Do some people really think Larry Bird couldn't dominate like he did, in this era?

[SHAQisGOAT]

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.

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.

Looking at the numbers head-to-head you got

----
Bird: .503 FG%; .450 3P%; 25.9 PPG; 8.3 RPG; 6.1 APG; 3.4 TPG
Pip: 31.5 MPG

A game in '90 that Pip played 40 minutes, Bird dropped 38 on 50%, with 11 rebounds and 9 assists
A game in '91 that Pip played 37 minutes, Bird dropped 30 points on 59%
A game in '91 that Pip played 52 minutes, Bird dropped 34 on 42%, 15 rebounds and 8 assists, and made some clutch shots to win the game
----


----
Bird: .487 FG%; .459 3P%; 24.7 PPG; 8.0 RPG; 6.9 APG; 1.9 TPG
Rodman: 27.6 MPG

Rodman only started to play more than 30 MPG in '91 , and he still won DPY in '90, and defensive honors before... Many times he came in to guard Bird and I get the point that Bird wasn't guarded by him the whole game, but still he was guarding him close to half the time or more
----


If for Rodman and Pippen you say that they weren't in their absolute prime (even though Rodman was in his perimeter D prime in his younger years and Pip by 89/90 was already a great defensive player) plus the 30 minutes, you can't also forget the horrible condition Bird was in (most wouldn't continue to play) and sometimes he was on the court just dragging himself not doing much scoring like he used (he couldn't), he took the least amount of shots in '90-'91, '91-'92 also.

Plus you can't offer much more than that, because they didn't play against each other that much (like 15 games for each), but you can see in the vid what a Bird, under horrible conditions most wouldn't endure, could do against young amazing athletes, already great defensive players. You really can't offer much more, just what happened.

[BlueandGold]

The more appropriate question is would Larry retire as the GOAT if he played in this era. Gets to the FT if anybody touches him, normal hard fouls are now all flagrant 1s and also with the medical staff these days who knows what happens with his back.

I was gonna throw in "doesn't injure his back" in there with what might happen if he played in today's league but Larry Legend blew out his back trying to manually install a roof for his mother?

most moment of NBA history? Besides Wilt losing like 7 times in the finals of course, at least half of which were to less talented team.

I don't care what anyone says.. Baylor/West/Wilt unable to get it done Sheed/Billups/B.Wallace/Hamilton were able to win one?

[bdreason]

Larry Bird would eat this league alive, just like he did in the 80's.

[SHAQisGOAT]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZgM3jq2XQ0

All I can show is this, Jackie MacMullan the author of When The GAme Was Ours, says that Bird said he never had the same feel for the ball, if he says that I think that it clearly hurt his shooting out of college, and he MIGHT (not would) have been a better shooter. Plus you can see him in college hitting jumpers from really long range left and right and in his first NBA years his 3pt% wasn't good, but that's a bit subjective.

[SHAQisGOAT]

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.

I know they have, all I was saying is that a guy like English had more because of the style of the Nuggets play (kinda like the Suns some years ago)

So in great scoring centers era, center defense was weak, in great scoring guards era (today), guard defense is weak? Please don't give me that. Just because you had great scoring SF's with great skill in the 80's that doesn't mean defense was weak against SF's lol.

Well you can't always offer prime vs prime, if young Bird killed a great defensive player in his prime, he wouldn't in his prime? Also amazing to see old f**ked up Bird against younger Rodman and Pippen.

Why? I never said prime Bird against old "somebody", that's not that fair to me I agree, but old/badly-injured/overweight/out-of-prime "somebody" scoring against young/really-athletic/already-great-defender "somebody" means something to me. Don't twist what I've said.

