OT:Larry Bird

[Boob-No-More]

Nope. Barkley did have a memorable quote about Bird: "As long as Bird is still playing, I won't be the worst defender in basketball."

It's a funny quote, but hardly accurate. Bird wasn't a great man-to-man defender, but he was GREAT team defender - much better than Barkley.

Bird made 2nd team all-defense three times and was top 10 in steals three times. He lead the league in defensive win shares three times, was 2nd three times and top 10 eight times. He was top 8 in the entire league in defensive rating 5 times. He may not have been athletic, but he understood how to play defense and had great instincts.

Barkley, not so much. He never made any all-defense teams. He had a single season, 85-86, where he was top 5 in steals, 2nd in defensive win shares and 7th in defensive rating. That was the ONLY season where was was top 10 in anything related to defense (other than defensive rebounding). Unfortunately, he also lead the league in turnovers (with more than twice as many TOs as steals) and personal fouls that year. So, that one season where he actually tired to play defense, he pretty much offset the good he did on defense by turning the ball over and committing a ton of fouls. After that, he pretty much concentrated on offense and rebounding - which was still enough to make him a first ballot Hall-of-Famer.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

It's a funny quote, but hardly accurate. Bird wasn't a great man-to-man defender, but he was GREAT team defender - much better than Barkley.

I agree, though Barkley was probably only talking about man defense. I'd say Bird's man defense was bad, not just "not great." But I, too, think Bird was a very good team defender. Smart and active.

 

[handiman]

Karl Malone and Jerry West just miss it.

Hasn't Duncan surpassed Malone as the "prototypical power forward" at this point?

 

[Minstrel]

Hasn't Duncan surpassed Malone as the "prototypical power forward" at this point?

As the best power forward? I think it's close, but I'd still give Malone the edge. I'd say Malone had the more dominant offensive prime and he was a good/very good player for an absurdly long time. Duncan was a significantly better defender. They were similarly good rebounders.

If Duncan ends up being good for as long (currently he's at 12 years, Malone went 19), I'd put Duncan ahead of Malone.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I agree, though Barkley was probably only talking about man defense. I'd say Bird's man defense was bad, not just "not great." But I, too, think Bird was a very good team defender. Smart and active.

Although man-to-man defense wasn't his strength, Bird was better at it than Barkley. At least Bird generally kept his man in front of him. He also did it against both power forwards (early part of his career) and small forwards (latter half of his career). Bird's defense did suffer a bit during the second half of his career when McHale became the starting PF and Bird was forced to guard smaller, faster (and often younger) small forwards. But he still ended up with a better career defensive rating than Barkley (101 vs. 105). Again, he wasn't very athletic, but he knew how to play good defense and worked hard at it.

Back when Bird played, zone defense was illegal. I bet he'd do even better as a team defender in today's NBA where zone defenses could help cover up his individual shortcomings and let him do what he did best - play the passing lanes, anticipate the pass and get the steal.

BNM

 

[Minstrel]

Yeah, no arguments from me that Bird was a significantly better defender than Barkley. Barkley was always good for a quote, though.

 

[handiman]

If Duncan ends up being good for as long (currently he's at 12 years, Malone went 19), I'd put Duncan ahead of Malone.

I consider championships to be more important to lasting legacy than duration of career. Given comparable output, of course. No one is going to argue that Horry is one of the all-time greats...

 

[Minstrel]

I consider championships to be more important to lasting legacy than duration of career.

I don't much care about legacy. My interest in who was the better player. Winning championships is too team-dependent.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I consider championships to be more important to lasting legacy than duration of career. Given comparable output, of course. No one is going to argue that Horry is one of the all-time greats...

Although I agree in principle, would Duncan have any championships if the prime of his career had had overlapped with Michael Jordan's? Jordan is the main reason guys like Malone and Barkley retired ringless. Bad luck for them. And, if Jordan hadn't left to go play baseball between his two three-peats, Hakeem wouldn't have any either.

