RealGM Top 100 List #6

[Vinsanity420]

Ilardi's 7-year calculation of adjusted +/- from 2002/03 to 2008/09, defensive APM:

Ben Wallace: +5.2
Ron Artest: +5.09
Tim Duncan: +4.78
Marcus Camby: +4.19

Duncan hasn't really separated himself from his peers defensively. Duncan hasn't separated himself from Kevin Garnett as a basketball player ( who isn't even in the discussion), and yet he was as "dominant" as Bird? How can one "dominant" without separating himself from his peers?

Whatever. It looks like the Immortal 6 will stay intact - which I don't mind, but I simply didn't like the order they fell in, because the logic wasn't consistent. Wilt should have been either #4 or #6 - not #5. Magic > Wilt > Bird looks odd.

[JordansBulls]

Results so far . . .

Bird 10
Shaq 4
Duncan 2
Kobe 2

Nominations

Garnett 10
LeBron 3
Mikan 2
Barkley 2
DRob 1

With Wilt's slipping, Shaq falling below Magic and Bird, Hakeem apparently slipping as well, and West and Oscar getting more support than I expected, it makes me wonder . . . are people becoming adjusted to today's NBA with it's rules favoring wing players and retroactively upgrading wing players and letting the modern style of play diminish the degree to which post players dominated NBA play pre 1990?

Remember, from the beginning of the NBA through 1988 at least there was a total of ONE, count them one, NBA champion which didn't feature a HOF center and that was the Barry led Warrior team. Then came the Bad Boy Pistons, Jordan Bulls, Billups led Pistons, and Kobe/Gasol Lakers but even there you have the Hakeem Rockets, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan Spurs, etc. winning most of the non-Jordan years. Centers still have a greater impact than any other position though the NBA has been trying to change the rules to minimize this since Mikan started; it is just appreciably harder to find a great center than a great player at any other position due to the much smaller talent pool of 7' plus players.

Sorry, but Ben Wallace is a clear HOF and was the only allstar on that Pistons team that won the title.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Ilardi's 7-year calculation of adjusted +/- from 2002/03 to 2008/09, defensive APM:

Ben Wallace: +5.2
Ron Artest: +5.09
Tim Duncan: +4.78
Marcus Camby: +4.19

Duncan hasn't really separated himself from his peers defensively. Duncan hasn't separated himself from Kevin Garnett as a basketball player ( who isn't even in the discussion), and yet he was as "dominant" as Bird? How can one "dominant" without separating himself from his peers?

Whatever. It looks like the Immortal 6 will stay intact - which I don't mind, but I simply didn't like the order they fell in, because the logic wasn't consistent. Wilt should have been either #4 or #6 - not #5. Magic > Wilt > Bird looks odd.

APM doens't tell you who the better player is, only which of a team's various rotations & lineups work the best.

Here are the DRtgs for SA from 99-07'. Now compare these to KG's or Camby's teams....

99' - 95.0 #1
00' - 98.6 #2
01' - 98.0 #1
02' - 99.7 #2
03' - 99.7 #3
04' - 94.1 #1
05' - 98.8 #1
06' - 99.6 #1
07' - 99.9 #2

Also, I'm not sure why Magic & Bird need to be next to each other. In the 80's, I understand. But that was 25 years ago, and Shaq, Kobe, TD have all passed Bird, IMO. That's what happens, new legends eventually come along. I mean Montana/Elway/Marino were the big comparsions back in the 80's too. Doesn't mean that Manning, Brady, and Farve can't get into the conversation.

[colts18]

Ilardi's 7-year calculation of adjusted +/- from 2002/03 to 2008/09, defensive APM:

Ben Wallace: +5.2
Ron Artest: +5.09
Tim Duncan: +4.78
Marcus Camby: +4.19

Duncan hasn't really separated himself from his peers defensively. Duncan hasn't separated himself from Kevin Garnett as a basketball player ( who isn't even in the discussion), and yet he was as "dominant" as Bird? How can one "dominant" without separating himself from his peers?

Whatever. It looks like the Immortal 6 will stay intact - which I don't mind, but I simply didn't like the order they fell in, because the logic wasn't consistent. Wilt should have been either #4 or #6 - not #5. Magic > Wilt > Bird looks odd.

All of Magic's numbers go up in the playoffs, pts, rebs, asts, turnovers down. He had a TS% over .595 in 10 out of 13 playoffs. Other than his 3 game 1981 playoff, Magic's worst playoff TS% was .555 (Bird only surpassed that 3 times). He averaged 20-12-8 on almost .600 TS%. Other than really Tragic Johnson, HIV, and Paul Westhead, Magic didn't really have failures.

[Dr Positivity]

Agree with Stern here.

And as I said, if it's clear enough in your mind for Duncan's God Points to exceed Bird's by virtue of his defensive edge, then it logically follows he could eclipse Jordan too. I mean, how much separation do you think exist between these guys on the edge of the bell curve?

[...]

If Duncan is going over Bird by that logic, he pretty much HAS to go over Magic (a weaker defender than Bird!) and can easily go over MJ. Which means that so would Walton. And KAJ. And why not Hakeem? And Shaq. And Wilt. And even KG.

It's perfectly reasonable to say there's a gap between Jordan and Bird big enough for a Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem to fit into. Most people consider the gap between Jordan and Bird to be filled by MJ's defense and insane playoff/big game ability and a few more years and thus overall, a more accomplished resume and dynasty. It is not close enough for anyone who tops Bird to thus top Jordan

If you want my perspective, Duncan does not get my vote over Bird solely because of a "Defensive big > perimeter guy" stance. It's because for me the whole package slightly eclipses Bird's and I put an emphasis on slightly. That package includes Bird's offensive advantage and Duncan's defense. As I said, I have yet to be convinced Duncan's impact should not be considered a virtual draw with the teams he won with and with the teams Bird did - their talent level around them at matching points in their career is just about equal and matches up very nicely throughout for a comparison. Both these guys are aces in clear impact and results by just about any measurement

[pancakes3]

Whatever. It looks like the Immortal 6 will stay intact - which I don't mind, but I simply didn't like the order they fell in , because the logic wasn't consistent. Wilt should have been either #4 or #6 - not #5. Magic > Wilt > Bird looks odd.

i'll echo this. it just seems weird that the order of the top 6 has changed from the last vote and it's been nearly 20 years since larry stepped foot onto the hardwood [nearly 40 years for Wilt]. nothing has changed from 2 years ago except for people's attitude towards Wilt's playoff woes.

shuffling 7-10 i can understand as Shaq has retired and Duncan/Kobe's career has some distance now that we can apply some context to but rearranging the deck chairs on the immortal 6 just seems off.

*disclaimer, i'm not saying that the immortal 6 cannot be CHANGED. i'm just saying it's weird that the 6 remain intact yet the order has changed. i don't have a problem in principle of someone supplanting someone in the immortal 6 if they've got the credentials.

as long as i'm posting, i guess i might as well make my vote now:

Larry for 6
Barkley for nomination

[Dr Positivity]

There really isnt an argument for Bird over shaq


Shaq
Better Prime(00-02)
Better Peak season(2000)
Longevity
Better playoff performer
Finals Performer
Less upsets
Better Defensively
3peated
84-87 Celtics>99-02 Lakers in terms of talent and depth

The argument is leadership/intangibles/etc. and effect on team culture. 2003 and 2004 teams underperforming because of non basketball reasons would've NEVER happened to Bird or Duncan

With that said, that's a long list of things Shaq has on Bird. And it's hard to point out Shaq hurting his team with lack of leadership when he had a more succesful career (titles wise) than Bird. I think Shaq has the clear tangible advantage. The question is intangibles.

(but for my personal vote it's irrelevant because I did a criteria breakdown a few threads ago and determined Duncan over Shaq narrowly. I'd probably lean Shaq over Bird looking at it, but I'll never have to make that vote it appears)

[Dr Positivity]

Whatever. It looks like the Immortal 6 will stay intact - which I don't mind, but I simply didn't like the order they fell in , because the logic wasn't consistent. Wilt should have been either #4 or #6 - not #5. Magic > Wilt > Bird looks odd.

i'll echo this. it just seems weird that the order of the top 6 has changed from the last vote and it's been nearly 20 years since larry stepped foot onto the hardwood [nearly 40 years for Wilt]. nothing has changed from 2 years ago except for people's attitude towards Wilt's playoff woes.

shuffling 7-10 i can understand as Shaq has retired and Duncan/Kobe's career has some distance now that we can apply some context to but rearranging the deck chairs on the immortal 6 just seems off.

*disclaimer, i'm not saying that the immortal 6 cannot be CHANGED. i'm just saying it's weird that the 6 remain intact yet the order has changed. i don't have a problem in principle of someone supplanting someone in the immortal 6 if they've got the credentials.

as long as i'm posting, i guess i might as well make my vote now:

Larry for 6
Barkley for nomination

It's also noteable how much bigger these threads and discussions are. Wilt got in at #4 last time in a 3 page thread with very little discussion or debate, virtually every post was either a "Vote Wilt" without comments, or a one paragraph blurb stating their position then leaving the building. (though Wilt was in contention for #2 last time and so by #4 it was considered a shoo-in and people didn't feel a need to justify past 'he was Wilt')

[JordansBulls]

Whatever. It looks like the Immortal 6 will stay intact - which I don't mind, but I simply didn't like the order they fell in , because the logic wasn't consistent. Wilt should have been either #4 or #6 - not #5. Magic > Wilt > Bird looks odd.

i'll echo this. it just seems weird that the order of the top 6 has changed from the last vote and it's been nearly 20 years since larry stepped foot onto the hardwood [nearly 40 years for Wilt]. nothing has changed from 2 years ago except for people's attitude towards Wilt's playoff woes.

shuffling 7-10 i can understand as Shaq has retired and Duncan/Kobe's career has some distance now that we can apply some context to but rearranging the deck chairs on the immortal 6 just seems off.

*disclaimer, i'm not saying that the immortal 6 cannot be CHANGED. i'm just saying it's weird that the 6 remain intact yet the order has changed. i don't have a problem in principle of someone supplanting someone in the immortal 6 if they've got the credentials.

as long as i'm posting, i guess i might as well make my vote now:

Larry for 6
Barkley for nomination

This has more to do with the POY project that many of us were in. That changed the opinions on many of these players especially for Wilt.

[colts18]

There really isnt an argument for Bird over shaq


Shaq
Better Prime(00-02)
Better Peak season(2000)
Longevity
Better playoff performer
Finals Performer
Less upsets
Better Defensively
3peated
84-87 Celtics>99-02 Lakers in terms of talent and depth

The argument is leadership/intangibles/etc. and effect on team culture. 2003 and 2004 teams underperforming because of non basketball reasons would've NEVER happened to Bird or Duncan

With that said, that's a long list of things Shaq has on Bird. And it's hard to point out Shaq hurting his team with lack of leadership when he had a more succesful career (titles wise) than Bird. I think Shaq has the clear tangible advantage. The question is intangibles.

(but for my personal vote it's irrelevant because I did a criteria breakdown a few threads ago and determined Duncan over Shaq narrowly. I'd probably lean Shaq over Bird looking at it, but I'll never have to make that vote it appears)

Something is wrong with the Bird narrative. He was this great player who was even better than the stats say because of his intagibles and he also had 2 top 50 teammates and a slew of real good role players. He consistently had the most talented team in the league save for maybe the 83 Sixers and 87 Lakers, yet he only has 3 titles and his team lost 7 times HCA. What am I missing here? People here make it sound like he has the Bill Russell intagibles, but the results clearly show he doesn't. Even with Shaq's lack of intagibles, he won more finals and made it to more finals despite less supporting talent surrounding him. Why does Duncan also have more titles than Bird despite less talent surrounding him? While Bird does have the tough East argument, Duncan played in the West at its toughest.

[Doctor MJ]

Results so far . . .

Bird 10
Shaq 4
Duncan 2
Kobe 2

Nominations

Garnett 10
LeBron 3
Mikan 2
Barkley 2
DRob 1

With Wilt's slipping, Shaq falling below Magic and Bird, Hakeem apparently slipping as well, and West and Oscar getting more support than I expected, it makes me wonder . . . are people becoming adjusted to today's NBA with it's rules favoring wing players and retroactively upgrading wing players and letting the modern style of play diminish the degree to which post players dominated NBA play pre 1990?

Remember, from the beginning of the NBA through 1988 at least there was a total of ONE, count them one, NBA champion which didn't feature a HOF center and that was the Barry led Warrior team. Then came the Bad Boy Pistons, Jordan Bulls, Billups led Pistons, and Kobe/Gasol Lakers but even there you have the Hakeem Rockets, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Duncan Spurs, etc. winning most of the non-Jordan years. Centers still have a greater impact than any other position though the NBA has been trying to change the rules to minimize this since Mikan started; it is just appreciably harder to find a great center than a great player at any other position due to the much smaller talent pool of 7' plus players.

