-
Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Seriously? That just baffles me.
Scoring skills against GOAT defenders (Pippen, Rodman, Cooper, Bobby Jones, Jordan), good athletical defenders (McCray, Pressey, Kersey, Erving, Worthy), athletic 7' footer (Sellers), amazing athletes (Wilkins, Woolridge, Chambers, Kenny Walker), bigger dudes (Cummings, Grant), even against a guy that made the all defensive team in the 00's (Clifford Robinson): [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msEmcemLR7M[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksp82aw-jqg&feature=relmfu[/url]
Plus they could play him in a much rougher way, good defensive big men and enforcers were packing the paint.
We all know about his amazing passing skills, if not: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o66NdFDHEQ[/url]
Also the man was just one of the greatest team defenders ever, nice post defender and despite lacking lateral quickness he could hold his own on the perimeter, plus you could easily switch him to guard the PF if needed, considering that the height average decreased that would even help him: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H76dsMqo3s[/url]
He was grabbing never less than 10 RPG with tougher rules against fierce rebounders.
He would also thrive under zone defenses, offensively and defensively.
The straight impact and incredible intangibles he brought up were just off the charts.
Won 3 straight MVP's in an era with guys like Magic, MJ, Kareem, Moses, Erving, Hakeem, Isiah, Wilkins, Drexler....
And he played with several injuries that many wouldn't endure, including that completely wrecked back since '88.
-
Re: Do people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Anyone who thinks bird wouldn't do what he did in the 80's is a *****n idiot.
TIME BIAS can be a real bitch when people with actual knowledge of the game are discussing basketball and some stan of today comes derping in "80s/90s defense was weaksauce compared to today...WEAAAAK... *promotes player that his mouth is currently wrapped around*....Bird the current luke walton? :confusedshrug: "
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Bird would probably win even more in this era imo, especially with modern medicine
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
The 3s in the league right now are pretty weak. Bird would have no problem scoring. Not only was Bird very skilled but he had size and strength.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Many recent NBA fans do not respect the 80's players as they should. They really don't know how good he was.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[B]Bird Under Todays Zone Rules Would Thrive Even More as A Team Defender and Hustle Player.
He Could Go 1 on 1 on PFs and SFs, Go Baseline Through Spins and Fakes, Post Up onf PFs and Fade Away Like a SG, Handle the Rock like a Point Forward, Shoot From a Far On Any Distance Possible, Rebound Against PFs and Cs, Get Steals, Create and Pass like a Godly Point Guard.
Complete Package. From 1979 to 1988 The Most Complete Player in the League[/B]
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Looking at Dirk's game and his domination there's no reason why Larry Bird wouldn't be a superstar in the nba right now. If Dirk can dominate in 2011 what makes you think Bird, who scores similarly to Dirk, whiles surpassing him in nearly every other basketball skill, would somehow lack the abilty to dominate in this era?
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
With his ball IQ, skills, and fundamentals; he'd be fine in any era.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=Yung D-Will]Looking at Dirk's game and his domination there's no reason why Larry Bird wouldn't be a superstar in the nba right now. If Dirk can dominate in 2011 what makes you think Bird, who scores similarly to Dirk, whiles surpassing him in nearly every other basketball skill, would somehow lack the abilty to dominate in this era?[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Dirk won MVP and FMVP.
In terms of shooting him and Bird are comparable, Dirk also a good rebounder (but not on Bird's level), Dirk is taller but Bird was more athletic (before back injuries), everything else is not even close.
If Dirk can do what he did/does, one can only imagine what Bird would do.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Also found this
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKH2fb_PxA[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TxC_k9Bv0&feature=relmfu[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn8qTjVED5w&feature=relmfu[/url]
Still gotta watch it completely
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Bird = Scalabrine in this era.. Still GOAT tho just like the white mamba.. :lol
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=KOBE143]Bird = Scalabrine in this era.. Still GOAT tho just like the white mamba.. :lol[/QUOTE]
Guys like you shouldn't be able to post on basketball forums, ijs.
:rolleyes:
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]Also found this
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIKH2fb_PxA[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7TxC_k9Bv0&feature=relmfu[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn8qTjVED5w&feature=relmfu[/url]
Still gotta watch it completely[/QUOTE]
These videos dont say much. Especially vs Pippen and Rodman. Both were hardly in their primes.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]These videos dont say much. Especially vs Pippen and Rodman. Both were hardly in their primes.[/QUOTE]
Stop being such a hater, think you already said that before and I'll say it again:
Rodman was drafted in 1986, made his first all-defensive team in 1989, and won DPY in 1990 and 1991, he was a better perimeter defender in his younger years, as far as perimeter m2m D he was in his prime in his younger years, guarding Magic, Jordan and such.
Pip was drafted in 1987, made the defensive team for the first time in 1991. Already a great defensive player.
Larry was in the league 'till 1992, at 35, and since 1988 he was never the same, banged up, completely wrecked back, couldn't almost practice, overweight... That also even things out a lot even if you wanna go by that route, even if you say they weren't in their primes, so wasn't a old, overweight, full of career ending injuries, Larry Bird.
Plus saying the vid doesn't mean much, you still got guys like Bobby Jones, Cooper, Jordan, McCray, Pressey, Clifford Robinson, Grant... And even missing guys like Nance, Roundfield, Buck Williams, Moncrief, McDaniel....
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]These videos dont say much. Especially vs Pippen and Rodman. Both were hardly in their primes.[/QUOTE]
Translation: don't mind me I'm just sucking Pippen's d[COLOR="Black"]i[/COLOR]ck again.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
I saw some Larry Bird games on youtube. He was so white and so slow, and everybody would try to body him up in the post, but Larry Bird scored on them every single time. It looked ugly as hell, yes, but he just destroyed people.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
If dirk can win a chip i don't see why bird can't win a couple in the same era :lol
anyone who watches even 1 highlight video of him can see. shooting is king in any era
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=Pushxx]Translation: don't mind me I'm just sucking Pippen's d[COLOR="Black"]i[/COLOR]ck again.[/QUOTE]
Dude is Larry Bird's biggest hater in this board (outside of the Kobetards).
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=TheBigVeto]Dude is Larry Bird's biggest hater in this board (outside of the Kobetards).[/QUOTE]
Yep. The same guy who said Gerald Green would beat prime Larry Bird 1-on-1.
That was a fun one to argue with him. Read this page: [url]http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=249026&page=2[/url] post #26
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
His basketball IQ, his passing and fundamentals would translate to now and in a 100 years.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
I don't get the Dirk comparison.
Dirk is much taller and a more accurate shooter, which makes him a more dangerous overall scorer.
Bird is decisively better in most of the other aspects of the game. He's an all-around player.
They're different enough that you can't infer from one's dominance in this era that the other would succeed as well.
I do think Larry Bird would absolutely kick ass in this era, but it has nothing to do with Dirk. Just with the fact that he's Larry Bird.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=BoutPractice]I don't get the Dirk comparison.
Dirk is much taller and a more accurate shooter, which makes him a more dangerous overall scorer.
Bird is decisively better in most of the other aspects of the game. He's an all-around player.
They're different enough that you can't infer from one's dominance in this era that the other would succeed as well.
I do think Larry Bird would absolutely kick ass in this era, but it has nothing to do with Dirk. Just with the fact that he's Larry Bird.[/QUOTE]
What makes you think Dirk is a more accurate shooter? And the difference in height doesnt matter when one is more athletic and crafty to get their shot off whenever they want.
Dirk is not the better scorer nor all around player.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
if you underrate bird as a player in this era you demonstrate a shallow understanding not just of the player but the eras being compared.
he was a complete player, not a specialist. complete players are rare, especially today.
not only was he a rare complete player but the game for him was slowed down because of his combination of skills and court vision.
he was a tenacious competitor who was able to psych out opponents, get into their heads and under their skin. much of this was related to his arsenal of ball, head, shoulder, and foot fakes. that art of deception nullified whatever supposed faults he had so far as being slow and unathletic which in itself is kind of silly when you remember what he was like during the first half of his career. no doubt back problems caught up with him eventually but still....
once a franchise player, always a franchise player.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
if he were to play in this era, style, mentality, will all change due to media, competition, and rules. I don't get why people keep bringing players back and fore in time. players ain't gonna be the same. I kinda get what u guys are saying but it's really like saying how a iPhone 5 today would dominate the phones of the past. just my personal input
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=BoutPractice]
Dirk is much taller and a more accurate shooter, which makes him a more dangerous overall scorer.
[/QUOTE]
Got like 2 1/2 inches on Bird, not much taller, plus Bird was more athletic (before injuries).
More accurate shooter? Not a chance, plus Bird had a better postgame (outsides of their fadeaways), was better at driving, better from inside and ambidextrous from close range, crafty on a level above Dirk, so I don't see how Dirk is the more dangerous overall scorer.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=macmac]What makes you think Dirk is a more accurate shooter? And the difference in height doesnt matter when one is more athletic and crafty to get their shot off whenever they want.[/QUOTE]
> To answer your first question, it is
1) the fact that Dirk averaged more playoff PPG
2) the fact that he got to the line more, making him more reliable even when his shot was off
3) his better 3P percentage
2) the very small difference in playoff percentage between the two despite the fact that Dirk had to consistently create his own offense whereas Bird got looks off of doubles and other situations that allowed him to catch&shoot more often. (And that's discounting the difference in defense/pace in the 80s)
Against the Mavs, opposing teams could focus solely on stopping Dirk. Against the Celtics, you had to crowd the paint to prevent one on one situations for Parish and McHale.
Bird also had a lot of series where it was obvious that he was struggling to score at his usual elite level. He even had back to back 8 point games in the Finals. That's not because he was a choker, but because tough defense made it more difficult for him to score when his jumpshot was broken, whereas Dirk could use his height to draw fouls.
Also, in no universe is Dirk less athletic than Bird, especially taking into account the fact that Dirk is a 7 footer. Dirk was actually fairly athletic by Euro standards when he was young - a 7 footer who could play some SF. And that's not a diss on Bird, it's just a fact of nature that he wasn't the best basketball body - if anything it makes his accomplishments more impressive.
Besides, I agree that Bird is far and away the better overall player, and again, he would absolutely destroy players in this era.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=BoutPractice]> To answer your first question, it is
1) the fact that Dirk averaged more playoff PPG
2) the fact that he got to the line more, making him more reliable even when his shot was off
3) his better 3P percentage
2) the very small difference in playoff percentage between the two despite the fact that Dirk had to consistently create his own offense whereas Bird got looks off of doubles and other situations that allowed him to catch&shoot more often. (And that's discounting the difference in defense/pace in the 80s)
Against the Mavs, opposing teams could focus solely on stopping Dirk. Against the Celtics, you had to crowd the paint to prevent one on one situations for Parish and McHale.
Bird also had a lot of series where it was obvious that he was struggling to score at his usual elite level. He even had back to back 8 point games in the Finals. That's not because he was a choker, but because tough defense made it more difficult for him to score when his jumpshot was broken, whereas Dirk could use his height to draw fouls.
Also, in no universe is Dirk less athletic than Bird, especially taking into account the fact that Dirk is a 7 footer. Dirk was actually fairly athletic by Euro standards when he was young - a 7 footer who could play some SF. And that's not a diss on Bird, it's just a fact of nature that he wasn't the best basketball body - if anything it makes his accomplishments more impressive.
Besides, I agree that Bird is far and away the better overall player, and again, he would absolutely destroy players in this era.[/QUOTE]
1) First Bird got more than 1000 games than Dirk, 'till he was 35, let Dirk career reach the end. Still Bird averaged like 6.5 APG in the playoffs, Dirk has 2.6, Bird always looked to make the right play rather than being always the scorer. When he scored 60 points he had like 3 assists so you can see what a scorer he could've been, even had like 50+ points, 10+ assists games.
2) Do you really think if Bird played in this superstar treatment era, he wouldn't average the same or more, FTA than Dirk?
3) Bird injured his shooting finger right before entering the NBA, some say he was a better shooter in college, still he didn't come up with a 3pt line and to do what he did is terrific. Shooting is not only 3pt and Larry had a much better FG%, why don't you mention that?
4) Catch and shoot isn't creating offense? Dude was the better off ball player I've seen. Doubles from who McHale? Guy was a black hole, could pass but not really a passer. Bird could create his own shot in much more ways than Dirk. What defense? Seen the guys I posted in the OP, plus they could held, scratch and whatnot while he was shooting, against Dirk touch him and it's a foul. Much harder to shoot.
LOL don't give me that, it was the Finals in his second year, and he did a great all around job when he wasn't scoring, plus he had no player really playing like a superstar that year, he killed it when he had to.
Bird was more athletic than Dirk ever was when he was younger, if you don't know that you never saw him play. Look it up.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
I have seen games of both when they were young. And old.
I don't dispute the fact that Larry Bird is more than the slow, unathletic white guy some take him for.
But Dirk was very athletic when he was young as well... when he was 18, the way he ran the floor had scouts drooling over him. You'd think Dirk is pure skill, but he also benefits from a great body - tall, quick, agile, well conditioned.
Both are underrated in that regard.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
I am old enough that i watched Bird vs Magic in the 1979 NCAA finals so i remember Bird well. Watched his entire prime with the Cs.
He was a better overall player than Dirk for sure but not a better perimeter shooter than Dirk. Bird was much better in the post and getting to the basket than Dirk but was prone to slumps from the perimeter much moreso than Dirk.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=livingby3's]I kinda get what u guys are saying but it's really like saying how a iPhone 5 today would dominate the phones of the past. just my personal input[/QUOTE]
iPhone? :biggums:
Technology is better today, but that doesn't necessarily mean every modern aspect of life dominates its past counterpart.
Shakespeare is still the GOAT writer for instance. And the only people who come close to him are writers from the past not the present.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Bird would be very good in any era.
Could he play the 3 as he did back then, well, I wouldn't want him defending the 3 versus the present athletes at the position(and indeed he didn't necessarily do so back then, when on court with McHale, McHale usually took the better offensive player).
The defense back then is being overhyped somewhat. People seemed to concede the J back then a lot more (possibly a relic of the pre-3 point line era), and the percentages do seem to show that defense wasn't as good (relative to the eras offense), and that so many of the eras scorers were small forwards (Dantley, King, English, Wilkins, Vandeweghe, Tripucka, Aguirre, Marques Johnson, Purvis Short, Jay Vincent, Orlando Woolridge, Xavier McDaniel, Mike Mitchell, John Drew plus others that verged on the era and/or swung between the 2 and 3 like Wilkes, Erving, Walter Davis (mostly a 2 in the 80s but played both), Dale Ellis, Ricky Pierce, Chuck Person, Eddie Johnson and Calvin Natt). So I do think that was a position it was easy get points from.
Of the defenders OP lists, the first set of genuine elite defenders, few played their prime with Birds prime (and there are some like MJ who I'm guessing weren't regularly covering him). Maybe only Cooper and he wasn't a starter.
Sellers was lousy, most of the "athletes" were poor defenders, I would have assumed Cummings and Grant were covering McHale, and Clifford Robinson played Bird a grand total of 6 times and played less than 20 minutes per game.
Not that I don't think Bird wouldn't be able to play now, non-athlete shooters like Nowitzki and Kevin Love (and the following group aren't in Bird's class clearly, not that the above were, but just in terms of fitting the shooter, non-athlete, rebounder forward type) Ryan Anderson, Ersan Illysova are thriving and Bird is the best. Would he get the same numbers, well not in terms of raw numbers at the slower pace, lower % era. But advanced metrics would be roughly the same, maybe the wing defenders are a little better today, but roughly he'd be playing as well as he did.
On the plus side he probably wouldn't bust his fingers playing softball and would have lasted longer with regard to treating all the injuries.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=BoutPractice]I have seen games of both when they were young. And old.
I don't dispute the fact that Larry Bird is more than the slow, unathletic white guy some take him for.
But Dirk was very athletic when he was young as well... when he was 18, the way he ran the floor had scouts drooling over him. You'd think Dirk is pure skill, but he also benefits from a great body - tall, quick, agile, well conditioned.
Both are underrated in that regard.[/QUOTE]
I agree. People forget about how Dirk was when he was younger, pretty mobile and coordinated especially for a 7 footer.
Both were pretty agile and mobile for their sizes, also well conditioned, still Bird was a little bit more athletic, quicker (wouldn't say faster), quicker hands, better hand-eye coordination.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qycH9GYDK74[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI1sGRcekZ0[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sInTps5WSMo[/url]
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=tontoz]I am old enough that i watched Bird vs Magic in the 1979 NCAA finals so i remember Bird well. Watched his entire prime with the Cs.
He was a better overall player than Dirk for sure but not a better perimeter shooter than Dirk. Bird was much better in the post and getting to the basket than Dirk but was prone to slumps from the perimeter much moreso than Dirk.[/QUOTE]
What slumps? He shot like 47% and 37% from 3pt from '89 to '92, with a injury that would end most people's careers, overweight, the most unathletic guy on the court. You watch those games, the condition he was in out there is clear, but to still do those kinds of stuff, incredible.
Even in '88 when the back was already bothering him he shot like 53%/41%/92% scoring 30 PPG.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
take any of the elite sfs of the 80s and they would score just as many points in any era...
and with legal zone defenses now.....you can hide bad defenders or protect your star players on defense
you could play Bird as a center on defense against most teams if you wanted to.
Bird was the real deal.....legit superstar....media gave him more light than other legit superstars because he appealed to white mainstream fanbase....but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was a bonafide great player.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]1) First Bird got more than 1000 games than Dirk, 'till he was 35, let Dirk career reach the end. Still Bird averaged like 6.5 APG in the playoffs, Dirk has 2.6, Bird always looked to make the right play rather than being always the scorer. When he scored 60 points he had like 3 assists so you can see what a scorer he could've been, even had like 50+ points, 10+ assists games.
2) Do you really think if Bird played [B]in this superstar treatment era[/B], he wouldn't average the same or more, FTA than Dirk?
3) Bird injured his shooting finger right before entering the NBA, [B]some say he was a better shooter in college[/B], still he didn't come up with a 3pt line and to do what he did is terrific. Shooting is not only 3pt and Larry had a much better FG%, why don't you mention that?
4) Catch and shoot isn't creating offense? Dude was the better off ball player I've seen. Doubles from who McHale? Guy was a black hole, could pass but not really a passer. Bird could create his own shot in much more ways than Dirk. What defense? Seen the guys I posted in the OP, plus they could held, scratch and whatnot while he was shooting, against Dirk touch him and it's a foul. Much harder to shoot.
LOL don't give me that, it was the Finals in his second year, and he did a great all around job when he wasn't scoring, plus he had no player really playing like a superstar that year, he killed it when he had to.
Bird was more athletic than Dirk ever was when he was younger, if you don't know that you never saw him play. Look it up.[/QUOTE]
Just a couple of notes.
I'm fairly sure there have always been superstar calls. Bill Russell and other "old timers" have discussed it happening in their time.
Bird's college ft was .822, in the pros it was .886 (and .890 in the playoffs). The softball injury makes for a nice anecdote but it's hard to make a case that it genuinely (negatively) affected his shooting (or at least that affected his jump/set shot, which is the usual contention).
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
Why wouldn't he be able to score\dominate? He can shoot lights out, has great post moves, great footwork, has a super fast release, and is very lengthy.
I predict in this area Bird would average something like 24-28 PPG on 47-50% shooting.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=Owl]
Could he play the 3 as he did back then, well, I wouldn't want him defending the 3 versus the present athletes at the position(and indeed he didn't necessarily do so back then, when on court with McHale, McHale usually took the better offensive player).
[B]Well at some point he guarded dudes like Wilkins, Worthy, Erving, Woolridge, Pressey, great athletes in any era, plus really strong guys like King, Dantley and Aguirre.
Yeah since '86 McHale guarded more the 3, basically because he was inserted into the starting lineup, they needed to rest Bird and he already had back issues.[/B]
The defense back then is being overhyped somewhat. People seemed to concede the J back then a lot more (possibly a relic of the pre-3 point line era), and the percentages do seem to show that defense wasn't as good (relative to the eras offense), and that so many of the eras scorers were small forwards (Dantley, King, English, Wilkins, Vandeweghe, Tripucka, Aguirre, Marques Johnson, Purvis Short, Jay Vincent, Orlando Woolridge, Xavier McDaniel, Mike Mitchell, John Drew plus others that verged on the era and/or swung between the 2 and 3 like Wilkes, Erving, Walter Davis (mostly a 2 in the 80s but played both), Dale Ellis, Ricky Pierce, Chuck Person, Eddie Johnson and Calvin Natt). So I do think that was a position it was easy get points from.
