Reggie Miller picks Bird over Lebron if they both played under today's rules

[Collie]

I think Bird would have been even better today than he was in the 80's. His game is so fitted for today's NBA. More emphasis on the 3 point shot, more intricate offensive systems that would have allowed Bird's strengths in passing and shooting to be maximized, smaller ball where Bird could have played PF or even C at times and minimized his defensive weaknesses. He would probably be a consistent 26-10-7 player on 50/40/90 with GOOD defense on Power Forwards.

[3ball]

Why is that relevant (that the Spurs/Warriors would be better with Bird)

Reggie said Bird would be better in today's game and the best teams today are teams that play optimally like the Spurs and Warriors.

Bird is easily the better choice on these teams, which means he is capable of playing at a higher level in today's game than Lebron can.

Keep in mind that today's game is an easier environment for a perimeter player to make a play or score - hands-off defense and 3-point shooters spreading the floor allow for neat and spaced drive-and-kick.. But in Bird's day, there were no 3-point shooters, so drive and kick was not a favorable option like today, and less preferred than mid-range, post, isolation and off-ball play.. But don't get the wrong idea - these options weren't preferred because the defense was bad and allowed it.. They were used because they were the highest efficiency options in the absence of drive-and-kick for 3-pointers, made easier by hands-off defense and defensive 3 seconds.

3-point shooting has made the drive and kick more of a modern invention.. The resulting spacing along with hands-off defense gives a #1 option more room, time and less physical resistance getting in the lane, so defenses actually need to pay MORE attention to perimeter players in today's game - unfortunately, this can't ever happen because spacing has spread defenses thin by necessitating coverage role players 30 feet from the basket.
.

[Kvnzhangyay]

Reggie said Bird would be better in today's game and the best teams today are teams that play optimally like the Spurs and Warriors.

Bird is easily the better choice on these teams, which means he is capable of playing at a higher level in today's game than Lebron can.

Keep in mind that today's game is an easier environment for a perimeter player to make a play or score - hands-off defense and 3-point shooters spreading the floor allow for neat and spaced drive-and-kick.. But in Bird's day, there were no 3-point shooters, so drive and kick was not a favorable option like today, and less preferred than mid-range, post, isolation and off-ball play.. But don't get the wrong idea - these options weren't preferred because the defense was bad and allowed it.. They were used because they were the highest efficiency options in the absence of drive-and-kick for 3-pointers, made easier by hands-off defense and defensive 3 seconds.

3-point shooting has made the drive and kick more of a modern invention.. The resulting spacing along with hands-off defense gives a #1 option more room, time and less physical resistance getting in the lane, so defenses actually need to pay MORE attention to perimeter players in today's game - unfortunately, this can't ever happen because spacing has spread defenses thin by necessitating coverage role players 30 feet from the basket.
.

So basically your whole premise for ranking people is based off of hypothetical and speculations

[3ball]

So basically your whole premise for ranking people is based off of hypothetical

You agreed that Bird would make the Spurs and Warriors better than Lebron-ball would.. Bird was simply capable of playing a superior brands of basketball than Lebron-ball.

Same thing with MJ, who would be amazing as an off-ball and on-ball player in the Spurs offense, just like he was with the Bulls - as an off-ball player, MJ was a highly-assisted, RESERVOIR of playmaking opportunities for teammates (as seen in GIF above - how's THAT not going to fit into the Spurs?).

and speculations

I don't speculate - for example, this is not speculation: we have definitive proof that the 1989 Bulls were more of a 1-man team than Lebron's 2009 and 2010 Cavs:

We've already established that the Cavs won 66 games in 2009, while the Bulls only won 47 in 1989, despite MJ having better stats than Lebron (33/8/8/54 > 28/8/7/49) - since the Cavs higher win total cannot be due to Lebron's lower stats, it can only be due to a better supporting cast or worse competition.

[COLOR="Navy"]If you think the Cavs' 19 more wins were ONLY due to worse competition (and not better supporting cast)[/COLOR], then consider how much better that makes MJ's playoff stats look, since they came against far better competition... The gap in competition invalidates Lebron's 2009 playoff averages of 35/9/7/51/1.6 stl compared to MJ's nearly identical 35/7/7/51/2.5 stl in 1989.

Of course, the other alternative is that Lebron's supporting cast was better, in addition to the aforementioned weaker comp.. This must be true and makes more sense.. Lebron's supporting cast included an all-star and a slew of higher-producing veterans, which was a stark contrast from MJ's very young, inexperienced and lower-producing cast..

