RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10

[BasketballFan7]

What are the main arguments for Bryant over Erving? I can be convinced to take Bryant but I currently see an edge for Erving.

[Purch]

What are the main arguments for Bryant over Erving? I can be convinced to take Bryant but I currently see an edge for Erving.

Why do you favor Dr. J over Oscar and West? I usally put him behind both

[JoeMalburg]

A lot of votes for Bird, but I'm unsure on what basis. He has a brilliant 83-88 peak but then is underwhelming compared to some of the other competitors (most notably Kobe and you can throw Dirk in here) in the PS. His BPM gets a real boost in the RS from others in large part because of his DBPM, which again is highly suspect. Most analyses I've read (and some have spoken about their own understanding of Bird's defense) do not have Bird as a high impact defender, and some even suggest he was getting beat down at times. Yet his DBPM depicts him as this stalwart. IMO, more scrutiny is required here because basing things on box scores based stuff without reference to game tape leads to aberrant conclusions. Russell Westbrook just up a DBPM of 4.7, basically doubling his highest rate which was reached in 15-16, and I doubt anyone will argue he was playing high value defense based on what we saw from him. To be honest, when it comes to non anchors, using defense as a separating point (unless quite literally a player is a liability, which again needs reference to sustained game-tape analysis) is not appropriate as such a defender does not move the needle for a teams ability to defend.

When it comes to RS offense, there is no evidence to suggest that Bird was another level on offense from his competitors in the RS. We have ORAPM figures for Dirk and Kobe during their best years, and they come out looking amazing. Bird has a very slightly higher AST% in 83-88 than Kobe in 01/03/06/07/08/09 (6 year prime seasons to make a fair comparison with 83-88 Bird) despite Kobe playing in an offense which deflates individual players accumulating high assist numbers in favor of high team assist% and hockey assists. Kobe's TOV% is higher in the RS, but then again he handled the ball far more than Bird. 83-84 bird was around +4% TS, and Kobe was +3%, despite Kobe handily beating him in volume.

Then comes the playoffs, and comparatively speaking, Bird falls apart in this comparison v his competitors. He ups his minutes by about 4 minutes, but his scoring per 100 significantly drops (about 3.5 points), as does his efficiency (about +4% during RS, and then +1% in the PS- Kobe's TS% stays the same). He also sees drops in his rebounding. His AST/TO minutely gets better. His WS/48 (against a very controversial category because of its value and how intertwined it is with team success) reasonably drops also. His PER (to me this is not a very valuable statistic but people raise it) also falls off the clif (about 3.5). Kobe was far more resilient in this respect, and from what I recall, Dirk was also. Kobe's PPG per 100 staying amount about the same in the PS as compared to the RS, despite the +3mpg is heavily affected by his 06 post-season, where unlike Bird who simply under-performed (or perhaps he was injured as some here have claimed), Kobe deliberately reduced his PPG to counteract the Suns transition game (as the Suns, unlike most teams, did not get demoralized by opponents dropping big numbers against them + loved working in transition and hitting 3s).

And then you consider Bird's playoff opponents. I haven't gone through the numbers with Dirk, but I'm sure this also applies to him (Dirk faced some tough teams, especially defensive teams). Bird faced far weaker teams (SRS based) and defensive teams (relative DRTG) than 6-year prime Kobe did. It actually isn't close. Bird's opponents roughly averaged out as -1.37 DRTG teams, and 2.86 SRS teams. Kobe meanwhile was facing on average -2.98 DRG teams and 5.34 SRS teams. Not even close.

And then we get to PS defense, and we run into the same DBPM issues. No real strong evidence that Bird was the defender in the PS that his DBPM implies. Per eye test, it is understood that both Dirk and Kobe played better D in the PS.

And finally, how can we ignore Bird's longevity issues, when he clearly isn't getting that much separation at best, in his 6 year prime window? This is a major elephant in the room against guys like Kobe and Dirk, who give you very valuable seasons outside of their best 6.

I feel like Bird heavily benefits from the 'narrative factor'. Very little scrutiny it appears about him, and a lot of stuff are said about him without it being anchored into something concrete.

Some good points raised. There are certainly some weaknesses in Birds resume that become more obvious with time. And you're right that Bird does benefit from the narrative. I think however you're wrong if you dismiss that as meaningless. The weaknesses Bird had were known in the 1984-1988, but he was so dominant anyway that he won three consecutive MVPs, something that's only happened twice before and never since.

Bird didn't have nearly as many very good seasons as Dirk or Kobe, but he had far more great ones.

Look at the list of guys with multiple MVP's and Multiple titles as their teams best player:

MJ >=5x
Russell >=5x
LeBron >=3x
Magic >=3x
Bird >=3x
Kareem >=2x
Duncan >=2x
Wilt >=2x

Hard to argue if someone submitted that as the top 8 of all-time.

[dontcalltimeout]

A lot of votes for Bird, but I'm unsure on what basis. He has a brilliant 83-88 peak but then is underwhelming compared to some of the other competitors (most notably Kobe and you can throw Dirk in here) in the PS. His BPM gets a real boost in the RS from others in large part because of his DBPM, which again is highly suspect. Most analyses I've read (and some have spoken about their own understanding of Bird's defense) do not have Bird as a high impact defender, and some even suggest he was getting beat down at times. Yet his DBPM depicts him as this stalwart.

Small quibble here ITO how BPM is calculated. The Total BPM is calculated, and then the OPBM is calculated with a different set of coefficients. Though the regression was run to minimize the error in estimating both ORAPM and DRAPM, there is no explicit calculation for DBPM. It's merely BPM minus OBPM.

So if Bird's DBPM is overestimated it could be in error in the total calculation or in how much credit the equation is giving to offense vs defense.

Edit: But overall good post. It seems even if you think highly of Bird's prime, his peak play has to be ahead by a big gap there for him to have more value than guys that are reasonably close and blow him away in longevity.

[ardee]

What are the main arguments for Bryant over Erving? I can be convinced to take Bryant but I currently see an edge for Erving.

You have to really be convinced that the ABA wasn't a diluted league. I don't think it was as bad as someone people say, and I understand there is some context in terms of Erving playing with other ballhogs like McGinnis, Free and Collins, but I still think the drop in production was too big to be explained solely by team circumstances.

Another thing that indicates a difference in league quality to me was his rebounding. In the ABA, Erving averaged 16 rpg as a rookie and 12.5 for his ABA career, while he averaged 6.7 for his NBA career. There was no reason his NBA teammates should've affected his rebounding, it wasn't like he was playing with Rodman, most of these guys were perimeter shot creators. I believe this shows that it was easier to collect stats in the ABA.

Kobe's game was a good bit more complete. His handling was superior. Erving has a 14.5 TOV% in his 72-82 prime, Kobe was 11% in his 01-10 prime, and peaked at 9% during his 38.7% USG season in 2006! Kobe was also by far the better shooter, I don't think that's debatable.

Erving was a better slasher, he kinda reminded me of young LeBron minus the playmaking. I just trust Kobe more to be the primary decision maker for the offense, he had insane gravity just like Erving's, but was better at finding the open man, just an overall better playmaker.

[ardee]

What are the main arguments for Bryant over Erving? I can be convinced to take Bryant but I currently see an edge for Erving.

Why do you favor Dr. J over Oscar and West? I usally put him behind both

Same. This is too high for Erving. I don't think his game was nearly complete enough. Very lacking in ball-handling skills and shooting. Here's a post by D Nice about him.

Doc did not have elite handles/shot creation ability, was not an elite volume scorer, was not Kawhi/Pippen on defense, was not an ATG shooter. He was an ATG slasher without the ball handling skills to leverage Kobe/Wade/Lebron/MJ type impact and while he may have very well been a +1 or +1.3 defensive player in his prime his offense tracks at literally about 60% of what we've seen from actual modern wings (not even Jordan/LBJ...Kobe/Wade/T-Mac). ABA box score arguments are a joke to me, might as well start referencing globetrotter stats (joking but...). There is PLENTY of tape on 80-82 Erving (his NBA peak, which is the same level of play I credit him for in his 72-76 stretch) and that guy does not ever come close to approaching MVP-level to me...talent at the top in the early 80s was just insanely insanely thin. Compared to 2001-2009 POYs the difference is...staggering (outside of maybe the random/transition year of 05). Nice team player though. This year's Kawhi was better though, in pretty much every possible way. So if there are people that seriously see Doc as a Top 12 contender than maybe Kawhi can be a Realgm Top 5 GOAT candidate.

This is a little bit excessive, but the points about his skillset stand.

I would consider Erving toward the back end of the top 20... In the same range as Moses, both had fairly incomplete games, definitely behind the likes of Oscar, West, Dirk, KG, Robinson, and probably Barkley too.

