Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Who was a better Celt, Bird or Pierce?

Voters
7. You may not vote on this poll
  • Larry Bird

    7 100.00%
  • Paul Pierce

    0 0%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    44,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    You seem to think I'm arguing Pierce was better than Bird. I'm not. I've said as much multiple times. I'm arguing Pierce played on worse teams than Bird...Not only in the beginning of their respective careers but throughout (minus the 07-08 team)...I don't even see how this is debatable...
    You spent a lot of time arguing the respective rookie seasons of both. Then argued the state of the team in the 4,3, and 1 year before they joined. I found your stated views to be incorrect. I set those straight.

    The thing that is clear is Bird had a mammoth impact in one of the two greatest W-L turnovers by a franchise from year to year in NBA history.

    Pierce came, had a statistically much lesser impact, and certainly didn't have a positive impact on W-L in his first year.

    The best teams they played for were very comparable. I think the '07-'08 team was deeper actually, then '85-'86 team. Bird was the best player on that team with ease. PP wasn't. Tough when your best year on your best team is in the shadow of a better player.

    KG was 3rd in the MVP voting with 15 first place votes and 438 points overall. PP got no first place votes, tied for 14th, and had 1 point (.001)%.

    Bird also won titles with two other teams that were not as elite, the '81 team had a massively tough ECF vs the 76'ers, the '84 team had the Lakers. Both C's teams won 62 games. They had 3 other 60+ win teams too. Bird had 6 60 win teams, with 3 titles.

    Pierce had two, with one title and a close call.

    In PP's close call season he got .0017% of the MVP Shares. Looks like those close watchers of the NBA did not see PP as crucial to this team.

    In 2007-2008 PP got .001 of an MVP Share (1 point); KG had 15 first places votes for his 3rd place finish (438 points total). Kobe was 1st (bad choice), CP3 was 2nd.

    In Birds 6 seasons at 60+ games he had MVP placements of: 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st

    So you say Bird is better yet discount him because Pierce played with crappier teams. All I know is Bird did great with what he had to work with, rewarded with gobs of MVP's, 1st team all star awards, and all the rest. Bird is 4th all time in MVP Award Shares, 3rd if you use seasons played as a factor.

    Pierce seemed to play the first 8-9 years as if he was playing 1 on 1. No D. No fire. Wasn't a bad guy, just a piece of flotsam on the ocean just doing his thing. From his second season onward to 2007-2008, he was often the runaway leader in WS for the Celts. That's good. But in two years he was basically equaled: In '03-'04 Mark Blount outplayed Pierce. In '06-07 a 22 yr old Jefferson almost outplayed PP. Anderson was near in one year too. Not sure what to make of that.

    It is hard to compare given Bird had better teams, and PP had basically the worst teams in C's history. But when you look at those rookie seasons and those 60+ win seasons where the ground is flatter, Bird blows PP away.

    Bird will be be talked about 50 years after his last game across the country at a rate exceeding Pierce by several 'x', maybe a factor of 10.

    Verdict: Pierce was an overshadowed player re: the NBA, and he left a small wake.
    I am not a con artist! I am a businessman! I have a big brain and I'm good at making deals! People are just jealous of my BIG BRAIN! BAD!

    Guess who? The future X-Presdent...

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    44,367
    Quote Originally Posted by CELTICS4LYFE View Post
    All these new thread so Iíll just ask here....Does KG number get retired?
    I hope so. I'd give up Loscy and a few others. That last title isn't here w/o KG period.
    I am not a con artist! I am a businessman! I have a big brain and I'm good at making deals! People are just jealous of my BIG BRAIN! BAD!

    Guess who? The future X-Presdent...

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,194
    So you say Bird is better yet discount him because Pierce played with crappier teams. All I know is Bird did great with what he had to work with, rewarded with gobs of MVP's, 1st team all star awards, and all the rest. Bird is 4th all time in MVP Award Shares, 3rd if you use seasons played as a factor.
    I didn't discount him at all...Merely said Pierce doesn't get enough credit for the lack of talent he played with. That's all I said. You have the long winded answers fighting something I'm agreeing with haha.


    It is hard to compare given Bird had better teams, and PP had basically the worst teams in C's history. But when you look at those rookie seasons and those 60+ win seasons where the ground is flatter, Bird blows PP away.
    There you go. This is literally my point. Thanks for agreeing.

    Put it like this. Swap Birds and Pierces rookie teams. Pierce on Birds team doesn't win 60 games because Bird was the better player. Bird on Pierces team wins more games. But certainly doesn't win 60 games like he did with his own team as a rookie.

    Hence
    Bird >>> Pierce
    Birds teams >>>Pierce teams

    No slight to Bird here. Just PP played on terrible teams. PP's teams have nothing to do with Bird. Just that PP had a harder road in the NBA. Really doesn't even have anything to do with either player. One just played on a team that had better management/coaching/roster building/direction than the other. Simple as that. Birds still better and it's not that close IMO

    Bird will be be talked about 50 years after his last game across the country at a rate exceeding Pierce by several 'x', maybe a factor of 10.

    Verdict: Pierce was an overshadowed player re: the NBA, and he left a small wake.
    Duh
    Last edited by Oakmont_4; 02-14-2018 at 07:29 AM.

    City of Champions

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    44,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post

    Put it like this. Swap Birds and Pierces rookie teams. Pierce on Birds team doesn't win 60 games because Bird was the better player. Bird on Pierces team wins more games. But certainly doesn't win 60 games like he did with his own team as a rookie.
    I don't know why you can't get past the rookie teams and most of PP's teams sucked arguments.

    PP had two 60+ win teams, Bird had six. I examined those at length, and with teams of similar quality Bird won more rings, and more notice and awards.

    Those years make for a better more level playing field that all the rest of it. Instead we hear about the unequal teams, and the unequal rookie teams.

    PP's team lost guys from the year before, PP came in. The net WS probably favored a drop of 7 wins from the 36 the year before. Instead it was a drop of 17.

    Bird's team lost lots of guys, some were real trash. He came in with 3 other guys for about 20 WS total, the guys that stayed generally played better and longer - about +10 WS. They should have won 60, they got 61. #1 SRS team in the NBA with an excellent +7.37.

    One guy led a transformation. The other guy didn't. Wilt, Jordan, Jabbar, James - none of them could have won 61 games with PP's rookie team. Big deal, it's a rigged argument. The fact is Pierce didn't really do anything with that team which is probably what I said in my first post on that topic.

    No slight to Bird here. Just PP played on terrible teams.
    You're still modifying the simple statement - Bird was better. So if PP played on Bird's teams would he have been as good or better than Bird? No you said. OK, then a modification of the initial statement isn't necessary.

    Just that PP had a harder road in the NBA.
    PP didn't suffer Bird's injury, that wasn't as tough.

    So your summary is:

    -- Bird was better.

    -- But, Pierce played for much worse teams.

    -- But, even with the same teams, mgt, etc. PP wouldn't have been as good.

    -- Bird was better.


    You are welcome in advance.
    I am not a con artist! I am a businessman! I have a big brain and I'm good at making deals! People are just jealous of my BIG BRAIN! BAD!

    Guess who? The future X-Presdent...

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,194
    I don't know why you can't get past the rookie teams and most of PP's teams sucked arguments.
    Get past it? That was the entirety of my original point that you responded to. It's literally the topic of this conversation.

    PP had two 60+ win teams, Bird had six. I examined those at length, and with teams of similar quality Bird won more rings, and more notice and awards.
    Yup...Because he was a better player on better teams.. Naturally Bird's more successful. Again, it's just an understated part of PP's career that he played with trash for 95% of his career. Bird did not.
    Those years make for a better more level playing field that all the rest of it. Instead we hear about the unequal teams, and the unequal rookie teams.
    How so?


    One guy led a transformation. The other guy didn't. Wilt, Jordan, Jabbar, James - none of them could have won 61 games with PP's rookie team. Big deal, it's a rigged argument. The fact is Pierce didn't really do anything with that team which is probably what I said in my first post on that topic.
    And nobody else could have either so why is that a knock against Pierce?


    PP didn't suffer Bird's injury, that wasn't as tough.

    So your summary is:

    -- Bird was better.

    -- But, Pierce played for much worse teams.

    -- But, even with the same teams, mgt, etc. PP wouldn't have been as good.

    -- Bird was better.
    For the 3rd time...Yes

    You are welcome in advance
    Welcome for what? You've still proved nothing to my original point that you responded to and continue to take it off topic...

    City of Champions

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,552
    This is actually a serious discussion going on? Really?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    new hampshire
    Posts
    9,845
    Bird. Not even close IMO.

    Larry has multiple MVP's and multiple titles. Although Pierce has better overall career totals on his stats that is about it. Larry was a better defender, passer, scorer(debatable but I do believe he was better scorer) and lead his team to muptiple playoff runs and multiple titles.

    All time Celtics I take: Bird, Russell, Havlicek....you can debate the order of those 3....

    after that I think you can argue Pierce is as high as 4th but absolutely not higher than that.
    El Presidente

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    44,367
    Quote Originally Posted by CELTICS4LYFE View Post
    All these new thread so Iíll just ask here....Does KG number get retired?
    As one of the five best players ever to play for the Celts and the key to the only title in a 32 year span I say yes. It wasn't his choice that he left the C's, or his age when he came. He put up in some measures the greatest season ever by a Celt. Also since nobody else than PP from that team will be honored it makes sense to dub KG.

    Arguably KG has as much or more right to be in as Lewis, Sanders, or Loscy.
    I am not a con artist! I am a businessman! I have a big brain and I'm good at making deals! People are just jealous of my BIG BRAIN! BAD!

    Guess who? The future X-Presdent...

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    4
    Larry Bird obviously - he has multiple MVP's and multiple titles

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •