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 won't say the advantage would be big but there would be an advantage, offensive and defensively.
Larry worked in the post a lot, battled inside and did his fair share of slashing, if you watched him you know, that type of play would always get people to the line, just because the best part of his game was shooting, doesn't mean he was strictly a jump shooter.

It got worse from college to NBA, of course he had to adapt and worked on his shooting throughout his NBA years getting better than he was, without having to adapt his shooting from the get go, he could probably better from early on.

I don't think Bird is that similar to Nowitzki. I think the best comparison is Chris Mullin.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I also took the Liberty od doing the math on the games Bird had vs Rodman and Pippen in which they both played 30 or more minutes. Against Rodman, Bird shot 43%. Against Pippen. 45% and 4 TOs. And this was against these players when they were slightly out of their primes.[/QUOTE]

Stop it please, why don't you say nothing about Bird, those 30 or more minutes games almost all of them came after '88, if Rodman and Pip were slightly out of their primes then Bird was way out of his prime, dude was old, all banged up, career ending injuries, couldn't practice, overweight, against young athletic freaks and great defenders.


Look at the stats:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01[/url]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=rodmade01[/url]

Even had some big games after '88 and that's simply amazing for the condition he was in.


Also looking at the vids you can clearly see that he's one of those players nobody can stop, you can clearly see nobody was a major problem against the skills he had.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]I don't think Bird is that similar to Nowitzki. I think the best comparison is Chris Mullin.[/QUOTE]

We're comparing to players from right now, Chris Mullin even played against him and while he was a really good player, doesn't come close.

[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]I won't the advantage would be big but there would be an advantage, offensive and defensively.
Larry worked in the post a lot, battled inside and did his fair share of slashing, if you watched him you know, that type of play would always get people to the line, just because the best part of his game was shooting, doesn't mean he was strictly a jump shooter.

[B]It got worse from college to NBA[/B], of course he had to adapt and worked on his shooting throughout his NBA years getting better than he was, without having to adapt his shooting from the get go, he could probably better from early on.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, burden of proof. You need evidence. Even in his rookie season his ft% was up on both of Larry's last two years in college (and his college career average). Thereafter his yearly ft%s never fell below his best year in college (and college seasons are short enough that there's more influence by luck, so I wouldn't think that one year would be more representative than the totality of his college career).

Right now if the evidence would seem to suggest it improved his shooting, not that I'm claiming it did, to be clear, I'm not claiming that it did. But you have to prove that got worse. With evidence, not just repeating the assertion.

[QUOTE=Owl]Dantley was 30+ppg, Wilkins 30, English 28, Kiki 27, Aguirre 26, Purvis short 24, Mike Mitchell 23. I think they've all got about 3 seasons at or above those numbers (might require some rounding up in some instances).


Ellis went for 27 once, King got 32 as healthy first option, Marques 26, Tripucka 26, McDaniel got 23 on team where he was the third option.

Mostly those that didn't peak at 25+ are those that weren't first options and/or weren't playing huge minutes. Teams didn't guard the small forward position well at that time.

And I said prime at the same time. Bobby Jones peaked around the turn of the decade (and was pretty consistently good before then). Just as Bird was getting to close to his best BJ had fallen off significantly and was playing less than 24 mpg. Rodman's time frame as you state was when Bird was sub-optimal etc

Brad Sellers sucked. He graded as a B (on a D to triple A scale) so despite his tools he was only average. Super. Is that really worth rasing. A low minutes average defender. It's another reach.

The best defenders were either pfs likely to cover McHale (Roundfield, Nance, Williams), peaked significantly earlier (Bobby Jones, Wilkes), were part timers (Cooper, late model Jones and early Rodman), peaked later (Rodman, Kersey, Pippen). McDaniel was just average. What's left? His best full time defenders at his peak were Pressey and a young (but I guess he didn't have a long prime) McCray.

And they were very good, well rounded players. Probably underrated.