MJ's 1989 Bulls and the "Jordan Rules" that MJ faced were simply more of a 1-man team with a worse supporting cast.. Therefore, the gap in RS records was due to differences in BOTH competition level and supporting cast, not just competition level - the superior competition Jordan faced and his greater 1-man show was underscored by the Bulls being a 6-seed and severe underdog in every series, compared to the Cavs being the #1 seed and favorite to make the Finals.

[Dragonyeuw]

LMAO, 3ball managed to take a comparison thread about Lebron and Bird and turn it into a reason to paste another pro MJ argument. GOAT trolling right here....

[SHAQisGOAT]

People still bringing up pace in discussions like these?

Difference in pace is less than 10% here, as minimal as it gets, not considerable at all, especially for star players.

There was even a video showing that Bird still pretty much averaged his "regular" numbers when playing at today's pace (same goes for MANY other players), can't seem to find it anymore though...
But anyways, his best statistical year was even in 1988, when the Celtics' pace was slower than before (97.9 at that point) and Larry wasn't even at his VERY best there.

Shit, even in 1992 when Bird was a COMPLETE shell and the C's were playing at an average pace of 95.8, Larry still averaged 20/10/7/1/1 on .547 TS%.

Yet you still got people mathematically "adjusting" stats and whatnot... This is basketball we're talking about here, far from an exact "science", call it.

Plus, it's easier to control the game (better yet, one's stats, mostly stars) when playing at a slower pace, let's say... That's why Bird was putting up better numbers when the team wasn't as good, when he had the rock in his hands more, when the ball wasn't moving around as much as before, when the Celtics were playing at a slower pace than previously...
Think LeBron puts up the same type of numbers he does while playing without the ball more (not being the primarly ball-handler)? Playing for a team that moves the ball much better and much faster? Playing for a team that many times look for the 1st/best available shot instead of dribbling the air out of the ball, without him being able to slow it down, bring it up with everything settled? Think he rebounds the same alongside dudes like Parish or McHale, on a team that many times looks to let the closest player to the ball collect the rebound to start up the fastbreak quickly?
...
Think about that.

[Derka]

The advances in sports medicine alone would benefit Bird tremendously, to say nothing of the way the game is refereed and played.

[GimmeThat]

You switch Shawn Bradley with big Z,
Or prime mutombo while Lebron was still undersized

And this whole statement changes.

[3ball]

What if MJ had to face an actual zone defense

MJ was POY in college over bigs like Hakeem, Ewing and others where a TRUE ZONE was allowed.

Otoh, today's game is not a zone because zone defense is not allowed inside the paint.. Inside the 16 x 19 foot painted area, defenders have to remain within armslength of their man (about 3 feet) at all times.. Defenders must hug their man inside the paint, or vacate the paint - they can't remain in the paint without standing right next to someone.

Otoh, defenders in previous eras were allowed to stay in the paint when their man was far out of armslength - Rule 2b of the Illegal Defense Guidelines allowed defenders to stand in the paint "with no time restriction" if their man was anywhere in the paint, or within 3 feet of either side.. This condition was always occurring because of the lack of spacing.

To summarize - defenders in today's game aren't allowed to stand in the paint when there's no one else around, while previous era defenders could.





Notice Speights on baseline, left of the rim - ideally, he'd be waiting under the rim the whole time to contest Lebron.. But today's defensive 3 seconds rule doesn't allow defenders to wait in the 16 x 19 foot painted area if no one is within armslength (about 3 feet).. So Speights has walk to AWAY from the rim to remain within armslength of his man, which prevents him from contesting Lebron.

Otoh, in previous eras, Rule 2b of the Illegal Defense Guidelines allowed defenders to remain in the paint "with no time restriction" if their man was anywhere inside the paint, or within 3 feet or either side.. So in the clip above, Speights would've been waiting under the rim to contest Lebron and force him into a tougher shot.

I think I get it - inside the paint, zone isn't allowed, because the defensive 3 seconds rule banned paint-camping by forcing defenders to remain within armslength of their man at all times, or vacate the paint.

However, zone defense IS allowed outside the paint.

Exactly, the NBA banned paint-camping but allowed zones outside the paint.. So instead of paint-camping and contesting guards at the rim, the ban forces big men to come OUT of their wheelhouse (the paint) to contest guards in THEIR wheelhouse, the perimeter.. Even Austin Rivers can be a superstar by beating bigs on the perimeter and finishing on unprotected rims.

