CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics History => Topic started by: SuddenFame on February 05, 2017, 04:23:17 AM
-
I disagree with the assertion that Paul Pierce was a better scorer.
I have no stats to argue either way, just saying using the eye test.
Grew up watching Bird and for my money he was twice the player Paul was, he could just do so many things on the court. And with that silky stroke of his, I just don't understand how people could think for even a second Paul was a better scorer.
Pierce played in the age of the three point shot, so yeah, of course he has more points in his career, duh!
-
Bird also played with the 3pt shot already there..what are you on about. Hr just didn't use it that much because its an era where low post scoring and midrange game was the norm.
Pure scorer as in give him the ball and he could score on any opponent well I would have to say PP but only by a hairline.
But if we are talkin about most valuable offensive Celtic Id have to go with Bird. He is just cold blooded and can rip opponents out in so many ways.
-
My vote is Bird. He played with 2 hall of gamers throughout their entire primes, and 1 hall of famer at the back side of his career.
Ainge wasn't bad too.
Basically Bird didn't have to score as much on those teams.
-
Bird. not even close. Pierce was terrific but everything he could do, Bird did and did it better and was a much better passer.
-
Bird also played with the 3pt shot already there..what are you on about. Hr just didn't use it that much because its an era where low post scoring and midrange game was the norm.
Pure scorer as in give him the ball and he could score on any opponent well I would have to say PP but only by a hairline.
But if we are talkin about most valuable offensive Celtic Id have to go with Bird. He is just cold blooded and can rip opponents out in so many ways.
3pt line was not a staple of the game at that time and in fact was just introduced to the game. teams hadn't worked it into their offenses at that time -- stark contrast to the current NBA that lives on it.
-
Bird is obviously the better player, and better shooter.
I think what Bob Ryan is saying is Pierce had more in his arsenal for pure scoring such as drawing fouls getting to the line, transition buckets ect. Didn't Robert Parish say the same thing who played with Bird? Bird was a killer on the court and there is no comparing their overall game, but I can see what Ryan is saying.
-
I refuse to make a choice. It's like saying who do you love more...your mother or your father. I am not picking and devaluing the other in any way. Love them both the same!!
-
Sorry, but there's just no comparison between the two even in the somewhat manufactured context of "best pure scorer," whatever that really means. Larry is the man and it's not especially close.
This is largely a generational discussion and a nice way of welcoming Paul back home today. If you're too young [or weren't alive yet] to have seen and fully appreciated Larry in all of his imperial majesty it makes sense that you're gonna side with Paul, the preeminent star of a more contemporary Celtic era. There's nothing wrong with that and, certainly, it's nice to see the deep respect and affection for him, his stellar career in Boston and the vital role he played in the restoration of the Cs historic championship aura.
Larry is not only a Celtics legend and multiple champion but a hoop immortal, one of the greatest players of any era, of all time.
-
I think what Bob Ryan is saying is Pierce had more in his arsenal for pure scoring such as drawing fouls getting to the line, transition buckets ect. Didn't Robert Parish say the same thing who played with Bird? Bird was a killer on the court and there is no comparing their overall game, but I can see what Ryan is saying.
Bird's ability to shoot with both hands and he made more variety of shots gives him a much larger arsenal. If Bird played in the no hand check era, then we would not be having this discussion. In his era, he has fouled more than PP, but they were not fouls in those days. If you take this in consideration, which I am guessing most did not, then the foul line argument is moot.
-
Bird also played with the 3pt shot already there..what are you on about. Hr just didn't use it that much because its an era where low post scoring and midrange game was the norm.
Pure scorer as in give him the ball and he could score on any opponent well I would have to say PP but only by a hairline.
But if we are talkin about most valuable offensive Celtic Id have to go with Bird. He is just cold blooded and can rip opponents out in so many ways.
3pt line was not a staple of the game at that time and in fact was just introduced to the game. teams hadn't worked it into their offenses at that time -- stark contrast to the current NBA that lives on it.
TP
I didn't think I would have to explain this to forum members
-
I refuse to make a choice. It's like saying who do you love more...your mother or your father. I am not picking and devaluing the other in any way. Love them both the same!!
The thread is, by no means, not meants as a putdown of Paul Pierce or his basketball skills. He'll always be a special player to me :)
It's just that Larry is, to me, one of the ten greatest players ever.
-
But who's saying Paul Pierce is the Celtic's best scorer?
I never ever agreed with that assertion, either. Not trying to be rude, but is this some ESPN thing that their talking about or?
What I do believe is that Pierce has been one of the most underrated stars of his era, of all time.
-
I think what Bob Ryan is saying is Pierce had more in his arsenal for pure scoring such as drawing fouls getting to the line, transition buckets ect. Didn't Robert Parish say the same thing who played with Bird? Bird was a killer on the court and there is no comparing their overall game, but I can see what Ryan is saying.
Bird's ability to shoot with both hands and he made more variety of shots gives him a much larger arsenal. If Bird played in the no hand check era, then we would not be having this discussion. In his era, he has fouled more than PP, but they were not fouls in those days. If you take this in consideration, which I am guessing most did not, then the foul line argument is moot.
I agree. They played in different eras, but Larry was an MVP-level player in his, while Paul was a solid AllStar in his. Comparing their primes, Larry scored more points and shot a higher FG% and 3PT%. It's only in raw FTs that Pierce makes up ground, and that's a product of a less physical game in the Captain's era.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&hint=Larry+Bird&player_id1_select=Larry+Bird&y1=1985&player_id1=birdla01&hint=Paul+Pierce&player_id2_select=Paul+Pierce&y2=2006&player_id2=piercpa01
-
It's Bird. Who's a better pure scorer between peak Bird and this year's IT is a more interesting debate to me.
-
Love Pierce....but he would be coming off the Bench for the 1986 Celtics.
-
If you could combine the '86 and '08 Teams by Position:
Starters:
Dennis Johnson
Ray Allen
Larry Bird
KG
Robert Parish
2nd Unit:
Rondo
Ainge
Pierce
McHale
Perkins
-
Isaiah Thomas :D
Just kidding ... it's Bird.
Bird would be a great three point shooter if he were playing today.
-
If you could combine the '86 and '08 Teams by Position:
Starters:
Dennis Johnson
Ray Allen
Larry Bird
KG
Robert Parish
2nd Unit:
Rondo
Ainge
Pierce
McHale
Perkins
Not knocking your list. But imo move kg to center and chief to bench. Add mchale to starters.
I'd love to see ainge vs ray. Danny was an incredible athlete and I think his all around game might win out.
-
If you could combine the '86 and '08 Teams by Position:
Starters:
Dennis Johnson
Ray Allen
Larry Bird
KG
Robert Parish
2nd Unit:
Rondo
Ainge
Pierce
McHale
Perkins
Not knocking your list. But imo move kg to center and chief to bench. Add mchale to starters.
I'd love to see ainge vs ray. Danny was an incredible athlete and I think his all around game might win out.
My Starters are 5 Hall of Famers, playing their actual positions......Bench, 2 HOF's
-
Love Pierce....but he would be coming off the Bench for the 1986 Celtics.
Hmm...
Maybe. He fits the Hondo profile.
I'd love to have both Bird and PP in there, though. Maybe bring Danny off the pine.
-
If you could combine the '86 and '08 Teams by Position:
Starters:
Dennis Johnson
Ray Allen
Larry Bird
KG
Robert Parish
2nd Unit:
Rondo
Ainge
Pierce
McHale
Perkins
Not knocking your list. But imo move kg to center and chief to bench. Add mchale to starters.
I'd love to see ainge vs ray. Danny was an incredible athlete and I think his all around game might win out.
My Starters are 5 Hall of Famers, playing their actual positions......Bench, 2 HOF's
Too many HOF to choose from! Guess for center depends if the team is playing 86 centers or 08 centers. So danny vs ray?
-
If you could combine the '86 and '08 Teams by Position:
Starters:
Dennis Johnson
Ray Allen
Larry Bird
KG
Robert Parish
2nd Unit:
Rondo
Ainge
Pierce
McHale
Perkins
Not knocking your list. But imo move kg to center and chief to bench. Add mchale to starters.
I'd love to see ainge vs ray. Danny was an incredible athlete and I think his all around game might win out.
Also Bill Walton over Perk. Perk's the end of bench guy who comes out when we need some heads knocked 80s style.
-
Couldn't remember exact year when guys were injured but walton, scotty wedman and jerry schisting were a great bench. I'd add in greg kite was arguably at perks level but didn't get the pt that perk had.
-
Bird came from a more physical league and didn't shoot the 3 as much. I think Bird would've gone wild in the no hand check age with the flagrant fouls etc... Hard to compare but I clearly think Bird was better with a higher level of competition.
-
Actually, the only reason this is close is optics. Bird actually was a pretty good athlete, but he couldn't jump, and he was below average laterally. It just looked harder for Bird.
Pierce was a much more fluid and explosive athlete, with an almost perfect balance of every important offensive skill. He missed, but he never looked like he couldn't get off his shot.
But if you then consider the numbers and the actual performances, while Pierce posted numbers that were worthy of a major star, the numbers say Bird was substantially more efficient. He was the founding member of the 50-40-90 club.
Either guy could go out in a big game and beat you practically by himself. But Bird did it more often, and he did it with less shots.
-
Actually, the only reason this is close is optics. Bird actually was a pretty good athlete, but he couldn't jump, and he was below average laterally. It just looked harder for Bird.
Pierce was a much more fluid and explosive athlete, with an almost perfect balance of every important offensive skill. He missed, but he never looked like he couldn't get off his shot.
But if you then consider the numbers and the actual performances, while Pierce posted numbers that were worthy of a major star, the numbers say Bird was substantially more efficient. He was the founding member of the 50-40-90 club.
Either guy could go out in a big game and beat you practically by himself. But Bird did it more often, and he did it with less shots.
Bird could beat you with little or no shots. LB could beat you with steals, rebounds and passing.Truly unique basketball genius!
-
Only 2 drunk people should have this convo...is this really a debate? Not taking anything away from Paul but he's never been nor will he ever be recognized as being on Larry Legends level.
Paul was great but Larry is greatNESS!!