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

[Doctor MJ]

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.

This is a great topic to bring to the fore here.

Although, one thing I've thought was funny is that the Golden Generation of the '60s NBA were Great Depression babies, and thus among a particularly small talent pool when they came of age on top of the game itself being less popular. The odds of an exceptionally strong group of outliers would turn up in this period I at first was suspicious of - baby boomer childhood nostalgia skepticism - but no, they really did have a handful of amazing guys that the next generation - the baby boomers themselves coming of age in the NBA - would fail to match outside of Kareem.

The arrival of baby boomers in pro ball would have been officially 1968. So it's interesting, I really love the era that follows - particularly the ABA - but you had a relative scarcity of true superstars and a ton of parity to go along with a mindboggling expansion that seems likely to have overwhelmed the improvement we would have typically seen with the arrival of such a massive generation.

[poopdamoop]

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.

If Bird were as good a defender as Draymond Green, he'd have gone in the top 3 of this project. From what I've seen, he ranged from average to good early in his career, then became a slight liability after 1988. His issue was that his defensive and offensive peaks don't overlap.

[eminence]

I consider myself really really high on Bird's defense... And he isn't even close to Draymond on that end. Draymond is arguably a top 10 (prime) defender of alltime. Bird is merely very good (pre-injuries).

[Jordan Syndrome]

If Bird's defense were as good as Draymond Green's he would be a GOAT candidate.

[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.

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.

I get 310 total players in NBA of 1984 and 439 in 2000, From the 439 I deduct 14 players who were not born in US and did not attend college -as there were none in 1984 (and as a side note 65 in 2020) , and get 425 players. but additionally there were only 10 non US born players who had played in college in 1984 and 39 in 2020 - deduct 29 more to be fair to get to 396- so a 28% increase in the number of non foreign players, while the population went down 2% - So you added 86 players in this time period, with a real slight population decline. The increase in popularity didn't come up with 86 players. They are guys who didn't make the league in 1984. EDITED- some are guys who left school early, i can check on that later/but the increase there is not all of the 86.
So it was tougher to make the league in the mid 80s.


source - Basketball Reference

[DQuinn1575]

Although, one thing I've thought was funny is that the Golden Generation of the '60s NBA were Great Depression babies, and thus among a particularly small talent pool when they came of age on top of the game itself being less popular. The odds of an exceptionally strong group of outliers would turn up in this period I at first was suspicious of - baby boomer childhood nostalgia skepticism - but no, they really did have a handful of amazing guys that the next generation - the baby boomers themselves coming of age in the NBA - would fail to match outside of Kareem.

The arrival of baby boomers in pro ball would have been officially 1968. So it's interesting, I really love the era that follows - particularly the ABA - but you had a relative scarcity of true superstars and a ton of parity to go along with a mindboggling expansion that seems likely to have overwhelmed the improvement we would have typically seen with the arrival of such a massive generation.

I always think of the Golden Generation as Wilt, Russell, Baylor, Oscar, and West - note West was considered the worst of the group at the start - in a 5 year span maybe the best 5 players of all-time (at that point) entered the league. Think about 5 LeBron/Jordans entering the league in the next 5 years.

The game may have been less popular, but most any coordinated 6-5 kid was going to get spotted in the high school hallway, and schools like San Fran, Kansas, Cincinnati were offering these guys scholarships -

[Doctor MJ]

Although, one thing I've thought was funny is that the Golden Generation of the '60s NBA were Great Depression babies, and thus among a particularly small talent pool when they came of age on top of the game itself being less popular. The odds of an exceptionally strong group of outliers would turn up in this period I at first was suspicious of - baby boomer childhood nostalgia skepticism - but no, they really did have a handful of amazing guys that the next generation - the baby boomers themselves coming of age in the NBA - would fail to match outside of Kareem.

The arrival of baby boomers in pro ball would have been officially 1968. So it's interesting, I really love the era that follows - particularly the ABA - but you had a relative scarcity of true superstars and a ton of parity to go along with a mindboggling expansion that seems likely to have overwhelmed the improvement we would have typically seen with the arrival of such a massive generation.

I always think of the Golden Generation as Wilt, Russell, Baylor, Oscar, and West - note West was considered the worst of the group at the start - in a 5 year span maybe the best 5 players of all-time (at that point) entered the league. Think about 5 LeBron/Jordans entering the league in the next 5 years.

