Tim Duncan, Blake Griffin, Anthony Davis (PF's) Don't Play Like This

[3ball]

.
Power Forwards don't run off screens like Reggie Miller or Rip Hamilton:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/9f508f90480bb08b0830039ef30c39a2.gif




PF's don't shoot this way (shot-creating moves, pull-up style & form)


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b6fa02c739d3c975b98dd849ef9f2ee2.gif

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/ad1bf6c7b16a4b020b2cbaed345f88f8.gif

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b88b6b329ce6250d1fbb5f85b1dbc84a.gif





Power forwards don't playmake from the perimeter:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/50922b72ce9962534e3095c39012137b.gif

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/848b8b54c5d7d865080372e6dc636809.gif





Or in Transition:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/d9fc9ea3172d0fe435fa90ef86409bff.gif

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/eb3fbd374cafd88fb950008c6aae72bf.gif




PF's can't consistently attack the basket from the perimeter:


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/a7b0fa46d3ab45a8915594560aeba2c5.gif

http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/84f7c57c268ce988f4ea250ed45f04e4.gif



But these things were standard in Larry Bird's game, which is why he is a wing player, not a PF (although obviously, he can play PF if needed) - PF's in today's game like Duncan, Blake, Davis, etc. do not play like this... only wings do.

If guys like Kyle Korver, Anthony Morrow, and many other 3-and-D robots can play the wing position, then Bird is a wing player deluxe in today's game.

And Bird was defended by mostly wing players, including Dennis Rodman, Cliff Robinson, Scottie Pippen, Dominique Wilkins, Bobby Jones, Michael Cooper, Michael Jordan, Julius Erving, James Worthy, Rodney McCray, Jerome Kersey Horace Grant and Brad Sellers - all these guys are shown trying and failing to defend Bird here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msEmcemLR7M
.

[navy]

LArry Bird is talked about as the greatest small forward ever, what are you talking about...

[3ball]

LArry Bird is talked about as the greatest small forward ever, what are you talking about...


A lot of people think he would play PF in today's game... when all the things he did were wing-player things

[Genaro]

Bird was a SF, what's your point?

PS: I was waiting for the part you go out your way to prop up Jordan.

[plowking]

3ball, you're a ****.

Not even a cool one.

[iamgine]

Centers are not usually that short or fast, that's why Nate Robinson is a guard, not a center.

[navy]

A lot of people think he would play PF in today's game... when all the things he did were wing-player things
He could play pf in todays game. Have you seen the small ball lineups? :biggums:

[RightTwoCensor]

3ball having a harder time carrying all these L's than Jordan had carrying the Wizards to the playoffs.

[3ball]

He could play pf in todays game. Have you seen the small ball lineups? :biggums:


but he would be mainly a small forward in today's game - it's obvious that most of the things in Larry's game are wing player qualities.

obviously, if he didn't play like a wing, and instead played like duncan, blake or davis, he would be mainly a power forward in today's game...

but he doesn't play anything like them - he plays like a wing, so he'd be a wing in today's game, not a PF - he wouldn't be Chris Bosh or Matt Bonner spreading the floor like some robot - he would be playmaking just like he did in his era.

[They Won]

That is a lot of effort to make a point about something nobody is arguing against :lol

[3ball]

That is a lot of effort to make a point about something nobody is arguing against :lol


http://gifsforum.com/images_new/gif/other/grand/b88b6b329ce6250d1fbb5f85b1dbc84a.gif[


Oh, people argue against it - they think Bird would be a PF in today's game... Well, let me know when Blake Griffin, Tim Duncan, Aldridge or Davis ever make a pull-up three in transition like a wing-player.

Let me know if they ever acquire a wing player's moves to get off a pull-up jumper, or the smoothness of a wing player's fadeaway style and shooting form....

Let me know when they're an expert playmaker on the perimeter or running off screens like Rip Hamilton.

[swagga]

niggga fck you and your thread.

if duncan played instead of karl malone on those jazz squad your boy jordan would've lost in both them finals. real talk.

[lilteapot]

Michael Jordan is a ****ing sensitive ass *****. He'd get bullied by Lebron James and he'd go home and cry to his mammy.

[Uncle Drew]

But LeBron does.

[RRR3]

Did 3ball really just call Horace Grant a wing?

[SHAQisGOAT]

That's what made Larry Bird so special...

Dude could shoot it from anywhere in any way, was a major post-up threat, could playmake from just about everywhere, threw passes with the best PG's, knew how to handle the rock, could rebound with the best centers, played great team D, could guard the post pretty well and more than held his own on the perimeter...

His athleticism is underrated as he was a nice athlete before serious injuries but he lacked the lateral quickness to play point (like Magic) and even to be a good m2m perimeter defender (like Bobby Jones, for example); yet you also gotta remember you're looking at a 6'9'', 220+ lbs player, that's asking too much already, how many players of his size you also see/saw playing point and lockdown perimeter D? Plus, he already did considerably more than the vast majority.

Fact is that Bird played C/PF in college while dominating, and was projected as a PF (terrific all-around and versatile one though), he played plenty at the 4 in the pros and was terrific at it, spent his best years as mostly a SF and displayed a top5 GOAT peak, even played plenty of point-forward mostly in his later years as a shell... I'd even say he took it to the post more (and was better at it) in his days listed as a SF.
He dominated in numerous ways, could do it big in different styles, strategies, positions...

What about players at PF like Dray Green, Dirk, Millsap, Love... ? And I'm not comparing their games to Bird's or saying they can do the same things, but still...

You see more small-ball nowadays than in the 80's, Bird would KILL IT in the post in this league while also doing his thing from the perimeter, and on defense he was better at guarding the post while roaming around.
Even Larry himself said he would probably play more at the 4 nowadays, because of size.
Doesn't mean he wouldn't be doing the things you've posted, or playing a lot at/like a SF...

Great gifs btw. Bird :applause:

I'll say one thing though... No (stereotypical) position can define Bird's play and what he was able to do on the court.

[Papaya Petee]

:facepalm Everybody knows this already. That's why Larry Bird is considered one of the GOAT All-Around players. His catch and shoot, come off the screens ability and shooting skills gave him the skillset to be a Shooting Guard. His great footwork, size and post game gave him the skillset to be a PF. His passing ability gave him the skillset to run occasional point-guard\playmaking duties.

Pretty much similar to LeBron, who is a SF by position, but can play any position.

[Prometheus]

He would be able to play either the 3 or the 4, but would be more of a matchup nightmare at the 4... and it's more likely that he would find himself on a team with a 3 who could shoot than a 4 who could shoot... and Bird would be the focal point of his offense, so... it would probably be more beneficial to put him at the 4.

[3ball]

and it's more likely that he would find himself on a team with a 3 who could shoot than a 4 who could shoot...


How is this any different from the 80's??... It's laughable that a 3-and-D robot from today's game could prevent Bird from starting at the 3... You just don't realize the playmaker Bird was... It's as if his 6.5 assist average means NOTHING...

Lebron's 6.3 playoff average means he's an elite, all-time passer, but Bird's 6.5 means NOTHNG - and you know why?... it's all because when we think of great passing in our minds, we think of a point-guard style player, dribbling a lot and making passes.

Also, you have no clue about Bird's scoring ability - you clearly think he just shot jump shots - you don't realize how great a creator and playmaker he was on the perimeter.
.

[Smoke117]

Shut up, 3ball.

[3ball]

Bird would be able to play either the 3 or the 4, but would be more of a matchup nightmare at the 4.


If Bird is a bigger mismatch against PF's, then why didn't Bird play PF in the 80's?

If he had played PF back then, he could have avoided Pippen, Rodman, Michael Cooper, Dr. J, Worthy, Dominique and company... But he didn't play PF back then - so why would it be any better for him to play PF today?





and Bird would be the focal point of his offense, so... it would probably be more beneficial to put him at the 4.


But Bird doesn't play like a PF - he doesn't play like Duncan, Aldridge, Davis, Blake Griffin, or Zach Randolph, so you can't make Bird the focal point in the same way you would these guys, and it would be dumb to try.

That's the point of the OP - to demonstrate how much differently Bird played from the PF's we have today (or in any era).

[finchyyy]

If Bird is a bigger mismatch against PF's, then why didn't Bird play PF in the 80's?

If he had played PF back then, he could have avoided Pippen, Rodman, Michael Cooper, Dr. J, Worthy, Dominique and company... But he didn't play PF back then - so why would it be any better for him to play PF today?



But Bird doesn't play like a PF - he doesn't play like Duncan, Aldridge, Davis, Blake Griffin, or Zach Randolph, so you can't make Bird the focal point in the same way you would these guys, and it would be dumb to try.

That's the point of the OP - to demonstrate how much differently Bird played from the PF's we have today (or in any era).

Bird did play as a PF in the 80s though, he played there until McHale started which was around the 85 season. Maxwell was the SF, Bird the PF and McHale the 6th man.

[bizil]

That's what made Larry Bird so special...

Dude could shoot it from anywhere in any way, was a major post-up threat, could playmake from just about everywhere, threw passes with the best PG's, knew how to handle the rock, could rebound with the best centers, played great team D, could guard the post pretty well and more than held his own on the perimeter...

His athleticism is underrated as he was a nice athlete before serious injuries but he lacked the lateral quickness to play point (like Magic) and even to be a good m2m perimeter defender (like Bobby Jones, for example); yet you also gotta remember you're looking at a 6'9'', 220+ lbs player, that's asking too much already, how many players of his size you also see/saw playing point and lockdown perimeter D? Plus, he already did considerably more than the vast majority.

Fact is that Bird played C/PF in college while dominating, and was projected as a PF (terrific all-around and versatile one though), he played plenty at the 4 in the pros and was terrific at it, spent his best years as mostly a SF and displayed a top5 GOAT peak, even played plenty of point-forward mostly in his later years as a shell... I'd even say he took it to the post more (and was better at it) in his days listed as a SF.
He dominated in numerous ways, could do it big in different styles, strategies, positions...

What about players at PF like Dray Green, Dirk, Millsap, Love... ? And I'm not comparing their games to Bird's or saying they can do the same things, but still...

You see more small-ball nowadays than in the 80's, Bird would KILL IT in the post in this league while also doing his thing from the perimeter, and on defense he was better at guarding the post while roaming around.
Even Larry himself said he would probably play more at the 4 nowadays, because of size.
Doesn't mean he wouldn't be doing the things you've posted, or playing a lot at/like a SF...

Great gifs btw. Bird :applause:

I'll say one thing though... No (stereotypical) position can define Bird's play and what he was able to do on the court.

Well said! Bird at SF or PF is a GOAT at either spot. Since today's game is different, some teams may prefer him at PF. I think defensively, he's better as a PF. On the other hand, I love the mismatch Bird creates at SF. He is gonna be taller AND stronger than damn near any SF. Plus he is gonna be more skilled too. At PF, he's still gonna be the most skilled of course too, but he can't overpower as many PF's.. But at SF, Bird can OVERPOWER and OUTSKILL everybody. I think Bird is the definitive forward who can LEGIT dominate either forward position.

[3ball]

Bird did play as a PF in the 80s though, he played there until McHale started which was around the 85 season. Maxwell was the SF, Bird the PF and McHale the 6th man.


It's common knowledge that Bird played PF a small percentage of the time - but he's a HOF small forward, and he played SF most of his career, even in his later years when he slowed down.

So I'm not sure why you would bring that up... The point remains - if Bird is truly a bigger mismatch against PF's, then why did Bird play SF most of his career?

If he had played PF back then, he could have avoided Pippen, Rodman, Michael Cooper, Dr. J, Worthy, Dominique and company... But he didn't play PF back then, and instead destroyed all those guys at his natural position of SF - so why would it be any better for him to play PF today?

Bird isn't a power forward - he doesn't play like Duncan, Aldridge, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin, or Zach Randolph... He runs off screens like Reggie Miller, and playmakes on the perimeter to average 6.5 assists per game.

And Bird's assist average is the starting point for people's misperception of his game - they completely ignore his assist average because it didn't come in a point-guard-style fashion with a lot of dribbling, and that's the only capacity most people can envision a good passer.

But it's not necessary to have a live, existing dribble (like a point guard) to playmake - Bird playmaked on the perimeter from the triple-threat position (pre-dribble, stationary position) and while playing off-ball.

The playmaking Bird did on the perimeter, his shooting style and form, running off screens like Reggie Miller, and the moves he made for pull-up jumpers - only wings play like this - PF's like Duncan, Blake and the like simply don't play like that, so it doesn't make sense to fit Bird's game in with theirs... Bird naturally plays like a wing player... PF's like Duncan, Davis, Blake Griffin and the like don't play anything like Bird.
.

[Prometheus]

Of course I know Bird is an all-time elite passer. I'm not going to lie and say that I was watching basketball when he was in his prime, but I still enjoy studying the history of the game, and have watched enough footage of Larry Bird to have a sense of his game... and EVERYONE knows Bird was one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) non-guard passer(s) of all time. Everyone knows that - and nothing I said should have made you believe that I didn't know it. You just decided that I didn't know it.

And of course I know he was more than a jump shooter. Are you kidding me? Literally nothing about my post suggests that I didn't know either of those two things. Bird is arguably the most skilled offensive player of all time.

My point is that in today's league, with the emphasis on spacing and the popularization of the stretch-four, it is more likely that coaches would want to put him at the power forward position. He is an elite outside shooter, and could potentially pull rim protectors at the four position out of the paint. Also I believe that his ability to play on the perimeter would create more matchup nightmares at the four than his ability to play in the post would create at the three.

He would be murder either way.

[Micku]

It's common knowledge that Bird played PF a small percentage of the time - but he's a HOF small forward, and he played SF most of his career, even in his later years when he slowed down.

Well, they were just called forwards. He was a 4 because of his post play. But he was versatile enough to switch it up. His off the ball movement was stellar even as a rookie. He could run off screens or get into position in the post. He changed later to SF when Mchale started to shine. Sometimes they would change mid game to Bird to the 4 and someone else to the 3.


So I'm not sure why you would bring that up... The point remains - if Bird is truly a bigger mismatch against PF's, then why did Bird play SF most of his career?

Cuz of Mchale. Mchale was a beast. Even then, Bird would play the 4 when Mchale was out and he was in. Wedman would play the 3. Sometimes Bird would play the 2. Bird played the 4 until 1985. Bird mentioned how he was a mismatch in a interview. If he his opponent was big, he would come off screens or beat him off the dribble. If the his opponent was small, then he would post him up. PFs and SFs took turns guarding him at times. Even some guards like SG like Cooper or Jordan in some instances.


If he had played PF back then, he could have avoided Pippen, Rodman, Michael Cooper, Dr. J, Worthy, Dominique and company... But he didn't play PF back then, and instead destroyed all those guys at his natural position of SF - so why would it be any better for him to play PF today?

I don't get what you mean with all of those names. James Worthy played 4 early in his career. Cooper and Rodman were versatile defenders. The Bulls didn't always use Pippen against Bird. In the early 90s they used Grant, and I think Bird was playing the 4 then too. And sometimes he didn't even guard those guys. Mchale would guard SFs and Bird would guard the 4 or the weakest offensive player for the rebound or to room around for help defense.

He would be awesome to play PF today because he is like the ultimate stretch 4. Not only is he very good in the post, but he is agile enough to run off of screens to shoot a jumper. He is also a better post defender than a man on man defender. And playing the 4 would give him better chances to get rebounds since he was a great at it. But he is also versatile enough to switch up to a 3.


Bird isn't a power forward - he doesn't play like Duncan, Aldridge, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin, or Zach Randolph... He runs off screens like Reggie Miller, and playmakes on the perimeter to average 6.5 assists per game.

Hahah! You don't have to play like them to be considered a 4 like LBJ is considered a 3 even though he controls the ball more than the point guard. Rashard Lewis didn't play like those guys and Rasheed Wallace didn't either. Bird was more versatile than the 4s that you mentioned. If you saw the 1984 finals, Bird changed up how he played. His jumper wasn't going down, so most of his buckets were post ups and put backs. Like a 4. Hell, James Worthy played a 4 yet ppl remember him as a 3. Even in 1987 when the games were close, he played 4.

Like in 1981 when they faced the 76ers, you would see a bunch of ppl guarding Bird. Bobby Jones (PF), Dr. J (SF), Darryl Dawkins (C, tho rarely) trying to slow him down. Bird would change his style up to post up to shooting from one possessions to another. On the defensive end, the dude would box out Dawkins to get the rebound. Sometimes Maxwell would play the 4 or the 3 depending on the situation.

Bird was not strictly a wing player. He was unique in terms that he could play multiple positions pretty well. Even when the Celtics had Maxwell and Bird in the same lineup, Bird would change it up. He would sometimes get into the post or be moving around the perimeter along with Maxwell. Even MJ said one time he wasn't sure if Bird was a SF or a PF. This was his quote when in the "When the Game was Ours" book:



People ask me all the time who my all-time five top players are, and when I start saying Larry, they interrupt me. They say, 'You've got to be kidding me. He can't play with Lebron James!' I tell them, 'You guys don't get it. Larry is far better than any small forward who played the game, and to be honest, I'm still not sure if he is a small forward or a power forward.

