RealGM

Pierce (19 years!, 7 prime): rough prime estimate 38.3mpg, 5.6 reb, 4.1ast, 3.2to, 24.8 pts @ .558ts%
Allen (18 years!, 8 prime): rough prime estimate 38.4mpg 4.8 reb, 4.1ast, 2.5to, 23.3pts @ .588ts%

Really similar numbers for prime, Pierce was the better defender; Allen the more efficient scorer with less turnovers.

Pierce in Boston (playoffs) 10 years, 136 games, 39.8 mpg, 6.4reb, 4.0ast, 3.2to, 20.9pts @ .549ts%
Note that playoffs don't match up to prime RS because Pierce played on better teams later in his career.

Allen in Mil/Sea (playoffs) 4 years, 37 games, 40.8mpg, 4.8reb, 4.8ast, 2.6to, 24.9pts @ .602ts%
Ray's teams weren't that good until Boston, but in Boston, he was the 3rd option. Pierce plays more past prime so the scoring volume isn't that big a difference but again, Allen is more efficient in his prime playoff runs (more difference than RS) with less turnovers (and less rebounds).

I feel like Pierce's prime was a bit longer than that(that's just my view) but I also feel like his ability to carry a team as a #1 was a bit better than Ray and I would say more high quality playoff runs overall puts him ahead of Ray by like 3-6 spots.

Both strike me as great number 2 options. I would take Ray Allen over pierce as I think he is easier to integrate into an offense.

I'll take The Truth over Sugar Ray, his handles are more crisp than Allens(Allen used to turnover the ball at first when he came to Boston) , he's a better defender than Allen. Allen is wayy better at getting open without the ball than Pierce, but Pierce is better in the post.

Overall it's Pierce

Pierce is the better #1 option. You can give him the ball in isolation and expect to get a good shot or force the defense into rotation.

Allen is the better #2 option. He is more efficient on secondary actions, but he wasn't as good in isolation as the primary guy to bend a defense.

If I already had a #1 option star, I'd prefer Allen. If I had a couple of secondary option scorers, I'd prefer Pierce. As a tiebreaker, I'd take Pierce. Size matters. All else being equal, Pierce can do more as a defender because he can guard 4's in a pinch.

Pierce.

The strongest seasons among these 2 players;
2001, 2005 for Allen & 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 Pierce.
I'd probably take 2001 Allen as the best but that's almost a tie and Pierce's just better on sheer number of seasons.

In 2005 and 2006, they were near the top of their form and Pierce was just better. Allen was better on offense, his efficiency and off-ball play were just massive. But he was quite a negative impact on defense. Pierce was also good on offense even though not just as much, but his defensive level was just way better than Allen's level.

I don't think there's a significant difference between their prime duration or overall longevity. So, Pierce is ahead of Allen for me since his prime level was higher on average.

nate33 wrote:Pierce is the better #1 option. You can give him the ball in isolation and expect to get a good shot or force the defense into rotation.

Allen is the better #2 option. He is more efficient on secondary actions, but he wasn't as good in isolation as the primary guy to bend a defense.

If I already had a #1 option star, I'd prefer Allen. If I had a couple of secondary option scorers, I'd prefer Pierce. As a tiebreaker, I'd take Pierce. Size matters. All else being equal, Pierce can do more as a defender because he can guard 4's in a pinch.

I think this sums it up pretty well, though I don’t know if i agree that Allen is a better 2nd option neccesarily. There’s no evidence to point to for that.

Great comparison and though I do think most people will agree with me and land on Pierce, it's closer than I think I have it. I have them 15 spots apart. #53 and #68.

Both players made a surprisingly small amount of all-NBA teams, but when you consider how loaded the wing positions were in their era, it makes more sense. Allen made a second and third and Pierce made a second and three thirds. Both were 10x all-stars.

Penbeast showed how similar the stats are. I see Pierce as having elevated his statistical output more in the playoffs and as being the finisher for the '08 Celtics. Ray was never that guy for a title team. That's mostly where the separation comes for me. Both are overqualified number two stars, but Pierce brings more to the table as a #1 offensive option in the clutch.

Looking at my own season by season rankings, it's crazy how close these two are.

I have both peaking as the 8th best player in the league.

I have Pierce with three top ten season and Allen with one.

I have Pierce with 12 top 25 seasons and Allen with 11.

I have Allen with 17 top 50 seasons and Pierce with 16.