[THKNKG]

Bird played so many fewer games than other candidates at this spot, to the degree that many players could give you 3-5+ high quality seasons more than him. Is that an issue to you guys?

[ardee]

Bird played so many fewer games than other candidates at this spot, to the degree that many players could give you 3-5+ high quality seasons more than him. Is that an issue to you guys?

Well, I'm voting Kobe over him.

Kobe's ten year prime was 2001-2010. Bird's was 1980-88 and 90. Then Kobe gives you two average Pippen-like years in 1999 and 2000, along with one amazing post-prime year in 2013 that wasn't too far off his prime and two other good All-Star years in 2011 and 2012.

I think Bird's 5 year prime was better (1984-88 vs 2006-10), but Kobe's 10 year prime was about equal, maybe slightly worse. That's enough for Kobe's extra years to make up over Bird's 62 game 1991 and 45 game 1992.

I suppose Garnett is a candidate, not in my eyes but the eyes of this thread, he does have extra years over Bird as well, I just think Bird's 1980-88 and 90 is over 1999-2008 by enough of a margin that Garnett's poorer years don't matter.

[BasketballFan7]

What are the main arguments for Bryant over Erving? I can be convinced to take Bryant but I currently see an edge for Erving.

Why do you favor Dr. J over Oscar and West? I usally put him behind both

I can see viable arguments for Oscar and West over Erving. My view is that Erving has superior longevity (~53K minutes and standout durability) and IMO a superior peak. I believe he is underrated today due to faulty perception about his capabilities and misunderstanding as to why his numbers dropped off so dramatically in 77-79. It was a bad situation for a volume scorer to be put in. He didn't spontaneously drop off after 76 and resurrect himself in 1980. That said, I can understand West/Oscar over Erving.

I'm a bit more skeptical on Kobe over Erving. I don't doubt that Kobe had a more diverse skill set and that he would fit today's game better. I don't care about era translation though. They have a lot of similarities. Scoring wings who were icons of their leagues, had success with other stars, had long primes, excellent longevities (especially for non-bigs), and inflated defensive reputations (though for different reasons).

For me, Erving gets the edge due to his more impressive peak, less abrasive personality (probably doesn't matter at all for some people but I'm thinking in a team-building context), and better longevity (I don't give Kobe a boost for 2013 - you can't help me win a championship if you are out for the playoffs).

That's just my opinion. I don't find Kobe > Erving heinous by any means. Kobe was a producer.

[Joao Saraiva]

Bird played so many fewer games than other candidates at this spot, to the degree that many players could give you 3-5+ high quality seasons more than him. Is that an issue to you guys?

I have an issue with it against Karl Malone. Wondering if Karl Malone should be voted in right now.

I take longevity hard into account in my formula, but even with Bird not doing so well the all time calculation still looks like this:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Wilt Chamberlain
Michael Jordan
LeBron James
Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'Neal
Bill Russell
Karl Malone
Hakeem Olajuwon
Magic Johnson
Larry Bird

So I don't have a problem with his lack of longevity against any other guy.

Maybe I'm not voting yet for Karl Malone because I take playoff performance high into account... but maybe I should. Malone has 3 all time great runs, but even in the others that he wasn't so good by the standards we're still at, he was still at least decent (he was very good, again, this is by the standards of a top 10 spot).

So for the other guys, I absolutely don't have a problem with it, since I trust the formula to at least see if it should be counted as a major thing or not.

Given all this I might vote for Karl Malone next time... or Kobe, or Oscar Robertson.

(Some results seem a bit off for players before 1980, so I give a bit less importance to the formula to rank those players. It's still, however, useful to see more or less their range).

[mischievous]

I don't know if i'd call any of Malone's playoff runs "all time great". He had some good ones, but not legendary like many others even including guys like Dirk, Wade or Kobe.

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't know if i'd call any of Malone's playoff runs "all time great". He had some good ones, but not legendary like many others even including guys like Dirk, Wade or Kobe.

I think 92, 94 and 98 belong there. Not saying they're the best runs among those guys, but surely belong in the same page.

My problem with Malone is that for a guy that went to so many playoffs having only 3 doesn't sound that great... and on most cases reducing his performance vs his regular season.

[ardee]

What are the main arguments for Bryant over Erving? I can be convinced to take Bryant but I currently see an edge for Erving.

Why do you favor Dr. J over Oscar and West? I usally put him behind both

I can see viable arguments for Oscar and West over Erving. My view is that Erving has superior longevity (~53K minutes and standout durability) and IMO a superior peak. I believe he is underrated today due to faulty perception about his capabilities and misunderstanding as to why his numbers dropped off so dramatically in 77-79. It was a bad situation for a volume scorer to be put in. He didn't spontaneously drop off after 76 and resurrect himself in 1980. That said, I can understand West/Oscar over Erving.

I'm a bit more skeptical on Kobe over Erving. I don't doubt that Kobe had a more diverse skill set and that he would fit today's game better. I don't care about era translation though. They have a lot of similarities. Scoring wings who were icons of their leagues, had success with other stars, had long primes, excellent longevities (especially for non-bigs), and inflated defensive reputations (though for different reasons).

For me, Erving gets the edge due to his more impressive peak, less abrasive personality (probably doesn't matter at all for some people but I'm thinking in a team-building context), and better longevity (I don't give Kobe a boost for 2013 - you can't help me win a championship if you are out for the playoffs).

That's just my opinion. I don't find Kobe > Erving heinous by any means. Kobe was a producer.

Why do you think Erving's peak was better? ABA numbers?

And what are your thoughts on the skillset issues I outlined above?

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[70sFan]

I don't believe people still think Dr J is a weak ballhandler...

[rebirthoftheM]

I don't believe people still think Dr J is a weak ballhandler...

I think people are questioning his ability to handle off the dribble in the half court. I know you disagree but the footage out there suggets he was inferior to quite a number of superstar wings in the modern era (Kobe, Wade, Tmac etc.). It is the same ish with Clyde who looked very clunk at times in the half court. MJ was truly a revolutionary in terms of his ball handling at the wing spot.

Cue the palming card...

Sent from my SM-G935F using RealGM mobile app

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Larry Bird
Vote 2 - Oscar Robertson

Bird is one of those few players along with Jordan and Magic where longevity isn't as important to me. What they accomplished in their careers stands on its own to propel them to this elite status. Even with bird having some inconsistent post season performances, his first title run in only his second season showed how special he was, and took his play to another level in 84 and 86.

He's in that elite class of great basketball minds and decision makers. Especially on the fly, he could make something out of nothing, and that applied to all aspects of play, not just scoring. I go back to a post by Doctor MJ from the 2014 project to further my point:

That's not Bird's main thing to me. To me with Bird it's more a guy who seems to accept what's given, see a way to exploit it, and then hustle to make it happen. There are other guys you can talk about doing this to some degree, but typically when we talk about them we're really talking defense as at least half their impact (Walton for example).

Bird has some of that on defense, but obviously it's his offense that's his #1 thing. And when I say "off-ball" that's an oversimplification. If someone called Reggie Miller an off-ball savant I wouldn't say they are wrong, but Bird clearly takes it quite a bit further. It's a distinction along the lines that after everything else, what Reggie's looking to do when he gets the ball is shoot, whereas Bird has a battery of choices at his disposal and the only given seems to be that he already knows what he's going to do before you even know he's going to be there getting the ball.

On the 84 finals

Though he can be a wily hayseed, he can also exhibit deft, psychological team leadership. After the third game of last year's championship series, the Lakers, despite Bird's scoring 30 points, handed the Celtics a nasty whipping, 137-104. Bird was angry. ''I know the heart and soul of this team,'' he said afterward, ''and today the heart wasn't there. It was embarrassing. I just can't believe that a team like this would let them come out and push us around like they did. When you've got inside position, you can't let a guy come over you for the rebound. We've got to be more intense.''

He accused no individuals, but he spoke of specifics - ''heart'' and ''soul'' and ''inside position.'' His teammates responded, and the Celtics - for a variety of reasons, but Bird's rebuke had to be one of them - went on to take the series in seven games.

http://nyti.ms/UmZNrQ

Bird as a teammate

From himself on the court he seeks only consistency and considers that the true mark of excellence. ''But Larry's so sensitive to what his teammates need that he changes the emphasis of his game to accommodate them,'' says Jim Rodgers, the Celtics' senior assistant. ''It's a unique form of personal consistency, concentrating on the needs of others, isn't it?''

A Celtics teammate, Bill Walton, says: ''So much of it -- playing, in the locker room, away from basketball -- has to do with how much he cares. Larry cares about every element of everything he's involved in. With some people, the sphere of their life is so very small. The sphere of Larry's life is just huge.''

And yet these embers of generosity were kindled by the most incendiary competitive fires. Even now in the Valley there's not much amazement that Larry Bird turned out to be the greatest basketball player ever -- what the hell, somebody had to, so it might as well be a French Lick boy -- but there is some surprise that he could rise above the family temper to reach those heights. In order to win, Bird taught himself not to get angry, rather to gain satisfaction from somebody else's hot blood. ''I've learned it's a lot more fun making a shot with a guy hanging on you,'' he says.

Championships mean even more to Bird -- ''His mission,'' Auerbach calls them. ''That's why I play,'' Bird says. ''I'm just greedy on them things. Winning the championship -- I've never felt that way any other time, no matter how big some other game was. I remember the first time we won, against Houston (in 1981). We were way ahead at the end, and so I came out with three minutes left, and my heart was pounding so on the bench, I thought it would jump out of my chest. You know what you feel? You just want everything to stop and to stay like that forever.''

And that, in his way, is what Larry Bird does for us. He not only slows the world down, but he turns it back. ''I've studied it,'' Woolf says, ''and I think, above all, there's just an innocence with him. I think Larry takes anyone who knows him -- or sees him playing -- back to grammar school. Remember back then? Back then we didn't brag. We dove after the ball. We looked after our friends. I think with Larry we believe he'll save the team. We believe he'll save us somehow. So you follow him.''

http://www.si.com/nba/2007/10/24/flashback032188

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Excuse the sensationalist "ULTIMATE MIXTAPE" title -- this is really well done]

[BasketballFan7]

Why do you favor Dr. J over Oscar and West? I usally put him behind both

I can see viable arguments for Oscar and West over Erving. My view is that Erving has superior longevity (~53K minutes and standout durability) and IMO a superior peak. I believe he is underrated today due to faulty perception about his capabilities and misunderstanding as to why his numbers dropped off so dramatically in 77-79. It was a bad situation for a volume scorer to be put in. He didn't spontaneously drop off after 76 and resurrect himself in 1980. That said, I can understand West/Oscar over Erving.

I'm a bit more skeptical on Kobe over Erving. I don't doubt that Kobe had a more diverse skill set and that he would fit today's game better. I don't care about era translation though. They have a lot of similarities. Scoring wings who were icons of their leagues, had success with other stars, had long primes, excellent longevities (especially for non-bigs), and inflated defensive reputations (though for different reasons).

For me, Erving gets the edge due to his more impressive peak, less abrasive personality (probably doesn't matter at all for some people but I'm thinking in a team-building context), and better longevity (I don't give Kobe a boost for 2013 - you can't help me win a championship if you are out for the playoffs).

That's just my opinion. I don't find Kobe > Erving heinous by any means. Kobe was a producer.

Why do you think Erving's peak was better? ABA numbers?

And what are your thoughts on the skillset issues I outlined above?

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

I just deleted my response on accident

To be brief-

Erving's 1977 playoff run adds validity to his performance. He dominated the Nuggets and the Spurs, two teams that would transition to the NBA the following season with significant roster carryover and achieve 50 and 44 wins, respectively. In particular, the Nuggets team he faced in the finals was excellent by both ABA and NBA standards. The following year the 1977 Nuggets had the best defense in the NBA, as well as the second best expected win-loss. I certainly believe Erving's 1976 to be an upper-echalon quality season.

His NBA production was stymied by poor roster construction. This affected his averages. During the 1977 playoffs he raised his game once again, both overall and in particular in the finals, where he averaged 30-7-5 against Portland after only putting up 21.6 PPG in the regular season. Portland was obviously an excellent team.

I don't have much time to go more in depth, particularly after already having to re-write this

Skill-set wise... I don't put much emphasis into that here. To be clear, Kobe had marvelous versatility. IMO this is valuable because it allowed him to maintain production against damn-near any defense that opposed him. But Erving was so good at what he did do that the inferior versatility doesn't bother me. I find his versatility to be underrated as is. Era-relative, which is all I care for (I have Russell at number one), his handle didn't impede him. You don't do what he did as a slasher without a handle. And he wasn't a non-shooter or non-passer, at least not to the extent where it hindered him.

Kobe's skill-set distinguishes him against players who I feel could be limited against `playoff defenses. For instance, I have Kobe over Malone and Bird (although Bird's playoff drop-off obviously wasn't likely due to versatility issues). I don't feel that Erving had an issue in this regard.

[70sFan]

I don't believe people still think Dr J is a weak ballhandler...

