RealGM

This has never made sense to me. Kobe had a longer career, was better defensively, faced tougher defenses in the playoffs, and was more resilient statistically in the playoffs. Bird was the better passer, but his teams weren’t pacing the league in ORtg. Honestly I think you can argue Kobe peaked higher.

Am I nuts?

The argument for Bird would have to be that he peaked higher and was the better overall offensive player. I have Kobe over Bird by one spot btw.

People would argue that Bird peaked higher, and that his 5-year prime was better than Kobe's (and you could maybe even extend the stretch).

For example,

Larry Bird's 5-year Peak PS Bball Ref BPM-8.19 (10th All-time)

Larry Bird's 5-year Peak PS BACKPICKS BPM Rank-6th All-time

Larry Bird's Peak 7 Year RAPTOR WAR-137.2


Kobe Bryant's 5-year Peak PS Bball Ref BPM-7.26 (23rd All-Time)

Kobe Bryant's 5-year Peak PS BACKPICKS BPM Rank-19th All-Time

Larry Bird's Peak 7 Year RAPTOR WAR-120.6


Also a lot of people do not value longevity as much as others, but rather focus on the heart of one's career when they are producing. Some might also prefer Bird's playstyle because of just how good of a passer he was, as well as a floor-spacer. Some might believe Bird is easier to play with than Kobe and could be more useful in various scenarios.

Regarding the defense argument, I know some people would actually side with Bird being the more impactful defender depending on the time period you choose.

For instance, Bird played on a Boston Celtics squad who in the PS from 80-82, had a -6.5 rDRTG, which is in the upper stratosphere historically. This is particularly noteworthy because Bird played in one of the most important defensive positions on the floor for much of the time at the PF position. In the 1980 and ’81 playoffs, Bird logged about 43 minutes per game next to Dave Cowens, Parish or Rick Robey had a really strong steal rate of 2.3 percent and block rate 1.5 percent. While yes, Kobe was clearly the more impactful on-ball defender, we know that off-ball defense and deterring shots at the rim in really any fashion is probably more valuable and Bird really had special instincts and off-ball awareness.

Better passer, better rebounder, more efficient scorer (113/114 peak TS+ seasons for Larry vs 107 for Kobe).

Kobe played 449 more games & over 14,000 more minutes than Bird, yet only has a marginal lead in career VORP at 80.1 to 77.2.

Larry's minutes were just way more impactful, as represented by BPM (6.9 to 4.6) and WS/48 (.203 to .170).

Better peak and 5 years prime. Outside of that, he doesn't have the greatest case.

I think he was better player than Kobe, to the point that I still rank him higher than Bryant, but only by one spot (11th vs 12th).

70sFan wrote:Better peak and 5 years prime. Outside of that, he doesn't have the greatest case.

I think he was better player than Kobe, to the point that I still rank him higher than Bryant, but only by one spot (11th vs 12th).

I have the same 11 and 12!

He peaked higher.

I never put longevity as a big factor in my criteria, but I do feel like for people who like to count the quantity of quality seasons and calculate their value then someone like Kobe should be ranked above Bird.

70sFan wrote:Better peak and 5 years prime.

For what it's worth:

Top 5 finishes in MVP Voting:

I've written the years in which they placed and their positions in brackets. * denotes that they won MVP.

Larry Bird: 88(2), 87(3), 86(*), 85(*), 84(*), 83(2), 82(2), 81(2), 80(4) = 9 top 5s (3 MVPs) (4 2nd places)

Over a 9 year stretch, Larry Bird won 3 MVPs, came in 2nd 4 times, 3rd once and 4th once. Sheer dominance.

Kobe Bryant: 13(5), 12(4), 11(4), 10(3), 09(2), 08(*), 07(3), 06(4), 04(5), 03(3), 02(5) = 11 top 5s (1 MVP) (1 2nd place).

Then again, Kobe faced drastically better teams in the playoffs than Bird (and everyone else, including Jordan):

Kobe Bryant:

Regular Season: 36.1 MPG, 25.0 PPG, 5.2 RBS, 4.7 AST, .447 FG%, (1.8 rTS%)

Against Bad Teams: (0% of playoff games): -----
Against Average Teams: (7.7% of playoff games): 35.0 MPG, 19.4 PPG, 4.1 RBS, 4.3 AST, (+0.0 rTS%)
Against Good Teams: (20.5% of playoff games): 40.5 MPG, 28.0 PPG, 5.5 RBS, 5.2 AST, (+1.5 rTS%)
Against Elite Teams: (40.9% of playoff games): 39.6 MPG, 25.9 PPG, 5.0 RBS, 4.6 AST, (+2.6 rTS%)
Against All Time Great Teams: (30.9% of playoff games): 36.4 MPG, 22.9 RBS, 4.8 AST, 4.4 RBS, (+2.1 rTS%)

Larry Bird:

Regular Season: 38.4 MPG, 24.3 PPG, 10.0 RBS, 6.3 AST, .496 FG%, (+2.8 rTS%)

Against Bad Teams: (8.5% of playoff games): 41.3 MPG, 27.9 PPG, 9.4 RBS, 6.0 AST, (0.5 rTS%)
Against Average Teams: (28.6% of playoff games): 41.3 MPG, 22.0 PPG, 11.9 RBS, 6.2 AST (+0 tTS%)
Against Good Teams: (25.6% of playoff games): 40.5 MPG, 21.0 PPG, 8.0 RBS, 6.7 AST (-2.1 rTS%)
Against Elite Teams: (25% of playoff games): 43.2 MPG, 26.5 PPG, 9.5 RBS, 7.7 AST (+6.0 rTS%)
Against All Time Great Teams: (12.2% of playoff games): 42.9 MPG, 23.2 PPG, 12.0 RBS, 5.4 AST, (+2.6 rTS%)

I think Bird peaked higher, and am generally more impressed by his best 5(ish) seasons vs Kobe's 5(ish) best: better passer, better rebounder, slightly more efficient scorer in the rs (not so much in the playoffs, as Kobe was more resilient).

Defensively in their respective primes it's pretty comparable (I know Kobe's got all the All-D honors, but he wasn't notably better; he just wasn't). Late seasons Kobe might have a marginal edge; Bird's mobility was so shot toward the end, it really hurt him defensively. By '92, the man could hardly bend over.

Kobe's got the solid edge in longevity [and rings, if you want to engage in simple counting exercises]; and longevity matters to me.

I used to rank Bird slightly higher, and worried that was pure nostalgia or playing favourites, given Kobe's substantial longevity edge and my own criteria that leans heavily on meaningful longevity. I justified it by saying Bird was "bigger" and more important to the game (which is also a tiny component of my criteria), what with the Bird/Magic rivalry re-vitalizing the league's popularity. He still is damn near a household name.

Weirdly, the event that sort of shifted me off that notion was Kobe's death. The outpouring of response to that made me realize Kobe was just as big; a global icon, really.
I subsequently moved Kobe ahead, but only slightly: I currently have them 11th and 12th. Could see going as high as maybe 9th with Kobe; can't see going higher than 10th or 11th with Bird anymore.

HeartBreakKid wrote:He peaked higher.

I never put longevity as a big factor in my criteria, but I do feel like for people who like to count the quantity of quality seasons and calculate their value then someone like Kobe should be ranked above Bird.

My evaluation includes longevity in big part, but I still have Bird very slightly ahead. Career value is the approach that speaks to me the most, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't take the value of every season into account.

I think its fair to say Bird peaked higher than Kobe in terms of career and relative dominance. However, Bird having a higher peak isn't due to him actually being a better player at their peaks. It's more so a result of things lining up better for Bird than they did for Kobe.

When Bird was at his individual peak he was fortunate enough to be surrounded by a historically great team geared around him. This allowed him to put on individually dominating performances night in and night out while winning mvps, titles, and fmvps all at the same time. This all adds up to a greater more all encompassing dominance over the league.

Whereas with Kobe his team success came at the beginning and end of his prime. He spent his individual peak playing in historically bad rosters. His individual dominance and team success didn't quite line up together. But I think if you give Pau Gasol to the Lakers in 05 we most likely see Kobe dominate across the board for 5 or 6 years instead of 3. We see more titles and more MVPs. We saw that when given a good team at the tail end of his prime Kobe immediately began dominating in that same all encompassing way Bird did.

Stalwart wrote:I think its fair to say Bird peaked higher than Kobe in terms of career and relative dominance. However, Bird having a higher peak isn't due to him actually being a better player at their peaks. It's more so a result of things lining up better for Bird than they did for Kobe.

When Bird was at his individual peak he was fortunate enough to be surrounded by a historically great team geared around him. This allowed him to put on individually dominating performances night in and night out while winning mvps, titles, and fmvps all at the same time. This all adds up to a greater more all encompassing dominance over the league.

Whereas with Kobe his team success came at the beginning and end of his prime. He spent his individual peak playing in historically bad rosters. His individual dominance and team success didn't quite line up together. But I think if you give Pau Gasol to the Lakers in 05 we most likely see Kobe dominate across the board for 5 or 6 years instead of 3. We see more titles and more MVPs. We saw that when given a good team at the tail end of his prime Kobe immediately began dominating in that same all encompassing way Bird did.

Birds circumstance had nothing to do with why he simply peaked as a better player. Kobe having high volume statistical seasons in 'the middle of this prime' have been proven time and time again to not be otherworldly outside of some box score stats (albeit still very strong years)

People play this game of attributing team successes to individual success (ironically they do it with Kobe) and it's being done here with Bird based on your analysis but since it's directly compared to Kobe you can somehow hand waive it and play the "if Kobes individual and team success lined up he'd in the same way" when it's not really the case.

Bird peaked higher because he was a better player at his peak and it didn't have anything to do with his team.

NbaAllDay wrote:

Stalwart wrote:I think its fair to say Bird peaked higher than Kobe in terms of career and relative dominance. However, Bird having a higher peak isn't due to him actually being a better player at their peaks. It's more so a result of things lining up better for Bird than they did for Kobe.

When Bird was at his individual peak he was fortunate enough to be surrounded by a historically great team geared around him. This allowed him to put on individually dominating performances night in and night out while winning mvps, titles, and fmvps all at the same time. This all adds up to a greater more all encompassing dominance over the league.

Whereas with Kobe his team success came at the beginning and end of his prime. He spent his individual peak playing in historically bad rosters. His individual dominance and team success didn't quite line up together. But I think if you give Pau Gasol to the Lakers in 05 we most likely see Kobe dominate across the board for 5 or 6 years instead of 3. We see more titles and more MVPs. We saw that when given a good team at the tail end of his prime Kobe immediately began dominating in that same all encompassing way Bird did.

Birds circumstance had nothing to do with why he simply peaked as a better player. Kobe having high volume statistical seasons in 'the middle of this prime' have been proven time and time again to not be otherworldly outside of some box score stats (albeit still very strong years)

People play this game of attributing team successes to individual success (ironically they do it with Kobe) and it's being done here with Bird based on your analysis but since it's directly compared to Kobe you can somehow hand waive it and play the "if Kobes individual and team success lined up he'd in the same way" when it's not really the case.

Bird peaked higher because he was a better player at his peak and it didn't have anything to do with his team.

I mean you can say that if you want. When Kobe had a good team he immediately went to 3 straight finals, won a MVP, won 2 finals MVPs, and was considered the best player by most people in the league and most people watching the league. And he did this with a much less stacked team than Bird did.

All Im saying is if Kobe would have gotten that team earlier he'd have dominated for longer, won more titles, and won more mvps. Do you disagree?

Stalwart wrote:

NbaAllDay wrote:

Stalwart wrote:I think its fair to say Bird peaked higher than Kobe in terms of career and relative dominance. However, Bird having a higher peak isn't due to him actually being a better player at their peaks. It's more so a result of things lining up better for Bird than they did for Kobe.

When Bird was at his individual peak he was fortunate enough to be surrounded by a historically great team geared around him. This allowed him to put on individually dominating performances night in and night out while winning mvps, titles, and fmvps all at the same time. This all adds up to a greater more all encompassing dominance over the league.

Whereas with Kobe his team success came at the beginning and end of his prime. He spent his individual peak playing in historically bad rosters. His individual dominance and team success didn't quite line up together. But I think if you give Pau Gasol to the Lakers in 05 we most likely see Kobe dominate across the board for 5 or 6 years instead of 3. We see more titles and more MVPs. We saw that when given a good team at the tail end of his prime Kobe immediately began dominating in that same all encompassing way Bird did.

Birds circumstance had nothing to do with why he simply peaked as a better player. Kobe having high volume statistical seasons in 'the middle of this prime' have been proven time and time again to not be otherworldly outside of some box score stats (albeit still very strong years)

People play this game of attributing team successes to individual success (ironically they do it with Kobe) and it's being done here with Bird based on your analysis but since it's directly compared to Kobe you can somehow hand waive it and play the "if Kobes individual and team success lined up he'd in the same way" when it's not really the case.

Bird peaked higher because he was a better player at his peak and it didn't have anything to do with his team.

I mean you can say that if you want. When Kobe had a good team he immediately went to 3 straight finals, won a MVP, won 2 finals MVPs, and was considered the best player by most people in the league and most people watching the league. And he did this with a much less stacked team than Bird did.

All Im saying is if Kobe would have gotten that team earlier he'd have dominated for longer, won more titles, and won more mvps. Do you disagree?

uh...kobe was on a 61 win team when he was 19 years old. what on earth do you mean if he had gotten a good team earlier, lmao. like if he had a good team when he was in middle school?

you're talking like kobe was struggling with a crap team then all of a sudden once he got some talent he started collecting rings. he started with a great team.

Kobe came straight out of HS in 1997 and never was on a team that won less than 50 games until 2005.

trex_8063 wrote:I think Bird peaked higher, and am generally more impressed by his best 5(ish) seasons vs Kobe's 5(ish) best: better passer, better rebounder, slightly more efficient scorer in the rs (not so much in the playoffs, as Kobe was more resilient).

Defensively in their respective primes it's pretty comparable (I know Kobe's got all the All-D honors, but he wasn't notably better; he just wasn't). Late seasons Kobe might have a marginal edge; Bird's mobility was so shot toward the end, it really hurt him defensively. By '92, the man could hardly bend over.

Kobe's got the solid edge in longevity [and rings, if you want to engage in simple counting exercises]; and longevity matters to me.

I used to rank Bird slightly higher, and worried that was pure nostalgia or playing favourites, given Kobe's substantial longevity edge and my own criteria that leans heavily on meaningful longevity. I justified it by saying Bird was "bigger" and more important to the game (which is also a tiny component of my criteria), what with the Bird/Magic rivalry re-vitalizing the league's popularity. He still is damn near a household name.

Weirdly, the event that sort of shifted me off that notion was Kobe's death. The outpouring of response to that made me realize Kobe was just as big; a global icon, really.
I subsequently moved Kobe ahead, but only slightly: I currently have them 11th and 12th. Could see going as high as maybe 9th with Kobe; can't see going higher than 10th or 11th with Bird anymore.

Who's your current top 10? Don't need an order.

Bird didn't peak higher, Kobe is a much better defensive player. a better scorer, and a better playoff performer.

70sFan wrote:Better peak and 5 years prime. Outside of that, he doesn't have the greatest case.

I think he was better player than Kobe, to the point that I still rank him higher than Bryant, but only by one spot (11th vs 12th).

While I appreciate most of 70’s fans contributions we greatly differ on Bird. But if even his, IMO obscenely low, take on Bird puts him ahead of Kobe that says something.

Personally, I stop talking with anyone in real life who thinks Kobe> Bird. It’s a demarcation point. There’s no reason to continue. I change the subject. It’s not worth any effort.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

Stalwart wrote:

NbaAllDay wrote:
Birds circumstance had nothing to do with why he simply peaked as a better player. Kobe having high volume statistical seasons in 'the middle of this prime' have been proven time and time again to not be otherworldly outside of some box score stats (albeit still very strong years)

People play this game of attributing team successes to individual success (ironically they do it with Kobe) and it's being done here with Bird based on your analysis but since it's directly compared to Kobe you can somehow hand waive it and play the "if Kobes individual and team success lined up he'd in the same way" when it's not really the case.

Bird peaked higher because he was a better player at his peak and it didn't have anything to do with his team.

I mean you can say that if you want. When Kobe had a good team he immediately went to 3 straight finals, won a MVP, won 2 finals MVPs, and was considered the best player by most people in the league and most people watching the league. And he did this with a much less stacked team than Bird did.

All Im saying is if Kobe would have gotten that team earlier he'd have dominated for longer, won more titles, and won more mvps. Do you disagree?

uh...kobe was on a 61 win team when he was 19 years old. what on earth do you mean if he had gotten a good team earlier, lmao. like if he had a good team when he was in middle school?

you're talking like kobe was struggling with a crap team then all of a sudden once he got some talent he started collecting rings. he started with a great team.

Kobe came straight out of HS in 1997 and never was on a team that won less than 50 games until 2005.

You misunderstood my point

LakerLegend wrote:Bird didn't peak higher, Kobe is a much better defensive player. a better scorer, and a better playoff performer.

84 and 86 Bird in the playoffs seem better than any Kobe version to me.

Bird was a much smarter player who knew much better how to involve his teammates and how to make the game easier for them.

Kobe was more known for breaking plays, exploring the game for his own scoring opportunities and not being instinctively able to switch between his scoring mode and his passing mode. Furthermore while Bird wasn't that prone to always trying to prove to everyone that he was able to hit the more difficult shots. There were moments when he was in that mode, but Kobe seemed to always be like that, resulting in taking way too many shots that weren't exactly from his sweet spots and a very mediocre outcome especially from 3P range often taking twice the amount of 3PA than Bird.

The effect: Bird came to a Celtics team that was basically the same like the year before other than him and they won 61 games instead of the 29 the year before. That was before Parish and McHale joined the team. Bird was the real difference that made his team championship contenders. I won't say that Kobe wasn't great but he was not that good as a ceiling raiser. People often cite his 5 championships, but get real: In the 2000 playoffs as a still quite young player he was averaging 21 / 4.5 / 4.4 on rather mediocre efficiency. He was an important contributor of that team but far from being the alleged 1B option that his stans declare him for for almost all of his career.