Seems like every time i look up pierce is having another 40percent shooting night. With a few turnovers as well. I went to look at the stats to make sure my eyes didn't deceive me and i was right. Almost every one on the team is shooting a better percentage than pierce *41percent on the year*.
Despite a slump to start the year, Pierce is still shooting more efficiently than Jeff Green, the player many want to replace him.
Actually, Green is shooting 43.5%, on only 7.7 FGA per game. Pierce is shooting 41.7% on 14.4 FGA per game. The shot attempts is important because both are scorers who need shot volume to get into a good rhythm. Don't mean to knock Pierce, but I do have defend Green by wondering how well Pierce would be playing if he took an entire season off, played uneven minutes, had less shot attempts, and had fewer plays called for him.
Paul Pierce: .477 eFG%, .555 TS%
Jeff Green: .467 eFG%, .513 TS%
So, again, in a down year, Pierce is more efficient than Green. That's without getting into the various other areas where Pierce is better.
Would more shot attempts help Green? His career averages are .483 eFG% and .513 TS%, so I'm not so sure. (Pierce's career numbers: .498 eFG% and .568 TS%. He hasn't been below a .499 eFG% since 2004.)
Even when slumping, Paul Pierce is better at every single aspect of basketball than Jeff Green.
Yeah. Pierce is and probably always will be a better player than Jeff Green.
Doesn't mean Jeff is necessarily a bad player -- or at least that he always will be one.
But I think often people get too caught up in how good Jeff Green "looks" at times. He makes a nice drive or gets a dunk, and he looks the part, and suddenly people start thinking he should turn into Rudy Gay.
The sooner we start having reasonable expectations for Green (especially that aren't tied to his contract), the sooner everybody involved will be better off.