His peak/prime was played as a SF like Duncan peak/prime was a PF, but Duncan can play C very well as well which might be why ppl remember them as SF and PF respectively. But they were just awesome enough to play both well.

[Locked_Up_Tonight]

Dirk runs off screens routinely. He even goes coast to coast with pull up 3s. Not every "4" has to play the same style.

[3ball]

He is an elite outside shooter, and could potentially pull rim protectors at the four position out of the paint.


Coaches would want Bird to floor-spread in today's game, but that would come at BOTH forward positions.... he wouldn't only be spreading the floor as a PF... he'd do it just as much, if not more as a SF, just like he did in the 80's.

and in the 80's, there were more rim protectors at PF than today - accordingly, the motivation to play Bird at PF to draw bigs out of the paint is no greater now than back then.

For me, I can't watch his game and think he's a PF... he just doesn't play like one... He plays like a wing - his shooting style and form, running off screens like Reggie Miller, and the moves he made for pull-up jumpers - all wing-stuff that big men don't do.





Also I believe that his ability to play on the perimeter would create more matchup nightmares at the four than his ability to play in the post would create at the three.


That's the thing that bothers me - there's this notion that Bird ONLY posted up Pippen, Dominique, Rodman and other SF's back in the day.

But he attacked the rim from the perimeter against them as a STANDARD... it was standard for him and a big part of his game.

Catch-and-go and triple-threat ARE ways to attack from the perimeter - Bird got at least half his point this way, and he did it expertly against all these SF's.
.

[navy]

What the fvck is 3ball arguing.

[andgar923]

Not sure what the OP is trying to do (Im just as confused as everybody else) but Bird is the only player that has a legit argument at being better.

[Micku]

What the fvck is 3ball arguing.

That Bird is more of a 3 than a 4 and it's better to play him as a 3 than a 4 in this era.

[navy]

That Bird is more of a 3 than a 4 and it's better to play him as a 3 than a 4 in this era.
Pretty sure it's widely accepted he could do both just fine but is obviously a natural 3 in any era. I swear he's arguing with himself.

[oarabbus]

niggga fck you and your thread.

if duncan played instead of karl malone on those jazz squad your boy jordan would've lost in both them finals. real talk.


Truth

[3ball]

What the fvck is 3ball arguing.
My argument is that Bird would play small forward in today's game just as much as he did in prior eras.

And he wouldn't only play SF in today's game when he can post up smaller players... Bird didn't ONLY post up Pippen, Dominique, Rodman and other SF's back in the day, so he wouldn't ONLY post up today's SF's.

Also, people assume Bird was just a jumpshooter, and completely disregard his playmaking - if he HAD BEEN mainly a jumpshooter, he'd never have a higher assist average than Lebron... You can only accumulate assists like that by attacking the rim from the perimeter, which was a STANDARD part of Bird's game.... Catch-and-go and triple-threat ARE ways to attack from the perimeter - Bird got at least half his points and assists this way, and he did it expertly against all SF's of the 80's... and his off-ball game was actually more optimal than today's ball-dominant approaches that use existing, live dribbling forays to create play-finishing opportunities for teammates.

Other posters have said that Bird would play PF to shoot 3's and draw big men out of the paint - but there were more rim-protecting bigs in previous eras, so the motivation to draw bigs out of the paint would be no greater today than previous eras.

The playmaking Bird did on the perimeter, his shooting style and form, running off screens like Reggie Miller, and the moves he made for pull-up jumpers - only wings play like this - PF's like Duncan, Blake and the like simply don't play like that, so it doesn't make sense to fit Bird's game in with theirs... He's a completely different player.
.

[navy]

lol.

Basically you are saying what everyone has ever said about Bird and will always say and forming an argument with yourself when nobody really disputes it despite you trying to frame it as so.

[3ball]

lol.

Basically you are saying what everyone has ever said about Bird and will always say and forming an argument with yourself when nobody really disputes it despite you trying to frame it as so.
not really... a lot of people say bird would be forced to play PF today... they don't think he would work at SF, even though Pippen and Rodman are better defenders than any players we have today.

and there's a misconception that if Bird played SF today, it would only work when he posted up smaller players... people figure he wouldn't be able to take guys off the dribble... this is just a lack of understanding that the most optimal way to playmake is actually the way Bird did it: he got half his points and assists attacking the basket via catch-and-go and triple threat.. and he did it against the best wing defenders of all time.

so my point is that he doesn't have a PF's game... The playmaking Bird did on the perimeter, his shooting style and form, running off screens like Reggie Miller, and the moves he made for pull-up jumpers - only wings play like this - PF's like Duncan, Blake, Davis, Aldridge, and MATT BONNER simply don't play like that, so it doesn't make sense to fit Bird's game in with theirs... He's a completely different player.
.

[ralph_i_el]

A lot of people think he would play PF in today's game... when all the things he did were wing-player things

Larry Bird literally said he'd play PF and he won Executive of the Year...and Coach of the Year...and MVP

searching for where he said that, but I swear I saw the quote before.

[Prometheus]

No one thinks Bird would be forced to play PF, just that he would perhaps be an even greater weapon as a stretch-four than as a regular SF. It's scary how much energy you're wasting on this discussion.

[Prometheus]

And this whole business about how Bird had guard handles, and played on the perimeter, and beat guys off the dribble, and attacked from catch-and-go or triple threat... and acting like we don't know that... just makes it sound like an even better idea to play him at PF. It makes him a greater mismatch for his defenders, even though he could rebound and defend the post well enough to not be giving up anything on the other end for it.

Speaking of which, I think we can all agree that Bird was better at defending the post than he was at defending the perimeter. This is yet another reason to play him at PF.

[3ball]

No one thinks Bird would be forced to play PF, just that he would perhaps be an even greater weapon as a stretch-four than as a regular SF. It's scary how much energy you're wasting on this discussion.
nah... if he was a stretch 4, he'd be along the lines of the stretch 4's we have in today's game - Bosh (from last year), Love, Matt Bonner, etc.

those guys suck compared to Bird.

