Paul Pierce was better than Dominique Wilkins....

[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.

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]

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.