RealGM

I might can answer this myself. However, multiple heads are better than one and I'll like to read someone else's take on the question. Why is Bird the first name of a former Celtic star that is regularly brought up when you talk about Pierce and his place in Celtics lore? As a Pierce fan, it tends to bother me more than it should. Pierce is not Bird and Bird would certainly concur. It's fun to compare the old and the present. But, all you're doing here is being unfair to Pierce. Is it a matter of Bird's a recent name and sports writers don't care to go further back in Boston history to find a Celtics star player who's more apt of a comparison then offending Bird. Or are folks hanging onto the past too much and can't let Bird go. So, they want so badly to see another Bird that Pierce is the closest thing to an elite talent and clutch basketball player and scorer...etc. Obviously, a lot of older Celtics fans feel that the mentioning of Bird today is a sensitive discussion. Just ask Maxwell.

I just find it hard to compare the two given that their circumstances are totally different. I mean to compare them now when Pierce is just now getting comparable help in real teammates is unfair. The league was different back then with salaries and what have you. Stop bringing up Bird's name. If Pierce deserves to have his number retired in Boston or get inducted into the NBA Hall Of Fame or have his name listed on a list of the greatest Celtics players. Then he'll get those accolades and credit on his own. Oh, that's another argument that is going to bother some old school fans. Who does Pierce push out on your starting five of the greatest Celtics players? I agree, as said on WEEI, that Pierce is in the same sentence as Kobe and LeBron. But, I'm not sure why the talk of him now being there where you can replace another Celtic great with him in a starting five of Celtics greats.

Well..both played SF. Both took 3s. Both are guys that make people better. Both were/are pretty clutch. So I think the comparisons are natural.

Pete

I don't know what Bird's feeling toward Pierce are now that he has successfully won one title. But, before I think Bird was turned off by the suggestion. I believe he'd said something like what has Pierce done in the playoffs. He might have said it indirectly. Like it's what you do during your times in the playoffs and not the regular season.

Edit: I must be referring to an older quote. This is a recent Bird quote. Here's an excerpt of a Bob Ryan quote too.

When asked whether or not Paul Pierce could go down in history as one of the greatest players to ever wear a Celtics' uniform, Larry Bird listed winning a title as something Pierce needs to do.

"In Boston they always talk about how many championships you've won, so I think it's very important for Paul to win one if he wants to be put up there with the great ones," Bird said during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon.

"I think he is a fantastic player, and probably one of the best ever to come through there, but Boston has been blessed with a lot of great players and a lot of great Hall of Famers over the years and it's really hard to put one guy on top of the other," he continued.

"I can tell you that every Celtic legend still looks up to Bill Russell," Bird added. "I think he'll always be number one, with everyone else falling in line behind." Realgm

Every once in a while Pierce reminds us that he is the greatest pure scoring machine in Celtics history. Many old-timers bristle when you say that, citing John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, or whomever. But it just happens to be the truth.

He can get his own shot, which is a major plus. He is an extremely proficient, highly ambidextrous, driver. He takes a lot of free throws. He is a constant 3-point threat. And he is the best fast break finisher the team has ever had. No argument.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball ... th/?page=2



Apparently, Ryan must've taken a bit of heat from his peers in the media. Yeah, but this assertion doesn't sound any different than to what something Heinsohn would say positively about current Celtics players.

Today, let’s turn our attention to another one of Bob’s pot-stirrers. Specifically, the notion that Paul Pierce deserves mention in the same breath as Cousy-Russell-Havlicek-Bird. More specifically, the idea that Paul Pierce is Boston's all-time best offensive force. When Ryan made these statements last May (excerpted below), I took the matter up on some Celtics boards. An overwhelming majority of respondents dismissed Ryan as an old man who no longer was in touch with the sport.

I didn’t agree with these comments, either, but they seemed to represent a common sentiment.

Ryan made his observations after game 7 of the Cleveland series. My objection was that you don’t make a comparison between the two most prolific scorers in Celtics history (Bird, Havlicek) and a current member of the roster, when (1) the two most prolific scorers have won eleven championships between them and (2) the current member of the roster had won zip.

http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... rison.html

Meh. Too much is made of the championship bit, IMHO. PP is a prime example of that. Winning a championship in the NBA is much about being in the right time and the right place..as it is being a great player.

Obviously Bird was the better player in his era. Bird was either the best or the second best player (with Magic) until Jordan arrived. But if you eliminate that - PP stacks up pretty darn well with Bird just by watching him play.

First of all I can not stand Bob Ryan and I think he talks out of both sides of his ass.

That said this point about Pierce being the best scorer in team history has been championed by Tommy and while Red wasn't convinced he only through out Havlicek as a retort and this wasn't the Paul Pierce we are seeing now.

This is the guy who is the best comparison to Pierce in C's lore
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ssa01.html

The one thing to consider about Pierce is that NBA basketball is probably the one pro sport that defense has actually improved over time especially the advent of defensive schemes to attack a great scorer with the elimination of the illegal defense rules that forced you pretty much play one on one.

The have been guys who could put numbers but I don't know if the C's have had anyone that is as hard to guard and as difficult for a defense to contatin as Paul Pierce.

I do think Bird has a point, though. When your playing days are over, people tend to look back and see a championship as your defining moment. Yes, statistics can define your career as well. However, not in the same way as winning a championship. That's like the cap. You've sealed the deal. Otherwise, what do you play professional sports for? Sure, you strive to be the best at what you do in the sport that you play. But, there has to be one specific challenge before you or an ultimate goal. An achievement. Surely, you don't just play for a salary. See, seeing sports as a business or just your job has ruined it in a sense. Yes, it's a job but the business side of things dominate everything. That's what becomes most important: The money. Depending on your character, you see sports as an opportunity to get paid. In some cases, it's only when you're criticized by the media that you realize that winning a championship is and should be important to you. For some, it's too late. But, even winning one doesn't matter anymore because the stakes go up. Oh, you were lucky. Do it again. From Boston's perspective, that sentiment is understandable.

GuyClinch wrote:Well..both played SF. Both took 3s. Both are guys that make people better. Both were/are pretty clutch. So I think the comparisons are natural.

Pete

I don't think Pierce makes teammates better nearly in the way Bird did...Pierce, as good a passer as he is, can't carry Larry's jock in that department. Larry was also much more clutch over his career than Pierce, though Pierce is certainly no slouch in that department. I think we should stop comparing the two...they are different in their approaches and should just be appreciated individually!

Larry Bird is considered a top 10 player of all time, I dont think Pierce can or will be that but if he can win another ring Celtics fans can put him with the Birds and Russells which would be great for PP

[*]They play the same position.
[*]They were both the unquestioned best player on the team.
[*]They both were among the league's elite scorers.
[*]People have forgotten Havlicek.

Fencer reregistered wrote:[*]They play the same position.
[*]They were both the unquestioned best player on the team.
[*]They both were among the league's elite scorers.
[*]People have forgotten Havlicek.

Bingo.

Although, my dad--who has been a Celtics fan since the late 50s when he was a little tyke--often says that Pierce's quick first-step drives, and step-back and turn-around jumpers remind him a LOT of Bird, as does his huge cojones in taking EVERY big shot available to him.

Also, Pierce is a big guy and rebound really well for his position, kind of like Bird.

But yeah, to me, I think Pierce is a pretty unique player. To tell the truth, though, Carmelo kind of reminds me of Pierce.

Athanacropolis wrote:

Fencer reregistered wrote:[*]They play the same position.
[*]They were both the unquestioned best player on the team.
[*]They both were among the league's elite scorers.
[*][b]People have forgotten Havlicek.[/b]

Bingo.

Although, my dad--who has been a Celtics fan since the late 50s when he was a little tyke--often says that Pierce's quick first-step drives, and step-back and turn-around jumpers remind him a LOT of Bird, as does his huge cojones in taking EVERY big shot available to him.

Also, Pierce is a big guy and rebound really well for his position, kind of like Bird.

But yeah, to me, I think Pierce is a pretty unique player. To tell the truth, though, Carmelo kind of reminds me of Pierce.

This and this^^

Tricky Ricky wrote:Larry Bird is considered a top 10 player of all time, I dont think Pierce can or will be that but if he can win another ring Celtics fans can put him with the Birds and Russells which would be great for PP

For me, I'm talking in the context of the Boston Celtics. Bird was fortunate to be a part of the Celtics history which includes a lot of success. Unfortunately, Pierce join the Celtics at one of the franchise's lowest points. Even worst, the mediocre days. Hence, why you could never include Pierce outside of the Boston Celtics and compare him to the greats of all time. Which is a shame in a sense. People forget about all the outstanding teammates Bird was fortunate to play along side of and they with him. It's only now that Pierce is receiving some real acknowledgment outside of Massachusetts. Too bad he's in his thirties. Still, Pierce shouldn't feel any different about his place in NBA history now and when his career began. I mean John Elway didn't win championships until the latter stage of his career and only when a young Terrell Davis emerged, Elway could finish his career on top. Pierce isn't in the same breathe as him [Elway] but the point is Pierce should be proud of his accomplishments as a Celtics player even before last season. In a day and age where star players change teams like cloths. Pierce remains a Celtic.

Simple: Because Bird is the best.. and if Pierce wants to be the best, he is measured against the best. End of story.

Obviously, something can be said of the comparison, it is natural if the city's best players of today and yesterday play the same position. The important thing to keep in mind is that the game has changed so much, and nobody is going to live up to our memories of Bird. While Pierce is among the best players in the league today, we don't know the end of his story like we do of Bird's. We know Bird's career and stats from beginning to end, but we only know of Pierce until now. Also, each player has certain things that seperate them from the other. Larry's amazing court vision on offense or defense, Paul's virtually unmatched one-on-one plays against the league's best defenders(Artest would attest), Larry's hustle and willingness to get dirty despite being the superstar, and Paul's best Reggie Miller impressions. Everyone is different, but I think we will find ourselves in 15-20 years comparing the newest Celtic great to the prolific Paul Pierce.

Fencer reregistered wrote:[*]People have forgotten Havlicek.

I see him as more of a Sam Jones type player.

It's really simple...Bird did it his whole career, Bird played from tip off to the finnal buzzer. PP has played ONE full season all out and he got a title with the right mix of teamates and a commitment to defense, before it was only small flashes of offensive brilliance for PP. He's never been in great shape, and he rarley played D, those things changed last year.

DubaLakers wrote:It's really simple...Bird did it his whole career, Bird played from tip off to the finnal buzzer. PP has played ONE full season all out and he got a title with the right mix of teamates and a commitment to defense, before it was only small flashes of offensive brilliance for PP. He's never been in great shape, and he rarley played D, those things changed last year.

Dude, I know you're not trying to be a troll, but that comment shows how little you know about Pierce's career with the C's (which is understandable given you're a Lakers fan)...still...wow...

DubaLakers wrote:It's really simple...Bird did it his whole career, Bird played from tip off to the finnal buzzer. PP has played ONE full season all out and he got a title with the right mix of teamates and a commitment to defense, before it was only small flashes of offensive brilliance for PP. He's never been in great shape, and he rarley played D, those things changed last year.

Spoken like a true Lakers fan. Because if you weren't... You wouldn't be so obviously dead wrong. The sour grapes from losing in the NBA Finals are still present. It always amuses me when national fans try and try their hardest to discredit what Pierce has done and continues to do as a Celtic and an All-Star in the NBA. That being: A leader, captain, perennial All-Star, offensive threat, clutch in the fourth quarter, defender, solid free throw shooter, plays hard and seldom is injured and is a true Celtic. Not to mention, the charity work he does. He wants to always win and has won a NBA championship. He has only done it for this season. Huh? What rubbish. As most will say, no one notices your efforts on a losing or mediocre team. Pierce hasn't always been privileged to have an outstanding roster as Bird more times than not. So, as with any negative comment made by Lakers fans on here, I'll dismiss these opinions as pure BS. I mean can a Laker fan sound anymore jealous as this one clearly is? How ignorant can one sound?

I've to believe this twit is simply trying to goad Celtics fans by his off base comments. He or she obviously regurgitates what the national media pundits say or write negatively about Pierce and hasn't even watched any games over his career in Boston.

As a rookie, Larry Bird joined the team with the worst record in basketball and it became aa 60 win team with the best record in basketball. It wasn't until the next year that Parish and McHale came along. At age 23 he was already that good. Lebron is the only other 23 yo guy I can think of who has made such a crappy team a winner. Dwayne Wade did it with Shaq so that is closer to what Magic did. Duncan had that type of impact on paper but Sean Elliot and David Robinson missed the season before when the team had such a bad record.

I really admire Paul PIerce and this era has much better players than in the 80's thanks to the influx of foreign born players. But he wasn't able to turn the franchise around until he got a lot of help. Bird is in the Lebron category as a guy who is so good he can will a mediocre team to great success ( as Bird did in 1980 and Lebron has done the last 2 years. )

sam_I_am wrote:As a rookie, Larry Bird joined the team with the worst record in basketball and it became aa 60 win team with the best record in basketball. It wasn't until the next year that Parish and McHale came along. At age 23 he was already that good. Lebron is the only other 23 yo guy I can think of who has made such a crappy team a winner. Dwayne Wade did it with Shaq so that is closer to what Magic did. Duncan had that type of impact on paper but Sean Elliot and David Robinson tanked the season before when the team had such a bad record.

I really admire Paul PIerce and this era has much better players than in the 80's thanks to the influx of foreign born players. But he wasn't able to turn the franchise around until he got a lot of help. Bird is in the Lebron category as a guy who is so good he can will a mediocre team to great success ( as Bird did in 1980 and Lebron has done the last 2 years. )

^Fixed

You are correct about Pierce not doing it by himself. Bird played in a MUCH tougher league where the quality of play night in and night out was far superior to today...fewer teams, more talent, etc. LeBron is the only guy who has done it singlehandedly in recent memory, as you said.