# Pierce vs. the top 2's in the NBA



## Causeway

In the Celtics thread there has been some debate as to Paul Pierce's value to the Celtics and his place in the NBA in general.

Personally I feel he is as good as any 2 gurad in the NBA and specifically I'd take Pierce over Kobe and TMAC on my team. 

With Kobe obviously he has the rings but the fact that Pierce has played with far inferior talent should not go against him. Shaq greatly helped Kobe in many ways. 

So who is "better" and as imporantly- or more importantly - who would you rather have on your team - Pierce, Kobe or TMAC?


----------



## tone wone

well, if this thread was made back in 2003..i actually think it was made...then KObe would've won easily and Tmac vs. Pierce would've had somewhat of debate...

but now, Pierce has fallen off the map IMO....i think he is a terrific player, but people dont view nearly as high as they did 2/3 years ago...

if it was I would rather have Tmac over Pierce and Kobe...but Tmac is favorite player in the L...so take that how ever you want


----------



## ralaw

Give me Kobe. Pierce has been much maligned by the mainstream media due to the Celtics average and inconsistent play. I don't think most people would even put Pierce in the top 5 of sg's in the league. Moving him to sf might get him ranked higher on the list.


----------



## sherwin

Causeway said:


> Personally I feel he is as good as any 2 gurad in the NBA and specifically I'd take Pierce over Kobe and TMAC on my team.



HAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahah good one


----------



## Causeway

sherwin said:


> HAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahah good one


Interesting post. Thanks for the input. Now how about some facts or even opinions to back it up?


----------



## PHXSPORTS4LIFE

to be honest with you i think pierce is slowly going the way of anonymity. his game is not exciting and he doesn't really make others around him better. i think he's well below kobe and tmac. below wade (particularly b/c of wade's remaining untapped potential). maybe just a level below ray allen. in fact, b/c of jj's youth and promise, i'm not sure i'd trade jj for pierce straight up now.


----------



## Drewbs

Causeway said:


> Interesting post. Thanks for the input. Now how about some facts or even opinions to back it up?


Why exactly would you rather have Pierce over someone like Kobe or Tmac then?

Pierce really isn't better than Kobe at anything, except maybe barrelling into the lane, flinging his arms and getting calls. Kobe is a better ball handler, quicker, more athletic, can score from midrange coming off screens or isolations, can get to the basket at will, and can play defense (well.. if he decides to put out the effort). Hes a more versatile scorer, as well as being a good passer and rebounder for his position. Really, hes superior to Pierce in just about every facet of a wings game.


----------



## LakerLunatic

Pierce is awsome, but it is not even close between him and Kobe, or him and Iverson, those type of guys are just one level above pierce.


----------



## kflo

pierce actually had an impressive season, imo. his scoring was down, but he had the most efficient scoring year of his career, and was more efficient scoring than any of his peers (1.17 ppfga - same as shaq). i'd still easily rather have kobe or tmac, who are just better at more things, imo.


----------



## DK

Pierce was a top-5 guard in the NBA in 2005 in terms of raw numbers, behind Wade, LeBron, and T-Mac. I'd much rather have him over Kobe in terms of 2005, although I'd have to run the numbers to see the comparison in 2004...


----------



## Carbo04

1. T-Mac
2. Kobe
3. LeBron
4. Wade
5. Pierce

I like Pierce, and he's still in his prime. He's got probably 2 or 3, maybe even 4 top level, All-Star years in him. But he isn't as good as the 4 ahead of him IMHO.


----------



## Spriggan

I personally think Pierce would be the easy choice, but on bbb.net, I bet Pierce would lose in a poll to someone like Ginobili.


----------



## purplehaze89

There's a reason Pierce only gets around 15 or so votes each year for All-NBA teams. His stock has dropped steadily each passing year. He's an all-star no doubt, but is he a franchise player you can build around? There are doubts.


----------



## Premier

No, Pierce isn't a franchise player, but how is that relevant to who is the better guard? Dwight Howard is a franchise player. Is he better than someone such as Elton Brand, who is not (in my opinion)?

Pierce is very underrated across these boards for an unknown reason. Statistically, Pierce had the best year of his career this year but he is getting less recognition from when he had poorer seasons in previous years.

By the way, _I _would take McGrady or Bryant over Pierce although I wouldn't call someone who does not, ludicrous. It's a fairly reasonable debate, in my opinion.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

to anyone who has ever watched kobe and tmac play you can just see how effortlessly the game comes to them...they are offensive machines who never seem to miss a shot...and in kobes case he is well above avg on d...and tmac can be good at d when he wants to be...i am a big celtics and pierce fan...but talking about individual players i cannot see how someone would take pierce over kobe or tmac...sorry priemer but i do call it ludicrous at this point...in 2003 i wouldnt have said it was all that crazy...back then i was fighting for pierce in arguements saying he was as good as kobe and ai...but right now i dont see the same pierce that dropped 27 a game easily...say its the system or not but i just dont see him at kobe, tmac, wade or lebrons level


----------



## PauloCatarino

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> to anyone who has ever watched kobe and tmac play you can just see how effortlessly the game comes to them...they are offensive machines who never seem to miss a shot...and in kobes case he is well above avg on d...and tmac can be good at d when he wants to be...i am a big celtics and pierce fan...but talking about individual players i cannot see how someone would take pierce over kobe or tmac...sorry priemer but i do call it ludicrous at this point...in 2003 i wouldnt have said it was all that crazy...back then i was fighting for pierce in arguements saying he was as good as kobe and ai...but right now i dont see the same pierce that dropped 27 a game easily...say its the system or not but i just dont see him at kobe, tmac, wade or lebrons level


Well, straight from the mouth (heh... fingers) of a Celtics fan... It MUST be true...


----------



## LuckyAC

Pierce did easily have his best season of the past three, but he's still quite a bit behind.


----------



## DK

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> to anyone who has ever watched kobe and tmac play you can just see how effortlessly the game comes to them...they are offensive machines who never seem to miss a shot...and in kobes case he is well above avg on d...and tmac can be good at d when he wants to be...i am a big celtics and pierce fan...but talking about individual players i cannot see how someone would take pierce over kobe or tmac...sorry priemer but i do call it ludicrous at this point...in 2003 i wouldnt have said it was all that crazy...back then i was fighting for pierce in arguements saying he was as good as kobe and ai...but right now i dont see the same pierce that dropped 27 a game easily...say its the system or not but i just dont see him at kobe, tmac, wade or lebrons level


Huh?

1) Pierce shot 45.5% from the field, 37% from outside and 82.2% from the line.
Kobe shot 43.3% from the field, 33.9% from outside and 81.6% from the line.
T-Mac shot 43.1% from the field, 32.6% from outside and 77.4% from the line.

If you could explain how Pierce is a worse shooter, please do. I'm having trouble figuring it out myself.

2) Kobe allowed 111 points per 100 possessions where the league average is 106. In other words, Kobe's a below-average defender. T-Mac worked hard on his defense and his DRtg was 101, five points above average.


----------



## Vermillion

I think a better debate would be Pierce vs Carter.

IMHO:

1.Lebron
2.Kobe
3.Wade
4.Pierce
5.Allen

Considering of course, McGrady is a forward. He would be number 2 if he wasn't.


----------



## Premier

Pierce is much more of a small forward than McGrady, but it doesn't really matter. A wing player is a wing player is a wing player.


----------



## aquaitious

Pierce is overshadowed because he doesn't score as much as he did, and because he isn't as good as he was. In the C's EFC run 3 years ago, he was basically unstoppable, now - with all of the C's let's-play-like-a-team-scheme (you can't play like a Pistons team if the talent around you is ****) - he's take a less roll on the team. For some reason Celtic fans think we can win as a "team" while having a Jiri Welsch around Pierce and LaFrentz being one of the primary options. Did I mention that Mark Blount is a dominating center? 

With O'Brien in charge, Pierce had the opportunity to do anything he likes, whenever he likes, and it worked fine for the Celtics, yes it was frustrating basketball (shoot a 3 as fast as possible, run back to play D), but for some reason or another it worked. And Pierce became this icon in Boston. Then 2 years ago he had a great series against Indiana, no one could stop him and we knocked them off. People once again put up the "all-starness" in Pierce at another level, but once he was alone with no talent around him (Vin Baker was the 2nd best player last year...shows how much we sucked) and he was forced to play within a "fast-break" system, his stats started to drop but his efficiency started to go up.

And now that he's this efficient player, Celtic fans think he's the most dominating guard in the NBA. Wins don't matter anymore, as long as the guy is in the top 10 in the efficiency rating on NBA.com, the Celtics are a much better team.


----------



## JNice

Vermillion said:


> I think a better debate would be Pierce vs Carter.
> 
> IMHO:
> 
> 1.Lebron
> 2.Kobe
> 3.Wade
> 4.Pierce
> 5.Allen
> 
> Considering of course, McGrady is a forward. He would be number 2 if he wasn't.



If you are going to consider Tmac a forward, you can probably throw Lebron and Pierce in there as forwards as well. I've always thought of Pierce more of a SF than SG.

As far as the thread, no, I don't think (nor do most others) that Pierce is on the same level as Kobe and Tmac. And at this point, I'd take Wade and Lebron over Pierce without much hesitation. Still a great player though.


----------



## kflo

DK said:


> Huh?
> 
> 1) Pierce shot 45.5% from the field, 37% from outside and 82.2% from the line.
> Kobe shot 43.3% from the field, 33.9% from outside and 81.6% from the line.
> T-Mac shot 43.1% from the field, 32.6% from outside and 77.4% from the line.
> 
> If you could explain how Pierce is a worse shooter, please do. I'm having trouble figuring it out myself.
> 
> 2) Kobe allowed 111 points per 100 possessions where the league average is 106. In other words, Kobe's a below-average defender. T-Mac worked hard on his defense and his DRtg was 101, five points above average.


dk - those defensive stats are so team dependent they're not even comparable across teams. the highest defensive rating on the entire spurs roster was 102 (bruce bowen, btw).


----------



## DK

kflo said:


> dk - those defensive stats are so team dependent they're not even comparable across teams. the highest defensive rating on the entire spurs roster was 102 (bruce bowen, btw).


Actually, Kerr and Udrih also had DRtg's of 102, but that's besides the point.

DRtg's are the closest thing that we have for evaluating a player's individual defensive contribution- and, if you've ever read over the calculation for DRtg, I'm sure you think the same way.

They are team dependent to an extent but not nearly as much as anything else out there in terms of evaluating defensive prowess.


----------



## kflo

c'mon dk - the highest rating on the spurs is 102, the lowest on the lakers 108 (lamar odom, everyone else is 110 or higher). it doesn't pass the sniff test. la ranges from 108 to 115, sa from 93 to 102. houston's highest regular was 105. there's just NO way you can use drtg to compare players. are you willing to argue that every spur and rocket (and piston, heat, bulls, grizz and nets) defender are better than any laker defender?


----------



## DK

kflo said:


> c'mon dk - the highest rating on the spurs is 102, the lowest on the lakers 108 (lamar odom, everyone else is 110 or higher). it doesn't pass the sniff test. la ranges from 108 to 115, sa from 93 to 102. houston's highest regular was 105. there's just NO way you can use drtg to compare players. are you willing to argue that every spur and rocket (and piston, heat, bulls, grizz and nets) defender are better than any laker defender?


This year- yes. The Lakers as a whole were completely dominated on defense. In fact, I can't think of one good defensive player this year on the Lakers.

If it's team dependent, then some of the players would be bringing up or down everyone else's ratings. There was a collective failure on the part of the Lakers. They had the second worse defensive team in the league, beating out only the Hapless Hawks.

The Spurs were #1, Bulls were #2, Pistons were #3, Rockets were #4, Heat were #5, Grizzlies were #6, and Nets were #7 in terms of team efficiency... the Lakers were #29. I don't find it implausible that the top 7 teams had a collective success while the second-to-last team had a collective failure.


----------



## kflo

the point is, you can't look at someone on sa's team's defensive rating and conclude they're good defensive players, while looking at someone on la's team's defensive rating and concluding they're significantly worse on defense. you're concluding that kobe's a below average defender. it doesn't make any sense. put kobe on sa, and all of the sudden he's an above average defender? put a spur on la (well, not duncan), and they go from well above average as a defender to well below average, automatically. 

you're not talking about collective success. the collective success is obvious. you're concluding on individual defense. and there's no justification there. again, just doesn't even pass a basic sniff test.


----------



## DK

kflo said:


> the point is, you can't look at someone on sa's team's defensive rating and conclude they're good defensive players, while looking at someone on la's team's defensive rating and concluding they're significantly worse on defense. you're concluding that kobe's a below average defender. it doesn't make any sense. put kobe on sa, and all of the sudden he's an above average defender? put a spur on la (well, not duncan), and they go from well above average as a defender to well below average, automatically.
> 
> you're not talking about collective success. the collective success is obvious. you're concluding on individual defense. and there's no justification there. again, just doesn't even pass a basic sniff test.


Who said that Kobe would be an above-average defender on the Spurs? It's obvious that it is somewhat team dependent, as are all statistics, but can you really conclude that the 2nd-worst team in the league at defense really has an above-average defender?

Anyway, this argument isn't about DRtg, it's about Pierce's merit in comparison to the other 2's in the NBA. I happen to think he's well up there with them... But most of what I have to say has already been stated.


----------



## kflo

his drtg would certainly indicate he was above average on the spurs. put bruce bowen on the lakers, and they're still a poor defensive team. and he's still an above average defender. in some cases, drtg isn't somewhat team dependent, it's almost completely team dependent.


----------



## HeinzGuderian

Premier said:


> A wing player is a wing player is a wing player.


Quoted for truth. People differentiate between SG and SF way too much.


----------



## Greater Levitator

1. McGrady
2. Carter
3. R. Allen
4. James
5a. Pierce
5b. Kobe

Wade is nowhere near those players. Take Shaq away and Wade would be a Steve Francis clone (Many Turnovers, dominating the ball too long, chucking up shots) with a slightly better fg%. That means 20 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg, 4 tpg and 45 fg %. A decent player, but not on par with any of the above mentioned players.


----------



## Diophantos

Greater Levitator said:


> 1. McGrady
> 2. Carter
> 3. R. Allen
> 4. James
> 5a. Pierce
> 5b. Kobe
> 
> Wade is nowhere near those players. Take Shaq away and Wade would be a Steve Francis clone (Many Turnovers, dominating the ball too long, chucking up shots) with a slightly better fg%. That means 20 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg, 4 tpg and 45 fg %. A decent player, but not on par with any of the above mentioned players.


Do you really believe that? Have you watched basketball for the last season or so? I'm not saying Wade is equal or better to all of these guys, but to say he is "nowhere near them" or that he would be a 20 ppg scorer without Shaq seems to ring pretty false.

EDIT: Sorry...didn't really mean to turn this into a Wade thread. You can just ignore this and keep talking about Pierce .


----------



## CrossOver

Greater Levitator said:


> 1. McGrady
> 2. Carter
> 3. R. Allen
> 4. James
> 5a. Pierce
> 5b. Kobe
> 
> Wade is nowhere near those players. Take Shaq away and Wade would be a Steve Francis clone (Many Turnovers, dominating the ball too long, chucking up shots) with a slightly better fg%. That means 20 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg, 4 tpg and 45 fg %. A decent player, but not on par with any of the above mentioned players.


And the crusade continues...


----------



## f22egl

Greater Levitator said:


> 1. McGrady
> 2. Carter
> 3. R. Allen
> 4. James
> 5a. Pierce
> 5b. Kobe
> 
> Wade is nowhere near those players. Take Shaq away and Wade would be a Steve Francis clone (Many Turnovers, dominating the ball too long, chucking up shots) with a slightly better fg%. That means 20 ppg, 6 rpg, 7 apg, 4 tpg and 45 fg %. A decent player, but not on par with any of the above mentioned players.


 Wow, someone is seriously overrating Carter; you also have to consider Dwayne Wade. WHile Wade has Shaq, Carter has Jason Kidd to help inflate his stats. Didn't Carter shoot like 30% in the playoffs too? Small forwards and shooting guards are different. Just because one player can play both positions doesn't make them identical positions. Pierce luckily gets to get compared to both small forwards and shooting guards since he can play both positions.

Kobe did not have a good year and anyone who said so would be lying. Perhaps Phil Jackson will make him a smarter player again but he is averaging 3 turnovers per game, partly because he is asked to do way too much for his team, like bring up the ball, be their best defender, and their primary scorer. I would take Kobe over Pierce, but Pierce IMO had a better 04-05 season because he was not only more efficient but his team had better sucess. 

Hughes also had an incredible year on par with Pierce. I would also say Hamilton is doing great in his situation in Detroit. Let's not forget Joe Johnson either.


----------



## analysis

pierce is a good offensive player, maybe not as good as kobe and tmac
but pierce's defensive is invisible, so i would not take him over tmac or kobe, not by a long shot


----------



## Premier

Pierce's defense isn't invisible. He's an above-average defender who could become a great defender if he had the right mind-set.


----------



## VCFSO2000

f22egl said:


> Wow, someone is seriously overrating Carter; you also have to consider Dwayne Wade. WHile Wade has Shaq, Carter has Jason Kidd to help inflate his stats. *Didn't Carter shoot like 30% in the playoffs too?* Small forwards and shooting guards are different. Just because one player can play both positions doesn't make them identical positions. Pierce luckily gets to get compared to both small forwards and shooting guards since he can play both positions.
> 
> Kobe did not have a good year and anyone who said so would be lying. Perhaps Phil Jackson will make him a smarter player again but he is averaging 3 turnovers per game, partly because he is asked to do way too much for his team, like bring up the ball, be their best defender, and their primary scorer. I would take Kobe over Pierce, but Pierce IMO had a better 04-05 season because he was not only more efficient but his team had better sucess.
> 
> Hughes also had an incredible year on par with Pierce. I would also say Hamilton is doing great in his situation in Detroit. Let's not forget Joe Johnson either.




I believe players of Carter's caliber don't shoot 30% in the playoffs unless...Teams stack up on him and he doesn't have shooters in corners to keep the D honest.

Wade can drive because he has the Joneses,Dooling,Laettner,Butler...

T-Mac has Barry,James,Wesley...

Carter has Kidd( :angel: )Scalabrine(horrible during playoffs)RJ(improved shooting but still...come on)

EDIT:I know this is a pierce thread but I'm a Carter groupie first and foremost...And whenever someone falsy criticizes him...I have to say something...


----------



## E.H. Munro

Premier said:


> Pierce is much more of a small forward than McGrady, but it doesn't really matter. A wing player is a wing player is a wing player.


A wing by another name would still smell of sweat.


----------



## f22egl

Wade shot like 60% against the Wizards without Shaq in games 3 and 4 and has already hit game winning shots in the playoffs last year in his rookie year against the Hornets. Eddie Jones is a decent defender but Carter had a lot of open shots that he just missed. 

Kidd makes players look better than they are IMO. I don't think RJ is a max contract player and Carter wasn't really doing much with Toronto before. Carter had an excellent 2nd half of the season and may actually have a better season with RJ being healthy. Still, over 82 games and the postseason included, Pierce had a better year than Carter. I don't thinke Carter was a top 5 wing player THIS YEAR.

And don't forget that T-Mac has Yao and a better coach in Van Gundy (sorry Doc) and the Nets have Kristic who played surprisingly welll against Shaq.


----------



## djtoneblaze

In 2002/2003, PIERCE would have likely been the top choice. Right now, I'd just toss a coin between T-Mac and Kobe (even though I think Kobe's slightly better) and let The Truth be a somewhat distant third.


----------



## texan

Ray Allen is better than Pierce. Easily. It goes...

1. Tracy McGrady
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Ray Allen
4. Vince Carter
5. Dwayne Wade

Then maybe he comes in at 6. He is a good player, but his defense is very subpar. You can't measure defense with a statistic. I'm sure some of you stat gurus love to think that, but it just simply isn't true. Watch him play and you'll see he's not a good defender, nor is he as dominant scoring the ball as the guys in front of him.


----------



## DK

texan said:


> Ray Allen is better than Pierce. Easily. It goes...
> 
> 1. Tracy McGrady
> 2. Kobe Bryant
> 3. Ray Allen
> 4. Vince Carter
> 5. Dwayne Wade


Why do you believe Allen is better than Pierce? Just curious.


----------



## texan

DK said:


> Why do you believe Allen is better than Pierce? Just curious.



I do like Pierce as a player, but from what I've seen(and I watch quite a few games) Allen is the better scorer(shooter especially) as well as the better defender, ball handler, and passer. Pierce has the advantage in rebounding and slightly in dribble penetration, but I still think Allen holds the advantage. He was insanely good in the SA series, sometimes completely unconcious, so that raised my opinion of him. Stats may tell a different story, but I trust my(and many others) judgement of the game over stats.


----------



## DK

texan said:


> I do like Pierce as a player, but from what I've seen(and I watch quite a few games) Allen is the better scorer(shooter especially) as well as the better defender, ball handler, and passer. Pierce has the advantage in rebounding and slightly in dribble penetration, but I still think Allen holds the advantage. He was insanely good in the SA series, sometimes completely unconcious, so that raised my opinion of him. Stats may tell a different story, but I trust my(and many others) judgement of the game over stats.


Scoring:
Pierce: 45.5% FG, 37% 3PT, 82.2% FT.
Allen: 42.8% FG, 37.6% 3PT, 88.3% FT.

It's close, so I'll rate these two even. Allen took more shots, but also took more risk with his shots... Pierce took many more free throws, though, so again it's even. Allen doesn't play that much defense, I'd probably rate Pierce ahead of them... Although it is more of a judgement call than anything. I'd rather have a better rebounder than a passer, as passing doesn't really show too much in terms of victories (lottery teams on average had more assists than playoff teams did in the regular season).


----------



## texan

DK said:


> Scoring:
> Pierce: 45.5% FG, 37% 3PT, 82.2% FT.
> Allen: 42.8% FG, 37.6% 3PT, 88.3% FT.
> 
> It's close, so I'll rate these two even. Allen took more shots, but also took more risk with his shots... Pierce took many more free throws, though, so again it's even. Allen doesn't play that much defense, I'd probably rate Pierce ahead of them... Although it is more of a judgement call than anything. I'd rather have a better rebounder than a passer, as passing doesn't really show too much in terms of victories (lottery teams on average had more assists than playoff teams did in the regular season).



Once again, stats don't mean everything. I do agree its somewhat debatable, but I rate Allen ahead of Pierce. Despite 3 point percentage being the same, Allen made 101 more threes this season than Pierce. Its not even arguable who the better shooter is. He averaged two more points per game, and scored roughly 100 more points despite playing in 4 less games. He did have less assists(cause he didn't dominate the ball) and rebounds and steals for that matter, but also had less turnovers. Pierce gets to the line more, but that doesn't neccessarily make him a more effective scorer. What differentiates them most in my mind is their defensive efforts. When I watch Pierce, I see no effort on defense whereas when I watch Allen, I see him at least trying and playing tough. He's no all-NBA defender by any means, but he exerts much more force than Pierce does and has a bigger impact defensively(despite steal numbers;Pierce just gambles more).


----------



## ThaShark316

I have to get this out the way...PLEASE stop posting stats, this is NOT baseball dammit.

Ok, back to live action. 


Pierce is a great player. It seems like he's gotten lazy since 2002, when he was becoming a big star. I think he gets that motivation that he had back then, I think he could be in the convo, when it comes to the top 3 SGs in the league. As of right now, he needs to work a lil harder.

I'll say Kobe over all SGs. (this being if T-Mac is a SF in this convo, which I'm saying he is, cuz I doubt if he plays the 2 again with JVG as coach.)


----------



## DK

ThaShark316 said:


> I have to get this out the way...PLEASE stop posting stats, this is NOT baseball dammit.



Huh? 

One of the big problems with basketball fanatics is that when the stats agree with them, they're right, but if the stats don't.. "Oh, the stats don't matter... There's more to it."

Statistics do much more than what meets the eye... You just have to know how to dissect them.

Anyway...



texan said:


> Once again, stats don't mean everything. I do agree its somewhat debatable, but I rate Allen ahead of Pierce. Despite 3 point percentage being the same, Allen made 101 more threes this season than Pierce. Its not even arguable who the better shooter is. He averaged two more points per game, and scored roughly 100 more points despite playing in 4 less games. He did have less assists(cause he didn't dominate the ball) and rebounds and steals for that matter, but also had less turnovers. Pierce gets to the line more, but that doesn't neccessarily make him a more effective scorer. What differentiates them most in my mind is their defensive efforts. When I watch Pierce, I see no effort on defense whereas when I watch Allen, I see him at least trying and playing tough. He's no all-NBA defender by any means, but he exerts much more force than Pierce does and has a bigger impact defensively(despite steal numbers;Pierce just gambles more).


Wait a minute... Just let me make sure I have this clear:

Opening: Stats don't mean everything.
Evidence: Allen made more threes, averaged more points, scored more points playing in less games, had less assists, rebounds and steals, but less turnovers, Pierce gets to the line more, but he's not as effective...

So you start off by saying stats aren't as important but then (basically) your entire ideology is statistically derived?

Allen shot 200 more shots in four less games, so I can't really figure how he dominates the ball less. In terms of Usage rate (yes, another stat), Allen uses 26.2 possessions per 40 minutes, Pierce uses 24.6.

In terms of rebounds, Pierce dominates Allen, despite the fact that Allen has more opportunities to rebound (more missed shots by Seattle's opponents, and a faster-paced offense). That's a huge difference, since rebounds are penultimately important.

Assists mean nothing in my opinion. I just discredit them, even though Pierce has an advantage and I could exploit it. But, I stick with my beliefs and the facts over merely gaining an end.

Steals and turnovers have to be considered in the same breath. However, you have to adjust so it doesn't seem like the amount of turnovers dominates the amount of steals. The league ratio of TO to steals is about 1.93, so to estimate created turnovers you multiply the amount of steals a player has by 1.93- thus putting steals on the same level as TO's.

Allen turned the ball over 171 times while creating an estimated 162 turnovers- a below-average number but close to average.
Pierce turned the ball over 230 times while creating an estimated 256 turnovers- an above-average number, and definitely having a positive impact on his team.

Pierce also has an edge in blocked shots (39 to 5), although that's minute but still significant.

I could care less about measuring effort on defense. I could work my *** off on the defensive end and still allow 30 points to Ray Allen in about 10 minutes. _If_ Pierce worked harder, he may be a much better defender- but in the end, we aren't judged on what we might have done, we are judged on what we accomplished. Pierce is a better defender than Allen, despite the effort Allen puts out. I credit Allen for trying, but, like a jump shot, an attempt is not always a succession.

I don't think that there's much proof that Allen is a better scorer. Yes, he has more points, but he did it on many more attempts and with a much higher opportunity for points. In terms of shotmaking, the three metrics I use are TS%, PSA, and Value%. Pierce has an edge in all three (.583/.553, 1.17/1.11, and .519/.470).

I'm not knocking Ray Allen. Ray Allen is a good player. Pierce, from what I can see, is better. I'm not going to judge a player by how many jump shots I _think_ I see him make. I'm going to judge him on what he has accomplished as a whole.


----------



## Vincanity15311

texan said:


> Ray Allen is better than Pierce. Easily. It goes...
> 
> 1. Tracy McGrady
> 2. Kobe Bryant
> 3. Ray Allen
> 4. Vince Carter
> 5. Dwayne Wade
> 
> Then maybe he comes in at 6. He is a good player, but his defense is very subpar. You can't measure defense with a statistic. I'm sure some of you stat gurus love to think that, but it just simply isn't true. Watch him play and you'll see he's not a good defender, nor is he as dominant scoring the ball as the guys in front of him.



I agree wit this, but i think wade is a PG... i find it funny how the best shooting guards in the league arent great shooters, except ray allen..


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Vincanity15311 said:


> I agree wit this, but i think wade is a PG... i find it funny how the best shooting guards in the league arent great shooters, except ray allen..




tmac and kobe arent great shooters???...hmmm...


----------



## DK

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> tmac and kobe arent great shooters???...hmmm...


Not when you shoot 43% you're not.


----------



## kflo

kinda like ray allen


----------



## GENERAL ZOD

if you consider that iverson has spent almost all his career at the 2 then your list is flawed....iverson is no 1.....4 scoring titles says i`m right....rings are a team thing


----------



## kflo

does scoring efficiency matter, or just ppg? does defense or rebounding matter? anything but scoring titles matter?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

DK said:


> Not when you shoot 43% you're not.




LOL ray allen shot 42.8% from the field last yr...have a good time tryin to explain to me how hes not a good shooter...nice try


----------



## DK

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> LOL ray allen shot 42.8% from the field last yr...have a good time tryin to explain to me how hes not a good shooter...nice try


Allen also shoots 88% from the line and 37% from outside. Kobe doesn't sniff Allen in either one of those categories.


----------



## Causeway

..


----------



## IV

Causeway said:


> In the Celtics thread there has been some debate as to Paul Pierce's value to the Celtics and his place in the NBA in general.
> 
> Personally I feel he is as good as any 2 gurad in the NBA and specifically I'd take Pierce over Kobe and TMAC on my team.
> 
> With Kobe obviously he has the rings but the fact that Pierce has played with far inferior talent should not go against him. Shaq greatly helped Kobe in many ways.
> 
> So who is "better" and as imporantly- or more importantly - who would you rather have on your team - Pierce, Kobe or TMAC?


Read Paul Pierces resume then compare it to Tmac's and Kobe's(minus the ring) and there shouldn't be any question why He's not as good as either of them.


----------



## coachhomer

It amazes me how many people know absolutely nothing about the game of basketball. 

There should be an idolizer/I get all my basketball knowledge from Sportcenter forum where everyone can post their ignorant comments.

What do we know here?
1. Tracy McGrady is a great athlete.
2. Paul Pierce is not a great athlete.

Paul Pierce is more skilled than Tracy McGrady. Thats right, MORE SKILLED. He has to be to be successful in this league. Tracy relies more on his athleticism at this point in his career. If Paul Pierce was as athletic as McGrady this thread would be limited to the aforementioned idolizer/I get all my basketball knowledge from Sportcenter forum because it wouldn't even be a question as to who was better.

Pierces numbers are down this year slightly, but so are his minutes. 

Bottom line is that Tracy McGrady is still an immature gifted athlete who's work ethic is extremely questionable at best. How will he fair in 6 years when his athleticism has diminished? That will be interesting. 

Jordan adapted his game as he aged. He became stronger and smarter. Dominique Wilkins chose the other route. Many have chosen the second route. Why? Because it is easier. Paul Pierce has worked to become what he is as a player. Tracy has worked as well, but not nearly as hard I can guarantee you that.

So as I sort through a lot of the nonsense that has been written in this thread, I think to myself..."What was the title of this thread again". Oh thats right Pierce vs. the top 2's in the NBA 

Some of you have written some good info... well maybe a few of you anyway.

Does Pierce measure up the the other great wings in this league? Absolutely. I would take him over McGrady in a heartbeat. 

Paul Pierce is a better basketball player. Tracy McGrady is a better athlete. Can Tracy Become one of the greatest players ever? Yes he can, his potential is far greater than that of Pierce. Pierce has maxed out. Tracy has not. 

I am not a Paul Pierce fan and I am not a Tracy McGrady hater. I am also not a fan! Fact is, neither one of these guys is a leader. I wouldn't build a team around either one of these guys. But they are 2 of a small group of guys at that position that are very good at what they do.


C


----------



## kflo

coach - you state that "Some of you have written some good info... well maybe a few of you anyway", and then you proceed to offer very little yourself. you've presented your belief about pierce and tmac as players, but offered very little to back it up. if you're looking to enlighten people, you might be wise to add some value yourself instead of simply pointing out the deficiencies of other posters.


----------



## coachhomer

kflo said:


> coach - you state that "Some of you have written some good info... well maybe a few of you anyway", and then you proceed to offer very little yourself. you've presented your belief about pierce and tmac as players, but offered very little to back it up. if you're looking to enlighten people, you might be wise to add some value yourself instead of simply pointing out the deficiencies of other posters.


If your intentions are to learn, then private message me, I would love to share more. 

And I am not quite so sure I didn't "back it up" I defined both of those guys as players and generalized their contribution to the game on their teams. Sounds to me like you want numbers. Numbers are great when appropriately applied.

Players have had great numbers on one team and then when they were traded, their numbers diminished. Success is partially dependent upon a players surroundings.

I voiced my opinion on the topic of the thread. 

C


----------



## kflo

you did little different than the other posters in this thread. you just had a differing opinion. you say pierce worked hard, tmac hasn't. you offered no assessment of what pierce does better, how his work ethic has manifested itself in superior skills, how you even know he's worked harder.


----------



## coachhomer

kflo said:


> you did little different than the other posters in this thread. you just had a differing opinion. you say pierce worked hard, tmac hasn't. you offered no assessment of what pierce does better, how his work ethic has manifested itself in superior skills, how you even know he's worked harder.


Like I said, if you really are interested then pm me.

C


----------



## MVPlaya

Causeway said:


> In the Celtics thread there has been some debate as to Paul Pierce's value to the Celtics and his place in the NBA in general.
> 
> *Personally I feel he is as good as any 2 gurad in the NBA and specifically I'd take Pierce over Kobe and TMAC on my team. *
> 
> With Kobe obviously he has the rings but the fact that Pierce has played with far inferior talent should not go against him. Shaq greatly helped Kobe in many ways.
> 
> So who is "better" and as imporantly- or more importantly - who would you rather have on your team - Pierce, Kobe or TMAC?


LOL. Does there even need to be reason or anythin to back it up that Kobe and T-Mac are better than Pierce?

SG's I would take over Pierce
AI (if you consider him one, but hes a 2-guard)
Kobe
T-Mac
Dwayne Wade
Ray Allen
LeBron James

I dunno if I missed anybody, but Pierce has fallin off. And for ya'll who base everythin on stats, look at his decline starting from 01-02.


----------



## kflo

coachhomer said:


> Like I said, if you really are interested then pm me.
> 
> C


i don't think it's pm worthy. you entered the thread disparaging others for their contributions in this thread, and then, imo, didn't offer much to elevate the discussion, or add much other than a differing opinion. i found it a bit odd / funny. i'm sure you can add more to the topic, you just haven't yet, imo.


----------



## Causeway

MVPlaya said:


> LOL. Does there even need to be reason or anythin to back it up that Kobe and T-Mac are better than Pierce?


Since there are so far 5 pages of posts on this I'd say people are into the topic.



MVPlaya said:


> SG's I would take over Pierce
> AI (if you consider him one, but hes a 2-guard)
> Kobe
> T-Mac
> Dwayne Wade
> Ray Allen
> LeBron James


Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Care to back up your list with some facts or even opinions?



MVPlaya said:


> I dunno if I missed anybody, but Pierce has fallin off. And for ya'll who base everythin on stats, look at his decline starting from 01-02.


How has he fallen off - seriously? His efficiency and PPS are still right up there - something he has always excelled at. He gets to the line as well as anyone in the game. He is an excellent rebounder for his size. 

Looking at your list you have Kobe as #2. I would argue that Kobe did less this past season with more talent than with what Pierce had on the Celtics. The Kobe led Lakers finished the season 2-19.


----------



## Spriggan

What kflo is saying is that he called you out on your hypocrisy and you offered some explanation which did nothing to address that. You then stated, even though you're the person who called out other posters in the thread, that kflo should take it to PM.

Yes, it is oddly funny.


----------



## coachhomer

Spriggan said:


> What kflo is saying is that he called you out on your hypocrisy and you offered some explanation which did nothing to address that. You then stated, even though you're the person who called out other posters in the thread, that kflo should take it to PM.
> 
> Yes, it is oddly funny.


where is the hypocracy? and read my posts again. I clearly stated...

Paul Pierce is more skilled than Tracy McGrady. Thats right, MORE SKILLED. He has to be to be successful in this league. Tracy relies more on his athleticism at this point in his career.

Do I need to define "skilled" for you?

1. He has better footwork than McGrady.
Pierce doesn’t travel every time he makes a move to the basket. The NBA is very forgiving in this area for monitary purposes. Tracy’s footwork is born from athleticism with no attention to detail.

2. Pierce is has an incredible shot fake. 
Like I said earlier, he has to be good at the intangibles to compete at this level. Would you agree that Larry Bird had to be skilled to make it in the league?

I also said…Paul Pierce is a better basketball player. Tracy McGrady is a better athlete.

Take away some of McGrady’s athleticism to the point where Paul Pierce is, and then who would you take? Exactly. Pierce knows the game. And maybe it is because he came from a school with one of the greatest teachers of the game.

3. Pierce plays the game with balance where Tracy is always off balance. 
Again it goes back to Tracy relying on athleticism. On his ability to elevate on his jumpshot or going to the basket. Paul Pierce does a better job creating space between himself and the defender because he cannot out jump or blow by a defender the way McGrady does.

This only scratches the surface of how different these two guys are.

I have done my research on these guys. But the bottom line is that the info mentioned would be the same information that you would receive from well respected individuals who know the game and are not fans. There is nothing wrong with being a fan, if it wasn’t for the fans then there wouldn’t be a game. A fan has not been subjected to countless hours of coaching/researching/scouting/learning with and from the best.

Like I said earlier, McGrady can far surpass Pierce if he chooses to do so, but in my opinion he has not done it yet.

C


----------



## HB

^Pretty good arguement there


----------



## kflo

i'd say your getting warmer. to complete the picture, you need to show how these things translate to performance. it leads to pierce being better at what? scoring? scoring efficiency? passing? turnovers? ballhandling? rebounding? defense? assessment of skills and pros / cons doesn't get us there. similar arguments can be made about much lesser players (ex. - wally szczerbiak has good footwork, ballfakes, balance). 

my objection hasn't been with any opinion of who is better. it's been how you've presented your argument. if you're going to knock people for their stance, at least try and present an argument for why. you're getting there now.


----------



## farhan007

coachhomer said:


> It amazes me how many people know absolutely nothing about the game of basketball.
> 
> There should be an idolizer/I get all my basketball knowledge from Sportcenter forum where everyone can post their ignorant comments.
> 
> What do we know here?
> 1. Tracy McGrady is a great athlete.
> 2. Paul Pierce is not a great athlete.
> 
> Paul Pierce is more skilled than Tracy McGrady. Thats right, MORE SKILLED. He has to be to be successful in this league. Tracy relies more on his athleticism at this point in his career. If Paul Pierce was as athletic as McGrady this thread would be limited to the aforementioned idolizer/I get all my basketball knowledge from Sportcenter forum because it wouldn't even be a question as to who was better.
> 
> Pierces numbers are down this year slightly, but so are his minutes.
> 
> Bottom line is that Tracy McGrady is still an immature gifted athlete who's work ethic is extremely questionable at best. How will he fair in 6 years when his athleticism has diminished? That will be interesting.
> 
> Jordan adapted his game as he aged. He became stronger and smarter. Dominique Wilkins chose the other route. Many have chosen the second route. Why? Because it is easier. Paul Pierce has worked to become what he is as a player. Tracy has worked as well, but not nearly as hard I can guarantee you that.
> 
> So as I sort through a lot of the nonsense that has been written in this thread, I think to myself..."What was the title of this thread again". Oh thats right Pierce vs. the top 2's in the NBA
> 
> Some of you have written some good info... well maybe a few of you anyway.
> 
> Does Pierce measure up the the other great wings in this league? Absolutely. I would take him over McGrady in a heartbeat.
> 
> Paul Pierce is a better basketball player. Tracy McGrady is a better athlete. Can Tracy Become one of the greatest players ever? Yes he can, his potential is far greater than that of Pierce. Pierce has maxed out. Tracy has not.
> 
> I am not a Paul Pierce fan and I am not a Tracy McGrady hater. I am also not a fan! Fact is, neither one of these guys is a leader. I wouldn't build a team around either one of these guys. But they are 2 of a small group of guys at that position that are very good at what they do.
> 
> 
> C


well,
i dont like appealing to tv ads much, but i remeber when they had a promo to the 2005 all-star game and were listing all the starters and told what strength they brought to the game. im paraphrasing here but it said "what is takes to be an nba allstar", and next to mcgrady's promo it said "Skill".

But id you dont believe in promo's, how come you dont think mcgrady has skilll? He great shooter(he gets on hot streaks like no other player in the league), is the best ball handler at his height range, and is a great passer.... funny how you say mcgrady doesnt have skill and relies on athletisism more than peirce, while mcgrady averages more assists. Do creating for other players rely more on athletisism or skill?


----------



## farhan007

btw, ive heard many national tv game analysts say mcgrady is the smoothest player in the game. the smoothest player in the game isnt off balancned and always relies on athletisism. t-mac also is a better ball handler(im sure almost any coach would rather of mcgrady run the point). being a pg requires more skill than athletisism. T-mac is also has one of the best shot fakes in the game


----------



## coachhomer

farhan007 said:


> well,
> i dont like appealing to tv ads much, but i remeber when they had a promo to the 2005 all-star game and were listing all the starters and told what strength they brought to the game. im paraphrasing here but it said "what is takes to be an nba allstar", and next to mcgrady's promo it said "Skill".
> 
> But id you dont believe in promo's, how come you dont think mcgrady has skilll? He great shooter(he gets on hot streaks like no other player in the league), is the best ball handler at his height range, and is a great passer.... funny how you say mcgrady doesnt have skill and relies on athletisism more than peirce, while mcgrady averages more assists. Do creating for other players rely more on athletisism or skill?


Funny... I never said McGrady was *NOT* skilled.

He is if fact very skilled, just less than Pierce. His game isn't fully refined yet. When he figures out the concept of "Economy of Motion" and he learns how to use his strength as opposed to finess to create a shot, he will be maximizing his potential.

My question has always been, will he ever figure this out?

C


----------



## f22egl

The one thing that holds T-Mac back in my mind is his playoff futility. At least Pierce has led the Celtics past the 1st round a couple of times while T-Mac has not. Kobe, although he had Shaq, has proven to be clutch but so has Pierce. Kobe hasn't shown he can carry a team by himself either and doesn't seem to be a good team player.


----------



## mediocre man

To answer the original question, I think Paul Pierce's value to the Celtics is huge. He is by far their best player, but if you mean what his value would be in a trade that's different. As a fan of a team in dire need of a shooting guard there are a lot of players I would rather have. Paul Pierce is easily one of the top 10 guards in the league, but not top 5 IMO. 


Here are some that I think are better in no particuar order
Kobe
T-Mac
Iverson
Wade
James
Allen
maybe even Ginobili

And if we were talking trade, I'd take Joe Johnson and maybe Michael Redd over him as well because of age.


----------



## P-Dub34

Pierce still getting little respect. I've done this about a million times so I don't really want to post further, but it's funny that people think he's fallen off solely because of his points per game average. 

If I said he hasn't fallen off because he was still 5th in the A in scoring last year, critics would point to his bad FG% and even worse 3PT%. 

This year if I said he was the most efficient he's even been, had 22ppg on just 15 FGAT's a game (that's about 5 less than your average elite swingman, FYI), got to the line a ton, was one of the best rebounding swingmen in the game, had the fewest to's since he was a rook, and shot very well from the field and 3 point range (he was just as good as Redd on just as many 3's), you'd say he's falling off because he's not averaging 26ppg like he once did.

It's weird. People are always complaining that they want their star to be a team player, spread the ball around, and one guy finally does it and he gets nothing but criticism for it. For all you guys that think PP has fallen off, can you tell me exactly why you think that? Because his ppg are down? Gotta be kidding me. 

As for Ginobili over Pierce...I say no way. I'd love to see Ginobili be the 1st (and, at times, only real) option on his team.



> funny how you say mcgrady doesnt have skill and relies on athletisism more than peirce, while mcgrady averages more assists. Do creating for other players rely more on athletisism or skill?


Well here's the thing. McGrady has the ball in his hands more than Pierce does (at least this year). As well, McGrady has a true low post presence in Yao (who shoots over 50%), and guys like Barry (43% from beyond), James (39% from beyond), Padgett (40% from beyond), Wesley (38%), and Sura (36%). So basically T-Mac is surrounded by excellent shooters (Sura is the lowest in 3PT% at 36% which is still pretty damn good). So you gotta look at some variables before you just throw out numbers.

IMO, Pierce is arguably a Top 15 player in the NBA and most likely Top 20. He's still in his prime, and if Doc let him shoot as much as the likes of Vince Carter, he'd be up around the 24-25-26ppg range.


----------



## tone wone

coachhomer said:


> where is the hypocracy? and read my posts again. I clearly stated...
> 
> Paul Pierce is more skilled than Tracy McGrady. Thats right, MORE SKILLED. He has to be to be successful in this league. Tracy relies more on his athleticism at this point in his career.
> 
> Do I need to define "skilled" for you?
> 
> 1. He has better footwork than McGrady.
> Pierce doesn’t travel every time he makes a move to the basket. The NBA is very forgiving in this area for monitary purposes. Tracy’s footwork is born from athleticism with no attention to detail.
> 
> 2. Pierce is has an incredible shot fake.
> Like I said earlier, he has to be good at the intangibles to compete at this level. Would you agree that Larry Bird had to be skilled to make it in the league?
> 
> I also said…Paul Pierce is a better basketball player. Tracy McGrady is a better athlete.
> 
> Take away some of McGrady’s athleticism to the point where Paul Pierce is, and then who would you take? Exactly. Pierce knows the game. And maybe it is because he came from a school with one of the greatest teachers of the game.
> 
> 3. Pierce plays the game with balance where Tracy is always off balance.
> Again it goes back to Tracy relying on athleticism. On his ability to elevate on his jumpshot or going to the basket. Paul Pierce does a better job creating space between himself and the defender because he cannot out jump or blow by a defender the way McGrady does.
> 
> This only scratches the surface of how different these two guys are.
> 
> I have done my research on these guys. But the bottom line is that the info mentioned would be the same information that you would receive from well respected individuals who know the game and are not fans. There is nothing wrong with being a fan, if it wasn’t for the fans then there wouldn’t be a game. A fan has not been subjected to countless hours of coaching/researching/scouting/learning with and from the best.
> 
> Like I said earlier, McGrady can far surpass Pierce if he chooses to do so, but in my opinion he has not done it yet.
> 
> C


 could you define skill for us...

im confused....McGrady has a better handle...is that because of athleticism???

...McGrady's a better passer...is that because of athleticism???

...McGrady's a better defender...is that because of athleticism???

...McGrady's a better shooter....is that because of athleticism???

...how does Pierce have better footwork....in what area....is it on the block...

i swear, this is the first time i've ever heard anyone say Pierce is more skilled than McGrady...i've heard in the past that he's better...but more skilled???....naw...this is a 1st...

you're punishing McGrady because he is a better athlete.....but he doesn't rely on his athleticism anymore than any other extremely athletic player...

more skilled....at what????


----------



## coachhomer

tone wone said:


> could you define skill for us...
> 
> im confused....McGrady has a better handle...is that because of athleticism???
> 
> ...McGrady's a better passer...is that because of athleticism???
> 
> ...McGrady's a better defender...is that because of athleticism???
> 
> ...McGrady's a better shooter....is that because of athleticism???
> 
> ...how does Pierce have better footwork....in what area....is it on the block...
> 
> i swear, this is the first time i've ever heard anyone say Pierce is more skilled than McGrady...i've heard in the past that he's better...but more skilled???....naw...this is a 1st...
> 
> you're punishing McGrady because he is a better athlete.....but he doesn't rely on his athleticism anymore than any other extremely athletic player...
> 
> more skilled....at what????


_....McGrady has a better handle...is that because of athleticism???_

arguable. He is more flashy. This does not mean he has a better handle. Ball handling is not limited transition/half court 1 on 1 moves. Ball handling encompases controling the ball while getting hit by a defender and being able to make a pass or shoot the ball. John Stockton was one of the best ball handlers ever and he rarely put the ball between his legs. McGrady looks like a good ball handler because he will put the ball behind his back and then between his legs and the wheel dribble. Kids like that stuff cause it looks good and fans like it too because they can't do it. It is all fluff. It is not needed. Like I said earlier... "Economy of Motion". Jordan didn't make all those moves. Jordan would in-out dribble to a crossover and that was the extent of his move. All you have to do is bate the defender once if your footwork and ball skills are good.

So to answer your question... NO

_...McGrady's a better passer...is that because of athleticism???_

I would disagree here. A good pass isn't the pass you see on Sportcenter between 2 defenders as the passer looks away. That is flashy, but 85% of those passes don't make it and they don't show the ones that don't make it on Sportscenter. *A good pass is putting your teamate in a position where they can score.* McGrady can thread a 3/4 court pass through 5 defenders legs in transition and if the pass goes to Dikembe Mutombo running on the break, then that is a BAD pass. Dike shouldn't be catching the ball in transition, he will more than likely turn it over.

So to answer your question... NO

_...McGrady's a better defender...is that because of athleticism???_

the simple answer is YES but for lack of time I will not expand upon this until later.

_...McGrady's a better shooter....is that because of athleticism???_

again, arguable. if you are just going to quote stats of shooting percentages well then you are keeping the thread a limited/shallow information thread. The art of shooting far exceeds just percentages.

Lets talk shooting... what do you want to know? off the dribble? of the catch? in transition? off a screen? (what type of screen? flare/down/back/pick and roll) moving left? moving right? on the block? midrange? outside the arc? I'll go back to what you said, give specifics. Don't just say he is a better shooter. 

Bottom line is I would still disagree, but to answer your question... NO

_...how does Pierce have better footwork....in what area....is it on the block..._

Now we are getting somewhere. Let me ask you a question... Is Tracy a better athlete or not? I am not so convinced that you think he is. 

Lets do a math equation to hopefully simplify things here.

Tracy's athleticism - Pierces athleticism = X
Tracy as a player - Pierce as a player = Y

which is a greater value, X or Y? I would argue that X is a bigger difference. That being said, if you gave Pierce Tracy's athleticism, Pierce would be an overall better player.

I remember watching these two go head to head several times. And I don't mean Celts vs. whatever team Tracy happened to be on, I mean guarding each other. They each had their moments, but in the end Pierce just out skilled him. One game was in Orlando and Pierce just ate him alive. He shot faked him to death and jab stepped him and got to the line and on that night it was obvious he was the better player. 

Pierce has unbelievable footwork on the perimeter and on the block. He utilizes triple threat and he doesn't waste time and energy trying to out flash the defender. I will say this, Tracy has gotten tremendously better at this in the past 2 years, but he is not where Pierce is yet. Pierce's footwork keeps him on balance where McGrady looses his balance more often when he is hit going to the basket or bumped when planting his feet for a pull up jumper.

Tracy has gotten better and hopefully will continue to do so, and Pierce has pretty much maxed his potential out. My argument all along is that Pierce knows the game and he is a smarter player. Tracy has a way to go. If he learns what Pierce knows.. which took three years in college and a phenominal coach... he will be better than Pierce.

C


----------



## HB

^Give the man some applause he knows what he is talking about. I have always thought T-mac was a tad bit overrated, who still hasnt learnt how to use his immense skills to his team's best advantage.


----------



## tone wone

Hbwoy said:


> ^Give the man some applause he knows what he is talking about. I have always thought T-mac was a tad bit overrated, who still hasnt learnt how to use his immense skills to his team's best advantage.


 well, I 've always thought McGrady was one of the most taleted players i've ever seen....but damn not this talented..

the man is already one of the 5 best players in the L...and he still hasn't how his skill to help his team...

when he does...can someone say "lil MJ"


----------



## Carbo04

tone wone said:


> well, I 've always thought McGrady was one of the most taleted players i've ever seen....but damn not this talented..
> 
> the man is already one of the 5 best players in the L...and he still hasn't how his skill to help his team...
> 
> when he does...can someone say "lil MJ"


If it's like coachhomer is saying, then when McGrady does learn how to use his skill to help his team win it will be Michael who?


----------



## tone wone

coachhomer said:


> _....McGrady has a better handle...is that because of athleticism???_
> 
> arguable. He is more flashy. This does not mean he has a better handle. Ball handling is not limited transition/half court 1 on 1 moves. Ball handling encompases controling the ball while getting hit by a defender and being able to make a pass or shoot the ball. John Stockton was one of the best ball handlers ever and he rarely put the ball between his legs. McGrady looks like a good ball handler because he will put the ball behind his back and then between his legs and the wheel dribble. Kids like that stuff cause it looks good and fans like it too because they can't do it. It is all fluff. It is not needed. Like I said earlier... "Economy of Motion". Jordan didn't make all those moves. Jordan would in-out dribble to a crossover and that was the extent of his move. All you have to do is bate the defender once if your footwork and ball skills are good.
> 
> So to answer your question... NO
> 
> _...McGrady's a better passer...is that because of athleticism???_
> 
> I would disagree here. A good pass isn't the pass you see on Sportcenter between 2 defenders as the passer looks away. That is flashy, but 85% of those passes don't make it and they don't show the ones that don't make it on Sportscenter. *A good pass is putting your teamate in a position where they can score.* McGrady can thread a 3/4 court pass through 5 defenders legs in transition and if the pass goes to Dikembe Mutombo running on the break, then that is a BAD pass. Dike shouldn't be catching the ball in transition, he will more than likely turn it over.
> 
> So to answer your question... NO
> 
> _...McGrady's a better defender...is that because of athleticism???_
> 
> the simple answer is YES but for lack of time I will not expand upon this until later.
> 
> _...McGrady's a better shooter....is that because of athleticism???_
> 
> again, arguable. if you are just going to quote stats of shooting percentages well then you are keeping the thread a limited/shallow information thread. The art of shooting far exceeds just percentages.
> 
> Lets talk shooting... what do you want to know? off the dribble? of the catch? in transition? off a screen? (what type of screen? flare/down/back/pick and roll) moving left? moving right? on the block? midrange? outside the arc? I'll go back to what you said, give specifics. Don't just say he is a better shooter.
> 
> Bottom line is I would still disagree, but to answer your question... NO
> 
> _...how does Pierce have better footwork....in what area....is it on the block..._
> 
> Now we are getting somewhere. Let me ask you a question... Is Tracy a better athlete or not? I am not so convinced that you think he is.
> 
> Lets do a math equation to hopefully simplify things here.
> 
> Tracy's athleticism - Pierces athleticism = X
> Tracy as a player - Pierce as a player = Y
> 
> which is a greater value, X or Y? I would argue that X is a bigger difference. That being said, if you gave Pierce Tracy's athleticism, Pierce would be an overall better player.
> 
> I remember watching these two go head to head several times. And I don't mean Celts vs. whatever team Tracy happened to be on, I mean guarding each other. They each had their moments, but in the end Pierce just out skilled him. One game was in Orlando and Pierce just ate him alive. He shot faked him to death and jab stepped him and got to the line and on that night it was obvious he was the better player.
> 
> Pierce has unbelievable footwork on the perimeter and on the block. He utilizes triple threat and he doesn't waste time and energy trying to out flash the defender. I will say this, Tracy has gotten tremendously better at this in the past 2 years, but he is not where Pierce is yet. Pierce's footwork keeps him on balance where McGrady looses his balance more often when he is hit going to the basket or bumped when planting his feet for a pull up jumper.
> 
> Tracy has gotten better and hopefully will continue to do so, and Pierce has pretty much maxed his potential out. My argument all along is that Pierce knows the game and he is a smarter player. Tracy has a way to go. If he learns what Pierce knows.. which took three years in college and a phenominal coach... he will be better than Pierce.
> 
> C


you just made up a bunch of things....so mcgrady's ball-handling...isn't better than its just more flashy...

..Mcgrady's passing isn't better than pierce...its just more flashy...

..please tell how is Pierce a better shooter.....does he have a better mid-range game....is he a better 3 point shooter...is he better off of picks....NO...McGrady weighs 210 lbs....its a little easy for him to be knocked off-ballanced when he's bumped in the air....hell, anyone can be knocked off-ballanced when their in the air...

when was this infamous night in orlando...where Pierce schooled McGrady...to the point that it convinced you he was better....

....the only thing Pierce is better at....it running people over to get to the foul line


----------



## Carbo04

tone wone said:


> you just made up a bunch of things....so mcgrady's ball-handling...isn't better than its just more flashy...
> 
> ..Mcgrady's passing isn't better than pierce...its just more flashy...
> 
> ..please tell how is Pierce a better shooter.....does he have a better mid-range game....is he a better 3 point shooter...is he better off of picks....NO...McGrady weighs 210 lbs....its a little easy for him to be knocked off-ballanced when he's bumped in the air....hell, anyone can be knocked off-ballanced when their in the air...
> 
> when was this infamous night in orlando...where Pierce schooled McGrady...to the point that it convinced you he was better....
> 
> ....the only thing Pierce is better at....it running people over to get to the foul line


Rep.

And to be flashy in the first place you need to be able to master the basics.


----------



## coachhomer

tone wone said:


> you just made up a bunch of things....so mcgrady's ball-handling...isn't better than its just more flashy...
> 
> ..Mcgrady's passing isn't better than pierce...its just more flashy...
> 
> ..please tell how is Pierce a better shooter.....does he have a better mid-range game....is he a better 3 point shooter...is he better off of picks....NO...McGrady weighs 210 lbs....its a little easy for him to be knocked off-ballanced when he's bumped in the air....hell, anyone can be knocked off-ballanced when their in the air...
> 
> when was this infamous night in orlando...where Pierce schooled McGrady...to the point that it convinced you he was better....
> 
> ....the only thing Pierce is better at....it running people over to get to the foul line


I am starting to wonder about you Tone Wone. I have nothing against you or your opinion, you are just young and uneducated on the matter. You are probably a very smart individual, just not educated on the topic. There is a big difference between the two. Sign me up for the EDUCATED doctor over the smart doctor for operations, because an uneducated doctor isn't really a doctor at all.

I just made up a bunch of things?

Let me enlighten you as to where I got my info that I just made up. 

I have coached 11 years of basketball at every level. I have learned from individuals whose names you would all recognize. When I started educating myself in this field you were 8. So don't say that I just made some stuff up. 

Don't take it personally, it is just a fact.

C


----------



## coachhomer

BaronMcGrady said:


> Rep.
> 
> And to be flashy in the first place you need to be able to master the basics.


Completely untrue.

C


----------



## theRockisOurs

On Pierce-

Pierce is overlooked by some this year, because he isn't as flashy as the other premier guards. Also, ppg factors in as well. They see the numbers for him are lower, so they assume he has fallen off. Paul Pierce simply gets it done, efficiently and often quietly for years now. Look at his career stats, very impressive. He is a decent rebounder for his position and his post game is good. He gets to the line alot, relying on his strength more than athlecism. He plays well in the fourth quarter and led his team to the conference finals with the next best player being Antoine Walker. The only knock on him is his questionable decisions at times, exemplified by the boneheaded move in game 6 this year against Indiana. I don't know if Pierce is the guy, if Boston is heading in the rebuliding mode with their young guys, to build upon. 

With that said. I put him a little behind Mcgrady and Kobe, because I feel his prime is maxed out. 

Coach Homer- I completely agree with you on Mcgrady's reliance on athlecism. You don't know how many times, I'd wish he would just drive in instead of pulling up for a jumper. If he had the tenacity of Pierce, wow, I can't imagine how good he would be. 

However, Mcgrady's creativity and ability to score in many ways in my opinion is what separates the two. But you're right talent doesn't mean better player. And the difference in the two players is very little.


----------



## Air Fly

I'll take kobe over pierce but not pierce, infact here's how i list them

1- Kobe 
2- Carter
3- pierce
4- tmac
5- Ray allen

those guys are vets so no wade or lebron...they've been in the league for so long playing amazing basketball....no kids allowed!!!


----------



## coachhomer

theRockisOurs said:


> On Pierce-
> 
> Pierce is overlooked by some this year, because he isn't as flashy as the other premier guards. Also, ppg factors in as well. They see the numbers for him are lower, so they assume he has fallen off. Paul Pierce simply gets it down, efficiently and often quietly for years now. Look at his career stats, very impressive. He is a decent rebounder for his position and his post game is good. He gets to the line alot, relying on his strength more than athlecism. He plays well in the fourth quarter and led his team to the conference finals with the next best player being Antoine Walker. The only knock on him is his questionable decisions at times, exemplified by the boneheaded move in game 6 this year against Indiana. I don't know if Pierce is the guy, if Boston is heading in the rebuliding mode with their young guys, to build upon.
> 
> With that said. I put him a little behind Mcgrady and Kobe, because I feel his prime is maxed out.
> 
> Coach Homer- I completely agree with you on Mcgrady's reliance on athlecism. You don't know how many times, I'd wish he would just drive in instead of pulling up for a jumper. If he had the tenacity of Pierce, wow, I can't imagine how good he would be.
> 
> However, Mcgrady's creativity and ability to score in many ways in my opinion is what separates the two. But you're right talent doesn't mean better player. And the difference in the two players is very little.



Great post!

C


----------



## theRockisOurs

Coachhomer, since you are knowlegeable about the players like you say you are, I am very curious to see your analysis on Wade, Kobe, and Lebron. How good are they as basketball players? And how do they rank in your opinion among Pierce and Mcgrady?


----------



## theRockisOurs

Air Fly said:


> I'll take kobe over pierce but not pierce, infact here's how i list them
> 
> 1- Kobe
> 2- Carter
> 3- pierce
> 4- tmac
> 5- Ray allen
> 
> those guys are vets so no wade or lebron...they've been in the league for so long playing amazing basketball....no kids allowed!!!



You say "amazing basketball", how can you say Carter has been amazing, or consistent for the last few years, not including his time in NJ, and rank him ahead of Tmac, Pierce, Ray Allen without being a homer?


----------



## Carbo04

theRockisOurs said:


> Coachhomer, since you are knowlegeable about the players like you say you are, I am very curious to see your analysis on Wade, Kobe, and Lebron. How good are they as basketball players? And how do they rank in your opinion among Pierce and Mcgrady?



I'd also like to hear his take on this.


----------



## DH12

Air Fly said:


> I'll take kobe over pierce but not pierce, infact here's how i list them
> 
> 1- Kobe
> 2- Carter
> 3- pierce
> 4- tmac
> 5- Ray allen
> 
> those guys are vets so no wade or lebron...they've been in the league for so long playing amazing basketball....no kids allowed!!!


 :laugh: No response necessary.


----------



## Air Fly

DH12 said:


> :laugh: No response necessary.


Tmac homer, tell him to get da **** outta the first round of the playoff first then we can talk :laugh: 

vince career ppg 23.9
FG% .448
3p% .390

tmac career ppg 22.0
FG%.444
3p% .348 and 8 years wihtout getting outta the playoff first round

what a loser he is.....


----------



## Air Fly

To me.......

Kobe = Lord of da rings
Pierce = The Truth
Vince = Vinsanity

Tmac = overrated and a loser.. :laugh:


----------



## Causeway

Air Fly said:


> To me.......
> 
> Kobe = Lord of da rings
> Pierce = The Truth
> Vince = Vinsanity
> 
> Tmac = overrated and a loser.. :laugh:


No doubt Kobe has the rings - but clearly he got those rings on teams FAR superior than anything Pierce has played with in Boston. Shaq helps. A lot.

Kobe this past season IMO had more talent arond him than Pierce did in Boston and look what happened. Granted the Lakers are in the West but they had a losing record against the East and finished the season 2-19. That's a team that threw in the towel in the end and that starts with your team "leader".


----------



## P-Dub34

Rock is ours, good post on Pierce. Sums up very well what happened this year. It's good to see some non-Celtic fans giving him his due, and looking past his "measly" 22ppg this year to get a better picture.


----------



## tone wone

theRockisOurs said:


> On Pierce-
> 
> Pierce is overlooked by some this year, because he isn't as flashy as the other premier guards. Also, ppg factors in as well. They see the numbers for him are lower, so they assume he has fallen off. Paul Pierce simply gets it done, efficiently and often quietly for years now. Look at his career stats, very impressive. He is a decent rebounder for his position and his post game is good. He gets to the line alot, relying on his strength more than athlecism. He plays well in the fourth quarter and led his team to the conference finals with the next best player being Antoine Walker. The only knock on him is his questionable decisions at times, exemplified by the boneheaded move in game 6 this year against Indiana. I don't know if Pierce is the guy, if Boston is heading in the rebuliding mode with their young guys, to build upon.
> 
> With that said. I put him a little behind Mcgrady and Kobe, because I feel his prime is maxed out.
> 
> Coach Homer- I completely agree with you on Mcgrady's reliance on athlecism. You don't know how many times, I'd wish he would just drive in instead of pulling up for a jumper. If he had the tenacity of Pierce, wow, I can't imagine how good he would be.
> 
> However, Mcgrady's creativity and ability to score in many ways in my opinion is what separates the two. But you're right talent doesn't mean better player. And the difference in the two players is very little.


McGrady IMO is a much better player...

explain how pulling up for a jumper...is more athletic than driving and finishing around the hoop....please explain...

nobody is punishing pierce for his drop in ppg....Mcgrady averaged 32ppg two years ago....this year he averaged 25ppg....yet, he's still considered by many a better playe than pierce...


----------



## E.H. Munro

coachhomer said:


> ....McGrady has a better handle...is that because of athleticism???
> 
> arguable. He is more flashy. This does not mean he has a better handle. Ball handling is not limited transition/half court 1 on 1 moves. Ball handling encompases controling the ball while getting hit by a defender and being able to make a pass or shoot the ball. John Stockton was one of the best ball handlers ever and he rarely put the ball between his legs. McGrady looks like a good ball handler because he will put the ball behind his back and then between his legs and the wheel dribble. Kids like that stuff cause it looks good and fans like it too because they can't do it. It is all fluff. It is not needed. Like I said earlier... "Economy of Motion". Jordan didn't make all those moves. Jordan would in-out dribble to a crossover and that was the extent of his move. All you have to do is bate the defender once if your footwork and ball skills are good.
> 
> So to answer your question... NO
> 
> ...McGrady's a better passer...is that because of athleticism???
> 
> I would disagree here. A good pass isn't the pass you see on Sportcenter between 2 defenders as the passer looks away. That is flashy, but 85% of those passes don't make it and they don't show the ones that don't make it on Sportscenter. A good pass is putting your teamate in a position where they can score. McGrady can thread a 3/4 court pass through 5 defenders legs in transition and if the pass goes to Dikembe Mutombo running on the break, then that is a BAD pass. Dike shouldn't be catching the ball in transition, he will more than likely turn it over.
> 
> So to answer your question... NO
> 
> ...McGrady's a better defender...is that because of athleticism???
> 
> the simple answer is YES but for lack of time I will not expand upon this until later.
> 
> ...McGrady's a better shooter....is that because of athleticism???
> 
> again, arguable. if you are just going to quote stats of shooting percentages well then you are keeping the thread a limited/shallow information thread. The art of shooting far exceeds just percentages.
> 
> Lets talk shooting... what do you want to know? off the dribble? of the catch? in transition? off a screen? (what type of screen? flare/down/back/pick and roll) moving left? moving right? on the block? midrange? outside the arc? I'll go back to what you said, give specifics. Don't just say he is a better shooter.
> 
> Bottom line is I would still disagree, but to answer your question... NO
> 
> ...how does Pierce have better footwork....in what area....is it on the block...
> 
> Now we are getting somewhere. Let me ask you a question... Is Tracy a better athlete or not? I am not so convinced that you think he is.
> 
> Lets do a math equation to hopefully simplify things here.
> 
> Tracy's athleticism - Pierces athleticism = X
> Tracy as a player - Pierce as a player = Y
> 
> which is a greater value, X or Y? I would argue that X is a bigger difference. That being said, if you gave Pierce Tracy's athleticism, Pierce would be an overall better player.
> 
> I remember watching these two go head to head several times. And I don't mean Celts vs. whatever team Tracy happened to be on, I mean guarding each other. They each had their moments, but in the end Pierce just out skilled him. One game was in Orlando and Pierce just ate him alive. He shot faked him to death and jab stepped him and got to the line and on that night it was obvious he was the better player.
> 
> Pierce has unbelievable footwork on the perimeter and on the block. He utilizes triple threat and he doesn't waste time and energy trying to out flash the defender. I will say this, Tracy has gotten tremendously better at this in the past 2 years, but he is not where Pierce is yet. Pierce's footwork keeps him on balance where McGrady looses his balance more often when he is hit going to the basket or bumped when planting his feet for a pull up jumper.
> 
> Tracy has gotten better and hopefully will continue to do so, and Pierce has pretty much maxed his potential out. My argument all along is that Pierce knows the game and he is a smarter player. Tracy has a way to go. If he learns what Pierce knows.. which took three years in college and a phenominal coach... he will be better than Pierce.
> 
> C


My uncle from Galway used to say to me, "_Chris, me lad, if you can't lose them with your logic, baffle them with your bullshyte_." After reading that post I just have to ask, uncle Joe, is that you?

Now, mind you, in my own field I do the same thing to amateurs, throw out the technical terms to intimidate them and get them to leave me alone, while I do my work. But, when someone is smart enough to discuss the matter I give them fair play. There are a lot of assertions that you're flat out wrong on (i.e. Pierce's athleticism). And your non-answer to Tone-Wone's shooting question would do my uncle Joe proud. Now, had you simply said "McGrady isn't a better shooter than Pierce, they're pretty much the same." I wouldn't argue the matter. Pierce's career eFG% is four points higher, both are pretty good at shooting off the dribble. The rest of it is just designed to intimidate the readers. Tracy looks more awkward than Pierce when shooting jumpers because he's easier to move than P-2, but his mechanics are solid. Pierce is almost impossible to move because of his body, but I don't see that his mechanics are really any better. His strength is a huge advantage and he uses it well on offense.

Their offensive styles are only similar on the surface, and T-Mac's played in three very different systems and learned to flourish in each. Pierce has only made that transition once, and still hasn't flourished in Doc Rivers' sets. Then again, nobody seems to know what Doc wants on offense, least of all Doc (but part of that is, admittedly, the Celtics' mediocre personnel). In Doc's offense T-Mac was dominant, Pierce only very good. This doesn't mean that Pierce won't improve, he will. Just like T-Mac will improve in van Gundy's sets in Houston. 

Pierce was, under the Ricktator and Jim O'Brien one of the best slashers in the NBA (and you don't get to the top of the heap slashing without being a heck of an athlete, some people's claims to the contrary notwithstanding). He reached his zenith under O'Brien because OB's offense was designed to maximise his one real asset, Pierce. His second best player was Antoine Walker and his third best the arthritic Eric Williams. To be brutally precise he peaked during the 2001-02 season because the franchise had the personnel to run OB's offense. Rodney Rogers & Tony Delk to be the weakside shooters from the three, taking defenders away from Pierce, Walker to run the offense, and the fifth guy (Battie, Blount, Williams) that ran back on D the minute a shot went in the air. All this allowed Pierce to operate in isolation on his side of the floor where Walker threaded passes to Pierce on the run. The offense was always ugly, but when it worked it was lethal. Compare Pierce's ability to create his own shots from 2001-03 to 2003-04. Once Walker was not there to make the "flashy" passes Pierce became a whole lot less effective. Though, in a sense, he became a better player by getting better at getting his shot off once he _had_ to do it himself.

As for Pierce allegedly not being an athlete, it's a stupid claim (sorry, it simply is). Pierce is, in reality, one of the most athletic wings in the NBA. The only way to exclude him from that status is to define athleticism narrowly on the grounds of vertical leaping ability and end to end speed. Tracy McGrady certainly beats Pierce in those two areas. _However_, Pierce is one of the strongest players in the NBA. Seriously. There are no strength tests that have been invented that Garnett, Dirk, Lamar Odom or any number of other 4s have a prayer at beating Pierce in. He is 6'6" 245lbs of chiseled muscle. He is also _extremely_ quick, even if he isn't blazingly fast. He has a very good first step. His strength & quickness make him almost impossible to defend. The power 3s that are all the rage can't defend him because they're taller and skinnier and Pierce uses his strength, quickness and (relatively) low center of gravity to get by them at will. The smaller shooting guards that he can't outleverage he simply overpowers with his size & strength. Your claims about Pierce's lack of athleticism are flatulence, pure & simple. Can Pierce sky 40"+ like MJ or LBJ? Nope. But I bet if we run the numbers to find out how much power is needed to shoot a 78" 245lb person three feet into the air it will turn out to be greater than the amount of power needed to send an 80" 225lb person 39" into the air. Because of Pierce's greater mass he's harder to move once he's in the air than the less massive T-Mac. So, yeah, once he's in the air you can knock T-Mac off balance more easily than a flying tank like Pierce. But just because T-Mac _looks_ more awkward, doesn't mean that he _is_ more awkward, or solely relying on athleticism to get by. 

You say you want to neutralise T-Mac's athletic advantage to see how well he does? Great. How about Pierce's? How about we just give T-Mac Pierce's strength and quickness? What do we get? A 6'8" 250lb guy with a good first step that overpowers defenders at the 3 to get to the rim, but is too fast for 4s to cover effectively. Sound familiar? Like another NBA player that gets debated endlessly on these boards?

T-Mac's defensive footwork is extremely good, far better than Pierce's, and he's learned to use his speed and quickness on the defensive end. This can be referred to as the van Gundy Effect, he's got T-Mac to care on that end of the floor. It doesn't always work, he couldn't get Juwon Howard to play D. But no one else has, either. Pierce's athletic advantages don't help him as much on the defensive end, taller players are able to shoot over him, and the shooting guards that are quicker can get by him. His advantages on the defensive end are his quickness and his long arms (and long arms are not a "skill" the last time I checked), assets that he uses well when he has a mind to. He doesn't now, and that we can call the Doc Rivers Effect, because Doc doesn't give a tinkers dam for defense (this is why Doc Rivers teams never make it out of the first round of the playoffs). The fact remains, T-Mac is morphing into a lockdown defender, something that Pierce has never been, and won't ever be. So, to answer your charges, T-Mac doesn't "rely on his athleticism" any more than Pierce does. They are _both_ highly skilled players that take advantage of their athletic gifts. If you want to limit the scope and say that McGrady could make even better use of them, I'm not going to argue that. But Vin Baker he isn't.


----------



## tone wone

Air Fly said:


> Tmac homer, tell him to get da **** outta the first round of the playoff first then we can talk :laugh:
> 
> vince career ppg 23.9
> FG% .448
> 3p% .390
> 
> tmac career ppg 22.0
> FG%.444
> 3p% .348 and 8 years wihtout getting outta the playoff first round
> 
> what a loser he is.....


 whats funny is Vince missed the playoffs 2 straight year...1 yr his team made the playoffs without him...

mcgrady barely played his first 2 years...yet his career averages are damn near idenitical to Vince's...

"this macgrady isn;t that good stuff" is getting out of hand


----------



## theRockisOurs

tone wone said:


> McGrady IMO is a much better player...
> 
> explain how pulling up for a jumper...is more athletic than driving and finishing around the hoop....please explain...
> 
> nobody is punishing pierce for his drop in ppg....Mcgrady averaged 32ppg two years ago....this year he averaged 25ppg....yet, he's still considered by many a better playe than pierce...



Huh? Both pulling up for a jumper and driving to the hoop requires athleticism, I was saying that Mcgrady would be even more successful if he drove to the hoop MORE. It had nothing to do with athletism. 

32ppg is amazing, 26 is very good. 22 to alot of people is 
not that special, ya know what I mean? That was the point I was pointing out as the reason some ppl overlook Pierce, not punishing him. 

I love Tmac, but I can see why some would prefer Pierce.


----------



## Spriggan

Is there even one thing that Paul Pierce does better than Tracy McGrady?

Honestly, the only thing I can think of is the spin move. Pierce has probably the best spin move in the entire leauge. His timing is ridiculously perfect. Actually, his ball-handling in general is slick. But McGrady, also being a slick ball-handler, does that and everything else at the same level or superior to Pierce.


----------



## HB

tone wone said:


> whats funny is Vince missed the playoffs 2 straight year...1 yr his team made the playoffs without him...
> 
> mcgrady barely played his first 2 years...yet his career averages are damn near idenitical to Vince's...
> 
> "this macgrady isn;t that good stuff" is getting out of hand



I think the point of the earlier poster was T-mac has played 8 years in the league and as highly touted as he is, he hasnt really done much come crunch time i.e. the playoffs


----------



## Spriggan

Hbwoy said:


> I think the point of the earlier poster was T-mac has played 8 years in the league and as highly touted as he is, he hasnt really done much come crunch time i.e. the playoffs


You may want to check McGrady's career playoff stats. His teams haven't done much in the playoffs, but he certainly has.


----------



## JT

Spriggan said:


> You may want to check McGrady's career playoff stats. His teams haven't done much in the playoffs, but he certainly has.


at some point you have to ask yourself though, are the prolific stats of tracy one of many reasons for the teams downfall?


----------



## theRockisOurs

29.8/5.8/6.8


how does that lead to his teams' downfall?
I say he's stepped up his play every year during the playoffs. What more can he do?


----------



## Spriggan

sherako said:


> at some point you have to ask yourself though, are the prolific stats of tracy one of many reasons for the teams downfall?


How so? His stats are so prolific not only because he's a great player, but because he's basically forced to do everything. Having Yao takes a load off, but there are still other loads. If McGrady hadn't put up the stats he's been putting up in the playoffs, his teams would get swept. 95% of the time, he's the only reason his teams even manage to compete.


----------



## Air Fly

Spriggan said:


> You may want to check McGrady's career playoff stats. His teams haven't done much in the playoffs, but he certainly has.


ok should i change the tmac = overrated to tmac = mr. stats

you cant just keep blaming his team for freaking 8 years now. This year he had all the support he wanted it, arguably top 5 center in the league Yao ming, and some great 3pt shooters on his team, plus the best back up center in the league Mutombo, and dannnnng what happened. He couldnt get out of the playoff first round yet again, and his team got blown out by 40 god damn points in a deciding game 7 against the mav. Is that how great you tmac homers think he is? is that top 2 SG in the league to you guys? unbelievable how overrated this guy is!!! give vince, kobe, and pierce that kind of support and they would've done better job..Tmac is a loser, and no one can change that fact, cuz imo that's the truth


----------



## Spriggan

Air Fly said:


> ok should i change the tmac = overrated to tmac = mr. stats
> 
> you cant just keep blaming his team for freaking 8 years now. This year he had all the support he wanted it, arguably top 5 center in the league Yao ming, and some great 3pt shooters on his team, plus the best back up center in the league Mutombo, and dannnnng what happened. He couldnt get out of the playoff first round yet again, and his team got blown out by 40 god damn points in a deciding game 7 against the mav. Is that how great you tmac homers think he is? is that top 2 SG in the league to you guys? unbelievable how overrated this guy is!!! give vince, kobe, and pierce that kind of support and they would've done better job..Tmac is a loser, and no one can change that fact, cuz imo that's the truth


Thanks, Vince Carter fan, for telling us that T-Mac's 30.7 ppg, 7.4 rpg and 6.7 apg averages and lockdown defense on a top 10 player in a 7-game playoff series against the Mavs in the first round this year just wasn't enough.


----------



## E.H. Munro

Spriggan said:


> Is there even one thing that Paul Pierce does better than Tracy McGrady?
> 
> Honestly, the only thing I can think of is the spin move. Pierce has probably the best spin move in the entire leauge. His timing is ridiculously perfect. Actually, his ball-handling in general is slick. But McGrady, also being a slick ball-handler, does that and everything else at the same level or superior to Pierce.


Pierce's head bandage move is pretty smooth, for what it's worth.


----------



## Air Fly

Spriggan said:


> Thanks, Vince Carter fan, for telling us that T-Mac's 30.7 ppg, 7.4 rpg and 6.7 apg averages and lockdown defense on a top 10 player in a 7-game playoff series against the Mavs in the first round this year just wasn't enough.


like i said, great stats with not much impact really..and i mean turning those great stats to wins in the playoff, but all i know is that he aint good enough for that matter. He is not a winner, you all can make excuses for him but the fact i see is that he's a loser hate it or love it.


----------



## HB

> Thanks, Vince Carter fan, for telling us that T-Mac's 30.7 ppg, 7.4 rpg and 6.7 apg averages and lockdown defense on a top 10 player in a 7-game playoff series against the Mavs in the first round this year just wasn't enough.


What makes T-mac any better than Marbury, they both put up good stats but it doesnt do them any good, like Greg Anthony said T-mac is a great talent but needs to show he is a great winner also


----------



## tone wone

after Vince's performance in this years playoffs....you might wanna hold off on the McGrady's a loser crusade...

Vince has only made it out the 1st round once....his team made it to playoffs without him...that says more about Vince than any post can....

I remeber back in 2000 when all the talk was how Vince is the next great one.....someone wet their pants against the Knicks....but I guess that was McGrady's fault too....since he is a looser


----------



## tone wone

Hbwoy said:


> What makes T-mac any better than Marbury, they both put up good stats but it doesnt do them any good, like Greg Anthony said T-mac is a great talent but needs to show he is a great winner also


 I dont know..

maybe the all-star selections...or

the all-nba selections...or

the top 5 finish in MVP voting...

the fact the houston trade 3/5 of their starting 5 to get him...

the fact that Toronto fans still cant stand him...i dont hear Minny fans talking about marbury


----------



## theRockisOurs

Air Fly said:


> like i said, great stats with not much impact really..and i mean turning those great stats to wins in the playoff, but all i know is that he aint good enough for that matter. He is not a winner, you all can make excuses for him but the fact i see is that he's a loser hate it or love it.



And Vince Carter isn't a loser? What has he won? woohoo the 2nd round. Vince Carter is more overrated than Tmac. He is mentally SOFT and in my mind the biggest waste of talent and potential. I don't care what he does in NJ, cause he's not the old Vince. What did he do in the playoffs this year besides shoot 36% and get swept by the Heat. He played horribly. You can't deny that.


----------



## Spriggan

Hbwoy said:


> What makes T-mac any better than Marbury, they both put up good stats but it doesnt do them any good, like Greg Anthony said T-mac is a great talent but needs to show he is a great winner also


McGrady generally puts up much better overall stats than Marbury, and you can simply tell by watching the two that Tracy is on another level.

And for the record, I think Marbury is highly underrated (for the exact reason you keep mentioning, that their *teams* usually don't do well in the playoffs, if they even make it), so I don't think he makes a good example.

And look at LeBron. He's on another planet and he hasn't been able to get his team to the playoffs. There's only so much a single player can do. If your team is ****ty, your team is ****ty. Think Duncan or Garnett could get the Hawks to the playoffs? I doubt it. Not without a few crucial personnel changes, at least.


----------



## HB

Lol watch the T-mac fans get mad. No one is saying T-mac aint a good player, he is a tremendous player. But fact is he needs to adjust his game so it can relate to more success.


----------



## Spriggan

Hbwoy said:


> Lol watch the T-mac fans get mad. No one is saying T-mac aint a good player, he is a tremendous player. But fact is he needs to adjust his game so it can relate to more success.


Gotta love when you smack someone around in an argument and they're reduced to making weak "omg lol stop getting mad" statements.


----------



## P-Dub34

> Pierce's head bandage move is pretty smooth, for what it's worth.


Still holding that against him, eh? Well, I don't blame you. Lots of people are. It woulda been swept under the rug if we won Game 7, but we didn't, so that's that.

Although it was a stupid thing to do, granted. 

Nobody seems to mention it came on the heels of a 30/8/7/5ish performance the night before and a 20/11/6 job that night.


----------



## HB

> Gotta love when you smack someone around in an argument and they're reduced to making weak "omg lol stop getting mad" statements


Well you can think whatever you want, I am tired of this arguements cause they just never end. People are stuck in their ways and stuck with their opinions. The same arguements keep getting recycled. I just had this T-mac vs Vince thing recently and am still burnt out from that arguement. I am tired of trying to prove my point, people can make their decisions for themselves. Some will always side with T-mac and some will side with Vince. Watch the games, you can see this things, you dont need other folks to make your judgements. The only thing that really irks me is when people try and get personal if the arguement doesnt go their way


----------



## RunningWings

Hbwoy said:


> Well you can think whatever you want, I am tired of this arguements cause they just never end. People are stuck in their ways and stuck with their opinions. The same arguements keep getting recycled. I just had this T-mac vs Vince thing recently and am still burnt out from that arguement. I am tired of trying to prove my point, people can make their decisions for themselves. Some will always side with T-mac and some will side with Vince. Watch the games, you can see this things, you dont need other folks to make your judgements. The only thing that really irks me is when people try and get personal if the arguement doesnt go their way


Next season, if T-Mac plays like he did in the playoffs this year it wont even be a discussion about who's a better player. T-Mac really broke out and seemed like a different player in the playoffs. He could be a great all-around talent if he wants to be.


----------



## farhan007

Air Fly said:


> To me.......
> 
> Kobe = Lord of da rings
> Pierce = The Truth
> Vince = Vinsanity
> 
> Tmac = overrated and a loser.. :laugh:


funny how t-mac is the overrated loser, while his team last season had the best record with 51 wins out of all these real losers(except wade). face it t-mac and wade are the only 2 swingmen who are playing on an elite team, and they are a big part of it. guess what, vince has never been apart of an elite team, t-mac has and will be on one fpr the next better part of the decade. vince is on a eastern conference team where they madea final push to make the playoffs(in the west that means they are as good as a 12th seed team) While t-mac was the best player on a 50+ win team that almost madea first round UPSET!!!


thats right... an upset.... all you losers who always argue about t-mac's unability to get to the second round, doy you notice that every time he enters the playoffs his team is always the lower seed? So that means he always lost to a better team!.... 

BTW

t-mac is 26, vince is 28...
t-mac has 6 more playoff games played than vince......
give t-mac a chance to atleast reach his prime years, which will start next season, and see if he can advance in the playoffs....


----------



## E.H. Munro

P-Dub34 said:


> Still holding that against him, eh? Well, I don't blame you. Lots of people are. It woulda been swept under the rug if we won Game 7, but we didn't, so that's that.
> 
> Although it was a stupid thing to do, granted.
> 
> Nobody seems to mention it came on the heels of a 30/8/7/5ish performance the night before and a 20/11/6 job that night.


Will you relax, that was actually my favourite moment of the playoffs. When have you _ever_ seen me call for Pierce's trading? Ever? I outright called that Big John character an idiot for suggesting that Pierce's worth was an exchange of second round picks (he suggested Pierce and #50 for Nick van Exel and #36). I have even been openly against the Pierce for #3 scenarios that the haters have been tossing around on the grounds that the odds of the player they get ever replacing Pierce's production are remote, at best. I _like_ Pierce. That doesn't mean that I have to pretend he's the best wing on the planet. There are a handful of guys that I would take over him, T-Mac amongst them. That doesn't qualify as a slap against Pierce.


----------



## farhan007

Hbwoy said:


> Lol watch the T-mac fans get mad. No one is saying T-mac aint a good player, he is a tremendous player. But fact is he needs to adjust his game so it can relate to more success.


funny...

how many 50 win teams has vince been on in the LEASTERN CONFERENCE...

t-mac adjusted his game well when he went to houston. He got his team 50 wins.... something that vince will never be able to do in the west if he had a chance.

it was just misfourtunate that the rockets had to play a FIFTY EIGHT win team in the first round comming from the west........ took them to 7 games though... thanks to mcgrady's 30+ ppg 7+apg 7 rpg..... 

lets see vince lead his team to a high seed with 50+ wins and average those god number in the playoffs before you declare vince carter a better winner than t-mac.... 
btw, i would really like to see a comparison of career total wins between the two players... i wouldnt be surprised if it was REALLY close....


----------



## HB

> how many 50 win teams has vince been on in the LEASTERN CONFERENCE...


Does it matter how many wins they have in the regular season, the most important wins happen in the playoffs. T-mac and YAo were touted as the second coming of Shaq and Kobe, anything less than 50 wins would have been seen as mediocre. Vince and the nets on the other hand werent expected to make any playoff push, most believed that next year was their year. If you actually evaluate the nets 2nd half number of wins and losses to a full season, it comes out to over 50 wins. Pretty good for a team without a bench.



> it was just misfourtunate that the rockets had to play a FIFTY EIGHT win team in the first round comming from the west........ took them to 7 games though... thanks to mcgrady's 30+ ppg 7+apg 7 rpg.....


Excuses, excuses. Every year the same thing, T-mac faces a better opposition. Wasnt he playing with arguably the best center in the west, isnt he supposedly the best guard in the league. Does he have to be surrounded by all stars before he can actually win one playoff series. You also claim that Wade and T-mac are the only swingmen playing on elite teams, notice what the two have in common thats right legit big men. I can guarantee that the nets next year will be one of the best teams in the league Rj, Vince and Kidd plus a good big man will be a nightmare for most teams.



> give t-mac a chance to atleast reach his prime years, which will start next season, and see if he can advance in the playoffs....


What prime years, what next is he going to do. Score more, rebound better, get more assists puhleasee. And yes I will be eagerly watching and anticipating what he's going to do next season, hopefully we dont have this conversation at the end of the season again


----------



## E.H. Munro

But if you're using the "playoff loser" standard then Vinsanity doesn't belong on any list of elite wing players. He's a post season choke artist. He's a Peja level dog when the pressure's on. If I have hopes of winning a title, Carter is one player that I absolutely _don't_ want to have to rely on for key buckets. Sorry. Try again.


----------



## HB

> But if you're using the "playoff loser" standard then Vinsanity doesn't belong on any list of elite wing players. He's a post season choke artist. He's a Peja level dog when the pressure's on. If I have hopes of winning a title, Carter is one player that I absolutely don't want to have to rely on for key buckets. Sorry. Try again.


Wow Vince and peja, good try. I do remember Vince dropping 50 in the playoffs and holds the record for the highest number of 3s' in a game. If your going to use the heat playoff series to judge Vince's playoff performances thats completely unfair,because anyone who watched that series would have known there really wasnt much Vince could do against the Miami defense. When your teammates cant hit shots, its easier for the opposing team to focus their defense on the best offensive player. And did you just call someone dog in your post, hopefully its not in the kind of derogatory way am thinking you did, because that is completely uncalled for. 

Oh and staying back on the topic, I do think pierce is a better basketball player than T-mac, he might not be a better talent but he understands the game better than Tracy


----------



## coachhomer

Hbwoy said:


> Well you can think whatever you want, I am tired of this arguements cause they just never end. People are stuck in their ways and stuck with their opinions. The same arguements keep getting recycled. I just had this T-mac vs Vince thing recently and am still burnt out from that arguement. I am tired of trying to prove my point, people can make their decisions for themselves. Some will always side with T-mac and some will side with Vince. Watch the games, you can see this things, you dont need other folks to make your judgements. The only thing that really irks me is when people try and get personal if the arguement doesnt go their way



Preach it brother.

C


----------



## Causeway

Hbwoy said:


> I do remember Vince dropping 50 in the playoffs and holds the record for the highest number of 3s' in a game...
> 
> Oh and staying back on the topic, I do think pierce is a better basketball player than T-mac, he might not be a better talent but he understands the game better than Tracy


I have never been impressed simply with personal stats - unless they translated into wins. The simple fact is Vince has not won a thing and it's debatable if he makes TEAMS better. Yes he can put up some nice numbers. If it ever equals W's I'll be impressed.


----------



## coachhomer

ehmunro said:


> My uncle from Galway used to say to me, "_Chris, me lad, if you can't lose them with your logic, baffle them with your bullshyte_." After reading that post I just have to ask, uncle Joe, is that you?
> 
> Now, mind you, in my own field I do the same thing to amateurs, throw out the technical terms to intimidate them and get them to leave me alone, while I do my work. But, when someone is smart enough to discuss the matter I give them fair play. There are a lot of assertions that you're flat out wrong on (i.e. Pierce's athleticism). And your non-answer to Tone-Wone's shooting question would do my uncle Joe proud. Now, had you simply said "McGrady isn't a better shooter than Pierce, they're pretty much the same." I wouldn't argue the matter. Pierce's career eFG% is four points higher, both are pretty good at shooting off the dribble. The rest of it is just designed to intimidate the readers. Tracy looks more awkward than Pierce when shooting jumpers because he's easier to move than P-2, but his mechanics are solid. Pierce is almost impossible to move because of his body, but I don't see that his mechanics are really any better. His strength is a huge advantage and he uses it well on offense.
> 
> Their offensive styles are only similar on the surface, and T-Mac's played in three very different systems and learned to flourish in each. Pierce has only made that transition once, and still hasn't flourished in Doc Rivers' sets. Then again, nobody seems to know what Doc wants on offense, least of all Doc (but part of that is, admittedly, the Celtics' mediocre personnel). In Doc's offense T-Mac was dominant, Pierce only very good. This doesn't mean that Pierce won't improve, he will. Just like T-Mac will improve in van Gundy's sets in Houston.
> 
> Pierce was, under the Ricktator and Jim O'Brien one of the best slashers in the NBA (and you don't get to the top of the heap slashing without being a heck of an athlete, some people's claims to the contrary notwithstanding). He reached his zenith under O'Brien because OB's offense was designed to maximise his one real asset, Pierce. His second best player was Antoine Walker and his third best the arthritic Eric Williams. To be brutally precise he peaked during the 2001-02 season because the franchise had the personnel to run OB's offense. Rodney Rogers & Tony Delk to be the weakside shooters from the three, taking defenders away from Pierce, Walker to run the offense, and the fifth guy (Battie, Blount, Williams) that ran back on D the minute a shot went in the air. All this allowed Pierce to operate in isolation on his side of the floor where Walker threaded passes to Pierce on the run. The offense was always ugly, but when it worked it was lethal. Compare Pierce's ability to create his own shots from 2001-03 to 2003-04. Once Walker was not there to make the "flashy" passes Pierce became a whole lot less effective. Though, in a sense, he became a better player by getting better at getting his shot off once he _had_ to do it himself.
> 
> As for Pierce allegedly not being an athlete, it's a stupid claim (sorry, it simply is). Pierce is, in reality, one of the most athletic wings in the NBA. The only way to exclude him from that status is to define athleticism narrowly on the grounds of vertical leaping ability and end to end speed. Tracy McGrady certainly beats Pierce in those two areas. _However_, Pierce is one of the strongest players in the NBA. Seriously. There are no strength tests that have been invented that Garnett, Dirk, Lamar Odom or any number of other 4s have a prayer at beating Pierce in. He is 6'6" 245lbs of chiseled muscle. He is also _extremely_ quick, even if he isn't blazingly fast. He has a very good first step. His strength & quickness make him almost impossible to defend. The power 3s that are all the rage can't defend him because they're taller and skinnier and Pierce uses his strength, quickness and (relatively) low center of gravity to get by them at will. The smaller shooting guards that he can't outleverage he simply overpowers with his size & strength. Your claims about Pierce's lack of athleticism are flatulence, pure & simple. Can Pierce sky 40"+ like MJ or LBJ? Nope. But I bet if we run the numbers to find out how much power is needed to shoot a 78" 245lb person three feet into the air it will turn out to be greater than the amount of power needed to send an 80" 225lb person 39" into the air. Because of Pierce's greater mass he's harder to move once he's in the air than the less massive T-Mac. So, yeah, once he's in the air you can knock T-Mac off balance more easily than a flying tank like Pierce. But just because T-Mac _looks_ more awkward, doesn't mean that he _is_ more awkward, or solely relying on athleticism to get by.
> 
> You say you want to neutralise T-Mac's athletic advantage to see how well he does? Great. How about Pierce's? How about we just give T-Mac Pierce's strength and quickness? What do we get? A 6'8" 250lb guy with a good first step that overpowers defenders at the 3 to get to the rim, but is too fast for 4s to cover effectively. Sound familiar? Like another NBA player that gets debated endlessly on these boards?
> 
> T-Mac's defensive footwork is extremely good, far better than Pierce's, and he's learned to use his speed and quickness on the defensive end. This can be referred to as the van Gundy Effect, he's got T-Mac to care on that end of the floor. It doesn't always work, he couldn't get Juwon Howard to play D. But no one else has, either. Pierce's athletic advantages don't help him as much on the defensive end, taller players are able to shoot over him, and the shooting guards that are quicker can get by him. His advantages on the defensive end are his quickness and his long arms (and long arms are not a "skill" the last time I checked), assets that he uses well when he has a mind to. He doesn't now, and that we can call the Doc Rivers Effect, because Doc doesn't give a tinkers dam for defense (this is why Doc Rivers teams never make it out of the first round of the playoffs). The fact remains, T-Mac is morphing into a lockdown defender, something that Pierce has never been, and won't ever be. So, to answer your charges, T-Mac doesn't "rely on his athleticism" any more than Pierce does. They are _both_ highly skilled players that take advantage of their athletic gifts. If you want to limit the scope and say that McGrady could make even better use of them, I'm not going to argue that. But Vin Baker he isn't.



Ohhh, what a great post. The ultimate form of flattery is imitation. 

Let’s start with your second paragraph: 

_“The rest of it is just designed to intimidate the readers”_

If any reader is intimidated by a message board then my advice would be to seek counseling. It is a message board. My point in referencing the multiple ways to shoot the basketball was to… in a broad sense, let readers know that this discussion is far deeper that field goal percentages. And I don’t ever recall saying that Pierce’s shooting mechanics were any better than Tracy’s. I would in fact say the opposite just looking from the waste up. Mechanics is more than form, it is also balance and rhythm (with rhythm being the most important characteristic in my opinion.) Tracy’s shot is beautiful. Great rotation, great follow through. He has a tendency to push the ball with his shoulder when he gets fatigued, but so do 90% of the players. I question his rhythm from time to time, but his mechanics are in the top 5% of the league.

Now to the third paragraph: 

_“In Doc's offense T-Mac was dominant, Pierce only very good.”_

Bold statement. Tracy was dominant? Look at his surrounding cast. Responsibility was thrust upon his shoulders and his guns were loaded for him. I mentioned this before, a players success is hugely impacted by the players surrounding him. Tracy didn’t have anyone, so he had to try and do it all. When Jordan and Drexler came into the league, the question asked, was whether or not their careers would have turned out the same if their situations were flipped. Drexler now steps into a situation were a franchise is being built around him, and Jordan steps into a franchise that is farther along in development and where he is a supporting member. Would their careers have blossomed in the same manner? Would have been interesting to see. Point is, their situations are and have been completely different. But to say that Tracy was dominant, and to give Pierce 1 year under Doc at a time when his age is catching him and say that at best he was very good is well like you said… a stupid claim.

And to the fourth paragraph:

This was actually a great paragraph and was entertaining to read. The point that is missed here though is that with the exception of the triangle offense and arguably even with that, all offenses in the NBA end up in some sort of isolation. The have too because of the limitation of time due to the short shot clock. A set is run with various scoring options and then when those options are exhausted, the play blooms into an isolation situation or a two man game. Basketball is a simple game and it is even further simplified with the subtraction of players. Meaning one on one is more simple than two on two and so on. So with all that being said, I wouldn’t give much credit to Tracy for having to adapt to three different styles.

And to the fifth paragraph:

_“As for Pierce allegedly not being an athlete, it's a stupid claim (sorry, it simply is).”_ 

You are right. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never said that Pierce wasn’t a great athlete… I said he wasn’t as good of an athlete as McGrady.

_“Your claims about Pierce's lack of athleticism are flatulence, pure & simple. Can Pierce sky 40"+ like MJ or LBJ? Nope. But I bet if we run the numbers to find out how much power is needed to shoot a 78" 245lb person three feet into the air it will turn out to be greater than the amount of power needed to send an 80" 225lb person 39" into the air.”_

First of all… great word, flatulence. Who is trying to intimidate who? So by your definition, and it is arguable, pure strength = athleticism. I don’t agree. An individual cannot become athletic, they can become strong. Pierces athleticism has nothing to do with strength. He could easily be 6’6” 205lbs. and he would be just as athletic. The recipe for athleticism incorporates quickness (feet and hands), balance, and strength related to body control (core strength), not physical brute strength to toss a player across the floor. One of the strongest players I ever coached ended up at St.John’s and holds the single season scoring average record in the Big East and he is 6’0” and 180 lbs. So again, and you basically prove my point in the next paragraph, but McGrady is more athletic than Pierce.

And to the sixth paragraph:

Re-read this paragraph, you are validating my point.

And to the seventh paragraph:

There is a lot missing here. Understand this, generally speaking, 20% of defense is on the ball. The other 80% is off the ball. Off the ball defense requires a lot more mental effort. And it requires a lot of instruction. Tracy can lock down all the people he wants to, and his team will still suffer when he doesn’t make the third rotation from the help side to take a charge. Tracy will rotate from time to time, usually when he sees the opportunity to make a block or steal that will get him on Sportcenter. Pierce isn’t great at this either, but he is better than Tracy and it is probably because of his history. What is also missed here is that defense is all about what….? The big “C” word. Anyone know it? That’s right COMMUNICATION. This is where Tracy needs work. Pierce knows how to do this, his problem is that he gets frustrated and quits communicating.

I will give you this, you took your Uncle’s advice to heart and you know more than the average Joe about hoops, but you may have underestimated my experience in this field. And don’t believe everything you read… here or anywhere else because most of the info that you provided, I could have heard from any NBA analyst with little to no experience coaching the game.

This will be my last post in this thread as I really don't see it going anywhere. If you really want my opinion on something related or anything else, PM me.

Side question… What do you have against Doc?

C


----------



## farhan007

i just dont get how someone can make a statement saying peirce is a better basketball player than t-mac....

does the media look at how good an athlete a player is or how good he is in the game of basketball when they go over all nba selections.... 

see mcgrady has more all nba selections the peirce. if coachomer's logic is correct, the media chooses the 5 most gifted athletes in the all nba selection.... but then, the media is inconsistant, because the routinly place duncan in the first team, yet he obviously isnt a top 5 athlete. 

btw, what does paul peirce have to show that he is a better basketball player this season???
the more wins the celtics have then the rockets???NO
the more points he averages than mcgrady? no
the more assists he averages than mcgrady??NO
the more rebounds he averages than mcgrady??no
the more media coverage he gets?? NO
the more all nba selections he has over mcgrady? No

o, let me guess, previous playoff performance....
well then i can write another long drawn out essat like coachomer did on how two players are on two different situations.....

SO what is the point of being a better "basketball player (in terms of coachomer's absurd logic)" if there is nothing to show for it?

So Causeway, tell me why would rather select Paul peirce rather than mcgrady if mcgrady has a higher ceiling(im sure you cant even deny that fact), and is considerably younger, and already has a better career than peirce(well thats the opinion of any reasonable person)??? I just dont see why!?!?!? i would understand if you say something like you have grown into paul peirce and enjoy his style of play, but to say paul peirce is a better basketball player than mcgrady???? 

So Causeway, if the rockets swapped peirce for mcgrady last season, would the rockets have a higher win total than 51?


----------



## farhan007

i just dont get how someone can make a statement saying peirce is a better basketball player than t-mac....

does the media look at how good an athlete a player is or how good he is in the game of basketball when they go over all nba selections.... 

see mcgrady has more all nba selections the peirce. if coachomer's logic is correct, the media chooses the 5 most gifted athletes in the all nba selection.... but then, the media is inconsistant, because the routinly place duncan in the first team, yet he obviously isnt a top 5 athlete. 

btw, what does paul peirce have to show that he is a better basketball player this season???
the more wins the celtics have then the rockets???NO
the more points he averages than mcgrady? no
the more assists he averages than mcgrady??NO
the more rebounds he averages than mcgrady??no
the more media coverage he gets?? NO
the more all nba selections he has over mcgrady? No

o, let me guess, previous playoff performance....
well then i can write another long drawn out essay like coachomer did on how two players are on two different situations.....

SO what is the point of being a better "basketball player (in terms of coachomer's absurd logic)" if there is nothing to show for it?

So Causeway, tell me why would rather select Paul peirce rather than mcgrady if mcgrady has a higher ceiling(im sure you cant even deny that fact), and is considerably younger, and already has a better career than peirce(well thats the opinion of any reasonable person)??? I just dont see why!?!?!? i would understand if you say something like you have grown into paul peirce and enjoy his style of play, but to say paul peirce is a better basketball player than mcgrady???? 

So Causeway, if the rockets swapped peirce for mcgrady last season, would the rockets have a higher win total than 51?


----------



## E.H. Munro

coachhomer said:


> Ohhh, what a great post. The ultimate form of flattery is imitation.


As that's my normal posting style, the only flattery involved here is the flattery you're heaping upon yourself.



coachhomer said:


> And I don’t ever recall saying that Pierce’s shooting mechanics were any better than Tracy’s. I would in fact say the opposite just looking from the waste up. Mechanics is more than form, it is also balance and rhythm (with rhythm being the most important characteristic in my opinion.) Tracy’s shot is beautiful. Great rotation, great follow through. He has a tendency to push the ball with his shoulder when he gets fatigued, but so do 90% of the players. I question his rhythm from time to time, but his mechanics are in the top 5% of the league.


So now you're saying that Pierce _isn't_ a better shooter than McGrady?



coachhomer said:


> Bold statement. Tracy was dominant? Look at his surrounding cast. Responsibility was thrust upon his shoulders and his guns were loaded for him.


This was true the year he topped 30 p/g (02-03), but the other seasons there under Doc his supporting cast was no worse than Pierce's. Can we say the same of Pierce? That he had his guns loaded for him? Payton was finished in 03-04, he was just playing out the string last year. The other points in Boston just weren't ready. There was Ricky Davis, but did he really provide anything that Mike Miller wasn't? Raef Lafrentz you say? Are his 12 points and seven boards somehow more significant than Juwon Howard's general 16/7 numbers?



coachhomer said:


> I mentioned this before, a players success is hugely impacted by the players surrounding him. Tracy didn’t have anyone, so he had to try and do it all. When Jordan and Drexler came into the league, the question asked, was whether or not their careers would have turned out the same if their situations were flipped. Drexler now steps into a situation were a franchise is being built around him, and Jordan steps into a franchise that is farther along in development and where he is a supporting member. Would their careers have blossomed in the same manner? Would have been interesting to see. Point is, their situations are and have been completely different. But to say that Tracy was dominant, and to give Pierce 1 year under Doc at a time when his age is catching him and say that at best he was very good is well like you said… a stupid claim.


Pierce _was_ only very good (and as I said will get better) while T-Mac was great. Their situations are eerily similar, the big difference is that Pierce is 19 months older than T-Mac. Not quite the chasm you're implying. The rest of that paragraph is straight from my uncle Joe.



coachhomer said:


> This was actually a great paragraph and was entertaining to read. The point that is missed here though is that with the exception of the triangle offense and arguably even with that, all offenses in the NBA end up in some sort of isolation. The have too because of the limitation of time due to the short shot clock. A set is run with various scoring options and then when those options are exhausted, the play blooms into an isolation situation or a two man game. Basketball is a simple game and it is even further simplified with the subtraction of players. Meaning one on one is more simple than two on two and so on. So with all that being said, I wouldn’t give much credit to Tracy for having to adapt to three different styles.


Each coach has his own peccadilloes, that players have to adapt to. Most players that I've watched take a year or so to adapt to the offensive sets that their coaches want. It's no different in Boston with Pierce than it is for T-Mac in Houston. Pierce has had his personnel change almost completely since Ainge's arrival (I believe that Blount is the only holdover, excepting Walker's 30 game stint last spring). His new teammates have more potential than the old ones, but potential can't buy you an hour with Jenna Haze at the Bunny Ranch. While they have potential, they don't produce present performance. Al Jefferson looks like he'll eventually become a better version of Elton Brand, what he is now is a guy that can occasionally score in double figures. Delonte West has a beautiful shooting stroke, pity that he's too slow to to effectively play extended minutes at the point and not big or strong enough to play the 2. Right now he looks like an Erik Strickland level talent. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a prime scoring option he isn't. Tony Allen? Once teams caught on that his offensive game was weakside putbacks he was toast. I could break down the entire roster that way, but the point stands, if T-Mac was the only gun in Orlando then Pierce was the only gun in Boston until Walker returned. And Walker's a blunderbuss, prone to misfiring.



coachhomer said:


> You are right. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never said that Pierce wasn’t a great athlete… I said he wasn’t as good of an athlete as McGrady.


McGrady has end to end speed on Pierce, vertical leaping height, and a slight quickness advantage. Pierce has exceptional strength (which, by the way, _is_ an athletic talent, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding) combined with exceptional quickness. It's a combination every bit as lethal as T-Mac's. Moreso if we limit the discussion to the offensive end, he's well nigh unstoppable in isolation.



coachhomer said:


> First of all… great word, flatulence. Who is trying to intimidate who? So by your definition, and it is arguable, pure strength = athleticism. I don’t agree. An individual cannot become athletic, they can become strong. Pierces athleticism has nothing to do with strength. He could easily be 6’6” 205lbs. and he would be just as athletic. The recipe for athleticism incorporates quickness (feet and hands), balance, and strength related to body control (core strength), not physical brute strength to toss a player across the floor. One of the strongest players I ever coached ended up at St.John’s and holds the single season scoring average record in the Big East and he is 6’0” and 180 lbs. So again, and you basically prove my point in the next paragraph, but McGrady is more athletic than Pierce.


Except that Pierce's strength _does_ involve body control. So what's your point? Pierce is extremely tough to derail. McGrady is thinner, less massive, and easier to knock off balance. As for your player? You coached Troy Bell? As far as I remember he set Big East scoring average record his senior year (here in Boston they made a to do of it). But he didn't go to St. John's, he went to BC.



coachhomer said:


> There is a lot missing here. Understand this, generally speaking, 20% of defense is on the ball. The other 80% is off the ball. Off the ball defense requires a lot more mental effort. And it requires a lot of instruction. Tracy can lock down all the people he wants to, and his team will still suffer when he doesn’t make the third rotation from the help side to take a charge. Tracy will rotate from time to time, usually when he sees the opportunity to make a block or steal that will get him on Sportcenter. Pierce isn’t great at this either, but he is better than Tracy and it is probably because of his history. What is also missed here is that defense is all about what….? The big “C” word. Anyone know it? That’s right COMMUNICATION. This is where Tracy needs work. Pierce knows how to do this, his problem is that he gets frustrated and quits communicating.


Being able to shut down the guy in front of you is pretty important when you're a wing. Especially when the guy you're locking down is someone like Irk, P-2, or the like. T-Mac played for Doc Rivers for a while, so the defensive end of his game has been, until now, underdeveloped. But that's changing, and he plays defense with the sort of fire that Pierce used to. But P-2's playing for Doc, so he won't be getting better on that end of the floor.



coachhomer said:


> Side question… What do you have against Doc?
> 
> C


Nothing. He's a good coach if you're looking for offense. But he's never cared about the defensive end of the floor. And his teams all fail to get out of the first round of the playoffs for the same reason, they don't win close games. When his offense is clicking on all cylinders and his team is humming they blow their opponents out. But when it's not, his teams just can't get those vital stops at the end. Before the playoffs started the Pacers were adamant about the fact that the Celtics wouldn't beat them in the close games. And they were right, because Boston couldn't keep Indiana from scoring down the stretch. I suppose if he had a roster as offensively talented as Phoenix's or Dallas' he'd do some damage. But he's had two teams of more marginal talent headed by one superstar.


----------



## kflo

thank god for those '01 playoffs. iverson made the finals, ray allen made the conf finals, and vince made it to the 2nd round.


----------



## HB

> thank god for those '01 playoffs. iverson made the finals, ray allen made the conf finals, and vince made it to the 2nd round


And your point being. Are you trying to say the competition was weaker or they got this done by fluke


----------



## E.H. Munro

Hbwoy said:


> Wow Vince and peja, good try. I do remember Vince dropping 50 in the playoffs and holds the record for the highest number of 3s' in a game.


Wait, I thought playoff stats didn't matter? If they do then T-Mac is >>>Vinsanity



Hbwoy said:


> If your going to use the heat playoff series to judge Vince's playoff performances thats completely unfair,because anyone who watched that series would have known there really wasnt much Vince could do against the Miami defense. When your teammates cant hit shots, its easier for the opposing team to focus their defense on the best offensive player.


Excuses, excuses. Every year the same thing, Vinsanity faces a better opposition. Wasn't he playing with arguably the best point guard in the NBA? A future hall of famer? Isn't he supposed to be one of the top 3 wings in the show? As he's already playing with a HoFer and an all star, does he have to be surrounded by all stars before he can actually win something? 



Hbwoy said:


> And did you just call someone dog in your post, hopefully its not in the kind of derogatory way am thinking you did, because that is completely uncalled for.


What sort of "derogatory way" are you referring to. I just called him a Peja level dog in the postseason. So what are you attempting to get at?


----------



## DK

McGrady is a top 15 player, top 5 2-3. Pierce is a top 15 player, top 5 2-3. Vince isn't a top 15 player but he's a top 15 athlete with the potential to be a top 15 player, top 5 2-3.

Pierce was more effective per minute, but McGrady played 200 more minutes. It's a tough call between the two of them, hence the reason this thread has dragged on nine pages. It's a very hard call between the two, and the statistics actually reflect that... Put a gun to my head, I'd probably choose McGrady because he's performing at the same level two years younger than Pierce.


----------



## Air Fly

> ehmunro]
> 
> Excuses, excuses. Every year the same thing, Vinsanity faces a better opposition. Wasn't he playing with arguably the best point guard in the NBA? A future hall of famer? Isn't he supposed to be one of the top 3 wings in the show? As he's already playing with a HoFer and an all star, does he have to be surrounded by all stars before he can actually win something?


Yes he was playing with the best PG in the nba, which due to fatigue didnt perform his best. However, he wasnt playing with an all star player, RJ at that time just got activated from the injured list and wasnt 100%..he was average, but next year he will for sure regain his all star status.

What he did need is some players who can shoot, and take away the double/triple team he was getting...also dont forget fatigue was one of the major reasons him and jason didnt perform well. I would like to remind you they were on a mission in those couple of games at the end of season. They were pushing hard just to make the playoff, playing extra minutes, scoring 30 to 40+ pts, and averaging triple doubles. Finally, they did make the playoff but unfortunatly they had to face one of the best duo in league...They tried their best but fatigue was a factor, they didnt have the same lift on their legs and etc. Im not making excuses, those are facts...plus vince has put up great numbers despite that on the series except his FG% which wasnt great.


Dk, i disagree with you, vince is a top 10 player again....hopefully top 5 next year. 

Anyways, since this is Pierce vs tmac and kobe......lets keep it as it is.. One


----------



## DK

Air Fly said:


> Yes he was playing with the best PG in the nba, which due to fatigue didnt perform his best. However, he wasnt playing with an all star player, RJ at that time just got activated from the injured list and wasnt 100%..he was average, but next year he will for sure regain his all star status.
> 
> What he did need is some players who can shoot, and take away the double/triple team he was getting...also dont forget fatigue was one of the major reasons him and jason didnt perform well. I would like to remind you they were on a mission in those couple of games at the end of season. They were pushing hard just to make the playoff, playing extra minutes, scoring 30 to 40+ pts, and averaging triple doubles. Finally, they did make the playoff but unfortunatly they had to face one of the best duo in league...They tried their best but fatigue was a factor, they didnt have the same lift on their legs and etc. Im not making excuses, those are facts...plus vince has put up great numbers despite that on the series except his FG% which wasnt great.
> 
> 
> Dk, i disagree with you, vince is a top 10 player again....hopefully top 5 next year.
> 
> Anyways, since this is Pierce vs tmac and kobe......lets keep it as it is.. One


 As a Nets fan, I want to agree with you... However, 50 games is not a large enough sample size to truly draw greatness from. If he sustains it over the course of the year, I'll reconsider my stance on VC...


----------



## kflo

Hbwoy said:


> And your point being. Are you trying to say the competition was weaker or they got this done by fluke


point being, someone had to make the 2nd round, 3rd round, finals. they were all playing against each other. there were no other good teams. they were all guard dominated teams, with no good big men.


----------



## farhan007

kflo said:


> point being, someone had to make the 2nd round, 3rd round, finals. they were all playing against each other. there were no other good teams. they were all guard dominated teams, with no good big men.


exactky...
so many vince fans think vince is a playoff veteran comapred to mcgrady, but the fact is mcgrady has played more playoff games.


----------



## Air Fly

farhan007 said:


> exactky...
> so many vince fans think vince is a playoff veteran comapred to mcgrady, but the fact is mcgrady has played more playoff games.


more playoff appearances + more playoff first rounds exit.

does it really matter mann?


----------



## Spriggan

DK said:


> McGrady is a top 15 player, top 5 2-3. Pierce is a top 15 player, top 5 2-3. Vince isn't a top 15 player but he's a top 15 athlete with the potential to be a top 15 player, top 5 2-3.
> 
> Pierce was more effective per minute, but McGrady played 200 more minutes. It's a tough call between the two of them, hence the reason this thread has dragged on nine pages. It's a very hard call between the two, and the statistics actually reflect that... Put a gun to my head, I'd probably choose McGrady because he's performing at the same level two years younger than Pierce.


Which 10 players in the NBA are better than Tracy McGrady?


----------



## farhan007

Spriggan said:


> Which 10 players in the NBA are better than Tracy McGrady?


haters can easily find 10 players, they can easily find 100 players..... they just have to have some silly crap like "Mcgrady doesnt have skill, or instinct, he just uses athletisism." or "If you watch the defensive rotation of tracy mcgrady, he doesnt properly make the effort (like haters ever watch the player they hate closley), thus paul peirce is more skilled."!?!?! Its all silly crap....

at this point in their careers, it is downright an insult to mcgrady to say paul peirce is at mcgrady's level. Mcgrady got his team more wins, averaged more points, assists, rebounds, more mvp votes, more all defensive team votes, tougher conference, etc.....

so how is paul peirce at the same level as mcgrady?


----------



## DK

Spriggan said:


> Which 10 players in the NBA are better than Tracy McGrady?


Depends on your interpretation of "better". In terms of what position they play, usually big guys (with some exceptions for guys named Jordan and Isiah and the like) are the guys with the biggest impact on a team's wins. So, by default, many big men do rate above McGrady. In terms of athleticism, McGrady wipes the floor with most of them, but in terms of basketball-playing ability, a ton of the centers and PF's (namely Duncan, Shaq, Amare, Yao, and the like) contribute more wins to their team.

When rated as a 2 or a 3, based solely on his 2005 performance, I have him ranked below Wade and LeBron, and pretty much even with Pierce. Marion rates ahead of him too, but he's not a 2-3 player, he's truly a 3-4 player... Manu would rate better had he played as many minutes as McGrady, and probably would have eclipsed him by a relatively large margin (that statement also has nothing to do with his playoff performance; it's statistical evaluation of the regular season performance).


----------



## DK

farhan007 said:


> haters can easily find 10 players, they can easily find 100 players..... they just have to have some silly crap like "Mcgrady doesnt have skill, or instinct, he just uses athletisism." or "If you watch the defensive rotation of tracy mcgrady, he doesnt properly make the effort (like haters ever watch the player they hate closley), thus paul peirce is more skilled."!?!?! Its all silly crap....
> 
> at this point in their careers, it is downright an insult to mcgrady to say paul peirce is at mcgrady's level. Mcgrady got his team more wins, averaged more points, assists, rebounds, more mvp votes, more all defensive team votes, tougher conference, etc.....
> 
> so how is paul peirce at the same level as mcgrady?


The reasons why Pierce rates even (not better or worse) than McGrady, IMO...

A) Throw out the subjectivity and team-related success.

More MVP votes and more All-D votes mean nothing. They're voted on by writers, who use their own interpretation of the game, and usually not in a beneficial way. Sometimes they get the idea right... But as a whole, it's vastly better to use the objective analysis (statistics), which you do attempt to use and I give kudos for. Also, McGrady's team won a lot because of the team, not because of McGrady. Even Jordan needed his players; no man wins a basketball game alone.

B) Point efficiency.

Tracy McGrady scored 2003 points on 557 free throws, 1225 two-pointers, and 435 three-pointers.
Paul Pierce scored 1769 points on 668 free throws, 931 two-pointers, and 292 three-pointers.

Make the adjustment, and it's not even close. Pierce's Value%, PSA, and ORtg all have an advantage over McGrady's. McGrady scored more points because he used up so many possessions... Had Pierce taken the same amount of shots it's very likely (well over 90% likely, but I'm too lazy to do the actual research at this point to get an exact number) that he would have scored much more than McGrady did.

3) Rebounds.

Pierce grabbed 55 more rebounds in 222 less minutes... I don't really see how McGrady's a better rebounder.

4) Assists as a whole are worthless in evaluating individual and team performance.

I've delved into this before and I'd rather not write it again.

5) Steals/Turnovers and blocks.

McGrady has an edge in steals and gave up fewer turnovers, while also blocking more shots (52-39). McGrady has the undoubtable (albeit close) edge here.

All in all, it looks to me like Pierce is better... My rating system disagrees with that, and I'll live with it. They're so close it's less than a hair separating them.. If you like McGrady, take McGrady. If you like Pierce, take Pierce. Put a gun to my head, I'd say take McGrady, since he's playing at basically the exact level that Pierce is while doing so two years younger.


----------



## farhan007

DK said:


> When rated as a 2 or a 3, based solely on his 2005 performance, I have him ranked below Wade and LeBron, and pretty much even with Pierce. Marion rates ahead of him too, but he's not a 2-3 player, he's truly a 3-4 player... Manu would rate better had he played as many minutes as McGrady, and probably would have eclipsed him by a relatively large margin (that statement also has nothing to do with his playoff performance; it's statistical evaluation of the regular season performance).


get some help please.....

manu surpassing mcgrady by a large margin????
SO if we do a one on one trade and swap mcgrady and manu, would the rockets have more wins, and will manu average around 30 6 6? 

Your only argument to have mcgrady and peirce at the same level, is scoring efficiency..... 

i think i will stick the the mvp voters who do this stuff for a living rather then a nutcase like you.
being a vince fan, you also have some biasness on your part. 
look, 
t-mac had more mvp votes
better ppg
more apg
more steals
more blocks
a better efficiency rating
way better team record on a western conference team
and for 6 games in the playoffs averaged 30+ 7 7.... on 47% shooting.


----------



## DK

farhan007 said:


> get some help please.....
> 
> manu surpassing mcgrady by a large margin????
> SO if we do a one on one trade and swap mcgrady and manu, would the rockets have more wins, and will manu average around 30 6 6?
> 
> Your only argument to have mcgrady and peirce at the same level, is scoring efficiency.....
> 
> i think i will stick the the mvp voters who do this stuff for a living rather then a nutcase like you.
> being a vince fan, you also have some biasness on your part.
> look,
> t-mac had more mvp votes
> better ppg
> more apg
> more steals
> more blocks
> a better efficiency rating
> way better team record on a western conference team
> and for 6 games in the playoffs averaged 30+ 7 7.... on 47% shooting.


First of all, thanks for insulting me. It makes you look more ridiculous in your argument when you belittle yourself so.

I'm not really a Vince fan, I stuck with the numbers. I'd still take McGrady over Carter.

MVP votes? Voters as a whole are not to be trusted. To change sports for a minute, in 1999 voters voted Raffy Palmeiro the Gold Glove at first base- when he only played 29 games at the position. Steve Nash was a good player this year, but I certainly wouldn't call him the best player in the NBA (actually, I wouldn't even call him the best player on his own team). Also, I do this stuff for a living as well... If that makes me a nutcase, I suppose that works too.

Points per game? Of course he scored more points per game! He scored 4 more points a game while taking 4 more two-pointers, 2 more three-pointers, and one less free throw per game. Even accouting for that one free throw, McGrady has the opportunity to score 13 more points per game than Pierce, and he only scores 4 more. In most cases regarding NBA players, if they shoot as much as McGrady did, they'd score nearly as many points, if not more.

Assists are not important whatsoever to the ability of the team. Lottery teams on average had more assists per game than playoff teams, for one. There are more reasons, but there's no point to go into it because that's all you really need to hear.

The block difference is less than one block per 5 games. It's an advantage, without a doubt, but a small one. McGrady does not have an edge in steals, but he only had two more steals in 200 more minutes played. If you adjust fully, Pierce has the advantage.

McGrady had Yao. Pierce had... nobody of any skill comparable to Yao. He had Raef LaFrentz, who was a pretty good center... But the talent around McGrady eclipsed the talent around Pierce. There's a reason the Bulls never won until Jordan had Pippen... one man does not carry a team. Ever.

PER is a very disputed stat, and the difference between the two (22.9 to 21.8) is miniscule. PER is a nice stat, but it's not without its flaws...

Look, I'm not even saying Pierce is better than McGrady. I'm saying they are basically equal, and since McGrady is younger I'd probably take him.

The only argument is scoring efficiency? First of all, scoring efficiency is huge, I'd say it's roughly 50% of the game if not more. Actually, probably more. How about rebounding? Steal rate? Playoff stats are sketchy to use as a whole...

Also, I'd delve into how Manu would rate even with McGrady later, as I'm not by my computer and don't have access to my research right now.


----------



## farhan007

DK said:


> Also, I'd delve into how Manu would rate even with McGrady later, as I'm not by my computer and don't have access to my research right now.


thats your problem.... you only look at damn numbers...
why dont you actually watch peirce and mcgrady play side by side, and it is quite easy who is the more dominant and more talented player..... Yes, mcgrady has a lower fg%, probably because he takes more difficult shots. 
Peirce cant do half the things that mcgrady does. Mcgrady is a SPECIAL PLAYER. You will see a player of mcgrady's calibar rarely. Mcgrady has a way higher ceiling. 

and Manu..... god help you....


----------



## DK

farhan007 said:


> thats your problem.... you only look at damn numbers...
> why dont you actually watch peirce and mcgrady play side by side, and it is quite easy who is the more dominant and more talented player..... Yes, mcgrady has a lower fg%, probably because he takes more difficult shots.
> Peirce cant do half the things that mcgrady does. Mcgrady is a SPECIAL PLAYER. You will see a player of mcgrady's calibar rarely. Mcgrady has a way higher ceiling.
> 
> and Manu..... god help you....


I could care less about supposed "talent". All that matters is what the player does in his performance to aid the team in victory, period. When one player shoots 45% and the other shoots 40%, assuming all other things equal, player A is helping his team win more than player B, absolutely and without exception.

The problem with McGrady is that he's an excellent athlete, and when people see that they think it automatically translates into basketball ability. Now, McGrady is a tremendous player, without a doubt. There are few who are better athletes, but there are better basketball players. There's a HUGE difference between athletic ability and basketball prowess... If you're unable to see that, then God help you (although I'm an agnostic, so I really can't say that).

I've watched both of them. I blend what I see but I don't blind myself by what I don't see. When you watch SportsCenter on ESPN, they show the sexy stuff (crossovers, slam dunks, game-winners), and rightfully so. It sells. But if a guy throws down an awesome dunk four or five times a game but shoots 8-25, is he really helping his team? Sure, it looks flashy, and that's what you see. Everyone remembers the behind-the-back dribble-between-the-legs penetration slam dunk, but nobody remembers the missed jump shot from the corner (and the jump shots well outnumber the dunks). 

What people fail to realize is that _that dunk is worth the same as that missed jump shot_. The only difference is that the dunk is more high-percentage of a shot, and sometimes that's not even true (9 times out of 10 Horry doesn't make that slam dunk in game six). They are worth the same amount of points. If you miss the slam but make the jumper, you're forgotten. If you miss the jumper but throw down the dunk, you're #4 on SportsCenter. Doesn't really make sense.

McGrady does have a higher ceiling, I'm not doubting that at all... He's younger and a more gifted athlete than Pierce, although he's equal in terms of basketball ability.

I don't get myself swept up in this "SportsCenter Era", where the dunk rules and the post-up game is forgotten. I watch games all the time, and I remember the missed shots as much as I do the made ones. For instance... I was watching a game in February where McGrady was playing against the Spurs. I remember McGrady cutting through the lane like a knife through hot butter, going over Manu and past Tim Duncan and just ramming it home. Electrifying and effortless, and I thought, "Wow, that McGrady just dominated the Spurs."

However, when you delve deeper:

McGrady went 7-21 that game with no steals, two turnovers, 22 points, three rebounds, and a block.
Ginobili went 5-6 that game with three steals, four turnovers, 18 points, three rebounds, and a block.
Duncan went 10-21 that game with two steals, one turnover, 30 points, eleven rebounds, and two blocks.

End result? Spurs 99, Rockets 81.


----------



## farhan007

mcgrady also has better basketball ability... and by a far margin... as in, if peirce and mcgrady were equally athletic, mcgrady would still be better.... mcgrady has a better shooting touch and a better mid range game. He is a more creative scorer, better ball handler, and has better court vision.... and is turning into one hell of a defensive player...


----------



## Spriggan

DK said:


> In most cases regarding NBA players, if they shoot as much as McGrady did, they'd score nearly as many points, if not more.


Thanks to DK the Objective Stat Wiz, I now know that most NBA players are just as or more offensively skilled than little-known journeyman Tracy McGrady.


----------



## VCFSO2000

Pierce is only better than T-Mac in 1 aspect IMO,and that's driving in the lane and gettin calls.


----------



## DK

Spriggan said:


> Thanks to DK the Objective Stat Wiz, I now know that most NBA players are just as or more offensively skilled than little-known journeyman Tracy McGrady.


I guess if you take one sentence out of context as opposted to pretending to read everything I say, you can twist anything you want.

I love how everyone can just say "No... you're wrong... because I said so." Read everything I say and tell me how I'm wrong, and until then I refuse to believe anything to the contrary.

Now, in terms of that quote, maybe it is an exaggeration but the meaning is the same. Don't harp on _one_ sentence if you have nothing else to say. How about responding to anything else I say? Oh.. wait... that's right, it can't be refuted.

I suppose you could just call me a nutcase and move on... It's easier than making sense.


----------



## Spriggan

DK said:


> I guess if you take one sentence out of context as opposted to pretending to read everything I say, you can twist anything you want.
> 
> I love how everyone can just say "No... you're wrong... because I said so." Read everything I say and tell me how I'm wrong, and until then I refuse to believe anything to the contrary.
> 
> Now, in terms of that quote, maybe it is an exaggeration but the meaning is the same. Don't harp on _one_ sentence if you have nothing else to say. How about responding to anything else I say? Oh.. wait... that's right, it can't be refuted.
> 
> I suppose you could just call me a nutcase and move on... It's easier than making sense.


What did I twist around? If most any player could score as much as McGrady with the same amount of shots, anyone with any semblance of intelligence can see that means McGrady has no more offensive skill than anyone else, outside of passing, maybe.

And if you didn't mean what you said, for someone who seemingly wants statistics to be the lone factor in evaluating players, you may want to keep hyperbole out of your posts.

And that's the second time, at least, you've brought up the word "nutcase" in regards to yourself. It's almost like you know that you're making absurd claims.


----------



## HB

> What did I twist around? If most any player could score as much as McGrady with the same amount of shots, anyone with any semblance of intelligence can see that means McGrady has no more offensive skill than anyone else, outside of passing, maybe.


Umm I dont get this, anyone else having difficulty in interpreting this


----------



## DK

Spriggan said:


> What did I twist around? If most any player could score as much as McGrady with the same amount of shots, anyone with any semblance of intelligence can see that means McGrady has no more offensive skill than anyone else, outside of passing, maybe.
> 
> And if you didn't mean what you said, for someone who seemingly wants statistics to be the lone factor in evaluating players, you may want to keep hyperbole out of your posts.
> 
> And that's the second time, at least, you've brought up the word "nutcase" in regards to yourself. It's almost like you know that you're making absurd claims.


Nah, that guy before (forgot his name) called me a nutcase, so I'm having fun with the idea.

Obviously the style of writing known as "exaggeration" is lost on you. What I should have said, to be entirely clear to those who take everything word for word, is that there are a number of players who, had they the same amount of opportunity to score points as McGrady, would have either equaled or eclipsed him. This is not to say the Antoine Walker's or the Earl Boykins of the world are equal in shotmaking ability to that of McGrady; McGrady is actually very good with his shots. However, there are some players who are considered of less calibre that can make shots as efficiently as McGrady.

I am a mechanic with words and numbers. I will use words as I see fit, and I will interpret the numbers in the way that they make sense. I don't believe you have the right to tell me where and how I should use my English.

Also, I don't think I have ever said that statistical evaluation should be our entire picture of a player. However, it should be the #1 factor in deciding a player's ability to win his team games, without exception. The numbers that a player produces, if they are translated correctly (which is a BIG if, which guys like Winston and Sagarin can't quite figure out) do far more to explain one's skill than any other metric used.

Again, though, in the end, what is not a statistic? Athleticism? Can't a player's agility, speed, strength, body fat, muscle, and jumping ability all be reduced to a single number? If you want to say that Player A jumps higher than Player B, but I bring up the point that A's vertical is 32" while B's is 36", isn't that a statistic? Are you going to discredit the numbers, and go by subjectivity?

