A quick comparison of the Pierce's and VC's numbers

[KMartsCrew]

You are the one not taking the context into account.

In 2004-05, the Nets were 33-24 with VC on the team. That's a 57.9% winning percentage. The year before (2003-04) they won 47 games (57.3% winning pct). So yes, the Nets were better in 2004-05 with VC than they were the year before. And you have to take into account that a) they had an awful big man rotation (with a ROOKIE Krstic being their only talented big... their starting frontline included guys like Jason Collins & Brian Scalabrine); b) RJ went down right after VC came in. The fact that they bounced back in such a way after acquiring VC was no coincidence. VC played incredibly well. Btw, for all those people saying VC ain't clutch, they should check VC's shot at the end of OT1 in G3 of the 2005 playoffs. Oh, and I wouldn't say he was abysmal in the playoffs that year. He didn't shoot well (Miami could focus on him all they wanted... who else could score on that team? Veal? Kidd? Twin? A rookie Krstic and RJ coming off serious injury that made him miss much of the RS weren't enough of a threat), but in that G3 (which pretty much decided the outcome of the series) VC was clutch and came just a rebound short of a TD, they played with some heart against a much better team in that game and overall were no match against such a much better squad.

And yes, the Nets took Detroit to 7 games in 2004, but what you forgot to mention is that the Nets were blown out badly in 3 of their 4 losses. They stood no chance in game 7, with Kidd playing like absolute crap. Not that I blame them for losing to the eventual champs, they actually showed a lot of heart after the 2 first losses. Just didn't when everything was favorable to them (momentum shifting their side after the 2 blow out wins in NJ and the epic 3OT victory in G5... playing G6 at home and having an early lead).

2005-06 was the only season during the VC years in Jersey when everyone stayed healthy (mainly RJ & Curly), and they won 49 games, and it could have easily been 2 more wins if Frank didn't bench his stars in the last 2 RS games against beatable teams like NY & Philly. And they won that many games (as many as they won in 2003 when they went to the finals... but in 2003 they didn't have to face Wade, Shaq & Riley) despite the fact their bench was complete and utter CRAP. And even if they lost 4-1 to Miami they were in the game & competed in G3, 4 & 5 (they were 1-1 after the first 2 games in Miami). VC had a great series with good enough shooting pcts (30.2 ppg on 46.9% FG, including a 43 pt effort in G3, the highest scoring playoff game in Nets history). It wasn't his fault that they faced a much better and deeper team. In the first round it was his solid play that made the Nets defeat the Pacers while getting no help from J-Kidd who was raped by a scrub like Anthony Johnson.

In 2006-07 he struggled mightly from the field against the Cavs and I'm not gonna excuse him for that, he should have played better on offense, even tho he was at least able to contrbiute in other aspects of the game (his rebounding and playmaking was very good in that series... VC came up 1 reb & 1 assist shy of a TD in G4, and since his shot wasn't falling he shot less- just 11 FGA- and passed more- 10 assists- in the g5 win in Cleveland). That team was simply not good enough to beat Lebron's Cavs, Krstic was out leaving them with a Moore-Collins starting big man rotation and they still were in the game in the 4th Q in all of their losses.

[gino_giode]

Quick thoughts

Vince has been more injury prone (not talking mysterious crumpling to the floor, bc Pierce is guilty of that too), but debilitating injuries that sidelines him

Vince rarely/if ever utilizes flops/head fakes/pumps like Pierce does, which can attest to PP's career longevity and higher FTA (it's not all about driving to the rim, he's just very crafty).
-Besides, PP is naturally bigger and has played SF his whole career--I would assume SFs average more FTA than SGs

[cpower]

Kidd had been the vocal leader and that's about it.

You mean apart from being the defensive anchor, the leading rebounder and the primary playmaker/orchestrator of the offense, right?

Kidd's numbers and impact on the court just did not show him as the better player.

Laughably incorrect. Fun trick: .163 versus .153... Jason Kidd versus Vince Carter in 05/06 WS/48. Of course, Jefferson managed .184. Kidd actually had a higher eFG% and played a significant role in setting Vince up for his baskets. Kidd also had a noticeably better offensive and defensive rating.

So ACTUALLY, the numbers show him as a more impactful player, you're just stuck on raw averages, which I told you quite some time ago and is clearly a mistake.

Now, those numbers by themselves do not tell the entire story, but when combined with the narrative that you are BLITHELY ignoring, it paints a remarkably clear picture in the exact opposite direction you're trying to go... nevermind the years of evidence that contrast Vince against the idea of a leader. He's ALWAYS needed a tough player on his team to whip him into shape, be it Jason Kidd or Charles Oakley before him. Vince has never been, or tried to be, a leader. It's not in his personality, and that's fine. He's an incredible talent and he did play very well for New Jersey in 06 (and in general), but he was a leader of nothing but scoring for that team.

You can have your opinions but I bet you never watched any Nets game. Good to be a Celtic fan, I guess, what was on your mind when Pierce-led Celtic had one of the worst seasons in franchise history, going 24–58? future HOFer and franchise saver, the Truth? LOL And yes I would say again, Carter was as good as Pierce before he had KG and Allen.

[KGboss]

I disagree.
Pierce never showed anything more than VC before Allen/KG came to town. AKA, the real winners of that team.
Vince has never been in a situation where he had 2 teammates exceptionally better than him. So, how can you say he wouldn't win a ring?
They both suck IMO

Yah, you're right. Bringing Boston to the ECF with his best player being Antoine Walker is a terrible feat of accomplishment. Scrub of a player.

/sarcasm off.

And KG and Ray are exceptionally better than pierce? really? you need to go crawl in a hole and never speak again, because you make absolutely 0 sense.

