RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Larry Bird)

[trelos6]

Ignoring the typo for KD for now,
I have Bird as the clear best player on the board. Great peak, good years as a MVP level candidate.

West as my alternate. Didn’t have the fantastic longevity of his peak, with only 7 weak MVP level seasons, but he was a fantastic defender, distributor, and highly resilient and efficient scorer. (We’re talking 27 pp75 on +8.2 rTS% 3 yr PS).

David Robinson is the best defensive force in consideration, and a candidate as a top 5 defensive player all time. Plus a great 9 year run of weak MVP level play.

KD as my alternative nomination. Just about the longevity of Kobe. (Still playing, so I’d imagine he’d reach Kobe/Karl Malone for all star quality seasons). Another resilient scorer. Highly efficient. 30pp75 on +9 rTS% in PS by the end of his Warriors run.

12. Larry Bird
13. Jerry West

Nomination: D Rob

Nomination: KD

[penbeast0]

One thing I’m noticing while trying to pick nits between Oscar, Bird, and West is that Oscar seemed to have a large edge in health. While Oscar and West both spent 14 seasons in the league and Bird was there for 13, these are the numbers of minutes they played:

Oscar 43,886
West 36,571
Bird 34,443

Oscar played at least 64 games in every season while West played less than that in 4 seasons and Bird played less than that 3 times. West was unavailable for the playoffs twice while Bird missed an entire season. If everything else is close to equal, that could be another edge for Oscar.

The flip side of that is Playoff Minutes

West 6321
Bird 6886
Oscar 3673

Everything else close to equal, and even if it isn't Oscar's fault that he never got the chance to shine that West did (and Bird often didn't), that hurts Oscar's case and puts him behind West for me.

[ceiling raiser]

Vote: George Mikan

Yes, his era was weak and he probably wouldn't be Joel Embiid level in today's game. But you can only meet the challenges given to you and he is arguably the most dominant player in the history of the game. Russell type winning (for less years), Wilt/MJ type statistical dominance, Mikan is more deserving than Jerry West, who was nearly as dominant -- for a guard -- as Mikan but in an era where centers were significantly more valuable than anyone else on the floor. He's more deserving than Kobe, who was a terrific player for a long time but never really stood out from his peers to anywhere near the same degree, not as a scorer though he was playoff resilient, not as a playmaker/rebounder/defender. He's more deserving than Larry Bird, who was a not outstanding (early) to weak (late) defender and whose playoff scoring was not resilient. Mikan is the last true dominant player left and while his era was one of racism and relatively low athleticism (much of which is due to playing over boards laid over ice rinks or concrete, in canvas sneakers, with questionable understanding of training techniques), it was still NBA basketball, the best in the world.

Alternative: Jerry West All the arguments for Kobe can be made in a stronger fashion for Jerry West except for Rings, longevity, and modernity. Kobe was a great and playoff resilient scorer; West was significantly better as a scorer relative to the guards of his day (only Oscar, and in the later part of his career, Walt Frazier, came close) and stepped it up in stronger fashion in the finals. Kobe was (when he wanted to) a strong defensive guard, West was a much more consistent and from everything I understand, higher peaking defender as well. Kobe was a decent playmaker, West was a better one who started as a score first combo guard but by the end of his career, was also leading the NBA in assists. Great player, smart player, tough player, very high intangibles and leadership from everything I have ever read.

NOMINATE: David Robinson.

I am going with basically the next Kevin Garnett vote, a dominant defensive force (I have him over Garnett, roughly equal with Hakeem), a strong offensive player for terrible teams that gave him little help, but one whose playoff scoring is not resilient either. Reverse that one series against Hakeem (individual and team results) and he'd be in already and Hakeem would be here.

Very good post, and I’m 100% with you here on Robinson. I was looking at West and Oscar, but I think this thread will come down to Kobe vs Bird.

[OhayoKD]

as for oscar, I tend to think we probably slightly overrate oscar and west's efficiency numbers like TS Add because they just played in such an inefficient era that they basically have a first mover advantage on being guys who first had something like modern efficiency. i'm not sure they're really standing out like this in the 80's or later.

and just finally, with russell and wilt and mikan and west, i feel like i'm reaching my limit on guys who had careers that basically ended in the first 25 years of the league. that's only 1/3 of the league history, in an era where there often only 8 or 9 teams. the talent pool was significantly shallower on an absolute basis and we're talking much less than 1/3 of the total team-seasons played during that era. so if oscar gets in in the top 15 or 17, then we're using up 1/3 of the slots on way less than 1/3 of the talent pool and team-seasons.

I am sympathetic to most of this and think balancing these sentiments is the trickiest part of trying to adhere to era relative accomplishments.

I disagree more here:

i'm just not very high on him. yes, great TS Add, yes a bunch of #1 offenses, but his last dominant regular season seems to be at age 29 or maybe age 30 if you want to include one more 300 TS Add season. but his playoffs numbers have never blown me away and his last dominant playoffs is at age 28. so i'm not seeing a ton of longevity. also, for a guy who had the misfortune of playing on untalented teams, he didn't take advantage of the few chances he got, going 1-2 as an SRS favorite before kareem, with all 3 of them being at least +2 favorites. his only win was as a +8 favorite.

Eminence is right that the 1965 76ers are hardly a real upset in any meaningful sense.

i won't dispute that.

But this is a good opportunity to press back on a nomination I felt occurred too early:

Since the argument is West vs Oscar, I guess we are lucky in that they played against each other.
https://stathead.com/tiny/jtzzZ
87 games -
Oscar 28.5 to West 27.7
For games with stat totals
West: 53.5%TS/5.8 reb/7.0 asst
Oscar: 53.7%TS/7.2 reb/9.6 asst
So Oscar outscored West with better TS%, outrebounded him and has a lot more assists. Head-to-head 87 games.
Oscar played 20% more RS minutes than West, due to West playing 118 less games- so Oscar winds up with 189.1 winshares versus West's 162.6

West is lauded for his superior post season play. In 14 years, he only had one win against a team with a better record: 2 wins less than the 1970 Hawks,
in a season where Wilt only played 12 games. So he really never beat a better team in the playoffs. Mostly they were able to make the finals because he had a better team the the Royals, and he played in the conference opposite Boston.

Oscar’s best win without Kareem was in 1963 against the 3.8 SRS Syracuse Nationals (2nd in the league), coached by Alex Hannum. He was a 2.5 SRS underdog, with a six win disparity actual and expected.

West’s best win without Wilt was also in 1963, against the 1.4 SRS Hawks. The Lakers were 1.3 SRS favourites. I reiterate, West’s best win without Wilt was against a 1.4 SRS team. And even in those first two years with Wilt, the best team they beat were the 2.1 SRS Hawks in 1969.

Against Bill Russell in the postseason, these are their respective averages:
Oscar — 31.4/10.2/7.5 on 54.09% efficiency, 35.3% win rate (34.9% win rate if including the two series losses to Wilt’s 76ers)
West — 33/5.7/4.9 on 55.15% efficiency, 36.8% win rate

Not that you necessarily care too much about “longevity,” but Oscar for his career played an extra five thousand minutes. Relatedly, for as much is made of Oscar missing the playoffs in the eastern conference for four years of his career, West of course was also injured and unable to contribute at all to his team’s postseason hopes in 1967, 1971, and 1974 (Oscar did miss the end of the 1972 conference finals, but you know, he at least stayed healthy enough need to reach that point).

I could see West if he had some Hakeem-esque tendency to defeat superior teams, but he did not; if anything, Oscar is the one with the best upset / individual win — but I will admit by your standards, Oscar also has the worst loss (1962 Pistons), so maybe that evens out.

so they both definitely have complicated underdog/favorite resumes.

