Dirk vs Bird... - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 10:49 AM

With the Mavs recent trip to Boston, many comparisons have been made between Dirk and Bird. Honestly, at this point in Dirk's career, his career numbers don't match up favorably to Bird's. Why? Well, Dirk came into the NBA much younger than Bird. Obviously he hadn't played against the same level of competition at that point either. So, it's a little difficult to compare their statistics for their career at this point in time.

But, I did decide to look at their playoff numbers. What I found was a little shocking. Yes, Bird was on a team that found alot of success in the playoffs with many final appearances and championships. Of course, that is the ultimate goal. However, Bird was obviously playing alongside a better cast. Anyways, what are the shocking results? Well, here's the stats:

Games
Bird - 164
Dirk - 40

MPG
Bird - 42
Dirk - 42

FGM
B - 8.89
D - 8.43

FGA
B - 18.84
D - 18.5

FG%
B - 47%
D - 45%

3PM
B - .49
D - 1.57

3PA'S
B - 1.52
D - 3.75

3P%
B- 32%
D- 41%

FTM
B - 5.49
D - 7.17

FTA
B - 6.17
D - 8.07

FT%
B - 88%
D - 88%

REB
B - 10.26
D - 11.03

AST
B - 6.48
D - 1.9

STL
B - 1.8
D - 1.38

BLK
B - .88
D - 1.07

TO
B- 3.09
D - 2.05

PTS
B - 23.76
D - 25.60

Obviously, we notice that Bird has a huge lead in assists and a slight edge in fg% and steals. But, Dirk has a huge lead in free throw attempts, fewer turnovers, and 3pt percentage. Plus, Dirk has a decent edge in blocks, rebounds, and points.

What do the numbers prove? Not much. It just shows that Dirk is probably a little closer to Bird than what most of us realize. And don't forget, Bird was playing in a more offensive oriented time... I think it's safe to say that Dirk's numbers would be bumped up a bit across the board if he were playing in the 80's.

DubOverdose · 03-31-2005, 10:51 AM

You gotta remember the different times. Its much harder to shoot a very high percentage these days.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 10:56 AM

That's why I mentioned that I thought Dirk's numbers would be better almost across the board.. more points...higher fg%..

dirno2000 · 03-31-2005, 11:02 AM

Of course the number that stands out are assists...Dirk will never be the passer that Bird was. Also, to be fair to Bird you have to consider that in his last couple of trips to the playoffs, his back was shot and he was playing on all heart. That's dragging down his numbers slightly since you're using his playoff career

Overall the comparison is becoming more and more valid, down to the point where Dirk is getting downright nasty. He's playing the best basketball of his career right now, but the thing I'm most encouraged by is seeing him develop that edge. The chip on his shoulder is bigger than ever.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 11:11 AM

Oh sure..plus the Mavs have never run as much of the offense through Dirk as the Celtics did with Bird. Part of that has to do with Dirk not being as good of a passer but most of it is due to having Steve Nash on the team.

I'm not arguing that Dirk's a better player than Bird....not at all. But, I do believe that you can put him in Bird's category. If the Mavs win a title in the next few years, there's no way that you'll be able to not put Dirk on that level.

capitalcity · 03-31-2005, 11:13 AM

Quote:

What do the numbers prove? Not much. It just shows that Dirk is probably a little closer to Bird than what most of us realize. And don't forget, Bird was playing in a more offensive oriented time... I think it's safe to say that Dirk's numbers would be bumped up a bit across the board if he were playing in the 80's.

Holger please teach Dirk the art of passing this summer.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 11:18 AM

You'll see Dirk's assist numbers go way up when Damp gets back. It's just all about jump shooters hitting open shots when Dirk gets them the ball. Sure, there's the occasional cutter, but most of his assists now come off of Fin or Terry hitting an open look off of a Dirk pass.

There's really no one to get the assists to until they have somewhat of a low post/near the bucket threat in Damp.

capitalcity · 03-31-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

There's really no one to get the assists to until they have somewhat of a low post/near the bucket threat in Damp.

I can't wait to see the sweet D&D pick-n-roll back in action.

sike · 03-31-2005, 11:35 AM

great thread murph.

though I did not have the motivation myself, I'm glad you took the time to slap this together. I'll admit, I not that surprised at the results.

Dirk will go down as one of the greatest power fowards of all time. And by the end of his career, the Bird comparison will be far more valid than anyone could have guessed when that skiny beaver toothed 19 year old stepped off that plane...

V2M · 03-31-2005, 11:35 AM

I've only watched Bird at the tail-end of his career (early 90s). But I have read and heard of him so much that I never, in my wildest imagination, expected Dirk to be as good as Bird. But looking at these numbers, Dirk's only 3 rings away. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

greensborohill · 03-31-2005, 12:42 PM

3 - 0 are the only numbers that count right now in this comparison. Until it is 3 - 1 we shouldn't even bring up the topic.

MaverickFFL · 03-31-2005, 12:43 PM

Dirk vs Bird? um I think I like Jordan vs Bird better

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by: greensborohill
3 - 0 are the only numbers that count right now in this comparison. Until it is 3 - 1 we shouldn't even bring up the topic.

I disagree...obviously, I already brought it up.

So you're saying that Karl Malone shouldn't be compared to the other top PF's in the history of the game because he never won a title?

rakesh.s · 03-31-2005, 12:45 PM

Dirk is the man...He will be one of the greatest players of all time, when it is all said and done.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 12:55 PM

One thing in Birds favor as a passer was that he had two GREAT POST players to throw the ball to. Dirk has never had that or one for that matter. Damp helped in that respect this year with the d&d pick&roll(i love that name hadnt thought of it) but if you pass to perimeter players for jumpers even if they are open alot of times there is a chance that they miss which prevents you from getting an assist. Also defense is much better now so teams dont score as much or run as much. This leads to less possessions which means you guessed it less assists. Also big thing to remember about older stats is rebounds. Rebounds were easier to come by because even though percentages were higher there were more shots and more misses because of the extra shots. Comparing players between eras is always difficult and bird would have still been incredible because he was great due to his will (which dirk is developing) but you never know what he would have done in this era nor dirk in his. Also on the titles thing i never saw him play but my dad swears by elgin baylor as one of the best sf ever and he never won a title

Simon2 · 03-31-2005, 01:13 PM

The Bird-Dirk comparison is just ridiculous in my opinion. The only reason they are compared is because both are white and both can shoot the three. Dirk can't even hold a candlestick to the greatness of Bird right now. Bird has rings. Dirk doesn't. Maybe a better comparison right now for Dirk is Detlef S or Tom Gugliotta. Big, white guys who can shoot from the outside. To compare Dirk and Bird is just unfair to Bird. Bird is a legend and he just willed his teams to win. Until Dirk shows that he can impose his will on other teams, he's can't be compared to Dirk.

Here come the angry replies....

chumdawg · 03-31-2005, 01:14 PM

I don't mean to take anything away from the great Larry Bird, but on the subject of playoffs and championships...

There is an interesting thread that runs through Bird's Celtics teams of the 80's: they never beat anybody they weren't "supposed" to beat. The three titles they won were over a 40-win Houston team, a 51-win Houston team, and a 54-win Lakers team (in a year the Celtics won 62).

Granted, they were favored in most all the series they played. But five times in nine years, they lost in the playoffs to a team with an inferior record. The one year they did go to the finals as an underdog ('87, against the Lakers), they lost that one, too.

When you look at it that way, you have to wonder if Boston's three titles weren't a little worse than they well could have been. Don't you?

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 01:26 PM

I know titles are the measure of greatness and all but lets be real Bird wasnt the only reason those teams won its like people bringing up Russell as the best player because of his titles when he played in an 8 team league with something like 8 hall of famers. You say Bird has 3 so cant compare him to dirk well Horry has 5 so we cant compare bird to him? Kerr has 5 as well i believe so lets not compare bird to him either. Titles are not the end all in comparisons. Name a dirk teamate as good as Mchale. You cant. Also Bird played in an era that let his skills excel. Honestly he was no more talented than van horn no not comparing them or the people with rings i mentioned bird is an all time great but he is not just so insanely much better than dirk that he is above comparison. If he played now Bird would probably average about 23 8 5. And we wouldnt be having this discussion but hey he dominated the era he played in which is all he could do so i give him credit as does just about anyone with any sense but the comparison is valid and i think at some point it will be unfair to dirk. As the jordan comparisons to dr j early in his career became unfair to him later. All comparisons end up being wrong because if the player ends up being as good as the old one they become the first whoever they are. Ie instead of next bird dirk will be the first dirk.

Simon2 · 03-31-2005, 01:39 PM

Why not let Dirk be Dirk? Why do we to compare him to someone? Its just an endless debate. You can't compare Kerr becuase he wasn't the leader of his team. Dirk and Bird are. Ultimately, you can't say Bird and Dirk in the same breathe yet since Dirk hasn't won anything yet. Think of it as a Wilt-Shaq comparison. If Shaq didn't win a title, could he legitimately be compared to Wilt? Not in my opinion. If a player is truly great, he will lead his team to the promised land. Bird has done that and Dirk is on his way. Dirk can't really be considered as great right now. Larry is a Legend.

dirno2000 · 03-31-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Honestly he was no more talented than van horn

ok, this is blasphemy…

kg_veteran · 03-31-2005, 01:47 PM

Blasphemy, and a really stupid thing to say. Stop trying to jinx Killer by offending the basketball gods.

You know that Oscar Robertson, he really wasn't much more talented than Michael Finley.

Sheesh.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 01:49 PM

Read the end of my last post i agree comparisons ALWAYS end up wrong one way or the other. Either the new player doesnt deserve it or if its warranted they become the first whoever they are. Ok what do these players have in common Big O Elgin Baylor Barkley(though i hate him) Stockton Malone. None led there team to a title. oscar won one but didnt lead his team. Kareem did. My point is if oscar hadnt won the one title at the end was he not great he is still the best pg ever in most peoples opinion. The others are all in the top 50 all time. But according to you they are not great? There are many other players that I would say are great that havent won a title. So in your opinion the only great players in the nba now are duncan Shaq as they are the only players in the nba to Lead their team to a title. no one player led the pistons last year. I just think your standards for great are a bit high. Which i agree is better than the standards for great being too low ie people calling pierce or people of that ilk great but come on winning a title isnt the only thing that makes you great. We r on a message board though so there is really nothing else ot do but discuss hopefully not just argue. I honestly respect your opinion and as I have said I am 19 so didnt see all of birds career but i have seen alot of his games and i think he was incredible but I just dont think that he was alot better than dirk if any.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 01:55 PM

Ok not saying Van horn is anywhere in the same league as bird I understand that bird was light years better than van horn but just physical talent wise tell me what bird did better? He had the will that superstars have which is why he was better and he had court vision that was great but he wasnt more physically talented. Jumping gotta give it to keith, speed again Kvh, agility kvh, strength Bird but that wasnt really his game. Not trying to disparage bird he is one of the 10 best ever and kvh has never been one of the top 20 players in the league at any time but skills wise its not a huge stretch to say that kvh was as talented as bird. there is a reason kvh was originally called the next bird. Mostly because he was a tall white forward with a smooth jumper but physically they were similar.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 01:55 PM

Using this because no use to waste another post since i triple posted. I agree great is overused as is superstar. I think that there are 5-7 great players or superstars. Bird was not better defensively. he played with a center his whole career in parrish and a team that was a good defensive team in general He was better at using his legendary anticipation to play passing lanes, but he wasnt really any better defensively than dirk has become. He was a better passer and i dont think dirk will catch him there but i think that dirk will have several seasons where he averages 5 dimes. THeir rebounding is similar i would give the nod to dirk because there r less to go around now but bird got more so its ok. As scoring goes they are close but i think that it needs to be remembered that dirk is only 26 and will get better. Btw there is no shame in not being as good as Larry Bird. There is a reason that his nickname is Larry Legend. I agree about the foil thing as well you make alot of good points.
P.s. I am a homer but i dont think that this involves homerism. Many people in the mavs area are anti homers. they try so hard to not be homers that they go the other way. This is also influenced by the Eternally Self Promoting Network and its continual mavs hate.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 01:55 PM