Huh?
Vince accomplished just as much as pre-KG/Allen Pierce has.

And yes, KG and Allen are better than Pierce.
Thanks for disagreeing and providing anything factual to back yourself up

KG is my favorite player of all time. I know that when he was in Minnesota he was the man, the franchise, arguably a top PF of all time right next to Duncan, Dirk, Barkley, and Rodman. When he came to Boston he still had about 75% of that spark, but he was getting older and slowing down. When they won in 08, KG should have been the Finals MVP instead of Pierce, I get that, but Pierce also played an equally great role, which is why the voting was so close and Pierce ended up winning it. (arguing about the injury incident aside)

During the past 4 years that these guys have been together though, KG and Allen have been slowing down greatly. KG is still dominant defensively, but sadly his offense is falling a bit. Allen is still an incredible spot-up shooter but his defense is garbage now compared to what it use to be.

I am arguing this because you said that KG and Ray are exceptionally better than Pierce, and that simply hasn't been the case in the last 4 years. A lot of that has to do with KG and his injury, but a lot of that has to do with Ray and KG slowing down in parts of their game, where Pierce is aging so gradually that he put up career stats last season. KG and Ray WERE much much better than Pierce when they were younger, but since their time in Boston, the big 3 have been pretty much around the same line of talent given their respective areas and what they bring to the team.

VC was a phenomenal player in his prime. He was one of my favorite to watch, but he never had loyalty, and he never lead a team anywhere BY HIMSELF. Pierce did. They didn't come home with the ECF championship but that was still an extremely impressive year considering the team that Pierce had around him.

Also, for the fact alone that VC pretty much has given up and is only collecting checks at this point, and has been for a couple of years now completely discredits his reputation.

[tsherkin]

You can have your opinions but I bet you never watched any Nets game.

More than you, if you think that Carter led them in any capacity besides volume scoring... SMH.

You continue to mistake shooting volume for any form of leadership. On its own, and that's literally all Vince led in, it indicates nothing other than volume of shooting. Again, Kidd was leading the team in rebounding, was their defensive anchor, their primary playmaker AND their vocal leader. That pretty much ends any argument about leadership.

You are the one not taking the context into account.

In 2004-05, the Nets were 33-24 with VC on the team. That's a 57.9% winning percentage. The year before (2003-04) they won 47 games (57.3% winning pct). So yes, the Nets were better in 2004-05 with VC than they were the year before.

You're seriously going to argue a 0.6% difference as a major improvement? Really? Do I even have to say ANYTHING to this? You realize that the difference between 57.3 and 57.9 percent on an 82-game season is less than half a win, right?

VC played incredibly well. Btw, for all those people saying VC ain't clutch,

Of course he played well. And I would never dare say he wasn't clutch, I watched him in Toronto. It was one of the areas of his game where he was rather consistent, actually. Anyway, I never said he didn't play well, I'm saying there wasn't a tangible difference between 03-04 and 04-05, and that bears out. He floated them after they lost Martin, until he couldn't impact the game the way they needed Martin to, which was their core identity as a defensive team.

They stood no chance in game 7, with Kidd playing like absolute crap. Not that I blame them for losing to the eventual champs,

Neither do I, Detroit was nasty that year. Things would have perhaps looked different with Martin instead of Carter, but we'll never know for sure.

Anyway, I'm just trying to point out that they didn't actually improve when Carter came. They changed their identity, lost their interior presence but got enough better on offense that they could fake it until the real teams showed up deeper in the playoffs. Vince wasn't a leader. He played well, mostly, but he could never fully replace what they lost. That's not his FAULT, per se, because he was and remains a very different type of player than someone like Martin, but what it means is that he never really pushed them farther than they went without him.

[Birth of the Cool]

Just want to throw in that I'd agree that Vince wasn't a leader while Kidd was on the team, but Kidd was not a leader either. Having watched practically every Nets game once Vince arrived I can say the biggest detriment to the "big 3" Nets team was the lack of Frontcourt talent but another failure was in the leadership department. I was shocked to see that Kidd was a leader by play only, but he wasn't the leader in the locker room or the "leader of men" out there on the court. The two best talents on the Nets team (VC and Kidd) were poor leaders - I was actually impressed by Richard Jefferson in that department. He seemed to bleed Nets and was the vocal leader on the court, on the bench, in the locker room and with the Media. Kidd attracted outside distractions to the team (his contract situation, personal life drama with wife) while Vince hid in the shadows and played Kidd's ballboy.

However, after Kidd left Vince showed great leadership (had ankle surgery days after season ended & didn't do it on "company time" / invited guys like Antoine Wright to workout with him in his home basketball court / organized off season team workouts / went to the Nets summer league games & assisted the coaches / took guys like Wright & Brook Lopez under his wing throughout the season / moved aside to let Devin Harris and even Richard Jefferson get more prominent roles in the offense / great on court & locker room presence - Lawrence Frank, Rod Thorn, Brook Lopez and Nets Beat writers all praised Vince's leadership post-Kidd.

Although the criticism to that is Vince didn't grab the mantle of leadership while Kidd was around. If some other Alpha is on the team Vince will concede leadership & be happy being "one of the fellas". He stepped back into the shadows again when Alpha's like Dwight & Jameer took the reigns in Orlando to the detriment of both Vince & the Magic imo. On the one hand, he's a great teammate & coach able-player, on the other hand he doesn't inspire or bring out greatness outside of the lines so to speak.

Anyways this Pierce vs Vince topic was done a while ago - back then I said Pierce has had the better career and is better than Vince, BUT that Vince is close enough that I have them on the same Tier (below Kobe, Wade). They both have had a great NBA career and Pierce is certainly a HOF and Vince by the end of it all may be too.