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.

Reply With Quote
) - 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.
spurs fans
next year it will probably be Steve Blake