Srry on a computer at school it froze and then multiposted

V2M · 03-31-2005, 02:10 PM

Jordan's no more talented than Stackhouse. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Simon2 · 03-31-2005, 02:13 PM

To compare them, both are pretty good offensively but Bird was much better, in the defense, passing and steals categories. I'm not sure if but I think a major reason Bird turned out so "tough" is because he had a foil in Magic Johnson. Hopefully, Dirk will see his foil in Duncan or KG. To be the best, Dirk needs to beat Duncan and KG to be regarded the best in his position. Sometimes, the word "great" is overused. There are a lot of good players but there are only a few great players. For now, any Bird-Dirk comparisons are just "homerisms" to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by: Five-ofan
Read the end of my last post i agree comparisons ALWAYS end up wrong one way or the other. Either the new player doesnt deserve it or if its warranted they become the first whoever they are. Ok what do these players have in common Big O Elgin Baylor Barkley(though i hate him) Stockton Malone. None led there team to a title. oscar won one but didnt lead his team. Kareem did. My point is if oscar hadnt won the one title at the end was he not great he is still the best pg ever in most peoples opinion. The others are all in the top 50 all time. But according to you they are not great? There are many other players that I would say are great that havent won a title. So in your opinion the only great players in the nba now are duncan Shaq as they are the only players in the nba to Lead their team to a title. no one player led the pistons last year. I just think your standards for great are a bit high. Which i agree is better than the standards for great being too low ie people calling pierce or people of that ilk great but come on winning a title isnt the only thing that makes you great. We r on a message board though so there is really nothing else ot do but discuss hopefully not just argue. I honestly respect your opinion and as I have said I am 19 so didnt see all of birds career but i have seen alot of his games and i think he was incredible but I just dont think that he was alot better than dirk if any.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 02:18 PM

lol Ok i guess i just disagree with you guys which doesnt bother me its not like i have a huge hatred of bird or a huge love of kvh so it doesnt bother me that yall disagree. Would anyone mind saying exactly what talents bird had that were better than keiths? Just curious and again for the sake of making sure yall know this i am in no way comparing how good the two were because they r in different worlds in that department and I think that alot of you guys are thinking that because bird was so much better as a player he was much more talented. Which is not necesarrily true.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 02:21 PM

How is it homerism? Please explain. If you're going to throw out comments such as that, let us know why you believe such.

V2M · 03-31-2005, 02:38 PM

Five-ofan, I understand what you're trying to say. But there are certain sacrosanct rules in this game that just can't be broken. One of 'em is you don't compare a journeyman, bench player to a legend. KVH is a very good player that could potentially be the difference maker in this team's quest for a championship. But there's a reason why he got traded multiple times while Larry Bird is almost synonymous with Celtic greatness. Who cares what their physical talents are or are not... we just can't put the two in the same sentence. That IS blasphemy!!
Btw, I'm no fan of Bird either.

Simon2, I do not think comparing Dirk's playoff numbers to those of Bird's is homerism. Dirk's no Bird and everyone knows that. But you have to admit there is something to his game that reminds even the Boston media of Bird.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 02:46 PM

I understand saying you just dont do it. And comparing their games would be blasphemy. But in the same way you could say comparing bird to god is blasphemy(it actually is) and yes calling comparing the two blasphemy is actually blasphemy[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img] just messing with ya but the truth is I am right or at least truthfully believe i am. And hey its a credit to bird that despite not being blessed with the incredible gifts most superstars have he still willed himself to become one. Oh well

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 03:06 PM

Lets compare the two at the age of 26
Bird Dirk
PPG 23.6 26.6
Rbg 11.0 10.1
APG 5.8 3.2
Stls 1.87 1.28
Bpg .90 1.51
FG% .504 .454
3pf% .286 .390
Ft % .840 .865
Topg 3.0 2.3

That gives dirk 5 of 9 categories and if i wanted to go homer i could explain away the others with the current style of game vs Birds day
I know some will say but dirk is having a career year well at that time Bird was too as he was avering career highs in ppg rbg apg bpg and it was his second best year to date in 3pt% could not believe that. Comparison does not seem unwarranted the season was 82-83 that was when bird was 26. If you want to look up the stats yourself. Basically all that remains to be seen is if dirk will improve as much as bird did and i think he will. Comments?

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 03:16 PM

...plus, I'm sure Dirk dominates Bird in FTA's....

SeriousSummer · 03-31-2005, 03:21 PM

I actually think Bird at 26 and Dirk at 26 are pretty comparable. But Bird still had his best years before him--what was he? a second or third year player then? As compared to Dirk having two or three times as much NBA experience.

Dirk may continue to improve, but he's going to have to improve a great deal still to match Bird's best years.

chumdawg · 03-31-2005, 03:23 PM

Quote:

What do the numbers prove? Not much. It just shows that Dirk is probably a little closer to Bird than what most of us realize. And don't forget, Bird was playing in a more offensive oriented time... I think it's safe to say that Dirk's numbers would be bumped up a bit across the board if he were playing in the 80's.

A quick glance shows Dirk shouldering 25+% of the offensive burden for his team in the playoffs (in terms of points), while Bird was around 22+%. You would have to think that Dirk might have sniffed 28 or so points a game in the playoffs in the 80's.

Then again, he may average that in these the oughts before it's said and done.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 03:31 PM

He was a 4th year player and murphy Bird had 418 fta for the year which was also a career high to that point. The rebounds remained a career high he later bettered everything else btw those tos were also his lowest to that point. My point is just to say that comparisons between the two arent one-sided.

Simon2 · 03-31-2005, 04:15 PM

Murph, I think its Mav fans just trying to accelerate Dirk's greatness. Dirk and Bird probably have the same work ethic but the attitude is not there yet. Before this year, Dirk was timid and didn't want to assume the leader role. Bird took on that role with no qualms at all. All great players are a little selfish. They want to take the last shot. I'm not sure Dirk is like that yet. In the argument of Dirk vs. Bird, I'll have to say Bird hands down for now. There shouldn't even be an argument. If you say Dirk is better, that's homerism. To even think that Dirk is as Bird in his prime is crazy in my opinion. Like I said, Larry is a Legend and Dirk is just "an impossible matchup right now"

For those who say, it was a different era, yes it was. Bird had Magic, the Lakers and Detroit to battle with. Dirk has Duncan and maybe KG but I think talent wise, Dirk is better than Duncan. Dirk is not limited by range. KG is just initmidating to look at but Dirk has gotten the better of their matchups of late.

Dirk is very good but he isn't a Bird just yet.

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
How is it homerism? Please explain. If you're going to throw out comments such as that, let us know why you believe such.

Murphy3 · 03-31-2005, 04:19 PM

You said that comparing the two is just Mavs homerism. How? Why can't you compare two players? I think pretty much everyone across the board said that Bird still has the edge over Dirk...So how is it homerism? I don't understand how just comparing two people equates to Mavs' homerism. It makes no sense.

Five-ofan · 03-31-2005, 04:23 PM

Thats the problem though you are saying dirk vs bird in his prime when dirk isnt in his prime. Dirk is at least as good as bird was at the same age. Bird had 4 yrs where he averaged more than 25 a game i believe. Dirk has 2 already including this year. You cant just dismiss the fact that dirk has not entered his prime yet. Dirks last 4 years including this one which correspond age wise with birds first 4 are better than birds first 4. You cant penalize dirk for coming in earlier. Bird wasnt ready at that age either he wasnt even ready for college. He flopped at indiana under bob Knight yet dirk handled being in a different country playing professionaly in front of a national audience and didn't wilt.

Simon2 · 03-31-2005, 04:40 PM

Tell me why is Dirk compared to Bird? Why not some other good shooter?

Quote:

Originally posted by: Murphy3
You said that comparing the two is just Mavs homerism. How? Why can't you compare two players? I think pretty much everyone across the board said that Bird still has the edge over Dirk...So how is it homerism? I don't understand how just comparing two people equates to Mavs' homerism. It makes no sense.