What would Larry Bird and Magic average in this Era?

[TheReal Kendall]

I always hear people say if MJ played now he would absolutely crush.

So I was wondering what would Larry and Magic averages be if they played in today's Era?

Would they still be considered top 10 players?

Would they dominate the game?

Would they just be role players?

Discuss.

[dh144498]

Bird: something like 26-12-8 wouldn't be out of the question

Magic: 26-9-14

[Andrei89]

Bird: something like 26-12-8 wouldn't be out of the question

Magic: 26-9-14

Les not get ahead of ourselves here.

26-9-14?

Man you must be stupid:lol :lol

[Vertical-24]

Magic - 22.6ppg 8.4rpg 12.2apg 51fg% 32%3P

Larry - 28.2ppg 11.0rpg 6.4apg 48%fg 40%3P

[KG215]

Yeah...no, Magic wouldn't average 26 PPG.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

They would both do very well.
That is all we can assume.

[dh144498]

Yeah...no, Magic wouldn't average 26 PPG.

not impossible. He could abuse most defenders in the post in this era.

[TheReturn]

All numbers posted so far seem too high to me.

[sixer6ad]

LBJ in about 3/4 years will be Magic. It's what Magic looked like.

Could score on the block, had vision, could lead a break, made big plays, could make a hook shot, could hit a 3 (occasionally). Very similar bodies, except Magic NEVER flew like Lebron. When LBJ slows down, it will be Magic.

[ThaRegul8r]

Neither one of them were about numbers anyway, so I'm not sure why the fascination with whatever individual statistics they might have compiled.

[Vertical-24]

All numbers posted so far seem too high to me.

Yeah I was thinking maybe I beefed Larry's PPG/RPGs too much? Maybe 27.5ppg and 9.4rpg?

[TheReal Kendall]

Neither one of them were about numbers anyway, so I'm not sure why the fascination with whatever individual statistics they might have compiled.


I was just wondering cause they were never considered to be athletic guys.

[fpliii]

Neither one of them were about numbers anyway, so I'm not sure why the fascination with whatever individual statistics they might have compiled.

The only interesting numbers to me are Bird's rebounds, and 3PA. I'm not sure what kind of style he would play (though superstars of the highest order can't really be pigeonholed into a single role, I wonder if we'd see more of the Bird from before or after McHale was featured in the offense).

[1987_Lakers]

Both players at their peak in today's NBA...

Bird: 27/9/6

Magic: 21/6/11

Bird would be a PF in today's league, Magic's assist numbers would be down a bit considering there are less fast break opportunities and less possessions in today's league.

The usage of the 3 point shot in today's league is a plus for Bird and playing at power forward his rebounding numbers wouldn't drop so his stats pretty much look the same.

[Kblaze8855]

Bird on a good team(say...the Heat in place of Lebron) 23/11/7.

Bad team? 30/8/8

Magic about 18/11/8 anywhere.

[1987_Lakers]

Yeah...no, Magic wouldn't average 26 PPG.

I agree. A team where Magic is the #1 scoring option he is gonna put up points in the LOW 20's. Give him a team where he has 2 guys who can create their own shot and get you 20-25 on any given night then Magic puts up around 16-18 points a game.

[Myth]

In this era? The'd team up and laugh throughout the Finals as they spank LeBron/Wade/Bosh.

[97 bulls]

The league is different now. For example. In 1988, the year Bird avg.30 ppg, the Celtics team he played on took 6905 shots. That was fourth lowest for that year. In 2013, 6905 FGA would place a team third.

Theres no way Bird would be able to get up enough shots to come close to 30 ppg. The same applies to rebounds and assists. And dont forget FTs dont count as a FGA. So a portion of the points off FTs woukd be negated as well

24/8/6 for Bird

17/6/10 for Magic

[Kblaze8855]

No way he could get up enough shots?

what are you saying will stop him exactly? A lack of posessions?

You think he couldnt just...shoot on a higher percentage of them?

[juju151111]

The league is different now. For example. In 1988, the year Bird avg.30 ppg, the Celtics team he played on took 6905 shots. That was fourth lowest for that year. In 2013, 6905 FGA would place a team third.

Theres no way Bird would be able to get up enough shots to come close to 30 ppg. The same applies to rebounds and assists. And dont forget FTs dont count as a FGA. So a portion of the points off FTs woukd be negated as well

24/8/6 for Bird

17/6/10 for Magic
Wtf are you talking about?:biggums:

[kennethgriffin]

bird - 33ppg/9rpg/6apg

magic - 23ppg/8rpg/13apg

jordan - 39ppg/6rpg/5apg

prime kobe - 37ppg/6reb/5apg

[97 bulls]

Wtf are you talking about?:biggums:
Can you count? Its all relative. The league is different now when compared to the 80s. How can he avg 30 ppg in an era where theres less shot opportunities?

[juju151111]

Can you count? Its all relative. The league is different now when compared to the 80s. How can he avg 30 ppg in an era where theres less shot opportunities?
All he needs to do is take more Fga. What if he on a horrible team. He the only one taking more FGA not the team itself. He can take the same amount of shots he did before he the team and coach gives him greenlight.

[Kblaze8855]

You really believe his personal shots drop at the same rate the NBA average does?

You think guys like AI who shot 25 times in a slow league in the early 2000s would take 30-32 shots a night in the 80s west?

[Nezty]

Can you count? Its all relative. The league is different now when compared to the 80s. How can he avg 30 ppg in an era where theres less shot opportunities?

Kobe, LeBron, Melo, and Durant can manage to do it, why not Bird?

[jstern]

Bird has talked about how the rules has made the game different, and talked about how his game would be different.

[wigwan]

The league is different now. For example. In 1988, the year Bird avg.30 ppg, the Celtics team he played on took 6905 shots. That was fourth lowest for that year. In 2013, 6905 FGA would place a team third.

Theres no way Bird would be able to get up enough shots to come close to 30 ppg. The same applies to rebounds and assists. And dont forget FTs dont count as a FGA. So a portion of the points off FTs woukd be negated as well

24/8/6 for Bird

17/6/10 for Magic

There were no Charlotte Bobcats when they played.

[inclinerator]

beard 30 ppg 8 rebs 6 assist

magic 20 12 7

[97 bulls]

You really believe his personal shots drop at the same rate the NBA average does?

You think guys like AI who shot 25 times in a slow league in the early 2000s would take 30-32 shots a night in the 80s west?
My point is exactly that. Iverson was considered a chucker. Bird wasnt. Iverson taking 25 shots in the early 00s was equivalent to taking probably 28 in the 80s. And mind you that was Birds max.

If Bird took roughly 20 shots in a league that avg about 7100 shots per team, how is he gonna get the same 20 in a league where the avg team takes about 6500?

[ace23]

You really believe his personal shots drop at the same rate the NBA average does?

You think guys like AI who shot 25 times in a slow league in the early 2000s would take 30-32 shots a night in the 80s west?
Yes, why is that so hard to believe? I don't think your numbers are quite right, but yes he would take more shots.

[2010splash]

Wouldn't have won anywhere near as much as they did in the 80's. And no way in hell does Bird win 3 straight MVPs. Maybe 1 if he's lucky.

Bird - 24/8/5 on 47-48%

Magic - 19/6/11 on 47-48%

[JBrizzy]

ITT Old people who haven't moved on since the mid 90's.

[DatAsh]

The league is different now. For example. In 1988, the year Bird avg.30 ppg, the Celtics team he played on took 6905 shots. That was fourth lowest for that year. In 2013, 6905 FGA would place a team third.

Theres no way Bird would be able to get up enough shots to come close to 30 ppg. The same applies to rebounds and assists. And dont forget FTs dont count as a FGA. So a portion of the points off FTs woukd be negated as well

24/8/6 for Bird

17/6/10 for Magic


So you think Bird would average the same number of rebounds as Lebron despite him being a clearly better rebounder? Larry was a 13-16% rebounder on a team with Parish, McHale, and Walton. Lebron is an 11-13% rebounder on a team with Bosh, Anderson, and Wade, yet you think those two players would average the same number of rebounds.

It should be clear that superstar numbers don't rise and fall perfectly with pace.

[Le Shaqtus]

Wouldn't have won anywhere near as much as they did in the 80's. And no way in hell does Bird win 3 straight MVPs. Maybe 1 if he's lucky.

Bird - 24/8/5 on 47-48%

Magic - 19/6/11 on 47-48%

:roll:

Thanks I needed a good laugh :lol

[Rose'sACL]

magic:21-6-11, 50%fg
Bird: 27-11-6 52% fg, 41% 3pt%

[WolfGang]

Lets stop all this old head bulls**t.

Magic would average 19/4/6
Bird would be comming off the bench.

Here, I'll post them for you. :biggums: :coleman: :facepalm

[Micku]

My point is exactly that. Iverson was considered a chucker. Bird wasnt. Iverson taking 25 shots in the early 00s was equivalent to taking probably 28 in the 80s. And mind you that was Birds max.

If Bird took roughly 20 shots in a league that avg about 7100 shots per team, how is he gonna get the same 20 in a league where the avg team takes about 6500?

Because he would just take more shots?

It's not like he doesn't have the skill with isos, moving without the ball, or post up. I don't think it's that big of an issue if Bird wanted to score. If other players did it in a slower pace league who played with him like Wilkins and Jordan, I don't see why Bird cannot. Bird could average 26-30 ppg if he want to.

The less FGAs would affect the role players, but not the superstars because they are your number 1 option.

Magic would probably average the similar numbers. I don't know if he'll keep his FG%, but he will still have crazy efficiency.

[Round Mound]

Some People Need To Get Informed On Who Larry Bird Was:

Suggest This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svHk8Zntc5g

[ILLsmak]

My point is exactly that. Iverson was considered a chucker. Bird wasnt. Iverson taking 25 shots in the early 00s was equivalent to taking probably 28 in the 80s. And mind you that was Birds max.

If Bird took roughly 20 shots in a league that avg about 7100 shots per team, how is he gonna get the same 20 in a league where the avg team takes about 6500?


This league would work better for Bird because he'd get calls and he's one of the best FT shooters.

30 ppg is tough to hit anymore. Still 27/28 is not out of the question.

-Smak

[sc19]

They wouldn't be able to inflate stats anymore on a superior era. And Magic would announce his real sexuality like my boy Collins.

[ralph_i_el]

Teams play at a slower pace today. They'd probably have similar lines to what they did in the 80's if you account for pace.

Bird would probably be competing for a scoring title. I doubt magic would score 20ppg but he could put up around 18-10-6

[eliteballer]

Jason Kidd averaged 10 ppg, 6 rpg, 9 apg at 36 years old after microfracture surgery so...

and Bird and Magic played on loaded teams for the most part. So that offsets the pace somewhat statistically. Magic's stats went up as the Lakers declined.

[1987_Lakers]

Why are people taking into account for pace and completely ignoring the cast Bird and Magic had?

Magic had Kareem who he had to defer to all the time in the half court set from '80-'86, look at Magic's scoring numbers once Kareem started to decline. Bird played with one of the greatest low post players ever in McHale and an all-star in Parish, Bird had to sacrifice as well.

Look at Bird's numbers when McHale went down with an injury during the '86 season, they are insane, he put up 6 triple doubles in a 10 game span, 4 of those triple doubles were 30+ point games. What do you think a peak Bird's numbers would look like today without a dominant post player like McHale?

[Greg Oden 50]

bird 40 ppg,12 rpg,9 asts,3 stls
magic 30ppg 15 rpg,14 asts,2 stls :applause:

[97 bulls]

So you think Bird would average the same number of rebounds as Lebron despite him being a clearly better rebounder? Larry was a 13-16% rebounder on a team with Parish, McHale, and Walton. Lebron is an 11-13% rebounder on a team with Bosh, Anderson, and Wade, yet you think those two players would average the same number of rebounds.

It should be clear that superstar numbers don't rise and fall perfectly with pace.
Im just looking at sheer numbers. It would be hard for a player to score at that rate with less opportunities to do so.

Sure perhaps on a bad team his stats could reach 80s level. But im assuming the whole Celtics squad and Magic and his Lakers squad are in the fray.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Bird: 30/10/5 on 55% shooting, 50% 3pt
Magic: 21/7/13 on 52% shooting, 4 spg

Lets face it, the league is getting weaker nowadays, those all-time greats will shit on most players like cake.

[97 bulls]

Because he would just take more shots?

It's not like he doesn't have the skill with isos, moving without the ball, or post up. I don't think it's that big of an issue if Bird wanted to score. If other players did it in a slower pace league who played with him like Wilkins and Jordan, I don't see why Bird cannot. Bird could average 26-30 ppg if he want to.

The less FGAs would affect the role players, but not the superstars because they are your number 1 option.

Magic would probably average the similar numbers. I don't know if he'll keep his FG%, but he will still have crazy efficiency.
Bird wasnt an iso type player. He scored off screens, picks and steals.

And fir the life of me, how or why would he take more shots? Did he not have the green light to shoot at willl

[Alan Ogg]

Magic 19 Pts 6 Reb 11 Ast 1.5 Stl
Bird 23 Pts 9 Reb 5.7 Ast 1.6 Stl 0.8 BS, 50/40/90

[1987_Lakers]

Bird wasnt an iso type player. He scored off screens, picks and steals.

And fir the life of me, how or why would he take more shots? Did he not have the green light to shoot at willl

He could without a doubt score iso in the post. The guy did drop 60 in a game and he did average 30 in a season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rto2_oYVs0I

I really don't see Bird having a problem scoring 26-28 a night on a team with no scorers, he was an elite shooter, moved well off the ball, and had a terrific post game. It's not like he depended on screens and picks to score all the time.

[Micku]

Bird wasnt an iso type player. He scored off screens, picks and steals.

And fir the life of me, how or why would he take more shots? Did he not have the green light to shoot at willl

Are post ups and the team clearing out are not isos? Is facing someone up and taking someone off the dribble are not isos? He was much more than scored off screens and steals. He did almost everything despite his lack of athleticism. And he definitely took players one on one. They couldn't stop him. He didn't depend on screens to score.

And the reason why he would take more shots is because he could be their best offensive player. I don't know why is this difficult to grasp that he could average 19-22 FGA and score 26-30 ppg. He did it on a stacked team, having the most FGA above Mchale and Parish, and those players are better scorers than most all-stars today. And Bird is a better scorer than Melo who won the scoring title this year, who had 22.2 FGAs.

It depends on how stacked Bird team is, but I can see him having 18-22 FGAs, which will result to him averaging about 26-30 ppg.

[BuGzBuNNy]

Idk why y'all are making it so hard, what he's saying makes perfect sense. Is it not common sense that in a league where the pace is much faster you're going to take more shots? Vice versa

[Micku]

Idk why y'all are making it so hard, what he's saying makes perfect sense. Is it not common sense that in a league where the pace is much faster you're going to take more shots? Vice versa

Because it won't apply to superstars that much. Take Karl Malone for example.

In 1987-88, the Utah Jazz pace was 101.5, sixth fastest pace in the league. The team as a whole took 7092 FGA. Karl Malone average 20.1 FGA and average 27.7 ppg.

In 1996-97 (almost a decade later), the Utah Jazz pace was 90.0, 17th place out of 29 teams. The team as a whole took 6217 FGA. Karl Malone average 19.2 FGA and average 27.4 ppg.

Virtually the same despite the transition to fast and slow pace.

To compare, Miami Heat 2013 pace is 90.7. And the team as a whole took 6348. So they are slightly faster.

And this isn't the only example. You have Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Dominique Wilkins, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, Barkley and etc. Pace won't affect superstars all that much. They will get their shots, especially someone of the caliber as Larry Bird. It'll affect the role players.

