Is Larry Bird the Greatest NBA Player Of All Time?

terrible GM and owner wrote:

Super Jay Five wrote:

I bet that they ALL would rather have Bird! Why? Because Bird would throw them the BALL! Jordan was a ball hog.

Jordan was pretty brutal on his teammates also calling some of them names if they didn't play as good as he thought they should. At least he didn't blame them for every loss like Kobe Klanker.

If they cloned Jordan and Jordan had a choice of playing with the clone or Bird I bet Jordan would play with Bird over his OWN CLONE. That is brutal.

Super Jay Five wrote:

terrible GM and owner wrote:

Jordan was pretty brutal on his teammates also calling some of them names if they didn't play as good as he thought they should. At least he didn't blame them for every loss like Kobe Klanker.

If they cloned Jordan and Jordan had a choice of playing with the clone or Bird I bet Jordan would play with Bird over his OWN CLONE. That is brutal.

That's an interesting take. I saw a discussion once where a poster was talking about trying to identify the greatest players----and he started out trying to think of players he'd pay to see play even if they were on a bad team. He immediately thought of Jordan. Then he said that he couldn't imagine Larry Bird playing on a loser. And then he had to rethink his whole premise.

There's a line of thought that says Jordan ADDED more to a team as a singular player. But Bird MULTIPLIED the usefulness of the other 4 players better, in addition to ADDING quite a bit as an individual player himself---and that a team is better off with Bird as the total team product with him (and not Jordan) would be greater.

Tarzan wrote:

People get too hung up with stats. Jordan could have lead the NBA in assists in any year had he wanted to or needed to. But the Bulls didn't need Jordan passing much, as evidence by their record and Championships. Why even bring it up. Don't you think with his abilities he could have been one of the top passers in the league.

I agree that you can't argue with results. Jordan got them playing his style in the 90s.

But he had far less success before the great 1991-98 run. Perhaps the team could have used a different approach from him----if he was so capable (and maybe he was).

Even when he was a Washington Wizard, he took the most shots per game. By a fair margin, too. And they had Rip Hamilton on that team (before they foolishly traded him for Stackhouse, I believe------and you have to wonder if Jordan wanted Hamilton moved for Stackhouse, another Tar Heel alumnus... then Jordan took more shots per game than Stackhouse).

Jordan just didn't seem to have it in him to dedicate himself to facilitating others for any extended period.

His way still worked pretty darned well in the 90s.

You are dead wrong. Time to set you straight.

Russell outplayed Wilt? I don't think so.

head-to-head numbers:

Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell's team won 88, Wilt's teams won 54.

In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, Russell averaged 14.5ppg and 23.7rpg

Wilt's high game vs. Russell was 62, and he had six other 50+ point games against Russell . Russell's high game against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30+ point games against Wilt.

Wilt's record 55 rebound game was against Russell, and he had six other 40+ rebound games vs. Russell.

Russell only had one 40+ rebound night against Wilt.

Wilt's teams lost all 4 seventh games against Russell's Celtics... (Russell's Celtics were 10-0 in game 7s during his career).

The total margin of defeat in those four 7th games was nine points

(begin the teammate argument because head-to-head is a no-contest)

Russell was limited offensively, Wilt limitless.

Playing the same role on the boards (i.e. primary rebounder except Wilt was also primary offense and Russell wasn't which means he should have been available for more o-boards to no avail) Chamberlain more or less swept him on rebounding titles (like 9 of the 11 seasons they were both active Wilt lead the league in rebounding).

Let's go to passing. Who was the only center in the history of the association to lead the league in assists? (and he almost did it twice) - not Bill Russell, that's right it was Chamberlain.

Russel's intangibles were great no doubt but he had lots of hall of fame bound teammates on a dynasty team run by the best coach/GM of his era running a system he fit into perfectly.

Surround Wilt with those same players, those Philly teams would have won every NBA Championship he played in.

Russell has acknowledged the many times that he simply could do nothing to stop Chamberlain. Compared to Russell, Chamberlain was a signficantly superior player; compared to almost all of the rest of the NBA, Wilt was *vastly* superior.

People sometimes talk about Russell's 11 rings like he won them by himself, or like he was actually the leading force on thast time, which he was not in every one of those years. If he go just by :rings," Robert Horry is an infinitely better player than Karl Malone, Dominique Wilkins or Elgin Baylor.

If guys discount Jo9rdan's process because he had Pippen for support, why don';t they do the same for Russell because he had Havlicek, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Heinsohn, Cousy, Ramsey, and Jungle Jim Loscutoff?

Super Jay Five wrote:

If they cloned Jordan and Jordan had a choice of playing with the clone or Bird I bet Jordan would play with Bird over his OWN CLONE. That is brutal.

I don't know about that. Jordan is pretty in love with himself.

Didn't Jordan average 32 8 and 8 one year on 53% FG shooting in 1988? And how many HOF'ers did Bird and Magic have on their teams in the 80's compared to what Jordan had to deal with in Chicago? You guys really expect a young rookie (Jordan '85) to suddenly take a crappy team (with no HOFer's) all the way to the championship and defeat the Celtics and Lakers?

Larry Bird may not be the greatest NBA player of all-time. Certainly he is one of them and stats don't tell the real story. Great moments do and he was always clutch, like Jordan and Magic.

And he was tough SOB. He made his legend by playing all out and competing to win always. You just don't see that anymore in any professional sport. He was the last superstar that did.

A 6-10 slow white guy that was one of the greatest shooters in NBA history.

The last time I remember Bird was the 1991 playoffs against the Pacers where he fell hard before the halftime and smacked his head on the floor and left the game. While playing with sever lower back pain. He would have to lay flat on his stomach at time at breaks just to keep going.

He came back out of the locker room the second half and it was probably the most dramatic and gripping thing I've ever seen in an NBA game. And delivered and brought his team back to win.

To me Magic, Jordan, and Bird were the best basketball will ever get. I can't even watch the NBA anymore its worse than baseball. Even the finals.

Larry Bird his rookie season went to a lowly Celtics team and they made the playoffs. As a single player he made the same impact that Lebron James did with the Cavs or Jordan did with the Bulls. Magic never played for a bad team.

terrible gm and owner wrote:

Super Jay Five wrote:

If they cloned Jordan and Jordan had a choice of playing with the clone or Bird I bet Jordan would play with Bird over his OWN CLONE. That is brutal.

I don't know about that. Jordan is pretty in love with himself.

Yes Jordan is in love with himself and that was ultimately his limit as a player. His clone would be the same way I would think. Neither one of them would ever throw a pass to the other. That is why they would BOTH much rather have Bird on the team because he would throw his brilliant passes and make them look good.

No time to disabuse you of all of this. For those interested, Bill Simmons devotes an entire chapter of his "Everything Basketball Book" to just this question. Demolishes the conventional wisdom.

To the topic at hand--Bird: It is incredibly hard to compare across eras. I will say, however, that if Bird had retired when he had his heel surgery in '89, although we would have missed a few amazing moments (off the floor to duel Person, the Lazarus Game in '92 vs. Portland, and the few shining moments against Cuba and Germany on the Dream Team), it would be a different conversation. Bird from 80-88 was incredible. And Bird from 84-88 was, at that point in the history of the game, unquestionably the best. Our view is spoiled somewhat by watching him play from 89-92.

Simmons does a good job in the book I referenced above in dividing the top hundred of so players into tiers of a pyramid of greatness. He puts Jordan at the very top. But that very pinnacle is still Jordan, Bird, and Magic.

Look, all you fools hoping to convince yourself that a white man was the best player ever, are nothing but jaded by color. Jordan was the best player ever. PERIOD. Bird is somewhere in the next 5. Bird is NOT the best player ever.

A white man will never have the athleticism to be the best ever. Yes, intangibles, vision, passing, team player etc. But thats only cuz they cant do the other stuff. Jordan just had all the the stuff mentioned AND he was a world class athlete. Some of you fools are trying to tell me that players would rather have played with someone else. Well they should give back thier rings, cuz bottom line, Jordan put banners in the gym, thats the goal of the game.

Dr Phil wrote:

Look, all you fools hoping to convince yourself that a white man was the best player ever, are nothing but jaded by color. Jordan was the best player ever. PERIOD. Bird is somewhere in the next 5. Bird is NOT the best player ever.

A white man will never have the athleticism to be the best ever. Yes, intangibles, vision, passing, team player etc. But thats only cuz they cant do the other stuff. Jordan just had all the the stuff mentioned AND he was a world class athlete. Some of you fools are trying to tell me that players would rather have played with someone else. Well they should give back thier rings, cuz bottom line, Jordan put banners in the gym, thats the goal of the game.

I think you are "jaded by color". If Bird was black and Jordan was white you would be saying Jordan was a great athlete for a white guy but Bird was a better passer and a better team mate!

But I didn't say that, did I.

whatt//// wrote:

Didn't Jordan average 32 8 and 8 one year on 53% FG shooting in 1988? And how many HOF'ers did Bird and Magic have on their teams in the 80's compared to what Jordan had to deal with in Chicago? You guys really expect a young rookie (Jordan '85) to suddenly take a crappy team (with no HOFer's) all the way to the championship and defeat the Celtics and Lakers?

I think it's unreasonable to expect Jordan to win a CHAMPIONSHIP with those early teams, even if one believes him to be the GOAT. But I don't believe that it's unreasonable to expect winning seasons. Players like Steve Johnson and David Greenwood and Gene Banks weren't exactly dogs. Dave Corzine was at least serviceable.

I believe some of the bigger names Jordan played with on those early teams were past their prime (didn't he play on a team with Gervin at one time? And maybe later the A-Train?). You'd be right, IMO, to NOT "count them" as HOFers when they were with Jordan----as they were no longer "THOSE guys".

With Magic, he DID go to a contender. I think the Lakers were a 47-win team the year before he joined. In Magic's rookie year, Jabbar was the league MVP. The Lakers won 60 games in Magic's rookie year. To be fair to Magic, the team he took to the Finals in 1991 VS the Bulls won 58 games that year. The same team one year later won 43 games WITHOUT Magic.

When Jordan retired the 1st time, the Bulls with Pete Myers (sp?) in his place won 55 games and were 51-21 in games Pippen played in. The Bulls won 57 games 1 year prior with Jordan. I cannot explain why they didn't suffer Jordan's absence more.

As for Bird, the team he joined as a rookie was 32-50 2 years prior and 29-53 1 year prior. The only change in the starting lineup from 1978-79 to 1979-80 was Bird. Despite the names on the 1978-79 team, they stunk. Cowens would retire after 1 year with Bird. He was no longer THAT Dave Cowens. Nate Archibald was still a good player... but he was no longer THAT Tiny anymore. With Bird, they won 61 games. Outside of Bird, they had essentially the same 7 man rotation.

Not all that interested in what "Bill Simmons" says. The idea that Russell was a better player than Chamberlain is totally daft.

I think the 55-win Bulls without Jordan added Toni Kukoc to the bench and Luc Longley played some that year. That helped them fill the void. Though, I believe Pete Meyers started in place of Jordan and you'd think it would take more than Kukoc off the bench and a partial season from Longley to fill that void. Definitely not the drop you'd expect losing Jordan.

Also, Jordan's early teams featured a fairly good player in Orlando Woolridge. You'd think them with Quentin Daily, Corzine, Steve Johnson and David Greenwood could finish .500.

I think Bird's final years did taint the memory of him. But his impact was still felt. One of those years (1991?) the Celtics were 29-5 before his back went out. They went 10-12 in the next 22 games without a broken down Bird. He came back and they went 17-9 with him, albeit hobbled. That's 46-14 with a 'shot' Larry Bird, 10-12 without. Even shot, he made that kind of impact. Pretty remarkable.

Speaking of white guys who played for the Celtics in that period, I think history actually undervalues Kevin McHale. Charles Barkley agrees.

Decrepit Geezer wrote:

Speaking of white guys who played for the Celtics in that period, I think history actually undervalues Kevin McHale. Charles Barkley agrees.

No doubt. Only guy to shoot 60% from the floor and 80% from the line! and he did it twice. He could have been MVP in '86 except for being on the same team with Bird. And more moves in the low post than any big man, ever.