Survey Project: Larry Bird by season

[ElGee]

This is the Larry Bird thread for the Wins Added by Season Survey Project. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1241811 Please read the project guidelines before posting in the thread.

For those who have already read the guidelines, just copy and paste the years below and fill in your answers.

Larry Bird
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992

[Narigo]

1980- +5.0
1981- +5.0
1982- +5.5
1983- +5.5
1984- +6.0
1985- +7.0
1986- +7.0
1987- +7.0
1988- +7.0
1989- +3.5
1990- +4.0
1991- +4.0
1992- +4.0

[thebottomline]

Note on 1986, Bird's peak year: Much like LeBron and Miami this year, Bird and the Celtics started the season slow, then Bird's play went to another level and non-coincidentally so did the Celtics.

October to December (30 games)
Bird: 38.6 mpg, 23.7 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 6.2 apg, 2.0 spg, 0.6 bpg, 3.5 tov, .530 TS%, .466 eFG%, 19.2 GmSc
Celtics SRS: +5.5
Celtics ORTG: 107.7 (11th)
Celtics DRTG: 102.2 (1st)

January to April (52 games)
Bird: 37.6 mpg, 27.0 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 7.1 apg, 2.0 spg, 0.6 bpg, 3.1 tov, .610 TS%, .554 eFG% (.455 3P%!), 24.7 GmSc
Celtics SRS: +11.1
Celtics ORTG: 114.9 (1st)
Celtics DRTG: 103.4 (2nd)

And that carried over into the playoffs. Bird averaged 25.9/9.3/8.2 on .615 TS% and the Celtics SRS was +12.8. '86 is just a ridiculous season by Bird. Nearly as impactful as Magic offensively if not his equal or better, with a defensive advantage as well. I've got Bird's peak firmly 3rd, just behind MJ and Shaq.

That said,
1980 +4.5
1981 +5
1982 +5.5
1983 +5.5
1984 +6.5
1985 +7.5
1986 +8.5
1987 +7.5
1988 +7
1989
1990 +3.5
1991 +2.5
1992 +2

[Doormatt]

peak bird is most obviously inferior to peak Wilt, peak Russell and peak Lebron. i dont see how his peak has an argument as top 5, or clearly better than magic for that matter.

[thebottomline]

At season's end I'll likely take 2013 LeBron over Bird (and possibly MJ and Shaq) but the season isn't finished yet.

I actually have Russell neck and neck with Bird with my tiebreaker being that Bird's impact translates better to more teams and across eras (a criterion of this project, I believe).

Disagree on Wilt and Magic but it's not a huge edge in Bird's favor - I give him around half an SRS point over their peaks on my list.

You act like it's an outlandish position...I don't see that at all.

[Doormatt]

where did i act about it being outlandish? i just think that bird at his peak is clearly inferior to russell, wilt and lebron (barring a disaster in the playoffs this year should go down as a top 5 peak ever).

defensively bird is nothing special, hes not a 2 way player like those three. his offense is amazing, and at his peak he maintains his regular season efficiency into the playoffs that he didnt do in many other years, but theres no way i could reasonably rank his best year ahead of guys like wilt or lebron who are dominating both ends to a much greater degree than bird was dominant offensively. the portability argument could hold some weight in regards to russell, but to me russell's game translates just as well as someone like KG, with him also being the most dominant defensive player ever for his time, to a greater degree than any player in history.

my problem with both bird and magic at their peaks is that while they are GOAT level offensive players, they just dont impact the game defensively at all. and when youre comparing them at their peaks to guys who are all around players, then i just dont think they compare. Russell is the exception as a dominant one way player because his offense wasnt as bad as their defense, and also he was so much better than his peers that its hard to ignore.

so yeah personally, i think youd have to make a damn good argument that both bird and magic are top 5 peaks ever based solely on their offense. sometimes i like to put magic at #5, probably becuase im a laker fan and think his offense was that good, but realistically players like lebron and hakeem are higher.

[thebottomline]

Disagree on Bird having no defensive value and that's primarily where I give Bird the advantage over Magic. At least half an SRS point on defense for Bird (positioning, rebounding, ability to play either SF/PF as he actually did in '86 when McHale missed 14 games and the Celtics defense didn't miss a beat), and I'm not sure Magic's advantage on offense makes up for that. Bird was that great offensively IMO.

Have you put any number values on your peak comparisons? You're using terms like "most obviously inferior" and dominating "to a much greater degree", so I'm interested in how much of a gap you're seeing between Bird and the players you rate ahead of him.

[Doormatt]

not for everyone no, but i have a general idea for most. lebron for example i would have at a +10-10.5 SRS player at his peak, and around the same for wilt. for bird, i think +8.5 is reasonable, although id probably go closer to +8. i dont really consider "ability to play SF/PF" a plus on defense for someone as big as him, that doesnt really mean anything. also do you have their defensive numbers for when mchale missed those games? sure bird isnt a negative player defensively, but id be hesitant to rate him anything other than average. id have to imagine if we had them, his defensive RAPM numbers would look very similar to durant (aka +0.0). and i think durant has much better tools as a defensive player + he is an equally competent rebounder.

offensively hes fantastic for sure, one of the greatest offensive players ever at his peak up there with Magic and Jordan. but i dont really see the evidence that his overall impact is comparable to 2 way players that are also fantastic offensively (thought not quite as good) and great defenders.

*ftr id have peak russell at a solid +8.5. sorry maybe my wording is throwing you off here but i would still have that better than bird who id have at +8.0.

[thebottomline]

also do you have their defensive numbers for when mchale missed those games?

From 1/22 to 2/26 McHale missed 14 games and played only 12, 7, and 17 minutes in three others. So in that 17 game stretch:

SRS: +9.6
ORTG: 110.2 (4th)
DRTG: 100.8 (1st)
Bird: 26.9 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 7.2 apg, 2.2 spg, 0.9 bpg, 2.8 tov, .570 TS%, .500 eFG%

[Doormatt]

impressive that they played at that level without mchale for a good stretch.

walton is really good coming off the bench, i imagine him stepping up with mchale going down is one of the big reasons they dont skip a beat.

[Gideon]

In 1980 Bird played his rookie season on a team that had gone 29-53 the year before. They had a new coach in Fitch, but Bird was the only significant roster change. The team went 61-21 that year, for a historic 32-game improvement. I don't know how Bird isn't worth at least 20+ games in 1980, even if you figure that Fitch (not generally considered an especially strong coach) was a big improvement and general chemistry and play was just better than the year before (i.e. basically giving Bird the least benefit of the doubt possible).

I've always felt one of Bird's strongest arguments was the way he transformed that Celtics team (which already had Maxwell and an aging Tiny and Cowens... but was STILL 29-53 the year before). There's not much room to go up from 61-21, and the Celtics stayed around there until they had an insanely strong roster in 86 and went 67-15. Take away Bird at any point during the 80s (except maybe 86), and that team collapses IMO. I think the change between 1979 and 1980 is pretty strong evidence of that.

[thebottomline]

They had a new coach in Fitch, but Bird was the only significant roster change.

Not really true... I'm quoting ElGee here because it's a good summary:

-Took the grumpy and disgruntled Dave Cowens off the sideline as a PLAYER-COACH and replacing with him Bill Fitch
-Tiny Archibald's health improved and minutes increasing by 1100
-Replaced poor-rep guys like Marvin Barnes and Bob McAdoo with ML Carr or Gerald Henderson on the bench
-Jo Jo White, limping around on his last legs to start 1979, retired
-Went from no semblance of a rotation (3 healthy players all year, 11 players at 800 minutes, multiple starting 5's) to a team that was healthy and congruent all year

White, Billy Knight and even Earl Williams were starters at the beginning of the 79 season when they opened 2-13...They weren't on the 1980 team. They went 21-20 after a disastrous start and then finished 4-17? McAdoo and players like Curtis Rowe started and played big minutes down that stretch...and they weren't on the 1980 team.

There were a multitude of changes of which Bird's addition was of course the biggest, but we can't say he was the only significant change. The team performed extremely well, no doubt. +20 wins (or +8 SRS impact) is a bit much though. I don't think rookie Bird lifts average teams by 20 wins. That would already be approaching GOAT peak level improvement.

