Would Larry Bird be an All-Star today?

[Andy Jick]

...but Paul's scoring better against much better defenses.

i think this is highly subjective...in one breath you say "i never saw him much" but then in the next breath you are fairly certain that defense is "much better" today.  i don't think any of this can say this is true...let's not confuse "athleticism" with "great defense."

gerald green was an athletic freak of nature, but if you put 5 of him on the floor they'd get killed because they don't understand team defense concepts.

you can't pull one era down to build the other up...

[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. 

  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.

On the other hand, Pierce has been basically a one-man show for much of his time in Boston, while Havlicek deferred to Cowens and JoJo during his peak years, much like Pierce did with KG and Ray this season.  If Hondo played on some of the terrible Celtics teams Pierce did, I'm sure his individual numbers would have looked even more gaudy.

[BballTim]

...but Paul's scoring better against much better defenses.

i think this is highly subjective...in one breath you say "i never saw him much" but then in the next breath you are fairly certain that defense is "much better" today.  i don't think any of this can say this is true...let's not confuse "athleticism" with "great defense."

gerald green was an athletic freak of nature, but if you put 5 of him on the floor they'd get killed because they don't understand team defense concepts.

you can't pull one era down to build the other up...

  What I said was I didn't see a ton of Hondo, not that I never saw basketball. Like I said, I didn't live around here at the time. The difference in defense is just my general impression. For starters, transition defense is much better, but I just think that defense was emphasized less even through most of the 80s than it is now.

[ma11l]

Tommy has seen them all, and Bob Ryan isn't far behind him.  I'm gonna trust their opinion when it comes to Paul and Hondo.  They both say Pierce is the best offensive player in the history of the C's. 

[Roy Hobbs]

Tommy has seen them all, and Bob Ryan isn't far behind him.  I'm gonna trust their opinion when it comes to Paul and Hondo.  They both say Pierce is the best offensive player in the history of the C's. 

I can't remember the exact quote, but it seemed like Tommy was talking about offensive repertoire, rather than best player.  If either of them did mean "best offensive player", they're out of their mind, because Larry was quite a bit better than Pierce on the offensive end.  He was a better scorer, a better shooter, a better passer, and a better offensive rebounder.  As I've said previously, more points + higher shooting percentage + more assists = better offensive player.

I love Tommy Heinsohn, but I don't trust his stated opinion on just about anything.  Has there ever been a young Celtics player that he didn't think was destined for the Hall of Fame?

[ma11l]

Tommy has seen them all, and Bob Ryan isn't far behind him.  I'm gonna trust their opinion when it comes to Paul and Hondo.  They both say Pierce is the best offensive player in the history of the C's. 

I can't remember the exact quote, but it seemed like Tommy was talking about offensive repertoire, rather than best player.  If either of them did mean "best offensive player", they're out of their mind, because Larry was quite a bit better than Pierce on the offensive end.  He was a better scorer, a better shooter, a better passer, and a better offensive rebounder.  As I've said previously, more points + higher shooting percentage + more assists = better offensive player.

I love Tommy Heinsohn, but I don't trust his stated opinion on just about anything.  Has there ever been a young Celtics player that he didn't think was destined for the Hall of Fame?

Well I'm not old enough to be able to truly give an opinion here, the only time I've seen the Birds and Hondos of the world are on DVDs and tapes and highlight reels.  I also don't think numbers can be used to compare someone from the 80's to now, all of the offensive numbers are inflated in the 80's.  The defense being played is not comparable.


It's like when we analyzed the Bird-Wilkins duel and compared it to Pierce and LeBron.  Larry and Dominique scored more points, but Pierce and LeBron had much more of the percentage of points scored in their game.

[Roy Hobbs]

I agree that numbers don't tell the whole story.  I'd recommend watching as many games as possible of Larry on ESPN Classic, though, or buying the 1985-86 season box set that came out recently.  Larry was a substantially better player than Paul Pierce is, in just about every way.  I love Paul Pierce, but Larry Bird is one of the top five players of all time (conservatively) while Paul Pierce isn't even a top five player today.

Tommy's hyperbole is fun to listen to, but nobody should take it seriously.

[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.

On the other hand, Pierce has been basically a one-man show for much of his time in Boston, while Havlicek deferred to Cowens and JoJo during his peak years, much like Pierce did with KG and Ray this season.  If Hondo played on some of the terrible Celtics teams Pierce did, I'm sure his individual numbers would have looked even more gaudy.

  I think that my post sounded more like "Paul > Hondo" than it was meant to. I was pointing out that numbers comparisons will almost always favor players in the 60s and 70s, especially rebounding numbers.

[afflatus]

If Christian Laettner, Chris Gatling and Tom Gugliotta were all stars in 1997 alongside guys we would assume would be all-stars today (Jordan, Hakeem, etc...) Then Yes I have no doubt Bird would be an all star today.

[Andy Jick]

if we question bird's greatness, then we have to question every other player from that generation as well.

jordan...magic...dr. j...moses...dominique...alex english...worthy...olajuwon...isiah...karl malone...etc.

the thing we're forgetting is this: a number of guys played in BOTH the '80's and into the '90's, when the game became more "athletic."  and NONE of them struggled, even though they were getting older and had a few miles on the tires, so to speak.

in '92, when larry was playing with a bad back and his better days were behind him, he STILL had great games and filled up a stat sheet.

the league is so watered down today it makes one wonder how much BETTER these guys would actually be, not vice versa.

[ScoobyDoo]

I think he'd probably be better.

Or let me put it this way, how do you think a team like this would do?

Perkins ( = to or less than Parish )
Garnett ( = to McHale )
Bird ( better than Pierce )
Ray Allen ( = to or less than DJ )
Rondo ( = to or better than Ainge )

I'd say Bird and garnett alone would be enough to get the celtics to the finals every single year for 10 straight years if they were assembled in their early 20's like Parish, McHale and Bird were...

[TitleMaster]

On the subject of McHale, he was not this unreal, superstar player... that player was Bird.

What McHale was was a prodigy on the block as far as getting his shot off, with confounding post moves, when he caught the ball on a pass. Otherwise, he was a normal, hard working, above average player. This is analogous to that student who knew 12 languages (a brainiac in that aspect) but essentially got B+'s to A's in everything else by doing all the work, like any other hard working student. But average in those dozen languages and he looks like a all-round genius. That's McHale.

His defense was assisted by his lengthy arms and his rebounding abilities was below that of Bird, Chief, or even Maxwell. All and all, he contributes as much as a Stoudamire, a periodic great showing, but otherwise, just another above average, hard working big man down low.

Whereas the Bird to Nowitzki comparisons are completely invalid. Nowitzki is the rich man's version of Raef LaFrentz. And judging by Raef's bloated salary, its probably a stupid person in the upper middle class than a rich one. The only player close to Bird today is Pierce.

[RockinRyA]

well its hard to compare.. rules are different, refs are different.. i mean chamberlain wouldnt have scored a hundred points if it was played today.. a lot of those points would be offensive goaltending

this is a thing that annoys me.. its what me and my dad argue about a lot when he was still alive.. most oldies like him i know always keep saying "oh its better back then than it is now" "back then it was like this not like that"

[BballTim]

On the subject of McHale, he was not this unreal, superstar player... that player was Bird.

What McHale was was a prodigy on the block as far as getting his shot off, with confounding post moves, when he caught the ball on a pass. Otherwise, he was a normal, hard working, above average player. This is analogous to that student who knew 12 languages (a brainiac in that aspect) but essentially got B+'s to A's in everything else by doing all the work, like any other hard working student. But average in those dozen languages and he looks like a all-round genius. That's McHale.

His defense was assisted by his lengthy arms and his rebounding abilities was below that of Bird, Chief, or even Maxwell. All and all, he contributes as much as a Stoudamire, a periodic great showing, but otherwise, just another above average, hard working big man down low.

Whereas the Bird to Nowitzki comparisons are completely invalid. Nowitzki is the rich man's version of Raef LaFrentz. And judging by Raef's bloated salary, its probably a stupid person in the upper middle class than a rich one. The only player close to Bird today is Pierce.

  McHale wasn't a superstar like Bird or Magic or Jordan and I don't think that anyone's saying he was. He was as good or better at rebounding than Maxwell but not as good as Bird or Parish. And it's ridiculous to try and discount his defense because he had long arms. Lots of poor defenders have long arms, and lots of good defenders rely on length or speed or strength. McHale was a 3 time 1st team all nba defender and made the 2nd team 3 times. He could guard 3 positions. A player who's an elite defender and has arguably the best low post moves in the history of the game is exceedingly rare.

  And if you're going to complain about people making McHale out to be better than he was, you shouldn't be comparing Pierce to Bird. Paul is nowhere near the passer or rebounder Bird was, and he doesn't dominate the game like Bird did. While they're dissimilar players, Paul's closer to Dirk's level than Larry's.

[Fastbreak]

Without a doubt Bird would be an All-Star ...and as far as Lebron beating Bird off the dribble..Lebron has never beaten anybody off the dribble without traveling...