ranking Bird ahead of Duncan:reasons?

[poop]

in all these 'lists' i see Bird usually put ahead of Duncan.

why exactly?

bird won 3 titles. duncan won 4. bird had 2 finals MVPs. duncan has 3. none of duncans titles were back to back. neither were any of bird's. Bird was consistently outstanding for like 9-10 seasons, then broke down and retired after like 12. Duncan has had 13 consecutive outstanding seasons and counting. bird has a slight edge in offensive stats, duncan has the edge in defensive stats.

what argument exists to support Bird over Duncan? just that he played for the boston celtics?

[PGDynasty24]

in all these 'lists' i see Bird usually put ahead of Duncan.

why exactly?

bird won 3 titles. duncan won 4. bird had 2 finals MVPs. duncan has 3. none of duncans titles were back to back. neither were any of bird's. Bird was consistently outstanding for like 9-10 seasons, then broke down and retired after like 12. Duncan has had 13 consecutive outstanding seasons and counting. bird has a slight edge in offensive stats, duncan has the edge in defensive stats.

what argument exists to support Bird over Duncan? just that he played for the boston celtics?

he's a better player. Doesn't possess longjevity Duncan has had. But his influence on basketball is far bigger than Duncan's

[poop]

he's a better player. Doesn't possess longjevity Duncan has had. But his influence on basketball is far bigger than Duncan's

how so, in either case?

[HarlemHeat37]

Bird won a ridiculous 3 MVPs in a row in arguably the toughest era of basketball in NBA history..all 3 of his MVP wins were pretty much undisputed, he won the voting by a HUGE margin..that's ridiculous when you do it 3 times in a row..his peak was higher than Timmy's IMO..also, while it may be unfair, the fact that Bird helped "save" basketball has a big impact as well..the main argument is the peak though, 3 consecutive undisputed MVPs combined with 2 titles in between IIRC..

Timmy's my favorite player, but I don't think you can put him ahead of Bird right now..I don't think it's a significant margin, I think Duncan is very, very close, but I think Bird's 3-year peak puts him on top here..

[Darthkiller]

because he is a better player?

larry bird is a consensus top 5 player among people who know basketball. duncan is a top 10 player. top 5> top 10

[Bob Lanier]

He's whiter, uglier, and fatter.

[poop]

Bird won a ridiculous 3 MVPs in a row in arguably the toughest era of basketball in NBA history..all 3 of his MVP wins were pretty much undisputed, he won the voting by a HUGE margin..that's ridiculous when you do it 3 times in a row..his peak was higher than Timmy's IMO..also, while it may be unfair, the fact that Bird helped "save" basketball has a big impact as well..the main argument is the peak though, 3 consecutive undisputed MVPs combined with 2 titles in between IIRC..

Timmy's my favorite player, but I don't think you can put him ahead of Bird right now..I don't think it's a significant margin, I think Duncan is very, very close, but I think Bird's 3-year peak puts him on top here..

i dont think the 'toughest era' was one in which 2 teams split the titles for almost the whole decade :rolleyes

you had two stacked huge-market franchises with all the media behind them rolling past everybody else.
bird's teams were much more stacked than duncan's were.

[poop]

because he is a better player?

larry bird is a consensus top 5 player among people who know basketball. duncan is a top 10 player. top 5> top 10

and what is the actual evidence other than 'he just is' :rolleyes

[Darthkiller]

the only player post merger who is better than bird is michael jordan. it's jordan bird, then a big dropoff then u have magic , then others.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

Bird was a stone killer. Most clutch performer, consistently, I've ever seen.

[cobbler]

I was reading Joe Posnanski's very fine column on Tim Duncan in Sports Illustrated last month and came across a statement which jumped off the page and bit me on the nose. Concluding his homage to Duncan, Posnanski wrote He's one of the 10 best players in NBA history ... ''

"No bloody way," I screamed.

What am I missing here?

Off the top of my head I'd take Wilt Chamberlain (always No. 1, the guy averaged 50.4 points a game during the 1961-62 season), Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Bob Cousy ahead of Duncan. There's a quick 10 without as much as a three-second violation.

Nothing against Duncan, but you could also give me Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Julius Erving, Elgin Baylor, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Kevin McHale. Oh, and let's not forget Bob Pettit, Moses Malone, John Stockton and Isiah Thomas.

.
.
.

I talked to his coach, Gregg Popovich, after Sunday night's game. I asked Pop about Duncan as a top-10 player. Of all time.

"I think he'd be flattered and embarrassed by that,'' said Popovich. "I think in some ways he suffers from the small market, with the pop culture and all that. He couldn't care less about that. It's nice that some people rank him high, but we've had a lot of great players in this league.''

Duncan was predictably humble about the whole deal.

Told that he was ranked among the top 10 players of all time he said, "It's a bit shocking. I don't know what to say about that. I know my [style of] basketball. It's nice to be thought of as one of the top players, but I can think of a lot of great players.''

We went down my list. I started rattling off names.

"You got 12 right there,'' he said.

Tim Duncan is not going to fight about this. Even he admits it is absurd. He is a great player. He's just not one of the 10 greatest of all time.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/03/29/duncan.spurs/index.html


Apparently your boy TD doesn't even agree with you.

[Darthkiller]

and what is the actual evidence other than 'he just is' :rolleyes

dude look , i love tim duncan , that's why i am on this forum. but Bird is just better.

Better scorer ( carried his team everytime when it's needed)

better passer( best nonpg passer of all time)

made all his teammates better( he basicly made Mchale , who gets at least 10 easy points per game from bird passes )

career 10 rpg guy with 2 other 10 rpg guy on the roster.

clutchest player of all time(made the more game winners than anyone i can remember)

[cobbler]

dude look , i love tim duncan , that's why i am on this forum. but Bird is just better.

Better scorer ( carried his team everytime when it's needed)

better passer( best nonpg passer of all time)

made all his teammates better( he basicly made Mchale , who gets at least 10 easy points per game from bird passes )

career 10 rpg guy with 2 other 10 rpg guy on the roster.

clutchest player of all time(made the more game winners than anyone i can remember)

That's a bit of a stretch. Mchale is one of the best post players to ever play the game and none of his moves were the result of any pass.

[Darthkiller]

bird and magic in the 80s was kinda similar to lebron and kobe.

magic was 2nd fiddle to Kareem in early part of his career, like kobe was to shaq. then magic started winning mvp after kareem like kobe did in 08.

bird was like lebron(well cept that bird won rings). a point forward, who led his team in almost every stat category.

[HarlemHeat37]

Bird's teams were more stacked, but his competition was tougher..

LOL @ Cobbler using Duncan's quote as an argument against him..you think Timmy is going to say he's better than any of those guys?..apparently you haven't followed him and how he acts..he's not Lebron..

[midnightpulp]

I was reading Joe Posnanski's very fine column on Tim Duncan in Sports Illustrated last month and came across a statement which jumped off the page and bit me on the nose. Concluding his homage to Duncan, Posnanski wrote He's one of the 10 best players in NBA history ... ''

"No bloody way," I screamed.

What am I missing here?

Off the top of my head I'd take Wilt Chamberlain (always No. 1, the guy averaged 50.4 points a game during the 1961-62 season), Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West and Bob Cousy ahead of Duncan. There's a quick 10 without as much as a three-second violation.

Nothing against Duncan, but you could also give me Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Julius Erving, Elgin Baylor, Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Kevin McHale. Oh, and let's not forget Bob Pettit, Moses Malone, John Stockton and Isiah Thomas.

.
.
.

I talked to his coach, Gregg Popovich, after Sunday night's game. I asked Pop about Duncan as a top-10 player. Of all time.

"I think he'd be flattered and embarrassed by that,'' said Popovich. "I think in some ways he suffers from the small market, with the pop culture and all that. He couldn't care less about that. It's nice that some people rank him high, but we've had a lot of great players in this league.''

Duncan was predictably humble about the whole deal.

Told that he was ranked among the top 10 players of all time he said, "It's a bit shocking. I don't know what to say about that. I know my [style of] basketball. It's nice to be thought of as one of the top players, but I can think of a lot of great players.''

We went down my list. I started rattling off names.

"You got 12 right there,'' he said.

Tim Duncan is not going to fight about this. Even he admits it is absurd. He is a great player. He's just not one of the 10 greatest of all time.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/dan_shaughnessy/03/29/duncan.spurs/index.html


Apparently your boy TD doesn't even agree with you.

Shaughnessy is an idiot.

But I agree that Larry Bird belongs higher on the list than Tim Duncan.

[cobbler]

Bird's teams were more stacked, but his competition was tougher..

LOL @ Cobbler using Duncan's quote as an argument against him..you think Timmy is going to say he's better than any of those guys?..apparently you haven't followed him and how he acts..

I know very well how humble TD is and how he shuns the limelight. I personally think hes a top 10 player if you looked at my list. I had read that article and thought it was interesting that BOTH he and Pop didn't think he was top 10. Apparently, you are wrong yet again. Go figure...

[picc84]

Tim Duncan in his prime was as dominant as Bird in his prime, just in a different way, considering his control of the paint on the defensive end. But Bird had that killer mentality, where he would be playing your team and you think "Bird isn't going to let us win". Only a few players in NBA history have gotten to that level. I've never felt it with Duncan.

I also think Bird was better than Magic. In fact it was never a real argument IMO, as great as Magic was. Magic won more championships with us, but in that era, dealing with the level of stacked teams that were playing, its going to be tough to win. Magic was playing with Kareem, and as good as McHale was he was no Kareem.

Bird was a once in a lifetime type player and competitor. Have to give him the edge over Duncan.

[HarlemHeat37]

Wait, how am I wrong?..you actually expected them to say Duncan is better than any of those guys?..that would mean they have to actually name one of those players and say Timmy is ahead of them, which is something Pop/Duncan would never do..

You can't just say somebody is "wrong" when they aren't..you do that very often..

[midnightpulp]

His last season with a bad back and bad feet is damn there good as Duncan's career numbers.

Pace. Even mediocre players by today's standards were throwing up 20 points a game/or double digit boards in those days.

No way a player like Kevin Willis gets anywhere near 16 boards a game today like he did in 91.

[cobbler]

Wait, how am I wrong?..you actually expected them to say Duncan is better than any of those guys?..that would mean they have to actually name one of those players and say Timmy is ahead of them, which is something Pop/Duncan would never do..

You can't just say somebody is "wrong" when they aren't..you do that very often..

You were WRONG in saying I apparently don't follow him or know how he acts. I do follow and do know how he acts. So I CAN say you're wrong... because you were. Duh.

Why would they have to name any player? What a moronic comment. They couldn't simply say... Timmy could certainly be included in that group?

[dirk4mvp]

Bird by a pretty good margin. If Bird had a lick of athleticism, it would be even farther apart.

[HarlemHeat37]

You were WRONG in saying I apparently don't follow him or know how he acts. I do follow and do know how he acts.

Why would they have to name any player? What a moronic comment. They couldn't simply say... Timmy could certainly be included in that group?

The guy named a bunch of players and asked if Duncan thought he was ahead of any of them..if he said "yes", are you telling me the reporter isn't going to ask him "which one would you take off?"..he obviously would..

He literally named names..when a reporter just says top 10 or 15 or whatever and doesn't actually name people, it's a lot different than actually naming a bunch of individuals as part of the list..seems pretty clear..

LOL @ "moronic statement"..I don't think I've seen a poster that drops so many insults that have nothing to do with the argument..

[cobbler]

The guy named a bunch of players and asked if Duncan thought he was ahead of any of them..if he said "yes", are you telling me the reporter isn't going to ask him "which one would you take off?"..he obviously would..

He literally named names..when a reporter just says top 10 or 15 or whatever and doesn't actually name people, it's a lot different than actually naming a bunch of individuals as part of the list..seems pretty clear..

Oh.... I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about a conversation you "think" would have taken place after the reporter asked Duncan if he thought he was ahead of any of them.... which of course the reporter did not ask in the first place. :lol

[cobbler]

The guy named a bunch of players and asked if Duncan thought he was ahead of any of them..if he said "yes", are you telling me the reporter isn't going to ask him "which one would you take off?"..he obviously would..

He literally named names..when a reporter just says top 10 or 15 or whatever and doesn't actually name people, it's a lot different than actually naming a bunch of individuals as part of the list..seems pretty clear..

LOL @ "moronic statement"..I don't think I've seen a poster that drops so many insults that have nothing to do with the argument..

You're a moron... That's why. Use a mirror.

[HarlemHeat37]

Oh.... I'm sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about a conversation you "think" would have taken place after the reporter asked Duncan if he thought he was ahead of any of them.... which of course the reporter did not ask in the first place. :lol


We went down my list. I started rattling off names.

"You got 12 right there,'' he said.

How is this not obvious?..

Are you serious right now?..

Duncan was going down his list and reading the names..he would clearly have to eliminate other players from his list..seriously?..


You get owned in pretty much every argument on ST, and you still go around dropping your personal insults..this is the same guy that argued for pages here that Gasol taking the picture making fun of Asians wasn't racist at all..

[cobbler]

How is this not obvious?..

Are you serious right now?..

Duncan was going down his list and reading the names..he would clearly have to eliminate other players from his list..seriously?..


You get owned in pretty much every argument on ST, and you still go around dropping your personal insults..

And I say he could have simply said... I think I could be included in that list somewhere. I canno't see TD naming a particular person.

Look, I simply posted an article I had read. I found it interesting and it related to this thread. I didn't even say I agreed with it and obviously don't because you can clearly see Duncan on my list. I made a simple comment that TD didn't even agree with the OP. Most posts on here don't agree with the OP, including yours! You just see a post from me and have to get your jabs in. LOL at getting owned and of all people, you, talking about personal insults.

And BTW, I don't take any of this bantar seriously... just killing time.

[cobbler]

.this is the same guy that argued for pages here that Gasol taking the picture making fun of Asians wasn't racist at all..

You seem real bitter. Get picked on a lot as a kid? It was a joke. Was it a politically correct joke... no. Was it in bad taste? Yes. It was still a joke and got blown way out of proportion. To label a person a racist or anything for that matter based on one incident that was meant in a different way than it was percieved is idiotic and very short sighted. But that is who you are...

Have you ever told an off color joke? Everyone has.

I could only dream to be the saint you profess to be. Must be so nice to be perfect!

[JMarkJohns]

I'm starting to wonder if the original poster has even seen Bird play...

Lastly, I like that the original poster lashes out at the competitive balance of the 80s with Lakers winning five, Celtic winning three and two teams winning one each when the decade the Spurs won three Titles the Lakers won four, Spurs three, and three teams won one each. It's basically the same thing... Two teams dominating the decade with a handful of teams each breaking through once.

[Darthkiller]

I'm starting to wonder if the original poster has even seen Bird play...

Lastly, I like that the original poster lashes out at the competitive balance of the 80s with Lakers winning five, Celtic winning three and two teams winning one each when the decade the Spurs won three Titles the Lakers won four, Spurs three, and three teams won one each. It's basically the same thing... Two teams dominating the decade with a handful of teams each breaking through once.

a team with barkley , moses and dr J, would shit on every team in today's league, they didnt do shit in the 80s.

[Bob Lanier]

Gasol taking the picture making fun of Asians wasn't racist at all..
If a tree falls in the woods, does anyone care if it made a sound?

[Bob Lanier]

a team with barkley , moses and dr J, would shit on every team in today's league, they didnt do shit in the 80s.
And yet Erving was a better player than Bird. So what?

[JMarkJohns]

a team with barkley , moses and dr J, would shit on every team in today's league, they didnt do shit in the 80s.

I understand this. so are you arguing the Celtics faced tougher competition or that the Celtics and Lakers were just too good and therefore backing up the original poster's assertion?

[Pelicans78]

Not only did Bird help increase the popularity of the game, there's a case to be made that Duncan had the opposite effect.

[dirk4mvp]

Not only did Bird help increase the popularity of the game, there's a case to be made that Duncan had the opposite effect.

:rollin

[Pelicans78]

I've always thought of Tim as an honest straight forward person.

:lol

[da_suns_fan]

If you think Tim Duncan is/was a better basketball player than Larry Bird, then you never saw Larry Bird play basketball.

Besides...comparing Duncan to forwards is stupid. He's a forward in name only. He has zero outside game, no floor skills, plays with his back to the basket like every other CENTER in the history of the NBA. Compare him to the other centers like Hakeem, Shaq, Chamberlin, Jabbar etc.

[ezau]

Seriously, Cousy over Duncan? That article is a piece of shit

[PGDynasty24]

Not only did Bird help increase the popularity of the game, there's a case to be made that Duncan had the opposite effect.

that's actually true. A tim duncan finals gets beat out in ratings by shit like bowling. a bird/magic finals was the SHIT

[mavs>spurs2]

hows this for a reason: because bird is better

[Smooth Criminal]

Bird was responsible (Co-Responsible) for reviving the NBA, and was a part of basketball's greatest rivalry, was extremely clutch, was a better passer, better scorer, comparable rebounder. I'll give defense to TD of course.

[JoeTait75]

Bird is the GOAT at his position. Duncan is not.

[Smooth Criminal]

Not only did Bird help increase the popularity of the game, there's a case to be made that Duncan had the opposite effect.

:lmao

[midnightpulp]

Bird is the GOAT at his position. Duncan is not.

Only if you consider Duncan a five.

[JoeTait75]

Only if you consider Duncan a five.

You have a point. I tend to think of him as a true big man.

[DJ Mbenga]

Only if you consider Duncan a five.

why wouldnt he be a five? unless you are nuts like don nelson who considers PG's power fowards.

[midnightpulp]

You have a point. I tend to think of him as a true big man.

Which PFs would you rank ahead of Duncan?

Karl "my efficiency and mid range jumper never showed up in the playoffs" Malone?

Barkley? McHale?

[JoeTait75]

Which PFs would you rank ahead of Duncan?

Karl "my efficiency and mid range jumper never showed up in the playoffs" Malone?

Barkley? McHale?

He played center in college. He's been a pro center since, when, David Robinson retired? He's a center. And Tim Duncan, while good enough for government work, is not the greatest center of all time.

[DJ Mbenga]

a team with barkley , moses and dr J, would shit on every team in today's league, they didnt do shit in the 80s.

thats the thing thats how talent was in the 80's teams were stacked. remember the lakers lost due to some crazy luck the previous year (sampson's shot and michael cooper on the ground in disbelief") the 86 87 lakers had magic, kareem, worthy, then traded for michael thompson and had b-scott who was deadly from 3 and on the run and cooper (DPOY). shit that team was stacked!

[midnightpulp]

why wouldnt he be a five? unless you are nuts like don nelson who considers PG's power fowards.

I don't really care about Duncan having the "greatest power forward of all time" label. Even if he's the 4th or 5th best center of all time, he's still better than any power forward who's ever played the game.

[JoeTait75]

thats the thing thats how talent was in the 80's teams were stacked. remember the lakers lost due to some crazy luck the previous year (sampson's shot and michael cooper on the ground in disbelief") the 86 87 lakers had magic, kareem, worthy, then traded for michael thompson and had b-scott who was deadly from 3 and on the run and cooper (DPOY). shit that team was stacked!

1987-88 Lake Show had four former #1 overall picks in their rotation.

[namlook]

They were both average athletes. What was different about Bird is he had that wow factor. Like Magic he had a knack for making spectacular plays when they were needed most and he was feared in clutch situations. The players that instill fear and awe generally seem to be ranked a little higher than great players that get the job done in a more workmanlike fashion.

[eyeh8u]

I'm starting to wonder if the original poster has even seen Bird play...

Lastly, I like that the original poster lashes out at the competitive balance of the 80s with Lakers winning five, Celtic winning three and two teams winning one each when the decade the Spurs won three Titles the Lakers won four, Spurs three, and three teams won one each. It's basically the same thing... Two teams dominating the decade with a handful of teams each breaking through once.

you forgot to mention the spurs won three, the lakers four, the spurs 3, also the lakers won 4, and the lakers got 4 rings, and the spurs have 3, and lets not forget how the spurs won 3 and the lakers 4.

[mogrovejo]

in all these 'lists' i see Bird usually put ahead of Duncan.

why exactly?

bird won 3 titles. duncan won 4. bird had 2 finals MVPs. duncan has 3. none of duncans titles were back to back. neither were any of bird's. Bird was consistently outstanding for like 9-10 seasons, then broke down and retired after like 12. Duncan has had 13 consecutive outstanding seasons and counting. bird has a slight edge in offensive stats, duncan has the edge in defensive stats.

what argument exists to support Bird over Duncan? just that he played for the boston celtics?

It's something called basketballability.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, for those dissing Cousy, he did change the game with his passing ability. Of course, I wasn't around to see it live, but from everything I've read, he brought showmanship to the game. You're going to get major props whenever you're an innovator and change the way a sport is viewed/played. (Bobby Orr and Ted Williams also come to mind.)

[Warlord23]

Revisionist history for the most part.

Myth # 1: Bird had a greater peak
Bird's best statistical season would be Duncan's 5th best statistical season. Duncan's season-by-season PER blows Bird's out of the water, and then some. And stats don't even factor in defense. Duncan was the defensive backbone of the team with the best record in all of pro sports for a full decade. Bird's Celtics played in an era when defense was an afterthought, and Bird was average at best on the defensive end.

Myth # 2: Bird did more for his team.
Bird played on a team stacked with HOFs. Their only consistent competition was the Lakers. Teams like Philly and Houston had a year or two of prominence, but that was it. Duncan played in a way tougher conference where there were almost always 4 or 5 50+ win teams with a chance to make it to the Finals. Duncan's 2003 playoff campaign saw him leading his team in almost every statistical category with no current All-stars by his side.

Myth # 3: Bird picked it up for the playoffs more than Duncan
Bird's playoff PER is a full 2 points lower than his regular season PER. Duncan's playoff PER is 1 point higher than his regular season number. Only 2 of Bird's playoff runs had him post a PER above 22; in contrast Duncan had a PER above 22 in 9 of his 11 playoff runs. Bird's best playoff PER doesn't make Duncan's top 5 PER playoff runs.

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's point our Bird's real advantages:
1. Bird was a better leader, more motivated, had more fire
2. Bird was a better passer and floor general
3. Bird was more clutch in the waning minutes of big games

Those are all valid advantages, but they don't make a big enough dent in Duncan's overall body of work. Duncan was a top 3 offensive player and a top 3 defensive player for 8 straight years, Bird wasn't.

Bird's MVP awards don't mean much when you consider the way MVP award voting happens. The best player on the best team normally wins it, not the best overall player. Steve Nash has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, for Pete's sake.

Bird has a clear edge in intangibles, which is why this is even close. If Duncan had played for Boston on a stacked team, and Bird had played for the Pacers or Spurs without multiple HOFers, Duncan would be top 3 of all time and Bird would be struggling to crack the top 10.

Duncan is the best forward in NBA history. Bird is #2, and that too because Dr. J didn't have good enough teams around him all the time (and played in the ABA for 5 years)

[poop]

Revisionist history for the most part.

Myth # 1: Bird had a greater peak
Bird's best statistical season would be Duncan's 5th best statistical season. Duncan's season-by-season PER blows Bird's out of the water, and then some. And stats don't even factor in defense. Duncan was the defensive backbone of the team with the best record in all of pro sports for a full decade. Bird's Celtics played in an era when defense was an afterthought, and Bird was average at best on the defensive end.

Myth # 2: Bird did more for his team.
Bird played on a team stacked with HOFs. Their only consistent competition was the Lakers. Teams like Philly and Houston had a year or two of prominence, but that was it. Duncan played in a way tougher conference where there were almost always 4 or 5 50+ win teams with a chance to make it to the Finals. Duncan's 2003 playoff campaign saw him leading his team in almost every statistical category with no current All-stars by his side.

Myth # 3: Bird picked it up for the playoffs more than Duncan
Bird's playoff PER is a full 2 points lower than his regular season PER. Duncan's playoff PER is 1 point higher than his regular season number. Only 2 of Bird's playoff runs had him post a PER above 22; in contrast Duncan had a PER above 22 in 9 of his 11 playoff runs. Bird's best playoff PER doesn't make Duncan's top 5 PER playoff runs.

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's point our Bird's real advantages:
1. Bird was a better leader, more motivated, had more fire
2. Bird was a better passer and floor general
3. Bird was more clutch in the waning minutes of big games

Those are all valid advantages, but they don't make a big enough dent in Duncan's overall body of work. Duncan was a top 3 offensive player and a top 3 defensive player for 8 straight years, Bird wasn't.

Bird's MVP awards don't mean much when you consider the way MVP award voting happens. The best player on the best team normally wins it, not the best overall player. Steve Nash has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, for Pete's sake.

Bird has a clear edge in intangibles, which is why this is even close. If Duncan had played for Boston on a stacked team, and Bird had played for the Pacers or Spurs without multiple HOFers, Duncan would be top 3 of all time and Bird would be struggling to crack the top 10.

Duncan is the best forward in NBA history. Bird is #2, and that too because Dr. J didn't have good enough teams around him all the time (and played in the ABA for 5 years)

THANK YOU.

yes the nostalgia factor is huge here. for example the 80's celtics are regularly referred to as a dynasty, winning 3 titles in the decade, whilst most currently refuse to consider duncan's spurs one when they won 4 in a decade.

seriously, Bird had teams full of stars and hall of famers. he never WON THE TITLE with a team of role players whilst defeating a 3-time consecutive champion along the way like tim did in 2003.

[JamStone]

Revisionist history for the most part.

Myth # 1: Bird had a greater peak
Bird's best statistical season would be Duncan's 5th best statistical season. Duncan's season-by-season PER blows Bird's out of the water, and then some. And stats don't even factor in defense. Duncan was the defensive backbone of the team with the best record in all of pro sports for a full decade. Bird's Celtics played in an era when defense was an afterthought, and Bird was average at best on the defensive end.

Myth # 2: Bird did more for his team.
Bird played on a team stacked with HOFs. Their only consistent competition was the Lakers. Teams like Philly and Houston had a year or two of prominence, but that was it. Duncan played in a way tougher conference where there were almost always 4 or 5 50+ win teams with a chance to make it to the Finals. Duncan's 2003 playoff campaign saw him leading his team in almost every statistical category with no current All-stars by his side.

Myth # 3: Bird picked it up for the playoffs more than Duncan
Bird's playoff PER is a full 2 points lower than his regular season PER. Duncan's playoff PER is 1 point higher than his regular season number. Only 2 of Bird's playoff runs had him post a PER above 22; in contrast Duncan had a PER above 22 in 9 of his 11 playoff runs. Bird's best playoff PER doesn't make Duncan's top 5 PER playoff runs.

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's point our Bird's real advantages:
1. Bird was a better leader, more motivated, had more fire
2. Bird was a better passer and floor general
3. Bird was more clutch in the waning minutes of big games

Those are all valid advantages, but they don't make a big enough dent in Duncan's overall body of work. Duncan was a top 3 offensive player and a top 3 defensive player for 8 straight years, Bird wasn't.

Bird's MVP awards don't mean much when you consider the way MVP award voting happens. The best player on the best team normally wins it, not the best overall player. Steve Nash has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, for Pete's sake.

Bird has a clear edge in intangibles, which is why this is even close. If Duncan had played for Boston on a stacked team, and Bird had played for the Pacers or Spurs without multiple HOFers, Duncan would be top 3 of all time and Bird would be struggling to crack the top 10.

Duncan is the best forward in NBA history. Bird is #2, and that too because Dr. J didn't have good enough teams around him all the time (and played in the ABA for 5 years)

Do you rank Shaq over Tim?

[JamStone]

Any 10 year span is a decade. It doesn't have to be "80s" or "90s."

Are you an imbecile?

[JMarkJohns]

THANK YOU.

yes the nostalgia factor is huge here. for example the 80's celtics are regularly referred to as a dynasty, winning 3 titles in the decade, whilst most currently refuse to consider duncan's spurs one when they won 4 in a decade.

seriously, Bird had teams full of stars and hall of famers. he never WON THE TITLE with a team of role players whilst defeating a 3-time consecutive champion along the way like tim did in 2003.

You still sound like someone posting on a player you've never seen.

Duncan won two Titles alongside a former MVP and future HOFer in Robinson and many think Manu Ginobli will make the HOF. Parker is a Finals MVP. Bowen was one of the best defenders in the NBA. There's a groundswell of support for Horry to be mentioned in some "clutch" section at the HOF. You're diminishing the Spurs too much by saying Duncan had only role players. He routinely had current All-Stars on his team, and the role players he did work with, were some of the best role players in the NBA at the time, and some of the clutchest shooters to ever play (Horry and Kerr).

[ezau]

Revisionist history for the most part.

Myth # 1: Bird had a greater peak
Bird's best statistical season would be Duncan's 5th best statistical season. Duncan's season-by-season PER blows Bird's out of the water, and then some. And stats don't even factor in defense. Duncan was the defensive backbone of the team with the best record in all of pro sports for a full decade. Bird's Celtics played in an era when defense was an afterthought, and Bird was average at best on the defensive end.

Myth # 2: Bird did more for his team.
Bird played on a team stacked with HOFs. Their only consistent competition was the Lakers. Teams like Philly and Houston had a year or two of prominence, but that was it. Duncan played in a way tougher conference where there were almost always 4 or 5 50+ win teams with a chance to make it to the Finals. Duncan's 2003 playoff campaign saw him leading his team in almost every statistical category with no current All-stars by his side.

Myth # 3: Bird picked it up for the playoffs more than Duncan
Bird's playoff PER is a full 2 points lower than his regular season PER. Duncan's playoff PER is 1 point higher than his regular season number. Only 2 of Bird's playoff runs had him post a PER above 22; in contrast Duncan had a PER above 22 in 9 of his 11 playoff runs. Bird's best playoff PER doesn't make Duncan's top 5 PER playoff runs.

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's point our Bird's real advantages:
1. Bird was a better leader, more motivated, had more fire
2. Bird was a better passer and floor general
3. Bird was more clutch in the waning minutes of big games

Those are all valid advantages, but they don't make a big enough dent in Duncan's overall body of work. Duncan was a top 3 offensive player and a top 3 defensive player for 8 straight years, Bird wasn't.

Bird's MVP awards don't mean much when you consider the way MVP award voting happens. The best player on the best team normally wins it, not the best overall player. Steve Nash has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, for Pete's sake.

Bird has a clear edge in intangibles, which is why this is even close. If Duncan had played for Boston on a stacked team, and Bird had played for the Pacers or Spurs without multiple HOFers, Duncan would be top 3 of all time and Bird would be struggling to crack the top 10.

Duncan is the best forward in NBA history. Bird is #2, and that too because Dr. J didn't have good enough teams around him all the time (and played in the ABA for 5 years)

With this being said, let's put Bird where he belongs and that's below Duncan.

[JMarkJohns]

Not sure how different they are from "per" (which is oft belittled until its needed, BTW), but Bird's first nine years yielded a winshare average of 13.75 while Duncan's first nine years yielded 13.01... Obviously after Bird's first nine years his production dropped off drastically, so I only averaged for rookie through peak prime. Duncan's two best win-shares are better than Bird's, but Bird was more consistent throughout.

[in2deep]

He's white. He's the best white player ever. Of course he'll be overrrated.

it's like those asians saying yao is one of the best centers ever, or those damn argentines saying Manu is top 10 SG ever

[JMarkJohns]

He's white. He's the best white player ever. Of course he'll be overrrated.

Looking at statistics, basketball-reference.com's algorithms have Bird as 5th best All-Time and Duncan at 8th.

[JamStone]

lol, you bi-sexual you. You know what I meant. I should have been more clear, such as your stance on being flat out gay.:rollin

Dating bisexual women doesn't make me bisexual. Does the fact that there are no female Lakers players and you are a "lakaluva" mean you're flat out gay? So which Laka do you luv? Sometimes you're too moronic for even you.

And the comment was "in a decade." A decade is any 10 year period.

I know it might be too much to ask, but stop being stupid.

[SomeCallMeTim]

a team with barkley , moses and dr J, would shit on every team in today's league, they didnt do shit in the 80s.

That team (without Barkley) won a title... you must've forgotten that.

