- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NBA question: Better player Bird or Barkley
Posted on 6/16/22 at 7:38 pm to SirWinston
Posted on 6/16/22 at 7:38 pm to SirWinston
quote:
but for some reason it seems to me that people don't gush over his playing style like they did MJ Kobe Magic or Steph.
Wut?
1
Posted on 6/16/22 at 7:48 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
I mean today. On NBA pregame shows and podcasts, it seems like I rarely hear anyone except Bill Simmons reference Bird.
Posted on 6/16/22 at 7:49 pm to Lige
Bird easy peasy.
Posted on 6/16/22 at 9:23 pm to AlwysATgr
I watched both a ton and this is a ridiculous question. I love Chuck maybe more than Bird but Larry Bird had a run of 9 years that was insane until he basically broke his back. It was some of the best basketball ever played, he’s in the Top 5 discussion all day every day. Charles was really good but not on that level.
Posted on 6/16/22 at 9:43 pm to Lige
Bird as a player, Barkley post playing is maybe the GOAT
Posted on 6/16/22 at 10:18 pm to tigersmanager
quote:
Bird but Barkley definitely was a great one
Bird was a top five player.
Barkley was amazing and one of my favorite personalities. Chuck underestimates Bird for several reasons:
1. His peak really came just as Bird's body gave out.
2. Barkley's greatest abilities were exactly the things Bird didn't have: explosive power, speed, and strength.
3. Bird's greatest abilities were the things Barkley didn't have: great touch and vision.
Both men were tough and would fight rather than back down (on and off the court) but their leadership styles and personalities were very different. Even though both were trash talkers they even did that differently. Bird would tell you what he was going to do in a normal tone of voice whereas Chuck would get in your face and let the spit fly.
Posted on 6/16/22 at 10:37 pm to molsusports
Bird all day, he made his team mates and team better any way he could
and I love Barkley, but it isnt close
switch teams and Bird elevates the 76ers to Championship level, Barkley doesnt make the Celtics better in the same way
and I love Barkley, but it isnt close
switch teams and Bird elevates the 76ers to Championship level, Barkley doesnt make the Celtics better in the same way
Posted on 6/16/22 at 10:39 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Bird won 3 NBA MVPs in a row (which only 3 players have done) and finished 2nd 6 times. Between 1980-1989 Larry Bird received 67% of MVP votes.
If Larry Bird played from 1990 - 1998 he wouldn't have won MVPs. It just so happens that Barkley's prime was the same as Jordan's and Jordan is way better than anyone else.
quote:
Barkley couldn't even drink beer with Bird. He said on the Dream Team he hung out with Bird one day and was so hungover the next day after just drinking a bunch of Bud.
No one could hang with MJ on the Dream Team and most of the players even admitted it. And WTF does drinking beer have to do with playing basketball?
Posted on 6/16/22 at 10:47 pm to Lige
Man that's a hard one.Bird was a muthafricka, but so was Chuck. Both were blue collar asf and that was good. Bird just had something else that you just can't measure. Like just look at him play and there is something that Bird has that isn't measured on the stat sheet
Posted on 6/16/22 at 11:10 pm to Buckeye06
quote:
If Larry Bird played from 1990 - 1998 he wouldn't have won MVPs. It just so happens that Barkley's prime was the same as Jordan's and Jordan is way better than anyone else.
Wut?
Bird won NBA MVPs over Dr. j, Magic, Kareem AND Michael Jordan (Jordan entered the league in 1984 for christsakes) and Bird played until 1992. Both Bird and MJ won MVP their 4th year in the league.
Jordan had plenty of time to win MVPs over Bird...and opportunities to beat him in the playoffs but he never could.
This post was edited on 6/16/22 at 11:12 pm
Posted on 6/16/22 at 11:44 pm to Lige
Bird is Top 5
Barkley isn’t Top 10
Barkley isn’t Top 10
Posted on 6/17/22 at 12:26 am to SportsGuyNOLA
No one with any basketball IQ would pick prime Chuck.
Prime Bird dominated the League for a decade
Barkley rarely even dominated his conference.
Behind the mic however Chuck is one of the best ever while bird can’t seem to speak clearly.
Prime Bird dominated the League for a decade
Barkley rarely even dominated his conference.
Behind the mic however Chuck is one of the best ever while bird can’t seem to speak clearly.
Posted on 6/17/22 at 12:48 am to Lige
Bird has one of the better what ifs in the NBA.
He was one of the best players in the NBA despite throwing his back out in 1985.
After ruining his back, and basically being unable to sit in a chair during games, he still put up these stats:
26/10/7/2 on 50/42/90 in 1986
28/9/7/2/1 on 53/40/91 in 1987
30/9/6/2/1 on 53/41/92 in 1988
then he reinjured his back and "only" averaged 21.5/9.1/7.1/1.4/0.9 on 47/37/92 his last 4 seasons.
