LeBron or Bird . . .

Moderators: penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

LeBron or Bird?

LeBron
25
39%
Bird
39
61%
 
Total votes: 64

User avatar
ponder276
Head Coach
Posts: 6,075
And1: 67
Joined: Oct 14, 2007

LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#1 » by ponder276 » Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:11 pm

Hypothetical situation:

19 year old LeBron and 19 year old Bird are somehow both available in the 2009 draft. GMs know what kind of players they can become. They will not have the same careers they had the first time around, as they'll be drafted to different teams than they were previously drafted to (so Bird will not have McHale, Parish, etc. to play with), but they will mature into the same type of players they did the first time around, skill wise. Assume that neither will have any freak injury problems. Who do most GMs draft first, LeBron or Bird?
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#2 » by Baller 24 » Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:25 pm

Interesting thread. You've got one athletic freak in LeBron who is probably one of the most physical specimens in the NBA with great court vision, amazing agility, and the powerful ability to get to the hole. Bird on the other hand is probably the more skilled player in all aspects, he can basically do anything and everything his team asks for him to do, and he'll do it in stylistic fashion ;) He is one of the best shooters in the game, he can practically score from anywhere on the floor, has a more established and all around offensive arsenal. His man to man defense isn't that bad, but his help/team defense is amazing. Bird is also arguably the most clutch player in NBA history (MJ and West level), I'd go with Bird. Overall, there aren't many players I'd take over LeBron, some of the ones I would take are all of the immortal 6, Shaq, Hakeem, Dr. J, Duncan, and possibly West. Again, that's a pretty short list for a guy that's only what 24 years old?
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
User avatar
wigglestrue
RealGM
Posts: 24,124
And1: 170
Joined: Feb 06, 2003
Location: Wiggling, after hitting a four-pointer of Truth

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#3 » by wigglestrue » Fri Feb 6, 2009 9:35 pm

No freak injuries? 19 years old? Knowing for sure the kind of player?

I think 100% of GMs would draft Bird.
0:01.8 A. Walker makes 3-pt shot from 28 ft (assist by E. Williams) +3 109-108
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_9qvmXiEuU
The Sludge
Senior
Posts: 629
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 31, 2009

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#4 » by The Sludge » Fri Feb 6, 2009 10:19 pm

I would pick Bird. He isn't very athletic, but he WILL find a way to beat you. He'll do whatever it takes, and he does it good. It's close, though.
LuvOnTheRun
Junior
Posts: 296
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 18, 2008

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#5 » by LuvOnTheRun » Fri Feb 6, 2009 10:56 pm

in todays game larry bird would suck bigtime
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#6 » by Baller 24 » Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:06 pm

LuvOnTheRun wrote:in todays game larry bird would suck bigtime


No, you're wrong.
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
User avatar
5DOM
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 40,216
And1: 1,811
Joined: Aug 30, 2004
Contact:
       

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#7 » by 5DOM » Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:13 pm

LuvOnTheRun wrote:in todays game larry bird would suck bigtime


That's just as dumb as saying lebron would suck big time in 80s game.
Image
DC2
Senior
Posts: 524
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 10, 2009

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#8 » by DC2 » Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:15 pm

LuvOnTheRun wrote:in todays game larry bird would suck bigtime
What :lol:
gags1288
Sophomore
Posts: 230
And1: 51
Joined: Aug 10, 2007

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#9 » by gags1288 » Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:17 pm

People tend to overrate the past and underrate the present. Lebron is the biggest freak that the NBA has ever seen. He's turned himself into a lock down defender. He can play 3 positions extremely well and another position adequately. Bird was a superior shooter and had a higher basketball IQ, Lebron does everything else as well or better. Bird in his prime on this Cavs team isn't 39-9, Bird in his prime on last years Cavs team doesn't take Boston to game 7, and Bird in his prime on the previous years Cavs team doesn't go to the finals IMO.

I think every GM in the league would take Lebron.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#10 » by Baller 24 » Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:19 pm

gags1288 wrote:People tend to overrate the past and underrate the present. Lebron is the biggest freak that the NBA has ever seen. He's turned himself into a lock down defender. He can play 3 positions extremely well and another position adequately. Bird was a superior shooter and had a higher basketball IQ, Lebron does everything else as well or better. Bird in his prime on this Cavs team isn't 39-9, Bird in his prime on last years Cavs team doesn't take Boston to game 7, and Bird in his prime on the previous years Cavs team doesn't go to the finals IMO.

I think every GM in the league would take Lebron.


Yes he is, better court vision (or just as good), better post moves, better rebounder, not as good of a man to man defender, better help/team defender, and obviously MUCH more clutch and dangerous
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
tmac4real
Banned User
Posts: 12,473
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 05, 2005

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#11 » by tmac4real » Fri Feb 6, 2009 11:23 pm

LuvOnTheRun wrote:in todays game larry bird would suck bigtime


a shorter much worse version of him is a back to back MVP in today's game.
gags1288
Sophomore
Posts: 230
And1: 51
Joined: Aug 10, 2007

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#12 » by gags1288 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 12:59 am

[quote="Baller 24"][quote="gags1288"]People tend to overrate the past and underrate the present. Lebron is the biggest freak that the NBA has ever seen. He's turned himself into a lock down defender. He can play 3 positions extremely well and another position adequately. Bird was a superior shooter and had a higher basketball IQ, Lebron does everything else as well or better. Bird in his prime on this Cavs team isn't 39-9, Bird in his prime on last years Cavs team doesn't take Boston to game 7, and Bird in his prime on the previous years Cavs team doesn't go to the finals IMO.

I think every GM in the league would take Lebron.[/quote]

Yes he is, better court vision (or just as good), better post moves, better rebounder, not as good of a man to man defender, better help/team defender, and obviously MUCH more clutch and dangerous[/quote]
I disagree with almost all of that. I'll take Lebron as a better on the ball defender and a much better off the ball defender then Bird was.

As rebounders I think they're pretty comparable, maybe edge Lebron. Bird had better per game numbers, but you really would need to look at offensive and defensive rebounding rates of them and their teammates to compare them as per game numbers for things that are so dependent on teammates and the number of possessions are useless in comparisons.

Court vision is pretty close, but I'd give the edge to Lebron. Dangerous? What exactly does that mean?

I'd probably give you clutch for now, but that will be determined as Lebron plays in more big games. Personally, I think that Lebron is pretty darn clutch.

Post moves? Sure, but that's a developing part of Lebron's game and that didn't exactly make Bird as a player.

Lebron blows bird away at ages 18-24 and I think he'll continue to do so.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#13 » by Baller 24 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 1:21 am

Huh? Bird came onto as a rookie on a 25 win Celtic team and turned it into a 61 win team as a rookie. He was top 5 in MVP voting, and only got better in his 2nd year where he led the team to an NBA championship, while being a pretty good two-way player in his early years. Bird's first season in NBA was at the age of 23, LeBron's was at the age of 18, big advantage, and it's not Bird's fault that he was drafted earlier, but wasn't allowed to play by league rules. Again, we can't all predict the future, why is everyone here acting like LeBron is destined to win 1000000000000 times 1000000000 championships? Yeah I don't get it.
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
Lakers05
Banned User
Posts: 6,098
And1: 3
Joined: Oct 31, 2005

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#14 » by Lakers05 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 1:49 am

Baller 24 wrote:Huh? Bird came onto as a rookie on a 25 win Celtic team and turned it into a 61 win team as a rookie. He was top 5 in MVP voting, and only got better in his 2nd year where he led the team to an NBA championship, while being a pretty good two-way player in his early years. Bird's first season in NBA was at the age of 23, LeBron's was at the age of 18, big advantage, and it's not Bird's fault that he was drafted earlier, but wasn't allowed to play by league rules. Again, we can't all predict the future, why is everyone here acting like LeBron is destined to win 1000000000000 times 1000000000 championships? Yeah I don't get it.


It's disingenious to say Bird turned a 25-win team into a 61 one without taking into account who else was added. It takes a while to explain, but IMO, here is how each player is worth(over what one would considered the minimal role player, which in my judgment has a Production Differential of -2 to -4)): superstar big = 25 games, superstar small/All-Star big = 20 games, All-Star small/starting big = 15, starting small/average big = 10, average small/minimum big = 5, minimum small = 0.

So as you can see, if you give a guy an extra starter, that's an extra 10-15 wins right there. It's also not possible for one coach to overcome the difference of one starter, if the other coach is at least somewhat competent.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#15 » by Baller 24 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 1:56 am

Lakers05 wrote:
It's disingenious to say Bird turned a 25-win team into a 61 one without taking into account who else was added. It takes a while to explain, but IMO, here is how each player is worth(over what one would considered the minimal role player, which in my judgment has a Production Differential of -2 to -4)): superstar big = 25 games, superstar small/All-Star big = 20 games, All-Star small/starting big = 15, starting small/average big = 10, average small/minimum big = 5, minimum small = 0.

So as you can see, if you give a guy an extra starter, that's an extra 10-15 wins right there. It's also not possible for one coach to overcome the difference of one starter, if the other coach is at least somewhat competent.


*It was a 29 win team, he turned it into a 61 team (my fault)

Anyways, what are you talking about? That production game chart you just created makes zero sense, simply because the rosters resulted in very little change, actually more players were dropped, do I have no idea what you're talking about.

1979 Celtics

Code: Select all

Tiny Archibald
Dennis Awtrey
Tom Barker
Marvin Barnes
Don Chaney
Dave Cowens
Chris Ford
Jeff Judkins
Billy Knight
Cedric Maxwell
Bob McAdoo
Rick Robey
Curtis Rowe
Frankie Sanders
Kevin Stacom
Earl Tatum
Jo Jo White
Earl Williams


1980 Celtics

Code: Select all

Tiny Archibald
Larry Bird
M.L. Carr
Don Chaney
Dave Cowens
Eric Fernsten
Chris Ford
Gerald Henderson
Jeff Judkins
Pete Maravich
Cedric Maxwell
Rick Robey


The 1979 team actually LOST talent, while the 1980 team gained 1 BIG piece in Larry Bird, and he was the simple and main reason who turned the entire team around, therefore making your chart/point production completely irreverent.
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
Lakers05
Banned User
Posts: 6,098
And1: 3
Joined: Oct 31, 2005

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#16 » by Lakers05 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 2:14 am

Oh, but it is very relevant. What I've learned is that this game can be very precise, when it comes to the correlation of player's stats to expected win contributions. And sometimes, there's a guy that nobody notices who can be a huge factor. For example, when I compared our Big Three vs Boston's Big Three last year, ours were clearly superior, so how did the Celtics win 66, and us just 57, and clearly looked like the more dominant team? The difference, as it turns out, is Rondo.

There must be a Rondo that you haven't taken into account, that or there was too many injuries the year before. I can take Bird as being the difference of 22 or even 25 wins, but 32? That's one too many intangibles.
User avatar
ponder276
Head Coach
Posts: 6,075
And1: 67
Joined: Oct 14, 2007

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#17 » by ponder276 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 2:31 am

Lakers05 wrote:
Baller 24 wrote:Huh? Bird came onto as a rookie on a 25 win Celtic team and turned it into a 61 win team as a rookie. He was top 5 in MVP voting, and only got better in his 2nd year where he led the team to an NBA championship, while being a pretty good two-way player in his early years. Bird's first season in NBA was at the age of 23, LeBron's was at the age of 18, big advantage, and it's not Bird's fault that he was drafted earlier, but wasn't allowed to play by league rules. Again, we can't all predict the future, why is everyone here acting like LeBron is destined to win 1000000000000 times 1000000000 championships? Yeah I don't get it.


It's disingenious to say Bird turned a 25-win team into a 61 one without taking into account who else was added. It takes a while to explain, but IMO, here is how each player is worth(over what one would considered the minimal role player, which in my judgment has a Production Differential of -2 to -4)): superstar big = 25 games, superstar small/All-Star big = 20 games, All-Star small/starting big = 15, starting small/average big = 10, average small/minimum big = 5, minimum small = 0.

So as you can see, if you give a guy an extra starter, that's an extra 10-15 wins right there. It's also not possible for one coach to overcome the difference of one starter, if the other coach is at least somewhat competent.

You spew a bunch of garbage in one paragraph, based on absolutely nothing, and then treat that garbage like it's sound fact in the next paragraph. Well done, this is easily one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen.
Lakers05
Banned User
Posts: 6,098
And1: 3
Joined: Oct 31, 2005

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#18 » by Lakers05 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 2:40 am

*yawn* I could easily respond in kind, but why risk it, not to mention, your "attack" was rather mundane.

Just watch and learn. I guarantee you'll be using my "formulas" eventually.
User avatar
ponder276
Head Coach
Posts: 6,075
And1: 67
Joined: Oct 14, 2007

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#19 » by ponder276 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 2:47 am

Lakers05 wrote:*yawn* I could easily respond in kind, but why risk it, not to mention, your "attack" was rather mundane.

Just watch and learn. I guarantee you'll be using my "formulas" eventually.

Lets see. The 2008 76ers were a 40 win team. They were a young team, so they should have improved naturally from 2008 to 2009. The 2009 team added a starting big (Elton Brand), which should have been +15 wins, and a "minimum big" (Mareese Speights), which should have been +5 wins, while subtracting nobody of any consequence. By your forumla, the 76ers should have been a 60 win team this season (and that's being generous, I easily could have classified Brand as an all-star big, or Speights as an average big, which would have made them an 80 win team by your formula). But they're not, they're a .500 team, and are EVEN WORSE THAN .500 WHEN BRAND IS IN THE LINEUP.

Basketball is way more complicated than some completely fabricated formula.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: LeBron or Bird . . . 

Post#20 » by Baller 24 » Sat Feb 7, 2009 3:00 am

Lakers05 wrote:Oh, but it is very relevant. What I've learned is that this game can be very precise, when it comes to the correlation of player's stats to expected win contributions. And sometimes, there's a guy that nobody notices who can be a huge factor. For example, when I compared our Big Three vs Boston's Big Three last year, ours were clearly superior, so how did the Celtics win 66, and us just 57, and clearly looked like the more dominant team? The difference, as it turns out, is Rondo.

There must be a Rondo that you haven't taken into account, that or there was too many injuries the year before. I can take Bird as being the difference of 22 or even 25 wins, but 32? That's one too many intangibles.


Looking at the team from the season before, who did they add? I posted the roster to show you that everyone is still there, Larry Bird is the new guy, and he leads his team from a 29 win team to 61 win team with BIRD being the single and main reason, again I posted the rosters to show you that he was single handedly most responsible for that.
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark

Return to Player Comparisons