1987-88 Lake Show had four former #1 overall picks in their rotation.
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.
Last edited by namlook; 04-02-2010 at 11:01 AM.
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.
It's something called basketballability.
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.)
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 compe ion 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 les 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 LE with a team of role players whilst defeating a 3-time consecutive champion along the way like tim did in 2003.
Do you rank Shaq over Tim?
Any 10 year span is a decade. It doesn't have to be "80s" or "90s."
Are you an imbecile?
You still sound like someone posting on a player you've never seen.
Duncan won two les 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).
With this being said, let's put Bird where he belongs and that's below Duncan.
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.
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
Looking at statistics, basketball-reference.com's algorithms have Bird as 5th best All-Time and Duncan at 8th.
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.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.
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.
That team (without Barkley) won a le... 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.
Duncan won 4 rings in a decade, that's what the OP wrote. And it's true.
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.
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 les... 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.
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.
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.
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.
This...
This...
And this...
Winshares directly speaks to the +/- of said player in win/loss contributions.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
