RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #8 (Shaquille O'Neal)

[trex_8063]

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Larry Bird

Voting KG like last time, elite defense, great offensive player due to passing and spacing along with good scoring, long career with good intangibles

Shaq had dominant peak and longevity is one of the better ones left despite having some injury seasons

I wanted to pull the trigger on West or Nowitzki but Bird respect in his own time seems to have been a different level. Longevity is ok but was great from the start, underrated on defense, great portability and intangibles.

Not sure where people are getting this idea that Bird was a good or underrated defender. I watched him from his rookie season and he did two things well . . . he read the passing lanes like a guard, his steal stats are what got him the all-D mentions, and he didn't leave his feet for fakes (of course he didn't leave them for shot blocking either). He didn't do a particularly good job in the post when he played PF, getting pushed under the basket by the post up forwards, while he was also slow footed and got burned a lot away from the basket (particularly when playing the 3), and I would guess that he was a clear negative defender. His switches were not great in his first couple of years (like many young players) and he got his teammates burned at times. He got smarter as he got older but the physical problems hurt him even more and he would rest there, counting on Parish and McHale to cover for him.

Heck, Charles Barkley claimed Bird was the "only defender in the league worse than I am" if you can take anything Barkley says seriously. I loved Bird, but his defense is not a reason to have him over anyone else currently in the discussion.

I intend to rewatch much of the mid-80's playoff battles in particular (and log shot location data for them), but fwiw my impression on watching Bird's low-post defense is very different from yours. I always felt he was actually a very fundamentally sound post defender: is physical [and stronger in lower body than typically credited for], attempts to move guys off their spots, uses verticality effectively, and boxes out well on the defensive glass [and again: strong base].
I don't generally disagree with any of the other statements made regarding your scouting: playing the passing lanes is indeed a big factor of what comes to mind for his defense (good sniping from the weak-side, too). I would even go so far as to say he almost had a sixth sense for those types of plays.

And regarding the Barkley comment, I'm fairly certain he's largely referring to post-injury Bird (which is almost the only Bird he had any experience playing against). Not that anything Barkley says should be taken all that seriously anyway, imo.....


Personally, I'd posit him a plus defender at least ~'83-86 (and possibly even substantially so in the middle of that), and probably no worse than a neutral defender on the bookends of that span. I think roughly '88 and after is the only period in which he's perhaps a clear negative defensively.

[70sFan]

I think that Bird has his value on defense and at his best was pretty good, but hyping his defense as true all-defensive level is too much for me.

He was very smart with playing on passing lanes, really good at boxing out (underrated part of his game) and I agree with trex that Bird was solid post defender (though he wasn't great against powerful bruisers).

I also agree with penbeast that he was very weak perimeter man defender, he didn't give you any rim protection and he was generally weak against good isolation players. I also don't like some of his rotations, he could be too engaged with watching ball and trying to help instead of staying closer to his man.

Bird was decent defender in his physical prime (1981-86) and I definitely wouldn't describe him as liability, but he was never elite and I don't get why people mention his defense so often in comparison to Magic.

[Hal14]

I think that Bird has his value on defense and at his best was pretty good, but hyping his defense as true all-defensive level is too much for me.

He was very smart with playing on passing lanes, really good at boxing out (underrated part of his game) and I agree with trex that Bird was solid post defender (though he wasn't great against powerful bruisers).

I also agree with penbeast that he was very weak perimeter man defender, he didn't give you any rim protection and he was generally weak against good isolation players. I also don't like some of his rotations, he could be too engaged with watching ball and trying to help instead of staying closer to his man.

Bird was decent defender in his physical prime (1981-86) and I definitely wouldn't describe him as liability, but he was never elite and I don't get why people mention his defense so often in comparison to Magic.

So you don't think Bird was a better defender than Magic?

I don't think he has a huge edge, but it's a definite edge for Bird. Bird had more hustle on D, more tenacity, better help defender, made 2 all-defensive teams to Magic's 0 and Bird made one of the greatest defensive plays in history when he stole the ball from Isiah - which showed great timing, awareness, quickness, anticipation and hustle. It's just 1 play I know, but it's an iconic play and even without that play, I think Bird has a slight edge defensively.

[70sFan]

I think that Bird has his value on defense and at his best was pretty good, but hyping his defense as true all-defensive level is too much for me.

He was very smart with playing on passing lanes, really good at boxing out (underrated part of his game) and I agree with trex that Bird was solid post defender (though he wasn't great against powerful bruisers).

I also agree with penbeast that he was very weak perimeter man defender, he didn't give you any rim protection and he was generally weak against good isolation players. I also don't like some of his rotations, he could be too engaged with watching ball and trying to help instead of staying closer to his man.

Bird was decent defender in his physical prime (1981-86) and I definitely wouldn't describe him as liability, but he was never elite and I don't get why people mention his defense so often in comparison to Magic.

So you don't think Bird was a better defender than Magic?

I don't think he has a huge edge, but it's a definite edge for Bird. Bird had more hustle on D, more tenacity, better help defender, made 2 all-defensive teams to Magic's 0 and Bird made one of the greatest defensive plays in history when he stole the ball from Isiah - which showed great timing, awareness, quickness, anticipation and hustle. It's just 1 play I know, but it's an iconic play and even without that play, I think Bird has a slight edge defensively.

I don't think he was better. Maybe he peaked a bit higher, but Magic was never as bad as Bird became in late 1980s. Magic was also impactful help defender and I'm sure he had his share of clutch steals that are forgotten now.

The gap isn't big - that's for sure and it shouldn't be used as a tiebreaker in their comparison.

