Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[Joey Wheeler]

Spoiler:

He doesn't finish at an elite level and his shooting took a major dip against defenses who routinely defender the 3 point line.

Bird was a magnificent player and arguably the most aesthetically pleasing player to watch but I still have him around top 15 when it comes to peaks and outside of "GOAT Offensive" levels.

His individual scoring isn't GOAT level, but there's so much to his offense. He's arguably the best passer ever, one of the best off ball players ever and most importantly he gets the best out of everyone around him due to the aforementioned passing ability, crazy high IQ/ability to anticipate and ability to dominate on very low usage.

Unless you go out of your way to do it, it's impossible to build a team around Bird that makes people scream "**** supporting cast". If you put even someone like Lebron or Jordan in the situation Bird got drafted into, people would have been whining for years about "**** supporting cast" as they put up big numbers but couldn't win as much.

You really enjoy grabbing onto extreme narratives and let them drive your own player analysis. I wish you the best of luck in your Narrative lead life and journey

Yeah, silly me. Let's just boil everything down to shooting %s and individual scoring. Bird's 3pt% dropped against good defenses and he wasn't elite finishing at the rim, so he wasn't all that Let's ignore the fact he still remains an elite scorer despite that and the way he makes everyone around him thrive in a variety of different ways.

[freethedevil]

New video on Bird

Watch on YouTube

Bird's three point % vs bad defenses(who probabbly left him open), 47%, Bird's three point % vs good defenses, 34%



Even just looking at on ball offensive production, surely something that skews towards bird rather curry, curry's finals vs the cavs in the 16 looks better than birds and his wcf against thunde looks better than birds bs the bucks.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2016-nba-western-conference-finals-thunder-vs-warriors.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1984-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bucks-vs-celtics.html



https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2016-nba-finals-cavaliers-vs-warriors.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1984-nba-finals-lakers-vs-celtics.html


Arguably bird's best playoffs looks worse than curry's worst.

Sure bird has a defensive edge probably, does it really make up for curry managaing an ast%:to% ratio twice as big on higher volume? And I'm fairly confident if we measured off ball creation curry benefits more. Scoring is pretty much identical favoring curry in the finals..

Note that league average ts was identical both seasons.

Why do people put bird top 10 again? Cause peak certainly doesn't seem to cut it..

Your "analysis" completely misses the point. Bird is an elite scorer in volume and efficiency but that is so incredibly far from representing the full extent of his offensive value. He's also potentially the greatest passer ever and the guy with the highest IQ, who manages to make everyone around him thrive.
I literally bring up creation.

Curry creates more than bird does so, "bird passing" really isn't doing much for you. And no bird isn't the greeatest passer ever. He isn't the greatest passer of his own era for that matter.

Passing is a means to the end of creation, curry creates more. '
Bird has so much more to his offensive game than Curry. And it's not even true that "on ball offensive creation is tilted towards Bird". A big part of what made Bird such a special player is that he was devastating on very low usage, he could dominate while not dominating the ball at all and allowing his teammates to be in the best positions to succeed. In the 1986 playoffs, his usage rate was 23%
Curry is the greatest offensive off ball player in history and creates more without the ball than anyone in history. Much off curry's off ball creation doesn't even involve him passing, so obviously assists would skew in bird's favor.

[70sFan]

I don't think that Curry is clearly better off-ball player than Bird. Larry had his share of advantages in that aspect, three point shooting is not the end of off-ball game.

[freethedevil]

I don't think that Curry is clearly better off-ball player than Bird. Larry had his share of advantages in that aspect, three point shooting is not the end of off-ball game.

What advantages. Curry cuts better, is quicker, obviously has the bigger shooting threat. Three point gravity is the most valuable source of off ball creation.

Bird's advantage would only really be 'off ball passing', but that 'off ball passing' would be captured with assists since, you know, most of his off ball passes were direct assists or potential aisssts.

Virtually alll of bird's oc's are assist eligble, about half of curry's aren't. If, assist % is favoring curry for a series, where is bird brdiging the creative gap.

Curry's better at everything off ball outside of passing which itself is largey captured in assists.


I dont really jnow how you think curry "isn't clearly better off-ball" when he's better at everything off ball outside of passing which is the least 'off-ball' of off ball skills

[70sFan]

I don't think that Curry is clearly better off-ball player than Bird. Larry had his share of advantages in that aspect, three point shooting is not the end of off-ball game.

What advantages. Curry cuts better, is quicker, obviously has the bigger shooting threat. Three point gravity is the most valuable source of off ball creation.

Bird's advantage would only really be 'off ball passing', but that 'off ball passing' would be captured with assists since, you know, most of his off ball passes were direct assists or potential aisssts.

Virtually alll of bird's oc's are assist eligble, about half of curry's aren't. If, assist % is favoring curry for a series, where is bird brdiging the creative gap.

Curry's better at everything off ball outside of passing which itself is largey captured in assists.


I dont really jnow how you think curry "isn't clearly better off-ball" when he's better at everything off ball outside of passing which is the least 'off-ball' of off ball skills

Setting screens, offensive rebounding, establishing inside position, drawing big defenders from the paint (Bird played a lot as a big after all). I mean, it wasn't that hard.

[freethedevil]

I don't think that Curry is clearly better off-ball player than Bird. Larry had his share of advantages in that aspect, three point shooting is not the end of off-ball game.

What advantages. Curry cuts better, is quicker, obviously has the bigger shooting threat. Three point gravity is the most valuable source of off ball creation.

Bird's advantage would only really be 'off ball passing', but that 'off ball passing' would be captured with assists since, you know, most of his off ball passes were direct assists or potential aisssts.

Virtually alll of bird's oc's are assist eligble, about half of curry's aren't. If, assist % is favoring curry for a series, where is bird brdiging the creative gap.

Curry's better at everything off ball outside of passing which itself is largey captured in assists.


I dont really jnow how you think curry "isn't clearly better off-ball" when he's better at everything off ball outside of passing which is the least 'off-ball' of off ball skills

Setting screens, offensive rebounding, establishing inside position, drawing big defenders from the paint (Bird played a lot as a big after all). I mean, it wasn't that hard.

Offensive reboudning is fair(tho again, this is a lot more likely to show up in a stat sheet than curry's methods of creation)

Bird's screens aren't going to be near as valuable as curry's from a creation standpoint, because again, curry can have two people chase him from beyond the key, bird will not.

Bird may be a better screensetter in a vacuum, but curry creates more off screens than bird does.

Ultimately, almost all of bird's oc's come directly from passes for a scoring attempt, half of curry's oc's do not. Curry pretty clearly creates more off the ball, so assists are definitely skewed towards bird.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Bird's three point % vs bad defenses(who probabbly left him open), 47%, Bird's three point % vs good defenses, 34%



Even just looking at on ball offensive production, surely something that skews towards bird rather curry, curry's finals vs the cavs in the 16 looks better than birds and his wcf against thunde looks better than birds bs the bucks.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2016-nba-western-conference-finals-thunder-vs-warriors.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1984-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bucks-vs-celtics.html



https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/2016-nba-finals-cavaliers-vs-warriors.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1984-nba-finals-lakers-vs-celtics.html


Arguably bird's best playoffs looks worse than curry's worst.

Sure bird has a defensive edge probably, does it really make up for curry managaing an ast%:to% ratio twice as big on higher volume? And I'm fairly confident if we measured off ball creation curry benefits more. Scoring is pretty much identical favoring curry in the finals..

Note that league average ts was identical both seasons.

Why do people put bird top 10 again? Cause peak certainly doesn't seem to cut it..

1) Bird has more longevity than Curry even though that is a relative weakness for him compared to other greats.
Comparing peaks, not career value.
2) Bird walked into the league competing for MVPs, so he was already a stud out the gate.
Maybe but ultimately, for my money curry was clearly the best regular season player from 15-17
3) 1984 Bird is a helluva carry job tbh and should not be underestimated. 86 Bird is obviously great too and probably the better player.
I mean bird's best wowy result, assumign ben's not being disineguous like he was with kareem in how he's framing things has cruuty taking a 45 win team to 61 wins irrc, curry's is like 22 to 25 wins going off whatever metrics u want. Curry probably carried his teams more his best rs's
4) Curry was getting real all-time great hype in 2016, but I think his Finals performance led some people to cool on him. Curry never again got to be the undisputed #1 option again to some people here, because then Durant came and to many the things Curry and Durant did after are a bit devalued as they made the game astronomically easier for the both of them. People want to see Curry do things as the #1 alpha without question...whether that is fair is not is another issue but that is the general thinking.

5) Curry is definitely the better scorer than Bird, but I think a lot of people are greatly impressed by Bird's passing. Yes, the ast% might say differently but if you watch the two they are clearly on different levels as passers with Bird simply maybe having the greatest intuition for on the move passing ever.
Well I didn't say passing, I said creation, bird may be the better passer, curry most defintely creates more largely due to how he is able to combine his scoring threat, his off ball skills, his screens, and elite passing.

Almost all of bird's creation comes via passing, so he's going to get alt more repsresnetion in assist% than curry, so if curry is assting a higher percentage of his team's buckets, that indicates what things like box score, play val an doc tell us, curry _creates_ more than bird does.
6) Depending on how close you think the two are on offense, Bird being the superior defender does make a noticeable difference.
Well,holistically curry seems to be signifcantly more impactful in the rs, so its really about not dropping off more than bird.

1. Disclaimer, I confused the 85 finals for the 84 finals, So the 2016 playoff comparison is bad. OOOPS. The okc wcf to the bucks wcf still is fair, but yeah. oops.

True, however, Ben says WOWY scores are more impressive, the more wins you can to an already great team. The fact Bird could make a 45 win team a 61 team is incredibly impressive and better than helping a team go from 20 to 40 wins, despite "less wins." I'm not familiar with the situation of the Curry jump, but it's possible that Curry leading a team to 22 to 25 more wins is less impressive depending on the team context. He does mention in the vid he appreciates Bird's versatility in that the Celtics didn't suffer a massive dropoff as you might expect without McHale, as Bird could essentially fill in McHale's position.

Nonetheless, while WOWY is good, it is only one stat, and Ben doesn't like to take stuff like that at face-value for a multitude of reasons. With regards to the creation, it is important to note that Curry did create more for teammates. However, Ben has said if there was tracking data there is a pretty good chance that Bird might've set the record for the most layup passes, which is important because these are by far the highest value shots. So even if Curry created more, you could argue Bird's passing reaped more value because of the type of looks he was able to get for teammates.

And if your concerned about how his peak measures compared to Bird, I am pretty sure Curry and Bird are neck in neck with each other, and Curry would be clearly ahead if he didn't knock off so much value from Curry's 16 season because of PS injury.

[LukaTheGOAT]

What advantages. Curry cuts better, is quicker, obviously has the bigger shooting threat. Three point gravity is the most valuable source of off ball creation.

Bird's advantage would only really be 'off ball passing', but that 'off ball passing' would be captured with assists since, you know, most of his off ball passes were direct assists or potential aisssts.

Virtually alll of bird's oc's are assist eligble, about half of curry's aren't. If, assist % is favoring curry for a series, where is bird brdiging the creative gap.

Curry's better at everything off ball outside of passing which itself is largey captured in assists.


I dont really jnow how you think curry "isn't clearly better off-ball" when he's better at everything off ball outside of passing which is the least 'off-ball' of off ball skills

Setting screens, offensive rebounding, establishing inside position, drawing big defenders from the paint (Bird played a lot as a big after all). I mean, it wasn't that hard.

Offensive reboudning is fair(tho again, this is a lot more likely to show up in a stat sheet than curry's methods of creation)

Bird's screens aren't going to be near as valuable as curry's from a creation standpoint, because again, curry can have two people chase him from beyond the key, bird will not.

Bird may be a better screensetter in a vacuum, but curry creates more off screens than bird does.

Ultimately, almost all of bird's oc's come directly from passes for a scoring attempt, half of curry's oc's do not. Curry pretty clearly creates more off the ball, so assists are definitely skewed towards bird.

Just thought I would throw in that Ben has actually done a podcast around the idea of the greatest off-ball players ever. I won't spoil it but I think he gives his opinion on the matter you guys are discussing which might be helpful https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/52-the-best-off-ball-players-of-the-3-point-era/id1428290303?i=1000472115014

[70sFan]

Bird's screens aren't going to be near as valuable as curry's from a creation standpoint, because again, curry can have two people chase him from beyond the key, bird will not.

Wait, why? Was Bird supposedly not a feared shooter?

[Doctor MJ]

Enjoying the discussion I'm seeing here from folks. I've been holding off waiting to see how and where the conversations unfolded so I'll chime in with a few things:

On Walton & Kareem, I do think there is a clear argument for Walton. I'm not saying that there aren't clear arguments for Kareem, but I think everyone grasps those immediately, the argument for Walton is trickier.

If you watch, say, the '77 playoff series and just focus on one on one action, you note that Walton can't stop Kareem but Walton can be stopped, and not just by Kareem. The gap in scoring ability is huge, so isn't that the end of the story right there?

But of course, you do have to deal with the fact that Walton's team won and won decisively. This leads to the classic stand by of Walton having better teammates, but if you look at Walton's teammates and their careers, you see pretty clearly that they weren't a team of stars. In fact, pretty sure that the '78-79 Lakers had vastly more individual talent on their roster than any Walton Blazers' roster. Focusing on the individual comparisons thus really makes you tend to miss what's most real here.

What's most real here is that Jack Ramsay's offensive system worked really well. Literally better than anything we saw from Kareem sans Oscar or Magic. That's not proof that Walton's a better offensive player than Kareem obviously, but it's also not something to be dismissed lightly.

What if Ramsay's scheme with Walton is better than what you could expect from a Kareem-led scheme if you didn't have an all-timer great playmaker an decision maker?

We can debate whether this is true, or not, but what I would insist is this:

1. It isn't remotely crazy to think that the Ramsay offense with Walton is better than what you can expect with Kareem sans a great playmaker.

2. Walton was the great playmaker of that scheme, and there's absolutely no reason at all to think Kareem could play Walton's offensive role better than Walton.

Now add in that Walton was a better defender. Quicker body response, quicker brain response. Kareem's an intellectual with a towering IQ, but rumination is not reaction. Walton had one of the quickest basketball brains in history.

Here's something I'll also note: You might just call it Kareem being humble, but Kareem's accounts about basketball tell of a child who 1) did not like basketball (preferred baseball) but kept being pushed to play because of his height and 2) had no initial instincts for what to do on the floor until he tried the hook shot - which he then proceeded to practice constantly without any prodding from a coach.

I tend to see Kareem as a guy who in addition to his physical gifts, would put his whole heart and soul into a thing once he saw its value, and that he would tell you that he figured out how to make a game that would work for him by building up one skill at a time.

By contrast to Kareem who was 6'8" in middle school, Walton was still "only 6'1"" as a high school freshman (which is still pretty tall of course), but he had been obsessed with the sport since elementary school, following the UCLA intently all that time. Accounts indicate that he was a serious basketball player without the height, but once he got the growth spurt, he became unstoppable.

I could be wrong, because it's never explicitly stated, but his passion along with the instinct he later demonstrates makes me think that basketball was a game that just always made sense to him. He was likely an intuitive player from a young age, and the height was just a bonus for him, rather than the entire reason for playing the game as it was for Kareem.

All this is to say that I really don't think it's at all crazy that Walton was a more valuable player than Kareem. While I'd give Kareem the nod on offense, I don't think he could do what Walton did on offense, and what Walton did with Ramsay really really worked. Add in the defensive edge of Walton, and yeah, literally no reason to assume Kareem must have been more valuable or would have done better than Kareem "if he only had better teammates".

I don't particularly want to get into a fight about whether Walton > Kareem. I'm fine with anyone who says Kareem > Walton and will certainly concede that this may have been the case, but if you don't see it as a thing that warrants serious consideration, you're not seeing the whole picture.

The Kareem vs Walton comparison is about much more than who is better, it's about how they approached the game so differently despite both playing center for John Wooden at UCLA.

[Doctor MJ]

Bird's screens aren't going to be near as valuable as curry's from a creation standpoint, because again, curry can have two people chase him from beyond the key, bird will not.

Wait, why? Was Bird supposedly not a feared shooter?

So here's the thing:

"Gravity" is a bit like voodoo. It works best when your victim believes in what you're doing.

Entire defense rosters are now told when they play the Warriors to watch out for Steph shooting the 3 and this distorts the defensive frame in a way that has really never been done before.

If Bird played today and focused on shooting 3's whenever possible, there's no doubt in my mind that he'd have a considerably bigger gravitational effect than he did back in the day.

Not looking to bash Bird here for not shooting more 3's, and certainly not looking to bash him because defenses didn't gravitate to him at all places on the court to the same degree as Steph, but it is what it is.

Incidentally, the fact that Fitch literally did not want Bird shooting 3's makes me bang my head against the wall whenever anyone tries to say that the Celtic turnaround when Bird was a rookie was mostly about a coach's brilliance. To say that Bird could have been more impactful with better coaching is a massive understatement.

[Doctor MJ]

In terms of the holistic assessment of Bird, I'll say this:

First, Bird is probably my favorite highlights player of all time. ElGee isn't quite giving us that here because he's trying to give a complete picture, but if you just cherry pick Bird's best moments they are quite frankly the most impressive collection of moments in NBA history. I just said Walton had one of the quickest basketball minds in history, well, Bird was likely THE quickest basketball mind in history. Just uncanny.

That makes me want to rank Bird very, very high. I rank him pretty high, but I have a pull to rank him even higher than I do.

But regardless of all that stuff, the fact of the matter is that some guys struggle more against top tier competition than others, and Bird seems to have been someone who struggled some. He was still great don't get me wrong, but we're talking about situations where his lack of explosion just got burned more by outlier athletes.

I prefer Bird's game to Jordan's just on a matter of principle, but Jordan was able to do his thing (and then some) in the playoffs because of his outlier physicality, and Bird got mitigated for a bit.

I'll add that it's interesting to me that Magic seems to scale better in the playoffs as well. To me what that's saying is that the fact that Magic's game involved him dictating the play of the offense as opposed to sneaking in through the cracks of awareness allowed him to still dictate the play in the direction he wanted, where as the crack-finding of Bird proved more difficult. Once again, it's not a 100% either/or thing. Bird was still very good in the playoffs and Magic did struggle at times, but on average, I'd tend to chalk up Magic's playoff edge to a difference in role.

And I'd also note that the modern NBA is essentially dominated by modern descendants of Magic. What we now call "heliocentric" is precisely the sort of thing Magic did. What Bird did, by contrast, was in a category by itself. The uniqueness of Bird's play makes him all the more thrilling, but it doesn't necessarily add anything to his actual impact. It may well be, for example, that Bird would have been better playing more like Magic, but Bird's instincts took him one place and Magic's took him to another.

[Owly]

I'll add that it's interesting to me that Magic seems to scale better in the playoffs as well. To me what that's saying is that the fact that Magic's ...

If you're just talking "in the playoffs" (rather than something more specific) then I'd be inclined end that sentence, "very rarely playing opponents with an SRS north of 4 until the finals round."

[70sFan]

But of course, you do have to deal with the fact that Walton's team won and won decisively. This leads to the classic stand by of Walton having better teammates, but if you look at Walton's teammates and their careers, you see pretty clearly that they weren't a team of stars.

Are you denying that 1977 Blazers team was more talented than 1977 Lakers roster? Because the gap was gigantic and it's clear when you look at the series. It's not that Walton made them better than the Lakers, they simply were much better.

In fact, pretty sure that the '78-79 Lakers had vastly more individual talent on their roster than any Walton Blazers' roster. Focusing on the individual comparisons thus really makes you tend to miss what's most real here.

Why do you think that way? This Lakers team was poorly structured and didn't have any superstars on it either. I mean, Wilkes wasn't better than Lucas, Lionel Hollins was good before his career got destroyed by injuries and roleplayers were also more promising than in 1979 Lakers.

What's most real here is that Jack Ramsay's offensive system worked really well. Literally better than anything we saw from Kareem sans Oscar or Magic. That's not proof that Walton's a better offensive player than Kareem obviously, but it's also not something to be dismissed lightly.

1970 Bucks was on that level and he didn't have any good playmaker on that team yet.
I mean, Walton had better team than any of Kareem's teams from 1975-79 period. Besides, excluding 1980 for Kareem because he had rookie Magic who wasn't close to be an offensive superstar isn't fair in my opinion.

What if Ramsay's scheme with Walton is better than what you could expect from a Kareem-led scheme if you didn't have an all-timer great playmaker an decision maker?

What if Walton played in 1977 Lakers instead? He wouldn't do miracles for guards who couldn't dribble the abll.

1. It isn't remotely crazy to think that the Ramsay offense with Walton is better than what you can expect with Kareem sans a great playmaker.

Not crazy, but I wouldn't call rookie Magic a great playmayker. Neither I would old, injured Oscar from 1974.

2. Walton was the great playmaker of that scheme, and there's absolutely no reason at all to think Kareem could play Walton's offensive role better than Walton.

He wouldn't but Walton in Kareem's role would be even worse.

Now add in that Walton was a better defender. Quicker body response, quicker brain response. Kareem's an intellectual with a towering IQ, but rumination is not reaction. Walton had one of the quickest basketball brains in history.

I agree, Walton was better defender than Kareem. I don't think that's enough though.

All this is to say that I really don't think it's at all crazy that Walton was a more valuable player than Kareem. While I'd give Kareem the nod on offense, I don't think he could do what Walton did on offense, and what Walton did with Ramsay really really worked. Add in the defensive edge of Walton, and yeah, literally no reason to assume Kareem must have been more valuable or would have done better than Kareem "if he only had better teammates".

I don't particularly want to get into a fight about whether Walton > Kareem. I'm fine with anyone who says Kareem > Walton and will certainly concede that this may have been the case, but if you don't see it as a thing that warrants serious consideration, you're not seeing the whole picture.

The Kareem vs Walton comparison is about much more than who is better, it's about how they approached the game so differently despite both playing center for John Wooden at UCLA.

I think that Walton's case would be better had we seen more than one (semi) full season from him. It was such a nice season, that we could overstate his overall abilities though. It's definitely arguable and I'm glad that Walton got recognition in that project, but it's not like Kareem lacked comparably impressive individual seasons. Even 1980 if you want a title season, isn't far off (if at all) and that's not even one of Kareem's best seasons to be honest.

[70sFan]

Bird's screens aren't going to be near as valuable as curry's from a creation standpoint, because again, curry can have two people chase him from beyond the key, bird will not.

Wait, why? Was Bird supposedly not a feared shooter?

So here's the thing:

"Gravity" is a bit like voodoo. It works best when your victim believes in what you're doing.

Entire defense rosters are now told when they play the Warriors to watch out for Steph shooting the 3 and this distorts the defensive frame in a way that has really never been done before.

If Bird played today and focused on shooting 3's whenever possible, there's no doubt in my mind that he'd have a considerably bigger gravitational effect than he did back in the day.

Not looking to bash Bird here for not shooting more 3's, and certainly not looking to bash him because defenses didn't gravitate to him at all places on the court to the same degree as Steph, but it is what it is.

Incidentally, the fact that Fitch literally did not want Bird shooting 3's makes me bang my head against the wall whenever anyone tries to say that the Celtic turnaround when Bird was a rookie was mostly about a coach's brilliance. To say that Bird could have been more impactful with better coaching is a massive understatement.

Bird had more gravity than any of 1980s players though and using the way defenses guarded shooters back then against him isn't fair. I mean, when we look in absolute terms then someone like Tray Young creates more opportunities than Bird or Magic due to sheer usage and gigantic volume that wasn't seen in the 1980s. That's not how I like evaluating players though.

[Djoker]

I'm a little late joining this discussion but I definitely don't see Curry on Bird's level in terms of overall impact on the basketball court.

Looking solely at Bird's shooting splits because we don't have play-by-play data prior to the mid 90's, it's clear that Bird was the top among the top tier shooters in NBA history. A guy who's shooting 50% from midrange jumpers, 40% from 3pt land and 90% from the free throw line already puts him in rarefied air without any context and in the same category as Curry. I think Curry has a little more range but Bird is at worst a Dirk Nowitzki level shooter and at best equal to Steph IMO. Thus his gravity in this 3pt shooting era would be comparable to Steph.

As a pure passer when we look at court vision, anticipation... I have Bird over Curry. This is based purely on film. AST% isn't that good of an indicator because a guy who spends more time on the ball will have a lot more opportunities to pass the ball. In Boston that was Dennis Johhson. Bird was the secondary passer who turned an assist into a mega-assist passing up his own good shot for a lay-up for someone else. The shot-passes, the touch passes, the no-look passes, the baseball passes, the insane reads where he would drag the defender to get others open all show what a savant Bird was. IMO he has the second best basketball IQ ever after Magic Johnson.

Offensively I can call it a wash between the two overall. If Curry gets an edge it's a very slight one. Defensively though there is no question that Bird's size and awareness made him a very capable defender worthy of All-Defensive selection at his best (agree with Ben Taylor there...) whereas I see Curry as neutral in the best case and probably a negative defender.

I'm not one to really love ON/OFF data, WOWY, plus-minus etc. but you can't ignore that the Celtics with Bird were a title contender and without him were a 1st or 2nd round team. You can't ignore how much better he made those already good Celtics teams. Even without McHale the Celtics rarely missed a beat.

Overall I see Bird as comfortably ahead because Curry without good defensive talent doesn't make a contender while Bird won a title with Parish, Tiny and Cornbread Maxwell before defensive stalwarts DJ and McHale came into their own.

[Owly]

Incidentally, the fact that Fitch literally did not want Bird shooting 3's makes me bang my head against the wall whenever anyone tries to say that the Celtic turnaround when Bird was a rookie was mostly about a coach's brilliance. To say that Bird could have been more impactful with better coaching is a massive understatement.

1) Do we have a proper source on him "literally ... not want[ing]" 3s? Especially so, versus the norms of the time? Not saying it's not the case but would like a firsthand source.

2) Having a blind spot wouldn't make a coach not brilliant, would it? (e.g. Auerbach ... Russell era offense arguably wasn't working, and fwiw outspoken about the 3 as a gimmick, which probably didn't help). And again, versus norms of the time?

3) Does anyone say the turnaround was mostly a coach's brilliance?

4) For the purposes of improvement the relevant point is coaching difference. For the majority of the year Boston had a coach who was simultaneously a 37mpg player, who probably didn't want the job and hadn't been prepared for it. They replaced him with a professional who had developed in the college and pro game, was a hard taskmaster but seemingly serious about conditioning, obsessive about video (before his time) and I believe thought seriously about the game.

I think everyone - especially myself - is working with limited information assessing coaches, I'm not saying I know he was great. But getting really frustrated/angry at people saying he was a significant upgrade (I guess if there is someone actually saying "mostly [Fitch's] brilliance")?

[freethedevil]

As a pure passer when we look at court vision, anticipation... I have Bird over Curry. This is based purely on film. AST% isn't that good of an indicator because a guy who spends more time on the ball will have a lot more opportunities to pass the ball. In Boston that was Dennis Johhson. Bird was the secondary passer who turned an assist into a mega-assist passing up his own good shot for a lay-up for someone else. The shot-passes, the touch passes, the no-look passes, the baseball passes, the insane reads where he would drag the defender to get others open all show what a savant Bird was. IMO he has the second best basketball IQ ever after Magic Johnson.

Passing is simply an aspect of creation, Bird's pure passing doesn't really matter when curry creates more.

but you can't ignore that the Celtics with Bird were a title contender and without him were a 1st or 2nd round team. You can't ignore how much better he made those already good Celtics teams. Even without McHale the Celtics rarely missed a beat.

The warriors without kd --were a itle contender-- and actually won a title and made multiple finals. The warriors also 'were not affected by Kd' and the warriors were in trouble against a 41 win team before curry returned and played like a 48 win team without him.

Everything that can be said of bird here, can be said of curry exacept curry's teams were arguably better, even if we take out durant from the equation.

[Djoker]

Passing is simply an aspect of creation, Bird's pure passing doesn't really matter when curry creates more.

How would Curry create more if they were both in the modern NBA or both in the mid-80's? You can't compare Curry in today's NBA with Bird in the mid 80's because that's comparing apples and oranges. Bird attracted significant double teams, in fact markedly more than Curry does and if he shot 5-6 threes per game he would likely create incredible spacing ala Dirk as well when he put himself further from the basket. Combine that with his GOAT passing and I can't see how Curry comes close to him as an overall creator.

Maybe I'm missing a piece of your argument. Please enlighten me.

The warriors without kd --were a itle contender-- and actually won a title and made multiple finals. The warriors also 'were not affected by Kd' and the warriors were in trouble against a 41 win team before curry returned and played like a 48 win team without him.

Everything that can be said of bird here, can be said of curry exacept curry's teams were arguably better, even if we take out durant from the equation.

Actually the Warriors without KD have to be one of the most historically overrated teams and I don't say that lightly. Th 2015/2016 Warriors were definitely a very very good team but their level invariably dropped in the playoffs. One part of me has to think that if Kyrie and Love were healthy in 2015 that the Warriors pre-KD would not have won a championship. I know that this kind of injury what-if can be done for almost any team but between going 6 games against the Grizzlies and crippled Cavs and then going 7 games against the Thunder and Cavs the following year I'm not convinced they were an invincible juggernaut. I just think they throttled all the weak teams in the regular season and the fact that they chased an ultimately meaningless 73-9 regular record made people oversell their dominance. I think a lot of championship teams could match what the pre-KD Warriors did.

With that being said...

Curry was more impactful on the Warriors than Durant was. The Warriors' form with Curry/no Durant and with Durant/no Curry clearly shows that. However the Warriors dependence on Draymond Green is also shown quite well in impact stats. When Curry is predictably doubled at 25 feet from the basket, Green is the guy with the court vision to take advantage of a 4-on-3 situation. From 14-15 to 16-17 Green has unreal ON/OFF impact on the Warriors... Without him on the floor, Curry can be taken care off by forcing the ball out of his hands on the perimeter especially if the clock is running low and forcing someone else to make a play. Not that Curry is a one-trick pony because he can finish at the basket but he does the lion's share of his damage from the 3pt line.
Take that away and he's merely very good instead of great.

[Doctor MJ]

Are you denying that 1977 Blazers team was more talented than 1977 Lakers roster? Because the gap was gigantic and it's clear when you look at the series. It's not that Walton made them better than the Lakers, they simply were much better.

In fact, pretty sure that the '78-79 Lakers had vastly more individual talent on their roster than any Walton Blazers' roster. Focusing on the individual comparisons thus really makes you tend to miss what's most real here.

Why do you think that way? This Lakers team was poorly structured and didn't have any superstars on it either. I mean, Wilkes wasn't better than Lucas, Lionel Hollins was good before his career got destroyed by injuries and roleplayers were also more promising than in 1979 Lakers.

I wanted to put these two points back together. First, let's look at Walton's teammates in '76-77 in terms of the type of player they were in their career from a bkref page.

These are the 5 other guys who played major minutes for the Blazers in the playoffs that year, order by who played most.
Next to their name I'm going to put details about their career:

1. Mo Lucas, 5-time all-star, legit defensive stud and tough guy, but also a generally inefficient lead scorer and shot taker who really shouldn't have been in that role on any NBA team.
2. Lionel Hollins, 1-time all-star, 2-time All-D, the next year again with Walton in Portland. Is the next main scorer after Lucas & Walton and is considerably less efficient than Lucas. Also basically shouldn't be used with the primacy he was used.
3. Bob Gross, non all-star but All-D in '77-78, only scored above 10 points twice - this year, and the next.
4. Johnny Davis, non all-star journeyman
5. Dave Twardzik, an all-star once in the ABA, but from here on out a guy playing mid-20s MPG.

That's the core. Now look, I'm not going to say that was a weak defensive supporting cast, though Walton's work is unimpeachable on that front, but offensively, remember that in '76-77 this was the #2 ORtg offense in the league out of 22 teams.

Does that look like a "stacked" offensive lineup around Walton to you?

You dismiss my point about '78-79 by saying the Lakers were "poorly structured". Let's keep what we're talking about straight.

I'm saying that Walton's teammates weren't that talented, and your rebuttal for '78-79 was not to deny this but to blame "structure" for the difference in success. And what is structure? How the team plays. Well, yeah. That's the whole thing.

The Blazers played differently than everyone else and this allowed Bill Walton to win a championship and lead a dominant team without a ton of help around him.

Because we're talking about an apples-to-oranges comparison it isn't straight forward how to say which player between Kareem and Walton deserves more credit. I prefer to say that Walton couldn't do what Kareem did and Kareem couldn't do what Walton did and thus it's really up to what you value more.

But it is also true that Walton's offenses literally seemed to be doing more with less than Kareem's while he was also flat out out playing Kareem on defense.

What's most real here is that Jack Ramsay's offensive system worked really well. Literally better than anything we saw from Kareem sans Oscar or Magic. That's not proof that Walton's a better offensive player than Kareem obviously, but it's also not something to be dismissed lightly.

1970 Bucks was on that level and he didn't have any good playmaker on that team yet.
I mean, Walton had better team than any of Kareem's teams from 1975-79 period. Besides, excluding 1980 for Kareem because he had rookie Magic who wasn't close to be an offensive superstar isn't fair in my opinion.

Eh, I would say the data seems to indicate to me that the '77 Blazer offense stood out more than the '70 Bucks offense, you're right it wasn't a big gap though.

What if Ramsay's scheme with Walton is better than what you could expect from a Kareem-led scheme if you didn't have an all-timer great playmaker an decision maker?

What if Walton played in 1977 Lakers instead? He wouldn't do miracles for guards who couldn't dribble the abll.

First, as I've said, I don't think Walton could be a better Kareem than Kareem.

Second, given that Walton was a better playmakers than Kareem or anyone else on either team, wouldn't that make it easier for his guards?

1. It isn't remotely crazy to think that the Ramsay offense with Walton is better than what you can expect with Kareem sans a great playmaker.

Not crazy, but I wouldn't call rookie Magic a great playmayker. Neither I would old, injured Oscar from 1974.

I'm curious how many playmakers you see on the '76-77 Blazers roster that were in the same ballpark as rookie Magic and old Oscar as playmakers.

2. Walton was the great playmaker of that scheme, and there's absolutely no reason at all to think Kareem could play Walton's offensive role better than Walton.

He wouldn't but Walton in Kareem's role would be even worse.

As I've said, I don't think Walton could do Kareem as well as Kareem.

I'd ask you why this specific thing matters to you though.

I think that Walton's case would be better had we seen more than one (semi) full season from him. It was such a nice season, that we could overstate his overall abilities though. It's definitely arguable and I'm glad that Walton got recognition in that project, but it's not like Kareem lacked comparably impressive individual seasons. Even 1980 if you want a title season, isn't far off (if at all) and that's not even one of Kareem's best seasons to be honest.

The point about it being hard to analyze Walton due to his lack of longevity is of course at the heart of all of this.

Re: "could overstate his abilities though". Please be specific. What is it you think I'm overstating?

Let me also make clear before you answer: I see the offense Ramsey ran as a reinvention of a pre-Mikan offense. A throwback to how teams used to play. I'm not trying to credit Walton with inventing the scheme, but the fact that Walton would be less effective in another scheme doesn't matter to me from an MVP perspective given that I don't see any reason to think that that scheme represented some unfair advantage. Ramsey built that scheme around Walton. It was the way to build around Walton. Other guys have schemes built around them too.

You can certainly argue that Kareem would do better with a better plan around him, and I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but it's no minor thing to build a Top 2 offense around any player who doesn't dictate the possession of the offense from the start.