Neither of them were ever real MVP candidates, but they were consistently a level or two below that for over a decade. They both led teams to the conference finals early in their careers. Allen in 2001, Pierce in 2002. And they both proved many times over they could be winners in every role, even both excelling as role players late in their careers.

If anything, I should have both these players higher.

No-more-rings wrote:

nate33 wrote:Pierce is the better #1 option. You can give him the ball in isolation and expect to get a good shot or force the defense into rotation.

Allen is the better #2 option. He is more efficient on secondary actions, but he wasn't as good in isolation as the primary guy to bend a defense.

If I already had a #1 option star, I'd prefer Allen. If I had a couple of secondary option scorers, I'd prefer Pierce. As a tiebreaker, I'd take Pierce. Size matters. All else being equal, Pierce can do more as a defender because he can guard 4's in a pinch.

I think this sums it up pretty well, though I don’t know if i agree that Allen is a better 2nd option neccesarily. There’s no evidence to point to for that.

Yeah I feel the same. Allen would maybe be a better 2nd option if your first option is so ball-dominant, that the on-ball impact of the second option is mostly redundant outside of anchoring second units maybe. But does such 1st option exist? Pierce wasn't such a possession eater that he couldn't co-exist with whoever, and while he wasn't Ray Allen's equal playing without the ball, he still brought great value as a shooter. The 1st year the Big 3 came together in Boston, they all posted nearly identical field goal rates (around 13.5 FGA), minutes, true shooting %, and usage. It was Garnett who led the team in usage and field goal rate in the regular season and playoffs. Paul Pierce ability to get to the line (combined with the strength of his pull up game) made him the best crunch time scorer. I'd argue that the first year in Boston gave us a reasonable fascimile of Pierce and Allen in a second option role, playing with a 1st option who was more of an amplifier/facilitator than a high usage scorer. Pierce being 2 years younger than Allen allowed him to widen the gap as that team aged, but I was surprised to see that that was mostly just in the playoffs, as their usage and field goal attempts stay more parallel than I'd have thought. The emergence of Rondo is what seems to cut into Ray Allen's role, more than any expansion of Pierce's responsibilities.

While I also think they are players in a similar tier, I still see Pierce as a no brainer superior player. It goes without saying that Allen is the superior off-ball player, but this wasn't an area where Pierce was a slouch. Pierce didn't have Allen's activity level, but he stuck daggers from the weakside whenever he was allowed to play on it. I don't put a ton of stock in the pick & roll chops that Allen flashed in Milwaukee and Seattle. He was competent in this role on offensive slanted teams, but I don't see him getting an advantage over Pierce's on ball game, which was far more sustainable against tought defenses. Pierce did his thing on all sorts of configurations of junky Celtics teams (the Rick Pitino era, the defensive minded Jim O'Brien era, the young and bad Doc Rivers era). Pierce left an impression of very strong portability/scalability over his career, despite mostly playing for 1 team. Obviously you can throw Allen on any team ever too so that isn't an advantage for Pierce in this comp. How scaleable both their games were was on full display when they came together. Pierce was far superior as a physical force, hence the giganctic gap in free throw rate. This physicality, I think, is the biggest edge for either player in the comp. Even when Pierce went cold, he could make the other team feel his presence on defense, with post ups, being a scrappy flopper etc. He had more meanness and swagger in his game. When Ray Allen's shot went missing (as it did many times in Boston), his still maintained value as a defense scrambler, running off picks with the threat of his legendary shooting. Allen scaled down to a crafty spot-up guy and scaled up to a reasonable facsimile of a heliocentric shooting guard (kobe, MJ etc.). Pierce scales down and is still blocking Kyle Lowry at the buzzer of game 7. Pierce scales up to a finals MVP who can score in any situation and defend Lebron James. I see Pierce as having a tangible advantage over Allen at both the high and low ends of who they were as players at different points in their career.

jamaalstar21 wrote:

No-more-rings wrote:

nate33 wrote:Pierce is the better #1 option. You can give him the ball in isolation and expect to get a good shot or force the defense into rotation.

Allen is the better #2 option. He is more efficient on secondary actions, but he wasn't as good in isolation as the primary guy to bend a defense.

If I already had a #1 option star, I'd prefer Allen. If I had a couple of secondary option scorers, I'd prefer Pierce. As a tiebreaker, I'd take Pierce. Size matters. All else being equal, Pierce can do more as a defender because he can guard 4's in a pinch.

I think this sums it up pretty well, though I don’t know if i agree that Allen is a better 2nd option neccesarily. There’s no evidence to point to for that.

Yeah I feel the same. Allen would maybe be a better 2nd option if your first option is so ball-dominant, that the on-ball impact of the second option is mostly redundant outside of anchoring second units maybe. But does such 1st option exist? Pierce wasn't such a possession eater that he couldn't co-exist with whoever, and while he wasn't Ray Allen's equal playing without the ball, he still brought great value as a shooter. The 1st year the Big 3 came together in Boston, they all posted nearly identical field goal rates (around 13.5 FGA), minutes, true shooting %, and usage. It was Garnett who led the team in usage and field goal rate in the regular season and playoffs. Paul Pierce ability to get to the line (combined with the strength of his pull up game) made him the best crunch time scorer. I'd argue that the first year in Boston gave us a reasonable fascimile of Pierce and Allen in a second option role, playing with a 1st option who was more of an amplifier/facilitator than a high usage scorer. Pierce being 2 years younger than Allen allowed him to widen the gap as that team aged, but I was surprised to see that that was mostly just in the playoffs, as their usage and field goal attempts stay more parallel than I'd have thought. The emergence of Rondo is what seems to cut into Ray Allen's role, more than any expansion of Pierce's responsibilities.

While I also think they are players in a similar tier, I still see Pierce as a no brainer superior player. It goes without saying that Allen is the superior off-ball player, but this wasn't an area where Pierce was a slouch. Pierce didn't have Allen's activity level, but he stuck daggers from the weakside whenever he was allowed to play on it. I don't put a ton of stock in the pick & roll chops that Allen flashed in Milwaukee and Seattle. He was competent in this role on offensive slanted teams, but I don't see him getting an advantage over Pierce's on ball game, which was far more sustainable against tought defenses. Pierce did his thing on all sorts of configurations of junky Celtics teams (the Rick Pitino era, the defensive minded Jim O'Brien era, the young and bad Doc Rivers era). Pierce left an impression of very strong portability/scalability over his career, despite mostly playing for 1 team. Obviously you can throw Allen on any team ever too so that isn't an advantage for Pierce in this comp. How scaleable both their games were was on full display when they came together. Pierce was far superior as a physical force, hence the giganctic gap in free throw rate. This physicality, I think, is the biggest edge for either player in the comp. Even when Pierce went cold, he could make the other team feel his presence on defense, with post ups, being a scrappy flopper etc. He had more meanness and swagger in his game. When Ray Allen's shot went missing (as it did many times in Boston), his still maintained value as a defense scrambler, running off picks with the threat of his legendary shooting. Allen scaled down to a crafty spot-up guy and scaled up to a reasonable facsimile of a heliocentric shooting guard (kobe, MJ etc.). Pierce scales down and is still blocking Kyle Lowry at the buzzer of game 7. Pierce scales up to a finals MVP who can score in any situation and defend Lebron James. I see Pierce as having a tangible advantage over Allen at both the high and low ends of who they were as players at different points in their career.

This is a sound analysis. I don't want to read too much into the Boston situation though. Ray Allen was a little past his prime then, and he was joining a team with Pierce as the incumbent team leader and Garnett as the hyper-competitive alpha dog, so it was pretty natural for Allen to be the one to sacrifice touches to fit in.

penbeast0 wrote:Pierce (19 years!, 7 prime): rough prime estimate 38.3mpg, 5.6 reb, 4.1ast, 3.2to, 24.8 pts @ .558ts%
Allen (18 years!, 8 prime): rough prime estimate 38.4mpg 4.8 reb, 4.1ast, 2.5to, 23.3pts @ .588ts%

Really similar numbers for prime, Pierce was the better defender; Allen the more efficient scorer with less turnovers.

Pierce in Boston (playoffs) 10 years, 136 games, 39.8 mpg, 6.4reb, 4.0ast, 3.2to, 20.9pts @ .549ts%
Note that playoffs don't match up to prime RS because Pierce played on better teams later in his career.

Allen in Mil/Sea (playoffs) 4 years, 37 games, 40.8mpg, 4.8reb, 4.8ast, 2.6to, 24.9pts @ .602ts%
Ray's teams weren't that good until Boston, but in Boston, he was the 3rd option. Pierce plays more past prime so the scoring volume isn't that big a difference but again, Allen is more efficient in his prime playoff runs (more difference than RS) with less turnovers (and less rebounds).

I agree. Pierce had a nine year prime.

Pierce is better.

Pierce is better.