Does Bird get downgraded for a Perceived lack of Longevity

Does Larry Bird get downgraded on all time rankings because his career is believed to be lacking longevity? I think most believe that Bird was never the same after 1988. That was arguably his greatest season and afterwards injuries took a toll, with issues with his back and bone spurs in his heels. He was arguably the greatest player of the 80's decade, he seemed to have the edge vs Magic on an individual basis at least through the first half of the decade. However in 2019 a lot of people seem to believe Magic was on a different level and Bird does not even belong in the top 10.

Yup.

Its why Magic is regarded as the "greater player". Well that and 5 championships.

People who watched Bird or at least know about his career talk about the [I]healthy[/I] version. The guy better than every perimeter player not named Michael Jordan.

LeBron gets punished for being elite for 16 seasons. It is only this season where he can't carry the soup cans

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Yup.

Its why Magic is regarded as the "greater player".

People who watched Bird or at least know about his career talk about the [I]healthy[/I] version. The guy better than every perimeter player not named Michael Jordan.[/QUOTE]

I would say after 86' Bird was probably regarded by most as the better player between him and Magic, but LA's titles in 87' and 88' cemented Magic as the greater player in the eyes of the general public.

[B]Yup and that sucks. Same thing happens to Charles Barkley[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]Yup and that sucks. Same thing happens to Charles Barkley[/B][/QUOTE]

STFU. Barkley aged out because he was a lazy fat pos. Bird had a devastating back injury and was one of the hardest workers the NBA has ever seen. Get the fukk out of my face with your horseshit.

It would appear so from looking at many people's lists; I personally do not value longevity very much compared with rates once there is an appreciable sample size, like pro ejemplo, eight seasons.

Bird was too good at all things on the basketball court save for on-ball defense, while also consistently winning, and consistently coming up big in clutch moments, plus a 6-0 playoff record vs. the GOAT speaks volumes, though I must admit I would not expect anything much different other than say a 6-1 given the extenuating circumstances.:roll eyes:

Thank you for the Bird thread, btw. I am always keen on discussing Bird, though I did not witness his career live and have not even seen all of the MJ-Bird match ups (other than all 6 playoff games, of course).

[QUOTE=JohnMax]White American players went from 40% of the total players in the league to less than 5% in just 30 years or so..

The only successful role for a White American in the NBA today is as a specialist, yet I'm supposed to believe that Larry Bird would be a superstar? Stop even if I would suspend disbelief and give the benefit of the doubt, the best he could be is the best player on a bad team like Love or somebody like Houston's Chandler Parsons..

I'm also not factoring the likelihood that Black players in the league were forced to go easy on him, as well..Isiah Thomas and Rodman hinted at it, but couldn't elaborate further, knowing they would be blackballed from the league.[/QUOTE]

I disagree wholeheartedly. He would be a superstar today. In fact, anyone in my top 20 tier would be a superstar today.

I've always ranked Bird > Magic

[QUOTE=Smoke117]STFU. Barkley aged out because he was a lazy fat pos. Bird had a devastating back injury and was one of the hardest workers the NBA has ever seen. Get the fukk out of my face with your horseshit.[/QUOTE]

[B]The title of the thread does not take an input on the reasons of their lack of longevity :confusedshrug: Barkley began to get back problems by 1994 btw he was very short for his position so he needed that athletic ability. I agree Bird was one of the harest workers ever but he didn

It's not a perceived lack of longevity, it is a lack of it in relation to some of the other greats. Not to say Bird wasn't as great as others but he didn't give as many great years, that's all. it is what it is.

[QUOTE=JohnMax]

White American players went from 40% of the total players in the league to [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]less than 5%[/COLOR][/B] in just 30 years or so..

The only successful role for a White American in the NBA today is as a specialist, yet I'm supposed to believe that Larry Bird would be a superstar? Stop even if I would suspend disbelief and give the benefit of the doubt, the best he could be is the best player on a bad team like Love or somebody like Houston's Chandler Parsons..

I'm also not factoring the likelihood that Black players in the league were forced to go easy on him, as well..Isiah Thomas and Rodman hinted at it, but couldn't elaborate further, knowing they would be blackballed from the league.[/QUOTE]

[I][SIZE="3"]^^^ the bolded is completely false.. The percentage of black players was higher in 1990 than today, and the percentage of white players hasn't changed much (about 20%), except it's much higher when you consider euros (international):[/SIZE][/I]


[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/2qwh3dc.jpg[/IMG]

[url]https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2018/12/12/in-an-ethnic-breakdown-of-sports-nba-takes-lead-for-most-diverse/[/url]


Also, Bird > Dirk

And jokic

So that alone proves bird would dominate today - his passing was superior to jokic, and his release much quicker than dirk's.. he'd be a stretch 4 like we've never seen
.

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]The title of the thread does not take an input on the reasons of their lack of longevity :confusedshrug: Barkley began to get back problems by 1994 btw he was very short for his position so he needed that athletic ability. I agree Bird was one of the harest workers ever but he didn

Yes. And it should be that way. But still a top-15 player, arguably 8-12.

Anybody who thinks that bird wouldn't dominate in a weak defensive era that revolves around threes is an idiot. I think he gets down graded for his lack of athleticism and flash. His dominance revolved around intelligence, heart and fundamentals. Tim Duncan has been downgraded for the same reason I believe.

Bird was an old rookie at 23. If i remember right he hurt his back working at home.

Amazing player in his prime. His size, skills, IQ and drive would make him a star in any era.

Longevity is an important issue when judging great players and it should count against him.

Bird helped his team win. He's from the era before Michael Jordan and the consequent media fixation on individual greatness to boost marketing and sales. Magic gets props for the additional rings but his weaker opposition in the West at the time gets overlooked and he benefits from having a career that lasted a little longer into the 90s and still being in the news in the present.

Absolutely.

His body just failed him.

[QUOTE=Bronbron23]Anybody who thinks that bird wouldn't dominate in a weak defensive era that revolves around threes is an idiot. I think he gets down graded for his lack of athleticism and flash. His dominance revolved around intelligence, heart and fundamentals. Tim Duncan has been downgraded for the same reason I believe.[/QUOTE]
Duncan, downgraded? He's barely out of the league :oldlol:

[QUOTE=72-10]He put in more basketball practice than most, but he apparently did not condition himself quite as much? Fair call?:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

[B]He did condition himself but he was not athletic enough to last that long because he also played the game too hard. He would dive for loose balls, hustle, tough rebounder and tough team defender. That's what made him amazing but he wasn't going to last that long because his lack of athletecism.[/B]

Bird and Magic both had very short careers when you think about it. Magic actually retired a year earlier due to HIV but did come back for 30 something games in 95. Those guys should have won more than they did, Magic was only 31 and had 9 Finals under his belt with 5 rings. Bird's issue is that he came into the league at 23, his longevity numbers would look a lot better if he came in at 20 like Magic. Magic should be #1 all-time in assists and Bird should be at least top 10 in scoring.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Yup.

Its why Magic is regarded as the "greater player". Well that and 5 championships.

People who watched Bird or at least know about his career talk about the [I]healthy[/I] version. The guy better than every perimeter player not named Michael Jordan.[/QUOTE]
This ... and he was better than Magic.

this is pretty much discussing the impact of George Bush Sr.

His averages still look good but even that's because he started his career at age 23. If you compare his career averages to other all-timers from 23-35 he doesn't really stand out as much. So the lack of longevity kinda evens out. Still had a great 5 year stretch that stacks up with just about anyone. Still in the top 10 discussion

His style of play pretty much invited injuries too even if his biggest injuries occurred outside the court