Is Larry Bird the Greatest NBA Player Of All Time?

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.

_____________________________________________________

We are totally cool. Sorry for my mistake. Also, very fair points by you. Could Larry have been a below average on-ball defender and a very good TEAM defender? I think that's how I see it. He played passing lanes as well as anyone and stole balls that were NOT in his man's possession-----but he did not bear down/ lock down on anyone and he was scored on.

Someone would have to pick up his scoring, rebounding AND assists per game. He led the team in all three. The scoring might have been manageable with Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham.

_____________________________________________________

This is fun! I'm going to look that up. For now, I'll say, NO, Russell and Wilt do not likely winn all of each other's championships. Wilt has such a thin margin for error (11 in 13 years).

My favorite website is baseball-reference.com

But I love basketball as well.

Yes, Bird is the greatest. No question.

" Jordan's participation on the Bulls didn't yield the same results when he arrived or left at near peak."

Well then we just disagree. The Bulls had a span of 8 years where they won the NBA title 6 times. The other two seasons Jordan either didn't play at all or only right at the end of the season. I'd say Jordan's participation was crucial to the Bulls success. When he arrived the Bulls just were bad. They went to the playoffs immediately upon drafting him. Certainly, the Celtic's won more and made it further in playoffs in his early years. However, Larry Bird had future hall of famers on every Celtics team he played on, even his first season. Then of course adding Parrish and McHale put them over the top.

Nobody wins an NBA title alone. Not Bird. Not Jordan. Not Russell. I am saying Larry Bird had better talent surrounding him earlier in his career than Michael Jordan. Also, people seem to only want to focus on Larry Bird's peak years while also only singling out seasons that Jordan didn't win a title. This is a little silly. Jordan had the ability to outplay Bird immediately upon entering the NBA. He torched a loaded Celtics team with 63 points in one playoff game his second year. He simply didn't have enough help and while I'd like Jordan's chances with 4 random guys against Bird with 4 random guys, there is no way Jordan with an otherwise mediocre cast could have overcome Bird, McHale, Parrish and Maxwell. Lebron James's affect on the Cleveland Cavaliers' win-lose column was basically equal to that of Larry Bird. But there is a huge difference between winning 60 games and winning the title. As Bulls fan today I know that all to well. Point being, getting a losing team one year to 60 wins the next is quite impressive but I feel Jordan's 6 titles in 6 full seasons is more impressive.

Larry Bird joined a team that was 61-103 the 2 years prior to him arriving. They were 29-53 the year before Bird got there. The Celtics with Larry Bird as the lone change to the starting lineup improve by 32 wins (61-21) in his Rookie year (no Parish, no McHale, no DJ).

Jordan joined a 27-55 Bulls team and they improved by 11 wins Jordan's rookie year, going 38-44. The Bulls didn't have a winning season with Jordan until his 4th season. I'm not talking about winning a title or 60 games----I'm just asking for a winning record here.

Jordan leaves a 57-25 Bulls team after 1993. They replace him with Pete Myers in the starting linuep. In the 72 games that Pippen plays, the Bulls go 51-21 (55-27 overall). They also added Toni Kukoc's 10-11ppg off the bench and 1/2 season of Luc Longley. This fills THAT much of the void left by Jordan's absence? It wouldn't replace Magic or Bird. JMO.

Magic left the Lakers after 1991. They were 58-24 with him. Same guys next year plus Sedale Threatt (I think)---and they're 43-39.

Bird misses 76 games for the 1989 Celtics. He was badly injured for the 6 he played before opting for season-ending surgery on both heels. Boston (WITH Parish, McHale, DJ, Ainge & Reggie Lewis all playing) can't win 1/2 their games before trading for frontcourt help (24-28).

The Lakers and Celtics plummet. The Bulls? Not so much. The Bulls didn't win the championship without Jordan. Well----they couldn't win 41 games WITH Jordan but no Pippen.

Remember, Bird went to a 29-53 team himself. That was 32-50 the year before that. Am I to believe that it was a 'quality' 61-103 team?

And all of those Celtics players that 'made it easier' on Bird-----they were 29-53 before he got there and a different crew was 24-28 when Bird got hurt in 1988-89. In 1991, they were 10-12 without him----46-14 with him, and that wasn't even THAT Larry Bird anymore.

