How good is the case for peak Magic and Bird over peak Lebron?

[lessthanjake]

What makes someone a point forward is if they are their team’s primary ball handler, bring the ball up, etc

That may be your definition. But it's not the definition of all these other folks that list him as one of the greatest point forwards ever.

but he wasn’t a “point forward.”

Yes you keep saying this, as if you are right. You are wrong.

And you can try to point to random internet lists

Or to some random poster in a random online discussion group that says he isn't?

I suppose that’s a counterpoint to me saying I’ve never seen anyone call him a point forward before.

You should broaden your horizons, do some research as to what people believe a point forward is. Read some books from when Bird played.

The point being made when Bird was referred to as a point forward was made in response to people talking about how LeBron had the ball a lot more.

My you are young aren't you? You are making being wrong an art form.

Bird was being called a point forward long before Lebron James ever stepped onto an NBA floor.

My 1992 copy of the Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball states, on page 70 under the Larry Bird summary Passing was Larry-like in point-forward role. Yep - right there in black-and-white.

That was prior to the 1991-92 NBA season, after Bird's 11th season in the league.

And a dozen years before Lebron James ever stepped foot into the NBA. Bird was being called a point forward during most of the mid-to-late 80s.

Guess you are wrong - again.

Heck I clearly remember John Johnson being called a point forward in the late 70s when Seattle won their title and their playoff games were on TV.

So the point being made by saying that Bird was a “point forward” is simply wrong

In your tiny world of limited experience perhaps.

This is just silly. Again, the only reason this came up at all was because there was a discussion about how much more LeBron has the ball than Bird did. The point a poster made about Bird being a “point forward” was specifically aimed at refuting that (i.e. to say that Bird was a “point forward” and therefore had the ball a similar amount as LeBron). Larry Bird did not have the ball even remotely as much as LeBron James. Anyone who has watched these two players for more than like one minute could see that. It’s not a debatable premise (and, indeed, many of the anti-Bird arguments in this thread are premised on this fact!). So if you want to define “point forward” to mean something that doesn’t relate at all to time on the ball, then I suppose that’s fine (though I think that’s obviously wrong, since the “point” in “point forward” obviously relates to having point guard duties, not just being a good passer), but once you’ve done that then the argument that was being made about Bird being a “point forward” has no value whatsoever because it’s no longer a counterpoint at all to the discussion about time on the ball.

So there’s really two options here: (1) Bird was not a “point forward” because he did not have a role that resembled having point guard duties; or (2) Bird is a “point forward” but that term somehow does not relate at all to how much time on the ball someone has. Either way, the argument that was being made about Bird being a “point forward” is a bad argument, because it was made to refute a point about Bird having less time on the ball. There’s no escaping that. You can tie yourself into a pretzel trying to defend a semantic argument, but the actual point that was made was a bad argument, and that’s what multiple people are telling you. And, again, as I’ve said, I personally don’t think there’s much of a case for peak Bird over peak LeBron. I just think this particular argument is an obviously bad one.

[SNPA]

That may be your definition. But it's not the definition of all these other folks that list him as one of the greatest point forwards ever.



Yes you keep saying this, as if you are right. You are wrong.



Or to some random poster in a random online discussion group that says he isn't?



You should broaden your horizons, do some research as to what people believe a point forward is. Read some books from when Bird played.



My you are young aren't you? You are making being wrong an art form.

Bird was being called a point forward long before Lebron James ever stepped onto an NBA floor.

My 1992 copy of the Complete Handbook of Pro Basketball states, on page 70 under the Larry Bird summary Passing was Larry-like in point-forward role. Yep - right there in black-and-white.

That was prior to the 1991-92 NBA season, after Bird's 11th season in the league.

And a dozen years before Lebron James ever stepped foot into the NBA. Bird was being called a point forward during most of the mid-to-late 80s.

Guess you are wrong - again.

Heck I clearly remember John Johnson being called a point forward in the late 70s when Seattle won their title and their playoff games were on TV.



In your tiny world of limited experience perhaps.

Great. Then Bird was a better point forward than James. Look at how effective he was with less time with the ball!

And the corollary, James is the GOAT off ball player.

Webber played the same position as Magic.

Making Bosh and Love reduce their games was better for the team!

Always keep learning people, never close your mind to the possibilities.

