Teams play at a slower pace today. They'd probably have similar lines to what they did in the 80's if you account for pace.
Bird would probably be competing for a scoring title. I doubt magic would score 20ppg but he could put up around 18-10-6
Printable View
Teams play at a slower pace today. They'd probably have similar lines to what they did in the 80's if you account for pace.
Bird would probably be competing for a scoring title. I doubt magic would score 20ppg but he could put up around 18-10-6
Jason Kidd averaged 10 ppg, 6 rpg, 9 apg at 36 years old after microfracture surgery so...
and Bird and Magic played on loaded teams for the most part. So that offsets the pace somewhat statistically. Magic's stats went up as the Lakers declined.
Why are people taking into account for pace and completely ignoring the cast Bird and Magic had?
Magic had Kareem who he had to defer to all the time in the half court set from '80-'86, look at Magic's scoring numbers once Kareem started to decline. Bird played with one of the greatest low post players ever in McHale and an all-star in Parish, Bird had to sacrifice as well.
Look at Bird's numbers when McHale went down with an injury during the '86 season, they are insane, [B]he put up 6 triple doubles in a 10 game span, 4 of those triple doubles were 30+ point games.[/B] What do you think a peak Bird's numbers would look like today without a dominant post player like McHale?
bird 40 ppg,12 rpg,9 asts,3 stls
magic 30ppg 15 rpg,14 asts,2 stls :applause:
[QUOTE=DatAsh]So you think Bird would average the same number of rebounds as Lebron despite him being a clearly better rebounder? Larry was a 13-16% rebounder on a team with Parish, McHale, and Walton. Lebron is an 11-13% rebounder on a team with Bosh, Anderson, and Wade, yet you think those two players would average the same number of rebounds.
It should be clear that superstar numbers don't rise and fall perfectly with pace.[/QUOTE]
Im just looking at sheer numbers. It would be hard for a player to score at that rate with less opportunities to do so.
Sure perhaps on a bad team his stats could reach 80s level. But im assuming the whole Celtics squad and Magic and his Lakers squad are in the fray.
Bird: 30/10/5 on 55% shooting, 50% 3pt
Magic: 21/7/13 on 52% shooting, 4 spg
Lets face it, the league is getting weaker nowadays, those all-time greats will shit on most players like cake.
[QUOTE=Micku]Because he would just take more shots?
It's not like he doesn't have the skill with isos, moving without the ball, or post up. I don't think it's that big of an issue if Bird wanted to score. If other players did it in a slower pace league who played with him like Wilkins and Jordan, I don't see why Bird cannot. Bird could average 26-30 ppg if he want to.
The less FGAs would affect the role players, but not the superstars because they are your number 1 option.
Magic would probably average the similar numbers. I don't know if he'll keep his FG%, but he will still have crazy efficiency.[/QUOTE]
Bird wasnt an iso type player. He scored off screens, picks and steals.
And fir the life of me, how or why would he take more shots? Did he not have the green light to shoot at willl
Magic 19 Pts 6 Reb 11 Ast 1.5 Stl
Bird 23 Pts 9 Reb 5.7 Ast 1.6 Stl 0.8 BS, 50/40/90
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Bird wasnt an iso type player. He scored off screens, picks and steals.
And fir the life of me, how or why would he take more shots? Did he not have the green light to shoot at willl[/QUOTE]
He could without a doubt score iso in the post. The guy did drop 60 in a game and he did average 30 in a season.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rto2_oYVs0I[/url]
I really don't see Bird having a problem scoring 26-28 a night on a team with no scorers, he was an elite shooter, moved well off the ball, and had a terrific post game. It's not like he depended on screens and picks to score all the time.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Bird wasnt an iso type player. He scored off screens, picks and steals.
And fir the life of me, how or why would he take more shots? Did he not have the green light to shoot at willl[/QUOTE]
Are post ups and the team clearing out are not isos? Is facing someone up and taking someone off the dribble are not isos? He was much more than scored off screens and steals. He did almost everything despite his lack of athleticism. And he definitely took players one on one. They couldn't stop him. He didn't depend on screens to score.
And the reason why he would take more shots is because he could be their best offensive player. I don't know why is this difficult to grasp that he could average 19-22 FGA and score 26-30 ppg. He did it on a stacked team, having the most FGA above Mchale and Parish, and those players are better scorers than most all-stars today. And Bird is a better scorer than Melo who won the scoring title this year, who had 22.2 FGAs.
It depends on how stacked Bird team is, but I can see him having 18-22 FGAs, which will result to him averaging about 26-30 ppg.
Idk why y'all are making it so hard, what he's saying makes perfect sense. Is it not common sense that in a league where the pace is much faster you're going to take more shots? Vice versa
[QUOTE=BuGzBuNNy]Idk why y'all are making it so hard, what he's saying makes perfect sense. Is it not common sense that in a league where the pace is much faster you're going to take more shots? Vice versa[/QUOTE]
Because it won't apply to superstars that much. Take Karl Malone for example.
In 1987-88, the Utah Jazz pace was 101.5, sixth fastest pace in the league. The team as a whole took 7092 FGA. Karl Malone average 20.1 FGA and average 27.7 ppg.
In 1996-97 (almost a decade later), the Utah Jazz pace was 90.0, 17th place out of 29 teams. The team as a whole took 6217 FGA. Karl Malone average 19.2 FGA and average 27.4 ppg.
Virtually the same despite the transition to fast and slow pace.
To compare, Miami Heat 2013 pace is 90.7. And the team as a whole took 6348. So they are slightly faster.
And this isn't the only example. You have Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Dominique Wilkins, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, Barkley and etc. Pace won't affect superstars all that much. They will get their shots, especially someone of the caliber as Larry Bird. It'll affect the role players.
Bird's stats would dip slightly. I'm probably going for a 24/11/6 with 48-50% FG. Today's league has better defense, and a huge number of athletic SFs and swingmen that would give Bird a much harder time than during the mid 80s where it was mostly offense. Imagine you are in 84-87, and you were Larry Bird, and you had an Alex English, Dominique or Dantley guarding your ass usually. The only people that really gave him trouble were Michael Cooper and Dennis Rodman.
Today you'd have Lebron, Paul George, Kawhi, Tony Allen, Iguodala, Ibaka, Battier, Shumpert... 3s or 4s that are athletic, physical guys who can take you out of your rhythm. I feel that Bird would be smart enough to reinvent himself as more of a stretch 4 who can rebound with the best of them, hence why I bumped up his rebounding stats.
With Magic it depends on the pace of his team. If he was the 1st option he would probably average 23/7/11, but if he was running a D'Antoni offense that somehow became successful it would probably go up to 1987 numbers or even higher. Otherwise if he was "2nd" banana it would probably be more conservative 18/7/12, 50%. Still beastly as ****.
The only problem with Magic is he'd be even more exposed on defense, considering the amazing number of point guards in the league today that can exploit him on a daily basis.
[QUOTE]My point is exactly that. Iverson was considered a chucker. Bird wasnt. Iverson taking 25 shots in the early 00s was equivalent to taking probably 28 in the 80s. And mind you that was Birds max.
If Bird took roughly 20 shots in a league that avg about 7100 shots per team, how is he gonna get the same 20 in a league where the avg team takes about 6500?[/QUOTE]
The same way Kevin Love got 20 a game in 2012. He would...shoot the ball about 20 times. What about that is hard for you to imagine?
I cant even believe you are serious right now.
I don't see why Magic would only average about 6 rebounds in this league when he averaged a lot more in the 80s, is 6'7/6'8, and may play SF/PF more often in this era. 8 seems more realistic to me. As a PG he'd probably average 18-11-8, but would crack 20 ppg on his peak scoring year. As a SF/PF he'd average over 20 points, 9/10 rebounds and 6 assists.
Bird would be an awesome scorer right now. Not only does shooting translate to any era, but he could do the Durant rip-through move or the Wade pump fake and would get a ton of free throws, which he would convert at a high rate.
some of you saying these top 10 all time players can't break 20ppg?
put the crack pipe down.
[QUOTE=DCL]some of you saying these top 10 all time players can't break 20ppg?
put the crack pipe down.[/QUOTE]
On a board where people say top 10-20 all time players would be lucky to even get off the bench, for the life of me I don't understand why that would surprise anyone.
Anyone not playing in the here and now would be a marginal player at best and a complete scrub at worst. That's how most of the people here think.
[QUOTE=DCL]some of you saying these top 10 all time players can't break 20ppg?
put the crack pipe down.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I mean Dirk is averaging 26/10 in the playoffs. Let's say for argument's sake that Bird is "only" as good as Nowitzki in terms of scoring/rebounding ( we all know Bird is clearly the better player, but I'll run with this...), and now you add his superior passing into the mix and you'll get something like 26/10/7 maybe? So what's the worst case for Bird in today's league? Prime Dirk with better passing? Sounds like a tie with Lebron for the best player in the league...
Impossible to predict exactly the numbers, but they would form 2 of the top 3 players in the league.
Discount 10% from their original stats because of the pace, then discount another 10% because of the quality of the defense and you have their stats.
Bird - 23/8/6
Magic - 19/6/9
IMO, yes it makes sense to account for pace. If you magically transport the mid 80s celtics to right now, birds rebounding and probably his scoring drop. That said whatever you lose in pace, you'd pick back up through expansion. No team today has anywhere near as much talent around a star as either of those 80 teams did and we know that numbers are context dependant.
That being said there is no situation you could put them in where a prime bird or magic isn't an absolutely elite player in this era. I'm as big of a dirk fan as there is but put bird in dirks place and does anyone really think bird couldn't do the same things plus pass? We love to talk about how athletic the league has gotten as proof that older guys couldn't play now but there have always been athletic freaks in the nba. They might be more prevalent now but there are also plenty of stars who aren't exactly prime mj or Lebron athletically. Kevin love is athletic enough to put up 25/14 but bird couldn't score 25? Please. Paul pierce isn't exactly the most athletic guy in the world and he's putting up 18/6/4 at an old age.
I understand the belief that the current generation is probably More athletic than the last. Advances in medicine, technology and understanding exercise/the human body make that a reality. That said greatness is greatness, and these guys were both legit great players. They'd translate just fine. This isn't the 60s. These guys played against mj and beat him. They played the same guys mj played and dominated to be the consensus goat. If in 2030 we have people with 55 inch verts with 35 foot range and 7 3 guys with handles then by all means have this discussion about them not being able to translate due to athleticism but right now? No. They'd be just fine.
[QUOTE=raiderfan19]IMO, yes it makes sense to account for pace. If you magically transport the mid 80s celtics to right now, birds rebounding and probably his scoring drop. That said whatever you lose in pace, you'd pick back up through expansion. No team today has anywhere near as much talent around a star as either of those 80 teams did and we know that numbers are context dependant.
That being said there is no situation you could put them in where a prime bird or magic isn't an absolutely elite player in this era. I'm as big of a dirk fan as there is but put bird in dirks place and does anyone really think bird couldn't do the same things plus pass? We love to talk about how athletic the league has gotten as proof that older guys couldn't play now but there have always been athletic freaks in the nba. They might be more prevalent now but there are also plenty of stars who aren't exactly prime mj or Lebron athletically. Kevin love is athletic enough to put up 25/14 but bird couldn't score 25? Please. Paul pierce isn't exactly the most athletic guy in the world and he's putting up 18/6/4 at an old age.
I understand the belief that the current generation is probably More athletic than the last. Advances in medicine, technology and understanding exercise/the human body make that a reality. That said greatness is greatness, and these guys were both legit great players. They'd translate just fine. This isn't the 60s. These guys played against mj and beat him. They played the same guys mj played and dominated to be the consensus goat. If in 2030 we have people with 55 inch verts with 35 foot range and 7 3 guys with handles then by all means have this discussion about them not being able to translate due to athleticism but right now? No. They'd be just fine.[/QUOTE]
This.
The pace argument works for guys like Michael Adams maybe, but Bird and Magic? What a joke. I'm a Mavs fan, and if poor man's Larry Bird can pull off 26/10 playoff runs against anybody today on high percentages for a decade, so could Bird himself. Peja was dropping 24 a game in the "modern era", give me a break.
In 85-86, Bird had
- the 4th highest ppg (25.8, behind Nique, Dantley, English)
- the 9th highest rpg (9.8)
- the 16th highest apg (6.8)
So, just to take this into context, in the last season, those positions would equal:
- 4th highest ppg: 26.8 (Lebron)
- 9th highest rpg: 11.1 (Reggie Evans)
- 16th highest apg: 6.9 (Ty Lawson).
[QUOTE=dr.hee]This.
The pace argument works for guys like Michael Adams maybe, but Bird and Magic? What a joke. I'm a Mavs fan, and if poor man's Larry Bird can pull off 26/10 playoff runs against anybody today on high percentages for a decade, so could Bird himself. Peja was dropping 24 a game in the "modern era", give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you need to check the stats.
Bird was great in the reg season, in the playoffs he dropped off markedly - while "poor man's Bird" at least kept his production in the playoffs. You can easily make a pretty good case that "poor man's Bird" was a better playoff performer than the real Bird himself.
[QUOTE=dr.hee]This.
The pace argument works for guys like Michael Adams maybe, but Bird and Magic? What a joke. I'm a Mavs fan, and if poor man's Larry Bird can pull off 26/10 playoff runs against anybody today on high percentages for a decade, so could Bird himself. Peja was dropping 24 a game in the "modern era", give me a break.[/QUOTE]
If Bird were on that Maverick team then sure. But then you gotta take away championships, MVPs etc.
Im just factoring in the whole Celtic team in this era.
Pace isn't going to affect star players like Bird or Magic. What's more likely to affect them is the team they're in and the competition of the era. You can pull numbers from your ass, like I am gonna do below, but in the end its just guesswork. I do think they'd improve on the whole simply because this era isn't as tough as theirs. Below; what is considered a strong/weak team is such a team in the last 5-6 years, not the 80s where 'strong' teams were ridiculously stacked in comparison.
[U]In a strong team:
[/U]
Bird: 26/12/8 on 50/41/90
Magic: 20/8/13 on 51/30/85
I think both would roughly score similar as they did back in the day if not a bit more because their teams wouldn't be as stacked. I also think their rebounding numbers improve considering the state of big-men in this era and rebounders in general. Bird would particularly improve as he'd not have 2 guys like McHale and Parish to contend with either.
I also think their assists improve because the plays tend to get run through the team's best player a lot more these days. I think Bird would be on the ball even more in this kind of era where in his Celtics he didn't have to dominate the ball as much. Magic, regardless of era, will dominate the ball so I didn't see him improving as much.
I think both would be better 3 point shooters considering the implementation of that shot in this era.
[U]In a weak team:
[/U]
Bird: 30/13/9 on 48/40/88
Magic: 24/9/14 on 49/30/85
They'd be walking triple-doubles today. Bird would probably lose a bit of efficiency due to being overrun but he was such a talented scorer if needed he could put up 30+ at the drop of a hat. In a weaker side, his rebounding will matter more. I think Magic improves slightly across the board but moreso for scoring. I think his rebounding and assists aren't as affected by the team but his needing to score will improve a lot in a weaker side.
Im not factoring the "pace" stat used for basketball teams. Im factoring in the tempo in which the game was played.
If were using that pace stat, then where would you put the showtime Lakers? Theyre considered one of the greatest fastbreak offenses ever. In 1987, they were 11th in pace.
How about defense? The Bad Boy Pistons are considered one of the greatest defenses ever. They gave up 100.8 ppg in 1989. That would be good for 22nd in todays league.
[QUOTE=brain drain]Actually, you need to check the stats.
Bird was great in the reg season, in the playoffs he dropped off markedly - while "poor man's Bird" at least kept his production in the playoffs. You can easily make a pretty good case that "poor man's Bird" was a better playoff performer than the real Bird himself.[/QUOTE]
I know the stats, and Dirk actually has a slight edge in scoring efficiency. On the other hand, Bird was doing much more than Nowitzki in terms of playmaking and off the ball movement, so overall, he's still the better player looking at the whole package. Both players have a few sub par playoff runs of course, and Bird was no god. But at his best, he would have a case for top player in the league today, no doubt about it.
[QUOTE=LeBird]Pace isn't going to affect star players like Bird or Magic. What's more likely to affect them is the team they're in and the competition of the era. You can pull numbers from your ass, like I am gonna do below, but in the end its just guesswork. I do think they'd improve on the whole simply because this era isn't as tough as theirs. Below; what is considered a strong/weak team is such a team in the last 5-6 years, not the 80s where 'strong' teams were ridiculously stacked in comparison.
[U]In a strong team:
[/U]
Bird: 26/12/8 on 50/41/90
Magic: 20/8/13 on 51/30/85
I think both would roughly score similar as they did back in the day if not a bit more because their teams wouldn't be as stacked. I also think their rebounding numbers improve considering the state of big-men in this era and rebounders in general. Bird would particularly improve as he'd not have 2 guys like McHale and Parish to contend with either.
I also think their assists improve because the plays tend to get run through the best players these days. I think Bird would be on the ball even more in this kind of era where in his Celtics he didn't have to dominate the ball as much. Magic, regardless of era, will dominate the ball so I didn't see him improving as much.
I think both would be better 3 point shooters considering the implementation of that shot in this era.
[U]In a weak team:
[/U]
Bird: 30/13/9 on 48/40/88
Magic: 24/9/14 on 49/30/87
They'd be walking triple-doubles today. Bird would probably lose a bit of efficiency due to being overrun but he was such a talented scorer if needed he could put up 30+ at the drop of a hat. In a weaker side, his rebounding will matter more. I think Magic improves slightly across the board but moreso for scoring. I think his rebounding and assists aren't as affected by the team but his needing to score will improve a lot in a weaker side.[/QUOTE]
Lol so theyd get all of the strengths of todays league I.e. better 3pt shooting, iso ability, the offense would change etc? But I also assume you feel theyd still keep their same accomplishments right. Championships, MVPs, etc?
It really depends on the teams they get I guess. They'd certainly win all those accolades; they're too good not to.
Don't see how Bird is going to average 12-13 rebounds a game in today's league, that's basically what the best rebounder in the NBA gets. Don't you think that's really ridiculous?
Bird: Durant with more rebounds and assists, so 28/9/5
Magic: Lebron with less points and more assists, so 23/8/9
[QUOTE=Graviton]Don't see how Bird is going to average 12-13 rebounds a game in today's league, that's basically what the best rebounder in the NBA gets. Don't you think that's really ridiculous?[/QUOTE]
Who says he would? His carreer average is 10 rpg. So again, what about Dirk like numbers with all time great passing? Let's even say less efficient Nowitzki with great passing. Still Top 3 in the league.
[QUOTE=Graviton]Don't see how Bird is going to average 12-13 rebounds a game in today's league, that's basically what the best rebounder in the NBA gets. Don't you think that's really ridiculous?[/QUOTE]
The best rebounder in the league in the last 5-6 years has averaged 13-15 rebounds per game. That was basically the same for the 80s and Bird averaged 10 per game himself. But Bird averaged 10 per game in an era where the likes of Moses Malone, Barkley, Laimbeer and Hakeem would win rebounding titles and contest him for rebounds. On his own team he was inhibited from even more rebounds because he played with Parish and McHale. So he averaged 10 when on both sides there were tougher challengers stopping him from averaging even more than 10.
So as I said, considering the era (less 'great' rebounders and bigmen) and the implication that his 'strong' team won't take away as many rebounds as the Celtics did, I think its a fair guess that he'd improve his rebounding numbers by 2 in a strong team and 3 in a weak team.
I mean, you're talking about Bird here...a guy who in his 2nd year almost outrebounded a prime Moses Malone in the NBA finals - who is one of the greatest rebounders of all time.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]The league is different now. For example. In 1988, the year Bird avg.30 ppg, the Celtics team he played on took 6905 shots. That was fourth lowest for that year. In 2013, 6905 FGA would place a team third.
Theres no way Bird would be able to get up enough shots to come close to 30 ppg. The same applies to rebounds and assists. And dont forget FTs dont count as a FGA. So a portion of the points off FTs woukd be negated as well
24/8/6 for Bird
17/6/10 for Magic[/QUOTE]
your forgetting that if he was born the 80's and played in todays game, he would have todays training and skillsets as well. He will not be the high short wearing, bushy mustache bird. He would be a shorter but faster dirk, with a higher IQ and passing ability. Not to mention the chunks of ice that would be flowing through his veins.
28 ppg, 8 rebs, 6 asts I believe will be correct
if what everyone is saying is correct than is it safe to say
Bird > James ???
[QUOTE=INDI]if what everyone is saying is correct than is it safe to say
Bird > James ???[/QUOTE]
Depends on the context imo. If you have some high usage one man army type of team like the Lebron Cavs, it's James all the way for me. Lebron is better "on his own" surrounded by shooters. But give Bird something to work with, and I'd take him instead. For example, Bird instead of Lebron on the 2011 Heat? Championship. On the other hand, if you put Bird on the Cavs instead of James, they won't make the finals.
Pure speculation though...
[QUOTE=INDI]if what everyone is saying is correct than is it safe to say
Bird > James ???[/QUOTE]
No
[QUOTE=Micku]Because it won't apply to superstars that much. Take Karl Malone for example.
In 1987-88, the Utah Jazz pace was 101.5, sixth fastest pace in the league. The team as a whole took 7092 FGA. Karl Malone average 20.1 FGA and average 27.7 ppg.
In 1996-97 (almost a decade later), the Utah Jazz pace was 90.0, 17th place out of 29 teams. The team as a whole took 6217 FGA. Karl Malone average 19.2 FGA and average 27.4 ppg.
Virtually the same despite the transition to fast and slow pace.
To compare, Miami Heat 2013 pace is 90.7. And the team as a whole took 6348. So they are slightly faster.
And this isn't the only example. You have Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Dominique Wilkins, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, Barkley and etc. Pace won't affect superstars all that much. They will get their shots, especially someone of the caliber as Larry Bird. It'll affect the role players.[/QUOTE]
Alot of your Malone argument can be because he played on a different team of players. The Jazz went from a team built around offense to defense. The late 90s Jazz had no Thurl Bailey.
Jordan is another great example. His shot attempts dropped as the era changed. Take 96 Jordan and infuse him in the 80s and hes pushing 32 ppg on over 50% because hed have more fastbreak attempts.
[QUOTE=LeBird]Pace isn't going to affect star players like Bird or Magic. What's more likely to affect them is the team they're in and the competition of the era. You can pull numbers from your ass, like I am gonna do below, but in the end its just guesswork. I do think they'd improve on the whole simply because this era isn't as tough as theirs. Below; what is considered a strong/weak team is such a team in the last 5-6 years, not the 80s where 'strong' teams were ridiculously stacked in comparison.
[U]In a strong team:
[/U]
Bird: 26/12/8 on 50/41/90
Magic: 20/8/13 on 51/30/85
I think both would roughly score similar as they did back in the day if not a bit more because their teams wouldn't be as stacked. I also think their rebounding numbers improve considering the state of big-men in this era and rebounders in general. Bird would particularly improve as he'd not have 2 guys like McHale and Parish to contend with either.
I also think their assists improve because the plays tend to get run through the team's best player a lot more these days. I think Bird would be on the ball even more in this kind of era where in his Celtics he didn't have to dominate the ball as much. Magic, regardless of era, will dominate the ball so I didn't see him improving as much.
I think both would be better 3 point shooters considering the implementation of that shot in this era.
[U]In a weak team:
[/U]
Bird: 30/13/9 on 48/40/88
Magic: 24/9/14 on 49/30/85
They'd be walking triple-doubles today. Bird would probably lose a bit of efficiency due to being overrun but he was such a talented scorer if needed he could put up 30+ at the drop of a hat. In a weaker side, his rebounding will matter more. I think Magic improves slightly across the board but moreso for scoring. I think his rebounding and assists aren't as affected by the team but his needing to score will improve a lot in a weaker side.[/QUOTE]
:roll: