RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #12 (Larry Bird)

[eminence]

A lot feels like an understatement. It's a strong contender for the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and was led by Bird to a larger degree than most such turnarounds are led by any one player.

I agree that he struggled a bit in the playoffs, emphasis on a bit, I don't think he suffered some major letdown. Also agreed that early Bird wasn't particularly valuable as a scorer (useful, but well well below elite).

And in spite of that, I still have him as my pick for MVP and DPOY in 1980*.

*Kareem/DrJ doing enough in the POs to pass him for a POY style award.

Bird was never even the best defender on his team. Probably not top 2. And if we're going of impact one-offs, I prefer the ones that happen in the playoffs(cough 2001 cough)

‘79 Celtics must’ve been a quality D with two defenders better than early career Bird.

You’ll be happy to hear I also give ‘01 Kobe MVP level flowers.

[OhayoKD]

A lot feels like an understatement. It's a strong contender for the biggest turnaround in NBA history, and was led by Bird to a larger degree than most such turnarounds are led by any one player.

I agree that he struggled a bit in the playoffs, emphasis on a bit, I don't think he suffered some major letdown. Also agreed that early Bird wasn't particularly valuable as a scorer (useful, but well well below elite).

And in spite of that, I still have him as my pick for MVP and DPOY in 1980*.

*Kareem/DrJ doing enough in the POs to pass him for a POY style award.

Bird was never even the best defender on his team. Probably not top 2. And if we're going of impact one-offs, I prefer the ones that happen in the playoffs(cough 2001 cough)

‘79 Celtics must’ve been a quality D with two defenders better than early career Bird.

You’ll be happy to hear I also give ‘01 Kobe MVP level flowers.

And I guess Bird forgot how to play defense the next two years since they got worse after adding parish and mchale(and would stay worse until walton arrived)

Kobe actually had to play really well to earn those flowers. Where exactly did Bird's one-off 5-point defensive impact come from?

[eminence]

Bird was never even the best defender on his team. Probably not top 2. And if we're going of impact one-offs, I prefer the ones that happen in the playoffs(cough 2001 cough)

‘79 Celtics must’ve been a quality D with two defenders better than early career Bird.

You’ll be happy to hear I also give ‘01 Kobe MVP level flowers.

And I guess Bird forgot how to play defense the next two years since they got worse after adding parish and mchale(and would stay worse until walton arrived)

Kobe actually had to play really well to earn those flowers. Where exactly did Bird's one-off 5-point defensive impact come from?

If I were operating under the premise those two were particularly good, that would make sense. As I’m not…

And the opposite of that - the assumption that the new guys who arrived and didn’t move the needle at all were secretly really good and the real defensive stars despite the evidence for near 0 impact is a weird one.

[ShaqAttac]

Bird was never even the best defender on his team. Probably not top 2. And if we're going of impact one-offs, I prefer the ones that happen in the playoffs(cough 2001 cough)

Do you think Kobe was top 2 Lakers defender in 2001 playoffs?

Probably not. Doesn't really need to be when he was much better offensively. Speaking of...

Watch on YouTube

;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

I invite anyone under the impression that Bird was one of the best creators ever because of what he did off-the-ball to point out to me what exactly is being created in this clip Ben chooses in order to highlight what Bird offers as an off-ball playmaker

i think ben just likes bird

off-ball making up for larry not having a bag seems kinda bs. i also thought his defense was supposed to be amazing? why it look bad at his peak?

[OhayoKD]

‘79 Celtics must’ve been a quality D with two defenders better than early career Bird.

You’ll be happy to hear I also give ‘01 Kobe MVP level flowers.

And I guess Bird forgot how to play defense the next two years since they got worse after adding parish and mchale(and would stay worse until walton arrived)

Kobe actually had to play really well to earn those flowers. Where exactly did Bird's one-off 5-point defensive impact come from?

If I were operating under the premise those two were particularly good, that would make sense. As I’m not…

And the opposite of that - the assumption that the new guys who arrived and didn’t move the needle at all were secretly really good and the real defensive stars despite the evidence for near 0 impact is a weird one.

So to be clear

-> Switchable man defender
-> Strong rim-protection


"not paticularly good"

-> Weak man defender who needs to be hidden from the action
-> Weak rim protector at his natural position

"DPOY"

[Samurai]

Vote for #12: Larry Bird
The Celtics won 32 games in 78 and a woeful 29 in 79. Bird is drafted and the Celtics won 61 games in 80, reached conference finals while Bird led the team in scoring, rebounding and assists. Made 5 Finals in his first 9 years, 3 championships, averaged over 60 wins over 9 seasons. After he retired the Celtics wouldn't make it past the second round for 10 seasons. 12x All Stars, 10x All NBA, 3x All Defensive, 3x MVP, 5 additional times top 3 in MVP. While his longevity hurts him, Bird provides a blend of team success, accolades, multiple MVP's, versatility (shooting, rebounding, passing) that gives him the nod for me over the others nominated.

Alternate: Jerry West - Another one who's lack of durability hurts him from being any higher, but his ability to elevate his play in the playoffs is a mitigating factor for me. Tremendous shooter, led the league in assists, elite defender, could star as a PG or off-guard. Plus he was one of my favorite players to watch.

Nominate: Julius Erving I suppose his candidacy will hinge on how voters treat his ABA years. I consider his 76 season as one of the best peak seasons ever and the ABA was nearly on par with the NBA that year.

[ceiling raiser]

great Bird war will come soon enough.

And so it did

It is much simpler than you are making it out to be.

