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

[Colbinii]

So I take it we are extending this until tomorrow morning?

Yeah, it was a typo or misunderstanding. All threads so far have been 72 hours.

[trex_8063]

So I take it we are extending this until tomorrow morning?

Yeah, it was a typo or misunderstanding. All threads so far have been 72 hours.

I have corrected it.

[ceiling raiser]

And now, it's a tie between Bird/Kobe.

How do you feel about Kobe here? Interested in why he didn’t make your ballot.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

And now, it's a tie between Bird/Kobe.

How do you feel about Kobe here? Interested in why he didn’t make your ballot.

He didn't make my ballot because as a champion of era-relativity, Mikan was my #1 vote. My #2 vote was used to decide between Bird and Kobe since that's the big race here, and I chose Bird, with a long post explaining why - tldr; I just think he peaked higher(84-88) - four straight finals, won two of them, three MVPs, two 50-40-90 seasons(posted higher efficiency in those years than Kobe ever did in his career), elite rebounder for his position, etc.

If you are one to really value longevity, than it would be hard to argue for Bird over Kobe.

If Bird gets in, I may well vote for Kobe next though(assuming Mikan still doesn't get through).

[ceiling raiser]

And now, it's a tie between Bird/Kobe.

How do you feel about Kobe here? Interested in why he didn’t make your ballot.

He didn't make my ballot because as a champion of era-relativity, Mikan was my #1 vote. My #2 vote was used to decide between Bird and Kobe since that's the big race here, and I chose Bird, with a long post explaining why - tldr; I just think he peaked higher(84-88) - four straight finals, won two of them, three MVPs, two 50-40-90 seasons(posted higher efficiency in those years than Kobe ever did in his career), elite rebounder for his position, etc.

If you are one to really value longevity, than it would be hard to argue for Bird over Kobe.

If Bird gets in, I may well vote for Kobe next though(assuming Mikan still doesn't get through).

Fair enough. Do you think Bird could’ve played next to peak Shaq and looked arguably more impactful? Arbitrary criterion, but that’s tough for me RE:Bird.

[ceiling raiser]

Also, how much of Bird being an elite rebounder is because McHale and Parish were boxing out and letting him and the guards crash the boards and initiate transition possessions?

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Actually switched my nomination to Dirk upon consideration

Sorry robinson

Awww man. I just see similar offensive impact for both with significantly more defensive impact for DRob. And I know Dirk won as a #1, but as I stated earlier in this thread, I think DRob's role on the 99 team is undervalued a lot.

How is their offensive impact similar?

Well, I shouldn't have said "offensive impact" - what I really meant was their scoring numbers in terms of volume and efficiency are similar.

For D-Rob's career:

31.3 points per 100 RS
27.9 points per 100 PO(D-Rob's scoring fell off his last two years, if you cut it off after 2000-01, it's more like 30)
+4.77 career average rTS
54.7% PO TS

For Dirk's career:

31.9 points per 100 RS
32.8 points per 100 PO
+3.96 career average rTS(that's with his final season's abysmal -9.1 rTS omitted)
57.7% PO TS

They're each better and worse in some ways, but very comparable. Given that, plus D-Rob's clear defensive advantage, I tend to go with him. But then Dirk has the longevity edge too.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Also, how much of Bird being an elite rebounder is because McHale and Parish were boxing out and letting him and the guards crash the boards and initiate transition possessions?

I would note that Bird grabbed 10.4rpg in his rookie year when Parish and McHale weren't there yet.

[OhayoKD]

Also, how much of Bird being an elite rebounder is because McHale and Parish were boxing out and letting him and the guards crash the boards and initiate transition possessions?

I would note that Bird grabbed 10.4rpg in his rookie year when Parish and McHale weren't there yet.

Bird was a pretty good rebounder from 80-84 I think(though the heavy skew towards defensive rebounding as well what I've watched makes me think alot of those were uncontested(and thereby not as valuable). I think there was a decline 85(injury related perhaps) on.

Defense might have been nuetral as of 86(a half of ganetracking cited earlier has it at negative but my impression from all i've watched was more positive) and then negative in 87 and bad in 88(injury again).

