Larry Bird Is An OVERRATED Shooter!

Sign up for PrizePicks with CODE: RUSTY and get a 100% deposit match! Click the link to sign up bit.ly/PrizePicksRustyBuckets
LeBron video - • How LeBron Scored The ...
#larrybird #nba

[@rustybuckets]

Not sure about this music choice from rudy but whatever lol Sign up for PrizePicks with CODE: RUSTY and get a 100% deposit match! Click the link to sign up bit.ly/PrizePicksRustyBuckets

[@joegallagher9238]

Keep the music vibe af

[@fortynights1513]

What track was used here? Just curious

[@michaelburns3200]

Rusty bad comparison Defenses gave MJ the the three and bird got stuck to like glue

[@Luckymag-if4dw]

forgot to mention he literally in his 3 titles shot 38, 41 and 41% from 3... the playoffs are about matchups and you can be on a bad stretch or change your game plan, pretty weird ignoring freaking 900 game sample where he shot 38%... Bird shot MORE THAN 1 3 A GAME ONLY IN 8 SEASONS, IN THOSE HE SHOT BETTER THAN 40% ON 6 OF THEN. Just a pretty bad take, review that

[@nzcabbage1923]

Can i use PrizePicks in New Zealand?

[@AX5Terminator]

We judge Larry Bird for his prime and not his career average. He made the 50 40 90 club TWICE, he shot over 40% at the 3 point range 4 years in a row and he didn't even grow up playing with a 3 point line.

[@luizansounds]

Its impressive that he managed to adapt and make the 3 point shot an actually threat considering he never practiced it until 1979 at minimum, and wasn't allowed to shoot it seriously until 1985 He isn't one of the greatest shooters in the modern considerations, but historically he is because of the impact of being the first big name shooter

[@lucidstudious750]

Nobody takes primes anywhere else lmao that's a flawed argument, unless we were comparing primes When you're talking about the best shooters of all time they are consistently well on their CAREERS. By your logic wilt chamberlain is the greatest player ever bc in his prime he averaged 50ppg

[@dansheshe8039]

Awful argument then drose is top 5 pg oat

[@bigwoke686]

@@lucidstudious750 What about league average? Bird shot well above the league average for his playing career from 1979-1992.

[@AX5Terminator]

@LucidStudious I am comparing Primes and Wilt isn't the best because his stats don't translate to wins. Bird was getting his stats while also winning chips. Why would I use low performing injury years to muddy up a players stats? If I'm picking a player to play on a all time team, I can only pick the player from a point in time. There's no such thing as a career average version of a player...

[@Shiljamannn]

He was a great shooter for his time, but how can we compare him with 2 attempts per game to ones that try 10 per game....

[@hotheadjared]

by comparing them relative to era.

[@askefn]

​@@hotheadjaredbut its all time so we shouldnt do that

[@firstnamelastname-up6ni]

@@askefn if some guy averaged 30 and 23 for his career, where you rank him? 1, 2 and 3?

[@patrickhanlon2325]

@Aske Snaske in that case every major record is going to be era dependant. For example, in 20 years time if the league is full of talent that shoot the ball as well or better than steph will you leave steph out of the debate for all time shooters ?

[@d34n_]

@@askefn I think you have to do that for an all-time debate. Especially for a goat debate. Otherwise your top 10 players of all time are gonna be all current players

[@MysticMungusSlungus]

Larry didn't see a 3 point line until he entered the NBA. Despite the fact that he didn't grow up shooting from there as a practice routine, he still carries an insane 127 3PT+. 3PT+ is a measurement of how far beyond the average player at a given time, a player is. 127 is crazy high, meaning compared to the average NBA shooter during Bird's career, he was significantly better. Steph Curry, for example, has a 120 3P+ (still crazy high) for his career, meaning compared to the average NBA player, Bird was further ahead of his era than Steph is from his own era. Everything is hypothetical, and "all time" is almost always a flawed/stupid discussion because the league changes. The game that Bird played is totally different than the game today. It's always going to be subjective, unless you take analytical era comparisons.

[@ploopyfudgewink9207]

I think there’s a very big difference between being good era and just being very good. Also, I have no idea what stat 3P+ is and I’ve been pouring over stat sheets for 5 minutes now but I would not use a figure based on the leagues averages to argue the skills of the leagues top players (for their era).

[@tjthmpsn9196]

Steph was the one who created "The Era", the reason his 3PT+ is not even higher is because of himself

[@benjaminan1183]

3pt+ is just a given player's 3pt %/the league average 3pt %. It has no context of volume.

[@MysticMungusSlungus]

@@benjaminan1183 If you want volume, Bird shot more volume in relation to his era, than Steph does for this era. Birds 3ptAR+ is a wild 227 to Steph's 167. Bird's attempt rate is WAY higher in relation to his era than Steph's is. In conclusion, not only did Bird make threes better in relation to his era, but he also attempted more threes in relation to his era than Steph.

[@jamestaylor9520]

Best comment here. You did it right. Compare players' domination in their Era to eachother.

[@germanalvarez7923]

"If I had to choose a player to take a shot to save a game I'd choose Michael Jordan; If I had to choose a player to take a shot to save my life... I'd take Larry Bird." - Pat Riley.

[@jonnstewart2023]

Then he'd die

[@thekrazyhatter5063]

This

[@t-god2439]

@@jonnstewart2023the disrespect in that comment is crazy

[@salesrapper]

Iguodala

[@MrOctober44]

Well Rusty obviously knows more about shooting than Riley.

[@trogdor8942]

He was the first player to go 50-40-90, did it twice and averaged 50-40-90 from 1985-1988. I think people only regard his peak when they consider him an all time shooter.

[@sideactivist]

I get your point but steve nash also has 4 50-40-90 seasons and is nowhere near as talked about as bird

[@trogdor8942]

@@sideactivist that's because he's not as good of a player overall, but he should be regarded as a better shooter than Bird because he is.

[@zombie92110]

He did it during the regular season but in the play off his numbers are nowhere near as impressive.

[@trogdor8942]

@@zombie92110 well duh, that's the whole point of the video, but Rusty conveniently doesn't mention what I said here.

[@zombie92110]

@@trogdor8942 I mean the reason why he was the first to do it was because the 3 points line didn't even exist before. Otherwise guys like Jerry West Rick Berry Pete Maravitch Gail Goodrich probably could have done something similar. That the point of the video like you said yourself. "Probably" "Maybe" "Hypothetically" doesn't get you here.

[@BrandonGiordano]

Bird has to be one of the most debated players in nba history

[@wazzup233]

I thought it was MJ vs Lebron.

[@treydles]

@@wazzup233 as a topic sure, but every conversation about pretty much every category pertaining to bird is debated lmao. one of the greatest players who is also one of the hardest players to rank

[@BrandonGiordano]

@@treydles exact

[@sachemofboston3649]

Mainly cuz he’s white

[@PyroMiniYak]

@@treydles most people should have Bird top 10.

[@RandomPerson-tr3bc]

It’s funny cause I feel like when people credit bird as an all time shooter they discredit how amazing of a passer and rebounder he was , such a weird hill to die on when he has clearly stronger attributes

[@king_supreme1102]

Are they ever brought up as mutually exclusive?

[@yagnn]

he doesn't hate larry bird tho hes just talking about shooting

[@harshrealities2881]

@@yagnn he made and entire video shitting on him. . .that’s as hateful as them come.