But overall 80s sfs clearly didn't prioritise defense. I don't know what to say if you don't buy that. As I made clear in my first post I think Bird could play in any era, so it's not about that.[/QUOTE]


Some can have a bit of pace inflated stats (like the run n gun Nuggets) but some of the names you said were simply great scorers, watching them play you can tell, just because you had amazing scorers at the SF that can't be a knock on the D against the SF's, please, not like they were letting them score, you had SF's that were masters at midrange and offball, great shooters, could drive, some really athletic, and most had an amazing post game, some of those areas you really didn't see like today much on SF's. That would be the same for eras with great scoring centers or guards.
You don't got many scoring centers right now, is that because the defense against centers is that good?

Why prime at the same time? If Bird can do some of those things out of his prime (even while others were at their prime), imagine in his prime.

I can give another example, I saw Bird hitting fallaways against 7'4, 35'' vert or so, Ralph Sampson, not like nobody could be stopping it, plus he hit those like he was uncontested, that's what I was getting at.

And just because there were many amazing scoring SF's in the 80's you also had your fair share of good defensive ones, or even other guys that could cover SF's.

[QUOTE=Owl]Like I said, burden of proof. You need evidence. Even in his rookie season his ft% was up on both of Larry's last two years in college (and his college career average). Thereafter his yearly ft%s never fell below his best year in college (and college seasons are short enough that there's more influence by luck, so I wouldn't think that one year would be more representative than the totality of his college career).

Right now if the evidence would seem to suggest it improved his shooting, not that I'm claiming it did, to be clear, I'm not claiming that it did. But you have to prove that got worse. With evidence, not just repeating the assertion.[/QUOTE]


Evidence? Ever played basketball? I know dudes that injured their fingers badly, crooked fingers after, and all of them were shooting as before. You don't go through that kind of injury like nothing.

Acting like FT% is everything to determine if you're a really great shooter or if improved your shooting.

[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]Stop it please, why don't you say nothing about Bird, those 30 or more minutes games almost all of them came after '88, if Rodman and Pip were slightly out of their primes then Bird was way out of his prime, dude was old, all banged up, career ending injuries, couldn't practice, overweight, against young athletic freaks and great defenders.


Look at the stats:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01[/url]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=rodmade01[/url]

Even had some big games after '88 and that's simply amazing for the condition he was in.


Also looking at the vids you can clearly see that he's one of those players nobody can stop, you can clearly see nobody was a major problem against the skills he had.[/QUOTE]
97 Bulls' numbers do overstate how much Bird struggled with those guys. Clearly he wasn't in top physical condition for a lot of those games. But then you introduced them as top defenders whom Bird faced. If you had stuck to guys who shared their primes with Bird then those stats wouldn't have been posted.

[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]Evidence? Ever played basketball? I know dudes that injured their fingers badly, crooked fingers after, and all of them were shooting as before. You don't go through that kind of injury like nothing.

Acting like FT% is everything to determine if you're a really great shooter or if improved your shooting.[/QUOTE]
No, not "you use your fingers shooting so hurting them hurts your shooting". Evidence.

FT% is the purest indication of ones shooting. If you had a better measure show it. One that isn't affected by the quality of defense faced.

I'm not "acting like FT% is everything" I'm asking you to show that there's something better. You said "some say he was a better shooter in college" and I say I don't think there's the evidence to back up that claim. Then you assert that having an ugly looking hand prevents good free throw shooting. That's not evidence that he was a better shooter, and I've shown numbers that would seem to indicate he was worse in college. Feel free to show otherwise. But you haven't done so.

[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT][B]Some can have a bit of pace inflated stats[/B] (like the run n gun Nuggets) but some of the names you said were simply great scorers, watching them play you can tell, just because you had amazing scorers at the SF that can't be a knock on the D against the SF's, please, not like they were letting them score, you had SF's that were masters at midrange and offball, great shooters, could drive, some really athletic, and most had an amazing post game, some of those areas you really didn't see like today much on SF's. That would be the same for eras with great scoring centers or guards.
You don't got many scoring centers right now, is that because the defense against centers is that good?

[B]Why prime at the same time?[/B] If Bird can do some of those things out of his prime (even while others were at their prime), imagine in his prime.

I can give another example, I saw Bird hitting fallaways against 7'4, 35'' vert or so, Ralph Sampson, not like nobody could be stopping it, plus he hit those like he was uncontested, that's what I was getting at.

