'85 Larry Bird diamond card

Other Editions

Name Larry Bird
Edition 1985
Theme Rewards
Collection ??
Position SF / PF
Age 28
Height 6'9"
Weight 220lbs
From Indiana State
Plays Mid Range, Post Up Low, 3 PT, P&R Ball Handler
Sell Value 5000
Added September 30th, 2015
750,000
February 3rd, 2016
750,000
February 3rd, 2016
750,000
February 3rd, 2016

97 Overall

95 Outside scoring

  • 97 Standing shot mid
  • 95 Moving shot mid
  • 94 Standing shot 3pt
  • 93 Moving shot 3pt
  • 99 Shot IQ
  • 89 Free throw
  • 98 Off. consistency

83 Inside scoring

  • 98 Standing shot close
  • 96 Moving shot close
  • 98 Standing layup
  • 72 Driving layup
  • 40 Standing dunk
  • 45 Driving dunk
  • 35 Contact dunk
  • 76 Draw foul
  • 96 Post control
  • 75 Post hook
  • 97 Post fadeaway
  • 98 Hands

83 Playmaking

  • 79 Ball control
  • 94 Passing accuracy
  • 72 Passing vision
  • 97 Passing IQ

66 Athleticism

  • 64 Speed
  • 63 Acceleration
  • 50 Vertical
  • 65 Strength
  • 97 Stamina
  • 98 Hustle
  • 92 Overall durability

93 Defending

  • 96 On-ball def. IQ
  • 89 Low post def. IQ
  • 97 Pick & roll def. IQ
  • 97 Help def. IQ
  • 85 Lateral quickness
  • 98 Pass perception
  • 97 Reaction time
  • 64 Steal
  • 66 Block
  • 97 Shot contest
  • 99 Def. consistency

76 Rebounding

  • 55 Offensive rebound
  • 82 Defensive rebound
  • 90 Boxout

3674 Total attr.


Comments Sort by

  • 17

    Larry Legend!!!

  • 11

    Bird
    Bir
    Bi
    B
    Br
    Bri
    Bria
    Brian
    Brian s
    Brian sc
    Brian sca
    Brian scal
    Brian scala
    Brian scalab
    Brian scalabr
    Brian scalabri
    Brian scalabrin
    Brian scalabrine

  • 5

    He's in Black Market!!!

    0

    R u guys in the USA? I've been in the market 3 times this week and it still only shows diamond Nash who I already bought a while ago.

    Show 7 replies...
    0

    Bin there again for the 30. Time.
    And again Steve .
    Ik think i had 3 or 4 times Brian.
    Im in Europa too.
    Probaly only available in us. At the time.

    0

    I think it's just random or time based. I got Nash and Scal at a similar ratio. FInally after around 15-20 times it was Larry up on a Friday or Sat around 7 or 8 EST and I bought him, def worth the 750K

    0

    It's in there for everybody, just gotta hope you get luck when you open it. Smoove has gotten Nash 12 times in a row lol

    0

    Yeah after around 8 times I got in and got Diamond Bird a few days ago. Sometimes it was Scalabrine too, but I don't want him or need him enough to pay 500K for him. I'm way past those seeds with restrictions.

    1

    Only thing that sucks about these black market ?? reward players is u can't sell them back. Nash is good and a good shooter, but he'd be a lot better if they gave him more badges, but they were lazy I think and only gave him the badges of the current Nash. They did that with a lot of TBT diamonds, like J.R Smith, Brandon Jennings, and Ty Lawson. Nash comes with just 11 badges, mostly playmaking badges, and no shooting badges. Of course u can add 6 more but still, he should have more. Even the gold tbt Nash has twice as many badges that makes a big difference. 750K for a diamond is a good price for that I want at least 15-20 badges and the ability to sell him on the block, cuz barely ever play him anymore. I'll probably get Magic and Bill Russell though, cuz Iprob won't want to sell them, and def not gonna sell Bird. Then again the All Star MVP Magic looks better, but a lot more expensive.

    0

    Oh OK right on. I know how to get in everyday easy. I'll just keep trying then I guess

    0

    750 K is just too much

    Show 9 replies...
    1

    How is it much man ? i got 10 mil mt on pc, and average diamond price is like 4+ mil on pc. This is just nothing

    1

    On PC reward players are HUGE steals for their price but on Xbox One and PS4 they are kind of expensive for their price. That Diamond Nash wouldn't be going for 750K, Larry would probably be going for about that price and the yet to be released Diamond Magic would probably go for a little bit more. Amethyst Scalabrine would probably cost like 100K though.

    0
    0

    He be over a mil if he was on the AH.

    0

    Sorry man accidentally reported ya

    0

    I bought him, definitely worth it

    0

    I dont know, I think I rather buy LeBron or KD or both lol

    0

    I don't know, this card doesn't miss jumpshots without badges. For some reason dunks a fair bit makes a lot of and ones, also his D is really good

    Show 1 more reply...
  • 2

    Imo should be higher than a 94 three. 96 maybe

    0

    That would make his card even nastier!

    Show 2 replies...
    0

    Yes, that is how it works. The higher the ratings the better the card... Just joking 96 would make this OP as fuck

  • 1

    Larry Bird is the best shooter the NBA has ever seen. This card is just 2K paying respects to one of the greats, a true legend.

  • 1

    72 driving layup lol

    1

    98 standing layup lol

    Show 1 reply...
    -3

    94 standing three lol

  • 1

    Got him today! He's great :)

    0

    Im Schleep

    Show 4 replies...
    0

    I don't get it...

    0

    Im Sleep... It basically means bruh

    0

    u prolly got it from cash

    0

    Actually i dont watch cash

  • 0

    Hes kinda Slow

    5

    Larry Bird was never fast. He's kinda like Dirk. Can do everything but really slow

    Show 1 reply...
    1
  • 0

    I got him and he makes everything. He has every hot spot but 2 or 3. Obviously he's not fast, but he doesn't seem that slow and his release is a lot quicker than last year. It's easy too. You can always put shoes on him for speed. He takes any type of shoe, even the cheap converse ones.

  • 0

    got it! :D

    0

    You are lucky , i opened black market and nothing was there , only sold out nash ,contracts , shoe ,ball and roty packs :D

  • 0

    Will this be released on the Black Market? I hope so.

    0

    Yeah, he will, I just got the Steve Nash. I thought it was gonna be so hard to get into the black market. I didn't think I'd get in all year, but once I found my first rune, I found another 4 with an hour or too and I was in.

    Show 10 replies...
    0

    How do you get into the black market?

