pistons ended up only getting one championship.

You know, it's funny. Robert Ory showed up in a lot of like the filters and stuff that I was running as I was tracking championship players and stuff. It's just kind of crazy how many big playoff moments Robert Ory has been there for. All right, last thing. guy for today. Number 18, Paugosol, second best player on two championship teams. Never made a first team all-MBA, but he made four all-MBA teams. In his prime, I put down from 2006 to 2015. In the

regular season, he averaged 19 points, 10 rebounds and four assists, 57% true shooting. In the playoffs, he averaged 17 points, 10 rebounds and four assists on 56% true shooting. His claim to fame really is he was the second most skilled big man in the league over that era, basically behind Dirk Novitsky. He was also the guy who helped resuscitate Kobe Bryant's career in Los Angeles, as we know Kobe was threatening straight up asked for a trade. It looked like that era was coming to a close. Powell Gasol comes in, gives them the necessary boost in talent that they needed. Suddenly they become a championship caliber team.

His archetype, he was a classic throwback post-up big man. Over 40% of his shot attempts came out of post-up situations. He preferred the left block. Actually, as a right-handed player, he preferred to take hooks over his right shoulder with his left hand. Like his most common post-up play type was just dump it to him on the left block. he'd kind of work with his right hand into the lane, and then he'd quick spin back to his left hand

and make a hook shot over the top of the defender. But that was just one of his go-to moves. He obviously had everything. He had a left-shoulder hook. He had a right-shoulder hook. He had up-and-under moves. He had fade-aways over both shoulders. He could make pop shots in the lane out of pick-and-roll.

He was a good pick-and-pop jump shooter as well. Like he just was, like I said, the second most skilled big man in that era. Unfortunately, Synergy did not start tracking hook shots until 2011, so I can't pull up his exact accuracy. But in 2010, which I look at his Pau's best season as a pro, he shot 48% in field goal attempts out of the post, which is insanely good for any sort of static half-court shot creating situation. His crowning achievement was thoroughly outplaying Kevin Garnett in the 2010 NBA finals. He averaged 19 and 12 in that series on 56% true shooting.

He utterly demolished the Celtics on the glass in that series. It's funny because, like, early on in Powell's careers, and this was a reputation that followed a lot of European players, but a lot of people looked at him as soft. And he didn't play particularly great in the 2008 season, right? Specifically in the NBA finals. And so as we look forward at the 2010 season, it's kind of crazy to see that transformation because he straight up bullied the Celtics front court. He had 35, 35 offensive rebounds in the 2010 NBA finals. That's five per game. He had nine offensive rebounds in game seven.

He had 19 points and 18 rebounds overall in game seven, and then he hit the biggest shot of the series. Again, this was game seven, series tied at three, winner take all. The Lakers were up four with just under two minutes left, and he was posting up Rashid Wallace once again on that left block like he always likes, spun back towards the baseline like he always likes to do. And the Celtics actually came with a triple team. They brought Paul Pearson, Kevin Garnett over and just smothered him.

He ended up having to double pump and take this weird, kind of like jump shot as he was falling to the ground, but he made it, put the Lakers up six with a minute and a half left, and that essentially iced the series as the Lakers went on to win their second consecutive NBA championship. He was definitely the best player on the floor in game seven in that series, and you could even make a case that he was the best player on the Lakers in that particular series, but that is a take that I personally disagree with. I tend to think that Kobe, especially with what Boston was throwing at him, and with all the stuff that he did throughout the entire season, kind of back to what we were talking about with finals MVP versus championship MVP.

I thought Kobe was a deserving finals MVP. Biggest what if of Paul Pierce's career, or excuse me, Powell Gasol's career, this was one that I had a hard time with because I feel like Powell Gasol's career went the way it was supposed to. Like, he kind of learned how to play in the NBA in Memphis, and then he played his best years with a really, really good Lakers team and got to experience what his individual ceiling was like. 2011, 2012, they clearly just weren't good enough anymore.

so they make an all-in trade for Steve Nash and for Dwight Howard, and then everyone breaks down that season. Dwight Howard played all the time, but he wasn't the same Dwight Howard. He was just stiffer than he used to be. Steve Nash was in and out of the lineup with injuries all season. Powell Gasol himself only played, I think, 49 games in that particular season, and then Kobe ends up tearing his Achilles,

and then from there, basically all those guys' careers were over. Dwight Howard ended up transitioning, but the other three guys were basically done at that point, right? So I don't really have a really good what-if, just simply based on the fact that I feel like things kind of went the way they were supposed to for Paugasol. But if I had to choose one, I'd say, what if the Lakers did not blow game four of the 2008 NBA finals? They were up by 20, 70 to 50 in the middle of the third quarter of game four, down two games to one. And they scored just 21 points over the final 18 minutes of that game as the Celtics came back to win

and take a 3-1 lead in the series. Obviously, it's not a sure thing from there because they would have had to win game 5. at home to go up 3-2 and then they'd have to win a game in Boston, but they would have been in a commanding position in the series had they not blown that lead. So it's a significant what if. And then obviously now we're talking about a three-peat if the Lakers win that particular series.

So that's all I have for today with Powell Gasol at number 18. We'll be back tomorrow with number 17, 16, 15, and 14. Volume. Another podcast from some SNL late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends, me and hilarious guests from Bob Oden Kirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the I-Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque.

say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the I-Hard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. On the Look Back at it podcast.

From 1979, that was a big moment for me. 84 was big to me. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. episode, we pick a year, unpack what went down, and try to make sense of how we survived it, with our friends, fellow comedians, and favorite authors. Like Mark Lamont Hill on the 80s. It was a wild year.

It was a wild year. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an IHeart podcast. Guaranteed human.