When Barkley came along, it was Rookie Barkley teamed up with past-his-prime Dr. J and past-his-prime Malone.

They didn't win it all for the same reason the Barkley/Olajuwon/Pippen triumvirate didn't... it's not just who you have, it's at what stage of their career you have them.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Duncan did not win 4 in the decade. GET YOUR SHIT STRAIGHT.

Duncan won 4 rings in a decade, that's what the OP wrote. And it's true.

[in2deep]

Looking at statistics, basketball-reference.com's algorithms have Bird as 5th best All-Time and Duncan at 8th.

that may be. I havent' looked at the stats. But are they including defense and like the OP says, consistency over the years, what about the importance of each one to their team's championships?

regardless, he'll still be overrrated due to skin color. It's just human nature.

[SomeCallMeTim]

They were both average athletes. What was different about Bird is he had that wow factor. Like Magic he had a knack for making spectacular plays when they were needed most and he was feared in clutch situations. The players that instill fear and awe generally seem to be ranked a little higher that great players that get the job done in a more workmanlike fashion.

I think that pretty much nails it.

Bird was a more entertaining player on a more entertaining team. Those are subjective opinions, of course, but I think there's plenty of evidence to back it up. I take nothing away from Spurfan enjoyment of that team or titles... when it's "your" team watching them win is plenty entertaining and Duncan's Spurs have been an awesome team for a long time -- though that dominance appears to be gone.

That said, "more entertaining" does not mean "better." Plenty has been written about the areas where Bird was better, but they all have to do with exactly half the game. Duncan dominates the other half... Bird was a good defensive player but Duncan was a game-changer defensively.

I think you can make the argument that Bird's peak was higher than Duncan's, but it's not that far apart IMO. And Duncan certainly has longevity on Bird.

At this point, I'd say Bird is slightly above Duncan, but it's close. And Duncan's career isn't over.

[JMarkJohns]

Bird wasn't anywhere near the defender that Duncan is, however, he made multiple defensive second teams in his career and had four seasons where he finished #1 overall in NBA in defensive win shares. All of this is based upon statistical and matchup analysis so race and legacy aren't factors.

[JMarkJohns]

regardless, he'll still be overrrated due to skin color. It's just human nature.

He's not overrated if the statistics say he's 5th best All-Time and most everybody else is saying he's roughly top-5 All-Time. Methinks you don't understand how overrating works.

NOW... if people were saying he was better than Jordan, then sure... overrated. As of now, I've seen him ranked highest at #2, and most roughly 4/5.

[SomeCallMeTim]

He played center in college. He's been a pro center since, when, David Robinson retired? He's a center. And Tim Duncan, while good enough for government work, is not the greatest center of all time.

Yeah, having to be stacked up against the NBA's great Cs really hurts Duncan. It's a lot easier to come out on top when compared with the relatively weak cadre of PFs: Malone, Barkley, Garnett, etc.

Not so much when compared with the likes of Kareem, Wilt, Olajuwon, and Shaq. Not that there's any shame in that.

[JMarkJohns]

that may be. I havent' looked at the stats. But are they including defense and like the OP says, consistency over the years, what about the importance of each one to their team's championships?

This...

Looking at statistics, basketball-reference.com's algorithms have Bird as 5th best All-Time and Duncan at 8th.

This...

Not sure how different they are from "per" (which is oft belittled until its needed, BTW), but Bird's first nine years yielded a winshare average of 13.75 while Duncan's first nine years yielded 13.01... Obviously after Bird's first nine years his production dropped off drastically, so I only averaged for rookie through peak prime. Duncan's two best win-shares are better than Bird's, but Bird was more consistent throughout.

And this...

Bird wasn't anywhere near the defender that Duncan is, however, Bird made multiple defensive second teams in his career and had four seasons where he finished #1 overall in NBA in defensive win shares. All of this is based upon statistical and matchup analysis so race and legacy aren't factors.

Winshares directly speaks to the +/- of said player in win/loss contributions.

[SomeCallMeTim]

He's not overrated if the statistics say he's 5th best All-Time and most everybody else is saying he's roughly top-5 All-Time. Methinks you don't understand how overrating works.

NOW... if people were saying he was better than Jordan, then sure... overrated. As of now, I've seen him ranked highest at #2, and most roughly 4/5.

Agreed. I think he's generally ranked right about where he should be.

I think people may like him more or remember him more fondly because of being that unique white dude among a group almost completely dominated by black men... but he seems to be rated pretty accurately IMO.

[namlook]

He's not overrated if the statistics say he's 5th best All-Time and most everybody else is saying he's roughly top-5 All-Time. Methinks you don't understand how overrating works.


Bird is top 5 if you consider the top 5 players at each position. He's the best small forward. But Bird is not top 5 overall if you consider the top 5 players that had the biggest impact on the game.

[Darthkiller]

Bird is top 5 if you consider the top 5 players at each position. He's the best small forward. But Bird is not top 5 overall if you consider the top 5 players that had the biggest impact on the game.

http://bestofepicfail.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/trivia_fail.jpg

[JMarkJohns]

Bird is top 5 if you consider the top 5 players at each position. He's the best small forward. But Bird is not top 5 overall if you consider the top 5 players that had the biggest impact on the game.

Again, statistical and matchup analysis says otherwise.

[poop]

i think the duncan spurs will be remembered in about 20 years time much like the bird celtics are now. lots of people hated them at the time but now its like a big nostalgic lovefest.
plus i think alot of people are skewed by the current, old, non-dominant duncan of the last couple years and tend to not fully remember the complete, unstoppable force (on both ends) he was earlier in his career.

[da_suns_fan]

i think the duncan spurs will be remembered in about 20 years time much like the bird celtics are now. lots of people hated them at the time but now its like a big nostalgic lovefest.
plus i think alot of people are skewed by the current, old, non-dominant duncan of the last couple years and tend to not fully remember the complete, unstoppable force (on both ends) he was earlier in his career.

:lol

You really think anyones going to remember the Spurs? Im sorry, but no one watches their games, no one remembers any of their finals appearances, no ones going to be arguing about them 20 years from now.

In twenty years, people will remember Duncan and Ginobili, but to compare them with the 80s Celitcs is ridiculous. The Celitcs were HUGE in the 80s. I mean HUGE. I remember half of Veterans Memorial Coliseum was green on the nights the Suns would play the Celtics (much like games against the Lakers are today).

[Spurminator]

I didn't see enough of Bird to make a comparison. I have no problem with anyone ranking Duncan below Bird because just being in that conversation means a hell of a lot.

I do wonder, though, if Duncan had put together the exact same resume as a member of the Celtics, who would Boston fans consider the greatest Celtic ever?

[Spurminator]

I didn't see enough of Bird to make a comparison. I have no problem with anyone ranking Duncan below Bird because just being in that conversation means a hell of a lot.

I do wonder, though, if Duncan had put together the exact same resume as a member of the Celtics, who would Boston fans consider the greatest Celtic ever?

Dumb question, Bill Russell.

Rephrased: Who would Boston fans consider to be the better Celtic?

[dirk4mvp]

The only people who consider Duncan a PF are spurfans with small wangs who want to give him a meaningless title like greatest PF ever since historically the PF position is a lot weaker than the C position.

[sook]

oh come on.

Bird is easil the 2nd or 3rd greatest player of all time, depending on whether you put magic above him or not.

Its not a knock on duncan, Hakeem, Barkley, Kobe or anyone else.

[sook]

The only people who consider Duncan a PF are spurfans with small wangs who want to give him a meaningless title like greatest PF ever since historically the PF position is a lot weaker than the C position.

wtf??! :lol:lmao

[duhoh]

Wait, how am I wrong?..you actually expected them to say Duncan is better than any of those guys?..that would mean they have to actually name one of those players and say Timmy is ahead of them, which is something Pop/Duncan would never do..

You can't just say somebody is "wrong" when they aren't..you do that very often..

putting a best label on anything is subjective.

some people argue legitimately that magic was better than jordan.

y so srs?

[duhoh]

The only people who consider Duncan a PF are spurfans with small wangs who want to give him a meaningless title like greatest PF ever since historically the PF position is a lot weaker than the C position.

so dirk. . . . :lol

[Mel_13]

i think the duncan spurs will be remembered in about 20 years time much like the bird celtics are now. lots of people hated them at the time but now its like a big nostalgic lovefest.
plus i think alot of people are skewed by the current, old, non-dominant duncan of the last couple years and tend to not fully remember the complete, unstoppable force (on both ends) he was earlier in his career.

I assume that you are much younger than 40, because that alone would account for how wrong you are here. You just haven't seen enough players and teams come and go to be able to recognize those which will have historical staying power and those which will fade.

Larry Bird and his Celtics will be well remembered for as long as people write and talk about the NBA. They were part of a compelling narrative that has already been told and retold thousands of time. The story had everything a good tale needs.

You had two distinctly different, yet equally excellent, hero figures in Bird and Magic. You had a distinct beginning in the 1979 NCAA Championship Game. That was followed by a decade long struggle between their two teams which represented two cities separated in every possible way. Their teams accounted for 8 titles in nine years. As the story neared a close you had an element of tragedy with Magic's HIV announcement. Finally, you have the triumphant finale with both players on the podium in Barcelona.

The stories of Bird and Magic, and the Celtics and Lakers of the 80s, will always be among the great stories in the history of the NBA. Those Celtics teams will always be remembered as will Bird.

There is no such compelling story surrounding Tim Duncan or the teams he led. As the years go by, they will be fondly remembered here in San Antonio, but not so much elsewhere. It doesn't matter if you could prove with mathematical certainty that Duncan and his Spurs were better than Bird and his Celtics in some objective, scientific way. There is no great story to serve as the basis for books, movies, and ESPN specials.


Who would Boston fans consider to be the better Celtic?

That all being said, if everything the Duncan-era Spurs accomplished had happened in Madison Square Garden their current fame and historical staying power would be multiplied several times over.

[mogrovejo]

Dumb question, Bill Russell.

Rephrased: Who would Boston fans consider to be the better Celtic?

Bird
Russell

[mogrovejo]

Dumb question, Bill Russell.

Rephrased: Who would Boston fans consider to be the better Celtic?

1. Bird
2. Russell
3. Hondo

[JamStone]

Larry Bird and his Celtics will be well remembered for as long as people write and talk about the NBA. They were part of a compelling narrative that has already been told and retold thousands of time. The story had everything a good tale needs.

You had two distinctly different, yet equally excellent, hero figures in Bird and Magic. You had a distinct beginning in the 1979 NCAA Championship Game. That was followed by a decade long struggle between their two teams which represented two cities separated in every possible way. Their teams accounted for 8 titles in nine years. As the story neared a close you had an element of tragedy with Magic's HIV announcement. Finally, you have the triumphant finale with both players on the podium in Barcelona.

The stories of Bird and Magic, and the Celtics and Lakers of the 80s, will always be among the great stories in the history of the NBA. Those Celtics teams will always be remembered as will Bird.

As I was reading this, I could hear one of those movie narrators with the deep voices saying this with orchestral music in the background.

Fade scene.

Big explosion.

... and he's back for vengeance!

[poop]

i dont give a flying shit about who would have the better made-for-TV-movie, what their 'story' is, who happened to land in the more huge market, ancient and blessed franchise, or if one of them got fucking AIDS(oh how sad :rolleyes), or any of that other NOSTALGIC bullshit, all im comparing are the two men and what they achieved on the fucking basketball court....:rolleyes

take away all that excess nostalgia, background 'stories', what you fondly remember as a kid (:rolleyes) and all that other bullshit, and Tim Duncan should not be placed below Larry Bird in a ranking basketball players. tim duncan did more with less-and did more period-than bird.(not a knock on bird he was certainly awesome)

[Mel_13]

i dont give a flying shit about who would have the better made-for-TV-movie, what their 'story' is, who happened to land in the more huge market, ancient and blessed franchise, or if one of them got fucking AIDS(oh how sad :rolleyes), or any of that other NOSTALGIC bullshit, all im comparing are the two men and what they achieved on the fucking basketball court....:rolleyes

take away all that excess nostalgia, background 'stories', what you fondly remember as a kid (:rolleyes) and all that other bullshit, and Tim Duncan should not be placed below Larry Bird in a ranking basketball players. tim duncan did more with less-and did more period-than bird.(not a knock on bird he was certainly awesome)

Read your own post.

You know, the one I quoted. You know, the one where you predicted that the Duncan Spurs would be remembered in 20 years in much the same way that Bird's Celtics are today.

Duncan's Spurs will certainly not be remembered in the same way as the Bird Celtics for precisely the reasons I cited. You've gone back to talking about their relative merits as basketball players, which I did not address. I addressed your post and detailed why Bird is still such a popular topic today and why Duncan will not be 20 years from now.

[poop]

obviously i meant duncans spurs will be respected and remembered in the future as a great team even though there are lots of haters currently, much like how tons of people hated boston back then but now the 'hate' is gone and everyone acknowledges and respects their greatness.

obviously the 'fame' aspect wont be there due to the spurs being a comparatively tiny market.

[Mel_13]

obviously i meant duncans spurs will be respected and remembered in the future as a great team even though there are lots of haters currently, much like how tons of people hated boston back then but now the 'hate' is gone and everyone acknowledges and respects their greatness.

obviously the 'fame' aspect wont be there due to the spurs being a comparatively tiny market.

Serious observers will always value Duncan and the Spurs he led.

Subjective lists for popular consumption will underrate Duncan and the Spurs as the years pass. That's why I think these debates about players from different eras are a waste of time. Personal biases are shaped by the representations of the players/teams in popular culture. As time goes by, popular culture will not be kind to Duncan and the Spurs. It's just the way it is for a small market team with a superstar who is not concerned with self-promotion.

Young fans twenty years from now, fans that will be too young to have even seen LeBron play, will know much more about Larry and Magic than they will about Tim Duncan. Larry and Magic have secure places on the all-time lists, Tim's position on those lists is likely to gradually fall over the years as the next GOATs come along.

[JamStone]

I think there's a misconception by you that people hate the Spurs. Most don't. Perhaps some Mavs fans but I don't even think most of them do. Most people, even fans of other teams, have a requisite respect for Duncan and the Spurs. You are mischaracterizing a lack of enthusiastic admiration for hate. People respect Duncan. People know he's great. It's really a matter of preference when you talk about a comparison between Duncan and Bird. And there is plenty of evidence to support Bird as the better player. It's not like people are placing championship-less players like Karl Malone or Charles Barkley over Duncan. Bird was a multiple champion, multiple league MVP, multiple Finals MVP.

I also think you mischaracterize the competition of the 80s. It wasn't just the Celtics and Lakers. Philly and Houston were great championship caliber teams in the early 80s. The Pistons, Bucks, Cavs, Suns, Dominique's hawks, the up-and-coming Bulls, and Jazz were all really good to great teams later in the decade as well. The Celtics beat some great teams in there three championship runs. they beat the Lakers, Pistons, and Sixers, all former championship teams, as well as the Rockets, Hawks, and Bucks. The Spurs also beat some grea teams along the way like the Lakers and Pistons and Mavs and Suns. But I still think you discredit the 80s competition too much. There was great competition in the 80s.

Moreover, I think you have mischaracterized the talent on those Celtics teams when you suggest it was stacked full of HOFers. McHale was obviously one. However, Robert Parish is a borderline HOFer who got into the HOF in great part because of Bird. He never even averaged 20 PPG as a Celtic. If not for the Bird and those Celtics title teams, I think there's a good chance he's not a HOFer. Other than that, you had a way over-the-hill and injured Bill Walton. The only other HOF caliber player was Dennis Johnson, who is NOT in the HOF. That team was very talented. Don't get me wrong. But it isn't the type of talented team you imply it was when you suggest it was stocked full of HOFers. Go back and look at those Celtics teams the several previous seasons before Bird got there. They were reeling in hopes of getting back to the glory years of Russell. Bird was the difference.

[cobbler]

I think there's a misconception by you that people hate the Spurs. Most don't. Perhaps some Mavs fans but I don't even think most of them do. Most people, even fans of other teams, have a requisite respect for Duncan and the Spurs. You are mischaracterizing a lack of enthusiastic admiration for hate. People respect Duncan. People know he's great. It's really a matter of preference when you talk about a comparison between Duncan and Bird. And there is plenty of evidence to support Bird as the better player. It's not like people are placing championship-less players like Karl Malone or Charles Barkley over Duncan. Bird was a multiple champion, multiple league MVP, multiple Finals MVP.

I also think you mischaracterize the competition of the 80s. It wasn't just the Celtics and Lakers. Philly and Houston were great championship caliber teams in the early 80s. The Pistons, Bucks, Cavs, Suns, Dominique's hawks, the up-and-coming Bulls, and Jazz were all really good to great teams later in the decade as well. The Celtics beat some great teams in there three championship runs. they beat the Lakers, Pistons, and Sixers, all former championship teams, as well as the Rockets, Hawks, and Bucks. The Spurs also beat some grea teams along the way like the Lakers and Pistons and Mavs and Suns. But I still think you discredit the 80s competition too much. There was great competition in the 80s.

Moreover, I think you have mischaracterized the talent on those Celtics teams when you suggest it was stacked full of HOFers. McHale was obviously one. However, Robert Parish is a borderline HOFer who got into the HOF in great part because of Bird. He never even averaged 20 PPG as a Celtic. If not for the Bird and those Celtics title teams, I think there's a good chance he's not a HOFer. Other than that, you had a way over-the-hill and injured Bill Walton. The only other HOF caliber player was Dennis Johnson, who is NOT in the HOF. That team was very talented. Don't get me wrong. But it isn't the type of talented team you imply it was when you suggest it was stocked full of HOFers. Go back and look at those Celtics teams the several previous seasons before Bird got there. They were reeling in hopes of getting back to the glory years of Russell. Bird was the difference.

Well said. :toast

[JoeTait75]

I also think you mischaracterize the competition of the 80s. It wasn't just the Celtics and Lakers. Philly and Houston were great championship caliber teams in the early 80s. The Pistons, Bucks, Cavs, Suns, Dominique's hawks, the up-and-coming Bulls, and Jazz were all really good to great teams later in the decade as well. The Celtics beat some great teams in there three championship runs. they beat the Lakers, Pistons, and Sixers, all former championship teams, as well as the Rockets, Hawks, and Bucks. The Spurs also beat some grea teams along the way like the Lakers and Pistons and Mavs and Suns. But I still think you discredit the 80s competition too much. There was great competition in the 80s.

The East as a whole was stacked in the '80s. Milwaukee, a distant third in the East behind Boston and Philadelphia, would have been the clear second best team in the West behind Los Angeles. Boston, in its own division, had to go through a 76er team that was absolutely stacked and arguably had better talent than the Celtics themselves. In 1980-81 and 1981-82 the Celtics and 76ers were 1-2 in the NBA in overall record and played in the ECF, in series that went the full seven.


Moreover, I think you have mischaracterized the talent on those Celtics teams when you suggest it was stacked full of HOFers. McHale was obviously one. However, Robert Parish is a borderline HOFer who got into the HOF in great part because of Bird. He never even averaged 20 PPG as a Celtic. If not for the Bird and those Celtics title teams, I think there's a good chance he's not a HOFer. Other than that, you had a way over-the-hill and injured Bill Walton. The only other HOF caliber player was Dennis Johnson, who is NOT in the HOF. That team was very talented. Don't get me wrong. But it isn't the type of talented team you imply it was when you suggest it was stocked full of HOFers. Go back and look at those Celtics teams the several previous seasons before Bird got there. They were reeling in hopes of getting back to the glory years of Russell. Bird was the difference.

I would say that there were only two years (1980-81, 1985-86) where the Celtics weren't an inferior team to the Lakers, FWIW. And they may have been inferior to the Philadelphia teams of the early '80s. There might have been one season (1985-86) where Boston was flat-out the best team in the NBA. And those Celtics ALWAYS had depth issues. They were a great team but not flawless by any stretch.

[Thomas82]

Revisionist history for the most part.

Myth # 1: Bird had a greater peak
Bird's best statistical season would be Duncan's 5th best statistical season. Duncan's season-by-season PER blows Bird's out of the water, and then some. And stats don't even factor in defense. Duncan was the defensive backbone of the team with the best record in all of pro sports for a full decade. Bird's Celtics played in an era when defense was an afterthought, and Bird was average at best on the defensive end.

Myth # 2: Bird did more for his team.
Bird played on a team stacked with HOFs. Their only consistent competition was the Lakers. Teams like Philly and Houston had a year or two of prominence, but that was it. Duncan played in a way tougher conference where there were almost always 4 or 5 50+ win teams with a chance to make it to the Finals. Duncan's 2003 playoff campaign saw him leading his team in almost every statistical category with no current All-stars by his side.

Myth # 3: Bird picked it up for the playoffs more than Duncan
Bird's playoff PER is a full 2 points lower than his regular season PER. Duncan's playoff PER is 1 point higher than his regular season number. Only 2 of Bird's playoff runs had him post a PER above 22; in contrast Duncan had a PER above 22 in 9 of his 11 playoff runs. Bird's best playoff PER doesn't make Duncan's top 5 PER playoff runs.

So now that we've got that out of the way, let's point our Bird's real advantages:
1. Bird was a better leader, more motivated, had more fire
2. Bird was a better passer and floor general
3. Bird was more clutch in the waning minutes of big games

Those are all valid advantages, but they don't make a big enough dent in Duncan's overall body of work. Duncan was a top 3 offensive player and a top 3 defensive player for 8 straight years, Bird wasn't.

Bird's MVP awards don't mean much when you consider the way MVP award voting happens. The best player on the best team normally wins it, not the best overall player. Steve Nash has 2 MVPs to Shaq's 1, for Pete's sake.

Bird has a clear edge in intangibles, which is why this is even close. If Duncan had played for Boston on a stacked team, and Bird had played for the Pacers or Spurs without multiple HOFers, Duncan would be top 3 of all time and Bird would be struggling to crack the top 10.

Duncan is the best forward in NBA history. Bird is #2, and that too because Dr. J didn't have good enough teams around him all the time (and played in the ABA for 5 years)

Best post in the thread!!

[dirk4mvp]

lmao poop mad because expected this thread to go a different direction

[petee]

lmao poop mad because expected this thread to go a different direction
then let me retrieve it back to the topic of Duncan and Bird comparison. Bird played the game in wider areas than Duncan has been doing, with accurate shooting from as far as the arc, but I'd say Duncan is a greater player overall genuinely not only because Duncan has more rings mantled but also the impacts Duncan brings are far bigger than Bird's.

With so many superb supporting cards like McHale, Bird only managed 2 rings through his whole career IIRC while Tim Duncan earned 4 with the same class of assistants, if not under those of Bird's. Bird played soft games and lacked the strength or mettle needed to salvage his team as what's always done by real leaders like Tim Duncan. In the highest respects, Bird is no more than a 7-ft shooting guard and isn't supposed to win any ring, it's just because of his superb teammates and some good luck he retired with rings.

[SomeCallMeTim]

then let me retrieve it back to the topic of Duncan and Bird comparison. Bird played the game in wider areas than Duncan has been doing, with accurate shooting from as far as the arc, but I'd say Duncan is a greater player overall genuinely not only because Duncan has more rings mantled but also the impacts Duncan brings are far bigger than Bird's.

With so many superb supporting cards like McHale, Bird only managed 2 rings through his whole career IIRC while Tim Duncan earned 4 with the same class of assistants, if not under those of Bird's. Bird played soft games and lacked the strength or mettle needed to salvage his team as what's always done by real leaders like Tim Duncan. In the highest respects, Bird is no more than a 7-ft shooting guard and isn't supposed to win any ring, it's just because of his superb teammates and some good luck he retired with rings.

Finally, someone drops some real knowledge in this thread. Bird's success was due to luck, indeed.

BTW, you were off on the number of rings Bird won, he won 1 IIRC. Until there's some way to look these things up, I'll just go from memory.