From 2000-2011, Kobe played in 35K Minutes and 903 Games in the RS and 7.4K Minutes and 180 Games in the PS.
From 1980-1988, Bird played in 27K Minutes and 711 Games in the RS and 6.1K Minutes and 145 Games in the PS.

Kobe gets incremental value from 2012 and 2013 [off-prime, still all-star level].
Bird gets incremental value for 1990 and 1991 [off-prime, still all-star level]

Kobe also has 1998 and 1999 where he is a positive impact player [Missing a total of 4 games in these two seasons].

It is taken into account. The thing is the effect is nowhere near as pronounced when you filter for higher quality players:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107884176#p107884176
And you know, this is something Ben(whose opinion, not actual tracking or tracking-derived metrics is now being treated as evidence), actually went and accounted for(there's also probably an argument to be made that isn't how era-relativity actually works...)

Actually there's alot of favorable assumptions and claims Ben makes for Bird(we will get to "stat bias" later) for example...

That's very interesting. To me putting rookie Bird on MVP level is a level too much. Although he certainly showed a lot of impact, let's not forget that he was still relatively inefficient scorer, low volume creator who regressed in the playoffs and I don't think he was in his defensive prime yet either.

Here's the thing. Ben agrees. As of 2018 he had Bird with as a strong mvp in 1980. And then he stayed as a strong MVP all the way to 1988 despite only once posting a better srs than 1980 with significantly improved casts.

Ben also pretty much agrees with all of these(not really defensible) claims:

Larry Bird
Not much to see here, the purest basketball-savant we likely have ever seen. Developed into a lethal shooter and scorer during his 1984-1986 stretch, incredible feel and instincts as a catalyst unlike anything we have ever seen [Until Jokic]. He truly was able to vitalize an offense as well as anyone, ever. The greatest impetus who ever graced the court [along with Nash].

In fact, he went so far to put Bird ahead, for his prime, over this guy:



Keep in mind
-> impact consistently favors magic over bird(In fact it actually seems to like Johnson over everyone from the time period)
-> Magic's is #1 in regular season winning %
-> Magic is #1 in playoff winning %(Bird is not close)
-> Magic has led better regular-season offenses as well as better playoff offenses(as well as a bunch of other post-merger greats in this not exhaustive list):

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Despite Ben's insistence Bird is a different calibre of player, Kobe has actually led comparable offenes without shaq and with Shaq his increase in production was the driving force for a +11 psrs improvement from what the Lakers managed in 2000 as they played far better in the playoffs than the Celtics ever have. You might recall Kobe outscored and outassisted Shaq for 2 of 3 rounds while averaging more minutes all playoffs. If 1980 Larry was a {b]strong MVP[/b] losing to a non finalist(and thus define the arc of every prime bird year), what does that make 2001 Kobe?

But I digress, because ultimately, you can ignore all of this as Ben, with all these assumptions and beliefs inputted his season to season evaluations into an objective championship formila for both players and came out with...

Kobe Bryant coming out ahead.

Kobe Bryant, in a better league, playing with different co-stars in a scheme asking him to take the most ineffecient shots...

Was more valuable over his career

Now. You might be surprised. After all we have these CAREER WOWY numbers clearly saying that Larry was the more valuable player! Here's the thing. Ben, with whatever bias he carries when he insists those 2-3 weakly defended 3's a game in an era with illegal defense were defense-warping, is not a robot. He wants to evaluate all the seasons properly, including ones where Bird didn't miss time.

And a couple issues arise when trying to claim Bird was actually such an outlier Kobe's longetvity doesn't matter.

For one, we have seen the Celtics without Bird, they were...fine:

-> in 1992 bird was replaced with an all-star and...the Celtics nearly made the conference finals
-> 89 with a weaker version of that replacement they played at a 45 or 44-win pace(40-games at full-strength)
-> 86-88 they played at a 45-win pace, 87-88, 43-win(7 gms/szn)

For another, it's very difficult to find theoretical weaknesses with Bird's support. All of the celtics could pass. All of them could handle the ball. They had two strong isolation scorers, an excellent defensive cast with a goat-defensive guard and two bigs who were both switchable and decent to good rim-protectors and strong ball-handlers, scorers, decent floor-spacers, and capable passers...

Actually, pause. I want readers to really think about that last part.

Larry Bird, a guy with very limited ball-handling, a poor slashing game , vulnerable man defense, and weak(for a pf) rim-protection got to play with bigs who were good at at all of that...in the 80's.

While Ben presents Bird being able to play with a pf as a strength, really it is a luxury. Because if Bird was playing on a typical roster, he would not get to play power forward offensively, while being hidden as a small-forward on defense.

Bird not only had a talented team. He also had unique and hard to replicate roster construction. Fair to say then that Bird, impact extraordinaire should be expected to do alot of winning?

Well, this gets us to issue #3

WOWY is mostly looking at the regular season. And if SRS decided championships, Bird would have 5. And yeah, with 5 wins it would be alot harder to argue. The problem is he only has 3. Kobe, by srs, would only have 1 title. Instead, he has 5. You can bring up the srs and the wowyr, but that is a 6 ring delta in Kobe's favor. You also can't really put that all on Shaq, because the second Bryant got his own Kevin Mchale, he went

-> finals
-> championship
-> repeat championship

Bird has never won at that frequency, and frankly I think some of that is Bird's own doing(on both ends):

Nope. But they are better from 3 or at the rim or are a better relative to position. Shaq can foul out frontlines, Reggie can chuck 3's at higher volume on crazy effeciency and Dirk was a center who could shoot from everywhere.