The fact you've said this sarcastically as if it isn't true in 2024 is honestly as concerning as it is disappointing. But my mind is open to the possibility that you're correct

1. Lebron had already deferred so much by 2014 that he was giving up decision making and playmaking duties to Mario Chalmers, whilst holding the ball less than he ever had in his career, playing off-ball more than he ever had in his career and taking the fewest shots than he'd ever take in his entire career even up to this day. 2014 Lebron was also on of the lowest volume scoring #1 options in NBA history, with 1994 Scottie Pippen and 2017 Kawhi taking more shots attempts per game than Lebron. This playstyle didn't noticeably improve the Heat's offence. That and NBA teams as a whole have massively reduced their volume of post offence over time as it's shown to be ineffective relative to perimeter play, especially drive and kick play. Bearing all this in mind;

Could you explain why you think that Lebron should have ceded his offensive role even more, to the point he'd likely have the smallest offensive role of any ATG #1 option in NBA history and why consequently you think Chris Bosh imparticular deserved to have a larger offensive role than is typical for a 3rd option on a championship team even in an era where his preferred role is considered sub-optimal relative to the role of the player who's touches you think he should be replacing?

2. Lebron had deferred so much by 2017 that he was literally the second option on his own team being overtaken in both time of possession and shot attempts per game by Kyrie Irving. LeBron had also just led a GOAT level post-season offence in 2016 to an NBA championship and after increasing his offensive role in the post season that year, led another GOAT post-season offence to the Finals in 2017. Bearing this and what has already been said about the efficacy of post offence compared to drive and kick offence in mind:

Could you explain why you think that Lebron should have changed his role that led to B2B GOAT post-season offences, why you think Kevin Love should have changed his role that led to B2B GOAT post-season offences and why Kevin Love imparticular deserved to have a larger offensive role than is typical for a 3rd option on a championship team, even in an era where his preferred role is considered sub-optimal relative to the role of the player who's touches you think he should be replacing?

I agree mostly. I don’t think James should have changed his role. With his skillset sticking to his style of play and making #2/3 adjust is the best winning formula. Also, James sharing the ball with traditional PGs is a way of resting, not a fundamental shift in his game.

The difference is Bird doesn’t need that level of acquiescence. McHale could be his best self…and Bird an ATG. No conflict, Bird just adjusted (as the best player in the world). But as has been proffered, why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5.

[kcktiny]

This is just silly.

Correct. Someone deciding he alone has the privilege of re-defining what a basketball phrase should mean long after the time it was first used. Just plain silly.

So if you want to define “point forward” to mean something that doesn’t

It is you who appears to have decided what it should mean for one and all, despite the fact that people have been using the phrase in the NBA for 45 years, at least. Just like in that book from 1991, many have referred to Larry Bird as a point forward, for almost four decades now.

It's clear you did not know this.

though I think that’s obviously wrong, since the “point” in “point forward” obviously relates to having point guard duties, not just being a good passer

Well it certainly appears that there are those who simply do not agree with you.

You can tie yourself into a pretzel trying to defend a semantic argument

It is you who has made this a semantic argument. Those of us who have been watching the NBA for 5-6 decades know what a point forward is, and it includes players like Bird, James, Paul Pressey, John Johnson, and others.

It is you who has decided to try to re-define terminology used in the NBA for decades.

[SNPA]

This is just silly.

Correct. Someone deciding he alone has the privilege of re-defining what a basketball phrase should mean long after the time it was first used. Just plain silly.

So if you want to define “point forward” to mean something that doesn’t

It is you who appears to have decided what it should mean for one and all, despite the fact that people have been using the phrase in the NBA for 45 years, at least. Just like in that book from 1991, many have referred to Larry Bird as a point forward, for almost four decades now.

It's clear you did not know this.

though I think that’s obviously wrong, since the “point” in “point forward” obviously relates to having point guard duties, not just being a good passer

Well it certainly appears that there are those who simply do not agree with you.

You can tie yourself into a pretzel trying to defend a semantic argument

It is you who has made this a semantic argument. Those of us who have been watching the NBA for 5-6 decades know what a point forward is, and it includes players like Bird, James, Paul Pressey, John Johnson, and others.

It is you who has decided to try to re-define terminology used in the NBA for decades.

Is Jokic a point center?

[lessthanjake]

This is just silly.

Correct. Someone deciding he alone has the privilege of re-defining what a basketball phrase should mean long after the time it was first used. Just plain silly.

So if you want to define “point forward” to mean something that doesn’t

It is you who appears to have decided what it should mean for one and all, despite the fact that people have been using the phrase in the NBA for 45 years, at least. Just like in that book from 1991, many have referred to Larry Bird as a point forward, for almost four decades now.

It's clear you did not know this.

though I think that’s obviously wrong, since the “point” in “point forward” obviously relates to having point guard duties, not just being a good passer

Well it certainly appears that there are those who simply do not agree with you.

You can tie yourself into a pretzel trying to defend a semantic argument

It is you who has made this a semantic argument. Those of us who have been watching the NBA for 5-6 decades know what a point forward is, and it includes players like Bird, James, Paul Pressey, John Johnson, and others.

It is you who has decided to try to re-define terminology used in the NBA for decades.

Okay, apparently you’re just going to ignore the entire crux of the post you responded to, in order to keep arguing over semantics. You studiously chopped up what I said to avoid even quoting the primary point I made in the post you responded to. Read over my post again and actually engage with the crux of it, or just stop responding. What you’re saying has absolutely no substantive value here, because it does not relate to the actual line of discussion in which the “point forward” term was raised (which was in response to a discussion about these players’ time on the ball). You want to obsess over a semantic point and define the term to mean something that is so broad that it would have absolutely no value to the discussion in which it was raised. Please go back through that discussion and consider whether what you’re saying moves the needle on any of the substantive discussion people were having about Bird and LeBron. It clearly doesn’t. You and I disagree about what the term “point forward” means, but that is an inherently subjective term so that disagreement is fine. However, as I explained in my last post (in parts of it that you interestingly decided not to respond to at all), under either definition of the term, the argument that was first made (about Bird being a point forward and therefore having lots of time on the ball too) was a bad argument. Continuing to argue semantics is just spinning our wheels about something that isn’t important to the actual substantive discussion. Bird had much less time on the ball than LeBron, and calling him a “point forward” does not change that. The only way Bird is a “point forward” is if you define the term “point forward” to not require that the player had a lot of time on the ball, in which case it is not a useful term in a discussion centered around these players’ time on the ball! If you somehow think Bird actually had the ball a similar amount as LeBron, then feel free to try to argue that. If not, then I don’t know what substantive value you think you’re contributing to the discussion.

[kcktiny]

then I don’t know what substantive value you think you’re contributing to the discussion.

Debunking your idiotic claim that Larry Bird was not a point forward. When he played he was pretty much the definition of a point forward, and was called that by many that actually watched him play.

This statement:

Lebron has not spent most of his career playing Point Guard. He, like Larry Bird, has spent most of his career playing Point Forward

Is indeed factual.

And the fact that you wrote this:

Larry Bird was not a Point Forward. I’ve never seen anyone call him that before

Clearly shows you have no idea who Larry Bird actually was.

[SNPA]

then I don’t know what substantive value you think you’re contributing to the discussion.

Debunking your idiotic claim that Larry Bird was not a point forward. When he played he was pretty much the definition of a point forward, and was called that by many that actually watched him play.

This statement:

Lebron has not spent most of his career playing Point Guard. He, like Larry Bird, has spent most of his career playing Point Forward

Is indeed factual.

And the fact that you wrote this:

Larry Bird was not a Point Forward. I’ve never seen anyone call him that before

Clearly shows you have no idea who Larry Bird actually was.

Is Jokic a point center?

(2nd try)

[Rkream447]

No case. Peak LeBron is the better player
There isn’t a shortage of set ups that I prefer Magic and Bird in though

[McBubbles]

Great. Then Bird was a better point forward than James. Look at how effective he was with less time with the ball!

And the corollary, James is the GOAT off ball player.

Webber played the same position as Magic.

Making Bosh and Love reduce their games was better for the team!

Always keep learning people, never close your mind to the possibilities.

The fact you've said this sarcastically as if it isn't true in 2024 is honestly as concerning as it is disappointing. But my mind is open to the possibility that you're correct

1. Lebron had already deferred so much by 2014 that he was giving up decision making and playmaking duties to Mario Chalmers, whilst holding the ball less than he ever had in his career, playing off-ball more than he ever had in his career and taking the fewest shots than he'd ever take in his entire career even up to this day. 2014 Lebron was also on of the lowest volume scoring #1 options in NBA history, with 1994 Scottie Pippen and 2017 Kawhi taking more shots attempts per game than Lebron. This playstyle didn't noticeably improve the Heat's offence. That and NBA teams as a whole have massively reduced their volume of post offence over time as it's shown to be ineffective relative to perimeter play, especially drive and kick play. Bearing all this in mind;

Could you explain why you think that Lebron should have ceded his offensive role even more, to the point he'd likely have the smallest offensive role of any ATG #1 option in NBA history and why consequently you think Chris Bosh imparticular deserved to have a larger offensive role than is typical for a 3rd option on a championship team even in an era where his preferred role is considered sub-optimal relative to the role of the player who's touches you think he should be replacing?

2. Lebron had deferred so much by 2017 that he was literally the second option on his own team being overtaken in both time of possession and shot attempts per game by Kyrie Irving. LeBron had also just led a GOAT level post-season offence in 2016 to an NBA championship and after increasing his offensive role in the post season that year, led another GOAT post-season offence to the Finals in 2017. Bearing this and what has already been said about the efficacy of post offence compared to drive and kick offence in mind:

Could you explain why you think that Lebron should have changed his role that led to B2B GOAT post-season offences, why you think Kevin Love should have changed his role that led to B2B GOAT post-season offences and why Kevin Love imparticular deserved to have a larger offensive role than is typical for a 3rd option on a championship team, even in an era where his preferred role is considered sub-optimal relative to the role of the player who's touches you think he should be replacing?

I agree mostly. I don’t think James should have changed his role. With his skillset sticking to his style of play and making #2/3 adjust is the best winning formula. Also, James sharing the ball with traditional PGs is a way of resting, not a fundamental shift in his game.

The difference is Bird doesn’t need that level of acquiescence. McHale could be his best self…and Bird an ATG. No conflict, Bird just adjusted (as the best player in the world). But as has been proffered, why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5.

What you said is so incoherent and nonsensical that i've spent the last several minutes just typing, deleting, editing and retyping my post in sheer confusion. Let's ignore the fact that you've provided zero evidence for anything that you've said. Let's also ignore the fact that you've still not made an argument.

1. You've explicitly said that Kevin McHale not needing to change his playstyle to fit with Larry Bird, unlike Bosh who did have to change his playstyle to fit with Lebron, is evidence of Larry Bird being better at basketball than Lebron.

This is very stupid.

It's a complete non-sequitur. It's not self evident that a player having to adjust their play-style is bad, so saying Bird>Lebron because people don't have to adjust to him as much doesn't even make sense as a sentence. Would you like to make and substantiate an argument as to why you think a team being built around the strengths of it's best player to the extent it potentially changes or reduces roles of lesser players, limits that teams ceiling?

2. "Why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5"

What the **** are you talking about? This is an even worse non-sequitur than your last. You said Bird adjusted, then asked a rhetorical question about Lebron, then said "see the difference? " whilst not pointing out the difference or explaining why that difference proves that Larry Bird is better at basketball.

3. What on earth did Bird have to adjust for? People speak as if Bird was a Charles Barkley or a Zion that stepped out and stepped up to become a jump shooter for the sake of Kevin McHale's personal satisfaction. Lebron actually changed his playstyle more with Wade than Bird did in playing with McHale. Hell, LeBron went from being the GOAT slasher to being a better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird, whereas Bird went from...what to what exactly?

You don't need to answer this though because I know you don't actually care. You flip flop on the extent to which Bird does or doesn't have to change his playstyle when it suits your arguments.

If you want to make an argument for Birds superior portability, you'll say that Bird is so portable that nothing needs to change in his offense at all and everything flows freely, unlike Lebron who has to force teammates to change and who needs to radically change himself. If you want to make an argument for (or what a weird stan considers to be an argument) for Bird's superior character and unselfishness you'll say that Bird's portability is so ass that he had to nerf himself and selflessly play in the wrong play-style and the wrong position his entire career to just to accommodate to his teammates, unlike Lebron who'd never change anything about his playstyle or his position for the sake of his team. I know this because you said it yourself once.

Bird allows good teams to be themselves. James forces teammates into his style. Larry never reduces guys to standing in the corner waiting for a pass. Plus, Larry played out of position to accommodate his teammates. James wouldn’t ever even consider adjusting his game, let alone playing out of position.

Good stuff.

[SNPA]

The fact you've said this sarcastically as if it isn't true in 2024 is honestly as concerning as it is disappointing. But my mind is open to the possibility that you're correct

1. Lebron had already deferred so much by 2014 that he was giving up decision making and playmaking duties to Mario Chalmers, whilst holding the ball less than he ever had in his career, playing off-ball more than he ever had in his career and taking the fewest shots than he'd ever take in his entire career even up to this day. 2014 Lebron was also on of the lowest volume scoring #1 options in NBA history, with 1994 Scottie Pippen and 2017 Kawhi taking more shots attempts per game than Lebron. This playstyle didn't noticeably improve the Heat's offence. That and NBA teams as a whole have massively reduced their volume of post offence over time as it's shown to be ineffective relative to perimeter play, especially drive and kick play. Bearing all this in mind;

Could you explain why you think that Lebron should have ceded his offensive role even more, to the point he'd likely have the smallest offensive role of any ATG #1 option in NBA history and why consequently you think Chris Bosh imparticular deserved to have a larger offensive role than is typical for a 3rd option on a championship team even in an era where his preferred role is considered sub-optimal relative to the role of the player who's touches you think he should be replacing?

2. Lebron had deferred so much by 2017 that he was literally the second option on his own team being overtaken in both time of possession and shot attempts per game by Kyrie Irving. LeBron had also just led a GOAT level post-season offence in 2016 to an NBA championship and after increasing his offensive role in the post season that year, led another GOAT post-season offence to the Finals in 2017. Bearing this and what has already been said about the efficacy of post offence compared to drive and kick offence in mind:

Could you explain why you think that Lebron should have changed his role that led to B2B GOAT post-season offences, why you think Kevin Love should have changed his role that led to B2B GOAT post-season offences and why Kevin Love imparticular deserved to have a larger offensive role than is typical for a 3rd option on a championship team, even in an era where his preferred role is considered sub-optimal relative to the role of the player who's touches you think he should be replacing?

I agree mostly. I don’t think James should have changed his role. With his skillset sticking to his style of play and making #2/3 adjust is the best winning formula. Also, James sharing the ball with traditional PGs is a way of resting, not a fundamental shift in his game.

The difference is Bird doesn’t need that level of acquiescence. McHale could be his best self…and Bird an ATG. No conflict, Bird just adjusted (as the best player in the world). But as has been proffered, why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5.

What you said is so incoherent and nonsensical that i've spent the last several minutes just typing, deleting, editing and retyping my post in sheer confusion. Let's ignore the fact that you've provided zero evidence for anything that you've said. Let's also ignore the fact that you've still not made an argument.

1. You've explicitly said that Kevin McHale not needing to change his playstyle to fit with Larry Bird, unlike Bosh who did have to change his playstyle to fit with Lebron, is evidence of Larry Bird being better at basketball than Lebron.

This is very stupid.

It's a complete non-sequitur. It's not self evident that a player having to adjust their play-style is bad, so saying Bird>Lebron because people don't have to adjust to him as much doesn't even make sense as a sentence. Would you like to make and substantiate an argument as to why you think a team being built around the strengths of it's best player to the extent it potentially changes or reduces roles of lesser players, limits that teams ceiling?

2. "Why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5"

What the **** are you talking about? This is an even worse non-sequitur than your last.

3. What on earth did Bird have to adjust for? People speak as if Bird was a Charles Barkley or a Zion that stepped out and stepped up to become a jump shooter for the sake of Kevin McHale's personal satisfaction. Lebron actually changed his playstyle more with Wade than Bird did in playing with McHale. Hell, LeBron went from being the GOAT slasher to being a better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird, whereas Bird went from...what to what exactly?

You don't need to answer this though because I know you don't actually care. You flip flop on the extent to which Bird does or doesn't have to change his playstyle when it suits your arguments.

If you want to make an argument for Birds superior portability, you'll say that Bird is so portable that nothing needs to change in his offense at all and everything flows freely, unlike Lebron who has to force teammates to change and who needs to radically change himself. If you want to make an argument for (or what a weird stan considers to be an argument) for Bird's superior character and unselfishness you'll say that Bird's portability is so ass that he had to nerf himself and selflessly play in the wrong play-style and the wrong position his entire career to just to accommodate to his teammates, unlike Lebron who'd never change anything about his playstyle or his position for the sake of his team. I know this because you said it yourself once.

Bird allows good teams to be themselves. James forces teammates into his style. Larry never reduces guys to standing in the corner waiting for a pass. Plus, Larry played out of position to accommodate his teammates. James wouldn’t ever even consider adjusting his game, let alone playing out of position.

Good stuff.

Would you like to make and substantiate an argument as to why you think a team being built around the strengths of it's best player to the extent it potentially changes or reduces roles of lesser players, limits that teams ceiling?

1) Easiest question. Imagine a best player where his best teammates games don’t have to be built around his strengths to their detriment? Instead, the best player could adjust his game to maximize theirs…and still be GOAT level. What a world. A game of 5 on 5.

2) see one.

3) James is a better three point shooter than Bird? Ehh…I’ll just let it go. James as a better shooter than Bird ranks with Magic and Webber playing the same position.

Then you had this:
If you want to make an argument for (or what a weird stan considers to be an argument) for Bird's superior character and unselfishness you'll say that Bird's portability is so ass that he had to nerf himself and selflessly play in the wrong play-style and the wrong position his entire career to just to accommodate to his teammates, unlike Lebron who'd never change anything about his playstyle or his position for the sake of his team. I know this because you said it yourself once.


One started a player rep agency to pull strings, along with leveraging multiple franchises to get the teams he felt fit him. The other just showed up and played. Facts.

[McBubbles]

I agree mostly. I don’t think James should have changed his role. With his skillset sticking to his style of play and making #2/3 adjust is the best winning formula. Also, James sharing the ball with traditional PGs is a way of resting, not a fundamental shift in his game.

