Would you rather have 10 years of Bird or 16 years of Duncan?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Bird played 12 seasons, however in 89 he only played 6 games, in his last year he was done, only played 45 games and I think he only played a few games in the playoffs..

I think i'd take Duncan, that doesn't necessarily mean i think Duncan> Bird as a player, (because I don't)..

but when building a team if you have two top 10 GOATS to choose from, I'm going to take the guy who will give me 16 years over the guy who will give me 10.

Who would you take?

[T_L_P]

I look at it like this:

Bird had more help and Duncan faced easier competition.

After arriving at this point I would choose Duncan, because of the longevity which this thread is based on.

Personally, my rankings go like this:

4. Duncan
5. Shaq
6. Bird

[DMAVS41]

The answer to that is Duncan and it's not close...


Duncan vs Bird is obviously close in all time rankings and just as basketball players, but Duncan's longevity is just too much for Bird in comparison

[bdreason]

Duncan.

[TheMarkMadsen]

I look at it like this:

Bird had more help and Duncan faced easier competition.

After arriving at this point I would choose Duncan, because of the longevity which this thread is based on.

Personally, my rankings go like this:

4. Duncan
5. Shaq
6. Bird

yeah it's not about where you rank these two as players it's who would you take in a draft

I'm assuming you're taking Duncan

I think there is an argument for both players, looking forward to some posters that are knowledgeable about the 80's..

To be fair, Bird did spend 4 years in college, which obviously takes away from his longevity, Wasn't that required at the time?

[Micku]

I'm going to ignore who'll be their coach, teammates, and modern day medical.

In terms of competing for championships for a long time, Duncan because he last longer at his level of play on the floor.

But I do think Bird is the more exciting player and will generate more money, thus would be better for business. Prime to prime, Bird is the easier sell. And Bird would be winning championships too.

So...maybe Bird for money reasons? Do you think you can make more money with 10 years of Bird than you would with 16 years of Duncan?

[D.J.]

You're comparing 16 years of consistent ball with no real injuries versus 10 years of probably slightly better ball but significant back problems from that point on. Bird's slight advantage as a player doesn't make up for Duncan's significant edge in terms of longevity.

[T_L_P]

yeah it's not about where you rank these two as players it's who would you take in a draft

I'm assuming you're taking Duncan

I think there is an argument for both players, looking forward to some posters that are knowledgeable about the 80's..

To be fair, Bird did spend 4 years in college, which obviously takes away from his longevity, Wasn't that required at the time?

Yeah, my all-time list is my list of, "Who would I take in a draft?"

Duncan did spend 4 years at college too though :cheers:

[fpliii]

Yeah, my all-time list is my list of, "Who would I take in a draft?"

Duncan did spend 4 years at college too though :cheers:
Same. Not big on accolades (other than winning championships as a key guy), or random seasons as a non-star.

[STATUTORY]

2 decades of kobe

[ProfessorMurder]

I don't care, I take Bird.

[Milbuck]

Duncan. Switch Bird with Duncan on those Celtics, and replace McHale with a PG/SG/SF of equal talent & skill, and I think Duncan would have 4-5 rings.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Depends.. are both healthy? With no back ailments, I'd take Bird without having to think twice.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Depends.. are both healthy? With no back ailments, I'd take Bird without having to think twice.

yeah they're both healthy, but Bird still only play as long as he did in real life..

Bird was the better scorer, better passer, better play maker, equal at rebounding

[Railgun]

yeah they're both healthy, but Bird still only play as long as he did in real life..

Bird was the better scorer, better passer, better play maker, equal at rebounding
how were they equal at rebounding...

[Smoke117]

I look at it like this:

Bird had more help and Duncan faced easier competition.

After arriving at this point I would choose Duncan, because of the longevity which this thread is based on.

Personally, my rankings go like this:

4. Duncan
5. Shaq
6. Bird

That is true that Bird faced much better competition. I think I would rather have 10 years of Bird because Bird in his first 9 years was an absolute monster. (it was his 10th season that he hurt his back and only played 6 games, so you cant' really go with 10 years) Duncan though around his 8-10 years started to decline from the super elite player he started out as and was starting to deal with injuries while Ginobili and Parker took on a heavier load as offensive players. His Longevity is amazing, but Larry in his first 9 years is the definitive better player compared to Duncan and his first 9 seasons. I'll take the better player, who won three back to back MVP's and possibly had his best season during his 9th season before he ****ed up his back in 89 myself.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

yeah they're both healthy, but Bird still only play as long as he did in real life..

