RealGM Top 100 List #10

[colts18]

The thing that makes it pretty easy for me is we just voted in Hakeem, and Bird played during Hakeem's career, and there was no question who the better player was.

Really? Hakeem was clearly the better from 89-92


How the hell can you question 93 Hakeem's impact when he was right there with peak MJ in MVP voting?

[Baller2014]

Sure, once Bird's prime was over Hakeem was better, but prior to that there was no question who the better player was thought to be. Check out the MVP shares. Nobody was looking at 89-92 Hakeem and saying "wow, you know what, he's better than Bird ever was". You'd have been laughed at for suggesting that. Anyway, enough with Hakeem, he got in last thread.

[Warspite]

4 time MVP
3 time Champ
3 time scoring champ
1 time DPOY
9 time 1st team
16 time all star

all time ranking 6th in pts/ 32nd in rebs/ 55th in asts/22nd in blocks/ 7th in steals

Per 100 36ppg 12rpg 5asts 2bls 2st for his career.

Historical impact on the history of the game.

Historical impact on American Society. (1st African American Athlete with endorsements)

He has not been voted in.
He has not received 1 single vote.
He is not in the top 15-20 of the majority of voters here.


Vote Larry Bird

Its a travesty that he isnt higher but it has been 30 yrs since he won his last MVP and most voters werent alive then. He is maybe the GOAT eye ball test player. You cant just look at his stats you have to watch him play. If you can get beyond his skin color, tight shorts and horrible hair and just watch him play you can appreciate his greatness. He is basicly LBJ talent with Kobes heart. The John Elway of basketball players. No lead safe no game out of reach.

[colts18]

Sure, once Bird's prime was over Hakeem was better, but prior to that there was no question who the better player was thought to be. Check out the MVP shares. Nobody was looking at 89-92 Hakeem and saying "wow, you know what, he's better than Bird ever was". You'd have been laughed at for suggesting that. Anyway, enough with Hakeem, he got in last thread.

Your comparison is completely meaningless because their primes never intersected. Its like saying Grant Hill is better than Kobe because their careers crossed path and when it did no one thought that Kobe was better than prime Grant Hill.

[Baller2014]

Hakeem's pre-93 years, when he supposedly was in his prime, certainly intersected with Magic's prime, and Magic was universally thought to be the better player. Remember Magic? The guy who was a coin flip with Bird at best, and in reality probably worse peak for peak?

[colts18]

Hakeem's pre-93 years, when he supposedly was in his prime, certainly intersected with Magic's prime, and Magic was universally thought to be the better player. Remember Magic? The guy who was a coin flip with Bird at best, and in reality probably worse peak for peak?

What part of its a meaningless comparison don't you get? Hakeem's best 3 years happened after Bird (and Magic) retired. Bird's best 3 years happened either when Hakeem was not in the NBA or in his first 2 years. You can't compare them prime to prime and say that Bird was better because he got more MVP votes when Hakeem was in the NBA. Their best years happened almost a decade apart so your argument is moot because no one saw those two near their best at the same time.

Hakeem's 6 best PER seasons happened AFTER Larry Bird's prime ended.

[Baller2014]

Well, I certainly think Hakeem became a different player in 93-95, but that's not what most of his supporters seemed to assert last thread.

Anyway, Bird is clearly the best player left. I'm frankly more curious about who we're going to be discussing at #11. I'm currently leaning towards Dr J or KG, but there are about 6 other names that I could see getting support, ranging from Moses Malone through to Oscar.

[colts18]

Playoff stats for Bird/Hakeem during the years they played their careers crossed paths:

Hakeem: .580 TS%, 26 PER, 118 O rating (27 usg%), .223 WS/48
Bird: .557 TS%, 21 PER, 116 O rating (25 usg%), .162 WS/48

Hakeem was the better playoff performer when their careers intersected.

[Baller2014]

Playoff stats for Bird/Hakeem during the years they played their careers crossed paths:

Hakeem: .580 TS%, 26 PER, 118 O rating (27 usg%), .223 WS/48
Bird: .557 TS%, 21 PER, 116 O rating (25 usg%), .162 WS/48

Hakeem was the better playoff performer when their careers intersected.

A contextless stat, not least of all because it cherry picks out the stats Hakeem excels in. I might as easily cite their v.s numbers in the 1986 finals (hint, it doesn't come off so well for Dream). PER? Who cares about PER?

Bird was MVP 3 straight times in the middle of the golden era of basketball, and there was nothing suspect about those MVPs. For a while there was a debate about Bird being the GOAT. Nobody was looking at Hakeem as a player like that prior to 94 really, and it didn't last long. I'd have had Hakeem at #10 anyway, but with him off the board this is just an easy choice.

Who you got for #11?

[90sAllDecade]

Let it go Baller, everything doesn't always go to plan.

Can someone breakdown Bob Pettit for us? There isn't a lot of game film and I have my hands full comparing the other players mentioned or I'd do it myself. Anybody have in depth knowledge of him?

[Baller2014]

Let it go Baller, everything doesn't always go to plan.

Can someone breakdown Bob Pettit for us? There isn't a lot of game film and I have my hands full comparing the other players mentioned or I'd do it myself. Anybody have in depth knowledge of him?

Why don't we wait until Pettit is on the board or close to do such a break down? Hopefully that isn't until after the first 50 or so players get in at least.

[ceiling raiser]

Let it go Baller, everything doesn't always go to plan.

Can someone breakdown Bob Pettit for us? There isn't a lot of game film and I have my hands full comparing the other players mentioned or I'd do it myself. Anybody have in depth knowledge of him?

Not sure how helpful it is, but here's a mix:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdeiZRW7gSo[/youtube]

[rico381]

4 time MVP
3 time Champ
3 time scoring champ
1 time DPOY
9 time 1st team
16 time all star

all time ranking 6th in pts/ 32nd in rebs/ 55th in asts/22nd in blocks/ 7th in steals

Per 100 36ppg 12rpg 5asts 2bls 2st for his career.

Historical impact on the history of the game.

Historical impact on American Society. (1st African American Athlete with endorsements)

He has not been voted in.
He has not received 1 single vote.
He is not in the top 15-20 of the majority of voters here.


Vote Larry Bird

Its a travesty that he isnt higher but it has been 30 yrs since he won his last MVP and most voters werent alive then. He is maybe the GOAT eye ball test player. You cant just look at his stats you have to watch him play. If you can get beyond his skin color, tight shorts and horrible hair and just watch him play you can appreciate his greatness. He is basicly LBJ talent with Kobes heart. The John Elway of basketball players. No lead safe no game out of reach.

Typically, when people make the case for a player, they mention their name somewhere. I was really confused as to how Bird was the "1st African American Athlete with endorsements" until I realized you meant Dr. J.

Why don't we wait until Pettit is on the board or close to do such a break down? Hopefully that isn't until after the first 50 or so players get in at least.

Pettit was voted in at #19 in the last project, ahead of Barkley and David Robinson. I don't think it's unreasonable to bring him up now, and would appreciate learning more about him, even if I doubt he'll make it in the next few votes. And I think you're the only one on the panel who wouldn't even put him in their top 50... wow.

[Baller2014]

:o

Pettit was voted in at #19 in the last project, ahead of Barkley and David Robinson. I don't think it's unreasonable to bring him up now, and would appreciate learning more about him, even if I doubt he'll make it in the next few votes. And I think you're the only one on the panel who wouldn't even put him in their top 50... wow.

Even if he was going to be voted in an #19, this should be way too early to discuss him.

I disagreed with Wilt and Russell going as high as they did, but I recognised them as transcendent players who belonged in the top 10. Pettit is in a different category. If you looked at that footage and came away with the conclusion that Pettit was one of the top 50 players of all-time, I don't know what else to say to you. I'm not even sure peak Pettit would have made the Western Conference all-star team this year.

[therealbig3]

drza did a great breakdown of Robinson vs KG, and explained pretty well why I tend to side with KG prime vs prime. KG's a more valuable offensive player when the level of talent scales up, and you're not asking your big man to be a volume scorer. When that happens, KG has more valuable skills. I agree, Robinson's dropoff in the playoffs are held against him too much (I was guilty of this before)...he was a tremendous player, and really, he looks super impressive from almost any statistical POV.

But I've talked about the things that I personally value out of my big man on offense, and KG contributes in more ways than Robinson can. Defensively, it's really a toss-up between the two. I actually prefer KG, but I understand if other people prefer Robinson. They're two of the greatest defensive players of all time, that much is certain. The offense is really the tiebreaker for me, and then when you add in the longevity of KG...yeah, I've got KG over Robinson.

As for KG vs Bird...it's pretty clear what the debate is: peak vs longevity. If you think Bird peaked that much higher that the longevity is irrelevant, vote Bird. But keep in mind that from pretty much any objective measure, Duncan's peak and Garnett's peak are pretty inseparable, and people seemed to have no problem siding with Duncan over Bird based on a "close enough" peak and much better longevity...in fact, some people argued that Duncan's peak was even better than Bird's. So personally, since I've got KG and Duncan on the same level...I'm taking KG over Bird.

Vote: Kevin Garnett

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote for #10 - Bird

I decided to take the hakeem comparisons out (aside from the first graphic and the bball ref links) as he's already been voted in -- see spoiler below:

Spoiler:

BIRD CAREER REG SEASON

~24 PPG, 10 RPG, 6 APG, 1.7 SPG, .8 BPG, 3 TOPG
~50% FG, 38% 3PT, 89% FT, 56% TS, 115/101 OFF/DEF RTG, .203 WS/48

BIRD CAREER PLAYOFFS (164 GAMES)

~24 PPG, 10 RPG, 6.5 APG, 1.8 SPG, .9 BPG, 3 TOPG
~47% FG, 32% 3PT, 89% FT, 55% TS, 114/104 OFF/DEF RTG, .173 WS/48

Career in detail: http://bkref.com/tiny/2UO0Y

Up until last great season: http://bkref.com/tiny/2VlgR

Peak: http://bkref.com/tiny/7c5R9

After seeing everything from the pro hakeem crowd, this is really a toss up for me. I strongly believe both players belong in the top 10.

As I said toward the end of the last thread, I almost think of magic and bird as 1A and 1B. They were both cut from the same cloth: they were players who could do just about anything you asked of them on the court. In a broad sense, they were position-less: they were just basketball players. They saw and approached the game differently.

He's in that elite class of great basketball minds and decision makers. And while hakeem was certainly a versatile and intelligent player, I just don't see him in the same light.

To further my point, i'll reference a recent post by 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.

As talented as hakeem was offensively, you could really just give the ball to bird and get the hell out of the way with the game on the line:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-Hf-3XvAyk&feature=youtu.be&t=39s[/youtube]

Just an elite shot creator who had the court vision in his back pocket if necessary.

I think bird might be even scarier than I thought in today's game with the prevalence of the 3PT shot. It was always clear to me that sure, he'd shoot more 3s, but after reading fpliii's excerpt from bird's book about the 3PT line, it was essentially foreign to him. He didn't know what to do with it. For comparison, steph curry shot ~42% from 3 on a shade under 8 attempts per game this past season. I'm not saying bird would WANT to do that, but there's no doubt in my mind that he'd be capable of it. When you combine that with the rest of his game, it's just crazy to think about.

Game footage and box scores of some notable games:

86 Finals G6 vs. HOU (Clincher) -- 29 PTS, 11 REB, 12 AST, 3 STL, 2 TO, 8/17 FG, 2/3 3PT, 11-12 FT, 65% TS, 144/94 OFF/DEF RTG

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3i9gt3UE0Q[/youtube]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 80BOS.html

85 Playoffs G4 vs. CLE (Clincher) -- 34 PTS, 14 REB, 7 AST, 1 STL, 2 TO, 11-17 FG, 0-1 3PT, 12-14 FT

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQgNtR-G4IY[/youtube]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 50CLE.html

85 Playoffs G5 vs. DET (Series tied 2-2) -- 43 PTS, 13 REB, 5 AST, 1 STL, 6 TO, 17/33 FG, 0/1 3PT, 9/9 FT

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Wb0-evaPk[/youtube]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 80BOS.html

87 Playoffs G4 vs. MIL -- 42 PTS, 7 REB, 8 AST, 2 BLK, 4 TO, 13/23 FG, 3-5 3PT, 13-15 FT, 71% TS, 139/127 OFF/DEF RTG

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06Wb0-evaPk[/youtube]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 00MIL.html

85-86 Reg season vs. POR -- 47 PTS, 14 REB, 11 AST, 1 STL, 2 BLK, 8 TO, 21-34 FG, 3-3 3PT, 2-3 FT, 67% TS, 113/104 OFF/DEF RTG

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R76nMD8buR8[/youtube]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/box ... 40POR.html

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:

Spoiler:

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

And just for kicks, some Red on Roundball!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=El7ALhdafsk[/youtube]

[E-Balla]

I'm voting Kobe Bean Bryant here. Of the players contending only Karl Malone and possibly Kevin Garnett have better longevity than him (off the top of my head). Compared to KG its simple why I choose Kobe; their careers overlapped and Kobe had more great seasons. Kobe was top 5 longer than KG and they started to be top 5 level guys at around the same time. With Malone I'm picking Kobe mainly because I think Kobe has a few seasons (01?, 03, 06-09) I'd take over Malone's best.

[DQuinn1575]

I like KG a lot here, but I do think Bird would be a monster player—likely a GOAT level stretch 4—in today's game (which is a big factor in my picks). The problem is longevity, of course.

What I'm looking to learn about Bird in this thread:

1) How much do we value his post-89 seasons? Which of those can we consider quality years? How much did his defense fall off?

2) How much separation is there between his early and peak seasons?

3) In today's game, what kind of volume on threes could we expect (it would be nice if we could establish a range that we're comfortable with)? I've posted it a couple of times, but here's a possibly useful selection from his 90 book: http://www2.zippyshare.com/v/12642344/file.html

Any new data/analysis on KG would obviously be a huge help as well, but I'm not looking to learn anything specifically about him at the moment.

1 Bird was pretty close to full value post-89 when he played. He was limited in minutes somewhat, but passed very well - went inside a little less and was on perimeter a little more. Still got steals and boards and helped on defense. He was still a star, it was just a question how much he could play.

2. Bird was pretty close to peak when he came in - he was a 5th year senior, not a 1 and done - although he only had 3 years of college ball. He wasn't like Magic, who developed an outside shot, or Hakeem or Shaq, who improved their post moves. He was more like Kareem, who hit the floor running and didn't improve that much physically - he learned the league and players, but was pretty impactful from day 1. The team did improve 32 games, and he was the number 1 reason for it.

3. He was a great distance shooter - witness the 3 point contest and the FT%. Back in the 70s it took guys a while to develop a 3 point shot, as we were brought up with the idea that a 22 footer was a bad shot. That's why it's hard to say how well Rick Barry, Jerry West, or Larry Bird would do if they were shooting 3 pointers in high school.
Bird obviously had the range, and would be more dangerous and valuable today because of it. I don't rate players on how they would do today; I only evaluate them on what they did in their time and the level of competition.


Bird had has much impact as virtually any other player in history. He was 3 time MVP and 3 times best player on a championship team. The championship teams played in the best era ever for top teams - the Lakers, Sixers, and Celtics were all incredible. He was the best player on maybe the best single season team ever.


VOTE FOR LARRY BIRD

[Clyde Frazier]

:o

Pettit was voted in at #19 in the last project, ahead of Barkley and David Robinson. I don't think it's unreasonable to bring him up now, and would appreciate learning more about him, even if I doubt he'll make it in the next few votes. And I think you're the only one on the panel who wouldn't even put him in their top 50... wow.

Even if he was going to be voted in an #19, this should be way too early to discuss him.

I disagreed with Wilt and Russell going as high as they did, but I recognised them as transcendent players who belonged in the top 10. Pettit is in a different category. If you looked at that footage and came away with the conclusion that Pettit was one of the top 50 players of all-time, I don't know what else to say to you. I'm not even sure peak Pettit would have made the Western Conference all-star team this year.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but this notion that we should compare players from the 50s and 60s to current players without context is bizarre. Taking it to another level, inserting those players into today's game like that's even possible. I've said this once before: you seem to believe that the NBA was irrelevant prior to 1980 as a whole. I don't know how else to interpret statements like these in addition to those you've made in the past.

[Baller2014]

I don't think the NBA was irrelevant prior to 1980. If it was I'd hardly have championed Kareem for #2. But the NBA was pretty weaksauce in Pettit's time, and we need to be very cautious about how we reward Pettit for playing well in a weak league. Russell and Wilt were at least transcendent in Pettit's time, but Pettit sure wasn't. He won the title once in a year Russell got hurt, basically a fluke, and was not in the same category of player at all. You want to talk about Oscar around now? Great. I think Dr J has a great case at #11. But Pettit (and even moreso Mikan) are different, they are a long way from being real candidates.

We shouldn't punish players for being born too late either. Pettit wouldn't make the West all-star team last season. I'm worried that you think that's irrelevant.