Why did Larry Bird regress so much in the playoffs? [Archive] - Page 2 - Message Board Basketball Forum

SHAQisGOAT

06-08-2014, 09:37 PM

In Bird's three regular seasons, in years in which he faced the Lakers (and Cooper) in the Finals... 27.0 ppg on a .513 FG%. In those three Finals... 25.2 ppg on a .460 FG%.

In Bird's regular season in '87-88, he averaged 29.9 ppg on a .527 FG%. In the '88 ECF's, and against the "Bad Boys"... 19.8 ppg on a .351 FG%. BTW, Magic then averaged 22 ppg on a .550 FG% against those same Pistons in the Finals.

If that is not a considered a MAJOR decline, then I certainly don't know what is.

BUT again, in his defense, those were great defensive teams and defenders. Just like MJ declining horribly in his first three series against the Bad Boys; or Shaq dropping like lead balloon in four of his five series against the Spurs in the early 00's; or KAJ's horrific decline against Wilt and Nate in his FIVE playoff series against them from '71 and '73...that is what elite defenses and defenders do.

And again...Wilt faced the EQUALS (if not MORESO...since it wasn't just Russell defending him, but the entire Celtics teams)...in 61 of his 98 playoff games in his prime from '60 thru '69.

Had those guys faced those same examples I gave you... in over 60% of their playoff games...their playoff numbers (and team success) would have fallen off the cliff.

Just reality my friend.

Let me ask you this, what was stopping Bird from destroying the Bad Boys, yet again in 1988 like he did in 1987, or at least something close to it??? :confusedshrug: He was even playing better in 1988 (carrying the load), yet he was not even REMOTELY close to doing what he did the previous year... Not trying to make excuses, he never made any and was out there playing when most wouldn't, but it's clear as day-light, he couldn't really play, dude needed back surgery and surgery to remove bone spurs in his ankles (what happened right after that series).. but keep mentioning that series only, and like that:rolleyes: :facepalm

:coleman:
Gonna act like 25.2 ppg on 46% (plus over 10 rpg and around 5 apg while shooting over 85% from FT and over 45% from 3, winning a series once) isn't really good? Especially in the Finals against one of the GOAT teams/dynasties, after getting through the GOAT conference (much better than the WC), and plenty of times with a worse team carrying the load..... :rolleyes: :facepalm
I don't even need to try and damper all of that by saying he had an injured right-hand and elbow in 1985 (you would be all over if it was Wilt) but let me ask you again, what was stopping him from murking LA again in 1985, like he did in 1984, or something close? Especially since his teammates were actually playing better and taking more load off of him in 85, while LA had a very similar team.

I've mentioned like 5 series in which he not only maintained his game at a much higher level but actually RAISED IT, big time, against some terrific defensive players and teams... You've mentioned 3 series in which he was below his standards, 1 where he was severely injured and another that he almost couldn't even play, but whatever... all I know is that if that was Wilt you would mention it countless times.

You just can't stop talking about Wilt and mentioning him in every thread? Pretty much every post you make as an agenda behind it to try and prop-up Wilt.. It ain't working, son. Now that's reality.

KevinNYC

06-08-2014, 09:41 PM

And this idiot thinks Bird was a second option in '81 despite finishing 2nd in the MVP voting and outplaying and outscoring MVP Julius Erving in the ECF.

To top it off he calls Bird a stat padder.:oldlol:

This guy is either trolling or a retard.
I'm pretty sure he's not being genuine. Otherwise he's an example of a mind deformed by bad message board arguments.

The whole first, second option is just kind of dumb when describing a team game. Bill Walton wasn't the top scorer on the 1977 Blazers. How many times did Russell lead the Celtics in scoring?

Who was the first option those early 70's Knicks teams?

KevinNYC

06-08-2014, 09:44 PM

I think people just put him in Top 4-8 just because he played against Magic, so his legend is bigger than his actual career. He is just automatically put close to Magic based on reputation.

Well, actually a lot of NBA watchers were saying Bird was the best ever in the mid 80's. A lot of that was the immediacy effect where you overate what you just saw. Magic's peak was a little behind Bird's, that is, Magic's reputation grew post 1986.

Rocketswin2013

06-08-2014, 09:49 PM

Graviton

06-08-2014, 09:58 PM

Champ

06-09-2014, 09:34 AM

I don't know why Bird is ranked so high(most have him in Top 5-8). Obviously he was good enough and watching all the interviews by all the All-Time Greats they consider him a legend. But strictly taking into account resume and accomplishments, I don't see how he is above Kobe, Shaq, Duncan or even Lebron.

3 MVPs, 3 Rings, 2 FMVPS, 9xAll NBA 1st Team, 12x All-Star. 23/10/6 on 47% playoff averages. Obviously his back injury held him back from accomplishing even more. But when you rank careers his falls short of most in Top 10.

I mean it all looks great, but I wouldn't put him above Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Shaq, Duncan or Russell. To me he seems to be in Lebron/Wilt/Kobe/Hakeem tier, elite players that won couple rings and were dominant but either didn't win enough or surpass expectations in the playoffs to be put above the other guys.

Kareem/Duncan/Shaq/Russell all won 4+ rings, were dominant big men that affected the game on both ends, had long primes and legendary peaks. Magic/Jordan both 5+ rings, one of a kind perimeter players that again affected the game in multiple ways. Years of consistent individual greatness in the regular season along with greatest playoff performances.

Idk how anyone objectively puts Bird above those 6 guys, he has no argument over any of them. 7-10 is where Bird should be with Kobe, Lebron and Wilt/Hakeem.

It all depends on what you value more - resume and rings or how good the player actually was/is with respect to their era.

BoutPractice

06-09-2014, 09:43 AM

I don't get it, we ranking careers based on resume or just individual skill/talent level?

If Bird didn't get injured and won couple more rings he would be Top 5 easily but since his career was cut short I can't put him above more accomplished players, even if he was individually better than some of them. Hakeem was probably best all around big men in history but nobody is putting him above Shaq, Duncan, Kareem, Russell or even Wilt.
This is why, as great as they were, both Bird and Magic's place among the 5 greatest players of all time is far from secure.

Bird has top 5 level of play but as the decades go by you can imagine several players topping his accolades. Magic has more trophies and individual achievements but it is easier to imagine 5 players being better than him at his best than it is for Bird. The two also had their careers cut short. Their careers have left opportunities for next generations to surpass them, whereas players like Wilt, Bill Russell and MJ did things that will most likely never happen again.

Champ

06-09-2014, 10:10 AM

Defense in the 80s was fυcking garbage. If you think otherwise, you're not living in reality. 80s defense was the equivalent of current centers. Weak era for that particular aspect of the game.

The game was different then. Offenses ran differently and defenses countered accordingly.

Is perimeter defense better now? No question, but it needs to be to counter guard-oriented offense and emphasis on the three. The floor's more spread out and the players are quicker, if not quite the ball movement.

Interior defense is another matter. Was is better in the '80s? That's hard to say, but it was more packed-in and congested around the basket, which forced offenses to work the ball around more and focus on mid-range shot opportunities.

LeBird

06-09-2014, 12:06 PM

jlauber didn't make it either.

Colts18 did and on another forum.

But yes, everything about it was right on.

Oh, haha that clown. :lol

The Celtics had two 50 win teams in 90 and 91. Hell they couldn't even beat the 45 win Knicks to get out of the first round. Even though, once again, they went into a series with homecourt advantage. Then they lost to the Pistons in 91 who in turn were swept by the Bulls. And guess what????? They had homecourt advantage again.

The Bulls ended all three great 80s teams in 91. They beat the Pistons who beat the Celtics. Then beat the Lakers.

Dont ever go into any thread making the accusation that the Bulls couldnt win in the 80s. Your boys weren't even competitive againt the so so teams of the early 90s.

By 90-91 Bird and basically any vestige of the Celtics of the 80s were gone or crippled.

Once again, you're posting something without adding the context. This is a disingenuous way to argue. It also makes you look like a ****ing idiot.

Pointguard

06-09-2014, 12:11 PM

LeBron dominating in his all-time great run....

Anyways...Yeah Bird was definitely better than Magic IMO. While Magic was marginally better on offense, Bird had a takeover a game ability that Johnson just didn't have...Or at least have as much...Also, Magic was nowhere near the defender bird was...

LeBron > both though...

Magic had waaaay more control of a game than Bird. When Boston played LA, and Boston was the most professional disciplined team in the league, probably ever, they played Magic's game. Magic controlled the pace of the game and tired them out. Magic was also the most clutch scorer in those games as well. And Magic made shots at a much better clip than Bird - play offs or regular season or H2H. Ainge shot 4 for 24 in the 2 elimination games of '85 and '87 and Bird 37% because of playing Magic's game. the only time the Celtics beat the Lakers was when Magic's head was someplace else. If Magic played like he usually played Boston definitely looses that series too despite the Air condition game and the tackle game.

The main thing holding Lebron down is that you don't know who you are getting most of the time in the playoffs. If he controlled the game like Magic did SA would be done in five for sure. Lebron can't push the game into his pace or favor like Magic could. I love Lebron's game but he's not always in control and plays subpar more than he should.

Champ

06-09-2014, 12:38 PM

Magic had waaaay more control of a game than Bird. When Boston played LA, and Boston was the most professional disciplined team in the league, probably ever, they played Magic's game. Magic controlled the pace of the game and tired them out. Magic was also the most clutch scorer in those games as well. And Magic made shots at a much better clip than Bird - play offs or regular season or H2H. Ainge shot 4 for 24 in the 2 elimination games of '85 and '87 and Bird 37% because of playing Magic's game. the only time the Celtics beat the Lakers was when Magic's head was someplace else. If Magic played like he usually played Boston definitely looses that series too despite the Air condition game and the tackle game.

The main thing holding Lebron down is that you don't know who you are getting most of the time in the playoffs. If he controlled the game like Magic did SA would be done in five for sure. Lebron can't push the game into his pace or favor like Magic could. I love Lebron's game but he's not always in control and plays subpar more than he should.

Not sure what you mean. Sometimes Magic controlled their head-to-head contests, and sometimes it was Bird. They did it in different ways. They were certainly both capable of controlling games and did it on a regular basis. Player and recorded accounts in the 30-plus years since confirm this.

I don't think Ainge and Bird shot poorly in those two games because of playing "Magic's game": it was because they missed open shots. It happens.

BTW, Magic's shooting was worse than Bird's in both of the games you referenced.

It's a myth that the Lakers "gave away" the '84 Finals, when the reality is, each game was competitive and winnable for both sides, with the exception of Game 3 (which the Lakers won in a blowout) and Game 5 (in which the Celtics returned the favor).

The Celtics made plays down the stretch to win both Games 2 and 4, while the Lakers did the same in Game 6 (even though the Celtics controlled most of the game).

It was an evenly-matched, competitive series.

Champ

06-09-2014, 12:44 PM

This is why, as great as they were, both Bird and Magic's place among the 5 greatest players of all time is far from secure.

Bird has top 5 level of play but as the decades go by you can imagine several players topping his accolades. Magic has more trophies and individual achievements but it is easier to imagine 5 players being better than him at his best than it is for Bird. The two also had their careers cut short. Their careers have left opportunities for next generations to surpass them, whereas players like Wilt, Bill Russell and MJ did things that will most likely never happen again.

Good post. I think history will bear out much of what you're saying.

Which is not to say I necessarily agree with that; I do think part of what made Magic and Bird so special is that they were so dynamic, and could hurt you is so many ways, whereas other superstars could be somewhat neutralized if you simply took away their shots or limited their offense. This isn't the kind of stuff that most people use to influence their GOAT ranking, however, and I understand that.

I'm partial to the all-around player, though.

Pointguard

06-09-2014, 01:16 PM

Not sure what you mean. Sometimes Magic controlled their head-to-head contests, and sometimes it was Bird. They did it in different ways. They were certainly both capable of controlling games and did it on a regular basis. Player and recorded accounts in the 30-plus years since confirm this.

I don't think Ainge and Bird shot poorly in those two games because of playing "Magic's game": it was because they missed open shots. It happens.
Magic ran them into the ground - they had no legs and their shots were totally off. Dennis Johnson who shot 3 for 15 in the elimination game and Ainge had to get back on the break. Bird and Dennis Johnson had nerves of steel. All three players were missing because Magic took their legs from them.

BTW, Magic's shooting was worse than Bird's in both of the games you referenced.
The 14 and 19 assist and running game make that a totally mute point. Magic ran them to the ground. Magic was just pushing the issue in that game while keeping his teammates happy.

It's a myth that the Lakers "gave away" the '84 Finals, when the reality is, each game was competitive and winnable for both sides, with the exception of Game 3 (which the Lakers won in a blowout) and Game 5 (in which the Celtics returned the favor).

The Celtics made plays down the stretch to win both Games 2 and 4, while the Lakers did the same in Game 6 (even though the Celtics controlled most of the game).

It was an evenly-matched, competitive series.
The Celtics won the game they blind sided - tackled Rambis in - that was game 4. And then they won the Air condition game in game 5 I believe. Then the poor game by Magic whose head wasn't in it sealed the deal.

Champ

06-09-2014, 01:26 PM

Magic ran them into the ground - they had no legs and their shots were totally off. Dennis Johnson who shot 3 for 15 in the elimination game and Ainge had to get back on the break. Bird and Dennis Johnson had nerves of steel. All three players were missing because Magic took their legs from them.

The 14 and 19 assist and running game make that a totally mute point. Magic ran them to the ground. Magic was just pushing the issue in that game while keeping his teammates happy.

The Celtics won the game they blind sided - tackled Rambis in - that was game 4. And then they won the Air condition game in game 5 I believe. Then the poor game by Magic whose head wasn't in it sealed the deal.

DJ carried the team in the elimination game - his legs were fine. The Celts had a very thin bench due to injury in '87 - which no doubt contributed to the fatigue you speak of - but held their own and were a play away from forcing a Game 7.

The Lakers were every bit as fortunate in Game 4 of the '87 Finals as the Celtics were in Game 4 of the '84 Finals.

Pointguard

06-09-2014, 02:28 PM

DJ carried the team in the elimination game - his legs were fine. The Celts had a very thin bench due to injury in '87 - which no doubt contributed to the fatigue you speak of - but held their own and were a play away from forcing a Game 7.

The Lakers were every bit as fortunate in Game 4 of the '87 Finals as the Celtics were in Game 4 of the '84 Finals.
DJ shot 3 for 15? or 16 in the elimination game in '85. Remember this is Bird at his peak. In '87 DJ shot pretty well but Ainge and Bird didn't the last game of each series. If you seen the series you know exactly what I'm talking about. If the Celtics made it to a game seven it would have been a blowout. They were tired, because they played at Magic's pace and had no other choice but to.

Pointguard

06-09-2014, 02:41 PM

The Lakers were every bit as fortunate in Game 4 of the '87 Finals as the Celtics were in Game 4 of the '84 Finals.
Wasn't that the game where Magic hit the sky hook to win the game??? What are you saying? In '84 the Celtics tackling players on fast breaks and cutting off air conditioners. In '87 the Lakers won in six not seven. In '87 Magic controlled the finals as much as any player ever did. He lead his team in points, rebounds, assist and steals. And really did damage with each stat. What are you saying here?

Champ

06-09-2014, 02:53 PM

DJ shot 3 for 15? or 16 in the elimination game in '85. Remember this is Bird at his peak. In '87 DJ shot pretty well but Ainge and Bird didn't the last game of each series. If you seen the series you know exactly what I'm talking about. If the Celtics made it to a game seven it would have been a blowout. They were tired, because they played at Magic's pace and had no other choice but to.

I was talking about '87 for DJ because you weren't specific with your statement.

How do you know it would've been a blowout? Anything can happen in a Game 7.

Champ

06-09-2014, 03:01 PM

Wasn't that the game where Magic hit the sky hook to win the game??? What are you saying? In '84 the Celtics tackling players on fast breaks and cutting off air conditioners. In '87 the Lakers won in six not seven. In '87 Magic controlled the finals as much as any player ever did. He lead his team in points, rebounds, assist and steals. And really did damage with each stat. What are you saying here?

Yes, Magic hit a hook shot, just like Bird hit a fall away in Game 4 of the '84 series. Both clutch shots, both wins. The Lakers were still very fortunate to get a good bounce on Kareem's free throw miss moments before in Game 4 of the '87 finals. And Bird's shot at the end didn't miss by much.

Yes, McHale clothslined Rambis in '84. The Lakers were physical, too. It was a rough series.

Cutting off air conditioners? There was no air conditioning in the old Boston Garden. And if I'm not mistaken, the Celtics had to play in the same heated building that night.

Are you saying that the Celtics only won in '84 because of Magic choking and a lack of air conditioning?

Also, I never said the Lakers won in 7 in '87. I say the Celtics were "a play away from forcing a Game 7." My point was that is was a competitive series - as was the case in all three ('84, '85, '87).

Champ

06-09-2014, 03:04 PM

Pointguard

06-09-2014, 04:39 PM

Cutting off air conditioners? There was no air conditioning in the old Boston Garden. And if I'm not mistaken, the Celtics had to play in the same heated building that night.

Ok. You didn't see the series and are bluffing your way through this. The reason the tackle and lack of air conditioning are important is because they are direct assaults on the Laker running game. The Lakers were winning the series before the antics started. Boston knew they were going to tackle a fast break Laker (Rambis). The adrenaline messed with LA a bit. In the same way Detroit caught that same Celtic team a few years later, SA did with Pheonix, it totally threw the victimized team off in each case. And in all three cases the victimized team lost. (Btw, SA might pull off some other type of antic before its over - I wonder who they would use for a fight?)

After the brawl game, the AC goes out. Yet another assault on Magic's running game. Even Kareem (Mr. Slow Mo in Flow) said you couldn't move fast in the arena. Red Aurabach was a very sneaky guy. Both Kareem and Magic have very bad games. So all I'm saying is that two unprofessional things happened in the Celtics only victory over the Lakers. I think minus the two issues that definitely affected the Lakers very good chance the Lakers beat them in '84.

Magic was known to run teams out of contention. He ran, he controlled the pace of games, he got Boston, a super disciplined team to run and play out of their element twice.

