Paul Pierce or Dwayne Wade

We've probably all heard about this, right?  Paul Pierce said he had a better career than DWade and that started a war that continued with Miami HEAT fans doing a "Paul Pierce sucks!" chant at their arena.  Pretty ballsy considering that Wade couldn't get past us in the playoffs without Shaq and LeBron. Here's an article on how Danny, admittedly NOT an objective, impartial observer, sees this question.


https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/celtics/danny-ainge-settled-paul-pierce-vs-dwyane-wade-debate-best-way?cid=Yahoo&partner=ya4nbcs



Danny Ainge "settled" Paul Pierce vs. Dwyane Wade debate in the best way



By Darren Hartwell
April 10, 2019 11:30 AM




It was a simple question that probably deserved a short, diplomatic answer.

"Sure," Danny Ainge could have said, "Paul Pierce and Dwyane Wade were both great players, but I'm preferential to my own guy."

But that's not how the Boston Celtics' president of basketball operations chose to handle what's become a hot-button issue since Pierce boldly declared himself better than Wade on ESPN.

"I'm gonna say Paul, because I just went into my analytics group the other day and I asked them that question," Ainge said Wednesday morning during his weekly interview with 98.5 The Sports Hub's "Toucher & Rich."

That's right: Not only did Ainge not dismiss the debate, he enlisted the Celtics' analytics team to settle it. Here's how:

"We have an analysis called Adjusted Plus/Minus," Ainge said. "That's probably the best number you can come up with for a player's impact in the game. ... (Pierce and Wade) were very high in the prime of their career in adjusted plus/minus, meaning they were in the 10-11 range per 100 possessions, which is enormous."

According to Ainge, Wade was "slightly better" from age 20 to 29 than Pierce, with an Adjusted Plus/Minus of 6.4 compared to Pierce's 5.4. But if you look at both players in their 30s...

"Pierce was actually better than he was in 20s," Ainge said. "Pierce was 5.8, and Dwyane Wade was minus-0.4.

"And that was my initial feeling: that Pierce was a little more consistent for longer than Dwyane."

So, there you have it. Ainge and his stat geeks ran the numbers, and they chose the Celtics star over the Heat legend.

"I think everybody came to the conclusion that they would have to give the nod to Pierce, on our staff," Ainge said.

Shocker, we know.

Now is a good time remind you that statistics can prove anything. Indeed, there's a ton of evidence supporting Wade -- some of which Ainge admitted -- like his three first-team All-NBA selections to Pierce's zero, his three rings to Pierce's one and his 2009 NBA scoring title.

But let's acknowledge Ainge and his staff taking the time amid a playoff push to dig up statistical proof that Pierce had a better overall body of work than his Heat counterpart.


bob
MY NOTE: The biggest takeaway from this article is that Danny is a big believer in "ADJUSTED Plus/Minus". Probably not game-to-game, though. Season-to-season, sure.


.

Both great players. Both hall of famers. I think Wade gets way too much credit, as witness by his farewell tour all season long. That should be reserved for all time greats like Kobe, Dirk, Tim Duncan.

As for who was better, hard to say imo. D Wade 2008-09 season was truly remarkable, better in every way than Pierce's best year.

But careerwise - Pierce has more points, more rebounds, more steals, much higher 3point % and FT %.

I think Wade is slightly better, but the suggestion that one is a legend and one is merely good - vastly undervalues Paul Pierce and his accomplishments.

Statistically, some numbers favor Wade and some favor Pierce.
Here is why I feel Wade was the superior player.

Wade:
Top 10 MVP Voting - 7 times

All-NBA:
1st team - 2 times
2nd team - 3 times
3rd team - 3 times

All-Defensive:
1st team - 0 times
2nd team - 2 times
3rd team - 0 times

Pierce:
Top 10 MVP Voting - 1 time

All-NBA:
1st team - 0 times
2nd team - 1 times
3rd team - 3 times

All-Defensive:
1st team - 0 times
2nd team - 0 times
3rd team - 0 times

I do not put a lot of stock in comparing players who played different positions.

PP was asked the question and he took himself. But he also clarified who had more titles by stating that his big three were with guys that were already past their prime. He said they would have won more titles if they were younger. I agree with that.

Anyways the Adjusted Plus/Minus is an offensive stat and does not look at the defensive impact of a player. Wade was a better defender than PP.

Wade had a great career, but I am with Danny Ainge and picking Pierce over Wade because Pierce was a Celtic for most of his career and played better in his aging years. Both will be in the Hall of Fame