Just a thought that was running around my head earlier...


----------



## kflo

i don't think it's fair to say other players could score like mcgrady. there's a reason his coaches allow him to do what he does. there's a reason grant hill knew he'd have to step aside for mcgrady's offensive abilities. there's a reason his peers view him as one of the top offensive forces in the league. you can't simply plug another player in his role and get the same (or better) scoring results. he is a rare player. you just don't see players just become the types of scorers mcgrady is by simply jacking up more shots.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan

Spriggan said:


> Thanks to DK the Objective Stat Wiz, I now know that most NBA players are just as or more offensively skilled than little-known journeyman Tracy McGrady.



lololololol :rofl:


----------



## Cap

> What I should have said, to be entirely clear to those who take everything word for word, is that there are a number of players who, had they the same amount of opportunity to score points as McGrady, would have either equaled or eclipsed him.


Problem is that this hasn't been proved. Since it hasn't been duplicated by more than a handful of players in the league, and since anyone who actually watches basketball knows that jacking up more shots is never the best recipe to scoring more points (because coaches won't allow you to do so, as you'll lose more games if you're not talented enough to take all those shots), I'd say it's pretty obvious that your entire premise is (and always will be) bunk.


----------



## John

kflo said:


> i don't think it's fair to say other players could score like mcgrady. there's a reason his coaches allow him to do what he does. there's a reason grant hill knew he'd have to step aside for mcgrady's offensive abilities. there's a reason his peers view him as one of the top offensive forces in the league. you can't simply plug another player in his role and get the same (or better) scoring results. he is a rare player. you just don't see players just become the types of scorers mcgrady is by simply jacking up more shots.


You are right, but we also have to look at how "freedom" a player gets inorder to get his 30 a night.

Some by doing it within a system, some has to go "wild" to get his. T-mac hasx to go "wild" to get his and that is something that you cant win a championship with the type of offense T-mac was playing.


----------



## clien

Hbwoy said:


> Umm I dont get this, anyone else having difficulty in interpreting this


no


----------



## tone wone

John said:


> You are right, but we also have to look at how "freedom" a player gets inorder to get his 30 a night.
> 
> Some by doing it within a system, some has to go "wild" to get his. T-mac hasx to go "wild" to get his and that is something that you cant win a championship with the type of offense T-mac was playing.


 just because you keep saying this...

doesn't mean its true....

evey thread about McGrady...you post the same nonsense..."he can't play in a structured offense"..."he will never win a title"..."pick n roll" pick in roll pick n roll


----------



## DK

EHL said:


> Problem is that this hasn't been proved. Since it hasn't been duplicated by more than a handful of players in the league, and since anyone who actually watches basketball knows that jacking up more shots is never the best recipe to scoring more points (because coaches won't allow you to do so, as you'll lose more games if you're not talented enough to take all those shots), I'd say it's pretty obvious that your entire premise is (and always will be) bunk.


What are you talking about? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that if players shoot more, they won't score more? That's ridiculous... Do I really have to prove that wrong? Supposed superstars are (usually, with exceptions in teams like Detroit and SA) allowed to run their squads, and shooters are given the green light to shoot whenever they want.

If players are going to take that many shots without thought to the team, then it's quite obvious that they're not thinking about winning, they're thinking about their own paycheck. Jerry Stackhouse is one example... Scores a lot, but scores inefficiently. Udonis Haslem (one of the most underrated players in the NBA, might I add) is at the other end of the spectrum... He doesn't score much, but he does it with robot-like efficiency.


----------



## farhan007

John said:


> You are right, but we also have to look at how "freedom" a player gets inorder to get his 30 a night.
> 
> Some by doing it within a system, some has to go "wild" to get his. T-mac hasx to go "wild" to get his and that is something that you cant win a championship with the type of offense T-mac was playing.


dear god.... how many times do i have to read this same exact crap?

T-mac plays in a heavily structured offensive set up by JEFF VAN GUNDY... the KING OF NITTPICKYNESS!!!! and if you havent noticed, at the begenning of the season, when the offensive was centered around mainly yao, the rockets struggled to break 80, but when jvg relized it has to be centered around mcgrady also, mcgrady got more good oppurtunities, his scoring went up, team scoring went way up(the couldnt go under 100), and winning went through the ceiling


----------



## clien

gunit is a slap back jack who will whap the crap in a sack n den make poo plap plap in yo backpack so dats dat


----------



## E.H. Munro

DK said:


> Supposed superstars are (usually, with exceptions in teams like Detroit and SA) allowed to run their squads, and shooters are given the green light to shoot whenever they want.


I hate to be the one to point this out, but the 80s ended ages ago. Coaches do not allow their players to do what they want anymore. Quite the opposite, coaches are anal retentive in this day and age. The reason for the amount of isolation plays (which, by the way, don't develop spontaneously, everyone has to be on the same page for iso plays to work) is that, as coach homer indicated earlier, they work. If you have a talent like P-2 or T-Mac, iso plays are a great way to get vital buckets, because both guys are tough to stop one on one.


----------



## DK

ehmunro said:


> I hate to be the one to point this out, but the 80s ended ages ago. Coaches do not allow their players to do what they want anymore. Quite the opposite, coaches are anal retentive in this day and age. The reason for the amount of isolation plays (which, by the way, don't develop spontaneously, everyone has to be on the same page for iso plays to work) is that, as coach homer indicated earlier, they work. If you have a talent like P-2 or T-Mac, iso plays are a great way to get vital buckets, because both guys are tough to stop one on one.


This, although it's well thought out, is incorrect. Some coaches (namely Brown, Popovich, Jackson) are like this, and are able to get their stars to fit the system. But for the most part, coaches don't have full control over their players... It's a money issue. If you're paying a guy $12 million, he's going to take as many damn shots as he wants. I'm not saying it's right, but that's the way it goes, and in the end, if the owner has to make the choice... Who's he going to keep, Tracy McGrady (a star in his own right) or Jeff Van Gundy?

One more thing: So my words don't get any more misinterpreted as they already are: McGrady and Pierce are both top guards. IMO, they're tied for third behind Wade and LeBron in terms of 2005... You guys can either take the entire message of what I say, or take one sentence out of context to try (not succeed) in being funny.

I feel like you're trying to make it seem like I hate McGrady. I don't. Actually, a good friend of mine is a cousin of McGrady's... I like the guy. He's a good player. What I said earlier was an exaggeration. It got to the point where people were thinking that I said that McGrady's not a good player, that he just gets that reputation because he shoots so much. That is not true by any stretch of the imagination. He's a very good all-around player.

Got it?


----------



## kflo

dk - the reason people are taking you to task for that comment is because it's essential to the discussion. to trivialize mcgrady's abilities as a scorer is to trivialize his abilities as a player. part of what makes him special is his unique abilities as a scorer. it's unique, because there aren't many other players who can do what he can. suggesting that many others could do what he does if they just jacked up more shots is minimizing how good mcgrady is as a scorer.

mcgrady could, and should increase his efficiency as a scorer. but there aren't other players who could step into his role and do what he does. you would see ppfga's plummet for most players who try and step outside themselves and just jack up shots. you hear it all the time when a player goes to a bad team, people expect their scoring to dramatically increase because they'll have the green light. it almost never happens. most players have a cap. few (none?) could do it as effortlessly as mcgrady.


----------



## DK

kflo said:


> dk - the reason people are taking you to task for that comment is because it's essential to the discussion. to trivialize mcgrady's abilities as a scorer is to trivialize his abilities as a player. part of what makes him special is his unique abilities as a scorer. it's unique, because there aren't many other players who can do what he can. suggesting that many others could do what he does if they just jacked up more shots is minimizing how good mcgrady is as a scorer.
> 
> mcgrady could, and should increase his efficiency as a scorer. but there aren't other players who could step into his role and do what he does. you would see ppfga's plummet for most players who try and step outside themselves and just jack up shots. you hear it all the time when a player goes to a bad team, people expect their scoring to dramatically increase because they'll have the green light. it almost never happens. most players have a cap. few (none?) could do it as effortlessly as mcgrady.


I'm not saying that you should discredit that one sentence. I'm saying you should credit everything I say, rather than try to forget about it. Have you noticed that despite the entire post I wrote, that's the only sentence anyone has paid attention to?

I agree that there aren't a great amount of players who's efficiency would remain as high as McGrady's, again, it's obvious a lot of people here failed english otherwise they would understand the simple concept of EXAGGERATION.

Get over it, guys, and try to rebut anything else I've been saying. This is starting to... no... this is already ridiculous.


----------



## kflo

i'd like to understand more about your position on assists. i believe you've said they're meaningless?


----------



## HB

T-mac more talented player
PP more crafty player

Both get their job done and are elite guards in the league
Of course PP happens to lead his team deeper in the playoffs though

Me out!


----------



## DK

kflo said:


> i'd like to understand more about your position on assists. i believe you've said they're meaningless?


Sure. Assists, when evaluating one player's ability, are meaningless because they are relevant to team success, rather than individual skill. This is not to say that the worst passers will always reflect at the top of the assists column; quite the contrary, it is _generally_ true that good passers will have good assist totals. However, it has not been proven that high assist totals, when field goals made are relatively equal, have a defining impact on a game's victor.

The teams in the lottery averaged 1748 assists each.
The teams in the playoffs averaged 1742 assists each.

The difference is minimal, but that's the very thing I'm stressing. If teams in the lottery averaged a huge amount of assists more as compared to playoff teams, then it'd show that assists were detrimental to a team's success. By showing how close in proximity assists are within good teams and bad teams, it shows that it has very little impact.

Subjectively, the same is true. That is the difference between offensive rebounds and assists: Bad teams average many more offensive rebounds than good teams because they miss more shots (and therefore have more opportunities). Even making any sort of adjustment, assists don't have much relevance in terms of deciding the win-loss impact of any given team.


----------



## Timmons

Tracy McGrady!! Guy is a leader, can pass, drive, shoot, and defend a little. 

Guy lights up my Nuggets for 50+ on a consistant basis it seems like. Maybe Denver should of traded for him because he can heat up in THE CAN like nobody's business.


----------



## DK

thetobin73 said:


> Guy lights up my Nuggets for 50+ on a consistant basis it seems like. Maybe Denver should of traded for him because he can heat up in THE CAN like nobody's business.


Now, if I had written this, I'd be crucified, since nobody here knows what exaggeration is.

McGrady really lit up the Nuggets once this season (the game he scored 45). He scored 32 in another game and blocked 3 shots, but didn't do anything else well. In the other game, he was 1-11 with 14 points (12-14 from the line). He always shoots well from three against them, though...


----------



## Pinball

thetobin73 said:


> Maybe Denver should of traded for him because he can heat up in THE CAN like nobody's business.


I've been known to heat up in the can myself.


----------



## tone wone

DK said:


> Now, if I had written this, I'd be crucified, since nobody here knows what exaggeration is.
> 
> McGrady really lit up the Nuggets once this season (the game he scored 45). He scored 32 in another game and blocked 3 shots, but didn't do anything else well. In the other game, he was 1-11 with 14 points (12-14 from the line). He always shoots well from three against them, though...


 he does score well against them...

I remember that 51 point game....he looked liked Dan Marjerle that night....Orlando still losted


----------



## Timmons

DK said:


> Now, if I had written this, I'd be crucified, since nobody here knows what exaggeration is.
> 
> McGrady really lit up the Nuggets once this season (the game he scored 45). He scored 32 in another game and blocked 3 shots, but didn't do anything else well. In the other game, he was 1-11 with 14 points (12-14 from the line). He always shoots well from three against them, though...


Hey, I said *seems like*. I really like T-Mac and he can torch the 3's against Denver for some reason. Guy needs to play in the CAN = Pepsi Center.


----------



## Spriggan

DK said:


> Now, if I had written this, I'd be crucified, since nobody here knows what exaggeration is.
> 
> McGrady really lit up the Nuggets once this season (the game he scored 45). He scored 32 in another game and blocked 3 shots, but didn't do anything else well. In the other game, he was 1-11 with 14 points (12-14 from the line). He always shoots well from three against them, though...


Your "me against the world" act is tiresome. You keep on harping on about your witty "exaggerations" and how people just.... _can't_... seem to understand you (has even one person?). Yet, you've failed to revise this "exaggeration" in such a way that changes your original point. Even if you were exaggerating for emphasis, that doesn't really change your point, now does it? You obviously believe McGrady to be a fairly average scorer, "exaggeration" or not, and I find that to be just as ridiculous as your original statement.

And did you not read a thing kflo posted? That lone comment was brought up because the very thing that makes McGrady special is his mercurial scoring ability. So whatever exaggeration there may have been on your part is ultimately irrelevant, because you are still demeaning the very thing that makes him such a special player in most people's eyes, and that's what people are targetting. It would be like calling Iverson slow-footed, or Jason Kidd an average passer. Perhaps one day, you'll finally see that.


----------



## Pioneer10

DK said:


> Sure. Assists, when evaluating one player's ability, are meaningless because they are relevant to team success, rather than individual skill. This is not to say that the worst passers will always reflect at the top of the assists column; quite the contrary, it is _generally_ true that good passers will have good assist totals. However, it has not been proven that high assist totals, when field goals made are relatively equal, have a defining impact on a game's victor.
> 
> The teams in the lottery averaged 1748 assists each.
> The teams in the playoffs averaged 1742 assists each.
> 
> The difference is minimal, but that's the very thing I'm stressing. If teams in the lottery averaged a huge amount of assists more as compared to playoff teams, then it'd show that assists were detrimental to a team's success. By showing how close in proximity assists are within good teams and bad teams, it shows that it has very little impact.
> 
> Subjectively, the same is true. That is the difference between offensive rebounds and assists: Bad teams average many more offensive rebounds than good teams because they miss more shots (and therefore have more opportunities). Even making any sort of adjustment, assists don't have much relevance in terms of deciding the win-loss impact of any given team.


 But if you look at players who average more then say 9 apg which would be considered a good assist total, the teams with these players from my quick glance over the last 10 years made the playoffs a significanlty high percentage (approximately 80%) of the time.

I don't think team stats fit well individual stats in cases like these


----------



## DK

Pioneer10 said:


> But if you look at players who average more then say 9 apg which would be considered a good assist total, the teams with these players from my quick glance over the last 10 years made the playoffs a significanlty high percentage (approximately 80%) of the time.
> 
> I don't think team stats fit well individual stats in cases like these


Look closer.

The great passers- Stockton, Kidd, Magic, Isiah, Oscar, for example- had teams that always made the playoffs, because they were so good and did much more than pass. I don't think I need to defend that, because it's obvious. They were helping their teams win not because of their pass, but because of everything else they did (and maybe some of because their passing ability).

Taking out those six, the all-time single season leaders in assists become:

Kevin Porter- 1979- averaged 13.4 assists a game for Detroit, Detroit went 30-52
Mark Jackson- 1997- averaged 11.4 assists a game for Indiana and Denver, Denver went 21-61 (52 GP by Jackson), Indiana went 39-43 (30 GP)
Norm Nixon- 1984- averaged 11.1 assists a game for San Diego, SD went 30-52
Tiny Archibald- 1973- averaged 11.4 assists a game for Kansas City, KC went 36-46
Guy Rodgers- 1967- averaged 11.2 assists a game for Chicago, Chicago went 33-48
Andre Miller- 2002- averaged 10.9 assists a game for Cleveland, Cleveland went 29-53
Mark Jackson- 1988- averaged 10.6 assists a game for New York, NY went 38-44
Muggsy Bogues- 1990- averaged 10.7 assists a game for Charlotte, Charlotte went 19-63
Steve Nash- 2005- you all know what Nash did. However, he had some of the best talent in the NBA (Amare 26 PPG on 56%, Marion, Q-Rich, JJ) as his starting 5. It's hard to say if it was Nash or the other four, I'd lean towards the other four.
Sleepy Floyd- 1987- averaged 10.3 assists a game for Golden State, GS went 42-40

There are a couple of good seasons as you go further down the list... Kevin Johnson in his prime (although, again, he was altering the scoreboard with more than a pass)...Terry Porter had a good assist season in 1988, with the team with Clyde Drexler and Jerome Kersey (when he was still good)... That's (for the most part) it. For every KJ season, there's three seasons with 30-win teams at the top.

Other than the Hall of Famers, Kevin Johnson, and a talent-laden 2005 Suns team, none of the most prolific assist men sniff greatness, and most of them have 33 or less wins.


----------



## Pioneer10

^ I still don't get you're point though. How many of the teams with great scorers (i.e. Kobe this year, Tmac for the last few years, even AI) have been on mediocre and lottery teams. I could create a huge list of big time scorers who have been on mediocre teams

I think it's obvious that you can't just look at one stat to determine a players value but I still dont' see why assists can't be part of it. What distinguished Magic Johnson he was efficient but was not a prolific scorer but his assists were huge. Assists alone, which you stated are meaningless, might not mean much but in conjunction with other stats sure can help tell a player's value


----------



## kflo

good passing obviously helps an offense. the ability to break down a defense obviously helps an offense. a good pass that leads to a basket obviously helps an offense.

assists may not correlate well with wins, but they certainly help teams win. a good pass, that leads to a score, helps a team win. that seems like a pretty unimpeachable statement. if we accept that statement, assists can't be meaningless. assists are often the result of a positive play by a player. the more positive things you do for your team, the more you are helping give your team a chance to win.

i think assists need better context - i'd love to see ppfga on assist shot attempts. but the assist isn't a meaningless stat. with individual players, it does tend to correlate with a players ability to create opportunities for others. and that's good, and that helps teams win. it's simply another tool to help evaluate the strengths of a player. you see a good pass that leads to a score - common sense tells you that was a good thing. well, common sense would lead you to not ignore assists then. how can we evaluate players like bird, magic, stockton, lebron even, without considering assists? how can you accurately measure their impact? it's impossible if you simply discount assists as meaningless.


----------



## Hoopla

DK said:


> Sure. Assists, when evaluating one player's ability, are meaningless because they are relevant to team success, rather than individual skill.


I don't understand the logic here. Just because assists are relevant to team success, that means they should be considered meaningless in evaluating a player's ability? A player's scoring ability is certainly relevant to team success; does that make it meaningless to consider it when evaluating the individual?



> However, it has not been proven that high assist totals, when field goals made are relatively equal, have a defining impact on a game's victor.


Well of course, because you are making the assumption that FGs made are equal. If that's the case, then obviously the amount of points scored will be around the same.



> The teams in the lottery averaged 1748 assists each.
> The teams in the playoffs averaged 1742 assists each.
> 
> By showing how close in proximity assists are within good teams and bad teams, it shows that it has very little impact.


Didn't you say earlier that assists are relevant to team success? I think you just pulled a flip-Ginobili. :naughty:

Regardless, your use of statistics is faulty. If you just look at total points scored, Detroit would come in near the bottom. When looking at the value of a statistic, you can't just analyze totals by one team; you have to compare it to their opponents, because they played under the same other variables (ie, pace).

If you look at team assist differentials per game (vs. their opponents) over the regular season, 4 of the top 7 teams are San Antonio, Phoenix, Miami, and Detroit.


----------

