Is Larry Bird the Greatest NBA Player Of All Time?

John Stockton as a rival to Jordan?! Most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

Each series had a different "rival". Magic, Drexler, Barkley, Payton, Malone. Unfortunately, those individuals couldn't beat the TEAM that they faced, much less Michael.

Most of this is pure nonsense. If we look closely we could probably find excuses for almost any finals champion ever as to why they won. Jordan won more titles than Bird of course. Jordan also did a lot of other things more than Bird as well. He scored more. He also had more NBA MVP awards, more NBA finals MVP awards, more all-star games, 9 time member of the NBA All Defense First Team (Bird never made 1st team), 1988 Defensive player of the Year, more All NBA First Team awards, etc, etc, etc...

Overrated is typical reserved for someone who is deemed talented/good/great but never wins or achieves when it counts or to the degree that is expected. You cannot say that about Michael Jordan. You are trying to rewrite history here. Bird has virtually nothing on Jordan and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Bird is definitely one of the best ever but he is no Michael Jordan.

Here's how the '86 Celtics compare with the '11 Heat

'86 Celtics

W% -- 81.7

FG % -- 50.8

3P % -- 35.1

FT % -- 79.4

Scoring Margin -- + 9.4

Reb Margin -- +4.89

TO Margin -- -1.24

'11 Heat

W% -- 70.7

FG % -- 48.1

3P % -- 37.0

FT % -- 76.9

Scoring Margin -- +7.5

Reb Margin -- 3.86

TO Margin -- -.74

I think the '86 Celtics would've topped the Heat in a 7 game series. They were a less athletic team, but they were bigger and could shoot somewhat better. Put simply I think the Heat can't win because they get beat on the boards and the Celtics are so accurate shooting. Consider:

Celtics Big 3

Bird - FG% 49.6, 3P% 42.3, FT% 89.6, Reb 9.8

McHale - FG% 57.4, FT% 77.6, Reb 8.1

Parrish - FG% 54.9, FT% 73.1, Reb 9.5

Heat Big 3

James - FG% 51.0, 3P% 33.0, FT% 75.9, Reb 7.5

Wade - FG% 50.0, 3P% 30.6, FT% 75.8, Reb 6.4

Bosh - FG% 49.6, FT% 81.5, Reb 8.3 (leads the team in Reb)

@chikin It's ridiculous because you didn't read it. I said that Stockton was "closest" to the role of rival.

What really would be ridiculous is your apparent implicit ranking of Gary Payton over John Stockton.

NBA Observant wrote:

Bird was a player who was far better than his numbers. Jordan, Chamberlain, and Kareem were players whose numbers basically told the full story - they had great numbers and they were great. Russell like Bird was better than his numbers, Magic maybe a little bit so too but not quite to the same extent as Bill or Larry.

I love this line of thinking. Let's ignore anything quantifiable so that it doesn't ruin our love for the guy.

towhee wrote:

Jordan is often considered the GOAT in large part due to his 6 titles. Magic won 5 and Bird 3.

But the devil is in the details, and if you look at the details of each Bulls title, there was some luck involved in Jordan racking up 6. Also keep in mind that Jordan played 7 years before he won an NBA title.

The 1991 title was against an injury-depleted Laker team with Magic, Worthy, & Scott all injured. The 1992 title was almost blown in game 6 when Phil Jackson took out Jordan at the start of the 4th quarter and put in a bunch of reserves who rallied to save the day.

Unlike Magic/Bird, Jordan did not have a great rival. Probably John Stockton, whom Jordan faced in his last two titles, would be the closest to that role...

You are so far off in so many ways it is absurd. And no, I am not a Bulls fan.

The devil is in the details? OK, how about this for details

Jordan would easily have won 8 titles if he hadn't decided to play baseball while in his prime. Anyone who doesn't think this is obvious has absolutely no clue.

Jordan was the best defender in the league when he needed to be. He so ferociously annihilated a solid all star in Byron Scott during the finals that Scott was never the same player again. That is the only time I have ever witnessed the LITERAL destruction of another player.