Jordan's impact on winning games was NOTHING like that. MJ has 6 rings. It was the 90s. 7 years into his career before his 1st Finals appearance. I understand there is a difference of opinion regarding the level of play in the 90s-----but we all know this: None of the players who dominated the All-NBA teams in the 90s won A THING in the 80s, either. Just like Mike. A bunch of them played 4-5 years in the 80s and only Olajuwon ever made a Finals in the 80s (from that '85-'86 rookie era). I felt at the time (90s) that I was watching a cut below what I had just seen in the 80s. Still do. Championships in the 90s just aren't as impressive to me. The 90s NBA was a lot like the 80s Western Conference. One dominant team and a pack of substandard pretenders. No Celtics, Sixers, Pistons killing each other for the right to face the Lakers.

Look at the Jazz teams that Stockton and Malone (who are All-90s NBAers) were on in the 80s. They were teamed with Adrian Dantley and Darrell Griffith, Mark Eaton and Thurl Bailey, Ricky Green, Bob Hansen, John Drew... and they would win like 42, 44, 47 games in the 80s. Worse Jazz teams were winning 60+ games and going to the Finals in the 90s. And it took 12 years of playing together for Stockton and Malone to MAKE the Finals. And they are the cream of the crop of Jordan's competition in the 90s. 60 wins in the 90s were NOT like 60 wins in the 80s. JMO.

Still, if the universe needed two points to continue, Jordan gets the call. He was the most unstoppable offensive player ever to play the game. I think Bird described seeing Jordan coming down the court with the ball as a frightening force to deal with.

Hey, but thanks for your analysis on the impact of individual players on team outcomes. Clearly, you know a helluva lot more about the matter than I do.

Personally, I don't think the players need to ranked or can be ranked, except in the sense that you can spot greatness when you see it.

I think, ultimately, anybody's opinion on GOAT is just that---an opinion. But I also believe that it depends on your operational definition of what 'greatest' is that will determine where you lean. We all put differently weighted values on different variables----and it all makes for great debate/ conversation. I believe that there are a number of players who---depending on your weighting system---have a GREAT argument for GOAT. To me, it's fun talk and I apologize if I offended anyone---not my intention.

During the 2006-2007 season the Boston Celtics finished with a record of 24-58. The following season they won the NBA title. Now some will say "but that happened because they got the Big 3". The fact of the matter is, they already had Paul Pierce and they had a very good (and improving) PG by the name of Rajon Rondo on the 06-07 team. Now certainly the injury that kept Pierce out for a good portion of the season had an affect. But they were 2-22 without him and 22-36 with him. which means they were still not doing well. But if you think for one second a Celtics team with KG and Ray Allen would have been a title contender without Pierce or Rondo you would be out of your mind. They were crucial to the championship team. Likewise, regardless of how the Celtics finished the year before Bird arrived, the top players from the previous season which included multiple future hall of famers were vital to Boston being able to win over 60 games. It wasn't just a simple matter of Bird being so great. He had help. I'd say he had more roster help turning around the Celtics then Lebron had turning around the Cavs in one season.

As for the Bulls still "doing well" when Jordan was playing baseball, there is no real analogy. The 93-94 Bulls still had all the other key pieces to a squad that won 3 consecutive NBA titles and Phil Jackson, one of the most successful coaches of all time. Despite this, the 93-94 and 94-95 seasons were the only years in a 10 year strech were the Bulls didn't even make the conference finals. In 94-95 they won 47 games. In 95-96, with Jordan, they won 72 games (NBA record) and the NBA title (this is a 25 game swing). Hmm... Im sensing a pattern. Consider also that the Bulls had 3 different head coaches in each of Jordan's first three seasons, in addition to having no other high level teammates. Makes perfect sense to me the Bulls couldn't win 60 games early in Jordan's career with that being the case. Even before the NBA titles, Jordan lead the Bulls to 2 conference finals appearances. They just happened to run into a Detriot Pistons team that was loaded with a few more hall of fame caliber players then the Bulls. That and the fact that Pippen was still progressing.

