Bird>James

[td450]

This is an argument that would only be had on a Celtics board  Lebron is both the better player and has had the better career.

On top of that, the NBA is clearly more talented today than it was twenty years ago. Guys are more athletic and the game has evolved to a point where they are more skilled as well. Guys hardly shot three pointers back in the day and now it's almost a required skill to be able to have a reasonably long career.

Someone mentioned Russell too...He wouldn't even be a starting caliber center in today's league. The guys he played against in the league wouldn't be high school players in today's world.

I think it is fair to say that the training regimens are more extreme today and the game has evolved some with rule changes, but today's players don't look any better or worse to me, or any more athletic for that matter. LeBron deserves all the praise he gets, but while he has a very high basketball IQ, he just doesn't have the level of instincts that Magic and Bird had, and he just isn't as tough mentally in the clutch.

Let's keep in mind that GS didn't score after the 4:39 mark, and Cleveland scored 4 points, one of which was a desperation 3 pointer. Cleveland won by choking a little less.

And your comments about Russell are difficult to swallow. Setting aside the fact that he was smarter and tougher, Russell was also a much better athlete than any big playing today.  In 1956, he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world. He could run a 440 in under 50 seconds.

Given how important it is for bigs to be able to show on picks out to the 3 point line and recover, he would be just as valuable in today's game.

[celticsclay]

This is an argument that would only be had on a Celtics board  Lebron is both the better player and has had the better career.

On top of that, the NBA is clearly more talented today than it was twenty years ago. Guys are more athletic and the game has evolved to a point where they are more skilled as well. Guys hardly shot three pointers back in the day and now it's almost a required skill to be able to have a reasonably long career.

Someone mentioned Russell too...He wouldn't even be a starting caliber center in today's league. The guys he played against in the league wouldn't be high school players in today's world.

I think it is fair to say that the training regimens are more extreme today and the game has evolved some with rule changes, but today's players don't look any better or worse to me, or any more athletic for that matter. LeBron deserves all the praise he gets, but while he has a very high basketball IQ, he just doesn't have the level of instincts that Magic and Bird had, and he just isn't as tough mentally in the clutch.

Let's keep in mind that GS didn't score after the 4:39 mark, and Cleveland scored 4 points, one of which was a desperation 3 pointer. Cleveland won by choking a little less.

And your comments about Russell are difficult to swallow. Setting aside the fact that he was smarter and tougher, Russell was also a much better athlete than any big playing today.  In 1956, he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world. He could run a 440 in under 50 seconds.

Given how important it is for bigs to be able to show on picks out to the 3 point line and recover, he would be just as valuable in today's game.

Yea you got served pretty hard there. Saying Russell would not be a starting NBA center. Maybe you want to take that one back?

[kozlodoev]

And your comments about Russell are difficult to swallow. Setting aside the fact that he was smarter and tougher, Russell was also a much better athlete than any big playing today.  In 1956, he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world. He could run a 440 in under 50 seconds.

It is important to remember that these achievements were made relative to the field. The high jump world record in 1960s was 7ft and 5.75 (228 cm). Today, it is 8ft an .5 (245 cm).

[mahcus smaht]

And your comments about Russell are difficult to swallow. Setting aside the fact that he was smarter and tougher, Russell was also a much better athlete than any big playing today.  In 1956, he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world. He could run a 440 in under 50 seconds.

It is important to remember that these achievements were made relative to the field. The high jump world record in 1960s was 7ft and 5.75 (228 cm). Today, it is 8ft an .5 (245 cm).

a 400meter dash in under 50 is not world class. Its pretty good for high school. Now you get down to 47 and under and Im more impressed.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Anyone who says that LeBron is a better passer than Bird, never saw Bird in action....ridiculous.

LBJ should leave for the Clippers and Win a title for the most pathetic NBA franchise ever---Then he'd probably be the GOAT.

[celticsclay]

And your comments about Russell are difficult to swallow. Setting aside the fact that he was smarter and tougher, Russell was also a much better athlete than any big playing today.  In 1956, he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world. He could run a 440 in under 50 seconds.

It is important to remember that these achievements were made relative to the field. The high jump world record in 1960s was 7ft and 5.75 (228 cm). Today, it is 8ft an .5 (245 cm).

