RealGM Top 100 List #6

[Dr Positivity]

While his team was in the middle of a Conference championship series, Larry Bird got into a bar fight in 1985, an event which left him with an injured hand. During the regular season, Larry Bird averaged 29/10/7. In the Finals that year, those averages dropped to 23.8/8.8/5 on worse percentages than in the regular season.

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2008/06/worst-of-celtics-lakers-part-8.html

During that series, he was mainly defended by James Worthy, not Michael Cooper. Worthy, while a good defender, isn't a legendary defender like Cooper is. Bird's individual play, for whatever reason, wasn't up to par. It's reasonable to believe his individual play lessened his team's chances at winning.

In 1983, Bird missed a crucial playoff game with the flu. It wasgame 2 of Boston's series against the Bucks. Bird also didn't look the same in game 3, though he played anyway and put up 20/10/6. That game is on Youtube. Bird still looked like he was recovering from the sickness. Boston lost 4-0.

Bird's shooting struggles in the 1981 NBA FINALS are well documented. In 42.8 minutes per game, he averaged 15.3 ppg on less than 42 percent shooting. He took the most shots on the team. To be fair, he did average 15.3 rpg and 7 apg, but also over 3 turnovers per game. His Boston team beat the 40-42 Houston Rockets in the NBA Finals in six games.

From 1980-1982, Bird's isolation game wasn't what it would become. He was a very good offensive rebounder, passer, and off-ball player- probably at the same level as prime Larry Bird, from 84-88, as far as off-ball play goes- but make no mistake, Bird wasn't in his prime all of those years. He wasn't the on-ball player he'd later become.

In 1989, Bird missed 76 games because of injury. He was never the same player again- never able to do the things Larry Legend did. Bird's prime was cut short. His prime wasn't as long as the other candidates. His play isn't perfect. He wasn't always the same Bird from 1980-1988 either.


Heck, Bird had faults in the playoffs. In 1982, he averaged 18 ppg on 43 percent shooting. In 1983, he averaged 20.5 ppg on 42.2 percent shooting. His TS percentage those years were below 48 percent.

Those two years (1982 and 1983)...his 1985 playoffs disappointment...the poor shooting performance in the 1981 NBA Finals...the lack of longevity of prime...

Look, Bird was a great player. But he had faults. He had tangible faults on the basketball court. His individual play, at times, simply wasn't up to par with what his team needed from him to win.

Hey, sometimes you can't produce. Hakeem had some faults. Shaq had some faults. Duncan and Kobe had faults. Hell, even Jordan struggled during certain playoff series. It doesn't make Bird a failure or underachiever or choker or bad performer. It only makes him like everybody else...

I wanted to requote this very good post

Just compare Bird to Wilt for a second, again. Wilt has marvellous highs like 67 and 72, like Bird's marvellous highs 84 and 86. Wilt has 68 and Bird has 85, where both players were clearly the best in the league all year and then lost a little at the end, just enough for another dynasty to beat them. Wilt has 64 and 65 and Bird has 87 where his team almost stole the title due to his brilliance, but the talent differential was too much. Wilt has 69 and 70 where he kind of screwed up, Bird has 82 and 83 where he kind of screwed up. Overall Wilt makes 6 Finals to Bird's 5, Bird ends up with 3 titles to Wilt's 2, and that has everything to do with the fact that the 81 Celtics managed to get a 40 W Rockets team in the Finals thanks to there being 3 games series in that time and Moses being awesome enough to sneak one out on LA (and Bird scored 15ppg on brutal shooting in that series)

Wilt got CRUCIFIED for his shortcomings and weaknesses. He got beat up like 50 Cent on a rap music snob forum. What we're saying is that, Bird is not an untouchable deity. If he had no weaknesses he would be #1. Clearly he has them. It is our job to say more than Bird cannot be criticized because he won 3 titles and 3 MVPs and has a huge winning %

[fatal9]

I don't necessarily disagree colt, but IMO Lakers and Sixers had more talent from 80-83 (but also proved it by making Finals 3 of 4 years each, to Celts 1 - and they were extremely fortunate they picked the one year to make the Finals where the opponent was a 40 win Rockets instead of Kareem/Magic Lakers. As far as I'm concerned the 81 Celtics shouldn't deserve an ounce more credit than the 80 or 82 Sixers, they just drew the right straw). Celts had equal talent as Lakers from 84-88.

