If Paul Pierce PLayed for Miami

[PPAW4Life]

If Wade was healthy and the Heat didn't trade for malcontents they wouldn't be this bad....they'd be at least .500 ball club with a healthy Shaq.

Wade missed two+ weeks to start the season and the Heat have never recovered.....they're in a big hole and their demeanor to the season is evident.

It's a lost season for them.

[Jimmy103]

If Wade was healthy and the Heat didn't trade for malcontents they wouldn't be this bad....they'd be at least .500 ball club with a healthy Shaq.

Wade missed two+ weeks to start the season and the Heat have never recovered.....they're in a big hole and their demeanor to the season is evident.

It's a lost season for them.

Do you remember Larry Bird ever chalking up a "lost season" in his prime?

[numbas]

oh please.

the bottom line is... there isnt a top 10 player in the league that would go 8-20something. it just WOULD NOT happen. nash, amare, duncan, kg, lebron, kobe, dwight, and YES, PAUL PIERCE have NEVER let their teams play that poorly.

go back to any of paul's worst years, his worst celtics teams, and NONE of them started that badly.

wade benefits from touch fouls, a lack of carry calls, and a puppy dog face. im not saying he's a bad player. he's an all star. he has an all star skillset. what im saying is those non-skill related benefits make him look better than he actually is. he has some loud finishes and gets tv time from free throws. therefore he's popular. he's not better than paul pierce though. pierce is a better shooter, post scorer, rebounder. he's an equal defender and near equal passer. wade slashes better, but not by a huge margin. paul is the better all around player. Situational Wins and Losses proves this... and an analysis of their skills proves this.

You guys need to give me something better than "oh but his team sucks" and "but Dwade is nasty".

Im not sure if its possible for a team to suck more than the one Pierce played for last year. And they played better than the '07-'08 heat until Pierce got hurt.

ok first wade has only played in 25 games this season and when hes playing the heat r 7-18 and im sure their has been another star to go 7-18 sumtime in the season which is not over who says they dont win 35 to 40 games which shuts u down their

OK AND THIS ONE IS GUNNA REALLYYYY HURT

this heat team this year scores less and allows more points per game then the celtics team did last year which had the second fewest wins in the nba and to top that off before wade came back to the heat they averaged ONLYYYY 83 points a game this is no lies check the stats so this shows the surrounding players played better period not whether u think whos better than who

and wade as u say getting away with alot of stuff ya well wether u think he does or not its called star treatment they all get it and if u get it then take advantage i mean look how many so called stars their r theri get the star treatment and look how many teams have one a title in teh apst 27 years only 7 and i dont wanna hear cuz he had shaq shaw averaged onyl 13 or 14 a game in the finals but yes obviously they werent a bad team if they won the finals but wade single handly won ever game himself with the help of calls or not he hit the shots and MADE THE PLAYS

and last even if u think pierce is a better player y do u think theyll go from 8 wins to atleast 6th seed ur saying hes single handly that much better that would mean hes one of the best to ever play so impact the game that much to double the teams wins 32 games into the season in which wade has only played 25 which their 7-18 in and 1-6 without him

I WIN

[GuyClinch]

It's not so much that Wade is overrated - it's Pierce is underrated. Remember KG led his team to 32 wins last year while being 100% healthy. So Wade is doing about as poorly with an equally untalented team. That's not so awful.

Despite what people say about Paul - he is actually very good at making his teamates better, IMHO. Getting to the ECF when your second best player is Antione Walker?

What's great about Paul is that he is so well rounded with his game. He can pass, shoot, slash, rebound, and even hurt people in the post. I suppose I will get flamed for saying this but the good shooting but less athletic 2007 version of Pierce is starting to reminding me a touch of Larry Bird.

And I have to say my memory of LB is different the rest of Boston fans I think. While now he is universally loved back in the day he seemed to never hear the end of it for being slow, unathletic, and yes a bit of a ball hog. Granted maybe I knew too many Knick/Laker fans..but the LB can do no wrong vibe that we get nowadays wasn't universally present back in the day.

Pete

[s1ickd]

It's not so much that Wade is overrated - it's Pierce is underrated. Remember KG led his team to 32 wins last year while being 100% healthy. So Wade is doing about as poorly with an equally untalented team. That's not so awful.

Despite what people say about Paul - he is actually very good at making his teamates better, IMHO. Getting to the ECF when your second best player is Antione Walker?

What's great about Paul is that he is so well rounded with his game. He can pass, shoot, slash, rebound, and even hurt people in the post. I suppose I will get flamed for saying this but the good shooting but less athletic 2007 version of Pierce is starting to reminding me a touch of Larry Bird.

And I have to say my memory of LB is different the rest of Boston fans I think. While now he is universally loved back in the day he seemed to never hear the end of it for being slow, unathletic, and yes a bit of a ball hog. Granted maybe I knew too many Knick/Laker fans..but the LB can do no wrong vibe that we get nowadays wasn't universally present back in the day.

Pete

ill agree with this.

what i will say about wade is that he's still very young and will eventually round out his arsenal of talents. i think people get too enamored with potential and highlights sometimes.

and to that "i win" character, your post was incoherent, had no major sticking points, and was mostly unreadable. this isn't a board game commercial.

by the way... it doesnt matter how many points shaq averaged. the points he got were dunks, putbacks, freethrows. free points. the fact is, he's a PRESENCE inside. he contests shots, and rebounds like a beast. at the very least, he's intimidating and requires double teams. points per game does not measure shaq's impact.

[sittinOnGreen]

people so underrate Shaq's impact in those finals..its ridiculous

[AWalkerREMIX]

Swap Pierce and Wade.

If Paul Pierce played with Shaq, Ricky Davis, Haslem, and with Pat Riley as his head coach... that team is a 6 seed, minimum. Theres no way he would allow that team to be as bad as they are now.

Think about it, that team would be AT LEAST as good as that 05 team with payton and walker that made the playoffs.

i think wade is totaly overrated.

I completely agree.

[PPAW4Life]

-= original quote snipped =-



Do you remember Larry Bird ever chalking up a "lost season" in his prime?

Any season where Bird didn't make an NBA Finals is a "lost season".

So '82, '83, '87, and '88 were lost seasons.

[Rondo_Fan]

I'm so sick of hearing how Pierce makes players around him better.

Does anyone think that if you swap KG out of this team for Eddie Curry or Zack Randolph, leaving Pierce in place, that we are playing with anything like our current defensive intensity or team spirit?

In other words, does this team gel the way that it has around Pierce, instead of around KG?

Does Pierce set standards for intensity, behavior, teamwork, etc. and hold everyone accountable to meeting them?

Give me a break.

You guys just do not get it.

You do not understand that someone can be a fantastic individual talent, but not the best leader in the world.

You don't accept the idea that both things can be part of the same person; you think that you have to pick one or the other.

It is true, though, that Pierce would have won a championship with Wade.

Larry Bird was always a team player. I can't remember when anybody said that he wasn't, or even thought such a thing. To me, his passing was always the most impressive part of his game. I started watching the Cs when Havlicek was still playing, so it's not like I missed any part of the Bird era or anything. What Bird wasn't was a Rah Rah guy. He didn't do stuff like Garnett does to build up the self-esteem of role players. But he was never a selfish player on the court. Actions speak louder than words.

[numbas]

-= original quote snipped =-



ill agree with this.

what i will say about wade is that he's still very young and will eventually round out his arsenal of talents. i think people get too enamored with potential and highlights sometimes.

and to that "i win" character, your post was incoherent, had no major sticking points, and was mostly unreadable. this isn't a board game commercial.

by the way... it doesnt matter how many points shaq averaged. the points he got were dunks, putbacks, freethrows. free points. the fact is, he's a PRESENCE inside. he contests shots, and rebounds like a beast. at the very least, he's intimidating and requires double teams. points per game does not measure shaq's impact.

ok im just gunna state this to get the shaq thing out of the way i was underating wut he did in the finals and ur overating it becuz arguably wen zo was in they played no worse

and um i said i win becuz i did win this argument ur just so hell bent on thinking ur 100% right,

the MAJOR sticking point of my post was that the heat team this year averages less points a game and gives up more points per game than the CELTICS team of last year which had second worst record in nba so how can u say that if pierce were on thsi team they would be atleast a 6 seed u absolutly cant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just becuz theirs more names on the heat doesnt mean that their good

[GuyClinch]

I'm so sick of hearing how Pierce makes players around him better.

Aww. I know it's tough for a hater.

Does anyone think that if you swap KG out of this team for Eddie Curry or Zack Randolph, leaving Pierce in place, that we are playing with anything like our current defensive intensity or team spirit?

Of course not - those guys suck. Actually back when PP came in from his injury there was talk from guys like Jefferson and West about how Pierce did this. But haters like you will gloss over that. PP played with more intensity and professionalism then our youngsters - and that's why when he was on the court his team did better. He is more a leader by example then a vocal leader though.

I wasn't though talking so much about his "leadership" but rather because of his versatile game he can pick up a team wherever he needs it. KG is a better vocal leader but my point was PLAYING with PP makes you a better player. And that's because of his complete game.

It's less flashy then some of the other stars - but very effective. PP talked about how awesome his defense would be with someone to cover his back like KG and low and behold he is just shutting people down ala Artest out there.

Pete

[Rondo_Fan]

I wasn't though talking so much about his "leadership" but rather because of his versatile game he can pick up a team wherever he needs it. KG is a better vocal leader but my point was PLAYING with PP makes you a better player. And that's because of his complete game.

You aren't talking about Pierce's leadership 1) because it isn't there, and 2) because you don't recognize how important leadership is in the first place.

Tom Brady is not in the top 10 quarterbacks that I've seen in my lifetime in terms of physical talent. But he is a leader. He has his team focused every single week on playing the game. That is not a little thing. That is everything, as in you win a championship with it, and without it, you don't.

All 30 gms in the league would take KG over Pierce. And none of them would think more than 2 seconds about it.

In case you've ever wondered what denial felt like, you're experiencing now. It almost seems like it's reality, doesn't it?

[GuyClinch]

You aren't talking about Pierce's leadership 1) because it isn't there, and 2) because you don't recognize how important leadership is in the first place.

They win alot more with him on the court. Is it leadership or talent? Who can say - I know you sure the heck can't.

Tom Brady is not in the top 10 quarterbacks that I've seen in my lifetime in terms of physical talent. But he is a leader. He has his team focused every single week on playing the game. That is not a little thing. That is everything, as in you win a championship with it, and without it, you don't.

Have you seen Tom Brady play up close and personal? The guy has a GREAT arm. It's funny people like you spout this crap and really don't know much about the game. Tommy Brady can really put some zip on the ball and with a very quick release. More and more announcers are figuring this out - of course the victory in the long toss in the battle of the quarterbacks for Tom might have clued them in a touch..

All 30 gms in the league would take KG over Pierce. And none of them would think more than 2 seconds about it.

And that's relevant to your PP hating agenda how? I think all those GM's would take Lebron or Dwight Howard as well. So what?!

In case you've ever wondered what denial felt like, you're experiencing now. It almost seems like it's reality, doesn't it?

Your drifting more and more into nonsense with each post. Bottom line is some of thought Paul was a great player stuck on a crappy team (not the greatest player ever mind you) others thought he was an overrated above average player on a decent team.

That argument has been settled. If you want to argue something else like how Paul doesn't lead as well as KG (like OMG those 34 wins were so awesome) or whatever be my guest. That stuff is pure conjecture though as we only get second hand information on leadership (or lack thereof).

And no I don't think leadership is the be-all and end all in hoops. MJ was a cocky bore (from the accounts I heard) and his team was awesome. The critical factor in winning basketball games is having great players on the court. Leadership in the absence of superior basketball skills is pretty meaningless.

Again PP didn't hurt his team with lack of "leadership" anymore then KG brought his team down to its lofty lottery spot with his "leadership" or Ray Allen brought his team down with his "leadership." This guys all had crappy teams because they got stuck with crappy players.

It really is that simple..

Pete

[Rondo_Fan]

You aren't talking about Pierce's leadership 1) because it isn't there, and 2) because you don't recognize how important leadership is in the first place.

They win alot more with him on the court. Is it leadership or talent? Who can say - I know you sure the heck can't.

Tom Brady is not in the top 10 quarterbacks that I've seen in my lifetime in terms of physical talent. But he is a leader. He has his team focused every single week on playing the game. That is not a little thing. That is everything, as in you win a championship with it, and without it, you don't.

Have you seen Tom Brady play up close and personal? The guy has a GREAT arm. It's funny people like you spout this crap and really don't know much about the game. Tommy Brady can really put some zip on the ball and with a very quick release. More and more announcers are figuring this out - of course the victory in the long toss in the battle of the quarterbacks for Tom might have clued them in a touch..

All 30 gms in the league would take KG over Pierce. And none of them would think more than 2 seconds about it.

And that's relevant to your PP hating agenda how? I think all those GM's would take Lebron or Dwight Howard as well. So what?!

In case you've ever wondered what denial felt like, you're experiencing now. It almost seems like it's reality, doesn't it?

Your drifting more and more into nonsense with each post. Bottom line is some of thought Paul was a great player stuck on a crappy team (not the greatest player ever mind you) others thought he was an overrated above average player on a decent team.

That argument has been settled. If you want to argue something else like how Paul doesn't lead as well as KG (like OMG those 34 wins were so awesome) or whatever be my guest. That stuff is pure conjecture though as we only get second hand information on leadership (or lack thereof).

And no I don't think leadership is the be-all and end all in hoops. MJ was a cocky bore (from the accounts I heard) and his team was awesome. The critical factor in winning basketball games is having great players on the court. Leadership in the absence of superior basketball skills is pretty meaningless.

Again PP didn't hurt his team with lack of "leadership" anymore then KG brought his team down to its lofty lottery spot with his "leadership" or Ray Allen brought his team down with his "leadership." This guys all had crappy teams because they got stuck with crappy players.

It really is that simple..

Pete

No, it isn't that simple, unless you have a simple mind.

There are tons of teams that are "good on paper", in all sports, that are not good on the court. Leadership and chemistry are not small things.

Lots and lots of basketball superstar pairings have not worked out, the most recent example being Melo-AI. Or what about just down 95, with Curry-Randolf-Marbury? You don't just throw guys with good numbers out on the court and expect that their numbers on paper will add up to a good team.

We had this discussion on another thread, with some people claiming that chemistry doesn't matter. Well, maybe they should try to get jobs with basketball teams. They would save them a lot of money, because right now they spend money on things like psychological evaluations and tests, as do lots of other companies and businesses, to see how guys will fit into their team, or business model. Sure, you can't win without talent, but you can definitely still lose with it.

If you singlehandedly take over games, cutting out your teammates, and win NBA championships, then you're Michael Jordan. If you singlehandedly take over games, cutting out your teammates, and your team doesn't go anywhere, then you're John Starks. I don't want Rondo playing like Piston Pete--he can't win that way. And I don't want Paul Pierce leading like Michael Jordan.

You say that the argument has been settled, yet despite my asking you about 10 times, and other posters chipping in, you won't compare Paul Pierce's numbers to Richard Jefferson's. Why? Cat got your tongue. According to you:

others thought he was an overrated above average player on a decent team.

That argument has been settled.

Not for me it hasn't, until you deal with the facts of what Pierce did for his team and what those players do for their teams. Stick to the facts, please. Start with Richard Jefferson and then move on to Michael Webb.

[GuyClinch]

Lots and lots of basketball superstar pairings have not worked out, the most recent example being Melo-AI. Or what about just down 95, with Curry-Randolf-Marbury? You don't just throw guys with good numbers out on the court and expect that their numbers on paper will add up to a good team.

Psshaw. Those teams aren't nearly AS GOOD talent wise as PP-RA-KG. Some would say that AI isn't good at all. As much as I have knocked Wages of Win for being suspect..

I got to say there are looking pretty good right now. KG routinely ranks #1 (or close to it) in Win Shares of active players..

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ctive.html

Ray Allen has ranked better then Kobe and is top 20 - Paul Pierce ranks in at 26 despite playing on some god awful teams.

Statistically NO TEAM matches the big 3's statistical likelyness of being great. Having three players this good together is incredibly unusual in the NBA.

Your other "pairings' don't even make the list? AI-Melo-Camby not even in the SAME BALLPARK. We have a #1 guy where AI is what 26. God knows where Melo ranks - maybe he cracks top 50.

Using PP (2005-2006) numbers (as he missed most of last year) PP had 26, 30 for KG and 16 for Ray Allen.

So is it any wonder that I predicted a 60+ win season? Not if you do the math... Anyway that's why everyone harped on our BENCH bringing us down. Because anyone with a brain in his head knew pairing the only good player on the Celtics with the best player in the NBA and a top flight (SG) in Ray Allen was a recipe for domination.

If by chemistry you mean our guys aren't stat whores like some of the young bucks we used to have - I agree with you. But I wouldn't call that leadership per say..

Pete

[Rondo_Fan]

Lots and lots of basketball superstar pairings have not worked out, the most recent example being Melo-AI. Or what about just down 95, with Curry-Randolf-Marbury? You don't just throw guys with good numbers out on the court and expect that their numbers on paper will add up to a good team.

Psshaw. Those teams aren't nearly AS GOOD talent wise as PP-RA-KG. Some would say that AI isn't good at all. As much as I have knocked Wages of Win for being suspect..

I got to say there are looking pretty good right now. KG routinely ranks #1 (or close to it) in Win Shares of active players..

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ctive.html

Ray Allen has ranked better then Kobe and is top 20 - Paul Pierce ranks in at 26 despite playing on some god awful teams.

Statistically NO TEAM matches the big 3's statistical likelyness of being great. Having three players this good together is incredibly unusual in the NBA.

Your other "pairings' don't even make the list? AI-Melo-Camby not even in the SAME BALLPARK. We have a #1 guy where AI is what 26. God knows where Melo ranks - maybe he cracks top 50.

Using PP (2005-2006) numbers (as he missed most of last year) PP had 26, 30 for KG and 16 for Ray Allen.

So is it any wonder that I predicted a 60+ win season? Not if you do the math... Anyway that's why everyone harped on our BENCH bringing us down. Because anyone with a brain in his head knew pairing the only good player on the Celtics with the best player in the NBA and a top flight (SG) in Ray Allen was a recipe for domination.

If by chemistry you mean our guys aren't stat whores like some of the young bucks we used to have - I agree with you. But I wouldn't call that leadership per say..

Pete

So your point is basically this: We are an exceptional team because of KG, without even taking into account leadership qualities, because Pierce-Allen are just regular guys compared to other good teams, using the win shares. (Last post.)

Or is it this: We are an exceptional team because of Paul Pierce. He just needed some veteran help. (All of the other posts.)

You seem stuck on the second point, even while citing evidence that supports the first one.

I think on the post-victory cigar threads, in your honor, I'm going to start referring to players as:

Paul Pierce
Veteran Help for Paul Pierce #1 (The Tall One)
Veteran Help for Paul Pierce #2 (The One That Can Shoot)
Young Point Guard, Not of Pierce's Stature, Who is Continuing to Hinder Pierce's Shot at an N.B.A. Title But Whom We Must Still Tolerate Because There are no other Options
Formerly Fat Guy, Also not of Pierce's Stature, Who is Continuing to Hinder Pierce's Shot at an N.B.A. Title But Whom We Must Still Tolerate Because There are no other Options
Role Player Guy who is Here to Help Pierce Finally Win a Title
etc.

Oh, and you still won't answer my questions--and everybody still following this thread knows it.

How do you distinguish Paul Pierce from Richard Jefferson, Michael Webb, or the rest of the above average players in the 70th-90th percentiles in the NBA?

How would Richard Jefferson have done as the main guy on the Celtics for the past five years?

If your point is that Pierce belongs in the 70th-90th percentile of NBA players, much closer to 90th than 70th, then we're in agreement.

Much higher than that, and I need to see you distinguish Pierce convincingly from other players which are crowding that 90th percentile, or clearly above it, which you haven't even attempted to do.

[risktaker91]

Swap Pierce with Parker, and Raptors become contenders.

Ford/Calderon
Pierce
Delfino
Bosh
Bargnani

[numbas]

well rondofan and guyclinch since u 2 are the only ones left posting in this thread on a diff topic sumwhat can we agree that the poster was wrong in that if u swapped wade and pierce miami would be ATLEAST at 6th seed

[bru87tr]

maybe wade will turn into a penny hardway, except early in his career.

[Rondo_Fan]

well rondofan and guyclinch since u 2 are the only ones left posting in this thread on a diff topic sumwhat can we agree that the poster was wrong in that if u swapped wade and pierce miami would be ATLEAST at 6th seed

I have a hard time figuring this one out.

The year that Miami won the title, I liked D-Wade's game better than Paul Pierce's. But ever since I've liked Paul Pierce's game better than D-Wade's. Still, I don't think that Pierce would make Miami a whole lot better by going there this year. Maybe a little bit better. So I think that Miami kind of treads water after that trade. I think that their biggest problem is that Shaq is playing out the string, and I don't see how getting PP changes that.