Paul Pierce deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, I know he does, and Im sure everyone on this blog knows he does. It's been talked about in threads before and Im sure most of you have seen the list of accomplishments he has and the statistical categories he either leads or is ranked very highly with some very stiff competition whether it be with all NBA players or just the Celtic elite.
What I dont get is why people around the NBA dont recognize this. Maybe it's just me, but have you guys ever noticed during the nationally televised games, watching games on an opponents broadcast on league pass, or on sports discussion shows, that a lot of the times Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen are referred to as sure thing hall of famers many many times, and Paul Pierce doesnt get the same tag along with them. Like for instance, when theyre talking about the big 3 as a whole theyll all get referred to as hall of famers, but whenever theyre talking about Pierce himself, I RARELY hear him referred to as a future hall of famer. Where as with Garnett and Allen, it's almost like a tag thats attached to their name now. Garnett is obviously the biggest shoe-in out of the 3 of them, and rightfully so. However, I dont understand what is so different about the career paths of Ray Allen and Pierce.
Some people will say that Ray has had more exposure than Pierce in his career, but seeing as how he played in Milwaukee and Seattle, it doesnt make sense to me. Ray was in 'He Got Game' I guess which made him somewhat of a basketball icon??? Maybe. Ray's never been flashy, never drawn a lot of attention, was never known for highlight reel dunks. So really, what sets him apart him Pierce. I just cant think of anything off the top of my head that really separates the two.
....or do you think a lot of this is the product of the Olympics fiasco with Pierce that really put him in a bad light for a while?