I think Pierce and Manu are pretty comprable. Manu just started in the league older, was on a great team from the get go, and probably had a shorter peak (though thats debatable)
Manu also played shorter minutes throughout his career. Manu has significantly fewer career (regular season) win shares as a result (88 compared to 134).
But if you look at Manu's career per-minute production compared to Pierce, they are very similar.
Both are basically 20-5-5 guys, with Pierce rebounding a bit more and Manu getting a couple more assists.
Tayshaun, on the other hand, is a career 13-3-5 player. Not on the same level at all.
I just can't get behind a guy who can barely crack 10k points no matter what. In reality Manu would be an extreme after thought if he was on another team.
If we are talking purely NBA career I think its an insult to compare manu to Pierce. Pierce is breaking records writing his name in history.
Pierce is arguably a top 10 small forward ever.
Manu is like a top 30 shooting guard ever.
I just think there's a big difference
Manu is basically a 20-5-5 accept that he isn't and never was
I'm talking on a per-minute basis.
I'd agree with you that Manu is not a Hall of Famer if you look at NBA career alone, but that's not how it works. International career matters, too.
And it's important, too, that Manu has been at his best in the playoffs and during his peak was every bit as valuable to a very successful team as Pierce has ever been.
The main difference I see between Pierce and Manu is that Pierce has always been a guy who plays 34+ minutes a game and is the top offensive option for his team, while Manu has been more of a super-sub who plays 28-32 minutes and is an auxilliary scorer.
Manu has been a better defender and passer throughout his career, and has more big moments on the biggest stage. All of that counts for something.
In their respective primes, I think Manu and Pierce were probably equally valuable as players.
