Red Mosquito

verb_to_trust wrote:My eyes. You can back choosing Pierce up with stats I guess but Grant Hill was an extremely well rounded special talent before injuries derailed him. Even then he was still able to adapt his game to have a long career. Pierce stuffed stats on primarily shitty celtics teams until KG and Ray Allen showed up.

verb_to_trust wrote:Have my back skitch. It may not be hairy but....please have my back.

@SkitchP wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Have my back skitch. It may not be hairy but....please have my back.

I liked Grant Hill, and pretty much agree with you on your point that he was a better player than Pierce. Until he got hurt. Then he was a good/very good role player. Pierce has had a better overall career because of the injuries though.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:Have my back skitch. It may not be hairy but....please have my back.

I liked Grant Hill, and pretty much agree with you on your point that he was a better player than Pierce. Until he got hurt. Then he was a good/very good role player. Pierce has had a better overall career because of the injuries though.

My thoughts too. Basically, major injuries really suck.

Peeps wrote:here are their stats side by side

except for games played, they are either fairly even (except for post championships, playoffs played and all star games) but Grant does have better regular seasons stats (meaning he leads more categories, not that the scoring/rebound/steals etc.. differential is so great)

note grant played a total of 1026 regular season games
pierce played a total of 1282

if you extrapolate the data

grant would have 21600 pts to pierces 26059
rebounds 7705 hill 7376 pierce
5301 assists hill to 4655 pierce
steals 1555 hill to 1727 pierce
blocks are tied

% wise

hill shot 483 pierce 446
3pt 314 pierce 370
ft 769 hill 807 pierce

id say for the most part stat wise hill looks pretty good

turned2black wrote:Hill wasn't a better player than Peirce in any statistical or "intangible" way. He wasn't a great defender and wasn't particularly clutch. He didn't win several (or even one!) championships. I'm all for arguing that a player is better than his stats, if there is something you can point to. At their peak they were pretty much even, so that's where longevity comes into play. Hill essentially had one great year. Peirce had 5 or 6 statistically great years, then transitioned into a 20/5/4 guy despite playing on a team with KG and Ray Ray. And despite Allen's "clutch" personae, it was actually Pierce who took many of those final shots, and he usually delivered. Pierce is one of only ~50 players to average 20+ points for a career and won a Finals MVP against a heavily favored Lakers teams.

Basically you guys liked Hill's fluid style more than Pierce's herky-jerky, one-on-one style. That's completely understandable, but it's not really an argument for him being a better player.

@SkitchP wrote:I liked Grant Hill, and pretty much agree with you on your point that he was a better player than Pierce. Until he got hurt. Then he was a good/very good role player. Pierce has had a better overall career because of the injuries though.

turned2black wrote:At least we can all agree that Reggie Miller was horseshit.

turned2black wrote:Hill wasn't a better player than Peirce in any statistical or "intangible" way. He wasn't a great defender and wasn't particularly clutch. He didn't win several (or even one!) championships. I'm all for arguing that a player is better than his stats, if there is something you can point to. At their peak they were pretty much even, so that's where longevity comes into play. Hill essentially had one great year. Peirce had 5 or 6 statistically great years, then transitioned into a 20/5/4 guy despite playing on a team with KG and Ray Ray. And despite Allen's "clutch" personae, it was actually Pierce who took many of those final shots, and he usually delivered. Pierce is one of only ~50 players to average 20+ points for a career and won a Finals MVP against a heavily favored Lakers teams.

Basically you guys liked Hill's fluid style more than Pierce's herky-jerky, one-on-one style. That's completely understandable, but it's not really an argument for him being a better player.

turned2black wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I liked Grant Hill, and pretty much agree with you on your point that he was a better player than Pierce. Until he got hurt. Then he was a good/very good role player. Pierce has had a better overall career because of the injuries though.

@SkitchP wrote:

turned2black wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:I liked Grant Hill, and pretty much agree with you on your point that he was a better player than Pierce. Until he got hurt. Then he was a good/very good role player. Pierce has had a better overall career because of the injuries though.

Peak Grant Hill was better than Paul Pierce, yes. But overall career Pierce has been a better player. He had a couple years of damn near 20/10/7 averages. But Peak Grant Hill was only what, 3 or 4 seasons? Kinda like my "Nick Lidstrom was better than Bobby Orr" belief. That value of longer production eventually (to my mind) overtakes bursts of brilliance.