Author Topic: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"  (Read 2051 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« on: April 10, 2019, 11:20:15 PM »

Offline CelticsElite

  • NCE
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9744
  • Tommy Points: 711
Audio: https://omny.fm/shows/toucher-rich-1/toucher-rich-danny-ainge-discusses-the-health-of-t?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

https://mobile.twitter.com/toucherandrich/status/1115965145338056704?s=21

@Toucherandrich
Danny Ainge tells us that he believes Paul Pierce had a better career than Dwyane Wade. He actually went so far as to meet with his analytics people and they broke it down to specific stats

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2019, 11:33:45 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18903
  • Tommy Points: 656
Great to see Ainge sticking up for one of our own even in these type of debates.

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2019, 11:34:25 PM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3965
  • Tommy Points: 974
As always.... In DA I trust!
I AM A CELTIC

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2019, 11:40:44 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38772
  • Tommy Points: -27376
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
I'm gonna say Paul, because I just went into my analytics group the other day and I asked them that question," Ainge said Wednesday morning during his weekly interview with 98.5 The Sports Hub's "Toucher & Rich."

That's right: Not only did Ainge not dismiss the debate, he enlisted the Celtics' analytics team to settle it. Here's how:

"We have an analysis called Adjusted Plus/Minus," Ainge said. "That's probably the best number you can come up with for a player's impact in the game. ... (Pierce and Wade) were very high in the prime of their career in adjusted plus/minus, meaning they were in the 10-11 range per 100 possessions, which is enormous."

According to Ainge, Wade was "slightly better" from age 20 to 29 than Pierce, with an Adjusted Plus/Minus of 6.4 compared to Pierce's 5.4. But if you look at both players in their 30s...

"Pierce was actually better than he was in 20s," Ainge said. "Pierce was 5.8, and Dwyane Wade was minus-0.4.

"And that was my initial feeling: that Pierce was a little more consistent for longer than Dwyane."

So, there you have it. Ainge and his stat geeks ran the numbers, and they chose the Celtics star over the Heat legend.

"I think everybody came to the conclusion that they would have to give the nod to Pierce, on our staff," Ainge said.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2019, 11:48:50 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • Global Moderator
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10296
  • Tommy Points: 466
Love it

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2019, 06:33:59 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21845
  • Tommy Points: 1041
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2019, 06:46:12 AM »

Offline Androslav

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2597
  • Tommy Points: 484
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.
Since when does playing on good teams helps ones individual stats?
It is the exact opposite.

Just a few examples:
Booker would play 17 mins and average 8 points here. Not 35 and 27.
M. Jordan had his best statistical years when he didn't win.
Manu was the 3rd best guard of his generation, he averaged 15. Elsewhere (when he wasn't in SAS) he got 26.
Pierce averaged better numbers when we were tanking.
RW got his TD's when Thunder stopped to exist as a contender.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2019, 07:07:10 AM by Androslav »
"The joy of the balling under the rims."

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2019, 08:25:18 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1969
  • Tommy Points: 180
I'm working on compiling J Rating stats for the 2007-2008 season now that I've completed this season. I have numbers through early January 2008 I think and Paul Pierce is surprisingly high for that season. That was a down season for Wade it appears, he's not even in the top 20 so far.

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2019, 08:33:40 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21845
  • Tommy Points: 1041
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.
Since when does playing on good teams helps ones individual stats?
It is the exact opposite.

Just a few examples:
Booker would play 17 mins and average 8 points here. Not 35 and 27.
M. Jordan had his best statistical years when he didn't win.
Manu was the 3rd best guard of his generation, he averaged 15. Elsewhere (when he wasn't in SAS) he got 26.
Pierce averaged better numbers when we were tanking.
RW got his TD's when Thunder stopped to exist as a contender.
I don't know exactly what is in his adjusted +- stat, but +- in general is pretty team dependent.

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2019, 09:05:08 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38772
  • Tommy Points: -27376
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.
Since when does playing on good teams helps ones individual stats?
It is the exact opposite.

Just a few examples:
Booker would play 17 mins and average 8 points here. Not 35 and 27.
M. Jordan had his best statistical years when he didn't win.
Manu was the 3rd best guard of his generation, he averaged 15. Elsewhere (when he wasn't in SAS) he got 26.
Pierce averaged better numbers when we were tanking.
RW got his TD's when Thunder stopped to exist as a contender.
I don't know exactly what is in his adjusted +- stat, but +- in general is pretty team dependent.

Adjusted Plus Minus is “adjusted” to account for the impact of teammates, and thus shouldn’t be affected by the quality of a team a player plays on.

http://www.82games.com/barzilai2.htm



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2019, 09:18:19 AM »

Offline Green-18

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Tommy Points: 121
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.

Pretty much.  I dislike Wade but he gets the edge if we are picking either player at their absolute peak.  There's no way Pierce could have ever lead a title run that is equivalent to Wade's in 2005-06.  Wade could take a team further as the clear cut best player.

Pierce wins the durability and versatility argument.  For example, I strongly believe the Miami big three would have been better if you swapped out Wade for Pierce at the same age.  In general, I would be much more likely to choose Pierce if I was building a team with multiple All-Stars. 

This doesn't really matter in the debate, but I'd also argue that Pierce's game is much better suited for the modern NBA.

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2019, 09:31:48 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38772
  • Tommy Points: -27376
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.

Pretty much.  I dislike Wade but he gets the edge if we are picking either player at their absolute peak.  There's no way Pierce could have ever lead a title run that is equivalent to Wade's in 2005-06.  Wade could take a team further as the clear cut best player.

While I suspect that you’re right, it’s impossible to say. In Wade’s run, he still had Shaq, who averaged 18 points, 10 rebounds and 60% shooting in those playoffs.

Pierce never had that inside presence or efficiency in a teammate. Could Prime Pierce have won a title with Sub-Prime Shaq? I think there’s a strong possibility.



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2019, 09:32:55 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Tommy Heinsohn
  • *************************
  • Posts: 25147
  • Tommy Points: 1158
  • What a Pub Should Be

Pierce never had that inside presence or efficiency in a teammate. Could Prime Pierce have won a title with Sub-Prime Shaq? I think there’s a strong possibility.

Absolutely he could've.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2019, 09:48:24 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1969
  • Tommy Points: 180
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.

Pretty much.  I dislike Wade but he gets the edge if we are picking either player at their absolute peak.  There's no way Pierce could have ever lead a title run that is equivalent to Wade's in 2005-06.  Wade could take a team further as the clear cut best player.

While I suspect that you’re right, it’s impossible to say. In Wade’s run, he still had Shaq, who averaged 18 points, 10 rebounds and 60% shooting in those playoffs.

Pierce never had that inside presence or efficiency in a teammate. Could Prime Pierce have won a title with Sub-Prime Shaq? I think there’s a strong possibility.

I also maintain that Shaq's impact went beyond his numbers in his first two years in Miami. He still commanded the attention of a #1 option on any given possession.

Re: Ainge: "Pierce had a better career then Wade"
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2019, 10:11:46 AM »

Offline Green-18

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1133
  • Tommy Points: 121
Even by his own numbers he is really just saying Pierce was better for longer, but Wade had a higher peak.  Also a very good chance that number is skewed by Pierce playing on better teams far longer into his 30's than Wade did.

Pretty much.  I dislike Wade but he gets the edge if we are picking either player at their absolute peak.  There's no way Pierce could have ever lead a title run that is equivalent to Wade's in 2005-06.  Wade could take a team further as the clear cut best player.

While I suspect that you’re right, it’s impossible to say. In Wade’s run, he still had Shaq, who averaged 18 points, 10 rebounds and 60% shooting in those playoffs.

Pierce never had that inside presence or efficiency in a teammate. Could Prime Pierce have won a title with Sub-Prime Shaq? I think there’s a strong possibility.

I also maintain that Shaq's impact went beyond his numbers in his first two years in Miami. He still commanded the attention of a #1 option on any given possession.

You guys are mostly correct about Shaq.  He was still a dominant force for the first two years in Miami, including an excellent ECF against the Pistons in 2006.  The major exception to this was the NBA Finals against Dallas.  Shaq had his worst playoff series by far up to that point.  He had a negative +/- in EVERY game except for one.  For the series he was a -28. 

I think some people forget how much Wade had to carry that team through the Finals.   His usage rate was higher than any playoff series of Pierce's career.  I stand by the statement that Pierce couldn't have accomplished this under the same circumstances. 

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required