[DQuinn1575]

I think that Bird has his value on defense and at his best was pretty good, but hyping his defense as true all-defensive level is too much for me.

He was very smart with playing on passing lanes, really good at boxing out (underrated part of his game) and I agree with trex that Bird was solid post defender (though he wasn't great against powerful bruisers).

I also agree with penbeast that he was very weak perimeter man defender, he didn't give you any rim protection and he was generally weak against good isolation players. I also don't like some of his rotations, he could be too engaged with watching ball and trying to help instead of staying closer to his man.

Bird was decent defender in his physical prime (1981-86) and I definitely wouldn't describe him as liability, but he was never elite and I don't get why people mention his defense so often in comparison to Magic.

So you don't think Bird was a better defender than Magic?

I don't think he has a huge edge, but it's a definite edge for Bird. Bird had more hustle on D, more tenacity, better help defender, made 2 all-defensive teams to Magic's 0 and Bird made one of the greatest defensive plays in history when he stole the ball from Isiah - which showed great timing, awareness, quickness, anticipation and hustle. It's just 1 play I know, but it's an iconic play and even without that play, I think Bird has a slight edge defensively.

Bird was definitely a better defender than Magic. As noted he had som big pluses, he was a very good weak side defender. When matched against a weak offensive player he was very disruptive. Magic was a problem as he played point, but couldn’t guard quicker guys. They couldn’t guard him either but he didn’t beat them with defense

[70sFan]

I think that Bird has his value on defense and at his best was pretty good, but hyping his defense as true all-defensive level is too much for me.

He was very smart with playing on passing lanes, really good at boxing out (underrated part of his game) and I agree with trex that Bird was solid post defender (though he wasn't great against powerful bruisers).

I also agree with penbeast that he was very weak perimeter man defender, he didn't give you any rim protection and he was generally weak against good isolation players. I also don't like some of his rotations, he could be too engaged with watching ball and trying to help instead of staying closer to his man.

Bird was decent defender in his physical prime (1981-86) and I definitely wouldn't describe him as liability, but he was never elite and I don't get why people mention his defense so often in comparison to Magic.

So you don't think Bird was a better defender than Magic?

I don't think he has a huge edge, but it's a definite edge for Bird. Bird had more hustle on D, more tenacity, better help defender, made 2 all-defensive teams to Magic's 0 and Bird made one of the greatest defensive plays in history when he stole the ball from Isiah - which showed great timing, awareness, quickness, anticipation and hustle. It's just 1 play I know, but it's an iconic play and even without that play, I think Bird has a slight edge defensively.

Bird was definitely a better defender than Magic. As noted he had som big pluses, he was a very good weak side defender. When matched against a weak offensive player he was very disruptive. Magic was a problem as he played point, but couldn’t guard quicker guys. They couldn’t guard him either but he didn’t beat them with defense

These strengths were also Magic strengths and Bird couldn't guard small forwards either. It's not like Magic defended small guards either - usually, Nixon/Cooper/Scott defended small guards and Magic often guarded small forwards or even power forwards, depending on matchup. He even defended centers at times - he guarded Billy Paultz in 1981 and Bill Laimbeer in 1988 for example.

[Hal14]

I feel like if Shaq and Hakeem swapped teams in that finals series, the Rockets would still win given their superior roster but i don't think the Magic get swept with Hakeem instead. To me that sort of answers who was better even if rather simplistic. Even if you wanted to argue Shaq was better in the series, it can't be by a meaningful margin and it's not like Hakeem's run through the west wasn't clearly more impressive anyhow.

Huh?

How do you figure that the Rockets had the better roster in 95 on paper than the Magic - the Magic won 12 more games during the regular season than the Rockets. Oh, but you think all of a sudden the Rockets had a better roster by trading Thorpe for Drexler? Well the year before that in 93-94 when they had Thorpe and not Drexler, the Rockets won 11 games games than they did in 94-95.

In 95, Penny (in his prime), Horace Grant, Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott was definitely a better supporting cast than Drexler (still good but past his prime), Horry, Kenny Smith and Pete Chilcutt.

Shaq had the better supporting cast, his team won 10 more games in the regular season than the Rockets, they had home court advantage...yet the Magic lost. They not only lost, but they got swept. Sure, Shaq himself played a pretty good series, but he has to take some of the blame for that sweep - especially since he had so many turnovers.

[penbeast0]

Boxing out, I haven't looked back to see how good Bird was at that. Most ground bound top rebounders are good at it though so I assume Bird is very solid in this regard too.

[DQuinn1575]

And where I said it's the best player award? AI wasn't even close to be the most valuable player to his team, Duncan and Shaq were much more valuable players and it's not even close.

The Sporting News did a players vote for their mvp for years. The 2001 winner was Iverson by a wide margin. So the players thought he was most valuable, as well as the media.

Players also voted Iverson ~top 5 player ever recently. Players has 0 credibility in other players ranking or comparing, and we know that for decades already.

Do you have a link or source for players naming Iverson Top 5? I’d be interested in seeing that

[90sAllDecade]

More on the pick and roll, although he did well with man defense at times and at his peak and was an awesome offensive player. For his career Shaq had issues with conditioning, effort/motor and pick and roll defense.

Imo Hakeem was much better in this regard when you look at combined offensive and defensive impact:

GOOD OLD BOYS LED BY GEEZERS KARL MALONE AND JOHN STOCKTON, THE JAZZ SWEPT THE YOUNG, OVERHYPED LAKERS TO MAKE THE NBA FINALS ONCE AGAIN

The final speaker at the final press conference of the Western
Conference finals was Los Angeles Lakers coach Del Harris. He
was wearing a black double-breasted suit and a white shirt and a
black tie, and he looked for all the world like a well-dressed
funeral director who had arrived to console the bereaved. His
words and disposition did nothing to change the image.
Late Sunday afternoon, no more than 20 minutes after the last
Laker Girl had done her last cartwheel of the season, after the
Great Western Forum crowd had groaned its last groan, after the
Utah Jazz had swept--swept!--his team, Harris spoke in a gentle
voice. He was philosophical. "There are some lessons you only
can learn by failure," he said. "Your dad can tell you certain
things, but until you have the experience yourself, you don't
understand."

The suit, the tie, the words--it was as if Harris had prepared
in advance for this final appraisal, which followed Utah's 96-92
series-clinching victory. Things had fallen apart that much. In
nine days and four games, his high-flying Lakers had been
exploited, exposed, dominated. That was the word: dominated. It
had happened in front of his eyes. No warnings to his players
had worked. No subtle changes in strategy. No fatherly advice.
Nothing.

"We're all the same way," Harris continued in that same voice.
"We have to experience for ourselves. There's not a single
person here who didn't touch that stove at least once. We all
touched it."

Touch the stove and what happens? Touch it four times and what
happens? You go home with your Shaquille O'Neal and your Kobe
Bryant and your Eddie Jones and your Nick Van Exel. You go home
with your highest-scoring offense in the NBA, your high-wire
act, your basketball team of the future.

...

A sweep. Who had figured a sweep? It all had a certain logic
now, the virtues of experience and ambition stacked against
youth and not as much ambition, but wasn't it only two or three
weeks ago that Seattle SuperSonics coach George Karl called Shaq
"the best player in the NBA right now"? Weren't the fuses being
lit for that grand L.A.-Chicago Finals that was going to cut
across the sky and all demographics, the show of shows?
A sweep? One of the five most stunning playoff routs ever (box,
page 41)? "The only time I ever thought about a sweep, I thought
about us sweeping them," Lakers reserve forward Corie Blount
said, speaking for the statistical majority. "I thought about
Chicago and a sweep, but I couldn't see the Bulls sweeping us,
either. I couldn't see anybody sweeping this team."

...

The Jazz players were the worker ants, the eager students,
finishing off every cut, diving for every loose ball, all that
good stuff, running that pick-and-roll as if they were giving a
summer clinic for fat rich kids. The Utah offense started with
that basic move, spelled out first in hieroglyphics on the wall
of an Egyptian tomb: 36-year-old John Stockton passing the ball
to 34-year-old Karl Malone and Malone passing back and rolling
to the basket. Everyone else was available to help. Everyone did
help, roles defined, shooters shooting, rebounders rebounding,
nobody deviating in times of stress. The bench seemed to run
forever.
...

"Because of the way they play, it's like the project guys going
to play against a bunch of guys who set pick-and-rolls, who do
the little things, while the project guys always want to do the
fancy behind-the-back dribbles and do the spectacular plays,"
Van Exel said between Game 3 and Game 4, explaining the
situation as well as anyone. "Maybe it's the age. We feel that
if we go out there and just lace up the shoes and run around and
do the dunks, we can win. But it's not like that."

Los Angeles, tighter and tighter, was reduced to an offense of
Shaq and more Shaq. He scored 39 points, but take away his
17-for-30 shooting and the Lakers were 18 for 55. The Forum was
half empty by the time the game ended.

"There aren't any secrets to what we do," Utah guard Jeff
Hornacek said. "We do the same things against everybody. We play
the Lakers, we all guard down against Shaq, and then we run out
at the three-point shooters. Maybe, because it's the playoffs,
we run out a little faster, but that didn't matter. They were
missing those shots. That was the big thing."

The old guys were the answer. The old guys, the experience. Old
Guys 4, Young Guys 0. Now Malone and Stockton would be off for
at least one more week of rest before returning to a Finals that
for once in recent years might be competitive. The Lakers were
left to consider their lessons. Shaq said, "Guys have to step
up. If they don't want to play, then they need to ask for a
trade. If they don't want to play, then get off my team."
Forward Robert Horry was admiring "the unity" Utah has. Blount
was considering those acting lessons.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1998/06/01/good-old-boys-led-by-geezers-karl-malone-and-john-stockton-the-jazz-swept-the-young-overhyped-lakers-to-make-the-nba-finals-once-again

[Owly]

I feel like if Shaq and Hakeem swapped teams in that finals series, the Rockets would still win given their superior roster but i don't think the Magic get swept with Hakeem instead. To me that sort of answers who was better even if rather simplistic. Even if you wanted to argue Shaq was better in the series, it can't be by a meaningful margin and it's not like Hakeem's run through the west wasn't clearly more impressive anyhow.

Huh?

How do you figure that the Rockets had the better roster in 95 on paper than the Magic - the Magic won 12 more games during the regular season than the Rockets. Oh, but you think all of a sudden the Rockets had a better roster by trading Thorpe for Drexler? Well the year before that in 93-94 when they had Thorpe and not Drexler, the Rockets won 11 games games than they did in 94-95.

In 95, Penny (in his prime), Horace Grant, Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott was definitely a better supporting cast than Drexler (still good but past his prime), Horry, Kenny Smith and Pete Chilcutt.

Shaq had the better supporting cast, his team won 10 more games in the regular season than the Rockets, they had home court advantage...yet the Magic lost. They not only lost, but they got swept. Sure, Shaq himself played a pretty good series, but he has to take some of the blame for that sweep - especially since he had so many turnovers.

Sure Mario Elie was playing (and well) but why not cite Pete Chilcutt and his 3 finals minutes (total).

Looking at who lost and then assigning blame is doing things wrong. If he played well (and he did) and this is backed up by impact on the points margin (though as ever caution with small samples and especially beware extrapolating wider meaning). You can knock him for things done poorly but that should be part of the initially stated player evaluation, not "they lost so he must be blamed".

[Hal14]

1st vote: Shaquille O'Neal
The biggest statistical footprint left on the table, while also having an impact profile that can hold its own next to just about anyone left on the table [save maybe Magic, who has notably lesser longevity].

He's [imo] the clear best peak left on the table, his '00 campaign being one that is memorable to me 20 years after the fact.
During an era of slow paced, iso-heavy, lower efficiency defensive grudge matches, peak Shaq was averaging very nearly 30/14/4 with 3 blocks and barely 3 turnovers. He led the league in scoring while also leading it in FG% and anchoring the #1-defense in the league (who were #1 in opp. eFG% and #3 in DREB%).
In terms of rate metrics, this translated to a PER of 30.6, WS/48 of .283, and a BPM of +9.3 (all of these best in the league), and this while playing 40.0 mpg.
Any "player analysis" I did at that time was certainly in its infancy, but I remember wondering at the time if he was just as dominant as [or more than] Michael Jordan had ever been.......which, being a Bulls/Jordan fan in the 90's and still in the thrall of the Jordan mythos, this was NOT a place my brain wanted to wander; it felt sacrilegious to even entertain such a thought. But I have specific memories of thinking on that.

Shaq then basically did same or marginally better in the playoffs en-route to a title that year.

Great - but let's look at who he did it against. Mutombo, Mourning, Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson were all either retired or well past their prime. Yao Ming entered the league AFTER the Lakers 3-peat. Dwight Howard didn't enter the league until AFTER the Lakers 3-peat.

'00 was probably Alonzo Mourning's PEAK season, and Mutombo was most definitely still in his prime (led the league in DRAPM in '00, with like the 2nd-highest DRAPM on record in the last 24 seasons).
Robinson, though post-prime, was still very effective [particularly defensively] in '00 (had the 4th-highest DRAPM and the 4th-highest total RAPM in the league that year).
And if the point was just to cite who he's being defended by and/or defending, we can also name Vlade Divac, Shawn Bradley (who only had a career because of his outstanding rim protecting presence), Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett may also have had stretches guarding Shaq.

This is probably not the best means by which to take an accounting of the season, but if you want to play this game, I could note that guys like Bobby Jones and Julius Erving were at the end of the trail of their careers when Bird peaked, that Bernard King missed more games than he played during Bird's best 4-years ('84-'87), and go on to question the titanic defensive presence of guys like Kelly Tripucka, Kiki Vandeweghe, Mike O'Koren, Rod Higgins, Orlando Woolridge, Clark Kellogg, Alex English, Mark Aguirre, Adrian Dantley, Dominique Wilkins, Roy Hinson [you know, the guys Bird would have been spending the bulk of his time being defended by near the time of his peak].

Yes, Shaq did dominate for that 3 year stretch, but a) the 2nd best player in the world was on his team -

This is flatly false. There is not a single one of those years wherein Kobe was the 2nd-best player in the world, and in '00 he's probably not even top 10 yet.

Kobe was so good that there was many stretches during that 3 year span where Shaq wasn't even the best player on his own team....

Like a game [or even a few games] here and there? Sure. Same would be true with Bird (vis-a-vis McHale or Parish), or basically any superstar.

Meanwhile, Bird won 3 straight MVPs..

To make this relevant we have to posit that the MVP is actually going to the league's best player each year (which you've already basically acknowledged is NOT the case above when you called Kobe the 2nd-best player in the league all those years).

during that time he won 2 titles, 2 finals MVPs and led his tea to the finals all 3 years..was hands down the best player on his team all 3 years - while playing in arguably the most competitive era of all time. Less teams in the league and every night he's going toe to toe with guys like Magic, MJ, Dr. J, Mark Aguirre, Dominique Wilkins, Marques Johnson, Bernard King, Alex English, James Worthy, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Karl Malone, etc.

If you're going to list guys like Jordan, who in most instances was not head-to-head [guarding each other] with Bird, you could also list names like Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Gary Payton, Grant Hill, Karl Malone, Jason Kidd, Allen Iverson, Chis Webber, etc above when talking about who Shaq was facing. But then that wouldn't help the cause when playing the name-drop game.

Also....
*Dennis Rodman was not yet around for a single one of Bird's MVP's or titles
**Karl Malone was just a raw rookie for the last one only
***Jordan it's just his rookie year and an injury year [with a horrid cast, too] when these things happened.
****King missed the entire year of Bird's peak, final MVP, and final title.
*****As noted above, Dr. J was on the decline at least by the time of the '85 and '86 runs.

But you'll still name-drop all of them while [in the same post] trying to imply Mutombo, Robinson, and especially Mourning were all washed up in '00?


I've got no issue with someone supporting Bird, he's a worthy candidate at this stage. But let's at least display a bit more intellectual honesty (and consistency) in the comparisons.

EDIT: And disagree that the 80s were the toughest era ever.

You can nit-pick if you'd like, but all I'm saying is Bird was going head to head on a nightly basis vs tougher competition during his 3 MVP years than Shaq did during his 3 title years. Not only was there more talent in the league from 83-86 than there was from 99-02, but there was 23 teams for Bird compared to 29 teams for Shaq, so there was not only more talent but there was a higher concentration of talent on each team.

Less star players in 99-02, yet one of the few stars in the league was on Shaq's team.

I know you're saying Kobe was not a top 2 player in the league yet, but we'll have to agree to disagree there. IMO Kobe was arguably a top 2 player in the league each of those 3 seasons that him and Shaq won a title together. So of course they won 3 titles. Look at the other super stars during that time period (Duncan, Garnett, McGrady), did any of them have anyone remotely close to Kobe's level for a no. 2 guy? Hell no - so of course the Lakers won those titles.

Yes, there was quite a few times during those 3 Lakers title winning seasons when Kobe outshined Shaq as their best player. Meanwhile, during Bird's MVP seasons, there was never a question who the Celtics best player was. Bird was their leader on the court and in the locker room, leading the team in points, minutes by a comfortable margin plus leading the team in many other categories (steals, assists, FT%, 3-pointers, etc.)

And in terms of MVP voting - I mentioned this earlier in the thread but it wasn't until the 2000s when it started to get really sketchy. We've had many years when the MVP voting raised some eye brows (2009 when people think LeBron should have won, 2001 when people think Iverson shouldn't have won, people think Derrick Rose and Nash didn't deserve their MVPs, etc.) but back in the 80s they seemed to get it right for the most part. Everyone knew back then in the mid 80s that Bird ran the league and he deserved those MVPs - even though Magic was in his prime.

[O_6]

I've always thought of Bird as a plus team defender in his earlier years due to his feel for the game, but it's interesting to hear penbeast/70sFan talk about how they aren't quite sold on Bird's early career defensive reputation since those 2 are posters whose input I really appreciate when it comes to players from that era.

Jason Kidd is the the #1 defensive player I've seen since I started watching basketball in the late 90s when it comes to "feel for the game" and "instincts". I'm not talking about overall defensive impact but just specifically defensive intangibles. It's a hard thing to describe what exactly I mean by "feel" or "instincts" which is why it's an "intangible". It's just something I felt when I watched him play. He combined this "feel" with world-class hands (I think only Kawhi has had stronger hands on D from players I've seen) to be one of the most valuable defensive guards ever.

From what I've seen of Bird, he had some similar qualities to Kidd due to his general genius-level BBIQ and court vision. Because of how well he could see the floor, he made a lot of plays on both sides of the ball where he was one step ahead of the opponent. He also had really good hands from what I recall.

However, his mediocre strength/quickness combo definitely held him back as an overall defender. We all know how McHale took on the tougher assignments especially on the perimeter, as 70sFan and Penbeast both note Bird also wasn't the best at consistently making timely rotations, and Bird was generally surrounded by a very good group of defenders to cover up his shortcomings.

I don't think Bird is as nearly as good as Kidd in terms of defense overall, just saying that there are some qualities on defense that I remember being impressed by when it came to Bird in his earlier years. During the '81 Championship run, Bird averaged 11.1 DRB (14.0 boards overall!) + 2.3 SPG + 1.0 BPG to help the Celtics to a fantastic 101.6 playoff DRtg. During the '84 Championship run, Bird averaged 8.3 DRB + 2.3 SPG + 1.2 BPG to help the Celtics to a good but not great 107.4 DRtg in the playoffs. Those basic stats, the strong team-level performance, and the positive qualities in his game that I saw makes it very hard for me to call Bird anything other than a clearly above average to good defender despite his obvious flaws in his earlier years.

Question for PenBeast and 70sFan and others who aren't high on Bird's defense, how would you compare Bird as a defensive player to Kobe? Kobe's defense is one of the harder things to put into perspective considering the massive discrepancy between the impact stats and the accolades, I'm sure we will get into it later. But if Bird's defense really isn't as good as I think it is and Kobe's is better than I give him credit for, I could see an argument for Kobe ahead of Bird on this list. You can include Oscar in that discussion as his defense is also very hard for me to put in the proper context.

[DQuinn1575]

I've always thought of Bird as a plus team defender in his earlier years due to his feel for the game, but it's interesting to hear penbeast/70sFan talk about how they aren't quite sold on Bird's early career defensive reputation since those 2 are posters whose input I really appreciate when it comes to players from that era.

Jason Kidd is the the #1 defensive player I've seen since I started watching basketball in the late 90s when it comes to "feel for the game" and "instincts". I'm not talking about overall defensive impact but just specifically defensive intangibles. It's a hard thing to describe what exactly I mean by "feel" or "instincts" which is why it's an "intangible". It's just something I felt when I watched him play. He combined this "feel" with world-class hands (I think only Kawhi has had stronger hands on D from players I've seen) to be one of the most valuable defensive guards ever.

From what I've seen of Bird, he had some similar qualities to Kidd due to his general genius-level BBIQ and court vision. Because of how well he could see the floor, he made a lot of plays on both sides of the ball where he was one step ahead of the opponent. He also had really good hands from what I recall.

However, his mediocre strength/quickness combo definitely held him back as an overall defender. We all know how McHale took on the tougher assignments especially on the perimeter, as 70sFan and Penbeast both note Bird also wasn't the best at consistently making timely rotations, and Bird was generally surrounded by a very good group of defenders to cover up his shortcomings.

I don't think Bird is as nearly as good as Kidd in terms of defense overall, just saying that there are some qualities on defense that I remember being impressed by when it came to Bird in his earlier years. During the '81 Championship run, Bird averaged 11.1 DRB (14.0 boards overall!) + 2.3 SPG + 1.0 BPG to help the Celtics to a fantastic 101.6 playoff DRtg. During the '84 Championship run, Bird averaged 8.3 DRB + 2.3 SPG + 1.2 BPG to help the Celtics to a good but not great 107.4 DRtg in the playoffs. Those basic stats, the strong team-level performance, and the positive qualities in his game that I saw makes it very hard for me to call Bird anything other than a clearly above average to good defender despite his obvious flaws in his earlier years.

Question for PenBeast and 70sFan and others who aren't high on Bird's defense, how would you compare Bird as a defensive player to Kobe? Kobe's defense is one of the harder things to put into perspective considering the massive discrepancy between the impact stats and the accolades, I'm sure we will get into it later. But if Bird's defense really isn't as good as I think it is and Kobe's is better than I give him credit for, I could see an argument for Kobe ahead of Bird on this list. You can include Oscar in that discussion as his defense is also very hard for me to put in the proper context.

there’s also a trade-off to some degree- McHale was good at guarding the perimeter and Bird was good at laying off his man for help side defense.Bird wasn’t weak, he was a strong rebounder and his own inside. But he wasn’t quick; 2nd team defense was a bit of a reach.
Kobe had all the talent to play good defense, but didn’t focus on it enough. He would do well in spurts, but wouldn’t night in and night out.

[trex_8063]

You can nit-pick if you'd like, but all I'm saying is Bird was going head to head on a nightly basis vs tougher competition during his 3 MVP years than Shaq did during his 3 title years. Not only was there more talent in the league from 83-86 than there was from 99-02, but there was 23 teams for Bird compared to 29 teams for Shaq, so there was not only more talent but there was a higher concentration of talent on each team.

fwiw, that growth from 23 to 29 teams is a growth of 26.1%.
The growth in the U.S. population between 1985 (middle of Bird's titles) and 2001 (middle of Shaq's titles) was 35.8% (from 240.5M to 326.7M); global population growth was a little less, though still about 28%, fwiw. EDIT: subsequently discovered I cited wrong numbers on U.S. population. Per US census the population in 1984 was ~235 million, in 2000 was 281.4 million........so growth was more like ~20% [though further discussion on relevance of this comes in later posts].

So theoretically, domestic population growth ALONE (and the effect that has on player pool selectivity) more than compensates for the change in league size.
And that's before we consider other factors, such as:

a) the expansion of basketball popularity globally that occurred in those years [and the NBA's increasing willingness to recruit foreign players], and
b) the native rise in popularity (and the increasingly lucrative prospect of playing pro) fueled by the Bird/Magic era and subsequently the Jordan era.


I mean, this is mostly indisputable stuff.

Do you agree the population expanded? I just cited the numbers, so hopefully the answer is yes.

Do you agree global popularity expanded in that time period? Looking at the global cultural phenomenon that Michael Jordan alone was, the insane international reaction to the original Dream Team, etc, I don't think one could reasonably contend otherwise.

Do you agree domestic popularity has risen (due to effect of some of the very same reasons/people that triggered global popularity expansion)? Having come of age during the "Be Like Mike" era, I'm pretty comfortable saying the answer is yes.

Have true NBA prospect level athletes and players been more incentivized to pursue a potential career due to rising salary potential? I can look up numbers, but the glaring answer is yes.

Would you agree that all of these things would naturally contribute to a larger player pool? Well, if you opt to dig in and answer no, than I guess we're at an impasse [because quite obviously the answer is yes].


Is there a direct and exactly linear relationship between player pool growth and the average quality of an NBA player? Well no, likely not.
But is the relationship at least vaguely linear(ish), with some ups and downs? Most likely yes. Because bear in mind that while the AAU system has been cited as degrading the quality of the average AMERICAN prospect, the time period we're talking about with peak Shaq is sort of an in-between era; this AAU effect [which is itself debatable as to the degree to which it is relevant, btw] was only in the very very early stages.

So given the effective player pool the NBA was tapping between these two eras likely grew by AT LEAST 40-50% (and perhaps by more like 60-80%) due to these factors [with minimal "blunting" due to the AAU system], while the league only grew by 26.1%, how likely is it that the average quality of player DECLINED? Not very, imo.

Did the quality of the league dip a little circa-2000, relative to the mini-eras immediately around it? Yes, I'll agree it did. But bear in mind Shaq also played (in his prime) in the early-mid 90s, and well into the mid-00's (when things picked back up), both clearly [to me] MORE competitive eras than the mid-80s.

I know you're saying Kobe was not a top 2 player in the league yet, but we'll have to agree to disagree there. IMO Kobe was arguably a top 2 player in the league each of those 3 seasons that him and Shaq won a title together.

Yeah. We'll have to agree to disagree there, especially on '00 [by a lot]. Aside from not feeling that way at all at the time, I thankfully have the FULL balance of evidence on my side here, so I don't have much anxiety about disagreeing.
So we're clear, you're saying the guy who was:

*12th in the league in PER
**8th in WS/48
***12th in BPM
****124th in PI RAPM (and only 35th in NPI too)
*****while being outside the top 10 in mpg, too (as these are all rate metrics), and missing 16 games besides
******and who only got All-NBA 2nd Team (so deemed not even top 2 at his position) and finished 12th in the MVP vote.....

.....was actually the 2nd-best player in the league? Uphill battle on that notion, at any rate.

And in terms of MVP voting - I mentioned this earlier in the thread but it wasn't until the 2000s when it started to get really sketchy. .

This doesn't change anything about what I'm saying in terms of comparing Bird to Shaq by way of MVP awards (in fact, you're sort of [inadvertently] SUPPORTING the notion that myself and others have been harping on): we're not questioning whether Bird deserved his 3 MVP's [at least I'm not]; we're saying Shaq likely deserved more than 1 (but didn't get it because [as you say] the voting was often sketchy).

[eminence]

Sorry for not being able to participate in this thread, will probably be short on time for the next 1-2. But will get some votes in.

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Hakeem Olajuwon
3. Shaquille O'Neal

KG still winning with defense, longevity, skill on offense. Hakeem grabbing 2nd with a more defensive approach/fewer weaknesses than Shaq. Shaq winning over the remaining guys with a combo of peak strength/longevity. I need to seriously look at Hakeem/Shaq vs Oscar, as that isn't one I feel is settled at all, but may not have the time.

[SHAQ32]

Also if you value Colt's opinon, he also lists Birds many playoff failures.

Spoiler:

Larry Bird's Long List of Playoff Failures

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.

So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

Would you consider Kobe a playoff failure? Because his Career Postseason TS% is .550 (Bird's .551)

Spoiler:

I've always thought of Bird as a plus team defender in his earlier years due to his feel for the game, but it's interesting to hear penbeast/70sFan talk about how they aren't quite sold on Bird's early career defensive reputation since those 2 are posters whose input I really appreciate when it comes to players from that era.

Jason Kidd is the the #1 defensive player I've seen since I started watching basketball in the late 90s when it comes to "feel for the game" and "instincts". I'm not talking about overall defensive impact but just specifically defensive intangibles. It's a hard thing to describe what exactly I mean by "feel" or "instincts" which is why it's an "intangible". It's just something I felt when I watched him play. He combined this "feel" with world-class hands (I think only Kawhi has had stronger hands on D from players I've seen) to be one of the most valuable defensive guards ever.

From what I've seen of Bird, he had some similar qualities to Kidd due to his general genius-level BBIQ and court vision. Because of how well he could see the floor, he made a lot of plays on both sides of the ball where he was one step ahead of the opponent. He also had really good hands from what I recall.

However, his mediocre strength/quickness combo definitely held him back as an overall defender. We all know how McHale took on the tougher assignments especially on the perimeter, as 70sFan and Penbeast both note Bird also wasn't the best at consistently making timely rotations, and Bird was generally surrounded by a very good group of defenders to cover up his shortcomings.

I don't think Bird is as nearly as good as Kidd in terms of defense overall, just saying that there are some qualities on defense that I remember being impressed by when it came to Bird in his earlier years. During the '81 Championship run, Bird averaged 11.1 DRB (14.0 boards overall!) + 2.3 SPG + 1.0 BPG to help the Celtics to a fantastic 101.6 playoff DRtg. During the '84 Championship run, Bird averaged 8.3 DRB + 2.3 SPG + 1.2 BPG to help the Celtics to a good but not great 107.4 DRtg in the playoffs. Those basic stats, the strong team-level performance, and the positive qualities in his game that I saw makes it very hard for me to call Bird anything other than a clearly above average to good defender despite his obvious flaws in his earlier years.

Question for PenBeast and 70sFan and others who aren't high on Bird's defense, how would you compare Bird as a defensive player to Kobe? Kobe's defense is one of the harder things to put into perspective considering the massive discrepancy between the impact stats and the accolades, I'm sure we will get into it later. But if Bird's defense really isn't as good as I think it is and Kobe's is better than I give him credit for, I could see an argument for Kobe ahead of Bird on this list. You can include Oscar in that discussion as his defense is also very hard for me to put in the proper context.

With respect to those listed, when I look at Bird's defense I do not see how you can question his impact. Like you said, very quick hands and awareness. His instincts and IQ didn't just apply to one side of the floor. As far as the relation to Kobe, I think there's an opposite direction correlation. Kobe's reputation is oversold and underdelivered, and vice versa with Bird. You and others might not agree, but I think a similar defensive comparison for Bird's position, abilities, and impact is Draymond Green.

[Joao Saraiva]

Also if you value Colt's opinon, he also lists Birds many playoff failures.

Spoiler:

Larry Bird's Long List of Playoff Failures

1980- Averaged a .511 TS% in the postseason. In game 5 vs. the Sixers, he shot poorly, 5-19 with just 12 points, as the Celtics lost the game. His man (Dr. J) averaged 25 PPG in this series. His team loses in 5 games despite having HCA and winning 61 games. Had a 18.3 PER in the postseason

1981- Has a .532 TS% in the postseason. He had a bad finals where he averaged just 15 PPG on .419 shooting and .460 TS%.

1982- PPG average dropped from 22.9 PPG to 17.8 PPG. He has an embarrassing .474 TS% in the playoffs. He averaged a pedestrian 18.3 PPG against the Sixers. Averages 17 PPG in the final 2 games of the series. The Celtics lose again with HCA. The Celtics won 63 games and had the #1 SRS in the league. Has a 17.9 PER in the postseason.

1983- The Celtics get swept by the Bucks. The Celtics win 56 games and had the #2 SRS in the league and lose again with HCA. Bird plays awful again. .478 TS%. His PPG average drops 2 PPG in the playoffs. Bird missed a game in the series but that game happened to be the closest one (Celtics lose by 4). In the 3 other games, the Celtics lose by 14.3 PPG with Bird on the court.

1984- Great playoffs. Averaged 27-14-4 in the Finals and had a .607 TS% in the playoffs. First great playoff of his career. Celtics win the title over the Lakers.

1985- Celtics make the finals, but Bird's numbers drop in the playoffs. His PPG drops by 2.8 PPG, Reb by 1.2 Reb, and AST by 0.7 AST. Had an average .536 TS% in the postseason. Bird plays even worse in the finals. His PPG dropped 4.9 PPG, his Reb 1.7 Reb, and AST by 1.6 AST in the finals compared to his regular season average. His Finals TS% is just .527. Not only that, but Celtics finish with 63 wins and lose once again with HCA a constant theme in Bird's career. This is the first time in Celtics history they lost in the finals with HCA.

1986- Great year. His best year ever. Wins the title. .615 TS% in the postseason and amazing finals.

1987- I think this is his most admirable playoffs up until the finals. The Celtics were quite banged up this year. Averaged 27-10-7 in the postseason with .577 TS%. Though his numbers in the finals dropped off once again. His PPG was 3.9 PPG down from the regular season, AST down by 2.1 AST and his TS% was just .534. In game 6, Bird scored just 16 points on 6-16 (.375) shooting. In the final 3 games of this series, Bird averaged just 20 PPG on .377 shooting and .492 TS% with 3.7 TOV. This is the first time Bird has played without HCA in the playoffs and his team loses.

1988- Bird's PPG drops by 5.4 PPG, Reb by 0.5 Reb. Bird shoots an awful 40-114 (.351) against the Pistons. Has a mediocre .538 TS% and 20.2 PER in the playoffs. The Celtics had HCA and the #1 SRS in the league and you probably guessed what happened next, Larry Bird loses with HCA once again.

1989- Injured doesn't play in the postseason.

1990- Bird shoots .539 TS% and has 3.6 TOV as the Celtics once again you guessed it, lose with HCA.

1991- In the first round, his team needs to go 5 vs. the 41 win Pacers. His PPG drop by 2.3 PPG and his Rebounds and Assists also drop quite a bit. Has a .490 TS% 15.8 PER in the playoffs. Against the Pistons Bird averages 13.4 PPG on .446 TS%. His 56 win team played with you guessed it HCA and loses with it.

1992- Doesn't play in the first round as the Celtics sweep the Pacers. In round 2, his team goes 7 against the Cavs, but Bird plays in 4 games and his team was 1-3 in those games. Averages a pathetic 11.3 PPG and 4.5 Reb which are 8.4 PPG and 5.2 Reb down from his regular season average. He has a .514 TS% and 16.4 PER in the postseason.

So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). In 12 years, you get 7 losses with HCA. Basically out of Bird's 13 year career, you have 1 injury season and 3 non-descript postseasons at the end of his plus some playoff disappointments early in his career.

Would you consider Kobe a playoff failure? Because his Career Postseason TS% is .550 (Bird's .551)

But Kobe didn't drop his production usually in the playoffs. The case for Kobe over Bird is definitely one made by consistency, even tough Kobe wet the bed more often in the finals than people suggest.

0.1ts% is nothing, and given Kobe's production his TOV% is off the charts. That kind of compensates his flaws ts% wise.

Also Kobe has more longevity than Bird and I'd say more epic performances in the playoffs too. He started early with almost his entire 01 run, and ended up in 2010 with an absolute show against Phoenix.

Before and after that Kobe puts some value in the table, and even tough it's not as much as it was during his best years, let's not count like the rest of his years count for nothing. The 2013 RS was still tremendous by Bryant.

[DQuinn1575]

fwiw, that growth from 23 to 29 teams is a growth of 26.1%.
The growth in the U.S. population between 1985 (middle of Bird's titles) and 2001 (middle of Shaq's titles) was 35.8% (from 240.5M to 326.7M); global population growth was a little less, though still about 28%, fwiw.

potential? I can look up numbers, but the glaring answer is yes.

People on this board dont seem to understand population it's not the total population, but those of basketball playing age- the population of people 20-34 (roughly NBA age) went from 63.0 million in 1986 to 57.1 million in 1997 (Census Report 1960-1997) - the baby boomers were a real thing - about a 9% drop. Although basketball was more popular in 2000, the average player is around 6-6, and the percentage of coordinated guys over 6-4 playing high school basketball can't have been that much higher in 1995 than it was in 1980. And the pay in the 1980s although not as high as the 2000s, wasn't like the 1960s, Per Basketball-Reference I only get 7 guys born outside of US who didnt play college ball that got 1,000 minutes in 2001 - Dirk,Stojakovic, Divac, Sabonis,Kukoc, Nesterovic, Turkoglu, and only 3 got in 1600 minutes - 20 a game.

So every thing being equal, you might have had more available talent per team in 1986 than 2000.

[trex_8063]

fwiw, that growth from 23 to 29 teams is a growth of 26.1%.
The growth in the U.S. population between 1985 (middle of Bird's titles) and 2001 (middle of Shaq's titles) was 35.8% (from 240.5M to 326.7M); global population growth was a little less, though still about 28%, fwiw.

potential? I can look up numbers, but the glaring answer is yes.

People on this board dont seem to understand population it's not the total population, but those of basketball playing age- the population of people 20-34 (roughly NBA age) went from 63.0 million in 1986 to 57.1 million in 1997 (Census Report 1960-1997) - the baby boomers were a real thing - about a 9% drop.

A good point, thank you.

Although to get closer to the year sets in question, the census data I'm looking at puts the "NBA age" group in 1984 at ~60.0 million [estimated] vs 58.8 million for 2000: a 2% drop. Fairly negligible, and easily off-set [and then some] by the other popularity factors mentioned. The growth in player pool is still there.....just not near as large as I'd previously suggested.