Parish says Pierce is best offensive player celtics ever had

[Dwnflfan]

I can't imagine anyone that saw both of them play would give this a second thought.  Bird by a significant margin.  Quite frankly Bird was better offensively with the ball, dishing the ball and offensive rebounds to maintain possession.  It's Bird in a landslide even with as great as PP is.

Pierce may end up with more career value but it will be spread over many more years.  Larry's peak was much higher than Pierce's.

We're talking about a guy who led Indiana State to the national title game.

[BballTim]

If you desperately had to manufacture some points through a series of third quarter isolation plays, who would you want with the ball, Bird or Pierce?

  Bird could easily outscore Pierce in that scenario given that he was a better scorer, but what you'd be more likely to see is a parade of dunks by McHale and Parish when the teams tried to stop Larry.

[ManUp]

Well, more proof that Paul Pierce, while an extremely talented player, one of my faves of all time, etc - was not quite as gifted scoring-wise as Larry, IMO.

Another poster a few months ago posted a youtube video of Larry lighting Dominique Wilkin's Hawks up for 60 points..and he makes it look easy. This video reminds me of the scoring binges that Michael would go on at times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzyiEDeRrK4

This is the condensed version...if you check out the full footage on the same page, he was hitting all sorts of shots - open, guarded, off screens, you name it.

Pierce is a Beast all his own, but Larry was, in the quotes of Shane Battier when he was asked about guarding Kobe Bryant, "A Different Animal."

Someone should've had a Fire Extinguisher nearby for the man...

With all due respect their isn't a shot in that video that Pierce couldn't make. In that particular video it looks like he only created 3 of those shots for himself (all in the post), the rest seemed to be shots against recovering defenders, or layups off fast breaks. The video doesn't prove anything to me. Bird is no doubt a shot maker and a great all time scorer, but I still think Pierce is a better Iso scorer. Sure I might be bias towards Pierce, but that's an honest and fair assessment of that particular video, IMO.

[BballTim]

With all due respect their isn't a shot in that video that Pierce couldn't make. In that particular video it looks like he only created 3 of those shots for himself (all in the post), the rest seemed to be shots against recovering defenders, or layups off fast breaks. The video doesn't prove anything to me. Bird is no doubt a shot maker and a great all time scorer, but I still think Pierce is a better Iso scorer. Sure I might be bias towards Pierce, but that's an honest and fair assessment of that particular video, IMO.

  It looks a little more impressive when you watch the 7 minute version than the 60 second one. A few things: Sure, Pierce can hit a lot of those shots, but not really with the regularity that Bird did. It's like watching A great pass from Rondo and saying "I saw Mike Bibby make a pass like that once" when Rondo had done it 3 times that week. Also, a lot of those shots were open because he moved so well without the ball. Ever watch Ray come off a couple of picks and hit an open shot? Watch the extended version and see Bird do just as good a job of shaking his defender, only without a pick.

  Also, (and this is 100% true) teams were often more afraid of his passing than his shooting. Watch the longer version, at around the 2:00 mark. Bird gets the ball and dribbles in a circle and is surrounded by 3 players. He stops and the help defenders immediately back off and go back to their own man. This is when the man they're guarding is a) in the middle of a 60 point game and b) almost universally consider the best shooter in the league.

[Celtics17]

I actually think that if you said that Pierce could score as many point as Larry that you might have a case. It ends though if you say that he could manufacture as much as offense since that would involve passing for assists and Bird would kill him here.

[Roy Hobbs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb6vhjKijcg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rto2_oYVs0I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R76nMD8buR8

I'd be curious to hear how many fans over the age of 35 would take Pierce over Bird, even if only in terms of offense.

[Roy Hobbs]

Rewatching that first video brought a huge smile to my face.  I've watched Paul Pierce his entire career, and I appreciate what he's done for the franchise.  However, he just couldn't do nearly the things on offense that Larry could.

The vision and instincts Larry shows in that video are amazingly sick.  I don't think there's a player in the NBA that can duplicate his passing, and that includes CP3, Nash, and Rondo.

[BballTim]

I'd be curious to hear how many fans over the age of 35 would take Pierce over Bird, even if only in terms of offense.

  Not many if any. I'd like to see someone watch those (or even just the first one) and then explain to me how Pierce has a more versatile offensive game than Larry or how he could score in more ways than Larry.

  Warning, though, those videos are addictive.

  I'd also like to point out that Larry made those incredible plays on a regular basis.

[sbm8196]

I'd be curious to hear how many fans over the age of 35 would take Pierce over Bird, even if only in terms of offense.

Well said.  Larry WAS basketball in the mid 80s, unless you were delusional and liked purple and gold!

[oldmanspeaks]

As an old guy I will be specific. Bird was devastating from deep range (better than Pierce) and was a much better post player(Bird was a master at matchup advantages). His shot was nearly unstoppable. Bird was a much better passer (he used to hit rookies in the head in preseason because he always wanted them to be ready to catch his passes and not to assume he was going to shoot). However despite Bird's ball handling ability, he wasn't close to Pierce in the open court or driving to the hoop. Pierce is also better in transition as has a speed advantage and also an ability to go coast to coast. Pierce's ability to move and still "take a hit" on the way to the basket gives him an advantage in that area. Basically Pierce could not have guarded Bird well but Bird couldn't have guarded Pierce well at all. Basically it would be a high scoring affair if they were matched up against each other with Bird having the board advantage and Pierce having the transition advantage.

Of the two, I would have rather played with Bird because of his passing because I would get better shots. However in terms of flexibility in a random offense, Pierce might have a slim advantage.

[Roy Hobbs]

However in terms of flexibility in a random offense, Pierce might have a slim advantage.

In what type of offensive system wouldn't Larry have excelled?

I know you said he'd struggle in the transition game, but keep in mind that the 1980s Celtics ran *much* more than the 1990s / 2000s Celtics.  Larry never held the team back.  Pierce, in my eyes, has always been more of a half court player than a transition one.

[BballTim]

As an old guy I will be specific. Bird was devastating from deep range (better than Pierce) and was a much better post player(Bird was a master at matchup advantages). His shot was nearly unstoppable. Bird was a much better passer (he used to hit rookies in the head in preseason because he always wanted them to be ready to catch his passes and not to assume he was going to shoot). However despite Bird's ball handling ability, he wasn't close to Pierce in the open court or driving to the hoop. Pierce is also better in transition as has a speed advantage and also an ability to go coast to coast. Pierce's ability to move and still "take a hit" on the way to the basket gives him an advantage in that area. Basically Pierce could not have guarded Bird well but Bird couldn't have guarded Pierce well at all. Basically it would be a high scoring affair if they were matched up against each other with Bird having the board advantage and Pierce having the transition advantage.

Of the two, I would have rather played with Bird because of his passing because I would get better shots. However in terms of flexibility in a random offense, Pierce might have a slim advantage.

  I'd have to think you're talking about Bird late in his career, after the heel and back injuries. Paul could get to the hoop better, although (as Roy pointed out) Bird generally played with two low post players and no real three point shooters, so the lane was clogged with bigs. Paul also has a bulkier frame than Bird, so he can "take a hit" and score better than Bird.

  But better in transition? Better in the open court? Wow. Bird pretty much ran our transition, and Rondo's the only player we've had in at least 30 years that wasn't (or isn't) multiple steps below Bird in this area. Bird was probably as effective as Pierce in transition with his passing alone, let alone with his scoring.

[2short]

However in terms of flexibility in a random offense, Pierce might have a slim advantage.

In what type of offensive system wouldn't Larry have excelled?

