# Larry Bird Vs. The World



## Jay Marioti

*Would Bird be just another player if he was Black?*

I think so but I can't explain right now.


----------



## futuristxen

That's pretty absurd. Listening to angry old pistons players talk around the water cooler again?

Larry Bird was a competitor. He played the game at a level that all the great ones do. If he were black, he might have been Magic Johnson. Those two guys had the same vision on the court.

And we're talking about one of the deadliest shooters and cockiest sonova*****es to play this game.

The 3-point shooting contest when he never even took off his warmup and didn't even watch his last shot go in because he was already putting the number 1 in the air.

Telling Xavier Mcdaniels where he was going to hit the game winning shot on him. And then doing it.

If nothing else Bird was probably one of the best trash talkers of all-time.

The only thing that would have changed if he were black, is that he would have been more villified by the national media. But as far as just playing, the guy had game.


----------



## Jay Marioti

All the things you said make him great were the things overhyped b/c he is white. Bird was not Magic nor did he see the things magic did. Bird if he was black was a overacheiving Sam Perkins.


DETlef Shrempf:|


----------



## luciano

*Re: Would Bird be just another player if he was Black?*



> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> I think so but I can't explain right now.


 Thanks for the brilliant justification of one of the silliest questions ever asked.

Comparing him to Sam Perkins or Shrempf is rediculous. 

Bird got one less ring then Johson in his playing career, and if you even did as little as watch highlights you would see he was a special player, maybe not the most athletic, but very special nonetheless. There is no denying that.


----------



## XStitchesX

> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> All the things you said make him great were the things overhyped b/c he is white. Bird was not Magic nor did he see the things magic did. Bird if he was black was a overacheiving Sam Perkins.
> 
> 
> DETlef Shrempf:|


Umm right if he was still black he would still have have a career 24.3 PPG average


----------



## Ben1

Even if he's black, he's still an amazing player who's an awesome shooter, tough competitor and does an awesome job in making his teammates better.


----------



## GNG

Bird's a top 5 player of all time no matter what color he is, and my own personal favorite. The fact that even two utter fools have voted yes. That tells me that two people have never watched an 80s game, let alone an 80s Celtic game.


----------



## kflo

larry bird was every bit as good as magic johnson. black or white, bird was the most feared player in the game for many years.


----------



## TheRifleman

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> larry bird was every bit as good as magic johnson. black or white, bird was the most feared player in the game for many years.


Kflo said it all.


For anybody to even ask a question like that shows us that they haven't watched a complete game with Bird playing - let alone watched him in game after game.


----------



## ToddMacCulloch11

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> larry bird was every bit as good as magic johnson. black or white, bird was the most feared player in the game for many years.



exactly


----------



## ScottVdub

how can he be just another player. he was the leader of a team that dominated the eastern conference for a decade and won championships. the old school pistons were ignorant for saying what they said and it was probably said to just get in the celtics heads. The bad boys pistons couldnt hold the 80's celtics jocks.


----------



## Joker

hehe. and jason kidd would only be an average point guard if he were black!


----------



## PauloCatarino

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> larry bird was every bit as good as magic johnson.


Well, not quite... 

But i can tell you this: Larry is an easy top 5 All-Nba.
How high would he be if he had actual hops and quickness (more athletic ability)?

Forget it... i don´t even want to imagine that!


----------



## Richie Rich

> Originally posted by <b>Joker</b>!
> hehe. and jason kidd would only be an average point guard if he were black!








Just curious, nothing against him, but Isn't Kidd half black? Thought I heard that once. Not sure, help????????


----------



## Richie Rich

And for whomeva' started this thread, paleeeeze. Bird was amazing. He was a one of a kind player, no color can change that or make it be seen in a different light, he is truly a LEGEND!!!


----------



## Mongolmike

For those that think Bird isn't "all that", try and catch the game on ESPN Classic of Boston vs Atlanta were Bird and Dominique go head-to-head almost the whole game. BOTH were COMPLETELY unstoppable. I think it was even a playoff game... someone else probably remembers for sure.


----------



## mofo202

This is the stupidest ****ing question ever asked in the history of basketball.

Larry Bird is one of the greatest shooters of all time. He was confident as hell. He had amazing court vision. He won a bunch of rings. He won MVP 3 times in a row!

I dont care if he was white, black, or green. He was one of the best goddamn players ever.


----------



## Bball_Doctor

Bird is arguably amongst the top 5, definitely top 10 player of all time. His accomplishments are too many list. His nickname includes the word "legend" in it. Bird just another player if he was black?:laugh: I guess Jordan and Wilt are just another "black" player then. Absurd.:uhoh:


----------



## GNG

It's akin to saying that if Paul Pierce was white, he'd be indisputably far and away the greatest player in the NBA.

(Just using Paul Pierce as an example. White or black, Pierce would still have the same amazing stats.)


----------



## Bball_Doctor

> Originally posted by <b>rawse</b>!
> It's akin to saying that if Paul Pierce was white, he'd be indisputably far and away the greatest player in the NBA.
> 
> (Just using Paul Pierce as an example. White or black, Pierce would still have the same amazing stats.)


The difference is that Bird is indisputably far and away amongst the greatest that has ever graced an NBA court. By his definition, players like Jordan, Wilt, Oscar, and Magic are just another "black" player.


----------



## KS Hoopster

Too the guy who brought up that comparing bird to black players is akin to saying if pierce was white he would be the best player in the game today. Well first off i do not agree with that statement. If pierce was white he would be considered to be on the same par as nowitzki, and would be ranked about the same as he is ranked now in the NBA. Neither one of these players pierce or nowitzki can do some of the things that bird can do. Neither one is nearly the passer that bird was, and neither one makes his teammates better the way bird did. Though that shouldn't downplay how good nowitzki or pierce are. They are both top ten players in the league today.


----------



## GNG

> Originally posted by <b>KS Hoopster</b>!
> Too the guy who brought up that comparing bird to black players is akin to saying if pierce was white he would be the best player in the game today. Well first off i do not agree with that statement. If pierce was white he would be considered to be on the same par as nowitzki, and would be ranked about the same as he is ranked now in the NBA. Neither one of these players pierce or nowitzki can do some of the things that bird can do. Neither one is nearly the passer that bird was, and neither one makes his teammates better the way bird did. Though that shouldn't downplay how good nowitzki or pierce are. They are both top ten players in the league today.


No. Sorry if people were missing the point I was attempting to make. I see the "If Bird was black..." statement as a reverse racism, plain and simple. "Bird was regarded as better than he really was because he was white." I think that's bunch of crap, because the stats and the titles, as well as seeing the guy actually play the game, obviously make the point that he was one of the top five players to ever pick up a basketball.

However, I can see where BballDoctor is going with his statement, and I can agree with that as well.

I wasn't comparing Bird directly to Pierce in terms of ability. Bird's easily better. But I trying to flip it around on the other side of the coin, saying that, in terms of the Bird statement (which I don't agree with) a really good black player today would be regarded higher than he really is if he were white, if that makes sense. It doesn't matter, because the wins, stats, titles, plays, etc determine how good a player really is. Not the color of the player's skin. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.


----------



## TrailofDead

This question is like asking, "If Tiger Woods was white, would he be just another golfer?" NO! They both were a fish out of water (Woods to a greater extent), but their play definitely explains the respect and popularity they have EARNED.

And if people like Michael Joran, Magic, Wilt, Barkley and Russell all talk about you in such high regard, you must be doing something right. Remember when Barkley started laughing when Bird was compared to Nowitski on TNT? He said something like Dirk is great, but they shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence. Magic always spoke of Bird as an equal. Jordan always talks about how he wanted to be on Bird and Magic's level when he entered the league. And I remember Wilt saying in his book that he prefered Bird to Dr. J, because Bird was more willing to take the last shot in the game, while the Doc was more prone to pass it up.


----------



## TheRifleman

> Originally posted by <b>Richie Rich</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just curious, nothing against him, but Isn't Kidd half black? Thought I heard that once. Not sure, help????????


His mom is white and his dad was black, same as Lenny Wilkens.


----------



## Bball_Doctor

> Originally posted by <b>rawse</b>!
> 
> 
> No. Sorry if people were missing the point I was attempting to make. I see the "If Bird was black..." statement as a reverse racism, plain and simple. "Bird was regarded as better than he really was because he was white." I think that's bunch of crap, because the stats and the titles, as well as seeing the guy actually play basketball obviously make the point that he was one of the top five players to ever pick up a basketball.
> 
> However, I can see where BballDoctor is going with his statement, and I can agree with that as well.
> 
> I wasn't directly comparing Bird directly to Pierce in terms of ability. Bird's easily better. But I trying to flip it around on the other side of the coin, saying that, in terms of the Bird statement (which I don't agree with) a really good black player today would be regarded higher than he really is if he were white, if that makes sense. It doesn't matter, because the wins, stats, titles, plays, etc determine how good a player really is. Not the color of the player's skin. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.


I agreed with Rawse to an extent because he was just showing how absurd the argument was using Paul Pierce as an example. I just added onto his argument. 

If Paul Pierce was white I doubt people would rank him ahead of Duncan, KG or Shaq. I also doubt if Shaq was white people would not regard him as the game's most dominating force today. It just doesn't make sense. What might be different however is how specific demographics might relate to that player. Marketing wise there could be a difference but that is where it ends. 

Bird is a legend and is regarded as such by all knowledgable basketball fans and historians in all races. This argument is ridiculous because if Bird was just another "black" player, if he was black, then you would also have to say the same for players like Magic, Oscar, Kareem because Bird's greatness in basketball history is often mentioned along side those names. I highly doubt that anyone knowledgable would admit to that. 

Just imagine. We are all making a list of the game's greatest players then Magic's name comes up. One of you says that Magic is a great player. Another acknowledges that Magic is deserving of a top 10 spot. Then when it is my turn to express my own opinion I reply with this exact statement:

"Nah Magic's just another player."

Sounds absurd doesn't it?

So unless if the original poster views basketball greatness in such a criteria then YES if Bird was black he would be just another "black" player. Why? Because under this same criteria players like Magic, Kareem, and Oscar are also just a bunch of another "black" players. 

To me whenever someone says that "name" is just another player that means that he is "average" or "satifactory". Nothing special. Therefore, this is how I interpreted this argument that the original poster posted. Honestly if the post didn't even include race and jsut said that Bird was just "another player" I would disagree with that as well. Bird's place in basketball history regardless of his race hardly suggests that he is just "another player". 

So to repeat myself, if one is to say that Bird would just be another "black" player if he was black then one must also acknowledge that Magic, Oscar and Kareem are just a bunch of "another players". Any basketball historian or knowledgable basketball fan would tell you, that is incorrect.


----------



## rainman

the original question dates back to the same one that isaah came up with back in the 80's.i'm thinking, and cant be sure,what zeke was trying to say was not that bird wasnt great but maybe he was hyped more by the fans or the media because he was white.certainly the league wanted to perpetuate the bird vs magic,L.A. vs boston matchups.from that standpoint maybe bird benefitted from being white.the fact is beyond that he was one of the 2 or 3 best players ever and anyone who followed him know that had nothing to do with skin color.


----------



## TheRifleman

> Originally posted by <b>rainman</b>!
> the original question dates back to the same one that isaah came up with back in the 80's.i'm thinking, and cant be sure,what zeke was trying to say was not that bird wasnt great but maybe he was hyped more by the fans or the media because he was white.certainly the league wanted to perpetuate the bird vs magic,L.A. vs boston matchups.from that standpoint maybe bird benefitted from being white.the fact is beyond that he was one of the 2 or 3 best players ever and anyone who followed him know that had nothing to do with skin color.



Actually, the<b> quote was originated by Rodman</b> and Zeke was so angry at the great defensive play Bird had made to beat the Pistons in the ECfinals again that Zeke sided in with the ROOKIE Rodman - much to the horror of Zeke's mom!

Zeke later apologized to Bird. 

I feel that a rookie like Rodman can be excused, while Zeke was NOT a rookie, but in the heat of battle, he lost his logic for a moment and that too can be excused.


----------



## Showtime84'

I agree completely with rainman.

I definetely think that's what Rodman and Isiah meant when they made the comments back in 87'. They weren't talking about Bird in an athletic scence, they were talking about the public and media's adulation of Larry Bird wich by the end of that Pistons-Celtics series was pretty much God like.

And when you wrap your head around it, they had a point. Bird wasn't a particularly good looking guy,not very athletic, not that well spoken or well read, not exactly the life of the party or a quote magnet but what he was clouded all of these other shortcommings. He was a white player dominating a quote on quote black league, simple as that. That drew 10 times more attention to him than if he had been black.

Same thing is happening today with Tiger Woods, he shares many of Bird's quality's in their demeanor and way of presenting themselves. However Tiger is the FIRST black golfer to dominate possibly the WHITEST sport around and that means INSANE ATTENTION.

So while it wasn't the most appropriate thing to say at the time, I can definetley see Isiah and Rodman's side of things.


----------



## mysterio

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> His mom is white and his dad was black, same as Lenny Wilkens.


Evern notice how it's almost never the other way around. What's up with that.


----------



## chapi

yes larry would be just another (top 5)player if he were black

he is the best white player of all time but he is "only" top 5 or top 10 of all the players


----------



## Like A Breath

His greatness can't be denied but I think being white helped him garner more attention from the white fans. I think this is why Brian Urlacher has tons of commercials while Derrick Brooks and Lavar Arrington get 0. I'm sure race has something to do with it, whether we like it or not. I think that is Nique was a white player he would be in the NBA's top 50 of all time because a white player with hops like that would garner much more attention.


----------



## mysterio

> Originally posted by <b>chapi</b>!
> yes larry would be just another (top 5)player if he were black
> 
> he is the best white player of all time but he is "only" top 5 or top 10 of all the players


West was better.


----------



## MLKG

As Bill Murray put it:

Larry's not white..... Larry's clear.


----------



## Northpole

> Originally posted by <b>mysterio</b>!
> 
> 
> Evern notice how it's almost never the other way around. What's up with that.


 Yeah but there probably in an equal amount you just only see this kind of relationship on TV more  Just kidding. I see alot of black wife and white husband where I live in Queens also.

Anyway Bird is a great player and Rodman and Isiah were wrong in saying he'd only be average since he put high numbers but him getting more attention for being white is probably true. Its still wrong though to say.


----------



## dmilesai

> Originally posted by <b>Like A Breath</b>!
> His greatness can't be denied but I think being white helped him garner more attention from the white fans. I think this is why Brian Urlacher has tons of commercials while Derrick Brooks and Lavar Arrington get 0. I'm sure race has something to do with it, whether we like it or not. I think that is Nique was a white player he would be in the NBA's top 50 of all time because a white player with hops like that would garner much more attention.


Derrick Brooks and Ray Lewis have both been in commercials.

Larry Bird could of possibly been even better if black, if that's believable. Whether you want to believe it or not, blacks are naturally better than whites at jumping with a few expections (David Lee, ETC.). So Bird could have had the same skills AND could of been more athletic.  

Larry Bird was unbelievable. 28 PPG, 7.6 APG, and 9.2 RPG one season. How is he not one of the greatest of all time, REGARDLESS of color?


----------



## Jim Ian

> Originally posted by <b>dmilesai</b>!
> 
> Larry Bird could of possibly been even better if black, if that's believable. *Whether you want to believe it or not, blacks are naturally better than whites at jumping with a few expections (David Lee, ETC.). * So Bird could have had the same skills AND could of been more athletic.
> 
> Larry Bird was unbelievable. 28 PPG, 7.6 APG, and 9.2 RPG one season. How is he not one of the greatest of all time, REGARDLESS of color?


I have now read the worst post ever. You can't be serious. This is 2003..... get with the times.

Wow. People never fail to amaze you if you let them blabber long enough.... :no:


----------



## CMC

If Larry Bird were black he wouldn't be considered as great a player by the media's standards IMO, but the talent was undeniable.

Everybody always wants to say, "oh, he played alongside 3 future hall of famers", but his ROOKIE season w/out Parrish, Mchale, or DJ he made the celtics more than 20 games better.

Would he be considered in the top 5 of nba players all-time? Probably not, but he'd still easily be top 10 IMO.


----------



## RoRo

> In 1987, Bird made the most significant defensive play of his career. In the fifth game of the East finals, Detroit held a one-point lead and was five seconds from taking a 3-2 series advantage. But Bird sneaked in to steal Isiah Thomas' inbound pass and then quickly passed to a cutting Dennis Johnson for the winning basket.
> 
> "If Bird was black, he'd be just another good guy," said Thomas after Boston won the seven game series.


http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00014096.html

oh yeah those bad boys were sure gracious in defeat. 

if bird were black it would kinda be like tim duncan this past year. people would call him boring but he would walk away with all hardware. kinda like how both players pulled a triple double in a finals game.


----------



## Ryoga

_about the difference between white and black athlets_



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I have now read the worst post ever. You can't be serious. This is 2003..... get with the times.
> 
> Wow. People never fail to amaze you if you let them blabber long enough.... :no:


actually there are severl biologists that think the opposite, as many others who agree with you.
It's a little more complicated than blacks>white (blacks are not a race, there's a whole lot of difference between people from Nigeria and from Kenya), but they say there's evidence that people who have west african ancestors have a lower percentage of body fat and an higher % of red fiber muscles. 

BTW this isn't an old prejudice, if race is the cause of different skin colors, different face shapes, different hair, different heights, while the hell should sound so foolish that it might be the reason because some are better natural athlets?


----------



## Jim Ian

> Originally posted by <b>Ryoga</b>!
> _about the difference between white and black athlets_
> 
> actually there are severl biologists that think the opposite, as many others who agree with you.
> It's a little more complicated than blacks>white (blacks are not a race, there's a whole lot of difference between people from Nigeria and from Kenya), but they say there's evidence that people who have west african ancestors have a lower percentage of body fat and an higher % of red fiber muscles.
> 
> BTW this isn't an old prejudice, if race is the cause of different skin colors, different face shapes, different hair, different heights, while the hell should sound so foolish that it might be the reason because some are better natural athlets?


I'm not a biologists, so I'm not going to go into great detail. I'm just amazed that it seems to be almost "in" to suggest that Black are better atheletes then whites, but imagine if someone suggested that Whites were just inherently smarter then Blacks? Or that Mexicans were inherently lazy. Or Japanese people are biologically healthier. People would be stamping them "bigots" and "racists". And I wouldn't disagree with them.

I saw this situation in Chicago, when Dusty Baker (Cubs coach) suggested that his Black players "took the heat better." That statement was glossed over by most media. At the time I wondered aloud what the public response would have been if Dick Jaron (Bears coach) had said his white players were better at skill positions because they were more intelligent. It's not a perfect example, but I think you can see my point.

When you start talking about Biology and Race, you open a whole can of worms that I just don't buy.

I can attibute _maybe_ 5% of a persons pre-determined body/athletic ability to race. They other 95% IMO is determined by situation, lifestlye, and upbringing. 

But hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## whiterhino

This was a ridiculous post and racist in my opinion. Larry *Legend* is top 5 of all time and to say he'd be considered "average" if he was black is preposterous!!! Yes, he played with McHale, Parish, and D. Johnson but Majic played with Jabbar, Worthy, and Cooper. They were BOTH amazing and it doesn't matter what the heck race they were!!!  :upset:


----------



## CelticsRule

> Originally posted by <b>mysterio</b>!
> 
> 
> West was better.


No way, West was never the best player on his own team, Elgin baylor and Wilt were better


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>celticsrule0873</b>!
> 
> 
> No way, West was never the best player on his own team, Elgin baylor and Wilt were better


i'd take bird over west by a slim margin - however, west finished highest on his team in mvp voting in 6 of 9 years, from '64 to '72 (with 4 2nd place finishes, a 3rd and a 5th). he was indeed the best on his team many seasons.


----------



## Spooner

Whoever voted yes , is probably one of those ignorant homeboys who thinks that Larry couldn't dunk.


Seriously if your that angry about whatever that you can't recognize skill than you need to check yourself.

Larry bird was smart, talented, and an amazingly complete player. This is like the reverse argument of why blacks couldn't play quarterback forever.


Oh yeah and how come everyone is making such a big deal of Isiah getting the axe, if he was WHITE I bet they wouldn't make such a big deal.


----------



## LakerMania

> Originally posted by <b>Showtime84'</b>!
> 
> Same thing is happening today with Tiger Woods, he shares many of Bird's quality's in their demeanor and way of presenting themselves. However Tiger is the FIRST *black* golfer to dominate possibly the WHITEST sport around and that means INSANE ATTENTION.


Minority might be a better word for him. His Asian side deserves a little credit too, or is that the wrong thing to say?


----------



## Spooner

> Originally posted by <b>LakerMania</b>!
> 
> 
> Minority might be a better word for him. His Asian side deserves a little credit too, or is that the wrong thing to say?




Yeah I hate to break it to y'all but he doesn't even think of himself as black, when you ask him he is like " I am comblanasian" com-blan-asian......


----------



## Jay Marioti

> Originally posted by <b>Northpole</b>!
> Its still wrong though to say.



Do we White people know the meaning of that


----------



## Jay Marioti

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> His mom is white and his dad was black, same as Lenny Wilkens.


The White side of Lenny equals all his losses. the wins are totaled to his blackside.


----------



## ltsook

What's comblanasian?


----------



## IV

*Re: Would Bird be just another player if he was Black?*



> Originally posted by <b>Jay Marioti</b>!
> I think so but I can't explain right now.


You don't really think that, and this is the reason why you can't explain it. You just saw the sound byte of Isaiah Thomas saying this about Bird back in the late 80's.

The notician that Larry would just be another player if he were black is absurb. I, for the life of me, can't imagine how everything Bird has accomplished from MVP's to Championships could ever be degraded if his skin changed colors. :nonono:


----------



## tigerblue

*Re: Re: Would Bird be just another player if he was Black?*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> You don't really think that, and this is the reason why you can't explain it. You just saw the sound byte of Isaiah Thomas saying this about Bird back in the late 80's.
> 
> The notician that Larry would just be another player if he were black is absurb. I, for the life of me, can't imagine how everything Bird has accomplished from MVP's to Championships could ever be degraded if his skin changed colors. :nonono:



:yes:


----------



## Ben1

Have Jay Marioti explained about why he thought Bird would be just another player if he was Black?


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Ben</b>!
> Have Jay Marioti explained about why he thought Bird would be just another player if he was Black?


I only read the initial post, but you can quote what he said, I'll read it and tell you why it's bogus. In fact, I can do this without having to read his reason why. It's really simple, skill is skill. Bird had game and it didn't matter what color his skin is. I bet Isiah wishes he could have taken back that silly comment.


----------



## Ryoga

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not a biologists, so I'm not going to go into great detail. I'm just amazed that it seems to be almost "in" to suggest that Black are better atheletes then whites, but imagine if someone suggested that Whites were just inherently smarter then Blacks? Or that Mexicans were inherently lazy. Or Japanese people are biologically healthier. People would be stamping them "bigots" and "racists". And I wouldn't disagree with them.
> 
> I saw this situation in Chicago, when Dusty Baker (Cubs coach) suggested that his Black players "took the heat better." That statement was glossed over by most media. At the time I wondered aloud what the public response would have been if Dick Jaron (Bears coach) had said his white players were better at skill positions because they were more intelligent. It's not a perfect example, but I think you can see my point.
> 
> When you start talking about Biology and Race, you open a whole can of worms that I just don't buy.
> 
> I can attibute _maybe_ 5% of a persons pre-determined body/athletic ability to race. They other 95% IMO is determined by situation, lifestlye, and upbringing.
> 
> But hey, that's just my opinion.


the reason why I don't by this kind of explanation is that it looks to politically correct and it doesn't bring to me enough evidence.
It is so easy to say that we're all the same and say that who succeeds is the one who works harder, but it's not true. 

You can say so in sports because it's far easier to measure the athletic performances rather than the mental ones. You can't even find a unique definition of intelligence, how could anybody pretend to jump to the conlcusion that white are smarter? But when you see how a strong a correlation is there between performances in particular races and race* you can't just minimize such an evidence!
BTW I won't to tell you this: from a siencetific standpoint, it would be legit to argue about caucasians being smarter, provided that someone would need to find very strong evidence about it. As I told you above, it's not too easy, as it wouldn't be too easy to separate the genetic and the cultural component in everyone's intelligence (however you'd define that). I don't see any reason to believe that now, but I wouldn't dismiss a study about without reading it calling it racist, if able to show valid points. 
Sience shouldn't care about this but should strive to understand how the world works...

* don't think race in a too strict way, it's much more complicated than a black/white thing...


----------



## jbs

Bird was my favorite player. Don't forget that he is also a legend in college basketball. He took a small team to the (Indiana State) to the championship game where he met Magic's team. The rest is history.
Here is a short recap of his career for those too young to have seen him play:
http://www.nba.com/history/players/bird_bio.html
Here are the stats for every year: http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/birdlarr.shtml


----------



## Nate505

Bird's career averages:

24.3 PPG
9.6 RPG
6.3 APG
49.6% FG
88.6% FT
37.6% 3 point 
1.73 steals per game

Yeah, there are ton's of average black guys out there that put up numbers like that 
:uhoh: 

One of the 10 greatest players ever.


----------



## dmilesai

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I have now read the worst post ever. You can't be serious. This is 2003..... get with the times.
> 
> Wow. People never fail to amaze you if you let them blabber long enough.... :no:


I didn't base this on personal opinion NOR personal experiences. I based it on what scientists have told to the public, and that is that blacks are naturally more athletic than whites. Like I said though, there are exceptions to this theory.


----------



## Jim Ian

> Originally posted by <b>Ryoga</b>!
> 
> 
> the reason why I don't by this kind of explanation is that it looks to politically correct and it doesn't bring to me enough evidence.
> It is so easy to say that we're all the same and say that who succeeds is the one who works harder, but it's not true.
> 
> You can say so in sports because it's far easier to measure the athletic performances rather than the mental ones. You can't even find a unique definition of intelligence, how could anybody pretend to jump to the conlcusion that white are smarter? But when you see how a strong a correlation is there between performances in particular races and race* you can't just minimize such an evidence!
> BTW I won't to tell you this: from a siencetific standpoint, it would be legit to argue about caucasians being smarter, provided that someone would need to find very strong evidence about it. As I told you above, it's not too easy, as it wouldn't be too easy to separate the genetic and the cultural component in everyone's intelligence (however you'd define that). I don't see any reason to believe that now, but I wouldn't dismiss a study about without reading it calling it racist, if able to show valid points.
> Sience shouldn't care about this but should strive to understand how the world works...
> 
> * don't think race in a too strict way, it's much more complicated than a black/white thing...



Very interesting points. But I'd argue that it's much easier to measure intellegence (with an IQ test) then measure the many variables that can be considered "athletic" such as different measures of speed (40, 100, mile), stamina, co-ordination, agility, different measures of strength (bench, leg press, ect).

I think it's silly to say that just because blacks ARE dominating basketball right now that it's BECAUSE they are black. Whites are Spanish people dominate other sports; is every race pre-dispositioned to dominate in a certain sport? I just don't buy that. 

Are white guys like Nolan Ryan and Clemons and Shilling and Johnson and Gagne and Maddox Prior and and Smoltz and Buerhle better at baseball because they are white? No, it's because they were raised playing catch with their dads.

Is Tiger a great golfer because he's black? No way. It's because he's been golfing since he was 3!

The Williams sister? Tennis since before they could read.

These are just situational examples that I can come up with off the top of my head to quickly back up my point without getting into to much boring detail. I just think when you see a great player at any sport, a lot has to do with what sport they pick up as a kid, what sport they play in the neighborhood.


----------



## likitsakos

Maybe Isiah would like to explain how Celtics were able to play 5 white guys for prolonged periods and still kick Piston's [edit].

Why didn't he stop them? Before they got injured. Remember that the year Pistons finally won Bird played only 6 games the whole season.

Actually Bird's best 3-4 years were closer to 30 points per game and 53% shooting. Just imagine what his career stats could have been if he didn't get injured so early. There aren't many players of any color with those stats.

What about McHale's 26 per game and 60% + shooting. Has anybody ever shot over 60% while averaging over 15-20 points ( don't count those guys who only shoot 5 layups per game and average 7 points per game.

There is another famous saying from the 80s. It explains why Aguirre was drafted before Thomas.

Don't know who said it, but I guess somebody who made the choice. He said: "When your choice is between two morons you draft a taller one" Aguirre was taller, so he went earlier.


----------



## Sportarium

I can't believe this is even being talked about.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting points. But I'd argue that it's much easier to measure intellegence (with an IQ test) then measure the many variables that can be considered "athletic" such as different measures of speed (40, 100, mile), stamina, co-ordination, agility, different measures of strength (bench, leg press, ect).
> 
> I think it's silly to say that just because blacks ARE dominating basketball right now that it's BECAUSE they are black. Whites are Spanish people dominate other sports; is every race pre-dispositioned to dominate in a certain sport? I just don't buy that.
> 
> Are white guys like Nolan Ryan and Clemons and Shilling and Johnson and Gagne and Maddox Prior and and Smoltz and Buerhle better at baseball because they are white? No, it's because they were raised playing catch with their dads.
> 
> Is Tiger a great golfer because he's black? No way. It's because he's been golfing since he was 3!
> 
> The Williams sister? Tennis since before they could read.
> 
> These are just situational examples that I can come up with off the top of my head to quickly back up my point without getting into to much boring detail. I just think when you see a great player at any sport, a lot has to do with what sport they pick up as a kid, what sport they play in the neighborhood.


there is certain anecdotal evidence that's hard to rationalize away, though. african-american dominance in track and field (sprints & jumping in particular). african-american dominance in basketball. african-american dominance at skill positions in football. the number of whites playing football far outnumber the number of blacks. running and jumping are things done by everyone - if you have the talent you know it. basketball is played by a large number of whites - for some it's a way of life as well. 

i wouldn't argue it's genetic, and certainly not that you can use the same argument for intelligence. nor does it diminish the accomplishments of those who do succeed. but there is evidence that there's something more than just nurture and circumstance at play. i don't think it's racist to even suggest. where it gets taken could end up racist, but not at this point, imo.


----------



## mike

Truth is Thomas probaly said that after Bird beat his Pistons. More specifically after Bird stole the ball when they had the game won. Magic Johnson said it best when he said, "I fear no one but Larry Bird, cuz if you keep it close, hes gonna win that game". He wasn't great out of racism period.


----------



## Ryoga

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Very interesting points. But I'd argue that it's much easier to measure intellegence (with an IQ test) then measure the many variables that can be considered "athletic" such as different measures of speed (40, 100, mile), stamina, co-ordination, agility, different measures of strength (bench, leg press, ect).


IQ is trash, to measure intelligence.
Researchers say that there are 7 seven different types of intelligence, while IQ can (ineffectively) measure only one (logic).
Meanwhile, in sports, there are some different parameters to consider, and there have been studies about correlation between race and some of those.
"Athletic" is way too generic, actually you need to consider all the single measures you mentioned, to understand which ones are related and if you'll really see differences between races and, id any, if they have other valid explanations but genetics.


> I think it's silly to say that just because blacks ARE dominating basketball right now that it's BECAUSE they are black. Whites are Spanish people dominate other sports; is every race pre-dispositioned to dominate in a certain sport? I just don't buy that.
> 
> Are white guys like Nolan Ryan and Clemons and Shilling and Johnson and Gagne and Maddox Prior and and Smoltz and Buerhle better at baseball because they are white? No, it's because they were raised playing catch with their dads.
> 
> Is Tiger a great golfer because he's black? No way. It's because he's been golfing since he was 3!
> 
> The Williams sister? Tennis since before they could read.
> 
> These are just situational examples that I can come up with off the top of my head to quickly back up my point without getting into to much boring detail. I just think when you see a great player at any sport, a lot has to do with what sport they pick up as a kid, what sport they play in the neighborhood.


there a hole in your logic: it's not enough to ask yourself what race are the best players in a sport, the most important question is _what makes them better_?
What sets them apart? 

Williams sisters: they just overpower 99% of the other players, while having great mobility. They have not a better touch then other star players, no more court savvy, no more fundamentals. The differencemaker is their power.
But this is too much of an isolated case to drive to any conclusion, tennis is not a "black" game, there are not enough black people playing it... so why don't we come back to basketball?
What do you think makes Shaq, or in the past Robinson or Olajuwon, better the Divac? 
Divac was way the better passer, was probably smarter, had better all around fundamentals. But the others were jumping higher, were quicker, stronger, and that made them MVPs and future HOFers.
They were better athlets. I don't mean that they weren't able to do anything else, but that their athleticism was the differencemaker.
And it's almost the same also in the other positions: what white players usually lack are the phisic skills, not others.
Once again, I don't mean that blacks can't really play, I mean that all the aspects of the game are comparable, all but the phisic part.

I don't know you, but I don't see any other explanation but race, for this. What makes me think more is what happens with big men: when you're 7 feet tall, you're going to play basketball, in the US. If you have Shaq's or Robinson's or Ewing's or Olajuwon's body, you're going to play pro somewhere, even if you can't really play. At least you're gonna get a scolarship and free education.
How many white players with that body have you ever seen, in US colleges?

Conclusion: what make people think about race is the phisical dominance, not only the value of players.


----------



## Jim Ian

> Originally posted by <b>Ryoga</b>!
> 
> IQ is trash, to measure intelligence.
> Researchers say that there are 7 seven different types of intelligence, while IQ can (ineffectively) measure only one (logic).
> Meanwhile, in sports, there are some different parameters to consider, and there have been studies about correlation between race and some of those.
> "Athletic" is way too generic, actually you need to consider all the single measures you mentioned, to understand which ones are related and if you'll really see differences between races and, id any, if they have other valid explanations but genetics.
> 
> there a hole in your logic: it's not enough to ask yourself what race are the best players in a sport, the most important question is _what makes them better_?
> What sets them apart?


I don't think that an IQ test is "trash" My point was that there are 100 ways to define "intellligence", and there are 100 measures of "athletic ability"

What may be consdiered athletic (or intellegent) by one person may not be the same measure considered to be the best or most accurate by another person.




> Williams sisters: they just overpower 99% of the other players, while having great mobility. They have not a better touch then other star players, no more court savvy, no more fundamentals. The differencemaker is their power.
> But this is too much of an isolated case to drive to any conclusion, tennis is not a "black" game, there are not enough black people playing it... so why don't we come back to basketball?


The Williams sisters are well known to have been playing tennis since they were in the womb. Their constant serving repitition and practice is what has provided them with such power.

On the other hand, if, as you seem to suggest, african-americans are better equiped to be stronger servers... why is it all the strongest servers on the Men's side are white or euopean?



> What do you think makes Shaq, or in the past Robinson or Olajuwon, better the Divac?
> Divac was way the better passer, was probably smarter, had better all around fundamentals. But the others were jumping higher, were quicker, stronger, and that made them MVPs and future HOFers.
> They were better athlets. I don't mean that they weren't able to do anything else, but that their athleticism was the differencemaker.


Yes, i agree, Shaq is a better athelete then Divac. But the question is WHY. I don't think that just the mere fact that they are visably darker skinned is the end-all of how athletic they are. What about thier parents? Was Shaqs daddy an athlete, while Divacs was a painter? THAT makes a difference.

I personally think Brent Barry and Jason Williams are more athletic then your average NBA backcourt.

Reasonable explanation: One was raised in a pure-basketball family environment, and the other played ball all day long in the playground in his neighborhood. * Environment, Environment, Environment. *



> And it's almost the same also in the other positions: what white players usually lack are the phisic skills, not others.
> Once again, I don't mean that blacks can't really play, I mean that all the aspects of the game are comparable, all but the phisic part.
> 
> I don't know you, but I don't see any other explanation but race, for this. What makes me think more is what happens with big men: when you're 7 feet tall, you're going to play basketball, in the US. If you have Shaq's or Robinson's or Ewing's or Olajuwon's body, you're going to play pro somewhere, even if you can't really play. At least you're gonna get a scolarship and free education.
> How many white players with that body have you ever seen, in US colleges?
> 
> Conclusion: what make people think about race is the phisical dominance, not only the value of players.


Sorry, your last part confused me. I think there is a abundance of white 7-footers. They are usually refered to as "journeymen", hahah. Guys like Joe Klein, Will Purdue, Vitaly Potopenko, Duane Shintziz, Rony Seikley, the list of stiffs go on. But don't imagine that whites are the only stiffs. Duane Causewell and Ruben Boumtje Boumtje ring a bell? UGH!


I just ask you this then, in closing... Does race determine everything? Well then what happens if you have a white mom (for Intellegence?) and a black dad (for Athletics), does that give you the best of both worlds? Is that how you create the perfect man???? 

I... just don't buy that, sorry. :whoknows:


----------



## Ryoga

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I don't think that an IQ test is "trash" My point was that there are 100 ways to define "intellligence", and there are 100 measures of "athletic ability"


the problem is that if you ask people who study the problem they'll tell that it's VERY inaccurate, and the worst thing is that often happens that people who repeat those tests several times learn how to solve some questions as if they were practicing, because they start understanding the logic behind.
It's better not to argue too much about this, because I guess neither of us is an expert.

