one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?
Printable View
one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]one of these dudes is unquestionably the greatest white basketball player ever. so tell me, who is better between the two?[/QUOTE]
Duncan
I love Duncan but I'd take Bird in a heartbeat.
[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]I love Duncan but I'd take Bird in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE]
This.
id take bird as well. he had that redneck grit and swag. tim duncan is whiter than wayne brady and bryant gumble combined.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Duncan[/QUOTE]
:roll:
:roll:
:kobe:
Tim Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird. Message boards give too much credence to difference of opinion.
[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]I love Duncan but I'd take Bird in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE]
+1. Duncan is more impactfull defensively, but Bird isnt slouch there either. Pretty much everywhere else Bird has a clear advantage. TD is great scorer, Bird is GOAT-like. TD is clutch, Bird is GOAT-like clutch, TD is a good passer, Bird is GOAT-passer in his position, etc.
Bird.... not close .... at all.
:wtf:
There needs to be more discussion and in-depth analysis than the cliche "it's not close".
This a question I actually wanted to see more talk about too.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]There needs to be more discussion and in-depth analysis than the cliche "it's not close".
This a question I actually wanted to see more talk about too.[/QUOTE]
It's a very interesting question. I actually have a lot to say on this topic, but I'm really busy for the next week and a half (not that my opinion is particularly important, but I think this is definitely a comparison worthy of discussion). If this thread is still active at that point I'll post my thoughts (perhaps I'll bump it anyway).
[QUOTE=fpliii]It's a very interesting question. I actually have a lot to say on this topic, but I'm really busy for the next week and a half (not that my opinion is particularly important, but I think this is definitely a comparison worthy of discussion). If this thread is still active at that point I'll post my thoughts (perhaps I'll bump it anyway).[/QUOTE]
Sounds good, man.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115]:roll:
:roll:
:kobe:
Tim Duncan is nowhere near Larry Bird. Message boards give too much credence to difference of opinion.[/QUOTE]
You either didn't watch Bird or haven't paid attention to Duncan to think it's absurd to say Duncan.
I could give you a ton of reasons, but winning 4 titles and winning 50 or more games 14 consecutive years (never been done before...previous high was 12)...all while playing with by far the least amount of help any superstar to win that amount has had...I'll take Duncan.
I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.
bird easily. bird is a legend he could do anything on the court. only thing duncan can do is play defense the rest of his game is average at best.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]
I can't even imagine what the results would have been like if Duncan had played on teams even close to as talented as Bird's Celtics.[/QUOTE]
And I can't imagine what what the results would have been like if Bird had played in a 29-30-team joke of the league with more than 70% pure garbage teams.
This goes both ways.
give me Duncan. guy is a monster on d and on the block. some of those finals performances were insane.
Bird. Not close.
[QUOTE=Kovach]And I can't imagine what what the results would have been like if Bird had played in a 29-30-team joke of the league with more than 70% pure garbage teams.
This goes both ways.[/QUOTE]
Not only that, Duncan in Golden age wouldnt win any MVPs, DPOYs, and certainly would had won less rings compared to Bird.
Now imagine what Bird could do [I]now[/I], with current rules and weak competition. He would be [B]perennial [/B]MVP, and eat current superstars for breakfast.
[QUOTE=Harison]Not only that, Duncan in Golden age wouldnt win any MVPs, DPOYs, and certainly would had won less rings compared to Bird.
Now imagine what Bird could do [I]now[/I], with current rules and weak competition. He would be [B]perennial [/B]MVP, and eat current superstars for breakfast.[/QUOTE]
Certainly would have had less rings? What is the basis for this claim?
[QUOTE=Kovach]And I can't imagine what what the results would have been like if Bird had played in a 29-30-team joke of the league with more than 70% pure garbage teams.
This goes both ways.[/QUOTE]
I think that overstates it a bit, but not sure what relevance that really has...it's not like Duncan's numbers are based on his competition or anything like that.
I have no problem with someone taking Bird...just not an easy choice if we are being objective.
The under-rating of Duncan and what he has done is crazy. If he had played the exact same career in a place like Boston or LA or NY...the answers would be extremely different than they have been in this thread. And that is silly.
Just imagine for a second that Duncan had led the Knicks to 4 titles and 14 straight years over 50 wins...LOL at the idea that people would be saying..."Bird and it isn't close"
I'll roll w/ Larry Joe Bird.
IMO, Bird at his ABSOLUTE best was simply on another level from Duncan. That's what makes me rank him higher (I have him in my top 6; Duncan somewhere around the 8-9 range).
This is getting ridiculous.
I think everybody agrees that Duncan is clearly the better defender.
Bird played in a significantly higher-paced and higher scoring era, so comparing raw numbers doesn't make much sense.
Let's look at advanced stats for the playoffs (because I guess we all agree that should be the measuring stick for comparing all time greats, who cares about regular season games against teams with losing records?).
Bird:
[IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img854/4044/birdplayoffs.png[/IMG]
Duncan:
[IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img818/8479/duncanplayoffs.png[/IMG]
I don't see how anybody in their right mind could say that Bird was a better playoff performer than Duncan.
Actually, Duncan was better, and it's not even close.
And to those who claim that Duncan had it easy in a weak era: I'd take every bet that the Western Conference during Duncan's era was every bit as tough as the Eastern Conference of the Bird Era.
[QUOTE=brain drain]This is getting ridiculous.
I think everybody agrees that Duncan is clearly the better defender.
Bird played in a significantly higher-paced and higher scoring era, so comparing raw numbers doesn't make much sense.
Let's look at advanced stats for the playoffs (because I guess we all agree that should be the measuring stick for comparing all time greats, who cares about regular season games against teams with losing records?).
Bird:
[IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img854/4044/birdplayoffs.png[/IMG]
Duncan:
[IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img818/8479/duncanplayoffs.png[/IMG]
I don't see how anybody in their right mind could say that Bird was a better playoff performer than Duncan.[/QUOTE]
stats tell the [B]entire[/B] story :rolleyes:
Look past the box score, and you will see why Bird is better
[QUOTE=kNicKz]stats tell the [B]entire[/B] story :rolleyes:
Look past the box score, and you will see why Bird is better[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, I clearly forgot that Bird won more championship with worse teammates. And that he never lost against lower-seeded teams in the playoffs. My mistake.
[QUOTE=brain drain]Oh yeah, I clearly forgot that Bird won more championship with worse teammates. And that he never lost against lower-seeded teams in the playoffs. My mistake.[/QUOTE]
I don't need to explain to you why Bird is better
[QUOTE=kNicKz]I don't need to explain to you why Bird is better[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I know, cause you just need to smoke some pot, listen to the legends of yore and look beyond the boxscore to see the light.
lol @ people not appreciating Tim Duncan. did you people even watch what he was doing in the playoffs.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I think that overstates it a bit, but not sure what relevance that really has...it's not like Duncan's numbers are based on his competition or anything like that.
I have no problem with someone taking Bird...just not an easy choice if we are being objective.
The under-rating of Duncan and what he has done is crazy. If he had played the exact same career in a place like Boston or LA or NY...the answers would be extremely different than they have been in this thread. And that is silly.
Just imagine for a second that Duncan had led the Knicks to 4 titles and 14 straight years over 50 wins...LOL at the idea that people would be saying..."Bird and it isn't close"[/QUOTE]
I wasn't trying to underrate Duncan, he is one of the all-time greats in my book, I just get agitated by the idea that Bird's success was the reflection of talent he was surrounded by. It was overwhelming team basketball that made Boston a dominant superteam, not individual talents of his team-mates, at least not to an extent people try to present it nowdays.
[QUOTE=brain drain]
And to those who claim that Duncan had it easy in a weak era: I'd take every bet that the Western Conference during Duncan's era was every bit as tough as the Eastern Conference of the Bird Era.[/QUOTE]
Apart from early 00's Lakers no team stands a chance against those Sixers and Bucks teams.
[QUOTE=Bucket_Nakedz]tim duncan is whiter than wayne brady and bryant gumble combined.[/QUOTE]
I see that as a strong quality.
I think its a toss up. Bird had maybe the best peak of all time in the mid-80s. The guy can carry an offense and still hold his own as a defender because of his IQ on the court. He is more limited than Duncan in terms of size and athleticism but makes up for it in skill.
Duncan is a great defender and the best offensive post player of the past two 10-15 years. Shaq was more dominant due to his physicality but Duncan's skills on the block trump his. Really good passer too. Championship center piece style big who can anchor both ends of the floor.
I'd prob lean Duncan just because of the value of post player and because I've seen a lot more of his play. Grew up watching Duncan compared to watching some reruns of Bird so I don't think I can rate Bird accurately.
When ISHers make all time greatest lists these two are usually seperated by like 3-5 spots so not sure how ppl are going to say its not even close.
No, I meant hold his own as in not being a liability on defense. That "more limited" comment was meant just as players in general, not as defenders. Guess I should have been more clear there.
[QUOTE=Kovach]Apart from early 00's Lakers no team stands a chance against those Sixers and Bucks teams.[/QUOTE]
Lol, the mighty Don Nelson Bucks.
What did those teams do to separate themselves from teams like the 99-00 Trailblazers, the early 00s-Sacto Kings, the 05-06 Mavs, the Mid-00s Suns.
And the 76ers were, while great, clearly less dominating than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. And no, even fo fo fo won't change that.
[QUOTE=brain drain]Lol, the mighty Don Nelson Bucks.
What did those teams do to separate themselves from teams like the 99-00 Trailblazers, the early 00s-Sacto Kings, the 05-06 Mavs, the Mid-00s Suns.
[/QUOTE]
Had much more firepower. And also had the 6th guy that would start for any of those teams. They were the team with most wins of that decade for a good reason.
If you break it down to careers, Tim Duncan wins easily.
If you break it down to who you would want to build your team around, Tmmy probably wins that one.
If you break it down to who had the most impact (the only thing that matters) in their peak, it could go either way.
[QUOTE=Rysio]bird easily. bird is a legend he could do anything on the court. only thing duncan can do is play defense [B]the rest of his game is average at best.[/B][/QUOTE]
:facepalm I strongly disagree. He plays the fundamentals, which led him to have a more than impressive career. [B]20.1 ppg 11.2 rpg 3.1 apg .507 fg%[/B] as a big man this is terrific. 2 MVPs 4 Rings 3 FMVPs If I have to start a franchise I will pick Duncan in a heartbeat. (Love Bird tho, who doesn't) :confusedshrug:
Tim Duncan has a better career than Bird.\
Anyway 4 > 3 nuffa said
Duncan. Best player in his era.
you all need to watch every magic vs. bird game then come back to this thread. Duncan has never been in a battle like that. Duncan is top 10 all time and an amazing player whose ATG stock never ceases to rise but if I'm in the playoffs I'm taking a prime Larry Bird. That man was a GUNNER, straight up. Duncan couldn't guard Larry Bird
[QUOTE=kNicKz]you all need to watch every magic vs. bird game then come back to this thread. Duncan has never been in a battle like that. Duncan is top 10 all time and an amazing player whose ATG stock never ceases to rise but if I'm in the playoffs I'm taking a prime Larry Bird. That man was a GUNNER, straight up. Duncan couldn't guard Larry Bird[/QUOTE]
are you 12?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p-9GI85xcs[/url]
holy **** :bowdown: