Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-17-2013, 12:35 AM   #76
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucket_Nakedz
btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.



Are you really under the impression that he's white?
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:36 AM   #77
gengiskhan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,574
gengiskhan has a bad reputationgengiskhan has a bad reputationgengiskhan has a bad reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucket_Nakedz
btw i was just juxtin bout timmy being a product of pops. hes in my top 10, but i still feel bird is better, therefore the goat white baller.

In today's kiddy NBA era. these people talk about individual accolades.

Duncan swept MVP only once 2003 (reg sea MVP + FMVP in same year)

Bird has done it TWICE (1984 mvp sweep & 1986 MVP sweep).

& Bird also has 1985 season MVP in the middle.

in other words: ABSOLUTE SHEER DOMINANCE OF AN ERA

1984: Season MVP + FMVP
1985: Season MVP + (NBA Finalist)
1986: Season MVP + FMVP


When was Duncan even REMOTELY CLOSE TO this kind of SHEER DOMINANCE.

Even Shaq did not DOMINATED in watered down 2000 era.
gengiskhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:52 AM   #78
D.J.
College superstar
 
D.J.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Astoria, NY
Posts: 4,996
D.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Anyone saying it's one sided is absolutely wrong. They're very close, but also played completely different styles. On one hand, Larry Bird at his best was basically LeBron James with better rebounding, post play, and elite three point shooting. He also IMO had the highest ball IQ of anyone to ever play. Tim Duncan at his best was arguably the most fundamentally sound big man to ever play and the best passing big along with Chris Webber and Brad Daugherty.

Duncan was obviously the far superior defender. That's not debatable. His 2003 postseason was insane. Bird was the more complete player and at 6'9" 230, could play any position. Their peaks are very close and you could argue for either one. For the final play of a game, I'd rather have Bird. For a game 7, could go either way. For an entire series, I would actually go with Duncan because ultimately, defense is going to win in a best of 7.

In a GOAT list, Bird should be a couple of spots higher. No one has had his ability to know where every player was, his ball IQ, his ability to play all 5 positions(only Charles Barkley comes close), and his ability to put up high numbers across the scoreboard with amazing efficiency. He was a better version of LeBron. A lot of it is going to depend on what your team needs. Can't go wrong with either one though.
D.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:55 AM   #79
Baller1986
The Real ISH Legend
 
Baller1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 844
Baller1986 has a near all-star reputation hereBaller1986 has a near all-star reputation hereBaller1986 has a near all-star reputation hereBaller1986 has a near all-star reputation hereBaller1986 has a near all-star reputation hereBaller1986 has a near all-star reputation here
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Are you really under the impression that he's white?


Duncan is only Half White. TD's daughter is 3/4 white and 1/4 black.





Duncan's Grandmother.

Last edited by Baller1986 : 03-17-2013 at 01:04 AM.
Baller1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:56 AM   #80
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J.
Anyone saying it's one sided is absolutely wrong. They're very close, but also played completely different styles. On one hand, Larry Bird at his best was basically LeBron James with better rebounding, post play, and elite three point shooting. He also IMO had the highest ball IQ of anyone to ever play. Tim Duncan at his best was arguably the most fundamentally sound big man to ever play and the best passing big along with Chris Webber and Brad Daugherty.

Duncan was obviously the far superior defender. That's not debatable. His 2003 postseason was insane. Bird was the more complete player and at 6'9" 230, could play any position. Their peaks are very close and you could argue for either one. For the final play of a game, I'd rather have Bird. For a game 7, could go either way. For an entire series, I would actually go with Duncan because ultimately, defense is going to win in a best of 7.

In a GOAT list, Bird should be a couple of spots higher. No one has had his ability to know where every player was, his ball IQ, his ability to play all 5 positions(only Charles Barkley comes close), and his ability to put up high numbers across the scoreboard with amazing efficiency. He was a better version of LeBron. A lot of it is going to depend on what your team needs. Can't go wrong with either one though.



Some very good points but I don't agree with everything. He was like LeBron in how he was involved in all facets of the game. But he wasn't ball-dominant and he wasn't the point forward that LeBron is, either.


And Duncan is not the 3rd best passing big man ever. Sabonis, Walton, Kareem, Vlade are all easily better. David Robinson was certainly a better passer and so was Garnett. He was a great passer but not on any shortlist.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:59 AM   #81
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baller1986
Duncan is only Half White. TD's daughter is 3/4 white and 1/4 black.




I was thinking...I remember his Wife. She was at the draft with him.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 01:22 AM   #82
D.J.
College superstar
 
D.J.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Astoria, NY
Posts: 4,996
D.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputationD.J. has a terrific reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Some very good points but I don't agree with everything. He was like LeBron in how he was involved in all facets of the game. But he wasn't ball-dominant and he wasn't the point forward that LeBron is, either.



He wasn't ball dominant like LeBron, but LeBron's game is the closest to Bird's. And it can be argued Bird was an equal or better point forward than LeBron though the term really didn't become popular until Scottie Pippen. Actually, here's an article about Bird and playing point forward:

http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2...etball-legend/

They were 29-5 to start and Bird was averaging 19/9/8 in 31 games. This was Bird at 34 with a terrible back. Also remember he did have stretches in the 80's where he did play point forward and was even more dominant in those stretches.


Quote:
And Duncan is not the 3rd best passing big man ever. Sabonis, Walton, Kareem, Vlade are all easily better.


No they were not all better. Sabonis and Walton are on par for sure. Kareem and Vlade, no. And Daugherty was a better passer than both Kareem and Vlade. Passing ability isn't always in the assist averages, especilly for big men. Guys like Duncan, Daugherty, Sabonis, and Walton made not just nice passes, but the right passes.


Quote:
David Robinson was certainly a better passer and so was Garnett.


Absolutely not. Duncan was better than both by a good amount.
D.J. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 03:51 AM   #83
julizaver
Serious playground baller
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 435
julizaver is a pretty well-respected posterjulizaver is a pretty well-respected posterjulizaver is a pretty well-respected poster
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Hm, never considered Tim Dunkan as a white player - is he ?

Larry Bird is the greatest white player in NBA modern history (after 1979).

About Tim Dunkan - he is center playing PF position - at first due to the presence of David Robinson who at his peak years was better than Dunkan (in terms of talent, numbers). Anyway Dunkan is an unique player - do the simple things, could play at both center and PF position, great playoff performer (when it counts).
julizaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 05:10 AM   #84
brain drain
Serious playground baller
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 434
brain drain has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Larry Bird was a better offensive player than Shaq. Shaq was naturally more efficient. He wasn't even as good a scorer. Bird was better.


The defense thing is ridiculous and this is one of those things where "period" is inevitable. Shaq played subpar defense for most of his career. He wasn't a "great" post defender. he was very good, but if you put the ball on the floor he'd give up. He is the worst pick n' roll defender I've ever seen. He refused to come out on shooters. Rim-protection isn't shot-blocking. That's one element. Other elements are positioning, anchoring, covering, altering shots thru contests, fundamental play on the block, paint protection, intimidating. Intimidation is not looking at how big Shaq is. Intimidation is Ben Wallace. Intimidating is Dikembe Mutombo...that is personified. Shaq got you on the weak side, he blocked you if you tried to shoot over him. He didn't anchor your defense. He was a great player and a center, so we give him credit as a great defender. There is some revisionism about Bird being a liability, tho he was far too intelligent to get abused by people. Bird was as good a team defender as you'd find, a great post defender, a hustle player, and would make huge plays on D. Bird was better.


Shaq is a better rebounder. He was a center and Bird was a SF. But that's fine. After the last few years I finally understand a reason for people who think Shaq should have been a better rebounder than he was. I thought he was great, but I forgot that he didn't do shit on defense. How many boards would he get if he actually defended? He'd still be a double-double guy, but his rebounding would probably go down. Tho it was great the two years he should have been MVP.


But yes, like you said, Bird is the better passer. He's also the better off-ball player. That might not be important, as Shaq was a center, but just as with rebounds we'll take it into consideration. Bird made players better. He was smarter, more clutch, a better team player, not a stat whore.


Those are much clearer advantages, so you know.

IS THIS REAL LIFE? Anybody who thinks that Shaq wasn't as good a scorer as Bird needs to lay the pipe down right NOW.

Also, stop comparing raw stats. You need to adjust for pace to compare over eras. Bird had NOWHERE NEAR the offensive impact that Shaq had.

Put Shaq on those Celtics teams (and exchange Parish for a SF of similar quality) and its basically GAME OVER for the 80s, not just three meager titles for a team full of HOFers and numerous exits against lower seeded teams.
brain drain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 05:13 AM   #85
InspiredLebowski
Roy Hibbert Super Star
 
InspiredLebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Birthplace of basketball
Posts: 26,285
InspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginableInspiredLebowski is the Michael Jordan of posters with the best reputation imaginable
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Stop comparing dominant post scorers to wings that had some post game. Both all time greats, that's not good enough?
InspiredLebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 09:21 AM   #86
knicksman
Good college starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,476
knicksman has a bad reputationknicksman has a bad reputationknicksman has a bad reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
They don't win in 81, much less in 84.


Duncan has been a much different player since 2005. You could take the injuries that he kept hushed when going back to 2005, but since then his role and option status has been the been one of the guys on the team, in an equal opportunity offense. Which is fine, Jordan had the same thing happen in 1991. But his court status was still the #1 guy. Duncan was the best player and a player within the system. From 2005/06 on he was nowhere near the same player. The offense did not go thru him the same way and he didn't have the level of responsibility that is associated with his peak. He always played the right way but he was much more conservative from then on. Honestly, a valid reason (as justification) could very well have been not having Robinson next to him and instead of having Nesterovic, then Oberto, and also backups who weren't that good. Of course, much of this would have been avoided if he moved to center, but I digress...


Duncan straight up is not close to Bird. And the thought is ridiculous. He has a list of accomplishments that make it sound valid but he's float out not as good and didn't have as much impact. He has more longevity, but not enough to discount that Bird was easily a better player. Bird had better teams and he also had more than twice the competition. If Duncan was on teams as good as the ones Bird was on then Duncan wouldn't have stood out as much.

I think you got the 2 players interchanged. Bird plays like robertson and we all knew who robertson was while duncan plays like russell. Thats why bird only won once in his prime while 2 of his rings came when hes not yet statistically dominant. This is duncan easily.
knicksman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:00 PM   #87
Rameek
Krust Kingz
 
Rameek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tokyo from Brooklyn
Posts: 6,961
Rameek is popular on this boardRameek is popular on this boardRameek is popular on this boardRameek is popular on this board
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by gengiskhan
/thread.

seriously! Thats the NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

In modern day NBA (1970 - Present) excluding the 50s & 60s & 40s...

Only 3 Players are considered UNQUESTIONABLE GOAT for their ability to either TRANSFORM or TRANSCEND the game forever.

1. Michael Jordan: TRANSENDED the game forever where the rules are completely changed post MJ era. (WHOLE GENERATION COPIES HIM)

2. Magic Johnson: TRANSFORMED the game where modern day PURE PLAYMAKING PGs copy him.

3. LARRY BIRD: TRANFORMED the game where mordern day PURE or POINT FORWARDS copy him (LBJ, Pippen, T-mac)

Where is dat Tim Duncan in this argument.

NOWHERE!
The NBA was just getting a foothold in popularity. It wasnt even close back then when it came to popularity. NFL, MLB, Boxing... So Magic Bird got it going and Jordan blew it up. This is why they are revered so much. TV time.
Rameek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:10 PM   #88
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by knicksman
I think you got the 2 players interchanged. Bird plays like robertson and we all knew who robertson was while duncan plays like russell. Thats why bird only won once in his prime while 2 of his rings came when hes not yet statistically dominant. This is duncan easily.


Uhh, what? Bird plays like who? No, I don't think you know what you're saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brain drain
IS THIS REAL LIFE? Anybody who thinks that Shaq wasn't as good a scorer as Bird needs to lay the pipe down right NOW.

Also, stop comparing raw stats. You need to adjust for pace to compare over eras. Bird had NOWHERE NEAR the offensive impact that Shaq had.

Put Shaq on those Celtics teams (and exchange Parish for a SF of similar quality) and its basically GAME OVER for the 80s, not just three meager titles for a team full of HOFers and numerous exits against lower seeded teams.


Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:19 PM   #89
Whoah10115
Linja Status
 
Whoah10115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 7,968
Whoah10115 is starting to rub some people the wrong way
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J.
He wasn't ball dominant like LeBron, but LeBron's game is the closest to Bird's. And it can be argued Bird was an equal or better point forward than LeBron though the term really didn't become popular until Scottie Pippen. Actually, here's an article about Bird and playing point forward:

http://boston.sportsthenandnow.com/2...etball-legend/

They were 29-5 to start and Bird was averaging 19/9/8 in 31 games. This was Bird at 34 with a terrible back. Also remember he did have stretches in the 80's where he did play point forward and was even more dominant in those stretches.


I do think Bird did a lot less off the ball after 1989. After he hurt his back he took a lot more ball-handling responsibility...I don't remember who the PG was. His assists even went up. I remember my friend talking about this last year, and I had thought about it a lot before that. You can argue that Bird was his equal there, but the reason I won't is because LeBron did it more.


Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J.
No they were not all better. Sabonis and Walton are on par for sure. Kareem and Vlade, no. And Daugherty was a better passer than both Kareem and Vlade. Passing ability isn't always in the assist averages, especilly for big men. Guys like Duncan, Daugherty, Sabonis, and Walton made not just nice passes, but the right passes.


I'm sorry, but I think you're incredibly off-base. In fact, I'm shocked. Sabonis and Walton are flat out much much much much better passers than Duncan is. Vlade was almost comparable with Webber. As far as pure passing you can add Brad Miller to the list. Duncan made the right passes, as you said. They played thru him. But it wasn't the pass, itself, the way it was with the other guys.



Quote:
Originally Posted by D.J.
Absolutely not. Duncan was better than both by a good amount.



No, he was not.
Whoah10115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2013, 12:24 PM   #90
Carbine
Facts Are Misleading
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: A Court Near You
Posts: 7,942
Carbine has decent reputationCarbine has decent reputation
Default Re: Tim Duncan vs Larry Bird

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whoah10115
Larry Bird was a better offensive player than Shaq. Shaq was naturally more efficient. He wasn't even as good a scorer. Bird was better.


The defense thing is ridiculous and this is one of those things where "period" is inevitable. Shaq played subpar defense for most of his career. He wasn't a "great" post defender. he was very good, but if you put the ball on the floor he'd give up. He is the worst pick n' roll defender I've ever seen. He refused to come out on shooters. Rim-protection isn't shot-blocking. That's one element. Other elements are positioning, anchoring, covering, altering shots thru contests, fundamental play on the block, paint protection, intimidating. Intimidation is not looking at how big Shaq is. Intimidation is Ben Wallace. Intimidating is Dikembe Mutombo...that is personified. Shaq got you on the weak side, he blocked you if you tried to shoot over him. He didn't anchor your defense. He was a great player and a center, so we give him credit as a great defender. There is some revisionism about Bird being a liability, tho he was far too intelligent to get abused by people. Bird was as good a team defender as you'd find, a great post defender, a hustle player, and would make huge plays on D. Bird was better.


Shaq is a better rebounder. He was a center and Bird was a SF. But that's fine. After the last few years I finally understand a reason for people who think Shaq should have been a better rebounder than he was. I thought he was great, but I forgot that he didn't do shit on defense. How many boards would he get if he actually defended? He'd still be a double-double guy, but his rebounding would probably go down. Tho it was great the two years he should have been MVP.


But yes, like you said, Bird is the better passer. He's also the better off-ball player. That might not be important, as Shaq was a center, but just as with rebounds we'll take it into consideration. Bird made players better. He was smarter, more clutch, a better team player, not a stat whore.


Those are much clearer advantages, so you know.

I find it extremely hard to make a case for Bird having more impact as an offensive player. Clearly Bird was a more versatile offensive player, but all that matters is IMPACT.

Shaq destroyed teams defense. He would get the other team in foul trouble, get his team in an early bonus, the most unstoppable force down low, demanded double and triple teams regularly....and since he was a great passer in his prime, he made people around him better by creating wide open looks and wide open driving lanes.

There are two things to judging an offensive player. How well you can score and how effective you are at doing so, and how well you can make your teammates better by putting them in advantageous situations.

Shaq did this as well as anyone ever in his prime.

Also, the thing about his defense....a lot of what you said is true regarding when he got older, but we're talking about Shaq at his best. Under those guidelines he was clear cut and dry a more impactful defensive player than Bird. Nobody should question that, not even Birds most obvious homers.
Carbine is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site













Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy