Pierce has got more playoff experience though. Tmac has yet to lead his team past the first round. Who do you pick?
There was just a topic about this a few months ago, but whatever.T-Mac is my pick. Better, more dynamic scorer. Much better passer, equal rebounder, and just as good of a defender. Biggest thing to me is how each carries/carried their teams. The 2 years Pierce got past 1st round he had Walker who was getting 20PPG+. Without Walker, Pierce's stats went down, down, down, and he led his team nowhere. He had a breakout year last year with worse supporting cast, but T-Mac proved he could get better numbers with a worse cast AND get to playoffs with those teams.To me it's easily Mac.
Haha thats a joke. They're basically equal. Pierce has averaged 1ish more ppg, and virtually everything else is pretty much equal. Assists, rebounds, steals, block, etc. The other things that aren't equal are the percents. Pierce is a better 3 points AND free throw shooter. Also, with the game on the line I don't think there are too many people that I'd want to have the ball other thank Pierce. He can shoot the 3, pull up for a jumper, pump fake and draw a foul, drive and draw a foul, he can do virtually anything. Maybe Carmelo, among 1 or 2 others. Crunch these numbers: Pierce, in one less year in the NBA than McGrady, has attempted 965 more free throws attempted than McGrady, and has made 891 more. I choose Pierce.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 8 2006, 02:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There was just a topic about this a few months ago, but whatever.T-Mac is my pick. Better, more dynamic scorer. Much better passer, equal rebounder, and just as good of a defender. Biggest thing to me is how each carries/carried their teams. The 2 years Pierce got past 1st round he had Walker who was getting 20PPG+. Without Walker, Pierce's stats went down, down, down, and he led his team nowhere. He had a breakout year last year with worse supporting cast, but T-Mac proved he could get better numbers with a worse cast AND get to playoffs with those teams.To me it's easily Mac.</div>oops sorry bout that... newei, I agree bout your comment bout Tmac being the better player of the two. Tmac also is more athletic and is more versitile while Pierce solidifies the SG position. Defense I give it to TMAC too because he can defend tall player as well as shorter players because of his speed and long wing span.
Esily T-Mac, hes younger, more wide of a game, and can lead a team in crunch time, he is VERy EASY to pick here.
<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">If we want to look at the stats from this past seasonaul Pierce: 26.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 39.0 mpg, 79 games played; .471 FG%; .354 3Pt.%; .772 FT%.Tracy McGrady: 24.4 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.8 apg, 37.1 mpg, 47 games played; .406 FG%; .312 3Pt%; .747 FT%.Basically the same stats, right? I'd go with Paul Pierce if we were basing this off of last season. P-Double had his career year with that 26 ppg effort and 6 and 4 in the reb and asts department.However, if we were basing this off of both player's career years, I'd definitely go with Tracy McGrady. A healthy T-Mac is a top 5 player in the league.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (val_modus @ Oct 8 2006, 12:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Esily T-Mac, hes younger, more wide of a game, and can lead a team in crunch time, he is VERy EASY to pick here.</div> Don't use age as a factor - Pierce is turning 29 soon and T-Mac is 27. If you want to talk about age I'll talk about health, then see how much that 1 and a half years age difference matters. But when healthy, Tracy McGrady is a top 5 player in the league. He has it all. He can score any amount of points, pretty good rebounder, very good passer for his size/position, very very very good ballhandler for his size/position, he's quick, he's super athletic, he's arguably the most clutch player in the NBA, and he has a killer swagger about him that I just love. Pierce is an excellent well-rounded player as well, boarderline top 10 in the NBA IMO (he's 11 or 12 in my book), and he could be called more of a winner (he has gotten to the ECF) and he is more of a leader. He's also very reliable. But when healthy, I there are only a few players better than T-Mac. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Illosophee @ Oct 8 2006, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">If we want to look at the stats from this past season: Paul Pierce: 26.8 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 4.8 apg, 39.0 mpg, 79 games played; .471 FG%; .354 3Pt.%; .772 FT%. Tracy McGrady: 24.4 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.8 apg, 37.1 mpg, 47 games played; .406 FG%; .312 3Pt%; .747 FT%. Basically the same stats, right? I'd go with Paul Pierce if we were basing this off of last season. P-Double had his career year with that 26 ppg effort and 6 and 4 in the reb and asts department. However, if we were basing this off of both player's career years, I'd definitely go with Tracy McGrady. A healthy T-Mac is a top 5 player in the league.</span></div> And that, folks, is why I hate when people use stats to compare players. By looking at those stats, Paul Pierce beats McGrady out in EVERY SINGLE category, when in real life he's only really a better rebounder and mid-range shooter. I mean he's excellent and everything, but McGrady is just so damn talented - he's better at almost everything than any player in the NBA when he's healthy.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Oct 8 2006, 12:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And that, folks, is why I hate when people use stats to compare players. By looking at those stats, Paul Pierce beats McGrady out in EVERY SINGLE category, when in real life he's only really a better rebounder and mid-range shooter. I mean he's excellent and everything, but McGrady is just so damn talented - he's better at almost everything than any player in the NBA when he's healthy.</div><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">Though stats don't define a player's game, they still show how well he is doing with his own respective talent. You can't claim someone is an amazing three-point shooter when they hit 4 out of 20 shots a night. That doesn't work out, you understand? I don't like using stats myself, but I posted P-Double and T-Mac's stats because yankshater213 was claiming that they played the same. I agree with him. They both did play the same statistically, but as I said before<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A healthy T-Mac is a top 5 player in the league.</div>End of story.</span>
You guys are all saying "a healthy T-Mac is top 5". And that may be the case, but when was the last time that McGrady was fully healthy? He's not....Another thing, McGrady has NEVER been a winner. Sure, he was in Orlando and really didnt have any help what so ever, but his team had the worst record in the leauge. Even with an awful supporting cast, their record still should have been more impressive. Back when Antoine Walker and Paul played together for the first time, they made a decent run to make it to the finals. I can't say the same for T-Mac. I guess we will see how much of a "winner" Tracy is if his team can stay healthy this entire season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Oct 8 2006, 02:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You guys are all saying "a healthy T-Mac is top 5". And that may be the case, but when was the last time that McGrady was fully healthy? He's not....Another thing, McGrady has NEVER been a winner. Sure, he was in Orlando and really didnt have any help what so ever, but his team had the worst record in the leauge. Even with an awful supporting cast, their record still should have been more impressive. Back when Antoine Walker and Paul played together for the first time, they made a decent run to make it to the finals. I can't say the same for T-Mac. I guess we will see how much of a "winner" Tracy is if his team can stay healthy this entire season.</div>2004-2005, he was horrible in first month due to injury and playing with whole new team and adapting to his first all star center and slowed down game of JVG. After that first month and a half he was at 28PPG for the season, and also added the 6APG and 6RPG to his stats, and was at 30/7/6 in playoffs.T-Mac had a supporting cast considerably worse than what Kobe has right now, and averaged 32/6/5 on 46% shooting, led league in scoring, and pushed top seeded Pistons to 7 games. With Rockets he helped push Mavs to 7 games, the same exact Mavs team that was 2 games away from a title this year. He has not won yet, but it is understandable considering the circumstances he has been in. Paul has done NOTHING without Walker, I don't believe he has even made playoffs without him. Pierce didn't have a great supporting cast last year, but it was better than what T-Mac had in orlando and he still was a few games out of a playoff spot.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 8 2006, 02:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paul has done NOTHING without Walker, I don't believe he has even made playoffs without him. Pierce didn't have a great supporting cast last year, but it was better than what T-Mac had in orlando and he still was a few games out of a playoff spot.</div> 1. Pierce has made the playoffs without Walker. In fact, I think the only year we havn't made the playoffs in the last 6 years was last season. 2. You can't deny that the East was a LOT weaker when T-Mac was in Orlando.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Oct 8 2006, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. Pierce has made the playoffs without Walker. In fact, I think the only year we havn't made the playoffs in the last 6 years was last season.2. You can't deny that the East was a LOT weaker when T-Mac was in Orlando.</div>1. He made it in 2003-2004, but were fu*king 36-46 (and Pierce's stats were only at 23/6/5 on 45% shooting). In 2004-2005 the Celtics would not have made the playoffs without the addition of Walker.2. The top teams were weaker, but the bottom teams not so much. In 2001-2003, Orlando was always at least 2 games over .500, while the one year Pierce made playoffs without Walker they were 10 games under .500, and they had same 8th seed Orlando had. And it works both ways, if the Celtics of 01-02 played in today's EC they probably wouldn't have gotten past the first round if they had to face Heats/Pistons/Bulls/Nets/Cavs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 8 2006, 02:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. He made it in 2003-2004, but were fu*king 36-46 (and Pierce's stats were only at 23/6/5 on 45% shooting). In 2004-2005 the Celtics would not have made the playoffs without the addition of Walker. 2. The top teams were weaker, but the bottom teams not so much. In 2001-2003, Orlando was always at least 2 games over .500, while the one year Pierce made playoffs without Walker they were 10 games under .500, and they had same 8th seed Orlando had. And it works both ways, if the Celtics of 01-02 played in today's EC they probably wouldn't have gotten past the first round if they had to face Heats/Pistons/Bulls/Nets/Cavs.</div> 1. LMFAO I know I still can't believe we made it with a 36-46 record. That is sad, I will admit. But you are bringing up 23/6/5 like it's a terrible stat line. In fact, it's a very good one. So Paul usually put up an extra 2-3 ppg, but there is nothing wrong with that line. 2. The Magic got in with a record 2 games over .500, correct, but the entire Eastern Conference was very weak back then. In fact, I remember hearing Greg Anthony calling the Eastern Conference the "JV League" . Plus it's not like T-Mac's supporting cast was that terrible. Didn't he have Howard, Gooden, Giricek (who I hate), Stevenson, and Pat Garrity when he was solid? That's not all that bad. And in 02 or whatever that wasn't terrible.
Tracy McGrady. Both are great scorers, but TMac is the better scorer when healthy. His athleticism is amazing. He is a better defender than Pierce, and the better passer too. It was only a few years ago when TMac was leading the League in scoring, wasnt it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Oct 8 2006, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. LMFAO I know I still can't believe we made it with a 36-46 record. That is sad, I will admit. But you are bringing up 23/6/5 like it's a terrible stat line. In fact, it's a very good one. So Paul usually put up an extra 2-3 ppg, but there is nothing wrong with that line.2. The Magic got in with a record 2 games over .500, correct, but the entire Eastern Conference was very weak back then. In fact, I remember hearing Greg Anthony calling the Eastern Conference the "JV League" . Plus it's not like T-Mac's supporting cast was that terrible. Didn't he have Howard, Gooden, Giricek (who I hate), Stevenson, and Pat Garrity when he was solid? That's not all that bad. And in 02 or whatever that wasn't terrible.</div>1. His stats were going down for 3 years in a row, and while 23/6/5 isn't bad it still wasn't better than what T-Mac had this year, playing injured. Considering he didn't have Walker, his stats should have been up.2. EC was weak, but the bottom teams then were just as bad as the bottom teams now. T-Mac had Gooden, Garrity, and Armstrong in his 2002-2003 campaign where they almost knocked off the Pistons. Pierce never had a season like T-Mac had that season, and still hasn't shown he can do anything connected with winning without Walker. In 2001-2002 T-Mac averaged 26/8/5 on 48% shooting, and his team wasn't good at all that season as well.
If the question assumes you get them starting as a rookie, then Paul Pierce. If the question assumes now, then Paul Pierce.For me it's not about talent. I will admit that I think T-Mac is a better all around talent than Paul Pierce (not by much, but I will admit T-Mac's better). Stats are really similiar, so why my conclusion?Lemme give you some more stats:T-Mac:64, 49, 79, 77, 76, 75, 67, 78, 47Paul Pierce:48, 73, 82, 82, 79, 80, 82, 79Know what those are? Those are the number of games each season each one played. In 9 NBA seasons T-Mac has averaged exactly 68 games per season. In 8 NBA seasons Paul Pierce has averaged a little under 76. So with Paul Pierce you get 8 more games? With a whole extra season over Pierce, T-Mac's number of total games is 612, while Pierce's is 605. T-Mac for his career when he plays averages 34.8 mpg, while Paul Pierce averages 37.8 mpg.So the question I pose is is it better to have a slightly better player? Or a more reliable one?
