Shaq vs Bird

[Mass Debator]

Who has Shaq over Bird on their all-time list?

[Solefade]

Shaq would be on the top of most lists if it was just peak, but resume wise i don't think it's that debatable

[oarabbus]

Imagine Bird with even Gay/Butler/Hayward/Parsons athleticism. GOAT. Sh1ts on Jordan.

[Mass Debator]

Shaq would be on the top of most lists if it was just peak, but resume wise i don't think it's that debatable
But more 1 championship and 1 more FMVP. :confusedshrug:
Or is Bird's 2 more MVPs greater than that? Shaq played way longer too...

[Mr Exlax]

Are we talking career accomplishments or are we talking about just as a player?

[Mass Debator]

Are we talking career accomplishments or are we talking about just as a player?
Isn't it about finding a balance of both? Or else a lot of people would be putting Lebron and Wilt just above almost everyone.

[Mr Exlax]

Isn't it about finding a balance of both? Or else a lot of people would be putting Lebron and Wilt just above almost everyone.

I have tried, but I can't find a balance.

[Milbuck]

Peak Shaq > Peak Bird on both ends of the floor without a doubt.

But all-time lists aren't just about peaks, so I'd go with Bird.

[Mass Debator]

I have tried, but I can't find a balance.
What did you really mean when you said "as a player"?

[Mass Debator]

Peak Shaq > Peak Bird on both ends of the floor without a doubt.

But all-time lists aren't just about peaks, so I'd go with Bird.
Do you happen to believe that the rival between Magic and Bird really prop them up? Or maybe his skin color? I've never seen a full game of Larry Bird, but I have my doubts that he had a prime that matched Shaq. His career ended short too. All I see is 2 more MVPs than Shaq which many believed that the way Shaq dominated is deserving of more.

[Mr Exlax]

What did you really mean when you said "as a player"?

As a player I mean peak and the impact they have on the game.

[Milbuck]

Do you happen to believe that the rival between Magic and Bird really prop them up? Or maybe his skin color? I've never seen a full game of Larry Bird, but I have my doubts that he had a prime that matched Shaq. His career ended short too. All I see is 2 more MVPs than Shaq which many believed that the way Shaq dominated is deserving of more.
You really gotta go back and watch some Bird tape man, the dude was unreal. He was so physically limited compared to guys like MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Durant. But he made up for it with unbelievable hands and BBIQ that was just off the charts. He just understood the game on another level than other players. He was one of the GOAT shooters, great rebounder for his position, had great vision, scoring arsenal, one of the greatest thinkers of the game, etc. The biggest knock on Bird was his limitations as a defender (which stemmed from his physical profile) and even then it's vastly overstated most of the time.

I think marketing definitely had a lot to do with his legend being substantially more prominent than Shaq's. But having a rivalry with Magic didn't benefit him that much.. yeah the rivalry was great for the sport and helped make both players even more iconic, but at the core of it they were competing against each other. Any image and marketing success he got from the rivalry was compensated for by the fact that he had to deal with one of the greatest players ever during his era. Can you imagine what Bird would've accomplished had Magic never existed? Or vice versa?

I don't disagree with you that you could make the case for Shaq > Bird overall as a player (for their careers, peak isn't really debatable). All-time list though, it really depends on what you value as a basketball fan.

[Mass Debator]

As a player I mean peak and the impact they have on the game.
So to you, who do you rank higher using the "as a player" criteria and as a "career accomplishments" criteria? And ultimately, who do you have higher?

[Mr Exlax]

So to you, who do you rank higher using the "as a player" criteria and as a "career accomplishments" criteria? And ultimately, who do you have higher?

I have Shaq as the better player alltime.

Looking at everything, I think I have to actually give Bird the nod in the career accomplishments department.

[Mass Debator]

You really gotta go back and watch some Bird tape man, the dude was unreal. He was so physically limited compared to guys like MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Durant. But he made up for it with unbelievable hands and BBIQ that was just off the charts. He just understood the game on another level than other players. He was one of the GOAT shooters, great rebounder for his position, had great vision, scoring arsenal, one of the greatest thinkers of the game, etc. The biggest knock on Bird was his limitations as a defender (which stemmed from his physical profile) and even then it's vastly overstated most of the time.

I think marketing definitely had a lot to do with his legend being substantially more prominent than Shaq's. But having a rivalry with Magic didn't benefit him that much.. yeah the rivalry was great for the sport and helped make both players even more iconic, but at the core of it they were competing against each other. Can you imagine what Bird would've accomplished had Magic never existed? Or vice versa?

I don't disagree with you that you could make the case for Shaq > Bird overall as a player (for their careers, peak isn't really debatable). All-time list though, it really depends on what you value as a basketball fan.
I appreciate your comments. To me, I disregard the importance of talking about what someone did with his limitations or his unparalleled physique because they made it up or was slowed with another feature. With Bird, it was his IQ. If Vince Carter had his IQ, he'd be an all-time great too...just like if Bird had VC's athleticism, he'd be even more unstoppable. With a weakness, you cover it up with something else. I don't know if Bird would be as great as he was if he grew up with elite athleticism because he'd focus more on driving and finishing than the other great parts of his game that made him one of the GOATs.

Larry Bird is very impressive, but what he did was win 2 FMVP out of 3 to Shaq's 3 out of 4. Both had stats that are ahead of their competition at their own position. I'm just hard-pressed to see Shaq at around 7-8 and Bird to be like 4-5.

[ArbitraryWater]

I actually do. I started to realize out of random, I dont see how Bird could be higher either... in fact Im thinking about putting Duncan > Bird.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Big fan of both of their game's.. I rank Bird higher all-time when considering everything (most do), Larry at #4 and Shaq at #6. Shaq does have a slight better peak as a player and more longevity (Bird's longevity doesn't stack up with the best, in terms of that, because of injuries, but gets underrated, plus he didn't have 00's medicine and so on).

As far as peaks, they're both top5 all-time but I'd roll with Shaq, helps that he's a big though, and just MDE.


I've never seen a full game of Larry Bird

With all due respect, you shouldn't be talking about his game then.

[Mass Debator]

Big fan of both of their game's.. I rank Bird higher all-time when considering everything (most do), Larry at #4 and Shaq at #6. Shaq does have a slight better peak as a player and more longevity (Bird's longevity doesn't stack up with the best, in terms of that, because of injuries, but gets underrated, plus he didn't have 00's medicine and so on).

As far as peaks, they're both top5 all-time but I'd roll with Shaq, helps that he's a big though, and just MDE.



With all due respect, you shouldn't be talking about his game then.
I've seen tons of highlights and breakdowns of his game. And I'm not even talking about his game really. It doesn't take a genius to spot greatness and do some research either. So I'm still waiting to hear why Bird is ranked higher. Is it just because of his arsenal of moves and IQ or was it dominating production and accolades? Some coaches and players are already saying Lebron > Bird. Why isn't Lebron ranked higher?

[Mass Debator]

I actually do. I started to realize out of random, I dont see how Bird could be higher either... in fact Im thinking about putting Duncan > Bird.
I'm actually leaning that way too...like why is Bird's style of playing giving him an edge over other greats who has accomplished the same if not more. Is it actually about how he does something or what he does with that something? Hakeem was a high IQ defensive specialist who can score with impeccable footwork...plus he can pass like the best of them. Why isn't he regarded higher than Shaq?

[AbeVigodaLive]

In an era where he played against Magic Johnson, Kareem, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Julius Erving, et al...

Bird finished in the top 2 for MVP voting 7 times. Throw in a top 3 finish. Top 4 finish... and it's pretty impressive, considering he only played 12 "healthy" seasons.

Bird is slowly becoming one of those guys whose legend was virtually unquestioned during his playing career... but has been tarnished with time as more people who didn't see him play join the discussion.

[Mass Debator]

In an era where he played against Magic Johnson, Kareem, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Julius Erving, et al...

Bird finished in the top 2 for MVP voting 7 times. Throw in a top 3 finish. Top 4 finish... and it's pretty impressive, considering he only played 12 "healthy" seasons.

Bird is slowly becoming one of those guys whose legend was virtually unquestioned during his playing career... but has been tarnished with time as more people who didn't see him play join the discussion.
When he came in the league, Kareem was already 32 in 1980. Dr. J was already hitting his 30s. When Hakeem was entering his prime when Bird was on his way out of the league (did most of his damage in the 90s). Bird got his MVPs when Jordan just entered the league on subpar teams. If Jordan didn't get his first MVP on a 50-32 win team, Magic could've had 4 straight MVPs to end the 80s (Magic was on a 62-20 team that year).

Let's not act like after Shaq's rookie year, he was averaging 28/12/3/3bpg on 58% for the next 10 years and STILL played 10 years after that. Everyone knew who the best player was each time he made it out to the hardwood.

[AbeVigodaLive]

When he came in the league, Kareem was already 32 in 1980. Dr. J was already hitting his 30s. When Hakeem was entering his prime when Bird was on his way out of the league (did most of his damage in the 90s). Bird got his MVPs when Jordan just entered the league on subpar teams. If Jordan didn't get his first MVP on a 50-32 win team, Magic could've had 4 straight MVPs to end the 80s (Magic was on a 62-20 team that year).


Magic
Jordan
Erving
Moses
Kareem

Say what you want about their age... or not being ready... or whatever. Bottom line is that these guys were winning MVPs during that era, so it's not like they were irrelevant in the years before and after winning it. They were still great players.

[Mass Debator]

Magic
Jordan
Erving
Moses
Kareem

Say what you want about their age... or not being ready... or whatever. Bottom line is that these guys were winning MVPs during that era, so it's not like they were irrelevant in the years before and after winning it. They were still great players.
And Shaq had MJ, Hakeem, Pippen, Malone, Ewing, David Robinson, and Barkley in their primes in the 90s. And in the 2000s, there was Duncan, KG, Dirk, Kobe, McGrady, Iverson, etc. All are one of the all-time greats at their respective positions and most were consistent candidates for MVPs every year.

[r0drig0lac]

bird dominate in a more difficult time

[Mass Debator]

bird dominate in a more difficult time
What does that say about Jordan?

[AbeVigodaLive]

And Shaq had MJ, Hakeem, Pippen, Malone, Ewing, David Robinson, and Barkley in their primes in the 90s. And in the 2000s, there was Duncan, KG, Dirk, Kobe, McGrady, Iverson, etc. All are one of the all-time greats at their respective positions and most were consistent candidates for MVPs every year.


Pippen, Ewing and McGrady were never good enough to win MVP. They are not good enough to be considered among the top 15 guys in NBA history. If we want to branch out and include every "good" or "great" player from the respective era, we can add guys like Kevin McHale, Barkley, Isiah Thomas, Bernard King, et al... and we can go on and on and on and on... pointlessly.

I'm simply pointing out that there were few flukes in the 1980s. The Celtics lost to some all-time great teams in LA and Philly and Detroit. And Bird came in 2nd in MVP voting four times... losing out to Erving, Moses and Jordan.

He finished ahead of those all-time greats almost every other year. That's impressive. But maybe it was only because of the great white hype stuff... ahem.

Oddly enough, both guys can blame injuries. Injuries shut Bird down for good. And his best statistical season was his last healthy one (1988). Shaq didn't finish as high as one might think on MVP lists because he simply missed too many games too many seasons during the regular season.

When judging each vs. the all-time elite (and each other) everything must be taken into account.

[secund2nun]

Shaq was better than Bird.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Shaq was better than Bird.


Well, I was unsure until I read your post.

Now, I'm convinced. Obviously. Great job.

[secund2nun]

Well, I was unsure until I read your post.

Now, I'm convinced. Obviously. Great job.

You're welcome.

[r0drig0lac]

What does that say about Jordan?
that the difference between them is not great (personally have mj (1

[Bernie Nips]

Damn it's annoying when people use "longevity" as a case against Bird. Dude completed College and therefore came into the NBA later than most, and hustled more than any other superstar in history. Went for every loose ball, dived on the ground whenever it was required, basically put his body on the line every game. Still managed to play at a spectacularly high level after injuries hit and his body could barely cope anymore and carved out a 15 year career (including college) that rivals anyone's. The fact he played as long as he did when he played as hard as he did should be something in his favour, not against him.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Damn it's annoying when people use "longevity" as a case against Bird. Dude completed College and therefore came into the NBA later than most, and hustled more than any other superstar in history. Went for every loose ball, dived on the ground whenever it was required, basically put his body on the line every game. Still managed to play at a spectacularly high level after injuries hit and his body could barely cope anymore and carved out a 15 year career (including college) that rivals anyone's. The fact he played as long as he did when he played as hard as he did should be something in his favour, not against him.