And here again, Bird runs into a problem. He doesn't protect the rim or even have the size/strength to be played at center or PF without strong rim-help. But he also doesn't have the ball-handling or slashing of a small-forward. So you need unique teammates who can handle the ball and help him a bunch defensively. And this could prove very problematic in his time with the right opponent. The Pistons guards were just torching him over and over. And he couldn't get vertical seperation from their undersized rim-deterrents. And he couldn't exploit illegal d by driving and forcing them to pick between a double or single coverage. So the end result is, with a team thats pretty good without him(45-win 86-88, 45-win 89), the Celtics are outscored by a team with half their SRS in 87 and are decisvely thumped by a team with lesser srs in 88 as their offense plummets by 13 points.

I have shared some of the proto-tracking but I guess I may as well provide what was done with game 1 from the same series. Was vetted by different people though(and a love of Caps Lock )...


The original methodology:

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

By available creation metrics(Including those that give Bird credit for high era-relative 3-point volume), it's Kobe who creates more, and Kobe who has the more reselient(and versatile) scoring arsenal. There are box cases for either, but Bird is helped greatly by a high volume of defensive rebounds and a block a game...playing next to two bigger and better defenders.

Of course there are those who would argue the box-score is actually biased against Larry...

It’s immensely valuable to be the first player to break down the defense, which leads to the best shot for the team, even when breaking down the defense does not instantly generate a fully open teammate. It’s valuable to be a good screen setter and offensive rebounder. It's valuable to be creating throughout the possession

...on aspects of the game that favor Kobe. Kobe Bryant is a strong ball-handler. So he is more frequently breaking down a defense first and creating throughout a possession. He will also get turnovers which hurt his box, but are a worthy trade-off for all this non-box creation he's offering. Moreover, that ball-handling actually makes it easier to generate more valuable passes:

Watch on YouTube

Start with that.

Timing, accuracy. His touch passing, when he only has the ball for a fraction of a second and one-hands it to someone. No-lookers, the whole range of things which might impress someone with his positional awareness and technical passing acumen. Watch more Bird and pay specific attention to his passing. I don't want to be rude, your question is fair, especially for someone who never saw him live. But there are plenty of highlights which illustrate why the fanfare exists.

In this highlight reel, none of his first four passes create wide open looks. There are still defenders the recipients have to deal with up until pass #5. You have to wait till pass #8 to see another uncontested look. Pass #10 for the 3rd.

For comparison...
[url]

Watch on YouTube

[/url]

Magic's first 7 passes here create wide open looks. 9 of his first 12. You might also notice that alot of these passes come with Magic handling the ball in traffic, allowing Johnson to filter out defenders, before he makes the pass. In some of these Magic is also leveraging rim-pressure as defenders take themselves out of the play in anticipation of what he's going to at the basket.

[url]

Watch on YouTube

;start=25[/url]
Kobe creates 5 wide-open looks in his first 10 possessions(for clarity, i am not[b] counting something like the Walton pass). As you might expect he is not anticipating or making reads as early as the other two are but he is able to leverage both his pressure at the rim and penetration to compensate for his disadvantage in raw-skill. Bryant is also, like Magic, taking defenders out of the play pre-pass

You keep citing Ben's [b]opinion, as opposed to addressing these points, so I'll just reiterate what I said the last time "Ben Says" was brought up:

If we're going to appeal to Ben's film-tracking...why don't we actually check out this film-tracking:

Watch on YouTube

;t=29s
For context here is how this is introduced:

Bird was also the best off-ball forward ever, so much so that I’d classify his game as primarily off-ball. Watching him without the rock, particularly in the first (1980-83) and second trimester (1984-88) of his career is a study in advantageous positioning. Here’s a 30-second sample of Bird spinning, cutting, banging, boxing and constantly threatening the defense with his high-motor perpetual motion

Okay, so, yeah Bird is moving perpetually and he is threatening...his defender. But besides getting a guy not directly involved to look at him momentarily...what is Bird actually creating? Here's what a friend(currently film-tracking game 1 of the 86 finals) had to say:


For those who are curious, a half into the final round of 86, Bird is having a fantastic scoring game(16 points with 7 possessions, 1 technical)


He is offering creative value but it's limited(2 Great OC, 12:40, 28:50)but he seems limited here(and thus far not much of anything seems to be happening off-ball):


His defense(1 Decent DP, 46:30, 5 Minor Breakdowns, 53:20, 41:55, 26:55, 26:40, 12:30, 2 Moderate Breakdowns, 20:10, 20:35) isn't great



Here's the game for those who want to vet/comment:

Watch on YouTube

;t=235s

For those who are curious on the justification for a certain classification, there are notes attached to all of these. Ask(with a time-stamp), and I can pull it up.

For posterity here were some examples of things that were not counted:

-> 44:15 ("empty-ish assist")
-> 48:10 ("i hope that didn't get an assist")

Anyway...

I responded to your full post, and broadened your highly specific criteria for creation.

Nope:


Should be obvious what's going on here but I'll let posterity decide

So no, I don't think we should just look at when teammates were exclusively wide open. The criteria you set are too specific and miss most of the game.

I have no idea why you assumed we only looked at wide-open looks. I specifically brought that up to make a point about creative efficiency. With game 5 of the 87 ECF we credited Bird with a decent OC after he set a pick even though it is somewhat atypical to give players creations when they only affect one defender. We are not "only" looking for wide-open looks, but when we are discussing passer-rating, a metric that tracks creative effeciency, the quality of look created matters.

