What makes Bird greater than Shaq/Duncan?

[Carbine]

Everyone pretty much has Bird higher than those two by a few spots or so and I can make no valid argument as to why Bird was better than those two.

It can't be rings. It can't be individual accomplishments. It can't be who was better during their primes. It can't be longevity.

What is it?

[Rekindled]

besides the fact that Bird is a better shooter, better passer, better scorer, better leader, more clutch, more skilled, just as good rebounder?

[elementally morale]

Everyone pretty much has Bird higher than those two by a few spots or so and I can make no valid argument as to why Bird was better than those two.

It can't be rings. It can't be individual accomplishments. It can't be who was better during their primes. It can't be longevity.

What is it?

Bird dominated for literally all the years he was playing, save for maybe his last. And the years he was consecutive MVP, I think it was a prime greater than either Shaq's or Duncan's.

Bird's best years were on par if not better than Jordan's. No kidding.

[Rekindled]

Bird dominated for literally all the years he was playing, save for maybe his last. And the years he was consecutive MVP, I think it was a prime greater than either Shaq's or Duncan's.

Bird's best years were on par if not better than Jordan's. No kidding.

Bird was the best player in the 80s(the goat era).

[ShaqAttack3234]

besides the fact that Bird is a better shooter, better passer, better scorer, better leader, more clutch, more skilled, just as good rebounder?

Bird is not a better scorer than Shaq. Shaq was a better scorer and both Duncan and O'Neal are far better rebounders and much better defensively.

I rank Bird over Duncan, but a lot of your post is false.

[Carbine]

Bird dominated for literally all the years he was playing, save for maybe his last. And the years he was consecutive MVP, I think it was a prime greater than either Shaq's or Duncan's.

Bird's best years were on par if not better than Jordan's. No kidding.

I don't believe that last part.

Bird would have to be an immensely better passer, rebounder & overall offensive player than Jordan was to make up for the huge disparity between their defensive impact.

And honestly, Jordan was a better offensive player, so Birds advantages in being a rebounder and passer were not huge enough to compensate for the advantages Jordan has over Bird.




And being "great" has something to do with how good you were at your best, but I think longevity plays a bigger role in greatness than in discussions of "who was better?"

[elementally morale]

I don't believe that last part.

Why do you ask then? :oldlol:

I'm a Laker fan, so whn I say Bird was possibly on par with Jordan in his best years... Magic was not, and you know there was a rivalry.... so this Bird guy must have been pretty good...

It is personal preference though. Nowadays it is trendy to crown MJ as the clear cut GOAT. Guess what, he isn't. There were a few players not any worse than him. Kareem is another example.

[kshutts1]

Another thing about Bird to take into account is the MJ factor.

I'm a Bulls fan, and watching any close Bulls game (that MJ played in) I KNEW we were going to win. I also got that feeling with Kobe right after Shaq left, and with Peyton Manning this year.. Bird had it. Duncan and Shaq never did.

[ArizaAttack24]

Factor in the Eras and that's why. Bird may have lost to Magic most of the time, but similar to Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt Losing to Russell makes his rankings go higher if anything, and the same thing goes for Bird losing to Magic.

[Rekindled]

]Bird is not a better scorer than Shaq. Shaq was a better scorer and both Duncan and O'Neal are far better rebounders and much better defensively.

I rank Bird over Duncan, but a lot of your post is false.

bird and shaq right now both have career ppg of 24. shaq's gonna drop off after this year.

shaq career rpg = 11 , bird career rpg= 10. I dont see how 1 more rebound makes you a far better rebounder considering that shaq is like 4 inches taller than bird)

[oh the horror]

bird and shaq right now both have career ppg of 24. shaq's gonna drop off after this year.

shaq career rpg = 11 , bird career rpg= 10. I dont see how 1 more rebound makes you a far better rebounder considering that shaq is like 4 inches taller than bird)


Not to mention Shaq's mass alone is far higher than Bird.

[Carbine]

It's not personal perference though. As good a player as Bird was, Jordan was better if we're strictly talking prime vs. prime.

Jordan was a better offensive and defensive player. Bird being the better passer/hustler/rebounder.... but clearly not enough to make up the difference.


Factor in the Eras and that's why. Bird may have lost to Magic most of the time, but similar to Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt Losing to Russell makes his rankings go higher if anything, and the same thing goes for Bird losing to Magic.

Why would Bird losing to Magic/Lakers make him greater? That makes no sense to me. Wilt losing to Russell didn't make him rank higher - it's really the only thing keeping him from being the GOAT. He didn't embellish "the secret" nearly as much as Russell, thus why he lost more times than not.

[sixer6ad]

I think we are all finding that the differences in time periods and game styles makes this an impossible comparison.

[vert48]

Such is Mango

[Lakers13]

I hated Bird in the 80's, but give the man some respect, he was a pure clutch beast.

[Roundball_Rock]

Factor in the Eras and that's why. Bird may have lost to Magic most of the time, but similar to Wilt Chamberlain, Wilt Losing to Russell makes his rankings go higher if anything, and the same thing goes for Bird losing to Magic.

The difference is Wilt consistently choked; Bird and Magic may have lost but they weren't choking every year.

The era point is interesting. If eras are such a big deal, though, why are the players who are most commonly listed as #1 and #2 players whose best years came during the 70's and 90's? How often do you see Bird or Magic listed as the GOAT?

Marketing is a big factor. The NBA resurrected itself behind marketing Bird and Magic. Shaq never had such a marketing campaign behind him. He wasn't even marketed as Jordan's successor. They were always looking for perimeter players like Penny, Hill, and later Kobe and T Mac as the new big ticket.

[Carbine]

Here is the thing.

You can't say Bird has more accomplishments than Duncan or Shaq.

You can't say Bird has better longevity than Duncan or Shaq.

You can say Bird was better in his prime than Duncan, but not Shaq.


So how exactly is Bird clearly above those two again on the greatness scale?

I'm not even trying to argue one over the other, but to me... it's nearly impossible to come up with a valid argument that stands up to critisism in favor of Bird being clearly greater.

[G-train]

Watch some ****ing Larry Bird. He was a perfect basketball player.

[G-train]

Here is the thing.

You can't say Bird has more accomplishments than Duncan or Shaq.

You can't say Bird has better longevity than Duncan or Shaq.

You can say Bird was better in his prime than Duncan, but not Shaq.


So how exactly is Bird clearly above those two again on the greatness scale?

I'm not even trying to argue one over the other, but to me... it's nearly impossible to come up with a valid argument that stands up to critisism in favor of Bird being clearly greater.

He was better in his prime. And he had numerous individual and team accomplishments against the best players and teams ever.

This thread is a disgrace.

[che guevara]

bird and shaq right now both have career ppg of 24. shaq's gonna drop off after this year.

shaq career rpg = 11 , bird career rpg= 10. I dont see how 1 more rebound makes you a far better rebounder considering that shaq is like 4 inches taller than bird)
This is just dishonest, and you know it. Bird played 12 seasons, while Shaq is currently in his 18th. You're penalizing Shaq for playing a long time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

bird and shaq right now both have career ppg of 24. shaq's gonna drop off after this year.

shaq career rpg = 11 , bird career rpg= 10. I dont see how 1 more rebound makes you a far better rebounder considering that shaq is like 4 inches taller than bird)

Shaq's played more years than Bird hence more decline years so that explains career ppg.

Both have a very similar peak ppg season with Bird slightly edging Shaq 29.9 to 29.7, but Shaq had 3 seasons over 29 ppg compared to Bird's 1, 5 seasons over 28 ppg compared to Bird's 3, 10 consecutive over 26 ppg compared to Bird's 3 total. Shaq also won 2 scoring titles compared to Bird's 0 and Shaq was top 2 in scoring 6 times, top 3 eight times and top 4 nine times. Bird, on the otherhand was top 2 just once, top 3 just twice and top 4 just four times.

As far as rebounding, Shaq had three seasons over 13 rpg, five over 12 rpg and ten seasons with atleast 11 rpg(Bird's career high). And that was with Shaq playing at a considerably slow pace meaning less rebounds available.

[Roundball_Rock]

He was better in his prime. And he had numerous individual and team accomplishments against the best players and teams ever.

This thread is a disgrace.

This is a good thread. Shaq has a strong case over Bird although I don't see a case for Duncan over Bird, unless you only look at winning (4 rings vs. 3 and Duncan did it with scrubs in 03'). The OP should have included Magic in this too since Magic and Bird are always ranked together.

[elementally morale]

As far as rebounding, Shaq had three seasons over 13 rpg, five over 12 rpg and ten seasons with atleast 11 rpg(Bird's career high). And that was with Shaq playing at a considerably slow pace meaning less rebounds available.


And Bird had Parish and McHale for some of those rebounds. :cheers:

[G-train]

As far as rebounding, Shaq had three seasons over 13 rpg, five over 12 rpg and ten seasons with atleast 11 rpg(Bird's career high). And that was with Shaq playing at a considerably slow pace meaning less rebounds available.

Rebounding? Bird was a 3/4 man that averaged 10.

So you are gonna say that Shaq was better, because he averaged more rebounds as a centre?

Get the **** outta here.

[miller-time]

look at the physical gifts shaq has and compare it to what larry bird had to work with.

shaq in his prime was basically playing with cheat codes, while larry was playing with one arm tied behind his back.

larry was co captain of the dream team for a reason. something shaq never did.

[CB4GOATPF]

besides the fact that Bird is a better shooter, better passer, better scorer, better leader, more clutch, more skilled, just as good rebounder?


Same reasons why Barkley is better than Duncan or Malone (this one even clear in the EFF; PER and Statistical Plus/Minus department and the head to heads when BOTH where healthy, not one healthy and the other not)

Shaq and Duncan as was Barkley better Impact Players but not Better All Around Skilled at Making Others Better: Reason why Bird has one of the Highest Statistical Plus/Minus Ever.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Rebounding? Bird was a 3/4 man that averaged 10.

So you are gonna say that Shaq was better, because he averaged more rebounds as a centre?

Get the **** outta here.

I said he was a better rebounder dumbass as in he could(and did) grab more rebounds. That was in response to the incorrect statement that Bird was the better rebounder. I didn't say that's why Shaq was the better player.

[ArizaAttack24]

The difference is Wilt consistently choked; Bird and Magic may have lost but they weren't choking every year.

The era point is interesting. If eras are such a big deal, though, why are the players who are most commonly listed as #1 and #2 players whose best years came during the 70's and 90's? How often do you see Bird or Magic listed as the GOAT?

Marketing is a big factor. The NBA resurrected itself behind marketing Bird and Magic. Shaq never had such a marketing campaign behind him. He wasn't even marketed as Jordan's successor. They were always looking for perimeter players like Penny, Hill, and later Kobe and T Mac as the new big ticket.
Would you be able to blame someone who lost to someone who just cannot lose? Would you be able to blame someone who just absolutely knew everything about yourself, your weaknesses, your life, everything? Couldn't blame Wilt in that situation, Russell was just built to stop Wilt from creating a dynasty and created a dynasty of his own.

[ArizaAttack24]

I said he was a better rebounder dumbass as in he could(and did) grab more rebounds. That was in response to the incorrect statement that Bird was the better rebounder. I didn't say that's why Shaq was the better player.
Shaq was a poor rebounder for his size and athleticism if anything, I truly hope you don't believe Shaq is better than Bird, it would be worse than your Dwight Howard love.

[Roundball_Rock]

Would you be able to blame someone who lost to someone who just cannot lose? Would you be able to blame someone who just absolutely knew everything about yourself, your weaknesses, your life, everything? Couldn't blame Wilt in that situation, Russell was just built to stop Wilt from creating a dynasty and created a dynasty of his own.

If Wilt was as good as some allege none of those excuses would be needed. It isn't as if he were playing with scrubs and getting blown out. Russell was 10-0 in Game 7's and 8 of those games were decided by 5 points or less (the two double digit wins were not against Wilt). Russell was able to muster that extra needed to win; Wilt couldn't. The year Wilt averaged 50 ppg in the regular season he averaged 35 in the playoffs and scored 22 in Game 7. If Wilt scored only half his usual production when it counted most his team would have won. Wilt's partisans blame bad luck for all his close losses but the real blame lies in Wilt being the only top 10 player of all-time to see his production decline sharply in the playoffs. Everyone else stayed about even (a feat given the fact you face tougher defenses in the playoffs) or improved.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq was a poor rebounder for his size and athleticism if anything, I truly hope you don't believe Shaq is better than Bird, it would be worse than your Dwight Howard love.

13-14 rpg and 15+ rpg for 2 back to back title runs isn't a poor reboudner for ANYONE's size and athleticism, kid. And who cares even if it was? He was still one of the best rebounders in the league for over a decade.

And Shaq you can easily make a case for Shaq being better than Bird. Watch.

More titles
Superior longevity
Much better finals performances
Better scorer
Shaq also gave his teams a lot more with his rebounding, shot blocking and defense than Bird did.

You were saying...

And :oldlol: at you saying I love Dwight Howard. I don't love him and have him rated correctly at 5th best in the league and the best center in the league.

[Celts34]

people have to remember 90% of ISH never saw bird play. If you didn't see Bird play, you just can't understand because the numbers just don't encapsulate who and what Larry Bird was. Let me explain, if Shaq' had Larry Bird' work ethic and heart. He'd have smashed all of Wilt' record. And thats real talk.

[allball]

Because Bird could dominate in more areas of the game. people talk about Bird not being a great defender but his hustle had just as much impact as Shaq's or Duncan's defense.

He's arguably as good a half court passer as there ever was.

He was ten times the outside and mid-range shooter and one of the great FT shooters of all time. you couldn't foul him at the end of a game or ever.

he was absolute money. who would you fear most in a game 7. Shaq, Duncan or Bird?

It's ridiculous to say Shaq was a better scorer when Bird could score in so many ways plus you have to count his assists.

Bird averaged 29.9/6/9 at 31 years old while shooting .916 from the FT line. it doesn't get much better than that.

When looking at rebounds you can't just look at the numbers. you have to look at how and when they got rebounds. Bird got 11 boards a night without playing under the basket. centers have a huge advantage in rebound position. Bird hustled for boards.

Oh and I saw Bird's career from the beginning to the end.

[InspiredLebowski]

The smaller (even though Bird's around 6'9, not exactly Earl Boykins) player generally always has the advantage over a big post. Whether or not they're "better" players, they're much more complete players. Shaq could back down guys all day, put up 25+ on high 50s %, but when that's not coupled with perimeter games people just don't see them as "as good" a player.

I don't think a post based 7 footer will ever be considered the GOAT by the general public. I can't even think of what he'd have to accomplish to be.

[Big#50]

Because Bird could dominate in more areas of the game. people talk about Bird not being a great defender but his hustle had just as much impact as Shaq's or Duncan's defense.

He's arguably as good a half court passer as there ever was.

He was ten times the outside and mid-range shooter and one of the great FT shooters of all time. you couldn't foul him at the end of a game or ever.

he was absolute money. who would you fear most in a game 7. Shaq, Duncan or Bird?

It's ridiculous to say Shaq was a better scorer when Bird could score in so many ways plus you have to count his assists.

Bird averaged 29.9/6/9 at 31 years old while shooting .916 from the FT line. it doesn't get much better than that.

When looking at rebounds you can't just look at the numbers. you have to look at how and when they got rebounds. Bird got 11 boards a night without playing under the basket. centers have a huge advantage in rebound position. Bird hustled for boards.

Oh and I saw Bird's career from the beginning to the end.
Nonsense. Bird is great but I doubt he'd do what he did now.

[Micku]

Let me explain, if Shaq' had Larry Bird' work ethic and heart. He'd have smashed all of Wilt' record. And thats real talk.
I read somewhere that Bird quit coaching when he realized that his team didn't work as hard as he did to improve his game.

Anyway, you are talking about Shaq's potential, not exactly what he did on the court. Especially in his prime. His resume is pretty good in basketball and it is comparable to Bird. Probably even better.

[sergiorodriguez]

nothing, its only his white skin

[ACCBaller1403]

Nonsense. Bird is great but I doubt he'd do what he did now.

Hilarious. This guy played in the same league as a young MJ, Dominique, Antoine Carr, Dr. J, Worthy, etc.

Just ridiculous athleticism there. When someone like Dirk who literally does EVERY SINGLE THING worse than Bird can win an MVP and dominate the league, this shows me that Bird would be just fine. Maybe his prime would be extended with the better trainers, shoes, etc. nowadays.

Get out of here with that.

[Celts34]

I read somewhere that Bird quit coaching when he realized that his team didn't work as hard as he did to improve his game.

Anyway, you are talking about Shaq's potential, not exactly what he did on the court. Especially in his prime. His resume is pretty good in basketball and it is comparable to Bird. Probably even better.


Fail. Bird won 3 straight MVP's,something noone else has ever done btw, in what everyone considers the height of the NBA. Shaq is the Larry Holmes of the NBA, he had a great career, but his prime coincided with no other great big man to challenge him(some of this was due to Zo' kidney ailment). Just like Larry Holmes prime in boxing, where he dominated everyone, but there were no great boxers to challenge him.

[ArizaAttack24]

nothing, its only his white skin
Kill yourself immediately.

[Rekindled]

Bird saved the nba. Duncan/Shaq didnt.

[juju151111]

bird and shaq right now both have career ppg of 24. shaq's gonna drop off after this year.

shaq career rpg = 11 , bird career rpg= 10. I dont see how 1 more rebound makes you a far better rebounder considering that shaq is like 4 inches taller than bird)
Shaq has played longer then Bird which brings down his stats.

[elementally morale]

Bird saved the nba. Duncan/Shaq didnt.


Mhmmm....

Eisenhower won during WWII. Bill Clinton did not. Therefore: Eisenhower > Clinton

[Bigsmoke]

they are all great.. leave it as that. but i'll like to say

Bird > Magic

[Rekindled]

Mhmmm....

Eisenhower won during WWII. Bill Clinton did not. Therefore: Eisenhower > Clinton

eisenhower is a far better president than clinton.

[elementally morale]

eisenhower is a far better president than clinton.

Sure, but it has nothing to do with WWII.

You can save the league in 1980. There is nothing to save in 1998.

[Celts34]

Sure, but it has nothing to do with WWII.

You can save the league in 1980. There is nothing to save in 1998.


Actually after MJ left in 98, added in with the lock-out....that kinda was like the NBA' version of the Great Depression

[elementally morale]

Actually after MJ left in 98, added in with the lock-out....that kinda was like the NBA' version of the Great Depression

The league's future was not in real danger then, unlike the late 70s IMO.

[JustinJDW]

Because Bird could dominate in more areas of the game.

It's ridiculous to say Shaq was a better scorer when Bird could score in so many ways plus you have to count his assists.This.


I think we are all finding that the differences in time periods and game styles makes this an impossible comparison.This too.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Because Bird could dominate in more areas of the game. people talk about Bird not being a great defender but his hustle had just as much impact as Shaq's or Duncan's defense.

Uh, no. :lol Bird was better than people give him credit for, but he did not bring the equivalent of shot blocking, rebounding, solid post defense and intimidation in the paint.

Bird's defense, however was based 100% on anticipation and hustle. He was a poor post defender and not quick enough to stay with high scoring perimeter players.

he was absolute money. who would you fear most in a game 7. Shaq, Duncan or Bird?


It's ridiculous to say Shaq was a better scorer when Bird could score in so many ways plus you have to count his assists.

Yeah, Bird could score in so many ways, but Shaq just couldn't be stopped from scoring. He'd score more than Bird and with more defenders.


Bird averaged 29.9/6/9 at 31 years old while shooting .916 from the FT line. it doesn't get much better than that.

What about 29.7/13.6/3.8/3.0 on 57.4% from the field at a much slower pace with 10 more wins than Bird and a championship to cap it off. Then we can mention his 31/15 playoff averages and 38/17 finals averages that season...


When looking at rebounds you can't just look at the numbers. you have to look at how and when they got rebounds. Bird got 11 boards a night without playing under the basket. centers have a huge advantage in rebound position. Bird hustled for boards.


And prime Shaq couldn't be boxed out. He was too big, strong and athletic. I still remember him just going over or around prime Dikembe Mutombo in the finals. He had back to back 20 rebound games vs Dikembe and easily outrebounded him that series.

[Mark Madsen]

Shaq and Bird are close ... but Duncan isn't in this category ..

[Brunch@Five]

I don't see how Duncan is even in the discussion with Shaq and Bird. Bird's and Shaq's peak play was on another level than that of Duncan.
Also, Bird is easily just as good an offensive player as Jordan, arguably better.

[Carbine]

Also, Bird is easily just as good an offensive player as Jordan, arguably better.

I think Bird would tell you himself Jordan was better than him.

Bird had three years over 26 points per game in his career.

Jordan averaged between 30 and 37 points a year on 50 percent shooting or better for seven straight years.

Jordan might not have been the passer Bird was... but he wasn't far behind. He could dish the ball and make plays for other people. You don't average eight dimes in one year without having superb passing skills.

Overall, Bird had better passing and more range.... but he didn't shoot many 3 pointers. He attempted less than one a game four straight years. He attempted about two per game for his career.

So while he was a better long distance shooter, it doesn't matter a whole lot because he didn't produce with it enough for it to matter a whole lot.

Bottom line is Jordan put far more pressure on your defense than Bird did. Just watch a few finals games in 1993 and then a few 1986 finals games... it's clear to me who the better offensive player was.

[Carbine]

And as for Duncan... he is far more accomplished than Bird as far as his resume goes, and his resume is still growing.

Take a look at Duncans finals/regular season MVP's, all-nba 1st and 2nd team selections, all-nba defense slections.... it's better than Birds.

Has has four rings as the undisputable best player on his team (Only Jordan & Russell have as many being the udisputable best player)

As far as longevity goes, Duncan will have him there as well... probably by a lot.

The ONLY thing that Bird has an edge in is prime years, but how does that overcome Duncan's edge in the two other key factors in greatness?

I'm not sold that Bird was completely better player than Duncan in his prime either. Duncan was a better rebounder, much much better defender, on par with Bird as an overall offensive player (taking into account how effective they were at creating/making shots for themselves/teammates) and he was something Bird was not - a dominant low post scorer which is so valuable.

Bird was a better... leader, though who really knows for sure? It's not like WE were around both of them, so we don't know who is better in leading their guys.

He was a better shooter and more versatile offensive player. He was better in hustle plays. More clutch. Free throw shooter.

What else? Am I missing something?

I have to be, right? Because I don't see how Bird is easily, without a doubt better than Duncan here.

I'm just trying to get someone to make a valid case for Bird here. Instead, I see baseless claims like "bird the best! tough era! better shooter and passer!" and not really going into depth.

I want someone to make a real argument, because for the life of me I cannot make a solid one for Bird - and I want to... he's my favorite basketball player from those days.

[Brunch@Five]

You are severely underrating Bird's offense if you're seriously saying Duncan is on par with him in that category. And while Duncan is a better low-post scorer, you have to remember Bird played PF for 5 years and was one of the most creative post scorers of all time.

The amount Jordan is a better scorer is the same that Bird is better as a playmaker. Jordan was a good passer, yes, but Bird was one of the best ever.

As for Duncan and his claim for greatness, well, IMO he never reached that top 8 GOAT level in his prime. His achievements speak for themselves, but everyone of these great as achieved a lot, so peak play becomes decisive.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think Bird would tell you himself Jordan was better than him.

Larry Bird:

[Big#50]

Bird via nostalgia.

[Horatio33]

3 different types of player. like comparing Hip-Hop to country to classical.

[KubiliusF]

3 different types of player. like comparing Hip-Hop to country to classical.

Classic wins

[Aussie Outcast]

I would want Larry bird on my team over the other two. He was just that good. If you havent seen him play in his prime on a nightly basis can you please not respond to this thread.

[allball]

What about 29.7/13.6/3.8/3.0 on 57.4% from the field at a much slower pace with 10 more wins than Bird and a championship to cap it off. Then we can mention his 31/15 playoff averages and 38/17 finals averages that season...





ah yes that 31/15 came against Vlade Divac, Luc Longley/Oliver Miller, and a 35 yr old Arvydas Sabonis/Rasheed and Ric Smits / Dale Davis a virtual whose who of HOFers.

[torontofan]

eisenhower is a far better president than clinton.

George Washington > eisenhower > clinton

[Da_Realist]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Larry Bird:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Bird was and is the definition off Celtics Pride. He was a confident, competitive, smart hardworking player who thrived in the clutch. He inspired his teammates and made them better. Bird would force the spotlight upon himself, but also brought out the best in the players around him. Bill Russell, Hondo, Cousey, even those legendary players didn't fill Boston Garden, wowing fans and dominating games as Bird did. The cliche yet perfect quote that described Larry Bird was that he was playing chess while you were playing checkers.

Career Stats/accomplishments:
- points: 21,791 (24.3 ppg)
- assists: 5,695 (6.3 apg)
- rebounds: 9,874 (10.0 rpg)
- 3

[Carbine]

But why? It can't be because Larry won more. It can't be because Larry had more accomplishments. It can't be because Larry had better longevity....all of those things are in Duncan's favor.... all off which are really important when factoring who is greater.

[Big#50]

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Bird was and is the definition off Celtics Pride. He was a confident, competitive, smart hardworking player who thrived in the clutch. He inspired his teammates and made them better. Bird would force the spotlight upon himself, but also brought out the best in the players around him. Bill Russell, Hondo, Cousey, even those legendary players didn't fill Boston Garden, wowing fans and dominating games as Bird did. The cliche yet perfect quote that described Larry Bird was that he was playing chess while you were playing checkers.

Career Stats/accomplishments:
- points: 21,791 (24.3 ppg)
- assists: 5,695 (6.3 apg)
- rebounds: 9,874 (10.0 rpg)
- 3

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Tim has one more ring. Tim has one less reg season MVP but was robbed in 99. Tim is at least a top 5 defensive player of all time. Tim has the same amount of Finals MVP's. Tim is just as clutch if not more clutch than Bird. Bird played in the 80's. Do you think a slow unathletic 6'9 forward can play in today's league at that high level? **** NO. How is Bird better?

Not athletic because he's Caucasian? Get some perspective. I don't argue sentiments, rather facts. If Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash are getting theirs now, why couldn't Larry? He was a much better player and just as good of a shooter. Tim Duncan was not more clutch. Tim couldn't shoot like Bird. Tim couldn't pass like Bird. Tim doesn't have the IQ Bird had. Tim doesn't have the killer instinct Bird had. Tim didn't captivate and revitalize the NBA for a decade like Bird did.

[CB4GOATPF]

Tim has one more ring. Tim has one less reg season MVP but was robbed in 99. Tim is at least a top 5 defensive player of all time. Tim has the same amount of Finals MVP's. Tim is just as clutch if not more clutch than Bird. Bird played in the 80's. Do you think a slow unathletic 6'9 forward can play in today's league at that high level? **** NO. How is Bird better?

[B]Larry Bird has more clutch shots, steals and plays than the whole Spurs franchise.

Larry Bird averaged 6.3 and 6.5 APG for his Career and in his Prime close to 9 APG.

Larry Bird actally played Floor Defense and was one of the Best Team and Floor Defending SFs Ever

Larry Bird was a Better Far Range Shooter, Mid Range Range Shooter, FT Shooter, 3 Point Shooter and Clutch Shooter.

Larry Bird had PG like Court Vision/Ball Timing/Desicion Making

Larry Bird is the Smartest Player Ever Offensively and His B-Ball IQ is compared to Very Few (Russel one of them)

Larry Bird had the Greatest Body-Hand to Eye Coordination Ever

Larry Bird was Ambidiextrous

Larry Bird was a Better Ball Handler

Larry Bird Battled Kareem-Magic-Worthy-McAdoo-Nixon-Lucas-Cooper-Scott/Dr J-Moses-Toney-Cheeks-Jones-Bobby then young Barkley/Laimbeer-Isiah-Mahorn-Dumars-Salley-Dantley-Aguirre-Rodman/Jordan-Pippen-Grant/....REAL TEAMS

Larry Bird has the Highest Statistical Plus/Minus for any Small Forward in NBA History.

....

Duncan was the Better Impact Player (just as was Barkley)...as Most Cs and CFs do but Larry was the More Skilled Player than Duncan and made Others Better More (just as Barkley over Duncan)

Duncan was a Better Post Defender/Shot Blocker and Post Player thats it

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Larry Bird was More Athletic from 1979 and 1986 than People Think...Go Watch Those Clips

Larry Bird

[Big#50]

Not athletic because he's Caucasian? Get some perspective. I don't argue sentiments, rather facts. If Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash are getting theirs now, why couldn't Larry? He was a much better player and just as good of a shooter. Tim Duncan was not more clutch. Tim couldn't shoot like Bird. Tim couldn't pass like Bird. Tim doesn't have the IQ Bird had. Tim doesn't have the killer instinct Bird had. Tim didn't captivate and revitalize the NBA for a decade like Bird did.
Who said anything about being white? Dirk is 7ft tall and still faster than Bird. Nash is good on offense but sucks on D. Duncan's IQ is just as good as Bird. Tim has a bigger killer instinct. Bird did captivate the NBA more. I agree but doesn't mean he's better. It might have had something to do with being white like you said.

[Big#50]

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Larry Bird has more clutch shots, steals and plays than the whole Spurs franchise.

Larry Bird averaged 6.3 and 6.5 APG for his Career and in his Prime close to 9 APG.

Larry Bird actally played Floor Defense and was one of the Best Team and Floor Defending SFs Ever

Larry Bird was a Better Far Range Shooter, Mid Range Range Shooter, FT Shooter, 3 Point Shooter and Clutch Shooter.

Larry Bird had PG like Court Vision/Ball Timing/Desicion Making

Larry Bird is the Smartest Player Ever Offensively and His B-Ball IQ is compared to Very Few (Russel one of them)

Larry Bird had the Greatest Body-Hand to Eye Coordination Ever

Larry Bird was Ambidiextrous

Larry Bird was a Better Ball Handler

Larry Bird Battled Kareem-Magic-Worthy-McAdoo-Nixon-Lucas-Cooper-Scott/Dr J-Moses-Toney-Cheeks-Jones-Bobby then young Barkley/Laimbeer-Isiah-Mahorn-Dumars-Salley-Dantley-Aguirre-Rodman/Jordan-Pippen-Grant/....REAL TEAMS

Larry Bird has the Highest Statistical Plus/Minus for any Small Forward in NBA History.

....

Duncan was the Better Impact Player (just as was Barkley)...as Most Cs and CFs do but Larry was the More Skilled Player than Duncan and made Others Better More (just as Barkley over Duncan)

Duncan was a Better Post Defender/Shot Blocker and Post Player thats it

[COLOR="DarkRed"]Larry Bird was More Athletic from 1979 and 1986 than People Think...Go Watch Those Clips

Larry Bird

[CB4GOATPF]

It was all done in the 80's. Faster pace. His rebounding and assists would be at around 7 and 4 in today's league.

:rolleyes:

How do u explain Larry Bird averaging 9.6 RPG in 36.9 MPG in hist last season (91-92) at age 35 with a destroyed back since 1988-89 (nearly career end)?

:confusedshrug:

While Charles Barkley pulling down 33 rebounds in his NBA game at age 33 during the 1996-97 season and averaging 13.5 RPG (he lead the league with 14.6 RPG during the 80s) and during the 1999 play-offs 13.8 after having the same back problems as Bird had, no leap left and playing half footed cause of his knee problems those years?

:confusedshrug:

How do u explain that old no leap, back injured, knee injured 34-36 year old Barkley outrebounding young athletic healthy Duncan in their meetings while playing lesser minutes?

:confusedshrug:

BTW under these zone rules Larry Bird would average like 2.5 SPG for his Career do to his anticipation as a Team Defender.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Who said anything about being white? Dirk is 7ft tall and still faster than Bird. Nash is good on offense but sucks on D. Duncan's IQ is just as good as Bird. Tim has a bigger killer instinct. Bird did captivate the NBA more. I agree but doesn't mean he's better. It might have had something to do with being white like you said.

It had nothing do with him being white. Look at his and Magic Johnson's production. The two solely took the NBA to new heights and helped pave the way for Jordan, Kobe and LeBron. Bird helped rebuild a Celtics franchise that had been suffering from substandard play and poor attendance in the late 70s. With him as the focal point of a well-rounded team, Boston won 3 titles and 10 Division titles. In addition to his 3 rings, Bird piled up an incredible collection of personal achievements. The guy became only the third player to win three consecutive NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. He was a 12 time All Star, 2 NBA Finals MVP and a 9 time member of the All-NBA First Team. He led the league in free-throw percentage four times as well.

The "highest IQ" players to have stepped on the court are Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Also possessing the NBA's equivalent of a genius IQ would be Michael Jordan and Stockton. There are others, but let's use these 4 as an example of The Gold Standard. Not that these guys never committed a turnover or made a mistake, they just made fewer than the rest. These 4 also were able to elevate their play and thought process during the most pressure moments. Each of these Gold Standard players exhibited the same abilities and instincts. They all had that sense for when to pass and when to shoot. They could all make the great pass. They could all make the big shot. The smartest players are always able to think 2 or 3 moves ahead of the opponent and all of these players had that. It's the reason Larry Bird was a good defender and rebounder: He was always two or three steps ahead of everyone else on the court.

[Fatal9]

:oldlol: at the claim that Duncan is on par with Bird offensively, who has a legit argument for being the greatest offensive player ever. Scoring wise he was top 5 (flawless scoring ability), was the best non-PG passer ever and arguably the most skilled offensive player to ever play...how the **** is Duncan "on par" with that? Not to mention Bird can create offense for himself and his team the moment he grabs a defensive rebound (why I prefer Bird or Jordan's offensive ability to any big man).

Bird's rings will always be more impressive than Duncan's in peoples minds because of the era Bird won them in (and also since one of Duncan's came in maybe the weakest year ever? the shortened season. another one was also very controversial) so this "he won more" logic isn't convincing anyone. Bird's durability is the only legit knock on him, he got injured way too often, even before '88 and that probably cost him 1-2 rings (in 1985 for sure).

[CB4GOATPF]

Who said anything about being white? Dirk is 7ft tall and still faster than Bird. Nash is good on offense but sucks on D. Duncan's IQ is just as good as Bird. Tim has a bigger killer instinct. Bird did captivate the NBA more. I agree but doesn't mean he's better. It might have had something to do with being white like you said.

[B]Dirk can

[Fatal9]

He was a poor post defender and not quick enough to stay with high scoring perimeter players.
???

[CB4GOATPF]

Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234
He was a poor post defender and not quick enough to stay with high scoring perimeter players.

[B]He owned Jordan and Pippen even after his Prime and with no back left

[COLOR="red"]What better Perimeter Slashing-Scoring-Driving-Ball Handling-Athletic Threat do u wan

[Carbine]

:oldlol: at the claim that Duncan is on par with Bird offensively, who has a legit argument for being the greatest offensive player ever. Scoring wise he was top 5 (flawless scoring ability), was the best non-PG passer ever and arguably the most skilled offensive player to ever play...how the **** is Duncan "on par" with that? Not to mention Bird can create offense for himself and his team the moment he grabs a defensive rebound (why I prefer Bird or Jordan's offensive ability to any big man).

Bird's rings will always be more impressive than Duncan's in peoples minds because of the era Bird won them in (and also since one of Duncan's came in maybe the weakest year ever? the shortened season. another one was also very controversial) so this "he won more" logic isn't convincing anyone. Bird's durability is the only legit knock on him, he got injured way too often, even before '88 and that probably cost him 1-2 rings (in 1985 for sure).

There is one thing that should be measured for an offensive player. It's simple, really... people want to make all these wild claims and make it seem scientific when it fact it's the most simple formula.

How effective was the player at creating a shot for himself, how successful he was at it and how good was he at creating open shots for his teammates?

That's it. It doesn't matter who could shoot better, who could drive better, who could do this and who could do that.... the end result is either an attempted shot, or hopefully a created open shot for a teammate.

Duncan could get his shot off at any time, made the shots at a 50% clip....and he was a guy who could demand double teams consistently, thus creating open shots for his teammates or driving lanes to get to the basket pretty much anytime you gave him the ball.

Larry could get his shot off at any time, made his shots at 50% clip, and whether it was creating shots from his post-up ability, drive/kick ability or whatever... he got the job done.

Just because Bird did it in more ways doesn't mean he was more effective at it. And in he end, effectiveness is all that matters.

That's why I don't see Bird as clearly above Duncan on offense.

[Rekindled]

There is one thing that should be measured for an offensive player. It's simple, really... people want to make all these wild claims and make it seem scientific when it fact it's the most simple formula.

How effective was the player at creating a shot for himself, how successful he was at it and how good was he at creating open shots for his teammates?

That's it. It doesn't matter who could shoot better, who could drive better, who could do this and who could do that.... the end result is either an attempted shot, or hopefully a created open shot for a teammate.

Duncan could get his shot off at any time, made the shots at a 50% clip....and he was a guy who could demand double teams consistently, thus creating open shots for his teammates or driving lanes to get to the basket pretty much anytime you gave him the ball.

Larry could get his shot off at any time, made his shots at 50% clip, and whether it was creating shots from his post-up ability, drive/kick ability or whatever... he got the job done.

Just because Bird did it in more ways doesn't mean he was more effective at it. And in he end, effectiveness is all that matters.

That's why I don't see Bird as clearly above Duncan on offense.

so are you saying duncan is a better scorer than kobe? since duncan can get his shots off anytime and at a 50% clip , kobe only @ 45%

[Horatio33]

Tim is just as clutch if not more clutch than Bird. Bird played in the 80's.

come on. im a massive tim duncan fan but that is just blasphimous.

[Carbine]

I do think Duncan was on par with Kobe as an offensive player in his day. Kobe was a more dynamic scorer and shot the ball way more, thus his higher per game totals.

Think of it like this - if you had both players in their prime - and you as a coach wanted to get a good shot for your team, would you feel strongly that Kobe could either score you a hoop or get someone else a quality shot more than Duncan could?

I don't.

[tontoz]

I didn't read the whole thread. I just have a question. Why are we comparing a 3/4 to two centers?

Bird was the 3 on the front line with McHale and Parish during his prime. I don't get this comparison at all.

[plowking]

:rolleyes:

How do u explain Larry Bird averaging 9.6 RPG in 36.9 MPG in hist last season (91-92) at age 35 with a destroyed back since 1988-89 (nearly career end)?

:confusedshrug:

While Charles Barkley pulling down 33 rebounds in his NBA game at age 33 during the 1996-97 season and averaging 13.5 RPG (he lead the league with 14.6 RPG during the 80s) and during the 1999 play-offs 13.8 after having the same back problems as Bird had, no leap left and playing half footed cause of his knee problems those years?

:confusedshrug:

How do u explain that old no leap, back injured, knee injured 34-36 year old Barkley outrebounding young athletic healthy Duncan in their meetings while playing lesser minutes?

:confusedshrug:

BTW under these zone rules Larry Bird would average like 2.5 SPG for his Career do to his anticipation as a Team Defender.

Who said anything about Charles Barkley? No one cares about him.

[vert48]

Watch a few games of each player and you can answer that question for yourself. Anyone that has seen all 3 players would never have to ask that question.

[Big#50]

Watch a few games of each player and you can answer that question for yourself. Anyone that has seen all 3 players would never have to ask that question.
Exactly. Bird is not close.

[allball]

Exactly. Bird is not close.

here use this:

http://mario239303.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gun.jpg

[Kblaze8855]

"It's not personal perference though. As good a player as Bird was, Jordan was better if we're strictly talking prime vs. prime.

Jordan was a better offensive and defensive player. Bird being the better passer/hustler/rebounder.... but clearly not enough to make up the difference."

Nobody is a better offensive player than Bird. Nobody ive seen a lot of at least. Some scored more. but thats not offense. Bird was better than prime Jordan at literally everything but attacking the basket in a faceup situation or on the break. Better shooter from outside and midrange, a better passer(especially feeding the post and out of double teams), a better off the ball player who spread the floor with good positioning, and a better back to the basket player. He had more post moves, had a much much better off hand, and was far less of a ball stopper. He made far more difficult shots than Jordan too. Jordans talent in his youth was getting good shots not making difficult ones aside from the wicked hangtime ones. He didnt have the floaters, left handed hooks, and fallaways Bird did when he was at his peak. He was also of more benefit to his teammates offense and was far less selfish. You would never see Bird passing up good shots to feed guys just for an assist because hes trying to keep up a triple double streak.

Jordan was a better offensive player if we combine the way he played in the late 90s with what he did in his prime. 1989 Jordan plus 1998 Jordans post game and selflessness is a better offensive player than Bird.

But at no point was he both the absurdly athletic Jordan and the unselfish teammate helping "MJ him J fadeaway perfect" Jordan. If prime MJ is better than prime Bird its because of on the ball defense. Its not because of offense.

Jordan > Bird is a perfectly reasonable opinion to have. But its not because of an offensive edge.

[DominantElement]

???
What's so confusing about that? Bird wasn't the best defender out on the floor. Bird was great at reading the passing lanes and that's about it and the same thing for Magic Johnson, both were just average individual defenders at best. It's what separates Michael Jordan from both those guys, his defense.

[Big#50]

here use this:

http://mario239303.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/gun.jpg
Bird's D was average at best. Only few players in the NBA were great on offense and D.
Wilt
Jordan
Hakeem
KAJ
Duncan
Tim Duncan is a better player.

[Rekindled]

Bird's D was average at best. Only few players in the NBA were great on offense and D.
Wilt
Jordan
Hakeem
KAJ
Duncan
Tim Duncan is a better player.

GTFO :mad:

[Big#50]

GTFO :mad:
Pistons fan. I think Tim beat you guys in the finals.

[Manute for Ever!]

Exactly. Bird and it is not close.

Fixed. Bird had possibly the highest overall skill level and basketball IQ in NBA history.

[RaceBannana]

come on. im a massive tim duncan fan but that is just blasphimous.

why not?
there are differents ways of being clutch. Its not all about hitting game winners and buzzers. :ohwell:

[Brunch@Five]

The key part about Bird's offense is about him being the best non-PG playmaker ever. There have been plenty of great scorers, but how many have been able to combine that with that kind of playmaking?
Duncan being on par with Bird on offense is downright laughable. He's neither the scorer nor the playmaker.

[triangleoffense]

Bird is not a better scorer than Shaq. Shaq was a better scorer and both Duncan and O'Neal are far better rebounders and much better defensively.

I rank Bird over Duncan, but a lot of your post is false.

says the person with shaq in his name

[GP_20]

I hate stupid arguments like

"Bird was shorter thats why he didn't get as many rebounds"


Who cares? At the end of the day, we are asking who is a better rebounder, and HEIGHT MATTERS for that. It's almost as bad as saying Shaq has a poor shooting mechanic, that's why he isn't as good of a shooter. Like it's some kind of excuse.

[GP_20]

They're comparing pound for pound, I'm guessing.
Yeah I guess. But this debate isn't pound for pound.

[CB4GOATPF]

Bird's D was average at best. Only few players in the NBA were great on offense and D.
Wilt
Jordan
Hakeem
KAJ
Duncan
Tim Duncan is a better player.


Nope there have been very few players that have ranked among the Top 10 Best Offensive and Defensive Players. ORT and DRT are the real measures of Efficiency and those should be counted in Relation to

For Offense:

- "Amount of Usage% and the ORT Lead to Ur Points or Teamates Points"

- "Amount of Double Teaming/Triple Teaming, Defensive Rotations Needed to Guard u Through Per Game"

- "Level of Offensie Teamate

For Defense:

- "DRT and What Type of Offensive Players u had to Guard"
- "Level of Defensive Anchors or Teamates u Played With"

Bird is is one ONE OF THE GREATEST OFFENSIVE PLAYERS EVER and in his Healthy Prime One of the Best Defending SFs (even though had help)

Broken Down Stats Will Agree With Me:

Defensive Rating

1979-80 NBA 98.2 (6)
1981-82 NBA 99.4 (7)
1983-84 NBA 100.8 (2)
1984-85 NBA 102.8 (8)
1985-86 NBA 99.4 (4)
Career NBA 101.4 (84)

NBA & ABA Yearly Playoff Leaders and Records for Defensive Rating

Year Lg Player DRtg Tm
2009 NBA Dwight Howard 98.35 ORL
2008 NBA Tim Duncan 98.51 SAS
2007 NBA Tyrus Thomas 92.52 CHI
2006 NBA Alonzo Mourning 95.13 MIA
2005 NBA Ben Wallace 93.48 DET
2004 NBA Ben Wallace 83.91 DET
2003 NBA Ben Wallace 90.51 DET
2002 NBA Ben Wallace 86.41 DET
2001 NBA David Robinson* 92.42 SAS
2000 NBA David Robinson* 84.01 SAS
1999 NBA David Robinson* 87.33 SAS
1998 NBA David Robinson* 93.42 SAS
1997 NBA Alonzo Mourning 94.64 MIA
1996 NBA Scottie Pippen 96.07 CHI
1995 NBA David Robinson* 97.53 SAS
1994 NBA Patrick Ewing* 94.34 NYK
1993 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 96.56 HOU
1992 NBA Dennis Rodman 99.35 DET
1991 NBA Scottie Pippen 99.52 CHI
1990 NBA Bill Laimbeer 96.32 DET
1989 NBA Dennis Rodman 99.38 DET
1988 NBA Bill Laimbeer 99.51 DET
1987 NBA Hakeem Olajuwon* 102.24 HOU
1986 NBA Bill Walton* 100.62 BOS
1985 NBA Ralph Sampson 97.16 HOU
1984 NBA Buck Williams 99.41 NJN
1983 NBA Dan Roundfield 93.00 ATL
1982 NBA Larry Bird* 94.21 BOS
1981 NBA Rich Kelley 91.33 PHO
1980 NBA Larry Bird* 95.93 BOS
1979 NBA Gar Heard 90.53 PHO
1978 NBA Caldwell Jones 93.56 PHI
1977 NBA Bill Walton* 89.53 POR
1976 NBA Elvin Hayes* 88.11 WSB

He was at the same time one of the Greatest Total Offensive Players in his Prime while recieving the Best SG/SF/PF Defenders on Him

He himself was a Total Missmatch a PG-SG-SF sometimes PF in One Package.

Offensive Rating

1984-85 NBA 119.1 (10)
1986-87 NBA 120.9 (10)
1987-88 NBA 121.3 (8)

[CB4GOATPF]

How Good Where Larry Bird and Charles Barkley, Aka "The Greatest Forwards/Multipositional or Not" OFFENSIVELY? Here we go :applause:

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/hoopla/index.html

[B]Charles Barkley was...well, I was tempted to call him a loser :oldlol: - then I came to my senses

(ofcourse with all The Hate Barkley Got It Sucks that a 6`5 is the Most Dominant Inside Player doesn`t? :confusedshrug: ).

All this classifying I was doing in my head meant nothing, but it represented my feeling about how players affect the teams they play for. No matter who Magic, Bird, or Dr. J played for, their teams would always be good. Charles Barkley impressed me as one who would always hurt his team no matter where he played and no matter how good his stats. When I realized that I was classifying a great player as a loser, I also realized that such classification was stupid and best left for drunken rowdy fans, not for rational and unbiased basketball analysts like me or Tommy Heinsohn.

What I'd like to do then is to present the new and improved points created formula and see how Charles Barkley compares to some of the consensus great players in the league: Bird, Olajuwon, McHale, Dominique, and a few others. (See Individual Floor % chapter for explanation of method.)

There is some room for error in this method and a little subjectivity makes its way into it as well. After testing the formulas a few times, though, I find that the results are pretty good in that they match many of my expectations. The problem I have with the formulas is that they are not simple and running through calculations is like mowing the White House lawn - boring and time consuming, but tedious because mistakes can't be tolerated. If I didn't think the method was valid, there is no way I would have gone through all the calculations I did.

Scor. Total Approx. Pts
Player Poss. Poss. Flr% Created(perG)

C. Barkley 1052 1729 .609 2100 (26.2)
L. Bird 1061 1817 .584 2120 (27.9)
A. Olajuwon 824 1554 .530 1650 (20.9)
Magic 932 1539 .606 1860 (25.8)
M. Jordan 1393 2253 .618 2780 (33.9)

Bar None the Best Players of the Late 80s.... :confusedshrug:

K. McHale 653 1054 .620 1300 (20.3) (Bird help)

D. Wilkins 1074 1980 .542 2150 (27.6)
B. Williams 587 1068 .549 1170 (16.7)

K. Malone 996 1918 .519 1990 (24.3) (With Stockton!!!!)
J. Worthy 713 1246 .572 1420 (18.9) (Magic Help)

A. English 969 1767 .549 1940 (24.2)
A. Dantley 665 1062 .626 1330 (19.3)
X. McDaniel 783 1500 .522 1560 (20.0)
T. Chambers 771 1477 .522 1540 (18.8)
M. Cage 488 960 .508 970 (13.5)
C. Oakley 516 1040 .496 1030 (12.6)
R. Tarpley 486 953 .510 970 (12.0)
O. Thorpe 819 1473 .556 1640 (20.0)
K. Willis 368 744 .494 730 (9.7)
T. Cummings 722 1420 .508 1440 (18.9)

[COLOR="Red"]-Ofcourse Scottie Pippen

[elementally morale]

AVERAGE TOTAL
PLAYER NAME, TEAM NAME GP PPG FGM FGA FGM FGA FG% 2PM 2PA 2P%
1
Kendrick Perkins , BOS
22 12.0 4.7 7.2 104 159 .654 104 159 .654
2
Dwight Howard , ORL
23 18.0 5.9 9.2 136 211 .645 136 208 .654
3
Greg Oden , POR
21 11.1 4.4 7.2 92 152 .605 92 152 .605
4
Marc Gasol , MEM
22 14.3 5.3 8.7 116 192 .604 116 192 .604
5
Nene Hilario , DEN
23 13.3 5.1 8.7 117 199 .588 117 198 .591
6
Al Horford , ATL
22 13.1 5.4 9.4 119 206 .578 118 205 .576
7
Andrew Bynum , LAL
19 17.6 7.0 12.2 133 231 .576 133 230 .578
8
David Lee , NYK
23 18.2 7.3 12.7 168 293 .573 168 291 .577
9
Paul Millsap , UTA
22 10.0 4.0 7.1 89 157 .567 89 156 .571
10
Carl Landry , HOU
22 16.3 6.0 10.6 132 234 .564 132 234 .564
11
Amar'e Stoudemire , PHX
23 19.5 7.4 13.1 170 302 .563 170 300 .567
12
Kevin Garnett , BOS
22 15.5 6.6 11.8 145 259 .560 145 258 .562
12
Jermaine O'Neal , MIA
18 14.3 5.9 10.6 107 191 .560 107 190 .563
14
Carlos Boozer , UTA
22 20.7 8.3 15.1 183 333 .550 183 333 .550
15
Tim Duncan , SAS
18 18.9 7.6 13.8 136 249 .546 136 245 .555
15
Beno Udrih , SAC
19 13.6 5.6 10.3 107 196 .546 83 142 .585
17
Chris Paul , NOH
14 21.2 7.6 14.1 107 197 .543 84 154 .545
18
Emeka Okafor , NOH
22 11.0 4.5 8.2 98 181 .541 98 181 .541
19
Rajon Rondo , BOS
22 11.5 5.3 9.9 116 218 .532 114 203 .562
20
* Omri Casspi , SAC
19 10.8 4.2 7.9 79 150 .527 56 105 .533
21
Brendan Haywood , WAS
20 10.4 4.1 7.8 82 156 .526 82 156 .526
22
Steve Nash , PHX
23 17.6 6.3 12.2 146 280 .521 107 198 .540
22
Josh Smith , ATL
22 15.3 6.2 12.0 137 263 .521 137 260 .527
24
Andrew Bogut , MIL
15 15.1 6.8 13.1 102 196 .520 102 195 .523
25
Joakim Noah , CHI
21 10.6 4.2 8.2 89 172 .517 89 172 .517
26
Jose Calderon , TOR
23 11.7 4.5 8.8 104 202 .515 81 144 .563
27
Luis Scola , HOU
22 13.9 6.0 11.7 132 258 .512 131 257 .510
28
LeBron James , CLE
23 28.2 9.7 19.2 224 441 .508 190 343 .554
28
Luke Ridnour , MIL
21 11.4 4.5 8.8 94 185 .508 74 134 .552
30
Anthony Morrow , GSW
20 14.0 5.2 10.2 104 205 .507 57 108 .528
31
Andray Blatche , WAS
20 10.8 4.6 9.2 93 184 .505 91 177 .514
31
Tony Parker , SAS
16 17.1 6.3 12.5 101 200 .505 99 194 .510
33
Ronnie Brewer , UTA
22 11.6 4.8 9.6 105 211 .498 101 194 .521
34
Louis Williams , PHI
14 17.4 6.4 12.9 90 181 .497 72 125 .576
35
Zach Randolph , MEM
22 18.9 7.6 15.4 168 339 .496 167 333 .502
36
Udonis Haslem , MIA
19 11.2 4.5 9.1 85 172 .494 85 172 .494
37
Kobe Bryant , LAL
21 28.4 10.6 21.6 223 454 .491 203 393 .517
37
Roy Hibbert , IND
20 9.6 4.0 8.2 81 165 .491 80 163 .491
37
Jason Thompson , SAC
21 14.5 5.3 10.9 112 228 .491 112 228 .491
40
Chris Bosh , TOR
25 23.9 8.1 16.5 202 413 .489 196 401 .489
41
Paul Pierce , BOS
22 18.1 5.8 11.8 127 260 .488 88 169 .521
42
LaMarcus Aldridge , POR
23 15.5 6.3 13.0 145 298 .487 141 292 .483
42
Carmelo Anthony , DEN
23 30.3 10.5 21.6 242 497 .487 222 439 .506
44
Brook Lopez , NJN
23 19.5 7.2 14.8 165 340 .485 165 340 .485
44
Jason Richardson , PHX
21 16.8 6.3 13.0 132 272 .485 84 154 .545
46
Deron Williams , UTA
20 19.5 7.4 15.4 149 309 .482 125 240 .521
47
Shawn Marion , DAL
20 11.8 5.1 10.6 102 213 .479 102 207 .493
48
Ryan Gomes , MIN
23 12.4 5.2 10.9 120 251 .478 100 204 .490
48
Chris Kaman , LAC
21 18.7 7.6 16.0 160 335 .478 160 332 .482
48
Al Thornton , LAC
21 13.8 5.1 10.8 108 226 .478 106 220 .482
PLAYER NAME, TEAM NAME GP MPG PF PFPG PFP48M FLAG TECH EJECT
1
Jason Thompson , SAC
21 34.0 87 4.1 5.8 .0 .0 0
2
Greg Oden , POR
21 23.9 84 4.0 8.0 .0 .0 0
3
* Taj Gibson , CHI
21 24.3 81 3.9 7.6 .0 1.0 0
4
Dwight Howard , ORL
23 33.9 88 3.8 5.4 .0 5.0 0
5
Jermaine O'Neal , MIA
18 31.8 68 3.8 5.7 .0 4.0 0
6
Marc Gasol , MEM
22 35.7 81 3.7 4.9 .0 .0 0
7
Wilson Chandler , NYK
23 32.7 84 3.7 5.4 .0 .0 0
8
Tyson Chandler , CHA
19 24.2 69 3.6 7.2 .0 3.0 0
9
Brook Lopez , NJN
23 36.6 83 3.6 4.7 1.0 .0 0
10
Ersan Ilyasova , MIL
21 24.7 75 3.6 7.0 .0 .0 0
11
Amar'e Stoudemire , PHX
23 34.3 81 3.5 4.9 2.0 4.0 0
12
Channing Frye , PHX
23 30.8 80 3.5 5.4 .0 1.0 0
13
Carlos Boozer , UTA
22 36.4 76 3.5 4.6 .0 1.0 0
13
Zydrunas Ilgauskas , CLE
22 23.1 76 3.5 7.2 .0 1.0 0
15
Dahntay Jones , IND
20 32.7 69 3.4 5.1 .0 1.0 0
16
Paul Millsap , UTA
22 26.1 75 3.4 6.3 .0 .0 0
17
Kenyon Martin , DEN
20 32.6 68 3.4 5.0 .0 5.0 1
18
Nene Hilario , DEN
23 33.4 78 3.4 4.9 .0 1.0 0
19
Charlie Villanueva , DET
21 28.6 71 3.4 5.7 .0 .0 0
20
Amir Johnson , TOR
25 17.1 84 3.4 9.4 .0 .0 0
21
* Jonas Jerebko , DET
20 27.3 67 3.4 5.9 .0 .0 0
22
Roy Hibbert , IND
20 22.7 66 3.3 7.0 .0 .0 0
23
Danny Granger , IND
17 36.6 56 3.3 4.3 .0 1.0 0
24
Anderson Varejao , CLE
21 30.1 69 3.3 5.2 .0 2.0 0
25
Carmelo Anthony , DEN
23 36.7 75 3.3 4.3 .0 6.0 0
25
David Lee , NYK
23 34.3 75 3.3 4.6 .0 .0 0
27
Andrea Bargnani , TOR
24 33.3 78 3.2 4.7 .0 .0 0
28
Joakim Noah , CHI
21 33.9 68 3.2 4.6 .0 5.0 1
29
Samuel Dalembert , PHI
23 26.0 74 3.2 5.9 .0 2.0 0
29
Al Harrington , NYK
23 31.5 74 3.2 4.9 .0 1.0 0
31
Joel Przybilla , POR
24 21.3 76 3.2 7.2 .0 .0 0
32
* Stephen Curry , GSW
22 31.6 69 3.1 4.8 .0 .0 0
33
Nenad Krstic , OKC
19 23.3 59 3.1 6.4 .0 .0 0
34
Elton Brand , PHI
20 31.2 62 3.1 4.8 .0 .0 0
34
George Hill , SAS
20 25.0 62 3.1 6.0 .0 .0 0
36
Michael Beasley , MIA
21 32.2 65 3.1 4.6 .0 .0 0
36
Corey Maggette , GSW
21 25.5 65 3.1 5.8 .0 3.0 0
38
Carl Landry , HOU
22 26.4 68 3.1 5.6 .0 .0 0
38
Rodney Stuckey , DET
22 37.8 68 3.1 3.9 .0 2.0 0
40
Anthony Morrow , GSW
20 34.1 61 3.0 4.3 .0 1.0 0
41
Baron Davis , LAC
21 33.5 64 3.0 4.4 .0 4.0 0
42
Monta Ellis , GSW
22 40.7 67 3.0 3.6 .0 3.0 0
43
Hedo Turkoglu , TOR
24 33.7 73 3.0 4.3 .0 .0 0
44
Anthony Randolph , GSW
20 22.1 60 3.0 6.5 .0 1.0 0
45
LaMarcus Aldridge , POR
23 34.0 68 3.0 4.2 .0 1.0 0
46
Al Horford , ATL
22 33.2 65 3.0 4.3 .0 1.0 0
46
Emeka Okafor , NOH
22 30.0 65 3.0 4.7 .0 .0 0
46
Luis Scola , HOU
22 29.1 65 3.0 4.9 .0 .0 0
49
Chris Kaman , LAC
21 36.8 62 3.0 3.9 .0 2.0 0
50
* Tyreke Evans , SAC
20 36.1 59 3.0 3.9 .0 .0 0
151
Zydrunas Ilgauskas , CLE
22 508 23.1
152
Martell Webster , POR
24 553 23.1
153
Jared Dudley , PHX
23 526 22.9
154
Chris Andersen , DEN
22 502 22.8
155
Roy Hibbert , IND
20 453 22.7
156
Brad Miller , CHI
21 474 22.6
157
James Posey , NOH
22 493 22.4
158
JJ Redick , ORL
23 514 22.4
159
Anthony Randolph , GSW
20 442 22.1
159
Ramon Sessions , MIN
23 508 22.1
161
Antonio McDyess , SAS
19 408 21.5
162
Jared Jeffries , NYK
22 468 21.3
163
Joel Przybilla , POR
24 510 21.3
164
* James Harden , OKC
21 446 21.2
165
Matt Bonner , SAS
20 423 21.2
166
* Ty Lawson , DEN
23 483 21.0
167
Josh Boone , NJN
23 471 20.5
168
Rasheed Wallace , BOS
22 450 20.5
169
Marquis Daniels , BOS
19 386 20.4
170
* DeMar DeRozan , TOR
25 499 20.0
171
Daniel Gibson , CLE
22 439 20.0
172
J.J. Hickson , CLE
23 444 19.3
173
Marco Belinelli , TOR
24 464 19.3
174
Ryan Hollins , MIN
23 443 19.3
175
Willie Green , PHI
23 441 19.2
176
D.J. Augustin , CHA
19 357 18.8
177
Keith Bogans , SAS
19 356 18.8
178
* Chase Budinger , HOU
21 392 18.7
179
Donte Greene , SAC
18 334 18.6
180
Jamario Moon , CLE
20 360 18.0
181
Jason Maxiell , DET
21 375 17.9
182
Mikki Moore , GSW
21 374 17.9
183
Jordan Farmar , LAL
21 374 17.8
184
Randy Foye , WAS
19 336 17.7
185
Shannon Brown , LAL
21 361 17.2
186
Amir Johnson , TOR
25 426 17.1
187
Roger Mason , SAS
19 324 17.1
188
* Wayne Ellington , MIN
21 353 16.8
189
Jason Kapono , PHI
22 366 16.6
190
Eddie House , BOS
22 366 16.6
191
Darius Songaila , NOH
22 359 16.3
192
* Sam Young , MEM
22 354 16.1
193
Goran Dragic , PHX
23 365 15.9
194
Damien Wilkins , MIN
22 346 15.7
195
Sebastian Telfair , LAC
21 329 15.7
196
Kwame Brown , DET
20 310 15.5
197
* DeMarre Carroll , MEM
21 319 15.2
198
Carlos Arroyo , MIA
19 288 15.2
199
Craig Smith , LAC
21 319 15.2
200
Sasha Pavlovic , MIN
22 334 15.2


We need more numbers and colors!

[D-Rose]

[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF]How Good Where Larry Bird and Charles Barkley, Aka "The Greatest Forwards/Multipositional or Not" OFFENSIVELY? Here we go :applause:

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/hoopla/index.html

[B]Charles Barkley was...well, I was tempted to call him a loser :oldlol: - then I came to my senses

(ofcourse with all The Hate Barkley Got It Sucks that a 6`5 is the Most Dominant Inside Player doesn`t? :confusedshrug: ).

All this classifying I was doing in my head meant nothing, but it represented my feeling about how players affect the teams they play for. No matter who Magic, Bird, or Dr. J played for, their teams would always be good. Charles Barkley impressed me as one who would always hurt his team no matter where he played and no matter how good his stats. When I realized that I was classifying a great player as a loser, I also realized that such classification was stupid and best left for drunken rowdy fans, not for rational and unbiased basketball analysts like me or Tommy Heinsohn.

What I'd like to do then is to present the new and improved points created formula and see how Charles Barkley compares to some of the consensus great players in the league: Bird, Olajuwon, McHale, Dominique, and a few others. (See Individual Floor % chapter for explanation of method.)

There is some room for error in this method and a little subjectivity makes its way into it as well. After testing the formulas a few times, though, I find that the results are pretty good in that they match many of my expectations. The problem I have with the formulas is that they are not simple and running through calculations is like mowing the White House lawn - boring and time consuming, but tedious because mistakes can't be tolerated. If I didn't think the method was valid, there is no way I would have gone through all the calculations I did.

Scor. Total Approx. Pts
Player Poss. Poss. Flr% Created(perG)

C. Barkley 1052 1729 .609 2100 (26.2)
L. Bird 1061 1817 .584 2120 (27.9)
A. Olajuwon 824 1554 .530 1650 (20.9)
Magic 932 1539 .606 1860 (25.8)
M. Jordan 1393 2253 .618 2780 (33.9)

Bar None the Best Players of the Late 80s.... :confusedshrug:

K. McHale 653 1054 .620 1300 (20.3) (Bird help)

D. Wilkins 1074 1980 .542 2150 (27.6)
B. Williams 587 1068 .549 1170 (16.7)

K. Malone 996 1918 .519 1990 (24.3) (With Stockton!!!!)
J. Worthy 713 1246 .572 1420 (18.9) (Magic Help)

A. English 969 1767 .549 1940 (24.2)
A. Dantley 665 1062 .626 1330 (19.3)
X. McDaniel 783 1500 .522 1560 (20.0)
T. Chambers 771 1477 .522 1540 (18.8)
M. Cage 488 960 .508 970 (13.5)
C. Oakley 516 1040 .496 1030 (12.6)
R. Tarpley 486 953 .510 970 (12.0)
O. Thorpe 819 1473 .556 1640 (20.0)
K. Willis 368 744 .494 730 (9.7)
T. Cummings 722 1420 .508 1440 (18.9)

[COLOR="Red"]-Ofcourse Scottie Pippen

[Big#50]

Larry Bird is the best offensive player ever? WTF?

[MaxFly]

bird and shaq right now both have career ppg of 24. shaq's gonna drop off after this year.

shaq career rpg = 11 , bird career rpg= 10. I dont see how 1 more rebound makes you a far better rebounder considering that shaq is like 4 inches taller than bird)

I have Bird ranked higher than Shaq as well, but you can't compare rebounding numbers as you did from different eras.

Bird played primarily throughout the 80s, and the tempo of the game was much faster than that during the years that Shaq has played. More shots were put up in the same amount of time, and consequently, there were more rebounds to be had.

[DominantElement]

Larry Bird is the best offensive player ever? WTF?
Give an argument on how he wasn't since you seem to think it's crazy. Because it's a pretty valid opinion to have. There was nothing Bird couldn't do out there on the offensive end. Nothing he couldn't do.

[Micku]

Bird is the greatest offensive player to ever play, only reason why he's inferior to Jordan was the lack of athleticism, explosion and defense.

Best O player ever? Maybe the best skillful O?

Because I don't know what you mean by the greatest offensive player. Because I think MJ is the best scorer, which is also apart of offensive.

[ThaRegul8r]

Best O player ever? Maybe the best skillful O?

Because I don't know what you mean by the greatest offensive player. Because I think MJ is the best scorer, which is also apart of offensive.

Contrary to popular belief, scoring is not the only component of offense.

[Lebron23]

They are all in the same level. These 3 players are just barely outside the top 5. ( 6, 7,8)

[SpurrDurr]

The fact he was white.

[Odinn]

Shaq was better than Duncan. And was not an ideal franchise player.
Duncan was not better than Shaq. And was a ideal franchise player.

Bird played on Shaq's level while being a true franchise player.

So that's that. Bird > Shaq & Duncan

[Unbiased_one]

Everyone pretty much has Bird higher than those two by a few spots or so and I can make no valid argument as to why Bird was better than those two.

It can't be rings. It can't be individual accomplishments. It can't be who was better during their primes. It can't be longevity.

What is it?

I have shaq above bird. Bird over Duncan primarily through the eye-test

[DMAVS41]

I'd take Duncan and Shaq over Bird probably...but that has a little more to do with longevity I think.

[Jacks3]

Shaq is definitely better.

But Duncan? lol get real. He's not that level of player.

[riseagainst]

his ability to dominate without scoring alot/having the ball in his hands. Bird is top 4 GOAT imo.

[TheBigVeto]

Bird >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaq because Bird didn't play for the Fakers, so his rings aren't tainted (David Stern given).

Bird > Duncan because Bird didn't have 2nd GOAT PF/C/SG/PG in his team. Duncan has 2nd GOAT SG in Manu.

[bdreason]

All 3 are typically ranked in the top 10 GOAT... so let's not act like people create some huge divide between them. I actually have them ranked consecutively at #6, 7, and 8.

[sportjames23]

Bird >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaq because Bird didn't play for the Fakers, so his rings aren't tainted (David Stern given).

Bird > Duncan because Bird didn't have 2nd GOAT PF/C/SG/PG in his team. Duncan has 2nd GOAT SG in Manu.


:biggums:

[Straight_Ballin]

Bird >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaq because Bird didn't play for the Fakers, so his rings aren't tainted (David Stern given).

Bird > Duncan because Bird didn't have 2nd GOAT PF/C/SG/PG in his team. Duncan has 2nd GOAT SG in Manu.

Lol fail post of the week.
How many rings do the celtics have?!?

[Carbine]

Shaq:

4 Titles
3 FMVPs
1 MVP
14 All-NBA Teams (1st-8, 2nd-2, 3rd-4)
3 All-NBA second team defense

Bird:

3 Titles
2 FMVPs
3 MVPs
10 All-NBA Teams (1st-9, 2nd-1)
3 All-NBA Second Team Defense

Factor is Shaqs longevity is also superior (he played 50 percent more games than Bird) and a similar (I'd take Shaq, but see the argument for Bird) prime........

I still don't see how you could phrase an argument to make Bird above Shaq on the GOAT lists, which he generally is by most people who do them.

[Carbine]

Duncan:

4 Titles
3 FMVPs
2 MVP
14 All-NBA Teams (1st-10, 2nd-3, 3rd-1)
14 All-NBA Defense (1st-8, 2nd-6)

Does Bird's prime and 1 more MVP make up for the difference of Duncans 1 more title, 1 FMVP, 4 All-NBA teams and 11 All-NBA Defense?

Not only make up for the difference, but push him ahead?

[kshutts1]

This thread is a great reason for the "tiered" structure employed by some.

[WolfGang]

The era he played in. Shaq would be god against those weaklings.

[rmt]

Duncan:

4 Titles
3 FMVPs
2 MVP
14 All-NBA Teams (1st-10, 2nd-3, 3rd-1)
14 All-NBA Defense (1st-8, 2nd-6)

Does Bird's prime and 1 more MVP make up for the difference of Duncans 1 more title, 1 FMVP, 4 All-NBA teams and 11 All-NBA Defense?

Not only make up for the difference, but push him ahead?

Longevity and defense are on Duncan's side. Also, Duncan had lesser team-mates (definitely in 03).

[tobethdope]

bird was just a bball genius, he wasnt as good as he was due to his height; his strengh; his body; or the ability to be more athletic, faster etc. than everyone with a similar body (like shaq and lebron), no he was just smarter than everyone and hustled more.
u dont see the things he did in nowadays nba - :( very sad that is

he was a bball genius - period

the only players that come to mind with similar abilities and impact on the game are mj and magic; in current nba maybe rondo and kobe to some extend

oh yea, u cant count those skillz, and they dont show up on stats sheets :biggums:

[Wally450]

Bird >>>>>>>>>>>>> Shaq because Bird didn't play for the Fakers, so his rings aren't tainted (David Stern given).

Bird > Duncan because Bird didn't have 2nd GOAT PF/C/SG/PG in his team. Duncan has 2nd GOAT SG in Manu.


Lol, Bird played with McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, Bill Walton, Danny Ainge, etc. So does he get a pass?

[Rasheed1]

Bird had a clutch factor that was greater than those 2.... But other than that, he's not better than Shaq or Duncan

[jlip]

This thread is a great reason for the "tiered" structure employed by some.

This

[ShaqAttack3234]

Does Bird's prime and 1 more MVP make up for the difference of Duncans 1 more title, 1 FMVP, 4 All-NBA teams and 11 All-NBA Defense

To me, yes because I rank players primarily based on how good they were in their primes.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Timmy has better longevity and was a better defensive player but Larry had the better prime and peak.

To separate them people use titles, but that's pretty much it. If you're comparing their actual skills, it isn't even close. Bird was the better all around player.

[Rasheed1]

If we are going to keep having these kinds of comparisons, the OP will have to be alot more specific about how they judge who is better.

If you are asking who has the better career? that is one question. It would involve accolades and career achievements.

If you are asking who had better bball skills? that is a different question where you would have to list the skills that you think are most important.

If you are asking who would be more valuable if they all were available at the same time? thats another question

I think Bird was a better shooter from range. He had the superior clutch factor, I give him the nod as a passer.

I think Shaq was the most dominant, he is a pretty good passer himself, and he would be the guy I choose if they were all in the same draft and I had a chance to pick any of the three.

I think Duncan has the best fundamentals, and he also was the most steady and consistent of the three throughout his career.


If you ask Who I choose if I had to pick them in order? Shaq>Duncan>Bird

I do that because the big men are more valuable to me, and Shaq gets the nod as the most valuable because he was a destroyer in his prime. totally warped defensive game-plans and threw everything out of whack. He was totally unstoppable