The 90s sucked blah, blah, blah. The Jazz had Malone, Stockton and Jerry Sloan as coach. If they had a hard time making the finals it is because you are severely underestimating the 90s NBA. And you are. Anyway, Jordan won his 1st NBA title against a Magic Johnson lead Lakers squad. As in the team that beat the Celtics in 2 out of 3 finals series matchups while Bird was with the Celtics. They also swept the 2-time NBA champion Detriot Pistons to get there. A Pistons squad that had Isiah Thomas, Dennis Rodman, Joe Dumars and Bill Laimbeer. The Bulls squad that started winning titles could have played with and beaten any of the great teams from the 80s. The whole different generation argument holds no wieght anyway. Jordan started his NBA career in the 80s and nobody could stop him then. This is precisely why great NBA players Larry Bird and Magic Johnson cite Jordan as the best player they ever had to play against.

Let me just say that I think the current Celtic coach, Doc Rivers, is one great coach. I feel like his influence has really played a huge role in the success that the Celtic's have had recently. Not that the players aren't critical, but Rivers is one helluva coach.

Doc Rivers is a great coach. And he was the Celtics coach in 06-07 when they had Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo and were one of the worst teams in the league. Trust me, the players make a HUGE difference. Every player. The key players they had before the Celtics were winning and the ones they acquired.

The Lakers team that the Bulls beat was NOT the Showtime Lakers team of the 80s. They were 43-39 the next year without Magic.

Stockton and Malone took 12 years to reach the Finals. NOT impressed.

In 1994-95, Horance Grant left the Bulls.

When the Bulls won 72 games in 1996---80% of their starting lineup was NEW from the previous year. It wasn't just Jordan.

We SAW what happened when it was JUST Jordan changing---not a lot of difference.

The Bulls didn't win half their games until Jordan's 4th year.

What was Boston's starting lineup for 2006-07 VS 2007-08?

When I'm talking about Bird, I'm talking about HIM being THE change to the starting lineup. Your examples have 3-4 changes to a starting lineup. It's not the same thing.

The 90s were weaker. None of that crop of 90s stars that came up in 1985-1986 won a THING in the 80s. We all know that.

'Nobody could stop Jordan'. The man couldn't get his team to win 1/2 their games until more help arrived in his 4th season. The GOAT needs a ceratin amount of help to win 60 games. The GOAT needs a certain amount of help to win championships. But the GOAT needing more help to win 1/2 the team's games? The GOAT being replaced by Pete Myers? I don't think so.

The 90s were weaker, no question---IMO.

Now I understand there are fundamental differences in the way we see things-----even the toughness of the 90s as an NBA decade... so I think we're done. There's not going to be any mind changing here.

Nighthawk wrote:

The 90s were weaker. None of that crop of 90s stars that came up in 1985-1986 won a THING in the 80s. We all know that.

You can make that argument for pretty much every generation. '80's standouts didn't win in the '70's. Other than Duncan winning in '99, the 2000's winners didn't win in the '90's. And it really doesn't appear that any 2000's winners will win in the 2010's except Dwyane Wade.

No, I'm not spoofing those Kona posts, but I'm out of here. I'm fed up with the racism, etc. on so many threads here. Good luck all. I may be back, but I'm taking a break from it for a while at least. Thanks for a great debate here though, at least this one stayed positive.

There are fundemental differences of opinion and we aren't going to agree. But a few of your statements in the this post are so of the charts in terms of being ridiculous that I simply cannot leave them unopposed.

"When the Bulls won 72 games in 1996---80% of their starting lineup was NEW from the previous year. It wasn't just Jordan.

We SAW what happened when it was JUST Jordan changing---not a lot of difference."

Both statements here are flat out wrong. I actually almost LOL'd but I was in public. I'll start with what happened when it was "just" a matter of Jordan changing. They didn't win the NBA title in 93-94 after doing so 3 times in a row. They didn't play for the title. They didn't play for the conference title after doing so for 5 years in a row. Seems like a pretty big change for something you call "not a lot of difference. I'm sure most organizations are perfectly fine with wining 55 games and 0 championships since it's "not a lot of difference" as compared to winning 3 straight NBA titles. Since the Bulls were able to keep every other key player to their roster from the championship team (and even adding Toni Kukoc), a master scheme coach like Phil Jackson should be expected to pull make the playoffs. They knew the entire offseason he wasn't going to be there. It's not like an injury situation where a team prepares for a season excpecting their best player will be there and then suddenly he isn't. That type of absence far more difficult. Yet, even with a solid roster and great coach they fail to make it even to the conference finals.