jerry west literally doesn't have an underdog series win by SRS, going 0-10. oscar does have the 1 early series upset, but that remains it for the rest of his career, not even picking one up with kareem (though they were basically always the favorite). west does manage to be a fairly impressive 16-2 as a favorite, with the only losses on fairly pedestrian -1.1 (1968 finals) and -2.1 (1973 finals). pre-kareem, oscar at best is 1-1 if we don't count the 76ers and his loss is slightly worse at -3.0. but then he plays with kareem and, as mentioned in the earlier kareem thread, racks up two +4 losses in 1973 and 1974. maybe he's too old to count it in 1974 and really 1973 seems to just be kareem playing awful, but it brings him to a very disappointing 7-4 as a favorite (7-3 without the sixers), and those 7 wins are by an astounding average advantage of +8.8, so basically just gimmes. which brings his career to an average series win as a +7.4 favorite and average loss as only a -0.7 underdog, but i guess some of this can be blamed on kareem.

on actual vs expected titles, oscar literally finishes 103rd out of 103 on a delta of -1.53, but west isn't far behind at 100th out of 103 on a delta of -1.33. also impressive that they managed to finish so badly while actually winning a title. all of west's negative is basically just facing russell (he's even after 1969) while oscar has no real expected titles to speak of until he gets to kareem, but then he and kareem go to work racking up negative delta, somehow getting a -1.3 in only 4 years despite actually winning one! but i suppose kareem should get more of the blame as it was his team.

west to my numbers is definitely more resilient individually. they are somewhat close in my little calculation with west at 6th and oscar at 12th, but almost all of this is 1972 west dragging everything down (a horrible -0.905). from 1961 to 1969, west's average of +0.447 would put him just barely behind kawhi for 1st so he was extremely resilient for all of the 60's. meanwhile, oscar before kareem is right around 0 so basically average and gets a lot of his positive value from 1973, a single round playoffs where his team lost as a heavy favorite.

also, oscar could have potentially punished west's underperformance in the 1972 playoffs, but oscar had an even worse series in the lakers/bucks matchup.

throw in my new appreciation for west's defense and i suppose i have to give this battle to west. though at this point, i still have to vote for kobe, then bird, then mikan.

So just to be clear. When 60's Jordan and 60's Hakeem teamed up against your #4 on his last legs(also having to be the coach with no assistant) with weak support and lost that was not an all-time underperformance?

[rk2023]

First noting I don't do an MVP/weak MVP distinction (a rougher ATG/MVP/All-NBA/Allstar set of groupings for me), but I would probably have all of '80-'88 (9 seasons) as MVP level.

That's very interesting. To me putting rookie Bird on MVP level is a level too much. Although he certainly showed a lot of impact, let's not forget that he was still relatively inefficient scorer, low volume creator who regressed in the playoffs and I don't think he was in his defensive prime yet either.

I think 80-83 all are Weak/fringe-MVP seasons; 1984 is when he made a substantial offensive leap Imo, though he showed signs of doing so before

[cupcakesnake]

I mean, we literally have similar examples of peak Robinson struggling to the similar degree against weaker defensive teams than 2022 Celtics. We have seen Robinson struggling a lot against the Suns in 2000.

Why should we expect that 2003 Robinson would do any better in Durant's situation? I get that KD played badly and should be blamed for that, but we can't compare his role to Robinson who was little else than a nice roleplayer in 2003, playing basically half the time Durant did in 2022 playoffs.

No, 2003, Robinson wasn't a more valuable player than 2022 Durant, unless you have a talented team with well built starting 5 - and even then there are many scenarios in which Durant would be more valuable.

Regardless of whether he was more valuable on different hypothetical teams, AEnigma said he was looking specifically at the playoffs and that KD was a top player on 12 postseason teams while Robinson was only a top player on 10 postseason teams. Robinson played 24 MPG in 2003 and had at least a strong case as the second most valuable player on a champion. Durant had a strong case as being the worst player on the floor for either team in that Boston series. How does that count as 1 point for KD and 0 for Robinson.

Also, sure Robinson’s had series where he struggled as a scorer, but that’s the thing about being an all-time great defender. Even if you struggle to score the ball, you can still have a major impact in other ways. Russell struggled scoring the ball in playoff series in lots of years where we’d still consider him player of the year. KD’s a pure scorer. He’s a decent enough defender but he’s usually hidden on a weaker player so he can rest. His passing and playmaking are subpar to begin with and they were nonexistent when he was afraid to take a dribble against the suffocating Celtics defense. When he gets shut down offensively, he’s a zero. A nothing. Sometimes even a negative.

