Can a case be made that Larry Bird was the GOAT ?

[NZB2323]

Definitely one of the best peaks and I feel is gets underrated somewhat in comparison to his arch rival Magic. In saying that, he's not the GOAT. The argument is whether he is top 5 or not.

Magic was better from 87-92, which is why I think most people have Magic ranked ahead of Bird. From 80-86 Bird was better.

For top 5, I think it depends on what you value. Duncan vs. Bird is an interesting debate. Bird's peak from 84-86 is better than any 3 year run from Duncan, but Duncan's got the longevity.

[Myth]

86 round one says otherwise.

28/8/8/1.7/1.3 on 53% (64%TS) while sweeping another GOAT candidate is a pretty weak knock on Bird.

It's not that Bird played poorly. It's that he had one of the greatest teams ever assembled and and they let a guy - the actual GOAT - average 43/6/6 against them despite being the only real offensive threat.

If 91 MJ had been thoroughly outplayed by another GOAT candidate in a playoff series, pre-prime, it'd get brought up again and again in these types of discussions.

Seems to be a gameplan that worked. “Let him get his and shut everybody else down” is a pretty common strategy.

[lamscott]

There was some dude on youtube I remember watching probably a decade ago (I think the main schtick of his channell was that Jordan was overrated) and he basically showed that Jordan never won until the Celtics/Lakers got old and the rest of the league dilluted due to all of the expansion teams and his team was the only one with multiple stars. I believe he showed Bird as better and it was somewhat compelling.

A case can definetly be made. It would have to greatly emphasize prime years as Birds body didn't last as long as most other greats, but from 84-86 and before he was probably as good as anyone. The Celtics team he joined and made into a dynasty won like 21 games the year before he came as well. unlike Magic who skidazzled his way to the Lakers with Kareem. Bird also basically carried a mediocre school to the title game in college, back when college ball actually held weight and mattered.

I lived through that area. Yes I'm old. Thats how I remembered it. Bulls beat an injured Lakers team for their first title. Magic got aids. Larry's back went out, dilution. The rest was history. That being said Jordan was the best to ever have played. I don't know if he wins all those chips in the Magi/Bird era that had a bit of Isaih Thomas and the bad boy pistons.

[Whopper_Sr]

Unless we are only considering either offensive portability or passing, it's a no.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

86 round one says otherwise.

28/8/8/1.7/1.3 on 53% (64%TS) while sweeping another GOAT candidate is a pretty weak knock on Bird.

It's not that Bird played poorly. It's that he had one of the greatest teams ever assembled and and they let a guy - the actual GOAT - average 43/6/6 against them despite being the only real offensive threat.

If 91 MJ had been thoroughly outplayed by another GOAT candidate in a playoff series, pre-prime, it'd get brought up again and again in these types of discussions.

he was drafted onto a 29 win wreck of a team and with virtually no roster turnover won 61 games his rookie year.

there was nobody on that 61 win team on his later titles.

as the the other guys showed up they won some titles. was that because of the guys or because bird wasnt a rookie anymore? was birds own progression enough? its a fair question. ive always thought he had the most overrated supporting casts in history. the one year he missed in '88.....a healthy dj, mchale, parish and ainge won 41 games. they basically sucked with him out. he came back a shell the following two years and they won 52 and 57.

so of his 3 titles he did it with basically two casts and both casts when he didnt play did jack squat without him. when mj went out the bulls were still competitive. when bird sat the celts were junk.

point is not that bird was maybe the goat but instead to say he definitely promoted his casts into conversations they shouldnt be in as it relates to the HOF. Ive always thought he was underrated and his casts overrated when his name comes up. what he did with indiana state bears that out as well. he made everybody around him better than perhaps any player thats ever played in the modern era. when we talk about bird we should remind ourselves his greatness was DESPITE his teammates compared to the loaded teams he played

[trueballer7]

The wording of the question is problematic. You have to make a case to prove any specific other player was better than Bird, not the other way around. The level of intense, supremely skillful, collectively beneficial, activity Larry Bird put out in every basketball game when he was healthy combined with his size, make him the dream player and a team led by him, a nightmare for any opponent.
Healthy Larry, was relentlessly forceful and determined, on both ends of the court, in his pursuit of victory.

[Kilroy]

No... He wasn't even the best player in his era...
He was a badass, and I'd have him top 10 for sure, but not GOAT...

[Frank Dux]

Too many all time greats had longer peaks and careers. I don’t think he has any argument over Jordan, Kareem, or Lebron.

[Lockdown504090]

his peak was pretty damn up there, and his impact on the game was gigantic.

[lakerz12]

The narrator in the video says that Larry Bird and Doncic are not athletic? wtf?

[cupcakesnake]

Most smart analysis I see has Bird as a top 10 player who occasionally falls out of the top 10 in favor of whoever that smart person bumps up (Garnett and Kobe fans mostly. But also guys like Jerry West, Big O. Also current players: Curry, Durant, Giannis all have their developing camps.)

The knocks on Bird are:
- His longevity (the back issues shortened his prime and basically cancelled what could have been a strong post-prime chapter)
- Scoring resiliency. Bird wasn't a monster at the rim and he didn't draw fouls. This meant his scoring efficiency could fall out against brutal defenses in the playoffs sometimes.
- Elite athleticism. Bird was a very good athlete, but not compared to most players in the GOAT conversation.

(anyone who thinks I should say something about his defense here... we don't agree. Bird was a strong defender overall. He had weaknesses as a man defender, but he was just so crafty and had such great hands. Prime Bird was a huge part of some excellent defenses, and even could protect the rim a bit.)

Bird's GOAT case would be built around:
- Prime. He's just put up some of the best seasons ever. Those total package seasons where he's statistically dominant, winning the titles, winning MVP etc. From 84'-88' he was just ridiculous.
- Versatility. It's just impossible to find a better combination of passing, shooting, size, rebounding, defense, intangibles.
- Scalability. He's the player you can most easily play next to any other guy. Throw Bird on any team and he'd amplifying rather than getting in the way or clashing with other strong talents.

I don't have Bird as the goat. But I think almost every guy in the top 10 has a reasonable case to make depending on what people value.

[Cavsfansince84]

No because his overall playoff performances weren't good or consistent enough. Bird was my favorite player in that era but that's just the reality of things. Had he never started getting those various injuries which go back to college there might be an argument for him but as is I don't think he is has a case for top 4.

[damanick10]

No but he was awesome. Just the fact he took Indiana State to the championship is incredible...

[LAL1947]

I don't think Larry Bird can make a case for GOAT (that is MJ). However, he has a strong case to be on the Mount Rushmore of Basketball and is on mine. He is becoming criminally under-rated by fans who are forgetting just how good he was... and are forgetting how stacked the teams were that his teams beat. Why don't we compare the depth and stats/peaks of the players who were on Magic's Lakers and Larry's Celtics from 1980-86? Or even compare the depth and stats/peaks of Larry's Celtics to Tim Duncan's teammates on the Spurs? Yet, there are even people who now say that the 1980s Celtics were more stacked than the Lakers or 76ers... or that Tim Duncan has more of a case for GOAT... say what?

[Cavsfansince84]

Definitely one of the best peaks and I feel is gets underrated somewhat in comparison to his arch rival Magic. In saying that, he's not the GOAT. The argument is whether he is top 5 or not.

Magic was better from 87-92, which is why I think most people have Magic ranked ahead of Bird. From 80-86 Bird was better.

For top 5, I think it depends on what you value. Duncan vs. Bird is an interesting debate. Bird's peak from 84-86 is better than any 3 year run from Duncan, but Duncan's got the longevity.

You can definitely make a case for 01-04 Duncan being ahead of Bird. More so as a playoff performer. He was arguably a top 4 offensive and defensive player in the league at that time. Bird really doesn't have much of any argument vs Duncan imo.

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't think Larry Bird can make a case for GOAT (that is MJ). However, he has a strong case to be on the Mount Rushmore of Basketball and is on mine. He is becoming criminally under-rated by fans who are forgetting just how good he was... and are forgetting how stacked the teams were that his team beat. There are even people who now say that the 1980s Celtics were more stacked than the Lakers or 76ers , say what?

The problem is though that he went 1-2 vs those Sixers teams(while not even facing the best Sixer team) and 1-2 vs the Lakers. Having said that, I am higher on Bird than most people and have him at about 7-8 right there with Magic.

[LAL1947]

Definitely one of the best peaks and I feel is gets underrated somewhat in comparison to his arch rival Magic. In saying that, he's not the GOAT. The argument is whether he is top 5 or not.

Magic was better from 87-92, which is why I think most people have Magic ranked ahead of Bird. From 80-86 Bird was better.

For top 5, I think it depends on what you value. Duncan vs. Bird is an interesting debate. Bird's peak from 84-86 is better than any 3 year run from Duncan, but Duncan's got the longevity.

You can definitely make a case for 01-04 Duncan being ahead of Bird. More so as a playoff performer. He was arguably a top 4 offensive and defensive player in the league at that time. Bird really doesn't have much of any argument vs Duncan imo.

Personally, I'd pick Larry over Tim Duncan in a draft 10 times out of 10. Timmy only has longevity over Larry, and that was due to an unfortunate off-court incident with Larry. I'd even go so far as to say that Timmy is on the verge of being knocked out of the All-time Top 10, i.e., if Giannis (the new best PF of all-time?) can continue in the same way that he has been.

[Cavsfansince84]

Personally, I'd pick Larry over Tim Duncan in a draft 10 times out of 10. Timmy only has longevity over Larry, and that was due to an unfortunate off-court incident with Larry. I'd even go so far as to say that Timmy is on the verge of being knocked out of the All-time Top 10, i.e., if Giannis (the new best PF of all-time?) can continue in the same way that he has been.

Alright well, so long as you realize that's a personal opinion and all. Both are great but I think Timmy's peak was higher and he was the more consistent playoff guy on top of things like longevity and 5 rings. Duncan was a top 5 defender in the league for about 10 years straight and his per 100 scoring is almost equal while being a dominant rebounder and very good passer from like 02 on.

[bstein14]

His first 9 years in the league, before he got injured... likely compare right up there with anyone's first 9 year's in the history of the league besides Jordan. His first 9 years in the league is without a doubt better than LeBron's first 9 years in the league. If you just look at every player's first 9 years he's probably a top 3 or 4 player in the league all time. I'd take his first 9 years over Magic's first 9 years as well.

[rzzzzz]

I think you can argue that he and Magic were the best match-up in the history of the game. Leading the ‘80’s Celtics and Lakers into the most popular rivalry in the history of the game.