[YoMamaIsCallin]

re: Bird overrated because of being white -- my opinion is that, if anything, he was underrated because of being white. You can make an argument that run-of-the-mill players get some advantage from being white, if only because they are a minority and stand out a bit. But when you're all-NBA caliber, I think it's probably the opposite.

re: Bird not being athletic -- athleticism in basketball is not a one-dimensional thing. It's not just about moving quickly and jumping high. Bird had the most skilled and quick hands and arms and generally upper body I ever saw. And his ability to shoot from any angle and pass accurately was simply amazing.

This went along with an amazingly arrogant kick-ass attitude. He simply believed no one could stop him or beat him. Self-confidence goes a long way to success.

[duncan228]

With so many superb supporting cards like McHale, Bird only managed 2 rings through his whole career IIRC...


BTW, you were off on the number of rings Bird won, he won 1 IIRC. Until there's some way to look these things up, I'll just go from memory.

Just for the record, Bird won 3 Championships, 1981, 84, and 86. He was Finals MVP 2 of them. He won 3 League MVPs in a row, 1984, 85, and 86.

[Biggems]

well if he is the top PF of all-time and he isnt in the top 10, then that means the PF position is not very high on the list.

[poop]

duncan: starting PF with robinson as Center from '98 thru 2003
starting PF with 7-footers rasho or nazi starting Center from '04 thru '07

so tim duncan's entire prime career 1998 thru 2007 was as a PF while starting alongside a starting 7-foot Center.

but yes, continue your great arguement that he was actually the center all along.

[Darthkiller]

u people do realize before jordan made his first 3 peat, bird was considered the GOAT by majority of the nba people. i guess most of u werent born then judging by the comments posted here.

[poop]

u people do realize before jordan made his first 3 peat, bird was considered the GOAT by majority of the nba people. i guess most of u werent born then judging by the comments posted here.

whatever, put bird in todays game and he would be good, but not dominate. all the old players' stats are inflated beyond belief. wilt 50 and 25 pg :rolleyes put bird in there now and he'd have about an 8 year career with 20 ppg, 8 assts and maybe 7 rb.

put Bill '19ppg and 27 rb per game' Russell in today and he'd get 15 and 10.
put tim duncan in russell's era and he'd get 35 and 20.

hell put shaq back in the 60's and early 70-'s and he'd do 40 and 30.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I didn't read the whole thread, but it's hard to compare Bird and Duncan because they played in different eras. I am certain it's been discussed before, but suppose Duncan came to the Spurs in 1979 along with Bird and Magic's entry into the NBA? He certainly would have gotten a lot of exposure.

Now, the east was Dr. J vs. Bird, and the Sixers won the east 3 of the first 4 years starting in 1979-80. The west would be Magic and Kareem vs. Duncan and Gervin. Could the Spurs have won the west and then the NBA title in the 1980's?

It's great fodder for discussion. My point is, if Duncan and Bird met in the finals, there would be a better definition of comparison. I'll say this:

Lakers were weakest in 1981, 1983, and 1986. Would those Spurs be better than Houston in 1981 and 1986? They would face both Philly's and Boston's best teams in 1983 and 1986. 1981 was Boston's first season with McHale and Parish. How would Duncan and Gervin fare against the better Lakers teams of the 1980's?

Tim Duncan is probably a better player than Bird, but he'll never get his due. We need 3 lists; centers, forwards, and guards. Or maybe 5 lists if you wish to separate positions further. It is unfair to compare players who do different things on the court.

[ezau]

The only thing people will remember about the 2000's is Kobe. Duncan is already forgotten.

They'll remember Kobe for raping a white bitch.

[ezau]

oh come on.

Bird is easil the 2nd or 3rd greatest player of all time, depending on whether you put magic above him or not.

Its not a knock on duncan, Hakeem, Barkley, Kobe or anyone else.

Why is Kobe even in this sentence?

[lennyalderette]

he's a better player. Doesn't possess longjevity Duncan has had. But his influence on basketball is far bigger than Duncan's
are you serious??!?!!?!?! other than dirk, i havent heard" i model my game after bird" then again you hear every PF say they hate the spurs but they model their game after timmy so i would say timmy is just as important if not more of an influence

[Galileo]

in all these 'lists' i see Bird usually put ahead of Duncan.

why exactly?

bird won 3 titles. duncan won 4. bird had 2 finals MVPs. duncan has 3. none of duncans titles were back to back. neither were any of bird's. Bird was consistently outstanding for like 9-10 seasons, then broke down and retired after like 12. Duncan has had 13 consecutive outstanding seasons and counting. bird has a slight edge in offensive stats, duncan has the edge in defensive stats.

what argument exists to support Bird over Duncan? just that he played for the boston celtics?

Duncan is better, I agree. Your team wins more games and more championships with Duncan.

[Darthkiller]

whatever, put bird in todays game and he would be good, but not dominate. all the old players' stats are inflated beyond belief. wilt 50 and 25 pg :rolleyes put bird in there now and he'd have about an 8 year career with 20 ppg, 8 assts and maybe 7 rb.

put Bill '19ppg and 27 rb per game' Russell in today and he'd get 15 and 10.
put tim duncan in russell's era and he'd get 35 and 20.

hell put shaq back in the 60's and early 70-'s and he'd do 40 and 30.

wow are u that stupid. u realized that bird played in the 80s and 90s right?

since bird schooled jordan everytime they played. are u saying that jordan would just be a 18 ppg scrub in today's nba? oh wait, a nearly 40 year old jordan still averaged 22 ppg when with the wizards.

[JamStone]

Lol Bird routinely punked better athletes at the small forward position when he played. He put it on Dominique, Dr. J, Dennis Rodman, James Worthy. All guys who athletically could compete in today's NBA. It's crazy to think he couldn't similarly dominate in today's NBA. He might have some struggles defensively against certain players, but his offense wasn't predicated on athleticism. He was quick enough to be dominant back then. And he used skill and IQ to beat opponents. He's still be a 25/8/5 guy in today's NBA.

[Mel_13]

Lol Bird routinely punked better athletes at the small forward position when he played. He put it on Dominique, Dr. J, Dennis Rodman, James Worthy. All guys who athletically could compete in today's NBA. It's crazy to think he couldn't similarly dominate in today's NBA. He might have some struggles defensively against certain players, but his offense wasn't predicated on athleticism. He was quick enough to be dominant back then. And he used skill and IQ to beat opponents. He's still be a 25/8/5 guy in today's NBA.

All true.

These lists are subjective opinions, but I still can't understand why anyone is bothered if Duncan's name typically appears a few spots below Bird's on most lists. Bird and Magic saved the NBA from descending into irrelevancy and their places near the very top of these lists reflects those contributions in addition to their undeniable individual greatness.

[wekko368]

duncan: starting PF with robinson as Center from '98 thru 2003
starting PF with 7-footers rasho or nazi starting Center from '04 thru '07

so tim duncan's entire prime career 1998 thru 2007 was as a PF while starting alongside a starting 7-foot Center.

but yes, continue your great arguement that he was actually the center all along.

I'm curious why you think it's impossible for a team to have two centers on the court at the same time.

[JMarkJohns]

whatever, put bird in todays game and he would be good, but not dominate. all the old players' stats are inflated beyond belief. wilt 50 and 25 pg :rolleyes put bird in there now and he'd have about an 8 year career with 20 ppg, 8 assts and maybe 7 rb.

put Bill '19ppg and 27 rb per game' Russell in today and he'd get 15 and 10.
put tim duncan in russell's era and he'd get 35 and 20.

hell put shaq back in the 60's and early 70-'s and he'd do 40 and 30.

Further proof my early suspicions of you having never seen Bird play were dead on... As others have already said, you're flat-out wrong in your assessment. As to whether Duncan should be ranked higher than Bird, I can't tell you anything more than I already have. The statistical comparisons have Bird as the 5th best player, Duncan the 8th. The stastical and matchup analysis has Bird with a higher winshares for the first nine years of his career (13.75) than does Duncan (13.01) over his first nine years. Again, this is prejudice-free statistical comparisons. You have already proven willing to diminish them, but as DarthKiller and Jamstone have already illustrated, you're very wrong in such actions. The 1980's were arguably the most competitive decade in basketball's history, and Bird was arguably the player of the decade.

[picc84]

He'd dominate more.

[Galileo]

Bird and Magic used to kick the shit out of Jordan. So did Hakeem.