I am pretty far from a Durant fan, but if you think he was “a zero or even a negative” against the Celtics, then we have deeply, deeply, deeply different interpretations of what would have happened if Durant were not there at all. Reminds me of people who try to argue the Heat would have won the 2011 Finals if Lebron had been benched for the last three or four games or otherwise replaced with some random roleplayer.

I think it's interesting that, by my eye, KD's last 2 serious playoff opponents (Boston and Denver) clearly designed their game plan to stop KD at all cost even if that meant using no real defensive resources for KD's other star teammate (Kyrie and then Booker). Now I don't think Denver's anticipated Booker shooting 80% and creating 2 series wins, but it looked blatant to me that the Nuggets weren't doing anything off the ball to keep Booker from getting to his spots, while Durant was the target of all the extra attention. In the Boston series, Kyrie didn't go off- in part because Boston simply had more defensive resources than Denver to use- but we also rarely saw Kyrie drawing any extra attention. The narrative after the Nuggets series was how incredible Booker played while Durant was just alright, but who the defense is afraid of and who they're willing to live with is something that doesn't always get noticed. 2011 Mavs didn't try to stop Wade the way they tried to stop Lebron, but Wade gets credit for showing up while Lebron is dragged for it (I'm not a Lebron fan but I think it's a good example).

Now KD didn't overcome the defensive attention in either of these series in a way we've seen him do in the past, or seen other stars, so I think there's some criticism deserved. But I don't think KD can be a zero, even when he plays poorly, when he's drawing that kind of attention. The Nets weren't able to capitalize as a team, but Phoenix had some success using the extra space that Durant was providing through all that defensive attention. '23 Denver and '22 Boston are also simply much better teams than '23 Phoenix or '22 Brooklyn.

[Colbinii]

Nominate: Dirk Nowitzki
Vote #1: Oscar Robertson
Vote #2: Larry Bird

Oscar Robertson

The best offensive player pre-Magic [and maybe still better ], exceptional poise, control and efficiency as a basketball player. Excelled as a Pure On-Ball Catalyst in an era where few [if any] players were able to be catalysts for elite offenses unless they were big men.

Let's look at his impact.

Royals Pre-Robertson:
1959: -2.7 Ortg, +4.8 Drtg
1960: +0.2 Ortg, +5.4 Drtg

Royals with Robertson
1961: +3.5 Ortg, +6.3 Drtg
1962: +4.7 Ortg, +3.3 Drtg
1963: +3.5 Ortg., +2.4 Drtg

Now, let's look at Jack Twyman. Who? 6-time all-star, two-time all-nba scoring guard. He played for the Royals through his entire 11-year career [1956-1966]. Leading up to Oscar's arrival, the team went from terrible offensively [-5.0 in Twyman's rookie season] upto +0.2 in 1960 [This was Twyman's breakout season--31/9/3 on 115.2 TS+ for a 19-win team ]. But hey, clearly a talented scorer.

Now, let's look at Twyman in Oscar's rookie season, 1961: 25/9/3 on 236.2 TS+. And, the reality is, his FTR never changed, but his shot profile must have changed immensely with Oscar's arrival, because Twyman's FG+ went from 103 in 1960 to 118 in 1961. That 118 FG+ number ranks second in the NBA in 1961 to Wilt Chamberlain [Oscar finished 4th in the NBA at 114]. Twyman managed to rattle off 3 consecutive 52%+ TS% seasons from 1961-1963, his only 3 > 50% TS% of his career.

Over Oscar's time with the Royals, the team averaged a 3.8 Rel Ortg as an organization during the 9-seasons played with Cincinnati. For comparison, the Lakers with West from 1962-1970 posted a 2.5 Rel Ortg [2.9 Rel Ortg extending through 1972 and omitting 1962 and 1963]. Wilt's teams over a 9-year stretch starting in 1960 [or 1961] weren't even positive for Rel Ortg. No player was even close to Oscar at this time as an offensive anchor and catalyst. It is actually remarkable what Oscar was able to do in this era as nobody was able to replicate even 75% of what Oscar was capable and able to do.

Now, let's take a look at what happened when Oscar retired.

Oscar retired after helping Milwaukee earn an incredible 7.61 SRS and a finals trip where the team lost a 7-game series to Boston [and Oscar was not great in that finals]. However, look what happens when Oscar is removed from the team in 1975 and Kareem plays ~800 less minutes [16 games].

1974 Milwaukee SRS: 7.61
1975 Milwaukee SRS: 0.25

There is a reason Oscar is #1 in WOWY scorer all-time [Per Ben Taylor]. He impacted the game offensively like nobody before his time and--it is quite possible--that nobody after him has had his offensive impact, not Nash, Magic, Curry, LeBron--anyone.

What was Oscar like as a scorer?

Well, let's first take something from Ben Taylor [Credit to Backpicks for the graph].



And, how about elimination games [1962-1967]?

32 Points on 55.5 TS% [+7.6% Rel TS%]
29 Points on 59.7 TS% [+9.4% Rel TS%]
32 Points on 52.7 TS% [+3.4% Rel TS%]
36 Points on 51.5 TS% [+2.2% Rel TS% against Russell Celtics]
43 Points on 63.8 TS% [+14.5% Rel TS% against Russell Celtics]
31 Points on 53.8 TS% [+5.3% Rel TS%]
32 Points on 78.9 TS% [+30.4% Rel TS%]
32 Points on 48.7 TS% [+1.0% Rel TS% against Russell Celtics]
24 Points on 47.0 TS% [-0.7% Rel TS% against Russell Celtics]
24 Points on 42.1 TS% [-5.8% Rel TS% against Wilt 76ers]
37 Points on 49.8 TS% [+1.1% Rel TS% against Russell Celtics]
12 Points on 32.4 TS% [-16.9% Rel TS% against Wilt 76ers]

These numbers are impressive to say the least, especially considering over half are against Wilt/Russell led defenses. Furthermore, from 1962-1967, Oscar produced 29.7 PPG on 56.5 TS% in the post-season with an incredible 56.6% FTR. For reference, Magic reached 56.6% FTR or higher just twice in his career.

Suffice to say, Oscar is the first, OG Offensive Catalyst and could very well be the greatest offensive catalyst we have ever seen.

Larry Bird

Not much to see here, the purest basketball-savant we likely have ever seen. Developed into a lethal shooter and scorer during his 1984-1986 stretch, incredible feel and instincts as a catalyst unlike anything we have ever seen [Until Jokic]. He truly was able to vitalize an offense as well as anyone, ever. The greatest impetus who ever graced the court [along with Nash].

Dirk Nowitzki

I had him #11 pre-project.

[One_and_Done]

When I think about how Bird would look in today's league, I see an even better player. Neither is an exact match, but he has elements of both Jokic and Doncic. When I picture how Kobe would do today, I see him being much worse. The funny thing is that in both cases it's about how they play, rather than what they can do. In theory Kobe could be a better player in today's league, just like Bird would be, but the overwhelming evidence over his 20 year career is that he would not play that way.

Kobe is infinitely more clutch than Bron. Won more chips too.

Not even close. Lebron was far more clutch than the brick layer Kobe. Won more chips as the man too. Kobe was mostly 2nd fiddle. Check out Kobe's numbers with his back against the wall.



Shots to take the lead in the last minute of playoff games since 1997 (when data started being collected)
Minimum 10 attempts

LeBron: 18/33 - 54.5%
Kobe: Kobe: 7/26 - 26.9%

potential game tying/go ahead fg final 24 seconds/OT of playoffs

Lebron: 10/27 - 37%
Kobe: 7/28 - 25%

Kobe stans live in a false reality

There might not be a more overrated player than Kobe tbh. I.Thomas and Stockton I guess, but nobody is talking about them rn.

[tsherkin]

There might not be a more overrated player than Kobe tbh. I.Thomas and Stockton I guess, but nobody is talking about them rn.

It's important not to backswing too hard. Kobe WAS amazing; that some of his fans argue in bad faith doesn't change that.

[tsherkin]

When I picture how Kobe would do today, I see him being much worse.

Why would he be worse?

With the kind of spacing he'd enjoy, I'm pretty sure we'd see helio Kobe and even at 33-35% from 3, he'd be seeing better lanes to the basket, more space underneath, more transition possessions... We'd probably be seeing 62%+ TS Kobe.

[One_and_Done]

If he had played for Washington or Charotte for his whole career we'd think of him in a similar light to Dominique Wilkins. A better player, but not someone in contention for the top 12 players of all-time. He might not even be top 20. If I was drafting a player to build my team around today I could think of 20+ guys I'd take over him easily.

Kobe's play style would make him the Kyrie Irving of shooting guards, except less efficient. Doesn't follow the game plan, inconsistent effort on D, locker room disaster. Back when he played a lower level of efficiency was required, today his play wouldn't be efficient enough to let him have the same impact given his hot dogging it. Kobe's biggest strength is also his greatest weakness. He takes and makes tough shots at a decent clip, so you can't gameplan for it in the playoffs; but it's inelastic because he insists on taking those shots. Inelastic offense doesn't get better with more spacing if you won't take advantage of it to make more team friendly plays/shots.

[70sFan]

Ignoring the typo for KD for now,
I have Bird as the clear best player on the board.

12. Larry Bird
13. Jerry West

Nomination: D Rob

Nomination: KD

What Bird seasons do you see as MVP level?

80-87 inclusive. 88 weak MVP.

That's very interesting, I struggle to understand how you can put rookie Bird ahead of his 1988 season. He was way better offensive player in 1988, the gap is massive.

[70sFan]

I mean I’m fine if you just wanna call all those postseasons zeros or put them on the same low level, but giving Durant the edge specifically because you’re acting like 2 terrible postseasons he had are an upgrade to Robinson being a key piece on a champion just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. That 2022 series KD had against Boston is still fresh on my mind and KD was abominably, unspeakably bad. He looked like a tall child getting picked on by shorter grown men. I don’t see how he gets any credit there whatsoever.

I mean, we literally have similar examples of peak Robinson struggling to the similar degree against weaker defensive teams than 2022 Celtics. We have seen Robinson struggling a lot against the Suns in 2000.

Why should we expect that 2003 Robinson would do any better in Durant's situation? I get that KD played badly and should be blamed for that, but we can't compare his role to Robinson who was little else than a nice roleplayer in 2003, playing basically half the time Durant did in 2022 playoffs.

No, 2003, Robinson wasn't a more valuable player than 2022 Durant, unless you have a talented team with well built starting 5 - and even then there are many scenarios in which Durant would be more valuable.

Regardless of whether he was more valuable on different hypothetical teams, AEnigma said he was looking specifically at the playoffs and that KD was a top player on 12 postseason teams while Robinson was only a top player on 10 postseason teams. Robinson played 24 MPG in 2003 and had at least a strong case as the second most valuable player on a champion. Durant had a strong case as being the worst player on the floor for either team in that Boston series. How does that count as 1 point for KD and 0 for Robinson.

Also, sure Robinson’s had series where he struggled as a scorer, but that’s the thing about being an all-time great defender. Even if you struggle to score the ball, you can still have a major impact in other ways. Russell struggled scoring the ball in playoff series in lots of years where we’d still consider him player of the year. KD’s a pure scorer. He’s a decent enough defender but he’s usually hidden on a weaker player so he can rest. His passing and playmaking are subpar to begin with and they were nonexistent when he was afraid to take a dribble against the suffocating Celtics defense. When he gets shut down offensively, he’s a zero. A nothing. Sometimes even a negative.

So Robinson has a case for being the worst 2nd option in the last 25 years on a championship team and that puts him ahead of Durant, because Durant faced defense that would shut down Robinson as well? Also, I am far from Durant fan but if you think he was the worst player in that series, then we have much different ways of understanding basketball.

[70sFan]

First noting I don't do an MVP/weak MVP distinction (a rougher ATG/MVP/All-NBA/Allstar set of groupings for me), but I would probably have all of '80-'88 (9 seasons) as MVP level.

That's very interesting. To me putting rookie Bird on MVP level is a level too much. Although he certainly showed a lot of impact, let's not forget that he was still relatively inefficient scorer, low volume creator who regressed in the playoffs and I don't think he was in his defensive prime yet either.

I think 80-83 all are Weak/fringe-MVP seasons; 1984 is when he made a substantial offensive leap Imo, though he showed signs of doing so before

I have been wondering recently if anyone would call these years MVP level had he not know that it's Bird playing there. I mean, I don't think 1980 Bird would ever be a legit choice for MVP in any NBA season.

[One_and_Done]

MVP is all about meeting or exceeding expectations. If Nash can win 2 in a row for turning the Suns around, Bird can get one in 1980 for turning around the Celtics.

[70sFan]

MVP is all about meeting or exceeding expectations. If Nash can win 2 in a row for turning the Suns around, Bird can get one in 1980 for turning around the Celtics.

It doesn't mean he'd deserve it though. I don't view the MVP category in sense of meaningless media award. Peak Nash was a better player than rookie Bird

[One_and_Done]

Bird in 1980 would have deserved an MVP more than many actual winners. Kobe never deserved an MVP. The one year he won it he shouldn't have even been top 3.

[OhayoKD]

Bird in 1980 would have deserved an MVP more than many actual winners. Kobe never deserved an MVP. The one year he won it he shouldn't have even been top 3.

The player with the best impact(account for minutes) on an offense that was +9 with gasol despite essentially playing with 3 different rosters was not a worthy MVP.

Got it

[One_and_Done]

KG, Lebron and Paul should have gotten it over him to start with.

[OhayoKD]

Vote for #12: Larry Bird
Alternate Vote: Kobe Bryant
Nomination: Moses Malone

I have to say I don’t feel strongly between Bird and Kobe (so could even be persuaded to change my vote actually). My main reasons for going for Larry Bird are twofold:

First, I think Bird has a much cleaner case for having been the best player in the league for an extended period of time than Kobe does. Bird was pretty clearly the NBA’s best player in the mid-1980s. And, while a lot of people considered Kobe the league’s best player in the mid-2000s, I didn’t think he was at the time and I still don’t. There was always some combination of one or more of Duncan, Garnett, LeBron, Nash, and maybe even Dirk that were better than him in that time period (and of course his own teammate Shaq was better than him in his earlier years). To me, Kobe was top 5 in the vast majority of years for a long time, but was never really the best, and Larry Bird actually was. So I just think Bird peaked meaningfully higher.

Second, I think the impact signals we have from Bird are better. Kobe doesn’t do great in impact metrics in general. We don’t have nearly as much of that data for Bird, but I think the overall picture looks better. Bird does better in WOWY. He does better in the Moonbeam stuff. They’re essentially the same in WOWYR. Meanwhile, we know that Kobe doesn’t do great in RAPM, which is a strike against Kobe to at least some small degree in this comparison even though we don’t have RAPM for Bird (it’s still part of the data picture for Kobe). So, while I don’t have a high degree of certainty regarding the level of Bird’s impact, my baseline assumption using the data we have is that it was superior to Kobe’s.

My biggest concern with Bird is that he had some real playoff struggles sometimes. But Kobe did too, so I don’t find that a particularly meaningful differentiator. The other potential differentiator is that Kobe has 5 titles and Bird has 3. But it’s hard to really give Kobe too much of an edge there, since he was the #2 guy on three of those teams.

Anyways, as for the nomination, I’ve explained why Moses in prior posts in earlier threads, so I’d just refer back to those.

Well he was a #1 when he made 3-straight finals and won back to back with pau gasol.

For someone who says they value championships in a short period of time, Kobe should have a very clear advantage. There is also that rather inconvenient bit of the "kobe was only the best player for 2 championship teams" story where it was Kobe's jump in production that saw, by far the best playoff performance of either Shaq or Bird's career...