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

[70sFan]

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.

2008 Kobe was a better player than rookie Bird as well.

Yeah, there are players that didn't deserve the MVP and 1980 Bird was better than them, but it doesn't make him MVP level player in COPR sense.

[OhayoKD]

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

Yeah, no. Feel free to check KG's minutes per game if you think that's a serious case

[One_and_Done]

Kobe's 08-10 teams could have won 50 games a year without him once Pau got there. We need to stop acting like this was that impressive. It was right before the quality of the league changed dramatically. The only team to really threaten the Lakers was Boston, who was as stacked as they were, and then KG got hurt in 09 and they dropped off alot.

The 08-10 Lakers wouldn't be a top 4 team some years in today's game. 16 to 18 for example; no chance are they a top 4 team any of those years.

[lessthanjake]

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...

Okay? What’s your point? The point I was making is that the gap in titles isn’t necessarily very meaningful when Kobe was the #2 guy on three of his and Bird was not the #2 guy for any of his. It’s perhaps still a point in Kobe’s favor, but I find it hard to really score it as a major one, given the radically different circumstances. Not sure what your last sentence is even referring to, but I *think* you’re referring to Kobe doing really well in 2001? In which case I’ll note that I quite like that Kobe was a huge part of one of the best teams ever (the 2001 Lakers), but being the 2nd best player on one of the best teams ever (Kobe on the 2001 Lakers) is not actually as impressive to me as being the best player on one of the best teams ever (Bird on the 1986 Celtics).

[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...

Okay? What’s your point? The point I was making is that the gap in titles isn’t necessarily very meaningful when Kobe was the #2 guy on three of his and Bird was not the #2 guy for any of his. It’s perhaps still a point in Kobe’s favor, but I find it hard to really score it as a major one, given the radically different circumstances. Not sure what your last sentence is even referring to, but I *think* you’re referring to Kobe doing really well in 2001? In which case I’ll note that I quite like that Kobe was a huge part of one of the best teams ever (the 2001 Lakers), but being the 2nd best player on one of the best teams ever (Kobe on the 2001 Lakers) is not actually as impressive to me as being the best player on one of the best teams ever (Bird on the 1986 Celtics).

How is 2 in 3, b2b2, with 3 straight final runs(best player+co-star) not a big gap over 3 in 7(5 finals)(best player+co-star).

[tsherkin]

How is 2 in 3, b2b2, with 3 straight final runs(best player+co-star) not a big gap over 3 in 7(5 finals)(best player+co-star).

Difference in subjective valuation. The extra title, more total runs into the Finals as the lead guy. It doesn't seem that confusing, just not the same as how you intersect with the data, I suspect.

[70sFan]

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...

Okay? What’s your point? The point I was making is that the gap in titles isn’t necessarily very meaningful when Kobe was the #2 guy on three of his and Bird was not the #2 guy for any of his. It’s perhaps still a point in Kobe’s favor, but I find it hard to really score it as a major one, given the radically different circumstances. Not sure what your last sentence is even referring to, but I *think* you’re referring to Kobe doing really well in 2001? In which case I’ll note that I quite like that Kobe was a huge part of one of the best teams ever (the 2001 Lakers), but being the 2nd best player on one of the best teams ever (Kobe on the 2001 Lakers) is not actually as impressive to me as being the best player on one of the best teams ever (Bird on the 1986 Celtics).

How is 2 in 3, b2b2, with 3 straight final runs(best player+co-star) not a big gap over 3 in 7(5 finals)(best player+co-star).

Bird won his 3 rings in 6 years, not 7.

[OhayoKD]

How is 2 in 3, b2b2, with 3 straight final runs(best player+co-star) not a big gap over 3 in 7(5 finals)(best player+co-star).

Difference in subjective valuation. The extra title, more total runs into the Finals as the lead guy. It doesn't seem that confusing, just not the same as how you intersect with the data, I suspect.

Well in this case, the poster has specifically said they value the frequency of winning in a concentrated period of time(even among players who end up with the same amount of championships). Kobe got a co-star at the backend of his prime and...immediately went to three straight finals and won back to back.

[tsherkin]

Well in this case, the poster has specifically said they value the frequency of winning in a concentrated period of time(even among players who end up with the same amount of championships). Kobe got a co-star at the backend of his prime and...immediately went to three straight finals and won back to back.

Suuuuure, but Bird won 3 titles from 81-86 and was 3/5 in the Finals. The difference in winning percentage isn't significant in that respect, 66.7% versus 60%? And now you add in 2 more Finals appearances in the primary role and only missing the Conference Finals once in 9 years? There's concentrated winning and sustained excellence, and in a competitive conference no less.

I don't want to strain myself too hard because I can see both sides of that one, but you see what I mean? 84-86, Bird ALSO won 2 rings in 3 years, and he went to 4 straight Finals during that stretch, so there isn't something Kobe did which he didn't in that regard.

[OhayoKD]

Well in this case, the poster has specifically said they value the frequency of winning in a concentrated period of time(even among players who end up with the same amount of championships). Kobe got a co-star at the backend of his prime and...immediately went to three straight finals and won back to back.

Suuuuure, but Bird won 3 titles from 81-86 and was 3/5 in the Finals. The difference in winning percentage isn't significant in that respect, 66.7% versus 60%? And now you add in 2 more Finals appearances in the primary role and only missing the Conference Finals once in 9 years? There's concentrated winning and sustained excellence, and in a competitive conference no less.

I don't want to strain myself too hard because I can see both sides of that one, but you see what I mean? 84-86, Bird ALSO won 2 rings in 3 years, and he went to 4 straight Finals during that stretch, so there isn't something Kobe did which he didn't in that regard.

I guess. But we are basically chucking out a three-peat with 4 finals in 5 years and 6 in 8 conference final trips for this to be competitive. That Kobe immediately picks up back where he's coming from upon picking up a co-star(actually winning at a higher frequency_ makes the whole "ah but best player" feel like a stretch and a half.

Still I figured it was worth pointing out

[tsherkin]

I guess. But we are basically chucking out a three-peat with 4 finals in 5 years and 6 in 8 conference final trips for this to be competitive. That Kobe immediately picks up back where he's coming from upon picking up a co-star(actually winning at a higher frequency_ makes the whole "ah but best player" feel like a stretch and a half.

Still I figured it was worth pointing out

Yeah, for sure, it is 100% worth considering those other titles. But it is also worth considering Kobe's role in those titles. And when we crap on Bird for postseason scoring deflation, it's worth discussing how bad Kobe was in the Finals outside of 2002. It's not a unilateral "this or that" type of situation, it's just... here are some things to consider.

Kobe has 5 titles. Bird was 3, and in the same number of Finals appearances. There is something to be said about that, though it is worth mentioning that Kobe wasn't shouldering the burden as the number one guy in quite the same fashion, which does change things. How much does it change? Well, that will vary from person to person, unquestionably. Those titles don't just go away, but they aren't equivalent to titles won as the focal guy. Same same like Shaq's Miami title isn't quite the same as his Lakers titles.

[lessthanjake]

How is 2 in 3, b2b2, with 3 straight final runs(best player+co-star) not a big gap over 3 in 7(5 finals)(best player+co-star).

Difference in subjective valuation. The extra title, more total runs into the Finals as the lead guy. It doesn't seem that confusing, just not the same as how you intersect with the data, I suspect.

Well in this case, the poster has specifically said they value the frequency of winning in a concentrated period of time(even among players who end up with the same amount of championships). Kobe got a co-star at the backend of his prime and...immediately went to three straight finals and won back to back.

No, you’re constructing a straw man, attributing to me a specific criteria that I’ve not ever said has unusually high importance to me and then trying to use that to claim I’m being inconsistent. I’ve indicated that I really value dominance and specifically being part of one of the greatest teams ever, since it suggests high ceiling raising. Which does make me highly value Kobe being part of the 2001 Lakers, but it also makes me highly value Bird being part of the 1986 Celtics—the latter being of more value to me because Bird was actually the best player on that team, while Kobe was not. To the extent you’re referring back to my arguments about Jordan’s Bulls being dominant, you clearly misunderstood the point, which was explicitly about the inevitability of their wins, not the sheer number of wins in a short timeframe (though obviously inevitability can and did lead to many titles). Kobe’s teams with Gasol won two titles in a row but they were not an inevitable buzzsaw.

[OhayoKD]

Difference in subjective valuation. The extra title, more total runs into the Finals as the lead guy. It doesn't seem that confusing, just not the same as how you intersect with the data, I suspect.

Well in this case, the poster has specifically said they value the frequency of winning in a concentrated period of time(even among players who end up with the same amount of championships). Kobe got a co-star at the backend of his prime and...immediately went to three straight finals and won back to back.

No, you’re constructing a straw man, attributing to me a specific criteria that I’ve not ever said has unusually high importance to me and then trying to use that to claim I’m being inconsistent.

Ironically there are not one but two strawman in this first sentence of yours. I did not call you inconsistent or make a claim about degree of importance. But you have, explictly noted you value

-> Winning multiple championships in a short amount of time
-> Ability to win multiple championships in a short amount of time with co-stars

Kobe wins both criterion comfortably and wins the second even ignoring that "best player" a "2nd best player" can actually be better than a "best player" depending on help distribution and team-level performance. I don't know you can really make a great case that Bird has ever played as well as Kobe did during the 2001 playoffs, but it is not a unusual filter so it is what it is.

[lessthanjake]

Well in this case, the poster has specifically said they value the frequency of winning in a concentrated period of time(even among players who end up with the same amount of championships). Kobe got a co-star at the backend of his prime and...immediately went to three straight finals and won back to back.

No, you’re constructing a straw man, attributing to me a specific criteria that I’ve not ever said has unusually high importance to me and then trying to use that to claim I’m being inconsistent.

Ironically there are not one but two strawman in this first sentence of yours. I did not call you inconsistent or make a claim about degree of importance. But you have, explictly noted you value

-> Winning multiple championships in a short amount of time
-> Ability to win multiple championships in a short amount of time with co-stars

Kobe wins both criterion comfortably and wins the second even ignoring that "best player" a "2nd best player" can actually be better than a "best player" depending on help distribution and team-level performance. I don't know you can really make a great case that Bird has ever played as well as Kobe did during the 2001 playoffs, but it is not a unusual filter so it is what it is.

Where are you getting this “short amount of time” stuff? The only thing I’ve been abnormally focused on is players being on dominant teams—which value a lot. That *can* manifest as many titles in a short amount of time, but I have been very explicit that I care about exactly how those titles are won—how dominant a team was in both regular season and playoffs. And I’ve also applied this criteria to argue for players that did *not* win multiple titles but did win a single dominant title (see, for instance, all my arguments for Moses Malone). So you’re really just inaccurately portraying precisely what I care about and then using that to say I should be coming to a different conclusion than the one I’ve come to. Which, needless to say, is not actually a good argument, and also is a bit annoying.

And you don’t have to use the word “inconsistent” to be effectively saying that. You responded to a post where I voted for Bird, by saying that Kobe should have a “clear advantage” based on my purported past criteria. That’s plainly an assertion that my vote was inconsistent. If that’s not what you were saying, then feel free to clarify.

[70sFan]

I don't understand the origins of this discussion to be honest. Kobe won 2 titles in 3 years (and three finals appeariances) as the main guy with Gasol. Bird won 2 titles in 3 years as the main guy with McHale (also three finals). I see no difference between these two samples, so what's the point?

If you want to criticize Bird for losing in 1983 or 1987, then I see no reason to exclude 2011 from Kobe sample.

[One_and_Done]

Kobe fans are so inconsistent about when his prime was, and what years 'count'. With most guys the narrative is fairly reasonable. KG gets hurt in mid-09, and that's his prime over with. With Kobe it really does feel selective.

At times only his 06 to 10 stats are used. At other times it's 00 to 10, but of course 05 doesn't count apparently because he got hurt and they missed the playoffs (but they were clearly missing the 05 playoffs even if he hadn't missed games). 11 doesn't count apparently, but like why? Was there an injury I missed? His stats are similar to previous years, but because he got spanked by Dirk and KD in 11 & 12 those years don't count, same as 99, yet 2013 is cited as a year where Kobe was awesome until his injury. I honestly would like to see some consistency about when his supporters think his prime was.

[70sFan]

Kobe fans are so inconsistent about when his prime was, and what years 'count'. With most guys the narrative is fairly reasonable. KG gets hurt in mid-09, and that's his prime over with. With Kobe it really does feel selective.

At times only his 06 to 10 stats are used. At other times it's 00 to 10, but of course 05 doesn't count apparently because he got hurt and they missed the playoffs (but they were clearly missing the 05 playoffs even if he hadn't missed games). 11 doesn't count apparently, but like why? Was there an injury I missed? His stats are similar to previous years, but because he got spanked by Dirk and KD in 11 & 12 those years don't count, same as 99, yet 2013 is cited as a year where Kobe was awesome until his injury. I honestly would like to see some consistency about when his supporters think his prime was.

To be fair, the same can be said about Durant supporters.

[One_and_Done]

I wouldn't be saying that after your hyperselective comparison of years between KD and Kobe (playoffs only, but exclude KDs best years, and initially focusing only on Kobe's best ones).

[Owly]

I suppose another way of looking at it is Bird/Bryant just strike me as players who had faux GOAT arguments which give the impression they are better than Big O and West (though, Oscar Robertson also had a faux GOAT argument, just those people are not around to argue those type of things on the internet).

A couple of authors did list Robertson first back in the 90s, for what it's worth.

Yeah, that was a long time ago now though!

It was but there's been, depending on the particular list only 1 or two major competitors adding significant value (Kareem and Russell already in place, depending on the list Jordan too, only LeBron as a major conventional challenger and that's a recent significant value finish [if indeed it has] ... individual mileage may vary from these conventions [e.g. Duncan]). And he's one of only a handful of players that have been 1 in published lists. I haven't checked a lot recently (should be some with LeBron) and what counts as published is fuzzy (now it's more likely to be a web list or a video/series)... but otoh it's only really him, Wilt (x1), Shaq (x1) and a whole bunch of Jordan. Russell got that 35th aniv., best player thing but Jabbar is still adding value at that point and I don't think I know a lot about the detail on the process for that (may have a newspaper scan from online, but could be thinking of something else and probably couldn't find it anyhow).

I'm not saying they're right so if your saying the case was "primitive" sure but then for most lists they are (plus inconsistent ... I know it's hard but ...). I'm not saying it's a big deal just that I've seen people make a book of ranking players or in which that is a n aspect who put Oscar at one.

Fwiw, even on the surface, "faux" case level I'd think the thing that (I'd think) kind of makes Kobe's faux case ("He's like Jordan ...") also destroys it ("... but worse").

[OhayoKD]

And you don’t have to use the word “inconsistent” to be effectively saying that. You responded to a post where I voted for Bird, by saying that Kobe should have a “clear advantage” based on my purported past criteria. That’s plainly an assertion that my vote was inconsistent. If that’s not what you were saying, then feel free to clarify.

I said he has a clear advantage on two things you have said you look at. You said you may be persuaded and then I saw the "best player" point so I responded making a note on 2001 and then pointed out something I thought might register.

I did not say "he had a clear advantage based on your critera", i said he has a clear advantage on points you've said you value.

I don't understand the origins of this discussion to be honest. Kobe won 2 titles in 3 years (and three finals appeariances) as the main guy with Gasol. Bird won 2 titles in 3 years as the main guy with McHale (also three finals). I see no difference between these two samples, so what's the point?

If you want to criticize Bird for losing in 1983 or 1987, then I see no reason to exclude 2011 from Kobe sample.

Well the back to back is an advantage here. There is also immediacy but "much" for that specific sample was wrong. Feel free to extend the sample, that only hurts Bird(maaaybe not if you count the years where one of the two got injured before the playoffs?).