# Lebron as the best SF ever?



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

I think it's very debatable right now, but I suspect that within 2-3 seasons it will become an objective fact. If James can win a single championship as the undeniable leader of his team, then I think he probably clinches it. His only serious competition at this point is probably Larry Bird, who still gets my vote, but Lebron is a scary marvel - especially given how young he still is. 

I think he already has a place in the top tier of small forwards...

FIRST TIER: Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Elgin Baylor, Lebron James

SECOND TIER: John Havlicek, Rick Barry, Scottie Pippen

THIRD TIER: Billy Cunningham, Dominique Wilkins, Bernard King, Alex English, Grant Hill

HONORABLE MENTION: Paul Pierce, Adrian Dantley, Larry Nance, Tracy McGrady, Marques Johnson, Shawn Marion

Lebron will never be Bird's equal as a rebounder or shooter, but should eclipse him as a scorer and equal him as a defender. 

What do you all think...is the "King" on his way to the top?


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

too soon


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

i would like to see lebron be guarded by a 1994 pippen... IMO pippen would have him on lockdown

though i hate comparing past to present but Im just using that as an example to counter the claim of greatest SF of all time.... just because i dont believe we should grant anyone GOAT status until their career is over


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

5-7 more years of play like last season and he'll be in the running for GOAT (assuming a title or two), not just best SF ever.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

^ seriously?


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

well he already had the best single season ever by a sf. only injury can stop lebron from going down as the best sf ever.

and get out of here with that pippen would have shut down lebron nonsense.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

SlamJam said:


> well he already had the best single season ever by a sf. only injury can stop lebron from going down as the best sf ever.
> 
> and get out of here with that pippen would have shut down lebron nonsense.



you get out, its my opinion

and I only brought it up to go against OP. I hate comparing past with present like i mentioned.

Lebron in the 90's would get knocked on his ***


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Knocked on his butt by who? Karl Malone didn't have that problem and LeBron is bigger than Karl Malone. A hell of a lot faster too, and speed is power. Michael Jordan got knocked on his butt because he weighed 200 pounds. LeBron is a different animal. 

Yes, LeBron is playing better than any other small forward ever has. He will be considered the best small forward of all-time without question by the time he is 28.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

Still too soon to label him that but he is definitely on pace.

Greatest ever is still Bird. Period.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Yes, LeBron is playing better than any other small forward ever has. He will be considered the best small forward of all-time without question by the time he is 28.


+1


----------



## michelangelo (Apr 29, 2009)

Don't mean a thing without that ring...


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

michelangelo said:


> Don't mean a thing without that ring...


Which is exactly what the original poster said, your point is?


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Yes, LeBron is playing better than any other small forward ever has. He will be considered the best small forward of all-time without question by the time he is 28.


This is mainly what I think. I'm a huge admirer of Bird's game, but I think Lebron has reached a similar level of overall talent. What I'm watching for at this point is whether he can sustain this peak for a few years (I assume he can) and whether he has the competitive fire of all-time greats like Bird, Jordan, Magic and Russell.

I'm honestly not a big one for counting rings in assessing a player's career accomplishments - at least, not without taking into consideration the quality of surrounding cast and quality of opponents. Lack of a championship didn't stop Baylor from being considered the best SF ever until Erving/Bird came along. Same with Karl Malone (until Duncan).

Having said that, though, I do understand that a ring will help the case for Lebron in the minds of many fans and analysts.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

This goes to Lebron easily; barring any serious injury of course. Interesting that people bring up Bird's shooting as an advantage over Lebron's...however to put things in perspective from the 3-point line:

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 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 does shoot better at the cherry stripe though.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

The game is quite a bit different than it was in Bird's day. I suspect that if he were in his prime now he'd be raining down a lot more three pointers, and would have grown up practicing that shot. Mainly what I remember about Bird was that he was ridiculously clutch; his team could rely on him to jack up game-tying or game-winning shots (some of them ugly as sin) under immense pressure and with several hands in his face.

But I would agree that his shooting isn't what necessarily set him apart. He was an insanely creative playmaker and scorer, especially on the break and in broken-play situations. 

And again, much as I respect what Bird did and was capable of, I'm having a harder and harder time figuring out what should keep Lebron from joining him at the top of the list.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jakain said:


> This goes to Lebron easily; barring any serious injury of course. Interesting that people bring up Bird's shooting as an advantage over Lebron's...however to put things in perspective from the 3-point line:
> 
> 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 later in his career; something that LBJ has yet to live.
> 
> ...


How about we talk about shooting in general and not just 3 point shooting if we're going to compare him to Bird?

And its _Charity stripe_, not _cherry_ stripe.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

A lot of people have probably said this but the second LeBron James wins a championship he will be the undisputed best SF of all time.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Even if Lebron doesn't win a ring (he will), if he continues his career without significant injury hes without a doubt the best SF ever, as much as I love Bird.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Jakain said:


> This goes to Lebron easily; barring any serious injury of course. Interesting that people bring up Bird's shooting as an advantage over Lebron's...however to put things in perspective from the 3-point line:
> 
> 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 later in his career; something that LBJ has yet to live.
> 
> ...


context. bird was to top 10 in 3pt % 7 times, and 5 time top 5 in 3's made, leading the league twice. the 3 point line was in its infancy when bird entered the league (implemented his rookie year). bird was one of the best outside shooters in the league.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Haha whoops, charity stripe ftw. In any case Bird's shooting when we compare their first six seasons is around the same from a numbers stand point both from long distance and not; although Bird's free throw shooting is substantially better. 

It'll be interesting to see how Lebron plays with future HOFer (but old as hell) Shaq since unlike Bird, LBJ has yet to play with the caliber of talent that Bird had in his successful career minus the TEAM USA/All-Star stuff. As great of an individual Bird is, he did play with at least a couple of HOFers which is something LBJ has yet to experience. Already James has led relatively bad teams to the Finals/Conference Finals, shame he's had to rely on the likes of Varejao and Mo Williams to get there though.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

LBJ is most definitely in the Top 2 for SF and I think that is unanimous. Bird may have been great, but he wasn't Jordan great. Lebron is Jordan great. I don't care what anyone has to say to attempt to contradict this because James is going to go down as the GOAT as long as he doesn't coast through the regular season or face premature career ending injuries. 

His team needs to get Stephen Jackson. They'd win it all if they got him.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

jericho said:


> I think it's very debatable right now, but I suspect that within 2-3 seasons it will become an objective fact. If James can win a single championship as the undeniable leader of his team, then I think he probably clinches it. His only serious competition at this point is probably Larry Bird, who still gets my vote, but Lebron is a scary marvel - especially given how young he still is.
> 
> I think he already has a place in the top tier of small forwards...
> 
> ...


Lebron James has a good chance, barring injury, to go down as the best SF ever. But, IMHO, it's a little bit premature to say something like: "he only needs to win a championship".

I see greatness in Lebron James, obviously. But i don't see "Bird-like" greatness. Not yet. With a prime Larry Bird, any year without a championship was a disapointment. That's the level of greatness Larry possessed. Like Magic Johnson. Like Jordan in the 90's. 

If one thinks LBJ is already at that level, please speak up: do you think the Cavs will win the title this season? Did you think they would win it all last season?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I don't really see what a title has to do with it.You win titles because you're on a team that's better than any other team.Michael Jordan was the best player in the NBA for five years before he won a title.Chamberlain was the best player in the league for a long time,but didn't win a title during that time.People just say that stuff as an excuse.It's nothing except a fig leaf.Lebron has never come close to having the sort of talent that Bird had around him when he won and there's no way in hell a prime Bird comes close to a title with the sort of crap around him that Lebron has had.


In truth when you compare Lebron and Bird's career longevity doesn't really matter either.When you're talking about the best ever the only thing that really matters is how many truly great seasons you've had.Bird had a six year span where he produced on a truly all time great level(82-83 until 87-88).Lebron's two years younger than Bird was in 82 and he's produced at an even higher level for five years.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

It's Bird!

Stats don't tell the whole story. Bird's intangibles > James. Bird wasn't born with all the natural athletic ability as a guy like Bron. If he would of been, Larry Legend would of been Larry God to you minions.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

LeBron has bigger fish to fry than Larry Bird, in my opinion. That's like asking if Chris Paul will pass John Stockton. Just a matter of time. LeBron is threatening to do something much greater, which is to be the greatest basketball player to ever walk the face of the earth at any given time.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

23AJ said:


> Bird wasn't born with all the natural athletic ability as a guy like Jordan. If he would of been, Larry Legend would of been Larry God to you minions.


Fixed. Still agree? 

You are what you are. Nick Collison could be the best player ever if he had the size, strength and athletic ability of a prime Shaquille O'Neal. Doesn't mean a damn thing though, because he wasn't born like that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> LeBron has bigger fish to fry than Larry Bird, in my opinion. That's like asking if Chris Paul will pass John Stockton. Just a matter of time. LeBron is threatening to do something much greater, which is to be the greatest basketball player to ever walk the face of the earth at any given time.


Why is it anything like Paul and Stockton?


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

R-Star said:


> Why is it anything like Paul and Stockton?


Stockton = greatest PG of all time
Paul = black man challenging white man for greatest PG of all time


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Why is it anything like Paul and Stockton?


He's saying that Chris Paul is already playing at a level just as good if not better then any of Stockton's best seasons, and that Paul passing Stockton on the point guard all time list is as inevitable as LeBron passing Bird. And I'm no Chris Paul fan, but he's absolutley right.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hyperion said:


> Stockton = *greatest PG of all time*
> Paul = black man challenging white man for greatest PG of all time


In a world where Magic Johnson never existed, maybe. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Hyperion said:


> Stockton = greatest PG of all time
> Paul = black man challenging white man for greatest PG of all time


1. I dont think race has anything to do with it
2. Magic Johnson, a black man is very sad that he isnt considered the greatest pg of all time


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Why is it anything like Paul and Stockton?


Why is it not? I'm talking about a current player just entering his prime who is 24 years old, and has already peaked higher than one of the all-time great players at his position who has played a full career. 

You could use Isiah Thomas if you want. Works the same way. Chris Paul has already put in 2 seasons about as good as any point guard ever has, and he is 24 years old. One could assume injury or assume a serious turn in work ethic, but based on what we've seen so far, it would be outlandish to do so.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Why is it not? I'm talking about a current player just entering his prime who is 24 years old, and has already peaked higher than one of the all-time great players at his position who has played a full career.
> 
> You could use Isiah Thomas if you want. Works the same way. Chris Paul has already put in 2 seasons about as good as any point guard ever has, and he is 24 years old. One could assume injury or assume a serious turn in work ethic, but based on what we've seen so far, it would be outlandish to do so.


Bird is the best SF though, and Magic is the best PG. 

I don't put Stock on the same level as Bird. No one should.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

R-Star said:


> Bird is the best SF though, and Magic is the best PG.
> 
> I don't put Stock on the same level as Bird. No one should.


I don't put Stock on the same level as Bird either, but I don't put Paul on the same level as LeBron. The potential is different, therefore the target is different. Paul passing Stockton/Isiah is as inevitable as LeBron passing Bird, imo.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I don't put Stock on the same level as Bird either, but I don't put Paul on the same level as LeBron. The potential is different, therefore the target is different. Paul passing Stockton/Isiah is as inevitable as LeBron passing Bird, imo.


Fair enough. I think Paul could possibly end up being pretty close to Bron when all is said and done, but your explanation clears everything up. Can't disagree.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Why is it not? I'm talking about a current player just entering his prime who is 24 years old, and has already peaked higher than one of the all-time great players at his position who has played a full career.
> 
> You could use Isiah Thomas if you want. Works the same way. Chris Paul has already put in 2 seasons about as good as any point guard ever has, and he is 24 years old. One could assume injury or assume a serious turn in work ethic, but based on what we've seen so far, it would be outlandish to do so.


This sort of assumes that the argument about "best ever" is focused on peak performance alone... part of the reason John Stockton is considered one of the greatest is because he sustained a high level of play for a long period of time.... and consistently led (along with the mailman, obviously) winning teams.

And has Paul really peaked higher than Stockton? I mean, Stockton has the 4 best single seasons in terms of assists in NBA history... and 7 out of the top 10. I don't remember Chris Paul dropping 14 dimes a game. I'm not saying Paul isn't as good... but I don't know that it's necessarily a slam dunk that he's already "peaked higher".


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dornado said:


> This sort of assumes that the argument about "best ever" is focused on peak performance alone... part of the reason John Stockton is considered one of the greatest is because he sustained a high level of play for a long period of time.... and consistently led (along with the mailman, obviously) winning teams.
> 
> And has Paul really peaked higher than Stockton? I mean, Stockton has the 4 best single seasons in terms of assists in NBA history... and 7 out of the top 10. I don't remember Chris Paul dropping 14 dimes a game. I'm not saying Paul isn't as good... but I don't know that it's necessarily a slam dunk that he's already "peaked higher".


Agreed. I'm a guy who values assists and defense from a PG about 5 times more than points.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Dornado said:


> This sort of assumes that the argument about "best ever" is focused on peak performance alone... part of the reason John Stockton is considered one of the greatest is because he sustained a high level of play for a long period of time.... and consistently led (along with the mailman, obviously) winning teams.
> 
> And has Paul really peaked higher than Stockton? I mean, Stockton has the 4 best single seasons in terms of assists in NBA history... and 7 out of the top 10. I don't remember Chris Paul dropping 14 dimes a game. I'm not saying Paul isn't as good... but I don't know that it's necessarily a slam dunk that he's already "peaked higher".


Just to add more to this tangent: Like Bird, Stockton also had the privilege of playing with at least one person on a similar level of incredible talent: Karl Malone. On the other hand CP3's go-to guy is David West. 

Stockton also entered the league older than CP3. Paul was a starter from the get-go and has averaged a lot more minutes at this point in their careers; remember Paul has only played four seasons and if you compare both players first four seasons assist averages - CP3 wins (reg season stats here: CP3 has 9.9 assists/game and Stockton had 8.6).

*Peak-wise*, CP3 already beats Stockton in career PER (not the be all, end all of stats but definitely a great one nonetheless and helpful in comparing players). CP3's PER for the last season was 30.0 and the season before that where he took the Hornets farther than anyone predicted was around 28.3 ---- Stockton's highest career PER was 23.9, which is a huge advantage for CP3 from a PER standpoint. Athletically, CP3 is on another tier same with his scoring ability especially if you look at the stats of their first four seasons (CP3 already has more ppg than Stockton ever averaged to boot).

Will we see CP3 peaking higher in assists/game? Not likely unless CP3 gets a Karl Malone type of player where both guys mesh into an incredible duo...however its pretty amazing what CP3 has done with his Karl Malone 'equivalent' in David West.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stockjo01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html

Picture putting CP3 on the Karl Malone Jazz team and Stockton on the modern Hornets team with David West and we'd still see the Jazz being a dominant force but I don't see Stockton leading the Hornets like CP3 did.

*TLDR*: CP3 imo has had a tougher and more important role to his team than a comparable Stockton, is on another tier athletically and scoring-wise, had less talent around him than Stockton, and has already peaked significantly higher than Stockton from a PER standpoint. He may not be able to beat him in assists/game but nearly everything else he's on track to beat Stockton and barring serious injury will give him a run for his money in player comparisons.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Fixed. Still agree?
> 
> You are what you are. Nick Collison could be the best player ever if he had the size, strength and athletic ability of a prime Shaquille O'Neal. Doesn't mean a damn thing though, because he wasn't born like that.


You can have a facetious tone all you want. Really doesn't change the fact, that as good as LBJ has been, Larry's career trumps LeBrons, and Larry's stats hold up just fine compared to LBJ or anyone for that matter when discussing who the best player is. However like I pointed out in my statement up above Larry Bird's intangibles > James. Bird did more with less.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

23AJ said:


> You can have a facetious tone all you want. Really doesn't change the fact, that as good as LBJ has been, Larry's career trumps LeBrons, and Larry's stats hold up just fine compared to LBJ or anyone for that matter when discussing who the best player is. However like I pointed out in my statement up above Larry Bird's intangibles > James. Bird did more with less.


As much as I like Bird, the more with less argument can be made about who Lebron has to work with on his team though. Bird was on some alltime great teams.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

R-Star said:


> As much as I like Bird, the more with less argument can be made about who Lebron has to work with on his team though. Bird was on some alltime great teams.


I don't disagree. That's why Larry Bird's Celtics have some incredible records, and won championships. They didn't fall short. However let's not act like LBJ is playing on a team with a completely depleted roster full of ego maniacs with sub-intelligence and can careless about winning. One good thing about the Cavs is they have tried to build around LBJ with the resources at their disposal, and have acquired excellent role players, who believe in LBJ/Cavs organization and that coupled with LBJ talent has made out some pretty damn good years. So I also hate the argument, LBJ has just played with trash his entire career. And this up coming season, I would say LBJ has a team full of talent, and all around players who are playing for the championship top to bottom. That's very important to winning as much as it is having a team full of all stars, remember Hakeem won a title with out a superstar, but we don't say Hakeem is better than Bird or who ever because his team wasn't loaded top to bottom hall of famers.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Diable said:


> I don't really see what a title has to do with it.You win titles because you're on a team that's better than any other team.


Championships won is a metric of a players' success. It's not the be-all, end-all criteria, but it's often used as the barometer to compare players' achievments. And rightfully so. At the end, when comparing Great players, the rings pull much weight.



> Michael Jordan was the best player in the NBA for five years before he won a title.


Suuuure.



> Chamberlain was the best player in the league for a long time,but didn't win a title during that time.


Wilt was a victim of circunstances. If people back in the day regarded *stats * as highly as they do today, i would say Wilt would have something like 10 Mvp awards.



> People just say that stuff as an excuse.It's nothing except a fig leaf.Lebron has never come close to having the sort of talent that Bird had around him when he won and there's no way in hell a prime Bird comes close to a title with the sort of crap around him that Lebron has had.


Not this again!?
Bird had help because he had to have help. In the 80's you wouldn't win a damn thing without a stacked roster. and that's because other championship contenders had stacked rosters too!
The team that defeated The Crabs in the playoffs sported a starting line-up of Alston/Lee/Turk/Shard/D-Ho. Big deal.

Excuse #1: He is too young;
Excuse #2: He doesn't have much help.

I only wish there was this internet thingy back in the day. People would cream themselves talking about how a 20 year old player brought a championship to a city after probably the greatest individual game in Nba Finals history...



> In truth when you compare Lebron and Bird's career longevity doesn't really matter either.When you're talking about the best ever the only thing that really matters is how many truly great seasons you've had.Bird had a six year span where he produced on a truly all time great level(82-83 until 87-88).Lebron's two years younger than Bird was in 82 and he's produced at an even higher level for five years.


In truth, when you compare Lebron and Bird, you must think about achievments. Larry won a championship in his *second *year in the NBA. At age 24. Against the Rockets, who had all-mighty Moses on board.

Stats only mean that much. Yes, Lebron is a stats marvel. But he hasn't won nothing. and winning is all that matters, at the end of the day.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Championships won is a metric of a players' success. It's not the be-all, end-all criteria, but it's often used as the barometer to compare players' achievments. And rightfully so. At the end, when comparing Great players, the rings pull much weight.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think I've made it through a full post of yours in months. Shut the hell up Paulo. "Jordan wasn't the greatest, he wasn't even a Laker!"

You're view on basketball in general is pathetic.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Paulo has two standards .One for Wilt and one for Lebron.What a shock!


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

23AJ said:


> I don't disagree. That's why Larry Bird's Celtics have some incredible records, and won championships. They didn't fall short. However let's not act like LBJ is playing on a team with a completely depleted roster full of ego maniacs with sub-intelligence and can careless about winning. One good thing about the Cavs is they have tried to build around LBJ with the resources at their disposal, and have acquired excellent role players, who believe in LBJ/Cavs organization and that coupled with LBJ talent has made out some pretty damn good years. So I also hate the argument, LBJ has just played with trash his entire career. And this up coming season, *I would say LBJ has a team full of talent, and all around players who are playing for the championship top to bottom. That's very important to winning as much as it is having a team full of all stars*, remember Hakeem won a title with out a superstar, but we don't say Hakeem is better than Bird or who ever because his team wasn't loaded top to bottom hall of famers.


you honestly believe a star can win a championship with a sidekick of Mo Will's caliber?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

chairman5 said:


> you honestly believe a star can win a championship with a sidekick of Mo Will's caliber?


It's been done before. Go look up the stats of the role players Hakeem won his first title with.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

23AJ said:


> You can have a facetious tone all you want. Really doesn't change the fact, that as good as LBJ has been, Larry's career trumps LeBrons, and Larry's stats hold up just fine compared to LBJ or anyone for that matter when discussing who the best player is. However like I pointed out in my statement up above Larry Bird's intangibles > James. Bird did more with less.


Right, and I'm just saying Bird did more with less than Jordan too. Doesn't make him better.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Right, and I'm just saying Bird did more with less than Jordan too. Doesn't make him better.


Not sure were in any disagreement, unless your saying that LeBron is better than Jordan. Because Bird can be better than LeBron James, and not better than Jordan.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

23AJ said:


> Not sure were in any disagreement, unless your saying that LeBron is better than Jordan. Because Bird can be better than LeBron James, and not better than Jordan.


He can be, but he isn't, for the reasons already stated in this thread.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> He can be, but he isn't, *for the reasons already stated in this thread*.


Validating your opinion by that of the first bunch of people who have posted in this thread!?! really woW!...LOL

You must consider the handful of souls who posted in this thread as some kind of authority on hoops, and this thread/site as the holy grail. Just a bit of friendly advice - you might want to get out a little more. 

So no offense, but LBJ future is still unwritten. With Bird's career it's already in the books, and at this point it trumps LeBron's career. LBJ may end up surpassing Bird, I'm not denying that, but at this point James hasn't done anything to make me think he's better individually, collectively, and etc I'll put my money on Bird. IF James end's up dominating the league, by winning multiple more MVP's, and finally getting some rings. I'll be the first to give him his props.

At this point LBJ has really only had one truly historical statistically post season. Other wise LeBron is just doing what all great players do, and give their team the best opportunity to win and doing it quite eloquently and achieving impressive stat's along the way. That being said, nobody knows how LBJ's career will truly end. You obviously see it one way, but so did Nike last year, and it didn't come to fruition. IMO I see Dwight Howard winning more championships than LeBron James, which I believe will hurt his legacy. Not to mention, Kobe is still winning chips right now, and I believe the Lakers will repeat this up coming season. So once again Bron will be on the outside looking in. So shed a tear for the Nike puppeteer. 

Larry Legend for the win!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

LeBron doesn't have one great post season statistically, he has four. Infact, Bird only has 2 postseasons statistically comparable to any one of LeBron's 4 postseasons (according to PER, atleast). LeBron last postseason was just *far* better than Bird or anyone else ever has been. Regular seasons are the same way, LeBron already has 3 seasons better than Bird's best season stastically (again, according to PER). What's funny about the career totals too is that LeBron is only like 8,000 points behind Bird, which is a little over 3 seasons worth at the same pace. Dude is 24. 

Who cares if Dwight wins more titles? Russell has far more than anybody, but he isn't nearly a slam dunk for best player of all-time. Infact, I'd say 80-90% of fans do not have him #1. That tells me that individual dominance counts more when it comes to individual assessment. Team success is dependant on your team, believe it or not. 

You can assume his career will take some drastic turn, but I choose to look at his pace and have a little educated foresight. This isn't a one season wonder, he has been dominant since day one with a steady progression. Assuming a change is wishful thinking for someone who doesn't want him to be successful. Just like with anything, it's barring injury or something tragic, but other than that, there isn't much that can stop him.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> LeBron doesn't have one great post season statistically, he has four. Infact, Bird only has 2 postseasons statistically comparable to any one of LeBron's 4 postseasons (according to PER, atleast). LeBron last postseason was just *far* better than Bird or anyone else ever has been. Regular seasons are the same way, LeBron already has 3 seasons better than Bird's best season stastically (again, according to PER). What's funny about the career totals too is that LeBron is only like 8,000 points behind Bird, which is a little over 3 seasons worth at the same pace. Dude is 24.
> 
> Who cares if Dwight wins more titles? Russell has far more than anybody, but he isn't nearly a slam dunk for best player of all-time. Infact, I'd say 80-90% of fans do not have him #1. That tells me that individual dominance counts more when it comes to individual assessment. Team success is dependant on your team, believe it or not.
> 
> You can assume his career will take some drastic turn, but I choose to look at his pace and have a little educated foresight. This isn't a one season wonder, he has been dominant since day one with a steady progression. Assuming a change is wishful thinking for someone who doesn't want him to be successful. Just like with anything, it's barring injury or something tragic, but other than that, there isn't much that can stop him.


Hakeem had a better per for a post season than LeBron James. Not that it matters it's one stat, it doesn't take into account what the teams were like when they played them, and if your team loses in the playoffs, or wins it all. The old saying coined by the Bulls team when they won 72 games, the best team statistically ever in the NBA. "It doesn't mean a thing with out a ring." How true that is.

Interesting, it sounds like your using per as the ultimate measure in deciding who's better than who. I for one only use per as one tool in judging players. Let me ask you something, do you believe LeBron James is better than Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, and Kareem ? Since his Per is better than all of their best pers as well ? I certainly don't, and that's why you have to use context, fundamentals, intangibles, and achievements to name a few when deciding what players are better. As per takes very little of that into consideration, and takes zero defense into the statistic. Which few quite a few years LeBron James was awful at. 

I'm really finding it hard to understand where you get your information from about Bill Russell. Most things I read by distinguished writers/journalists etc is that Bill Russell is usually in the middle of the debate as one of the greatest of all times. The problem is, there is no clear cut GOAT player. One thing is sure, LeBron James isn't even top 20 of all time right now, let alone the Greatest Small Forward Of All Time already. And individual dominance doesn't get the job done alone, just ask Oscar Robertson and his critics. The reality is certain players have changed the ticket you have to punch by putting up historical stat's and winning championships in the regard of Hakeem, Jordan, Bird etc

I'm not assuming much about LeBron James, I assumed Dwight Howard will win more chips. You are the one the assuming how LeBron James career will turn out. I'm not going to try and forecast James's career because I believe he may go through a big transition period once this season is over. Meaning I don't think he will remain with the Cavs once they lose in the playoffs. Yes I think the Magic/Celtics are better in the East.


----------



## juice4080 (Jul 4, 2006)

paul PER is closer to lebron james PER than to stockton...don't believe the hype.....paul is almost as good as lebron


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

23AJ said:


> Hakeem had a better per for a post season than LeBron James. Not that it matters it's one stat, it doesn't take into account what the teams were like when they played them, and if your team loses in the playoffs, or wins it all. The old saying coined by the Bulls team when they won 72 games, the best team statistically ever in the NBA. "It doesn't mean a thing with out a ring." How true that is.


Hakeem is the only one who had one postseason statistically better than LeBron in decades and that's supposed to prove _your_ point? Nevermind the fact that Hakeem only played 4 playoff games that year. 

Your little quote is a team quote. Teams certainly are judged on titles. Individuals really shouldn't be. Hypothetically if the best player of all-time plays with a bunch of high school kids, he isn't going to win anything. Doesn't mean he isn't the best. 



23AJ said:


> Interesting, it sounds like your using per as the ultimate measure in deciding who's better than who. I for one only use per as one tool in judging players. Let me ask you something, do you believe LeBron James is better than Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, and Kareem ? Since his Per is better than all of their best pers as well ? I certainly don't, and that's why you have to use context, fundamentals, intangibles, and achievements to name a few when deciding what players are better. As per takes very little of that into consideration, and takes zero defense into the statistic. Which few quite a few years LeBron James was awful at.


You brought up statistics which is why I backed up my argument with them, and yes, PER is my main statistic of choice. PER is mainly an offensive stat, which is why comparing him to great defenders like Duncan and Hakeem is skewed. LeBron is a better *offensive* player than they ever have been. Those two make up for it though by being two of the best defenders ever. Shaquille is irrelevant, because he had three seasons with a PER over 30 himself. Kareem played his prime years in an era where they didn't track all the stats they do now. 

Fundamentals don't mean a thing in terms of player impact. Shane Battier is fundamental. Dwyane Wade is not. Doesn't matter. It's also hard to throw intangibles into the mix because they are so frieking subjective, and usually it's just an excuse to tear down or big up a player you like/dislike. Bird does not possess any intangible qualities that LeBron doesn't. 



23AJ said:


> One thing is sure, LeBron James isn't even top 20 of all time right now, let alone the Greatest Small Forward Of All Time already.


He is definitely top 20, and he will pass Bird according to consensus in 2-3 years. Inevitable. After Duncan or Bird made All-NBA 1st team their 1st year or two, you knew they were going to be legends. LeBron has the same dominance. Some of us choose to look at his pace and project his career in a reasonable way. I guess you choose to wait until his career is finished to assess what he has accomplished. Abstinence is okay I suppose, but not for me. I would hate to wait until the end to appreciate what a guy is doing/has done. 



23AJ said:


> I'm not assuming much about LeBron James, I assumed Dwight Howard will win more chips.


LeBron is just a better player than Dwight Howard, flat out, no titles or not. However, I don't see why you think Howard is going to rack up the titles. His team isn't even that good. LeBron took his team to the finals too with a worse supporting cast. I think the Celtics are the best team in the east. They took the Magic to 7 games without Garnett and Wallace.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

juice4080 said:


> paul PER is closer to lebron james PER than to stockton...don't believe the hype.....paul is almost as good as lebron


Has any point guard ever had a PER as high as Chris Paul? He is ridiculously good. Magic Johnson is a hard hurdle because not only was he great, but he was unorthodox, which makes him unique. People will say things like "Magic could do everything Paul could, but he was 6'9" and stuff like that. 

A couple more seasons at the same level for Paul and I'll be making the same argument for him over Magic Johnson that I am with LeBron/Bird.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

juice4080 said:


> paul PER is closer to lebron james PER than to stockton...don't believe the hype.....paul is almost as good as lebron


No, he's not.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> I see greatness in Lebron James, obviously. But i don't see "Bird-like" greatness. Not yet. With a prime Larry Bird, any year without a championship was a disapointment. That's the level of greatness Larry possessed. Like Magic Johnson. Like Jordan in the 90's.


A lot of people forget Bird coming into the league made the team an instant contender. Not anyone else on that team, just Bird alone. I dont think the same can be said for Magic.(His team was indeed stacked, but his Finals performance was legendary). All Lebron did was choke at the end of the season and miss the post season even in a 16 team format. Granted his rookie year he was on a terrible team, but even then the impact was minimal. All you saw were highlights, but no results. 
But! But! But! The Celtics were stacked! 

No they weren't (I'm sure you know this Palo)
The 3 years before Bird arrived, the Celtics were a..
1978 - 29 win team
1977 - 32 win team
1976 - 44 win team
After Bird arrived...
1979 - 61 win team (ECF - Rookie)
1980 - 62 win team (NBA Championship)
1981 - 63 win team (ECF)

As you can see. Immediate impact. 



23AJ said:


> You can have a facetious tone all you want. Really doesn't change the fact, that as good as LBJ has been, Larry's career trumps LeBrons, and Larry's stats hold up just fine compared to LBJ or anyone for that matter when discussing who the best player is. However like I pointed out in my statement up above Larry Bird's intangibles > James. *Bird did more with less.*


Agreed. Bird himself was more than what the numbers indicated. He was probably one of the most skilled players ever. No matter how many statistics people throw around to argue against him, no one single person can throw a stat what negates Bird's skill. It something you just cant gauge, therefore stat junkies making arguments against him, simply ignore it because they cant counter it. 



R-Star said:


> As much as I like Bird, the more with less argument can be made about who Lebron has to work with on his team though. Bird was on some alltime great teams.


This "Bird being on all time great teams" is hogwash. Like I said, the reason why those Celtics were all time great teams was because of Bird himself. NBA ECF his rookie year, Championship his 2nd. (see above)



Sir Patchwork said:


> LeBron doesn't have one great post season statistically, he has four. Infact, Bird only has 2 postseasons statistically comparable to any one of LeBron's 4 postseasons (according to PER, atleast). LeBron last postseason was just *far* better than Bird or anyone else ever has been. Regular seasons are the same way, LeBron already has 3 seasons better than Bird's best season stastically (again, according to PER). What's funny about the career totals too is that LeBron is only like 8,000 points behind Bird, which is a little over 3 seasons worth at the same pace. Dude is 24.


I think you suffer from selective reading. You tend to always take in account individual seasons as the be-all end-all argument. I just dont see how anyone at this point can say LeBron will have be the undisputed greatest SF ever. Bird's *career * accomplishments far trump anything Lebron has. Everything from his rookie year, to the day he sat center court with Magic. As an overall career, top to bottom he trumps LeBron in all categories. 



> *You can assume his career will take some drastic turn, but I choose to look at his pace and have a little educated foresight. *This isn't a one season wonder, he has been dominant since day one with a steady progression. Assuming a change is wishful thinking for someone who doesn't want him to be successful. Just like with anything, it's barring injury or something tragic, but other than that, there isn't much that can stop him.


Your "educated" view looks more to me like tunnel vision. You focus too much on one aspect of Bron's career then make assumptions, yet refuse to accept other aspects of Birds established career.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

> Sir Patchwork said:
> 
> 
> > Hakeem is the only one who had one postseason statistically better than LeBron in decades and that's supposed to prove _your_ point? Nevermind the fact that Hakeem only played 4 playoff games that year.
> ...


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

no more arguments based on PER please, that's another discussion


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

chairman5 said:


> no more arguments based on PER please, that's another discussion


Well, it seems that the PER stat is being used as the be-all, end-all criteria of comparing basketball players.

By PER standards (regular season):
- Career-wise, David Robinson was better than KAJ and Wilt;
- Career-wiae, Dirk was better than Larry Bird; Barkley was better than Magic Johnson; KG and Kobe were better than Hakeem, etc., etc.

And, yeah, Chris Paul has been, in the last couple of seasons, the best PG of all-time.
And Kobe Bryant better than Michael Jordan is his last couple of years in Chicago.

But i digress.

One question that pops into my mind: do people think USg% has any direct correlation with PER?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

R-Star said:


> I don't think I've made it through a full post of yours in months. Shut the hell up Paulo. "Jordan wasn't the greatest, he wasn't even a Laker!"
> 
> You're view on basketball in general is pathetic.


I guess you have mistaken me with someone who cares about your opinion regarding basketball.
I don't. I could care less.
But i do enjoy your diatribes in the EBB Forum, though. It's like you are the BBF's version of Maddox. I dig it.
But please stick with EBB.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Diable said:


> Paulo has two standards .One for Wilt and one for Lebron.What a shock!


I know, who'd'a thunk it?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

ehmunro said:


> I know, who'd'a thunk it?


Not reaally, no.

Back in the day, people didn't put much merit on individual stats. That's the only reason i can gather to explain why Russell won the MVP Award eventhough Wilt AND Oscar both had ricidully (sp?) stronger seasons, stat-wise. Who was the MVP while Wilt was averaging his 50/20 seasons and Oscar putting up a Triple-double one?

Now, it seems it's all reversed: stats is all that matters. And a certain PER stat, in fact.

Man, how the time have changed...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Anyone who says that PER says anything about Kobe even being close to Jordan needs to check his facts.PER says that Kobe has never been comparable to Jordan.That's exactly what any objective observer would say as well.


----------



## michelangelo (Apr 29, 2009)

PER is a complete joke. Just watch the players play. That will tell you what you need to know. 

It's too early to project. A lot of marks thought Grant Hill was going to be an all time great SF, as well.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

OneBadLT123 said:


> I think you suffer from selective reading. You tend to always take in account individual seasons as the be-all end-all argument. I just dont see how anyone at this point can say LeBron will have be the undisputed greatest SF ever. Bird's *career * accomplishments far trump anything Lebron has. Everything from his rookie year, to the day he sat center court with Magic. As an overall career, top to bottom he trumps LeBron in all categories.
> 
> Your "educated" view looks more to me like tunnel vision. You focus too much on one aspect of Bron's career then make assumptions, yet refuse to accept other aspects of Birds established career.


Bird trumps LeBron top to bottom in everything. Gotcha. Will that ever change? If so, how soon? What will make it change? I would like your view on this, since you used a lot of vague rhetoric in your post. I mean, LeBron will probably never "sit center court with Magic" but what does that have to do with anything?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not reaally, no.


Oh, yes, really. When we're discussing why Chamberlain won, you have a long line of reasons for his lack of titles, which only become "excuses" when the subject turns to LeBron.


----------



## juice4080 (Jul 4, 2006)

when i watch the games i got the same opinion...chris paul is almost as good as lebron....bron may be better but not by much and mostly cuz of his size differential..paul does more with less


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

23AJ said:


> The point of the quote based on the team has no relevance, the actual point, is that historical statistical dominance takes a step back if not followed with a championship. Another great example is the amazing season the Mavericks had a few years ago with the reigning MVP, and were bounced in the 1st round. Stats via team/individual have less impact if you fail to achieve the ultimate team goal, remember the game is called basketball and it is a team game.


Again, the Mavericks are a team. A team's goal is to win a championship, and a player's goal is to do everything they can to help the team accomplish that goal. Therefore, a player can be extremely productive in a loss, or not so productive in a win. Either way, the winning/losing is only relevant to assessing the team, while production/impact is how you assess the individual. 

By the way, there is nobody who actually has to be accountable for their choices who takes inferior players who have won something over better players who haven't. Can you imagine if a GM took Pau Gasol over Dwight based on that? He'd be the laughing stock. Using titles to assess individuals is such a selective practice. 



23AJ said:


> However let's keep it individually, Dwyane Wade had a better individual season than LeBron James last year, but Lebron won the MVP not D Wade. The reason, team success is a factor, no matter how you slice it.


Dwyane Wade did not have a better individual season than LeBron James. Not by any standard. Paul was every bit as good as Wade, actually. 



23AJ said:


> Yes I brought up stats, and Bird's stats hold up against LeBron or anyone else just fine. Why is comparing LBJ to other great players skewed ? The only reason it's skewed is because you fail to use other tools to distinguish who the best is. You are using per as the end all be all in rating players. And that's complete garbage.


If you have a better overall stat, I'd love to hear it. 



23AJ said:


> Your statistical comparison between Bird and LeBron is problematic as well, because LeBron enjoys the benefit of the handchecking rules.


This is the argument you better get used to. At some point, anyone wishing to preserve the dominance of the favorite era must use rules or inferior competition to justify why a player now is dominating more than an old legend did in their era. This ignores the great advancement of defensive schemes and the allowance of a soft zone. 



23AJ said:


> Fundamentals don't mean a thing in terms of player impact ? You must be ****ing nuts. Dwyane Wade isn't fundamental ? Really?? D Wade may not be as sound as Battier in man to man defense, but other than I don't see what fundamentals Battier possess that D Wade doesn't. Really, try again with that one. Plus were talking about fundamentals like shooting, free throw shooting, three point shooting, boxing out, not turning the ball over, intelligent game management etc All of which Larry Bird does better than LeBron James. So YES! fundamentals do matter!


Man defense, team defense, shooting, handling the ball, and so on. Those are all things that Battier does more "fundamentally" than Wade. Who the **** cares? 



23AJ said:


> Yes LBJ went to the finals, the east was pathetic outside of the Pistons that season as well, remember ? And what happened to the Cavs in the finals? They were swept. Not really that incredible when you consider the Cavs were one of the best defensive teams, even though at that time LBJ was the weak link defensively.


The east was pathetic last year with the Celtics being the only real contender, and they were missing their MVP, remember? And what happened to the Magic in the finals? They were beat in 5 games. Don't act like they weren't waxed the same way the Cavs were after going through a weak conference.


----------



## OneBadLT123 (Oct 4, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Bird trumps LeBron top to bottom in everything. Gotcha. Will that ever change? If so, how soon? What will make it change? I would like your view on this, since you used a lot of vague rhetoric in your post. I mean, LeBron will probably never "sit center court with Magic" but what does that have to do with anything?


Good counter argument. I would have figured you would have used your "educated" approach and be able to figure out what I am saying by using context clues. But then again all I would have got were off the wall percentages, or some wacky "on the 3rd full moon PER, while shooting left handed" crap... 

Regarding Birds career do you honestly want me to list everything? Do you even know how and what Larry did in his career?

It does not take half a brain to look at everything Bird has done in his career and say it's better then Lebron. Or that Lebron has huge shoes to fill in. But you assume his will be better because of some short sample of a couple of sexy PER numbers. Birds career is based on facts, Lebron is nothing but assumptions. 

Bottom line, is until its all said and done, Birds career top to bottom is better then Lebron will be. Its stupid to say otherwise. Will it change? Only time will tell.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

LeBron and Bird played in different eras. For instance, LeBron would not have gotten to the line as many times as he does today. Fouls would be much harder; for instance a flagrant foul today would just be a personal foul back in the day. Also remains to be seen what Bird would do in today's NBA with better athletes, but he certainly would be an elite player. You also have to consider that LeBron hasn't had the quality teammates that Larry Bird has had.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

f22egl said:


> LeBron and Bird played in different eras. For instance, LeBron would not have gotten to the line as many times as he does today. Fouls would be much harder; for instance a flagrant foul today would just be a personal foul back in the day. Also remains to be seen what Bird would do in today's NBA with better athletes, but he certainly would be an elite player. You also have to consider that LeBron hasn't had the quality teammates that Larry Bird has had.


On the other hand, you think LeBron is a video gane cheat code now, imagine what he would do back in the days of mandatory man-up defense being convered by the likes of Scott Wedman.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

OneBadLT123 said:


> Good counter argument. I would have figured you would have used your "educated" approach and be able to figure out what I am saying by using context clues. But then again all I would have got were off the wall percentages, or some wacky "on the 3rd full moon PER, while shooting left handed" crap...
> 
> Regarding Birds career do you honestly want me to list everything? Do you even know how and what Larry did in his career?
> 
> ...


More insults and rhetoric. I sense insecurity. I know you're scared to list things that are actually tangible because those are the things LeBron will have no problem surpassing. If you want to abandon all paper and number arguments, then we can talk abou personal observation. LeBron's already at a point where he is a better scorer, passer and defender than Bird ever was. Bird was a better rebounder. That's about it.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Bird was also an amazing passer, with insane court vision/awareness. The fact that he had a career average of 6.3 apg from the small forward position - on teams that usually had other capable playmakers - is nothing to sniff at.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> More insults and rhetoric. I sense insecurity. I know you're scared to list things that are actually tangible because those are the things LeBron will have no problem surpassing. If you want to abandon all paper and number arguments, then we can talk abou personal observation. LeBron's already at a point where he is a better scorer, passer and defender than Bird ever was. Bird was a better rebounder. That's about it.



I've stayed out of this for the most part... but just a few things:

- Lebron is not a better passer than Larry Bird was. He may have .4 more assists per game at this point in his career, but that in no way indicates that he was a better passer/decision maker than Bird. Bird was as good a passer (particularly for a front court guy, who didn't play the 'point forward' spot like Lebron does) as you'll ever find. I take it you didn't watch Larry Bird play. 

- How is it not putting the cart waaaay before the horse to say that Lebron will have "no problem" making 12 all-star teams, 3 league MVP's, 2 finals MVP's, never having a losing season in his pro career, etc... sure, Lebron has been to the all-star game 5 times and has an MVP... and has a head-start as he came into the league younger... but ask Anfernee Hardaway and Grant Hill how quickly things can change in the NBA (as other people have pointed out). 

- This just seems like a ridiculous discussion to me until Lebron has had a chance to build the sort of resume that Bird has. Before that it is based on way too many assumptions to make sense. We're just now seeing the impact that coming straight out of high school has on players... sure, some guys will play for a good long while (Moses Malone, Kobe looks like he'll play forever, etc...) but other guys like Tracy McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal and Sean Kemp look washed up at 29, 30, and 30 respectively. Even Kevin Garnett has a lot to prove in this department at the age of 32 or 33.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> MIf you want to abandon all paper and number arguments, then we can talk abou personal observation. LeBron's already at a point where he is a better scorer, passer and defender than Bird ever was. Bird was a better rebounder. That's about it.


Yea and Lebron James is also arguably the most impressive physical specimen of an athlete to play pro basketball. 

Never really liked comparing James to Bird since imo a better fit would be Magic Johnson. However if you compare an equal amount of years in the league of Bird vs James, it goes to James. He's led relatively craptastic teams deep in the postseason and the regular season he's the ****ing King.

Bird played with two other HOF players and a HOF coach widely regarded as the best in basketball - his assists should be higher than Lebron's since James relies on the like of a hobbled Big Z, Mo Williams, etc who are clearly lesser players than the legendary Celtics counterparts. James literally plays basketball in one versus five scenarios on a routine basis, he's the beast of beasts.

There's no denying Bird is a great player but James is definitely overall a superior player; he's the best on the court today and on track to be in the GOAT tier.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

jericho said:


> Bird was also an amazing passer, with insane court vision/awareness. The fact that he had a career average of 6.3 apg from the small forward position - on teams that usually had other capable playmakers - is nothing to sniff at.


While Tiny was there, he ran the offense. But once Tiny was gone Bird ran the offense. Dennis Johnson was the secondary ballhandler, and it was during those years that Bird rolled up his best assist numbers.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I really don't get why people continue to act as though Bird played for twenty years at a hall of fame level.He did not.He played at a very high level for his first three years.He had six incredible years and then he fell off a cliff after the back injury.He played for a vastly more talented team than Lebron has in an era where large market teams dominated the league and the level of competition was far below what Lebron has faced.From an objective viewpoint there's not any great advantage to Bird having played a full career.His career and Lebron's careers are already comparable.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Larry Bird benefited from playing for Boston, a city that worships sports and winners. Everyone who is the MVP of a winning team becomes what Brett Favre was for Wisconsin in Boston. Look at how overhyped role players are for Boston now. 

As for James not being able to handle or would be severely impeded by the physical play in the 80s, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. James would barrel over anyone in the league back in the 80s. He would run roughshod over the league back then just like he does now. 

When all is said and done, James will be in the GOAT conversation.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Hyperion said:


> As for James not being able to handle or would be severely impeded by the physical play in the 80s, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. James would barrel over anyone in the league back in the 80s. He would run roughshod over the league back then just like he does now.


Yeah, this claim always amuses me. Guys 20lbs lighter, and in much worse condition, aren't going to manhandling LeBron. If anything the effort of holding onto the human locamotive would have resulted in more obvious fouls. The sissy hacking wouldn't have so much as slowed LeBron down.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

ehmunro said:


> Yeah, this claim always amuses me. Guys 20lbs lighter, and in much worse condition, aren't going to manhandling LeBron. If anything the effort of holding onto the human locamotive would have resulted in more obvious fouls. The sissy hacking wouldn't have so much as slowed LeBron down.


Another thing is that James thrives on physical play. He looks for it. he drives the lane looking to hit someone. If he doesn't get a call, he gets the rebound and dunks it harder and angrier. James is probably the most physical player in the league today. he and KG are the most physical.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> Larry Bird benefited from playing for Boston, a city that worships sports and winners. Everyone who is the MVP of a winning team becomes what Brett Favre was for Wisconsin in Boston. Look at how overhyped role players are for Boston now.


Well, yeah but...

I lived in the Boston area for over a decade and it was quickly and consistently clear that the Celtics, despite their storied past (and the Patriots sucking at the time) were a distant third among local sports fans. That's a baseball and football town, and Bird's widely regarded status as the best SF (and maybe best forward) ever doesn't get any special nudge from Bostonians overhyping him. I frankly hated the guy growing up in Denver, but grew to realize what an incredible talent and driven competitor he was. He was a trash talker who delivered, and deserved those 3 MVPs. 

By suggesting that James is playing as well as Bird ever did, I ain't taking anything away from Bird.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> While Tiny was there, he ran the offense. But once Tiny was gone Bird ran the offense. Dennis Johnson was the secondary ballhandler, and it was during those years that Bird rolled up his best assist numbers.


Yes, I'm aware of it.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Jakain said:


> Yea and Lebron James is also arguably the most impressive physical specimen of an athlete to play pro basketball.
> 
> Never really liked comparing James to Bird since imo a better fit would be Magic Johnson. However if you compare an equal amount of years in the league of Bird vs James, it goes to James. He's led relatively craptastic teams deep in the postseason and the regular season he's the ****ing King.
> 
> ...


Which hall of fame coach did Bird play under that was widely considered the best in basketball? Fitch? Jones? Chris Ford?

People act like Lebron is playing with a bunch of CBA players... after some of these guys get a chance to rack up some all-star appearances (by virtue of being on Lebron's team, for sure) like Mo Williams, his supporting cast will be viewed differently, I'm sure.

I don't think Lebron will ever play with anyone at the level of a McHale, or Parish (though having the fossilized remains of Shaquille O'Neal and Zydrunas Ilgauskas isn't bad) but that isn't Bird's fault. He played with the cards he was dealt, and assembled one hell of a resume.



Diable said:


> I really don't get why people continue to act as though Bird played for twenty years at a hall of fame level.He did not.He played at a very high level for his first three years.He had six incredible years and then he fell off a cliff after the back injury.


Must have been a pretty short cliff.... 20, 9 and 7 as a 35 year old (his last season) isn't exactly bad. His scoring and percentages went down as his back got worse and it was obvious to those watching that he wasn't exactly the same guy, but it isn't like he became some sort of scrub. And, as we're seeing with Shaq... there will be a post-prime era for Lebron James where his numbers take a bit of a beating, it happens to everyone.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Whoops, thats right Red was the Celtics GM. Still, Bird had a higher quality organization and pool of talent than a comparable James.

James is still King.


----------



## juice4080 (Jul 4, 2006)

one thing i would argue to death....lebron james is not a better passer than larry bird was...no way!

i ain't havin' none of it


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dornado said:


> - Lebron is not a better passer than Larry Bird was. He may have .4 more assists per game at this point in his career, but that in no way indicates that he was a better passer/decision maker than Bird. Bird was as good a passer (particularly for a front court guy, who didn't play the 'point forward' spot like Lebron does) as you'll ever find. I take it you didn't watch Larry Bird play.


I take it you don't watch LeBron play. I didn't say Bird was a bad passer, I said LeBron is better. Just like LeBron is not a bad rebounder, but Bird rebounded the ball more. If you want to use the point forward argument, then we can call rebounding a wash too because LeBron plays further from the basket than Bird did, therefore creating less rebounding opportunities.



Dornado said:


> - How is it not putting the cart waaaay before the horse to say that Lebron will have "no problem" making 12 all-star teams, 3 league MVP's, 2 finals MVP's, never having a losing season in his pro career, etc... sure, Lebron has been to the all-star game 5 times and has an MVP... and has a head-start as he came into the league younger... but ask Anfernee Hardaway and Grant Hill how quickly things can change in the NBA (as other people have pointed out).


Firstly, Penny and Hill were never as good as LeBron is. Secondly, using players who suffered tragic career altering injuries to justify why James won't accomplish as much as Bird is lame to me. Real lame. I choose to talk about these things without assuming those kind of injuries. That's like saying we shouldn't predict the Lakers to win the title this year because Kobe or Gasol might get hurt. It ends up sounding like wishful thinking to me, even if it's not your intention. 



Dornado said:


> This just seems like a ridiculous discussion to me until Lebron has had a chance to build the sort of resume that Bird has. Before that it is based on way too many assumptions to make sense. We're just now seeing the impact that coming straight out of high school has on players... sure, some guys will play for a good long while (Moses Malone, Kobe looks like he'll play forever, etc...) but other guys like Tracy McGrady, Jermaine O'Neal and Sean Kemp look washed up at 29, 30, and 30 respectively. Even Kevin Garnett has a lot to prove in this department at the age of 32 or 33.


Well as I said, he has already passed Bird's peak. He also isn't far off from Bird's career totals. For example, he'd only have to score like 24 points per game for the next 5 seasons to pass Bird's career points. He'll realistically do it in 3-4 seasons if he keeps scoring the way he has been.

You can even look at how they'd matchup against each other. Bird has no chance to cover LeBron, while LeBron has the length, strength and speed to make things difficult for Bird.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

OneBadLT123 said:


> Bottom line, is until its all said and done, Birds career top to bottom is better then Lebron will be. Its stupid to say otherwise. Will it change? Only time will tell.


this is a very weak post. 

if lebron doesn't play another game, bird would obviously have had the better career. but how about trying to predict and have a discussion about what will happen? i mean that's what we can do on these forums right? or do we just talk about what has happened and not dare say another word?

and when we make predictions let's be realistic. some people have brought up penny and hill. it could happen, but what evidence is there that injuries will likely happen to lebron and derail his career?

what we do know is that lebron has had an amazing 1st six years to his career. he's also 4 years younger than bird was after the same number of years. it's not exactly going out on a limb to predict that lebron will suprass bird.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You can even look at how they'd matchup against each other. Bird has no chance to cover LeBron, while LeBron has the length, strength and speed to make things difficult for Bird.


You know, Patches, i consider you a knowledgeable poster, but this tidbit irks me. Are you one of those guys who think that you can put Player A in Era B and it would be an adequate scenario? Do you really think that if Leborn ha played in the early 80's, he would have his build (artifitial as it may be)? Do you reaaly think that Bird, if he was playing today, wouldn't be much better prepared, physically?

That's nonsense.

Another thing: you're saying that Lebron James was a better passer than Larry Bird. What is the doundation for your reasoning?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> You know, Patches, i consider you a knowledgeable poster, but this tidbit irks me. Are you one of those guys who think that you can put Player A in Era B and it would be an adequate scenario? Do you really think that if Leborn ha played in the early 80's, he would have his build (artifitial as it may be)? Do you reaaly think that Bird, if he was playing today, wouldn't be much better prepared, physically?


Well I'm one of the few who believes this era is one of the best for talent. People like to be nostalgic and tear down the modern era in the process. I do believe that there is something to be said for dominating your own era, which is why I'll never tear down Wilt even though I don't think he'd be nearly as dominant today. However, I think LeBron is dominating the league now just as much or moreso than Bird ever did. In a league where people talk about Kobe Bryant being a top 5 player of all-time when he is finished, people still see LeBron as the better player now, and it's not all that close anymore. 



PauloCatarino said:


> Another thing: you're saying that Lebron James was a better passer than Larry Bird. What is the doundation for your reasoning?


Personal observation and numbers. Cavs are a slow paced team and LeBron is relied upon heavily for his passing and scoring abilities. If you said Larry was just as good of a passer, I wouldn't be offended. He was a great passer. Their all-around abilities are nearly a wash. I think scoring and defense are the main aspects that give LeBron his advantage.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I take it you don't watch LeBron play. I didn't say Bird was a bad passer, I said LeBron is better. Just like LeBron is not a bad rebounder, but Bird rebounded the ball more. If you want to use the point forward argument, then we can call rebounding a wash too because LeBron plays further from the basket than Bird did, therefore creating less rebounding opportunities.


Yeah... who is this Lebron guy you speak of? Sorry man, I've seen them both... you've seen one of them, apparently. Bird was every bit the passer that James is. Also, your argument about being a point forward doesn't make sense in terms of rebounding, unless your assumptions are 1. that playing point forward means you guard a 1 or a 2 on defense, or 2. offensive rebounds account for the difference... in reality neither really gets you to a "wash". 




> Firstly, Penny and Hill were never as good as LeBron is. Secondly, using players who suffered tragic career altering injuries to justify why James won't accomplish as much as Bird is lame to me. Real lame. I choose to talk about these things without assuming those kind of injuries. That's like saying we shouldn't predict the Lakers to win the title this year because Kobe or Gasol might get hurt. It ends up sounding like wishful thinking to me, even if it's not your intention.


Well, it's a good thing I wasn't using them to say that James won't accomplish as much as Bird will... only to say that you can't assume good health and perfect career trajectory any more than you can assume the opposite. Cart.... horse. And I don't really get the 'wishful thinking' part, not sure where you're coming from with that one.





> You can even look at how they'd matchup against each other. Bird has no chance to cover LeBron, while LeBron has the length, strength and speed to make things difficult for Bird.


Bird certainly had the size and the defensive smarts to make up for some of his lack of athleticism... I'm not going to argue that he could cover James, I don't know if anyone can. I also think Bird could score on Lebron.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Bird couldn't have guarded Lebron in his dreams.He was not a great defender and anyone who makes that claim is just delusional.Bird was a good team defender and a poor man on man defender.By definition someone who defended James might like to be a good man to man defender.Bird was not and anyone who claims he was needs to clean the heads on their betamax and take another look at the tape.

At best Bird was an adequate defender while his athleticism held out.Once his back went out he was terrible.The only thing he did well was cheat by grabbing and using those old "veteran moves".Lebron would just take him with him when he started grabbing.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Yeah... who is this Lebron guy you speak of? Sorry man, I've seen them both... you've seen one of them, apparently. Bird was every bit the passer that James is. Also, your argument about being a point forward doesn't make sense in terms of rebounding, unless your assumptions are 1. that playing point forward means you guard a 1 or a 2 on defense, or 2. offensive rebounds account for the difference... in reality neither really gets you to a "wash".


Thought I'd try my hand at the lame "You haven't seen him play!" nonsense that people like to use in place of actual arguments. As far as rebounding, Bird was more comfortable in the post, and wasn't near the open court threat that LeBron is. As I already explained, LeBron is more of an outlet than a crasher by design, since he is probably the best open court player in the league. If LeBron decided to crash the boards like Bird did, he'd be every bit as good of a rebounder. Just like if Bird didn't operate out of the post as much and handled the ball as much as LeBron does, he would have had more assists. Wash. 



Dornado said:


> Well, it's a good thing I wasn't using them to say that James won't accomplish as much as Bird will... only to say that you can't assume good health and perfect career trajectory any more than you can assume the opposite. Cart.... horse. And I don't really get the 'wishful thinking' part, not sure where you're coming from with that one.


Well I think it's unreasonable to think people can't make predictions/projections because someone might get hurt or something tragic might happen. If I say LeBron will have his best season yet next year, nobody would say anything about injuries or good health, they'd say maybe or we'll see. If I say LeBron will have a season better than Larry Bird in his prime, it suddenly becomes about carts and horses and jumping the gun and all of these phrases, even though LeBron last year was atleast equal to a prime Larry Bird season. The two statements are nearly identical, but people have a problem with acknowledging the mere possibility of one of their protected legends being inferior to one of today's stars.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Comparing Bird to Lebron is like comparing a orange to an apple, both great players that used different skill sets to accomplish great things, really the only thing we can base anything off of is "peak years" which is fine to an extent, but tiny archibald had some of the greatest peak years of any pg in nba history and nobody is mistaking him for Magic Johnson or John Stockton. The fact is we really have nothing to base this comparison considering the differance in era's they played in and especially the fact that Lebron hasnt even come close to finishing out his career, calling him the greatest anything right now is just an assumption that he will continue to do this for 10 more years, many people think he will including me but lets wait and see him do it before we proclaim him the goat, longevity in the purest of forms is playing at the highest level for a long time and its something that usually only the Great ones can do, Larry Bird did that, lets wait a 5-6 more years to see if Lebron can keep it


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I take it you don't watch LeBron play. I didn't say Bird was a bad passer, I said LeBron is better. Just like LeBron is not a bad rebounder, but Bird rebounded the ball more. If you want to use the point forward argument, then we can call rebounding a wash too because LeBron plays further from the basket than Bird did, therefore creating less rebounding opportunities.


I think LeBron is equal to Bird at this point, and I agree with some of what you've said. But this is just wrong.

Bird dominated the ball a lot less than LeBron does. That's a positive. Given how much he fostered ball movement, his playmaking was amazing. LeBron may make slightly more good passes every game, but Bird did what he did while controlling the ball less and using up less time. LeBron's passing is excellent, but there are other superstar SG's and SF's who have come close. Bird's skill is infinitely more rare and is more valuable.

This ties in with his ability to keep the ball moving -- Bird was tremendously successful on great teams. There are few players in history who could dominate on such teams while letting their teammates flourish too. The vast majority of superstars' numbers would take a hit if their teammates were to improve. Bird played with guys who liked to have the ball in their hands and create their own shots, like McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson, yet he still put up terrific numbers himself. LeBron's numbers would almost certainly take a hit playing with such players (though he would have more team success than he has had).

I don't like the LeBron-plays-further-from-the-basket-so-he-has-fewer-rebounding-opportunities argument either. That holds for offensive rebounds, but the majority of these guys' boards are defensive. I don't think Bird played significantly closer to the basket defensively. Certainly not to the extent that it would benefit his rebounding numbers relative to LeBron's. 

Bird was not more of a board-crasher than an outlet receiver relative to LeBron, either. That is not a strong argument. Bird played with two excellent rebounders in Parish and McHale, and played in a run-and-gun era. 

Bird definitely gets the edge in passing and rebounding. He also deserves credit for succeeding individually on teams with guys who wanted the ball (and got it). 

LeBron beats him in PER, though this is mitigated by the above factors, which are not reflected in PER. LeBron is the superior scorer (slightly -- though this is shown in PER) and defender (significantly -- minimally reflected in PER).

LeBron in '08-09 was as good as a prime Bird.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> I think LeBron is equal to Bird at this point, and I agree with some of what you've said. But this is just wrong.
> 
> Bird dominated the ball a lot less than LeBron does. That's a positive. Given how much he fostered ball movement, his playmaking was amazing. LeBron may make slightly more good passes every game, but Bird did what he did while controlling the ball less and using up less time. LeBron's passing is excellent, but there are other superstar SG's and SF's who have come close. Bird's skill is infinitely more rare and is more valuable.
> 
> This ties in with his ability to keep the ball moving -- Bird was tremendously successful on great teams. There are few players in history who could dominate on such teams while letting their teammates flourish too. The vast majority of superstars' numbers would take a hit if their teammates were to improve. Bird played with guys who liked to have the ball in their hands and create their own shots, like McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson, yet he still put up terrific numbers himself. LeBron's numbers would almost certainly take a hit playing with such players (though he would have more team success than he has had).


Fair enough, but I think LeBron can play with talent and let them flourish while still being dominant. We saw some of that in the olympics when was probably the best player on the team and he wasn't close to being the primary ball handler. I believe that LeBron is gifted and would be supremely effective with whatever team makeup. He has such great all-around skills and basketball IQ. Larry Legend was the same way, minus certain athletic limitations. 



Hakeem said:


> I don't like the LeBron-plays-further-from-the-basket-so-he-has-fewer-rebounding-opportunities argument either. That holds for offensive rebounds, but the majority of these guys' boards are defensive. I don't think Bird played significantly closer to the basket defensively. Certainly not to the extent that it would benefit his rebounding numbers relative to LeBron's.
> 
> Bird was not more of a board-crasher than an outlet receiver relative to LeBron, either. That is not a strong argument. Bird played with two excellent rebounders in Parish and McHale, and played in a run-and-gun era.


I have to diagree on this. It comes down to priority. LeBron want to leak out and get a dunk. Larry was less of an open court player, therefore crashed more often than he leaked. That's my view on it. I hardly see LeBron crash real hard. Either way, I gave Bird the rebounding advantage, but I think different situations call for different needs (similar to the passing with Bird). I think their passing/rebounding are pretty much a wash when it comes down to it. 



Hakeem said:


> LeBron beats him in PER, though this is mitigated by the above factors, which are not reflected in PER. LeBron is the superior scorer (slightly -- though this is shown in PER) and defender (significantly -- minimally reflected in PER).


Well your reasoning is sound, but I don't agree with your view on the rebounding/passing, otherwise, our view are close.


----------



## Gilgamesh (Dec 23, 2005)

I remember 80s basketball and as great as Bird was the whole notion of not winning a championship in a given year being a disappointment had more to do with the Celtics being a powerhouse in the league than Bird's "greatness". Same goes for the 80s Lakers and Magic.

The same can't be said about Lebron although last year was certainly a disappointment to the Cavs (more so than Lebron since he did have one of the greatest individual postseasons ever). The Cavs have never been considered a "powerhouse" in the league (except maybe for this season) since Lebron has been there. If anything there has been more talk about Lebron's lackluster supporting cast than anything else. The same cannot be said for the 80s Celtics and Lakers.

The only one I will agree to is Jordan in the 90s because MJ is arguably the only player except Wilt that was significantly larger than the team even though the Bulls were loaded (not like the 80s Celtics or Lakers) in their own right. Bird and Magic were never thought of as larger than the organizations they played for. Perhaps one reason for that is the tradition that the Celtics and Lakers possess but MJ is clearly the biggest individual star in the NBA if not all of sports other than perhaps Tiger Woods and Ali (but those are individual sports).

If we compare by peak (peak being Lebron's last couple years although I don't even think he has reached his absolute peak yet) then yes he is every bit as "great" as Bird ever was and I dare say even more but for me to evaluate any GOAT list (overall or by position) you have to take into account the whole body of work and I don't think Lebron is there yet. To be fair to Lebron the guy is what 24-25 years old? He has 10 more years to play. Right now how I look at it is one one side you have Bird (who I believe is the only player in NBA history to have a career 20-10-5 average and he to be exact he was 24.3-10-6.3) and during his peak the guy won 3 consecutive MVPs and he has 3 rings. But that is how ridiculously good Lebron is already that people would place him as #1 GOAT SF even though he is maybe 30-40% into his career with 0 rings. Similar to Jordan in the 80s actually and many people said it was too early then as well and we all know how that ended but MJ won 6 rings. 




PauloCatarino said:


> I see greatness in Lebron James, obviously. But i don't see "Bird-like" greatness. Not yet. With a prime Larry Bird, any year without a championship was a disapointment. That's the level of greatness Larry possessed. Like Magic Johnson. Like Jordan in the 90's.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Lloyd Daniels was the best SF ever.


----------



## Jordan23Forever (May 14, 2005)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You brought up statistics which is why I backed up my argument with them, and yes, PER is my main statistic of choice.


lol @ these hysterical posters who, for years during Kobe/Jordan debates, minimized and derided PER because Kobe was miles behind in it. These same people now cling to it like it's gospel. Hysterical.



> Bird does not possess any intangible qualities that LeBron doesn't.


Grab a clue. Wow. :lol:

Lebron is seriously overrated. He's an all-time level talent, and will undoubtedly end up in the top 10, but better than Bird in terms of his play on the court? No. I shudder to think of what Bird could do if he had the ball in his hands as much as Lebron does. Bird put up 26/10/7 and 28/9/6 in the flow of the game, seamlessly, with the ball in his hands far less than Lebron.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

My argument for Kobe over Jordan is still the same. He is not a better player, but he is more skilled, and if Kobe had the same freaky athleticism that Jordan had, he would be better. If you can't see why PER is irrelevant to that argument, you're a damn fool anyways. 

Intangibles. What a joke.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> My argument for Kobe over Jordan is still the same. He is not a better player, but he is more skilled, and if Kobe had the same freaky athleticism that Jordan had, he would be better. If you can't see why PER is irrelevant to that argument, you're a damn fool anyways.
> 
> Intangibles. What a joke.


and if I had the same athleticism as Kobe with Steve Nash's skill, I would be better than Kobe at basketball, but I don't, so I'm not.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Hyperion said:


> and if I had the same athleticism as Kobe with Steve Nash's skill, I would be better than Kobe at basketball, but I don't, so I'm not.


*woosh*

That's the point flying over your head.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 2, 2009)

I don't see LeBron surpassing Bird. Bird was arguably the smartest player of all-time. He could score in many ways, shoot very well, defend, rebound, perform in the clutch, and was a better passer than most guards. I really don't see LeBron surpassing him.


----------

