SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Boston Celtics 2021-2022 Season
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 22, 2022 13:00:47 GMT -5
I'm not going to get into the discussion on Tatum's toughness but . . .
You and I have different memories about "pre-Garnett" Paul Pierce. Or maybe it was pre-stabbing Paul Pierce (not intending to be facetious here).
He was borderline quitting on the team and coming up with different theatrics to complain about what he was going through (wheelchair game, bandages all over himself in another).
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 22, 2022 14:32:47 GMT -5
Paul Pierce at age 23 had Antoine Walker, Bryant Stith and Kenny Anderson as his top four players. Stith averaged 9.7 points and Anderson 7.5 points. 2004 made ECF, Rodney Rogers was your third best players at just barely over ten points a game, then Kenny Anderson. I remember that whole 2003 team besides Stith for some reason, it doesn't Register at all. That's shocking, I watched every minute of every game back then. So was it Pierce didn't develop till age 30 or it took us that long to surround him with talent? Antoine Walker was one of the most over rated players in Celtics history. One of the most inefficient scorers you'll ever see and a negative defender. Brown, Robert Williams and Horford are all clearly better. Smart would likely be that inefficient scorer, yet at least elite on D. Our current bench players are better than the starters Pierce had to play with. If he only had Theis, White, Grant and Pritchard what could he have done? Lol, I have to laugh because it brings back the crap I watched since a kid. Early 90s till 2008 the Celtics were basically a joke. That ECF run cost us Joe Johnson so we could get Rodgers and Delk, with no legit chance of winning a championship. If you blame Pierce I don't know what to say. He certainly had bad moments, he also was trying to carry a crap team all by himself. Then we got Danny, one of the first thing he does is trade Walker because there no way you win with him as your 2nd best player. The rest is History, we've been one of the better teams ever since. Time to retire Ainges jersey to the rafters, his playing career and executive career deserve it. I know you’re very passionate. But sometimes your tangents are very..tangential? In terms of Eastern Conference finalists, that early 2000’s Celtics team was really bad. But the Eastern Conference at that time was f***ing putrid. You had Allen Iverson making finals with Eric Snow and Aaron Mckie as his best offensive players. We’re talking about that period being as bad as the Eastern Conference has ever been (please don’t try to argue this point, I will not respond). The Celtics just beat two of the top 15 players of all time in consecutive playoff series, and was 5 minutes away in game four from beating a third. I agree with you that Tatum currently lacks a mental toughness that Paul Pierce always had. But Paul was never as good at basketball as Jayson Tatum is. My point wasn't comparing Pierce and Tatum. Just you can't say it took Pierce to age 30 to reach a level to win, he lacked talent around him before the big 3. You can't compare them easily because the amount of talent each played with is crazy different, not even in the same ball park. We'll never know if Pierce was game younger because he never had the talent around him. I don't think I'd rank either top 15 right now all time. Giannis is on his way. KD is hard, as I don't give him much credit for his championships joining the best team in the game to get them. Anyway all-time win shares KD is 25th, one spot above Pierce, Curry is 50th and Giannis is 129th. They all have a ways to go. We always tend to forget the old guys, lot of great players in NBA history. Not easy trying to rank them, especially considering how the game has changed. |
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jun 22, 2022 17:21:39 GMT -5
I know you’re very passionate. But sometimes your tangents are very..tangential? In terms of Eastern Conference finalists, that early 2000’s Celtics team was really bad. But the Eastern Conference at that time was f***ing putrid. You had Allen Iverson making finals with Eric Snow and Aaron Mckie as his best offensive players. We’re talking about that period being as bad as the Eastern Conference has ever been (please don’t try to argue this point, I will not respond). The Celtics just beat two of the top 15 players of all time in consecutive playoff series, and was 5 minutes away in game four from beating a third. I agree with you that Tatum currently lacks a mental toughness that Paul Pierce always had. But Paul was never as good at basketball as Jayson Tatum is. My point wasn't comparing Pierce and Tatum. Just you can't say it took Pierce to age 30 to reach a level to win, he lacked talent around him before the big 3. You can't compare them easily because the amount of talent each played with is crazy different, not even in the same ball park. We'll never know if Pierce was game younger because he never had the talent around him. I don't think I'd rank either top 15 right now all time. Giannis is on his way. KD is hard, as I don't give him much credit for his championships joining the best team in the game to get them. Anyway all-time win shares KD is 25th, one spot above Pierce, Curry is 50th and Giannis is 129th. They all have a ways to go. We always tend to forget the old guys, lot of great players in NBA history. Not easy trying to rank them, especially considering how the game has changed. So this is a good example of what I mean by tangential. The fact that Steph curry is 50th in all-time win shares is not a valid Argument for him being outside the top 15 greatest players of all time. If anything, it raises a question about the validity of win shares as a measure of player greatness. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 22, 2022 19:22:30 GMT -5
My point wasn't comparing Pierce and Tatum. Just you can't say it took Pierce to age 30 to reach a level to win, he lacked talent around him before the big 3. You can't compare them easily because the amount of talent each played with is crazy different, not even in the same ball park. We'll never know if Pierce was game younger because he never had the talent around him. I don't think I'd rank either top 15 right now all time. Giannis is on his way. KD is hard, as I don't give him much credit for his championships joining the best team in the game to get them. Anyway all-time win shares KD is 25th, one spot above Pierce, Curry is 50th and Giannis is 129th. They all have a ways to go. We always tend to forget the old guys, lot of great players in NBA history. Not easy trying to rank them, especially considering how the game has changed. So this is a good example of what I mean by tangential. The fact that Steph curry is 50th in all-time win shares is not a valid Argument for him being outside the top 15 greatest players of all time. If anything, it raises a question about the validity of win shares as a measure of player greatness. You think using win share data to look at best players all time is "of little relevance"? Last two MVPs was top win share player, Curry just won finals MVP with best win share in finals. It might not be perfect, yet it's war in Baseball, best we have. Curry is a great player, great offensive player and not a good defensive one. Which I think we agree matters right? Nevermind defining best all time depends by what you use to define it. MJ is 5th all-time because he was 21 to start his career and then retired twice costing himself four years. Maybe you don't like winshare data, yet how does it have little relevance to the debate of best all time? Almost every player above him is in the HOF or will be and he's still playing moving up the list. |
|
|
|
Post by philarhody on Jun 22, 2022 20:58:58 GMT -5
So this is a good example of what I mean by tangential. The fact that Steph curry is 50th in all-time win shares is not a valid Argument for him being outside the top 15 greatest players of all time. If anything, it raises a question about the validity of win shares as a measure of player greatness. You think using win share data to look at best players all time is "of little relevance"? Last two MVPs was top win share player, Curry just won finals MVP with best win share in finals. It might not be perfect, yet it's war in Baseball, best we have. Curry is a great player, great offensive player and not a good defensive one. Which I think we agree matters right? Nevermind defining best all time depends by what you use to define it. MJ is 5th all-time because he was 21 to start his career and then retired twice costing himself four years. Maybe you don't like winshare data, yet how does it have little relevance to the debate of best all time? Almost every player above him is in the HOF or will be and he's still playing moving up the list. Ok, so you see how you are now on a major tangent? Do you remember how this conversation started because Jayson Tatum beat two all time greats in Kevin Durant and Giannis? When you started your diatribe by quoting “of little relevance,” who were you quoting? |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Jun 23, 2022 2:32:47 GMT -5
You think using win share data to look at best players all time is "of little relevance"? Last two MVPs was top win share player, Curry just won finals MVP with best win share in finals. It might not be perfect, yet it's war in Baseball, best we have. Curry is a great player, great offensive player and not a good defensive one. Which I think we agree matters right? Nevermind defining best all time depends by what you use to define it. MJ is 5th all-time because he was 21 to start his career and then retired twice costing himself four years. Maybe you don't like winshare data, yet how does it have little relevance to the debate of best all time? Almost every player above him is in the HOF or will be and he's still playing moving up the list. Ok, so you see how you are now on a major tangent? Do you remember how this conversation started because Jayson Tatum beat two all time greats in Kevin Durant and Giannis? When you started your diatribe by quoting “of little relevance,” who were you quoting? You are kidding right? You are doing what you are accusing me of doing. This conversation started because I simply compared the talent levels of Paul Pierces early teams to the current team and I didn't think it was fair to say it took Pierce to age 30 to figure things out. I didn't even mention Tatum! I was responding to a post about Pierce taking to age 30. I made that clear in my response, look where you've taken this. If you don't know that quote I don't know what to say to you, look it up. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 23, 2022 6:43:43 GMT -5
Look, umass will always find something tangential in your post to pick at. It’s been going on more than a decade at this point. Just avoid getting in one of those quote spirals.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 3,052
Member is Online
|
Post by mobaz on Jun 23, 2022 7:28:08 GMT -5
I'm not going to get into the discussion on Tatum's toughness but . . . You and I have different memories about "pre-Garnett" Paul Pierce. Or maybe it was pre-stabbing Paul Pierce (not intending to be facetious here). He was borderline quitting on the team and coming up with different theatrics to complain about what he was going through (wheelchair game, bandages all over himself in another). The YEAR BEFORE GARNETT it was touch and go whether Pierce could be the best guy on a contender. He was just as precocious as JT at this age but was not the Team Leader you wanted leading; he didn't have great habits for a long time. Even after, Garnett was the toughness driving force though Pierce was the on-court general. I think Tatum is further along in both game and in behind the scenes leadership. On the court, he can make the team better and be unselfish when his shot isn't falling, but he also has lapses that contribute mightily to clogged offenses, bad shot sequences and standing around. And the Ref stuff. But I still think he's ahead of Pierce at that age and has lots of time to mature into The Guy for a champ, just like the seasoning every other SuperStar that wasn't a Once in A Generational talent that we've rehashed already. Or else in a few years we get Tatum his Garnett or die trying. FYI he just played the 17th most playoff minutes EVER (983), and everyone else in the top 30 was 12+ years ago (except Lebron '12&'13). Irrelevant but interesting, KG/Ray/Pierce were all at ~990 in '08. Get a better start to the season, get Tatum rest so he's not dead, improve playmaking and wing depth to reduce his burden, and see what we get. |
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Jun 23, 2022 7:46:31 GMT -5
Slight tangent here but I remember when KG joined the team and they had that pre-game video, to get the crowd ramped up, ending with the Big Ticket just screaming. The crowd would go nuts.
It wasn't long before that changed and Pierce was in there doing something similar but coming off WAY more forced. Came off to me as him not liking the idea of an "outsider" coming in and being the fav.
I liked Pierce and he was obviously a key piece of the championship (duh) but the narrative definitely changed on him that season.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jun 23, 2022 9:55:07 GMT -5
Pierce and Tatum are pretty much the exact same player based on stats through their first 5 seasons. Funny that Tatum has like a full turnover fewer than Pierce per game over that span. Pierce scored more, Tatum was more efficient. I watched both of them and I think Tatum is the better defender. Really fantastic players, both of them.
|
|
|
