Interesting topic. Let me preface my perspective with a couple things. First, I go back to the 80's, so it is difficult to comment on players before then, but I have uncles who are huge Celtics fans and are big part of me being a fan, so I have some insight; and second, I am a huge fan of Paul's, I just love how he plays the game, particularly the past 5 yrs or so - Celtics bias aside, I think its fair to say he is the most under-appreciated "star" of his generation. Having said that...
1. Russell and Bird are untouchable. There isn't even an argument there. The poster who prefaced a Pierce over Bird argument b/c Bird lost to the Lakers twice is laughable. I know Tommy and Bob Ryan have people fired up with "best scorer in Celtics history," but even if he is (and off the top of my head I bet Bird has 3 seasons averaging more than Pierce ever did), Pierce is not better than Bird. Thats not a knock on Pierce, I love the guy, but Bird is top-5 NBA all-time. End of story.
2. After that, it gets complicated. The prevailing thought I had after game 6 of the ECF was "What would Paul's career look like if he had real teammates from 1999-2007?" Because the guy comes through. That is what makes the comparison to the rest of the Celtics - all of whom played on truly GREAT TEAMS - so difficult. Not one guy in the conversation of great Celtics had to endure the garbage that Pierce did in his time (his perseverance and the fact that he remained a Celtic is admirable). Having never seen him play, I would probably concede that Hondo was better than Pierce, but after that I'm not sure. Its never fair to simply compare rings; plenty of great players never won one. Plug Pierce into Bird's role in 1979 and how does his career unfold with those squads? Here's one thing we know about Paul - when the opportunity is there he comes through as well as anyone:
- 2002, first round, game 5: 46, 4, 6 vs Philly in his first playoff series back when they were best of 5
- 2003, first round, game 6 closeout game against Indy: 27/8/4 (he also had 40 in game 1, 21 & 12 in game 3, and 37, 10, 7 in that unreal game 4..even in that disgusting Nets series when we were swept: game 1 - 34, 8, 5; game 2 - 32,11,10; game 3 - 23,10,5; game 4 - 27,10,7. He was hooping.)
- 2008, second round, game 7: 41, 4, 5
- 2008, ECF, game 6 closeout game against Detroit: 27, 8, 3
- 2008, Finals, game 5 (loss) - 38, 6, 8 on the road in chance to close out series
- 2008, Finals, game 6 - 17, 3, 10
- 2009, first round, game 7 - 20, 9, 4
- 2010, ECF, game 6 - 31, 13, 5
I obviously highlighted the great games, b/c he admittedly has a couple warts on his career (who doesn't?), but when you look at the limited opportunities he has had to step up on the big stage, the evidence is undeniable. He has played on some really crappy teams; every the playoff team before 2008 was below average teams that he carried beyond their ability.
When you look at team success, its hard to put Pierce above several GREAT Celtics, but if you look at him individually as a player, in terms of talent, ability, clutch play, toughness, fundamentals...any attribute you want in a player, I think an argument can be made for him to be either #3 after Russell/Bird or #4 after Russell/Bird/Hondo. Cousy was great, but lets be honest, the league just wasn't as talented back then (having said that I'd understand putting Cousy ahead of Pierce). An argument can be made for McHale. After that, I don't see it.