I think people are questioning his ability to handle off the dribble in the half court. I know you disagree but the footage out there suggets he was inferior to quite a number of superstar wings in the modern era (Kobe, Wade, Tmac etc.). It is the same ish with Clyde who looked very clunk at times in the half court. MJ was truly a revolutionary in terms of his ball handling at the wing spot.

Cue the palming card...

Sent from my SM-G935F using RealGM mobile app

But it's a matter of rules, not actual abilities. Julius with today handling rules would be just as effective as MJ.

[rebirthoftheM]

I don't believe people still think Dr J is a weak ballhandler...

I think people are questioning his ability to handle off the dribble in the half court. I know you disagree but the footage out there suggets he was inferior to quite a number of superstar wings in the modern era (Kobe, Wade, Tmac etc.). It is the same ish with Clyde who looked very clunk at times in the half court. MJ was truly a revolutionary in terms of his ball handling at the wing spot.

Cue the palming card...

Sent from my SM-G935F using RealGM mobile app

But it's a matter of rules, not actual abilities. Julius with today handling rules would be just as effective as MJ.

As was the case with Jerry west, who despite his own admission that he couldn't dribble with his left hand, you put down his deficiency to rule differences, we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Even rookie Jordan, who was not refined as later Jordan, showed a level of handling abilities in the half-court that simply outshines Erving in the half court. The differences in mechanics are very telling. Quite simply Erving would be ripped in the modern era with the way he dribbled in front of defenders and he ain't splitting doubles and traps like MJ could nor is he breaking down defenses like MJ.

Basketball evolves man. Even in short spans. Each generation learns from the previous and adds to it. MJ learned from Erving and David Thompson in a way that Clyde Drexler evidently did not. We therefore got a revolution in ball handling abilities post-MJ at the wing spot. Such is the world.

[rebirthoftheM]

That's not Bird's main thing to me. To me with Bird it's more a guy who seems to accept what's given, see a way to exploit it, and then hustle to make it happen. There are other guys you can talk about doing this to some degree, but typically when we talk about them we're really talking defense as at least half their impact (Walton for example).

Bird has some of that on defense, but obviously it's his offense that's his #1 thing. And when I say "off-ball" that's an oversimplification. If someone called Reggie Miller an off-ball savant I wouldn't say they are wrong, but Bird clearly takes it quite a bit further. It's a distinction along the lines that after everything else, what Reggie's looking to do when he gets the ball is shoot, whereas Bird has a battery of choices at his disposal and the only given seems to be that he already knows what he's going to do before you even know he's going to be there getting the ball.

Bird is in for sure, bit this type of commentary doesn't seem very productive, not because it is necessarily false, but because it is unverifiable by objective standards. Forgive me, but it reads as basically narrative stuff, eye test and what his contemporaries said about him, things that folks regularly reject in other circumstances. Bird might have had those capabilities, but what did it mean in real terms? What about consistency and productivity?

What we know is that Bird in 84-88 declined majorly in the PS on average. He gives you about 4 extra minutes, yet per 100, his points (4 PPG per 100- this is massive), rebounds, assists, steals and blocks all go down. His TS% also drops around 1.3% over this stage, leaving him with a 3.4% league average spread in the PS, which again is not really impressive when you consider the major PPG drop-off. His PER falls off the cliff in the PS also. Also, Bird faced overall faced weak comp. -1.3 DRTG teams who averaged out a 2.97 SRS. A number of players faced better comp, and performed better than prime Bird in the PS.

And it ain't like the Celtics were world beaters on offense in the playoffs. They never finished #1, with 86 being the best finished as #2. Other years they ended up at #4, #6, #3 and #7th.

There literally is no evidence that Bird, particularly in the PS, was having this monster offensive impact that was not replicated by other ATG offensive players, who unlike Bird, were also able to maintain their box score stuff. Even his RS offense, at best was a little better than other dudes, and again no evidence he was in another echelon against other ATG offensive players at their best. Bird didn't have this magic skill-set that trumped everyone else. He had strengths and weaknesses like everyone else. And one of his major weaknesses, besides his problems with anyone with size and athleticism, happens to be that in his best years, he couldn't sustain at all his RS play. And that should count against him, alongside his longevity issues.

Unless of course you want to make an argument, that despite all his box score stuff falling off in the PS, he somewhat was having this super impact that trumps everyone else who is still on board. But this requires evidence, of which none exists it seems.