[QUOTE=markinca;15846861]I'm going to guess that the vast majority of people who take Bird over Kobe were the ones who actually were alive during Bird's heyday and saw him play. People talk about Kobe being a killer, Bird was just as much one. His trash talking and competitiveness ranks up there with anyone.

The younger generation I'm confident would all pick Kobe over Bird.[/QUOTE]

I would say that's pretty accurate. I was lucky enough to watch Bird play for the second half of his career. I missed the best years because I was too young. I also got to see all of Jordan's career except the first year or two.

Back in the day I wasn't much of a fan of Jordan because he was a ball hog and he didn't win anything. He scored a lot of points though mostly from dunks and layups. He shot more than anyone else kind of like Harden. He was always going to get his stats. That was pretty much his game for the first half of his career. But once Bird and couldn't play anymore and Magic retired there wasn't a whole lot of competition anymore for him. The Pistons were pretty good I can't remember any other dominant teams though. Once Bulls got Pippen they got better but the first 5-6 years they weren't very good winning wise. After he won several championships I had to give him credit and he wasn't just a ball hog anymore. But I still don't think the NBA was very good overall during those years. It was probably the weakest it had been since the mid to late 70's before Bird/Magic revived it.

I got to watch both play, but primarily bird at the tail end of his career. I also had a lul where I didn't really follow basketball after Mike retired since he was the demigod...so I missed a lot of Kobe's early prime years.

I place Kobe above Bird because I feel like this should encompass an entire resume, not just peak years.


Kobe had literally every box checkmarked. 12x all defensive for a sg? Ridiculous. Scoring? Check. Clutch factor? Check. Championships? Enough to cover an entire hand.

If any of those were missing, I'd gladly place Bird above Kobe. I can't fault people who do. But I feel like people are just intentionally downplaying Kobe when there isn't really much to downplay.

The start of episode 5 of The Last Dance sums up Larry Bird to me; "We're here so we might as well win this".

I got him Easily top 7 , some days top 4 but never TOP 2

[QUOTE=6celtics33;15845386]Not to mention Magic and Kareem are the only top 5 candidates to play on the same team which may have had something to do with winning more. Also if we are going to hammer Lebron about the weak East (I do), we have to do the same about that weak 80s West.[/QUOTE]

Kareem isn't a top 5 candidate. Was he better than Bill Russell? Was he better than Larry Bird? Was he better than Oscar Robertson? Not even close. The only time he beat Wilt was when he had Big O and West and Baylor were hurt. In his prime, Kareem won 2 playoff series in 5 years, that disqualifies him right there from any discussion if you get beat by Jack Sikma twice. He got his 2nd ring sitting on his rear in LA while Magic was in Philly running the 76ers off the court.

[QUOTE=rats60;15849985]Kareem isn't a top 5 candidate. Was he better than Bill Russell? Was he better than Larry Bird? Was he better than Oscar Robertson? Not even close. The only time he beat Wilt was when he had Big O and West and Baylor were hurt. In his prime, Kareem won 2 playoff series in 5 years, that disqualifies him right there from any discussion if you get beat by Jack Sikma twice. He got his 2nd ring sitting on his rear in LA while Magic was in Philly running the 76ers off the court.[/QUOTE]

You reasonably might not have him in your top 5

But he no doubt is a top 5 candidate

[QUOTE=Willikn;15846380]Magic and Bird were average defensive players. I'm not necessarily arguing Kobe ahead of either, but he was far superior at guarding folks. Half of the game is on defense. While I realize that rebounding is a defensive asset, I gave way more credit to the guy who can shut down the other team's guy. Never mind the energy required to be an ace on both ends.

Baffled at how many don't understand what Kareem was. Maybe I don't, but I'm pretty sure that I do.[/QUOTE]

Larry Bird wasn't just good at rebounding, he was one of the greatest of all time. He led the Celtics in rebounding every season but one, playing on a front line with 2 other of the 50 greatest. And has been touched on by others, Bird was very good on defense. He was also very athletic, but since he was white, everyone thinks he was some slow white guy. Kobe was not far superior on defense, they guarded different positions. Any PF would have eaten Kobe alive just like Bird couldn't stay with smaller, quicker players.

I'm a die hard Lakers fan, but Kobe was never at Bird's level. In his prime Bird was the best player on a team that went to 4 finals in a row, won 3 MVPs, 2 Finals MVP and 2 championships. If it wasn't for coming into the league with Magic Johnson, those would all be fours. Before Larry Bird, the Celtics won 32 and 29 games. The next 8 seasons, the Celtics averaged 62 wins, Bird was that good. When was Kobe ever that good?

[QUOTE=6celtics33;15850046]You reasonably might not have him in your top 5

But he no doubt is a top 5 candidate[/QUOTE]

The Lakers first championship was won without Kareem. From 82-91, Magic led the Lakers in win shares every year, he was the best player on those championship teams. A top 5 guy should be able to carry his team. That is something Kareem couldn't do. He needed a better player like Oscar Robertson or Magic Johnson to carry him. Kareem was a great scorer, his sky hook was unstoppable, but very overrated as a player. Once LeBron passes him in points, his legacy will fade. Kareem is the guy who played forever to set the scoring record, soon to be broken. If people can diss Bill Russell whose 11 rings will never be matched, they will forget Kareem once his points record is broken.

[QUOTE=rats60;15850088]Larry Bird wasn't just good at rebounding, he was one of the greatest of all time. He led the Celtics in rebounding every season but one, playing on a front line with 2 other of the 50 greatest. And has been touched on by others, Bird was very good on defense. He was also very athletic, but since he was white, everyone thinks he was some slow white guy. Kobe was not far superior on defense, they guarded different positions. Any PF would have eaten Kobe alive just like Bird couldn't stay with smaller, quicker players.

I'm a die hard Lakers fan, but Kobe was never at Bird's level. In his prime Bird was the best player on a team that went to 4 finals in a row, won 3 MVPs, 2 Finals MVP and 2 championships. If it wasn't for coming into the league with Magic Johnson, those would all be fours. Before Larry Bird, the Celtics won 32 and 29 games. The next 8 seasons, the Celtics averaged 62 wins, Bird was that good. When was Kobe ever that good?[/QUOTE]

100% with you there

[QUOTE=rats60;15850088]Larry Bird wasn't just good at rebounding, he was one of the greatest of all time. He led the Celtics in rebounding every season but one, playing on a front line with 2 other of the 50 greatest. [/QUOTE]

I don't see how this is counter to what I said. I also find it interesting that you respect rebounding in Bird's game, but not so much for the Captain.

[QUOTE=rats60;15850088]Bird was very good on defense. He was also very athletic, but since he was white, everyone thinks he was some slow white guy. [/QUOTE]

See, if we are sticking to white guys, "athletic" isn't the term I'd use for Bird. I would for Ainge. I would for Tom Chambers. Lots of guys that couldn't hold Larry's jock as a basketball player. Where does Larry have the athletic edge over Orlando Wooldridge? Speed? Power? Leaping ability? Quickness?

Kobe could guard three different positions, and did. Larry, just one. If you really believe the two were the same, I'd point to All-Defensive team placements of each. All I can do really.

Note: Did not say I'd have Kobe ahead of Larry overall. Peak of both, Bird. Longevity is a big deal though. Tough call.

[QUOTE=rats60;15850141]The Lakers first championship was won without Kareem. From 82-91, Magic led the Lakers in win shares every year, he was the best player on those championship teams. A top 5 guy should be able to carry his team. That is something Kareem couldn't do. He needed a better player like [B]Oscar Robertson[/B] or Magic Johnson to carry him. [/QUOTE]

I'm a Univ of Cincinnati guy. I once talked to "O" (for about 15 seconds) while I sat next to his statue outside the UC arena. No one loves Oscar more than me.

If you think the Oscar that played with Kareem was the best player on that team, I don't know what to say other than, no.

There can't actually be any sane person on the planet who thinks Kareem is not a top 5 player. I mean seriously. 6 MVPs, 6 rings, all-time scoring leader, all-time win share leader. He's got all the non-stat accolades AND all the stat accolades.

Like, what more could a player possibly do if that's not enough to even get him into the top 5? I'm really asking - what more would you need if you don't consider that top 5? More MVPs? Even more points? Even more win shares? What is there left to do?

I know rats60 generally likes to play the contrarian just to ruffle feathers, but c'mon now.

[QUOTE=markinca;15850473]There can't actually be any sane person on the planet who thinks Kareem is not a top 5 player. [/QUOTE]

If you say that Lew and Kareem were two different players, then maybe.

[QUOTE=Willikn;15850385]I'm a Univ of Cincinnati guy. I once talked to "O" (for about 15 seconds) while I sat next to his statue outside the UC arena. No one loves Oscar more than me.

If you think the Oscar that played with Kareem was the best player on that team, I don't know what to say other than, no.[/QUOTE]

Why were the Bucks in the NBA Finals Oscar’s last season and Kareem couldn’t even get them in the playoffs the next year? Then Kareem missed the playoffs the next year with Gail Goodrich, Lucious Allen and Cazzie Russell on the Lakers. It amazes me how Kareem gets a pass for doing poorly without one of the two top PG of all time leading the team.

[QUOTE=markinca;15850473]There can't actually be any sane person on the planet who thinks Kareem is not a top 5 player. I mean seriously. 6 MVPs, 6 rings, all-time scoring leader, all-time win share leader. He's got all the non-stat accolades AND all the stat accolades.

Like, what more could a player possibly do if that's not enough to even get him into the top 5? I'm really asking - what more would you need if you don't consider that top 5? More MVPs? Even more points? Even more win shares? What is there left to do?

I know rats60 generally likes to play the contrarian just to ruffle feathers, but c'mon now.[/QUOTE]

How about win more than 2 playoff series from 1975-79?

[QUOTE=rats60;15850618]How about win more than 2 playoff series from 1975-79?[/QUOTE]

You sir are picking the only two years wherein Kareem missed more than 10 games due to injury. Missed 20 and 17.

If we are picking on a guy for injury that's really gonna hurt your Bird over Kareem argument.


[QUOTE=rats60;15850608]Why were the Bucks in the NBA Finals Oscar’s last season and Kareem couldn’t even get them in the playoffs the next year? [/QUOTE]

Averaged 30 ppg, 14 rbs, and led the league in blocks. Missing those 17 games probably?

Im from Terre Haute, IN home of the ISU Sycamores! There is a statute of bird out side of the Hulman Center where they play but even I wouldn't put him above MJ, Lebron or Kobe. top 5 possibly, top 10 without question! The man had little to no athletic ability but was a basketball savant and probably talked more trash than anyone on the court. and he dunked once! There may never be another player quite like Bird.
[url=https://flic.kr/p/2hXbLEA][img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49194909486_7428f95a97_w.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/2hXbLEA]20191208_160707[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/151086784@N06/]Seth Cavins[/url], on Flickr

Sorry but had to show it off and it seemed like a good place to do it!

[QUOTE=markinca;15850473]6 MVPs, 6 rings, all-time scoring leader, all-time win share leader. He's got all the non-stat accolades AND all the stat accolades.

Like, what more could a player possibly do if that's not enough to even get him into the top 5? I'm really asking - what more would you need if you don't consider that top 5? More MVPs? Even more points? Even more win shares? What is there left to do?
[/QUOTE]

Here's a fun one to add.

Kareem finished top five in the MVP voting.. 15 times. Without knowing I'd guess LeBron is 2nd with 13. Will be 14 if this year ever ends.

Larry legend was a beast for sure but his prime was too short lived
When you argue top 5-10 all time, longevity matter for sure



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=Willikn;15850361]I don't see how this is counter to what I said. I also find it interesting that you respect rebounding in Bird's game, but not so much for the Captain.
ll.[/QUOTE]

When you are the tallest guy on the floor, you should lead the league in rebounding 11 times in 13 years not 1 time in 20 years. If you are a great shooter you should lead the league in FG% 9 times in 13 years not 1 time in 20 years. When you are great scorer, you lead the league in scoring 7 years in a row not 2 times in 20 years. When you are a great passer, you lead the league in assists instead of never being in the top 10.

