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

[PosImpos]

Right.  I wouldn't put anybody on the Celtics in the top 20.  However, I think ESPN was correct in putting all of the Big 4 in the top 40.

  Even if you don't particularly like Rondo or Pierce, if you include defense as well as everything else there aren't 20 players better than KG.

I'm a big fan of Pierce and Rondo.  I include defense as well as everything else, but it isn't everything.  Indeed, it's only half the game, and while KG's tangible and intangible effects on a defense are very valuable, in a vacuum I'm comfortable saying that there are 20 players in the league right now who are more valuable on a night to night basis.  

Put a different way, on a team already filled with highly talented players (particularly scorers), KG is a lot more valuable than a guy like, say, LaMarcus Aldridge or Kevin Love.  If you're picking building blocks for your team (#1, #2, #3), however, KG is significantly less valuable than those guys.  He's much more complimentary than foundational at this point, and in my opinion should be ranked lower.


Rondo is on the cusp of the top 20 for me, but his well documented and much discussed / argued about weaknesses on the offensive end and his maddening inconsistency (even on defense) place him behind guys who are capable of carrying their team on a nightly basis.  Again, with Rondo I think it's a matter of him being extremely valuable in the right situation, but having a smaller individual, dominant impact in a vacuum when you're looking at his individual skills.


As for Pierce, I think he's a very solid overall player, but his game and athleticism have dropped off enough that he's outside the top 20 at this point.  He's still top 5 at his position, but only just.  A major factor that I take into consideration with Pierce, as I do with KG and Ray, is that while they are very good players, they aren't capable of sustaining a very high level of play for more than 30 minutes or so a night.  We've seen the last couple of years how they often run out of gas.  That has to factor into their ranking as well.

[Eja117]

My initial thought is that he makes it. I mean there are ten all star starters, then ten immediate back ups and I figure he's in that group. He's a pretty sure fire All star.

[BballTim]

Right.  I wouldn't put anybody on the Celtics in the top 20.  However, I think ESPN was correct in putting all of the Big 4 in the top 40.

  Even if you don't particularly like Rondo or Pierce, if you include defense as well as everything else there aren't 20 players better than KG.

I'm a big fan of Pierce and Rondo.  I include defense as well as everything else, but it isn't everything.  Indeed, it's only half the game, and while KG's tangible and intangible effects on a defense are very valuable, in a vacuum I'm comfortable saying that there are 20 players in the league right now who are more valuable on a night to night basis.  

  The Pierce/Rondo comment wasn't meant the way you took it. More like "even if you ignore arguments that PP/RR are top 20 players, KG is one".

Put a different way, on a team already filled with highly talented players (particularly scorers), KG is a lot more valuable than a guy like, say, LaMarcus Aldridge or Kevin Love.  If you're picking building blocks for your team (#1, #2, #3), however, KG is significantly less valuable than those guys.  He's much more complimentary than foundational at this point, and in my opinion should be ranked lower.

  KG isn't going to be a #1 scorer, that's clear. But I think that if you could put him or Love on each team in the league, more teams would be better with KG than with Love.

Rondo is on the cusp of the top 20 for me, but his well documented and much discussed / argued about weaknesses on the offensive end and his maddening inconsistency (even on defense) place him behind guys who are capable of carrying their team on a nightly basis.  Again, with Rondo I think it's a matter of him being extremely valuable in the right situation, but having a smaller individual, dominant impact in a vacuum when you're looking at his individual skills.

  I think that a few years ago Rondo's inconsistency was based on youth, the last couple of years it's been based on health. I also think that people don't realize how much he contributes to the team because other people score more than him. He's capable of dominating games with his passing, scoring, rebounding and, at times, his defense. If it's not the scoring though, it goes somewhat unnoticed.

As for Pierce, I think he's a very solid overall player, but his game and athleticism have dropped off enough that he's outside the top 20 at this point.  He's still top 5 at his position, but only just.  A major factor that I take into consideration with Pierce, as I do with KG and Ray, is that while they are very good players, they aren't capable of sustaining a very high level of play for more than 30 minutes or so a night.  We've seen the last couple of years how they often run out of gas.  That has to factor into their ranking as well.

  I think that's somewhat true of Paul, more of Ray. He's probably outside the top 20, but not by a lot.

[bdm860]

According to ESPN:

We asked 91 experts to rate each player on a 0-to-10 scale, in terms of "the current quality of each player."

But does that mean at the conclusion of last season or the projection for this upcoming season (that will likely never happen)?  I'd go with projection for next season.


Really any of 14-25, I could see rearranging in just about any order

14. Nash
15. Westbrook
16. Love
17. Rondo
18. Ginobili
19. Duncan
20. Randolph
21. Pierce
22. Garnett
23. Aldridge
24. Bosh
25. Horford


That seems to me like pretty much the 2nd tier stars (or 3rd tier, since I would break the first tier up into 1a and 1b).  It's here the list has transitioned from superstars to just all-stars.  With 3 Celtics in this tier, I think we're doing pretty good.  If you wanted to argue Pierce as high as 14, I would listen (but probably think it's a little too high).  As much as I think Pierce is better than Love, Rondo, or Westbrook right now, I think over the "phantom" 2012 season they would be better (assuming some more growth from them and some more decline from Pierce).  More of a tossup between Duncan, Nash, and Pierce, although I think he should he be higher than Garnett or Ginobili.  Also a tossup between Pierce and Randolph: I'm imagining a decline from Randolph if there was a season this year (the underdog success story usally fizzels out next season in my opinion), but I can see how others might think he's finally turned that corner.  Horford could be higher too, again I think it's more of a toss up with Pierce, depends on taste and bias. Aldridge and Bosh are the bottom of this tier in my opinion and I would definitely take Pierce over either next season.

