Would Larry Bird be an All-Star today?

[jay_jay54]

Bottom line here is Larry Bird would be a an All-Star today...there are some people who had to work hard at their game to get to the top,and some who seem to be born with "the rock in their hand".Bird was the latter of the two. Bird is/was a natural.

[Roy Hobbs]

Look at all the small forwards in the league. Who are great off the ball? A healthy number of players. Who are great passers? A good number of players. Who are both great off the ball and great passers? I got nobody. Pierce is probably the best and he's a much better playmaker/passer off the dribble.

How many players were great at those skills when Larry was playing, though?  He's a totally unique player, and I think saying "he couldn't do it because none of the current players can" does him a disservice. 

Also, KG fits this mold.  He's not identified as a small forward, but his game is close enough.  Offensively, he's sort of like the poor man's Larry.

[Who]

I don't see Larry's game survives the HS coaching and the college coaching. His game would be too effected. I don't see NBA coaches doing much better at the later stage in his game.

  Larry wasn't the player he was due to coaching. The only way coaching could have affected his game is if he had 5-10 years of Pitino as a coach, or maybe Jphn Thompson. Aside from that he'd be fine.

I agree that he wasn't the player he became because of coaching but if you have 6-8 years of coaches ordering you about you're game will develop habits. The part I'd be concerned about is his off the ball skills because so many players today are very poor without the basketball. I think he'd end up worse of for it.

[BrickJames]

Also, KG fits this mold.  He's not identified as a small forward, but his game is close enough.  Offensively, he's sort of like the poor man's Larry.

 
Homeless Man's maybe...c'mon now.

[Roy Hobbs]

Also, KG fits this mold.  He's not identified as a small forward, but his game is close enough.  Offensively, he's sort of like the poor man's Larry.

 
Homeless Man's maybe...c'mon now.

It was meant to fit Who's criteria of a forward who could play off the ball, who was also a good passer.

Larry was a better offensive player than KG, but let's not underrate KG's offensive game just because we're seeing him towards the tail end of his career.  KG has six straight seasons averaging 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists.  Those numbers are very Bird-like, although Larry was obviously the better scorer and passer.

[Who]

Slightly different question.

If Bird was coming up now, would he be the same player? 

The way the game is now played in college, I just keep seeing some coach turning Bird into a three point machine.  His all around game wouldn't be as strong coming into the NBA. 

My expectation in that scenario ..... I think Larry would be Lamar Odom with a great jump shot. A player with great all round skills but also a player who has no idea what to do or how to effect the game when the ball isn't in his hands. Everything would be off the dribble. Odom with a jump shot and killer instinct would be a dominant NBA player but nowhere near the Bird we all know.

Hmm...  I'm not sure if I agree.  I think Larry had such a unique basketball mind -- which I think was self-taught, rather than coached -- that he'd never struggle off the ball.  I think Larry knew where to get to on the floor, or how to set up his teammates for a perfect pass, etc., not because of coaching or the style he grew up with, but because that's what his instincts told him to do.  I imagine that if Larry came into the league today, he'd still have the highest "basketball IQ" in the league.

LeBron James would has a good IQ and several of the basketball skills that Larry has. He can't effect the game without the ball the way Larry could.

Look at all the small forwards in the league. Who are great off the ball? A healthy number of players. Who are great passers? A good number of players. Who are both great off the ball and great passers? I got nobody. Pierce is probably the best and he's a much better playmaker/passer off the dribble.

Now look at the list of players that can control a game without taking a shot. How many of them are wings who are shooters? How many shooters have a post game? How well are both of those scoring skills (post game+jump shot) used? Rashard Lewis in my opinion has the best post game and jump shot of the small forward class in the NBA and it's not used at all well. Pierce has the next best but he's primarily a mid-post then drive player.

I don't see Larry's game survives the HS coaching and the college coaching. His game would be too effected. I don't see NBA coaches doing much better at the later stage in his game.

How many players were great at those skills when Larry was playing, though?  He's a totally unique player, and I think saying "he couldn't do it because none of the current players can" does him a disservice. 

The skills I mentioned weren't overly difficult. Off the ball movement+passing. Separate version Shooting ability+post game. There should be a decent number of players who can do both to a high level. You add up all Larry's skills and he's in a class with very players but those two sets of skills by themselves are achievable.

My point was that good passers are kept on the ball and coached to use their skills off the dribble (unless they're a big man). There aren't wings that can do both. There's plenty of wings with the skills to do both (LeBron, Tracy, Kobe, Wade, Grant Hill would head my list) but they don't do it.

My other point was that shooters who have post games generally aren't used well (Joe Johnson, Rashard Lewis, Vince Carter, Peja Stojakovic).

I think it's coaching. The labels at young age that see players learning one position skills for too long, the underdeveloped all round games, the lack of freedom for expression given to players.

I'd expect Larry's game would be affected by that and lessened by that.

[BrickJames]

Also, KG fits this mold.  He's not identified as a small forward, but his game is close enough.  Offensively, he's sort of like the poor man's Larry.

 
Homeless Man's maybe...c'mon now.

It was meant to fit Who's criteria of a forward who could play off the ball, who was also a good passer.

Larry was a better offensive player than KG, but let's not underrate KG's offensive game just because we're seeing him towards the tail end of his career.  KG has six straight seasons averaging 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists.  Those numbers are very Bird-like, although Larry was obviously the better scorer and passer.

Ahh, numbers...

I'd like to see what Bird could have done if he was a 7 foot tall athletic freak of nature.

Bird's offensive game was unrivaled.  I doubt we'll never see anything like that again.

[paintitgreen]

I don't see Larry's game survives the HS coaching and the college coaching. His game would be too effected. I don't see NBA coaches doing much better at the later stage in his game.

  Larry wasn't the player he was due to coaching. The only way coaching could have affected his game is if he had 5-10 years of Pitino as a coach, or maybe Jphn Thompson. Aside from that he'd be fine.

I agree that he wasn't the player he became because of coaching but if you have 6-8 years of coaches ordering you about you're game will develop habits. The part I'd be concerned about is his off the ball skills because so many players today are very poor without the basketball. I think he'd end up worse of for it.

I disagree with this. Somebody mentioned how hard-headed Larry was. THat's absolutely true. Remember, he first went to Indiana University, not Indiana State, and walked out after maybe one practice with Bobby Knight. From what I recall, it wasn't so much Knight (although he had no interest in being a backup and not being used properly for a couple years) as it was the overload from being at such a huge school.

Had Bird been coming up today, he probably would have gone the same route - tried out a big school, hated it, walked away, then transferred to a small school to lead a different Cinderella run, like he did with the Sycamores back in the day. Given the recent tourney success of teams like George Mason, I'd bet that if Indiana State had a talent like Bird now, they'd be able to make the same type of run he led them on in 79.

Bottom line, I don't think anybody would have coached Bird out of his game today just like they couldn't in 79. His personality just wouldn't allow it. When it came to the NBA level, we'll see but his NBA impact was immediate then, and I bet it would be immediate now. All-time players are all-time players. Doesn't matter what era you put them in, they'll excel.

Bird's height wouldn't change, nor would his shooting ability, rebounding, inner drive, work ethic, basketball IQ, very underrated athleticism (why does everybody forget how well the 80s Celtics ran the break?) and defense (the guy stopped 2 and 3 on 1s like nobody's business and always played the passing lanes beautifully). With that skill set, whether he became more athletic through medical and technological advancements or not, he's still a multiple MVP and title winner in today's game.

[Edgar]

Also, KG fits this mold.  He's not identified as a small forward, but his game is close enough.  Offensively, he's sort of like the poor man's Larry.

 
Homeless Man's maybe...c'mon now.

It was meant to fit Who's criteria of a forward who could play off the ball, who was also a good passer.

Larry was a better offensive player than KG, but let's not underrate KG's offensive game just because we're seeing him towards the tail end of his career.  KG has six straight seasons averaging 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 5 assists.  Those numbers are very Bird-like, although Larry was obviously the better scorer and passer.

Ahh, numbers...

I'd like to see what Bird could have done if he was a 7 foot tall athletic freak of nature.

Bird's offensive game was unrivaled.  I doubt we'll never see anything like that again.

n./ See Pierce, Paul.

[Scintan]

Bird and Magic were the LeBrons of the 80's.  They were 6'8"-6'9" players who could dribble with all but the best point guards in the league.  For Bird/Magic, just like LeBron, this made them all but unique in their time.  None of them are great man defenders, but picture Bird and Magic being allowed to play zone defense and you can see their defense look much better and their steals and blocks totals skyrocket.  The one question mark I have about Bird/Magic in today's game is that the defensive rules have turned the modern 'big' players into turnstiles and floppers, and that might be a problem area.  Aside from that, though, I don't see anything to stop them from being the best today as they were in the 80's.

[Who]

Bottom line, I don't think anybody would have coached Bird out of his game today just like they couldn't in 79. His personality just wouldn't allow it. When it came to the NBA level, we'll see but his NBA impact was immediate then, and I bet it would be immediate now. All-time players are all-time players. Doesn't matter what era you put them in, they'll excel.

Bird's height wouldn't change, nor would his shooting ability, rebounding, inner drive, work ethic, basketball IQ, very underrated athleticism (why does everybody forget how well the 80s Celtics ran the break?) and defense (the guy stopped 2 and 3 on 1s like nobody's business and always played the passing lanes beautifully). With that skill set, whether he became more athletic through medical and technological advancements or not, he's still a multiple MVP and title winner in today's game.

I completely agree

I was answering a separate question from Wdleehi asking if Bird would be the same player today as before if he were growing up in this age. I don't think so, I believe there would be some differences and that some of those would impact him negatively.

I disagree with this. Somebody mentioned how hard-headed Larry was. THat's absolutely true. Remember, he first went to Indiana University, not Indiana State, and walked out after maybe one practice with Bobby Knight. From what I recall, it wasn't so much Knight (although he had no interest in being a backup and not being used properly for a couple years) as it was the overload from being at such a huge school.

Had Bird been coming up today, he probably would have gone the same route - tried out a big school, hated it, walked away, then transferred to a small school to lead a different Cinderella run, like he did with the Sycamores back in the day. Given the recent tourney success of teams like George Mason, I'd bet that if Indiana State had a talent like Bird now, they'd be able to make the same type of run he led them on in 79.

He's already halfway through his pre-NBA career where he's learning to play. Judging from what the HS coaches are doing today I have no faith he gets the same situation as before. I picture Larry being the point guard on whatever team HS team he plays on and hardly ever being used off the ball.

Actually my first thought was that Larry could possibly drop out altogether if being brought up in this day and age. I can see him having lots of problems with today's coaches and wanting to do things his way and getting so irritated he just walks away. Probably not though, but he was that hard-headed that the thought crossed my mind.

[tenn_smoothie]

i'm a little amused by a few comments on this thread about Bird being a "good" rebounder.

Bird was a great rebounder.

doesn't anyone remember the 20+ rebound games he had in the '81 playoffs - a couple against Big Moses during the Houston series........ and of course his rebounding explosion in games 4 & 5 in the '84 Finals vs the Lakers - just when Boston looked dead, Bird came up the biggest in those crucial games.

[nickagneta]

Question, just how many of the best players coming into the league right now are affected by 6-8 years of coaching towards playing only one position and limiting the player's development?

Most of the better players are hitting the pros at 19 and 20. Larry hit the pros at 22 and hit 23 a month later. I very mature 23. Players nowadays, the stars anyway, aren't pigeonholed and have their game retarded by coaches because their in the pros either one or two years after high school.

[Sweet17]

Bird would be more athletic had he played today i think. You always have to take that kind of thing into account. Guys nowadays they have better training methods that can enhance their game. The use of weight room, plyometrics and other modern training ideas have made guys better. Bird would have benefitted from this.

So I think you can rule out the one caveat that people like to throw out there - the league is so much more athletic. It's not REALLY. I think coaches do favour the athletic player a BIT more but much of it is training and development.

OTOH Birds skill set has become more common (see Paul, Pierce or Lebron, James) but guys like McHale are hard to find. I know purists flip out when I compare Bird and Pierce but really it's true. Bird was better at many of the skills (althought Pierce is certainly superior at one on one stuff) but the bulk of the "versatile" skill set is there.

But I think McHale would have been as good as Duncan had he come out today..and his career might have lasted longer as hopefully the doctor wouldn't have botched his ankle surgery.

Pete

[hpantazo]

That's like asking if Abraham Lincoln would have been as great a president today...of course he would, he may even have been greater. Just rent "Larry Bird, a Basketball Legend".