MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: wadesworld on July 11, 2016, 09:40:30 AM
-
Greatest power forward to ever play the game, and one of the most underrated players to ever play the game, retiring. Incredible career.
Some of his NBA Finals performances, both individual games and entire series statistics, are insane. 21, 20, 10, and 8 blocks in game 6 of the 2003 NBA Finals. 32, 20, 7 blocks, 6 assists, and 3 steals in game 1 of that same Finals. Averaged 24, 17, 5, and 5 blocks for that entire series. 27, 14, 2, and 2 blocks in the 1999 NBA Finals, his 2nd season in the NBA. 20, 14, 2, and 2 in the 2005 NBA Finals.
-
Retired after the same season as Kobe did. Two players that were among the best ever and faced off against one another for over a decade. 10 NBA championships between them. The two retirements could neither have been more different, nor or more representative of their respective personalities.
Interestingly, Duncan never won a gold medal in the Olympics. He didn't play for either the 2008 or 2012 teams.
-
Retired after the same season as Kobe did. Two players that were among the best ever and faced off against one another for over a decade. 10 NBA championships between them. The two retirements could neither have been more different, nor or more representative of their respective personalities.
Interestingly, Duncan never won a gold medal in the Olympics. He didn't play for either the 2008 or 2012 teams.
All good points.
-
Loved watching Duncan. An absolute stud and a class act.
I enjoyed his personality, too. Kept a low profile while others carried on. Very dry sense of humor. It wasn't "all about me." Really an old-school athlete who marched to his own drummer.
Also, befitting his personality, stayed in college because he loved college. Lots of Scoopers (and others) would have called him "stupid" for doing so.
-
19 years in NBA and San Antonio made the playoffs each year after he was drafted. 15 All Star teams, 5 NBA titles and 3 MVPs. Congrats to a great player.
-
"The Big Fundamental". Love his game. Love his demeanor.
-
Greatest power forward to ever play the game, and one of the most underrated players to ever play the game, retiring.
I agree with your 1st point, but disagree with the 2nd. He is generally considered one of the all-time greats and is a consensus Top Ten all-time player.
-
I agree with your 1st point, but disagree with the 2nd. He is generally considered one of the all-time greats and is a consensus Top Ten all-time player.
Nearly everyone considers him to be the greatest power forward of all-time yet he's somehow still managed to be underrated. Doesn't seem logical but it's true.
Small market, low profile, team player, champion.
-
Nearly everyone considers him to be the greatest power forward of all-time yet he's somehow still managed to be underrated. Doesn't seem logical but it's true.
Small market, low profile, team player, champion.
I understand the point. I think that rather than being under-rated, it's just that he isn't talked about as much as other great players because there is no flash to his game.
-
Nearly everyone considers him to be the greatest power forward of all-time yet he's somehow still managed to be underrated. Doesn't seem logical but it's true.
Small market, low profile, team player, champion.
I agree with this. When he's widely considered the greatest power forward of all time you'd think he couldn't be underrated, but in my opinion he is.
I agree with your 1st point, but disagree with the 2nd. He is generally considered one of the all-time greats and is a consensus Top Ten all-time player.
That's the thing. When people bring up top 10 players, I am always more surprised to hear his name than I am when it's not mentioned. I hardly ever hear anyone list him in their top 10 all time, but I consider him to be one of the top 10 players ever.
-
I understand the point. I think that rather than being under-rated, it's just that he isn't talked about as much as other great players because there is no flash to his game.
Perhaps underappreciated would be a better way to describe his career.
-
Perhaps underappreciated would be a better way to describe his career.
You described it better than I did.
-
Great story from Etan Thomas:
Here is my Tim Duncan story
So we're playing the Spurs and I get the ball on the post. I inside pivot and sweep to the middle for my jump hook and he blocks it. So as we are running down the court he says to me "that was a good move but you have to get more into my body so you can either draw the foul or I can't block it". So I didn't know if he was talking noise or what so just kind of looked at him confused and said ok. Then, a few plays later I did it again got more into his body and he couldn't block it. I missed the shot and he looked at me and said much better and kept playing lol. I remember calling my boy Zee Chilton and telling him this story lol Tim Duncan is honestly one of the nicest guys in the NBA and the best power forward ever in NBA history. Respect
-
San Antonio has enjoyed an embarrassment of riches for a long time. An all time nba record .621 winning percentage....one big tank season to get David Robinson, another to get Duncan...almost all the other years are over 500.
Both Robinson and Duncan were class acts...and the spurs are the most successful classy winner in the league, over a sustained period. Even we Rocket fans are fine with the spurs success....we simply dislike the Mavs/Cuban with passion. lol
-
Duncan will go down as one of the best, most consistent and classiest people to ever play the game. In the most boring sense of the word, Duncan was always an absolute joy to watch.
-
Great story from Etan Thomas:
Here is my Tim Duncan story
So we're playing the Spurs and I get the ball on the post. I inside pivot and sweep to the middle for my jump hook and he blocks it. So as we are running down the court he says to me "that was a good move but you have to get more into my body so you can either draw the foul or I can't block it". So I didn't know if he was talking noise or what so just kind of looked at him confused and said ok. Then, a few plays later I did it again got more into his body and he couldn't block it. I missed the shot and he looked at me and said much better and kept playing lol. I remember calling my boy Zee Chilton and telling him this story lol Tim Duncan is honestly one of the nicest guys in the NBA and the best power forward ever in NBA history. Respect
Excellent! I love it.
-
I agree with this. When he's widely considered the greatest power forward of all time you'd think he couldn't be underrated, but in my opinion he is.
That's the thing. When people bring up top 10 players, I am always more surprised to hear his name than I am when it's not mentioned. I hardly ever hear anyone list him in their top 10 all time, but I consider him to be one of the top 10 players ever.
I know he's widely considered the greatest power forward of all time, but the guy was a center. Agree wholeheartedly that he was an all-time great player and a class act and the game will miss him. Top 10 all time is a tough call. I can think of maybe 8 guys who definitely rank ahead of him, after that there are another 10 or so that he is in a group with.
-
I know he's widely considered the greatest power forward of all time, but the guy was a center. Agree wholeheartedly that he was an all-time great player and a class act and the game will miss him. Top 10 all time is a tough call. I can think of maybe 8 guys who definitely rank ahead of him, after that there are another 10 or so that he is in a group with.
Yeah you're probably right, it's really hard to say for certain that a guy is top number X outside of MJ at 1 really. I guess it's more top 10 caliber, with a small amount of other guys who are also top 10 caliber.
-
Yeah you're probably right, it's really hard to say for certain that a guy is top number X outside of MJ at 1 really. I guess it's more top 10 caliber, with a small amount of other guys who are also top 10 caliber.
It's pretty simple, really. There are 15-20 top ten players of all time.
Duncan was incredible. I am happy that he's retiring after this year to further and forever highlight the differences between him and Kobe.
-
Tim Duncan is the first player I'd want on my team amongst any who have played the game in the past 20 years not named Michael Jordan.
Sad to see him go, but glad he didn't drag it out longer.
-
Duncan's Spurs team won 50+ games in all 19 seasons he played except for the strike shortened 1998-1999 season. Crazy.
-
Duncan's Spurs team won 50+ games in all 19 seasons he played except for the strike shortened 1998-1999 season. Crazy.
That '98-'99 team went 37-13 and won the title...and actually won 52 games if you include the playoffs ;)
-
That '98-'99 team went 37-13 and won the title...and actually won 52 games if you include the playoffs ;)
Yup. Amazing. I'd take 1 50 win season from the Bucks, let alone 19 straight.
-
Plus Duncan retired via just a Spurs press release in July, not via a season long farewell tour like some do.
-
Yeah you're probably right, it's really hard to say for certain that a guy is top number X outside of MJ at 1 really. I guess it's more top 10 caliber, with a small amount of other guys who are also top 10 caliber.
If I'm putting a team together of the best in the past 30 years:
PG Magic
SG Jordan
SF Bird
PF Duncan
C Shaq (even thought he played until 1989, I'm excluding Jabbar from the past 30 years since his prime was mid 70's).
-
If I'm putting a team together of the best in the past 30 years:
PG Magic
SG Jordan
SF Bird
PF Duncan
C Shaq (even thought he played until 1989, I'm excluding Jabbar from the past 30 years since his prime was mid 70's).
Here we go again.
No statistical justification for putting Bird in over Lebron. James is the better player by far.
-
Here we go again.
No statistical justification for putting Bird in over Lebron. James is the better player by far.
Sure there is, we're talking only the past 30 years... and LeBron won't hit his prime until next year.
-
Here's what I said about this before the Finals:
"He's a better shooter based on career eFG% (.532 v. .514) shooting roughly the same amount per game (19.7 v. 19.3). He's a better passer, in terms of assist percentage (34.6% v. 24.7%). He's more efficient based on PER....slightly better offensive and defensive ratings...almost 50 more win shares after the same number of seasons...turns the ball over less based on turnover percentage...etc. etc. etc.
Bird was a better rebounder based on total rebounding percentage. He was also a better three point shooter - you would think "of course" right? Only 37.6% 34%. Or three additional makes over 100 shots.
Bird has one more championship (3 v. 2) in one less appearance (5 v. 6)
Larry Bird played with three additional members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (DJ, Parish, McHale). Lebron didn't play with any his first go around in Cleveland...likely two in Miami...and a couple of "we'll see" type players now."
Of course James now has the same number of titles. And did so in a playoff performance that exceeded every single one of Larry Bird's playoff performances every year for his entire career. Bird never had a higher EFG% as James did these playoffs. Never had a higher PER, assist percentage, win shares, etc. etc. etc.
There is absolutely no logical reason to say Bird was a better player than James. None.
-
Here's what I said about this before the Finals:
"He's a better shooter based on career eFG% (.532 v. .514) shooting roughly the same amount per game (19.7 v. 19.3). He's a better passer, in terms of assist percentage (34.6% v. 24.7%). He's more efficient based on PER....slightly better offensive and defensive ratings...almost 50 more win shares after the same number of seasons...turns the ball over less based on turnover percentage...etc. etc. etc.
Bird was a better rebounder based on total rebounding percentage. He was also a better three point shooter - you would think "of course" right? Only 37.6% 34%. Or three additional makes over 100 shots.
Bird has one more championship (3 v. 2) in one less appearance (5 v. 6)
Larry Bird played with three additional members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (DJ, Parish, McHale). Lebron didn't play with any his first go around in Cleveland...likely two in Miami...and a couple of "we'll see" type players now."
Of course James now has the same number of titles. And did so in a playoff performance that exceeded every single one of Larry Bird's playoff performances every year for his entire career. Bird never had a higher EFG% as James did these playoffs. Never had a higher PER, assist percentage, win shares, etc. etc. etc.
There is absolutely no logical reason to say Bird was a better player than James. None.
Did you take into consideration Bird's performance in Celtic Price compared to LeBron's in Trainwreck?
-
They're showing a bunch of old spurs games on NBA TV and it's amazing how different the game is. I only counted 3 attempted 3s in the first quarter of one game, which the Warriors sometime put up in a minute. Weren't many taken in the game until Stephen Jackson and Speedy Claxton started jacking up 3s to get the Spurs back in the game.
-
Here's what I said about this before the Finals:
"He's a better shooter based on career eFG% (.532 v. .514) shooting roughly the same amount per game (19.7 v. 19.3). He's a better passer, in terms of assist percentage (34.6% v. 24.7%). He's more efficient based on PER....slightly better offensive and defensive ratings...almost 50 more win shares after the same number of seasons...turns the ball over less based on turnover percentage...etc. etc. etc.
Bird was a better rebounder based on total rebounding percentage. He was also a better three point shooter - you would think "of course" right? Only 37.6% 34%. Or three additional makes over 100 shots.
Bird has one more championship (3 v. 2) in one less appearance (5 v. 6)
Larry Bird played with three additional members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (DJ, Parish, McHale). Lebron didn't play with any his first go around in Cleveland...likely two in Miami...and a couple of "we'll see" type players now."
Of course James now has the same number of titles. And did so in a playoff performance that exceeded every single one of Larry Bird's playoff performances every year for his entire career. Bird never had a higher EFG% as James did these playoffs. Never had a higher PER, assist percentage, win shares, etc. etc. etc.
There is absolutely no logical reason to say Bird was a better player than James. None.
You are comparing statistics across eras, where style of play, rule emphasis, play design are all different.
Bird played his career with 3 other HOF players and still put up gaudy stats. Hard to do with having to share the ball around. If Bird hadn't had back problems and required a double achilles surgery he would have had even more absurd numbers and more titles.
I'll also note that the further you go back in time, statistics like eFG%, PER, offensive and defensive ratings lose comparative value.
You are free to prefer Lebron. I've watched them both play extensively. I'd much rather have Bird on my team than James. Especially with Jordan already guaranteed a spot.
-
Here we go again.
No statistical justification for putting Bird in over Lebron. James is the better player by far.
-
You are comparing statistics across eras, where style of play, rule emphasis, play design are all different.
Bird played his career with 3 other HOF players and still put up gaudy stats. Hard to do with having to share the ball around. If Bird hadn't had back problems and required a double achilles surgery he would have had even more absurd numbers and more titles.
I'll also note that the further you go back in time, statistics like eFG%, PER, offensive and defensive ratings lose comparative value.
You are free to prefer Lebron. I've watched them both play extensively. I'd much rather have Bird on my team than James. Especially with Jordan already guaranteed a spot.
I watched both extensively throughout their respective careers. I think your preference is absurd.
Substitute Lebron onto those Celtics teams and they are better. Substitute peak Bird onto this years Cavs team and I doubt they even make the Finals.
-
LOL.
You take Bird's peak year and compare it to arguably Lebron's worst. WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!!
Career stats Lebron is way better. Not even close.
-
I watched both extensively throughout their respective careers. I think your preference is absurd.
Substitute Lebron onto those Celtics teams and they are better. Substitute peak Bird onto this years Cavs team and I doubt they even make the Finals.
The problem is that you're overlooking the one obstacle that has nothing to do with performance or stats. LeBron can't be on the same team with Jordan because you can't have two guys wearing the same number on their jersey. I'm not making this up, it's actually in the NBA rule book... no two players may wear the same number on the court or be submitted to the scorekeeper as having the same number.
Sorry, but the correct answer is Larry Bird, period. Debate over... unless you're going to exclude Jordan, in which case, I recommend you prepare for the imminent and universal onslaught against your sanity.
-
The problem is that you're overlooking the one obstacle that has nothing to do with performance or stats. LeBron can't be on the same team with Jordan because you can't have two guys wearing the same number on their jersey. I'm not making this up, it's actually in the NBA rule book... no two players may wear the same number on the court or be submitted to the scorekeeper as having the same number.
Sorry, but the correct answer is Larry Bird, period. Debate over... unless you're going to exclude Jordan, in which case, I recommend you prepare for the imminent and universal onslaught against your sanity.
You'd be right, but remember, LeBron publicly lobbied for all NBA players to refuse to wear #23 in honor of MJ. What an honorable guy. Oh wait, he went right back to #23 himself? Well, there goes that thought. You're correct, then.
-
I watched both extensively throughout their respective careers. I think your preference is absurd.
Substitute Lebron onto those Celtics teams and they are better. Substitute peak Bird onto this years Cavs team and I doubt they even make the Finals.
We are in disagreement. Part of what made Larry Legend a legend was that he came on to a team with all-stars and turned them all into HOF players and a legendary dynasty. He did that by being a consummate team player that didn't need the ball in his hands to dominate the game.
He was a lot like Duncan in that regards.
All with a broken body that required him having to learn to run differently because of the severe pain in his back.
-
We are in disagreement. Part of what made Larry Legend a legend was that he came on to a team with all-stars and turned them all into HOF players and a legendary dynasty. He did that by being a consummate team player that didn't need the ball in his hands to dominate the game.
Again, that's just false and doesn't hold up to statistics.
Lebron has taken 19.7 FGA per game during his career. 18.2 per 36 minutes. Larry took 19.3 and 18.1 respectively. Negligible difference.
Lebron has more assist per game and per 36 (6.9 and 6.4) than Bird (6.3 and 6.0). Furthermore his assist rate is much better than Birds. 34.6 v. 24.7. All while turning the ball over less.
He didn't "make his teammates better." There is absolutely no evidence of that. He simply benefited from having better teammates.
I think you are basing your opinion on some romantic notion because objectively you are wrong.
-
As a huge Bucks fan in Bird's day (we never missed when the Celtics, Lakers and Sixer's came to town) perhaps it's just my eternal hate for how good Bird's Celtics teams were but I feel that Lebron is no Larry Bird. It seems like Bird never missed a shot including those he took laying flat on his back.
-
Sorry, but the correct answer is Larry Bird, period. Debate over...
I always chuckle at this type of comment.
For some of cheapest drinks in town we would go to the workingmen's bar on 17th and National(?),
Invariably, there would always be some guy pretty far gone who would have all the answers, and begin his sentences with ..."I'll tell you what's really wrong with this world"...or ... "I dont care what anybody says".....and he'd end his BS with ....you guessed it....."period, end of sentence,debate over".
Of course ....we always agreed he was right on and buy him another drink.lol
-
Larry legend would bully lebron just like Pierce and Garnett did. Lebron is a mental midget and bird was a mental giant and a true winner. Bird dominated when the 3 point line wasn't even a big part of the game either. Rewatch the finals vs Dallas and learn all you need to know about lebron. Once in a lifetime talent but he has held himself back. Give me the overachiever over the underachiever anytime
-
Always found it interesting how huge of a Bears fan Duncan is.
-
Larry legend would bully lebron just like Pierce and Garnett did. Lebron is a mental midget and bird was a mental giant and a true winner. Bird dominated when the 3 point line wasn't even a big part of the game either. Rewatch the finals vs Dallas and learn all you need to know about lebron. Once in a lifetime talent but he has held himself back. Give me the overachiever over the underachiever anytime
Lookee everyone, Tommy from Quinzee is in the house.
Not too mention, I have lived in the Boston area for 13+ years, you sir are in the 5% of C's fans that still believe that drivel above that you call a take.
-
Larry legend would bully lebron just like Pierce and Garnett did. Lebron is a mental midget and bird was a mental giant and a true winner. Bird dominated when the 3 point line wasn't even a big part of the game either. Rewatch the finals vs Dallas and learn all you need to know about lebron. Once in a lifetime talent but he has held himself back. Give me the overachiever over the underachiever anytime
LOL...Lebron is as much of a "winner" as Bird is. Same number of titles after same number of seasons. These arguments are getting sillier by the post.
-
I always chuckle at this type of comment.
That was the part that made you chuckle? At least Sultan figured it out.
If only there was a font color we could all use to make the obvious more absurd (or vice versa).
-
Again, that's just false and doesn't hold up to statistics my opinion.
In a completely different era and entirely different styles of play and types of officiating, Lebron has taken 19.7 FGA per game during his career. 18.2 per 36 minutes. Larry took 19.3 and 18.1 respectively. Negligible difference.
Lebron has more assist per game and per 36 (6.9 and 6.4) than Bird (6.3 and 6.0). Furthermore his assist rate is much better than Birds. 34.6 v. 24.7 (This is one of the worst statistics out there). All while turning the ball over less.
He didn't "make his teammates better." There is absolutely no evidence of I refuse to believe that, because it doesn't fit my narrative. He simply benefited from having better teammates, their improvement with him on the court was coincidental, and the decline in stats of Lebron's teammates means nothing.
I think you are basing your opinion on some romantic notion because objectively you are wrong I disagree with you.
Fixed it for you!
Also, you are vastly undervaluing Bird and what he does without the ball. Lebron requires the ball to impact the game. Bird and Duncan impacted the game regardless. That aspect never shows up in statistics that are highly dependent on style of play and officiating.
It is why Bird and Duncan will always be under appreciated.
BTW stats:
Bird: 24.3 ppg 10.0 rpg 6.3 apg 1.7 spg 0.8 bpg 3.1 TO
James: 27.2 ppg 7.2 rpg 6.7 apg 1.7 spg 0.8 bpg 3.4 TO
Bird did that with an all-star cast that splits stats around. Bird played in an era where 3pt shooting wasn't emphasized. If you let Bird grow up with a 3pt line and it being a part of the game like it is now, his stats would climb considerably (he did with the first 3 3 pt contests for a reason).
-
Larry legend would bully lebron just like Pierce and Garnett did. Lebron is a mental midget and bird was a mental giant and a true winner. Bird dominated when the 3 point line wasn't even a big part of the game either. Rewatch the finals vs Dallas and learn all you need to know about lebron. Once in a lifetime talent but he has held himself back. Give me the overachiever over the underachiever anytime
Says the Celtics fan. Don't know how you can say LeBron has underachieved.l or is a mental midget after putting the Cavs on his back during the finals. I don't like Lebron, I like Larry. But Lebron is such a better player than Larry Bird.
Also, I really want to like the Celtics this year. They have a very fun roster, I love Brad Stevens and Nader actually has a chance to make the team, but Boston fans just make it so hard to do.
-
Lookee everyone, Tommy from Quinzee is in the house.
Not too mention, I have lived in the Boston area for 13+ years, you sir are in the 5% of C's fans that still believe that drivel above that you call a take.
I don't mind a dude being a homer and being proud of his guy. At some point however, even homers have to acknowledge the inherent bias in their homerism.
-
Fixed it for you!
Also, you are vastly undervaluing Bird and what he does without the ball. Lebron requires the ball to impact the game. Bird and Duncan impacted the game regardless. That aspect never shows up in statistics that are highly dependent on style of play and officiating.
It is why Bird and Duncan will always be under appreciated.
BTW stats:
Bird: 24.3 ppg 10.0 rpg 6.3 apg 1.7 spg 0.8 bpg 3.1 TO
James: 27.2 ppg 7.2 rpg 6.7 apg 1.7 spg 0.8 bpg 3.4 TO
Bird did that with an all-star cast that splits stats around. Bird played in an era where 3pt shooting wasn't emphasized. If you let Bird grow up with a 3pt line and it being a part of the game like it is now, his stats would climb considerably (he did with the first 3 3 pt contests for a reason).
No correction needed. You are simply wrong. Lebron James is a better basketball player than Bird.
And I have already addressed the statistical argument. I will repeat it once again.
"He's a better shooter based on career eFG% (.532 v. .514) shooting roughly the same amount per game (19.7 v. 19.3). He's a better passer, in terms of assist percentage (34.6% v. 24.7%). He's more efficient based on PER....slightly better offensive and defensive ratings...almost 50 more win shares after the same number of seasons...turns the ball over less based on turnover percentage...etc. etc. etc.
