Year by Year-Paul Pierce VS Manu Ginobli

[HeartBreakKid]

How do you know that?

and who has said he is not a star player? No one.

How good would his stats be?

Would he suddenly be an 18-20 PPG player

or would he be someone that averaged 23-27PPG

He's had seasons where he's averaged more than 20 points coming off the bench for a good team. Why wouldn't he be over 20 if he played on a lotto team?

Oh really?

Name the seasons he's averaged over 20 ppg?

Sorry, he averaged 19.5. But I guess that means him being an "18-20 PPG" player is out of the question. Clearly, his stats would be the exact same despite more looks and minutes. Manu is such a lucky guy, probably be in the D-League if he wasn't on the Spurs.

[Jonny Blaze]

He's had seasons where he's averaged more than 20 points coming off the bench for a good team. Why wouldn't he be over 20 if he played on a lotto team?

Oh really?

Name the seasons he's averaged over 20 ppg?

Sorry, he averaged 19.5. But I guess that means him being an "18-20 PPG" player is out of the question. Clearly, his stats would be the exact same despite more looks and minutes. Manu is such a lucky guy, probably be in the D-League if he wasn't on the Spurs.

Great strawman. There is nobody saying that about Ginobli.

You said Ginobli had "seasons" where he had average over 20PPG and you were dead wrong. He has never averaged over 20 PPG, and only has 1 season where he has averaged over 18.

The Tim Duncan thing is a really weak argument too, most great players have played with other great players. Pippen spent nearly all of his career with Jordan, and I don't see anyone having a problem putting him over Pierce.

Its not a weak argument. You seem like you are getting emotional about this and straying away from what the thread is about.

This thread isn't titled: Is Manu Ginobi overrated?

This thread is a comparison between Paul Pierce and Ginobli.

Its a joke to think that a player that has never averaged over 20 PPG is better than someone thats been a consistent all star such as Paul Piece.

The reason I bring up Tim Duncan is that no one would make these comparisons if Ginobli didn't play on a great team.

If Ginobli was a 21 or 22ppg scorer for the Milwaukee Bucks no one would be making this thread.

[Cyrusman122000]

Paul Pierce every year except arguably 2005, and 2007

[acrossthecourt]

Paul Pierce every single time. (10x All star, NBA Finals MVP, 1x 2nd team ALL NBA, 3x 3rd team ALL NBA)

Manu Ginobli is a great player. (2x all Star, 2x All NBA 3rd team)

That being said, he wouldn't get half the respect that he currently gets if he did not play with a guy named Tim Duncan.

Would you all have all this respect for Ginobli (in terms of considering him better than guys that are clearly more accomplished) if he had spent his whole career playing with the Charlotte Bobcats?

I clearly remember after the 2005 playoffs when Spurs fans were trying to say that Ginobli was better than Dirk. This comparison is almost as ridiculous.

This is why 97% of stats can be manipulated. This is what some of you stat geeks don't seem to understand.

You have to set a control when trying to pull a stat and say that makes a guy a better or more accomplished player.

I don't give a damn about Ginobli's plus/minus stats or per minute stats because he has always played on a great team with at least two other hall of fame players. .

and FYI....the Spurs were a great team for a good 10-15 years (with 2 NBA titles) before Ginobli became a great player.

Yes. Yes I would.

edit: Gerald Wallace was one of my favorite players for a long-time when he was stuck on those awful Charlotte teams.

Actually, it's harder to put up great stats on a great team because there's only one ball to go around. It's more impressive and useful to be a +/- star on a great team than a crappy one. It means you're providing something uniquely valuable.

Of those 97% of those stats that are manipulated, was that stat (97%) one of them?

He's played with great teammates, but he comes off the bench and often has to play with weaker players.

You know that we have the ability to look at how the team does with Manu and without Parker or Duncan, right? Go and test your theory.

FYI ... the Spurs were a great team before Duncan came along too. But that doesn't make Duncan a poor player.

[therealbig3]

03 - Pierce
04 - Pierce

For these first two years, Manu hadn't emerged as a star yet. I feel like Pierce was still the clearly better player.

05 - Manu
06 - Pierce

Manu was ridiculous all year, earned his first AS selection, and then was amazing come playoff time. Gotta give it to him that year. He was really good the next year too, but he missed a decent amount of games, and Pierce had his best pre-big 3 season, maybe the best season of his career in fact.

07 - Manu

Pretty obvious, Pierce missed a ton of time that year.

08 - Pierce

This one was tough. Manu was fantastic that year...but I feel like 08 is Pierce's peak. His best all-around year in terms of his off-ball play, his passing, his defense, and his decision-making.

09 - Pierce

Just like 07, this is pretty obvious, Manu missed a ton of time that year.

10 - Manu
11 - Pierce

Really hard to pick between the two of them, they were pretty much even these years. Both of them were very good come playoff time as well. I split both years down the middle between the two of them.

12 - Pierce
13 - Manu

Only reason I give it to Pierce in 12 is because Manu missed 32 games. But Pierce was pretty crappy in the playoffs both of these years, ESPECIALLY 2013. Manu was pretty bad himself in the playoffs in 2013, but he was still FAR better than Pierce, who was historically bad.

