Analyzing The Career Of Paul Pierce
As Paul Pierce's career is winding down, he has garnered some headlines in recent weeks. Now of course what has been brought up is the fact that he joked (yes, he JOKED) about a farewell tour and joked about some farewell gifts from around the league. Of course, leave it to Draymond Green to make a comment about being unable to get a farewell tour. Of course, that led to a huge Twitter war involving Pierce and Green, to which of all things, has gotten Pierce looking like a bad guy and in some views, an idiot for his response of Green & the Warriors blowing a 3-1 lead.
Bob DeChiara-USA TODAY Sports
I'm not really going to divulge into the whole thing with Pierce & Green because it has been beaten down over.......and over..........and over..........and over already (despite the fact that it is pretty much only 10 days old). But people have ripped Pierce and somewhat believed his career has not been "amazingly great."
And in all honesty, I call bull.
Look, I am not a giant fan of Pierce, but here is something to ponder though. From 2001-2012 (12 seasons), Pierce pretty much averaged around 23 points per game, 6 rebounds per game, 4 assists per game, 1.5 steals per game, etc. So really looking back in that case, it has been a great career. So when it comes to superstars in the NBA, why hasn't Paul Pierce, who spent the vast majority of his career in the sports media hub in Boston of all places, not get the same recognition as other superstars?
While Pierce enjoyed much success and will have his number go up in the rafters with the likes of the other Celtic greats, he also was on some bad teams in Boston
The first part somewhat overlooked was Pierce was drafted post-Kobe and pre-LeBron. Kobe arrived in the league 3 years before Pierce and by his second year garnered a lot of love and recognition while the Eastern Conference was pretty much Iverson's conference at the time. It also was 5 years later that LeBron joined the NBA amid much fanfare. So he never garnered that status, as well as not being an incredibly touted NBA prospect out of college.
Secondly, Pierce was on some very bad teams in Boston, especially early on. From 2001-2005 the Celtics were in the playoffs, but the Eastern Conference had been a complete mess in that run as it seemed like Detroit, New Jersey, and Indiana were the only serious legit threats at the time (with the Pistons winning a world championship in 04 and pushing the Spurs to 7 games in 05). However, they slipped badly after that until Boston pulled two major deals of getting Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. The Celtics became the prime team in the East once again, winning a championship in 2008 and being a major player for the championship after that. Which brings me to the next reason why many do not consider Pierce a "legend."
While Boston fans won't care (and why should they?), many other fans believed Paul Pierce would have never gotten a ring had it not been for the trades of Allen & Garnett.
Pierce won a ring with the help of two other all-stars joining his team in Garnett and Allen. Add on the Celtics also had a young talented point guard in Rajon Rondo who took the league a bit by storm, and Boston went from being a cellar-dweller to NBA champion. Of course, this has come into play given Pierce's criticism of Kevin Durant signing with the Warriors. Many people considered him as a hypocrite for the comments given Boston had all-stars when they won. To me, I think while the argument has some weight, it isn't one of major weight. Could Kobe win without Shaq and later on Gasol? Could LeBron win without Wade and later on Irving/Love? Could Curry win without the Splash Bros? Jordan without Pippen? You need quality players regardless. Now, I think the "adding superstar after superstar" moniker does hold weight and it hurts those who do it (see LeBron & Durant). But at the same time, we are ripping players for WANTING to win?
The last bit and I think it rubs some off the wrong way is Pierce's personality. He will speak his mind. He is
As I mentioned earlier, the problem with Pierce I think and this is why he is probably not given his due respect was the fact was that he is stuck in that small gap of the post-Jordan Era (should say post-Jordan Bulls Era where you had superstars galore) and the pre-Super Friends Era and he really doesn't fit in any major era. I guess he was in the Kobe/Duncan Era where you had Kobe and Duncan holding the rings from 1999-2010 (8 rings between those two). In a way you somewhat can relate it to Isiah Thomas being between Bird/Magic and then Jordan in the late 80's/early 90's. Add on was that Pierce wasn't able to really make the Celtics into a powerhouse until Garnett & Allen arrived (to which then it felt like it was Garnett's team as opposed to Pierce's team). Pierce did win a ring, but it seems like the ring has the * with it given he won it with the help of other superstars and it was only one ring. Is it fair to put Pierce as a "yes, he won a ring, but............?"
Pierce has riled up fans and opposing players throughout his career.
What also rubs people the wrong way with Pierce is his speaking his mind/trash talking mentality, on and off the court. It is just who he is really. Now can he push the envelope with the things he says sometimes? Yes, but I don't think it is controversial by any means and he is just using it as a strategy. I am not sure if it really works, but if that's what got him going, so be it.
Overall, Paul Pierce is a definite Hall of Fame player, no question. A part of his problem however is that he will never go down as a superstar given some of the scenarios laid out to many fans. He was a complete player for the majority of his career and has gone underappreciated for the most part, but he will probably never get the overall due respect he probably should get. Which is sad, because he was definitely a fun player to watch for a large portion of his career.
-Fan in the Obstructed Seat
