I'm not talking about the upcoming elections; I'm talking about Shank's
latest column, asking if Paul Pierce belongs on the Boston Celtic's all-time starting lineup:
Is it time to put Paul Pierce in the starting five for the all-time Celtics team?
I’m starting to think so.
...
Many of you perhaps already have Paul in your Parquet Pantheon. Not me. I’m a holdout.
...
Hmmmm. Good point. So maybe it should be Pierce alongside Russell, Bird, Havlicek, and Cousy.
On and on it goes, but in the end Shank is there, firmly straddling the fence. And also in the need for the copy desk to get its act together:
Pierce probably belongs. Sure, he has had his moments of immaturity. He played on a lot of bad teams and has only one championship in his pocket. He plays an inelegant game. Some would call it uglyball. But he is the greatest scorer in Celtic history. He has emerged as a leader. And he might be the toughest non-hockey player in the history of our town.
Funny - I thought
John Havlicek was the greatest scorer in Celtics history:
John Havlicek is the Celtics all-time leader in points and games played, scoring 26,395 points (20.8 points per game, 11th all-time in points scored in the NBA), and playing in 1,270 games (17th all-time).
Get me rewrite!
You guys have got to get lives. Do something.
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by, Dan!
ReplyDeleteNow I know what Willard Romney felt like waiting for Gingrich to finally give it up so he could claim victory.
ReplyDeleteConsult a dictionary. "Greatest" does not mean "highest number of total points, career." In fact, Pierce has a higher scoring average and, if he chooses to play as long, could average seven points below his career average to match Havlicek's career point total. You might also look at the style of play in the respective eras; team points scored per season was in the neighborhood 700 to 1400 higher in the earlier era.
Would you have had Teddy Ballgame fried on the town square for the talk about being the greatest hitter of all time when he didn't hold the record for average, hits or homers?
Try facts and common sense for a change.