I love you thinking big picture like this, but I don't know if I see strong evidence of this trend. Consider, our results compared to the 2006 project:

-Russell was #6 back then, and he's risen to #2, as dramatic of a rise as Wilt has fallen.
-Shaq has always been below Magic & Bird
-West & Oscar were in the top 8 in 2006 and will be significantly lower now

I'll also say we should wait & see on Hakeem, just because he has less votes than Kobe now, does not mean it will stay that way. I expect to give him my vote for #7.

[ElGee]

It's perfectly reasonable to say there's a gap between Jordan and Bird big enough for a Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem to fit into.

True. What I'm saying is I don't see that gap between Magic and Bird at all, and if you are comfortable to say the bigs > Magic/Bird, then really you're right there at Jordan. (Unless you think Jordan has some huge edge over Magic/Bird, and I don't see the evidence for that)

w with the teams he won with and with the teams Bird did - their talent level around them at matching points in their career is just about equal and matches up very nicely throughout for a comparison.

You're reverse engineering success. It's one of the least accurate ways to judge individual player contributions because if you are slightly off on each of the 7 or 8 teammates the result is compounded on the remaining share for the star. Not to mention it tends to overlook team dynamics, luck (huge!) and quality of opponent. *shrug*

[Dr Positivity]

I don't necessarily disagree colt, but IMO Lakers and Sixers had more talent from 80-83 (but also proved it by making Finals 3 of 4 years each, to Celts 1 - and they were extremely fortunate they picked the one year to make the Finals where the opponent was a 40 win Rockets instead of Kareem/Magic Lakers. As far as I'm concerned the 81 Celtics shouldn't deserve an ounce more credit than the 80 or 82 Sixers, they just drew the right straw). Celts had equal talent as Lakers from 84-88.

I'm a huge pusher of 84, 86, 87 for Bird. Not so much the rest of his playoff history.

[penbeast0]

Yeah, just trying to throw something out there for discussion. It does seem the main narrative so far is Wilt falling and that Hakeem is getting appreciably less support. It is more likely the RPOY project, one of the great ideas of the board, was responsible for most of the changes but wanted to brainstorm some other ideas.

[Dr Positivity]

It's perfectly reasonable to say there's a gap between Jordan and Bird big enough for a Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem to fit into.

True. What I'm saying is I don't see that gap between Magic and Bird at all, and if you are comfortable to say the bigs > Magic/Bird, then really you're right there at Jordan. (Unless you think Jordan has some huge edge over Magic/Bird, and I don't see the evidence for that)

w with the teams he won with and with the teams Bird did - their talent level around them at matching points in their career is just about equal and matches up very nicely throughout for a comparison.

You're reverse engineering success. It's one of the least accurate ways to judge individual player contributions because if you are slightly off on each of the 7 or 8 teammates the result is compounded on the remaining share for the star. Not to mention it tends to overlook team dynamics, luck (huge!) and quality of opponent. *shrug*

Agreed, but Duncan's impact = Bird's passes the logic test for me too based on judging their in game ability (though obviously, that isn't true for everyone)

[colts18]

Yeah, just trying to throw something out there for discussion. It does seem the main narrative so far is Wilt falling and that Hakeem is getting appreciably less support. It is more likely the RPOY project, one of the great ideas of the board, was responsible for most of the changes but wanted to brainstorm some other ideas.

I wouldn't say that about Hakeem yet. It was evident that he was going to be behind the immortal 6. #7-8 will be interesting for Hakeem. We will see if he will be ranked ahead of the Shaq/Kobe/Duncan trio. Personally I think Hakeem should be ranked ahead of Bird, but that is a different thread.

[ElGee]

There really isnt an argument for Bird over shaq


Shaq
Better Prime(00-02)
Better Peak season(2000)
Longevity
Better playoff performer
Finals Performer
Less upsets
Better Defensively
3peated
84-87 Celtics>99-02 Lakers in terms of talent and depth

The argument is leadership/intangibles/etc. and effect on team culture. 2003 and 2004 teams underperforming because of non basketball reasons would've NEVER happened to Bird or Duncan

With that said, that's a long list of things Shaq has on Bird. And it's hard to point out Shaq hurting his team with lack of leadership when he had a more succesful career (titles wise) than Bird. I think Shaq has the clear tangible advantage. The question is intangibles.

(but for my personal vote it's irrelevant because I did a criteria breakdown a few threads ago and determined Duncan over Shaq narrowly. I'd probably lean Shaq over Bird looking at it, but I'll never have to make that vote it appears)

Something is wrong with the Bird narrative. He was this great player who was even better than the stats say because of his intagibles and he also had 2 top 50 teammates and a slew of real good role players. He consistently had the most talented team in the league save for maybe the 83 Sixers and 87 Lakers, yet he only has 3 titles and his team lost 7 times HCA. What am I missing here? People here make it sound like he has the Bill Russell intagibles, but the results clearly show he doesn't. Even with Shaq's lack of intagibles, he won more finals and made it to more finals despite less supporting talent surrounding him. Why does Duncan also have more titles than Bird despite less talent surrounding him? While Bird does have the tough East argument, Duncan played in the West at its toughest.

I feel like this has been explained multiple times. Saying "he" only has 3 titles (when teams win titles) and denigrating the achievements of a team that won 4 consecutive brutal Eastern Conferences is bizarre. Every season has been analyzed in detail, and I thought we agreed HCA would never be mentioned in this project. (Are you aware how disingenuous that stat is in this case, even from a team level??)

Duncan has more titles because his teams were better/luckier than the other teams they played in the individual seasons than Bird's were. That's also why Steve Kerr has more titles than Bonzi Wells. Try to think outside of team accomplishments and focus on how someone played.

And if you're attempting to suggest that Bird was a disappointment relative to other GOAT candidates for joining a 29-win team, and leading them to:

ECF (lost to Philly, who from 80-83 ONLY lost to champions LAL and Bos)
Title
ECF (lost to Philly w/out Tiny)
ECSF (Bird injured/sick)
Title
Finals (lost to dynastic Lakers)
Title
Finals (lost to dynastic Lakers, McHale broken foot)
ECF (lost to 3-time EC champion and 2-time champion from 88-90)

I'd suggest you aren't judging players (or teams) by the same standards.

Heck, from a team perspective, what's the Boston failure there? 1985? When they lost to the 62-win Lakers (better SRS) who were 30-4 since March? (Even that series hinged on G4)

[colts18]

There really isnt an argument for Bird over shaq


The argument is leadership/intangibles/etc. and effect on team culture. 2003 and 2004 teams underperforming because of non basketball reasons would've NEVER happened to Bird or Duncan

With that said, that's a long list of things Shaq has on Bird. And it's hard to point out Shaq hurting his team with lack of leadership when he had a more succesful career (titles wise) than Bird. I think Shaq has the clear tangible advantage. The question is intangibles.

(but for my personal vote it's irrelevant because I did a criteria breakdown a few threads ago and determined Duncan over Shaq narrowly. I'd probably lean Shaq over Bird looking at it, but I'll never have to make that vote it appears)

Something is wrong with the Bird narrative. He was this great player who was even better than the stats say because of his intagibles and he also had 2 top 50 teammates and a slew of real good role players. He consistently had the most talented team in the league save for maybe the 83 Sixers and 87 Lakers, yet he only has 3 titles and his team lost 7 times HCA. What am I missing here? People here make it sound like he has the Bill Russell intagibles, but the results clearly show he doesn't. Even with Shaq's lack of intagibles, he won more finals and made it to more finals despite less supporting talent surrounding him. Why does Duncan also have more titles than Bird despite less talent surrounding him? While Bird does have the tough East argument, Duncan played in the West at its toughest.

I feel like this has been explained multiple times. Saying "he" only has 3 titles (when teams win titles) and denigrating the achievements of a team that won 4 consecutive brutal Eastern Conferences is bizarre. Every season has been analyzed in detail, and I thought we agreed HCA would never be mentioned in this project. (Are you aware how disingenuous that stat is in this case, even from a team level??)

Duncan has more titles because his teams were better/luckier than the other teams they played in the individual seasons than Bird's were. That's also why Steve Kerr has more titles than Bonzi Wells. Try to think outside of team accomplishments and focus on how someone played.

And if you're attempting to suggest that Bird was a disappointment relative to other GOAT candidates for joining a 29-win team, and leading them to:

ECF (lost to Philly, who from 80-83 ONLY lost to champions LAL and Bos)
Title
ECF (lost to Philly w/out Tiny)
ECSF (Bird injured/sick)
Title
Finals (lost to dynastic Lakers)
Title
Finals (lost to dynastic Lakers, McHale broken foot)
ECF (lost to 3-time EC champion and 2-time champion from 88-90)

I'd suggest you aren't judging players (or teams) by the same standards.

Heck, from a team perspective, what's the Boston failure there? 1985? When they lost to the 62-win Lakers (better SRS) who were 30-4 since March? (Even that series hinged on G4)

Boston as a team failed in 1983 with HCA and a better record, 2nd best SRS in the league by getting swept by the Bucks.

You can say that Duncan was luckier but I disagree with because he was a Manu foul and 0.4 seconds from possibly 6 titles and 5 in a row. Bird didn't really have that bad luck.

[pancakes3]

Something is wrong with the Bird narrative. He was this great player who was even better than the stats say because of his intagibles and he also had 2 top 50 teammates and a slew of real good role players. He consistently had the most talented team in the league save for maybe the 83 Sixers and 87 Lakers, yet he only has 3 titles and his team lost 7 times HCA. What am I missing here?

hrm. well, the 2 "top 50 teammates" and "slew of good role players" (danny ainge? cedrick maxwell?) weren't clearly better than any other team's supporting casts imo. Michael Cooper was a DPOY, Worthy was 2x all-NBA, AND KAJ - the 3rd greatest player to ever play the game. the sixers were together for longer than just 1 season. They were a 60 win team from '80 through '84 and in '85 they added charles barkley to Dr.J/Moses core. So there's a bit of context.

also, the [my] argument that bird is better than his stats say is because the way he earned them - not a mystical winning force that people often mistake for "intangible". dishing out 6+ assists without dominating the ball as a pg is... ridiculous. dishing out those assists WITH a ball-dominant pg who is also dishing out 6+ assists is... phenomenal. Being able to rack up 24+ppg along side other 20ppg scorers is darn near impossible. Doubly hard is being able to snag 10rpg along side 2 other double-digit rebounders. The fact that Bird can put up near-triple-double stats without any sacrifice on his teammates' ability is a skill that i have yet to see in another player. that "intangibility" is what i'm prizing above all else.

[Fencer reregistered]

There really isnt an argument for Bird over shaq


Shaq
Better Prime(00-02)
Better Peak season(2000)
Longevity
Better playoff performer
Finals Performer
Less upsets
Better Defensively
3peated
84-87 Celtics>99-02 Lakers in terms of talent and depth

The argument is leadership/intangibles/etc. and effect on team culture. 2003 and 2004 teams underperforming because of non basketball reasons would've NEVER happened to Bird or Duncan

With that said, that's a long list of things Shaq has on Bird. And it's hard to point out Shaq hurting his team with lack of leadership when he had a more succesful career (titles wise) than Bird. I think Shaq has the clear tangible advantage. The question is intangibles.

(but for my personal vote it's irrelevant because I did a criteria breakdown a few threads ago and determined Duncan over Shaq narrowly. I'd probably lean Shaq over Bird looking at it, but I'll never have to make that vote it appears)

Something is wrong with the Bird narrative. He was this great player who was even better than the stats say because of his intagibles and he also had 2 top 50 teammates and a slew of real good role players. He consistently had the most talented team in the league save for maybe the 83 Sixers and 87 Lakers, yet he only has 3 titles and his team lost 7 times HCA. What am I missing here? People here make it sound like he has the Bill Russell intagibles, but the results clearly show he doesn't. Even with Shaq's lack of intagibles, he won more finals and made it to more finals despite less supporting talent surrounding him. Why does Duncan also have more titles than Bird despite less talent surrounding him? While Bird does have the tough East argument, Duncan played in the West at its toughest.

What is with this HCA?????

All you said is that Bird won the championship 3 years and failed to win the championship 7 or so other years. Bird won championships a larger fraction of the time than Shaq. Bird made it to the Finals a larger fraction of the time than Shaq. Etc.

Now, if you want to make a "teammates" and "competition" argument, fine. But when I see the "HCA" stuff -- yeah, it's hard to pay attention to the rest of the post.