Is Larry Bird the Greatest NBA Player Of All Time?

His attempt at baseball was puzzling. No doubt a mistake... But again, you can bring up the "liberalization" of the rules all you want. At the end of the day, Larry Bird WAS NOT better than Michael Jordan. Period. Larry Bird wasn't better than Magic Johnson. Bird was a great player, but I think interviews with most of the top players from that era will let you know who the best was.

Bird fan wrote:

Jordan could take advantage of the liberalization of the rules to a greater extent than most as they enhanced the speed/driving/jumping component of the game, which he excelled at. Nevertheless, he was destined for greatness from the get go.

The time Jordan left basketball to play baseball may have been

one of the strangest moves by any top athlete. It was such a strange sight to see the most dominant athlete in one sport be relatively mediocre (on the professional level) in another sport. I don't know what sort of psychological process he was going through, but I always admired him for doing that and for the way he carries himself, given his exploits and status.

Maybe it's just conspiracy theory, but there are a lot of people who believe his hiatus was due to forced exile in response to his gambling issues. He had a tremendous amount of gambling debt and many people think David Stern gave him an unofficial suspension from the game.

Biry is the 2nd greatest white player of all time behind Barry.

He would be about the 8th or 9th overall.

Russell is the greatest and most successfull. Ever.

No, Russell was not the greatest. He had about eight teammates who became Hall of Famers. In head to head match-ups with Wilt, not just in scoring but in rebounding, he was not even close.

Bird the 2nd greatest white guy behind Barry? Jerry West was FAR greater than Barry.

I think the notion that there is 'no discussion' regarding who the GOAT is------is unfortunate. It comes aross as petulant, myopic and lazy. Of COURSE there is a discussion. As great as MJ was, he left enough holes in his resume for there to be plenty of 'discussion'.

Trollie Trollovich wrote:

Bird the 2nd greatest white guy behind Barry? Jerry West was FAR greater than Barry.

Bird was better than Barry. West was better than Barry. Bird was better than West.

To the other poster, other than number of titles, how was Russell better than Wilt? Give some measures that justify that.

In Boston (hardly a neutral environment) Russell was regarded as the consummate "winner" - a guy who helped to get the team to win - whereas Chamberlain was classified as guy who accumulated great stats but, in the end, his team would lose.

I believe Chamberlain himself began to see that point and altered his style of play in order to get his teammates more involved with the scoring and at that point he was a member of a championship team.

Stats tell a lot of the story, but the biggest stat of all is who won the game.

It matters who your teammates are

Wilt once played on a team that 31-49 and didn't make the playoffs. The next year, they had the same 6-7 guys playing the most minutes----and went to the NBA Finals. It wasn't Wilt's teammates who were the biggest difference by far-------it was the team's style and it was Wilt doing what the TEAM needed him to do rather than Wilt SHOWCASING everything he could do. There's a difference. One style wins games... another style pads your stats more---but can come at the expense of winning more games as a TEAM.

Chamberlain's 31-49 win team was DEAD LAST is scoring defense. His NBA Finals team the next year with the same core guys was #1 in scoring defense. Chamberlain was required to play a different game. His FGA: assist ratio improved greatly. His overall numbers dipped. The TEAM was markedly better.

Same teammates by and large... just a more TEAM friendly deployment of the top player.

To ME, I don't care how talented you are... if you're NOT doing what the team NEEDS you to do to maximize wins------you're not as great a player IN A TEAM GAME as the guy doing what the TEAM needs.

Bill Russell said that he re-focused after winning a National Championship for San Francisco. He said he had just averaged 20+ppg, 20+rpg for a 1 loss National Champion and everyone was talking about how great this guy from North Carolina was. He said he then decided he was going to just do whatever it took to win----because that's the only thing they can't tae from you.

I suppose Russell could have deployed a different style in the NBA that would have compromised winning. I firmly believe that Chamberlain got lost in showing everyone what he could do/ in doing what he LIKED to do-----more than what the team needed. In some ways it shows how TALENTED Wilt was... SUPREMELY talented... but there was something lost on Wilt about greatness, perhaps. No team with Wilt on it in the early-mid 1960s should be 31-49. I can't imagine Wilt was doing what the TEAM needed for that to happen. And to be LAST in scoring defense? With Wilt? Inconceivable. But it happened. And the next year with new coach Alex Hannum insisting on a slower pace, more defense and more integrating of teammates-------the same core 6-7 players goes to the Finals.

