Paul Pierce vs Scottie Pippen

[Living Being]

I don't hear much about Pierce anymore, but he was an elite SF not long ago, and played some shutdown defense on star players while also having great playoff performances.

I would assume most will say Pippen is better without question, but I think they have both been underrated at one time or another.

Pippen is an all-time great defender with very good scoring and passing.
Pierce is a superb scorer, sometimes great defender/sometimes lazy defender, and decent passer.

Pierce seemed to be more capable of having tremendous games, though. He also seems more intense on the floor. His overall game was a bit streaky.

Pippen made a lot of impact quietly on the floor. I personally like him more, but Pierce is in the same tier, IMO.

Just a comparison of one of their better years:
92-93 Pippen:
22 pts 8.7 Reb 5.6 Ast 2.9 Stl 0.8 Blk 3.2 TO 3.2 PF .491 FG .320 3P .660 FT

05-06 Pierce:
26.8 pts 6.7 Reb 4.7 Ast 1.4 Stl 0.4 Blk 3.5 TO 2.8 PF .471 FG .354 3P .772 FT

Not to discredit Pippen, but is he rated so much higher than guys like Pierce because of his # of rings?

Another factor to consider is longevity. Pierce has continued to put up good numbers to this day at age 35, while Pippen fell off a lot after age 31/foot surgery.

[Round Mound]

Pippen. Those Who Where Alive to See What He Did in the 1993-94 Season Know He Was a Superstar Himself. The Dude Finished 4th in PER and Lead the Bulls in Pretty Much Everything that Season. He Also Won the 1994 All Star MVP in Great Fashion.

[Whoah10115]

Pippen gets underrated because he played with Jordan and because his career stats didn't stand out.


Pierce gets underrated because the Celtics sucked.


Pippen is better, but Pierce would be higher on lists if he had decent teams around him. He had legit garbage teams.

[Pushxx]

Both are underrated. Too bad the Rick Pitino dark era of the Celtics ruined that time for Pierce.

[Jasper]

so true ....

Any case career as well as championships as well as 1 on 1

Pip would own him...

but Pierce is an old throw back player , where speed isn't as important as spacing and first step with experience.

Both must of been create teammates...

[Real Men Wear Green]

Ha! Pierce would destroy him if they played one-on-one right now.

[JohnnySic]

Pippen would give any wing player problems but PP would still get his; no one is stopping him 1-on-1.

[Sarcastic]

Pierce is better if you need an Alpha. Pippen is better if you need a Beta.


If you are drawing up a final play, it's not even a question.

[Rolando]

Defensively, I would give the edge to Pippen but Pierce is no slouch either. Offensively, Pierce is easily better than Pippen. Pierce also has demonstrated the ability to play point forward like Pippen with Pippen being a bit better.

All in all they are fairly equal but I'd give Pierce the slight edge.

[Djahjaga]

This is actually one of the more interesting VS threads. I'm sick of the KG/Dirk ones...

If we're talking about who we'd rather have on our team, it obviously depends on what kind of player you want, and these two, although they have certain similarities, are on pretty opposite ends of the spectrum.

Pierce is a bona fide scorer. Idc who you put on him -- over a large enough sample size, he'll get his points, just like any other great scorer. For an aggressive wing, he also assists and boards well, and he's clutch. Defense, not so much, especially when on those shitty Celtics teams. It's not so much inability, but let's not pretend like he was ever a physically dominating player, either.

Scottie does most things a bit better, and plays D a whole lot better, obviously. I don't think he was a better playmaker, actually; just more conscious of his playmaking role, whereas Pierce had to score, score, score if the Celtics were gonna win double digit games in the post-Toine, pre-Big 3 era. Scottie was a better rebounder. Idc what the numbers show in this case -- I don't remember Scottie that much, but I've seen enough full Bulls games to realize this. Pierce is a better rebounder than people seem to remember, but Scottie was just better.

