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

[OhayoKD]

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.

That passing advantage which only means anything in a hypothetical league where no one is allowed to dribble?

[One_and_Done]

I only use longevity as a way to differentiate guys in the same tier, provided you had 'enough' longevity The contrast between their floor raising makes it hard for me to conceptualise them as in the same tier.

Bird joined a 29 win team and turned them into a 61 win team with only minor improvements aside from his addition, none of which were needle movers. They then won 62 and 63 games the next 2 years, and a title.

Kobe's record in games he played without Shaq from 99 to 07 was 135-137.

These guys were not similarly impactful.

[Doctor MJ]

You do not need to be this desperate to exclude votes. Kobe will probably lose anyway and you can sleep well knowing you triumphed in this goal of blocking him from the top twelve or whatever.

Time/Duration Expectations
* The initial threads will be live for 3 days. It will not be exactly 72 hours, but will not be less than 72 hours.
* I will be looking to increase the speed to a thread every 2 days if and when this seems appropriate. So long as we're getting bang for our buck on that 3rd day, I won't change it.

I'll tally the votes when I wake up the morning after the Deadline (I don't care if you change things after the official Deadline, but once I tally, it's over).

The voting started Friday morning, less than 72 hours ago. The title is probably a mistake. You can all calm down.

I see what happened now.

Yes, date was wrong before. Now it's right.

[cupcakesnake]

Vote: Bird
Alternate: Mikan

Nominate 1: Dirk
Nominate 2: David Robinson

I have Bird and the old guys all in a tier (Big O, West, Mikan) and gave them each a ton of consideration.

Bird has become one of those players where we fixate on his weaknesses a bit too much, maybe as an over-correction for Bird being treated as an immortal for so long.

In terms of Bird weaknesses, I agree with most of the takes on his rim pressure and handles.
There's some other stuff though that has felt a bit mental gymnasticky, or at the very least is stuff I don't agree with.
- There was a thread last week questioning whether Bird was really that great a shooter. Yes, Bird played in an era where no one was creating a ton of value with the 3-point shot. But every metric we have on Bird's shooting makes it hard to imagine him not being a great shooter in any era.
- People exaggerate Bird's playoff scoring resiliency problems and over index on a few series. I'm fine with pointing out some relative inconsistency, but it's become a more holistic statement and I'm not sure I see that.
- People bring his defense down. There are things I don't like about Bird's defense (mostly guarding the ball) but the tape shows that Bird was able to add defensive value in a ton of ways.

I think once you realize Bird isn't an on-ball mega creator, maybe that's disappointing to some people that imagined he was that? What I see in Bird as a 6'9" Kyle Lowry/Jimmy Butler type. A hustling maniac with a giant brain that creates value in the margins whenever he can't dominate his matchup. He may of lacked a bit in terms of force with the ball in his hands, but he more than made up for that with his unparalleled combination of size, skill, motor, and smarts. Bird could really scramble defenses and create a lot of chaos on both ends.

I'm very high on Bird's defense. He was a total tweener in terms of matchups, but lordy did he ever have great hands, anticipation, motor, and toughness. While lots of star scorers get put in the "free safety" position to conserve them for offense, Bird was one of the best at it. Especially playing with a large frontline, his timing on digs and doubles was tremendous.

I also think his on-ball scoring is getting knocked down a bit too far. The handles aren't special (but relative to era, what other guys his size were doing what he did with the ball in his hands), but his footwork and scoring touch let him create plenty for himself against 95% of defenses. I don't have him in the 1% of on-ball creators, but I don't have him that much lower.

[OhayoKD]

Vote: Bird
Alternate: Mikan

- People bring his defense down. There are things I don't like about Bird's defense (mostly guarding the ball) but the tape shows that Bird was able to add defensive value in a ton of ways.

I think once you realize Bird isn't an on-ball mega creator, maybe that's disappointing to some people that imagined he was that? What I see in Bird as a 6'9" Kyle Lowry/Jimmy Butler type. A hustling maniac with a giant brain that creates value in the margins whenever he can't dominate his matchup. He may of lacked a bit in terms of force with the ball in his hands, but he more than made up for that with his unparalleled combination of size, skill, motor, and smarts. Bird could really scramble defenses and create a lot of chaos on both ends.

I'm very high on Bird's defense. He was a total tweener in terms of matchups, but lordy did he ever have great hands, anticipation, motor, and toughness. While lots of star scorers get put in the "free safety" position to conserve them for offense, Bird was one of the best at it. Especially playing with a large frontline, his timing on digs and doubles was tremendous.

I also think his on-ball scoring is getting knocked down a bit too far. The handles aren't special (but relative to era, what other guys his size were doing what he did with the ball in his hands), but his footwork and scoring touch let him create plenty for himself against 95% of defenses. I don't have him in the 1% of on-ball creators, but I don't have him that much lower.

So I think the main contention is that Bird is not a mega-creator period(or at least on a level of a jordan, steph, lebron, or magic(ordered in terms of how their advanced creation stacks up)), not "mega-on ball"(partially because as you say, no one was generating massive value with the 3-point shot). But I'll set that aside since it's been discussed to death.

I guess what I'm more curious is how you say "on-ball d" as the biggest factor and then note the "with a large frontline". Take peak Bird where the motor has dropped significantly even according to those who view him as a dpoy as a rookie. Are you confident you would think of him as a positive if I replace mchale with an equally talented small-forward and asked Bird to defend opposing bigs?

I think the limited paint-protection is a much bigger concern, How sure are you he'd look better than say Jokic for example?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote 1: Larry Bird



Vote 2: Jerry West

So, I'm going to talk about my two Induction votes together because I've really been spending my time just debating between these two.

In a nutshell, I think they are both incredible impact-oriented players that were outliers within their own era.

I am inclined to say that West was generally the more effective scorer and generally the better defender, while also being strong at other parts of the game. Given this, it's pretty understandable why folks would rank ahead of West ahead of Bird.

But I think that Bird at his best was exceptionally valuable in both those areas, a more spectacular playmaker and a better rebounder. That's not an argument for Bird over West, but it is a statement that I see Bird as legit as the eyes of the time saw him to be.

In the end here, I could easily imagine a universe where West would have had the overall more accomplished playing career, but I don't think things were quite right with Baylor and were only briefly right with Wilt. Is that Jerry's fault? No, but he didn't achieve the things that he didn't achieve, and it is what it is.

Forced to choose between the two, I'm still siding with Bird here.

Nominate: David Robinson



Alright, put a lot of thought into this and Robinson ended up coming out on top.

There are a trio of guys in Robinson, Malone & Nowitzki that I struggle to choose between in a kind of a rock-paper-scissors debacle.

Malone literally beats Robinson.
Robinson's 2-way play makes me more confident in him than Dirk.
Dirk feels like he did more for the Mavs than Malone did for the Jazz.

Focusing on Malone & Robinson, if we're just focused on Robinson's alpha era, I have to side with Malone. When a particular match up is prominent enough between two guys, it's hard not to let it determine how those players stack up.

But I'm incredibly impressed by what Robinson did after Duncan's arrival. I honestly think that the main reason it made sense in the moment to let Duncan be the offensive alpha was just because defense was more important than offense for the team. And of course, when we talk about Spurs culture, while Pop & Duncan and other deserve credit, it's really with Robinson that it begins. Robinson's selflessness set the tone of the Pop era which Duncan then propagated as he later gave up primacy. Credit to Duncan, but if Robinson doesn't do what he did, things might have gone very differently - with Duncan eventually taking his talents to the swamps of the Magic Kingdom.

Honestly, it's enough for me to be more impressed with Robinson's career than Malone's.

As far as Malone vs Dirk, well, to be continued.

I'll mention KD here. The comparison between him and Dirk is natural. In a nutshell, I'd give KD the nod by a little as the better player on the court...but a big advantage to Dirk off-court.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Bird goes up by 2 votes again.

Robinson still trailing Dirk 10-8 in the nomination fight.

[ShaqAttac]

Bird goes up by 2 votes again.

Robinson still trailing Dirk 10-8 in the nomination fight.

this series going 7. believe in mamba

[One_and_Done]

It's probably the most important nomination vote so far, as the winner will be a dark horse to win next round.

[lessthanjake]

It's probably the most important nomination vote so far, as the winner will be a dark horse to win next round.

I know you won’t be voting for him, but I think Kobe’s probably going to easily win the next round (with West probably getting a good share of votes too), assuming he doesn’t win this one (and if he does, then Bird will probably easily win the next round).

[ShaqAttac]

It's probably the most important nomination vote so far, as the winner will be a dark horse to win next round.

I know you won’t be voting for him, but I think Kobe’s probably going to easily win the next round (with West probably getting a good share of votes too), assuming he doesn’t win this one (and if he does, then Bird will probably easily win the next round).

do not sleep on mikan sir.

[One_and_Done]

I dunno man. Right now Kobe has 10 out of 26 votes, and 10 total votes using non-Bird alternates. In addition some of the Kobe voters like Ceiling have basically said they'd vote D.Rob or other modern candidates over him. If Bird loses he'll get up easily next time. Kobe I'm not so sure. I don't think many of the Bird voters will prefer him to West or Oscar.

[OhayoKD]

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.

I mean if highlights suffice...

Spoiler:

I didn't start watching basketball until 1994 so I didn't see Bird play live, but I really, really don't understand what's special about his passing at all. I don't get it. He averaged just over 6 assists a game in a very high pace league and from watching his highlight reels it seems like he never made a difficult pass in his life. Every single "highlight" is just a basic obvious pass to a guy 3 feet away that it seems like any high schooler would find. What makes him any better of a passer than say Jimmy Butler? I really don't understand.

Watch on YouTube

Start with that.

Timing, accuracy. His touch passing, when he only has the ball for a fraction of a second and one-hands it to someone. No-lookers, the whole range of things which might impress someone with his positional awareness and technical passing acumen. Watch more Bird and pay specific attention to his passing. I don't want to be rude, your question is fair, especially for someone who never saw him live. But there are plenty of highlights which illustrate why the fanfare exists.

In this highlight reel, none of his first four passes create wide open looks. There are still defenders the recipients have to deal with up until pass #5. You have to wait till pass #8 to see another uncontested look. Pass #10 for the 3rd.

For comparison...
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]

Magic's first 7 passes here create wide open looks. 9 of his first 12. You might also notice that alot of these passes come with Magic handling the ball in traffic, allowing Johnson to filter out defenders, before he makes the pass. In some of these Magic is also leveraging rim-pressure as defenders take themselves out of the play in anticipation of what he's going to at the basket.

[url]

Watch on YouTube

;start=25[/url]
Kobe creates 5 wide-open looks in his first 10 possessions(for clarity, i am not[b] counting something like the Walton pass). As you might expect he is not anticipating or making reads as early as the other two are but he is able to leverage both his pressure at the rim and penetration to compensate for his disadvantage in raw-skill. Bryant is also, like Magic, taking defenders out of the play pre-pass

Here is the result:




Whatever you think of their raw-passing, Magic creates [b]more and creates more efficiently, while leading better offenses.

So does Lebron:


And if you think this is a matter of off-ball creation being undervalued...so does Steph:


So does Jordan:


You know who Bird looks comparable to? This guy:



For all the basketball discourse that presents ball-handling as a minor consideration(or an outright negative), the above charts(and the team-lvl offensive results and impact signals) track pretty closely to the degree of ball-handling primacy the players in question had.

Kevin Durant is a good passer. But he does not leverage that into good(for a superstar) creation.

Larry Bird is one of the greatest passers, but he only really leverages that towards good creation.
Something else to consider: as the "eye test" bit here comes from a highlight reel, we are theoretically getting Bird's most valuable assists. Take a look at a year some consider his offensive peak like 1987, and I think you'll notice a bug chunk of those assists, are not taking extra defenders out of the play. In other words, he is barely creating anything.

I think assuming bird is outplaymaking kobe is dubious honestly, but i've said that before

[tsherkin]

In this highlight reel, none of his first four passes create wide open looks.

You keep saying this, but it's kinda BS.

First pass, parish has an easy, short look at the basket. There is one defender in front of him, not contesting, sealing another Celtic. So right away, that's horsecrap.

Second pass, Ainge gets it in the corner, steps forward and gets an easy short jumper.

Third pass, Paxson has a really good look under the basket. Contested? Yes. Good look? Absolutely. You'd be mad not to love that shot for Boston.

Fourth pass, Parish may as well have been open because the only defender was more focused on Bird than on him.

Fifth pass is a full-court bomb to DJ for a layup. Sixth one is a quick jumper.

I could go on, but basically, you're not accurately representing the quality of the shots Bird is creating for his teammates. Are they wide open? Not all, no. Are they great looks? 100%.

[OhayoKD]

In this highlight reel, none of his first four passes create wide open looks.

You keep saying this, but it's kinda BS.

First pass, parish has an easy, short look at the basket. There is one defender in front of him, not contesting, sealing another Celtic. So right away, that's horsecrap.

Second pass, Ainge gets it in the corner, steps forward and gets an easy short jumper.

Third pass, Paxson has a really good look under the basket. Contested? Yes. Good look? Absolutely. You'd be mad not to love that shot for Boston.

Fourth pass, Parish may as well have been open because the only defender was more focused on Bird than on him.

Fifth pass is a full-court bomb to DJ for a layup. Sixth one is a quick jumper.

I could go on, but basically, you're not accurately representing the quality of the shots Bird is creating for his teammates. Are they wide open? Not all, no. Are they great looks? 100%.

I think it is "horsecrap" to quote "wide open" and then say i'm not accurate because I do not recognize "good looks"

I said "wide-open" and have compared all 3 on frequency of wide-open looks specifically excluding plays from kobe or magic which were "good looks" as you describe. This is comparative. I do not understand your point when you say "good look" vs "wide-open".

If there is a pass where you think I am not holding both to the same standards, then please point it out. There's a reason I gave very specific numbers so if I am actually "bsing" you can call me out. This is not that and it's not the first time this thread someone has quoted me saying something, pointed out something different, and then accused me of bs....

[tsherkin]

I think it is "horsecrap" to quote "wide open" and then say i'm not accurate because I do not recognize "good looks"

And I counter that you're downplaying for no reason. He creates good, high-percentage looks. That they aren't "wide open" is irrelevant. Particularly given your follow-on remarks about Magic.

I don't really understand your active crapping on Bird's passing in that highlight reel, to be honest. Not one bit.

[OhayoKD]

I think it is "horsecrap" to quote "wide open" and then say i'm not accurate because I do not recognize "good looks"

And I counter that you're downplaying for no reason. He creates good, high-percentage looks. That they aren't "wide open" is irrelevant. Particularly given your follow-on remarks about Magic.

I don't really understand your active crapping on Bird's passing in that highlight reel, to be honest. Not one bit.

Except is is very relevant because wide-open chances are higher quality than not wide-open chances. That is partially the point of being a better passer. To generate higher quality looks.

That is now "downplaying", that is holding three players to the same standard and comparing them. Player-ranking is a comparative exercise. You posted a highlight reel as proof of bird's excellent passing. I made it comparative and picked the same type of data for all three and then posted stats below as well as the team results.

If holding Bird to the same standard as everyone is downplaying than maybe Bird should be discussed in later threads.

[OhayoKD]

I think it is "horsecrap" to quote "wide open" and then say i'm not accurate because I do not recognize "good looks"

And I counter that you're downplaying for no reason. He creates good, high-percentage looks. That they aren't "wide open" is irrelevant. Particularly given your follow-on remarks about Magic.

I don't really understand your active crapping on Bird's passing in that highlight reel, to be honest. Not one bit.

Except is is very relevant because wide-open chances are higher quality than not wide-open chances. That is partially the point of being a better passer. To generate higher quality looks.

That is now "downplaying", that is holding three players to the same standard and comparing them. Player-ranking is a comparative exercise. You posted a highlight reel as proof of bird's excellent passing. I made it comparative and picked the same type of data for all three and then posted stats below as well as the team results.

If holding Bird to the same standard as everyone is downplaying than maybe Bird should be discussed in later threads.

Also so there is no confusion. I took the first 10 passes from each highlight and counted the number of wide-open looks. Same number, same type of data, same bar I am not understanding how that is bs or inaccurate.

Then I went into a bunch of other stuff with that as a launching point

[LukaTheGOAT]

It is also probably against the “spirit of the project” to make it your mission to vociferously campaign against every player you dislike — which apparently includes nearly every player predating the three-point line.

Haha to be fair, if that were the case, then I think there’d be quite a few people in this project who would be violating the “spirit of the project” with some considerable frequency.

I think the spirit of the project was the friends we made along the way

Or haters

[OhayoKD]

Haha to be fair, if that were the case, then I think there’d be quite a few people in this project who would be violating the “spirit of the project” with some considerable frequency.

I think the spirit of the project was the friends we made along the way

Or haters

Friends are just haters who don't realize they hate you