Is Larry Bird the Greatest NBA Player Of All Time?

Nighthawk wrote:

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.

No offense, but if you think that steals is a reasonable measure for defensive prowess then you have no understanding of the game of basketball.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

...

Shaq.

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

Did you really just say that if you could pick 1 guy before any other who ever played the game you would pick someone about whom you yourself would use the phrase, "if he was trying hard..."?

Seriously?

Kind of weird to suggest that in the case of Jeter and Dimaggio "the numbers weren't there." Best look at those numbers again, in both cases.

Dimaggio was a three-time MVP who, for a slugger, struck out very little. If his career totals aren't as high as those guys who hang around for five years of diminished productivity just to pad career totals, it's because he knew Mantle was the Yankees' future and he got out of the way.

I wonder how Shaq's career would have been had his timing not been so optimal.

I DO believe that there was NOBODY that could check him...IF you could guarantee me that games would be officiated so he could bull his way through people-----which isn't always allowed.

Bird and Magic gone. Jordan's career breaking up. David Stern desperately looking for a new torchbearer. There's Shaq!! Only problem is he commits an offensive foul everytime he touches the ball. Dribble bounce then *SLAM!* into the defender---and repeat until you can dunk it.

And they allowed it. And they complained that 'Shaq was so hard to officiate because he was so strong'-----but then Arvidas Sabonis suddenly isn't allowed to breathe on him in a WCF and Portland blows a 17 pt lead when Sabonis fouls out on back to back ridiculous calls. And Sabonis was 7'3", 295 lbs. FINALLY, someone big enough to play Shaq like a man-------and they would let him TOUCH Shaq.

I looked at how tight they called the Ohio St/ Syracuse Regional Final yesterday------and no way could Shaq survive in a league officiated that way.

I have these 2 divergent thought processees on Shaq. One is that he was awesome when he was healthy... the other was that the NBA conspired to allow him to be his own version of awesome by allowing him to initiate contact that had always been called as a foul----because they needed a new star AND it did not seem like Shaq could modulate his play.

Part of me thinks that had Shaq come up in an Era that was already ripe with stars like Magic and Kareem and Bird and MJ, that Shaq could have just been a talented, yet foul-prone enigma who never realized his potential because he was always in foul trouble.

I cast a jaundiced eye towards David Stern, who has always looked to market the league (his job) at the expense of the integrity of the game (a shame).

No offense, but if you think that steals is a reasonable measure for defensive prowess then you have no understanding of the game of basketball.

>>>>>>>>>>>

You used the term 'useless'.

I don't think a 'useless' defensive player could ever be #2 OR #3 in postseason steals, all-time.

Do you honestly think that?

Wow Unbelievable wrote:

Kind of weird to suggest that in the case of Jeter and Dimaggio "the numbers weren't there." Best look at those numbers again, in both cases.

Dimaggio was a three-time MVP who, for a slugger, struck out very little. If his career totals aren't as high as those guys who hang around for five years of diminished productivity just to pad career totals, it's because he knew Mantle was the Yankees' future and he got out of the way.

Dimaggio's 3 MVP's are exactly what I'm talking about. His numbers weren't there but people voted for him. Look at Williams' numbers at the same time. In back to back years Williams hit .406 then won the Triple Crown. Dimaggio won the MVP in 1941, Joe Gordon the second time.

Jeter is my 3rd favorite player after Bernie Williams and Rivera (I'm a lifelong Yankee fan). However, rarely was he even the best SS in the game during his career. He's a very good player, at times great. People inflate his greatness because he was on a winning team.

You used the term 'useless'.

I don't think a 'useless' defensive player could ever be #2 OR #3 in postseason steals, all-time.

Do you honestly think that?

__________________________________________________

My apologies. YOU didn't use the term useless, the original poster did. But the term 'useless' is what I am challenging. Wouldn't you?

Dimaggio's 3 MVP's are exactly what I'm talking about. His numbers weren't there but people voted for him. Look at Williams' numbers at the same time. In back to back years Williams hit .406 then won the Triple Crown. Dimaggio won the MVP in 1941, Joe Gordon the second time.

Jeter is my 3rd favorite player after Bernie Williams and Rivera (I'm a lifelong Yankee fan). However, rarely was he even the best SS in the game during his career. He's a very good player, at times great. People inflate his greatness because he was on a winning team.