Bird was the better scorer, better passer, better play maker, equal at rebounding

Well considering his back derailed his longevity, I am once again, taking Larry :oldlol:

[navy]

That is true that Bird faced much better competition.
He also had much more stacked teams when he won.

[SHAQisGOAT]

If Bird had more advanced medicine (same as Duncan) his career would've probably lasted longer. He was still really good at 35, playing with career ending injuries that left him somewhat overweight, unable to practice much and with little mobility, plus he never depended much on athleticism, was incredibly skilled, really tall and strong, so imagine the type of longevity he could've had at what level, something even similar to someone like Duncan. The injuries had to happen with his type of physicaly play, hustle and commitment, though, plus I've heard that even not playing basketball his back would've still ended screwed up.. but with medicine of nowadays, he could've lasted longer.

I'm gonna suppose we're not talking about every year at their best level but rather Bird's 1st 9 seasons vs Duncan's past 16 seasons... If so I'll probably take Bird; we're talking about 9 seasons averaging 25/10/6/2/1, with 4 peak seasons at around 28/10/7/2/1 on 51/41/90, instant greatness from the get-go turning a franchise around, unreal impact on the team, beastly overall with all the intangibles in the world, every season making all-nba 1st, only once out of the top3 in MVP voting and only twice out of the top2, some terrific playoff runs and leading teams to rings against amazing competition, he had some great teammates but was also playing in arguably the goat era on the goat conference, and on the goat era for SF's... That's too much to pass on, even for 6 more seasons of past-his-peak Duncan, which is still really good so that makes this extremely tough/close. And both had a tremendous primes but Bird's above there. It's very close and if I'll think more about it I can even change my mind but I'll say Bird.. just too much not to go with.

If in any way possible we could've had either player always at their best, it would be tough af as well because peak Bird > peak Duncan, but I would've gone with Duncan because his prime was also amazing and 6 more seasons is too much to go against.

[secund2nun]

16 of Duncan. If Duncan played for the Lakers, Celtics, or Knicks he would be ranked just as high as Bird. That's what a big market does for your legacy.

[Pushxx]

Bird.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Well considering his back derailed his longevity, I am once again, taking Larry :oldlol:

did you miss the part where I said Bird was better at a lot of things?

Don't know what the loling is about

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

did you miss the part where I said Bird was better at a lot of things?

Don't know what the loling is about

You misunderstood me. Without "injuries" I find any other answer to be laughable.. but thats just me :confusedshrug:

[TheMarkMadsen]

You misunderstood me. Without "injuries" I find any other answer to be laughable.. but thats just me :confusedshrug:


ohh i got ya :cheers:

[SHAQisGOAT]

He also had much more stacked teams when he won.

What he did also "makes" people think that way. We can't forget..

The Celtics had the 2nd worst record in the league (and no tanking because Bird was already drafted, teams didn't do that to today's levels, as well) and were hitting rock bottom as a franchise before Larry got there, and with Bird and pretty much the same core roster they ended up with the best record and making the ECF.

In Bird's sophomore season, Cowens was gone and they got Robert Parish, who was never viewed as much with the Warriors and was already 27, and Bird led them to a championship while majorly outplaying MVP Julius Erving in the "real" Finals, the ECF, plus he should've gotten that FMVP in the Finals.

Look at the 1984 Playoffs, look at what Bird's teammates were doing in the regular-season and how they were really underperforming in the post-season.. Bird led the team in points, rebounds, assists, steals, FG% and FT%, leading them all the way against great competition, think of how unreal is that, and he did more of the same in the Finals while they won over a better team on paper, that was playing better.

In 1986, healthy with a crazy roster, Bird at his peak just unreal, leading the team clicking on all levels he did what he had to.. leading arguably the GOAT team and destroying everyone in their way throughout the year, only losing once at home.
Lebron joined a stacked-ass roster and look at what happened in his 1st year, they never dominated like those C's against worse competition, just an example.

