What would Larry Bird and Magic average in this Era?

[QUOTE=dr.hee]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]

You do realise that Bird basically took the 2nd worst team to the best regular season record in his Rookie year, and took them to the ECF, losing to the sixers? I don't think its out of the realms of possibility that Bird could have done what Lebron did.

What differentiates Lebron from Bird, and Magic, is that his defending is superb - for me, at an all-time great level because of his adaptability. Magic was average, Bird was a very good defender (especially team defender) but Lebron gains ground on them there.

Bird would definitely be in the conversation for best in the game, Magic would be top 5 (best PG, ahead of CP3).

[QUOTE=LeBird]You do realise that Bird basically took the 2nd worst team to the best regular season record in his Rookie year, and took them to the ECF, losing to the sixers? I don't think its out of the realms of possibility that Bird could have done what Lebron did.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure. The Cavs were pretty much a bunch of shooters with Lebron driving over and over again. While Bird was absolutely able to carry a team, this specific concept won't work with him imo. I think Lebron vs Bird would probably be a tie for best forward in the game today with preference changing depending on the role they're supposed to play.

[QUOTE=dr.hee]I'm not sure. The Cavs were pretty much a bunch of shooters with Lebron driving over and over again. While Bird was absolutely able to carry a team, this specific concept won't work with him imo. I think Lebron vs Bird would probably be a tie for best forward in the game today with preference changing depending on the role they're supposed to play.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. I was talking more general; like if Bird had a few years with a weak team they could eventually compose it into something that would allow Bird to do a similar feat.

[QUOTE=LeBird]Fair enough. I was talking more general; like if Bird had a few years with a weak team they could eventually compose it into something that would allow Bird to do a similar feat.[/QUOTE]

Of course he could. My point was basically that Lebron could do more with the Cavs than Bird, mainly due to his physical gifts. Maybe Bird could try the same, but he would break down even quicker than he did in the 80s I think.
But looking at the 2011 finals, I really believe that Bird on such a team would be more lethal than Lebron because of his off the ball skills.

There's some truth to "being good in the flow of the offense". So if you've got a team concept other than a one man show, Bird is as good as it gets. Without that, I'd rather have Lebron dominating the ball.

[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]

:applause:

very similar to what I had.
the truth. :applause:

lebron stans in this thread mad that Bird and Magic can put up better statlines than Lebron.

:oldlol:

[QUOTE=dh144498]lebron stans in this thread mad that Bird and Magic can put up better statlines than Lebron.

:oldlol:[/QUOTE]
Kobe stan making up nonsense again? What's new? :facepalm

Magic and Bird could put up better lines than LeBron in your make believe fantasy world, but not in real life. Heck, their 80's stats are inflated and are STILL inferior to LeBron's.:oldlol:

[QUOTE=2010splash]Kobe stan making up nonsense again? What's new? :facepalm

Magic and Bird could put up better lines than LeBron in your make believe fantasy world, but not in real life. Heck, their 80's stats are inflated and are STILL inferior to LeBron's.:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Bird is a better player than Lebron, how mad are you, be honest.

[QUOTE=dh144498]Bird is a better player than Lebron, how mad are you, be honest.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a "Lebron Stan" but let's be honest both are better than kobe

[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]
So, despite being a better player than Durant, Bird would only manage to put up roughly the same RPG and APG numbers, but with 4 fewer PPG? Please.

Bird would be something like a 26-28 PPG, 8-10 RPG, 6-8 APG player on high efficiency, even in this era.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Bird would definitely be in the conversation for best in the game, Magic would be top 5 (best PG, ahead of CP3).[/QUOTE]
Magic only top 5? I think it'd be something like this: 1a.) LeBron, 1.b) Bird, a very close 2.) Magic, decent sized gap 4.) Durant

[QUOTE=KG215]Magic only top 5? I think it'd be something like this: 1a.) LeBron, 1.b) Bird, a very close 2.) Magic, decent sized gap 4.) Durant[/QUOTE]

Well if we're talking 87-91 Magic I think he'd be higher, but I've been watching a lot of Bird recently (and looking at the team impact numbers), and he seems to clearly be on another level before getting hurt. I don't think pre-prime Magic is a tier above Current KD. This season, my top 4 were

LeBron

Durant


CP3/Duncan

and a bit of a gap afterwards. I think Bird would be at or around LeBron, but it's a really tough call. You're getting so much defensively out of LeBron for a wing (not peak Pippen/Rodman levels, but not very far off) because of the tremendous help D. Larry is underrated defensively nowadays, but LeBron has been something else.

Unlike Bird who was arguably the best in the league from when he came in (HM: Kareem + Doc, and Moses maybe for a while), Magic has a clearly-defined prime, during which I'm sure he would contend for the best in the league. Before then though, while he'd be top 5 (or I guess top 4), I think he's below the big 3 (LeBron, Bird, KD).

Just my $0.02 though.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Well if we're talking 87-91 Magic I think he'd be higher, but I've been watching a lot of Bird recently (and looking at the team impact numbers), and he seems to clearly be on another level before getting hurt. I don't think pre-prime Magic is a tier above Current KD. This season, my top 4 were

LeBron

Durant


CP3/Duncan

and a bit of a gap afterwards. I think Bird would be at or around LeBron, but it's a really tough call. You're getting so much defensively out of LeBron for a wing (not peak Pippen/Rodman levels, but not very far off) because of the tremendous help D. Larry is underrated defensively nowadays, but LeBron has been something else.

Unlike Bird who was arguably the best in the league from when he came in (HM: Kareem + Doc, and Moses maybe for a while), Magic has a clearly-defined prime, during which I'm sure he would contend for the best in the league. Before then though, while he'd be top 5 (or I guess top 4), I think he's below the big 3 (LeBron, Bird, KD).

Just my $0.02 though.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. I've read and heard some of the same things about Bird. Not being around at the time, it's hard to really know for sure, but I know I've read things and have seen people mention before that, at the time, Bird was considered the better player until injuries started to slow him down. I have always thought (again, it's very limited knowledge on my part) Bird's peak was higher than Magic's.

With Durant, I try to stay objective, but a part of me also thinks he's a lot better than current fans realize. For starters, I don't think there's some unbelievably huge gap between him and LeBron like a lot of people, though I will admit there's still a noticeable gap. But I also think he just had, at worst, a top 25 all-time peak season, if not top 20. So maybe it would depend on which version of Magic you put in today's NBA. Like you said, though, 1987-1991 Magic would definitely be be ranked ahead of Durant, but there are probably versions of Magic prior to 1987 that wouldn't.

In an era where team defense is more emphasised, I think Bird would edge LeBron as best player in the league. He wouldn't be as good a defender, but the gap offensively would be bigger than the gap defensively.

Second best player... hard to say between Magic and LeBron. Probably LeBron since Magic isn't really close as a defender.

Not sure what they'd average. I'm guessing around 26-10-7 for Bird, and 20-7-13 for Magic.

I think there's a chance fringe 20-25 is still underselling KD. There aren't many non-big peaks you'd put ahead of him, though I won't attempt to quantify exactly. I think it's unfortunate that he's playing in the same league as LeBron, since it forces unfavorable comparisons. Then again, KD is likely not yet in his prime. I probably sound like a broken record, but I think it's a waste forcing him to play point forward. While I like his current defensive intensity, as I've said before, I think he needs to focus on crashing the boards hard. Not to sound like a broken record, but he has the tools to be a top 5 rebounder in this league (consistently has hurt him, as you've said, but maybe we'll see improvement next year).

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]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]

Do you see the defense being played in this game? ****in terrible! :lol






to say people like to claim there was a lot of hand checking, I sure didn't see much hand checking in that video

[QUOTE=aburre21]Do you see the defense being played in this game? ****in terrible! :lol






to say people like to claim there was a lot of hand checking, I sure didn't see much hand checking in that video[/QUOTE]
Lol that was 80s basketball. Teams tried to outscore each other.


Alot of those guys looked high as well.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]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]

Erm...this doesn't prove my point that pace and FGA of superstars are not related in this case? He played under a different coach (tho Jerry Sloan been with him since 88), different players, made defense more of a focus, different pace, and almost a decade later. And he still manage to average about the same shots as he did in the 87-88, and have the same amount of points. If K.Malone could it, why couldn't Bird with more offensive skills do it?

Not to mention you do have Kevin Love who had 19 FGAs a game last year. Carmelo was averaging 22.2 FGA this year. Bird is better than both of those two offensively.

And Michael Jordan is a good case. His shot attempts actually did not change dramatically like you said. In 1987-88, Jordan average 22.2 FGA. In 1996, Jordan average 22.6 FGA. He averaged slightly more. He averaged 23.8 in 1995. And in the playoffs, Jordan in 1997 had 26.2 FGA. And look at his Wizard years in 2001-02, where the pace was one of the slowest in the league. Jordan average 22.1 FGA. Before all star break, Jordan averaged 24.2 FGAs. Pace does not matter for the amount of shots for superstars.

In terms of efficiency? This would matter a bit. But this goes beyond just defense in case of Jordan. He lost a step, he didn't have much lift in his jumpshot, and he couldn't finish like he used to during his athletic peak. With this said tho, in 96 MJ TS% and eFG% were better than it was in 92. So, in those terms he was more efficient. However, the shorten 3pt line had something to do with it. And MJ 96 basically shot 50%. He was only 0.1 from making his overall FG to 50%.

But as I said, the pace doesn't matter with the FGAs with the superstars. FG% may matter, sure. But players in the 80s also did not take a bunch of 3s and get closer shots. But their eFG are basically the same. Look at the stats for Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller too. When their 3pt shot went up, their FG go down but their eFG remain about the same. If they would not shoot any 3s, they may average 50%+ FG. Especially if they played in their athletic prime.

[QUOTE=Micku]Erm...this doesn't prove my point that pace and FGA of superstars are not related in this case? He played under a different coach (tho Jerry Sloan been with him since 88), different players, made defense more of a focus, different pace, and almost a decade later. And he still manage to average about the same shots as he did in the 87-88, and have the same amount of points. If K.Malone could it, why couldn't Bird with more offensive skills do it?
[B]Lol. So who took Thurl Baileys shot attempts? Again he had different teammates. [/B]


Not to mention you do have Kevin Love who had 19 FGAs a game last year. Carmelo was averaging 22.2 FGA this year. Bird is better than both of those two offensively.
[B]And again, I allude to teammates. Neither of the players you mentioned have had the caliber teammates that Bird had. Whos gonna take away their shots?[/B]


And Michael Jordan is a good case. His shot attempts actually did not change dramatically like you said. In 1987-88, Jordan average 22.2 FGA. In 1996, Jordan average 22.6 FGA. He averaged slightly more. He averaged 23.8 in 1995. And in the playoffs, Jordan in 1997 had 26.2 FGA. And look at his Wizard years in 2001-02, where the pace was one of the slowest in the league. Jordan average 22.1 FGA. Before all star break, Jordan averaged 24.2 FGAs. Pace does not matter for the amount of shots for superstars.
[B]For the third time, are you factoring in his teammates? How many FGAs did Dennis Rodman take during the second threepeat?As opposed to Charles Oakley and Horace Grant[/B]

In terms of efficiency? This would matter a bit. But this goes beyond just defense in case of Jordan. He lost a step, he didn't have much lift in his jumpshot, and he couldn't finish like he used to during his athletic peak. With this said tho, in 96 MJ TS% and eFG% were better than it was in 92. So, in those terms he was more efficient. However, the shorten 3pt line had something to do with it. And MJ 96 basically shot 50%. He was only 0.1 from making his overall FG to 50%.
[B]Or, he got stronger, smarter, and had an improved post game. I honestly dont see how FG% matters. [/B]

But as I said, the pace doesn't matter with the FGAs with the superstars. FG% may matter, sure. But players in the 80s also did not take a bunch of 3s and get closer shots. But their eFG are basically the same. Look at the stats for Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller too. When their 3pt shot went up, their FG go down but their eFG remain about the same. If they would not shoot any 3s, they may average 50%+ FG. Especially if they played in their athletic prime.[/QUOTE]
It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not.[/QUOTE]
Durant, on one of the best teams in the NBA with another high usage/high volume player, has averaged 28+ PPG the last few seasons. Bird was about as efficient of a scorer as Durant, so why wouldn't he be able to put up something like 26-28 PPG, even on a good team, in today's league?

[QUOTE=KG215]Durant, on one of the best teams in the NBA with another high usage/high volume player, has averaged 28+ PPG the last few seasons. Bird was about as efficient of a scorer as Durant, so why wouldn't he be able to put up something like 26-28 PPG, even on a good team, in today's league?[/QUOTE]
On that Celtics team he aint doing it. In the right situation? Sure. Maybe even twice. Durants more of a scorer than Bird. A hybrid of BBird/Gervin. I see Durant being able to routinely be able to avg 30-32 ppg in the 80s. Something he hasnt been able to accomplish in this era.

And mind you. Your trying to take bits and.pieces from the 89s and infuse it into now. What's efficient now was not considered efficient in the 80s. The avg FG% now is roughly 44-45%. It was about 48% in Birds day.

We must take all factors into play

[QUOTE=97 bulls]On that Celtics team he aint doing it. In the right situation? Sure. Maybe even twice. Durants more of a scorer than Bird. A hybrid of BBird/Gervin. I see Durant being able to routinely be able to avg 30-32 ppg in the 80s. Something he hasnt been able to accomplish in this era.

And mind you. Your trying to take bits and.pieces from the 89s and infuse it into now. What's efficient now was not considered efficient in the 80s. The avg FG% now is roughly 44-45%. It was about 48% in Birds day.

We must take all factors into play[/QUOTE]
Well, in today's NBA, teams couldn't afford a roster as stacked as Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers. So using those Celtic teams as a barometer doesn't make much sense to me. He wouldn't be on a team with a McHale, DJ, and Parrish; hardly anyone, other than maybe the Lakers and Celtics, could afford that.

People thinking that Bird would average more than 9 rebounds per game in this era are either retarded of stuck in the past.

Durant gets 4 more points on free throws alone, Bird never had more than 6 FTAs per game in a season. He would have to hoist up 21-22 shots to average more than 28 and I don't see him attempting more than 18 shots per game in today's game.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not.[/QUOTE]

How? Kobe won MVP and championships like that. On 09, he averaged roughly 21 shots on a very talented offensive team. LeBron won MVPs by averaging 19 FGA a game with the Miami Heat in 11 and 12. We wouldn't eliminate championships or MVPs for Bird because we know that would work.

Besides, I was debating on the amount of shots Bird could take in this league. You said:

[quote=97 bulls]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]

First: I and many others just said he would shoot more. You said paced matter, and I showed you that stars like MJ and Karl Malone average the same amount of shots like they did in the 80s. Sometimes even more on a slow pace game. Why can't Bird just as much? Especially since they were K.Malone and MJ teams were championship contenders?

Second: If he were to have a good team, lets say the Lakers 09. Kobe shot roughly 21 FGA per game. Bird could do something similar if he wanted to since he would be the best player on that team. Even when the Heat 11 or 12, LeBron took roughly 19 FGA per game. If they could do it, why not Bird? In 1986 Bird shot roughly 20 FGA. And Bird would fit better because he was a better catch and shoot player than LBJ and Kobe. This would allow other players to touch the ball and may have a better flow within the offense.

Third: Bird most likely wouldn't be like a Carmelo. Bird is easier to build around because he has a better overall game. He is a better scorer, much better passer, rebounder, and better defensively too. And Bird would probably take the Nuggets outside the first round a few times where Melo failed in theory.

Bird would average the same amount of shots because he will be your number 1 option on most teams and he would average 18-21 FGA a game too because LBJ, Kobe, Durant have done that and went to the finals. But if you were talking about transferring the whole 1986 Celtics to today's league and say that they can't have the same amount of shots, then we would have a conversation. But only thing we have comparable that comes to mind are the Orlando Magic of 95 and 96 did something similar, and their starting five were better than this whole league offensively. Their top five guys took roughly the same amount of shots that the Celtics 1986 starting did and they played at a slower pace. And the 1986 Celts starting five was better than the Magic.

The 97 Lakers too were like that. The main problem with comparing the 1986 Celtics team is that they were too good. Their starting five was arguably the best starting five in the history of the NBA. There are very rare teams that had the talent offensively like they did. And their bench was pretty good too. But since the Magic and 97 Lakers did it, I don't see why the Celtics starting five could not. Their problem would be the bench play in terms of FGA.

I don't know, but '86 Bird would be the best player on the planet. Easily.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]On that Celtics team he aint doing it. In the right situation? Sure. Maybe even twice. Durants more of a scorer than Bird. A hybrid of BBird/Gervin. I see Durant being able to routinely be able to avg 30-32 ppg in the 80s. Something he hasnt been able to accomplish in this era.

And mind you. Your trying to take bits and.pieces from the 89s and infuse it into now. What's efficient now was not considered efficient in the 80s. [B]The avg FG% now is roughly 44-45%. It was about 48% in Birds day.
[/B]
We must take all factors into play[/QUOTE]

That's because of the 3pt shot. Since eFG take into account of the 3pt shot, today's eFG is the same/better than what it was in 1986 for example. 2013 eFG= 49.6%. 1986 eFG=49.3%.

If teams hardly shoot any 3s like they did in the 80s, then the FG% would be better. They are much better shooters now. Back then, ppl dared guys to shoot the long jumper except guys like Bird and other shooters like him. Now, since they are better shooters, they will guard them more tight.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]It just doesnt add up Mick. Id agree that if you took Bird and placed him on a bad team, his ppg would stay the same or even increase because hed be the teams only option on offense. But then you must eliminate the championships and MVPs. Hed become Carmello Anthony. [B]Because he was subpar in the playoffs more often than not[/B].[/QUOTE]
This. Bird is the most overrated player on these boards. Some people honestly believe the dude would be the best player in the league today. :roll:

Better peaks than Larry Bird:

Jordan (no question)
LeBron (no question)
Shaq (no question)
Wilt (no question)
Kareem (no question)

Then you have guys like Duncan and Hakeem.

[QUOTE=Micku]How? Kobe won MVP and championships like that. On 09, he averaged roughly 21 shots on a very talented offensive team. LeBron won MVPs by averaging 19 FGA a game with the Miami Heat in 11 and 12. We wouldn't eliminate championships or MVPs for Bird because we know that would work.

Besides, I was debating on the amount of shots Bird could take in this league. You said:



First: I and many others just said he would shoot more. You said paced matter, and I showed you that stars like MJ and Karl Malone average the same amount of shots like they did in the 80s. Sometimes even more on a slow pace game. Why can't Bird just as much? Especially since they were K.Malone and MJ teams were championship contenders?
[B]I never said anything about pace. I said tempo. The tempo of the game now is different from when Bird played. And sure you showed players who transcended eras and took roughly the same amount of shots. But you fail to acknowledge their situations were different. You refuse to acknowledge this fact. [/B]


Second: If he were to have a good team, lets say the Lakers 09. Kobe shot roughly 21 FGA per game. Bird could do something similar if he wanted to since he would be the best player on that team. Even when the Heat 11 or 12, LeBron took roughly 19 FGA per game. If they could do it, why not Bird? In 1986 Bird shot roughly 20 FGA. And Bird would fit better because he was a better catch and shoot player than LBJ and Kobe. This would allow other players to touch the ball and may have a better flow within the offense.
[B]Again, Bird took that many shots in an era where there was more opportunities. Its simple math. You comparing him to Bryant, Durant, Ive hear Iverson, its not the same thing. Those guys would be the Jordans, Wilkins, Gervins, type. Scorers. Bird never led the league in FGAs but Im suppposed to believe hed be taking enough shots to lead the league now? [/B]


Third: Bird most likely wouldn't be like a Carmelo. Bird is easier to build around because he has a better overall game. He is a better scorer, much better passer, rebounder, and better defensively too. And Bird would probably take the Nuggets outside the first round a few times where Melo failed in theory.
[B]Quit possibly. But my comparison of Bird and Anthony wasnt to imply theyre on the same level. But I doubt hes taking any team deep in the pkayoffs based on his track record of having 10 year of top three talent around him.[/B]


Bird would average the same amount of shots because he will be your number 1 option on most teams and he would average 18-21 FGA a game too because LBJ, Kobe, Durant have done that and went to the finals. But if you were talking about transferring the whole 1986 Celtics to today's league and say that they can't have the same amount of shots, then we would have a conversation. But only thing we have comparable that comes to mind are the Orlando Magic of 95 and 96 did something similar, and their starting five were better than this whole league offensively. Their top five guys took roughly the same amount of shots that the Celtics 1986 starting did and they played at a slower pace. And the 1986 Celts starting five was better than the Magic.

The 97 Lakers too were like that. The main problem with comparing the 1986 Celtics team is that they were too good. Their starting five was arguably the best starting five in the history of the NBA. There are very rare teams that had the talent offensively like they did. And their bench was pretty good too. But since the Magic and 97 Lakers did it, I don't see why the Celtics starting five could not. Their problem would be the bench play in terms of FGA.
[B]You answered the question for me. The Orlando Magic had no bench. The Celtics did. That Laker team was deep, but not top heavy. They were Shaq and a bunch of very good players[/B][/QUOTE]

Id just like to.see some consistency in you guys arguments. All you guys will enter threads vs Yao Mings Foot when he argues about team defenses of now and then. The same concept applies both ways. You cant say that Bird woukd be able to.do the exact same thing he did in the 80s now based on his stats in the 80s, then call YMF for attempting to compare teams without context.

If I were to say the 96 Bulls are the greatest team ever based soely on having the best win percentage ever youd apply context real quick.

[QUOTE=Micku]That's because of the 3pt shot. Since eFG take into account of the 3pt shot, today's eFG is the same/better than what it was in 1986 for example. 2013 eFG= 49.6%. 1986 eFG=49.3%.

If teams hardly shoot any 3s like they did in the 80s, then the FG% would be better. They are much better shooters now. Back then, ppl dared guys to shoot the long jumper except guys like Bird and other shooters like him. Now, since they are better shooters, they will guard them more tight.[/QUOTE]
Thats partially it. Id also attribute it to the amount of easy transition baskets the tempo of the league provided back then. And the way defense was more of an afterthought.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Id just like to.see some consistency in you guys arguments. All you guys will enter threads vs Yao Mings Foot when he argues about team defenses of now and then. The same concept applies both ways. You cant say that Bird woukd be able to.do the exact same thing he did in the 80s now based on his stats in the 80s, then call YMF for attempting to compare teams without context.

If I were to say the 96 Bulls are the greatest team ever based soely on having the best win percentage ever youd apply context real quick.[/QUOTE]

I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that Bird's game cannot translate to 18-22 shots per game because he wouldn't have opportunities to do so? Even tho he had more ways to score and more efficently than a guy like Wilkins? And he doesn't have to lead the league in FGA. But he could get those 18-22 shot attempts. If ppl like Kevin Love, Carmelo, Kobe could do it, why not Bird?

And tempo and pace are basically the same. Tempo could mean the rate or pace of the game. And it could also mean the motion or constant speed, and that's what we call pace.

I don't see why it is hard to acknowledge that Bird could average those amont of shots in any era because the way he shot and move w/o the ball and post up would be valuable in any era. If you are talking about a team from the 80s, then
that would be a different story. But we are talking about possibly the best SF ever tho LeBron will probably considered to better than him as time goes on.

[QUOTE=fpliii]
Unlike Bird who was arguably the best in the league from when he came in (HM: Kareem + Doc, and Moses maybe for a while), Magic has a clearly-defined prime, during which I'm sure he would contend for the best in the league. Before then though, while he'd be top 5 (or I guess top 4), I think he's below the big 3 (LeBron, Bird, KD).

Just my $0.02 though.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's what the revisionists seem to forget, Magic's prime was very defined and comes later. It wasn't until his 4th season he was voted as all-first team PG. And from the debut of both Magic and Bird until 1988, Magic only finished above Bird [U]one[/U] time in MVP voting. Larry was the real deal from the get-go.

97 Bulls has made the kind of argument/mistake someone who relies on statistics and doesn't have a good grasp about the fundamentals of the game makes.

18-22 FGA is possible for Bird in any era. Pace does not affect superstar players because whether it slows down or not, a player like Bird is the #1 option and they'll get him the ball regardless if that means other players get it less. If, as Micku argues, many of today's stars are averaging those kinds of shot-taking numbers, why in the hell wouldn't Bird be able to? That is the question that is being dodged. There is no reason why he wouldn't be able to.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Thats partially it. Id also attribute it to the amount of easy transition baskets the tempo of the league provided back then. And the way defense was more of an afterthought.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this in a way. I think it's more credit to the Pistons because I believe they slowed down the pace and played more defense. They weren't the first team to do that, but probably the first team to win the championship without the epic talent that the Lakers and Celts had. And they sagged off a lot except for known shooters and they take the first good shot available.

You also have to give credit to the offense. They knew how to pass and start the break. And they ran up the court to start their offense far quicker.

[QUOTE=Micku]I don't get what you mean. Are you saying that Bird's game cannot translate to 18-22 shots per game because he wouldn't have opportunities to do so? Even tho he had more ways to score and more efficently than a guy like Wilkins? And he doesn't have to lead the league in FGA. But he could get those 18-22 shot attempts.

And tempo and pace are basically the same. Tempo could mean the rate or pace of the game. And it could also mean the motion or constant speed, and that's what we call pace.

I don't see why it is hard to acknowledge that Bird could average those amont of shots in any era because the way he shot and move w/o the ball and post up would be valuable in any era. If you are talking about a team from the 80s, then
that would be a different story. But we are talking about possibly the best SF ever tho LeBron will probably considered to better than him as time goes on.[/QUOTE]
Its hard to acknowledge because he coukdnt or never did it when he played. In an era where he had ample opportunity. Comparing guys like Durant and Bryant isnt feasible because they did take shots at a league leading rate.

Heres another example. Bill Russell routinely shot in the mid 40s percent throughout his career. Thats terrible for a center now, but thats was the norm back then. And if you were to ask me what his percentage woukd be today id say low 50s. The leavue is different.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Its hard to acknowledge because he coukdnt or never did it when he played. In an era where he had ample opportunity. Comparing guys like Durant and Bryant isnt feasible because they did take shots at a league leading rate.

Heres another example. Bill Russell routinely shot in the mid 40s percent throughout his career. Thats terrible for a center now, but thats was the norm back then. And if you were to ask me what his percentage woukd be today id say low 50s. The leavue is different.[/QUOTE]

That's an irrelevant example. Shooting percentage is a reflection of a skillset mainly. Shot-taking is largely pre-determined by how a team wants to play and how much of the ball they want their main scorer to have as a proportion of those plays. Bird could've taken Jordan-esque shot-attempt numbers if he wanted to - he is skilled offensively, on par with anyone - he just wasn't mentally inclined to do that. He was a pass first player. It has nothing to do with being able to create shots because Bird clearly could do that. That assumption is your mistake.

ISHers severely under-rating Magic's offense here.

Do fans here really believe that Magic could "only" average 20 ppg? Here was a player who could hang 42 in a clinching Finals game in his rookie season. A player who was averaging 18 ppg on .561 and .565 FG%'s, and then had playoff runs of 22 ppg on .537 and .539 shooting. And seasons of 24 ppg and playoffs of 25 ppg. All while handing out 12+ apg in the regular season, and as high as 15 apg in the playoffs. He even had a Finals of 26 ppg, on .541 shooting, with 13 apg (as well as Finals' of 21 ppg on .573 shooting, and 22 ppg on .550 shooting.)

Psileas' research turned up a stretch in which Magic had 11 straight games of 30+ points. THAT is what Magic was capable of, had he been so inclined. My god, a 36 year old HIV Magic, four years removed from playing, and overweight, averaged 15 ppg on .466 shooting, with 6.9 apg...all while playing less than 30 minutes a game. Included were stretchs in which he averaged 20 ppg, including a high of 28 (on 9-12 shooting from the floor.)

Ask Magic to score first, and pass second, and he likely could have approached 30 ppg.

[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]ISHers severely under-rating Magic's offense here.

Do fans here really believe that Magic could "only" average 20 ppg? Here was a player who could hang 42 in a clinching Finals game in his rookie season. A player who was averaging 18 ppg on .561 and .565 FG%'s, and then had playoff runs of 22 ppg on .537 and .539 shooting. And seasons of 24 ppg and playoffs of 25 ppg. All while handing out 12+ apg in the regular season, and as high as 15 apg in the playoffs. He even had a Finals of 26 ppg, on .541 shooting, with 13 apg (as well as Finals' of 21 ppg on .573 shooting, and 22 ppg on .550 shooting.)

[B]Psileas' research turned up a stretch in which Magic had 11 straight games of 30+ points.[/B] THAT is what Magic was capable of, had he been so inclined. My god, a 36 year old HIV Magic, four years removed from playing, and overweight, averaged 15 ppg on .466 shooting, with 6.9 apg...all while playing less than 30 minutes a game. Included were stretchs in which he averaged 20 ppg, including a high of 28 (on 9-12 shooting from the floor.)

Ask Magic to score first, and pass second, and he likely could have approached 30 ppg.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't recall this specific number, maybe you meant something else. However, you can see that in the 1987 season, there's a [B]34[/B] game stretch when Magic averages [B]27.0 ppg[/B] (on 52.2% FG) in no more than 38.3 mpg, to go with his usual 11.8 apg and 6.1 rpg. Magic never cared to dominate the ball or shoot that much. But, whenever he wanted to turn it on, he had no problem putting up LeBron-like scoring numbers. But that wasn't what made his teammates better and himself happy.

[QUOTE=LeBird]That's an irrelevant example. Shooting percentage is a reflection of a skillset mainly. Shot-taking is largely pre-determined by how a team wants to play and how much of the ball they want their main scorer to have as a proportion of those plays. Bird could've taken Jordan-esque shot-attempt numbers if he wanted to - he is skilled offensively, on par with anyone - he just wasn't mentally inclined to do that. He was a pass first player. It has nothing to do with being able to create shots because Bird clearly could do that. That assumption is your mistake.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Thats why I prefaced my statement by saying or better yet never did it. He was more than capable. Obviously, if he set out to score like that he could. But still the fact remains he never did it. So now were supposed to believe that a guy that hovered around 25-26 ppg for his prime, would avg 30 ppg? In an era where the available shot attempts are cut by roughly 20-25%? Better yet 30/14/8? GTFO