Better peak - Vince Carter vs. Paul Pierce

[StateOfMind12]

We all know Pierce had a better career and ranks higher than Carter in the all-time list.

But who would you say was better when they were at their absolute best?

[IGotACoolStory]

When was PP's peak? The best of the Walker years or those shitty Boston teams right before KG and Ray arrived?

[StateOfMind12]

When was PP's peak? The best of the Walker years or those shitty Boston teams right before KG and Ray arrived?
Usually people say that Pierce's peak was either 2002 or 2006. I know most Celtics fans including Bill Simmons say that Pierce was at his best in 2006 but I would probably go with 2002 since he led the Celtics to the ECF and I thought he played better on both ends too.

[swi7ch]

VC never reached his peak as he was too lazy/disinterested to reach it so PP wins by default.

[imdaman99]

vinsanity in his rookie and 2nd-3rd years was amazing. everyone wanted to go to a raptors road game, just to see him do some vicious gravity-defying dunk. pierce in his prime was prob when the celtics were going to the eastern conf finals and coming back from 20 pt deficits in the 4th quarter.

i am no fan of vince whatsoever (mainly because i feel he was a quitter and coward), but id take his prime.

[FatComputerNerd]

Pierce never really had a peak, per-say.

He's always been the truth.


Carter might have been more athletic and whatnot, but give me Pierce every time, because he is a proven "winner".

[It's A VC3!!!]

Vince definitely although as you said, Paul had the much better career.

[FKAri]

Vince's peak was like 2001.

[It's A VC3!!!]

Vince's peak was like 2001.
Not really cuz his best numbers were in 05-06 with NJ. Although the numbers were very similar his 01 season was a highlight ever game season. In 06 he just scored and partially left out the flare.

[ai9]

http://newspaper.li/static/721de35457e90406ef2ccb62a14bac7f.jpg http://mt.nesn.com/.a/6a0115709f071f970b0147e3e418f5970b-400wi

Vince's peak is easily half a foot higher than pierce's.

[DStebb716]

carter's peak easily but i'd take paul pierce's career obviously

[Bcogswell]

I've gotta go with VC peak wise, however PP clearly has been the most consistent over their respective careers.

[lilgodfather1]

I think Carter would be the better player to have on your team for revenue certainly.

As for peaks I think PP was just a better overall player.

[LiLharvard]

OP has an agenda, one, of the Vince Carter persuasion.

[wakencdukest]

If the peak consisted of scoring and dunks, Vince. Scoring, passing, rebounding, defense, clutch play, intangibles, have to go with Paul.

[Pushxx]

Pierce.

[L.Kizzle]

Vince in 2000 and 2001.

[coin24]

Vince peak :rockon:


Hate to say it but pierce for career.. He's still a f@ggot though:lol

[D.J.]

Going solely by peak, Vince. But it's not like Vince was that much ahead of Pierce. Their peaks are much closer than most think.

[WockaVodka]

Pierce had a better peak and the biggest difference was defense. Carter was never a good defender....ever, motivated or not motivated. Pierce on the other hand was not only a consistent defender but a very good defender in is prime.

Pierce was a good defender in the early 2000s, slumped a bit in the mid-2000s when his team was at its low point, and then played great defense again in the late 2000s when Ray and KG joined him.

[kNIOKAS]

Well, Carter was absolutely phenomenal in the 00-01. Remember him dropping like 8 threes in a row? Carter was regarded as the best thing since Jordan, and at that time the case could be made he'd be even better.
On the other hand, Pierce have been playing solid since the day one. He also had very decent season about that time, and the stabbing incident did hold him back. Sometimes I wonder, who he would have become if he didn't get those wounds :hammerhead: s

[VeeCee15]

Carter never reached his ATTAINABLE peak as he tore his ACL in either
2001 or 2002 forgot which year.

[kNIOKAS]

Carter never reached his ATTAINABLE peak as he tore his ACL in either
2001 or 2002 forgot which year.
I believe he broke his heart in 2001, game 7 against Sixers. Never really recovered.

[Jacks3]

Peak 2001 Carter was a top 5 player in the league.

Honestly not sure if peak Pierce was even top 10.

[kNIOKAS]

Peak 2001 Carter was a top 5 player in the league.

Honestly not sure if peak Pierce was even top 10.
:kobe: not top 10? You want to do it year by year for me?

[It's A VC3!!!]

I believe he broke his heart in 2001, game 7 against Sixers. Never really recovered.
Broke my heart too. Maybe if t-Mac stayed sixers would have surely been beat and raptors could have went to the finals.

[LBJ 23]

Carter for me

[JohnnySic]

Vince Cater if you like highlight plays. Same with T-Mac.

Pierce if you like winning games.

[Vertical-24]

Vince had so much natural talent and absolute potential. I remember the days when people thought he might've been the "AIR" apparent. Like so many said, had he been motivated enough to expound on that natural talent and potential, he could've possibly been one of the greats, and this is coming from a VC hater.

Pierce in his time was a truly solid player and stud and as much as that pains me to say as a Lakers fan...it's impossible not to acknowledge as a basketball fan. He was never as athletic as VC or as naturally talented, but he was always a gritty, hustle oriented player who gave his all on both sides of the floor. Can't knock hard work.

As far as overall peaks are concerned however, I'm going to have to go with Vinsanity. In 2000-2001, he was just raw beast. Although Pierce was also tremendous, he was never in the discussion the way Vince was. And you can say it was the medias fault, but regardless, Vince was just that more dynamic. And that's an honest opinion, I dislike both players lol

[StateOfMind12]

Peak 2001 Carter was a top 5 player in the league.

Honestly not sure if peak Pierce was even top 10.
Carter was never top 5, he was just like Pierce and in the top 10 and in the top 10 only. Pierce was easily top 10 at his peak in 2002, 2006, and even 2008.

[bizil]

Even though Pierce was always the better all around player and had the better career, I think Vince peak value wise was superior. Vince's combo of freakish athletic ability and scoring skillset was only matched by Kobe and later T Mac in that era. And what made Vince scary was that he was arguably the most freakish athlete EVER on the perimeter! But that era for SG's was the greatest SG era of all time. From the late 90's to mid 2000's, you had these HOF type guys at the SG one time or another:

Kobe
Vince
T Mac
Bron
Wade
AI
Pierce
Ray Ray
Ginobli

T Mac peak value wise was CLEARLY an HOFer at his best, hell peak value wise I think Mac was top 5 SG ever. And many people forget that Bron and Pierce played a lot of SG back then, even listed as SG's or G-F. Of course they will go down as legendary SF's. Frankly, u would be hard pressed to find this kind of HOF type depth at ANY position. Hell u even had all star types like Joe Johnson, Finley, Rip, Stackhouse, Houston in the era as well. Now the SG spot depth wise is the weakest it has been in several years.

[therammingman]

for 2/3 years, PP was arguably the 1st overall pick in my fantasy drafts

[heavensdevil]

Peak- VC for sure...00-01 VC and 05-06 VC :bowdown:

[kNIOKAS]

Peak- VC for sure...00-01 VC and 05-06 VC :bowdown:
Not sure about that... At all. Let's look at the numbers:
http://oi50.tinypic.com/33lck6g.jpg

VC had a really stunning run with the Nets in 04-05, but everything else is pretty even. It has a lot to do with the spectacular fashion VC played basketball, and with media criminally overlooking PP, as always. To me, VC in '01 Playoffs was amazing, and that's where I consider him peaking.

Things to note: Both players supposedly posted best numbers in the same years (01, 02, 05, 06). VC (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cartevi01.html) has been durable on those particular years, while PP (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html) seems always been on the court. Both putting up very similar stats, with VC being better in passing, Paul in rebounds and getting to the line. Almost identical in the rest of categories.

[n00bie]

Not really cuz his best numbers were in 05-06 with NJ. Although the numbers were very similar his 01 season was a highlight ever game season. In 06 he just scored and partially left out the flare.

Doesn't matter if his numbers were better in 2005-2006. He had a pass first pg to help him achieve those numbers. And lets be honest, he had something to prove in NJ, and he worked his butt off.

[RaininTwos]

If the peak consisted of scoring and dunks, Vince. Scoring, passing, rebounding, defense, clutch play, intangibles, have to go with Paul.
Vince>>>>> gtfo here with intangibles.

Intangibles- I cannot give you an actual reason so I say this in place of that.

[Money 23]

Intangibles
Really? You don't things like intangibles play a role in team sports?

:oldlol:

[L.Kizzle]

Really? You don't things like intangibles play a role in team sports?

:oldlol:
No one cared about PP untill after the Big 3 was formed? Before the Big 3 he was Glen Rice. Now, all of a sudden he's a top 30-40 player all time.

[StateOfMind12]

No one cared about PP untill after the Big 3 was formed? Before the Big 3 he was Glen Rice. Now, all of a sudden he's a top 30-40 player all time.
Why does it matter if nobody cared about him?

Everybody was always screaming that he was underrated especially Celtics fans.

Just because the media didn't take notice of him doesn't mean fans didn't. Also, just because Pierce didn't get the media attention that VC and Tmac did doesn't mean he was worse because Pierce was just as effective as those two were.

[Money 23]

Total toss up ...

Neither played defense. Both had amazing potential, and truly great individual playoff performances early in their career.

Only difference is Pierce aged better due to skill level, and roster help and has a ring.

Pierce overall.

In terms of peak, it's a wash.

[Money 23]

No one cared about PP untill after the Big 3 was formed? Before the Big 3 he was Glen Rice. Now, all of a sudden he's a top 30-40 player all time.
Pierce was always better than Glenn Rice. The hell are you talking about, whitey?

[StateOfMind12]

Total toss up ...

Neither played defense. Both had amazing potential, and truly great individual playoff performances early in their career.

Only difference is Pierce aged better due to skill level, and roster help and has a ring.

Pierce overall.

In terms of peak, it's a wash.
Pierce was underrated defensively. As one poster said, Pierce was a very good defender in the early 2000s, slipped away in the mid-2000s when his team became at it's absolute worst, and then played very good D again when KG and Ray joined.

I agree with the rest though. VC relied on his athleticism while Pierce relied on his strength and footwork.

[Money 23]

Pierce was underrated defensively.
Pierce was an atrocious defender.

He wasn't decent until he had offensive and defensive help starting in 2008, and had a defensive genius in Coach Thibs getting on his case EVERY game.

[StateOfMind12]

Pierce was an atrocious defender.

He wasn't decent until he had offensive and defensive help starting in 2008, and had a defensive genius in Coach Thibs getting on his case EVERY game.
I disagree. He was good under O'Brien in the early Celtics (2000-2003) when his team wasn't as atrocious as it was in the mid 2000s (2004-2007). He was surprisingly a good shot blocker, averaged 1 per game, people usually forget how athletic Pierce was. He wasn't a great athlete, but he was a good one.

[Money 23]

I disagree. He was good under O'Brien in the early Celtics (2000-2003) when his team wasn't as atrocious as it was in the mid 2000s (2004-2007). He was surprisingly a good shot blocker, averaged 1 per game, people usually forget how athletic Pierce was. He wasn't a great athlete, but he was a good one.
I agree Pierce was deceptively athletic. I never understood why people thought he wasn't. He just used it sparingly, and didn't need to fly all over the place. He picked and chose his spots to display it. I've seen some ridiculous dunks from him too. Specifically that one on the Lakers in 2006. Thunderous. But I still don't consider him an even good defender. I mean sure at times he would get up and play it when he felt it, but on average he was not a consistent or even good defender. I'm going to have to disagree about his status as a defender. With that said, post 2008 he's actually been very good.

[JohnnySic]

Why does it matter if nobody cared about him?

Everybody was always screaming that he was underrated especially Celtics fans.

Just because the media didn't take notice of him doesn't mean fans didn't. Also, just because Pierce didn't get the media attention that VC and Tmac did doesn't mean he was worse because Pierce was just as effective as those two were.
Perfect. :applause: Repped.

[Chrono90]

Vince's peak was higher

[sundizz]

I believe he broke his heart in 2001, game 7 against Sixers. Never really recovered.

Watching that game back in 2001 I remember really wanting him to make that shot at the end. However, I just dled and watched that game yesterday to reminisice about the good ol 2001 days of athleticism. Wow VC was such a biatch! I didn't realize how maligned a defender he was. At the end of the game..they didn't give it to Iverson and let Iverson dominate. They gave it to Aaron Mckie (Vince guarding him) and Aaron Mckie just dominated Vince a few straight positions. They just made a lucky three (Dell Curry) to even have that chance for the game winner.

[ukplayer4]

i love pp but the fact is vince was THE face of the nba for a few years, the most impressive, athletically gifted scorer of all time perhaps. also what people often forget is that even after he went to the nets he was dominant for a few years and led the nba in game winners and 4th quarter scoring a couple of seasons...

[sundizz]

Watching that game back in 2001 I remember really wanting him to make that shot at the end. However, I just dled and watched that game yesterday to reminisice about the good ol 2001 days of athleticism. Wow VC was such a biatch! I didn't realize how maligned a defender he was. At the end of the game..they didn't give it to Iverson and let Iverson dominate. They gave it to Aaron Mckie (Vince guarding him) and Aaron Mckie just dominated Vince a few straight positions. They just made a lucky three (Dell Curry) to even have that chance for the game winner.

I went to the VC slam dunk contest in Oakland. That was one of the best basketball experiences a fan could ever hope for. Damn near fell over the banister on the top level jumping up and down and tripping.

Personally, there is just something about the way Pierce plays and makes big shots etc and I always thought he was just clutch.

The Truth:
In the 2002 (lost to NJ ECF 4-2) Pierce's playoff numbers:
24.6 ppg, 8.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.3 bpg

In the 2003 (lost to NJ ECSF 4-0) Pierce's playoff numbers:
27.1 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.1 spg, .8 bpg

Though his fg% was shizzy (~40%) he did everything for his team and tried to lead em to the promised land the best his clumsy looking ways allowed him.

Vinsanity
2001 season (lost to Philly game 7, graduated, missed game winner, got dominated by Aaron Mckie in my opinion all game)
27.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.7 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.7 bpg

2006 season (lost to the Heat in ECSF)
29.6 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 5.3 apg, 1.8 spg, .05 bpg (shooting 46.3%, his best playoffs fg%, next closest 43.6%)

Vince Carter is clearly the 'more peak' player, but at the same time I don't think he was the leader or captain that Pierce was. Any advantage in numbers is negated by this intangible, but very strongly felt on the court, difference.

[L.Kizzle]

Why does it matter if nobody cared about him?

Everybody was always screaming that he was underrated especially Celtics fans.

Just because the media didn't take notice of him doesn't mean fans didn't. Also, just because Pierce didn't get the media attention that VC and Tmac did doesn't mean he was worse because Pierce was just as effective as those two were.
Boston has one of the biggest media markets.

[Mach_3]

IMO Vince was a better scorer during their peaks but i'd take Pierce over him because i know for a fact that Pierce is playing until the last whistle, also i prefer players who aren't as reliant on athleticism as Vince was

[kNIOKAS]

No one cared about PP untill after the Big 3 was formed? Before the Big 3 he was Glen Rice. Now, all of a sudden he's a top 30-40 player all time.

He wasn't, it's simply you saying that. You always come in PP threads to hate on him. You remind me of Barkley in this aspect...

Pierce was an atrocious defender.

He wasn't decent until he had offensive and defensive help starting in 2008, and had a defensive genius in Coach Thibs getting on his case EVERY game.

This is really out of hand. Atrocious? You are blatantly underrating him and overrating the 2008 "effect". What's the deal with agreeing he's a good defender, but adding asterisk only after 2008?? So many people acting like PP blew out overnight. The seasoned vet doesn't change up all of the sudden like that, come on now. Look at his numbers, he's been a superstar all his career.
Why you doing this?

Boston has one of the biggest media markets.
And he's appreciated in Boston. Media doesn't make one bigger or lesser basketball player than he is.

[RaininTwos]

Really? You don't things like intangibles play a role in team sports?

:oldlol:
The role they play is nowhere near the difference maker that people pretend they are.

[G.O.A.T]

Everyone who knows my posts around here knows I value Vince Carter less than the average person. That said, Vince in 2001 was a legit franchise player who showed the potential to be a top five player and a guy who could lead a Championship team. Turned out he was not that guy, but it seemed that way for a year or so.

Pierce is a much greater player all-time, but Vince was a bit better at his peak. Just a bit.

[TheBigVeto]

Paul Pierce wins this one easy.

[L.Kizzle]

He wasn't, it's simply you saying that. You always come in PP threads to hate on him. You remind me of Barkley in this aspect...
He was Glen Rice, you make it seem like a bad thing or something. Rice was a bad boy in the 90s.

We all know he showed the world who he was after the formation of the big 3. Basketball fans knew about Pierce, everyone else didn't.

Before 2007, not sure if he had a greater career than VC at that point. Now he has.

People say I hate Pierce, I actually liked Pierce a lot in the Antoine Walker years. My game is actually very similar to Pierce. I started this anti-Pierce posting when Spud-Jay was running wild on these forms.

All-Time, Pierce is a 60-ish range player.

[StateOfMind12]

All-Time, Pierce is a 60-ish range player.
Do you happen to know what irony is? Cause your post is full of it. :oldlol:

:oldlol: ..You say you are not a Pierce hater and then you say this.

Pierce is a top 40-45 player of all-time without a doubt, 50 at the least.

The only way you can not put him in the 50s and not be a hater is if you completely overrate the hell out of everybody before the 80s which I believe you do so maybe you do have a point.

[L.Kizzle]

Do you happen to know what irony is? Cause your post is full of it. :oldlol:

:oldlol: ..You say you are not a Pierce hater and then you say this.

Pierce is a top 40-45 player of all-time without a doubt, 50 at the least.

The only way you can not put him in the 50s and not be a hater is if you completely overrate the hell out of everybody before the 80s which I believe you do so maybe you do have a point.
No, top 40 is ridicules.

Never being a top 5 player anytime in his career and a borderline top 10 player during his peak does not equal top 40.

[lefthook00]

Vince's peak was higher. VC battling against AI in the playoffs was EPIC. Most probably don't remember that though.

[StateOfMind12]

No, top 40 is ridicules.

Never being a top 5 player anytime in his career and a borderline top 10 player during his peak does not equal top 40.
Then why is John Stockton in the top 40?

It's the same thing with him. Stockton was never a top 5 player ever either. Both Stockton and Pierce just had several seasons where they were top 10.

Both of them are top 40. Deal with it.

[fsvr54]

VC never peaked, so another pointless topic

[L.Kizzle]

Then why is John Stockton in the top 40?

It's the same thing with him. Stockton was never a top 5 player ever either. Both Stockton and Pierce just had several seasons where they were top 10.

Both of them are top 40. Deal with it.
Cause Stockton was the top at his position (or close to it) for a good amount of years with steep competition, yet Pierce was competing with bad knee's Jamal Mashburn, Glenn Robinson at the SF spot.

He also has a couple of All-NBA first teams (I know they mean nothin to you as stated before) led the league in assist like 10 straight seasons, and also in steals a few years ... not to mention the all time leader in those stats.

[StateOfMind12]

Cause Stockton was the top at his position (or close to it) for a good amount of years with steep competition, yet Pierce was competing with bad knee's Jamal Mashburn, Glenn Robinson at the SF spot.
But Stockton was still never a top 10 player. Why does it matter if he was battling at a tougher position? He was still only borderline top 10 and never top 5 or even close to top 5 for that matter.

Pierce had weak competition at the SF spot, sure, but he was still the best among them.

I'm not sure how you can conclude how one is better than the other. Neither were top 5 or close to it, both were only top 10 at best. It's the same, no matter how you try to spin it, both were only borderline top 10.


He also has a couple of All-NBA first teams (I know they mean nothin to you as stated before) led the league in assist like 10 straight seasons, and also in steals a few years ... not to mention the all time leader in those stats.
I really have no idea how that boosts Stockton's all-time list to like 40 while Pierce hangs at like the 60ish spot to you. So what happens when someone beats out Stockton as the all-time assist/steals leader? Does he all of a sudden fall to the 60 where Pierce is? If so, that is a very dumb way to rank players.

[L.Kizzle]

But Stockton was still never a top 10 player. Why does it matter if he was battling at a tougher position? He was still only borderline top 10 and never top 5 or even close to top 5 for that matter.

Pierce had weak competition at the SF spot, sure, but he was still the best among them..
Stockton was the best assist man for over a decade, do you here that. This is not Kevin Johnson we're talking about who was hot for 3-4 years then fell of the earth. Also, his 2 All-NBA 1st teams means he was closer to top 5 than Pierce ever was. PP has one 2nd team selection, Stockton (without even looking up) probably has more 2nd teams then PP has total Awards.



I'm not sure how you can conclude how one is better than the other. Neither were top 5 or close to it, both were only top 10 at best. It's the same, no matter how you try to spin it, both were only borderline top 10.
Here is a good reason, Stockton was being held out the top ten by Patrick Ewings and Clyde Drexlers. Pierce by Tracy McGrady and Chris Webber ... you do the math. Notice I'm not even bringing up the top tier guys like Jordan, Shaq and Kobe.



I really have no idea how that boosts Stockton's all-time list to like 40 while Pierce hangs at like the 60ish spot to you. So what happens when someone beats out Stockton as the all-time assist/steals leader? Does he all of a sudden fall to the 60 where Pierce is? If so, that is a very dumb way to rank players.
Cause his longevity is different from a Mark Jackson. If someone breaks Stocktons records (notice I said records, he holds 2), they will be damn good and probably deserve to be ranked above both. If Pierce was some all-time leader in a major stat, he'd be much higher.

[tmacattack33]

Then why is John Stockton in the top 40?

It's the same thing with him. Stockton was never a top 5 player ever either. Both Stockton and Pierce just had several seasons where they were top 10.

Both of them are top 40. Deal with it.

Stockton had more seasons being borderline top 10. He had excellent longevity.