In response to Celtsfan4life's comment:
In response to snakeoil123's comment:
In response to Petey62's comment:
Snakeoil, now you know very well that if Pierce had to play 36 minutes EVERY NIGHT, his statistics would be nowhere near your projections. That is what's left out.
Pierce just isn't effective anymore playing big minutes. I can see Martin finishing strong at the end of a game in which he's played 40 minutes. I can't see Pierce like that.
I'd venture to guess, merely from the "eye test", that Pierce's numbers would drop significantly with increased minutes ON A NIGHTLY BASIS.
He is playing 34 minutes a game right now. Not sure what you are talking about. Not being rude. Just saying I only did the 36 minutes to compare green and Pierce. I could pick 24 minutes, 48 minutes, 100 minutes.
He is a lot more productive than Green is my only point. that is a fact.
I agree with you, SnakeOil, that Pierce is more productive. But, that's because Pierce plays the role of a guy with the ball in his hands so much and also because Paul is more aggressive than Green. Jeff Green is no Paul Pierce. If, however, Green got a more prominent role, I also believe he would be more productive. More importantly, if Pierce played LESS minutes, I think he'd have more energy and spring in his legs by game's end. Green should start so that we can run more and open up the game.....then let Pierce come in during those situations where the game slows down and we need a better shooter.
And by the way, SnakeOil, you wouldn't argue that Pierce doesn't hurt us at the end of games with his turnovers and inability to get his own shot off, would you? Pierce should become, as Doc has even noted, our catch and shoot guy. He shouldn't do much more than that at this stage of his career. Ray was in better shape and could run around to catch and shoot. Paul can't do that but with the proper picks, he can get open and be a half court catch and shoot option. But, until his legs get better, he CANNOT be a 34 min/game guy - he is just too weary legged to do that any more.
Well said BUT,Green if given the right chance, will be as productive as Pierce. Green has the unfortunate trait of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. In Seatle he was expected to instantly turn the franchise around in a year w/o any real help that was dealt away by a team that had ideal circumstances to leave town. In OKC he was an anchor for a team that over achieved and had Kevin Durant and James Harden as picks the next 2 years and all the elements that we had in 1978- 80 in Boston. In Boston he was traded to a team that was in a serious situation and had a very popular but overrated contribution perception that was not going to resign unless we grossly overpaid him and was injury prone. We had ZERO chances of resigning Perk unless we forgo our commitment to the players that were actually responsible for our championship (Perk or Rondo ?), a rising tide raises all vessels.
Green right now is a mix of Bobby Jones and Alex English. He is a phenom physically but, not this years model. Bobby Jones could run faster,jump higher and was more overall athletic than 99.999.....% percent of the league but doing it in an age where David Stern decided to go more "Urban" and have more clearly defined stereotypical "roles" in that certain players be more easibly defined and marketed for diifferent demographic audiences. Alex English was one the most prolific offensivive players ever but, like the Big O was so good and was so effective his game was boring to all but the purest of basketball fans. Now he may not be a future HOFer but you can't deny the similular conditions to 2 excellent players mentioned who be came only appreciated until they weren't always in the worst situations.
Nice analogy. I hadn't thought of Jones in years.