FINALS DUBCC'S GOAT SF: #1 LARRY BIRD VS #2 ELGIN BAYLOR

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

^^didn't you claim the Laker fans made accounts to vote for Baylor?

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

Turns out I was right either way VV

http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=142904.0

[Shallow]

Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.

John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You  can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.

Baylor would run circles against Bird.

Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.

So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.

Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's  games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.

Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...


Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1

Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1





Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro.

Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.

Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.

If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe

So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.

John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You  can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.

Baylor would run circles against Bird.

Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.

So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.

Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's  games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.

Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...


Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1

Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1





Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro.

Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.

Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.

If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe

So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.

Not if they had the same luck with the Bill Russell led Celtics... You do realize how much injuries had to do with some of those lost seasons, correct?


Baylor in his prime on the 80's Celtics would have won his share of rings...Do you disagree?

[M Dogg™]

The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.

[Shallow]

Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.

John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You  can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.

Baylor would run circles against Bird.

Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.

So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.

Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's  games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.

Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...


Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1

Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1





Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro.

Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.

Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.

If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe

So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.

Not if they had the same luck with the Bill Russell led Celtics... You do realize how much injuries had to do with some of those lost seasons, correct?


Baylor in his prime on the 80's Celtics would have won his share of rings...Do you disagree?

I think the 80s Celtics winning with out Bird are about as possible as the Lakers winning in the 2000s with out Shaq. If Kobe can win 1 before 2010 I'll give agree that Baylor could have won one. But in my opinion Kobe will not win a ring again unless he plays second fiddle to a dominant big man. He can't lead anything past the first round. He has a better job leading an honest marriage than he does leading a team to the finals.

Here's the million dollar question for you; who's better Kobe or Magic? Just wondering, you may have answered it before.

[J @ M @ L]

^^didn't you claim the Laker fans made accounts to vote for Baylor?

No... in my initial post I said "perhaps multiple accounts?"... I didn't make the claim that that is what happened, just that it's a possibility for people to have used more than one account. Since people can just vote without posting who is voting for who... the same could also be said for people voting against Laker players.

[J @ M @ L]

Turns out I was right either way VV

http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=142904.0

Right about what? I could look at this and say that ever since people exposed the bullshit,the people who were pulling strings earlier don't feel like they can anymore. Plus, if Kobe ended up winning for GOAT SG when he realistically doesn't deserve to, it would've been a little obvious.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

Elgin started the MJ/Dr. J style of play. There is no way I can vote against him in this one.

John Logie Baird started television as we know it backin the 20s, but I'd still rather watch a plasma screen on HD, and I'd still rather have Bird on my team. You  can have Baylor, but he won't be doing much against my team with Bird covering him. And Larry won't have a problem jumping over him with his 5 inches of height for the boards or sinking 3s from the outside.

Baylor would run circles against Bird.

Your opinion doesn't even count in this case. Anytime a Laker is involved everyone already knows what you're going to say.

So is my opinion not valid? Was Chick Hearns opinion not valid? Was Jerry West's opinion not valid? Baylor>Bird. Get over it.

Your opinion is not valid because if Bird played for the Lakers and Baylor never did then your opinion would change. Bringing up two guys that called Baylor's  games and played along side him respectively means nothing. Was Baylor more important to the evolution of the game than Bird? Maybe. Was he more of a standout player compared to the rest of the mooks in the league at that time? Sure. But you put Larry Bird and Elgin Baylor in their prime on two shitty teams in the NBA today and Larry's team will be in the finals with in 2 to 3 years while Baylor's team would fall apart because a 6'5'' forward won't cut it and his athletic ability compared to guys today won't mean as much like it did compared to the goofs in the NBA back then. Larry's genius is in his head. He's too smart not to be able to win and win and win. He's a leader and he leads teams to championships. Baylor never got to do that. Maybe if Baylor had Shaq to lead the way like Kobe did then Elgin would have won a couple, but his career went like how Kobe's will go for the rest of his career; no rings. He had 7 chances to beat Boston and Elgin couldn't do it. You take a '79 to '88 Larry Bird and put him on the Lakers in '59 and dollars to doughnuts the Celtics would go down at least 3 times. Larry was too smart and too much of a leader, but you have no concept of the what a leader is. If you did you wouldn't like Kobe as much as you do.

Kobe is not a leader? LOL. If he wasn't a leader, would he have led a BATTERED team composed mainly of D-League level talent to the fucking playoffs? Lemme guess, you're a huge Jordan fan, huh?...How much help did Jordan need before he could finally win something? As for Elgin Baylor, the Russell led Celtics won 9 titles during Baylor's career, that's not his fault. It doesn't make a difference in how great of a player he was either way. Was James Worthy better than Elgin Baylor too? (<A Laker comparison for that ass). That's as dumb as saying that 6'5" isn't a good size for a small forward. And speaking of Elgin Baylor in his prime vs. Larry Bird in his prime...


Larry Bird-
PPG: 29.9
RPG: 9.3
APG: 6.1

Elgin Baylor-
PPG: 34.6
RPG: 19.8
APG: 5.1





Hmmmmm...I guess I'm soooo bias, huh? Get the fuck out of here. Until you see me making irrational claims, you have nothing on me, bro.

Like I said, Bird would have figured out how to beat the Russel Celtics at least 3 times. Those stats are a waste of text. Look at the league in the 80s compared to the 60s. The other players were way better in the 80s than in the 60s. The game was different and Larry was a leader. A guy who took his team from one of the worst to the playoffs in his rookie season and he was too smart to be beatan 7 times in the finals by 1 team.

Worthy had rings yeah, but if Baylor had Magic and Jabbar, he'd have rings too.

If Baylor was on the 80's Celtic squads, he'd have rings too. I highly doubt you know shit about Baylor, so please don't speak from ignorance...PeACe

So then you agree that the Lakers with West and Bird would have won a couple? Okay, that's all I needed.

Not if they had the same luck with the Bill Russell led Celtics... You do realize how much injuries had to do with some of those lost seasons, correct?


Baylor in his prime on the 80's Celtics would have won his share of rings...Do you disagree?

I think the 80s Celtics winning with out Bird are about as possible as the Lakers winning in the 2000s with out Shaq. If Kobe can win 1 before 2010 I'll give agree that Baylor could have won one. But in my opinion Kobe will not win a ring again unless he plays second fiddle to a dominant big man. He can't lead anything past the first round. He has a better job leading an honest marriage than he does leading a team to the finals.

Here's the million dollar question for you; who's better Kobe or Magic? Just wondering, you may have answered it before.

Wrong...Kobe has YET to lead an expansion team of D-League players past the first round. Did you watch Jordan AT ALL before he hit his 30's? LOL. Seriously dude, are you even an NBA fan? I've seen zero basketball discussion on here from you, and all of a sudden you're making these irrational claims. Kobe=best player in the NBA, of course he's ABLE to lead a TEAM to an NBA championship. Depending on the TEAM built around him though. Every championship team was a team built to win. And of course Magic is the GOAT as of now, but Kobe has a very good chance at ending his career as the GOAT...PeACe

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

Turns out I was right either way VV

http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=142904.0

Right about what? I could look at this and say that ever since people exposed the bullshit,the people who were pulling strings earlier don't feel like they can anymore. Plus, if Kobe ended up winning for GOAT SG when he realistically doesn't deserve to, it would've been a little obvious.

Yea, but AT LEAST over Dr. J.

[jeromechickenbone]

Baylor                                         
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11

Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)

Bird>Baylor

The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe

Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's.  You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics".  And you say my post was NONSENSE?  Are you retarded?  You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior. 

Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:

1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
        defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals

1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
        defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals

1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals

1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals

1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals

1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals

1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals

1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals

1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
        lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals

Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime.  Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team.  I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.

[Shallow]

The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.

I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.


NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.

[M Dogg™]

The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.

I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.


NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.

When did this cat join the argument. Shallow, you are a guy who likes to go against the gain. IF Bird would have won, you'd join the 80's players who argued that Bird was simply a player who was popular because he was white, and you'd should like Zek. BUT because Baylor won, you argue the other way. Point blank, look at the stats, look at the impact, and look at there overall careers. Bird won titles, but he also had a team that could compete, built with teammates that were able to run with the Lakers, and defend the 76ers. The Lakers in the 60's were a very small team that depended on 6'5" Baylor to play PF many times, and 6'3" Jerry West to play SF. You can't use titles when you argue Malone is the GOAT PF, especially with Tim Duncan, the actual person who lead the team, in the poll.

Baylor was the orginal playground player in the NBA, His style inspired Dr. J and MJ and Kobe, Baylor's impact was great, and that's something you measure with greatness. Like Joe Louis did for boxers like Ali and Larry Holmes, like Jackie Robinson did for many black players in baseball, Baylor inspired a style of play that now has And1 Mixtape tours, that inspired the ABA, that changed the game forever. The clutch shooter is dying with Robert Horry's career.

[Shallow]

The main reason that Elgin didn't win a title was because the Lakers sported a much smaller team, even for that era, than the Celtics. Elgin was a slasher that Dr. J, MJ and Kobe followed, and West was the shooter, but both were under sized at the positions they played at times, and they couldn't play their natural positions on a regular bases until Wilt came. By then they were older, and injuries were getting to Elgin, which resulted him retiring during the 71-72 season, the same year the Lakers finally won it all.

I just think the 80s Larry was too good of a passer and shooter to be stopped by a 60s Celtics team. Now if you want to argue whether a 60's Larry would be anywhere near the same player as an 80s Larry then that's another story. But the game evolved alot in the 80s and Larry was a big part of it.