[Gideon]

Cowens went from 68 games (2517 minutes) at 17-10-4 to 66 games (2159 minutes) at 14-8-3... Maxwell also had his averages and minutes drop somewhat... Tiny did have his minutes and averages go up and played 80 games instead of 69. Overall, these all look like relatively normal season-to-season fluctuations to me, and they seem like they would about even out.

I would hardly list losing JoJo White and Bob McAdoo as some sort of positive. Even though White was on his last legs he was still somewhat effective (12.5-2.7-4.6-1.1/.428-.888 in 31 mpg) for 47 games in 1979. As far as McAdoo, he only played 20 games for the Celtics in 1979 anyway, and he had very good averages during those 20 games (20.6-7.1-2.0/50-67)... so I just don't buy that getting rid of those two guys (and a capable backup who only played less than half the season anyway in Barnes) made some huge positive difference.

To me those sorts of changes are just the normal fluctuations that will happen from season to season and often tend to more-or-less cancel each other out. This specific circumstance just doesn't seem to me like a time where there were major roster changes or some sort of other really significant improvement. As far as getting rid of "bad locker room" guys and getting more effective subs... the subs don't seem much (if at all) more effective statistically looking at the two seasons, and while that view may possibly be true to at least some extent, I also think it's a natural way to look at a big positive change in hindsight that isn't necessarily accurate or as significant as it's often made out to be.

That said, it is always good to look at this sort of thing in a deeper, more nuanced way. Thinking about it more, I do agree that I could have written a longer, more balanced post (thus, this novel ), and that there were probably more factors that mattered between 79 and 80 than my earlier post implied. At the very least, it's certainly something that can be debated.

As far as the impact Bird had that season, I do think Bird's overall impact on the 80s Celtics probably was near-GOAT level. Whether he would have impacted another team that way (especially as a rookie) is harder to say, but I think he was just the right player for that Celtic team at that time. By the mid-80s, Bird was obviously a better player than he had been as a rookie and also had a better team on paper, but the Celtics' record never changed much (except in 86)... sometimes these sorts of evaluations are just very tough to pinpoint.

Overall, as I've explained above, while relatively small season-to-season changes always make some difference (a point I should have addressed), I really don't think there were any exceptionally substantial changes other than Bird (and the coaching change) for the Celtics between 79 and 80. Cowens, Maxwell, Tiny, Ford were on the team in 79, and contributed substantially (less so in Tiny's case, but more so in Cowens and Maxwell's cases)... I feel like the other changes besides adding Bird (different subs, getting rid of "problem" players), without the "benefit" of hindsight, would hardly look like they would make much of a difference.

BTW... I was hasty in writing that I thought Bird surely contributed 20+ wins in 1980, as I didn't stop and think that this project was about how much rookie Bird would help an average team... I was thinking instead about how much he helped that Celtics team, which IMO was worth 20+ wins, but I realize now that this wasn't actually what the exercise was asking.

[JordansBulls]

Larry Bird
1980- +8.0 WS (49.0)
1981- +8.0 WS (49.0)
1982- +13.0 WS (54.0)
1983- +16.0 WS (57.0)
1984- +17.0 WS (58.0)
1985- +18.0 WS (59.0)
1986- +19.0 WS (60.0)
1987- +15.0 WS (56.0)
1988- +17.0 WS (58.0)
1989- +0.0 WS (41.0)
1990- +13.0 WS (54.0)
1991- +12.5 WS (53.5)
1992- +8.0 WS (49.0)

[ElGee]

To me those sorts of changes are just the normal fluctuations that will happen from season to season and often tend to more-or-less cancel each other out. This specific circumstance just doesn't seem to me like a time where there were major roster changes or some sort of other really significant improvement. As far as getting rid of "bad locker room" guys and getting more effective subs... the subs don't seem much (if at all) more effective statistically looking at the two seasons, and while that view may possibly be true to at least some extent, I also think it's a natural way to look at a big positive change in hindsight that isn't necessarily accurate or as significant as it's often made out to be.

...

Overall, as I've explained above, while relatively small season-to-season changes always make some difference (a point I should have addressed), I really don't think there were any exceptionally substantial changes other than Bird (and the coaching change) for the Celtics between 79 and 80. Cowens, Maxwell, Tiny, Ford were on the team in 79, and contributed substantially (less so in Tiny's case, but more so in Cowens and Maxwell's cases)... I feel like the other changes besides adding Bird (different subs, getting rid of "problem" players), without the "benefit" of hindsight, would hardly look like they would make much of a difference.

I'll post the actual Celtic trends shortly for Bird, but here's what research has shown in general:

(1) non-star players matter. A lot.

The simplest way to see this is to observe that there are 0 SRS teams with no stars whatsoever and -10 SRS teams with no stars whatsoever. The quality of no stars makes a huge difference.

(2) Health continuity is enormously important. Having to change lineups -- or in the case of the 1979 Celtics, basically field three different teams -- has proven incredibly difficult. Chemistry matters...and again, so do non-stars. If non-stars didn't matter, a team with numerous injuries wouldn't miss a beat (this happens occasionally when the subs are of equal quality or the starting role players not that good...but it's rarely seen in high-performing teams.)

[SideshowBob]

BTW... I was hasty in writing that I thought Bird surely contributed 20+ wins in 1980, as I didn't stop and think that this project was about how much rookie Bird would help an average team... I was thinking instead about how much he helped that Celtics team, which IMO was worth 20+ wins, but I realize now that this wasn't actually what the exercise was asking.

Yeah, I think its more educative to think about it from an "average team" standpoint than an "actual team" one. It's not easy per se, but the idea is to establish a threshold between player value and player goodness, the latter of which, is what we're looking for.

[Gideon]

To me those sorts of changes are just the normal fluctuations that will happen from season to season and often tend to more-or-less cancel each other out. This specific circumstance just doesn't seem to me like a time where there were major roster changes or some sort of other really significant improvement. As far as getting rid of "bad locker room" guys and getting more effective subs... the subs don't seem much (if at all) more effective statistically looking at the two seasons, and while that view may possibly be true to at least some extent, I also think it's a natural way to look at a big positive change in hindsight that isn't necessarily accurate or as significant as it's often made out to be.

...

Overall, as I've explained above, while relatively small season-to-season changes always make some difference (a point I should have addressed), I really don't think there were any exceptionally substantial changes other than Bird (and the coaching change) for the Celtics between 79 and 80. Cowens, Maxwell, Tiny, Ford were on the team in 79, and contributed substantially (less so in Tiny's case, but more so in Cowens and Maxwell's cases)... I feel like the other changes besides adding Bird (different subs, getting rid of "problem" players), without the "benefit" of hindsight, would hardly look like they would make much of a difference.

I'll post the actual Celtic trends shortly for Bird, but here's what research has shown in general:

(1) non-star players matter. A lot.

The simplest way to see this is to observe that there are 0 SRS teams with no stars whatsoever and -10 SRS teams with no stars whatsoever. The quality of no stars makes a huge difference.

I agree that non-star players matter. My argument wasn't that they don't matter, but that the quality of non-star players on the 78-79 and 79-80 Celtics, respectively, was not substantially different. While a solid roster of mid-level players who complement each other nicely and are effectively coached can do fairly well (but can't really play at an elite level... I think, anyway -- if there's an example to the contrary, I would be genuinely interested to see it), I also think that often the reason "non-star" players seem to matter so much is simply because people label the wrong players as stars. For example, the post-Stockton-Malone Utah team that went 42-40 would likely be described as starless by most. However, AK definitely had a star-level positive impact in his prime IMO, even if it wasn't acknowledged. Delving into that topic is branching off somewhat from what we were discussing, but I thought it was worth bringing up.

(2) Health continuity is enormously important. Having to change lineups -- or in the case of the 1979 Celtics, basically field three different teams -- has proven incredibly difficult. Chemistry matters...and again, so do non-stars. If non-stars didn't matter, a team with numerous injuries wouldn't miss a beat (this happens occasionally when the subs are of equal quality or the starting role players not that good...but it's rarely seen in high-performing teams.)

I also agree that health continuity and chemistry matter... maybe the 78-79 Celtics are close to a .500 team with more health continuity, better coaching, and less "bad apples" in the locker room (I'm less inclined to believe in the "bad apples" idea as a significant factor in this case, but it's obv possible). Even if that's essentially the case, it seems to me like Bird is still worth about 20 wins to that team... after all they finished 20 games over .500 in 1980.

You mention that "research has shown in general" that non-star players matter very much in situations such as the Celtics turnaround from 78-79 to 79-80. However, if you look at the list of the biggest turnarounds in league history (http://newsok.com/the-top-10-turnaround ... le/3451103), these transformations virtually all center around the arrival of an all-time great player (often with very few other changes from the previous season).

To me that's a pretty strong indicator that Bird, Robinson, KAJ, Nash, Garnett, and so on were the essential difference-makers (and worth large #s of wins for their respective teams), and not their teams' supporting players. This also makes intuitive sense to me, since there are only so many minutes to go around in the NBA, and we see players who never got a chance before prove themselves all the time. The league has shown time and time again that it has lots of talented players who could be solid pros if given a shot, but there are very few elite difference-makers.

[ElGee]

However, if you look at the list of the biggest turnarounds in league history (http://newsok.com/the-top-10-turnaround ... le/3451103), these transformations virtually all center around the arrival of an all-time great player (often with very few other changes from the previous season).

To me that's a pretty strong indicator that Bird, Robinson, KAJ, Nash, Garnett, and so on were the essential difference-makers (and worth large #s of wins for their respective teams), and not their teams' supporting players. This also makes intuitive sense to me, since there are only so many minutes to go around in the NBA, and we see players who never got a chance before prove themselves all the time. The league has shown time and time again that it has lots of talented players who could be solid pros if given a shot, but there are very few elite difference-makers.

I don't want to sidetrack because I wanted to include the points about role players and health as touch points for people to use in their evaluation process. However, let me clarify this -- all the stars you listed WERE big difference-makers. But man, there were huge team overhauls as well -- the 08 Celtics added Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, a 1/2 season of Paul Pierce (!) and an entirely different bench. The 98 Spurs added Tim Duncan AND David Robinson (!). And on and on....basketball is a power curve sport -- a few people have a large impact -- but the collection of role players makes a large difference.

Everyone can make of that what they will, but they should be aware of the differences in team performance without stars (without a Kirilenko-level player even) due to these collective differences.

[Gideon]

However, if you look at the list of the biggest turnarounds in league history (http://newsok.com/the-top-10-turnaround ... le/3451103), these transformations virtually all center around the arrival of an all-time great player (often with very few other changes from the previous season).

To me that's a pretty strong indicator that Bird, Robinson, KAJ, Nash, Garnett, and so on were the essential difference-makers (and worth large #s of wins for their respective teams), and not their teams' supporting players. This also makes intuitive sense to me, since there are only so many minutes to go around in the NBA, and we see players who never got a chance before prove themselves all the time. The league has shown time and time again that it has lots of talented players who could be solid pros if given a shot, but there are very few elite difference-makers.

I don't want to sidetrack because I wanted to include the points about role players and health as touch points for people to use in their evaluation process. However, let me clarify this -- all the stars you listed WERE big difference-makers. But man, there were huge team overhauls as well -- the 08 Celtics added Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, a 1/2 season of Paul Pierce (!) and an entirely different bench. The 98 Spurs added Tim Duncan AND David Robinson (!). And on and on....basketball is a power curve sport -- a few people have a large impact -- but the collection of role players makes a large difference.

Everyone can make of that what they will, but they should be aware of the differences in team performance without stars (without a Kirilenko-level player even) due to these collective differences.

I don't want to sidetrack either... and I don't think we're really that far apart here. It seems clear to me that some of the very biggest turnarounds involve more than one great player (and, sure, some other factors, too), but that list still looks pretty star-driven to me, as there's literally not one example on it that doesn't involve a major acquisition (or acquisitions) or a star coming back from injury... and some big turnarounds, such as the Nash Suns, KAJ Bucks (some credit there to Dandridge, to be fair), and Bird Celtics still seem mostly dependent -- to me, anyway -- on a single player. Anyway, I should stop quibbling... I disagree (somewhat, at least) with some of your assertions, but you bring up points that are definitely worth thinking about, and I always like this sort of civil, thoughtful debate.

[ElGee]

Larry Bird related In/Out (WOWY)