But even buying that the IQ test is the perfect way to measure intelligence, there would still be a way to go before speaking about race! Several studies on twins proved how genetic is important, but envirement is even more to have high intelligence. There would be a lot argue to demonstrate that differences that someone might see in the results of the test (I have no idea if there are any...) are not do to different education!


> What may be consdiered athletic (or intellegent) by one person may not be the same measure considered to be the best or most accurate by another person.


forget the word athletic for a moment. Just consider all the single parameters separatly: you agree that all the anaerobic races are dominated by black athlets with west african ancestors?


> The Williams sisters are well known to have been playing tennis since they were in the womb. Their constant serving repitition and practice is what has provided them with such power.


and you think that ALL the other players didn't? half of the players had a crazy dad/mom that made them play hours a day since they were children! 
even I played a lot as youngster, hours every day, and believe me when I tell you that I've never been worth the #1 in the world ranking! 


> On the other hand, if, as you seem to suggest, african-americans are better equiped to be stronger servers... why is it all the strongest servers on the Men's side are white or euopean?


reason #1 is that there are not enough black players playing tennis! That's why I wanted to come back to basketball!



> Yes, i agree, Shaq is a better athelete then Divac. But the question is WHY. I don't think that just the mere fact that they are visably darker skinned is the end-all of how athletic they are. What about thier parents? Was Shaqs daddy an athlete, while Divacs was a painter? THAT makes a difference.
> 
> I personally think Brent Barry and Jason Williams are more athletic then your average NBA backcourt.
> 
> Reasonable explanation: One was raised in a pure-basketball family environment, and the other played ball all day long in the playground in his neighborhood. * Environment, Environment, Environment. *


maybe I wasn't clear (very likely, considering how English is not my native language).
Do we agree that the average black basketball player is more athletic (whatever definition we use) than the average white one?
Do we agree that the most athletic players are all black, and that even Barry or Williams are far from Carter's or Francis's level? 
Do you find another explanation for this but race?
I find two possibile answers:
-most of the black players had a different training or habits or somethingelse that made them more athletic on average (this is an evidence, isn't it?)
-there are white athlets as good as them, somewhere, but their doing somethingelse.
Considering how I absolutly don't by the first explanation, let's go on...


> Sorry, your last part confused me. I think there is a abundance of white 7-footers. They are usually refered to as "journeymen", hahah. Guys like Joe Klein, Will Purdue, Vitaly Potopenko, Duane Shintziz, Rony Seikley, the list of stiffs go on. But don't imagine that whites are the only stiffs. Duane Causewell and Ruben Boumtje Boumtje ring a bell? UGH!


I was not looking for a white 7 footer in the NBA, or somewherelse, but for someone as tall and as athletic as Shaq or Robinson.
My assumption was that if there were any, they would play basketball somewhere even if they had no talent, and that would go against the second hypothesis I've made.
The names you quoted are not in this category.


> I just ask you this then, in closing... Does race determine everything? Well then what happens if you have a white mom (for Intellegence?) and a black dad (for Athletics), does that give you the best of both worlds? Is that how you create the perfect man????
> 
> I... just don't buy that, sorry. :whoknows:


when the hell did I tell that white ARE more intelligent? I've tried everything to prove that it's impossible tell because there's not a good definition of intelligence!


----------



## benfica

*I do know*

That Portuguese are the best craftsman(they can build anything out of stone with just the eye), soccer players, fisherman, road builders and sailors on earth. But we suck at Basketball cause 98 percent of the population is under 6ft and that stinks.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: I do know*



> Originally posted by <b>benfica</b>!
> That Portuguese are the best craftsman(they can build anything out of stone with just the eye), soccer players, fisherman, road builders and sailors on earth. But we suck at Basketball cause 98 percent of the population is under 6ft and that stinks.


True that!
Well, there was on Carlos Lisboa...


----------



## Spooner

I love this thread, how everyone posts scientific studies done by scientists, yet no one has either a link OR CORRECT SPELLING OF THE WORD scientist. It seems you all are a bunch of "scienticians"


Anyone who participates in this debate except to refute it is a total idiot; why you ask? 



BLACK AND WHITE ARE NOT RACES 



You're all just a bunch of bitter racial idiots dragging the quality of this site down. It's posts like this that make legitamate posters and people who didn't drop out of highschool sick. And again keep people from not only donating money but putting time into their posts.

My only recourse in reading crap like this is that I bet the lot of you " racial theorists" are middle aged bitter fluffers using the computer at your local library waiting on the bus to take you to your mom's house. You suck at life, this point is reflected by your ideas. You people make me glad there is a death penalty, and that our prisons are overcrowded.


----------



## Yao_Ming

OK I thought it was pretty obvious that the average african american can naturally jump higher, run faster then the average white guy. The world class sprinters, and jumpers are 99.9% black. I read a book by Jon Entine about this subject for school, so there is evidence. It's also really obvious just by looking at sports, the most athletic guards in the NBA are black. In football all the RB's,Wr's,and CB's are pretty much black. And also 90% of the marathon winners are from Kenya or Ethiopia. Another fact is that all the world record times for a running distance in track and field is held by someone with african descent. So with such obvious evidence, I think it's pretty accurate to say that most black guys have more athletic potential when it comes to running and jumping. At my school I'm one of the better athletes, and there is this one black kid who is a lazy pothead and never works out. Yet he can dunk and beat 95% of the kids in a sprint so...


----------



## TMOD

> I was not looking for a white 7 footer in the NBA, or somewherelse, but for someone as tall and as athletic as Shaq or Robinson.


 Um, my 2 cents: two young, and white, basketball players, Frans Steyn and Kosta Perovic, are both taller than Shaq and Robinson, and comparably athletic. Steyn is also Shaq sized, at 300 pounds. However, Perovic came up in the Yugoslavian basketball system, and Steyn grew up playing rugby...both these could lend to their superior athletic ability compared to their peers.


----------



## Spooner

Whatever

and for the fool who thinks an IQ test is trash math is math no matter how many loopholes you try to find.


----------



## Spooner

Anyone here have a legitamate reason why he would have been just another player, that can comprehend stastics? Seirously there has to be at least 14 of you.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Spooner</b>!
> Anyone who participates in this debate except to refute it is a total idiot; why you ask?
> 
> BLACK AND WHITE ARE NOT RACES


Actually Black is a race. I know many 'black' people who do not consider themselves African American, and I'm one of them. It's a matter of preference, some identify with an African heritage where others identify moreso with his American history.



> You're all just a bunch of bitter racial idiots dragging the quality of this site down. It's posts like this that make legitamate posters and people who didn't drop out of highschool sick. And again keep people from not only donating money but putting time into their posts.


I would argue that the quality of your post and people like you, who do not contribute meaningful thoughts to the thread subject, our the idiots bringing this site down and are the reason most do not monetarily contribute.



> My only recourse in reading crap like this is that I bet the lot of you " racial theorists" are middle aged bitter fluffers using the computer at your local library waiting on the bus to take you to your mom's house. You suck at life, this point is reflected by your ideas. You people make me glad there is a death penalty, and that our prisons are overcrowded.


You beautifully articulate your points so well that I'm sure everyone reads them and agrees with you. :whoknows: 
Check this out wise guy, if you wanna get your point across to people, quit attacking the things about them you know nothing about. Skip the personal 'crap' and talk straight. You'd think a guy that is as educated as yourself would know that.


----------



## Nightfly

This is one of the stupidest polls I think I've ever seen.

You clearly have never watched or seen Larry Bird play jay...

Larry was a great player. I don't give a damn what color he is.


----------



## Nmage

I think it's debateable whether there would be or would have been as much "hype" surrounding Bird... but (eventhough I hated him - I was a Dr. J 76ers fan) his skills and 'clutchness' are UNDENIABLE!!!

Can anyone say that Magic Johnson is seen as and revered as quite the "Legend" that Larry is... It seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that Bird is held in higher esteem than Magic for whatever reason or perhaps many of his Black counterparts...

It just seems that way to me. 

It's like the idea that White players who may not have as much "athletic" ability are almost always considered "smart" players when they are successful in a sport. Someone compared Olajuwon to Divac claiming Divac to be the smarter more fundamentally sound. I beg to differ. First, I don't know how you measure such "intelligence" when both are/were successful. I don't recall Hakeem just 'jumping over' all the competition. He out-manuevered them and that take's intelligence (like a chest game) as well as agility. And Hakeem's footwork in order to do the "Dream Shake" was the ultimate.

BACK TO BIRD...
He was/is a great player. But I do tend to think that just as with Jordan there is a degree of "over-hype" where the media attempts to proclaim his/their greatness to the extent that it overshadows others that are credible players/contemporaries so much that the measure of those other players and their own greatness are never fully recognized, IMO.

Like... how crazy it is for the hype about Jordan "burning" Byron Russell on that fateful shot (and highlight) when Jordan clearly pushed off to create his shooting advantage. Apparently, the "great ones" get to cheat because that uncalled offensive foul has never tainted Jordan's greatness for that moment or altogether.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Nmage</b>!
> I think it's debateable whether there would be or would have been as much "hype" surrounding Bird... but (eventhough I hated him - I was a Dr. J 76ers fan) his skills and 'clutchness' are UNDENIABLE!!!


How can this possibly be debatable? What he did on the court created the hype. This man was a true winner and played as hard as anyone. 3 time MVP in a row, come on.... black or white a 3 time MVP will get major hype.



> Can anyone say that Magic Johnson is seen as and revered as quite the "Legend" that Larry is... It seems to me (and this is only my opinion) that Bird is held in higher esteem than Magic for whatever reason or perhaps many of his Black counterparts...


Bird is not held in a higher esteem than Magic as far as greatness. On ESPN's top 50 greatest athletes list Bird is ranked well below Magic.



> It's like the idea that White players who may not have as much "athletic" ability are almost always considered "smart" players when they are successful in a sport.


Magic Johnson was no more athletic than Larry Bird. In fact, neither was very athletic at all. They both understood the game and could play it at the highest level.


----------



## Nmage

IV...

You completely misunderstood what I was trying to say... When Magic Johnson first talked about coaching, was he received or perceived in a manner like Bird was?

When I talk about media hype, the 50 Greatest List does not factor in. I'm talking about everyday esteem like there seems to be little criticism of Larry's dealings in Indy. The majority of the things I've read seem to almost flatly say, "If Larry Does It, It's the Right Thing!"

I never argued that Magic was any more "athletic" than say Bird. That was someone else's argument that Black players are more "athletic" and White players whether athletic or not are "smart". 

You seem to be try to argue with me for arguments sake. I said his skills were UNDENIABLE... I just said that it seems to me that he is held in higher esteem more so on a personal, trans-basketball level. He's Larry "Legend" whereas Magic Johnson is just Magic, and every time you say his name or mention the things he's involved in the same "magic" isn't there.

I guess Magic seems mortal now whereas Bird is part of the Pantheon with only Michael as a peer, IMO, yet that is clouded by his job with the Wizards...


----------



## kflo

nmage - bird had success as a coach - magic didn't (jordan has had his problems as well in mgmt). he is held in higher esteem as it relates to abilities beyond playing (related to basketball), at this point. as players, magic generally gets more credit and is held in higher esteem than bird (even though it should be fairly even, imo).

when bird got into coaching, the magic debacle had already happened, and many of the same questions surrounded him. he had success. magic came onto the coaching scene with credibility - he just lost it quickly and he himself didn't think coaching was for him.


----------



## IV

Bird's disgression as a coach is less criticized because he was an excellent coach. He took his team to the finals in only 3 years. No one can second guess Larry until he fails, he hasn't so far. 
It's not "if Larry does it it's the right thing", it's well Larry was a legend as a player, and he took our team to the finals as our coach..... Now's he's the GM..... Let's see what he can do this time.

I don't understand why you make it seem like exagerrated media hype with Bird or even Jordan for that matter. Those two deserve every bit of hype they get. In fact, I dont even call it hype I call it respect. Jordan is the greatest, and Bird isn't far behind. Magic was also great! He won 5 titles in 9 trys during the 80's, that's not hype... those are results.


----------



## Nmage

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> Bird is not held in a higher esteem than Magic as far as greatness. On ESPN's top 50 greatest athletes list Bird is ranked well below Magic.


Okay... going by the LIST, would you say Jim Brown is as respected, as "hyped", or held in higher esteem in society, by the media, in the everyday person's idea as much as Larry Bird?? or even Wayne Gretzky??

Jim Brown is No. 4 on the list!!!
Yet when he is mentioned as an advisor to Maurice Clarett what do you think most Americans think of him? Something positive or negative??

Which one of these players - Brown, Gretzky or Bird - do you think has made the greatest "contribution" to society in terms of "helping" people? And you can include Magic in that too...
Which of those have done more for others???

Sorry...
Your 50 Greatest ... logic doesn't quite pull it off. The overwhelming perception of Magic and Brown is that they were good athletes and good athletes alone... (for the most part)... but I would say that Bird and Gretzky are perceived as "good" people as well as athletes in a way that it is not so readily accorded to Magic and Brown for whatever reason.

Bird is larger than life it seems. And he definitely gets way more pub and benefits-of-a-doubt than say Brown does. Because the first thing I'm sure a lot of people thought when Brown was report to be an advisor to Maurice Clarett most people thought of or emotionally compared it to their perception of Johnny Cochran. And that was wayyyyyyyyyyyy before anyone even heard what it was that Jim Brown was "advising" Clarett about, specifically. If it had been Larry Bird, because of his "reputation", it would have been all thumbs up! And I think you know that...

So I stand by my point that there is a different public perception and esteem accorded to Bird...


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Nmage</b>!
> 
> Okay... going by the LIST, would you say Jim Brown is as respected, as "hyped", or held in higher esteem in society, by the media, in the everyday person's idea as much as Larry Bird?? or even Wayne Gretzky??
> 
> Jim Brown is No. 4 on the list!!!
> Yet when he is mentioned as an advisor to Maurice Clarett what do you think most Americans think of him? Something positive or negative??


I respect Jim Brown as an advisor miles ahead of anything that Wayne, or Bird has ever done. Jim Brown is relating to social issues that most Americans do face. So, HELL YEAH, I respect that. He took the bloods and crips, sat them down and talked straight, who do you know that could do that?



> Which one of these players - Brown, Gretzky or Bird - do you think has made the greatest "contribution" to society in terms of "helping" people? And you can include Magic in that too...
> Which of those have done more for others???


Without Researching it I can tell you Jim Brown is the one. I dont have enough time to articulate my arguement but I will tomorrow.



> Sorry...
> Your 50 Greatest ... logic doesn't quite pull it off. The overwhelming perception of Magic and Brown is that they were good athletes and good athletes alone... (for the most part)... but I would say that Bird and Gretzky are perceived as "good" people as well as athletes in a way that it is not so readily accorded to Magic and Brown for whatever reason.


Don't take this the wrong way, but this is when I know I'm not speaking to a black person. If you were or even knew anything about anything you'd know that Jim Brown has been involved in social change since the days of segregation. 



> Bird is larger than life it seems. And he definitely gets way more pub and benefits-of-a-doubt than say Brown does. Because the first thing I'm sure a lot of people thought when Brown was report to be an advisor to Maurice Clarett most people thought of or emotionally compared it to their perception of Johnny Cochran. And that was wayyyyyyyyyyyy before anyone even heard what it was that Jim Brown was "advising" Clarett about, specifically. If it had been Larry Bird, because of his "reputation", it would have been all thumbs up! And I think you know that...
> 
> So I stand by my point that there is a different public perception and esteem accorded to Bird...


I'll kick some facts to your tomorrow, we'll talk then.


----------



## Nmage

That "he hasn't failed" stuff don't work with me. If a person does something "questionable" they should be questioned, I don't care who they are. I don't believe in giving them a pass just because of who they are or more importantly who they are perceived to be.

I don't believe in hero-worship. Obviously you do.

I do also think there's a striking difference in the team that Bird took to the finals and the one Thomas coached. I'm not berating Bird coaching ability but it *exaggerated* when a person compares the veteran team he had with the young team Thomas had.

On the topic of the Pacers coaching change, Carlisle, Bird etc... I've even heard some Pacer fans say they believe Carlisle was the real mastermind behind Bird's coaching... X's and O's.


----------



## Nmage

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but *this is when I know I'm not speaking to a black person.* If you were or even knew anything about anything you'd know that Jim Brown has been involved in social change since the days of segregation.


See... that's where you're WRONG!!!
I asked you a question and never said what my answer or thoughts were about it...

I mentioned the "social change" and community activism because I knew for a fact that Brown and even Magic with employing as many people as he has in his business ventures have definitely done some great things in the community. But the issue was not whether YOU respected either of them for that. The issue is the public perception of them and whether they are credited for those things as being "great" human beings of great character (in the same way that it seems automatic to Bird, IMO as a BLACK person) more so than being just great athletes at some distant time...

You shouldn't be so presumptuous... (esp. about someone's race or someone's knowledge of history until they clear demonstrate them)


----------



## kflo

the fact is, bird was successful as a coach in indy. thomas was far less so, and he finished last season with a bad taste. bird will get the benefit of the doubt over thomas. and he's from indiana. thomas had loads of questions about his coaching ability long before bird came around. and you're original point was comparing bird to magic and white to black (although somehow jordan also gets the hero treatment).


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Nmage</b>!
> 
> See... that's where you're WRONG!!!
> I asked you a question and never said what my answer or thoughts were about it...
> 
> I mentioned the "social change" and community activism because I knew for a fact that Brown and even Magic with employing as many people as he has in his business ventures have definitely done some great things in the community. But the issue was not whether YOU respected either of them for that. The issue is the public perception of them and whether they are credited for those things as being "great" human beings of great character (in the same way that it seems automatic to Bird, IMO as a BLACK person) more so than being just great athletes at some distant time...
> 
> You shouldn't be so presumptuous... (esp. about someone's race or someone's knowledge of history until they clear demonstrate them)


magic is perceived as a successful businessman and part-time aids activist (and failed coach and talkshow host), while bird still has some of the "hick from french lick" perception, albeit with the additional perception of having some skill in the basketball arena beyond playing. 

the perception of brown is trickier, because of his surlier nature and relationship with the press, the timeperiod he's from and the social issues of his time, and some of his legal problems as well.


----------



## Nmage

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> magic is perceived as a successful businessman and part-time aids activist (and failed coach and talkshow host), while bird still has some of the "hick from french lick" perception, albeit with the additional perception of having some skill in the basketball arena beyond playing.
> 
> the perception of brown is trickier, because of his surlier nature and relationship with the press, the timeperiod he's from and the social issues of his time, and some of his legal problems as well.


Your view here is hypocritical...

You want me to pay attention to the details when it involves everyone but Bird. There are details that contributed to Bird's "success" as opposed to Thomas but those don't matter because Bird "won"... 

"the perception of brown is trickier, because of his surlier nature and relationship with the press"

What does that have to do with him be recognized and esteemed equally so for the good that he has done?


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Nmage</b>!
> 
> Your view here is hypocritical...
> 
> You want me to pay attention to the details when it involves everyone but Bird. There are details that contributed to Bird's "success" as opposed to Thomas but those don't matter because Bird "won"...
> 
> "the perception of brown is trickier, because of his surlier nature and relationship with the press"
> 
> What does that have to do with him be recognized and esteemed equally so for the good that he has done?


i'm not being hypocritical at all.

it would have been more accurate to say i paid attention to the details when it came to brown, but not the others. not as you stated it (everyone but bird). and there are reasons brown is different.

brown has been a public figure for a long time, dating back to a time when things were much different. his public perception is in part due to his actions at that time (and since), his outspokeness, his demeanor, his arrest, etc. he gets involved in emotionally charged issues, sometimes taking unpopular stances. that's far different than judging bird as a coach in relation to isiah. the things that guys like bird, isiah, magic had to go through in the media is nothing like what brown has gone through. so it's certainly not hypocritical to look at brown differently than bird. you're also asking us to judge them differently. brown you're asking to judge on the good he's done socially and bird and isiah we're judging as basketball people. 

the details for bird are that he made the finals with a team that never made the finals. they had talent, yes, but they also had results. they won 39 games with larry brown prior to bird, and 58 games the next year (followed by 33 (strike year) and 56 and a finals appearance). isiah had talent as well, although younger talent, and he certainly didn't get the most out of his talent. his team regressed when they should have gotten better. expectations were high, and they didn't materialize. he took criticism for a number of things, including substitutions, adjustments, playing time, team maturity and attitude, etc. those are some more of the details. also, bird left after the finals appearance, so he didn't face the adversity of losing. his time will come, some day. 

look, it's not all fair. circumstances are different for different people. luck plays a big role. coaches need to be in the right place at the right time (and then make their own luck). but it's not all racism.


----------



## Nmage

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> look, it's not all fair. circumstances are different for different people. luck plays a big role. coaches need to be in the right place at the right time (and then make their own luck). but it's not all racism.


Did I say it was "all racism'?? Did I not say that M.J. is esteemed in the same "hero-worship" way that Bird is, if not more so?

"It's not all fair"... How convenient!! There's no use having this discussion if that's a part of the mindset that dictates how these players are perceived. You can't substantiate anything objectively if you want to say, "Hey, that's the breaks!"

I was not asking for details of the good things to be discussed as it concerns Jim Brown alone. I'm saying look at the whole person. The sum total... 

What is it about Jim Brown's stances in the past or in the present that make people view him as they do? If anything, his stance on issues of social change should be en voge. Don't we believe in what's right in regards to race, equality, etc. in America now with no animosity towards those who fought on the side of change?

Tell me what "emotionally" charged issues he stood on that grants him a "different" outlook in America?

Is it because you don't agree with some of what he has been involved in? And what do his arrest have to do with who and what he is and what he has had to offer to society?


----------



## kflo

you certainly implied racism in comparing bird to isiah and magic, and then gretzky and jim brown. if it's just about hero-worship, they're all heros.

look, it's not fair phil jackson got to coach jordan and shaq, but he did. and he's going to go down as one of the great coaches of all time. bird had what he had, isiah had what he had. it may not be fair, in that we'll never know how they would have done had they switched places. but fact is, bird had success, isiah far less. bird's teams played to their abilities, isiah's arguably didn't. that's not a that's the breaks, that's reality. and perception is certainly affected by that reality. 

personally, i certainly wouldn't deny that brown has done many positive things for society. and he has invested time and energy for causes he believes in far more than almost any other sports legend. but to think that the perception of him wouldn't be affected by his 5 arrests for abuse towards women (although he only did time for 1 of them) is not trying to understand why perception is the way it is (and asking what that has to do with what he is is a bit naive). and to think being a black athlete speaking up about injustices (some more generally accpeted than others) wouldn't have an impact as well? he's outspoken and controversial by design - with that comes some negative baggage. you ask why jordan's held up like he is and brown's not? it's pretty obvious. he's held in pretty high esteem by many for what he's trying to achieve. he also rubs some the wrong way the way he goes about it. if you look at jim brown in total, you see a complex person, who came into fame in a complex time, particularly for an outspoken black man. and his public perception reflects that.

then again, jim brown has very little to do with larry bird, magic johnson and isiah thomas.


----------



## Spooner

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> Actually Black is a race. I know many 'black' people who do not consider themselves African American, and I'm one of them. It's a matter of preference, some identify with an African heritage where others identify moreso with his American history.
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue that the quality of your post and people like you, who do not contribute meaningful thoughts to the thread subject, our the idiots bringing this site down and are the reason most do not monetarily contribute.
> 
> 
> 
> You beautifully articulate your points so well that I'm sure everyone reads them and agrees with you. :whoknows:
> Check this out wise guy, if you wanna get your point across to people, quit attacking the things about them you know nothing about. Skip the personal 'crap' and talk straight. You'd think a guy that is as educated as yourself would know that.


This whole post was a big personal attack -- if you can't talk to someone without calling names, then don't post.

MJG


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Nmage</b>!
> That "he hasn't failed" stuff don't work with me. If a person does something "questionable" they should be questioned, I don't care who they are. I don't believe in giving them a pass just because of who they are or more importantly who they are perceived to be.
> 
> I don't believe in hero-worship. Obviously you do.


There always opposition somewhere. Nothing is unanimous, therefore everything is questionable. And why is it that, anytime a person speaks up supporting a guy with a proven track record, he's a lover, or worshiping the guy? Maybe it just makes sense for Larry Bird to have made the moves he's made. And that's just my opinion. If it doesn't work bash him all you like, bash me all you like. I just have faith in Bird, because I have no reason not to.



> I do also think there's a striking difference in the team that Bird took to the finals and the one Thomas coached. I'm not berating Bird coaching ability but it *exaggerated* when a person compares the veteran team he had with the young team Thomas had.


I agree. I fact of the matter is players, coaches, whoever get credit for what they do. Red, Phil, Riley(in the 80's) all of the greatest coaches to ever coach in the NBA. We could discredit them by saying well Red ha 10 hall of famers, Phil had Mike, Kobe, Shaq, and Pippen, and Riley had Kareem, Magic and the boys, but that would make for a slim arguement. Because the facts are the facts, they got the job done.



> On the topic of the Pacers coaching change, Carlisle, Bird etc... I've even heard some Pacer fans say they believe Carlisle was the real mastermind behind Bird's coaching... X's and O's.


Then you would argee that Larry made a good decision by firing Thomas, and hiring Rick. Rick proved himself in Detriot the past two years. He was great with Bird before, the chemistry is right in Indiana. It could have been wrong with Isiah as the coach, Bird the GM why not go with Rick?


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Nmage</b>!
> 
> See... that's where you're WRONG!!!
> I asked you a question and never said what my answer or thoughts were about it...
> 
> I mentioned the "social change" and community activism because I knew for a fact that Brown and even Magic with employing as many people as he has in his business ventures have definitely done some great things in the community. But the issue was not whether YOU respected either of them for that. The issue is the public perception of them and whether they are credited for those things as being "great" human beings of great character (in the same way that it seems automatic to Bird, IMO as a BLACK person) more so than being just great athletes at some distant time...
> 
> You shouldn't be so presumptuous... (esp. about someone's race or someone's knowledge of history until they clear demonstrate them)


You're talking about a minority trying to get the approval of the majority. That's not his focus. Jim Brown is respected not only by myself, but many people across the country, but understand that the majority in this country will not be able to identify with Brown's struggle. His position fight issues that are often overlooked, and not cause for concern to the majority. So, that question the way you ask it is trival. Brown may not appeal to the masses, but he appeals to the right people when it comes down to his cause.


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Spooner</b>!
> .


What words would those be?

Your post hardly ever address anything pertaining to topic. [strike]Your points are presumptous, and often dumbfounding.[/strike]
(I know you're just responding to him, but still, no personal attacks) -- MJG 



> .


The one who doesn't understand race, is the one who does not understand why a culture of people would not associated themselves with being African American. 



> .


No one argees with you because you're antagonistic, and too personal. Stick to the subject, why is that so hard? 



> .


You get followed in Tiffanies because "you" don't belong there. I can go into Tiffanies and get along with each and every sales associate. You know why, cause I'm bilingual. I can chop it up with the boys on the block then go to work and talk straight with rich white men like it's all love. And you hate! But that's cool cause it aint nothing new. It's all about being able to relate to people, oral communication? You should take a class, and pay attention. You're too luke warm. You despise the bottom, but yearn for the top..... trust me on this one... you'll never make until you take a look in the mirror, and realize what you are, who you are. Quit tryna be somebody that your not! You get strange looks at Tiffanies, I know your token self would get the mean mug on the ave, so what does that leave you with? Sound like a Sad Story to me.....

And BTW, all that internet talk that concerns you, its all for fun.... mostly shock value. Just to get a snitch jigga scared. I see my man 33 holla out da shotty and you didn't reply for a couple weeks. :laugh: O'fay, Don't get carried away with my 'buddies' threats, it's not like you'll ever have to see it come true......... you hope.


----------



## Spooner

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> What words would those be?
> 
> Your post hardly ever address anything pertaining to topic. [strike]Your points are presumptous, and often dumbfounding.[/strike]
> (I know you're just responding to him, but still, no personal attacks) -- MJG
> 
> 
> 
> The one who doesn't understand race, is the one who does not understand why a culture of people would not associated themselves with being African American.
> 
> 
> 
> No one argees with you because you're antagonistic, and too personal. Stick to the subject, why is that so hard?
> 
> 
> 
> You get followed in Tiffanies because "you" don't belong there. I can go into Tiffanies and get along with each and every sales associate. You know why, cause I'm bilingual. I can chop it up with the boys on the block then go to work and talk straight with rich white men like it's all love. And you hate! But that's cool cause it aint nothing new. It's all about being able to relate to people, oral communication? You should take a class, and pay attention. You're too luke warm. You despise the bottom, but yearn for the top..... trust me on this one... you'll never make until you take a look in the mirror, and realize what you are, who you are. Quit tryna be somebody that your not! You get strange looks at Tiffanies, I know your token self would get the mean mug on the ave, so what does that leave you with? Sound like a Sad Story to me.....
> 
> And BTW, all that internet talk that concerns you, its all for fun.... mostly shock value. Just to get a snitch jigga scared. I see my man 33 holla out da shotty and you didn't reply for a couple weeks. :laugh: O'fay, Don't get carried away with my 'buddies' threats, it's not like you'll ever have to see it come true......... you hope.



Those would be the words in previous posts where you degrade white people and put racial slurs in your quotes. The biggest sign your a phony, is that you have selective memory, and refuse to take responsibility for anything you do. That's how real people who have come up in the world can see right through you.


As for you going to Tiffanies, I know you're lying because you supposedly live in LA so where do you go again??? Thought not please don't even post BS your stores are more full of holes than a piece of swiss cheese shot up by a street sweeper.

As for never making it, please son please don't dig yourself in deeper and try to compare your lifestyle to mine. You don't want to go there trust me kid. I arrived a long time ago. I am just tired of being represented by people who don't have the desire or knowledge to come up out of the hood. As for me getting glares in my hood, man who you think you are even to speak like that??? trust me kid I got a ghetto pass to places you'd be to scared to step out of your ride in.


As for the threats don't make me laugh, it's not like I could ever be intimidated by anyone threatining to touch me over the net. I just think it's pathetic, and it's the reason I call you and your internet tough guy friends out. It sends the wrong message, not every fool threatens to run around shooting people because the people that do that, don't give it glory and know how hard it is to kill a man. Bottom line I don't like loud mouth fakers coming out and talking hard, and then trying to pass it off as joke when someone calls them out. I know the kinda wack squabbles y'all possess so don't think for a moment I am scared, I am just fed up.

Oh and you and your buddies are welcome to come visit me and boys any day and twice on sundays, we can give you some of the real knowledge about life you sorely seem to lack.


----------



## Nightfly

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> ...But don't imagine that whites are the only stiffs. Duane Causewell and Ruben Boumtje Boumtje ring a bell? UGH!


Who said Ruben Boumtje Boumtje is a stiff?


----------



## IV

> Originally posted by <b>Spooner</b>!
> As for you going to Tiffanies, I know you're lying because you supposedly live in LA so where do you go again??? Thought not please don't even post BS your stores are more full of holes than a piece of swiss cheese shot up by a street sweeper.


Money talks at Tiffanies, if you don't speak that language... no wonder you get flowed around. And BTW, all Laker fans don't live in LA. It says 'BIG AS DAY' Location: Washington D.C. 



> As for never making it, please son please don't dig yourself in deeper and try to compare your lifestyle to mine. You don't want to go there trust me kid. I arrived a long time ago. I am just tired of being represented by people who don't have the desire or knowledge to come up out of the hood. As for me getting glares in my hood, man who you think you are even to speak like that??? trust me kid I got a ghetto pass to places you'd be to scared to step out of your ride in.


I don't play scurry games, that's your department. The world is a ghetto. You seen one you seen em' all.



> As for the threats don't make me laugh, it's not like I could ever be intimidated by anyone threatining to touch me over the net. I just think it's pathetic, and it's the reason I call you and your internet tough guy friends out. It sends the wrong message, not every fool threatens to run around shooting people because the people that do that, don't give it glory and know how hard it is to kill a man.


Shock value and you were shocked.



> Bottom line I don't like loud mouth fakers coming out and talking hard, and then trying to pass it off as joke when someone calls them out. I know the kinda wack squabbles y'all possess so don't think for a moment I am scared, I am just fed up.


Then you must not like yourself much or you're a hypocrite. Are you so oblivious that you don't remember sending be a PM titled, 'English Mutha F*cka do you speak it?'
That was you who sent that email without me having ever spoken a word to you, right? So, who's the faker talking hard, then passin' of as a joke when I call you out? 

BTW, where I come from... whether you scared or not you still get hit.



> Oh and you and your buddies are welcome to come visit me and boys any day and twice on sundays, we can give you some of the real knowledge about life you sorely seem to lack.


I don't look for beef, been there done that! Weak jiggas like yourself bring it but get wet real quick. I live in N.E. D.C. right up the street from killa park. Holla at cha boy!


----------



## Spooner

Son just flat out stop the biting of rappers, it's pathetic. You know you wack you know it. As for living it up please fool I''d flat out light you up and still walk away a rich man.


I sent you that message cause you write like you got an *** in your mouth, like all that skull ****ing the homeboys trained on ya finally got through to your writing skills.


As for PM's you don't even want me to share the crap you been sending me about how hard you are, always calling me a ****** like you looking for dates or something. Just end it here I called you out as a hypocrite you proved it by ducking it so you got tore up. End of story.


Your no better than the 19 people who voted yes on this poll, either you come up with a reason for your logic and the way you act which you haven't or you can just be someone who has diareeha of the mouth.


----------



## TRACIELOVESCOMETS

*Who was beeter in your opinon Bird or Isiah Thomas?*

Bird


----------



## kflo

*Re: Who was beeter in your opinon Bird or Isiah Thomas?*



> Originally posted by <b>TRACIELOVESCOMETS</b>!
> Bird


i hope this is in reference to their post-playing careers.


----------



## GNG

Bird, as both a player and a GM.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>rawse</b>!
> Bird, as both a player and a GM.


And as a coach.


----------



## GNG

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> And as a coach.


Man...how quickly I forget things.

Anyone want to think of any other ways Bird was better than Thomas?


----------



## Seven

Isiah was better. Best point guard ever.


----------



## PoorPoorSonics

Bird in every way possible.


----------



## kisstherim

*Bird VS. Jordan,who is better in clutch?*

if I count correctly,MJ had around 33 clutches,not sure about Bird,but in my memories,he had a bunch of impressive clutch moments.

I can't tell who is the better clutch player,what do u guys think?


----------



## Tyrellaphonte

*Bird or Magic?*

So?

they had epic battles everytime they went on the court... but i dont think there is a clear better player. 

My vote is for magic for his flare... but they were pretty much equal winners, and equal players.


----------



## Debt Collector

i always rate them the same when rating my greatest players ever

1) Jordan
2) Wilt
t3) Magic/Bird


if i had to pick one, id say magic.


----------



## Tyrellaphonte

can the mods make this a poll?


----------



## JuniorNoboa

Both were offensive geniuses. My vote goes to the better defender ...... and I was just a kid growing up who did not appreciate such things. So who was the better defender?


----------



## HKF

Magic won more, so as contemporaries I give it to him.


----------



## Tyrellaphonte

double post


----------



## Kekai

I'd say Magic too. He was just too good.


----------



## Debt Collector

dont sleep on bernard king




















j/k


----------



## Tyrellaphonte

whos bernard king


----------



## Kekai

> Originally posted by <b>High School Dropout</b>!
> whos bernard king


The guy with the bobcats?


----------



## Debt Collector

see, you up an slept on bernard


----------



## Tyrellaphonte

> Originally posted by <b>Kekai23</b>!
> 
> 
> The guy with the bobcats?


na thats bernared robinson


----------



## Tyrellaphonte

> Originally posted by <b>Whodinee</b>!
> see, you up an slept on bernard


:laugh:


----------



## HKF

If you really want to know who Bernad King is, why not just google him? I mean, you gotta know who Bernard King is if you're a basketball fan.


----------



## jellywuoo

They are both great.
But Magic plays more gallantly.
So i are for him.


----------



## Pejavlade

Magic because he took Vlade under his wings when he entered the L.


----------



## DuMa

I'd say magic. he was a better player overrall. only thing that bird was better than magic was shooting.


----------



## kflo

i can't give the edge to either. it's just too close.

they both played the game the right way, though. and they both had an uncanny feel for the game. it seemed to come so naturally to both of them, the ability to make the right play.

bird was the dominant individual through '86 between the 2. 3-0 in mvp awards, and 3-3 in titles. both had 2 finals mvp's. bird was the unquestioned dominant figure for his team, and his team's unquestioned go-to guy. magic shared the stage with kareem. in '87 magic really ascended into bird-land statistically, and won mvp's in '87, 89 & 90, and titles in '87 & 88. bird actually may have had his greatest statistical seasons in '87 & '88, but magic's teams were better at this point. they were deeper, more athletic, and less injury-plagued (incidentally, bird actually finishes ahead of magic in '88 mvp voting, both losing to jordan). '89 bird misses most of the season, and is never really the same (although still great in '90 - 24 ppg, 9.5 rpg, 7.5 apg!). so, prior to bird's surgery in '89, he finished ahead of magic in mvp voting in 8 of 9 years. part of that is circumstances, of course (kareem), but it gives some context to how great bird was, and how he was considered in his day.

they were both amazing players - can never give the nod to one over the other - it's just too close. they both did what they had to do to win the game - both had the ability to fill-in-the-blanks - provide whatever was needed.


----------



## JoeD

Magic


----------



## PauloCatarino

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> ithey were both amazing players - can never give the nod to one over the other - it's just too close. they both did what they had to do to win the game - both had the ability to fill-in-the-blanks - provide whatever was needed.


Yeah, it´s damn close.

I believe Bird was more *skilled*.
But i believe Magic was the better *player*. But just by a notch...


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, it´s damn close.
> 
> I believe Bird was more *skilled*.
> But i believe Magic was the better *player*. But just by a notch...


based on what?

magic's advantage was his ability to control the tempo. bird had the greater ability to put the ball in the hoop. they were pretty even as passers - magic's job description had him passing more, and he was a master at leading the break, so he had much higher assist #'s. bird was an incredible passer though. rebounding is pretty much a wash - bird's #'s advantage is offset by magic's coming from the pg spot. defensively they were pretty even, both getting worse as they got older.

a lakers / celtics matchup, i just couldn't see handicapping the matchup, looking at bird vs. magic and saying advantage lakers. it was just too close.


----------



## DwyaneWade4MVP

Magic!


----------



## TRACIELOVESCOMETS

Bird of course


----------



## Cometsbiggestfan

MJ all the way!:yes:


----------



## PetroToZoran

I'm going to have to go with LeBron James on this one.


----------



## PetroToZoran

I'm going to have to go with LeBron James on this one.


----------



## ChitwoodStyle

The great thing about discussing the two of them is their desire to do what it takes to win. Both guys could go off and post great numbers and get wins, and both could get that steal or block to seal the game in the end. I always have considered them the same included side by side each other on list of great players.


----------



## JT

*in the euro league of course*

corsley edwards is better than both these guys


----------



## BigWill33176

After much thought and comparison I have to go with






































Amare, of course. His passing puts him over the top.


----------



## Diophantos

Bird by a hair for me. Though at this point it's really just a matter of who's style you like better.


----------



## PauloCatarino

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> based on what?


Well, my eyes, really...
I know it's very, very hard to compare this 2 players, and i hate to do it, for they are my 2 favourite players all-time.
But i'll try to explain myself...



> magic's advantage was his ability to control the tempo. bird had the greater ability to put the ball in the hoop. they were pretty even as passers - magic's job description had him passing more, and he was a master at leading the break, so he had much higher assist #'s. bird was an incredible passer though. rebounding is pretty much a wash - bird's #'s advantage is offset by magic's coming from the pg spot. defensively they were pretty even, both getting worse as they got older.
> 
> a lakers / celtics matchup, i just couldn't see handicapping the matchup, looking at bird vs. magic and saying advantage lakers. it was just too close.


Bird had the advantage on basketball fundamentals: his shot was text-book perfect, had an amazing range and an even more amazing array of moves (fadeaway, floater, you name it). He was also one of the brightest and fiercest minds in all basketball.
Yes, he was an incredible passer, but i don't think he's nowhere near Magic in that department.
He was a better scorer and rebounder, but seing as Magic played PG and almos never was the main gun on the team, the diffrence here results a little diluted, IMO.

About Magic:I don't know, but there was something about him that made him the best. He was way faster and flashier, but it ain't just that. I may be wrong, but whenever i say Magic push the ball i always knew something good was about to happen. He just seemed to inebriate the team with his enthusiasm and commitment; he just seemed to make anyone around him better.
(heck, check out the Lakers' 90-91 team...)

Larry was the mind of his team. Magic was the heart. I remember Eaton, after a Jazz-Lakers game where he was sitting on the bench injured, saying something like "i decided to keep my eyes on Magic throughout the game. He didn't make a single mistake. Not one". 

Maybe Magic's style of play is more appealing to me, i don't know. I consider Larry Bird to be the most perfect basketball specimen ever. But i still think Magic was better.

It's all debatable, off course, and if there are 2 players that people will always argue about is these two...

Heck, let's do West vs Drexler instead...


----------



## 7thwatch

Close, but I'll go with Bird.

Seems like Bird had an uncanny ability to make huge plays on both sides of the ball. Like his stealing of Thomas' inbounds pass to beat Detroit. 

Did Magic ever make a big defensive play to win a playoff level game like that??


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>7thwatch</b>!
> Close, but I'll go with Bird.
> 
> Seems like Bird had an uncanny ability to make huge plays on both sides of the ball. Like his stealing of Thomas' inbounds pass to beat Detroit.
> 
> Did Magic ever make a big defensive play to win a playoff level game like that??


Maybe not, but he won more than Larry and as a rookie took the Lakers to the title while jumping center with Kareem out.


----------



## PauloCatarino

> Originally posted by <b>7thwatch</b>!
> Close, but I'll go with Bird.
> 
> Seems like Bird had an uncanny ability to make huge plays on both sides of the ball. Like his stealing of Thomas' inbounds pass to beat Detroit.
> 
> Did Magic ever make a big defensive play to win a playoff level game like that??


Well, Larry wasn't exactly known for his defense... Still, that was a great, great play... But Bird rarely excelled in late game *defensive* heroics... Neither did Magic, off course...

In the 6th game of the 90-91 playoffs, in the last seconds and up by one, Magic grabbed the deffensive rebound and, while 3 Blazers were collapsing over him to get the foul, he simply threw the ball down court and watch time expire while it was getting out of bounds...

That may not be a great example of defensive play, but that's the first who comes to mind regarding Magic...


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, Larry wasn't exactly known for his defense... Still, that was a great, great play... But Bird rarely excelled in late game *defensive* heroics... Neither did Magic, off course...
> 
> In the 6th game of the 90-91 playoffs, in the last seconds and up by one, Magic grabbed the deffensive rebound and, while 3 Blazers were collapsing over him to get the foul, he simply threw the ball down court and watch time expire while it was getting out of bounds...
> 
> That may not be a great example of defensive play, but that's the first who comes to mind regarding Magic...


I was tempted to bring that up because I remember watching that play as it happened. Sent the Lakers to the Finals.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

Just reading an article about Larry Joe and it made me wonder... What would people think of Larry's career HAD HE RETIRED FOLLOWING THE 1987-88 SEASON? (I know he didn't, but his body did).

IN THIS SCENARIO, we would be talking about a guy who, in 9 NBA seasons, would have averaged 25.0ppg on .502FG%, 10.2rpg, 6.1asp, 1.8spg and FT% in the high .800s... He also would have played 38.5mpg...

In the process, he was 9 straight times All-Nba first team (in 9 career years), and 2 times All-Defense 2nd team.

He won 3 rings, was a 3-time MVP and twice Finals MVP.

That while playing with guys like Cedric Maxwell,Tiny, Parish, McHale, DJ and Ainge.

What would you think about Larry Bird then?


----------



## Drewbs

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



PauloCatarino said:


> Just reading an article about Larry Joe and it made me wonder... What would people think of Larry's career HAD HE RETIRED FOLLOWING THE 1987-88 SEASON? (I know he didn't, but his body did).
> 
> IN THIS SCENARIO, we would be talking about a guy who, in 9 NBA seasons, would have averaged 25.0ppg on .502FG%, 10.2rpg, 6.1asp, 1.8spg and FT% in the high .800s... He also would have played 38.5mpg...
> 
> In the process, he was 9 straight times All-Nba first team (in 9 career years), and 2 times All-Defense 2nd team.
> 
> He won 3 rings, was a 3-time MVP and twice Finals MVP.
> 
> That while playing with guys like Cedric Maxwell,Tiny, Parish, McHale, DJ and Ainge.
> 
> What would you think about Larry Bird then?


Um... Maxwell, Tiny, Parish, McHale, DJ and Ainge... thats one hell of a lineup. But of course he would win finals MVP or MVP because he was the best player on that team.


----------



## Pioneer10

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

His numbers and achievements would still not match the top two : Jordan or Wilt. Top 5 player just not the Goat


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



Drewbs said:


> Um... Maxwell, Tiny, Parish, McHale, DJ and Ainge... thats one hell of a lineup. But of course he would win finals MVP or MVP because he was the best player on that team.


what i meant to say was that one could look at Bird's stats and say: pff! many guys had better stats. 

But when you are on a team that has 4-5 guys scoring over 14ppg, 2 guys rebounding over 7rpg, and guys (like Tini, Ainge and DJ) who would get over 5apg, i find it pretty hard to get Bird's (short) career stat-line.

About Larry's Finals MVPs: He averaged 27.4/14/3.6 and 24/9.7/9.5. He not only was the best scorer on those teams, he would also, if needed, be the strongest rebounder and/or passer...


----------



## Spriggan

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

As impressive as Scary Larry was, I don't think his defense was good enough to make him the GOAT. Wilt and MJ are each considered the GOAT by different people because of their dominance on both ends of the court. Larry Bird, while certainly an effective defensive player, was far from dominant.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



Pioneer10 said:


> His numbers and achievements would still not match the top two : Jordan or Wilt. Top 5 player just not the Goat


Wilt: 4 MVPs and one ring in first 9 years. People say (and in this board it is current) that Wilt's stats were major inflated...

Michael: 3 MVPs in first 9 years. 3 rings. Stat-wise, they won't be so far apart CONSIDERING both players' company...

I don't think Bird would pale in comparison to Wilt and Jordan in this scenario...


----------



## Pioneer10

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



PauloCatarino said:


> Wilt: 4 MVPs and one ring in first 9 years. People say (and in this board it is current) that Wilt's stats were major inflated...
> 
> Michael: 3 MVPs in first 9 years. 3 rings. Stat-wise, they won't be so far apart CONSIDERING both players' company...
> 
> I don't think Bird would pale in comparison to Wilt and Jordan in this scenario...


 Jordan was a much better defender then Jordan and MJ's won his title with less talent then surrounded Bird.

Wilt is Wilt. People think his stats were inflated. But name another 7 footer who won a big ten high jump meet? Wilt average 50 + in a season and 20+ boards. Inflated or not those numbers don't lie. Also it was only until his later years when he was declining that Wilt was surrounded by top notch talent


----------



## Magyarn

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



PauloCatarino said:


> Wilt: 4 MVPs and one ring in first 9 years. People say (and in this board it is current) that Wilt's stats were major inflated...
> 
> Michael: 3 MVPs in first 9 years. 3 rings. Stat-wise, they won't be so far apart CONSIDERING both players' company...
> 
> I don't think Bird would pale in comparison to Wilt and Jordan in this scenario...


Now you are assuming that EVERYONE retired after 9 seasons, not just Bird...


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



Magyarn said:


> Now you are assuming that EVERYONE retired after 9 seasons, not just Bird...


Hmmm... I get what you are saying... Good call.

Let me put it this way: IF Bird stayed healthy, AND if he played 4-5 years more, it would be a safe bet to say he would continue to get All-Nba 1sts... That he would rebound less but pass more (thus equalizing his numbers)...

Titles? Who lnows.... But the Celtics sure would contend every year with an healthy bird...


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



Spriggan said:


> As impressive as Scary Larry was, I don't think his defense was good enough to make him the GOAT. Wilt and MJ are each considered the GOAT by different people because of their dominance on both ends of the court. Larry Bird, while certainly an effective defensive player, was far from dominant.


As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with spriggan9. Larry Bird had an offensive game that matches up well with nearly anyone, but his defensive game was far from that level.

Solid team defender but poor man defender. GOAT candidates can't have that sort of weakness.


----------



## white360

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

Just a plain NO


----------



## IV

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



PauloCatarino said:


> Just reading an article about Larry Joe and it made me wonder... What would people think of Larry's career HAD HE RETIRED FOLLOWING THE 1987-88 SEASON? (I know he didn't, but his body did).
> 
> IN THIS SCENARIO, we would be talking about a guy who, in 9 NBA seasons, would have averaged 25.0ppg on .502FG%, 10.2rpg, 6.1asp, 1.8spg and FT% in the high .800s... He also would have played 38.5mpg...
> 
> In the process, he was 9 straight times All-Nba first team (in 9 career years), and 2 times All-Defense 2nd team.
> 
> He won 3 rings, was a 3-time MVP and twice Finals MVP.
> 
> That while playing with guys like Cedric Maxwell,Tiny, Parish, McHale, DJ and Ainge.
> 
> What would you think about Larry Bird then?



Larry Bird is one of the 5 greatest players ever, IMO. I'd still think the same of him had he retired after 9 season. It's just hard to top the true GOAT, namean!


----------



## Bball_Doctor

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

Larry Legend could do everything and he was every bit a clutch performer as MJ, West, Hondo, and Miller.

But Magic got 5 rings, 3 MVPs and 3 Final MVPs. :biggrin:


----------



## IV

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*




Bball_Doctor said:


> Larry Legend could do everything and he was every bit a clutch performer as MJ, West, Hondo, and Miller.
> 
> But Magic got 5 rings, 3 MVPs and 3 Final MVPs. :biggrin:


true, true! :yes:


----------



## SheriffKilla

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

even though most people will disagree i think Bird can definatly be considered GOAT
i dont think necessiraly that he is but he can be considered it


----------



## DaBruins

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

maybe its my bias here, but IMO....Magic > Bird. He was just a more complete player.


----------



## The Chach

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

Larry is not the GOAT in the aspect of what hes done for the sport, but i believe that Larry is probably the greatest and most fundamentally sound player of all time


----------



## kflo

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



DaBruins said:


> maybe its my bias here, but IMO....Magic > Bird. He was just a more complete player.


i think it is your bias. i don't see how he's more complete. i rank them equal - i find it impossible to give one the nod over the other.


----------



## BG7

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

Larry Bird is a good player, top 10 of all time, no question, but he is not in the same galaxy as Jordan, Jordan had a bigger impact on the sport, was better on offense, was better on defense, had the MVPS and Titles, Slam Dunk contest Winner, Defensive Player of the Year, All NBA Teams, All Defensive Teams.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



The Chach said:


> Larry is not the GOAT in the aspect of what hes done for the sport, but i believe that Larry is probably the greatest and most fundamentally sound player of all time


Young grasshopper, you will get repped for this post! :greatjob:


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



sloth said:


> Larry Bird is a good player, top 10 of all time, no question, but he is not in the same galaxy as Jordan


That's BS. You may defend Jordan was the better player, but "not in the same galaxy"? That's nonsense.



> Jordan had a bigger impact on the sport


I don't know what "impact" you are talking about.
For all acounts, Larry (and Buck) were the main attractions to one of the most watched NCAA game in history (and that was 1979), and he (alonside Buck) was credited as the player who helped "save the game" in the early 80's...



> was better on offense


I beg to differ.



> was better on defense


Yes, he was.



> had the MVPS and Titles, Slam Dunk contest Winner, Defensive Player of the Year, All NBA Teams, All Defensive Teams.


Larry had 3 straight MVPs in his injury-free first 9 seasons.
He also was All-Nba 1st teamer in those 9 years.

Slam Dunk contest? what does it have anything to do with it? did he ever dunked blindfolded in those contests (Ceballos)?

IMHO, and considering the OP, i don't find it reasonable to say Jordan was way better than Larry...


----------



## 33

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

Bird is the greatest white player of all time. But, in no way was his career better than Bill Russ, Magic Johnson, Air Jordan, or Kareem. I could name a few more too


----------



## kflo

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*



33 said:


> Bird is the greatest white player of all time. But, in no way was his career better than Bill Russ, Magic Johnson, Air Jordan, or Kareem. I could name a few more too


it's almost impossible to distinguish between magic's career and bird's career. to say 1 was better than the other almost doesn't make sense, imo. whatever group you want to put magic in, bird belongs right there.


----------



## got chang

*Re: Could Larry Bird be considered the GOAT?*

no, not larry bird. jordan is the GOAT. if you look at his honors,

Six-time NBA champion (1991-93, 1996-98); Five-time NBA MVP (1988, '91, '92, '96, '98); 10-time All-NBA First Team (1987-93, 1996-98); All-NBA Second Team (1985); Defensive Player of the Year (1988); Nine-time All-Defensive First Team (1988-93, 1996-98); Rookie of the Year (1985); 14-time All-Star; All-Star MVP (1988, '96, '98); One of 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996); Two-time Olympic gold medalist (1984, '92).

it dwarfs what bird had.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*

Just glanced through basketball-reference's  MVP award winners and something brought my attention:

Larry Bird (who got his first MVP in 1984), was:

#5 in his rookie year;
*#2 in his sophomore year* (423 pts to Doc's 454);
*#2 in his third year*;
and #2 in his fourth year in the league.

Considering that he then proceeded to win three thraight MVP awards, one must come to the conclusion that Larry Bird was, indeed, and since day one, one of the greatest players ever...

Just though worth sharing...


----------



## Premier

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*

Well, one can attest to the lack of other legendary players in the league during the beginning of Larry's tremendous carrer (namely, Michael Jordan). I don't think you can draw any notable conclusions from this, but it is certainly interesting.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



Premier said:


> Well, one can attest to the lack of other legendary players in the league during the beginning of Larry's tremendous carrer (namely, Michael Jordan). I don't think you can draw any notable conclusions from this, but it is certainly interesting.


i don't know, man...

1979-80
FIRST TEAM
Julius Erving, Philadelphia
Larry Bird, Boston
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Los Angeles
George Gervin, San Antonio
Paul Westphal, Phoenix

SECOND TEAM
Dan Roundfield, Atlanta
Marques Johnson, Milwaukee
Moses Malone, Houston
Dennis Johnson, Seattle
Gus Williams, Seattle

1980-81
FIRST TEAM
Julius Erving, Philadelphia
Larry Bird, Boston
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Los Angeles
George Gervin, San Antonio
Dennis Johnson, Phoenix

SECOND TEAM
Marques Johnson, Milwaukee
Adrian Dantley, Utah
Moses Malone, Houston
Otis Birdsong, Kansas City
Nate Archibald, Boston

1981-82
FIRST TEAM
Larry Bird, Boston
Julius Erving, Philadelphia
Moses Malone, Houston
George Gervin, San Antonio
Gus Williams, Seattle

SECOND TEAM
Alex English, Denver
Bernard King, Golden State
Robert Parish, Boston
Magic Johnson, Los Angeles
Sidney Moncrief, Milwaukee

1982-83
FIRST TEAM
Larry Bird, Boston
Julius Erving, Philadelphia
Moses Malone, Philadelphia
Magic Johnson, Los Angeles Lakers
Sidney Moncrief, Milwaukee

SECOND TEAM
Alex English, Denver
Buck Williams, New Jersey
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Los Angeles Lakers
George Gervin, San Antonio
Isiah Thomas, Detroit

1983-84 *(MVP year)*
FIRST TEAM
Larry Bird, Boston
Bernard King, New York
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Los Angeles
Magic Johnson, Los Angeles
Isiah Thomas, Detroit

SECOND TEAM
Julius Erving, Philadelphia
Adrian Dantley, Utah
Moses Malone, Philadelphia
Sidney Moncrief, Milwaukee
Jim Paxson, Portland

There's Doc, Mo, Kareem, Magic, Gervin, DJ, Dantley, English, Moncrief, Isiah... All great players, and at least 5 or them arguably all-time top-20...


----------



## Premier

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*

Again, "namely Michael Jordan". Usually, most who debate having Larry Bird as the greatest NBA player of all-time have Jordan second. By significantly relying on MVP voting in Birds' early career when Jordan wasn't in his prime (I'm not saying you are), I don't feel that you can accurately conclude that Bird was better than Jordan.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



Premier said:


> Again, "namely Michael Jordan". Usually, most who debate having Larry Bird as the greatest NBA player of all-time have Jordan second. By significantly relying on MVP voting in Birds' early career when Jordan wasn't in his prime (I'm not saying you are), I don't feel that you can accurately conclude that Bird was better than Jordan.


I don't think that Bird is the greatest, nor is he in my top-4 list... But i didn't have the pleasure to witness Bird's first years in the league, so when i found this info, it amazed me... In a time where there where a lot of great players around, this slow, no vert, awkward moving youngster was dominating opposition since day one...

About Jordan and Bird, i'll say this: it's too bad we couldn't see them both in their respective primes facing each-other in the Eastern Conference. 

Jordan was better than Bird. So was Magic. But if Bird didn't have to face injuries (that ruined almost a third of his career), he could have probably be better than both.

I don't disagree with you. :greatjob:


----------



## kflo

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*

he dropped to magic for the first time in '87 (came in 3rd), and people forget that he actually came in 2nd ahead of magic again in '88 (his surgery came the next season, and that was it for bird as a top 3 player).


----------



## kflo

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



PauloCatarino said:


> I don't think that Bird is the greatest, nor is he in my top-4 list... But i didn't have the pleasure to witness Bird's first years in the league, so when i found this info, it amazed me... In a time where there where a lot of great players around, this slow, no vert, awkward moving youngster was dominating opposition since day one...
> 
> About Jordan and Bird, i'll say this: it's too bad we couldn't see them both in their respective primes facing each-other in the Eastern Conference.
> 
> Jordan was better than Bird. So was Magic. But if Bird didn't have to face injuries (that ruined almost a third of his career), he could have probably be better than both.
> 
> I don't disagree with you. :greatjob:


stop with the magic was better than bird. they were equals. it's scientific.


----------



## BallStateCards

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



PauloCatarino said:


> Considering that he then proceeded to win three thraight MVP awards, one must come to the conclusion that Larry Bird was, indeed, and since day one, one of the greatest players ever...


On a somewhat similar note, han't Duncan been selected to an All-NBA team every year of his career so far?


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



kflo said:


> stop with the magic was better than bird. they were equals. it's scientific.


I try, and try. and try, but i can´t, kflo...  

IF Magic = Bird AND Magic > Jordan, THEN Bird > Jordan? 

I just can´t come to that conclusion...


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



ClayVTrainum said:


> On a somewhat similar note, han't Duncan been selected to an All-NBA team every year of his career so far?


Lower competition...


----------



## kflo

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



PauloCatarino said:


> I try, and try. and try, but i can´t, kflo...
> 
> IF Magic = Bird AND Magic > Jordan, THEN Bird > Jordan?
> 
> I just can´t come to that conclusion...


maybe you've got some faulty logic in there before you get to the bird>jordan equation.


----------



## BallStateCards

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



PauloCatarino said:


> Lower competition...


What's your point? That's still an amazing accomplishment. All-NBA and All-Defense every single year you've played in the league is a very tough thing to do. It's not exactly like its a huge step down because there are still great players in this league, it's just spread out a whole lot better.


----------



## djtoneblaze

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*

No one in their right mind should have Bird as the GREATEST player of all-time, though he is a top ten player, arguably for some top five. There's no one you can put him above Jordan (or anyone else for that matter above MJ), Wilt, or Magic.


----------



## djtoneblaze

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



PauloCatarino said:


> Lower competition...


How do you figure that?


----------



## kflo

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



djtoneblaze said:


> No one in their right mind should have Bird as the GREATEST player of all-time, though he is a top ten player, arguably for some top five. There's no one you can put him above Jordan (or anyone else for that matter above MJ), Wilt, or Magic.


it's just as easy to put bird ahead of magic as it is to put magic ahead of bird.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



djtoneblaze said:


> How do you figure that?


Well, now that i think of it a little further, maybe that's not the case.

Because, if the criteria we are using is All-Nba first team selections, there's not a major difference, in fact.

Both Bird and Duncan have always been listed as forwards. Now i don't know (but i find i probable) that ever since Bird's days the All-Nba team is formed as G-G-F-F-C.

So that would mean that both Bird's and Duncan's competition would be other forwards in the game (leaving out of the equation the Guards and Centers).

Now, in the span of time i was talking about (Bird's first 4 years in the league), Julius was the other perennial All-Nba First team forward. Bird had to surpass Dantley, Bernard King, Alex English and Buck Williams to make first team.

Like-wise, Duncan had Malone at his side and, when the Mailman stopped delivering, Webber and KG filled the slot, and the rest were Hill, Vince Carter and Dirk...

So yeah, not much of a difference here.

SO, my "lower competition" comment doesn't apply in this scenario...


BUT, if the criteria was MVP challenge, that might be a different situation...


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



PauloCatarino said:


> I try, and try. and try, but i can´t, kflo...
> 
> IF Magic = Bird AND *Magic > Jordan*, THEN Bird > Jordan?
> 
> I just can´t come to that conclusion...


I think I found the problem with your equation.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*



Ps!ence_Fiction said:


> I think I found the problem with your equation.


No, young grasshopper. That's not the problem...


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Interesting fact: Larry Bird and MVP voting...*

Another thing about Larry and this MVP thingy...

There are very few players in the league who once led their teams in ppg, rpg AND apg in the same season... If the definition of MVP is something like "the player who is of the most importance for his team", then i gather that a player who leads a team in the three most important categories has a good chance of nailing the award.

Well, Bird did it in 85-85, averaging 25.9ppg, 9.8rpg and 6.8apg... He was named MVP and the Celtics won the championship. He came close another 2/3 times...

Amazing, considering he was playing with McHale, Parish, DJ and Ainge...


----------



## VincentVega

*What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Athleticism or skills?


----------



## 77AJ

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Intelligence, Heart, and Touch.


----------



## justasking?

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



23AJ said:


> Intelligence, Heart, and Touch.


Very good answer. :clap: :cheers:


----------



## DuMa

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

fundamentals.


----------



## Seuss

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



23AJ said:


> Intelligence, Heart, and Touch.


I agree. 

Mostly his desire to win.

I don't think we've ever seen any other play match that type of play and performance that he made his reputation back in the 80s


----------



## Krstic All-Star

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Skills, determination, and incredible reflexes. His court vision was incredible, and his passing touch matched it. His athleticism.... not so much.


----------



## Diable

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

If you had John Wooden build a player he would play a lot like Bird.He certainly wasn't a very good athlete compared to other great players,but Bird always knew what the correct play was and he had all the skills that were needed to make any play that needed to be made.


----------



## futuristxen

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Reflexes. He was just a step quicker than everyone else. People say he wasn't athletic, but it's like saying Steve Nash isn't athletic. When people say that, I cease to know what athletic means within a basketball context. If he's routinely beating the defense, some of that is athleticism. Over a short short distance, I think Bird was quicker than 90 percent of the players he faced. He could get his shot off, let's just say that.


----------



## JT

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

he had great hands.


----------



## Hakeem

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Very high basketball IQ, very fundamentally sound, great instincts and reflexes.


----------



## LuckyAC

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Because he was white. Otherwise he would have just been another average player.


----------



## Sith

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



LuckyAC said:


> Because he was white. Otherwise he would have just been another average player.


thats definitely a factor too. also the fact that his team the 80's celtics were a such great team. all the winning definitely overrated him somewhat too.


----------



## newish

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



LuckyAC said:


> Because he was white. Otherwise he would have just been another average player.


I do not want to offend lucky but that is a ridiculous comment. As absurd as saying the only reason we heard of Magic was that he was black. Silly.


----------



## newish

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Sith said:


> thats definitely a factor too. also the fact that his team the 80's celtics were a such great team. all the winning definitely overrated him somewhat too.


I cannot believe this. Damning him with faint praise because he was white.

Bird's career Eff rating 29.77
Magic's career eff rating 29.10
Jordan's career eff rating 29.19

Facts arethat coloutr blind stats, the objective measure make his the greatest player of his generation black white green or yellow. Saying a man who played at just short of 30 eff rating throughout his career, won championships, was an e ver presint All star when fit and 9 straing all League teams was highly thought of cos he was white is simply not fair. We all have our subjective opinions but Objectively he was better than jordan.


----------



## Nuzzo

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



LuckyAC said:


> Because he was white. Otherwise he would have just been another average player.


Rodman is posting on basketballboards.net
:clap:


----------



## Auggie

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

clutch


----------



## Demiloy

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



> Because he was white. Otherwise he would have just been another average player.


Reverse "white" with "black", and people would call that racism.

He was great because he wasn't talented. But he played with all his heart. Something that many, many young players (Stromile Swift) should learn.


----------



## ralaw

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Bird was a gifted shooter, was smart, had intangibles, had heart, determination and was a competitor. Actually I believe Bird was talented, but not in an athletic way, but from a basketball knowledge way.


----------



## GTA Addict

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

The only thing I haven't seen anyone else say is Bird's work ethic. He was obsessed with practicing.


----------



## f22egl

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



newish said:


> I cannot believe this. Damning him with faint praise because he was white.
> 
> Bird's career Eff rating 29.77
> Magic's career eff rating 29.10
> Jordan's career eff rating 29.19
> 
> Facts arethat coloutr blind stats, the objective measure make his the greatest player of his generation black white green or yellow. Saying a man who played at just short of 30 eff rating throughout his career, won championships, was an e ver presint All star when fit and 9 straing all League teams was highly thought of cos he was white is simply not fair. We all have our subjective opinions but Objectively he was better than jordan.


 Bird also played on much better teams than Jordan so I don't buy into that logic (EITHER).


----------



## newish

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



f22egl said:


> Bird also played on much better teams than Jordan so I don't buy into that logic (EITHER).


 I actually believe the Jordan of 86 to 93 was a better player than Larry but I make the efficiency point to counter the argument which was incredibly put that had Larry not been white his career would be viewed as average. Bizarre for a man with better career figures than more or lass anyone. Average only if we view the likes of Magic and MJ as average as well.

I suppose we could say he was just your average 12 time all-star, 9 time All NBA, 3 time MVP undisputed leader of one of the greatest dynasties the game has seen.


----------



## mizenkay

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

i always thought he had a amazing "gretzky" like ability to see the whole floor. they used to say that gretzky not only knew where the puck was, but where it _was going to be_. 

off the charts bball IQ.

combined with great court vision. fundamentals. skills. work ethic. 

and the most important. he just had a KILLER instinct. like murderous killer instinct.


----------



## compsciguy78

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

6'9" and could shoot and pass with the best of them. Not too many 6'9" players could do what he did back then. Put that on top of his great hands, basketball IQ, and will to win and he was one of a kind.


----------



## Drop_Dimes

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Nuzzo said:


> Rodman is posting on basketballboards.net
> :clap:


 lol... repped


----------



## EGarrett

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Bird's statline from 86-87...

28.1 ppg (.525 fg%, .400 3p%)
9.2 rpg
7.6 apg

Yeah...just another player...


----------



## HKF

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Someone said Bird didn't have talent? Wow.


----------



## PartisanRanger

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Don't forget that he was one of the best shooters of all-time. He just destroyed everybody in the three-point contests and could drain shots from all over the floor. I saw a game vs. Atlanta where Bird made like 3-4 long threes in a row with a man in his face. Crazy stuff...


----------



## ATLien

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Demiloy said:


> Reverse "white" with "black", and people would call that racism.
> 
> He was great because *he wasn't talented*. But he played with all his heart. Something that many, many young players (Stromile Swift) should learn.


:laugh: Oh my god..


----------



## EGarrett

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Oh, and btw...Magic wasn't much more athletic than Bird...


----------



## trick

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

It was obviously due to his charm and good looks.


----------



## Diable

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Is there really someone so ignorant as to say that Bird wasn't a great player?I hope that is because you are too young.Anyone who actually saw Bird play has to think that utterly ridiculous.Bird is only an ordinairy player if he's standing beside Jordan,Magic,Oscar Robertson,Hakeem,Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell.In terms of his overall effectiveness thats about the number of players who were certainly better than he was.A few others could be argued,but not more than a handful.


----------



## SeaNet

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

His brain. Two steps ahead of everyone else mentally out there. He had JKidd vision and handling/passing ability at 6-9. Add to that one of the best jumpers (more of a hopper) ever, and you got the Birdman. And in comparison to many so-called stars of today.... when he didn't have it going on from the perimeter, he worked it around the hoop. Didn't force ****.


----------



## newish

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Diable said:


> Is there really someone so ignorant as to say that Bird wasn't a great player?I hope that is because you are too young.Anyone who actually saw Bird play has to think that utterly ridiculous.Bird is only an ordinairy player if he's standing beside Jordan,Magic,Oscar Robertson,Hakeem,Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell.In terms of his overall effectiveness thats about the number of players who were certainly better than he was.A few others could be argued,but not more than a handful.


Diable i basically agree with you except for one point. There is no evidence that magic was more effective or efficient. Better arguably but not more effective.

Bird reg season eff. rating 29.77 and post season 29.48
magic had 29.10 and 30.37 respectively.

larry .66 ahead reg season and magic .89 ahead post season. Overall nothing in it and both played about 1000 games. Both had 9 all NBAs and 3 MVPs which further underlines that they were remarkably equal. There is no way magic was "certainly better" and to anyone who saw them both they will always be two of the greatest.


----------



## futuristxen

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

For people who said Bird wasn't athletic, how many players at his size could move like he moved, or shoot like he shoots? He had a great mix of athleticism, skill, and an understanding of the game equal to that of Magic.


----------



## Hairy Midget

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

It was the mustache.


----------



## RSP83

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

He is smart and extremely competitive. And he's very charismatic.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



futuristxen said:


> For people who said Bird wasn't athletic, how many players at his size could move like he moved, or shoot like he shoots? He had a great mix of athleticism, skill, and an understanding of the game equal to that of Magic.


I am a HUGE fan of Larry Joe, but people are overrating his athleticism in this thread. He was not an athletic player (at least how i percieve athleticism). And that is the main reason he was an average defender (although a great team defender).

Nevertheless, if i were to fingerpoint the main atribute that made Bird the player he was (Top-5/6 All-time, IMHO) it's, like Seanet said, his mind. Bird was one of the most intelligent players ever. Hey, can't blow by my opponent? I'll master the unblockable shot. Can't jump very high? I'll master positioning rebounding. Not much of an handle? I'll pass the ball from the pivot. You name it.

IF talking about fundamentally sound game, Bird was THE perfect player. Great scorer, rebounder and passer. Great shooter from all over the court. Didn't miss FTs. 

Bird was the man.


----------



## SeaNet

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



PauloCatarino said:


> I am a HUGE fan of Larry Joe, but people are overrating his athleticism in this thread. He was not an athletic player (at least how i percieve athleticism). And that is the main reason he was an average defender (although a great team defender).
> 
> Nevertheless, if i were to fingerpoint the main atribute that made Bird the player he was (Top-5/6 All-time, IMHO) it's, like Seanet said, his mind. Bird was one of the most intelligent players ever. Hey, can't blow by my opponent? I'll master the unblockable shot. Can't jump very high? I'll master positioning rebounding. Not much of an handle? I'll pass the ball from the pivot. You name it.
> 
> IF talking about fundamentally sound game, Bird was THE perfect player. Great scorer, rebounder and passer. Great shooter from all over the court. *Didn't miss FTs*.
> 
> Bird was the man.


Hey Paulo, ever see the clips of some fans (I think in Atlanta) who sat underneath the hoop and unrolled lifesized posters of scantily clad women while Bird shot FTs? ****ing hilarious. Bird himself had to take a chuckle break.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



SeaNet said:


> Hey Paulo, ever see the clips of some fans (I think in Atlanta) who sat underneath the hoop and unrolled lifesized posters of scantily clad women while Bird shot FTs? ****ing hilarious. Bird himself had to take a chuckle break.


Heh, heh. I didn't have the chance to see it. Must have been a great sight...


----------



## OneBadLT123

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

WOW

I just LOVE how the people who say he "wasnt talented", "unathletic", and "overrated"

I would bet my life that the people who said this didnt even watch Bird play at all. Except on ESPN classic 

Redicilous ...

He is one of the top 10 players to ever play the game for a reason...


----------



## GTA Addict

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

As far as athleticism goes, I think he possessed great quickness but not really anything else. Quick shot release, quick passer, great reflexes. Quickness is the most valuable athletic attribute and IMO Larry had just that.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



OneBadLT123 said:


> WOW
> 
> I just LOVE how the people who say he "wasnt talented", "unathletic", and "overrated"
> 
> I would bet my life that the people who said this didnt even watch Bird play at all. Except on ESPN classic
> 
> Redicilous ...
> 
> He is one of the top 10 players to ever play the game for a reason...


Well, if YOU have seen him play, please tell us WHY do you think he was "athletic"...


----------



## Hakeem

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Bird definitely wasn't athletic. Reflexes are a different thing.


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Hairy Midget said:


> It was the mustache.


 Pornstache.


----------



## rainman

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Nuzzo said:


> Rodman is posting on basketballboards.net
> :clap:


i think that whole rodman/isaah comment was sort of misrepresented, what i got out of it was the implication that bird was a great player but if he were black the media wouldnt have given him as much attention, they may be right but you could certainly make the case that magic got as much attention as larry if not more.


----------



## kflo

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Diable said:


> Is there really someone so ignorant as to say that Bird wasn't a great player?I hope that is because you are too young.Anyone who actually saw Bird play has to think that utterly ridiculous.Bird is only an ordinairy player if he's standing beside Jordan,Magic,Oscar Robertson,Hakeem,Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell.In terms of his overall effectiveness thats about the number of players who were certainly better than he was.A few others could be argued,but not more than a handful.


how was magic certainly better? how was hakeem? how was oscar? 

in their primes when their teams played, noone would have said la certainly has the advantage.


----------



## kflo

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



rainman said:


> i think that whole rodman/isaah comment was sort of misrepresented, what i got out of it was the implication that bird was a great player but if he were black the media wouldnt have given him as much attention, they may be right but you could certainly make the case that magic got as much attention as larry if not more.


which underscores why it was a ridiculous comment, and not misrepresented. it was pointless to say, and not close to the truth.


----------



## kflo

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

as for why he was so great, he WAS gifted. yes, he worked on his game (if not his body) pretty hard, which of course contributed to his greatness (although he apparently had some affection for beer as well). but he simply had basketball gifts that made the game come naturally to him. he had QUICKNESS with the ball, that allowed him to get separation from anyone to get a decent look. and of course he had the shot. he was 6'9. he had power. he could handle. and he had as good court vision and passing reflexes as anyone ever. he was one of the very best ever for many of the same reasons most of the other top 10'ers were. he had supreme ability along with desire to be great.


----------



## Diable

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

As for Magic and Hakeem I won't argue over that,but many people think that Oscar Robinson was the Greatest of all time and if you look at it objectively he very well may have been.The only tremendous advantage MJ has over him is the bling bling.


----------



## SlamJam

a few years ago people started comparing dirk to bird but dirk wasn't ready then. now dirk has taken his game to a new level.

so who is better - bird at his best or dirk right now?

for all you stat lovers, dirk had a 28.1 PER this year. bird's best PER was 27.8


----------



## Seuss

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

I'd take Bird, simply because hes a better all around player then Dirk.
Dirk doesn't oust Larry in any category. Maybe a better shooter.


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Uh...Bird.


----------



## D.J.

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

It's hard to compare the two since they played in different eras. Bird had more competiton and played a different game. Dirk wouldn't be as good in the 80s just like Bird wouldn't be as good now.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Don't know much, but Bird because he can play good D.


----------



## unluckyseventeen

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird... there's no way Dirk is better.

Bird's CAREER NUMBERS, not just his best season. These are unbelievable:

24.7 PPG
10.0 RPG
6.3 APG
about .9 Blocks per game
almost 2 steals per game
.496 FG%

The guy evolved the game. Easily top 10 or 15 to ever play.

Dirk?... not so much.


----------



## afobisme

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

please dont compare stats, the nba then was a different one.

do you think wilt would be able to average anything near 50 points a season in today's league? or even 30?


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



WTChan said:


> Don't know much, but Bird because he can play good D.


LOL....no comment , Chan you letting me down.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird is the better player because Bird was an extraordinary passer for his Position, Dirk still has to work on his passing.


----------



## STUCKEY!

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Prolific Scorer said:


> LOL....no comment , Chan you letting me down.


From what i what i have seem from Bird he may not have good man v man but he is a excellent help defender from what i have seen


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



afobisme said:


> please dont compare stats, the nba then was a different one.
> 
> do you think wilt would be able to average anything near 50 points a season in today's league? *or even 30?*


Yes...


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird was superior.

I think as great a shooter Bird was, Nowitzki might just be the better scorer, due to his size. While Bird was adept at getting his shot off against defenders, Nowitzki is nearly unparalleled at it. And he's as much a dead-eye shooter as Bird. They were pretty equivalent rebounders.

But Bird was a far better ball-handler and passer, which is the huge difference. If you gave Nowitzki Nash's court vision and passing ability, you'd have a good comparison to Bird.


----------



## wilwn

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

bird, for his toughness and transcendental clutchness.


----------



## 23isback

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

i can't believe dirk got votes! he's good but he's not THE legend. 

Bird scored more than dirk but also managed to get more assists then him too. Dirk is a better rebounder cuz he's taller but that's it.


----------



## Premier

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

*Note*: Subjectively, I feel that Larry Bird's best statistical seasons were 1984 - 1988.

Larry Bird Statistics [per game] '84 - '88










Dirk Nowitzki Statistics [per game] '06










However, in '84-'88, the pace was significantly faster (by about 11.7%) and teams averaged much more points per game (by about 13.24%). A greater quantity of possessions per game signifies inflated statistics, so one may be able to argue that statistically, Nowitzki's '06 season matched the production of Larry Bird's '84-'88 season, as reflected in PER.

Jim O'Brien posted a draft-night story about Dirk Nowitzki regarding Rick Pitino and Red Aurebach:




> Red: “What’s this German kid like?” Rick: “Well Red, he is seven feet tall and has the skills of a guard.” Red: “How’s he shoot it?” Rick: “Red, he is a great shooter with big-time range, and has a release that no one is capable of blocking.” Red: “Does he work at the game?” Rick: “Excellent work effort. It wouldn’t surprise me if he is the first player in the gym every day.” Red: “Hey, wait a second, what color hair does this kid have?” Rick: “Blonde.” Red: “This kid sounds like Bird.” Rick: “You said it Red, I didn’t.”


----------



## lessthanjake

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Dirk is a more efficient scorer in a less efficient scoring era. He scored more when adjusted for pace. His rebounding was comparable to Bird's. Both were very good defensive rebounders but not so hot on the offensive boards cause they played on the perimeter. Dirk turned the ball over a good portion less than Bird. Both werent amazing defenders. Bird was a better team defender but Dirk has an edge on most everything else defensively simply because hes taller.


----------



## ralaw

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Minstrel said:


> Bird was superior.
> 
> I think as great a shooter Bird was, Nowitzki might just be the better scorer, due to his size. While Bird was adept at getting his shot off against defenders, Nowitzki is nearly unparalleled at it. And he's as much a dead-eye shooter as Bird. They were pretty equivalent rebounders.
> 
> But Bird was a far better ball-handler and passer, which is the huge difference. If you gave Nowitzki Nash's court vision and passing ability, you'd have a good comparison to Bird.


Great post Minstel. I've recently heard a debate that Dirk was the better shooter than Bird, and I must say I can't disagree. However, the both were in a class of their own. When you said give Dirk Nash's court vision and passing ability I actually gulped......seriously, Bird was that good and that comment brought back the memories of him in his prime.


----------



## blh5387

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird. No argument. No questions asked.


----------



## HKF

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Makes you wish Larry never had back problems, cause if he didn't, no one would even make this comparison.

However, comparing across eras is not easy and I'd say that if Nowitzki leads his team to multiple championships and raises some MVP hardware (he's what 28?), then he might put himself in the category.

Dirk is on course to be a transcendent kind of star, if you've been paying attention the past few years.


----------



## Nikos

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

It's pretty close if you ask me. I might give the slight edge to Bird because he was more versatile. But his edge in versatility vs Dirk's edge in pure scoring is slight at best.

Comparing careers Bird was clearly better, but if Dirk has another 3-4 seasons like the one he is having this season, then he can easily be compared with Bird on a career level.

Peak value I would say they are about even (assuming this is Dirk's peak). As of now Bird gets the slight edge for versatility, better playmaking abilities, and intangibles such as help defense. 

Dirk could certainly help his case if he dominates in the NBA finals. It can only help your legacy if you play well on the biggest stage to accompany an MVP calibur season.


----------



## the microwave

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

i hope the 5 that voted for dirk are 14 year olds.


----------



## ghoti

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Dirk is a really good player who I love watching, but this thread really is insulting to Bird.


----------



## ravor44

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird's defense is slightly better than Dirk...so I'll go with Bird...but Dirk should be 2006 MVP...


----------



## SeaNet

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

How is this even a question? Larry Bird. People need to get a little perspective.


----------



## 35553

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird. Nowitzki hasn't done enough to be compared to Bird in terms of career achievements.


----------



## Gilgamesh

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

If we were comparing them at their respective peaks...

You can definitely argue that Dirk was as lethal as a scorer Bird was or even more so. Dirk is also a better shooter and like Bird they both have a determination to beat their opponent. Dirk is also perhaps one of the greatest mismatches in the history of the NBA and is more athletic.

But the thing about Bird that makes him so great is that he elevates the level of his teammates. He is also arguably the most offensively complete forward ever to play in the NBA. Definitely the best passing forward I have ever seen although Lebron is up there as well in terms of court vision. He is also the only player with a career average of 20-10-5 and he wasn't just Larry Legend he was also Larry Hustle.

I got to go with Bird but Dirk has been darn good these past couple years and his playoff numbers are amazing (26-11-2.5). 

But I agree with Wilborn when he said that Dirk is just basically an upgraded version of Tom Chambers who was an offensive force in his prime. Dirk IMO is between prime Bird and prime Chambers.


----------



## LameR

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird by a mile.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Look at the ast numbers though....

Bird put up sick stats, 28 12 and 7.


----------



## pmac34

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird
but you cant compare

I was watching NBA classics this morning and in the 80s there was NO DEFENSE except in the low post.
EVERY JUMPSHOT was W-I-D-E O-P-E-N!!!


----------



## Mr. Hobbes

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Prolific Scorer said:


> LOL....no comment , Chan you letting me down.


Well, decent. The only thing Dirk has over Bird is that pump fake fade away.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Dirk Nowitzki is way better than Sue Bird.


----------



## BG7

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Larry Bird, pretty easily obvious, ones a top 5 player of all time, the other is hardly top 5 this year.


----------



## Malnutritious

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



afobisme said:


> please dont compare stats, the nba then was a different one.
> 
> do you think wilt would be able to average anything near 50 points a season in today's league? or even 30?





Rawse said:


> Yes...


You're deluding yourself, but he would be the top center in the league.

Regarding the topic of the post. Forget eras, career achievements and forget stats. Take a real look at the footage. Watch the players and you can't tell me that Bird didn't have a bigger impact in the game.

Dirk changed the way people view seven footers, but Larry really amazed me with his court vision and clutch game. 

But who knows maybe with the way some coaches call every play in an effort to reduce turnovers, his game might not be the same in todays game. But I'd still pick Bird over Nowitzky.


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Malnutritious said:


> You're deluding yourself, but he would be the top center in the league.


Am I?

I'm disappointed you didn't provide any condescending analysis to go along with your condescending dismissal.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Rawse said:


> Am I?
> 
> I'm disappointed you didn't provide any condescending analysis to go along with your condescending dismissal.


you can't even pronounce condescending.


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Prolific Scorer said:


> you can't even pronounce condescending.


K...


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Rawse said:


> K...


O-K-K-K!!!!!


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Prolific Scorer said:


> O-K-K-K!!!!!


^
:buddies:


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Rawse said:


> ^
> :buddies:


Yo, I don't drink Heinikens.


----------



## lessthanjake

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Career value, Bird is WAY WAY WAY better than Dirk. But peak value is a lot closer.

Scoring: Dirk scores more efficiently in a less efficient era, and when adjusted for pace he scores a bit more too.
Rebounding: They are pretty much equal here in reb rate.
Passing: Obviously Bird gets the big advantage here. However, Dirk isnt a bad passer, hes just in a system and an NBA much more focused on creating mismatches and isolating, instead of passing. With that fact and pace adjusted, Bird wouldnt be getting as many assists these days as he did back in the 80s. 
Turnovers: Dirk turns the ball over a lot less. Bird turned the ball over 9-10% of the time he had the ball. Dirk does so 7% of the time.
Defense: Both arent great man to man defenders. Dirk has slightly more quickness though so is probably ahead there by a bit. Bird however, was a much better help defender and got more steals. But at the same time, Dirk is taller giving him just a general defensive advantage, and allowing him to guard a wider assortment of players than Bird could have. All in all, I would say defense is about equal.
Clutchness: Bird was a very clutch player, but at his peak (ie. this year) Dirk has been as clutch as any of Bird's years I would say.

So basically Dirk is a better scorer and turns the ball over less, while Bird is a much better passer. Its not as lopsided as some people would think. I would still say Bird is a little better though.


----------



## ravor44

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Dirk Nowitzki is way better than Sue Bird.


What about Big Bird? :biggrin:


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



ravor44 said:


> What about Big Bird? :biggrin:


What about Big Mac?


----------



## Shady*

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird, and its not even close.


----------



## ChiBron

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Dirk's a great player today, but there isn't a single thing he does better than Bird on the basketball court and that'll never change.


----------



## melo4life

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

although dirk is one of my favourite players i would have to say bird at his best becuase he was a legend


----------



## ninjarr

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



lessthanjake said:



> Passing: Obviously Bird gets the big advantage here. However, Dirk isnt a bad passer, hes just in a system and an NBA much more focused on creating mismatches and isolating, instead of passing. With that fact and pace adjusted, Bird wouldnt be getting as many assists these days as he did back in the 80s.


Bird was never a system type of passer; while your analysis is correct, I just want to give people an idea of how wide the difference really is between Dirk and Bird's passing. Dirk has the hands, speed, and handle to function within a set offense. Bird could visualize a play and conduct it in a matter of seconds. It's like comparing a lever with a microchip or a horse with a human. Dirk's physical and mental talents make him a very good, extremely capable workhorse. But watching some of Bird's passes (the Steal, nearly every Boston fastbreak from 83-87) was watching genius.


----------



## Hakeem

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

They're comparable in most areas. Except Bird is one of the greatest passers of all time.

Edit -- didn't see the above post...


----------



## Jesus of CopyMat

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



SHEED! said:


> From what i what i have seem from Bird he may not have good man v man but he is a excellent help defender from what i have seen


He was a better help defender than a one-on-one defender, so people who want to be able to say Bird was a good defender hang their heads on that, but to say he was anything more than above average in that department is inaccurate... from what I saw.


----------



## bayoubach

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Give me Bird and all of those championships.

Bird was a winner, even at small Indiana State


----------



## TiMVP2

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

11 people voted DIRK!!! WTF **** **** **** ****


----------



## Malnutritious

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Rawse said:


> Am I?
> 
> I'm disappointed you didn't provide any condescending analysis to go along with your condescending dismissal.


Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending. You really think he could average 50 in the league today?


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Malnutritious said:


> Sorry, I wasn't trying to be condescending. You really think he could average 50 in the league today?


Oh. No. I bolded the 30 ppg part.


----------



## Malnutritious

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Rawse said:


> Oh. No. I bolded the 30 ppg part.


Oh ok, sorry didn't notice that.
=)

Maybe at his peak.
He would probably not average more than 13 rebounds per game also.

But 29ppg 12 rpg would make him the best center in the league today.


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Malnutritious said:


> Oh ok, sorry didn't notice that.
> =)


No worries, I'd probably lambast someone if I thought he said someone could average 50 today.


----------



## Malnutritious

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Heheh I knew you'd understand.
=D


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Hakeem said:


> They're comparable in most areas. Except Bird is one of the greatest passers of all time.


Yeah, they are comparable. Same way Jordan and Drexler are comparable "in most areas". 

Although i love Dirk's game, there's no way i'm putting him at the level of Larry Bird. Bird was not only a superior passer and defender, but he also owns Dirk in leadership, court awareness and clutch play.

Dirk is good. He's even great. But NOT Larry Bird-great.


----------



## wilwn

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



lessthanjake said:


> Clutchness: Bird was a very clutch player, but at his peak (ie. this year) Dirk has been as clutch as any of Bird's years I would say.




um, no. not even close.


----------



## JMES HOME

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

i go larry bird for now... but nowitzki still has more to give.. he maybe be better later on but for now larry


----------



## HKF

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Again Dirk is not in Larry's league, but his career is also not over. If he writes another 6-7 years of superior (top 5) basketball, you can't just dismiss it. Unfortunately for Dirk, he's playing in an era where the top level guys (Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Duncan, etc...) are pretty damn good and aren't content to let him win championships and become a legend on that tier in history.

Get the first title and then get another one and we'll have to start talking. Bird only led his team to 3 titles. Dirk starts a mini-dynasty in Big D and we have an argument.


----------



## theBirdman

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Larry Bird is one of the all time greatest players! Nowitzki is not even close!

Watch this video from Bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU&search=larry bird


----------



## kflo

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



lessthanjake said:


> Career value, Bird is WAY WAY WAY better than Dirk. But peak value is a lot closer.
> 
> Scoring: Dirk scores more efficiently in a less efficient era, and when adjusted for pace he scores a bit more too.


bird ranked 14th in ts% in '88, dirk 25th this year (12th in '87). scoring is about equal adjusted for pace (bird, 30.7 pts/40, 97.9 pace factor, dirk, 27.9 pts/40, 87.8 pace factor - adjusting bird for dirk's pace makes it 27.5 to 27.9).

but it's hard to draw conclusions based on these stats, because their teams were so different. 

as scorers, it's pretty close. but bird was a significantly better passer - he was one of the best passers ever, regardless of position. 

rebounding, bird was simply better. he started his career playing more at the 4, and his rebrate was far better than dirk's. playing the 3, on a great rebounding team, his rebrate fell to about where dirk is now. defensively, it's tough - when he came into the league, it was bird by a mile - he was easily quicker on his feet, and had a far better feel for defense. as he had health issues, he became more of a liability in man coverage.


----------



## s a b a s 11

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Dudes, not even close, I like Dirk but c'mon... The choice is Larry Bird.

Clutch. Maybe the best crunch performer *ever*. Intuitive passing that cannot be taught. Better ball-handler. Leadership. Averaged almost 2 steals a game for his career. 3 championships. Three consecutive MVP trophies. Top five player in the history of the NBA. Eight straight All-NBA First Teams. I think Bird was even on a couple all-defensive teams.... need I say more?

Stuart


----------



## GNG

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



theBirdman said:


> Larry Bird is one of the all time greatest players! Nowitzki is not even close!
> 
> Watch this video from Bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU&search=larry bird


That video's now on my favorite list. Bird was about as badass as it got. Repped.


----------



## Diable

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

There's only one thing that Dirk does as well as Bird did and he's not a better scorer than Larry was either.I don't see any point in comparing them in their peaks.Dirk really isn't even better than Bird was when he was unable to take planetrips without enduring severe backpain.Even then he was able to impact the game in ways that only a handful of players can.He was simply a genius at the game who made up for his physical shortcomings through his inherent understanding of the game's every aspect.


----------



## DaGreat1

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



theBirdman said:


> Larry Bird is one of the all time greatest players! Nowitzki is not even close!
> 
> Watch this video from Bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU&search=larry bird


WOW!! that guy is 7'0 tall?? amazing...I've seen highlights of Bird before, but those dimes were just ridiculous, there's just no way that Dirk can be that versatile with the ball in his hands.... BIRD FTW!!!


----------



## DuMa

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird - the best damn non-black player ever. 

the original BAD *** WHITE BOY


----------



## R-Star

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Ha. I had a good laugh there. Bird or Dirk? Easy choice, Dir.......Bird. Its not even a comparison. Im sure Areanas has scored more than Jordan or Magic for a season, is he better?

What a joke.


----------



## 77AJ

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Great video of Bird. It makes me miss the physical play, and hand checking that use to be part of the NBA.


----------



## HKF

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Funny thing in watching that vid, I really wish he didnt have the back problems because from age 24-28, he was something spectacular.


----------



## 1 Penny

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Kids....


Dirk is a great player todaty and a Finals MVP favourite.. and a regular season MVP candidate too... will be a HOF by the end of his career imo..

But Bird is an icon.. one of the greatest and best players ever... EVER. 

No comparison.. unless Dirk wins the next 3 MVPs and lead his team to multiple rings... then continues to put up 25/11 and just be top 3 player in the next half decade, then the comparison can begin.

I love Dirk though, he has proven to be top 3 player today.


----------



## 1 Penny

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

also Larry Bird is a genius... same as Jordan, Magic etc.

they used their knowledge of the game combined with gifted size or atheletism.... just pure special players.

Today, the stars are great players, but Bird among with Magic/Jordan just had that special talent, vision, ability etc.. that made them Unique, not just Unique, but Iconic... legendary.....


I love Larry Bird...


----------



## The Mad Viking

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



theBirdman said:


> Larry Bird is one of the all time greatest players! Nowitzki is not even close!
> 
> Watch this video from Bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU&search=larry bird


Thank you for that. Repped.

Thanks to those who voted for Dirk, because it is important to remind us all of that democracy does have it's shortcomings.


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



theBirdman said:


> Watch this video from Bird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU&search=larry bird


Awesome video. He was capable of playing basketball as well as it's ever been played.


----------



## ChristopherJ

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

This thread represents how quickly this board can suddenly start overrating one player. The Dirk-mania is getting out of hand.


----------



## 1 Penny

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

People doesnt understand the skills and talent Bird had... simply outstanding.. not just for his size.. but for every position/type of player.

I just cant believe people chuck so many comparisons...

Bird does everything Dirk does but with creativity and flair... Every aspect of the game, Bird does better..... and some significantly better.....


----------



## dwade3

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

we need to see 5 or 6 more years of this dirk and at least 2 championships before we can compare him, coz right now, dirks a little better then mark price haha, ok maybe a lot better, but dirk could probably shoot better then Bird, JUST, rebounding is aruond the same while bird was SUCH a better passer, but in a 1-1 game itd be frikkin close....


----------



## Malnutritious

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



1 Penny said:


> Kids....
> 
> 
> Dirk is a great player todaty and a Finals MVP favourite.. and a regular season MVP candidate too... will be a HOF by the end of his career imo..
> 
> But Bird is an icon.. one of the greatest and best players ever... EVER.
> 
> No comparison.. unless Dirk wins the next 3 MVPs and lead his team to multiple rings... then continues to put up 25/11 and just be top 3 player in the next half decade, then the comparison can begin.
> 
> I love Dirk though, he has proven to be top 3 player today.


I don't care how many rings and accolades Nowitzky collects, I don't think there can ever be a fair comparison. Dirk has size and range, he's changed the 4 position in his own way but can never be as great as Bird.


----------



## Nikos

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Malnutritious said:


> I don't care how many rings and accolades Nowitzky collects, I don't think there can ever be a fair comparison. Dirk has size and range, he's changed the 4 position in his own way but can never be as great as Bird.


I don't really see how Bird is miles better than Dirk of this year. Bird was clearly more versatile, a better playmaker, and had more defensive intangibles. I could understand Bird being the superior player, but he is hardly 'miles' better than Dirk. Unless you consider the 80's to be much better basketball than today (personally I don't).

But Bird I don't really see as a superior scorer if you factor in his entire career. He is comparable in his prime offensive season, but in no way much superior to Dirk in that regard. Dirk is every bit the pure scorer that Bird was and for this particular season probably a little better than Bird. I would take Bird in his prime offensive seasons over Dirk of this year. But like I said before, if Dirk plays exactly the same in the next 5-6 seasons you can definetely make a case for him being close to Larry Bird and comparable at career value. It only helps Dirk's case if he can win a title or two. 

If this happens to be a prime year for Dirk and he drops a bit into the next 4-5 years, then I would say Birds career would be clearly superior, but even then it can be argued.


----------



## The Mad Viking

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Lookit, Nowitzki is not as good a scorer as Bird. Bird had 3 seasons over 28 ppg, peaking at 29.9, and he had over 6 apg in all of them. 

Bird is 15th ALL TIME in ppg, and is top 50 in both rebounds and assists.

Not even MJ is top 50 in the 3 major cats. Only Bird and Oscar Robinson (1960-75) Add to that Bird is 25th all time in total steals, despite playing just 11 full seasons; and 12th all time in FT%. 

Dirk is currently 99th in rebounds, and nowhere in assists.

It does a disservice to the great player that Dirk is to compare him to the incomparable.


----------



## Fray

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Bird and it's not even close.


----------



## Banjoriddim

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



The Mad Viking said:


> Lookit, Nowitzki is not as good a scorer as Bird. Bird had 3 seasons over 28 ppg, peaking at 29.9, and he had over 6 apg in all of them.
> 
> Bird is 15th ALL TIME in ppg, and is top 50 in both rebounds and assists.
> 
> Not even MJ is top 50 in the 3 major cats. Only Bird and Oscar Robinson (1960-75) Add to that Bird is 25th all time in total steals, despite playing just 11 full seasons; and 12th all time in FT%.
> 
> Dirk is currently 99th in rebounds, and nowhere in assists.
> 
> It does a disservice to the great player that Dirk is to compare him to the incomparable.


I think you shouldn't knock Dirks ppg that much since they did score much more points in 80's also Dirks ppg in playoffs is really impressive also I see him haveing some advantage in pure scoring but Birds overall game is much better.


----------



## The Mad Viking

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Banjoriddim said:


> I think you shouldn't knock Dirks ppg that much since they did score much more points in 80's also Dirks ppg in playoffs is really impressive also I see him haveing some advantage in pure scoring but Birds overall game is much better.


Not knocking Dirk, I'm complimenting him.

Not to put too fine a point on the scoring in the 80s thing, we could look at rankings instead of comparing ppg.

Bird in his prime finished 2nd-4th-4th-3rd in league scoring, from 1984/85 to 88/89.

Nowitzki the last four years has been 6th-9th-4th-7th.

So relative to what was going on in the 80s, Bird was a better scorer than Nowitzki is now, relative to today's game.


----------



## kflo

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

the thing about bird is that his genius was recognized without him needing to be a 30 ppg scorer, which he later showed he was capable of being. and that's brilliance of both magic and bird - their stats weren't always representative of their ceiling because they could fill in whereever needed. they could take any situation and "fill in the gaps". i always called them "fill in the gaps" players because that's what they did. they assessed situations and did what was best for the unit (magic thinking about his unit to an obvious fault).


----------



## crazyfan

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

why is bird better than dirk?
no. of championships!


----------



## Premier

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



The Mad Viking said:


> Lookit, Nowitzki is not as good a scorer as Bird. Bird had 3 seasons over 28 ppg, peaking at 29.9, and he had over 6 apg in all of them.
> 
> Bird is 15th ALL TIME in ppg, and is top 50 in both rebounds and assists.


You are not considering the difference in pace. It's a much slower game now, however your premise is correct, in my opinion. Bird is a superior scorer (albeit slightly) for non-statistical reasons.


----------



## The Mad Viking

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Premier said:


> You are not considering the difference in pace. It's a much slower game now, however your premise is correct, in my opinion. Bird is a superior scorer (albeit slightly) for non-statistical reasons.


From my earlier post:

Not to put too fine a point on the scoring in the 80s thing, we could look at rankings instead of comparing ppg.

Bird in his prime finished 2nd-4th-4th-3rd in league scoring, from 1984/85 to 88/89.

Nowitzki the last four years has been 6th-9th-4th-7th.

So relative to what was going on in the 80s, Bird was a better scorer than Nowitzki is now, relative to today's game.

I'm not convinced Dallas plays slower than Boston did. I'm pretty sure when Nash was there, the played just as fast. But I admit that I'm speculating, and too lazy to look it up.


----------



## jericho

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



kflo said:


> the thing about bird is that his genius was recognized without him needing to be a 30 ppg scorer, which he later showed he was capable of being. and that's brilliance of both magic and bird - their stats weren't always representative of their ceiling because they could fill in whereever needed. they could take any situation and "fill in the gaps". i always called them "fill in the gaps" players because that's what they did. they assessed situations and did what was best for the unit (magic thinking about his unit to an obvious fault).


Good point, kflo. I watched a ton of Bird in the '80s, and while his style of play and stats in some ways reflected the way the game was played then, he was so incredibly creative, smart, and spookily gifted that I really don't have any doubt he would have excelled in any era. He was one of a few special players who could just about always find a way to keep his team in the game. 

And he had ice in his veins. Dirk is a great shooter, a ridiculous matchup, and I like the competitive streak I see in him. But one of the things that sets Bird apart in this comparison is Larry's supreme confidence. Dirk vigorously wants to win. Larry generally knew he could, and would.

Bird also had one of the great all-time senses of humor.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



dwade3 said:


> we need to see 5 or 6 more years of this dirk and at least 2 championships before we can compare him, coz right now, dirks a little better then mark price haha, ok maybe a lot better, but dirk could probably shoot better then Bird, JUST, rebounding is aruond the same while bird was SUCH a better passer, but in a 1-1 game itd be frikkin close....


Mark Price, wtf?


----------



## sknydave

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Please don't ever ... EVER compare these two players again.


Thank you.


----------



## compsciguy78

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Someone said it best...this thread is insulting to Larry Bird.


Nowitzki is a better shooter? Bird shot 93 percent from the line one year.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/bird_stats.html

Nowitzki probably has an easier time getting his shot off because he is taller, but Bird was the better shooter. 


Bird is better in every category maybe except scoring, which is easily compensated by his assists. Someone else said it best...give Dirk some court vision ala Steve Nash and then you might have Bird.


----------



## Ballscientist

*Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

Quote from the link:

You have to love former NBA player Bill Laimbeer, who inspired such hatred from fans around the league when he played center for two championship teams with the Detroit Pistons. Laimbeer, now coach of the WNBA Detroit Shock, will be coaching in the NBA soon, and his candor will make him very popular. He doesn't mind ruffling feathers. Who else would go to Indiana, where his team was playing last week, and talk bad about legendary Larry Bird? "Never talked to him. Never will," Laimbeer said. "I don't like him. He doesn't like me."

http://news.pajamasmedia.com/sport/2006/08/20/10366078_The_Orlando_Sent.shtml


----------



## beamer05

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

I'd imagine it is because of their battles throughout the 80's.. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Legend_33

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

**Edit* is just being a sensitive prat because Bird and the Celtics used to own him every time they played the Pistons. They used to talk trash when they played eachother in the playoffs and Laimbeer would always use his little cheap shot tactics.

There was this one time when a Pistons players started **** with some Celtics players and Bird just chucked the ball at Laimbeers face. I also remember a game where Laimbeer and Parish were fighting for a rebound and Parish plunked him in the face with both fists. Those are the only incidents I can think of, off the top of my head. I'm sure there were more though.


----------



## Saint Baller

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

"Dont hate me, because you aint me!"

Hate what you cant be

Thats what I am guessing why he hates him, could be wrong though


----------



## LamarButler

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*



> I also remember a game where Laimbeer and Parish were fighting for a rebound and Parish plunked him in the face with both fists.


I remember that, it was at the end of the half. Laimbeer's nose was bleeding. It should've been a technical, but they were in Boston Garden. Such BS...


----------



## Legend_33

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

The whiny thug deserved it anyways, . I remember the whole Boston Garden was cheering and going wild and when he finally got up, then they started booing. Lmao, one of the funniest moments ever(if your're a Celts fan at least).


----------



## LamarButler

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

Oh thats wonderful cheering and laughing when a player gets away with cheap shotting another player during the course of a game.

Im not saying Laimbeer is an angel or anything but those were two low blows.


----------



## Legend_33

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

Like I said before, the chump deserved it. Laimbeer was the master of getting away with cheap shots. He was hated by everyone in the league. I'm sure every non Celts fan watching on TV was laughing and cheering too.


----------



## Dre

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

I'm not surprised from this.

I thought it was referring to Bill Russell for a second though :laugh:


----------



## ballistixxx

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

cant really blame Bill, cuz sometimes Larry becomes an arrogant peice of ****...

that and maybe being continously booed by the celts fan fueled his anger more


----------



## SeaNet

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

That's the way it was in the mid to late 80s between the Celtics and the Pistons. That rivalry (& those Pistons in general) is the reason that the NBA now has flagrant fouls and such severe penalties for fighting.


----------



## ravor44

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

Well...lets get back to the Pistons vs. Celtics rivalry...


----------



## beamer05

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*



ballistixxx said:


> cant really blame Bill, cuz sometimes Larry becomes an arrogant peice of ****...
> 
> that and maybe being continously booed by the celts fan fueled his anger more



How is Larry an arrogant piece of ****? Because he did things on a court you could only dream of? Like telling someone where he was going to hit a game winner, or asking who was going to come 2nd in the 3pt contest? That is slightly arrogant yes, but that doesn't make him a piece of ****. Laimbeer was the piece of **** for all the crap he pulled.


----------



## white360

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

I was thinking of Bill Walton, but thank god it wasn't.
The reason is simple, Bill got his behind whopped by Bird so many time, Iæll bet he doesn't like MJ either


----------



## Ballscientist

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

I am always "unique". It is all about Isiah Thomas. 

Isiah Thomas is the best friend of Bill Laimbeer. Isiah Thomas hates 2 peoples the most in the world: Michael Jordan and Larry Bird.

Bill Laimbeer is supporting Isiah Thomas. Perhaps he wants to be an asst coach in New York.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

I think Bird was slightly overrated. Great player, but not as great as some people rank him


----------



## E.H. Munro

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

Who cares about Mr. Bill, anyways? Why should I take seriously the only NBA player named for Pabst Blue Ribbon?


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*



Ballscientist said:


> Quote from the link:
> 
> You have to love former NBA player Bill Laimbeer, who inspired such hatred from fans around the league when he played center for two championship teams with the Detroit Pistons. Laimbeer, now coach of the WNBA Detroit Shock, will be coaching in the NBA soon, and his candor will make him very popular. He doesn't mind ruffling feathers. Who else would go to Indiana, where his team was playing last week, and talk bad about legendary Larry Bird? "Never talked to him. Never will," Laimbeer said. "I don't like him. He doesn't like me."
> 
> http://news.pajamasmedia.com/sport/2006/08/20/10366078_The_Orlando_Sent.shtml


So, Bill Laimbeer doesn't like Larry Bird.

So what?


----------



## magohaydz

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

dont ya just love the offseason? :biggrin:


----------



## white360

*Re: Link: Bill Hates Bird. Why?*

not really


----------



## Steez

*Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

I am just having a debate as to who is a better 3 point shooter and if you had one shot for a million dollars, wide open 3 point shot... would you let Steve Kerr or Larry Bird take that shot and for what reason?

A friend of mine is saying he would take Steve Kerr because of his 3 point %.....


----------



## SheriffKilla

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

right now or in their prime i'd still choose Kerr


----------



## GNG

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Bird.


----------



## SheriffKilla

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Bird was no doubt the better player/more clutch 
midrange shooter/inside scorer i mean everything 

but just 3pt shooting

i think Kerr is the GOAT when it comes to that


----------



## Brandname

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

umm... Bird. 

It's harder to make a high percentage of your 3 pointers when you're the best player on the floor at any given time. 

It's a little easier to make a high percentage when Jordan is passing out of double teams to you.

Kerr was a great shooter, to be sure. But career (or season) 3pt% is not an accurate comparison between the two. From what I've seen, Bird was the better shooter.


----------



## DuMa

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Kerr, you can statistically make the claim that he was the greatest spot up shooter. but he doesnt create the shots. Bird easily


----------



## DaBruins

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

I would actually take Kerr. Contrary to what people believe, Bird didn't really shoot that many 3's, especially compared to today's standard. So the sample size is pretty much equal for those 2, so i'll take Kerr's 45.4% over Bird's 37.6%. How often did they shoot 3's? Bird had 8 years with 100+ attempts and 2 of those were 200+. Kerr had 7 years of 100+ attempts and 2 of those were 200+. 

Bird's best stretch was from 84-88 when he went 326/787 = 41.4%
Kerr's best stretch was from 93-98 when he went 430/898 = 47.9%

Bird's season high - 42.7% on 131 shots - Kerr has 10 seasons where he shot better than this
Kerr's season high - 52.4% on 170 shots


----------



## DaBruins

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



Brandname said:


> umm... Bird.
> 
> It's harder to make a high percentage of your 3 pointers when you're the best player on the floor at any given time.
> 
> It's a little easier to make a high percentage when Jordan is passing out of double teams to you.
> 
> Kerr was a great shooter, to be sure. But career (or season) 3pt% is not an accurate comparison between the two. From what I've seen, Bird was the better shooter.


And the question asks about a wide open shot. Sure, Bird was defended better than Kerr was, but he also has like 7 inches on the guy so it's not like he didn't see good shots.


----------



## Brandname

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



DaBruins said:


> I would actually take Kerr. Contrary to what people believe, Bird didn't really shoot that many 3's, especially compared to today's standard. So the sample size is pretty much equal for those 2, so i'll take Kerr's 45.4% over Bird's 37.6%. How often did they shoot 3's? Bird had 8 years with 100+ attempts and 2 of those were 200+. Kerr had 7 years of 100+ attempts and 2 of those were 200+.
> 
> Bird's best stretch was from 84-88 when he went 326/787 = 41.4%
> Kerr's best stretch was from 93-98 when he went 430/898 = 47.9%
> 
> Bird's season high - 42.7% on 131 shots - Kerr has 10 seasons where he shot better than this
> Kerr's season high - 52.4% on 170 shots


Seriously, though. Opposing teams had to make a gameplan every time they played the Celtics to try to limit Bird as best they could. It is unreasonable to expect him to be able to make 45% of his 3 pointers.

If Kerr was the best player in the league like Larry was for much of his career, I'm positive he would have shot a significantly lower 3 point %. 

This is a large reason players like Ray Allen can sometimes have a hard time cracking the top 50 in 3 point %, even though he's regarded as either the best or at least top 3 shooters in the league. Everything changes when the defense focuses on you.


----------



## Brandname

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



DaBruins said:


> And the question asks about a wide open shot. Sure, Bird was defended better than Kerr was, but he also has like 7 inches on the guy so it's not like he didn't see good shots.


Well then Bird has three 3 point contest victories to Kerr's one. Not that the All-Star game competitions are definitive proof of anything, but it's one of the few times we actually get to see Bird shooting wide open 3 point shots.

Other than that, we don't really have much data on how good of a wide-open 3 point shooter Bird was.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Three point shooting was Steve Kerr's thing. Even though Bird was far far superior to Kerr in (almost) every aspect of basketball, I have to give Steve Kerr the edge on three point shooting. If Kerr didn't have that shot, he would be an average player, and not in the NBA, average in rec leagues.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Three point shooting was Steve Kerr's thing. Even though Bird was far far superior to Kerr in (almost) every aspect of basketball, I have to give Steve Kerr the edge on three point shooting. If Kerr didn't have that shot, he would be an average player, and not in the NBA, average in rec leagues.


Steve Kerr shot wide-open threes all his career as a Bull... I don't see nothing spetial about that when Bird is in the comparison...


----------



## Brandname

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Three point shooting was Steve Kerr's thing. Even though Bird was far far superior to Kerr in (almost) every aspect of basketball, I have to give Steve Kerr the edge on three point shooting. If Kerr didn't have that shot, he would be an average player, and not in the NBA, average in rec leagues.


There are many, many players currently in the NBA who are in solely because they can shoot. Many suck at every other aspect of basketball. But Bird was still a better shooter than they are. 

Granted, there may not be anyone currently in the NBA that can shoot as well as Steve could. But the fact that 3s were Kerr's specialty does not necessarily mean he was a better shooter than Bird. It's quite possible Bird was better at *every* aspect of basketball than Kerr.


----------



## neoxsupreme

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

I'll take the all-time 3 pt % leader when my team needs a 3 but Larry can create his shot & Steve probably needs a set play.


----------



## rocketeer

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

for the question asked in the thread, the obvious answer to me is kerr. it's asking about a wide open three. that's what kerr made a career out of shooting.

if he had to create his own shot(a 2 or a 3), then bird is the obvious answer. but how the question is stated, i want kerr.


----------



## STUCKEY!

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Bird.


----------



## hollywood476

*Magic or Bird*

I know people have probably asked this, but I haven't seen it in a while and instead of doing Kobe or Jordan, lets go way back and have Magic or Bird, overall who turned out to be the better player???


----------



## Steez

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



rocketeer said:


> for the question asked in the thread, the obvious answer to me is kerr. it's asking about a wide open three. that's what kerr made a career out of shooting.
> 
> if he had to create his own shot(a 2 or a 3), then bird is the obvious answer. but how the question is stated, i want kerr.


Your talking about an open 3.... Bird won 3 3point contests... they are wide open as well? Kerr simply was a spot up shooter. If I had to choose, I would definetly take Bird.


----------



## hollywood476

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Steve Kerr may have the better percentage but he also took less 3 point shots than Bird, I really can't understand who would even put Steve Kerr in the same breath as Bird?


----------



## 4BiddenKnight

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Both turned out to be legends. That's a fact.


----------



## Brandname

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



hollywood476 said:


> Steve Kerr may have the better percentage but* he also took less 3 point shots than Bird*, I really can't understand who would even put Steve Kerr in the same breath as Bird?


Actually, I'm pretty sure it's the opposite.


----------



## Hakeem

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Bird, easily. How often was he left open for threes? Very rarely. Kerr, however, attempted most of his threes while wide open. Which is why he has the superior percentage.


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21

*Re: Magic or Bird*



hollywood476 said:


> I know people have probably asked this, but I haven't seen it in a while and instead of doing Kobe or Jordan, lets go way back and have Magic or Bird, overall who turned out to be the better player???


This is like asking which came first the chicken or the egg? Lol, out of all player comparisons, I hate answering this one just because these two were both so great, but also so different not only in terms of basketball skill, but appearance, their backgrounds, and where they played. Im gonna say they are equally as good.


----------



## bballlife

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

I would pick Bird.


----------



## Kidd's Nets

*Re: Magic or Bird*

i say magic.


----------



## PriceIsWright

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Magic because he doesn't talk as much smack as Bird does.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Magic for the first 3 quarters, Bird in the 4th.


----------



## PriceIsWright

*Re: Magic or Bird*



Prolific Scorer said:


> Magic for the first 3 quarters, Bird in the 4th.


you win


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Equal players, but I liked Magic's style more.


----------



## mysterio

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Magic by the slightest of margins. More intangibles, makes teammates better, but it's virtually a toss-up. I don't like Bird though.


----------



## neoxsupreme

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Both are definitely top 10 all-time respectively but Larry Bird didn't play w/ a dominant center. Bird did have great depth on his teams though w/ McHale, Parish & DJ. I'd take Magic. 5 rings, 9 NBA finals appearances in a 13 yr playing career. Damn!


----------



## neoxsupreme

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



Brandname said:


> Actually, I'm pretty sure it's the opposite.


You're right. I'm pretty sure of it too.


----------



## neoxsupreme

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*



Hakeem said:


> Bird, easily. How often was he left open for threes? Very rarely. Kerr, however, attempted most of his threes while wide open. Which is why he has the superior percentage.


Good pt. Also if you put a taller, highly athletic player w/ length on Kerr, I'm sure it will throw his shots a little off although he has shown an ability to adapt his shot & put more of an arc on it. Bird was taller & had a higher release pt & arc on his shot so it's hard for defenders to contest it. I know Reggie wasn't part of this discussion but I'd take him over these other 2.


----------



## Diophantos

*Re: Magic or Bird*

I like Bird's style more, myself. But there's not really much between them.


----------



## Dream Hakeem

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

J.J Redick


----------



## Drk Element

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Definetly Bird.


----------



## P-Dub34

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Both absolutely legendary, but really, who do you think I'm gonna pick?


----------



## hollywood476

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Well i've always thought that Bird was the better player, even though Magic has more rings. But either way you can't go wrong with either one.


----------



## Shady*

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Bird all the way baby.


----------



## Shady*

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Magic...


----------



## LamarButler

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Bird, he could spread the floor with his shooting but also score in the paint with post ups. Magic could drive and post up really well, but his long range J was shaky. Also, Bird was more clutch and could score in bunches.


----------



## D.J.

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Kerr may have had the better %, but Bird could set up his own shot. Kerr needed MJ or Pippen. Even though Bird has a lower %, he was a better clutch player than Kerr ever was. Bird also won a few 3 point shootout titles so it wasn't as if he couldn't hit a 3 if he wanted to.


----------



## Kidd's Nets

*Re: Magic or Bird*

magic could do things bird couldn't and it also went the other way... bird was the better clutch shooter, scorer and was an above average passer... magic was the better passer and court general.. both made their teams better.. as a team player i believe magic was superior, while as a scorer, despite magics versitility, bird was better


----------



## D.J.

*Re: Magic or Bird*

It's hard to compare the two since Magic was a point guard and Bird was a forward. Both men had a sixth sense. They always knew where the other 4 guys were. Both men made their teammates better and both ended up being legends.


----------



## beamer05

*Re: Magic or Bird*

It's really hard to choose either one just like everyone else is saying... you could pick either player and they would benefit your team. This is basically a win-win situation. It's weird, I support the Lakers and absolutely love what Magic did for the game but there is something about Bird. I don't even know what it is, but I would choose him. But I wouldn't flinch for one second to have Magic as my "second choice."


----------



## beamer05

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

If the three pointer is wide open it's tempting to pick Kerr because that's what he did. However, I have to pick Bird in any situation- wide open or covered. Kerr was good at what he did, and made a great living off of it, but he really shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as Larry Bird, IMO.


----------



## croco

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Of course Bird.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Magic or Bird*

I'll answer it AFTER kflo posts...


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

12 people so far have chosen Steve Kerr.

Over Larry Freaking Bird.

That just goes to show what BBNet has become...


----------



## white360

*Re: Steve Kerr vs. Larry Bird*

Bird was a better clutch shooter and performer under pressure


----------



## kflo

*Re: Magic or Bird*



PauloCatarino said:


> I'll answer it AFTER kflo posts...


then i will preemptively call you wrong.

they were virtually indistinguishable as far as overall impact on the court. they both had the ability to do what it took, to understand instinctively what was necessary from them on the court, when it was time to assert themselves. *both* among the handful of best passers ever. 

bird did finish ahead of magic in mvp voting in 8 of their first 9 years (until he got hurt). but they pretty much had split camps. bird was the more impossing presence until '87, but you still had the 2 camps.


----------



## Melo#15

*Re: Magic or Bird*

Magic, no doubt in my mind


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Magic or Bird*



kflo said:


> then i will preemptively call you wrong.
> 
> they were virtually indistinguishable as far as overall impact on the court. they both had the ability to do what it took, to understand instinctively what was necessary from them on the court, when it was time to assert themselves. *both* among the handful of best passers ever.
> 
> bird did finish ahead of magic in mvp voting in 8 of their first 9 years (until he got hurt). but they pretty much had split camps. bird was the more impossing presence until '87, but you still had the 2 camps.


Fist of all: i consider Larry Joe Bird the most perfect basketball player ever.
Still, i consider Magic Johnson better (if only by a slight margin).

Magic was the ultimate floor leader. He could control a game without attempting any shot. He was the best at "making teammates better". Impossible passes; calling shots for everyone; making a point to assure easy buckets for the worst player in the squad in the eraly game... He did everything on the court. He could score in the 30's if he felt like it; he could rebound in the 10's if he wanted to... But all he wanted to do was drive the game. and he excelled on it more than anyone ever did. Back in the day, Hondo said something like "I made a living off Cousy's passes"... I bet there are dozens of players to say the same thing about Magic's.

Larry was a stone cold mf. I loved it in him. He was a guy who knew he could beat whoever, whenever. And a great team player, too. But, IMHO, he didn't have that je ne sais quoi Magic had. He led by hustle and example. Magic led by heart and devotion.

So far, they are my 2 favourite players ever.

But Magic, for me, was better.


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: Magic or Bird*



PauloCatarino said:


> He led by hustle and example. Magic led by heart and devotion.


Classic quote.

Jordan led by PER.


----------



## Kidd's Nets

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

bird could be one of the most intelligent players ever... he knew his limitations.. he worked on his strengths... he worked on the fundamentals of the game and his greatest weapon was his DESIRE


----------



## kflo

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



jasonskills said:


> bird could be one of the most intelligent players ever... he knew his limitations.. he worked on his strengths... he worked on the fundamentals of the game and his greatest weapon was his DESIRE


i think this does a disservice to his TALENT, which i think is why he sometimes gets shortchanged in comparison to others (like magic). it's was bird's natural INSTINCTS and SKILLS that made him the player he was. obviously he was a gifted shooter who worked tirelessly at his shot, and improving his arsenal (no harder than magic). he was gifted with both hands. he had a tremendous first step and quickness to separate from defenders (not speed, mind you, but shifty quickness to create space). he was 6'9 and was pretty strong and solid. and he had natural passing instincts and court vision few have ever had. many players have desire. what separated bird from the rest was in large part god-given. he did the work from there. probably not much more than other top players.


----------



## ralaw

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

I'm with kflo on this one, you don't become one of the 5 greatest players ever simply by working hard and having desire, as it takes a great deal of "God given" ability (talent) to achieve that status as well. I find it to be disrespectful to Bird to pass his overall ability off as he simply "he worked hard" because it undermines the natural player that he was even when he was leading Indiana State to the Final Four. I think the real issue here is people confuse athleticism with talent, and in my opinion the two don't always go hand-in-hand. From just a talent perspective, Bird is near the top of the list of all-time.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Magic or Bird*



Minstrel said:


> Classic quote.
> 
> Jordan led by *PER*.


what the heck is that? Does it refer to gambling?


----------



## Brandname

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



LuckyAC said:


> Because he was white. Otherwise he would have just been another average player.


Ugh. Needless to say, I am definitely not an Isiah Thomas fan. In fact, I can't stand him at all. 

Anyway, Larry Bird was great because he had a combination of all these great features. He wasn't terribly athletic by basketball standards, but by normal person standards he was amazingly athletic. 

But what made him stand out was his anticipation. More than anything else, he could anticipate everything better than anyone I've seen. Truth be told, I'm not sure Magic was necessarily a better passer than Larry. He just made that the focus of his game, while Bird focused more on scoring. I think they actually are the two best passers in the history of the game. I don't really care for Maravich in this category because, although he made some much flashier passes, I just can't put him in the same class because he put entertainment before winning. (Which isn't necessarily horrible, it's just not quite what I look for when judging greatness). Plus, I feel that Maravich was a very selfish player in college. Which also turns me off a bit. 

His combination of pure shooting, anticipation, passing, and rebounder are what made him one of the most unique players in league history. It's also why I consider him to be a bigger threat in his prime than Magic. He was one of the best shooters in the game and one of the best passers in the game at the same time, so he could kill a team in a lot of different ways.


----------



## Minstrel

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Bird was great because he was incredibly skilled, had good enough athleticism and had the sort of instinctive pattern-matching that all the best at a given profession have, allowing him to seem to play the game at a different speed or play several moves ahead.


----------



## Gilgamesh

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



Hakeem said:


> Very high basketball IQ


Yes.

Bird was a cerebral player.

Combine that with his desire/will to win and that is what made Bird great.


----------



## Gilgamesh

*Re: Magic or Bird*

I don't think anyone can really say that Bird was better than Magic and vice versa. That is why when this question is posed it often ends up in a split.

I mean they both did certain things better than the other and in the end it comes down to what you value more. The things that Bird did better or the things that Magic did better? Even if one was to say that one was better than the other it would only be slightly better.

For me, it's pretty equal. Both were great team players and more importantly winners. Like Paulo said Magic could have scored more if he wanted to. I won't go outrageous like he would average 30 ppg a season but he could have definitely averaged over 25 ppg and still dish out 10 apg if he really wanted to. This applies to Bird also. He probably could have dished out 10 apg if he wanted to. But both were more concerned about team success than individual stats. Remember Bird sat out an entire 4th quarter when he only needed one steal for a quadruple double. It's hard to say. As offensive players they are pretty equal. Bird being a better scorer and shooter. Magic is a better floor general and post-up player. So normally you could argue defense but in their case both are pretty equal on defense as well except that Magic probably got exploited more especially when he was matched up against a quicker PG. But put Magic at the 3 like the Cavs did with Lebron (who could play PG if he wanted/asked to) and that disadvantage would be largely negated. 

If I really had to choose like I had a gun to my head and 30 seconds to choose it would come down to the 30th second and I would probably pick Bird because Bird can create scoring chances for himself better than Magic which can be very important in a close game in the 4th quarter. But put the gun to my head another day and I would probably pick Magic.


----------



## mysterio

*Re: Magic or Bird*



PauloCatarino said:


> what the heck is that? Does it refer to gambling?


Player Efficiency Rating.


----------



## ThaRegul8r

*Re: Magic or Bird*

No matter how long and hard I think about this question—and I have—I simply can't bring myself to pick one or the other. I've got them dead even on my all-time list...


----------



## JPSeraph

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

Most of it's already been said.

I don't rate Bird for athleticism by NBA standards (except for some lumbering bigs, most any NBA player would seem quite athletic in comparison to the typical gym-goer). I think much of his "quickness" came down to anticipation, concentration, and a greater reliance on his mental gifts than a more athletically gifted player like Jordan (who IMO demonstrated similar mental gifts whilst hobbling around in a Wizards uniform).

He was a great passer (I like the poster who said he might be on par with Magic in this category), but unlike Magic couldn't consistently bring the ball up the floor against pressure from smaller quicker guards.

I'm not sure Bird was a pure shooter so much as one of the greatest players ever at putting the ball in the basket from anywhere on the floor using just about any method he could devise.

It has already been said that he mastered the fundamentals: footwork, balance, rebounding position, defensive position, etc. But Bird also was a master of the mental competition: of talking trash, psyching out his opponent, and making everyone on the floor (teammates included) believe that he could do whatever the hell he wanted whenever he wanted.

The MVPs and championships really don't do Larry Legend justice. As a Jordan fan who used to fear Bird in the late 80's and, in my foolish youth, one of many who believed he was overrated, I now _really_ miss seeing a dominate mid-sized player who isn't cloned after Jordan and relies primarily on superior skills and cerebral talents rather than freakish athleticism and desperate rule changes.


----------



## pac4eva5

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



ralaw said:


> I'm with kflo on this one, you don't become one of the 5 greatest players ever simply by working hard and having desire, as it takes a great deal of "God given" ability (talent) to achieve that status as well. I find it to be disrespectful to Bird to pass his overall ability off as he simply "he worked hard" because it undermines the natural player that he was even when he was leading Indiana State to the Final Four. I think the real issue here is people confuse athleticism with talent, and in my opinion the two don't always go hand-in-hand. From just a talent perspective, Bird is near the top of the list of all-time.


talent is not necesserily(sp?) involved with athleticism. the guy wasnt athletic at all, but hed still be dominant in todays game...


----------



## pac4eva5

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*



JPSeraph said:


> Most of it's already been said.
> 
> I don't rate Bird for athleticism by NBA standards (except for some lumbering bigs, most any NBA player would seem quite athletic in comparison to the typical gym-goer). I think much of his "quickness" came down to anticipation, concentration, and a greater reliance on his mental gifts than a more athletically gifted player like Jordan (who IMO demonstrated similar mental gifts whilst hobbling around in a Wizards uniform).
> 
> He was a great passer (I like the poster who said he might be on par with Magic in this category), but unlike Magic couldn't consistently bring the ball up the floor against pressure from smaller quicker guards.
> 
> I'm not sure Bird was a pure shooter so much as one of the greatest players ever at putting the ball in the basket from anywhere on the floor using just about any method he could devise.
> 
> It has already been said that he mastered the fundamentals: footwork, balance, rebounding position, defensive position, etc. But Bird also was a master of the mental competition: of talking trash, psyching out his opponent, and making everyone on the floor (teammates included) believe that he could do whatever the hell he wanted whenever he wanted.
> 
> The MVPs and championships really don't do Larry Legend justice. As a Jordan fan who used to fear Bird in the late 80's and, in my foolish youth, one of many who believed he was overrated, I now _really_ miss seeing a dominate mid-sized player who isn't cloned after Jordan and relies primarily on superior skills and cerebral talents rather than freakish athleticism and desperate rule changes.


wow this is a great post. is it possible to even argue against this? hes not even biased lol


----------



## wilwn

*Re: What made Larry Bird one of the greatest ever?*

most people are saying that bird wasn't athletic by NBA standards. here's a thought: imagine how much better he would have been if he HAD been athletic.

as for why he's one of the best, incredible reflexes, mental/physical toughness, absolutely peerless in the clutch save for a few players.


----------



## compsciguy78

*Awesome Larry Bird Mix*

He had the vision and passing of Nash with the rebounding and size of forwards. All hail the master...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxQhJqwBtzE&mode=related&search=

Who da man?


----------



## PFortyy

*Re: Awesome Larry Bird Mix*

Easier for everyone

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AxQhJqwBtzE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AxQhJqwBtzE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## GTA Addict

*Larry Bird - the best ever*

Maybe it's just me, but I've never seen anyone say Bird is the GOAT. He and Magic are often considered near-equals, but it seems most rank Magic ahead of Bird even if slightly, whether it be they actually feel he was better or just personal preference. Many even go as far as saying Magic's the GOAT, but Bird doesn't get this praise nearly as often. Maybe I just hadn't heard it....then I read these articles.

Credit to c_barkley from realgm for finding the articles



> NO DOUBT ABOUT IT: BIRD MAKES HIS MARK
> Jan Hubbard
> 16 May 1985
> The Dallas Morning News
> 
> "When Larry first came here,' said Boston forward Cedric Maxwell, "it was just like it was another white guy coming into play: "He might be all right, but he ain't that good.' But before the NBA got a chance to see how good Larry Bird was, I did. We battled every day, and I said, "Shoot, this guy's pretty good.' And now he's pretty great.'
> 
> Basketball fans know that. *Some suggest the 28-year-old Bird is not only the greatest player playing today, but maybe the best ever*. Since he arrived in Boston six years ago, Bird has led the Celtics to an average of 61 victories, and two NBA titles. This season, he was second in the league in scoring (28.7), second in 3-point percentage (.427), sixth in free-throw percentage (.882) and eighth in rebounding (10.5). He played for most of the season with bone chips in his right (shooting) elbow.





> Experts Pick Kareem as Best Ever
> Associated Press
> 8 February 1986
> 
> Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the Los Angeles Lakers' peerless center, is the greatest basketball player ever, according to a 60-member panel of experts polled by the Dallas Morning News.
> 
> Abdul-Jabbar, who turns 39 in April, is playing in his 17th professional season, an NBA record. Eighteen voters in the Morning News poll named him the greatest player, enabling him to beat out Oscar Robertson, a former Milwaukee Bucks teammate, who was named on 14 ballots.
> 
> ***
> 
> *Besides Abdul-Jabbar, Bird was the only active player to receive votes as the greatest player ever *(four). "His approach to the game is almost unparalleled,' said Guokas, who voted for Bird. "He will cut your heart out to win. He has the ability to handle the ball, shoot and rebound. He can pass and make everybody on the floor better.'
> 
> *Bob Cousy, one of the league's all-time great guards, played with Russell, yet he voted for Bird as best player*. "He shows you something different all night,' Cousy said. "He simply doesn't have any weaknesses."





> Celtics' Bird plays in a world of his own
> Robert Sansevere
> 29 May 1986
> Star-Tribune
> 
> Bird received the MVP award yesterday for the third straight year. He is only the third player in the NBA's 40-year history - and the first non-center - to win the award three years in a row. Bill Russell (1961-63) and Wilt Chamberlain (1966-68) were the others.
> 
> "*Larry's the greatest total player I've ever seen in the game of basketball*," said Celtics coach K.C. Jones, who played with Russell and against Chamberlain.
> 
> Bird ranked among the league leaders in five categories while leading the Celtics to an NBA-best 67-15 regular-season record and to the NBA finals for the third straight year.
> 
> Detroit Piston Coach Chuck Daly, on Larry Bird: "*He's the best passer in the league. He finds the open man better than anybody else. He is the greatest passer of all time.*" Note: On a recent telecast, as Bird was preparing to throw the ball in, CBS analyst Doug Collins said, "Larry Bird is the greatest inbounds passer I have ever seen."





> Celtics' Bird: The master of the court
> JOHN McCLAIN
> Staff
> 1 June 1986
> Houston Chronicle
> 
> "Yeah, Larry's just like a chess player," Houston Rockets General Manager Ray Patterson says. "I don't know of a better way to describe him. He's like a chess player who plays 40 boards. He knows where all the moves are. He's a thing of beauty to watch. He puts on a clinic. Sometimes, it's almost like he's out there playing with nine guys from the YMCA. "He creates things on the court even he doesn't know exist," Patterson says. "He's like a great artist or composer, and he's got the heart of a lion."
> 
> "No one can do the things Larry can do. *I think he's the best ever*. He practices like it's the seventh game of the championship series. When Larry gets hot, a little voice starts directing him and he's on radar," says Fitch, who coached Bird in his first four years with the Celtics.





> Bird: Last of NBA Cops
> By Mike Fish. The Kansas City Star and Times
> 1302 words
> 9 November 1986
> 
> Celtics president Red Auerbach, in his fourth decade with the team, says Bird is the most intense player ever to wear the Kelly green of Boston. That includes blood-and-guts types such as Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Dave Cowens and John Havlicek.
> 
> And the best to play on the parquet of Boston Garden? Probably Bird.
> 
> "I don't ever compare the great Celtic players, because I would praise one and insult four or five others," Johnny Most said. "I will say, that in my opinion, *Larry Bird is the most complete basketball player that ever lived*."
> 
> Bird is a slow 6-9 forward who specializes in the running game and ranks with the league's best rebounders and shooters. He seems to see the game in slow motion, keeping the ball in the air, creating as he goes along.
> 
> *It used to be he was considered the most dominant non-center in the game. Or the best all-around player since Oscar Robertson. In many corners, it is now just: "The best*."





> Larry Bird: Is he the best ever?
> SAM GOLDAPER
> New York Times
> 12 November 1986
> 
> NEW YORK - Give Larry Bird room and he'll bury a three-point field goal. Play him tight and he'll drive past you. Guard him one-on-one in the low posts and he'll spin along the baseline for a soft, left-handed layup.
> 
> Another National Basketball Association season is here, and coaches and players - many of whom already concede Bird a fourth straight most valuable player award - talk now about whether he is the greatest who ever played the game.
> 
> "*There is no question he is the greatest player today*," said Hubie Brown, the New York Knicks' coach. "He is already at a level very few people will reach, no matter what their profession. He has stature of almost awe, not only from coaches and fans, but from his peers."
> 
> ***
> 
> There have been other great shooters, other great rebounders. other great passers, but none has ever put all those skills together better than Bird has.
> 
> A National Sports Review poll recently asked 100 athletes, all of them all-stars and leading money winners, to vote for the athlete they most admired in a sport other than their own.
> 
> Bird was the winner with 22 votes.


As you can see, all of these articles were from the mid-'80s when Bird was at the height of his stardom. I know we have many posters here who were old enough to see a lot of Bird and can offer what they recall about him at the time.

So was there a consensus that Bird was better than Magic, and if so, until what point in time? Were these articles just a case of people getting caught up in the moment (Bird was winning MVPs and titles left and right during this period)? Maybe it was under the assumption that Bird would win more MVPs and titles as people assumed about Jordan right after he won in '93. Many considered MJ the GOAT at the time ad then he retired and left that argument wide open. In Bird's case his body broke down far too soon in his career.

How much greater could Bird's legacy have been?


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



GTA Addict said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I've never seen anyone say Bird is the GOAT. He and Magic are often considered near-equals, but it seems most rank Magic ahead of Bird even if slightly, whether it be they actually feel he was better or just personal preference. Many even go as far as saying Magic's the GOAT, but Bird doesn't get this praise nearly as often. Maybe I just hadn't heard it....then I read these articles.
> 
> Credit to c_barkley from realgm for finding the articles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, all of these articles were from the mid-'80s when Bird was at the height of his stardom. I know we have many posters here who were old enough to see a lot of Bird and can offer what they recall about him at the time.
> 
> So was there a consensus that Bird was better than Magic, and if so, until what point in time? Were these articles just a case of people getting caught up in the moment (Bird was winning MVPs and titles left and right during this period)? Maybe it was under the assumption that Bird would win more MVPs and titles as people assumed about Jordan right after he won in '93. Many considered MJ the GOAT at the time ad then he retired and left that argument wide open. In Bird's case his body broke down far too soon in his career.
> 
> How much greater could Bird's legacy have been?


Untill the 1986-1987 season, Larry Bird was the best player in the league. Till then, Magic was playing with KAJ (who was better than anyone on the Celtics roster not named Bird), so he wasn't viewed as a par of Bird.

It all changed in 1987. Eventhough Bird was playing at a stellar level, this was the year that Magic was definately the Franchise Player for LA: he won MVP for the first time and the Lakers beat the Celtics in the Finals (Magic was the Finals MVP)

Bird played one more year at a high level (1987-1988: 29.9-9.3-6.1) before his back gave up on him. And he was never the same again.

So, in all honesty, i must say that Larry Joe Bird, barring injuris, would be a candidate for GOAT status. He was that good. In his prime, dude was untouchable and the *best *basketball player ever. And this ain't a knock on Wilt: Chamberlain is, IMHO, the GOAT, but he simply didn't have Bir's arsenal of moves and mastery of the game.

There are only two basketball players that, IMHO, played at a level, skill-wise, never matched before and after: Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Bird was the best player of the duo untill a certain time; Magic took the reigns from him following.

The greatest regret of my basketball fan history was never been able to see Bird at full force in the late 80's.


----------



## kflo

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

after '86, bird had magic beat 3-0 in mvp's, and was tied in titles. he finished ahead of magic in mvp voting every year except '87 before his back surgery in '89. magic had his supporters, of course, all along, but he didn't have the same resume as bird until the repeat. bird at his peak was an assassin, among the best ever. his passing today is underappreciated, but that article does a good job of putting it in perspective. to me, him and magic are inseparable. there's simply no way to put one over the other. imo.


----------



## Trayhezy

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

He was should always be considered at least in the top 5 GOAT. I give him number 1 because he could do everything on a basketball court. He was never a great individual defender but was excellent in team defense always coming up with steals and blocks by simply seeing the game better than most. This is why even after his back gave out on him he was still one of the top players in the league. He could post up, shoot from distance, pass out the double team, score against the double team. rebound, and coach on the floor (remember he was COY in Indy)


----------



## carlos710

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

I dont see any reason to rate him over Michael to be honest.

So, no, he is not.


----------



## Dre

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

All of these articles were before MJ exploded. Obsolete as hell...


----------



## Bon]{eRz

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



> On a recent telecast, as Bird was preparing to throw the ball in, CBS analyst Doug Collins said, "Larry Bird is the greatest inbounds passer I have ever seen."


Bill Walton may have something to say about that.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

It does seem to me that Bird is just one level down from the top GOAT candidates. Chance does play a part and Larry's injury is part of his career just like his good fortune to be on one of the most loaded teams ever is part. The four top GOAT candidates are the two greatest winners in the history of the league, Russell and Jordan, the greatest statistical dominator and individual talent, Chamberlain, and the most sustained period of excellence, Jabbar. Bird and Magic are in the next tier along with Shaq and possibly Hakeem, West, and Oscar (possibly Mikan too, I have a hard time judging the 50s guys). But notice two things. He is one of the top 7 in NBA history and he is the only forward on that list.

The rest are mainly centers. Until the 90s the center position was almost by definition more dominant than any other, both Bird and Magic played with HOF centers, West and Oscar only won their championships when they were paired with HOF centers, only one team other than Jordan's Bulls has won a championship without a dominant center if you count Duncan as the center on SA which is where he plays the majority of his minutes.


----------



## GTA Addict

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

Interesting that Chuck Daly considered Bird the greatest passer of all time. Where do you rank Bird's passing? Is there any player today who's better?


----------



## kflo

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



BadBaronRudigor said:


> Chance does play a part and Larry's injury is part of his career just like *his good fortune to be on one of the most loaded teams ever is part*.


also remember, he joined a 29 win team (32 the year before that) that went on to win 61 games. with him as the primary change. he was responsible for turning that franchise back around.


----------



## E.H. Munro

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



kflo said:


> also remember, he joined a 29 win team (32 the year before that) that went on to win 61 games. with him as the primary change. he was responsible for turning that franchise back around.


The two teams had less in common than myth has made them in the ensuing years. Tiny Archibald was injured in '79. He was limited to some 20 m/g in the games he did play, and played very poorly (for him). Also, the '79 Celtics had one of the worst coaches of the decade (in the NBA). So bringing in Bill Fitch, and having a healthy Tiny made a big difference as well. And let's not forget that Bad News Barnes, Curtis Rowe, and Bob McAdoo were shipped out, and solid character guys like M.L. Carr, Gerald Henderson and Rick Robey were brought in (kinda/sorta, Robey arrived in the middle of the 29 win season in the Billy Knight trade). The other constant of the 29 win season was the frenetic trading (Knight for Robey, JoJo to Golden State, etc.). 

Fitch and Auerbach cleaned house when they brought Bird in. The big four (Cownes, Tiny, Maxwell, and Ford) kept their spots with the 1980 team, but the 1980 team was much better in terms of roster construction than its predecessor. The '79 team just didn't have the same guys suiting up nightly, the unstable roster combined with crappy coaching combined for some pretty ugly basketball. I always suspected that one of the big reasons that Red kept throwing **** against the wall in '79 was that the team's #1 pick had been dealt away and Red was trying, desperately, to find a winning hand. If they hadn't traded their #1 then they might well have ended up with Magic. Of course, as the first was traded for McAdoo, and McAdoo traded for M.L. Carr and a first round pick (which turned out to be the first pick in the 1981 draft), they wouldn't have had Parish & McHale, either.


----------



## Lucky Leprechaun 33

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

Larry Bird is the G.O.A.T!

Larry Legend was the man!

He is my favorite player of all time but seriously I must admit that Michael Jordan was better than him. Larry would admit that too. Michael is better than any of the other players as well.

But one cool thing to bring up is that when GQ or some similar magazine asked Jordan a question about who he would give the ball to for a game winning shot if he couldn't take it himself?

Michael's answer...

LARRY BIRD!


----------



## different_13

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

Supporting BadBaronRudiger's post, read this article:


http://joehoo.net/index.php?idx=stories&topic=4

It's about a third of the way down, good analysis (it goes Jordan/Russell/Chamberlain at the top, Bird's the last before the 'dropoff' to the isiah Thomases of the world).

And neither Bird nor Magic were good man-defenders (Bird was an excellent team defender though, right?)


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



different_13 said:


> Supporting BadBaronRudiger's post, read this article:
> 
> 
> http://joehoo.net/index.php?idx=stories&topic=4
> 
> It's about a third of the way down, good analysis (it goes *Jordan/Russell/Chamberlain *at the top, Bird's the last before the 'dropoff' to the isiah Thomases of the world).


I ain't reading it. An author that puts Russell over Wilt doesn't deserve my time.


----------



## E.H. Munro

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



PauloCatarino said:


> I ain't reading it. An author that puts Russell over Wilt doesn't deserve my time.


Any writer that slags Oscar the way he did never saw the man play.


----------



## different_13

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

To be fair, he does say Chamberlain was far more talented (in fact, on sheer talent alone he'd go at the top of the list).

"Final scores:

Jordan 2.825
Russell 2.20
Chamberlain 1.95
Abdul-Jabbar 1.93
O’neal 1.725
Johnson 1.720
Duncan 1.64
Bird 1.19
Olajuwon 1.15
Robertson 0.43"

's all backed up very well, but if you're not willing to read it, obviously that doesn't help.


I'd also argue for Chamberlain over Russell (I wouldn't necesarrily do it, but it's a tough arguement).


----------



## E.H. Munro

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

It's not particularly good.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

All right, i went ant took a look.

A Bulls groupie, it seems.

And the article was already discussed here http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-history-aba-too/363838-ranking-top-ten-all-time.html


----------



## kflo

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



PauloCatarino said:


> I ain't reading it. An author that puts Russell over Wilt doesn't deserve my time.


russell was named Greatest Player in the History of the NBA by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America in 1980.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



kflo said:


> russell was named Greatest Player in the History of the NBA by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America in 1980.


And Wilt had the NBA change the rules of basketball to try to stop him.


----------



## Jordan23Forever

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

Career-wise, yes, several player are and should be ranked ahead of Bird, including (in my opinion) Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, and Magic. Russell is arguably ahead of Bird too.

However, if you're talking about absolute primes, prime Bird ('84-'87) is without question top 4, along with '90-'93 Jordan, '62-'65 Wilt, and '72-'75 Kareem. Maybe even ahead of Kareem and Wilt if you include intangibles like leadership and clutchness. His prime was unquestionably higher than Magic's prime imo -- not by a huge margin, but it was perceptible. Purely skill-wise Bird is one of the two best players I've ever seen, along with Jordan.


----------



## Astral

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



PauloCatarino said:


> I ain't reading it. An author that puts Russell over Wilt doesn't deserve my time.


:yay:Guess you're never reading my posts


----------



## BadBaronRudigor

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

If it's all about winning, and it is, Russell is the GOAT . . . the only one close is MJ. If it's about individual dominance and ability, the GOAT is Wilt, easily, then it is a long way down to number two and that includes peak performance.


----------



## Jordan23Forever

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



BadBaronRudigor said:


> If it's all about winning, and it is, Russell is the GOAT . . . the only one close is MJ. If it's about individual dominance and ability, the GOAT is Wilt, easily, then it is a long way down to number two and that includes peak performance.


It's about both. I don't know hwy people set up this false dichotomy where one has to believe that being the GOAT is either *all* about winning or *all* about individual dominance. Clearly, both are important to a player's legacy.


----------



## magohaydz

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



Jordan23Forever said:


> It's about both. I don't know hwy people set up this false dichotomy where one has to believe that being the GOAT is either *all* about winning or *all* about individual dominance. Clearly, both are important to a player's legacy.


Well said, and with that in mind, His Airness is undoubtebly the GOAT. I dont know why people keep arguing this! 

I can say, without hesitation that Bird is the best WHITE player ever. The GWOAT if you will.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



Jordan23Forever said:


> It's about both. I don't know hwy people set up this false dichotomy where one has to believe that being the GOAT is either *all* about winning or *all* about individual dominance. Clearly, both are important to a player's legacy.


Sorry, you are correct to some degree. It's about being the guy who contributes most to winning . . . . you can score 30 points a game for your career and if it doesn't help your team win (poor shooting percentages, freezing out other scorers, conserving energy for scoring by not hustling on defense, etc.), you souldn't be considered a great player. 

