Paul Pierce was better than Dominique Wilkins....

[RedZiggyZag]

I said it.....Paul Pierce was the better player.....I didn't make it a comparison thread, because I Want you to hear my reasonings supporting Paul Pierce ove Dominique Wilkins and I'll debunk anybody that tries to dismiss Pierce or overrate Dominique....

I'll start off by saying this because I know somebody will eventually point this out, If Paul Pierce had not won an NBA Championship in 2008 or a Finals MVP, he would NOT be a better player than Dominique Wilkins of all-time, but it's hard to take away what Pierce did in 2008 even if he was playing with Two HOFers...He was the closer of those Finals and he was also the closer in Game 7 vs the Cavs, where he also had a dominant game.

Now, I'm sure some of you guys will mention how Dominique has always played with inferior teams in a superior Era? Well, Dominique Wilkins pretty much played in the NBA for 15 years.....That's enough time to at least reach the ECF, Pierce managed to lead his team to the ECF in 2002, sure he had Antoine Walker but he was the leader and you cannot take that away from Pierce.

Problem with Dominique is you constantly put him in hypothetical situations, just like most people do with Tracy McGrady today. Reality is, Nique just never got the job done in the playoffs and he was a player that always had excuses in his pockets, I am not taking away anything from Dominique, but in my opinion Pierce was just a greater player, for literally the same reason why I believe Worthy is the superior player than Dominique Wilkins. I do feel that in 97' Nique was jobbed out of the 50 Greatest players of all-time list, should have easily gotten there over Pistol Pete.

I have no problem with anybody taking Dominique of course not, he was the superior scorer and rebounder, but not as much as the stats indicate and not as much as most people think.......People don't realize the pacing of the game was much different in the 80s than it is today, Pierce is the far superior defender and passer and has had accomplished more in the league which is why I would take him over Nique.....

[BallersTalk]

No.

[Bigsmoke]

Paul Pierce is my favorite player but Dominique putting up some crazy numbers back in those days. He as putting up 26.8 ppg with 7 rpg at age 34

[iDunk]

Yeah, as a Boston Celtic.

[west]

Yeah, as a Boston Celtic.
:oldlol:

[RedZiggyZag]

Paul Pierce is my favorite player but Dominique putting up some crazy numbers back in those days. He as putting up 26.8 ppg with 7 rpg at age 34
I'm not taking away from Dominique but in all fairness, The pace in the 80s that Dominique played in was much faster than today's game, which is why Nique's PPG and RPG is so much higher than Pierce's....In my opinion it actually is close, Nique is the superior scorer and rebounder but it's close in my opinion......and plus if you ask me, If Nique replaced Pierce I really don't think the Celtics would have gotten the championship, not that it means anything but I was just throwing it out there.


Yeah, as a Boston Celtic.
That too, Again, not taking away anything from Dominique, I just feel like Pierce doesn't get the credit he deserves the majority of the time.

[magnax1]

Idk, I actually got to say this is really close, Pierce is a great team player and is extremely close. I only sa2 'Nique at the tale end of his career (I remember watching the year he was on the spurs alot, one of those teams that sucked but I liked to watch anyway). But from what I've seen of both they are really close, because Pierce has to win almost all the intangibles, but 'Nique was clearly more dominant and probably carried some worse teams to similar heights as pierce. I truly can't chose between the two.

[OldSchoolBBall]

For the freaking last time, pace has virtually NOTHING TO DO with INDIVIDUAL scoring numbers. I think Nique was averaging 18 ppg at age 37 in 1997 (after multiple injuries), in a league where the average pace was actually LOWER than it was this past season. Nique was a gifted scorer, plain and simple; he'd do it in any era, and he'd definitely average more ppg than Pierce in any era.

[1987_Lakers]

I think Dominique was better, but it's closer than some would think.

[RedZiggyZag]

For the freaking last time, pace has virtually NOTHING TO DO with INDIVIDUAL scoring numbers. I think Nique was averaging 18 ppg at age 37 in 1997 (after multiple injuries), in a league where the average pace was actually LOWER than it was this past season. Nique was a gifted scorer, plain and simple; he'd do it in any era, and he'd definitely average more ppg than Pierce in any era.
I was talking about the rebounding.....more so than the scoring....as I said Nique is the better scorer and rebounder but all I mentioned was it's not as big as the stats indicate, plus Pierce's jumper beats Nique by a good margin as well, Nique was never too good of a shooter, much better finisher and slasher than Pierce was though. No problem with anybody taking Nique, but I prefer valid reasons over excuses like Pierce played with KG and Ray-Ray.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I was talking about the rebounding.....more so than the scoring....as I said Nique is the better scorer and rebounder but all I mentioned was it's not as big as the stats indicate, plus Pierce's jumper beats Nique by a good margin as well, Nique was never too good of a shooter, much better finisher and slasher than Pierce was though. No problem with anybody taking Nique, but I prefer valid reasons over excuses like Pierce played with KG and Ray-Ray.

You said that pace was why Nique's ppg and rpg were higher than Pierce's. That's simply not true. Nique was a significantly better scorer. You're talking about a guy who averaged 29-31 ppg multiple times versus a guy who's never even averaged 27 ppg, and who's only been above 26 ppg twice in his career.

[MMM]

You said that pace was why Nique's ppg and rpg were higher than Pierce's. That's simply not true. Nique was a significantly better scorer. You're talking about a guy who averaged 29-31 ppg multiple times versus a guy who's never even averaged 27 ppg, and who's only been above 26 ppg twice in his career.

not comparing him to Nique but Pierce avg 25 or more 5 times in his career so he wasn't that off from avg over 26 ppg. Also he avg 26.8 that is pretty close to 27 not sure why you are making a big deal out of an arbitrary number.

[drza44]

and plus if you ask me, If Nique replaced Pierce I really don't think the Celtics would have gotten the championship, not that it means anything but I was just throwing it out there.

IMO if you replaced Pierce with Nique the Celtics would have swept the Hawks, beat the Cavs in 5, beat the Pistons in 5, and swept the Lakers. I say this not arbitrarily, but after looking at the game logs. In ATL games 3 and 4, Cavs game 4, Pistons game 4, and Lakers game 3 the only difference between a Celtics win and a Celtics loss was that Pierce couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

In those 5 games, all close games that the Celtics lost, Pierce shot a combined 21-for-72 (29%) with 14 turnovers. One thing that isn't getting enough attention in this thread was how much more consistent Nique was as a scorer. Pierce might explode for 40 points one game then disappear for 4 points all in the same series. With Nique's consistent scoring effect as a support for KG's all-around dominance in the 08 playoffs, the Celtics likely win all 5 of those games and steam-roll through to the ring.

[MMM]

IMO if you replaced Pierce with Nique the Celtics would have swept the Hawks, beat the Cavs in 5, beat the Pistons in 5, and swept the Lakers. I say this not arbitrarily, but after looking at the game logs. In ATL games 3 and 4, Cavs game 4, Pistons game 4, and Lakers game 3 the only difference between a Celtics win and a Celtics loss was that Pierce couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

In those 5 games, all close games that the Celtics lost, Pierce shot a combined 21-for-72 (29%) with 14 turnovers. One thing that isn't getting enough attention in this thread was how much more consistent Nique was as a scorer. Pierce might explode for 40 points one game then disappear for 4 points all in the same series. With Nique's consistent scoring effect as a support for KG's all-around dominance in the 08 playoffs, the Celtics likely win all 5 of those games and steam-roll through to the ring.

Pierce is not how you describe him at all he has been one of the more consistent scorers in this era.

[drza44]

"Pierce might explode for 40 points one game then disappear for 4 points all in the same series. With Nique's consistent scoring effect as a support for KG's all-around dominance in the 08 playoffs, the Celtics likely win all 5 of those games and steam-roll through to the ring." --drza44

Pierce is not how you describe him at all he has been one of the more consistent scorers in this era.

I was replying specifically about the '08 playoffs, since ZigZag said that the Celtics wouldn't have won with Nique instead of Pierce. And in the '08 playoffs, what I said about Pierce's inconsistent scoring was absolutely true. The wild disappear/explosion swing happened two different times in two different series:

In the Cleveland series, Pierce had a 4-point game (2-for-14 shooting and 6 TOs) and a 41-point game (13-for-23 FG).

In the Finals against LA, Pierce had a 6-point game (2-for-14 FG) and a 38-point game (10-for-22 FG).

But even beyond the cartoonish scoring swings I point out there, Pierce was just generally very inconsistent with his scoring. He had a handful of great games in the '08 playoffs where he looked like a star, then he also had 6 games with more turnovers than field goals made where he was completely fumbling the Cs out of the game. That kind of up-and-down inconsistency was a big part of the "struggles" that the Celtics had before they got it together and secured the championship.

[TheAnchorman]

Are you kidding? Garnett Allen and Dominique? That is an instant championship, there is no 1-man team in that Boston Celtics atmosphere that Garnett fostered, or else you would have gotten your ass whooped within the 1st few days of training camp.

[Al Thornton]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: this ain't even close, Dominique is on another level.

[RedZiggyZag]

Are you kidding? Garnett Allen and Dominique? That is an instant championship, there is no 1-man team in that Boston Celtics atmosphere that Garnett fostered, or else you would have gotten your ass whooped within the 1st few days of training camp.
It looks better on paper and the scoring averages...but I don't think they would have been as good as the original Big Three of the Boston Celtics.... Plus, Pierce is much better defensively and passing wise, which is why I think that 2008 Celtics team was so successful, especially Pierce's defense, Dominique was nothing special on that end or in passing. Could it be a championship team? Easily, but no guarantee.

[TheAnchorman]

It looks better on paper and the scoring averages...but I don't think they would have been as good as the original Big Three of the Boston Celtics.... Plus, Pierce is much better defensively and passing wise, which is why I think that 2008 Celtics team was so successful, especially Pierce's defense, Dominique was nothing special on that end or in passing. Could it be a championship team? Easily, but no guarantee.
Dominique was way more consistent than Pierce in terms of scoring, his assists numbers are actually less than Pierce's but he still contributed. Remember, this is Kevin Garnett we are talking about. He transformed the entire defensive mindset of a team, including that of Paul Pierce. Wilkins never had that luxury when he was playing. I know it is hard to put a player who played 20 years ago into a very recent championship team but bear with me here, people do it all the time.

[OldSchoolBBall]

not comparing him to Nique but Pierce avg 25 or more 5 times in his career so he wasn't that off from avg over 26 ppg. Also he avg 26.8 that is pretty close to 27 not sure why you are making a big deal out of an arbitrary number.

26.8 is Pierce's CAREER HIGH, and by a good amount (.7 ppg). Aside from that, he's only been above 26 ppg one other time (26.1 ppg). You're comparing him to a guy whose career high is 30.7 ppg, and who topped 29 ppg three other times. Nique topped 26 ppg NINE times (Pierce only twice). Pierce's career high season was a below average year for Nique during his prime. Nique was clearly a better scorer. It isn't close at all.

[BallersTalk]

An increase in pace wouldn't magically increase Pierce's scoring efficiency. I don't know why people go on and on about how the average FG% in the 80s was higher. People forget that big men did A LOT more scoring then than they do now.

[MMM]

26.8 is Pierce's CAREER HIGH, and by a good amount (.7 ppg). Aside from that, he's only been above 26 ppg one other time (26.1 ppg). You're comparing him to a guy whose career high is 30.7 ppg, and who topped 29 ppg three other times. Nique topped 26 ppg NINE times (Pierce only twice). Pierce's career high season was a below average year for Nique during his prime. Nique was clearly a better scorer. It isn't close at all.

As said in my post i'm not comparing them I'm just pointing out Pierce was close to 26 ppg many times. Are you really ging to hold it against him for avg 25.9 ppg or 25.3ppg, 25.2 ppg or whatever it is.

[MMM]

An increase in pace wouldn't magically increase Pierce's scoring efficiency. I don't know why people go on and on about how the average FG% in the 80s was higher. People forget that big men did A LOT more scoring then than they do now.

Yes I miss the days of when you could throw it into the big men and get 25/30 ppg now you are lucky to see a big avg over 21 ppg.

