Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

SHAQisGOAT

10-07-2012, 10:02 PM

Seriously? That just baffles me.

Scoring skills against GOAT defenders (Pippen, Rodman, Cooper, Bobby Jones, Jordan), good athletical defenders (McCray, Pressey, Kersey, Erving, Worthy), athletic 7' footer (Sellers), amazing athletes (Wilkins, Woolridge, Chambers, Kenny Walker), bigger dudes (Cummings, Grant), even against a guy that made the all defensive team in the 00's (Clifford Robinson): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msEmcemLR7M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksp82aw-jqg&feature=relmfu

Plus they could play him in a much rougher way, good defensive big men and enforcers were packing the paint.

We all know about his amazing passing skills, if not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o66NdFDHEQ

Also the man was just one of the greatest team defenders ever, nice post defender and despite lacking lateral quickness he could hold his own on the perimeter, plus you could easily switch him to guard the PF if needed, considering that the height average decreased that would even help him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H76dsMqo3s

He was grabbing never less than 10 RPG with tougher rules against fierce rebounders.

He would also thrive under zone defenses, offensively and defensively.

The straight impact and incredible intangibles he brought up were just off the charts.

Won 3 straight MVP's in an era with guys like Magic, MJ, Kareem, Moses, Erving, Hakeem, Isiah, Wilkins, Drexler....

And he played with several injuries that many wouldn't endure, including that completely wrecked back since '88.

jongib369

10-07-2012, 10:08 PM

Anyone who thinks bird wouldn't do what he did in the 80's is a *****n idiot.

TIME BIAS can be a real bitch when people with actual knowledge of the game are discussing basketball and some stan of today comes derping in "80s/90s defense was weaksauce compared to today...WEAAAAK... *promotes player that his mouth is currently wrapped around*....Bird the current luke walton? :confusedshrug: "

kNicKz

10-07-2012, 10:12 PM

Bird would probably win even more in this era imo, especially with modern medicine

tontoz

10-07-2012, 10:16 PM

The 3s in the league right now are pretty weak. Bird would have no problem scoring. Not only was Bird very skilled but he had size and strength.

TaLvsCuaL

10-07-2012, 10:17 PM

Many recent NBA fans do not respect the 80's players as they should. They really don't know how good he was.

Round Mound

10-07-2012, 10:26 PM

Bird Under Todays Zone Rules Would Thrive Even More as A Team Defender and Hustle Player.

He Could Go 1 on 1 on PFs and SFs, Go Baseline Through Spins and Fakes, Post Up onf PFs and Fade Away Like a SG, Handle the Rock like a Point Forward, Shoot From a Far On Any Distance Possible, Rebound Against PFs and Cs, Get Steals, Create and Pass like a Godly Point Guard.

Complete Package. From 1979 to 1988 The Most Complete Player in the League

Yung D-Will

10-07-2012, 10:29 PM

D.J.

10-07-2012, 10:30 PM

With his ball IQ, skills, and fundamentals; he'd be fine in any era.

SHAQisGOAT

10-07-2012, 10:42 PM

Looking at Dirk's game and his domination there's no reason why Larry Bird wouldn't be a superstar in the nba right now. If Dirk can dominate in 2011 what makes you think Bird, who scores similarly to Dirk, whiles surpassing him in nearly every other basketball skill, would somehow lack the abilty to dominate in this era?

Agreed. Dirk won MVP and FMVP.

In terms of shooting him and Bird are comparable, Dirk also a good rebounder (but not on Bird's level), Dirk is taller but Bird was more athletic (before back injuries), everything else is not even close.

If Dirk can do what he did/does, one can only imagine what Bird would do.

SHAQisGOAT

10-07-2012, 10:45 PM

KOBE143

10-07-2012, 10:52 PM

Bird = Scalabrine in this era.. Still GOAT tho just like the white mamba.. :lol

SHAQisGOAT

10-07-2012, 10:57 PM

Bird = Scalabrine in this era.. Still GOAT tho just like the white mamba.. :lol

Guys like you shouldn't be able to post on basketball forums, ijs.

:rolleyes:

97 bulls

10-07-2012, 11:15 PM

Also found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKH2fb_PxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TxC_k9Bv0&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn8qTjVED5w&feature=relmfu

Still gotta watch it completely
These videos dont say much. Especially vs Pippen and Rodman. Both were hardly in their primes.

SHAQisGOAT

10-07-2012, 11:30 PM

These videos dont say much. Especially vs Pippen and Rodman. Both were hardly in their primes.

Stop being such a hater, think you already said that before and I'll say it again:

Rodman was drafted in 1986, made his first all-defensive team in 1989, and won DPY in 1990 and 1991, he was a better perimeter defender in his younger years, as far as perimeter m2m D he was in his prime in his younger years, guarding Magic, Jordan and such.

Pip was drafted in 1987, made the defensive team for the first time in 1991. Already a great defensive player.

Larry was in the league 'till 1992, at 35, and since 1988 he was never the same, banged up, completely wrecked back, couldn't almost practice, overweight... That also even things out a lot even if you wanna go by that route, even if you say they weren't in their primes, so wasn't a old, overweight, full of career ending injuries, Larry Bird.

Plus saying the vid doesn't mean much, you still got guys like Bobby Jones, Cooper, Jordan, McCray, Pressey, Clifford Robinson, Grant... And even missing guys like Nance, Roundfield, Buck Williams, Moncrief, McDaniel....

Pushxx

10-07-2012, 11:38 PM

These videos dont say much. Especially vs Pippen and Rodman. Both were hardly in their primes.

Translation: don't mind me I'm just sucking Pippen's dick again.

cuad

10-07-2012, 11:39 PM

I saw some Larry Bird games on youtube. He was so white and so slow, and everybody would try to body him up in the post, but Larry Bird scored on them every single time. It looked ugly as hell, yes, but he just destroyed people.

ralph_i_el

10-07-2012, 11:41 PM

If dirk can win a chip i don't see why bird can't win a couple in the same era :lol

anyone who watches even 1 highlight video of him can see. shooting is king in any era

TheBigVeto

10-07-2012, 11:51 PM

Translation: don't mind me I'm just sucking Pippen's dick again.

Dude is Larry Bird's biggest hater in this board (outside of the Kobetards).

Pushxx

10-08-2012, 12:04 AM

Dude is Larry Bird's biggest hater in this board (outside of the Kobetards).

Yep. The same guy who said Gerald Green would beat prime Larry Bird 1-on-1.

That was a fun one to argue with him. Read this page: http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=249026&page=2 post #26

Carbine

10-08-2012, 12:47 AM

His basketball IQ, his passing and fundamentals would translate to now and in a 100 years.

BoutPractice

10-08-2012, 06:35 AM

macmac

10-08-2012, 07:19 AM

Alan Shore

10-08-2012, 08:24 AM

if you underrate bird as a player in this era you demonstrate a shallow understanding not just of the player but the eras being compared.

he was a complete player, not a specialist. complete players are rare, especially today.

not only was he a rare complete player but the game for him was slowed down because of his combination of skills and court vision.

he was a tenacious competitor who was able to psych out opponents, get into their heads and under their skin. much of this was related to his arsenal of ball, head, shoulder, and foot fakes. that art of deception nullified whatever supposed faults he had so far as being slow and unathletic which in itself is kind of silly when you remember what he was like during the first half of his career. no doubt back problems caught up with him eventually but still....

once a franchise player, always a franchise player.

livingby3's

10-08-2012, 08:25 AM

if he were to play in this era, style, mentality, will all change due to media, competition, and rules. I don't get why people keep bringing players back and fore in time. players ain't gonna be the same. I kinda get what u guys are saying but it's really like saying how a iPhone 5 today would dominate the phones of the past. just my personal input

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 09:07 AM

Dirk is much taller and a more accurate shooter, which makes him a more dangerous overall scorer.

Got like 2 1/2 inches on Bird, not much taller, plus Bird was more athletic (before injuries).

More accurate shooter? Not a chance, plus Bird had a better postgame (outsides of their fadeaways), was better at driving, better from inside and ambidextrous from close range, crafty on a level above Dirk, so I don't see how Dirk is the more dangerous overall scorer.

BoutPractice

10-08-2012, 09:10 AM

What makes you think Dirk is a more accurate shooter? And the difference in height doesnt matter when one is more athletic and crafty to get their shot off whenever they want.

> To answer your first question, it is
1) the fact that Dirk averaged more playoff PPG
2) the fact that he got to the line more, making him more reliable even when his shot was off
3) his better 3P percentage
2) the very small difference in playoff percentage between the two despite the fact that Dirk had to consistently create his own offense whereas Bird got looks off of doubles and other situations that allowed him to catch&shoot more often. (And that's discounting the difference in defense/pace in the 80s)

Against the Mavs, opposing teams could focus solely on stopping Dirk. Against the Celtics, you had to crowd the paint to prevent one on one situations for Parish and McHale.

Bird also had a lot of series where it was obvious that he was struggling to score at his usual elite level. He even had back to back 8 point games in the Finals. That's not because he was a choker, but because tough defense made it more difficult for him to score when his jumpshot was broken, whereas Dirk could use his height to draw fouls.

Also, in no universe is Dirk less athletic than Bird, especially taking into account the fact that Dirk is a 7 footer. Dirk was actually fairly athletic by Euro standards when he was young - a 7 footer who could play some SF. And that's not a diss on Bird, it's just a fact of nature that he wasn't the best basketball body - if anything it makes his accomplishments more impressive.

Besides, I agree that Bird is far and away the better overall player, and again, he would absolutely destroy players in this era.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 09:38 AM

> To answer your first question, it is
1) the fact that Dirk averaged more playoff PPG
2) the fact that he got to the line more, making him more reliable even when his shot was off
3) his better 3P percentage
2) the very small difference in playoff percentage between the two despite the fact that Dirk had to consistently create his own offense whereas Bird got looks off of doubles and other situations that allowed him to catch&shoot more often. (And that's discounting the difference in defense/pace in the 80s)

Against the Mavs, opposing teams could focus solely on stopping Dirk. Against the Celtics, you had to crowd the paint to prevent one on one situations for Parish and McHale.

Bird also had a lot of series where it was obvious that he was struggling to score at his usual elite level. He even had back to back 8 point games in the Finals. That's not because he was a choker, but because tough defense made it more difficult for him to score when his jumpshot was broken, whereas Dirk could use his height to draw fouls.

Also, in no universe is Dirk less athletic than Bird, especially taking into account the fact that Dirk is a 7 footer. Dirk was actually fairly athletic by Euro standards when he was young - a 7 footer who could play some SF. And that's not a diss on Bird, it's just a fact of nature that he wasn't the best basketball body - if anything it makes his accomplishments more impressive.

Besides, I agree that Bird is far and away the better overall player, and again, he would absolutely destroy players in this era.

1) First Bird got more than 1000 games than Dirk, 'till he was 35, let Dirk career reach the end. Still Bird averaged like 6.5 APG in the playoffs, Dirk has 2.6, Bird always looked to make the right play rather than being always the scorer. When he scored 60 points he had like 3 assists so you can see what a scorer he could've been, even had like 50+ points, 10+ assists games.

2) Do you really think if Bird played in this superstar treatment era, he wouldn't average the same or more, FTA than Dirk?

3) Bird injured his shooting finger right before entering the NBA, some say he was a better shooter in college, still he didn't come up with a 3pt line and to do what he did is terrific. Shooting is not only 3pt and Larry had a much better FG%, why don't you mention that?

4) Catch and shoot isn't creating offense? Dude was the better off ball player I've seen. Doubles from who McHale? Guy was a black hole, could pass but not really a passer. Bird could create his own shot in much more ways than Dirk. What defense? Seen the guys I posted in the OP, plus they could held, scratch and whatnot while he was shooting, against Dirk touch him and it's a foul. Much harder to shoot.

LOL don't give me that, it was the Finals in his second year, and he did a great all around job when he wasn't scoring, plus he had no player really playing like a superstar that year, he killed it when he had to.

Bird was more athletic than Dirk ever was when he was younger, if you don't know that you never saw him play. Look it up.

BoutPractice

10-08-2012, 11:23 AM

tontoz

10-08-2012, 12:30 PM

Poetry

10-08-2012, 12:40 PM

I kinda get what u guys are saying but it's really like saying how a iPhone 5 today would dominate the phones of the past. just my personal input

iPhone? :biggums:

Technology is better today, but that doesn't necessarily mean every modern aspect of life dominates its past counterpart.

Shakespeare is still the GOAT writer for instance. And the only people who come close to him are writers from the past not the present.

Owl

10-08-2012, 12:46 PM

Bird would be very good in any era.

Could he play the 3 as he did back then, well, I wouldn't want him defending the 3 versus the present athletes at the position(and indeed he didn't necessarily do so back then, when on court with McHale, McHale usually took the better offensive player).

The defense back then is being overhyped somewhat. People seemed to concede the J back then a lot more (possibly a relic of the pre-3 point line era), and the percentages do seem to show that defense wasn't as good (relative to the eras offense), and that so many of the eras scorers were small forwards (Dantley, King, English, Wilkins, Vandeweghe, Tripucka, Aguirre, Marques Johnson, Purvis Short, Jay Vincent, Orlando Woolridge, Xavier McDaniel, Mike Mitchell, John Drew plus others that verged on the era and/or swung between the 2 and 3 like Wilkes, Erving, Walter Davis (mostly a 2 in the 80s but played both), Dale Ellis, Ricky Pierce, Chuck Person, Eddie Johnson and Calvin Natt). So I do think that was a position it was easy get points from.

Of the defenders OP lists, the first set of genuine elite defenders, few played their prime with Birds prime (and there are some like MJ who I'm guessing weren't regularly covering him). Maybe only Cooper and he wasn't a starter.

Sellers was lousy, most of the "athletes" were poor defenders, I would have assumed Cummings and Grant were covering McHale, and Clifford Robinson played Bird a grand total of 6 times and played less than 20 minutes per game.

Not that I don't think Bird wouldn't be able to play now, non-athlete shooters like Nowitzki and Kevin Love (and the following group aren't in Bird's class clearly, not that the above were, but just in terms of fitting the shooter, non-athlete, rebounder forward type) Ryan Anderson, Ersan Illysova are thriving and Bird is the best. Would he get the same numbers, well not in terms of raw numbers at the slower pace, lower % era. But advanced metrics would be roughly the same, maybe the wing defenders are a little better today, but roughly he'd be playing as well as he did.

On the plus side he probably wouldn't bust his fingers playing softball and would have lasted longer with regard to treating all the injuries.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 12:58 PM

I have seen games of both when they were young. And old.

I don't dispute the fact that Larry Bird is more than the slow, unathletic white guy some take him for.
But Dirk was very athletic when he was young as well... when he was 18, the way he ran the floor had scouts drooling over him. You'd think Dirk is pure skill, but he also benefits from a great body - tall, quick, agile, well conditioned.
Both are underrated in that regard.

I agree. People forget about how Dirk was when he was younger, pretty mobile and coordinated especially for a 7 footer.
Both were pretty agile and mobile for their sizes, also well conditioned, still Bird was a little bit more athletic, quicker (wouldn't say faster), quicker hands, better hand-eye coordination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycH9GYDK74
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI1sGRcekZ0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sInTps5WSMo

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 01:05 PM

I am old enough that i watched Bird vs Magic in the 1979 NCAA finals so i remember Bird well. Watched his entire prime with the Cs.

He was a better overall player than Dirk for sure but not a better perimeter shooter than Dirk. Bird was much better in the post and getting to the basket than Dirk but was prone to slumps from the perimeter much moreso than Dirk.

What slumps? He shot like 47% and 37% from 3pt from '89 to '92, with a injury that would end most people's careers, overweight, the most unathletic guy on the court. You watch those games, the condition he was in out there is clear, but to still do those kinds of stuff, incredible.
Even in '88 when the back was already bothering him he shot like 53%/41%/92% scoring 30 PPG.

get these NETS

10-08-2012, 01:24 PM

take any of the elite sfs of the 80s and they would score just as many points in any era...

and with legal zone defenses now.....you can hide bad defenders or protect your star players on defense

you could play Bird as a center on defense against most teams if you wanted to.

Bird was the real deal.....legit superstar....media gave him more light than other legit superstars because he appealed to white mainstream fanbase....but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was a bonafide great player.

Owl

10-08-2012, 01:27 PM

1) First Bird got more than 1000 games than Dirk, 'till he was 35, let Dirk career reach the end. Still Bird averaged like 6.5 APG in the playoffs, Dirk has 2.6, Bird always looked to make the right play rather than being always the scorer. When he scored 60 points he had like 3 assists so you can see what a scorer he could've been, even had like 50+ points, 10+ assists games.

2) Do you really think if Bird played in this superstar treatment era, he wouldn't average the same or more, FTA than Dirk?

3) Bird injured his shooting finger right before entering the NBA, some say he was a better shooter in college, still he didn't come up with a 3pt line and to do what he did is terrific. Shooting is not only 3pt and Larry had a much better FG%, why don't you mention that?

4) Catch and shoot isn't creating offense? Dude was the better off ball player I've seen. Doubles from who McHale? Guy was a black hole, could pass but not really a passer. Bird could create his own shot in much more ways than Dirk. What defense? Seen the guys I posted in the OP, plus they could held, scratch and whatnot while he was shooting, against Dirk touch him and it's a foul. Much harder to shoot.

LOL don't give me that, it was the Finals in his second year, and he did a great all around job when he wasn't scoring, plus he had no player really playing like a superstar that year, he killed it when he had to.

Bird was more athletic than Dirk ever was when he was younger, if you don't know that you never saw him play. Look it up.
Just a couple of notes.

I'm fairly sure there have always been superstar calls. Bill Russell and other "old timers" have discussed it happening in their time.

Bird's college ft was .822, in the pros it was .886 (and .890 in the playoffs). The softball injury makes for a nice anecdote but it's hard to make a case that it genuinely (negatively) affected his shooting (or at least that affected his jump/set shot, which is the usual contention).

Papaya Petee

10-08-2012, 01:29 PM

Why wouldn't he be able to score\dominate? He can shoot lights out, has great post moves, great footwork, has a super fast release, and is very lengthy.

I predict in this area Bird would average something like 24-28 PPG on 47-50% shooting.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 01:41 PM

Could he play the 3 as he did back then, well, I wouldn't want him defending the 3 versus the present athletes at the position(and indeed he didn't necessarily do so back then, when on court with McHale, McHale usually took the better offensive player).
Well at some point he guarded dudes like Wilkins, Worthy, Erving, Woolridge, Pressey, great athletes in any era, plus really strong guys like King, Dantley and Aguirre.
Yeah since '86 McHale guarded more the 3, basically because he was inserted into the starting lineup, they needed to rest Bird and he already had back issues.

The defense back then is being overhyped somewhat. People seemed to concede the J back then a lot more (possibly a relic of the pre-3 point line era), and the percentages do seem to show that defense wasn't as good (relative to the eras offense), and that so many of the eras scorers were small forwards (Dantley, King, English, Wilkins, Vandeweghe, Tripucka, Aguirre, Marques Johnson, Purvis Short, Jay Vincent, Orlando Woolridge, Xavier McDaniel, Mike Mitchell, John Drew plus others that verged on the era and/or swung between the 2 and 3 like Wilkes, Erving, Walter Davis (mostly a 2 in the 80s but played both), Dale Ellis, Ricky Pierce, Chuck Person, Eddie Johnson and Calvin Natt). So I do think that was a position it was easy get points from.
Don't forget that the midrange and off-ball game was definitely better back then, that helps a lot, scorers nowadays on most cases, learn more to drive and shoot 3's and can only mostly play with the ball in their hands. Also you had SF's with much better postgames.
I don't think it was easier to get points from, you just had great scorers at the 3 in the 80's, not like everyone you mentioned were getting like 25 PPG.

Of the defenders OP lists, the first set of genuine elite defenders, few played their prime with Birds prime (and there are some like MJ who I'm guessing weren't regularly covering him). Maybe only Cooper and he wasn't a starter.

Sellers was lousy, most of the "athletes" were poor defenders, I would have assumed Cummings and Grant were covering McHale, and Clifford Robinson played Bird a grand total of 6 times and played less than 20 minutes per game.
I saw many games with Bird vs. MJ, they tried to put MJ on him many times at first but then just gave up because he murdered him in the post.
Bobby Jones was an elite defender and was still in his prime in the 80's, Rodman was in perimeter D prime in the late 80's, eraly 90's, Pip was already a great defender in the early 90's, Cooper was put many times on the floor to cover Bird.
Sellers was never a great player but you still see him contest Bird's shot pretty well, and he was a 7 footer that could jump and very mobile, still Bird scored over him easily.
Pressey, McCray, Erving, Bobby Jones, Cooper, Rodman, Pippen, Kersey, McDaniel, Wilkes, Nance, Roundfield, Buck Williams, Worthy... Were great athletes and (at least) nice defensive players.
Grant covered Bird many times in the early 90's. Yeah he didn't play much against Clifford but like the vid shows he could easily shoot over him, old, overweight and with a wrecked back.

....

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 01:45 PM

Just a couple of notes.

I'm fairly sure there have always been superstar calls. Bill Russell and other "old timers" have discussed it happening in their time.

Bird's college ft was .822, in the pros it was .886 (and .890 in the playoffs). The softball injury makes for a nice anecdote but it's hard to make a case that it genuinely (negatively) affected his shooting (or at least that affected his jump/set shot, which is the usual contention).

I don't deny that there have always been superstar calls, but if you watch games from back then and now, it's pretty clear that there's much more today.

Ever saw his shooting finger? All crooked after that injury, there's no way that that couldn't have made him adapt his shooting.
He had to really work hard to overcome that in his first years, and be the shooter he was.

Owl

10-08-2012, 03:11 PM

I don't deny that there have always been superstar calls, but if you watch games from back then and now, it's pretty clear that there's much more today.

Ever saw his shooting finger? All crooked after that injury, there's no way that that couldn't have made him adapt his shooting.
He had to really work hard to overcome that in his first years, and be the shooter he was.
Won't contest the first point because so long as you except there have always been star calls then Bird won't be gaining that much more of an advantage now. Plus his game whilst clever enough to draw fouls had very little of the slashing that tends to get people to the line (and soft foul calls).

3 words, burden of proof. It's not for me to show that his shot was affected its for those who believe it was to prove it. And they'd have to overcome the fact that his free throw shooting kept on improving after the injury. And "his hand looked ugly" doesn't cut it. If he'd been on Blake Ahearn 95% type shooting in college then you could say, hey it got worse. It didn't. It got better, significantly better.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 03:42 PM

Won't contest the first point because so long as you except there have always been star calls then Bird won't be gaining that much more of an advantage now. Plus his game whilst clever enough to draw fouls had very little of the slashing that tends to get people to the line (and soft foul calls).

3 words, burden of proof. It's not for me to show that his shot was affected its for those who believe it was to prove it. And they'd have to overcome the fact that his free throw shooting kept on improving after the injury. And "his hand looked ugly" doesn't cut it. If he'd been on Blake Ahearn 95% type shooting in college then you could say, hey it got worse. It didn't. It got better, significantly better.
I remember the TNT crew discussing mangled fingers of basketball players. I think it was due to Kobe. Barkley said a lot of NBA players fingers get deformed like that. He even showed his fingers. I think the hand thing is a bit overblown.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 03:54 PM

DCL

10-08-2012, 03:59 PM

bird was three-time 3-point champion, but he actually shot a lot less 3's than some of today's "so so" players. when i think of his offense, i don't really think of 3's, i just think of a full game. offensive boards, aggressive drives (even if they were just layups), passing to the right guy at the right time, making the right cut, catch and shoot, fake and shoot, post moves, mid range, out downtown, behind the basket, self-create, going right OR left, make ridiculous sh!t out of nowhere. the muddafugger did everything. he'd sh!t on folks in any era.

L.A. Jazz

10-08-2012, 04:01 PM

He was top 3 in MVP voting from 80 until 88, winning it 3 times in a row 84-86. He said that he should have retired 89 because his back was done. his skillset isnt based on athletic ability, so i am pretty sure he would dominate today like he did back then.

coin24

10-08-2012, 04:11 PM

Lmao at ppl saying he wouldn't be able to score:lol
That fat fu*k pierce, slow and unathletic as hell, still basically dominates.
Bird was AT LEAST twice the player pierce is..

Owl

10-08-2012, 04:13 PM

....
Dantley was 30+ppg, Wilkins 30, English 28, Kiki 27, Aguirre 26, Purvis short 24, Mike Mitchell 23. I think they've all got about 3 seasons at or above those numbers (might require some rounding up in some instances).

Ellis went for 27 once, King got 32 as healthy first option, Marques 26, Tripucka 26, McDaniel got 23 on team where he was the third option.

Mostly those that didn't peak at 25+ are those that weren't first options and/or weren't playing huge minutes. Teams didn't guard the small forward position well at that time.

And I said prime at the same time. Bobby Jones peaked around the turn of the decade (and was pretty consistently good before then). Just as Bird was getting to close to his best BJ had fallen off significantly and was playing less than 24 mpg. Rodman's time frame as you state was when Bird was sub-optimal etc

Brad Sellers sucked. He graded as a B (on a D to triple A scale) so despite his tools he was only average. Super. Is that really worth rasing. A low minutes average defender. It's another reach.

The best defenders were either pfs likely to cover McHale (Roundfield, Nance, Williams), peaked significantly earlier (Bobby Jones, Wilkes), were part timers (Cooper, late model Jones and early Rodman), peaked later (Rodman, Kersey, Pippen). McDaniel was just average. What's left? His best full time defenders at his peak were Pressey and a young (but I guess he didn't have a long prime) McCray.

And they were very good, well rounded players. Probably underrated.

But overall 80s sfs clearly didn't prioritise defense. I don't know what to say if you don't buy that. As I made clear in my first post I think Bird could play in any era, so it's not about that.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 04:14 PM

Won't contest the first point because so long as you except there have always been star calls then Bird won't be gaining that much more of an advantage now. Plus his game whilst clever enough to draw fouls had very little of the slashing that tends to get people to the line (and soft foul calls).

3 words, burden of proof. It's not for me to show that his shot was affected its for those who believe it was to prove it. And they'd have to overcome the fact that his free throw shooting kept on improving after the injury. And "his hand looked ugly" doesn't cut it. If he'd been on Blake Ahearn 95% type shooting in college then you could say, hey it got worse. It didn't. It got better, significantly better.

I won't say the advantage would be big but there would be an advantage, offensive and defensively.
Larry worked in the post a lot, battled inside and did his fair share of slashing, if you watched him you know, that type of play would always get people to the line, just because the best part of his game was shooting, doesn't mean he was strictly a jump shooter.

It got worse from college to NBA, of course he had to adapt and worked on his shooting throughout his NBA years getting better than he was, without having to adapt his shooting from the get go, he could probably better from early on.

Whoah10115

10-08-2012, 04:18 PM

I don't think Bird is that similar to Nowitzki. I think the best comparison is Chris Mullin.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 04:28 PM

I also took the Liberty od doing the math on the games Bird had vs Rodman and Pippen in which they both played 30 or more minutes. Against Rodman, Bird shot 43%. Against Pippen. 45% and 4 TOs. And this was against these players when they were slightly out of their primes.

Stop it please, why don't you say nothing about Bird, those 30 or more minutes games almost all of them came after '88, if Rodman and Pip were slightly out of their primes then Bird was way out of his prime, dude was old, all banged up, career ending injuries, couldn't practice, overweight, against young athletic freaks and great defenders.

Look at the stats:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=rodmade01

Even had some big games after '88 and that's simply amazing for the condition he was in.

Also looking at the vids you can clearly see that he's one of those players nobody can stop, you can clearly see nobody was a major problem against the skills he had.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 04:30 PM

I don't think Bird is that similar to Nowitzki. I think the best comparison is Chris Mullin.

We're comparing to players from right now, Chris Mullin even played against him and while he was a really good player, doesn't come close.

Owl

10-08-2012, 04:33 PM

I won't the advantage would be big but there would be an advantage, offensive and defensively.
Larry worked in the post a lot, battled inside and did his fair share of slashing, if you watched him you know, that type of play would always get people to the line, just because the best part of his game was shooting, doesn't mean he was strictly a jump shooter.

It got worse from college to NBA, of course he had to adapt and worked on his shooting throughout his NBA years getting better than he was, without having to adapt his shooting from the get go, he could probably better from early on.
Like I said, burden of proof. You need evidence. Even in his rookie season his ft% was up on both of Larry's last two years in college (and his college career average). Thereafter his yearly ft%s never fell below his best year in college (and college seasons are short enough that there's more influence by luck, so I wouldn't think that one year would be more representative than the totality of his college career).

Right now if the evidence would seem to suggest it improved his shooting, not that I'm claiming it did, to be clear, I'm not claiming that it did. But you have to prove that got worse. With evidence, not just repeating the assertion.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 04:43 PM

Dantley was 30+ppg, Wilkins 30, English 28, Kiki 27, Aguirre 26, Purvis short 24, Mike Mitchell 23. I think they've all got about 3 seasons at or above those numbers (might require some rounding up in some instances).

Ellis went for 27 once, King got 32 as healthy first option, Marques 26, Tripucka 26, McDaniel got 23 on team where he was the third option.

Mostly those that didn't peak at 25+ are those that weren't first options and/or weren't playing huge minutes. Teams didn't guard the small forward position well at that time.

And I said prime at the same time. Bobby Jones peaked around the turn of the decade (and was pretty consistently good before then). Just as Bird was getting to close to his best BJ had fallen off significantly and was playing less than 24 mpg. Rodman's time frame as you state was when Bird was sub-optimal etc

Brad Sellers sucked. He graded as a B (on a D to triple A scale) so despite his tools he was only average. Super. Is that really worth rasing. A low minutes average defender. It's another reach.

The best defenders were either pfs likely to cover McHale (Roundfield, Nance, Williams), peaked significantly earlier (Bobby Jones, Wilkes), were part timers (Cooper, late model Jones and early Rodman), peaked later (Rodman, Kersey, Pippen). McDaniel was just average. What's left? His best full time defenders at his peak were Pressey and a young (but I guess he didn't have a long prime) McCray.

And they were very good, well rounded players. Probably underrated.

But overall 80s sfs clearly didn't prioritise defense. I don't know what to say if you don't buy that. As I made clear in my first post I think Bird could play in any era, so it's not about that.

Some can have a bit of pace inflated stats (like the run n gun Nuggets) but some of the names you said were simply great scorers, watching them play you can tell, just because you had amazing scorers at the SF that can't be a knock on the D against the SF's, please, not like they were letting them score, you had SF's that were masters at midrange and offball, great shooters, could drive, some really athletic, and most had an amazing post game, some of those areas you really didn't see like today much on SF's. That would be the same for eras with great scoring centers or guards.
You don't got many scoring centers right now, is that because the defense against centers is that good?

Why prime at the same time? If Bird can do some of those things out of his prime (even while others were at their prime), imagine in his prime.

I can give another example, I saw Bird hitting fallaways against 7'4, 35'' vert or so, Ralph Sampson, not like nobody could be stopping it, plus he hit those like he was uncontested, that's what I was getting at.

And just because there were many amazing scoring SF's in the 80's you also had your fair share of good defensive ones, or even other guys that could cover SF's.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 04:45 PM

Like I said, burden of proof. You need evidence. Even in his rookie season his ft% was up on both of Larry's last two years in college (and his college career average). Thereafter his yearly ft%s never fell below his best year in college (and college seasons are short enough that there's more influence by luck, so I wouldn't think that one year would be more representative than the totality of his college career).

Right now if the evidence would seem to suggest it improved his shooting, not that I'm claiming it did, to be clear, I'm not claiming that it did. But you have to prove that got worse. With evidence, not just repeating the assertion.

Evidence? Ever played basketball? I know dudes that injured their fingers badly, crooked fingers after, and all of them were shooting as before. You don't go through that kind of injury like nothing.

Acting like FT% is everything to determine if you're a really great shooter or if improved your shooting.

Owl

10-08-2012, 04:47 PM

Stop it please, why don't you say nothing about Bird, those 30 or more minutes games almost all of them came after '88, if Rodman and Pip were slightly out of their primes then Bird was way out of his prime, dude was old, all banged up, career ending injuries, couldn't practice, overweight, against young athletic freaks and great defenders.

Look at the stats:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=rodmade01

Even had some big games after '88 and that's simply amazing for the condition he was in.

Also looking at the vids you can clearly see that he's one of those players nobody can stop, you can clearly see nobody was a major problem against the skills he had.
97 Bulls' numbers do overstate how much Bird struggled with those guys. Clearly he wasn't in top physical condition for a lot of those games. But then you introduced them as top defenders whom Bird faced. If you had stuck to guys who shared their primes with Bird then those stats wouldn't have been posted.

Owl

10-08-2012, 04:59 PM

Evidence? Ever played basketball? I know dudes that injured their fingers badly, crooked fingers after, and all of them were shooting as before. You don't go through that kind of injury like nothing.

Acting like FT% is everything to determine if you're a really great shooter or if improved your shooting.
No, not "you use your fingers shooting so hurting them hurts your shooting". Evidence.

FT% is the purest indication of ones shooting. If you had a better measure show it. One that isn't affected by the quality of defense faced.

I'm not "acting like FT% is everything" I'm asking you to show that there's something better. You said "some say he was a better shooter in college" and I say I don't think there's the evidence to back up that claim. Then you assert that having an ugly looking hand prevents good free throw shooting. That's not evidence that he was a better shooter, and I've shown numbers that would seem to indicate he was worse in college. Feel free to show otherwise. But you haven't done so.

Owl

10-08-2012, 05:12 PM

Some can have a bit of pace inflated stats (like the run n gun Nuggets) but some of the names you said were simply great scorers, watching them play you can tell, just because you had amazing scorers at the SF that can't be a knock on the D against the SF's, please, not like they were letting them score, you had SF's that were masters at midrange and offball, great shooters, could drive, some really athletic, and most had an amazing post game, some of those areas you really didn't see like today much on SF's. That would be the same for eras with great scoring centers or guards.
You don't got many scoring centers right now, is that because the defense against centers is that good?

Why prime at the same time? If Bird can do some of those things out of his prime (even while others were at their prime), imagine in his prime.

I can give another example, I saw Bird hitting fallaways against 7'4, 35'' vert or so, Ralph Sampson, not like nobody could be stopping it, plus he hit those like he was uncontested, that's what I was getting at.

And just because there were many amazing scoring SF's in the 80's you also had your fair share of good defensive ones, or even other guys that could cover SF's.
All have some pace inflated stats relative to the modern game. The pace was faster. Like I said in my first post doesn't make them worse, you just need to adjust or use things that normalise for era (e.g. advanced stats).

There being so many great scorers at SF does exactly state, as I said before, that on average defense is relatively weak. Defense is relative to offense and vice versa. If offense has an advantage in an era then by definition it is relatively weak, necessarily so. It doesn't mean there couldn't be good defenders. Just that there weren't many of them.

Why prime at the same time? Well my thinking was that players that develop at around the same time are going to have fair comparisons throughout their career, rather than "look what Bird can do against an aging Bobby Jones" or the opposite "look how Rodman and Pippen embarrassed an aging Bird".

But it's up to you, it's your thread. Discuss not prime at the same time. But that makes 97 Bulls posts about Pippen and Rodman destroying Bird valid.

DCL

10-08-2012, 05:26 PM

I don't think Bird is that similar to Nowitzki. I think the best comparison is Chris Mullin.

other than for white skin and shooting ability, the comparison really just ends there. mullin was no chump (expect on D), but bird's all around game was way above mullin's.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 06:01 PM

Stop it please, why don't you say nothing about Bird, those 30 or more minutes games almost all of them came after '88, if Rodman and Pip were slightly out of their primes then Bird was way out of his prime, dude was old, all banged up, career ending injuries, couldn't practice, overweight, against young athletic freaks and great defenders.

Look at the stats:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=rodmade01

Even had some big games after '88 and that's simply amazing for the condition he was in.

Also looking at the vids you can clearly see that he's one of those players nobody can stop, you can clearly see nobody was a major problem against the skills he had.
Those stats are misleading. Half those game both Pippen and Rodman played sparringly. That's why I only included games in which Pippen and Rodman played 30 or more minutes.

I'm not implying Bird wouldn't beast in any era. I'm just more arguing that vid that shows Bird making shots on young inexperienced players that would eventually evolve into alltime great defenders. Even in Jordans case. Jordan in that video looked to be probably 190lbs. He's giving away a good 30 lbs to Bird and 3 inches. Now prime Jordan ranged around 225. All muscle. I doubt Bird would be able to muscle Jordan (prime Jordan) the way he did in that video on a consistent basis.

Whoah10115

10-08-2012, 06:19 PM

We're comparing to players from right now, Chris Mullin even played against him and while he was a really good player, doesn't come close.

other than for white skin and shooting ability, the comparison really just ends there. mullin was no chump (expect on D), but bird's all around game was way above mullin's.

I'm not comparing them as talents, but their games are similar. Mullin is more of a dribbler tho. Like Bird, very smart player on defense and good team defender, tho he was not good individually. I think he's the closest, off the top of my head.

TheBigVeto

10-08-2012, 06:37 PM

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 06:56 PM

He ain't gonna stop. That racist clown is Bird's #1 hater. Let him exaggerate his stupidity.
I'm not a racist dumbass. Just because I put things into perspective, and don't think Larry Bird shits gold doesn't make me a racist. I've argued the Notion that Chris Bosh and Toni Kukoc are similar talent wise. I said John Stockton was a better PG than Magic Johnson.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 07:00 PM

Those stats are misleading. Half those game both Pippen and Rodman played sparringly. That's why I only included games in which Pippen and Rodman played 30 or more minutes.

I'm not implying Bird wouldn't beast in any era. I'm just more arguing that vid that shows Bird making shots on young inexperienced players that would eventually evolve into alltime great defenders. Even in Jordans case. Jordan in that video looked to be probably 190lbs. He's giving away a good 30 lbs to Bird and 3 inches. Now prime Jordan ranged around 225. All muscle. I doubt Bird would be able to muscle Jordan (prime Jordan) the way he did in that video on a consistent basis.

97 Bulls' numbers do overstate how much Bird struggled with those guys. Clearly he wasn't in top physical condition for a lot of those games. But then you introduced them as top defenders whom Bird faced. If you had stuck to guys who shared their primes with Bird then those stats wouldn't have been posted.

Looking at the numbers head-to-head you got

----
Bird: .503 FG%; .450 3P%; 25.9 PPG; 8.3 RPG; 6.1 APG; 3.4 TPG
Pip: 31.5 MPG

A game in '90 that Pip played 40 minutes, Bird dropped 38 on 50%, with 11 rebounds and 9 assists
A game in '91 that Pip played 37 minutes, Bird dropped 30 points on 59%
A game in '91 that Pip played 52 minutes, Bird dropped 34 on 42%, 15 rebounds and 8 assists, and made some clutch shots to win the game
----

----
Bird: .487 FG%; .459 3P%; 24.7 PPG; 8.0 RPG; 6.9 APG; 1.9 TPG
Rodman: 27.6 MPG

Rodman only started to play more than 30 MPG in '91 , and he still won DPY in '90, and defensive honors before... Many times he came in to guard Bird and I get the point that Bird wasn't guarded by him the whole game, but still he was guarding him close to half the time or more
----

If for Rodman and Pippen you say that they weren't in their absolute prime (even though Rodman was in his perimeter D prime in his younger years and Pip by 89/90 was already a great defensive player) plus the 30 minutes, you can't also forget the horrible condition Bird was in (most wouldn't continue to play) and sometimes he was on the court just dragging himself not doing much scoring like he used (he couldn't), he took the least amount of shots in '90-'91, '91-'92 also.

Plus you can't offer much more than that, because they didn't play against each other that much (like 15 games for each), but you can see in the vid what a Bird, under horrible conditions most wouldn't endure, could do against young amazing athletes, already great defensive players. You really can't offer much more, just what happened.

BlueandGold

10-08-2012, 07:08 PM

The more appropriate question is would Larry retire as the GOAT if he played in this era. Gets to the FT if anybody touches him, normal hard fouls are now all flagrant 1s and also with the medical staff these days who knows what happens with his back.

I was gonna throw in "doesn't injure his back" in there with what might happen if he played in today's league but Larry Legend blew out his back trying to manually install a roof for his mother?

most :facepalm moment of NBA history? Besides Wilt losing like 7 times in the finals of course, at least half of which were to less talented team.

I don't care what anyone says.. Baylor/West/Wilt unable to get it done Sheed/Billups/B.Wallace/Hamilton were able to win one?

bdreason

10-08-2012, 07:14 PM

Larry Bird would eat this league alive, just like he did in the 80's.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 07:20 PM

No, not "you use your fingers shooting so hurting them hurts your shooting". Evidence.

FT% is the purest indication of ones shooting. If you had a better measure show it. One that isn't affected by the quality of defense faced.

I'm not "acting like FT% is everything" I'm asking you to show that there's something better. You said "some say he was a better shooter in college" and I say I don't think there's the evidence to back up that claim. Then you assert that having an ugly looking hand prevents good free throw shooting. That's not evidence that he was a better shooter, and I've shown numbers that would seem to indicate he was worse in college. Feel free to show otherwise. But you haven't done so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZgM3jq2XQ0

All I can show is this, Jackie MacMullan the author of When The GAme Was Ours, says that Bird said he never had the same feel for the ball, if he says that I think that it clearly hurt his shooting out of college, and he MIGHT (not would) have been a better shooter. Plus you can see him in college hitting jumpers from really long range left and right and in his first NBA years his 3pt% wasn't good, but that's a bit subjective.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 07:28 PM

All have some pace inflated stats relative to the modern game. The pace was faster. Like I said in my first post doesn't make them worse, you just need to adjust or use things that normalise for era (e.g. advanced stats).

There being so many great scorers at SF does exactly state, as I said before, that on average defense is relatively weak. Defense is relative to offense and vice versa. If offense has an advantage in an era then by definition it is relatively weak, necessarily so. It doesn't mean there couldn't be good defenders. Just that there weren't many of them.

Why prime at the same time? Well my thinking was that players that develop at around the same time are going to have fair comparisons throughout their career, rather than "look what Bird can do against an aging Bobby Jones" or the opposite "look how Rodman and Pippen embarrassed an aging Bird".

But it's up to you, it's your thread. Discuss not prime at the same time. But that makes 97 Bulls posts about Pippen and Rodman destroying Bird valid.

I know they have, all I was saying is that a guy like English had more because of the style of the Nuggets play (kinda like the Suns some years ago)

So in great scoring centers era, center defense was weak, in great scoring guards era (today), guard defense is weak? Please don't give me that. Just because you had great scoring SF's with great skill in the 80's that doesn't mean defense was weak against SF's lol.

Well you can't always offer prime vs prime, if young Bird killed a great defensive player in his prime, he wouldn't in his prime? Also amazing to see old f**ked up Bird against younger Rodman and Pippen.

Why? I never said prime Bird against old "somebody", that's not that fair to me I agree, but old/badly-injured/overweight/out-of-prime "somebody" scoring against young/really-athletic/already-great-defender "somebody" means something to me. Don't twist what I've said.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 07:58 PM

Looking at the numbers head-to-head you got

----
Bird: .503 FG%; .450 3P%; 25.9 PPG; 8.3 RPG; 6.1 APG; 3.4 TPG
Pip: 31.5 MPG

A game in '90 that Pip played 40 minutes, Bird dropped 38 on 50%, with 11 rebounds and 9 assists
A game in '91 that Pip played 37 minutes, Bird dropped 30 points on 59%
A game in '91 that Pip played 52 minutes, Bird dropped 34 on 42%, 15 rebounds and 8 assists, and made some clutch shots to win the game
----

----
Bird: .487 FG%; .459 3P%; 24.7 PPG; 8.0 RPG; 6.9 APG; 1.9 TPG
Rodman: 27.6 MPG

Rodman only started to play more than 30 MPG in '91 , and he still won DPY in '90, and defensive honors before... Many times he came in to guard Bird and I get the point that Bird wasn't guarded by him the whole game, but still he was guarding him close to half the time or more
----

If for Rodman and Pippen you say that they weren't in their absolute prime (even though Rodman was in his perimeter D prime in his younger years and Pip by 89/90 was already a great defensive player) plus the 30 minutes, you can't also forget the horrible condition Bird was in (most wouldn't continue to play) and sometimes he was on the court just dragging himself, he took the least amount of shots in '90-'91, '91-'92.
I get your point bro. I just feel its just as disengenuine for you to use a few clips of Bird scoring on rookies and second year players which Rodman and Pippen were, or even using an aging Bobby Jones vs prime Bird, then get defensive when the tables are turned. Not to mention the staats you posted on basketball-reference arent totally Bird vs Pippen or Rodman, or Jordan. Most of his big games came against Adrian Dantley and Brad Sellers.

I know neither of those guys would stop Bird, but I'm confident he'd be in for a long night if he were to face them in their prime

Eric Cartman

10-08-2012, 07:59 PM

Prime Bird would be the best player in today's game by a small margin over Lebron.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 08:25 PM

Prime Bird would be the best player in today's game by a small margin over Lebron.
Now this isn't true. The defensive side of the ball just make James over Bird a no brainer.

Miller for 3

10-08-2012, 08:47 PM

Now this isn't true. The offensive side of the ball just makes Bird over James a no brainer.

Fixed. Plus defense is a wash at best, if not clearly Bird. Bird was a legit great defensive PF. His impact was comparable to what we've seen from a past prime Duncan. From what I've seen of your posts, your not older than 12 so i know you haven't seen Bird play, so don't bother responding with your opinion and fantasy land posts. What I stated is fact

chips93

10-08-2012, 08:52 PM

Fixed. Plus defense is a wash at best, if not clearly Bird. Bird was a legit great defensive PF. His impact was comparable to what we've seen from a past prime Duncan. From what I've seen of your posts, your not older than 12 so i know you haven't seen Bird play, so don't bother responding with your opinion and fantasy land posts. What I stated is fact

oh. i was gonna disagree with you, but i didnt realise that what you said was a fact. nevermind, i guess you are right

1987_Lakers

10-08-2012, 09:01 PM

Bird as a 35 year old with no back in 1992 was able to average 20 pts, 9.6 reb, 6.8 asts on 47% FG%, 40 3pt%, 92 ft%.

That is all you really need to know.

1987_Lakers

10-08-2012, 09:05 PM

Now this isn't true. The defensive side of the ball just make James over Bird a no brainer.

Depends on preference.

Some might like Bird because he is a better offensive player by a sizable margin in the half court.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 09:15 PM

I know they have, all I was saying is that a guy like English had more because of the style of the Nuggets play (kinda like the Suns some years ago)

So in great scoring centers era, center defense was weak, in great scoring guards era (today), guard defense is weak? Please don't give me that. Just because you had great scoring SF's with great skill in the 80's that doesn't mean defense was weak against SF's lol.

Well you can't always offer prime vs prime, if young Bird killed a great defensive player in his prime, he wouldn't in his prime? Also amazing to see old f**ked up Bird against younger Rodman and Pippen.

Why? I never said prime Bird against old "somebody", that's not that fair to me I agree, but old/badly-injured/overweight/out-of-prime "somebody" scoring against young/really-athletic/already-great-defender "somebody" means something to me. Don't twist what I've said.
Come on bro. I think you're being ridiculous. You're acting as if Bird was some kind of paraplegic with down syndrome, and an obiesity problem.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 09:19 PM

Depends on preference.

Some might like Bird because he is a better offensive player by a sizable margin in the half court.
This is a great point. I think James career should play out a little more before I annoint him over Bird.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 09:22 PM

Bird as a 35 year old with no back in 1992 was able to average 20 pts, 9.6 reb, 6.8 asts on 47% FG%, 40 3pt%, 92 ft%.

That is all you really need to know.
This is all that needs to be said. Bird would be able to perform in any era.

SHAQisGOAT

10-08-2012, 10:13 PM

Now this isn't true. The defensive side of the ball just make James over Bird a no brainer.

Not at all. Bird had tremendous defensive impact, his team's success (college, NBA) wasn't just because of his amazing offense.
What give LeBron the edge defensively if his athleticism, Bird was one of the GOAT team defenders, good post defender could hold his own m2m on the perimeter but his lateral quickness was average, he couldn't shut guys down on the perimeter.
While I do agree LeBron's better overall defensively, the gap is not big, at all.

97 bulls

10-08-2012, 11:04 PM

Not at all. Bird had tremendous defensive impact, his team's success (college, NBA) wasn't just because of his amazing offense.
What give LeBron the edge defensively if his athleticism, Bird was one of the GOAT team defenders, good post defender could hold his own m2m on the perimeter but his lateral quickness was average, he couldn't shut guys down on the perimeter.
While I do agree LeBron's better overall defensively, the gap is not big, at all.
If he's such a great defender, why did Mchale have to guard the better scoring forward regardless of position? That's because the coach feels he's a bad defender.

1987_Lakers

10-08-2012, 11:12 PM

If he's such a great defender, why did Mchale have to guard the better scoring forward regardless of position? That's because the coach feels he's a bad defender.

Or they feel McHale is the better defender?

RaininTwos

10-08-2012, 11:52 PM

He would be the third best SF right now .

Whoah10115

10-09-2012, 03:58 AM

Wow, this thread has gotten real bad.

SHAQisGOAT

10-09-2012, 06:56 AM

If he's such a great defender, why did Mchale have to guard the better scoring forward regardless of position? That's because the coach feels he's a bad defender.

Bet you've never saw a Celtics game from back then and you're just talking out your a**.

First of all McHale guarded the better scoring forward since 1986 when he got into the starting lineup, and this was not all the time. Reason?

First of all they wanted to spare their main offensive weapon. Harper guarded the best scoring guard many times, does that make Jordan a bad defender? Or when Pip was switched off to Magic, does that make Jordan a bad defender? Or when Battier was guarding Durant instead of LeBron? Does that make LeBron a bad defender?

Bird already had back issues.

And did you read my post

Not at all. Bird had tremendous defensive impact, his team's success (college, NBA) wasn't just because of his amazing offense.
What give LeBron the edge defensively if his athleticism, Bird was one of the GOAT team defenders, good post defender could hold his own m2m on the perimeter but his lateral quickness was average, he couldn't shut guys down on the perimeter.

Defense is not always about shutting guys down on the perimeter though. McHale was put on some guys because he had great length to bother them and such.
Plus it was better for the Celtics to have Bird roaming around playing great team D.

SHAQisGOAT

10-09-2012, 06:57 AM

He would be the third best SF right now .

:lol great joke

RaininTwos

10-09-2012, 10:09 AM

:lol great joke
I am not joking in the slightest. I'm sure some people feel differently and would rank him above Durant which I can understand but that's where I draw the line.

Money 23

10-09-2012, 10:39 AM

I am not joking in the slightest. I'm sure some people feel differently and would rank him above Durant which I can understand but that's where I draw the line.
And you said you don't have a bias against older players.

:oldlol:

It leaks through in every one of your posts. Larry Bird is better than Durant, easily.

Shut your young, dumb ass up.

97 bulls

10-09-2012, 11:16 AM

And you said you don't have a bias against older players.

:oldlol:

It leaks through in every one of your posts. Larry Bird is better than Durant, easily.

Shut your young, dumb ass up.
Why is it when people have a difference in opinion, they must have a bias? And even if he does have a bias so what?!!

As fans, we all have a bias. I guarantee you are gonna maake multiple posts in a thread asking who's better between Iguodal and Johnson. And that's not bad. You just probably don't really care.

97 bulls

10-09-2012, 11:20 AM

Bet you've never saw a Celtics game from back then and you're just talking out your a**.

First of all McHale guarded the better scoring forward since 1986 when he got into the starting lineup, and this was not all the time. Reason?

First of all they wanted to spare their main offensive weapon. Harper guarded the best scoring guard many times, does that make Jordan a bad defender? Or when Pip was switched off to Magic, does that make Jordan a bad defender? Or when Battier was guarding Durant instead of LeBron? Does that make LeBron a bad defender?

Bird already had back issues.

And did you read my post

Defense is not always about shutting guys down on the perimeter though. McHale was put on some guys because he had great length to bother them and such.
Plus it was better for the Celtics to have Bird roaming around playing great team D.
Bird was a terrible man defender. Deal with it.

SHAQisGOAT

10-09-2012, 01:19 PM

Bird was a terrible man defender. Deal with it.

LOL terrible..

You know nothing about basketball and still think you know, plus you're a major hater, deal with.

Plus Bird overall sh*ts all over your beloved Pippen (and Pip's one of my favorite players all time)

SHAQisGOAT

10-09-2012, 01:21 PM

I am not joking in the slightest. I'm sure some people feel differently and would rank him above Durant which I can understand but that's where I draw the line.

Please... If you really think that you must be delusional, many great scoring SF's in the 80's and Bird was always clearly head n shoulders above all of them

Bird would be #1 right now. Strong case for LeBron right there with him, for Durant not in a million years.

Kovach

11-16-2012, 02:36 AM

So in great scoring centers era, center defense was weak, in great scoring guards era (today), guard defense is weak? Please don't give me that. Just because you had great scoring SF's with great skill in the 80's that doesn't mean defense was weak against SF's lol.
:applause:

I know they have, all I was saying is that a guy like English had more because of the style of the Nuggets play
This myth really pisses me off. There is NO superstar, in the history of the league, that took as much beating on the floor as English did. In many cases the only way to make the guy miss a jumper was the slam him right across the arm, which many defenders did and often times got away with. Trying to throw him off the pace by hitting him hard early in the game was a commonly employed defensive tactic against him. Against mild defense he was an almost certain 30-40 ppg. He was just that good.

Micku

11-16-2012, 03:04 AM

If he's such a great defender, why did Mchale have to guard the better scoring forward regardless of position? That's because the coach feels he's a bad defender.

Oh no.

You watch the NBA now. LeBron James don't always guard Kobe or Durant. They send Battier on him. Sometimes Wade. They switch it up. Same with Kobe.

With Bird, they:

1. To save Bird's energy for the offense.

2. Mchale was the better defender. And his length made a difference as well.

3. They switch it up sometimes.

Bird was a underrated defender. He was a good post defender, good help defender, and he was an ok man to man defender. He wasn't terrible or bad. That's a myth. But he wasn't the best defender in the game and he wasn't the best defender on team imo.

Force

11-16-2012, 03:36 AM

I didn't read through the thread but Larry would have no problem playing in today's era. He would probably score 10 a game from the free throw line alone. The guy was one of the best all around players EVER. This is coming from somebody who grew up watching the showtime Lakers. Larry was ridiculous, vision and rebounding and overall basketball instincts were incredible. he was a real basketball player.

MavsPoke

11-16-2012, 12:26 PM

Also found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKH2fb_PxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TxC_k9Bv0&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn8qTjVED5w&feature=relmfu

Still gotta watch it completely

Thanks for the links. :applause:

Jesus he was so good. Its easy to forget.

AngelEyes

11-21-2012, 04:16 AM

Larry Bird would be at least in all star in any era and anyone who disagrees is kidding themselves or not familiar with his game.

Micku

12-10-2012, 02:34 PM

I don't get the Dirk comparison.

Dirk is much taller and a more accurate shooter, which makes him a more dangerous overall scorer.
Bird is decisively better in most of the other aspects of the game. He's an all-around player.

They're different enough that you can't infer from one's dominance in this era that the other would succeed as well.

I do think Larry Bird would absolutely kick ass in this era, but it has nothing to do with Dirk. Just with the fact that he's Larry Bird.

We don't know that or we can't prove it because we don't really have the stats to back it up. With Dirk, we do. Now we basically can look to see how well he shot anywhere on the floor for almost his entire career.

We do know that Bird posted up more in his career though. And since Bird had a higher FG% normally than Dirk, I think it's more likely he was either a better finisher or took better shots. Not to mention Bird usually shoot more than Dirk, and still had a better FG%. If you watch the games, it was a mixture of both. Around the 10-15 ft range, Bird was a killer with the post fadeaways.

If you look at Dirk's stats though, he is a killer almost everywhere on the floor. He isn't as good in the 3-9ft though.