I don't buy the whole alpha-beta thing. But I will say that Scottie might have have been a bit too self-conscious of off court things than I would like. Yeah, he was forever (and will forever be, unfortunately) in MJ's shadow, his contract blew serious donkey d*ck, and he never got enough credit, even in the wake of Jordan's retirement(s), but bitching out of that last play was ridiculous. And this wasn't young-Scottie; he should have known better. For what it's worth, Pierce, one of my favorites all time, was a dick earlier in his own career.


I think it's interesting that they're underrated for opposite reasons. Scottie's teams were too successful, and Pierce's were too unsuccessful. You've got Pierce being rated higher in these ESPN pre-season rankings when he's 33-34-35 than 7 years earlier when he was in his prime, dropping 24-27 ppg, and all around better stats.

Just shows you that public perception is A. fickle, B. arbitrary, C. mostly irrelevant (when deciding who actually was a better player). I would say it is relevant in talking about impact on the sport; whether or not you think Kareem or Wilt are better than MJ, the latter has had more impact on the sport, even if most of that was a product of the time-period/perfect storm.

[Rysio]

best player on 6 championship teams vs one time lucky sidekick ring. :facepalm

[Djahjaga]

best player on 6 championship teams vs one time lucky sidekick ring. :facepalm

Literally everything about this statement is ridiculously false.

Successful troll! :applause:

[Haymaker]

Pippen wasn't too good at creating his own shot. He almost always scored on transition and spotting up. That's what separates them both. Oh, and Pippen was the best one on one defender in the league for a long time.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

best player on 6 championship teams vs one time lucky sidekick ring. :facepalm
:biggums: :wtf:


I like both of them and think they're both underrated but i'd take Pippen.

[Clifton]

Pierce is one of my all-time favorites, and I've never thought very much of Pippen. But I wasn't around for his career either. Maybe if I saw him once a week on NBA on NBC my opinion would be different.

[kNIOKAS]

I haven't seen that much of Pippen (although he's one of my favourite players from 90ies), and I do think both of them are underrated. I would think it is very close and depends on what aspect you want to improve your team.

[PP34Deuce]

As big of a PP fan.... This is tough...

If you put Scottie in his prime with Antoine Walker those celtics probably get as far as PP took them which is ECF.

If you put Prime PP on those Bulls teams, They win titles, but do they win 6?

I do think if you put PP on the team that Scottie led, they would be about what they were.

I still haven't answered the question. I think Pierce has shown you need a 1a or 1b hes better.

[Living Being]

This is actually one of the more interesting VS threads. I'm sick of the KG/Dirk ones...

If we're talking about who we'd rather have on our team, it obviously depends on what kind of player you want, and these two, although they have certain similarities, are on pretty opposite ends of the spectrum.

Pierce is a bona fide scorer. Idc who you put on him -- over a large enough sample size, he'll get his points, just like any other great scorer. For an aggressive wing, he also assists and boards well, and he's clutch. Defense, not so much, especially when on those shitty Celtics teams. It's not so much inability, but let's not pretend like he was ever a physically dominating player, either.

Scottie does most things a bit better, and plays D a whole lot better, obviously. I don't think he was a better playmaker, actually; just more conscious of his playmaking role, whereas Pierce had to score, score, score if the Celtics were gonna win double digit games in the post-Toine, pre-Big 3 era. Scottie was a better rebounder. Idc what the numbers show in this case -- I don't remember Scottie that much, but I've seen enough full Bulls games to realize this. Pierce is a better rebounder than people seem to remember, but Scottie was just better.

I don't buy the whole alpha-beta thing. But I will say that Scottie might have have been a bit too self-conscious of off court things than I would like. Yeah, he was forever (and will forever be, unfortunately) in MJ's shadow, his contract blew serious donkey d*ck, and he never got enough credit, even in the wake of Jordan's retirement(s), but bitching out of that last play was ridiculous. And this wasn't young-Scottie; he should have known better. For what it's worth, Pierce, one of my favorites all time, was a dick earlier in his own career.


I think it's interesting that they're underrated for opposite reasons. Scottie's teams were too successful, and Pierce's were too unsuccessful. You've got Pierce being rated higher in these ESPN pre-season rankings when he's 33-34-35 than 7 years earlier when he was in his prime, dropping 24-27 ppg, and all around better stats.