<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">^^Good point. Very, very good point. I also believe that P-Double would be the key to success for any team on the long run. Of course, a healthy T-Mac is great and MVP worthy, but him being healthy is not a guarantee. P-Double? He hasn't missed a game due to a major injury so far in his career. I think Paul Pierce is the man any team would go with in the long run.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (falconman1130 @ Oct 8 2006, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If the question assumes you get them starting as a rookie, then Paul Pierce. If the question assumes now, then Paul Pierce.For me it's not about talent. I will admit that I think T-Mac is a better all around talent than Paul Pierce (not by much, but I will admit T-Mac's better). Stats are really similiar, so why my conclusion?Lemme give you some more stats:T-Mac:64, 49, 79, 77, 76, 75, 67, 78, 47Paul Pierce:48, 73, 82, 82, 79, 80, 82, 79Know what those are? Those are the number of games each season each one played. In 9 NBA seasons T-Mac has averaged exactly 68 games per season. In 8 NBA seasons Paul Pierce has averaged a little under 76. So with Paul Pierce you get 8 more games? With a whole extra season over Pierce, T-Mac's number of total games is 612, while Pierce's is 605. T-Mac for his career when he plays averages 34.8 mpg, while Paul Pierce averages 37.8 mpg.So the question I pose is is it better to have a slightly better player? Or a more reliable one?</div>Bad point, AI averages 68 games per season, and I consider him a better player than Pierce. T-Mac isn't slightly better, he's considerably better. He had an injury riddled season last year, but ever since he got out of Toronto (where his coach benched him a ton) has been a 26-32PPG scorer, with every season but one playing more than 75 games per season. Outside of last season, T-Mac averaged 30.7PPG on 44% shooting in 5 seasons with Orlando/Houston. Since 2001-2002, Pierce has averaged 24.7PPG on 43% shooting. T-Mac averaged about 1APG more and about as many RPG in that time period as well. Then take everything into account, Pierce making playoffs only one year without Walker (and stats being down that year, and year where Walker only played with Celtics around half the year). Take into account that T-Mac's PPG would have likely been consiuderably higher if he didn't go to Houston, and the fact that 3 of his 4 seasons in Orlando he led them into playoffs.Still slightly better?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Oct 8 2006, 07:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bad point, AI averages 68 games per season, and I consider him a better player than Pierce. T-Mac isn't slightly better, he's considerably better. He had an injury riddled season last year, but ever since he got out of Toronto (where his coach benched him a ton) has been a 26-32PPG scorer, with every season but one playing more than 75 games per season. Outside of last season, T-Mac averaged 30.7PPG on 44% shooting in 5 seasons with Orlando/Houston. Since 2001-2002, Pierce has averaged 24.7PPG on 43% shooting. T-Mac averaged about 1APG more and about as many RPG in that time period as well. Then take everything into account, Pierce making playoffs only one year without Walker (and stats being down that year, and year where Walker only played with Celtics around half the year). Take into account that T-Mac's PPG would have likely been consiuderably higher if he didn't go to Houston, and the fact that 3 of his 4 seasons in Orlando he led them into playoffs.Still slightly better?</div>30.7 points while in Orlando and Houston? He averaged 27.1 in SIX seasons in Orlando and Houston. Here's the breakdown of the years:Orlando-2001- 26.8 ppg; 45.7 FG%2002- 25.6 ppg; 45.1 FG%2003- 32.1 ppg; 45.7 FG%2004- 28.0 ppg; 41.7 FG%Houston-2005- 25.7 ppg; 43.1 FG%2006- 24.4 ppg; 40.6 FG%I'm not seeing how T-Mac is seriously better. His years in Orlando ended with him moping. He may have gone to the playoffs, but he has exited in the first round every time. And two of those were with his team up (2-0 over the Mavs last year; 3-1 over Det in 2003 which was ironically McGrady's best year with the Magic). Not the best success record ever.
Read my post:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Outside of last season, T-Mac averaged 30.7PPG on 44% shooting in 5 seasons with Orlando/Houston.</div>Turns out it is actually 27.6, I guess my math was off. My bad, but still better than Pierce.He is better scorer, playmaker, and IMO leader. He is just, to put it as simple as possible, a better player. T-Mac CARRIED 3 Orlando teams to playoffs, all of those teams to over .500 records, and he did it with stats better than Pierce's in his best season. Pierce hasn't led his teams anywhere without Walker, under .500 seasons and one sweep in playoffs. I'd take the guy who gets there, hits GW's in playoffs, and can push some of the best teams in league to 7 games with less talent than opposing star player on other team has....over the guy who can't even get there in 1st place.