________________________________________________________

I see what you're saying. Well, I'll add this: baseball is a different game. Basketball is easier---maybe the easiest of the 4 major No. American team sports for ONE player to have an impact on outcomes of games.

With baseball, you have your 3,4,5 ABs, you field what is hit to you and you hope like heck the guy on the mound doesn't get shelled.

You CAN play every minute of a basketball game. You can defend/ help defend anyone. You can rebound, you can pass---------you can be in charge of anything. And there are just 5 of you on the floor at one time, maybe 8-9 in a rotation (with 6-7 being the core perhaps)and 12 on the team. It's a tough comparison. I wouldn't expect a baseball player to be as directly responsible for winning.

Did the Yankees stink before DiMaggio got there? Were they awful when he left? Was he the only significant addition or deletion to/ from the team if & when this happened? I'd want to know stuff like that.

Did you really just say that if you could pick 1 guy before any other who ever played the game you would pick someone about whom you yourself would use the phrase, "if he was trying hard..."?

Seriously?

___________________________________________________

That IS kinda funny. This reminds me a little bit of a discussion elsewhere with an ardent supporter of Jordan's... he openly opined that earlier in his career, that Jordan probably was 'testing the limits of his own talent at the expense of them team, but that he eventually learned'...

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree-------but IF you believe that about Jordan (and this candid Jordan fan DID)... then you're going to have a HECK of a time telling a teammate of Bill Russell's that a guy who did THAT (for years apparently) was GREATER than Bill Russell.

Just on principal alone, there's a large crowd that eliminates Shaq from GOAT talk with the 'if he was trying hard' qualifier.

If the premise of the pro-Bird argument is that doing what is needed for your team to win makes you great, then you simply cannot put Bird ahead of Jordan on the list of all-time greats. After several years of missing the playoffs, the Bulls made the playoffs every year Jordan played for them and they won 6 NBA titles in Jordan's last 6 full seasons with the Bulls. As far as making your teammates better, there was discussion way earlier in this thread about a former coach who attributed a lot of Scottie Pippen's development due to the fact that was matched up against Michael Jordan in practice. There is a reason Jordan was always the focal point of the offense. Clearly it wasn't at the behest of his teammates because they wouldn't have won nearly as much as they did.

As far as the Bulls did fine when Jordan was playing baseball goes... How many titles did they win during that time? They won 3 titles the 3 years before left and 3 titles in the 3 seasons after his return when Jordan played the entire season (this is excluding the season he came back right at the end and wasn't in top form). Excluding Dennis Rodman who was already an established star, I don't recall too many teammates of Jordan who excelled when they no longer played with him. The exception might be Pippen who did play well in the years Jordan took off. But he didn't lead the Bulls any titles during that time and did basically nothing in the years after Jordan for the second time. So I'd say Jordan made his teammates and his team better and he achieved more success than Bird.

Nighthawk wrote:

Did the Yankees stink before DiMaggio got there? Were they awful when he left? Was he the only significant addition or deletion to/ from the team if & when this happened? I'd want to know stuff like that.

These are the reasons he's so similar to Russell. The Yankees were great before, after and during (WWII years excepted). He had great teammates, many HOF players. It's so hard to separate his effects from others. And like Russell, when DiMaggio was not up to his rivals numbers, writers came up with other criteria, coincidentally unmeasurable, to justify why they thought he was better. Also, coincidentally, their rivals were surly and not popular with the press.

I love Bill Russell as a player and as a person. And if someone said I could have him but not Wilt, I would scream and cry. But like DiMaggio, I think Russell's legend is a little inflated.

Wendell Gee, I think many of your posts are well-thought out and a joy to read. I think Chamberlain was the more talented player. He COULD play the game like Russell did (he kinda did just that on perhaps the greatest team of all-time---the '72 Lakers) and I don't believe Russell could play the role of Wilt. I DO think there is perhaps a little inflation of the Russell legend. I could buy that. I also think the reasons for Wilt coming up short has more to do with how Wilt was playing/ what his goals were/ what his mindset was than many Wilt supporters want to entertain. Wilt wasn't wired to be consumed by TEAM winning. Russell was. But Russell wasn't as awesomely talented as Wilt. And somewhere amidst these things and other things lies 'who was GREATER?'

It's a wonderful topic.