Yes, but Russell would also have better information available to him about nutrition. He also Would have access to higher quality athletic equipment and training equipment. Heck maybe he adds another two inches with 50 years of shoe technology advancements alone. This seems like a common sense point that you are failing to consider.

[GC003332]

James wasn't quite the shooter Bird was, but let's not pretend Bird was Steph Curry from three either.  Bird only had 6 seasons above 40%, but he was also under 30% four times.  James eclipsed 40% just once, but only his rookie year was he below 30%.  Bird was obviously a beter outside shooter, but it isn't nearly the gap people on here make it out to be, but here is where it gets really interesting.  Bird had just two seasons above 60% in TS%, James has had four such seasons already. 

Bird is a better rebounder no question, but there were a lot more possessions in the 80's than they are today and when you look at TRB%, Bird is about 4% better i.e. he grabbed 4% more of the available rebounds.  However, passing there is a significantly larger gap where James is about 10% better than Bird.  In fact James' rookie year he was 27.8%, Bird was only better than that one time (and that was about 6% lower than James' career average).  They are nearly equal in steal, block, and turnover percentage.  James career average in PER is higher than Bird's best season.

So even with the lower possessions, James has higher career highs in all but rebounds and better efficiency stats basically across the board (again except rebounds).  James not only has had a longer career, he has had a statistically greater career, with more awards and accolades.  Only Celtics fans still put Bird above James and even that list is shrinking as evident by this thread (and a few others). 

James is the greatest SF in NBA history.

Usage Moranis Usage

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/usg_pct_career.html

Lebron James ranks 5th all time Larry Bird ranks 37th , you never take that into context when you compare career numbers between the 2 players.
6 out of the top 9 players on the list are from today's era.
Until you take that into account , the numbers you keep putting out don't bear the same weight man.
More of a team game back then.

I am not saying that Bird is a better player than James but you have to put their numbers into context, Bird's 3 point percentage was over 10% above the league average when he played, the evolution of the 3 point shot from the 80's until now can't be ignored , but you will anyway.

It is like comparing stats from the field goal percentages from the 60's until now, the evolution of the game man.

You either deliberately do this to suit your agenda or just don't understand the evolution of the game.

[Big333223]

Anyone who says that LeBron is a better passer than Bird, never saw Bird in action....ridiculous.

While I wouldn't go so far as "ridiculous" I basically agree with this. Lebron is a great passer but he's never played with a true point guard and almost always played in offenses designed for him to create and thus get lots of assists. Bird's passing was more natual and came as part of the game not the designed offense. Bird's assist numbers would be even higher if he had been used like James.

But that leads me to why I'd go with Bird over Lebron: there's only one way to use Lebron. He has to have the ball in his hands more than Bird did. Bird could be the focal point of the offense or he could play off ball if needed. James never learned how to do that. Bird is a more complete player in that way and that's how I break what is otherwise, pretty much a tie.

EDIT: This goes hand-in-hand with what GC posted above about usage rates.

[kozlodoev]

And your comments about Russell are difficult to swallow. Setting aside the fact that he was smarter and tougher, Russell was also a much better athlete than any big playing today.  In 1956, he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world. He could run a 440 in under 50 seconds.

It is important to remember that these achievements were made relative to the field. The high jump world record in 1960s was 7ft and 5.75 (228 cm). Today, it is 8ft an .5 (245 cm).

a 400meter dash in under 50 is not world class. Its pretty good for high school. Now you get down to 47 and under and Im more impressed.

The WR in 1960 was 45, so there's that.

[Moranis]

James wasn't quite the shooter Bird was, but let's not pretend Bird was Steph Curry from three either.  Bird only had 6 seasons above 40%, but he was also under 30% four times.  James eclipsed 40% just once, but only his rookie year was he below 30%.  Bird was obviously a beter outside shooter, but it isn't nearly the gap people on here make it out to be, but here is where it gets really interesting.  Bird had just two seasons above 60% in TS%, James has had four such seasons already. 

Bird is a better rebounder no question, but there were a lot more possessions in the 80's than they are today and when you look at TRB%, Bird is about 4% better i.e. he grabbed 4% more of the available rebounds.  However, passing there is a significantly larger gap where James is about 10% better than Bird.  In fact James' rookie year he was 27.8%, Bird was only better than that one time (and that was about 6% lower than James' career average).  They are nearly equal in steal, block, and turnover percentage.  James career average in PER is higher than Bird's best season.

So even with the lower possessions, James has higher career highs in all but rebounds and better efficiency stats basically across the board (again except rebounds).  James not only has had a longer career, he has had a statistically greater career, with more awards and accolades.  Only Celtics fans still put Bird above James and even that list is shrinking as evident by this thread (and a few others). 

James is the greatest SF in NBA history.

Usage Moranis Usage

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/usg_pct_career.html

Lebron James ranks 5th all time Larry Bird ranks 37th , you never take that into context when you compare career numbers between the 2 players.
6 out of the top 9 players on the list are from today's era.
Until you take that into account , the numbers you keep putting out don't bear the same weight man.
More of a team game back then.

I am not saying that Bird is a better player than James but you have to put their numbers into context, Bird's 3 point percentage was over 10% above the league average when he played, the evolution of the 3 point shot from the 80's until now can't be ignored , but you will anyway.

It is like comparing stats from the field goal percentages from the 60's until now, the evolution of the game man.

You either deliberately do this to suit your agenda or just don't understand the evolution of the game.

Usage has some bearing on ppg, but not a whole lot else.  That is why I didn't mention usage.

Some years Bird was above the average, other years he was below.  In fact, Bird won the MVP in 83/84 and shot 24.7% from three.  The league average was 25.0%.  Now the next few seasons after that Bird was well above the league average. 

[ZoneD]

This is an argument that would only be had on a Celtics board  Lebron is both the better player and has had the better career.

On top of that, the NBA is clearly more talented today than it was twenty years ago. Guys are more athletic and the game has evolved to a point where they are more skilled as well. Guys hardly shot three pointers back in the day and now it's almost a required skill to be able to have a reasonably long career.

Someone mentioned Russell too...He wouldn't even be a starting caliber center in today's league. The guys he played against in the league wouldn't be high school players in today's world.

I think it is fair to say that the training regimens are more extreme today and the game has evolved some with rule changes, but today's players don't look any better or worse to me, or any more athletic for that matter. LeBron deserves all the praise he gets, but while he has a very high basketball IQ, he just doesn't have the level of instincts that Magic and Bird had, and he just isn't as tough mentally in the clutch.

Let's keep in mind that GS didn't score after the 4:39 mark, and Cleveland scored 4 points, one of which was a desperation 3 pointer. Cleveland won by choking a little less.

And your comments about Russell are difficult to swallow. Setting aside the fact that he was smarter and tougher, Russell was also a much better athlete than any big playing today.  In 1956, he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world. He could run a 440 in under 50 seconds.

Given how important it is for bigs to be able to show on picks out to the 3 point line and recover, he would be just as valuable in today's game.

Yea you got served pretty hard there. Saying Russell would not be a starting NBA center. Maybe you want to take that one back?

I stand by it. I don't think he would be nearly as good in today's NBA. And no, if we're going to get into semantics I don't believe that his game would translate to today's game. He didn't have a jump shot, couldn't make free throws, wasn't spectacular on offense and frankly I think most centers in today's game have more skills than he or guys like Wilt Chamberlain ever did.

[Moranis]

Russell would have been a bigger stronger more athletic version of Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman in the modern NBA. 

[CapnDunks]

How do you separate crazy athleticism from accomplishments? Do we hold it against Bill Russell that he was an athletic freak? How about MJ? I obviously prefer Bird, but I can't imagine making this argument to anyone who isn't a Celtics fan.

Isn't longevity and the ability to consistently compete the reason Russell is so great? I realize Lebron has lost 3 times in the finals. I'm just trying to express that discounting athleticism or longevity as measures of greatness doesn't make sense.

[Kane3387]

Lebron making statements! Shirt is savage.

[Neurotic Guy]

I guess I prefer wizardry over sheer physical dominance.

This is the key comparison.  Watching Bird was like watching a gawky-looking Barishnikov. Watching Lebron is like watching the Incredible Hulk.   For sheer physical dominance, it's Lebron. For Wizardry, take your pick between Bird and Magic.  For Ahleticism and a splash of wizardry, MJ is the man.   

All are among the greatest.  I guess it's fun to argue, but who is considered the GOAT means very little to me.