<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Larry Bird-LeBron James Other than being close in height, Bird and LeBron James do not physically resemble each other. However, they do have similar skill sets. Over the course of his career, Bird averaged 25.3 points per 40 minutes with an assist ratio of 20.5, while last season James averaged 25.7 points per 40 minutes with an assist ratio of 20.6. Bird's career usage rate was 28.1, compared to James' usage rate of 28.8. Of course, there are some differences between the two players, most notably in their rebounding. Bird was the superior rebounder, with a career rebound rate of 14.5 percent (James' rebound rate was 10.2 percent in 2004-05). Still, it says quite a bit about James that as a 20-year old he had a season that was similar to a typical season from Larry Bird.</div> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writ...rity/index.html This article compare's todays players with which legends they are the most similar too. Before you all start complaining and going off on how "these guys are nothing alike" remember this is based purely on stats and numbers.
I don't agree with it, but I like statistics and it's pretty interesting to see how the current players compare to some of the all time greats and Tom Tolbert. I wish they did comparisons for some the big men and also Magic Johnson.
I don't agree with some of the comparisons but it doesn't really matter because they are based off of stats. I was kind of surprised when I saw Andre Iguodala close to Denis Rodman, and AI is one of a kind.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting number99:</div><div class="quote_post">vince carter and drexler are good comparisons, both sick dunkers, scorers, but drex has the 1 ring</div> 1) Vince's career isn't over. 2) These comparisons are a judge of talent, rings don't play a factor. I don't really agree with some of these. Terry, Stockton? Not even in the same sentence. Karl Malone, Randolph? That's funny. Iggy, Rodman? Not quite.
Why is Tom Tolbert even on the list? I would have like to see a comparison of Ron Artest to Pippen. Everyone would have loved to see there comparison of Kobe to MJ, but I guess they realize that it's played out.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Swish15:</div><div class="quote_post">Kobe Bryant is more like Michael Jordan than Tracy McGrady is. Anyone care to debate this? </div> It's a great debate, as long as people make sure to leave rings out of the argument as they did in the article.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">1) Vince's career isn't over. 2) These comparisons are a judge of talent, rings don't play a factor. I don't really agree with some of these. Terry, Stockton? Not even in the same sentence. Karl Malone, Randolph? That's funny. Iggy, Rodman? Not quite.</div> Read the article, the comparison's are statistical. Terry last season shot +50% FG, and +40% 3PT which is what Stockton averaged through his career. No other PG in the league except Nash did that, that's why they were to ones that had the most similarities statistically, not because Terry's game is similar to Stockton's. Terry also averaged a good amount of steals, something Stockton could do very well. Obviously with Nash, their's also the whole defensive difference mixed into the equation, but defense is not a stat. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Swish15:</div><div class="quote_post">Kobe Bryant is more like Michael Jordan than Tracy McGrady is. Anyone care to debate this? </div> From the article: Truth be told, I don't believe McGrady is the next Jordan any more than I believe any other player is. It just so happens that in '04-05, McGrady had a season that was a good match for a typical Michael Jordan season. I don't know why Kobe didn't match as well from last season, but it was probably the turnovers and the lower FG%. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I would have like to see a comparison of Ron Artest to Pippen. Everyone would have loved to see there comparison of Kobe to MJ, but I guess they realize that it's played out.</div> Artest played 7 games, their really wasn't much to compare because of that. Statistically though, I'd expect Odom to make a better comparison, he's a better passer and rebounder than Artest, and while Artest is getting up to the scoring averages of Pippen in his better years, career wise Odom would be closer last season, and that and steals would be the only real similarity for Ron. Pippen didn't shoot 41% from 3 for his career, or even 80% from the line. Defense isn't measured into this equation...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting og15:</div><div class="quote_post">Read the article, the comparison's are statistical. Terry last season shot +50% FG, and +40% 3PT which is what Stockton averaged through his career. No other PG in the league except Nash did that, that's why they were to ones that had the most similarities statistically, not because Terry's game is similar to Stockton's. Terry also averaged a good amount of steals, something Stockton could do very well. Obviously with Nash, their's also the whole defensive difference mixed into the equation, but defense is not a stat.</div> Well then if it is based on statistics it is a stupid article. I would rather read an article comparing their abilities instead of their statistics.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting STCBBall3:</div><div class="quote_post">Well then if it is based on statistics it is a stupid article. I would rather read an article comparing their abilities instead of their statistics.</div> statistics are stupid?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting number99:</div><div class="quote_post">statistics are stupid?</div> When it ends up comparing Karl Malone and Zach Randolph, and Jason Terry and John Stockton, yes. Don't put words in my mouth.
Problem is the stats did not make Jordan great. Great was him winning championship after championship.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting APowell1990:</div><div class="quote_post">Problem is the stats did not make Jordan great. Great was him winning championship after championship.</div> stats did help, scoring titles, almost 30 ppg his whole career. 33,000 points his whole life, and #2 in all time steals and many mvps did help. and whats wrong with comparing terry and john stocktons stats, even though stockon is obviously better
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting number99:</div><div class="quote_post">stats did help, scoring titles, almost 30 ppg his whole career. 33,000 points his whole life, and #2 in all time steals and many mvps did help. and whats wrong with comparing terry and john stocktons stats, even though stockon is obviously better</div> John Stockton and Jason Terry do not even belong in the same sentence. Jason Kidd and John Stockton, yeah, that's fine. Stockton is one of the greatest players ever, Jason Terry is not even an All-Star.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Swish15:</div><div class="quote_post">Kobe Bryant is more like Michael Jordan than Tracy McGrady is. Anyone care to debate this? </div> Why do you look for debates? This is the second time I've seen you do that, and it kind of kills the whole debate atmosphere.
The lure of the NBA is a combination of intriguing moments. Larry Bird's name can never be uttered the way Magic Johnson said his name in his famous tribute. The way Magic said Bird's name conjured the Legend's career in everyone's mind's eye. A Legend remembering a Legend. Statistics are helpful if you are trying to either prove or disprove something. But statistics are not useful when discussing legendary basketball players. Larry Bird is an individual who played like no one and whom no one will ever play like. It was his style that set him apart. Confidence and supreme talent are not issues here since the subject is greatness. But, to be a Legend or the Legend you must be a winner even when all seems lost. Jordan played like no one else and no one has played like him. And he won, seemingly at will; and he is a Legend. The great young players today, the confident and supremely talented James and McGrady and perhaps Iverson, need to will their teams to NBA championships if we are going to be talking about them in 20 years. I believe any three of these players' teams could win the NBA Championship this year, but it will take a legendary run that we can talk about for years with victory coming after all seems lost. One final note, Pete Maravich was the Legend before Larry Bird. Maravich achieved immortality through his unique theatical ball handling skills and willed his LSU teams to the pinnacle but although he was the best NBA player in the mid and late 70s, I don't think he's remembered the same as Bird or Jordan or even Magic because his teams (Hawks, Jazz) did not win an NBA Championship.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TDoug:</div><div class="quote_post">James and McGrady and perhaps Iverson, need to will their teams to NBA championships if we are going to be talking about them in 20 years.</div> I agree with almost everything you wrote except for this. In 20 years we will still be talking about Karl Malone and John Stockton won't we? How about Reggie Miller? It's not going to be possible for all of the stars to win a ring, but that doesn't mean we won't remember them. Especially someone like Lebron who came out of high school, made an immediate impact, and is arguably the best player in the league in only his third year. To say that we won't be talking about these guys in 20 years is silly.
