Would Larry Bird be an All-Star today?

[2short]

Wow, at work taking a "little break" and the first 3 topics I see are Sam Cassell wants back (no), Walker is a heck of a player (no) and would Larry Bird be an allstar.
Anyone who ever saw Larry Bird play can easily answer this
yes

[BrickJames]

10 pages of debate on whether or not Bird would be an All-star in this era has made me lose a lot of faith in this fan base...

[Roy Hobbs]

10 pages of debate on whether or not Bird would be an All-star in this era has made me lose a lot of faith in this fan base...

Have you actually read the thread?  No?  I didn't think so.

If you had, you'd see that *nobody* is saying that Larry wouldn't have been an all-star.  There have been several different tangents -- about McHale, about Pierce, about Havlicek, about the various stars from the 80s and 90s -- but *nobody* is saying Bird wouldn't have been great.

Perhaps, rather than take shots at the fan base, you should take the time to read what's being talked about.

[Andy Jick]

10 pages of debate on whether or not Bird would be an All-star in this era has made me lose a lot of faith in this fan base...

James throwin' up another Brick, i see...

[Eja117]

He'd be better. The League is so watered down. Who could defend BIrd? He'd still be a 6'9" small forward with great hands, a sweet stroke, very good rebounding, fantastic basketball smarts. YES he'd be fine.
He'd probably have better basketball shoes....

I totally agree.   Absolute worst he's Wally with way better rebounding and passing. That's pretty good.  Or Dirk, but better shooting and defense.

[nickagneta]

He'd be better. The League is so watered down. Who could defend BIrd? He'd still be a 6'9" small forward with great hands, a sweet stroke, very good rebounding, fantastic basketball smarts. YES he'd be fine.
He'd probably have better basketball shoes....

I totally agree.   Absolute worst he's Wally with way better rebounding and passing. That's pretty good.  Or Dirk, but better shooting and defense.

How much more insulting can you get to Larry by calling him at "worst he's Wally with way better rebounding and passing" or "Dirk, but better shooting and defense"?

The only player now in the league that comes even close to Larry in his overall skill set is, believe it or not, Kevin Garnett. Now Garnett is a much better defender and shot blocker and Larry's range was further and he could create off the dribble and was a better passer, but that's as close as it comes. But both are excellent shooters, great passers, great positional rebounders, excellent in the low post in scoring(that means ending up with the points whether via turnaround jumpers or inside moves, not necessarily low posts moves ala McHale), and having a general sense of court awareness.

Consistent 20/10/5 guys happen only once every 25 years. Oscar Robertson, Larry Bird, and Kevin Garnett. Without researching that's all I can think of who put numbers like that together over a period of years. I'd have included Magic but Magic just preferred not to rebound consistently to get 10 rebounds, it's not that he couldn't do it.

Wally and Dirk? Are you kidding me? Their names shouldn't even be on the same page as Larry's when descibing Larry's game. Unless of course you are describing players who were compared unfairly to Bird when they entered the league simply because people used the stereotypical Larry's white so we'll compared these white guys' games to Larry's.

And believe me, that is a cliche that is unfortunately used all the time.

[crownsy]

agreed nick, those guys are once every 10-15 year guys.

if he works on his jumper instead of being a media mogel, lebron has a chance to be one of those guys. right now though, good defenses (like ours  ) can dare him to beat them shooting the ball, and he often cant.

he get' s a smooth jumper, and he could put himself into that group. we'll see though, right now he's a great player, but not legandary. he could be though, and he's still only 23.

[Roy Hobbs]

The only player now in the league that comes even close to Larry in his overall skill set is, believe it or not, Kevin Garnett. Now Garnett is a much better defender and shot blocker and Larry's range was further and he could create off the dribble and was a better passer, but that's as close as it comes. But both are excellent shooters, great passers, great positional rebounders, excellent in the low post in scoring(that means ending up with the points whether via turnaround jumpers or inside moves, not necessarily low posts moves ala McHale), and having a general sense of court awareness.

Nice post, nick.  I described KG earlier in this thread as offensively, a "poor man's Larry Bird".  I got met with at least one derisively chiding comment, but I stand by that.  As you say, Larry had a lot more range, but the rest of their games were pretty similar, especially at the height of KG's career.

As for forwards who can put up 20/10/5 consistently, there aren't many of them.  Chris Webber managed it for a few seasons, and came close in a few others.  Barkley had the skills.  Lebron comes close with his 30/8/8, as did MJ earlier in his career.  It's pretty elite company.

Really, if you think of it, offensively Larry was a hybrid of Dirk and KG, except a better passer than both.  For any of the younger generation struggling for a comparison for Larry, that's the best I can do.

[Gant]

Moderators:  For the love of everything holy please put this thread to rest.

Larry Bird.  The absolute, stone cold greatest forward of any sort ever to play the game, by far, end of question, do not say another word, end of story, period, close curtain, FIN.

Would Einstein be smart today?
Would Lincoln be wise?

"Would Larry Bird be an allstar?"  I snort as I read those words.  The only question is: Just by what absurd lengths would Larry Bird be the greatest player in the game if he played today?

[Andy Jick]

ah, let everyone argue it out, gant.

at least we can figure out who knows their head from a hole in the ground pretty quickly.

[crownsy]

Moderators:  For the love of everything holy please put this thread to rest.

Larry Bird.  The absolute, stone cold greatest forward of any sort ever to play the game, by far, end of question, do not say another word, end of story, period, close curtain, FIN.

Would Einstein be smart today?
Would Lincoln be wise?

"Would Larry Bird be an allstar?"  I snort as I read those words.  The only question is: Just by what absurd lengths would Larry Bird be the greatest player in the game if he played today?

i refer you to roys post, the title is alittle misleading for where this discussion has gone. it really isn't about larry being an allstar or not, we all agree. its more about how his generation would compare to this generation, and i for one am really enjoying the thread.

i've yet to see anyone say "no, he wouldn't be" in fact, most of the last 6-7 pages has us been hashing out who is even remotly close to him in todays NBA, and doing some cool discussion on x player with regardes to y player.

[Roy Hobbs]

Moderators:  For the love of everything holy please put this thread to rest.

As crownsy said, it's actually been a pretty interesting thread, with everyone basically assuming the answer to the question is "yes", and going in different directions from there.

I'm assuming the request to lock the thread was in jest, but we don't lock threads when there's legitimate discussion going on.

[Jon]

I agree, it is an interesting subject, especially given that at least some of the basketball world probably thinks Larry wouldn't be as good today.  Of course that shows why so many players are busts in this league.  While athleticism is nice and certainly looks good, players like Gerald Green, Kedrick Brown, Jerome Moiso, Harold Miner and countless others have shown to prove that no amount of athleticism (and size can be lumped in here too) can make up for a lack of talent. 

On the other hand guys like Steve Nash, Tim Duncan, and Paul Pierce all go to show that you don't have to be the most sculpted, fastest guy in the league to dominate it.  The Celtics themselves are somewhat of a testament to this idea.  While guys like Rondo and Garnett are certainly athletic freaks, guys like Pierce, Allen, Perkins, House, and especially Powe and Baby all showed that it was more brains and will power than natural gifts. 

I think that's been Danny's strength in the drafts.  With the exception of Rondo, every time he's been wowed by freak athleticism (a la Green and Banks) he's been let down.  But when he's gone with undersized and less athletic guys with a higher skill set (like West, Gomes, Powe, Baby, Allen) he's done well for himself.  All of this goes to show, of course, that it's skill that matters much more than size, strength, speed, and hops. 

All of this is why Larry Bird would still dominate today.  Moreover, Larry certainly wasn't as unathletic as some people would think.  He had underrated hops and strength and was deceptively quick. 

[Gant]

Moderators:  For the love of everything holy please put this thread to rest.

As crownsy said, it's actually been a pretty interesting thread, with everyone basically assuming the answer to the question is "yes", and going in different directions from there.

I'm assuming the request to lock the thread was in jest, but we don't lock threads when there's legitimate discussion going on.

Yes it was in jest.  Our Constitution explicitly states that Freedom of Speech is paramount.

(...and in the small print below in a remarkably accurate leap of prophecy, it further states that Larry Bird would kick everybody's butts in the NBA whether the year is 1776, 1986, or 2008.)

[Roy Hobbs]

Yes it was in jest.  Our Constitution explicitly states that Freedom of Speech is paramount.

Haha.  And Celticsblog rules state that Freedom of Speech doesn't apply here.