Are you saying that the Celtics only won in '84 because of Magic choking and a lack of air conditioning?

Also, I never said the Lakers won in 7 in '87. I say the Celtics were "a play away from forcing a Game 7." My point was that is was a competitive series - as was the case in all three ('84, '85, '87).

Two were six game series and one was a seven game series with crazy antics. They were in no ways equal as you are trying to suggest. To me it was a lot closer to Magic having a six to two lead in rings than five/four. Not that I'm using this as some trump card in comparing the two. Bird should still be considered for people's top players by all means.

Champ

06-09-2014, 04:54 PM

Ok. You didn't see the series and are bluffing your way through this. The reason the tackle and lack of air conditioning are important is because they are direct assaults on the Laker running game. The Lakers were winning the series before the antics started. Boston knew they were going to tackle a fast break Laker (Rambis). The adrenaline messed with LA a bit. In the same way Detroit caught that same Celtic team a few years later, SA did with Pheonix, it totally threw the victimized team off in each case. And in all three cases the victimized team lost. (Btw, SA might pull off some other type of antic before its over - I wonder who they would use for a fight?)

After the brawl game, the AC goes out. Yet another assault on Magic's running game. Even Kareem (Mr. Slow Mo in Flow) said you couldn't move fast in the arena. Red Aurabach was a very sneaky guy. Both Kareem and Magic have very bad games. So all I'm saying is that two unprofessional things happened in the Celtics only victory over the Lakers. I think minus the two issues that definitely affected the Lakers very good chance the Lakers beat them in '84.

Magic was known to run teams out of contention. He ran, he controlled the pace of games, he got Boston, a super disciplined team to run and play out of their element twice.

Two were six game series and one was a seven game series with crazy antics. They were in no ways equal as you are trying to suggest. To me it was a lot closer to Magic having a six to two lead in rings than five/four. Not that I'm using this as some trump card in comparing the two. Bird should still be considered for people's top players by all means.

Can't tell if you're trolling. I most certainly did see this series.

You keep stating that the air conditioning was somehow turned off or intentionally sabotaged.

Once again - The Boston Garden never had air conditioning, not when it opened in the 1920s, nor when it closed 70 years later. The heat was always a factor in that building, especially when the basketball and hockey playoffs started to extend into late-May and June. Many a Bruins game were played in the fog due to heat and condensation.

Champ

06-09-2014, 04:59 PM

97 bulls

06-09-2014, 09:38 PM

Oh, haha that clown. :lol

By 90-91 Bird and basically any vestige of the Celtics of the 80s were gone or crippled.

Once again, you're posting something without adding the context. This is a disingenuous way to argue. It also makes you look like a ****ing idiot.
Well you eliminate context when it comes to Jordan not beating the Celtics in 86 and 87. So whats the difference?

aj1987

06-09-2014, 09:43 PM

97 bulls, you literally know nothing about basketball, but gotta give it to you. I've never once seen you swear at someone else. Even when people are calling you names. Props.

Pointguard

06-09-2014, 10:45 PM

You think Magic should have a 6 to 2 Finals advantage based on breaks and what not, and that's your opinion.

I could argue the opposite, and that Celtic injuries played to the Lakers favor in several of those title-winning seasons.

The Lakers were also extremely fortunate against the Pistons in '88, where a phantom foul on Laimbeer saved them from losing in 6.
My bad on the Celtic garden turning off the air conditioning. They just didn't have it is true. I always recalled Boston as being cold. It's still was unprofessional at that time to not have it. As the Leprechaun would have it was a tremendous advantage. The parquet floor had lumps and chipped parts that made the ball give an untrue bounce - and the Boston players knew where not to bounce. Boston Garden was a wreck and had an unusual advantage.

What are these injuries you are referring to?

Magic rarely didn't make it to the finals (he got there 9 out of 12 years I think). So there would be close calls here and there that's a given. Magic was easily the biggest winner (total games, postseason, finals) of that decade.

Pointguard

06-09-2014, 10:48 PM

97 bulls, you literally know nothing about basketball, but gotta give it to you. I've never once seen you swear at someone else. Even when people are calling you names. Props.
This. And he makes some great points.

Champ

06-10-2014, 12:09 AM

My bad on the Celtic garden turning off the air conditioning. They just didn't have it is true. I always recalled Boston as being cold. It's still was unprofessional at that time to not have it. As the Leprechaun would have it was a tremendous advantage. The parquet floor had lumps and chipped parts that made the ball give an untrue bounce - and the Boston players knew where not to bounce. Boston Garden was a wreck and had an unusual advantage.

What are these injuries you are referring to?

Magic rarely didn't make it to the finals (he got there 9 out of 12 years I think). So there would be close calls here and there that's a given. Magic was easily the biggest winner (total games, postseason, finals) of that decade.

The Garden was so old that it predated air conditioning. It was truly a dump; the ramps leading up to the balcony smelled worse than the restrooms, and there was obstructed views all over the place. But man, was it a great building to watch a game in. The place literally did shake.

Dead spots were certainly a factor, but more than the building or the court, I think it was the closeness of the fans and the overhanging balconies that made for the great HCA.

Key injuries during Celtic playoff runs include:

'81-'82 - Coming in as arguably the best team in the league, the C's lost Tiny Archibald - the team's starting PG - for the ECF against Philly and lost the series in 7 (With a healthy Tiny, they won the RS series 4 to 1.). Had they got passed them, they would've had a good chance against L.A.

'84-85 - Maxwell was injured and played limited minutes. Bird also played with a bad thumb, which he injured during a bar scuffle right before the finals. News of this didn't surface until after the series with L.A.

'86-87 - Injuries to McHale, Parish, and Ainge, though all three played hurt. Then there was Walton, who was such a key part of the team one year earlier, as an injury-plagued non-factor. Contrary to the '86 team, this squad had a very thin bench and Coach KC Jones had to run the starters into the ground. Jones, who was not one for excuses, was quoted as saying "I've never seen anything like this with the injuries."

Pointguard

06-10-2014, 01:59 AM

The Garden was so old that it predated air conditioning. It was truly a dump; the ramps leading up to the balcony smelled worse than the restrooms, and there was obstructed views all over the place. But man, was it a great building to watch a game in. The place literally did shake.

