Shaq vs. Bird [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Harison

08-07-2012, 04:29 PM

Bird is ranked 5-6th on All-time list for majority of fans, Shaq - 7-8th.

I personally would build around Bird: (nearly) GOAT offense, super clutch, excellent rebounding for his position, very loyal, have an argument for GOAT BBIQ.

Shaq has one advantage over Bird - very efficient volume scoring, but the only reason I would even consider him over Bird if I already had an elite SF/PF.

Still I couldnt rely on Shaq in the end of the game, or not to feud with teammates. Three years or so of dominant center is definitely great (till he bolts or is traded), but with Bird I get dominant player for much longer (at least, till injury).

AK47DR91

08-07-2012, 04:37 PM

1. Bird has more skills but Shaq has more impact. I have Bird at #6 and Shaq at #7, but they're not that far from each other in terms of all-time ranking. I won't argue against somebody who has Shaq over Bird.

2. Shaq is probably #1 when it comes to who's the all-time best to build around.

Odinn

08-07-2012, 04:37 PM

1. Bird
2. Bird

But;
Peak wise 1984-86 Bird and 2000-02 Shaq almost equal imo.
Prime wise, Shaq's prime lasted longer compared to Bird coz of Bird's injury.

Raz

08-07-2012, 04:39 PM

Bird is more talented, while Shaq is more naturally gifted and has a larger effect on the game. I'd have to go for Bird, due to Shaq flaking on his teams and not trying his hardest. Guy didn't seem to care too much, and drifted in and out of games.

Bird made his teammates better.

Legends66NBA7

08-07-2012, 04:48 PM

Shaq has one advantage over Bird - very efficient volume scoring

And shot blocking, defense, and playoff performer/Finals performer in his prime/peak. He also 3peated to titles with less help than Bird got.

KyrieTheFuture

08-07-2012, 04:50 PM

Bird squared.

Hands of Iron

08-07-2012, 04:51 PM

I'd probably rate Bird higher all-time, and would build around him over Shaq as well despite O'Neal's iilustrious peak. I'd really only take Hakeem Olajuwon and possibly Jordan over Larry Bird to build a team around.

IGotACoolStory

08-07-2012, 04:52 PM

What? Peak Bird's defense was better than peak Shaq's...

AK47DR91

08-07-2012, 04:54 PM

And shot blocking, defense, and playoff performer/Finals performer in his prime/peak. He also 3peated to titles with less help than Bird got.
Yeah, I was to say Shaq basically won a three-peat with one guy(Kobe) and a bunch of fillers.

Raz

08-07-2012, 04:58 PM

He also 3peated to titles with less help than Bird got.

Kobe is a top 10 ranked player by 99% of posters. Bird played with no other top 10, top 20, or top 30 guys.

The big man, little man, nice role player method is excellent. Those Laker teams had some talent. Robert Horry was a vey good player, he just ended up being a spot up shooter.

The most stacked team Shaq played on, was the 97-98 Lakers including: Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Kobe Bryant, Elden Campbell, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Jon Barry. How did that team turnout?

Talent isn't everything.

Odinn

08-07-2012, 05:05 PM

And shot blocking, defense, and playoff performer/Finals performer in his prime/peak. He also 3peated to titles with less help than Bird got.
Against weaker competition.

Legends66NBA7

08-07-2012, 05:10 PM

What? Peak Bird's defense was better than peak Shaq's...

Shaq was runner up in Defensive Player of the Year voting in 2000. Ranked tied for 8th in 2001 and got consideration in 2003, 2004 (though, he wasn't a threat to win it). Ranked 8th in 2005.

Bird never had a single vote for Defensive Player of the Year. How was Bird's peak defense considered better ?

Besides, a Center anchoring the paint and providing help defense > a perimeter defender on the wings/paint and providing help defense. Shaq's a better man to man defender than Bird was.

Rnbizzle

08-07-2012, 05:10 PM

Legends66NBA7

08-07-2012, 05:18 PM

Kobe is a top 10 ranked player by 99% of posters. Bird played with no other top 10, top 20, or top 30 guys.

Yes, Kobe > anybody else Bird played with, but Bird had much better depth on the front court and on the bench.

