RealGM

Who do you think is a better player all time? Also, who is better on offense

Narigo wrote:Who do you think is a better player all time?

Poll?

Another case where just because player A had more rings than player B I still don't think he was greater.

Arguments for both but as for me its West > Bird due to being the superior playoff riser of the two. Other than rebounding and passing (both of which i don't think West was a slouch at himself) i think West was superior at every other facet of the game.

Bird is better on both and it's not even close.

One_and_Done wrote:Bird is better on both and it's not even close.

Because he's more modern, we get it. This despite the fact that West was not only the more explosive scorer but clearly the better defender plus he was one of history's playoff risers while Bird struggled to maintain his impact in playoff games. Would you have answered Bird if we asked which player stood out from the peers of his eras more without worrying about how strong that era was?

It's perfectly legit to say Bird is better; saying it without reason or analysis adds nothing to the conversation.

penbeast0 wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Bird is better on both and it's not even close.

Because he's more modern, we get it. This despite the fact that West was not only the more explosive scorer but clearly the better defender plus he was one of history's playoff risers while Bird struggled to maintain his impact in playoff games. Would you have answered Bird if we asked which player stood out from the peers of his eras more without worrying about how strong that era was?

It's perfectly legit to say Bird is better; saying it without reason or analysis adds nothing to the conversation.

Where is the evidence of the Bird type lift for a team for West? Given that West played in the weaker era, it should be easy to spot, but it's not there.

One_and_Done wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Bird is better on both and it's not even close.

Because he's more modern, we get it. This despite the fact that West was not only the more explosive scorer but clearly the better defender plus he was one of history's playoff risers while Bird struggled to maintain his impact in playoff games. Would you have answered Bird if we asked which player stood out from the peers of his eras more without worrying about how strong that era was?

It's perfectly legit to say Bird is better; saying it without reason or analysis adds nothing to the conversation.

Where is the evidence of the Bird type lift for a team for West? Given that West played in the weaker era, it should be easy to spot, but it's not there.

West WOWY type numbers are better than Bird's.

West was a much better defender and pure shot creator and therefore playmaker IMO.

Not to say better...Scorer. But in terms of pure shot creation with or without a dribble, he is better than Bird.

Better finisher. Foul-drawer. Better athlete. Could gain separation to create easier than Larry.

It's rare you see a guy be inferior to a guy on impact but better in the ways I listed. Possible. But definitely rare.

70sFan wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:
Because he's more modern, we get it. This despite the fact that West was not only the more explosive scorer but clearly the better defender plus he was one of history's playoff risers while Bird struggled to maintain his impact in playoff games. Would you have answered Bird if we asked which player stood out from the peers of his eras more without worrying about how strong that era was?

It's perfectly legit to say Bird is better; saying it without reason or analysis adds nothing to the conversation.

Where is the evidence of the Bird type lift for a team for West? Given that West played in the weaker era, it should be easy to spot, but it's not there.

West WOWY type numbers are better than Bird's.

I don't care about WOWY though.

Meanwhile the Lakers averaged 49.4 wins per year during West's career, despite him being surrounded by some incredible talent. If we chopped off his last 3 years that number would be even lower. The Lakers made the finals 2 years before West arrived with Baylor leading them. West had alot around him from the get go.

It was nothing like the turnaround Bird brought the Celtics.

One_and_Done wrote:It was nothing like the turnaround Bird brought the Celtics.

Sure, but the turnaround with Bird's arrival also coincided with a bunch of other changes to Boston's roster and coaching, so it doesn't wholly reflect Bird's individual impact.

I've had them very close and on a similar tier for quite a while. Close enough that if West had been fully healthy and had a strong playoff run in 72 I might have him higher. So maybe it does come down to Bird having 3 rings and helping to orchestrate such a huge turn around from 79 to 80. Not saying its right to have Bird higher and maybe West's playoff consistency and defense is enough to put him ahead but I think I have Bird at 10th and West at 11th all time.

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:It was nothing like the turnaround Bird brought the Celtics.

Sure, but the turnaround with Bird's arrival also coincided with a bunch of other changes to Boston's roster and coaching, so it doesn't wholly reflect Bird's individual impact.

Not 100%, but most of the other changes in 80 weren't needle movers. West joined a team that had made a finals run 2 years earlier, so even in era he did worse.

One_and_Done wrote:Not 100%, but most of the other changes in 80 weren't needle movers. West joined a team that had made a finals run 2 years earlier, so even in era he did worse.

I think any one of those changes probably wasn't big, but there were a whole bunch.


I mean, AND Bird was awesome, obviously. But he didn't do it on his own and people do like to treat it as if that were the case.

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Not 100%, but most of the other changes in 80 weren't needle movers. West joined a team that had made a finals run 2 years earlier, so even in era he did worse.

I think any one of those changes probably wasn't big, but there were a whole bunch.


I mean, AND Bird was awesome, obviously. But he didn't do it on his own and people do like to treat it as if that were the case.

We disagree. I feel it was mostly Bird.

One_and_Done wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Not 100%, but most of the other changes in 80 weren't needle movers. West joined a team that had made a finals run 2 years earlier, so even in era he did worse.

I think any one of those changes probably wasn't big, but there were a whole bunch.


I mean, AND Bird was awesome, obviously. But he didn't do it on his own and people do like to treat it as if that were the case.

We disagree. I feel it was mostly Bird.

I very much doubt Bird was responsible for their large defensive shift.

Steady coaching was helpful. Not having to play Cowens 37 mpg was helpful. Having a steady starting 5 was helpful. Having Tiny all year was helpful. The aggregate improvement from all of that stuff matters, and Boston's team improvement was large at either end.

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

tsherkin wrote:
I think any one of those changes probably wasn't big, but there were a whole bunch.


I mean, AND Bird was awesome, obviously. But he didn't do it on his own and people do like to treat it as if that were the case.

We disagree. I feel it was mostly Bird.

I very much doubt Bird was responsible for their large defensive shift.

Steady coaching was helpful. Not having to play Cowens 37 mpg was helpful. Having a steady starting 5 was helpful. Having Tiny all year was helpful. The aggregate improvement from all of that stuff matters, and Boston's team improvement was large at either end.

I mean, I don't think Tiny helped their D either. The team didn't really add much extra defensive talent, so I don't think it was personnel that improved it. However, I think Bird is responsible in 3 ways:
1) Bird brought an organiser to the team, who helped co-ordinate their defensive efforts. His floor game was huge.
2) Bird was a better defender in 80, and was always strong on help D.
3) Bird taking on the load on offense, and running the offense, gave other role players more energy to focus on D.

I'd also warn about overrating the role of the Celtics D with this binary thinking about D and O as 50% components that equally contributed to winning. The offense improved much more than the D did anyway.

One_and_Done wrote:I mean, I don't think Tiny helped their D either. The team didn't really add much extra defensive talent, I think Bird is responsible in 3 ways:

Neither do I. I suspect his impact was more offensive, for sure.

1) Bird brought an organiser to the team, who helped co-ordinate their defensive efforts. His floor game was huge.
2) Bird was a better defender in 80, and was always strong on help D.

Sure, but they made a swing from a +2.6 defense to a -3.4 defense. That was not Bird alone, and I don't think him becoming the centerpiece of the offense was enough to give everyone else the energy to do that either.

I've got Bird a solid step ahead on a 'best career' type list, better health/team success.

For better player, I'm not 100%, still lean Bird, would come down to team building needs/preferences.

Unlike some here I've got Bird solidly ahead on D up until the big injury. Might even prefer Bird relative to position (West a 1/2, Bird a 3/4). Position agnostic it's not close.

eminence wrote:I've got Bird a solid step ahead on a 'best career' type list, better health/team success.

For better player, I'm not 100%, still lean Bird, would come down to team building needs/preferences.

Unlike some here I've got Bird solidly ahead on D up until the big injury. Might even prefer Bird relative to position (West a 1/2, Bird a 3/4). Position agnostic it's not close.

The thing is though that even if you have Bird ahead up until then that's only 6 seasons and then his defense starts falling off pretty fast while West was named all def 1st team from age 30-34(and likely would have been from age 25-29) and avged 2.6spg at age 35 even after all those injuries. Plus Bird was likely a big negative from 87 on defensively so I think West wins on defense by a pretty big margin.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

eminence wrote:I've got Bird a solid step ahead on a 'best career' type list, better health/team success.

For better player, I'm not 100%, still lean Bird, would come down to team building needs/preferences.

Unlike some here I've got Bird solidly ahead on D up until the big injury. Might even prefer Bird relative to position (West a 1/2, Bird a 3/4). Position agnostic it's not close.

The thing is though that even if you have Bird ahead up until then that's only 6 seasons and then his defense starts falling off pretty fast while West was named all def 1st team from age 30-34 and avged 2.6spg at age 35 even after all those injuries. Plus Bird was likely a big negative from 87 on defensively so I think West wins on defense by a pretty big margin.

I would still take Bird in later 80s seasons (maybe all the way through), just less solidly.

Bird was never a negative on D imo. We have a large WOWY sample from '90-'92 for Bird and he certainly doesn't look to fall into that class. Average at worst, and likely solidly above even in the 90's.