[OldSchoolBBall]

As said in my post i'm not comparing them I'm just pointing out Pierce was close to 26 ppg many times. Are you really ging to hold it against him for avg 25.9 ppg or 25.3ppg, 25.2 ppg or whatever it is.

The only point I was trying to make is that it's not really close between them as scorers. When one guy's career high is a below average season for the other, that's not close.

[Duncan21formvp]

I said it.....Paul Pierce was the better player.....I didn't make it a comparison thread, because I Want you to hear my reasonings supporting Paul Pierce ove Dominique Wilkins and I'll debunk anybody that tries to dismiss Pierce or overrate Dominique....

I'll start off by saying this because I know somebody will eventually point this out, If Paul Pierce had not won an NBA Championship in 2008 or a Finals MVP, he would NOT be a better player than Dominique Wilkins of all-time, but it's hard to take away what Pierce did in 2008 even if he was playing with Two HOFers...He was the closer of those Finals and he was also the closer in Game 7 vs the Cavs, where he also had a dominant game.

Now, I'm sure some of you guys will mention how Dominique has always played with inferior teams in a superior Era? Well, Dominique Wilkins pretty much played in the NBA for 15 years.....That's enough time to at least reach the ECF, Pierce managed to lead his team to the ECF in 2002, sure he had Antoine Walker but he was the leader and you cannot take that away from Pierce.

Problem with Dominique is you constantly put him in hypothetical situations, just like most people do with Tracy McGrady today. Reality is, Nique just never got the job done in the playoffs and he was a player that always had excuses in his pockets, I am not taking away anything from Dominique, but in my opinion Pierce was just a greater player, for literally the same reason why I believe Worthy is the superior player than Dominique Wilkins. I do feel that in 97' Nique was jobbed out of the 50 Greatest players of all-time list, should have easily gotten there over Pistol Pete.

I have no problem with anybody taking Dominique of course not, he was the superior scorer and rebounder, but not as much as the stats indicate and not as much as most people think.......People don't realize the pacing of the game was much different in the 80s than it is today, Pierce is the far superior defender and passer and has had accomplished more in the league which is why I would take him over Nique.....
:roll:

[highwhey]

How have you been RG?

So I take it you've moved on from being a Yao fanboy?

You won't have a problem is if I say that Dwight>Yao?

[BlackMamba24]

redziggyzag is a retarded troll in love with yao

[RedZiggyZag]

not comparing him to Nique but Pierce avg 25 or more 5 times in his career so he wasn't that off from avg over 26 ppg. Also he avg 26.8 that is pretty close to 27 not sure why you are makiga big deal out of an arbitrary number.
:applause:


You said that pace was why Nique's ppg and rpg were higher than Pierce's. That's simply not true. Nique was a significantly better scorer. You're talking about a guy who averaged 29-31 ppg multiple times versus a guy who's never even averaged 27 ppg, and who's only been above 26 ppg twice in his career.
Okay, well I take back my saying of the pace meaning Nique's scoring becomes inflated, Nique was the better scorer as I've repeatdely said, no need to complain about it. Nique was the better rebounder but that is where pace plays a factor. Anyways, what's your take on Pierce vs Nique as a player?


Dominique was way more consistent than Pierce in terms of scoring, his assists numbers are actually less than Pierce's but he still contributed. Remember, this is Kevin Garnett we are talking about. He transformed the entire defensive mindset of a team, including that of Paul Pierce. Wilkins never had that luxury when he was playing. I know it is hard to put a player who played 20 years ago into a very recent championship team but bear with me here, people do it all the time.
I disagree a bit....I don't think the improvement of Pierce's defense was all on KG, it was some by KG that's for sure, but It was more so because Pierce just taking playing defense more seriously since he had two HOFers that he could share the load with offensively, Not sure how Nique would do defensively though, athletic, but IQ? I don't know.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Not this dumb argument again. I destroyed yours not long ago. When Pierce mad the ECF with Walker the East was probably at it's worst or second worst(along with 2007). He beat a 76ers team with an injured Allen Iverson who probably shouldn't have been playing a team that had lost Tyrone Hill from the year before and had to see Iverson miss 22 games, Derrick Coleman miss 24 games, Aaron McKie miss 34 games and Eric Snow miss 21 games. Kind of hard to develop any chemistry, wouldn't you say? Iverson probably shouldn't have even been playing that series, but it still went the full 5 games.

Next they faced a Pistons team with Stackhouse as the best player(along with his sub 40 shooting %, 32% in the playoffs), 35 year old Clifford Robinson as the second leading scorer, Ben Wallace in his first good season and Chuck Atkins and Corliss Williamson as the only other players of note.

Each time 'Nique was in the ECSF he lost to superior teams than either of the teams Boston beat in '02 or the team that beat them(The Nets). They lost to the '86 Celtics in the ECSF, they lost to the badboy Pistons in '87 in the ECSF, lost to the Celtics again in '88 in 7 games in that epic duel between Bird and 'Nique.

In 1985-1986 'Nique was second in MVP voting. Pierce has never been considered a legit MVP candidate. 'Nique finished behind only prime Larry Bird and ahead of Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Charles Barkley, Isiah Thomas and Moses Malone. It'd be laughable to say Pierce was anywhere near that level player. 'Nique finished 5th in MVP voting in '87 and 6th in '88.

'Nique was among the games elite, a legit superstar. Pierce has always been more or less a second tier star. Never a legit superstar. And as far as Pierce winning a title? Well, he was the sidekick. 'Nique never had that luxuary. Pierce wasn't even that good in the 2008 playoffs. He was trash vs Atlanta with the exception of one or 2 games when he was still nothing special. He was awful for the first 6 games of the Cleveland series. And he had solid series in the ECF and Finals, but not great series. He had 3 miserable shooting games in those series.

This isn't even close, 'Nique was on another level. Pierce is in the same class as Vince Carter for example, he moved a little bit ahead of him all time because of the title, but nothing can make him a better player than 'Nique because he simply isn't.

[RedZiggyZag]

Not this dumb argument again. I destroyed yours not long ago. When Pierce mad the ECF with Walker the East was probably at it's worst or second worst(along with 2007). He beat a 76ers team with an injured Allen Iverson who probably shouldn't have been playing a team that had lost Tyrone Hill from the year before and had to see Iverson miss 22 games, Derrick Coleman miss 24 games, Aaron McKie miss 34 games and Eric Snow miss 21 games. Kind of hard to develop any chemistry, wouldn't you say? Iverson probably shouldn't have even been playing that series, but it still went the full 5 games.

Next they faced a Pistons team with Stackhouse as the best player(along with his sub 40 shooting %, 32% in the playoffs), 35 year old Clifford Robinson as the second leading scorer, Ben Wallace in his first good season and Chuck Atkins and Corliss Williamson as the only other players of note.

Each time 'Nique was in the ECSF he lost to superior teams than either of the teams Boston beat in '02 or the team that beat them(The Nets). They lost to the '86 Celtics in the ECSF, they lost to the badboy Pistons in '87 in the ECSF, lost to the Celtics again in '88 in 7 games in that epic duel between Bird and 'Nique.

In 1985-1986 'Nique was second in MVP voting. Pierce has never been considered a legit MVP candidate. 'Nique finished behind only prime Larry Bird and ahead of Magic Johnson, Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Charles Barkley, Isiah Thomas and Moses Malone. It'd be laughable to say Pierce was anywhere near that level player. 'Nique finished 5th in MVP voting in '87 and 6th in '88.

'Nique was among the games elite, a legit superstar. Pierce has always been more or less a second tier star. Never a legit superstar. And as far as Pierce winning a title? Well, he was the sidekick. 'Nique never had that luxuary. Pierce wasn't even that good in the 2008 playoffs. He was trash vs Atlanta with the exception of one or 2 games when he was still nothing special. He was awful for the first 6 games of the Cleveland series. And he had solid series in the ECF and Finals, but not great series. He had 3 miserable shooting games in those series.

This isn't even close, 'Nique was on another level. Pierce is in the same class as Vince Carter for example, he moved a little bit ahead of him all time because of the title, but nothing can make him a better player than 'Nique because he simply isn't.
The only thing I love is how you constantly make excuses using ERA or using how he has no teammates, which is what I was exactly talking about in my 1st post if you read it, which you clearly didn't. This is why, Nique is overrated, you constantly put him in a hypothetical situation that he never was in and never will be in and you constantly make excuses for lack of success. Yes, Pierce didn't have the best run in 2002 stat-wise, but he got the job done right? Or do you want him to get the job done averaging 30 PPG and missing zero of his shots? It didn't stop him from getting the job done.

Give me all the numbers you want.........Pierce career wise is at the very least superior than Dominique, maybe Dominique the player was better...And Yes that is a bit of a different question. Maybe if you actually gave people their credit once in a while, you wouldn't be such a hater to guys like Russell, Pierce, Big O, etc......Constantly whining about their lack of stats......and getting the job done...

Reality is Pierce got the job done and won an NBA Finals, Dominique didn't.... Whether you like it or not, that is the cold bitter truth.

[DCL]

pierce got kevin garnett and ray allen.

who did nique got??? f--king jon konkak and randy wittman.

nique was a one-man show on those sorry hawks yet he still led them to 50-win seasons during a tough eastern conference era.

when pierce ran his own one-man team, he couldn't even make the playoffs in the much weaker eastern conference.

give nique a kevin garnett and ray allen, and they'd give the pistons and larry's celtics a good run for their money.

you CAN'T IGNORE the teammates that they had. PP got KG and Jesus, both franchise level players. KG was even MVP some years back. the composition of teammates is a huge and ridiculous advantage over anything nique ever had. if you IGNORE this astronomical difference, you're just talking outta your ass, dude.

PP ran his own show with no help before, and he was just failing miserably.

Nique ran his own show with no star help and he still got them to 50 wins in a much more difficult conference.

[ShaqAttack3234]

The only thing I love is how you constantly make excuses using ERA or using how he has no teammates, which is what I was exactly talking about in my 1st post if you read it, which you clearly didn't. This is why, Nique is overrated, you constantly put him in a hypothetical situation that he never was in and never will be in and you constantly make excuses for lack of success. Yes, Pierce didn't have the best run in 2002 stat-wise, but he got the job done right? Or do you want him to get the job done averaging 30 PPG and missing zero of his shots? It didn't stop him from getting the job done.

And in the end nobody saw that ECF as much of an accomplishment. Nobody remembers him leading them to the ECF years later, because Ray Allen did the same thing a year earlier when the East was a bit stronger. The fact is that Pierce really couldn't get the job done as the number 1 guy, neither could 'Nique, but looking at 'Nique's situation it was impossible to expect him in the finals.


Give me all the numbers you want.........Pierce career wise is at the very least superior than Dominique, maybe Dominique the player was better...And Yes that is a bit of a different question. Maybe if you actually gave people their credit once in a while, you wouldn't be such a hater to guys like Russell, Pierce, Big O, etc......Constantly whining about their lack of stats......and getting the job done...

Reality is Pierce got the job done and won an NBA Finals, Dominique didn't.... Whether you like it or not, that is the cold bitter truth.

I'm a hater? :oldlol: No, I actually see the game logically. I give Russell credit(he's top 10 all time), the Big O just barely missed my top 10. I'm sorry, but Pierce was never a dominant player or even a superstar. Before he won a championship with one of the best players of this era leading the way he was a borderline hall of famer. What does that tell you?

The fact is that winning a championship as the number 2 guy IS a lot different then winning one as the number one guy. Pierce won't be remembered as one of the true greats of his era. 'Nique is remembered as one of the greats of a much better era. 'Nique's superior stats, superior longevity(as of now) and his superior level of peak play makes him a higher ranked player than Pierce.

[RedZiggyZag]

And in the end nobody saw that ECF as much of an accomplishment. Nobody remembers him leading them to the ECF years later, because Ray Allen did the same thing a year earlier when the East was a bit stronger. The fact is that Pierce really couldn't get the job done as the number 1 guy, neither could 'Nique, but looking at 'Nique's situation it was impossible to expect him in the finals.
But somehow getting to the ECSF is more of an accomplishment than going to to the ECF...Hm.... :rolleyes: Yes, the east was stronger and how many more years did Nique play in the league? He played in the NBA for roughly 15 years and he couldn't even get to the ECF, not even as a role player. Either you are overrating Nique or you are just giving him excuses for his lack of depth? Not to mention, his playoff numbers dipped a bit.


The fact is that winning a championship as the number 2 guy IS a lot different then winning one as the number one guy. Pierce won't be remembered as one of the true greats of his era. 'Nique is remembered as one of the greats of a much better era. 'Nique's superior stats, superior longevity(as of now) and his superior level of peak play makes him a higher ranked player than Pierce.
More like 1A/1B guy....... Nique is remembered as what? He didn't even make the Top 50 greatest players, should he have been in 97'? Absolutely, but he's not there anymore, now that Kobe, Duncan, KG have all came into the league.

Nique will be more remembered for his slam dunk titles than he will be for his stats and his games, whether you like it or not. Give me all the stats you want..... Pierce succeeded in the NBA, while Nique didn't.

[Harlem]

y is this even a debate paul is better,period...don't get me wrong nique was a beast n a freakish athlete but paul is better shooter, passer and a more efficient scorer. just because nique came b4 paul doesn't mean he's better

[ShaqAttack3234]

But somehow getting to the ECSF is more of an accomplishment than going to to the ECF...Hm.... :rolleyes: Yes, the east was stronger and how many more years did Nique play in the league? He played in the NBA for roughly 15 years and he couldn't even get to the ECF, not even as a role player. Either you are overrating Nique or you are just giving him excuses for his lack of depth? Not to mention, his playoff numbers dipped a bit.

Pierce missed the playoffs his first 3 seasons and failed to even win 40 games. He dropped back down to 36 wins in 2004 after a very short, semi-successful 2 year stretch and then he won 45 games and lost in the first round in 2004-2005 before winning just 33 games in 2006 and only 24 in 2007. Pierce was not known as a winner before then, neither was 'Nique, but he consistently got to the playoffs.


More like 1A/1B guy....... Nique is remembered as what? He didn't even make the Top 50 greatest players, should he have been in 97'? Absolutely, but he's not there anymore, now that Kobe, Duncan, KG have all came into the league.

Offensively Pierce and KG were 1A/1B, but as overall players Pierce was clearly number 2. And do you think Pierce is anywhere near the top 50 players of all time?


Nique will be more remembered for his slam dunk titles than he will be for his stats and his games, whether you like it or not. Give me all the stats you want..... Pierce succeeded in the NBA, while Nique didn't.

No he didn't, he couldn't even win 50 games in a pathetic Eastern Conference as the number 1 guy. Pierce was blessed with the oppurtunity of being a sidekick to an all time great player. Before that he typically played for losing teams.

[RedZiggyZag]

Pierce missed the playoffs his first 3 seasons and failed to even win 40 games. He dropped back down to 36 wins in 2004 after a very short, semi-successful 2 year stretch and then he won 45 games and lost in the first round in 2004-2005 before winning just 33 games in 2006 and only 24 in 2007. Pierce was not known as a winner before then, neither was 'Nique, but he consistently got to the playoffs.
SO you are pretty much saying, Nique consistently made the playoffs and then failed in the playofs, while Pierce never got to the playoffs much, but when he did, he succeeded? I'll go with what Pierce did over Nique anyday of the week. There is no award for making the playoffs and losing.


Offensively Pierce and KG were 1A/1B, but as overall players Pierce was clearly number 2. And do you think Pierce is anywhere near the top 50 players of all time?
In the 45-50 range probably.....


No he didn't, he couldn't even win 50 games in a pathetic Eastern Conference as the number 1 guy. Pierce was blessed with the oppurtunity of being a sidekick to an all time great player. Before that he typically played for losing teams.
Yes, because 49 wins and 50 wins is such a huge difference. :oldlol: And he still led his team to the ECF in 2002. :sleeping If you weren't so picky about these little things you would understand why I have Pierce above Nique in the all-time rankings. Obviously that run in 2008, completely boosted him up and in my opinion it boosted him up past Dominique.

This is just like the same argument somebody mentioned about Kobe vs Duncan, how Duncan has never managed to reach the Finals two times in a row, therefor that puts Kobe above him? :rolleyes: You are literally giving me the same argument.

[ShaqAttack3234]

SO you are pretty much saying, Nique consistently made the playoffs and then failed in the playofs, while Pierce never got to the playoffs much, but when he did, he succeeded? I'll go with what Pierce did over Nique anyday of the week. There is no award for making the playoffs and losing.

Pierce succeeded ONCE and he was the number 2 guy. You know how many number 2 guys there have been? Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, hell even Otis Thorpe. Are they better than 'Nique too?


In the 45-50 range probably.....

:roll: Not even close.


Yes, because 49 wins and 50 wins is such a huge difference. :oldlol: And he still led his team to the ECF in 2002. :sleeping If you weren't so picky about these little things you would understand why I have Pierce above Nique in the all-time rankings. Obviously that run in 2008, completely boosted him up and in my opinion it boosted him up past Dominique.

No I won't ever understand why you have Pierce incorrectly ranked above 'Nique. Go back and watch some games of 'Nique in his prime and I guarantee you'll change your mind if you're not a complete retard.


This is just like the same argument somebody mentioned about Kobe vs Duncan, how Duncan has never managed to reach the Finals two times in a row, therefor that puts Kobe above him? :rolleyes: You are literally giving me the same argument.

No, in fact it's not even close you moron.

[RedZiggyZag]

Pierce succeeded ONCE and he was the number 2 guy. You know how many number 2 guys there have been? Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, hell even Otis Thorpe. Are they better than 'Nique too?
Funny, none of those guys were Finals MVPs, I compare him to James Worthy, but keep hating.


No I won't ever understand why you have Pierce incorrectly ranked above 'Nique. Go back and watch some games of 'Nique in his prime and I guarantee you'll change your mind if you're not a complete retard.
I'm sure his soaring dunks will amaze me, but I doubt his winning ability will which is the most important stat by the way. Like I Said, I have no problem with anybody taking Nique so he is the guy most people are taking, but from the way I view logic and from the accomplishments and career Pierce is above Dominique for me......

I'll just say this, Dominique never played enough on the big stage to make a name for himself in the playoffs.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Funny, none of those guys were Finals MVPs, I compare him to James Worthy, but keep hating.

:oldlol: Tony Parker just won a finals MVP 2 years ago. Worthy isn't better than 'Nique either.


I'm sure his soaring dunks will amaze me, but I doubt his winning ability will which is the most important stat by the way. Like I Said, I have no problem with anybody taking Nique so he is the guy most people are taking, but from the way I view logic and from the accomplishments and career Pierce is above Dominique for me......

Pierce was a loser until he got 2 hall of fame teammates, one of them much better than himself. Pierce's career winning % was .455 before the trade.


I'll just say this, Dominique never played enough on the big stage to make a name for himself in the playoffs.

Well his duel with Bird in 1988 became legendary.

[RedZiggyZag]

:oldlol: Tony Parker just won a finals MVP 2 years ago. Worthy isn't better than 'Nique either.
Now, I realize you aren't even hating on Pierce you are just overrating Nique completely......As I said, I don't really care if you think Nique is better because there are enough reasonings behind it, but on the other hand you are overrating him......We can agree to disagree here, because IMO Worthy is better than Nique, and if you didn't know the Lakers actually could have had Nique over Worthy but they stuck with Worthy....



Pierce was a loser until he got 2 hall of fame teammates, one of them much better than himself. Pierce's career winning % was .455 before the trade.
Sorry, but both players that I and most other people consider losers, Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter would dread to make it any type of Conference Finals and they didn't? Did they? No....they didn't, you would be more reasonable if you didn't pick your spots all the time. Not a loser at all...Losers aren't tough physically and mentally either like Pierce


Well his duel with Bird in 1988 became legendary
And it was in the 2nd round...what does that say about him? :violin:

[L.Kizzle]

Nique'

Pierce in the 80s would be Rolando Blackman.

[Lebron23]

Are your serious?

Prime Wilkins was a much better player than Pierce.

[L.Kizzle]

Are your serious?

Prime Wilkins was a much better player than Pierce.
Prime Wilkins was an All-NBA 1st teamer.

Prime Pierce was an All-NBA 3rd teamer

[Lebron23]

Prime Wilkins was an All-NBA 1st teamer.

Prime Pierce was an All-NBA 3rd teamer


:applause: :applause: :applause:

[MMM]

Prime Wilkins was an All-NBA 1st teamer.

Prime Pierce was an All-NBA 3rd teamer

Well a lesser version of Pierce happen to make it to an all nba 2nd team. there were a few years where he could of arguably make the 2nd team back in his prime but I don't put much stock into all nba teams. However, I take your point that Pierce has never solidify him self a top 10 player in the league he has always been on the borderline region depending on the season.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Now, I realize you aren't even hating on Pierce you are just overrating Nique completely......As I said, I don't really care if you think Nique is better because there are enough reasonings behind it, but on the other hand you are overrating him......We can agree to disagree here, because IMO Worthy is better than Nique, and if you didn't know the Lakers actually could have had Nique over Worthy but they stuck with Worthy....

Worthy was a great player who could do a lot of things, but from what I saw of him he seemed like a number 2 guy more than a legit superstar like 'Nique. He could post up, pass, run the break well ect, but I can't help but think that he benefitted from playing with the best point guard ever and that the Lakers would have been atleast as successful with 'Nique in his place. It seemed to me that 'Nique did everything better except pass and post up.


Sorry, but both players that I and most other people consider losers, Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter would dread to make it any type of Conference Finals and they didn't? Did they? No....they didn't, you would be more reasonable if you didn't pick your spots all the time. Not a loser at all...Losers aren't tough physically and mentally either like Pierce

Pierce, physically tough? I'm not saying he's soft, but.....I don't think of him as particularly tough either.

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6080583,00.jpg

And Vince Carter's 2001 playoff run was EASILY more impressive than Pierce's 2002 playoff run. He lost to Philly by one point. A Philly team that was much better than the Nets team that Pierce lost to in 2002.

Carter started off the Philly series with a 35 point, 7 assist game to steal homecourt and keep in mind that Philly was an elite defensive team that year. In game 3 he had 50 points on 19/29 shooting and he tied a record with 9 3's(in only 13 attempts), he also had 6 rebounds, 7 assists an 4 blocks. He could have had more, but he didn't need to because it was a blowout. Facing elimination in game 6 he responded with a 39 point, 5 rebound, 5 assist game on 17/31 shooting with 4 steals.

For the series Vince averaged 30.4 ppg, 6 rpg, 5.6 apg, 1.9 spg, 2 bpg, 47.4 FG% and 42.2 3P% vs a Philly team that had the number 5 ranked defense an the defensive player of the year protecting the paint.

I'll take Carter in his prime over Pierce in his prime. Don't act like they aren't comparable, that's ridiculous. Up until 2007 Vince was widely considered the better player, then Pierce got to play with 2 hall of famers and magically he improved a ton in some peoples minds despite the fact that he was 30 years old.



And it was in the 2nd round...what does that say about him? :violin:

That he had some bad luck running into prime Larry Bird in the 2nd round.

[RedZiggyZag]

Prime Wilkins was an All-NBA 1st teamer.

Prime Pierce was an All-NBA 3rd teamer
That's funny, because Wilkins only made it to the All-NBA 1st team, once in his career......Pierce is an All-NBA 3rd teamer, No doubt....but the All-NBA voting is a Regular season voting, it doesn't determine who the best player is, it determine who had the best season. Take example, Hakeem in 95', All-NBA 3rd teamer, was he the 3rd best center in the NBA? Not a freakin' chance, easily better than David Robinson and I would say he was better than Shaq then too as well, he proved it in the playoffs...but even before that I would still say Hakeem was better than Both those guys.



That he had some bad luck running into prime Larry Bird in the 2nd round.
There's nothing you can do to change my mind and there's nothing I can do to change your mind, I'll just leave it as is..... In my opinion you are overrating Nique, and you probably think I am overrating Pierce or something. Either way, I am tired of going back and forth with you. Especially since you said something like Carter was better than Pierce. I'm just going to agree to disagree with you, take it or leave it.

[L.Kizzle]

Dream missed a lot of games that season not to mention David and Shaq lead their teams to 58 and 62 wins that season.

[MMM]

Pierce, physically tough? I'm not saying he's soft, but.....I don't think of him as particularly tough either.



Come on you don't think someone who played shortly after getting stabbed multiple times is not tough.


I'll take Carter in his prime over Pierce in his prime. Don't act like they aren't comparable, that's ridiculous. Up until 2007 Vince was widely considered the better player, then Pierce got to play with 2 hall of famers and magically he improved a ton in some peoples minds despite the fact that he was 30 years old.


Carter and Pierce are as close to a wash as you get. Obviously Pre injury issues people prefered Carter by a good margin but since then Pierce has had better individual seasons.

[D-Rose]

Yeah, I know that.....my point was the All-NBA Team has nothing to do to determine who is superior than who, It is about who has had the greater season. Greater season does not mean greater player.... Kevin Durant probably had a better season than Carmelo Anthony last season.....Is he by any chance better than Melo? Absolutely not in my book.... There's a reason why a guy like Michael Jordan is considered the greatest to ever play, see his playoff dominance for reasons....If regular season was all we played for, Wilt Chamberlain would honestly be the GOAT, not Michael Jordan.
Seriously Rg, you're trying too hard.

Wilkins was an all-nba 1st team selection in the 80's, GOAT era of basketball.

Pierce played in an era with rules being perimeter-oriented and he wasn't ever all-nba 1st.

Wilkins is a superior scorer and overall player.

end thread/

[Manute for Ever!]

Yeah, as a Boston Celtic.

:roll:

http://www.uncoached.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/wilkins.jpg Vs.http://blogs.sohh.com/sports/paul.jpg

I'd give PP the advantage as the better Celtic, but I'd put my money on Hawks era 'Nique every day of the week out of the two.

[RedZiggyZag]

Dream missed a lot of games that season not to mention David and Shaq lead their teams to 58 and 62 wins that season.
Yeah, I know that.....my point was the All-NBA Team has nothing to do to determine who is superior than who, It is about who has had the greater season. Greater season does not mean greater player.... Kevin Durant probably had a better season than Carmelo Anthony last season.....Is he by any chance better than Melo? Absolutely not in my book.... There's a reason why a guy like Michael Jordan is considered the greatest to ever play, see his playoff dominance for reasons....If regular season was all we played for, Wilt Chamberlain would honestly be the GOAT, not Michael Jordan.



Carter and Pierce are as close to a wash as you get. Obviously Pre injury issues people prefered Carter by a good margin but since then Pierce has had better individual seasons.
Nothing close about it, I'll take a Finals MVP over a guy who admittedly quit on a team easily.



Worthy was a great player who could do a lot of things, but from what I saw of him he seemed like a number 2 guy more than a legit superstar like 'Nique. He could post up, pass, run the break well ect, but I can't help but think that he benefitted from playing with the best point guard ever and that the Lakers would have been atleast as successful with 'Nique in his place. It seemed to me that 'Nique did everything better except pass and post up.
Uh so..... I'd rather build my team around Nique because he could sell tickets, If I needed to win now and If I wanted the better player, It would be Worthy. Both played completely different styles, but Worthy was just better suited for the Lakers. Lakers stuck with Worthy over Nique and they won championships that way, Worthy sacrificed a lot of his game to the team concept to win games. Plus, I like how efficient Worthy was scoring wise and rebounding wise and Worthy always played better in the playoffs while Nique had the opposite tendency.



I'll just end it by saying this......Pierce stifled his game in 2008 to a team concept to win a championship...and he succeeded and won an NBA Finals MVP that season....Worthy did the same thing his entire NBA career with the Lakers, changing his game to a team concept to win and he was also successful....

On a lottery team like the Bucks, Nets, Kings, I'd probably give the edge to Nique over both of those guys.....On a playoff contending team like the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, I'd rather have Pierce or Worthy over Nique anyday of the week, simply as pie. If you don't make irrational hypothetical exucses for Nique, it would be a simple concept to understand.

[ShaqAttack3234]

On a lottery team like the Bucks, Nets, Kings, I'd probably give the edge to Nique over both of those guys.....On a playoff contending team like the Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, I'd rather have Pierce or Worthy over Nique anyday of the week, simply as pie. If you don't make irrational hypothetical exucses for Nique, it would be a simple concept to understand.

It's all hypothetical because 'Nique never had a chance to sacrifice his game. He never played with enough talent.

[Da KO King]

This is crazy to me. Paul Pierce is better because he won a title two seasons ago when playing with two other Hall of Fame level talents, while Dominique Wilkins loses points for never getting the job done despite never having a contention worthy team?!? That hardly seems logical.

Seems even more illogical to me when considering when asked to be the man all by himself for the '03-'04 season and 55 games of the '04-'05 season Pierce lead the Celtics to a 60-77 record. While leading the Celtics to that losing record Pierce made it clear he was not built to be the offensive leader with his wildly inconsistent performances (point totals & fg% were all over the place, he's score 20 on 50% shooting one night then 6on 33% the next).

Nothing wrong with you liking Paul Pierce more than Dominque Wilkins. However, what you are claiming to be your reasons for doing so seem silly to me.

[magnax1]

Funny, none of those guys were Finals MVPs, I compare him to James Worthy, but keep hating.

I'm sure his soaring dunks will amaze me, but I doubt his winning ability will which is the most important stat by the way. Like I Said, I have no problem with anybody taking Nique so he is the guy most people are taking, but from the way I view logic and from the accomplishments and career Pierce is above Dominique for me......

I'll just say this, Dominique never played enough on the big stage to make a name for himself in the playoffs.
Whoa..... either you are under rating 'Nique or over rating worthy. Worthy is not on the same level ans Dominique, Prime worthy is equal to or maybe worse than Clippers 'Nique.

[SayTownRy]

one for the stat heads:

nique: 11th all time in playoff ppg @ 25.4

pierce: 31st all time @ 22.5

11th?! that's some elite company right there

i could see making this thread if you never saw the legend that was wilkins actually play. but if you had the opportunity to see him in action you know this is a ridiculous proposition. and to base it largely on pierce's 08 run? nique would have destroyed the league alongside kg and ray ray in much more dramatic fashion.

[L.Kizzle]

probably NOT
fixed

[Niquesports]

I said it.....Paul Pierce was the better player.....I didn't make it a comparison thread, because I Want you to hear my reasonings supporting Paul Pierce ove Dominique Wilkins and I'll debunk anybody that tries to dismiss Pierce or overrate Dominique....

I'll start off by saying this because I know somebody will eventually point this out, If Paul Pierce had not won an NBA Championship in 2008 or a Finals MVP, he would NOT be a better player than Dominique Wilkins of all-time, but it's hard to take away what Pierce did in 2008 even if he was playing with Two HOFers...He was the closer of those Finals and he was also the closer in Game 7 vs the Cavs, where he also had a dominant game.

Now, I'm sure some of you guys will mention how Dominique has always played with inferior teams in a superior Era? Well, Dominique Wilkins pretty much played in the NBA for 15 years.....That's enough time to at least reach the ECF, Pierce managed to lead his team to the ECF in 2002, sure he had Antoine Walker but he was the leader and you cannot take that away from Pierce.

Problem with Dominique is you constantly put him in hypothetical situations, just like most people do with Tracy McGrady today. Reality is, Nique just never got the job done in the playoffs and he was a player that always had excuses in his pockets, I am not taking away anything from Dominique, but in my opinion Pierce was just a greater player, for literally the same reason why I believe Worthy is the superior player than Dominique Wilkins. I do feel that in 97' Nique was jobbed out of the 50 Greatest players of all-time list, should have easily gotten there over Pistol Pete.

I have no problem with anybody taking Dominique of course not, he was the superior scorer and rebounder, but not as much as the stats indicate and not as much as most people think.......People don't realize the pacing of the game was much different in the 80s than it is today, Pierce is the far superior defender and passer and has had accomplished more in the league which is why I would take him over Nique.....


YOu have the right to your opinion. I respect that and its not that far off. But people are fussing about how Nique got left off Top 50 before 08 no one thought PP deserved to be on that list. Maybe if Nique somehow got Isiah and Karl Malone traded to the Hawks he also might have won a few rings and this would be a mute point.

[Funnyfuka]

clearely one of the most retarded thread ever. It's like comparing oranges and apples, makes no sens at all.

[Wukillabeez78]

I'd rate Dominique as a slightly better overall individual talent and player than Paul Pierce. Dominique could carry a subpar team to winning seasons/the playoffs similar to how Jordan did in the early-mid 80s, etc... Pierce has never been able to do this and I feel the reason is (as another poster has already mentioned) because of his inconsistency. Everyone has bad nights but Wilkins was much more consistent game to game than Pierce and was also less injury prone.

What would Dominique be able to do in the league now with handchecking not allowed? He'd live at the free throw line. I've never understood the pace argument because defenses were actually better in the 80s and the rules back then gave teams the ability to be a lot more physical against gifted scorers. Forget about pace, the real reason teams scored more points in the 80s was because players were more skilled and shot a much higher field goal percentage when compared to players of today.

I'd say Wilkins > Pierce. But I'd also say James Worthy > both Wilkins and Pierce. Worthy's numbers aren't as good as Wilkins and Pierce's due to playing with other all-time great players for the bulk of his career. He also wasn't as versatile (Wilkins and Pierce were both better perimeter shooters). But Worthy did what he did (finish on the break and dominate around the paint with quick spins and a great shooting touch on his turnaround jumpshots) better than anything Wilkins and Pierce did and he also shined in big games against tough opposition.

[lucky001]

Would Worthy have been able to drag the piss poor Hawks to the playoffs year after year? I know Nique would have had some sick oops if he was running the wing with magic on the break.

Nique wasn't just all dunks, he had a decent midrange game as well. He'd play the Worthy role in LA way better than Worthy his ATL role.

[bizil]

I know im way behind on this thread! lol But I gotta roll with Nique on this one! When comparing their games, I give Nique the scoring and rebounding edge and Pierce the passing and defensive edge. Pierce to me was always more of a swingman type while Nique was more of a pure SF.

But the thing is their is a major premium on being a pure alpha dog. It can make up for certain factors in a players game. When it comes to a SF, point forward type skills aren't necessarily a premium, they are a bonus. Unless that point forward type guy is like a Bron, Barry, Bird, prime G Hill, or Hondo, I would take a Dominique over a point forward type of player. Baylor, Nique, Dr. J, King, Hawkins, Durant, Melo, Dantley, and English are SF's who are so dominant scoring that it supercedes players who may be better all around.

Pierce is a legend and a top ten GOAT SF in my book. If one were to pick him over Nique I would disagree but respect their opinon. Because I consider Pierce an alpha dog type guy. But to simply say it's because Pierce had a better all around game, you need to dig deeper. Because the PREMIUM ASSET in the game is to be a dominant alpha dog scorer. So unless u are talking MJ, Bird, Bron, Kobe, Wade, West type level at a SG or SF, I'm gonna take a Nique, Durant, Melo, or Gervin over guys who may be better all around players.

[bizil]

Would Worthy have been able to drag the piss poor Hawks to the playoffs year after year? I know Nique would have had some sick oops if he was running the wing with magic on the break.

Nique wasn't just all dunks, he had a decent midrange game as well. He'd play the Worthy role in LA way better than Worthy his ATL role.

Great points! I think Worthy was a alpha dog type guy who happened to be on an epic team in terms of offense. Worthy played with Magic, Kareem, McAdoo, Scott, Nixon, and Wilkes in his career. So Worthy never had to put up as many points as Nique. But if Worthy was on the Hawks, I could see him puttin up 25-27 points a night. However, Nique was a guy who was all time great in terms of putting the rock in the hole. To this day, he's the highest scoring SF in terms of total points of ALL TIME in NBA HISTORY! If u include ABA, he's only behind Dr. J.

So imagine putting Nique on the Showtime Lakers in place of Worthy! Scoring wise, it's clearly an upgrade. The Lakers wouldn't have suffered at all and if anything, I truly believe Nique might have got them six rings instead of five during that era. In terms of pure freak athlete alpha dog scoring ability at the SF spot, Nique in my book is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME! Better than Bron, Doc, Baylor, Hawkins, etc. And total perimeter wise, I say he's only CLEARLY behind MJ and Kobe.

[Xiao Yao You]

definitely better than Dominique.

[Raz]

Dominique had the better peak, but Pierce has had a very durable career, and has maintained very steady play. He's also a much better defender, shooter and facilitator.

I would take Pierce every time over Dominique.

[Boston C's]

love pierce but I would easily take dominique

[Rubio2Gasol]

Stylistically, by FAR the player that most resembles Nique from this generation is Carmelo . Melo isn't the highlight film that Nique was, but the way they operate on the court is very similar. Offensively, both have more traditional small-forward skills than the combo-wing style favored by this generation of high-scoring wings. As such, neither Nique nor Melo were big ball-handlers or distributors. No, they are more finishers, players that get the ball in their attack zones (often from the wing or elbow) then either shoot off the jab-step or else attack the rim with 1 or 2 power dribbles off of a move.

This difference is important when discussing both "iso" and "offensive versatility". Because "iso" for a combo wing means a lot of dribbling in areas all over the frontcourt. Off that dribble they might try to move into an attack position to make a scoring move, or they might dribble while waiting for teammates to set/come of picks to run a play, or they might dribble just to let the play develop. In other words, for a combo wing "iso" means a lot of time with the ball in their hands. For the Nique/Melo type, though, "iso" is almost always an attacking/finishing role, with much less dribbling and whatever dribbling that occurs oriented towards getting to the rim.

Similarly a combo wing, by dint of team role and all of that time that the ball is in his hands, will almost necessarily have more assists than his bigger forward counterparts. The offense is designed for him to more often be the decision maker and the one making the last passes. Plus, the 3-point line is a lot bigger part of the game in the 2000s than it was in the 80s, so many of the wings now play further out than they did in Nique's time. On the other hand, the "big" SF, by dint of playing more off the ball and in attack zones closer to the rim, is more in position to attack the offensive boards.

All of what I described above shows up very clearly in the box scores if you compare the first 13 years of Pierce and Wilkins, alongside Vince and Melo. http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y4=2011 . As you can see, there's a clear stylistic separation between the two groups with Melo/Wilkins on one side (higher FG%, fewer treys, more O-rebs, fewer assists) and Pierce/Carter on the other.

My point is, there are stylistic differences in the way Nique and Pierce played forward that don't, of themselves, connote which player is better. They just say that their roles were different.

So, the question is, who did better at their roles and who made the bigger impact?

To me, Nique was a bit better.

But I think people need to separate how good Wilkins was when he applied himself from his career as a whole.

Nique's talent exceeded Pierce's without question... his athleticism was astonishing, he'd have easily been one of the best athletes in the league today, and he had a hella nasty scoring game, even if it was less efficient than his peers. Like Pierce, good rebounder.

Unlike Pierce, his passing game left much to be desired, as did his defense. I don't penalize him for his lack of team success because the East of the 80s was like the West of the modern era, stacked as hell with top-end talent.

The thing about Nique is the same thing about Melo and AI... when they were playing right, they far exceeded their overall actual impact. Head-turning excitement, legendary-level ability, etc, etc. But they didn't put it together on a consistent basis even though they have gaudy numbers.

Pierce was never as flashy, but he played on a lot of crap teams in his prime too, and he still did what Nique did, scoring lots, rebounding lots... and yet he typically passed and defended better. Then he got old and he got a team and everything worked out en route to a couple of Finals appearances and a ring.

[bizil]

Stylistically, by FAR the player that most resembles Nique from this generation is Carmelo . Melo isn't the highlight film that Nique was, but the way they operate on the court is very similar. Offensively, both have more traditional small-forward skills than the combo-wing style favored by this generation of high-scoring wings. As such, neither Nique nor Melo were big ball-handlers or distributors. No, they are more finishers, players that get the ball in their attack zones (often from the wing or elbow) then either shoot off the jab-step or else attack the rim with 1 or 2 power dribbles off of a move.

This difference is important when discussing both "iso" and "offensive versatility". Because "iso" for a combo wing means a lot of dribbling in areas all over the frontcourt. Off that dribble they might try to move into an attack position to make a scoring move, or they might dribble while waiting for teammates to set/come of picks to run a play, or they might dribble just to let the play develop. In other words, for a combo wing "iso" means a lot of time with the ball in their hands. For the Nique/Melo type, though, "iso" is almost always an attacking/finishing role, with much less dribbling and whatever dribbling that occurs oriented towards getting to the rim.

Similarly a combo wing, by dint of team role and all of that time that the ball is in his hands, will almost necessarily have more assists than his bigger forward counterparts. The offense is designed for him to more often be the decision maker and the one making the last passes. Plus, the 3-point line is a lot bigger part of the game in the 2000s than it was in the 80s, so many of the wings now play further out than they did in Nique's time. On the other hand, the "big" SF, by dint of playing more off the ball and in attack zones closer to the rim, is more in position to attack the offensive boards.

All of what I described above shows up very clearly in the box scores if you compare the first 13 years of Pierce and Wilkins, alongside Vince and Melo. http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... 01&y4=2011 . As you can see, there's a clear stylistic separation between the two groups with Melo/Wilkins on one side (higher FG%, fewer treys, more O-rebs, fewer assists) and Pierce/Carter on the other.

My point is, there are stylistic differences in the way Nique and Pierce played forward that don't, of themselves, connote which player is better. They just say that their roles were different.

So, the question is, who did better at their roles and who made the bigger impact?

To me, Nique was a bit better.

But I think people need to separate how good Wilkins was when he applied himself from his career as a whole.

Nique's talent exceeded Pierce's without question... his athleticism was astonishing, he'd have easily been one of the best athletes in the league today, and he had a hella nasty scoring game, even if it was less efficient than his peers. Like Pierce, good rebounder.

Unlike Pierce, his passing game left much to be desired, as did his defense. I don't penalize him for his lack of team success because the East of the 80s was like the West of the modern era, stacked as hell with top-end talent.

The thing about Nique is the same thing about Melo and AI... when they were playing right, they far exceeded their overall actual impact. Head-turning excitement, legendary-level ability, etc, etc. But they didn't put it together on a consistent basis even though they have gaudy numbers.

Pierce was never as flashy, but he played on a lot of crap teams in his prime too, and he still did what Nique did, scoring lots, rebounding lots... and yet he typically passed and defended better. Then he got old and he got a team and everything worked out en route to a couple of Finals appearances and a ring.

Tremendous post and right on the money! I think guys like Nique and Melo might be a little less efficient because they might catch a case of "hero ball"! lol If they are in their main scoring attack areas, they are tremendously dangerous. At times they will take some bad shots, while guys like English, Durant, or Dantley might not take as many bad shots. So in this realm, the efficiency argument is overrated.

People actually have the nerve to say Nique and Melo are ineffecient chuckers or streak scorers. Streak scorers are guys like JR Smith, John Starks, Woolridge, Vernon Maxwell etc. Meaning they are SG's or SF' who are good scorers and have flashes of being great scorers. But they are inconsistent or can't stay as hot as the true great scorers, even from their honey hole areas. And on top of that they will take bad shots. Nique, Melo, and AI for that matter are too epic and devastating for that. They are great scorers flat out who just take a few more bad shots than the other great scorers. But their hearts, scoring skillsets, and clutch gene are as great as any great scorers pretty much!

[veilside23]

This is crazy to me. Paul Pierce is better because he won a title two seasons ago when playing with two other Hall of Fame level talents, while Dominique Wilkins loses points for never getting the job done despite never having a contention worthy team?!? That hardly seems logical.




just want to quote this thank you for this post Da KO King.

This is the same argument that people ditch in million debates about KG=TD.


People kinda disregard the support that other players had.


I'd take Nique however i would take pierce if i need the winning shot...

[Clippersfan86]

Pierce is better, not even a question. So much more well rounded as a player it's not even funny. Nique was a pure scorer and solid rebounder. Pierce is worthy of the "Point Forward" title in recent years. Dude literally does everything and has always been clutch as hell and a winner in recent years.

[Burgz V2]

Yeah, as a Boston Celtic.

lol this.

[kobron23]

what kind of idiot compares a big vs a small?

[Clippersfan86]

what kind of idiot compares a big vs a small?

Yea no kidding. What kind of idiots would compare two SF's!???

[WockaVodka]

Dominique was more flashy but he wasn't better. His numbers look better too but his era had a much faster pace which leads to better numbers.

[TMacMagic]

Dominique was more flashy but he wasn't better. His numbers look better too but his era had a much faster pace which leads to better numbers.

Pretty much this.

[RaininTwos]

Pierce is better, not even a question. So much more well rounded as a player it's not even funny. Nique was a pure scorer and solid rebounder. Pierce is worthy of the "Point Forward" title in recent years. Dude literally does everything and has always been clutch as hell and a winner in recent years.

I'm a big Pierce supporter, but no way in hell. He's not worth of a point foward title in recent years when Rondo is orchestrating the offense. You are literally basing your whole judgement off the past 4 years or so when Pierce has been playing since 98.

[WockaVodka]

I'm a big Pierce supporter, but no way in hell. He's not worth of a point foward title in recent years when Rondo is orchestrating the offense. You are literally basing your whole judgement off the past 4 years or so when Pierce has been playing since 98.
Pierce has always deserved the point forward label but Pierce usually fills that role nicely when Rondo sits out.

[ProfessorMurder]

I'm a big Pierce supporter, but no way in hell. He's not worth of a point foward title in recent years when Rondo is orchestrating the offense. You are literally basing your whole judgement off the past 4 years or so when Pierce has been playing since 98.

Pierce should definitely be considered a point forward. He has great handles, and totally crushes the assist column if Rondo sits out.

I'm not even a huge Pierce fan but I'd say his longevity balances out Nique's peak play.

[RaininTwos]

Guys, I know that he can handle and pass the ball well. My point was that he isn't really a point forward anymore with Rondo out there.

I don't know about the whole longevity bit, Nique' put up elite numbers for close to 10 seasons. He did have a few injuries in that time span but so did Pierce.

In terms of both greatness and who's better, I'm choosing Nique'. It's a shame that he had to go up against those great eighties Celtics and Pistons teams with a lesser squad around him. I feel like he did the best he could possibly do with those teams.

[bizil]

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to Nique is his great longevity. At 34 Nique put up 26 points a night. He then when to Europe and won the Euro title and MVP. Came back to the L at 37 and put up 18.2 points off the bench as an undesized PF mainly. At 37, I feel Nique was capable of putting up more points, but played the role Pop wanted him too. Nique also maintained freakish athletic ability longer than any SF EVER!

Once again if somebody would pick Pierce over Nique I would disagree but wouldn't argue. However, Nique was the 2nd best SF of his era after the GOAT SF in Bird. Nique was most likely Bird's biggest rival at SF once Doc retired. And in terms of freak athlete scoring machines and dunks (be it in game or contest) he was MJ's main competition. Go back and watch the Come Fly With Me Tapes. MJ said out of his own mouth that he gets up to play against Nique MORE than any other player in the L! Nique was the MAIN COMPETITION for two of the six GOAT either position wise or scoring dominace wise! That should tell u what level Nique stood on! A clear top 10 player in the Golden Era of the NBA!

Pierce is underrated amongst casual fans. But as a whole, Pierce still gets love through and through. Nique for whatever reason STILL tends to get hated on and not shown the respect he deserves, considering what he accomplished in the L. Nique finished 2nd in MVP during the Golden Era of the NBA. This is with guys like Kareem, Magic, Moses, Hakeem, Isiah, McHale, etc. MJ of course too but he was injured that season. Nique leading those Hawks teams to 50+ wins a season was a great acheivement in itself!

[bizil]

Guys, I know that he can handle and pass the ball well. My point was that he isn't really a point forward anymore with Rondo out there.

I don't know about the whole longevity bit, Nique' put up elite numbers for close to 10 seasons. He did have a few injuries in that time span but so did Pierce.

In terms of both greatness and who's better, I'm choosing Nique'. It's a shame that he had to go up against those great eighties Celtics and Pistons teams with a lesser squad around him. I feel like he did the best he could possibly do with those teams.