[TheAnchorman]

Bird's stats would dip slightly. I'm probably going for a 24/11/6 with 48-50% FG. Today's league has better defense, and a huge number of athletic SFs and swingmen that would give Bird a much harder time than during the mid 80s where it was mostly offense. Imagine you are in 84-87, and you were Larry Bird, and you had an Alex English, Dominique or Dantley guarding your ass usually. The only people that really gave him trouble were Michael Cooper and Dennis Rodman.

Today you'd have Lebron, Paul George, Kawhi, Tony Allen, Iguodala, Ibaka, Battier, Shumpert... 3s or 4s that are athletic, physical guys who can take you out of your rhythm. I feel that Bird would be smart enough to reinvent himself as more of a stretch 4 who can rebound with the best of them, hence why I bumped up his rebounding stats.

With Magic it depends on the pace of his team. If he was the 1st option he would probably average 23/7/11, but if he was running a D'Antoni offense that somehow became successful it would probably go up to 1987 numbers or even higher. Otherwise if he was "2nd" banana it would probably be more conservative 18/7/12, 50%. Still beastly as ****.

The only problem with Magic is he'd be even more exposed on defense, considering the amazing number of point guards in the league today that can exploit him on a daily basis.

[Kblaze8855]

My point is exactly that. Iverson was considered a chucker. Bird wasnt. Iverson taking 25 shots in the early 00s was equivalent to taking probably 28 in the 80s. And mind you that was Birds max.

If Bird took roughly 20 shots in a league that avg about 7100 shots per team, how is he gonna get the same 20 in a league where the avg team takes about 6500?


The same way Kevin Love got 20 a game in 2012. He would...shoot the ball about 20 times. What about that is hard for you to imagine?

I cant even believe you are serious right now.

[BoutPractice]

I don't see why Magic would only average about 6 rebounds in this league when he averaged a lot more in the 80s, is 6'7/6'8, and may play SF/PF more often in this era. 8 seems more realistic to me. As a PG he'd probably average 18-11-8, but would crack 20 ppg on his peak scoring year. As a SF/PF he'd average over 20 points, 9/10 rebounds and 6 assists.

Bird would be an awesome scorer right now. Not only does shooting translate to any era, but he could do the Durant rip-through move or the Wade pump fake and would get a ton of free throws, which he would convert at a high rate.

[DCL]

some of you saying these top 10 all time players can't break 20ppg?

put the crack pipe down.

[ThaRegul8r]

some of you saying these top 10 all time players can't break 20ppg?

put the crack pipe down.

On a board where people say top 10-20 all time players would be lucky to even get off the bench, for the life of me I don't understand why that would surprise anyone.

Anyone not playing in the here and now would be a marginal player at best and a complete scrub at worst. That's how most of the people here think.

[dr.hee]

some of you saying these top 10 all time players can't break 20ppg?

put the crack pipe down.

Yeah, I mean Dirk is averaging 26/10 in the playoffs. Let's say for argument's sake that Bird is "only" as good as Nowitzki in terms of scoring/rebounding ( we all know Bird is clearly the better player, but I'll run with this...), and now you add his superior passing into the mix and you'll get something like 26/10/7 maybe? So what's the worst case for Bird in today's league? Prime Dirk with better passing? Sounds like a tie with Lebron for the best player in the league...

[G-train]

Impossible to predict exactly the numbers, but they would form 2 of the top 3 players in the league.

[Trollsmasher]

Discount 10% from their original stats because of the pace, then discount another 10% because of the quality of the defense and you have their stats.

Bird - 23/8/6
Magic - 19/6/9

[raiderfan19]

IMO, yes it makes sense to account for pace. If you magically transport the mid 80s celtics to right now, birds rebounding and probably his scoring drop. That said whatever you lose in pace, you'd pick back up through expansion. No team today has anywhere near as much talent around a star as either of those 80 teams did and we know that numbers are context dependant.

That being said there is no situation you could put them in where a prime bird or magic isn't an absolutely elite player in this era. I'm as big of a dirk fan as there is but put bird in dirks place and does anyone really think bird couldn't do the same things plus pass? We love to talk about how athletic the league has gotten as proof that older guys couldn't play now but there have always been athletic freaks in the nba. They might be more prevalent now but there are also plenty of stars who aren't exactly prime mj or Lebron athletically. Kevin love is athletic enough to put up 25/14 but bird couldn't score 25? Please. Paul pierce isn't exactly the most athletic guy in the world and he's putting up 18/6/4 at an old age.

I understand the belief that the current generation is probably More athletic than the last. Advances in medicine, technology and understanding exercise/the human body make that a reality. That said greatness is greatness, and these guys were both legit great players. They'd translate just fine. This isn't the 60s. These guys played against mj and beat him. They played the same guys mj played and dominated to be the consensus goat. If in 2030 we have people with 55 inch verts with 35 foot range and 7 3 guys with handles then by all means have this discussion about them not being able to translate due to athleticism but right now? No. They'd be just fine.

[dr.hee]

IMO, yes it makes sense to account for pace. If you magically transport the mid 80s celtics to right now, birds rebounding and probably his scoring drop. That said whatever you lose in pace, you'd pick back up through expansion. No team today has anywhere near as much talent around a star as either of those 80 teams did and we know that numbers are context dependant.

That being said there is no situation you could put them in where a prime bird or magic isn't an absolutely elite player in this era. I'm as big of a dirk fan as there is but put bird in dirks place and does anyone really think bird couldn't do the same things plus pass? We love to talk about how athletic the league has gotten as proof that older guys couldn't play now but there have always been athletic freaks in the nba. They might be more prevalent now but there are also plenty of stars who aren't exactly prime mj or Lebron athletically. Kevin love is athletic enough to put up 25/14 but bird couldn't score 25? Please. Paul pierce isn't exactly the most athletic guy in the world and he's putting up 18/6/4 at an old age.

I understand the belief that the current generation is probably More athletic than the last. Advances in medicine, technology and understanding exercise/the human body make that a reality. That said greatness is greatness, and these guys were both legit great players. They'd translate just fine. This isn't the 60s. These guys played against mj and beat him. They played the same guys mj played and dominated to be the consensus goat. If in 2030 we have people with 55 inch verts with 35 foot range and 7 3 guys with handles then by all means have this discussion about them not being able to translate due to athleticism but right now? No. They'd be just fine.

This.

The pace argument works for guys like Michael Adams maybe, but Bird and Magic? What a joke. I'm a Mavs fan, and if poor man's Larry Bird can pull off 26/10 playoff runs against anybody today on high percentages for a decade, so could Bird himself. Peja was dropping 24 a game in the "modern era", give me a break.

[brain drain]

In 85-86, Bird had

- the 4th highest ppg (25.8, behind Nique, Dantley, English)
- the 9th highest rpg (9.8)
- the 16th highest apg (6.8)

So, just to take this into context, in the last season, those positions would equal:

- 4th highest ppg: 26.8 (Lebron)
- 9th highest rpg: 11.1 (Reggie Evans)
- 16th highest apg: 6.9 (Ty Lawson).

[brain drain]

This.

The pace argument works for guys like Michael Adams maybe, but Bird and Magic? What a joke. I'm a Mavs fan, and if poor man's Larry Bird can pull off 26/10 playoff runs against anybody today on high percentages for a decade, so could Bird himself. Peja was dropping 24 a game in the "modern era", give me a break.


Actually, you need to check the stats.
Bird was great in the reg season, in the playoffs he dropped off markedly - while "poor man's Bird" at least kept his production in the playoffs. You can easily make a pretty good case that "poor man's Bird" was a better playoff performer than the real Bird himself.

[97 bulls]

This.

The pace argument works for guys like Michael Adams maybe, but Bird and Magic? What a joke. I'm a Mavs fan, and if poor man's Larry Bird can pull off 26/10 playoff runs against anybody today on high percentages for a decade, so could Bird himself. Peja was dropping 24 a game in the "modern era", give me a break.
If Bird were on that Maverick team then sure. But then you gotta take away championships, MVPs etc.

Im just factoring in the whole Celtic team in this era.

[LeBird]

Pace isn't going to affect star players like Bird or Magic. What's more likely to affect them is the team they're in and the competition of the era. You can pull numbers from your ass, like I am gonna do below, but in the end its just guesswork. I do think they'd improve on the whole simply because this era isn't as tough as theirs. Below; what is considered a strong/weak team is such a team in the last 5-6 years, not the 80s where 'strong' teams were ridiculously stacked in comparison.

In a strong team:

Bird: 26/12/8 on 50/41/90
Magic: 20/8/13 on 51/30/85

I think both would roughly score similar as they did back in the day if not a bit more because their teams wouldn't be as stacked. I also think their rebounding numbers improve considering the state of big-men in this era and rebounders in general. Bird would particularly improve as he'd not have 2 guys like McHale and Parish to contend with either.

I also think their assists improve because the plays tend to get run through the team's best player a lot more these days. I think Bird would be on the ball even more in this kind of era where in his Celtics he didn't have to dominate the ball as much. Magic, regardless of era, will dominate the ball so I didn't see him improving as much.

I think both would be better 3 point shooters considering the implementation of that shot in this era.

In a weak team:

Bird: 30/13/9 on 48/40/88
Magic: 24/9/14 on 49/30/85

They'd be walking triple-doubles today. Bird would probably lose a bit of efficiency due to being overrun but he was such a talented scorer if needed he could put up 30+ at the drop of a hat. In a weaker side, his rebounding will matter more. I think Magic improves slightly across the board but moreso for scoring. I think his rebounding and assists aren't as affected by the team but his needing to score will improve a lot in a weaker side.

[97 bulls]

Im not factoring the "pace" stat used for basketball teams. Im factoring in the tempo in which the game was played.

If were using that pace stat, then where would you put the showtime Lakers? Theyre considered one of the greatest fastbreak offenses ever. In 1987, they were 11th in pace.


How about defense? The Bad Boy Pistons are considered one of the greatest defenses ever. They gave up 100.8 ppg in 1989. That would be good for 22nd in todays league.

[dr.hee]

Actually, you need to check the stats.
Bird was great in the reg season, in the playoffs he dropped off markedly - while "poor man's Bird" at least kept his production in the playoffs. You can easily make a pretty good case that "poor man's Bird" was a better playoff performer than the real Bird himself.

I know the stats, and Dirk actually has a slight edge in scoring efficiency. On the other hand, Bird was doing much more than Nowitzki in terms of playmaking and off the ball movement, so overall, he's still the better player looking at the whole package. Both players have a few sub par playoff runs of course, and Bird was no god. But at his best, he would have a case for top player in the league today, no doubt about it.

[97 bulls]

Pace isn't going to affect star players like Bird or Magic. What's more likely to affect them is the team they're in and the competition of the era. You can pull numbers from your ass, like I am gonna do below, but in the end its just guesswork. I do think they'd improve on the whole simply because this era isn't as tough as theirs. Below; what is considered a strong/weak team is such a team in the last 5-6 years, not the 80s where 'strong' teams were ridiculously stacked in comparison.

In a strong team:

Bird: 26/12/8 on 50/41/90
Magic: 20/8/13 on 51/30/85

I think both would roughly score similar as they did back in the day if not a bit more because their teams wouldn't be as stacked. I also think their rebounding numbers improve considering the state of big-men in this era and rebounders in general. Bird would particularly improve as he'd not have 2 guys like McHale and Parish to contend with either.

I also think their assists improve because the plays tend to get run through the best players these days. I think Bird would be on the ball even more in this kind of era where in his Celtics he didn't have to dominate the ball as much. Magic, regardless of era, will dominate the ball so I didn't see him improving as much.

I think both would be better 3 point shooters considering the implementation of that shot in this era.

In a weak team:

Bird: 30/13/9 on 48/40/88
Magic: 24/9/14 on 49/30/87

They'd be walking triple-doubles today. Bird would probably lose a bit of efficiency due to being overrun but he was such a talented scorer if needed he could put up 30+ at the drop of a hat. In a weaker side, his rebounding will matter more. I think Magic improves slightly across the board but moreso for scoring. I think his rebounding and assists aren't as affected by the team but his needing to score will improve a lot in a weaker side.
Lol so theyd get all of the strengths of todays league I.e. better 3pt shooting, iso ability, the offense would change etc? But I also assume you feel theyd still keep their same accomplishments right. Championships, MVPs, etc?

[LeBird]

It really depends on the teams they get I guess. They'd certainly win all those accolades; they're too good not to.

[Graviton]

Don't see how Bird is going to average 12-13 rebounds a game in today's league, that's basically what the best rebounder in the NBA gets. Don't you think that's really ridiculous?

[TheOne]

Bird: Durant with more rebounds and assists, so 28/9/5
Magic: Lebron with less points and more assists, so 23/8/9

[dr.hee]

Don't see how Bird is going to average 12-13 rebounds a game in today's league, that's basically what the best rebounder in the NBA gets. Don't you think that's really ridiculous?

Who says he would? His carreer average is 10 rpg. So again, what about Dirk like numbers with all time great passing? Let's even say less efficient Nowitzki with great passing. Still Top 3 in the league.

[LeBird]

Don't see how Bird is going to average 12-13 rebounds a game in today's league, that's basically what the best rebounder in the NBA gets. Don't you think that's really ridiculous?

The best rebounder in the league in the last 5-6 years has averaged 13-15 rebounds per game. That was basically the same for the 80s and Bird averaged 10 per game himself. But Bird averaged 10 per game in an era where the likes of Moses Malone, Barkley, Laimbeer and Hakeem would win rebounding titles and contest him for rebounds. On his own team he was inhibited from even more rebounds because he played with Parish and McHale. So he averaged 10 when on both sides there were tougher challengers stopping him from averaging even more than 10.

So as I said, considering the era (less 'great' rebounders and bigmen) and the implication that his 'strong' team won't take away as many rebounds as the Celtics did, I think its a fair guess that he'd improve his rebounding numbers by 2 in a strong team and 3 in a weak team.

I mean, you're talking about Bird here...a guy who in his 2nd year almost outrebounded a prime Moses Malone in the NBA finals - who is one of the greatest rebounders of all time.

[INDI]

The league is different now. For example. In 1988, the year Bird avg.30 ppg, the Celtics team he played on took 6905 shots. That was fourth lowest for that year. In 2013, 6905 FGA would place a team third.

Theres no way Bird would be able to get up enough shots to come close to 30 ppg. The same applies to rebounds and assists. And dont forget FTs dont count as a FGA. So a portion of the points off FTs woukd be negated as well

24/8/6 for Bird

17/6/10 for Magic

your forgetting that if he was born the 80's and played in todays game, he would have todays training and skillsets as well. He will not be the high short wearing, bushy mustache bird. He would be a shorter but faster dirk, with a higher IQ and passing ability. Not to mention the chunks of ice that would be flowing through his veins.

28 ppg, 8 rebs, 6 asts I believe will be correct

[INDI]

if what everyone is saying is correct than is it safe to say

Bird > James ???

[dr.hee]

if what everyone is saying is correct than is it safe to say

Bird > James ???

Depends on the context imo. If you have some high usage one man army type of team like the Lebron Cavs, it's James all the way for me. Lebron is better "on his own" surrounded by shooters. But give Bird something to work with, and I'd take him instead. For example, Bird instead of Lebron on the 2011 Heat? Championship. On the other hand, if you put Bird on the Cavs instead of James, they won't make the finals.
Pure speculation though...

[raiderfan19]

if what everyone is saying is correct than is it safe to say

Bird > James ???
No

[97 bulls]

Because it won't apply to superstars that much. Take Karl Malone for example.

In 1987-88, the Utah Jazz pace was 101.5, sixth fastest pace in the league. The team as a whole took 7092 FGA. Karl Malone average 20.1 FGA and average 27.7 ppg.

In 1996-97 (almost a decade later), the Utah Jazz pace was 90.0, 17th place out of 29 teams. The team as a whole took 6217 FGA. Karl Malone average 19.2 FGA and average 27.4 ppg.

Virtually the same despite the transition to fast and slow pace.

To compare, Miami Heat 2013 pace is 90.7. And the team as a whole took 6348. So they are slightly faster.

And this isn't the only example. You have Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Dominique Wilkins, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, Barkley and etc. Pace won't affect superstars all that much. They will get their shots, especially someone of the caliber as Larry Bird. It'll affect the role players.
Alot of your Malone argument can be because he played on a different team of players. The Jazz went from a team built around offense to defense. The late 90s Jazz had no Thurl Bailey.

Jordan is another great example. His shot attempts dropped as the era changed. Take 96 Jordan and infuse him in the 80s and hes pushing 32 ppg on over 50% because hed have more fastbreak attempts.

[Trollsmasher]

Pace isn't going to affect star players like Bird or Magic. What's more likely to affect them is the team they're in and the competition of the era. You can pull numbers from your ass, like I am gonna do below, but in the end its just guesswork. I do think they'd improve on the whole simply because this era isn't as tough as theirs. Below; what is considered a strong/weak team is such a team in the last 5-6 years, not the 80s where 'strong' teams were ridiculously stacked in comparison.

In a strong team:

Bird: 26/12/8 on 50/41/90
Magic: 20/8/13 on 51/30/85

I think both would roughly score similar as they did back in the day if not a bit more because their teams wouldn't be as stacked. I also think their rebounding numbers improve considering the state of big-men in this era and rebounders in general. Bird would particularly improve as he'd not have 2 guys like McHale and Parish to contend with either.

I also think their assists improve because the plays tend to get run through the team's best player a lot more these days. I think Bird would be on the ball even more in this kind of era where in his Celtics he didn't have to dominate the ball as much. Magic, regardless of era, will dominate the ball so I didn't see him improving as much.

I think both would be better 3 point shooters considering the implementation of that shot in this era.

In a weak team:

Bird: 30/13/9 on 48/40/88
Magic: 24/9/14 on 49/30/85

They'd be walking triple-doubles today. Bird would probably lose a bit of efficiency due to being overrun but he was such a talented scorer if needed he could put up 30+ at the drop of a hat. In a weaker side, his rebounding will matter more. I think Magic improves slightly across the board but moreso for scoring. I think his rebounding and assists aren't as affected by the team but his needing to score will improve a lot in a weaker side.
:roll:

[LeBird]

Depends on the context imo. If you have some high usage one man army type of team like the Lebron Cavs, it's James all the way for me. Lebron is better "on his own" surrounded by shooters. But give Bird something to work with, and I'd take him instead. For example, Bird instead of Lebron on the 2011 Heat? Championship. On the other hand, if you put Bird on the Cavs instead of James, they won't make the finals.
Pure speculation though...

You do realise that Bird basically took the 2nd worst team to the best regular season record in his Rookie year, and took them to the ECF, losing to the sixers? I don't think its out of the realms of possibility that Bird could have done what Lebron did.

What differentiates Lebron from Bird, and Magic, is that his defending is superb - for me, at an all-time great level because of his adaptability. Magic was average, Bird was a very good defender (especially team defender) but Lebron gains ground on them there.

[fpliii]

Bird would definitely be in the conversation for best in the game, Magic would be top 5 (best PG, ahead of CP3).

[dr.hee]

You do realise that Bird basically took the 2nd worst team to the best regular season record in his Rookie year, and took them to the ECF, losing to the sixers? I don't think its out of the realms of possibility that Bird could have done what Lebron did.


I'm not sure. The Cavs were pretty much a bunch of shooters with Lebron driving over and over again. While Bird was absolutely able to carry a team, this specific concept won't work with him imo. I think Lebron vs Bird would probably be a tie for best forward in the game today with preference changing depending on the role they're supposed to play.

[LeBird]

I'm not sure. The Cavs were pretty much a bunch of shooters with Lebron driving over and over again. While Bird was absolutely able to carry a team, this specific concept won't work with him imo. I think Lebron vs Bird would probably be a tie for best forward in the game today with preference changing depending on the role they're supposed to play.

Fair enough. I was talking more general; like if Bird had a few years with a weak team they could eventually compose it into something that would allow Bird to do a similar feat.

[dr.hee]

Fair enough. I was talking more general; like if Bird had a few years with a weak team they could eventually compose it into something that would allow Bird to do a similar feat.

Of course he could. My point was basically that Lebron could do more with the Cavs than Bird, mainly due to his physical gifts. Maybe Bird could try the same, but he would break down even quicker than he did in the 80s I think.
But looking at the 2011 finals, I really believe that Bird on such a team would be more lethal than Lebron because of his off the ball skills.

There's some truth to "being good in the flow of the offense". So if you've got a team concept other than a one man show, Bird is as good as it gets. Without that, I'd rather have Lebron dominating the ball.

[dh144498]

Pace isn't going to affect star players like Bird or Magic. What's more likely to affect them is the team they're in and the competition of the era. You can pull numbers from your ass, like I am gonna do below, but in the end its just guesswork. I do think they'd improve on the whole simply because this era isn't as tough as theirs. Below; what is considered a strong/weak team is such a team in the last 5-6 years, not the 80s where 'strong' teams were ridiculously stacked in comparison.

In a strong team:

Bird: 26/12/8 on 50/41/90
Magic: 20/8/13 on 51/30/85

I think both would roughly score similar as they did back in the day if not a bit more because their teams wouldn't be as stacked. I also think their rebounding numbers improve considering the state of big-men in this era and rebounders in general. Bird would particularly improve as he'd not have 2 guys like McHale and Parish to contend with either.

I also think their assists improve because the plays tend to get run through the team's best player a lot more these days. I think Bird would be on the ball even more in this kind of era where in his Celtics he didn't have to dominate the ball as much. Magic, regardless of era, will dominate the ball so I didn't see him improving as much.

I think both would be better 3 point shooters considering the implementation of that shot in this era.

In a weak team:

Bird: 30/13/9 on 48/40/88
Magic: 24/9/14 on 49/30/85

They'd be walking triple-doubles today. Bird would probably lose a bit of efficiency due to being overrun but he was such a talented scorer if needed he could put up 30+ at the drop of a hat. In a weaker side, his rebounding will matter more. I think Magic improves slightly across the board but moreso for scoring. I think his rebounding and assists aren't as affected by the team but his needing to score will improve a lot in a weaker side.

:applause:

very similar to what I had.
the truth. :applause:

[dh144498]

lebron stans in this thread mad that Bird and Magic can put up better statlines than Lebron.

:oldlol:

[2010splash]

lebron stans in this thread mad that Bird and Magic can put up better statlines than Lebron.

:oldlol:
Kobe stan making up nonsense again? What's new? :facepalm

Magic and Bird could put up better lines than LeBron in your make believe fantasy world, but not in real life. Heck, their 80's stats are inflated and are STILL inferior to LeBron's.:oldlol:

[dh144498]

Kobe stan making up nonsense again? What's new? :facepalm

Magic and Bird could put up better lines than LeBron in your make believe fantasy world, but not in real life. Heck, their 80's stats are inflated and are STILL inferior to LeBron's.:oldlol:

Bird is a better player than Lebron, how mad are you, be honest.

[raiderfan19]

Bird is a better player than Lebron, how mad are you, be honest.
I'm not a "Lebron Stan" but let's be honest both are better than kobe

[KG215]

The league is different now. For example. In 1988, the year Bird avg.30 ppg, the Celtics team he played on took 6905 shots. That was fourth lowest for that year. In 2013, 6905 FGA would place a team third.

Theres no way Bird would be able to get up enough shots to come close to 30 ppg. The same applies to rebounds and assists. And dont forget FTs dont count as a FGA. So a portion of the points off FTs woukd be negated as well

24/8/6 for Bird

17/6/10 for Magic
So, despite being a better player than Durant, Bird would only manage to put up roughly the same RPG and APG numbers, but with 4 fewer PPG? Please.

Bird would be something like a 26-28 PPG, 8-10 RPG, 6-8 APG player on high efficiency, even in this era.

[KG215]

Bird would definitely be in the conversation for best in the game, Magic would be top 5 (best PG, ahead of CP3).
Magic only top 5? I think it'd be something like this: 1a.) LeBron, 1.b) Bird, a very close 2.) Magic, decent sized gap 4.) Durant

[fpliii]

Magic only top 5? I think it'd be something like this: 1a.) LeBron, 1.b) Bird, a very close 2.) Magic, decent sized gap 4.) Durant

Well if we're talking 87-91 Magic I think he'd be higher, but I've been watching a lot of Bird recently (and looking at the team impact numbers), and he seems to clearly be on another level before getting hurt. I don't think pre-prime Magic is a tier above Current KD. This season, my top 4 were

LeBron

Durant


CP3/Duncan

and a bit of a gap afterwards. I think Bird would be at or around LeBron, but it's a really tough call. You're getting so much defensively out of LeBron for a wing (not peak Pippen/Rodman levels, but not very far off) because of the tremendous help D. Larry is underrated defensively nowadays, but LeBron has been something else.

Unlike Bird who was arguably the best in the league from when he came in (HM: Kareem + Doc, and Moses maybe for a while), Magic has a clearly-defined prime, during which I'm sure he would contend for the best in the league. Before then though, while he'd be top 5 (or I guess top 4), I think he's below the big 3 (LeBron, Bird, KD).

Just my $0.02 though.

[KG215]

Well if we're talking 87-91 Magic I think he'd be higher, but I've been watching a lot of Bird recently (and looking at the team impact numbers), and he seems to clearly be on another level before getting hurt. I don't think pre-prime Magic is a tier above Current KD. This season, my top 4 were

LeBron

Durant


CP3/Duncan

and a bit of a gap afterwards. I think Bird would be at or around LeBron, but it's a really tough call. You're getting so much defensively out of LeBron for a wing (not peak Pippen/Rodman levels, but not very far off) because of the tremendous help D. Larry is underrated defensively nowadays, but LeBron has been something else.

Unlike Bird who was arguably the best in the league from when he came in (HM: Kareem + Doc, and Moses maybe for a while), Magic has a clearly-defined prime, during which I'm sure he would contend for the best in the league. Before then though, while he'd be top 5 (or I guess top 4), I think he's below the big 3 (LeBron, Bird, KD).

Just my $0.02 though.
Fair enough. I've read and heard some of the same things about Bird. Not being around at the time, it's hard to really know for sure, but I know I've read things and have seen people mention before that, at the time, Bird was considered the better player until injuries started to slow him down. I have always thought (again, it's very limited knowledge on my part) Bird's peak was higher than Magic's.

With Durant, I try to stay objective, but a part of me also thinks he's a lot better than current fans realize. For starters, I don't think there's some unbelievably huge gap between him and LeBron like a lot of people, though I will admit there's still a noticeable gap. But I also think he just had, at worst, a top 25 all-time peak season, if not top 20. So maybe it would depend on which version of Magic you put in today's NBA. Like you said, though, 1987-1991 Magic would definitely be be ranked ahead of Durant, but there are probably versions of Magic prior to 1987 that wouldn't.

[K Xerxes]

In an era where team defense is more emphasised, I think Bird would edge LeBron as best player in the league. He wouldn't be as good a defender, but the gap offensively would be bigger than the gap defensively.

Second best player... hard to say between Magic and LeBron. Probably LeBron since Magic isn't really close as a defender.

Not sure what they'd average. I'm guessing around 26-10-7 for Bird, and 20-7-13 for Magic.

[fpliii]

I think there's a chance fringe 20-25 is still underselling KD. There aren't many non-big peaks you'd put ahead of him, though I won't attempt to quantify exactly. I think it's unfortunate that he's playing in the same league as LeBron, since it forces unfavorable comparisons. Then again, KD is likely not yet in his prime. I probably sound like a broken record, but I think it's a waste forcing him to play point forward. While I like his current defensive intensity, as I've said before, I think he needs to focus on crashing the boards hard. Not to sound like a broken record, but he has the tools to be a top 5 rebounder in this league (consistently has hurt him, as you've said, but maybe we'll see improvement next year).

[aburre21]

He could without a doubt score iso in the post. The guy did drop 60 in a game and he did average 30 in a season.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rto2_oYVs0I

I really don't see Bird having a problem scoring 26-28 a night on a team with no scorers, he was an elite shooter, moved well off the ball, and had a terrific post game. It's not like he depended on screens and picks to score all the time.

Do you see the defense being played in this game? ****in terrible! :lol






to say people like to claim there was a lot of hand checking, I sure didn't see much hand checking in that video

[97 bulls]

Do you see the defense being played in this game? ****in terrible! :lol






to say people like to claim there was a lot of hand checking, I sure didn't see much hand checking in that video
Lol that was 80s basketball. Teams tried to outscore each other.


Alot of those guys looked high as well.

[Micku]

Alot of your Malone argument can be because he played on a different team of players. The Jazz went from a team built around offense to defense. The late 90s Jazz had no Thurl Bailey.

Jordan is another great example. His shot attempts dropped as the era changed. Take 96 Jordan and infuse him in the 80s and hes pushing 32 ppg on over 50% because hed have more fastbreak attempts.

Erm...this doesn't prove my point that pace and FGA of superstars are not related in this case? He played under a different coach (tho Jerry Sloan been with him since 88), different players, made defense more of a focus, different pace, and almost a decade later. And he still manage to average about the same shots as he did in the 87-88, and have the same amount of points. If K.Malone could it, why couldn't Bird with more offensive skills do it?

Not to mention you do have Kevin Love who had 19 FGAs a game last year. Carmelo was averaging 22.2 FGA this year. Bird is better than both of those two offensively.

And Michael Jordan is a good case. His shot attempts actually did not change dramatically like you said. In 1987-88, Jordan average 22.2 FGA. In 1996, Jordan average 22.6 FGA. He averaged slightly more. He averaged 23.8 in 1995. And in the playoffs, Jordan in 1997 had 26.2 FGA. And look at his Wizard years in 2001-02, where the pace was one of the slowest in the league. Jordan average 22.1 FGA. Before all star break, Jordan averaged 24.2 FGAs. Pace does not matter for the amount of shots for superstars.

In terms of efficiency? This would matter a bit. But this goes beyond just defense in case of Jordan. He lost a step, he didn't have much lift in his jumpshot, and he couldn't finish like he used to during his athletic peak. With this said tho, in 96 MJ TS% and eFG% were better than it was in 92. So, in those terms he was more efficient. However, the shorten 3pt line had something to do with it. And MJ 96 basically shot 50%. He was only 0.1 from making his overall FG to 50%.

But as I said, the pace doesn't matter with the FGAs with the superstars. FG% may matter, sure. But players in the 80s also did not take a bunch of 3s and get closer shots. But their eFG are basically the same. Look at the stats for Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller too. When their 3pt shot went up, their FG go down but their eFG remain about the same. If they would not shoot any 3s, they may average 50%+ FG. Especially if they played in their athletic prime.

[97 bulls]

Erm...this doesn't prove my point that pace and FGA of superstars are not related in this case? He played under a different coach (tho Jerry Sloan been with him since 88), different players, made defense more of a focus, different pace, and almost a decade later. And he still manage to average about the same shots as he did in the 87-88, and have the same amount of points. If K.Malone could it, why couldn't Bird with more offensive skills do it?
Lol. So who took Thurl Baileys shot attempts? Again he had different teammates.


Not to mention you do have Kevin Love who had 19 FGAs a game last year. Carmelo was averaging 22.2 FGA this year. Bird is better than both of those two offensively.
And again, I allude to teammates. Neither of the players you mentioned have had the caliber teammates that Bird had. Whos gonna take away their shots?


And Michael Jordan is a good case. His shot attempts actually did not change dramatically like you said. In 1987-88, Jordan average 22.2 FGA. In 1996, Jordan average 22.6 FGA. He averaged slightly more. He averaged 23.8 in 1995. And in the playoffs, Jordan in 1997 had 26.2 FGA. And look at his Wizard years in 2001-02, where the pace was one of the slowest in the league. Jordan average 22.1 FGA. Before all star break, Jordan averaged 24.2 FGAs. Pace does not matter for the amount of shots for superstars.
For the third time, are you factoring in his teammates? How many FGAs did Dennis Rodman take during the second threepeat?As opposed to Charles Oakley and Horace Grant

In terms of efficiency? This would matter a bit. But this goes beyond just defense in case of Jordan. He lost a step, he didn't have much lift in his jumpshot, and he couldn't finish like he used to during his athletic peak. With this said tho, in 96 MJ TS% and eFG% were better than it was in 92. So, in those terms he was more efficient. However, the shorten 3pt line had something to do with it. And MJ 96 basically shot 50%. He was only 0.1 from making his overall FG to 50%.
Or, he got stronger, smarter, and had an improved post game. I honestly dont see how FG% matters.

But as I said, the pace doesn't matter with the FGAs with the superstars. FG% may matter, sure. But players in the 80s also did not take a bunch of 3s and get closer shots. But their eFG are basically the same. Look at the stats for Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller too. When their 3pt shot went up, their FG go down but their eFG remain about the same. If they would not shoot any 3s, they may average 50%+ FG. Especially if they played in their athletic prime.
It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not.

[KG215]

It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not.
Durant, on one of the best teams in the NBA with another high usage/high volume player, has averaged 28+ PPG the last few seasons. Bird was about as efficient of a scorer as Durant, so why wouldn't he be able to put up something like 26-28 PPG, even on a good team, in today's league?

[97 bulls]

Durant, on one of the best teams in the NBA with another high usage/high volume player, has averaged 28+ PPG the last few seasons. Bird was about as efficient of a scorer as Durant, so why wouldn't he be able to put up something like 26-28 PPG, even on a good team, in today's league?
On that Celtics team he aint doing it. In the right situation? Sure. Maybe even twice. Durants more of a scorer than Bird. A hybrid of BBird/Gervin. I see Durant being able to routinely be able to avg 30-32 ppg in the 80s. Something he hasnt been able to accomplish in this era.

And mind you. Your trying to take bits and.pieces from the 89s and infuse it into now. What's efficient now was not considered efficient in the 80s. The avg FG% now is roughly 44-45%. It was about 48% in Birds day.

We must take all factors into play

[KG215]

On that Celtics team he aint doing it. In the right situation? Sure. Maybe even twice. Durants more of a scorer than Bird. A hybrid of BBird/Gervin. I see Durant being able to routinely be able to avg 30-32 ppg in the 80s. Something he hasnt been able to accomplish in this era.

And mind you. Your trying to take bits and.pieces from the 89s and infuse it into now. What's efficient now was not considered efficient in the 80s. The avg FG% now is roughly 44-45%. It was about 48% in Birds day.

We must take all factors into play
Well, in today's NBA, teams couldn't afford a roster as stacked as Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers. So using those Celtic teams as a barometer doesn't make much sense to me. He wouldn't be on a team with a McHale, DJ, and Parrish; hardly anyone, other than maybe the Lakers and Celtics, could afford that.

[Trollsmasher]

People thinking that Bird would average more than 9 rebounds per game in this era are either retarded of stuck in the past.

[Trollsmasher]

Durant gets 4 more points on free throws alone, Bird never had more than 6 FTAs per game in a season. He would have to hoist up 21-22 shots to average more than 28 and I don't see him attempting more than 18 shots per game in today's game.

[Micku]

It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not.

How? Kobe won MVP and championships like that. On 09, he averaged roughly 21 shots on a very talented offensive team. LeBron won MVPs by averaging 19 FGA a game with the Miami Heat in 11 and 12. We wouldn't eliminate championships or MVPs for Bird because we know that would work.

Besides, I was debating on the amount of shots Bird could take in this league. You said:


If Bird took roughly 20 shots in a league that avg about 7100 shots per team, how is he gonna get the same 20 in a league where the avg team takes about 6500?

First: I and many others just said he would shoot more. You said paced matter, and I showed you that stars like MJ and Karl Malone average the same amount of shots like they did in the 80s. Sometimes even more on a slow pace game. Why can't Bird just as much? Especially since they were K.Malone and MJ teams were championship contenders?

Second: If he were to have a good team, lets say the Lakers 09. Kobe shot roughly 21 FGA per game. Bird could do something similar if he wanted to since he would be the best player on that team. Even when the Heat 11 or 12, LeBron took roughly 19 FGA per game. If they could do it, why not Bird? In 1986 Bird shot roughly 20 FGA. And Bird would fit better because he was a better catch and shoot player than LBJ and Kobe. This would allow other players to touch the ball and may have a better flow within the offense.

Third: Bird most likely wouldn't be like a Carmelo. Bird is easier to build around because he has a better overall game. He is a better scorer, much better passer, rebounder, and better defensively too. And Bird would probably take the Nuggets outside the first round a few times where Melo failed in theory.

Bird would average the same amount of shots because he will be your number 1 option on most teams and he would average 18-21 FGA a game too because LBJ, Kobe, Durant have done that and went to the finals. But if you were talking about transferring the whole 1986 Celtics to today's league and say that they can't have the same amount of shots, then we would have a conversation. But only thing we have comparable that comes to mind are the Orlando Magic of 95 and 96 did something similar, and their starting five were better than this whole league offensively. Their top five guys took roughly the same amount of shots that the Celtics 1986 starting did and they played at a slower pace. And the 1986 Celts starting five was better than the Magic.

The 97 Lakers too were like that. The main problem with comparing the 1986 Celtics team is that they were too good. Their starting five was arguably the best starting five in the history of the NBA. There are very rare teams that had the talent offensively like they did. And their bench was pretty good too. But since the Magic and 97 Lakers did it, I don't see why the Celtics starting five could not. Their problem would be the bench play in terms of FGA.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I don't know, but '86 Bird would be the best player on the planet. Easily.

[Micku]

On that Celtics team he aint doing it. In the right situation? Sure. Maybe even twice. Durants more of a scorer than Bird. A hybrid of BBird/Gervin. I see Durant being able to routinely be able to avg 30-32 ppg in the 80s. Something he hasnt been able to accomplish in this era.

And mind you. Your trying to take bits and.pieces from the 89s and infuse it into now. What's efficient now was not considered efficient in the 80s. The avg FG% now is roughly 44-45%. It was about 48% in Birds day.

We must take all factors into play

That's because of the 3pt shot. Since eFG take into account of the 3pt shot, today's eFG is the same/better than what it was in 1986 for example. 2013 eFG= 49.6%. 1986 eFG=49.3%.

If teams hardly shoot any 3s like they did in the 80s, then the FG% would be better. They are much better shooters now. Back then, ppl dared guys to shoot the long jumper except guys like Bird and other shooters like him. Now, since they are better shooters, they will guard them more tight.

[2010splash]

It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not.
This. Bird is the most overrated player on these boards. Some people honestly believe the dude would be the best player in the league today. :roll:

Better peaks than Larry Bird:

Jordan (no question)
LeBron (no question)
Shaq (no question)
Wilt (no question)
Kareem (no question)

Then you have guys like Duncan and Hakeem.

[97 bulls]

How? Kobe won MVP and championships like that. On 09, he averaged roughly 21 shots on a very talented offensive team. LeBron won MVPs by averaging 19 FGA a game with the Miami Heat in 11 and 12. We wouldn't eliminate championships or MVPs for Bird because we know that would work.

Besides, I was debating on the amount of shots Bird could take in this league. You said:



First: I and many others just said he would shoot more. You said paced matter, and I showed you that stars like MJ and Karl Malone average the same amount of shots like they did in the 80s. Sometimes even more on a slow pace game. Why can't Bird just as much? Especially since they were K.Malone and MJ teams were championship contenders?
I never said anything about pace. I said tempo. The tempo of the game now is different from when Bird played. And sure you showed players who transcended eras and took roughly the same amount of shots. But you fail to acknowledge their situations were different. You refuse to acknowledge this fact.


Second: If he were to have a good team, lets say the Lakers 09. Kobe shot roughly 21 FGA per game. Bird could do something similar if he wanted to since he would be the best player on that team. Even when the Heat 11 or 12, LeBron took roughly 19 FGA per game. If they could do it, why not Bird? In 1986 Bird shot roughly 20 FGA. And Bird would fit better because he was a better catch and shoot player than LBJ and Kobe. This would allow other players to touch the ball and may have a better flow within the offense.
Again, Bird took that many shots in an era where there was more opportunities. Its simple math. You comparing him to Bryant, Durant, Ive hear Iverson, its not the same thing. Those guys would be the Jordans, Wilkins, Gervins, type. Scorers. Bird never led the league in FGAs but Im suppposed to believe hed be taking enough shots to lead the league now?


Third: Bird most likely wouldn't be like a Carmelo. Bird is easier to build around because he has a better overall game. He is a better scorer, much better passer, rebounder, and better defensively too. And Bird would probably take the Nuggets outside the first round a few times where Melo failed in theory.
Quit possibly. But my comparison of Bird and Anthony wasnt to imply theyre on the same level. But I doubt hes taking any team deep in the pkayoffs based on his track record of having 10 year of top three talent around him.


Bird would average the same amount of shots because he will be your number 1 option on most teams and he would average 18-21 FGA a game too because LBJ, Kobe, Durant have done that and went to the finals. But if you were talking about transferring the whole 1986 Celtics to today's league and say that they can't have the same amount of shots, then we would have a conversation. But only thing we have comparable that comes to mind are the Orlando Magic of 95 and 96 did something similar, and their starting five were better than this whole league offensively. Their top five guys took roughly the same amount of shots that the Celtics 1986 starting did and they played at a slower pace. And the 1986 Celts starting five was better than the Magic.

The 97 Lakers too were like that. The main problem with comparing the 1986 Celtics team is that they were too good. Their starting five was arguably the best starting five in the history of the NBA. There are very rare teams that had the talent offensively like they did. And their bench was pretty good too. But since the Magic and 97 Lakers did it, I don't see why the Celtics starting five could not. Their problem would be the bench play in terms of FGA.
You answered the question for me. The Orlando Magic had no bench. The Celtics did. That Laker team was deep, but not top heavy. They were Shaq and a bunch of very good players

Id just like to.see some consistency in you guys arguments. All you guys will enter threads vs Yao Mings Foot when he argues about team defenses of now and then. The same concept applies both ways. You cant say that Bird woukd be able to.do the exact same thing he did in the 80s now based on his stats in the 80s, then call YMF for attempting to compare teams without context.

If I were to say the 96 Bulls are the greatest team ever based soely on having the best win percentage ever youd apply context real quick.

[97 bulls]

That's because of the 3pt shot. Since eFG take into account of the 3pt shot, today's eFG is the same/better than what it was in 1986 for example. 2013 eFG= 49.6%. 1986 eFG=49.3%.

If teams hardly shoot any 3s like they did in the 80s, then the FG% would be better. They are much better shooters now. Back then, ppl dared guys to shoot the long jumper except guys like Bird and other shooters like him. Now, since they are better shooters, they will guard them more tight.
Thats partially it. Id also attribute it to the amount of easy transition baskets the tempo of the league provided back then. And the way defense was more of an afterthought.

[Micku]

Id just like to.see some consistency in you guys arguments. All you guys will enter threads vs Yao Mings Foot when he argues about team defenses of now and then. The same concept applies both ways. You cant say that Bird woukd be able to.do the exact same thing he did in the 80s now based on his stats in the 80s, then call YMF for attempting to compare teams without context.

If I were to say the 96 Bulls are the greatest team ever based soely on having the best win percentage ever youd apply context real quick.

I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that Bird's game cannot translate to 18-22 shots per game because he wouldn't have opportunities to do so? Even tho he had more ways to score and more efficently than a guy like Wilkins? And he doesn't have to lead the league in FGA. But he could get those 18-22 shot attempts. If ppl like Kevin Love, Carmelo, Kobe could do it, why not Bird?

And tempo and pace are basically the same. Tempo could mean the rate or pace of the game. And it could also mean the motion or constant speed, and that's what we call pace.

I don't see why it is hard to acknowledge that Bird could average those amont of shots in any era because the way he shot and move w/o the ball and post up would be valuable in any era. If you are talking about a team from the 80s, then
that would be a different story. But we are talking about possibly the best SF ever tho LeBron will probably considered to better than him as time goes on.

[LeBird]

Unlike Bird who was arguably the best in the league from when he came in (HM: Kareem + Doc, and Moses maybe for a while), Magic has a clearly-defined prime, during which I'm sure he would contend for the best in the league. Before then though, while he'd be top 5 (or I guess top 4), I think he's below the big 3 (LeBron, Bird, KD).

Just my $0.02 though.

Yes, that's what the revisionists seem to forget, Magic's prime was very defined and comes later. It wasn't until his 4th season he was voted as all-first team PG. And from the debut of both Magic and Bird until 1988, Magic only finished above Bird one time in MVP voting. Larry was the real deal from the get-go.

[LeBird]

97 Bulls has made the kind of argument/mistake someone who relies on statistics and doesn't have a good grasp about the fundamentals of the game makes.

18-22 FGA is possible for Bird in any era. Pace does not affect superstar players because whether it slows down or not, a player like Bird is the #1 option and they'll get him the ball regardless if that means other players get it less. If, as Micku argues, many of today's stars are averaging those kinds of shot-taking numbers, why in the hell wouldn't Bird be able to? That is the question that is being dodged. There is no reason why he wouldn't be able to.

[Micku]

Thats partially it. Id also attribute it to the amount of easy transition baskets the tempo of the league provided back then. And the way defense was more of an afterthought.

I agree with this in a way. I think it's more credit to the Pistons because I believe they slowed down the pace and played more defense. They weren't the first team to do that, but probably the first team to win the championship without the epic talent that the Lakers and Celts had. And they sagged off a lot except for known shooters and they take the first good shot available.

You also have to give credit to the offense. They knew how to pass and start the break. And they ran up the court to start their offense far quicker.

[97 bulls]

I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that Bird's game cannot translate to 18-22 shots per game because he wouldn't have opportunities to do so? Even tho he had more ways to score and more efficently than a guy like Wilkins? And he doesn't have to lead the league in FGA. But he could get those 18-22 shot attempts.

And tempo and pace are basically the same. Tempo could mean the rate or pace of the game. And it could also mean the motion or constant speed, and that's what we call pace.

I don't see why it is hard to acknowledge that Bird could average those amont of shots in any era because the way he shot and move w/o the ball and post up would be valuable in any era. If you are talking about a team from the 80s, then
that would be a different story. But we are talking about possibly the best SF ever tho LeBron will probably considered to better than him as time goes on.
Its hard to acknowledge because he coukdnt or never did it when he played. In an era where he had ample opportunity. Comparing guys like Durant and Bryant isnt feasible because they did take shots at a league leading rate.

Heres another example. Bill Russell routinely shot in the mid 40s percent throughout his career. Thats terrible for a center now, but thats was the norm back then. And if you were to ask me what his percentage woukd be today id say low 50s. The leavue is different.

[LeBird]

Its hard to acknowledge because he coukdnt or never did it when he played. In an era where he had ample opportunity. Comparing guys like Durant and Bryant isnt feasible because they did take shots at a league leading rate.

Heres another example. Bill Russell routinely shot in the mid 40s percent throughout his career. Thats terrible for a center now, but thats was the norm back then. And if you were to ask me what his percentage woukd be today id say low 50s. The leavue is different.

That's an irrelevant example. Shooting percentage is a reflection of a skillset mainly. Shot-taking is largely pre-determined by how a team wants to play and how much of the ball they want their main scorer to have as a proportion of those plays. Bird could've taken Jordan-esque shot-attempt numbers if he wanted to - he is skilled offensively, on par with anyone - he just wasn't mentally inclined to do that. He was a pass first player. It has nothing to do with being able to create shots because Bird clearly could do that. That assumption is your mistake.

[LAZERUSS]

ISHers severely under-rating Magic's offense here.

Do fans here really believe that Magic could "only" average 20 ppg? Here was a player who could hang 42 in a clinching Finals game in his rookie season. A player who was averaging 18 ppg on .561 and .565 FG%'s, and then had playoff runs of 22 ppg on .537 and .539 shooting. And seasons of 24 ppg and playoffs of 25 ppg. All while handing out 12+ apg in the regular season, and as high as 15 apg in the playoffs. He even had a Finals of 26 ppg, on .541 shooting, with 13 apg (as well as Finals' of 21 ppg on .573 shooting, and 22 ppg on .550 shooting.)

Psileas' research turned up a stretch in which Magic had 11 straight games of 30+ points. THAT is what Magic was capable of, had he been so inclined. My god, a 36 year old HIV Magic, four years removed from playing, and overweight, averaged 15 ppg on .466 shooting, with 6.9 apg...all while playing less than 30 minutes a game. Included were stretchs in which he averaged 20 ppg, including a high of 28 (on 9-12 shooting from the floor.)

Ask Magic to score first, and pass second, and he likely could have approached 30 ppg.

[Psileas]

ISHers severely under-rating Magic's offense here.

Do fans here really believe that Magic could "only" average 20 ppg? Here was a player who could hang 42 in a clinching Finals game in his rookie season. A player who was averaging 18 ppg on .561 and .565 FG%'s, and then had playoff runs of 22 ppg on .537 and .539 shooting. And seasons of 24 ppg and playoffs of 25 ppg. All while handing out 12+ apg in the regular season, and as high as 15 apg in the playoffs. He even had a Finals of 26 ppg, on .541 shooting, with 13 apg (as well as Finals' of 21 ppg on .573 shooting, and 22 ppg on .550 shooting.)

Psileas' research turned up a stretch in which Magic had 11 straight games of 30+ points. THAT is what Magic was capable of, had he been so inclined. My god, a 36 year old HIV Magic, four years removed from playing, and overweight, averaged 15 ppg on .466 shooting, with 6.9 apg...all while playing less than 30 minutes a game. Included were stretchs in which he averaged 20 ppg, including a high of 28 (on 9-12 shooting from the floor.)

Ask Magic to score first, and pass second, and he likely could have approached 30 ppg.

Well, I don't recall this specific number, maybe you meant something else. However, you can see that in the 1987 season, there's a 34 game stretch when Magic averages 27.0 ppg (on 52.2% FG) in no more than 38.3 mpg, to go with his usual 11.8 apg and 6.1 rpg. Magic never cared to dominate the ball or shoot that much. But, whenever he wanted to turn it on, he had no problem putting up LeBron-like scoring numbers. But that wasn't what made his teammates better and himself happy.

[97 bulls]

That's an irrelevant example. Shooting percentage is a reflection of a skillset mainly. Shot-taking is largely pre-determined by how a team wants to play and how much of the ball they want their main scorer to have as a proportion of those plays. Bird could've taken Jordan-esque shot-attempt numbers if he wanted to - he is skilled offensively, on par with anyone - he just wasn't mentally inclined to do that. He was a pass first player. It has nothing to do with being able to create shots because Bird clearly could do that. That assumption is your mistake.
I agree. Thats why I prefaced my statement by saying or better yet never did it. He was more than capable. Obviously, if he set out to score like that he could. But still the fact remains he never did it. So now were supposed to believe that a guy that hovered around 25-26 ppg for his prime, would avg 30 ppg? In an era where the available shot attempts are cut by roughly 20-25%? Better yet 30/14/8? GTFO

[dr.hee]

I agree. Thats why I prefaced my statement by saying or better yet never did it. He was more than capable. Obviously, if he set out to score like that he could. But still the fact remains he never did it. So now were supposed to believe that a guy that hovered around 25-26 ppg for his prime, would avg 30 ppg? In an era where the available shot attempts are cut by roughly 20-25%? Better yet 30/14/8? GTFO

I think both sides tend to exaggerate quite a bit. Bird wouldn't be a 30/10/10 player today, of course not. But simply cutting down his numbers is the wrong approach, too. To me, the most likely scenario is something pretty much along his real stats depending on the players he's surrounded with. He wouldn't be god, but besides some sub par playoff runs he'd also have stretches of being the clear cut best player on the planet today.

Also, you raise an interesting point about Bird being capable of scoring more, but never doing it. Looking at his playing style, I'd say a ball dominating role wouldn't suit his skillset and also his physical limitations. People kinda underestimate how incredibly skilled a player has to be to survive amongst all these athletic freaks. And with Bird playing a one man army role for maybe 40 mpg, his all around production would probably suffer quite a bit.
I don't know, Bird was of course capable of averaging 30 ppg, but the downsides of that role should be taken into account, too.

That's the reason why I'd prefer Lebron in a ball dominant role. His durability and physical dominance makes him more suited for that. But Bird is a much more versatile offensive player, so it really comes down to the players they're supposed to work with. So both extremes are a bit silly to me. Bird and Magic would of course dominate today, but they wouldn't completely annihilate everybody.

[pauk]

80s NBA basketball averaged up to 115 poss. a game (pace)... 20+ more than today.... thats a much higher pace, especially for the showtime Lakers & Celtics who probably had the highest pace of those 80s teams... Not even the most famous run-n-gun team of this era (~2006 Phoenix Suns) averaged over 96 poss. a game....

So, i think its not very likely they would average more than they did.... the game is just slower today, more thinking, more half-court offense, ofcourse anybody would love to hurry up with the possessions, but teams wont allow you to do it as efficiently you were able to in the 80s...

[97 bulls]

ISHers severely under-rating Magic's offense here.

Do fans here really believe that Magic could "only" average 20 ppg? Here was a player who could hang 42 in a clinching Finals game in his rookie season. A player who was averaging 18 ppg on .561 and .565 FG%'s, and then had playoff runs of 22 ppg on .537 and .539 shooting. And seasons of 24 ppg and playoffs of 25 ppg. All while handing out 12+ apg in the regular season, and as high as 15 apg in the playoffs. He even had a Finals of 26 ppg, on .541 shooting, with 13 apg (as well as Finals' of 21 ppg on .573 shooting, and 22 ppg on .550 shooting.)

Psileas' research turned up a stretch in which Magic had 11 straight games of 30+ points. THAT is what Magic was capable of, had he been so inclined. My god, a 36 year old HIV Magic, four years removed from playing, and overweight, averaged 15 ppg on .466 shooting, with 6.9 apg...all while playing less than 30 minutes a game. Included were stretchs in which he averaged 20 ppg, including a high of 28 (on 9-12 shooting from the floor.)

Ask Magic to score first, and pass second, and he likely could have approached 30 ppg.
Again, the same logic applies, sure he could if he set out to do it. But that wasnt his game. Why do you even want to turn him into Michael Jordan? Magic was great in his own right.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

ISHers severely under-rating Magic's offense here.

Do fans here really believe that Magic could "only" average 20 ppg? Here was a player who could hang 42 in a clinching Finals game in his rookie season. A player who was averaging 18 ppg on .561 and .565 FG%'s, and then had playoff runs of 22 ppg on .537 and .539 shooting. And seasons of 24 ppg and playoffs of 25 ppg. All while handing out 12+ apg in the regular season, and as high as 15 apg in the playoffs. He even had a Finals of 26 ppg, on .541 shooting, with 13 apg (as well as Finals' of 21 ppg on .573 shooting, and 22 ppg on .550 shooting.)

Psileas' research turned up a stretch in which Magic had 11 straight games of 30+ points. THAT is what Magic was capable of, had he been so inclined. My god, a 36 year old HIV Magic, four years removed from playing, and overweight, averaged 15 ppg on .466 shooting, with 6.9 apg...all while playing less than 30 minutes a game. Included were stretchs in which he averaged 20 ppg, including a high of 28 (on 9-12 shooting from the floor.)

Ask Magic to score first, and pass second, and he likely could have approached 30 ppg.

Nice post, JLauber. :applause:

[97 bulls]

80s NBA basketball averaged up to 115 poss. a game (pace)... 20+ more than today.... thats a much higher pace, especially for the showtime Lakers & Celtics who probably had the highest pace of those 80s teams... Not even the most famous run-n-gun team of this era (~2006 Phoenix Suns) averaged over 96 poss. a game....

So, i think its not very likely they would average more than they did.... the game is just slower today, more thinking, more half-court offense, ofcourse anybody would love to hurry up with the possessions, but teams wont allow you to do it as efficiently you were able to in the 80s...
Funny thing is, neither the Lakers or Celtics had the highest oace in the 80s. The Celtics were routinely near the bottom, whike the Lakers were middle of the pack.

[juju151111]

80s NBA basketball averaged up to 115 poss. a game (pace)... 20+ more than today.... thats a much higher pace, especially for the showtime Lakers & Celtics who probably had the highest pace of those 80s teams... Not even the most famous run-n-gun team of this era (~2006 Phoenix Suns) averaged over 96 poss. a game....

So, i think its not very likely they would average more than they did.... the game is just slower today, more thinking, more half-court offense, ofcourse anybody would love to hurry up with the possessions, but teams wont allow you to do it as efficiently you were able to in the 80s...
What was the Lakers pace in 90 when Magic won mvp?

[LAZERUSS]

Well, I don't recall this specific number, maybe you meant something else. However, you can see that in the 1987 season, there's a 34 game stretch when Magic averages 27.0 ppg (on 52.2% FG) in no more than 38.3 mpg, to go with his usual 11.8 apg and 6.1 rpg. Magic never cared to dominate the ball or shoot that much. But, whenever he wanted to turn it on, he had no problem putting up LeBron-like scoring numbers. But that wasn't what made his teammates better and himself happy.

Sorry about that. I was going on memory instead of actually verifying it myself. It could be that I was completely wrong, which is likely; or I read it somewhere else, and by someone else; or the number of games was incorrect.

In any case, I could not find a stretch where Magic scored 30+ in 11 straight games. In fact, MJ's best 30+ run was 11 straight games (and another of 10.)

But thanks for the other info. Clearly, Magic could have scored much more in his career. Those posters claiming he would be around a 20 ppg scorer today must be basing it on his career average.

As a sidenote, Magic had four post-season games of 40+, with a high of 44, which included back-to-back 43 point games in the '90 playoffs.

[bdreason]

They would both be top 5 players in the NBA today. Who cares what their stat line would be.

[Micku]

Its hard to acknowledge because he coukdnt or never did it when he played. In an era where he had ample opportunity. Comparing guys like Durant and Bryant isnt feasible because they did take shots at a league leading rate.

Heres another example. Bill Russell routinely shot in the mid 40s percent throughout his career. Thats terrible for a center now, but thats was
the norm back then. And if you were to ask me what his percentage woukd be today id say low 50s. The leavue is different.


What? He did that in the 80s. He averaged 19 shots in his career and had 22 shots before. Even after his surgery, he came back and average 20 FGA while he dealt with injuries in 89-90. You really think that he wouldn't have 18-21 shots per game of he played in this era? Especially since he did it against players who played late into the 90s who had the same amount of shots like they did in the 80s. And Bird was better than them. Even old Jordan had 20 shot attempts when he wasn't as agile as he was in the 80s and early 90s. He always had the skill to get his own shot and play within the team offense. These type of skills would go for any era.

You don't think a mid 80s Bird would average about 18-21 shots in the mid 90s (pnly two or three years after he retired)all the way to the early 00s? Especially since he played against some of the best players, and was considered better than all of them except for Jordan?

If you put Bird on another team where he is the number 1 option, which would be most teams, then I don't see why he wouldn't take the most shots of the team. Especially since Mchale is probably better than most teams first option.

[97 bulls]

What? He did that in the 80s. He averaged 19 shots in his career and had 22 shots before. Even after his surgery, he came back and average 20 FGA while he dealt with injuries in 89-90. You really think that he wouldn't have 18-21 shots per game of he played in this era? Especially since he did it against players who played late into the 90s who had the same amount of shots like they did in the 80s. And Bird was better than them. Even old Jordan had 20 shot attempts when he wasn't as agile as he was in the 80s and early 90s. He always had the skill to get his own shot and play within the team offense. These type of skills would go for any era.

You don't think a mid 80s Bird would average about 18-21 shots in the mid 90s (pnly two or three years after he retired)all the way to the early 00s? Especially since he played against some of the best players, and was considered better than all of them except for Jordan?

If you put Bird on another team where he is the number 1 option, which would be most teams, then I don't see why he wouldn't take the most shots of the team. Especially since Mchale is probably better than most teams first option.
Lol. I think your being unreasonable bro. Youre totally dismissing my points. And now rehashing.

I already stated you cant compare Jordan and Malone because their situations were different. Thurl Bailey avg roughly 13 shots per game with Utah. Who was Thurl Bailey in late 90s Utah? Jeff Malone was Hornacek, I believe Eaton and Ostertag took the same amount if shots, Antine Carr (late 90s Utahs Thurl Bailey) took only 6 shots. Byron Russell took less shots than the 80s Jazz SF.

The same applies for Jordan and the Bulls. Both Oakley and Grant took more than twice as many shots as Rodman. Kukoc and Armstrong took basically the same shots Pippens FGAs dropped a tad. Longley and Cartwright paralled each other.

So somethings gotta give. If Bird keeps taking the same amount if shots, then the rest of the Celtics numbers fall. Then that starting five isnt that impressive

[97 bulls]

Its like I always said put the 90s Bulls in the 80s and theur stats look on par with the Lakers and Celtics.

[TheCorporation]

Well, LeBron averaged 27-7-8...

Considering he is much better, and more athletic than both, I'd say considerably less than what LBJ could muster in today's athletic league, filled with complex defensive schemes and rotations.

Magic: 19-9-5

Bird: 22-6-7

[Living Being]

Well, LeBron averaged 27-7-8...

Considering he is much better, and more athletic than both, I'd say considerably less than what LBJ could muster in today's athletic league, filled with complex defensive schemes and rotations.

Magic: 19-9-5

Bird: 22-6-7
Trolling? Must be...

If not:
Just the PPG you listed for either player is LMFAO-worthy. And how would the best PG ever not average over 9 assists per game?

[TheCorporation]

Trolling? Must be...

If not:
Just the PPG you listed for either player is LMFAO-worthy. And how would the best PG ever not average over 9 assists per game?

Pace.

Rondo was the only player to get over 9.7 and he INTENTIONALLY gives up shots to pad his assists. Shit, CP3, D-WIll, etc couldn't get 10. Not even close...

[Living Being]

Pace.

Rondo was the only player to get over 9.7 and he INTENTIONALLY gives up shots to pad his assists. Shit, CP3, D-WIll, etc couldn't get 10. Not even close...
:biggums: :applause: :oldlol:

[TheCorporation]

:biggums: :applause: :oldlol:

This ain't 1980 playboy. It's 2013.

[1Time4YourMind]

Pace.

Rondo was the only player to get over 9.7 and he INTENTIONALLY gives up shots to pad his assists. Shit, CP3, D-WIll, etc couldn't get 10. Not even close...
even tho i dont think bird/magics stats should be that low you have a point. today's game is more half-court oriented than the 80s was, the possessions per game are down, and most of all you have a lot of athletic forwards that can give bird or magic a much harder time than the 80s. everyone was either a druggie or just cared about scoring. i swear one of the reasons why the fastbreak was so successful early on before teams started to catch up was bc everyone was too coked out to hustle down the floor everytime magic pushed the ball. u cant say that today.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Gotta lol at this "pace" BS. People don't think Bird would, I don't know, just shoot more?!?! Dude was a scorer. One of the greatest scorers EVER. Quit talking out of your asses. :oldlol:

[TheCorporation]

Gotta lol at this "pace" BS. People don't think Bird would, I don't know, just shoot more?!?! Dude was a scorer. One of the greatest scorers EVER. Quit talking out of your asses. :oldlol:

LeBron got 27 on 17.8 FGA

Bird, in the weaker defensive era, got 21.3 on 17.8 FGA, and 19.4 ppg on 17 FGA.

Let it sink in.

Let. It. Sink. In.

[Living Being]

This ain't 1980 playboy. It's 2013.
Chris Paul averaged 23/11 in 2009 at a slower league pace and 21/11.6 in 2008 at about the same league pace.

Nash averaged 19/11 during years with slower league pace than 2013.

Magic averaged 12.6 ast/g in 1991 at league pace 5.9% higher than 2013 (and the Lakers team pace was only 2% higher than 2013 average). Lakers PPG was 99.6 compared to 2013 average of 98.1.

Paul and Nash >>>> Magic f*cking Johnson?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

LeBron got 27 on 17.8 FGA

Bird, in the weaker defensive era, got 21.3 on 17.8 FGA, and 19.4 ppg on 17 FGA.

Let it sink in.

Let. It. Sink. In.

Bird also "got" 30 on 21 shots. Sit your ass down, kiddo. :oldlol:

[TheCorporation]

Bird also "got" 30 on 21 shots. Sit your ass down, kiddo. :oldlol:

False.

NEXT

[Human Error]

Magic: 17 ppg, 7 rpg, 10 apg, 45% FG
Bird: 19 ppg, 6 rpg, 6 apg, 48% FG

The game has evolved, the tempo of the game has changed and guys are much bigger / more athletic nowadays. Since they're basketball prodigies they will still find a way and make the necessary adjustments, but you're an idiot if you expect them to dominate like they did, it's like expecting Carl Lewis to outrun Usain Bolt.

[Round Mound]

Larry Bird in the Half Court Situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnwSeMiVaU

:confusedshrug:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Magic: 17 ppg, 7 rpg, 10 apg, 45% FG
Bird: 19 ppg, 6 rpg, 6 apg, 48% FG

The game has evolved, the tempo of the game has changed and guys are much bigger / more athletic nowadays. Since they're basketball prodigies they will still find a way and make the necessary adjustments, but you're an idiot if you expect them to dominate like they did, it's like expecting Carl Lewis to outrun Usain Bolt.

Basketball isn't track and field, you moron.

Please explain why Jordan, who played in the 80's, had SEVEN 40pt games (not including his 51pt game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-0ghhY7uw)) at 39 and 40 years old. I'll wait.

[Human Error]

Basketball isn't track and field, you moron.

Please explain why Jordan, who played in the 80's, had SEVEN 40pt games (not including his 51pt game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye-0ghhY7uw)) at 39 and 40 years old. I'll wait.
Oh my god you freaking idiot, MJ only shot 41.5% from the field and 18.9% from beyond the arc that season. Of course he still averaged 22.9 ppg and his sheer greatness was able to give you occasional classic games but you're a stupid cotdamn moron if you thought he dominated like he used to. I believe a prime MJ would fare better than Bird or Magic in this era but his numbers would still have taken a hit regardless, the teams don't average 120+ points a game anymore.

If you do not like the track and field comparison(you have a point but basketball, among all major professional sports, still requires the most physical tools and athleticism), what about Jack Nicklaus vs Tiger Woods? John McEnroe vs Rafael Nadal? Hulk Hogan vs Brock Lesnar? Games evolve you idiot and it's not the other way around.

[Legends66NBA7]

Bird also "got" 30 on 21 shots. Sit your ass down, kiddo. :oldlol:

He had 29 on 22 shots and 30 on 22 shots... but that's not what impresses me about Bird. Are posters aware that he lead the league minutes per game twice ? I don't see him slowing down any less with slower pace and a league that benefits his scoring skills.

Ditto for Magic, who would cause mis-matches with his size and could get his points in the paint.

Bird would be a Top 3-5 scorer today, IMO. Magic would be around the 17-23pig range, depending what his role is. I don't see him cranking over 25+ (he wasn't really that type of player), but low 20's as a top scoring option seems right.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Oh my god you freaking idiot, MJ only shot 41.5% from the field and 18.9% from beyond the arc that season. Of course he still averaged 22.9 ppg and his sheer greatness was able to give you occasional classic games but you're a stupid cotdamn moron if you thought he dominated like he used to. I believe a prime MJ would fare better than Bird or Magic in this era but his numbers would still have taken a hit regardless, the teams don't average 120+ points a game anymore.

I never said, "he dominated like he used to". Learn to read.

If this guy, because of his "sheer greatness", was able to put up multiple 40 point games at 39 and 40 years old, just think what he would have done in his 20's. The guy would dominate the landscape of the NBA today; maybe even more-so with the lax perimeter rules. Educate yourself.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He had 29 on 22 shots and 30 on 22 shots... but that's not what impresses me about Bird. Are posters aware that he lead the league minutes per game twice ? I don't see him slowing down any less with slower pace and a league that benefits his scoring skills.

Ditto for Magic, who would cause mis-matches with his size and could get his points in the paint.

Bird would be a Top 3-5 scorer today, IMO. Magic would be around the 17-23pig range, depending what his role is. I don't see him cranking over 25+ (he wasn't really that type of player), but low 20's as a top scoring option seems right.

Yeah, that was just off the top of my head. Good points, btw.

[Legends66NBA7]

Yeah, that was just off the top of my head. Good points, btw.

I knew that was the 87-88 season you were referring to, as well.

Bird had a damn good case of winning MVP 4 times in 5 years.

[Human Error]

I never said, "he dominated like he used to". Learn to read.

If this guy, because of his "sheer greatness", was able to put up multiple 40 point games at 39 and 40 years old, just think what he would have done in his 20's. The guy would dominate the landscape of the NBA today; maybe even more-so with the lax perimeter rules. Educate yourself.
You have to learn to read, did I say that MJ would suck today? Damn no, I believe he would be still great, but I just don't see him average 35 points on 60% shooting like some of you nostalgic dinosaurs seem to believe. And what's even funnier is you guys who aren't even half as old as me think "it was all better in 80s". The game has evolved and the best defenders he faced at that times were the likes of Craig Ehlo / Joe Dumars.

[Living Being]

Magic: 17 ppg, 7 rpg, 10 apg, 45% FG
Bird: 19 ppg, 6 rpg, 6 apg, 48% FG

The game has evolved, the tempo of the game has changed and guys are much bigger / more athletic nowadays. Since they're basketball prodigies they will still find a way and make the necessary adjustments, but you're an idiot if you expect them to dominate like they did, it's like expecting Carl Lewis to outrun Usain Bolt.
You are a human error you waste.

Your numbers make no sense in reference to pace or playing level. We're talking about going from 105-110 pts/g to 98 pts/g. Their stats will not drop 20%. Rebounds per game stats has hardly even changed LMFAO and you dropped their rebound #'s dramatically like your are some bball expert.

Carmelo averaged 29/7/3, Chris Paul averaged 17/4/10, Paul George averaged 17/8/4, and you think Bird will average 19/6/6 and Magic 17/7/10?

Who the hell? You know you are talking about GOAT players who played against MJ and Wilkins? Yeah, they will find a way to adjust to all these freakish players like Carmelo and Chris Paul.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You have to learn to read, did I say that MJ would suck today? Damn no, I believe he would be still great, but I just don't see him average 35 points on 60% shooting like some of you nostalgic dinosaurs seem to believe. And what's even funnier is you guys who aren't even half as old as me think "it was all better in 80s". The game has evolved and the best defenders he faced at that times were the likes of Craig Ehlo / Joe Dumars.

And guys like. Nate McMillan, Xavier McDaniel, Richmond, Sprewell, Dennis Rodman, Terry Cummings, Alvin Robertson, Nick Anderson, Gerald Wilkins, Stacey Augmon.

Defensively Jordan's era was tougher, more physical, and handchecking was still allowed on the perimeter, unlike today. You have just forgotten, or never knew, what good defense looks like.

[aburre21]

And guys like. Nate McMillan, Xavier McDaniel, Richmond, Sprewell, Dennis Rodman, Terry Cummings, Alvin Robertson, Nick Anderson, Gerald Wilkins, Stacey Augmon.

Defensively Jordan's era was tougher, more physical, and handchecking was still allowed on the perimeter, unlike today. You have just forgotten, or never knew, what good defense looks like.

no it wasn't man...people stay making up shit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rto2_oYVs0I


this 1985, the "golden era of basketball...where the hand checking at?



this when he dropped 63 against the Celts, where the Handchecking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB0ZS8HWw5A


people exaggerate the physicality

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

no it wasn't man...people stay making up shit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rto2_oYVs0I


this 1985, the "golden era of basketball...where the hand checking at?



this when he dropped 63 against the Celts, where the Handchecking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB0ZS8HWw5A


people exaggerate the physicality

I'm not making up anything. The footage is there for you to see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_GgXXR4vA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_GgXXR4vA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ

[poido123]

Pace.

Rondo was the only player to get over 9.7 and he INTENTIONALLY gives up shots to pad his assists. Shit, CP3, D-WIll, etc couldn't get 10. Not even close...

I was reading the last few pages through this thread and then I read this one in response to why Magic wouldn't average more than 9 assists a game :roll: Using Rondo and co. as a comparison to why Magic would struggle is the worst logic I could possibly think of :lol:

You stupid child, why don't you get a clue first before you start talking about players you never saw or even know about. Why don't you stick to the threads that demonstrate how clueless and out of touch you are about basketball-maybe start with the "Lebron is the Greatest" fapping threads and leave these threads to people who know what they are talking about.

Going on past history and 80's-90's being a tougher era, I'd say Magic would go 22pts 8 rebs and 12 assts, Bird would go 28-30 pts 10 rebs and 6 assists. Also depending what type of team they land on, give or take a point or an assist a game.

[LeBird]

I agree. Thats why I prefaced my statement by saying or better yet never did it. He was more than capable. Obviously, if he set out to score like that he could. But still the fact remains he never did it. So now were supposed to believe that a guy that hovered around 25-26 ppg for his prime, would avg 30 ppg? In an era where the available shot attempts are cut by roughly 20-25%? Better yet 30/14/8? GTFO

He didn't average 25-26 in that era because he wasn't capable of shooting more. He averaged that in a team that had at least 3 very good scorers. He averaged 30 in the late 80s when his same partners in crime were injured/unhealthy. So why couldn't he do the same thing in an era where he can clearly shoot enough to score that much, and in this era he won't have competition in his own team to the extent that those Celtics did? That's why in a weak team in this era he could clearly average 30. Pace doesn't matter for stars...their team composition matters more. Bird averaged 25-30 playing on all-time great sides, why couldn't he score that much in a good side in this era (which doesn't require him to share the ball near as much)?

The same things go for his rebounding and assists. When he was playing PF he was an 11RPG player and in 87 when he had to shoulder a lot of the load he was an 8APG player. As aforesaid, clearly the team composition and his role plays a large part of how he'd do. You're especially talking about a player who had f-all usage in comparison to 90% of stars.

It is simple logic that you get but don't apply for some reason.

[Micku]

Lol. I think your being unreasonable bro. Youre totally dismissing my points. And now rehashing.
So somethings gotta give. If Bird keeps taking the same amount if shots, then the rest of the Celtics numbers fall. Then that starting five isnt that impressive.

So somethings gotta give. If Bird keeps taking the same amount if shots, then the rest of the Celtics numbers fall. Then that starting five isnt that impressive
Did you change your argument? I was talking about Bird capability of being able to shoot 18-22 shots a game if he is the number 1 option in this era. But you are mentioning the 80s Celtics team in general if they were to play within this era and whatever or not the team would get their shots?

Well, there were a couple teams like I said that have similar starting five like the 95 an 96 Magic. The 95 magic had 5 guys that had over 13 points per game. The celtics had four. And look averages. With the Magic:
Shaq had 20 FGA
Penny had 15 FGA
Nick Anderson had 12
Dennis Scott had 10
Horace Grant had 10

67 shots average with those five.

With the 1986 Celtics:
Bird had 20 FGA
Mchale had 14 FGA
Dennis Johnson had 14 FGA
Robert Parish had 12 FGA
Danny Ainge had 9 FGA

69 shots on average with them.

Virtually the same, but with more talent and better team ball. The Lakers of 97 and 98 were similar. They may not play the same, and the bench won't that many shots, but it isn't impossible for the Celtics starting team to get amount of shots. But this conversation is about the team and not Bird being able to get that many shots today without having the same teammates.

[SHAQisGOAT]

:facepalm at people thinking a difference of like 10 in pace would considerably change a star's averages.

Bird's stats over the course of 75 games at a average pace of 93.0 is virtually the same, even considering 23 games from 1989-1992 when he was a freaking shell, plus he had low USG% compared to other superstars and he wasn't the main ball-handler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po1M--HaINA

Oh, and great athletes and/or great defensive players? He went up against the likes of Bobby Jones, Dennis Rodman, Dominique Wilkins, Michael Cooper, Scottie Pippen, Orlando Woolridge, Clifford Robinson, Michael Jordan, Rodney McCray, Larry Nance, Dan Roundfield, Julius Erving, Buck Williams, Xavier McDaniel, Paul Pressey, Jerome Kersey, Clyde Drexler, Lonnie Shelton, Sidney Moncrief, Kenny Walker, Horace Grant, Tom Chambers... Look them up if you don't know them and be impressed. Plus taller, better and tougher bigmen packing the paint, and rules didn't benefit offense like nowadays.
If anything he would've had life considerably easier nowadays, looking at all of that above
Also, back on d, the lack of bigmen and zone defenses helps him even more because he could play even more PF, as he was a better and good post defender, and he's one of the goat team defenders.

I'm pretty sure that for Magic it would be the same.

[Soundwave]

I think their numbers would basically be the same.

[97 bulls]

Did you change your argument? I was talking about Bird capability of being able to shoot 18-22 shots a game if he is the number 1 option in this era. But you are mentioning the 80s Celtics team in general if they were to play within this era and whatever or not the team would get their shots?

Well, there were a couple teams like I said that have similar starting five like the 95 an 96 Magic. The 95 magic had 5 guys that had over 13 points per game. The celtics had four. And look averages. With the Magic:
Shaq had 20 FGA
Penny had 15 FGA
Nick Anderson had 12
Dennis Scott had 10
Horace Grant had 10

67 shots average with those five.

With the 1986 Celtics:
Bird had 20 FGA
Mchale had 14 FGA
Dennis Johnson had 14 FGA
Robert Parish had 12 FGA
Danny Ainge had 9 FGA

69 shots on average with them.

Virtually the same, but with more talent and better team ball. The Lakers of 97 and 98 were similar. They may not play the same, and the bench won't that many shots, but it isn't impossible for the Celtics starting team to get amount of shots. But this conversation is about the team and not Bird being able to get that many shots today without having the same teammates.
I never changed my argument. I even stated in the right situation he might be able. Meaning on a bad team. But that woukd be at the expense of championships and MVPs.

The Orlando Magic/Boston Celtic argument is interesting. But you still owe The Magic 300 FGAs. This is why avg FGAs is tricky. Too many variables.

[KG215]

80s NBA basketball averaged up to 115 poss. a game (pace)... 20+ more than today.... thats a much higher pace, especially for the showtime Lakers & Celtics who probably had the highest pace of those 80s teams...
If your'e going to try and sound educated, at least make an attempt to do some research. Here's the league average and league leader in pace from the 1980 season to the 1990 season. Also, what the Lakers and Celtics pace was in each season, and their league rank.

Not one time did a team average 115 possessions per 48 minutes. And the league leader was Nuggets almost every single year until Don Nelson's Run TMC Warriors came along and started challenging them in the late '80's. Some years they were +5 or +3 ahead of he second fastest paced team.

As for the "showtime Lakers & Celtics probably had the highest pace" bullshit...

Lakers
Average Rank: 9.7
Highest Rank: 4th
Top 5: 1 time

Celtics
Average Rank: 13.9
Highest Rank: 6th
Top 5: 0 times

And remember, it was a 23 team league until the 1988-1989 season.

1980
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader 109.1)
Lakers: 104.1 (8th)
Celtics: 102.6 (12th)

1981
League Average: 101.8 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 102.7 (8th)
Celtics: 100.8 (15th)

1982
League Average: 100.9 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 103.1 (4th)
Celtics: 101.5 (8th)

1983
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader: 112.1)
Lakers: 103.8 (10th)
Celtics: 104.0 (6th)

1984
League Average: 101.4 (League Leader: 110.5)
Lakers: 103.7 (6th)
Celtics: 99.7 (15th)

1985
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 107.6)
Lakers: 103.2 (8th)
Celtics: 101.6 (13th)

1986
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 106.7)
Lakers: 102.7 (10th)
Celtics: 101.2 (16th)

1987
League Average: 100.8 (League Leader: 106.2)
Lakers: 101.6 (10th)
Celtics: 98.6 (19th)

1988
League Average: 99.6 (League Leader: 105.5)
Lakers: 99.6 (11th)
Celtics: 97.9 (17th)

1989
League Average: 100.6 (League Leader: 107.5)
Lakers: 100.1 (12th)
Celtics: 98.1 (20th)

1990
League Average: 98.3 (League Leader: 105.9)
Lakers: 96.3 (20th)
Celtics: 98.2 (12th)


I mean I have no idea where they hell you got 115 possessions from. The highest pace of the entire decade was 112 and the second fastest pace team that year was 107. I've seen you fabricate the pace of the 80's before, though, in order to inflate what you think LeBron would average in that era, so it doesn't surprise me.

I'm a little upset it took me so long to see another one of your bullshit lies, because you'll probably never see this, but you've got to be one of the 5 worst posters here, and that's really saying something.

[fpliii]

If your'e going to try and sound educated, at least make an attempt to do some research. Here's the league average and league leader in pace from the 1980 season to the 1990 season. Also, what the Lakers and Celtics pace was in each season, and their league rank.

Not one time did a team average 115 possessions per 48 minutes. And the league leader every single year were the Nuggets, which shouldn't be a surprise. Some years they were +5 or +3 ahead of he second fastest paced team.

As for the "showtime Lakers & Celtics probably had the highest pace" bullshit...

Lakers
Average Rank: 9.7
Highest Rank: 4th
Top 5: 1 time

Celtics
Average Rank: 13.9
Highest Rank: 6th
Top 5: 0 times

And remember, it was a 23 team league until the 1988-1989 season.

1980
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader 109.1)
Lakers: 104.1 (8th)
Celtics: 102.6 (12th)

1981
League Average: 101.8 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 102.7 (8th)
Celtics: 100.8 (15th)

1982
League Average: 100.9 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 103.1 (4th)
Celtics: 101.5 (8th)

1983
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader: 112.1)
Lakers: 103.8 (10th)
Celtics: 104.0 (6th)

1984
League Average: 101.4 (League Leader: 110.5)
Lakers: 103.7 (6th)
Celtics: 99.7 (15th)

1985
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 107.6)
Lakers: 103.2 (8th)
Celtics: 101.6 (13th)

1986
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 106.7)
Lakers: 102.7 (10th)
Celtics: 101.2 (16th)

1987
League Average: 100.8 (League Leader: 106.2)
Lakers: 101.6 (10th)
Celtics: 98.6 (19th)

1988
League Average: 99.6 (League Leader: 105.5)
Lakers: 99.6 (11th)
Celtics: 97.9 (17th)

1989
League Average: 100.6 (League Leader: 107.5)
Lakers: 100.1 (12th)
Celtics: 98.1 (20th)

1990
League Average: 98.3
Lakers: 96.3 (20th)
Celtics: 98.2 (12th)


I mean I have no idea where they hell you got 115 possessions from. The highest pace of the entire decade was 112 and the second fastest pace team that year was 107. I've seen you fabricate the pace of the 80's before, though, in order to inflate what you think LeBron would average in that era, so it doesn't surprise me.

:applause:

Damn, that's cold.

[aburre21]

I'm not making up anything. The footage is there for you to see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_GgXXR4vA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6_GgXXR4vA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ

most of that footage is cherrypicked and there wasn't much hand checking in those games. You can find the same amount of contact in today's game

[Soundwave]

If your'e going to try and sound educated, at least make an attempt to do some research. Here's the league average and league leader in pace from the 1980 season to the 1990 season. Also, what the Lakers and Celtics pace was in each season, and their league rank.

Not one time did a team average 115 possessions per 48 minutes. And the league leader was Nuggets almost every single year until Don Nelson's Run TMC Warriors came along and started challenging them in the late '80's. Some years they were +5 or +3 ahead of he second fastest paced team.

As for the "showtime Lakers & Celtics probably had the highest pace" bullshit...

Lakers
Average Rank: 9.7
Highest Rank: 4th
Top 5: 1 time

Celtics
Average Rank: 13.9
Highest Rank: 6th
Top 5: 0 times

And remember, it was a 23 team league until the 1988-1989 season.

1980
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader 109.1)
Lakers: 104.1 (8th)
Celtics: 102.6 (12th)

1981
League Average: 101.8 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 102.7 (8th)
Celtics: 100.8 (15th)

1982
League Average: 100.9 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 103.1 (4th)
Celtics: 101.5 (8th)

1983
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader: 112.1)
Lakers: 103.8 (10th)
Celtics: 104.0 (6th)

1984
League Average: 101.4 (League Leader: 110.5)
Lakers: 103.7 (6th)
Celtics: 99.7 (15th)

1985
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 107.6)
Lakers: 103.2 (8th)
Celtics: 101.6 (13th)

1986
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 106.7)
Lakers: 102.7 (10th)
Celtics: 101.2 (16th)

1987
League Average: 100.8 (League Leader: 106.2)
Lakers: 101.6 (10th)
Celtics: 98.6 (19th)

1988
League Average: 99.6 (League Leader: 105.5)
Lakers: 99.6 (11th)
Celtics: 97.9 (17th)

1989
League Average: 100.6 (League Leader: 107.5)
Lakers: 100.1 (12th)
Celtics: 98.1 (20th)

1990
League Average: 98.3 (League Leader: 105.9)
Lakers: 96.3 (20th)
Celtics: 98.2 (12th)


I mean I have no idea where they hell you got 115 possessions from. The highest pace of the entire decade was 112 and the second fastest pace team that year was 107. I've seen you fabricate the pace of the 80's before, though, in order to inflate what you think LeBron would average in that era, so it doesn't surprise me.

I'm a little upset it took me so long to see another one of your bullshit lies, because you'll probably never see this, but you've got to be one of the 5 worst posters here, and that's really saying something.

LOL, pauk/TonyMontana just getting abused.

[Micku]

I never changed my argument. I even stated in the right situation he might be able. Meaning on a bad team. But that woukd be at the expense of championships and MVPs.

The Orlando Magic/Boston Celtic argument is interesting. But you still owe The Magic 300 FGAs. This is why avg FGAs is tricky. Too many variables.
Well, I was arguing that Bird could average a lot of shots in any era. You mentioned the Celtics of the 80s, which is another topic.

A lot of players take at least 19 shots just how players like Kobe, LeBron, Jordan, Shaq, Hakeem all had great teams that went to the Finals and they average at least 19 shots or more. They did it despite having bad or good teams. Dirk average 19 shots in 2006 when his team went to the finals. Why could they do it and not Bird if he is the number 1 option? That's my argument.

You mentioned the situation, but it would seem like a player of Bird's caliber would be able to do it on most teams today because most teams don't have a second option as good as Mchale or Parish.

[97 bulls]

What? He did that in the 80s. He averaged 19 shots in his career and had 22 shots before. Even after his surgery, he came back and average 20 FGA while he dealt with injuries in 89-90. You really think that he wouldn't have 18-21 shots per game of he played in this era? Especially since he did it against players who played late into the 90s who had the same amount of shots like they did in the 80s. And Bird was better than them. Even old Jordan had 20 shot attempts when he wasn't as agile as he was in the 80s and early 90s. He always had the skill to get his own shot and play within the team offense. These type of skills would go for any era.

You don't think a mid 80s Bird would average about 18-21 shots in the mid 90s (pnly two or three years after he retired)all the way to the early 00s? Especially since he played against some of the best players, and was considered better than all of them except for Jordan?

If you put Bird on another team where he is the number 1 option, which would be most teams, then I don't see why he wouldn't take the most shots of the team. Especially since Mchale is probably better than most teams first option.
I understand your point Mick. I feel hed be just as skilled, one if the best players in the league, top three or two behind James. How many players today are capable of avg 25/8/7? For all intents and purposes, thats probably about 18-19 shots per game.

And again, you keep comparing Bird to guys that led the league in FGAs. Bird never did that. But hes supposed to do it now? Guys like Iverson, Durant, James, Jordan, led the league in scoring. Hell, in Birds prime, 28 ppg wouldve put you third or even fourth in the league. Now? That leads the league. In the mid 80s, Jordan was avg 25-26 shots per game. In the mid 90s? 23-24. And again, there was reasons why he was able to take that many shots. RODMAN DIDNT SHOOT. He did avg 25 in 95, but I think that can be attributed to him trying to knock out the rust. Pippen missed half the season in 98. Which forced Jordan to assume a larger role offensively meaning more shots.

To be honest, there is no metric you can use to feel Birds dropping 29-30 a night in todays NBA other than nostalgia. This is why I always state no era is better than another. Granted I do feel the centers today are lacking and that guys like Dwight Howard wouldn't be as good back then as they are now

[LAZERUSS]

I understand your point Mick. I feel hed be just as skilled, one if the best players in the league, top three or two behind James. How many players today are capable of avg 25/8/7? For all intents and purposes, thats probably about 18-19 shots per game.

And again, you keep comparing Bird to guys that led the league in FGAs. Bird never did that. But hes supposed to do it now? Guys like Iverson, Durant, James, Jordan, led the league in scoring. Hell, in Birds prime, 28 ppg wouldve put you third or even fourth in the league. Now? That leads the league. In the mid 80s, Jordan was avg 25-26 shots per game. In the mid 90s? 23-24. And again, there was reasons why he was able to take that many shots. RODMAN DIDNT SHOOT. He did avg 25 in 95, but I think that can be attributed to him trying to knock out the rust. Pippen missed half the season in 98. Which forced Jordan to assume a larger role offensively meaning more shots.

To be honest, there is no metric you can use to feel Birds dropping 29-30 a night in todays NBA other than nostalgia. This is why I always state no era is better than another. Granted I do feel the centers today are lacking and that guys like Dwight Howard wouldn't be as good back then as they are now

Virtually every NBA player would average more ppg with more FGAs. No one can argue that.

And I am not sure what Bird "could" have averaged in today's NBA. I tend to agree with you from this standpoint... Bird was never even a 30 ppg scorer in his post-season play. Clearly, if he was going to shoot more, it would have been in the playoffs. Furthermore, his FG% dropped considerably in the post-season, really plummetted in his five Finals.

True, had Larry just completely shot-jacked, he likely would have averaged 30+ in some post-seasons, but at what cost to his efficiency?

Having said all of that, I believe his FGAs in today's NBA would only be marginally less than what he was taking in the 80's. And his scoring might actually have gone up a bit, on slightly less overall efficiency, with more 3-pt attempts. Personally, I think Bird would have been scoring on about the same level as a prime Dirk, and at about the same efficiency. Perhaps a little higher, but not significantly.

[97 bulls]

Virtually every NBA player would average more ppg with more FGAs. No one can argue that.

And I am not sure what Bird "could" have averaged in today's NBA. I tend to agree with you from this standpoint... Bird was never even a 30 ppg scorer in his post-season play. Clearly, if he was going to shoot more, it would have been in the playoffs. Furthermore, his FG% dropped considerably in the post-season, really plummetted in his five Finals.

True, had Larry just completely shot-jacked, he likely would have averaged 30+ in some post-seasons, but at what cost to his efficiency?

Having said all of that, I believe his FGAs in today's NBA would only be marginally less than what he was taking in the 80's. And his scoring might actually have gone up a bit, on slightly less overall efficiency, with more 3-pt attempts. Personally, I think Bird would have been scoring on about the same level as a prime Dirk, and at about the same efficiency. Perhaps a little higher, but not significantly.
I agree with everything you stated. I do feel marginal would be 1.5 shots on avg (guestimate) and a few less FTs (maybe one trip). Thats five points right there. Give him three points back cuz he would take more threes per game. Id say you could shave off 2-3 points per.

As far as Dirk. Again, consider the situation. Give him Mchale and Parish and his numbers dip as well.

[Micku]

I understand your point Mick. I feel hed be just as skilled, one if the best players in the league, top three or two behind James. How many players today are capable of avg 25/8/7? For all intents and purposes, thats probably about 18-19 shots per game.

And again, you keep comparing Bird to guys that led the league in FGAs. Bird never did that. But hes supposed to do it now? Guys like Iverson, Durant, James, Jordan, led the league in scoring. Hell, in Birds prime, 28 ppg wouldve put you third or even fourth in the league. Now? That leads the league. In the mid 80s, Jordan was avg 25-26 shots per game. In the mid 90s? 23-24. And again, there was reasons why he was able to take that many shots. RODMAN DIDNT SHOOT. He did avg 25 in 95, but I think that can be attributed to him trying to knock out the rust. Pippen missed half the season in 98. Which forced Jordan to assume a larger role offensively meaning more shots.

To be honest, there is no metric you can use to feel Birds dropping 29-30 a night in todays NBA other than nostalgia. This is why I always state no era is better than another. Granted I do feel the centers today are lacking and that guys like Dwight Howard wouldn't be as good back then as they are now

Well, both LeBron and Durant never lead the league in FGA. They were efficient. And like I said in my pervious post stars from the 80s took the same amount of shots a decade later. MJ was more consistent with his FGA despite who was on his team. In 93 he average 25 FGA. In 92 he average 23 FGA. This was before Rodman was on the team. In 2002, he average 22 shots per game. Same with Karl Malone, Wilkins, Jordan could do it why no Bird? He won't average Jordan FGA because he wasn't that type of player. But my major point is that FGA don't affect superstars normally.

And it's not if this current don't have enough stars to make a bunch shots that doesn't mean other stars will be like them. You mentioned about how I compared Bird to the greatest scores. Look at the competition Bird went up against with scoring in 88:
Wilkins
Jordan
Clyde Drexler
Karl Malone
Barkley

All of them scored and average 27 ppg or more. And they average the same shots in the 90s as well and points. And these guys are great scorers as well. Bird had 30 ppg against these guys. I think Bird at least the same FGA in a slower pace league if he was the number 1 option. They all did, and Bird was better than some of them. He may have not have the same ppg depending on the situation, but he was capable of it.

[97 bulls]

Well, both LeBron and Durant never lead the league in FGA. They were efficient. And like I said in my pervious post stars from the 80s took the same amount of shots a decade later. MJ was more consistent with his FGA despite who was on his team. In 93 he average 25 FGA. In 92 he average 23 FGA. This was before Rodman was on the team. In 2002, he average 22 shots per game. Same with Karl Malone, Wilkins, Jordan could do it why no Bird? He won't average Jordan FGA because he wasn't that type of player. But my major point is that FGA don't affect superstars normally.

And it's not if this current don't have enough stars to make a bunch shots that doesn't mean other stars will be like them. You mentioned about how I compared Bird to the greatest scores. Look at the competition Bird went up against with scoring in 88:
Wilkins
Jordan
Clyde Drexler
Karl Malone
Barkley

All of them scored and average 27 ppg or more. And they average the same shots in the 90s as well and points. And these guys are great scorers as well. Bird had 30 ppg against these guys. I think Bird at least the same FGA in a slower pace league if he was the number 1 option. They all did, and Bird was better than some of them. He may have not have the same ppg depending on the situation, but he was capable of it.
Durant did lead the league in FGAs once. So far. James wouldve led the league once had he played a full 82. He lost out to Bryant by 50 FGs. But he also played 8 less games than Bryant.

I already vividly explained Malones situation in detail. Barkleys situation strengthens my point as well. He joins the Suns who played at a break neck pace but his FGAs never increased. Again because available shots dwindled.

Drexler is another perfect example. His situation in Portland didnt change, but his FGAs did. As well as his ppg. Why? Because less shot opportunities. And he was the number one option. And mind you it wasnt drastic. But just remember one less FG is two pts. Less shot opportunities means less FTs. Factor all that and you see why his PPG went from 27 in the late 80s to 22. And mind you again. One less shot is two points. And less shot opportunities equal less FTs as well. Now he did jump back up to 25 in 92. But at the expense if Kevin Duckworth opportunities. He took three less when compared to the previous year.

Im not saying Birds points are gonna drop into the teens. But they would drop. Providing hes in the same situation.

[ThaRegul8r]

80s NBA basketball averaged up to 115 poss. a game (pace)... 20+ more than today.... thats a much higher pace, especially for the showtime Lakers & Celtics who probably had the highest pace of those 80s teams...

If your'e going to try and sound educated, at least make an attempt to do some research. Here's the league average and league leader in pace from the 1980 season to the 1990 season. Also, what the Lakers and Celtics pace was in each season, and their league rank.

Not one time did a team average 115 possessions per 48 minutes. And the league leader was Nuggets almost every single year until Don Nelson's Run TMC Warriors came along and started challenging them in the late '80's. Some years they were +5 or +3 ahead of he second fastest paced team.

As for the "showtime Lakers & Celtics probably had the highest pace" bullshit...

Lakers
Average Rank: 9.7
Highest Rank: 4th
Top 5: 1 time

Celtics
Average Rank: 13.9
Highest Rank: 6th
Top 5: 0 times

And remember, it was a 23 team league until the 1988-1989 season.

1980
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader 109.1)
Lakers: 104.1 (8th)
Celtics: 102.6 (12th)

1981
League Average: 101.8 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 102.7 (8th)
Celtics: 100.8 (15th)

1982
League Average: 100.9 (League Leader: 109.8)
Lakers: 103.1 (4th)
Celtics: 101.5 (8th)

1983
League Average: 103.1 (League Leader: 112.1)
Lakers: 103.8 (10th)
Celtics: 104.0 (6th)

1984
League Average: 101.4 (League Leader: 110.5)
Lakers: 103.7 (6th)
Celtics: 99.7 (15th)

1985
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 107.6)
Lakers: 103.2 (8th)
Celtics: 101.6 (13th)

1986
League Average: 102.1 (League Leader: 106.7)
Lakers: 102.7 (10th)
Celtics: 101.2 (16th)

1987
League Average: 100.8 (League Leader: 106.2)
Lakers: 101.6 (10th)
Celtics: 98.6 (19th)

1988
League Average: 99.6 (League Leader: 105.5)
Lakers: 99.6 (11th)
Celtics: 97.9 (17th)

1989
League Average: 100.6 (League Leader: 107.5)
Lakers: 100.1 (12th)
Celtics: 98.1 (20th)

1990
League Average: 98.3 (League Leader: 105.9)
Lakers: 96.3 (20th)
Celtics: 98.2 (12th)


I mean I have no idea where they hell you got 115 possessions from. The highest pace of the entire decade was 112 and the second fastest pace team that year was 107. I've seen you fabricate the pace of the 80's before, though, in order to inflate what you think LeBron would average in that era, so it doesn't surprise me.

I'm a little upset it took me so long to see another one of your bullshit lies, because you'll probably never see this, but you've got to be one of the 5 worst posters here, and that's really saying something.

I have to applaud any occasion in which liars/ignorant posters get exposed with the cold, hard facts. Too many people put fingers to keyboard without having the slightest clue what they're talking about. I commend you, good sir.

[TheCorporation]

Going on past history and 80's-90's being a tougher era, I'd say Magic would go 22pts 8 rebs and 12 assts, Bird would go 28-30 pts 10 rebs and 6 assists. Also depending what type of team they land on, give or take a point or an assist a game.

Trolling? :oldlol:

2013 Chris Paul got 9.7
2012 Chris Paul got 9.1
2011 Chris Paul got 9.8

But yep, Magic will find a way to get 12 :lol

By the way, do you even know when the last person ever averaged 12 apg?

John Stockton.
In 1995 :roll: :roll:

You're either trolling, or an idiot. Take your pick.

Like I said before, when you factor in a more athletic game, with a slower pace, and more complex defenses, mixed in with overall better players, you simply won't get the #s you could get in the weak 80's era...

[LeBird]

But both Stockton and Magic lead other PGs by quite a bit in terms of APG. So whether you're talking about Chris Paul or Isiah Thomas, it doesn't matter.

[Living Being]

Trolling? :oldlol:

2013 Chris Paul got 9.7
2012 Chris Paul got 9.1
2011 Chris Paul got 9.8

But yep, Magic will find a way to get 12 :lol

By the way, do you even know when the last person ever averaged 12 apg?

John Stockton.
In 1995 :roll: :roll:

You're either trolling, or an idiot. Take your pick.

Like I said before, when you factor in a more athletic game, with a slower pace, and more complex defenses, mixed in with overall better players, you simply won't get the #s you could get in the weak 80's era...
Chris Paul averaged 23/11 in 2009 at a slower league pace and 21/11.6 in 2008 at about the same league pace as 2013.

Nash averaged 19/11 during years with slower league pace than 2013.

Magic averaged 12.6 ast/g in 1991 at league pace 5.9% higher than 2013 (and the Lakers team pace was only 2% higher than 2013 average). Lakers PPG was 99.6 compared to 2013 average of 98.1.

Paul and Nash >>>> Magic f*cking Johnson?

[Legends66NBA7]

I always hear people say if MJ played now he would absolutely crush.

So I was wondering what would Larry and Magic averages be if they played in today's Era?

Would they still be considered top 10 players?

Would they dominate the game?

Would they just be role players?

Discuss.

I didn't initially read the OP, but a definite yes to being top 10 players if we're talking about their primes. Would both be in the top 3, IMO. And hell no at them being role players. :oldlol:

ThaRegul8r, KG215, Micku and 87 Lakers with good points. Their rosters would effect the main outcome of their stats, pace isn't going have much of a factor here... and since both were very much team first mindsets, they wouldn't be very concerned about their numbers.

[Micku]

Durant did lead the league in FGAs once. So far. James wouldve led the league once had he played a full 82. He lost out to Bryant by 50 FGs. But he also played 8 less games than Bryant.


This was my mistake. I thought that Kobe lead in both years that you mentioned with LBJ and Durant lead. I was wrong with LBJ, but with Durant lead the league in FGA, he didn't lead the league in FGA per game. Kobe was higher than him.



I already vividly explained Malones situation in detail. Barkleys situation strengthens my point as well. He joins the Suns who played at a break neck pace but his FGAs never increased. Again because available shots dwindled.

That's not true actually. He took the most attempts in his career as a Suns than any other team. With his whole team with the 76ers, as a starter, he average 15.0 FGA a game. With his whole team with the Suns, he average 17 FGA a game. The year when he won MVP and got to the Finals, he had 18 FGA a game. His most of his career. And when the 76ers actually did slow down the pace (slower than the Suns), Barkley average 17.4 FGA a game.



Drexler is another perfect example. His situation in Portland didnt change, but his FGAs did. As well as his ppg. Why? Because less shot opportunities. And he was the number one option. And mind you it wasnt drastic. But just remember one less FG is two pts. Less shot opportunities means less FTs. Factor all that and you see why his PPG went from 27 in the late 80s to 22. And mind you again. One less shot is two points. And less shot opportunities equal less FTs as well. Now he did jump back up to 25 in 92. But at the expense if Kevin Duckworth opportunities. He took three less when compared to the previous year.

Im not saying Birds points are gonna drop into the teens. But they would drop. Providing hes in the same situation.

Well, it wasn't really at the expense of his shots as much as Kevin Duckworth was declining at that stage of his career. And it wasn't as if Clyde wasn't capable averaging those shots. In this case it was situation in whatever helped that team. But you see that happen to today superstars as well. However, Bird is a better offensive player than Clyde.

I get what you are saying when you say shot opportunities. That depends on the coach plans for offense and the player ability to create his own shots. But, it seems like you are saying that Bird (as the number 1 option) cannot reach the Finals or win MVPs by taking 19-22 shots a game? That's where you and I differ because I find that illogical seeing how other players with good offensive teams have already done that in this era, especially with Bird being scorer than them. And I do not think pace matters when it comes to superstars getting their shots as I showed before. All I'm saying that Bird is very much capable of it and probably would do it if he is the number 1 option.

If you are talking about THAT specific mid 80s Celtics team won't get that many shots, then I would think you're right to an extent, even though that is a differently topic all together. The starters could still average those shot attempts because we've seen that with the mid and late 90s Magic and Lakers who played at similar pace as teams today. The 95 Magic team had a slightly slower pace than 02 Kings for example. So, it's not impossible by any means for that same starting five of the 80s Celts to average the same shots as they did in the 80s. But I would say it would be a little different. But I wasn't including THAT Celtics team to begin with. I was just talking about if you put Bird on team today, would he average that many shots.

Lets say you put peak Bird on the Bulls (replacing Rose) or Memphis today. Would he average at least 19 shots? I don't see why not and those teams would be more championship contenders. Do you not think he would average those shots with those teams?

With the Spurs, that would be different. He'll probably take control of the offense and be the leading FGA of that team because he would be their best offensive player. By how much would be a mystery. But it's not impossible to see Parker getting 14 shots, Duncan getting 14 shots, and Bird getting 19 shots because we seen it before. But the bench would lose their shots.

[97 bulls]

This was my mistake. I thought that Kobe lead in both years that you mentioned with LBJ and Durant lead. I was wrong with LBJ, but with Durant lead the league in FGA, he didn't lead the league in FGA per game. Kobe was higher than him.


That's not true actually. He took the most attempts in his career as a Suns than any other team. With his whole team with the 76ers, as a starter, he average 15.0 FGA a game. With his whole team with the Suns, he average 17 FGA a game. The year when he won MVP and got to the Finals, he had 18 FGA a game. His most of his career. And when the 76ers actually did slow down the pace (slower than the Suns), Barkley average 17.4 FGA a game.




Well, it wasn't really at the expense of his shots as much as Kevin Duckworth was declining at that stage of his career. And it wasn't as if Clyde wasn't capable averaging those shots. In this case it was situation in whatever helped that team. But you see that happen to today superstars as well. However, Bird is a better offensive player than Clyde.

I get what you are saying when you say shot opportunities. That depends on the coach plans for offense and the player ability to create his own shots. But, it seems like you are saying that Bird (as the number 1 option) cannot reach the Finals or win MVPs by taking 19-22 shots a game? That's where you and I differ because I find that illogical seeing how other players with good offensive teams have already done that in this era, especially with Bird being scorer than them. And I do not think pace matters when it comes to superstars getting their shots as I showed before. All I'm saying that Bird is very much capable of it and probably would do it if he is the number 1 option.

If you are talking about THAT specific mid 80s Celtics team won't get that many shots, then I would think you're right to an extent, even though that is a differently topic all together. The starters could still average those shot attempts because we've seen that with the mid and late 90s Magic and Lakers who played at similar pace as teams today. The 95 Magic team had a slightly slower pace than 02 Kings for example. So, it's not impossible by any means for that same starting five of the 80s Celts to average the same shots as they did in the 80s. But I would say it would be a little different. But I wasn't including THAT Celtics team to begin with. I was just talking about if you put Bird on team today, would he average that many shots.

Lets say you put peak Bird on the Bulls (replacing Rose) or Memphis today. Would he average at least 19 shots? I don't see why not and those teams would be more championship contenders. Do you not think he would average those shots with those teams?

With the Spurs, that would be different. He'll probably take control of the offense and be the leading FGA of that team because he would be their best offensive player. By how much would be a mystery. But it's not impossible to see Parker getting 14 shots, Duncan getting 14 shots, and Bird getting 19 shots because we seen it before. But the bench would lose their shots.
Bird could definitely lead a team to the finals and win it. While taking more than 20 shots per. Like in your scenario with today's Bulls. Im more alluding to that whole Celtics team.

I also disagree with the continual bombardment of nostalgic 80s fans who overrate that era to no end. Guys posted that Bird would avg 30 ppg PER YEAR. As well as 13/14 rbds. And 7-8 assists. I just dont see it. And im an old school guy.

[juju151111]

Why are people saying Magic can't play at a slower pace. In 90 the Lakers pace slowed way down and he still won MVP

[Micku]

Bird could definitely lead a team to the finals and win it. While taking more than 20 shots per. Like in your scenario with today's Bulls. Im more alluding to that whole Celtics team.

I also disagree with the continual bombardment of nostalgic 80s fans who overrate that era to no end. Guys posted that Bird would avg 30 ppg PER YEAR. As well as 13/14 rbds. And 7-8 assists. I just dont see it. And im an old school guy.

Yeah, that's my whole point with Bird playing in this era.

In terms of the 80s team, that's a whole another topic that you can start another thread. All I gott'a say is that the Orlando Magic did it with Shaq. They also did with the Lakers in the late 90s. Kings 01 and 02 were similar, but without the talent that the Celts had. So, it's already been done a few times after the 80s era, with lesser talent. Regardless, the bench will suffer. I don't agree Bird would average 30/14/7 in the regular season tho.

[TheBigVeto]

You guys are arguing the merits of Bird and Magic with their biggest hater. There is no point in that.

[LeBird]

I also disagree with the continual bombardment of nostalgic 80s fans who overrate that era to no end. Guys posted that Bird would avg 30 ppg PER YEAR. As well as 13/14 rbds. And 7-8 assists. I just dont see it. And im an old school guy.

Bird averaged highs of 30 ppg, 11 rpg and 8 apg playing alongside McHale, Parish, Ainge and Dennis Johnson amongst others. And playing against ATG sides.

So how are any of those farfetched? In a team which is just 'good' in this era he's going to get as many shots as he needs and without the competition in his own team he could drain 30 quite easily. When he was playing PF going against the likes of Moses Malone et al he was averaging 11 rpg. When the 87 team had injuries and needed him to playmake more, he was averaging almost 8 assists per game.

I mean, you can quibble a point here or there but generally he's going to be close to that production.

[72-10]

Bird - 9 reb/8 ast/24 pts

[StrongLurk]

Same as the 80's...

[72-10]

Same as the 80's...

You don't suppose rebounds would go down and assists would go up?

[stalkerforlife]

Magic 19, 11, and 13+ assists.

Easily many triple double seasons.

Bird may not ever get an opportunity because he's white and unathletic compared to guys like Wiggins, but if he was given a real opportunity, he could realistically average around 32, 15, and 8+ assists. Could easily have a few triple double seasons.

[stalkerforlife]

Don't get me wrong, if Bird wanted to, he could average 40+ today, but that's not his mindset.

[72-10]

Don't get me wrong, if Bird wanted to, he could average 40+ today, but that's not his mindset.

yo man how dafuq is the Bird going to get 40 a game today dude

he might have averaged as many minutes as MJ but I just don't think he has that type of endurance, and if you think it's at the line, I just don't think it adds up to that