# Best SF of all time



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

do you all think Lebron is the best SF of all time right NOW? do you think he WILL BE at the end of his career?or is it some other SF?


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

Larry Bird is the best SF of all time


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

good choice...i myself would choose pip over the beak


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

Larry Bird

You suck at Poll questions.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

lol. so in other words...lebron wont be better than bird?


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

Ginobili


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

the lebron option up there doesn't only mean lebron now...but lebron in the future too. like how you perceive his future to be...is it better than every other sf?


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

gino is a SG


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

How he's rated nowadays he plays all 8 positions, including Coach, GM, and VP of Bball Operations.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

well...thats wha happens when you win multiple italian leage MVP's and championships, the olympic gold medal, and 2 NBA championships


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

de man spiff...don mek me ga start talkin cruzan in yah u nuh.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

It says best SF ever, not *who will be* the best SF ever, and not even having Bird on the list shows you've been watching too much SpongeBob


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...ill rep u for that one...


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

how do i edit my poll???


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Bird is way at the top. Then guys like Baylor, Barry, Havlicek, Pippen, Wilkins, King, English... Lebron needs to play another 4 seasons or so before it really makes sense to rank him near the top, at least in terms of career impact. In terms of his "peak," I'd say he's already top 5. He could certainly end up being assessed as the best ever at the position, although it might be impossible to pass Bird without winning at least one championship.


----------



## Dream Hakeem (Apr 20, 2006)

Trevor Ariza


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

You'll find my answer to this question:

Who scored more points than any player in the NBA during 1982-1988? 

*Mark Aguirre. *


----------



## CSILASVEGAS (Jan 14, 2006)

No one beats Larry Bird.


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

Dream Hakeem said:


> Trevor Ariza


Hedo Turkoglu has something to say about that.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Sorry, but I'm going to have to go with "You Suck At Poll Questions."

Larry Bird.


----------



## MORRISON3 (Aug 6, 2006)

Larry Bird is the best SF of all time, as of now. Although, if there are no fatal injuries..Lebron will be the best SF of all time when it's all said and done.


----------



## MORRISON3 (Aug 6, 2006)

CSILASVEGAS said:


> No one beats Larry Bird.



Your right, no one beats Larry bird.....until the end of LeBron's career.


----------



## VTRapsfan (Dec 5, 2004)

I don't know if even LeBron will surpass Larry Legend if he doesn't win at least 1 championship. I mean, we're talking about a guy who once averaged 29/10/6 on 52% shooting (that's like KG on 'roids), won 3 titles with 2 Finals MVP awards, won 3 regular season MVPs, made All-NBA 1st Team 9 times, and won a gold medal.

I don't think LeBron will ever be the rebounder or shooter Bird was. However, if the Cavs can get him a better supporting cast, he might eventually be ranked up there with #33.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

duncan2k5 said:


> de man spiff...don mek me ga start talkin cruzan in yah u nuh.


Watchya, u believe i care if deez man cyan read dis. Dem man best geh from ya. But on the real, by being buyous I goin with T-Mac. But u shoulda put Larry Bird up there, LeBron aint gon reach there for a next 6-7 years.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

VC4MVP said:


> Hedo Turkoglu has something to say about that.


You can't disrespect Ndubi Ebi like that. :biggrin:


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

just because lebron can't shoot like bird doesn't make him a worse player. bird isn't the passer lebron is. and who is to say lebron can't rebound like bird? he as damn near 20 years left in his career.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

They don't call him Larry Legend for nothing. 

You might as well include Tracy McGrady too because his best seasons right now are better than the three seasons LeBron has played.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

no way. lebron's best season >t-macs best season...but not by far i'll admit


----------



## AmericanGod (Jul 29, 2006)

This is ridiculous. The best SF ever will forever be Larry Bird. I'm not throwing out any stats (someone already did that for me), but he's a better leader than LeBron will ever be and played against stingier D's than LeBron will ever face.


























Just kidding, Hedo is by far the best ever.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

McGrady in 2002-2003 was better than LeBron this year. He was just ridiculous that year.


----------



## duncan2k5 (Feb 27, 2005)

lebron had a ridiculous year this year. not to mention he was > in the playoffs than t-mac.


----------



## VTRapsfan (Dec 5, 2004)

duncan2k5 said:


> just because lebron can't shoot like bird doesn't make him a worse player. bird isn't the passer lebron is. and who is to say lebron can't rebound like bird? *he as damn near 20 years left in his career*.


Exactly. He's proved a lot in 3 years, but not enough to be ranked with the all-time greats like Bird already. Larry Bird isn't considered better than LeBron solely because of his rebounding or shooting. It's because he proved himself to be one of the greatest players in the league over a 13-yr (estimate) career. It's not LeBron's fault he's only 21. But you can't compare him to Bird at this stage, wait till he gets an MVP or reaches the Finals, at least.


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

duncan2k5 said:


> lebron had a ridiculous year this year. not to mention he was > in the playoffs than t-mac.


No, 'Guy who didn't include Bird in his Poll', McGrady had one of the highest PER's in '03, even higher than LeBron this passed season.

Goofball.


----------



## wilwn (Dec 10, 2005)

larry bird. period. no one even comes close. even if you take away his awards and stats, he would still be the best SF ever by virtue of his incredible play in the clutch.


----------



## theflyballa (Aug 8, 2006)

Kobe sometimes plays at the SF spot so......I'm gonna say Kobe.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

Wasn't there another _better_ thread for this?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

LeBron James unless he gets Amare'd then it reverts back to Larry Bird.

The same way MJ was the best SG ever before he won his first title or MVP.

LBJ at 20 is already * at the level* of Bird is his prime.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> LeBron James unless he gets Amare'd then it reverts back to Larry Bird.
> 
> The same way MJ was the best SG ever before he won his first title or MVP.
> 
> LBJ at 20 is already * at the level* of Bird is his prime.


Are you freaking crazy????????????? LBJ at the level of Larry freaking Bird??????????????????

Stop the lunacy!


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

LeBron is better than Bird??? He's a superior athlete, no question. As for the rest of his game...


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Why is everyone calling Bird a SF? He was a PF - especially on defense, where McHale would guard the opponents' best scorer - usually a SF. Bird played alongside Cedric Maxwell and Reggie Lewis. While Bird didn't shot far more from the outside than did most PF's, especially of that era, I just can't see him as a SF. 

Best all-time small forward is tough to pick though, once Bird is out of it... Definitely not Pippen, nor yet LeBron. Dominique Wilkins put up insane offensive numbers, but was not so well-developed all around to merit the title. Dr J had his best years in the ABA, and played PF for some of those. Adrian Dantley and Mark Aguirre both put up great scoring numbers, but were defensive liabilities. Havlicek was great, but not the best all time. Billy Cunningham and Paul Arizin were great, but not all time best. Elgin Baylor played some SF, but was that really his position? 


I'm going with Rick Barry. He was absolutely unstoppable on offense, and single-handedly won the 1975 NBA title. He may not be likable, but his ability was certainly there. If/when LeBron continues to play at his present level or better, and wins a title or ten, I'll call him the best SF of all time. But not yet.


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

Is this thread a joke? Larry Bird!

You should be banned.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

There's a thread about this exact topic on the same page. Fortunately, the other thread had solid debate and good lists. Don't bother merging them, this thread is little more than plain embarassing.


----------



## Legend_33 (Jul 8, 2006)

As a huge Larry Bird fan, I don't think I've ever been so insulted in my life. No one else even comes close to Bird. Period. The guy put up 25, 10 and 7 in his prime and is one of the greatest clutch players of all time. Nothing else needs to be said. Even in the final year of his career when he could barely walk because of back and foot problems he put up something like 20, 9, and 6.


----------



## Saint Baller (May 3, 2006)

I agree, he didnt even make the poll either! 

Larry Bird owns everyone, King James comes close but still needs a few more years..


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

If Larry Bird were black, people wouldn't even be talking about him.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> If Larry Bird were black, people wouldn't even be talking about him.


So we figured it out: Minstrel is Dennis Rodman. It was bound to come out one of these days.


----------



## Auggie (Mar 7, 2004)

uke: at this thread/poll


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Actually, from the quote, Minstrel must be Isiah . . . it explains sooooo much, lol.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

Diophantos said:


> So we figured it out: Minstrel is Dennis Rodman. It was bound to come out one of these days.


