Kerr gets ripped

[cepstrum]

Check out this article on Steve Kerr. This guy really has something against Kerr. Check it out...

http://www.hoopshype.com/columns/history_hans.htm

 

[scotsman13]

this guy is dead wrong. first of all bird wasnt a power forward. on the celtics that was mchale (one of the all time best power forwards in the game). kerr is talking about power forwards not small forwards. and yes for the most part the power forward spot has changed. it has become a great deal more of a skill position. i would honestly say that no time in nba history has the power forward position been as deep as it is now. brand, dirk, duncan, webber, kmart, garrnet, okfor, howard, etc. and this isnt even counting amare because he is starting at center.

dont get me wrong i dont want to take anything away from bird or a bunch of the other people that he named but the group of current power forwards are very differant, very deep, and very good. and they are a real change from what we saw in the past out of the 4 spot.

 

[jibikao]

I seriously doubt if Bird is faster than Dirk... when Nash was on the team, Dirk usually runs just as fast as Nash. Watch Dirk's game and you'll see he is not slow.

I am 24 and I have to say I have never watched Bird's game. I guess I am one of those who only cares about NOW than BEFORE. MJ was great 'cause he was in his prime when I started watching basketball. But I have to say MJ also gets a lot of star-treatment. The way he puches the opponent away to get the shot off is quite cheap. Only MJ can get away with that.

I don't know any of the players the writer mentioned in the article but clearly he thinks none of the "current" young players can live up to the lengend.

And I hate this line "Magic and Barkley laughed themselves silly when someone compared Dirk to Bird – and they like Dirk". Trust me, those TNT crew always has a thing against Dallas. They don't like Mavs no matter how well they did. They think Bird is the best best white player ever 'cause he was in their era.

Now I wish Kobe can play better and beat MJ's record. I want new stars to shine over the old ones. I am kinda tired of living under the "legends" shadow. It's like no matter what you do you are still worse than the "legends". I think the media built up this "legend" thing. Kobe was that close to be as good as MJ but that rape thing totally ruined it.

Dirk needs to improve on his passing and defense, then people will start taking him seriously.

Jimmy

 

[George O'Brien]

Most cross generational comparisons of NBA players breaks down into confusion. Rule changes and related style changes have made a huge difference. Comparing guys who played when only man to man defense was prefered is very hard. For example, Chamberlin was undoubtedly the best low post scorer in the history of the game, but he played at a time when no sort of double teaming was allowed.

In any case, I think that Kerr's argument was a broad scope description which was overstated. Of course, maybe is was just talking about the Bulls.

 

[Errntknght]

Scotsman13, "this guy is dead wrong. first of all bird wasnt a power forward. on the celtics that was mchale (one of the all time best power forwards in the game). kerr is talking about power forwards not small forwards."

Actually he's not nearly as wrong as you think he is. For the first six years Larry played for Boston he was the starting PF. The starting SF was 205 lb Cedric 'Cornbread' Maxwell. McKale subbed for those two and even for Cowens, the center. After Maxwell was traded, McKale became a starter and somewhat more the PF than Bird - McKale being taller, heavier and less quick. On the other hand he gathered in only about two thirds the rebounds that Larry did so clearly Bird rebounded like the PF. (McKale was certainly a fine forward but he played in a frontcourt with other great players in Bird and Parrish (Cowens, early on) which made him seem better than he was.)

Bird was probably the best all-around forward to ever play and he could and did play both positions extremely well. If I were forced to categorize him as a SF or PF, I'd certainly choose PF and I imagine most people that followed his career would do the same. KG is the same class with him and, like Bird, he can play either the 3 or 4 extremely well. Put him in frontcourt with the likes of McKale and Parrish and he'd be the closest thing to a SF in the lineup... heck, that's true of Dirk as well.

 

[Errntknght]

George, "For example, Chamberlin was undoubtedly the best low post scorer in the history of the game, but he played at a time when no sort of double teaming was allowed."

There you go revising history again. Double teaming was always allowed but you could only double team the man with the ball. Wilt was double teamed a good deal and would have been double teamed much more but for two things - he often shot very quick and he was an extremely good passer. One year he came close to leading the league in assists with 8.6 per game. Maybe you'd better make that three things - he was as strong as an ox and could score with someone hanging on each arm.

