[QUOTE=J Shuttlesworth]Can you give me the cliff notes bro?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po1M--HaINA[/url]
Printable View
[QUOTE=J Shuttlesworth]Can you give me the cliff notes bro?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po1M--HaINA[/url]
[QUOTE=Jacks3]Bird stans ignoring LeBron's astronomical defensive advantage. :oldlol:[/QUOTE]
[B]:coleman:
Let's act like Bird wasn't a really good defensive player? Astronomical??? :oldlol: :rolleyes: :facepalm
Larry's impact is also plenty due to his overall defense, his teams got way better with him, even/also on defense...
Celtics were one of the worst defensive teams in the league before Bird got there, then with him, and basically the same core roster (no Parish or McHale), they became one of the best, while he led the league in DWS and was 6th in DRtg.
He actually led the league in DWS for 4 times, and was 7 times in the top5; once 2nd in DRtg and 6x in the top10... Other forwards in history to do such things are Rodman, KG, Pippen, Timmy and very few more... Think that's a fluke? It's not by chance that those are the only names. And he played in an era where your name alone didn't get you all-defensive teams.
Larry brought along great team D, playing passing lanes, poking the ball everywhere, protecting the paint, winning charges, knowing when to double team, didn't get lots on rotations, was good at guarding the post and above average on the perimeter when he was younger/healthy. It he was at his best when roaming around on defense, seemed like he was everywhere.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpEAZMT5t_U[/url][/B]
[QUOTE=Champ]Astronomical?
LeBron's the better overall defender, but when you break things down, the gap is anything but "astronomical."
Perimeter, on ball defense: LeBron, no question
Help defense: Slight advantage to LeBron, but Bird was also excellent.
Post defense: Even
Shot blocking: Even
Steals: Even
Defensive rebounding: Bird[/QUOTE]
[B]Tbh, more like:
Perimeter on-ball: LeBron
Post defense: Bird
Team defense: Bird
Overall defense: LeBron (not by ALL THAT, and it's mostly/especially due to athleticism but it is what it is)[/B]
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]That whole post is so :biggums: :biggums: :biggums:
You didn't know Bird averaged 10 rebounds? How about you check? You think we're guessing here? This is 2014
Just sounds like a 12 y/o visting a message board..
You didn't even know what the pace argument was for... stop acting like some historian.[/QUOTE]
Chill out my man, I was just amazed at how high and consistent his rebounding numbers were.
And yeah, son, I dont quite know how things work in Germany, but go into any barbershop in Los Angeles and I can tell you you wont hear anyone using something like "well it was more up tempo back then and you know what that means more possession inflated stats blah blah blah" to try and devalue the game of Larry Bird. Many people that I talk to would be reluctant to pick him over Lebron for reasons that aren't basketball related. Again, no one I know says anything about inflated stats when mentioning Bird. This is the first time I've heard it to be honest with you. But I am 12, (but give me credit for being so young and still having the early signs of maturity to not use the Dave Chappelle crackhead sketch to validate myself) so please forgive me. Plus folks in LA clearly don't know basketball like folks in Berlin. Obviously no agenda online. In all seriousness though, I am glad I brought up "pace." I suppose some online basketball fans probably think Larry Bird wouldn't dominate today. If I said that guys like Lebron wouldn't be able to dominate and put up his numbers in the 80s and 90s because of the physical nature of the game, you'd call me a fool and you'd be correct. That is a foolish argument, that I hear online and on the street. Yet, somehow Larry Bird's numbers are being questioned online because of the tempo of the game? Right. Ship of fools. Next on the hit list is Jordan. Book it. Those of us privileged enough to watch Jordan or Larry or Magic play know we witnessed untouchable greats. In 30 years it'll be Lebron or Kobe on the hit list. Anyways, can't believe I let myself get trapped into responding to you. Damn. Actually I can.
[QUOTE=LA Lakers]Chill out my man, I was just amazed at how high and consistent his rebounding numbers were.
And yeah, son, I dont quite know how things work in Germany, but go into any barbershop in Los Angeles and I can tell you you wont hear anyone using something like "well it was more up tempo back then and you know what that means more possession inflated stats blah blah blah" to try and devalue the game of Larry Bird. Many people that I talk to would be reluctant to pick him over Lebron for reasons that aren't basketball related. Again, no one I know says anything about inflated stats when mentioning Bird. This is the first time I've heard it to be honest with you. But I am 12, (but give me credit for being so young and still having the early signs of maturity to not use the Dave Chappelle crackhead sketch to validate myself) so please forgive me. Plus folks in LA clearly don't know basketball like folks in Berlin. Obviously no agenda online. In all seriousness though, I am glad I brought up "pace." I suppose some online basketball fans probably think Larry Bird wouldn't dominate today. If I said that guys like Lebron wouldn't be able to dominate and put up his numbers in the 80s and 90s because of the physical nature of the game, you'd call me a fool and you'd be correct. That is a foolish argument, that I hear online and on the street. Yet, somehow Larry Bird's numbers are being questioned online because of the tempo of the game? Right. Ship of fools. Next on the hit list is Jordan. Book it. Those of us privileged enough to watch Jordan or Larry or Magic play know we witnessed untouchable greats. In 30 years it'll be Lebron or Kobe on the hit list. Anyways, can't believe I let myself get trapped into responding to you. Damn. Actually I can.[/QUOTE]
:applause:
Shocker. People using pace to discredit Bird.
Bran doesn't play with handchecking and physical defense.
Bran shot 2.3x the amount of threes Bird took because threes weren't a part of the game back then.
Bran got 200 more free throws despite a weaker physical defensive era. (and that's including a shortened lockout year)
Bird had a lower usage rate.
Put Bird around today he murks everybody with his elite jumpshooting (over 50% midrange), and zones/help defense can cover up his defense a bit, which is already far better than people give him credit for.
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]
To add perspective to Bird's rebounding: Celtic players used to get out of the way and let him take the rebound so he could start the fast break or throw a pass... Great qualities, but has nothing to do with his rebounding if we're honest.[/QUOTE]
I think the correct name is Lebron here, not Bird, because here just perfectly describe the only reason Lebron get a good number of rebounds
The gulf in a couple of key advanced stats is simply too massive to ignore.
[b]PER[/b]
LeBron 30.53
Bird 25.43
[b]PER (Playoffs)[/b]
LeBron 29.83
Bird 23.7
[b]WS/48[/b]
LeBron 0.295
Bird .232
[b]WS/48 (Playoffs)[/b]
LeBron 0.271
Bird 0.218
Besides nostalgia, what exactly is Bird's argument here? He matches LeBron in MVPs and titles, but is inferior at everything else. Worse numbers and the difference is greater than the raw numbers would suggest. He's inferior on defense. Scores less on lower efficiency, so he's inferior offensively too. His game also declines significantly more in the playoffs. And LeBron obliterates him in 2 key advanced stats. He is simply better.
[QUOTE=Champ]Astronomical?
LeBron's the better overall defender, but when you break things down, the gap is anything but "astronomical."
Perimeter, on ball defense: LeBron, no question
Help defense: Slight advantage to LeBron, but Bird was also excellent.
Post defense: Even
Shot blocking: Even
Steals: Even
Defensive rebounding: Bird[/QUOTE]
You guys keep talking about Lefrauds perimeter defense. Just watch the games, he get regularly abused. He can't guard a lamppost.
If you adjust for pace, then wouldn't it equal like a point or two extra for Bird. For example teams back then averaged 8 to 10 shots more per game, which is about let say 7 points more. If Bird scored 20% of those points then it's an increase of around 1 or 2 points.
So I have to go with Bird due to how weak the East has been recently. And intangibles, certain Finals moment, etc. But only by a hair.
[QUOTE=Harison]So much disrespect for Bird in this thread, Bird >>> Lebron, and its not as close as simple box stats would suggest.[/QUOTE]
Nah, no one is disrespecting Bird, but you are disrespecting Lebron.
Lebron for me, and while its close, is not really that close
[QUOTE=Indian guy]The gulf in a couple of key advanced stats is simply too massive to ignore.
[b]PER[/b]
LeBron 30.53
Bird 25.43
[b]PER (Playoffs)[/b]
LeBron 29.83
Bird 23.7
[b]WS/48[/b]
LeBron 0.295
Bird .232
[b]WS/48 (Playoffs)[/b]
LeBron 0.271
Bird 0.218
Besides nostalgia, what exactly is Bird's argument here? He matches LeBron in MVPs and titles, but is inferior at everything else. Worse numbers and the difference is greater than the raw numbers would suggest. He's inferior on defense. Scores less on lower efficiency, so he's inferior offensively too. His game also declines significantly more in the playoffs. And LeBron obilerates him in 2 key advanced stats. He is simply better.[/QUOTE]
[B]Bron's kiddie stans only using selected advanced stats... what else is new? :oldlol:
Stop talking basketball, please :rolleyes: :facepalm
Bird was a better shooter from pretty much everywhere, had better footwork and post-game, better soft-touch from close with either hand, he was a better pure passer, a better rebounder, better team defender (and in the post), brought better overall intangibles like clutchness, leadership, ability to play with any teammate and under any strategy (not changing teammates' games), more agressive and physical, tougher and hustled more, higher basketball IQ... Just a better overall player, at their best (although pretty close).
Larry easily played against better teams than LeBron, on average (GOAT era, GOAT conference while Bron plays in a pretty weak one with a stacked team), league had more superstars at the top spot too, and GOAT era for SF's. Bird won 3 straight MVP's, won 2 Finals (and would've won another if it wasn't for injuries, most likely), and before you wanna mention names check what he did, look at some of my posts above talking about his teams/teammates and his impact... Plus he never joined already established superstars in the league, one a top5 player (which Larry never had) and another a top10/15, and Bron even embarrassed himself in the Finals right after joining them.
I'll leave it at that.
[/B]
[QUOTE=Champ]
LeBron's the better overall defender, but when you break things down, the gap is anything but "astronomical."
Perimeter, on ball defense: LeBron, no question
Help defense: Slight advantage to LeBron, but Bird was also excellent.
[/QUOTE]
:roll: :roll: :roll:
[COLOR=Teal][B]I don't think 1986 Bird would lose 4 games to SA by an average of double-digit let alone 18 ppg if you put him on this 2014 Miami squad. They'd still lose, but not in an embarrassing fashion.
[/B][/COLOR]
[QUOTE=LA Lakers]Wow, Bird averaged 10 rebounds for 3 straight seasons, including playoffs? Pretty incredible if true.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure he averaged 10 rebounds per game for his CAREER.
And the answer is BIRD.
Kobe.