Argument: Pierce vs. Lebron (help!)

[Schupac]

"Owned" is too strong a word.

But LarBrd33 I think you are giving El BJ too much credit and his teammates not enough.  It's not fair to say they were all horrible.  Statistically for example, Big Z Ilgauskas is much more productive than Perkins, whom I would definitely not say is worse than horrible.

If you want to talk about overall career arc, we will have to wait a decade or so.  But if you want to talk about right now?  Paul Pierce, on the biggest of stages, outperformed Lebron.  That game 7, toe to toe, was decided by those two players.  And the one in green won.

So right now, in my opinion, Paul is the better player.

[Sweet17]

But LarBrd33 I think you are giving El BJ too much credit and his teammates not enough.  It's not fair to say they were all horrible.  Statistically for example, Big Z Ilgauskas is much more productive than Perkins, whom I would definitely not say is worse than horrible.

Some fans are reluctant to recognize just how good PP was. That series was remarkable because Ray Allen quite frankly SUCKED. Not only wasn't he an all-star in that series - he wasn't even above average.

[Schupac]

But LarBrd33 I think you are giving El BJ too much credit and his teammates not enough.  It's not fair to say they were all horrible.  Statistically for example, Big Z Ilgauskas is much more productive than Perkins, whom I would definitely not say is worse than horrible.

Some fans are reluctant to recognize just how good PP was. That series was remarkable because Ray Allen quite frankly SUCKED. Not only wasn't he an all-star in that series - he wasn't even above average.

I agree.  I think people underestimate the emotional value of having Pierce go toe to toe with Lebron.  So many other players would come up short, but Paul didn't and it boosted the entire team, not to mention made my whole year.

Oh, and I absolutely hate how people talk about how El BJ has no one around him.  He has had a whole parade of players around him who are not stars, but are pretty dang good.  And all of them seem to deteriorate around him.  Maybe it's because they aren't used to being an afterthought in a Broncentric system.

[MMacOH]

I think most people on this board who know me know that I think Pierce gets just as many calls as Lebron.  I don't get mad when Pierce gets away with his antics, as Lebron gets away with the same things.  Case in point.  http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/?p=4516

[LarBrd33]

i respect the fact you guys are fans of Pierce.  I am too.   

But his three best teammates in that series were basically Wally, Delonte and Z.  Replace Z with Big Al and you have the makings of the 2006-07 Celtics team that finished second to last in the NBA.  Take LeBron off that team and it wins 16 games.

But instead he came 5 points from owning the Celtics by his lonesome.

Pierce is probably a better shooter.  Other than that... LeBron is better in nearly every way.   

[BballTim]

And this was his response:

"I won't address the specific points of your arguments until you address the broad one of mine: The 2008 Boston Celtics were a vastly superior team than the Cleveland Cavaliers 1-12, yet the Cavs took them to a very close game 7. Much of this can be attributed to the incredible performance of Lebron James, especially in Game 7. So how does this relate to Pierce 'owning' him?"


Now, what should I come back with???

To be honest, I think you backed yourself into a corner with that "owned" comment.  Pretty strong word and, personally, Pierce didn't own LeBron.

Yeah, you can argue all you want but Donny's right. The Pierce and LeBron matchup is as even as it gets head to head. Maybe saying that LeBron didn't get the best of Pierce would be a bit better than "owned" because "owned" never happened.

  It's all a matter of perspective. If Bruce Bowen held LeBron to 5 points a game, would you say he owned LeBron, that he played him to a standstill, or both?

[Roy Hobbs]

And this was his response:

"I won't address the specific points of your arguments until you address the broad one of mine: The 2008 Boston Celtics were a vastly superior team than the Cleveland Cavaliers 1-12, yet the Cavs took them to a very close game 7. Much of this can be attributed to the incredible performance of Lebron James, especially in Game 7. So how does this relate to Pierce 'owning' him?"


Now, what should I come back with???

To be honest, I think you backed yourself into a corner with that "owned" comment.  Pretty strong word and, personally, Pierce didn't own LeBron.

