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

[QUOTE=3ball]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.[/QUOTE]
Okay?

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

[QUOTE=navy]Okay?

What about Lebron, Durant, and Melo who also log minutes at the four?[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=3ball]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=navy]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=3ball]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.[/QUOTE]
Nikka arguing with himself.

No shit.

[QUOTE=3ball]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.[/QUOTE]

: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 [I]an even better[/I] 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 [B]better off defensively[/B] 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.

[QUOTE=3ball]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...
.[/QUOTE]

:facepalm

Okay buddy. We're done here.

[QUOTE=Prometheus]

Okay buddy. We're done here.

[/QUOTE]
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)?


[QUOTE=Prometheus]

it's [I]an even better[/I] 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.

[/QUOTE]
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?


[QUOTE=Prometheus]

drawing the interior defenders away from the basket.

[/QUOTE]
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).
.

[QUOTE=3ball]
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.[/quote]

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

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

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.


[quote]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.[/quote]

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.

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

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

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

This is the era of the stretch 4.
[quote]
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.[/QUOTE]


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.

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.

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

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.

[/QUOTE]
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 [I]inside the paint only (the most important area on the floor)[/I].

[QUOTE=3ball]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.[/QUOTE]


: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.

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

[B]But[/B], 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.

[QUOTE=T_L_P]Positions are practically worthless anyways. There are frontcourt players and backcourt players as far as I'm concerned.

[B]But[/B], 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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
Rookie and sophomore Duncan? No chance 100%.

Back to the topic.

[QUOTE=deja vu]Rookie and sophomore Duncan? No chance 100%.

Back to the topic.[/QUOTE]

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).

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]:lol Man, we will never agree with your interpretation of the rules, so i won't belabor that point anymore.

[/quote]
[SIZE="3"]you don't have to take my word for it - the "armslength" rule is in [url=http://www.nba.com/nba101/misunderstood_0708.html][u]black and white[/u][/url]... you're simply crazy for ignoring the rule and finding a different interpretation of what "armslength" means.
[/SIZE]

[quote=Dr.J4ever]

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

[/quote]
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.


[quote=Dr.J4ever]

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

[/QUOTE]
[I]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?
[/I]
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.

[B]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...
[/B]
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.

[QUOTE=3ball]

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.. [B]if Larry's skill were better used as a PF, he would have played far more PF in the 80's[/B], instead of battling Pippen, Dr. J, Dominique and the like.[/QUOTE]

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.

@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."

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

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

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

[QUOTE=3ball]Dr.J4ever, you're dancing a bit here... all you guys are on this issue[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

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.

[/quote]
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.


[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

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

[/QUOTE]
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.


[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

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

[/QUOTE]
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.


[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

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

[/QUOTE]
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.


[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

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

[/QUOTE]
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:


[QUOTE=Dr.J4ever]

"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."

[/QUOTE]
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).


[quote=Dr.J4ever]

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

[/QUOTE]
Indeed, but this is the case for ALL players - [I]the individual defense of ALL players takes a step back with spacing[/I]... 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.

[QUOTE=Micku]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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=3ball]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=3ball]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.[/QUOTE]
*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.