Is Larry Bird the Greatest NBA Player Of All Time?

Jordan fan

RE: Is Larry Bird the Greatest NBA Player Of All Time? 3/26/2012 3:47PM - in reply to Nighthawk

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.

LetsRun.com