    3

    After u find 5 cards with runes on them and get into the black market the 1st time, u have to complete the in game trials. Every day when you play challenges, domination, or RTTP at least once a day, it will give u a trial to complete during the game just before the tip off. They r not usually too hard, it will be things like get 15 rebs with a single player, get a triple double with a single player, or get a certain amount of steals or fast break points. You have to complete the trial and it will say trial completed and give u a rune code as soon as the game is over and u come back to the my team menu. However there r 30 runes and there is no guarantee you will have all the runes in the code provided. You have 24 hours to get the runes any runes you don't need and don't and you can complete the code. Otherwise if u can't do it in time, you lost. Sometimes it will let you in to the black market, sometimes it will just give u a lame 150 MT or 200 MT. I'd say about 1/3 of the time it lets u back into the black market. You can try everyday though, and it got me playing all the challenge games for Kareem. It's makes the games more exciting to when u r working for a chance to get into the market. It's not really too hard IF u have a big card colection. The more cards u have in your collection, the more runes u should have. It's different for each account and every account has certain players designated to be runes when u get the card and view it to look for the rune. Once u discover a rune, it appears on that card and stays on the left side of it, and u have that rune all year, unless u get rid of the card, which would be stupid. But I think u csn just buy the player again if u need to. Anyway the goal is to get all 30 runes and u will get in more often and het better rewards. Now they have all star card boxes u can buy in the market. Ronnie also said in a week a lot more of the hidden cards will become available, and I bet it will somehow involve runes. Let me know if u need any help with anything. I have learned almost everything about the black market.

    0

    R the all star packs in the pack market?

    1

    I have heard some people say that they r and there are all star cards posted on the auction block so they must be, but I've been in at least 50 times total and everyday for the last week, and they haven't been available to me once yet. There's different things every time you go in. It's always a player 500K for amethyl Scalabrine - 750K for all diamonds (usually it's diamond nash), a diffrent diamond shoe for 150K (there's 5 total that I've seen, limit 1 of each), diamond contracts for 25K per (limit 4), a diamond animal print basketball 100K, and certain boxes of cards (usually the lame old ROTY cards). If you get lucky though, u could get the all star boxes, but I heard they aren't all that. I already got diamond Nash, and I keep waiting for an opportunity to buy Bird. I got in for 4 hours earlier and they had amethyst Scalabrine, the Diamond Air Jordan XIV's, and a zebra skin ball. I got back in am hour later for 12 hours (time limit u get access is different every time too), and they had Diamond Nash again like usual, Diamond Air Jordan I's, a snake skin ball, and the same ROTY packs. I want to get an all star box too, despite what I've heard about them being weak, although all packs aren't too good most of the time, so hard to even put an amethyst, let alone a diamond. It's all about timing I hear. You just gotta get lucky and open at the right time to get a good pull apparently. I've seen packs opening where people pull multiple amethysts, but it ain't how it usually go.

    0

    I just got in and opened a box and didn't get shit, all silver players. It was pretty garbage

    0

    An All Star MVP box that is

    0

    what are runes?

    0

    http://www.2khead.com/news/17-nba-2k16-myteam-black-market-runes-revealed

    0

    well the thing is : he'll cost a fricking lot

    0

    Yeah, 750K is a damn lot, but a lot less than you'd pay on the auction block for most diamond players.

  • 0

    I'd give his offensive rebounding about a 70. He was among the league leaders in total rebounding.

    0

    He averaged like 2 offensive rebounds a game that season, so 70 is pretty fair, maybe slightly high if even that.

  • 0

    How is this card earned?

    0

    You get him on the Black Market. You have to pay 750k mt for him.

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

    Well everyone's heard about the bird!

  • 0

    try to fuck with bird

  • 0
  • 0

    How the hell do you get that much mt?

  • 0

    If only one day I had 750kMT :-(

  • 0
  • 0

    LOL. A lot of these comments aren't even about Bird.

  • 0

    (Correct me if I'm wrong) Isn't 99 def. consistency a bit high for him. I new he was a great defender but I didn't think 99 def. consistency.

    0

    True. He may be a great defender, i think this is that he was consistently good at defense not just a lockdown defender

  • 0

    The whole point of the new ratings system is supposed to be stricter on the ratings. Instead, they bump up Bird's literal quickness from the 60s to an 85, which makes him pretty good on defense for a SF

  • 0

    Ricordo ancora quando eravamo vicini di casa,poi è andato via dal suo nido

  • 0
  • 0

    Finally, 2k released this Larry Bird. As usual, for 750k on the black market (which no one can get).

    0

    I bought him, it's a bit expensive. But if you got the mt why not, also 750k for him is a bargajn

    Show 5 replies...
    0

    Lol not any more

    -1

    For sure 750M Mt = 150€/$

    Do you definitely think it's a bargain/good deal when you can rule with 92 Scottie for free... ? ;)

    0

    Scottie is not nearly as good as Bird. I've played with amethyst Bird in gauntlet multiple times and he is amazing. This diamond Bird is probably the 2nd best diamond in the game behind moments Kobe. It's not impossible to have 750k without buying MT, you just need to play the game a lot and effectively.

    0

    Well considering that most diamonds go for 1.5 million +. And he's probably the second best player in the game at the moment, 750k is really good. Basically if you got the mt he's a good price

    -1

    All these Diamond players are BS, sorry bout' that. I'm on 1st RTTP seed, had won the Pat Ewing reward with GP 90, MJ 95, SP 92, AD 92 and Shaq89, 4 ameths and a gold, 15 wins in a row.

    I destroyed most of the kids with their millions MT and Diamond JC, JR, Kobe or whatever. The point is on playing good bball and athletic defense.

    I'd love so much playin with this Larry, would be a massacre. But, if I just wait 2 weeks when we'll have the Diamonds All-Stars released, the current Ameth Larry will probably drop from 200KMt to 100KMt.

    Regarding the fact that real money is always better than MTs, I'm still wondering why we should loose such an amount of money (at least 150€/$) to have 5 points on close shots and 15 points more for the 3pts shooting rates...
    http://2kmtcentral.com/16/players/compare/9606/9670

    If you think that this is OK, you're missing a 650KMT gap, which allows the acquisition of numerous good players. In this case, I think that 2K will have sunny days for a long long time... (or maybe you're just rich ? :)

  • 0
  • -1

    BIRDMAN DIRDMAN

  • -1

    I can't believe they messed up his speed on all three cards. Almost no perimeter player should be slow, let alone an all-time great.

  • -1

    His steal rating should be in the 80's.

  • -3

    card is trash, misses A rated shots and misses layups :(

  • -4

    damn, according to this argument jimmer fredette and R.J. hunter are the greatest college players of all time

  • -5

    [Deleted]

    -10

    Barley the best 80's SF

    Show 142 replies...
    2

    [Deleted]

    8

    Barkley was a PF, and I think he meant to say barely

    -7

    Yes. Adrian Dantley and Bernard King were as good as Bird, heck even Alex English, Kiki Vandeweghe and Mark Aguirre had a few years on Birds level. He was by no means the only great SF of the 80's.

    6

    You are by far the most uneducated person on this website. Who do you think the top ten players of all time are? If Bird isn't on there you're ignorant.

    -1

    I`m talking about primes and scoring, and I have Bird 9th actually... Just behind you Christian :)

    0

    Thank god man I was really starting to get worried... Are you on Xbox one?

    0

    Nah PS4. I cant get 2K16 until December BTW

    -1

    Dude what are you talking about? Maybe scoring wise, but not rebounding or assists wise.

    1

    They were better scorers than Bird though, just on worse teams.

    3

    Overall Bird was a better player though. He played better defense, was a transcendent passer, and a great rebounder. And he was also a better 3 point shooter than any of them.

    Funny you argue Bird wasn't as good of a scorer because that just shows your age.

    -2

    No Bird only averaged around 25 PPG and had 3 consecutive seasons of <30% 3pt shooting.

    Tell me when Bird averages 30 PPG like King or Dantley, or does it on 63% TS% like Dantley did. Bird may have been better at jumpshoys, but if you judge shooting by percentages (which is really what matters) then Bird wasn't that great.

    6

    The 1987-88 season Bird averaged 29.9 points a game, sorry that's not 30. And this was on 50-40-90 percentages, only 3 people have done that ever. And those seasons of poor 3 point shooting were when the 3 point line was first introduced, and he took 1 or less 3 pointer a game so that's really not a good representation.

    Career PPG averages:

    Bird - 24.3 on 51-37-89
    King - 22.5 on 52-17-73
    Dantley - 24.3 on 54-17-81

    1

    3pt% doesn't matter when you talk about or compare players in the 80's

    0

    As the guy below pointed out I never said the others had a better career, just that their 4-5 best seasons were better than Birds. Birds was also an overrated shooter, he averaged 2 threes per game in his career and never made 100 in a season, the ones he shot went in, but he didn't shoot many and avoided contested ones. He actually never led the league in 3pt% either. Dantley had 5 seasons averaging as many PPG as Bird averaged in his best season, all on a better TS% than Bird ever managed. He holds the same career PPG and a higher per 36 minutes PPG by 1.5 PPG, despite Dantley having many injury plagued seasons and a few years on a Pistons team containing Isaiah Thomas, Joe Dumars and Bill Laimbeer when he was in his 30's. He also holds a higher playoff per 36 minute PPG average by 2 PPG and did it on 5% better TS%, with a highest of 32 PPG on 60% TS% while Birds highest was 27 PPG on the same TS%. For the first 11 years of his career Dantley shot 50%> FG% in each one, Birds career FG% isn't even 50%. I understand his 3 point shooting could be used as an excuse but if you look at it he didn't actually shot that many, Dantleys career FG% is 4.5% higher than Birds and the same as Wilt Chamberlain! While his TS% (which factors 3's and FT's) is even further clear of Bird (5%)!

    King was basically a slightly less efficient Dantley so the same sort of stuff applies.

    Scoring: Dantley > Bird

    In 1984 Dantley led the league in W/S and PER while averaging 30.6 PPG, which also led the league. He also amazingly finished second in TS% with an insane 65% TS%. Which is stunning with his 30.6 PPG, to put it into pecpective the only person ahead of him was 7'2" tank Artis Gilmore, averaging 15 PPG on the Spurs! And Dantley did all this while coming 6th in USG%! He actually has a lower career USG% than Bird, who came 4th in that 1989 season, he may not have been a playmaker, but he was defiantly no ball hog.

    Overall: Dantley's 1984 season = Any season Bird ever had.

    I find it amazing how much the team you're on can change how much people remember you.

    3

    You're giving Bird shit for not taking contested shots on those loaded Celtics teams with at least 3 other hall of famers on them at all times? That's just ridiculous. And how can you use not leading the league in 3pt% against Bird, I never once said he was the top shooter in the league just a good one. Again, the 3 point line was new so obviously he's not going to be shooting a ton per game on a high percentage. He was a great scorer inside the 3 point line, so he had no need to take a bunch from behind the arc obviously.

    And Dantley consistently played on teams with no other major scoring option, so obviously he had to take a higher load. Again, Bird played with multiple hall of famers including Kevin McHale who could have been the main scoring option on most teams at the time.

    -2

    What? I never criticised Bird for that, I just stated that he didn't take many contested shots to prove that he didn't take many 3's, it does howether make him seem less of a shooter as he would have only taken easy looks, but I never said that in my previous comment. You used 50-40-90 percentages as a reason and Bird is generally considered a top 10 shooter of all time, I just assumed by the way you're arguing that you agree. In 1988 Bird had Kevin Mchale averaging 22 PPG, and that was it... Parish and Johnson weren't even next in scoring, averaging below 15 PPG, Danny Ainge was the next in scoring with 15.7 PPG. Dantley on the other hand had a 20 PPG teammate of his own in 1984, in the form of Darrell Griffith, he also had John Drew averaging 17.7 PPG in only 22 MPG and Ricky Green averaging 13 PPG with 9 APG, howether these guys weren't exactly as efficient as Birds teammates, with none shooting above 50%. They basically shot as much as Birds teammates but were far worse at it.

    3

    so bird has to take contested shots to prove hes a good shooter, MUH LOGIC

    2

    Well less skilled at directly throwing the ball into the hoop yes. He`s thereby not as good at shooting based off of that, but he isn`t worse of a shooter as that involves things like getting open and shot selection, which Bird was very good at. It makes him less good at shooting but not as bad a shooter, if that makes sense?

    1

    Oh right, sorry :c

    0

    You might as well stop... He'll never learn or change his mind... smh

    0

    bird has 3 rings and dantley has how many? :^)

    0

    Damn of course the real SF rankings go:

    1. Bird
    2. Luke Walton
    3. Adam Morrison
    4. Dantley

    Because, rings...

    -1

    yea dantley died in the clutch just like little wilt never wanted ball when the game was on the line :)

    6

    32 PPG in the 1984 playoffs beg to differ ;)

    -1

    Well of course he has 32PPG when theres not a whole lot of talent on his team, I'm just saying when the game was in its last possession bird could create his own shot and knock it down much more reliably than dantley

    2

    Bird couldn't create his own shot, he could hit tough ones or come off screens, but he couldn't get open off the dribble (not saying he couldn't score off the dribble). Dantley could easily get a close shot with that post game of his.

    -1

    oh and all my internet points :-(

    -1

    I dont think you realise his deadly fadeaway/fallaway shot

    1

    I dont think you realise Dantley's deadly post moves.

    1

    Deluded fam, Bird 100x better than dantley lol yeah he can score but probably cuz he was the only good scorer on his team, Lebron in the finals anyone?

    1

    Copied from one of my previous comments:

    In 1988 Bird had Kevin Mchale averaging 22 PPG, and that was it... Parish and Johnson weren't even next in scoring, averaging below 15 PPG, Danny Ainge was the next in scoring with 15.7 PPG. Dantley on the other hand had a 20 PPG teammate of his own in 1984, in the form of Darrell Griffith, he also had John Drew averaging 17.7 PPG in only 22 MPG and Ricky Green averaging 13 PPG with 9 APG, howether these guys weren't exactly as efficient as Birds teammates, with none shooting above 50%. They basically shot as much as Birds teammates but were far worse at it.

    -2

    22 PPG Career Playoff Average also begs to differ.

    And he also had less assists in the playoffs too.

    2

    Like Wilt he played most of his playoff games past his prime. So thereby also played less minutes and was obviously less athletic.

    -2

    . Bernard King is one of the Greats, yet because he was stuck on a bad team (the Knicks) he was forgotten. Outside of the teams and players listed in NBA 2K most 80s teams, and the 80s players are forgotten. Bernard King managed to come back from a torn ACL, which even DRose hasn't fully recovered from, BEFORE there was surgery to repair it, and yet he was still playing at a all star level. And even later in Bernard King's Career, when he was 34, he was 3rd in the league in scoring in 1991 with the Wizards. But because he was on a bad team, he is sadly forgotten when it comes to the top SF of all time

    0

    Yep along with many great 80`s scorers such as:

    - Dantley
    - Mark Aguirre (even won a ring)
    - Alex English
    - Kiki Vandeweghe
    - Michael Adams
    - Orlando Woolridge
    - World B free
    and so on

    1

    [Deleted]

    2

    A better shooter than Bird yes.

    0

    . Bernard King is one of the Greats, yet because he was stuck on a bad team (the Knicks) he was forgotten. Outside of the teams and players listed in NBA 2K most 80s teams, and the 80s players are forgotten. Bernard King managed to come back from a torn ACL, which even DRose hasn't fully recovered from, BEFORE there was surgery to repair it, and yet he was still playing at a all star level. And even later in Bernard King's Career, when he was 34, he was 3rd in the league in scoring in 1991 with the Wizards. But because he was on a bad team, he is sadly forgotten when it comes to the top SF of all time

    4

    [Deleted]

    2

    Scottie Pippen is the greatest.

    0

    Maybe of the 90s, not of the 80s

    -1

    It was more of a troll statement, but Scottie is the 3rd greatest SF after Bird and LeBron and the best of the 90s

    1

    Not better than Elgin Baylor, Dr J, or Rick Barry

    -10

    Someone's stuck in the weak era known as the 60s...have fun disliking this comment too

    7

    Primes (1980's): Dantley and King > Bird

    Careers: Bird > King and Dantley

    5

    Someone else who's stuck in 60's Basketball that he knows from YT videos because he wasn't even born to see it. How original, you guys should form some sort of Fanclub and explain to each other over and over again how great your bball heroes from an era with 8 teams and bad competition are! Inbefore: 90's > 60's, MJ > Wilt. Thanks for your attention, I expect you talking about INFLATED stats as proof showing it's different so go ahead if you can't help yourself.

    4

    I don't even need to explain this to you. Thanks for the dislikes by the way, defiantly the manly thing to do. What does my comment even have to do with the 60's or 90's? We're talking about 80's SF's aren't we?

    SMH random hater.

    1

    I didn't dislike your comments, I only know J_Oak disliked all of mine lol. Btw I thought you were someone like him and all the other Wilt praisers who always say the 60's were more competitive than the 90's which is why I brought that up. Your comments comparing players like Vandeweghe and Aguirre to Bird are hilarious btw, no SFs other than LBJ and Dr. J come even close to Larry Bird, definitely no one from the 80's.

    0

    I think that proves how little you know about NBA history. I only actually said Dantley and King were as good as Bird anyway, the others had 1-2 seasons on his level (English had quite a few just below it). Look it up. In the mid 80's King and Dantley were as good as Bird, you put them on those Celtics and they're the SF's competing with Lebron and Baylor for GOAT SF. Dr.J is overrated and doesn't deserve to be in that conversation, it's funny how you discount Baylor but not him, when Dr.j joined the ABA the same year Baylor retired from the NBA and put up worse stats (in the weak ABA remember).

    1

    [Deleted]

    -5

    Elgin Baylor > both

    Lebron might be better by the end of his career though

    4

    If you think Baylor is better than LeBron you are legitimately out of your mind...

    -2

    As I said Lebron will be 2-4 by the end of his career unless he disgraces himself or has a career ending injury etc.

    4

    How is Baylor better exactly? Like legitimately curious how you can make that case because not only are his numbers misleading due to pace inflation but he was very inefficient.

    -1

    As I said Lebron is probably better at his peak. But he`s gotta finish another 5-10 seasons yet.

    4

    I think if LeBron retired right now he's still done enough to be considered the greatest small forward of all time. He had an insane peak, is still very consistent and has accomplished things that no other forward has. Multiple MVPs, Championships, took his team to the Finals his 3rd year out of high school, extremely consistent numbers and efficiency, dominates almost every other SF in all advanced metrics, was and still is an elite defender as well as legendary leadership qualities.

    5-10 years will cement his status but he well and truly already has the case for that #1 spot, and sorry to say he's a tier above Baylor.

    0

    I`m not necessarily talking about what he`s done already, but more about what he could do. Like Kobe`s sure taken a hit with his awful play the past few seasons. It`s also in a sense due to what other people think of him, people don`t put current players high because they don`t appreciate the greatness until they are no longer effective or retired, that`s kinda made me realize what could go wrong.

    Baylor at his peak was as good too (apart from maybe around 2012-13), even pace adjusted he averages 30+ PPG, 12+ RPG and 3+ APG, don`t forget Baylor led his team from the worst record in the league to the finals like Lebron, but as a ROOKIE. If you adjust FG% (assuming a slower pace would lead to better shots) across the eras Baylor shoots 45-50%, we obviously cant judge 3 point shooting in efficiency but Lebron isn`t great from 3 anyway.

    3

    Ewing had a horrific stint with the Magic as did Olajuwon on the Raptors, but they don't ever get brought up. People are always going to think of a great player for the great things they did. When Kobe comes up a few years from now we'll think of 81, his Finals heroics and lights out scoring outbursts, not these down seasons. LeBrons legacy very well is and should be defined by what he's already done, and he's done what other forwards couldn't.

    I mean come on dude. If we adjust LeBrons numbers for the 60s pace he's dropping a triple double on 40+ points a game. It's not a credible argument for Baylor to just assume he'd drop 30/12/3 on 50% as a basis of putting him over LeBron. Baylor is an underrated player no doubt, but LeBron is simply a tier above. I mean honestly, we can argue with numbers all we want but the eye test goes a long way too and there is no logical reasoning whatsoever to assume that Baylor is on the same planet as LeBron physically. What Baylor did at 6'5" imagine what LeBron could do at 6'8" 260 being able to move like a gazelle and jump like he does. Numbers aren't the be all end all of player comparisons, watching them holds just as much weight.

    I do appreciate how much you advocate for players in the 60s tho, a criminally underappreciated era in many ways, I just think that the pace argument remains very relevant in the debate around it.

    0

    That`s different, Ewing and Hakeem change teams and were there for very little time. Kobe will be remembered as a Lakers great but for the last few years he`s dragged them down, harming his reputation with them. I`m not just talking about that example, other things could happen to Lebron, unlikely but I just don`t want to get ahead of myself.

    In the 60`s prime Lebron would average around 32-33 PPG (taking away 3`s), 15 RPG and 10 APG on 50% shooting. Slightly better than Baylor I guess but Baylor carried his team more, by himself he led a terrible team to the finals earlier than Lebron and faced more stacked teams. He also scored 61 on the 60`s celtics in the finals which is a performance Lebron, or anyone but maybe 2-3 players, haven`t come close to. Lebron struggles against good defenders (I guess as most players would) while Baylor thrived. You say you cant assume Baylor would drop 30/12/3 today, but you can assume that lebron could drop 40/10/10 in the 60`s? I don`t get the eye test thing either considering there`s very little footage of Baylor.

