Ginobili or Pierce

[007nites]

Overall which player do you think brings more to the table and which player has a better game overall, in the past, and now? I feel this is a good comparison because of they are both of the same age.

[ElNono]

IMO, Pierce is more naturally talented. It's the kind of stuff you can't teach. Manu makes up for a lot of that with hustle and smarts.

Kind of different players too... Pierce was always a good shooter, Manu was more of a reckless driver... I don't know their games are that comparable overall.

[timvp]

To make an argument for Ginobili, you'd have to make a per-minute argument. Pierce's resume is just too damn complete otherwise -- he has put up a ton of points (more than Duncan) while playing solid defense and always bringing toughness to the table. Ginobili is younger but Pierce has played twice as many minutes in his career.

Pierce took those horrid 2002 Celtics to Game 6 of the ECF. He then changed his game to be the leader of a championship team while bailing out KG's anti-clutchness.

Then again, it's not Manu's fault that he never had to carry a team or play huge minutes. If I had to win a big game and I could either have Prime Ginobili or Prime Pierce, it'd be difficult to turn down Prime Ginobili since he could do most of what Prime Pierce could do but was also an elite playmaker/passer.

[Brunodf]

prime vs prime, i take Manu.

Right now Pierce

[007nites]

To make an argument for Ginobili, you'd have to make a per-minute argument. Pierce's resume is just too damn complete otherwise -- he has put up a ton of points (more than Duncan) while playing solid defense and always bringing toughness to the table. Ginobili is younger but Pierce has played twice as many minutes in his career.

Pierce took those horrid 2002 Celtics to Game 6 of the ECF. He then changed his game to be the leader of a championship team while bailing out KG's anti-clutchness.

Then again, it's not Manu's fault that he never had to carry a team or play huge minutes. If I had to win a big game and I could either have Prime Ginobili or Prime Pierce, it'd be difficult to turn down Prime Ginobili since he could do most of what Prime Pierce could do but was also an elite playmaker/passer.

They are the same age. Manu's body just can't hold up like Pierce's body can. It mainly has to do with the playing style of Manu's though. For some reason I don't think that Manu could carry a team to a 50 win season being the main guy go to guy in a regular season and then at the same time make it deep into the playoffs. Manu will always be known as the 6th man. Probably one of the best ever in the role though.

[Mugen]

I'd take Manu over Pierce in a bar fight tbh. Paul would get stabbed pretty quick and be of no use.

you ever been in a bar fight, OP?

[timvp]

They are the same age.Not technically.

Anyways, it's not a bad thing to lose in a career comparing contest to Paul Pierce. By the time he's done, he very well could be a top 25-30 player ever.

[letmk]

To make an argument for Ginobili, you'd have to make a per-minute argument. Pierce's resume is just too damn complete otherwise -- he has put up a ton of points (more than Duncan) while playing solid defense and always bringing toughness to the table. Ginobili is younger but Pierce has played twice as many minutes in his career.

Pierce took those horrid 2002 Celtics to Game 6 of the ECF. He then changed his game to be the leader of a championship team while bailing out KG's anti-clutchness.

Then again, it's not Manu's fault that he never had to carry a team or play huge minutes. If I had to win a big game and I could either have Prime Ginobili or Prime Pierce, it'd be difficult to turn down Prime Ginobili since he could do most of what Prime Pierce could do but was also an elite playmaker/passer.

Manu is one of my two favorite players in today's NBA. However, playing huge minutes is a huge part of player's total capabilities. Being able to play 80+ games at 35+ minutes for 15+ years is an accomplishment in itself.

Manu fits in Spurs perfectly as the 3 champions can attest for it. But it is based on the foundation of having Tim on the team, while Pierce can be said to be a border-line franchise player.

[jestersmash]

Pierce back then (prime vs prime).

Pierce now by a long shot.

[TMTTRIO]

The thing is there are a lot of players in the league that are more talented and physically gifted than Manu in the league. The one thing that makes Manu stand out as any kind of special player is his competitveness. Pierce anytime.

[mystargtr34]

I'd take Manu over Pierce in a bar fight tbh. Paul would get stabbed pretty quick and be of no use.

you ever been in a bar fight, OP?

:rollin cant argue with that reasoning tbh

[therealtruth]

Manu has never had a problem with playing huge minutes. It's the Spurs who haven't played him many minutes. There's no reason to believe he couldn't play 35+ minutes/game. The Spurs simply haven't cared to find out.

[SA210]

Manu

[superjames1992]

Manu is my favorite player in the NBA, but I don't see how you don't take Pierce, past or present.

[Small Fundamental]

Manu is my favorite player in the NBA, but I don't see how you don't take Pierce, past or present.
No way is Pierce currently a better player than Ginobili.

[Johnny RIngo]

Manu has never had a problem with playing huge minutes. It's the Spurs who haven't played him many minutes. There's no reason to believe he couldn't play 35+ minutes/game. The Spurs simply haven't cared to find out.

Uh, Manu breaks down playing less than 30 mins every season. It's pretty obvious he wouldn't be able to handle 35+ minutes a game over ten years. As for the topic, Pierce has had the better career, by far, though I'd take '05 playoff Manu over any version of Pierce for a post-season run.

[50Bestspurever]

Manu, not even fucking close. If Manu played in a big market he would be an NBA god.

[Mouth is Bleeding]

Career PER

Manu: 21.7 (playoffs 20.2)
Pierce: 20.6 (playoffs 18.1)

Career True shooting pct

Manu: .590 (playoffs .586
Pierce: .568 (playoffs .552)

Career win share per 48 minutes:

Manu: 214
Pierce: 166

Per 36 minutes ppg career

Pierce: 21.5 (playoffs 19.1)
Manu: 19.5 (playoffs 18.9)

Total rebounds per36 minutes career:

Pierce: 5.9
Manu: 5.1

Assists per 36 career:

Manu: 5.1
Pierce: 3.7

Career 3 pt% :

Manu: .372
Pierce: .369

Assist pct (an estimate of teammates field goals assisted by player while on floor)

Manu: 24.1
Pierce: 19.3

Then there is RAPM ( regularized adjusted plus minues) which I THINK has become the agreed upon best + - stat these days) where Manu consistently every year is one of the best in the league and consistently ahead of Pierce every season, but look for yourselves http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/

No way that Manu at least doesn't have a good case over Pierce.

[spurraider21]

Career PER

Manu: 21.7 (playoffs 20.2)
Pierce: 20.6 (playoffs 18.1)

Career True shooting pct

Manu: .590 (playoffs .586
Pierce: .568 (playoffs .552)

Career win share per 48 minutes:

Manu: 214
Pierce: 166

Per 36 minutes ppg career

Pierce: 21.5 (playoffs 19.1)
Manu: 19.5 (playoffs 18.9)

Total rebounds per36 minutes career:

Pierce: 5.9
Manu: 5.1

Assists per 36 career:

Manu: 5.1
Pierce: 3.7

Career 3 pt% :

Manu: .372
Pierce: .369

Assist pct (an estimate of teammates field goals assisted by player while on floor)

Manu: 24.1
Pierce: 19.3

Then there is RAPM ( regularized adjusted plus minues) which I THINK has become the agreed upon best + - stat these days) where Manu consistently every year is one of the best in the league and consistently ahead of Pierce every season, but look for yourselves http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/

No way that Manu at least doesn't have a good case over Pierce.

like Timvp said, you can build a case on per-minute stats. but the fact that pierce can play heavy minutes year after year where manu struggles to stay on the court as a reserve says something about durability, which definitely counts

[dunkman]

Pierce was a legit franchise player during most of his career.

[diego]

pierce was the star of the US team that got beat by argentina at home in 02 (and later beat again by yugoslavia and either spain or puerto rico). Its relevant because that was the turning point for manu and argentina basketball, everything that came after maybe wouldn't have happened if not for that, and I'm sure pierce is still bitter about being the first nba player team to lose, and on top of that not to a FIBA power house but to a young team whose only nba players were 3rd/4th string.

Aside from career points and all star games, I dont see how you could possibly make an argument that pierce has had a better CAREER than manu. Manu has had more success. I know pierce has a finals mvp, but manu almost got one and has an olympics MVP that literally no one else has.

I think shooting stroke is overblown in pierce's favor, and to a certain degree durability too. In fact, as the stats posted show, manu has better shooting numbers, though obviously you would expect his efficiency to go down (and his points and minutes to go up) if he were in Pierce's shoes. Pierce's style of play (little effort on D, lots of step back jumpers) is obviously more conducive to playing big minutes than manu's. once kg and allen showed up in boston, pierce's ppg shot down and IIRC he never averaged over 20 ppg with his big 3, once again proving that it is easier to pile on numbers on a bad team than it is on a stacked team.

To me the main difference isnt about stats, its about style- Pierce is a silky smooth scorer, in his day you could count on him to score easily and carry his team's offense. Manu is a herky jerky spaz, but in his day you could count on him to do all the little things on both ends while running the offense and closing out the game. both have a knack for getting to the line a lot.

all that said, I really like pierce. he started the season a looking fat and slow but he's slowly playing back into shape

[JRHernandez88]

Paul Peirce has always been one of my favorite players to watch. I always liked how smooth his offense was & the toughness he played with. Dude lacks athletic ability & speed but still manages to get buckets on anyone, any night of the week. He makes it look easy on the floor. The way he gets space to get clean looks is beautiful to watch. It's simple and effective. His jumpshot is one of my favorite in the game.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1kF80bRDxY

Why compare him to Ginobili though?? They dont even play the same position. If I was gonna have to choose though it would be Ginobili, I might be a little bias in my decision though, lol. He's one of the most fierce competitors the game has ever seen and has intangibles you can't teach. He's a champion, period.

"He has the same love of winning and maniacal approach to competitiveness," Popovich said. "It's the same as Michael and Kobe have."

[Kidd K]

Not technically.

Anyways, it's not a bad thing to lose in a career comparing contest to Paul Pierce. By the time he's done, he very well could be a top 25-30 player ever.

Won't make the top 25 imo. The guys floating around 25 on the SLAM top 50 list are guys like David Robinson. And down around 30 is Pippen. I would take both those guys over Pierce in a heartbeat.

List is from a few years ago. . .but Pierce wasn't even on the top 50 at the time. If he's on there, I'd slot him in the 40's somewhere tbh. There's been too many good players to put Pierce up in the 20's. He's been a top 50 caliber guy, but mostly due to the longevity. A lot of his career was spent losing.

[dunkman]

Won't make the top 25 imo. The guys floating around 25 on the SLAM top 50 list are guys like David Robinson. And down around 30 is Pippen. I would take both those guys over Pierce in a heartbeat.

List is from a few years ago. . .but Pierce wasn't even on the top 50 at the time. If he's on there, I'd slot him in the 40's somewhere tbh. There's been too many good players to put Pierce up in the 20's. He's been a top 50 caliber guy, but mostly due to the longevity. A lot of his career was spent losing.

Pippen played the same position as Pierce and arguments could be made for Pierce to be the better player. While Pippen was better defensively, Pierce is better offensively.

[timvp]

Pierce's style of play (little effort on D, lots of step back jumpers) is obviously more conducive to playing big minutes than manu's.

I don't think either of those two items are fair regarding Pierce. Little effort on D? He's been an elite perimeter defender for much of his career. He was the chief perimeter defender on the '08 Celtics, who were one of the best defensive teams ever. For my money, he defends LeBron as well as anyone has over the years.

And lots of step back jumpers? I don't really see it. He averages more FTA per minute than Ginobili (20% more, in fact) and we know how hard Ginobili has attacked the hoop throughout his career.

I think Ginobili very well may be a top ten shooting guard in the modern era ...... but the Pierce comparison is difficult for Manu to win. It has to be per-minute argument in addition to utilizing some hypotheticals in Ginobili's favor.

[DAF86]

Manu gets screwed in most of this players comparisson's because he has always been on a very short leash minutes wise and therefore his stats don't make him justice. The vast majority of NBA fans (so the ignorant ones) laugh when a more knowledgeable NBA fan tells them that Manu is a better BB player than for example Joe Johnson, so imagine the point to where Manu gets screwed because of this.

It's difficult to compare this two because you have to imagine a scenario that hasn't happened (at least season after season), Manu being the main man on an NBA team, all sorts of "what ifs" will inevitably appear (biggest example: Manu's ability to play big minutes game after game), but what I do know is that Manu and Pierce are in the same level of players and I really don't know why people are so loosely saying that Pierce is more talented than Ginobili. Skill wise Manu can pretty much do everything that Pierce does better (shooting, passing, dribbling through people, etc). Pierce may have the physical edge but since when is that considered talent?

[will_spurs]

I understand the Manu love in this thread but I don't understand the Pierce hate... Pierce has been a top notch player for most of his career, and yes logging heavy minutes year after year IS relevant. How many times were the Spurs let down because Manu was injured? I'm not talking about talent here, but when a player isn't on the floor, his talent equals 0.

This being said, I don't like the question in the first place, since these 2 players are very hard to compare, they don't play the same position and their role on a team have been different as well. Looking at things in a vacuum I'd say Pierce is the better player. But on the Spurs I'm glad we had Manu all along. That's the difficult part on these comparisons: Manu has been one of the main cogs in a really well-oiled machine, it's hard to imagine any other player could have replaced him and made the franchise as a whole better. In this sense I wouldn't take anybody over Manu no matter what, as the likelihood the Spurs would have got 3 rings anyway seems quite slim to me (ok, maybe a prime Jordan :)) - but I know quite a few Boston fans and they feel the same way about Pierce, it's their guy, they're happy with what he's done and they would never think of swapping him for anybody else.

[JRHernandez88]

Bad comparison, tbh

[Kidd K]

Pippen played the same position as Pierce and arguments could be made for Pierce to be the better player. While Pippen was better defensively, Pierce is better offensively.

Pippen was leagues better than him defensively, and definitely wasn't a slouch on offense. Pippen also has 6 rings as the 2nd best player on his team. Pierce has 1 ring as either the best or 2nd best on his team. Debatable, since KG was arguably the better player.

Arguments could be made, sure. But Pippen's going to be recognized as the better player all time imo. He's done a lot more than Pierce, and practically always been a winner. Pierce has been leading .500 or worse teams for several years until KG and Ray Allen went to Boston as free agents. Bulls were contenders pretty much every year since Pippen's second year.

[dunkman]

Pippen was leagues better than him defensively, and definitely wasn't a slouch on offense. Pippen also has 6 rings as the 2nd best player on his team. Pierce has 1 ring as either the best or 2nd best on his team. Debatable, since KG was arguably the better player.

Arguments could be made, sure. But Pippen's going to be recognized as the better player all time imo. He's done a lot more than Pierce, and practically always been a winner. Pierce has been leading .500 or worse teams for several years until KG and Ray Allen went to Boston as free agents. Bulls were contenders pretty much every year since Pippen's second year.

Pippen would have hard time scoring 20-25 points on only 12-15 shots Pierce style, while Pierce was able to play some great defense like the time he shut down Kobe in the 08 finals.

[hater]

:lol spurs fans

gotta love em

[Greg Oden]

:lol having to compare manu to Pierce now instead of Dirk

[hater]

:lol having to compare manu to Pierce now instead of Dirk

:lmao next year it will probably be Steve Blake

[DAF86]

Bolivians :lol