Minstrel's just trying to fit in with the thread. If you don't throw something wacky out, you probably don't belong in here. Unfortunately, that's my sign to leave.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Krstic All Star said:


> Why is everyone calling Bird a SF? He was a PF - especially on defense, where McHale would guard the opponents' best scorer - usually a SF. Bird played alongside Cedric Maxwell and Reggie Lewis. While Bird didn't shot far more from the outside than did most PF's, especially of that era, I just can't see him as a SF.
> 
> Best all-time small forward is tough to pick though, once Bird is out of it... Definitely not Pippen, nor yet LeBron. Dominique Wilkins put up insane offensive numbers, but was not so well-developed all around to merit the title. Dr J had his best years in the ABA, and played PF for some of those. Adrian Dantley and Mark Aguirre both put up great scoring numbers, but were defensive liabilities. Havlicek was great, but not the best all time. Billy Cunningham and Paul Arizin were great, but not all time best. Elgin Baylor played some SF, but was that really his position?
> 
> ...


i agree bird was a power forward more than a 3 .

I think that people are trying to peg him into a small forward is one of the biggest misconception of the "golden era" of basketball.


But Pip is the best all time small forward .

he was as dominant a small forward i have ever seen .

case in point grant hill's pistons lost 21 out of 22 games to the bulls early in his career because he could not score against pippen , he would simply shut him down.

the only other player I've seen dominante a top small forward defensively to the point they didn't even have a puncher's chance to win was dennis rodman over dominique wilkins.

but then add in scottie was a 20 point a game scorer on a team with a 30 point scorer on the roster , and handles the ball well enough he was also a great pg, was skilled enough to play shooting guard , and rebounded well enough and was strong enough to play PF.

Dr. J despite his #s never won a title as his team's best player ...its one thing to play 2nd fiddle to MJ ...but Moses malone?not to belittle him he was a great player but Pippen was better .

havlicek was before my time, as was rick barry , but it seems barry was just a scorer/shooter and then he got hurt and wasn't so unstoppable anymore .

no small forward in scottie's prime could really be effective against him , so its hard to just assume barry would.

havlicek was a dominant 2 sides of the ball player he is probably the only guy with a resume of small forward greatness that equals pippen.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Actually, from the quote, Minstrel must be Isiah . . . it explains sooooo much, lol.





> A long time ago, Dennis Rodman said, and Isiah Thomas agreed, that "if Larry Bird had been black, he'd be just another good player".


(from http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/ChristopherRoss/Magic_Johnson/33255)

It makes Minstrel one of the two, at any rate.


----------



## NetsFan (Aug 9, 2005)

duncan2k5 said:


> just because lebron can't shoot like bird doesn't make him a worse player. *bird isn't the passer lebron is*. and who is to say lebron can't rebound like bird? he as damn near 20 years left in his career.



:rofl:


----------



## Legend_33 (Jul 8, 2006)

duncan2k5 said:


> just because lebron can't shoot like bird doesn't make him a worse player. bird isn't the passer lebron is. and who is to say lebron can't rebound like bird? he as damn near 20 years left in his career.


This whole post just makes my blood boil. Bird and Magic were the two greatest playmakers in NBA history. Just watch this freakin video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU He could do things that most players couldn't do in their dreams.

Bird could barely jump over a piece of paper and he still averaged 10 ****ing rebounds a game playing next to McHale and Parish. Have you ever even watched the guy play. Bird would absolutely kill these kids if he played in today's NBA. Wilkins is an example of an athletic player who thought he could out-duel Bird. But Bird was simply the tougher and more intelligent player.


----------



## Jesus of CopyMat (Feb 14, 2004)

Legend_33 said:


> This whole post just makes my blood boil. Bird and Magic were the two greatest playmakers in NBA history. Just watch this freakin video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULvo7__wwBU He could do things that most players couldn't do in their dreams.
> 
> Bird could barely jump over a piece of paper and he still averaged 10 ****ing rebounds a game playing next to McHale and Parish. Have you ever even watched the guy play. Bird would absolutely kill these kids if he played in today's NBA. Wilkins is an example of an athletic player who thought he could out-duel Bird. But Bird was simply the tougher and more intelligent player.


You Bird guys just don't have a clue. Yeah, Bird was good, but he was far from a complete player. To say he's one of the top 2 playmakers of all-time is sillier than anything anyone's said about LeBron in this thread. Sure, I'd put Bird ahead of LeBron right now, but you act like LeBron has nothing on Larry. Plenty of people, including Wilkins, "outdueled" Bird, if that means anything, but they weren't on the Celtics, and Bird was.

I watched the guy play. Great shooter, solid rebounder, inspiring leader. He was also a below-average defender, no matter what any of you say about his "team defense" (and I know you'll bring it up), and his D looks even shabbier if you're comparing him with the best SF's of all-time, some of whom who could shut down multiple positions. He was a good passer, but was no "point forward".

Hey, I admit it. I could be wrong. He might be the best SF of all-time. He is not, however, a god, and some of you make him out to be. No way he's a top 5 all-time player, and as far as the above post goes, he's not a better playmaker than Stockton, or Kidd, or Steve Nash, so, no, he's not top 2 all-time in that department, so just stop it already.


----------



## Legend_33 (Jul 8, 2006)

Jesus of CopyMat said:


> You Bird guys just don't have a clue. Yeah, Bird was good, but he was far from a complete player. To say he's one of the top 2 playmakers of all-time is sillier than anything anyone's said about LeBron in this thread. Sure, I'd put Bird ahead of LeBron right now, but you act like LeBron has nothing on Larry. Plenty of people, including Wilkins, "outdueled" Bird, if that means anything, but they weren't on the Celtics, and Bird was.
> 
> I watched the guy play. Great shooter, solid rebounder, inspiring leader. He was also a below-average defender, no matter what any of you say about his "team defense" (and I know you'll bring it up), and his D looks even shabbier if you're comparing him with the best SF's of all-time, some of whom who could shut down multiple positions. He was a good passer, but was no "point forward".
> 
> Hey, I admit it. I could be wrong. He might be the best SF of all-time. He is not, however, a god, and some of you make him out to be. No way he's a top 5 all-time player, and as far as the above post goes, he's not a better playmaker than Stockton, or Kidd, or Steve Nash, so, no, he's not top 2 all-time in that department, so just stop it already.


Ugh, Bird was as complete a player as they come. Okay so I exaggerated when I said he is a top two playmaker of all time. But he is defenitely up there with the greats. He averaged 6 APG for his career while he wasn't even the primary ballhandler on his team. When Bird was in his prime he was top 5 in the league in scoring, rebounding, passing, steals, and clutch shooting all at the same time. I don't know how much more complete you can get as a player. :whatever: 

I won't say anything about his team defense but I will say there were games where he seemed to anticipate every pass and would rack up tons of steals. I know you're gonna say steals are just stats and it dosen't mean anything, but getting steals does = getting stops, right? You prevent the other team from scoring and alot of times results in fastbreak points. Whatever I'll stop now..


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

jericho said:


> Bird is way at the top. Then guys like Baylor, Barry, Havlicek, Pippen, Wilkins, King, English... Lebron needs to play another 4 seasons or so before it really makes sense to rank him near the top, at least in terms of career impact. In terms of his "peak," I'd say he's already top 5. He could certainly end up being assessed as the best ever at the position, although it might be impossible to pass Bird without winning at least one championship.



What he said.


----------



## Diophantos (Nov 4, 2004)

Jesus of CopyMat said:


> I watched the guy play. Great shooter, solid rebounder, inspiring leader. He was also a below-average defender, no matter what any of you say about his "team defense" (and I know you'll bring it up), and his D looks even shabbier if you're comparing him with the best SF's of all-time, some of whom who could shut down multiple positions. He was a good passer, but was no "point forward".


For as much as some overrate him, I think you underrate him a little.

A below average defender? Maybe if compared only to the greatest players of all time. But he wasn't a below average defender compared to the entire league. I mean, he made 3 all-defense 2nd teams. Okay, that's not exactly monumental, but you can't do that as a below average defender.

As for the passing, no, I don't think he's a top 2 playmaker of all time or whatever was said about him in that vein. But I think you underrate him again when you say "He was a good passer, but was no 'point forward'". What does this even mean? Scottie Pippen was a point forward. Lamar Odom plays a point forward role. Antoine Walker has played point forward in the past. Wasn't Larry Bird a better passer than all of these guys? Couldn't you run an offense through Bird and trust him to create shots for everyone on the team? I mean, what does it mean to be a point forward?


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Thanks Dio, I always heard Isiah get blamed for that one, never heard Rodman involved before but I'll take your word for it.

As for the All-D ratings for Bird . . . . they were like the one for Larry Hughes, pretty much a WTF moment. He wasn't as bad as Barkley makes out (or as Barkley for that matter) but he wasn't very good either though he tended to pick up his effort in clutch time. 

As for Erving, he won an ABA championship as the best player on his team . . . you can only beat the competition they give you . . . and was a very good defender, better in the post than either Pippen or Havlicek who could both be bodied, though not their equal away from the basket (few have ever been). 

And, it might be fair to say Bird is the greatest frontcourt playmaker of all time (Walton? only one I can think of that compares though I am interested to see how LeBron develops as a playmaker)


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i agree bird was a power forward more than a 3 .
> 
> I think that people are trying to peg him into a small forward is one of the biggest misconception of the "golden era" of basketball.