The rest has been discussed ad-nauseum so I'm going to post this, start my tracking of Hakeem, and sleep. If you are only planning to reference Ben's opinions, replying is probably not going to be too productive.

i wanna see how bird voters respond to this. especially those callin him dpoy and an offensive goat

that relentless offball clip seems pretty sus ngl[/quote]
Not to belabor this, but with stuff like this, I wonder if Bird shouldn't be considered a top 15 player anymore. My point of him not being top 30 is maybe a bit aggressive, but there are a lot of questions...

Also, have some concerns about Ben's eye test given the above.

[ShaqAttac]

Vote for #12: Larry Bird
The Celtics won 32 games in 78 and a woeful 29 in 79. Bird is drafted and the Celtics won 61 games in 80, reached conference finals while Bird led the team in scoring, rebounding and assists. Made 5 Finals in his first 9 years, 3 championships, averaged over 60 wins over 9 seasons. After he retired the Celtics wouldn't make it past the second round for 10 seasons. 12x All Stars, 10x All NBA, 3x All Defensive, 3x MVP, 5 additional times top 3 in MVP. While his longevity hurts him, Bird provides a blend of team success, accolades, multiple MVP's, versatility (shooting, rebounding, passing) that gives him the nod for me over the others nominated.

Alternate: Jerry West - Another one who's lack of durability hurts him from being any higher, but his ability to elevate his play in the playoffs is a mitigating factor for me. Tremendous shooter, led the league in assists, elite defender, could star as a PG or off-guard. Plus he was one of my favorite players to watch.

Nominate: Julius Erving I suppose his candidacy will hinge on how voters treat his ABA years. I consider his 76 season as one of the best peak seasons ever and the ABA was nearly on par with the NBA that year.

didnt the celtics almost made the conference finals when he was hurt?

also kobe a better scorer and creator and got waaaay better handles so i dont see how versatility give him an edge.

Kobe also won way more

[AEnigma]

I suspect most people — including Eminence — are not looking at the 1980 SRS jump, and the subsequent failure to ever replicate it without Bill Walton, as some serious suggestion that Bird had a historic defensive peak as a rookie that never again manifested.

However, since we are discussing that year specifically…

- Bill Fitch is a marked coaching upgrade from twelve games with Tom Sanders and the rest of the season with player-coach Dave Cowens
- An extra thousand minutes of backup centre Rick Robey is also a marked upgrade defensively
- Relatedly to the prior two points, I think it likely served Dave Cowens well to not be a player-coach and to play fewer minutes a game (and I say this with the acknowledgment that the team played fine without him)
- Gerald Henderson and M.L. Carr are good defensive additions to replace Billy Knight and JoJo White
- Bird, to his credit, is a near perfect connective figure for that team, to the point that 1980 may well be his singular “impact” high point, and had better versions of him being placed on similarly structured teams, those teams may also be capable of outperforming his average rosters with McHale and Parish in the regular season.
- Of course, the reason most people do not take this outlier SRS too seriously is because we know it was not representative of their postseason quality, and regardless of the regular season SRS values, the team was much better primed to compete for a title pretty much every subsequent year of Bird’s prime (possibly excepting 1983).

It is an impressive turnaround all the same, but that all seems like pretty relevant context to “omg 12-SRS change!”

[falcolombardi]

My vote

Kobe bryant- i think he and bird are both neutral to very slight positive defenders. But kobe overall longevity clearly beats bird.

I am low on kobe defense where i think he gets a bit mithyfied for incredibly questionable defensive awards off his name recognition and i think his tendency to chuck a bit in lew of more efficient scoring opportunities for teammates separates him from the absolute top offensive guys

and i think some of his worst series get swept under the rug (2008 finals, 2004 finals) but overall he was able to lead fairly elite offenses that were playoffs resilient. And when he was in a 2nd star role showed the ability to work alongside a co star into even greater results

His 2008-2010 run doesnt fall far off when playoffs come from players like bird (or curry) runs as solo superstars either which is a big chip on his shoulder

Why do i take him over bird?

Bird is usually seen as the better offensive player but his team results while great didnt reach outlier status all time on the aggregate and are not far off the stuff kobe accompmished as lead star circa 08-10 and i think bird lack of a resilient scoring game explains partially why.

Bird defense is usually seen as aclear advantage but i dont see it on tape at his prime (maybe he was better on D on his first years dunno) but already by 86 his defense doesnt really impress me (and no, neither does kobe)

On bird D
He has a tendency to gamble in doubles and tbe paint at the expense of leaving his man open, or taking a step off his man to play the passing lanes which sometimes gets him in bad position to contain 1vs1.
He likes to leave his zone/man to help in the paint and to double post ups but rarely can affect plays there.
And contrary to his fairly relentless movement on offense, he can take plays off defensivrly like most offensive stars.
Plays where his man gets a open jumper (because bird left him to double a big) and he makes no effort to run and put a hand up on the shooter face. Or where he is fronting a rival and after the "lob" inside to his mark to catch for a drive he makes no effort to help on the play

These thinghs are by thenselves no damning and come with some good deflections and steals, he is well positioned a majority of the time and has good defensive rebounding. So i can see him as maybe a slight D plus on a good day, but leaning more towards neutral for this period of his career that i took a look at a few games for (86,87) with the disclaimer i have not analized early bird defense in depth

I think some people may even project his offensive genius into how they -imagine- his defense was like, when it was actually a lot less "textbook" and instead reckless/overagressive at times in my view. On top of his weaker physical tools to affwxt plays despite his height

So without a defensive edge, and imo without offensive team results that show superiority over kobe (and with bird having fairly comparable offensive teamnates) i cannot justify him over kobe bigger body of work

I nominate dirk for next round (edit) originally had robinson here but i think dirk must go ahead of him

[lessthanjake]

Bird was never even the best defender on his team. Probably not top 2. And if we're going of impact one-offs, I prefer the ones that happen in the playoffs(cough 2001 cough)

Do you think Kobe was top 2 Lakers defender in 2001 playoffs?

Probably not. Doesn't really need to be when he was much better offensively. Speaking of...

Watch on YouTube

;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

I invite anyone under the impression that Bird was one of the best creators ever because of what he did off-the-ball to point out to me what exactly is being created in this clip Ben chooses in order to highlight what Bird offers as an off-ball playmaker

The first shot in that video is wide open because a second defender is paying attention to Bird and trying to stay in the passing lane to stop him from getting the ball off a cut. The guy misses the shot and to modern eyes the shot doesn’t look like a great one because it’s a long two. But there’s some pretty clear gravity there on Bird’s off-ball movement that is a huge part of creating an open shot.

And this goes to why I am a bit skeptical of peoples’ film tracking, especially when it’s done as part of an effort to confirm a strong prior that they’re trying to argue for. People kind of just see (or don’t see) what they want to see.

[OhayoKD]

Do you think Kobe was top 2 Lakers defender in 2001 playoffs?

Probably not. Doesn't really need to be when he was much better offensively. Speaking of...

Watch on YouTube

;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

I invite anyone under the impression that Bird was one of the best creators ever because of what he did off-the-ball to point out to me what exactly is being created in this clip Ben chooses in order to highlight what Bird offers as an off-ball playmaker

The first shot in that video is wide open because a second defender is paying attention to Bird and trying to stay in the passing lane to stop him from getting the ball off a cut. The guy misses the shot and to modern eyes the shot doesn’t look like a great one because it’s a long two. But there’s some pretty clear gravity there on Bird’s off-ball movement that is a huge part of creating an open shot.

And this goes to why I am a bit skeptical of peoples’ film tracking, especially when it’s done as part of an effort to confirm a strong prior that they’re trying to argue for. People kind of just see (or don’t see) what they want to see.

TLDR:
“Your priors: inane, obtuse, refusing to appreciate off-ball brilliance.
My priors: insightful, enlightened, capable of understanding how individual defenders not having tunnel vision on every play is actually unique and rare.”

It was seen...

Okay, so, yeah Bird is moving perpetually and he is threatening...his defender. But besides getting a guy not directly involved to look at him momentarily...what is Bird actually creating?

But it appears you had a different interpretation than we did:

Gassing imo
There are always players cutting that need to be kept track of
Bird is not accomplishing unusual "distraction"
Gravity also implies more tjan gettibg the defense attention lol
You need to actually affect the defense
If the defense is keeping track of it and accounting for him while still defending birds teammate well

The defense is keeping good distance from Mchale to prevent him from getting an easy score or layup. If you want to be more liberal with that than I would, then sure, call it gravity, but you can easily find clips of "not portable" players doing that.

Regardless, this is not as valuable of a play as what is typically made on-ball, and it is also not common. The idea that this sort of creation would compensate for what Bird doesn't do as ball-handler seems like a bit of a reach(and the granular metrics, including ben's, seem to agree)

[eminence]

-> Switchable man defender
-> Strong rim-protection


"not paticularly good"

-> Weak man defender who needs to be hidden from the action
-> Weak rim protector at his natural position

"DPOY"

Early 80s Bird was a very active defender renowned for his motor and he and DrJ were one anothers primary defenders those years (they even made a whole damn Atari game), 'weak man defender who needs to be hidden from the action', c'mon now, these 'takes' are just bull.

To Aenigma - Yeah, my pick for Bird as DPOY in 1980 is the product of a whole set of circumstances (favorable team set-up for success, good player/strong defender, weak competition), he would not have been my pick against plenty of other seasons, and isn't anywhere near a lock for that season. I'm grading Bird as a low end MVP guy in 1980 (+5 to +6 range). If I took that +12 at face value it'd be more like GOAT by a mile.

[OhayoKD]

-> Switchable man defender
-> Strong rim-protection


"not paticularly good"

-> Weak man defender who needs to be hidden from the action
-> Weak rim protector at his natural position

"DPOY"

Early 80s Bird was a very active defender renowned for his motor and he and DrJ were one anothers primary defenders those years (they even made a whole damn Atari game), 'weak man defender who needs to be hidden from the action', c'mon now, these 'takes' are just bull.

To Aenigma - Yeah, my pick for Bird as DPOY in 1980 is the product of a whole set of circumstances (favorable team set-up for success, good player/strong defender, weak competition), he would not have been my pick against plenty of other seasons, and isn't anywhere near a lock for that season. I'm grading Bird as a low end MVP guy in 1980. If I took that +12 at face value it'd be more like GOAT by a mile.

Are they though? Bird was renowned for his motor and defensive genius throughout

[ShaqAttac]

Probably not. Doesn't really need to be when he was much better offensively. Speaking of...

Watch on YouTube

;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

I invite anyone under the impression that Bird was one of the best creators ever because of what he did off-the-ball to point out to me what exactly is being created in this clip Ben chooses in order to highlight what Bird offers as an off-ball playmaker

The first shot in that video is wide open because a second defender is paying attention to Bird and trying to stay in the passing lane to stop him from getting the ball off a cut. The guy misses the shot and to modern eyes the shot doesn’t look like a great one because it’s a long two. But there’s some pretty clear gravity there on Bird’s off-ball movement that is a huge part of creating an open shot.

And this goes to why I am a bit skeptical of peoples’ film tracking, especially when it’s done as part of an effort to confirm a strong prior that they’re trying to argue for. People kind of just see (or don’t see) what they want to see.

TLDR:
“Your priors: inane, obtuse, refusing to appreciate off-ball brilliance.
My priors: insightful, enlightened, capable of understanding how individual defenders not having tunnel vision on every play is actually unique and rare.”

It was seen...

Okay, so, yeah Bird is moving perpetually and he is threatening...his defender. But besides getting a guy not directly involved to look at him momentarily...what is Bird actually creating?

But it appears you had a different interpretation than we did:

Gassing imo
There are always players cutting that need to be kept track of
Bird is not accomplishing unusual "distraction"
Gravity also implies more tjan gettibg the defense attention lol
You need to actually affect the defense
If the defense is keeping track of it and accounting for him while still defending birds teammate well

The defense is keeping good distance from Mchale to prevent him from getting an easy score or layup. If you want to be more liberal with that than I would, then sure, call it gravity, but you can easily find clips of "not portable" players doing that.

Regardless, this is not as valuable of a play as what is typically made on-ball, and it is also not common. The idea that this sort of creation would compensate for what Bird doesn't do as ball-handler seems like a bit of a reach(and the granular metrics, including ben's, seem to agree)

yeah i think we gotta be honest. Ben is definitely not keeping it a hundred when hes hypin his offball stuff THIS much

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Larry Bird
Vote 2 - Kobe Bryant
Nominate - Julius Erving

Bird is one of those few players along with Jordan and Magic where longevity isn't as important to me. What they accomplished in their careers stands on its own to propel them to this elite status. Even with bird having some inconsistent post season performances, his first title run in only his second season showed how special he was, and took his play to another level in 84 and 86. His sustained high level play in his later injury plagued years showed how complete he was as a basketball player.

He's in that elite class of great basketball minds and decision makers. Especially on the fly, he could make something out of nothing, and that applied to all aspects of play, not just scoring. He had an innate ability to see the floor in a way most other players couldn't.

On the 84 finals

Though he can be a wily hayseed, he can also exhibit deft, psychological team leadership. After the third game of last year's championship series, the Lakers, despite Bird's scoring 30 points, handed the Celtics a nasty whipping, 137-104. Bird was angry. ''I know the heart and soul of this team,'' he said afterward, ''and today the heart wasn't there. It was embarrassing. I just can't believe that a team like this would let them come out and push us around like they did. When you've got inside position, you can't let a guy come over you for the rebound. We've got to be more intense.''

He accused no individuals, but he spoke of specifics - ''heart'' and ''soul'' and ''inside position.'' His teammates responded, and the Celtics - for a variety of reasons, but Bird's rebuke had to be one of them - went on to take the series in seven games.

http://nyti.ms/UmZNrQ

Bird as a teammate

From himself on the court he seeks only consistency and considers that the true mark of excellence. ''But Larry's so sensitive to what his teammates need that he changes the emphasis of his game to accommodate them,'' says Jim Rodgers, the Celtics' senior assistant. ''It's a unique form of personal consistency, concentrating on the needs of others, isn't it?''

A Celtics teammate, Bill Walton, says: ''So much of it -- playing, in the locker room, away from basketball -- has to do with how much he cares. Larry cares about every element of everything he's involved in. With some people, the sphere of their life is so very small. The sphere of Larry's life is just huge.''

And yet these embers of generosity were kindled by the most incendiary competitive fires. Even now in the Valley there's not much amazement that Larry Bird turned out to be the greatest basketball player ever -- what the hell, somebody had to, so it might as well be a French Lick boy -- but there is some surprise that he could rise above the family temper to reach those heights. In order to win, Bird taught himself not to get angry, rather to gain satisfaction from somebody else's hot blood. ''I've learned it's a lot more fun making a shot with a guy hanging on you,'' he says.

Championships mean even more to Bird -- ''His mission,'' Auerbach calls them. ''That's why I play,'' Bird says. ''I'm just greedy on them things. Winning the championship -- I've never felt that way any other time, no matter how big some other game was. I remember the first time we won, against Houston (in 1981). We were way ahead at the end, and so I came out with three minutes left, and my heart was pounding so on the bench, I thought it would jump out of my chest. You know what you feel? You just want everything to stop and to stay like that forever.''

And that, in his way, is what Larry Bird does for us. He not only slows the world down, but he turns it back. ''I've studied it,'' Woolf says, ''and I think, above all, there's just an innocence with him. I think Larry takes anyone who knows him -- or sees him playing -- back to grammar school. Remember back then? Back then we didn't brag. We dove after the ball. We looked after our friends. I think with Larry we believe he'll save the team. We believe he'll save us somehow. So you follow him.''

http://www.si.com/nba/2007/10/24/flashback032188

Excuse the sensationalist "ULTIMATE Mixtape" title. This is really well done and worth a watch regardless of your vote:

Watch on YouTube

[lessthanjake]

Probably not. Doesn't really need to be when he was much better offensively. Speaking of...

Watch on YouTube

;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

I invite anyone under the impression that Bird was one of the best creators ever because of what he did off-the-ball to point out to me what exactly is being created in this clip Ben chooses in order to highlight what Bird offers as an off-ball playmaker

The first shot in that video is wide open because a second defender is paying attention to Bird and trying to stay in the passing lane to stop him from getting the ball off a cut. The guy misses the shot and to modern eyes the shot doesn’t look like a great one because it’s a long two. But there’s some pretty clear gravity there on Bird’s off-ball movement that is a huge part of creating an open shot.

And this goes to why I am a bit skeptical of peoples’ film tracking, especially when it’s done as part of an effort to confirm a strong prior that they’re trying to argue for. People kind of just see (or don’t see) what they want to see.

TLDR:
“Your priors: inane, obtuse, refusing to appreciate off-ball brilliance.
My priors: insightful, enlightened, capable of understanding how individual defenders not having tunnel vision on every play is actually unique and rare.”

I’m not comparing validity of anyone’s priors (and FWIW, the prior of yours I was alluding to was a prior that Bird isn’t that good a creator, not anything more general about the efficacy of off-ball play). Just saying that if someone (whether it’s me or you or anyone else) engages in film tracking, it’s likely to be biased by those priors, and is *extremely* likely to be biased by them if we’re engaging in the film study largely for the purpose of making a specific argument about the player we’re studying.

It was seen...

Okay, so, yeah Bird is moving perpetually and he is threatening...his defender. But besides getting a guy not directly involved to look at him momentarily...what is Bird actually creating?

I would say that calling that “getting a guy not directly involved to look at him momentarily” is really not remotely the same as what I described, nor a fair description of what’s in the video, and is precisely an example of downplaying the tape in support of a prior. “Looking at” someone implies that the defender’s actual positioning was not affected by it, which I don’t see as the case there at all. Nor would I ever call a defender “not directly involved” when his guy is the one who gets an open shot. I see a guy sagging off his man a ton, in order to effectively double Bird off the ball, resulting in an open shot for that defender’s man. There’s a third defender in the play too, but he’s basically stuck trying to defend two guys at once, and ends up in no man’s land. It all stems from the defensive attention on Bird.

And look, I’ve said I don’t think that this type of off-ball gravity was as effective in that era as it is now, because, with much less spacing, it didn’t generally pull defenders as far away from their man, meaning it didn’t create the same kind of space someone like Steph creates today (and, I’d note that, more generally, all creation of open shots for others was less common back then, for these same reasons of less space, so I’d say playmaking in general was less valuable). But I think there may be an eagerness to downplay Bird’s creation a bit too much.

But it appears you had a different interpretation than we did:

Gassing imo
There are always players cutting that need to be kept track of
Bird is not accomplishing unusual "distraction"
Gravity also implies more tjan gettibg the defense attention lol
You need to actually affect the defense
If the defense is keeping track of it and accounting for him while still defending birds teammate well

The defense is keeping good distance from Mchale to prevent him from getting an easy score or layup. If you want to be more liberal with that than I would, then sure, call it gravity, but you can easily find clips of "not portable" players doing that.

Regardless, this is not as valuable of a play as what is typically made on-ball, and it is also not common. The idea that this sort of creation would compensate for what Bird doesn't do as ball-handler seems like a bit of a reach(and the granular metrics, including ben's, seem to agree)

I’d say it was a pretty valuable play actually, since he basically got doubled off the ball, resulting in a teammate getting a very wide open shot. In today’s game, this sort of gravity would be more valuable, since that wide open shot would’ve inevitably been a three, but creating a wide open shot was still a really good thing back then.

I’d also note that some of this commentary betrays a bit of a lack of familiarity with the era. Kevin McHale is not in that video. That’s Dave Cowens, who doesn’t look like Kevin McHale at all. Kevin McHale was not even in the NBA when this game occurred.

[f4p]

Voting:
1. Kobe Bryant
2. Larry Bird

Nomination: Nikola Jokic

trex_8063 wrote:
Well, personally I don't anymore.
I used to rank Bird ahead, but I hit a point where I began to feel I put him higher simply because I wanted to, for nostalgia's sake (because I "liked" Bird more, appreciated his career more).
However, it wasn't so clear or easily justified if being honest about my criteria.

Spoiler:

Did Bird have greater impact? I suspect he may have, but not by a substantial margin. For more information, I believe there is some data pertaining to both players presented within the bowels of the #9 thread of the current top 100 project.

For my part, I do think Bird peaked a little higher. If I'm comparing "average prime years", I think Bird's are a little better, even though Kobe is a touch more playoff-resilient, fwiw.

However, as I've established for years and years, I'm a total career value [above replacement] kind of guy when it comes to player evaluations (beginning to incorporate a touch of CORP principle, too). And Kobe sort of destroys Bird on the longevity/durability spectrum, which becomes awfully relevant to such an approach.

Take what I might call Kobe's "extended prime" (a slightly liberal view of what might be called "prime" years), what I'd gauge to be '01-'13....

That's 13 seasons (the length of Bird's ENTIRE career). I've just got through saying I think Bird's average prime year is better than Kobe's average prime year; but those 13 years include some of Bird's NON-prime, too. In his full-career avg season, is he better than an average PRIME season of Kobe? Maybe, maybe not. If it is, we're certainly not talking about a notable margin, imo.

And that's before giving recognition to the fact that from '01-'13 Kobe played 76 more games and nearly 3400 more minutes than Bird did [in his whole career]. In short: in terms of availability, Kobe's got ~1 full season more PRIME games/minutes played than Bird played in his whole career.

And Kobe's got some additional value added from '98-'00, too ('97 and '14-'16 are of no consequence to me).


In light of all that, I hit a point where I had a great deal of difficulty putting Bird's 13 years [really it's only 12] ahead of all that [16 years] of relevant Kobe seasons. For awhile [even after recognizing that], I justified keeping Bird ahead by telling myself that Bird was "bigger/more important for the game", "more iconic" than Kobe.

The thing that dispelled that notion was Kobe's death, watching the world react. Realistically, I should have known after the summer of '08 [the Redeem Team]. That spectacle made it clear that Kobe's persona transcended just the sport; he was a cultural touchstone, in a global sense. But somehow I missed it (or simply denied it) until his death.

So, no longer having that "excuse", I made the switch. In a way it was liberating. I stopped playing favourites, stopped bowing to a long-established hierarchy I'd established in my mind [e.g. "Bird cannot go lower than X place..."], and the world didn't end.

man, so much of this is how i feel. coming into this, i've never had bird outside of my top 10. kobe's always been my top 10 gatekeeper. but so much of bird feels like i just "had" to have him in the top 10, even if it felt like my reasoning had to be inconsistent. i'm still not sure i'd put garnett over him, but maybe i would. either way, i'll be voting for him in 13th after never having him outside my top 10. and i have kobe jumping him.

a lot of the kobe points have been made better by others, including team offense in the playoffs.

kobe won a lot, has the resiliency factor, has 2 separate teams that went to 3 straight finals, won a lot as an underdog and vastly outperformed his expected titles by beating so many good teams. and has a significantly longevity advantage, especially when some of kobe's own early career playoff struggles are mimicked by bird from '80-'83. so i'm going with kobe over bird.


for nomination, i'm going with jokic. i feel like we need to break the seal on the shorter career active guys. his last season is one of the most impressive i've seen and something guys like malone and robinson (and hell, kobe/bird/west and others) have never done. nothing about jokic's career trajectory suggests i'll feel bad about putting him in the top 20 as he could very well end up easily inside the top 10. he's coming off 3 straight seasons of winning the box score triple crown (PER, WS48, BPM) and even turned this season into a bit of a "golden slam" by leading TS%. he then followed that up with a playoff triple crown with numbers that rival 1991 MJ. while his team went 16-4 in the playoffs. while seemingly answering his biggest problem area in whether you could build a good defense around him, at least, for the time being, making some of his earlier struggles possibly more bad luck than necessarily just on him (though if he reverts back, we'll have to reassess). destroyed every defender who tried to guard him for 2 months, picked apart every defense that tried to stop him for 2 months. granted, his opponents having a COMBINED 2 SRS in the playoffs is notable, but the lakers, even with lebron's foot injury, were much better than their SRS and the heat were obviously playing at a higher level in the playoffs. and they went 8-1 against them. now, his massive regular season plus/minus never showing up the playoffs is a bit concerning, with him only being a +2 on/off in the playoffs (after being +22 in the regular season and last year going from +16 to -16), but i refuse to believe that the guy i just watched was actually having no impact on his team whatsoever. especially since so many other impact metrics in his career paint him as extraordinarily valuable (though i don't know what they say in the playoffs necessarily). and duncan has 3 negative on/off titles and he was voted in #5. so jokic is my nomination.

[eminence]

-> Switchable man defender
-> Strong rim-protection


"not paticularly good"

-> Weak man defender who needs to be hidden from the action
-> Weak rim protector at his natural position

"DPOY"

Early 80s Bird was a very active defender renowned for his motor and he and DrJ were one anothers primary defenders those years (they even made a whole damn Atari game), 'weak man defender who needs to be hidden from the action', c'mon now, these 'takes' are just bull.

To Aenigma - Yeah, my pick for Bird as DPOY in 1980 is the product of a whole set of circumstances (favorable team set-up for success, good player/strong defender, weak competition), he would not have been my pick against plenty of other seasons, and isn't anywhere near a lock for that season. I'm grading Bird as a low end MVP guy in 1980. If I took that +12 at face value it'd be more like GOAT by a mile.

Are they though? Bird was renowned for his motor and defensive genius throughout

Yep, and Birds defensive motor dropping as his career progressed is not some fringe take. That's damn near unanimous. Still smart yes, high motor, absolutely not, became more skilled on offense to somewhat improve/maintain overall levels until a certain point (his mother's driveway to be precise).

I think we should probably stop going back and forth - it's not productive and I'm realizing I'll never be able to reset my opinion of you from your 'opinion' on collinearity and its effects (which basically amount to 2+2=Albuquerque).

Bad basketball takes, I can handle, and make my own share - maybe this is one (and in plenty of areas other than basketball too). Bad math takes, can't handle it.

[OhayoKD]

TLDR:
“Your priors: inane, obtuse, refusing to appreciate off-ball brilliance.
My priors: insightful, enlightened, capable of understanding how individual defenders not having tunnel vision on every play is actually unique and rare.”

I’m not comparing validity of anyone’s priors (and FWIW, the prior of yours I was alluding to was a prior that Bird isn’t that good a creator, not anything more general about the efficacy of off-ball play). Just saying that if someone (whether it’s me or you or anyone else) engages in film tracking, it’s likely to be biased by those priors, and is *extremely* likely to be biased by them if we’re engaging in the film study largely for the purpose of making a specific argument about the player we’re studying.

Sure, but that is why I have noted down specific time-stamps for people to vet, mentioned edge-cases, and am relying on peer-review. Bias is a potential issue. I do not think it neccesarily applies here though. Several people with varying biases have watched the same stuff for Bird and independently come to similar conclusions.

It was seen...

Perhaps.



I’d say it was a pretty valuable play actually, since he basically got doubled off the ball, resulting in a teammate getting a very wide open shot. In today’s game, this sort of gravity would be more valuable, since that wide open shot would’ve inevitably been a three, but creating a wide open shot was still a really good thing back then.

I’d also note that some of this commentary betrays a bit of a lack of familiarity with the era. Kevin McHale is not in that video. That’s Dave Cowens, who doesn’t look like Kevin McHale at all. Kevin McHale was not even in the NBA when this game occurred.

[/quote]
Ah that is an oppsie. We'd been watching 1986 tape and I guess we mapped mchale onto the shooter. The clip was from 1980 so I should proabably have paid more attention. I would still classify it as secondary creation, but fair to point out.