LeBron or Bird . . .

[Zeitgeister]

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.

You are the one being ignorant. Larry Bird was better at practically everything other than finishing layups/dunks in traffic. The man to man defense is slightly in Lebron's favor as of this year, but not as an overall defender. No need to take 1 or 2 people who may have been undeserving of their MVPs (which is still arugable) and discredit the award entirely just because Lebron hasn't won any of them yet.

I also have to laugh at you saying Shaq had a garbage supporting cast outside of Kobe and Wade...how long have you been watching basketball?

edit: I also have to laugh at you calling Larry Bird a jump shooting chucker, wtf? You do know that Larry Bird was recently considered the best jump shooter in college basketball history, and really he's probably number one in the pros as well.

[Kabookalu]

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.

Being afflicted by Isiah Thomas' idiocy for so long seems to have influenced your player evaluation ability.

[shawngoat23]

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.

I'd take Bird over LeBron and sleep comfortably after having done so.

[shawngoat23]

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.

Being afflicted by Isiah Thomas' idiocy for so long seems to have influenced your player evaluation ability.

When you know Larry Bird ain't walking through that door to help your team out and when the media suggests that your team might have a shot at the next best thing in 2010, might as well start chugging the Kool-Aid two years early.

[LuvOnTheRun]

bird was soft, no doubt about that.

lebron easily. he could handle him night in and night out. lebron woul shut him completly down and score on him at any will.

lebron is a beast and simply the best player in todays game!

[shawngoat23]

bird was soft, no doubt about that.

Bird was a tough ****. He was as cold-blooded as they come in the late game, and he would call his shot late in the game, back it up, and let the other team know.

If you meant physically, Larry Bird is also as tough as they come. He wasn't scared to fight Julius Erving, Moses Malone, and Charles Barkley at the same time. Sure, he would have gotten his ass kicked if the fight didn't get stopped, but no one in the league today (besides maybe Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, and Ben Wallace) would have the balls to do the same. He wasn't scared to fight Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, still an athletic, imposing 7'2" guy who trained under Bruce Lee. You couldn't be more wrong, and I'm struggling to remember the last time I've seen such a ridiculous statement on RealGM.

lebron is a beast and simply the best player in todays game!

Today's game. Sure. But he wasn't better than Bird.

[Lakers05]

If you're willing to take Bird over Lebron, then you have to assume that Jordan would AT LEAST have a better record in Lebron's place, since the consensus is Jordan > Bird. Given that Jordan barely had the best record in some years with a fully matured Pippen and Grant, I fail to see how he would be able to take Lebron's bunch of misfits to the best record.

The fact of the matter is, Lebron is playing at a level that is unseen since the days of Wilt Chamberlain. His Production Differential is almost twice as Kobe's. His EFF is 5 points higher(3 points are one level, so you could say that the difference between Kobe and Lebron right now is as large as say the difference between Kobe and Odom, when he was a starter.) If the man is not the unanimous MVP, then it will be the biggest travisshammockery since 82games.com was founded.

[shawngoat23]

If you're willing to take Bird over Lebron, then you have to assume that Jordan would AT LEAST have a better record in Lebron's place, since the consensus is Jordan > Bird.

There is nothing inconsistent about that. Jordan > Bird > LeBron.

[LuvOnTheRun]

larry bird was a soft jumpshooter. end of story

[shawngoat23]

larry bird was a soft jumpshooter. end of story

That might be the most persuasive argument you've made.

[TheOUTLAW]

Bird should win this but mainly because he is a known quantity and LeBron is still unknown as far as his max. I don't think there is any way that Bird play SF in this era, but he'd be an equally amazing PF now. I do however think people minimize LeBrons ability however. In addition I think that LeBron is a much better defender than Bird ever was. That being said you really have to go with Bird on this.

[Baller 24]

err MVPs, wow! We know how important those are, *Looks at Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki*.

This is an ignorant statement. I'm going to play something out by your logic:
David Stern: "The 2009 NBA MVP is LeBron James!"
WadeKnicks2010: "Finally, we're all witnessing the greatness"
Baller 24 : "No, Steve Nash and Dirk won it, this has no relevant meaning"

So again, if LeBron wins the MVP this season is it considered meaningless and complete utter trash because Dirk and Nash won it?

I actually love it when people use the Dirk and Nash argument, I'll actually even go deeper into that. The 2005 MVP is obviously his most controversial MVP, but although I would have leaned towards Shaq, there are definitely reasons to why I can see Nash won them. Now, the year before Marbury was traded to the Knicks in the early part of January, while Marion and Joe Johnson played the entire season. Amare was injured for about 25-30 games, yeah; but considering how they were playing before Amare's injury; it wasn't a good start at all, they were 8-10. Amare got injured about a month after, they went on a losing streak, and traded Marbury to New York. Then Amare comes back, you've got their big 3 of Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare finishing off the last 2 months of the season. And so what happens?
--They got a 7 game losing streak
--They finish the season off 10-20
See, I don't know if he ultimately deserved it, but its something that can be debatable; like I said the value was his team was quite significant, regardless if Shaq measured up or not; and it showed especially in games Nash missed, where the Suns went 2-6 (the games they won weren't pretty at all), where in the games he played in their record was 60-15. It's amazing how people try to talk down on the award, when most of the posters don't even understand the value of the award, if you aren't winning games, you're not going to win it, it's simple as that.

In the '05 off season, you've got Joe Johnson and Q. Richardson traded (two guys that were big in the success of the Suns in '05). Then on the top of that, you've got Amare being out for the entire season. So that's 3 guys gone out of the starting lineup; you replace them with Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Eddie House, James Jones, Tim Thomas, and Kurt Thomas; that's a total of 6 new guys that basically Nash utilized as key players for production.

Raja Bell the year before in Utah coming off the bench putting up 12.3 points on good percentages, then you've got Boris Diaw who really wasn't a trusted player that didn't seem to show his potential the year before, Eddie House was a 5ppg bench player, James Jones was a chucker and a scrub, Kurt Thomas was nothing more than a solid all around vet, and Tim Thomas was just another 10-12ppg guy. So that's 6 new players to replace 2 All-Stars, and 1 Starter.

I mean to start the season off, I don't think it was expected of this team to be once again in championship contention, especially with some of the players that were replaced, including Nash missing his biggest and most lethal offensive weapon in Amare. He stepped up, 18/11/4/50%/40%/90%, and took them to a 54 win season. He won the voting by a pretty fair margin, wasn't close what so ever. So, I'm clearly not getting how Nash wasn't a "superstar" at one point in his career, his value to his team was significantly as high compared to Kobe, LeBron, Shaq, Wade, CP3, etc. While his team did the most things, succeed at all measures even in '06 where 6 new players were acquired who were in the past prominent role players and even when his most lethal offensive weapon---Amare was injured for the season. Not saying he deserved them or not, but its debatable IMO.

Wait....isn't the MVP award determined by the NBA season and not by the playoffs? I think so. That's the case for Dirk, he led the league in win shares and offensive win shares, his team had the best record in the entire league, and he was very well responsible for it, statistics---25/9/3/50%/40%/90%--rare. His team had multiple winning streaks throughout the season, and were clearly playing at a level that no team in the league was playing at the time. And it's quite funny that you try and make the award seem like worthless and complete utter trash. Ignorance at its greatest. Bird won MVP

1984 MVP Voting:

Code: Select all

Larry Bird
Bernard King
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Isiah Thomas
Julius Erving

1985 MVP Voting:

Code: Select all

Larry Bird
Magic Johnson
Moses Malone
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Terry Cummings
Michael Jordan
Bernard King
Sidney Moncrief
Isiah Thomas

1987 MVP Voting:

Code: Select all

Larry Bird
Dominique Wilkins
Magic Johnson
Hakeem Olajuwon
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Charles Barkley
Sidney Moncrief
Alex English
Isiah Thomas

Let me guess, winning MVP over the following players is also completely worthless right? Come on, quit with the ignorant statements.

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.

It probably is a lot easier sure, but one more time would Robert Parish and Kevin McHale be in the NBA hall of fame without Bird? Don't think so, we've seen during Bird's injury season that team isn't capable of doing the same with Larry Bird out. And sure, let's completely take away all of the team impact he provides you know the---you know the 144.8 win shares he was accountable for, 2 time league leading, 9 time top 10 in the league, his 3 time league leading defensive win shares, including 8 times in the top 10, and his 1 time league leading offensive win shares, including being the in the top 10 six times, oh and how can we forget Rookie Bird coming onto a 29 win Celtics team and single handily with the same supporting cast playing at a LOWER level turning it around to a 61 win team the season after. Right....so I'm sure Bird benefited from having Kevin McHale and Robert Parish more than Parish and McHale benefiting having Bird.

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.

Ignorance at its finest. You bring up the bad moments in Bird's career, but not the other great moments in some of the most pressure and clutch situations in NBA history, he's nailed the bucket when it mattered the most. My turn, LeBron James missed a free throw by getting an air ball, Larry Bird would NEVER do that now you understand how stupid you sound?

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.

Pot meet kettle. The question by the OP is if you knew exactly how things were going to turn out, we've seen Bird do the same thing LeBron is currently doing, but he did it his rookie year, that's a pretty stupid remark by me right? Well---he did, didn't he? Turning around a 29 win team with players on the complete decline and with no help, he turned them into a 61 win
team.

bird was soft, no doubt about that.

lebron easily. he could handle him night in and night out. lebron woul shut him completly down and score on him at any will.

lebron is a beast and simply the best player in todays game!

Reading is a fundamental skill, and something everyone should have. Bird wasn't soft, if you thought KG is a big jerk, you don't know anything.

larry bird was a soft jumpshooter. end of story

My turn, LeBron has blatantly the most missed travels in NBA history.

Bird should win this but mainly because he is a known quantity and LeBron is still unknown as far as his max. I don't think there is any way that Bird play SF in this era, but he'd be an equally amazing PF now. I do however think people minimize LeBrons ability however. In addition I think that LeBron is a much better defender than Bird ever was. That being said you really have to go with Bird on this.

I'd say LeBron's man to man defense is better, but I'd argue that his help defense isn't, yet.

[Cybulski37]

This is a very very tough call, but after much deliberation I take LeBron by a hair. I mean, he is 24 years old right now, we don't know how good he will be. I assume he'll get better, and even based on his 5.5 years of play I'd take him over any SF not named Bird(throwing championships out the window obviously). I do think he has a shot one day to be a better player than Bird was. This is extremely close though.

[Cybulski37]

bird was soft, no doubt about that.

lebron easily. he could handle him night in and night out. lebron woul shut him completly down and score on him at any will.

lebron is a beast and simply the best player in todays game!

1 on 1 LeBron could probably take Bird... but it's a 5 on 5 game, and I think with that considered, without LeBron improving at all, Bird is still better. Of course LeBron will improve, so we'll see if he ends up passing Bird.

[TheSheriff]

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

exactly. How many rings does lebron have? How many MVPs?

[tsherkin]

larry bird was a soft jumpshooter. end of story

OK, I know I've said this a few times lately, but THIS is the stupidest post I've ever seen.

Did you watch Bird? Ever?

What is "soft?"

Is it soft to hammer around in the paint when you're undersized? To battle for rebounds? To dive out of bounds?

Larry Bird's career ultimately ended because of the back injury that built up BECAUSE HE WAS TOO TOUGH FOR HIS OWN BODY! He threw himself around like Iverson, never backed down from a fight, any of the "tough" things that players do.

This post displaces BRAZEN ignorance of Bird. You never saw him post, slash, ANYTHING. You have no right to speak in this thread.

[TruSkool]

bird would make lebron look like a fool on defense

[KF10]

From all I have gathered from Bird, one thing that sticks the most from him; the determination to win and that killer instinct he had. Honestly, it is frightening to think about.

[Smills91]

The CORRECT answer is BIRD, no contest.

The further along we go the more the 'younger generation' removes itself from probably the best basketball player ever(notice I didn't say athlete). Bird did the most with the least. He's leads RARE company. I'm not knocking LeBron, but he's nowhere near the basketball player Bird was. Bird is in the GOAT conversation in one of the toughest eras of competition the NBA has ever witnessed. Today's NBA is watered down and softened up by the officiating, per Stern's request. The guys today just aren't NEARLY as skilled as the guys of the 80's. The CORRECT answer is BIRD and it's not close.

[rrravenred]

This thread makes my head hurt.

There are some good, cogent arguments as to why you'd take Lebron in this situation. It's a pity that so few posters are actually making them, and are instead coming up with industrial-grade-stupid anti-Bird rubbish.

I really, really like Lebron, despite him receiving only about 10% of the travel calls he should, and he has a definite chance to ascend to the immortal five. But the Sportcenter-Highlight mentality that seems to afflict certain posters is really making me reconsider my affection.

Bird - was - good.

As in: epic-level good, as in: historically-significant good, as in: era-defining good, as in: coaches-fear-this-man good, as in: the-man-matches-the-accolades good.

Lebron is also good, but AS YET hasn't reached Bird's level(s) of good. Should the trajectory upwards continue (or, for that matter, plateau plus championships) then the balance may tip. But boosting Lebron by trying to diminish Bird is just dumb.