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.
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 now, with current rules and weak competition. He would be perennial MVP, and eat current superstars for breakfast.
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.
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"
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).
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:
Duncan:
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.
Last edited by brain drain : 03-16-2013 at 10:57 AM.
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:
Duncan:
I don't see how anybody in their right mind could say that Bird was a better playoff performer than Duncan.
stats tell the entire story
Look past the box score, and you will see why Bird is better
Look past the box score, and you will see why Bird is better
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Apart from early 00's Lakers no team stands a chance against those Sixers and Bucks teams.
Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird
