Larry Bird is the greatest player in the history of the NBA?

[beau_boy04]

According to this article he is ... http://home.earthlink.net/~lnkn/birdjord.htm

Any 3rd party opinions?

Thanks.

[Matthew]

Its a clearly biased article. Have a look when Jordan wins a category, theres and excuse behind it. But when bird wins a category, its undisputeable. Example:
Shooting (bird won), Comment: Birds's numbers are better in every manner of analysis.

But yet when Jordan wins a category, like scoring...
PPG (Jordan won), comment:
The only game stat where Jordan has a decisive edge; However, when you take away free throws...

Riiight

Also, he takes into accounts retirments. Well Jordan came back from retirement in 95 and went on to win as many titles in 3 years as Bird did in his entire career. But "When Larry said he was done, that was it. He wore #33 from beginning to end." so i guess he "was the best".

I also find it comical that he makes direct comparison to jordan and birds stats, despite the different era's. he's the first to bring out the old violin story of "oh the 80's were the tougher league, thats why jordan has more rings" but then when comparing stats, he fails to point out that the game was played at a much higher pace with a lot less of an emphasis on defense.

[Andrew]

As Matthew said, it's a clearly biased article full of double standards. Just take the very first line:

As part of a continuing commitment to educating the masses, The Wicked Pissah Website is proud to present:

Another example of arrogant belief of a particular point of view masquerading as genuis.

But I'll go through it anyway...if they're free to subject the Internet to their opinions, then so am I.

Although Bird's numbers are slightly lower, his was a world without the high percentage slam-dunk.

Sidenote: Larry Bird dunked quite a lot for a guy who wasn't known for it. When I was much younger I was under the impressions he seldom dunked. Every new highlight reel of Bird's career that I've come across since then has shown him taking to the air (well, sort of ) more than I would have expected. Useless trivia.

As far as the argument is concerned, the same must hold true for Shaq and Wilt Chamberlain then. Besides, MJ's highest scoring years and most prolific dunking seasons came in the 80s, with all those tough inside players and the tougher defense. Another standard of the "Jordan isn't great" argument is a series of double standards and points that contradict each other. Moving on...

Jordan played a mere 33 more games than Bird. Why so many more trips to the line? Jordan was notorious for drawing 'excessive sympathy' from referees. Average trips to the line per game - MJ 8, Bird 4.

The numbers are outdated now, but the fact remains that Larry Bird is the superior free throw shooter. Mark Price is better than both of them. The point about Michael Jordan getting sympathy calls isn't really relevant. I don't think free throws made, attempted or percentage is really a good way to judge greatness. Certainly, it shouldn't be as significant as number of titles, MVP trophies or pure talent.

Birds's numbers are better in every manner of analysis.

Indeed, Larry Bird was a better three point shooter. He was the best shooter, period. Michael Jordan was of course the more prolific scorer.

Again, Bird's numbers are clearly superior.

These are rebounding numbers. They're comparing a 6'9" forward with a 6'6" guard. Michael Jordan's 6.2 rpg over his career are more than respectable for a shooting guard.

Bird with more lifetime numbers in fewer games; a familiar theme.

This refers to assists. It's almost even since Michael Jordan returned to the Wizards as far as totals go, but seeing as though Michael Jordan was taking more shots, scoring more points, and not playing the same sort of playmaker role as Bird, the numbers are going to be lopsided.

Both round out to two steals per game, although Jordan had slightly better numbers. Bet you didn't think it was that close, did you?

Dripping with arrogance, this argument rounds MJ's steals per game down 0.35 per game for his career, while rounding Bird's up from 1.73. The different is a little wider than is being suggested. And as Matthew noted, it's a category that MJ wins thus it's being downplayed.

Practically identical, but both with an insignificant number. Not what you'd expect from a guy who calls himself "Air", is it?

This one is absolutely absurd - it refers to blocks. It criticises Michael Jordan, a 6'6" (that's lower than the league average) shooting guard for not averaging more than .89 blocks per game for his career? Again, downplaying MJ being better in this column as well as his abilities.

...you take away some of the 'air' in the Jordan mystique. As the league's undisputed primadonna, MJ inflated his scoring stats from the stripe. If he hit those freebies with Bird's accuracy, MJ would have averaged 32 PPG.

Hardly an unbiased judgement or use of this statistic. Karl Malone often had more free throw attempts than Michael Jordan and if I recall correctly, trails only Wilt Chamberlain on the alltime list. Perhaps we should disqualify both of them from any scoring honours.

Bird's titles were won in an NBA that boasted at least two powerhouse teams, plus the oft-overlooked 76'ers; it would be ludricous to suggest that the Bulls faced the same level of league parity

The 80s did indeed boast a few teams that were always at the top. But the teams in the 90s were not as weak as suggested. And even if they were, the Bulls were at the same level. It's not as though the Bulls were filled with awesome players, taken from another era and plunked down admist an NBA full of teams that would struggle in the CBA.

Also, perhaps this standard should be applied to the Boston Celtics of the 60s, particularly the 1961 squad that featured nine Hall of Famers.

How many NBA titles would Bird have won if he enjoyed the flimsy Western Conference opposition that MJ has faced?

Flimsy? This is another argument that's been used for a long time and is regurgitated every so often. Top to bottom, every team that the Bulls faced were much more talented. The 1991 Lakers were on their last legs, the 1992 Blazers had a tendency to self destruct but had become one of the best teams in the West since the late 80s and the 1993 Suns, 1996 Supersonics, and the Jazz of 1997 and 1998 were hardly "flimsy". Again, downplaying the accomplishments when MJ has the edge.

Although Bird's trips to the playoffs didn't yeild as many NBA titles as MJ's, he kept the Celtics on top in their division throughout his career

With the help of two other players who are now in the Hall of Fame for most of that time, another Hall of Famer in Ball Walton for a couple of those years, a former Finals MVP in Dennis Johnson and the rest of the Boston Celtics. Michael Jordan's Bulls never missed the playoffs, which is saying something given some of their lineups in the early years. Let's face it, they both made their teams very successful and were big reasons for them staying afloat year after year.

When Larry said he was done, that was it. He wore #33 from beginning to end.

Absolutely no relevance whatsoever. A completely ridiculous point.

So what does it all mean? Was Larry better than Michael? Not necessarily. Was Jordan the greatest player in the history of the game? Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.

This is probably the most logical part of the whole "debate". There's more to it than just the stats presented (especially given how they're presented there) and much of it comes down to personal opinion about the various factors - which is more important, which factors cancel or balance each other out, etc.

Michael Jordan filled the "greatness void" left by such players as Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and Julius Erving. He has been coddled by referees and has amassed trophies and accolades in a league where no one could challenge him. While the argument could be made that this is the reason MJ is the best there ever was, I don't see it that way. Jordan has made his mark in an era where expansion and million-dollar salaries for mediocre players have watered down the overall talent in the league beyond comparison to Bird's era.

Ah yes, the watered down argument. Again, the Bulls suffered from being "watered down" as well. To say there were no great players to oppose Michael Jordan...especially when many of greatest statistical achievements came in the 80s...is just wrong.

That having been said, as a clear partisan for Celtic Pride I will state my opinon, supported by the facts articulated above. Larry Bird is the greatest player in the history of the NBA. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Well there you go. His opinion is as biased as mine or anyone else's. The fact is, they're both great players, two of the greatest we've ever seen. You can make a case for both of them, as he points out. But the story he's put forth, "supported by the facts" as they are, is not a really convincing, unbiased or well thought out case for Larry Bird. You can certainly make a really good case for Larry Bird in the "Greatest Player in History" debate. But that wasn't it.

And the postscript, of course:

NOTE: For those who may want to send me email about Russell, Cousy, Chamberlin, Dr. J, or other potential "greatest players", save it. Tell somebody who cares. The same thing goes for any Jordanistas out there who want to flame me: unless you've got something intelligent to say, don't bother saying it.

The underlying message there is that all Bulls/Jordan fans are mindless drones who can't (or won't) "see the truth".

Entertaining, nevertheless.

[Matt]

IMHO, Larry Bird has to be one of the most overrated players in the history of the NBA. I mean he could shoot the lights out, but i think if he was in the NBA now he'd get bullied big time.

[Stevan]

Where's Sauru? I'm awaiting his post about Larry Bird, accompanied by some excessively loud slurping...

Only kidding... about the 'awaiting' part.

[Jackal]

Here's a nice article questioning who the best player of all time could be.

Click.

[Sauru]

while its clear to probably everyone here bird was my favorite player but there is no way i could honestly call him better than jordan. now i have said the 80's were a tougher era but jordan still had to play some damn good teams himself to win his rings, and he won 6 of them. both had a quality that i consider to be the most valuable for any star player, and thats the ability to make everyone else better. now when i say that i dont mean that they put the ball in a perfect spot so they had to score or anything like that. i mean that just by being around them your game was elevated, and god help you if one of them called you out for a crap performance. still in the end i think jordan was easily the best player in the game. i have always said to my friends that in a game i would take jordan for the first 47 minutes and 50 seconds, but for the last shot i would take bird and it is the only time i would ever take bird over jordan in a game.


"IMHO, Larry Bird has to be one of the most overrated players in the history of the NBA. I mean he could shoot the lights out, but i think if he was in the NBA now he'd get bullied big time."

this is just to stupid to even get into

[John-John Joe]

I love Larry Legend to death but no, he isn't.

[Matt]

"IMHO, Larry Bird has to be one of the most overrated players in the history of the NBA. I mean he could shoot the lights out, but i think if he was in the NBA now he'd get bullied big time."

this is just to stupid to even get into

no, please get into it. Put Bird up against todays PF and he'd get an ass whoopin. The dude has no muscle definition to speak of, heck Kevin McHale looks like a rookie. Today's game is so much more physical than that of the 80's. There's no 'show time' here, it's grind it out style. I see Bird as a Dirk Nowitzki at best.

[Matthew]

Give him nowitzki with the baddest attitude a basketballer could have. Bird had a killer instinct that might have only been matched by jordan. Larry Legend might not have dominated against this crop of power forwards like he did in the 80's, but he'd still be the best. He found ways to dominate... you dont win 3 straight mvps from luck.

[Sauru]

"IMHO, Larry Bird has to be one of the most overrated players in the history of the NBA. I mean he could shoot the lights out, but i think if he was in the NBA now he'd get bullied big time."

this is just to stupid to even get into

no, please get into it. Put Bird up against todays PF and he'd get an ass whoopin. The dude has no muscle definition to speak of, heck Kevin McHale looks like a rookie. Today's game is so much more physical than that of the 80's. There's no 'show time' here, it's grind it out style. I see Bird as a Dirk Nowitzki at best.

"Today's game is so much more physical than that of the 80's"

this quote just proves you have no idea what you are talking about. maybe you grew up on the west coast or something but do yourself a favor. go find some old tapes of the pistons vs celtics.

[Jeffx]

That article is a complete waste. Larry's one of the all-time greats, but no way do I put him over Jordan, or Magic Johnson. Hell, to me, Jordan's not the greatest. That honor belongs to Wilt, but that argument's for another thread.

[TheGuRu]

That article is a complete waste. Larry's one of the all-time greats, but no way do I put him over Jordan, or Magic Johnson. Hell, to me, Jordan's not the greatest. That honor belongs to Wilt, but that argument's for another thread.

Yes It is because i was going to say something


Bird Not better than Jordan. Jordan the best? NO . Best all around Yes not best overall.

Stats dont prove nothing seriously. But thats how these guys are proving things. Statistics dont prove whos better than others.

[Matthew]

Stats dont prove nothing seriously. But thats how these guys are proving things. Statistics dont prove whos better than others.