Bird's team was more loaded and more dangerous.

The big man, little man, nice role player method is excellent. Those Laker teams had some talent. Robert Horry was a vey good player, he just ended up being a spot up shooter.

Similar to Bird, he had Ainge and DJ.

The most stacked team Shaq played on, was the 97-98 Lakers including: Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Kobe Bryant, Elden Campbell, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Jon Barry. How did that team turnout?

Talent isn't everything.

They were a young team with inexperienced coaching and inexperience in the playoffs. Some of those all-star selections were considered suspect as well.

Bird's teams also lost to teams they shouldn't have in the playoffs and lost with home advantage a lot, as well.

Against weaker competition.

2 of 3 Bird's titles come against the 81 and 86 Rockets, neither of which are considered all-time great teams either, especially the 81 Rockets.

Plus, the Western Conference back in the West was loaded with talent and potential teams that almost knocked the Lakers out in 2000-02.

Legends66NBA7

08-07-2012, 05:21 PM

All the loyalty stuff is so circumstantial..

Bird isn't going to cause fits for his team, like Shaq did for the majority of teams he played for in his prime.

Odinn

08-07-2012, 05:26 PM

2 of 3 Bird's titles come against the 81 and 86 Rockets, neither of which are considered all-time great teams either, especially the 81 Rockets.

Plus, the Western Conference back in the West was loaded with talent and potential teams that almost knocked the Lakers out in 2000-02.
The only teams which had a chance to beat the Lakers were 2000 Blazers and 2002 Kings. Bird faced a tougher competition without a doubt.

Legends66NBA7

08-07-2012, 05:45 PM

The only teams which had a chance to beat the Lakers were 2000 Blazers and 2002 Kings. Bird faced a tougher competition without a doubt.

I'd say the Spurs also had a good chance too.

No question Bird did face more tougher competition, but a 3 peat is a 3 peat.

ProfessorMurder

08-07-2012, 06:26 PM

I would honestly take Bird ahead of almost all of the all time greats. I'd have to think about MJ depending on the rest of my roster.

Bird was insanely skilled, clutch, had hunger, could do anything, and he was unselfish. Perfect guy to build around. Perfect guy to be your alpha dog.

I have him at #5 all time, and Shaq at #8.

KevinNYC

08-07-2012, 06:27 PM

2 of 3 Bird's titles come against the 81 and 86 Rockets, neither of which are considered all-time great teams either, especially the 81 Rockets.

In 1981 they had to get through the 76ers who were a very good team that year. The 86 Celtics were going to beat anyone that year, but that Rocket team was quite good and with a healthy Ralph Sampson playing along Olajuwon, they created some nightmare matchups. If Sampson didn't get hurt the history of the late 80's NBA might be quite different. Think about going at team that has a top of all-time center AND a 7' 4" guy who was not stiff either.

This was a Rockets team that beat the defending champion Lakers in 5 games, winning 4 straight to close out the series.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064854/index.htm
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064885/index.htm

caliman

08-07-2012, 06:36 PM

Kobe is a top 10 ranked player by 99% of posters. Bird played with no other top 10, top 20, or top 30 guys.

The big man, little man, nice role player method is excellent. Those Laker teams had some talent. Robert Horry was a vey good player, he just ended up being a spot up shooter.

The most stacked team Shaq played on, was the 97-98 Lakers including: Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Kobe Bryant, Elden Campbell, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Jon Barry. How did that team turnout?

Talent isn't everything.

Aside from Kobe, does anyone else on the Lakers(not counting the cameos by Malone and Payton in 2004) come in the top 100? 200? Maybe Horry, but those Laker teams were essentially Shaq, Kobe and a bunch of role players.

Bird ran with prime McHale, HOF'er Parish, HOF'er DJ, and washed up but still effective Walton. Lets not act like he played with scrubs.

jlauber

08-07-2012, 06:47 PM

Post-season Shaq was a FAR greater player.

And a PEAK regular season Shaq was much more dominant.

Hands of Iron

08-07-2012, 06:47 PM

In 1981 they had to get through the 76ers who were a very good team that year. The 86 Celtics were going to beat anyone that year, but that Rocket team was quite good and with a healthy Ralph Sampson playing along Olajuwon, they created some nightmare matchups. If Sampson didn't get hurt the history of the late 80's NBA might be quite different. Think about going at team that has a top of all-time center AND a 7' 4" guy who was not stiff either.

This was a Rockets team that beat the defending champion Lakers in 5 games, winning 4 straight to close out the series.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064854/index.htm
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064885/index.htm

Amazing how much more credit Bird and the Celtics would've gotten had they beaten the Lakers in 1986 rather than the team who took care of them in five games, right? Beat not only the defending champs but the club that would win the next two titles in 1987-1988. Had they not be thrashed, Bird and Magic would be 2-2.

D.J.

08-07-2012, 06:49 PM

1. Who do you guys have ranked higher on your all-time list, i.e. better career?

Bird by a few spots.

2. Who would you rather build around?

Shaq. Always build around the big man, especially when it's Shaq.

jlauber

08-07-2012, 06:52 PM

Amazing how much more credit Bird and the Celtics would've gotten had they beaten the Lakers in 1986 rather than the team who took care of them in five games, right? Beat not inly the defending champs but the club that would win the next two titles in 1987-1988. Had they not be thrashed, Bird and Magic would be 2-2.

Actually, the '84 Lakers were one bad pass, and one missed FT away from SWEEPING Boston. Even Larry Bird admitted that they should have.

And, had Magic been completely healthy for the '81 post-season, and LA gets #2 of what would have been a 3-peat. The '80 and '82 Lakers easily handled Philly in the Finals (and even won a clinching game six on the road without Kareem in '80), while the '81 Celtics had to come back from a 3-1 series deficit against the Sixers, and in those three straight wins, they won by the narrowest of margins.

And if you are going to credit Bird with a "hypothetical" ring over Magic in '86, then I will give Magic a hypothetical ring over Bird in '88 (and any year after that, had Boston even been able to get to the Finals in '89, 90, and '91.

So even IF I were to give you '86, Magic SHOULD have beaten him in 81 and '84, dominated him in '85 and '87, and WOULD have pasted him in '88, '89, 90, and '91.

Or basically, Magic with a 9-1 edge over Bird.

oolalaa

08-07-2012, 06:55 PM

Who was better....

'86 - '87 Bird or '00 - '01 Shaq?

VERY close in my opinion. Could go either way.

Dasher

08-07-2012, 06:59 PM

Bird isn't going to cause fits for his team, like Shaq did for the majority of teams he played for in his prime.
Bird was a jerk and he and McHale despised each other.

D.J.

08-07-2012, 06:59 PM

Bird was a jerk and he and McHale despised each other.

Shaq and Kobe despised each other as well, but they won 3 titles in a row.

oolalaa

08-07-2012, 07:00 PM

Bird was a jerk and he and McHale despised each other.

That's a pretty big exaggeration on both points....

ILLsmak

08-07-2012, 07:11 PM

Post-season Shaq was a FAR greater player.

And a PEAK regular season Shaq was much more dominant.

Shaq is better than Bird when it comes to getting wins. All of the fluff aside, you gotta take the dude who controls the paint and I don't think anyone else has the way Shaq did. People were physically afraid of Shaq, opposing front lines would quit.

Now, if you said game tied going down the stretch gimme Bird, but 82 games gimme the guy who dominates the paint and makes almost 60% of his shots, collapsing the D.

People here are funny because they underrate Shaq. They value stats and awards and for some reason Shaq didn't go as hard on the awards as other players did. Maybe cuz he was usually skipping half the season. But anyone who says Shaq wasn't a huge defensive impact player is a dummy.

-Smak

Hands of Iron

08-07-2012, 07:28 PM

Actually, the '84 Lakers were one bad pass, and one missed FT away from SWEEPING Boston. Even Larry Bird admitted that they should have.

And, had Magic been completely healthy for the '81 post-season, and LA gets #2 of what would have been a 3-peat. The '80 and '82 Lakers easily handled Philly in the Finals (and even won a clinching game six on the road without Kareem in '80), while the '81 Celtics had to come back from a 3-1 series deficit against the Sixers, and in those three straight wins, they won by the narrowest of margins.

And if you are going to credit Bird with a "hypothetical" ring over Magic in '86, then I will give Magic a hypothetical ring over Bird in '88 (and any year after that, had Boston even been able to get to the Finals in '89, 90, and '91.

So even IF I were to give you '86, Magic SHOULD have beaten him in 81 and '84, dominated him in '85 and '87, and WOULD have pasted him in '88, '89, 90, and '91.

Or basically, Magic with a 9-1 edge over Bird.

No, I'm actually talking about 1986 and the merit of the Houston Rockets as the Celtics NBA Finals opponent that season. It's not a hypothetical win so much as it is a prediction considering that was the best team the Celtics put on the court during the decade. Wasn't even really the point of the post either though.

I don't know what all that other drivel is for or why you even posted it. Oh, that's right! You don't like Larry Bird. I couldn't give a shit less. One bad pass and one missed free throw, huh? That's why they play the games, bud. :oldlol: And yes, we already know the 1980s Lakers had a lot more talent than the Celtics. Magic had a Top 5 player of all-time making huge contributions through 1985 for three of their championships. McHale and Parish made one All-NBA (1) Team, combined. For their careers.

Harison

08-07-2012, 08:08 PM

Bird was a jerk and he and McHale despised each other.

Not really, but they had clashes. Reason is simple, Bird was die-hard intense player, while McHale was laid-back "its just a game".

Still they respected each other and had no problems co-existing, until the very end - when injured roster couldnt win anymore, and Bird was increasingly bitter, especially considering Bird was on constant pain management - few hours before every game at the hospital. THEN yes - you could say the locker room atmosphere wasnt good, but team was done anyway.

KevinNYC

08-07-2012, 10:44 PM

Bird was a jerk and he and McHale despised each other.

Are distorting things because you have an agenda or do you just not know the real relationship between the two players.

McHale isn't into the heavy psychoanalysis thing, but he's pretty sure that diversity helped the whole. He believes he knows why the Celtics had a good mixture.

"It was because we were all different personalities," McHale said. "If everybody had been like me or been like Larry or been like Robert (Parish), it never would have worked. You know what I mean? We all drove each other crazy, and that was good. We had a good group of guys. We always had a lot of guys on our team that had a lot of character and were fun to be around. I think that was a big part of it. I don't know if success breeds chemistry or chemistry breeds success, but whatever happened, we had a lot of it.

"Larry Bird improved everybody. He was the best player on our team. He drove everybody. He could do so many things, it was fun playing with him.

Freedom Kid7

08-08-2012, 01:25 AM

Is it really that fair to compare a center to a small forward?
Regardless I'm taking Bird for both situations. Bird's best winning season is equivalent of Shaq's best, if not better (Bird was a king and had to go through tough competition. 2000 Shaq did not have to worry about any incredibly tough teams or better centers). Plus, Bird would cause far less drama and has better intangibles than Shaq is. Shaq might be more athletic and arguably dominance, but Bird had all the intangibles Shaq didn't, and that changes a whole lot of things. Plus, Shaq might only give you a couple of years with a team. Bird will stay with you until his back breaks.

EDIT: Jlaubber, I sware it seems you really detest Bird, Hakeem and KAJ to an extent. Why?

DatAsh

08-08-2012, 01:29 AM

And shot blocking, defense, and playoff performer/Finals performer in his prime/peak. He also 3peated to titles with less help than Bird got.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

DatAsh

08-08-2012, 01:30 AM

DatAsh

08-08-2012, 01:32 AM

What? Peak Bird's defense was better than peak Shaq's...

:biggums:

Let's not get carried away now

Legends66NBA7

08-08-2012, 01:34 AM

:roll: :roll: :roll:

What in the post was laughable ?

And shot blocking, defense, and playoff performer/Finals performer in his prime/peak. He also 3peated to titles with less help than Bird got.

Especially the first two. Bird's better than Shaq in shot blocking and defense ?

KOBE143

08-08-2012, 01:37 AM

Bird easily.. No Kobe no 3peat for Shaq..

DatAsh

08-08-2012, 01:39 AM

What in the post was laughable ?

Especially the first two. Bird's better than Shaq in shot blocking and defense ?

Guess that came out wrong :(

I don't disagree with any of it, I just enjoyed the sarcastic nature of the post itself. In hindsight I see how that could be taken the wrong way though.

Legends66NBA7

08-08-2012, 01:42 AM

Guess that came out wrong :(

I don't disagree with any of it, I just enjoyed the sarcastic nature of the post itself. In hindsight I see how that could be taken the wrong way though.

Ohhh.....:facepalm

Damn, I feel like a dick now.

Damn internet and mixed messages.:hammerhead:... and yes, that was in a sense sarcastic but yes a serious post too.

Legends66NBA7

08-08-2012, 01:48 AM

Bird was a jerk and he and McHale despised each other.

Yes, Bird could be a dick too, but he wasn't breaking the Celtics dynasty apart. The core still remained the same, but got old faster.

Shaq had problems with Kobe and managment too. Even burned bridges with the Magic, Lakers, and Heat franchises.

TheBigVeto

08-08-2012, 03:10 AM

EDIT: Jlaubber, I sware it seems you really detest Bird, Hakeem and KAJ to an extent. Why?

That clown is a Wilt/Magic/Kobe slurper.

KOBE143

08-08-2012, 03:13 AM

That clown is a Wilt/Magic/Kobe slurper.
He's not, just Wilt.

Odinn

08-08-2012, 04:46 AM

I'd say the Spurs also had a good chance too.

No question Bird did face more tougher competition, but a 3 peat is a 3 peat.
No. The Spurs didn't have a good chance. In 2000 Playoffs, Duncan was injured and didn't play. In 2001 Playoffs, only Spur who can give 15 points per game (aside from Duncan) Derek Anderson was injured and if he was healthy, still Spurs didn't have a chance that Lakers. In 2002 Playoffs, DRob was injured and played 74 mins in 3 games for entire Lakers-Spurs(4-1) series.

All in all, coz of health issues the Spurs didn't have a chance to beat the Lakers.

KevinNYC

08-08-2012, 01:41 PM

Yes, Bird could be a dick too, but he wasn't breaking the Celtics dynasty apart. The core still remained the same, but got old faster.

The closest they got to breaking apart was when McHale almost got signed by the Knicks until the Celtics blocked it. They eventually made McHale happy. His salary was higher than Bird's at the time...dunno how long that lasted.

They resigned him after 1983 season, he came back happy and started getting more minutes and that was the first year he had over 18 points a game and they started looking for him more. Four title runs followed.

Check out the Celtics blocked the Knicks from signing him.

http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2009/08/red-outfoxes-knicks-on-mchale.html

It would appear that the Celtics have succeeded in their effort to prevent the New York Knicks from signing free agent Kevin McHale to a multimillion- dollar offer sheet.

The Knicks yesterday matched Boston's offers to forward Sly Williams and backup center Marvin Webster and appear to have bowed out of the McHale sweepstakes for now.

New York dealt Williams and his annual $450,000 salary to the Atlanta Hawks in exchange for guard Rudy Macklin ($100,000 salary), but the Knicks have been unable to swap Webster and until they do, they're stuck with his $450,000, three-year contract.

"That knocks 'em out of the box," said a chuckling Red Auerbach. "We would have taken the players, but we knew they were gonna match, and if they keep one guy, they're out of the box. They can't even bid on him (McHale) at all, which is OK."

According to terms of the current collective bargaining agreement, the Knicks must stay within a $4.6-million salary cap this season. Two weeks ago, the Celtics acted to inflate New York's payroll by signing Knick free agents Rory Sparrow, Williams and Webster to whopping offer sheets. The Knicks ended up matching all three offers and are saddled with an extra $950,000 in salaries to Sparrow and Webster.

"No one's laughing at us now," said Auerbach.......

"We aren't actively pursuing him anymore," said a Knick official. "I don't think we can make an offer with the cap being what it is. Hey, they were waiting around and we had to move forward. There is such a thing as painting yourself into a corner."