BTW, Pete Myers didn't exactly "replace" Jordan did he? His personal production and the overall team result indicates he fell short in those regards.

But lets get to roster changes you mentioned. Firstly, you are wrong about the roster being 80% different the year before Jordan return, as from 94-95 to 95-96. The majority of roster moves occured after the 93-94 season. Horace Grant left the Bulls BEFORE the 94-95 season. Joining him leaving were Bill Cartwright and John Paxson. In their place the Bulls picked up Ron Harper, Luc Longley, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington and Jud Buechler. Was this an upgrade? According to the win-loss column it was a degrad. As a fan of the bulls for a long time, the 94-95 season was filled with a lot of unrest. The team was clearly no where close to the Bulls during the Jordan years. So in answer to your comment, no the roster was not 80% different when Jordan played a full season in 95-96, it was 90% similar. And the most of the moves DID NOT improve the Bulls at all. It certainly didn't help the Bulls get back even to the conference finals. Then Jordan returned.

Getting Rodman was huge but was easily far less significant then getting Michael Jordan. By this stage in his career Rodman was only useful on defense. I'd say he was a liability on offense. Bulls fans cringed when Rodman had possession at the end of a close game. The definitive factor in the Bulls going from 47 to 72 wins in one season (one of the best turnarounds in NBA history) was Michael Jordan returning. You won't get any knowlegable coach or player from that time to say anything different.

As far as the era babble goes, the Lakers had Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Sam Perkins, AC Green and Byron Scott When the Bulls beat them in the finals. Looks like a damn good line up to me. More impressive, in my opinion though, is that the Bulls SWEPT the 2-time defending NBA champion Detriot Pistons to make it to the finals. A Pistons group that helped end the 80s era of shoddy defense. Both teams were legit and not a single notch down from ANY team from the 80s.

You may not be impressed with Karl Malone and John Stockton but any one else involved with selecting hall of famers, olympic teams and All-time lists certainly are. So again, if the Utah Jazz took a while to make finals and only went twice it's because your assessment the NBA in the 90s is grotesquely inaccurate and overstated. Basically, it isn't a matter opinion, you've gone so far over in favor of this one idea that you are simply wrong.

Finally, Larry Bird was certainly the biggest factor in the Celtics turnout, but he wan't the ONLY factor or "THE" factor as you put it. The Celtics acquired quite a few players both the year before and the year of the arrival of Bird. They picked up Cedric Maxwell (1981 finals MVP), Tiny Archibald (6 time all star with 3 of those before he ever played with Bird and 3 NBA 1st team awards pre-Bird) and Chris Ford the year before Bird arrvied. Then they added Gerald Henderson and M.L. Carr the same year as Bird. A great deal of the roster changed around the time of Bird's arrival and several of these additions were definite upgrades. Sure the Celtics struggled in 78-79 but adding Maxwell and Archibald were moves definitely helped when Bird was added. Likewise, the Celtics had Pierce and Rondo when they had a horrible season in 06-07. It may not have helped that season but they were vital to the Celtics success the following season.

Point being, Bird didn't simply walk on to a team of complete wahoos when he arrived, he had other teammates that while they might be in the Hall of Fame, were pretty darn good. If the Celtics hadn't added along with Bird there would be no 61 season in 79-80. But they still didn't win a title. Bird needed McHale and Parrish for that.

You really don't get how important a good surrounding cast is vital to a team's success even an elite player is on the team do you? As just discussed, Bird had a solid cast his first year and a great cast surrounding him his second year. Jordan had nothing his 1st year but still got the Bulls to the playoffs after they had missed them the 3 previous seasons. Year 2 they added John Paxson and Charles Oakley, which is a step up from what they had but not even within the realm of what Celtics added in Bird's second year. Besides that, Michael Jordan broke his foot his second season and missed quite a few games. Do you think that might have been a possible reason the Bulls weren't above .500? If you don't you have issues. Jordan had 3 different coaches his first 3 seasons. Despite this he got the Bulls to the playoffs and even dropped 63 points on the Celtics in a playoff game his second season after coming back from an injury. Against 3 future hall of famers.