Ha!

'81-'82 - Coming in as arguably the best team in the league, the C's lost Tiny Archibald - the team's starting PG - for the ECF against Philly and lost the series in 7 (With a healthy Tiny, they won the RS series 4 to 1.). Had they got passed them, they would've had a good chance against L.A. Totally forgot about that because Tiny was still having crazy big games. Nate, used to live in the South Bronx and tell us about the pro game on his trips back.

'84-85 - Maxwell was injured and played limited minutes. Bird also played with a bad thumb, which he injured during a bar scuffle right before the finals. News of this didn't surface until after the series with L.A.

I don't know if Max was so hateable I couldn't assess him correctly but I thought he was getting in the way around this time. Yeah that bar situation was nuts. Didn't the Celtics get rid of one of Bird's drinking buddies on the team after that?

'86-87 - Injuries to McHale, Parish, and Ainge, though all three played hurt. Then there was Walton, who was such a key part of the team one year earlier, as an injury-plagued non-factor. Contrary to the '86 team, this squad had a very thin bench and Coach KC Jones had to run the starters into the ground. Jones, who was not one for excuses, was quoted as saying "I've never seen anything like this with the injuries."
Walton stayed injured, but the other guys usually stayed the course. Stuff happens. I really believe Aurabach might have been getting some Karma back. Yet, he still managed to steal Bias, who died before he played and then Reggie Lewis. How did he pass?

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 02:26 AM

The Garden was so old that it predated air conditioning. It was truly a dump; the ramps leading up to the balcony smelled worse than the restrooms, and there was obstructed views all over the place. But man, was it a great building to watch a game in. The place literally did shake.

Dead spots were certainly a factor, but more than the building or the court, I think it was the closeness of the fans and the overhanging balconies that made for the great HCA.

Key injuries during Celtic playoff runs include:

'81-'82 - Coming in as arguably the best team in the league, the C's lost Tiny Archibald - the team's starting PG - for the ECF against Philly and lost the series in 7 (With a healthy Tiny, they won the RS series 4 to 1.). Had they got passed them, they would've had a good chance against L.A.

'84-85 - Maxwell was injured and played limited minutes. Bird also played with a bad thumb, which he injured during a bar scuffle right before the finals. News of this didn't surface until after the series with L.A.

'86-87 - Injuries to McHale, Parish, and Ainge, though all three played hurt. Then there was Walton, who was such a key part of the team one year earlier, as an injury-plagued non-factor. Contrary to the '86 team, this squad had a very thin bench and Coach KC Jones had to run the starters into the ground. Jones, who was not one for excuses, was quoted as saying "I've never seen anything like this with the injuries."
And this is exactly my point. No team is 100 percent healthy by the time of the Finals. Why dont the Bulls get the same kind of acceptance? Why is it that in order for the Bulls championships to be accepted, they can only beat the 87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, 83 Sixer or 89 Pistons? The fact is, those teams played a version of those special teams, but not those particular teams.

The Celtics never beat the Sixers with Malone and Erving in their prime. The Lakers always beat an injured Celtics team and played in a weak conference as far as records, the Lakers had injuries of their own in 84 with Wilkes getting hurt. Dennis Rodman had one season under his belt when they faced the Celtics in 87. Thomas went down with a badly sprained ankle in 1988. The Lakers missed Magic and Scott in 89. The Lakers didnt have Jabaar in 90. Pippen was hurt in 90 game seven.

But those teams all get full credit for their championships. Why cant the Bulls?

1987_Lakers

06-10-2014, 02:38 AM

And this is exactly my point. No team is 100 percent healthy by the time of the Finals. Why dont the Bulls get the same kind of acceptance? Why is it that in order for the Bulls championships to be accepted, they can only beat the 87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, 83 Sixer or 89 Pistons? The fact is, those teams played a version of those special teams, but not those particular teams.

The Celtics never beat the Sixers with Malone and Erving in their prime. The Lakers always beat an injured Celtics team and played in a weak conference as far as records, the Lakers had injuries of their own in 84 with Wilkes getting hurt. Dennis Rodman had one season under his belt when they faced the Celtics in 87. Thomas went down with a badly sprained ankle in 1988. The Lakers missed Magic and Scott in 89. The Lakers didnt have Jabaar in 90. Pippen was hurt in 90 game seven.

But those teams all get full credit for their championships. Why cant the Bulls?

I've never seen a 90's Bulls fan so insecure about where their team is ranked in history. Everyone with a good mind knows those 90's Bulls teams are one of the greatest NBA teams to ever set the floor, they proved it with winning 6 titles in a decade and winning 72 games one year. They get their credit, but some people just feel that some of the 80's champions (particular showtime & Boston) had more talent and would beat Chicago in a series, I can see where they are coming from.

I consider myself pretty unbiased, I believe the '96 Bulls would take out the 85 & 87 Lakers in a series, but I also believe the '86 Celtics are the GOAT team and would beat Chicago in a 7 game series, it doesn't change the fact that Chicago was an amazing team. The thing I noticed about you 97 bulls is that you have illogical hate towards Bird & Magic and you tend to be a bit delusional. I've seen you say Pippen was on the same level as Bird, I've also seen you say McHale was Rasheed Wallace with no range and that you would take Stockton over Magic. Those statements make you sound ignorant and bitter.

Until you get rid of that backward thinking some people are not going to take you serious, just saying.

LeBird

06-10-2014, 03:43 AM

Well you eliminate context when it comes to Jordan not beating the Celtics in 86 and 87. So whats the difference?

No, I never eliminate the context. I don't have to, unlike you. If I ever make a point re Jordan/Bulls in that timeline, it is because they couldn't win 1 (not 1!) playoff game against the Celtics when they were still 'the Celtics' and that Jordan was mostly a statpadding phenom, not a team player.

I've never seen a 90's Bulls fan so insecure about where their team is ranked in history. Everyone with a good mind knows those 90's Bulls teams are one of the greatest NBA teams to ever set the floor, they proved it with winning 6 titles in a decade and winning 72 games one year. They get their credit, but some people just feel that some of the 80's champions (particular showtime & Boston) had more talent and would beat Chicago in a series, I can see where they are coming from.

I consider myself pretty unbiased, I believe the '96 Bulls would take out the 85 & 87 Lakers in a series, but I also believe the '86 Celtics are the GOAT team and would beat Chicago in a 7 game series, it doesn't change the fact that Chicago was an amazing team. The thing I noticed about you 97 bulls is that you have illogical hate towards Bird & Magic and you tend to be a bit delusional. I've seen you say Pippen was on the same level as Bird, I've also seen you say McHale was Rasheed Wallace with no range and that you would take Stockton over Magic. Those statements make you sound ignorant and bitter.

Until you get rid of that backward thinking some people are not going to take you serious, just saying.

Agree with much of this. I too agree, for all my talking about how the 90s was a weaker era, that the Bulls are an all-time great team. Especially the 72-10 Bulls which IMO were as stacked as they come. I just don't think they're very complete and probably just give the nod to the Celtics or the Lakers.

The relevant point then is, when people go to stupid 6>5 or 6>3 comparisons, is that they miss the fact that those Lakers and Celtics were facing each other, as well as the Sixers, Pistons and even the Rockets and Bucks during prime years. Probably the most stacked dynasty (Russell's Celtics aside) were those Lakers IMO and even they only won 5.

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 09:59 AM

No, I never eliminate the context. I don't have to, unlike you. If I ever make a point Jordan/Bulls in that timeline, it is because they couldn't win 1 (not 1!) playoff game against the Celtics when they were still 'the Celtics' and that Jordan was mostly a statpadding phenom, not a team player.
And why didn't they beat the Celtics? Were they supposed to? This is your argument or one of them for the Celtics being better than the Bulls.

My point it isnt a fair assessment.

And mind you I'm not arguing over what you believe. But why you believe it. Your reasoning isnt consistent.

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 10:01 AM

97 bulls, you literally know nothing about basketball, but gotta give it to you. I've never once seen you swear at someone else. Even when people are calling you names. Props.
I appreciate the acknowledgement. Like I said to LeBird. All I want to see is consistency.

LeBird

06-10-2014, 11:29 AM

And why didn't they beat the Celtics? Were they supposed to? This is your argument or one of them for the Celtics being better than the Bulls.

My point it isnt a fair assessment.

And mind you I'm not arguing over what you believe. But why you believe it. Your reasoning isnt consistent.

You don't have to have the better team to be able to win 1 game vs an opponent you face multiple times across playoffs.

You seem to live in a parallel universe where only and always the better team (the one with the better players, etc) wins.

My reasoning is consistent, and so are the facts. You're just not very bright, and I don't even mean that as a slight this time; I'm stating it as an observation. I shouldn't even have had to point out the above to you if you knew anything about sports, nevermind Basketball.

ArbitraryWater

06-10-2014, 11:58 AM

I appreciate the acknowledgement. Like I said to LeBird. All I want to see is consistency.

He just said you know nothing about basketball and you don't even care? :lol

gotta give you props

Champ

06-10-2014, 12:10 PM

And this is exactly my point. No team is 100 percent healthy by the time of the Finals. Why dont the Bulls get the same kind of acceptance? Why is it that in order for the Bulls championships to be accepted, they can only beat the 87 Lakers, 86 Celtics, 83 Sixer or 89 Pistons? The fact is, those teams played a version of those special teams, but not those particular teams.

The Celtics never beat the Sixers with Malone and Erving in their prime. The Lakers always beat an injured Celtics team and played in a weak conference as far as records, the Lakers had injuries of their own in 84 with Wilkes getting hurt. Dennis Rodman had one season under his belt when they faced the Celtics in 87. Thomas went down with a badly sprained ankle in 1988. The Lakers missed Magic and Scott in 89. The Lakers didnt have Jabaar in 90. Pippen was hurt in 90 game seven.

But those teams all get full credit for their championships. Why cant the Bulls?

I think many hold league expansion against the Bulls team that went 72-10, even though that was out of their control. In my book, Jordan's top teams still rank among the greatest ever. There's just a certain mystique around the 80s dynasties that exist to this day, based in part on the resurgence of the league at the time and the influx of high-profile teams and players, along with the rivalry of Magic and Bird.

But was that Bulls team better than the best Celtics, Lakers, or Sixers teams of the '80s? Who knows? I think each team had certain advantages. The Celtics were powerful and balanced and had the player pundits were calling the GOAT at the time - that's a tough combination to beat. The Lakers were athletic, experienced, and very well-coached, with the most dynamic playmaker of all-time. I still think that Sixers squad is somehow underrated but have no trouble calling them one of the top five teams ever.

GimmeThat

06-10-2014, 12:21 PM

because team game is important.

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 12:32 PM

You seem to live in a parallel universe where*only*and*always*the better team (the one with the better players, etc) wins.
That's not true. The Celtics lost seven times even though they were the favorite. And more often than not clearly the better team.

You don't have to have the better team to be able to win 1 game vs an opponent you face multiple times across playoffs.
Understand this about me. Im a Bulls fan first. The Jordan of the mid 80s was not him at his best. He was a ball hog. And had a low IQ. Im the first to admit that. That 69pt game verses the Celtics? He probably wins if it was 90s Jordan. Especially the second threepeat Jordan because he was more of a team player. But still. That was not the same team as the 90s team. They were better at ever position. Even coaching. And remember, they lost one game in 2 OT, and had a lead at halftime of the second game. So let's not act like all three games were 30 pt blowouts.

My reasoning is consistent, and so are the facts. You're just not very bright, and I don't even mean that as a slight this time; I'm stating it as an observation. I shouldn't even have had to point out the above to you if you knew anything about sports, nevermind Basketball.
No. Your reasoning is not consistent. Name these teams with multiple hofers (and name the hofers), all in their prime injury free. These are the prerequisites you've determined for the Bulls. The Bulls beat the Pistons and Lakers under the exact circumstances as the teams of the 80s. You dont see it that way. Why?

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 12:37 PM

He just said you know nothing about basketball and you don't even care? :lol

gotta give you props
He's saying that because we disagree. He entitled to his opinion as I am mine. I just dont see any facts backing up the claims. Some of these guys have to be spoon fed. Thats hard to do over the internet because they can pick and chose what to respond to.

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 12:43 PM

I think many hold league expansion against the Bulls team that went 72-10, even though that was out of their control. In my book, Jordan's top teams still rank among the greatest ever. There's just a certain mystique around the 80s dynasties that exist to this day, based in part on the resurgence of the league at the time and the influx of high-profile teams and players, along with the rivalry of Magic and Bird.

But was that Bulls team better than the best Celtics, Lakers, or Sixers teams of the '80s? Who knows? I think each team had certain advantages. The Celtics were powerful and balanced and had the player pundits were calling the GOAT at the time - that's a tough combination to beat. The Lakers were athletic, experienced, and very well-coached, with the most dynamic playmaker of all-time. I still think that Sixers squad is somehow underrated but have no trouble calling them one of the top five teams ever.
Ok. But as I've stated before, the Bulls won three championships, and were a bad call away from probably making it at least back to the ECF after winning 55 games PRE EXPANSION OF 96.

The league also expanded in 88 and 89. During the Pistons and Lakers run. Expansion isnt used against them. Why? Again, where is the consistency?

ArbitraryWater

06-10-2014, 12:47 PM

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 01:06 PM

I've never seen a 90's Bulls fan so insecure about where their team is ranked in history. Everyone with a good mind knows those 90's Bulls teams are one of the greatest NBA teams to ever set the floor, they proved it with winning 6 titles in a decade and winning 72 games one year. They get their credit, but some people just feel that some of the 80's champions (particular showtime & Boston) had more talent and would beat Chicago in a series, I can see where they are coming from.

I consider myself pretty unbiased, I believe the '96 Bulls would take out the 85 & 87 Lakers in a series, but I also believe the '86 Celtics are the GOAT team and would beat Chicago in a 7 game series, it doesn't change the fact that Chicago was an amazing team. The thing I noticed about you 97 bulls is that you have illogical hate towards Bird & Magic and you tend to be a bit delusional. I've seen you say Pippen was on the same level as Bird, I've also seen you say McHale was Rasheed Wallace with no range and that you would take Stockton over Magic. Those statements make you sound ignorant and bitter.

Until you get rid of that backward thinking some people are not going to take you serious, just saying.
Having an opinion doesn't make biased. How you arrive that opinion might. And that's been my point. If the argument against the Bulls is that their beating the Lakers and Pistons shouldnt hold much weight due to them missing players and being hurt, then why not apply the same logic accross the board?

Not mention that I don't make these threads. Im not shoving the Bulls dominance in peoples face. I often wonder why during every finals since 2000, fans have consistently compare dynasties to the Bulls. Not the Lakers, or Celtics, but the Bulls.

aj1987

06-10-2014, 01:10 PM

He's saying that because we disagree. He entitled to his opinion as I am mine. I just dont see any facts backing up the claims. Some of these guys have to be spoon fed. Thats hard to do over the internet because they can pick and chose what to respond to.
Lol, wut?! The only thing I posted in the other thread are facts and numbers. You were the one just saying stuff like "Miami had a 2nd pick, so they should've done better", "Miami had O'Neal and Marion, who are good players", etc. etc..

I posted their numbers, pointed out that they were horrible using FACTS, and you completely ignored them.

Here it is again:

Marion - Played only 42 games and was inconsistent. Wasn't even that good defensively. Horrible offensively, as he could create his own shot.
Beasley - Rookie Beasley, who didn't even know what defense was and had terrible IQ. Got released by the Wolves in his PRIME.
Cook - Sure! Great player! 38% from the 2 and 3. Amazing defender as well. GOAT! Playing in the EL and he's only 26.
O'Neal - Played 27 games and was mostly garbage. Way past his prime.
Haslem - Was the only decent player in the team after Wade.
Spoelstra - Rookie season and was a terrible coach.
Chalmers - Starting PG and was garbage. Still is garbage.
Joel Anthony - Starting C for a bunch of games.
Diawara - Do you even know who that is?

As I said, without Wade, that team would possibly have ended up with the worst record of all time. Wade dragged them to 43 wins.

You ignored red1's post as well.

O'neal and marion were never on the roster at the same time and O'neal had a garbage season that year. Marion can't create a thing for himself so he was an awful fit on a team that doesnt have any offensive talent. So between haslem and marion or haslem and a busted o'neal where is the interior defense? Haslem hustles but he is undersized. Any decent big would feast on that. And that's not even mentioning the lack of overall talent.

Champ

06-10-2014, 01:33 PM

Ok. But as I've stated before, the Bulls won three championships, and were a bad call away from probably making it at least back to the ECF after winning 55 games PRE EXPANSION OF 96.

The league also expanded in 88 and 89. During the Pistons and Lakers run. Expansion isnt used against them. Why? Again, where is the consistency?

The Lakers dynasty was in decline by the time expansion took place, and although they were very good, I don't think most consider the Bad Boy Pistons were quite as good as the mid-80s Sixers, Lakers, or Celtics.

LeBird

06-10-2014, 01:55 PM

That's not true. The Celtics lost seven times even though they were the favorite. And more often than not clearly the better team.

Understand this about me. Im a Bulls fan first. The Jordan of the mid 80s was not him at his best. He was a ball hog. And had a low IQ. Im the first to admit that. That 69pt game verses the Celtics? He probably wins if it was 90s Jordan. Especially the second threepeat Jordan because he was more of a team player. But still. That was not the same team as the 90s team. They were better at ever position. Even coaching. And remember, they lost one game in 2 OT, and had a lead at halftime of the second game. So let's not act like all three games were 30 pt blowouts.

No. Your reasoning is not consistent. Name these teams with multiple hofers (and name the hofers), all in their prime injury free. These are the prerequisites you've determined for the Bulls. The Bulls beat the Pistons and Lakers under the exact circumstances as the teams of the 80s. You dont see it that way. Why?

I shouldn't have to list the Sixers/Celtics/Pistons/Lakers teams of the 80s for you to know.

And again, you either can't read or are misrepresenting the argument. The point was that Jordan never faced the kind of competition that was in place in the 80s. One of the supporting points was that at best, usually, his competition consisted of one ATG HOF and much lesser players, apart from the Jazz who even on that account were better in the 80s than the 90s.