In 1988 they went 57-25 and made the ECF taking the Pistons to 6, while Bird was already dealing with all the "issues". In 1989 he was out with injury, and they went 42-40, getting swept in the 1st round, plus Reggie Lewis started his prime that year. Bird returns in 1990, not at the same level, and they still improve to 52-30 almost getting through the 1st round, following year they get 56W and reach the ECSF, with Bird far from his best level.
MJ retired and the Bulls won 2 less games, almost making the ECF, for example.
.......

And look at the teams he had to face, or the superstars at the top like Kareem, Magic, Moses, Erving, MJ, Wilkins, King......

-Tiny was a shell of his former self with the Celtics, after one tore and one ruptured ACL. Chances at HoF still but not even close to getting in so quickly if he never played with the C's and Bird.
-Parish, like I've said above, was never viewed as all that with the Warriors and he was already 26 or so. You can say he wouldn't be a HoF without playing alongside Larry with the Celtics, as some other really good centers in the 80s.
-Walton was still serviceable but was not even close to his best level, after serious injuries, and only played with the Celtics for one season.
-DJ's career was in "bad form" before he joined the Celtics, and, after he did, that helped to really cement his legacy, to make HoF.
-People would probably never even hear of Maxwell nowadays if he never played alongside Bird.
-McHale was drafted in 1980 and only coming to his own by 1984, he had an amazing peak but didn't last long due to injury. I reckon he would've been a HoF'er on most situations, at the least if his prime/peak lasted longer.
...........

Yet people many times only know how to say "Bird played with McHale, Parish, DJ, Tiny, Maxwell, Walton......", neglecting what he/they had to face in terms of teams and top superstars, how they were before him, what he did when he got there, what he "built", his factual unreal impact on the team, what he did for the franchise, what he "did" for those teammates, how he led them in numerous situations, and the level he was playing at...

[LAZERUSS]

Any GM would trade their eternal souls just for the second choice in that scenario...

[Mr. Incredible]

Duncan. The best PF to ever play.

[The-Legend-24]

Give me 10 years of any player over Duncan.

Except Wilt, that nikka was a straight up choker.

[LAZERUSS]

Give me 10 years of any player over Duncan.

Except Wilt, that nikka was a straight up choker.

This has to rank among the dumbest posts in ISH history...and that is saying a lot.

[T_L_P]

Give me 10 years of any player over Duncan.

Except Wilt, that nikka was a straight up choker.

You have so much contempt for him. Yet whenever you get called on it you run away.

Typical ISH troll.

[Harison]

Bird was more dominant player against much better competition. 10 years of that trumps 16 years of TD.

Malone had better longevity than Timmy too, so what? I'm not taking him over Tim, nor I'm taking Tim over Bird.

Or lets take this scenario - swap TD and Bird. How many rings do Celtics get? Several IMO, and TD gets no MVP (there were more dominant players to choose from back then).

How Bird would do with Spurs and Pop? He would dominate even more than he did in the Golden age. I'm speaking about MVPs pretty much every single season for those 10 years, and ~5 rings.

[T_L_P]

Bird was more dominant player against much better competition. 10 years of that trumps 16 years of TD.

Malone had better longevity than Timmy too, so what? I'm not taking him over Tim, nor I'm taking Tim over Bird.

Or lets take this scenario - swap TD and Bird. How many rings do Celtics get? Several IMO, and TD gets no MVP (there were more dominant players to choose from back then).

How Bird would do with Spurs and Pop? He would dominate even more than he did in the Golden age. I'm speaking about MVPs pretty much every single season for those 10 years, and ~5 rings.

Bird gets drafted in 97, plays until 07.

Which years does Bird win his 5?

[B4llin]

16 of Duncan. If Duncan played for the Lakers, Celtics, or Knicks he would be ranked just as high as Bird. That's what a big market does for your legacy.


San Antonio being a "Small Market" is a ****ing cop out created by the NBA to argue that small markets do have a chance at dominating in the finals. San Antonio is a big city in one of the biggest states in the U.S.

If you could pick the biggest market outside of the other 3 or 4 that have already dominated the playoffs for decades, San Antonio would be the next biggest.

[Harison]

Bird gets drafted in 97, plays until 07.

Which years does Bird win his 5?

97 lose against Bulls, although chances to win are higher than Jazz'.

Win in 98, 99.

'00 and 01 lose against peaking LA.

Win in 02 and 03 against imploding LA.

Win in 04.

Potentially in '05, it was a shoot out match by Dirk and then Wade, I would bet in such case on Bird.

Win in 06.

Lose in 07 vs Celtics, although Cs wouldnt contain Bird like they could Kobe, so its again question mark.

So 7 rings max, at least 5 would be expected.

[elementally morale]

Bird. Easily.
I also take Shaw and Hakeem ahead of Duncan. He is a great player and a great person, but basketball-wise he is no more than a glorified David Robinson. Slyghtly better than Ewing. But no Dream.

[Jacks3]

97 lose against Bulls, although chances to win are higher than Jazz'.

Win in 98, 99.

'00 and 01 lose against peaking LA.

Win in 02 and 03 against imploding LA.

Win in 04.

Potentially in '05, it was a shoot out match by Dirk and then Wade, I would bet in such case on Bird.

Win in 06.

Lose in 07 vs Celtics, although Cs wouldnt contain Bird like they could Kobe, so its again question mark.

So 7 rings max, at least 5 would be expected.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Crafty]

Jesus, the answear is big man man, always.

[DMV2]

I'd take Bird because of his impact on the game.

I love Duncan too, but sadly I think people will only talk about his numbers when he retires. Duncan is still 1A/1B tied with Shaq for the best player since Jordan.

It's extremely weird that I'm picking a guy who I never seen over a guy I've seen play. That's just shows how big of an impact Bird was for the game.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Bird was more dominant player against much better competition. 10 years of that trumps 16 years of TD.

Malone had better longevity than Timmy too, so what? I'm not taking him over Tim, nor I'm taking Tim over Bird.

Or lets take this scenario - swap TD and Bird. How many rings do Celtics get? Several IMO, and TD gets no MVP (there were more dominant players to choose from back then).

How Bird would do with Spurs and Pop? He would dominate even more than he did in the Golden age. I'm speaking about MVPs pretty much every single season for those 10 years, and ~5 rings.


Agreed.

Not to mention, more advanced medicine could've prolonged Bird's career.

[f0und]

i'd take bird.

sure if all you care about is winning, then duncan is the more logical choice. but from the perspective of a basketball fan, for me its bird easily. the legacy he left on the game of basketball cant be touched by duncan.

[SHAQisGOAT]

sure if all you care about is winning, then duncan is the more logical choice.

:coleman:

[f0und]

:coleman:

winning more over a long period of time, to be exact.

[Big#50]

Duncan because defense.

[joeyjoejoe]

Duncan if I want more rings or bird if I want more hype and $, peak vs peak is very debatable so accounting for longevity its duncan

[T_L_P]

Bird. Easily.
I also take Shaw and Hakeem ahead of Duncan. He is a great player and a great person, but basketball-wise he is no more than a glorified David Robinson. Slyghtly better than Ewing. But no Dream.

What did Brian Shaw ever do fgt? :roll:

[iznogood]

I think I'd rather have 10 years of Bird than any number of years of my own life.

[Carbine]

Bird had played 897 games. Duncan will have played 1250

That's 40% more games.

You take Duncan.

[Crown&Coke]

I love both guys and I love to hate both guys.

In this scenario I'm going Duncan for 16. I will always remember how outstanding Tim was for a long block of NBA time. Big men with post skills, defense and very little limitations are diamonds in a game full of fugazys.

But if the question is Duncan 10 years vs Bird 10 years. I will switch my pick to Bird. That man was everything you want in a ball player. He would choke out a hungry pit bull to win a game. Would come back with a missing arm and one eye hanging out the socket and say it was worth it, and he wouldn't be lying thats how he probably would have felt.

There is clearly no wrong answer imo

[mentallooser]

I love both guys and I love to hate both guys.

In this scenario I'm going Duncan for 16. I will always remember how outstanding Tim was for a long block of NBA time. Big men with post skills, defense and very little limitations are diamonds in a game full of fugazys.

But if the question is Duncan 10 years vs Bird 10 years. I will switch my pick to Bird. That man was everything you want in a ball player. He would choke out a hungry pit bull to win a game. Would come back with a missing arm and one eye hanging out the socket and say it was worth it, and he wouldn't be lying thats how he probably would have felt.