Jordan was unstoppable. When was he stopped in his early years? Who exactly stopped him from producing? The team on the other hand had very little to help Jordan with. Not even close than what Bird had his first year. But ultimately we measure greatness by the totality of each player's career and Larry Bird simplely didn't do as much as Jordan did in terms of personal or team success.

wipe the spewy from your mouth

it was jordan who started the shave head and then all the rappers and gangsters (small penis guys) followed!

Wipe the stupid from your mind.

'a few of your statements in the this post are so of the charts in terms of being ridiculous'

'I actually almost LOL'd but I was in public.'

'Do you think that might have been a possible reason the Bulls weren't above .500? If you don't you have issues.'

________________________________________________________

Ehh. It's a shame that you need to go the route of the immature and snarky.

For the record, I said the Bulls STARTING LINEUP---not ROSTER---changed 80% from 94-95 to 95-96. I DO have to admit I was still wrong... it was 60% of the starting lineup (Jordan, Longley & Rodman replaced Armstrong, Perdue & Kukoc)... I didn't say 'LINEUP' as you claimed before wasting a paragraph on it.

Pete Myers replaced Jordan in the Bulls starting lineup in 93-94. The Bulls won 2 fewer games (and actually won at a better clip than in 92-93 when Pippen was in there---51-21 VS 57-25).

57-25 to 55-27 isn't 'a lot of difference' relative to a team going from 57-25 in 87-88 to 24-28 the next year (before making trades for frontcourt help) in 88-89 as was the case in Boston.

The Bulls didn't win a championship without Jordan. But, they did better with Pete Myers than anyone should have thought... either that, OR folks really DON'T expect much of an impact from Jordan over a journeyman like Myers. Which puzzles me.

Pete Myers would NEVER help a team cover for a missing Larry Bird by that close a margin. NEVER. Reggie Lewis couldn't come close and he's a better player than Myers.

As for the timing of Jordan's ommission from the 93-94 Bulls-----I bet you he announced his retirement later than you think.

Horace Grant left the Bulls before 94-95. That's what I meant when I said IN 94-95. My bad.

The 90-91 Lakers were missing Abdul-Jabbar. Kind of a big piece. Ask people.

The 78-79 Celtics, no matter what the names were-----were 29-53. 1 year removed from being 32-50. They were what their record says they were. You can try to dress it up all you want.

You keep going on about Pierce and Rondo in 06-07. How many games did Pierce play? 45? 46? Rondo didn't start. When they added Garnett and Allen in 07-08, they got those 2 PLUS Rondo started and Pierce played a full season. That's A LOT of turnover in the starting lineup, no? I admit, I don't know the point you were trying to make.

In 78-79, The Celtics started Cowens, Archibald, Maxwell, Ford and Billy Knight/ Bob McAdoo.

In 79-80, it was Cowens, Archibald, Maxwell, Ford and Bird.

Cowens played less/ Archibald played more. 29 wins to 61 wins.

Jordan played 18 games in 85-86 (reg season). The Bulls were 9-9. That's .500. Am I supposed to says it's more than .500?

Bird needed Parish and McHale to win a title. But he didn't need them to break .500 or win 60 games. And the Celtics don't come close to covering for Bird by using a player of Pete Myers' ilk in the starting lineup.

Jordan's peronal productivity has never been in question. Lord know he was 'going to get his', come hell or high water. Heck in those regrettable Wizards years, he still insisted on taking the most shots, shooting 41% or 44% from the floor. He was gonna get his. And winning more games could have been the 'victim' of that.

They stuck Pete Myers in there and barely blinked. Take Jordan away and there's no championship (just the 55 wins). Take Pippen away from Jordan and what is there? No championship and no .500+ season.

You can have the last word. We both know that you NEED it. BAD. The 'not even blinking' at the Bulls sticking Peter Myers in there for Jordan and winning 55 games anyway alerts me to the fact that you are in full-blown 'protect Jordan' mode. There's no penetrating that teflon shield. I know it.