Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Vote: Better All-Time, Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird?
- Thread starter PlayTheGame
- Start date
Poop Master Flex
Mid-Card Championship Winner
As much as I want to give it to Bird I simply can't.
They both were great players and had stellar careers which is all that matters but Kobe is one of those players that can definitely be considered one of the greatest all-around talents in NBA history, he's probably the closest you can come to MJ without being MJ.
They both were great players and had stellar careers which is all that matters but Kobe is one of those players that can definitely be considered one of the greatest all-around talents in NBA history, he's probably the closest you can come to MJ without being MJ.
Bird, hands down. Better shooter, better rebounder, better at assists, better at steals, better at blocks, better offensively, better defensively, and more valuable to his team. Bird is the better player by every metric.
I fail to see how Bird was more valuable to his team. Both guys had the privilege of playing with a great supporting cast.
And most of their stats per game are pretty similar. Bird had 1.7 steals/game, Kobe has 1.5. Bird had 6.3 assists/game, Kobe has 4.7. Neither of them had more than one block/game... really, up and down the line, they trade off who got better stats. The only category with a major difference is in rebounds, but that could also be chalked up to Bird playing the 3 and Bryant playing the 2 for most of their careers.
It's kind of a push for me, but with 5 rings compared to Bird's 2, I think I might give Kobe a slight edge.
The Big Gunnzbowski
Damas y Caballeros...
Bird>Bryant at Hell in a Cell. Kobe goes for the ride... That is all.
It's kind of a push for me, but with 5 rings compared to Bird's 2, I think I might give Kobe a slight edge.
I know I might've used this argument you're using right now before, but it's a weak one.
Alright, let me break down explicitly why Larry Bird is a better player than Kobe Bryant.
Player Efficiency Rating: If you don't know what this is, look it up. It's not perfect, because it isn't a great indicator of defensive contributions, but we have other metrics for that, so it's alright. They're exactly equal. There is, as with all statistics, a margin of error associated with this number, so it's possible that Kobe is actually better, or the same is true of Bird. Fortunately, we have many other peripheral metrics to get a more complete picture.
True Shooting Percentage - This is an overall evaluator of shooting percentage that incorporates all possible shots (2 point FG, 3 point FG, free throws) and is a pretty reliable statistics. Kobe Bryant has a .555 career TS%, while Larry Bird has a career .564 TS%. I therefore conclude that Bird is a more accurate shooter than Bryant. If the margin of error argument makes you want to believe this isn't reliable, then:
Effective Field Goal Percentage - Similar to the last stat, but without measuring free throw percentages (although, if you're interested in that number, and it is a valid one, Bird blows Kobe out of the water). Bryant is .487, Bird is .496. The likelihood that two metrics are both inaccurate due to error as an evaluator of the accuracy of a shooter is orders of magnitude lower than their individual likelihood of doing so. The evidence is clear - Bird is a more accurate shooter than Kobe.
Total Rebound Percentage - Roughly speaking, an estimate of how many times a player successfully achieved a rebound when it was possible. This isn't an entirely fair statistic, given that Bird was a forward and Kobe a guard, but I bring it up to make a point in a moment. Bird destroys Kobe, with 14.5 to 8.2.
Assist Percentage - This is the point I wanted to make. Theoretically, a guard with the reputation as a playmaker should be outdoing Bird, as a forward, in assist percentage (an estimate of the percentage of team mate field goals a player assisted in while on the floor), but Bird outdoes Kobe 24.7 to 24.0, indicating that however good a playmaker/assister/whatever you think Kobe is, Bird was better.
Steal Percentage - Another category you think Kobe, as a guard, should outdo Bird in, right? Wrong. Steal percentage is an estimate of the number of times an opponent possession ended with a steal by that player. Bird outdoes Kobe 2.2 to 2.1 - considering the infrequency of steals, that is actually a significant margin.