I also think 50/40/90 is not really meaningful inofitself(especially given the volume of that 40). Kobe was high effeciency with every type of shot type(just took a bunch of the least effecient ones due to scheme) and his scoring held up better in the playoffs.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

How do you feel about Kobe here? Interested in why he didn’t make your ballot.

He didn't make my ballot because as a champion of era-relativity, Mikan was my #1 vote. My #2 vote was used to decide between Bird and Kobe since that's the big race here, and I chose Bird, with a long post explaining why - tldr; I just think he peaked higher(84-88) - four straight finals, won two of them, three MVPs, two 50-40-90 seasons(posted higher efficiency in those years than Kobe ever did in his career), elite rebounder for his position, etc.

If you are one to really value longevity, than it would be hard to argue for Bird over Kobe.

If Bird gets in, I may well vote for Kobe next though(assuming Mikan still doesn't get through).

Fair enough. Do you think Bird could’ve played next to peak Shaq and looked arguably more impactful? Arbitrary criterion, but that’s tough for me RE:Bird.

I mean, you can certainly argue that Kobe was a better fit with Shaq than Bird would've been, but if we're talking about peak Bird, I could certainly see him working on that team. He was a more efficient shooter than Kobe at that point in Kobe's career(peak Bird had 4 straight 40%+ 3P years), so I could see him draining all kinds of open shots from all ranges when Shaq draws the defense in. As a playmaker, one look at a couple of highlight clips is all I need to imagine him finding Horry/Fisher/Fox/Grant/etc for assists all over the place.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm having a hard time buying Bird was better than Robertson and West at this point. They both seem like more efficient scorers, and depending on who we are talking about they have anchored better more elite offenses, kill Bird on defense, better playmakers by quite some bit.

They were bigger outliers from other perimeter players than Bird was I think as well. They did not collect the rings or the fame but they played in a less commercial era with less stacked teams (mainly an argument for Oscar).

Bird did not really play longer than them either. So even West's injury disadvantages are mitigated some bit.

So I'll say up front I'm specifically scanning the pages looking for more comparisons between these 3 guys, because I find them close, and I expect they'll be my next 3 votes.

To your points, some counters:

1. Don't just brush over the fact that Bird's absolute TS% was on average better than Oscar & West. I understand that Oscar & West have the era advantage, but this is not something that we can expect to linearly adjust for. Oscar & West's scoring may be more impressive than Bird's, but they were not literally more likely to be successful with their scoring attempts than Bird.

2. Kill Bird on defense. Oh I totally disagree with this characterization of Bird's defense. I think as a young guy his defensive impact was quite high. I think he deserved those All-D teams. Not saying he's the equal of West on defense, particularly over the long run, but I have more faith in his defense than Oscar's.

3. Oscar & West bigger outliers from contemporary perimeter guys. I think you can say that about Oscar & West relative to all other guards who have come since. It's an argument in their favor, but not something that should be used against them only with respect to Bird...who isn't even really a clear cut perimeter guy.

There is no need to linearly adjust, really. Jerry West has nearly the same TS% as Larry Bird with much higher PPG and no 3 point line (even 1 3 pointer per game on good efficiency would make a difference for their TS). Jerry West also has to create his own shot more often. They have long sample sizes of deep playoff runs and as Luka mentioned, Jerry West I think is pretty clearly superior. (I could be missing something, but I doubt it's anything that can make up the difference)

Considering there are like 4 factors that suppress West's TS% (primary creator, higher PPG, less efficient era, lack of 3 point line), the fact that his TS% is nearly the same as Larry Bird's is pretty telling.


On defense I do not think they are close at all. Even Bird's best years he was not as good of a defender as Jerry West, and Bird's wasn't that great of a defender for the 2nd half of his career. West was an elite defender from pretty much day 1 to the end of his prime.

[penbeast0]

Also, how much of Bird being an elite rebounder is because McHale and Parish were boxing out and letting him and the guards crash the boards and initiate transition possessions?

I would note that Bird grabbed 10.4rpg in his rookie year when Parish and McHale weren't there yet.

Bird was a pretty good rebounder from 80-84 I think(though the heavy skew towards defensive rebounding as well what I've watched makes me think alot of those were uncontested(and thereby not as valuable). I think there was a decline 85(injury related perhaps) on.

