why do people rank bird over kob?

[OhayoKD]

Then there is the fact that Bird was the undisputed best player on some historic offenses that surpassed what Kobe did. For example, the 1988 Celtics had an offense surpassing the RS efficiency of even the 87 peak Lakers. Boston’s true shooting percentage was 58.8% in 1988, a record that would stand until the 2016 Warriors shot 59 percent in their 73-win season per Backpicks.

It was just the RS either. 1986-1988 Boston had a rORTG of +7 in the PS. The 08-10 Lakers were close at +6.7. However, Bird has more stretches of guiding truly prolific PS offense as the true #1.

Bird's never been on a playoff offense nearly as good as the +13(+20 overall). A 5-point(13-point overall) improvement from what they were in 2000 by san's psrs. Very easy to argue from any statisical lense Kobe played better offensively that run than Bird ever has. And those statistics are giving bird lots of credit for uncontested rebounds and no blame for when he gives up layups or gets blown by.

And when we look at non-box, we see Bird does not look anything close to the league-best force people think he was.

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.

Problem is Bird wasn't the first or even second rim protector. Which makes him a potential liability at power-forward with the right matchups(cough Pistons cough). Bird is an excellent example of worse defenders getting to inflate their numbers by playing next to better ones.

In that light, I do not see how box-aggregates make a strong case for him.

If you look at things in comparison to how they did versus their peers against the same defenses in the PS, the Celtics gain even more ground.

The Boston Celtics did by far the worst against the Pistons relative to the Bird and Magic.

Reggie Miller led more reselient defenses piping him in terms of playoff offense overall. So yeah, not sure how this helps Bird. As covered Bird's scoring and playmaking volume fell off without a trade-off in effeciency, and using advanced creation stuff(passer-rating, box oc) we see that Kobe and Bird are outright comparable creators with Kobe's far better ball-handling and more versatile scoring arsenal compensating for Bird's raw passing advantage.

Magic, Reggie, and Jordan all led better playoff offenses. Even without Shaq, Kobe's offenses were similar and with they are obviously better.

You can argue Bird had an edge well enough, but trying to mark the gap as big requires an aggressive cherrypicking of evidence.

And Kobe very obviously has the career value/longetvity, and also very obviously has the winning, versatility, proof of concept in a variety of contexts, and played in the better league against better competition. He also reached higher highs in the playoffs matching or exceeding all of Bird's accomplished with the exception of regular-season MVP's.

Bird may have been Magic's rival, but that was only in stature. He was nowhere close when it came to basketball.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Then there is the fact that Bird was the undisputed best player on some historic offenses that surpassed what Kobe did. For example, the 1988 Celtics had an offense surpassing the RS efficiency of even the 87 peak Lakers. Boston’s true shooting percentage was 58.8% in 1988, a record that would stand until the 2016 Warriors shot 59 percent in their 73-win season per Backpicks.

It was just the RS either. 1986-1988 Boston had a rORTG of +7 in the PS. The 08-10 Lakers were close at +6.7. However, Bird has more stretches of guiding truly prolific PS offense as the true #1.

Bird's never been on a playoff offense nearly as good as the +13(+20 overall). A 5-point(13-point overall) improvement from what they were in 2000 by san's psrs. Very easy to argue from any statisical lense Kobe played better offensively that run than Bird ever has. And those statistics are giving bird lots of credit for uncontested rebounds and no blame for when he gives up layups or gets blown by.

And when we look at non-box, we see Bird does not look anything close to the league-best force people think he was.

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.

Problem is Bird wasn't the first or even second rim protector. Which makes him a potential liability at power-forward with the right matchups(cough Pistons cough). Bird is an excellent example of worse defenders getting to inflate their numbers by playing next to better ones.

In that light, I do not see how box-aggregates make a strong case for him.

If you look at things in comparison to how they did versus their peers against the same defenses in the PS, the Celtics gain even more ground.

The Boston Celtics did by far the worst against the Pistons relative to the Bird and Magic.

Reggie Miller led more reselient defenses piping him in terms of playoff offense overall. So yeah, not sure how this helps Bird. As covered Bird's scoring and playmaking volume fell off without a trade-off in effeciency, and using advanced creation stuff(passer-rating, box oc) we see that Kobe and Bird are outright comparable creators with Kobe's far better ball-handling and more versatile scoring arsenal compensating for Bird's raw passing advantage.

Magic, Reggie, and Jordan all led better playoff offenses. Even without Shaq, Kobe's offenses were similar and with they are obviously better.

You can argue Bird had an edge well enough, but trying to mark the gap as big requires an aggressive cherrypicking of evidence.

And Kobe very obviously has the career value/longetvity, and also very obviously has the winning, versatility, proof of concept in a variety of contexts, and played in the better league against better competition. He also reached higher highs in the playoffs matching or exceeding all of Bird's accomplished with the exception of regular-season MVP's.

Bird may have been Magic's rival, but that was only in stature. He was nowhere close when it came to basketball.

Where did I say the gap was big? Get real.

Also why bring up Reggie? One common opponent where the Pacers did better than the Celtics, doesn't mean they were absolutely better. Matchups matter.

Factually, by common offensive rating, those Bird-Celtics did peak higher on offense in the PS than those Pacers. This is a number, that can't be disputed.

2nd, I clearly was comparing the Lakers team where Kobe was the clear #1 guy, as I say in my post. If Bird had Shaq instead of McHale, I'm pretty sure his team offenses could be stronger than they were. Furthermore, I don't see why Bird couldn't fill in place of Kobe and lead those Lakers teams to similar results.

3rd, trying to argue Bird anything close to a liability in his defensive role, just doesn't track with me. He was the secondary rim-protector in the starting line-ups, and their team results are suggestive of him doing well. Bird was a great roamed as well, and presented more defensive value than simple rim-protection. He beat guys to spots before they could even attempt to take shots, which is an underrated form of rim-protection.

[Johnny Tomala]

Prime Bird was just better player than Kobe. That's why he is ranked ahead of Kobe on most list. If You are high on longevity You can have Kobe ahead. I have Bird as 7th best all time, Kobe 13th.

[ceiling raiser]

I actually think Bird vs Kobe is a legitimate debate. Both guys were top 5 offensive players multiple times within a decade (Bird 80s, Kobe 00s), were comparable liabilities defensively, had similar longevity, and were similar scorers outside the paint and inside the arc (Bird a little better outside, Bryant a little better inside, though neither was a special finisher nor shooter).

[SNPA]

Bird was the best player in the planet for at least half a decade. Kobe wasn’t even the best player on his team at times and there’s a strong case he isn’t even the best SG in in Lakers history.

This isn’t that close.

[kcktiny]

Bird was the best player in the planet for at least half a decade.

Almost a decade.

His first 9 years in the league (1979-80 to 1987-88), before being injured, Bird:

- was the key reason the Celtics averaged 61 wins a season
- won 3 titles
- was all-NBA 1st team all 9 years
- was MVP 3 times
- those 9 years among all NBA players scored the 2nd most points, grabbed the 3rd most rebounds, had the 4th most steals, threw for the 6th most assists
- played 1000+ more minutes than any player in the league
- played 6400+ more minutes than any other Celtics player (that's over 700 min/year)
- was clearly the best player on his team each of those 9 seasons

Can't fault a guy for getting injured. But in terms of peak performance, hard to find a better performance over such a long time.

[SNPA]

Bird was the best player in the planet for at least half a decade.

Almost a decade.

His first 9 years in the league (1979-80 to 1987-88), before being injured, Bird:

- was the key reason the Celtics averaged 61 wins a season
- won 3 titles
- was all-NBA 1st team all 9 years
- was MVP 3 times
- those 9 years among all NBA players scored the 2nd most points, grabbed the 3rd most rebounds, had the 4th most steals, threw for the 6th most assists
- played 1000+ more minutes than any player in the league
- played 6400+ more minutes than any other Celtics player (that's over 700 min/year)
- was clearly the best player on his team each of those 9 seasons

Can't fault a guy for getting injured. But in terms of peak performance, hard to find a better performance over such a long time.

I did not know that.

This whole debate can be ended by this stat, Bird’s MVP finishes:

Rookie - 4th, then he goes…

2/2/2/1/1/1/3/2

He collects 67% of all MVP votes from 80-89.

https://oldskoolbball.com/larry-bird-mvp-votes/

It’s a run damn near unparalleled and is certainly well outside of Kobe’s range.

Bird was the best player on the planet. Kobe never was. They aren’t in the same tier. They might not be in neighboring tiers.

[OhayoKD]

Where did I say the gap was big? Get real.

Did I say you did? You edited it out, but this is a strawman:

Also why bring up Reggie? One common opponent where the Pacers did better than the Celtics, doesn't mean they were absolutely better. Matchups matter.

I didn't say the Pacers "were better against the Pistons". Nor did I say they "peaked" higher. I said...

So in his whole prime his team underperformed offensively just twice despite 14 of his 22 series being against top 5 defenses. On average in the regular season his teams' offenses played at a +2.5 level. In the playoffs they played at a +6.4 level. Remove series against teams that weren't top 5 defenses and they performed at a +6.3 level (he averaged 23.0/3.1/2.6 on 60.2 TS% with a 120 ORTG). Reggie Miller's offensive postseason results are insane and paint him as being extremely impactful.

...they were better overall

2nd, I clearly was comparing the Lakers team where Kobe was the clear #1 guy, as I say in my post. If Bird had Shaq instead of McHale, I'm pretty sure his team offenses could be stronger than they were. Furthermore, I don't see why Bird couldn't fill in place of Kobe and lead those Lakers teams to similar results.

Well there is his extremely limited ball-handling, his comparatively limited scoring arsenal...yeah I don't see why we should leave out a Kobe offense producing way better results than any of Bird's when Kobe literally destroyed anything Bird's done statistically. With Pau, Kobe actually hit in +9.8 in 2008 which is better than any full-strength Bird mark.

If we make it a 3-year stretch, Kobe's "RAPTOR WAR"(which isn't even the same stat as the pre-97 version) is actually higher from 08-10

3rd, trying to argue Bird anything close to a liability in his defensive role, just doesn't track with me. He was the secondary rim-protector in the starting line-ups, and their team results are suggestive of him doing well.

Are they?

Unless you have Bird's defense peaking at 80-82, this seems to me like a team whose defensive results don't really have much to do with what larry's doing.

And no. He was a tertiary who could be caught giving up wide open shots at the rim from basically nothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3661&v=Nm2efjx9Xus&feature=youtu.be
For all the crazy "defensive iq" he apparently has, he could be baited into big f-ck-ups a fair bit and was often making questionable reads or ball-watching. Combine that with bad lateral agility and you can get some pretty horrific defensive performances:

This game was actually a pretty good example of why tossing box-aggregates is a quesitonable way of comparing different types of players. Bird had a whopping 14 defensive rebounds. Exactly 2 of them were uncontested. Pair this with Bird not being the guy deterring players at the rim and this basically means the vast majority of his boards were virtually worthless.

Does any of this factor into the box-score? No. But it does factor into his overall impact where by Moonbean's method(which is still somewhat box-biased) he is looking worse than not one, not two, but three of his contemporaries throughout the 80's and he's not able to lead kobe+ teams or offenses despite very good help(45-wins without in 87/88).

Bird was the best player on the planet. Kobe never was. They aren’t in the same tier. They might not be in neighboring tiers.

Prime Bird was just better player than Kobe. That's why he is ranked ahead of Kobe on most list. If You are high on longevity You can have Kobe ahead. I have Bird as 7th best all time, Kobe 13th.

Maybe on paper or in your head. On the basketball court he was nothing close to that. But I'm sure you have a Beethoven analogy for us(maybe try to not butcher music history this time).

[70sFan]

So now it's inexcusable to pick Larry Bird over Kobe Bryant for peaks? Seriously?

[70sFan]

Bird was the best player in the planet for at least half a decade. Kobe wasn’t even the best player on his team at times and there’s a strong case he isn’t even the best SG in in Lakers history.

This isn’t that close.

When do you have Bird as the best player in the league? I can't think about more than 3-4 seasons to be honest.

[OhayoKD]

So now it's inexcusable to pick Larry Bird over Kobe Bryant for peaks? Seriously?

It is silly to pretend he peaked much higher as half the posters here are. And it is inexcusable to think his career was greater if your criteria values longetvity highly as even with an absurd delta(Bird top 5, Kobe barely top 20), Kobe still generates more value over his career. Frankly for a project and voter board that typically values stuff like longevity and winning highly Bird consistently finishing ahead of players like KG and Kobe only really makes sense if you're glazing him as if he was some near-dpoy defender and a near magic-offensive engine.

His reputation is built more on an idea of what he could be than what he actually is, kinda like a certain 7-footer who also can't get it done when the deck isn't stacked. Yet I don't see anyone here(OaD excepted) trying to toss Durant's all-time peak box-scores or his one-off all-time rs signal to justify him as a top-10 candidate.

"Natural talent", "beethoven", "basketball genius", "best in the world"? Yeah, no. Let's call him what he was. A guy whose rep was always greatly inflated based on the achievements of a "rival" who very clearly isn't all that once you look closer(kind of like Durant).

Unsuprisingly there's been very little effort from any of his voters to justify him being placed over others in a comparative sense. Because let's be honest, if you're voting Bird top 10, it's not because of the basketball.

[AdagioPace]

given the traction KG and Kobe are having on this board lately, I would also entertain the idea that Dirk might have been better than Bird (career wise, impact wise) but I don't want to be guillotined for lèse-majesty

[OhayoKD]

given the traction KG and Kobe are having on this board lately, I would also entertain the idea that Dirk might have been better than Bird (career wise, impact wise) but I don't want to be guillotined for lèse-majesty

If you care about longetivity alot, I'd say probably? I'll say it again. Ben taylor literally gives his guy an upper-bound of Lebron+, and Dirk still still comes out ahead in his formula even with Ben deciding Bird is some portability god because he led worse playoff offenses than reggie miller. He might actually be the most overrated player in nba history. And I do not say that lightly.

[DCasey91]

So now it's inexcusable to pick Larry Bird over Kobe Bryant for peaks? Seriously?

It is silly to pretend he peaked much higher as half the posters here are. And it is inexcusable to think his career was greater if your criteria values longetvity highly as even with an absurd delta(Bird top 5, Kobe barely top 20), Kobe still generates more value over his career. Frankly for a project and voter board that typically values stuff like longevity and winning highly Bird consistently finishing ahead of players like KG and Kobe only really makes sense if you're glazing him as if he was some near-dpoy defender and a near magic-offensive engine.

His reputation is built more on an idea of what he could be than what he actually is, kinda like a certain 7-footer who also can't get it done when the deck isn't stacked. Yet I don't see anyone here(OaD excepted) trying to toss Durant's all-time peak box-scores or his one-off all-time rs signal to justify him as a top-10 candidate.

"Natural talent", "beethoven", "basketball genius", "best in the world"? Yeah, no. Let's call him what he was. A guy whose rep was always greatly inflated based on the achievements of a "rival" who very clearly isn't all that once you look closer(kind of like Durant).

Unsuprisingly there's been very little effort from any of his voters to justify him being placed over others in a comparative sense. Because let's be honest, if you're voting Bird top 10, it's not because of the basketball.

Why the hate against Bird?

That last sentence seems absurd to me.

I see it the other way around if anything some of Kobe’s shortcomings are his own fault (shot selection, ego issues at certain times.)

Bird ahead of Kobe and cemented in the top ten all time isn’t some hot take.

Dudes a genius. 61 win average is crazy, so is the MVP finishes over half a decade, titles the whole works

Peakwise it’s certainly more than entirely reasonable to have Bird ahead.

If posters are an importance to longevity fine do the same for Curry/Magic. It leads to double standards… can’t have that

Also longevity does not equal success. His rival should also be in the top ten all time personally but once again projects like the one going on go dangerously close to purely theoretical adjustments, and pseudo random criteria objectively, subjectively or personal bias in order to put someone above the other.

It’s a poor at best playground argument you have as kids, oh I found one thing of the whole that’s better than that therefore the whole thing is better than the other. That doesn’t work nor does it hold up on any overall construction/deconstruction when trying to figure out especially on ranking player X vs player Y.

Peak play is after all peak play. Isn’t it a general rule of thumb that can be comparable to cross eras?

What value do you suppose each brings in a vacuum on winning equity? Is it arbitrary at best?

I cannot take anyone serious that dismantles a legend of a player through utter drivel. And that goes for any great player.

[OhayoKD]

I cannot take anyone serious that dismantles a legend of a player through utter drivel

"Utter drivel"? Appreciate the Cox impersonation, but no, this is what "drivel" looks like:

If posters are an importance to longevity fine do the same for Curry/Magic. It leads to double standards… can’t have that

Uh no. Curry/Magic led better offenses and won more and have better impact portfolios and are better creators and better scorers and better ball-handlers. You know what's a double-standard? Hyping "averaged a 61-win team" and then bringing up the #1 and #2 in playoff win percentage, the #1 in regular season win percentage, and a guy who averaged a 68-win srs over 5 years as if they are somehow equal to the dude with 3 rings.

"3 straight MVP's" is not a part, it is the whole. Them playgrounds go hard tho

Also longevity does not equal success. His rival should also be in the top ten all time personally but once again projects like the one going on go dangerously close to purely theoretical adjustments, and pseudo random criteria objectively, subjectively or personal bias in order to put someone above the other.

Did the kids at the playground not teach you that 5 is greater than 3? I think that should matter for a nemesis of the "purely theoretical". Per usual, the defenses of this very legitimate top-10 player, collapse under an inkling of scrutiny

What value do you suppose each brings in a vacuum on winning equity? Is it arbitrary at best?

. And that goes for any great player.

Bro, you are not alfred. Spamming rhetorical questions does not mean you have a point.

[70sFan]

It is silly to pretend he peaked much higher as half the posters here are.

Depends on what you mean by "much higher". I think there is a room to argue that Kobe peaked higher, but it's not really controversial to choose Bird for peaks.

And it is inexcusable to think his career was greater if your criteria values longetvity highly as even with an absurd delta(Bird top 5, Kobe barely top 20), Kobe still generates more value over his career.

Yes, if you value longevity highly then it's hard to argue Bird ahead of Kobe. I don't have Bird higher on my list personally.

Frankly for a project and voter board that typically values stuff like longevity and winning highly Bird consistently finishing ahead of players like KG and Kobe only really makes sense if you're glazing him as if he was some near-dpoy defender and a near magic-offensive engine.

Well, most people valuing Bird highly probably have him as near Magic offensive engine. Some people argue that he's all-defensive level as well, it's more controversial though (I don't see him that way for example).

His reputation is built more on an idea of what he could be than what he actually is, kinda like a certain 7-footer who also can't get it done when the deck isn't stacked.

I don't think that's totally true. I know that some people overrate Bird's scoring ability, but overall his reputation is built exactly on what he did on the court.

"Natural talent", "beethoven", "basketball genius", "best in the world"? Yeah, no. Let's call him what he was. A guy whose rep was always greatly inflated based on the achievements of a "rival" who very clearly isn't all that once you look closer(kind of like Durant).

Your analogy with LeBron vs Durant is completely off here, because Magic and Bird were rivals. It's not true at all that Magic was always clearly better than Bird and only team circumstances and media coverage created an illusion of rivarly.

I always stay on Magic side in this debate, but Bird definitely competed with Johnson, in some seasons even outcompeting him.

Unsuprisingly there's been very little effort from any of his voters to justify him being placed over others in a comparative sense. Because let's be honest, if you're voting Bird top 10, it's not because of the basketball.

It's Kobe vs Bird discussion though, neither should be voted in the top 10. If you think Bird's career isn't good enough for top 10, I am with you, but this is not where the discussion started.

I don't agree that Kobe is a better basketball player at his peak and Bird has better reputation only because of narratives. Your posts suggest that people who think Bird peaked higher than Kobe aren't knowledgeable enough or have a clear bias in the comparison, that's something I find "silly" (your choice of words).

[OhayoKD]

It is silly to pretend he peaked much higher as half the posters here are.

Depends on what you mean by "much higher". I think there is a room to argue that Kobe peaked higher, but it's not really controversial to choose Bird for peaks.

And I never said you couldn't. But that is not what the ben taylors or "natural talent" crowd are pushing, even in this very thread.

And it is inexcusable to think his career was greater if your criteria values longetvity highly as even with an absurd delta(Bird top 5, Kobe barely top 20), Kobe still generates more value over his career.

Yes, if you value longevity highly then it's hard to argue Bird ahead of Kobe. I don't have Bird higher on my list personally.

Well, past project-rankings, rationale, and pre-project criteria lists would all suggest "longetvity" is valued highly and yet...

Frankly for a project and voter board that typically values stuff like longevity and winning highly Bird consistently finishing ahead of players like KG and Kobe only really makes sense if you're glazing him as if he was some near-dpoy defender and a near magic-offensive engine.

Well, most people valuing Bird highly probably have him as near Magic offensive engine. Some people argue that he's all-defensive level as well, it's more controversial though (I don't see him that way for example).

Yeah, and I'd say that's nonsense. You've acknowledged the scoring weakness, but his creation is far more problematic. As covered in the 2nd spoiler on post #17 by box creation/passer-rating(latter tracks creation quality), Bird is well below Jordan who is well below steph who is below Lebron...who is completely dominated by Magic and Nash in both volume and effeciency. You know who he does look comparable to? Kobe.

We can also see this in his Bird's own passing highlights where he creates wide open looks at a far lower rate than Johnson and is unable to manipulate defenses pre-pass to a similar extent because he lacks the handles and the rim-gravity. And then there is simple box where Bird's ast% drops in the playoffs along with his scoring volume.

And sure, you can dismiss all of the above as biased and subjective if you really want to. But you know what isn't biased or subjective? The results. Magic leads way better playoff offenses, with or without Kareem. Outside of a more suspicious 2014 Durant equivalent(1980), Magic also dominates his era in discernable rs impact signals(okay drob but otherwise) while being #1 in rs and playoff win percentage.

If that wasn't enough, it's Magic who was able to carry not-great teams to a title in 88 and two-finals in 89 and 91. When has Bird won without great help?

You seem to think BIrd being a peer is defensible, but I do not see the case.

His reputation is built more on an idea of what he could be than what he actually is, kinda like a certain 7-footer who also can't get it done when the deck isn't stacked.

I don't think that's totally true. I know that some people overrate Bird's scoring ability, but overall his reputation is built exactly on what he did on the court.

But the scoring isn't even what's overrated most. He's one of the greatest passers ever...if his teammates get him the ball in the right spots. Just like KD is a goat-level scorer...if his teammates get him the ball in the right spots.

People see the passing, they see the all-nba's and steal-counts(not to mention the mostly uncontested rebounds), and the"40% shooter from 3" and suddenly a kd calibre player is turned into a foil for Magic. He had major limitations in all 3 areas yet he's treated as if he was only significantly flawed in one.

This is exactly the treatment Durant gets.

"Natural talent", "beethoven", "basketball genius", "best in the world"? Yeah, no. Let's call him what he was. A guy whose rep was always greatly inflated based on the achievements of a "rival" who very clearly isn't all that once you look closer(kind of like Durant).

Your analogy with LeBron vs Durant is completely off here, because Magic and Bird were rivals. It's not true at all that Magic was always clearly better than Bird and only team circumstances and media coverage created an illusion of rivarly.

I always stay on Magic side in this debate, but Bird definitely competed with Johnson, in some seasons even outcompeting him.

Bird was more of a rival than Durant was for Lebron but that's more a reflection of Lebron also being a guy who can carry -5 defenses when his best teammates break down(cough wallace cough) than Bird actually being less limited. If I took away Lebron's defensive value and then took him down for Hakeem-tier PS elevator to a Magic/Shaq level maintainer then I'm pretty sure KD would look better in his "rival"s off-years too. But Bird wasn't a match for Magic at his best, just like he wasn't a match for Hakeem or Jordan. If he ever reigned, it was only during a lull and even then Hakeem still challenged him pretty well in 86. Had Lebron followed a typical career trajectory it would have been KD(or Westbrook's) league in 2014.

Unsuprisingly there's been very little effort from any of his voters to justify him being placed over others in a comparative sense. Because let's be honest, if you're voting Bird top 10, it's not because of the basketball.

It's Kobe vs Bird discussion though, neither should be voted in the top 10. If you think Bird's career isn't good enough for top 10, I am with you, but this is not where the discussion started.

The discussion started with a guy who thinks the gap is gigantic insisting Kobe has never made a team into a contender.

I also don't see how Kobe and Bird are in the same boat here given by corp(with bird=top5 and kobe=dirk as the inputs) Kobe ranks 9th while Bird ranks 14th. Kobe can(and probably should) be top 10 for people who put heavy weight on career-value and/or team-success. Bird shouldn't.

I don't agree that Kobe is a better basketball player at his peak and Bird has better reputation only because of narratives. Your posts suggest that people who think Bird peaked higher than Kobe aren't knowledgeable enough or have a clear bias in the comparison, that's something I find "silly" (your choice of words).

My posts explicitly distinguish between "Bird peaked higher" and "Bird was much better" several times. Why don't you check the other posts on this very page and get back to me on who is being silly.

[kcktiny]

Frankly for a project and voter board that typically values stuff like longevity and winning highly Bird consistently finishing ahead of players like KG and Kobe only really makes sense if you're glazing him as if he was some near-dpoy defender and a near magic-offensive engine.

Over that 9 year stretch, 1979-80 to 1987-88, when the Celtics averaged 61 wins a season, as a team they ranked 2nd in defensive efficiency (109.4 pts/100poss allowed, only Milwaukee was better) and 2nd in offensive efficiency (103.1 pts/100poss scored, on the Lakers were better).

i.e. other than the Bucks they were the best defensive team in the league.

Here are the minutes played by Celtics players over those 9 years:

27371 Larry Bird
20882 Robert Parish
19399 Kevin McHale
14313 Cedric Maxwell
14254 Danny Ainge
13976 Dennis Johnson
09662 Nate Archibald
08152 Gerald Henderson
06429 Chris Ford
33 other players

Those first 9 players played 3/4 of Boston's total minutes those 9 years, and Bird alone played 1/7 to 1/6 of the Celtics total minutes played.

How about you decide who were their great defenders over all that time such that they were the second best team defensively over 9 long years?

I certainly don't see Ainge, Tiny, Henderson, and Ford as having been great defenders.

And of the remaining 33 players the best defenders were M.L. Carr, Quinn Buckner, and Bill Walton, and combined they played just 9146 minutes.

[SNPA]

Enough with the fluff. Kobe is a clone. He brought nothing new to the game. He just pretended he was Michael and wasn’t as good at it. All the top ten ATG’s brought something new to the game. They changed it in some way (few other players did this too, Curry for ex.). Kobe is just a want to be Jordan with hands to small, explosive power to low, shot selection of a drunk toddler and an ego problem.

He could only win if he had the best front court in the league to support him, and in those circumstances there were several other guards/wings in the league that could have been swapped out and won too. And for the record, several of his all D selections are total nonsense and rightfully belong to Doug Christie.

[Primedeion]

I guess they don't care about Kobe's vastly superior scoring and plenty comparable playmaking in addition to
to the superior defense/longer prime and much better longevity/team success. Bird did have the superior regular season peak tho. That's something.