[97 bulls]

Looking at the numbers head-to-head you got

----
Bird: .503 FG%; .450 3P%; 25.9 PPG; 8.3 RPG; 6.1 APG; 3.4 TPG
Pip: 31.5 MPG

A game in '90 that Pip played 40 minutes, Bird dropped 38 on 50%, with 11 rebounds and 9 assists
A game in '91 that Pip played 37 minutes, Bird dropped 30 points on 59%
A game in '91 that Pip played 52 minutes, Bird dropped 34 on 42%, 15 rebounds and 8 assists, and made some clutch shots to win the game
----


----
Bird: .487 FG%; .459 3P%; 24.7 PPG; 8.0 RPG; 6.9 APG; 1.9 TPG
Rodman: 27.6 MPG

Rodman only started to play more than 30 MPG in '91 , and he still won DPY in '90, and defensive honors before... Many times he came in to guard Bird and I get the point that Bird wasn't guarded by him the whole game, but still he was guarding him close to half the time or more
----


If for Rodman and Pippen you say that they weren't in their absolute prime (even though Rodman was in his perimeter D prime in his younger years and Pip by 89/90 was already a great defensive player) plus the 30 minutes, you can't also forget the horrible condition Bird was in (most wouldn't continue to play) and sometimes he was on the court just dragging himself, he took the least amount of shots in '90-'91, '91-'92.

I get your point bro. I just feel its just as disengenuine for you to use a few clips of Bird scoring on rookies and second year players which Rodman and Pippen were, or even using an aging Bobby Jones vs prime Bird, then get defensive when the tables are turned. Not to mention the staats you posted on basketball-reference arent totally Bird vs Pippen or Rodman, or Jordan. Most of his big games came against Adrian Dantley and Brad Sellers.

I know neither of those guys would stop Bird, but I'm confident he'd be in for a long night if he were to face them in their prime

[Eric Cartman]

Prime Bird would be the best player in today's game by a small margin over Lebron.

[97 bulls]

Prime Bird would be the best player in today's game by a small margin over Lebron.

Now this isn't true. The defensive side of the ball just make James over Bird a no brainer.

[Miller for 3]

Now this isn't true. The offensive side of the ball just makes Bird over James a no brainer.

Fixed. Plus defense is a wash at best, if not clearly Bird. Bird was a legit great defensive PF. His impact was comparable to what we've seen from a past prime Duncan. From what I've seen of your posts, your not older than 12 so i know you haven't seen Bird play, so don't bother responding with your opinion and fantasy land posts. What I stated is fact

[chips93]

Fixed. Plus defense is a wash at best, if not clearly Bird. Bird was a legit great defensive PF. His impact was comparable to what we've seen from a past prime Duncan. From what I've seen of your posts, your not older than 12 so i know you haven't seen Bird play, so don't bother responding with your opinion and fantasy land posts. What I stated is fact

oh. i was gonna disagree with you, but i didnt realise that what you said was a fact. nevermind, i guess you are right

[1987_Lakers]

Bird as a 35 year old with no back in 1992 was able to average 20 pts, 9.6 reb, 6.8 asts on 47% FG%, 40 3pt%, 92 ft%.

That is all you really need to know.

[1987_Lakers]

Now this isn't true. The defensive side of the ball just make James over Bird a no brainer.

Depends on preference.

Some might like Bird because he is a better offensive player by a sizable margin in the half court.

[97 bulls]

I know they have, all I was saying is that a guy like English had more because of the style of the Nuggets play (kinda like the Suns some years ago)

So in great scoring centers era, center defense was weak, in great scoring guards era (today), guard defense is weak? Please don't give me that. Just because you had great scoring SF's with great skill in the 80's that doesn't mean defense was weak against SF's lol.

Well you can't always offer prime vs prime, if young Bird killed a great defensive player in his prime, he wouldn't in his prime? Also amazing to see old f**ked up Bird against younger Rodman and Pippen.

Why? I never said prime Bird against old "somebody", that's not that fair to me I agree, but old/badly-injured/overweight/out-of-prime "somebody" scoring against young/really-athletic/already-great-defender "somebody" means something to me. Don't twist what I've said.

Come on bro. I think you're being ridiculous. You're acting as if Bird was some kind of paraplegic with down syndrome, and an obiesity problem.

[97 bulls]

Depends on preference.

Some might like Bird because he is a better offensive player by a sizable margin in the half court.

This is a great point. I think James career should play out a little more before I annoint him over Bird.

[97 bulls]

Bird as a 35 year old with no back in 1992 was able to average 20 pts, 9.6 reb, 6.8 asts on 47% FG%, 40 3pt%, 92 ft%.

That is all you really need to know.

This is all that needs to be said. Bird would be able to perform in any era.