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

[Surferdad]

Like others, I give the nod to Bird over Lebron right now but the gap is closing fast. 

Bird is clearly the better shooter, probably the better passer and has more rings.

Lebron is the better athlete, the better defender and is more versatile in that he can play any position on the floor.

Both players came in the league and had an immediate positive impact on their teams (playoffs). Both players are/were able to take over games and will their teams to victory. I am surprised some people think Lebron cannot do this as well as Bird.

Bottom line for me: Bird is still better, but if Lebron wins a few more titles and plays another 5+ years at a high level, he could pass Bird.

[Celtics4ever]

Bird did not wilt when the going got touch, even with a bad back he was tougher hurt than LeBron was healthy.

Bird passes were things of art too.   Had he wanted he could have easily put up more numbers but he was all about winning.   Not sure one can say that about LeBron as readily. 

I also think LeBron took PEDs and some day it will be proven.  Time will tell.

[2short]

Larry bird is one of the greatest passers ever at any position.
List is silly

I'm modifying anyone who has watched the nba since pre bird days
1. League is watered down
2. Lebron and Jordan have gotten special treatment by refs unapproachable by any other players
3. Hand checking and defensive rule changes

Pippen was a very good all around player.  Hondo! No comparison.

[Surferdad]

Bird did not wilt when the going got touch, even with a bad back he was tougher hurt than LeBron was healthy.

Bird passes were things of art too.   Had he wanted he could have easily put up more numbers but he was all about winning.  Not sure one can say that about LeBron as readily. 

I also think LeBron took PEDs and some day it will be proven.  Time will tell.

Of course you have a right to post anything you want, but these statements come from nowhere and cannot be defended.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Bird did not wilt when the going got touch, even with a bad back he was tougher hurt than LeBron was healthy.

Bird passes were things of art too.   Had he wanted he could have easily put up more numbers but he was all about winning.   Not sure one can say that about LeBron as readily. 

I also think LeBron took PEDs and some day it will be proven.  Time will tell.

I agree with you....revised history by a lot of people...a lot of folks think Magic Johnson was a better player than Bird---which is Hogwash--If you were around back in the 80's you knew who the best player in the league was.

[guava_wrench]

Larry bird is one of the greatest passers ever at any position.
List is silly

I'm modifying anyone who has watched the nba since pre bird days
1. League is watered down
2. Lebron and Jordan have gotten special treatment by refs unapproachable by any other players
3. Hand checking and defensive rule changes

Pippen was a very good all around player.  Hondo! No comparison.

The "watered down" argument is a complete fail. The talent and skill is way more now. Guys train and practice all year round. There are also far more interest in basketball so we have a much larger pool of talent.

[Celtics17]

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.

[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. 

And for the record, the Spurs have at least 3 surefire HOFers and two other guys in their prime that have a great chance to get there.  The Cavs have LBJ and at least two other guys that will likely get there who are still in their prime.  The Thunder and Clippers each have what should be 2 HOFers in their prime and both have very strong supporting casts.  The Warriors have the best offensive player the league has ever seen (who is the defending league MVP) and a strong deep supporting cast.  This notion that there isn't talent or that the league is watered down is just crazy talk.  I mean the best center in the world who is currently averaging 26/11 (which btw are both top 5 in the league) is on a team 7 games below .500 and has never had a winning season and even though his PG this year is leading the league in assists by 2 full assists a game. 

[apc]

I just don't get the obsession with rating athletes. to many variables.
I guess the point is to create discussion... good for ratings.

[fairweatherfan]

I just don't get the obsession with rating athletes. to many variables.
I guess the point is to create discussion... good for ratings.

Answered your own question there.  People respond to rankings, so we get lots of them thrown at us.

[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

[Donoghus]

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

I'm not sure there is a team in NBA lore that falls through the cracks as much as the early to mid 80s Milwaukee Bucks.

[JBcat]

Worthy and Wilkins are on this list but Pierce isn't!?!?  I'm not so sure about that.

[GC003332]

Sucks for Dr J that his ABA career wasn't counted towards his ranking, only his 76ers career.
The guy put up some big numbers and won a couple of titles and 3 MVP's in that league.
I find it interesting when length of careers and durability come into the picture,
I ask myself what impact a sportsman has on the general public's overall conscience,
no matter what length of time they perform.Take for example Barry Sanders,
 he could have gone on for much longer, but he still ranks as one of the top running backs of all time even with a relatively short career.
Mike Tyson's early championship reign wasn't overly long, but the impact he had was legendary.
If Jordan stayed retired after 93, he would still go down as one of the top 2 or 3 to ever play.
It is a tough decision with regard to Bird and Lebron, no right or wrong choice in my mind.

[slamtheking]

I've seen both their careers in full (obviously, Lebron's is still going).  It's Bird all day.  I just don't understand the debate. 

I'd give the edge to Lebron in athleticism and the fact that's made him a top defender in both individual and team defense but that's not nearly enough to put him ahead of Bird.  Bird's offensive skills are so far beyond Lebron's.  Sure, Lebron can charge into people, palm the ball, travel and get all the love of the officiating crew to look great but Bird didn't have that to inflate his numbers. 

Bird's passing was second to none for a forward and I would argue second only to Magic during Bird's career. 

He's a far superior rebounder---knew where to position himself and how to box out-->didn't need to rely on athleticism to get the boards. 

His team D is incredibly underrated and he wasn't as bad as people think when it came to individual D.  Not as good as Lebron on individual D, but solid.

Sure, Lebron's been miraculously healthy for his career which is admittedly an accomplishment considering his style of play but I don't see that as a big factor in this debate.  Sure, if Bird only played 5-6 years, that would be a factor but he played for a longer time than that.

Lebron's a great player, best in the game for quite a while now, no question.  As much as I don't like him, he's one of the best ever.  But he's not as good as Bird.  I watch him and just don't see the skills that Bird had.