Parish says Pierce is best offensive player celtics ever had

[GreenFaith1819]

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.

Good Point - but after watching the videos that Roy posted, do you still believe that?

Could Pierce make the same shots, and do it consistently, like Bird?

[BballTim]

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.

  That's pretty funny. I was under the impression that the reason that Bird was good in the transition game was because he's among the best passers and shooters in the history of the game. Silly me, though, it was poor defense. That's why nobody's ever heard of Showtime of the Lakers. Transition defenses were so bad in the 80s that every team in the league was as successful as the Lakers at it.

 

[Andy Jick]

Larry Bird is one of the top 10 NBA players of all-time...

I'm not sure that I would have named Paul Pierce a top 10 player of the 2000's...

[oldmanspeaks]

I was in the Garden when Bird, Lewis, Parish, etc set the playoff game scoring record with 156 (and would have been over 160 if the refs hadn't missed two totally obvious shooting fouls). It was against a supposedly good defensive Knicks team with Ewing and Oakley. Trust me, the defense was not all that great in the old days. Those that say different are recreating history. It was after that time that things started to change to be more defensive minded (partly because the games started being called differently).

[BballTim]

I was in the Garden when Bird, Lewis, Parish, etc set the playoff game scoring record with 156 (and would have been over 160 if the refs hadn't missed two totally obvious shooting fouls). It was against a supposedly good defensive Knicks team with Ewing and Oakley. Trust me, the defense was not all that great in the old days. Those that say different are recreating history. It was after that time that things started to change to be more defensive minded (partly because the games started being called differently).

  That wasn't a good defensive team, it was an average defensive NY team. But that's not the point. I'm not trying to recreate history. I'm not saying that defenses in the 80s were as good as they are now, either in the halfcourt or in transition. But having said that, "The reason that Bird played well in transition in the old days is that transition defense was horrible in the old days" is a ridiculous statement.

   I don't know if that playoff game was the only game you ever saw, or if you don't remember much of Bird earlier in the decade (ie before his health problems), but you're claims that Bird wasn't a good transition player are just wrong. Even if you don't remember, check out some of the youtube clips in some of the posts. Great scorer in transition, tremendous passer. Are you really under the impression that the guards on the other team getting back quicker would have stymied him?

[Edgar]

Larry Bird is one of the top 10 NBA players of all-time...

I'm not sure that I would have named Paul Pierce a top 10 player of the 2000's...

yes.. maybe thats why he used the offensive adjetive
I dont know
offensively Pierce is better tha we   boston fans aknowledge
specially during th bad team years
I never bought the good player in a bad team theory
maibly because Paul almost always had good offensive players alonngside him
I dont know
if hes better than bird. offensively.i will not buy it that easy
but its not imposible for me to start thinking about it

p.s. parish knows a little more bkb than me
thats a fact

[Birdbrain]

Bird had more game winners in 1 year than Pierce had in his whole career.   

Huh, do you have a link?

Or did you just make this up.

You really shouldn't need a link for this if you actually watched both of their careers.  If you didn't and still do try youtube.

[Birdbrain]

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 by a LARGE margin.

[Chelm]

  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.

I don't disagree at all... Pierce is great, but not Larry great, but isn't the reason they went back to their own men in that video because zone defenses were illegal (as opposed to fear of his passing)?

[wbones1]

 I will add my two cents, for what it is worth. I had the opportunity to see both play, throughout their careers, and Bird was better offensively. I won't quote stats, because my eyes can tell the difference. PP is a very good offensive player, but Larry was in another class. Larry did things on a nightly basis, that broke your back. You could argue PP is a better scorer, but overall offensively Larry was superior.
 Did Bird play with better players? Yes he did, but he made them better because of his passing. His offensive rebounding was excellent for a guy who couldn't jump. He knew how to block out, and had an instinct for the game. He knew where a shot was going, and just went to where it should come off the boards. That is something you cannot find in a stat. Is the game different? Yes, but in their primes I would rather have Larry on my team!!

[BballTim]

  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.

I don't disagree at all... Pierce is great, but not Larry great, but isn't the reason they went back to their own men in that video because zone defenses were illegal (as opposed to fear of his passing)?

  Possibly, but you're allowed to trap the guy with the ball, right? I used to see teams chase the ball and try and trap the guys with the ball with a double or triple team to force a turnover late in games, so it can't be illegal.

[Fafnir]

Bird had more game winners in 1 year than Pierce had in his whole career.   

Huh, do you have a link?

Or did you just make this up.

You really shouldn't need a link for this if you actually watched both of their careers.  If you didn't and still do try youtube.

Its uncommon for a player to make a game winner. Players win games for their teams all the time, but that is with their play over 48 minutes.

Game winner means the "clinching bucket" in one of the last two possessions of the game. Games more often than not don't come down to that.

So since your source is "watching their careers" and "youtube", I'll mark you down as making it up. Bonus points for the offhand swipe with the "if you actually watched"!

Here's a nice post on Game Winners, how rare they are, and how players perform during their opportunities. It is a bit dated but I think it illustrates my point.

[Fafnir]

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.

I don't think he'd do will if he played for the current GSWs. Don Nelson would probably have him play Center  .

[Birdbrain]

Even if you never saw Bird play (my guess) you would have had to have been living under a rock not to have at least heard of Birds propensity for game winners.  So I took your response in the manner it deserved.  I don't care enough about Internet stats too look up something I saw for own eyes.

Oh and it was't meant to be 'offhanded'.

[Fafnir]

Even if you never saw Bird play (my guess) you would have had to have been living under a rock not to have at least heard of Birds propensity for game winners.  So I took your response in the manner it deserved.  I don't care enough about Internet stats too look up something I saw for own eyes.

Oh and it was't meant to be 'offhanded'.

I saw Bird play, not much though, considered I'm 26. I've certainly watched a number of "classic games" in replay.

My response still stands, you just made it up. Bird has a reputation for game winners, but reputation for hitting game winners doesn't mean that in one year he must have hit more the Pierce in twelve years in the NBA.

I asked for some sort of proof of that, why does a simple question like that deserve an insult? If you don't care enough to back up your statements, then maybe you should stop making things up.