[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Paul Pierce
You forgot Rule #4.
As has been stated by others Lance, Paul has areas of his game to improve.
I am willing to see if he works on it or not. You have your mind made up
already apparently. Cool.
Troting out Delk's stats are useless and I'll tell you why. You attribute
his shooting increase to what? I attribute it to the fact that he has had
an entire preseason and his stint with the team last year to become more
familiar with his role. He didn't hit these shots last year, and in fact,
many on this list wanted to dump his ass. Now listen to you talk about him
in glowing terms. Were you so willing for Delk to hoist shots last year?
You weren't involved with this list at that time, so maybe others can
support your claim, whatever it is.
In the game vs Jersey when Delk and Shammond each had 21 points, do you
recall who it was who got them the ball? Toine had 7 assists while Paul had
6 and 13 boards, of which 4 were offensive. Most folks would call that a
pretty good team effort. Do you? I doubt it. You force yourself to find
something to cite as cause for Paul to be sat. You cannot have it both
ways. Obie has stated that Pierce and Toine are the scorers. When other
guys step up, that is wonderful, for surely the captains need the support.
But your harping on one thing (Paul)is pointless. Why not harp on Battie
for rebounding less than Paul in that game. If he truly wanted to help the
C's, should he be our leading rebounder in EVERY game? That would be an
equally foolish question.
Cecil
-----Original Message-----
From: Lance Jacobson [mailto:lancejacob@attbi.com]
Sent: November 27, 2002 11:36 AM
To: Wright, Cecil; celtics@igtc.com
Subject: Re: Paul Pierce
Cecil, rule #1 of internet boards is that you deal with what's posted to the
group, not what you read elsewhere.
Rule #2 is that you're accurate in what you restate from someone's post.
Rule #3 is that you make a modicum of sense.
My criticism of Pierce has changed, sir. Last year he was a ball hog but
shot at a better percentage than Twan. This year he's a lousy shooter,
still shooting plenty, and even though his assists are up, so are his
turnovers. He's a freakin' ALL-STAR for gosh sakes, don't you expect
ANYTHING from the arrogant, coach-bashing, self-promoting guy? He was the
focus of TEAM USA for the entire series.
And all you can say regarding his sloppy passing is that "everyone else
universally recognizes that Paul has worked on improving it."
Where's the evidence of that? He's handling the ball more, shooting more,
and passing more.
Show me HOW he's worked on passing BETTER!!!!
Yap, yap, yap. . .there's not a single fact in your UNIVERSAL representation
of the REALITY.
You write that there are small segments when others play well. Do you need
me to post the stats on Tony Delk's improvement in scoring AND MAJOR
MINUTES vs.last season?
Here's a sample:
YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
01-02 BOS 22 16 25.9 .349 .299 .733 .90 2.70 3.60 2.3 1.00 .27 .86 1.70
7.4
02-03 BOS 12 12 34.3 .421 .493 .800 .70 3.30 3.90 2.9 1.58 .08 1.17
2.40 12.8
He's playing 34.3 mpg, shooting 42.1% (up7.2%) and hitting 3s at over 49%
vs. Paul's 38% and 26.2% on 3s.
Anybody who's a fan of basketball and isn't biased in favor of a
big-mouthed, L.A-raised, Magic Johnson-chasing,
Teach-9-GMS-and-George-Karl-a-Lesson-vowing jerk would play Delk over
Pierce. And that means REDUCING Paul's time on the floor. Yes, I wrote it.
Wow!
This is why I get so ADAMANT in my responses to you. You write like a civil
servant. . .a whole page with no real factual basis. COME ON, CECIL, do
some RESEARCH before you call people names.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wright, Cecil" <Cecil.Wright@JUSTICE.GC.CA>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: Paul Pierce
> His criticism of Paul is so regular that Lance doesn't really have to come
> out and say it does he? He has said that his PT should be cut back to 30
> minutes per game. That is not an increase. He mentioned that the team
> plays better without him and points to small segments when another scorer
> plays well as evidence. He belittles his passing when I think everyone
else
> universally recognizes that Paul has worked on improving it. And as I
said
> to you before, he is on more than just these two boards. You have no idea
> of what Lance says elsewhere. But you are free to defend him if you wish
> AFAIC.
>
> Cecil Wright
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: JB [mailto:jimmetz@mac.com]
> Sent: November 27, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: Celtics List
> Subject: Fwd: Paul Pierce
>
>
> > I've read all of Lance's posts on both boards and I've never read
> > that he wants to bench Pierce. His criticisms of Pierce are well known
> > and although, in most of our opinions, he does go over the line of
> > common sense, in some of the charges, his main point; that there is
> > an inherent selfishness in his game, which needs to be ironed out, has
> > not only been stated by the coach and teammates of the USA team, this
> > summer, but been picked up by other reputable NBA observers. For
> > better or worse, true or not, it's become part of the NBA folklore,
> > with or without Lance's observations.
> > Why do you think that O'Brien was quoted in the 11/25 Bulpet column
> > {http://www.bostonherald.com/sport/celtics/cs11252002.htm}, as
> > saying that :
> > {``We had 22 assists,'' O'Brien said of Saturday's 109-99 win over
> > the Hawks in Atlanta, ``and we went 31-5 last year when we had 22 or
> > more assists in a game. We talk about unselfishness all the time.''} ?
> > Both Pierce and Walker are shooting at around a .380 clip. To me,
> > this is unacceptable for players taking 50 shots per game. I suspect
> > it's unacceptable for O'Brien also.
> > No one, not even Lance, has suggested that Pierce be benched, only
> > that he become more of a team player, particularly when his shot is
> > not falling; either because of the defensive attention he is now
> > receiving, or the fatigue of his summer schedule, or a possible hidden
> > injury, it doesn't matter.
> > It seems that every coach in the league is on that "unselfishness"
> > bandwagon. Bill Russell called it "team ego." That mentality wins
> > championships, not scoring titles.
> > Lance has a tough enough time defending what he does say, lets not
> > vilify him for things he never said.
> > JB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, at 11:06 PM, Shawn Niles wrote:
> >
> >> Well I certainly didn't do it to please Lance. I actually maybe did
> >> it for a little bit of selfish reasons. I think Lance really thinks
> >> most people agree with him that Pierce should be benched. I was
> >> interested in seeing what the difference in votes would be. As of
> >> now, it is 25 No's and 4 Yes's.
> >>
> >> (Waiting for Lances coy response)
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Banner 17 <cel33tics@yahoo.com>
> >>> To: celtics@igtc.com
> >>> Subject: Re: Paul Pierce
> >>> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:52:20 -0800 (PST)
> >>>
> >>> Exactly my thoughts, Why bother? I think it was Greg O who posted
> >>> this quote a few years back "When you wrestle the pig, the pig
> >>> enjoys it." Enough said.
> >>>
> >>> Eggcentric@AOL.com wrote:
> >>> << I have given Lance his wish. I added a poll to my website asking
> >>> if Pierce
> >>> should be benched. >> - shizzjr
> >>>
> >>> Is this a joke? Why bother? Lance has found his Pierce niche on four
> >>> different boards. I would think him to be clever and funny if he was
> >>> not such
> >>> an attention-seeking, insulting, two-years-and-counting, one-trick
> >>> BORE.
> >>>
> >>> Impossible to debate him with logic; impossible to insult him.
> >>>
> >>> Egg
> >>> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> >>
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> >> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail