Lebron James or Larry Bird???

[pass1st]

Bird makes more fancy passes.

Lebron makes more PG types of passes, as his vision is incredible. You can have Lebron run PG. Larry is not a guy you want running PG.

Larry isn't athletic enough to be a PG, but to say his passes are just fancy is ignoring the fact that they both had similar passing statistics. LBJ had a few more assists, but Bird has a few less TOs. In this respect, neither one has an unquestionable upper hand.

Bird also averaged more rebounds, which is impressive considering he our-rebounded Parish often and wasn't nearly the athlete as Lebron.

Lebron is unquestionably a better defender, though, since his athleticism lets him be a much more versatile defender. Still, Bird was a good defender, not a great one; the gap isn't huge.

Leadership is a variable right now, Bird is still the better leader by leaps and bounds, but Lebron will likely have a long career and time to make a case for that.

Saying that Lebron is unquestionably better from a skillset perspective isn't really correct. Larry did just about everything at an acceptable to prodigal level. Lebron makes a strong case to take the throne from Bird, but he still needs to accomplish more at the high level he's been playing at to prove he's the best SF without question.

[cobbler]

So Lebron is defended by people who are 6-8 inches shorter, and 40+ lbs lighter than him on a nightly basis?

The average height of centers in Wilts era was 6'10. Look it up instead of tossing out bull numbers with no basis in fact. That would be a 3 inch advantage on average. A far cry from your 6-8 inch fabrication.

Wilt was a superior athlete and yes his size and athleticism were an advantage in very much the same way Lebrons is.

The point of my original post was to refute, once again, an absurd remark by HoBoy that Jordan and Lebron have had the best peaks in thier careers. Heck, 3 players in 60-61 alone had better peaks. Look it up...

[Clipper Nation]

Larry play can't play defense but his clutch gene is way ahead of LeBron's.

Lame Skip Bayless-esque take

By that logic, Food Stamps needs to go back to his German steroid doctors to get his "clutch gene" fixed, because LeClutch's clutch stats are better than Food Stamps'... "Clutch" doesn't determine who the better player is, especially when there isn't even an agreed-upon definition of "clutch".... Bron bless

[Killakobe81]

So basically you are saying black people are lazy, emotional debaters who don't do research before backing up their points? Rather, they have their groupies yell and go "ooooohhh!!!!!!" to try to "validate" their points in the eyes of other dimwitted gots.

Questions ...

What does that have to do with race?

So you are telling me during a pickup game or at work over lunch with your boys you discuss win shares, win value adds, PER etc? Forum debates, sure. But you actually bring that up in those scenarios?

Do you only play ball with Black dudes? I grew up in SF Valley hooped with plenty of Filipinos, mexicans, whites and blacks. But maybe Dallas is different.

I am not what would be considered black, by most. Both my parents are Belizean a culture with african, mayan and latin roots. I was born in the states but my ethinicity is mixed. So again what does this have to with blacks or race?

I love your depiction of a basketball debate, seems like it comes from the classic Do the Right thing scene when they accost the biker who stepped on Bugging out Jordan's while wearing the Larry Bird jersey ...

[HarlemHeat37]

I didn't say Lebron is #2 on the peak list, I said Jordan in '91/'92 is the only player that is ahead without needing an argument..

I can make the argument that Lebron had a better peak than Wilt and Kareem, considering the questionable talent in their era of basketball..

There are arguments for those guys, '94 Hakeem, 2000 Shaq and 2003 Duncan..maybe Magic, but his defense is questionable..all these guys are ahead of Lebron on the all-time list, but for only one year, it would be difficult to go against 2012 King James..

Even ignoring my biased perspective, Lebron just had a year where he won MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, with no coaching, and with Bosh(1/3 of Miami's only players that can create their own shot) missing half the playoffs..add a Gold medal to the list, too..only Jordan can touch that..

If you want to quantify his impact, his advanced numbers measure up against any player in history..

[Killakobe81]

I didn't say Lebron is #2 on the peak list, I said Jordan in '91/'92 is the only player that is ahead without needing an argument..

I can make the argument that Lebron had a better peak than Wilt and Kareem, considering the questionable talent in their era of basketball..

There are arguments for those guys, '94 Hakeem, 2000 Shaq and 2003 Duncan..maybe Magic, but his defense is questionable..all these guys are ahead of Lebron on the all-time list, but for only one year, it would be difficult to go against 2012 King James..

Even ignoring my biased perspective, Lebron just had a year where he won MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, with no coaching, and with Bosh(1/3 of Miami's only players that can create their own shot) missing half the playoffs..add a Gold medal to the list, too..only Jordan can touch that..

If you want to quantify his impact, his advanced numbers measure up against any player in history..