[QUOTE=yaoming;15851136]Larry legend was a beast for sure but his prime was too short lived
When you argue top 5-10 all time, longevity matter for sure



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

everyone's prime/career was short back then. It's easy to forget nowadays with charter flights and first-class lodging, trainers, and diets, but it wasn't like that back then. Players flew commercial. Players smoked and drank during halftimes. No one was playing 15+ years back then.

Magic? 13 year career.

Bird? 13 years.

Wilt? 14 years.

Russell? 13 years.

West? 14 years.

and so on and so on and so on. The only great player who played a long time back then (that's off the top of my head) is Kareem.

[QUOTE=Willikn;15850644]You sir are picking the only two years wherein Kareem missed more than 10 games due to injury. Missed 20 and 17.

If we are picking on a guy for injury that's really gonna hurt your Bird over Kareem argument.




Averaged 30 ppg, 14 rbs, and led the league in blocks. Missing those 17 games probably?[/QUOTE]

I am picking on 5 years. Sure he missed 17 games in 75 but when he came back they lost 13 of 19 and 8 of 12. He couldn’t get them 1 more win to get them in the playoffs? He was perfectly healthy the next season playing 82 games and missing the playoffs. He was also healthy in 77 but lost 4-0 to Walton and in 79 losing 4-1 to Sikma.

I grew up in LA. For 14 seasons I watched Kareem and I never felt he was a guy that I would build a team around. He was never an alpha dog, he was a number 2 that could give you stats, but not wins without a all time great leading him. When he had great players like Gail Goodrich, Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley he disappointed.

Again...I ask anyone....how can you simultaneously marginalize Kobe's accomplishments whilst building up Bird?

I'm not saying Bird above Kobe is wrong or vice versa...I'm just intrigued by some of the reasoning.

'Kobe's defense in his later stages was overrated'. >12x all-defensive selections given out as consolation prizes?

'Bird's defense was vastly underrated and appreciated..it didn't show up on stat sheets or awards.' >'The Man' keeping Larry down? o wait...

'Larry was better at rebounding' Well yeah...he also played an entirely different position. No doubt he was a great and one of the best, but that's like saying MJ isn't better than half the people on the list because he couldn't secure 10 boards a game as a sg. Or that Shaq should be ranked lower than Nash because he couldn't drop 10 dimes a game.



Larry was a beast, and so was Kobe. There is no marginalizing either. Because they're both all time greats and dominated the league for a stretch.

[QUOTE=rats60;15851165]When you are the tallest guy on the floor, you should lead the league in rebounding 11 times in 13 years not 1 time in 20 years. [/QUOTE]

Says the guy who feels that Wilt is the best player of all-time. Wilt was the one playing against midgets. Not Kareeem.

Side: I do enjoy the back and forth. I'm just messin'

[QUOTE=rats60;15851255]
I grew up in LA. For 14 seasons I watched Kareem and I never felt he was a guy that I would build a team around. He was never an alpha dog, he was a number 2 that could give you stats, but not wins without a all time great leading him. When he had great players like Gail Goodrich, Jamaal Wilkes and Adrian Dantley he disappointed.[/QUOTE]

Believe it or not, I do agree with SOME of what you are saying. The issue I have is, at some point you have to look at the scoreboard. By every form of measure we have, Kareem is the best center to ever play. The best college player ever. Arguments against (and I've taken that position) will always lose to the numbers.

Neither of us had MVP votes during Kareem's run, but those that did sure did like him.. every year. Finals MVP at the tail end argues against the "2nd fiddle" thing too.

One can toss out the Wilt numbers when Bill Russell was the only other competent center in the league (at 6'9") and be in awe. Gets real when you see him against Elvin Hayes though. Gets worse when you see a clip of him trying to shoot a free throw.