Paul Pierce's annihilation of Vince Carter in the 2010 ECF

[picc]

I was rewatching this series recently, and their matchup in particular was very interesting. Neither player was in their prime, and certainly not their peak, but both were still valuable, contributing players, and IIRC they seemed to be viewed around the same level at the time.

The Magic came into the playoffs with a 59-23 record, and the 2 seed in the conference. Vince had given them 17/4/3 on 54% TS throughout the season following a 21/5/5 campaign the previous year, on obviously higher shot volume given the derelict state of the Nets team he was leaving. Solid numbers.

The Celtics came in with a 50-32 season that belied their true strength, and Paul had delivered 18/3/4 on 61% TS. Also solid.

Then this happened:

Pierce through 6 games: 24/4/8 on 67% TS
Vince through 6 games: 14/2/6 on 46% TS

Unlike many of these matchups, the two actually squared up on the defensive end as well. Vince was given the assignment of Pierce, and vice versa, and over the next few games he was completely obliterated by Paul on offense. And outside of a hot game 1 that actually skews his number higher, nearly shut down on the other end.

In games 2 though 6, Vince scored 12ppg on 40% TS.

By game 4, Orlando had actually begun benching him for JJ Reddick, who was doing a better job at both defending Ray/Paul and scoring against the Boston defense. With JJ's higher minute totals, the Magic staved off the sweep and ran off two straight games, even taking one in Boston before ultimately losing the 6th game there.

Now, these are two guys who are often compared and thought of in the same caliber of player. I firmly believe Vince was a better basketball player at his peak than Paul was. Or, at least more talented. But even prior to this series, my sentiment was always that Vince was the better player, but I'd rather have Pierce on my team. Intangibles/heart/drive/etc. The 2010 ECF did a lot to affirm that - but neither player was in their prime, and certainly not at their peaks.

What were your own impressions of their battle, and did it do anything to influence your opinion of the players vis a vis each other?

Do you think the same thing would/could have happened had they met in a playoff series earlier, circa 2001-2006?

Or did the matchup happen so late in their careers you just can't take it as representative of their value as players compared to each other?

Interested in thoughts.

[Statlanta]

I was rewatching this series recently, and their matchup in particular was very interesting. Neither player was in their prime, and certainly not their peak, but both were still valuable, contributing players, and IIRC they seemed to be viewed around the same level at the time.

What were your own impressions of their battle, and did it do anything to influence your opinion of the players vis a vis each other?

Do you think the same thing would/could have happened had they met in a playoff series earlier, circa 2001-2006?

Or did the matchup happen so late in their careers you just can't take it as representative of their value as players compared to each other?

Interested in thoughts.

From a younger Magic fan's perspective I don't think this series is indicative of what a typical battle against these players would look like. I think Vince was more reliant on his athletic peak than Paul and by the 2009 he was out of it enough to be rendered less than what the Magic that they were getting when they traded for him(just a failed GM gamble honestly). Vince just didn't mesh well as hoped in general as he wasn't the secondary option slasher for Dwight and he was getting used like a bit like a 2nd/3rd team star caliber player. If the same players battled in their peaks I would say it would be a draw in impact with Vince having a better looking box score. Vince's tenure here was mediocre for his caliber of player and it felt bad that Ryan Anderson probably lead a better career here while the Florida native dropped a stinker of a series so bad that we had to trade him. I think the Boston guys clearly had more chemistry than what we had at this stage(1 Vince year) as Orlando simply relied on Vince as a 2nd-3rd option after just one regular season of meshing.

Head to head I think at this point in their careers the smarter basketball IQ player usually wins and I think Paul showed that here but I don't think it's representative of their matchup or a hypothetical playoff one in their peaks.

[picc]

From a younger Magic fan's perspective I don't think this series is indicative of what a typical battle against these players would look like. I think Vince was more reliant on his athletic peak than Paul and by the 2009 he was out of it enough to be rendered less than what the Magic that they were getting when they traded for him(just a failed GM gamble honestly). Vince just didn't mesh well as hoped in general as he wasn't the secondary option slasher for Dwight and he was getting used like a bit like a 2nd/3rd team star caliber player. If the same players battled in their peaks I would say it would be a draw in impact with Vince having a better looking box score. Vince's tenure here was mediocre for his caliber of player and it felt bad that Ryan Anderson probably lead a better career here while the Florida native dropped a stinker of a series so bad that we had to trade him. I think the Boston guys clearly had more chemistry than what we had at this stage(1 Vince year) as Orlando simply relied on Vince as a 2nd-3rd option after just one regular season of meshing.

Head to head I think at this point in their careers the smarter basketball IQ player usually wins and I think Paul showed that here but I don't think it's representative of their matchup or a hypothetical playoff one in their peaks.

Fair enough. I don't mean to imply I think Vince would average 14 on putrid percentages were they to meet in their primes, but it was enough for me to consider that one guy tends to elevate his play while the other can wilt in the face of pressure when his team needs him most. I wouldn't have expected 25ppg out of Vince during that series, but even for his past-prime self with diminished explosiveness it was shockingly underperforming.

I do think a H2H clash between early 2000s Vince and Paul would be exhilarating, but I'm less unsure after 2010 series who would win the matchup.

[mischievous]

Vince typically gets overrated outside of 01. He typically was never that efficient as a scorer, and was never that dynamic of a playmaker or defender.

As for the series, Pierce was clearly the better player at the time and it was also seen that way.

[BasketballFan7]

Vince typically gets overrated outside of 01. He typically was never that efficient as a scorer, and was never that dynamic of a playmaker or defender.

As for the series, Pierce was clearly the better player at the time and it was also seen that way.

Right. I don't recall them being viewed as similar caliber players at that point.

01 is, IMO, clearly VC's peak and he had superstar production that he never met thereafter.

[Fadeaway_J]

I don't remember the matchup specifically, although I do recall Vince laying an egg and missing 2 crucial late FTs in Game 1 (I think). However, I don't believe Vince was a better player than Pierce over the course of their careers. There's a reason Vince didn't make a single all-NBA Team after 2001. Apart from being more athletic and maybe a bit better as a playmaker, I'm struggling to see an area where he tops Pierce, who was a more efficient scorer, a better rebounder, and better defensively. And Vince only had like a couple of good playoff runs so this series fits right in with what he normally did.

[mischievous]

Vince typically gets overrated outside of 01. He typically was never that efficient as a scorer, and was never that dynamic of a playmaker or defender.

As for the series, Pierce was clearly the better player at the time and it was also seen that way.

Right. I don't recall them being viewed as similar caliber players at that point.

01 is, IMO, clearly VC's peak and he had superstar production that he never met thereafter.

Looking at his stats more, 07 is somewhat close it was his most efficient season even then he only posted a 55.9 ts% but then wasn't good in the playoffs. I think Pierce was worse in peaks but clearly better over his career.

[BasketballFan7]

Vince typically gets overrated outside of 01. He typically was never that efficient as a scorer, and was never that dynamic of a playmaker or defender.

As for the series, Pierce was clearly the better player at the time and it was also seen that way.

Right. I don't recall them being viewed as similar caliber players at that point.

01 is, IMO, clearly VC's peak and he had superstar production that he never met thereafter.

Looking at his stats more, 07 is somewhat close it was his most efficient season even then he only posted a 55.9 ts% but then wasn't good in the playoffs. I think Pierce was worse in peaks but clearly better over his career.

07 is a clear number 2 but we have to take into account other context as well. League average efficiency was lower in 2001, he had Jason Kidd in 2007, and via the eye test we know he was a diminished athlete in 2007 in contrast with 2001. 2001 was his most efficient from deep as well, even more than the numbers indicate because he was taking more on ball 3s than during his time in NJ.

[Texas Chuck]

I guess I just never thought Vince was on Truth's level as a player.