Wilt was doing something wrong to be on a 31-49 club. And I know this is foreign to a lot of thought out there-----because Wilt averaged 44ppg, so 'how could it be HIS fault?'

My answer is 'because the TEAM needed him to play differently for them to win'.

To ME, you gotta ask yourself: 'Is the guy helping you to win... is he doing what the TEAM needs to win...?' That, to me, is a big part of greatness in a team game.

And it's exactly on your point that Bird excelled. He was not the greatest individual player the game has had, but he may have been the greatest combination team/individual player the game has had.

I don't like the original question, it sucks.

I would have preferred something like this:

"If you could pick a single player to be on your team, not knowing who else was on your team or who they were going to play or under what specific set of rules, who would you pick?"

Obviously a tough question, since you don't know if the rules permit an amazing offensive player to take over a game, or if there are others on the team that can be "made to play their best" by a great all-arounder.

I loved Magic, Bird, Jordan, Olajuwon, Malone...and I think the current crop of guys is amazing.

But if I could pick one guy...1 guy who would most guarantee me a win in any situation, if he was at his peak and if he was trying hard, it would be...

Shaq.

Absolutely unstoppable near the hoop, and if he was trying hard, his defense and rebounding would improve.

And his abilities translate to any era, especially if he gets into a position where he doesn't have to put the ball on the floor.

If forced to answer who was the "greatest", for me it would be a tie between MJ and Magic. Not Lebron...not yet, anyway. But he's got plenty of time to match those guys.

By your metric of wins improved:

Russell's rookie year his team improved by 5 wins (adding Heinsohn as well ... nice drafting!!)

Wilt's rookie year his team improved by 17 wins.

As for fan ratings of players, ask NY fans what they think of Jeter or DiMaggio. Sure the numbers weren't there, but they're winners, right?

And it's exactly on your point that Bird excelled. He was not the greatest individual player the game has had, but he may have been the greatest combination team/individual player the game has had.

______________________________________________________

It suprised me to see that even during his peak years, that Bird averaged just about 6 FTA per game... Bird always SEEMED to be mixing it up and as a star---you would think he got his share of gratuitous foul calls that had him parading to the FT line all day. But the numbers don't bear that out. The 80s were rough. You could bang a superstar. The league didn't try to protect stars (they might look to give them some BS call late---which I hated---but a guy like Bird taking 6 FTA per game at his peak is evidence that you did NOT make a living at the line back then no matter how big a star you were or how blue collar you played------IF you didn't LIVE under the basket like a Moses Malone)...

Bird COULD HAVE padded his stats by playing more back to the basket/ post up. He would have gotten easier shots and he would have drawn more fouls (and he was DEADLY from the line). But the TEAM didn't need that as much as they needed someone to filter the ball through outside and at the top. They also needed his outside shot---which no one could replicate. So that's what Bird did. He did what the team needed at the expense of what he could SHOWCASE. He may have scored 30 per game with the extra FTs and higher FG% playing inside---and he may have gotten 11.0-11.5 rpg playing that way. They had other guys besides Parish once McHale emerged to man the blocks---but if Larry chose just to do what he wanted OVER what the team needed, maybe McHals stays a backup because Larry INSISTS on padding his FTs and FG% and rpg playing closer to the basket. But he did what the TEAM needed.

And as good as the Parish/ McHale duo was on the low block, they could not get the Celtics (still with Ainge, Dennis Johnson and Reggie Lewis) to win 1/2 their games when Bird went out early in the 1988-89 season (24-28 through 52 games; 22-24 without even an injured Bird) before trading for frontcourt help.

Bird while a great player was like most white players,useless on defense.

Bird while a great player was like most white players,useless on defense.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Puzzling how he retired as #2 or #3 all-time in post-season steals, then.

Yeah, here's one of his crap defensive plays:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_RJ5XN8TK8