I don't think Kobe has more ability than Bird.

He does.. Better handle, better athleticism, better defender, better finisher, better overall passer (Bird better passer out of the post). Bird was a (much) better outside shooter.

The reason why Bird was so good was because of vision, instinct, and IQ. But as far as straight up ability, Kobe could just about do whatever it was that Michael Jordan did.

I include things like vision, instinct, and IQ when I'm trying to decide who is better. Bryant is more athletic than Bird, but that doesn't mean he's a better basketball player. Bryant has a high basketball IQ, but he has chosen not to use it very well for large chunks of his career.

http://barkleyquotes.com/quotes/1104

Lilsmit, your definition of athleticism is incredibly inaccurate IMO. I see guys like Bird and Steve Nash as equally athletic as Michael Jordan or Dr. J. It's just a different TYPE of athleticism.

And Bird was a good defender, you're wrong about that.

[Removed]

I watched some bill Russell videos on YouTube. It was him going up against a bunch of short white guys. Kelvin Cato could would of have been a superstar if he played back then.

Lilsmit, what the hell is your problem? You must have a fake Ag tag to constantly be slamming fellow Aggies like this.

[You were the poster that started the name calling on this thread. Don't get upset if other posters respond negatively to you for that. -Staff]

[Notice to all posters. The negative posts on this thread have been removed. You can give your opinion, but refrain from the name calling or there will be bans. -Staff]

Anyone calling Larry Bird an elite defender is stretching the truth pretty thin. Bird was an extremely intelligent individual who made up for a lack of athleticism with intelligence and moxy. He was middle of the pack, and comparing him to Duncan is laughable.

If you were a GM asked to pick between Larry Bird's career and Tim Duncan's career given what we know about their ability AND longevity there's no one that would choose Bird. I think we have nostalgia for Bird, especially given his extreme popularity, that overrates him after the fact. Not that he isn't a top 6-7 player, just that the stats show us that Duncan's had a much better career in a much more competitive NBA.

quote:

---

Anyone calling Larry Bird an elite defender is stretching the truth pretty thin. Bird was an extremely intelligent individual who made up for a lack of athleticism with intelligence and moxy. He was middle of the pack, and comparing him to Duncan is laughable.

If you were a GM asked to pick between Larry Bird's career and Tim Duncan's career given what we know about their ability AND longevity there's no one that would choose Bird. I think we have nostalgia for Bird, especially given his extreme popularity, that overrates him after the fact. Not that he isn't a top 6-7 player, just that the stats show us that Duncan's had a much better career in a much more competitive NBA.

---

Don't let common sense get in the way of making a choice man.

quote:

---

If you were a GM asked to pick between Larry Bird's career and Tim Duncan's career given what we know about their ability AND longevity there's no one that would choose Bird. I think we have nostalgia for Bird, especially given his extreme popularity, that overrates him after the fact. Not that he isn't a top 6-7 player, just that the stats show us that Duncan's had a much better career in a much more competitive NBA.

---

I'm not faulting anyone for picking Duncan over Bird. But to marginalize Bird as a player citing nostalgia and using stats as the primary measure for comparison between the two is just as shortsighted a comparison method as others who are favoring Bird are allegedly using.

If you think others are favoring Bird based on nostalgia, be careful that you're not just favoring Duncan based on recency bias.

quote:

---

If you think others are favoring Bird based on nostalgia, be careful that you're not just favoring Duncan based on recency bias.

---

Except I watched much more of the NBA during Bird's years than I did during Duncan's prime. I'm also in no way a San Antonio fan.

If Tim Duncan retired tomorrow, and never played another NBA game, he'd still have played 450 more basketball games than Bird did. That's pretty crazy. I think it's fair to say you'd want Bird if you had them guaranteed healthy. However, when you're comparing players that are so close in overall skill level you'd have to give the edge to the guy whose career was 1.5 times as long.

Again though, I PERSONALLY don't like to bring career into discussing who the better player was. I see it as this: if I had to choose between Bird in his prime and Duncan in his prime, who would I choose? I say Bird.

There's one guy on that list who basically won his first title by himself. So yes he's ranked a little low.

quote:

---

Duncan has been in six finals. He does not suffer from lack of exposure.

It is too bad that Bird's back didn't hold out for 3-5 more years than it did.

---

I thought it was his heel that cut his career short?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Duncan has been in six finals. He does not suffer from lack of exposure.

It is too bad that Bird's back didn't hold out for 3-5 more years than it did.

---

I thought it was his heel that cut his career short?

---

Nope, the back. He use to have to sleep in a full body cast just to play the next day.

Bird's back problems are what most people remember and what ultimately cut his career, but he missed the entire 89 season because of bone spurs in his heels.

quote:

---

the NBA was basically just two great teams (one per conference) and a bunch of other teams.

---

This is just wrong. Boston and Philly went back and forth in the East in the early '80s. Later, it was Boston and Detroit. Both Detroit and Philly were as good as Boston and LA, just not for as long. Neither Boston nor LA were great after Bird dropped off and Kareem retired (respectively; i.e. one player took each team to the highest level). Houston can also make a case as going to 2 finals during the run of the Lakers. This doesn't even speak to some teams that were quality teams for about 7/8 of the 10 years of the decade, including the Bucks, Spurs, Mavericks, Seattle, and Denver. All these teams went to at least one conference final. Then, there's the latecomers like the Hawks with Wilkins and the Bulls with Jordan.

If you really have to group teams from the '80s like this, I'd say 2 great ones, 2-3 more VERY good ones that just had shorter runs than the great ones, then a half dozen solid year-in-year-out teams. By no means was it 2 and everyone else. Yes, there were 3 Boston/LA finals, but there were also 2 Boston/Houston finals, 2 Philly/LA finals, and 2 Detroit/LA finals.

quote:

---

Duncan had less help than Bird with 5 titles vs Bird's 3. The NBA is much tougher now than the 80s when the NBA was basically just two great
teams (one per conference) and a bunch of other teams.

---

What year where you born?
That is some of the best basketball there has been. The Pistons, Celtics, Hawks, Houston, 76ers.... All very good teams. There was about as much young talent in the league then there ever has been with the anchor of Magic and Bird and some of the old guys still there like Moses, Dr. J, Kareem, etc. ..... The 80's were great!

I take Bird easily over Duncan if you are comparing 3-5 year period. Career probably goes to Duncan as Bird was 23 years old when he entered the NBA and only played for 10 good years.

I have no issue with that list... 2-7 is pretty close all the way.

All those titles the Celtics racked up in the 50s and 60s were done without much competition. The 80s were a lot tougher.