Actually, I'm not sure the rules specifically disallowed double teaming a man without the ball. The rule on illegal defenses was very simple - you were not allowed to play a zone defense. The referees decided when the rule was violated. And they didn't have to explain how it violated the guidelines because there weren't any. I don't recall guys being called for double teaming off the ball but I don't recall that kind of double team being used either. Eventually you heard commentators explaining that an off-ball double team or a soft double team was a violation of the zone defense guidelines. That wasn't back in Chamberlain's heyday.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

I actually don't like comparison's between great players from before and great players now.

Basketball is an evolving sport. The game is different now than even just 20 years ago due to the size of players, rule changes, and sheer athleticism.

Meanwhile, the players from 20 years ago were better shooters and passers on average. It all evens out in my mind, as the game catered to different
strengths in different eras.

 

[JCSunsfan]

Scotsman13, "this guy is dead wrong. first of all bird wasnt a power forward. on the celtics that was mchale (one of the all time best power forwards in the game). kerr is talking about power forwards not small forwards."

Actually he's not nearly as wrong as you think he is. For the first six years Larry played for Boston he was the starting PF. The starting SF was 205 lb Cedric 'Cornbread' Maxwell. McKale subbed for those two and even for Cowens, the center. After Maxwell was traded, McKale became a starter and somewhat more the PF than Bird - McKale being taller, heavier and less quick. On the other hand he gathered in only about two thirds the rebounds that Larry did so clearly Bird rebounded like the PF. (McKale was certainly a fine forward but he played in a frontcourt with other great players in Bird and Parrish (Cowens, early on) which made him seem better than he was.)

Bird was probably the best all-around forward to ever play and he could and did play both positions extremely well. If I were forced to categorize him as a SF or PF, I'd certainly choose PF and I imagine most people that followed his career would do the same. KG is the same class with him and, like Bird, he can play either the 3 or 4 extremely well. Put him in frontcourt with the likes of McKale and Parrish and he'd be the closest thing to a SF in the lineup... heck, that's true of Dirk as well.

I disagree. While you could argue that Bird played pf early in his career, he definitely played the sf with McHale (yes, thats the correct spelling) in the lineup. Kevin was the primary low post offense for that team during the time that he started. Bird, an incredible shooter, and creative scorer, played more of a crafty slashing type of game, and certainly was the primary star on the team.

McHale had the most impressive repertoire of back-to-the-basket moves I have ever seen. Parrish, was a solid big man, and scored most of his points off of put backs and back door plays.

No one would argue Bird's great rebounding ability, or his ability to play pf if needed. But I will always think of him as a SF and McHale as a pf. I think people who played with him like Danny Ainge, would say the same thing.

BTW, I think McHale would have considered BETTER if he had not played with Bird. He had the ability to create his own offense in the post. Its just that when you are playing with Larry Bird (and such a great team), you arent going to get the same number of touches on offense.

 

[elindholm]

I also agree that Bird was a SF and that his forward counterpart spelled his name "McHale."

 

[JCSunsfan]

I also agree that Bird was a SF and that his forward counterpart spelled his name "McHale."

OK, OK, I guess I was a bit verbose.

 

[jibikao]

I actually don't like comparison's between great players from before and great players now.

Basketball is an evolving sport. The game is different now than even just 20 years ago due to the size of players, rule changes, and sheer athleticism.

Meanwhile, the players from 20 years ago were better shooters and passers on average. It all evens out in my mind, as the game catered to different
strengths in different eras.

Exactly. Look at our young players now. At age 19, they are 6'7 tall and and SUPER athletic. While I agree that basketball is NOT just about athelticism (spelling?), it has a hunge impact on how the game is played. No offense to Wilt but in his era, I would say 90% of the players are well below his height and Wilt can shoot over almost anybody. In today's game, Yao at 7'6 still gets blocked easily by a 6'7 SF. I think the game really has changed. I am NOT saying which one is better but it has changed. The fans love dunks and the more the better.

NBA is more and more about entertainment than the actual "best basketball". I guess that's why illegal defense was created because they don't want defenders to lock up an all-star player who can do crazy dunks and moves. Fans want to see that sort of things. If I want to see good quality basketball, I would just watch College basketballs. Everyone plays their hearts out and the defense is tight as hell.

In conclusion, I think it's only fair to compare players in the same era.

PS: One question: Is it just me or I think the rim was bigger and softer in the old days (black and white TV days)? It seems like the basketball is "lower" and the ball can bounce in much easier. Any idea or I was dreaming?

Jimmy

 

[George O'Brien]

George, "For example, Chamberlin was undoubtedly the best low post scorer in the history of the game, but he played at a time when no sort of double teaming was allowed."

There you go revising history again. Double teaming was always allowed but you could only double team the man with the ball. Wilt was double teamed a good deal and would have been double teamed much more but for two things - he often shot very quick and he was an extremely good passer. One year he came close to leading the league in assists with 8.6 per game. Maybe you'd better make that three things - he was as strong as an ox and could score with someone hanging on each arm.

Actually, I'm not sure the rules specifically disallowed double teaming a man without the ball. The rule on illegal defenses was very simple - you were not allowed to play a zone defense. The referees decided when the rule was violated. And they didn't have to explain how it violated the guidelines because there weren't any. I don't recall guys being called for double teaming off the ball but I don't recall that kind of double team being used either. Eventually you heard commentators explaining that an off-ball double team or a soft double team was a violation of the zone defense guidelines. That wasn't back in Chamberlain's heyday.

The rules you are talking about were implemented in the late seventies.

 

[Errntknght]

JCSunsfan, "While you could argue that Bird played pf early in his career, he definitely played the sf with McHale (yes, thats the correct spelling) in the lineup."

True, true, but you can't argue that he wasn't the starting PF for six years which makes him a viable candidate for comparing to Dirk. I did a little research which unearthed an interesting bit of information - McHale was a starter for only 4 of his 13 years with Boston. That means someone else started at PF. I don't know if it was Bird all the time but it may have been - except for the last year because Bird retired a year earlier.


"Parrish, was a solid big man, and scored most of his points off of put backs and back door plays."

Parish (yes, that's correct spelling) was a very solid big man who scored many points on the fastbreak and had a good mid-range jumper. He scored about as much as McHale during the years they were both playing - Bird was the scoring leader among the three.

"I will always think of him as a SF and McHale as a pf. I think people who played with him like Danny Ainge, would say the same thing."

I doubt if Danny Ainge would agree that comparing Dirk to Bird is ridiculous because Bird is strictly a SF. In fact, it's a particularly apt comparison because Larry has many of the same skills that Dirk has and was 're-defining' PF in the same way that Kerr attributed to Nowitski. Because of those skills Bird could play the SF position extremely well and Dirk could probably play it fairly well, too. Like I said, put Dirk with McHale and Parish (actually, I said McKale and Parrish) and he's the SF, too.

"BTW, I think McHale would have considered BETTER if he had not played with Bird. He had the ability to create his own offense in the post. Its just that when you are playing with Larry Bird (and such a great team), you arent going to get the same number of touches on offense."

It's true he might get more touches but by playing with Bird and Parish he wasn't under great pressure to score or rebound. He didn't have to worry much about being double teamed and he didn't always draw the opponents best defender nor did he have to always defend the opponents best frontcourt player. He had Bird to help get him the ball in position and to help spread the floor. He was very skilled at one thing as you pointed out, and was greatly aided in concentrating on that. I'm not saying that Kevin didn't pull his weight but I believe the situation in Boston was a boon to him compared to one where he'd be the dominant big man on the team.

 

[Errntknght]

George, "The rules you are talking about were implemented in the late seventies."

That sounds about right for the illegal defense guidelines.

 

[JCSunsfan]

JCSunsfan,
"Parrish, was a solid big man, and scored most of his points off of put backs and back door plays."

Parish (yes, that's correct spelling) .

Ouch. I deserved that one.

I doubt if Danny Ainge would agree that comparing Dirk to Bird is ridiculous because Bird is strictly a SF. In fact, it's a particularly apt comparison because Larry has many of the same skills that Dirk has and was 're-defining' PF in the same way that Kerr attributed to Nowitski. Because of those skills Bird could play the SF position extremely well and Dirk could probably play it fairly well, too. Like I said, put Dirk with McHale and Parish (actually, I said McKale and Parrish) and he's the SF, too..

I think the comparison is fair--because Dirk plays like a sf. He slashes and shoots from outside far more than he posts up or scores in the paint.

Sure, Larry could be a combo forward, but McHale was a pf only.