Does Larry Bird get too much of a pass for his underwhelming performance in the Playoffs?

[toodles23]

So I've been diving deeper into Bird's career lately, and have come to the conclusion that his consistently poor showings in the playoffs is a much bigger deal than is generally discussed. What I commonly see on this board to explain this stuff away is that Bird's impact comes from things not necessarily captured by the boxscore (spacing, incredible passing, hustle, etc), and I totally get that; it's why I consider Curry to be clearly a better, more valuable basketball player than Durant despite them looking roughly the same in the boxscore.

Here's the thing though... Bird's teams were consistently upset in the playoffs (losing with homecourt 8 times), and he never once won a series without homecourt. I generally don't care too much about that kind of stuff when looking at an individual player's season in isolation, but when a guy consistently underwhelms in the boxscore compared to the regular season AND his teams consistently get upset, it raises some red flags and strongly suggests that his impact in the playoffs is less than the regular season. Only three times in Bird's playoff career did he post a TS% of 54 or better, and not coincidentally the Celtics won it all in two of those three years.

So, a couple questions for you guys: Was Bird's impact in the playoffs less than the regular season, and if so, why and to what degree? How much does this factor into your evaluation of him as a player?

[KobesScarf]

His underwhelming performance in the Playoffs is a myth. He had 2 bad series got swept by the Bucks in 83 and the Pistons in 88

[Pg81]

His underwhelming performance in the Playoffs is a myth. He had 2 bad series got swept by the Bucks in 83 and the Pistons in 88

He had the bone spur operation shortly after the Pistons series so there is a good chance he was plagued by it already during the series. Those do not grow overnight.

[Joey Wheeler]

His underwhelming performance in the Playoffs is a myth. He had 2 bad series got swept by the Bucks in 83 and the Pistons in 88

Pretty much. He gets a pass for being underwhelming in the playoffs because that was never the case to begin with. Magic's Lakers were just the more stacked team

[1993Playoffs]

His underwhelming performance in the Playoffs is a myth. He had 2 bad series got swept by the Bucks in 83 and the Pistons in 88

Pretty much. He gets a pass for being underwhelming in the playoffs because that was never the case to begin with. Magic's Lakers were just the more stacked team

He also had an extremely stacked team

[Joey Wheeler]

His underwhelming performance in the Playoffs is a myth. He had 2 bad series got swept by the Bucks in 83 and the Pistons in 88

Pretty much. He gets a pass for being underwhelming in the playoffs because that was never the case to begin with. Magic's Lakers were just the more stacked team

He also had an extremely stacked team

True, the Celtics had a great roster for most of Bird's prime, but the Lakers just had an insane roster. Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Cooper... if Kareem played for the Celtics and McHale or Parish for the Lakers, the title count for Magic and Bird would probably be the other way round...

[Clyde Frazier]

Evens out with how many people claim his career is romanticized and isn't top ten all time anymore.

[colts19]

Birds teams were never deep except in 1986. After the starting 5 they never had a lot of depth. So if Bird was hurt and playing at 70 percent or if Mchale was not at 100 percent it really hurt them. The lakers on the other hand were always picking up that one player who gave them enough depth to overcome injuries. M. Thompson and Mcadoo as example. Look at their rosters in 81 and 84, they didn't have a lot of depth even when they won championships.

[Johnlac1]

I think the Celtics played the starters a little too much during the season. The Celts starting five played a lot of minutes . The Lakers starters didn't play as many. I think the Laker starters were a little less tired for the playoffs. That and the Lakers better bench was the key factor in a number of playoff finals.
Other things that hurt Bird's playoff legacy was (1) his back problems which began in '85 and (2) the death of Len Bias.
Even with Bird's bad back, Len Bias would have given them that athletic player they lacked against the Lakers.
If Bird was 100% healthy the last half of the eighties and Bias didn't die, there's a good chance the Celts would have a title or two more. Maybe three.

[Jonny Blaze]

So I've been diving deeper into Bird's career lately, and have come to the conclusion that his consistently poor showings in the playoffs is a much bigger deal than is generally discussed. What I commonly see on this board to explain this stuff away is that Bird's impact comes from things not necessarily captured by the boxscore (spacing, incredible passing, hustle, etc), and I totally get that; it's why I consider Curry to be clearly a better, more valuable basketball player than Durant despite them looking roughly the same in the boxscore.

Here's the thing though... Bird's teams were consistently upset in the playoffs (losing with homecourt 8 times), and he never once won a series without homecourt. I generally don't care too much about that kind of stuff when looking at an individual player's season in isolation, but when a guy consistently underwhelms in the boxscore compared to the regular season AND his teams consistently get upset, it raises some red flags and strongly suggests that his impact in the playoffs is less than the regular season. Only three times in Bird's playoff career did he post a TS% of 54 or better, and not coincidentally the Celtics won it all in two of those three years.

So, a couple questions for you guys: Was Bird's impact in the playoffs less than the regular season, and if so, why and to what degree? How much does this factor into your evaluation of him as a player?

I am old enough to have watched Larry Bird play. The dude is unbelievably overrated.

Larry Bird was a fantastic player. But he had flaws just like anyone else and a lot of them were glossed over because he was the Great White Hype who actually delivered.


Larry Bird is not a top 10 player of all time. He is not the best player in Celtics History.

If Larry Bird played on a normal team and not team loaded with Hall of Famers he wouldn't be considered the legend he is today.

If I could compare it to anyone....its almost like Brett Favre in the NFL. Fantastic talent, but a bigger name because the media loved him.

[Joao Saraiva]

No. At least not from me. That's one of the reasons I have him at #10 all time.

Even tough he was an incredible player, he definitely didn't have great playoff runs on a very very consistent level. So if Karl Malone is not higher in the rankings for me because of that, Larry definitely should suffer from that too.

[rebirthoftheM]

It has to do with the marketing of Bird as the "great white hope" which has resonated with many, alongside of the many "bad man" stories associated with him. But an objective analysis will show you he is overrated by many around here.

[dhsilv2]

He's got an awful lot of black on his advanced metrics in basketball reference, including top VOPR 5 times, 4 straight years + 81. I see some poor examples here and there, but hasn't the litmus test always been to hold bad series against people who never won?

[theonlyclutch]

I mean, he basically nuked his team's chances of getting a ring by getting himself injured in a bar fight in the '85 playoffs . That always seems to be conveniently pushed under the rug whenever people discuss his playoff performances..

[LeBird]

If anything, Bird doesn't get enough credit for his playoff performances. Bird/Celtics had a dogfight to the finals, and through the playoffs in general, for almost all his career. Magic by comparison had a cakewalk and rarely gets pulled up because of it.

[mischievous]

He’s had some so-so or even mediocre performances by his standards, but i think its made up by some of the great ones he’s had. No one reasonable should call Bird a top 5 playoff performer or something like that, but I don’t think we should complain with the results overall.

[RCM88x]

Birds teams were never deep except in 1986. After the starting 5 they never had a lot of depth. So if Bird was hurt and playing at 70 percent or if Mchale was not at 100 percent it really hurt them. The lakers on the other hand were always picking up that one player who gave them enough depth to overcome injuries. M. Thompson and Mcadoo as example. Look at their rosters in 81 and 84, they didn't have a lot of depth even when they won championships.

Were any teams back then really that deep? Even relatively speaking to the other East teams they we're almost always better 1-9 than anyone by a good margin, other than the 6ers once or twice.

Obviously by today standards they don't have much depth, but no one back then did.

[dhsilv2]

Birds teams were never deep except in 1986. After the starting 5 they never had a lot of depth. So if Bird was hurt and playing at 70 percent or if Mchale was not at 100 percent it really hurt them. The lakers on the other hand were always picking up that one player who gave them enough depth to overcome injuries. M. Thompson and Mcadoo as example. Look at their rosters in 81 and 84, they didn't have a lot of depth even when they won championships.

Were any teams back then really that deep? Even relatively speaking to the other East teams they we're almost always better 1-9 than anyone by a good margin, other than the 6ers once or twice.

Obviously by today standards they don't have much depth, but no one back then did.

They had a guy get 6th man of the year in 84, 85, and 86 for whatever that's worth

[G35]

Birds teams were never deep except in 1986. After the starting 5 they never had a lot of depth. So if Bird was hurt and playing at 70 percent or if Mchale was not at 100 percent it really hurt them. The lakers on the other hand were always picking up that one player who gave them enough depth to overcome injuries. M. Thompson and Mcadoo as example. Look at their rosters in 81 and 84, they didn't have a lot of depth even when they won championships.

Were any teams back then really that deep? Even relatively speaking to the other East teams they we're almost always better 1-9 than anyone by a good margin, other than the 6ers once or twice.

Obviously by today standards they don't have much depth, but no one back then did.

Lakers, Celtics, Sixers were usually the best teams year in and year out. I was obviously much younger then but it did seem like they were deeper than everyone else...or it could be because they were on TV all the time their lineups got more media coverage. I do think the Lakers had more depth than anyone else:

Lakers main rotation players
Magic
KAJ
Nixon
Wilkes
Worthy
Rambis
Scott
Cooper
Thompson
McAdoo

Sixers
Erving
Cheeks
Toney
Dawkins
Bobby Jones
Iavaroni
Caldwell Jones
Hollins

Celtics
Bird
McHale
Parish
Ainge
Johnson
Maxwell
Walton
Henderson
Buckner


I was an Erving fan in the 70's...he was the Lebron of that time without the "Chosen One" personality. But I always felt Erving was at a disadvantage because the Sixers had to get through the Celtics and then the Lakers in the playoffs. That is insane. It would be like the Cavs having to beat the Spurs in the ECF's and then the Warriors in the Finals...EVERY YEAR.

The Celtics would pick up players all the time...they couldn't handle Magic so they got Dennis Johnson to matchup, they needed depth and they got Walton. Those were major pickups.

The Lakers were probably even better because they did pickup those ring chaser types....Bob McAdoo was the first I remembered and there was wondering if he could fit in and come off the bench but he was a great addition for the Lakers. Mychal Thompson was another big addition and it weakened a rival in the Blazers. Of course they maneuvered for a #1 pick and picked up James Worthy. They traded Norm Nixon for Byron Scott which allowed Magic to be the full time PG.

But the Sixers were not able to have those types of additions until they finally traded for Moses. Without Moses, Doc would likely not have ever won a title but it was due to the depth of the Celtics and Lakers. They both were gunning for each other so it was like an arms race every year.

So when people complain about Durant joining the Warriors...yeah its not new and all the boohooing about unfair was going on way before the current Warriors. Even the Shaq/Kobe Lakers tried to shore up their teams every year trying to bring in FA's like Glen Rice, when Laker management got lazy in 2003 and hoped that Shaq and Kobe could carry the team and they got killed by the Spurs they went full super team adding Karl Malone and Gary Payton.

You play to win the game so you put yourself in the best position to win...there is no such thing as fair and equal in competition.....

[Pg81]

His underwhelming performance in the Playoffs is a myth. He had 2 bad series got swept by the Bucks in 83 and the Pistons in 88

Pretty much. He gets a pass for being underwhelming in the playoffs because that was never the case to begin with. Magic's Lakers were just the more stacked team

He also had an extremely stacked team

You are aware that the Celtics were awful the year before Bird came into the league? You are aware that he transformed that terrible team into a winner from his very first season on, yes?