Why are you comparing Magic and Lebron? I'm comparing Bird to the best player in the NBA right now. Why is Magic in this discussion? Yeah, Lebron is more like Magic as a player than he is like Bird. But this thread is about Bird in today's NBA. Lebron is clearly the best player in the NBA. And I would think about whether to take Bird or Lebron (it's very close IMO). That shows that Bird would be a legend in todays NBA. If there was a fantasy draft of todays NBA + Bird, Bird would go in the top 5 for sure. (Looking at stats, you should account for the fact that the NBA was about 10% faster in terms of pace back then)
Magic and LeBron are much more similar players than Bird to LeBron. In case you haven't noticed. Do I need to explain to you they were both athletic phenoms that could play all positions and love to pass first? http://www.slamonline.com/online/nb...n-james-had-a-magic-johnson-like-performance/ Erik Spoelstra: LeBron James Had a Magic Johnson-Like Performance Heat coach Erik Spoelstra evoked the name of Magic Johnson when addressing James before the game, asking the Heat’s versatile star to play multiple positions.
Bird would have trained and conditioned himself to match up athletically; and he would have been doing so all through high school and college. At the professional level, everyone's got the same physical talent, that's how they get drafted and survive preseason cuts. Their success usually comes from a good system, good organization and their own ability to fit in, complement or overcompensate for that with leadership, instincts and drive. Also, I think the only reason athletics ever became an issue for Bird was because Jordan and Wilkins's rise made raw speed and jumping ability appear more important than mid-range shooting, court vision and rebounding: all of which Bird was good enough at to make his height, focus and determination that much more impactful. Bird also came in right at the tail end of the first era when blacks were finally accepted in the league in legitimately proportionate numbers, so he may have indirectly suffered from residual guilt or resentment about their being discriminated against before (complete re-writing of collective bargaining agreements notwithstanding).
Yes but this thread is about Larry Bird and today's NBA..... @Pouhe, exactly what I'm arguing. It's unfair to just stick in 80s Bird into the NBA. If you take Bird and pretend that he grew up today he would be even better of a player IMO.
They probably have better chiropractors and back specialists than in the 80s. You remember when Yao was out for his foot? In the 80s, they would have him play the whole season.
Thanks for the response. I wasn't talking about stopping Bird specifically, just defense in general. And when I said "superstar ISO" I meant face up clear out ISO where 4 players stand on the far side of the court, letting the superstar player go one on one.
he may have posted up a decent amount (that 60 point video had it's fair share of posting up), but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that he just lived in the paint and would thrive against a supposed lack of interior defense. i was born in 1981 so i can't claim that i saw all of larry's career, but between the espn classic games and youtube clips i've seen of him, a lot of what he does is shooting jumpers. he averaged 5.0 fta/gm vs 19.3 fga/gm. for reference, that's a slightly worse ratio than rudy gay, and he pretty much makes a living on mid-range jumpers. i'm not quite sure what that is, but i'll take the compliment. i haven't really disagreed qualitatively. i already said a larry bird born 25 years later and plopped down in the 2004 instead of 1979 nba would most likely be one of the best players in the nba. i just don't like the myth-making, whether it's larry bird back then or someone like kobe now. the idea he'd just mentally defeat everyone now as if there's no such thing as a mentally tough player today. the idea that defense was just as good and maybe better back in the day when it wasn't nearly as sophisticated or concentrated on like it is today (look at all the guys who had jumpers but couldn't guard a chair back then versus the guys who can D up even if they can't shoot in today's nba, there's a huge difference because of a large shift in philosophy). the idea that larry was the king of the playoffs when his numbers didn't hold up particularly well versus his regular season numbers. i swear i'm going to post that thread soon, but out of 75 top players - the 50 greatest + 25 great players since then + the 'nique omission - bird had the 69th worst PER drop off. i have no problem thinking bird was great and would be great now, i just don't get why people (not necessarily you) think it's so sacrilegious to talk about legends of the past as if they might be mortal and have flaws but putting down every player of the last 10 years seems to be perfectly reasonable. as many "how old are you" questions as anyone questioning bird gets, i wonder how many of the "you must not know anything about basketball history" crowd was old enough to watch him a lot either. i'm guessing the age differences wouldn't be that great. but sticking up for the past gets you brownie points (and probably tommy points) and questioning it gets you called out so it's easier to go that route. and now i'm rambling so i'll stop.
So you're insinuating (with your PER stat) Bird's game fell off in the playoffs? Dude just stop. SMH. Drop Larry Bird and his Celtics in the NBA in 2004 and they'd be working on title 7 or 8 in a row. They'd be the smartest, most skilled & mentally tough team in basketball by miles. You can't quantify everything with stats. At some point you have to use your eyes. I saw it.
He's arguing his point, and being pretty articulate doing so. I respect that. I also think he very much underrates just how good Bird was, and he won't like hearing this again, but you really did have to see him play. Bird was incredibly difficult to guard. As HP put it, he was deceptively quick, but more importantly, he's one of the smartest guys to ever play the game. Of course, he was lucky to play with the Celtics, a "pick your poison" team, but Bird was really the poison. Double him, and of course teams did, and he could always find the open man, or get free and make you pay (usually the latter). It was uncanny. The "defenses are better today" stuff is bogus, as well. The best teams had awesome defense. Look at the '86 Rockets, our own brief brush with greatness prior to the championship years. There were good to great defenders up and down the lineup. I wish we had some of them now. "Anytime you have Bird on the floor, anything can happen" - Clyde Drexler
You know how everyone gets on lebron for not showing up on the 4th quarter and about not having the will that Jordan did. Well this guy bird had a lot of that. So gutsy. It is just insulting to question a guy who went toe to toe with magic. Smh
i don't know. I just remember you in playoff threads saying such n such would happen and it would. am I confusing you with someone else. don't tell me if I'm wrong. Because there is someone who just nails it IN-GAME on a consistent basis. I'm pretty sure it is you
Why do you guys make threads like this? Most top 20-30 players wouldn't struggle against this league, now, then, or later. Too talented overall to fail. You could exchange Bird with Wilt, Oscar Robertson, Kareem, or whoever you want to choose from the top 20-30 players. My argument is not going to change. With Bird, you are talking about one of the greatest mid-range, dead-eye shooters in history, who is also one of the best play-makers in history. Fantastic court vision, unselfish, a combo forward, and intensely competitive. Outside of maybe Lebron, I don't see one small forward who would compare favorably to Bird at all to Bird's game or overall performance, now, then, or foreseeable future. At the same token, I'm not going to work off of magical nostalgic value and say he wouldn't struggle against certain players or teams at any moments. I have to say there are some great enough defenders in the league who could give him trouble, especially if they are very disciplined defensively and (or) have great physical tools and measurements. Right now, I think defenses tend to be more complex, versatile, and athletic overall, while now I think there are alot more players who fill the defensive specialist role than before and do it very well and more two-way star basketball players. It's not a coincidence that if you gathered a list of the best defensive teams in history. Most of the teams would come from the last 17 years. People often mock this league for specialized rules, like enforcing 3 seconds in the paint for big men more readily or disallowing hand-checking, yet you see defenses playing at a very high level. When you see someone say players now do not play defense or make no effort to. I have to honestly ask does this person really watch basketball, or did they ever watch basketball to begin with. Generally speaking, I think the best teams in the 80s were filled with stars and deep rosters, but some posters speak as if every team was like that when in reality it was only 2 to 4 teams who were built like that. For something unrelated to this topic, I found that the West especially rarely had over 2-3 teams who would win at least 50 games per season until the 90s. The Lakers did not only dominate the West, because their rosters was so good. They also dominated, because the good to great teams West were very sparse. I only did this, because someone said the 82-83 Clippers could make the playoffs in the modern NBA. I laughed, since if you compared them against most 6th - 10th seeded Western teams, since 1997. Most of the teams are clearly better on paper in regards to roster and team competitiveness, while most have more wins and better statistical rankings. In fact, you could pick almost any 55+ game winner from the West in the last 14 season. Pit them against any Lakers team, and it would most likely be one of the best teams the Lakers ever played in the Western Conference. From 81-90, the Lakers were the number #1 seed almost unmatched every single season. Boston was a little more battled tested, yet the most battle tested team from the 80s in a single or multiple year stretch was the Detroit Pistons. My biggest point with this is to show how much parity has happened in the NBA, even comparable to NFL (which is kind on the overstated side). In a really long post, after this one.
