RealGM

How would the nba looked and particularly the Celtics of Bird never I need his back and Reggie Lewis didn't die, he was emerging in 92? How would the nba have been different.

Longevity people have to rank Bird higher. Probably accolades people too.

Fans would have got to see more of a basketball genius.

Maybe Chicago doesn’t win their first couple of rings

A bird vs Jordan ecf would have been something.

prolific passer wrote:A bird vs Jordan ecf would have been something.

Would've been epic and maybe Boston would've had too much talent for the Bulls.

Not hard to see them disrupting the pistons and bulls title runs, at least partially.

They may have been in the ECF each year but never advancing after 1988. At there peak/primes in 1987 they barely advanced and due to an error on Isiah's part. Bird never won a series without HCA. Also lost 7 series with HCA.

JordansBulls wrote:They may have been in the ECF each year but never advancing after 1988. At there peak/primes in 1987 they barely advanced and due to an error on Isiah's part. Bird never won a series without HCA. Also lost 7 series with HCA.

Yeah but Bird always found a way to get the best of Jordan. At least up until 91.

JordansBulls wrote:They may have been in the ECF each year but never advancing after 1988. At there peak/primes in 1987 they barely advanced and due to an error on Isiah's part. Bird never won a series without HCA. Also lost 7 series with HCA.

Yes.

In retrospect it was quite foolish of him to contribute massively to huge regular seasons. He could have coasted, given his teams a tougher route and had more enviable, low-risk high-reward non-HCA series. Said nobody else, ever.

But that has to be the logic here. Bird played in 13 seasons. '89 was a write off after playing in 6 games. So 12 seasons. Three were title seasons. 9 left. The teams he was on (through mixed/poor health later e.g. missing playoff games in '91, '92) apparently lost 7 with HCA. So "never won a series without HCA" amounts to, this player, a 3 time best player on a championship team, who consistently went deep into the playoffs, did so playing in the clearly tougher conference most of his career, only twice came up against a team with HCA which I would assume is in 1987 versus the best "Showtime" Lakers team [8.31 SRS] who benefited from an easier route to the finals and '92 with a washed up, chronically pained Bird missing 3 games and being 8th on his team in series minutes in a loss to the Cavaliers.

'87 Boston didn't advance due to one Thomas mistake. They advanced due to winning 4 games (which itself is a complex interplay of a great many facets). One could certainly argue they were fortunate to do so, given they were outscored by 26 points.

You can argue Bird gets less heat than others for a playoff composite dropoff.

Still the idea that this is a constructive line of criticism ... It does seem to be a consistently applied criteria but it's no less consistently silly.

You should be asking about Bird and Bias. It would have gotten Bird 5-6 rings.

atlantabbq99 wrote:You should be asking about Bird and Bias. It would have gotten Bird 5-6 rings.

Also a legit question and probably true, they would've possibly gotten at least five championships but likely Bird would've not been the best player past 1990 if Bias was that good. In 92 Lewis was arguably the best player already for them.

atlantabbq99 wrote:You should be asking about Bird and Bias. It would have gotten Bird 5-6 rings.

I'm inclined to disagree.

Firstly, because you offer no caution or qualification, it just "should" be so (and it "would" add rings).

Secondly, because I think I see the Bias version of this type of question more anyway so this version is more interesting because it's less rehashed.

Thirdly, because based on frame and seeing him do it, I can be confident Lewis can be useful at the 2. If Bird is healthy, someone fitting pretty directly as a 3 would be sub-optimal.

Fourthly, because we can have a greater degree of confidence Lewis reached a certain level given his NBA production and WoWY (noisy in general but iirc strong for RL).

Fifthly, (and this also relates back to Q1 with no caution or qualification) ... the manner of Bias's death. It feels easy to say "We're giving Lewis no heart condition" and everyone understands what happens and agrees with what that universe is, he hasn't lost any advantage ... if Bias didn't die. Does he become a tease like classmate Tarpley. A washout like Washburn or Bedford. Or are we saying he doesn't and won't ever take drugs? Are we having to change his personality now and if so what effect does that have? I think people will start on different assumptions and thus it's harder to get to a constructive debate.

Sixthly, and relating to the above it's unclear what framing you're promoting. Are you saying people should be considering with Bias and no Bird injury ... but without Lewis (drafted elsewhere, Boston pick wasted) where this question is, within a specific context, a proxy for Bias vs Lewis, with Bias as more interesting because you think he's better ... or are these additional 2-3 rings coming with Bird healthy, Bias ... whatever he is and Lewis as he was. So not Bias versus anyone directly but Bird's health alone perhaps not interesting enough, or just not tilting everything pro the team we're looking at enough. Or is it that even with a more graceful decline, Lewis is there for Bird's age 35 season, so whilst he might well age really well, Lewis's death isn't changing much for Boston's title window, where adding Bias might (a very reasonable position). "Should" Lewis not be in the Q because of his play (not being that significant and he's lost) or timelines (and he remains)? It isn't as clearly put as OP's question.

The above isn't to foreclose on what Bias might have been. Fwiw, off limited info I do get the impression he may be mythologized a bit, but could be wrong. I do sometimes wonder if Daugherty and his passing game had been available how he might have fit with Bird (obviously his features a positional clash with Parish, probably forces some big lineups, or a trade at some point).