Nighthawk wrote:

Wendell Gee, I think many of your posts are well-thought out and a joy to read. I think Chamberlain was the more talented player. He COULD play the game like Russell did (he kinda did just that on perhaps the greatest team of all-time---the '72 Lakers) and I don't believe Russell could play the role of Wilt. I DO think there is perhaps a little inflation of the Russell legend. I could buy that. I also think the reasons for Wilt coming up short has more to do with how Wilt was playing/ what his goals were/ what his mindset was than many Wilt supporters want to entertain. Wilt wasn't wired to be consumed by TEAM winning. Russell was. But Russell wasn't as awesomely talented as Wilt. And somewhere amidst these things and other things lies 'who was GREATER?'

It's a wonderful topic.

All valid points. Here is another great question:

If you were to switch Russell and Wilt, would the Celtics have been just have dominant? Would Russell have been able to win with Wilt's supporting cast? We'll never know. But I have my hunches.

Alls I know is K-LOVE is going to be the premier white player if he keeps playing like this. He's having a monster year.

Nighthawk wrote:

No offense, but if you think that steals is a reasonable measure for defensive prowess then you have no understanding of the game of basketball.

>>>>>>>>>>>

You used the term 'useless'.

I don't think a 'useless' defensive player could ever be #2 OR #3 in postseason steals, all-time.

Do you honestly think that?

Here is my entire post: "No offense, but if you think that steals is a reasonable measure for defensive prowess then you have no understanding of the game of basketball."

Could you do me a small favor and point out to me where the word, "useless" shows up in my post because I am having the hardest time finding it.

Nighthawk wrote:

You used the term 'useless'.

I don't think a 'useless' defensive player could ever be #2 OR #3 in postseason steals, all-time.

Do you honestly think that?

__________________________________________________

My apologies. YOU didn't use the term useless, the original poster did. But the term 'useless' is what I am challenging. Wouldn't you?

My apologies, I did not see your followup post (here^).

I agree with you that Larry Bird was not a "useless" defensive player. He hustled big-time and was smart as heck. With this combination he overcame some notable weaknesses to become at least average to better than average on defense.

If the premise of the pro-Bird argument is that doing what is needed for your team to win makes you great, then you simply cannot put Bird ahead of Jordan on the list of all-time greats.

_____________________________________________________

Well, look... I can't tell someone who to favor or what factors to weigh more heavily.

But there really isn't any arguing that Bird's coming (beginning of his career)and going (towards the end/ yet still near peak) affected his teams' winning to a greater positive degree than Jordan's did.

It's not even close.

Put whatever value you want to on it. Some may dismiss it. It remains true, however: Bird plays/ Celtics win a lot more games... no matter who the other names are. When Bird doesn't play/ Celtics don't win half their games no matter who the other names are. And the Celtics won 60+ games for every 82 he played in. Jordan's participation on the Bulls didn't yield the same results when he arrived or left at near peak.

If you were to switch Russell and Wilt, would the Celtics have been just have dominant? Would Russell have been able to win with Wilt's supporting cast? We'll never know. But I have my hunches.>>>>>>>>>

I would say the Celtics WOULD HAVE been just as dominant... IF... IF... IF Wilt could be convinced to 'play Russell's role' for 13 seasons... BUT that I just don't believe that Wilt could control himself. I think Wilt would want to 'showcase his individual talents more' sadly------and mess up a few championship seasons. It would have been a battle of wills for the ages: Red VS Wilt. Maybe Red gets him in line... Maybe Red gets so ticked off at Wilt, he trades him. Trading Wilt is not beyond belief. Wilt won 2 titles, yes? Russell could have duplicated Wilt's diminished role on the '72 Lakers. The other was what, the '66-67 Sixers? I'd have to look at Wilt's role and who the Sixers had to pick up the scoring slack with Wilt out and Russell in. I dunno.

Great question.

One of the other things I wonder about are all of the stats player 'A' compiles in his own box score row (and the value of that) VS the % of that production the remaining team PLUS a replacement could 'cover for' should player 'A' leave...

Sometimes a player's personal statistics can be gaudier/ yet be more easily 'covered for'.

Sometimes it's surprising how well a team does without/ covers for a missing player 'A'.

To me, the 'ease' of replacing someones production relates to the greatness of that player. If a player is doing a whole lot of things that the team can handle doing without him and winning doesn't suffer greatly-----------then to me, that player's greatness is diminished somewhat. Conversely, if a player's contributions cannot be replicated after he is gone and winning suffers significantly when he goes-------his greatness is enhanced, IMO.