Larry Bird - Greatest Clutch Player Ever - Top 3-5 GOAT

[DMAVS41]

Very true. I remember jlauber saying birds fg% if going off todays league, would be around 42 to 46%. Notthing very special.

I don't remember that and I also don't think predicting f% across eras is really all that possible.

Bird was/is one of the truly best players I've ever seen. He just had his moments in the playoffs/finals where he wasn't as great as "the Legend" suggests. Really not specific to Bird....all great players have come up short or played poorly in the playoffs/finals at some point.

But lets not be overly critical. We are talking about a guy that remains the most clutch...or 2nd most clutch player I've ever seen. A guy that won 3 titles as his teams best player and averaged 24/10/7 on great efficiency for his career in the playoffs.

[jlauber]

Very true. I remember jlauber saying birds fg% if going off todays league, would be around 42 to 46%. Notthing very special.

I don't recall making that comment, but, I have stated that Bird's career FG% of .496 has to be taken in proper context. Bird played the entire decade of the "defenseless 80's", a decade in which EVERY player was shooting nearly 50%. The Lakers TEAM had a season of .548 shooting, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 one season.

THEN, in the post-season, Bird dropped to .472. AND, in his five Finals, he shot .455. In fact, Bird had as many games of shooting under 40%, as he did in shooting 50%+, 11 each, in his 31 Finals games. As for clutch, as was pointed out previously, Bird had some HORRIBLE shooting playoffs. In game seven of the '84 Finals, he shot 6-18. On top of that, in his best statistical regular seasons, he had some of his WORST post-seasons. It amazes me that he is held to some "god-like" status here, when, in reality, he had some disasters in the post-season. His best statistical regular season was in 87-88, and yet, he was AWFUL against the Pistons in the playoffs (.351 shooting.) BTW, Magic TORCHED the Pistons in the Finals that year (21.6 ppg on .550 shooting), and SHOULD have won the FMVP.

Bird was a great player, but IMHO, his resume does not move him any higher than 8th all-time, behind Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan, and both Kobe and Hakeem have cases to be ranked higher.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

Never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates

[pauk]

[pauk]

Never won a title with less than 3 HOF teammates

what player didnt need at least 1-2 HOF's to win a championship? this is not tennis...

[PTB Fan]

Larry often had injuries, but he was on money when it was needed most and one of the best at impacting on his team's wins. His worst Finals was when he averaged 15/15/5 in 81, but then he bounced back.

Larry has a great case as the greatest clutch shooter. He had numerous game winners in the post season against excellent competition. And he could be argued as the most clutch player.

Even when he shot badly, he found a way to make an impact and lead his team to wins.

[ILLsmak]

what player didnt need at least 1-2 HOF's to win a championship? this is not tennis...

And which one other than Bill Walton maybe would have made the Hall without being on Bird's team?

I know people will say OMG WUT ABOUT MCHALE but I'd say it's 50/50 at best that he'd make it.

It's not like dude got to play with Kareem.

Guys like Pippen, James Worthy, McHale are amazing players, but who is to say they'd get the nod for the hall if they weren't on teams with top ten players.

-Smak

[swi7ch]

Jordan is the most clutch of all time but Larry Legend is definitely top 3. In fact, he's my GOAT SF.

[97 bulls]

I don't recall making that comment, but, I have stated that Bird's career FG% of .496 has to be taken in proper context. Bird played the entire decade of the "defenseless 80's", a decade in which EVERY player was shooting nearly 50%. The Lakers TEAM had a season of .548 shooting, and even the 30-52 Kings shot .504 one season.

THEN, in the post-season, Bird dropped to .472. AND, in his five Finals, he shot .455. In fact, Bird had as many games of shooting under 40%, as he did in shooting 50%+, 11 each, in his 31 Finals games. As for clutch, as was pointed out previously, Bird had some HORRIBLE shooting playoffs. In game seven of the '84 Finals, he shot 6-18. On top of that, in his best statistical regular seasons, he had some of his WORST post-seasons. It amazes me that he is held to some "god-like" status here, when, in reality, he had some disasters in the post-season. His best statistical regular season was in 87-88, and yet, he was AWFUL against the Pistons in the playoffs (.351 shooting.) BTW, Magic TORCHED the Pistons in the Finals that year (21.6 ppg on .550 shooting), and SHOULD have won the FMVP.

Bird was a great player, but IMHO, his resume does not move him any higher than 8th all-time, behind Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Duncan, and both Kobe and Hakeem have cases to be ranked higher.

I stand corrected. My mistake on misquoting you. But aren't you implying that by comparing his fg% to the league avg at the time?

[97 bulls]

I don't remember that and I also don't think predicting f% across eras is really all that possible.

Bird was/is one of the truly best players I've ever seen. He just had his moments in the playoffs/finals where he wasn't as great as "the Legend" suggests. Really not specific to Bird....all great players have come up short or played poorly in the playoffs/finals at some point.

But lets not be overly critical. We are talking about a guy that remains the most clutch...or 2nd most clutch player I've ever seen. A guy that won 3 titles as his teams best player and averaged 24/10/7 on great efficiency for his career in the playoffs.

Its funny you say that cuz in every conversation we have, you compare stats across eras.

And I'm not being overly critiical. Bird was great, but like eevery other player, his stats must be put into context.

[97 bulls]

And which one other than Bill Walton maybe would have made the Hall without being on Bird's team?

I know people will say OMG WUT ABOUT MCHALE but I'd say it's 50/50 at best that he'd make it.

It's not like dude got to play with Kareem.

Guys like Pippen, James Worthy, McHale are amazing players, but who is to say they'd get the nod for the hall if they weren't on teams with top ten players.

-Smak

In pippens case, id say he's a shoe in. Just based off 94 and 95.


I don't see mchale making it. Going off of how he led the celts in 89.

Worthy was a shell when magic retired. But he still didnt impress either

[jlauber]

I stand corrected. My mistake on misquoting you. But aren't you implying that by comparing his fg% to the league avg at the time?

Sure. His FG% would have dropped in the 90's and 00's for a variety of reasons, one of them being that he probably would have taken more 3pt shots.

The fact is, you simply HAVE to take into account LEAGUE AVERAGE in any of these cross-era discussions. Those that diminish Wilt's 50 ppg season, based on pace (and here again, MJ's '87 NBA averaged 109.9 ppg compared to Wilt's '62 season of 118.8), conveniently ignore the MUCH lower FG% of that '62 season (and all seasons in the 60's BTW.)

And, as I have shown, player-for-player, improved each year from the early 60's to the late 60's, and again into the 70's. And players who played in both decades of the 70's and 80's almost to a man, shot better in the 80's. THEN, from the 80's, and going into the 90's, there was a slow decline. And before someone brings up the 3pt shot...even the CENTERS who played in the 80's saw a sharp decline by the mid-90's.

Once again, there were a VARIETY of reasons why FG%'s were much lower in the 60's. The game was much more physical (players like Lovellette were elbowing Wilt in the face and mouth); the BALL was not uniform, and I have seen photos of players holding a BALD basketball; the venues were often cold and even breezy; and the perhaps the biggest reason...the BRUTAL scheduling. Once again, in Wilt's 61-62 season, when he averaged 48.5 mpg, he not played in a TON of B2B games, he had SIX "3-in-a-row's", three more separate stretches of "4-in-a-row", and even another SEPARATE run of FIVE-in-a-row (and none of the home games were B2B, either.) Factor in the much worse traveling conditions, and the expectations of playing hurt and with more minutes, and it is easy to see why virtually every player shot worse in the early 60's.

BTW, and as I have pointed out in another long post (and I don't feel like digging it up now), Wilt was not only SWARMED in his career, he was often BRUTALIZED. And not only that, but there were two sets of standards, too. Opposing teams could relentllessly pound on Wilt, and get away with it, but Wilt was often called for fouls that were far less than what he was absorbing.

[DMAVS41]

Its funny you say that cuz in every conversation we have, you compare stats across eras.

And I'm not being overly critiical. Bird was great, but like eevery other player, his stats must be put into context.

there is a difference between putting stats in proper context and making claims about what a player would or wouldn't do today. that is all. bird might shoot better today with these laughable perimeter defensive rules. i don't know.

i do know that stats need to be put into proper context. obviously a guy like elgin baylor shooting only 43% for his career needs to be understood...that simply is way more impressive than someone shooting 43% today.

stuff like that. predicting or projecting exact fg% 30 years apart is impossible.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

what player didnt need at least 1-2 HOF's to win a championship? this is not tennis...

Kobe Bryant only needed 1.... 5 times

[97 bulls]

there is a difference between putting stats in proper context and making claims about what a player would or wouldn't do today. that is all. bird might shoot better today with these laughable perimeter defensive rules. i don't know.

i do know that stats need to be put into proper context. obviously a guy like elgin baylor shooting only 43% for his career needs to be understood...that simply is way more impressive than someone shooting 43% today.

stuff like that. predicting or projecting exact fg% 30 years apart is impossible.

The only difference is the wording. As long as you include context in your reasoning. Context is everything. As what it does is take into consideration the different roles and situations of the topic.

For instance, your elgin baylor example. I wholeheartedly agree with this. But for some reason you only try to use this logic for certain players. That I don't understand.

Let look at jlauber. Great poster. He's adjusted my way of thinking on basketball statistics. But he's extremly biased. And can't really put wilts accomplishments into proper perspective. The league was so diffeerent when he played. And defense has evolved so much. As well as the competition.