Larry Bird as the Greatest Forward of All Time - UNTOUCHED?

[kandiking]

-= original quote snipped =-



Right after that gigantic Bird thread just died down.

aw geez. i meant that as a joke, do people actually believe that?

[mojomarc]

I understand Duncan wins games with the Spurs, but I still don't get how he's even close to Bird as the greatest forward of all time. Bird could score better than Duncan from more places on the court, could handle the ball on the wings and in the open court (which Duncan can't), had far better court vision and passing skills, and rebounded well enough that if he didn't have McHale and Parish next to him he probably would have been an 11 rpg player for his career average instead of only a 10.0. The only thing Duncan has better is his shot blocking, but Bird had him on steals so the defensive presence was probably fairly close. Also, even though Bird had the ball in his hands a lot more than Duncan and the games had a much higher pace, their career turnovers are only 10% apart, so you have to assume that Bird took care of the ball far, far better than Duncan does. You add on to that the fact that Bird was a player that would say "give me the ball and I'm going to win this single-handedly," something Duncan isn't, and you have Bird by a large margin. Heck, if it weren't for two outlier seasons where Duncan shot .549 and .546 Bird was even a better percentage shooter than him despite taking more of his shots from outside.

Like I said, I realize that the Spurs have won championships, but I think the real debate with Duncan is how close he is to Karl Malone, not whether he is better than Bird. Karl didn't win the championships, but I think he also had a much poorer cast around him and he made John Stockton, a player that most never considered among the top 2-3 PGs in the game when he was playing, the career assists leader almost single-handedly.

[Magz50]

Duncan's poor supporting cast in winning championships is what puts him on Birds level. bird had all time greats play along side him. Who knows if he would of won a championship with a rookie Parker, Manu, heavily depleted D Rob and a few journeymen role players. Put Duncan next to Parish in his prime, McHale etc, i'm sure Duncan's Celtics would of destroyed most teams with a team like that. In fact i'm certain a twin towes combo of Duncan and Parish would of been neigh impossible to stop in the 80's.

[HarlemHeat37]

I understand Duncan wins games with the Spurs, but I still don't get how he's even close to Bird as the greatest forward of all time. Bird could score better than Duncan from more places on the court, could handle the ball on the wings and in the open court (which Duncan can't), had far better court vision and passing skills, and rebounded well enough that if he didn't have McHale and Parish next to him he probably would have been an 11 rpg player for his career average instead of only a 10.0. The only thing Duncan has better is his shot blocking, but Bird had him on steals so the defensive presence was probably fairly close. Also, even though Bird had the ball in his hands a lot more than Duncan and the games had a much higher pace, their career turnovers are only 10% apart, so you have to assume that Bird took care of the ball far, far better than Duncan does. You add on to that the fact that Bird was a player that would say "give me the ball and I'm going to win this single-handedly," something Duncan isn't, and you have Bird by a large margin. Heck, if it weren't for two outlier seasons where Duncan shot .549 and .546 Bird was even a better percentage shooter than him despite taking more of his shots from outside.

interesting since most of the advantages you listed always favor a wing player..

[Doctor MJ]

I understand Duncan wins games with the Spurs, but I still don't get how he's even close to Bird as the greatest forward of all time. Bird could score better than Duncan from more places on the court, could handle the ball on the wings and in the open court (which Duncan can't), had far better court vision and passing skills, and rebounded well enough that if he didn't have McHale and Parish next to him he probably would have been an 11 rpg player for his career average instead of only a 10.0. The only thing Duncan has better is his shot blocking, but Bird had him on steals so the defensive presence was probably fairly close. Also, even though Bird had the ball in his hands a lot more than Duncan and the games had a much higher pace, their career turnovers are only 10% apart, so you have to assume that Bird took care of the ball far, far better than Duncan does. You add on to that the fact that Bird was a player that would say "give me the ball and I'm going to win this single-handedly," something Duncan isn't, and you have Bird by a large margin. Heck, if it weren't for two outlier seasons where Duncan shot .549 and .546 Bird was even a better percentage shooter than him despite taking more of his shots from outside.

Like I said, I realize that the Spurs have won championships, but I think the real debate with Duncan is how close he is to Karl Malone, not whether he is better than Bird. Karl didn't win the championships, but I think he also had a much poorer cast around him and he made John Stockton, a player that most never considered among the top 2-3 PGs in the game when he was playing, the career assists leader almost single-handedly.

The way you compare the two just seems a bit odd to me. "The only thing Duncan has better is his shot blocking"? No, Tim Duncan is the best defensive player of his generation, Larry Bird was an absolute liability man-to-man, and obviously has nothing like the team defensive impact Duncan has. That's an immense difference my friend. Saying you think Bird is better due to his clearly superior offensive game is reasonable, but saying Bird was better or equal except in one small facet of the game is crazy.