RealGM Top 100 List #6

[Fencer reregistered]

I have a question however, my gut says to vote for Bird, but almost every sign in my head points towards Shaq. What exactly makes Bird the clear cut candidate here? I find it hard to believe that his peak was that much better, so is it just the intangible part of the game? Meaning, we look negatively at the number of teams Shaq has played on, the question of conditioning, and lack of leadership abilities, all of which Bird has clear advantages over -- but still didn't stop Shaq from accomplishing as much as Bird did? I suppose part of the answer would be that Bird had to compete with Erving's Sixers, or Magic's Showtime Lakers implying that it was much more spread out, but while the Lakers had near cake walks in the Finals, the Kings, Blazers, and Spurs during that same era were no pushovers. And Shaq was a great, great playoff and finals performer as well.

Bird joined the Celtics in an era of great selfishness, when they were not immune. He led one of the most unselfish teams ever. Shaq didn't just have a variety of personality issues -- they got so bad he was dumped from several teams in a row. The intangibles gap is almost as wide as it could possibly be without criminal acts being involved.

I also find Bird much more spectacular because of the variety of his skills.

I also note that Bird did a lot of on-court things (e.g. "hockey assist" passes) that didn't get onto the stat sheet.

I also note that Bird -- a little less awesome as a scorer but moving more -- probably disrupted the rest of the defense with his scoring ability as much as Shaq did, and hence was Shaq's approximate equal in the one big area where his on-court contributions did NOT wind up on the stat sheet.

[colts18]

ignoring his playoff failures.

Maybe somebody should actually itemize Bird's playoff failures, so that we can laugh at the list.

Look at the top of page 2.

How about 1981 finals where he scored 15 PPG on .477 TS%, 1982 when he had a .474 TS% and a 17.9 PER for the playoffs or 83 with a .478 TS% while his team with the league's 2nd best SRS got swept with HCA. You can even make an argument that he failed in the 85 Finals. His numbers went down across the board and shot under 45% from the field while the Celtics lost for the first time ever with HCA. What about his final 2 playoff years where he had 2 straight 16 PER playoffs and averaged 15-16 PPG and 6 Rebounds. That's a lot of playoff failures for a guy who had a short career.

[Fencer reregistered]

How about 1981 finals where he scored 15 PPG on .477 TS%, 1982 when he had a .474 TS% and a 17.9 PER for the playoffs or 83 with a .478 TS% while his team with the league's 2nd best SRS got swept with HCA. You can even make an argument that he failed in the 85 Finals. His numbers went down across the board and shot under 45% from the field while the Celtics lost for the first time ever with HCA. What about his final 2 playoff years where he had 2 straight 16 PER playoffs and averaged 15-16 PPG and 6 Rebounds. That's a lot of playoff failures for a guy who had a short career.

Before I respond -- what's a good source for game-by-game or series-by-series stats? Thanks.

By the way, I'm not disputing that Bird's team was eliminated from the playoffs more often than it won the championship. I just can't conceive of why that metric would be disadvantageous to Bird in a comparison with, say, Shaq, Duncan, or Hakeem.

[Fencer reregistered]

swept with HCA

Why is that more interesting than "swept"?

[ElGee]

ignoring his playoff failures.

Maybe somebody should actually itemize Bird's playoff failures, so that we can laugh at the list.

Look at the top of page 2.

How about 1981 finals where he scored 15 PPG on .477 TS%, 1982 when he had a .474 TS% and a 17.9 PER for the playoffs or 83 with a .478 TS% while his team with the league's 2nd best SRS got swept with HCA. You can even make an argument that he failed in the 85 Finals. His numbers went down across the board and shot under 45% from the field while the Celtics lost for the first time ever with HCA. What about his final 2 playoff years where he had 2 straight 16 PER playoffs and averaged 15-16 PPG and 6 Rebounds. That's a lot of playoff failures for a guy who had a short career.

And he should have been MVP of the 1981 Finals. Re-watch the series and stop relying on TS% as a be-all-end-all stat for guys who impact the game in many different ways.

And why are you focusing on failures and not successes?

