View Single Post
Old 10-08-2012, 04:13 PM   #45
Local High School Star
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,479
Default Re: Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?

Originally Posted by SHAQisGOAT
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.
Owl is offline   Reply With Quote