Larry Bird vs Tim Duncan

[Duncan21formvp]

Who would you rather have?

[KG5MVP]

bird is the word

[BEAST Griffin]

Tim Duncan

[Cangri]

Duncan but only because his defensive presence was much bigger than Bird's.

[D.J.]

Bird because of his versatility. Scoring, rebounding, passing, court awareness, etc. Duncan is much better on defense, but as long as your team has good post defenders, give me Bird. Bird is also the last player to average 25/9/6.

[DeronMillsap]

Larry Legend

[shootingcomets]

duncan... i know im biased because i grew up watching him and only seen bird on espn classics

bird is no doubt a superb player but in this day and age where there's a darth of big man, a duncan type would have much more impact

[tommy3]

bird is the word
this

[D.J.]

duncan... i know im biased because i grew up watching him and only seen bird on espn classics

bird is no doubt a superb player but in this day and age where there's a darth of big man, a duncan type would have much more impact


Big men had much more of an impact in the 80s and 90s. In the early 90s, the only perimeter players that dominated consistently on the offensive end were Jordan, Dominique(if you want to consider him a perimeter player), Clyde, Mullin, and Mitch Richmond. Big men had more of an impact then. Today's game is perimeter-friendly.

[Lebron23]

Larry Joe Bird

[dyna]

Bird

[jlauber]

Duncan. Better career, more rings and playing on far less talented rosters, and more dominant in the post-season.

[ginobli2311]

Duncan. Better career, more rings and playing on far less talented rosters, and more dominant in the post-season.

i agree. its very close for me....but duncan's proven ability to win without elite talent and his defensive impact put him ahead of bird for me.

[DeronMillsap]

Duncan. Better career, more rings and playing on far less talented rosters, and more dominant in the post-season.
Bird had much tougher competition. 80's Lakers, Pistons, Sixers, Bulls, Rockets >>>> 2000's Lakers, Pistons, Mavs, Nets

[necya]

oh no please...Bird, it's not complicated...:banghead:

[jlauber]

Bird had much tougher competition. 80's Lakers, Pistons, Sixers >>>> 2000's Lakers, Pistons, Nets

Good points, but it could also be argued that he had the most loaded rosters of the decade, as well. His 85-86 team had FIVE HOFers. The Lakers were probably equally as talented, but were also far more dominant. If Magic had not been playing hurt and rusty in the '81 post-season, I am convinced that the Lakers would have won that year. Take a look at this comparison. LA wiped out the Sixers in the Finals in both '80 and '82 (and even won a clinching game in '80 without Kareem.) Meanwhile, Boston had to come back from a 3-1 deficit against Philly in '81, and they won all three of those games by razor-thin margins. And had the Lakers not BLOWN the '84 Finals, in a series in which they should have SWEPT Boston, Bird would have lost another ring. Bird's post-season FG%, in a decade in which entire leagues nearly averaged 50% was only .472, and was an even worse .455 in his five Finals (in fact, he never shot 50% in any of them.)

Duncan won with good, but not great rosters in a decade of a dominant Laker team that could easily have won five titles in a row. Duncan was much more of a force defensively, as well.

[Bush4Ever]

If you are starting a team from scratch, Duncan's exceptional interior defense abilities are a huge boon, and why I would pick him if I were starting a team from scratch.

[magnax1]

oh no please...Bird, it's not complicated...:banghead:
This. I really don't see how this is even an argument.

[NinjaSeal]

those that said duncan should have astericks by there name , so you know they dont know what there talking about and never take there advice on anything ever!

next thing they will be saying is john wall got more court vision then magic johnson

[NoEasy9]

If I building a new team my choice would be Duncan, and the reasons have already been stated in this thread. If we were asking who the greater player was, I would say it is Bird.

[SinJackal]

Tim Duncan.

Longer career as top notch player. Better peak (imo), arguably better prime. Did more with less. Didn't need a super stacked team to win titles.

First 13 years of Duncan's career:

All NBA team every year (9 first teams)

All NBA defensive team every year (8 first teams)

All star every year (The 50 game season didn't have an all star game, but he obviously would've been one if it did)

4 NBA titles, with 3 Finals MVPs.


Duncan has more of all of those things than Bird too, which isn't surprising seeing as how Bird's career barely spanned 13 seasons, several of which were cut short with injury. And despite Bird's super stacked teams, he only had 3 titles. Less than Duncan. Before you say, "blah blah blah, Lakers", Duncan had his own Lakers team to deal with. Only he got through them twice, not just once like Bird.

Duncan has 4 titles, earning all of which while going through either one or both of: The arguable best team(s) of the post-Jordan era, in the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and some of the best teams ever to not win a title (Mavs, Suns).

Bird was great, and had an even better team around him.

Duncan ****-blocked great teams and HOFers from titles. Over and over and over again.

That some of you acting like this isn't even a close debate. . .is just ludicrous. PPG isn't everything people.

[rmt]

Bird because of his versatility. Scoring, rebounding, passing, court awareness, etc. Duncan is much better on defense, but as long as your team has good post defenders, give me Bird.

That's a big if. With Duncan, you get both - a little less offense and a lot more defense (anchored the best defense for a decade).


Duncan. Better career, more rings and playing on far less talented rosters, and more dominant in the post-season.

This and


i agree. its very close for me....but duncan's proven ability to win without elite talent and his defensive impact put him ahead of bird for me.

this.

[Round Mound]

Depends on what u need

Tim Duncan is a better rim protector and rebounder than Bird. Aswell, as shot blocker

Bird on the other hand is a better creator, passer, far range shooter. As far as post play, they are of total different styles. Bird was great mid range range post player. Duncan on the other hand is a grat interior defender. BIrd on the other hand a great 1 shooting guard player. 2 Powerforwards and 1 small forward, 1 point guard.

If u have a team with great shooters and penetrators, then Duncan is the answer.

Then Bird would play better with for example 3 powerforwards cause of his creating skills. Although he wasn`t a great ball handler, he was a great desicion maker for others. Then 1 point-forward.

[Harison]

Bird. Different isnt vast, but big enough. If we are picking offensive GOAT, Bird is up there with Jordan. Defensively his impact wasnt as big as Duncans, but he was a good defender. Both deserved their MVPs, but want to check against whom TD won, and against whom Bird? Its not even close.

"But TD has one ring more!", sure, if you want to open that door - in the Golden age Duncan with Spurs isnt winning any rings, nor getting any MVPs. Today Bird would dominate even more than in his days.

Bottom line, this comparison isnt fair. Duncan is an amazing player, but he cant fill Birds shoes.

[SinJackal]

Bird. Different isnt vast, but big enough. If we are picking offensive GOAT, Bird is up there with Jordan. Defensively his impact wasnt as big as Duncans, but he was a good defender. Both deserved their MVPs, but want to check against whom TD won, and against whom Bird? Its not even close.

"But TD has one ring more!", sure, if you want to open that door - in the Golden age Duncan in Spurs isnt winning any rings, nor getting any MVPs. Today Bird would dominate even more than in his days.
Bottom line, this comparison isnt fair. Duncan is an amazing player, but he cant fill Birds shoes.

Extremely speculative statements, which cannot be proven or disproven. In other words, bullshit.

I can just as easily say the same thing, only in reverse, and you couldn't disprove it.

Bird didn't have to beat the Showtime Lakers every time to get his titles, he only played them 3 times, and lost twice. Duncan had to play the Shaq/Kobe Lakers five times, and beat them twice. Duncan also had to go through tough Mavs and Suns teams, which, 20 years from now, will be revered like the 76ers and Rockets teams were in the 80s.

You cannot use the "tougher competition" debate, because that's all a matter of opinion. Record-wise, the competition Bird faced was no better.

Duncan can't fill Bird's shoes because they have different roles. Bird can't fill Duncan's shoes either, as he's a different type of player.

You're also trying to act like Bird was some incredible, mind blowing scorer and Duncan was dogshit at scoring. I would say Duncan's scoring is closer to Bird's scoring than Bird's defense is to Duncan's. Again, Duncan, All NBA defensive team every year of his career, with 8 first teams and 5 second teams. Bird: 3 second teams, zero first teams. Bird: Zero all nba defensive teams during his high scoring years. His 3 defensive team spots all came before he started scoring more.

So again. . .the gap between Duncan's defense and Bird's is much larger than Bird's offense compared to Duncan's. Duncan didn't pass as well as Bird, but imo, sets his team up just as much with a combination of screens and passes. Both of those parts of his game are still clearly evident as a 34 year old player. You can see him still doing it masterfully now. No need to even look at highlight videos to see it. He does it all game long every night.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb if I said Duncan made his teammates better more than Bird, or at the very least just as much. So that's not really a debatable point for Bird.

All Bird really has over Duncan is the slightly better scoring. Duncan has the vastly better defense, plenty of scoring, sets his teammates up beautifully, has more titles, more finals MVPs, had to face arguably tougher teams every year in the playoffs (look before the finals too, not just the finals. Bird didn't have to play shit until the ECF and Finals, and at times didnt play a tough team in the ECF either), and won titles with FAR lesser teams than Bird was running with every single year.

It's all a matter of opinion. Stop trying to pass speculative statements off as facts.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I respect Duncan but Bird is the one I'd pick. I believe that Bird elevates his teammates more. He was a more vocal and forcefull leader. Duncan is a fine player but Bird is a legend. I saw him play in his prime and in my mind it's no contest.

[Nobler]

Depends on what u need

Tim Duncan is a better rim protector and rebounder than Bird. Aswell, as shot blocker

Bird on the other hand is a better creator, passer, far range shooter. As far as post play, they are of total different styles. Bird was great mid range range post player. Duncan on the other hand is a grat interior defender. BIrd on the other hand a great 1 shooting guard player. 2 Powerforwards and 1 small forward, 1 point guard.

If u have a team with great shooters and penetrators, then Duncan is the answer.

Then Bird would play better with for example 3 powerforwards cause of his creating skills. Although he wasn`t a great ball handler, he was a great desicion maker for others. Then 1 point-forward.

what the hell man? where were u in the charles barkley thread? i paged you and everything :hammerhead:

[alenleomessi]

WOW really? :lol

[Big#50]

Bird was slow as shit. He wouldn't be able to defend most sf's, pf's and centers of today. He wouldn't be able to get his shot off over people like Dirk does. In an era of fundamental play, he was great, only because he was a hard worker and great hustle player. A good shooter would be awesome in the 80'S. Teams were giving up jumpers like it wasn't shit. Teams were running and defense wasn't even being played. In this era he wouldn't be an all star, just a good shooter. But with more athletic defenders and better defense being played, I don't even think he would be even half of the player he was in the 80's. Bird is the only great in my top ten that I think would not do great in this era. Too damn slow and his D is very overrated. He had good defenders all around him for most his career.

[RajonKGcelts]

Bird and its not close

[rmt]

Bird and its not close

How is it not close? Duncan's career resume is at least equal to if not greater than Bird's. Bird had him on MVPs; Duncan had Bird on Finals MVPs and rings. Bird was better offensively; Duncan better defensively. Bird had better competition (only in the later rounds); Duncan had lesser talent. I saw Bird's entire career and yes, he was great but not MJ great. It's close.

I guess if Duncan had gone to the Celtics (as they had greater odds) or some big market city that spent loads of money and had tons of media exposure, he'd be a legend.

[liquidrage]

How is it not close? Duncan's career resume is at least equal to if not greater than Bird's. Bird had him on MVPs; Duncan had Bird on Finals MVPs and rings. Bird was better offensively; Duncan better defensively. Bird had better competition (only in the later rounds); Duncan had lesser talent. I saw Bird's entire career and yes, he was great but not MJ great. It's close.

I guess if Duncan had gone to the Celtics (as they had greater odds) or some big market city that spent loads of money and had tons of media exposure, he'd be a legend.

If Duncan had gone to Celtics he'd be Paul Pierce legendary.

[StillKill24]

Duncan. i bet if bird was playing today in his prime he wouldn't even be better than dirk.

[DCL]

replace bird with duncan on those celtics, and i think they would still dominate and win the ring without any other changes.

but replace duncan with bird, i'm not sure if the spurs got enough to do the same unless they traded manu for a big.

[bdreason]

GOAT PF vs. GOAT SF?



I'll take the GOAT PF to start at team.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Bird was slow as shit. He wouldn't be able to defend most sf's, pf's and centers of today. He wouldn't be able to get his shot off over people like Dirk does. In an era of fundamental play, he was great, only because he was a hard worker and great hustle player. A good shooter would be awesome in the 80'S. Teams were giving up jumpers like it wasn't shit. Teams were running and defense wasn't even being played. In this era he wouldn't be an all star, just a good shooter. But with more athletic defenders and better defense being played, I don't even think he would be even half of the player he was in the 80's. Bird is the only great in my top ten that I think would not do great in this era. Too damn slow and his D is very overrated. He had good defenders all around him for most his career.

That's the same kind of shit people said when he got drafted. Literally. Coming out of college it was all about how slow he was and how they were afraid he wouldn't be able to get a shot off. The critics were wrong then and you are wrong now. Guys are more athletic now but other than the top tier guys, the talent pool is diluted. Bird was 6'9 with top of the food chain skills. He's be just fine.

[D.J.]

That's the same kind of shit people said when he got drafted. Literally. Coming out of college it was all about how slow he was and how they were afraid he wouldn't be able to get a shot off. The critics were wrong then and you are wrong now. Guys are more athletic nowbut other than the top tier guys, the talent pool is diluted. Bird was 6'9 with top of the food chain skills. He's be just fine.


No they're not.

[ginobli2311]

Extremely speculative statements, which cannot be proven or disproven. In other words, bullshit.

I can just as easily say the same thing, only in reverse, and you couldn't disprove it.

Bird didn't have to beat the Showtime Lakers every time to get his titles, he only played them 3 times, and lost twice. Duncan had to play the Shaq/Kobe Lakers five times, and beat them twice. Duncan also had to go through tough Mavs and Suns teams, which, 20 years from now, will be revered like the 76ers and Rockets teams were in the 80s.

You cannot use the "tougher competition" debate, because that's all a matter of opinion. Record-wise, the competition Bird faced was no better.

Duncan can't fill Bird's shoes because they have different roles. Bird can't fill Duncan's shoes either, as he's a different type of player.

You're also trying to act like Bird was some incredible, mind blowing scorer and Duncan was dogshit at scoring. I would say Duncan's scoring is closer to Bird's scoring than Bird's defense is to Duncan's. Again, Duncan, All NBA defensive team every year of his career, with 8 first teams and 5 second teams. Bird: 3 second teams, zero first teams. Bird: Zero all nba defensive teams during his high scoring years. His 3 defensive team spots all came before he started scoring more.

So again. . .the gap between Duncan's defense and Bird's is much larger than Bird's offense compared to Duncan's. Duncan didn't pass as well as Bird, but imo, sets his team up just as much with a combination of screens and passes. Both of those parts of his game are still clearly evident as a 34 year old player. You can see him still doing it masterfully now. No need to even look at highlight videos to see it. He does it all game long every night.

I don't think I'd be going out on a limb if I said Duncan made his teammates better more than Bird, or at the very least just as much. So that's not really a debatable point for Bird.

All Bird really has over Duncan is the slightly better scoring. Duncan has the vastly better defense, plenty of scoring, sets his teammates up beautifully, has more titles, more finals MVPs, had to face arguably tougher teams every year in the playoffs (look before the finals too, not just the finals. Bird didn't have to play shit until the ECF and Finals, and at times didnt play a tough team in the ECF either), and won titles with FAR lesser teams than Bird was running with every single year.

It's all a matter of opinion. Stop trying to pass speculative statements off as facts.

great post.

bird's real advantages are:

1. his ability to take over games late and make game winning plays/shots in the clutch. bird might be the 2nd best late game player of all time behind jordan. duncan is not even close to bird in this area. duncan is a poor free throw shooter and an even worse free throw shooter late in games. he doesn't have the ability to close out games the same way bird did

2. bird's all around play. bird was more versatile and was one of the passers of all time. bird was also a better leader. he brought more energy to his teams and brought a swagger that was contagious.

3. bird was more unstoppable offensively. he could score from anywhere and was more of a nightmare to game plan for. you simply didn't know how bird was going to beat you because he was so versatile.

now. i still take duncan because his defensive impact and rebounding trump the advantages above in my opinion. the fact that duncan has won 4 titles with his level of supporting casts goes a long way as well. but its very very very close. i just know i would rather build a team around duncan for the best 12 years of his career than build one around bird for the best 12 years of his.

[Lebron23]

Tim Duncan over Larry Bird in the NBA All time lists. Duncan won 4 NBA Championships, and he was a better defender than Bird. Duncan and Shaq were the Magic and Bird of my generation.

[Alamo]

Larry Joe Bird


Tim Duncan over Larry Bird in the NBA All time lists. Duncan won 4 NBA Championships, and he was a better defender than Bird. Duncan and Shaq were the Magic and Bird of my generation.

Flip Flopping once again.

[Lebron23]

Flip Flopping once again.


I just became an NBA fan in 1995. I finally learned some NBA history in the last 3 years.

[DKLaker]

Is this a Fking joke thread????

Bird 24/7 365 x infinity!!!!!!!! :D

Duncan's best season = McHale's best season.......ho hum:sleeping :sleeping :sleeping

[Alamo]

I just became an NBA fan in 1995. I finally learned some NBA history in the last 3 years.

What did you learn in the past 3 years about Bird and Duncan? Just curious.

[Lebron23]

What did you learn in the past 3 years about Bird and Duncan? Just curious.


Duncan is/was a better all around player than Bird. He won 4 NBA titles with a lesser talented supporting casts.

[DMAVS41]

i agree. its very close for me....but duncan's proven ability to win without elite talent and his defensive impact put him ahead of bird for me.

This.

[Celtic_Pride]

I have huge respect for Timmy. He is the best PF

But I ll take Larry Bird. Larry is versatile and will make everyone around him better. Its easier to build a team around Larry than Duncan

[Shepseskaf]

Duncan and Bird are arguably the top PF and SF in history, so any comparisons will be close, but they play very different roles.

I'll take Duncan narrowly because of his stronger defensive presence. And defense wins championships, as we all know.

[Lebron23]

I have huge respect for Timmy. He is the best PF

But I ll take Larry Bird. Larry is versatile and will make everyone around him better. Its easier to build a team around Larry than Duncan


Duncan won an NBA Championship with a young Tony Parker as his 2nd scoring option.

Parish, Johnson and Mchale > Parker, past his prime Robinson, and Ginobili

[Shepseskaf]

what the hell man? where were u in the charles barkley thread? i paged you and everything :hammerhead:
Seriously. Ppl were trying to say that Dirk should be ranked over Barkley all-time.

Definitely could have used Round Mound's contributions.

[Alamo]

Duncan won an NBA Championship with a young Tony Parker as his 2nd scoring option.

Parish, Johnson and Mchale > Parker, past his prime Robinson, and Ginobili


Not to mention that Ginobili was a rookie and playing 20 mpg and scoring 7 ppg that season.

[Miserio]

Duncan. And i'm a Boston fan and Larry Bird homer, but Duncan was just the better player.

[ronniec]

Duncan is/was a better all around player than Bird. He won 4 NBA titles with a lesser talented supporting casts.

that means you did not learn much.

Bird's game play made McHale, Parish, and all his teammates great players. Don't sound like the initial 80's Celtics team were assembled by 4, 5 HOFs start from the beginning.

[Lebron23]

Duncan. And i'm a Boston fan and Larry Bird homer, but Duncan was just the better player.


This

[Miserio]

that means you did not learn much.

Bird's game play made McHale, Parish, and all his teammates great players. Don't sound like the initial 80's Celtics team were assembled by 4, 5 HOFs start from the beginning.
Sorry but McHale was an unbelievable talent on his own, is not like Larry made him. He was a beast.

[DKLaker]

Duncan is/was a better all around player than Bird. He won 4 NBA titles with a lesser talented supporting casts.

4 titles when teams weren't sh!t compared to the powerhouse teams that Magic and Bird played against........Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls, Zeke's Pistons all would've Sh!t on Duncan/Shaq/Kobe Teams.....no contest at all.

[DKLaker]

Sorry but McHale was an unbelievable talent on his own, is not like Larry made him. He was a beast.

Educate the kid :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Miserio]

4 titles when teams weren't sh!t compared to the powerhouse teams that Magic and Bird played against........Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Jordan's Bulls, Zeke's Pistons all would've Sh!t on Duncan/Shaq/Kobe Teams.....no contest at all.
Yeah that's right but the Duncan's spurs had to go past the 03 Lakers and that's not an easy task for anyone. In 05 they beat the Pistons who were pretty much like the bad boys but with better defense (in my opinion) and the 07 title was pretty easy.

[DKLaker]

Yeah that's right but the Duncan's spurs had to go past the 03 Lakers and that's not an easy task for anyone. In 05 they beat the Pistons who were pretty much like the bad boys but with better defense (in my opinion) and the 07 title was pretty easy.

please compare the 03 Lakers to the 80's teams I mentioned........it would've been a beatdown!!! Sweep 4-0

[Miserio]

please compare the 03 Lakers to the 80's teams I mentioned........it would've been a beatdown!!! Sweep 4-0
Sweep is overeacting but I get your point, anyways, the 80s teams were better but Larry Bird's teams were also better... so, it's kind of the same thing.

Larry won with more talent against better teams.
Tim won with less talent against worse teams.

I still think consistensy and defensive presence gives the edge to Duncan, but you can't go wrong either way.

[Micku]

Duncan won an NBA Championship with a young Tony Parker as his 2nd scoring option.

Parish, Johnson and Mchale > Parker, past his prime Robinson, and Ginobili

That's silly and a fallacy.

Do you think that Duncan would've won in the 80s? Do you think Duncan could've went pass Dr. J, Moses Malone, Mo Cheeks? Or the Pistons? Or the Bucks in the 80s? Could any of the Duncan Spurs beat any of the Showtime Lakers, especiallly with a young Parker and past prime Robinson like they did in 2003?

You had to be stacked in the 80s in order to win. And Bird turned a 29 team into a 61 win team in his rookie year. And then won the next year, similar to Duncan.

[Celtic_Pride]

Duncan won an NBA Championship with a young Tony Parker as his 2nd scoring option.

Parish, Johnson and Mchale > Parker, past his prime Robinson, and Ginobili

Its not about championships everytime dude. I personally would prefer Bird due to some biased reasons.

[Pushxx]

Imagine Larry Bird with the training and medical advances of 2012...wow.

[tontoz]

Duncan may be the best power forward ever. He dominated on both ends of the court. Bird was only dominant on one end and had much stronger teamates.

I'm going with Duncan

[Round Mound]

Duncan may be the best power forward ever. He dominated on both ends of the court. Bird was only dominant on one end and had much stronger teamates.

I'm going with Duncan

Bird did Dominate Both Sides of the Court just not was much as Duncan did Defensively but to say Bird was a Bad Defender? :facepalm Is Totally False :no: .

He was a Great Post Defender On Taller and Bigger PFs/SFs...The only Trouble he had Was with the Smaller Quicker Great Offensive SFs like Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, Nique etc but WHO ELSE did not have Trouble against those? The Whole League Did

Bird is one of the Greatest Defensive and Offensive SFs

Defensive Side

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)

Defensive Win Shares

1979-80 NBA 5.6 (1)
1980-81 NBA 6.1 (1)
1981-82 NBA 5.7 (2)
1982-83 NBA 5.6 (5)
1983-84 NBA 5.6 (1)
1984-85 NBA 5.2 (2)
1985-86 NBA 6.2 (1)
1986-87 NBA 4.8 (6)
Career NBA 59.0 (25)

NBA & ABA Yearly Playoff Leaders and Records for Defensive Rating

Year Lg Player DRtg Tm
2011 NBA Dwight Howard 95.74 ORL
2010 NBA Dwight Howard 92.98 ORL
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
Offensive Side

Offensive Rating

1984-85 NBA 119.1 (10)
1986-87 NBA 120.9 (10)
1987-88 NBA 121.3 (8)
Career NBA 114.5 (52)

Offensive Win Shares

1982-83 NBA 8.4 (6)
1983-84 NBA 7.9 (6)
1984-85 NBA 10.5 (1)
1985-86 NBA 9.6 (2)
1986-87 NBA 10.4 (4)
1987-88 NBA 11.2 (3)
Career NBA 86.8 (25)

[TheBigVeto]

I'll take Bird, but not by a wide margin. Duncan is awesome too. Most underrated superstar in the 2000s.

[Eat Like A Bosh]

The Bird!

[Lebron23]

Duncan beat Bird in longevity. And He also prove that he can anchor a championship team in defense.

[Fallen Angel]

Peak: Bird
Career: Duncan

[Round Mound]

Peak: Bird
Career: Duncan

This

[TheBigVeto]

Bird, but it's a close call.

[rmt]

Five years after this thread started and Timmy with 2 more Finals, 1 more ring, 2 more all-star games, 1 more all-nba 1st team, 1 more all-nba 3rd team and 2 more all-defensive 2nd teams. Go Spurs go (for the 6th).

[bizil]

I would go with Bird. I just think his versatility and clutch factor give him the edge on Timmy. But I can see an argument for Duncan. A 7 foot power forward who controlled the paint like a dominant center had never really been seen before Duncan. And on top of it, Duncan had most of the new age PF shit at his disposal as well. GOAT wise, I think Duncan has eclipsed Bird though.

[Rocketswin2013]

Duncan is better IMO. Peaked higher, longer prime, less variability, scrub-carrier, better in the playoffs and FAR better on defense(Gap on D is bigger than Bird's gap on O IMO).

[Round Mound]

Scoring: Bird
Far Range Shooting: Bird
Mid Range Shooting: Bird
Post Scoring: Duncan
Rebounding: Tie
Passing: Bird
Creating Offense: Bird
Post Defense: Duncan
1 on 1 Defense: Duncan
Shotblocking/Altering Shots: Duncan
Floor And Team Defense: Bird
Clutchness: Bird
Leadership: Equal