Tommy once called Paul Pierce the best pure scorer in Celtic history... upsetting people that he considered pierce a better “pure scorer” than Larry Bird.
Tell me why Kyrie Irving isn’t a better pure scorer than Paul Pierce.
I can't, because he is. The only qualm about Irving's game is his inability to draw fouls consistently, especially in key moments. Still, Irving's shooting and driving are better than Pierce. His playmaking is significantly better than Pierce too.
I don't know about that. He has the ability to...but hasn't gotten people involved in the way P has....YET.
And drawing fouls is huge closing out games...that's Kyries second biggest weakness.
Paul also could play big when it was needed...almost in the Barkley mold.
And I am not saying he was Barkley...but when games were on the line he did what was needed, whatever it was, and it's not his fault the Celts only barely had 5 serviceable players before 08.
Most people underrated Paul because he didn't look "slick" enough basically.
It really has nothing to do with slickness for me. I love smart, methodical, crafty ball players.
It's just that Pierce is remembered a bit more fondly that he actually was. In his best seasons (age 32 and 33) he was more efficient than Kyrie, but Kyrie has been more efficient as a Celtic than every other season by Pierce. Kyrie's a better shooter. He's a better creator. He is a similar rebounder (5.3 per 36 this year compared to Pierce's 5.5 per 36 during his prime age 31-35 years).
Pierce was great. Don't get me wrong. It's just that when the recent past fades into the distant past, our most significant memories tend to shade our entire memory of players. Pierce brought us a championship. He went toe-to-toe with Lebron and Kobe, and delivered.
Irving hasn't done that for us ... yet.
Nah, I would say it's the exact opposite. Before Paul put on 10-15 pounds, he was an absolute beast and his athletic ability was very deceiving. He was much quicker and stronger than people understood and played above the rim alot just like most of the best swings back in the day.
You are remembering him from his last few seasons.
I'm not sure where this went anyway. Yeah, Kyrie is probably a slightly better scorer, but I would take Paul on my team before him because he gives you many more things.
And that 5 rebound stat should show that stats can be close to meaningless sometimes.
That stat is saying at crunchtime....Kyrie has the same odds of getting a rebound in traffic against big guys fighting underneath.
And I hope you would know that's ridiculous.
I never said he wasn't athletic. I said he was crafty and methodical. I'm not misremembering him.
Pierce became a better, more determined defender as his career went along, but he wasn't always like that. He improved and took a huge leap when Garnett joined the team, but before that, he was kinda' lazy on defense.
Irving's defense has been really good most of the season. I still contend that Irving makes big defensive plays and plays good overall defense in big games, even if he doesn't on a random game in December. This year, Irving is drawing offensive fouls, getting steals, and generally disrupting plays from the weakside. He's averaging more steals per 36 this year than Pierce did in his last 15 years per 36.
And yes, I realize that Pierce is a better option as a rebounder to close a game. But it speaks volumes of Irving that he is averaging almost as many rebounds per 36 as a lot of small forwards. That means he is adding value beyond just being a scorer.
This thread is for praise of Irving. The nonchalant dispersions cast over his game are unfortunate. Irving is playing some of the best basketball of his career as a shooter, as a scorer, as a rebounder, and as a defender. It's not a knock on Pierce to say that Irving is better in any one of these areas, or that he is a better player (which is certainly still debatable).
Don't forget that Irving is just entering his prime at 27, and Pierce didn't become the defender or efficient shooter he was until his age 31 season.