There is a nearly identical argument as the above to be made for blocks, but I feel I'd be beating a dead horse at this point.
Turnover Percentage - The only metric in which Kobe outdoes Bird - approximately 11.5% of Kobe's possessions ended in turnovers, while 12.7 of Bird's did so. Congratulations, Kobe, you did something better than Bird - unfortunately, it doesn't make up the ground.
Offensive and Defensive Rating - Broad metrics that represent, respectively, the number of points scored per 100 possession and the number of points allowed per 100 possessions. Bird has 115 and 101, Bryant has 112 and 105. The numbers don't lie, Bird scored more points and fought more off than Bryant.
Win Shares - This is the discussion about value. In 13 seasons, Larry Bird had an average of .203 win shares per minute. A win share is an estimate of how many wins a player added to his team. Averaging it over 48 minutes allows us to easily compare between players with different career lengths. Kobe Bryant has just .186. Which is to say, for every minute that Larry Bird was on the court for the Boston Celtics, he was producing more value than Kobe does for the Los Angeles Lakers in his own minute.
Therefore, the picture is clear - Bird shot better, rebounded more, assisted more, stole more, scored more points*, allowed fewer points*, and was more valuable to the Boston Celtics. The only thing Kobe can claim to have done better than Larry Bird is not turn it over. That simply does not make up for everything Bird did better than Kobe. The facts are obvious - Larry Bird is a just plain better player than Kobe Bryant.
*Per 100 possession
(P.S. As an aside, I would make the caveat to an earlier statement of mine that only one player is better than Larry Bird, namely Michael Jordan. Having done further research, I may be willing to include more players as better than Bird - Bryant not among them).
Player Efficiency Rating: If you don't know what this is, look it up. It's not perfect, because it isn't a great indicator of defensive contributions, but we have other metrics for that, so it's alright. They're exactly equal. There is, as with all statistics, a margin of error associated with this number, so it's possible that Kobe is actually better, or the same is true of Bird. Fortunately, we have many other peripheral metrics to get a more complete picture.
True Shooting Percentage - This is an overall evaluator of shooting percentage that incorporates all possible shots (2 point FG, 3 point FG, free throws) and is a pretty reliable statistics. Kobe Bryant has a .555 career TS%, while Larry Bird has a career .564 TS%. I therefore conclude that Bird is a more accurate shooter than Bryant. If the margin of error argument makes you want to believe this isn't reliable, then:
Effective Field Goal Percentage - Similar to the last stat, but without measuring free throw percentages (although, if you're interested in that number, and it is a valid one, Bird blows Kobe out of the water). Bryant is .487, Bird is .496. The likelihood that two metrics are both inaccurate due to error as an evaluator of the accuracy of a shooter is orders of magnitude lower than their individual likelihood of doing so. The evidence is clear - Bird is a more accurate shooter than Kobe.
Total Rebound Percentage - Roughly speaking, an estimate of how many times a player successfully achieved a rebound when it was possible. This isn't an entirely fair statistic, given that Bird was a forward and Kobe a guard, but I bring it up to make a point in a moment. Bird destroys Kobe, with 14.5 to 8.2.
Assist Percentage - This is the point I wanted to make. Theoretically, a guard with the reputation as a playmaker should be outdoing Bird, as a forward, in assist percentage (an estimate of the percentage of team mate field goals a player assisted in while on the floor), but Bird outdoes Kobe 24.7 to 24.0, indicating that however good a playmaker/assister/whatever you think Kobe is, Bird was better.
Steal Percentage - Another category you think Kobe, as a guard, should outdo Bird in, right? Wrong. Steal percentage is an estimate of the number of times an opponent possession ended with a steal by that player. Bird outdoes Kobe 2.2 to 2.1 - considering the infrequency of steals, that is actually a significant margin.
There is a nearly identical argument as the above to be made for blocks, but I feel I'd be beating a dead horse at this point.
Turnover Percentage - The only metric in which Kobe outdoes Bird - approximately 11.5% of Kobe's possessions ended in turnovers, while 12.7 of Bird's did so. Congratulations, Kobe, you did something better than Bird - unfortunately, it doesn't make up the ground.
Offensive and Defensive Rating - Broad metrics that represent, respectively, the number of points scored per 100 possession and the number of points allowed per 100 possessions. Bird has 115 and 101, Bryant has 112 and 105. The numbers don't lie, Bird scored more points and fought more off than Bryant.
Win Shares - This is the discussion about value. In 13 seasons, Larry Bird had an average of .203 win shares per minute. A win share is an estimate of how many wins a player added to his team. Averaging it over 48 minutes allows us to easily compare between players with different career lengths. Kobe Bryant has just .186. Which is to say, for every minute that Larry Bird was on the court for the Boston Celtics, he was producing more value than Kobe does for the Los Angeles Lakers in his own minute.
Therefore, the picture is clear - Bird shot better, rebounded more, assisted more, stole more, scored more points*, allowed fewer points*, and was more valuable to the Boston Celtics. The only thing Kobe can claim to have done better than Larry Bird is not turn it over. That simply does not make up for everything Bird did better than Kobe. The facts are obvious - Larry Bird is a just plain better player than Kobe Bryant.
*Per 100 possession
(P.S. As an aside, I would make the caveat to an earlier statement of mine that only one player is better than Larry Bird, namely Michael Jordan. Having done further research, I may be willing to include more players as better than Bird - Bryant not among them).
Those arguments would be valid Harthan if Kobe and Bird played in the same era, but they didn't.
Bird didn't have anywhere near the level of competition Kobe has had the last 15 years, and yet Kobe still dominated the league and has more championships than anyone who's played since he entered the league outside of Robert Horry (which isn't fair to count since he was simply a role player).
Bird didn't have anywhere near the level of competition Kobe has had the last 15 years, and yet Kobe still dominated the league and has more championships than anyone who's played since he entered the league outside of Robert Horry (which isn't fair to count since he was simply a role player).
Those arguments would be valid Harthan if Kobe and Bird played in the same era, but they didn't.
Bird didn't have anywhere near the level of competition Kobe has had the last 15 years, and yet Kobe still dominated the league and has more championships than anyone who's played since he entered the league outside of Robert Horry (which isn't fair to count since he was simply a role player).
Bolded statement is emphasized because Kobe really is a role player, setting up Shaq and Gasol in order to win championships.
You'll have to quantify the statement that the league was worse when Bird played. It's not that I'm not open to the argument, only that I expect some numbers to prove it. I can't find PER for the league that far back, since Hollinger's only been calculating it so long and basketball reference doesn't seem to have consolidated their calculations for further back. But keep in mind PER is standardized to a presumption of a league average 15, which is based off the last ten odd years of basketball. Considering that the catch all statistic indicates that Bird and Bryant were equal, I'm inclined to believe that the peripheral stats are a consequence of Bird's talent rather than a weaker era. I should also like to note that while offensive rating did decline for a period of Kobe's career, at least half of it (his best half, actually) has come at a time when it was roughly the same as Bird's, indicating that the league was approximately equal in competition.
There's an old saying, popularized by Mark Twain:I encourage you to take a course in statistics
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Obviously stats are important, but a stat is like a single playing card. You can turn it in many different directions and observe something different every time.
That being said, if I were starting a team, I'd rather have Bird on my team than Kobe. I think Kobe is a better defender, but I think Bird is a better guy to build a team around.
Bird is a legend but I'll take Kobe over Bird. Kobe is the better scorer, better defender, and more explosive player.
You forgot to mention Kobe is also black. Really all you needed to say.
Going to point out the obvious:
Couldn't it also be said that Shaq was needed for Kobe to win the first three championships? In fact, this statement is more likely, considering you just stated that Shaq was actually more important to those titles than Kobe was.
Arguing about who would have won what title without so and so is pointless. Kobe and Shaq needed each other, Phil Jackson, and everyone else on the team, just like Bird needed Parrish, McHale, and the rest of the Celtics. You might as well claim that all of Magic Johnsons' NBA titles were just because of James Worthy and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I am not saying that Bird is better than Kobe, just objecting to the whole "Shaq needed Kobe" bullshit. Teams win championships, not individual players, so title counting is a stupid measuring stick when comparing Byrant to Bird. Both have multiple titles, both played with a couple of HOF caliber players surrounding them.
Nah that is what I meant. I didn't mean Kobe was better than Shaq and that he couldn't of won 3 rings without him, I was just proving to Harthan that Kobe was obviously valuable to his team.
Bolded statement is emphasized because Kobe really is a role player, setting up Shaq and Gasol in order to win championships.
You'll have to quantify the statement that the league was worse when Bird played. It's not that I'm not open to the argument, only that I expect some numbers to prove it. I can't find PER for the league that far back, since Hollinger's only been calculating it so long and basketball reference doesn't seem to have consolidated their calculations for further back. But keep in mind PER is standardized to a presumption of a league average 15, which is based off the last ten odd years of basketball. Considering that the catch all statistic indicates that Bird and Bryant were equal, I'm inclined to believe that the peripheral stats are a consequence of Bird's talent rather than a weaker era. I should also like to note that while offensive rating did decline for a period of Kobe's career, at least half of it (his best half, actually) has come at a time when it was roughly the same as Bird's, indicating that the league was approximately equal in competition.
Bird was a role player to McHale if you are going to say Kobe is a role player to Pau.
I doubt it.Oh yea, thanks for reminding me I had forgotten.
Peoples_Champ
Bra & Panties match winner & NEW...
Bird had a few years where he was completely untouchable, but over the span of their entire careers, I would give it to Kobe for the simple reason that he's probably more clutch than Bird (not to take anything away from Larry Legend).
Case and point, Kobe has better playoff PPG and 3P% than Larry Bird. Kobe was more accurate and productive when it mattered than Bird.
And also, Kobe's 5 rings to Larry's 3.
Case and point, Kobe has better playoff PPG and 3P% than Larry Bird. Kobe was more accurate and productive when it mattered than Bird.
And also, Kobe's 5 rings to Larry's 3.
PlayTheGame
The Cerebral Assassin
PlayTheGame you have to take into consideration the fact that Kobe Bryant currently has 6961 more minutes than Larry Bird does. However, when you look at the true percentages that you yourself provided you will clearly see that Larry Bird has relatively high numbers comparitively speaking to Kobe Bryant. When you truly analyze the tables that once again, you provided, you will see that Bird has a higher rate of shooting, offenseive rebounds, defensive rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks.
You will also find that Larry Bird has higher rates in both offensive rating and defensive rating. Thus the numbers clearly show that Larry Bird was the most efficient player of the two.
The only real arguement you have truly made for Kobe Bryant is that he is more durable than Larry Bird. However when we take into consideration that Larry Bird played 4 years of college that Kobe Bryant did not, Larry Bird has currently played 2 more years than Bryant has played. We'll also find that Larry Bird led the league in minutes per game twice, something Kobe Bryant has never done; and seeing his age never will do.
Thus case and point Larry Bird > Kobe Bryant.
Let me first address your point about Bird having played less time in the NBA than Kobe. You are using that fact in defense of Bird, which I don't think is fair or correct. By your argument, someone who puts together 1 amazing season, leading the league in every way possible, and then retires would be better than Bird & Bryant, which is obviously not the case. I could argue that if Bird had played more seasons, his numbers would have declined, hurting his overall statistics. Thus, his so-called efficiency numbers benefit from this, but what are they really worth in an argument against someone like Kobe? I mean, it's not like anyone could call Kobe "inefficient". What do efficiency numbers really mean, anyway? I know what they literally mean, but what are they supposed to lead you to? The answer to that should be who is more equipped to win, and win titles. Two areas that Bryant has clearly surpassed Bird in. So if Kobe's "efficiency" numbers aren't as good as Bird's, I think he, I, and anyone building a franchise would take Kobe's 5 rings over Bird's "efficiency".
Look at it this way: What represents the bigger gap: Bird's "efficiency" compared to Kobe's "efficiency", or the number of Kobe's titles versus Bird's. I'd go with the latter, because 2 more championships is A LOT. Since both players are rather efficient, that gap is inconsequential. What is consequential is that fact that Kobe's produced more for his respective team than Bird did (and still is not done) in terms of what really matters: wins and title wins. If you ask ANY player or coach what makes any athlete great, stats or championships, they'll easily say the latter, and Kobe "wins" in that category (granted the player had a large hand in said championships, which obviously Kobe did- he played the biggest role). Thus:
Kobe > Bird
PlayTheGame
The Cerebral Assassin
I know I might've used this argument you're using right now before, but it's a weak one.
It certainly is not. It is actually the argument that matters the most and holds the most weight. Any coach or athlete will tell you that.
If you ask ANY player or coach what makes any athlete great, stats or championships, they'll easily say the latter, and Kobe "wins" in that category (granted the player had a large hand in said championships, which obviously Kobe did- he played the biggest role). Thus:
Kobe > Bird
Can I assume that you would agree with these two comparisons then?
Mark Rypien > Dan Marino
Terrell Davis > Barry Sanders
If you ask ANY player or coach what makes any athlete great, stats or championships, they'll easily say the latter, and Kobe "wins" in that category (granted the player had a large hand in said championships, which obviously Kobe did- he played the biggest role).
Except that is untrue, he didn't play the biggest role. Shaq played the biggest role in the first three. You also have to remember Kobe won 2 NBA championships at the same age Bird was still in college. Meaning he's had a lot more opportunities to win championships. Maybe if there was a culture of high school players coming out early in the 70s, Bird would have come out and won 2 more NBA championships, who knows.
Here's what I do know. Bird played 13 seasons in the NBA. Bryant is in his 16th season, and he's still two years younger than Bird was when he retired. Bryant also played with one of the most dominant players in NBA history, Bird didn't.
So while there is certainly something to be said for winning championships, simply comparing 5 championships to 3 is not a good way to compare in this case. If Bryant had won only 2 championships and Bird hadn't won any, then you'd have a fair argument. But Larry Bird won 3 NBA championships, it's not like you can say he wasn't a winner.
I thought of something else:
How about the quality of competition each player faced in the NBA Finals? The Pacers, 76ers, Nets, Magic, Pistons, and even the Celtics that Kobe faced would have been no match for the Rockets and Lakers teams that Bird faced in the NBA finals, they would have destroyed every team Kobe faced. The NBA was flat out tougher then than it is now. Kobe plays in an NBA that caters to superstars, calling fouls if you breath on one wrong. Bird played in an NBA where everyone got the crap beat out of them every night, and you earned all of your free throw attempts. In Bird's NBA, you almost had to mug the guy before the ref would blow the whistle. Kobe's Lakers would not have stood a chance in the NBA of the 80s.
IE, Bird's 3 NBA Championships were much harder to win than Kobe's 5.
How about the quality of competition each player faced in the NBA Finals? The Pacers, 76ers, Nets, Magic, Pistons, and even the Celtics that Kobe faced would have been no match for the Rockets and Lakers teams that Bird faced in the NBA finals, they would have destroyed every team Kobe faced. The NBA was flat out tougher then than it is now. Kobe plays in an NBA that caters to superstars, calling fouls if you breath on one wrong. Bird played in an NBA where everyone got the crap beat out of them every night, and you earned all of your free throw attempts. In Bird's NBA, you almost had to mug the guy before the ref would blow the whistle. Kobe's Lakers would not have stood a chance in the NBA of the 80s.
IE, Bird's 3 NBA Championships were much harder to win than Kobe's 5.
I feel as if the championship level teams were better as well, but that's just not an argument which has an objective basis. I think Showtime Lakers were better than the New Jersey Nets too, but how can you prove it?I thought of something else:
How about the quality of competition each player faced in the NBA Finals? The Pacers, 76ers, Nets, Magic, Pistons, and even the Celtics that Kobe faced would have been no match for the Rockets and Lakers teams that Bird faced in the NBA finals, they would have destroyed every team Kobe faced. The NBA was flat out tougher then than it is now. Kobe plays in an NBA that caters to superstars, calling fouls if you breath on one wrong. Bird played in an NBA where everyone got the crap beat out of them every night, and you earned all of your free throw attempts. In Bird's NBA, you almost had to mug the guy before the ref would blow the whistle. Kobe's Lakers would not have stood a chance in the NBA of the 80s.
IE, Bird's 3 NBA Championships were much harder to win than Kobe's 5.
While I agree the teams the 80s Celtics played at the highest levels were better than the teams the Lakers played at the highest levels, it's just not an argument which can be proven.
PlayTheGame
The Cerebral Assassin
Except that is untrue, he didn't play the biggest role. Shaq played the biggest role in the first three. You also have to remember Kobe won 2 NBA championships at the same age Bird was still in college. Meaning he's had a lot more opportunities to win championships. Maybe if there was a culture of high school players coming out early in the 70s, Bird would have come out and won 2 more NBA championships, who knows.
Here's what I do know. Bird played 13 seasons in the NBA. Bryant is in his 16th season, and he's still two years younger than Bird was when he retired. Bryant also played with one of the most dominant players in NBA history, Bird didn't.
So while there is certainly something to be said for winning championships, simply comparing 5 championships to 3 is not a good way to compare in this case. If Bryant had won only 2 championships and Bird hadn't won any, then you'd have a fair argument. But Larry Bird won 3 NBA championships, it's not like you can say he wasn't a winner.
I would argue that it is true, and your statement is very overgeneralizing. I don't think anyone could argue that he wasn't the biggest part of the latter 2 championships. He was clearly the #1 on those teams, with Pau the #2. As for the first 3, you say Shaq, but I'd disagree. If Shaq was more important to the Lakers, why did they keep Kobe and let Shaq go? The Lakers obviously viewed Kobe as more important to the team, so they made sure they retained him and not Shaq. Everyone automatically gives credit to the Shaq for those titles because he won the MVPs of the Finals, but Kobe was just as important, if not more important, in those three years to the Lakers, getting them to the championships. I'd say that's a wash if anything. Without Kobe, Shaq got 1 more title. Without Shaq, Kobe got 2 more titles, and could get more.
As for your point that Bird lost out on the years that he was in college- that can't be brought into the argument. That's like trying to argue that Kobe would have been a better college player than Bird was. It didn't happen so it shouldn't even be argued, just like those early years for Bird didn't happen, and that was Bird's choice. For all we know, Bird could have floundered in the NBA in his early years. No way of knowing, so you can't play "what if". That can't be brought into the argument.
As for the talent around both players, yes, Kobe had elite talent around him, but other than Shaq & Pau, there wasn't much else. Bird had his fair share of talent around him too like McHale, so it's not like he was carrying teams either. Those Celtics were one of the best NBA teams ever, so it wasn't just him. You can't forget that.
As for your last comment, I'm certainly not saying Bird wasn't a winner, don't misunderstand me. We're comparing some of the best of all time here, the cream of the crop, true A+ players. Both sides of the argument is just nit-picking. Bryant & Bird are both amazing players in every form of the word.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 18
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 649
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)