His farewell tour is over.
One of our all time greats.
Enjoyed knowing that he excelled in the League even if I didn't watch him play too much.
15th all time scoring.
8 seasons averaging over 20 points.
Future Hall of Fame
NBA champion
Too bad he couldn't add NCAA champion to that because he was part of, in my opinion, the best KU team since I've been paying attention in the mid 80's.
I wonder if he'll reach out to Ainge / Stevens about coaching in Boston? He had been thinking about it in 2014 www.cbssports.com/nba/news/paul-pierce-says-he-and-kevin-garnett-talked-about-coaching/
I would think that is is a long shot. Former players that became successful coaches tend to the players that spend a lot of time on the bench observing and learning rather than playing. Of course there are exception such as Bird, KC Jones, Bill Russell, Billy Cunningham that were star players and won championships or were successful a as coaches. Most of the better coaches that were also players such as Jackson, Pat Riley and more recently Steve Kerr and Tyrone Lue were more role players than stars.
@JayHawkFanToo Sure. Paul did spend a lot of time on the bench watching recently :)
Would he come back here? Or would he be loyal to Roy?.. Maybe assist Roy and then come here? Would be hard to imagine a guy better suited to recruiting the coasts-- having grown up in So Cal and then becoming a legend in Boston..
@wissox Pierce spent a dozen years in Boston. He spent three in Lawrence. I would imagine those years in Boston weigh more heavily in his mind. I don't think that's a disrespect to KU, or a bias against the midwest. It's just he's an LA guy who finished his career in LA that happened to spend most of that career in Boston (and won a title there).
He never won a national championship at KU. He was a great player that doesn't have a clearly iconic KU moment (like Chalmers' shot) that most anybody that's a basketball fan would remember. We're KU fans, so it's easy for us to point to games we remember, but I don't know if that's the case for non-KU fans. The championship in Boston probably stands out to more casual fans, even those that don't necessarily follow the NBA. That's the tough case of lacking the national titles. It just doesn't resonate with more casual national fans.
wissox said:
@bskeet I just read an east coast biased article and it made no mention of Kansas. It almost seemed as if he'd forgotten his KU days because he was thanking all sorts of people related to his NBA career.
Well, the occasion was his retirement from the NBA, not from his life, or even all things basketball related as far as we know.
If you all get the chance and haven't already done so, just saw a pretty sweet piece/article on the " Truth" with a great video clip over off the LJW. - -The clip was other players, Coaches and such talking about Paul in his 19 yrs and high lights pretty cool stuff. You can find it if you like to see it under the heading of former Jayhawks in the NBA. Wish there was a way I could save that, love to have it for a keepsake piece of Paul.
Man I wish there were some way , I have a rookie pic like a 5x7 pic of Paul in his Celtic uniform . Kind of a pic of him laying on his side by a ball in his uniform and then another little rookie card almost like you know a topps baseball card of Paul up in the corner, its framed in a niece wooden frame - -Never been touched /opened up, wish I could somehow get Paul to sign it for me, be a valuable piece - -if he were to ever come back around KU sometime like other former players have, would be awesome. - - ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
My dad, who died six years ago, and who was a great judge of who would make it and who wouldn't, said Paul was going to be a great NBA player the moment he saw him at KU.
Dad ranked KU PLAYERS this way.
1 Chamberlain.
2 Manning and Lovellette.
3 Pierce and White.
He put Pierce there after only one season at KU.
Pierce was probably the most unique appearing player and possessed the oddest Combo of talents outside Charles Barkley.
Paul looked slow, but was incredibly fast and efficient.
Paul looked soft, but was incredibly strong and physical, when needed.
Paul looked lumbering but could out quick everyone.
He didn't look like a very good dribbler, but he could get everywhere he wanted faster than the best defenders.
His shooting form wasn't pretty, but he was a fine shot.
He appeared taciturn and moody sometimes, but he was relentlessly reliable and fiercely competitive.
My dad always said Paul was the kind of great player you had to play through every trip for him to make his teammates better, where as Jordan was the kind you wanted to weave in and let him take over in bursts. He said Roy wasted Pierce trying to fit him in like Smith fit Jordan in. He said they were different kinds of players. He said Pierce was like Oscar, or Wilt. He had MUA every trip and could play 3/4 speed and still dominate. Jordan was more of a thoroughbred that had to play hard to dominate. Smith and Phil
Jackson were right to weave Jordan into offenses and let him take over games in bursts. He said Pierce was wasted that way. He wasn't as brilliant as Jordan in bursts, and his ability to wear down and overpower opponents was squandered in short bursts. Pierce needed to be the hub every trip to maximize his advantage and let him pass out to his teammates as the moment dictated.
The Celts finally understood Pierce. Once they found the right guys for him, he got them rings.
He was an all-time great.
@jaybate-1.0 Your dad was a smart man.
Nice summary of his career. It's the way I remember him too.
It always befuddled me as to how Paul only won one ring with Garnett and Allen as teammates.
In D1, you have to have the right time zone and program to win serial rings.
In the L, you have to have one of the most marketable superstars in the right city to win serial rings.
The NBA never decided to make Paul the most marketable superstar, for whatever reason (and I'm sure there were many). And Boston, though once the flagship of NBA franchises and cities, was no longer that by the time of Paul's years there. Miami and Florida, Lakers/Warriors and CA, Knicks and NY, Cavs/Spurs and Texas: these are just vastly more important markets than Boston and Massachussetts. The audience demographics and locations of those viewers changed and the NBA changed with them.
The NBA simply cannot afford to let a team like Boston become a serial champion. It would wreck the TV and petrowear deals. Persons on this web site always talk about how no one cares about KU on either coast. Well, try marketing Boston jerseys in Texas, our second most populous state! Try marketing Boston tennis shoes in California! Try marketing Boston anything on the Redneck Riviera!!!! Not. Going. To. Sell. Worth. A. Damn!
Look at who the most marketable superstars were in Paul's time and you will see why they gave Boston a short time in the spot light, because Celtic restoration nostalgia was something they could market until LeBron was ready.
The NBA and D1 are businesses. Period.
Winning and who wins how much is apparently ALWAYS engineered around what makes the most business sense for the NBA enterprise.
Its good for bidness for David Stern and his replacement, Nosferatu, to see that the rings get spread around some. But the clusters of rings? Those have to happen where, and with who, it makes bidness sense. The L's always been that way. The National Bidness Association: Its Buck-tastic.
The above is the Real Economik of the L.
But there is also a basketball dimension to Paul winning only one ring.
First, it appeared to me that far more of Paul's prime was wasted with incompetent rosters and coaches than, say, Michael Jordan's was. Jordan played about 3 seasons or so with shizzle and Doug Collins, then Phil started to putting together a team for him. Paul seemed caught up in the mess that was created during the Cousins years and had to play through that, and then play through a rebuild too. FWIW, Paul appeared to be significantly past his prime after his first ring.
Then there is Doc Rivers. How shall I put this politely. I like Doc Rivers. He is among the last coaching connections to the Al Maguire/Hank Raymonds/Rick Majerus tree. But he is a career .580 NBA coach. Now, stop and think about it. What are the win/loss ratio of some serial ring winning coaches in NBA history?
Red Auerbach .662
Pat Riley .636
Phil Jackson .704
Gregg Popavich .694
Doc Rivers is a good coach.
But Doc is not in the same league of coaches that win serial rings.
I'm sure someone can find some coaches that have won 2 rings and have modest win/loss ratios, but once you get into the realm of these coaches with lesser win/loss ratios you are talking more about luck producing the difference between 1 and 2 rings, and less about the quality of the coaching.
Paul never got to play for a great coach in the NBA.
Hence, Paul's chances of winning multiple rings even with those two players on his roster for a few years, seems slim in retrospect.
You are correct coaching is a large part of the problem. But it's not like it's a one loss crap-shot tournament in the NBA.
I always thought Roy wasted Pierce. Never let him run with no leash. He could have scored 40 a game and carried us to 2 NCs.
A piece of my childhood gone, Paul Pierce was my first ku basketball player love. Back when I was 7 or 8 and just getting into KU BB I thought he was going to be one of the greats. I'd say he did pretty darn well in his pro career. @Fightsongwriter That 97 team believe with Vaughn and Pierce or the 2003 team with Hinrich and Collison are easily the two best KU teams to not cut down the nets. Sadly I feel like we've had about 10 teams in the 20 plus years I've been watching that had the team to do so......
