Just a Reminder: Larry Bird Could Really Pass the Rock

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/09/just-a-reminder-that-larry-bird-could-pass-the-rock-video/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs


Arguably, the greatest passing forward of all time.

There was one great series on this video where Bird went to Walton, arguably the greatest passing center of all time, who made a great pass to McHale for the bucket.  This was the only way I could get the words "pass" and "McHale" in the same sentence.  :-)  Watch this video and you'll be reminded just how much Kevin McHale owes his induction into the HOF to Larry Bird.  Watch this video and understand why Robert Parish was a disappointment in GSW but became a HOFer in Boston.  Watch this video and wonder how Danny Ainge didn't make the HOF considering he was on the receiving end of quite a few passes too (ok, that was a cheap shot).

We have a point guard who can do this now.  Also, KO has great court vision and was a point guard until his junior year in high school when he went from 6'3" to 6'10" in one year.  He'll need to adjust to the faster NBA tempo, but that's just time.  The video coordinator needs to lock him in a room and show him hours of Larry Legend video.  Ever see the movie "A Clockwork Orange"?  Remember when Malcolm McDowell was strapped to the chair with his eyes held open so he was forced to watch movies?  That's what I'm talking about.  Aw, what's the point, you're either born with this otherworldly talent or you're not.

Perhaps my favorite Larry pass of all time is probably lost forever because Cornbread missed the bunny, so it didn't make the highlight films.  Bird flashed across the lane, mid-high from left-to-right, jumped for the high entry pass and did a left-handed-over-the-left-shoulder-without-coming-down blind pass to Maxwell cutting along the baseline right-to-left.

This is what basketball should be, not the glorified schoolyard one-on-one BS Dictator Stern has endorsed and mandated.






bob



.

Bob

Is there perhaps a little generational bias in your below statement?

"This is what basketball should be, not the glorified schoolyard one-on-one BS Dictator Stern has endorsed and mandated"

swish

swish wrote:Bob

Is there perhaps a little generational bias in your below statement?

"This is what basketball should be, not the glorified schoolyard one-on-one BS Dictator Stern has endorsed and mandated"

swish

swish,

In a word, yes.


bob


.

"Please sir, may I have some more."

Great find Bob. I enjoyed watching that.

It also didn't hurt that Bird's teammates knew enough to cut to the basket instead of standing around outside the arc like they're waiting for a bus.  As we rebuild, I'd love to see us with a power forward, for example, who is familiar with terms like low post, paint, glass or box out, and whose greatest attribute isn't that he shoots a decent 18 footer.

Bird could pass as well as anyone that ever laced 'em up.  It's fortunate that he played at a time when well coached fundamental basketball allowed the team to take advantage of his unique talents.

NYCelt wrote:It also didn't hurt that Bird's teammates knew enough to cut to the basket instead of standing around outside the arc like they're waiting for a bus.  As we rebuild, I'd love to see us with a power forward, for example, who is familiar with terms like low post, paint, glass or box out, and whose greatest attribute isn't that he shoots a decent 18 footer.

Bird could pass as well as anyone that ever laced 'em up.  It's fortunate that he played at a time when well coached fundamental basketball allowed the team to take advantage of his unique talents.

NYCelt,

Is there, to quote swish, a little generational bias in your below statement?

It's fortunate that he played at a time when well coached fundamental basketball allowed the team to take advantage of his unique talents.


bob


.

You can safely say I'm with you on that one Bob.

A demonstration of vision or court awareness combined with basketball IQ and excellent hands. He was like Pete Maravich with the ball, just more understated.

Most people can't pull off those one-handed passes off the dribble. I tried to coach it out of my kids, because especially at a young age, they do it all the time instead of only when called for and it results in lots of turnovers.

As a side note, as far as I could tell, Parish was as much or more of a beneficiary of those passes compared to McHale.

"I'm with you fellers.."

Again, it shows this generation, if they pay attention that there was some smart, great basketball played by some of the greatest players to play the game WAY BACK WHEN! I dare to say that the films from the 60's were not as good as what the 80's show. We certainly have see some great players here in Boston. I love these clips of the OLD DAYS!!!!! Unfortunately, my OLD DAYS go back further!!! Thanks Bob, I loved it.

Rosalie

Roseie, there is nothing unfortunate about ones old dAys going back curbed than another..

I'll take a bourbon or wine from the old days every time over a recent generation... There is a quality to " the old days" wether it's liquer we're talking about or basketball..

The trick is having the ability to appreciate it.

Found this on youtube.  Love Johnny screaming into the mike at the end of highlight #4.  He could go from cool and analytical, to freaking out like any beer-guzzling fan back to cool and analytical faster than anybody I've ever listened to.  This was a "Havlicek stole the ball!  Havlicek stole the ball" level freak out for him,  but remember when Bird stole the ball from Isaiah on the inbound pass and then to DJ?  Johnny's voice never changed during that entire sequence until it was over.








bob


.

Who invented trash talking? The big, slow white guy, that's who.





bob


.

