Highest possible ranking for Larry Bird?

[SNPA]

Not going to agree or disagree with your broader point, but Jerry West played nothing like Curry and is a poor comparison to Steph. West was bigger and more athletic than Curry. He was much more of an on-ball isolation scorer in Kobe/Jordan mold than off-ball shooter. West had also considerably higher defensive potential, while not being close to Curry shooting-wise (even era adjusted).

Maybe you are right, but I dont compare their playing style. Both have own advantages and disadvantages. Young West was crazy athletic, but later nothing special in this department (Just watched 69 finals on youtube). Curry lost step as everybody after prime years, but added more muscles, became more physical.

He was still taller and longer than Curry though and I'd easily take even older West over Curry in terms of athleticism. Even as late as in 1972, West was capable of making plays on defense that Curry would only dream of. West also relied heavily on his high release when he took contested pull-up jumpshots, Curry was just so much different shooter from mechanical perspective.

I think Curry would be good in any era. I don't think he'd have the same impact without the three point line because without it, his main strength (off-ball pressure) wouldn't have the same value.

Good. Agree. Great? No three, or not allowed to take as many (add physicality) and it’s doubtful IMO.

[70sFan]

Maybe you are right, but I dont compare their playing style. Both have own advantages and disadvantages. Young West was crazy athletic, but later nothing special in this department (Just watched 69 finals on youtube). Curry lost step as everybody after prime years, but added more muscles, became more physical.

He was still taller and longer than Curry though and I'd easily take even older West over Curry in terms of athleticism. Even as late as in 1972, West was capable of making plays on defense that Curry would only dream of. West also relied heavily on his high release when he took contested pull-up jumpshots, Curry was just so much different shooter from mechanical perspective.

I think Curry would be good in any era. I don't think he'd have the same impact without the three point line because without it, his main strength (off-ball pressure) wouldn't have the same value.

Good. Agree. Great? No three, or not allowed to take as many (add physicality) and it’s doubtful IMO.

I think he'd be a superstar in any era, but not at the highest level possible. To be honest, I'm not sure about Bird in the 1960s either.

[rk2023]

This is way too vague a question, as everyone's views and criterias are subjective.

For example, one could state that their criteria is being the most well-rounded and diverse-skilled player of all time - while displaying these on elite, consistent teams. If that's your criteria, then Bird could be your GOAT.

[SNPA]

He was still taller and longer than Curry though and I'd easily take even older West over Curry in terms of athleticism. Even as late as in 1972, West was capable of making plays on defense that Curry would only dream of. West also relied heavily on his high release when he took contested pull-up jumpshots, Curry was just so much different shooter from mechanical perspective.

I think Curry would be good in any era. I don't think he'd have the same impact without the three point line because without it, his main strength (off-ball pressure) wouldn't have the same value.

Good. Agree. Great? No three, or not allowed to take as many (add physicality) and it’s doubtful IMO.

I think he'd be a superstar in any era, but not at the highest level possible. To be honest, I'm not sure about Bird in the 1960s either.

How? No three point line means way less gravity. More physicality means less free range of movement and less driving. Take away the three and movement from Curry…what’s left to make a superstar?

Bird meanwhile crushes the 60’s. What part of his game doesn’t translate?

[SNPA]

This is way too vague a question, as everyone's views and criterias are subjective.

For example, one could state that their criteria is being the most well-rounded and diverse-skilled player of all time - while displaying these on elite, consistent teams. If that's your criteria, then Bird could be your GOAT.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[HeartBreakKid]

Good. Agree. Great? No three, or not allowed to take as many (add physicality) and it’s doubtful IMO.

I think he'd be a superstar in any era, but not at the highest level possible. To be honest, I'm not sure about Bird in the 1960s either.

How? No three point line means way less gravity. More physicality means less free range of movement and less driving. Take away the three and movement from Curry…what’s left to make a superstar?

Bird meanwhile crushes the 60’s. What part of his game doesn’t translate?

60s players are a lot more physical and the conditions are more harsh.

Bird would probably breakdown sooner in the 60s than in the 80s, also he would likely have to guard bigger men.


And before someone goes there, no, the existence of the bad boy pistons does not mean that the 80s are as physical as the 60s.

[HeartBreakKid]

This is way too vague a question, as everyone's views and criterias are subjective.

For example, one could state that their criteria is being the most well-rounded and diverse-skilled player of all time - while displaying these on elite, consistent teams. If that's your criteria, then Bird could be your GOAT.

I guess but it's obviously asking about your criteria or a criteria that you would consider reasonable.

It isn't a very vague question at all really. Your example criteria is ridiculous for example, now if your comeback is "that's like your opinion, man" - well yes, this is a message board so obviously it is my opinion. That's the point.

[rk2023]

This is way too vague a question, as everyone's views and criterias are subjective.

For example, one could state that their criteria is being the most well-rounded and diverse-skilled player of all time - while displaying these on elite, consistent teams. If that's your criteria, then Bird could be your GOAT.

I guess but it's obviously asking about your criteria or a criteria that you would consider reasonable.

It isn't a very vague question at all really. Your example criteria is ridiculous for example, now if your comeback is "that's like your opinion, man" - well yes, this is a message board so obviously it is my opinion. That's the point.

I was only being half serious when writing that, but unironically yes.. it is yours and everyone's opinions

[70sFan]

How? No three point line means way less gravity. More physicality means less free range of movement and less driving. Take away the three and movement from Curry…what’s left to make a superstar?

Lack of three point line would be a concern, Curry would have to adjust his game. That said, he's still the GOAT shooter, elite finisher and off-ball game was always valuable. He was also quite well rounded player - decent defender and rebounder for his size. He'd be definitely a star, although I don't think he'd reach the level of West or Oscar.

Bird meanwhile crushes the 60’s. What part of his game doesn’t translate?

That's funny that you think Bird would "crush" in the same post you said that Curry's shooting and off-ball play wouldn't work. We have seen Bird without three point line (he didn't use it until 1984) and he wasn't elite scorer during that time. He'd have similar concerns as Curry, although with more size he could imapct the game a bit more with his rebounding and passing. Again, certainly a superstar but I don't think he'd be the best player of that era.

[SNPA]

I think he'd be a superstar in any era, but not at the highest level possible. To be honest, I'm not sure about Bird in the 1960s either.

How? No three point line means way less gravity. More physicality means less free range of movement and less driving. Take away the three and movement from Curry…what’s left to make a superstar?

Bird meanwhile crushes the 60’s. What part of his game doesn’t translate?

60s players are a lot more physical and the conditions are more harsh.

Bird would probably breakdown sooner in the 60s than in the 80s, also he would likely have to guard bigger men.


And before someone goes there, no, the existence of the bad boy pistons does not mean that the 80s are as physical as the 60s.

Physicality never seemed like a problem to Larry when I watched.

He played through pain in his career to the point there were some concerns he could end up paralyzed. James sits out for rest.