Bird was a better rebounder based on total rebounding percentage. He was also a better three point shooter - you would think "of course" right? Only 37.6% 34%. Or three additional makes over 100 shots."
-
No correction needed. You are simply wrong. Lebron James is a better basketball player than Bird.
And I have already addressed the statistical argument. I will repeat it once again.
"He's a better shooter based on career eFG% (.532 v. .514) shooting roughly the same amount per game (19.7 v. 19.3). He's a better passer, in terms of assist percentage (34.6% v. 24.7%). He's more efficient based on PER....slightly better offensive and defensive ratings...almost 50 more win shares after the same number of seasons...turns the ball over less based on turnover percentage...etc. etc. etc.
Bird was a better rebounder based on total rebounding percentage. He was also a better three point shooter - you would think "of course" right? Only 37.6% 34%. Or three additional makes over 100 shots."
I'll repeat, you are comparing statistics across eras with different styles of play and different styles of officiating.
In Birds era, the 3-pt shot was brand new. They didn't grow up focusing on it as a major part of play. Mid-range jump shots were much more prevalent. Bird was a jump shooter, his eFG% is lower based on more 2-pt jump shots and fewer 3-pt attempts because of style of play. James is a slasher/dunker, and a terrible jump shooter. His eFG% is higher because of differences in style of play in the two eras.
Bird is a better shooter period. To say otherwise based on statistics is ignorant of how the game is played.
And PER, assist percentage, ORT, DRT are other stats that don't compare well over eras. Anything over 20 years ago shouldn't be compared directly using those stats. Most of those stats you are using are largely based on the fact that Lebron dominates the ball and that Bird played on a team where the ball was shared around, and/or are overly influenced by how the role of the 3-pt shot changed over time. They have little to do with aspects comparing players.
I'll take the team player that averaged 10% fewer pts, 42% more rebounds, 5% fewer assists, but 10% fewer turnovers.
I'll also note that Bird put up those rebounding numbers playing with HOF players Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. He wasn't just a little better rebounder than Lebron, he was absurdly better.
-
I'll repeat, you are comparing statistics across eras with different styles of play and different styles of officiating.
In Birds era, the 3-pt shot was brand new. They didn't grow up focusing on it as a major part of play. Mid-range jump shots were much more prevalent. Bird was a jump shooter, his eFG% is lower based on more 2-pt jump shots and fewer 3-pt attempts because of style of play. James is a slasher/dunker, and a terrible jump shooter. His eFG% is higher because of differences in style of play in the two eras.
Bird is a better shooter period. To say otherwise based on statistics is ignorant of how the game is played.
You keep using the "different era" excuse without really saying why it matters. You say Bird was a better shooter period, but the stats really don't back that up. Even from the three point line, he was only marginally better.
And PER, assist percentage, ORT, DRT are other stats that don't compare well over eras. Anything over 20 years ago shouldn't be compared directly using those stats.
LOL...because you say so??? Hilarious.
I'll take the team player that averaged 10% fewer pts, 42% more rebounds, 5% fewer assists, but 10% fewer turnovers.
Your reliance on per game stats is amusing. And you would make your team worse by making that choice.
Yet again, you put Lebron on those Celtic teams and they are better. You put peak Bird on this year's Cavs team, and they don't sniff the championship.
-
Yet again, you put Lebron on those Celtic teams and they are better. You put peak Bird on this year's Cavs team, and they don't sniff the championship.
I generally agree with you on LeBron vs Bird (though don't think the other side is as outlandish as you seem to believe), but what makes this statement above any less "LOL .... because you say so??? Hilarious" than forgetful's statement.
I mean, how could possibly know that?
Also, is it possible Bird would have racked up even better stats had he played with lesser teammates? I've never heard anyone diminishing Magic's remarkable assist numbers because he played with Jabbar, Worthy and Scott, but Bird's numbers are less impressive because he had to share the ball with McHale and Parrish (and the great Jerry Sichting)?
-
I generally agree with you on LeBron vs Bird (though don't think the other side is as outlandish as you seem to believe), but what makes this statement above any less "LOL .... because you say so??? Hilarious" than forgetful's statement.
I mean, how could possibly know that?
Because it's obvious.
Also, is it possible Bird would have racked up even better stats had he played with lesser teammates? I've never heard anyone diminishing Magic's remarkable assist numbers because he played with Jabbar, Worthy and Scott, but Bird's numbers are less impressive because he had to share the ball with McHale and Parrish (and the great Jerry Sichting)?
Who really knows.
-
Because it's obvious.
OK.
-
You keep using the "different era" excuse without really saying why it matters. You say Bird was a better shooter period, but the stats really don't back that up. Even from the three point line, he was only marginally better.
LOL...because you say so??? Hilarious.
Your reliance on per game stats is amusing. And you would make your team worse by making that choice.
Yet again, you put Lebron on those Celtic teams and they are better. You put peak Bird on this year's Cavs team, and they don't sniff the championship.
Here is the reason you can't compare stats. When Bird came into the league (and for most of his career) the league averaged between 3-5 total 3pt attempts per game. Instead more mid range or long 2's were taken.
The league average for 3pt% was below 30% until 1988, compare that to 36% today. Why?, players didn't grow up their entire life shooting 3's. It wasn't part of the game. Bird was only shooting about 3 3's per game most of his career.
That means that defenses were more packed in, making slashing/drives more difficult (this is why the 3pt shot was put in, to open up the game and make dunking/offense more exciting). It also means that stats affected by 3pt, e.g. all the ones you use (not per game stats) are not comparable across the eras until around 1995, when the game had adapted and became more of what it is today.
It also means that Birds 37.6% 3 pt shooting was 20% above average, whereas Lebrons 34% is almost 10% below average.
Everything in context. We clearly disagree. Bird vs. Lebron is a close call. I give it to Bird because of his team player aspects and fighter attitude that makes everyone around him better.
As for other stars. You have discounted players like Kevin Love, because they build up stats on bad teams, and say Lebron would have won more if he had decent teammates; yet you don't discount Lebron's stats (for having bad teammates) or give Bird more credit for putting up huge numbers with stars. Why the inconsistency?
-
Everything in context. We clearly disagree. Bird vs. Lebron is a close call. I give it to Bird because of his team player aspects and fighter attitude that makes everyone around him better.
So basically you give to Bird, because of your own eye test on what makes a "team" player, and your own scale of what a "fighter" is.
Oh yeah, please opine on the defensive prowess of one Larry Bird.
And I love Larry legend, he still a top 10 NBA'er, but Bron is clearly in the top 7, along (in no order MJ, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Oscar, and Russell).
-
So basically you give to Bird, because of your own eye test on what makes a "team" player, and your own scale of what a "fighter" is.
Oh yeah, please opine on the defensive prowess of one Larry Bird.
And I love Larry legend, he still a top 10 NBA'er, but Bron is clearly in the top 7, along (in no order MJ, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Oscar, and Russell).
Bird made HOF of his teammates. He played off the ball a lot to get everyone involved. No one disagrees on Lebron dominating the ball (as evidenced by his 20% higher usage than Bird). It affects his teammates play negatively. He's the best player on the court for his team, so fine, but he would be top 3 (maybe number 1) all time if he learned to play better off the ball like Bird.
As for defense. I hate the stats but Defensive rating for Bird's career, 101, for Lebron, 102. Lebron is a bad on ball defender. He is a help defender, like Bird was.
I agree with your rankings, except have Bird in my top 7, and Lebron after with Duncan. After MJ though, the first two I would want on my team are Bird and Duncan.
As for fighter. Bird played with a back so bad he could barely walk straight and had to change the way he ran to deal with the pain. Because of it, he had to have double achilles surgery and still fought back.
Lebron, gets cramps and is carried off the court crying. He falls and squirms on the ground balling his eyes out (then shoots FTs like nothing happened). If you don't see Bird as the fighter amongst the two of them, you are as blind as a bat. As night and day as the difference in athleticism between them.
-
Bird made HOF of his teammates. He played off the ball a lot to get everyone involved. No one disagrees on Lebron dominating the ball (as evidenced by his 20% higher usage than Bird). It affects his teammates play negatively. He's the best player on the court for his team, so fine, but he would be top 3 (maybe number 1) all time if he learned to play better off the ball like Bird.
No. Bird had better teammates. Dennis Johnson was an All-Star and a Finals MVP with the Sonics before he even came to Boston. And you honestly think that Bird "made" Kevin McHale and Robert Parish???
And your insistence in saying that James doesn't get his teammates involved when compared to Bird is completely negated by his 34.6 Assist percentage...versus Bird's 24.7%.
Lebron, gets cramps and is carried off the court crying. He falls and squirms on the ground balling his eyes out (then shoots FTs like nothing happened). If you don't see Bird as the fighter amongst the two of them, you are as blind as a bat. As night and day as the difference in athleticism between them.
Larry Bird never had a Finals performance that came close to what Lebron just did. When down 3-1, he came up with back to back 41 point games and a triple double in Game 7. If that doesn't make him a "fighter" in your eyes, I don' t know what to tell you.
-
No. Bird had better teammates. Dennis Johnson was an All-Star and a Finals MVP with the Sonics before he even came to Boston. And you honestly think that Bird "made" Kevin McHale and Robert Parish???
Err ...
Dwyane Wade was a 6-time All-Star and Finals MVP before he ever played with LeBron.
Chris Bosh was a 5-time All-Star before he ever played with LeBron.
Both are heading to the Hall of Fame.
Kevin Love was a two-time All-Star and rebounding champion before he ever played with LeBron.
Kyrie Irving was an all-star, rookie of the year and all-star game MVP before he ever played with LeBron.
Yep, it's dumb to say Bird "made" guys like Parrish and McHale (though he certainly helped make them better.) And it's just as dumb to ignore the extraordinary level of talent that LeBron has been surrounded by for most of the past six seasons (2015 playoffs excepted).
Larry Bird never had a Finals performance that came close to what Lebron just did. When down 3-1, he came up with back to back 41 point games and a triple double in Game 7. If that doesn't make him a "fighter" in your eyes, I don' t know what to tell you.
In all fairness, Larry pretty much averaged a triple double in the 1986 Finals (24/9.7/9.5) while playing 45 minutes per game.
That's pretty close.
Not a knock on the incredible Finals LeBron just had, but it doesn't help your case to consistently belittle Bird unfairly.
-
This has been a fun back-and-forth to read.
I don't have a horse in this race -- I am not a Celtics fan or Celtics hater, a Cavs fan or a Cavs hater. I am not really a Bird fan/hater or LeBron fan/hater except that I appreciated Bird as a player and I appreciate LeBron as a player now.
OK, now that the disclosures are all in place ...
LeBron can do more things on the court than Bird did. One poster (forgetful, I think) said something about LeBron having to have the ball to make an impact. Did LeBron have the ball when he blocked Iguodala's shot? Could Bird have even dreamt of making a play like that -- racing 40 feet, timing his leap perfectly at full speed and making a championship-saving play? That's just one example, too. In Miami, LeBron often deferred to Wade and made great plays that did not involve him possessing the ball.
The silliness about Bird turning McHale and Parish into Hall of Famers -- as if they would have been crap without him -- while LeBron did nothing to help his teammates win ... right.
Bird was somehow tougher than LeBron, physically or mentally? Totally impossible to prove, and even the anecdotal "evidence" is dopey. Blaming injuries for shortening Bird's career? That's life in sports. Maybe Gayle Sayers would have been the best football player ever, but to argue that he was would be foolish.
I like how some go to the "it was a different era" line to cut down LeBron's statistical advantage in everything but rebounds ... but then point out Bird's rebounding advantage. I guess it wasn't a different era for rebounding numbers, only for all the statistics LeBron dominated? Funny.
Statistically, LeBron is superior to Bird. Athletically, LeBron is far superior to Bird. They've won the same amount of championships -- with one of LeBron's coming for a franchise that had never won and with him being surrounded by inferior teammates.
LeBron is only 31 and probably has at least 5 more great seasons in him. He will leave Bird so far in the dust that Larry will need an umpire to brush him off. And I say this as a guy who really liked watching Bird play.
So far in this thread, we have Celtics fans making a case for Bird, and that is expected. We have LeBron haters making a case against LeBron, also expected.
I choose LeBron because I believe the stats and facts back that up, as does my eye test as an NBA fan who began watching the game long before Bird entered the league.
I know, I know, it's a different era for eye tests.
-
Err ...
Dwyane Wade was a 6-time All-Star and Finals MVP before he ever played with LeBron.
Chris Bosh was a 5-time All-Star before he ever played with LeBron.
Both are heading to the Hall of Fame.
Kevin Love was a two-time All-Star and rebounding champion before he ever played with LeBron.
Kyrie Irving was an all-star, rookie of the year and all-star game MVP before he ever played with LeBron.
Yep, it's dumb to say Bird "made" guys like Parrish and McHale (though he certainly helped make them better.) And it's just as dumb to ignore the extraordinary level of talent that LeBron has been surrounded by for most of the past six seasons (2015 playoffs excepted).
I have never made the claim that James wasn't surrounded by talent. He clearly has. (Although I would argue much of it isn't yet at the caliber that Boston's was.)
This is a way that forgetful deflects the statistical comparison. "He played off the ball and made his teammates better." Basically saying he sacrificed his numbers for the sake of his team and for championships and "made' players like Johnson, Parish and McHale Hall of Famers.
In all fairness, Larry pretty much averaged a triple double in the 1986 Finals (24/9.7/9.5) while playing 45 minutes per game.
That's pretty close.
Not a knock on the incredible Finals LeBron just had, but it doesn't help your case to consistently belittle Bird unfairly.
Fine. It was "somewhat close" to Lebron's 29.7/11.2/8.8 in 41 minutes.
But Lebron isn't a "fighter." ::)
-
Bird made HOF of his teammates. He played off the ball a lot to get everyone involved. No one disagrees on Lebron dominating the ball (as evidenced by his 20% higher usage than Bird). It affects his teammates play negatively. He's the best player on the court for his team, so fine, but he would be top 3 (maybe number 1) all time if he learned to play better off the ball like Bird.
As for defense. I hate the stats but Defensive rating for Bird's career, 101, for Lebron, 102. Lebron is a bad on ball defender. He is a help defender, like Bird was.
Lebron has the championships BECAUSE he dominates the ball. Bird played with 3 HoFers when the Celtics were in their prime - plus Ainge who would have been a consistent 20+ ppg if he were on any other team. Those four were great players - Bird did not make them great.
And if the defensive ratings say Bird and Lebron are equal defensively, than the ratings need to be changed. There is no comparison.
-
Lebron has the championships BECAUSE he dominates the ball. Bird played with 3 HoFers when the Celtics were in their prime - plus Ainge who would have been a consistent 20+ ppg if he were on any other team. Those four were great players - Bird did not make them great.
And if the defensive ratings say Bird and Lebron are equal defensively, than the ratings need to be changed. There is no comparison.
Plus Dennis Johnson -- a great player. Plus Cornbread Maxwell -- a very good player. Plus Tiny Archibald, Bill Walton and Scott Wedman -- guys who excelled when younger and very good as older role players with Boston. The '80s Celtics were loaded.
And yes, what you say about the defensive ratings.
When the Heat played the Bulls in the 2011 Eastern Conference finals, Spoelstra regularly put LeBron on Derrick Rose during the key stretches of games. Rose shot 35% and never figured out how to handle it. I loved watching Bird, but let's not pretend Bird could have handled an assignment like that. And again, that doesn't even go into the many game-saving, series-saving and championship-saving blocks in LeBron's career. (I'm well aware that "Bird stole the ball!" against the Pistons; he was an instinctive and valuable help defender.)
-
Plus Dennis Johnson -- a great player. Plus Cornbread Maxwell -- a very good player. Plus Tiny Archibald, Bill Walton and Scott Wedman -- guys who excelled when younger and very good as older role players with Boston. The '80s Celtics were loaded.
Dennis Johnson was one of the 3 HOF teammates. (Along with McHale and Parish.)
Red Auerbach was one awesome GM who orchestrated the trade with Golden State that landed them both Parish and the #3 pick that landed the Celtics McHale. He traded for Johnson after Archibald got too old. (And I have forgotten that Archibald is also in the HOF.)
-
Dennis Johnson was one of the 3 HOF teammates. (Along with McHale and Parish.)
Red Auerbach was one awesome GM who orchestrated the trade with Golden State that landed them both Parish and the #3 pick that landed the Celtics McHale. He traded for Johnson after Archibald got too old. (And I have forgotten that Archibald is also in the HOF.)
Yes on all of the above.
Bottom line: I'm not sure how Bird ever managed to win with all those mediocrities Red put around him.
-
Yes on all of the above.
Bottom line: I'm not sure how Bird ever managed to win with all those mediocrities Red put around him.
Duh. Because he "made them into Hall of Famers." Try to keep up.
-
Duh. Because he "made them into Hall of Famers." Try to keep up.
A couple clarifications (not all directed at you).
I said, Bird took All-stars and turned them into Hall of Famers. I stand by my statement that if Bird didn't play for the Celtics Parrish and McHale would not be in the Hall of Fame.
Related example: If Love was to become a Hall of Fame player and played with James for 5-10 years. I would say that Lebron turned him from an All-star to a HOF player.
I defined "fighter" based on toughness. Bird was one of the toughest players of all time. To deny that is absurd and downplays the extraordinary pain he played through and not only played but dominated. No one will ever call Lebron one of the toughest players of all time.
I find it funny how saying that Lebron is top 8 all time is being a hater. I forgot rule number 1, thou shalt not criticize Lebron. I stand by my statements and the fact that it is a widely debated topic throughout the internet shows it is a valid comparison. Bringing the topic back to where it started. I stand by the following.
I get 3 picks to build a team around with players from the last 30 years. I want:
MJ
Bird
Duncan
In that order. That's not saying those are the best 3 players of all time, but rather that they have the skill, mentality and team focus that will beat any team. I can fill a team with a C and PG...that nucleus though will (imo) beat any other trio.
-
Related to shooting.
This is a good read about comparing era on shooting statistics.
http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/best-shooters-nba-history/ (http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/best-shooters-nba-history/)
Bird is hands down one of the top 10 shooters of the past 40 years. Using his statistics to disprove this defies actual understanding of how the game has evolved over the decades and Birds immense role in that process.
-
Related to shooting.
This is a good read about comparing era on shooting statistics.
http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/best-shooters-nba-history/ (http://sportsworld.nbcsports.com/best-shooters-nba-history/)
Bird is hands down one of the top 10 shooters of the past 40 years. Using his statistics to disprove this defies actual understanding of how the game has evolved over the decades and Birds immense role in that process.
I agree with the shooting. But he was still not the player that Lebron is. Bird is maybe Top Ten all-time. Lebron is Top Five.
-
A couple clarifications (not all directed at you).
I said, Bird took All-stars and turned them into Hall of Famers. I stand by my statement that if Bird didn't play for the Celtics Parrish and McHale would not be in the Hall of Fame.
Related example: If Love was to become a Hall of Fame player and played with James for 5-10 years. I would say that Lebron turned him from an All-star to a HOF player.
I defined "fighter" based on toughness. Bird was one of the toughest players of all time. To deny that is absurd and downplays the extraordinary pain he played through and not only played but dominated. No one will ever call Lebron one of the toughest players of all time.
I find it funny how saying that Lebron is top 8 all time is being a hater. I forgot rule number 1, thou shalt not criticize Lebron. I stand by my statements and the fact that it is a widely debated topic throughout the internet shows it is a valid comparison. Bringing the topic back to where it started. I stand by the following.
I get 3 picks to build a team around with players from the last 30 years. I want:
MJ
Bird
Duncan
In that order. That's not saying those are the best 3 players of all time, but rather that they have the skill, mentality and team focus that will beat any team. I can fill a team with a C and PG...that nucleus though will (imo) beat any other trio.
It's an opinion. You say McHale would not have been a Hall of Famer without Bird, and I say he would have been, especially if he had another great player -- let's say James, but it could be Magic or Jordan or Stockton or many others -- by his side.
Neither of us can prove it ... and yet you act as if it's a given: McHale is a Hall of Famer ONLY because he had Bird.
Who was/is "tougher," Bird or LeBron ... again, impossible to prove. You just have an opinion. You are entitled to that opinion and you even can cite others' opinions ... but no matter how often you say it, it doesn't make it a fact. LeBron willed his team back from a 3-1 series deficit against what many were calling the greatest team of all time. Two of the games were in as hostile an environment as there is in the NBA. That three-game stretch of amazing clutch play exceeded any three-game stretch of Bird's career ... but oh, if only LeBron had been tough enough.
As for who you would choose to build a team around ... that is another subject entirely. I'd probably start with Michael and LeBron, and I do seriously believe they could have co-existed, but I certainly would understand a Michael-Bird or Michael-Magic pairing. Or, for that matter, a LeBron-Bird or LeBron-Magic pairing.
See, the difference between me and you on this is simple: You have said many, many times that you don't like LeBron. You might not see that as clouding your judgment, but of course it does. I, on the other hand, really loved watching Bird as a player and respect him tremendously. So it's not easy for me to place LeBron or others ahead of him. Obviously, I believe that makes me much more objective on this than you are. Again, you are free to disagree.
-
It's an opinion. You say McHale would not have been a Hall of Famer without Bird, and I say he would have been, especially if he had another great player -- let's say James, but it could be Magic or Jordan or Stockton or many others -- by his side.
Neither of us can prove it ... and yet you act as if it's a given: McHale is a Hall of Famer ONLY because he had Bird.
Who was/is "tougher," Bird or LeBron ... again, impossible to prove. You just have an opinion. You are entitled to that opinion and you even can cite others' opinions ... but no matter how often you say it, it doesn't make it a fact. LeBron willed his team back from a 3-1 series deficit against what many were calling the greatest team of all time. Two of the games were in as hostile an environment as there is in the NBA. That three-game stretch of amazing clutch play exceeded any three-game stretch of Bird's career ... but oh, if only LeBron had been tough enough.
As for who you would choose to build a team around ... that is another subject entirely. I'd probably start with Michael and LeBron, and I do seriously believe they could have co-existed, but I certainly would understand a Michael-Bird or Michael-Magic pairing. Or, for that matter, a LeBron-Bird or LeBron-Magic pairing.
See, the difference between me and you on this is simple: You have said many, many times that you don't like LeBron. You might not see that as clouding your judgment, but of course it does. I, on the other hand, really loved watching Bird as a player and respect him tremendously. So it's not easy for me to place LeBron or others ahead of him. Obviously, I believe that makes me much more objective on this than you are. Again, you are free to disagree.
Just for the record, I've never said anyone else was wrong, just justified my opinion when I was told that I was wrong (on an opinion) and that my stance was absurd.
So, I am in agreement that what I said above was all opinions and I never said otherwise.
Now, for fighter, you keep going back to bringing a team back from the brink. I defined it as playing tough (i.e. physical toughness, playing through pain). I find very very little evidence that Lebron is physically tough.
As for bias. Yes, I dislike Lebron. I still place him 8th all time. I also hated Magic. I place him top 5 all time.
I actually think that more people have bias for Lebron, because they get awestruck by his physicality and forget to watch everything else. Its also the "current star" mentality...like 5 years ago when everyone talked about Kobe vs. Jordan and where he ranked all time.
When evaluating basketball players, the first thing I look at is how they impact their teammates...its a team game. It is there that Lebron gets knocked down in my book and Magic (even thought I hated him) climbs...same for Bird. But again...its all opinion and I never said otherwise. I just defended my stance when ridiculed for saying a player who revolutionized the game and is a unanimous top 10 player all time could be better than Lebron.
-
Just for the record, I've never said anyone else was wrong, just justified my opinion when I was told that I was wrong (on an opinion) and that my stance was absurd.
So, I am in agreement that what I said above was all opinions and I never said otherwise.
Now, for fighter, you keep going back to bringing a team back from the brink. I defined it as playing tough (i.e. physical toughness, playing through pain). I find very very little evidence that Lebron is physically tough.
As for bias. Yes, I dislike Lebron. I still place him 8th all time. I also hated Magic. I place him top 5 all time.
I actually think that more people have bias for Lebron, because they get awestruck by his physicality and forget to watch everything else. Its also the "current star" mentality...like 5 years ago when everyone talked about Kobe vs. Jordan and where he ranked all time.
When evaluating basketball players, the first thing I look at is how they impact their teammates...its a team game. It is there that Lebron gets knocked down in my book and Magic (even thought I hated him) climbs...same for Bird. But again...its all opinion and I never said otherwise. I just defended my stance when ridiculed for saying a player who revolutionized the game and is a unanimous top 10 player all time could be better than Lebron.
OK, forgetful. You have no "proof" that Bird is one iota tougher than LeBron or that Bird made his teammates better than LeBron does, and I have no proof otherwise. So it's silly to go back and forth on this, just re-stating our stances.
Have a good one.
-
OK, forgetful. You have no "proof" that Bird is one iota tougher than LeBron or that Bird made his teammates better than LeBron does, and I have no proof otherwise. So it's silly to go back and forth on this, just re-stating our stances.
Have a good one.
In all fairness if you google lebron flopping vs Larry bird flopping, lebrons video is much longer. If you google Larry bird fight vs lebron fight it's pretty funny
Here's lebrons
https://youtu.be/SWTfVAkzpSE
Here's Larrys
https://youtu.be/t1e7CTQ7V4A
Far be it for me to say what defines tough but I'd say as far as forgetfulness definition goes it's pretty obvious that Larry tussling with everybody on Detroit is tougher than lebron freaking out that harden almost kicking him in the nuts. But hey that's just my opinion.
-
In all fairness if you google lebron flopping vs Larry bird flopping, lebrons video is much longer. If you google Larry bird fight vs lebron fight it's pretty funny
Here's lebrons
https://youtu.be/SWTfVAkzpSE
Here's Larrys
https://youtu.be/t1e7CTQ7V4A
Far be it for me to say what defines tough but I'd say as far as forgetfulness definition goes it's pretty obvious that Larry tussling with everybody on Detroit is tougher than lebron freaking out that harden almost kicking him in the nuts. But hey that's just my opinion.
Okey dokey. I happen to reject forgetful's definition, but others are free to accept it or to define it themselves.
Even if I give this point to the LeBron haters (which I don't), it's a very small part of the comparison. LeBron dominates Bird in almost every statistical measurement, was a significantly superior defender and won just as many titles.
I didn't even mention LeBron getting to the 2007 Finals with a Cleveland team whose next best players were Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Or leading the Irving-less, Love-less Cavs to the 2015 Finals (and winning two games there from the all-everything Warriors). One could argue quite persuasively that those were bigger team-leading accomplishments than anything Bird did.
But yes, Larry could make some freaky shots in McDonald's commercials that LeBron couldn't, I'll admit that!
-
Okey dokey. I happen to reject forgetful's definition, but others are free to accept it or to define it themselves.
Even if I give this point to the LeBron haters (which I don't), it's a very small part of the comparison. LeBron dominates Bird in almost every statistical measurement, was a significantly superior defender and won just as many titles.
I didn't even mention LeBron getting to the 2007 Finals with a Cleveland team whose next best players were Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Or leading the Irving-less, Love-less Cavs to the 2015 Finals (and winning two games there from the all-everything Warriors). One could argue quite persuasively that those were bigger team-leading accomplishments than anything Bird did.
But yes, Larry could make some freaky shots in McDonald's commercials that LeBron couldn't, I'll admit that!
I'm not arguing the Lebron vs Bird thing. I refuse to compare players from various eras. They both play[ed] at a really high level and lead their teams during the rules and styles they were raised playing in.
But the only thing I take exception to is Lebron being called tough. Lebron was astonishing in these past finals and has done other amazing things, that is mentally resilient, but he is not "tough". He plays in an era where contact is pretty much non existent, not his fault, but on top of that flops around and gets rewarded for it. Bird was a warrior who didn't take crap from anyone, playing at a time where the game was practically full contact, he was truly tough.
So then when someone says they're tough what definition does come to mind for you?
-
Now, for fighter, you keep going back to bringing a team back from the brink. I defined it as playing tough (i.e. physical toughness, playing through pain). I find very very little evidence that Lebron is physically tough.
That's just plain old silly.
So now you are wrong, absurd AND silly. Congrats.
-
That's just plain old silly.
So now you are wrong, absurd AND silly. Congrats.
Since I'm the one that said Bird was more of a fighter, I believe I'm the only one that can define what I meant.
And MU82, this is what I meant. I haven't been going with back and forth with you, because you never told me I was wrong (except in the fighter term, which I clarified my meaning with the definition I was working from and you accepted that people can define it differently). You've approached this discussion respectfully.
The Sultan though insists that his opinion is correct, and everyone else is wrong, absurd and silly. That I have issue with and was supporting my stance against.
I'm with Bagpipes though in saying you can't compare stats/stars from different eras (which I've said from the beginning), we can each just pick our own favorites based on our own opinions.
-
Since I'm the one that said Bird was more of a fighter, I believe I'm the only one that can define what I meant.
If you find very little evidence that LBJ is tough, you are being willfully ignorant.
The Sultan though insists that his opinion is correct, and everyone else is wrong, absurd and silly. That I have issue with and was supporting my stance against.
You can also claim the earth is flat. You would be wrong then too.
-
If you find very little evidence that LBJ is tough, you are being willfully ignorant.
You can also claim the earth is flat. You would be wrong then too.
Yeah, I'm done with this. I stated my opinions, I provided links to justify why comparing stats across eras is ill-advised, you've only insisted that anyone that disagrees with your opinion is wrong, absurd and silly...
The only thing silly, was my continuing a discussion with an individual that insists that those that disagree with their opinion are wrong.
-
If you find very little evidence that LBJ is tough, you are being willfully ignorant.
He's a tough guy alright, hard to believe he was able to stand after these terrible hits
(https://media.giphy.com/media/67NG1MlWox5qE/giphy.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/a4hvWcBeAtCve/giphy.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/121ShmJonI84QU/giphy.gif)
-
He's a tough guy alright, hard to believe he was able to stand after these terrible hits
(https://media.giphy.com/media/67NG1MlWox5qE/giphy.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/a4hvWcBeAtCve/giphy.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/121ShmJonI84QU/giphy.gif)
All righty then. A handful of clips "proves" your point.
The funny thing about all of this is that I really liked watching Bird and appreciated the hell out of everything he brought to basketball, and I'm NOT a LeBron apologist or his biggest fan or anything. I'm just a relatively objective observer.
I believe we've exhausted all arguments about LeBron v Larry in this Tim Duncan thread!
-
All righty then. A handful of clips "proves" your point.
The funny thing about all of this is that I really liked watching Bird and appreciated the hell out of everything he brought to basketball, and I'm NOT a LeBron apologist or his biggest fan or anything. I'm just a relatively objective observer.
I believe we've exhausted all arguments about LeBron v Larry in this Tim Duncan thread!
I could post more but figured itd make the page take forever to load. I used to hate lebron when i was younger but id call it a begrudging respect now. Hes a phenomenal player in this era but he's not "tough" because modern basketball is not "tough". That being said I agree its beaten to death
-
I could post more but figured itd make the page take forever to load
You win, BB, and forgetful, too.
LeBron is a wuss and Larry was Clint Eastwood (pre-empty chair).
I'm out!
-
He's a tough guy alright, hard to believe he was able to stand after these terrible hits
(https://media.giphy.com/media/67NG1MlWox5qE/giphy.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/a4hvWcBeAtCve/giphy.gif)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/121ShmJonI84QU/giphy.gif)
If you think that indicates a lack of toughness, you really don't understand toughness when it comes to basketball.
-
Hes a phenomenal player in this era but he's not "tough" because modern basketball is not "tough".
That's simply false. I have watched NBA basketball for years. It has been more physical at times, but not as overly so as many would lead you to believe. But that didn't make it more "tough."
-
That's simply false. I have watched NBA basketball for years. It has been more physical at times, but not as overly so as many would lead you to believe. But that didn't make it more "tough."
If you think that indicates a lack of toughness, you really don't understand toughness when it comes to basketball.
Then we have a disagreement about what makes an athlete tough. I rate Hockey players, fighters, lacrosse players, rugby players, football players as exponentially tougher than soccer and basketball players. I do so because of the physicality of the sport. Thus if we are talking about an era where basketball was tremendously more physical, I'd rate that player as tougher than the player who takes advantage of refs buying his acting. If you disagree and focus more on the mentally resilient side to define toughness that's cool, it doesn't make you right or me wrong it makes our definitions different.
-
Yeah, I'm done with this. I stated my opinions, I provided links to justify why comparing stats across eras is ill-advised,
NO. That is NOT what the article said. The article implied comparing SHOOTERS, specifically three point shooters, was difficult.
For sh*ts and giggles, I calculated what Larry Bird's EFG% had he took the same number of 3 pointers today as Lebron does. (Basically taking 2.1 extra 3 pointers instead of two pointers and applying the same shooting percentage to both.) It comes out to be the exact same EFG%.
It's because that although Bird was a better 3 point shooter, he wasn't THAT much better. And Lebron is a much better two point shooter which by and large makes up for the difference in three point shooting.
-
Then we have a disagreement about what makes an athlete tough. I rate Hockey players, fighters, lacrosse players, rugby players, football players as exponentially tougher than soccer and basketball players. I do so because of the physicality of the sport.
That's because IMO you focus too much on that aspect. Probably because of your boxing background.
-
That's because IMO you focus too much on that aspect. Probably because of your boxing background.
I played Lacrosse for 8 years and Gaelic Hurling for 4 years but nobody ever brings that up :'(
But more seriously yes you are probably right, I rate tough sports as those that relate to the definition "strong enough to withstand adverse conditions or rough or careless handling." best. In my opinion every sport has the same amount of mental adversity however the physicality of a sport creates more adverse conditions which would then make it, by definition, tougher.
-
NO. That is NOT what the article said. The article implied comparing SHOOTERS, specifically three point shooters, was difficult.
For sh*ts and giggles, I calculated what Larry Bird's EFG% had he took the same number of 3 pointers today as Lebron does. (Basically taking 2.1 extra 3 pointers instead of two pointers and applying the same shooting percentage to both.) It comes out to be the exact same EFG%.
It's because that although Bird was a better 3 point shooter, he wasn't THAT much better. And Lebron is a much better two point shooter which by and large makes up for the difference in three point shooting.
I can't believe you sucked me back in. The article stated that Bird is an obvious top 10 shooter of the past 40 years and that we can't evaluate him compared to current players because of how the game changed. And...that the game changed because of BIRD!!!
Even with him changing that part of the game. Bird is on the record as saying "When I played, I never did practice 3-pt shots"...it wasn't part of the game. His stats are all just on pure ability, no practice, as compared to players today shooting 1000 3's a day. You can't compare across eras using stats!!!!!
By elementary logic, since the statistics that you are using to compare the players heavily rely on the shooting statistics that are not comparable, because of different style of play, then the statistics are also not reliable comparisons.
This is why I said you can't compare players across eras based on statistics. Not to mention that we have 6 expansion teams that dilute the overall talent pool, leading to higher usage by stars on teams, and higher stats by those stars. This is further amplified by setting the average PER to 15 each year, and your reliance on ast%, rb% etc.
As for toughness. You can go on the internet and see Bird listed on all kinds of toughest of all time lists. You will not see Lebron on those for a reason and not because "I'm biased".
You are welcome to have as many words on this as you wish and have the last words. I just got sucked in by the fallacy of your statements.
-
I can't believe you sucked me back in. The article stated that Bird is an obvious top 10 shooter of the past 40 years and that we can't evaluate him compared to current players because of how the game changed. And...that the game changed because of BIRD!!!
Even with him changing that part of the game. Bird is on the record as saying "When I played, I never did practice 3-pt shots"...it wasn't part of the game. His stats are all just on pure ability, no practice, as compared to players today shooting 1000 3's a day. You can't compare across eras using stats!!!!!
By elementary logic, since the statistics that you are using to compare the players heavily rely on the shooting statistics that are not comparable, because of different style of play, then the statistics are also not reliable comparisons.
This is why I said you can't compare players across eras based on statistics. Not to mention that we have 6 expansion teams that dilute the overall talent pool, leading to higher usage by stars on teams, and higher stats by those stars. This is further amplified by setting the average PER to 15 each year, and your reliance on ast%, rb% etc.
As for toughness. You can go on the internet and see Bird listed on all kinds of toughest of all time lists. You will not see Lebron on those for a reason and not because "I'm biased".
You are welcome to have as many words on this as you wish and have the last words. I just got sucked in by the fallacy of your statements.
No. You're still wrong. You apparently have trouble with either logic or the basic English language.
-
In all fairness if you google lebron flopping vs Larry bird flopping, lebrons video is much longer. If you google Larry bird fight vs lebron fight it's pretty funny
Here's lebrons
https://youtu.be/SWTfVAkzpSE
Here's Larrys
https://youtu.be/t1e7CTQ7V4A
Far be it for me to say what defines tough but I'd say as far as forgetfulness definition goes it's pretty obvious that Larry tussling with everybody on Detroit is tougher than lebron freaking out that harden almost kicking him in the nuts. But hey that's just my opinion.
The league has a lot more flopping and a lot less fighting now vs. then. Not a fair comp.
-
So let me get this straight...when statistics favor Larry they are worth using, when they favor Lebron, they are generationally biased and should be discarded? That's one of the most grasping at straws lines of debate I've ever seen.
-
Crean sucks
-
ND sucks.