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

[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.

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.

  I think he's entered the fabled "my contributions to wining games goes beyond my stats". I think he'd have a lot of value on a fringe playoff team, in terms of showing the other players how to do the little things to win, being a calming influence/leader, and making clutch plays. I don't think "puts up big numbers on weak teams" necessarily trumps "valuable player on a contending team" in terms of deciding who's the better player.

[mgent]

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.

Those 3 things aside, I still don't see how he misses the list when you look at defense, passing, rebounding, and shooting.

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

I'd do it more like that.

[Who]

I've got Pierce somewhere between #12 and #16.

[mgent]

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.

So you're basically saying he's better at giving a team big wins than big stats?  Not sure how that translates into "better overall."

[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.

Those 3 things aside, I still don't see how he misses the list when you look at defense, passing, rebounding, and shooting.

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

I'd do it more like that.

Yeah, I'd put Love higher, but I think you nailed it included Aldridge (which ESPN did not for some reason)...that looks about right.

[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.

So you're basically saying he's better at giving a team big wins than big stats?  Not sure how that translates into "better overall."

I'm not advocating a stat stuffer=better argument here, cuz then you're including guys like Eric Gordon.

I'm saying Kevin Love, Blake Griffin are better players more consistently than Pierce is. But I would also have say pretty confidently that Pierce is right there in the 17-20 range.

[mgent]

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?"

[mgent]

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.

So you're basically saying he's better at giving a team big wins than big stats?  Not sure how that translates into "better overall."

I'm not advocating a stat stuffer=better argument here, cuz then you're including guys like Eric Gordon.

I'm saying Kevin Love, Blake Griffin are better players more consistently than Pierce is. But I would also have say pretty confidently that Pierce is right there in the 17-20 range.

Yeah, but the way you supported your argument was by saying Love is a better player than Pierce on a non-contender.  The same could probably be said about Kobe if you took him off the Lakers, and look at where he's ranked.

That shouldn't matter.  Some guys are destined to put up good stats on bad teams, and some guys are good at making their teammates better.  You can't rank them in separate categories.

[indeedproceed]

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.

[indeedproceed]

The same could probably be said about Kobe if you took him off the Lakers, and look at where he's ranked.

Yeah I think there is some truth there. Kobe however managed to lead the league in FGA's, despite playing on a team with no less than 3 potential 18 ppg scorers.

So, I mean..how much more of a role could Kobe take on with a lesser team? He's gonna basically be the same guy he is now.

[mgent]

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.

I honestly don't know, it's kinda blurry when you're comparing two teams on opposite sides of the spectrum, and two players that don't even play the same position.

All I was saying is it's not fair to compare guys based on who would be better on a bad team by themselves, when the goal is to win games.  It's not about singular forces, it's a TEAM game.  Bottom line is Love might be that good but he hasn't proven anything close to guys like Pierce and Manu.

[indeedproceed]

I honestly don't know, it's kinda blurry when you're comparing two teams on opposite sides of the spectrum, and two players that don't even play the same position.

Well, that's what you're doing with the 'best players' idea in general, right?

All I was saying is it's not fair to compare guys based on who would be better on a bad team by themselves, when the goal is to win games.  It's not about singular forces, it's a TEAM game.

True, but the list is 'best players', not 'best teammates' or 'best teams'.

Bottom line is Love might be that good but he hasn't proven anything close to guys like Pierce and Manu.

Also true, but it was best present day players, not best resume.

[nickagneta]

I've read everyone's arguments for and against whether Pierce is currently a top 20 player and after looking at the list and giving credit for what the players did and what they might do in the future, I think ESPN got Pierce's position just about right.

[mgent]

1. Yes, but we were comparing team wins which is much harder.

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

3. I wasn't talking about their past performances, I was simply saying they're more proven players.  How many guys have looked good on bad teams and yet were unable to win games, or unable to continue to reproduce all-star years?  Can we at least wait more than a year before we start saying Kevin Love is the king of rebounds?

[indeedproceed]

1. Yes, but we were comparing team wins which is much harder.

Yeah but if you just wanna look at Love/Piece..Love's second best player is Michael Beasley. His third best player is...Luke Ridnour? How many wins can only 1 guy effect with those guys?

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.

3. I wasn't talking about their past performances, I was simply saying they're more proven players.  How many guys have looked good on bad teams and yet were unable to win games, or unable to continue to reproduce all-star years?  Can we at least wait more than a year before we start saying Kevin Love is the king of rebounds?

Yes, we can wait. But if he's not the king, he's the prince.