    3

    Kobe has only had a couple of bad seasons, and he's been playing well as of late. Everybody declines eventually and the Lakers woes are hardly his fault. You're looking too deep into this. When you bring up Kobe 10 years from now the last thing on people's mind will be his last few seasons, I guarantee it.

    Where are you getting those numbers from? LeBron per 100 possessions averaged 40/10/10 in his prime, in the 60s the average amount of possessions was 125. That's where I pulled those figures from. Very fair assumption to make.

    Baylor carried his team more? Baylor might have led them to the Finals as a rookie but you need to remember he was 24 years old. LeBron took a team to the Finals 3 years out of HIGH SCHOOL. Both are impressive but Elgin didn't just "do it first". Take into account the other factors. Honestly dude Elgin facing more stacked teams is heavily heavily debatable.

    You can say Elgin carried his team more but all advanced metrics say otherwise, as well as if you've been a fan and have watched LeBron all these years the man can put a struggling team on his back. His impact in last year's Finals is far, far more significant than what you'll see on basketball reference.

    Any sources of LeBron struggling against good defenders? They slow him down sure but he rarely struggles. Struggles would imply that his numbers take a dive but they don't. Kawhi's defense on LeBron in the Finals didn't drop his numbers much at all, and the Spurs only won because LeBron was actually the only player on Miami who was actually creating some offense.

    There's very little footage of Baylor indeed, so I question how you can argue for a guy who we barely have footage of with inflated numbers over a guy who for years has put up consistent numbers that we've actually seen him achieve. It doesn't make sense to me. Wilt is a different story as there's enough footage of him and Center is a pretty cut and dry position. Small forward, especially one on LeBrons level is a whole different story.

    0

    You`re taking this Kobe thing too literally, i`m just saying bad things can happen.

    That`s not how per 100 possessions works. There aren`t even any per 100 possessions stats for Baylor. I was using Lebron`s 2013 season, considered his best.

    Lebon had 4 years of NBA experience to get to the finals, and only went once until he was 26. By then wasn`t by himself.

    Baylor clearly faced tougher teams, Lebron faced the Wizards, whose only 3 good players shot even worse than Baylor and were bad defenders, the Nets, whose 2nd leading scorer was Nenad Krstic, plus they had possibly the worst bench i`ve ever seen and the Pistons, who held Lebron to under 20 points per 36 minutes but shot 42% themselves. Baylor also faced the Detroit Pistons, but a Pistons team with HOFers George Yardley and Dick Mcguire (+ Earl Lloyd for being the first black player) as well as all stars Gene Shue and Walter Dukes, the Hawks, who won 16 more games and had MVP Bob Pettit plus HOFers Cliff Hagan, Slater Martin and Clyde Lovellette (as well as Ed Macauley, who was a bench player for 14 games before becoming the coach). So in 3 series Lebron faced likely 3 HOFers (Carter, Kidd, Webber) all out of their prime while in 2 series Baylor faced 6 HOFers (plus 2 who don`t really count) and 2 all stars. Baylor also faced 3 HOFers more in the finals. He faced a HOFer at his position (Yardley, Hagan and Jones) each series while none of Lebron`s HOF opposition were SF`s. Not really debatable.

    Baylor has very few team value based metrics, so it`s a lot simpler just to say that he took as bad a team as far as Lebron, but in his first year.

    In comparison to Baylor Lebron struggles against good defenders, I meant that they slow him down.

    And with little footage how can I assume that Baylor`s worse than Lebron other than by using stats?

    1

    I don't get your second point. Through LeBrons playoffs and Finals runs he matched up against: Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, Kawhi Leonard, Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant. All of these guys bar Kawhi and Melo are all future HoFers, and these are just the guys at LeBrons positions.

    Why did you cite the Wizards when LeBron had to face the 07 Spurs, 2011 Mavs, 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs, 2014 Spurs and 2015 Warriors. Most of them are historically great teams loaded with future Hall of Famers and MVPs.

    LeBron struggles compared to Baylor? In his prime LeBron was averaging over 25ppg and a couple of seasons over 30ppg in the Playoffs and shooting over 50% from the field. Despite being slowed down he was still putting up monster numbers. There's a reason that 'Playoffs LeBron' is a coined term now. He's borderline unstoppable in the Playoffs.

    With little footage how can you assume he's better? It legitimately makes no sense that you can advocate for a player you have hardly watched over the greatest forward of the 21st century where literally every game he's ever played is on film and that we have been watching him every year for the last 13 years. You can't argue everything with pure numbers that are clearly inflated and compare LeBrons competition to George fucking Yardley. Like that seriously is a little ridiculous to assume Baylors competition is in the same stratosphere.

    0

    This is one of the truest posts on here

    0

    [Deleted]

    0

    @tupac This one?

    0

    No, it was another one that I undeleted. Anyway I take it it wasn't you.

    1

    Here's a little comparison in two very similar seasons between LeBron and Baylor, who were both swept in the Finals in these seasons. Baylor is better, hmmm?

    Elgin Baylor, (Rookie Year, lead Lakers to the Finals) - Elgin in his rookie year averaged 24.9 points per game on 40% shooting, that's 21 shots attempted per game to average that.

    LeBron James, (06-07, leads Cavs to Finals) 27.3 Points on 48% shooting, that's 21 shots to average those numbers. Really Klayyyyyy?

    You can ignore pace inflation, but 102.3 FG's were attempted PER GAME in '58-'59 compared to a mere 79.7 in '06-'07. This comes into play when talking about rebounds. If 107 shots are chucked up, of course Baylor is going to average 15 rebounds. LeBron averaged 6.7 rebounds per game in '06-'07, impressive, grabbing the 55% of shots that didn't go in, compared to 60% that didn't go in during '58-'59. PACE INFLATION.

    Seriously, Elgin Baylor was crazily inefficient. You claim LeBron will be '2-4' but are you ignoring the fact Elgin never won a ring with Jerry West and the 'almighty WILT CHAMBERLAIN' on his team, along with Gail Goodrich and others. They blew away a 3-2 lead over a weakened Celtics team. Oh, and also, Elgin retired 9 games into '71-'72 and was 'given a ring' in which he gave back when the 'GOAT', Wilt Chamberlain (that argument is blasphemous but we'll leave that for another time) won a ring in '71-'72.

    ELGIN WAS 0-8 IN THE FINALS. SERIOUSLY. 0-8. You cannot bring up LBJ's finals record when Elgin was 0-8. Better than Bird or LeBron? No. Heavily inefficient. Yes. Please, stop commenting things, which in the entirety, are wrong.

    0

    I was more comparing 61-62 Baylor but ok...

    I never used "2-4". I`ve already mentioned millions of times that rings don`t mean anything.

    Not to mention Baylor shot 43-45% in his best seasons, like Kobe. While Bird and Lebron had 3`s inflating their stats in comparison to him.

    1

    In Larry's best season, '84-'85, he shot an average of 1.6 3's a game throughout the whole season, at 42%, which meant on average, 0.672 of the 1.6 he attempted throughout the season went in. That meant that it wasn't even every game that he made a 3. Although 42% is a great percentage to shoot, it doesn't mean that it went in every single time. Even with this in mind, he still averaged 28.7 PPG, on 52% shooting. Absolutely incredible. He was 2% from the charity stripe of being in the 50-40-90 club. He was more efficient than Baylor will ever be. 28.7 points in 22 shots? Well tell me if I'm wrong, but Elgin Baylor (excluding the 3) was never as efficient as Bird. He may have averaged more points, but he took more shots, and he grabbed more rebounds than Bird because of the amount of shots taken and the pace of the game. Just stop, seriously. 31 PPG on 42%, or 28.7 PPG on 52% shooting? I think Bird would be on anybody's team over Elgin any day.

    0

    Baylor had 38 PPG in 1962 and double the RPG of Bird...

    1

    I read the Per 36 stats by accident. He still shot 33 times in a game to average 38 PPG on 42.8% shooting. You do realise this is because of pace inflating stats? 107.7 shots were taken per game during 61-62, compared to 89.1 taken in '84-'85. Seriously. PACE. Teams took more shots averaging out in more points. You know why he has more rebounds than Bird? The exact same reason. Lower FG% and more shots taken during a game really proves my point here. Of course there's going to e more rebounds. Seriously, if you can't see this, you're an idiot, in the nicest possibly sense of the word. Elgin is nowhere near as good as Bird. Face it.

    0

    That pace difference is about 1/5. If you take 1/5 from Baylors stats he still averages 30 PPG and 15 RPG. If you adjust eras I think you should adjust FG% too, you can assume that with a slower pace Baylor would shoot higher % shots, so I think it`s relevant. If you adjust his FG% to the 80`s he shoots 47-48%, and maybe hits a few 3`s to bring his PPG stats up.

    0

    1/5? Are you crazy? That means Wilt averages 40 still in '61-'62 right? Absolutely not. RPG is not true. Seriously. shut up. 107.7 FG's attempted on 40% compared to 89.1 FG's attempted on 45%, there is no way Elgin Baylor averages that many rebounds. Have you also taken into account that the only player I can find that has some sort of credibility that Elgin guarded/was guarded by was Hondo? Are you kidding me? Compared to Bird playing against Dr. J, Dominique, Iceman, Dantley, Bernard King, Alex English, James Worthy, etc etc?

    A quote from DoubleDribble, an NBA Online Podcast, if you adjust Wilt's stats to nowadays, he averages much less than 50. "Wilt suffered the most extreme drop off because in addition to the pace adjustment, I had to adjust his minutes from over 46 per game to a more realistic (in modern terms) 40 per game. Nevertheless, his stats are still phenomenal. His 2003-12 paced stats come to 27 Pts on 58.8% shooting, 12 Rbds, and 4 Blks far better than any actual center playing today."

    Simultaneously, here's a quote about Elgin. "Elgin was another that surprised me. The volume of available rebounds in the ’60s was dramatically higher than it is today. Elgin’s actual rebounds were on par with Charles Barkley, and that’s who I expected to use as the primary comparison. After the pace adjustment, Baylor’s best comparisons were actually Dominique Wilkins and Dr. J. Not necessarily worse but different than Charles."

    Dominique Wilkins and Dr J. Very similar players to Elgin. Pace is a huge difference. Wilt would not average 40 in the 80's, there is no way, so there is not a chance in hell that Elgin would average 35+ during a game. There's just no way.

    Did you also consider MPG? Larry played 39.5 MPG in '84-'85 compared to Elgin's 44.4 MPG. That's 5 extra minutes on the court! 5 minutes is a large time difference in basketball, 48 minutes during a whole game means that if 107.7 shots are thrown up, that's 2.24 shots a minute. If both are missed, that's 2 rebounds available a minute! Are you seriously trying to use overinflated statistics to prove Elgin is better than Bird? Please, Elgin is possibly Top 25, but NOWHERE NEAR Bird's credibility on the All-Time list, since Bird imo is Top 5, but you could argue otherwise.

    Elgin was also 0-8. You claim rings do not matter, but remember, basketball is a TEAM GAME. How did Jordan get his dues against the Pistons and win his rings? Getting his team involved. Come on, he had Jerry West from 1960 onwards, and from 1966 onwards he played with 3 HOFs, . Did I mention that they also got schooled in '69-'70 by a Knicks team with a Willis Reed with a broken leg? Who, by the way, schooled your 'GOAT', Wilt Chamberlain. Even in '70-'71 they were on paper better than the Baltimore Bullets, who didn't even acquire Elvin Hayes until '71-'72!

    Please, Bird is better than Baylor, and if you believe otherwise, you are seriously deluded.

    0

    Dude you realize 89 to 107 is actually less than a fifth, closer to a sixth actually. So Wilt averages around 42 PPG in the 80`s. I have mentioned to Flysenberg that Baylor faced 3 HOF SF`s in his rookie season playoffs alone, when he took the worst team in the league to the finals. 3 in 3 series! Only Hondo? (BTW none of those 3 even were Hondo). Those guys you mentioned weren`t exactly known for defense were they?

    I don`t see how adjusting Wilts stats to 2003-2012 pace proves anything, we`re talking about Baylor and Bird and I thought we were adjusting to the 80`s? Bird`s stats would go down from 2003-2012 too.

    I assume the RPG thing is based on career stats as Baylor averaged 5 RPG more than Barkley in his prime where as the quote says they had similar RPG stats, once Wilt joined his stats decreased in that category unsurprisingly.

    If you take Baylors RPG and adjust he loses about 2 rebounds in those 5 minutes on average. Not much.

    He played with 2 HOFers, against 6! I don`t see how they got "schooled" a whooping 4-3 by the Knicks, a series Reed only missed 1 game in. Not to mention he scored only 4 points in game 7 and shot 15% lower than Wilt as well as being out rebounded 24-10 in the series! This was a season where Wilt missed all but the first 12 games with possibly career ending surgery himself remember. The Bullets? How are they even relevant?

    4

    Are you dumb? Seriously, it's not just shots taken per game that show the difference in pace. Go watch a game on your favourite 'Wilt Chamberlain' archive and you can see the differences in pace between the games. Of course Baylor could average 38 in the 60's. 8 more points a game is a substantial amount of points and shots taken over a game. INFLATED. BAYLOR'S STATS ARE INFLATED. Not known for defence? Seriously? Dominique is the one of the most efficient defensive small forwards of all time! Are you serious?

    Your 'adjustments are completely wrong'. In '61-'62, there was an average of 71.4 REBOUNDS A GAME per team. Yeah, with no dominant center on the Lakers before Wilt came along, that's an easy 15 rebounds a night. Not as impressive as Bird's 10.5 rebounds a game in '84-'85 where there were only 43.5 rebounds per team. Seriously, your adjustments are not facts. READ THE FACTS.

    In '69-'70, when the Lakers lost to the Knicks, they played 4 HOF's, not 6. Bill Bradley, Walt Frazier, Willis Reed and Dave DeBusschere, nice statistics bro. It was more of 3 HOF's with Willis Reed having a broken leg playing against Wilt, if Willis would have been healthy then it would have been a fair enough comment from yourself, but no. It was the fact that 3 players on one team who you put in the All-Time Top 10 couldn't beat a team like the Knicks, I mean West > Frazier, Baylor > Dave DeBusschere and Wilt > Willis Reed. Although Wilt had his leg injury, he still came back and averaged 27.3 PPG, and you're trying to make out Wilt was on a disadvantage when he's playing a Center with a broken leg?

    How are the Bullets relevant? They managed to beat the Knicks the next year when the Knicks had a fully healthy team of 4 Hall of Famers with 2 HALL OF FAMERS, Earl Monroe and Wes Unseld, so your excuse of 'not enough Hall of Famers' is irrelvant.

    Now, solo honours.

    Larry Bird has 3 MVP's, Baylor has none. He was also on the All-Defensive Teams for 3 years of his career, showing he was a more efficient defender than Baylor. Larry had more assists and was a better passer and more of a team player.

    BIRD > BAYLOR. IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE, YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND.

    1

    Well put. It's a bit of a joke to cite that Baylor played more Hall of Famers when really it's logical common sense that Bird and LeBron have played far, far better caliber players.

    1

    Thanks man. Yeah, I mean I'm no student of the 60's but if you're going to name Small Forwards before Rick Barry came into the league, the only one who properly springs to mind is Hondo, when Bird played Dominique, King, Dantley (who's also not better than Bird but we'll leave that for another time), Dr J, Alex English etc etc. Even LeBron played/is playing against elite and future HOF's like Kevin Durant, Grant Hill, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Melo and Paul Pierce, of which all will be in the Hall of Fame. I guess when he claims he's a 'controversial' user, he's not lying!

    1

    Oh and there's no need to mention '72 either. I understand, it was 5 HOF's on 4, there's no need to debate it either because Elgin didn't play in that Finals so it's irrelevant, just making sure you knew this since you've only been a basketball fan for a year.

    0

    Of course Elgin didn't always have Wilt and West on his teams, but you understand what I mean. He was apart of some very good teams.

    0

    Yes but the Celtics and Knicks always had DOUBLE the HOFers...

    0

    3 Rings, 2 Finals MVP, 3 MVP> 2 Rings, 2 Finals MVP,4 MVP> 8 Finals Losses, 0 MVP

    -1

    Rings = Meaningless
    Bird had less MVP competition than Baylor too

    0

    [Deleted]

    3

    Only Magic in the mid 80's. Most great players were stuck on bad teams (I.e. Dantley and King) so didn't stand a chance, and are unfortunately forgotten.

    4

    I love how you mention that King was stuck on a bad team. Bernard King is one of the Greats, yet because he was stuck on a bad team (the Knicks) he was forgotten. Outside of the teams and players listed in NBA 2K most 80s teams, and the 80s players are forgotten. Bernard King managed to come back from a torn ACL, which even DRose hasn't fully recovered from, BEFORE there was surgery to repair it, and yet he was still playing at a all star level. And even later in Bernard King's Career, when he was 34, he was 3rd in the league in scoring in 1991 with the Wizards. But because he was on a bad team, he is sadly forgotten when it comes to the top SF of all time

    0

    Bird was his MVP's mid 80's 8^)) when his competition was barkley,stockton,jordan,magic,mchale,dantley,english,isiah thomas,kareem,parish,akeem,sampson,worthy,drexler,wilkins

    1

    Barkley - too young and not in prime.
    Stockton - Same as Barkley.
    Jordan - Too young, still an MVP candidate but his teams were finishing <.500.
    Magic - Already called him an MVP candidate.
    Mchale - 2nd string to Bird, no chance.
    Dantley - Bad team.
    English - Bad team with other shot jackers taking his stats.
    Thomas - Meh teams, 45-50 wins not enough unfortunately.
    Kareem - Wayyyyy to old and was a no.2 to Magic.
    Parish - 3rd option...
    Hakeem - Too young and had Sampson.
    Sampson - Injuries + Hakeem.
    Worthy - Magic was first option, never an MVP candidate anyway.
    Drexler - Too young.
    Wilkins - Meh teams, never had the all round game a MVP requires.

    -1

    thats what you're remembered by

    0

    King is slightly worse than Bird. But only Slightly. Bird's advantage in 3pt shooting gives him the nod.

    1

    Hate to brake it to you, but neither King or Dantley were of the 60s. They are two of the most forgotten players in NBA history (with Mark Aguirre, Chris Mullin, Artis Gilmore and Ricky Barry).

    I usually disagree with @Klayyyyyy 's viewpoint on this kind of stuff but he's right about this.

    0

    You think he's right about "Dantley and King > Bird in their primes"?
    I can see why someone would think that, in my opinion it's just not true. But I definitely agree on those players you said are forgotten a lot, although I don't think that Mullin is.

    0

    Better prime scorers, based on PPG and TS%. Dantley in 1984 was as good as Bird ever was overall.

    0

    Mullin is as say to someone '90s Small Forward' and most times you'll get SCOTTIEPIPPENSCOTTIEPIPPENSCOTTIEPIPPEN

    IMO Prime Dantley = Prime Bird > Prime King

    0

    Well, that Pippen fanboy would be me to be honest, I'm the first to admit lol. And I can agree with that statement, but I prefer Bird, because of a better overall game other than scoring.

    0

    Ye I can respect that.

    1

    I almost actually applauded after reading this comment. Well freaking done bro. I think exactly the same way.

    1

    I can only give you the tip not to discuss with these guys, I wasted too much time on here and especially on Twitter trying to argue, but it is literally impossible to convince them of anything else than their own opinion lol. I have no idea why they love the 60s so much and argue with stats that are completely ridiculous because the game changed fundamentally in 30 years between the 60s and 90s. I've had guys on Twitter seriously telling me MJ is not a top 10 player hahaha :D

    2

    You're an idiot. This all relates to that comment I made on the Lakers Wilt page. This is all that media BS again, the media says the 60's is weak so people foolishly believe it. I don't fanboy the 60's, as I stated on the Lakers Wilt page I basically like/dislike everything I argue for/against the same as I have no bias', like I really like MJ and Wilt the same, but it's the bias opinions I don't like. The same applies here as I'm not loving the 60's but am fighting the BS people say about it. In all honesty I'm not even fanboying it in any sense, you're just hating on it.

    I'm from England and here we respect our past sportsman equally, I'm a F1 and football (real football) fan and in both those sports people consider current and past eras equal, even though funnily enough they aren't really. Although the whole "GOAT" argument isn't a big thing in our sports in football Pele is generally considered the GOAT, despite playing in the weak Brazilian league (basically for players who couldn't make it in Europe) he is considered the best for what he did in the World Cup, which is about 10 games every 4 years, but yet people still think he is GOAT. In F1 Juan Manuel Fangio is generally considered a top 3 driver ever, despite racing in the accident filled 50's and joining the sport at 39 years old! Which would obviously be extremely difficult now a days, people really should take away from him as he would never be so great in his 40's nowadays, but they don't.

    This is because the media don't say stuff criticising past eras here, while in the US they clearly do and it goes to show how much of a difference it makes. While the sporting greats I mentioned should be considered lesser they aren't because the media doesn't say so, while in the US past greats are considered lesser when they actually shouldn't be, because the media say so. I guarantee you that if the media wasn't saying all this BS then you wouldn't believe it, I'm going back to all these bias' again and as someone with none of the media bias I can clearly see that the 60's were at least as strong as the 90's. While your media-altered opinion is unreliable and evidently wrong.

    You'll probably have to look at my Lakers Wilt comment to understand all this (it's not actually about Wilt).

    1

    You don't have to call me an idiot, what do you hope to achieve with insults? I even agree with you on the football part, F1 I don't know so much about but from what you've said it certainly seems like Fangio is overrated, I only know Senna and Schumacher are probably the two best drivers ever. You're also wrong with saying I hate on the 60's, I don't, just like you fight the BS people say about it (in your opinion) I tried to fight people who said (in my opinion) BS about Wilt being better than MJ and even more ridiculous things. Also, you wrongly assumed I'm influenced by the US media, which is untrue because I'm from Germany and lived here my whole life. Matter of fact we also respect our past sportsmen here, be it Gerd Müller, Franz Beckenbauer, Max Schmeling, Boris Becker, and many more. That doesn't mean everybody can look up facts/footage online and form their own opinion on them. You can't just assume everybody who criticizes 60's Basketball is a hater and influenced by the "evil" US media, because they're not.

    1

    In all 1012 of my comments "You're an idiot" is probably the most insulting I've ever said, I only said it once and it's not like you didn't insult me (albeit indirectly) with that fan club comment either. Well honestly if you aren't influence by the media or people around you in any way then that makes you even worse... Explain to me how the 60's are weak again? We're the 1 inch shorter players too small for the modern game? We're the Olympic level athletes to ounathletic for the modern game? Was the 9 team league more watered down than the 30 team modern league? Cuz I really doubt it.

    -1

    Put Russell Westbrook, MVP rose, finals rondo, young cp3, KD, Lebron, harden, young mcgrady, iverson, and the list goes on. Would shit on the 60s so hard because no players were athletic back then. Not one player in the 60s can dunk like Westbrook and not one player in the 60s had crossovers like the players do now a days. Curry would murder wilt he wouldn't even know what to do when he starts splashing 30 footers like nothing. Even without counting threes curry would score more than 100. Basketball is harder now a days than the chuck Taylor days.

    0

    You do also realize that there was no 3 point line in the 60`s right? Plus no "posters" and "ankle breakers", which were considered unsportsmanlike. If you knew about wilt you`d also realize he wouldn`t get dunked on. Like when he broke Gus Johnson`s shoulder blocking a dunk attempt...

    -1

    All I can say to, umm... uh... this, is *sighs. *walks away.

    -2

    Wilt is trash trust he's just tall

    0

    Last I checked with you you the opposition was the reason Wilt sucked. Now it`s his height? Last I checked that also applies to every 7 footer, so I guess Shaq, Kareem, Ewing, Dirk etc cant be considered great either.

    0

    All those players played in the 80s when the centers were real beast even dirk would kill wilt with his outside range. Maybe he can block his fadeaway but I don't think he ever guarded anyone with skills like dirk, shaq, Hakeem, Ewing etc

    0

    Russell, Kareem, Reed, Unseld, Thurmond, Pettit, Embry, Kerr, Elmore Smith etc.

    0

    If there was threes Pete Maravich would of been the greatest basketball player of all time

    -1

    Tell that to MJ


    3s dont make you the greatest basketball player......

    -1

    So threes don't make you a great basketball player lol, curry is a 98 now bet you weren't expecting that lmao. Bitch ass

    -2

    Yeah they do best team makes threes the game of basketball is evolving brotha

    0

    You still can't answer my question lol

    0

    What question?

    0

    Current players are better than chuck Taylor players?

    0

    Russell, Kareem, Reed, Unseld, Thurmond, Pettit, Embry, Kerr, Elmore Smith etc.

    0

    Exactly current players are better

    0

    lol oh yeah Dwight Howard, Demarcus Cousins and Marc Gasol are so much better.

    I mean the players today are so much better, clearly when guys like Alex Len, Roy Hibbert and Steve Adams start Wilt stands no chance. All the modern centers must be go HOF, because every player I listed did...

    0

    Demarcus cousins is a very good player lol you obviously is an nba fan not a fan of basketball bro.... Draymond would school all those old players

    0

    Umm yeah Cousins is good. One of like 3 current big men who would start in the 60`s in fact...

    Draymond isn`t a center... And he certainly wouldn`t be in the 60`s

    0

    How many games have you seen from 1960? None

    0

    So how can I know they were so bad?

    -1

    youre so dumb dude players now or 1000x better. Curry would dominate all those centers easily with his threes they wouldn't have a chance to step outside the paint and not one player back then could guard curry from the perimeter. I'm probably better than bob Cousy lol

    0

    Well obviously no centers from an era with no 3 point line could stop a 3 point shooting PG. Heck no center, or PG now can stop Curry so I don`t see your argument here.

    -1

    btw, bob cousy would most likely school your ass, and btw if you can only shoot threes IRL you're not better than Cousy kid

    -1

    this kid was born in 2005. what an idiot. so your all time starting 5 is
    PG-Curry
    SG-Mitch Richmond
    SF-Peja Stoyakovic
    PF- Larry Bird
    C-Meyers Leonard

    ?

    0

    Precisely. Apart from Leonard all those guys are scrubs :)

    0

    lmao. not saying they're scrubs, just saying there the best 3 pt shooter by position

    0

    This thread lmao XD its gotten so skinny, it needs to gain some weight

    0

    lol

    0

    WE NEED TO GO DEEPER

    0

    were setting the bar lower!! keep going

    -1

    Terrible starting five for best three point shooters of all time. No Ray Allen lol you're a bum

    -1

    thanks for the dislikes :)

    -1

    Lmao what year were you born 1945?

    -1

    did you think that was funny?

    0

    Nope you're a bum that's why

    -1

    i bet your top 10 are all from the 2000s and 90s GTFO

    1

    No, they aren't. Tell me your top 10 though, apparently you're another 60's NBAGuru

    -1

    "60's Guru" because all players from <1988 are garbage. because the NBA before 1985 isnt valid. Because rules were made based on the overwhelming talent of old players.

    -1

    nah I like all years

    -1

    All the players from 90-2000s are better than every player that existed

    -1

    proof everything you say doesnt matter

    0

    Proof you suck cock

    0

    it deserves to be disliked, fam

    1

    Since my life doesn't actually revolve around this site I don't really care, fam ;)

    0

    didnt say it did, fam :)

    -3
  • -5

    I pulled this card

  • -5
  • -5

    How does only have 72 passing vision? He did no look passes like they were nothing. His passing vision should be in the 90s.

    10

    That would be passing accuracy...

  • -6

    compared to curry Bird seems like an overrated 3 point shooter

  • -10

    Play him at PG...

    23

    Too slow

    Show 5 replies...
    1

    Not if you play a slow tempo...

    20

    On defense

    0

    Paur with fast sf. Switch Bird with said sf

    0
    0

    accidentally reported this trying to see the other comments, disregard plz

    1

    I play Dirk at PG, just for the show

    Show 1 reply...
    Show 1 more reply...
    0

    i've seen alot of LeBron, Harden, George, Jordan at point guard, but not Bird haha