Parish says Pierce is best offensive player celtics ever had

[Roy Hobbs]

I don't think Ryan or Parish (unless I read things wrong in that article) are saying that Pierce is the better basketball player as a whole.  Simply, that Pierce has been the best at creating or manufacturing his own shot.  I don't think that's crazy talk at all.  

I guess I don't understand how Pierce "manufactured" points better than Larry.  I wish 82games.com was around in the 80s to show what percentage of Larry's baskets were assisted, because I guarantee he created as many points for himself as Pierce did (and of course, he created many, many more points for his teammates than Pierce.)

Also, of course, people should be more precise in their use of language.  "Best offensive player" means -- by definition -- the best player on the offensive end.  Is their any question that Larry Bird fits that description?  If people want to call Pierce a better creator of his own offense, fine (although I'd disagree).  However, that's a far cry from "best offensive player".

[guava_wrench]

I don't think Ryan or Parish (unless I read things wrong in that article) are saying that Pierce is the better basketball player as a whole.  Simply, that Pierce has been the best at creating or manufacturing his own shot.  I don't think that's crazy talk at all.  

I guess I don't understand how Pierce "manufactured" points better than Larry.  I wish 82games.com was around in the 80s to show what percentage of Larry's baskets were assisted, because I guarantee he created as many points for himself as Pierce did (and of course, he created many, many more points for his teammates than Pierce.)

Also, of course, people should be more precise in their use of language.  "Best offensive player" means -- by definition -- the best player on the offensive end.  Is their any question that Larry Bird fits that description?  If people want to call Pierce a better creator of his own offense, fine (although I'd disagree).  However, that's a far cry from "best offensive player".

Perhaps our offensive style was more efficient in Bird's time?

I tend to agree with you in that there is problem with the terminology. But since it is so hard to define terms, I find it hard to take a firm stance.

[jacksmedulaoblongata]

Chief is my favorite Celtic, but he's wrong, very wrong.

[Donoghus]

I don't think Ryan or Parish (unless I read things wrong in that article) are saying that Pierce is the better basketball player as a whole.  Simply, that Pierce has been the best at creating or manufacturing his own shot.  I don't think that's crazy talk at all. 

I guess I don't understand how Pierce "manufactured" points better than Larry.  I wish 82games.com was around in the 80s to show what percentage of Larry's baskets were assisted, because I guarantee he created as many points for himself as Pierce did (and of course, he created many, many more points for his teammates than Pierce.)

Also, of course, people should be more precise in their use of language.  "Best offensive player" means -- by definition -- the best player on the offensive end.  Is their any question that Larry Bird fits that description?

Bird is by far the better shooter and better overall basketball player. Certainly the better passer as well.  I don't think that's much of a debate.  However, if you're talking about creating their own shot (aka manufacturing points), Pierce is right there if not better.  Over the years and especially in his prime, his versatility when his hands are on the basketball (driving to the hoop, stepbacks, drawing fouls, etc) made him a very complete scorer on the offensive end.  Let's face it, Bird never had his quickness (however, he did compensate in other ways).

If by "offensive player", it means creating their own shot and versatility with their scoring, then I think its a legitimate debate and think Ryan, Parish, and Tommy are on to something here.

[rutzan]

i love pierce and love chief...but...here is the difference...
both pierce and bird could take over a game...but...the differences are ...bird made his teamates better...you can start an offense thru bird but not pierce...most importantly...bird could control a game in so many ways...including offensively...if you saw bird play...you would know what i mean...

[Roy Hobbs]

I don't think Ryan or Parish (unless I read things wrong in that article) are saying that Pierce is the better basketball player as a whole.  Simply, that Pierce has been the best at creating or manufacturing his own shot.  I don't think that's crazy talk at all.  

I guess I don't understand how Pierce "manufactured" points better than Larry.  I wish 82games.com was around in the 80s to show what percentage of Larry's baskets were assisted, because I guarantee he created as many points for himself as Pierce did (and of course, he created many, many more points for his teammates than Pierce.)

Also, of course, people should be more precise in their use of language.  "Best offensive player" means -- by definition -- the best player on the offensive end.  Is their any question that Larry Bird fits that description?

Bird is by far the better shooter and better overall basketball player. Certainly the better passer as well.  I don't think that's much of a debate.  However, if you're talking about creating their own shot (aka manufacturing points), Pierce is right there if not better.  Over the years and especially in his prime, his versatility when his hands are on the basketball (driving to the hoop, stepbacks, drawing fouls, etc) made him a very complete scorer on the offensive end.  Let's face it, Bird never had his quickness (however, he did compensate in other ways).

If by "offensive player", it means creating their own shot and versatility with their scoring, then I think its a legitimate debate and think Ryan, Parish, and Tommy are on to something here.

I guess I don't care too much about versatility.  Give me the guy who can put the ball in the basket more, and at a higher percentage.  I mean, Gerald Green had a versatile offensive game, right?

Also, again, language matters.  "Best offensive player" means the best player on the offensive end, period.  "Most versatile" means something different, and "Best creator of his own shot" is different still. 

[BballTim]

I don't think Ryan or Parish (unless I read things wrong in that article) are saying that Pierce is the better basketball player as a whole.  Simply, that Pierce has been the best at creating or manufacturing his own shot.  I don't think that's crazy talk at all. 

I guess I don't understand how Pierce "manufactured" points better than Larry.  I wish 82games.com was around in the 80s to show what percentage of Larry's baskets were assisted, because I guarantee he created as many points for himself as Pierce did (and of course, he created many, many more points for his teammates than Pierce.)

Also, of course, people should be more precise in their use of language.  "Best offensive player" means -- by definition -- the best player on the offensive end.  Is their any question that Larry Bird fits that description?

Bird is by far the better shooter and better overall basketball player. Certainly the better passer as well.  I don't think that's much of a debate.  However, if you're talking about creating their own shot (aka manufacturing points), Pierce is right there if not better.  Over the years and especially in his prime, his versatility when his hands are on the basketball (driving to the hoop, stepbacks, drawing fouls, etc) made him a very complete scorer on the offensive end.  Let's face it, Bird never had his quickness (however, he did compensate in other ways).

If by "offensive player", it means creating their own shot and versatility with their scoring, then I think its a legitimate debate and think Ryan, Parish, and Tommy are on to something here.

  Yes, Bird wasn't really versatile on offense, was he? Come on. And Bird didn't have a ton of speed, but he had terrific quickness and reflexes. Paul gets to the line more than Larry. Other than that he's not really in the same class. You want to talk manufactured points, look at the number of baskets Bird made when he was sitting down, lying down or falling down. Those were manufactured points.

  Paul spent much of his career surrounded by mediocre players and he averaged around 24-25 points a game during that time. As soon as he had a couple of all-stars on his team he dropped down to 20 (and below) a game. Bird was surrounded by multiple all-stars for most of his career and *still* outscored Paul.

  And, as Roy pointed out, Bird was significantly better than Pierce at passing the ball, another valuable offensive skill. Oh, and btw, Roy, Bird was (pre-injury) the better defender of the two. People forget he made 2nd team all defense 3 times.

[Roy Hobbs]

I just don't get the semantic games people try to play, whether it be Max, Tommy, Parish, or I guess Ryan.

Saying that Pierce is the "best offensive player" because he's got the most versatile game or is the best manufacturer of his own points is like saying that Nate Robinson is the best player on the Celtics, because he's the absolute best in the NBA at one skill, which no other current Celtic can claim.  I guess you can make the argument, but it twists the meaning of words to the point of ridiculousness, in my opinion.

[BballTim]

I just don't get the semantic games people try to play, whether it be Max, Tommy, Parish, or I guess Ryan.

Saying that Pierce is the "best offensive player" because he's got the most versatile game or is the best manufacturer of his own points is like saying that Nate Robinson is the best player on the Celtics, because he's the absolute best in the NBA at one skill, which no other current Celtic can claim.  I guess you can make the argument, but it twists the meaning of words to the point of ridiculousness, in my opinion.

  I don't know how Pierce has a more versatile offensive game than Bird. What kind of shots couldn't Larry make? For starters, youtube the game vs Portland where he spent much of the game shooting left handed. He scored 22 with his left (47 overall). Left handed (one handed) jump shots, bank shots, hook shots, floaters, it's a sight to see. Mind you, he was shooting left handed just to try and make the game a little challenging.

[moiso]

Points per game is irrelevant in this debate because the pace was a lot faster in the 80's.  If I'm not mistaken, field goal percentages were also higher in general.
I might rank Bird slightly ahead of Paul, but I think it's pretty close.  Put Paul on the 80's Celtics and he would have averaged a lot more points and shot a better percentage than he did in the 2000's.

[xmuscularghandix]

Paul is a better scorer. Larry is more clutch and a better shooter... but i’d say PP is second in those categories.

[BballTim]

Points per game is irrelevant in this debate because the pace was a lot faster in the 80's.  If I'm not mistaken, field goal percentages were also higher in general.
I might rank Bird slightly ahead of Paul, but I think it's pretty close.  Put Paul on the 80's Celtics and he would have averaged a lot more points and shot a better percentage than he did in the 2000's.

  Put Paul on those 80s teams and he might not be the leading scorer.

[guava_wrench]

Points per game is irrelevant in this debate because the pace was a lot faster in the 80's.  If I'm not mistaken, field goal percentages were also higher in general.
I might rank Bird slightly ahead of Paul, but I think it's pretty close.  Put Paul on the 80's Celtics and he would have averaged a lot more points and shot a better percentage than he did in the 2000's.

There are many reasons why it is really hard to compare generations and you mention one. Even adjusting stats for league averages is a suspect methodology since that assumes that the mean ability of NBA players is the same across generations. I am of the opinion that talent levels are higher now, but there really is no way to settle that argument.

If we don't assume that the mean player in 1985 should be considered equal to the mean player in 2005, then we can't say much about two cross generational player based on their distance from the mean.

My point is that stats are facts, but understanding what they mean and drawing conclusions require subjective interpretation.

[guava_wrench]

Points per game is irrelevant in this debate because the pace was a lot faster in the 80's.  If I'm not mistaken, field goal percentages were also higher in general.
I might rank Bird slightly ahead of Paul, but I think it's pretty close.  Put Paul on the 80's Celtics and he would have averaged a lot more points and shot a better percentage than he did in the 2000's.

  Put Paul on those 80s teams and he might not be the leading scorer.

There is only one way to know for sure. Fire up the PS3!

[GreenEnvy]

I just don't get the semantic games people try to play, whether it be Max, Tommy, Parish, or I guess Ryan.

Saying that Pierce is the "best offensive player" because he's got the most versatile game or is the best manufacturer of his own points is like saying that Nate Robinson is the best player on the Celtics, because he's the absolute best in the NBA at one skill, which no other current Celtic can claim.  I guess you can make the argument, but it twists the meaning of words to the point of ridiculousness, in my opinion.

Unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to watch Larry when he was playing, but those guys did on a nightly basis. I'll take their word on it that Pierce is the more gifted offensive player. He can do everything you can ask for on the court when you think about it. He can catch-and-shoot, create his own shot, run the break, drive, set up teammates, you name it. The Legend could do all of them too, but the areas he was greater at than Paul aren't by as wide a margin as Paul is better than Larry. I guess.

Paul really is an underrated player. The bad teammates and coaching that plagued his career early really affected his all-time status, much like KG.

His shooting touch (from anywhere), dribbling skills, basketball IQ, clutchness, and passing ability make him a very unique player. Compare him to say, LeBron James, and even though LeBron's PPG is better, he is nowhere near the offensive player that Paul Pierce is.