Hmmm.. I don't know about that. When McHale started playing more than 2000 minutes a season for the Celtics, Bird was the SF, with Kevin and The Chief up front. And that was when, 1983?

Before, wasn't it Cedric Maxwell playing the 4?

For all acounts, and for my recolection, Bird was a SF. Some poster said that he played PF in defense, but that's not very accurate. McHale couldn't defend SFs, for he was too slow. It was Bird who defended the likes of Dr.J and Nique. And even if he did play another position on defense, so did Magic, and Magic was a PG.



> But Pip is the best all time small forward .
> 
> he was as dominant a small forward i have ever seen .
> 
> ...


Pippen was in no way, shape or form better than Moses Malone. How quickly one can forget a THREE times NBA MVP. 



> havlicek was a dominant 2 sides of the ball player he is probably the only guy with a resume of small forward greatness that equals pippen.


I would personally vote Hondo. Dr. J, Baylor (if considered a SF) and Barry (although i'm not very sure about this one) over Pippen.

The Best? It was Larry Bird.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> And, it might be fair to say Bird is the greatest frontcourt playmaker of all time (Walton? only one I can think of that compares though I am interested to see how LeBron develops as a playmaker)


Arvydas Sabonis and Chris Webber would also be on that list.


----------



## fruitcake (Mar 20, 2005)

Krstic All Star said:


> I'm going with Rick Barry. He was absolutely unstoppable on offense, and single-handedly won the 1975 NBA title. He may not be likable, but his ability was certainly there. If/when LeBron continues to play at his present level or better, and wins a title or ten, I'll call him the best SF of all time. But not yet.


I agree.


----------



## magohaydz (Dec 21, 2005)

The fact that you only had 2 players on there out of a possible gazillion says how much you know about ball. Grow up dude.


----------



## durvasa (Nov 16, 2005)

The SF/PF designation is hazy. Larry Bird was certainly _more_ a SF than McHale. That's pretty obvious. McHale was the Celtic's best low post player on offense and defense. Bird was their best perimeter player, and their best playmaker. Bird was league's ahead of McHale as a ball-handler, he could bring the ball up the court in a pinch, and he was a dead-eye outside shooter. 

If I could have any player in NBA history as my SF, I'd take Bird. Maybe that's a better way to frame the question. 

Other honorable mentions: 
Elgin Baylor
John Havlicek
Rick Barry
Julius Erving
Bernard King
Dominique Wilkins
Scottie Pippen
Grant Hill (pre-injury)
LeBron James


----------



## wilwn (Dec 10, 2005)

durvasa said:


> The SF/PF designation is hazy. Larry Bird was certainly _more_ a SF than McHale. That's pretty obvious. McHale was the Celtic's best low post player on offense and defense. Bird was their best perimeter player, and their best playmaker. Bird was league's ahead of McHale as a ball-handler, he could bring the ball up the court in a pinch, and he was a dead-eye outside shooter.
> 
> If I could have any player in NBA history as my SF, I'd take Bird. Maybe that's a better way to frame the question.
> 
> ...


nice list. i would add billy cunningham to that.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

when mchale was starting, bird primarily played, and guarded the 3. with cornbread, he played more 4, although mchale still got minutes, and they went with the matchups with any combo of the 3. 

bird was, imo, one of the top passers and playmakers ever. not at his position, but at any position. guys like webber, g. hill, pippen, simply don't compare, imo. lebron has passing instincts not far off, but his overall playmaking skills and knowledge of the right play aren't at birds level yet. of course, he's still extremely young.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

only real competitor to Bird for best playmaking bigman of all time is Bill Walton according to peers and experts of the day (numbers don't back them up though).


----------



## Prolific Scorer (Dec 16, 2005)

durvasa said:


> The SF/PF designation is hazy. Larry Bird was certainly _more_ a SF than McHale. That's pretty obvious. McHale was the Celtic's best low post player on offense and defense. Bird was their best perimeter player, and their best playmaker. Bird was league's ahead of McHale as a ball-handler, he could bring the ball up the court in a pinch, and he was a dead-eye outside shooter.
> 
> If I could have any player in NBA history as my SF, I'd take Bird. Maybe that's a better way to frame the question.
> 
> ...


I like your list but mine would differ a bit...

Bird
Hill (94-2000)
Pippen
Baylor
Havlicek
Barry
LeBron
Wilkins
Erving

*I must add that my list is based off pure talent and different things one could do with the Basketball + career accomplishment, combined.


----------



## white360 (Apr 24, 2004)

King when he was not batteling injuries and averaging 32 points a game he was the best sf the league has seen, and if he didn't get injured in the early 80's he would have become even better, he was obsessed


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

King was a pure scorer but didn't bring much else to the table and as for pure scoring, there have been others in the same ballpark but more efficient . . . ex, Adrian Dantley. Bird gets first place on most lists because he could score with the B. King's, rebound with the PFs, spread the defense with his three point shooting, and turned all that into NBA championships. Heck, I'd take Larry Nance or Bobby Jones over B. King if I had scoring already, they both were incredibly efficient scorers (though Jones was in the 15+ category, Nance did get into the 20s), defensive stoppers (particularly B. Jones, maybe the most versatile defender in NBA history) and classsy teammates (B. King always seems to be like Larry Brown, one foot out the door looking for his next contract). James Worthy is another player of this ilk, not as efficient but with more championship creds. But there must also be props for DOMINATING your opponents which none of these three did. Combining versatility and domination makes for the greatest list.

Greatest in history:
Bird
Erving
Pippen
Havlicek
Baylor


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> King was a pure scorer but didn't bring much else to the table and as for pure scoring, there have been others in the same ballpark but more efficient . . . ex, Adrian Dantley. Bird gets first place on most lists because he could score with the B. King's, rebound with the PFs, spread the defense with his three point shooting, and turned all that into NBA championships. Heck, I'd take Larry Nance or Bobby Jones over B. King if I had scoring already, they both were incredibly efficient scorers (though Jones was in the 15+ category, Nance did get into the 20s), defensive stoppers (particularly B. Jones, maybe the most versatile defender in NBA history) and classsy teammates (B. King always seems to be like Larry Brown, one foot out the door looking for his next contract). James Worthy is another player of this ilk, not as efficient but with more championship creds. But there must also be props for DOMINATING your opponents which none of these three did. Combining versatility and domination makes for the greatest list.
> 
> Greatest in history:
> Bird
> ...


Dantley may have been more efficient (he was more efficient than just about everyone, and scored tons), but the reason he's not considered in the same tier as a few others (king, gervin) is because he was a ball freezer. Everyone stood around while dantley worked his man. King was much more fluid, and quick to get his looks. He was simply better than ad, by a decent margin, imo.

As for a team already having scoring, you'd have to have some stud stars to not need king. He's simply one of the great go-to scorers in history. How many teams have the firepower where kings prowess becomes redundant?

King is in the class of the very best, at his best.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

I agree about King and Dantley but take the Wiz and their current roster. They would be much better off with Nance or Bobby Jones to cover for Jamison's defense while providing a high percentage 3rd scorer (or even fourth). Same for Cleveland (esp if Hughes healthy), and many other teams. Add in the fragility issue and he is SIGNIFICANTLY below the top players I mentioned. In the next class of players, sure.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> I agree about King and Dantley but take the Wiz and their current roster. They would be much better off with Nance or Bobby Jones to cover for Jamison's defense while providing a high percentage 3rd scorer (or even fourth). Same for Cleveland (esp if Hughes healthy), and many other teams. Add in the fragility issue and he is SIGNIFICANTLY below the top players I mentioned. In the next class of players, sure.


the wiz and clev both have superstar 30 ppg scorers. but king would give the cavs an efficient dynamic scorer to go with lebron that they don't have now. 

king became fragile with his knee injury which effectively ended his prime. at his best, he's significantly below noone. he certainly wasn't significantly below a prime bird when they played in the '84 playoffs. 

jones and nance are guys who aren't in king's class. that they may fit a need better for a few teams doesn't change that much. i mean, artest may fit better on the cavs than kobe, but so what?


----------



## GuYoM (Jun 2, 2005)

Bird,Pippen,Julius,Clyde... there are some strong SF.Too early for lebron...


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> the wiz and clev both have superstar 30 ppg scorers. but king would give the cavs an efficient dynamic scorer to go with lebron that they don't have now.
> 
> *king became fragile with his knee injury which effectively ended his prime. at his best, he's significantly below noone. he certainly wasn't significantly below a prime bird when they played in the '84 playoffs*.
> 
> jones and nance are guys who aren't in king's class. that they may fit a need better for a few teams doesn't change that much. i mean, artest may fit better on the cavs than kobe, but so what?


Although i love Bernard King, i am always suspitious of great offensive players playing in not-so-good teams.

So i checked, and Kings best straight seasons (before the injury) were:
80-81: 21.9ppg GSW: 39-43;
81-82: 23.2ppg GSW: 45-37;
82-83: 21.9ppg NYK: 44-38;
83-84: 26.3ppg NYK: 47-35;
84-85: 32.9ppg NYK: 24-58 (only played 55 games).

There's, off course, the Cinderella Seaons in Washington, but that team could't pass 31 wins.

Few guys were taking shots from Bernard King in those teams (maybe World B. Free and, later, Jeff Malone). So my best guess is that King's numbers in New York would't be so amazingly high playing alongside P-Ew.

For me, Kings' sample years are just not that big to grant much consideration to belong amongst the best of the best at the Sf position.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Although i love Bernard King, i am always suspitious of great offensive players playing in not-so-good teams.
> 
> So i checked, and Kings best straight seasons (before the injury) were:
> 80-81: 21.9ppg GSW: 39-43;
> ...


keep in mind that the knicks won 33 games the year before bernard got there. and the warriors won 30 the year after he left. and the '85 knicks lost their last 12 after king got hurt. the guy was a beast. and unstoppable. low blocks or perimeter.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> keep in mind that the knicks won 33 games the year before bernard got there. and the warriors won 30 the year after he left. and the '85 knicks lost their last 12 after king got hurt. *the guy was a beast. and unstoppable. low blocks or perimeter*.


Yes, he was. Besides, that's the thing people remember about Bernard King: scoring. Not rebounding. Or defense. Or passing.

Between Dantley, Aguirre and King, i'd go with a prime King. But that's it.

Btw, what stats do you think King would get playing with P-Ew, Gerald Wilkins and Bill Cartright?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

king was a pretty good rebounder (check out his rebrate numbers his first 3 years), and a pretty decent passer. he was good at everything, but dominant at scoring. it's hard to speculate on his numbers - all i know is he was among the very best scorers i've ever seen. so he would score regardless of who he's playing with, because the objective would still be to get him the ball and let him work. he scored an efficient 33 ppg (35 pts/40) when everyone knew he was the only option. 

he's got almost all his peers beat as an offensive force.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> king was a pretty good rebounder (check out his rebrate numbers his first 3 years), and a pretty decent passer. he was good at everything, but dominant at scoring. it's hard to speculate on his numbers - all i know is he was among the very best scorers i've ever seen. so he would score regardless of who he's playing with, because the objective would still be to get him the ball and let him work. he scored an efficient 33 ppg (35 pts/40) when everyone knew he was the only option.
> 
> he's got almost all his peers beat as an offensive force.


I'm playing devil's advocate here, Bookworm. I love King. One of the greatest things i saw basketball related was King's return to the all star game.

But his consistency is an issue. Sure, his injury prevented him to put forward some great years, but still what we have is what really went down.

Mark Aguirre had 6 strong STRAIGHT scoring years, with good percentages and an inferior Rrate, but not by much. And an equivalent passer. 

Dantley's scoring prowess simply blows king's out of the water. Just blows it. Excelent percentages, good Rrate, goos passing stats. I know you didn't like his game, kflo, but AD's numbers speaks for themselves: 28-30.7-30.3-30.7-30.6-26.6-29.8.

And i'm not even gonna bring Nique to the discussion. Or Elgin Baylor.

IF one considers peak years (even if it's ONE year), yeah, King must be talked about. but career-wise? Not a chance.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i'm saying at the top of his game, i take king, easily, over dantley, aguirre, nique.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

as for king playing with ewing, it was my belief that ewing would have had the opportunity to focus more on the bill russell part of his game (he was considered more of a defensive force in college) than the mcadoo part. and it would have made him a better player. and a pretty good 2nd option.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> as for king playing with ewing, it was my belief that ewing would have had the opportunity to focus more on the bill russell part of his game (he was considered more of a defensive force in college) than the mcadoo part. and it would have made him a better player. and a pretty good 2nd option.


You really think Ewing would have become a better player had he been a second option? In 1990 he averaged 29/11 and 4 blocks with a TS% of 60. Would he have developed that jump shot and sharp post game if he'd focused more on defense? 

And it's not like he ever bummed on defense. He was very active and threatening, and he led some of the best defensive sides ever.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Dang, I'm the one that started this by saying King wasn't in the same category as the top great SF's but comparing him to Nique, Dantley, and Aguirre, now you are looking at reasonable peers. He is on a par with Nique as a rebounder, a slight step up from Aguirre and Dantley but not a lot. None were a great passer, all in the same region (Nique got less assists but had less turnovers so it evens out). Defensively, all were weak but King was probably the best, Aguirre second, Dantley and Wilkens at the bottom (Nique could have been the best of this group but put in the least effort and was matadored repeatedly). So, basically it comes down to the scoring.

Best at creating shot: Nique gets the nod for his sheer jawdropping drives, all could get off a shot against anyone though.

Most efficient: Dantley by far, King second, other two a ways down 

Most versatile: King, then Nique, the other two were about as pure a low post player as a couple of 6-5/6-6 guys could possibly be . . . a real problem if you are building an offensive team with typical big men of the day.

Most consistent: Nique, then Dantley, Aguirre, King is easily the worst in this group with his history of injuries.

My choice for building a team around? Tough call but I go Dantley, King, Nique then Aguirre. Catch me another day, could be Nique, King, Dantley, Aguirre though, very close.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> My choice for building a team around? Tough call but I go Dantley, King, Nique then Aguirre. Catch me another day, could be Nique, King, Dantley, Aguirre though, very close.


I hope to catch you another day, for Nique was the leader of some interesting Hawks teams, while King led his teams to nowhere. 

Interesting post, although i don't agree with most you've said. But i apretiate the effort.

It's kinda subjective comparing these players...


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Did you mean 'I suck at poll questions'? or 'You suck at poll questions'? Because depending on what you meant, that would be my choice.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Based on prime and career value, I'd rank the top five or so small forwards:

Larry Bird
Elgin Baylor
Scottie Pippen
Julius Erving
John Havlicek


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Just out of curiousity, in the second tier group (King, Dantley, Wilkens, Aguirre) . . . where would you rang Marques Johnson . . . shorter career, better defense, less spectacular but more efficient than all but Dantley . . . just curious.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> Just out of curiousity, in the second tier group (King, Dantley, Wilkens, Aguirre) . . . where would you rang Marques Johnson . . . shorter career, better defense, less spectacular but more efficient than all but Dantley . . . just curious.


In my opinion, Johnson is one of the "very good but not great" players. His first seven years were star (but not superstar) level and then he dropped off considerably, including in his scoring efficiency after his first five years.

I think he's a Shawn Marion level player...not a top-ten all-time player or a Hall of Famer, but quite a valuable player during his career. Aguirre belongs in that category, too...all significantly behind King, Dantley and Wilkins.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

I don't see how Pippen can be ahead of Erving: Dr.J has better numbers in almost every aspect (much better scorer who on top of that was a bit more efficient, better PER, Pippen's only edge is in passing but Erving put up good assist number as well), an MVP, and more All NBA first team appearences. Feel like this thread is selling Erving s bit short.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

you should have seen the last "best SF" thread where Minstrel was trying to sell Tracy McGrady and running down Erving, lol. (don't stop Minstrel . . . you may be the most interesting poster on here . . . even if we don't agree much!) :cheers:


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Where do Alex English and Connie Hawkins fit in this pantheon of SF gods? Not at the top tier of Bird, Erving and Baylor, obviously. But I think they tend to get underrated on this board. 

English was a peer of Dantley, Aguirre and King, often was on better teams and still scored in buckets. He was a pretty efficient scorer, a decent rebounder for his size, had a shooting stroke that was very hard to block, and generally was second on his team in assists. He had a pretty high peak and an admirably long one. What's not to like about that?


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Hawkins at his peak was better than this trio; but his peak was tragically short due to some strange circumstances and injuries. He was a far superior rebounder, defender, at least as good a passer and was capable of scoring on anyone, though not as consistently as these three. English was the other end, more consistent and a step up from these three but not as good a peak performer as King (more than the other two I'd think). 

Aguirre and Dantley suffer from being undersized post up specialists, King, English and Hawkins could all post up but also had better games otherwise.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> I don't see how Pippen can be ahead of Erving: Dr.J has better numbers in almost every aspect (much better scorer who on top of that was a bit more efficient, better PER, Pippen's only edge is in passing


You're forgetting defense, where Pippen was far, far, far better. As in, different realm.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> you should have seen the last "best SF" thread where Minstrel was trying to sell Tracy McGrady and running down Erving, lol.


I wasn't running down Erving. I just don't buy "leadership" as a significant factor in evaluation...for anyone.



> (don't stop Minstrel . . . you may be the most interesting poster on here . . . even if we don't agree much!)


Appreciate the compliment (if it isn't back-handed  ). I find your perspective interesting, as well, since I never got to see a lot of older players play live.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> You're forgetting defense, where Pippen was far, far, far better. As in, different realm.


 I don't remember anyone ever ragging on Dr. J for his defense (I believe he even made the ABA all defense team one year). As always I think you are greatly overestimating Pippen's defensive impact. And Dr. J PER numbers suggest he was another realm from an offensive standpoint


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

he never made an all-defense team but his defense was good thanks for effort and athleticism. Doc wasn't one of those scorers who felt he could loaf on the other end.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> I don't remember anyone ever ragging on Dr. J for his defense (I believe he even made the ABA all defense team one year). As always I think you are greatly overestimating Pippen's defensive impact.


I never said Erving was a bad defender. He was solid, certainly no push-over. But Pippen is arguably the best perimeter defender of all-time. I'd say that's a different realm.



> And Dr. J PER numbers suggest he was another realm from an offensive standpoint


Considering NBA numbers, I don't see it. Erving's PER numbers are higher, but hardly in a different realm. He peaked higher, in the 25 PER region while Pippen peaked in the 23 PER region. It's worth noting that Pippen's peak PER came with Jordan playing baseball. That suggests that Pippen's production was lowered by Jordan's presence...Erving never played with such a dominant player. If you give Pippen the benefit of the doubt and assume that, sans Jordan, he would have had a string of seasons around 23 PER, then Erving still grades out ahead but not by nearly the amount of Pippen advantage on defense, IMO. I think that's a fairly reasonable assumption, since Pippen _did_ get a season and a half or so in his prime to show what he could do without Jordan.

I can certainly see Erving being placed ahead of Pippen, but I don't think it's in the least bit conclusive as you suggest.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> You're forgetting defense, where Pippen was far, far, far better. As in, different realm.


Being, as i am, a fierce critic of the whole man-to-man defense hype, i say Pippen's advantage on Erving on the defensive end is of little solace comparing the two players.

Julius Erving, IMHO, is heads and shoulders above Pippen. Really little comparison can be made (again, IMHO). 

The Doc was NBA MVP. Pippen never sniffed it. Doc won it with Kareem, Moses and Bird in the competition. 

Disregarding Doc's wondrous ABA years, that settles it, for me.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Being, as i am, a fierce critic of the whole man-to-man defense hype, i say Pippen's advantage on Erving on the defensive end is of little solace comparing the two players.


While Pippen was a great man-to-man defender, Pippen's greater value lay in team defense, where he made a huge difference. At times, he disrupted entire opposing offenses with his movement, instincts and ability.

Chuck Daly said of him, "He's the only player in the league who can dominate a game without scoring a point."

I think that sort of defensive ability merits a significant factor in comparison.



> The Doc was NBA MVP. Pippen never sniffed it.


Pippen was a top MVP candidate in 1994. In all his other prime seasons, he was overshadowed by Michael Jordan. Julius Erving would have been overshadowed also, had he played on the same team as the consensus greatest player ever.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> While Pippen was a great man-to-man defender, Pippen's greater value lay in team defense, where he made a huge difference. At times, he disrupted entire opposing offenses with his movement, instincts and ability.


That's taking it a little too far. "disrupted entire opposing offenses"? Nope. Or, at least, as often as other good defensive players have done. 



> Chuck Daly said of him, "He's the only player in the league who can dominate a game without scoring a point."


That is, of course, stupid to say. Same was said of Magic Johnson. Larry Bird (when he wouldn't score in the 20's). Jason Kidd. Steve Nash. Maurice Cheeks. And many others.



> I think that sort of defensive ability merits a significant factor in comparison.


"that sort of defensive ability" has been hyped up to the max in the last 10 years. Pippen was a damned good defender. But he was no Moncrief. Nor Cooper. Nor Artest. Nor Bowen. Yeah, he was good. But you are saying that he was "on a different defensive realm" as of Doc's. He was not THAT good a defender.



> Pippen was a top MVP candidate in 1994. In all his other prime seasons, he was overshadowed by Michael Jordan. Julius Erving would have been overshadowed also, had he played on the same team as the consensus greatest player ever.


Pippem Solo was 3rd and seventh in MVP voting. When MJ was not around.
Like i've said, Erving was MVP competing with Kareem, Bird and Moses (yeah, the guy that would win back-to-back MVPs the following years).


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

I'd say Pippen was in that realm . . . not quite the shutdown defender that Moncrief was but better in the passing lanes, had better size/strength than Cooper without giving up any quickness, more intelligent than Artest without the crazy intensity though, I never seem to see Bowen playing like everyone says he can so I'd say Pippen better in games I've watched. Overall, I'd take him second in that group to Moncrief (best perimeter defender ever!) just on defense, though again, Bowen's rep is so much better than the games I've seen that I must have missed something; don't watch anywhere near as much ball as I used to.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

oh and Minstrel . . . again, if you won't consider ABA numbers even with the modifiers . . . you have to discount McGrady's years before he turned 27 too . . . . then Erving is a very good player (All-Star but not all-time great) and McGrady is a guy with one year of great potential destroyed by below average shooting and injuries. Your choice.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> I'd say Pippen was in that realm . . . not quite the shutdown defender that Moncrief was but better in the passing lanes, had better size/strength than Cooper without giving up any quickness, more intelligent than Artest without the crazy intensity though, I never seem to see Bowen playing like everyone says he can so I'd say Pippen better in games I've watched. *Overall, I'd take him second in that group to Moncrief (best perimeter defender ever!) just on defense*, though again, Bowen's rep is so much better than the games I've seen that I must have missed something; don't watch anywhere near as much ball as I used to.


That's the thing, really:

- Let's say Moncrief was the better defender;
- Let's say thet were both similar scorers;
- Let's say they were similar rebounders (cause Pippen had a 4' advantage on Sidney);
- Pippen has the edge on assists;

How far are these players from eachother?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> oh and Minstrel . . . again, if you won't consider ABA numbers even with the modifiers


What modifiers?



> . . . you have to discount McGrady's years before he turned 27 too


McGrady's numbers came in the NBA. Yes, it's bad luck that many of J's prime numbers came in an inferior league, but I'm not going to discount McGrady's NBA seasons just to allow for only same-age comparisons. McGrady's numbers prior to age-27 are fully legit, having played them in the highest league.



> then Erving is a very good player (All-Star but not all-time great)


I consider Erving to be an all-time great. I'm willing to extrapolate more NBA seasons like the ones he turned in around age 27. I'm not willing to accept ABA numbers as equivalent to NBA numbers.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> That's taking it a little too far. "disrupted entire opposing offenses"? Nope.


Yup, by closing down passing lanes, defending his man, doubling down hard on opposing point guards and big men, taking away their shooting and passing angles.

He wasn't literally defending opposing teams himself, but he quite often wreaked havoc on the opposing team's timing and flow on his own.



> "that sort of defensive ability" has been hyped up to the max in the last 10 years. Pippen was a damned good defender. But he was no Moncrief. Nor Cooper. Nor Artest. Nor Bowen.


That's ridiculous. He was better than all four. Those four could approach him in individual defense (and Moncrief was slightly better man-on-man), but none were anywhere _near_ him in team defense. Pippen is the only perimeter defender who's team defense came near the impact of the best defensive big men.



> Pippem Solo was 3rd and seventh in MVP voting. When MJ was not around.


Yes, thanks for validating what I said. Third is definitely one of the leading MVP candidates. And, again, Erving would never have won an MVP as a teammate of Jordan. The second-best player on a team never gets MVP consideration, for obvious reasons.


----------



## wilwn (Dec 10, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> The second-best player on a team never gets MVP consideration, for obvious reasons.


mchale comes to mind...


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

A big problem is with the MJ knocking down Pippen's number. Fact of the matter Pippen PER of 23 is an aberration while Erving had PER number over 25 multiple times: Big difference.

Another thing is if we somehow give extra credit for Pippen's number since he played with Jordan then Erving should get extra credit for playing with guys liek Moses.
Erving had a PER at 23 WITH Moses (Pippen's only season with a PER of 23 came w/
o Jordan) to suggest his PER would be markedly higher then Pippen even if he played with a dominant player as much as Pippen did. In addition, Erving as the main player was able to get his team to the Finals multiple years. This I think substantiates the individual accolades which are greater then Pippen's


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

young Doc, young MJ, whose to say MJ, whose passing skills were better, wouldn't have been Jerry West to Doc's Elgin Baylor (Elgin had 5 straight top 5 finishes during the peak Russell Chamberlain years usually finishing 3rd . . . West was also top 5 the last two year before going on to at least 3 more for at least 5 top 5 finishes of his own . . . )


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:



> A big problem is with the MJ knocking down Pippen's number. Fact of the matter Pippen PER of 23 is an aberration while Erving had PER number over 25 multiple times: Big difference.


