Larry Bird took a team with 29 wins to 61 wins in one year. That was before McHale and Parish. MJ was not able to do anything close to that until Pippen came into his own. Bird made his teammates better than MJ. Bird was a better team player, and played in a better era. Mid to late 90's was a bunch of garbage ball.
If (and I say if) Bird was a better team player, it was because he was limited (I know that is a relative term because he truly was one of the greats) in what he could do individually. Jordan could take over a game by himself. He dominated before Pippen, and he dominated after the Bulls got Pippen.
Garbage ball? I guess you thing that because you watched the Celtics to much. The 90's was probably the best decade ever to watch basketball.
jad22 - More impressive with Bird is that the year he was injured and missed the season the Celtics went from 57 wins to 42 wins. The statistics of the players was exactly what you would expect when you take Bird out of the lineup. Bird, Magic and Russell make their teammates better by a margin greater than any players in history. Look at what Bird did at Indiana State in 1979. He basically took a team of role players and brought them to the National Championship. Bird had that incredible ability to make those around him better by totally utilizing their strengths.
Jordan is a more dominant player than Bird, no question, and a much better individual defender. Jordan is the best guard in history and Bird the best forward. Forced to choose between the two in almost all methods of evaluation I would pick Jordan.
frankhardy - I am not so certain Bird was limited by what he could do individually in any context and he has, like Jordan, literally taken over games in the fourth quarter with his scoring. The man had unlimited range, could drive to the basket and finish with either hand, and was a great post player. He was also the best passing forward in history. He could handle the ball and early in his career played some time at guard when the Celtics went to a big lineup. Unlike some players today he could get his own shot.
These kinds of arguments tend to bog down because the initial question covers too broad of a range (IMO). This is like asking 'who the best football player is of all time'. Wha? Nobody could answer that. You can't compare guards to centers any more than you can compare tight ends to tail backs. And it gets even more ridiculous when you compare players from different eras. Who knows if Wilt could school Shaq? Was Rogers Hornsby a better hitter than Pujols? Not only is there no way to 'know', there's no good way to even construct an argument. It's a complete waste of time trying to compare Jordan to Chamberlian, for instance, since they had different roles on their teams.
I totally agree with the idea that taking championships into account seems silly, for the very persuasive reasons already mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I'll also say that he most 'complete' player that I think any of us have ever seen play is Kevin Garnett. I won't say he's the best, but he's the only player I've ever watched who can block a 7' center's lay up and then lead the 2 on 1 break. If the metric is a player that can 'do it all' then Garnett is, IMO, without peer.
<< <i>These kinds of arguments tend to bog down because the initial question covers too broad of a range (IMO). This is like asking 'who the best football player is of all time'. Wha? Nobody could answer that. You can't compare guards to centers any more than you can compare tight ends to tail backs. And it gets even more ridiculous when you compare players from different eras. Who knows if Wilt could school Shaq? Was Rogers Hornsby a better hitter than Pujols? Not only is there no way to 'know', there's no good way to even construct an argument. It's a complete waste of time trying to compare Jordan to Chamberlian, for instance, since they had different roles on their teams.
I totally agree with the idea that taking championships into account seems silly, for the very persuasive reasons already mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I'll also say that he most 'complete' player that I think any of us have ever seen play is Kevin Garnett. I won't say he's the best, but he's the only player I've ever watched who can block a 7' center's lay up and then lead the 2 on 1 break. If the metric is a player that can 'do it all' then Garnett is, IMO, without peer. >>
<< <i>These kinds of arguments tend to bog down because the initial question covers too broad of a range (IMO). This is like asking 'who the best football player is of all time'. Wha? Nobody could answer that. You can't compare guards to centers any more than you can compare tight ends to tail backs. And it gets even more ridiculous when you compare players from different eras. Who knows if Wilt could school Shaq? Was Rogers Hornsby a better hitter than Pujols? Not only is there no way to 'know', there's no good way to even construct an argument. It's a complete waste of time trying to compare Jordan to Chamberlian, for instance, since they had different roles on their teams.
I totally agree with the idea that taking championships into account seems silly, for the very persuasive reasons already mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I'll also say that he most 'complete' player that I think any of us have ever seen play is Kevin Garnett. I won't say he's the best, but he's the only player I've ever watched who can block a 7' center's lay up and then lead the 2 on 1 break. If the metric is a player that can 'do it all' then Garnett is, IMO, without peer. >>
I see your point, but that is the fun of it. >>
LOL, I know what you mean. I just don't like it when these kinds of debates get hostile, since it should be clear that there's no 'right' answer.
Comments
Rarely mentioned that he was one of the best defenders of all time.
Looking for uncirculated Indian Heads and PRS electric guitars
Garbage ball? I guess you thing that because you watched the Celtics to much. The 90's was probably the best decade ever to watch basketball.
Shane
Jordan is a more dominant player than Bird, no question, and a much better individual defender. Jordan is the best guard in history and Bird the best forward. Forced to choose between the two in almost all methods of evaluation I would pick Jordan.
frankhardy - I am not so certain Bird was limited by what he could do individually in any context and he has, like Jordan, literally taken over games in the fourth quarter with his scoring. The man had unlimited range, could drive to the basket and finish with either hand, and was a great post player. He was also the best passing forward in history. He could handle the ball and early in his career played some time at guard when the Celtics went to a big lineup. Unlike some players today he could get his own shot.
I totally agree with the idea that taking championships into account seems silly, for the very persuasive reasons already mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I'll also say that he most 'complete' player that I think any of us have ever seen play is Kevin Garnett. I won't say he's the best, but he's the only player I've ever watched who can block a 7' center's lay up and then lead the 2 on 1 break. If the metric is a player that can 'do it all' then Garnett is, IMO, without peer.
<< <i>These kinds of arguments tend to bog down because the initial question covers too broad of a range (IMO). This is like asking 'who the best football player is of all time'. Wha? Nobody could answer that. You can't compare guards to centers any more than you can compare tight ends to tail backs. And it gets even more ridiculous when you compare players from different eras. Who knows if Wilt could school Shaq? Was Rogers Hornsby a better hitter than Pujols? Not only is there no way to 'know', there's no good way to even construct an argument. It's a complete waste of time trying to compare Jordan to Chamberlian, for instance, since they had different roles on their teams.
I totally agree with the idea that taking championships into account seems silly, for the very persuasive reasons already mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I'll also say that he most 'complete' player that I think any of us have ever seen play is Kevin Garnett. I won't say he's the best, but he's the only player I've ever watched who can block a 7' center's lay up and then lead the 2 on 1 break. If the metric is a player that can 'do it all' then Garnett is, IMO, without peer. >>
I see your point, but that is the fun of it.
Shane
<< <i>
<< <i>These kinds of arguments tend to bog down because the initial question covers too broad of a range (IMO). This is like asking 'who the best football player is of all time'. Wha? Nobody could answer that. You can't compare guards to centers any more than you can compare tight ends to tail backs. And it gets even more ridiculous when you compare players from different eras. Who knows if Wilt could school Shaq? Was Rogers Hornsby a better hitter than Pujols? Not only is there no way to 'know', there's no good way to even construct an argument. It's a complete waste of time trying to compare Jordan to Chamberlian, for instance, since they had different roles on their teams.
I totally agree with the idea that taking championships into account seems silly, for the very persuasive reasons already mentioned elsewhere in this thread.
I'll also say that he most 'complete' player that I think any of us have ever seen play is Kevin Garnett. I won't say he's the best, but he's the only player I've ever watched who can block a 7' center's lay up and then lead the 2 on 1 break. If the metric is a player that can 'do it all' then Garnett is, IMO, without peer. >>
I see your point, but that is the fun of it. >>
LOL, I know what you mean. I just don't like it when these kinds of debates get hostile, since it should be clear that there's no 'right' answer.