[B]Don't forget that the midrange and off-ball game was definitely better back then, that helps a lot, scorers nowadays on most cases, learn more to drive and shoot 3's and can only mostly play with the ball in their hands. Also you had SF's with much better postgames.
I don't think it was easier to get points from, you just had great scorers at the 3 in the 80's, not like everyone you mentioned were getting like 25 PPG.[/B]
Of the defenders OP lists, the first set of genuine elite defenders, few played their prime with Birds prime (and there are some like MJ who I'm guessing weren't regularly covering him). Maybe only Cooper and he wasn't a starter.
Sellers was lousy, most of the "athletes" were poor defenders, I would have assumed Cummings and Grant were covering McHale, and Clifford Robinson played Bird a grand total of 6 times and played less than 20 minutes per game.
[B]I saw many games with Bird vs. MJ, they tried to put MJ on him many times at first but then just gave up because he murdered him in the post.
Bobby Jones was an elite defender and was still in his prime in the 80's, Rodman was in perimeter D prime in the late 80's, eraly 90's, Pip was already a great defender in the early 90's, Cooper was put many times on the floor to cover Bird.
Sellers was never a great player but you still see him contest Bird's shot pretty well, and he was a 7 footer that could jump and very mobile, still Bird scored over him easily.
Pressey, McCray, Erving, Bobby Jones, Cooper, Rodman, Pippen, Kersey, McDaniel, Wilkes, Nance, Roundfield, Buck Williams, Worthy... Were great athletes and (at least) nice defensive players.
Grant covered Bird many times in the early 90's. Yeah he didn't play much against Clifford but like the vid shows he could easily shoot over him, old, overweight and with a wrecked back.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
....
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=Owl]Just a couple of notes.
I'm fairly sure there have always been superstar calls. Bill Russell and other "old timers" have discussed it happening in their time.
Bird's college ft was .822, in the pros it was .886 (and .890 in the playoffs). The softball injury makes for a nice anecdote but it's hard to make a case that it genuinely (negatively) affected his shooting (or at least that affected his jump/set shot, which is the usual contention).[/QUOTE]
I don't deny that there have always been superstar calls, but if you watch games from back then and now, it's pretty clear that there's much more today.
Ever saw his shooting finger? All crooked after that injury, there's no way that that couldn't have made him adapt his shooting.
He had to really work hard to overcome that in his first years, and be the shooter he was.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]I don't deny that there have always been superstar calls, but if you watch games from back then and now, it's pretty clear that there's much more today.
Ever saw his shooting finger? All crooked after that injury, there's no way that that couldn't have made him adapt his shooting.
He had to really work hard to overcome that in his first years, and be the shooter he was.[/QUOTE]
Won't contest the first point because so long as you except there have always been star calls then Bird won't be gaining that much more of an advantage now. Plus his game whilst clever enough to draw fouls had very little of the slashing that tends to get people to the line (and soft foul calls).
3 words, burden of proof. It's not for me to show that his shot was affected its for those who believe it was to prove it. And they'd have to overcome the fact that his free throw shooting kept on improving after the injury. And "his hand looked ugly" doesn't cut it. If he'd been on Blake Ahearn 95% type shooting in college then you could say, hey it got worse. It didn't. It got better, significantly better.
-
Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?
[QUOTE=Owl]Won't contest the first point because so long as you except there have always been star calls then Bird won't be gaining that much more of an advantage now. Plus his game whilst clever enough to draw fouls had very little of the slashing that tends to get people to the line (and soft foul calls).
3 words, burden of proof. It's not for me to show that his shot was affected its for those who believe it was to prove it. And they'd have to overcome the fact that his free throw shooting kept on improving after the injury. And "his hand looked ugly" doesn't cut it. If he'd been on Blake Ahearn 95% type shooting in college then you could say, hey it got worse. It didn't. It got better, significantly better.[/QUOTE]
I remember the TNT crew discussing mangled fingers of basketball players. I think it was due to Kobe. Barkley said a lot of NBA players fingers get deformed like that. He even showed his fingers. I think the hand thing is a bit overblown.