And lack of a great rival? Every year there was another pretender to the throne (Ewing, Malone, Barkley, Olajuwan, Drexler...). Why did they all seem unworthy? Because nobody could come close to touching MJ. So, you are penalizing MJ because he was just so great that nobody could possibly be close to him??!

Consider this: Bird and Magic are (rightfully) always in the discussion as greatest players to ever play the game. Here is what they said:

Bird: It's just God disguised as Michael Jordan

Magic: Greatest athlete that's ever played any sport. We will look back 100 years from now and still see Jordan as clearly superior to everyone else. We (himself, Bird, Isaiah...) only dream about doing the things that Jordan can do.

Get a clue, guys. It is MJ and then everybody else.

Well for Russell his numbers definitely don't tell the full story because blocks weren't tracked and he was probably the greatest shot blocker of all-time...

Overrated to me means what it says--it's a player who is perceived as greater than he actually was. All I'm saying is that Jordan was truly great but not the basketball god that many consider him to be.

Generally picking "the greatest" is a fools errand. Jordan, Bird, and Magic were such different players. And their teams were all built very differently also.

Just keep in mind one thing to temper the idea that Jordan was head & shoulders above either Bird or Magic: Jordan entered the NBA in 84, but did not win a title until 1990-91.

Bird & Magic both entered the league in 1979. Magic of course led the Lakers to a title as a rookie. As for Bird:

the Celtics made it to the conference finals that year

from wikipedia

Bird's impact on the Celtics was immediate. The Celtics were 29–53 during the 1978–79 season, but with Bird the team improved to 61–21 in the 1979–80 season, posting the league's best regular season record

I know, I know, the Bulls were terrible when Jordan first arrived and it took time to build the team. But to quote you, excuses can always be found....

Percentages are all good and well, but the '86 Celtics were playing NBA teams from, well, 1986. Competition today is so much better, and that's to be expected. I know guys that can sit there and make 3-point after 3-point in their local city league. Does that make them NBA quality? Seriously, go and watch an 80s NBA game on ESPN Classic.

Using "John Stockton", "Michael Jordan", and "rival" in a sentence (and in a positive light for Stockton) is ridiculous, no matter how you placed the word "role" in the sentence. I never implicitly ranked Payton over Stockton. I merely identified the best player from each opponent that Jordan faced in all 6 Finals Series. Karl Malone was the player that filled the role of Jordan's rival in that series. And that's even a stretch.You're so intent on "reading between the lines that you're missing the point. Stockton is nowhere close to the player Jordan was. Naming him as a person that could fill the role of a rival is an insult to Jordan. And by the way, Payton did a much better job than Stockton defending Jordan.... wait, Stockton didn't defend Jordan. Russell had that job.

towhee wrote:

@chikin It's ridiculous because you didn't read it. I said that Stockton was "closest" to the role of rival.

What really would be ridiculous is your apparent implicit ranking of Gary Payton over John Stockton.

hondo17 wrote:

Well for Russell his numbers definitely don't tell the full story because blocks weren't tracked and he was probably the greatest shot blocker of all-time...

I will give you that point.

Wade was the man on the 06 title team and was unstoppable in the clutch. He also seems to usually be the man on this team in crunch time. If the Heat win it again, that's two titles with him being the go to guy. I think he would deserve consideration for the list. One other guy who should probably be on the list is John Havlicek.

Of course, there are a lot of great players who should be on any list of greatest players ever who don't get talked about as much because they never won a title. Not really fair, because it is a team game and even the greatest players need other pieces around them.

Jordan won 6 championships to Bird's 3. However Bird is a career 23 - 11 vs Jordan, Bird's Celtics SWEPT Jordan's Bulls twice.

They're two different types of players. Jordan was more athletic. Jordan was a better pure scorer. Jordan had better longevity. Bird was a better pure shooter, especially from the perimeter. Bird was a more effective rebounder; Bird was 6'9", Jordan was 6'6" (or supposedly even 6'4.5" according to Pat Riley). Bird was a better passer.

[quote]What the heck wrote:

Jordan was the best defender in the league when he needed to be. He so ferociously annihilated a solid all star in Byron Scott during the finals that Scott was never the same player again. [quote]

FYI...Byron Scott was never seleted to the all-star game

Magic and Bird may have won titles earlier in their career, and to that I say "So What?" You are right, the Bulls did stink before Jordan arrive. Did the Lakers or Celtics stink beofre Magic or Bird arrived? The answer is no. Does building a team simply mean drafting the best player? It would be ridiculous to suggest so. We tend to focus solely on team championships in determining who is the greatest. However, the reality is they are TEAM TITLES. Jordan isn't a basketball God, he was/is the greatest player ever to play the game. The Celtics and Lakers have won titles BEFORE & AFTER Magic and Bird retired. What have the Bulls ever done without Michael Jordan on the team. Sure, they've made the playoffs but until this year couldn't even be considered a potential contender. The Celtics and Lakers have a history of having good teams on the court. Drafting Bird and Magic were the icing on the cake. Michael Jordan was the cake.

I'm not calling Jordan a god. Im calling him the best ever. If your standard for him being overrated is that he isn't a god then that is unreachable. He came, he put up the numbers, he won championships and he did it better and more prolifically then anyone else. Overrated? That's a joke.

Using "John Stockton", "Michael Jordan", and "rival" in a sentence (and in a positive light for Stockton) is ridiculous, no matter how you placed the word "role" in the sentence.

I never implicitly ranked Payton over Stockton. I merely identified the best player from each opponent that Jordan faced in all 6 Finals Series. Karl Malone was the player that filled the role of Jordan's rival in that series. And that's even a stretch.

You're so intent on "reading between the lines that you're missing the point. Stockton is nowhere close to the player Jordan was. Naming him as a person that could fill the role of a rival is an insult to Jordan. And by the way, Payton did a much better job than Stockton defending Jordan.... wait, Stockton didn't defend Jordan. Russell had that job.

You are being very stupid here.

Where do you come up with this rule about which words cannot be used in the same sentence? What matters is the clear meaning of what I wrote, not the juxtaposition of particular words. And I did not say that Stockton was Jordan's rival, in particular in the same way that Bird & Jordan were.

And secondly here is what you said about Payton vis a vis Stockton:

John Stockton as a rival to Jordan?! Most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

Each series had a different "rival". Magic, Drexler, Barkley, Payton, Malone.

So for you, Payton qualifies as 'rival,' while Stockton does not. So yes, you implicitly ranked Payton over Stockton. And you're calling my thoughts 'ridculous?' LMAO.

anyway wrote:

I'm not calling Jordan a god. Im calling him the best ever. If your standard for him being overrated is that he isn't a god then that is unreachable. He came, he put up the numbers, he won championships and he did it better and more prolifically then anyone else. Overrated? That's a joke.

Agreed ^

Correction, the Celtics were the second worst team in the NBA before they drafted Bird. Bird's rookie season, they won more games than any other team in the NBA.

anyway posted:I'm not calling Jordan a god. Im calling him the best ever. If your standard for him being overrated is that he isn't a god then that is unreachable. He came, he put up the numbers, he won championships and he did it better and more prolifically then anyone else. Overrated? That's a joke.

I'll try to explain it a second time. Overrated to me means just what it says. He is 'rated' i.e. perceived by the public to be greater than he really was. And note that this is a purely subjective thing. In fact it is doubly subjective because both the public perception of greatness and greatness itself are impossible to measure.

You can disagree with me that he was overrated, but to call it a 'joke' seems kind of dumb. It's just a subjective opinion. I've given my reasons for the opinion. Mainly that Jordan had a certain amoung of luck in being able to amass 6 titles. Then again, as another poster pointed out he could have won 2 more during hiatus; in fact the Bulls arguably could have won in 1999 if they had not split up.