Ok, I'm on a trip down memory lane today. I try not to dwell too much on the past, even if it's a great one, but some things just blow your mind forever. On this 5 minute clip, you hear Red, of all people, say that Larry Bird is the most self-motivated player he's ever known. When you consider the list he's had to choose from, that's mind blowing.




bob


.

Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end.

Hasn't history repeated itself this summer?

Rosalie

"Please sir, may I have some more."

If you grew up on the basketball of the 80s you witnessed the coming of age of the NBA. Very fortunate indeed to watch those Bird led teams of the 80's demostrate why they were for several years the best Celtic teams of all time.
Swish

Bull

sam wrote:Bull

Bull......... ?

Matty,

"Bull" will suffice.  But I can appreciate the aromatic addition.

I hope I don't have to repeat all the gyrations that wind up illustrating that the only way in which the 80s teams had an advantage over the 60s teams involved genetics—specifically added height. If they had played in the same era (80s or 60s), the height advantage would have been largely negated. As I pointed out recently, in another category where they SHOULD have had an advantage based on genetics, the great 80s teams were vulnerable to speed. The great 60s teams weren't vulnerable to anything.

Sam

The 80s saw the blacks completely take over the speed positions at heights of under 6'8". Add a whopping edge in shooting,ball handling and athletic skills and its the 80s in a romp.
swish

Without the '60's basketball wouldn't be what it was in the '80's. come on now, just because there was Bird, Magiic, Michael?

Really now

Rosalie

I thought we were talking about the Celtics. Which blacks, whites, greens or oranges on the Celtics of the 80s "took over the speed positions at heights of under 6' 8"?

Okay, I guess I'll have to spell it out again:

Let's suppose the 1961 Celtics were to play the 1986 Celtics. Obviously it would be hypothetical. But even a hypothetical game between the two teams would have to take place at some hypothetical point in time. What point in time would it be?

• If the hypothetical game were held in 1986, genetic evolution would have made the Russell Celtics taller and (if possible) even faster than they were in the 60s; and they would have had the benefits of looser (breakaway) rims, better conditioning methods, advances in strategy, etc. I'd love to have seen those 60s teams even better conditioned than under Red and able to shuttle interchangeable parts in and out seamlessly.. Track meet. Track meet. Track meet.

• If the hypothetical game were held in 1961, the Bird Celtics would have the disadvantage of being shorter than they were in '86 and (if it's possible) even slower than in '86. And they'd also have the disadvantages of shooting at much tighter rims, more primitive conditioning methods, less advanced strategy, etc. Track meet. Track meet. Track meet.

The only advantage the 80s Celtics would have over the 60s Celtics would be the passage of time and the attendant benefits—particularly genetic evolution. In terms of playing inherently better basketball....when the effects of genetics, conditioning, strategic advances and all that stuff are set aside, it would come down to (1) which team was the better practitioner of the game of team basketball, (2) which team was more versatile, and (3) which team had fewer vulnerabilities. The Russell Celtics would win on all three counts.

The ballhandling comparison is an incredible laugher. The Russell Celtics had multiple excellent ball-handlers/passers at PG, at SG, at whatever position Havlicek (or Ramsey before him) was playing at any given time, and at center. Even guys like Heinsohn and Nelson were very sure-handed in grabbing passes and driving to the hole. By comparison, the Bird Celtics had only two excellent ball-handlers/passers in Bird and Walton and one fair one in DJ (whose quickies to Larry under the basket were admittedly great). (But, in 1985-86, the Celtics averaged 16.5 (count 'em, 16.5) turnovers per game. (That's two more than even this past season's Celtics team.) The 80s Celtics may have been good at many things; but ballhandling was not chief among them. And the Russell Celtics exhibited excellent ballhandling, with amazingly fewer turnovers, despite operating at a much faster pace. Yup, the ballhandling thing is an incredible laugher.

I always get a kick, in discussions of this type, out of how proponents of teams of more recent eras automatically assume comparisons with older teams should be based on conditions in the more recent eras.. That assumption is where the bull part comes into play. They're actually arguing about the value of genetic evolution—not basketball—and ignoring the fact that, if playing with the advantages of later eras, older teams would have reaped the benefits of change accordingly.

Sam

Sam As far as I can see, they were smarter too

Rosalie

Sam..

Actually I Love the aroma of a bull, especially cooked over charcoal after a thorough maranade in some whiskey... Mmm mmm mmm

While a big fan of those 86 celtics (since I got to watch them) I'm more than happy to concede a russel lead team or two would have the upper hand in a who's bester contest.

However I can't agree that the 80's team has a genetic evolutionary advantage, despite many medical and technilogical "advances" I'm pretty sure that humanity is rapidly decaying on a mental/moral/physical leval.

We still can't figgure out how the pyramids were built, the average Greek Dood of 2500 years ago could think circles around most people today- heck most people today could not pass an 8th grade profencency test for an Kansas student.

Heck a high school kid could read everything in print that comes from Red in coaching and watch the videoes and interviews of him and likely learn as much from those as the current champions coach knows...

Nope I'm pretty sure that geniticallly speaking, advantage would go to the 60's celtics.