Celtics however were often injured and had a very weak bench. Literally had no second unit in '87 and '88, which meant the aging starters had to play even more minutes (Lakers meanwhile had one the bench benches in the league all decade). They also didn't get a free pass in their conference either, Bird had to face better defenses and had to beat higher quality teams to get through. Bird facing the run and fun teams like Nuggets or Spurs or Suns in the West instead of Sixers, Pistons, Bucks literally might not have a bad series. He also didn't jump on to a team with the best player in the league that had previously won 47 without him (and the same year they fixed their two weaknesses...perimeter defense with Cooper and the PF spot with Haywood/Chones). Magic had a much more favorable situation, and still you can argue that Bird won just as much or more as the clear cut best player on his team, along with a more dominant prime. Again I have no problem with people having Magic higher, but this separation between how much Magic is apparently better than Bird really doesn't exist.

[fatal9]

While his team was in the middle of a Conference championship series, Larry Bird got into a bar fight in 1985, an event which left him with an injured hand. During the regular season, Larry Bird averaged 29/10/7. In the Finals that year, those averages dropped to 23.8/8.8/5 on worse percentages than in the regular season.

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2008/06/worst-of-celtics-lakers-part-8.html

During that series, he was mainly defended by James Worthy, not Michael Cooper. Worthy, while a good defender, isn't a legendary defender like Cooper is. Bird's individual play, for whatever reason, wasn't up to par. It's reasonable to believe his individual play lessened his team's chances at winning.

In 1983, Bird missed a crucial playoff game with the flu. It wasgame 2 of Boston's series against the Bucks. Bird also didn't look the same in game 3, though he played anyway and put up 20/10/6. That game is on Youtube. Bird still looked like he was recovering from the sickness. Boston lost 4-0.

Bird's shooting struggles in the 1981 NBA FINALS are well documented. In 42.8 minutes per game, he averaged 15.3 ppg on less than 42 percent shooting. He took the most shots on the team. To be fair, he did average 15.3 rpg and 7 apg, but also over 3 turnovers per game. His Boston team beat the 40-42 Houston Rockets in the NBA Finals in six games.

From 1980-1982, Bird's isolation game wasn't what it would become. He was a very good offensive rebounder, passer, and off-ball player- probably at the same level as prime Larry Bird, from 84-88, as far as off-ball play goes- but make no mistake, Bird wasn't in his prime all of those years. He wasn't the on-ball player he'd later become.

In 1989, Bird missed 76 games because of injury. He was never the same player again- never able to do the things Larry Legend did. Bird's prime was cut short. His prime wasn't as long as the other candidates. His play isn't perfect. He wasn't always the same Bird from 1980-1988 either.


Heck, Bird had faults in the playoffs. In 1982, he averaged 18 ppg on 43 percent shooting. In 1983, he averaged 20.5 ppg on 42.2 percent shooting. His TS percentage those years were below 48 percent.

Those two years (1982 and 1983)...his 1985 playoffs disappointment...the poor shooting performance in the 1981 NBA Finals...the lack of longevity of prime...

Look, Bird was a great player. But he had faults. He had tangible faults on the basketball court. His individual play, at times, simply wasn't up to par with what his team needed from him to win.

Hey, sometimes you can't produce. Hakeem had some faults. Shaq had some faults. Duncan and Kobe had faults. Hell, even Jordan struggled during certain playoff series. It doesn't make Bird a failure or underachiever or choker or bad performer. It only makes him like everybody else...

I wanted to requote this very good post

Just compare Bird to Wilt for a second, again. Wilt has marvellous highs like 67 and 72, like Bird's marvellous highs 84 and 86. Wilt has 68 and Bird has 85, where both players were clearly the best in the league all year and then lost a little at the end, just enough for another dynasty to beat them. Wilt has 64 and 65 and Bird has 87 where his team almost stole the title due to his brilliance, but the talent differential was too much. Wilt has 69 and 70 where he kind of screwed up, Bird has 82 and 83 where he kind of screwed up. Overall Wilt makes 6 Finals to Bird's 5, Bird ends up with 3 titles to Wilt's 2, and that has everything to do with the fact that the 81 Celtics managed to get a 40 W Rockets team in the Finals thanks to there being 3 games series in that time and Moses being awesome enough to sneak one out on LA (and Bird scored 15ppg on brutal shooting in that series)

Wilt got CRUCIFIED for his shortcomings and weaknesses. He got beat up like 50 Cent on a rap music snob forum. What we're saying is that, Bird is not an untouchable deity. If he had no weaknesses he would be #1. Clearly he has them. It is our job to say more than Bird cannot be criticized because he won 3 titles and 3 MVPs and has a huge winning %

Bird doesn't have years like '63 or '65, where he leads his team to 31 wins or the worst record in the league (and Bird was drafted to a dysfunctional lottery team). Bird didn't blow 3-1 leads, he led his teams back from them. It's tough imagining Bird having a year like '69 where the team he joins actually declines in SRS and he plays very very poorly in the playoffs. Bird didn't get swept to a sub .500 team. When Bird left the Celtics they weren't still a 55 win team without him and Lakers the year after Wilt left with West playing only 31 games still won 47, so it seems like Wilt was playing on absurdly talented rosters relative to his league.

'67 Sixers beat a 44 win team in the finals in a league where there were only two 45+ win teams in the entire league (Celtics and Sixers), can we take away Wilt's ring too if we're taking away Bird's in '81? Wilt in the finals put up on 17.7 ppg (while playing around 48 minutes/game) on 49.7 TS%, and Wilt is the one who can't win shooting that poorly in the playoffs? In '69 he averaged 14 ppg on 51.8 TS%, and he was taken to within one game of winning by West. The "Wilt couldn't have won scoring so little" argument is very poor, when Wilt's teams were most successful after he stopped volume scoring and Wilt literally began getting the fewest shots (per minute basis) out of all the rotation players. Wilt has a lot, lot more failure in both playoffs/regular season. I'm kind of disappointed with the voting in last round, seemed like those who had done their research voted for others while people who dropped in saying they didn't have time to argue/read went with Wilt. It's exactly how I thought before I had researched his career in detail that "Wilt can't possibly lower than top 3".

[Fencer reregistered]

As for Bird's decline, recall that Bird's injury decline, McHale's injury decline, Walton's quick re-decline after one outstanding year, and Len Bias' death all occurred right around the same time. Bird and McHale had excellent excuses for not managing their injuries properly, even though with the benefit of hindsight we know they should have shut it down more so as to lengthen their careers.

[Fencer reregistered]

By the way, the Celtics' roster kept changing beyond Bird/McHale/Parish. But basically the Celtics' bench at its best was Sichting, Wedman, and a big, which was fine support. But when something went wrong with that -- e.g. Walton's injury -- it went thin fast. Auerbach finally lost his GM touch, e.g. drafting Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway, or trading All-Star guard Ainge for Easy Ed Pinckney and Joe "Hands of a Sturgeon" Kleine.

[An Unbiased Fan]

By the way, the Celtics' roster kept changing beyond Bird/McHale/Parish. But basically the Celtics' bench at its best was Sichting, Wedman, and a big, which was fine support. But when something went wrong with that -- e.g. Walton's injury -- it went thin fast. Auerbach finally lost his GM touch, e.g. drafting Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway, or trading All-Star guard Ainge for Easy Ed Pinckney and Joe "Hands of a Sturgeon" Kleine.

I'm sorry, but Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan's rosters changed quite a bit too. Larry's cast was still consistently better than any of those 3, yet he had the least playoff success.

Much like with Russell, I'm starting to hear the "intangibles" argument again too. But unlike Russell, Bird's impact on playoff success doesn't support the notion that his "intangibles" make him any better than Wilt, Kobe, Shaq, or Duncan.

I hear references to off-the court issues, perhaps because on-the-court, Bird isn't the better player. Offensively, Bird was great, there's no doubt about that. However, so were Shaq & Kobe. Defensively, all 3 were better than Bird. In their prime 12 year stretches of their career, they all had more playoff success.

Honestly, what's Bird's real argument here outisde of his legend, or historic association to Magic? His MVP Shares? I mean they're great, but they and the HCA he had throughout the 80's didn't translate into more rings(oops, I brought up HCA again...). In Bird's vaunted "peak", he played mediocre at best defense, and didn't lead Boston to any more playoff success than Shaq did from 00-02', Kobe did from 08'-10', or TD did from 03'-05'. I would also say all 3 of those guys were better 2-way players in their peaks too.

I have a lot of respect for Bird. But his legend is overtaking his reality.

[PennY1]

Larry Bird, you dumb ****.

Seriously? Check your PM. ~Doc

[pancakes3]

Honestly, what's Bird's real argument here outisde of his legend, or historic association to Magic?
/snip/
In Bird's vaunted "peak", he played mediocre at best defense, and didn't lead Boston to any more playoff success than Shaq did from 00-02', Kobe did from 08'-10', or TD did from 03'-05'. I would also say all 3 of those guys were better 2-way players in their peaks too.

I have a lot of respect for Bird. But his legend is overtaking his reality.

well if you want to expand your definition of "GOAT argument" to beyond just rings? 3 straight MVPs, 4 straight finals, a pair of 50/40/90 seasons while scoring outrageous # of points (28 and 30), career averages of 24/10/6 as a SF... and just a funny little factoid, beats out Shaq in DWS by 0.1 despite playing in 5 less post-seasons.

i'm not saying bird IS the #6 (though that is how i voted). i'm just questioning how you can't even see an argument for Bird being possible.

[LikeABosh]

Vote: Bird

[Bucksfans1and2]

Vote Duncan

Nominate Garnett

[shawngoat23]

I can see a case for having someone else in the top 6 (i.e., we're not in auto-pilot mode anymore), but I think Bird had the best prime of anyone on the list, and even with his injuries, he was an instant impact player from the moment he got in the league, so my vote goes to Larry Bird.

Nominate: This is a bit difficult. I'm thinking Garnett, LeBron, Robinson, or Havlicek here. LeBron has the best "case" to be potentially ranked at #7 if you disregard longevity (not that I think he should be there, but that's what a nomination should imply). So I guess I'll go with LeBron.

[MacGill]

By the way, the Celtics' roster kept changing beyond Bird/McHale/Parish. But basically the Celtics' bench at its best was Sichting, Wedman, and a big, which was fine support. But when something went wrong with that -- e.g. Walton's injury -- it went thin fast. Auerbach finally lost his GM touch, e.g. drafting Michael Smith over Tim Hardaway, or trading All-Star guard Ainge for Easy Ed Pinckney and Joe "Hands of a Sturgeon" Kleine.

I'm sorry, but Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan's rosters changed quite a bit too. Larry's cast was still consistently better than any of those 3, yet he had the least playoff success.

Much like with Russell, I'm starting to hear the "intangibles" argument again too. But unlike Russell, Bird's impact on playoff success doesn't support the notion that his "intangibles" make him any better than Wilt, Kobe, Shaq, or Duncan.

I hear references to off-the court issues, perhaps because on-the-court, Bird isn't the better player. Offensively, Bird was great, there's no doubt about that. However, so were Shaq & Kobe. Defensively, all 3 were better than Bird. In their prime 12 year stretches of their career, they all had more playoff success.

Honestly, what's Bird's real argument here outisde of his legend, or historic association to Magic? His
MVP Shares? I mean they're great, but they and the HCA he had throughout the 80's didn't translate into more rings(oops, I brought up HCA again...). In Bird's vaunted "peak", he played mediocre at best defense, and didn't lead Boston to any more playoff success than Shaq did from 00-02', Kobe did from 08'-10', or TD did from 03'-05'. I would also say all 3 of those guys were better 2-way players in their peaks too.

I have a lot of respect for Bird. But his legend is overtaking his reality.

Kudos to Fatal9 & AUF. This is a quality honest post right here, and the great arguments I am hearing for Bird really do question how Wilt was then voted into the #4 slot. Not half of this support or real counter argument (outside of newspaper clippings) was presented during his time and with great arguments around why others may deserve the nod over Bird it really seems like now he just can't be voted out of the six, further seperating him and Magic. We have 4 other athletes who all have very strong arguments which have been presented that just seem to be falling on deaf ears or individuals worried about disrespecting a past great.

If you had a team of absolute scrubs right now, today D-League if you will, and the #6 vote had a chip for your first building block for your team, not knowing what other players you may acquire in the furture who would you take today? I know there is more to the voting than this and what an amazing career he has had but I can pretty much guarantee Bird isn't winning this contest right here (outright or at all) which should also count towards how we should be and maybe aren't quite openly looking at the others in our fullest ability.

Bird
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Kobe

LOL, maybe LBJ had it right all along moving to Miami knowing that with his peak it is going to also take a minimum of 8 championships with 6 finals MVP's + 2 more season MVP's just to get into the Immortal 6 discussion. Or should we just start a new record book altogether?

[Fencer reregistered]

Honestly, what's Bird's real argument here outisde of his legend, or historic association to Magic?

Don't discount the Magic factor too quickly. Bird led what to an eye test was a GOAT or near-GOAT team, yet it only won a couple of championships. How is that possible? Because the Showtime Lakers were another GOAT or near-GOAT team.

Really, what are the candidates for GOAT teams? Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers for sure. Jordan's Bulls, absolutely. Shaq/Kobe Lakers? At least as a nominee, sure? 33-win Lakers? Maybe, although they sure didn't stay that good long. Wilt's Sixers? Ditto.

However you do or don't precisely rank the teams, the two that butted heads directly were the Celtics and Lakers in the 80s. We already have Kareem and Magic at 3/4; it makes a whole lot of sense to say Bird was very close to being as good as either of them was.

And by the way, the Wilt/West Lakers, the Showtime Lakers, and the Kobe/Shaq Lakers will all turn out to have two players that we rank very high. I think it's appropriate that the Jordan Bulls, the Wilt Sixers, and the Bird Celtics have at least one very high-ranked guy each.

[Fencer reregistered]

If you had a team of absolute scrubs right now, today D-League if you will, and the #6 vote had a chip for your first building block for your team, not knowing what other players you may acquire in the furture who would you take today? I know there is more to the voting than this and what an amazing career he has had but I can pretty much guarantee Bird isn't winning this contest right here (outright or at all) which should also count towards how we should be and maybe aren't quite openly looking at the others in our fullest ability.

Bird
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Kobe

I'd draft Bird over Shaq and Kobe in a heartbeat, due to selfishness, of the form that led to team conflict. OK, 2-3 heartbeats. But no more than that. Give me Bird over either of those guys, and it really isn't even close for me.

Bird at PF vs. Duncan at PF? I go for Bird, but I admit it's close.

I probably would draft Hakeem over Bird, but I'm still voting Bird over Hakeem in the poll due to greater career accomplishments.

(Ironically, one reason for NOT taking Bird is that you have him instead of Kobe, maybe you don't get a Bynum-type lottery pick.)

[MacGill]

If you had a team of absolute scrubs right now, today D-League if you will, and the #6 vote had a chip for your first building block for your team, not knowing what other players you may acquire in the furture who would you take today? I know there is more to the voting than this and what an amazing career he has had but I can pretty much guarantee Bird isn't winning this contest right here (outright or at all) which should also count towards how we should be and maybe aren't quite openly looking at the others in our fullest ability.

Bird
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem
Kobe

I'd draft Bird over Shaq and Kobe in a heartbeat, due to selfishness, of the form that led to team conflict. OK, 2-3 heartbeats. But no more than that. Give me Bird over either of those guys, and it really isn't even close for me.

Bird at PF vs. Duncan at PF? I go for Bird, but I admit it's close.

I probably would draft Hakeem over Bird, but I'm still voting Bird over Hakeem in the poll due to greater career accomplishments.

Even with the elite defence Duncan would be giving you? I know Bird is your guy (or at least this is what I have picked up from your posts) but you probably don't end up with a McHale/Parish/Ainge/Walton etc, you still select Bird as your stating block? And over a Shaq where there would be no Kobe so drama avoided?

Again not to slight Bird, I am pretty high on him and his 80 teams were simply great but so much also has to do on where you land and the pieces you are given. My own opinion, not taking anything away from Bird is that all 3 bigs transcend into prior era's with more success if each were the man on their own teams. Again, just my opinion.

And how do you think Bird would have adjusted playing with say a prime KAJ or MJ, another bondafied superstar?

[colts18]

Bird's peak 1984-1986:
26.2 PPG, 10.1 Reb, 6.7 AST, .573 TS%, 25.5 PER, .232 WS/48
playoffs:
26.5 PPG, 9.9 Reb, 6.5 AST, .584 TS%, 23.9 PER, .218 WS/48

Shaq 2000-2002:
28.6 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 3.5 AST, .580 TS%, 30.2 PER, .264 WS/48
playoffs:
29.9 PPG, 14.5 Reb, 3.0 AST, .562 TS%, 29.3 PER.238 WS/48

[ElGee]

Bird's peak 1984-1986:
26.2 PPG, 10.1 Reb, 6.7 AST, .573 TS%, 25.5 PER, .232 WS/48
playoffs:
26.5 PPG, 9.9 Reb, 6.5 AST, .584 TS%, 23.9 PER, .218 WS/48

Shaq 2000-2002:
28.6 PPG, 12.4 Reb, 3.5 AST, .580 TS%, 30.2 PER, .264 WS/48
playoffs:
29.9 PPG, 14.5 Reb, 3.0 AST, .562 TS%, 29.3 PER.238 WS/48

Do you realize that Bird was on a balanced team with a bunch of other scorers? If you're trying to frame a side-by-side comparison, that won't tell you Bird was better (and he was).

Boston as a team failed in 1983 with HCA and a better record, 2nd best SRS in the league by getting swept by the Bucks.

And that's exactly why I highlighted, because Larry bird was sick and injured. San Antonio also totally failed as a team in 2000. What's the point vis a vis Duncan-Bird?

[Vinsanity420]

I'm sorry, but Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan's rosters changed quite a bit too. Larry's cast was still consistently better than any of those 3, yet he had the least playoff success.

Much like with Russell, I'm starting to hear the "intangibles" argument again too. But unlike Russell, Bird's impact on playoff success doesn't support the notion that his "intangibles" make him any better than Wilt, Kobe, Shaq, or Duncan.

I hear references to off-the court issues, perhaps because on-the-court, Bird isn't the better player. Offensively, Bird was great, there's no doubt about that. However, so were Shaq & Kobe. Defensively, all 3 were better than Bird. In their prime 12 year stretches of their career, they all had more playoff success.

Honestly, what's Bird's real argument here outisde of his legend, or historic association to Magic? His MVP Shares? I mean they're great, but they and the HCA he had throughout the 80's didn't translate into more rings(oops, I brought up HCA again...). In Bird's vaunted "peak", he played mediocre at best defense, and didn't lead Boston to any more playoff success than Shaq did from 00-02', Kobe did from 08'-10', or TD did from 03'-05'. I would also say all 3 of those guys were better 2-way players in their peaks too.

I have a lot of respect for Bird. But his legend is overtaking his reality.

Basically the ones voting against Bird have like a completely different criteria

-HCA and Supporting Cast - So how great Bird was playing doesn't matter. All that matters is his team failed.
- Offense and Defense - Let's judge players on how good they are as two way players. I don't even understand this one - how is Jerry West not better than Magic Johnson?
- Bird's shot was off a couple times in the playoffs- The ones advocating likely haven't watched Bird because he impacted the floor in many more ways than scoring ( There's a reason he's a lot better than Dirk.)

[colts18]

I'm sorry, but Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan's rosters changed quite a bit too. Larry's cast was still consistently better than any of those 3, yet he had the least playoff success.

Much like with Russell, I'm starting to hear the "intangibles" argument again too. But unlike Russell, Bird's impact on playoff success doesn't support the notion that his "intangibles" make him any better than Wilt, Kobe, Shaq, or Duncan.

I hear references to off-the court issues, perhaps because on-the-court, Bird isn't the better player. Offensively, Bird was great, there's no doubt about that. However, so were Shaq & Kobe. Defensively, all 3 were better than Bird. In their prime 12 year stretches of their career, they all had more playoff success.

Honestly, what's Bird's real argument here outisde of his legend, or historic association to Magic? His MVP Shares? I mean they're great, but they and the HCA he had throughout the 80's didn't translate into more rings(oops, I brought up HCA again...). In Bird's vaunted "peak", he played mediocre at best defense, and didn't lead Boston to any more playoff success than Shaq did from 00-02', Kobe did from 08'-10', or TD did from 03'-05'. I would also say all 3 of those guys were better 2-way players in their peaks too.

I have a lot of respect for Bird. But his legend is overtaking his reality.

Basically the ones voting against Bird have like a completely different criteria

-HCA and Supporting Cast - So how great Bird was playing doesn't matter. All that matters is his team failed.
- Offense and Defense - Let's judge players on how good they are as two way players. I don't even understand this one - how is Jerry West not better than Magic Johnson?
- Bird's shot was off a couple times in the playoffs- The ones advocating likely haven't watched Bird because he impacted the floor in many more ways than scoring ( There's a reason he's a lot better than Dirk.)

You can't use the argument that he impacted the game in different ways when Shaq impacted just as much. There has never been a defense that was focused on Bird the same way it was on Shaq during his peak. Defenses changed everything and geared to him. Shaq's assist number don't even tell the story because the hockey assists that Bird get credited apply the same way to Shaq but to a higher degree. Look at all the role players who looked good with Shaq from 2000-2004.

Shaq's support in his peak wasn't even that great and it certainly wasn't on the level of Bird's. Shaq's teams were just 13-13 without him from 00-02 and 33-31 from 98-03. So based on win%, he turned teams that were the equivalent of this year's Knicks or Rockets into this year's Chicago Bulls.

[Fencer reregistered]

I'm not denying that Kobe and Shaq were a great combo when they weren't feuding. But I think Kobe and Bird would have anchored at least as good a defensive team, and an equally great offensive one as well, and also rebounded very well. Bird could play with other guys who shone with the ball in their hands -- McHale! -- so that's not a problem.

Kobe/Duncan, Kobe/Hakeem, Kobe/Shaq, and Kobe/Bird are all the stuff championships are made of, frankly.