Pierce's ranking is "fair", but I could see him being a little higher too.

[BballTim]

According to ESPN:

We asked 91 experts to rate each player on a 0-to-10 scale, in terms of "the current quality of each player."

But does that mean at the conclusion of last season or the projection for this upcoming season (that will likely never happen)?  I'd go with projection for next season.

  I'd think it was more the conclusion of last season, it would be pretty hard to predict how quickly many of the older players will drop off or how quickly some of the younger players will improve.

[ACF]

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=50160.msg1066490;topicseen#new

[mc34]

As for Pierce, I think he's a very solid overall player, but his game and athleticism have dropped off enough that he's outside the top 20 at this point.  He's still top 5 at his position, but only just.  A major factor that I take into consideration with Pierce, as I do with KG and Ray, is that while they are very good players, they aren't capable of sustaining a very high level of play for more than 30 minutes or so a night.  We've seen the last couple of years how they often run out of gas.  That has to factor into their ranking as well.

Curious, who would you take over Pierce as far as small forwards go? I'd rank him number 3 at his position, behind Lebron and Durant. Give me Pierce over Melo.

[Bahku]

Definitely wrong, though I'm sure with ESPN they're placing more than average emphasis on youth as a qualifying factor. Pierce should be top fifteen.

[indeedproceed]

Pierce isn't a top 20 player on ability alone. As a leader, lockerroom influence, and steady hand in high pressure situations, he is. Doesnt really answer the question in the thread title, but it's what I got.

[Kane3387]

Pierce isn't a top 20 player on ability alone. As a leader, lockerroom influence, and steady hand in high pressure situations, he is. Doesnt really answer the question in the thread title, but it's what I got.

It's Wrong. Neither Manu or Love are better then Pierce. Pierce gets you closer to a title then those two guys do.

To be honest with you neither does Westbrook, Rondo, or Nash in my opinion. I know people will debate this, but that's the way I think. And AT THIS POINT TODAY FOR A SINGLE SEASON I am taking Pierce over Griffin.

I would definitely pick Griffin over Pierce to start a team and build a franchise around but if I need a guy to add to my team to win a playoff series I am taking Pierce by a hair.

I just can't put Griffin as a better player right now then Pierce based on last year. Once you get passed the highlights and the great dunks I think Pierce brings more overall value to the table then all of these guys: Manu, KLove, Rajon, Russ, and Blake.

[indeedproceed]

Manu I agree on, but no one else. I'm not wrong. Athleticism and skill combined, Pierce is behind everyone you listed. Youth (in the regard of building a franchise) has nothing to do with it either. As a singular force, Pierce is behind all those guys (except Manu).

[Kane3387]

Manu I agree on, but no one else. I'm not wrong. Athleticism and skill combined, Pierce is behind everyone you listed. Youth (in the regard of building a franchise) has nothing to do with it either. As a singular force, Pierce is behind all those guys (except Manu).

I was saying wrong to the title of the thread.

The list is about the top players presently in basketball. Today I believe that Pierce brings more value to the table then all of those guys. His intangibles can't be overlooked. I'll stop while I am ahead though and we both can agree that Manu should not be in the top 20 over Pierce. 

[BballTim]

Manu I agree on, but no one else. I'm not wrong. Athleticism and skill combined, Pierce is behind everyone you listed. Youth (in the regard of building a franchise) has nothing to do with it either. As a singular force, Pierce is behind all those guys (except Manu).

  Athleticism and skill combined he may be behind them. Experience and savvy goes the other way.

[mgent]

Horribly, horribly wrong.  Pierce has been our best and most consistent player since KG went down in 09.

As much as I love Rondo, I don't think it's right to put him over KG and Pierce.  He's proven he CAN be better than them, but he isn't yet.

[indeedproceed]

Manu I agree on, but no one else. I'm not wrong. Athleticism and skill combined, Pierce is behind everyone you listed. Youth (in the regard of building a franchise) has nothing to do with it either. As a singular force, Pierce is behind all those guys (except Manu).

  Athleticism and skill combined he may be behind them. Experience and savvy goes the other way.

I think this goes to a further point in that Pierce has entered the fabled, "I'm not as good as I once was, but I'm good once as I ever was" zone. He's got mostly middling borderline all-star per-minute production, but he's also got big moment credentials.

He's 10x more valuable on a team that is a contender (no matter how increasingly remote) than he is on a team that is an outside shot at the playoffs. That's why as a singular force, Pierce ranks outside the top 20, but as a cog in a chip team, he is around the top 20 guys you would want.