To the contrary, I think it's highly indicative that the first season that Pippen had without Jordan, he came third in MVP voting and had a significantly higher PER. That doesn't suggest random variation, that suggests causation.



> Another thing is if we somehow give extra credit for Pippen's number since he played with Jordan then Erving should get extra credit for playing with guys liek Moses.
> Erving had a PER at 23 WITH Moses (Pippen's only season with a PER of 23 came w/
> o Jordan) to suggest his PER would be markedly higher then Pippen even if he played with a dominant player as much as Pippen did.


There are numerous flaws with this argument:

First, Erving played less than half his Philadelphia career with Malone (four seasons). Second, Erving's numbers fell during those seasons; granted, age is a confounding factor, but the fact remains that Erving was not putting up great PERs alongside Malone. Third, Malone was *not* a dominant offensive player in those seasons. He had one tremendous season (25.1 PER) and then had PERs similar to Pippen's...nothing even approaching Jordan's.

So, if you consider Philadelphia Malone to be "dominant," you're implying Pippen was also a dominant player, as they had quite similar PERs.

If you want to retract your comment about Malone being dominant, then your point about Erving also having to play with a dominant player evaporates.



> In addition, Erving as the main player was able to get his team to the Finals multiple years. This I think substantiates the individual accolades which are greater then Pippen's


I agree that Erving's offensive production was greater than Pippen's, though I think your point about Erving getting his team to the Finals as the main player is fairly weak. When Pippen was the main player, he had a far less talented supporting cast. In all the other years, he wasn't the main player because he had Jordan, who would have been the "main player" on any of those Sixers teams.

But, as I said, I agree Erving's offensive production was greater. I simply don't think the facts substatiate your claim that his offensive production was in "another realm." He was better, but not by a huge amount. When you factor in Pippen's very big defensive advantage, I think it's perfectly fair to say that either could be ranked ahead of the other.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

actually, you probably don't want to be looking at PER for Malone and Jordan but at USAGE, ie. the amount of opportunities Doc/Pippen lost.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Yup, by closing down passing lanes, defending his man, doubling down hard on opposing point guards and big men, taking away their shooting and passing angles.
> 
> He wasn't literally defending opposing teams himself, but he quite often wreaked havoc on the opposing team's timing and flow on his own. [(QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Again, the same could be said about all the great defensive perimeter players.


No, no perimeter defensive player is considered in Pippen's class of *team defense*. Individual defense is less impactful (though Pippen was certainly excellent at that) because it only affects one player.

The only players approximating or bettering Pippen's team defense impact are big men.



> Do you know of a guy named Kobe Bryant?


I don't recall him ever being seriously talked about as the MVP when Shaq was a Laker. The first year that Bryant got serious, mainstream consideration for MVP was this past season.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> No, no perimeter defensive player is considered in Pippen's class of *team defense*. Individual defense is less impactful (though Pippen was certainly excellent at that) because it only affects one player.
> 
> The only players approximating or bettering Pippen's team defense impact are big men.


Please provide a link. I swear i have never hear it before.



> I don't recall him ever being seriously talked about as the MVP when Shaq was a Laker. The first year that Bryant got serious, mainstream consideration for MVP was this past season.


http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2003.html


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Please provide a link. I swear i have never hear it before.


I don't have a link for that. I've just never seen or heard any other perimeter defender lauded for amazing team defense. The other great perimeter defenders (Moncrief, Payton, Cooper, Jordan, etc) were largely praised for stellar on-the-ball defense. Pippen is fairly unique in his drawing praise for off-the-ball defensive impact. That sort of thing is generally reserved for top defensive big men like Russell, Olajuwon, Robinson, etc.



> http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/awards_2003.html


Fair enough. In one year, Bryant got serious MVP consideration. But voters evidently saw Bryant as the top player on that team. My contention was that the second-best player on the team doesn't really get significant MVP consideration. In that year (in voters' minds), the second-best player was Shaq. And he didn't really get significant support...an 11% share out of 262% total share (it's more than 100% because a single player can't get first-, second- and third-place votes on a ballot) isn't significant support.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> I don't have a link for that. I've just never seen or heard any other perimeter defender lauded for amazing team defense.


That has more to do with media coverage than The Game itself. For all accounts, Frazier was a great defender. How many times do you recall people adressing him in this discussions? Hindsight, post-1990, is very fragile. After all the Bulls-love-fest in the 90's, people are tend to assume that Pippen was the greatest perimeter defender ever. Wich he is not.

You are an educated poster, Minstrel, and you can see the difference between one-on-one defense and team defense. But, IMHO, there's still a mark of the hype on you. I see no reason for your bold claim. Is Pippen one of the greatest perimeter defenders, team-defense considered? Sure. Is he the greatest? What are the facts that support this claim? 



> The other great perimeter defenders (Moncrief, Payton, Cooper, Jordan, etc) were largely praised for stellar on-the-ball defense. Pippen is fairly unique in his drawing praise for off-the-ball defensive impact. That sort of thing is generally reserved for top defensive big men like Russell, Olajuwon, Robinson, etc.


I agree with Payton. Not with Moncrief, Cooper, Jordan, Bobby Jones, Walt Frazier...



> Fair enough. In one year, Bryant got serious MVP consideration. But voters evidently saw Bryant as the top player on that team. My contention was that the second-best player on the team doesn't really get significant MVP consideration. In that year (in voters' minds), the second-best player was Shaq. And he didn't really get significant support...an 11% share out of 262% total share (it's more than 100% because a single player can't get first-, second- and third-place votes on a ballot) isn't significant support.


Magic and Jabbar 

Bird and McHale 

Your contention was that "_The second-best player on a team never gets MVP consideration, for obvious reasons_". That assumption is false. The assumption that "_the second-best player on the team doesn't really get significant MVP consideration_", i have no problems with.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

If you want me to be honest I have to say I think Pippen is one of the most overrated defenders ever. It's funny because I think he was a GREAT defender but I watched his entire career and frankly other defenders had just a significant impact on the game as he did (I watched the tail end of Moncriefs and Alvin Robertson's career along with Cooper and those guys were simply dogged). Jordan himself helped a whole lot with him IMO not just because he was a good defender himself but also he ran other people ragged having to chase him down.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

mmmm, guess I wasn't clear enough with West and Baylor . . . let me say it again . . . in a league with Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell taking two spots of the top 5 every year, Baylor and West as teammates both finished in the top 5 also two straight years. I think it's fair to say that's "significant MVP consideration" especially since the Lakers didn't win it all either year.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> To the contrary, I think it's highly indicative that the first season that Pippen had without Jordan, he came third in MVP voting and had a significantly higher PER. That doesn't suggest random variation, that suggests causation.


The next year he couldn't sustain it with Jordan only playing 17 games, Pippen's PER decreased suggesting if anything that his PER of 23.1 was a peak year and not an indicator taht he would put PER of over 25.




> There are numerous flaws with this argument:
> 
> First, Erving played less than half his Philadelphia career with Malone (four seasons). Second, Erving's numbers fell during those seasons; granted, age is a confounding factor, but the fact remains that Erving was not putting up great PERs alongside Malone. Third, Malone was *not* a dominant offensive player in those seasons. He had one tremendous season (25.1 PER) and then had PERs similar to Pippen's...nothing even approaching Jordan's.
> 
> ...


Note that I thought you're argument about Jordan causing Pippens PER numbers as low as they are. I do agree that Jordan did cause Pippen's numbers to go down but again his two season w/o Jordan he didn't come all that close in terms of PER to Erving's max production and his PER are pretty low overall. 

Also when arguing about how good Malone was relative to Jordan, it is very important to note that I was just showing that with a dominant player and a dominant team that Ervings numbers were as high Pippen playing in his prime as the top banana and this at the age of 32 on the downslope of his career. It's also important to note that in my opinion the 76ers asa team also had a prime Toney AND Cheeks on that team. In Pippen's two years w/o Jordan he only had Grant for one year who was as good as the rest of the Sixers




> I agree that Erving's offensive production was greater than Pippen's, though I think your point about Erving getting his team to the Finals as the main player is fairly weak. When Pippen was the main player, he had a far less talented supporting cast. In all the other years, he wasn't the main player because he had Jordan, who would have been the "main player" on any of those Sixers teams.


Exactly he had a very poor supporting class yet with the burden on him his numbers weren't all that impressive. My argument stands that w/o anything but subjective analysis about how good Pippen's defense was relative to Dr.J, Dr. J did more with what he had. The 79 Sixers had a pretty comparable team in terms of talent (i.e. not a whole lot) to Pippens Bulls team. 



> But, as I said, I agree Erving's offensive production was greater. I simply don't think the facts substatiate your claim that his offensive production was in "another realm." He was better, but not by a huge amount. When you factor in Pippen's very big defensive advantage, I think it's perfectly fair to say that either could be ranked ahead of the other.


Using Kobe Bryant as an example, how easy it to play better defense when you don't have to be the main gun on offense? I think it's substantial and I stand by my notion that despite Pippen being one of the best defenders of at his position his defensive accomplishments in terms of impact have become exaggerated.

Looking at it more closely I actually think Erving actually played with a player Bobby Jones who was at the same level as Pippen. Eerily similar PER numbers (Pippen being a bit better particularly the years w/o Jordan) but no one is going to convince me that Pippen was a better defender then Bobby Jones (I caught the tail end of Jone's career as well). Erving was considered a better player then Jones and I think he should pretty confidently be a considered a better player then Pippen as well


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> "that sort of defensive ability" has been hyped up to the max in the last 10 years. Pippen was a damned good defender. But he was no Moncrief. Nor Cooper. Nor Artest. Nor Bowen. Yeah, he was good. But you are saying that he was "on a different defensive realm" as of Doc's. He was not THAT good a defender.


Didn't you say the other day that you think Pippen was a better defender than Olajuwon? That would make Bruce Bowen a better defender than Olajuwon (and Robinson, presumably) too, right? 



Pioneer10 said:


> The next year he couldn't sustain it with Jordan only playing 17 games, Pippen's PER decreased suggesting if anything that his PER of 23.1 was a peak year and not an indicator taht he would put PER of over 25.


His PER decreased by 0.6. And that's probably only because Jordan played 17 more games than he did the previous season.



> Also when arguing about how good Malone was relative to Jordan, it is very important to note that I was just showing that with a dominant player and a dominant team that Ervings numbers were as high Pippen playing in his prime as the top banana and this at the age of 32 on the downslope of his career.


I wouldn't call it the downslope of his career. He was 32, but in the previous season he put his highest PER in the NBA. In the two seasons before that, his second and third-highest PERs. So he was likely in his prime when Moses came along.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> The next year he couldn't sustain it with Jordan only playing 17 games, Pippen's PER decreased suggesting if anything that his PER of 23.1 was a peak year and not an indicator taht he would put PER of over 25.


As Hakeem already mentioned, it only went down by a small amount the next year, which is probably direct reflection of Jordan returning for about 20% of that season.



> Note that I thought you're argument about Jordan causing Pippens PER numbers as low as they are. I do agree that Jordan did cause Pippen's numbers to go down but again his two season w/o Jordan he didn't come all that close in terms of PER to Erving's max production and his PER are pretty low overall.


Pippen's PERs with Jordan were still star-level (comparable, for example, to Steve Nash's prime), so they were hardly "pretty low."

I think there's always a diminishment of numbers between being the "main gun" and the secondary star. Erving was never the secondary star, but he would have been had he played with Michael Jordan. Since Pippen did get a chance to be the top option in his prime, I think that level is more indicative of his ability in the "Julius Erving" role. No, it's not an exact mapping as Erving had more talent around him, but it's more fair than comparing Erving's numbers directly to Pippen's numbers with Jordan.

Pippen without Jordan, in his prime, was only a small amount worse offensively than Erving.



> Also when arguing about how good Malone was relative to Jordan, it is very important to note that I was just showing that with a dominant player and a dominant team that Ervings numbers were as high Pippen


Except Malone was passing out of his dominant stage when he reached Philadelphia. So, that wasn't shown.



> Using Kobe Bryant as an example, how easy it to play better defense when you don't have to be the main gun on offense? I think it's substantial


It's extremely difficult to be a great defensive player when you have to carry the *entire* burden of the offense yourself (ala McGrady in his last couple of Magic years, or Kobe year before last), but Erving wasn't in anything like that situation. Even if he wasn't playing alongside a dominant player like Jordan, he had plenty of talent to help carry the offensive load.

I don't think this point goes any distance in explaining the vast gulf between the two players on defense.



> and I stand by my notion that despite Pippen being one of the best defenders of at his position his defensive accomplishments in terms of impact have become exaggerated.


Even at the time Pippen was playing, he was being similarly praised. I mentioned the Daly quote. Even in his Blazers days, clearly past his prime, Phil Jackson said about his play in the 2000 Western Conference Finals against his Lakers: "I said [Pippen] couldn't guard out entire team and I was right--just Kobe, Shaq and Harper." Jackson also had a quote along the lines of, if you had removed Pippen from the series, it would have been a walk-over for the Lakers.

I don't think his impact has been overrated. Very few people could disrupt offenses by breaking down the passing lanes, doubling on other players while keeping his own man in check and having a preternatural instinct for moving to the right place to cut off a slasher before he could get to the basket.

There are other players who are arguably as good or better than Pippen in individual defense, but no perimeter player who could match his team defense.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

What is this "Erving was always the main man" in Philly stuff. He came to a team with established stars (McGinnis, Collins) and was 2nd on the team in shots his first year (Collins was injured), THIRD his second, before McGinnis was traded and it became Doc's team.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> What is this "Erving was always the main man" in Philly stuff. He came to a team with established stars (McGinnis, Collins) and was 2nd on the team in shots his first year (Collins was injured), THIRD his second, before McGinnis was traded and it became Doc's team.


And Erving PERs were very similar to Pippen's in those seasons.

The years in which Erving's PERs were highest, and superior to Pippen's, Erving was the undisputed leader of the 76ers (roughly 1979-1980 through 1982-1983)


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

sure, but I'm not the one that said Erving was always the main man on his teams . . . btw, the year Moses joined the 76ers, ERving was again THIRD on the team in shots attempted


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> And Erving PERs were very similar to Pippen's in those seasons.
> 
> The years in which Erving's PERs were highest, and superior to Pippen's, Erving was the undisputed leader of the 76ers (roughly 1979-1980 through 1982-1983)



erving's per with moses were most similar to pippen's per without jordan.

we're also completely ignoring erving's aba career, when he was, arguably (and by most accounts), at his peak.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Larry Bird. Seriously, it's not even close. Oscar Robertson would be number 1 if you thought of him as a swing player, and it's not even close for second.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> erving's per with moses were most similar to pippen's per without jordan.


True. And Pippen's PER without Jordan wasn't terribly far off Erving's best NBA PER.



> we're also completely ignoring erving's aba career, when he was, arguably (and by most accounts), at his peak.


Possibly his peak. His best NBA seasons weren't the ones directly after he entered the NBA. It wasn't until several seasons later that he attained his NBA peak. So it's awfully debateable that he was at his best in the ABA.

But yes, we're ignoring it. Just as you ignore Arvydas Sabonis' peak in the international leagues when comparing him to other NBA players.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Very few players made the Euro league to NBA jump in Sabonis day and even fewer (1?) NBA starters made the jump the other way. NBA/ABA there were a number every year after the first allowing a decent statistical comparisom to be made which I have posted here before but which you ignore. you can also look at the records after the merger for the players (team records are hurt by what the league did to the Nets with the money penalties which forced them to sell Dr. J and strip their team). The all star game after the merger was about 50/50 ABA alums despite the fact that there were over twice as many NBA teams as ever existed in the ABA so the star level was certainly high. The leagues weren't equal but were approaching it, if Kareem shifted leagues in 1976, they might well have been equal in fact.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

sabonis didn't play against any top players. big difference between that, and erving playing in the aba, where there were plenty of the worlds top players.

erving entered the nba and adjusted on a team that went to the finals his first season.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> erving entered the nba and adjusted on a team that went to the finals his first season.


Not sure what your point here is. If it is that Erving validated himself as a superior NBA player...that hasn't been in dispute.

His PER dropped hugely instantly upon changing leagues. There's no way an 8 point drop in PER from one season to the next, in his mid-20s, was age-related. It was clearly due to moving to a significantly better league. Thus, his ABA PERs are definitely not comparable to the PERs of NBA players.

If you want to just subtract 8 points from all his ABA PERs (insanely crude, no arguments), I'm perfectly happy to count them in.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

(a) if could easily be age related . . . I showed equivalent drops for 7 of the top 10 SF of all time all in their late twenties that had similar drops over a one year period as age and injuries forced changes in their game and . . . 

(b) it could be situational. He moved to a team that had two established stars and was 2nd (collins was injured ) and 3rd in shots attempted his first two years with 76ers . . . don't think Pippen was ever third on the Bulls in shots attempted once he reached his prime though I could be wrong.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

BadBaronRudigor said:


> (a) if could easily be age related . . . I showed equivalent drops for 7 of the top 10 SF of all time all in their late twenties that had similar drops over a one year period as age and injuries forced changes in their game and . . .


They weren't such drastic drops. 8 points is huge...it was a "most dominant player in game" to normal star type of drop, as far as PER goes. Also, did Erving suffer an injury in his first 76er year that he did have in his last Nets year?



