Where does Paul Pierce rank among the Celtic greats?

[jmt225]

Tonight was NBA All-Star Saturday, and I would have to say the most interesting thing to happen was Paul Pierce winning the 3-point Shootout; I don't think ANYONE thought he stood a chance going in, but he was able to pull it out with a very impressive showing.

However, it was actually the commentary during his shooting that I found myself most interested in. Kenny Smith said that Paul Pierce was one of the five greatest Boston Celtics players in history, and Charles Barkley responded in typical Charles Barkley fashion with a big, "Hell no! Are you crazy!?" Kenny said name 5 better Celtic players than Pierce, and Barkley was able to without thought or hesitation:

Bill Russell
John Havlicek
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Bob Cousy

Barkley went on to say that Pierce wasn't even in the top 10 of Celtics greats, saying players like Dennis Johnson and Dave Cowens were better than Pierce, too.

So, what do you guys think? Is Pierce in the top 5, top 10, or neither? If he's in neither, what would he have to do from this point for you to classify him as such?

...................................................................​

What kills Paul Piece is the fact that the Boston Celtics are the winningest team in NBA history. With 17 championships to their record, the Celtics franchise has more championships than any other team in NBA history, and Paul Pierce only contributed to one of those championships, which is why I think he'll always be considered a very good basketball player, but not an elite player, including when it comes to comparing to the greats of his own franchise.

Paul Pierce, I believe, needs to win at least 2 more championships to start getting the recognition he PERHAPS deserves. Without those championships, he'll forever live in the shadows of the names above.

HOWEVER, I believe that to be OTHER people's perspective. My perspective? The man most certainly makes the top ten, around the 8, 9, or 10 mark. I agree with Charles Barkley's list, and I would add Robert Parish after Cowens, but after that, man, you have to add Jo Jo White and then I would go with Pierce over Paul Silas and anyone else you could come up with (really wish we could have seen what Len Bias would have accomplished in the NBA though... but that's another topic).

The fact of the matter is Paul Pierce literally carried this franchise for a good 10 years before finally getting the help he needed to get over the hump, and while he might not have won championships during those ten years, he still lead the Celtics to the playoffs multiple times, including one trip to the Eastern Conference Finals. During that entire time, Antoine Walker was literally Pierce's only contributor besides himself, and he was still able to make some great things happen. You put Bird or Havlicek on those same teams Pierce had... does either one of them really make that big of a difference? I personally don't think so, which is why, in my opinion, you can't fault Pierce for not having more championships under his belt by this point.

All that said, with the team he has now, there's no reason why he should not be leading them to more championship runs if they can stay healthy. Pierce is as good as he's ever been, and he has a GREAT team... he needs to make some special things happen this post season, like he did two years ago (like his scoring 40 points in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals that year); otherwise, maybe I'll end up changing my mind about this. Let see what happens come April.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

As of right now, Paul Pierce does not make the top ten list of the greatest Celtics of all time. You have to think of Russell, Cousy, Havlicek, and Bird when you think of great Celtics and don't forget about Johnson, McHale, and Cowens as well. If he wins another championship, he maybe has a shot to crack the top 10 but that could be highly unlikely. If he stays at one championship, he will probably be somewhere between 11 and 15. He's a good player but I just don't think "all-time great" when I watch him play but that is not a slight towards him. I believe he needs another championship to go towards a hall of fame career and a hall of fame Celtic career.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'll admit my knowledge of Celtic history is limited given that I don't give a damn about the Celtics, but Pierce is getting a raw deal here.

Tonight was NBA All-Star Saturday, and I would have to say the most interesting thing to happen was Paul Pierce winning the 3-point Shootout; I don't think ANYONE thought he stood a chance going in, but he was able to pull it out with a very impressive showing.

However, it was actually the commentary during his shooting that I found myself most interested in. Kenny Smith said that Paul Pierce was one of the five greatest Boston Celtics players in history, and Charles Barkley responded in typical Charles Barkley fashion with a big, "Hell no! Are you crazy!?" Kenny said name 5 better Celtic players than Pierce, and Barkley was able to without thought or hesitation:

Bill Russell
John Havlicek
Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Bob Cousy

No problem with four of those, but what make Kevin McHale so much better than Paul Pierce?

What kills Paul Piece is the fact that the Boston Celtics are the winningest team in NBA history. With 17 championships to their record, the Celtics franchise has more championships than any other team in NBA history, and Paul Pierce only contributed to one of those championships, which is why I think he'll always be considered a very good basketball player, but not an elite player, including when it comes to comparing to the greats of his own franchise.

Which is just stupid. And I'll say that because you mention that is what other people think.

Only ONE of those NBA championships came with prevalent free agency, which Pierce won, and only three of those championships came during the expanded playoff system, where it went from 12 teams to 16. Hell, all but four of the 17 championships came when the playoff system featured 8 teams or less, meaning you had to win a lot fewer games to win a title.

To hold Pierce back from the all-time greats list, simply based upon championships won is just asinine.

As of right now, Paul Pierce does not make the top ten list of the greatest Celtics of all time.

Bullshit.

You have to think of Russell, Cousy, Havlicek, and Bird when you think of great Celtics

Agreed.

and don't forget about Johnson, McHale, and Cowens as well.

Why? What makes Johnson, McHale and Cowens better than Pierce? Take McHale off those 80s Celtics team and put Pierce on it, do you not think they would have won those same titles? Put McHale on the teams Pierce played with, do you think they would have won more? Do the same for Johnson.

The fact of the matter is that taking championships won, ESPECIALLY for the reasons I mentioned above about the playoffs, as the sole factor on an all-time greats list is just absurd. Pierce has won a title, so you can't hold that against him. He was a great player on teams with little talent, and still managed to produce. When he was finally surrounded with his Bird (Garnett) and his Johnson (Allen), he won a title.

Pierce has put up better numbers than many people who are supposedly ahead of him, and he has been no less important to the franchise.

If he wins another championship, he maybe has a shot to crack the top 10 but that could be highly unlikely. If he stays at one championship, he will probably be somewhere between 11 and 15. He's a good player but I just don't think "all-time great" when I watch him play but that is not a slight towards him. I believe he needs another championship to go towards a hall of fame career and a hall of fame Celtic career.

Why does it have to be a championship? Was Pete Maravich not a great player then? How about Elgin Baylor? Karl Malone? Were none of these guys great players?

That's just stupid. Pierce has been a top player in the league for years, delivered the first Celtic championship in over 20 years, has been the face of the franchise for a decade. To say Pierce doesn't rank in the Top 10 is just silly. Top 5? Possibly, but Top 10? Definitely.

Now, I just want you all to know that I absolutely hate you for making me defend a product of the University of Kansas. Go to hell, all of you.

 

[X]

Well as a lifelong Celtics fan, I think I've got a pretty good viewpoint on this subject. Paul Pierce will go down probably only behind Larry Bird and maybe Bill Russell when it comes to how Celtics fans and history will judge him in the grand scheme of Celtics history. LJL, Pierce isn't top ten? Are you high dude? Pierce is the heart and soul of the Celtics, I know everyone seems to think it's Kevin Garnett, but Pierce has been here for over a decade almost single-handedly carrying the team and keeping it atleast somewhat relevant. Fuck all he had was Antoine Walker in those days and he almost made it to the finals.

You can throw up the stats and all that, if you're going to sit here and tell me that Havlicek or Cousy will be regarded as better than Paul Pierce in the history of the Celtics all time greats, I'm going to have to disagree. Atleast when it comes to how the actual Celtics fanbase views things.

 

[Mr. TM]

When I think back to my time watching the NBA, a period of about 10 years, there has been one man that has been the heart of that team. 10 years is a long time to be a heart of any team, a team that wasn't that good for a while, then became great. That alone makes him one of the five best players ever to play for the Celtics. Sure he wasn't apart of the great years that that team had in the past, but in today's competitive nature, he keeps the team great.

 

[Big Sexy]

Paul Pierce is either 5 or 6. Personally when his career is over I'd put him right at 5. You obviously have Bird and Russell at one and two. There is no way those two shouldn't be at the top. After them you have Bob Cousy and John Havlicek. They obviously aren't as well know by a lot of the current fans, but overall they are ahead of Pierce. Every year in the playoffs you see the famous, "Havlicek stole the ball. Havlicek stole the ball" video.

After those 4 it comes down to Pierce and McHale. A lot of people say McHale's numbers wouldn't have been as good without all the talent he had around him, but I could make the argument that his numbers may have been better if he didn't have to share the wealth. However, in the grand scheme of things I would still put Pierce ahead of him.

1. Larry Bird
1a. Bill Russell
3. John Havlicek
4. Bob Cousy
5. Paul Pierce

 

[KillBill]

Theres a big thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned. When you name the greatest Celtics players, a lot of them played together. They benefited from playing with other greats. I'm not saying they aren't good, but if they had played by themselves, other than Bird and Russell, nobody could have led this team. Its easy to win Championships when you have the greatest players around you. The closest "Celtics" great that Pierce played with would be Walker, who might crack top 25. When 3 or 4 of the top players in Celtics history played together, of course you will win multiple championships.

Pierce is number 3 in celtics history in scoring, so automatically hes in top 10. When you look at his great games, and he led shit teams to the playoffs, and when he got help and won a Title, AND was still mvp, he gets closer to 5. If he finishes his career with Celtics, which would prolly be 15 yrs or so, even if he doesn't win another title, the stats and his longevity should put him at, at least 5.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I'll admit my knowledge of Celtic history is limited given that I don't give a damn about the Celtics, but Pierce is getting a raw deal here.
No problem with four of those, but what make Kevin McHale so much better than Paul Pierce?

Which is just stupid. And I'll say that because you mention that is what other people think.

Only ONE of those NBA championships came with prevalent free agency, which Pierce won, and only three of those championships came during the expanded playoff system, where it went from 12 teams to 16. Hell, all but four of the 17 championships came when the playoff system featured 8 teams or less, meaning you had to win a lot fewer games to win a title.

To hold Pierce back from the all-time greats list, simply based upon championships won is just asinine.


Bullshit.

Agreed.

Why? What makes Johnson, McHale and Cowens better than Pierce? Take McHale off those 80s Celtics team and put Pierce on it, do you not think they would have won those same titles? Put McHale on the teams Pierce played with, do you think they would have won more? Do the same for Johnson.

The fact of the matter is that taking championships won, ESPECIALLY for the reasons I mentioned above about the playoffs, as the sole factor on an all-time greats list is just absurd. Pierce has won a title, so you can't hold that against him. He was a great player on teams with little talent, and still managed to produce. When he was finally surrounded with his Bird (Garnett) and his Johnson (Allen), he won a title.

Pierce has put up better numbers than many people who are supposedly ahead of him, and he has been no less important to the franchise.

Why does it have to be a championship? Was Pete Maravich not a great player then? How about Elgin Baylor? Karl Malone? Were none of these guys great players?

That's just stupid. Pierce has been a top player in the league for years, delivered the first Celtic championship in over 20 years, has been the face of the franchise for a decade. To say Pierce doesn't rank in the Top 10 is just silly. Top 5? Possibly, but Top 10? Definitely.

Now, I just want you all to know that I absolutely hate you for making me defend a product of the University of Kansas. Go to hell, all of you.

I'm not saying that Baylor, Maravich, or Malone weren't great players. It just that people tend to rate players at their same position higher because they won championships. You compare the careers of Malone to Tim Duncan. Malone was a true power forward and Duncan is my favorite player but I viewed him as more of a center and Duncan has four championships to Malone's zero and Tim is regarded as one of the best power forwards ever over Karl and Barkley.

You look at the great lineage of Lakers players which start with Johnson and Chamberlain with West and Mikan thrown in there as well as Elgin Baylor. Baylor was a great player but he gets overlooked sometimes because he never won a championship and his career after being a player.

I'm not saying that Pierce won't be a hall of famer or anything like that. It's just that when I watch him play, I don't think "all-time great" when I see him. I don't want to go into the whole "Pierce only won because Garnett and Allen were there" thing but I just want to reference things.

Garnett was seen as one of the most dominants players at his position before he went to Boston and won a championship. When you thought of the best shooting guards in the NBA during Pierce's tenure, did his name come in the top three or five? You had Iverson, Carter, and Miller who were legit at that time so maybe Pierce would have been at the top five.

In terms of how many teams were in the playoffs when the Celtics won eight straight titles, does it make it a less impressive feat than the Bulls winning three in a row twice because there were sixteen teams in the playoffs when the Bulls won theirs?