The truth is that Kevin Garnett was never as good as Paul Pierce

[Celts Fan 92]

what is the point of this thread?

KG is a power forward.

Paul Pierce is a SF.

They have different games, different strengths and different weaknesses.  Saying one is 'better' than the other is like saying apples are better than oranges.  Don't get it.

This right chea both were great players nd taken for granted for the stats they put up over this past decade

[TitleMaster]

Paul Pierce is very much like the Ginobili of this conference.

While everyone loves to say that the Spurs *are balanced*, etc, etc, all one really needs to do is look at Manu's health. As soon as his ankle or hamstring is sore/pulled, the Spurs run is over. The difference between them winning it all and being ousted by the Lakers or the Mavs is one player, who can put it on his back and deliver.

For us, we have Paul Pierce. And for the most part, I would love to have seen him on a team, like the Spurs, so that he could prove my point. Instead, he was carrying the Cs, for many seasons with a faux point forward, Walker, instead of someone, who can rebound, play paint defense, and take good shots.

Someone once said that if we'd switched KG with Carlos Boozer, during that 2008 year, that the Jazz immediately wins the title. For this, I disagree, as the Jazz were not a defensive-minded team, unlike Thib's C's. I think that Boozer plays in the middle and does as fine a job as anyone else, guarding the paint and scoring down low, but this time side-by-side with enforcer Perkins, prior to his recent follies in Chicago. I like Boozer/Perks up front, it definitely gives PP and Ray Ray, a lot to work with. And yes, we'll be hearing all kinds of stories of Carlos not being clutch, however, in this alternate scenario, since he is playing down low, it really wouldn't be all that necessary.

In this arrangement, Pierce can still lead the C's to a title as long as Carlos brings his 'A' game to the series and doesn't mail it in due to personal issues. But he doesn't need to overachieve, which we clearly haven't seen from KG either.

[Eja117]

Ok, I think I've have enough of the KG of '00 vs KG of '04 vs KG of '08 comparison.

I personally believe that KG is not the player of Pierce's caliber in any year.

Here's why ... the ultimate excuse of KG never leaving the first round of any western conf series was his teammates.

Yet, how mediocre were Pierce's teammates when we beat a 2003 Pacer's team with J O'Neil, Tinsley, and the Millers? And realize, even that Cs squad was a notch below the Kenny Anderson/Rodney Rogers over-achievement of '02. Seriously, since Pitino had left town, the C's had overachieved up until the '05 post season.

On the other foot, on a year by year basis, KG was considered one of the great big men of the league but then again, aside from the Spree/Cassell year, he was never able to advance because somehow, his other 4 players weren't good for anything.

Then in '08, that fabulous championship year ... why on earth did we not close out the series in LA in game 5? KG himself said that his performance was 'garbage' in that closing important game.

And likewise, wasn't it really Posey/Brown, who did the defensive magic of that game 7 against the Cavs, with Pierce lighting it up everywhere on the court.

So when we win a title, we have a "top tier" big man but on his sides are other big men like Perkins, Posey, Brown, Powe, & BBD? Well ... if Pierce and Walker had these fellows, along with Rondo (backed up Cassell, TA, or House), skipping Ray Ray, in the years from '02 to '05, we probably would have been ECF champs as well, and maybe even an NBA champ in one or two of those years.

Here's how I really feel ... Kevin Garnett is a closet Patrick Ewing but unlike Ewing, he had Paul Pierce, in place of John Starks, to help him win a title. Yes, on his own, KG will lose it, when the game is on the line. This is the Ewing effect and I see it in Garnett.

This is like one of those great alarmist revisionist bs papers that a kid sorta gets desperate and writes cause crazy theories gotta come from somewhere in able for people to get masters degrees. Then someone picks it up and goes "Wow! That's amazing!" Then the dust settles and people sorta go back to accepted knowledge.

I salute you for the effort and creativity you put into this in order for us to have something to talk about.

Very cute. TP.

[4THQTR]

Paul Pierce is very much like the Ginobili of this conference.

While everyone loves to say that the Spurs *are balanced*, etc, etc, all one really needs to do is look at Manu's health. As soon as his ankle or hamstring is sore/pulled, the Spurs run is over. The difference between them winning it all and being ousted by the Lakers or the Mavs is one player, who can put it on his back and deliver.

For us, we have Paul Pierce. And for the most part, I would love to have seen him on a team, like the Spurs, so that he could prove my point. Instead, he was carrying the Cs, for many seasons with a faux point forward, Walker, instead of someone, who can rebound, play paint defense, and take good shots.

Someone once said that if we'd switched KG with Carlos Boozer, during that 2008 year, that the Jazz immediately wins the title. For this, I disagree, as the Jazz were not a defensive-minded team, unlike Thib's C's. I think that Boozer plays in the middle and does as fine a job as anyone else, guarding the paint and scoring down low, but this time side-by-side with enforcer Perkins, prior to his recent follies in Chicago. I like Boozer/Perks up front, it definitely gives PP and Ray Ray, a lot to work with. And yes, we'll be hearing all kinds of stories of Carlos not being clutch, however, in this alternate scenario, since he is playing down low, it really wouldn't be all that necessary.

In this arrangement, Pierce can still lead the C's to a title as long as Carlos brings his 'A' game to the series and doesn't mail it in due to personal issues. But he doesn't need to overachieve, which we clearly haven't seen from KG either.

Replace KG with Boozer and the Celts are lucky to make it past Cleveland in 08...
No way they would've made it past the Pistons or beaten the Lakers.
You're taking the most important part of the defense away from the team. You know, the team that will always be remembered as one of the greatest defensive teams of its time...

[GreenFaith1819]

While I don't agree with the main premise of Titlemaster's post, I do feel for Paul Pierce (as well as KG).

But Paul, man, check out his stats for just 2001-2002:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/piercpa01.html

Over 26 pts, almost 7 rebs, 3 assists, nearly 2 stls, 1 block, and less than 3 T/Os in 40min per game. Throw in over 44% FG and over 40% from deep?

The great Kobe Bryant, while scoring a bit more than PP, hasn't put up THESE numbers across the board for a season.

Paul also had a 99 Drtg that season. All from the SG spot. I love it.

I've heard of Point Forwards, Point Centers, etc - Paul Pierce was a Power Guard.

Someone else feel free to check out Basketball-reference maybe I'm missing something.

Besides Kobe, I can't find another SG in recent memory with those across the board numbers. It is truly a shame that Paul had to languish in the Lean Years and post those numbers.

The OP's post, while I may not agree with it, does make one wonder about the "What If" scenarios.

[ballin]

You know, the team that will always be remembered as one of the greatest defensive teams of its ALL time...

Fixed that for ya. TP.

[BballTim]

Paul Pierce is very much like the Ginobili of this conference.

While everyone loves to say that the Spurs *are balanced*, etc, etc, all one really needs to do is look at Manu's health. As soon as his ankle or hamstring is sore/pulled, the Spurs run is over. The difference between them winning it all and being ousted by the Lakers or the Mavs is one player, who can put it on his back and deliver.

   This is, of course, ridiculous. You're giving Manu all the credit for the Spurs success because of his lack of durability. If you think that the Spurs, with Manu but without TD, would be a title threat then you're sadly mistaken.

For us, we have Paul Pierce. And for the most part, I would love to have seen him on a team, like the Spurs, so that he could prove my point. Instead, he was carrying the Cs, for many seasons with a faux point forward, Walker, instead of someone, who can rebound, play paint defense, and take good shots.

Someone once said that if we'd switched KG with Carlos Boozer, during that 2008 year, that the Jazz immediately wins the title. For this, I disagree, as the Jazz were not a defensive-minded team, unlike Thib's C's. I think that Boozer plays in the middle and does as fine a job as anyone else, guarding the paint and scoring down low, but this time side-by-side with enforcer Perkins, prior to his recent follies in Chicago. I like Boozer/Perks up front, it definitely gives PP and Ray Ray, a lot to work with. And yes, we'll be hearing all kinds of stories of Carlos not being clutch, however, in this alternate scenario, since he is playing down low, it really wouldn't be all that necessary.

In this arrangement, Pierce can still lead the C's to a title as long as Carlos brings his 'A' game to the series and doesn't mail it in due to personal issues. But he doesn't need to overachieve, which we clearly haven't seen from KG either.

  The Celts weren't any more defensive minded before KG got here than the Jazz were. Saying you could win the title with Boozer instead of KG is kind of like saying they could have won the title with Ariza instead of Pierce.

[TitleMaster]

Replace KG with Boozer and the Celts are lucky to make it past Cleveland in 08...
No way they would've made it past the Pistons or beaten the Lakers.
You're taking the most important part of the defense away from the team. You know, the team that will always be remembered as one of the greatest defensive teams of its time...

Boy, you make Carlos sound like a sea slug than a high level power forward.

For one, when the C's played defense, and I mean everyone, not just Perkins (down low) or KG (in the mid-range), they could lock down anyone. That was Thib's contribution to team defensive schemes. Carlos was coach-able and would contribute in this regard. Plus, he wouldn't exactly be alone as there's Perks, Posey, Powe, Brown, & BBD. It would be a fine big man rotation.

What everyone forgets is that KG's main scoring down low were the alley oops from Rondo, not the back-to-the-basket bread & butter, which many big men are known for. And Perks was not a scorer, just a guy to get some putbacks or garbage points when no one was covering him. With Boozer, there's authentic scoring on the inside, with Ray Ray on the perimeter, and Pierce slashing back & forth. Then, on defense, having two husky guys down low would have given everyone a lot of work to do, not just the Cav's Ilgauskas but also McDyess, Wallace, & Gasol. I think the Celtics would have done fine; I think you're overrating our opponents that year.

[TitleMaster]

Paul Pierce is very much like the Ginobili of this conference.

While everyone loves to say that the Spurs *are balanced*, etc, etc, all one really needs to do is look at Manu's health. As soon as his ankle or hamstring is sore/pulled, the Spurs run is over. The difference between them winning it all and being ousted by the Lakers or the Mavs is one player, who can put it on his back and deliver.

   This is, of course, ridiculous. You're giving Manu all the credit for the Spurs success because of his lack of durability. If you think that the Spurs, with Manu but without TD, would be a title threat then you're sadly mistaken.

During the Robinson era, that person was TD. During the Manu era, TD was the defensive big man who did the work down low, so that Ginobili could roam around and make it happen.

For us, we have Paul Pierce. And for the most part, I would love to have seen him on a team, like the Spurs, so that he could prove my point. Instead, he was carrying the Cs, for many seasons with a faux point forward, Walker, instead of someone, who can rebound, play paint defense, and take good shots.

Someone once said that if we'd switched KG with Carlos Boozer, during that 2008 year, that the Jazz immediately wins the title. For this, I disagree, as the Jazz were not a defensive-minded team, unlike Thib's C's. I think that Boozer plays in the middle and does as fine a job as anyone else, guarding the paint and scoring down low, but this time side-by-side with enforcer Perkins, prior to his recent follies in Chicago. I like Boozer/Perks up front, it definitely gives PP and Ray Ray, a lot to work with. And yes, we'll be hearing all kinds of stories of Carlos not being clutch, however, in this alternate scenario, since he is playing down low, it really wouldn't be all that necessary.

In this arrangement, Pierce can still lead the C's to a title as long as Carlos brings his 'A' game to the series and doesn't mail it in due to personal issues. But he doesn't need to overachieve, which we clearly haven't seen from KG either.

  The Celts weren't any more defensive minded before KG got here than the Jazz were. Saying you could win the title with Boozer instead of KG is kind of like saying they could have won the title with Ariza instead of Pierce.

Pierce was the lynchpin, Ariza was never that, just an great bench player.

[Donoghus]

Replace KG with Boozer and the Celts are lucky to make it past Cleveland in 08...
No way they would've made it past the Pistons or beaten the Lakers.
You're taking the most important part of the defense away from the team. You know, the team that will always be remembered as one of the greatest defensive teams of its time...

Boy, you make Carlos sound like a sea slug than a high level power forward.

For one, when the C's played defense, and I mean everyone, not just Perkins (down low) or KG (in the mid-range), they could lock down anyone. That was Thib's contribution to team defensive schemes. Carlos was coach-able and would contribute in this regard. Plus, he wouldn't exactly be alone as there's Perks, Posey, Powe, Brown, & BBD. It would be a fine big man rotation.

What everyone forgets is that KG's main scoring down low were the alley oops from Rondo, not the back-to-the-basket bread & butter, which many big men are known for. And Perks was not a scorer, just a guy to get some putbacks or garbage points when no one was covering him. With Boozer, there's authentic scoring on the inside, with Ray Ray on the perimeter, and Pierce slashing back & forth. Then, on defense, having two husky guys down low would have given everyone a lot of work to do, not just the Cav's Ilgauskas but also McDyess, Wallace, & Gasol. I think the Celtics would have done fine; I think you're overrating our opponents that year.

Ummm...are you ignoring the dozens upon dozens of 15-18 foot jumpers KG made in 08?  Did that part just get overlooked?  Or his 2nd chance  scoroing?

Not sure what you were watching if you thought KG's main scoring was on alley oops.

Regarding the defense, KG was the glue that held that '08 defense together and made it one of the most dominant defenses of all-time.  His positioning and spacing was impeccable and he was constanting barking out spots on the floor to his teammates.  Those guys around him were better defensively because of KG.

Would Boozer have had that influcence?  Absolutely not.  He's not even in the same zip code as KG defensively.

[Donoghus]

Can barely see because of the glare of all the rings that "back-to-the-backet bread & butter PFs" like Barkley & Malone won.

There's more than one effective way to play Power Forward in the NBA. 

[TitleMaster]

Replace KG with Boozer and the Celts are lucky to make it past Cleveland in 08...
No way they would've made it past the Pistons or beaten the Lakers.
You're taking the most important part of the defense away from the team. You know, the team that will always be remembered as one of the greatest defensive teams of its time...

Boy, you make Carlos sound like a sea slug than a high level power forward.

For one, when the C's played defense, and I mean everyone, not just Perkins (down low) or KG (in the mid-range), they could lock down anyone. That was Thib's contribution to team defensive schemes. Carlos was coach-able and would contribute in this regard. Plus, he wouldn't exactly be alone as there's Perks, Posey, Powe, Brown, & BBD. It would be a fine big man rotation.

What everyone forgets is that KG's main scoring down low were the alley oops from Rondo, not the back-to-the-basket bread & butter, which many big men are known for. And Perks was not a scorer, just a guy to get some putbacks or garbage points when no one was covering him. With Boozer, there's authentic scoring on the inside, with Ray Ray on the perimeter, and Pierce slashing back & forth. Then, on defense, having two husky guys down low would have given everyone a lot of work to do, not just the Cav's Ilgauskas but also McDyess, Wallace, & Gasol. I think the Celtics would have done fine; I think you're overrating our opponents that year.

Ummm...are you ignoring the dozens upon dozens of 15-18 foot jumpers KG made in 08?  Did that part just get overlooked?  Or his 2nd chance  scoroing?

Not sure what you were watching if you thought KG's main scoring was on alley oops.

Regarding the defense, KG was the glue that held that '08 defense together and made it one of the most dominant defenses of all-time.  His positioning and spacing was impeccable and he was constanting barking out spots on the floor to his teammates.  Those guys around him were better defensively because of KG.

Would Boozer have had that influcence?  Absolutely not.  He's not even in the same zip code as KG defensively.

I mentioned the alley oop (as a main interior scoring option) because I think we all know that KG is an outside jump shooter. Thus, we have a scoring hole in the middle, in terms of a PF/Center combination.

Does anyone not see this, as a sign of weakness, where having KG/Perks together, doesn't automatically mean points in the paint? Remember, if KG took it to the hole and yes, periodically took a hit for it, we'd never have a scoring slump. Instead, whenever the team ran into a scoring slump, the opponents kept themselves in the game by pure hustle play, with the exception of the Lakers, who had a pretty good offense, overall.

[TitleMaster]

Can barely see because of the glare of all the rings that "back-to-the-backet bread & butter PFs" like Barkley & Malone won.

There's more than one effective way to play Power Forward in the NBA. 

Give Karl Malone Paul Pierce, and he'll have at least one glaring ring.

[Donoghus]

Can barely see because of the glare of all the rings that "back-to-the-backet bread & butter PFs" like Barkley & Malone won.

There's more than one effective way to play Power Forward in the NBA. 

Give Karl Malone Paul Pierce, and he'll have at least one glaring ring.

Give Paul Pierce Kevin Garnett and you have yourself a nice glaring championship ring.

[TitleMaster]

Folks, I believe the star PF/C to star swingman is an inside-out relationship.

That's why I'd brought up the whole Ewing or K Malone metaphors.

The aforementioned play an inside game but lack an outside man, who can balance the two halves. Thus, neither Starks nor Stockton, completed the circle to bring either the Knicks or the Jazz, to a true championship contender level.

Pierce, however, is the completion of the circle. If either Ewing or Malone had Pierce to complement their games, they wouldn't need a 2nd all-star, see Ray Allen type, to be able to win a title. Instead, they'd need the usual combination of the role players: Enforcer (Perks or Oakley), Swingman defensive stopper (Posey or A. Mason), and a scorer off the bench like Eddie House to maintain momentum.