14 - Manu

Both guys past their primes, both guys not playing many minutes, but both guys still played pretty well. As someone that watched Pierce very closely all year...I LOVED the way he played. He's still a really good player. But I'd still lean towards Manu.

So I've got it 7-5, Pierce.

[Quotatious]

03 - Pierce
04 - Pierce

For these first two years, Manu hadn't emerged as a star yet. I feel like Pierce was still the clearly better player.

05 - Manu
06 - Pierce

Manu was ridiculous all year, earned his first AS selection, and then was amazing come playoff time. Gotta give it to him that year. He was really good the next year too, but he missed a decent amount of games, and Pierce had his best pre-big 3 season, maybe the best season of his career in fact.

07 - Manu

Pretty obvious, Pierce missed a ton of time that year.

08 - Pierce

This one was tough. Manu was fantastic that year...but I feel like 08 is Pierce's peak. His best all-around year in terms of his off-ball play, his passing, his defense, and his decision-making.

09 - Pierce

Just like 07, this is pretty obvious, Manu missed a ton of time that year.

10 - Manu
11 - Pierce

Really hard to pick between the two of them, they were pretty much even these years. Both of them were very good come playoff time as well. I split both years down the middle between the two of them.

12 - Pierce
13 - Manu

Only reason I give it to Pierce in 12 is because Manu missed 32 games. But Pierce was pretty crappy in the playoffs both of these years, ESPECIALLY 2013. Manu was pretty bad himself in the playoffs in 2013, but he was still FAR better than Pierce, who was historically bad.

14 - Manu

Both guys past their primes, both guys not playing many minutes, but both guys still played pretty well. As someone that watched Pierce very closely all year...I LOVED the way he played. He's still a really good player. But I'd still lean towards Manu.

So I've got it 7-5, Pierce.

That's a reasonable post. Seems like we mostly agree, at least as far as Pierce/Ginobili being close overall during this timespan. We only disagree about 2004 (but I can totally understand your reasoning for this year), 2011 and 2013, but I see the difference in these two years as very slight. I could possibly change that.

Oh, and yeah, I was also impressed with Pierce during the 13-14 season. He looked like he would do anything to help the Nets win, even occasionally guarding bigger players at PF, generally being a glue guy for this team.

[Swagalicious]

Pierce every year except 05, 07, 11, 14

08 is the closest year, obviously. 11 Manu was balling in the playoffs and was clearly capable of doing that in the RS had he been able to handle the minutes. 2013 is Pierce clearly. Much more capable of handling a bigger load, was the Celtic's first option for half the season and became much more of a point forward when Rondo went out.

[E-Balla]

03 - Pierce
04 - Pierce

For these first two years, Manu hadn't emerged as a star yet. I feel like Pierce was still the clearly better player.

05 - Manu
06 - Pierce

Manu was ridiculous all year, earned his first AS selection, and then was amazing come playoff time. Gotta give it to him that year. He was really good the next year too, but he missed a decent amount of games, and Pierce had his best pre-big 3 season, maybe the best season of his career in fact.

07 - Manu

Pretty obvious, Pierce missed a ton of time that year.

08 - Pierce

This one was tough. Manu was fantastic that year...but I feel like 08 is Pierce's peak. His best all-around year in terms of his off-ball play, his passing, his defense, and his decision-making.

09 - Pierce

Just like 07, this is pretty obvious, Manu missed a ton of time that year.

10 - Manu
11 - Pierce

Really hard to pick between the two of them, they were pretty much even these years. Both of them were very good come playoff time as well. I split both years down the middle between the two of them.

12 - Pierce
13 - Manu

Only reason I give it to Pierce in 12 is because Manu missed 32 games. But Pierce was pretty crappy in the playoffs both of these years, ESPECIALLY 2013. Manu was pretty bad himself in the playoffs in 2013, but he was still FAR better than Pierce, who was historically bad.

14 - Manu

Both guys past their primes, both guys not playing many minutes, but both guys still played pretty well. As someone that watched Pierce very closely all year...I LOVED the way he played. He's still a really good player. But I'd still lean towards Manu.

So I've got it 7-5, Pierce.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Frankie23]

03 - Pierce
04 - Pierce

For these first two years, Manu hadn't emerged as a star yet. I feel like Pierce was still the clearly better player.

Even though it wasn't Manu's prime years, he was able to achieve a 2nd place in the World Tournament and a gold Medal in the Olympics, beating the dream team twice

[picc]

I would take Paul Pierce over Manu in every year up until the last. Manu would have to start playing more minutes per game and proving he can hold up through it before I even begin to think about a trade. Pierce is a better player and always has been.

[magicmerl]

I would take Paul Pierce over Manu in every year up until the last. Manu would have to start playing more minutes per game and proving he can hold up through it before I even begin to think about a trade. Pierce is a better player and always has been.

Hey, if minutes per game is what matters, then Latrell Sprewell is better than both, right?

[picc]

Well, obviously.