[@lsvids595]

This is objectively a very bad take and here’s why. There’s no contact with Rustys take, the league was so different back then with less of a focus on three-point and more physical defense or out allowed on the perimeter. This is obviously going to impact three-point, shooting, especially in the playoffs when they’ve historically let more things go. There is no coincidence that all the “best three point shooters“ have all come in recent eras.

[@-ac-8296]

Rusty has never let context get in the way of making a passionate and blindly ignorant take

[@jordanjenkins1671]

Yep. It's rather shocking how different the officiating and rules is between eras. 80s: offense couldn't put their hand under the ball but they were starting to get away a little bit with the hand on the side of the ball during a dribble. Offense couldn't push off a defender with the off-ball arm, couldn't lower the shoulder into the defender, couldn't elbow the defender with the off-ball arm to create space. Screens had to have both feet set before the contact was made. 2010s: offense doesn't get called as much for putting the hand underneath the ball during a dribble, offense can push off or elbow the on-ball defender on a drive, can lower the shoulder into the defender when driving, would get free throws for jumping into the defender, kicking their legs out in the defender's path, or intentionally swinging their arms into the defenders arms. Moving screens don't get called anymore. 2019 introduced the zero step rule which Harden turned into his 3-step stepback 3. Shooters coming around screens could now take 3 steps to set up their shot. You tell me which era's going to have higher 3pt attempts and makes 😆

[@jjj32132]

There being less focus on 3PT shots actually makes it easier for players to score from 3PT WHEN they attempt shots. It means there is LESS defensive focus on the 3PT line. Players "SHOULD" actually have better 3PT% than now (they just weren't as good at shooting, yes different era). It's easier to make a higher percentage on less attempts too. Also, the variations of 3PT shots are much more valuable now (off-the-dribble, deep threes, etc). The types of 3PT shots now are way harder than back then. And physical? Cmon, they weren't "physical" at the 3PT line. It was in the paint. The league changes BECAUSE of players (not always obviously). Players revolutionize the game, and players always imitate. It's not a coincidence that players shot more after Curry. The league doesn't magically shoot more threes. There was no rule stopping players back then from shooting 3PT shots, they simply couldn't make the shot. They didn't practice 3PT shots, so they aren't as good (doesn't change the fact they're worse, including Bird). Bird is undoubtedly overrated when it comes to 3PT shooting in an all-time ranking. Relative to his era? The best 3PT shooter around.

[@jjj32132]

@@jordanjenkins1671 You're arguing that it's harder to make 3PT shots back then, but even with the more lenient officiating, 3PT shots now are harder to make than back then. There was barely any 3PT coverage. Players didn't need to do a step-back three, they were wide open? If they were good at shooting threes, they would've taken more attempts, but they didn't. Why? Because they just weren't as good at making them. They didn't practice 3PT shots. New players became good at shooting threes. Why? Because they started practicing it more, making them better. You can pull up any old clip, and see a wide-open 3PT shot. No rules are stopping him from shooting. Also, the difference in attempts by itself doesn't prove anything. It's the attempts WITH 3PT% that does.

[@benlazzopina-wy9om]

yall missing his point even if larry bird would've shot more threes today we dont know for a fact that he did

[@BzBuck]

While I agree that Bird is a very overrated shooter I think you are missing a key factor in the argument with that being his prime. Between 85 and 88 he shot 41.6% on around 2.5 attempts, with the peak being in 88 before his injuries where he reached 41.4 or 3.1 attempts which is much better, but it still would put him around 20th-30th this season which is still not great but it at least represents him about as well as those arguing for him would.

[@BzBuck]

Also in terms of playoffs he only really had one good season which was his 86 championship shooting 41.1% on 3.1 attempts

[@juliothom2408]

@@BzBuck Context. When the league is averaging less than 1, and Bird averages anywhere from 2-3 shots a game, and hits at a 40% clip, it’s not crazy to call Bird a great shooter relative to era. Also, do you really think a guy people have legit seen hit from 28-30 would ONLY take 2 3’s in 2023?

[@astashasta1]

lol rusty just looked at the career stats and started ranting. Virtually zero context. Its like saying steve nash isnt a good 3pt shooter because he only took about 4 threes a game. But relative to his era thats insane when you're shooting over 45% from 3.

[@jonjuko8859]

That volume is so low that a few anomalous games can skew the %’s

[@Tethloach1]

If he played today: 12 attempts 50% = 18 points 10 free throws 95% = 9 points 8 mid range 60% = 10 points 10 rebounds a game He would average 37 ppg in this era.

[@adrianfreeman2041]

I always thought the myth of Bird being an all time great 3 point shooter came from winning the 3 point contest during all-star weekend.

[@chalnervassor9430]

for some it is...

[@tj5180]

He was a great 3pt shooter but sometimes is overrated as a shooter

[@vernonherb]

In part it.. the 3 point shoot contest CEMENTED what he did in Game 🎮 at crunch time few players got more hightlighfd of game winners or tieing 3s than bird... to see it done by him in real time ⏲️ was a sight to behold

[@fortynights1513]

I’m surprised it didn’t get mentioned in this video given clips of it were shown.

[@hrcr101]

I think what Rusty fails to see is how he compared to his peers at the time. There are plenty of players that we consider all time greats for what they did in their time, even if their skillset does not compare to modern players. Larry led the league in 3 pointers twice (no player led the league more than twice until Ray Allen), and he shot 37% for his career when the league average in the 80s was 28%. And Larry did only shoot 32% from three in the playoffs, but overall the average playoff 3 point percentage in the 80s was only 25%. Not to mention Larry won the 3 point contest 3 times in a row, which of course has no bearing on his in-game performance but it is at least worth mentioning in terms of this debate. Not saying this actually makes him top 3 best 3 point shooters, but come on Rusty, cover your bases. Are you going to hold Bill Russel shooting 42% from the field in the playoffs against him when that was actually above average in the playoffs for the 60s?

[@spiderdog07]

Bill Russell is overrated. He shot zero percent from the 3 point line. The fact that he didn't have a 3 point line doesn't matter. We can only rank him on what he was and not consider hypotheticals.

[@kyletucker3811]

He literally compared him to Jordan who played both in Birds era and then after it when shooting and scoring didn't happen near as often.

[@hrcr101]

@@kyletucker3811 if you look Jordan shot league average from 3 through the course of his career. However Jordan only shot above 30 percent one time in the 80s (89-90 season) and she shot below 80s league average from 3 every other season he played in the 80s. Rusty also left out that Jordan shot significantly worst from 3 in the regular season. He left out a lot of crucial information.

[@fastbreakreport]

The playoff argument Jacob chose to run with is SO bad here. Literally 7 of the 12 seasons Larry Bird was in the playoffs he was either playing injured or there isn’t enough concrete evidence to form an actual opinion. Like you take 1 3 a game for 4 seasons straight in the playoffs and tell me if you shoot 40% from 3….it’s just a REALLY bad excuse to push a narrative. Anyone who knows ball also isn’t classifying Jordan as a “Shooter” they classify him as a “scorer” because we knew he wasn’t a sniper from 3.

[@sinepnam]

@@hrcr101 Fr he really just cherry picked to push his agenda

[@MarLikeIt]

Larry Bird has been grandfathered in as one of the greatest shooters of all time, and I’m fine with that. He wasn’t the best or most efficient but he was one of the first. I’m pretty sure bird ranked near the top in 3 point statistics at the time he retired which means he was one of the greatest shooters of his era, An era that didn’t focus on 3s.

[@fortynights1513]

There’s one statement that Rusty didn’t say that he probably would argue: He probably would agree with you if you argued that Bird was the best or one of the best three point shooters up to 1992. But he probably doesn’t think that the volume he took holds up in comparison to three point shooters since.

[@luridsilence]

Bad take dude... But here you go... Looking only at a career average doesn’t tell you about his peak performing years. He shot over .400 from three six times, including .406 in his rookie year, and final year, .427, then .423, .400, and .414 in consecutive years. 38.9 his second to last year. In year two through five was he averaged less than 1 attempt from three a game (like 0.1, 0.2 attempts!) and shot in the .200s over that stretch. You can’t get in a shooting rhythm from three point range with just one shot in a game. Also, if you heave it from mid-court or full court for a try as the clock is running out, that counts as an attempted three and a missed three. Modern players don't do this because they care about these stats, unlike players of the past. But when he averaged more 3pt attempts, he shot Better! Similarly, he had five playoffs averaging higher than .321, including two over .400 (.412 and .414). Career stats don't tell the whole story. THAT'S what they mean by context... You conveniently glossed over the fact that he won 3 CONSECUTIVE 3 point contests... And glossed over his all time great free throw percentage--indicative of being a great shooter. Also... And here's a big one that none of you youngin' will be able to really do so I can't hold it against you too much... But, you would just have to watch the games man. The league was totally different, the three was treated differently... Bird pulling up from three back in the day, struck fear in the opponents hearts. So I can agree that you can't give him credit for hypothetical threes... But the context shows that he was a selective assassin, and smart as hell. Oh ya, and he played in a system. Iso ball to get your own shot, was a rarity for great teams. So... Can't agree with you on this one dude.

[@MoXy33]

He's definitely an all-time shooter, he's the first ever 50-40-90 club member and there's still only 9 players on that list.

[@sinepnam]

Literally

[@jonathansykes4986]

50-40-90 is meaningless when you shoot 2 3s a game.

[@makhaiferguson4855]

@@jonathansykes4986 less than 2 tbh, there’s this guy tryna make the case that bird is better than bron and at that point i realized that there’s no objective with these fans outside of discrediting the new era of basketball

[@sinepnam]

@@makhaiferguson4855 honestly take away longevity and there’s a very good case for bird, but we can’t so yeah Lebron is better

[@Munchkkinz]

@@jonathansykes4986 2-3 Threes a game isnt meaningless when teams at that time were taking 5 or 6 per game lol. itd be like him taking around 10-15 threes a game today. being that he was the literal first 50/40/90 player and had multiple 40% 3pt seasons before his insane injuries its pretty obvious why people refer to him as an all time shooter

[@jahazielcipolla]

I agree overall with what you’re saying although you should have mentioned free throw percentages, which are one of the few stats not affected by era. Also, you DO have to grade players on a curve. It might not seem fair but to not do so would be more unfair. It’s like saying Wilt had the greatest scoring season of all time because he scored 50 ppg but that removes all context such as pace, efficiency, minutes played, possessions, etc. The fact that Larry Bird is the ORIGINATOR of the illustrious 50/40/90 club has to count for something in an all-time shooting ranking.

[@kohsmoger1567]

By that rational we should put Pete Maravich over bird because he was taking and making shots that would later count as threes way before bird.

[@ejshypetrain4126]

@@kohsmoger1567 yea you can why not

[@daanishgupta]

@@ejshypetrain4126 You can't because the game was different. Like he said, hypotheticals aren't facts.

[@vernonherb]

@@daanishgupta but we dont have to be hypothetical abt the impact of the 3s bird mad he was clutch... and he hit 3s when they counted most. This is an analytics argument but bird and his era wasn't as big on that as they were on W-L and ring countsand one thing bird was good at was Winning That said yeah you got yo grade him on a curve and in his prime

[@back2back379]

Good on mentioning the FT%. Obviously that was a major part of the game back then too, hence why it was something Bird worked on a lot and he's an all-time great at FT shooting. If you look at the great FT shooters, they were also the among the best in their era at 3P shooting, including JJ Redick, so why would anyone think Bird would be the only one who wouldn't also be up there today in an era where the 3 is practically the primary strategy?

[@NBAConfidential]

Bird's shooting status isn't entirely based on "hypotheticals"; it's based on the fact that he was the best shooter of his era. It's only fair to judge players in the context they played in. He was a major shooting outlier for the time. In the future, there are gonna be a lot of players who not only surpass Ray Allen's 3pt total, but shatter it. I'd venture to guess even after that happens most people will still have Allen high on all-time shooters list. Will you call him overrated then? I wouldn't; Allen was the most prolific 3pt shooter of his time and will rightfully still be considered an all-time shooter. Same thing goes for Bird who was the best shooter of his time.

[@skyhigh8403]

I'm sorry but your example is exactly why it's hypothetical. It's great, for his era. His attempts will never change, and how he would've done on more shots will literally always be hypothetical. You and I both know their are players nowadays who are good floor spacers for their couple of 3's a game. But you don't always just assume they need to take 8 3's a game because people have limits. I don't understand why people have a hard time doing the same with Bird

[@prestozable]

Steph already passed Ray Allen for 3 pointers made

[@kingjacko302]

@@prestozable right his point is that other players are going to eventually pass Ray Allen that might not be considered better shooters than him. Not everyone who passes him in shooting is going to be like steph where there is clearly a gap.

[@rebelranger]

@@skyhigh8403 What about that response is hypothetical? Not once does he mention Bird taking 8 threes a game in today's era or anything like that. Of course you have to consider the era that he played in. Making a straight up comparison to any player in the past to today, even from early 2010s, is an apples and oranges comparison. Rules, fundamentals, strategies etc change over time. That's not hypothetical, that's considering context. Everyone who says that Kobe was an inefficient shooter doesn't look at the average true shooting % of his time.

[@bigwoke686]

@@skyhigh8403 Wait a second. Do you think Dirk is an all time great 3pt shooter?

[@KaiCameron]

Derek Fisher is an all-time great dunker. He just didn't dunk a lot, but if he did, he would've been an all-time great.

[@jamiebrand2294]

Yeah bro Mugsy Bogues was the best rebounder of all time he just didn’t have the opportunity cause of his era

[@23ofSeptember]

Can we say Dr. J was not a great dunker because his dunks were quite simple compared to the dunks in todays game?

[@MisterKnowItAll3]

They weren't simple at all

[@jonjuko8859]

@@MisterKnowItAll3 they were by modern standards

[@Forville01]

JJ reddick is an old school basketball hater

[@officialconch]

Bird’s percentage from 3 in comparison to his competition is the largest gap in efficiency there has ever been. And physicality effects efficiency. Can’t compare eras. If he was known as the best shooter of his time, he is rightfully listed as an all time great shooter.

[@gardi3327]

According to Statmuse the average team shot only 3.5 threes a game in the 80s so Bird shooting almost 2 a game is a ton. Also statmuse has the average three point percentage of that time at 29 percent. So Bird shot 8 points ahead of the league using the 37 percent number you gave. I would say that is absolutely phenomenal shooting and not overrated in the slightest

[@archiegabiazon]

By that logic, Shaun Livingston is an all-time great shooter

[@dougtaylor1910]

Stats are killing basketball people just look at numbers and think it tells the whole story when there’s so much more to it.

[@4ktkaram395]

Dude he’s overrated

[@mizer9510]

The only reason why MJ and Bird didn't shoot and make more 3's is because they were not focused on doing that. It was not a part of the NBA like it is today. They both were all time great shooters in my opinion. Countless NBA hall of famers have even said so. Ask yourself this question. Who would you take on your team with the game on the line out of that list? For me there is only one I would take over Bird and that's Reggie Miller.

[@foxnoel9434]

I’d take the dude with statistically the best chance all that clutch stuff is purely narrative

[@ethanxile4627]

MJ wasn’t good at 3pt shooting. He has the worst 3pt contest score ever.

[@thermitebanana]

Yeah, same! The only reason I don't shoot and make more 3s in the NBA is because I'm not focused on doing that. So I'm just like Larry and MJ, doing stuff that's not shooting 3s at an all time level.

[@rafikz77]

Not it’s because they weren’t that good

[@rapgodreloaded9259]

Rusty Buckets during his JJ Reddick rant is legendary!!!

[@CMXR]

this reminds me of a post i saw yesterday of a Bird vs Lebron 1v1 on they’re prime and a lot of people were saying Bird would win because of his shooting 😂

[@gamelove100]

That’s a ridiculous take. LeBron would overwhelm Larry Bird on every play

[@T.H.E.O.R.Y.]

Bird has faced his share of athletic defenders, though.

[@alaeus2310]

@@T.H.E.O.R.Y. His shot making allows him to overcome athleticism to a certain point. However, LeBron shoots at a better percentage from any level and is a better defender than Bird. Therefore, whilst it wouldn't be a complete stomp, it would be a certain win for LeBron.

[@johnmarkson1998]

1v1 is all about physical stats. giannis is probably the best 1v1 player ever. he is too big and strong to be stopped and can make your shot hard cause he is so long.

[@PricefieldPunk]

People dismiss Lebron so easily just cause hes not a great shooter. If Lebron attacked the basket on every play theres no way Larry could stop him and Lebron is a good enough defender to slow Bird down enough to win.

[@billwood733]

Got to say this might be your worst take in a hot minute. As others have pointed out his peak is what really puts him in the conversation plus his 3pt contests add more to it. I think Bird being in the top is probably a bit higher but he is comfortably in that 10-20 range

[@mojpatel]

Same.. but I can’t help but feel in 20 years rusty buckets will argue that players from this era are underrated, but in 20 years we’ll see LeBron 720p 2011 KZbin highlights but they’ll seem meh. But the people that were 20 now will argue with the people 20 then about what LeBron was, because advanced stats/tech argue modern players of 2044 are better.. but they won’t know cause they didn’t see.. only then will he know that you can compare eras with nuance, and that stats aren’t everything.. and at that point he’ll know that this take is off

[@mojpatel]

And just a quickie consider Tim Duncan.. no one outside of the people that saw him will know that he’s the best pf ever.. in 20 years he’ll be forgotten by stats n highlights…. Eventually people will wonder why we even think he’s top 15-10ish.. look at the highlights, and wonder.. .. he’s gonna be the next bird..

[@23ofSeptember]

Jokic a better 3-point shooter than Bird according to advanced stats. The players are just better today. Stop comparing guys who never even had a 3-point line in high school to guys that were shooting threes in their crib (Like Curry).

[@MindfulAttraction2.0]

The players today are better for the rules of today. The players in the '80s had games that was suited for no three-point line. Different skill sets

[@bizgivbiz]

So you agree that Jordan is better than Lebron going by the same metrics

[@jonathansykes4986]

yeah but they are better BECAUSE they had a crib to pros 3 pt line. not disrespect Bird but come on, do a huge discredit to players who play now who shoot more from 3 and make a higher % from 3. you can't say you're a WORSE shooter than the guy who did it worse than you. that's stupid.

[@jonathansykes4986]

@@bizgivbiz Yes

[@MindfulAttraction2.0]

@@jonathansykes4986You act like being a three-point shooter is all you need to be a better shooter. What if they open a four-point line, then all of a sudden 20 years later guys are shooting four pointers, but they're bad at the mid-range and free throw, does that make them a better shooter? I don't think so.

[@tetshua_2127]

Bird's two 50 40 90 seasons were purposefully ignored to fit the "terrible from 3" narrative

[@fastbreakreport]

Kinda agree with his actually and you could nitpick a 3rd time if you wanna round up his .496 FG% and .896 FT%

[@sinepnam]

W

[@foxnoel9434]

40% on 2 3s a game so he made a little less than a 3 per game…..

[@nicksatwr4538]

50 40 90 sucks a good start is 60 from 2 40 from 3 90 from line

[@nicksatwr4538]

And he never came close to that

[@yaelgarcia459]

I feel like old school players are constantly being shit on now a days to elevate new players. Its always " this old school is overrated" or " this legend is mediocre ".

[@3rdanswer]

nba twitter should stop making analysis videos on players that they werent even old enough to watch without youtube.

[@t-god2439]

Or haven’t even bothered to watch entire games on

[@libertyaboveall5960]

Yeah completely ignoring era is fucking wild and wrong

[@jonnstewart2023]

He didn't he factored it in, point is the numbers just don't hold up

[@mjsantos8492]

The league average 3P% in the 80s were only around 28-30% which makes Birds 37.6% great since its around 7-9% higher than league average. Similar to how 40% shooters in todays era are great because 36% is the league average. Bird is one of the greatest shooters ever relative to their era. Same logic applies to why Pistol Pete is one of the best ball handlers in history when majority of the point guards in todays era can do what he does and better. He's an alltime great ballhandler because he can do stuff that others cant do in his era.

[@illvillainyac2678]

KEEP THIS MUSIC RUDY. I think it's suits the channels analytical aspects while still not distracting from the points made. It's wavy lol

[@justinjones9579]

4:25 he says 'we do not put players on all time list based on hypotheticals" yet it's entirely okay to remove players from all time lists based on hypotheticals. Players played in their era, they played who was in front of them and played how they were coached to play.

[@ryanmccrary1880]

Rusty I think you have to look at Bird’s 3PT% relative to the league average. During his prime, his three point attempt rate and three point percentage were both astronomically high. He really only had three seasons in which his three point shooting wasn’t well above the league average.

[@ryanmccrary1880]

Basketball reference has an adjusted shooting section in the individual player profiles which shows you their shooting stats relative to the league average.

[@MarLikeIt]

In the future Rusty Jr will be making "Steph Curry Is Overrated" videos. Every generation raises the bar a notch. Ask Kareem lol

[@jonjuko8859]

No social media and a lack of ability to watch and analyse every game in previous eras allowed for mythologising. You actually go back and watch the full games and break down the numbers? You realise the game has drastically improved with time

[@elvisnguyen6649]

Your Lebron video was great bro, much love 😂

[@frostyflakkes2692]

The dude barely shot threes. Idk what mad dog is saying

[@joeldriver-sp2rg]

The truth is that if Bird and Jordan had seen the 3 point shot as a viable way to score they both would have practiced it much more, shot them a lot more and their percentages would have been much higher. They simply didn't see it as a necessity so they didn't shoot them. Why would they when they could score so easily from everywhere else?? Honestly catching the ball behind the 3 pt line for a scorer is a terrible place to start your possession. It's only perceived to be good these days because every team jacks up a million of them.

[@josephmatthews7698]

So... Exactly like Rusty said. It's all vibes and hypotheticals. You feel like they'd be better than modern shooters. I feel like Larry bird is the kind of guy to run into a burning building to save a baby too. Does that mean we should give him the medal of freedom too?

[@kyletucker3811]

Thank you for the shining example of exactly what he said in the video. All you just said was hypotheticals.

[@atlien1988]

Larry Bird won three consecutive three point shooting contest..he was obviously an excellent shooter. He barely even attempted threes & still managed to shoot essentially 38%. A lot of players today find their rhythm in volume. If he played today, he'd take at least 5-6 threes & Bird would easily shoot 38-41% from distance. Although I wouldn't say he's the greatest three point shooter, but he's definitely one of the best shooters in NBA history.

[@Schafe_Talks_Sports]

I can’t believe you’re comparing Julius Randle and Bird as 3pt shooters one guy played in the 80’s and the other 2020’s 😂

[@Opium64]

Tbh put the best shooters now in the 80’s they wouldn’t be hitting close to the amount because they would be growing up in a different time playing way different

[@d.columbia9603]

A study was done comparing the fastest sprinter from the modern Era and 1930s. They factored out the difference from the track and improvements in shoes. The difference was almost non existent with the modern runner edging out the 1930s runner by the smallest of fractions. Which that could be accounted for with nutrition, advances in workout regiments and so. So the notion that bird wouldn't dominate the 3 is ridiculous when you have predictive evidence to suggest it. But Rusty Buckets is a bit slow it seems. I get it 20 nothings are dumb

[@foxnoel9434]

Well In the 80s no zone defense Steph curry one on one with any 80s guard is getting cooked

[@t-god2439]

@@d.columbia9603I doubt anyone if the league today is stronger than wilt or Shaq. And dr j and Dominique along with many others could play in any era. This lie that todays players are bigger, stronger, faster needs to stop

[@t-god2439]

@@foxnoel9434also hand checking. Just being able to put a hand on Steph would make a big difference. He would have to play much more like Chris Jackson. But I think Chris was quicker than Steph. So idk how good Steph with stiffer man defense

[@d.columbia9603]

@T- God 243 I agree about the lies regarding modern athletes. Travel and carry rules changes significantly. In birds Era every gather step and step back 3 would be called. Most of the moves modern players rely on to create space are traveling or carrying

[@razvanandreiantonescurogoz4236]

He injured his shooting hand right before joining the NBA. Anyway, Larry is a 50-40-90 shooter in his prime. He grew up without the 3 point line being a thing and he was the best shooter of his era. In today's game, he would shoot over 40% from the 3 every season just to silence disrespectful takes like this one

[@MrTonyJ]

Pat Riley once said if I needed a player to make a shot to win a game I would pick Jordan. If I needed a player to make a shot to save my life I would choose Bird. What we remember us how clutch Bird was.

[@HugoSoup57]

Larry Bird statistically isn't one of the greatest 3pt shooters ever. But calling him an overrated shooter when he has two 50/40/90 seasons, which is considered the benchmark for elite shooters is just an asinine take. Larry Bird was one of the most efficient shooters of his era, you have to consider the context in that it was a different game then. If Larry Bird played today, he would definitely adjust his game to shoot more 3 pointers. He even won a 3 point shooting contest. Rusty, you're wrong about this.

[@Voodoostones]

I think context, whether it's a new argument or not, is important when having these convos about players in different eras. People talk about Kobe being one of the greatest scorers of all time but his efficiency was ass but relative to his era (eras?) he was and he put points on the board. In that respect Bird is a great shooter from a historical perspective because of what he was able to do, not in the speculative sense. The same way that (and I'm groaning as I write this myself) Bob Cousy is a great point guard. You compete with who is in front of you and win or lose, not with players from different eras, past or future. Also as far as Bird is concerned I think people conflate scoring with shooting and shooting with shooting 3's. He was an all time great scorer, top 5 imo, but not a top 3 shooter of the 3.

[@23ofSeptember]

Pistol Pete was one of the greatest ball handlers in history, but sure, we don't compare him to Kyrie Irving. Players are just better today.

[@-ac-8296]

Place Kyrie in the 70s and almost every move he does would be called

[@bpdmf2798]

Rules are very different as well. Older players couldn't palm the ball on every dribble move and hand the ball in mid air without being called for a travel or palming. If Kyrie played the way he does now in the 60s he would be benched for constantly getting 2 dribbles into his bag and getting a whistle.

[@juliothom2408]

Pete was also a great shooter. He’s a guy that hit long jumpers regularly. I’m sure he’s have been another all-time great that would have filled it up if he had the green light people get today. He had the green light back then, but there wasn’t a 2 point line.

[@nicksatwr4538]

@@juliothom2408 he shot 69 percent from 3 his 2 day

[@andreperesdemedeiros8441]

Bird 1985-86 season: Relative 3pt%: +14.1 Curry 2015-16 season: Relative 3pt%: +10.0

[@asyetundetermined]

Thank you for the content

[@younezzz]

Wake up babe, rusty just uploaded

[@handeggchan1057]

I don't think anyone before 2012 or so will be in the top 10 as a 3-pt shooter of all time by 2040. The game changed way too much after the LeBron heat, Curry and the analytics revolution. This is considering volume and percentage, not like Steve Kerr.

[@highlightcenter5651]

This is one of those videos where rusty is happy KZbin doesn’t show dislikes

[@jbthestoner5504]

As far as the LeBron video not doing as well as you think, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, but the only reason I haven't gotten around to watching it is just because I haven't had time to sit down and watch a 45 min video lately lol. I'm sure it's amazing, just wait til the weekend and I'm sure you'll end up with a bunch more views now that we have the time.

[@marcwilliams3692]

With that being said should we have players like bill higher in the all time rankings bc "what ifs shouldnt effect rankings"

[@upthereds1892]

Rusty going bird hunting

[@armandoarellano9327]

Bro just because teams are shooting the three more and more players are making them doesn't necessarily make em a better scorer , not only that you can't hold It against the old school players for not shooting the three when that wasn't as allowed back then

[@alexanderboulton2123]

Larry Bird is a tricky case. You're only looking at his career stats. If you break it down season by season, you'll notice something. There were stretches where he shot as well as 42% from three on 3 attempts per game - unheard of at the time - and there are some seasons where he only shoots like 20% from three. Those were mainly the 4 seasons after his rookie year, after which he consistently shot above 38% from three - respectable now, but godly for the era. Then was his propensity for making big-time shots, and tough ones too. Then there's his absurd 88% free throw stat. Throw on top of that his threepeat in the three-point contest (in his warmup jacket!) and you have one of the most legendary shooters of all time.

[@cameronferguson4067]

I think not acknowledging that Bird was a career 88% FT shooter (with multiple 90% plus seasons) was a pretty big misstep. It’s a really good indicator of true shooting ability and there’s a lot of overlap between all-time great shooters and high FT%. I still don’t think Larry is a top 3 or top 5 shooter (probably somewhere in the top like 15 or so), but I don’t think that shooting feat was given enough due in helping see where Bird should fall.

[@trumpfailedhaha816]

After I heard reddicks take I was fuming but then you said "calling Larry one of the greatest shooters is objectively untrue" I'm done bro. You lost me after that statement.

[@rustybuckets]

Lmao ok

[@TKOTDtvMusic]

I mean it is

[@trumpfailedhaha816]

Listen I'm not unsubscribing, I've seen worse takes from worse guys. What I'm saying is I love your videos but this is not the truth. The man had 6 years of 40 plus % from three. In the 80s, this was a pinnacle of performance from deep and something even 80% or more of players now a days can keep up with. Plus you HAVE to consider era, the 3 point line came around in 79, he came around in 80 and was doing the same percentage that some elite players are doing NOW. I get the coulda, shoulda, woulda, because it didn't happen. He didn't do it. I get it. But I've also watched smokers live to 100 and joggers die at 20. If Larry bird, isn't a great shooter, then idk who is.

[@jennybrooks6084]

just go to bed gramps you got your pool yoga in the morning

[@trumpfailedhaha816]

@@jennybrooks6084 I'm 30 bud, I wasn't even alive when Larry played, but skill is skill.

[@tashrif46]

I would not say overrated. If anything people have underrated Larry Bird as a player so much to the point that people are saying he not even a top 15 player of all time, let alone top 10. But during an era when medium long range and long range shooting was not encouraged, he was awesome in that regard. Two seasons of finishing in the 50, 40, 90 club. And he averaged well over 25 PPG in those seasons as well.

[@Chickenpesto2468]

Three rings one of the best passers ever could rebound well underrated defender

[@back2back379]

There were years where the 3 pointer was practically never used as an actual weapon and was used basically as a desperation shot attempt towards the end of the shot clock/quarter, hence why there were years where Bird averaged like 0.7 3s/g, and hence why those years his percentage was so low. The years where the 3 was adopted more as an actual weapon and Larry was taking 3/g, he was shooting over 40%. So in years where he was allowed by the team's strategy to attempt more 3s, he did better. Had he been in this era, where the 3 is basically the primary strategy, he'd do even better.

[@vernonherb]

Also bro you got good content and well thought-out opinions this is the 1st vid i seen from you that i didn't agree with but even in that you made your point well

[@victorlins6279]

I agree about the 3pt shooting, but this is way more nuanced than you made it look. Eras matter, and you can't compare different eras without putting any filter whatsoever. It's like saying Wilt could average 50ppg in the 90s, when the pace was much different. Wilt would still be a superstar, but the era's are simply too different. An impressive shooting performance in the 80s looks different than one nowadays, 40 years later

[@TellHerNothing]

Hes a top 3 all around shooter Post Fades, 3s, Mid Range & Free Throws

[@Checkered_Everything]

No 😂

[@MisterKnowItAll3]

But when people mention bird's shooting they are mostly referring to his 3pointers Wich they are highly overrated and he is not even top 10000 all time, no one mentions birds midrange free throws or fade aways that's why they may be underrated

[@scottinnh88]

It’s a hypothetical that curry could play as good in the 80s as bird

[@jdelia54]

Ben Taylor (Thinking Basketball) did a podcast a couple months ago and had Larry Bird as the 3rd best shooter of all time with a case for him being the GOAT. The raw shooting numbers aren’t necessarily GOAT-level, but his numbers relative to his era, his shooting repertoire, and his modern day projections give him a pretty easy case for being one of the best shooters of all time.

[@jamiebrand2294]

But that’s a hypothetical, why should his hypothetical numbers be more valued than someone’s actual numbers

[@georgio2976]

Yea you definitely have to take account into the era that Bird played in. It definitely isn't a coincidence that like 99% of the best three point shooters have played in the modern era. I just don't think it is a fair comparison

[@fanofanimation4293]

@@jamiebrand2294 Mate, 2 of the 3 things he mentioned weren't at all hypotheticals lol.

[@aariesharris7894]

@@jamiebrand2294 this entire argument is the equivalent of calling John Stockton the best passer ever because he has the most assists. Of course Curry is the best shooter ever but ranking players based on numbers and totals is a fools game without context. Compare him to shooters from his era like we do with any other player

[@Anthonydu01630]

I want to listen to that podcast because Ben Taylor always make sense but i don’t see how Bird could be a Top 3 shooter of all time except if you take into consideration his numbers relative to his era but that’s dumb for me when you compare Usain Bolt to a 90’s sprinter you don’t say well this guy was better relative to his era so he is faster thats dumb 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@tariq6429]

Bird was the first great 3pt shooter it just doesn’t hold up to todays standards tho

[@luizansounds]

A Pioneer never holds up to their successors, in every sports the players will keep pushing until the pioneers look bad

[@aariesharris7894]

@@luizansounds there’s oldheads that still say Johnny Unitas was the best QB of all time 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@fastbreakreport]

Neither does Ray Allen

[@babobenson5203]

@@aariesharris7894 johnny Unitas would be an elite QB in any era period.

[@calebburt180]

But then one of the only reasons Bird is so high up is because he was the white guy who shot the ball well. Does that mean that Larry Bird isn't a top 10 player?

[@derekdominguez2068]

He had multiple 50/40/90 seasons while three pointers were a very new part of the game. He didn’t grow up shooting them and the nba don’t emphasize that shot and he still almost shot 40% for his career. Also, Larry’s numbers went down after his terrible back injury. Larry bird is one of the greatest shooters in the history of the nba from every level. He was a great free throw shooter, a great midrange shooter, and an elite three point shooter. He was close to averaging 50/40/90 splits for his career and for half of his career he was injured due to his terrible back injury. If he played today and took way more threes then obviously he’d make more and be better. JJ is awful. Sick of this guy shitting on past players that are way above him in all time

[@thenightspider]

Rusty says he is 22 almost 23 but we all know that he is actually 5 years old.

[@GONZUdAce11]

I think what people mean is that Bird was one of the all time great shooters of the 80's. Which is true, is just that the 80's didnt have many great shooters. Also his prime was pretty impressive as a shooter.

[@patrickhanlon2325]

All time means all time, you can't call someone an All time anything for a certain period of time it doesn't make any sense. They're either the best at something All time or the best in their time

[@trogdor8942]

​@@patrickhanlon2325 he averaged 50-40-90 twice and averaged 50-40-90 from 1985-1988. How many other players besides Curry, Dirk and Nash have done anything like that? Kyrie and KD might be close.

[@patrickhanlon2325]

@Trogdor89 thats great, but I was talking about his " all-time great shooters of the 80s" comment.

[@RafitoOoO]

@@patrickhanlon2325 but he never played against Curry or Ray Allen lol. You can only compare a player with his peers at his era.

[@patrickhanlon2325]

@Rafa Allegretti I get that and I agree. My point though was saying all time of the 80s is a silly thing to say, all time means all time.

[@etkbruze5526]

Let’s not forget rusty that numbers don’t always tell the whole story, put some context behind his greatest clutch shots (of which there are many) and you’ll see that’s the main reason he’s considered one of the best shooters. He could put the ball in net when it mattered most and he’d even tell you where he was gonna shoot it, then proceed to shoot it right in ya meowf.

[@marcelg4709]

Thank you for making this video Rusty Buckets cause I been saying the same thing for a while and everybody has been looking at me like I’m crazy 🙄

[@chas4th]

As a fan who watch Larry Bird destroy my Sixers team back in the day, what made Bird appear to be an incredible shooter was skill and timing. He seemed to hit mid-range shots in the post over super-athletic good defenders as slow, non-jumping white guy. (a new thing back then) Then he would hit a soul-crushing three when the opposing teams would get the game close in the last 2 minutes. It happened too many times to count. That won’t show up in regular shooting percentages. Maybe check the clutch shooting numbers????

[@brodrickbaker]

That’s still doesn’t make him one of the best shooters in history, nobody ever said he wasn’t a great player

[@chas4th]

Agreed. I think to some people “great” shooting and “clutch” shooting are synonymous. If a player goes 9 -27 but hits 4 difficult shots (including game winner)…..most people will remember that as great shooting game even though the numbers won’t bear that out. Bird also was a shell of himself, playing through back injuries for 2-3 years that for sure caused his averages to dip.

[@fortynights1513]

Great video today Rusty! One thing that I would like to ask (surprised you didn’t mention this by name because it’s all star weekend): Could it be said that Bird’s moments in the three point contests he won are so etched in people’s memories that we think he’s one of the best at the skill when he was not that caliber of three point shooter? It’s kind of like how Derek Jeter is often labeled a good fielding shortstop when if you look up advanced baseball defensive metrics, he comes out as a bad fielder who happened to make a number of notable, skilled plays. Oftentimes the moment can lead to us remembering the player as better at the skill than he really is.

[@MrOctober44]

He managed to win the the three point contest three years in a row but he's not good three point shooter, lol? He's also one of only 11 players to shoot 50 40 90 for an entire season(did it twice) but still not a great shooter?

[@fortynights1513]

@@MrOctober44 Bird's a better three point shooter than Jeter was a fielder, but point taken. Also, those two 40% seasons were on a little over three attempts per game. Is that a lot of attempts?

[@OffTopicKamah]

I think one big point you’re missing is comparing a player’s attribute to the era or competition they were playing against… Larry bird was leagues ahead of shooters in his era while mj was considered an above average shooter but players like steve kerr and dell curry were better… I wouldn’t put larry top 3 but there’s no possible way a player from the past can follow the trends of the future… even if Steph’s 3 point record gets broken one day… there’s many other parameters a player has to overcome and his overall competition in that department matters

[@drakemontes4624]

I love how context just doesn’t matter anymore

[@visno]

it’s because in all time rankings you also have to factor in how good they were compared to their peers that they actually played with and against. for his time larry bird was a phenomenal shooter and that helps bolster his case as an all time great shooter.

[@nath8779]

That still doesn't add up because if your peers are in the G league or a foreign league and you average better shooting than Steph Curry, that still doesn't translate to NBA rankings. Insisting we have to make considerations for a particular era whilst also comparing them to the modern era is a janky cop-out. Statistics exist for this very reason. To objectively analyse what's successful and not.

[@jonathanlgill]

That's a weird misunderstanding of the original comment. Clearly we're talking about the metagame trends in the most competitive league in the world. "All-time greats" need to be contextualized to how they stood out against the metagame trends at that moment in time. A hypothetical season of Curry in the G-league misses the point entirely.

[@visno]

@@nath8779 statistics don’t happen in a vacuum, the game evolves and new players build upon what older players have done. steph curry is the greatest shooter every but there’s a kid that’s in the league right now that will probably break his all time 3pt record because the game has changed since curry came into the league and started the 3pt revolution.

[@nath8779]

@@visno Let's use a different analogy. The fastest car in 1908 was the Ford Model T which is objectively slower than the fastest car in 2023 and we can surmise from that that the fastest car in 2043 will be even faster. Obviously, the 2043 car will have improved by building on the statistics of the Model T and 2023 cars. And yet nobody is claiming the T Mobile to be one of the fastest or even greatest cars of All Time because it managed to be faster than horse buggies and donkeys. Larry Bird played when the 3pt was not the weaponised mathematical loophole it turned out to be. Therefore he can't be one of the greatest 3-point players if the modern average NBA player can outscore and out-average him from the 3-line. I'd also like to point out that NBA players were outscoring and out-averaging Larry Bird before the Steph Curry 3pt revolution. Bird has for a long time not been in the discussion.

[@visno]

@@nath8779 the model T IS one of the greatest cars of all time, and the point you made is the primary reason, because it pioneered the automobile movement. T mobile on the other hand is a cellular service provider and rightfully doesn’t belong in this conversation tho. ;) removing the context of a players era basically just ensures that newer players will always be better than old players. hell, julius randle’s career numbers compared to dudes in the 70s makes him look like a top 75 player all time. the modern game is built upon the lessons that the youth pick up from the previous generations. without tim hardaway’s killer crossover move, a pedestrian crossover by today’s standards but devastating in the early 90s, we don’t get kyrie’s masterclass of handles today.

[@germanalvarez7923]

My this is that Larry literally started the 50-40-90 Club. One of only 2 that have done it more than once(according to their high usage because yes Malcolm Brogdan also got it but come on..) How can you create a club that shines a light on great shooting and not be an all time great shooter?

[@sergeistalin7916]

You can do it by taking 2 3 point shots per game. For example, Curry being in the 50-40-90 club is more impresive because a bigger porcentage of his shots came from 3 making it harder to keep a 50% FG. The point is that sure Bird was a good shooter in his era, but today shooters are expected to take 7 3s per game while doing it from the dribble or even from 30 feet away.

[@germanalvarez7923]

@@sergeistalin7916 I get that, but why is that Bird’s fault that he played in an era that frowned upon shooting 3’s? I’m sure if Curry and Bird switched eras Curry would have the same difficulty putting up 3’s as Bird

[@sergeistalin7916]

@@germanalvarez7923 The thing is that the what ifs and explanations are irrelevant, when we talk about all time greats the only thing that matters is the things they did. Is not Birds fault, but is reality. Like they say in the video, is Derrick Roses fault that he got injured? No, but we are not going to say he is an all time great just because he could have been.

[@seanflaherty1225]

Bird is an overrated 3 pt shooter but he is really underrated at his scoring around the basket. He could post up, shoot with either hands, crash the glass, and was always at the right place at the right time.

[@Luca-yb4sh]

Finally someone said it. First of all the "defense" and "physicality" argument is bullshit, as nobody was guarding the 3 pt line at that time, PRECISELY because 3s weren't the weapon they are today. Second, the " he wasn't allowed to shoot 3s" argument is equally bullshit. Had Larry Bird been the shooter many claim he was, he would have got the green light to shoot more. Before Steph started launching 3s like there's no tomorrow, nobody was shooting that much from distance. But he's so good that he earned the right to do it. That's the difference. I think Larry Bird's legacy as an all time great shooter is grounded in his 3 point shooting contest success but like who cares about that.

[@kylepatrick2231]

Context matters and this is an incorrect analysis of the context of Larry's time imo. He did very well in 3-pt contests, even with today's standards on less shots and less time than there is available now. It's important to note that he only actually practised 3s seriously leading up to these events since 3s were only considered to be good shots to avoid shot clock violations for the most part throughout the '80s. So, if Bird practised 3s like stars today with his offensive playstyle, and did in fact shoot around 8 3s every game on average, would he shoot around 40% despite tough coverages and regular heavy contests? The answer is most probably yes - he'd have Trae Young like numbers at worst, which is still pretty damn good.

[@lucidstudious750]

Did you notice that your whole argument hinges on what ifs? We're talking about facts not what "could have been" so rusty point stands

[@augustomourao2486]

The whole argument of the video is excatly around what you just wrote. You CAN'T know that, because it didn't happened. You can't make an analysis based on what ifs or projections on what has already gone by.

[@user-oe4wr9tn2n]

Three point contest does not make you an all time great three point shooter. And again these are hypotheticals, if Larry could have been a goat shooter, so can almost any other legend lol.

[@lucidstudious750]

@@augustomourao2486 yep. Another guy also said "we count his prime" no one does that unless we're comparing primes lol. If only primes mattered than Westbrook would be a top 2 pg ever bc he averaged a triple double 😂😂

[@kylepatrick2231]

@@lucidstudious750 you're correct in saying that, but what I'm trying to say is that we have evidence that he shot at a top level when allowed to shoot and when he seriously practised his 3-pt shooting through his multiple 3-pt contest wins (i.e., two defining conditions now available in actual games that weren't in his time). It's not unsurprising that his percentages dropped in the playoffs against the elite defences when you factor that nearly the only time he would attempt a 3 was to practically save Boston from a shot clock violation (sometimes yes from wide open).

[@loganmisiak5573]

Never saw Bird Play, but from what I hear from those that played with him and agaisnt him is the same, One of the greatest players to evey play the game!

[@TreyDZd]

It's okay, editor, I support ur choices

[@doritoman301]

I will say that despite some of the points you made were good, but it’s incredibly hard to heat up from 3 if you only take 1 a game

[@bpdmf2798]

From an era where 3s were not taken unless necessary late game, Bird was a clutch AF 3 point shooter. If he were to play know he would obviously shoot more and at a higher percentage because each 3 wouldn't be shot to win or lose the game. It's like saying a post player today isn't that great because of stats compared to the 80s where post players put up crazy stats

[@zolaeight7574]

You didn’t even watch the video

[@Washanuga]

"and at a higher percentage" That's a HUGE assumption and I'd actually argue the opposite. If he played today, I'm sure he would take more 3s, but I see no reason why his % would jump up. It'd likely either remain about the same or go lower. Go watch a Larry 3pt compilation. The most wide-open 3s you'll ever see in your life. If Curry got looks like that he'd be a 70% shooter. I'm not gonna get into a big argument about defense then vs now, but D today has a waaay heavier focus on perimeter D and defending the 3. Larry wasn't exactly known for being a quick and agile athletic beast. His shot release wasn't fast, he barely got any lift on his jumpers, and his shooting form would make him very blockable. Trying to score 3s in today's league would be a nightmare for him and given his midrange prowess, that'd probably be his bread n butter.

[@papadoc331]

Larry was literally open all the time

[@donaldsimmons4526]

🤦🏿

[@Dkirk215]

I think during his time frame and the era he played in he looked top tier against his peers and let’s be real the 3 pointer amount of attempts have changed a lot in the past 30 years In general

[@fortynights1513]

One question I’ve always had about shooting: You have said before that midrange shots have a place in today’s game, and simultaneously that long twos are stupid. At roughly how many feet from the basket would you say a midrange shot becomes a long two?

[@albericponcedeleon2696]

Idk what the actual distance is but conceptually it's not too hard to figure out. The NBA tracks the distance from the basket for every shot taken. You take all of the shots made from the same distance and figure out what is the FG% at each distance. Then you need to figure out the expected value for a shot by multiplying the FG% times 2 (if inside the arc) or 3 (if outside the arc). If the expected value for a 2P shot is less than the expected value for a 3P then it's a "long two" and you're better off taking a few steps back for a 3P shot. Hypothetically, let's say that the average NBA player makes their long twos at 45% and their threes at 33%. The expected value for a long two is 0.45 * 2 = 0.9 points per shot. The expected value for a three is 0.33 * 3 = 1.0 points per shot. The average player is more likely to score more points taking a three than a long two in this scenario. Even though the percentage for the three is lower, the extra point that you get from a make gives you greater value overall.

[@jonjuko8859]

10-16 ft is the start of mid range, 16+ is long 2

[@bpdmf2798]

Long 2 kids commonly a 2 taken from deeper than the FT line. That would make long 2 a 16-22 foot shot. People can paint jumpers mid range when they are 6 feet from the bucket and also call a 22 footer mid range. It seems like most people don't understand the word mid. If a dunk is 0 feet and a 3 is 23 feet, a mid range shot would be 11.5 feet with about 4-5 feet in either direction still being mid, closer and you get bunnies, further and you get long 2s.

[@Dotsetc]

No.

[@fazediamond5671]

What u mean

[@AnObliviousCelticsFan]

@@fazediamond5671 it's a opinion, he's likely disagreeing with the title.

[@Dotsetc]

@@AnObliviousCelticsFan Correct.

[@joegallagher9238]

Here for the comments.

[@patrickfox9988]

I feel like it's possible that you may not be accounting for the distance of the 3-point line in a given season... I suspect it doesn't close the gap completely, but he would be a lot closer if you figure out a way to control for that variable.

[@ryanjapan]

This is actually an interesting point - it only affected 3 seasons (94/5/6) but the league average % for those seasons was significantly higher than the ones on either side of the change and they remain atop the list of the most accurate seasons of all time.

[@Monotony619]

Look at jj reddicks playoff shooting percentage. Enough said. He thinks too highly of himself

[@ploopyfudgewink9207]

People really click on a video just to go straight into the comments and make a fool of themselves

[@aceblakeney8911]

Thanks for covering this I’ve been saying it for a while but no one agreed

[@d.columbia9603]

No one agreed because to agree you have to be ignorant of human evolution and context. Most people aren't so dumb and arrogant to look at the past and present straight up devoid of any and all context.

[@aceblakeney8911]

@@d.columbia9603 look shooting is two things percentage made and attempts and to combine those is how you determine how great they are in comparison not to their own era (which he was an amazing three shooter in) but all eras greatest shooters.

[@d.columbia9603]

@Ace Blakeney at some point how humans evolve comes into play. Literally, the worst current professional physist knows physics better than Einstein. That does not mean they are a better physist than Einstein as he was an outlier in his time. So it is true to state that there are better shooters just by the numbers. However that doesn't make them better against their peers. With the changes over decades, comparing eras straight up can be pretty silly. If you compare bird his contemporaries he is special. Unlike jj Redick who is just another spot up shooter

[@aceblakeney8911]

@@d.columbia9603 I do agree with you but I feel like this just comes down to what you define as all time great shooting for me I compare players all time against each other but you’d rather compare with his peers which is fair

[@hardybryan]

George Mikan was the first truly great big man. Unquestionably he was the best player professional basketball had ever seen at that point. Every great big man that followed him owes him respect and thanks for what he did to transform the Center position and making basketball a big-centric game for half a century. He got quickly eclipsed by the great big men to come. Similarly, Bird was the first great 3 point shooter (and yes, he was a great 3 point shooter). But like Mikan, everyone saw what he did, took it and expanded on it. The 3 didn't exist before he was in the league and even he had to adjust to it, which took years. He was never going to stay the greatest 3-point shooter all time. It's just old heads like me that won't give up the ghost. I don't pretend that he accomplished close to what guys like Steph, Reggie, Ray, Klay, Dame, etc. have done shooting 3's. This video got off the rails not understanding Larry's shooting ability though, but whatever. He was knock down from everywhere. Phenomenal shooter. And if you want to compare him with Mike, you need to use the years they were in the league together. Mike's best years shooting both mid-range and 3 are all after Larry left, as the game slowly but surely was becoming more perimeter based. This was a golden era of centers in the league and those 2, more than anyone at the time, pushed the game further away from the basket.

[@fortynights1513]

In my opinion the whole Larry Bird shooting discourse boils down to how much stock you place in how well a player compares to his own generation. If someone said: “Larry Bird is the best or one of the best three point shooters up through 1992”, most would probably agree. Probably Rusty and Chris Russo included. If someone said he should rank in the top couple today, then I get why some would object due to the lower raw volume, but most would agree with the other statement regardless.

[@cyrus8557]

He is. He shot about 60% of an average teams threes, even curry aint doing that and had multiple 50/40/90 seasons and he didnt even have a 3pt line when he started playing. Imagine this man grew up in the same circumstances as moderns nba players, there would be no debate as to who is the best 3pt shooter oat.