[colts18]

How about 1981 finals where he scored 15 PPG on .477 TS%, 1982 when he had a .474 TS% and a 17.9 PER for the playoffs or 83 with a .478 TS% while his team with the league's 2nd best SRS got swept with HCA. You can even make an argument that he failed in the 85 Finals. His numbers went down across the board and shot under 45% from the field while the Celtics lost for the first time ever with HCA. What about his final 2 playoff years where he had 2 straight 16 PER playoffs and averaged 15-16 PPG and 6 Rebounds. That's a lot of playoff failures for a guy who had a short career.

Before I respond -- what's a good source for game-by-game or series-by-series stats? Thanks.

By the way, I'm not disputing that Bird's team was eliminated from the playoffs more often than it won the championship. I just can't conceive of why that metric would be disadvantageous to Bird in a comparison with, say, Shaq, Duncan, or Hakeem.

basketball-reference.com has stats for the whole playoffs for each player in their player page. Unfortunately they only have game logs for playoffs starting 1990-present. But they do have stats for the whole finals using their composite finals box scores. http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... inals.html

[colts18]

Maybe somebody should actually itemize Bird's playoff failures, so that we can laugh at the list.

Look at the top of page 2.

How about 1981 finals where he scored 15 PPG on .477 TS%, 1982 when he had a .474 TS% and a 17.9 PER for the playoffs or 83 with a .478 TS% while his team with the league's 2nd best SRS got swept with HCA. You can even make an argument that he failed in the 85 Finals. His numbers went down across the board and shot under 45% from the field while the Celtics lost for the first time ever with HCA. What about his final 2 playoff years where he had 2 straight 16 PER playoffs and averaged 15-16 PPG and 6 Rebounds. That's a lot of playoff failures for a guy who had a short career.

And he should have been MVP of the 1981 Finals. Re-watch the series and stop relying on TS% as a be-all-end-all stat for guys who impact the game in many different ways.

And why are you focusing on failures and not successes?

Bird only had a few successes (84-87), other than those years, he barely did anything in the playoffs. Compare that to Shaq who only had maybe 2 bad playoffs before 2007. Not only that, Shaq's playoff successes were undoubtedly higher than Bird's. In his first 20 finals games, Shaq had at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 52 FG% in every single one of those games and had 30 and 10 in 16 out of 20 games. Please point me to a stretch where Bird had dominated that much? You can't.

[Doctor MJ]

Shaq and Duncan before Hakeem? I'm shocked.

Pretty much co-signed. Won't same I'm actually shocked though, just that I disagree.

[Fencer reregistered]

Bird only had a few successes (84-87), other than those years, he barely did anything in the playoffs.

I repeat -- what's your support for that?

It sure didn't look that way at the time.

You're also discounting a lot of playoff series won.

[Fencer reregistered]

It's appropriate to, as a team, score less well in the playoffs than the regular season, because you're coming up against better defensive teams. It's also appropriate to change your mix of scoring, depending on how you're defended.

I agree that Bird's FG% looks a little low aggregated over each of the 81-82 and 82-83 playoffs. But McHale's was up the first of those years (vs. the regular season), which suggests where some of the looks may have gone. Etc. I'm not going to concede that 19-12.5 (exactly)-6 on decent (not great but not terrible) shooting is some huge black mark without a lot more context.

[An Unbiased Fan]

#6 comes down to 4 guys for me, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan. This is a long post, but with these players, there's a lot to cover.

OFFENSE:

I decided to do a deeper analysis of the 4, since most of the usual arguments have been made a million times on the PC Board.

Below are the offensive numbers of the 4 as starters. PTS% & AST% are self-explanatory. ORTG+/- is what their team's offense was rated relative to the league average.

Code: Select all

Bird:
      PTS%   AST%   ORTG +/-
1980   25.2%  18.5%  +3.89%         
1981   23.6%  20.4%  +2.75%
1982   26.0%  22.5%  +2.71%
1983   27.0%  22.4%  +2.10%
1984   27.4%  26.2%  +3.07%
1985   30.4%  25.7%  +4.54%
1986   28.8%  26.3%  +4.29%
1987   29.6%  28.6%  +4.80%
1988   32.6%  25.7%  +6.85%
1990   27.0%  28.9%  +3.61%
1991   22.1%  25.9%  +4.36%

Code: Select all

Kobe:
      PTS%   AST%   ORTG +/-
1999   25.6%  17.5%  +5.28%         
2000   28.2%  22.4%  +3.07%
2001   33.5%  23.0%  +5.24%
2002   31.4%  25.9%  +4.69%
2003   35.0%  27.2%  +3.47%
2004   31.4%  24.4%  +2.53%
2005   33.1%  28.5%  +1.89%
2006   42.1%  24.1%  +2.07%
2007   36.6%  25.5%  +1.97%
2008   32.3%  23.9%  +5.12%
2009   33.5%  23.8%  +4.16%
2010    33.0%  23.8%  +1.12%
2011   35.6%  26.7%  +3.54%

Code: Select all

Shaq:
      PTS%   AST%   ORTG +/-
1993   28.3%   8.5%  -0.46%
1994   33.6%  11.0%  +4.23%
1995   34.7%  13.3%  +6.28%
1996   34.1%  15.9%  +4.93%
1997   33.5%  17.3%  +1.50%
1998   35.8%  13.5%  +6.57%      
1999   36.8%  14.4%  +5.28%         
2000   35.5%  19.3%  +3.07%
2001   33.6%  18.8%  +5.24%
2002   35.8%  16.4%  +4.69%
2003   35.3%  16.2%  +3.47%
2004   28.8%  14.8%  +2.53%
2005   32.5%  15.7%  +3.86%
2006   31.5%  12.4%  +2.35%
2007   31.1%  14.3%  -2.07%

Code: Select all

Duncan:
      PTS%   AST%   ORTG +/-
1998    28.2%  13.7%  -1.14%      
1999   28.7%  12.1%  +1.76%         
2000   30.1%  15.5%  +0.86%
2001   28.8%  15.3%  +3.50%
2002   31.4%  18.3%  +1.91%
2003   29.9%  19.5%  +3.47%
2004   32.1%  17.4%  +1.93%
2005   30.6%  16.1%  +1.32%
2006   27.0%  16.5%  +0.75%
2007   28.7%  18.9%  +2.54%
2008   28.7%  15.7%  -0.28%
2009   28.7%  19.3%  +0.18%
2010    27.2%  17.8%  +3.16%
2011   22.1%  15.7%  +4.29%

1) Kobe & Bird

The offensive numbers of the two are quite compelling. Kobe is the superior volume scorer by good margin with 11 straight 31%+ PTS% seasons. As a scoring workhorse, he's up there with Wilt, MJ, and Shaq. What's also interesting is that he put up 12 straight 22%+ AST% seasons. So Kobe was not only scoring all an all-time rate, he was facilitating at an elite level too. In fact, he's equal in AST% to Bird.

Bird's offensive workload was less than Bryant's, but he did lead the most consistent Team ORtg+/- of the group. Offensive support obviously plays a role in that number, but still, I will put Bird up there with Kobe.

3) Shaq, to no one's surprise, was the most dominant scoring workhorse of the group. He had 10 33%+ PTS% seasons. His AST% was also very good for a bigman, during his prime. I have him 3rd, but he's not far behind at all.

4) Duncan is the weakest of the group, but still a great offensive player. His PTS% is on par, if not slighty better than Bird's. He's not the scoring anchor that Shaq or Bryant were though.

Notes:

-What's interesting to find is that even from 02-03'(where many claim he had a crap cast and had no 2nd option), TD only put up 31.45 & 29.4% PTS numbers. This kinda flies in the face of those who claim he carried them by himself offensively.
-Even when Shaq & Kobe played together, they were both carrying more of a scoring load than either Bird or Duncan. In 2000, with Shaq putting 35.5%, Kobe was still at 28.2%, which is the around average for both Bird & TD. From 01-03, both are 31.0%+. What an amzing duo.
-The Celtics actually posted a 110.8 ORtg WITHOUT Bird for 76 games. That's +2.78, and not a huge dropoff.



Defense:

Really, this is actually quite easy to parse out.

1) Duncan. Top 3 defenses nearly every year. 10 All-Defense 1st teams. Need I say more? He's a Top 3 defender every in my book, and clearly the best of the group.

2) Kobe. You can call claim his defense of the last 4 years is overrated(I would strongly disagree though), but He would still have 5 more All-Defense 1st teams than Shaq & Bird combined. He one of the best defensive wings of his era, if not the best. Since 99', he's also been LA's best defender every year, which says a,lot considering his massive role as scorer/facilitator.

3) Shaq. In his prime, In his 2 peak years, Shaq was a borderlie elite defender. Not on the elvel of a Zo or Mutumbo, but still a defensive presence in the paint. As a bigman though, it's a stain on his record that he never became a great defensive anchor like TD did, or even like Howard is.

4) Bird was a good defender early in his career. Why he stopped playing at the start of his prime is a mystery. Perhaps it was his increased offensive workload, but whatever the reason, Bird went from a good defender...to a subpar defender.


Peak:

Much has been made of 'peak" years. I never really get a straight answer as to how we judge peak years. So here are the 4 player's best 5 year stretch, and what they did in it.

Bird 84-88'
PTS% AST% ORTG +/-
1984 27.4% 26.2% +3.07%
1985 30.4% 25.7% +4.54%
1986 28.8% 26.3% +4.29%
1987 29.6% 28.6% +4.80%
1988 32.6% 25.7% +6.85%

5 All-NBA 1st teams
1 All-Defense 2nd team

3.833 MVP Shares
3 MVPs

2 rings
2 Finals MVPs


Kobe 06'-10'
PTS% AST% ORTG +/-
2006 42.1% 24.1% +2.07%
2007 36.6% 25.5% +1.97%
2008 32.3% 23.9% +5.12%
2009 33.5% 23.8% +4.16%
2010 33.0% 23.8% +1.12%

5 All-NBA 1st teams
5 All-Defense 1st teams

2.731 MVP Shares
1 MVP

2 rings
2 Finals MVPs


Shaq 98-02'
PTS% AST% ORTG +/-
1998 35.8% 13.5% +6.57%
1999 36.8% 14.4% +5.28%
2000 35.5% 19.3% +3.07%
2001 33.6% 18.8% +5.24%
2002 35.8% 16.4% +4.69%

4 All-NBA 1st teams / 1 All-NBA 2nd team
2 All-Defense 2nd teams

2.359 MVP shares
1 MVP

3 rings
3 Finals MVPs

Duncan 01-05'
PTS% AST% ORTG +/-
2001 28.8% 15.3% +3.50%
2002 31.4% 18.3% +1.91%
2003 29.9% 19.5% +3.47%
2004 32.1% 17.4% +1.93%
2005 30.6% 16.1% +1.32%

5 All-NBA 1st teams
4 All-Defense 1st teams / 1 All-Defense 2nd team

2.974 MVP Shares
2 MVPs

2 rings
2 Finals MVPs


Notes:
If "peak" play is based on one season, then Shaq may in fact have the GOAT. However....over the span of a 5 year peak, Shaq actually gets the least recognition of the group, and this is in a weak era for centers. Bird gets the most MVP love, while Kobe & TD have the bbst 2-way play. Impact-wise, all 4 are nearly even in both rings and Finals MVPs.


Playoff Success:

Playoff Series Record:
W-L PCT
Kobe 99-11' 28-7 80%
Bird 80-91' 23-8 74.2%
Shaq 93-08' 31-11 73.8%
Duncan 98-11' 25-9 73.5%

Playoff Series Record with HCA:
Kobe 99-11' 25-2 92.6%
Shaq 93-08' 24-4 85.7%
Duncan 98-11' 18-5 78.7%
Bird 80-91' 23-7 76.7%

Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +2 SRS:
Kobe 99-11' 24-2 92.3%
Shaq 93-08' 16-4 80%
Bird 80-91' 13-5 72.2%
Duncan 98-11' 12-5 70.6%

Playoff Series Record with HCA against teams with a +4 SRS:
Kobe 99-11' 12-2 85.7%
Shaq 93-08' 7-2 77.8%%
Duncan 98-11' 6-2 75%
Bird 80-91' 6-5 54.5%

Kobe clearly outperforms the group. Shaq is also the clear 2nd, while I give TD the nod over Bird, due to his record again +4 SRS teams. Interestingly, Kobe did better without Shaq, than Shaq did wihtout Kobe.

One amazing fact, is that from 00-11', EVERY team Kobe faced was 2 SRS or higher. Even still, his team were 12-2 against +4 SRS teams. All 4 played in tough conferences, so I don't see that as a factor.


Final Analysis:

All 4 are clearly amazing players. But one guy had the eltie offense, elite defense, elite peak, and elite playoff success, and that's Kobe. TD comes close for me, but I feel Bryant's combo of offense + defense is greater than his. Head to Head in 6 playoff series matchups, Kobe individually outplayed TD 4 out of 6 times, and his team also won 4 out of 6 times. Even during their peaks, Bryant was barely behing in MVP shares, while matching other accolades. I see their relation very much like Magic/Bird.

Shaq had a great 3 year run from 00-02', but he just didn't sustain that level of play(especially as a defensive anchor) throughout his career. So he's behind Kobe/TD. Sure, he put up very efficient FG%, but he was never a domiannt rebounder, or paint protector. And as a 300lb big, that's a damn shame. From 93-08'(16 seasons), Shaq had 6 seasons where he played 57 games or less. Yes, he had guady offensive numbers....but games played is a big factor in his impact from year to year. That knocks his longevity down a bit in my eyes.

Bird looks to be the runaway winner for #6. But I guess I have to play the role of outlier once again. I have Bird behind TD & Kobe, and on par with Shaq at this point. One of the great all-around players ever, but a mediore defender. Taking into account all the data I have laid out, he falls a little short.


Vote for #6 = Kobe

Nomination = Barkley.

[ronnymac2]

But then, the goalposts change and now Bird gets the vote for peak play, but ignoring his playoff failures. Why is that?

Where has Bird failed?

Did you not read my post?

[ronnymac2]

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.

Is this serious? I can't tell if that whole post was tongue-in-cheek.

I was dead-ass serious.

Look, you asked Colts why he was bringing up Bird's failures and not his successes. Well, why shouldn't he when in Shaq vs. Bird comparisons, Shaq's failures keep on being thrown in everybody's face and micro-analyzed to a degree that isn't being equaled by the degree with which Bird's failures are being looked at.

Everything I stated about Bird's career was true. He really did have a so-so NBA Finals during his actual peak, despite not playing a legendary defense. He really did have poor shooting performances in the 1982 and 1983 playoffs. He really didn't have the isolation abilities in the beginning of his career that he'd later develop. Bird in 1981 isn't bird in 1987.

I just want everybody to be treated fairly. I'm sure people will bring up the great things Bird did, all of which I respect. Those are the things I really value and base my personal opinion of Larry Bird on.

But if people are going to have double-standards and not analyze certain points of certain players' careers, I'll do it for them. All in the game...

[Dr Positivity]

Vote Duncan

Nominate Garnett

Same as last time for me.

Duncan over Shaq due to regular season health and leadership/intangibles.

I choose Duncan over Bird because of playoff consistency. Bird has years like 82, 83 that should be questioned. 85, while otherwise just about his best year, goes downhill in the last 2 rounds. Duncan is reliable in the playoffs constantly and his defense is always there.

Both deserve to be called top 5 regular season performers ever. Their run of 57 W seasons and guaranteeing statistical contention is remarkable. Both proved they didn't need Parish/McHale or Parker/Manu to guarantee that either. I believe both could have ended up with 5 or 6 titles with a 3peat included if everything went their way. The beauty of both these teams is giving themselves like 9 kicks at the can. So even when injuries, all time clutch shots against, jacked competition got in their way, they had enough years to withstand it and get the breaks back. But my personal feeling is Duncan's consistency gave him a bit more kicks at it and that's why he gets my vote

Aaron Rodgers has more playoff consistency than Tom Brady. Is he a better quarterback?

I like that you always have outlying views Julien, but you're losing me on some of these votes (unless I'm not following your criteria).

I think there's one legit year -- when he was playing Julius Erving, without Tiny Archibald, in which Bird didn't really come up big. That said, how much are you downgrading what Larry Bird gives you in 1982 anyway? He's still a top guy in the league that year.

In 1983 and 1985 injuries are in play. That's a mark in its own right -- Bird would be more valuable if not for durability -- but what does it mean to call them "failures?" I suppose then that Tim Duncan totally and completely failed in 2000? How good, exactly, do you think Tim Duncan was in 2008? I ask because he looked old and wearing down and shot 49% TS. What about his 2006 campaign with plantar? 98-07 is 10 years, but he missed 2000, so that's 9 years...or the number of times Larry Bird was top-3 in MVP voting from 1980 to 1988.

Duncan's defense "was always there..." except in 2006 when SAS gave up 111.6 pts/100, for instance. I don't like these blanket statements and I'm not seeing how Duncan gives you more kicks at the can, and I certainly have no idea how Duncan's kicks at the can are better than Bird's.

Rodgers vs Brady is an irrelevant example, Rodgers is just starting his playoff career so we don't know about his playoff reliability. It's like comparing Rose to Payton or something.

2000 and 2008 are for the most part, not any more in the discussion than 1989 and 1990. 2000/1989 are wiped off injured years (Duncan's 2000 is more valuable playing 70 Gs+ but I don't care much about a season if you're not there for the playoffs), 2008 and 1990 are post prime years which the still good stats don't pick up the decline. What's left is exactly 9 prime, there in the playoffs years for both. So we might as well just compare those because the rest is an obvious draw

And I see 82, 83 as all around questionable playoffs, 81 and 85 he shot poorly in the Finals. This doesn't make Bird anything less than a top 7 player ever, but I have to pick hairs here. My personal opinion is that at worst, any of Magic, Bird, Duncan deserve 95% as much credit as whomever deserves the most. I look at their winning %s, ability to help teammates, effect on team culture, playoff successes and I see a virtual tie nobody has been succesful swaying me off of. Magic and Bird are more dynamic offensive players, Duncan makes up for that with defense and rebounding. I look at a year like 2002 or 2003 and wonder how anyone can think this guy wasn't "dominant enough". He did whatever his team needed him to do.

The outlying views comment... don't know what to make of that. I went 1 Jordan 2 Russell 3 Kareem and have made my vote on the 1st or 2nd page in every thread and went West West West West Garnett in nominations, so I'm not throwing stuff out there to look different.

I'll say this. Bird's biggest weakness in this argument seems to be playoff consistency. Shaq's biggest weakness seems to be leadership/intangibles. Duncan has both and that is why he has my vote by my criteria, he has less weaknesses. And there can be a serious case made that the reason Duncan won 4 titles in his prime and Bird and Shaq got 3 each respectively, is just that. Shaq cost himself by the 03 and 04 teams spiralling chemistry wise. Bird was worse in the playoffs before McHale/Parish combo was in full swing (82, 83) than Duncan was before Parker, Manu were in full swing (02,03) - And Duncan was the one rewarded with a title in those years. I'm not saying that's exactly why Duncan has that extra title on them in his prime. But you can draw a dotted line connecting it.

The argument for Bird seems to be "he was just better". I'm just not sold on that.

[Laimbeer]

Vote: Bird - one the greatest three year primes and eight year runs ever

Nominate - Mikan - phenomenal qualifications on and off court. Era is only argument against him.

[ElGee]

Bird only had a few successes (84-87), other than those years, he barely did anything in the playoffs. Compare that to Shaq who only had maybe 2 bad playoffs before 2007. Not only that, Shaq's playoff successes were undoubtedly higher than Bird's. In his first 20 finals games, Shaq had at least 25 points, 10 rebounds, and 52 FG% in every single one of those games and had 30 and 10 in 16 out of 20 games. Please point me to a stretch where Bird had dominated that much? You can't.

First of all, Larry Bird's 1984-1987 alone are enough for him to probably be a top-20 player of all-time. Second, it's just such a bizarre statement to make I'm not sure where to begin.

"In the other years, he barely did anything in the playoffs."

-The 21-11-5 in his rookie year (4th in MVP), leading the team scoring and rebounding is "nothing?"

-What about in 1981 when he clearly bested MVP Julius Erving in leading the team to a title?

-Maybe 1988 he did "nothing" when he averaged 25-9-7, including the Game 7 versus Atlanta.

I have no idea how that amount is "few successes."

[ElGee]

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.

Is this serious? I can't tell if that whole post was tongue-in-cheek.

I was dead-ass serious.

Look, you asked Colts why he was bringing up Bird's failures and not his successes. Well, why shouldn't he when in Shaq vs. Bird comparisons, Shaq's failures keep on being thrown in everybody's face and micro-analyzed to a degree that isn't being equaled by the degree with which Bird's failures are being looked at.

Everything I stated about Bird's career was true. He really did have a so-so NBA Finals during his actual peak, despite not playing a legendary defense. He really did have poor shooting performances in the 1982 and 1983 playoffs. He really didn't have the isolation abilities in the beginning of his career that he'd later develop. Bird in 1981 isn't bird in 1987.

I just want everybody to be treated fairly. I'm sure people will bring up the great things Bird did, all of which I respect. Those are the things I really value and base my personal opinion of Larry Bird on.

But if people are going to have double-standards and not analyze certain points of certain players' careers, I'll do it for them. All in the game...

I haven't really seen a single "Shaq" failure mentioned. People are talking about his attitude, comments and how he was perceived by players ITO of effort and basketball focus. I haven't seen a litany of complaints about his "failures."

From my perspective, I'm just begging people to stop with the black and white "failure v success" line. All failures are successes aren't created equally, and that's exactly what we're trying to figure out.

[drza]

(I had to cut off my internet service today, but I snuck to my cousins house to get online and check out the thread before hopefully getting on the highway tomorrow).

I've been reading through this thread, and I don't understand the emphasis on true shooting percentage when it comes to Bird's playoffs. My vote is currently on record as Shaq, and I've already pointed out that I hated Bird when he played, so that's not the point. But if the arguments for Bird say that he's one of the best offensive players in history because of his all-around offensive game...that he is one of the best passers in history...that he is one of the better rebounding forwards in history...isn't it more than a little bit restricting to base his degree of playoff success purely off of true shooting percentage? I mean, we're in the midst of a project that is planned to span for many months. We're all basketball nerds. Can't we go a little deeper than just wins/losses or the box score stats? Can't we look at Bird's roles on the Celtics, and see how well he did in ALL of those roles and judge him off of that? I mean, we have plenty of time, plenty of brainpower, and plenty of bsketball researchers here. It seems like I saw a great Bird year-by-year summary from Fatal a thread or two ago. Shouldn't that be used as a starting point to build/describe his play, as opposed to degenerating back into purely the box scores and choosing one arbitrary stat to do it?

Just seems like we should be having higher level conversations than this. I'm sensing some anger and politics already. Instead of focusing only on negatives or only on positives, can't we try to just paint some whole pictures of all candidates and move from there?

[Shaqsquatch]

Since when is being meek a leadership attribute? (Duncan) I always hear how Duncan and Kobe would have co exsited. Actually it kinda makes me sick to my stomach to think that Kobe playing with Duncan would have ignored coaches orders routinely, ( Phil called him uncoachable) forced the game outside in instead of inside out on offense among other things and Duncan wouldve been appearently ok with that (meek!). If Duncan didnt threaten to stomp a mudhole in the younger version of Kobe at least twice a season then he's no leader I'd want.

Chemistry - Since when did Shaq become 90's era Dennis Rodman? Team destroyer? Really? Last time I looked it wasnt him who ran into the bleachers in Detroit looking to fight. I dont recall him blockcading a door during rehab and trying to have his way with the help either. Does Shaq's record on the court leave you to think he was a poor leader who created game affecting chemistry issues amongst his teammates? You know what happens when you start assuming. Besides those players and owners are all multi -millionaries-they should get over it -( whaaaaaaa! Shaq said something mean about me...lol) Come on! I deal with insufferable d*ckheads every day in my line of work and I'm still half broke for my efforts.

I wonder what type of player Duncan wouldve been if he would have been drafted by a lower level expansion type team like most players of his talent have to deal with. Gone through with KG, Shaq, Mourning went through. OTOH we know that if you drop all the team names in a hat, blindfold yourself and pick one- then send Shaq there - that team is going to be in the conference finals within 3 years.

Shaq played his first 15 years with three teams. The rest dont matter.

[Fencer reregistered]

Team destroyer? Really?

Yes, really. Shaq WAS dumped by the Lakers, shortly after winning a championship. Shaq WAS dumped by the Heat, shortly after winning a championship. Shaq WAS dumped by the Suns, shortly after arriving, despite playing well.

I guess you could blame Kobe entirely for the first, the salary cap entirely for the second, and Nash entirely for the third -- but I'd disagree.