Defense might have been nuetral as of 86(a half of ganetracking cited earlier has it at negative but my impression from all i've watched was more positive) and then negative in 87 and bad in 88(injury again).

I also think 50/40/90 is not really meaningful inofitself(especially given the volume of that 40). Kobe was high effeciency with every type of shot type(just took a bunch of the least effecient ones due to scheme) and his scoring held up better in the playoffs.

Was Kobe in any way better than West other than era adjustment? Was his volume scoring better, his relative efficiency (or even absolute efficiency!), his playmaking, his defense, his ability to score resiliently in the playoffs? West seems to be the better package top to bottom there too.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Also, how much of Bird being an elite rebounder is because McHale and Parish were boxing out and letting him and the guards crash the boards and initiate transition possessions?

I would note that Bird grabbed 10.4rpg in his rookie year when Parish and McHale weren't there yet.

Bird was a pretty good rebounder from 80-84 I think(though the heavy skew towards defensive rebounding as well what I've watched makes me think alot of those were uncontested(and thereby not as valuable). I think there was a decline 85(injury related perhaps) on.

Defense might have been nuetral as of 86(a half of ganetracking cited earlier has it at negative but my impression from all i've watched was more positive) and then negative in 87 and bad in 88(injury again).

I also think 50/40/90 is not really meaningful inofitself(especially given the volume of that 40). Kobe was high effeciency with every type of shot type(just took a bunch of the least effecient ones due to scheme) and his scoring held up better in the playoffs.

3 3PA per game was a lot in 1987/88.

I cited in my earlier post that from 84-88, Bird posted three rTS's higher than any Kobe ever did in the RS, the 7+ rTS's he posted in 87 and 88(the 50/40/90 years) are by a wide margin better than any Kobe ever posted. I don't think it's exactly a hot take to suggest that peak Bird was a more efficient scorer for those 4-5 years than Kobe ever was.

It is true that Kobe scored more per 100 in the playoffs over his career than Bird did, but because a big part of my argument is centered on Bird's peak, I also reference that Bird's efficiency in the playoffs during his peak arguably eclipses that of Kobe. I quote part of my voting post:

In the playoffs, I looked at every series Bird played from 1980 to 1988 and every series Kobe played from 2000 to 2010 and for each series compared their TS to what their opponent had allowed in the RS.

By this measure, Kobe averages a +3.1 rTS per series 2000-2010, and Bird averages a +2.65 rTS per series 1980-1988. So a modest advantage for Kobe, but again, Bird peaks higher. If I take Kobe's best five-year stretch based on rTS vs playoff opponents - 2006-2010 - he averages a +4.21 rTS; if I take Bird's best five-year stretch - 1984-1988 - he averages a +4.41 rTS(and that would be +5.07 were it not for poor -7.6 rTS shooting series he had against the Bad Boys in the 1988 finals). Those best-five-year stretches are very close, with Bird having a small advantage.

Because part of my argument is based on Bird's peak play, I narrowed it down one more year. Bird's best four-year stretch from 1984-1987 yields a +5.45 rTS per series average. There is no four-year stretch for Kobe that gets particularly close to that - 2006-09 yields a +4.43 rTS per series average, while 2007-2010 yields a +4.07 rTS per series average. I will put all the series-by-series rTS I calculated in a spoiler:

Spoiler:

Bird:

80
+1.2
-2.4

81
+3.9
+4.9
-7.5

82
+0.4
-8.0

83
-1.5
-5.0

84
+1.4
+10.6
+9.1
+6.4

85
+10.1
-2.6
-4.3
+0.0

86
+8.2
+6.6
+14.5
+3.6

87
+12.6
+4.8
+4.9
+1.3

88
+4.7
+3.9
-7.6

Kobe:

00
+2.2
+2.1
+5.0
-9.8

01
+5.2
+9.0
+8.8
+0.2

02
-4.4
-0.9
-1.3
+12.3

03
+1.6
+3.7

04
+1.2
+5.4
+2.9
-2.8

06
+6.0

07
+2.8

08
+5.9
+8.6
+6.8
-0.3

09
+1.8
+1.9
+9.1
+1.7

10
-2.1
+6.9
+10.4
-0.6

Again, granted Kobe was doing like 38 points per 100 while Bird was more like 30 during those four and five year stretches I was looking at.