[B]And just because there were many amazing scoring SF's in the 80's you also had your fair share of good defensive ones, or even other guys that could cover SF's[/B].[/QUOTE]
All have some pace inflated stats relative to the modern game. The pace was faster. Like I said in my first post doesn't make them worse, you just need to adjust or use things that normalise for era (e.g. advanced stats).

There being so many great scorers at SF does exactly state, as I said before, that on average defense is relatively weak. Defense is relative to offense and vice versa. If offense has an advantage in an era then by definition it is relatively weak, necessarily so. It doesn't mean there couldn't be good defenders. Just that there weren't many of them.

Why prime at the same time? Well my thinking was that players that develop at around the same time are going to have fair comparisons throughout their career, rather than "look what Bird can do against an aging Bobby Jones" or the opposite "look how Rodman and Pippen embarrassed an aging Bird".

But it's up to you, it's your thread. Discuss not prime at the same time. But that makes 97 Bulls posts about Pippen and Rodman destroying Bird valid.

[QUOTE=Whoah10115]I don't think Bird is that similar to Nowitzki. I think the best comparison is Chris Mullin.[/QUOTE]

other than for white skin and shooting ability, the comparison really just ends there. mullin was no chump (expect on D), but bird's all around game was way above mullin's.

[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]Stop it please, why don't you say nothing about Bird, those 30 or more minutes games almost all of them came after '88, if Rodman and Pip were slightly out of their primes then Bird was way out of his prime, dude was old, all banged up, career ending injuries, couldn't practice, overweight, against young athletic freaks and great defenders.


Look at the stats:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01[/url]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=rodmade01[/url]

Even had some big games after '88 and that's simply amazing for the condition he was in.


Also looking at the vids you can clearly see that he's one of those players nobody can stop, you can clearly see nobody was a major problem against the skills he had.[/QUOTE]
Those stats are misleading. Half those game both Pippen and Rodman played sparringly. That's why I only included games in which Pippen and Rodman played 30 or more minutes.


I'm not implying Bird wouldn't beast in any era. I'm just more arguing that vid that shows Bird making shots on young inexperienced players that would eventually evolve into alltime great defenders. Even in Jordans case. Jordan in that video looked to be probably 190lbs. He's giving away a good 30 lbs to Bird and 3 inches. Now prime Jordan ranged around 225. All muscle. I doubt Bird would be able to muscle Jordan (prime Jordan) the way he did in that video on a consistent basis.

[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]We're comparing to players from right now, Chris Mullin even played against him and while he was a really good player, doesn't come close.[/QUOTE]


[QUOTE=DCL]other than for white skin and shooting ability, the comparison really just ends there. mullin was no chump (expect on D), but bird's all around game was way above mullin's.[/QUOTE]




I'm not comparing them as talents, but their games are similar. Mullin is more of a dribbler tho. Like Bird, very smart player on defense and good team defender, tho he was not good individually. I think he's the closest, off the top of my head.

[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]Stop it please, why don't you say nothing about Bird, those 30 or more minutes games almost all of them came after '88, if Rodman and Pip were slightly out of their primes then Bird was way out of his prime, dude was old, all banged up, career ending injuries, couldn't practice, overweight, against young athletic freaks and great defenders.


Look at the stats:

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=pippesc01[/url]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=birdla01&p2=rodmade01[/url]

Even had some big games after '88 and that's simply amazing for the condition he was in.


Also looking at the vids you can clearly see that he's one of those players nobody can stop, you can clearly see nobody was a major problem against the skills he had.[/QUOTE]

He ain't gonna stop. That racist clown is Bird's #1 hater. Let him exaggerate his stupidity.

[QUOTE=TheBigVeto]He ain't gonna stop. That racist clown is Bird's #1 hater. Let him exaggerate his stupidity.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a racist dumbass. Just because I put things into perspective, and don't think Larry Bird shits gold doesn't make me a racist. I've argued the Notion that Chris Bosh and Toni Kukoc are similar talent wise. I said John Stockton was a better PG than Magic Johnson.