Parish: Pierce "best offensive player in Celtics history"

[Venti Quattro]

Parish: Pierce best Celtics offensive player ever
Posted by Gary Washburn Globe Staff
August 9, 2010 03:51 PM

Robert Parish did little to hide his admiration for Paul Pierce, who agreed to a four-year contract extension after this season and should retire a Celtic. When asked about Pierce and whether he deserves to have his jersey retired, Parish lavished "The Truth" with compliments.

I think Paul Pierce, the way he manufactures points is the best player the Celtics have seen thus far," Parish told the Globe. "That's saying a lot because you are talking about John Havlicek, [who] was the best offensive player that the Celtics had, the way he manufactures points. But Paul Pierce has them all beat. He’s got the Sam Joneses, the (Don) Nelsons, the Tommy Heinsohns, Jones, Havlicek, (Larry) Bird, (Kevin) McHale, myself. Paul Pierce is the best offensive player the Celtics have seen thus far."

Pierce is third in scoring for the Celtics, trailing Havlicek and Bird and is 101 points short of 20,000. Pierce averages 22.5 points per game, compared to 24.3 for Bird and 20.8 for Havlicek.

Said Parish, "[Pierce's] number will be retired once he retires. And if they don’t retire it, then it’s a travesty to justice."

Woah. The Chief doesn't know what he got himself into

[scanry]

IMO Bird is probably the best Celtic of all time. If you talking about offense, then Pierce is up there right behind Bird.

[Brazil]

thats a huge compliment

[lebomb]

Bird was better overall IMHO.............Pierce next maybe.

[cd98]

Bird was by far the better player. At least he had one of the biggest turnarounds in NBA history when he joined the lowly Celtics. But it seems to me that he always got the Celtics to the playoffs, something Pierce can't claim. In fairness, Bird had better teams, but he also made his teammates better.

[ambchang]

This is what happens when you smoke too much pot.

[hater]

Pierce all around offensive game > Bird's

but Bird's 3pt shooting and clutchness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierce

[lefty]

Does Parrish hate Bird or what?


There is NO way Pierce is better than Bird


Heck, Havlicek was better than PP

[lefty]

Pierce all around offensive game > Bird's

but Bird's 3pt shooting and clutchness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pierce

[in2deep]

Honestly, if Bird was black or Pierce was white, most ppl would say Pierce > Bird.

IMO they are very close, Pierce could have easily won multiple rings in Bird's Celtic team.

definitely Bird was more clutch. No doubt about that.

[Killakobe81]

Pierce is a better driver and 1 on1 perimeter defender that is about it ...

Bird is the better:

3pt Shooter
FT Shooter
Passer
Clutch shooter (though Pierce IS clutch too)

And is a top 10 all-time player .... Pierce is a great player too but not in THAT class ...

[DAF86]

I didn't get the chance to see all the great players in Celtics history but I seriously doubt that Paul "I will slowly/awkwardly drive towards an oponent's body and verbally flop so that I can get a call" Pierce is the best offensive player of a franchise with so much history.

[hater]

Bird never left the court in a wheelchair to come back next game.

/thread

[Chieflion]

Pierce is a better driver and 1 on1 perimeter defender that is about it ...

Bird is the better:

3pt Shooter
FT Shooter
Passer
Clutch shooter (though Pierce IS clutch too)

And is a top 10 all-time player .... Pierce is a great player too but not in THAT class ...

I disagree with the notion that Bird was the better 3 point shooter. He became better at it on the later part of his career, he didn't take it a lot during his first few years because the line was just established and it wasn't a huge part of offense like the modern era. I think he gets overrated for his 3-point shooting for that All-Star weekend 3 point shootout. I have to discredit him for not showing that in the early part of his career.

I think Pierce is the better shooter even if it is a slight margin because he shoots at a higher volume and maintains a high percentage except for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 season, when he was horrible from there. Otherwise, he usually maintains higher than 34%, which equates to 51% shooting from 2, sometimes reaching up to 41.4%, which was this year's career high.

[pauls931]

Bird was a much better passer than Pierce, go back an watch videos, this guy was the 2nd and sometimes best player in the league constantly butting heads with Magic Johnson. Had ice blood in his veins. My first 'favorite' player growing up as a kid.

[Ashy Larry]

Inglewood's finest is probably the best offensive player in the that team's history ..... Atleast in the top 2 or 3 four sure. Bird might have something to say about that ....

[JamStone]

Bird never left the court in a wheelchair to come back next game.

/thread

Next game? Try 15 minutes later and then consequently going Michael Jordan upon his return.

[JamStone]

I don't agree with the statement but I don't think it's an outrageous one.

And who the overall better player is/was is not at issue. Chief specifically said "offensive" player. Pierce may be the better defender, which I actually think is debatable, but that shouldn't be something used to refute the initial comment.

Pierce is a better post-up player and I actually like his midrange game slightly better. Not midrange jumper, but midrange game, where he can get into triple threat position and either shoot, drive, or pass, and moreover can turn and continue to back down his defender for even better position. But Bird was obviously a better shooter, was a very good play-maker for his size and position, and because of his size at that position, in his prime, he was a very effective offensive rebounder.

It's one of those "era comparison" things as well. Bird played most of his prime years in an era where there were very few great defensive teams and defensive players. In today's NBA, almost every team has at least one perimeter defensive specialist, even bad teams. Most teams have way more intricate defensive schemes. Bird would play probably 75-80% of his games against Golden State Warrior defense. But Pierce also has the advantage of playing in a more superstar friendly league. Most of his career, Bird averaged 5-6 free throw attempts a game. Today, a lot of the better players in the league average around 10 or more FTA a game. Corey Maggette averaged more FTA per game in his career than Bird in almost 10 fewer minutes per game. The way the league is played and officiated today for superstars and some stars very likely helps offset the improved defense since the 80s. There are different things like that to consider.

Bird was a better shooter but if you look at true shooting percentages, it's very similar for the two players. And Pierce does have some advantages on offense over Bird, and vice versa. Most people would say Bird and I'd agree with it. But I don't think it is a ridiculous comment. Pierce is easy not to like but he's been a very good and in some seasons great offensive player in his career.

[Cane]

Imo what Parish is saying is that Paul Pierce is the best flopper the Celtics have seen and no one in the history of the Boston Celtics comes close to his acting especially since the refs fall for it :

"I think Paul Pierce, the way he manufactures points is the best player the Celtics have seen thus far," Parish told the Globe. "That's saying a lot because you are talking about John Havlicek, [who] was the best offensive player that the Celtics had, the way he manufactures points. But Paul Pierce has them all beat. He’s got the Sam Joneses, the (Don) Nelsons, the Tommy Heinsohns, Jones, Havlicek, (Larry) Bird, (Kevin) McHale, myself. Paul Pierce is the best offensive player the Celtics have seen thus far."

[Ashy Larry]

I don't agree with the statement but I don't think it's an outrageous one.

And who the overall better player is/was is not at issue. Chief specifically said "offensive" player. Pierce may be the better defender, which I actually think is debatable, but that shouldn't be something used to refute the initial comment.

Pierce is a better post-up player and I actually like his midrange game slightly better. Not midrange jumper, but midrange game, where he can get into triple threat position and either shoot, drive, or pass, and moreover can turn and continue to back down his defender for even better position. But Bird was obviously a better shooter, was a very good play-maker for his size and position, and because of his size at that position, in his prime, he was a very effective offensive rebounder.

It's one of those "era comparison" things as well. Bird played most of his prime years in an era where there were very few great defensive teams and defensive players. In today's NBA, almost every team has at least one perimeter defensive specialist, even bad teams. Most teams have way more intricate defensive schemes. Bird would play probably 75-80% of his games against Golden State Warrior defense. But Pierce also has the advantage of playing in a more superstar friendly league. Most of his career, Bird averaged 5-6 free throw attempts a game. Today, a lot of the better players in the league average around 10 or more FTA a game. Corey Maggette averaged more FTA per game in his career than Bird in almost 10 fewer minutes per game. The way the league is played and officiated today for superstars and some stars very likely helps offset the improved defense since the 80s. There are different things like that to consider.

Bird was a better shooter but if you look at true shooting percentages, it's very similar for the two players. And Pierce does have some advantages on offense over Bird, and vice versa. Most people would say Bird and I'd agree with it. But I don't think it is a ridiculous comment. Pierce is easy not to like but he's been a very good and in some seasons great offensive player in his career.

basically

[Ashy Larry]

You think so. Bird has been in every top 10 list that I've seen on here and other sites. I would give the defensive edge to PP, and now people are saying he's the best offensive player that Boston has ever had. Would you put PP in the top 10 players of all time? PP is not even a top 50 player in my book.

Like Jam previously stated. It's debatable ....... I wouldn't put Pierce over Bird as far a Small Forwards on any list goes. But in that franchise, I only see Pierce behind Larry as far as scorers go.

[024]

i really like pierce's offensive game. it's so complete, especially when he got that consistent 3 pt shot. he can pretty much score in any way possible - off screens, isos, pull ups, drives, and even some post game. i've never seen bird play live though so i wouldn't know who was better.

[Drachen]

Perhaps Parish was insulting PP, as in "his game is so offensive, he has the most offensive game of any Celtic in history"

[Killakobe81]

I don't agree with the statement but I don't think it's an outrageous one.

And who the overall better player is/was is not at issue. Chief specifically said "offensive" player. Pierce may be the better defender, which I actually think is debatable, but that shouldn't be something used to refute the initial comment.

Pierce is a better post-up player and I actually like his midrange game slightly better. Not midrange jumper, but midrange game, where he can get into triple threat position and either shoot, drive, or pass, and moreover can turn and continue to back down his defender for even better position. But Bird was obviously a better shooter, was a very good play-maker for his size and position, and because of his size at that position, in his prime, he was a very effective offensive rebounder.

It's one of those "era comparison" things as well. Bird played most of his prime years in an era where there were very few great defensive teams and defensive players. In today's NBA, almost every team has at least one perimeter defensive specialist, even bad teams. Most teams have way more intricate defensive schemes. Bird would play probably 75-80% of his games against Golden State Warrior defense. But Pierce also has the advantage of playing in a more superstar friendly league. Most of his career, Bird averaged 5-6 free throw attempts a game. Today, a lot of the better players in the league average around 10 or more FTA a game. Corey Maggette averaged more FTA per game in his career than Bird in almost 10 fewer minutes per game. The way the league is played and officiated today for superstars and some stars very likely helps offset the improved defense since the 80s. There are different things like that to consider.

Bird was a better shooter but if you look at true shooting percentages, it's very similar for the two players. And Pierce does have some advantages on offense over Bird, and vice versa. Most people would say Bird and I'd agree with it. But I don't think it is a ridiculous comment. Pierce is easy not to like but he's been a very good and in some seasons great offensive player in his career.

some great points. I don't disagree for the most part ...Paul Pierce is a future HOF'er ... but better offensively than Bird? I'm not sure.

If you say just as pure scorer I'll give you that ...because Pierce has a great pull up jumper, underated post-game and as I said above a better driver to the hoop.

But as you pointed out Bird got less FT's ...always played on a playoff caliber teams so his numbers suffer some in the comparison ...HOWEVER the teams played far more uptempo in the 80's so you have to account for that too.

But I have no bias here I HATED both guys while they played ...and I have watched Paul Pierce since his Kansas days and knew of his game in HS too.

But Bird was a pioneer of the modern NBA. What Bird could do with his vision, playmaking and passing was revolutionary.

Bird
3x MVP,
2 Finals MVP's
dude averaged for his career 24 10 and 6

Finals avarages:

1981 22pts 14rebs and 6 asts
1984 27 11 and 6
1985 26 9 and 8 with 40% 3pt, 93% FT 50% FG !!!!
1986 27 10 and 7 ...
1987 25 8 and 7

That's 3 finals wins 2 losses and amazing consistency ...

And when Bird got hot not that Pierce isnt a dangerous scorer, it just wasnt like what Bird did IMHO ...Though he can be a tool I think simmons talked about this in his Finals and Game 7 previews ...I dont even think many Celtics fans would choose PP>Bird but who knows? This is not something I can back with stats but as kid watching in the 80's Bird just struck a fear in me that maybe only Jordan, duncan Hakeem and a few others as opposing players against the Lakers ...Pierce has some great game againts the Lakers and I'm glad we got artest for him, but never THAT kind of fear ...It's hard to explain.


Pierce had a really good even great Finals in '08 and ripped my team to shreds

Bird has the above numbers with 3 rings and was a leader on 2 other finals teams. Pierce is great bird is an all-timer ...

I'll just say this Artest seemed to do a pretty darn good job on Pierce ...
If Artest came out and said that if Pierce was white "he would just be an average player" then maybe i will buy what Parish was saying ...LOL

But Bird got in to Rodman's head (scary place) when Rodman was at his defensive (not rebounding) peak. Bird dealt with young rodman and fared much better than pierce against a older, slower artest (who is still very good).

[baseline bum]

What the ? Parish repeating one of Heinsohn's drunken ramblings?

Yeah, Bird is so well-regarded because of his suffocating defense!

Man, I wish I knew Robert's weed hook-up.