Yeah, you can argue all you want but Donny's right. The Pierce and LeBron matchup is as even as it gets head to head. Maybe saying that LeBron didn't get the best of Pierce would be a bit better than "owned" because "owned" never happened.

  It's all a matter of perspective. If Bruce Bowen held LeBron to 5 points a game, would you say he owned LeBron, that he played him to a standstill, or both?

You could say he "owned Lebron defensively", sure. 

That's not what happened with Pierce and Lebron, though.  Lebron outscored, outpassed, and usually outrebounded Paul, and shot a similar percentage.  The series went 7 games.  Pierce didn't "own" him; it's giving Pierce the benefit of the doubt to say he played him evenly.

[Schupac]

i respect the fact you guys are fans of Pierce.  I am too.   

But his three best teammates in that series were basically Wally, Delonte and Z.  Replace Z with Big Al and you have the makings of the 2006-07 Celtics team that finished second to last in the NBA.  Take LeBron off that team and it wins 16 games.

But instead he came 5 points from owning the Celtics by his lonesome.

Pierce is probably a better shooter.  Other than that... LeBron is better in nearly every way.   

A good analogy, but not entirely fair.  Pierce was injured for much of that season, along with many other players.  The Cs team was full of rookies whereas the Cavs have a handful of veterans, guys who did show up big like Joe Smith.  The rest of the Cavs team was chosen specifically to complement Lebron, Pierce never had that luxury.

I'm sorry, but ever since Lebron came into this league, I think he has been overrated.  Lebron takes the ball up more than half the time, and he's a small forward.  Every possession runs through him.  The GM has built a team with other players to complement him (and not done that great a job... but that's another story).  Everything has been about him.  And when you do that, it prevents another star from emerging.  How is another player supposed to develop into the "sidekick" Lebron needs when he is an afterthought?

PP's stats might be closer to Lebrons if he held the ball for 12 seconds every posession.  Lebrons stats are inflated because everything goes through him.



If they played one on one, Lebron most likely wins even with fair officiating (and no, PP gets calls but no one in this league gets calls like Lebron).  But I don't care.  In that series, Paul was the better player.  And we're talking about that series.  Not the 07 season, not career, not the overall year.  We're talking about that series.

[BballTim]

And this was his response:

"I won't address the specific points of your arguments until you address the broad one of mine: The 2008 Boston Celtics were a vastly superior team than the Cleveland Cavaliers 1-12, yet the Cavs took them to a very close game 7. Much of this can be attributed to the incredible performance of Lebron James, especially in Game 7. So how does this relate to Pierce 'owning' him?"


Now, what should I come back with???

To be honest, I think you backed yourself into a corner with that "owned" comment.  Pretty strong word and, personally, Pierce didn't own LeBron.

Yeah, you can argue all you want but Donny's right. The Pierce and LeBron matchup is as even as it gets head to head. Maybe saying that LeBron didn't get the best of Pierce would be a bit better than "owned" because "owned" never happened.

  It's all a matter of perspective. If Bruce Bowen held LeBron to 5 points a game, would you say he owned LeBron, that he played him to a standstill, or both?

You could say he "owned Lebron defensively", sure. 

That's not what happened with Pierce and Lebron, though.  Lebron outscored, outpassed, and usually outrebounded Paul, and shot a similar percentage.  The series went 7 games.  Pierce didn't "own" him; it's giving Pierce the benefit of the doubt to say he played him evenly.

  For the record, I never said that Paul owned LBJ. But if Paul hit his averages and held Lebron to below LeBron's averages then he won the matchup even if his stats were less than LeBron's.

[rondohondo]

Lebron is an athletic freak, thats why he is so good. If he had Pierce's speed and athleticism he wouldn't be half the player he is.   In my opinion Pierce is a better all around player.

1)Pierce is a better 3pt shooter
2) Pierce is a better free throw shooter
3) Pierce is a better defender
4) Pierce has a better mid range game

Now if Lebron ever develops his outside game he will be one of the best players of all time. He still has time, but if he doesn't do it in the next year or 2 he may never reach the jordan,bird,magic level .