So you have no point, you keep reverting to type and one can only assume you're doing that because you're biased and you don't like to see your team's titles devalued. While they get a lot of credit, that team isn't winning 6 titles in the 80s. If you think they are then stop wasting my time because you're just delusional.

As for the bolded, then that should tell you that someone touting Jordan as some unrelenting phenom has to appreciate that if he made his teams so much better as his fans tout, then he should be getting 1 ****ing game against the Celtics even at that peak. But he wasn't because as you just wrote, he was a pretty selfish player who statpadded basically. You're making my points for me, yet when I make them you get a hissy fit about it.

HomieWeMajor

06-10-2014, 01:57 PM

Larry Bird is one of the most overrated players of OAT. Manufactured star just like magic made to play white people and black people of the USA against each other in race wars. Greatest thing that Stern ever done.

97 bulls

06-10-2014, 02:02 PM

Lol, wut?! The only thing I posted in the other thread are facts and numbers. You were the one just saying stuff like "Miami had a 2nd pick, so they should've done better", "Miami had O'Neal and Marion, who are good players", etc. etc..

I posted their numbers, pointed out that they were horrible using FACTS, and you completely ignored them.

Here it is again:

Marion - Played only 42 games and was inconsistent. Wasn't even that good defensively. Horrible offensively, as he could create his own shot.
Beasley - Rookie Beasley, who didn't even know what defense was and had terrible IQ. Got released by the Wolves in his PRIME.
Cook - Sure! Great player! 38% from the 2 and 3. Amazing defender as well. GOAT! Playing in the EL and he's only 26.
O'Neal - Played 27 games and was mostly garbage. Way past his prime.
Haslem - Was the only decent player in the team after Wade.
Spoelstra - Rookie season and was a terrible coach.
Chalmers - Starting PG and was garbage. Still is garbage.
Joel Anthony - Starting C for a bunch of games.
Diawara - Do you even know who that is?

As I said, without Wade, that team would possibly have ended up with the worst record of all time. Wade dragged them to 43 wins.

You ignored red1's post as well.
Marion wasnt "that good" defensively? Why do you say such? He was regarded as an excellent defender before joining the Heat. He did a commendable job on James went to Dallas after he left Miami. Did he forget how to play defense for a year?

Oneal was only 30. My point as far as his role is that 13/6 on 48% is not bad. Its not great but not bad. Especially when you consider that he did that in 30 min per game. And he blocked two shots per.

Throw in Haslem.

And what you get is a mediocre team.

Perhaps my idea of whats mediocre and yours just differ. If the Heats lineup was

Chalmers
Wade
Moon
Diawera
Anthony

And they won 43 games with that lineup, id be extremely impressed.

aj1987

06-10-2014, 02:59 PM

Marion wasnt "that good" defensively? Why do you say such? He was regarded as an excellent defender before joining the Heat. He did a commendable job on James went to Dallas after he left Miami. Did he forget how to play defense for a year?
This, I don't think I can use stats. I hate using DRTG, DWS, and all those other advanced crap. You have to watch the games to know why. He wasn't good offensively either. Miami had one playmaker and that was Wade. Marion couldn't create his own shot and was a liability.

Oneal was only 30. My point as far as his role is that 13/6 on 48% is not bad. Its not great but not bad. Especially when you consider that he did that in 30 min per game. And he blocked two shots per.
This is why you HAVE TO WATCH THE GAMES. 13/5 for a starting playing 30 minutes a game? That's horrible. Not to mention that he played only 27 games in the season. He was even getting out rebounded by Wade, who's a SG. He was inefficient as well.

And what you get is a mediocre team.
Nope. A garbage team which would've won under 10 games, going for the worst record of all time, if it wasn't for Wade.

Perhaps my idea of whats mediocre and yours just differ. If the Heats lineup was

Chalmers
Wade
Moon
Diawera
Anthony

And they won 43 games with that lineup, id be extremely impressed.

Diawara started 21 games and played more (total) minutes than O'Neal. Chalmers was indeed the starting PG. Joel Anthony started 28 games. Moon started 21 games and played 27 minutes a game. O'Neal and Marion COMBINED played 69 games.

Ask 100 people and 99 will tell you that the '09 Heat was Wade, Haslem, and scrubs.

dankok8

06-10-2014, 05:44 PM

Larry Bird didn't regress in the postseason... to imply so is laughable! He's in the discussion for greatest all-around player, intagibles guy, and clutch player all in one. Man had a feel for the game... his anticipation on both ends of the court was unparalleled SO SO many Kodak moments watching him where you think "How the **** did he do that?". From 1980 to 1988 he averaged 24.5 ppg, 10.7 rpg, and 6.4 apg on 47.6% shooting and 55.5% true shooting. He also played unbelievable help defense and took over down the stretch.

He played in maybe the most difficult conference in league history with the Sixers, Bucks, and Pistons. Then in the finals he had to contend with the Kareem/Magic Lakers... And how about his great "Leprechaun luck"... Tiny goes down in 1982, Len Bias dies in 1986, then his whole team gets injured in 1987...

Bird's achilles heel was his own body. He completely broke down 9 years into his career and was never the same and even early on always seemed prone to injuries. But man when he was healthy from 1984 to 1988 he was arguably the greatest player ever to play this game. Accomplishments-wise he's still a top 7 player of all time even with Lebron in there.

Pointguard

06-10-2014, 06:01 PM

He played in maybe the most difficult conference in league history with the Sixers, Bucks, and Pistons. Then in the finals he had to contend with the Kareem/Magic Lakers... And how about his great "Leprechaun luck"... Tiny goes down in 1982, Len Bias dies in 1986, then his whole team gets injured in 1987...

I just said they had that luck in '84 - the only year they beat Magic - and if Magic doesn't mysteriously play bad Magic shuts them out - as the series was very close. I mentioned the bad luck outside of '87 that you mentioned. The Celtics were very lucky and almost abusive to stupid teams in the way they got players (Bias, Parrish and a few others). Red put the pressure on to get Chamberlain which Lovette carried out. Chamberlain dies from the complications of the hit. They took things too far and played dirty. I wish Biased lived a great and productive career. But Boston isn't going to get a lot of mercy for their past.