Originally Posted by Carbine
It's funny how people who argue Bird is greater because he was a better player in his prime than Duncan......then completely reverse it when we're talking about, for example....Bird vs Shaq.
Shaq was as effective an offensive player as Bird, or anyone else ever.
Shaq was a superior rebounder.
Shaq was a superior defender.
BTW, Shaq also has Bird killed in longevity and accolades.
More AS appearances
Four more All-NBA teams
One more All-Defensive team
....yet basically nobody arguing for Bird because they think he was superior in his prime to Duncan (Woah10115) and disregarding career longevity and achievements completely......would turn around and say Shaq was greater than Bird, even though it's the same reason they chose Bird over Duncan.
Shaq has the edge in longevity and achievements over Bird too, which makes it even more illogical.
This post is one big fail.
First of all, if you think Shaq had a better peak than Larry Bird, then go ahead and think it. That you're talking like it's the accepted opinion is, in fact, wrong. Choosing a random player where you think it's applicable doesn't prove your point.
I could argue your ridiculous notion that Shaq was a better defender and had more impact. But I won't.
Mostly, your post is really everything that is wrong with the way people rank players nowadays. Your "can't have it both ways" argument has nothing to do with having your own opinion and basing it on basketball play.