There is clearly no wrong answer imo

You gotta go with 16 years of Duncan. Too consistent over such a long period of time with many years of pure greatness.

[sportjames23]

9erempiree wishes he had one night of Kobe.

[VIntageNOvel]

9erempiree wishes he had one night of Kobe.

night?

try hour

[Rose'sACL]

I wish I had one night of MJ.

Fixed

[sportjames23]

I want sportjames23's cawk


:biggums:

[Crown&Coke]

You gotta go with 16 years of Duncan. Too consistent over such a long period of time with many years of pure greatness.

The consistency is simply amazing. Mix that in with the fact he played slow down kick you in the teeth bball early, then they went to the faster paced system post 2008 I think it was. Then couple that with the style of NBA that went from low block, mid-post from the early 2000's, to now with the pick n roll dominant NBA. His defense didn't take a step backwards. Dude is a monster, and his teammates all love the crap out of him.

[oarabbus]

10 years of Bird or 16 of Duncan? Well, 16 years of Duncan. Bird is better but not 6-years of seasons' worth better.

If it's between an equal amount of Duncan/Bird, I choose Bird.

[T_L_P]

The consistency is simply amazing. Mix that in with the fact he played slow down kick you in the teeth bball early, then they went to the faster paced system post 2008 I think it was. Then couple that with the style of NBA that went from low block, mid-post from the early 2000's, to now with the pick n roll dominant NBA. His defense didn't take a step backwards. Dude is a monster, and his teammates all love the crap out of him.

Definitely. He won two titles in the grind-it-out, defense-beats-offense era. Then he won one during all the rule changes. Then he won another when it was all about quick guards. Whatever he was asked to do, he'd do it, without hesitation.

[Crown&Coke]

Definitely. He won two titles in the grind-it-out, defense-beats-offense era. Then he won one during all the rule changes. Then he won another when it was all about quick guards. Whatever he was asked to do, he'd do it, without hesitation.

thats really the thing that makes me love the guy as a player.

Mark Jackson was talking about when he played, he used to torcher the opposing PG on the block. Before the tip Tim says "I got Jackson" and Mark thought he was joking, I mean what 4 man is going to check a pg? And guess what, he wasn't joking. Sure as hell Jackson didn't try to post that game

[ThePhantomCreep]

I wouldn't trade Bird for 6 extra 15/10 seasons from Duncan, no.

[ThePhantomCreep]

Bird at 35, with a ruined back and two bad wheels averaged 20/9/7.

Duncan at the same age averaged 13/8.

That is all.

[riseagainst]

10 years of top 5 GOAT peak vs 16 years of elite big man current to the league. Yeah i'd take 10 years of Bird and it's not really close.

[r0drig0lac]

I love both guys and I love to hate both guys.

In this scenario I'm going Duncan for 16. I will always remember how outstanding Tim was for a long block of NBA time. Big men with post skills, defense and very little limitations are diamonds in a game full of fugazys.

But if the question is Duncan 10 years vs Bird 10 years. I will switch my pick to Bird. That man was everything you want in a ball player. He would choke out a hungry pit bull to win a game. Would come back with a missing arm and one eye hanging out the socket and say it was worth it, and he wouldn't be lying thats how he probably would have felt.

There is clearly no wrong answer imo
:applause:

[RidonKs]

if your top ten includes

jordan
magic
bird
wilt
russell
hakeem
shaq
duncan
kareem
lebron

you would be out of your mind even to consider taking your #1 guy for 10 years over your #10 guy for 16. this is the cream of the crop and the marginal differences between these guys game by game is negligible at best. assuming of course the 16 year dude is productive throughout, as duncan has been.

it'd be a gut wrenching decision to take timmy over mj in that scenario but i'd still do it because i'd be stupid not to if the criteria is strictly performance on the court and in the locker room

six years is a loooooong time

[T_L_P]

10 years of top 5 GOAT peak vs 16 years of elite big man current to the league. Yeah i'd take 10 years of Bird and it's not really close.

If he seriously had the GOAT 5 year stretch, I'd imagine him winning it all 5 times, like Shaq did during his peak.

Also, Duncan's peak is one of the greatest. He proved he could win with very little, something Bird never really did.

[Big#50]

97 lose against Bulls, although chances to win are higher than Jazz'.

Win in 98, 99.

'00 and 01 lose against peaking LA.

Win in 02 and 03 against imploding LA.

Win in 04.

Potentially in '05, it was a shoot out match by Dirk and then Wade, I would bet in such case on Bird.

Win in 06.

Lose in 07 vs Celtics, although Cs wouldnt contain Bird like they could Kobe, so its again question mark.

So 7 rings max, at least 5 would be expected.
You forget your meds??

[SHAQisGOAT]

If he seriously had the GOAT 5 year stretch, I'd imagine him winning it all 5 times, like Shaq did during his peak.

Also, Duncan's peak is one of the greatest. He proved he could win with very little, something Bird never really did.

GOAT 5 year stretch???? He said top5 GOAT peak, which Bird definitely had (along with Shaq, MJ, Kareem and Wilt, imo).
Oh and during that peak he won 3 MVP's in a row (with Magic, Kareem, Moses, peak King and rookie MJ.. in the league), made 4 Finals in a row - didn't win one because of injured hand and elbow, and another one he was going against one of the (few) greatest teams of time with a broken down team.

:oldlol: Stop it please.
You're going to neglect the fact that Boston had the 2nd worst record in the league before Bird, and then he arrives and with the same core roster they have the best record and make the ECF? Then by his sophomore season, Cowens was gone and Parish (who was already 27 and never viewed as much) was the major addition, he leads them to a ring..
Or how about the 1984 Playoffs? Most of his teammates were underperforming by their standards (go look at it instead of just looking at names majorly known mostly because of Bird) while Larry was playing like a beast leading them to that ring.. A proof of that, just an example, is that he was leading them in points, rebounds, assists, steals, FG% and FT%.. Just think about how crazy that is, for a second. And in the Finals they faced the showtime Lakers with Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Cooper, McAdoo, Rambis, Wilkes or Scott.
............
And that man played in arguably the GOAT decade, in the GOAT conference.
Keep underrating and saying ignorant shit though :rolleyes: :facepalm
Bird's peak > Duncan's peak

[fpliii]

The one thing about Bird's 5 year peak, is that in the last year (88), which was perhaps his best regular season, he had those bone spurs against the Pistons. So really, you're getting 5 GOAT level regular seasons and four playoffs (especially since today he'd be taking more threes, and would play the four much more often since there aren't many teams with two all-star bigs), but the final year in the playoffs, not the same player.

I think it's a tough question. Both played in super tough conferences (80s East and 00s West are possibly the GOATs).

[JellyBean]

Longevity. I would want to have that 16 years like Duncan.

[ThePhantomCreep]

If he seriously had the GOAT 5 year stretch, I'd imagine him winning it all 5 times, like Shaq did during his peak.

Also, Duncan's peak is one of the greatest. He proved he could win with very little, something Bird never really did.

Going through that noted powerhouse, the New Jersey Nets. Definitely comparable to facing Showtime three out of four years.

Don't even mention Shaq/Kobe either. That team was out of gas and had to scratch and claw to win 50 games. Even Horry clanked his last 25 or so three-point attempts.

[Sarcastic]

Bird is a better player than Duncan, by a decent margin, if that's the question.

[KingBeasley08]

the one who didn't play in a weak era trololol

so Duncan

[ThePhantomCreep]

the one who didn't play in a weak era trololol

so Duncan

Duncan had a title run where he faced the Utah Jazz (remember them? I don't) in the WC Finals and the Cavs in the Finals.

That's the definition of creamy soft competition.

[ILLsmak]

I don't care, I take Bird.

yea I think Bird would do more work in Today's game, too.

-Smak

[Doranku]

97 lose against Bulls, although chances to win are higher than Jazz'.

Win in 98, 99.

'00 and 01 lose against peaking LA.

Win in 02 and 03 against imploding LA.

Win in 04.

Potentially in '05, it was a shoot out match by Dirk and then Wade, I would bet in such case on Bird.

Win in 06.

Lose in 07 vs Celtics, although Cs wouldnt contain Bird like they could Kobe, so its again question mark.

So 7 rings max, at least 5 would be expected.

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

Are you out of your mind? I'd be shocked if the Spurs with Bird instead of Duncan even won one ring. You think Parker/Ginobili/Bird is winning SEVEN rings?!

They literally have zero inside presence. Shaq would annihilate them every single year. It'd be the equivalent to prime Shaq playing against the current Heat. He would probably average 35+ :oldlol:

His best chance would be in the late 90's when David Robinson was still a force. He has no chance of winning a ring from 2000-on imo.

[KevinNYC]

If Bird had more advanced medicine (same as Duncan) his career would've probably lasted longer.

In the bird/magic book, they mention that Bird had congenital back issues. That he was much more prone to the injuries becoming chronic than other people. The pathway in his spine that carries the nerves was narrower than usual. Also his season-ending injury was due to bone spurs. I don't know if we have cure for that. Though modern training might have made him more flexible.
I think I would rather have 10 years of Bird because Bird in his first 9 years was an absolute monster. (it was his 10th season that he hurt his back and only played 6 games, so you cant' really go with 10 years)

Bird had multiple back injuries going back to 1985 that just got worse, including Michael Jordan falling on him during an off season charity game.
The injury that caused him to only play 6 games one year was due to the bone spurs. He snapped both achilles tendons on one play.

[SHAQisGOAT]

In the bird/magic book, they mention that Bird had congenital back issues. That he was much more prone to the injuries becoming chronic than other people. The pathway in his spine that carries the nerves was narrower than usual. Also his season-ending injury was due to bone spurs. I don't know if we have cure for that. Though modern training might have made him more flexible.

Bird had multiple back injuries going back to 1985 that just got worse, including Michael Jordan falling on him during an off season charity game.
The injury that caused him to only play 6 games one year was due to the bone spurs. He snapped both achilles tendons on one play.

Yea, I've said this on my first post in this thread:


The injuries had to happen with his type of physicaly play, hustle and commitment, though, plus I've heard that even not playing basketball his back would've still ended screwed up.. but with medicine of nowadays, he could've lasted longer.

Not saying he would've, but considering everything (even what you've said) he could've.

[SHAQisGOAT]

:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

I'd be shocked if the Spurs with Bird instead of Duncan even won one ring. You think Parker/Ginobili/Bird is winning SEVEN rings?!


:biggums:

:roll:

7 is just too much, yea no doubt, but 5 is pretty plausible... Zero is one of the most absurd shit ever said :rolleyes: :facepalm

D-Rob was there at the start, Nesterovic was like 7' and could block shots, and of course let's not act like they couldn't or even wouldn't try to get a center to provide some inside presence, if they were really in need.

Let's also not forget or underrate the impact that Bird had on defense, before he really started to have those "issues".. Celtics went from one of the very worst defenses to one of the very best when he arrived (along with coach Fitch), with basically the same roster, no McHale or Parish even, while he led the league in DWS and was 6th in DRtg.
His crazy impact wasn't all about offense. Dude wasn't leading the league in DWS, several times, or at the top in DRtg for nothing, that's no fluke, you'll look at other forwards that have done that and you'll find the best defensive forwards ever.
Dude gets underrated in that regard. His IQ and awareness were off the charts, just a great team defender, really good defensive impact, averaged like 2 steals and 1 block per game, reacted very quickly, had great footwork and two of the quickest hands ever, never got lost on rotations, knew what to do, could draw charges and protect the paint even, good post-defender, more than held his own on the perimeter, before injuries, even being more of a PF.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEAZMT5t_U

[Anaximandro1]

16 years of Duncan?

10 years of Duncan offer more value than 10 years of Bird.


Regular Season -> it's close


Playoffs -> the real season starts

Tim Duncan -> His efficiency improves in the playoffs despite an increase in both the usage rate and the level of competition. (Higher PER, ORtg, TS%, AST%, ORB% and USG%)

Larry Bird -> His efficiency declines significantly in the playoffs. And what's even worse, his usage rate also declines significantly.

Duncan dominates the vast majority of statistical categories by a considerable margin. And Tim has more rings and FMVPs.

Duncan did more with less.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KNreoD_v2GA/U0jcXi83FgI/AAAAAAAACwY/5wBF64c43WQ/s1600/9.jpg


Jazz (1999), Lakers (2003) and Mavs (2007) were the favorites to win the NBA championship. The Spurs stole those championships. Always flying under the radar.

The Spurs also won in 2005.

Everything started on April 20, 1999 -> Spurs 83 - Jazz 69 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199904200UTA.html)

The Jazz (32-8) had beaten the Spurs (28-12) in eight of the last nine meetings. The Jazz had eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

The day the Spurs shook the monkey off its back, Duncan dropped 36 pt/10 rb/7blk on Malone's Jazz at Delta Center.

[DMAVS41]

I can't tell if Bird is being over-rated here or Duncan severely under-rated.

This hypothetical is not close.

Duncan vs Bird in their best years is debatable. I'd put peak Bird ever so slightly over peak Duncan, but honestly...it's really close to a wash.

And then you are giving me 6 extra years with a player that is a toss up on who's actually better to begin with? LOL...give me Duncan easily.


Also, Bird is not winning 5 titles. What?

What years? He's not winning 98 or 00 or 01 or 02. 03, maybe, but hardly a lock. 05 hardly a lock. 06 hardly a lock. 07 for sure. 08...nope. Well shit...that's 11 years right there.

Bird would win around 3 from 98 through 08...that is 11 years. He is not winning 5 ****ing titles during that time.

[ThePhantomCreep]

16 years of Duncan?

10 years of Duncan offer more value than 10 years of Bird.


Regular Season -> it's close


Playoffs -> the real season starts

Tim Duncan -> His efficiency improves in the playoffs despite an increase in both the usage rate and the level of competition. (Higher PER, ORtg, TS%, AST%, ORB% and USG%)

Larry Bird -> His efficiency declines significantly in the playoffs. And what's even worse, his usage rate also declines significantly.

Duncan dominates the vast majority of statistical categories by a considerable margin. And Tim has more rings and FMVPs.

Duncan did more with less.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KNreoD_v2GA/U0jcXi83FgI/AAAAAAAACwY/5wBF64c43WQ/s1600/9.jpg


Jazz (1999), Lakers (2003) and Mavs (2007) were the favorites to win the NBA championship. The Spurs stole those championships. Always flying under the radar.

The Spurs also won in 2005.

Everything started on April 20, 1999 -> Spurs 83 - Jazz 69 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199904200UTA.html)

The Jazz (32-8) had beaten the Spurs (28-12) in eight of the last nine meetings. The Jazz had eliminated the Spurs from the playoffs in 1994, 1996 and 1998.

The day the Spurs shook the monkey off its back, Duncan dropped 36 pt/10 rb/7blk on Malone's Jazz at Delta Center.

Yes, the Spurs quietly won in 1999 and 2003 when they had the best record in the NBA both times. :facepalm When were the Lakers favored? November?

Duncan had less help because it wasn't needed. He wasn't facing Showtime--he was going through the Knicks, Nets and Cavs in the Finals. Three of the worst Finals opponents of all-time. Duncan wasn't facing the Sixers, Pistons and Bucks in the CFs--more like the Sheed Blazers, Dirk-less Mavericks, and Williams/Boozer Jazz.

2005 was the only year when Duncan's teams ran into a non-cream puff Finals opponent. To his credit, the Spurs barely won, but Duncan's team was clearly stacked by that point.

[rmt]

Yes, the Spurs quietly won in 1999 and 2003 when they had the best record in the NBA both times. :facepalm When were the Lakers favored? November?

Duncan had less help because it wasn't needed. He wasn't facing Showtime--he was going through the Knicks, Nets and Cavs in the Finals. Three of the worst Finals opponents of all-time. Duncan wasn't facing the Sixers, Pistons and Bucks in the CFs--more like the Sheed Blazers, Dirk-less Mavericks, and Williams/Boozer Jazz.

2005 was the only year when Duncan's teams ran into a non-cream puff Finals opponent. To his credit, the Spurs barely won, but Duncan's team was clearly stacked by that point.

Really think about your statement, "Duncan had less help because it wasn't needed." Do you think he knew going in what competition would be in the playoffs? Did he have any control over his help or his competition? Or did he just go with: 2nd year players 20 year old Parker, SJax and rookie Manu. That's who he had and that's who he won with.

And don't pretend that the Lakers didn't win the previous year against a much less experienced Nets squad with rookie Richard Jefferson and 2nd year Kenyon Martin than what the Spurs faced the next year. I don't hear Laker fans putting down the Lakers' Finals against the Nets and they were much better after another year and Finals together vs the Spurs.