RealGM

Big Big Bird fan.

So is it Larry and then everyone else, or can anyone else put their name in the race as greatest forward ever?


How bout Pettit, Duncan, Erving, Baylor, Havlicek?

untouchable as of right now, unless Duncan wins 2 more titles as a #1..then there would be an argument, but that's a very difficult task..

there's a guy in Cleveland that might give him a run one day though..

Bird is untouched as the best F of all time, around 5th or 6th overall in my book. Duncan and Erving come the closest, somewhere around 9th or 10th, and there are some who define Duncan as a center even though he's mostly played PF. After that, there's a slew of forwards in the 10-15 range, like you said Malone, Pettit, Baylor, Havlicek, and now Kobe. Duncan would have to do a little more to reach/equal Bird, and LeBron has the greatest chance of anyone to equal and eventually overtake Bird as the greatest F of all time.

by the time Duncan retires, he'll play as much C as PF. I don't think he should be known as a PF. Even if he is, his peak isn't as high as Bird's. Bird's legacy also includes making the NBA relevant again and that is a significant aspect of greatness: appeal to the public. After all, you can't be great if no one know who you are. Duncan doesn't have that kind of ability.

Lebron has the best chance of the players know.

kooldude wrote:Bird's legacy also includes making the NBA relevant again and that is a significant aspect of greatness: appeal to the public. After all, you can't be great if no one know who you are. Duncan doesn't have that kind of ability.

Public appeal has nothing to do with what the players do on the court, which is the only thing relevant when comparing players. You can't control what the public thinks of you, you can only do what you do. Popularity, public ability, etc., is a different conversation and a different topic.

Public appeal has nothing to do with what the players do on the court

Eh. Had it been Tim Duncan and a Tim Duncan clone instead of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, the NBA would be less popular than hockey. People respond to spectacularly gifted athletes. Bird and Magic were wildly popular in part because they were playing the game in a breathtaking, unprecedented way. Not just dominating efficiency: Toying with opponents.

HarlemHeat37 wrote:untouchable as of right now, unless Duncan wins 2 more titles as a #1..then there would be an argument, but that's a very difficult task..

there's a guy in Cleveland that might give him a run one day though..

Hmm, that would give him 6 titles and i don't think he needs that many to surpass him. Duncan is already TOP 10 All-Time and if he continues to play on current level for at least 3 year and win 1 more titles as #1 i think he has a shot.

Kobe8Player wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Hmm, that would give him 6 titles and i don't think he needs that many to surpass him. Duncan is already TOP 10 All-Time and if he continues to play on current level for at least 3 year and win 1 more titles as #1 i think he has a shot.

Where is Duncan's nemesis, though? Shaq's Lakers directly cost the Spurs maybe one championship in 2004, and that's assuming the Spurs would've beaten the Pistons. Magic's Lakers directly cost Bird two titles. Without Magic around, Bird would've had 5.

Yup. Untouchable, with Duncan a few steps away and Lebron a future debate perhaps. Bird's B-ball IQ is his biggest skill imo. He made some of the most crafty plays ever seen in the Nba. Not jaw-dropping hightlights, but the "hey he stole my wallet!" type of plays are priceless. Duncan doesn't possess this, but he could dominate both ends of the floor at times. What would it take for James to surpass Bird?

Larry Bird is untouched for now. Duncan would have to do a lot to overtake him, even with the great resume he has already. LeBron has an outside chance, but it is by no means a lock (or even a good chance in my opinion).

Bird is probably untouched, but Duncan is tickling him. We'll see in 20 years how TD is regarded...

The thing Bird had is he managed to be a history-making basketball player despite looking like everything but a basketball player... I've always found it funny, and it just goes to show how extremely intelligent he was.

Sdot thadon wrote:Yup. Untouchable, with Duncan a few steps away and Lebron a future debate perhaps. Bird's B-ball IQ is his biggest skill imo. He made some of the most crafty plays ever seen in the Nba. Not jaw-dropping hightlights, but the "hey he stole my wallet!" type of plays are priceless. Duncan doesn't possess this, but he could dominate both ends of the floor at times. What would it take for James to surpass Bird?

Lebron James doesn't have the intangibles that Larry Bird has. That fierce competitiveness and drive to do everything possible to win a game. If Lebron James develops this, I could see him surpassing Bird, MAYBE.

And I know what you mean about those "he stole my wallet" plays. My dad is a huge Detroit Pistons fan and has been a fan since the mid 80's. He hates Larry Bird with a passion after the infamous inbounds steal to win them the game. His heart skipped a beat and said that play gave him nightmares days after.

It's those types of plays that Lebron James needs to even be equal with Bird. I'm not just talking about getting steals to win games. Kind of hard to explain, so I'll just say he needs those types of intangibles. Steve Nash has these intangibles, he's just not as good as Bird.

Right now, he is definitely untouched. The closest guys would have to Dr. J and Duncan, but Larry still tops them easily.

ThaRegul8r wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Public appeal has nothing to do with what the players do on the court, which is the only thing relevant when comparing players. You can't control what the public thinks of you, you can only do what you do. Popularity, public ability, etc., is a different conversation and a different topic.

when you're comparing greatness, things like skillset, career, individual accomplishments, and minor stuff like public opinion. MJ, by bringing basketball to the global market, added tremendously to his legacy. And if everyone now was able to witness what Wilt did against his opponents, I'm sure he would rate even higher, based on what eye-witnesses have repeatedly said.

wigglestrue wrote:

Public appeal has nothing to do with what the players do on the court

Eh. Had it been Tim Duncan and a Tim Duncan clone instead of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, the NBA would be less popular than hockey. People respond to spectacularly gifted athletes. Bird and Magic were wildly popular in part because they were playing the game in a breathtaking, unprecedented way. Not just dominating efficiency: Toying with opponents.

Public response to spectacularly gifted athletes has nothing to do with evaluating the greatness of a basketball player based on what he did on the court, what he brought to his team, again in games played on the court, etc. If you wanna talk about marketability, that's a separate discussion. The way Bird and Magic played the game is relevant when talking about their greatness and where they rank on the G.O.A.T. list. Whether or not the public responded to them is not. There have always been great players in every sport who weren't appreciated by the public, and you have flashier players who the public latches on to and are pushed by the marketing department, but that lies outside their greatness as a player which should involve what they did on the playing field of their respective sport. Greatness is not a popularity contest. It stands on its own.

kooldude wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



when you're comparing greatness, things like skillset, career, individual accomplishments, and minor stuff like public opinion. MJ, by bringing basketball to the global market, added tremendously to his legacy. And if everyone now was able to witness what Wilt did against his opponents, I'm sure he would rate even higher, based on what eye-witnesses have repeatedly said.

Public opinion has nothing to do with what a player accomplished on the playing field of his sport. One thing frequenting message boards should tell you is that public opinion often doesn't mean much of anything with many of the outlandish statements made by posters who are members of the selfsame public.

What Jordan did in bringing basketball to the global market is a separate discussion from what he did on the court, and there have been books that have just spoken to that aspect. Jordan's on-court accomplishments should stand on their own so that Jordan-backers shouldn't have to bring up popularity, which is ridiculous. If you're a coach looking to build a championship team are you concerned with getting players who the public have a high opinion of, or players who can play the game and get your team where you want it to go?

And you say that if people witnessed what Wilt did against his opponents, he'd rate even higher, based on eye-witness testimony, but that has nothing to do with opinion. What a player does against his opponents is not subjective opinion but objective fact. Such testimony would be based on what Wilt did on the court and not subjective things like "opinion" or "appeal."

Off the court stuff should be left off the court. Public opinion and popularity should have no more place in evaluating someone as a basketball player than people bringing up someone's personal life to bash them. I will continue to stand by that.

KG>bird

kandiking wrote:KG>bird

Right after that gigantic Bird thread just died down.

#1KnicksFan wrote:Big Big Bird fan.

So is it Larry and then everyone else, or can anyone else put their name in the race as greatest forward ever?


How bout Pettit, Duncan, Erving, Baylor, Havlicek?

Bird is my #1 forward of all time, but Duncan and Erving are very close to him. On my all-time list I've got:

6. Bird
7. Duncan
8. Erving

wigglestrue wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Where is Duncan's nemesis, though? Shaq's Lakers directly cost the Spurs maybe one championship in 2004, and that's assuming the Spurs would've beaten the Pistons. Magic's Lakers directly cost Bird two titles. Without Magic around, Bird would've had 5.

Huh? The Lakers ousted the Spurs in 2001, 2002, and 2004. And you're assuming the Lakers or any other team wouldn't have reloaded their teams with great superstars to combat the Celtics.