Parish says Pierce is best offensive player celtics ever had

[Witch-King]

Robert Parish, aka as the 'original' double '0' agent in the NBA.   If he says so then it must be true.

[guava_wrench]

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.

Lebron is also a far superior passer to Pierce.

[Scalablob990]

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!

We'd also be on banner # 23+ by now....

[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!

We'd also be on banner # 23+ by now....

Not to mention all those perfect seasons.

[Witch-King]

Robert Parish, aka as the 'original' double '0' agent in the NBA.   If he says so then it must be true.

Edit: I do realize that Parish's actual nickname was 'The Chief' during his playing days, however I was just trying to bring some more attention to the fact that the James Bond franchise is going under due to the bankruptcy of MGM Grand. Yet another reason to reminisce in the 'good ole days' of the past Celtics legends.

I have an older copy of NBA live where I have both Parish and Pierce on the same team; I might go ahead and play a quick game before I go to bed.

[ballin]

gotta side with roy hobbs here.

the only way you could argue that pierce is a better offensive player than bird is if you twist the meaning of the term.

just about every meaningful statistic supports the notion that bird is the better offensive player. bird's mvp trophies also support this notion.

and if you want to get all subjective about it, go ahead and youtube some videos of larry... he gets pretty much whatever shot he wants EVERY time down the court by using his size, post moves, and shooting touch from outside.

i'm not sure this is really an open question... larry is just a better offensive player than pierce.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

From everything I've seen, Pierce has had far more instances than Bird of forcing shots and turning the ball over because of trying to do too much, especially at the ends of quarters. And Pierce hasn't made nearly the number of insane shots as Bird did, and no one in NBA history did more with fewer physical gifts than Bird.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I forgot to mention that Larry had eyes in the back of his head. Way better passer than Pierce.

[Who]

#1 -- It should be better scorer rather than better offensive player. Bird's passing ability would lift him clearly ahead of Pierce even if Pierce was a marginally superior scorer.

#2 -- I disagree with it but I do I think Pierce has a legitimate case as the Celtics best scorer of all time.

Like Moiso said, they played at a faster pace in the 1980's, roughly 10% more possessions per game. Drop Bird's 28ppg (done three times) by 10% and you get 25 points a night which Pierce has hit 5 times in his career. Bird's career high of 29.9 becomes 26.9 which is comparable to Pierce's career high of 26.8ppg.

Also, Pierce is right in line with Bird's career shooting percentage at 56.5%. Pierce has also been between 58-61% TS% for five of the last six seasons whereas Bird hit that range four times. Furthermore, I fully believe Pierce would have posted better TS% figures earlier in his career if he had played with more offensive talent around him.

Ergo, I don't see a justifiable case for Bird as the more prolific or efficient (by TS%) scorer versus Pierce. I think they are both in the same ball park.

#3 -- That all said, I would take Bird as the best Celtics scorer of All-Time.

His post up game was unstoppable, he was one of the best of all-time off the ball. He caused the defense to collapse at will, more so than Pierce did. I would rate Bird as the tougher cover, the tougher guy to limit/stop. Bird created more of a mismatch problem.

I also think the way he scored (especially off the ball work) was more conducive to his teammates' offensive performances than Pierce's slashing + clearouts game.

Like I said earlier, once you take Bird's passing into account, he is far and away the superior offensive player.

[LooseCannon]

People are making too much out of this.  Parish was asked a question about Paul Pierce and maybe he engaged in a little hyperbole.  I don't think it is a great sin to do so, especially when you are doing so to pump up someone who is criminally underrated.  I mean, seriously, being asked whether or not Paul Pierce deserves to have his jersey number retired by the Celtics?  I know I would be tempted to overstate how great Pierce is just to show how stupid that question is.

If the Chief's statement leads more people to understand that the gap between Paul Pierce and John Havlicek or Larry Bird is not as large as the casual fan probably perceives it to be, then any inaccuracy is easily forgivable. 

[Bankshot]

I agree with Tommy, Bob Ryan and Parish.

[Roy Hobbs]

I agree with Tommy, Bob Ryan and Parish.

Based upon what?

[Roy Hobbs]

I think a more interesting question would be, who was a better offensive player between Pierce and Hondo.  Pierce has the advantage in points per game, but Havlicek played in an era without the three point shot, and was often on stacked teams where he wasn't the #1 option.  Further, Havlicek had the highest peak, and his career average is affected by his latter years, where he declined.  Their career FG% are approximately the same, and Havlicek has more assists and more offensive rebounds (based upon the stats available).  At the same time, the pace in Hondo's era was faster, and Hondo's efficiencies benefited from having great teammates.

I'd call that matchup a wash, maybe with a slight edge to Pierce.

[Celtics4ever]

Keep in mind Chief smokes a lot of ganga.  But he has the right to his opinion and I respect it as he played with Larry something none of us can say.   

I think Larry is a better passer and made his team mates better.  PP is about even with him in creating his shot and maybe superior at driving.  I would give Larry the edge in shooting, if I had to pick one to make a shot or I would die, I am going with Larry.  Pierce is probably better one on one in isolation. 

Hondo played more on effort thsn PP.  If PP played at Hondo's effort level his career would be over and he would be burnt out.  When you mention all those things about Hondo it makes me wonder if PP numbers are not inflated because he was the best player on many bad teams early in his career, that being said PP is going to the rafter as a Celtic great.  He is up there in the pantheon regardless of how many more rings he gets.

[pearljammer10]

I agree with Parish. In his prime Pierce could score anyway at anytime. His arsenal of offensive weapons was just silly; 3 pt shot, pull up jumper, fade away, drive to the basket, getting to the free throw line. He could get to the rim on any player in the league at one point.

Its a tough debate between Pierce and Bird but I actually give the edge to Pierce.