Bird saved the nba. Duncan/Shaq didnt.
Printable View
Bird saved the nba. Duncan/Shaq didnt.
[QUOTE=Rekindled]bird and shaq right now both have career ppg of 24. shaq's gonna drop off after this year.
shaq career rpg = 11 , bird career rpg= 10. I dont see how 1 more rebound makes you a far better rebounder considering that shaq is like 4 inches taller than bird)[/QUOTE]
Shaq has played longer then Bird which brings down his stats.
[QUOTE=Rekindled]Bird saved the nba. Duncan/Shaq didnt.[/QUOTE]
Mhmmm....
Eisenhower won during WWII. Bill Clinton did not. Therefore: Eisenhower > Clinton
they are all great.. leave it as that. but i'll like to say
Bird > Magic
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Mhmmm....
Eisenhower won during WWII. Bill Clinton did not. Therefore: Eisenhower > Clinton[/QUOTE]
eisenhower is a far better president than clinton.
[QUOTE=Rekindled]eisenhower is a far better president than clinton.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but it has nothing to do with WWII.
You can save the league in 1980. There is nothing to save in 1998.
[QUOTE=elementally morale]Sure, but it has nothing to do with WWII.
You can save the league in 1980. There is nothing to save in 1998.[/QUOTE]
Actually after MJ left in 98, added in with the lock-out....that kinda was like the NBA' version of the Great Depression
[QUOTE=Celts34]Actually after MJ left in 98, added in with the lock-out....that kinda was like the NBA' version of the Great Depression[/QUOTE]
The league's future was not in real danger then, unlike the late 70s IMO.
[QUOTE=allball]Because Bird could dominate in more areas of the game.
It's ridiculous to say Shaq was a better scorer when Bird could score in so many ways plus you have to count his assists.[/QUOTE]This.
[QUOTE=sixer6ad]I think we are all finding that the differences in time periods and game styles makes this an impossible comparison.[/QUOTE]This too.
[QUOTE=allball]Because Bird could dominate in more areas of the game. people talk about Bird not being a great defender but his hustle had just as much impact as Shaq's or Duncan's defense.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no. :lol Bird was better than people give him credit for, but he did not bring the equivalent of shot blocking, rebounding, solid post defense and intimidation in the paint.
Bird's defense, however was based 100% on anticipation and hustle. He was a poor post defender and not quick enough to stay with high scoring perimeter players.
he was absolute money. who would you fear most in a game 7. Shaq, Duncan or Bird?
[QUOTE]It's ridiculous to say Shaq was a better scorer when Bird could score in so many ways plus you have to count his assists.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, Bird could score in so many ways, but Shaq just couldn't be stopped from scoring. He'd score more than Bird and with more defenders.
[QUOTE]Bird averaged 29.9/6/9 at 31 years old while shooting .916 from the FT line. it doesn't get much better than that.[/QUOTE]
What about 29.7/13.6/3.8/3.0 on 57.4% from the field at a much slower pace with 10 more wins than Bird and a championship to cap it off. Then we can mention his 31/15 playoff averages and 38/17 finals averages that season...
[QUOTE]When looking at rebounds you can't just look at the numbers. you have to look at how and when they got rebounds. Bird got 11 boards a night without playing under the basket. centers have a huge advantage in rebound position. Bird hustled for boards.
[/QUOTE]
And prime Shaq couldn't be boxed out. He was too big, strong and athletic. I still remember him just going over or around prime Dikembe Mutombo in the finals. He had back to back 20 rebound games vs Dikembe and easily outrebounded him that series.
Shaq and Bird are close ... but Duncan isn't in this category ..
I don't see how Duncan is even in the discussion with Shaq and Bird. Bird's and Shaq's peak play was on another level than that of Duncan.
Also, Bird is easily just as good an offensive player as Jordan, arguably better.
[QUOTE]Also, Bird is easily just as good an offensive player as Jordan, arguably better.[/QUOTE]
I think Bird would tell you himself Jordan was better than him.
Bird had three years over 26 points per game in his career.
Jordan averaged between 30 and 37 points a year on 50 percent shooting or better for seven straight years.
Jordan might not have been the passer Bird was... but he wasn't far behind. He could dish the ball and make plays for other people. You don't average eight dimes in one year without having superb passing skills.
Overall, Bird had better passing and more range.... but he didn't shoot many 3 pointers. He attempted less than one a game four straight years. He attempted about two per game for his career.
So while he was a better long distance shooter, it doesn't matter a whole lot because he didn't produce with it enough for it to matter a whole lot.
Bottom line is Jordan put far more pressure on your defense than Bird did. Just watch a few finals games in 1993 and then a few 1986 finals games... it's clear to me who the better offensive player was.
And as for Duncan... he is far more accomplished than Bird as far as his resume goes, and his resume is still growing.
Take a look at Duncans finals/regular season MVP's, all-nba 1st and 2nd team selections, all-nba defense slections.... it's better than Birds.
Has has four rings as the undisputable best player on his team (Only Jordan & Russell have as many being the udisputable best player)
As far as longevity goes, Duncan will have him there as well... probably by a lot.
The ONLY thing that Bird has an edge in is prime years, but how does that overcome Duncan's edge in the two other key factors in greatness?
I'm not sold that Bird was completely better player than Duncan in his prime either. Duncan was a better rebounder, much much better defender, on par with Bird as an overall offensive player (taking into account how effective they were at creating/making shots for themselves/teammates) and he was something Bird was not - a dominant low post scorer which is so valuable.
Bird was a better... leader, though who really knows for sure? It's not like WE were around both of them, so we don't know who is better in leading their guys.
He was a better shooter and more versatile offensive player. He was better in hustle plays. More clutch. Free throw shooter.
What else? Am I missing something?
I have to be, right? Because I don't see how Bird is easily, without a doubt better than Duncan here.
I'm just trying to get someone to make a valid case for Bird here. Instead, I see baseless claims like "bird the best! tough era! better shooter and passer!" and not really going into depth.
I want someone to make a real argument, because for the life of me I cannot make a solid one for Bird - and I want to... he's my favorite basketball player from those days.
You are severely underrating Bird's offense if you're seriously saying Duncan is on par with him in that category. And while Duncan is a better low-post scorer, you have to remember Bird played PF for 5 years and was one of the most creative post scorers of all time.
The amount Jordan is a better scorer is the same that Bird is better as a playmaker. Jordan was a good passer, yes, but Bird was one of the best ever.
As for Duncan and his claim for greatness, well, IMO he never reached that top 8 GOAT level in his prime. His achievements speak for themselves, but everyone of these great as achieved a lot, so peak play becomes decisive.
[QUOTE=Carbine]I think Bird would tell you himself Jordan was better than him.[/QUOTE]
[B]Larry Bird:[/B]
Bird via nostalgia.
3 different types of player. like comparing Hip-Hop to country to classical.
[QUOTE=Horatio33]3 different types of player. like comparing Hip-Hop to country to classical.[/QUOTE]
Classic wins
I would want Larry bird on my team over the other two. He was just that good. If you havent seen him play in his prime on a nightly basis can you please not respond to this thread.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]
What about 29.7/13.6/3.8/3.0 on 57.4% from the field at a much slower pace with 10 more wins than Bird and a championship to cap it off. Then we can mention his 31/15 playoff averages and 38/17 finals averages that season...
[/QUOTE]
ah yes that 31/15 came against Vlade Divac, Luc Longley/Oliver Miller, and a 35 yr old Arvydas Sabonis/Rasheed and Ric Smits / Dale Davis a virtual whose who of HOFers.
[QUOTE=Rekindled]eisenhower is a far better president than clinton.[/QUOTE]
George Washington > eisenhower > clinton
[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r][B]Larry Bird:[/B]
Bird was and is the definition off Celtics Pride. He was a confident, competitive, smart hardworking player who thrived in the clutch. He inspired his teammates and made them better. Bird would force the spotlight upon himself, but also brought out the best in the players around him. Bill Russell, Hondo, Cousey, even those legendary players didn't fill Boston Garden, wowing fans and dominating games as Bird did. The cliche yet perfect quote that described Larry Bird was that he was playing chess while you were playing checkers.
[B]Career Stats/accomplishments:[/B]
- points: 21,791 (24.3 ppg)
- assists: 5,695 (6.3 apg)
- rebounds: 9,874 (10.0 rpg)
- 3
But why? It can't be because Larry won more. It can't be because Larry had more accomplishments. It can't be because Larry had better longevity....all of those things are in Duncan's favor.... all off which are really important when factoring who is greater.
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Bird was and is the definition off Celtics Pride. He was a confident, competitive, smart hardworking player who thrived in the clutch. He inspired his teammates and made them better. Bird would force the spotlight upon himself, but also brought out the best in the players around him. Bill Russell, Hondo, Cousey, even those legendary players didn't fill Boston Garden, wowing fans and dominating games as Bird did. The cliche yet perfect quote that described Larry Bird was that he was playing chess while you were playing checkers.
[B]Career Stats/accomplishments:[/B]
- points: 21,791 (24.3 ppg)
- assists: 5,695 (6.3 apg)
- rebounds: 9,874 (10.0 rpg)
- 3
[QUOTE=Big#50]Tim has one more ring. Tim has one less reg season MVP but was robbed in 99. Tim is at least a top 5 defensive player of all time. Tim has the same amount of Finals MVP's. Tim is just as clutch if not more clutch than Bird. Bird played in the 80's. Do you think a slow unathletic 6'9 forward can play in today's league at that high level? **** NO. How is Bird better?[/QUOTE]
Not athletic because he's Caucasian? Get some perspective. I don't argue sentiments, rather facts. If Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash are getting theirs now, why couldn't Larry? He was a much better player and just as good of a shooter. Tim Duncan was not more clutch. Tim couldn't shoot like Bird. Tim couldn't pass like Bird. Tim doesn't have the IQ Bird had. Tim doesn't have the killer instinct Bird had. Tim didn't captivate and revitalize the NBA for a decade like Bird did.
[QUOTE=Big#50]Tim has one more ring. Tim has one less reg season MVP but was robbed in 99. Tim is at least a top 5 defensive player of all time. Tim has the same amount of Finals MVP's. Tim is just as clutch if not more clutch than Bird. Bird played in the 80's. Do you think a slow unathletic 6'9 forward can play in today's league at that high level? **** NO. How is Bird better?[/QUOTE]
[B][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Larry Bird has more clutch shots, steals and plays than the whole Spurs franchise.
Larry Bird averaged 6.3 and 6.5 APG for his Career and in his Prime close to 9 APG.
Larry Bird actally played Floor Defense and was one of the Best Team and Floor Defending SFs Ever
Larry Bird was a Better Far Range Shooter, Mid Range Range Shooter, FT Shooter, 3 Point Shooter and Clutch Shooter.
Larry Bird had PG like Court Vision/Ball Timing/Desicion Making
Larry Bird is the Smartest Player Ever Offensively and His B-Ball IQ is compared to Very Few (Russel one of them)
Larry Bird had the Greatest Body-Hand to Eye Coordination Ever
Larry Bird was Ambidiextrous
Larry Bird was a Better Ball Handler[/COLOR]
[COLOR="darkgreen"]Larry Bird [/COLOR]Battled [COLOR="DarkOrange"]Kareem-Magic-Worthy-McAdoo-Nixon-Lucas-Cooper-Scott[/COLOR]/[COLOR="Red"]Dr J-Moses-Toney-Cheeks-Jones-Bobby then young Barkley[/COLOR]/[COLOR="Blue"]Laimbeer-Isiah-Mahorn-Dumars-Salley-Dantley-Aguirre-Rodman[/COLOR]/[COLOR="Red"]Jordan-Pippen-Grant[/COLOR]/....REAL TEAMS
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Larry Bird has the Highest Statistical Plus/Minus for any Small Forward in NBA History.[/COLOR]
....
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Duncan was the Better Impact Player (just as was Barkley)...as Most Cs and CFs do but Larry was the More Skilled Player than Duncan and made Others Better More (just as Barkley over Duncan)
Duncan was a Better Post Defender/Shot Blocker and Post Player thats it[/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Larry Bird was More Athletic from 1979 and 1986 than People Think...Go Watch Those Clips
Larry Bird
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Not athletic because he's Caucasian? Get some perspective. I don't argue sentiments, rather facts. If Dirk Nowitzki and Steve Nash are getting theirs now, why couldn't Larry? He was a much better player and just as good of a shooter. Tim Duncan was not more clutch. Tim couldn't shoot like Bird. Tim couldn't pass like Bird. Tim doesn't have the IQ Bird had. Tim doesn't have the killer instinct Bird had. Tim didn't captivate and revitalize the NBA for a decade like Bird did.[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about being white? Dirk is 7ft tall and still faster than Bird. Nash is good on offense but sucks on D. Duncan's IQ is just as good as Bird. Tim has a bigger killer instinct. Bird did captivate the NBA more. I agree but doesn't mean he's better. It might have had something to do with being white like you said.
[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Larry Bird has more clutch shots, steals and plays than the whole Spurs franchise.
Larry Bird averaged 6.3 and 6.5 APG for his Career and in his Prime close to 9 APG.
Larry Bird actally played Floor Defense and was one of the Best Team and Floor Defending SFs Ever
Larry Bird was a Better Far Range Shooter, Mid Range Range Shooter, FT Shooter, 3 Point Shooter and Clutch Shooter.
Larry Bird had PG like Court Vision/Ball Timing/Desicion Making
Larry Bird is the Smartest Player Ever Offensively and His B-Ball IQ is compared to Very Few (Russel one of them)
Larry Bird had the Greatest Body-Hand to Eye Coordination Ever
Larry Bird was Ambidiextrous
Larry Bird was a Better Ball Handler[/COLOR]
[COLOR="darkgreen"]Larry Bird [/COLOR]Battled [COLOR="DarkOrange"]Kareem-Magic-Worthy-McAdoo-Nixon-Lucas-Cooper-Scott[/COLOR]/[COLOR="Red"]Dr J-Moses-Toney-Cheeks-Jones-Bobby then young Barkley[/COLOR]/[COLOR="Blue"]Laimbeer-Isiah-Mahorn-Dumars-Salley-Dantley-Aguirre-Rodman[/COLOR]/[COLOR="Red"]Jordan-Pippen-Grant[/COLOR]/....REAL TEAMS
[COLOR="DarkGreen"]Larry Bird has the Highest Statistical Plus/Minus for any Small Forward in NBA History.[/COLOR]
....
[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]Duncan was the Better Impact Player (just as was Barkley)...as Most Cs and CFs do but Larry was the More Skilled Player than Duncan and made Others Better More (just as Barkley over Duncan)
Duncan was a Better Post Defender/Shot Blocker and Post Player thats it[/COLOR]
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Larry Bird was More Athletic from 1979 and 1986 than People Think...Go Watch Those Clips
Larry Bird
[QUOTE=Big#50]It was all done in the 80's. Faster pace. His rebounding and assists would be at around 7 and 4 in today's league.[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[B]How do u explain Larry Bird averaging 9.6 RPG in 36.9 MPG in hist last season (91-92) at age 35 with a destroyed back since 1988-89 (nearly career end)?
:confusedshrug:
While Charles Barkley pulling down 33 rebounds in his NBA game at age 33 during the 1996-97 season and averaging 13.5 RPG (he lead the league with 14.6 RPG during the 80s) and during the 1999 play-offs 13.8 after having the same back problems as Bird had, no leap left and playing half footed cause of his knee problems those years?
:confusedshrug:
How do u explain that old no leap, back injured, knee injured 34-36 year old Barkley outrebounding young athletic healthy Duncan in their meetings while playing lesser minutes?
:confusedshrug:
BTW under these zone rules Larry Bird would average like 2.5 SPG for his Career do to his anticipation as a Team Defender.[/B]
[QUOTE=Big#50]Who said anything about being white? Dirk is 7ft tall and still faster than Bird. Nash is good on offense but sucks on D. Duncan's IQ is just as good as Bird. Tim has a bigger killer instinct. Bird did captivate the NBA more. I agree but doesn't mean he's better. [B]It might have had something to do with being white like you said[/B].[/QUOTE]
It had nothing do with him being white. Look at his and Magic Johnson's production. The two solely took the NBA to new heights and helped pave the way for Jordan, Kobe and LeBron. Bird helped rebuild a Celtics franchise that had been suffering from substandard play and poor attendance in the late 70s. With him as the focal point of a well-rounded team, Boston won 3 titles and 10 Division titles. In addition to his 3 rings, Bird piled up an incredible collection of personal achievements. The guy became only the third player to win three consecutive NBA Most Valuable Player Awards. He was a 12 time All Star, 2 NBA Finals MVP and a 9 time member of the All-NBA First Team. He led the league in free-throw percentage four times as well.
The "highest IQ" players to have stepped on the court are Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. Also possessing the NBA's equivalent of a genius IQ would be Michael Jordan and Stockton. There are others, but let's use these 4 as an example of The Gold Standard. Not that these guys never committed a turnover or made a mistake, they just made fewer than the rest. These 4 also were able to elevate their play and thought process during the most pressure moments. Each of these Gold Standard players exhibited the same abilities and instincts. They all had that sense for when to pass and when to shoot. They could all make the great pass. They could all make the big shot. The smartest players are always able to think 2 or 3 moves ahead of the opponent and all of these players had that. It's the reason Larry Bird was a good defender and rebounder: He was [B]always[/B] two or three steps ahead of everyone else on the court.
:oldlol: at the claim that Duncan is on par with Bird offensively, who has a legit argument for being the greatest offensive player ever. Scoring wise he was top 5 (flawless scoring ability), was the best non-PG passer ever and arguably the most skilled offensive player to ever play...how the **** is Duncan "on par" with that? Not to mention Bird can create offense for himself and his team the moment he grabs a defensive rebound (why I prefer Bird or Jordan's offensive ability to any big man).
Bird's rings will always be more impressive than Duncan's in peoples minds because of the era Bird won them in (and also since one of Duncan's came in maybe the weakest year ever? the shortened season. another one was also very controversial) so this "he won more" logic isn't convincing anyone. Bird's durability is the only legit knock on him, he got injured way too often, even before '88 and that probably cost him 1-2 rings (in 1985 for sure).
[QUOTE=Big#50]Who said anything about being white? Dirk is 7ft tall and still faster than Bird. Nash is good on offense but sucks on D. Duncan's IQ is just as good as Bird. Tim has a bigger killer instinct. Bird did captivate the NBA more. I agree but doesn't mean he's better. It might have had something to do with being white like you said.[/QUOTE]
[B]Dirk can
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234] [B]He was a poor post defender[/B] and not quick enough to stay with high scoring perimeter players.[/QUOTE]
???
Originally Posted by ShaqAttack3234
He was a poor post defender and not quick enough to stay with high scoring perimeter players.
[B]He owned [COLOR="Red"][U]Jordan and Pippen [/U][/COLOR]even after his Prime and with no back left
[COLOR="red"]What better Perimeter Slashing-Scoring-Driving-Ball Handling-Athletic Threat do u wan
[QUOTE=Fatal9]:oldlol: at the claim that Duncan is on par with Bird offensively, who has a legit argument for being the greatest offensive player ever. Scoring wise he was top 5 (flawless scoring ability), was the best non-PG passer ever and arguably the most skilled offensive player to ever play...how the **** is Duncan "on par" with that? Not to mention Bird can create offense for himself and his team the moment he grabs a defensive rebound (why I prefer Bird or Jordan's offensive ability to any big man).
Bird's rings will always be more impressive than Duncan's in peoples minds because of the era Bird won them in (and also since one of Duncan's came in maybe the weakest year ever? the shortened season. another one was also very controversial) so this "he won more" logic isn't convincing anyone. Bird's durability is the only legit knock on him, he got injured way too often, even before '88 and that probably cost him 1-2 rings (in 1985 for sure).[/QUOTE]
There is one thing that should be measured for an offensive player. It's simple, really... people want to make all these wild claims and make it seem scientific when it fact it's the most simple formula.
How effective was the player at creating a shot for himself, how successful he was at it and how good was he at creating open shots for his teammates?
That's it. It doesn't matter who could shoot better, who could drive better, who could do this and who could do that.... the end result is either an attempted shot, or hopefully a created open shot for a teammate.
Duncan could get his shot off at any time, made the shots at a 50% clip....and he was a guy who could demand double teams consistently, thus creating open shots for his teammates or driving lanes to get to the basket pretty much anytime you gave him the ball.
Larry could get his shot off at any time, made his shots at 50% clip, and whether it was creating shots from his post-up ability, drive/kick ability or whatever... he got the job done.
Just because Bird did it in more ways doesn't mean he was more effective at it. And in he end, effectiveness is all that matters.
That's why I don't see Bird as clearly above Duncan on offense.
[QUOTE=Carbine]There is one thing that should be measured for an offensive player. It's simple, really... people want to make all these wild claims and make it seem scientific when it fact it's the most simple formula.
How effective was the player at creating a shot for himself, how successful he was at it and how good was he at creating open shots for his teammates?
That's it. It doesn't matter who could shoot better, who could drive better, who could do this and who could do that.... the end result is either an attempted shot, or hopefully a created open shot for a teammate.
Duncan could get his shot off at any time, made the shots at a 50% clip....and he was a guy who could demand double teams consistently, thus creating open shots for his teammates or driving lanes to get to the basket pretty much anytime you gave him the ball.
Larry could get his shot off at any time, made his shots at 50% clip, and whether it was creating shots from his post-up ability, drive/kick ability or whatever... he got the job done.
Just because Bird did it in more ways doesn't mean he was more effective at it. And in he end, effectiveness is all that matters.
That's why I don't see Bird as clearly above Duncan on offense.[/QUOTE]
so are you saying duncan is a better scorer than kobe? since duncan can get his shots off anytime and at a 50% clip , kobe only @ 45%
[QUOTE]Tim is just as clutch if not more clutch than Bird. Bird played in the 80's.[/QUOTE]
come on. im a massive tim duncan fan but that is just blasphimous.
I do think Duncan was on par with Kobe as an offensive player in his day. Kobe was a more dynamic scorer and shot the ball way more, thus his higher per game totals.
Think of it like this - if you had both players in their prime - and you as a coach wanted to get a good shot for your team, would you feel strongly that Kobe could either score you a hoop or get someone else a quality shot more than Duncan could?
I don't.