I know you said he'd struggle in the transition game, but keep in mind that the 1980s Celtics ran *much* more than the 1990s / 2000s Celtics.  Larry never held the team back.  Pierce, in my eyes, has always been more of a half court player than a transition one.

most 80's teams would run current teams into the ground
larry bird and magic johnson (who I have great respect for) were amazing passers, their court vision is something few in the nba ever had
the only player the celtics have had since birds time to make me stand back and admire is rondo, Pierce was amazing in the nj playoff game and that was on par with what larry would do on a regular basis
I love Paul but this argument is not even debatable.  hey for that matter robert parrish was more of an offensive force than bill russell, right....

[hpantazo]

As an old guy I will be specific. Bird was devastating from deep range (better than Pierce) and was a much better post player(Bird was a master at matchup advantages). His shot was nearly unstoppable. Bird was a much better passer (he used to hit rookies in the head in preseason because he always wanted them to be ready to catch his passes and not to assume he was going to shoot). However despite Bird's ball handling ability, he wasn't close to Pierce in the open court or driving to the hoop. Pierce is also better in transition as has a speed advantage and also an ability to go coast to coast. Pierce's ability to move and still "take a hit" on the way to the basket gives him an advantage in that area. Basically Pierce could not have guarded Bird well but Bird couldn't have guarded Pierce well at all. Basically it would be a high scoring affair if they were matched up against each other with Bird having the board advantage and Pierce having the transition advantage.

Of the two, I would have rather played with Bird because of his passing because I would get better shots. However in terms of flexibility in a random offense, Pierce might have a slim advantage.

  I'd have to think you're talking about Bird late in his career, after the heel and back injuries. Paul could get to the hoop better, although (as Roy pointed out) Bird generally played with two low post players and no real three point shooters, so the lane was clogged with bigs. Paul also has a bulkier frame than Bird, so he can "take a hit" and score better than Bird.

  But better in transition? Better in the open court? Wow. Bird pretty much ran our transition, and Rondo's the only player we've had in at least 30 years that wasn't (or isn't) multiple steps below Bird in this area. Bird was probably as effective as Pierce in transition with his passing alone, let alone with his scoring.

Some people assume that because he was 6 ft 9 and not throwing down highlight dunks on sportscenter then he was not a fast break player, but as you said, Bird was our fast break for years, and no one except Rondo has come anywhere close for the last 30 years. Those celtics teams would run the 2008 team off the floor. That's what made Bird and magic so great, they were legit 6 ft 9 guys who could play inside but could run you off the floor in transition with their skills.

[oldmanspeaks]

The reason that Bird played well in transition in the old days is that transition defense was horrible in the old days. Showtime of the Lakers is another example of what happens when transition defense is bad. And most of that is really fastbreak basketball and not transition. In present day offenses you normally have 2 men back so it is really transition defense. Because of his speed/strength, Pierce can take it strong to the hoop. A quick guy in today's defense would make Bird shoot the ball (I never said that Bird was anything but good as giving Bird an open shot isn't exactly stopping him-smile). Anytime primetime Paul was in an iso situation, you expect him to drive and score. With Larry, he just had an incredible shot. With his height/release he could shoot over anyone. To stop it you had to overplay so badly that even the medium speed (he wasn't slow footed as some have implied over the years-he just wasn't super fast). And if you were very quick but shorter, he would destroy you in the low post. With Paul, the defender backs off a little more but Paul can still make a move to the hoop. I think the thing that puts Bird so far ahead was his incredible passing. He saw the court better than 99% of the point guards. Only Magic, Stockton and other great passers could pass better than him. He once made a bullet pass directly over his head to McHale running from the side baseline while looking at the other basket. He claimed he saw McHale the entire way but the camera clearly showed that he never looked back. What really happened was that he saw McHale start to drive and it was so vivid in his mind that he could time the pass as if he actually saw him. It was one of the most incredible plays I have ever seen in my life. Paul can't make that pass-smile. (however, I did see Bird diverted by a quick player much more than Paul).