LeBron or Bird . . .

[Lakers05]

In order for your scenario to take place, you have to assume that the guys added have to produce at those level statistically, play 82 games, and the guys already there don't have any noticeable drop-off. But this is where a coach comes in. A great coach is able to make everyone "fit." In other words, have the least drop-off statistically as possible. If he can do that, then it will translate into the win column. So, it's not the stats that lie, but rather the coach's fault for not being able to maximize his players to produce those stats.

[Baller 24]

In order for your scenario to take place, you have to assume that the guys added have to produce at those level statistically, play 82 games, and the guys already there don't have any noticeable drop-off. But this is where a coach comes in. A great coach is able to make everyone "fit." In other words, have the least drop-off statistically as possible. If he can do that, then it will translate into the win column. So, it's not the stats that lie, but rather the coach's fault for not being able to maximize his players to produce those stats.

Huh? No, most of those players on the 1979/1980 Celtics are veterans in their early/late 30s, they can't maximize their full potential, because the players themselves aren't capable of doing. Look at the statistics, the season after, the same players averaged similar stats, for most statistically their production went DOWN.

[Lakers05]

As far as your minimum big comment, if the guy is replacing another minimum big, then you're not going to get any improvement. He would have to be replacing a guy one level lower, which I guess you could call the NBDL level. He would also have to play the same minutes as the All-Star/superstars for those improvements in the number of wins to take place.

[Showtime:Part2]

i cannot believe the voting is so close. this would be a much harder choice if it was bird or jordan or magic, but bird/lebron is bird 100 times out of 100. i hate larry bird second only to kg all time, but give a guy props where its due.

[shawngoat23]

Bird, easily, even though I know full well how good LeBron is.

[Kabookalu]

Lakers05's logic is making my brain explode. *does drugs* now it makes sense!

Bird for me.

[Baller 24]

Lakers05's logic is making my brain explode. *does drugs* now it makes sense!

Bird for me.

Tell me about it, I just read pure gibberish in that last post, didn't get a clue to what he was saying.

[ag101]

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.

How is that possible when according to some, Lebron is obviously single-handedly responsible for every single win that the Cavaliers have had in the last 5-6 years?

[TrueLAfan]

It actually is true that an MVP level player is worth 20+ wins to a team...compared to an average starter. "If you give a guy an extra starter, that's an extra 10-15 wins" isn't true (at all) unless the new starter replaces someone totally and completely inept. The value of an MVP level player is best seen in overall team performance. Few elite players are on team that win less than, say, 40 games. If you've got a guy who is supposedly an MVP caliber player, and his team wins 35 games, one of two things is pretty much always true.

1) The rest of the team is truly bad...replacing the MVP level player with an average starter would drop the team to around 15 wins.
2) The player isn't really that good. Numbers aside, great players make team's win more. (Which is why "this game can be very precise, when it comes to the correlation of player's stats to expected win contributions" is often totally wrong.)

Two good examples of this are two of the best three players of all-time...Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Both of them had stellar years--even for them--on teams that won only 40 games. How bad were their teams?

--The 1976 Lakers had Gail Goodrich and Lucius Allen, who had been good players at one time. Both were still slightly above average in 1976 (even though neither could play D by then). After that...the team was a disaster. No rebounding, no D, no decent shooters with reliable jumpers...nothing. Kareem led the league in minutes played, rebounds, blocks, and was second in scoring and fifth if field goal percentage--and was All-D second team as well. If you replaced Kareem with an "average" C--something like a 13-8 guy--that Lakers team would have been hard pressed to win 20 games.

--The 1987 Bulls had Oakley in his second year, and he was already an above average starter at PF. John Paxson and Gene Banks were pretty good players. Sedale Threatt was good off the bench. And then, like the 1976 Lakers--nothing. They were miserable after that--no quality, no depth. If you replaced Jordan with, say, Mike Woodson or Darrell Griffith, that team is going to struggle to get to 20 wins.

So, yeah, I buy that an MVP level player could be worth 20 or more wins compared to an average starter. But the rest of the comment about Bird in 1979 is ridiculous. The Celtics, like most teams, had their share of pluses and minuses between 1979 and 1980.

+ Rick Robey played a full season in 1980 for the Celtics and played at (for him) at high level.
+ Tiny Archibald played 40% more than he had in 1979, and continued his career resurgence.
+ The Celtics added M.L. Carr, who was a good to very good player who turned into an excellent role player.
+ The franchise had some stability in 1980--1979 was a turbulent year for the Celtics. They sort of had a revolving door of players, including some (Marvin Barnes, Bob McAdoo) who were considered locker room cancers, and other players (Billy Knight) who just seemed to be marking time.

- Jo Jo White was gone in 1980.
- Dave Cowens continued his slowdown--he played 15-20% less and was less effective in his court time in 1980 compared to 1979.
- Don Chaney's numbers and play dropped off in 1980.

In terms of player output, the pluses and minuses largely balance out. As nice as the Robey/Tiny/Carr things were, losing a career Celtic and team leader like Jo Jo hurt (even if his jumper was starting to go south). Having Cowens lose time and effectiveness was bad. Chaney had been a defensive stalwart for most of the previous decade, and he just fell apart in 1980.

So the major differences is cutting out the locker room cancers and problem players, and adding Bird. How much did it hurt having a lot of different lineups? Having Marvin Barnes in the locker room? How much did McAdoo and Knight hurt? Again, it's certain that it hurt the team overall...but McAdoo and Knight were still productive when they were on the court. The cumulative negatives on morale are at least partially offset by the fact that...well, that McAdoo was still a 20-7 guy, and Billy Knight averaged 14-4-2 in only 28 mpg. Productive...but overall slight minuses because of other factors. But not big minuses.

So I think it's pretty clear you have to give the bulk of the credit for the Celtics upturn to Bird. All of it? No. Two thirds of it? Yeah, I could see that--at least that. And that's over 20 games.

[prekazi]

in todays game larry bird would suck bigtime

This is sigworthy.

[GilArenas88]

Hmmmm some people are really underating Bird. Lets do a comparison of the two.

Scorer- Even
Rebounder-Bird
Passer-Bird ( Lebron may have a higher average, but Bird was an amazing passer)
Steals-Lebron
Blocks-Lebron (by a little)
FG% and shooter-Bird
FT% and shooter-Bird (easily)
3pt% and shooter-Bird (easily)
Posting ability-Bird
Driving-Lebron (easily)
Athleticism-Lebron
Toughness-Bird
Defense-Bird (Yeah Lebron is playing good defense this year, but as for the rest of his career unimpressive. People seem to forget that Bird was a three time 2nd teamer on defense, and was excellent at help defense. Even a stat that I dont like for you stat lovers when it comes to the stat Defensive Win Shares Bird finished as number one in the league 3 times, second 3 times)
Clutchness-Bird
Leadership-Bird
B-Ball IQ-Bird (maybe best of all time)

I think at this point Bird wins this easily as far as numbers, achievements, accolades, etc go. Granted Lebron has still a lot of his career to play and will probably make it closer. But at this point to even make the comparison is really unfair toward Bird. Out of all those areas a compared I'd say Lebron has a clear cut advantage in one of them. (driving) But Bird has a clear advantage in many of them.

[WadeKnicks2010]

The only people picking Bird are the ones who didn't see him play. I did. I still do. The airball fadeaways, the missed chip ins from the paint that LeBron could make any day of the week, and the blatant chucking at times when his shot isn't falling. He's a better wide open spot up shooter, by far, and thats it. LeBron would dismantle anything he does today. He's way stronger, quicker, agile, coordinated, and has better leaping ability. Don't be (Please Use More Appropriate Word) and pick BIrd just to sound smart, actually watch him play. He's the greatest SF of all time because of his dominance relative to his era, but this guys post was if in the 2009 draft both bird and lebron were available who would you take. The answer is clearly LeBron.

[Baller 24]

The only people picking Bird are the ones who didn't see him play. I did. I still do. The airball fadeaways, the missed chip ins from the paint that LeBron could make any day of the week, and the blatant chucking at times when his shot isn't falling. He's a better wide open spot up shooter, by far, and thats it. LeBron would dismantle anything he does today. He's way stronger, quicker, agile, coordinated, and has better leaping ability. Don't be (Please Use More Appropriate Word) and pick BIrd just to sound smart, actually watch him play. He's the greatest SF of all time because of his dominance relative to his era, but this guys post was if in the 2009 draft both bird and lebron were available who would you take. The answer is clearly LeBron.

This is ridiculous. You bash Bird by bringing up all the "bad" moments in his career over his amazing accomplishments? Lebron has the physical advantage over him, but that's about it AS OF RIGHT NOW. Bird is still a better post player, his turn around jump shot, 3 point shot, his ability to score from just about any spot on the floor, his rebounding ability, his team defense is better, and Bird along with MJ and West is one of the most clutch players in NBA History, the OP's question is if they were drafted and you "knew" how their careers will play out, who do you pick? 100% would pick Bird, and it really isn't even close, because unless you can see into the future, you better have some strong evidence to back up the case for the 6-7 years LeBron has been in the league.

Bird is the greatest small forward of all time because he was accountable for his teams success, and did anything possible for his team to win (not saying LeBron isn't doing that). Bird won 3 consecutive MVPs, he's a 3 time champion and played in one of the toughest times in the eastern conference, where he had constant duals with Isiah's Pistons, King's Knicks, 'Niques Hawks, MJ's Bulls, Moncrief's Bucks, and Dr.J's Sixers. In the 1980's it's easy to argue that the small forward position at the time was at it's highest peak. You have the following players playing and scoring at high efficient at small forward: Larry Bird, Bernard King, Mark Aguirre, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, Julius Erving, 'Nique Wilkins, James Worthy, and Dennis Rodman (SF for the Pistons).

[tsherkin]

in todays game larry bird would suck bigtime

This is potentially one of the most foolish things I've seen on these boards, ever. And that takes some doing, some real work, because I've seen some posts so incredible in their idiocy that it would take a truly epic post to topple them...

Bird's athleticism is somewhat underrated. He had pretty good end-to-end speed, he just struggled against the uber-athletes of his time and would do so today, which mainly meant that he struggled in man D against 'Nique and Dr. J. And yet at the same time, that's not the hugest of issues. Athletically, you might compare him to a slightly faster version of Dirk (in the open court, and similar laterally). Remember, this is a guy who routinely led the break and made athletic plays around the rim. Didn't get very high off of the ground but he seemed to have very good body control and the kind of ambidexterity and coordination you wouldn't normally expect from someone of that height. Or 6" shorter, really.

In any case, Dirk today is a 26/9 player, and Bird was able to grab 11 rpg in a couple of his seasons while he was playing alongside Parish and McHale, which is far from an unimpressive feat. You've got to think about how important anticipation and positioning are and then remember that he was doing that from the SF position, which made it even MORE difficult for him to grab those boards. Too, you have to recall that the Celtics were perennially under league average in pace, which means that their pace more accurately reflected the fastest teams of the last couple of years.

When was the last time you saw a team throw out 11, 10 and 9 rpg players together in the same season? Phoenix, Dallas, Golden State, none of those teams have managed to do it. That's on account of the disparity in size and rebounding talent, as well as the difference in the way the teams created their fastbreak opportunities. Teams today go small and use aggressive dribble push to create the break, they rarely use outlet passes the same way and they don't dominate the glass to the same degree, so it's moot anyhow. That's not on account of defensive shifts that have changed the game, it's from the diminishing passing abilities you find in bigs. The long outlet or baseball pass from your center is a thing almost entirely of the past, and running teams RARELY use 7' centers these days. You mostly see these kind of passes from Shaq and Duncan, and even they don't do it as well as Parish.

=

Anyway, returning to Lebron and Bird.

If both were 19 and you knew everything about Bird's peak and he didn't have the injuries that eventually derailed him in his prime, then we're talking about a guy who's going to come into this league and regularly toss down 24-27 ppg, 9-11 rpg and somewhere between 6 and 7 apg most seasons. And he'd probably play the 3/4 (or 4/3, really), which would likely help his rebound totals, since he wouldn't be playing next to McHale.

He won't draw fouls at the same rate, but his playmaking and scoring impact would be comparable (remember, Bird was comparable or superior in FG% and a vastly superior perimeter and FT shooter), so scoring efficiency would be similar. It's worth mentioning that Bird's two-year peak in TS% exceeds anything Lebron has done thus far even while averaging 10 FTA/g, so yeah, offensive dominance isn't a problem, nor is efficiency.

Bird was a great help defender... not always in the statistically productive way Lebron has managed this season but he stole the ball at a similar rate and Lebron isn't a fantastic shot-blocker, just a timely one (and he averaged 1+ bpg twice in his career as well, including one season at 1.2 bpg, only 0.1 less than Lebron's current season average).

The difference in man defense would be observably in Lebron's favor, but that's about the only thing that really favors LBJ at this point.

Notice I say "at this point."

One flaw in this thread is that we know Bird's ultimate peak... it's about 30/9/6, and an impact on his team so great that he was among the most dominant players in NBA history. We know that he's held in rare company (Wilt and Russell) as far as guys who won three MVPs consecutively (book-ending the run with titles and Finals MVPs) and we know he was top 3 in the MVP vote for 8 years in a row (and top 2 6 years in a row, and 7 times overall).

That's a hell of a peak.

We do not, however, have any idea what Lebron's peak is. He's already exceeded Bird as a scorer, though some of that has to do with the favorable officiating of the league that began in the 04-05 season as Stern tried to emphasize offense and move away from Riley-ball.

But even still, given Lebron's physical gifts, you know he wouldn't be much diminished in the 90s or 80s, so it's moot. We don't know what to make of the big improvement in his FT%, or his wing jump-shooting. We don't know how good he'll get yet because he's not even 25. This thread can't possibly work because we know too much of one player and not enough of the other.

If we were seeing Lebron in the 27-30 range, yeah, this would work, because we'd look at peak and go "OK, this is what each player was at the greatest level he ever played at" and move on from there, but as is?

I mean, Lebron's good, but Bird was BIRD. Until and unless Lebron exceeds that level (which looks more probable every day), then you HAVE to take Bird.

[That Nicka]

I dunno why this is close, or even a debate... This should be Bird easily

[G35]

Not ready to say Lebron is better than Bird. Two very different players, but Bird has earned the crown.....for now, Lebron has to take it from him......

[Kabookalu]

The only people picking Bird are the ones who didn't see him play. I did. I still do. The airball fadeaways, the missed chip ins from the paint that LeBron could make any day of the week, and the blatant chucking at times when his shot isn't falling. He's a better wide open spot up shooter, by far, and thats it. LeBron would dismantle anything he does today. He's way stronger, quicker, agile, coordinated, and has better leaping ability. Don't be (Please Use More Appropriate Word) and pick BIrd just to sound smart, actually watch him play. He's the greatest SF of all time because of his dominance relative to his era, but this guys post was if in the 2009 draft both bird and lebron were available who would you take. The answer is clearly LeBron.

You're the one trying to sound smart by claiming you did watch him when it's clear you didn't. Bird is kind of like a 6'8 Steve Nash with much better scoring abilities and defense (and as clutch as Nash is, Bird was clutcher), you're probably in the group that compares him to Kyle Korver. Since it's obvious you haven't watched him play I thought I could give you an image of what Bird was like. There are obvious differences between the two and if you gave Nash a bigger body he wouldn't exactly be like Bird, but even though they play different positions, I just see so many similarities in not only their game, but their approach to the game. One example is during clutch situations.

People often associate being clutch by scoring points. I don't think it's limited only to that. Things like grabbing key rebounds, setting great screens, etc, could be considered clutch. When you watch Bird play in the final two minutes, he does everything in his body to win. He's a warrior. Nash is sort of the same but at a lower level, if you watch him off the ball he'll set great hard screens and maybe even grab rebounds and of course will score and make great passes.

[pancakes3]

The airball fadeaways, the missed chip ins from the paint that LeBron could make any day of the week, and the blatant chucking at times when his shot isn't falling.

Bird a bad shooter? a chucker? Larry was a better shooter than Lebron in every facet be it jumpers, fadeaways, 3 pointers, free throws, pull ups, turnarounds, hand in a face, hand not in a face, off one foot, in cold weather, in warm weather, dipsy do's, dipsy don'ts, EVERY FACET. I'm sure the shooting %'s and the TS %'s would back that up.

I'm sure stats will also back up that Lebron has taken way more shots than larry has over the course of 5 seasons, and thus the "blatant chucky" fallacy falls through.

This won't even begin to be a discussion until lebron cracks 0.350 in 3 point shooting, .800 in FT shooting, and .500 in fg%.

[WadeKnicks2010]

The only people picking Bird are the ones who didn't see him play. I did. I still do. The airball fadeaways, the missed chip ins from the paint that LeBron could make any day of the week, and the blatant chucking at times when his shot isn't falling. He's a better wide open spot up shooter, by far, and thats it. LeBron would dismantle anything he does today. He's way stronger, quicker, agile, coordinated, and has better leaping ability. Don't be (Please Use More Appropriate Word) and pick BIrd just to sound smart, actually watch him play. He's the greatest SF of all time because of his dominance relative to his era, but this guys post was if in the 2009 draft both bird and lebron were available who would you take. The answer is clearly LeBron.

This is ridiculous. You bash Bird by bringing up all the "bad" moments in his career over his amazing accomplishments? Lebron has the physical advantage over him, but that's about it AS OF RIGHT NOW. Bird is still a better post player, his turn around jump shot, 3 point shot, his ability to score from just about any spot on the floor, his rebounding ability, his team defense is better, and Bird along with MJ and West is one of the most clutch players in NBA History, the OP's question is if they were drafted and you "knew" how their careers will play out, who do you pick? 100% would pick Bird, and it really isn't even close, because unless you can see into the future, you better have some strong evidence to back up the case for the 6-7 years LeBron has been in the league.

Bird is the greatest small forward of all time because he was accountable for his teams success, and did anything possible for his team to win (not saying LeBron isn't doing that). Bird won 3 consecutive MVPs, he's a 3 time champion and played in one of the toughest times in the eastern conference, where he had constant duals with Isiah's Pistons, King's Knicks, 'Niques Hawks, MJ's Bulls, Moncrief's Bucks, and Dr.J's Sixers. In the 1980's it's easy to argue that the small forward position at the time was at it's highest peak. You have the following players playing and scoring at high efficient at small forward: Larry Bird, Bernard King, Mark Aguirre, Alex English, Adrian Dantley, Julius Erving, 'Nique Wilkins, James Worthy, and Dennis Rodman (SF for the Pistons).

err MVPs, wow! We know how important those are, *Looks at Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki*. Its a lot easier to win those awards and titles when you have Dennis Johnson, McHale, Parish, and Walton on your team I'd imagine. Two Finals with a hall of fame team like that, good job. Even Duncan won more titles with MUCH less help. Shaq won four times with only one superstar and some garbage supporting cast outside of that.

What LeBron is doing on pace to win 60 games with Zydrunas Ilgauskas and Mo Williams is much more impressive to anyone who isn't completely biased and trying to sound smart by picking a player who played further in the past. I have to believe watching Bird play that the only person who'd pick him is someone who didn't see him play. Again, why do people always bring up being able to score everywhere on the floor? He's taken plenty of bad shots in his career, lets not conveniently leave out the crappy fadeaways he's taken, and the chip ins that should have been made from inside the paint. He's not athletic enough to do some of the things LeBron does. I'll take Lebron's drives into the paint and ability to draw fouls and create open opportunities for his teammates over Bird's jump shot chucking.

[WadeKnicks2010]

Whatever, ignore the truth all you want. You all know if you were starting a team today to win a championship with all your money in your bank account at stake you'd take Lebron over Bird. Don't lie to yourself. We're not vying for a job here, no need to be ignorant.