The game may have been less popular, but most any coordinated 6-5 kid was going to get spotted in the high school hallway, and schools like San Fran, Kansas, Cincinnati were offering these guys scholarships -

Indeed, and I'll add that people today drastically underrate how popular this sport has been for a very long time. Professional basketball stumbled after the '20s because of the Great Depression and then there was a war on, but basketball was super-popular to play in this era they just weren't all sitting around watching highlights of pros on their telephones. The BAA wasn't starting from zero, they were starting because the arenas already had this going for hockey and recognized they could jump on the basketball bandwagon.

Re: West considered worst of the 4 at first. Certainly, which is also why the Lakers used the wrong team strategy for years and years. It'd be interesting to see what the Lakers would have been if West had arrived first.

[Dr Positivity]

Although, one thing I've thought was funny is that the Golden Generation of the '60s NBA were Great Depression babies, and thus among a particularly small talent pool when they came of age on top of the game itself being less popular. The odds of an exceptionally strong group of outliers would turn up in this period I at first was suspicious of - baby boomer childhood nostalgia skepticism - but no, they really did have a handful of amazing guys that the next generation - the baby boomers themselves coming of age in the NBA - would fail to match outside of Kareem.

The arrival of baby boomers in pro ball would have been officially 1968. So it's interesting, I really love the era that follows - particularly the ABA - but you had a relative scarcity of true superstars and a ton of parity to go along with a mindboggling expansion that seems likely to have overwhelmed the improvement we would have typically seen with the arrival of such a massive generation.

I always think of the Golden Generation as Wilt, Russell, Baylor, Oscar, and West - note West was considered the worst of the group at the start - in a 5 year span maybe the best 5 players of all-time (at that point) entered the league. Think about 5 LeBron/Jordans entering the league in the next 5 years.

The game may have been less popular, but most any coordinated 6-5 kid was going to get spotted in the high school hallway, and schools like San Fran, Kansas, Cincinnati were offering these guys scholarships -

I think it would make sense that the growth in popularity of the game affected regular size people more than it would the tall guys. Someone like Paul might have been in baseball in 60s or 70s. However 7 foot 300 pound guys like Wilt, I think in 1960 and 2020, everyone knows what sport they should be playing.

[The Master]

Re Bird:

I saw a post of @drza in one of earlier threads about estimation of Kareem's impact, and his, hm, disappointment in exploring KAJs career - and while I do strongly disagree because generally I'm very high on Kareem - I'm full of respect to any analysis, like his, based on objective and analytical criterias. Furthermore, drza's point of view ('I was convinced Kareem is ~GOAT before I've started analysing his career') is something I guess we all witness on ourselves when we start to dig into something related to basketball history: there's some way of thinking, general assessment, what people generally believe in, so this is involuntarily the starting point for our analysis. And like in drza's case it was a believe that Kareem is near GOAT level as a player - in my case, and that was before LeBron's rise to prominence, rediscovery of Hakeem's impact of general audience, and before finish of TDs career, it was a believe Larry Bird is top5-top6 player of alltime, the best/2nd best player of his generation and obviously the best small forward of all-time.

And first of all - I have to say that despite a fact I have my own disappointment, like drza in relation to KAJ, regarding Larry Bird's career, I'm still somehow very high on Bird. His resume (3xMVP, 3xChamp, 2xFMVP) speaks for itself, his peak (84-87) is off the charts, his actual style of play and skillset - was an example of ridiculous versatility of a player born in 50s and developed in 70s, but with a game portable to any later eras in NBA.

Secondly - I have to say for purpose of this post that I generally ignore any injury excuses - I'm strong proponent of ''additive'' approach to estimate player's impact, so I'm not overcritical for single playoff failures, yet if someone gets injured, his impact obviously is limited, and durability is (maybe underrated) part of player's value.

Yet, despite a fact I understand value of Bird's resume and his peak, I'm not as high on Bird as most people are, because first and foremost I count ''career value'' the most, so while I take into account value of a peak, I respect a lot what I call ''top-end longevity'': by that I mean a longevity on ~top10 level with very limited replacement's possibility in context of a league in respective moment.

In Bird's case, this is very problematic, because in first part of his career (80-83) he underperformed in postseason very often, and in third part of his career (87-92) in most cases he underperformed in postseason because of injuries. In 84-87 period, while I don't think he was that great against Lakers in '85 and '87, he was great-great in general, so I'll leave it as it is: one of the top peaks we've ever seen.

To put some context to colts18 list - in '80, Bird was a 23yo rookie, in '81 Bird played ATG series against Sixers in ECF, and despite struggles against Robert Reid's defense, he was still solid in the finals - so without a doubt he was the best player of a championship team. In '82 he got outplayed by Dr J&Toney duo, and in '83 - he had an injury and health (flu) issues that significantly impacted his performance. In '88 he struggled against Pistons, in '89 he was injured, in '90 - he played mediocre series against Knicks, but the main problem of Celtics was interior defense, what made Ewing look like peak Hakeem. In '91 and '92 - he was injured in postseason again.

I don't want to write too much about any of this series as for now, because, firstly, I rewatched them some time ago, so I'd need to refresh my memory about specifics, and secondly - I don't want to write too long feedback to this issue (Larry Bird's impact). So I'll leave two main points of my disappointment: first of all, besides his peak years, I find Bird's scoring overrated, and secondly - I believe that series against Sixers '82 and Bucks '83 were definitely winnable - and Celtics underpeformed a lot (in context of their roster potential) in 88-92 period. Bird in first part of his career definitely struggled against postseason defenses - it's quite obvious, considering pure stats (54.6 TS% -> 50.5 TS%, 27.6 PTS/PER100---> 24.2 PTS/PER100 from RS to PS), but I think it needs further examination (maybe next time). There is also some obvious correlation between Larry's improved scoring, peak regular seasons and peak postseasons production in 84-87 period. That's why, despite outstanding series against Sixers in '81 - I generally don't view young(er) Bird as a strong anchor of championship-level offense. About a second point, in '82 and '83, Celtics have higher SRS than opponents (in '80 as well, but in '81 - Sixers were at the top, so we need to give Bird credit for beating them) - and in '88-'92 period, despite a fact of some players getting older, I do believe it was still roster able to make a noise in postseason.

In '88, Celtics had 1st SRS in RS (MVP-calibre season of Bird), and played pretty competitive series against Pistons despite 19-6 on 44 TS% from Bird - in '89, Celtics were 40-36 with ~ +1.5 SRS without Bird, in '90-92 they were +50 team every season (35-31 without Bird). In '90 - Celtics got upset in a first round by Knicks, in '91 they lost to Pistons with injured (Bird had back issues IIRC) Isiah (2-4) and in '92 - they played competitive 7-game series against Cavaliers despite only 11-4-5 in four games from Bird. And in '93 - Boston had solid 48-34 record. Honestly, I don't know if these teams were capable of winning championship - maybe not, considering coach's changes and problems on defense these teams had. But I'm sure these teams were capable of getting deep into playoffs with true superstar impact (Celtics '88) or just healthy Bird ('89 and onwards).

If my hypotheses (Celtics underperforming in postseason during two parts of Bird's career; Bird with quite narrow offensive prime) - are accurate (they definitely need further data verification with Boston's ORTG in postseason etc. on their own), then the question is: does Bird's peak in 84-87 really that high (in comparison to other all-time greats) that it 'erases' his post-87 career in postseason and early playoff failures, especially considering his mediocre (in comparison to other all-time greats) longevity?

Some time ago I started to think if his playoff failures are something unparalleled within this tier of players. My first thought was MJ, but while he struggled in getting wins against elite teams (Celtics, Pistons), his impact wasn't probably as big as his numbers would suggest, and he had his own failures (G4-G6 against Pistons in '89, series against Pistons in '88), firstly - his production was still solid/very good/elite in those losses, and more importantly - his teams were clearly less talented than opponents. My second thought was LeBron: and there is much more similarity to Bird in this sense that LBJ struggled against elite opponents (Spurs, Celtics) in his first Cavs episode in similar way as Bird did. But there are two differences as well: Cavs teams generally overachieved in this period a lot: they shouldn't play seven games against Pistons in '06, they shouldn't beat Pistons in '07, they shouldn't win three games against all-time great Celtics in '08 - and they shouldn't win b2b 60+ games in 09-10. On the other hand, I think Bird's teams (in general) overachieved only in his first season (that doesn't mean Larry didn't provide amazing impact, at least in regular season), and after Parish trade Celtics were definitely a top contender, so there's big disparity between young LeBron's (obviously excluding 2011, but that's different story) and Bird's teams. And while LeBron's production wasn't elite per se (f.e. against Boston in '08), when you start to dig into this series more, you'll find out that in reality, after two awful games in G1-G2 - then LeBron played great, so in reality he was the main reason why this series was that competitive, and I don't think you can say the same about Bird against Sixers in '82 or in his later part of career. So I started looking for more - Russell? Kareem? Magic? Tim? Hakeem? They have their own failures, because everyone sooner or later finds Nate Thurmond on his path, but I truly don't think a scale was similar to what happened in Bird's career.

So then, after few years when Kobe/KG/Dirk finished their primes around 2013/2014 - and we got some sense of what their career values look like, I started to think that maybe, maybe - and that idea was at first very strange for me - Bird should be compared to tier of Kobe/Garnett/Dirk players in a first place (it was before I realized KG was even better than I thought)? Because, while he has superior peak and accolades - his longevity, injury history and frequency of underperforming in postseason made it pretty close when you think what 22yo Kobe or 22yo Dirk could have achieved if they find themselves in similar environment talent-wise as Bird when he got drafted by Boston in '79.

And to be precise - I'd give Bird some benefit of a doubt, and give him an edge in comparison to Kobe/Dirk tier of players, although I have Bird behind top10 of all-time (so behind LeBron, Kareem, Bill, MJ, Magic, Hakeem, TD, Shaq, KG, Wilt). But my point is I don't think it's surreal to have Bird even lower, and I'd be highly reluctant to have him higher, not because I don't believe his peak was amazing.

[limbo]

I think Bird and Dirk are pretty comparable. In the end it comes down to how you weigh Bird's peak with his lack of longevity, and how you feel about Bird's defense vs. Dirk's defense. Dirk has a very strong and consistent prime from 2001 to 2011 and some of the years beyond that are also pretty valuable. Bird is harder to gauge because he was a lot more inconsistent through his career,. His defensive impact seemed to plateau in his first couple of years while gradually declining after that while his offense had the opposite trajectory, was fairly raw and inconsistent in his first couple of years while becoming more polished after 1985 before getting injured.

It's interesting how Magic and Bird were historically viewed as neck and neck by most basketball followers, but recently there seems to be a much clearer separation between them in Magic favor, which seems reasonable based on Magic usually having less hiccups offensively in his prime while being able to close out his career on a far more impressive note, not only by impact but also how he reinvented his game as a more senior player and was still able to be arguably the best offensive player in the league despite moving away from the fast tempo transition spamming he was abusing to historic levels during most of his career.

That said, if there's one thing i can say about Bird in his defense (other than the injury thing, which was unfortunate, but i can't reward him based on what could have happened if he hadn't suffered a career altering injury), is that i can sympathize a bit more with Bird's dips in Playoff performances throughout his career because his conference was clearly superior to Magic in pretty much every single year od the 80's...

Magic's competition was a joke ting in the PS. Most of the decade he could cruise to the Finals without playing any contenders on the way, and some of the competition in the mid 80s specifically were laughably weak. Bird usually had to beat Philly or Milwaukee just to get to the Finals, while also facing elite defenses like the Knicks. Then it was Detroit in the 2nd half of the 80s... Bird was a lot more challenged on both ends during his Playoff career than Magic, even though Magic often beat Bird in the Finals or a team that eliminated Bird, he did so coming to the matchup carrying less battle wounds, if you may.

[Jaivl]

Sorry, been absent for some time and probably will be again due to work stuff. Please don't tell me Magic got in with next to no discussion... again. Honestly think these three were similar/better players and for much longer.

1. Kevin Garnett
I don't know, I probably should search some old posts because it's the same story every three years, lol. Dude just played forever and was pretty much flawless in every area other than being a superstar-tier scorer: one of the best screeners ever, the #2 big man playmaker ever, probably the #2 big man shooter/spacer ever, best horizontal+pnr defender ever (more sophisticated on a higher level of difficulty than Russell); and even with his nimble frame, probably at least a top 10-15 rim protector. His huge statistical imprint by any possible measure confirms the value of those qualities, in both bad and good team situations. Maintained good defensive impact post-prime, which IMO is what separates him away from the next two.
Cons: He's a fool.

2. Hakeem Olajuwon
Some less balanced, more alpha version of KG (making him worse outside of his peak, imho), worse both before and after his prime.

3. Shaquille O'Neal
Best peak avaliable with deceptively big longevity, tarnished because of big concerns re/ effort and avaliability. Easily more foolish than KG.

With Magic already in, I think Kobe would be my #11.

[No-more-rings]

If Bird's defense were as good as Draymond Green's he would be a GOAT candidate.

I think at the very least he'd have clearly the best prime. His offense isn't much below Jordan and Lebron if any, and Green's defense is significantly better than those guys.

[70sFan]

I had similar thoughts about Bird recently. We've had countless of discussion about Bird vs Magic, so I'll leave that. We've also debated about Bird vs Dirk/Kobe quite often. Let's compare him to someone he's rarely compared to - Jerry West. Why?

1. West doesn't have huge longevity - he only played 35 RS games more than Bird.
2. West had his share of problems with health.
3. They have similar casual reputation - great leaders, extremely clutch, did everything to win etc.
4. West is usually ranked significantly lower than Bird.

West didn't come to the league with the same flair as Bird - his rookie season was good, but not in comparison to Bird who was legit star. Jerry made a huge leap in the second year and by then I think he can be compared to young Bird favorably. Both players made another leaps - West in 1964 and Bird in 1985. West regressed as a player after injury in 1971 (he missed playoffs) but he stayed very impactful player - he was 2nd best player on an all-time great 1972 Lakers team. Bird regressed after 1988 injury and he never came back to superstar level again.

So what do we really have here?

Peak years: 1984-88 Bird (5 seasons), 1965-70 West (6 seasons)

It's fair to assume that Bird peaked higher, especially when you consider West injuries (missed 1967 playoffs, missed significant time in RS during 1967-69 period).

Prime years: 1980-83, 1990 Bird (5 seasons), 1962-64, 1971-73 West (6 seasons)

Again, West has quantity. Does Bird have quality here? I don't know, I don't think I'd take 1990 Bird over 1972 West and young Larry had his share of problems underlined by The Master. Young West posted 30 ppg on 55 TS% in playoffs and he usually faced very strong competition - it's fair to bring context (Baylor) here, but is team context enough to overcome such a difference in playoffs? Mind you that I think 1980-83 Bird usually performed better than 1962-64 West in RS, but I don't think the gap is that significant.

Post-prime years: 1991-92 Bird (1.5 season), 1961 and 1974 West (1.5 season).

There is no difference in quantity here, other than I think rookie West was better and more reliable than old Bird.

I think we have to assume that either:

A) Bird was singificantly better player at his peak,

or

B) young Bird was much more underrated by boxscore stats than West.

To be honest, I have problems with both options. I know that Bird is the type of player whose impact far exceeded his numbers. He was one of the best off-ball players ever and one of the greatest passers ever, his shooting had extreme value even without shooting many threes and he was decent defender at his best. The problem is that a lot of these things can be said about West as well.

1. Jerry West shared the ball a lot with Elgin Baylor. I love Elgin, but we all know that he was ball-dominant player. This could cause West to play a lot more off-ball than other playmaking guards.
2. Jerry West was fantastic shooter and thanks to trex we have some shooting data from his prime years. In games he tracked, West shot 46% from 16-23 feet and it was 50% of his all attempts. You need to know that 16-23 feet back then was the area of effective spacing - without three point line it didn't make any sense to shoot from beyond 23 feet. So not only West was fantastic shooter - he also had comparable spacing effect to Bird, becaue he shot a lot from outside.
3. Jerry West was much better defender. If we do the easiest, most crude look at his boxscore stats, West in his last season averaged:

2.6 steals, 0.7 blocks per game (3.0 and 0.9 per36, 2.7 and 0.8 per75)

as a 35 years old man who struggled with injuries.

This is something that can't be captured by stats, right? My friend from Patreon analyzed West's defense in footage I provided (along with other 1970s players like Frazier, DeBusschere or Hondo) and he came out extremely impressed. His work changed the way I looked at West - before I thought that he was similar to other agressive guards - he posted a lot of steals, but gambled and was inconsistent due to his offensive load. Boy, I was completely wrong. I already made a short post with video examples about West, this time I provide quotes from my friend (this is about 1972 West, not prime one):

Did you watch the game closely? I know Wilt had all those blocks, they said 9 at one point. I was looking at West. He was tremendous defensively in this game. First Bucks possession, I think it may have been him who got a piece of Kareem's shot. It was only a partial block. Wilt was there too, might have been him . It was hard to tell, but I thought it might have been West. Anyway, both help and individual defense I thought West was outstanding. Even at going on 34 he is still really, really quick. A full court race he might not be great at this point. However, quickness in a confined space, still really quick. And that really stands out on defense. Recovery. Guy has a step and him and he recovers by the time that player goes up to shoot.

West vs Frazier:

West vs Frazier. West blocked far more shots. I saw he blocked Curtis Perry in game 4. Amazing how they are almost all from behind. Trying to think of another player who did it like that. Not sure that I think Frazier was quicker laterally. Just quickness, period, I definitely think it's West. Strength I definitely think is Frazier. West I think is a better jumper with longer arms.

I think West challenges shots harder. Frazier will sometimes ,ove laterally with the guy, but stay on the floor while the player he is guarding elevaates. If you really want to contest that shot, you have to elevate. Certainly it's not an absolute.. Both players would sometimes disrupt shots by swiping at the ball as the played was beginning to elevate. They wouldn't elevate but the swipe would trow off their timing on the way up. They both had exceptionally quick hands.

I think West seems to hustle out to try to contest open shooters. Players who aren't necessarily his man. You are not the first I have seen observe that Frazier would coast at times. To me, that is a negative. The baskets you give up early count as well. A made basket counts the same in the first or fourth quarter.

My point is that West was elite defensive player and I don't see him resting on defense often. I already said what I think about Bird's defense - I don't consider him to be close to West defensively.

So my overall point is that I don't believe Bird has significantly bigger non-boxscore value and his boxscore numbers don't view him as singificantly better at his peak either. We also have rough impact stats (WOWY) that paints West as one of the best players ever (although I don't love using WOWY results).

It's quite a long post, so sorry if it doesn't have much value. In short - West has overall more productive career when you start to break it down. To believe that Bird is better, you have to believe that Bird peaked much higher, but I don't think we have much evidence to believe in that. West also performed far more consistent in playoffs and was better defender, so it's not Harden situation.

Then keep in mind that West wasn't really durable and his longevity is also a bit weak. So think about it and tell me - why should Bird be ranked this high?

[Dutchball97]

Why shouldn't Bird be ranked this high? Was he better than the likes of West, Kobe and Dirk? I think it's not really a question whether it's peak or prime that I'd take Bird over any of them. Taking a worse player over him, simply because that player played for a bit longer feels pedantic to me.

With Magic already voted in at #7 I honestly find it a bit laughable that Bird supposedly isn't even top 10. If longevity isn't a problem for Magic, why should it be for Bird?

[70sFan]

Why shouldn't Bird be ranked this high? Was he better than the likes of West, Kobe and Dirk? I think it's not really a question whether it's peak or prime that I'd take Bird over any of them. Taking a worse player over him, simply because that player played for a bit longer feels pedantic to me.

I already touched this in my post - was Bird really better than West? If he was, was he consistent enough to say he was better player in their primes? If so, then is the gap big enough to overcome the fact that West had much more productive career despite not being any longer?

[No-more-rings]

I'm still not really sold on KG being this high, though I'd definitely have him bordering on the top 10 probably 11th or 12.

I understand that he's had some of the best impact stats from his time, and probably ever but i do think it tends to overstate his actual ability some. People will say his weaker scoring in comparison to others ain't a big deal, but I'm not so sure of that. Like there's just no reason to believe he could've done what Duncan did in 03 or Hakeem did in 94, when you're carrying a mediocre cast like that elite scoring is generally required to take them over the hump. He didn't have it, and when your teammates can't hit enough shots what are you going to do? KG could have big scoring games at times, but he didn't really have the fortitude where you can dump him the ball and he'll take you to the finish line. He sometimes could, but not consistently enough it seems. I'm still not so sure you want him as your first offensive option in the playoffs, or at least not where he's going to be called upon to make too may plays he's similar to Drob in that way. I do think he could lead multiple championship teams in a situation where you can pair him with a guard or wing that's a more competent score than he is. Like all great players he can win you championships as the best player, but i just feel like getting the roster to do that is going to be a bit harder than it is for a Duncan or Hakeem type or even Shaq for that matter.

[poopdamoop]

I'm still not really sold on KG being this high, though I'd definitely have him bordering on the top 10 probably 11th or 12.

I understand that he's had some of the best impact stats from his time, and probably ever but i do think it tends to overstate his actual ability some. People will say his weaker scoring in comparison to others ain't a big deal, but I'm not so sure of that. Like there's just no reason to believe he could've done what Duncan did in 03 or Hakeem did in 94, when you're carrying a mediocre cast like that elite scoring is generally required to take them over the hump. He didn't have it, and when your teammates can't hit enough shots what are you going to do? KG could have big scoring games at times, but he didn't really have the fortitude where you can dump him the ball and he'll take you to the finish line. He sometimes could, but not consistently enough it seems. I'm still not so sure you want him as your first offensive option in the playoffs, or at least not where he's going to be called upon to make too may plays he's similar to Drob in that way. I do think he could lead multiple championship teams in a situation where you can pair him with a guard or wing that's a more competent score than he is. Like all great players he can win you championships as the best player, but i just feel like getting the roster to do that is going to be a bit harder than it is for a Duncan or Hakeem type or even Shaq for that matter.

No one has any issues with Bill Russell being in the top 5, but he's got far more offensive question marks than KG. If one of your main criteria is isolation scoring, than KG probably takes a hit there, but the case for him has never been for his volume scoring. I would probably have him 9-10 because he does everything else so well that it offsets his slightly weaker scoring capability, and I'm pretty sure most of the voters have similar rationales.

[No-more-rings]

I'm still not really sold on KG being this high, though I'd definitely have him bordering on the top 10 probably 11th or 12.

I understand that he's had some of the best impact stats from his time, and probably ever but i do think it tends to overstate his actual ability some. People will say his weaker scoring in comparison to others ain't a big deal, but I'm not so sure of that. Like there's just no reason to believe he could've done what Duncan did in 03 or Hakeem did in 94, when you're carrying a mediocre cast like that elite scoring is generally required to take them over the hump. He didn't have it, and when your teammates can't hit enough shots what are you going to do? KG could have big scoring games at times, but he didn't really have the fortitude where you can dump him the ball and he'll take you to the finish line. He sometimes could, but not consistently enough it seems. I'm still not so sure you want him as your first offensive option in the playoffs, or at least not where he's going to be called upon to make too may plays he's similar to Drob in that way. I do think he could lead multiple championship teams in a situation where you can pair him with a guard or wing that's a more competent score than he is. Like all great players he can win you championships as the best player, but i just feel like getting the roster to do that is going to be a bit harder than it is for a Duncan or Hakeem type or even Shaq for that matter.

No one has any issues with Bill Russell being in the top 5, but he's got far more offensive question marks than KG. If one of your main criteria is isolation scoring, than KG probably takes a hit there, but the case for him has never been for his volume scoring. I would probably have him 9-10 because he does everything else so well that it offsets his slightly weaker scoring capability, and I'm pretty sure most of the voters have similar rationales.

I think Russell is overrated for the same reason.

I understand people's arguments for him, and i get why they feel that way i just don't agree with it.

[Dutchball97]

Why shouldn't Bird be ranked this high? Was he better than the likes of West, Kobe and Dirk? I think it's not really a question whether it's peak or prime that I'd take Bird over any of them. Taking a worse player over him, simply because that player played for a bit longer feels pedantic to me.

I already touched this in my post - was Bird really better than West? If he was, was he consistent enough to say he was better player in their primes? If so, then is the gap big enough to overcome the fact that West had much more productive career despite not being any longer?

More productive how exactly? Because West scored more total points? I don't think you can say he was more productive in terms of what he accomplished with his team either.

Bird won 3 MVPs in a row and was the guy that put the Celtics on his back from his first to his last season. West was a passenger on Baylor's Lakers for his first few years and he was held back somewhat after that when it was clear West had surpassed Baylor but still wasn't used as first option. In his prime in his late 20s West missed an entire play-off series, which hurts the consistency in his prime argument. When West finally won a ring it was as the number 2 behind Wilt.

I'm high on West. I have him slightly ahead of Oscar and a lock for top 15 at least but looking at how dominant they were respectively in their eras I see a distinct gap between Bird and West. Bird was the clear best player in the mid 80s imo and had an argument for best player pretty much the entire decade, while West wasn't quite on the level of Russell and Wilt.

[Ambrose]

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.

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).

I would like to point out that high school basketball participation dropped every year from 1979-1990 (I don't remember the exact year it ended, might've been 98) I believe. So while the population was expanding, the basketball talent pool wasn't, at least domestically.