Of course, previous eras shaded heavily in screen-roll situations too (seen below) - MJ destroyed these situations, but he had to pull-up for more jumpers, because the paint was not open after the screen roll like it is today - in MJ's day, after the screen-roll, the paint would still be crowded because there was no spacing to draw everyone to the perimeter:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...=358589&page=8.
.

[Thorpesaurous]

I think this is really more about stylistic differences. To me they're both among the elite of the elite (my multiple titles and multiple MVPs is my unofficial threshold), so historical ranking becomes sort preferential to me.


And I do think there's something to Bird seeing a bump in value in the current league. Both guys are matchup issues, but Bird's rebounding (and to a degree his post acumen, which while not better than Lebron's, it's more graceful and probably more apt to play against the double teams) puts him closer to a four in the league now.

His shooting becomes a huge asset. And while both are great passers, it's possible Bird's quicker ball movement decisions play better now than Lebron's more attack and create style.

Obviously Lebron has an advantage going end to end, but that's almost era independent. And he has a defensive edge too, but one of the things I think this zone era is going to find is that the ultra athlete is going to lose some value because there's more likely to be someone at the rim on one end, and at the other end, the ability to cover massive amounts of ground quickly may be negated a bit by guys just knowing where to be, because they're allowed to be in spots they weren't allowed in before. Obviously the ability to close out and recover will be an advantage. But the Dwight Howard's of the world who were special because of the unique ability to not be in the paint, and get across the hoops to contest someone coming from the other side, just won't have that skill seen as important as it was during the illegal defense era. All that I think gives Bird's defense a bump in the way Draymond Green is an elite defender in this league without elite athleticism.

In a way Lebron is almost a throwback to the previous era. In spite of the zone having been allowed for a while now, I think we're just starting to see it have it's effect both on how defenses play, how rosters are built, and what's important as a skill on offense to counter it.

I don't think it's unfair to make that choice.

[3ball]

.
[COLOR="White"].................................................. ....[/COLOR]Spacing


The stats show that teams attempted little or no 3-pointers in previous eras, so offensive players were not spacing the floor, including the weakside - with no weakside spacing, all 5 defenders remained on the strongside, and therefore closest to help on strongside action:






Otoh, today's game uses weakside spacing to reduce the number of strongside defenders.. Help defenders are now on the weakside and furthest from helping on strongside action:





Weakside spacing leaves the strongside with fewer defenders, which necessitates the flooding of defenders BACK TO the strongside - this is how strongside floods originated - weakside spacing necessitates strongside flooding.

Otoh, as the first GIF showed, weakside spacing didn't exist in previous eras, so defenders didn't need to leave the strongside.. With defenders remaining on the strongside, the strongside was already flooded and today's "strongside flood" strategy was not necessary.. 5-defender strongsides were standard.

These fully-flooded strongsides were a product of no-spacing and represented the "advanced" version of the game that included hand-checking, higher physicality, and legal paint-camping, and therefore requiring more sophisticated 2-point shooting ability.

This is a stark contrast to today's weakside spacing and resulting 1-defender strongsides, which is basically the "beginner" version of the game that includes less strongside defenders, no hand-checking, no paint-camping, no physicality.. The highest levels of offensive sophistication simply aren't needed for the beginner version of the game..

[3ball]

.
[COLOR="White"]..................[/COLOR][color="green"]Which strongside scenario is harder to score on: [/color]


[color=red]WITH weakside spacing[/color] - Being against Iggy with all 4 help defenders on weakside and [color=red]furthest[/color] to help on strongside action:






[COLOR=blue]WITHOUT weakside spacing[/COLOR] - Being against Rodman with all 4 help defenders on strongside and [color=blue]closest[/color] to help on strongside action:





Weakside spacing leaves the strongside with fewer defenders (1st GIF), which necessitates the flooding of defenders BACK TO the strongside - this is how strongside floods originated.. weakside spacing necessitates strongside flooding.

Otoh, as the first GIF showed, weakside spacing didn't exist in previous eras, so defenders didn't need to leave the strongside.. With defenders remaining on the strongside, the strongside was already flooded and today's "strongside flood" strategy was not necessary.. 5-defender strongsides were standard.

These fully-flooded strongsides were a product of no-spacing and represented the "advanced" version of the game that included hand-checking, higher physicality, and legal paint-camping, and therefore requiring more sophisticated 2-point shooting ability.

This is a stark contrast to today's weakside spacing and resulting 1-defender strongsides, which is basically the "beginner" version of the game that includes less strongside defenders, no hand-checking, no paint-camping, no physicality.. The highest levels of offensive sophistication simply aren't needed for the beginner version of the game..
.