[navy]

nah... if he was a stretch 4, he'd be along the lines of the stretch 4's we have in today's game - Bosh (from last year), Love, Matt Bonner, etc.

those guys suck compared to Bird.
Okay?

What about Lebron, Durant, and Melo who also log minutes at the four?

[3ball]

Okay?

What about Lebron, Durant, and Melo who also log minutes at the four?
but they play mostly SF, just like Bird did and would...

coaches won't waste the ability of a do-it-all SF and turn him into a stretch 4.

and no coach would think it's a good idea to turn Bird's practically unlimited offensive ability, diversified off-ball scoring, and sophisticated passing into a stretch 4 whose primary job is to spread the floor.

a play-making, do-it-all 3 is vastly better than a stretch-4.

[navy]

but they play mostly SF, just like Bird did and would...

coaches won't waste the ability of a do-it-all SF and turn him into a stretch 4.

and no coach would think it's a good idea to turn Bird's practically unlimited offensive ability, diversified off-ball scoring ability and sophisticated passing into a stretch 4 whose primary job is to spread the floor.

a play-making, do-it-all 3 is vastly better than a stretch-4.
Melo mostly plays pf. Lebron played pf last year. Durant half and half. Hell even Paul pierce played pf last year on the nets.

Were any of those guys just floor spacers? No. He would still be the same player. Just the second biggest guy on the floor. A 3 at the 4 position.

[3ball]

Melo mostly plays pf. Lebron played pf last year. Durant half and half. Hell even Paul pierce played pf last year on the nets.

Were any of those guys just floor spacers? No. He would still be the same player. Just the second biggest guy on the floor.
for their careers, all those guys are SF's.

and in today's game, Bird would be a SF too.. maybe occasionally play PF, or occasionally listed at PF, but still mostly SF.

[navy]

for their careers, all those guys are SF's.

and in today's game, Bird would be a SF too.. maybe occasionally play PF, or occasionally listed at PF, but still mostly SF.
Nikka arguing with himself.

No shit.

[Prometheus]

but they play mostly SF, just like Bird did and would...

coaches won't waste the ability of a do-it-all SF and turn him into a stretch 4.

and no coach would think it's a good idea to turn Bird's practically unlimited offensive ability, diversified off-ball scoring, and sophisticated passing into a stretch 4 whose primary job is to spread the floor.

a play-making, do-it-all 3 is vastly better than a stretch-4.

:wtf:

Calling it a stretch-4 simply means he's a power forward who creates mismatch problems by stretching the defense and drawing the interior defenders away from the basket. It doesn't mean he's not allowed to do everything else he's good at - in fact, those other things he's good at make it an even better idea to put him at the 4, as his defenders would have a much harder time stopping him on the perimeter than other small forwards.

Meanwhile, Bird was better at defending the post than he was at defending the perimeter, so you'd be better off defensively with Bird at the 4. Not to mention he was tremendous on the boards, and having him guarding 4's instead of 3's would take greater advantage of this.

[Prometheus]

the forwards Bird defended in the 80's were better offensive players than the 3-and-D robots we have today, so he'd been much better off guarding Kawhi Leonard, than say, Adrian Dantley, Alex English, or Kiki Vandeweghe... you know what i mean here - skilled players... let alone Pippen or Dominique or Worthy or Dr. J...
.

:facepalm

Okay buddy. We're done here.

[3ball]

Okay buddy. We're done here.


its a PERFECTLY valid point - if it wasn't a problem for Bird guarding Pippen, Dr. J and the like, then why would it be an issue for him guarding today's SF's who create their own shot much less often (almost 30% of all shot attempts today are 3-pointers)?





it's an even better idea to put Bird at the 4, as his defenders would have a much harder time stopping him on the perimeter than other small forwards.


Then why didn't previous era coaches put Bird at PF?... If Bird creates bigger mismatches at PF, then why did he play mostly SF, especially late in his career when he had slowed down?... Why did coaches still let him face Pippen, Dominique, Dr. J, and the like?





drawing the interior defenders away from the basket.


Previous eras had MORE BIGS to draw away from the rim than today's game - so what makes you think drawing bigs away from the rim is only important in today's game?... this is the kind of bias that colors your judgement and causes you to reach erroneous conclusions (i.e. your ball-domination data debacle - you were so biased that you were willing to think lebron didn't dominate the ball).
.

[oarabbus]

And his play at small forward wouldn't only be him posting up smaller players... Bird didn't ONLY post up Pippen, Dominique, Rodman and other SF's back in the day, so he wouldn't ONLY post up today's SF's.

He was a very versatile player and his play at any position wouldn't only be him doing one type of anything


Also, people disregard Bird's passing, but he wasn't just a jumpshooter -

No, Bird is regarded as one of the greatest passers (certainly non-PG passers) of all time. There have been plenty of Lebron vs. Bird passing topics and the consensus is that Bird was the superior passer.



if he HAD BEEN mainly a jumpshooter, he'd never have a higher assist average than Lebron... You can only accumulate assists like that by attacking the rim from the perimeters.

Bird has a career APG of 6.3 and LeBron has APG of 6.9. LeBron's highest season assist average is higher than Birds highest, and his lowest assist average is higher than Bird's lowest. Bird has a playoff APG of 6.5 and LeBron has a playoff APG of 6.4 - nearly equal.



Other posters have said that Bird would play PF to shoot 3's and draw big men out of the paint -

They are right. He would do whatever he damn well wanted on the court.


but there were more rim-protecting bigs in previous eras, so the motivation to draw bigs out of the paint would be no greater today than previous eras.

This is the era of the stretch 4.


The playmaking Bird did on the perimeter, his shooting style and form, running off screens like Reggie Miller, and the moves he made for pull-up jumpers - only wings play like this - PF's like Duncan, Blake and the like simply don't play like that, so it doesn't make sense to fit Bird's game in with theirs... He's a completely different player.


No shit he's a completely different player, Kareem was a totally different player than Shaq who was completely different than Hakeem too.

Duncan has spent considerable time at the 5 in his career. Bird would definitely spend some time at the 4, Just like LeBron and Durant.

[Dr.J4ever]

I get what 3ball is saying, but I just disagree with many of you here.

If it's true that Bird said he would play PF in today's game, I tend to agree. It's his natural position in today's game. Bird's strength was always playing from the perimeter anyway, since he could either make a move, shoot, or make a great pass to the post. So he's perfect as an all-around stretch 4.

The difference in today's game is teams play smaller a lot more than in previous eras. 3ball likes to show gifs of crowded lanes but that was because of the DESIGN of offenses, and defenses were just guarding their man. It was an axiom back then that it was best to get a shot that's as close to the rim as possible. Fastbreaks in today's game where a 2 on 1 lead to a 3 point shot would be anathema in past eras. Offensive philosophies have drastically changed.

So could Bird play SF today? Yes, but then some teams could take advantage of him defensively by playing 3 guards and driving on him. With today's spacing, due to to the threat of 3 point shooters, Bird would be easier to beat than during the 80s.

Bird was smart to note he would play PF today. He would be a goat player today nonetheless. He would be like Dirk, but with a better post game and play making skills.

[3ball]

With today's spacing, due to to the threat of 3 point shooters, Bird would be easier to beat than during the 80s.

Bird was smart to note he would play PF today. He would be a goat player today nonetheless. He would be like Dirk, but with a better post game and play making skills.


ah yes... finally, rationale itt that goes against my point, but that i must agree with.

indeed, the spacing would make Bird a lot easier to score on nowadays - but still no easier to score on than paul pierce, mike dunleavy, chandler parsons, danilo gallinari, james jones, shawn marion, hedo turkaglu and many more.

of course, defense would also be harder for Bird because today's defenders must stay within armslength of their man at all times while inside the lane, which amounts to a very strict brand of man-to-man that must be applied in the paint by today's defenders.

the paint is 16 feet by 19 feet, and a defender's arm is 3 feet long - so defenders must stay within armlength even when their man in already inside the paint, which means defenders must essentially hug their man to remain in the lane.. previous eras didn't have this armslength requirement.

previous era defenders simply didn't have to be within armslength of their man to stay in the lane - they could be far out of armslength reach and still remain in the paint... being allowed to stay far away from your man is the very definition of a zone, and this is what previous era defenses were allowed to play inside the paint only (the most important area on the floor).

[Dr.J4ever]

ah yes... finally, rationale itt that goes against my point, but that i must agree with.

indeed, the spacing would make Bird a lot easier to score on nowadays - but still no easier to score on than paul pierce, mike dunleavy, chandler parsons, danilo gallinari, james jones, shawn marion, hedo turkaglu and many more.

of course, defense would also be harder for Bird because today's defenders must stay within armslength of their man at all times while inside the lane, which amounts to a very strict brand of man-to-man that must be applied in the paint by today's defenders.

the paint is 16 feet by 19 feet, and a defender's arm is 3 feet long - so defenders must stay within armlength even when their man in already inside the paint, which means defenders must essentially hug their man to remain in the lane.. previous eras didn't have this armslength requirement.

previous era defenders simply didn't have to be within armslength of their man to stay in the lane - they could be far out of armslength reach and still remain in the paint... being allowed to stay far away from your man is the very definition of a zone, and this is what previous era defenses were allowed to play inside the paint.


:lol Man, we will never agree with your interpretation of the rules, so i won't belabor that point anymore.

I just want you to see the differences in team offensive philosophy. Look at my 76ers of 1982-83. We started Moses, strictly a post up player, at center . We had Marc Iavaroni at PF who had no range whatsoever, but was a good defender and played scrappy around the paint. We had Doc at SF, who liked to post up too, and could drive at an elite level. Toney started at 2 guard who was our only long distance threat. Andrew, however, was far more than just a sniper. He loved to penetrate into the paint, or pull up as close to the rim as possible. Cheeks at PG could shoot mid range shots, no more.

In other words, my legendary 76er team played almost opposite of the way teams today play. Hence, defenders would play this offense around the paint too, just as the 76ers offensive players played in those areas in or around the paint.

This is why people say the many changes in rules and philosophy, both on offense and defense, would probably put Bird at PF. But you're right, Bird was a great playmaker with his passing and he would have been able to pass to the post or from the post in today's game to find 3 point shooters. It would have been a sight to see.

[T_L_P]

Positions are practically worthless anyways. There are frontcourt players and backcourt players as far as I'm concerned.

But, Tim, Blake and AD (particularly Tim) could be considered PF/Cs. That's why this specific comparison fails.

LeBron could play PF for a whole season and you wouldn't think anything of it. Even in the 80s, I bet Bird could have been listed as the PF and people wouldn't have thought it was crazy.

In the modern era, I think Bird would have simply been an SF/PF combo, like LeBron and Durant. Small-ball basically means having one 'real' big man (Timmy, Dirk, Chandler, Bogut, Lee, etc) on the floor.

[Dr.J4ever]

Positions are practically worthless anyways. There are frontcourt players and backcourt players as far as I'm concerned.

But, Tim, Blake and AD (particularly Tim) could be considered PF/Cs. That's why this specific comparison fails.

LeBron could play PF for a whole season and you wouldn't think anything of it. Even in the 80s, I bet Bird could have been listed as the PF and people wouldn't have thought it was crazy.

In the modern era, I think Bird would have simply been an SF/PF combo, like LeBron and Durant. Small-ball basically means having one 'real' big man (Timmy, Dirk, Chandler, Bogut, Lee, etc) on the floor.

Yes, these are true. Good points.:applause:

[deja vu]

niggga fck you and your thread.

if duncan played instead of karl malone on those jazz squad your boy jordan would've lost in both them finals. real talk.
Rookie and sophomore Duncan? No chance 100%.

Back to the topic.

[T_L_P]

Rookie and sophomore Duncan? No chance 100%.

Back to the topic.

Sophomore Tim was a better Playoff performer than Malone ever was. I don't think he wins though (maybe the first one where Malone played like dirt, but its still unlikely).

[3ball]

:lol Man, we will never agree with your interpretation of the rules, so i won't belabor that point anymore.


you don't have to take my word for it - the "armslength" rule is in black and white (http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html)... you're simply crazy for ignoring the rule and finding a different interpretation of what "armslength" means.





I just want you to see the differences in team offensive philosophy. Look at my 76ers of 1982-83.


you don't think i understand the difference between 2-pointer basketball and 3-pointer basketball?... c'mon, i've made a million threads on the topic - i understand the differences a lot better than you - you can't even accept the defensive 3 seconds rule.

the new 3 seconds rule DOES EXIST... it DID happen... i'm not sure why you are trying to imply that it doesn't exist and/or that it had no effect on the game.





This is why people say the many changes in rules and philosophy, both on offense and defense, would probably put Bird at PF.


What specifically though - all you did was explain how guys played closer to the rim back then... Specifically, how does this make Bird more suited for PF today?

If the spacing makes everything easier offensively and facilitates passing and cutting, than Bird's playmaking game from a SF position would be enhanced greatly - He might have a harder time on defense himself, but defenses would have a harder time guarding all the things he could do offensively as well.

Putting Bird at PF would reduce his playmaking and his ability to take advantage of the spacing... He simply can't be as much of a perimeter playmaker from the PF spot as he can from the SF spot...

Being a playmaker from the PF spot reduces the playmaking duties of the SF, SG, and PG... Whereas being a playmaker from the SF spot only impinges on the SG and PG... It's just easier to be a perimeter playmaker from the SF spot, which is why coaches have NEVER assigned significant perimeter playmaking duties to a PF... EVER.. if Larry's skill were better used as a PF, he would have played far more PF in the 80's, instead of battling Pippen, Dr. J, Dominique and the like.

[Micku]

Being a playmaker from the PF spot reduces the playmaking duties of the SF, SG, and PG... Whereas being a playmaker from the SF spot only impinges on the SG and PG... It's just easier to be a perimeter playmaker from the SF spot, which is why coaches have NEVER assigned significant perimeter playmaking duties to a PF... EVER.. if Larry's skill were better used as a PF, he would have played far more PF in the 80's, instead of battling Pippen, Dr. J, Dominique and the like.

But he did play the 4, especially before Mchale started to shine. He was just versatile enough to change it up. Maxwell and Bird used to take turns going to the post at times, but they were constantly moving around. Bird even guarded 4s.

[Dr.J4ever]

@3ball, I'm not getting drawn into another extended debate on the virtues of the defensive 3 second rule vs. the illegal defense rule from back then. I saw both extensively and disagree with you on your interpretation, what it meant to the game, and the effect it had on the style of play. I will leave it there, and let's try to get past that for a second.

On offensive philosophy, or what you call 2point basketball vs. 3point basketball, I say this is the primary reason why offenses and defensive sets from today look different from past eras. I gave you the example of the 76ers just to remind you of how different teams thought it best to play offense back then. I will add that all teams thought it best to shoot as close to the hoop as possible back then. Therefore, offensive philosophies have dictated the changes, and not primarily the rules, the details of which we disagree on.

Offenses have learned to adopt and change to what is considered the most efficient way of doing it today. We have evolved from post up and fast break hoops of the 80s, the Piston's reaction to this, to Jordan's individual brilliance coupled with the triangle in the 90s, the NY Knicks physical style during the 90s which ushered slower paced games with rugged defense, and then the Phoenix Suns offense of the 00s that had a great effect on how teams play offense today.

Along the way, defensive rules changes nudged the offenses towards the style we see today. Advanced stats weren't even an item back then. Advanced stats have deepened our understanding of what efficient offense. A long 2 is now considered a poor shot. Back then, it was a better shot than a 3 pointer.

While I was looking for Bird saying he would be a PF today(which I couldn't find), I found this instead. This is not to counter any of your points but to add to the discussion on Bird's own views on this. Here's what he said:

"I never liked the 3-point shot," Bird said. "I thought it was a low-percentage shot. But we took enough just to keep the defense honest. You know, we had [Kevin] McHale and [Robert] Parish. But in saying that, the game has changed. Myself, I always liked to be around the basket and I never really practiced 3-point shots. But if you look at how the game is played today, you would have to do that. You would have to extend the defense. You would have to spread the court on them, and I probably would take a lot more. I don't know if I'd take 500, but you'd have to take three or four a game, maybe, just to keep the defense honest."

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11835577/kevin-love-impressing-shooting-greats

Indeed, the game had changed, in the article, it was pointed out that Love himself took more 3s in a season than that Celtic team Bird had mentioned in the article.

Despite what Bird said though, I don't disagree with you that Bird could play SF on offense, but he would be better served playing PF on defense. With 3-4 three point shooters on each team today, everyone is situated beyond the 3 point line(unlike during the 80s when everyone was around the paint), Bird could be more easily taken advantaged of by SF/SG combos who are extremely quick. With defenders guarding 3 point snipers, the paint is left open, and Bird's 1 on 1 defense is exposed. Just my take

[3ball]

Dr.J4ever, you're dancing a bit here... all you guys are on this issue

[Micku]

Dr.J4ever, you're dancing a bit here... all you guys are on this issue

I think your comparisons are off. When ppl say Bird would be a good stretch 4, you start mentioning non stretch 4s (except Duncan cuz he's a center) and say they don't play like Bird.

Do you know who are/were stretch 4s? LeBron, Novak, Dirk, R.Lewis, Jeff Green, K.Love and Carmelo.

[3ball]

I'm not getting drawn into another extended debate on the virtues of the defensive 3 second rule vs. the illegal defense rule from back then.


don't act like I'm the one that wants to argue the rule... I don't because it's a RULE - there's nothing to argue... but when you make statements about the game that don't consider the impact of the rule, then i have to correct you and point out that the rule exists and impacts the game.





Therefore, offensive philosophies have dictated the changes, and not primarily the rules, the details of which we disagree on.


i never said the armslength rule was the PRIMARY factor... but it's A factor.

defenders must stay within armslength of their man at all times to remain in the paint... This adds to the lane congestion ALREADY BEING CAUSED by the lack of spacing/3-point shooting.





Offenses have learned to adopt and change to what is considered the most efficient way of doing it today.


Efficiency doesn't mean better though... while the spacing creates open shot opportunities, IT TAKES TIME to move the ball to get those open shots, which slows the pace down in comparison to the 80's.

and the open shots amount to play-finishing - most shots today are just play-finishing, especially at the 2-5 positions... i prefer the 80's style of play, where all 5 positions were adept at creating their own offense and where players had to be more creative to get their shot off... i think eventually within a year or two, people will realize that today's game is mostly play-finishing and they won't be as entertained by it as they are now.

when the offense isn't waiting on an open shot, it can play faster, which is more exciting than today's open jumpshooting and in-stride layups where the defense is helping from so far away, they can't help but be late.





A long 2 is now considered a poor shot. Back then, it was a better shot than a 3 pointer.


this is one of the reasons why players from today's era would shoot so poorly without a 3-point line - they are used to the 3-point shots setting up the spacing, which allows them to pursue an optimal allocation of open shots (3-pointers, FT's and open at-rim looks) - this "modern" shot allocation maximizes shooting efficiency, but is super-duper boring as all bloody hell.

today's players are also used to the slower pace that spacing creates... but in previous eras, as you say, players would have to take long two's as a standard, which would plummet their efficiency - a guy shooting 60% TS today, would not shoot that in previous eras because there wouldn't be anyone spacing the floor for them.. Otoh, one can only imagine how guys like Dantley and Jordan would shoot in today's spacing, considering they shot 60% TS without spacing and without shooting 3-pointers.





While I was looking for Bird saying he would be a PF today(which I couldn't find)


of course you couldn't find it - because he never said it - why would one of the greatest players and competitors of all time downgrade his own game?

i think the reason you THOUGHT Bird said it is because that's what everyone ELSE says all the time about Bird, and you got confused... everyone says that about his game, because they think Bird would play worse defense than Mike Dunleavy (SF) or Kyle Korver (SG)... :hammerhead:





"I don't know if I'd take 500, but you'd have to take three or four a game, maybe, just to keep the defense honest."


the article and Bird's quotes say nothing about whether Bird would play PF today or not... all it says is that he would shoot 3-4 threes per game - obviously, shooting threes is not restricted to the PF position... (btw, Bird would take more like 5-7 threes per game today).





With defenders guarding 3 point snipers, the paint is left open, and Bird's 1 on 1 defense is exposed. Just my take


Indeed, but this is the case for ALL players - the individual defense of ALL players takes a step back with spacing... so the argument doesn't help your case about him playing PF... it's like saying "well, they moved the line in, so that helped the Knicks win more games from 1994-1997".

Now what your argument DOES reveal, is that Bird would be a far better offensive player in today's game, which is scary... And on defense, i think it's safe to day he'd be far better than Gallinari or Paul Pierce.

[3ball]

I think your comparisons are off. When ppl say Bird would be a good stretch 4, you start mentioning non stretch 4s (except Duncan cuz he's a center) and say they don't play like Bird.

Do you know who are/were stretch 4s? LeBron, Novak, Dirk, R.Lewis, Jeff Green, K.Love and Carmelo.
lebron, melo, and Reggie Lewis were all SF's most of their careers... so to say flatly that "they are PF's" is disingenuous.

as for Novak, Jeff Green and Klove - those guys suck massive donkey balls compared to Bird - it would be a travesty if today's game reduced Bird to that kind of a limited player.

the reality is that growing up with no-spacing made Bird a better basketball player than he'd ever be growing up with today's spacing.

[Micku]

lebron, melo, and Reggie Lewis were all SF's most of their careers... so to say flatly that "they are PF's" is disingenuous.

as for Novak, Jeff Green and Klove - those guys suck massive donkey balls compared to Bird - it would be a travesty if today's game reduced Bird to that kind of a limited player.

It doesn't matter if they were SF most of their careers. If they changed position, they would play a different role to that specific season or game. It didn't matter when James Worthy changed roles from a PF to a SF. It didn't matter when Duncan changed roles from PF to a C, Pau Gasol from PF to a C, or when MJ changed from SG to PG for a short time. Regardless, Carmelo, LeBron and R.Lewis (Rashard Lewis) were stretch 4s for their teams for a couple of seasons. They had the versatility to play different positions. They even change positions mid games if needed.

And why do you think Bird would be limited to what guys like Jeff Green could do? Just because ppl would say Bird would be a stretch 4, it doesn't mean all he would do is take 3s. Jeff Green don't just take 3s. He also has the versatility to play SF as well, but he can't play the stretch 4 as good as LeBron or Bird.

I don't understand why you think just because Tim Duncan played the 4 one way and guys like LeBron or Novak can't play the 4 another way, which they did. Bird and James Worthy also did not play the 4 like Duncan either.


the reality is that growing up with no-spacing made Bird a better basketball player than he'd ever be growing up with today's spacing.
*shrugs*

Whatever. That's subjective, depending on a bunch of factors like upbringing and his mentors and etc. As long as he develop the skills. This isn't entirely relevant.