Right on the money! Pierce skillset wise was indeed point forward caliber. However, point forward skills aren't a premium asset at SF, they are a bonus. Hell usually, the secondary position for a SF is SG and for some guys even PF. And point forward wise, the gold standard are guys like Bron, Bird, Barry, and Hondo. These kind of guys I would take over Nique cause get the same or close level of scoring dominance ALONG with the great all around game. Pierce is close to the level of Bird, Bron, Hondo, and Barry, but falls behind them just enough for me to take Nique over Pierce.

Think about it like this, would u rather have a peak Pierce or Durant? For me give me Durant! Durant is more of the cloth of a Nique, Gervin, or King than a point forward type or Pierce kind of player as of now.

[RaininTwos]

You are playing a dangerous game RG. You cannot keep using his era to discredit the scoring discrepancies between them. The ramifications of such tactics stretch well beyond a Nique'-Pierce thread and you know it. This same logic can be used to discredit Jordan and Bird's numbers as well, but you wouldn't ever try that against them so why try it against Nique'?

[StateOfMind12]

However, Nique was the 2nd best SF of his era after the GOAT SF in Bird. Nique was most likely Bird's biggest rival at SF once Doc retired.
You ever heard of Julius Erving? Or Bernard King? Or Alex English? Or even James Worthy? I'm not saying any of those guys are better than Nique but they certainly have arguments over him.

Also, Pierce was the best SF in the league from '00 to about '05 unless you consider Tmac a SF at the time which I don't. I have always considered Tmac a SG.

I don't see where you are going with this.

I think you could argue that Nique's peak was better than Pierce's but it isn't by much. Pierce on the otherhand beats Nique by a lot when it comes to accomplishments, longevity, longer prime play, etc.

Pierce was also a much more versatile player and I think he could fit and gel with just about every team and any player.

Pierce was a better shooter, more efficient, just as good of a rebounder, better post-season performer, and a better defender than Nique was.

I'm actually not sure if Nique was really better than Pierce at anything quite honestly. He put up more points but with worse efficiency and as someone already mentioned he played at a faster pace and it definitely favors someone like Nique who was an athletic freak.

I'm not sure if Nique would be the same player if he plays in the era that Pierce played in. Pierce played in the toughest defensive era especially for a perimeter player from '99-'04 and despite that Pierce was still one of the most efficient perimeter players. The game was just completely slowed down in Pierce's era which makes it tougher for players like him to put up as dominant raw stats as Nique did..

[L.Kizzle]

You ever heard of Julius Erving? Or Bernard King? Or Alex English? Or even James Worthy? I'm not saying any of those guys are better than Nique but they certainly have arguments over him.
He said after Doc retired, that was in 87. King was injured, English was in his last season as an all-star and Worthy was great, but no Nique.



Also, Pierce was the best SF in the league from '00 to about '05 unless you consider Tmac a SF at the time which I don't. I have always considered Tmac a SG.

I don't see where you are going with this.[QUOTE]
Pierce was the best SF then no doubt but who was his competition? Hornets version of Mashburn, Glenn Robinson, Caron Butler. Hardly all-time greats who Nique competed against


[QUOTE]I think you could argue that Nique's peak was better than Pierce's but it isn't by much. Pierce on the otherhand beats Nique by a lot when it comes to accomplishments, longevity, longer prime play, etc.
Lol at arguing, who would argue. Nique's peak was better. Not sure what accomplishments Pierce has over Nique other than a Finals MVP and a title. Give him an 80s' (or 90s') version of Garnett and of Ray Allen and he would have a title also.



Pierce was also a much more versatile player and I think he could fit and gel with just about every team and any player.

Pierce was a better shooter, more efficient, just as good of a rebounder, better post-season performer, and a better defender than Nique was.
Much more, this is Paul Pierce not LeBron James we're talking about. Not sure he was a better shooter, maybe from long range. Nique was money mid-range. He was no where near a good rebounder. Wilkins was sharing boards with Kevin Willis and Tree Rollins. They are both average to above average defenders.



I'm actually not sure if Nique was really better than Pierce at anything quite honestly. He put up more points but with worse efficiency and as someone already mentioned he played at a faster pace and it definitely favors someone like Nique who was an athletic freak.
Nique made an All-NBA first team in the 1980s. Pierce couldn't even make one in the 2000s in a weak era for small forwards (or forwards at that.) HE was also the clear cut 2nd best small forward after Bird. And he played in the deepest era of small forwards ever.



I'm not sure if Nique would be the same player if he plays in the era that Pierce played in. Pierce played in the toughest defensive era especially for a perimeter player from '99-'04 and despite that Pierce was still one of the most efficient perimeter players. The game was just completely slowed down in Pierce's era which makes it tougher for players like him to put up as dominant raw stats as Nique did..
Yeah, a 6'8 athletic freak would not be as good as Pierce in this era, seriously?

[Jacks3]

Pierce's TS% relative to league-average:

01: +4.5
02: +5.0
03: +1.3
04: +0.1
05: +5.4
06: +4.7
07: +3.0
08: +5.9
09: +3.8
10: +7.0
11: +7.9

That is awesome. And he's done it in two completely different roles.

Dude is underrated.

[StateOfMind12]

Lol at arguing, who would argue. Nique's peak was better. Not sure what accomplishments Pierce has over Nique other than a Finals MVP and a title.
He led his team to the ECF before those two arrived and his teams sucked probably more than Dominique's team did.


Give him an 80s' (or 90s') version of Garnett and of Ray Allen and he would have a title also.

There is no guarantee with that. Worthy was picked over Nique in that draft class for a reason and it was because he fit in better with the Showtime Lakers than Nique was.

Which leads to my point that Nique replacing Pierce isn't an automatic title because we don't know how well he would fit with Nique and I don't think he would fit well.

Nique is like what Melo was back in his days except better obviously.

Aside from scoring and rebound, those two don't offer much. Pierce also offers very good playmaking for his position and very good defense. Pierce was a very good defender before KG-Allen too so don't give me his defense was non-existent before them.

I also question it because Nique wasn't a great of a shooter or as versatile offensively as Pierce was. Pierce is one of the most versatile offensive players ever. He really doesn't have a weakness offensively, he just wasn't explosiveness with his offense.

Pierce helped those Celtics teams with his efficient scoring and shooting, his defense, his rebounding, his playmaking ability, and his ability to do just about everything offensively. Nique doesn't offer as much as Pierce does.

Nique's peak may have been better but not by much.


Much more, this is Paul Pierce not LeBron James we're talking about. Not sure he was a better shooter, maybe from long range. Nique was money mid-range. He was no where near a good rebounder. Wilkins was sharing boards with Kevin Willis and Tree Rollins. They are both average to above average defenders.
Nique was a much better offensive rebounder but Pierce was just as good, if not better of a defensive rebounder. I actually value defensive rebounds more because that's how you stop offensive possessions on other teams. If I had to take a guess, Nique got a lot of his offensive rebounds from his own misses anyways like most players who get a lot of offensive rebounds.



Nique made an All-NBA first team in the 1980s. Pierce couldn't even make one in the 2000s in a weak era for small forwards (or forwards at that.) HE was also the clear cut 2nd best small forward after Bird. And he played in the deepest era of small forwards ever.
It is because in the All-NBA teams, it is just Forward for that spot, not specifically Small Forward. Pierce played in the golden era of Power Forwards with Duncan, Webber, and Garnett in his way. I don't blame him for missing out on the All-NBA teams.

There was no special forward in the 80s besides Bird, no special Small or Power Forward.


Yeah, a 6'8 athletic freak would not be as good as Pierce in this era, seriously?
I would question it quite honestly. Could Nique break down opponents off the dribble like Pierce could? Could Nique close out games like Pierce could? I don't know those answers but I'm pretty sure it's a no.

Nique's closest resemblance of his time period was Carmelo Anthony and everyone knows Pierce at his peak was better than Melo at his.

[L.Kizzle]

He led his team to the ECF before those two arrived and his teams sucked probably more than Dominique's team did.
His teams might have sucked more, but he wasn't facing the Celtics, Piston, Buck, Sixers on a daily basis while PP went in a weak east.



There is no guarantee with that. Worthy was picked over Nique in that draft class for a reason and it was because he fit in better with the Showtime Lakers than Nique was.
Worthy was picked first because he was the best player coming out of college who had just won the NCAA title.



Which leads to my point that Nique replacing Pierce isn't an automatic title because we don't know how well he would fit with Nique and I don't think he would fit well.

Nique is like what Melo was back in his days except better obviously.
We don't know how anyone will fit until it takes place. Who knew how well the Big 3 would fit together?



Aside from scoring and rebound, those two don't offer much. Pierce also offers very good playmaking for his position and very good defense. Pierce was a very good defender before KG-Allen too so don't give me his defense was non-existent before them.
I been watching basketball since 1994 and I don't remember once were I heard Pierce was a great defender. Maybe on a local broadcast. Watching Rocket games, I've heard a bunch on dumb thing by our commentators. Luis Scola is a top defender and top 5 PF. Rafer Alston should be an All-Star, ect. I have watched him play too, he's not a great defender. He's not terrible either, he is above average.



I also question it because Nique wasn't a great of a shooter or as versatile offensively as Pierce was. Pierce is one of the most versatile offensive players ever. He really doesn't have a weakness offensively, he just wasn't explosiveness with his offense.
Pierce is not one of the most versatile offense players ever, stop it. :lol
P-Dub has a few moves, that's it.



Pierce helped those Celtics teams with his efficient scoring and shooting, his defense, his rebounding, his playmaking ability, and his ability to do just about everything offensively. Nique doesn't offer as much as Pierce does.
So Nique didn't help the Hawks do anything right, other than score. Is that what you are saying? You do know Wilkins shot a better % from the field right? IF a random person saw this and didn't see who you were describing, they might think this thread is about a Pippen or LeBRon James type.



Nique's peak may have been better but not by much.
Better is better.



Nique was a much better offensive rebounder but Pierce was just as good, if not better of a defensive rebounder. I actually value defensive rebounds more because that's how you stop offensive possessions on other teams. If I had to take a guess, Nique got a lot of his offensive rebounds from his own misses anyways like most players who get a lot of offensive rebounds.
You know who was picking up the defensive boards in Atlanta, Kevin Willis, Tree Rollins and Antoine Carr.



It is because in the All-NBA teams, it is just Forward for that spot, not specifically Small Forward. Pierce played in the golden era of Power Forwards with Duncan, Webber, and Garnett in his way. I don't blame him for missing out on the All-NBA teams.

There was no special forward in the 80s besides Bird, no special Small or Power Forward.[QUOTE]
Golden era or not, he only has four. Two each pre big-3 and post big-3. Wilkins has as many 2nd teams as he has total. He has seven in total. If he could make it with Bird, McHale, Barkely, Malone, Pippen, Worthy, Kemp, ect I see no reason he couldn't get more than four battling Duncan, KG, Webber, Dirk and later LeBron and Durant. He was gettin beat on All-NBA second teams by Jermaine O'Neal, Peja and Elton Brand.


[QUOTE]I would question it quite honestly. Could Nique break down opponents off the dribble like Pierce could? Could Nique close out games like Pierce could? I don't know those answers but I'm pretty sure it's a no.
I've seen him go head to head with Bird and Jordan just like Pierce has with LeBron and Kobe. So I see why not ... And he was considered closer to their level than Pierce is to theirs.



Nique's closest resemblance of his time period was Carmelo Anthony and everyone knows Pierce at his peak was better than Melo at his.
Melo is more of a Bernard King/Alex English type, just like Pierce. Melo is more Pierce than he is Wilkins.

[StateOfMind12]

We don't know how anyone will fit until it takes place. Who knew how well the Big 3 would fit together?
Yes, which is exactly why you shouldn't be saying that Nique replacing Pierce is a title for Nique as well. I was just speculating based on how their games were though.


I have watched him play too, he's not a great defender. He's not terrible either, he is above average.

I said he was very good, not great, and very good and above average is close to synonymous although I think Pierce is a little better than that. Pierce played great D on Kobe in the 2008 Finals when he defended him just to remind you.


Pierce is not one of the most versatile offense players ever, stop it. :lol
P-Dub has a few moves, that's it.

What exactly can't Pierce do offensively?

He can pass, he can score, he can shoot from anywhere, he can attack the basket, he can post-up, etc.

How is he not one of the most versatile offensive players ever? He just wasn't that flashy, consistent, and explosive. He still had the ability to do just about everything.



So Nique didn't help the Hawks do anything right, other than score. Is that what you are saying? You do know Wilkins shot a better % from the field right?
TS% is more important to me and TS% accounts for 3 point shooting and Ft shooting which Pierce was tremendous in. Pierce has one of the best and most efficient TS% among perimeter players.

Pierce always took a lot of 3s and he was always among the top 3-5 in FTA per game. During his prime, Pierce averaged about 8-10 FTA per game and he averaged a lot of 3PA as well but he also converted those 3s in high efficiency.

It is something FG% cannot see because FG% just shows you how many times you made or miss a shot from the field. It doesn't tell you whether it was a 3 or a 2 and it doesn't account FT shooting either which Pierce was tremendous in getting to and making.


Better is better
I have no problem with Nique being better but just don't act like it's the difference between Jordan and Kobe.



Golden era or not, he only has four. Two each pre big-3 and post big-3. Wilkins has as many 2nd teams as he has total. He has seven in total. If he could make it with Bird, McHale, Barkely, Malone, Pippen, Worthy, Kemp, ect I see no reason he couldn't get more than four battling Duncan, KG, Webber, Dirk and later LeBron and Durant.
You were referring to Nique's first team though and I'm just letting you know that he didn't have much challenges in '86.

McHale missed about 12+ games and came off the bench for about 6 of them which hurt his chances. McHale came off the bench until '86 and '87.

Barkley wasn't Barkley until about '88 or '89 and when he was Barkley he almost always made the better team over Nique. The same applies to Malone and all the other players you had listed.



He was gettin beat on All-NBA second teams by Jermaine O'Neal, Peja and Elton Brand.
Only in 2004 he got beat by those guys but Brand was very dominant in his peak.

[L.Kizzle]

Yes, which is exactly why you shouldn't be saying that Nique replacing Pierce is a title for Nique as well. I was just speculating based on how their games were though.
Fair enough



I said he was very good, not great, and very good and above average is close to synonymous although I think Pierce is a little better than that. Pierce played great D on Kobe in the 2008 Finals when he defended him just to remind you.
Ray Allen played great D on him also, still. He's above average. Anything else above "above average" is gettin close to All-D status ...




What exactly can't Pierce do offensively?

He can pass, he can score, he can shoot from anywhere, he can attack the basket, he can post-up, etc.

How is he not one of the most versatile offensive players ever? He just wasn't that flashy, consistent, and explosive. He still had the ability to do just about everything.
You just described half of the NBA players to step foot on a court. Vince Carter can do those things, Ray Allen can, Caron Butler can, Jamal Mashburn, Clyde Drexler, Mitch Richmond, Bernard King, Glenn Robinson, ect.


TS% is more important to me and TS% accounts for 3 point shooting and Ft shooting which Pierce was tremendous in. Pierce has one of the best and most efficient TS% among perimeter players.

Pierce always took a lot of 3s and he was always among the top 3-5 in FTA per game. During his prime, Pierce averaged about 8-10 FTA per game and he averaged a lot of 3PA as well but he also converted those 3s in high efficiency.

It is something FG% cannot see because FG% just shows you how many times you made or miss a shot from the field. It doesn't tell you whether it was a 3 or a 2 and it doesn't account FT shooting either which Pierce was tremendous in getting to and making.[/QUOTE]
Other than those two season PP had in the low 60s' (and Nique's last season in the league were he was in the mid 40s), there TS is very similar. PP's being a little better.



I have no problem with Nique being better but just don't act like it's the difference between Jordan and Kobe.
The difference between Jordan and Kobe varies depending on who you ask.



You were referring to Nique's first team though and I'm just letting you know that he didn't have much challenges in '86.


McHale missed about 12+ games and came off the bench for about 6 of them which hurt his chances. McHale came off the bench until '86 and '87.

Barkley wasn't Barkley until about '88 or '89 and when he was Barkley he almost always made the better team over Nique. The same applies to Malone and all the other players you had listed.


Only in 2004 he got beat by those guys. And he got beat by Brand in 2006 because of his team success.
Fair enough on first team, though he still had English and Dantley and those 12 games McHale missed are nothin. People have made an All-NBA team with more games missed.

[StateOfMind12]

Ray Allen played great D on him also, still. He's above average. Anything else above "above average" is gettin close to All-D status ...
I actually thought Kobe was getting whatever he wanted on Allen. I thought it was Posey and Pierce that gave him the most trouble.


You just described half of the NBA players to step foot on a court. Vince Carter can do those things, Ray Allen can, Caron Butler can, Jamal Mashburn, Clyde Drexler, Mitch Richmond, Bernard King, Glenn Robinson, ect.
True, but I'm not describing Dominique Wilkins.

:durantunimpressed:



Other than those two season PP had in the low 60s' (and Nique's last season in the league were he was in the mid 40s), there TS is very similar. PP's being a little better.
Well we can just compare their primes if you would like....

Pierce's prime was from 2000 to 2010.
Wilkins' prime was from 1984-1994.

Paul's TS% 56.8%
Dominique's TS% was 54.1%

A slight difference but still a noticeable difference. I think we should still account how Pierce played in the toughest perimeter defensive era from '99 to '04 though and Pierce was still one of the more efficient perimeter players in the league and his TS% is still higher than Nique's.

[LiLharvard]

Pierce should definitely be considered a point forward. He has great handles, and totally crushes the assist column if Rondo sits out.

I'm not even a huge Pierce fan but I'd say his longevity balances out Nique's peak play.


:applause:

[L.Kizzle]

:applause:
they have the same longevity.

Nique averaged 18 ppg at age 37. PP avg 19 at 34 this past season ...

[Alan Shore]

pp is the better team player, more intelligent. he makes others around him better.

ironic but telling that doc rivers played w/ nique and coaches pierce. when did pp emerge... when he took to heart what rivers asked him to do... that if moved the ball it would make it back to him for a better shot. somewhere in that advice is rivers' memory of playing with nique, who was not known for sharing.

baylor, nique, tmac, melo are similar... talented scorers but questionable decision making that hindered greater success for their teams.

[JMT]

IMO if you replaced Pierce with Nique the Celtics would have swept the Hawks, beat the Cavs in 5, beat the Pistons in 5, and swept the Lakers. I say this not arbitrarily, but after looking at the game logs. In ATL games 3 and 4, Cavs game 4, Pistons game 4, and Lakers game 3 the only difference between a Celtics win and a Celtics loss was that Pierce couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

.

:roll:

[Calabis]

I'm not taking away from Dominique but in all fairness, The pace in the 80s that Dominique played in was much faster than today's game, which is why Nique's PPG and RPG is so much higher than Pierce's....In my opinion it actually is close, Nique is the superior scorer and rebounder but it's close in my opinion......and plus if you ask me, If Nique replaced Pierce I really don't think the Celtics would have gotten the championship, not that it means anything but I was just throwing it out there.


That too, Again, not taking away anything from Dominique, I just feel like Pierce doesn't get the credit he deserves the majority of the time.

:biggums:

So what u are saying is, if I take 20 shots per game in the 80's and I take 20 shots per game today, basically means today's stars would avg 28-30 per game back then?:confusedshrug:

What does pace have to do with scoring as a individual? 20 shots is 20 shots last time I checked:confusedshrug:

[SHAQisGOAT]

'Nique was better imo

[PP34Deuce]

Wilkins is more dominant scoring. No one could stop him from repeatedly scoring in volume.

When you consider top players, you take in account how dominant they are doing what they do.

Pierce can score in more ways but has never been a guy to consistently pour on the points hot streak wise... Tmac,Kobe,VC at times always would have crazy scoring ways. Pierce has always been in the flow of offense. He reacts to what the defense does while Wilkins would just overpower you.

Sidenote.... Melo is not Wilkins..Melo can overpower you but not like Wilkins did. Melo to me is Bernard King/Dantley mix..Smoother but strong.

I can't think of anyone who resembles Wilkins. I would say Lebron, but Lebron is more Magic and Pippen... Vince Carter had the same attack mentality early on to overpower you, but Carter is a better shooter with more range.

I think the closet to play like wilkins is Rudy Gay...Gay should be better than he is, but he plays like Wilkins does i think

[PP34Deuce]

Just Curious.... Who would you guys compare Paul Pierce to from the past?

I think PP is Adrian dantley with a move versatile game. Sneaky athletic players with herky jerky style

[ILLsmak]

I'd take Pierce before I'd take Nique.

-Smak

[Alan Shore]

Just Curious.... Who would you guys compare Paul Pierce to from the past?

I think PP is Adrian dantley with a move versatile game. Sneaky athletic players with herky jerky style


i'll throw out a name... mark aguirre

[Calabis]

Nique is a better player period, according to the guys on ish no one from the past can play with todays stars, somehow in the last 20 years basketball players have evolved 1000x. :roll:

Not to mention Berlin wall defenses

[bizil]

You ever heard of Julius Erving? Or Bernard King? Or Alex English? Or even James Worthy? I'm not saying any of those guys are better than Nique but they certainly have arguments over him.

Also, Pierce was the best SF in the league from '00 to about '05 unless you consider Tmac a SF at the time which I don't. I have always considered Tmac a SG.

I don't see where you are going with this.

I think you could argue that Nique's peak was better than Pierce's but it isn't by much. Pierce on the otherhand beats Nique by a lot when it comes to accomplishments, longevity, longer prime play, etc.

Pierce was also a much more versatile player and I think he could fit and gel with just about every team and any player.

Pierce was a better shooter, more efficient, just as good of a rebounder, better post-season performer, and a better defender than Nique was.

I'm actually not sure if Nique was really better than Pierce at anything quite honestly. He put up more points but with worse efficiency and as someone already mentioned he played at a faster pace and it definitely favors someone like Nique who was an athletic freak.

I'm not sure if Nique would be the same player if he plays in the era that Pierce played in. Pierce played in the toughest defensive era especially for a perimeter player from '99-'04 and despite that Pierce was still one of the most efficient perimeter players. The game was just completely slowed down in Pierce's era which makes it tougher for players like him to put up as dominant raw stats as Nique did..

Of course I've heard of Doc smart ass! I don't consider Dr. J and Nique in the same era really. By the time Nique really came of age, Dr. J was on the downside of his career. When Nique became and MVP candidate in 86, he was better than Doc at that point! King was too injury hobbled in that era to be the 2nd greatest SF of that era. Peak value wise, I can see King over Nique. But when compared to King, Nique was the better all around player AND was just as dangerous scoring. English, Worthy, and Dantley were all great, but I just feel Nique was more explosive and could score in ways those guys simply couldn't. When guys like this are all close in scoring ability, certain factors can turn the tide. And for me, defenses feared Nique, King, and Bird a bit more than Worthy, Aguirre, English, or Dantley.

You DO realize how hand checking on the perimeter in the 2000s made it somewhat EASIER to score! You DO realize that Nique played in a very physical era in the NBA where handchecking was allowed. You DO realize you had head hunting type teams like the Knicks and Pistons back then? Name a headhunting type team in the L today? You CAN'T because of the rules changes and suspensions being stiffer!

We all realize that Pierce has point forward skills and is more versatile. But u can say the same with Pippen when compared to a prime Dr. J. Does that make Pippen better than Doc, HELL NO! U could say the same about Moncrief compared to Gervin, does that make Moncrief better than Gervin, HELL NO! The better all around player isn't the better player in all cases.

In my book, Nique has the edge in rebounding and scoring, while Pierce has the edge in terms of passing and defense. While Pierce is a great alpha dog scorer and clutch, I put him slightly behind Nique. Nique was a former scoring champ and known to put over 30 points in a season. Nique also finished second in scoring multiple times. On top that, guys like Nique, Bird, King, and MJ back then would go for 60 on your ass if they were hot. As great as Pierce was, I don't think he's quite as bloodthirsty scoring the rock. Blood thristy part is what seperates a great scorer from an EPIC scorer! Guys like Nique, MJ, Gervin, King, and Kobe are EPIC scorers, Pierce is a great scorer!

[bizil]

i'll throw out a name... mark aguirre

Right on the money! I always considered Pierce's scoring game the most similar to Aguirre. Pierce just happened to combine a great all around game with it. Pierce and Aguirre are both in that 6'6 to 6'7 235 pound range.

[bizil]

And let's not sleep on Nique's scoring skillset either. In terms of slashing, transition scoring, and postup scoring, Nique is one of if not the best SF of all time. Other than Pippen, I haven't seen an SF use the glass as well. In terms of using the floater type shot from all angles, I haven't seen an SF better. Nique also had a very good midrange game and could get hot from three. And Nique was a very good-sometime great free throw shooter. He went 23 for 23 from the line in a game, which is insane shit! Pierce just had a more consistent jumper and more range on his jumper. Pierce also had better handle. But let's not pretend that Nique didn't have a versatile scoring skillset. Or that Nique didn't have elements of scoring skillset better than Pierce. And by the way scoring in terms of offensive rebounding, Nique is arguably the best SF of all time in that regard as well!

[Kasper]

Pierce easily my all time favorite player.

Nique was better though. Not hard to tell by watching them both play.

[Smoke117]

no, Paul Pierce was NOT better than Dominique Wilkins.

[StateOfMind12]

You DO realize how hand checking on the perimeter in the 2000s made it somewhat EASIER to score!
Post 2004 it was easier for Pierce to score but even before 2004 and from '99-'04, Pierce was still scoring more efficiently than Nique was.

'99-'04 is the defensive era especially for a perimeter player because they were allowed to hand-check and do all sorts of physical things during that time span.

Also, defenses were more fundamentally sound from '99-'04. It was more physical in Nique's era but they weren't as fundamentally sound defensively and teams would score 110+ all the time back in Nique's era.


But u can say the same with Pippen when compared to a prime Dr. J. Does that make Pippen better than Doc, HELL NO!
Erving isn't anything like Nique but I would argue Pippen over Nique so it's not that different from arguing Pierce over Nique.

Erving was an underrated passer and a great defender. Nique was really not either one.

Pierce has the edge over Nique to me because he was more well-rounded, accomplished more, and had a longer prime than Nique did.

Pierce is one of the 10 greatest SFs that has ever played the game. I don't care whether you have him ahead of below Nique but he is definitely a top 10 SF ever....or at least for now.

[L.Kizzle]

Post 2004 it was easier for Pierce to score but even before 2004 and from '99-'04, Pierce was still scoring more efficiently than Nique was.

'99-'04 is the defensive era especially for a perimeter player because they were allowed to hand-check and do all sorts of physical things during that time span.

Also, defenses were more fundamentally sound from '99-'04. It was more physical in Nique's era but they weren't as fundamentally sound defensively and teams would score 110+ all the time back in Nique's era.


Erving isn't anything like Nique but I would argue Pippen over Nique so it's not that different from arguing Pierce over Nique.

Erving was an underrated passer and a great defender. Nique was really not either one.

Pierce has the edge over Nique to me because he was more well-rounded, accomplished more, and had a longer prime than Nique did.

Pierce is one of the 10 greatest SFs that has ever played the game. I don't care whether you have him ahead of below Nique but he is definitely a top 10 SF ever....or at least for now.
I'm still not sure how Pierce accomplished more? Team success yeah, but individual it''s Nique and it's not even close.

Longer prime, I stated yesterday Nique avg 18 ppg at age 37 in his second to last season while PP avg 34 this past season.

[StateOfMind12]

I'm still not sure how Pierce accomplished more? Team success yeah, but individual it''s Nique and it's not even close.

Longer prime, I stated yesterday Nique avg 18 ppg at age 37 in his second to last season while PP avg 34 this past season.
:oldlol: I'm pretty sure there is a typo with Pierce. Pierce averaged 19 ppg last season.

Pierce's ppg only dropped because he wasn't utilized as much on the Celtics offense as before since his team was pretty good overall. It doesn't mean Pierce was much worse than what he was in say 2009 or 2008. Nique on the other hand was clearly worse at age 37 than he was with the Atlanta Hawks.

Nique at age 37 played on the Spurs during the season David Robinson was out for the season. Nique didn't even start in half of those games and came off the bench for the most part.

This is just another difference between the two and that is that Pierce impacts the game in more ways than just scoring whereas that is almost the only thing Nique offers. You can only talk about how many points Nique scores, the problem is that I can talk about how good defense Pierce plays, how well he facilitates, etc.

[L.Kizzle]

:oldlol: I'm pretty sure there is a typo with Pierce. Pierce averaged 19 ppg last season.

Pierce's ppg only dropped because he wasn't utilized as much on the Celtics offense as before since his team was pretty good overall. It doesn't mean Pierce was much worse than what he was in say 2009 or 2008. Nique on the other hand was clearly worse at age 37 than he was with the Atlanta Hawks.

Nique at age 37 played on the Spurs during the season David Robinson was out for the season. Nique didn't even start in half of those games and came off the bench for the most part.

This is just another difference between the two and that is that Pierce impacts the game in more ways than just scoring whereas that is almost the only thing Nique offers. You can only talk about how many points Nique scores, the problem is that I can talk about how good defense Pierce plays, how well he facilitates, etc.
34, damn I mean his age not his points.

Damn, if you think Nique only offers scoring you must not have watched enough of him.

You make it seem like homie was puttin up 30/1/1. He would get 30/7/3 very Kevin Durantish. And the way you speak on Pierce's passing, you would think he was John Stockton. His career average is 3.8 assist, Wilkins is 2.5

[StateOfMind12]

34, damn I mean his age not his points.

Damn, if you think Nique only offers scoring you must not have watched enough of him.
What else does he offer? Rebounding? Like I said, he was pretty much an athletic Melo of his day. Someone who doesn't offer much outside of scoring and rebounding.


You make it seem like homie was puttin up 30/1/1. He would get 30/7/3 very Kevin Durantish. And the way you speak on Pierce's passing, you would think he was John Stockton. His career average is 3.8 assist, Wilkins is 2.5
Pierce averaged 4-5 apg for the most part during his prime. Nique averaged around 2-3 in his.

Nique's season high in apg is 3.3, he averaged 3.8 one season but he played less than 50 games that season (42 to be exact).

Pierce's season high in apg is 5.1 in the 2003-04 season and he had about 7 seasons with 4+ apg.

It's a difference, not a huge one like Stockton vs. Bynum but a difference between like Pippen and Durant.

[L.Kizzle]

What else does he offer? Rebounding? Like I said, he was pretty an athletic Melo of his day. Someone who doesn't offer much outside of scoring and rebounding.


Pierce averaged 4-5 apg for the most part during his prime. Nique averaged around 2-3 in his.

Nique's season high in apg is 3.3, he averaged 3.8 one season but he played less than 50 games that season (42 to be exact).

Pierce's season high in apg is 5.1 in the 2003-04 season and he had about 7 seasons with 4+ apg.

It's a difference, not a huge one like Stockton vs. Bynum but a difference between like Pippen and Durant.
It's a slight difference. It's like the difference between McGrady and LeBron. Now if he was getting 7-8 assist per game, than that is a huge difference.

The difference between Pippen and Durant is huge also. Between 7-8 assists 2-3.

I'm no Pierce hater but hoimie has become the most overrated player since the formation of the Big 3. Which is pretty sad, because he was one of the more underrated player before then.

[bizil]

Post 2004 it was easier for Pierce to score but even before 2004 and from '99-'04, Pierce was still scoring more efficiently than Nique was.

'99-'04 is the defensive era especially for a perimeter player because they were allowed to hand-check and do all sorts of physical things during that time span.

Also, defenses were more fundamentally sound from '99-'04. It was more physical in Nique's era but they weren't as fundamentally sound defensively and teams would score 110+ all the time back in Nique's era.


Erving isn't anything like Nique but I would argue Pippen over Nique so it's not that different from arguing Pierce over Nique.

Erving was an underrated passer and a great defender. Nique was really not either one.

Pierce has the edge over Nique to me because he was more well-rounded, accomplished more, and had a longer prime than Nique did.

Pierce is one of the 10 greatest SFs that has ever played the game. I don't care whether you have him ahead of below Nique but he is definitely a top 10 SF ever....or at least for now.

No doubt Pierce is a top 10 GOAT SF! And GOAT wise, Pierce might possibly pass Nique by before it's all said and done. But in peak value or who's the better player, I roll with Nique.

In terms of defense, Nique's era was clearly more physically imposing. If anything u had more dominant centers and more enforcer type guys to deter you from slashing.

When it comes to Erving's all around, it's often underrated. But Doc was never a lockdown defender or a point forward type of player. So comparing him to a point forward type player in Pippe still begs the argument. Which is who would u rather have a point forward type SF or a alpha dog scoring machine SF. Very few SF's are both kinds of player in one. The only ones I can think of are Pierce, Bron, Bird, Hondo, Barry, and prime G Hill. I don't consider Pip as this kind of player. And guys like Doc or Nique isn't either. So it boils down to what your team needs or who can be more dominant.

The ULTIMATE premium in bball is alpha dog takeover scoring. It can make up for other "perceived weakness" in ones game. Trust me, teams gameplanned more to stop a Nique or Doc than they did Pippen any day of the week. So in terms of Pippen vs. Nique, give me Nique. Unless my team as a superstar type on the wing, then I would take Pippen possibly. But peak value wise give me Nique. GOAT wise, Pip has the edge on Nique I concede that.

[bizil]

34, damn I mean his age not his points.

Damn, if you think Nique only offers scoring you must not have watched enough of him.

You make it seem like homie was puttin up 30/1/1. He would get 30/7/3 very Kevin Durantish. And the way you speak on Pierce's passing, you would think he was John Stockton. His career average is 3.8 assist, Wilkins is 2.5

Great point! Great passing or point forward skills at the SF is a bonus not a premium. I put more emphasis on scoring, rebounding, and defense than I do point forward skills for my SF. Nique and Durant in my book qualify as good all around players but not great. 30 points, 7 boards, 3 dimes and 1.8steals is a great clip Nique was putting up at his best.

In terms of Nique's Spurs career, he played the role Pop wanted him due. Probably due for added scoring off the bench and Elliot's superior defensive skills. But even at that point, Nique could have actually put up over 20 points easily. At that point a past prime Nique was a better scorer than Elliot.

[ILLsmak]

It's a slight difference. It's like the difference between McGrady and LeBron. Now if he was getting 7-8 assist per game, than that is a huge difference.

The difference between Pippen and Durant is huge also. Between 7-8 assists 2-3.

I'm no Pierce hater but hoimie has become the most overrated player since the formation of the Big 3. Which is pretty sad, because he was one of the more underrated player before then.


I'm surprised people don't rate him higher, really. What could Nique do that Pierce couldn't do? Don't say something like "drop 40" either. Pierce has always been a player that people were like YA WAT ABOUT PIERCE? But it wasn't until he won that he got some love.

Pierce is just the better baller, to me. It's hard to look at stats because team compositions are different. I look at who would fit into the most situations and be the most effective.

-Smak

[L.Kizzle]

I'm surprised people don't rate him higher, really. What could Nique do that Pierce couldn't do? Don't say something like "drop 40" either. Pierce has always been a player that people were like YA WAT ABOUT PIERCE? But it wasn't until he won that he got some love.

Pierce is just the better baller, to me. It's hard to look at stats because team compositions are different. I look at who would fit into the most situations and be the most effective.

-Smak
Damn, before you know there will be Pierce vs Bird threads.

[StateOfMind12]

Damn, before you know there will be Pierce vs Bird threads.
No, there will be debate over Pierce vs. Hondo but there will never be a debate on Bird vs. Pierce. The same site I showed you before had a decent amount of people take Pierce over Hondo. I think Hondo was better than Pierce but not by a whole lot.

[L.Kizzle]

No, there will be debate over Pierce vs. Hondo but there will never be a debate on Bird vs. Pierce. The same site I showed you before had a decent amount of people take Pierce over Hondo. I think Hondo was better than Pierce but not by a whole lot.
Come on man.

So he's not a whole lot better than Hondo.

Seriously, homie went from Glen Rice level to John Havlicek in a few years.

:biggums: