non-KG/Gorman question

[Berry, Mark]

Not yet. Regardless of the numbers, he's not nearly the player Dominique
or Drexler were, and he doesn't have the rings Worthy has. Dominique
didn't get in on his first opportunity.

It's tough when you don't have the championships and sometimes tough
even when you do. Dennis Johnson was a winner who also put up great
numbers and played both ends of the floor as well as any guard of his
era, but he can't get in the Hall. So Pierce has a long way to go. 

The other interesting question is whether or not his number goes in the
rafters. There was a time when I would have said no -- not unless he
wins a title. But with Reggie's number up there, and the current
infatuation with Pierce from Wyc, my guess is it goes up there. If he
wins a title, that's fine. But I loved the way the Celtics did it in the
past -- gaudy numbers weren't what mattered. It was all about winning
the championship. You had to do that to reach the rafters. I think that
sent a great message.

Mark 


-----Original Message-----
From: celtics-bounces at igtc.com [mailto:celtics-bounces at igtc.com] On
Behalf Of mark at 10thumbs.org
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:33 PM
To: celtics at igtc.com
Subject: non-KG/Gorman question

I was wondering this after watching the 1st half of the MIA game and was
reminded of it when reading Jeff's post on him over at Celticsblog:


Is Paul Pierce a Hall-of-Famer?


I was thinking that he might need to make it to the Finals, but then i
looked at his numbers compared to 3 other recent Hall of Famers through
age 29: Drexler, Worthy and Nique.

http://tinyurl.com/2g6n6w

Pierce is right there with them each. I feel almost like Pierce is
underated by fans outside Boston b/c of the last many years, by fans of
Boston b/c of the irritating things he does sometimes (1 on 3, etc) and
may get overshadowed by KG over the next 2-3 years.

I find myself in that 2nd category -- i think i underate Pierce some b/c
of the frustration with what he could be. Though i've ALWAYS maintained
that i'd take him over T-Mac 100 times out of 100, who I feel like is
generally regarded by the national media as a better player.  Pierce's
won
playoff matches with far less talent, he's MUCH more durable than TMac,
and has endured with one team rather than leavving a good situation in
TOR, then complaining his way out of ORL.  In fact if you look at PP's
numbers they're better almost across the board -- if just barely

Just wondering what others thought.

(the other) mark

_______________________________________________
The Boston Celtics Mailing List
celtics at igtc.com
http://www.igtc.com/mailman/listinfo/celtics