To be fair, "playing harder" is pretty anecdotal. Maybe Bird was just clumsier and fell more.

And, college means nothing when comparing all-time NBA greats. LeBron James' college exploits can't be used to his advantage... so they shouldn't for Bird either.

[SHAQisGOAT]

I've seen tons of highlights and breakdowns of his game. And I'm not even talking about his game really. It doesn't take a genius to spot greatness and do some research either. So I'm still waiting to hear why Bird is ranked higher. Is it just because of his arsenal of moves and IQ or was it dominating production and accolades? Some coaches and players are already saying Lebron > Bird. Why isn't Lebron ranked higher?


Good for you lol.


Well, Bird:
-has 2 more MVP's (Bird did more with what he had, I'm a big Shaq fan but I admit he was somewhat lazy plenty of times, also Bird has only 1 less all-defensive team than Shaq)
-was 7x top2 in MVP voting (3rd in MVP award shares all-time), 9 all-nba 1st to Shaq's 8, in less years of prime due to injury (in fact Bird was always nba 1st when healthy, and always top3 in MVP voting except once)
-had more impact from the get-go
-actually "made" teammates Bird, more than Shaq could ever dream of
-played in a tougher era, probably the GOAT era and GOAT conference, also the GOAT era for SF's (Bird's position in his best years), and had more superstar competition throughout the years

And again, Shaq had a slight better peak and more longevity but Bird's play was bond to get to him and he didn't have 00's medicine, plus Bird was more versatile and all-around, could easily "do" more than Shaq on a basketball court while geling with any player/style.
Plus Bird is not close to the best longevity-wise but he has 8 (healthy) years putting up 25/10/6/2/1 on 50/38/88 (and similar in the playoffs) while collecting plenty of accolades and awards. And he has 3 years as a shell, with career ending injuries, that would be career years for most players. At his absolute best from 84 to 88 he was putting up 27/10/7/2/1 on 51/40/90 (and close in the post-season), with tremendous impact, winning 3 straight MVP's, making 4 straight Finals, 2 FMVP's, while battling some injuries and even carrying the team plenty.

So, those are the reasons.


Who? Mark Jackson? :oldlol:


bird dominate in a more difficult time


In an era where he played against Magic Johnson, Kareem, Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Julius Erving, et al...

Bird finished in the top 2 for MVP voting 7 times. Throw in a top 3 finish. Top 4 finish... and it's pretty impressive, considering he only played 12 "healthy" seasons.

Bird is slowly becoming one of those guys whose legend was virtually unquestioned during his playing career... but has been tarnished with time as more people who didn't see him play join the discussion.


Damn it's annoying when people use "longevity" as a case against Bird. Dude completed College and therefore came into the NBA later than most, and hustled more than any other superstar in history. Went for every loose ball, dived on the ground whenever it was required, basically put his body on the line every game. Still managed to play at a spectacularly high level after injuries hit and his body could barely cope anymore and carved out a 15 year career (including college) that rivals anyone's. The fact he played as long as he did when he played as hard as he did should be something in his favour, not against him.


Well said.

[SHAQisGOAT]

To be fair, "playing harder" is pretty anecdotal. Maybe Bird was just clumsier and fell more.

And, college means nothing when comparing all-time NBA greats. LeBron James' college exploits can't be used to his advantage... so they shouldn't for Bird either.


No, he just arguably hustled more than any other superstar in NBA history. "Clumsier?" :rolleyes:


Well if Bird played in this era he would probably be in the NBA at an earlier age, plus "better" medicine.

[colts19]

I will always go with the guy who played hard every game, over the guy who took games off, was fat and lazy. Not to mention hurt his team in the end of games cause he couldn't make a free throw.

[ArbitraryWater]

Peak Shaq > Peak Bird on both ends of the floor without a doubt.

But all-time lists aren't just about peaks, so I'd go with Bird.

The thing is, Shaq's prime and longevity beat's Bird as well. I was like "wtf" when I first realized it makes absolutely no sense to have Bird over Shaq all time :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

Well, I was unsure until I read your post.

Now, I'm convinced. Obviously. Great job.


:roll:

So easy

[AbeVigodaLive]

No, he just arguably hustled more than any other superstar in NBA history. "Clumsier?" :rolleyes:


Well if Bird played in this era he would probably be in the NBA at an earlier age, plus "better" medicine.


I was being slightly facetious to show you that there is no feasible way to gauge how "hard" some guy played or "hustled."

I'm sure Kevin Ollie worked hard and hustled too. So what...

How is that relevant? How do you measure it?

[Bernie Nips]

To be fair, "playing harder" is pretty anecdotal. Maybe Bird was just clumsier and fell more.

And, college means nothing when comparing all-time NBA greats. LeBron James' college exploits can't be used to his advantage... so they shouldn't for Bird either.

So because LeBron DECIDED to not go to college, Larry's college career should be dismissed? What sort of argument is that? "Longevity" is harder to have when you're starting 4 years later than people you're being compared to.

Also, for playing harder:

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

[AbeVigodaLive]

So because LeBron DECIDED to not go to college, Larry's college career should be dismissed? What sort of argument is that? "Longevity" is harder to have when you're starting 4 years later than people you're being compared to.

Also, for playing harder:

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


So, James' NBA career should be compared to a guy who did well in college?

That's just as silly, isn't it? I get that many of today's players are simply going to win the longevity comparison because they started earlier and have better access to nutrition, medicine, performance-"aiding" substances, et al.

But it is what it is. You can't just bring up Bird beating up on guys who played for Bradley or Southern Illinois to prop him up. If we add college exploits when comparing NBA careers... Christian Laettner starts looking pretty damn good too.

As for the hustling stuff... we've spent too much time on it already. Throwing in a youtube highlight reel isn't going to do anything.

[ILLsmak]

Love Bird, but Shaq is better. I wish I could see them both on the same team. Unfortunately, it'll never be about who is 'better' it'll be about accomplishments and, taking everything into context, Bird ranks higher all time.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

So, James' NBA career should be compared to a guy who did well in college?

That's just as silly, isn't it? I get that many of today's players are simply going to win the longevity comparison because they started earlier and have better access to nutrition, medicine, performance-"aiding" substances, et al.

But it is what it is. You can't just bring up Bird beating up on guys who played for Bradley or Southern Illinois to prop him up. If we add college exploits when comparing NBA careers... Christian Laettner starts looking pretty damn good too.

As for the hustling stuff... we've spent too much time on it already. Throwing in a youtube highlight reel isn't going to do anything.

lol how many mvps does CLAT have? How many rings did he win as first option? Bad comparison. Wanna pull out Kareem, sure, then yea I think you do take college into account. That's why Kareem is prolly the GOAT, the college dominance puts him over the top.

-Smak

[AbeVigodaLive]

lol how many mvps does CLAT have? How many rings did he win as first option? Bad comparison. Wanna pull out Kareem, sure, then yea I think you do take college into account. That's why Kareem is prolly the GOAT, the college dominance puts him over the top.

-Smak



You guys take everything pretty literally around here. (I'm not really comparing Laettner with Shaq or Bird or Kareem as equals for chrissakes. I'm saying he had a marginal NBA career, but if you include his exploits at another inferior level... it looks a lot better.)

How do you compare a guy beating up on guys who are barely good enough for D1... when comparing their exploits competing vs. the very best players who have ever played basketball at the highest levels?

Imagine you're a professional writer called into your editor's office for a performance review. Do you bring your senior thesis as proof that you deserves a raise? Or as proof that you deserve more money than the guy in the office next to you?

[Bernie Nips]

So, James' NBA career should be compared to a guy who did well in college?

That's just as silly, isn't it? I get that many of today's players are simply going to win the longevity comparison because they started earlier and have better access to nutrition, medicine, performance-"aiding" substances, et al.

But it is what it is. You can't just bring up Bird beating up on guys who played for Bradley or Southern Illinois to prop him up. If we add college exploits when comparing NBA careers... Christian Laettner starts looking pretty damn good too.

As for the hustling stuff... we've spent too much time on it already. Throwing in a youtube highlight reel isn't going to do anything.

I'm not saying compare Bird's college career to other's NBA careers, I'm saying take it into account when judging "longevity". Sheesh, it's not hard.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I'm not saying compare Bird's college career to other's NBA careers, I'm saying take it into account when judging "longevity". Sheesh, it's not hard.


Of course, you take into account that Bird started at 23. And a guy like James started at 18.

It's one of those subtle contextual things that you consider when comparing great players from different eras.

You just don't give Bird credit for dominating in college. It's largely irrelevant. We cool?