Parish says Pierce is best offensive player celtics ever had

[Roy Hobbs]

. . . 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.

That's what really matters, at the end of the day.  I have Pierce ranked something like seventh overall in Celtics history (behind Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens, but ahead of Sam Jones, although I'll defer to people who saw Sam play), which doesn't sound that impressive until you consider how many Hall of Famers we have.  In terms of offense, I've got him tied for second.

(Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens)

[GreenFaith1819]

#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.

I subscribe to this post.

I love Pierce, and Chief, but during my time of watching Basketball I have seen Larry Bird do some "Other-Worldly" things - stuff that I've only seen a handful of players do in my lifetime (Magic, Michael).

Poster Who does a pretty good job of breaking this down, I think. Poster Donoghus makes a good argument for Truth, as well.

But for me, from what I've seen over the years watching Bird and Pierce and what they've done with their teammates?

Larry Bird. Not by much, but I have to go with Larry on this one.

[Birdbrain]

I've never understood this argument.  If you want to say that Paul Pierce is the most versatile offensive player the Celtics have had, or even the most skilled, I'll listen to your argument.

But the best?  Even if you confine the argument to just scoring, Larry Bird scored more points, and converted his shots at a higher percentage.  Of course, if you factor in other parts of the offensive game, like offensive rebounding and passing, Larry blows Pierce out of the water.

So, in summary:  More points + higher FG% / eFG% + more assists + more offensive rebounds = better offensive player

I take that quote as a direct slap at Larry, since it seems like Parish has him ranked behind both Pierce and Hondo.  It shouldn't come as a huge surprise; Larry wasn't especially well-liked by a lot of his teammates off the court, which explains some of the negative statements by Max and Chief.

Also, even forgiving Parish the indulgence of grouping himself with the best scorers in Celtics history, how the heck did Don Nelson make the cut?!

Agreed, I might go with most versatile scorer but, offense is also more than putting the ball in the hoop and Larry's passing skills trumps Pierce so much that discussion makes no sense.

Unless you feel slighted because most people (including myself) think Parish is only the HOF because of Larry.  What happened to all the Dirk = Larry comments from Max.. I guess that didn't play out the way he thought it would.

Sorry Chief you smokem too much peace pipe.

[Bankshot]

I agree with Tommy, Bob Ryan and Parish.

Based upon what?

Based on the arguments they made.  I agree with their arguments.

[Fafnir]

. . . 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.

That's what really matters, at the end of the day.  I have Pierce ranked something like seventh overall in Celtics history (behind Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens, but ahead of Sam Jones, although I'll defer to people who saw Sam play), which doesn't sound that impressive until you consider how many Hall of Famers we have.  In terms of offense, I've got him tied for second.

(Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens)

I put him ahead of Cowens and depending on how he plays out his new contract he could surpass McHale.

Cousy I find really hard to rank, he's a player I find very hard to compare to the modern game.

[moiso]

. . . 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.

That's what really matters, at the end of the day.  I have Pierce ranked something like seventh overall in Celtics history (behind Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens, but ahead of Sam Jones, although I'll defer to people who saw Sam play), which doesn't sound that impressive until you consider how many Hall of Famers we have.  In terms of offense, I've got him tied for second.

(Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens)

I put him ahead of Cowens and depending on how he plays out his new contract he could surpass McHale.

Cousy I find really hard to rank, he's a player I find very hard to compare to the modern game.

Pierce has longevity on his side, but I don't think Pierce at his best was nearly as good as Cowens at his best.

[Fafnir]

. . . 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.

That's what really matters, at the end of the day.  I have Pierce ranked something like seventh overall in Celtics history (behind Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens, but ahead of Sam Jones, although I'll defer to people who saw Sam play), which doesn't sound that impressive until you consider how many Hall of Famers we have.  In terms of offense, I've got him tied for second.

(Russell, Bird, Havlicek, Cousy, McHale, and Cowens)

I put him ahead of Cowens and depending on how he plays out his new contract he could surpass McHale.

Cousy I find really hard to rank, he's a player I find very hard to compare to the modern game.

Pierce has longevity on his side, but I don't think Pierce at his best was nearly as good as Cowens at his best.

The Pierce I saw at his peak on those middling and awful Celtics teams could have easily won an MVP, he just needed a good team around him.

I never saw Cowens play live obviously, but longevity is one of the reasons I think Pierce is ahead of him and will pull away.

[Birdbrain]

I agree with Tommy, Bob Ryan and Parish.

Based upon what?

Based on the arguments they made.  I agree with their arguments.

I didn't see where Tommy said Paul was the best offensive player to ever play on the C's.  I would be interested to read the exact quote for context. I suspect he went the route of more versatile which means he can dunk..

Also anyone subscribing to this ridiculous notion must assume that Larry's excellent defense (lol) is the reason he's a top 5 player of all time and Pierce is just barely a top 50 player of all time. 

Let's get real here.  They aren't even close as offensive players and Pierce is neck and neck with Larry (rings,multiple MVPS) as my favorite C off all time.

Bird
Russell
Hondo
McHale
Cousy
Pierce (When he gets the all time scoring leader and another ring (this season) he may rise to 3rd or 4th, IMO).

 

[Snakehead]

There's some fun to be had in comparing players like this, but I don't put much stock in it.  It's so hard to compare these players, nevermind the fact that I never saw most of the old guys play themselves.

I'd much rather compare Pierce against the players of his era, but maybe that's just me.  They played in the same rule set, similar pace, against the same competition, etc.  The NBA used to be much more talented when Bird played, though I'd say it's back to being that talented now and in the near future.

I'm not going to pretend to know if Pierce was better than Dave Cowens, I have no idea.  What makes it extra silly is when we younger fans talk about players we never have seen, but like I said there is really no way to compare even if I had.  It's just not really that possible.

[BballTim]

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.

  Which of these things do you think Bird was unable to do?

[Cman]

I'd much rather compare Pierce against the players of his era, but maybe that's just me.  They played in the same rule set, similar pace, against the same competition, etc.  The NBA used to be much more talented when Bird played, though I'd say it's back to being that talented now and in the near future.

Agreed.  I really didn't like a recent article (about a month or so ago in some newspaper) comparing LBJ to Larry Bird.  There have been a lot of changes in officiating over the years that makes comparisons really difficult.  I'd like to see how good of a player LBJ is if there was no hand check rule (answer, he'd look a lot worse than Larry).

[Fafnir]

I'd much rather compare Pierce against the players of his era, but maybe that's just me.  They played in the same rule set, similar pace, against the same competition, etc.  The NBA used to be much more talented when Bird played, though I'd say it's back to being that talented now and in the near future.

Agreed.  I really didn't like a recent article (about a month or so ago in some newspaper) comparing LBJ to Larry Bird.  There have been a lot of changes in officiating over the years that makes comparisons really difficult.  I'd like to see how good of a player LBJ is if there was no hand check rule (answer, he'd look a lot worse than Larry).

I don't think LeBron would be affected too much by the hand check rule, he's so much stronger than anyone guarding him.

[BballTim]

#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.

  A few points. Paul would probably be a more efficient scorer surrounded by better players but, as we've seen over the last 3 years, he loses 4-5 points a game when he's surrounded by better talent. That at least makes up for the difference in pace. Also, when Bird played, there were years when the team averaged under 4 three point attempts a year. If Bird (the better 3 point shooter) took that shot at the same rate as PP his TS% would have been about 60% for his career. Also, Bird's career stats contain some (for him) less productive years due to injury. Lastly, as anyone who saw Bird play will tell you, Bird could have scored many more points than he did.

[BballTim]

I'd much rather compare Pierce against the players of his era, but maybe that's just me.  They played in the same rule set, similar pace, against the same competition, etc.  The NBA used to be much more talented when Bird played, though I'd say it's back to being that talented now and in the near future.

Agreed.  I really didn't like a recent article (about a month or so ago in some newspaper) comparing LBJ to Larry Bird.  There have been a lot of changes in officiating over the years that makes comparisons really difficult.  I'd like to see how good of a player LBJ is if there was no hand check rule (answer, he'd look a lot worse than Larry).

I don't think LeBron would be affected too much by the hand check rule, he's so much stronger than anyone guarding him.

  It's all not about using the hand check to physically restrain a player's movement. It's much easier to move with them and stay in front of them because it's easier to know where they're going when you have a hand on their hip.

[Chelm]

I'd much rather compare Pierce against the players of his era, but maybe that's just me.  They played in the same rule set, similar pace, against the same competition, etc.  The NBA used to be much more talented when Bird played, though I'd say it's back to being that talented now and in the near future.

Agreed.  I really didn't like a recent article (about a month or so ago in some newspaper) comparing LBJ to Larry Bird.  There have been a lot of changes in officiating over the years that makes comparisons really difficult.  I'd like to see how good of a player LBJ is if there was no hand check rule (answer, he'd look a lot worse than Larry).

I don't think LeBron would be affected too much by the hand check rule, he's so much stronger than anyone guarding him.

  It's all not about using the hand check to physically restrain a player's movement. It's much easier to move with them and stay in front of them because it's easier to know where they're going when you have a hand on their hip.

1.  Pierce is great, definitely the best Celtic of the past 20 years, but he is no Larry.  Honestly, to even compare the two is, to me, baffling.

2.  LBJ still has a ways to go to get to Bird's status, but to say that LBJ would've been completely torn apart by hand checking, conveniently ignoring the fact that he is regularly doubled just inside the 3 point line (which Larry/MJ never had to deal with) is a bit short-sighted to me.  Because of LBJ's physical potential, we should all reserve judgment until his career is over.  His potential ceiling is so high.  That being said, I don't expect he will be in the top echelon of players (Magic/Larry/MJ) when it's all said and done.