In terms of skills and capabilities, Pierce is in the top 5. But in basketball as in life what ends of counting most is who gets the most most important stuff done, who's especially accomplished in the feat of winning.
There, I think Pierce's BKG (before KG) performance was unfortunately marred by all the stupid stuff: the mano-a-mano dueling with big name players, the silliness in his first trip to the Eastern Conference Finals, the focus on offense and stats over defense, the iso ball-hogging in the midst of multiple defenders.
This is the first year that he has learned to put it all together, and really it's been only in the last 2 playoff series as well. But I celebrate how brilliantly he has brought it together, how much he's matured and grown as a teammate and as a player. I want to see him stick with the great defensive play for another couple of years--and be a part of a couple of championship teams, playing like a warrior in 3 finals--before we rank him at the level of his skills. But I think he's got that in him, I really do, and of course he's playing in a league with more teams than did some of the stars from earlier times.
i disagree. i believe people place way too much emphasis on winning in determining how great a player is. i agree it is important, especially in terms of determining a franchise's most important players, but it can't be the only criteria.
switch russell and chamberlain for their careers, and are you telling me russell still wins 11 titles and chamberlain only leads red and the celts to 1? No way.
did pierce not know how to play good ball before '02, then suddenly figure out how to play playoff ball in 2002, then forget for most of '04-'05 until he remembered how to get to the playoffs, but then forgot for 2 years, but now suddenly is a completely different player? No. He's playing differently this year because he can, because his team allows him to. His success and how he plays has always been determined by his teammates, just like anyone else's.
switch PP and kobe for their entire careers. does kobe still have 3 rings and none for pierce? did kobe used to be a "winner", and now isn't a "winner," wasn't really a winner for the first part of this year, re-figured out how to be a winner when gasol arrived, but now has forgotten again?
switch KG and Duncan for their careers and i guarantee you KG has a ring by now playing for popovich with the likes of robinson, parker, ginobili.
Jordan was a great great player for a few years until they had the right team to win it all.
sometimes winning is beyond one player's control. don't get me wrong, winning a title is an important part of the formula, but great players can still be great players even if they are never on a team good enough to win it all.
who's a better player, Barkley or horry?
who was better, karl malone or antoine?
who was a better point guard, Stockton or fisher?
with all that said, Pierce belongs on any celtics all time list right now. he's played his whole career for the club at a very high level. if he were the 6th man coming off the bench back in the day, i'm pretty sure he'd have some rings. if the C's had been able to start Parish, Mchale, bird, pierce, and DJ, i'm pretty sure they'd have won some rings still.
i'm also a little confused by the list. if it's "the best players who were celtics," then wouldn't dominique be on the list, and kg would have to be #3 or so. but if it's "players who were great for the celtics" then pierce belongs ahead of kg and i'm not sure KG makes the list unless he plays at his typical level for a few more years and the C's have decent success as a team.
Topic: Top Ten Celtic Players of All Time (Read 13475 times)