Just shows you that public perception is A. fickle, B. arbitrary, C. mostly irrelevant (when deciding who actually was a better player). I would say it is relevant in talking about impact on the sport; whether or not you think Kareem or Wilt are better than MJ, the latter has had more impact on the sport, even if most of that was a product of the time-period/perfect storm.
I appreciate your analysis. It's true that Pippen, no matter how good, will always be a sidekick. Pierce was at his best with a lot of other stars like Kobe, VC, McGrady, Iverson, and then after the Celtics won he didn't receive as much attention. It's like he was all ready an aging star at the time.

[Djsonny]

On a 1on1, I would give it to piece since he is a more natural scorer, but pippen can score on his own as well, not as good but still can score. You have to add one of the better defenders during his time. On top of that, Pippens leadership should outweigh piece, given I havent seen either in the locker so thats possible to judge but Pippen is always yelling on the court. If I had to add someone to my team, it would be pippen. We havent seen a player with his style since then, Nicholas Batum is probably the closest but still a ways away.

[kshutts1]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I struggle to think of anything that Pierce does better than Pippen other than shoot...

[andgar923]

Two different players, different mentalities and more importantly different roles, hard to compare.

But to play along....

Is PP's defense better than Pip's scoring abilities?

And vice versa

Those are their strengths.

No I don't think the bulls win 6 with PP because MJ didn't need a player like PP, he needed a player that can get him the ball and help with defense.

[Smoke117]

Pippen is really underrated as a scorer especially people saying he couldn't create his own shot. It isn't as if the Bulls played at this blazing pace and he was running and gunning. He was one of the better players off the dribble in his athletic prime and he had a good post up game which Pierce has never had. His jumper was also much improved in the mid 90s. The person that said Pippen was not a better play maker is absolutely wrong. Pippen was a natural PG coming into the league who just ended up playing in an offense with no real ball dominant guard. Paul Pierce is not close to the play maker and passer scottie was. Defensively Pierce has always been solid, but Pippen is all time, all world. It's not even close defensively. If you replaced Pierce at his Peak on that 1994 team with the same amount of missed games where the Bulls went 4-6, they absolutely don't win 55 games. Pierce's couple extra points can't fill the void that Scottie filled with his defense and all around game. Those two seasons in 1994 and 1995 are the two best seasons by a perimeter defender ever. The 1994 Bulls were built and won with defense and they were only so good because Scottie was so dominant. A couple extra points from Pierce would do nothing to make that team better.

On the other hand all these Celtic teams pre big three would only improve with Pippen instead of Pierce.

[andgar923]

Pippen is really underrated as a scorer especially people saying he couldn't create his own shot. It isn't as if the Bulls played at this blazing pace and he was running and gunning. He was one of the better players off the dribble in his athletic prime and he had a good post up game which Pierce has never had. His jumper was also much improved in the mid 90s. The person that said Pippen was not a better play maker is absolutely wrong. Pippen was a natural PG coming into the league who just ended up playing in an offense with no real ball dominant guard. Paul Pierce is not close to the play maker and passer scottie was. Defensively Pierce has always been solid, but Pippen is all time, all world. It's not even close defensively. If you replaced Pierce at his Peak on that 1994 team with the same amount of missed games where the Bulls went 4-6, they absolutely don't win 55 games. Pierce's couple extra points can't fill the void that Scottie filled with his defense and all around game. Those two seasons in 1994 and 1995 are the two best seasons by a perimeter defender ever. The 1994 Bulls were built and won with defense and they were only so good because Scottie was so dominant. A couple extra points from Pierce would do nothing to make that team better.
The defensive advantage some say Pip has over PP, PP has scoring wise over Pip.

Offensively PP is much better. You mentioned PP not having a post game as good as Pip's is wrong. PP's post game is noticeably better than Pip's.

I will get heat for this but PP's 1 on 1 D is on par with Pip's. Pip was the better help defender but PP's individual D can be comparable.

[veilside23]

http://lakersblog.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/14/pierce_blocks_kobe.jpg

to say that pierce is a miles away as a defender is underrating his defense as well....

Pip maybe a bit better on D but on one the other side of the court .. id bet my money on paul pierce...

also just imagine being stabbed and still played great after that.. i dont know if pip would be the same player or even better.

[Whoah10115]

The defensive advantage some say Pip has over PP, PP has scoring wise over Pip.

Offensively PP is much better. You mentioned PP not having a post game as good as Pip's is wrong. PP's post game is noticeably better than Pip's.

I will get heat for this but PP's 1 on 1 D is on par with Pip's. Pip was the better help defender but PP's individual D can be comparable.




It's just not true tho. Pippen was the better post player. Pierce does have a little post game but Pippen was better.


And Pierce was not on par with Pippen in any kind of way, defensively.


Pierce is one of the great scorers, but Pippen was always a very good scorer. And he was an all-around offensive player. The all-time point forward.

[coolnate202]

I always wondered what paul peirce's career wouldve been like, had he actually conditioned..

[andgar923]

It's just not true tho. Pippen was the better post player. Pierce does have a little post game but Pippen was better.


And Pierce was not on par with Pippen in any kind of way, defensively.


Pierce is one of the great scorers, but Pippen was always a very good scorer. And he was an all-around offensive player. The all-time point forward.

Pip is not a better pos player, he's long and took advantage of smaller players. He had a good semi hook in the post with decent turnaround, but nothing spectacular. Pierce has better footwork, balance, is def stronger, and can do everything Pip could do in the post while being the inferior athlete. Shit I'll even go as far as saying that Pierce is the second best non big post player behind Kobe in today's era.

[Whoah10115]

Pip is not a better pos player, he's long and took advantage of smaller players. He had a good semi hook in the post with decent turnaround, but nothing spectacular. Pierce has better footwork, balance, is def stronger, and can do everything Pip could do in the post while being the inferior athlete. Shit I'll even go as far as saying that Pierce is the second best non big post player behind Kobe in today's era.



Anthony is a better post player than Pierce is.



Pierce really doesn't play in the post with kind of regularity.

[andgar923]

Anthony is a better post player than Pierce is.



Pierce really doesn't play in the post with kind of regularity.

I did forget Anthony. But I feel as tho Anthony pummels his way into the post more than PP. Not that Anthony doesn't have a good post game, I just feel as tho Antony isn't as refined in the post as PP and Kobe in regards to balance and footwork.

But you do have a good point.

[Teanett]

Pierce is a good defender but he is not in the same class as Pippen.
Pippen was All-Defense selection for a decade as well as All-NBA 1st team multiple times.

[Clifton]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I struggle to think of anything that Pierce does better than Pippen other than shoot...
Create off the dribble.

You know, the single most important skill in basketball.

Whenever I watch those Bulls games, all Pippen does on offense is what Lamar Odom did for the Lakers, plus stroking open 3s, often in transition.

I've heard from fans who've turned their nostalgia switch off that that second 3peat team struggled to score at times. ... the Thunder don't struggle to score ever. If Pippen had Pierce's offensive abilities, that would've never been an issue. Of course, if Pippen had been Pierce, their signature defense would have been radically altered, and they wouldn't have been as successful. Ultimately when you have MJ all you need is defense and shooters. That doesn't mean that, outside of all contexts, Pip is a better overall player than Pierce though. Doesn't mean he isn't either.

[kshutts1]

Create off the dribble.

You know, the single most important skill in basketball.

.

I certainly disagree with that. The single most important skill is all about context; there is no one true answer.
I can't create off the dribble but I still dominate when I play. Obviously not at NBA level, but still basketball against like-skilled players. In fact, I tend to dominate the players that can create their own shots.. they create them, then I send them into the second row.

I do agree, however, that Pierce is better at creating his own shot. So Pierce can create his own shot, and shoot, better. Pippen is a better defender (man and help), creator, leader (arguably), better in transition...

[scm5]

Pippen > Pierce

He's better defensively and is a better facilitator than Pierce. The only thing Pierce does better is score, and it's not by a huge margin.

[Teanett]

Create off the dribble.

You know, the single most important skill in basketball.


that's a horrible statement.
in 1-on-1 games maybe but not in the nba.