Re: how baker will fit in

[bird <birdwl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> From: lancejacob@xxxxxxxxx
>
> Glad you're fired up that he can score against guys who
> don't know him.  We've seen what happens in a series,
> and perhaps you're not thinking playoffs, but I believe
> we've got to have guys who disassemble defenses instead
> of shoot or drive through them.  Paul's got skills, but
> no humility or savvy.  Doesn't make other players
> better.  Gets his dunks but prefers to mix in assists
> in the open court.  With a halfcourt set, he's loathe
> to give up the ball.  Maybe you've noticed.
No, I haven't.  In the World games, Pierce is passing the ball very well, 
and often, and with the Celtics, I'm one of those who really doesn't want 
to see more of Walkerpierce passing off to EWill and the other 
less-than-desirable options.  Sure, with Baker that ought to change 
slightly, but it'll still be Pierce, Walker, and Baker as the first three 
options.  Sure, I want to see passing to the open man, but it's a fact of 
life that, in the NBA, you want to ball in the hands of guys who can score.
  Paul Pierce can score.

It's difficult to take you seriously when you say that Pierce has no 
humility or savvy.  Firstly, I don't care if he's humble or not, as long 
as he gets along with his teammates, and, as for being savvy, I haven't 
noticed that he's a moron or anything.  Sure, he needs to pass out of 
double-teams better, but one must give him time to identify and rectify 
these things.  They do not happen overnight.


> Tammo is a woman who's tight with Kansas, so you can
> look forward to a whole collegiate update as seen from
> the Jayhawk's nest.  Pierce is a favorite, and Drew
> Gooden was discouraged from coming to Boston because
> he's a quiet guy who the media and fans were going to
> destroy, in her opinion.  Good thing we went for Joe
> Johnson last year instead and saved her the agony.
Uh huh.  Whereas you, of course, have no bias, right?  I guess I see no 
problem with list members expressing their opinions.  What I do see as a 
problem is people giving hassles to members that have been around here 
longer.  Your wacky basketball opinions are appropriate here.  Lay off 
characterizing other members, though.  Most of us here are smart enough to 
formulate our own opinions about a member through their posts.


> You may not have found the post to be a tribute to
> Pierce, [...]
More than that, I seek to point out your anti-Pierce bias.  That, and to 
tell you that if you're going to hang around here and rag on Paul Pierce 
all season long, or rag on people who have good things to say about him, 
you won't make many friends.  Perhaps you'll notice that both Walker and 
Pierce get criticized on this list quite often, and deservedly so: being 
the "stars", they get a lot of attention, and, because they are so 
talented, expectations are correspondingly higher.  Then there are the 
unreasonable criticisms: the Walker bashers, the Pierce haters.  You know 
what I mean.  Things like:


> Needs to save
> the team, so he [Pierce] waits until he can make the heroic
> plays.  Growing up with a VCR and SportsCenter can do
> that to a guy.
IMO, your characterization of Pierce borders on the unreasonable.  Where 
do you get this idea that he's so damn selfish, so self-centered, and so 
cynical so as to time his big plays to correspond with the most attention?
  That's pretty ridiculous.  I am so sick of these arguments that 
Walkerpierce "don't make anybody else better".  How would one quantify 
this, exactly?  What an intangible statistic.  ("Shaq made four people 
better on his team, Pierce only made two guys better on the Celts.")  In 
the end, it's just an opinion, but there's plenty of folks who think the 
opposite way.

Bird