> (b) it could be situational. He moved to a team that had two established stars and was 2nd (collins was injured ) and 3rd in shots attempted his first two years with 76ers . . . don't think Pippen was ever third on the Bulls in shots attempted once he reached his prime though I could be wrong.


But I doubt Erving would have been third in shots if he were arguably the best player in the NBA (as he would be if his near-29 Nets PER were legitimate). I think his circumstances were a reflection that he was, at the time, a very good but not great offensive performer. Several years later, he became a great offensive performer.

To illustrate it another way, do you think circumstances would have made Jordan a third-option ever? I don't. Suppose Pippen and Jordan had been reversed in chronology...Pippen came to the Bulls in 1984-85, and Jordan came several years later. Do you think Jordan would have spent a few years as the second option due to the more "established" Pippen? I don't...greatness almost always tends to overcome seniority. As I recall, Bird very quickly became the Celtics' featured player, in his rookie season, despite some talented and established vets (granted, on the downsides of their careers) and Magic Johnson also very quickly became a featured player in his rookie season, second only to a still-great Abdul-Jabbar.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

no one becomes a "great" performer in their thirties . . . you can't name one who didn't already have a prime season already, though can become more consistent. Jordan coming to today's Houston team might be a third performer since McGrady isn't the type to give up shots (if healthy) and Yao is the inside option. 

Of course personality would also affect. Erving was amazingly humble for his talent, Jordan knew his worth and made sure everyone else did. BTW, a pretty good player named Wilt Chamberlain went to the West/Baylor lakers and became a third option too.

PER drops . . . Baylor dropped 5.5 in his late 20's then another 5 two years later.
Bird dropped 8 points at age 31 then came back up a couple later. Those are the two top competitors with Erving for best SF of all time; I am not going to look up the whole list for you again. Some drop is expected, the difference between the late years ABA and the NBA is about 5-8%, but most of Erving's drop comes from going from a team where he was the undisputed #1 option to a team where there was highscoring ball-dominating players in place and trying to fit in rather than take over (McGinnis was 1st team All-NBA when they added Erving). The higher PERs came when McGinnis was traded and Bobby Jones who was a defensive specialist and complementary offensive player took his place.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

Interesting note about how people see players . . . this is how a currrent All-Time draft picked the "greatest SF's of all time"

*1st round*
Erving
Bird
LeBron (!)
Baylor

*2nd round*
Dominique 
Havlicek
Pippen

*3rd round*
Arizin (!!)
Barry
McGrady
Worthy
Artest
English
Hawkins

*4th round*
B. King
Dantley
G. Hill
Nance

Special note . . . it is currently the 12th round, every team still active (24 started, about 21 still picking) has at least 2 SFs and to my surprise, Mark Aquirre is still on the board . . . . just too many two way players like Jamaal Wilkes or even Tayshaun Prince seemed a better fit for people than a pure low post scorer who I feel is only a small step behind Dantley (and yet I preferred and prefer Marques Johnson and Gus Johnson as my backup SF's too).


----------



## benfica (Jul 17, 2002)

Bird was amazing, when it came to important games he played every single second as his stamina was off the charts...Bird got stronger in the fourth quarter and would basically score whatever points were needed to win. The Celtics were a different team when Bird was not on the court. 

Ok..there are five seconds left to go in the NBA finals game with the game tied. You have M. Jordan and L. Bird on the team whose hands do you want the ball to be in...ok maybe it is a toss up however Bird has that incredible passing ability in addition to the scoring...anybody else you would want the ball to be in.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Not sure what your point here is. If it is that Erving validated himself as a superior NBA player...that hasn't been in dispute.
> 
> His PER dropped hugely instantly upon changing leagues. There's no way an 8 point drop in PER from one season to the next, in his mid-20s, was age-related. It was clearly due to moving to a significantly better league. Thus, his ABA PERs are definitely not comparable to the PERs of NBA players.
> 
> If you want to just subtract 8 points from all his ABA PERs (insanely crude, no arguments), I'm perfectly happy to count them in.


point is erving joined a seasoned philly team, and as the best player, led them to the finals. he was adjusting to the team and the league, and while his production wasn't what it was in the aba, he was still a top player overall (and 5th in mvp). it's different than judging someone who's situation is static, or someone who takes on more responsibility as a result of changing circumstances. i don't think it's logical to assume erving's stats simply adjust down as you suggest. if he goes to a different team right away, or he plays in the nba from day 1, and you see different numbers in '77. did he become a significantly better overall player in '80? i don't think so. the guy considered the 2nd best player in the world for close to a decade already had things come together individually, but he wasn't bringing much different overall to the table. his trajectory was impacted by a change in circumstances. his aba per's may not be comparable, but his early nba per's aren't the best reflection of where he stood in the game either.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

The thing that strikes me is that this adjustment period lasted three years. And it was such a massive drop. And you'd think that if it was because he had a lesser role on offense his scoring efficiency would at least be high, but that came later when his PER peaked in the NBA. And when his PER in the NBA did jump from 20 to 25, the Sixers went from 47 wins to 59 with basically the same team. Is it that hard to believe that his prime occurred when he was aged 29-31?


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

To anyone who saw him in ABA then in NBA, yes . . . like saying Michael Jordan's prime occurred with the Wizards.


----------



## Mrobison (Sep 15, 2006)

*Rehttp://www.basketballboards.net/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply: Best SF of all time*

Way too many things to try to quote them all, so some thoughts.

First, comparing stats between eras is really tough. The NBA was simply a different game in 1965, and for that matter, 1995, than now.

For his career, I suspect Bird is #1 at SF, and Lebron has a shot at the title, although a lot can happen.

I was a (mildly interested) Pistons fan in Pippin's prime, and the Chicago rivalry was nearly all about Jordan. Pippin was good, but I never thought of him as better than Hill, or the Bad Boys in general (can't think of who their SF would be). I would take Ben Wallace (who is, after all, shorter) over him on defense any time. Perimeter, interior, or team. Wallace guarded Shaq one on one, and on switches, successfully contained Tony Parker. Plus, his help defense is legendary. He's not a SF, and not (obviously) an offensive force, but it puts the defense in perspective. As far as offense, last year Mike James averaged 20 per game, and he obviously wasn't the best player on the team.

Erving was a little before I had major interest, but he was revolutionary. He changed the game, like Wilt and Magic did.

Finally, I maintain that Wilt was the best individual player the NBA has ever seen. If you crossed the best of Yao and Amare, and threw in the ability to lead the league in assists as a C, you get some idea. In 1962 he averaged 25 and 12_ per half_.


----------



## Sunsfan81 (Apr 17, 2006)

Bad options.
Bird easily.


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Lebron needs like 3 MVPs, 3 championships, and basically be an all-time great and legend... to topple Bird.

He has a good chance, but at this point.. Lebron cannot be better than Bird.

Bird = top 5 greatest/best players of all time


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

duncan2k5 said:


> just because lebron can't shoot like bird doesn't make him a worse player. bird isn't the passer lebron is. and who is to say lebron can't rebound like bird? he as damn near 20 years left in his career.



sorry... wrong.

Bird is comparable to some of the best playmakers of all time in terms of passing... and this guy is 6'9.

LeBron is a good passer however dont get me wrong...


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Larry Bird is the perfect example of "basketball" talent.

He knows the game inside out, knows how to dominate it without 40+ vertical leaping ability, 300 pound body mass, sprinter-level foot speed... etc.

The guy plays well, because he has mastered every aspect of the game by knowledge of the game and basketball-specific skills/talent.

I dont even need to justify him... its like trying to explain why wheels are circular rather than square.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

1 Penny said:


> Larry Bird is the perfect example of "basketball" talent.
> 
> He knows the game inside out, knows how to dominate it without 40+ vertical leaping ability, 300 pound body mass, sprinter-level foot speed... etc.
> 
> ...


Liked this Larry Bird prop up (sp?). It sums up adequately how Larry Bird played...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

duncan2k5 said:


> I suck at poll questions


Correct answer.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

duncan2k5 said:


> bird isn't the passer lebron is.


lmfao.



Adol said:


> Is this thread a joke? Larry Bird!
> 
> You should be banned.


Bump.


----------



## Dream Hakeem (Apr 20, 2006)

1 Penny said:


> Lebron needs like 3 MVPs, 3 championships, and basically be an all-time great and legend... to topple Bird.
> 
> He has a good chance, but at this point.. Lebron cannot be better than Bird.
> 
> Bird = top 5 greatest/best players of all time



Dont forget he needs to be white



Mrobison said:


> *I was a (mildly interested) Pistons fan in Pippin's prime*


You obiously werent interested enough to get his name right


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

If anyone is interested, someone from ClutchFans is putting up the entire '86 Finals: http://www.rocketredrockers.net:6969/


----------

