is Paul Pierce a Top TEN/10 SF of all-time?

[Real Deal]

Pierce made the ECF in 2002. He's no bum without two HOFers. Wilkins on the other-hand greatest battle was in the 2nd round of the playoffs, Not to mention he frequently lost to the Bucks in the playoffs so it wasn't really the ERA of why he failed so much in the playoffs. It's just a weak excuse for an athletic player that can do anything but help the team win games.

 

I don't know too much about Dantley, but he also wasn't much until he played for the Pistons. At least in the playoffs.

 

As for English, It's nice if you can score. But winning is the most important stat.

So if winning is your only argument, why should I believe that Tracy McGrady is anything special?

 

Pierce, Walker and the Celtics beat a 43-win Sixers team that was hobbling around with injuries. Iverson shot under 40% in the playoffs, and the only others to help him were Coleman, Snow and McKie. Then they took out a 50-win Pistons team that were led by Stackhouse and Clifford Robinson.

 

Pierce shot 40% in the playoffs that season, by the way. Lucky for him that Antoine Walker averaged 22/9/3 at nearly the same percentage, almost identical numbers as Pierce.

 

So maybe Antoine Walker is better than Dominique Wilkins? Just using your logic here.

 

Wilkins averaged over 26 PPG in the playoffs five times in eight playoff seasons with Atlanta. Pierce did that once in his six.

 

Pierce has had legitimate help. Wilkins walked into the playoffs each year with an older Moses Malone, Randy Wittman, Kevin Willis, and Doc Rivers as second options, against teams like the Bucks (who were coached by Del Harris or Don Nelson and were a few years removed from 60-win seasons), a 57-win Celtics team (who were led by Bird, McHale and Parish), a Pistons team that nearly beat the defending champion Celtics in the ECF's that same year they ousted the Hawks, another loss against the defending champion Boston Celtics, and...wow...yet another playoff loss to a 56-win Celtics team that won an NBA championship the following year.

 

Yeah, it was a cakewalk for Dominique.

[Real Deal]

Teams back then in the early 2000's with Pierce running the show ALWAYS over achieved due to who?... PIERCE. he always took those Celtic teams FARTHER then they were supposed to go, ALWAYS. he never choked in the playoffs EVER. Every time Pierce's teams have lost in the playoffs it was vs teams they were SUPPOSED to lose too. I mean come on Walter McCarty, Eric Williams, Rodney Rodgers, Tony Delk, Kenny Anderson and them were solid players but do you really think they were types of guys you want to build around your star to win a title..... PLEASE....... Pierce always was EVERYTHING for the Celtics. Kevin Garnett was always EVERYTHING for the Timberwolves and where did KG go without PIERCE?? He went to the SAME LEVEL PIERCE DID which was the conference finals. So does that take away from Kevin Garnett's legacy because he didn't win anything without Pierce? no it doesn't, so it shouldn't for Pierce.

The furthest Pierce went, he went with Antoine Walker...and both put up nearly the same identical numbers (scoring, rebounding, assists and field goal percentage) in that playoff run. Walker shot better, Pierce scored 1-2 more points, assists and rebounds were nearly the same.

 

Pierce wasn't going to do anything without Garnett. Garnett wasn't going to do anything without Pierce. Neither were going to do anything without Ray Allen.

 

All three needed each other to get to the NBA Finals. Three superstars (not all-stars), three future Hall of Famers.

 

Let's not make Pierce out to be better than he really is. For the one time he got to the ECF's, he had many struggles since he was drafted.

[Revis Island]

So if winning is your only argument, why should I believe that Tracy McGrady is anything special?

 

Pierce, Walker and the Celtics beat a 43-win Sixers team that was hobbling around with injuries. Iverson shot under 40% in the playoffs, and the only others to help him were Coleman, Snow and McKie. Then they took out a 50-win Pistons team that were led by Stackhouse and Clifford Robinson.

 

Pierce shot 40% in the playoffs that season, by the way. Lucky for him that Antoine Walker averaged 22/9/3 at nearly the same percentage, almost identical numbers as Pierce.

 

So maybe Antoine Walker is better than Dominique Wilkins? Just using your logic here.

 

Wilkins averaged over 26 PPG in the playoffs five times in eight playoff seasons with Atlanta. Pierce did that once in his six.

 

Pierce has had legitimate help. Wilkins walked into the playoffs each year with an older Moses Malone, Randy Wittman, Kevin Willis, and Doc Rivers as second options, against teams like the Bucks (who were coached by Del Harris or Don Nelson and were a few years removed from 60-win seasons), a 57-win Celtics team (who were led by Bird, McHale and Parish), a Pistons team that nearly beat the defending champion Celtics in the ECF's that same year they ousted the Hawks, another loss against the defending champion Boston Celtics, and...wow...yet another playoff loss to a 56-win Celtics team that won an NBA championship the following year.

 

Yeah, it was a cakewalk for Dominique.

Are we talking about a season here or a career and Greatness? And I never did think Tracy McGrady was ever special and same for Allen Iverson. Both are just high volume scorers that have done nothing except win scoring titles in their careers. People are love in with them because of their stats and flash.

 

Pierce's resume is above Dominique's at this point. He was the closer for the 2008 Celtics team. Arguably the best player at the very least the 2nd best player on the team. I've also heard many many times that Pierce outplayed Kobe in the Finals, but that is just an opinion.

 

Sadly, Dominique's highlight in the playoff was Game 7 in 1988 and the 2nd round of the playoffs....That's telling you something. People constantly use excuses for players who failed to win, saying oh well his teammates were garbage, etc.....

 

I love how people take away Pierce's credibility as a player by using the Big Three, but nobody ever takes away Charles Barkley's credibility as a player even though he played with Clyde Drexler and Hakeem in one year and Hakeem and Pippen in the other.

 

I love how people diminish greatness when somebody wins not when somebody loses.

[DWhiTex34]

The furthest Pierce went, he went with Antoine Walker...and both put up nearly the same identical numbers (scoring, rebounding, assists and field goal percentage) in that playoff run. Walker shot better, Pierce scored 1-2 more points, assists and rebounds were nearly the same.

 

Pierce wasn't going to do anything without Garnett. Garnett wasn't going to do anything without Pierce. Neither were going to do anything without Ray Allen.

 

All three needed each other to get to the NBA Finals. Three superstars (not all-stars), three future Hall of Famers.

 

Let's not make Pierce out to be better than he really is. For the one time he got to the ECF's, he had many struggles since he was drafted.

 

What I dont get is why "Needing KG" hurts Pierce's legacy but "Needing Pierce" doesn't hurt KG's?

[DWhiTex34]

Are we talking about a season here or a career and Greatness? And I never did think Tracy McGrady was ever special and same for Allen Iverson. Both are just high volume scorers that have done nothing except win scoring titles in their careers. People are love in with them because of their stats and flash.

 

Pierce's resume is above Dominique's at this point. He was the closer for the 2008 Celtics team. Arguably the best player at the very least the 2nd best player on the team. I've also heard many many times that Pierce outplayed Kobe in the Finals, but that is just an opinion.

 

Sadly, Dominique's highlight in the playoff was Game 7 in 1988 and the 2nd round of the playoffs....That's telling you something. People constantly use excuses for players who failed to win, saying oh well his teammates were garbage, etc.....

 

I love how people take away Pierce's credibility as a player by using the Big Three, but nobody ever takes away Charles Barkley's credibility as a player even though he played with Clyde Drexler and Hakeem in one year and Hakeem and Pippen in the other.

 

I love how people diminish greatness when somebody wins not when somebody loses.

 

ftw

[Real Deal]

LMAO, wait, did you just talk about Houston's big three?

 

Barkley missed 30 games that season, Drexler 20 (something like that). They still managed to win 57 games. They still went to the WCF and lost to the 64-win Utah Jazz, who actually had a legitimate shot at beating the 72-win Chicago Bulls.

 

Seriously?

 

What I dont get is why "Needing KG" hurts Pierce's legacy but "Needing Pierce" doesn't hurt KG's?

When did I say it didn't hurt Garnett's legacy? He had to jump on a boat with two other superstars to win a title.

[AtTheDriveIn]

Pierce was never really a winner until he got some help, much like the others mentioned in his range; Dantley and English. Pierce led a 49 win team past 43 and 50 win teams, respectively to reach the Conference Finals. Good effort, really. Commendable, definitely. But, the season after, 43 wins, the season after that, 36 with basically the same team (except for the last season where Antoine Walker left and Ricky David replaced him). It was only when he got Garnett and Allen that he became a 'winner'.

 

If Dantley or English are going to get crticism for never being able to win, then why should Pierce be praised because he won a championship on the back of two other hall of famers. Both Dantley and English are individually better players than Pierce, as well.

[Real Deal]

I guess McHale was a better power forward than both Barkley and Malone, then. McHale has three rings, averaged 25/9/3 on 58% from the field for his last championship (in the playoffs, similar to Bird's numbers that year), averaged 18-21 points in two of those seasons he won it all, sort of like Pierce and his 2008 season.

 

Yeah, the verdict is out. McHale is better than Barkley and Malone.

 

[/sarcasm]

[Built Ford Tough]

Are we talking about a season here or a career and Greatness? And I never did think Tracy McGrady was ever special and same for Allen Iverson. Both are just high volume scorers that have done nothing except win scoring titles in their careers. People are love in with them because of their stats and flash.

 

The funny thing is that Iverson has done more with less than both Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett in their careers when all three of them were the franchise guys for their respective teams. Yeah, you can use the whole weak conference arguement on Garnett's behalf, but what excuse are you going to throw out for Pierce?

 

Pierce played in that same weak conference as Iverson did, at arguably a better supporting cast (I would consider them basically even) yet the furthest he managed to lead a team without the help of two other superstar and future HOF'ers was the Eastern Conference Finals and manged to beat a 43 win team and a 50 win team.

 

On the other hand, Iverson led his Sixer team to a 56 win regular season and the NBA Finals, even stealing a game from the Lakers. On the way to the Finals the Sixers managed to beat a 41 win team, a 47 win team and a 52 win team.

 

So I repeat, what has Pierce ever done as the lone franchise player? It seems to me that Iverson did more than Pierce when both of them were superstar players on average teams.

 

Pierce's resume is above Dominique's at this point. He was the closer for the 2008 Celtics team. Arguably the best player at the very least the 2nd best player on the team. I've also heard many many times that Pierce outplayed Kobe in the Finals, but that is just an opinion.

 

Pierce has played 11 years in the NBA thus far and has career averages of:

 

22.9/6.3/3.9 on 44.3 FG%

 

He has been in the playoffs 6 times in his career and has averages of:

 

22.2/6.8/4.4 on 43.3 FG%

 

He is a 7X All-Star, 4X All-NBA (3 Third and 1 Second), finished top 10 in scoring 5 times and top 5 3 times, NBA Champion and Finals MVP

 

His teams had a winning percentage of 51% (which is boosted tremendously due to Allen and Garnett's arrival in Boston) and his team has won 8 playoff series (5 since KG and Allen came to town).

 

In Wilikins first 11 years he had averages of:

 

26.7/7.0/2.7 on 47.0 FG%.

 

He led his team to the playoffs 8 times in his first 11 seasons and averaged:

 

25/6.3/2.5 on 42.1 FG%

 

He was an 8X All-Star, 6X All-NBA (1 First, 4 Second and 1 Third), finished in the top 10 of MVP voting 6 times and top 3 2 times including runner up in 85/86 and finished top 10 in scoring 8 times, top 5 5 times including leading the league in scoring once and being second 3 other times.

 

His teams had a winning percentage of 54.3% and they won 3 playoff series.

 

So aside from the NBA Championship and Finals MVP, no, Pierce's resume was not better than Wilikin's as of right now as it is quite clear that Wilkin's accomplished more than Pierce did during the first 11 seasons of their career. The only way that you can argue that Pierce has a more impressive resume is due to the Championship and Finals MVP that he has, but come on, look at the team he played on compared to what Wilkins played on.

 

I think that it is worth mentioning that Wilkins was playing in a much more competitive conference during his time as well while the East has been quite possibly one of the worst conferences the NBA has ever had for the majority of Pierce's career.

 

Pierce made the ECF in 2002. He's no bum without two HOFers. Wilkins on the other-hand greatest battle was in the 2nd round of the playoffs, Not to mention he frequently lost to the Bucks in the playoffs so it wasn't really the ERA of why he failed so much in the playoffs. It's just a weak excuse for an athletic player that can do anything but help the team win games.

 

82/83: Hawks lost to the Celtics

83/84: Hawks lost to the Bucks (50 win team and went on to the ECF to the Celtics)

85/86: Hawks lost to the Celtics

86/87: Hawks lost to the Pistons (52 win team that lost in 7 games in the ECF to the Celtics)

87/88: Hawks lost to the Celtics in 7 games

88/89: Hawks lost to the Bucks (49 win team)

90/91: Hawks lost to the Pistons in 5 games (50 win team that went to the ECF [remember first round was only 5 games])

92/93: Hawks lost to the Bulls (57 win team and eventual NBA Champions)

 

So do you want to admit to talking out of your [expletive] or what? The Hawks lost to the Celtics, Bulls, Pistons and a Bucks team that managed to go onto the ECF. They lost to the Celtics more than they lost to the Bucks and they lost to the Pistons the same amount of times.

 

So yeah, I do think that you can cut Wilkins a little slack considering that the teams that he lost to in the playoffs, for the most part, were either the 2nd best or the best team in the Eastern Conference, and in some cases, the best or second best team in the entire NBA.

 

The funny thing is that this player who supposedly can do anything aside from lead his team to wins actually led his team to the playoffs more and had a higher winning percentage than Mr. Pierce and he managed to do it in a much harder era of the Eastern Conference.

 

Sadly, Dominique's highlight in the playoff was Game 7 in 1988 and the 2nd round of the playoffs....That's telling you something. People constantly use excuses for players who failed to win, saying oh well his teammates were garbage, etc.....

 

Lol, and what was Paul Pierce's career highlight before he was given two other superstar players and one of the best teams in league history? Oh yeah, leading his team to the third round in one of the weakest conferences that the NBA has ever seen. So much better.

 

The ironic thing is that up until Pierce was given one of the best teams ever to work with, people would use those exact same arguments for Pierce when trying to defend him. It just goes to show you that the NBA is a team game. It takes an entire team to win a Championship and one person can't do it by himself, no matter how talented.

 

I love how people take away Pierce's credibility as a player by using the Big Three, but nobody ever takes away Charles Barkley's credibility as a player even though he played with Clyde Drexler and Hakeem in one year and Hakeem and Pippen in the other.

 

Just look at what Real Deal said. He summed it up almost perfectly.

 

Besides, even when Barkley wasn't playing with Olajuwon and Drexler, he still managed to lead the Phoenix Suns to the NBA Finals (which they won 2 games against the Bulls), 1 60 win season and 2 50 win seasons. The Suns lost to the eventual NBA Champions 3 out of his 4 seasons in the playoffs.

 

Nobody is taking away credability from what Pierce did, but it is worth mentioning that Pierce was playing alongside 2 other superstar players. Its not like this is something that should be ignored.

 

I love how people diminish greatness when somebody wins not when somebody loses.

 

Lol, are you kidding me? Nobody would even mention Pierce being a top TEN/10 SF of All-Time if he didn't win an NBA Championship. So I think the fact that people aren't laughing you off of the forum and actually having an intelligent discussion with you should be a pretty clear indicator that we are not "diminishing greatness when a player wins".

 

Personally, I don't think that as of right now Pierce is a top 10 SF of All-Time, but by the time that he retires he will most likely be in the top 10 and will be around the 7-10 range.

[Real Deal]

Sean, way to nuke the topic.

 

Repped.