ESPN top 10 SF's: 1. LeBron 2. Bird

[Moranis]

Actually there is a lot of truth to the league being watered down now compared to the 80's. There were only 21 teams in the 80's compared to 30 or so now. You combine that with the baby boomers  playing in the 80s and you have the best talent the league has seen as well as the highest concentration of it. Can you name teams in today's league that have the talent level of the 80's Celtics or Lakers?

Please don't try to tell me that Golden State can compete with those teams either. Does anyone really think that Draymond Green could cover McHale? Sorry but the league was at an all time high talent wise in the 80's. Heck, LeBron would have his hands full trying to guard James Worthy for a series and Magic would destroy any point in the league now, not to mention what Kareem would do to todays centers.

The problem with your argument and the one that everyone makes is that it was the Lakers and Celtics and the early 80's had the Sixers and the late 80's had the Pistons, but the rest of the league wasn't very good.  The talent was centered on a few teams much more than it is today, but there is far more talent in the league today than there was in the 80's from top to bottom.  I mean a team like the Bucks that didn't have a single HOFer in their prime was a consistent top 2 or 3 team in the East throughout much of the 80's. 

I think dismissing the Bucks because they didn't have HOFers is myopic.  Those were some really, really good Bucks teams.  The Knicks also had Patrick Ewing.  The Rockets made the Finals twice.  The Hawks had Dominique.  And both Portland and Utah got really good toward the end of the decade.

Mike

If the Bucks were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the East for much of the 80's and didn't have a single HOFer (in their prime - they had Lanier for awhile) on them, doesn't that show that the league didn't have near the talent that has been made out to be?  The Bucks are pretty similar to the Hawks were last year, except the Hawks were a one time flash in the pan (as shown by this season and the seasons prior).  The Bucks were not.

The Rockets had one of the best centers ever (and the best center in the league for much of the 80's) and had some nice seasons, but isn't that pretty similar to the Kings with Cousins or the Pelicans with Davis.  If you want to compare better seasons from teams, how about Dwight's Magic (who actually made a Finals as well).  Except those teams aren't consistently 50 win teams. 

The Lakers and Celtics were loaded with talent, the rest of the league (except for portions the Sixers and Pistons) was either a team with one superstar and not much else (Bulls, Hawks, Knicks, Jazz, etc.), teams of very solid all around players but no great ones (Bucks, Sonics, Blazers, etc.), or just downright awful teams.  The love affair with the 80's is just silly.  Now there was a time in the early 90's when expansion and retirements left a small void in the league, but by the mid-90's that void was filled and the league has been as good as ever for a very long time. 

[MBunge]

Actually there is a lot of truth to the league being watered down now compared to the 80's. There were only 21 teams in the 80's compared to 30 or so now. You combine that with the baby boomers  playing in the 80s and you have the best talent the league has seen as well as the highest concentration of it. Can you name teams in today's league that have the talent level of the 80's Celtics or Lakers?

Please don't try to tell me that Golden State can compete with those teams either. Does anyone really think that Draymond Green could cover McHale? Sorry but the league was at an all time high talent wise in the 80's. Heck, LeBron would have his hands full trying to guard James Worthy for a series and Magic would destroy any point in the league now, not to mention what Kareem would do to todays centers.

The problem with your argument and the one that everyone makes is that it was the Lakers and Celtics and the early 80's had the Sixers and the late 80's had the Pistons, but the rest of the league wasn't very good.  The talent was centered on a few teams much more than it is today, but there is far more talent in the league today than there was in the 80's from top to bottom.  I mean a team like the Bucks that didn't have a single HOFer in their prime was a consistent top 2 or 3 team in the East throughout much of the 80's. 

I think dismissing the Bucks because they didn't have HOFers is myopic.  Those were some really, really good Bucks teams.  The Knicks also had Patrick Ewing.  The Rockets made the Finals twice.  The Hawks had Dominique.  And both Portland and Utah got really good toward the end of the decade.

Mike

If the Bucks were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the East for much of the 80's and didn't have a single HOFer (in their prime - they had Lanier for awhile) on them, doesn't that show that the league didn't have near the talent that has been made out to be? 

No, it actually showed that the league had so much talent that very, very, very good players were overshadowed.

In the first 10 years of his career, Terry Cummings averaged over 20 points 7 times and more than 8 rebounds 8 times while shooting less than 48% from the floor just twice.

By comparison, in the first 10 years of his career, Paul Pierce averaged over 20 points 7 times and more than 7 rebounds just once while never shooting 48% from the field.

I'm not saying Cummings is better than Pierce but if HE had won a title and made the Finals a couple times?

Mike

[td450]

Actually there is a lot of truth to the league being watered down now compared to the 80's. There were only 21 teams in the 80's compared to 30 or so now. You combine that with the baby boomers  playing in the 80s and you have the best talent the league has seen as well as the highest concentration of it. Can you name teams in today's league that have the talent level of the 80's Celtics or Lakers?

Please don't try to tell me that Golden State can compete with those teams either. Does anyone really think that Draymond Green could cover McHale? Sorry but the league was at an all time high talent wise in the 80's. Heck, LeBron would have his hands full trying to guard James Worthy for a series and Magic would destroy any point in the league now, not to mention what Kareem would do to todays centers.

The problem with your argument and the one that everyone makes is that it was the Lakers and Celtics and the early 80's had the Sixers and the late 80's had the Pistons, but the rest of the league wasn't very good.  The talent was centered on a few teams much more than it is today, but there is far more talent in the league today than there was in the 80's from top to bottom.  I mean a team like the Bucks that didn't have a single HOFer in their prime was a consistent top 2 or 3 team in the East throughout much of the 80's. 

I think dismissing the Bucks because they didn't have HOFers is myopic.  Those were some really, really good Bucks teams.  The Knicks also had Patrick Ewing.  The Rockets made the Finals twice.  The Hawks had Dominique.  And both Portland and Utah got really good toward the end of the decade.

Mike

If the Bucks were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the East for much of the 80's and didn't have a single HOFer (in their prime - they had Lanier for awhile) on them, doesn't that show that the league didn't have near the talent that has been made out to be?  The Bucks are pretty similar to the Hawks were last year, except the Hawks were a one time flash in the pan (as shown by this season and the seasons prior).  The Bucks were not.

The Rockets had one of the best centers ever (and the best center in the league for much of the 80's) and had some nice seasons, but isn't that pretty similar to the Kings with Cousins or the Pelicans with Davis.  If you want to compare better seasons from teams, how about Dwight's Magic (who actually made a Finals as well).  Except those teams aren't consistently 50 win teams. 

The Lakers and Celtics were loaded with talent, the rest of the league (except for portions the Sixers and Pistons) was either a team with one superstar and not much else (Bulls, Hawks, Knicks, Jazz, etc.), teams of very solid all around players but no great ones (Bucks, Sonics, Blazers, etc.), or just downright awful teams.  The love affair with the 80's is just silly.  Now there was a time in the early 90's when expansion and retirements left a small void in the league, but by the mid-90's that void was filled and the league has been as good as ever for a very long time.

The 84 Bucks may not have had a HOF other than Lanier, but they had Sydney Moncrief, who should be in HOF and was a better 2 guard than anyone in the league this year, and Marques Johnson and Terry Cummings, who would clearly be all stars in 2016. They were enormous, with Lanier, Alton Lister, Harvey Catchings and Paul Mokeski. And they had a number of excellent all round players, such as Paul Pressey (Phil's dad), Junior Bridgeman and Mike Dunleavey.

They would be a top 5 team easily today.

[fairweatherfan]

Whether the league has enough good players to be as deep as it was with 23 teams is debatable (personally I think it does).  But there's no serious conversation to be had about whether there are more good players overall now than in the mid-80s.  A simple scan of the international talent in the league then vs now makes it a ridiculous position to take.

[PhoSita]

LeBron will beat Bird in terms of his overall career on longevity alone.  He's already played as long as Bird played in his entire career, and Bron will probably play another 6-7 years at least.

[GreenFaith1819]

I bleed Green as much as the next person here, but it's hard to not imagine a successful team of Lebron James, Kevin McHale and Chief - with DJ and Danny at the guards.

I'd still rank him above LeBron - only because of his Finals successes, but even then LeBron's book is still being written.

[slamtheking]

LeBron will beat Bird in terms of his overall career on longevity alone.  He's already played as long as Bird played in his entire career, and Bron will probably play another 6-7 years at least.

your definition of "beat" is what exactly? 

if you're saying he'll have a longer career, well, yeah.

If you're saying that him having a longer career will result in higher stat totals than Bird, sure.

If you're saying the fact he has a longer career automatically makes him better than Bird, then that would be incorrect.  Higher stats do not mean a player is better when accounting for career longevity.

[slamtheking]

I bleed Green as much as the next person here, but it's hard to not imagine a successful team of Lebron James, Kevin McHale and Chief - with DJ and Danny at the guards.

I'd still rank him above LeBron - only because of his Finals successes, but even then LeBron's book is still being written.

sure he'd succeed.  hard to argue a number of top SFs wouldn't have succeeded with those teammates.  I'd offer this thought though, I think when adding Bird to Lebron's teams, they'd be at least as good if not a bit better.  Do you think that Bird would have lost those 2 finals that Bron lost with the Heat with those teammates or the finals where Cleveland lost to Dallas?  I really don't think so.  I think Bird's will to win and overall better skillset gets the titles.

[Celtics17]

The reason there is so much international talent today is because the talent level is not as good in today's league. They had to import talent from other countries.

[D Dub]

The reason there is so much international talent today is because the talent level is not as good in today's league. They had to import talent from other countries.

I'd attribute it to Michael Jordan's global popularity resulting in international kids playing a lot more hoop than ever before.   

[Moranis]

I bleed Green as much as the next person here, but it's hard to not imagine a successful team of Lebron James, Kevin McHale and Chief - with DJ and Danny at the guards.

I'd still rank him above LeBron - only because of his Finals successes, but even then LeBron's book is still being written.

sure he'd succeed.  hard to argue a number of top SFs wouldn't have succeeded with those teammates.  I'd offer this thought though, I think when adding Bird to Lebron's teams, they'd be at least as good if not a bit better.  Do you think that Bird would have lost those 2 finals that Bron lost with the Heat with those teammates or the finals where Cleveland lost to Dallas?  I really don't think so.  I think Bird's will to win and overall better skillset gets the titles.

Cleveland never lost to Dallas.  Cleveland lost to San Antonio.  But to your point, I don't think that Cleveland team with Bird instead of James even makes the Finals.  That Cleveland team is one of the worst Finals teams in history, it needed James' ability to handle the ball to go as far as it did.  Similarly, I think James was a better fit on the Cleveland team that played during the playoffs last year.  On the other hand, I do think the Heat would have beaten the Mavericks with Bird instead of James.  Bird's skill set would have been great with Bosh and Wade in that series and he wouldn't have taken as long to mix as James and Wade did since Bird and Wade aren't nearly as similar as James and Wade are.  I don't think Bird would have made any difference in the second San Antonio/Miami series.  San Antonio was just too much for either team that year.

[Moranis]

Actually there is a lot of truth to the league being watered down now compared to the 80's. There were only 21 teams in the 80's compared to 30 or so now. You combine that with the baby boomers  playing in the 80s and you have the best talent the league has seen as well as the highest concentration of it. Can you name teams in today's league that have the talent level of the 80's Celtics or Lakers?

Please don't try to tell me that Golden State can compete with those teams either. Does anyone really think that Draymond Green could cover McHale? Sorry but the league was at an all time high talent wise in the 80's. Heck, LeBron would have his hands full trying to guard James Worthy for a series and Magic would destroy any point in the league now, not to mention what Kareem would do to todays centers.

The problem with your argument and the one that everyone makes is that it was the Lakers and Celtics and the early 80's had the Sixers and the late 80's had the Pistons, but the rest of the league wasn't very good.  The talent was centered on a few teams much more than it is today, but there is far more talent in the league today than there was in the 80's from top to bottom.  I mean a team like the Bucks that didn't have a single HOFer in their prime was a consistent top 2 or 3 team in the East throughout much of the 80's. 

I think dismissing the Bucks because they didn't have HOFers is myopic.  Those were some really, really good Bucks teams.  The Knicks also had Patrick Ewing.  The Rockets made the Finals twice.  The Hawks had Dominique.  And both Portland and Utah got really good toward the end of the decade.

Mike

If the Bucks were the 2nd or 3rd best team in the East for much of the 80's and didn't have a single HOFer (in their prime - they had Lanier for awhile) on them, doesn't that show that the league didn't have near the talent that has been made out to be? 

No, it actually showed that the league had so much talent that very, very, very good players were overshadowed.

In the first 10 years of his career, Terry Cummings averaged over 20 points 7 times and more than 8 rebounds 8 times while shooting less than 48% from the floor just twice.

By comparison, in the first 10 years of his career, Paul Pierce averaged over 20 points 7 times and more than 7 rebounds just once while never shooting 48% from the field.

I'm not saying Cummings is better than Pierce but if HE had won a title and made the Finals a couple times?

Mike

That is just silly talk.  First, scoring was way higher in the 80's so there were not only more points there were more misses.  Cummings was also a PF his entire career.  He should rebound more.  Why not mention their assists?  How about their PER?  I mean despite having less opportunities, Pierce is significantly better than Cummings in those stats. 

Cummings was a fine player, had a very nice career, but he shouldn't arguably be the best player of a team that is consistently a top 3 seed (I'd say it was Moncrief but you could at least make a case for Cummings).

in 84/85 the East had 11 teams, 6 of them were below .500.  the west had 12 teams, 5 were below .500 and two more were right at .500.  Thus in a league of 23 teams only 10 teams were above .500.  Just 5 of those teams had even 50 wins, but 4 of those were 58 or more.  Basketball was incredibly top heavy in the 80's.  That year is not unique.  The Lakers, Celtics, and Sixers had 3 or more HOFers in their prime, plus a large percentage of the quality role players, which left a lot of teams with 1 great player and a bunch of crap, or just a bunch of very good players but no great players.  I mean, the Cavs made the playoffs that year with a starting 5 of: John Bagley, World B Free, Roy Hinson, Phil Hubbard, and Mark West.  The Nets won 42 games with a very young Buck Williams or a way past his prime Darryl Dawkins as its best player (or maybe you like Michael Ray Richardson, Albert King, or Kelvin Ransey - the other 3 starters).  How about the 44 win Mavericks whose starting 5 was Rolando Blackman, Mark Aguirre, Sam Perkins, Jay Vincent, and Brad Davis (you might recall that Perkins and Aguirre would win a bunch of titles as role players not that much after this season). 

84/85 is not unique.  The league was very very top heavy.  Much like it was in the 60's and 70's (though the 70's was a bit more balanced as a result of the merger).  It wasn't until the 90's and much more wide spread free agency that the league started to balance out a bit more (though you still have very strong teams at the top).

[colincb]

The reason there is so much international talent today is because the talent level is not as good in today's league. They had to import talent from other countries.

I'd attribute it to Michael Jordan's global popularity resulting in international kids playing a lot more hoop than ever before.

The Dream Team was a bigger factor.

[PhoSita]

LeBron will beat Bird in terms of his overall career on longevity alone.  He's already played as long as Bird played in his entire career, and Bron will probably play another 6-7 years at least.

your definition of "beat" is what exactly? 

if you're saying he'll have a longer career, well, yeah.

If you're saying that him having a longer career will result in higher stat totals than Bird, sure.

If you're saying the fact he has a longer career automatically makes him better than Bird, then that would be incorrect.  Higher stats do not mean a player is better when accounting for career longevity.

I mean, all of this depends on your rubric.  For me, I think it's a question of, who would you have rather had for his entire career?

I think when all is said and done the answer will, pretty clearly, be LeBron.

Bird at his very very best may have been better than Bron at his very best.  That's a tough debate.  But Bron will likely spend a much longer time playing at an MVP level and competing for championships.

[fairweatherfan]

The reason there is so much international talent today is because the talent level is not as good in today's league. They had to import talent from other countries.

Sure, a talent pool 10s of millions smaller than today's, a less popular league with lower salaries, training, nutrition, and youth coaching far below today's, and they somehow had more good players back then.  Any insights on the attitudes and work ethic of kids these days that might have caused this wildly improbable result?