Paul Pierce not included in ESPN's top 20 players...right or wrong?

[Who]

If you trade Love for Pierce, I wonder if the Wolves win less games. I also wonder if the C's win more games.

Think about it.

Rondo
Ray
Daniels or Green
KG
Love for 73 games, 36 minutes a contest

vs

Ridnour
Johnson
Pierce
Beasley
Milicic

Minnesota undoubtedly win more games with Paul Pierce than Kevin Love.

The Celtics probably would win more games too but that is more about the quality depth on the wing vs the lack of quality big men around KG. Plus, Kevin himself, who is about the perfect defensive complement to a guy like Kevin Love. The quickness to defend the troublesome fours with the size to contest fives where needed.

Win win.

[Fafnir]

If you trade Love for Pierce, I wonder if the Wolves win less games. I also wonder if the C's win more games.

Think about it.

Rondo
Ray
Daniels or Green
KG
Love for 73 games, 36 minutes a contest

vs

Ridnour
Johnson
Pierce
Beasley
Milicic

Minnesota undoubtedly win more games with Paul Pierce than Kevin Love.

The Celtics probably would win more games too but that is more about the quality depth on the wing vs the lack of quality big men around KG. Plus, Kevin himself, who is about the perfect defensive complement to a guy like Kevin Love. The quickness to defend the troublesome fours with the size to contest fives where needed.

Win win.

Plus spacing concerns caused by Rondo would be far less with two big men who can shoot jump shots at an incredibly efficent clip.

[mgent]

2. Helping your team win has nothing to do with being a good player?

Helping your team win has a lot to do with being a good player. I never said it didn't. But, all things being equal (as in level of supporting casts), would Pierce's greater experience and savvy help his team more than Love's skill, athleticism, and ability? That one is really ambiguous.

Well that's the debate, and in my opinion, yes.  I respect that your opinion is different.  I just don't understand why, if you're looking at equal supporting casts, that you would look at who puts up better numbers on a bad team before you look at who is better at advancing a good team in the playoffs.

[Kane3387]

Say you trade Love for Pierce, I don't see how the Wolves win less games.

In basketball, I can't see "value" defined as anything other than helping your team win games/banners.

I get the "singular force" argument, but I think there's a difference between a good singular force (Dwight) and good stats on a bad team.  The question shouldn't be, "Would Pierce put up better numbers on a bad team?" it should be, "Does Love have the same value on any team, good or bad?"

If you trade Love for Pierce, I wonder if the Wolves win less games. I also wonder if the C's win more games.

Think about it.

Rondo
Ray
Daniels or Green
KG
Love for 73 games, 36 minutes a contest

vs

Ridnour
Johnson
Pierce
Beasley
Milicic

Honestly, I don't see how the wolves win more games. On the C's, Love replicates Pierce's scoring output, plus the C's rebounding jumps 2 or 3 levels. The defense might drop some, but who knows how Love (a pretty great teammate and hard worker by all accounts) reacts to KG's presence with his defense output.

And when the offense breaks down, or you need an isolation score who are you giving the ball too? This question might criticize Pierce a bit, but he is without a doubt our best isolation scorer. That is why we got as far as we did last year and not farther all in one. We aren't a better team with Kevin Love on out team instead of Pierce.

[Kane3387]

If you trade Love for Pierce, I wonder if the Wolves win less games. I also wonder if the C's win more games.

Think about it.

Rondo
Ray

Not so sure about this... Pierce shoots the three well at this point in his career. Neither Green or especially Daniels is a great outside shot.

I don't agree that Love & Green/Daniels space the floor better then Pierce & Baby/Jermaine.
Daniels or Green
KG
Love for 73 games, 36 minutes a contest

vs

Ridnour
Johnson
Pierce
Beasley
Milicic

Minnesota undoubtedly win more games with Paul Pierce than Kevin Love.

The Celtics probably would win more games too but that is more about the quality depth on the wing vs the lack of quality big men around KG. Plus, Kevin himself, who is about the perfect defensive complement to a guy like Kevin Love. The quickness to defend the troublesome fours with the size to contest fives where needed.

Win win.

Plus spacing concerns caused by Rondo would be far less with two big men who can shoot jump shots at an incredibly efficent clip.

[Who]

Say you trade Love for Pierce, I don't see how the Wolves win less games.

In basketball, I can't see "value" defined as anything other than helping your team win games/banners.

I get the "singular force" argument, but I think there's a difference between a good singular force (Dwight) and good stats on a bad team.  The question shouldn't be, "Would Pierce put up better numbers on a bad team?" it should be, "Does Love have the same value on any team, good or bad?"

If you trade Love for Pierce, I wonder if the Wolves win less games. I also wonder if the C's win more games.

Think about it.

Rondo
Ray
Daniels or Green
KG
Love for 73 games, 36 minutes a contest

vs

Ridnour
Johnson
Pierce
Beasley
Milicic

Honestly, I don't see how the wolves win more games. On the C's, Love replicates Pierce's scoring output, plus the C's rebounding jumps 2 or 3 levels. The defense might drop some, but who knows how Love (a pretty great teammate and hard worker by all accounts) reacts to KG's presence with his defense output.

And when the offense breaks down, or you need an isolation score who are you giving the ball too? This question might criticize Pierce a bit, but he is without a doubt our best isolation scorer. That is why we got as far as we did last year and not farther all in one. We aren't a better team with Kevin Love on out team instead of Pierce.

Rondo = he'd be the only quality shot-creator on the team.

He'd have a larger role offensively.

[throwedoff]

Pierce should definently be in the top 20 he had guys like Ginoblli Duncan nd Love ahead of him. He's better then Ginoblli nd better then Dunacan at this point of their careers. Pierce is coming off one of his better years efficiency wise he should be top 20

[Kane3387]

Say you trade Love for Pierce, I don't see how the Wolves win less games.

In basketball, I can't see "value" defined as anything other than helping your team win games/banners.

I get the "singular force" argument, but I think there's a difference between a good singular force (Dwight) and good stats on a bad team.  The question shouldn't be, "Would Pierce put up better numbers on a bad team?" it should be, "Does Love have the same value on any team, good or bad?"

If you trade Love for Pierce, I wonder if the Wolves win less games. I also wonder if the C's win more games.

Think about it.

Rondo
Ray
Daniels or Green
KG
Love for 73 games, 36 minutes a contest

vs

Ridnour
Johnson
Pierce
Beasley
Milicic

Honestly, I don't see how the wolves win more games. On the C's, Love replicates Pierce's scoring output, plus the C's rebounding jumps 2 or 3 levels. The defense might drop some, but who knows how Love (a pretty great teammate and hard worker by all accounts) reacts to KG's presence with his defense output.

And when the offense breaks down, or you need an isolation score who are you giving the ball too? This question might criticize Pierce a bit, but he is without a doubt our best isolation scorer. That is why we got as far as we did last year and not farther all in one. We aren't a better team with Kevin Love on out team instead of Pierce.

Rondo = he'd be the only quality shot-creator on the team.

He'd have a larger role offensively.

With his reluctance to get fouled and lack of a consistent jump shot I don't like that. But that's me.

[nickagneta]

For those saying that Pierce is without a question better than Manu Ginobili, have you compared what each means to his team and taken a look at their stats?

Manu's Per36 numbers are better than Pierce's almost across the board except for shooting percentage the last two years. He also had a better PER while being pretty much the 3rd best SG in the league the last 2 years. Manu is also probably the most important player on his team when it comes to their ability to be contenders anymore. I'm not so sure I can say the same thing about Pierce.

Anyway, I think they are fairly close in overall ability but I think at this point, Manu effects the outcome of the game more for his team than Pierce so I would have him ahead of Pierce. Not by much mind you.

I just think its not as clear cut as some are making it out to be. Manu is a hell of a player.

[BASS_THUMPER]

                     paul been hated on for years....

         people told me he was a "poor man's kobe"

   all kinda dissin..

he in my top 3 and thats all that matters...

[PosImpos]

For those saying that Pierce is without a question better than Manu Ginobili, have you compared what each means to his team and taken a look at their stats?

Manu's Per36 numbers are better than Pierce's almost across the board except for shooting percentage the last two years. He also had a better PER while being pretty much the 3rd best SG in the league the last 2 years. Manu is also probably the most important player on his team when it comes to their ability to be contenders anymore. I'm not so sure I can say the same thing about Pierce.

Anyway, I think they are fairly close in overall ability but I think at this point, Manu effects the outcome of the game more for his team than Pierce so I would have him ahead of Pierce. Not by much mind you.

I just think its not as clear cut as some are making it out to be. Manu is a hell of a player.

Manu was the clear MVP of a 61 win team last year.  Paul was one of a cast of rotating best 3 or 4 players on a 56 win team last year.

Cut and dry to me.

Not trying to diminish what Pierce means to the Celtics, or his abilities as a player, but Manu is just a better overall player who carried the Spurs at times last year -- even hitting clutch shots left and right in the playoffs to keep them alive against the Grizzlies when he had an elbow injury.

[indeedproceed]

Also let me just say I'm not trying to knock what pierce is to us. He a perfect fit, and a neigh indispensable cog in the best machine in the NBA, as long as it has all it's parts.

[Kane3387]

For those saying that Pierce is without a question better than Manu Ginobili, have you compared what each means to his team and taken a look at their stats?

Manu's Per36 numbers are better than Pierce's almost across the board except for shooting percentage the last two years. He also had a better PER while being pretty much the 3rd best SG in the league the last 2 years. Manu is also probably the most important player on his team when it comes to their ability to be contenders anymore. I'm not so sure I can say the same thing about Pierce.

Anyway, I think they are fairly close in overall ability but I think at this point, Manu effects the outcome of the game more for his team than Pierce so I would have him ahead of Pierce. Not by much mind you.

I just think its not as clear cut as some are making it out to be. Manu is a hell of a player.

Manu was the clear MVP of a 61 win team last year.  Paul was one of a cast of rotating best 3 or 4 players on a 56 win team last year.

Cut and dry to me.

Not trying to diminish what Pierce means to the Celtics, or his abilities as a player, but Manu is just a better overall player who carried the Spurs at times last year -- even hitting clutch shots left and right in the playoffs to keep them alive against the Grizzlies when he had an elbow injury.

Yeah but sadly he hasn't been there for his team when it mattered most in the playoffs. Durability needs to be factored in here.