The difference is Bird doesn’t need that level of acquiescence. McHale could be his best self…and Bird an ATG. No conflict, Bird just adjusted (as the best player in the world). But as has been proffered, why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5.

What you said is so incoherent and nonsensical that i've spent the last several minutes just typing, deleting, editing and retyping my post in sheer confusion. Let's ignore the fact that you've provided zero evidence for anything that you've said. Let's also ignore the fact that you've still not made an argument.

1. You've explicitly said that Kevin McHale not needing to change his playstyle to fit with Larry Bird, unlike Bosh who did have to change his playstyle to fit with Lebron, is evidence of Larry Bird being better at basketball than Lebron.

This is very stupid.

It's a complete non-sequitur. It's not self evident that a player having to adjust their play-style is bad, so saying Bird>Lebron because people don't have to adjust to him as much doesn't even make sense as a sentence. Would you like to make and substantiate an argument as to why you think a team being built around the strengths of it's best player to the extent it potentially changes or reduces roles of lesser players, limits that teams ceiling?

2. "Why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5"

What the **** are you talking about? This is an even worse non-sequitur than your last.

3. What on earth did Bird have to adjust for? People speak as if Bird was a Charles Barkley or a Zion that stepped out and stepped up to become a jump shooter for the sake of Kevin McHale's personal satisfaction. Lebron actually changed his playstyle more with Wade than Bird did in playing with McHale. Hell, LeBron went from being the GOAT slasher to being a better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird, whereas Bird went from...what to what exactly?

You don't need to answer this though because I know you don't actually care. You flip flop on the extent to which Bird does or doesn't have to change his playstyle when it suits your arguments.

If you want to make an argument for Birds superior portability, you'll say that Bird is so portable that nothing needs to change in his offense at all and everything flows freely, unlike Lebron who has to force teammates to change and who needs to radically change himself. If you want to make an argument for (or what a weird stan considers to be an argument) for Bird's superior character and unselfishness you'll say that Bird's portability is so ass that he had to nerf himself and selflessly play in the wrong play-style and the wrong position his entire career to just to accommodate to his teammates, unlike Lebron who'd never change anything about his playstyle or his position for the sake of his team. I know this because you said it yourself once.

Bird allows good teams to be themselves. James forces teammates into his style. Larry never reduces guys to standing in the corner waiting for a pass. Plus, Larry played out of position to accommodate his teammates. James wouldn’t ever even consider adjusting his game, let alone playing out of position.

Good stuff.

Would you like to make and substantiate an argument as to why you think a team being built around the strengths of it's best player to the extent it potentially changes or reduces roles of lesser players, limits that teams ceiling?

1) Easiest question. Imagine a best player where his best teammates games don’t have to be built around his strengths to their detriment? Instead, the best player could adjust his game to maximize theirs…and still be GOAT level. What a world. A game of 5 on 5.

2) see one.

3) James is a better three point shooter than Bird? Ehh…I’ll just let it go. James as a better shooter than Bird ranks with Magic and Webber playing the same position.

Then you had this:
If you want to make an argument for (or what a weird stan considers to be an argument) for Bird's superior character and unselfishness you'll say that Bird's portability is so ass that he had to nerf himself and selflessly play in the wrong play-style and the wrong position his entire career to just to accommodate to his teammates, unlike Lebron who'd never change anything about his playstyle or his position for the sake of his team. I know this because you said it yourself once.


One started a player rep agency to pull strings, along with leveraging multiple franchises to get the teams he felt fit him. The other just showed up and played. Facts.

Thank you for shamelessly proving every negative thing I ascribed to you by repeating yourself but more explicitly and with more words lmao. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until I remembered you're Green Jordan's Bulls.

So the answer is no, you would not like to make and substantiate an argument and yes, your entire understanding of basketball is based on whether or not you think a particular skillset is an on court manifestation of someone's morality

You know that the closest thing to an argument you've ended up making is 'Off ball players are better at basketball than on ball players because off ball players are morally superior"

Lmao, "Lebron leveraged multiple franchises".

LeCollateral.

LeBankofAmerica.

LeMohammedbinSalman

Ok i'm done

[SNPA]

What you said is so incoherent and nonsensical that i've spent the last several minutes just typing, deleting, editing and retyping my post in sheer confusion. Let's ignore the fact that you've provided zero evidence for anything that you've said. Let's also ignore the fact that you've still not made an argument.

1. You've explicitly said that Kevin McHale not needing to change his playstyle to fit with Larry Bird, unlike Bosh who did have to change his playstyle to fit with Lebron, is evidence of Larry Bird being better at basketball than Lebron.

This is very stupid.

It's a complete non-sequitur. It's not self evident that a player having to adjust their play-style is bad, so saying Bird>Lebron because people don't have to adjust to him as much doesn't even make sense as a sentence. Would you like to make and substantiate an argument as to why you think a team being built around the strengths of it's best player to the extent it potentially changes or reduces roles of lesser players, limits that teams ceiling?

2. "Why would James do that when giving him the ball maximizes him and he is more important and efficient than teammates? See the difference? Game of 5x5"

What the **** are you talking about? This is an even worse non-sequitur than your last.

3. What on earth did Bird have to adjust for? People speak as if Bird was a Charles Barkley or a Zion that stepped out and stepped up to become a jump shooter for the sake of Kevin McHale's personal satisfaction. Lebron actually changed his playstyle more with Wade than Bird did in playing with McHale. Hell, LeBron went from being the GOAT slasher to being a better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird, whereas Bird went from...what to what exactly?

You don't need to answer this though because I know you don't actually care. You flip flop on the extent to which Bird does or doesn't have to change his playstyle when it suits your arguments.

If you want to make an argument for Birds superior portability, you'll say that Bird is so portable that nothing needs to change in his offense at all and everything flows freely, unlike Lebron who has to force teammates to change and who needs to radically change himself. If you want to make an argument for (or what a weird stan considers to be an argument) for Bird's superior character and unselfishness you'll say that Bird's portability is so ass that he had to nerf himself and selflessly play in the wrong play-style and the wrong position his entire career to just to accommodate to his teammates, unlike Lebron who'd never change anything about his playstyle or his position for the sake of his team. I know this because you said it yourself once.



Good stuff.

Would you like to make and substantiate an argument as to why you think a team being built around the strengths of it's best player to the extent it potentially changes or reduces roles of lesser players, limits that teams ceiling?

1) Easiest question. Imagine a best player where his best teammates games don’t have to be built around his strengths to their detriment? Instead, the best player could adjust his game to maximize theirs…and still be GOAT level. What a world. A game of 5 on 5.

2) see one.

3) James is a better three point shooter than Bird? Ehh…I’ll just let it go. James as a better shooter than Bird ranks with Magic and Webber playing the same position.

Then you had this:
If you want to make an argument for (or what a weird stan considers to be an argument) for Bird's superior character and unselfishness you'll say that Bird's portability is so ass that he had to nerf himself and selflessly play in the wrong play-style and the wrong position his entire career to just to accommodate to his teammates, unlike Lebron who'd never change anything about his playstyle or his position for the sake of his team. I know this because you said it yourself once.


One started a player rep agency to pull strings, along with leveraging multiple franchises to get the teams he felt fit him. The other just showed up and played. Facts.

Thank you for shamelessly proving every negative thing I ascribed to you by repeating yourself but more explicitly and with more words lmao. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until I remembered you're Green Jordan's Bulls.

So the answer is no, you would not like to make and substantiate an argument and yes, your entire understanding of basketball is based on whether or not you think a particular skillset is an on court manifestation of someone's morality

You know that the closest thing to an argument you've ended up making is 'Off ball players are better at basketball than on ball players because off ball players are morally superior"

Lmao, "Lebron leveraged multiple franchises".

LeCollateral.

LeBankofAmerica.

LeMohammedbinSalman

Ok i'm done

Green Jordan Bulls?

Morally superior?

What are you even babbling about?

Bizarre post. Seems like you’re drunk.

[Ainosterhaspie]

In the modern NBA, stretch 4s/5s are far more desirable than having those guys near the paint. Post-ups as the focus of an offense is simply not championship winning basketball. Any critique of James centered on the premise that Love and Bosh should have been used more inside is complete nonsense.

People criticizing James for "minimizing" them by pushing them away from the rim are the ones who are actually minimizing those guys. Love and Bosh were valuable contributors to championship teams who not only helped James succeed by providing spacing but also helped Wade and Irving by doing so. They were maximized by being used in that role. That was their most valuable use not just for James but for any modern team with championship aspirations.

The argument that it isn't 5v5 if some players have their stats drop fails to understand what 5v5 actually entails. It's not about the individual stats of any specific player, it's about the team. Love and Bosh didn't just make life easier for James inside, they made it easier for every other player inside. Tristan Thompson causing headaches for opponents on the offensive glass wouldn't be as successful if Love's defender wasn't being pulled away from the rim. Love helped Thompson and James and Irving by moving away from the rim. It was 5v5. It was maximizing Love's most useful tool in the modern NBA.

--

That argument also assumes, though no one ever seems to bother actually making the argument, that Love and Bosh could be as good as Parish and McHale inside. If James' guys weren't as good as Bird's guys inside then it doesn't matter if it's James or Bird playing along side them, the results wouldn't be as good.

And even if those players are all equal, James only ever had one hall of fame level 4/5 at a time while Bird always had two. That creates more problems for defenses and is easier to exploit. While James opponents could put their strongest interior defender on Love/Bosh without wishing about the other 4/5 inside, Bird's opponents were stuck with the problem that if they put their best defender on McHale, Parish might feast on a weaker defender and vice versa.

--

We should also consider the fact that Bosh and Love are better outside shooters than McHale and Parish. Saying Bird didn't push his guys outside isn't much of an argument if his guys couldn't provide value out there while James guys could. Whether playing with James or Bird, McHale/Parish inside and Love/Bosh outside just makes more sense than flipping that.

Is Bird's edge over Bosh and Love stronger on the outside or inside? He's better than them in both locations, but where is the value edge for the team greater? Does Bird spacing outside but being in a less optimal passing location provide more value than Bosh/Love spacing while Bird's on the block ready to make connecting passes or score? I doubt it.

And as I've touched on earlier, James played with two guards who were elite attacking the basket. Moving the 4 or 5 away from the basket isn't just good for James, it's good for his teammates. This would be true with Bird as well.

There is also an advantage in moving a more likely stronger shot blocker away from the rim by having the 4/5 move out instead of the 3. Again, this benefits the whole team, not just James or Bird.

--

I don't see any argument for the idea that Love and Bosh should have been used more inside rather than outside with or without Bird in place of James. It's just not a good use of their skills in the modern NBA.

[falcolombardi]

In the modern NBA, stretch 4s/5s are far more desirable than having those guys near the paint. Post-ups as the focus of an offense is simply not championship winning basketball. Any critique of James centered on the premise that Love and Bosh should have been used more inside is complete nonsense.

People criticizing James for "minimizing" them by pushing them away from the rim are the ones who are actually minimizing those guys. Love and Bosh were valuable contributors to championship teams who not only helped James succeed by providing spacing but also helped Wade and Irving by doing so. They were maximized by being used in that role. That was their most valuable use not just for James but for any modern team with championship aspirations.

The argument that it isn't 5v5 if some players have their stats drop fails to understand what 5v5 actually entails. It's not about the individual stats of any specific player, it's about the team. Love and Bosh didn't just make life easier for James inside, they made it easier for every other player inside. Tristan Thompson causing headaches for opponents on the offensive glass wouldn't be as successful if Love's defender wasn't being pulled away from the rim. Love helped Thompson and James and Irving by moving away from the rim. It was 5v5. It was maximizing Love's most useful tool in the modern NBA.

--

That argument also assumes, though no one ever seems to bother actually making the argument, that Love and Bosh could be as good as Parish and McHale inside. If James' guys weren't as good as Bird's guys inside then it doesn't matter if it's James or Bird playing along side them, the results wouldn't be as good.

And even if those players are all equal, James only ever had one hall of fame level 4/5 at a time while Bird always had two. That creates more problems for defenses and is easier to exploit. While James opponents could put their strongest interior defender on Love/Bosh without wishing about the other 4/5 inside, Bird's opponents were stuck with the problem that if they put their best defender on McHale, Parish might feast on a weaker defender and vice versa.

--

We should also consider the fact that Bosh and Love are better outside shooters than McHale and Parish. Saying Bird didn't push his guys outside isn't much of an argument if his guys couldn't provide value out there while James guys could. Whether playing with James or Bird, McHale/Parish inside and Love/Bosh outside just makes more sense than flipping that.

Is Bird's edge over Bosh and Love stronger on the outside or inside? He's better than them in both locations, but where is the value edge for the team greater? Does Bird spacing outside but being in a less optimal passing location provide more value than Bosh/Love spacing while Bird's on the block ready to make connecting passes or score? I doubt it.

And as I've touched on earlier, James played with two guards who were elite attacking the basket. Moving the 4 or 5 away from the basket isn't just good for James, it's good for his teammates. This would be true with Bird as well.

There is also an advantage in moving a more likely stronger shot blocker away from the rim by having the 4/5 move out instead of the 3. Again, this benefits the whole team, not just James or Bird.

--

I don't see any argument for the idea that Love and Bosh should have been used more inside rather than outside with or without Bird in place of James. It's just not a good use of their skills in the modern NBA.

Is also a very dishonest argument because the only reason lebron teams 3rd options could diminish their volume next to lebron is because they were weak first options before on mediocre teams

Robert parish could have been the lead scorer of a 38 win team like bosh or love too but was not put in that situation.

And more starkly. Guys like curry or jordan who are praised in comparision to lebron in this regard never even had a post scorer big they could take shots away from (with horace grant fullfilling a similar for era role to love)

[EmpireFalls]

Not very good.