Never saw the old guys but I would say:

1. MJ' s first le
2. Shaq in 2000
3. Hakeem in 1994
4. Magic in 1987
5. Bird in 1984
6. Duncan in 2003

Lebron's 2012 compares favorably with them, tbh ...

[cobbler]

I can make the argument that Lebron had a better peak than Wilt and Kareem, considering the questionable talent in their era of basketball..

Just more typical generalities from you based in nothing but bull . You guys have no clue what came before your MTV/NIKE Jordan hype era and comments like this prove it. No basis in facts.


I read this awhile ago and it sums it up rather nicely:

Did Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russel have real compe ion?

Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more compe ion for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm
Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas
Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer
New York Knicks: Willis Reed
San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pet
Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere
Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russell and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong compe ion Some of the great players Russell and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:
Dolph Schayes
Bob Pet
Walt Bellamy
Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:
Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
Dave Cowens

One reason fans tend to lash out at these legends is the absurd stats of not only Russell and Chamberlain, but average players as well, as it was not uncommon for a player to average 15-20 rebounds per game. There are several reasons for the high rebound rates of these players:

a. A high tempo offense. The average team in 1965 shot about 600 more shots than a team in 1985 and about 1400 more shots than a team in 2005.

b. Less fouls called. In 1965, the average team had 2076 personal fouls per season. In 2005, 1856 personal fouls were called. But keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result, a lowing field goal percentage, and more shots allowed to be rebounded.

When adjusting the field goal percentage to 45% and reducing the shots taken to the normal rate today, the rebounding rate drops to a more familiar rate for most players. Elgin Baylor would dropped to around 9 boards a game and Nate Thurmond to around 12. However, both Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, even with the adjusted stats, still averaged between 16-20 rebounds per game, showing that they truly did dominate like few others.

Another common misperception is that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain played against only 6'6" white centers. That is completely false. Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

Two other factors to keep in mind:

a. The NBA was less interested in promoting itself 40 years ago, and therefore, did not see the need to measure players with their shoes on. Almost all players today are listed 1-2 inches taller than their actual height.

b. The NBA had 1/3 of the players that they do now. That means Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain faced these 25 guys 3 times more often than they would in the modern nba scheduling.

The truth is, height will never be more of a factor than skill. With several exceptions, players over 7' are typically not very successful. At a collegian level, only three 7 footers have made all-American first team in the last twenty years: Shaquille O'Neal, Andrew Bogut, and Chris Mihm. In this years all star game, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, and Chris Kaman were the only three of 30 players selected to be 7 feet, and all are known far more for their skill sets than dominating with size. If height was such a significant factor, then Manute Bol, Shawn Bradly, and Gheorghe Muresan would be hall of fame players, not just fan favorite scrubs.

The overall talent of the 1960s is greatly underestimated as well. The stamina that players in the 1960s have is far greater than anything seen today

1965 Top 3 in minutes played per game

1. Oscar Robertson, 45.6 mpg
2. Bill Russell, 45.2 mpg
3. Wilt Chamberlain, 44.4 mpg

2005 Top 3 in minutes played per game

1. Lebron James, 42.3 mpg
2. Allen Iverson, 42.3 mpg
3. Gilbert Arenas 40.9 mpg

In addition, teams never walked up the court and held the ball for 12 seconds, and then have four players watch as the fifth tries to get to the hoop. Most teams in the 60s tried to get a fast break after every rebound and in the half court set, the ball moved and players were setting screens and cutting to the basket. Yet players were doing this on a nightly basis, without fancy trainers giving massages and various methods to help muscle recovery. In addition, players were far more versatile as Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Dave Debusschere, and other players could play 3 or 4 positions. Many performances that players had would be considered triple doubles in todays game, but assist rules were far stricter in the 1960s, as the average team in the 1960s made 1000 more field goals per year than a team in 2005, yet averaged 100 less assists.

The 1960s produced some of the leagues finest stars, and it is an absolute travesty that these legends are debunked for playing in a weak era when it is clearly not the case. Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain are two of the greatest, if not the two greatest players to ever play the game of basketball, and it is a shame they will never be fully recognized for their magnificent accomplishments.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7234728AAZxTUR

[DMC]

Larry isn't athletic enough to be a PG, but to say his passes are just fancy is ignoring the fact that they both had similar passing statistics. LBJ had a few more assists, but Bird has a few less TOs. In this respect, neither one has an unquestionable upper hand.

Bird also averaged more rebounds, which is impressive considering he our-rebounded Parish often and wasn't nearly the athlete as Lebron.

Lebron is unquestionably a better defender, though, since his athleticism lets him be a much more versatile defender. Still, Bird was a good defender, not a great one; the gap isn't huge.

Leadership is a variable right now, Bird is still the better leader by leaps and bounds, but Lebron will likely have a long career and time to make a case for that.

