Bird's relative TS% was literally 0.15% over Kobe's for their careers. How are you going to downgrade Kobe for efficiency vs Bird then?
Also, assists: Kobe played in the triangle for the majority of his career which did not enable him to rack up huge assist numbers by dominating the ball. However, his assist percentage (percentage of teammate's shots he assisted on when he was on the floor) stands at 24.2%. Bird's is at 24.7 (both for careers). That is a completely negligible difference.
So in truth, Kobe's efficiency and assisting are both basically more or less even with Bird's.
Hakeem was a special player, one of the most graceful big men I've ever seen and elite on both ends of the floor in his prime. The driving force between repeat championship. Those championships runs included head-to-head matchups where he got the best of Robinson/Ewing/Shaq, all-time great big men in their own right. I think Hakeem is the clear choice here.
Some thoughts on Kobe:
-It's easy to forget Kobe was able to take on a pivotal role as the lead guard for a title contender, and eventually threepeat champ, at a very young age. At age 22 (2001) he had one the better conference playoff runs of all time, in an absolutely devastating combination with peak Shaq that laid waste to a very tough western conference. Because of his early start he has great longevity as a high-level player, proven in pivotal roles on championship teams.
-At his apex (in my eyes 06-07) he was an offensive dynamo that posted individual game, monthly and seasonal averages that had not been seen by anyone but Jordan or Wilt, he lifted Lamar Odom and a bag of crap to 45 wins in a brutal West. Once he had an effective big man again in 08 (Andrew Bynum) the Lakers became the top seed in the West basically overnight. When Bynum went down and was replaced by Gasol Kobe had instant synergy and had a really historic offensive run until it ran into the brick wall of Boston defense. Kobe's entire 08-10 run was fantastic, his team again threepeated in a brutal West except this time he was their best and most important player. Bird is next man up for me after Kobe, and it's hard for me to clearly favor his 84-86 run over Kobe's 08-10 (or 06-08) it's an interesting comparison
-For all the flack Kobe gets (some deserved) for not wanting to feed Shaq enough, one of his all-time great skills is providing high-percentage opportunities for his bigs. Gasol (and Bynum) feasted off the attention Kobe drew, and Shaq really benefited from Kobe as well.
Bird's relative TS% was literally 0.15% over Kobe's for their careers. How are you going to downgrade Kobe for efficiency vs Bird then?
Also, assists: Kobe played in the triangle for the majority of his career which did not enable him to rack up huge assist numbers by dominating the ball. However, his assist percentage (percentage of teammate's shots he assisted on when he was on the floor) stands at 24.2%. Bird's is at 24.7 (both for careers). That is a completely negligible difference.
So in truth, Kobe's efficiency and assisting are both basically more or less even with Bird's.
For efficiency, I also factor in the increased emphasis on three-point shooting in Kobe's era, which meant that Kobe took more three-pointers than Bird (21.6% of his attempts vs 10.0% for Bird) even though Bird was a significantly better three-point shooter (37.6% for his career vs 32.9% for Kobe). That gives Kobe a bump in TS% due to the era difference, and considering that Bird already has the better TS%, that gives Bird an even bigger edge if you adjust for era emphasis. That's why I have efficiency clearly in Bird's favor.
As for assists, Kobe was much more of a primary ballhandler, even more so than Fisher, the putative point guard. The triangle is a read-and-react offense with lots of player- and ball-movement, but a big part of the triangle is also to get the ball in a star player's hands with the floor spacing to let that player create or score. Kobe had good assist numbers in that role, but not great. Bird, on the other hand, played in a more classically traditional offense with guards tasked with most of the playmaking duties, and in that type of offense, Bird's assists were well above average for his position. On the flip side, I give Bird a clear edge in rebounding (10.0 career average vs 5.2 for Kobe), but I give Kobe a break there because of the different demands of their positions.
From the APG standpoint, Bird averaged 6.3 for his career from a lower-assist position, and Kobe averaged 4.7 for his career. Per 100 possessions (to adjust for pace), Bird averaged 7.9 and Kobe averaged 6.7.
In addition to all that, my recollection is that Bird had superior court vision to Kobe and made spectacular passes with far more regularity. That flair for the dramatic pass often comes at the cost of increased turnovers, but Bird's ATO ratio is also significantly better than Kobe's (2.02 for Bird vs 1.57 for Kobe).
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Best peak among the guys left. Best prime among the guys left. Good longevity.
Hard to see anyone from now on replacing him and having the same success with the casts he had.
Best defender left for me. Only guy I can see with a good case is David Robinson, but he was not in the same league when comparing their offensive game.
Hakeem had fantastic playoff runs and elevated his game in there, unlike guys like Karl Malone, Garnett or David Robinson.
I already wrote longer on the last time I voted for him, so I feel this is sufficient reasoning.
2nd vote - Kobe Bryant
“These guys have been criticized the last few years for not getting to where we’re going, but I’ve always said that the most important thing in sports is to keep trying. Let this be an example of what it means to say it’s never over.” - Jerry Sloan
A question: how is Bird over Dirk or even Kobe in your opinion, if you have him there? I'd put his peak/prime up there with anyone for sure, but he really didn't have much meaningful longevity, and those around him had similarish impact, and more years (granted I would probably say Bird had the most impact of the three).
As a side note, those I'm considering after KG: Bird, Hakeem, DRob, Dirk, Kobe, Oscar
Tentatively, right now I have it Hakeem Oscar Dirk Kobe Bird/DRob
All-Time Fantasy Draft Team (90 FGA)
PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
I'm not copying my long criteria here for the fifth time, I'll keep it short. Hakeem accomplished more than most with a bad supporting cast and dominated games on both ends. Stepped up his game when it mattered the most.
micahclay wrote:A question: how is Bird over Dirk or even Kobe in your opinion, if you have him there? I'd put his peak/prime up there with anyone for sure, but he really didn't have much meaningful longevity, and those around him had similarish impact, and more years (granted I would probably say Bird had the most impact of the three).
For me, peak/prime is significantly more important than longevity. Besides, look at his MVP award shares from 1979-88. That's a pretty good, "long" run . . .
"Coach, why don't you just relax? We're not good enough to beat the Lakers. We've had a great year, why don't you just relax and cool down?"
micahclay wrote:A question: how is Bird over Dirk or even Kobe in your opinion, if you have him there? I'd put his peak/prime up there with anyone for sure, but he really didn't have much meaningful longevity, and those around him had similarish impact, and more years (granted I would probably say Bird had the most impact of the three).
For Bird over Kobe, it's numerous factors -- efficiency, rebounding, passing, and a killer instinct and will to win even greater than Kobe's.
Longevity is definitely an advantage for Kobe, but I temper that a bit by Kobe entering the league directly from high school and taking a few years to get his footing, while Bird went four years to college and made a huge positive impact immediately.
Defense is another advantage for Kobe, but not to a huge degree. Kobe was really good defensively for a few years, but he fell off dramatically in later seasons. He gambled (and lost) on steals way too often, hanging his team out to dry. Bird wasn't a good individual defender, but he used his size effectively, had good hands, and played good team defense, using his high IQ to good effect.
I discussed the efficiency and passing in more detail in a post a couple above yours, but here it is for easier access:
Spoiler:
For efficiency, I also factor in the increased emphasis on three-point shooting in Kobe's era, which meant that Kobe took more three-pointers than Bird (21.6% of his attempts vs 10.0% for Bird) even though Bird was a significantly better three-point shooter (37.6% for his career vs 32.9% for Kobe). That gives Kobe a bump in TS% due to the era difference, and considering that Bird already has the better TS%, that gives Bird an even bigger edge if you adjust for era emphasis. That's why I have efficiency clearly in Bird's favor.
As for assists, Kobe was much more of a primary ballhandler, even more so than Fisher, the putative point guard. The triangle is a read-and-react offense with lots of player- and ball-movement, but a big part of the triangle is also to get the ball in a star player's hands with the floor spacing to let that player create or score. Kobe had good assist numbers in that role, but not great. Bird, on the other hand, played in a more classically traditional offense with guards tasked with most of the playmaking duties, and in that type of offense, Bird's assists were well above average for his position. On the flip side, I give Bird a clear edge in rebounding (10.0 career average vs 5.2 for Kobe), but I give Kobe a break there because of the different demands of their positions.
From the APG standpoint, Bird averaged 6.3 for his career from a lower-assist position, and Kobe averaged 4.7 for his career. Per 100 possessions (to adjust for pace), Bird averaged 7.9 and Kobe averaged 6.7.
In addition to all that, my recollection is that Bird had superior court vision to Kobe and made spectacular passes with far more regularity. That flair for the dramatic pass often comes at the cost of increased turnovers, but Bird's ATO ratio is also significantly better than Kobe's (2.02 for Bird vs 1.57 for Kobe).
For Dirk, I'm still waiting for any argument to persuade me that he's anywhere near this position. Great shooter and scorer, but Bird is his equal there, and I'd even take Bird over him. Dirk established the effectiveness of a stretch four. Dirk was a good rebounder, but Bird was better. Dirk has one MVP, one title, and one finals MVP, but those don't stack up to Bird. Dirk has better RS longevity, but Bird has more playoff games (164 to 145) and a far better playoff resume. Bird isn't a great defender, but he's clearly better than Dirk. Bird is a far better passer and playmaker. Bird's not the speediest guy around, but we at least have highlights of him running and finishing on the break.
I feel bad about this every time I talk about it because Dirk is so likable, and I hate pointing out his limitations. I'll be happy to vote for him further down the list, just not here.
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
micahclay wrote:A question: how is Bird over Dirk or even Kobe in your opinion, if you have him there? I'd put his peak/prime up there with anyone for sure, but he really didn't have much meaningful longevity, and those around him had similarish impact, and more years (granted I would probably say Bird had the most impact of the three).
For me, peak/prime is significantly more important than longevity. Besides, look at his MVP award shares from 1979-88. That's a pretty good, "long" run . . .
Yeah for sure, it's a long prime run, but comparatively, not so much. Hakeem's prime could be claimed as 86-95 (maybe less), Dirk from 01-11 or later, Kobe from 01 to 10 or later, etc. Bird only had 9 (maybe 10) years at that level.
I guess my question is:
1) do those extra years of near value not matter? If not, why? 2) is Bird's peak/prime that much better to offset those extra years? How?
PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
micahclay wrote:1) do those extra years of near value not matter? If not, why? 2) is Bird's peak/prime that much better to offset those extra years? How?
Again, let's look at those MVP award shares. Three years of 1st, four years of second, and one each of third and fourth. To me, that illustrates 9 years straight of clear, consistent domination of a league. IMHO, anyway . . .
"Coach, why don't you just relax? We're not good enough to beat the Lakers. We've had a great year, why don't you just relax and cool down?"
Outside wrote: Longevity is definitely an advantage for Kobe, but I temper that a bit by Kobe entering the league directly from high school and taking a few years to get his footing, while Bird went four years to college and made a huge positive impact immediately.
Defense is another advantage for Kobe, but not to a huge degree. Kobe was really good defensively for a few years, but he fell off dramatically in later seasons. He gambled (and lost) on steals way too often, hanging his team out to dry. Bird wasn't a good individual defender, but he used his size effectively, had good hands, and played good team defense, using his high IQ to good effect.
I discussed the efficiency and passing in more detail in a post a couple above yours, but here it is for easier access:
Spoiler:
For efficiency, I also factor in the increased emphasis on three-point shooting in Kobe's era, which meant that Kobe took more three-pointers than Bird (21.6% of his attempts vs 10.0% for Bird) even though Bird was a significantly better three-point shooter (37.6% for his career vs 32.9% for Kobe). That gives Kobe a bump in TS% due to the era difference, and considering that Bird already has the better TS%, that gives Bird an even bigger edge if you adjust for era emphasis. That's why I have efficiency clearly in Bird's favor.
As for assists, Kobe was much more of a primary ballhandler, even more so than Fisher, the putative point guard. The triangle is a read-and-react offense with lots of player- and ball-movement, but a big part of the triangle is also to get the ball in a star player's hands with the floor spacing to let that player create or score. Kobe had good assist numbers in that role, but not great. Bird, on the other hand, played in a more classically traditional offense with guards tasked with most of the playmaking duties, and in that type of offense, Bird's assists were well above average for his position. On the flip side, I give Bird a clear edge in rebounding (10.0 career average vs 5.2 for Kobe), but I give Kobe a break there because of the different demands of their positions.
From the APG standpoint, Bird averaged 6.3 for his career from a lower-assist position, and Kobe averaged 4.7 for his career. Per 100 possessions (to adjust for pace), Bird averaged 7.9 and Kobe averaged 6.7.
In addition to all that, my recollection is that Bird had superior court vision to Kobe and made spectacular passes with far more regularity. That flair for the dramatic pass often comes at the cost of increased turnovers, but Bird's ATO ratio is also significantly better than Kobe's (2.02 for Bird vs 1.57 for Kobe).
For Dirk, I'm still waiting for any argument to persuade me that he's anywhere near this position. Great shooter and scorer, but Bird is his equal there, and I'd even take Bird over him. Dirk established the effectiveness of a stretch four. Dirk was a good rebounder, but Bird was better. Dirk has one MVP, one title, and one finals MVP, but those don't stack up to Bird. Dirk has better RS longevity, but Bird has more playoff games (164 to 145) and a far better playoff resume. Bird isn't a great defender, but he's clearly better than Dirk. Bird is a far better passer and playmaker. Bird's not the speediest guy around, but we at least have highlights of him running and finishing on the break.
I feel bad about this every time I talk about it because Dirk is so likable, and I hate pointing out his limitations. I'll be happy to vote for him further down the list, just not here.
It's definitely a tough position if I'm honest, because it puts me at a crossroads in terms of what I value. Bird might be the best "pure" basketball player, in terms of BBIQ, court vision, playstyle, etc. His impact was absolutely gargantuan in some years.
On the other hand, Kobe and Dirk both led consistently great offenses with/without much help as well. I wonder if Bird had been on a weaker team, if we'd have viewed him differently in hindsight - he's not an "alpha" scorer, and affects the game more in other ways (like KG/Magic). I'm not saying he would have been different, but I wonder if our perception would be. Dirk had probably the greatest offensive gravity ever IMO, but I wonder if Larry had been a 4 his whole career if he could have done the same. Would Dirk's length still give him an upper hand there?
The big thing is longevity. I need to look more at how "meaningful" Dirk/Kobe's longevity actually was. Thanks for the response!
PG: Maurice Cheeks / Giannis SG: Reggie Miller / Jordan SF: Michael Jordan / Bruce Bowen PF: Giannis / Marvin Williams C: Artis Gilmore / Chris Anderson
micahclay wrote:1) do those extra years of near value not matter? If not, why? 2) is Bird's peak/prime that much better to offset those extra years? How?
Again, let's look at those MVP award shares. Three years of 1st, four years of second, and one each of third and fourth. To me, that illustrates 9 years straight of clear, consistent domination of a league. IMHO, anyway . . .
But playoff performance matters too right? And a few of those MVP-level seasons from Bird are marred by poor playoff performance as a result of injuries, most notably 85 and 88. Considering he was in his peak form from 84-88, 40% of his playoff runs being ruined by injury is a pretty big deal. Yes, he still also has 80-83 and 90, so it's not like it's terrible longevity, but Dirk has like 11 straight years of being a superstar, with only one of his playoff runs affected by injury (03). Kobe has 10 straight years, all of which he was never unavailable for nor severely held back by injury, except for one season (05).
And then that's essentially it for Bird's career. Meanwhile, Dirk and Kobe have very productive non-prime seasons that also add to their career value.
So as far as healthy, prime playoff runs: Bird has 8, Kobe has 9, and Dirk has 10.
Kobe also has years like 99, and 11-13 (not including 00 because of his injuries). Dirk has 12-14. Bird...is basically done other than 80-88 and 90, and like I said, it's hard to really value 85 and 88 Bird all that highly due to the injuries.
If I'm missing injuries for Dirk or Kobe though, point that out. I personally don't remember injuries really playing a role for them in other years.
If we punish 09 CP3 and 16 Curry for playoff injuries, then we should hold Bird to the same standard. Especially if his playoff injury was completely his own fault and not a result of bad luck (like breaking his hand in a bar fight in 85 in the middle of a playoff series).
therealbig3 wrote:But playoff performance matters too right? And a few of those MVP-level seasons from Bird are marred by poor playoff performance as a result of injuries, most notably 85 and 88. Considering he was in his peak form from 84-88, 40% of his playoff runs being ruined by injury is a pretty big deal. Yes, he still also has 80-83 and 90, so it's not like it's terrible longevity, but Dirk has like 11 straight years of being a superstar, with only one of his playoff runs affected by injury (03). Kobe has 10 straight years, all of which he was never unavailable for nor severely held back by injury, except for one season (05).
And then that's essentially it for Bird's career. Meanwhile, Dirk and Kobe have very productive non-prime seasons that also add to their career value.
So as far as healthy, prime playoff runs: Bird has 8, Kobe has 9, and Dirk has 10.
Kobe also has years like 99, and 11-13 (not including 00 because of his injuries). Dirk has 12-14. Bird...is basically done other than 80-88 and 90, and like I said, it's hard to really value 85 and 88 Bird all that highly due to the injuries.
If I'm missing injuries for Dirk or Kobe though, point that out. I personally don't remember injuries really playing a role for them in other years.
If we punish 09 CP3 and 16 Curry for playoff injuries, then we should hold Bird to the same standard. Especially if his playoff injury was completely his own fault and not a result of bad luck (like breaking his hand in a bar fight in 85 in the middle of a playoff series).
If playoff performance is very important to you, that's certainly valid. He did make 6 Finals in those 9 years. Still though, i'm more interested in day-to-day, year-to-year dominance.
"Coach, why don't you just relax? We're not good enough to beat the Lakers. We've had a great year, why don't you just relax and cool down?"
To put Bird's short career in perspective, I did a little experiment.
I took the 4 contenders on this spot and found their NPI RAPM scores for their careers/primes. But of course we don't have Bird's RAPM, or Hakeem's prime, so I made some probably terrible approximations.
For Bird, I used 01-10 Dirk multiplied by 1.15 (15% better). That's a generous estimate, I think. Of course I didn't count 1989. EDIT: Yeah it says Bird 80-92 but it's only 80-90. Add a 1990-like season if you want.
For 85-92 Olajuwon, I used 97-04 Shaq multiplied by 0.9. For 93-96 Olajuwon I used 03-06 Duncan multiplied by 1.1 (10% better). From 97 and on I used Olajuwon's real numbers. I don't think I'm being unfair to him either.
So these are the results:
Spoiler:
Note: This is not intended as an argument of any sort. Just as a little food for thought with respect to Bird's longevity. And of course I know two +3 seasons are less valuable than a +6 season. Like I said, only some food for thought.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
There's nothing really urgent for me to present at the moment given that I've been voting for KG for a while, so I'm going to start big picture:
It has been discussed that the results of this list could hurt the prestige of this board. Frankly that may be true, but it's not what we should be thinking about. What we should be thinking about is what we want to be rather than what we want to be thought to be. This is a general life truth.
In my experience prestige obtained through direct pursuit always feels precarious because you're trying to guess the target that someone else determines, and so, it is indeed precarious. At any moment an authority figure can call you an imposter and you become one, and this is the root of imposter syndrome.
Prestige that can be savored comes from knowing that you are doing right by your own set of standards. That knowledge is not enough to guarantee prestige of course, but when prestige comes due to this pattern of action and evaluation, it wears well.
If we have prestige now, it comes not from pandering to the outside but by brazenly questioning assumptions of old. And I suggest we continue to do just that.
Alright, some thoughts on guys I have warming up in the bullpen:
I love Bird and I really am convinced that the entire set of abilities he displayed over his career makes him potentially the GOAT in the modern game, but folks are right that those abilities varied over his career, and his career was short even by standards of the time. I actually see Bird and Hakeem pretty similarly, but Hakeem peaked higher and played longer.
I'm thinking more and more about Dirk vs Bird. Dirk lacked Bird's brilliance. Dirk has a very nice BBIQ as they say, but there's a qualitative difference between a very nice BBIQ and Larry Legend. But y'know, at his peak, Dirk's impact was probably pretty comparable to Bird's, and he played a LOT longer with an extended influence over his team's culture that is fantastic.
Oscar & West have in the past been between Bird & Dirk for me, and to be perfectly honest, I don't really feel like Dirk has surpassed them in my mind, I'm just thinking more about Bird & Dirk for I think obvious reasons. Regardless, my respect for these two old timers is immense.
Something I hadn't really thought about is that West didn't actually play much more than David Robinson, so Robinson needs to be someone I think about.
And well, y'know, Kobe. I'm sure Kobe will be in before I vote for him so does it really matter? Regardless, he's on my mind.
Bird's relative TS% was literally 0.15% over Kobe's for their careers. How are you going to downgrade Kobe for efficiency vs Bird then?
Also, assists: Kobe played in the triangle for the majority of his career which did not enable him to rack up huge assist numbers by dominating the ball. However, his assist percentage (percentage of teammate's shots he assisted on when he was on the floor) stands at 24.2%. Bird's is at 24.7 (both for careers). That is a completely negligible difference.
So in truth, Kobe's efficiency and assisting are both basically more or less even with Bird's.
For efficiency, I also factor in the increased emphasis on three-point shooting in Kobe's era, which meant that Kobe took more three-pointers than Bird (21.6% of his attempts vs 10.0% for Bird) even though Bird was a significantly better three-point shooter (37.6% for his career vs 32.9% for Kobe). That gives Kobe a bump in TS% due to the era difference, and considering that Bird already has the better TS%, that gives Bird an even bigger edge if you adjust for era emphasis. That's why I have efficiency clearly in Bird's favor.
As for assists, Kobe was much more of a primary ballhandler, even more so than Fisher, the putative point guard. The triangle is a read-and-react offense with lots of player- and ball-movement, but a big part of the triangle is also to get the ball in a star player's hands with the floor spacing to let that player create or score. Kobe had good assist numbers in that role, but not great. Bird, on the other hand, played in a more classically traditional offense with guards tasked with most of the playmaking duties, and in that type of offense, Bird's assists were well above average for his position. On the flip side, I give Bird a clear edge in rebounding (10.0 career average vs 5.2 for Kobe), but I give Kobe a break there because of the different demands of their positions.
From the APG standpoint, Bird averaged 6.3 for his career from a lower-assist position, and Kobe averaged 4.7 for his career. Per 100 possessions (to adjust for pace), Bird averaged 7.9 and Kobe averaged 6.7.
In addition to all that, my recollection is that Bird had superior court vision to Kobe and made spectacular passes with far more regularity. That flair for the dramatic pass often comes at the cost of increased turnovers, but Bird's ATO ratio is also significantly better than Kobe's (2.02 for Bird vs 1.57 for Kobe).
So interestingly, in the Playoffs, Bird actually shot worse than Kobe from 3. Kobe was 33.1% while Bird was 32.1%.
And like I said, when you measure relative TS%, as in, the advantage the player has over the average TS% in the league that year, it already accounts for the era difference. And Bird was still ahead by .15% in rTS%. How is that clear? That is infinitesmal. It means they are for all intents and purposes the same.
As for assists:
1. Pure APG is not a good measure of playmaking ability. For example, is Rondo a better playmaker than Kobe, LeBron, Wade or Bird?
2. Kobe played in the triangle. That did not allow him to pound the ball too much and get assists. Most assists were off the fly and a part of ball movement sequences. He averaged 5.2 apg for his prime: he's an SG, not Chris Paul. That's basically what Jordan did. How are those numbers not great? It's not his job to get assists, it's his job to score.
3. And last not not least, like I said, Kobe and Bird's assist percentage are basically the same. They both assisted the same percentage of their teammates baskets while on the court. Bird's higher raw assist numbers are because of the higher pace he played at.
