If you're starting a new franchise, would you rather have a 20 year old K. Leonard or a 20 year old Larry Bird?
Without even getting into Bird being an all time great...who would start a franchise with a player who is just going to leave?
Kawhi has huge mitts and is so long he can use them to shovel rocks without bending over. Less injury risk.
Bird positives - 3 point champ - super creative passer - better name - goat of trash talk and backing it up - turned into an NBA coach, which I assume means he would be a better leader Kahwi positives - by golly does he have big hands - defensive MVP - has no emotion and thus will not be overwhelmed by the moment - does not trash talk and thus will not make other players go off - can jump higher I think that sums up everything. I give Bird the edge.
Which confirms what I have always said. Kawhi is CLUTCH. Imagine going from DeRozan, one of the worst playoff chokers in the NBA to Kawhi, one of the most clutch players in the NBA. Conversely, LOL @ Spurs.
I will take Kawhi. Bird gave you elite offense (shooting + creator) and leadership and was clutch Kawhi gives you elite offense (shooting and drive) and defense and is clutch as well. If you get another leader on the same team as Kawhi and let him do his thing, he is easily the best two way player in the league. Kawhi and play offense and defense from 1-4 positions. Incredible versatility.
Bird is a far better playmaker, but that's about it. Any other category and Kawhi is either just as good, or miles better than Bird. Also, Larry wasn't as big of a defensive liability back in the 80s because of the hand checking being allowed, but in today's era he'd be absolutely torched and abused on that end. Kawhi on the other hand, gives you great impact on both ends of the floor. This is like asking whether you'd want Hakeem or Pau Gasol.
If I'm an owner, Bird. If I'm a coach or even GM, Leonard. LOL that chart is hilarious how hard the animated trend thrusts itself into your face.
Today-Leonard for sure. Bird would be a liability on D (curry). Back then it would be a tough call. The game was played/refereed differently then so it’s not apples to apples. But Harden or Durant back then would be unreal.
Bird, of course. The guy was an assassin. I saw him play far too many times against the Rockets and against the rest of the league, and healthy, he was damn near impossible to beat. I’m assuming we aren’t getting into how different the rules are today.
Bird. He wouldn't be a defensive liability at PF which is likely where he'd play most of his minutes in todays NBA. Even in his day, he played PF his entire college career and first 4 seasons in the NBA. We tend to overstate his lack of mobility as many now think of broke back, busted feet toward the end of his career Bird(who btw would still bust ass and have huge games now). Young Bird wasn't some 6'10 George Muresan. He could move just fine. We also tend to underrate his hand-eye coordination and ability to always be in the right place in the right time for a strip, or block. 2 stats of which he's basically deadlocked in career averages with the superior athlete LeBron James.
In the game today, Bird would be awesome as a full time stretch 4 instead of cycling back and forth from 3 to 4. He would actually fit better now in a spread game as a 4 than he did back then. In the world of 3's and layups he could stand behind the line and launch threes all day long and dish easy layups. James Harden but in the form of a stretch 4.
