What's Larry Bird's case over Curry alltime?

[LakerLegend]

Watch on YouTube

[chyau.00]

Bird's career PPG: 24.3, TRB: 10.0 AST: 6.3 STL: 1.7 BLK 0.8
Curry's career PPG: 24.3, TRB: 4.6 AST: 6.5 STL: 1.7 BLK 0.2

Very similar counting stats.

Steph is +1 on rings but I'd argue Bird's Celtics had a tougher road than Steph's Warriors over average. Also, Steph might have 2 fewer rings without KD signing and something like that happening was unheard of in Bird's era.

how many rings would bird have without mchale?

Lmao yep a 10 and 4 bench guy made a the difference in the world compared to a guy who has had as much help as anybody in NBA history.

how is kevin mchale a 10/4 bench guy?

[Raps in 4]

how many rings would bird have without mchale?

Lmao yep a 10 and 4 bench guy made a the difference in the world compared to a guy who has had as much help as anybody in NBA history.

how is kevin mchale a 10/4 bench guy?

If you rub enough salt in your eyes 18/7 (26/10 at his peak) can look like 10/4.

[GreenBloodedC]

At one point, Bird has been considered as the GOAT.

[audiosway]

Bird's career PPG: 24.3, TRB: 10.0 AST: 6.3 STL: 1.7 BLK 0.8
Curry's career PPG: 24.3, TRB: 4.6 AST: 6.5 STL: 1.7 BLK 0.2

Very similar counting stats.

Steph is +1 on rings but I'd argue Bird's Celtics had a tougher road than Steph's Warriors over average. Also, Steph might have 2 fewer rings without KD signing and something like that happening was unheard of in Bird's era.

Something else important to remember is that Bird went through the East which was a blood bath in the 80s. Bad boy Pistons, Knicks, Jordan and the Bulls, etc. Also, he won the MVP 3 back to back years during the era of Magic, Kareem, Jordan, Thomas, Ewing, etc.

There is a case to be made for what I consider the 7 or 8 GOATS in NBA history. I have Bird as my GOAT.

[chyau.00]

Lmao yep a 10 and 4 bench guy made a the difference in the world compared to a guy who has had as much help as anybody in NBA history.

how is kevin mchale a 10/4 bench guy?

If you rub enough salt in your eyes 18/7 (26/10 at his peak) can look like 10/4.

maybe he was talking abt kevin mchale today. im sure the guy can still put up 10/4 if his teammates fed him the entire game. lol

[michaelm]

He creates opportunity for his teammates, but not with his passing. He actually has poor vision and below-average passing ability for his position.

Certainly not a Bird level playmaker if not as bad as you imply. He usually isn’t just a chucker and is often integral to his team getting the best scoring opportunity whether or not he is the scorer,

Doesn’t have a rule named after him though, and I didn’t create the modern NBA as Bird and Magic did.

do u even watch steph play? he is one of the best in passing out of double/triple team, and he is the only player in history of the league being doubled/tripled at the half court line. On top of that he is one of the few players in the history of the league who is completely ambidextrous, whipping bullet passes in transition while being doubled/tripled with his OFF hand. your comparison of steph and bird cant be farther from the truth.

Of course that is my view of Curry, I am a rabid Curry and GSW fan who has followed him for 10 years. His shooting supercharges him as a PG, and I don’t see why hockey assists are less valuable than regular assists just because they don’t appear on a box score, and what he does obviously involves great vision, and considerable passing skills. One of his great attributes is that he is happy to facilitate others and not chase his own numbers if the defense over concentrates on him.

I am just not inclined to tear down other great players in favour of Curry which seems to be the current thing on this forum, particularly in response to a reasonable poster who has watched both Curry and Bird. I don’t know if Curry is one of the greatest passers of all time which Bird apparently was, and it would seem likely he isn’t as good a pure PG as Johnson, and my point was really that if Curry is to be assessed as having changed the NBA so did those guys, without whom there might not have been an NBA as big as it is now.

[70sFan]

I still have Bird ahead for a few reasons:

- still longer prime (it's getting closer though),
- much more durable (Steph missed two full years, a lot of playoff games),
- more complete peak (I think Bird overall has better peak in 1986 than any of Curry's year).

With that being said, I think they are on similar level in terms of average prime quality and I can see Curry surpassing Bird at some point.

[wco81]

Bird's career PPG: 24.3, TRB: 10.0 AST: 6.3 STL: 1.7 BLK 0.8
Curry's career PPG: 24.3, TRB: 4.6 AST: 6.5 STL: 1.7 BLK 0.2

Very similar counting stats.

Steph is +1 on rings but I'd argue Bird's Celtics had a tougher road than Steph's Warriors over average. Also, Steph might have 2 fewer rings without KD signing and something like that happening was unheard of in Bird's era.

Remember that era was when you needed dominant centers.

Celtics created the ‘80s dynasty with that highway robbery trade with the Warriors, getting Parish and the pick that turned out to be McHale, two key pieces of those Celtics teams.

Bird shot the 3 well — not as well as Curry — but he didn’t take as many 3s. The few he did take probably were created by post threats Parrish and McHale.

The most impressive thing about Bird is that he led the Celtics to 61 wins as a rookie, a 32-win improvement over the season before his arrival.

But the league overall was horrible, with only the Celtics, Lakers and maybe a couple of other decent teams.

That is why Lakers and Celtics dominated the decade, though NBA engineered the Bird vs. Magic rivalry, Stern’s first masterplan, with superstar officiatIng for tHese two big stars.

It probably saved the league from oblivion, as they became among the most popular athletes in the country if not the world.

Bird led a renaissance of a legendary franchise though Auerbach was the architect with that one-sided trade and convincing Bird to come to Boston.

Two of his three titles were over Houston’s twin towers team, with a young Hakeem and a disappointing Samson. Celtics beat the Lakers once and lost twice to the Lakers in the Finals.

But it’s impossible to compare the eras, the game is completely different. People complain that the game now features too many 3s but honestly was it more watchable to see big men fight for position in the block, get lobbed passes into the post and make lumbering hooks or turn around jumpers from 5 feet?

Or Bird would often just back his defender down to the post and do little turnaround jumpers. As great a shooter as he was, he attempted less than 2 3PAs for his career. If he was lighter or more mobile, he probably could have shot more. But he’d have sacrificed some of his rebounding and his scoring in the paint, which was usually clogged by Parrish and McHale.

The handchecking which they allowed was a huge disadvantage vs. athletic guards and wings who were skilled ball handlers and pull up sHooters from distance. Instead, ability to score inside 10 feet favored teams witH skilled big men or players like MJ who could play above the rim or score inside the paint off pull-ups and fadeaways.

[Lalouie]

Give me the guy who was top 2 in MVP voting for 8 years in the most stacked period of NBA history over a guy who arguably wasn't the best player on his team for half his rings and depended on a depleted league where most stars were stacked on his or 1 other team.

There is way more talent in the NBA today than there was in the 80s.

that is a contextual statement as typical of people who try to make cross comparison eras especially as you do

what exactly does it mean to be more talented in an era when everyone is more talented. what is the big deal of hitting 100 homers in a season if everyone is hitting 90 of them. yeah there's more talent.....and the rules have changed to let that talent do whatever it wants too! curry growing up in a more talented era means what. how impactful is curry's 3 compared to reggie's 3's in THAT era when everyone WASN'T shooting 3s.

the infatuation and romantization of curry's 3's is a result of the BUILDUP started long ago and that is all.

and more talent means very little. yes,,,today's teenagers are more talented than the rookies 30yrs ago. you know what that means? nothing,,,because today's talented rookies are still rookies and they play like it. so context means everything. just because there's more talent doesn't make it any more or less difficult to play, in fact this goes full circle and we're back to just how tough is today's game. i'll say this,,,it's easier for a rookie teenager to enter the league today than it was 30yrs ago, ergo the bar is lower.

bird was elitely talented AND 6'9. that is why your top10-15-20 are mostly bigs. size matters

[Ruma85]

all curry has done is take basketball to a place i don't like

And there it is.

It's actually quite sad to think that, it's not curry's fault he took everything he had and his a 4 time champion, no one can blame him for. that. whatever people do has nothing to do with him, he cannot control them or where the game is going.

[Ruma85]

Give me the guy who was top 2 in MVP voting for 8 years in the most stacked period of NBA history over a guy who arguably wasn't the best player on his team for half his rings and depended on a depleted league where most stars were stacked on his or 1 other team.

There is way more talent in the NBA today than there was in the 80s.

that is a contextual statement as typical of people who try to make cross comparison eras especially as you do

what exactly does it mean to be more talented in an era when everyone is more talented. what is the big deal of hitting 100 homers in a season if everyone is hitting 90 of them. yeah there's more talent.....and the rules have changed to let that talent do whatever it wants too! curry growing up in a more talented era means what. how impactful is curry's 3 compared to reggie's 3's in THAT era when everyone WASN'T shooting 3s.

the infatuation and romantization of curry's 3's is a result of the groundwork started long ago and that is all.

and more talent means very little. yes,,,today's teenagers are more talented than the rookies 30yrs ago. you know what that means? nothing,,,because today's talented rookies are still rookies and they play like it. so context means everything. just because there's more talent doesn't make it any more or less difficult to play, in fact this goes full circle and we're back to just how tough is today's game. i'll say this,,,it's easier for a rookie teenager to enter the league today than it was 30yrs ago, ergo the bar is lower.

I will add for rookies it's even harder because of influx of talent coming in every year to make a impact. the game has grown so much since the 80's world wide and the internet has helped expand it.

[art_tatum]

Naw still below bird. Above Hakeem.

If he somehow wins a 5th ring 2nd fmvp and 3rd mvp.
Then imo curry enters the Top 5

[Lalouie]

all curry has done is take basketball to a place i don't like

And there it is.

It's actually quite sad to think that, it's not curry's fault he took everything he had and his a 4 time champion, no one can blame him for. that. whatever people do has nothing to do with him, he cannot control them or where the game is going.

there is no fault except when basketball people(and i say "basketball people" because this kind of topic only arises in basketball) raise these silly cross era comparisons which basically forces people to take sides. i never even think about cr@p like this until i read these threads here on realgm

[Ruma85]

Naw still below bird. Above Hakeem.

If he somehow wins a 5th ring 2nd fmvp and 3rd mvp.
Then imo curry enters the Top 5

I can roll with that.

[theforumblue]

above bird means curry is GOAT candidate. nope.

[Lalouie]

There is way more talent in the NBA today than there was in the 80s.

that is a contextual statement as typical of people who try to make cross comparison eras especially as you do

what exactly does it mean to be more talented in an era when everyone is more talented. what is the big deal of hitting 100 homers in a season if everyone is hitting 90 of them. yeah there's more talent.....and the rules have changed to let that talent do whatever it wants too! curry growing up in a more talented era means what. how impactful is curry's 3 compared to reggie's 3's in THAT era when everyone WASN'T shooting 3s.

the infatuation and romantization of curry's 3's is a result of the groundwork started long ago and that is all.

and more talent means very little. yes,,,today's teenagers are more talented than the rookies 30yrs ago. you know what that means? nothing,,,because today's talented rookies are still rookies and they play like it. so context means everything. just because there's more talent doesn't make it any more or less difficult to play, in fact this goes full circle and we're back to just how tough is today's game. i'll say this,,,it's easier for a rookie teenager to enter the league today than it was 30yrs ago, ergo the bar is lower.

I will add for rookies it's even harder because of influx of talent coming in every year to make a impact. the game has grown so much since the 80's world wide and the internet has helped expand it.

''

30yrs ago, if you're a teenager you don't play in the nba. your body isn't strong enough. today's game is wide open and kids only shoot 3s. you're talking about fighting the crowd to get in through four double doors. i'm talking about 30yrs ago there was only a small door

[AussieBuck]

Probably 1-2 more all NBA years and it's hard to keep Bird ahead.

[freypies]

An argument can be made either way imo.

Curry is playing in what I consider a much more talented era of the NBA. There is a lot more top-end talent in the league now than there was back then. He is up there with anyone when it comes to talent as an offensive player.

I think Bird still has a slight longevity edge over him, and can be argued to be a little better defensive player while also being close to or on his tier offensively (though I think Steph especially with his off-ball play has the edge).

At the end of the day, I think I would still put Bird above Curry, but Curry has a lot of time left to catch up and potentially surpass him. I think by the end of his career, I will be surprised if I do not lean towards Steph.

[righterwriter]

I think if you actually watch the two, Curry is a better player than Bird. Curry handles the ball more, he can score and make plays from anywhere inside half court (the best shooter ever and an amazing finisher). When you start getting into background stories (what makes "The Legend" what he is) then it starts to shift. The point someone made about the Celtics having to go through the 80s Pistons, Bulls, and Lakers makes it sound pretty damned impressive for Bird to be who he was.

Curry makes it look easy. Bird fought tooth and nail for everything. It's just more impressive watching an unathletic, goofy looking white guy make unbelievably tough and brilliant plays while talking trash, diving all over the floor, and hitting huge shots, compared to a guy who everyone expects will hit 35 footers with ease and who's team basically dominates every series because he makes everything work so smooth.

It's hard to pick one, Steph has four rings and six finals in eight years while Bird had three rings and five finals in seven years.

I think they are in a dead heat now, but if the Warriors can add another ring then Curry clearly makes the leap forward.