Why is Larry Bird not the best PF of all time?

[Odinn21]

Ryan Giggs won PFA POTY (which would be the equivalent, since football is played in several leagues, not just one), and has more trophies than Duncan by a mile.

Giggs is the example because neither in his prime, nor peak, was he ever considered one of the GOATs. He only got that towards the tail end when the narrative turned to longevity, just like Duncan.

If anything, Duncan was like Maldini. Peak is there. Prime is there. Longevity is there. And leadership is there.

The shame in here is that you think you know both, basketball and football.

[LeBird]

If anything, Duncan was like Maldini. Peak is there. Prime is there. Longevity is there. And leadership is there.

The shame in here is that you think you know both, basketball and football.

Nonsense. Maldini throughout his career was considered the best defender in the world and even of all-time in the middle of peak. There was no revisionism on Maldini because he's about as shoe-in as you can get apart from someone like Messi. Even right from the beginning he was touted, helped of course that he had an ATG dad to get him that attention but there was no under-the-radar until the last few years because of longevity.

You must be like 20 or something, what a nonsense take about Maldini, nevermind Duncan.

[Odinn21]

If anything, Duncan was like Maldini. Peak is there. Prime is there. Longevity is there. And leadership is there.

The shame in here is that you think you know both, basketball and football.

Nonsense. Maldini throughout his career was considered the best defender in the world and even of all-time in the middle of peak. There was no revisionism on Maldini because he's about as shoe-in as you can get apart from someone like Messi. Even right from the beginning he was touted, helped of course that he had an ATG dad to get him that attention but there was no under-the-radar until the last few years because of longevity.

You must be like 20 or something, what a nonsense take about Maldini, nevermind Duncan.

I'm yet to see some explanation in here other than "if I say so" attitude. You're talking about how you're feeling, not even an opinion TBH. You disrespected Duncan and Giggs in the same post, you don't even realize that you also disrespected Giggs. But I'm sure you'll interpret this as I'm defending Giggs to defend Duncan. Because that's how your mind works with your holier than thou attitude.

Considering the age talk, I feel like I should return the favour;
You are an old head who can't handle being in the wrong. You're so convinced that you're so right, you can't even see the way you talk.

[Gooner]

comparing Duncan to Giggs....lol I've seen everything now (with all due respect). For some people Duncan is still just a luckier Patrick Ewing with a long career

He kinda is. Patrick Ewing was same caliber of player. If Duncan played in Jordan era, he could have been ringless.

[70sFan]

comparing Duncan to Giggs....lol I've seen everything now (with all due respect). For some people Duncan is still just a luckier Patrick Ewing with a long career

He kinda is. Patrick Ewing was same caliber of player. If Duncan played in Jordan era, he could have been ringless.

No, he's Hakeem Olajuwon caliber of player.

[LeBird]

He had great BBIQ that made him valuable and he had very high motor. He also couldn't protect the rim (at 6'9), had slow feet and could defend perimeter players well. I agree with you that Bird being a bad defender is a myth, but you are comparing him to one of the best defenders ever here. Come on, defense is not close.

You're assuming Duncan is one of the greatest defenders, not whether he was on teams with the greatest defenses and best defensive schemes made by arguably the greatest coach of all-time. Duncan wasn't Bill Russell.

As I said, Duncan is one of the best defensive players ever. So no, most ATG players with Duncan's height are not as good as him defensively.
Without the system Duncan would be the best player in the league playing in different system and competing for titles.

Most ATG Cs are good defenders, even Shaq who was considered lazy was a good defender. Neither of these Cs, especially the modern greats, really change the game as much as someone like Giannis and even Giannis' team is not just a great defensive team because of him.

Furthermore, you are just stating an opinion, not a fact claiming he is one of the best ever so chill because I don't agree, that's kind of the point. Defense is a team orientated profession, one man is not going to defend all 5 players and as much as good defenders can change the dynamics of the game it is not in the same hemisphere as what a great attacking player can do.

Great players like Bird and LeBron with simply their offensive skills they have, passing and scoring at will, can be responsible for the grand majority of a team's scoreline. They can affect almost every offensive play as they have the ball. How many defensive plays do you really think Duncan was changing?

For the majority of a game: Great offensive play > Great defensive play

Bird isn't winning you a ring on his offense either. Do you really believe that you can win the title only with one player's offense? Bird consistently played in elite defensive teams and very good offensive help. He won titles because he was great player put in talented teams.

Yeah, he is or at least getting as close as someone like LeBron - those two are the biggest floor and ceiling raisers in history. He debuted on a 29-win team, turned them into a 60+ win team and eventual champions. What you're alluding to is the fact that the league was stacked at the time and one star wouldn't have won - the Lakers he beat are arguably the GOAT team and had two top 5 all-time players. If Bird debuted in the 90s and went into the 00s he'd win more than Duncan. That Spurs team with his passing and unstoppable scoring? Even these days with the importance of the 3, it'd be ridiculous. Pop would be his second dad and defensive drop wouldn't be noticeable because Bird wouldn't slack and Pop is just that good.

One weakness on offense in your team cause just as big problem, if not more. Bird would do nothing alone if he didn't have good offensive (and defensive) players around him. That's how it works, basketball is a team game no matter if you play on offense or defense.

Bird's BBIQ is on a whole other level than players like Duncan. Duncan is Mr Fundamental, Bird did fundamental-voodoo. He is on par with any perimeter offensive player ever in terms of what he brought and the kind of impact he had. He could match Jordan, LeBron, etc, blow for blow, just a different level of player to Duncan, they could create a shot at any moment with little outside help.

But as I alluded to earlier, a player has far many more offensive plays to influence a game than he does defensively. The impact of a great defensive player will never be - unless rule changes or something - as influential as great offensive player. And we are not talking about players who were just great inefficient chuckers; Bird is in the league of the aforementioned GOAT candidates offensively, he was a high volume, highly efficient scorer from anywhere with passing that made his teammates better players for it - only Magic and LeBron are anywhere close with their BBIQ and passing.

So what? These "center things" made him better player than Bird.
It's true that Duncan wasn't a perimeter defender, but he defended perimeter players better than Bird actually.

Yeah, nonsense on both counts.

Kareem > Shaq

Prime? Sure, but Kareem was way past his prime in Bird's MVP seasons. Only a fool believe that 1984-87 Kareem was better than 2000-03 Shaq. Believe me, I'm huge Kareem fan.

When Bird entered the league, Kareem was MVP and the real finals MVP as well (Magic had a great last game but Kareem was easily better that series). Bird won the season after, did Kareem suddenly fall off the map? No, they didn't make the finals, that's not Bird's fault. But it doesn't detract the fact that Bird was playing Kareem and outperforming Kareem's team (who got beat by the team Bird beat) - and Bird didn't have a player like Magic with him - let alone the rest of the Lakers.

Moses > Garnett

It's at least arguable and Moses was only on KG level in 1979-83 period. These are not Bird's best years. 1984-87 Moses is not on 2001-04 KG level.

You are just moving the goalposts to nowhere. So what if it wasn't Bird's best seasons? He was coming runner-up in MVPs to guys like...uh Moses.

I won't argue era differences here, it's very complicated topic and it's not a good thread to start it. Only an ignorant person can say that one era is "not even close" to the other.

Only an ignorant person would claim that we can't say that. When it is discernible it is sayable. Just because you can't bring yourself to do some thought experiments doesn't make you the genius. I am not under any illusions that we can say for certain any era is better than any other era, it is just opinions and guesses ultimately.

But as far as one can guestimate, since the 80s, the only era worse than Duncan's was Jordan's. The 80s was a far tougher era with more great players, particularly at the top.

Yeah and in second year he got Archibald and Parish (along with drafting rookie McHale). Bird never played with a bad team.
Duncan didn't have superteams in the early 2000s, this is something you are not willing to accept for whatever reason.

Yeah, nonsense. Bird joined a 29-win team that had no Parish into a 61-win team in his Rookie season, and came 4th in MVP voting. They lost in the conference finals to Dr Js 76ers, who lost to the aforementioned Lakers.

Nate was there in 78-79 when they were a 29-win team , Although he still had some in the tank, he was not the player of the earlier 70s. Parish was a 15-8 guy, he was no game-changer. And McHale was watching from the bench when Bird won his first title. Did you even watch NBA back then? Without Bird, they're still home watching the playoffs on TV.

The Celtics did become a better team, McHale stepped up to become a great player and there were smart trades, but Bird turned the franchise around before all that. That's why he was getting GOAT talks early and more seriously after his 3rd ring.

Duncan won MVPs and was considered the best player in the league when his contemporaries are top 10 ever (Shaq, Garnett, Kobe).

Only Shaq has an argument, Kobe is top 15, Garnett even further.

Ryan Giggs won PFA POTY (which would be the equivalent, since football is played in several leagues, not just one), and has more trophies than Duncan by a mile.

No, PFA POTY is not equivalent to NBA MVP. Do you actually watch football?

You're right, technically it would be FWA. There are multiple POTY awards in English football, there is only 1 in NBA, I was making the simple point that Giggs did win a POTY award - so it's not like he didn't get a huge individual award.

In any case, you've digressed from my point to just nitpick an analogy. Giggs got GOAT talks because of longevity, same as Duncan; because during their actual careers, no one thought it.

Giggs is not in GOAT conversations... In what imaginary world do you live? Giggs won't make most football fans top 30s.

Are you dense? I am talking about one league, EPL, where Giggs played. And yes, people do think he is GOAT EPL player because of his longevity. He is one of two favourites to get inducted in the new EPL HOF that has been proposed.

The other player is Alan Shearer. One of the GOAT strikers in England who has scored more goals than anyone. No one was confused about Alan Shearer in his peak, they knew he was the best. I hope you're starting to appreciate the analogy now.

[LeBird]

I'm yet to see some explanation in here other than "if I say so" attitude. You're talking about how you're feeling, not even an opinion TBH. You disrespected Duncan and Giggs in the same post, you don't even realize that you also disrespected Giggs. But I'm sure you'll interpret this as I'm defending Giggs to defend Duncan. Because that's how your mind works with your holier than thou attitude.

Considering the age talk, I feel like I should return the favour;
You are an old head who can't handle being in the wrong. You're so convinced that you're so right, you can't even see the way you talk.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. You jump into someone else's discussion and you make an incorrect point.

Not even 70sfan is debating whether people rated Duncan as one of the GOAT early in his career - in case you're 12, he didn't. Maldini did have those talks. Yeah, I guess it's one of the things that doesn't show up in stats, you had to actually be around.

[LeBird]

comparing Duncan to Giggs....lol I've seen everything now (with all due respect). For some people Duncan is still just a luckier Patrick Ewing with a long career

He kinda is. Patrick Ewing was same caliber of player. If Duncan played in Jordan era, he could have been ringless.

No, he's Hakeem Olajuwon caliber of player.

Not as good as Hakeem but a better player than Ewing.

[AdagioPace]

lately there's been a sort of "reactionary" movement against Duncan. Some people don't want to swallow Duncan's (apparent) fast climb through the ranks.
Since 2012 he has enjoyed a status-reinassance which resulted in multiple sport communities have him borderline top 5 at the doors of 2020. It means that somebody had to be a loser in all this.
who exactly?
Kobe (touted as his equal rival..when actually this was materialized only for few seasons, around '06-10',), and people with a weak post-prime, Bird, whose fans are still stuck in the 80s.
No surprise most attacks come from this directions (but I've yet to see a Magic fan attacking Duncan)

[dygaction]

Larry Bird defended PFs, and McHale defended the opposing SF. Bird was a great PF defender, and had the range perfect for a PF playing with both a dominant center and an SF who could drive into the paint. If I make the all-time peak team, the other positions are all very obvious for most.

PG:Magic
SG: MJ
SF: LBJ

C: Shaq/Wilt

PF is a debate. Some people say KG. Others may suggest Duncan because he played PF, even though he'd cramp the paint offensively and mostly excelled as a rim protector defensively. Why is Larry Bird not the obvious choice for that slot, and for best PF of all time?Who would you put in that slot?

First of all, he is not a PF.
Or let's say he is a PF, he is not better than Duncan.
At last, being a second best behind LBJ or Duncan at either SF or PF is a tremendous achievement.

[Jaqua92]

Because Tim Duncan was better basketball player.

Lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Gooner]

comparing Duncan to Giggs....lol I've seen everything now (with all due respect). For some people Duncan is still just a luckier Patrick Ewing with a long career

He kinda is. Patrick Ewing was same caliber of player. If Duncan played in Jordan era, he could have been ringless.

No, he's Hakeem Olajuwon caliber of player.

I think Hakeem was better than both.

[70sFan]

He kinda is. Patrick Ewing was same caliber of player. If Duncan played in Jordan era, he could have been ringless.

No, he's Hakeem Olajuwon caliber of player.

I think Hakeem was better than both.

Feel free to do so, but by any measure Duncan was closer to Hakeem than to Ewing, that's for sure.

[70sFan]

You're assuming Duncan is one of the greatest defenders, not whether he was on teams with the greatest defenses and best defensive schemes made by arguably the greatest coach of all-time. Duncan wasn't Bill Russell.

I'm "assuming" it because I watch games. Pop didn't make Duncan one of the best rim protectors ever. Pop didn't give Duncan unreal timing. Duncan's positioning and footwork on defense are GOAT level and these things can't be simply taught by coach in NBA. On top of that, Duncan's defensive BBIQ is unreal. He read opponent's offense almost perfectly, that's also something that can't be taught. Here are some examples (with Ben Taylor's commentary):
https://youtu.be/UPlAtLGtvGY
https://youtu.be/vR-g5RZAlBM
https://youtu.be/PrVlCPs7nBA

If you believe that Pop was the reason why Duncan was so good defensively you either don't watch Duncan games or don't understand what you see.

Most ATG Cs are good defenders, even Shaq who was considered lazy was a good defender.

Comparing Shaq to Duncan defensively doesn't make any sense. Shaq had a lot of weaknesses defensively and when you actually watch and analyze the tape, the difference between them is staggering. Shaq's defense fluctuated between bad and good throughout his prime and he never reached Duncan's level on that end. And no, it's not because he didn't play with Pop.

Neither of these Cs, especially the modern greats, really change the game as much as someone like Giannis and even Giannis' team is not just a great defensive team because of him.

How did Giannis change the game? There were players who played similar style of defense way before him.
Also, are you arguing that Giannis is better defender than Duncan? I don't think you'll win this debate then...

Furthermore, you are just stating an opinion, not a fact claiming he is one of the best ever so chill because I don't agree, that's kind of the point. Defense is a team orientated profession, one man is not going to defend all 5 players and as much as good defenders can change the dynamics of the game it is not in the same hemisphere as what a great attacking player can do.

Offense is also a team oriented profession and no offensive player can do it alone. Duncan's ability to alter shots in the paint can change the way opponents approach the game. It's extremely valuable thing and only the best offensive players can reach that kind of impact on the other side of the ball.

Great players like Bird and LeBron with simply their offensive skills they have, passing and scoring at will, can be responsible for the grand majority of a team's scoreline. They can affect almost every offensive play as they have the ball. How many defensive plays do you really think Duncan was changing?

Defensive anchors can affect a lot of defensive plays. You don't need to block a shot or steal the ball to impact the possession.

For the majority of a game: Great offensive play > Great defensive play

Again, you don't back it up with anything.

Yeah, he is or at least getting as close as someone like LeBron - those two are the biggest floor and ceiling raisers in history.

Sure and both of them reached team success only with great supporting casts.

He debuted on a 29-win team, turned them into a 60+ win team and eventual champions.

It's not that easy though, no player can make 29 win team into 60 win team. You completely ignore the fact that 1979 team had different roster than 1980 team and you also ignore missed time by Celtics players in 1979 season.

Bird's BBIQ is on a whole other level than players like Duncan. Duncan is Mr Fundamental, Bird did fundamental-voodoo. He is on par with any perimeter offensive player ever in terms of what he brought and the kind of impact he had. He could match Jordan, LeBron, etc, blow for blow, just a different level of player to Duncan, they could create a shot at any moment with little outside help.

Bird didn't play with little outside help. Besides, it's not like Duncan was a poor offensive player. He carried this early 2000s Spurs offense heavier than Bird ever did and he created a lot of opportunities for his teammates. Then of course you keep ignoring massive defensive edge Duncan has.

Yeah, nonsense on both counts.

Not really, Bird was weak perimeter defender.

When Bird entered the league, Kareem was MVP and the real finals MVP as well (Magic had a great last game but Kareem was easily better that series). Bird won the season after, did Kareem suddenly fall off the map? No, they didn't make the finals, that's not Bird's fault. But it doesn't detract the fact that Bird was playing Kareem and outperforming Kareem's team (who got beat by the team Bird beat) - and Bird didn't have a player like Magic with him - let alone the rest of the Lakers.

Kareem was 33 in 1980 and 34 in 1981. He declined significantly after that. So you are right - Bird played 2 seasons against late-prime Kareem. It doesn't change anything, Bird's best years when he won MVPs were when Kareem was old. You can't compare post-1981 Kareem to peak Shaq.
I'm huge admirer of Kareem, I've watched more of his prime games that you've ever seen and I view him as the GOAT, so believe me, I'm not here to attack Jabbar. 1980s Kareem is not close to peak Shaq.

You are just moving the goalposts to nowhere. So what if it wasn't Bird's best seasons? He was coming runner-up in MVPs to guys like...uh Moses.

He wasn't the best player in the league in 1980-83, I thought we were talking about Duncan's and Bird's years when they were the best on planet. Bird being second to Moses is not a compliment in this case, because Timmy was better player than Moses (again, player I study and watch likely a lot more than you do).

Only an ignorant person would claim that we can't say that. When it is discernible it is sayable. Just because you can't bring yourself to do some thought experiments doesn't make you the genius. I am not under any illusions that we can say for certain any era is better than any other era, it is just opinions and guesses ultimately.

Sure, I've been studying quantum physics for last few years but I'm not able to do some thought experiments...
I said that this topic is way too complicated and sophisticated to go through it in this thread. If you want to have this debate, make different thread then.

But as far as one can guestimate, since the 80s, the only era worse than Duncan's was Jordan's. The 80s was a far tougher era with more great players, particularly at the top.

Sure, smaller talent pool, lack of international players, less money in sport... All of these contributed to much better league, right? Again, it's a complicated problem and your simple take here is very ignorant.

Yeah, nonsense. Bird joined a 29-win team that had no Parish into a 61-win team in his Rookie season, and came 4th in MVP voting. They lost in the conference finals to Dr Js 76ers, who lost to the aforementioned Lakers.

Again, Celtics situation was more complicated than just addition of Larry Bird. Duncan also made tremendous improvement on Spurs team, which never won anything before his arrival.

Parish was a 15-8 guy, he was no game-changer.

Wow, what a horrible take. Parish was crucial for Celtics.

Did you even watch NBA back then?

No, I didn't. I watched more than enough games from 1980s though in last few years. Probably more than you.

Without Bird, they're still home watching the playoffs on TV.

Yeah, probably. Bird was great player after all. Same applies to Spurs without Duncan - it actually happened in fact. Defending champions Spurs in 2000 lost Duncan before the playoffs and they lost in first round. Why didn't Pop do his magic and beat Phoenix Suns? They didn't need Duncan who was just a product of system, right?

The Celtics did become a better team, McHale stepped up to become a great player and there were smart trades, but Bird turned the franchise around before all that. That's why he was getting GOAT talks early and more seriously after his 3rd ring.

Celtics were the most successful franchise in NBA history up to Bird's start. Sure, they had a low point in late 1970s but don't act like Boston without Bird would be meaningless.
Meanwhile Duncan was the reason why we talk about Spurs in such a high manner. Before Duncan Spurs didn't accomplish anything, they never even went to finals. If you want to praise Bird for turning the franchise around, Duncan deserves the same respect.

Only Shaq has an argument, Kobe is top 15, Garnett even further.

Garnett is definitely in top 15, probably in top 10.

You're right, technically it would be FWA. There are multiple POTY awards in English football, there is only 1 in NBA, I was making the simple point that Giggs did win a POTY award - so it's not like he didn't get a huge individual award.

But this is not equivalent of NBA MVP. I seriously doubt if you know anything about football...

The other player is Alan Shearer. One of the GOAT strikers in England who has scored more goals than anyone. No one was confused about Alan Shearer in his peak, they knew he was the best. I hope you're starting to appreciate the analogy now.

No, I don't. Duncan is one of the most accomplished and the best players in NBA history. Giggs was never close to that level.

[Jaivl]

Because Tim Duncan was better basketball player.

Lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

He missed the "and for way longer" part. And he missed Garnett too.