Parish says Pierce is best offensive player celtics ever had

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

The original comment was definitely hyperbole; for one thing, Larry's teams weren't behind as much as Pierce's, so he didn't *have* to make as many game-winners.

That said, he made a lot of them.  Here are two videos that showcase 12 or 13 different game-winners / shots that tied the game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS_UJOEpROk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmmrcY4NxCM&feature=related

Of course, Pierce has made his share of clutch plays, as well.  I think, though, that if you compared Larry's body of work to Pierce's, you'd see that Larry came up big more often.

[Fafnir]

I agree that Bird almost certainly hit more game winners in his career than Pierce.

But thats a far cry from the one year comment, even ignoring the rest of the crap that followed.

Game winning shots is a very poor way to judge a player anyways. How many do you think Russell hit after all?

[Celtics4ever]

Thing is Larry did things that you are not going to see on those classic games.  I watched game of his I could on Satelite.  Dude, was amazing some of the shots he pulled that peeps will never see.  They picked a few of his triple double games to show and some of his high scoring ones.  But this cat affected games in so many ways that PP could not offensively with passing and the like.  

He really was a point forward and he shot amazing trick shots during the games.  What peeps shoot in horse games, over the head, backboard etc, he shot and made them in games.  

I think Larry could have played Center.  He would over matched physically at times but no center ever had that basketball IQ and anticipation.  He;d find a way and he was a ferocious rebounder averaging 10 RPG.

[Roy Hobbs]

Game winning shots is a very poor way to judge a player anyways. How many do you think Russell hit after all?

Well, Russell wasn't exactly a great offensive player, which is what we're talking about here.  But I agree, there are lots of ways to evaluate offensive prowess, and coming up big in the clutch is only one such way.  I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

[Fafnir]

I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

The number of attempts Bird would have had interests me. Given his statements about taking the last shot I wouldn't be surprised if he took as many as Kobe does. (though if he shot as poorly as Kobe I'd be shocked)

Pierce has always converted a rather good percentage in those situations, with a lot more assists than a typical wing.

[oldmanspeaks]

There is no doubt that if the Celtics were down one, Bird would have the ball in his hands and would take the last shot and he was a devastating shot at crunch time. And with his height and release, he could always get the ball in the air. However I also question the number of times that the Celtics were behind by one. I remember Larry being the "backbraker" when it came to shooting. The game would be close and Larry would take a long distance "bad shot" except he would make it time and time again. It would destroy the other team and the Celtics would go on to establish a lead. Also Dennis Johnson was factor at "crunch time". He was a poor shooter except for the last five minutes. Before that he was always looking to set up his teammates. However at the end of the game, something changed. If Larry was doubled, Dennis would suddenly look for his own shot and he suddenly became a good shooter.
I would sum up this way. If it came down to a last second shot, you would MUCH rather Bird have the ball in his hands than Pierce. Both because of shooting ability but also the ability to get the shot off.
A side response about an earlier comment. Someone inferred that I said that Bird was a bad transition player. Nothing is further from the truth. What I said was that I thought Pierce is better and that Bird played against some bad transition defenses. Bird wasn't as quick as Pierce and could be angled off. However as Ed Pinckney who used to guard him in practice laughing said, if Larry saw any weakness he would destroy you. Any mistake by the defense in transition and Larry would light them up by either shot or pass. (I never had any talent whatsoever but I could read a court and recognized "a mistake". It was the only way I was ever going to get by anyone. I paid a LOT of attention to Larry's game-laugh)

[Chelm]

I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

I think it needs to be factored in that a lot of Kobe's attempted game winners are several degrees of difficulty higher than the average NBA game winner attempts.

[Roy Hobbs]

I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

I think it needs to be factored in that a lot of Kobe's attempted game winners are several degrees of difficulty higher than the average NBA game winner attempts.

. . . and he misses a ton of those, when better options may have been available.  Taking a circus shot when you're triple-teamed, rather than passing to an open teammate, isn't necessarily the definition of "clutch", despite what the media would tell you.

[Fafnir]

I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

I think it needs to be factored in that a lot of Kobe's attempted game winners are several degrees of difficulty higher than the average NBA game winner attempts.

. . . and he misses a ton of those, when better options may have been available.  Taking a circus shot when you're triple-teamed, rather than passing to an open teammate, isn't necessarily the definition of "clutch", despite what the media would tell you.

And this is why Dwayne Wade is a much better SG than Kobe and has been for a couple of years. Kobe no longer gets all that many easy looks, and no longer gets to the line a ton. (Game 7 home cooking excluded argh)

[BballTim]

I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

The number of attempts Bird would have had interests me. Given his statements about taking the last shot I wouldn't be surprised if he took as many as Kobe does. (though if he shot as poorly as Kobe I'd be shocked)

Pierce has always converted a rather good percentage in those situations, with a lot more assists than a typical wing.

  I was surprised to see that PP had so few game winners. I thought he had 3-4 in a 2 week period in 2006 or so.

[guava_wrench]

I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

I think it needs to be factored in that a lot of Kobe's attempted game winners are several degrees of difficulty higher than the average NBA game winner attempts.

Why take such difficult shots?

[Chelm]

I further think that looking at raw numbers of game-winners, without knowing how many were missed, is relevant.  (It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who think Kobe is uber-clutch, when he misses game-winners at a higher percentage than the league average.)

I think it needs to be factored in that a lot of Kobe's attempted game winners are several degrees of difficulty higher than the average NBA game winner attempts.

Why take such difficult shots?

Quite often, he takes an unnecessarily difficult shot in lieu of passing to an open teammate because he thinks he has a better shot hitting a half court triple teamed falling out of bounds than a Ron Artest layup open underneath, which is obviously to the detriment to his team.  But sometimes, all you have is a prayer (full court inbounds, 3 seconds on the clock) and in those situations, he's pretty much the only hope.  That he hits them at all is pretty physically impressive.

Kobe is definitely an arrogant jerk, but I don't agree that Dwayne Wade is "much better" than Kobe.  I bet if you talk to the 30 GMs in the league, the majority would lean toward Kobe, especially if you're comparing them both at age 28.

[Roy Hobbs]

  I bet if you talk to the 30 GMs in the league, the majority would lean toward Kobe, especially if you're comparing them both at age 28.

I don't think anybody was comparing them at age 28, though.

[Fan from VT]

I'm a little late to this discussion, so I'm sorry if others have brought it up, but...

I really can't agree that Pierce is the best offensive player the Celtics ever had. Has to be larry, as his passing is so much better than pierce's and does count for offense. I'm pretty sure that Tommy was careful to say that he thought Pierce was the Celtics' greatest "Scorer," which is quite different from best offensive player. I think for "scorer" pierce may have a case, especially if you are considering one-on-one creativity, but for offensive player overall, no way.

[BballTim]

  I bet if you talk to the 30 GMs in the league, the majority would lean toward Kobe, especially if you're comparing them both at age 28.

I don't think anybody was comparing them at age 28, though.

  I think, if it's only for a year or two, most gms would rather have Kobe now than Kobe at 28.