NIK, arguing with you is like arguing with a Red Sox fan from Boston. You're opinion doesn't matter when it comers to the Lakers because you'll just pick the Lakers when it comes to debatable players. If Jordan or Larry were Lakers and Magic wasn't, Magic wouldn't be your GOAT. It's like Sox fans that argue that Ted Williams was better than Ty Cobb. Two different eras but two of the greatest hitters. Cobb was better plain and simple, but you'll be hard pressed to find a guy in Massachusetts say that. Just like with you, it's a matter of Geography. Now if you were debating Jordan vs Larry, or Duncan vs Hakeem then I'd sit and listen to you and take you seriously, but this is like you having a son or daughter in a talent show. You aren't capable of saying they weren't as good as the other boy or girl.

When did this cat join the argument. Shallow, you are a guy who likes to go against the gain. IF Bird would have won, you'd join the 80's players who argued that Bird was simply a player who was popular because he was white, and you'd should like Zek. BUT because Baylor won, you argue the other way. Point blank, look at the stats, look at the impact, and look at there overall careers. Bird won titles, but he also had a team that could compete, built with teammates that were able to run with the Lakers, and defend the 76ers. The Lakers in the 60's were a very small team that depended on 6'5" Baylor to play PF many times, and 6'3" Jerry West to play SF. You can't use titles when you argue Malone is the GOAT PF, especially with Tim Duncan, the actual person who lead the team, in the poll.

Baylor was the orginal playground player in the NBA, His style inspired Dr. J and MJ and Kobe, Baylor's impact was great, and that's something you measure with greatness. Like Joe Louis did for boxers like Ali and Larry Holmes, like Jackie Robinson did for many black players in baseball, Baylor inspired a style of play that now has And1 Mixtape tours, that inspired the ABA, that changed the game forever. The clutch shooter is dying with Robert Horry's career.

I would not have went against the grain in this case and would not played the white card against Larry. I'm just a big Larry fan. I'm not arguing who was more important to the game as a whole. I'm arguing who I'd rather have on my team. Boston was shit when Bird entered the picture. He came in as a rookie to a  29-53 team and made them a 61-21 team. The next year they picked up Parrish and McHale and they won a championship. Things like that is why I picked him. That first year Boston was nothing special but Bird took them to the Easten Finals.

Like I said, I'm not looking at this from a historical significance perspective. I just think that if you put an '80 Rookie Bird on Memphis and a rookie Baylor on Charlotte, Memphis woould be deep in the playoffs next year and win at least 2 championships in the next 7 years while Charlotte would go nowhere. You can disagree, but that's why I'd pick Bird (and I didn't even get the chance to vote so the tally should be 10-10).

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

Baylor                                         
NBA Championships - 0
MVP's - 0
NBA Finals MVP - 0
All NBA 1st Team - 10
All Star Games - 11

Bird
NBA Championships - 3
MVP's - 3 CONSECUTIVE (Only 3rd person to ever do that at the time, and the first non-center)
NBA Finals MVP - 2
All-NBA 1st Team - 9
All Star Games - 12
Only forward to lead league in three-pointers made (82) and free throw percentage (.896)

Bird>Baylor

The league didn't have 2 players as dominant as Wilt and Russell when Bird played, so the MVP/Championship argument is nonesense. Anyone who knows the history of the Lakers knows they were a top team with Baylor, but were cursed by the Russell led Celtics for a whole decade. They even lost the years they had the better team. When it comes to accomplishments, Bird was better. But as an individual player, it's Baylor. Even your ALL-NBA 1st Team list shows that...PeACe

Anyone who knows the history of basketball knows the CELTICS COMPLETELY DOMINATED THE LAKERS during the 60's.  You're such a ho with your "The Lakers were a better team even though they lost every year to the Celtics".  And you say my post was NONSENSE?  Are you retarded?  You have ZERO cred in basketball discussions Elior. 

Lets have a look at the Lakers playoff record during the time in which Elior says they were clearly the best team:

1969 -- defeated San Francisco, 4-2, division semifinals
        defeated Atlanta, 4-1, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals

1968 -- defeated Chicago, 4-1, division semifinals
        defeated San Francisco, 4-0, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals

1967 -- lost to San Francisco, 3-0, division semifinals

1966 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals

1965 -- defeated Baltimore, 4-2, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-1, NBA Finals

1964 -- lost to St. Louis, 3-2, division semifinals

1963 -- defeated St. Louis, 4-3, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-2, NBA Finals

1962 -- defeated Detroit, 4-2, division finals
        lost to Boston, 4-3, NBA Finals

1961 -- defeated Detroit, 3-2, division semifinals
        lost to St. Louis, 4-3, division finals

Thats right, The Lakers went to the finals 6 times and were beaten by The Celtics everytime.  Yet Elior says the Lakers were the best team.  I hope you Laker fans will see how much Elior taints you guys.

I have 0 cred in basketball discussion? LOL. That's where I stopped taking you seriously...LMAO@you tryna educate me about ANY Laker team. Had you watched ANY basketball documentary about NBA in the 60's, you'd know the Lakers lost when they were and weren't picked to win. That's why it was a curse, genius. When did I say Lakers ALWAYS had the best team? You must have ADD, huh? All I said was the Lakers lost, even during the years they had the better team, then you got all excited like you knew something... And stop constantly using my first name like you wanna get fucked...PeACe