Parish says Pierce is best offensive player celtics ever had

[Moranis]

Being that Pierce is/was probably a superior defender to Larry Legend, saying that Pierce is the superior offensive player to Larry is tantamount to saying that Pierce is better than Bird.  And I don't think any of us really want to say that. 

I could buy that Pierce is the better scorer though. 

But Larry definitely beats him with passing and rebounding.  And you can't really argue with the 3 titles and MVPs.  Pierce, for as good as he is, isn't on that level. 

of course you can argue titles.  If Pierce had a supporting cast of Mchale, Parrish, Johnson, Ainge, Walton, etc. do you really think he too wouldn't have 3 titles?  He may not have the MVP's, of course he might have with that supporting cast, but he would have had the titles.

Why do so many people focus on team accomplishments when comparing individual players?  An individually great player is not winning championship if his supporting cast is not up to par.  It just doesn't happen. 

[Fafnir]

Pierce actually has a higher career TS% then Bird does.  Bird does have the higher eFG%.  Pierce is going to pass Bird this year for total points scored as well. 

That said Bird was better and I really don't think it is that close. 

Makes sense to me, Pierce has had more healthy seasons and gets to the line more. His game and the way the game is now officiating lead to the FT disparity.

[Fafnir]

Being that Pierce is/was probably a superior defender to Larry Legend, saying that Pierce is the superior offensive player to Larry is tantamount to saying that Pierce is better than Bird.  And I don't think any of us really want to say that. 

I could buy that Pierce is the better scorer though. 

But Larry definitely beats him with passing and rebounding.  And you can't really argue with the 3 titles and MVPs.  Pierce, for as good as he is, isn't on that level. 

of course you can argue titles.  If Pierce had a supporting cast of Mchale, Parrish, Johnson, Ainge, Walton, etc. do you really think he too wouldn't have 3 titles?  He may not have the MVP's, of course he might have with that supporting cast, but he would have had the titles.

Why do so many people focus on team accomplishments when comparing individual players?  An individually great player is not winning championship if his supporting cast is not up to par.  It just doesn't happen. 

I'm pretty sure either McHale or Pierce would have at least one MVP if Bird and Pierce were switched.

I'm really not sure who though, depends on how they dealt with McHale's minutes and role without Bird.

[Fafnir]

Pierce actually has a higher career TS% then Bird does.  Bird does have the higher eFG%.  Pierce is going to pass Bird this year for total points scored as well. 

That said Bird was better and I really don't think it is that close. 

Makes sense to me, Pierce has had more healthy seasons and gets to the line more. His game and the way the game is now officiating lead to the FT disparity.

And then I actually look at how many free throws they were shooting (in the league) comparatively and I don't see that big a difference, at least by my quick eyeballing.

[Roy Hobbs]

Pierce actually has a higher career TS% then Bird does.  Bird does have the higher eFG%.  Pierce is going to pass Bird this year for total points scored as well. 

That said Bird was better and I really don't think it is that close. 

Makes sense to me, Pierce has had more healthy seasons and gets to the line more. His game and the way the game is now officiating lead to the FT disparity.

And then I actually look at how many free throws they were shooting (in the league) comparatively and I don't see that big a difference, at least by my quick eyeballing.

The big change in the league is the frequency of the three point shot, I think.  If 1980s offenses were designed to shoot the three like they are today, I think Larry would have excelled even more.

[Redz]

As a scorer, Pierce will surpass Bird next season in Points. So I don't know if that can be a debated anymore. I think Pierce would kill Bird one-on-one game.

  Pierce has already had 2 more healthy seasons than Bird. Paul might have been able to beat a late in his career Bird who could barely bend his back 1v1, but the Bird that won 3 mvps in a row? The 3 time all defense 2nd teamer who was a better shooter, scorer and rebounder than Pierce? Not so much.

I love Larry Bird he was a Celtic great, Paul would murder Larry, and Larry would have murder Paul. A young Paul was just as dangerous as young Larry. Paul iso's are every undefendable, but however Larry J's were unblockable. So I say this they are equal but what set Larry from Paul are championship rings....

  And the 3 MVPs.

...and the passing (and the rebounding, but I guess we're talking offense here)

... and the offensive rebounding.   

EXACTAMUNDO!

[Fafnir]

Pierce actually has a higher career TS% then Bird does.  Bird does have the higher eFG%.  Pierce is going to pass Bird this year for total points scored as well. 

That said Bird was better and I really don't think it is that close. 

Makes sense to me, Pierce has had more healthy seasons and gets to the line more. His game and the way the game is now officiating lead to the FT disparity.

And then I actually look at how many free throws they were shooting (in the league) comparatively and I don't see that big a difference, at least by my quick eyeballing.

The big change in the league is the frequency of the three point shot, I think.  If 1980s offenses were designed to shoot the three like they are today, I think Larry would have excelled even more.

How do you think it would have helped him?

Would he have found himself taking and making more threes?

[Celtics17]

Paul is cetainly one of the best the C's have had. I am not sure though I would rate him above Larry. While Pierce may be a more complete scorer, Bird did things you just dont see, and he was a much, much better passer. Also, McHale was at times simply unstoppable around the basket. Other teams would put their best big man on him and he still torched them all. If Rondo ever develops a good jump shot, and he will, he will be a tremendous scorer too.

[BballTim]

Pierce actually has a higher career TS% then Bird does.  Bird does have the higher eFG%.  Pierce is going to pass Bird this year for total points scored as well. 

That said Bird was better and I really don't think it is that close. 

Makes sense to me, Pierce has had more healthy seasons and gets to the line more. His game and the way the game is now officiating lead to the FT disparity.

And then I actually look at how many free throws they were shooting (in the league) comparatively and I don't see that big a difference, at least by my quick eyeballing.

The big change in the league is the frequency of the three point shot, I think.  If 1980s offenses were designed to shoot the three like they are today, I think Larry would have excelled even more.

How do you think it would have helped him?

Would he have found himself taking and making more threes?

  First of all they didn't run offenses to get good looks from behind the arc. Many teams only averaged a few shots a game from behind the arc and the league average was generally 25-28%, as opposed to 37% or so on 15-16 shots a game when PP played. Larry was frequently in the top 5 for 3 point attempts, so PP would have taken many fewer 3s playing in Larry's era (and likely made fewer).

[BballTim]

Being that Pierce is/was probably a superior defender to Larry Legend, saying that Pierce is the superior offensive player to Larry is tantamount to saying that Pierce is better than Bird.  And I don't think any of us really want to say that. 

I could buy that Pierce is the better scorer though. 

But Larry definitely beats him with passing and rebounding.  And you can't really argue with the 3 titles and MVPs.  Pierce, for as good as he is, isn't on that level. 

of course you can argue titles.  If Pierce had a supporting cast of Mchale, Parrish, Johnson, Ainge, Walton, etc. do you really think he too wouldn't have 3 titles?  He may not have the MVP's, of course he might have with that supporting cast, but he would have had the titles.

  You could easily make the case that we wouldn't have won more than 1 title (if we even won one) with PP instead of Bird. We had some tough series in those playoffs, especially the 76ers and the Lakers. Taking away the best player in the league would have probably tipped the scales the other way.

[Roy Hobbs]

Pierce actually has a higher career TS% then Bird does.  Bird does have the higher eFG%.  Pierce is going to pass Bird this year for total points scored as well. 

That said Bird was better and I really don't think it is that close. 

Makes sense to me, Pierce has had more healthy seasons and gets to the line more. His game and the way the game is now officiating lead to the FT disparity.

And then I actually look at how many free throws they were shooting (in the league) comparatively and I don't see that big a difference, at least by my quick eyeballing.

The big change in the league is the frequency of the three point shot, I think.  If 1980s offenses were designed to shoot the three like they are today, I think Larry would have excelled even more.

How do you think it would have helped him?

Would he have found himself taking and making more threes?

If Bird played in a modern offense, he would have likely taken -- and made -- more three pointers, which would have increased his scoring average.  Three point shooting simply wasn't a huge priority for teams back then, and coaches were still figuring out how to use it as a consistent weapon.

Similarly, teamed with other great perimeter shooters, it would have opened up things for Bird on the inside.  Bird may not have driven to the hoop as much as Pierce (which leads some to this false sense that he couldn't do it), but that's because, in part, defenses were collapsed inside defending Parish and McHale, and could sag in from the perimeter off of DJ.  Surround Bird with great shooters, and he would have been even *more* efficient.

[LooseCannon]

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?

[lon3lytoaster]

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. He could just do more with the ball and was far more creative than Pierce and just because it's an isolation doesn't mean he wouldn't have to pass. So I'd trust Bird to make the right play all day, every day. Add on Bird's clutch factor and it's not even a discussion.

That's coming from someone who grew up in the Pierce era, too. Never saw Bird play live but I still don't even have to think when it comes to who I'd give the ball to.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.  Larry still holds the Celtics record for most points in a quarter (24), although Todd Day somehow tied him.

[GreenFaith1819]

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?

Larry.

But here's another thought:

Imagine Larry and Paul Pierce in their primes, too. A prime Paul Pierce was nearly unstoppable on most nights. He may not have had the scoring binges that Larry had, but Paul was all over the place, scoring, getting teammates involved, rebounding, the whole nine.

The sad thing is that he didn't have the teammates that Larry had in his prime. Paul didn't get Championship-caliber help until 2007, where he was just about to begin his decline.

If this has been mentioned already, I apologize, but let's do time travel here and place Prime Pierce in Larry's spot in the 80's.

Imagine that - Prime Paul, McHale, Parish, DJ, Ainge.