Question about Larry Bird

[CatsCatsCats]

Why would a player who was a former star not be good today? Is it because you think there are better athletes today? I don't think so. I think there is better training. But I think any player that was a star in his era would train like the athletes of this era and be just as good if not better. It is all relative to the standards of each era.

 

I don't know but I guess it is possible. With a guy like Charles Barkley who is only 6'4" or so I'd love do see what he could do in today's game. How would he be remembered had he played against giants like Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett at the 4-spot rather than the 6'8" power forwards of the 90s? Question has to be asked I think.

[PurplePride92]

Really?

 

Yes. I think all three benefitted from playing with Larry and Magic.

 

I think McHale would be okay. Probably be like Hansbrough but I don't think he would be an All Star in today's game

 

 

I think Parish would get abused by the bigs in today's game. I see him having a hard time with Gasol, Bynum, Nene, Garnett, etc, etc. Don't see much coming from him. He would only face the Heat so many times.

 

 

As for Worthy you can plug in any slashing, athletic small forward with Magic Johnson and get his production. Worthy was in the right place at the right time. His game fizzled quickly when Magic left. Vince Carter is better than Worthy, IMO. I think Richard Jefferson when it comes to Worthy.

[PurplePride92]

I don't know but I guess it is possible. With a guy like Charles Barkley who is only 6'4" or so I'd love do see what he could do in today's game. How would he be remembered had he played against giants like Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett at the 4-spot rather than the 6'8" power forwards of the 90s? Question has to be asked I think.

 

Barkley is a rarity. He is the most athletic 6'4" 250+ pound person I have ever seen play. He also shot the three fairly well. Barkley still did his thing among the likes of Rodman, Shaq, Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson and many many more. I don't think Duncan or Garnett would have posed a problem to him at all. I could be swayed to take Barkley over either one to be honest. Definitely over Garnett. Maybe not Duncan but definitely KG.

[oldrambler]

Since I made the initial Dirk comparison, I feel the need to mention a few things in his defense.

 

 

2. Bird played with McHale and Parrish, so while he led this Celtics he had great players around him the level that Dirk has not had.

 

3. What were the Mavs before Dirk showed up? He gets no credit for taking a loser franchise and taking them to Game 7 of a Finals, winning an MVP, and being the greatest European- born player in NBA history?

 

Bird was better, and he was signifigcanly better. Dirk is not chopped liver. Dirk is a top 100 all time player. Bird is a top 20, arguably top 10. Remember, I never said that Dirk was a Bird clone; i just said that if Dirk had success, I do not see why Bird would not in the modern NBA. I am curious, since folks are so offended by the comparisons I have made, who do others use as a comparison in the modern NBA?

 

 

First of all I don't think that anyone was aying that Dirk was a bad player, he is very good. I know that I certainly wasn't offended. I was just emphasizing how great that Bird was.

Yes, Bird had McHale and Parish, he made them better and the game easier for them and not the other way around. Those were some great Celtic teams, all were good players and Bird was great/superstar player. Without Bird, that Celtic team was a little above average.

Also, Bird top 20, arguably top 10?? I think that Larry Bird was a top 5 player. JMO

[oldrambler]

Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Charles Barkley...all would star today. No question about it.

 

Absolutely!

[PurplePride92]

Why would a player who was a former star not be good today? Is it because you think there are better athletes today? I don't think so. I think there is better training. But I think any player that was a star in his era would train like the athletes of this era and be just as good if not better. It is all relative to the standards of each era.

 

For some I think athleticism does come into play. The game has evolved from basketball players who are good athletes to exceptional athletes that play basketball. I think most former all stars would be all stars still but I do think there are some who are former all stars who never once played against the kind of athlete found in today's game.

[westsider]

Yes. I think all three benefitted from playing with Larry and Magic.

 

I think McHale would be okay. Probably be like Hansbrough but I don't think he would be an All Star in today's game

 

 

I think Parish would get abused by the bigs in today's game. I see him having a hard time with Gasol, Bynum, Nene, Garnett, etc, etc. Don't see much coming from him. He would only face the Heat so many times.

 

 

As for Worthy you can plug in any slashing, athletic small forward with Magic Johnson and get his production. Worthy was in the right place at the right time. His game fizzled quickly when Magic left. Vince Carter is better than Worthy, IMO. I think Richard Jefferson when it comes to Worthy.

I'll respectfully disagree ... Worthy was in his 30s when Magic retired. That had more to do with his decline than anything else.

[westsider]

For some I think athleticism does come into play. The game has evolved from basketball players who are good athletes to exceptional athletes that play basketball. I think most former all stars would be all stars still but I do think there are some who are former all stars who never once played against the kind of athlete found in today's game.

But those guys still had better basketball skills than the vast majority of today's players, plus they would have been accustomed to playing against that kind of athleticism.

[PurplePride92]

But those guys still had better basketball skills than the vast majority of today's players, plus they would have been accustomed to playing against that kind of athleticism.

 

Lots of guys have great skills but aren't all stars.

[westsider]

Lots of guys have great skills but aren't all stars.

I'm not an NBA expert ... in fact, I hardly watch it now. But Parish and McHale were in the 6-10, 6-11 range and had skills. They would easily be good players in this day and age. The NBA is watered-down a little more than it was in their day. Better athletes doesn't always translate into better players.

[PurplePride92]

I'll respectfully disagree ... Worthy was in his 30s when Magic retired. That had more to do with his decline than anything else.

 

His inability to create his own shot is what worries me about his potential to play as an all star now. He would have to be on a team with a great point guard to flourish, IMO.

[PurplePride92]

I'm not an NBA expert ... in fact, I hardly watch it now. But Parish and McHale were in the 6-10, 6-11 range and had skills. They would easily be good players in this day and age. The NBA is watered-down a little more than it was in their day. Better athletes doesn't always translate into better players.

 

I don't know if it is more watered down now. You only had a few teams that could compete with the likes of Boston and LA back then.

 

For me I can see guys like Samuel Dalembert giving McHale and Parish fits with his defense and there are a lot more Dalemberts playing now than back then. I think guys could overwhelm McHale and Parish with their athleticism.

[Jim Schue]

Kevin McHale, Robert Parish and James Worthy come to mind.

 

Watch James Worthy's first step explosiveness a little more closely -- nobody in today's game could stop that.

 

You may have a case with Parish, as his success was directly tied to Bird, and he was a middle-of-the-road guy until coming to the C's.

 

McHale was arguably the most creative low-post scorer ever, which translates well to today. As it was once said, "He's got 13 different moves in the low post, the last one being to kick it back out."

[Jim Schue]

I don't know if it is more watered down now. You only had a few teams that could compete with the likes of Boston and LA back then.

 

For me I can see guys like Samuel Dalembert giving McHale and Parish fits with his defense and there are a lot more Dalemberts playing now than back then. I think guys could overwhelm McHale and Parish with their athleticism.

 

Why do you assume that guys like McHale, Worthy, Parish, etc., wouldn't also be improved with today's training advances? It's not like they would do it the way they did then.

[PurplePride92]

Why do you assume that guys like McHale, Worthy, Parish, etc., wouldn't also be improved with today's training advances? It's not like they would do it the way they did then.

 

What kind of training advances are going to make them better athletes? Players just appear to be bigger, faster and stronger than they used to. The same way I assume they wouldn't be as good as they were is the same assumption that the training advances used today would make them better.