Russell's was the sole dominant player on the greatest team of all time. Only Wilt has ever apprached his rebounding totals, contemporary observers say he was the dominant shotblocker of all time (again, only Wilt competitive . . . though there are no stats to back this up), he is the greatest defensive player of all time . . . a very dominant player, just not a scorer. 

And, his impact can be measured by looking at what the Celtics were like before him. They hadCousy, Sharman, HOF center Ed McCauley who they traded to draft Russell, Auerbach as coach, yet for the 4 years before Russell they finished 3,2,2,3 out of 4 teams in their conference . . .the very definition of mediocrity. With Russell, they instantly became the greatest team in the league winning 11 titles in 13 years. The players on the Celtics played great team ball, but get overrated by playing with Russell. Only Havlicek and Cousy were genuinely superstar players and Cousy's game may never have amounted to more than Pete Maravich without Russell, Auerbach didn't even want him, he was forced to take him by losing a drawing when Cousy's first team broke up.

So, while I do think it's about more than being on a winning team (sorry Robert Horry), it's only about individual dominance to the degree that that individual dominance contributes to winning. That's why while I think Wilt is the greatest individual player in history, I think Russell is the GOAT and MJ is second.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*

Btw, for those who think the first Celtics teams were loaded, let's compare them to Bird's Celtics:

Bird's first Champion ('81) Robert Parish, Cedric Maxwell, Nate Archibald, Chris Ford . . . off the bench Kevin McHale, Cedric Henderson. Parish is an excellent NBA center both on offense and defense, Max and McHale tremendously efficient scorers and good defensive PFs, Nate is aging but still a terrific distributor and good scorer (50% shooting!), Ford is good defense, no offense, Henderson is undersized shooter and decent small guard defender. Excellent interior defense, high percentage scoring, shaky outside shooting, is this a winning team?

Russell's first champion: Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinsohn, Jim Loscutoff, and off the bench Andy Phillips and Jack Nichols. Sharman was an excellent catch and shoot shooter, Cousy was a great distributor and scorer though not a good percentage shooter, Heinsohn was an outside shooting gunner (poor percentages), Sharman was a good, if undersized defender, Cousy and Heinsohn were poor. Loscutoff was a thug, early Rick Mahorn type who gave them more interior defense, Phillips was an aging talented guard, Nichols a solid offensive minded backup big since Russell missed much of the early part of the season. Good scoring, great playmaking and running, poor percentage shooting, mediocre defense . . . is this a winning team?


----------



## Astral

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



magohaydz said:


> Well said, and with that in mind, His Airness is undoubtebly the GOAT. I dont know why people keep arguing this!
> 
> I can say, without hesitation that Bird is the best WHITE player ever. The GWOAT if you will.


George Mikan and Jerry West beg to disagree.


----------



## Jordan23Forever

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



Astral said:


> George Mikan and Jerry West beg to disagree.


Bird was better than West and Mikan. West was a great, great player, but Bird was better.


----------



## Astral

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



Jordan23Forever said:


> Bird was better than West and Mikan. West was a great, great player, but Bird was better.


They're all opinions. In most GOAT voting, Jerry West and Larry Bird are at about the same ranking (6-10). George Mikan is usually dismissed because he played in the 50s, even though statistically and accomplishment wise, he rivals many players. A consistent 25/10 man, 7 time champion, leader of the very first basketball dynasty and one of the most important game changers of all time, Mikan doesn't get the consideration he deserves.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird - the best ever*



magohaydz said:


> Well said, and with that in mind, His Airness is undoubtebly the GOAT. I dont know why people keep arguing this!


Because, it seems, "people" know basketball better than you do...
I have no problems regarding peeps claiming Jordan was the GOAT (even disagreeing). But "undoubtedly"? Heck, there was a recent thread around here for voting for the Greatest Players of All Time and, even considering BBForum is only a microcosm of bball lover, there were plenty of people voting for other(s) as #1...


----------



## Babe Ruth

*Bird or Magic*

I was thinking about this today. Between these two superstars who do you think had the better overall career and why? I know Johnson career was cut short do being HIV positive but they both played 13 years, but he still had an amazing career. The reason why I asking you to say who's better between the two is because I believe these two will be forever link together?

I will post my response later


----------



## new dynasty

*Re: Bird or Magic*

why do you think they will be forever linked together?


----------



## Dream Hakeem

*Re: Bird or Magic*

My lvl 30 fire always knocks down the birds


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Bird or Magic*



Ka-Bosh said:


> I was thinking about this today. Between these two superstars who do you think had the better overall career and why? I know Johnson career was cut short do being HIV positive but they both played 13 years, but he still had an amazing career. The reason why I asking you to say who's better between the two is because I believe these two will be forever link together?
> 
> I will post my response later


"Bird or Magic" is one of the greatest basketball questions ever.

Befor kflo sticks his nose into this, the facts are:
1- Bird has the edge in peak years;
2- Magic has the edge in career achievments.


----------



## Headfake98

*Re: Bird or Magic*

hey dude, can i try for stupid post of the month?

the spurs are (both statistically and by popular opinion) probably the most boring champion in recent history of the nba. no one reads your signature and you have like 65 posts. making up acronyms also doesn't make you cool


----------



## Jordan23Forever

*Re: Bird or Magic*



PauloCatarino said:


> "Bird or Magic" is one of the greatest basketball questions ever.
> 
> Befor kflo sticks his nose into this, the facts are:
> 1- Bird has the edge in peak years;
> 2- Magic has the edge in career achievments.


Agreed. I take Bird for prime and Magic for career. I don't see how one can have Bird > Magic in terms of historical ranking, but in their respective primes, I'd take Bird over Magic about 7 times out of 10 in a playoff series (as a player).


----------



## DoctaJ

*Re: Bird or Magic*

this is one of the greatest rivalries ever. my vote slightly goes to bird.


----------



## Jabroni

*Re: Bird or Magic*

Well I'd rather have a dominant PG than a dominant SF, but that being said Bird and Magic weren't simply dominant, they were the GOAT at their respective positions. Bird may have been the better player, but if I wanted to win, I would have to go with the Magic because I believe that the PG and C are the most important positions in basketball.


----------



## kflo

*Re: Bird or Magic*

mvps - bird 3, magic 3
1st team all-nba - bird 9, magic 9
2nd team all-nba - bird 1, magic 1
2nd team all-defense - bird 3, magic 0
titles - bird 3, magic 5
finals mvp - bird 2, magic 3
top 2 mvp - bird 7, magic 5
games played - bird 897, magic 906
career PER - bird 23.5, magic 24.1
peak PER - bird 27.8, magic 27.0
top 3 PER - bird 5, magic 3

bird's mvp placing from his rookie season until his back surgery - 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd.

both guys just had the ability to provide whatever their teams needed. magic's numbers and mvp placings are somewhat depressed because he simply did what was necessary for his team. and deferring to kareem and playing a more passive scoring role was best for his team through the middle of his career. only thing separating the 2 is personal preference. magic ended his career stronger, but bird started his career stronger (save for 1 legendary game).


----------



## jefferyball

*Re: Bird or Magic*

this is a tough one because both of these legendary players are so talented.But i would give the slight edge to Bird because his ability to hit those shots in the clutch.He just did'nt miss.


----------



## loganporter

*Re: Bird or Magic*

my nod goes to bird, on the basis of the jackie robinson phenomenon in reverse. he never backed away from a challenge and win or lose he commanded respect.

let's face it though without magic there wouldn't be bird.


----------



## The One

*Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Both resurected Basketball in the 80's but who was more important to their team? Magic for the Lakers or Bird to the Celtics


----------



## SeaNet

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

I'm just going to come right out and say it. I think this might be the stupidest question ever posted on here. Enjoy the thread, all.


----------



## The One

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*



SeaNet said:


> *I'm just going to come right out and say it.* I think this might be the stupidest question ever posted on here. Enjoy the thread, all.


Go ahead....it's an open thread


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

How can we measure player importance to the team regarding 2 of the greatest team players ever?
In that sense, i agree with SeaNet.


----------



## SlamJam

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

flip a coin


----------



## leidout

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Bo Jackson.


----------



## xray

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Those of us who watched Magic play center in that 1980 Finals game got the impression that nobody could possibly have a bigger role in their team's performance; but Bird held his own in that regard.

So yeah, coin flip. :biggrin:


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

If you put them together you get a Magic Bird...I wonder how important a Magic Bird is to a NBA Franchise...

I wonder what it looks like, and wonder what it does....Something Magical I hope.


----------



## DuMa

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*



Prolific Scorer said:


> If you put them together you get a Magic Bird...I wonder how important a Magic Bird is to a NBA Franchise...
> 
> I wonder what it looks like, and wonder what it does....Something Magical I hope.


does a magic/bird > jordan?


----------



## Mateo

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

I would say Magic, since I think he's the better player (in fact, I consider him to be the greatest).


----------



## jokeaward

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Bird, he was the go-to scorer, but also set up others. It seems Bird gone would be a bigger chasm for Boston than LA finding a PG who could hold his own and pick among 4-5 sure weapons.


----------



## magohaydz

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Imagine if, say for example, James Worthy was traded for Larry Bird, or Magic for Danny Ainge. The "Greatest Team of All Time Debate" wouldnt even exist.


----------



## dwade3

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*



magohaydz said:


> Imagine if, say for example, James Worthy was traded for Larry Bird, or Magic for Danny Ainge. The "Greatest Team of All Time Debate" wouldnt even exist.



ahhhh yeah, i would still put the 72-10 bulls over them no doubt, and then won 69games the following year.....***** please


----------



## kflo

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

bird finished higher than magic in mvp voting in 8 of their first 9 seasons, until bird's back surgery forced him out in 1989. of course, he didn't have kareem. but the mvp voting gives a pretty good indication of who was viewed as more important at the time.


----------



## Brandname

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*



dwade3 said:


> ahhhh yeah, i would still put the 72-10 bulls over them no doubt, and then won 69games the following year.....***** please


A lot of people wouldn't put the 72-10 Bulls over the '86 Celtics the way they were. I am one of those people.


----------



## mysterio

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

My head explodes whenever Magic and Bird are compared.


----------



## Pioneer10

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*



kflo said:


> bird finished higher than magic in mvp voting in 8 of their first 9 seasons, until bird's back surgery forced him out in 1989. of course, he didn't have kareem. but the mvp voting gives a pretty good indication of who was viewed as more important at the time.


East Coast Bias plus Kareem?


----------



## Cap

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Magic ran those Laker teams from at least 83 onwards. Bird was arguably more important in 84 though.


----------



## JPSeraph

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Wow. I have no clue. As a fan who didn't start watching closely until the late 80's or early 90's, my impression of Magic and Bird has always been that they were very comparable. Magic was perhaps more versatile, but you could put either one of these guys on almost any team and they'd make it a much much better team.


----------



## canadaballer

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

Bird made the celtis in the 80s. 
He made them work harder and be better. i was watching a movie about bird and kevin mchale was talking about how Bird would be the 1st one in the gym and last one out. He made the other celtcs work harder.
Magic ran the show for a very talented Lakers Team. He directed traffic and was the head of thier "Showtime" offence. 

All in all theyre even but Magic has the 6 rings.


----------



## Krstic All-Star

*Re: Who was more important to their team Magic or Bird*

My coin flip ended up Bird.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*(Larry Bird's retirement) My annual tribute to the greatest of the greats...*

I know many of this Forum's posters were too young (or not been born at all) the time this two giants played the game. So i guess this won't mean a thing to them.
But for the old-school basketball fans, i guess this videos indirectly show what 80's ball was all about and what the game has been missing ever since Larry and Buck called it quits:

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=JdCMU3MfX_U 
and
http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=p2vIP9lY3YU&feature=related


----------



## 77AJ

*Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Title for the greatest Small Forward of all time. Yes I realize it's a bit unfair to LBJ, as Larry's career is already defined and finished. That being said, LBJ is considered the King of the class of the NBA already (even though I say Kobe) however, will he be as great as Larry Bird ? Is he already as great ? Will he be better ? Or is he already better ?

My money is with the dude from a town called French Lick. IMO Bird is completely as versatile as LeBron James offensively and defensively. IMO Bird's instincts, passing, and intangibles are a hair better than LeBrons. 

Career stats -

Larry Bird - 24.3 Points, 6.3 Assists, 10 rebounds, 1.7 steals, 0.8 blocks, 50% from the field, 37% three point shooter, 88% free throw shooter. High PER of 26.5.

LeBron James - 27.5 points, 6.7 Assists, 7 rebounds, 1.8 steals, 0.9 blocks, 47% from the field, 32% three point shooter, 73% free throw shooter. High PER of 31.7.


----------



## Nightmute

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

James past two seasons have been better then anything Larry ever did. I see LeBron passing Larry pretty handily, actually I think he's already better now but if a major injury occurs I could see all that changing.


----------



## 77AJ

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



Nightmute said:


> James past two seasons have been better then anything Larry ever did. I see LeBron passing Larry pretty handily, actually I think he's already better now but if a major injury occurs I could see all that changing.


IMO Birds 84-85 season has not been over matched by James in the slightest. However I appreciate you contributing to my thread. Please continue.


----------



## Prolific Scorer

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

LeBron James is one of a handfull of greatest pure athletes to play this game.


That being said i'd take Larry Bird in a New York minute.


----------



## Jakain

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Larry was somewhat of a better shooter but Lebron has been improving over the years and is likely to get much better when he hits his prime. Lebron also has had less relative talent playing alongside him unlike Bird's relatively stacked teams; and Lebron made a team like the Cavs the #1 team to beat after earning the top regular season record at the age of 24. Oh yea and at age 22 he took the lackluster Cavs roster to the Finals back in 2007.

Bird's chief rival, Magic Johnson, has a lot in common with Lebron James when we talk about basketball builds but I'd give the edge towards Lebron in terms of athleticism and when we compare these three players' basketball bodies: LBJ is like Magic on steroids - Magic and Bird didn't have the hops or football-esque power that James displays routinely.

Lebron James is only 24 years old too and he's accomplished a lot and is arguably the best player in the NBA right now. Bird's twilight years was hampered by back injury (IIRC) and James has yet to run into any such problem and with modern medicine and rehab - he probably never will. 

If we compare the two players by the amount of years in the league the edge has to go to LBJ since his supporting cast was relatively much worse than Bird's. 

If I was given a draft pick to pick either James or Bird, I'd go with James easily. Now if it was Magic or James then things get a little more interesting.

You know whats really scary? We haven't even seen King James in his prime yet.


----------



## kflo

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

ultimately, lebron will be regarded as the greater player, imo. of course, bird's ranking seems to decline the further we get from his actual career. lebron fits the mold better, so he'll get the benefit of the doubt. he's also obviously more athletically gifted. in an individual matchup, i have little doubt they would both get theirs, although bird's at a greater disadvantage overall. they both have incredible passing instincts, although beyond the touch pass i think bird had a better overall feel for the game. shooting was a big advantage for bird. penetration a big advantage for lebron. rebounding goes to bird. defense to lebron. overall, bird had a 9-10 year prime (including his rookie season on). he entered the league turning 23. lebron will peak higher, and produce longer, imo. no disrespect to larry legend. whose quickness and ability to get separation from any defender is underrated.


----------



## billfindlay10

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Bird makes the game easy for players on his team....I don't see that in Lebron yet. For now I say Bird over James, you can argue the Celtics had a better roster, but to me it was the overall teamwork that separates them, and a huge part of that was the facilitateing that Larry did.


----------



## JT

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

this is the player LeBron is most like...not that Magic/MJ tripe always being shoved down our throats. Bird is better but LeBron only has half of his story written.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

bump this thread in a few years


----------



## 77AJ

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



Jakain said:


> Larry was somewhat of a better shooter but Lebron has been improving over the years and is likely to get much better when he hits his prime. Lebron also has had less relative talent playing alongside him unlike Bird's relatively stacked teams; and Lebron made a team like the Cavs the #1 team to beat after earning the top regular season record at the age of 24. Oh yea and at age 22 he took the lackluster Cavs roster to the Finals back in 2007.
> 
> Bird's chief rival, Magic Johnson, has a lot in common with Lebron James when we talk about basketball builds but I'd give the edge towards Lebron in terms of athleticism and when we compare these three players' basketball bodies: LBJ is like Magic on steroids - Magic and Bird didn't have the hops or football-esque power that James displays routinely.
> 
> Lebron James is only 24 years old too and he's accomplished a lot and is arguably the best player in the NBA right now. Bird's twilight years was hampered by back injury (IIRC) and James has yet to run into any such problem and with modern medicine and rehab - he probably never will.
> 
> If we compare the two players by the amount of years in the league the edge has to go to LBJ since his supporting cast was relatively much worse than Bird's.
> 
> If I was given a draft pick to pick either James or Bird, I'd go with James easily. Now if it was Magic or James then things get a little more interesting.
> 
> You know whats really scary? We haven't even seen King James in his prime yet.


You forecast LeBron as if he's going to be significantly better than he is right now. I find that kind of hard to believe. IMO LeBron will continue to work on fundamentals like posting up, mid range shooting, 3 point shooting and free throw shooting, etc Things he struggles with (And I use that term lightly). However I don't see any kind of major spike in his stats. I'm also under the impression LeBron James 6 seasons into his career is playing at his prime right now, as he will turn 25 next year in his 7th NBA season, it's not like were watching an 18 year old teenager anymore.

Now a couple of bones to pick with you regarding your comments on Bird, you say Bird is some what of a better shooter, don't you think your underrating Bird's shooting by a pretty substantial margin ?

Second bone to pick with you is that your some what diminishing Birds accomplishments as an individual player due to his team being stacked as you put it. 

Yet you do realize that the Celtics were 29-53 the season before drafting Larry Bird ? After all Bird was the 6th pick in the 1st round for a reason, and the Rookie Of The Year, beating out Magic Johnson. And during Larry Birds rookie season the Celtics record was 61-21, and Robert Parish and Kevin McHale were not even on the Celtics team that season.


----------



## Jakain

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



23AJ said:


> You forecast LeBron as if he's going to be significantly better than he is right now. I find that kind of hard to believe. IMO LeBron will continue to work on fundamentals like posting up, mid range shooting, 3 point shooting and free throw shooting, etc Things he struggles with (And I use that term lightly). However I don't see any kind of major spike in his stats.


As long as LBJ doesn't get injured he's just going to get significantly better. Stats like assists would be higher for LBJ if he was on the Larry Bird Celtics imo. 



> I'm also under the impression LeBron James 6 seasons into his career is playing at his prime right now, as he will turn 25 next year in his 7th NBA season, it's not like were watching an 18 year old teenager anymore.


While LBJ has played a lot more basketball than a comparable Bird has at this point; an NBA player's prime is generally mid 20's to early 30's and LBJ is only 24. KG and Kobe are decent enough examples since these guys are all straight from high school although KG did have an untimely injury this past season. It'll be interesting to see what wear and tear does to his body and if he chooses to continue playing in the Olympics. 



> Now a couple of bones to pick with you regarding your comments on Bird, you say Bird is some what of a better shooter, don't you think your underrating Bird's shooting by a pretty substantial margin ?


Depends what kind of shots we're talking about, however LBJ has made such significant strides since he entered the NBA with his shooting that I wouldn't be surprised if he can close this gap. Around the basket I'd expect LBJ to be able to sink it in more than a comparable Bird.



> Second bone to pick with you is that your some what diminishing Birds accomplishments as an individual player due to his team being stacked as you put it.
> 
> Yet you do realize that the Celtics were 29-53 the season before drafting Larry Bird ? After all Bird was the 6th pick in the 1st round for a reason, and the Rookie Of The Year, beating out Magic Johnson. And during Larry Birds rookie season the Celtics record was 61-21, and Robert Parish and Kevin McHale were not even on the Celtics team that season.


That was a great first season by Bird but in the season right after they picked up Parish and McHale IIRC and formed one of the most legendary frontcourts of all time. LBJ improved the Cavs record by 18 more victories than their previous season in his first year. Wasn't Bird supposed to play in that 29-53 season but some drama came up (IIRC)? In any case Bird entered a team where he meshed well with the roster and vice-versa and LBJ's supporting case failed pretty bad in these areas when we compare how well Bird and the guys around him played together. 

By Bird's second year he was playing with not one but two HOF players; by comparison LBJ played alongside Boozer, Larry Hughes, and the Big Z during his first few years. LBJ's second best player has always been much worse imo than several of Bird's teammates. However even with a lesser roster than Bird's he still led his team pretty far in the postseason.

As for individual accomplishments, LBJ broke several records in his first year and his first game had an increidble statline (25 points, 9 assists, 6 rebounds, and 4 steals and shot 60% from the floor from his wiki). He was also the youngest player to score 40 points in a game, earned Rookie of the Year, and is one of three players in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists per game in their rookie season (Oscar and MJ being the other two).

LBJ is on another tier athletically than anyone from the 80's not named Jordan and he's got the skills and IQ to back it up although overall Bird's skillsets are superior. However Bird's skill advantage is only going to be closed as LBJ enters his prime and gets more years under his belt; and Bird's skill advantage is not overwhelmingly superior to Lebron's unlike LBJ's numerous physical advantages.

After 2010 we'll see what kind of talent Lebron has to work with; he's already progressed pretty far in the postseason with relatively poor help compared to the post-rookie Bird Celtics.


----------



## kflo

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

having better teammates doesn't automatically lead to more assists. bird didn't have the ball in his hands as much as lebron does. and mchale didn't get you many assists as he worked the post. dj wasn't a great shooter. 

lbj did just have his best overall season. so it's not like he hasn't been getting better. he's shown improvements across the board. but no, he won't get significantly better. if he did, it would be pretty scary. 

it's a hard question to answer. bird was an impact player. from day 1. he also came into the league much older. his impact went beyond his stats. is lebron as good or better than bird ever was? you can't go too wrong arguing either way, really.


----------



## Cap

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Bird was the 2nd smartest player I ever saw play. Easily the most under-rated passer in HOF conservations. He had the best court vision for his position, easily, but he'd have also had elite court vision if he were a PG. Had a versatile post game and jump shot that LeBron doesn't have and probably won't have, though never say never with LeBron. Overall, Bird was the better player due to career accomplishments, pretty easily, and definitely more clutch than LeBron. But overall, I think LeBron's peak has been better, and he has _certainly_ done more with less. Then again, Bird was never on a talent-less team so we'll never know, but you can't change reality.


----------



## 77AJ

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



> Jakain said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as LBJ doesn't get injured he's just going to get significantly better. Stats like assists would be higher for LBJ if he was on the Larry Bird Celtics imo.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with you when you say LeBron is going to get significantly better. I believe, I'm sure like most NBA fans that LeBron will tweak his game, and try to fine tune the areas he's not a master of. That being said, I believe the rise in his game won't be statistically better than what he did just this last season, and even if it' is, the margins will be small. It's the fundamentals, interior play/post up, clutch play, and mid range game LBJ needs to work on IMO.
> 
> And the comment about Bron being on Larry's Celtics automatically means he would have more assists is far from the the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jakain*
> While LBJ has played a lot more basketball than a comparable Bird has at this point; an NBA player's prime is generally mid 20's to early 30's and LBJ is only 24. KG and Kobe are decent enough examples since these guys are all straight from high school although KG did have an untimely injury this past season. It'll be interesting to see what wear and tear does to his body and if he chooses to continue playing in the Olympics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying LeBron is only 24, and that's true, but in one sentence you talk about LeBron getting significantly better, which to me indicates improvement into next season, and beyond. All of which he won't be 24 years old, he will be 25 next season. I may be splitting hairs, but I don't think you should be able to have it both ways. If your going to comment on James game improving in the future that's fine, but let's not put James in an ageless world, LeBron James will be 25 before next season is over, or most importantly the playoffs begin.
> 
> Kobe, and KG both have had major injuries in their careers. KG later than Kobe though, I'll give you that. Nobody knows how LeBrons body will hold up, only time will tell us one way or the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jakain*
> Depends what kind of shots we're talking about, however LBJ has made such significant strides since he entered the NBA with his shooting that I wouldn't be surprised if he can close this gap. Around the basket I'd expect LBJ to be able to sink it in more than a comparable Bird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any where on the hard wood, Larry Bird is the better shooter than LeBron James. It's really not a debate. Sure LeBron has made significant strides, nobody is discrediting LeBron at all, in fact him being able to be compared to a once in a generation type player like Bird already in his career is, and should be considered flattering to Bron, and his fans. That said, From 3 point range, free throw, interior, and mid range Bird's shooting > James shooting. So I think the bone I had to pick with you was warranted. And LeBron James post up game pales in comparison to Birds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jakain*
> That was a great first season by Bird but in the season right after they picked up Parish and McHale IIRC and formed one of the most legendary frontcourts of all time. LBJ improved the Cavs record by 18 more victories than their previous season in his first year. Wasn't Bird supposed to play in that 29-53 season but some drama came up (IIRC)? In any case Bird entered a team where he meshed well with the roster and vice-versa and LBJ's supporting case failed pretty bad in these areas when we compare how well Bird and the guys around him played together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Improvement Larry Bird made to the Celtics his rookie season dwarfs what LeBron did in Cleveland his rookie season in terms of win/loss record before and after. It wasn't that Bird just simply meshed well with his teammates, he was a great teammate (another strength of Birds) and was able to adapt and become the leader of the team from the jump. Before he had a legendary front court. The team Bird led as a rookie, made it to the Eastern Conference Finals. A hell of a turn around if there ever was one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jakain*
> By Bird's second year he was playing with not one but two HOF players; by comparison LBJ played alongside Boozer, Larry Hughes, and the Big Z during his first few years. LBJ's second best player has always been much worse imo than several of Bird's teammates. However even with a lesser roster than Bird's he still led his team pretty far in the postseason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We can talk teammates until were blue in the face, but that isn't going to tell the story about LeBron James or Larry Bird at this point. We already know both are great players who could play with anybody, because of their skill set, and abilities to create for other players. So I'm in no argument with you that the Celtics teams had better roster than the Cavs of the 2000s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jakain*
> As for individual accomplishments, LBJ broke several records in his first year and his first game had an increidble statline (25 points, 9 assists, 6 rebounds, and 4 steals and shot 60% from the floor from his wiki). He was also the youngest player to score 40 points in a game, earned Rookie of the Year, and is one of three players in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists per game in their rookie season (Oscar and MJ being the other two).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LeBron's age records are meaningless to me. They don't hold any value other than the year that's one his birth certificate. If LeBron James had to play a year in college, like kids are forced to do now, and was still as great as he is, but didn't have all the age records, it would have no effect on how I rank James. True accomplishments IMO that James has received individually are his MVP and ALL NBA teams. Where Bird easily out matches him in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jakain*
> LBJ is on another tier athletically than anyone from the 80's not named Jordan and he's got the skills and IQ to back it up although overall Bird's skillsets are superior. However Bird's skill advantage is only going to be closed as LBJ enters his prime and gets more years under his belt; and Bird's skill advantage is not overwhelmingly superior to Lebron's unlike LBJ's numerous physical advantages.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I agree, LBJ is on another tier athletically than anyone from the 80s, and damn near anyone from the 2000s as well. He's a beast, and will go down as one of the all time greats, but that being said, Bird's intelligence, versatility, and speed were as impressive as anyones.
> 
> Physical advantages > Skill advantages in your opinion ? To me it's the other way around, all players will face father time, and lose those wonderful genetic gifts from their parents. And when that happens it will be skill to keep them playing at a great level. Unfortunately for Bird his injuries were to much to over come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jakain*
> After 2010 we'll see what kind of talent Lebron has to work with; he's already progressed pretty far in the postseason with relatively poor help compared to the post-rookie Bird Celtics.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes will see, and I don't see how it's a negative that Bird had good teammates, I'm sure LeBron James would still be as talented as his is now if he had better teammates his entire career.


----------



## Drewbs

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Larry Bird is a great player, but how much of a winner would he be if he didn't play on a team with 3 hall of famers?


----------



## Jakain

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



23AJ said:


> You keep saying LeBron is only 24, and that's true, but in one sentence you talk about LeBron getting significantly better, which to me indicates improvement into next season, and beyond. All of which he won't be 24 years old, he will be 25 next season. I may be splitting hairs, but I don't think you should be able to have it both ways. If your going to comment on James game improving in the future that's fine, but let's not put James in an ageless world, LeBron James will be 25 before next season is over, or most importantly the playoffs begin.


An NBA player's prime is between his mid 20's to early 30's. LBJ is only 24. He's going to get significantly better. Looking at guys who've entered the league young like Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker, KG, etc. - they've all had their primes/best overall years after 24 I believe. Tony Parker just had his best season at the age of 27 so yea I think LBJ is only going to get better and work on whatever he needs to continue to be the best. Time will tell to see how much he improves but given his history he's on track to only get much better especially after this past postseason imo.



> The Improvement Larry Bird made to the Celtics his rookie season dwarfs what LeBron did in Cleveland his rookie season in terms of win/loss record before and after. It wasn't that Bird just simply meshed well with his teammates, he was a great teammate (another strength of Birds) and was able to adapt and become the leader of the team from the jump. Before he had a legendary front court. The team Bird led as a rookie, made it to the Eastern Conference Finals. A hell of a turn around if there ever was one.


Yea that was a hell of an improvement but I doubt Bird could've turned the 2003 Cavaliers around; or any SF for that matter. That lineup was just horrible. I don't remember but didn't the Celtics make their roster around Bird since he was a year late?

However LBJ improving the Cavs record by a margin of 18 games at the age of 18 isn't exactly bad especially since a rookie Bird has had more time to polish his game. Can you imagine if LBJ graduated college and entered the league playing the way he did this past season?



> Any where on the hard wood, Larry Bird is the better shooter than LeBron James. It's really not a debate. Sure LeBron has made significant strides, nobody is discrediting LeBron at all, in fact him being able to be compared to a once in a generation type player like Bird already in his career is, and should be considered flattering to Bron, and his fans. That said, From 3 point range, free throw, interior, and mid range Bird's shooting > James shooting. So I think the bone I had to pick with you was warranted. And LeBron James post up game pales in comparison to Birds.


Bird's 3 point shooting was one of his worst parts of his game when we compare to the other stuff he brings. Hell, Bird's overall outside shooting didn't really get solid until much later in his career than a comparable Lebron James.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01.html

If you compare the two's 3 point attempts and %'s in a comparable amount of years, Bird's 3 point shooting took a huge drop off compared to the years following his rookie season whereas LBJ's has been going at a constant, steady pace. Bird's long distance shooting was always shakey and he didn't shoot much from there nor could he really shoot well from there until much later in his career; something that LBJ has yet to live. 

At this point Lebron has attempted over 1,957 3's and Bird attempted 550 3's in their first six regular seasons. Bird was also older and should've had a better shooting game anyway due to age/practice/etc. However Bird's 3% over this time period was .308% whereas Lebron's is .328%. Bird's outside shooting has never really been the best thing about him imo; and its not that much better than Lebron's if at all.

Bird and Lebron won't ever be considered shooters on the level of lets say a prime Ray Allen but Lebron's best shooting years are more than likely ahead of him given the trend most players develop. Also Lebron's strength and ahtleticism gives him an edge on phsycally contested shots and he's already made significant strides. He's on track to get better and close any gaps against Bird, and Bird's 3 point shooting was never really all that great until his later years. Examples like Tony Parker's ****ty mid range game during his first few seasons come to mind since he has improved his midrange shot where its about as deadly as anyone's.




> LeBron's age records are meaningless to me. They don't hold any value other than the year that's one his birth certificate. If LeBron James had to play a year in college, like kids are forced to do now, and was still as great as he is, but didn't have all the age records, it would have no effect on how I rank James. True accomplishments IMO that James has received individually are his MVP and ALL NBA teams. Where Bird easily out matches him in.


Since you're a huge Jordan and Oscar fan I thought you'd like that stat that puts LBJ in the ranks of them - he averaged 20 pts, 5 rebs, and 5 assists which only those three have done in their rookie years in the history of the NBA and only LBJ has done at 18. As for the age records I'd say those are all pretty damn special - to be able to play like LBJ did at the age of 18 is just incredible; and no other player straight out of high school has played on the level LBJ has. You need to at least acknowledge the greatness otherwise these kind of discussions go nowhere since LBJ has just started getting into his prime whereas we have the entirety of Bird's career to look at. 

As for Larry Bird's "individual" accomplishments - well of course he's going to have more than Lebron since LBJ is only 24 and Bird has had an entire career; as long as LBJ doesn't get a serious injury he's going to have more of those type of accomplishments than anyone; ever imo. Like Bird there's really no competition for his position on all star teams. 



> Physical advantages > Skill advantages in your opinion ? To me it's the other way around, all players will face father time, and lose those wonderful genetic gifts from their parents. And when that happens it will be skill to keep them playing at a great level. Unfortunately for Bird his injuries were to much to over come.


Overwhelmingly huge physical advantages > nowhere near as huge of a gap in skills. At the end of the day basketball is a big man's game which favors Lebron however skill-wise he'll only improve as he gets more experience, practice and years behind him. LBJ is going to be able to close whatever gaps Bird has; maybe not completely but to a point where it doesn't really matter since LBJ's other advantages put him over the top. 



> Yes will see, and I don't see how it's a negative that Bird had good teammates, I'm sure LeBron James would still be as talented as his is now if he had better teammates his entire career.


Yea but a point that keeps coming up from you is about Bird's huge turn around for the Celtics team compared to LBJ's 18-victory improvement. That has a lot to do with the quality of players on the team imo as well as the individual; and more importantly how much their gameplay meshes together. The year after the Celtics had that awful record they made significant roster changes and development like getting rid of their top scorer in Bob McAdoo; so the teams were not carbon copies of eachother with the only difference being Bird (although he is the biggest difference). The year Bird entered the Celtics the roster already trimmed a lot of its fat.

--------







There's only going to be more of the above to come in the following seasons especially since LBJ took his postseason's loss pretty hard which is understandable since he earned the MVP and led his team to the top of the NBA standings. He's likely only going to use that loss as more motivation and a more polished and experienced LBJ is going to be one hell of a player in the coming seasons.


----------



## kflo

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Bird was better as a rookie. Of course, he was 23.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



Drewbs said:


> Larry Bird is a great player, but how much of a winner would he be if he didn't play on a team with 3 hall of famers?


This whole "Player X had the luxury to play with Y number of HOFs" argument is sometimes misused.
Larry Bird, in only his second year in the league, led the Celtics to the NBA title with Parish (who is an HOF because of the championships he won with the Celtics), yes, but with a rookie McHale on the bench and without DJ.

People don't seem to understand that in the 80's you HAD to have a stacked team to win, because the team facing you was ALSO stacked. In that year, the Celtics had to go through Philly (the team that eliminated them from the playoffs in Bird's rookie year), who had Dr. J, Chocolate Thunder, Bobby Jones, Mo and The Boston Strangler. The team that beat Boston a year later to get into the Finals (won by LA)

Although Lebron is shortening the gap, i'd say there's still a significant edge in favour of Larry Bird. It's not just about stats, but also impact on court.


----------



## mo76

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Some people make some good arguments for bird, but lebron is just way more valuable as a player to any team. It really isn't even close. I think the caves problen is the coaching and other players. Lebron looked selfish in the playoffs only because he didn't know what to do half the time. The cavs can really stall on offence. I thought lebron was a creative player. He needs more talent around him. Its sad to watch.


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



mo76 said:


> Some people make some good arguments for bird, but lebron is just way more valuable as a player to any team. *It really isn't even close.*


Care to elaborate on that?



> I think the caves problen is the coaching and other players. Lebron looked selfish in the playoffs only because he didn't know what to do half the time. The cavs can really stall on offence. I thought lebron was a creative player. He needs more talent around him. Its sad to watch.


The Cavs have had plenty of time to build a team around Lebron James.


----------



## someone

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



chairman5 said:


> bump this thread in a few years


Agreed. Way too soon. 

I would personally go with Bird though because he is one of my top favorite nba players ever.


----------



## mo76

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



PauloCatarino said:


> Care to elaborate on that?
> 
> 
> 
> The Cavs have had plenty of time to build a team around Lebron James.


I really try to stay away from the "who is better than who" and "who is the greatest of all time" conversations. 

All I know, is that if I and a GM and have a choice between Lebron and a Prime Larry Bird. *It's not even close. *


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



mo76 said:


> I really try to stay away from the "who is better than who" and "who is the greatest of all time" conversations.
> 
> All I know, is that if I and a GM and have a choice between Lebron and a Prime Larry Bird. *It's not even close. *


Oh. I guess that settles it, then...


----------



## mo76

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



PauloCatarino said:


> Oh. I guess that settles it, then...


Lebron can take the ball to the rim. Bird was a shooter. I know bird was a winner but lebrons game is more suited to consistant wins. Especially if he had a better supporting cast.


----------



## michelangelo

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Dude, you're so far off it's not even funny. Here are some halfway decent Bird seasons for LeBron's nuthugging coterie to mull over:

1984-85 *28.7 PPG, .522 FGP, .882 FTP, .427 3PP, 10.5 RPG, 6.6 APG, 1.6 SPG, 1.2 BPG*
1986-87 *28.1 PPG, .525 FGP, .910 FTP, .400 3PP, 9.2 RPG 7.6 APG, 1.8 SPG, 1 BPG *

1987-88 *29.9 PPG, .527 FGP, .916 FTP, .414 3PP, 9.3 RPG, 6.1 APG, 1.6 SPG, .7 BPG*

In the meantime, LeBron has never managed 50% from the field, he's never managed to shoot above 35% from behind the 3, he's never shot 80% from the line, and shot below 70% for one season. LeBron has never matched Bird's season assist average, and he's not even close as a rebounder, where Bird literally had top flight power forward caliber rebound numbers. Their steals and blocks numbers are comparable. 

As a scorer, Bird was literally a 30 pt a game scorer in his prime. And this was on a team loaded with stupid talent like Robert Parish, McHale, Bill Walton, DJ, Danny Ainge, among others. LeBron is putting up big numbers on a team which is basically an expansion team caliber roster without him. 

Larry Bird's career line: 24 pts, 10 rebounds, 6 assists, 50% from the field, 89% from the line, 38% from behind the arc. 3 rings, 3 straight regular season MVP's. And it was all based on skill and intelligence. LeBron gets by almost exclusively on athleticism. You factor in who Bird had to share the ball with for his points, and take into account his injury riddled last four seasons, and his numbers are absolutely crazy. 

How quickly we forget. Sigh. 

edit: LeBron is the primary ballhandler for the Cavs. Bird was not for the Celtics. DJ and Tiny were. Yet Bird still posted crazy assist numbers. And I take Bird every time over LeBron for the last shot. Same thing with Kobe over LeBron.

edit: as far as LeBron not having enough time to establish a legacy, keep his mind he's played six full seasons already. Larry Bird played 13, and one of them was for only six games. 



Nightmute said:


> James past two seasons have been better then anything Larry ever did. I see LeBron passing Larry pretty handily, actually I think he's already better now but if a major injury occurs I could see all that changing.


----------



## michelangelo

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

Are you kidding me? Bird's Celtics never won less than 56 games in his first 9 seasons, and they won at least 60 in 6 of those 9 seasons. They won 67 games at their peak. And Bird shot a significantly better percentage from the field, both 2 pt and 3 pt range, even though LeBron is best as a slasher to the basket.



mo76 said:


> Lebron can take the ball to the rim. Bird was a shooter. I know bird was a winner but lebrons game is more suited to consistant wins. Especially if he had a better supporting cast.


----------



## Luke

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



michelangelo said:


> edit: as far as LeBron not having enough time to establish a legacy, keep his mind he's played six full seasons already. Larry Bird played 13, and one of them was for only six games.


Keep in mind that Larry entered the league when he was 23, and Bron's only 24 *right now* let's not try and pretend like LeBron is close to his peak.


----------



## mo76

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



michelangelo said:


> Are you kidding me? Bird's Celtics never won less than 56 games in his first 9 seasons, and they won at least 60 in 6 of those 9 seasons. They won 67 games at their peak. And Bird shot a significantly better percentage from the field, both 2 pt and 3 pt range, even though LeBron is best as a slasher to the basket.


I acknowledged that "Bird was a winner" Everyone knows the Celtics won alot of games in the 80's with bird. I seriously can't beleive you are lecturing on me how the 80s Celtics had a winning record. No ****!!!!!!!!!


----------



## seifer0406

*Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/2009/11/07/2009-11-07_magic_johnson__larry_bird.html



> If you just hate it when pro basketball players are too chummy on the court, or when the NBA fines LeBron James for not shaking hands, you're not alone.
> 
> Larry Bird has a hard time with those parts of today's NBA, as well.
> 
> "I don't believe in it," said the old Celtic legend this past week about the camaraderie now seen in the NBA. "I think there's a little too much of it going on. I had a different mindset when I played. I always wanted to keep an edge. I always wanted to have the upper edge. That's how I approached it, even when I coached. I could never have a close relationship with my opponents. I thought if I did I'd lose my edge."


Bird is taking Lebron's side about the shaking hand issue.


----------



## Cap

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

The hand shaking issue was entirely overblown to begin with. Doesn't say anything about him as a player and as a competitor it says he's too stubborn to shake hands because he might think the same way Bird does. Who cares. He's the best player in the league.


----------



## ScottVdub

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

I agree with Larry on this one.


----------



## duncan2k5

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Thank You!


----------



## Geaux Tigers

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Yeah you start to see how the NBA is about putting on a show instead of displaying a competitive event.


----------



## Tom

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

I think we should have Co-winners and just let the points be tabulated at the end of the year. I just hate hurting people feelings.


----------



## duncan2k5

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

i think we all should get a ring...


----------



## SlamJam

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

yeah bird is right. why should you shake hands if you don't mean it?


----------



## Hyperion

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

How exactly do you lose an edge for shaking hands? I never understood that. There's competitiveness and then there's sportsmanship. You don't have to exhibit poor sportsmanship to be competitive. I hate how unsportsmanlike the league is becoming. Rather than cheer your team, you boo the other team and refs. You blame the refs and the other teams having some sort of special advantage when your team is why they lost. I can still give it everything I have and shake hands afterwards and be graceful about it.

Also, I don't understand what Bird is talking about being too chummy. Barkley and Jordan have made jokes to each other during dead balls during games but when the ball was in play, they wanted to kill each other. 

What, does Bird want the NBA to become like the WWE? I know everyone wants the players to say sensational things about the opposing teams, but what do they really have to hate about the other guy? The city for which they play? The millions he makes? Chances are if anyone cares about what he says, he makes those millions too.


----------



## Geaux Tigers

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*



Hyperion said:


> How exactly do you lose an edge for shaking hands? I never understood that. There's competitiveness and then there's sportsmanship. You don't have to exhibit poor sportsmanship to be competitive. I hate how unsportsmanlike the league is becoming. Rather than cheer your team, you boo the other team and refs. You blame the refs and the other teams having some sort of special advantage when your team is why they lost. I can still give it everything I have and shake hands afterwards and be graceful about it.
> 
> Also, I don't understand what Bird is talking about being too chummy. Barkley and Jordan have made jokes to each other during dead balls during games but when the ball was in play, they wanted to kill each other.
> 
> What, does Bird want the NBA to become like the WWE? I know everyone wants the players to say sensational things about the opposing teams, but what do they really have to hate about the other guy? The city for which they play? The millions he makes? Chances are if anyone cares about what he says, he makes those millions too.


I do think in a way that professional sports has unionized itself in such a way that it's almost "All of the Players vs...media, ownership, management, fans etc. When I watch player interviews and offseason news I always get the feeling that there is some collusion amongst the players about teams, coaches, and cities. That's just me. I don't think it really has anything to do with shaking hands. I find those two subjects to be separate.


----------



## Dre

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

This is stupid..just because I'm cool with you doesn't mean I don't want to light your *** up for 50.


----------



## seifer0406

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*



Hyperion said:


> How exactly do you lose an edge for shaking hands? I never understood that. There's competitiveness and then there's sportsmanship. You don't have to exhibit poor sportsmanship to be competitive. I hate how unsportsmanlike the league is becoming. Rather than cheer your team, you boo the other team and refs. You blame the refs and the other teams having some sort of special advantage when your team is why they lost. I can still give it everything I have and shake hands afterwards and be graceful about it.


That's how I feel exactly. The way I see it shaking hands and congratulating the winner is more about showing acknowledgement that the other team beat you fair and square. If you want your own victories to be and feel valid, you need to be willing to validate others when you lose. 

Also let's face it, there are more intense sports than basketball. Even in professional boxing or MMA guys shake hands or hugs after a match. In those sports you actually have the mentality of killing the other guy and the fear of getting killed while you're competing.


----------



## duncan2k5

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

i miss trash talking...and bitter rivalries...like lebron and pierce REALLY hate each other...you will never see them being chummy on the court...the cavs and wizards hate each other...spurs and dallas hate each other...these are good rivalries...i dont see the laker players and celtic players really hating each other...it's more of a fan rivalry


----------



## Jesukki

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

I know one really good rivalrie althought is not excatly i rivalry more though a bitter hatred envy. duncan2k5 really hates Kobe.


----------



## HKF

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

First of all, all the players are millionaires and the best players are now spending time together for Team USA. Of course they are going to become friendly after events like that. People still don't like each other in the league, case in point DeShawn Stevenson and Lebron James.

Get rid of the mandatory team USA and stop doing marketing campaigns that puts the best players together for photoshoots and these guys won't be as cool with each other except when they did it on their own time. A lot of people don't understand that for the vast majority of basketball players, making the NBA is the dream, not dominating their opponents.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

I remember seeing Shane Battier help a Suns player get up last season. I nearly choked on my drink.


----------



## Jakain

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Too much camaraderie? You could've fooled me with Rondo acting like a little *****, A.I.'s inability to mesh with any organization even as one as screwed up as Memphis, Stephen Jackson's similar d-bag behavior, and the overall craziness known as Ron Artest who seemingly tried to start a fight against Kobe in the playoffs.

Rivalries are still there and players are still d-bags to eachother as seen on twitter (Paul Pierce's cockiness comes to mind) but since the league isn't just about the Celtics and Lakers like it was in Bird's time; its not as easy to generate legitimate rivalries. 

**** like Larry Hughes laughing at Lebron James making a contested 3 in his face doesn't jive with me but thats really the first time I took notice of a NBA player smiling after he got scored on...they treat it like an all-star game. But it is the god damn Knicks.


----------



## 77AJ

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Larry Legend Bird vs. Charles Barkley, Dr. J, and Moses Malone in a fight.


----------



## LA68

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Oh the good ole days :kitty:


----------



## jericho

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Mostly what that video shows is a frustrated Philly team getting completely scorched by a Larry Bird in the groove. That, and the fact that Dr. J apparently was too decent a guy to instinctively know how to throw a real punch.

But yeah, Bird was ultra-competitive...at least as much as Jordan. Helping a fallen opponent up from the floor was something I doubt Bird would do on a regular basis, and something that Auerbach reportedly forbade his players from doing. I think that kind of us-them competitiveness was ingrained into Celtic culture.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Dont agree with Larry on this one. The league is as competetive as it has been. As a matter of fact 4 suspensions were already handed out by the league due to altercations before the regular season even started and thats not even including Lamar Odom and the Birdman going at it in a pre season game.


These players can still be competitive without being a total douche bag like Isiah Thomas.


----------



## 77AJ

*Re: Larry Bird Thinks There's Too Much Camaraderie In NBA*

Never doubt the Legend and greatest SF of all time.


----------



## Luke

*Larry Vs. Kobe*

Saw this on another board and it actually got me thinking - who was really the better player all things considered? Bird won in a tougher era but Kobe won more often, Larry was clearly the better passer/rebounder whilst Bryant was the superior scorer/defender. They are/were both considered the premiere closers of their respective eras.

I'll give a more detailed analysis later when I've got more time to think about it, but I'm just curious to see what the consensus on this board is.


----------



## jaw2929

Hmmm.... Do others ALSO think that Bryant's a better defender than Bird? I'm not sure if I agree with that 100%.


----------



## e-monk

yes, Kobe was the better defender - while Im not one to say Bird was a bad defender, he was in fact pretty decent - when Kobe decided to do the job (which granted wasnt 100% of the time) he was elite - so underrated/decent vs inconsistent elite


----------



## Luke

jaw2929 said:


> Hmmm.... Do others ALSO think that Bryant's a better defender than Bird? I'm not sure if I agree with that 100%.


I don't really think it's up for debate honestly. I think that Larry gets too much flack for his ability on the other side of the court, he wasn't terrible, but he certainly wasn't all that good. Earlier in his career (or really before his back failed him) he was solid within a team concept and was always good at playing the passing lanes. Kobe, on the other hand, was on the shortlist for best perimeter defender of the early 2000's. People forget that now that he's a thousand and doesn't have the energy to do it consistently anymore, but he was absolutely superior to Larry in this regard. I don't know if I could count on one hand how many players from the early 2000s I would rather have in a "shut down their star player for a possession" situation over Mr. Bean. I really don't.

All in all Bryant is overrated defensively due to coaches and media constantly raving about him, and Larry is underated because he's white and unathletic, but the difference between them is still very clear.


----------



## Dornado

I guess I don't remember a time where I thought that Kobe was legitimately one of the best perimeter defenders in the league.

Anyway... I'm 30... I saw old Larry Bird with an injured back more than I saw the young, good Larry bird (at least when I was old enough to start comprehending basketball). I'm not the oldest person on the board, but I suspect that most posters are younger and have seen even less of Bird than I have... Bryant, on the other hand, is the star of their youth... tough to have the debate in that context.


----------



## Luke

In his early years through the threepeat he was absolutely was one of the best. Has he gotten overrated and romanticized since Shaquille's depature? Yes. But that doesn't change what he did during the first half of his career.

And it's not like he's a poor defender even at this point. Does he deserve to get All NBA honors every year? No. But he's still pretty good for a guy 16 years in.


----------



## NK1990

If we are talking about prime years then I would give it to Larry Bird, however if that's not the case then I would say Kobe was the better player. The fact of the matter is Larry Bird destroyed his back and the longevity factor really kills him in this debate and a lot others, like the Magic vs Larry debate.


----------



## jaw2929

Dornado said:


> I guess I don't remember a time where I thought that Kobe was legitimately one of the best perimeter defenders in the league.
> 
> Anyway... I'm 30... I saw old Larry Bird with an injured back more than I saw the young, good Larry bird (at least when I was old enough to start comprehending basketball). I'm not the oldest person on the board, but I suspect that most posters are younger and have seen even less of Bird than I have... Bryant, on the other hand, is the star of their youth... tough to have the debate in that context.


Pretty much what I was thinking. I am your same age, and I agree with this completely.


----------



## R-Star

Like Tornado, I didn't get to see prime Bird. But I see Kobe's defense is being overrated once again so I thought I'd stop by to mention that.

Kobe was never a top defender. Ever. Just like Lebron and Wade aren't either.

"Look at that, he got a steal and then did a fancy dunk! The 360 windmill somehow makes the steal more meaningful!"


----------



## Luke

R-Star said:


> Like Tornado, I didn't get to see prime Bird. But I see Kobe's defense is being overrated once again so I thought I'd stop by to mention that.
> 
> Kobe was never a top defender. Ever. Just like Lebron and Wade aren't either.
> 
> "Look at that, he got a steal and then did a fancy dunk! The 360 windmill somehow makes the steal more meaningful!"


Tell me exactly how Kobe's defense is being overrated in here? There have been two Laker fans that commented on it (e-monk and myself) and we both openly stated that Kobe's defense has become overrated. 

Bryant has not deserved his recent All NBA defense team selections. I already said that. But during the threepeat he was one of the best man defenders in the league while being a good help side defender. This is true.

But back to the Kobe vs. Bird thing, again, I wasn't around to watch Bird live. All I've seen of him is second hand games and information. But from what I've gathered/seen I'm fairly confident that they're extremely comparable players. Neither one of them played at a level that warrents them being in the Jordan/Magic tier, but I wouldn't put any other non center above them.


----------



## R-Star

I don't think Kobe has ever been worthy of first team consideration. Ever. At his best his was pretty good, but in those years there was guys like Artest and earlier Bowen who were head and shoulders better man and perimeter defenders.


----------



## Luke

R-Star said:


> I don't think Kobe has ever been worthy of first team consideration. Ever. At his best his was pretty good, but in those years there was guys like Artest and earlier Bowen who were head and shoulders better man and perimeter defenders.


I never said that he was the absolute best. I said he was one of the best. Which is true. Bowen, Artest, and Battier were all better at various points, but that doesn't change the fact that Bryant was *one*of the best.

But the point of this thread isn't me trying to pimp Kobe's defensive reputation. It's about comparing two of the game's great legends. And Mr. Bean's defense is one of the areas that he has an edge over Larry.

I don't really get what the issue is here.


----------



## R-Star

Luke said:


> I never said that he was the absolute best. I said he was one of the best. Which is true. Bowen, Artest, and Battier were all better at various points, but that doesn't change the fact that Bryant was *one*of the best.
> 
> But the point of this thread isn't me trying to pimp Kobe's defensive reputation. It's about comparing two of the game's great legends. And Mr. Bean's defense is one of the areas that he has an edge over Larry.
> 
> I don't really get what the issue is here.


No you're right. I can agree with that.


----------



## Game3525

R-Star said:


> *I don't think Kobe has ever been worthy of first team consideration. Ever*. At his best his was pretty good, but in those years there was guys like Artest and earlier Bowen who were head and shoulders better man and perimeter defenders.


Then you must not have saw him in 2001 or 2008 for that matter........


----------



## Dornado

Luke said:


> But back to the Kobe vs. Bird thing, again, I wasn't around to watch Bird live. All I've seen of him is second hand games and information. But from what I've gathered/seen I'm fairly confident that they're extremely comparable players.* Neither one of them played at a level that warrents them being in the Jordan/Magic tier*, but I wouldn't put any other non center above them.


Woah now... there is no "Jordan/Magic tier"...

There's a Jordan tier... and then there's a Magic/Bird tier.


----------



## R-Star

Game3525 said:


> Then you must not have saw him in 2001 or 2008 for that matter........


I saw him both years. Being the amazing offensive talent that he is doesn't make his defense any better in my eyes. It must in yours if you think he was the best at his position in the league.


----------



## R-Star

Dornado said:


> Woah now... there is no "Jordan/Magic tier"...
> 
> There's a Jordan tier... and then there's a Magic/Bird tier.


Que some old asshole coming in saying Wilt was the GOAT.




By the way, before that happens let me just say, he wasn't.


----------



## Dornado

R-Star said:


> Que some old asshole coming in saying Wilt was the GOAT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, before that happens let me just say, he wasn't.


I was just talking about the players in the discussion (hence no mention of Kareem, Wilt, Russell etc...)

Bird v. Magic has always been a legitimate debate... since they were in college. I feel like people tend to forget just how good and versatile Larry Legend was. Jordan was better than both of them.


----------



## R-Star

Dornado said:


> I was just talking about the players in the discussion (hence no mention of Kareem, Wilt, Russell etc...)
> 
> Bird v. Magic has always been a legitimate debate... since they were in college. I feel like people tend to forget just how good and versatile Larry Legend was. Jordan was better than both of them.


No argument. Larry was the shit but injuries destroyed the guy.


----------



## Luke

Dornado said:


> I was just talking about the players in the discussion (hence no mention of Kareem, Wilt, Russell etc...)
> 
> Bird v. Magic has always been a legitimate debate... since they were in college. I feel like people tend to forget just how good and versatile Larry Legend was. Jordan was better than both of them.


I specifically said that I wasn't bringing up centers. Magic and Jordan are the two best guards in the history of the game and hence they are both in a tier above Kobe and Larry (even though Larry wasn't a guard, you get the point).

I never forgot how versitile Larry was... he's a top 6-8ish player of all time. But Magic was better. And so was Jordan.

I don't really feel like getting into a Jordan vs. Magic thread about how awesome you think MJ is. They are comparable players. Sorry that conflicts with your idiolistic view of a player that's been retired for over a decade.

But back to Kobe vs. Bird (for like the fourth time).


----------



## Dornado

Luke said:


> I specifically said that I wasn't bringing up centers. Magic and Jordan are the two best guards in the history of the game and hence they are both in a tier above Kobe and Larry (even though Larry wasn't a guard, you get the point).
> 
> I never forgot how versitile Larry was... he's a top 6-8ish player of all time. But Magic was better. And so was Jordan.
> 
> I don't really feel like getting into a Jordan vs. Magic thread about how awesome you think MJ is. They are comparable players. Sorry that conflicts with your idiolistic view of a player that's been retired for over a decade.
> 
> But back to Kobe vs. Bird (for like the fourth time).


It's all good... we don't have to debate... I've just seen you chime in with the Magic is equal or greater to Jordan stuff before and didn't want it to go without a quick reality check.

I suppose you can "compare" any players. My view of Jordan isn't "idiolistic", and not just because that isn't actually a word.

Anyway, if I'm starting a team, I think I take Larry Bird over Kobe Bryant, though I think Bryant's resume will probably be more impressive when all is said and done.


----------



## Luke

My thing with Larry's resume is not only that it got cut short due to injuries, but it really isn't as flawless as people like to remember. 

Like, everyone loves to point out the fact that Kobe was "only" the man on two of his five title teams. Which is fine. But he does have the same amount of finals MVPs that Bird has, and it's not because of some 2007 Spurs esque scenario where the champion exploited a mismatch (Parker vs what was left of Eric Snow) he only put up 15 points a game in that series. The fact of the matter is that Bryant played at a level similar to other "batmans" in four of his five title squads ('01, '02. '09, and '10). Kobe would have been crucified if he put up 15 a game against the Magic (and, before anyone mentions 2000, Kobe was playing at a high level before he hurt his ankle)

And then there's the whole 3 MVPs is greater than 1 thing. Kobe should have won it from 2006-2008 and if it wasn't for a combination of the Colorado incident and something called a Smush being his point guard he probably would have three peated.

But none of that really matters because we aren't talking about resumes.

Both of these guys have really unique skillsets - Bird had better court vision than any non point guard ever and Kobe has the most diverse offensive repitore of all time. They both orchastrated brilliant offenses and did incredible things on that side of the ball. 

At this point I'd say they're fairly even, but if Kobe can keep up his current level of play for a few more years than I can't really see anyone arguing against Bean's longevity. I don't think people understand how impressive it is that Kobe is playing at an All NBA level 16 years in.


----------



## RollWithEm

I agree with the poster who said Bird had a better prime but Kobe has had a better overall career.

I disagree with the poster who said Kobe has the most diverse offensive repertoire of all-time.


----------



## Luke

RollWithEm said:


> I agree with the poster who said Bird had a better prime but Kobe has had a better overall career.
> 
> *I disagree with the poster who said Kobe has the most diverse offensive repertoire of all-time*.


Then who does?


----------



## Dornado

Larry Bird?


----------



## Luke

Dornado said:


> Larry Bird?


You think that Larry has a more diverse scoring arsenal than Bryant? For the record by "offensive repertoire" I was talking specifically about scoring.


----------



## RollWithEm

When it comes to diverse offensive repertoires, scoring is not the only factor. Since you were, however, just talking about scoring Kobe is definitely right near the top of that discussion along with Hakeem, McHale, Mitch Richmond, Bernard King, and Jerry West (for his time, of course).


----------



## edabomb

I think Kobe's resume is padded by those two titles in 09-10. The league was really weak those years, LeBron could have won 60 games being surrounded by the local YMCA lineup.


----------



## R-Star

edabomb said:


> I think Kobe's resume is padded by those two titles in 09-10. The league was really weak those years, LeBron could have won 60 games being surrounded by the local YMCA lineup.


**** that. The Pacers were a championship squad that year and gave the Lakers one of their hardest runs in the finals. 

Not to mention Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio had amazing teams in the West that LA had to go through.

I don't agree at all. The teams out there today are no more impressive.


----------



## Dre

In 09-10? You do realize he's talking about like two years ago


----------



## edabomb

Haha yea I'm not 'hating' on the threepeat. Shaq and Kobe were a great one-two punch those years, and they did go through great teams year after year.

2009 the Lakers had to go through the Jazz, Rockets, Denver & Orlando. I don't think you could find an easier post season run if you tried.

Those just seem like transition years to me, where a lot of great teams were getting old and the younger teams were still off the pace, the Lakers took advantage of that and good luck to them. Historically those championships will push Kobe over Bird in future years though, which I think is a bit misleading.


----------



## R-Star

Dre said:


> In 09-10? You do realize he's talking about like two years ago


Yea, like 1999, 2001..... ****. I'm sorry. I was wrong.


----------



## e-monk

RollWithEm said:


> I disagree with the poster who said Kobe has the most diverse offensive repertoire of all-time.





Luke said:


> Then who does?





Dornado said:


> Larry Bird?


about equal on the post/slight edge Bird but not by as much as you'd think
perimeter edge Bird (from a pure shooting perspective)
drive edge Kobe
open court edge Kobe
generate your own shot edge Kobe

so no

(the answer btw is Magic Johnson (Q: who has a higher single season made 3 total Magic or Larry?))


----------



## e-monk

Dornado said:


> Anyway, if I'm starting a team, I think I take Larry Bird over Kobe Bryant, though I think Bryant's resume will probably be more impressive when all is said and done.


I agree with this and would say that maybe Kobe is the better player but I'd rather have Larry because a) he was just as driven & b) less selfish


----------



## AmericanFighter89

Larry legend by far. He is much more driven and determinate than Kobe is and allot less selfish with the ball.


----------



## e-monk

no one is more driven and determined than Kobe


----------



## doctordrizzay

Larry and Kobe have the same amount of Finals MVP's, and Larry never had a prime Shaq. I don't know how this is a debate. Without Shaq or Pau Gasol Kobe barely made playoffs.


----------



## Game3525

doctordrizzay said:


> Larry and Kobe have the same amount of Finals MVP's, and Larry never had a prime Shaq. I don't know how this is a debate. Without Shaq or Pau Gasol Kobe barely made playoffs.


Larry played with Parrish, DJ, and Mchale, those are three hall of famers. The 86 Celtics are arguably the most stacked team in NBA history, there is no question that Bird has played with more talent then Kobe.


----------



## doctordrizzay

Game3525 said:


> Larry played with Parrish, DJ, and Mchale, those are three hall of famers. The 86 Celtics are arguably the most stacked team in NBA history, there is no question that Bird has played with more talent then Kobe.


Your kidding me if you are comparing Parrish, DJ and Mchale...to a Prime Shaq. The talent that surrounds Kobe his whole career is mindboggling...Tell me another player who's had the privileged to play with an MVP, a finals MVP, a DPOY, and a 6 man of the year? Let alone the greatest sports coach of all-time. You got to be KIDDING ME.


----------



## Game3525

doctordrizzay said:


> Your kidding me if you are comparing Parrish, DJ and Mchale...to a Prime Shaq. The talent that surrounds Kobe his whole career is mindboggling...*Tell me another player who's had the privileged to play with an MVP, a finals MVP, a DPOY, and a 6 man of the year? Let alone the greatest sports coach of all-time. You got to be KIDDING ME*.


Ah......Larry Bird.


----------



## doctordrizzay

Game3525 said:


> Ah......Larry Bird.


what MVP did Larry play with? and DPOY?


----------



## King Joseus

Walton


----------



## doctordrizzay

King Joseus said:


> Walton


Bill Walton? he was on the trailblazer's when he won that i hope you know, and had a serious injury after that limiting his career.


----------



## King Joseus

I'm aware. I'm also aware that Larry Bird played with him. I'm not sure what you're missing here (aside from a complete inability to look at Kobe Bryant in an unbiased fashion, but that's not news).


----------



## Game3525

doctordrizzay said:


> what MVP did Larry play with?


He didn't which is true......but that doesn't change the fact that Bird played with more talent then Bryant. Larry played with three hall of famers, four if you want to include Walton and also Ainge whom was an all-star one year. Talent wise the 86 Celtics blow away any championship team Kobe has been apart of . Kobe did play with peak Shaq, but he also won two championships without a likely hall of famer(You can make a case for Pau......but I doubt he gets in). 

You can argue that Bird was the better player, which is fine since he had a better peak then Kobe. But to say Kobe played with more talent is just a flat out lie.


----------



## e-monk

Bird did play with more talent than Kobe BUT he also played in a much more competitive era so it kind of balances out


----------



## Luke

e-monk said:


> Bird did play with more talent than Kobe BUT he also played in a much more competitive era so it kind of balances out


This.

People realize that Magic never won a title without the GOAT center, right? Or that Larry never was a finals MVP without HOF teammates, right? Or that Jordan never made it out of the first round without Pippen, right? Or that Shaquille never did anything of signifigance in the postseason without a top five guard in the NBA, right?

See where I'm going with this. Great players win championships, but great players still need help. Kobe is no exception.


----------



## Dre

People are rarely able to properly gauge the value of good teammates. Either a guy played on a stacked team or they were only good because of him


----------



## e-monk

doctordrizzay said:


> what MVP did Larry play with? and *DPOY?*


missed this earlier - Dennis Johnson might not have been a DPoY but he was a 6 time all D first teamer


----------



## hroz

Jordan Bird Bryant James Drexler Durant

That's how I rank the best wings of the last 30 years. 
But Bryant and Bird are very close, And I expect Durant to climb by the end of his career.


----------



## hroz

Also I would like to point out Bill Walton was coming off the bench for Bird. Luke Walton was coming off the bench for Kobe.


----------



## 77AJ

Bird seems to bring a lot more intangibles to the court than Kobe IMO. It's very close, but I would have to say Bird > Bryant.


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

With all the abilities and skills Bird is just greater:
He is a basketball genius like Magic and made hiss teammates better than Lebron; He is a better leader & winner & clutcher; a better shooter from field & three & line; a better rebounder; and although Lebron have little higher assists average, the passing skills of Bird are just better and they were as of Magic.
They are close in steals and blocks with little advantages of Lebron, and Lebron is better in personal defense, but Bird are not lees in team defense.

Bird is just a better player!


----------



## Bubbles

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*


----------



## e-monk

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

4 year old thread - there's a current thread open right now with this very subject in contention


----------



## Pimped Out

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



e-monk said:


> 4 year old thread - there's a current thread open right now with this very subject in contention


That other thread was 5 years old until the same guy bumped it.


----------



## e-monk

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

yeah but... but... argh!


----------



## Dornado

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

I have on a few, but I may have to follow Larry around locking all of the threads he bumps... fun times.


----------



## RollWithEm

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



Dornado said:


> I have on a few, but I may have to follow Larry around locking all of the threads he bumps... fun times.


I haven't yet figured out why people don't like bumped threads. I honestly love them. I love to see what opinions were on players all those years ago. Who cares what the agenda of the bumper was?


----------



## Dornado

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



RollWithEm said:


> I haven't yet figured out why people don't like bumped threads. I honestly love them. I love to see what opinions were on players all those years ago. Who cares what the agenda of the bumper was?


This is a very good point, I guess I'm more referring to the ones that are essentially redundant. We can only have so many threads devoted to Larry Bird.


----------



## doctordrizzay

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



Larry Legend said:


> With all the abilities and skills Bird is just greater:
> He is a basketball genius like Magic and made hiss teammates better than Lebron; He is a better leader & winner & clutcher; a better shooter from field & three & line; a better rebounder; and although Lebron have little higher assists average, the passing skills of Bird are just better and they were as of Magic.
> They are close in steals and blocks with little advantages of Lebron, and Lebron is better in personal defense, but Bird are not lees in team defense.
> 
> Bird is just a better player!


----------



## LeGoat06

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*

It's no question LeBron will go down as the greater player.


----------



## Pablo5

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



LeGoat06 said:


> It's no question LeBron will go down as the greater player.


Not to mention he will go down in the majority of NBA fans top 3-5 of all time. That being said I don't know that I have Bird even in my top 10.


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



D.J. said:


> It's hard to compare the two since they played in different eras. Bird had more competiton and played a different game. Dirk wouldn't be as good in the 80s just like Bird wouldn't be as good now.


Bird could be be as good now because he was a basketball genius with superior game intelligence and with that he would be today the same great player as he was in his era, the same shooter, the same passer, the same stealer, the same team defender, and the same leader & and winner & clutcher, and make his teammates better as he did.
Also dirk would be in the 80s the same as now. His shooting skills don`t have connectin with that era or this era but would be the same in any era.


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



afobisme said:


> please dont compare stats, the nba then was a different one.
> 
> do you think wilt would be able to average anything near 50 points a season in today's league? or even 30?


Wilt would be score more than 30 today (and more than 15 rebounds). He had high game intelligence and he`s the greater passer within the centers with Russell that had also high basketball intelligence .Because his basketball IQ he could be the best center also today.


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



unluckyseventeen said:


> Bird... there's no way Dirk is better.
> 
> Bird's CAREER NUMBERS, not just his best season. These are unbelievable:
> 
> *24.7 PPG*
> 10.0 RPG
> 6.3 APG
> about .9 Blocks per game
> almost 2 steals per game
> .496 FG%
> 
> The guy evolved the game. Easily top 10 or 15 to ever play.
> 
> Dirk?... not so much.


Bird average regular season is 24.26.


----------



## RollWithEm

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Larry Legend said:


> Bird average regular season is 24.26.


That post made me laugh. Be careful how you rounded Bird's stats in the past everyone! This guy _will_ find them.


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



35553 said:


> Bird. Nowitzki hasn't done enough to be compared to Bird in terms of career achievements.


He still hasn't done enough to be compared to Bird in terms of career achievements.
The only thing that he`s in the level of Bird it`s as a shooter, but Bird is a genius basketball what Dirk is not at all, Bird is much greater leader and winner and clutcher, greater rebounder, much greater passer, much greater stealer, much greater team defender and also better in personal defense.
Bird is just two levels above Dirk that he is great player But bird he is in the top 5 basketball players ever, and dirk in not ever in the 20


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



23isback said:


> i can't believe dirk got votes! he's good but he's not THE legend.
> 
> Bird scored more than dirk but also managed to get more assists then him too. *Dirk is a better rebounder* cuz he's taller but that's it.


Sorry, but Bird is the better rebounder also! he had 10 per game that worth 9.4 per 36 minutes in the regular season, 10.3 in the playoff (8.8 per 36) and with out the injuries that would be higher averages (10.24 in 38.5 m after 9 years=9.6 per 36m in the regular season & 10.52 in the playoff in 42 minutes=9 per 36), and 11.76 in the finals. He had playoff with 14 per game and finals with 15.3 and 14 per game.
Dirk has 8.2 per game (8.2 per 36 minutes) and 10.3 in the playoff (9 per 36 minutes) and the highest was 13.1. In the plaooff they have about the same averages while Birf played in no. 3 position and DIrk play in no. 4 posotion.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

There should be some kind of moderator approval required to bump an old thread for nothing. 

Maybe not, but it's annoying to see these old threads at the top because someone merely wants to express an opinion on a topic that's years old. If you're not bumping to throw something in someone's face about being wrong, then GTFO.


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Sir Patchwork said:


> There should be some kind of moderator approval required to bump an old thread for nothing.
> 
> Maybe not, but it's annoying to see these old threads at the top because someone merely wants to express an opinion on a topic that's years old. If you're not bumping to throw something in someone's face about being wrong, then GTFO.


Because I`m new here I searched several things in the forums search and
When I saw wrong things or also pathetic it`s impossible not to reply.


----------



## RollWithEm

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



Larry Legend said:


> Because I`m new here I searched several things in the forums search and
> When I saw wrong things or also pathetic it`s impossible not to reply.


Keep doing your thing. Some of us have enjoyed the little blast from the past you have afforded us.


----------



## l0st1

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*

Searched several things? Or search Larry Bird and then posted basically the same thing on every thread?


Can we just make a Larry Bird vs.... Thread now too?


----------



## LeGoat06

*Re: dirk nowitzki vs. larry bird*



l0st1 said:


> Searched several things? Or search Larry Bird and then posted basically the same thing on every thread?
> 
> 
> Can we just make a Larry Bird vs.... Thread now too?


Lol pretty much this. I mean it seems like every day there's a new Larry Bird vs. thread either created or bumped. The guy is a top 10 and for some top 5 all time player. We shouldn't be disrespecting him with some of these names were putting up here.


----------



## Larry Legend

With all the skills and abilities Bird is just greater:
Bird was a basketball genius, Kobe is a smart player but not in the level of Bird and he is much better than Kobe in shooting from field, three and line, much better passer, better stealer and also a greater leader & winner & clutcher that couln`t be bad at final as Kobe was in 2005, and Bird made his teammates better more than Kobe can.
Kobe is a better personal defender, but Bird is not less in team defense it not more.

Bird is just a better player without any question!


----------



## LeGoat06

We should just merge all these threads together like L0st1 said in the Larry vs Dirk thread.


----------



## RollWithEm

LeGoat06 said:


> We should just merge all these threads together like L0st1 said in the Larry vs Dirk thread.


It is done.


----------



## LeGoat06

RWE your the man lol


----------



## l0st1

And a great thread name to boot, thanks RWE.


----------



## e-monk

I have to go with Bird on this one


----------



## Larry Legend

*Re: Larry Bird vs. LeBron James*



Pablo5 said:


> Not to mention he will go down in the majority of NBA fans top 3-5 of all time. That being said I don't know that I have Bird even in my top 10.


If you don`t have Bird in top ten ever you don`t understand basketball.
Bird was a baketball genius as Magic and made his teammates better as him am more than Lebron can, better leader & winner & clutcher, better shooter, better rebounder, better passing skills that was as of Magic although Lebron have little higher average.
Lebron is not much better stealer and better defendef but Bird is not less in team defense.

Comparing all the skills and abilities Bird was just a greater player and not only in the top ten ever but could be also in the top 5!


----------



## 77AJ

LeBron James said that the three greatest players ever ...

