Would you rather have 10 years of Bird or 16 years of Duncan?

[Harison]

Bird was more dominant player against much better competition. 10 years of that trumps 16 years of TD.

Malone had better longevity than Timmy too, so what? I'm not taking him over Tim, nor I'm taking Tim over Bird.

Or lets take this scenario - swap TD and Bird. How many rings do Celtics get? Several IMO, and TD gets no MVP (there were more dominant players to choose from back then).

How Bird would do with Spurs and Pop? He would dominate even more than he did in the Golden age. I'm speaking about MVPs pretty much every single season for those 10 years, and ~5 rings.

[T_L_P]

Bird was more dominant player against much better competition. 10 years of that trumps 16 years of TD.

Malone had better longevity than Timmy too, so what? I'm not taking him over Tim, nor I'm taking Tim over Bird.

Or lets take this scenario - swap TD and Bird. How many rings do Celtics get? Several IMO, and TD gets no MVP (there were more dominant players to choose from back then).

How Bird would do with Spurs and Pop? He would dominate even more than he did in the Golden age. I'm speaking about MVPs pretty much every single season for those 10 years, and ~5 rings.

Bird gets drafted in 97, plays until 07.

Which years does Bird win his 5?

[B4llin]

16 of Duncan. If Duncan played for the Lakers, Celtics, or Knicks he would be ranked just as high as Bird. That's what a big market does for your legacy.

San Antonio being a "Small Market" is a ****ing cop out created by the NBA to argue that small markets do have a chance at dominating in the finals. San Antonio is a big city in one of the biggest states in the U.S.

If you could pick the biggest market outside of the other 3 or 4 that have already dominated the playoffs for decades, San Antonio would be the next biggest.

[Harison]

Bird gets drafted in 97, plays until 07.

Which years does Bird win his 5?

97 lose against Bulls, although chances to win are higher than Jazz'.

Win in 98, 99.

'00 and 01 lose against peaking LA.

Win in 02 and 03 against imploding LA.

Win in 04.

Potentially in '05, it was a shoot out match by Dirk and then Wade, I would bet in such case on Bird.

Win in 06.

Lose in 07 vs Celtics, although Cs wouldnt contain Bird like they could Kobe, so its again question mark.

So 7 rings max, at least 5 would be expected.

[elementally morale]

Bird. Easily.
I also take Shaw and Hakeem ahead of Duncan. He is a great player and a great person, but basketball-wise he is no more than a glorified David Robinson. Slyghtly better than Ewing. But no Dream.

[Jacks3]

97 lose against Bulls, although chances to win are higher than Jazz'.

Win in 98, 99.

'00 and 01 lose against peaking LA.

Win in 02 and 03 against imploding LA.

Win in 04.

Potentially in '05, it was a shoot out match by Dirk and then Wade, I would bet in such case on Bird.

Win in 06.

Lose in 07 vs Celtics, although Cs wouldnt contain Bird like they could Kobe, so its again question mark.

So 7 rings max, at least 5 would be expected.

[Crafty]

Jesus, the answear is big man man, always.

[DMV2]

I'd take Bird because of his impact on the game.

I love Duncan too, but sadly I think people will only talk about his numbers when he retires. Duncan is still 1A/1B tied with Shaq for the best player since Jordan.

It's extremely weird that I'm picking a guy who I never seen over a guy I've seen play. That's just shows how big of an impact Bird was for the game.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Bird was more dominant player against much better competition. 10 years of that trumps 16 years of TD.

Malone had better longevity than Timmy too, so what? I'm not taking him over Tim, nor I'm taking Tim over Bird.

Or lets take this scenario - swap TD and Bird. How many rings do Celtics get? Several IMO, and TD gets no MVP (there were more dominant players to choose from back then).

How Bird would do with Spurs and Pop? He would dominate even more than he did in the Golden age. I'm speaking about MVPs pretty much every single season for those 10 years, and ~5 rings.

Agreed.

Not to mention, more advanced medicine could've prolonged Bird's career.

[f0und]

i'd take bird.

sure if all you care about is winning, then duncan is the more logical choice. but from the perspective of a basketball fan, for me its bird easily. the legacy he left on the game of basketball cant be touched by duncan.

[SHAQisGOAT]

sure if all you care about is winning, then duncan is the more logical choice.

[f0und]

winning more over a long period of time, to be exact.

[Big#50]

Duncan because defense.

[joeyjoejoe]

Duncan if I want more rings or bird if I want more hype and $, peak vs peak is very debatable so accounting for longevity its duncan

[T_L_P]

Bird. Easily.
I also take Shaw and Hakeem ahead of Duncan. He is a great player and a great person, but basketball-wise he is no more than a glorified David Robinson. Slyghtly better than Ewing. But no Dream.

What did Brian Shaw ever do fgt?