70sFan wrote:OhayoKD wrote:Well Ben Taylor specifically has argued
-> Bird top 5 peak
Top 5 since merger, so it excludes Russell and Wilt at least.
Fair.
-> Bird upper-bound higher than Lebron
No, his upper bound was specified at number 3 in greatest peaks videos. He also specified that his lower bound goes way down to 13th peak, so it's not like he has him solidified in top 5 or anything like that.
Hmm...alright
-> Bird peaked higher than Magic
Yes, he thinks Bird peaked higher than Magic - mostly because he believes that Bird was better defensively than Johnson.
Yeah, but that's a tie-breaker because the offense is similar("if he was slightly better as a scorer he would be in his own class"). His career corp thing is as of 2018 and...
Given Boston’s balanced roster and Bird’s lack of ball-dominance, lower scoring rates weren’t an issue, per se, especially on such efficacious teams. However, his failure to spike efficiency while reducing volume was likely a byproduct of his low free throw rate and inability to burn opponents as a slasher. This limitation is picking nits — those postseason offenses were, after all, some of the best on record — but it’s the difference between Bird peaking as one of the five-best offensive players in history and the best ever.
Feel like I should also point out from his write-up Ben repeatedly references
how good Bird's offenses were as justification for this rating.
Okay fair. I may have actually phrased it as passer-rating and box-creation looking at different time-frames for both which isn't good practice. Would say Lebron, Nash, and Magic have significantly better stretches and Nash and Magic virtually have two on that end.
Yeah, I think it's not surprising that on-ball playmakers like LeBron, Nash and Magic showed higher volume playmaking than Bird. I never suggested otherwise.
I'm not talking about the volume, I'm talking about his passer-rating which is a measure of creation
quality built on factors like offensive load,
3pa,
height,
3-point efficiency,
layup assist percentage. If we were considering both I'd say all 5 look significantly better and that includes two on/off-ball hybrids(mj, steph) and a guy who gets more of his offensive off-ball than anyone ever(steph). Why is a shorter, more off-ball, and less skilled passer beating Bird on both fronts?
Well that is why I am using the era-adjusted thing. Magic and Nash are from "earlier decades" and are killing everyone else.
OK, but it's worthless in Kobe vs Bird comparison.
And I still don't understand why. Bird's own contemporaries have no issue beating out modern players with era-adjustment. You were saying Westbrook proves the stat is broken but with adjustment:
Westbrook never crosses +9 in PR and his volume is only crazy the year he is generating mvp-level value predominantly because of his creation. You should know first hand what he does to defenses with his combination of speed, accuracy, and
rim-gravity.
I mean it's only really an issue if the sample is unrepresentative. I took the same amount of possessions and did it completely randomly.
Watching highlights is not "completely randomly" or representative though.
Sure, but there's no inherent bias here. It is certainly possible that all the stuff not shown would actually lean bird's direction but it's also possible vice versa. It's the acknowledgement that bias can swing
way which makes film-tracking useful. If Ben with his hundreds of possessions was laying out for us how many wide-open looks one player created and how many wide-open looks another player created or how many times player a took out 3 defenders and player b took out 3 defenders, then yeah, I'd trust that film-tracking more too. But he's not. He just vaguely says "this is a high quality read" without a clear standard and then says a metric which he designed based on his own film-tracking likes Steph Curry is biased because it doesn't appreciate what Bird brings off-the-ball.
He also doesn't address or comment on Bird's limited ball-handling and he never contemplates what his limited slashing might mean for how defenses react to him. Like...
He entered the league as a polished, 22-year old rookie, spearheading one of the biggest turnarounds ever (a 32-win improvement). It wasn’t all Larry — Boston brought in a new coach (Bill Fitch), Tiny Archibald’s health improved and poor-rep players like Marvin Barnes and Bob McAdoo were replaced on the bench.4 But it all centered around Bird. He took 19 percent of the team’s scoring attempts, the exact same number as MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in LA.5 He handled the brunt of the creation and the result was an offense 4.2 points better than league average (rORtg), the 15th-best ever at that point in time
Where do I even start here.
-> +4.2 is being treated like "historically good" here when countless players have hit that mark over and over again
-> Only looks at scoring and creation
-> Doesn't comment on how his team literally never matches that srs outside of when their
defense spikes in 1986(the offense does not improve) when he literally makes that same type of comment for players generating much better offense who do eventually exceed those marks with better help("+21 year old leading a +6 offense without 3-point specialists in 2006 is probably a fluke!")
"Bird is one of the greatest creators ever because of reasons x, y, z, w ben brings up" is fine and dandy.
But telling me "bird is one of the greatest creators ever because ben says so" is not a good justification. You're not citing film-tracking here, you're citing an opinion. That's not the same thing.
Knowing and watching ball =/ creating coherent and internally consistent frameworks with said knowledge. Ben may be top-tier at the former, but he's not an expert in the latter so you shouldn't just cite a stance as a rebuttal to a metric literally built on ben's own film-tracking which happens to correlate better with offensive-rating than the alternatives.
Sure. But Reggie achieved that. And Magic and Jordan exceeded that. A top 10 prime seems pretty high when I can list 6 guys simply post-merger(so no oscar or west) who had better 5-year rs, playoff, and overall offenses(shaq, magic, curry, lebron, Jordan, Nash).
Reggie achieved that, though in smaller sample. Does it make him top 10 offensive player ever? I don't think it does, nor Magic's offensive performance alone puts him there.
If Bird is 7th post-merger in that aspect, then it makes him one of the best ever. I don't think it makes your case strong either.
I guess if you forget that we haven't yet got to the most valuable archetype in basketball, sure? But you know, Mikan, Hakeem, Russell, Wilt, Duncan, Garnett, Kareem, ect haven't even entered the conversation.
Also, that list was not exhaustive. It's just what Falco's calced. Pretty sure DIrk is ahead, Kobe might be given he has the higher highs(+13 playoffs) and as far as I know that +9.8 he puts with Gasol in 08 is better than any of bird's full-strength ratings. Oscar and West probably if you adjust for era-tresholds. Is reggie a top 10 offensive player? Idt so but people have made good cases. I don't see how a not top 10 offensive player getting to the same place helps Bird though.
Pick a critieria you find reasonable that isn't "mvp voting" and I'm pretty sure you can get 10 and extra however you work it out
Interesting. Feel free to make that case.
Nothing fancy, but McHale didn't reach his prime yet (he got way better on offense next season), Maxwell stopped being himself, DJ had the worst offensive season of his career and their guard rotation is bad. Overall, far from a bad team but it's not a great supporting cast. Certainly weaker than 1981 or 1986, or most Lakers squads from the 1980s.
How do you think it compares to 1989(45-win without)?
Okay, but someone still needs to get him the ball. How do you think Bird looks on a team with mediocre decision-makers?
It would hurt him to some degree, that's the same criticism people have for Curry. If your point is that top tier ball-handling playmakers like Magic or James are more reliable, then I don't have any disagreements with that, but Kobe isn't among them.
Kobe is a good primary ball-handler. At least in that way he is. He also has some other advantages...
Additionally, not having the ball greatly limits a player's ability to take defenders out of a possession before they play the pass.Ultimately "creation" is about taking out variables that can make it harder for a teammate to score. And the biggest variable is a defender. When plays it in from beyond the arc after teammate a has done the driving and leaves teammate b still needing to beat a guy to get to the rim, that is not as valuable of a play. Even if both end up as assists and Bird's pass was super impressive in a vacuum. Penetration is very important for creation. Even a shooter like Nash still often needs to enter the key before the pass to generate looks he does. Chris Paul is also a great shooter but doesn't penetrate and is way too passive so a less "celebral" guy like Westbrook who relentlessly pushes generates the same results(I'd say better at his best in the postseason tbh).
You can take defender out of possession without the ball though. You may argue it's not as effective, but such possibility exists.
Okay the possibility exists. Now with all that tape you watched can you tell me that Bird is actually taking out extra defenders with all that movement as opposed to simply shuffling them slightly?
Bird's not really doing that. How is he making up the difference? He's a great shooter for his time, but he's at the level of durant, not Steph and Durant certainly isn't turning his great shooting into the creation his raw passing skill suggests it should
Well, unlike Durant he moved without the ball like a maniac, forcing his man to put too much focus on him. He also set screens, grabbed offensive rebounds - things Durant rarely does. His passing chops also gave him layers to beat set defense that Durant will never achieve. I disagree that Bird is basically Durant without the ball, he's way more creative and agressive with his movement and decision making.
Yeah, but he also isn't doubled when he shoots from deep(KD is sometimes), he can't slash like Durant can(ben's agrees fwiw), and whether by era or capacity he is not shooting at the volume where a defense is going to shape their strategy around stopping what he does from beyond the arc. And here's the rub:
Mid-range is not as good for creating space as rim-scoring and 3-point shooting. Your teammates are literally closer to you and thus it's easier for a defender to switch/help. Bird can be one of the best 3-point shooter of his era and not generate the value a modern 3-point shooter does. Defenses will literally throw 3-man walls sometimes to stop westbrook from getting to the rim(2016 vs spurs). When do they do that for Bird? Giannis may struggle exploiting that, but Westbrook absolutely doesn't. Just ask the 70-win srs Spurs. It's not like Durant or the Thunder got hot from 3. Westbrook just made everyone way more effecient by forcing the Spurs to send everything to stop him from getting to the rim and they sold out to tank his effeciency while everyone else got hyper effecient because Westbrook kept creating the highest quality looks over and over and over.
You seem to think it's crazy that Westbrook could be a more valuable creator, but can you point me to a series where Bird's superior passing destroyed a defense like Westbrook's passing destroyed San Antonio?
He's a goat-level scorer next to comparably or more valuable playmakers/ball-handlers(or multiple much better ball-handlers/playmakers). And I guess for a couple of games when bud decides to leave him in single coverage...
Yeah, he can't create like the best guards do. It doesn't make him worse scorer, just easier player to limit on offense overall.
No. I am not talking about creating. I am talking about
scoring. Scoring is literally easier to replace when it's more tied to great handling, lesser defensive coverage, and good decision-makers. Durant's
scoring suffers because of what he doesn't do as a ball-handler. Make him the primary ball-handler or replace Westbrook with Pete Myers and you don't just limit his offense, you limit his
everything. We saw this last playoffs. We saw it in 2019 vs the Clippers when Curry goes out. You know how when Lebron loses Wade and he goes off? You know how Kareem can go-off with bad-ball handlers? KD mostly does not go off. If you up how involved he is offensively or even just his usage(which only covers the ends) he does not increase his volume(2021 vs the Bucks is the exception).
The reverse can be applied to Bird but with passing. His scoring volume goes down and nor his assists or effeciency go up. I'm not even saying this makes him = KD but you and Ben are not even acknowledging this as a factor and it's a principle that applies to both. It's easier to replace "creation" that is tied to good-decision making, good 1 v 1 finishers, good secondary passers, lesser coverage, and good ball-handlers. That's why it's not just about who passes the best. Westbrook
forces defenders to get in his way when he's running at you. He's not just waiting for an opening or making a defender shuffle here or there. That's why he can garuntee his teammates buckets when they suck at shooting. Adam and Westbrook wasn't league topping pnr because Adam is kevin mchale.
The issue is his limited ball-handling. It makes him dependent on teammates in a way worse or similarly talented "pure"
passers/scorers like Kawhi are not.
Reggie, Dirk, Dantley and Shaq are not better ball-handlers than Durant though.
Nope. But they are better from 3 or at the rim or are a better relative to position. Shaq can foul out frontlines, Reggie can chuck 3's at higher volume on crazy effeciency and Dirk was a center who could shoot from everywhere.
And here again, Bird runs into a problem. He doesn't protect the rim or even have the size/strength to be played at center or PF without strong rim-help. But he also doesn't have the ball-handling or slashing of a small-forward. So you need unique teammates who can handle the ball and help him a bunch defensively. And this could prove very problematic in his time with the right opponent. The Pistons guards were just torching him over and over. And he couldn't get vertical seperation from their undersized rim-deterrents. And he couldn't exploit illegal d by driving and forcing them to pick between a double or single coverage. So the end result is, with a team thats pretty good without him(45-win 86-88, 45-win 89), the Celtics are outscored by a team with half their SRS in 87 and are decisvely thumped by a team with lesser srs in 88 as their offense plummets by
13 points.
There's a reason all the best offenses(mjish kobe/shaq the exception) are led by helios. The guy who generates high value throughout a possession is better than the guy who mostly generates it at the end.
Off-ball players can also generat high value throughout the possession. I really struggle to understand why you think it's not the case...
Because the simplest way to completely take a defender out of the play is to drive past them? And the type of shot the defense will work the hardest to stop is a layup or dunk? Is it just a coincidence off-ball hybrids dont generate the same results on-ball guys do and struggle the most replicating across context?
The closest non-helio to those results was Shaq who is literally one of the biggest rim-threats ever and is the polar opposite of Bird in physical profile. I want the guy who makes sure you're toast. Not the one who helps destroy you when things line-up right.
I mean yeah? Again, KD is not magically turned into a good creator(for a superstar) with his shooting. Being sturdy and strong was enough for Kawhi to outright create way better looks than Durant did last playoffs. KD makes some pass and then multiple actions later booker converts. Kawhi creates wide open threes with no one around. Completely different results despite player a in thoery being a better passer/shooter.
OK, but you still see Bird as 1980s version of Durant but Bird didn't play like that at all.
No, because KD is a better scorer and Bird is a better passer. And KD is harder to stop physically, while Bird is harder to track. But I don't know why you're acting like Bird has all the comparative advantages here. I don't even think KD is as good, but it makes alot more sense to me than comparing him to Magic or MJ or Steph. Those guys can break you if you don't sell out. Bird cannot.
I can look into more games for rebounding if you want. Feel free to give me a list of his best rebounding performances. I would think this should be expected given who he played and his limitations as an athelete but I guess I can pull out more. Rebounding should not be too time intensive to track.
I don't want to overload you, because to get a decent sample you'd have to do it for at least 30 games and I understand most people don't have the time for that.
I can compile over time I think. Might be a good project actually. Rebounding value isn't explored well.
What attempts are you looking at? 87/88 Celtics go from 45-win without to 61-win with. 2015 OKC is 48 win at full-strength without and 65-win at full-strength with. It's basically just 1980 isn't it? How are you getting 1984 ~ 1988.
Do you think the only reliable way to capture impact is to go with WOWY variations?
Pre-data ball? Kinda? I mean we can skill-set map and
Where did you get the data for 2015 OKC? Looking at that year quickly, I don't see them being 48 wins without KD but also not at 65 wins with KD either.
Ben's write-up where he looked at them full-strength.
I generally try and take everyone seriously. Even when I think the takes are indefensible(do not hold with internally consistent rationale).
His case is special though, because he abandons any criteria he normally uses when he decides to join Kobe discussions.
Yes. But it becomes clearer someone is being inconsistent when you point it out.
Well I'm taking Ben's because that's based on something objective right? Are there other studies on srs/championships to look at? Would be nice if he accounted for different era-tresholds...
I am not aware where to find different studies, but I think they exist somewhere.
Hmm. K.