[HeartBreakKid]

My vote goes for Jerry West


I am not positive about Jerry West over Big O, I plan on reading older threads that compare them. But for now I'm really liking Jerry West's two way play. I think West is closer to Jordan than some of these guys in all honesty.

Comparing him to Kobe, it seems like to me West is a better defender than Kobe even during his best years. If we give young Kobe the edge, West has a much larger sample size of being a good defender where Bryant goes a few seasons where he is not a good one at all.

Off ball play I think they are comparable. They are both good at getting into the paint and drawing fouls. They're good at hitting pin downs and nailing mid range jumpers in motion. However, I do think West's long range bombing gives him a good advantage over Kobe.

On ball I think Kobe is almost certainly better in terms of shot creation. Kobe may come from a more advance era, but even among them creating his own shot is his thing. Jerry West looks rather primitive, albeit still effective. However, Jerry West has shown to be a brilliant creator for others.

Kobe Bryant being a great creator is more of a myth based off of great highlights. He kills one of his best strengths when he tries to do his Magic Johnson impression (turnover economy). I don't think Jerry West is an all time great playmaker, but he did learn how to become a legitimate point guard which is something Bryant isn't nor could ever become despite the tools he has on paper.


So that's their skill set, what about the brass tax? They both have many seasons of deep playoff runs. Kobe was in a deeper conference and won more rings, but is likely just a variance thing (at the end of the day the Lakers of West's team just lost to slightly better teams). Sometimes West' injuries did get in the way of his success, no doubt, and that is his biggest weakness as a player.

If Kobe is most famous for his scoring I think West even out does him there. West has more explosive scoring and seems like a more consistent, efficient scorer. I think West would also be more portable across eras, he can be used in many ways - as a slasher, off ball player, deep 3 stretcher, primary creator.

West just seems like a more slightly better but way more forgotten and underappreciated version of Bryant. I do not see what makes Kobe better, I see what makes him close but not better.

Alternate vote for Oscar Robertson

He anchored a lot of elite/top offenses with pretty much any cast he got so logical he is probably a better offensive player than West. Through some linear math that kind of puts him above Bryant and Bird for me.


My nominations is for Nikola Jokic (I'm very peak oriented and he has enough seasons where it is pretty easy to see he is no fluke, he is probably better than some of the players on the top 10 list already)

Alternate nomination is for Julius Erving (I think Dr.J's skill set on paper makes it easy to rip him him apart, but he clearly made it work. If you start treating ABA titles as "world titles" he is a 3 time champion...who was the anchor on 2 of them, including an underdog run, and pretty much 1a/1b for his last one. He went to the NBA ECF/Finals a million times also, he's plenty successful despite being branded a loser).

[rk2023]

Awww man. I just see similar offensive impact for both with significantly more defensive impact for DRob. And I know Dirk won as a #1, but as I stated earlier in this thread, I think DRob's role on the 99 team is undervalued a lot.

How is their offensive impact similar?

Well, I shouldn't have said "offensive impact" - what I really meant was their scoring numbers in terms of volume and efficiency are similar.

For D-Rob's career:

31.3 points per 100 RS
27.9 points per 100 PO(D-Rob's scoring fell off his last two years, if you cut it off after 2000-01, it's more like 30)
+4.77 career average rTS
54.7% PO TS

For Dirk's career:

31.9 points per 100 RS
32.8 points per 100 PO
+3.96 career average rTS(that's with his final season's abysmal -9.1 rTS omitted)
57.7% PO TS

They're each better and worse in some ways, but very comparable. Given that, plus D-Rob's clear defensive advantage, I tend to go with him. But then Dirk has the longevity edge too.

Not insinuating Robinson is worse as I certainly agree with the defensive gap being a thing here (though I take Dirk in a sense of prime and longevity, just me personally). As a scorer, I take Dirk by a lot. Robinson per-game is averaging 21.1 PPG on 54.5% TS in the PS from 1990-2001, whereas Dirk puts up 25.3 on 57.7% TS from 2001-16. The site isn't working at the moment, but iirc Ben's 'ScoreVal' metric likes Dirk as a PS scoring centerpiece decently more than Robinson. FWIW, here's an old study on the board during 2014's iteration of The T-100 pertaining to scoring resiliency (ElGee's analysis).

https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=40799443#p40799443

From such a sensitivity analysis, Dirk grades out closer to the best of the pack - whereas Robinson grades out closer to the bottom of it. Of course, the study is far from an end-all, be-all due to the need for more nuance in assessing players.

[Owly]

Actually switched my nomination to Dirk upon consideration

Sorry robinson

Awww man. I just see similar offensive impact for both with significantly more defensive impact for DRob. And I know Dirk won as a #1, but as I stated earlier in this thread, I think DRob's role on the 99 team is undervalued a lot.

Yeah, I'd say it's massively overvalued if anything. People tossing one-year apm and on/off while ignoring larger samples, the far weaker teams a better drob led, the minutes disparity(and how that would affect plus-minus stuff)...has made Drob out to be a Pippen or Wade(or for some actually Duncan+) when he was probably more of a kyrie.

Doesn't' Robinson look really good in both a great many individual years by RAPM and on off (RS and playoffs) for databall (and on-off 94-96) and googlesites 97-14 RAPM and the 98-19 playoff RAPM ...
I would question
1) What sources you think people are "ignoring"?
2) On what basis are you confident they are ignoring them, rather than being unaware of them, integrating them into prior information but finding but not being as moved by them as you might or misunderstanding them?
3) Do these sources actually paint him in the vicinity of Irving, whom I understood to show ... not strongly ... in terms of impact?
4) Do you actually think Robinson advocates are ignoring that the sans Duncan ("Robinson-led" implies things that aren't necessarily a given regarding '98, '99) teams were weaker. I would venture it would be part of a typical pro-Robinson argument.
5) So, if regarding minutes if you mean impact, wouldn't lesser minutes get regressed down? And lineups be accounted for? If you actually mean plus minus, I'd guess you're referring to '99 playoffs (the place it would most likely be referred to)? If so ... I don't think there's any way to look at the plus minus, or the Duncan but not Robinson minutes, or Robinson not Duncan minutes, or Robinson's playoff "on", or the disparity between them or any impact angle overall, even granting and stating caveats about the sample size and noise and Malik Rose playing awfully on offense ... I'm struggling to see that that's a Kyrie.

Sorry don't have time to edit, review this so apologies for any errors, lack of clarity.

[OhayoKD]

I would note that Bird grabbed 10.4rpg in his rookie year when Parish and McHale weren't there yet.

Bird was a pretty good rebounder from 80-84 I think(though the heavy skew towards defensive rebounding as well what I've watched makes me think alot of those were uncontested(and thereby not as valuable). I think there was a decline 85(injury related perhaps) on.

Defense might have been nuetral as of 86(a half of ganetracking cited earlier has it at negative but my impression from all i've watched was more positive) and then negative in 87 and bad in 88(injury again).

I also think 50/40/90 is not really meaningful inofitself(especially given the volume of that 40). Kobe was high effeciency with every type of shot type(just took a bunch of the least effecient ones due to scheme) and his scoring held up better in the playoffs.

Was Kobe in any way better than West other than era adjustment? Was his volume scoring better, his relative efficiency (or even absolute efficiency!), his playmaking, his defense, his ability to score resiliently in the playoffs? West seems to be the better package top to bottom there too.

Nope. Jerry West is probably Jordanish era-relative with Oscar even better. But then again West also didn't really win as a clear #1(despite having a great chance to in 69 on paper) so I have to wonder if it's really accurate to say he was worth more for championships over the duration of his career. In terms of raw srs generation(relative to what teams not led by russell was doing), yeah he was impressive, but the issue when you play in a league with the greatest era-relative player ever(and potentially a very high ranking second and third in wilt and oscar) is that you are bound to run into those players.

West could not get past an outmatched russell and then he barely got past an outmatched Kareem. I'm not sure the championships are unreflective of what he offered in terms of probabilities in a league where even Wilt only beat Bill when he had just about everything in his favor.

Kobe also wins my tie-breakers of "who do i expect to have the most impact over time" and "plays in a better league" and "won more".

It's also hard for me to justify voting three players from the 60's too high when only one was actually winning(save for 1967).

[OhayoKD]

Awww man. I just see similar offensive impact for both with significantly more defensive impact for DRob. And I know Dirk won as a #1, but as I stated earlier in this thread, I think DRob's role on the 99 team is undervalued a lot.

Yeah, I'd say it's massively overvalued if anything. People tossing one-year apm and on/off while ignoring larger samples, the far weaker teams a better drob led, the minutes disparity(and how that would affect plus-minus stuff)...has made Drob out to be a Pippen or Wade(or for some actually Duncan+) when he was probably more of a kyrie.

Doesn't' Robinson look really good in both a great many individual years by RAPM and on off (RS and playoffs) for databall (and on-off 94-96) and googlesites 97-14 RAPM and the 98-19 playoff RAPM ...

I do not know what the source for "google-sites" rapm is. Just like I do not know what the source is for Github. I am aware of two extended sets:
-> JE
-> Cheema

both favoring Duncan and viewing him very highly in general

Since i do not see these things(referring to everything from my original post) acknowledged or mentioned from those who insist 1999 drob >/= 1999 duncan, i am guessing people are not aware of that.


I think the fact that Drob put up monstrous on/off while his team saw a 7-point drop in PSRS(do keep in mind, that this is taking the suns rs srs at face-value despite then literaly being the only team shaq's lakers looked dominant against)with Duncan's injury is indicative of a signfiicant effect from Duncan having to play substnatial minutes with those backups while Robinson did not. I am not sure how you can try and prop drob as an equal or better of duncan when in spite of that same on/off wonkyness the team is unaffected in games drob actually misses and this same "teammate looks better" phenomenn is happening with manu who also ends up looking not all that valuable when he misses substantial time.

Pippen plays more minutes than Jordan in the 91 playoffs and then Jordan's on/off is +2 in 92 with Pippen playing similar minutes? No one blinks an eye. Shaq gets his on/off smashed in the 2001 playoffs by Kobe who plays more minutes in the 2001 and 2002 rs and playoffs, no one bats an eye.

Duncan playing 8 or 6 or 9 more minutes for 5 years sees his noisy on/off look worse? Oh Drob is the real MVP!

Sorry, you cannot sell me on Drob being a superstar. And I do not think proper impact analysis actually supports that but to each their own.

[eminence]

CP3 I imagine will have a pretty wide window depending on how folks view hypotheticals.

I think I'll be a bit on the lower side, excellent player, but can't seem to avoid disappointment come playoff time, whether through injury or just general duds (eg '22).

I get that this could be just throwing one year out and game-to-game it was inconsistent, ended on a sour not but ...

at age 36 '22 Paul playoffs
+8.6 on-off
22.8 PER
.196 WS/48
4.9 BPM

the first two are better than RS, the latter two worse (but not by that much).

If you think he's causing disappointment fine ... (though part of me says: if you're expecting more than the above at 36 ... where does that guy land?). Or if not, but you're happy with the legacy externalities, you do you. I just not sure I'd characterize it that way myself.

I was speaking mostly to end notes and a bit to legacy externalities through the lens of team goals, where the flaming heap that '22 ended in was a significant disappointment for a 64 win #1 seed.

[iggymcfrack]

How do you feel about Kobe here? Interested in why he didn’t make your ballot.

He didn't make my ballot because as a champion of era-relativity, Mikan was my #1 vote. My #2 vote was used to decide between Bird and Kobe since that's the big race here, and I chose Bird, with a long post explaining why - tldr; I just think he peaked higher(84-88) - four straight finals, won two of them, three MVPs, two 50-40-90 seasons(posted higher efficiency in those years than Kobe ever did in his career), elite rebounder for his position, etc.

If you are one to really value longevity, than it would be hard to argue for Bird over Kobe.

If Bird gets in, I may well vote for Kobe next though(assuming Mikan still doesn't get through).

Fair enough. Do you think Bird could’ve played next to peak Shaq and looked arguably more impactful? Arbitrary criterion, but that’s tough for me RE:Bird.

Bird would have been much better next to Shaq. His ability and willingness to pass would complement Shaq’s elite scoring in a different fashion than Kobe who often clashed with him trying to be the alpha. I think there’s a MUCH better chance that Bird would have won 4+ titles with Shaq than that he would have won <3.