1.) Michael Jordan 

2.) DR. J

3.) Larry Bird


----------



## LeGoat06

Magic said Kobe is the greatest laker ever. Players say ludacris things sometimes because DR.J is not number 2 on anyone else's list in the world


----------



## 77AJ

LeGoat06 said:


> Magic said Kobe is the greatest laker ever. Players say ludacris things sometimes because DR.J is not number 2 on anyone else's list in the world







Bird > Bron Bron

This coming from your favorite players mouth. Call him crazy all you want to. Doesn't change the fact he just came out in public this month 2013 with that statement.


----------



## LeGoat06

I never said Bron was better than Bird lol I just wouldn't put Bird above magic or Dr.J above any of them


----------



## LeGoat06

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Bill Russell
4. Kareem
5. Wilt 
6. Larry Bird
7. Oscar Robinson
8. Shaq
9. Tim Duncan
10. LeBron James

There's my top ten young fella


----------



## 77AJ

LeGoat06 said:


> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Magic Johnson
> 3. Bill Russell
> 4. Kareem
> 5. Larry Bird
> 6. Oscar Robinson
> 7. Shaquille O'Neal
> 8. Hakeem olojuwan
> 9. Tim Duncan
> 10. LeBron James
> 
> There's my top ten young fella


You got LeBron James in the top 10 already, and leave out Wilt Chamberlain. You can't be serious.


----------



## LeGoat06

I changed it. I literally made that in 3 seconds off the top of my head. yes LeBron is in my top ten and I changed Wilt to 5


----------



## LeGoat06

E-Monk has really made me apperciate Wilt since i've been on these boards


----------



## hoopfan101

LeGoat06 said:


> I changed it. I literally made that in 3 seconds off the top of my head. yes LeBron is in my top ten and I changed Wilt to 5


So LeBron can't be in your top ten. Irony- I hate LeBron and have him 7. You love him an have him 10-11.


----------



## PauloCatarino

i've just realized i was the one who started this thread. 8 years ago... Damn!


----------



## LeGoat06

hoopfan101 said:


> So LeBron can't be in your top ten. Irony- I hate LeBron and have him 7. You love him an have him 10-11.


I have him at 10. A solid 10. He gets higher on the lists every year. He still have 3-4 years of prime


----------



## hoopfan101

LeGoat06 said:


> I have him at 10. A solid 10. He gets higher on the lists every year. He still have 3-4 years of prime


It doesn't really matter- but you create a list- forgot Wilt -and had LeBron 10 at the time. Then when you put Wilt at 5 it would mean everyone would drop that were orginally 5-10, right? Thus LBJ would drop to 11, right? 

So you just want LeBron to be 10 regardless? It just seems like you created the list so you could put LeBron at 10. I'm not saying you did that.


----------



## Larry Legend

LeGoat06 said:


> I changed it. I literally made that in 3 seconds off the top of my head. yes LeBron is in my top ten and I changed Wilt to 5


So that`s mean that Duncan that was 9 in your post above out of the ten?

After I post this I saw that the original post changed, as "LeGoat06" say in the words "I changed it"!


----------



## Larry Legend

LeGoat06 said:


> 1. Michael Jordan
> 2. Magic Johnson
> 3. Bill Russell
> 4. Kareem
> 5. Wilt
> 6. Larry Bird
> 7. Oscar *Robinson*
> 8. Shaq
> 9. Tim Duncan
> 10. LeBron James
> 
> There's my top ten young fella


The second name of Big O is Robertson.

My top 10 of all time:
1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Bird
4. Wilt
5. Russell
6. Kareem
7. Hakeem
8. Oscar
9. West
10. Shaq.

second ten: Baylor, Barkley, Duncan, Garnett, M. Malone ,Lebron, Dr. J, Cunningham, Petit, Wade.
21-25: Ridd, D. Robinson, Jerry Lucas, Hayes, Walton.

Now K. Malone is out but could be in and there are more players that can be in, not matter who I or others choose.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Larry Legend said:


> My top 10 of all time:
> 1. Jordan
> 2.Magic
> 3. Bird
> 4. Wilt
> 5. Russel
> 6. Kareem
> 7. Hakeem
> 8. Oscar
> 9. West
> 10. Shaq.
> 
> second ten: Baylor, Barkley, Duncan, *Garnett*, M. Malone ,Lebron, Dr. J, Cunningham, Petit, K. Malone.
> 
> 21-25: Ridd, *D. Robinson*, Hayes, J. Lucas, Walton.


That's just so... wrong!


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> That's just so... wrong!


Were you put KG and DR?


----------



## PauloCatarino

Larry Legend said:


> Were you put KG and DR?


The former much lower than the latter.

Oh, and your ranking of Shaq is a blasphemy, too. He should be ranked next to Kobe Bry... oh wait!


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> The former much lower than the latter.
> 
> Oh, and your ranking of Shaq is a blasphemy, too. He should be ranked next to Kobe Bry... oh wait!


KG is one off the most smartest and varstile players off all time, one off the greatest defenders off all time, have great offence, great rebouder, great passer, and good in stealing and blocking. in his besT years he coud play in as SG/SF/PF/C.

Shaq end his career till 39 age with 23.7 PTS with 58.2% FG, 10.9 TRB, 2.5 AST, 0.6 STL & 2.3 BLK per game in RS and 24.3 with 56.3% FG, 11.6 TRB, 2.7 AST, 0.5 STL & 2.1 BLK in the playoff. 14 times in 1st all-nba team, 3 times MVP of the final.


----------



## LeGoat06

Larry Legend said:


> The second name of Big O is Robertson.
> 
> My top 10 of all time:
> 1. Jordan
> 2. Magic
> 3. Bird
> 4. Wilt
> 5. Russell
> 6. Kareem
> 7. Hakeem
> 8. Oscar
> 9. West
> 10. Shaq.
> 
> second ten: Baylor, Barkley, Duncan, Garnett, M. Malone ,Lebron, Dr. J, Cunningham, Petit, Wade.
> 21-25: Ridd, D. Robinson, Jerry Lucas, Hayes, Walton.
> 
> Now K. Malone is out but could be in and there are more players that can be in, not matter who I or others choose.


I know what his name is. I just post at work so I gotta be sneaky and I **** up a lot of dumb shit. I'm a die hard FSU fan and I called James Wilder Jacob Wilder the other week and Hobo jumped on me for it lol


----------



## LeGoat06

I'm getting a new asshole ripped in this thread so i'm just going to leave it lol


----------



## PauloCatarino

Larry Legend said:


> KG is one off the most smartest


I lol'ed. Thanks.



> and varstile players off all time,


What do you mean?



> one off the greatest defenders off all time,


A little exagerated, but ok, i guess...



> have great offence,


No.



> great rebouder,


Sure.



> great passer,


No.



> and good in stealing


Yes.



> and blocking.


Sub-par for a 7footer.



> in his besT years he coud play in as SG/SF/PF/C.


Urban myth.

And David Robinson was the better player of the duo by a significant margin.



> Shaq end his career till 39 age with 23.7 PTS with 58.2% FG, 10.9 TRB, 2.5 AST, 0.6 STL & 2.3 BLK per game in RS and 24.3 with 56.3% FG, 11.6 TRB, 2.7 AST, 0.5 STL & 2.1 BLK in the playoff. 14 times in 1st all-nba team, 3 times MVP of the final.


And still you underrate him in your list.


----------



## Basel

I voted for The World.


----------



## l0st1

I demand to see who voted for Bird, I think Larry is stuffing the ballot for his namesake.


----------



## LeGoat06

Lol it took all the votes from the previous Bird vs. whoever threads and combined them all to Bird. Basel voted for World tho


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino,
It`s not exarggarated to say that Garnett is one of the greatest defenders ever: he selected at least 9 time for the 1st all-NBA defensive team with one Defensive Player of The Year Award and was real candidate more times.
Not many in the basketball world think like you.

You wrote that he don`t have a great offense?
After about 18 seasons he have 19.1 pts with about 50% FG with a lot shots from mid-range and more.

You wrote that he isn`t a great passer?
ha have after 18 seasons 3.9 assists per game, high for PF.


----------



## e-monk

Basel said:


> I voted for The World.


and what was your reasoning?


----------



## e-monk

Larry Legend said:


> PauloCatarino,
> It`s not exarggarated to say that Garnett is one of the greatest defenders ever: he selected at least 9 time for the 1st all-NBA defensive team with one Defensive Player of The Year Award and was real candidate more times.
> Not many in the basketball world think like you.
> 
> You wrote that he don`t have a great offense?
> After about 18 seasons he have 19.1 pts with about 50% FG with a lot shots from mid-range and more.
> 
> You wrote that he isn`t a great passer?
> ha have after 18 seasons 3.9 assists per game, high for PF.


averaging less than 20pg on less than 50% is not 'great offense' for a 7 footer (or anyone) - I would use words like 'good' or 'OK'

and if you want to qualify 'great passer' with the phrase 'for a PF' I'm listening


----------



## Basel

e-monk said:


> and what was your reasoning?


Because I'm an Admin and I can.


----------



## hoopfan101

I'd put KG over DROb. I just never saw DRob win a title as a lead dog. KG did. There is something to say for longevity too. Though DRob at his peak overall better imo.


----------



## LeGoat06

DRob>Garnett. Funny you say Garnett was top dog but I remember a lot of ppl after that title win saying Pierce was the man and one of the top players in the league


----------



## hoopfan101

LeGoat06 said:


> DRob>Garnett. Funny you say Garnett was top dog but I remember a lot of ppl after that title win saying Pierce was the man and one of the top players in the league


And I remember people say it was Garnett. I can remember the discussion how KG gives Gasol fits. Who do you think? If it's Pierce he must be pretty high on your all-time top ten list for sf's? 

Anyhow - pick who you want. No problem. I beleive it was KG. I did put Pierce about 8th best sf. Someone ripped into me. I don't think that person thinks Pierce was the top dog either.


----------



## Larry Legend

e-monk said:


> averaging less than 20pg on less than 50% is not 'great offense' for a 7 footer (or anyone) - I would use words like 'good' or 'OK'
> 
> and if you want to qualify 'great passer' with the phrase 'for a PF' I'm listening


1. a. He have about 50%. 49.8 that`s like 50.
b. Also in the seasons he had more than 20 and also 24 he had about 50 FG%
c. About 50 FG% is great also for 7 footer that shoots many shots from mid-range and longer and also if it with less than 20pg (but as in b he had such a % also with more than 20pg.

2. PF that have about 4 assists per game he is a great passer.


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> Urban myth.
> 
> And David Robinson was the better player of the duo by a significant margin.
> 
> And still you underrate him in your list.


1. a. It`s not an urban myth to wrote/say that KG could play in positions 5-2 for who saw KG play in his best.

b. And KG is in the same level of the admiral:
He is a better leader as he show very well in the Celtics;
They both selected 4 times for the 1st All-NBA team with one MVP, DR was 15 times Player of the Week and 4 times Player of the Month and KG was 20 times Player of the Week and 9 times Player of the Week.
He is the same level of defender: DR was selected 4 times to the 1st NBA All-Defensive team with one Defensive Player of the Year Award, KG was selected 9 times to the 1st NBA All-Defensive team with one Defensive Player of the Year Award (and he made the defense of the Celtics what it was).
DR as center that took many of his shots closer to the basket have 21.1pg with 51.8 FG%, KG as PF that took many of his shots from mid-range and longer have 19.1pg with about 50 FG% (and he had such a % also with more than 20);
DR as center have 11rg per 36 minutes, KG have 10.4 as PF; 
KG is better passer with 3.9 to 2.6 per 36 minutes;
They have both 1.5sg per 36 minutes;
DR is better in blocking.

With all the skills and abilities they are both in the same level.


2. I put Shaq in 10 place of all-time (and fifth in all-time centers). That`s not "underrate him". Where you put him in your list?


----------



## PauloCatarino

hoopfan101 said:


> And I remember people say it was Garnett. I can remember the discussion how KG gives Gasol fits. Who do you think? If it's Pierce he must be pretty high on your all-time top ten list for sf's?
> 
> Anyhow - pick who you want. No problem. I beleive it was KG. I did put Pierce about 8th best sf. Someone ripped into me. I don't think that person thinks Pierce was the top dog either.


The MVP of the championship Celtics (playoffs) was Paul Pierce. That doesn't make him an all-time great SF. Like I've told you before, Pierce is certaintly NOT a Top-10 all-time SF.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Larry Legend said:


> 1. a. It`s not an urban myth to wrote/say that KG could play in positions 5-2 for who saw KG play in his best.


You are right. It's not an urban myth. It's a lie.
What people DID defend is that KG could DEFEND positions 1-to-5, wich i think it's another incorrect assessment.

There is no player that could adequately and consistenty play 3 positions (*at the same time/season*) in the NBA. 
Sure, Magic played PG and SG (early years with Nixon), defended SF at times, played in the post at times and even subbed KAJ as C in the Finals. But there's no way Magic Johnson could consistently play 3 positions.
With KG (and others, like LBJ) it's the same: early on he didn't have the back-to-the-basket game to play C; he doesn't have the outside shot to play SG; he doesn't have the hability to direct offenses from the PG position, and so on, and so on...



> b. And KG is in the same level of the admiral:
> He is a better leader as he show very well in the Celtics;


Yes, D-Rob wasn't exactly the "leader" (as in vocal) people expected him to be (being an all-time great). But neither was, for exemple, Duncan. 
So, if it has any importance at all, then yeah, KG seems to be the better "leader".



> They both selected 4 times for the 1st All-NBA team with one MVP, DR was 15 times Player of the Week and 4 times Player of the Month and KG was 20 times Player of the Week and 9 times Player of the Week.
> He is the same level of defender: DR was selected 4 times to the 1st NBA All-Defensive team with one Defensive Player of the Year Award, KG was selected 9 times to the 1st NBA All-Defensive team with one Defensive Player of the Year Award (and he made the defense of the Celtics what it was).


IMHO, a prime D-Rob (that is, pre-injury) was a better defender than KG. He had very good number in blocks and steals and was the sole defender in the playoff Spurs pre-Duncan.
From another post of mine:



> From a quick search, and using D-Rob's DPOY season, there's only one player who can match (not equal) Robinson's season, and that's Hakeem (who is, off course, one of the greatest defenders ever). But if Hakeem's stats compare to D-rob's 23,2ppg/12,2RPG/2,3SPG/4,5BPG, team-wise DRob gets the edge. Playing with notable non-defenders in Strickland, Anderson, Elliot and Cummings, he had the Spurs #1 in Opp FG% (Hakeem #5 in 1989-1990), #4 Opp Pts/g (#9), #1 Drt (#1) and #3 Opp Efg% (#12)


D-Rob was also the quickest and fastest C of his time (and his time compreended guys like Olajuwon, Ewing and Shaq).
Keep in mind that considering All-Nba selections, there's only one slot available at C, and 2 at forwards. Wanna compare each players competition for their positions? 



> DR as center that took many of his shots closer to the basket have 21.1pg with 51.8 FG%, KG as PF that took many of his shots from mid-range and longer have 19.1pg with about 50 FG% (and he had such a % also with more than 20);


I don't think may people will defend KG as a better OFFENSIVE player than D-Rob. He wasn't. He scored less with lesses shooting percentages. The way players get their points is of not much importance (i don't think Shaq can be knocked because the majority of his points came from close to the basket).
Oh, and D-Rob WAS a great jump-shooter (for a C).



> DR as center have 11rg per 36 minutes, KG have 10.4 as PF;
> KG is better passer with 3.9 to 2.6 per 36 minutes;
> They have both 1.5sg per 36 minutes;
> DR is better in blocking.
> 
> With all the skills and abilities they are both in the same level.


Ah, but you got to dig down deeper than that, young grasshopper.
D-Rob being there instantly made the Spurs a playoff contender in the West.
Guess who was the sole MVP winner who didn't manage to get into the playoffs the following year (since the 1979-1980 season)?

All in all, D-Rob was clearly the better offensive player and eventhough they can be compared defensive-wise, i think D-Rob was the better of the two here also.



> 2. I put Shaq in 10 place of all-time (and fifth in all-time centers). That`s not "underrate him". Where you put him in your list?


IMHO Shaq is better than Oscar, West and Hakeem. That makes him at around #7 in my list (career, not peak).


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> You are right. It's not an urban myth. It's a lie.
> What people DID defend is that KG could DEFEND positions 1-to-5, wich i think it's another incorrect assessment.
> 
> There is no player that could adequately and consistenty play 3 positions (*at the same time/season*) in the NBA.
> Sure, Magic played PG and SG (early years with Nixon), defended SF at times, played in the post at times and even subbed KAJ as C in the Finals. But there's no way Magic Johnson could consistently play 3 positions.
> With KG (and others, like LBJ) it's the same: early on he didn't have the back-to-the-basket game to play C; he doesn't have the outside shot to play SG; he doesn't have the hability to direct offenses from the PG position, and so on, and so on...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, D-Rob wasn't exactly the "leader" (as in vocal) people expected him to be (being an all-time great). But neither was, for exemple, Duncan.
> So, if it has any importance at all, then yeah, KG seems to be the better "leader".
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, a prime D-Rob (that is, pre-injury) was a better defender than KG. He had very good number in blocks and steals and was the sole defender in the playoff Spurs pre-Duncan.
> From another post of mine:
> 
> D-Rob was also the quickest and fastest C of his time (and his time compreended guys like Olajuwon, Ewing and Shaq).
> Keep in mind that considering All-Nba selections, there's only one slot available at C, and 2 at forwards. Wanna compare each players competition for their positions?
> 
> I don't think may people will defend KG as a better OFFENSIVE player than D-Rob. He wasn't. He scored less with lesses shooting percentages. The way players get their points is of not much importance (i don't think Shaq can be knocked because the majority of his points came from close to the basket).
> Oh, and D-Rob WAS a great jump-shooter (for a C).
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but you got to dig down deeper than that, young grasshopper.
> D-Rob being there instantly made the Spurs a playoff contender in the West.
> Guess who was the sole MVP winner who didn't manage to get into the playoffs the following year (since the 1979-1980 season)?
> 
> All in all, D-Rob was clearly the better offensive player and eventhough they can be compared defensive-wise, i think D-Rob was the better of the two here also.
> 
> 
> IMHO Shaq is better than Oscar, West and Hakeem. That makes him at around #7 in my list (career, not peak).


1. a. I didn`t mean consistently play in position 2-5, but have the ability to play in those positions as Magic & Bird had the ability to play in all positions.
There is many SGs that hadn`t outside shot as the "Ice Man" & Dave Thompson that still were two of the greatest PGs.
b. KG just was the better leader and a great leader. D-Rob wasn`t great as leader.
c. Also in his prime DR wasn`t a better defender. they both won one time the Defensive Player Of The Year Award. KG in his prime hadn`t less guarding skills than DR and at the same level in steals. The only defensive thing that DR was better on it, is blocks, but as overall defender, KG belong to the same level. What KG did as leading the defense of the Celtics, DR couldn`t do better.
d. KG was also one of the quickest players and one of the fastest forwards. He was quick & fast in his prime as DR was in his prime 
e. D-Rob had better team than KG had with players that you cannot count on them for too much time.
f. About offense: I didn`t wrote that KG is better but that they are in the same level.
You wrote: "*He scored less with lesses shooting percentages. The way players get their points is of not much importance*"
First, as I wrote before, KG scored also more points with about the same FG% in his prime seasones. he had 22.9pg with 49.7%, 23 with 50.2%, 24.2 with 49.9%, 22.2 with 50.2% & 21.8 with 52.6%.
Second, thet`s very importance the range players get their points from, because shooting from mid-range and longer give less percentages than shooting from closer range. As so ,19.1pg with 49.8% for player that shoots many of his shots from mid range and more ,it`s good as 21.1pg with 51.8% for player that shoots from closer range to the basket.

2. Shaq is not better at all than Oscar, West and Hakeem:
Oscar was one of the best all-around-players of all time, and not few see him as the best player ever; West was great in defense as in offence, one of the best rebounders and blockers for guards, great passer and one of the beat stealers, and a great winner and clutcher; Hakeem is better defender and better all-around player from shaq and also could steal very well what shaq couldn`t and was better also in blocking, and was also a great leader & winner & clutcher.


----------



## hoopfan101

PauloCatarino said:


> The MVP of the championship Celtics (playoffs) was Paul Pierce. That doesn't make him an all-time great SF. Like I've told you before, Pierce is certaintly NOT a Top-10 all-time SF.


No problem - we can agree to disagree. My point to LeGoat was -- being MVP of the Finals doesn't make you the lead dog. Worthy was Finals MVP. He wasn't the lead dog. 

I don't believe DRob had it in him to be a lead dog champion. That annihilation Hakeem gave him sealed his fate.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Larry Legend said:


> 1. a. I didn`t mean consistently play in position 2-5, but have the ability to play in those positions as Magic & Bird had the ability to play in all positions.


No. I don't se how KG can play SG, for instance. He didin't/doesn't have the game for it. Larry can't/couldn't play PG or C. 
Playing positions "at spots" means little. Rodman couldn't play C (even if he did defend Shaq). 



> There is many SGs that hadn`t outside shot as the "Ice Man" & Dave Thompson that still were two of the greatest PGs.


I don't see KG creating havoc in drible-drives to the rim at ease, do you?



> b. KG just was the better leader and a *great *leader. D-Rob wasn`t great as leader.


I don't see it. There were many reports of him being a douche in Minny, for instance. And him clashing with Rondo in the Celtics.
D-Rob wasn't a "vocal" leader. He didn't play for 3 teams, either.  



> c. Also in his prime DR wasn`t a better defender. they both won one time the Defensive Player Of The Year Award. KG in his prime hadn`t less guarding skills than DR and at the same level in steals. The only defensive thing that DR was better on it, is blocks, but as overall defender, KG belong to the same level. What KG did as leading the defense of the Celtics, DR couldn`t do better.


Honest question: did you see prime D-Rob play? If so, do you remember players fearing going to the rim because he was there? Heck, Nelson had Tolbert stay at the 3point line on offense to try and get D-Rob out of the paint thorough a playoff series, he was so menacing defensively.

You see, there's things that don't appear on box scores or stats. The fact is that a prime D-Rob made teams alter their offensive strategies because he was protecting the paint. KG, although a great individual defender, never had that kind of defensive impact, IMHO.



> d. KG was also one of the quickest players and one of the fastest forwards. He was quick & fast in his prime as DR was in his prime


You are talking about arguably the greatest physical specimen that played C in the modern age of basketball. Magic even said something the likes of "even at fastbreaks you had to look over your shoulder because Robinson would catch up with you and block your shot". A prime KG was adequately defended by na over-the-hill Mailman.



> e. D-Rob had better team than KG had with players that you cannot count on them for too much time.


The only reason the D-Rob-led Spurs were good defensively was BECAUSE of him. The others were notable non-defenders. And his "better team" was not good enough for a playoff push in the top-heavy West back in the day.
What's KG's excuse?



> f. About offense: I didn`t wrote that KG is better but that *they are in the same level*.


Yet, they aren't. D-Rob is a noticeably better offensive player. I'm not even gonna bring his (+/-) 30ppg season...



> You wrote: "*He scored less with lesses shooting percentages. The way players get their points is of not much importance*"
> First, as I wrote before, KG scored also more points with about the same FG% in his prime seasones. he had 22.9pg with 49.7%, 23 with 50.2%, 24.2 with 49.9%, 22.2 with 50.2% & 21.8 with 52.6%.
> Second, thet`s very importance the range players get their points from, because shooting from mid-range and longer give less percentages than shooting from closer range. As so ,19.1pg with 49.8% for player that shoots many of his shots from mid range and more ,it`s good as 21.1pg with 51.8% for player that shoots from closer range to the basket.


I'm not particularly adept of dissecting HOW a player scores if he does it efficiently. So Magic Jphnson couldn't jump-shoot consistently. So what? Was he not getting +20ppg with good percentages? So Shaq can't make a jump-shot to save his life. Was he not... Well, you know what i mean. 
I don't see much relevance in that.



> 2. Shaq is not better at all than Oscar, West and Hakeem:
> Oscar was one of the best all-around-players of all time, and not few see him as the best player ever; West was great in defense as in offence, one of the best rebounders and blockers for guards, great passer and one of the beat stealers, and a great winner and clutcher; Hakeem is better defender and better all-around player from shaq and also could steal very well what shaq couldn`t and was better also in blocking, and was also a great leader & winner & clutcher.


It's all a matter of opinion, i guess. I see Oscar as a stats-marvel that didn't go very far in winning games (obviously i'm not comparing him to, say, Tiny Tim!). West, as great as he was (and i just LOVE him) didn't have the impact Shaq had. And Hakeem, well, he just wasn't THAT dominant. I love Hakeem, but people just include him in Top-10 lists because he won those 2 titles (if he didn't, he would be viewed in the same categorie of D-Rob). Shaq won more in more dominant fashion.


----------



## PauloCatarino

hoopfan101 said:


> No problem - we can agree to disagree. My point to LeGoat was -- *being MVP of the Finals doesn't make you the lead dog. *Worthy was Finals MVP. He wasn't the lead dog.
> 
> I don't believe DRob had it in him to be a lead dog champion. That annihilation Hakeem gave him sealed his fate.


True.
But KG also faltered in the playoffs. In fact, he was getting laughed at in this very forum because he was too afraid to take shots in the closing minutes of the first 2 rounds (IRRC).

If by "lead dog" you mean the player who shyes (sp?) away from taking over...


----------



## RollWithEm

LeGoat06 said:


> We should just merge all these threads together like L0st1 said in the Larry vs Dirk thread.


I did some more merging. You guys can now go look back through this thread and see some of the legitimate (Magic, Jordan, Dirk, etc.) and inane (Kerr, Laimbeer, Cornbread Maxwell, etc.) comparisons that have been made to Larry Bird over the years on this board.


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> The MVP of the championship Celtics (playoffs) was Paul Pierce. That doesn't make him an all-time great SF. Like I've told you before, Pierce is certaintly NOT a Top-10 all-time SF.


About the Celtics 2008-2012 (beside the time of the injury of KG): The team was built around KG and he was the main player of the team and the main reason of the great defense of the team and the great play overall.


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> No. I don't se how KG can play SG, for instance. He didin't/doesn't have the game for it. Larry can't/couldn't play PG or C.
> Playing positions "at spots" means little. Rodman couldn't play C (even if he did defend Shaq).
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see KG creating havoc in drible-drives to the rim at ease, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see it. There were many reports of him being a douche in Minny, for instance. And him clashing with Rondo in the Celtics.
> D-Rob wasn't a "vocal" leader. He didn't play for 3 teams, either.
> 
> 
> 
> Honest question: did you see prime D-Rob play? If so, do you remember players fearing going to the rim because he was there? Heck, Nelson had Tolbert stay at the 3point line on offense to try and get D-Rob out of the paint thorough a playoff series, he was so menacing defensively.
> 
> You see, there's things that don't appear on box scores or stats. The fact is that a prime D-Rob made teams alter their offensive strategies because he was protecting the paint. KG, although a great individual defender, never had that kind of defensive impact, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about arguably the greatest physical specimen that played C in the modern age of basketball. Magic even said something the likes of "even at fastbreaks you had to look over your shoulder because Robinson would catch up with you and block your shot". A prime KG was adequately defended by na over-the-hill Mailman.
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason the D-Rob-led Spurs were good defensively was BECAUSE of him. The others were notable non-defenders. And his "better team" was not good enough for a playoff push in the top-heavy West back in the day.
> What's KG's excuse?
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, they aren't. D-Rob is a noticeably better offensive player. I'm not even gonna bring his (+/-) 30ppg season...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not particularly adept of dissecting HOW a player scores if he does it efficiently. So Magic Jphnson couldn't jump-shoot consistently. So what? Was he not getting +20ppg with good percentages? So Shaq can't make a jump-shot to save his life. Was he not... Well, you know what i mean.
> I don't see much relevance in that.
> 
> 
> 
> It's all a matter of opinion, i guess. I see Oscar as a stats-marvel that didn't go very far in winning games (obviously i'm not comparing him to, say, Tiny Tim!). West, as great as he was (and i just LOVE him) didn't have the impact Shaq had. And Hakeem, well, he just wasn't THAT dominant. I love Hakeem, but people just include him in Top-10 lists because he won those 2 titles (if he didn't, he would be viewed in the same categorie of D-Rob). Shaq won more in more dominant fashion.


Larry could play as C as Magic with great post game and Daily in a year he was the coach of the east in the All-Star game was asked about his starting line and he response: Bird, Bird, Bird, Bird & Bird. 

Players fearing going to the rim because DR was there it`s bacause the blocks but still KG is in the same level of defense and also team defense.

You don`t see it but the all other see KG leader in the Celtics and the main player and the main reason to the title.

What Magic say about KG don`t change the fact that KG was one of the quickest and fastest players in his prime.

Your words "*I'm not particularly adept of dissecting HOW a player scores if he does it efficiently. So Magic Jphnson couldn't jump-shoot consistently. So what? Was he not getting +20ppg with good percentages? So Shaq can't make a jump-shot to save his life. Was he not... Well, you know what I mean*" don`t change what I mean that 19.1pg with about 50 FG% for who shots a lot from mid range & longer it`s great as 21.1 with 51.8% for who shots from closer range to the basket, and KG had about 50% also with more than 20pg. And that players who don`t had a jump shot score with great % don`t have connection to this.

about the teams of DR before Duncan and of KG see the Spurs team in 94/5`: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1995.html
and see the Timberwolves team in 2004/5: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/2005.html
It`s very easy to see that DR had around him much better players.


----------



## PauloCatarino

Larry Legend said:


> Larry could play as C as Magic with great post game and Daily in a year he was the coach of the east in the All-Star game was asked about his starting line and he response: Bird, Bird, Bird, Bird & Bird.


Oh yeah, and Riles also joked about having Sampson play PG at the ASG. So what? 



> Players fearing going to the rim because DR was there it`s bacause the blocks but still KG is in the same level of defense and also team defense.


You sum shots blocked + shots altered + changing the offensive game plan and you get D-Rob > KG.
Again, i'm not dissing KG. He WAS a great defender. But not as good as D-Rob (IMHO).



> You don`t see it but the all other see KG leader in the Celtics and the main player and the main reason to the title.


already adressed this.



> What Magic say about KG don`t change the fact that KG was one of the quickest and fastest players in his prime.


It was about D-Rob.
And it's just opinions. In yours, KG is D-Rob's par. In mine, KG lacked the skills to be a great franchise player and was better suited playing alongside guys who would complement his deficiencies. Wich ended up happening in Boston. D-Rob had the total game. 

It's all good. I'm not saying D-Rob is MUCH better than KG, afterall.


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> Oh yeah, and Riles also joked about having Sampson play PG at the ASG. So what?
> 
> 
> 
> You sum shots blocked + shots altered + changing the offensive game plan and you get D-Rob > KG.
> Again, i'm not dissing KG. He WAS a great defender. But not as good as D-Rob (IMHO).
> 
> 
> 
> already adressed this.
> 
> 
> 
> It was about D-Rob.
> And it's just opinions. In yours, KG is D-Rob's par. In mine, KG lacked the skills to be a great franchise player and was better suited playing alongside guys who would complement his deficiencies. Wich ended up happening in Boston. D-Rob had the total game.
> 
> It's all good. I'm not saying D-Rob is MUCH better than KG, after all.


What said Daily wasn`t just a joke but about the ability of Bird to play any posision. You can ask Daily about that if you want.

KG was great defender as DR that was better only in blocking. In every other defensive skills and ability KG wasn`t less than DR.

After all they both in the same level of game: They are both great in defense and offeence, very good rebounders and good steallers. KG is much better passer and DR is much better blocker.


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> O
> It was about D-Rob.
> .


I know it`s about DR and what Magic said about his don`t change the fact that also KG was also one of the quickest & fastest players


----------



## PauloCatarino

Larry Legend said:


> What said Daily wasn`t just a joke but about the ability of Bird to play any posision. *You can ask Daily *about that if you want.


He's dead.


----------



## Larry Legend

PauloCatarino said:


> He's dead.


It is still clear that what he said is not just a joke but that Larry could play great in all positions ,exactly like Magic.


----------



## Bogg

PauloCatarino said:


> The MVP of the championship Celtics (playoffs) was Paul Pierce. That doesn't make him an all-time great SF. Like I've told you before, Pierce is certaintly NOT a Top-10 all-time SF.


Eh, he's definitely in the mix for the tail end of the top 10 list. Pierce was a complete offensive player from the three-point line all the way in and was also a strong defender (when playing on a team that actually defended). He's still racking up longevity points as well. There aren't many title teams that _couldn't_ have used him in their top two or three.


----------



## Larry Legend

Larry Legend said:


> What said Daily wasn`t just a joke but about the ability of Bird to play any posision. You can ask Daily about that if you want.
> 
> KG was great defender as DR that was better only in blocking. In every other defensive skills and ability KG wasn`t less than DR.
> 
> After all they both in the same level of game: They are both great in defense and offence, very good rebounders and good steallers. KG is much better passer and DR is much better blocker.


----------



## LeGoat06

hoopfan101 said:


> And I remember people say it was Garnett. I can remember the discussion how KG gives Gasol fits. Who do you think? If it's Pierce he must be pretty high on your all-time top ten list for sf's?
> 
> Anyhow - pick who you want. No problem. I beleive it was KG. I did put Pierce about 8th best sf. Someone ripped into me. I don't think that person thinks Pierce was the top dog either.


Well considering after the finals Pierce came out and said he was the best player in the NBA and Doc Rivers didn't exactly disagree with him. But w/e I guess your not disagreeing with me i'm just trying to show you the type of shit i'm making my case off of. Not a fan of Ninja turtle Pierce or gargoyle Garnett


----------



## Bogg

LeGoat06 said:


> Well considering after the finals Pierce came out and said he was the best player in the NBA and Doc Rivers didn't exactly disagree with him. But w/e I guess your not disagreeing with me i'm just trying to show you the type of shit i'm making my case off of. Not a fan of Ninja turtle Pierce or gargoyle Garnett


That was a weird year, because Garnett was the best player on the team, but Pierce was the guy who stepped up in big moments and acted as the closer, as well as probably their best postseason player when you view the playoffs as a whole.


----------



## Sir Patchwork

Bogg said:


> That was a weird year, because Garnett was the best player on the team, but Pierce was the guy who stepped up in big moments and acted as the closer, as well as probably their best postseason player when you view the playoffs as a whole.


It's kind of like Shaquille and Kobe. Shaquille was the best player on the threepeat Lakers but because he was a post player and couldn't make free throws, Kobe was typically the big play guy. 

This is not uncommon actually. You could say the same about Duncan and Ginobili in 2005, and even about Duncan and Parker in 2007. 

Garnett anchoring the Celtics defense was the biggest reason they won a lot of games. Scorers and ball handlers typically get the most credit though.


----------



## LeGoat06

Weird to see a all time great like Bird so underrated on these boards


----------



## Bogg

Sir Patchwork said:


> It's kind of like Shaquille and Kobe. Shaquille was the best player on the threepeat Lakers but because he was a post player and couldn't make free throws, Kobe was typically the big play guy.
> 
> This is not uncommon actually. You could say the same about Duncan and Ginobili in 2005, and even about Duncan and Parker in 2007.
> 
> Garnett anchoring the Celtics defense was the biggest reason they won a lot of games. Scorers and ball handlers typically get the most credit though.


Yea, but Shaq was clearly the best player on those Laker teams. Pierce went beyond being just the big play guy to legitimately their best player in the playoffs. Garnett came and went somewhat throughout the postseason, and Ray Allen was flat-out bad for the first two and a half series. Garnett was the best player on the C's that year, but Pierce was the best postseason player they had.


----------



## LeGoat06

Pretty much how I remember it too


----------



## hoopfan101

PauloCatarino said:


> True.
> But KG also faltered in the playoffs. In fact, he was getting laughed at in this very forum because he was too afraid to take shots in the closing minutes of the first 2 rounds (IRRC).
> 
> If by "lead dog" you mean the player who shyes (sp?) away from taking over...


Sure KG faltered. I laughed at him too. But I laughed much more watching the meltdowns The Admiral took in his three top prime consecutive years from 93-94 through 95-96. Prime consecutive years - total meltdown. How the heck with 2 straight years of him with Rodman while you are at your peak/prime do you get annihilated by two separate big men? I have a word for that. CHOKE. Sure kG choked. But imo the Admiral knows it better. Three prime years. Two straight- annihilation. 

The Admiral as a leader would never cut it when he went against other "big dogs." Well- imo KG got it done in finals because his style of terrific passing big man and just didn't melt down from a compettiive standpoint like Admiral did for as long as Admiral did - 3 year stretch- prime.


----------



## hoopfan101

Bogg said:


> Yea, but Shaq was clearly the best player on those Laker teams. Pierce went beyond being just the big play guy to legitimately their best player in the playoffs. Garnett came and went somewhat throughout the postseason, and Ray Allen was flat-out bad for the first two and a half series. Garnett was the best player on the C's that year, but Pierce was the best postseason player they had.


Huh? In 06-07 KG vs Pierce-- 

The advanced stats in BOTH regular season AND playoffs 
KG has a higher offensive rating, defensive rating, Win Shares, and PER. And he led his team in scoring in the playoffs.


----------

