Bloggers are sometimes accused of ignoring the really big issues of the day. To combat this erroneous impression, I felt I absolutely had to blog about ESPN columnist Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons' transcendently important column addressing the absolutely vital question of whether or not Larry Bird is a bigger Boston sports legend than David Ortiz, the Big Papi. Simmons makes a good argument that Ortiz has not yet reached Bird's level of greatness.
My take:
Bird was one of the 5-6 greatest basketball players of all time. Ortiz has not yet reached that level in his sport, and will probably never do so. But although Bird had the better overall career, he cannot match Ortiz's achievements in 2004: playing the decisive role in breaking The Curse of the Bambino and winning the Red Sox' first championship since 1918. Ortiz's heroics not only put an end to The Curse, but also inflicted a crushing defeat on the NY Yankees, the hated enemies of Red Sox Nation. Bird's triumphs over the Lakers, Sixers, and Rockets just don't compare in emotional impact. Rationally, I have to admit that Simmons is probably right. But in my heart I have to go with the Papster.
It is similar to all the "best ever" arguments in sports. Are you assessing peak value or career value?
I never thought of it that way...
Ortiz is good now, and has been for a few years. How will he be thought of in 20 years?
(As a measure of how good he is, I like the joke about the First Mate who writes in the ship's log "The Captain was drunk today." The Captain asks him to take it out, but the First Mate can't because it's a log and all, so the next day the Captain writes "The First Mate was sober today." Last night the Red Sox beat Cleveland in a come-from-behind walkoff hit, and the biggest bit of the story this morning was that it was someone other than David Ortiz who had the hit.)
Best 12-Month Statistical Stretch: Bird averaged a 26-9-8 in the '86 playoffs, won the Finals MVP and cemented a summer of "Greatest Player Ever" features, then followed that up with a career year in '87 (28 points, 9.3 rebounds, 7.6 assists, 53 percent field-goal shooting, 91 percent from the line, 40 percent from 3s, his second straight title in the 3-point shooting contest). Meanwhile, Big Papi just completed the following 12-month stretch (starting on Aug. 1, 2005 and ending July 31, 2006): batted .294 with a .399 on-base and .604 slugging percentages, 59 homers, 165 RBIs and at least 20-25 humongous hits in the clutch. Sorry, those are Roy Hobbs numbers. SLIGHT EDGE: BIG PAPI.
Is Papi's 12-month stretch "Roy Hobbs numbers"? I don't think so. Hell, I think his teammate, Manny Ramirez, had a better 12-month stretch. Here's Manny's 1999 stats: .333/.442/.663, 44HR, 165 RBI. Or we could look at Sammy's 1998: .308/.377/.647, 66HR, 158RBI. And of course, those are both a standard season, rather than a cherry-picked 12 months.
OTOH, I don't think that Bird's '87 stats have really been approached lately - given the shooting percentage, 3-point prowess, assists, everything.
I'd take Bird's '87 over Papi's 12 months.
I am not sure that I would us Steroid Sammy as a comparison.
Dude, you're right. Pujols is a much bigger Boston sports legend.
five wheels. Because he's white? That would matter a great deal to some Boston fans, but nowhere near the majority. I'd call it an Irish Setter in the room, not an elephant.
but for all the novice sports fans don't be fooled by ilya's obviously biased claim that bird is one of the top 5 six...better than him just off the top of my head:
jordan, wilt, kareem abdul jabaar, the big o, russel, shaq
after that bird comes in the west, magic, dr. j, mikan, cousy group
This is nonsense. A curse is not removed by good behavior, or excellent behavior. Over the many years of Red Sox futility laboring under The Curse, there have been many players with heroic performances. Yet, The Curse remained.
Heroic performances are behavior. Behavior does not remove curses.
It was the pitcher, Curt whatsisname, who removed The Curse. His blood sacrifice, playing through the pain and blood and injury, that satisfied The Gods Of Baseball.
Without that blood sacrifice, whatever Ortiz might done, would have been undone by "balls creeping between Buckner's legs."
While Wilt and Jordan had better numbers that Bird, it is not at all clear that the players you cited were all "better." Here are the numbers.
Jabbar 24.6 Points 10 Rebounds 3.6 Assists
Robertson 25.7 Points 7.5 Rebounds 9.5 Assists
Russell 15.1 Points 22.5 Rebounds 4.3 Assists
Shaq 26.3 Points 11.8 Rebounds 2.8 Assists
Bird 24.3 Points 10 Rebounds 6.3 Assists
While Robertson and Russell are arguable (hard to evaluate 22.5 Rebounds a game), Bird is clearly statistically better than Jabbar or Shaq, matching Jabbar on the boards (as a SF) and only slightly trailing Shaq in points and boards while killing him in assists. Plus, Shaq shoots around 50% from the free throw line (has to be taken out in the clutch, offsets high "shooting" percetage from the field) and has a high assists to turnover ratio.
Ditto that statement. I love Papi, but he hits in front of one of the 2 or 3 greatest hitters in his generation, Manny Ramirez. The whole clutch argument is so overrated. If you are great player with opportunities, you'll probably be succesful in those opportunities. Papi as a great player in his own right, has more opportunities than any other great hitter in baseball, because he hits in front of an even greater hitter. Papi is assured with men on base that he'll almost never get walked, so he's going to see a fastball at some point. If Varitek was hitting behind him, I guarantee that he wouldn't get half as many opportunites to show that he's "clutch".
Having said all that, there is nothing, from Naismith to today until the end of days, in the sport of basketball, that can compare remotely in its importance to Boston sports fans, in its emotional impact, to the Sox finally winning the Series of 2004. NOTHING. I mean, my zayde (z"l) was an 19 year-old infantryman in the US Army the last time it happened before '04. My brother in NC, my uncle in Pittsburgh, and I (in Detroit) all lifelong members of Red Sox Nation in Exile, were on the phone with one another for hours on end watching those games "together." Never forget it as long as I live.
Bottom line: Larry in a rout on the querstion presented -- but it's the wrong question.
I'm not sure how relevant the reaction of a fan base is to the greatness of an athlete. Suppose I don't like Boston. And I am sick of every other story being about them or New York. Hypothetically. Do I have anything to add to the evaluation of the greatness of a Boston athlete? If Simmons wants to talk about the popularity of a player, or how important a player is to a city, fine. But if he wants to talk about the greatness of a player, well, then what do I add if I don't really care all that much about the Red Sox beating the Yankees? I can still evaluate greatness.
Or, to put this in another perspective: If Muhammad Ali was unpopular, would he be less great?
Bird's clutch performances are legendary. Perhaps Papi can join him in greatness, but it will have very little to do with how badly the poor little Red Sox fans wanted to beat the Yankees.
Finally, about Simmons in general: He's an entertainment journalist, who treats sports as just another form of entertainment. After a while, it's all a little too sweet for me. Personally, I don't care to have my sports compared to sitcoms.
Jordan in 89: 32ppg, 8 rebounds, 8 assists, 54% FG, Didn't have Larry's 3s, but he was among the league leaders in steals and averaged almost a block a game
Lebron last year: 31, 7 and 7, shot 48% from the field. Lacking in both FT% and 3s, compared to Larry.
I'd still say Larry's '87 is better, but Simmons is wrong that no one has come close.