Saying that Lebron is unquestionably better from a skillset perspective isn't really correct. Larry did just about everything at an acceptable to prodigal level. Lebron makes a strong case to take the throne from Bird, but he still needs to accomplish more at the high level he's been playing at to prove he's the best SF without question.

I hope you meant "prodigious".

[DMC]

I didn't say Lebron is #2 on the peak list, I said Jordan in '91/'92 is the only player that is ahead without needing an argument..

I can make the argument that Lebron had a better peak than Wilt and Kareem, considering the questionable talent in their era of basketball..

There are arguments for those guys, '94 Hakeem, 2000 Shaq and 2003 Duncan..maybe Magic, but his defense is questionable..all these guys are ahead of Lebron on the all-time list, but for only one year, it would be difficult to go against 2012 King James..

Even ignoring my biased perspective, Lebron just had a year where he won MVP and Finals MVP in the same season, with no coaching, and with Bosh(1/3 of Miami's only players that can create their own shot) missing half the playoffs..add a Gold medal to the list, too..only Jordan can touch that..

If you want to quantify his impact, his advanced numbers measure up against any player in history..

Just admit you're full of and you live in Canada. That solves both issues.

[LkrFan]

fify

Mvs

[Latarian Milton]

bird & bron different styles of players imho. bird could shoot lights out any given night, while bron also make 3pt shots they're more of a smack rather than a main dish for him. bron rarely take them cheap shots, more often than not he'd rather go deep to shove the defenders and make a jumper off the contact

[The Franchise]

Didnt watch Bird but still going with James ?

I watched Bird and I'll still go with James. Not even a hard decision.

[dunkman]

Bird is in the same class as Magic or MJ, LeBron still has way to go but unlike Kobe, imo he could get there. Bird was clearly the best NBA player the years he won the 3 consecutive MVP's and 2 'ships, never saw somebody dominate like that. He was an above average defensive player BTW. He was much better rebounder than LeBron, he shot much better, he passed better and he was clutch like no other NBA player.

[outmap]

Larry Bird's defense is very underrated, he's very pesky.
Plus the man would literally die for the game, all heart.
The only advantage James has is his athleticism.

[Ashy Larry]

I'll take Bird right now but it will not be long before James is the top SF ......

[stretch]

The average height of centers in Wilts era was 6'10. Look it up instead of tossing out bull numbers with no basis in fact. That would be a 3 inch advantage on average. A far cry from your 6-8 inch fabrication.

Fabrication? Lets see if you have actually done your own research, got. I'm going to list the height of everyone not on Philly who was listed as a center in the 61-62 season, when Wilt averaged 50 ppg.

6-8
6-10
6-9
6-7
6-9
6-7
7-3
6-9
6-7
6-8
6-7
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-7
6-11
6-7
6-8
6-7
6-8
7-0
6-8
6-9
6-9
6-5
6-10
6-10
6-11
6-8
6-7
6-8
6-7
6-6
6-7
6-8

The three most common heights in that list are:

1) 6-7
2 & 3) 6-8, 6-9 tied

Only two players in that list were 7-0 and higher, and neither were big time players, one averaging 24 mpg, the other averaging 14 mpg.

Interesting considering how strongly you claimed that the average height was 6-10, when 6-10 and up were a pretty uncommon height. 7 out of 34 listed centers were 6-10 or taller, which is barely above 20%.

Want to go further into this debate? I guarantee the average weight was a good 40+ lbs less than Wilt as well. I noticed a lot of them were 220 and less.

The point of my original post was to refute, once again, an absurd remark by HoBoy that Jordan and Lebron have had the best peaks in thier careers. Heck, 3 players in 60-61 alone had better peaks. Look it up...

Which three players? Oh wait, you are talking about an era of 9 teams, where basically the league was dominated by 3-4 individual players because most everyone else blew ass. If you have one guy average 50 ppg, another average a triple double, another average 38 and 18, and another average about 25 rebounds per game, all in the same season, then that's not quality play. That's ty ass compe ion.

[stretch]

Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

leave it up to a got like cobbler to name all the tallest players over a DECADES span to try to back up his bull takes.

basketball sucked ass in Wilt's era. just accept it.

[stretch]

Larry isn't athletic enough to be a PG, but to say his passes are just fancy is ignoring the fact that they both had similar passing statistics. LBJ had a few more assists, but Bird has a few less TOs. In this respect, neither one has an unquestionable upper hand.

Bird also averaged more rebounds, which is impressive considering he our-rebounded Parish often and wasn't nearly the athlete as Lebron.

Lebron is unquestionably a better defender, though, since his athleticism lets him be a much more versatile defender. Still, Bird was a good defender, not a great one; the gap isn't huge.

Leadership is a variable right now, Bird is still the better leader by leaps and bounds, but Lebron will likely have a long career and time to make a case for that.

Saying that Lebron is unquestionably better from a skillset perspective isn't really correct. Larry did just about everything at an acceptable to prodigal level. Lebron makes a strong case to take the throne from Bird, but he still needs to accomplish more at the high level he's been playing at to prove he's the best SF without question.

Small things I disagree (or moreso just may dispute) with here, but all in all, a fair post. Mainly I just think it's sometimes hard to compare numbers when comparing eras, due to different paces. It would be more fair to compare their stats if we have per-100-possession stats, as opposed to per game.

I think Lebron will end up being considered the greatest SF ever for sure, and still even has a shot at the GOAT le, although it might be tough. But more time is needed for sure. But if I was getting either player at their very best, I take Lebron 10 times out of 10.

[stretch]

I think he was just afraid of the moment. He doesn't mind dancing like a monkey on the side during the game but is too classy to take a pressure shot? Sure.

I don't get how he goes from consistently being a clutch player in Cleveland, hitting multiple game winning shots as well as his incredible performance against Detroit in game 5 of their series in 07, to going to Miami and suddenly being a choker who is "afraid of the moment" as you suggest.

It was pretty obvious that with Wade and Bosh being there, he was more focused on trying not to overstep boundaries, especially with the exponentially higher amount of scrutiny he was under, due to "The Decision".

[DMC]

I don't get how he goes from consistently being a clutch player in Cleveland, hitting multiple game winning shots as well as his incredible performance against Detroit in game 5 of their series in 07, to going to Miami and suddenly being a choker who is "afraid of the moment" as you suggest.

It was pretty obvious that with Wade and Bosh being there, he was more focused on trying not to overstep boundaries, especially with the exponentially higher amount of scrutiny he was under, due to "The Decision".

He was never under the expectations in Cleveland that he's under in Miami. After the Decision, as you point out, he has been under the microscope. He didn't want the role of savior on that team, and like a few other all time talents (Shaq for one), he has just recently begun to recognize that he's unstoppable and that Wade and Bosh aren't. So he was afraid of the moment. He won't be next year, not after the incredible year he's had.

[pass1st]

Small things I disagree (or moreso just may dispute) with here, but all in all, a fair post. Mainly I just think it's sometimes hard to compare numbers when comparing eras, due to different paces. It would be more fair to compare their stats if we have per-100-possession stats, as opposed to per game.

I think Lebron will end up being considered the greatest SF ever for sure, and still even has a shot at the GOAT le, although it might be tough. But more time is needed for sure. But if I was getting either player at their very best, I take Lebron 10 times out of 10.

He's on pace to overtaking Bird since LBJ doesn't have injury problems which could hamper his longevity/development. I think his ceiling is cracking the top 5, maybe top 3. If he can play like this into his mid-30s then it's a new discussion. I personally wouldn't place him until he retires.

[Thomas82]

LeBron is the superior athlete, but LB is the superior player.

[LkrFan]

"stretch my asshole" with the emo butthurt bads.

[LkrFan]

I'd love to see Bird play in today's NBA. You think un-athletic _irk be balling? Bird would be ting on fools and talking mad to the monkeyballers in the process. He'd avg 30/8/8 in today's game. Easily. FT: 90%; FG: 50+%; 3pt Bombs: 45+%. Dude kicked ass in the golden era of basketball - the '80s. In today's game? Fugetabou .

[DMC]

Fabrication? Lets see if you have actually done your own research, got. I'm going to list the height of everyone not on Philly who was listed as a center in the 61-62 season, when Wilt averaged 50 ppg.

6-8
6-10
6-9
6-7
6-9
6-7
7-3
6-9
6-7
6-8
6-7
6-9
6-9
6-9
6-7
6-11
6-7
6-8
6-7
6-8
7-0
6-8
6-9
6-9
6-5
6-10
6-10
6-11
6-8
6-7
6-8
6-7
6-6
6-7
6-8

The three most common heights in that list are:

1) 6-7
2 & 3) 6-8, 6-9 tied

Only two players in that list were 7-0 and higher, and neither were big time players, one averaging 24 mpg, the other averaging 14 mpg.

Interesting considering how strongly you claimed that the average height was 6-10, when 6-10 and up were a pretty uncommon height. 7 out of 34 listed centers were 6-10 or taller, which is barely above 20%.

Want to go further into this debate? I guarantee the average weight was a good 40+ lbs less than Wilt as well. I noticed a lot of them were 220 and less.



Which three players? Oh wait, you are talking about an era of 9 teams, where basically the league was dominated by 3-4 individual players because most everyone else blew ass. If you have one guy average 50 ppg, another average a triple double, another average 38 and 18, and another average about 25 rebounds per game, all in the same season, then that's not quality play. That's ty ass compe ion.

The average height of those numbers is 80.61" or 6'8.7"