It is crazy that his best 3 years statistically were immediately after ruining his back and even after ruining it even more he still was one of the best in the game. Not even mentioning the fact that maybe he wins another ring if Len Bias doesn't die and is decent.
He was one of the best players in the NBA despite throwing his back out in 1985.
After ruining his back, and basically being unable to sit in a chair during games, he still put up these stats:
26/10/7/2 on 50/42/90 in 1986
28/9/7/2/1 on 53/40/91 in 1987
30/9/6/2/1 on 53/41/92 in 1988
then he reinjured his back and "only" averaged 21.5/9.1/7.1/1.4/0.9 on 47/37/92 his last 4 seasons.
It is crazy that his best 3 years statistically were immediately after ruining his back and even after ruining it even more he still was one of the best in the game. Not even mentioning the fact that maybe he wins another ring if Len Bias doesn't die and is decent.
This post was edited on 6/17/22 at 12:49 am
Posted on 6/17/22 at 4:51 am to SirWinston
quote:Steph plays in a much softer NBA than Bird did. The game was more physical. Steph deserves his props but he isn't the overall player Bird was.
Was Bird as fun to watch as Steph?
Posted on 6/17/22 at 5:30 am to Lige
Barkley would tell you it’s Bird up until 90
Posted on 6/17/22 at 8:01 am to Weagle25
quote:
Per Game Career Totals:
Barkley:
22.1 PPG
11.7 RPG
3.9 APG
1.5 SPG
0.8 BPG
eFG% .558
Playoffs:
23.0 PPG
12.9 RPG
3.9 APG
1.6 SPG
0.9 BPG
eFG% .530
Larry Bird:
24.3 PPG
10.0 RPG
6.3 APG
1.7 SPG
0.8 BPG
eFG% .514
Playoffs:
23.8 PPG
10.3 RPG
6.5 APG
1.8 SPG
0.9 BPG
eFG% .485
That is pretty fricking even it seems to me. Barkly played 3 more seasons and in about 150 more games. Barkleys last 3 seasons sw a significant drop in his point scoring and FG percentages.
I'd give the edge to Bird, but not by a large margin.
Posted on 6/17/22 at 8:19 am to Lige
quote:
He wished he had McHale and Parish as teammates.
This board is particularly silly about Bird praise, but Chuck is correct here.
Like people calling Curry better than Lebron, there is no way that argument isn’t laughed out the room unless Curry ends up in arguably the best situation any superstar has had in this era.
Where you go matters a ton, and if you are drafted to a mediocre organization in Chuck’s era, there is basically no chance for you to get in the all time conversation. Meanwhile Bird ended up in 1 of the 2 greatest franchises and organizations of all time. Had great complimentary hall of fame teammates around him his whole career.
Bird gets drafted to the Clippers or Pacers in the 80’s, he’s likely never winning shite
Posted on 6/17/22 at 8:44 am to Bronc
quote:
Bird gets drafted to the Clippers or Pacers in the 80’s, he’s likely never winning shite
Good lord.
Uh, he basically got drafted to the Clippers.
Celtics were a dumpster fire before Bird...in the late 70s.
They went from 29-53 the previous year, to 61-21,(the biggest turnaround in NBA history) after adding only ONE player to the starting lineup...
Larry Bird
The rest of the roster was the same. No Chief, no McHale.
Posted on 6/17/22 at 8:44 am to Lige
Bird, but I am okay with an athlete thinking they are the best. Thats part of getting to that stage is believing youre the best every night
Posted on 6/17/22 at 9:08 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Good lord. Uh, he basically got drafted to the Clippers.
This is the point where I realize that people don’t actually know what the frick they are talking about in these conversations.
Year one Larry Bird had Cedric Maxwell(finally coming into his own), Tiny Archibald(HoF), Dave Cowens(Hall of Fame), Chris Ford, and Pete Maravich.
Bird slotted in perfectly to a complimentary and very skilled team. Then went on to precipitously add HoF level players as he entered his prime and throughout his career. While Chuck went the opposite and started high with two all timers, then by the time he’s 24, the year Bird won his first chip, Chuck’s best teammate is fricking Clif Robinson.
To ignore that what organization you land has a big influence on the upper bounds of your career is to ignore the reality of this sport. It takes away from the storybook narratives people love, but it’s the cold hard truth and Chuck’s not wrong to point it out.
It’s a bit different today, because of player movement and the shift in power dynamics, but getting drafted into a winning franchise still gives you a major boost to your legacy potential. And Bird landed on one of the two biggest franchises and had Red Auerbach and Jan Volk building around him.
This post was edited on 6/17/22 at 9:16 am
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News