Would Larry Bird be an All-Star today?

[TitleMaster]

comparing mchale to amare stoudamire is laughable...two different players that have nothing in comparison.  mchale was a unique, unstoppable low-post player.  he was a prototype power forward, and olujawon, for example, was a center (who killed nearly everyone he played against btw)

Ok, a clarification is in order... McHale's game was completely different from AS, that's obvious. Their overall effect on their respective teams, however, is pretty similar. So on occasion, you'll see Stoudamire completely dominating, even the likes of a Garnett or Pierce, however, it isn't his signature, as a team's star player. In essence, he contributes to the offense and defense of the Suns, at the same level as McHale did for the 80s C's. Nothing wrong with that.

So true, in the '85 series and in a few special games, McHale would have dominating performances, outshining even Bird, however, unlike Bird, in those alternate games, where he doesn't contribute offensively, he's not dissing out the loose balls and mopping up the boards like there's no tommorrow which Bird has done. And Bird's had those lower scoring 8-12 pts games but they were in tandem with 16 boards, 10 assists, and a few steals so in effect, LB never was an on/off player, it's just that he couldn't score all of the time due to his injury-prone knees, back, or wrists.

Also, in '86, Olajuwon and Sampson would rotate on the center/pf position so the Dream had had to contend with all the Celt's big men and unlike Sampson, his game never faded under pressure. But realize, this was Hakeem's second year and he played marvelously against our bigs. It was the rest of his team, esp Ralph, which didn't stand a chance.

[EJPLAYA]

[Deleted].  There is absolutely no need for comments like these.  If you don't like a thread, move on. -R.H.

[BballTim]

comparing mchale to amare stoudamire is laughable...two different players that have nothing in comparison.  mchale was a unique, unstoppable low-post player.  he was a prototype power forward, and olujawon, for example, was a center (who killed nearly everyone he played against btw)

Ok, a clarification is in order... McHale's game was completely different from AS, that's obvious. Their overall effect on their respective teams, however, is pretty similar. So on occasion, you'll see Stoudamire completely dominating, even the likes of a Garnett or Pierce, however, it isn't his signature, as a team's star player. In essence, he contributes to the offense and defense of the Suns, at the same level as McHale did for the 80s C's. Nothing wrong with that.

  There's no way Amare contributes to the defense of the Suns as much as McHale did for the Celts.

[expobear]

larry was a 3-time LEAGUE mvp at a time when the nba was at its peak...it wasn't a jump-shooting / motion offense oriented league that it's become today.  some of the greatest players to EVER play the game did so during Bird's era.

would he be a great player today?  hell yes!!  he'd dominate the league...sadly, as time goes by we begin to diminish the greatness of those who played years ago.

don't let the short shorts fool you...Larry Legend made everyone around him better, something that is a rare trait in any era of professional basketball.

I've only finished reading about half of this thread but it appears we tend to magnify/exaggerate the greatness of those who played years ago, if the tone of this thread is any indication. This is not to say that Bird was not a great player, but I fail to see how any of the posters (so far) in this thread have "diminished" the greatness of Bird.   

[Roy Hobbs]

I fail to see how any of the posters (so far) in this thread have "diminished" the greatness of Bird.   

Well, other than the first post, which even raised this as a question.  I think questioning whether 3-time MVP, 12-time All-star Larry Bird would have been an all-star in today's league is, by its very nature, diminishing Larry's greatness.

(I say that while noting that Barnabas didn't take a position either way when posing the question.  Still, to me, the answer to that question is fairly obvious.)

[ma11l]

This thread could be up here from now until opening night next year and no one's original opinion would be changed. 

[Andy Jick]

i knew i'd start feeling older when people would forget about the greatness of larry bird or question it...we've arrived at that moment.

as a 36 year old, i never had the privilege to watch russell or cousy (for example) play, but when i read of their impact on the game, witness the banners they put in the rafters year after year, i cannot for the life of me question their abilities, even if the league wasn't as "athletic" as it is today.

we must base our judgments on the players during their specific era...we cannot compare stoudamire to mchale, or bird to nowitzki, or pierce to havlicek - it just doesn't work.  we can look at their impact during the time in which they played and that is something that cannot be questioned or diminished.

the original poster asked if larry would be an all-star today...he can't be serious...

[BrickJames]

Deleted.

Seriously Roy?

[fan33]

No question, IMO 

I do question the greatness of Kobe though, in any era!

[Bahku]

Sorry, but this is a silly question ... one of those that makes me wonder why anyone would even ask it, or if the person asking has any idea what kind of a ball player Larry was.

[Kuberski33]

i knew i'd start feeling older when people would forget about the greatness of larry bird or question it...we've arrived at that moment.

as a 36 year old, i never had the privilege to watch russell or cousy (for example) play, but when i read of their impact on the game, witness the banners they put in the rafters year after year, i cannot for the life of me question their abilities, even if the league wasn't as "athletic" as it is today.

we must base our judgments on the players during their specific era...we cannot compare stoudamire to mchale, or bird to nowitzki, or pierce to havlicek - it just doesn't work.  we can look at their impact during the time in which they played and that is something that cannot be questioned or diminished.

Oh I think we can compare players from different eras -- when it's cut and dried -- and it is with the examples you list.  McHale vs. Stoudamire: that's a joke.  Bird vs. Nowitzki:  Let's see....Bird, One of the 3 best passers the NBA has seen over the past 30 years, could score inside and out, excellent rebounder, heart of a lion and a guy who when healthy nearly always came through. Also won 3 titles. Dirk:  Decent passer, excellent scorer, better outside player than inside, ok rebounder, has little or no heart and has never won anything -- and never will. 

Pierce vs. Havlicek- I saw Havlicek a lot from the early 70's to when he retired and it's no contest -- Pierce by far.  Havlicek's strength was moving without the ball and an all around balanced game.  He was perfect for the Celtic's fast break style.  But the only place he had Pierce was his ability to move without the ball. 

[Andy Jick]

well, at least one thing is sure...brian scalabrine would suck no matter what era he played in.

[Roy Hobbs]

Pierce vs. Havlicek- I saw Havlicek a lot from the early 70's to when he retired and it's no contest -- Pierce by far.  Havlicek's strength was moving without the ball and an all around balanced game.  He was perfect for the Celtic's fast break style.  But the only place he had Pierce was his ability to move without the ball. 

I don't know if I agree with you on this one.  In 1970, for instance, Hondo put up 28.9 ppg, 9.0 rpg, and 7.5 apg, on 45% shooting.  He followed that up the next year by going for 27.5 / 8.2 / 7.5 / 45.8%.  Havlicek was a better passer than Pierce, and relative to his size, arguably a better rebounder.  When taking into account the lack of a three point shot in Havlicek's day, you can argue that he was a better scorer, too. 

Defensively, Hondo was much better. Pierce hasn't shown much defensively in his career outside of his first couple of seasons and this year; Havlicek was 8-times All-Defense.

I'm sure if you drop the bigger, stronger Pierce back into 1970, he would dominate against Havlicek.  However, relative to his peers, I think Hondo was a better player.

[TheReaLPuba]

You're not going to find another player with the combination of Larry's insane WILLPOWER, superior skill set, robotic dedication/work ethic, guts-to-the-floor-all-out-never-say-die-balls-to-the-floor hustle, and immense cognitive abilities EVER....never ever again!

This is a guy who isn't suppose to do these things....I mean you look at him and you think he should be delivering milk or something.....how can he play professional basketball?

-Don't forget this is a guy who, before the contest even started, told other players in the locker room they were playing for 2nd place in the 3 point contests....and he went on to win 3 of those.

-This is a guy who told his own teammate to go for 60 because if he wasn't going to do it then Larry would...and he did.

-This is a guy who told an opponent that the ball was going to come to him he was going to hit a game winning shot at a certain spot on the floor and guess what....he went on and did that too.

-This is a guy who set his own incredibly high personal goals for their West Coast trips and when he went out and achieved those goals he rewarded himself by playing the last game on the trip with his off-hand...the entire game! And yea he told his teammates he was going to do it before the game....and he once again delivered......again.

-This is a guy who's played with numerous of painful, chronic, and acute injuries....bad back, bad feet, dislocated fingers, fractured cheek bone, et al. and his level of play would rise even more - directly enhancing the energy and confidence of his teammates so they can play better too.

It doesn't matter what era or time zone...Larry Bird would be one of the top 5, if not the best player in the game....period.

What makes Larry so great isn't just his offense, his passing, his unbreakable will, his game-winning shots, and all the stuff he does on the court...but all the stuff he does off-the-court as well. His preparation, dedication, repetition, practices, honing his skills, setting a high standard as an example for others to follow......it's the entire package.

The dude is a freaking Legend.

This thread is blasphemy!

[BballTim]

Pierce vs. Havlicek- I saw Havlicek a lot from the early 70's to when he retired and it's no contest -- Pierce by far.  Havlicek's strength was moving without the ball and an all around balanced game.  He was perfect for the Celtic's fast break style.  But the only place he had Pierce was his ability to move without the ball. 

I don't know if I agree with you on this one.  In 1970, for instance, Hondo put up 28.9 ppg, 9.0 rpg, and 7.5 apg, on 45% shooting.  He followed that up the next year by going for 27.5 / 8.2 / 7.5 / 45.8%.  Havlicek was a better passer than Pierce, and relative to his size, arguably a better rebounder.  When taking into account the lack of a three point shot in Havlicek's day, you can argue that he was a better scorer, too. 

  Pierce has higher per36 numbers in scoring and their rebounding numbers are identical, even though there were more points and a lot more shots back then. You have to take eras into account. I saw Hondo play some (not much, I lived in the  midwest back then) so I can't make a good comparison, but Paul's scoring better against much better defenses.