RealGM Top 100 List 2017 -- #10

[Doctor MJ]

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?

You have a major ontological misconception there.

The foundation is the events and actions that occur on the court.
The data is merely a bunch of bits and pieces that don't remotely explain what emerges out on the court.

And I love data. I've been borderline obsessed with it at times. But a thing doesn't need to be seen to be a thing.

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.

Eh, y'know, this was my post from 2014. I don't really feel like trying to defend something I said that long ago.

[rebirthoftheM]

You have a major ontological misconception there.

The foundation is the events and actions that occur on the court.
The data is merely a bunch of bits and pieces that don't remotely explain what emerges out on the court.

And I love data. I've been borderline obsessed with it at times. But a thing doesn't need to be seen to be a thing.

Ahh, wasn't aware that it was an old post. Just saw it quoted and thought it was raised elsewhere.

You are of course 100% right about the data stuff. No objections here. It's just that it is hard for me to grasp things without there being a sustained analysis of that very thing. So bird's off the ball play. How did that shape out in the PS, and how does it compare other ATG offensive players strengths? Bird's PS decline on the face of it gives me trouble, but I am always opening to the suggestion that stats often do not tell you the whole story.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #122 (25 votes):

Larry Bird - 10 (Joao Saraiva, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, 2klegend, janmagn, RCM88x, Winsome Gerbil, Outside, scabbarista, wojoaderge)
Kobe Bryant - 6 (Tesla, oldschooled, JordansBulls, ardee, andrewww, Hornet Mania)
Kevin Garnett - 6 (micahclay, Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, drza, eminence, kayess)
George Mikan - 1 (penbeast0)
Julius Erving - 1 (BasketballFan7)
Karl Malone - 1 (Narigo)

No majority, so all of the bottom three are eliminated; secondary votes transfer to West ("ghost vote"), Garnett, and Kobe (1 each), bringing totals to:

Bird - 10
Kobe - 7
Garnett - 7

Would next have to eliminate BOTH Kobe and Garnett, making Bird the default winner (fwiw, if eliminated Garnett ONLY, would add at least 2 additional votes to Bird [one person did not specify 2ndary pick, though listed Bird as a potential]; if eliminated Kobe ONLY, all six who cast their primary ballot for Kobe had Bird as their 2ndary pick......so he was likely to obtain majority anyway if eliminated only one). Calling it for Bird. Will have #11 thread up in moments.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[70sFan]

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.

But Dr J was elite ballhandler for his position. West wasn't. You don't understand, even with if MJ was a better ballhandler (he was elite so there is nothing strange with that), he handled the ball in illegal way. He couldn't palm the ball in 1970s. Even rookie MJ played in an era when refs started allowing more flashy dribble moves. It would be easier for Julius Erving to handle the ball today. Now everyone carries the ball. Without carrying rules it's so easy that even bigs try to be flashy ballhandlers.

Last point, bolded part is just not true. Julius played in the same league with MJ and he was productive even in his last season. People overrate handling abilities. Elgin Baylor didn't use many dribble moves and he could beat any defender off the dribble. All this behind the back and between the legs stuff isn't really important for basketball player. If you think it is, Dr J was quite flashy ballhandler for his era. Sometimes he was allowed to do more with the ball than the rest because people loved him. He could do all important things to beat defender off the dribble and he could beat double teams with his dribbling. Players now are more comfortable with his dribbling because they basically can't do any illegal dribbles with the way refs call the game. They can also travel in almost any possesion.

If you wish, I can break down Dr J handling ability with video evidence.