BNM

 

[BengalDuck]

Duncan is a center. He's been playing center for a long time, too.

He's the best PF of all time. But Shaq, Hakeem, the Admiral, et al. should also be in that PF discussion, then, if TD gets to be there.

Duncan is the best post player of this current era. He's not as physically dominating as Shaq, no, but he's a much better defender and probably just as valuable (although it's late and I'm not going to look up the advanced stats) scorer.

 

[KingSpeed]

I don't think one can separate Bird and Magic. Beyond the coincidence of their overlap in time, they were pretty close to identically good.

In modern times, many people do put Bird in a top-three with Jordan and Magic. I put Magic and Bird a bit lower, behind Shaq and Olajuwon, in terms of more recent players. My all-time top ten would be:

Michael Jordan
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Bill Russell
David Robinson.

Tim Duncan should be there instead of Robinson. Duncan got DRob two rings, not the other way around. Tim Duncan is one of the best basketball players ever.

Remember this?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=230615024

Near quad double in a title clinching game.

 

[KingSpeed]

Also, check out KMart in that boxscore. 3 of 23 FGs. That's some ridiculous defense, Timmy.

 

[Da_O]

I don't think one can separate Bird and Magic. Beyond the coincidence of their overlap in time, they were pretty close to identically good.

In modern times, many people do put Bird in a top-three with Jordan and Magic. I put Magic and Bird a bit lower, behind Shaq and Olajuwon, in terms of more recent players. My all-time top ten would be:

Michael Jordan
Wilt Chamberlain
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Oscar Robertson
Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Bill Russell
David Robinson

Karl Malone and Jerry West just miss it.

Bird and Johnson are interchangeable in that list, IMO.

I respect you Minstrel, but that's a pretty sad list, well the order of it in my opinion. D-rob top 10? Oneal and Olajuwon top 5?

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Oscar
6. Magic
7. Bird
8/9/10(any order). Olajuwon/Oneal/Duncan

 

[Denny Crane]

[video=youtube;ep0sMdlXiQQ]

 

[dpc]

I'm re-reading his autobiography right now, Bird Watching:
http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Watching...=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236235663&sr=1-5

It's definitely not worth the $38 Amazon is asking for it, but if you see it in the bargain section at Borders you should pick it up. Fun read.

How many autobiographies does he have? I read Larry Bird: Drive in middle school.

Ir emember running into Larry at a summer league game, one of the only times I was truly star struck.

 

[Minstrel]

I respect you Minstrel, but that's a pretty sad list, well the order of it in my opinion. D-rob top 10? Oneal and Olajuwon top 5?

Almost no player has been as dominating as O'Neal was. I have no idea why his inclusion in the top five would be controversial, beyond deification that goes on of players long since retired. The same mentality that says "Previous generations of players would crush more recent generations of players."

Olajuwon is more controversial, certainly, but I think he's incredibly underrated. He was one of the greatest defenders ever, a great scorer and a great rebounder. He was Bill Russell with more scoring talent (and not playing in the pace-inflated '60s or surrounded by as much of his generation's talent).

David Robinson was also one of the greatest combinations of scoring, defense and rebounding. Silly notions of him being "weak" cause people to underrate him enormously. Very few players in history brought more value he did...like 9 of them.

 

[BoBoBREWSKI]

Larry Legend!

 

[handiman]

I don't much care about legacy. My interest in who was the better player. Winning championships is too team-dependent.

Well, playing a long time isn't exactly a measure of quality of play... Year for year, has Malone been any better than Duncan? I'd say it's pretty much a toss-up. Add in the championships and Duncan moves ahead. That's the ultimate measure of success, and he's been the driving force on all of those teams.

Although I agree in principle, would Duncan have any championships if the prime of his career had had overlapped with Michael Jordan's? Jordan is the main reason guys like Malone and Barkley retired ringless. Bad luck for them. And, if Jordan hadn't left to go play baseball between his two three-peats, Hakeem wouldn't have any either.

I had a feeling someone would raise that objection... As you alluded at the end, Hakeem's championship pedigree is largely thanks to MJ's first retirement. If Duncan owes his rings to MJ's career being over, then it has to be pointed out that Hakeem played in a much larger talent void.

For what it's worth, I felt at the time that the first Spurs title team would have been tough for even the best Chicago teams to beat. I'm not sure I've ever seen a better defensive unit, and their offense was pretty potent to boot.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, playing a long time isn't exactly a measure of quality of play... Year for year, has Malone been any better than Duncan? I'd say it's pretty much a toss-up.

Playing well for a long time is definitely a measure of player ability. Being great for one year, for example, isn't as impressive as being great for fifteen years. I think Malone's peak and prime were at least as good as Duncan's, and he's played at a high level for a longer period of time, giving him a (currently) large career value advantage. I think peak, prime and career value are all important.

Add in the championships and Duncan moves ahead. That's the ultimate measure of success

Ultimate measure of success for teams. I don't think they're a good measure for individual players.

 

[Tortimer]

Here is my rankings and Bird was one of the top 5 ever to play in the NBA and I'm old enough to watch all these players. I didn't read all the posts but I think it was someone on the Pistons maybe Thomas that said if Bird was black he would only be considered a good player. That is bullshit and I thought at the time it was just racism at it's worse because Bird made them look silly everytime they played him.

1. Jordan
2. Russell
3. Magic
4. Bird - but very close to Magic
5. Wilt
6. Oscar

Everyone else doesn't matter because they are not close to these guys IMO.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I had a feeling someone would raise that objection... As you alluded at the end, Hakeem's championship pedigree is largely thanks to MJ's first retirement. If Duncan owes his rings to MJ's career being over, then it has to be pointed out that Hakeem played in a much larger talent void.

What????? You can't be serious.

The first several years of Hakeem's career overlapped with the great Celtics and Lakers teams of the 1980s. The Celtics had a front line consisting of three Hall-of-Famers (four, if you count Walton in 1986). The Lakers had Kareem, Magic and Worthy. I don't see any talent void there. The prime of Hakeem's career overlapped with Jordan's - obviously no lack of talent at that time. It also overlapped with other Hall-of-Fame centers Robinson and Ewing, as well as Malone, Barkley, etc. The center position was much better back then, overall, than it has been since. The tail end of Hakeem's career overlapped with the beginning of Shaq and Duncan, etc.

Duncan came in and started winning titles after Jordan's second retirement. Other than Shaq, there hasn't been any other dominant post players during the majority of Duncan's career. You could argue that Howard is there now, but that is a recent development, and Yao, while a very good player isn't in the same class as Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson, or Shaq. Garnett is good, and will be in the Hall, but he played on some crappy teams in Minnesota and isn't as good offensively as many of the big men Hakeem went up against on a regular basis. If anything, Duncan has played in an era almost entirely devoid of over dominant big men. Other than him and Shaq, there haven't been any "all-time great" big men during the bulk of Timmy's career.

In terms of teams, during Hakeem's career, other than the two championships years when Jordan tried playing baseball, he had to go through dominant teams to win a championship. In addition to six titles for the Jordan Bulls, the 80's Lakers won five rings, the 80s Celtics won three and the Pistons won two. In fact, from 86-87 through 97-98 (the year before Duncan's first ring) every team that won an NBA title won at least two in a row:

Lakers - two in a row
Pistons - two in a row
Bulls - first 3-peat
Rockets - two in a row
Bulls - second 3-peat

During Duncan's career, there has been only one repeat champion - the 3-peat Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Other than Duncan's own Spurs, who have never won consecutive titles, every other champion has been one and done. Other than those three years of the Shaq/Kobe Laker dominance, Duncan didn't have to go up against the great dynasties that Hakeem faced throughout his career.

BNM

 

[crandc]

Let me put it this way, if Bird in his prime were available, I'd sure as hell want him on my team, with his weaknesses. Because he also had a hell of a lot of strengths.

I'll never forgive the refs, though, for crediting him with a "3" when it was cleary a "2" that enabled Boston to beat the Blazers on national TV back in 1992. Long memory...

 

[STOMP]

Bird isn't even the best player in Celtic history.

no doubt... Russell easily. I think he's a lead in the conversation for GOAT

Hasn't Duncan surpassed Malone as the "prototypical power forward" at this point?

oh most definitely. Duncan's rookie year fell between Malone's two MVP's. Even then TD was arguably putting up better stats and of course making the All-NBA and All-NBA Defensive teams. While KM became a very good defender making 3 All-NBA D teams, Timmy has been elite since he entered the league and has been recognized every year since he entered the league (11 strait teams and counting). Unlike Karl, TD isn't known for being a serial game 7 choker which has a lot to do with why he leads 4 rings to none.

And though it's only garnish to the who is better question, I don't think it helps KM's case that he was an all time cheap shot artist who sent many players to the hospital + a cry-baby who publically called out his coach and owner for perceived slights multiple times + a deadbeat dad multiple times (including to a 13 year old he impregnated in college) + an all time flopper. As a teammate one has been a pro's pro, the other a jerkoff

I agree, though Barkley was probably only talking about man defense. I'd say Bird's man defense was bad, not just "not great." But I, too, think Bird was a very good team defender. Smart and active.

I'm sure Larry has pointed out to Charles that he made 3 All NBA Defensive teams.

STOMP

 

[handiman]

Playing well for a long time is definitely a measure of player ability.

Lots of very mediocre players have had long careers. The two are mutually exclusive. Duncan has played equally well for a very long time, himself. The fact that he hasn't reached retirement yet can't be held against him... He just hasn't played until being broken down yet.

Being great for one year, for example, isn't as impressive as being great for fifteen years.

Yes, but that is totally irrelevant when the discussion is regarding Duncan. Context, buddy!

Ultimate measure of success for teams. I don't think they're a good measure for individual players.

I would guess that nearly every player in the league disagrees with you...

The first several years of Hakeem's career overlapped with the great Celtics and Lakers teams of the 1980s.

Slow down and read more closely... I referred to Hakeem's championship pedigree, i.e. the years he won championships, not the early portion of his career when he was shut out. That championship window likely would not have opened if not for MJ's foray into baseball.

 

[STOMP]

I had a feeling someone would raise that objection... As you alluded at the end, Hakeem's championship pedigree is largely thanks to MJ's first retirement. If Duncan owes his rings to MJ's career being over, then it has to be pointed out that Hakeem played in a much larger talent void.

Flip MJ and Hakeem in the 1984 draft. All things staying the same, how many rings does MJ win playing with Mad Max and Otis Thorpe as his best teammates for the prime of his career? How many does Hakeem win playing with PIP and Horace? Imagine teams trying to score in the paint vs that frontline...

I chaff at the general consensus that MJ was the GOAT as I find it very hard to compare players at different positions in a team game... comparing players from different eras is also awkward.

STOMP

 

[ABM]

Thought this was kinda interesting from Blazer Wookee:

I didn't have anyone using my extra ticket last night, so I went to the box office and turned in my two tickets ($42 each) and asked for an upgrade. I was bumped to the sixth row, across from the visitors' bench, right at the top of the key. Two rows in front of Larry Legend, who had a couple of things to say to Violet Palmer, lol.
"Palmer, you're a homer!"

"Come on, Violet, it went off his leg! It went off his leg!"

He had a couple other comments, but I can't recall them specifically enough to post, lol. As he was leaving, I wished him good luck for the rest of the season, and he patted me on the back and said, "Hey, thanks a lot, buddy."

Sam Perkins was there, along with a couple of their team executives. One of them was sitting right behind me (I can't remember his name, does anyone know how to find a list of the team executives?), and he started clapping after a particularly tough shot was made by Daniels. I turned around, knowing full well that he was with Indiana, and said with a serious expression, "Hey, buddy, whose side are you on, anyway?" He pointed to the Pacers pin on his lapel, and I chuckled and said, "I know, I'm just kidding, welcome to Portland." He smiled and laughed, and slapped me on the shoulder.

 

[WarriorFan]

Flip MJ and Hakeem in the 1984 draft. All things staying the same, how many rings does MJ win playing with Mad Max and Otis Thorpe as his best teammates for the prime of his career? How many does Hakeem win playing with PIP and Horace? Imagine teams trying to score in the paint vs that frontline...

I chaff at the general consensus that MJ was the GOAT as I find it very hard to compare players at different positions in a team game... comparing players from different eras is also awkward.

STOMP

I'd take Jordan's rockets. I don't think a team starting BJ armstrong and John Paxon (if I'm remembering correctly and that's who they would have had) starting in the backcourt can win a championship. Big guys win titles but you still need someone to manage the game and control the ball. Without Jordan, Pippen would not be known as a "point forward", IMO.

 

[Minstrel]

Lots of very mediocre players have had long careers. The two are mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive, they're both factors. Being mediocre for one year (and then out of the league) is not as impressive as being mediocre for ten years. Being great for one year is not as impressive as being great for twenty years. It's not that career length trumps ability...it's that ability and career length both matter.

Duncan has played equally well for a very long time, himself. The fact that he hasn't reached retirement yet can't be held against him...

I'm not holding it against him, I'm simply not assuming that he'll have the freakishly long and great career Malone had, because so few players achieve it. If Duncan does, then that will add to his greatness.

Yes, but that is totally irrelevant when the discussion is regarding Duncan. Context, buddy!

In that case, I'd say Duncan can't be ranked yet. Career value is a key aspect of a player's ranking all-time. If you don't want to count Duncan's and Malone's relative career value yet, since Duncan hasn't finished his career, that's fine...in that case, I'd simply remove all active players from consideration. They could be ranked once their career is finished, and we know what their career value was.

I would guess that nearly every player in the league disagrees with you...

I have no idea whether you're right. It's easy to appeal to authority that can't actually be proven/disproven. Further, even if you were right about the opinions of players, it wouldn't matter a great deal to me, since I don't think that's a logical position. I don't think team success is a good measure of an individual player...it's a good measure of the GM, since the GM puts the team together.

If the exact same Michael Jordan had played his career, in the '80s and '90s, for the Sacramento Kings, he'd likely have 0 titles. That wouldn't make him a worse player. It would simply reflect that the those Kings had no talent to surround him with.

 

[WarriorFan]

.

If the exact same Michael Jordan had played his career, in the '80s and '90s, for the Sacramento Kings, he'd likely have 0 titles. That wouldn't make him a worse player. It would simply reflect that the those Kings had no talent to surround him with.

Not so sure about that. Jordan/Richmond>Jordan/Pippen


Typically I agree that any one talent cannot by championships alone; but Jordan is the exception. I think he'd win with one more good player at any position surrounded by some role players (once the Piston's run ended that is). It would have been fun to watch them battle LA similar to how the Bulls had to get past Detroit.

 

[Minstrel]

Not so sure about that. Jordan/Richmond>Jordan/Pippen

Richmond better than Pippen? I think that's absolutely crazy. Pippen was a similarly good scorer, a much better rebounder, a much better passer and one of the several greatest defenders ever. Richmond didn't even approach Pippen's caliber.

In addition, the Bulls had more talent...either Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman up front, plus good role-players like BJ Armstrong, John Paxson, Ron Harper and some permutation of playable centers like Bill Cartwright/Bill Wennington/Will Perdue/Luc Longley. Sacramento had a borderline star in Richmond and basically nothing else until the Webber era.