If stats mean nothing, who is a better winner than Jordan? Bill Russell is the only guy worthy of making a comparison in terms of winning, but then jordan had more individual awards as well.

Instead of saying "jordan wasnt the best" how about attempting to make an arguement to back up your statement?

[TheGuRu]

A Lot of people are better than jordan... LIKE ME! Muahahahahhahaa.

but im saying. You cant always follow their stats. Some people GET OLD!

[Drex]

Well, as far as I know, everybody has to get old

[Andrew]

If statistics are nothing to go by, then why are Wilt's most impressive numbers (100 points in a game. 50.4 ppg, 48.5 mpg, the awesome rebounding numbers that I can't remember exactly at this time) always trotted out as proof that he's the greatest? Bit of a double standard there, wouldn't you say?

[Dan's Brain]

If there was a Heart per game statistic, maybe we'd have a better idea. Then again, I'm not really sure how that would work. There is no really good way of determining who the GOAT is.

Numbers are all very well and good, but there are plenty of categories that need to be measured but aren't. You can't put a numerical value on how good someone is as a team-mate. There is no integer measuring somebody's attitude.

We need to find somebody who has seen everybody in the history of the world play basketball, and get them to choose the GOAT. I'm looking at Kevin Willis.

[The X]

no, please get into it. Put Bird up against todays PF and he'd get an ass whoopin. The dude has no muscle definition to speak of, heck Kevin McHale looks like a rookie. Today's game is so much more physical than that of the 80's. There's no 'show time' here, it's grind it out style. I see Bird as a Dirk Nowitzki at best.

geez, the amount of times that I have heard that previous players (McHale, Bill Russell, etc) are not physical enough to play in today's game....in the past, like most other professional sports, players were not required to be as athletic and built-up to compete at the highest level....today in most sports you are (ie. I know some QLD state cricket players who go to gym and work out for a few hours a day to get in to shape to compete at the highest level)....I think if McHale, Bird and Russell were playing in today's game, they probably would have enough bulk to play, as they would have been in weight training programs from high school....whilst, I don't know if they would have been as effective as they were, I don't think the argument of physical strength is a pertient one due to the requirements of the day....

for the record, IMHO Jordan is better than Bird, no contest.....Bird is one of the best though, not because of skill, but because of wit, understanding of the game and his opponents, and that killer instinct....and as for the Bird comparision to Nowitzki, I reckon until Nowitzki can lead the Mavs to a title, start to show more awareness at both ends of court and gain that killer instinct, it's no contest....

[TheGuRu]

Okay Wilt I dont liek the idea that hes the best due to the 100 Game Thing...There was no shot clock! But i still like Wilt... im not saying He Sucks.

But you cant always follow Stats. But we know Wilt was good because weve seen him and word of mouth.

But you have to be smart to get Stats dont really count and im not saying you people are dumb i just cant explain it (Which doesnt mean im done either )

[Matt]

I just read the article for the 1st time. It's total bullshit

In my mind I believe Jordan was the best 2 point shooter in the game ever. And this guys goes on about Jordans 'high percentage' shot, the dunk. You can't blame somebody for that now can you. He often got that by tough defense, splitting defenses or dunking on 7 footers. He just played to his strengths (as opposed to VC).....and taking it to the hole also gets you fouled!

The rebounding is a void point....Bird was supposed to rebound, Jordan wasn't and at 6rpg that's more than your average guard.

The assists I can agree on but i can come up with some biased crap like "if you can shoot 50%, get fouled and average 31ppg why pass"

the blocks category clearly goes to Jordan, sure they had the same numbers but Bird was once again, a forward and also 6'10, "besides Jordan was such a great defender that nobody wanted to shoot against him thus he never got the chance to get blocked shots"

[Andrew]

Okay Wilt I dont liek the idea that hes the best due to the 100 Game Thing...There was no shot clock! But i still like Wilt... im not saying He Sucks.

Actually there was. Danny Biasone invented the shot clock prior to the 1954/55 season and it has been used from then onwards. Wilt began his NBA career in 1959.