Has LeBron surpassed Bird?

[GreenFaith1819]

I'll be the hardlined oddball, here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSI1_eVuhs

In answer to the thread - no.

Larry Bird, IMO - simply made the players around him better....as great as Lebron James is, I've yet to see him make the same plays that Larry has.

[Who]

I would like to see the '86 Celtics play against the 2013 Heat under the official rules of the modern era, though. My guess is that the Heat bury them with wide open corner threes, even though I vastly prefer watching tape of the '86 Celtics.

The 1986 Celtics would control the tempo of the game through their interior play. Miami has no response to the Celtics front court. There is no way for Miami to defend McHale + Parish + Bird. Too much skilled size. Miami have no chance at stopping Boston's offense. The Celtics would kill Miami on the backboards too. Boston would clearly control the tempo of the game and force Miami to adapt to them (their matchup problems) rather than vice versa. 

Miami's only recourse is to go big themselves with C.Andersen (non-threat offensively) alongside C.Bosh (who Bird would defend). Then that leaves LeBron as main ball-handler (against McHale) with only one strong three point shooter (PG) to space the floor with Wade's lack of reliable range becoming a liability. Squeezing the floor and limiting LeBron's dribble drive dependent game. An offense that Boston can easily defend against.

The 86 Celtics' team is simply too dynamic and talented for Miami to contend with.

Miami's would either (1) capitulate defensively, or, (2) defend adequately by going big but in doing so sacrificing their own offensive strength. The Heat simply cannot matchup effectively against 1986 Boston's skilled size (or their strength and depth).

There is no shame in that. The top teams from the 80s are just better than today's teams. Those Celtics teams, Lakers squads and the 83 Sixers were absolutely loaded. Incredible top tier talent combined with excellent strength and depth. All amongst the greatest teams ever assembled. It's close to impossible to put together a team that can match them in today's NBA due to increased salary cap constraints.

[BballTim]

Sure, but what rules are we working with? That's more illustrative of my point -- there's a lot more to this Player from era X is better than player from era Y idea than is usually accounted for.

  The rules aren't the biggest factor, the style of play is. You could probably find teams in the mid-80s that averaged 2-3 three point *attempts* a game. Still, no current rules are going to greatly affect the fact that that Celts team had what was probably the best front court and best starting fives ever.

[D.o.s.]

Sure, but what rules are we working with? That's more illustrative of my point -- there's a lot more to this Player from era X is better than player from era Y idea than is usually accounted for.

  The rules aren't the biggest factor, the style of play is. You could probably find teams in the mid-80s that averaged 2-3 three point *attempts* a game. Still, no current rules are going to greatly affect the fact that that Celts team had what was probably the best front court and best starting fives ever.

Rules dictate the style of play, and vice versa. Trying to differentiate between the two isn't all that helpful -- There's a reason no one depends on low-post scoring any more, and it's not because there aren't any players who can score on the block.

Sure, but what rules are we working with? That's more illustrative of my point -- there's a lot more to this Player from era X is better than player from era Y idea than is usually accounted for.

When talking different eras, i would give each team time to adjust to the different rules, and to adjust to the different comforts/medical knowledge/ media attention. That being said there are so many factors when comparing eras, that it becomes an unwinnable argument.

I think the 80s celtics or lakers would still dominate today's era. Miami still cant stop the interior post play of the C's and L's. All the teams' scorers would benefit from the no hand check rules.

I firmly believe that great players can adjust to new rules and still be great.

See, my usual idea regarding this sort of hypothetical is that the two teams come into it cold but are given the rules of the most recent teams -- probably with some acquiescence to contact rules from back in the day (i.e. you're calling contact like you would in 1986), but you're also looking at almost 30 years of evolution in the ideas behind how basketball is played.

There are many more fun teams to pull from the modern era than the Heat, though. For example, I don't think the '86 Celtics would have had a great time dealing with ~50 pick and rolls a night -- and why would they, they weren't built to defend against it. Not that the team isn't one of the best collections of basketball talent (it clearly is), but I don't think it's nearly as much of a go-ahead decision as has been assumed.

[BballTim]

Sure, but what rules are we working with? That's more illustrative of my point -- there's a lot more to this Player from era X is better than player from era Y idea than is usually accounted for.

  The rules aren't the biggest factor, the style of play is. You could probably find teams in the mid-80s that averaged 2-3 three point *attempts* a game. Still, no current rules are going to greatly affect the fact that that Celts team had what was probably the best front court and best starting fives ever.

Rules dictate the style of play, and vice versa. Trying to differentiate between the two isn't all that helpful -- There's a reason no one depends on low-post scoring any more, and it's not because there aren't any players who can score on the block.

  Technically it was a rule change that led to the difference in three attempts as the three point shot was new to the nba in the 80s. And it's absolutely because there aren't a lot of good low post scorers in the league. Close to the basket is still the most efficient way to score in the league. Who in the league can score like McHale or Kareem or Hakeem or Moses, or even like Shaq or a young Duncan?

[D.o.s.]

... Al Jefferson. 

[fitzhickey]

Hmm, he is nearly there. If Bird had been as healthy as Lebroid then this argument wouldn't be as close.

Plus Bird college for 4 years, lessening his time in the NBA.

If you were to trust a guy to win your team a playoff series you'd take Bird first.

[csfansince60s]

I haven't read any of the thread, so if someone said this, I apologize, but the question in the title is absurd.

You're only as great as the dragons that you slay.

When LeBroid beats prime teams like the Dr. J, Moses, Toney, Dawkins, Jones '6ers or the Magic, Jabbar, Worthy, Michael Cooper, Byron Scott Lakers, or the Isaiah Thomas, Dennis Rodman, Bill Laimbeer, Adrian Dantley, Mark Aguire, Joe Dumars Bad Boys, maybe then you can ask the question.

[mgent]

You do realize LeBron couldn't even come close to beating a poor man's Larry Bird (Dirk)?  Add in an improved version of Chandler, an improved version of Kidd, oh yeah and Kevin freakin McHale....what do you think is gonna happen?

[fitzhickey]

You do realize LeBron couldn't even come close to beating a poor man's Larry Bird (Dirk)?  Add in an improved version of Chandler, an improved version of Kidd, oh yeah and Kevin freakin McHale....what do you think is gonna happen?

AND Larry never got together with 2 of the best Eastern Conference players to make one super team, as well as ruining two teams for a few years.

[staticcc]

You do realize LeBron couldn't even come close to beating a poor man's Larry Bird (Dirk)?  Add in an improved version of Chandler, an improved version of Kidd, oh yeah and Kevin freakin McHale....what do you think is gonna happen?

AND Larry never got together with 2 of the best Eastern Conference players to make one super team, as well as ruining two teams for a few years.

He DID get together with 2 of the best EC players, he just didn't do it by choice.

[fitzhickey]

You do realize LeBron couldn't even come close to beating a poor man's Larry Bird (Dirk)?  Add in an improved version of Chandler, an improved version of Kidd, oh yeah and Kevin freakin McHale....what do you think is gonna happen?

AND Larry never got together with 2 of the best Eastern Conference players to make one super team, as well as ruining two teams for a few years.

He DID get together with 2 of the best EC players, he just didn't do it by choice.

That was all on Red. Drafting Bird even when he wasn't going to play was risky as heck.

[fairweatherfan]

Yeah the 86 Celtics would stomp any version of LeBron's Heat.  Not the same as saying Bird's better than LeBron, though.  Which is also not the same as saying Bird accomplished more than LeBron, which is probably the fairest way of assessing this sort of thing and is tilting increasingly sharply in LeBron's favor. 

[Roy H.]

Yeah the 86 Celtics would stomp any version of LeBron's Heat.  Not the same as saying Bird's better than LeBron, though.  Which is also not the same as saying Bird accomplished more than LeBron, which is probably the fairest way of assessing this sort of thing and is tilting increasingly sharply in LeBron's favor.

I'm not sure that accomplishments are the fairest way to settle things without evaluating the level of competition a player played against.  Those Lakers and Sixers teams that Larry lost to were legitimately great teams.  I don't think any team in today's era rises to that level other than the Heat, and the aging Spurs.

[KCattheStripe]

Yeah the 86 Celtics would stomp any version of LeBron's Heat.  Not the same as saying Bird's better than LeBron, though.  Which is also not the same as saying Bird accomplished more than LeBron, which is probably the fairest way of assessing this sort of thing and is tilting increasingly sharply in LeBron's favor.

I'm not sure that accomplishments are the fairest way to settle things without evaluating the level of competition a player played against.  Those Lakers and Sixers teams that Larry lost to were legitimately great teams.  I don't think any team in today's era rises to that level other than the Heat, and the aging Spurs.

I dunno, a healthy Thunder is pretty close.