Why was Magic better than Bird?

[Clifton]

Often you see these two given a 2a and 2b ranking, or 4a and 4b, or whatever. But if one is ranked over the other, it is always Magic who is ranked higher. I have never seen a "list" that had Bird over Magic.

I don't know enough to argue the case (I've seen about 20 games of Magic, 30 of Bird, many of which were Lakers vs. Celtics). But from what I have seen I think if I had to pick one I'd pick Bird, not Magic. Perhaps it is because of my preference for "killer instinct" and grit in my players. (Not that Magic was soft, of course, but he wasn't distinguished by toughness; it would be tough to say he "brought" a killer mentality to a team the way that Bird did.)

Anyway, I'm more curious to see what others have to say on the topic. If I have to argue my choice I'll run out of ammo really quickly. What do those think who were watching in the 80s? Or those who have watched a good amount of footage?

[magnax1]

I've never really seen what I thought was a good case for Magic over Bird. You could argue they're close offensively, but otherwise they just aren't close. Something that always seems to be left out when people talk about Magic is just how bad his defense was. It was awful, and you just can't look past that if you're trying to be fair.

[Rubio2Gasol]

He wasn't

Defensive liability.
Not exactly a great scorer.

Dude just isn't in that league.

[Hands of Iron]

He wasn't.

[Clifton]

:oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

I've never really seen what I thought was a good case for Magic over Bird. You could argue they're close offensively, but otherwise they just aren't close. Something that always seems to be left out when people talk about Magic is just how bad his defense was. It was awful, and you just can't look past that if you're trying to be fair.

The defense argument is so pointless here. You don't have to break down players like that.

Let me ask you this. Steve Nash or Gary Payton...who was better? And please give an idea of the gap between them for you.

[Zedja]

The defense argument is so pointless here. You don't have to break down players like that.

Let me ask you this. Steve Nash or Gary Payton...who was better? And please give an idea of the gap between them for you.
DMAVS is back? This place is going to get a lot more interesting now...

[WeGetRing2012]

Magic was just a winner and he would have a much longer career if not for HIV.

[Hands of Iron]

:oldlol:

Bird was an elite passer and playmaker. Was Magic an elite scorer and shooter? Because Bird fills all of those chambers, in addition to being a better rebounder and defender.

[Niquesports]

I've never really seen what I thought was a good case for Magic over Bird. You could argue they're close offensively, but otherwise they just aren't close. Something that always seems to be left out when people talk about Magic is just how bad his defense was. It was awful, and you just can't look past that if you're trying to be fair.

They were both about the same size with about the same athletic ability. I would have loved to see Bird defending SG :roll: Bird If I recall got killed on a regular basis By Nique,King,ect...... They were equal on D .

[Niquesports]

Bird was an elite passer and playmaker. Was Magic an elite scorer and shooter? Because Bird fills all of those chambers, in addition to being a better rebounder and defender.

But for some reason even though there teams were always equal. Magix's team alway but once came out on top . Oh well Bird was better at everything but beating magic's team:lol Give me the winner

[Clifton]

Bird was an elite passer and playmaker. Was Magic an elite scorer and shooter? Because Bird fills all of those chambers, in addition to being a better rebounder and defender.
I look at it this way. In order for Magic to be "obviously" a greater player than Bird, his creativity for himself and for others would have to be so much greater than Bird's as to make up for the fact that Bird could score 30 points every night and Magic couldn't. And if Magic's creativity is #1 all time, Bird's is #2. I think he was just as good. Magic was the master of transition basketball, but that's less important in the final rounds and in fourth quarters. And I think Bird has the edge in the halfcourt. (Not the edge in creativity; it's simply not possible to best Magic there. But there are 3 minutes left in a tie game against a great defense. Do you want Larry or Magic? I want Larry.)

[Niquesports]

Often you see these two given a 2a and 2b ranking, or 4a and 4b, or whatever. But if one is ranked over the other, it is always Magic who is ranked higher. I have never seen a "list" that had Bird over Magic.

I don't know enough to argue the case (I've seen about 20 games of Magic, 30 of Bird, many of which were Lakers vs. Celtics). But from what I have seen I think if I had to pick one I'd pick Bird, not Magic. Perhaps it is because of my preference for "killer instinct" and grit in my players. (Not that Magic was soft, of course, but he wasn't distinguished by toughness; it would be tough to say he "brought" a killer mentality to a team the way that Bird did.)

Anyway, I'm more curious to see what others have to say on the topic. If I have to argue my choice I'll run out of ammo really quickly. What do those think who were watching in the 80s? Or those who have watched a good amount of footage?


This was always a media bias. Boston was the lunch box hard working city, and LA was all glamor. And the two players personality matched their city's. However noone wanted to win more than Magic. The legend goes an old half himself Magic and a in prime MJ use to go to war. He wanted to win every game. But he biggest joy was beating Bird . Which he did all but once. Magic was just more of a winner than Bird.

[Clifton]

He wanted to win every game. But he biggest joy was beating Bird . Which he did all but once. Magic was just more of a winner than Bird.
I'm interested in why you think that, but I should point out that you haven't proven your point. Magic usually beat Bird when they faced off, okay; but how does that make Magic "more of a winner"? I don't doubt that Magic was a winner; but Bird was a winner too. Magic wanted to rip your heart out; so did Bird. Both did it frequently.

But if your point is that Magic is considered the better when people have to choose because Magic usually beat Bird, plus that Magic was more of a highlight reel type of player, then I acknowledge it.

[magnax1]

The defense argument is so pointless here. You don't have to break down players like that.

Let me ask you this. Steve Nash or Gary Payton...who was better? And please give an idea of the gap between them for you.
The defense argument is the complete opposite of pointless, because it has a huge impact on the game. Unless you think that defense just doesn't make as large of an impact as offense, it's a big issue, and Magic was awful on it and probably a large part of why his teams were never elite on that side of the floor.
Steve Nash is a far more impactful player then Payton to me. Payton's defense is of course better, but Nash is among the top 15 or so offensive player ever.

[DMAVS41]

The defense argument is the complete opposite of pointless, because it has a huge impact on the game. Unless you think that defense just doesn't make as large of an impact as offense, it's a big issue, and Magic was awful on it and probably a large part of why his teams were never elite on that side of the floor.
Steve Nash is a far more impactful player then Payton to me. Payton's defense is of course better, but Nash is among the top 15 or so offensive player ever.

I just don't see how you can have it both ways. Of course defense matters, but it simply does not matter as much, especially at the pg or sf position, as people like you make it out to be.

Gary Payton is probably the best pg defender of all time. Certainly on the short list. Steve Nash honestly might be the worst defensive point guard of all time...definitely on the short list.

If defense matters that much...then in no way should Nash be considered better than a guy like Payton. As Payton had about a 10 year stretch in which he averaged 21/8/5. Was Nash better offensively? Sure, but nowhere near enough to make up the difference if defense is as important as you say.

And...of course, at the superstar level...offense just matters more. I have proven that time and time again and will prove it again if you want.

[Hands of Iron]

But for some reason even though there teams were always equal. Magix's team alway but once came out on top . Oh well Bird was better at everything but beating magic's team:lol Give me the winner

Except they werent really equal. The Lakers had the deeper, more athletic rosters through most of the 1980s and a cupcake Western Conference to shift through. Bird went to a team that had won 29 and 32 games respectively the previous two seasons, Magic went to a team with the game's best player and Top 5 ATG. He wouldnt of even left school had the Lakers not won the coin flip with Chicago. Bird was Rookie of the Year, All NBA 1st Team and 4th in MVP voting, Magic wasnt Top 10 and that 29-53 team turned to 61-21.

[Niquesports]

I look at it this way. In order for Magic to be "obviously" a greater player than Bird, his creativity for himself and for others would have to be so much greater than Bird's as to make up for the fact that Bird could score 30 points every night and Magic couldn't. And if Magic's creativity is #1 all time, Bird's is #2. I think he was just as good. Magic was the master of transition basketball, but that's less important in the final rounds and in fourth quarters. And I think Bird has the edge in the halfcourt. (Not the edge in creativity; it's simply not possible to best Magic there. But there are 3 minutes left in a tie game against a great defense. Do you want Larry or Magic? I want Larry.)


Many people dont understand Magic could had scored 30 a gm if that was his style. His style was who has the best shot. He made Byron Scott a 20ppg scorer. Cooper avg 9 ppg. He worked the ball around. It's not that he couldn't score.There approch to the game was different as well as there roles.Its like that game Magic beat Bird,Mchale and Parrish with the sky hok shot.He was just more clutch in the big game than Bird. And that saying a lot cause Bird was great

[Niquesports]

Except they werent really equal. The Lakers had the deeper, more athletic rosters through most of the 1980s and a cupcake Western Conference to shift through. Bird went to a team that had won 29 and 32 games respectively the previous two seasons, Magic went to a team with the game's best player and Top 5 ATG. He wouldnt of even left school had the Lakers not won the coin flip with Chicago. Bird was Rookie of the Year, All NBA 1st Team and 4th in MVP voting, Magic wasnt Top 10 and that 29-53 team turned to 61-21.

Lets not give Bird all the credit . Your talking to someone that was old enough to remember. Red tanked the whole season to get Bird. Then they changed the whole roster around even Coach. Then they got Mchale and parrish. Tiny 's role and ability changed. Stop with the larry Legend stuff.How many times did the "games" best player even make a final's with the Lakers before Magic. Then Magic comes not only uplifts them to the finals but while the "games" best player was home hurt. Magic pulls off one of the greatest finals game ever playing C/PG. But thats just what Magic does WIN .He just finds a way to win. Bird got ROY ,Magic got a title I think Bird would trade that ROY for the title any day.As far as the lakers were deeper why do Bird's fans always use that as an excuse. That is such a whippy excuse.I bet Bird would never use that whippy excuse. Magic is just a WINNER

[Niquesports]

I just don't see how you can have it both ways. Of course defense matters, but it simply does not matter as much, especially at the pg or sf position, as people like you make it out to be.

Gary Payton is probably the best pg defender of all time. Certainly on the short list. Steve Nash honestly might be the worst defensive point guard of all time...definitely on the short list.

If defense matters that much...then in no way should Nash be considered better than a guy like Payton. As Payton had about a 10 year stretch in which he averaged 21/8/5. Was Nash better offensively? Sure, but nowhere near enough to make up the difference if defense is as important as you say.

And...of course, at the superstar level...offense just matters more. I have proven that time and time again and will prove it again if you want.


I hope your naot saying Nash is better than Payton cause that is crazy at least Bird and magic are close. Gary is much better than Nash

[DMAVS41]

I hope your naot saying Nash is better than Payton cause that is crazy at least Bird and magic are close. Gary is much better than Nash

Well, Nash and Payton are close in my opinion. Not sure who I would take...would probably depend on the team.

You are being extremely narrow minded if you think the words "much better" should in the same sentence comparing Payton and Nash overall.

[jlauber]

Pretty hard to argue against either. BOTH were great. And BOTH had their strengths.

[Niquesports]

I'm interested in why you think that, but I should point out that you haven't proven your point. Magic usually beat Bird when they faced off, okay; but how does that make Magic "more of a winner"? I don't doubt that Magic was a winner; but Bird was a winner too. Magic wanted to rip your heart out; so did Bird. Both did it frequently.

But if your point is that Magic is considered the better when people have to choose because Magic usually beat Bird, plus that Magic was more of a highlight reel type of player, then I acknowledge it.


There are 2 players that imo were just winners Magic and Jordan. This is no knock on Bird or Thomas or anyone else. What makes Magic better is what ever it took Magic made it happen. Beat you with Worthy,beat you with Kareem,beat you with Scott,beat you himself scoring. Bird beat you just with his scoring. Bird could not make Danny Anige a 20ppg player. Even though imo Anige and Scott were equal players. It's that "it" factor magic just has that "it" a lil more than Bird.

[Niquesports]

Well, Nash and Payton are close in my opinion. Not sure who I would take...would probably depend on the team.

You are being extremely narrow minded if you think the words "much better" should in the same sentence comparing Payton and Nash overall.


I say much better because if both were on a very weak team I think Payton's team would do better because he is more of a take charge type player. nash is more of a facilitator. Payton can carry a bad team on his back. nash can make a avg team good. But I dont think he would be effective on a weak team.

[magnax1]

Steve Nash honestly might be the worst defensive point guard of all time...definitely on the short list.
That's a massive exaggeration. The only series I remember where his defense was a big factor was against the Spurs in 08 where Parker burned him quite badly. That was also in part because of Shaq's pick and roll D. Just Nash alone has never really been bad enough on D to affect a series.
Nash's defense in general is just overblown, in part because he's had some of the worst defenders behind him. Amare's inability to cover up any of his mistakes made him look a lot worse, but he's really never been that awful on defense. Probably the bottom 25-33% of point guards in the league, but never a guy who makes his team incapable of being elite on that end all on his own.
Magic has. Most series post 87 he played in, the player he guarded at least shot a considerably higher % then their average, sometimes they just went off on him. There are quite a few PGs who when guarded by Magic had career series. He usually seemed to guard SFs and SGs, but he was awful on all of them. Magic was one of the worst defenders in the league, and Nash was never that bad in his prime, and probably still isn't that bad (though I didn't watch a ton of him last season)


If defense matters that much...then in no way should Nash be considered better than a guy like Payton. As Payton had about a 10 year stretch in which he averaged 21/8/5. Was Nash better offensively? Sure, but nowhere near enough to make up the difference if defense is as important as you say.
I don't agree, because once again Nash is probably one of the 15 best offensive players ever. Payton is probably not that high on defense, and as good as he was on offense he was not a true PG and his ball dominance and shot jacking was detrimental to his team on that end.
And once again, I'm comparing impact. Most PGs just don't make a big difference on defense either way. Even most good defensive PGs make a negative impact because of their size. Payton and Kidd are two exceptions, and there are some others, but comparing defense at the PG vs the SF position is not the same. Defense still matters, but either way I just don't see how Payton made more of an impact then Nash when Nash has brought some very weak teams into a top offensive tier. Even in his old age and past his prime he's done this. I don't remember Payton ever making that impact, on defense or offense.


And...of course, at the superstar level...offense just matters more. I have proven that time and time again and will prove it again if you want.
I just don't agree. Offense is always more readily apparent, but true superstars, as in guys who seem to consistently be able to make most teams 50+ win caliber almost always are elite two way players, and usually are great rebounders for their position too.

[DMAVS41]

I say much better because if both were on a very weak team I think Payton's team would do better because he is more of a take charge type player. nash is more of a facilitator. Payton can carry a bad team on his back. nash can make a avg team good. But I dont think he would be effective on a weak team.

I'm not sure that is even true, but even it was...how important is an advantage like that even worth?

So Payton might be worth 5 more wins on a bad team. Honestly...who cares?

I don't really think a measure of a players' worth should be so dependent on what they would do with a very weak team.

[vert48]

My two favorite players all time. Different players, but equal in greatness. Both did what was necessary for their team to win. Bird needed to score and rebound more for the Celtics to win, so he did. Magic needed to pass and run more for his team to win, so he did.

I am fine with them being A/B in the rankings, but take Magic over Bird when forced to choose one over the other, with Magic always in my GOAT top 5, while Bird is not.

[Big#50]

They were both about the same size with about the same athletic ability. I would have loved to see Bird defending SG :roll: Bird If I recall got killed on a regular basis By Nique,King,ect...... They were equal on D .
No. Bird was all about hustle and tenacity. Bird was a more complete player. He could do anything Magic did, but he was a better scorer and rebounder.

[DMAVS41]

That's a massive exaggeration. The only series I remember where his defense was a big factor was against the Spurs in 08 where Parker burned him quite badly. That was also in part because of Shaq's pick and roll D. Just Nash alone has never really been bad enough on D to affect a series.
Nash's defense in general is just overblown, in part because he's had some of the worst defenders behind him. Amare's inability to cover up any of his mistakes made him look a lot worse, but he's really never been that awful on defense. Probably the bottom 25-33% of point guards in the league, but never a guy who makes his team incapable of being elite on that end all on his own.
Magic has. Most series post 87 he played in, the player he guarded at least shot a considerably higher % then their average, sometimes they just went off on him. There are quite a few PGs who when guarded by Magic had career series. He usually seemed to guard SFs and SGs, but he was awful on all of them. Magic was one of the worst defenders in the league, and Nash was never that bad in his prime, and probably still isn't that bad (though I didn't watch a ton of him last season)


I don't agree, because once again Nash is probably one of the 15 best offensive players ever. Payton is probably not that high on defense, and as good as he was on offense in some ways was not really a true PG and his ball dominance and shot jacking was detrimental to his team on that end.
And once again, I'm comparing impact. Most PGs just don't make a big difference on defense either way. Even most good defensive PGs make a negative impact because of their size. Payton and Kidd are two exceptions, and there are some others, but comparing defense at the PG vs the SF position is not the same. Defense still matters, but either way I just don't see how Payton made more of an impact then Nash when Nash has brought some very weak teams into a top offensive tier. Even in his old age and past his prime he's done this. I don't remember Payton ever making that impact, on defense or offense.


I just don't agree. Offense is always more readily apparent, but true superstars, as in guys who seem to consistently be able to make most teams 50+ win caliber almost always are elite two way players, and usually are great rebounders for their position too.

I will try to keep this simple:

1. Nash's horrible defense is not overblown. He's awful. He can't guard pg's his size because they blow by him with ease. He can't guard bigger guards because they will just post him him and abuse him. He isn't good help side at all either. He is simply one of the worst defensive guards in NBA history.

2. Payton is simply one of the best guard defenders ever. I don't know how anyone that watched him in his prime could possibly dispute that. And you are shifting the focus a little by making this about true pg play now. Simply put, Payton was a very good offensive player and playmaker. He wasn't on the Nash level of playmaking, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was good enough to average over 20 and 8 for about a decade.

3. Offense does matter more. Let's try this example with Nash and Hakeem.

If you rated Nash from 1 to 10 on offense and defense. He'd probably be a 9.5 on offense and a 1 on defense. If you rated Hakeem the same way I'd say he'd be a 9 on offense and a 9.5 on defense.

Now...if you made Hakeem's offense equal to Nash's defense...which player would you rather have? Meaning....Nash just the way he is...or a version of Hakeem that was still one of the best defenders ever, but was inept offensively like a Ben Wallace.

There is simply no way that version of Hakeem is more valuable than Nash. And that is comparing a pg to the most crucial defensive position at center as well.

Defense does not matter as much as you think...especially at non pf / c positions.

[vert48]

Lets not give Bird all the credit . Your talking to someone that was old enough to remember. Red tanked the whole season to get Bird. Then they changed the whole roster around even Coach. Then they got Mchale and parrish. Tiny 's role and ability changed. Stop with the larry Legend stuff.How many times did the "games" best player even make a final's with the Lakers before Magic. Then Magic comes not only uplifts them to the finals but while the "games" best player was home hurt. Magic pulls off one of the greatest finals game ever playing C/PG. But thats just what Magic does WIN .He just finds a way to win. Bird got ROY ,Magic got a title I think Bird would trade that ROY for the title any day.As far as the lakers were deeper why do Bird's fans always use that as an excuse. That is such a whippy excuse.I bet Bird would never use that whippy excuse. Magic is just a WINNERYou are correct. The Celtics drafted Bird after his junior year, prior to his senior year of college ball. Red knew Bird was coming, playing the season for the future instead of the present.

[Niquesports]

That's a massive exaggeration. The only series I remember where his defense was a big factor was against the Spurs in 08 where Parker burned him quite badly. That was also in part because of Shaq's pick and roll D. Just Nash alone has never really been bad enough on D to affect a series.
Nash's defense in general is just overblown, in part because he's had some of the worst defenders behind him. Amare's inability to cover up any of his mistakes made him look a lot worse, but he's really never been that awful on defense. Probably the bottom 25-33% of point guards in the league, but never a guy who makes his team incapable of being elite on that end all on his own.
Magic has. Most series post 87 he played in, the player he guarded at least shot a considerably higher % then their average, sometimes they just went off on him. There are quite a few PGs who when guarded by Magic had career series. He usually seemed to guard SFs and SGs, but he was awful on all of them. Magic was one of the worst defenders in the league, and Nash was never that bad in his prime, and probably still isn't that bad (though I didn't watch a ton of him last season)
YOu are the started on a team that wins 5 titles and be that bad on D stop with the media bias.Which players went off on Magic because we all saw Nique and Bernard just DESTRROY Bird and Worthy use to play with Bird so Bad they had to put Mchale on him :roll: I don't agree, because once again Nash is probably one of the 15 best offensive players ever. Payton is probably not that high on defense, and as good as he was on offense he was not a true PG and his ball dominance and shot jacking was detrimental to his team on that end.
And once again, I'm comparing impact. Most PGs just don't make a big difference on defense either way. Even most good defensive PGs make a negative impact because of their size. Payton and Kidd are two exceptions, and there are some others, but comparing defense at the PG vs the SF position is not the same. Defense still matters, but either way I just don't see how Payton made more of an impact then Nash when Nash has brought some very weak teams into a top offensive tier. Even in his old age and past his prime he's done this. I don't remember Payton ever making that impact, on defense or offense.
I stopped Reading when you said Nash was one of the top 15 offesive players ever. He may not even be one of the top 15 PG ever.:roll:
I just don't agree. Offense is always more readily apparent, but true superstars, as in guys who seem to consistently be able to make most teams 50+ win caliber almost always are elite two way players, and usually are great rebounders for their position too.

All of Magic's teams were 50+ and he was a Great rebounder for his postion. Now your seeing the light

[Hands of Iron]

Lets not give Bird all the credit . Your talking to someone that was old enough to remember. Red tanked the whole season to get Bird. Then they changed the whole roster around even Coach. Then they got Mchale and parrish. Tiny 's role and ability changed. Stop with the larry Legend stuff.How many times did the "games" best player even make a final's with the Lakers before Magic. Then Magic comes not only uplifts them to the finals but while the "games" best player was home hurt. Magic pulls off one of the greatest finals game ever playing C/PG. But thats just what Magic does WIN .He just finds a way to win. Bird got ROY ,Magic got a title I think Bird would trade that ROY for the title any day.As far as the lakers were deeper why do Bird's fans always use that as an excuse. That is such a whippy excuse.I bet Bird would never use that whippy excuse. Magic is just a WINNER

I'm not giving Bird all the credit, just most of it as I feel he was by far the most significant factor. His stacked team could hardly muster a winning season (42-40) and 8th seed the next time they were without him after a 57-25 season that followed four consecutive Finals appearances. I've given my reasons why I consider Bird the better individual player as it pertains to their skills and abilities, you choose Magic for being a Winner. Fair enough.

[ballup]

My two favorite players all time. Different players, but equal in greatness. Both did what was necessary for their team to win. Bird needed to score and rebound more for the Celtics to win, so he did. Magic needed to pass and run more for his team to win, so he did.

I am fine with them being A/B in the rankings, but take Magic over Bird when forced to choose one over the other, with Magic always in my GOAT top 5, while Bird is not.
I may not have watched these two players, but this is just flawed logic. How can they be equal in greatness and be a A/B choice, yet they are on opposite sides of the GOAT top 5?

[Niquesports]

I'm not giving Bird all the credit, just most of it as I feel he was by far the most significant factor. His stacked team could hardly muster a winning season (42-40) and 8th seed the next time they were without him after a 57-25 season that followed four consecutive Finals appearancws. I've given my reasons why I consider Bird the better individual player as it pertains to their skills and abilities, you choose Magic for being a Winner. Fair enough.


I can respect a person that says lets agree to disagree.IMO the only skill Bird has over Magic is shooting. But it's so hard when you have 2 great players

[magnax1]

1. Nash's horrible defense is not overblown. He's awful. He can't guard pg's his size because they blow by him with ease. He can't guard bigger guards because they will just post him him and abuse him. He isn't good help side at all either. He is simply one of the worst defensive guards in NBA history.
I just completely disagree. As I said before, the only playoff series where I felt his defense was a large factor in the outcome was in 08 vs the Spurs.


2. Payton is simply one of the best guard defenders ever. I don't know how anyone that watched him in his prime could possibly dispute that.
He was a very good defender, I never really attempted to deny that. I don't know how high I'd put him on all time defense list, but it's definitely not top 10 or 15 ever.


And you are shifting the focus a little by making this about true pg play now. Simply put, Payton was a very good offensive player and playmaker. He wasn't on the Nash level of playmaking, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was good enough to average over 20 and 8 for about a decade.
I'm not trying to make it about anything but how much larger Nash's impact was on offense. Payton was a good, though not even close to elite offensive player. Nash is one of the most elite offensive players of all time.


If you rated Nash from 1 to 10 on offense and defense. He'd probably be a 9.5 on offense and a 1 on defense. If you rated Hakeem the same way I'd say he'd be a 9 on offense and a 9.5 on defense.

Now...if you made Hakeem's offense equal to Nash's defense...which player would you rather have? Meaning....Nash just the way he is...or a version of Hakeem that was still one of the best defenders ever, but was inept offensively like a Ben Wallace.

There is simply no way that version of Hakeem is more valuable than Nash. And that is comparing a pg to the most crucial defensive position at center as well.
You're working under the flawed assumption that Nash's offense is a 1/10. He just isn't. Either way, you've hardly proved anything other then you value offense more then defense. Really it's quite easy to prove defense is equal in value to offense, because statistically... it just does, and there isn't any way around it. About 1/3rd of you point differential comes from defense, about 1/3rd from offense, and about 1/3rd from your possession differential (most of which is rebounding)
There is no argument that defense has less of an impact because it's just not reality.

[Kovach]

Bird was an elite passer and playmaker. Was Magic an elite scorer and shooter?
Shooter? Arguable. Scorer? Most certainly. He was an unstoppable force on offense and was more than capable of putting 40+ if Riley asked him to.

The defense argument is the complete opposite of pointless, because it has a huge impact on the game. Unless you think that defense just doesn't make as large of an impact as offense, it's a big issue, and Magic was awful on it and probably a large part of why his teams were never elite on that side of the floor.
ever.
You don't get as many fast break opportunities as Showtime Lakers had without elite defense. Just saying.

[vert48]

I may not have watched these two players, but this is just flawed logic. How can they be equal in greatness and be a A/B choice, yet they are on opposite sides of the GOAT top 5?They were equally great to me, and I am ok with people that say they are A/B, but, I take Magic over Bird when forced (when comparing them head to head). When creating a GOAT list, Magic is always top 5, Bird is not. People that did not grow up watching them might not understand, but those that did will (even if they choose Bird over Magic).

[colts19]

Lets not give Bird all the credit . Your talking to someone that was old enough to remember. Red tanked the whole season to get Bird. Then they changed the whole roster around even Coach. Then they got Mchale and parrish. Tiny 's role and ability changed. Stop with the larry Legend stuff.How many times did the "games" best player even make a final's with the Lakers before Magic. Then Magic comes not only uplifts them to the finals but while the "games" best player was home hurt. Magic pulls off one of the greatest finals game ever playing C/PG. But thats just what Magic does WIN .He just finds a way to win. Bird got ROY ,Magic got a title I think Bird would trade that ROY for the title any day.As far as the lakers were deeper why do Bird's fans always use that as an excuse. That is such a whippy excuse.I bet Bird would never use that whippy excuse. Magic is just a WINNER
Lets give Bird the credit due. Boston drafted Bird his junior year with the 5th pick in the draft. Now if Red was tanking he didn't do a very good job of it because their were four other teams that could have drafted Bird including Indiana Pacers.

They didn't get Parrish and Mchale until Birds second year. Bird's rookie year he turned around a terrible team almost by himself. Im not taking anything away from Magic, but let's try to be fair about this.

Sports Illustrated ran an article saying the Lakers may not have lost 5 games if they had Bird instead of Magic.

Both great players but put bird with Kareem, jamal Wilkes, cooper and Scott his rookie year and Im pretty sure they would have been better than they were with Magic.

[Niquesports]

Shooter? Arguable. Scorer? Most certainly. He was an unstoppable force on offense and was more than capable of putting 40+ if Riley asked him to.

You don't get as many fast break opportunities as Showtime Lakers had without elite defense. Just saying.

Thats just the excuse they use to knock the Lakers. Maybe if Bird and Boston played better D he would have 5 and Magic would only have 3. But you know how they are. IF Bird had 5 they would be calling him the GOAT. But since he doesnt they make crazy excuses.

[Kovach]

Thats just the excuse they use to knock the Lakers. Maybe if Bird and Boston played better D he would have 5 and Magic would only have 3. But you know how they are. IF Bird had 5 they would be calling him the GOAT. But since he doesnt they make crazy excuses.
Dunno to be honest. I really do not want to be dragged into an argument about which one was "better." As far as skill and overall impact is concerned the difference between the two is so microscopical it isn't even worth arguing about. If I was ever to make a list of all time greats I would put them in the exact same spot.

[Niquesports]

Lets give Bird the credit due. Boston drafted Bird his junior year with the 5th pick in the draft. Now if Red was tanking he didn't do a very good job of it because their were four other teams that could have drafted Bird including Indiana Pacers.

They didn't get Parrish and Mchale until Birds second year. Bird's rookie year he turned around a terrible team almost by himself. Im not taking anything away from Magic, but let's try to be fair about this.

Sports Illustrated ran an article saying the Lakers may not have lost 5 games if they had Bird instead of Magic.

Both great players but put bird with Kareem, jamal Wilkes, cooper and Scott his rookie year and Im pretty sure they would have been better than they were with Magic.


See this is the sillyness you get when people have nothing to stand on. It's always an excuse. Bird had 2 TOP 50. 2 more HOF DJ and Tiny. Two great coaches Fitch,K.C. .
OMG Magic,Mchale, Parrish,DJ they may have won 5,6,7,8 rings

[longtime lurker]

5 rings is greater than 3. 10 finals trips is greater than 5 trips.

[eliteballer]

Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.

[Niquesports]

5 rings is greater than 3. 10 finals trips is greater than 5 trips.
exactly which is why most have Magic in top 5 and Bird 6 or 7. If it was flipped there postions would flip

[DMAVS41]

I just completely disagree. As I said before, the only playoff series where I felt his defense was a large factor in the outcome was in 08 vs the Spurs.


He was a very good defender, I never really attempted to deny that. I don't know how high I'd put him on all time defense list, but it's definitely not top 10 or 15 ever.


I'm not trying to make it about anything but how much larger Nash's impact was on offense. Payton was a good, though not even close to elite offensive player. Nash is one of the most elite offensive players of all time.


You're working under the flawed assumption that Nash's offense is a 1/10. He just isn't. Either way, you've hardly proved anything other then you value offense more then defense. Really it's quite easy to prove defense is equal in value to offense, because statistically... it just does, and there isn't any way around it. About 1/3rd of you point differential comes from defense, about 1/3rd from offense, and about 1/3rd from your possession differential (most of which is rebounding)
There is no argument that defense has less of an impact because it's just not reality.

I'm so confused. You hate on Magic for his defense...but then give Nash a pass and say it wasn't that bad? That is absolutely absurd.

At the very least...Nash is a below average defender and Payton is one of the best guard defenders ever. If defense really matters as much as offense....then that difference is huge.

Because the gap between Nash and Payton on offense is simply far less than the gap between them on defense.

Who is the better player? Nash or Ben Wallace?

[ShaqAttack3234]

I use to think the gap was bigger in Bird's favor because i was influenced by the fact that I think Bird was clearly better their first 7 years from '80-'86, but because I judge players primarily by their prime, I have to admit they were close to be consistent.

They were in very different roles and situations for their first 7 seasons, especially when they entered the league. Bird being the 1st option as well as the best player from the start while Magic wasn't the 1st option until his 8th season or even arguably the best player on his team until at least his 5th season probably resulted in Bird having a chance to grow more as an individual, while Magic was in a better position to rack up titles as a young player.

So I compare Bird starting from about '84 or '85 through the '88 season to Magic from '87 through the '90 or '91 season. This way, we can compare their complete games.

Bird was the better scorer with a crafty post game, an incredible left-hand, the ability to move without the ball as well as being a better pure shooter from everywhere.

But Magic became an excellent scorer himself in the '87 season. His game progressed more over the years than Bird, most likely because he was 3 years younger, but Magic added an outside during his 5th season, which was the '84 season, which was also the year he assumed the role of full time point guard with Norm Nixon gone. This took his game to another level, and closed the gap a bit between him and Bird, though Bird was still clearly the better player. But the final step for Magic came in '87 when Magic became "the man" on the team and was asked to score more as the first option. Not only was Magic's outside shot consistent by this point, but he had added a devastating post game. He didn't go to the post game as much as he would in later years because Worthy was in his prime and Kareem was still capable of scoring 20 per game, but the Lakers now had 3 players capable of scoring at will in the post and drawing double teams, while before '87, Kareem was still very much their half court offense. But outside of the post game and outside shot, Magic was taking the ball to the basket more aggressively than ever, and he was still leading a Laker fastbreak that was as unstoppable as ever. Most importantly, Magic's scoring didn't take away from his playmaking.

This allowed Magic to control a game so much offensively. Not only was he probably the best passer of all-time in the open court as well as an excellent finisher in the open court because of his size and ball-handling, which is something he brought as a rookie, but he had now become an excellent half court player. Even as a young player, he could do things to be effective in the half court such as drive occasionally, run a give and go with Kareem, find a player right under the basket with a bullet pass or box out for offensive rebounds, but he was now capable of dominating a half court game. It started with teams now having to worry about Magic so much more with him bringing the ball up because he'd protect the ball, but sometimes spin and get right to the basket since he was more aggressively looking for his own shot. And you couldn't back off him now because he'd often look for the outside shot now which was consistent by this point, and teams weren't used to guarding him tigher. But his post game was simply phenomenal. He usually had a size advantage and would spin or go to a hook usually resulting in a basket. He scored at such a high rate that teams would double him most of the time. The problem was that Magic passed as well out of the post as anyone I've seen and he'd just pick teams apart. Magic ended the '87 season with his first 20 ppg season at 23.9 ppg, which was 10th best in the league, the only time he'd finish in the top 10 in scoring, 6.3 rpg, a league-leading 12.2 apg as well as 52.2% shooting leading to him being voted MVP for the first time before eventually being voted 3 times in 4 years.

Magic would go to the post game more in '90 and '91 and also start making 3s his last 3 years from '89-'91 most notably with one of the best 3 point shooting seasons in the league in the 1990 season.

But Magic wasn't the only one who had a turning point in their career. After Bird's Celtics were swept by the Bucks in '83, he vowed to work harder than ever before. In the offseason prior to '83-'84, Bird worked more on conditioning and 1 on 1 moves. This resulted in the first of 3 consecutive years he'd be voted league MVP(with all of them being obvious and well-deserved) as well as a tremendous playoff run that ended with Bird beating a Laker team in 7 games that was widely regarded as more talented.

However, he said he worked even harder prior to the '84-'85 season and focused almost exclusively on shooting and the work paid off. Larry easily topped his previous career high of 24.2 ppg in '84 with 28.7 ppg in the '85 season, which ended up being the second best of his career behind 29.9 ppg in '88. He also easily set a new career high for FG% with 52.2% which would end up being his 3rd best behind just 52.5% in '87 and 52.7% in '88, which made his 3 best shooting seasons also his 3 best scoring seasons. On top of that his rebounding remained consistent between the 10-11 rpg he always was and his assists matched his career high of 6.6 he had set in '84(though he'd later top that 4 times).

'85 was also the year that Larry really became a great 3 point shooter. As a rookie, he had shot 40.6% to finish 3rd in 3P% and made 0.7 per game to finish 5th in 3s made. But he would not really look to shoot 3s again until '85. He'd also make 0.7 per game in '85 to finish 4th in 3s made and 42.7% to finish 2nd in 3P%, before making much more 3s the next few years, maintaining his % and leading the league in 3s made in '86 and '87.

Passing would have to go to Magic, but I don't think many would have disagreed if you'd have called Larry the second best passer in the league back when they both played and one of the 5 best, or at least 10 best passers of all time. He wasn't the ball handler Magic was, but Larry was similarly brilliant at making passes few others would even think of, much less attempt.

Bird was the better rebounder if you're not comparing by position, but that's not entirely fair. Both were the best rebounders at their position, perhaps of all time. Magic's best rebounding season came long before his prime in '82 when he averaged 9.6 rpg, so it's not really in consideration here, much like Bird's greatest rebounding accomplishments was a second year player when he averaged 14 rpg during a championship run including a finals series when he nearly matched prime Moses Malone's rebounding.

But even in their prime years, they appeared to have much of this rebounding ability. Magic averaged 7.9 rpg in '89, while Bird was still averaging 10-11 rpg in '84-'85 and 9-10 from '86-'88 despite the presence of a 7'1" center like Robert Parish who would average 12.5 rpg during the '89 season when Bird pretty much missed the season and McHale who was a 6'10" power forward with incredibly long arms, also capable of averaging double figures in rebounds. Not to mention the addition of Walton for the '86 season, who was another 7 footer and still a fantastic rebounder. So Bird getting that many rebounds on a frontline like that as a small forward is unbelievable.

So I'd give Bird the edge as a rebounder considering the frontline he played with, and also, hsi technique and instincts impressed me more.

Bird was also the better defensive player, imo. Magic wasn't a bad help defender, but Bird was more impressive to me. Bird's help defense was really impressive to me whether it was rotating over to contest shots in the paint even though he wasn't a big shot blocker, double teaming and his anticipation playing the passing lanes.

Neither of them excelled at man to man defense. But I'd say Bird was pretty average for his position while Magic couldn't really guard players at his position because of his size, but he'd always roam making him vulnerable vs shooters. An example is the '90 WCF when Magic dominated offensively in the post primarily vs Dan Majerle and single coverage, but he obviously couldn't guard Kevin Johnson who ended up torching Byron Scott so Magic was assigned to Jeff Hornacek, a pure shooter who lit up Magic.

McHale usually guarded the high scoring small forwards instead of Bird such as Nique and Worthy. But this wasn't necessarily just because Bird was particularly weak, it may have been because McHale could excel in this role. Tommy Heinsohn used to call McHale the perfect defender for Nique, and in the '86 WCSF, McHale did a fantastic job shutting down Nique, while Bird humiliated Nique at the other end.

Bird also did make several all-defensive second teams in his career, granted, those are subjective awards, but it's worth noting.

The 2 years Magic and Bird's primes really overlapped, they were debatable as players to me. In '87, I'd go with Magic, though that's more for the better season since I'm not sure who was the better player. In '88, I'd go with Bird, though some might choose Magic.

In their peak seasons, both led all-time great teams. Bird's best season imo was '86, and he led a Celtic team that I consider the greatest team of all-time, while Magic's peak season is widely regarded as '87, which Magic himself also called his best year, and he led a Laker team that is also often mentioned among the all-time great teams, and certainly has a legitimate case for best offensive team of all time.


Magic was just a winner and he would have a much longer career if not for HIV.

And Bird's career should have been longer if not for the back injury that plagued him last few years as well as the ankle injury that caused him to miss the '89 season and ended his prime immediately.

Bird was a winner as well.

[colts19]

See this is the sillyness you get when people have nothing to stand on. It's always an excuse. Bird had 2 TOP 50. 2 more HOF DJ and Tiny. Two great coaches Fitch,K.C. .
OMG Magic,Mchale, Parrish,DJ they may have won 5,6,7,8 rings
It's not an excuse. I was just responding to the way you made it sound as if Red tanked to get bird. and the way you made it sound like Bird had Parrish and Mchale when he turned the team around his rookie year.

I do know that until 1987 Bird was the better player. After 87 Magic was the better player. There is no way on GOD's green earth that a 19 year old Magic would have turned that Celtics team around his rookie year like Bird did, because at that time in their careers Bird was a much better Player.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I think a lot of people tend to put Magic ahead of Bird because his teams usually beat Bird's teams in title games. Magic beat Bird in the 1979 NCAA Final without Kareem. He was 2-1 over Bird in the NBA Finals but he really could have been 3-0. It took Boston 7 games to beat LA in 1984 and this was after Magic and co pissed away two games of the series that they should have won. Very close to a 4-0 sweep by Magic.

I refuse to say that one of these two guys are better than the other because it depends on what you are considering. Peak, career, longevity, etc. They both have solid cases over one another it just depends on your point of view. I am a Lakers fan so I'm biased toward Magic. I think Bird could have been considered the GOAT if it wasn't for injuries that plagued him his entire career and caused him to retire early.

[vert48]

exactly which is why most have Magic in top 5 and Bird 6 or 7. If it was flipped there postions would flipThis is exactly my position. When putting them head to head, I am ok with A/B, but when making a GOAT list that includes other players, Magic is always top 5, while Bird isn't.

[ballup]

They were equally great to me, and I am ok with people that say they are A/B, but, I take Magic over Bird when forced (when comparing them head to head). When creating a GOAT list, Magic is always top 5, Bird is not. People that did not grow up watching them might not understand, but those that did will (even if they choose Bird over Magic).
This still makes no logical sense. You just repeated the same thing you posted earlier. You didn't explain anything to convince me otherwise.

Your statement is like this:

A and B are equal, but I'd take A over B as a preference. In all time rankings, A is always top 5 while B isn't. Only those who have had A and B would understand even if they prefer B over A.

The problem is you define them as equals yet you claim one is better. You also did not give any reasoning as to why one is top 5 and the other isn't.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Bird was an elite passer and playmaker. Was Magic an elite scorer and shooter? Because Bird fills all of those chambers, in addition to being a better rebounder and defender.

Magic shot .521 for his career includeing .561 in 1984-85. He averaged a very efficient 20 ppg for his career and it would have been closer to Birds 24ppg were it not for Kareem. As soon as Kareem got old Magic was asked to score more and he did so while keeping his high efficiency. If you are asking if Magic was an elite scorer the answer is yes. He wasn't the long range shooter that Bird was when he came into the league but he developed in to an excellent mid range and 3 point shooter. He got in the paint at will.

Magic averaged 7.2 rebpounds per game over his career to Bird's 10.0 rpg. He was playing point guard which as you know isn't able to crash the defensive boards as hard because if they do it can lead to fast break buckets. Magic was a outstanding rebounding guard one of the best passers of all time averaging 11.2 assists per game for his career.

Defense? Bird was 6'9 and being asked to guard forwards. Magic was 6'9 and guarding point guards and shooting guards. Bird was better at guarding his position but how do you think he would have made out against guards? Magic would have been fine guarding forwards. Neither of these two are lock down defenders man to man. They were both outstanding team defenders and they both got about 2 steals a game. Magic 1.9 and Bird 1.7.

Magic and Bird's strong points differed a little bit because of the roles they had on their team. They could do it all and there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between the two of them.

[Niquesports]

It's not an excuse. I was just responding to the way you made it sound as if Red tanked to get bird. and the way you made it sound like Bird had Parrish and Mchale when he turned the team around his rookie year.

I do know that until 1987 Bird was the better player. After 87 Magic was the better player. There is no way on GOD's green earth that a 19 year old Magic would have turned that Celtics team around his rookie year like Bird did, because at that time in their careers Bird was a much better Player.

Well a 18 year old Magic out played a 21 year old Bird in the biggest game of both there lives up to that point. I think you need to look at the major changes that team made from 79 to 80. It's no way on this Green earth Bird could had played all 5 postions as a rookie with his best teamate home sick in a away game 6 . Then give one of the Greatest Finals performances of all time only Magic could had pulled that off .

[Niquesports]

Magic shot .521 for his career includeing .561 in 1984-85. He averaged a very efficient 20 ppg for his career and it would have been closer to Birds 24ppg were it not for Kareem. As soon as Kareem got old Magic was asked to score more and he did so while keeping his high efficiency. If you are asking if Magic was an elite scorer the answer is yes. He wasn't the long range shooter that Bird was when he came into the league but he developed in to an excellent mid range and 3 point shooter. He got in the paint at will.

Magic averaged 7.2 rebpounds per game over his career to Bird's 10.0 rpg. He was playing point guard which as you know isn't able to crash the defensive boards as hard because if they do it can lead to fast break buckets. Magic was a outstanding rebounding guard one of the best passers of all time averaging 11.2 assists per game for his career.

Defense? Bird was 6'9 and being asked to guard forwards. Magic was 6'9 and guarding point guards and shooting guards. Bird was better at guarding his position but how do you think he would have made out against guards? Magic would have been fine guarding forwards. Neither of these two are lock down defenders man to man. They were both outstanding team defenders and they both got about 2 steals a game. Magic 1.9 and Bird 1.7.

Magic and Bird's strong points differed a little bit because of the roles they had on their team. They could do it all and there isn't a hell of a lot of difference between the two of them.


Great Post. Fair and Objective. For this reason this is one time when which players team won more than the other is the only objective way to put one ahead of the other. Both were vital players in there team winning. Magic's team just won more.So you have to give the edge to magic. All this Birdd was better early is crazy. He had to do more. It isnt that Magic couldn't do more. He showed that in game 6 against Philly.

[vert48]

This still makes no logical sense. You just repeated the same thing you posted earlier. You didn't explain anything to convince me otherwise.

Your statement is like this:


The problem is you define them as equals yet you claim one is better. You also did not give any reasoning as to why one is top 5 and the other isn't.I am not trying to convince you. You can do that yourself. We have not had anything like Magic/Bird in basketball over the past 22 years, so I cannot give you the education by comparing them to something you have seen. Educate yourself.

Anyone that grew up watching them will almost certainly agree with me. They are equal in greatness, but when asked, they will choose one over the other. For me it is Magic, for others it is Bird.

When I compare them head to head, it is closer to A/B, but when I rank them against others in a GOAT list, I always end up choosing Magic. He won more head to head games, but other than that, it is just something I know when I see.

[jlauber]

I use to think the gap was bigger in Bird's favor because i was influenced by the fact that I think Bird was clearly better their first 7 years from '80-'86, but because I judge players primarily by their prime, I have to admit they were close to be consistent.

They were in very different roles and situations for their first 7 seasons, especially when they entered the league. Bird being the 1st option as well as the best player from the start while Magic wasn't the 1st option until his 8th season or even arguably the best player on his team until at least his 5th season probably resulted in Bird having a chance to grow more as an individual, while Magic was in a better position to rack up titles as a young player.

So I compare Bird starting from about '84 or '85 through the '88 season to Magic from '87 through the '90 or '91 season. This way, we can compare their complete games.

Bird was the better scorer with a crafty post game, an incredible left-hand, the ability to move without the ball as well as being a better pure shooter from everywhere.

But Magic became an excellent scorer himself in the '87 season. His game progressed more over the years than Bird, most likely because he was 3 years younger, but Magic added an outside during his 5th season, which was the '84 season, which was also the year he assumed the role of full time point guard with Norm Nixon gone. This took his game to another level, and closed the gap a bit between him and Bird, though Bird was still clearly the better player. But the final step for Magic came in '87 when Magic became "the man" on the team and was asked to score more as the first option. Not only was Magic's outside shot consistent by this point, but he had added a devastating post game. He didn't go to the post game as much as he would in later years because Worthy was in his prime and Kareem was still capable of scoring 20 per game, but the Lakers now had 3 players capable of scoring at will in the post and drawing double teams, while before '87, Kareem was still very much their half court offense. But outside of the post game and outside shot, Magic was taking the ball to the basket more aggressively than ever, and he was still leading a Laker fastbreak that was as unstoppable as ever. Most importantly, Magic's scoring didn't take away from his playmaking.

This allowed Magic to control a game so much offensively. Not only was he probably the best passer of all-time in the open court as well as an excellent finisher in the open court because of his size and ball-handling, which is something he brought as a rookie, but he had now become an excellent half court player. Even as a young player, he could do things to be effective in the half court such as drive occasionally, run a give and go with Kareem, find a player right under the basket with a bullet pass or box out for offensive rebounds, but he was now capable of dominating a half court game. It started with teams now having to worry about Magic so much more with him bringing the ball up because he'd protect the ball, but sometimes spin and get right to the basket since he was more aggressively looking for his own shot. And you couldn't back off him now because he'd often look for the outside shot now which was consistent by this point, and teams weren't used to guarding him tigher. But his post game was simply phenomenal. He usually had a size advantage and would spin or go to a hook usually resulting in a basket. He scored at such a high rate that teams would double him most of the time. The problem was that Magic passed as well out of the post as anyone I've seen and he'd just pick teams apart. Magic ended the '87 season with his first 20 ppg season at 23.9 ppg, which was 10th best in the league, the only time he'd finish in the top 10 in scoring, 6.3 rpg, a league-leading 12.2 apg as well as 52.2% shooting leading to him being voted MVP for the first time before eventually being voted 3 times in 4 years.

Magic would go to the post game more in '90 and '91 and also start making 3s his last 3 years from '89-'91 most notably with one of the best 3 point shooting seasons in the league in the 1990 season.

But Magic wasn't the only one who had a turning point in their career. After Bird's Celtics were swept by the Bucks in '83, he vowed to work harder than ever before. In the offseason prior to '83-'84, Bird worked more on conditioning and 1 on 1 moves. This resulted in the first of 3 consecutive years he'd be voted league MVP(with all of them being obvious and well-deserved) as well as a tremendous playoff run that ended with Bird beating a Laker team in 7 games that was widely regarded as more talented.

However, he said he worked even harder prior to the '84-'85 season and focused almost exclusively on shooting and the work paid off. Larry easily topped his previous career high of 24.2 ppg in '84 with 28.7 ppg in the '85 season, which ended up being the second best of his career behind 29.9 ppg in '88. He also easily set a new career high for FG% with 52.2% which would end up being his 3rd best behind just 52.5% in '87 and 52.7% in '88, which made his 3 best shooting seasons also his 3 best scoring seasons. On top of that his rebounding remained consistent between the 10-11 rpg he always was and his assists matched his career high of 6.6 he had set in '84(though he'd later top that 4 times).

'85 was also the year that Larry really became a great 3 point shooter. As a rookie, he had shot 40.6% to finish 3rd in 3P% and made 0.7 per game to finish 5th in 3s made. But he would not really look to shoot 3s again until '85. He'd also make 0.7 per game in '85 to finish 4th in 3s made and 42.7% to finish 2nd in 3P%, before making much more 3s the next few years, maintaining his % and leading the league in 3s made in '86 and '87.

Passing would have to go to Magic, but I don't think many would have disagreed if you'd have called Larry the second best passer in the league back when they both played and one of the 5 best, or at least 10 best passers of all time. He wasn't the ball handler Magic was, but Larry was similarly brilliant at making passes few others would even think of, much less attempt.

Bird was the better rebounder if you're not comparing by position, but that's not entirely fair. Both were the best rebounders at their position, perhaps of all time. Magic's best rebounding season came long before his prime in '82 when he averaged 9.6 rpg, so it's not really in consideration here, much like Bird's greatest rebounding accomplishments was a second year player when he averaged 14 rpg during a championship run including a finals series when he nearly matched prime Moses Malone's rebounding.

But even in their prime years, they appeared to have much of this rebounding ability. Magic averaged 7.9 rpg in '89, while Bird was still averaging 10-11 rpg in '84-'85 and 9-10 from '86-'88 despite the presence of a 7'1" center like Robert Parish who would average 12.5 rpg during the '89 season when Bird pretty much missed the season and McHale who was a 6'10" power forward with incredibly long arms, also capable of averaging double figures in rebounds. Not to mention the addition of Walton for the '86 season, who was another 7 footer and still a fantastic rebounder. So Bird getting that many rebounds on a frontline like that as a small forward is unbelievable.

So I'd give Bird the edge as a rebounder considering the frontline he played with, and also, hsi technique and instincts impressed me more.

Bird was also the better defensive player, imo. Magic wasn't a bad help defender, but Bird was more impressive to me. Bird's help defense was really impressive to me whether it was rotating over to contest shots in the paint even though he wasn't a big shot blocker, double teaming and his anticipation playing the passing lanes.

Neither of them excelled at man to man defense. But I'd say Bird was pretty average for his position while Magic couldn't really guard players at his position because of his size, but he'd always roam making him vulnerable vs shooters. An example is the '90 WCF when Magic dominated offensively in the post primarily vs Dan Majerle and single coverage, but he obviously couldn't guard Kevin Johnson who ended up torching Byron Scott so Magic was assigned to Jeff Hornacek, a pure shooter who lit up Magic.

McHale usually guarded the high scoring small forwards instead of Bird such as Nique and Worthy. But this wasn't necessarily just because Bird was particularly weak, it may have been because McHale could excel in this role. Tommy Heinsohn used to call McHale the perfect defender for Nique, and in the '86 WCSF, McHale did a fantastic job shutting down Nique, while Bird humiliated Nique at the other end.

Bird also did make several all-defensive second teams in his career, granted, those are subjective awards, but it's worth noting.

The 2 years Magic and Bird's primes really overlapped, they were debatable as players to me. In '87, I'd go with Magic, though that's more for the better season since I'm not sure who was the better player. In '88, I'd go with Bird, though some might choose Magic.

In their peak seasons, both led all-time great teams. Bird's best season imo was '86, and he led a Celtic team that I consider the greatest team of all-time, while Magic's peak season is widely regarded as '87, which Magic himself also called his best year, and he led a Laker team that is also often mentioned among the all-time great teams, and certainly has a legitimate case for best offensive team of all time.



And Bird's career should have been longer if not for the back injury that plagued him last few years as well as the ankle injury that caused him to miss the '89 season and ended his prime immediately.

Bird was a winner as well.

Damn! I think this post pretty well ends the discussion.

:cheers:

[colts19]

Great Post. Fair and Objective. For this reason this is one time when which players team won more than the other is the only objective way to put one ahead of the other. Both were vital players in there team winning. Magic's team just won more.So you have to give the edge to magic. All this Birdd was better early is crazy. He had to do more. It isnt that Magic couldn't do more. He showed that in game 6 against Philly.
I don't know how old you are and I won't argue that magic played the greatest game of his career in that game 6.
I was around at the time and I went to every home game that Larry played while in college. You have to understand that team that went to the finals was carried there by bird. Take bird of that team and the wouldn't have won 7 or 8 games that year. Magic played well in that game, but their whole game plan was to stop Bird, cause no one else on that team could hurt them.
If you watched the game, they triple teamed him the whole game. MS was a much better team. Bird was still the better player.
The Bird was better early talk is not crazy. Bird was Rookie of the Year and the voting was like 63 to 3. Bird won his 3 mvp early. It really wasn't even a question early in their careers. By a large margin bird was considered the better player.

[vert48]

I don't know how old you are and I won't argue that magic played the greatest game of his career in that game 6.
I was around at the time and I went to every home game that Larry played while in college. You have to understand that team that went to the finals was carried there by bird. Take bird of that team and the wouldn't have won 7 or 8 games that year. Magic played well in that game, but their whole game plan was to stop Bird, cause no one else on that team could hurt them.
If you watched the game, they triple teamed him the whole game. MS was a much better team. Bird was still the better player.
The Bird was better early talk is not crazy. Bird was Rookie of the Year and the voting was like 63 to 3. Bird won his 3 mvp early. It really wasn't even a question early in their careers. By a large margin bird was considered the better player. Bird was better early because he was 3 years older. Magic at 21 was certainly, at worst, equal to Bird at 21.

The 3 greatest, and most difficult duos to explain in basketball are Magic/Bird, Russell/Chamberlain and the one that wasn't, Walton/Jabbar. Their relationships, who was better and why, are not pages or chapters, they are books.

[DatAsh]

Pretty hard to argue against either. BOTH were great. And BOTH had their strengths.

Then why do you constantly argue against Bird?

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I don't know how old you are and I won't argue that magic played the greatest game of his career in that game 6.
I was around at the time and I went to every home game that Larry played while in college. You have to understand that team that went to the finals was carried there by bird. Take bird of that team and the wouldn't have won 7 or 8 games that year. Magic played well in that game, but their whole game plan was to stop Bird, cause no one else on that team could hurt them.
If you watched the game, they triple teamed him the whole game. MS was a much better team. Bird was still the better player.
The Bird was better early talk is not crazy. Bird was Rookie of the Year and the voting was like 63 to 3. Bird won his 3 mvp early. It really wasn't even a question early in their careers. By a large margin bird was considered the better player.

Magic did play the greatest game of his career as a rookie in the the finals and won FMVP. Bird led Boston to a title in his second year but he didn't win finals MVP. If Bird was so much better than Magic at that stage of their career you would think it would be the other way around.

Let me reiterate. Magic had to hold back some of his game because of playing with league MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. As soon as he was asked to take over little more he did. He was capable of that from day one. Magic did not suddenly become a better player in 1987. The difference in their production is because of their responsabilities on the teams for which they played.

True, Bird was considered the "better" player (whatever that means) early in his career by a lot of people. However, that's only because those people weren't smart enough to see the big picture.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Magic did play the greatest game of his career as a rookie in the the finals and won FMVP. Bird led Boston to a title in his second year but he didn't win finals MVP. If Bird was so much better than Magic at that stage of their career you would think it would be the other way around.

Regardless of finals MVP, Bird was the best player by far on his 1981 championship team while Magic didn't have a case for best player on his team with Kareem playing at the level he was. That means a lot more to me.

Plus, Kareem was really the more valuable player in the 1980 finals. Look at his play through the first 5 games and his own incredible performance in game 5, which to me, was more impressive than Magic's game 6. You don't win a series with 1 game, and Kareem's play through 5 games was the primary reason they got the first 3 wins.

Magic's game 6 was remarkable, but it still doesn't make him more valuable for the series than Kareem, imo.

On the other hand, Bird was clearly Boston's most valuable player in the '81 series. Maxwell got it because Bird didn't shoot particularly well, but if you look at Bird's all around game and impact, it's a joke to suggest that Maxwell was actually more valuable.


Let me reiterate. Magic had to hold back some of his game because of playing with league MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. As soon as he was asked to take over little more he did. He was capable of that from day one. Magic did not suddenly become a better player in 1987. The difference in their production is because of their responsabilities on the teams for which they played

Actually, Magic was not capable of his '87 level as a rookie. Magic did not even have an outside shot until his 5th season, and didn't show a post game until '87. These were essential in Magic becoming a great half court player insteading of relying on transition opportunities so much his first 4 seasons. Now you could argue that Magic was capable of a similar level to his '87 season a bit earlier, but definitely not as a rookie.

Most players add a lot to their game compared to their rookie year, especially at 20 years old. Magic is no exception, and most players are at the top of their game by 27-28 years old, and Magic also proved to be no exception.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Actually, Magic was not capable of his '87 level as a rookie. Magic did not even have an outside shot until his 5th season, and didn't show a post game until '87. These were essential in Magic becoming a great half court player insteading of relying on transition opportunities so much his first 4 seasons. Now you could argue that Magic was capable of a similar level to his '87 season a bit earlier, but definitely not as a rookie.

Most players add a lot to their game compared to their rookie year, especially at 20 years old. Magic is no exception, and most players are at the top of their game by 27-28 years old, and Magic also proved to be no exception.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's true Magic improved his shooting a bit later in his career but he was a good enough shooter early on and he could get into the paint at will. He didn't need to be deadly from 25 feet to score. His fg% was remarkable consistant even when he increased his shots per game. Early on, he was competing with Nixon for the ball and deferring to Kareem. Period.

edit. He also had Jamaal Wilkes on his team. Are you telling me that Magic Johnson was't capable of making 2 or 3 more baskets per game in 1980 to 1986? Nonsense.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Regardless of finals MVP, Bird was the best player by far on his 1981 championship team while Magic didn't have a case for best player on his team with Kareem playing at the level he was. That means a lot more to me.

Plus, Kareem was really the more valuable player in the 1980 finals. Look at his play through the first 5 games and his own incredible performance in game 5, which to me, was more impressive than Magic's game 6. You don't win a series with 1 game, and Kareem's play through 5 games was the primary reason they got the first 3 wins.

Magic's game 6 was remarkable, but it still doesn't make him more valuable for the series than Kareem, imo.

On the other hand, Bird was clearly Boston's most valuable player in the '81 series. Maxwell got it because Bird didn't shoot particularly well, but if you look at Bird's all around game and impact, it's a joke to suggest that Maxwell was actually more valuable.


Look, Magic was the 1980 Finals MVP. You saying he didn't deserve it 30 some years later does change that. The people that voted for it though he was the MVP and that's that. Bird didn't win the finals MVP in 1981 Maxwell did. It's just a fact.

I also don't understand with this ISH preoccupation with being the "BEST PLAYER" on your team. It's usually brought up in relation to Kobe and now Magic. If you have a teammate that is among the greatest players of all time and you are also one of the greatest of all time, why does that count against you? The Bobcats have a guy who is the best player on their team and he's probably shit so what does it prove.

Not everyone is drafted by the Cleveland Cadavers and gets the ball for 48 minutes with a ticket to play 1 on 5. When you talk about the top 10 or 20 players of all time, they are all alpha dogs. Some get drafted by better teams and they win more. The luck of the draw helps to shape players careers and it's not always fair. Shit happens. All of this "who is better" stuff is bullshit.

[Kblaze8855]

Look, Magic was the 1980 Finals MVP. You saying he didn't deserve it 30 some years later does change that. The people that voted for it though he was the MVP and that's that. Bird didn't win the finals MVP in 1981 Maxwell did. It's just a fact.

Its a fact that it happened. Its not a fact that everything that wins a vote is correct.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Its a fact that it happened. Its not a fact that everything that wins a vote is correct.

There's no such thing as correct. Just like there's no such thing as one single GOAT. Everyone has their own idea of what's important. My intention wasn't to debate the validity of the awards it was to demonstrate that these two were never far apart. Teammates, injuries, and luck all came in to play. They did it and now we sit around and pass judgment on it. It's pretty funny if you think about that.

I also find it comical that some people act like winning finals mvp is the be all end all. Some people (mostly Lebron fans) think the regular season mvp make you "the best". Some people bow down to efficiency, PER and fg%. There's a ton of instances when these idiologies conflict each other depending on who you are talking about. Everbody's gotta prop up their guy and find an excuse to diminish the other guy. Silly.

[Kblaze8855]

Yes. There is a such thing as correct. Shaq winning the 2000 MVP is correct. winning the 2000 finals MVP...correct. You really want to tell me there is a case otherwise? some decisions...are right. Some are not. simply saying that ____ won ___ does not prove they should have. Merely that it happened.

[magictricked]

This is exactly my position. When putting them head to head, I am ok with A/B, but when making a GOAT list that includes other players, Magic is always top 5, while Bird isn't.That's because Bird was injured the latter part of his career. When you rank players on their careers you have to use the whole career not just the ones they excelled in.

Both great players. I hate these debates because they were both so great you hate to see some of these morons typing gibberish to bring down a great player

also some good posts in this thread, but a lot of nonsense too

I'll add Magic was a good post defender but rarely was down past the free throw extended. Due to the nature of the Lakers "Showtime" offense Magic was best served guarding the perimeter and dropping down when the shot went up to get the ball in hand qucker, his style of play was being in position to get the offense up and running by cheating or gambling on perimeter D.

Bird was a very good defender in the post but his weaknesses were also exposed on the perimeter but he was rarely 20 feet from the basket on D. Two different players in two very different systems.

On offense it's always been simple for me. Bird was a better all aorund offensive player when it came to shooting, moving off the ball and the like.

Magic was an offensive weapon when he had the ball in his hand, brilliant player.

When you think about it I wonder if either team would be better if they swapped teams. which is probably another thread

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Yes. There is a such thing as correct. Shaq winning the 2000 MVP is correct. winning the 2000 finals MVP...correct. You really want to tell me there is a case otherwise? some decisions...are right. Some are not. simply saying that ____ won ___ does not prove they should have. Merely that it happened.

I disagree but that discussion is probably too deep for this thread. Let me refer you back to when I said "My intention was not to debate the validity of the awards".

[ShaqAttack3234]

You couldn't be more wrong. It's true Magic improved his shooting a bit later in his career but he was a good enough shooter early on and he could get into the paint at will. He didn't need to be deadly from 25 feet to score. His fg% was remarkable consistant even when he increased his shots per game. Early on, he was competing with Nixon for the ball and deferring to Kareem. Period.

edit. He also had Jamaal Wilkes on his team. Are you telling me that Magic Johnson was't capable of making 2 or 3 more baskets per game in 1980 to 1986? Nonsense.

His FG% remained consistent when he increased his shots because he had become a better scorer by that point.

Improved his shooting "a bit"? Talk about an understatement. He went from no outside from '80-'83 to a very consistent outside shot in the late 80's/early 90's. He seemed pretty proficient from outside from '84-'86 as well.

I don't think Magic could have scored much more than he did from '80-'83 because his scoring consisted almost entirely of transition points, give and goes with Kareem, offensive rebounds and drives to the basket. There's only so many points you can score that way.

That was also before he became the only point guard so not only did he score significantly more in the late 80's, but he was doing that while handling all of the playmaking responsibilities instead of splitting them with Nixon.

It's pretty obvious that Magic had made significant improvements as a scorer. Adding an excellent outside shot when he hadn't shown one, and adding a dominant post game when he also hadn't shown one makes him clearly a better scorer to me.

It's that, not the statistics that convinces me, but the statistics themselves show a big difference.

He averaged a career high 23.9 ppg in '87, that topped his previous career high from '86 by 5,1 ppg with no real decline in FG% from 52.6% in '86 to 52.2% in '87.

And then look at '90, which was Magic's second best season, imo. The league had slowed down considerably since the early/mid 80's and the Lakers had gone from a pretty fast team even by early/mid 80's standards to a slow team by 1990 standards, yet Magic was still averaging 22.3 ppg which is where that superior half court skill set comes in.

Magic was also just showing the ability to have big games more consistently.

Aside from game 6 of the 1980 finals, he typically didn't step up and raise his scoring much while Kareem was out, however, in December of the '86-'87 season, Kareem missed 3 games and here's what Magic did in those 3 games. 34/7/15 vs Dallas, 38/8/16 vs Houston and 46/9/10 vs Sacramento. In fact, in the entire month of December, he averaged 27 ppg, 7.4 rpg and 11.5 apg.

While I do think there was more of a ceiling on what Magic could have scored earlier in his career, there now didn't seem to be that same ceiling. Magic may have averaged 24 ppg, which is very impressive, but that's not the most he was capable of scoring, imo. I don't believe we've seen many superstars who pretty much put up the top statistics they were capable of.

Magic had three 40 point games in the '86-'87, including his career high of 46 points if I'm not mistaken, and they all came in a 2 month stretch. In the finals that year, Magic averaged 26.2 ppg, 8 rpg and 13 apg on 54.1 FG%, which ranks as Magic's best series, imo. Another example is the 1990 WCSF vs Phoenix when they apparently tried to Magic a scorer and he averaged 30.2 ppg in 5 games including back to back games of 43 points in games 4 and 5.

In early 80's games, I see Magic as an excellent all around player, who had a fairly limited scoring skill set, but used the ability he did have well to still put a solid amount of points, allhigh percentage shots. But prime '87-'90 Magic could simply get his shot whenever he wanted, that's a huge difference to me.

I'm not penalizing Magic for this because as I said, I judge players by their primes, so I do think that Magic and Bird are close looking at their best 4-5 year stretches when everything came together and they were at the top of their games. But to me, had Magic not raised his game the way he did from '87 until his retirement, he wouldn't be in my top 10 list, but because he did, I think he has a case for top 5, though he's a bit below on my list.

I think Magic was a great player from the start, and by his 3rd year(1982), he was already a top 4-5 player in the league at just 22 years old, So don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that I see a significant difference between '80-'83 Magic and '87-'90 Magic. Not as big of a difference in ability of '84-'86 Magic to '87-'90 Magic, though, still a difference, but the bigger difference by that point was production, role and value, imo.

Prior to '87, Kareem was really the only Laker who had the half court skill set to get double teamed consistently. And despite in his late 30's and a center who usually aren't the players teams go to for game-winners, Kareem remained the Lakers go to guy in the clutch.

Here's a quote from Bernard KIng from the '81-'82 season where he talks about the Warriors being able to play man to man defense vs the Lakers without Kareem in the lineup.


"Sure, having Kareem out of there made a difference," said Bernard King, who scored 20 of his game-high 33 points in the first half for the Warriors. "With him out we could play real strong man-to-man defense."

That's pretty telling that Kareem was the one guy opposing teams had to double on the Lakers by that point. Magic clearly wasn't the scorer he'd become in the late 80's/early 90's yet.


Look, Magic was the 1980 Finals MVP. You saying he didn't deserve it 30 some years later does change that. The people that voted for it though he was the MVP and that's that. Bird didn't win the finals MVP in 1981 Maxwell did. It's just a fact.

I also don't understand with this ISH preoccupation with being the "BEST PLAYER" on your team. It's usually brought up in relation to Kobe and now Magic. If you have a teammate that is among the greatest players of all time and you are also one of the greatest of all time, why does that count against you? The Bobcats have a guy who is the best player on their team and he's probably shit so what does it prove.

Not everyone is drafted by the Cleveland Cadavers and gets the ball for 48 minutes with a ticket to play 1 on 5. When you talk about the top 10 or 20 players of all time, they are all alpha dogs. Some get drafted by better teams and they win more. The luck of the draw helps to shape players careers and it's not always fair. Shit happens. All of this "who is better" stuff is bullshit.

I understand who was voted Finals MVP those 2 years, I'm just saying that it's meaningless to me. You don't have to view it the same way as I do, I would never say that. But if you're going to bring that up as an argument, I'm going to state my opinion.

To me, it wouldn't make sense for me to have a subjective award change anything. The only thing that makes sense to me is to watch those series myself and draw a conclusion based on my own opinion of how those players played and their value to their teams. All I need to do to rank players is watch the games and draw my own conclusions.

And the reason I brought up who the best player was is because you brought up finals MVP. Let me ask you this, do you dispute that Kareem was the best player on the '80 Lakers and for the playoff run as a whole, and that Bird was the best player on the '81 Celtics and for the playoff run as a whole? These are the consensus opinions, which doesn't necessarily make it right, but you'll be hard-pressed to come up with an argument against these statements.

So what would you say means more? Being the best player on a championship team? Or being voted MVP for 1 series?

I'm not saying that Bird would have been the best player on the Lakers right away either. I think it's obvious that Kareem was better than a rookie Larry Bird in 1980. And I'd still take Kareem over Bird in 1981 without too much thought despite Bird winning a championship. '82 and '83 are debatable, but you can still make a case for Kareem, and I'd probably lean towards Kareem both years.

Those are the years that Kareem was clearly better than Magic, imo, and I'd say Kareem was probably better than Bird all 4 years. Although I do see a difference in that Bird was clearly better than Kareem by '84 while that was just the year Magic and Kareem became debatable, imo.

Granted, Bird may have developed differently in this situation, but I think Larry still would have been able to play his game since he did with Kevin McHale as a big scorer in the post as well as another big post scorer in Robert Parish.

[IGotACoolStory]

2a/2b? What the ****, who ranks Bird as the second GOAT?

[ThaRegul8r]

Aside from game 6 of the 1980 finals, he typically didn't step up and raise his scoring much while Kareem was out, however, in December of the '86-'87 season, Kareem missed 3 games and here's what Magic did in those 3 games. 34/7/15 vs Dallas, 38/8/16 vs Houston and 46/9/10 vs Sacramento. In fact, in the entire month of December, he averaged 27 ppg, 7.4 rpg and 11.5 apg.

While I do think there was more of a ceiling on what Magic could have scored earlier in his career, there now didn't seem to be that same ceiling. Magic may have averaged 24 ppg, which is very impressive, but that's not the most he was capable of scoring, imo. I don't believe we've seen many superstars who pretty much put up the top statistics they were capable of.

Magic had three 40 point games in the '86-'87, including his career high of 46 points if I'm not mistaken, and they all came in a 2 month stretch. In the finals that year, Magic averaged 26.2 ppg, 8 rpg and 13 apg on 54.1 FG%, which ranks as Magic's best series, imo. Another example is the 1990 WCSF vs Phoenix when they apparently tried to Magic a scorer and he averaged 30.2 ppg in 5 games including back to back games of 43 points in games 4 and 5.

Other stretches:

From Jan. 2 to Jan. 19, Magic averaged 29.6 points on 51.4 percent shooting and 60.0 percent true shooting, 5.1 rebounds and 10.1 assists in 9 games in which the Lakers went 7-2.

From Feb. 13 to Feb. 20, Magic averaged 32.8 points on 56.9 percent shooting from the floor, 88.7 percent shooting from the line and 65.4 percent true shooting, 7 rebounds and 11.8 assists as the Lakers went 4-1.

From Mar. 31 to Apr. 5, Magic averaged 28.3 points on 53.5 percent shooting from the floor and 58.2 percent true shooting, 10.3 rebounds and 11.8 assists, posting four consecutive triple doubles in four Laker victories. This triple-double streak began three games into a season-high 11-game winning streak from Mar. 26 to Apr. 16, during which Magic averaged 25.1 points on 57.2 percent shooting and 63.7 percent true shooting, 8 rebounds and 12.9 assists.

He did whatever was necessary in order for the team to win.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Shaq- Didn't read. I'm not such a fan of the mile long post trying to "prove" something that can not be proven. For simplicities sake I'll just quickly recap some bullet points and I'll let everyone else here decide who they agree with.

*He's was a point guard

*He had to share the ball with Norm Nixon also a point guard

*He had to defer to league MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

*He also had hall of fame scorer Jamaal Wilkes in the starting lineup

*He shot 53% from the floor

*He could get to the hoop at will

*The guys guarding him were like half a foot shorter than he was

But you contend that he "wasn't capable" of scoring 2 or 3 more buckets a game if you remove Kareem or even Wilkes?

:biggums:

[Pointguard]

Their first 4 years in the league Magic was the better player primarily because he was a lot better in the playoffs. The bigger the stage the better Magic got and the more you could see that Bird was learning the game. Magic had proven he could fill Kareem's shoes and win the championship and win two FMVP's. Bird doesn't get his playoff act together til 1984. Bird was supposed to be the better shooter than Magic but in the playoffs his shot would go sour and Magic's would soar up. Magic is at 60, 70 and 100% percentage points better in three of the first four years in the playoffs (In 81 it was the reverse). So his judgement is either so much better that it totally negates Bird's shooting skill advantage or we have to say Magic was just better at making shots. In the regular season Bird was obviously the go to player on the team but in the playoffs he played a different role. Magic was much better at handling his role and stepping up into a bigger role. All of this while Bird's team was built around him and Magic was mostly out of position and dealing with a very big and fragile ego in Kareem.

Magic got everything he could out of his team while Bird was having trouble with keeping his own playoff role together the first four years. Magic could morph and change into different positions and supply different needs. He was the obvious leader, inspirational guy and capable of mixing different coaching philosophies very well. Nonetheless he played his role to the max. To say he needed to be a better shooter or defender is a lie. He knew when to shoot and wasn't exploited defensively in the early years and his team was a lot closer to their max play than the Celtics or any other team was in two of those first four years.

[Pointguard]

Magic had a relationship with winnng. Teams were supposedly weak and he would have them in the championship game. I also never saw a player that seemed to be in total unison with his players like Magic was. His teammates seemed to be an extension of him. They seemed to flow into spots where he could lead them to easy points. He kept all the players mentally in the game and aware on every possession. He could highlight who he wanted to highlight. Two HOF's were very different player when Magic wasn't around. Both Kareem and Worthy played with lively souls looking to win with Magic and looked very different without him.

Bird was a great player and had some of the same qualities. I have Magic as being a little bit better.

[Clifton]

2a/2b? What the ****, who ranks Bird as the second GOAT?
Actually, I know someone whose views on the NBA are very solid and well thought out who thinks Magic is #1, Jordan #2. For very similar reasons that Pointguard points to.

And I thought his case was very convincing. In my heart I don't think Jordan as the GOAT is nearly as set in stone as everyone thinks. I just don't bother to argue about it because Jordan's prime predates my time as an NBA fan, never mind his competition, whom I simply have to download footage of.

[noosaman]

The color of his skin.

[Da_Realist]

That's because Bird was injured the latter part of his career. When you rank players on their careers you have to use the whole career not just the ones they excelled in.

Both great players. I hate these debates because they were both so great you hate to see some of these morons typing gibberish to bring down a great player

also some good posts in this thread, but a lot of nonsense too

I'll add Magic was a good post defender but rarely was down past the free throw extended. Due to the nature of the Lakers "Showtime" offense Magic was best served guarding the perimeter and dropping down when the shot went up to get the ball in hand qucker, his style of play was being in position to get the offense up and running by cheating or gambling on perimeter D.

Bird was a very good defender in the post but his weaknesses were also exposed on the perimeter but he was rarely 20 feet from the basket on D. Two different players in two very different systems.

On offense it's always been simple for me. Bird was a better all aorund offensive player when it came to shooting, moving off the ball and the like.

Magic was an offensive weapon when he had the ball in his hand, brilliant player.

When you think about it I wonder if either team would be better if they swapped teams. which is probably another thread

I forgot who said it, but I remember somebody said Magic's Lakers were an orchestra led by the ultimate maestro. Bird's Celtics were a jazz ensemble with so much improvisation where any member can play the melody depending on the mood and chemistry with other band members. I always thought that was an apt description of the two teams.

[Niquesports]

I don't know how old you are and I won't argue that magic played the greatest game of his career in that game 6.
I was around at the time and I went to every home game that Larry played while in college. You have to understand that team that went to the finals was carried there by bird. Take bird of that team and the wouldn't have won 7 or 8 games that year. Magic played well in that game, but their whole game plan was to stop Bird, cause no one else on that team could hurt them.
If you watched the game, they triple teamed him the whole game. MS was a much better team. Bird was still the better player.
The Bird was better early talk is not crazy. Bird was Rookie of the Year and the voting was like 63 to 3. Bird won his 3 mvp early. It really wasn't even a question early in their careers. By a large margin bird was considered the better player.


I saw the game. Bird played so bad he was crying after. Its funny every time Bird's team lose Bird lovers say magic had a better cast. It's never Magic out played Bird. Which he did in that game. magic didnt play well he played great.After Bird's team lost all of a sudden MSU had this great supporting cast. ISU didnt seem to have a problem beating Depaul the supporting cast seem t be ok in that game.

As far as ROY it was Bird's to lose. The bias media most of us that was around that time remember how subjective the media was towards Bird. Its an opinion who was better. As I said my eye test tells me Magic was better since that NCAA Finals game. That's my opinion. But "FACT" is Magic's teams came out on top more and Bird's team only beat Magic's once. THAT's a "FACT"

[Niquesports]

Bird was better early because he was 3 years older. Magic at 21 was certainly, at worst, equal to Bird at 21.

The 3 greatest, and most difficult duos to explain in basketball are Magic/Bird, Russell/Chamberlain and the one that wasn't, Walton/Jabbar. Their relationships, who was better and why, are not pages or chapters, they are books.


Vert48 I have to disagree Jabbar use to kill Walton all the others were close

[Niquesports]

You couldn't be more wrong. It's true Magic improved his shooting a bit later in his career but he was a good enough shooter early on and he could get into the paint at will. He didn't need to be deadly from 25 feet to score. His fg% was remarkable consistant even when he increased his shots per game. Early on, he was competing with Nixon for the ball and deferring to Kareem. Period.

edit. He also had Jamaal Wilkes on his team. Are you telling me that Magic Johnson was't capable of making 2 or 3 more baskets per game in 1980 to 1986? Nonsense.

Exactly Kobe 4. Early on magic didnt need a jumper at 6'9 with handle he was getting in the lane at will. By 87 his 7th in the league. He was as the other guards were getting bigger aka Rolando Blackmond ect.. So Magic being the competitor he is expanded his game. making the distance between himand Bird even bigger and more evident.

[Niquesports]

Other stretches:

From Jan. 2 to Jan. 19, Magic averaged 29.6 points on 51.4 percent shooting and 60.0 percent true shooting, 5.1 rebounds and 10.1 assists in 9 games in which the Lakers went 7-2.

From Feb. 13 to Feb. 20, Magic averaged 32.8 points on 56.9 percent shooting from the floor, 88.7 percent shooting from the line and 65.4 percent true shooting, 7 rebounds and 11.8 assists as the Lakers went 4-1.

From Mar. 31 to Apr. 5, Magic averaged 28.3 points on 53.5 percent shooting from the floor and 58.2 percent true shooting, 10.3 rebounds and 11.8 assists, posting four consecutive triple doubles in four Laker victories. This triple-double streak began three games into a season-high 11-game winning streak from Mar. 26 to Apr. 16, during which Magic averaged 25.1 points on 57.2 percent shooting and 63.7 percent true shooting, 8 rebounds and 12.9 assists.

He did whatever was necessary in order for the team to win.


Reg. they gonna run from this . Make the excuse he was playing weak teams or some other excuse

[Niquesports]

Shaq- Didn't read. I'm not such a fan of the mile long post trying to "prove" something that can not be proven. For simplicities sake I'll just quickly recap some bullet points and I'll let everyone else here decide who they agree with.

*He's was a point guard

*He had to share the ball with Norm Nixon also a point guard

*He had to defer to league MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

*He also had hall of fame scorer Jamaal Wilkes in the starting lineup

*He shot 53% from the floor

*He could get to the hoop at will

*The guys guarding him were like half a foot shorter than he was

But you contend that he "wasn't capable" of scoring 2 or 3 more buckets a game if you remove Kareem or even Wilkes?

:biggums:

Mile Long more like a cross country drive.
The point every is missing is this
28 seconds left Boston down by 1 everyone in the world knows Bird is gonna get the ball and take the shot. Kinda easy to defend maybe hard to stop but easy to defend.
28 seconds Lakers down by oneMagic will get the ball but no one knows who will take the last shot thats how good magic was.
Hard to defend even harder to stop.
This is what makes Magic so special and better

[Pointguard]

I forgot who said it, but I remember somebody said Magic's Lakers were an orchestra led by the ultimate maestro. Bird's Celtics were a jazz ensemble with so much improvisation where any member can play the melody depending on the mood and chemistry with other band members. I always thought that was an apt description of the two teams.
In addition to being the Maestro, Magic was the tempo, harmony and percussion as well. He was really unique like that. You could see guys confidence go up and swell up when Magic gave the que that it was game time. Magic was the only guy that would get mad at an opposing team and would pass the ball down their throats - he wouldn't dunk it, he would have a teammate do it for him. The team was an extension of him.

[ILLsmak]

Shaq- Didn't read. I'm not such a fan of the mile long post trying to "prove" something that can not be proven. For simplicities sake I'll just quickly recap some bullet points and I'll let everyone else here decide who they agree with.

*He's was a point guard

*He had to share the ball with Norm Nixon also a point guard

*He had to defer to league MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

*He also had hall of fame scorer Jamaal Wilkes in the starting lineup

*He shot 53% from the floor

*He could get to the hoop at will

*The guys guarding him were like half a foot shorter than he was

But you contend that he "wasn't capable" of scoring 2 or 3 more buckets a game if you remove Kareem or even Wilkes?

:biggums:

You should learn to skim through a post. Must be a very slow reader not to be able to get the gist of a post like that in about 30 seconds.

The reason I think Bird was better is because he was the number 1 guy. People can say oh well this game he shot poorly and they won. Okay, so what.

Magic was a great player, but he could pick his spots.

It's insane to me that anyone thinks Magic is better than Bird other than simply looking at winning.

-Smak

[Niquesports]

You should learn to skim through a post. Must be a very slow reader not to be able to get the gist of a post like that in about 30 seconds.

The reason I think Bird was better is because he was the number 1 guy. People can say oh well this game he shot poorly and they won. Okay, so what.

Magic was a great player, but he could pick his spots.

It's insane to me that anyone thinks Magic is better than Bird other than simply looking at winning.

-Smak
Whats insane its that Jabbar never made the Finals with the lakers until Magic got there and then was there every year it seems like. Your right Magic picked his spots.
Do I score
Big Fella got a miss match down low
Coop is open on the line let me get it to him
Running the break got 2 on my wing they cant stop me
They leaving Byron open Im gonna make him maybe the weakest of the starting 5 our teams leading scorerWe need to win gotta feed Big Game

Magic sure had a lot of spots all Bird had to do was shoot.

If you know basketball its insane to think Bird was better
But Im sure your not insane So I guess !!!!!!!!!!

[DaHeezy]

Why are people claiming Magic couldn't score? He was a mismatch nightmare. He had range, could get by bigger defenders, and posted up the smaller gaurds. He has the greatest post-up game of any gaurd all-time. Probably the best sweeping hook-shot of anyone.

[magictricked]

I forgot who said it, but I remember somebody said Magic's Lakers were an orchestra led by the ultimate maestro. Bird's Celtics were a jazz ensemble with so much improvisation where any member can play the melody depending on the mood and chemistry with other band members. I always thought that was an apt description of the two teams.

it is!


that's a great description



In addition to being the Maestro, Magic was the tempo, harmony and percussion as well. He was really unique like that. You could see guys confidence go up and swell up when Magic gave the que that it was game time. Magic was the only guy that would get mad at an opposing team and would pass the ball down their throats - he wouldn't dunk it, he would have a teammate do it for him. The team was an extension of him.

That's really well said

[Kblaze8855]

All Bird had to do was shoot? Where do you think those 30/17/15 games came from? Shooting jumpers?

[colts19]

I saw the game. Bird played so bad he was crying after. Its funny every time Bird's team lose Bird lovers say magic had a better cast. It's never Magic out played Bird. Which he did in that game. magic didnt play well he played great.After Bird's team lost all of a sudden MSU had this great supporting cast. ISU didnt seem to have a problem beating Depaul the supporting cast seem t be ok in that game.

As far as ROY it was Bird's to lose. The bias media most of us that was around that time remember how subjective the media was towards Bird. Its an opinion who was better. As I said my eye test tells me Magic was better since that NCAA Finals game. That's my opinion. But "FACT" is Magic's teams came out on top more and Bird's team only beat Magic's once. THAT's a "FACT"
The fact of the matter is, that I can at least be objective. Bias media? Really the vote was 63 to 3. That would mean either Bird was better or the Media was way more than Bias.
As far as Bird fans saying Magic had the better cast. Look at the Depaul game Bird was on and hit every shot he took almost. Against MS they triple teamed him. ISU had a first year head coach that never did anything after Bird let cause he was an idiot. ISU couldn't just triple team Magic because they had Kesler and Terry Donaghue who sat outside and buried one long shot after another. While ISU had a center and a forward who shot 35 and 29% from the free throw line for the year. Its not even close as to the talent level on those 2 teams.

I love Magic and I would never try to discredit him. Like you my eyes told me everything I needed to know.

Magic had a better cast in college.
Magic had a top 2 player in basketball history the first day he step on a pro court
Larry was better and had a more complete game the first 6 years.
Magic improved to the point where after 87 he may have surpassed bird,

In closing the main point I want to make is, I feel lucky to have been able to enjoy watching both of these guys play. It was a JOY to watch.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq- Didn't read. I'm not such a fan of the mile long post trying to "prove" something that can not be proven. For simplicities sake I'll just quickly recap some bullet points and I'll let everyone else here decide who they agree with

Whatever, I never understand this mentality. It doesn't take me that long to type these posts, so I can't imagine it'd take much time to read, but to each his own. I'd rather include almost everything that was a factor in my decision and explain my thought process the best I can, but that's just me.


*He's was a point guard

Yes, and that doesn't mean he couldn't have added an outside shot.


*He had to share the ball with Norm Nixon also a point guard

True, that probably did limit his assists early, but again, it still doesn't explain why he didn't have an outside shot then, after all, Nixon had a great pull up jumper. Not to mention that sharing the ball with another point guard meant he didn't have to always focus on playmaking.


*He had to defer to league MVP Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

True, although an outside shot would have made him an even better complement to Kareem.


*He also had hall of fame scorer Jamaal Wilkes in the starting lineup

True, he did have scorers, but then again, he had a ton of offensive firepower around him throughout his career, including '87 when he raised his scoring so much.


*He shot 53% from the floor

Because he knew his limitations and was only scoring in ways that he was comfortable scoring.


*He could get to the hoop at will

The only way he could create his shot in a half court game at that point.


*The guys guarding him were like half a foot shorter than he was

Yet he didn't really post them up back then.


But you contend that he "wasn't capable" of scoring 2 or 3 more buckets a game if you remove Kareem or even Wilkes?

Adding 2 or 3 baskets every game on average isn't that simple. if you added 2 or 3 baskets per game, Mutombo would have several seasons above or around 20 ppg, it doesn't work that way.

If Magic's goal was just to see how much he could score then probably. But that's not how basketball is played, especially on good teams. '87 Magic sure wasn't doing that or scoring as much as he possibly could.

So I'm talking about how much Magic could score playing normal team ball. I'm convinced he couldn't do what he did in '87 as a rookie, and he wasn't exactly lacking in offensive talent around him in '87 either. Instead of making assumptions, on what Magic's stats might be in hypothetical situations(that wouldn't even resemble '87 anyway), I'm analyzing his game and comparing his skill set to prime Magic.

By the way, I'm sure having scorers, especially Kareem helped Magic in varuous ways as well. Magic scored a fair amount on give and go plays with Kareem in the post. Kareem being the focus of opposing defenses also helped Magic's drives. Kareem carrying the half court offense also helped Magic focus on running, where he got most of his high percentage shots. And finally, the ball going into the post in the post allowed Magic to move without the ball and this along with Kareem's double teams opened up offensive rebounds for Magic as well as opportunities to cut for easy lay ups.

[Niquesports]

The fact of the matter is, that I can at least be objective. Bias media? Really the vote was 63 to 3. That would mean either Bird was better or the Media was way more than Bias.
As far as Bird fans saying Magic had the better cast. Look at the Depaul game Bird was on and hit every shot he took almost. Against MS they triple teamed him. ISU had a first year head coach that never did anything after Bird let cause he was an idiot. ISU couldn't just triple team Magic because they had Kesler and Terry Donaghue who sat outside and buried one long shot after another. While ISU had a center and a forward who shot 35 and 29% from the free throw line for the year. Its not even close as to the talent level on those 2 teams.

I love Magic and I would never try to discredit him. Like you my eyes told me everything I needed to know.

Magic had a better cast in college.
Magic had a top 2 player in basketball history the first day he step on a pro court
Larry was better and had a more complete game the first 6 years.
Magic improved to the point where after 87 he may have surpassed bird,

In closing the main point I want to make is, I feel lucky to have been able to enjoy watching both of these guys play. It was a JOY to watch.


Colt when I think of the competitor the warrior ,that mean streak ,that will to win Larry Bird. I think he would look at you with fire in his eyes. If you said don't worry larry Magic had a better cast. They never tripled teamed him. He would say I just had a bad game. Why can't Bird fans just admit this. Bird even said it he had a bad game. The best of the Best have bad games. Stop looking for an excuse. ISU was the NO 1 team don't care if he had 4 HS players they were the No 1 team.Plus Magic just outplayed Bird that game. All the hype was Bird vs Magic. So no matter which team won it was about which PLAYER would have the better game.

As far as early in there career I really think you need to look at the disarray the Celtics were in 79 cause by Red. They had like 18 different players in 79.In 80 they got more settled and Red set Bill Fitch up well. Was Bird a major factor yes. But it's not like he walked on water.As far as ROY like I said if you was around you and everyone else knew it was Bird's to lose. YEs he did more but his team needed more. But what Magic did imo was even greater. He jump started a team that couldn't even make a finals. Into the finals then lead them to victory while a top 2 player was home.

In closing I can't see Bird using the excuse Magic had a better cast. NO WINNER would ever use that. Even though I pick Magic I still think Bird is a winner. He would never use that excuse so why do his fans ?

[Niquesports]

Whatever, I never understand this mentality. It doesn't take me that long to type these posts, so I can't imagine it'd take much time to read, but to each his own. I'd rather include almost everything that was a factor in my decision and explain my thought process the best I can, but that's just me.



Yes, and that doesn't mean he couldn't have added an outside shot.



True, that probably did limit his assists early, but again, it still doesn't explain why he didn't have an outside shot then, after all, Nixon had a great pull up jumper. Not to mention that sharing the ball with another point guard meant he didn't have to always focus on playmaking.



True, although an outside shot would have made him an even better complement to Kareem.



True, he did have scorers, but then again, he had a ton of offensive firepower around him throughout his career, including '87 when he raised his scoring so much.



Because he knew his limitations and was only scoring in ways that he was comfortable scoring.



The only way he could create his shot in a half court game at that point.



Yet he didn't really post them up back then.



Adding 2 or 3 baskets every game on average isn't that simple. if you added 2 or 3 baskets per game, Mutombo would have several seasons above or around 20 ppg, it doesn't work that way.

If Magic's goal was just to see how much he could score then probably. But that's not how basketball is played, especially on good teams. '87 Magic sure wasn't doing that or scoring as much as he possibly could.

So I'm talking about how much Magic could score playing normal team ball. I'm convinced he couldn't do what he did in '87 as a rookie, and he wasn't exactly lacking in offensive talent around him in '87 either. Instead of making assumptions, on what Magic's stats might be in hypothetical situations(that wouldn't even resemble '87 anyway), I'm analyzing his game and comparing his skill set to prime Magic.

By the way, I'm sure having scorers, especially Kareem helped Magic in varuous ways as well. Magic scored a fair amount on give and go plays with Kareem in the post. Kareem being the focus of opposing defenses also helped Magic's drives. Kareem carrying the half court offense also helped Magic focus on running, where he got most of his high percentage shots. And finally, the ball going into the post in the post allowed Magic to move without the ball and this along with Kareem's double teams opened up offensive rebounds for Magic as well as opportunities to cut for easy lay ups.


It's funny how one side people can be to make a point.
I guess having 2 HOF PG didn't help Bird
I guess being a member of one of if not the Greatest Front court didnt help Bird
I guess playing with 2 great coaches didn't help Bird?
I guess coming in playing alongside a true professional in Cornbread didnt help Bird.
Not counting his title with oscar how many rings Kareem Have ?
So I guess to some extent Magic helped Kareem also.

[vert48]

Vert48 I have to disagree Jabbar use to kill Walton all the others were closeThat is why I called it the duo that never was. Walton's injuries stopped it from ever happening. KAJ was unreal in the series LA lost to Portland when Portland went on to win the ring, but Walton was everything he was supposed to be that series as well. Both players doing what they do best. I still remember hurrying home from little league games to watch that series. Walton was never healthy again.

[Niquesports]

That is why I called it the duo that never was. Walton's injuries stopped it from ever happening. KAJ was unreal in the series LA lost to Portland when Portland went on to win the ring, but Walton was everything he was supposed to be that series as well. Both players doing what they do best. I still remember hurrying home from little league games to watch that series. Walton was never healthy again.


That is true. But thats why I say Kareem was better than Shaq. Kareem was killing a Great in prime not hurt Walton who was getting help from a very good Mo Lucas.But your right if Walton didn't have them injuries picking the Top 5 would be even harder .

[colts19]

Colt when I think of the competitor the warrior ,that mean streak ,that will to win Larry Bird. I think he would look at you with fire in his eyes. If you said don't worry larry Magic had a better cast. They never tripled teamed him. He would say I just had a bad game. Why can't Bird fans just admit this. Bird even said it he had a bad game. The best of the Best have bad games. Stop looking for an excuse. ISU was the NO 1 team don't care if he had 4 HS players they were the No 1 team.Plus Magic just outplayed Bird that game. All the hype was Bird vs Magic. So no matter which team won it was about which PLAYER would have the better game.

As far as early in there career I really think you need to look at the disarray the Celtics were in 79 cause by Red. They had like 18 different players in 79.In 80 they got more settled and Red set Bill Fitch up well. Was Bird a major factor yes. But it's not like he walked on water.As far as ROY like I said if you was around you and everyone else knew it was Bird's to lose. YEs he did more but his team needed more. But what Magic did imo was even greater. He jump started a team that couldn't even make a finals. Into the finals then lead them to victory while a top 2 player was home.

In closing I can't see Bird using the excuse Magic had a better cast. NO WINNER would ever use that. Even though I pick Magic I still think Bird is a winner. He would never use that excuse so why do his fans ?
All great players need help. So even if Bird won't say that Magic had a better cast. It doesn't change the fact that he did. It's like Kareem couldn't win without Big O or Magic. Well guess what Big O and Magic couldn't win without Kareem. When you start your career with a in his prime Kareem who may have been the GOAt at that time, you have a big advantage right from the start.

[Niquesports]

[QUOTE=colts19]All great players need help. So even if Bird won't say that Magic had a better cast. It doesn't change the fact that he did. It's like Kareem couldn't win without Big O or Magic. Well guess what Big O and Magic couldn't win without Kareem. When you start your career with a in his prime Kareem who may have been the GOAt at that time, you have a big advantage right from the start.[/QUOT
Thats my whole point. A true winner not even gonna look at that as a revelent issue. No reeal competitor gonna say Oh he has Kareem he has a advantage. That just doent make sense to me. So teams say oh that's Jordan we can't beat him. Heck no in your mind you think you can win.Only fans think like that.Im not sure what or if you ever played sports . But if you was in my locker room and after a loss you said well they had a better cast and had a advantage . I say give me my uniform you off the team. That is a cop out.Sorry

[1987_Lakers]

Magic ended up having the longer & more successful career, Bird was the better player when both were in their primes. Simple as that.

Magic has Bird beat in terms of ball handling, transition basketball, & passing (but we all know Bird was an amazing passer as well)

Bird has Magic beat in scoring, shooting, defense, & rebounding.

[colts19]

Magic ended up having the longer & more successful career, Bird was the better player when both were in their primes. Simple as that.

Magic has Bird beat in terms of ball handling, transition basketball, & passing (but we all know Bird was an amazing passer as well)

Bird has Magic beat in scoring, shooting, defense, & rebounding.
You my friend are wise beyond you years.:bowdown: :bowdown:

[Niquesports]

Magic ended up having the longer & more successful career, Bird was the better player when both were in their primes. Simple as that.

Magic has Bird beat in terms of ball handling, transition basketball, & passing (but we all know Bird was an amazing passer as well)

Bird has Magic beat in scoring, shooting, defense, & rebounding.

Dennis Rodman has Isiah beat on rebounding also. CompaRING A pg TO A F in Rebounding:facepalm any thing to make Larry Legend look good

[ShaqAttack3234]

It's funny how one side people can be to make a point.

Not really, if you read my longer post, I really don't see how it could come off as one-sided. In that post, I said that I think Bird and Magic are very close comparing Bird from around '84-'88 to Magic from around '87-'91. Maybe '85-'88 for Bird and '87-'90 for Magic, but the results will be the same.

And as I said, the 2 years their true primes overlapped, they were comparable with both players having a case. I went with Magic in '87 and Bird in '88.

In the end, I think Bird is slightly better. How is that one-sided?


I guess having 2 HOF PG didn't help Bird

What does this have to do with anything I said? I never said that Bird didn't have great teams around him?

I wasn't saying that both didn't need help to win. Every player needs other good players to win. My post was in response to the other poster suggesting taking away Kareem and possibly Wilkes would help Magic's scoring. While I was suggesting the opposite may happen based on what I observed of how Magic scored in his early years.


I guess being a member of one of if not the Greatest Front court didnt help Bird

See above

I guess playing with 2 great coaches didn't help Bird?

I've seen varying opinions on both of those coaches actually, and honestly and neither are as highly regarded as Pat Riley.

But again, what does this have to do with any of my points?


I guess coming in playing alongside a true professional in Cornbread didnt help Bird.

Maxwell was an important part of the the early 80's Celtics, but are you suggesting that Maxwell helped Bird's individual game? If anything, it's the other way around.


Not counting his title with oscar how many rings Kareem Have ?

Why wouldn't I count his '71 championship? He did win it after all, right?


So I guess to some extent Magic helped Kareem also.

Nobody denys that the Lakers needed both Kareem and Magic to win those championships.



Dennis Rodman has Isiah beat on rebounding also. CompaRING A pg TO A F in Rebounding:facepalm any thing to make Larry Legend look good

Did you even read his entire post? He was comparing them in every aspect of the game, which is how you should do it. He also compared them as passers and ball-handlers, areas that clearly favor a PG over a forward.

[1987_Lakers]

Dennis Rodman has Isiah beat on rebounding also. CompaRING A pg TO A F in Rebounding:facepalm any thing to make Larry Legend look good

Magic was a 6'8" PG that guarded alot of 2 guards and forwards on defense, it's not like comparing a center to a point guard on the boards. Bird was more physical and had better technique under the basket than Magic, Magic was a very good rebounder, but Bird was better.

[StateOfMind12]

I'll just give the three main reasons why.

1. Magic was better because he played at a higher level longer than Bird did.
2. Magic was a far better playoff performer
3. Magic accomplished/achieved more.

Magic's prime/peak was just as good as good as Bird's was. Bird's was probably better though but it was still close. When it comes to comparing their overall career and longevity though, Magic has Bird beat and quite clearly in that regard.

Going back to #1, Magic's non-prime years were a lot better than Bird's non-prime years.

[game3524]

Bird had a higher peak then Magic, but Magic has him beat in terms of longevity, which generally gives him the edge when it comes to rankings.

[Niquesports]

Magic was a 6'8" PG that guarded alot of 2 guards and forwards on defense, it's not like comparing a center to a point guard on the boards. Bird was more physical and had better technique under the basket than Magic, Magic was a very good rebounder, but Bird was better.
The biggest lie in basketball was Bird's defense. Maxwell and Mchale always took the tough assignments. Bird would get torched. Remember King,Wilkins Worthy I mean he would get killed.So stop with the defense. As far as scoring people act as if Magic made his mind up he couldn't score night in night out. He wasn't Rhondo.But really what does it matter . Many would say WIlt was better than Russ. How ever Russ has the Rings. Same with Magic and Bird so what Magic did enough for his team to win. Maybe if Bird was just a tab bit better and did more for his team he would have 5 rings or more. So at the end of the day its about winning and magic did it better

[Sarcastic]

Comparing skill sets between players of different positions is retarded. In no other sport would you ever do that.


"Tom Brady can throw better, but Calvin Johnson can catch better".

[Niquesports]

Bird had a higher peak then Magic, but Magic has him beat in terms of longevity, which generally gives him the edge when it comes to rankings.
Explain higher peak.What category did Bird ever lead the league in ?

[1987_Lakers]

The biggest lie in basketball was Bird's defense. Maxwell and Mchale always took the tough assignments. Bird would get torched. Remember King,Wilkins Worthy I mean he would get killed.So stop with the defense. As far as scoring people act as if Magic made his mind up he couldn't score night in night out. He wasn't Rhondo.But really what does it matter . Many would say WIlt was better than Russ. How ever Russ has the Rings. Same with Magic and Bird so what Magic did enough for his team to win. Maybe if Bird was just a tab bit better and did more for his team he would have 5 rings or more. So at the end of the day its about winning and magic did it better

Bird wasn't amazing defensively, but he was still a better help/team defender and a better post defender than Magic.

[Niquesports]

Bird wasn't amazing defensively, but he was still a better help/team defender and a better post defender than Magic.
Magic was better at playing the lanes defender and getting steals. Although Magic wasn't a lock down defender he was a better 15 feet and out defender than.

[DKLaker]

Dumbass kids on ISH trying to re-write the history of players they never saw play during a time before they were born :banghead:

Bird without question was a great player but Magic was flat out better, better in college, better as a pro. I was at almost every home game Magic played and saw or listened on radio to every single game during his career. I also watched every televised game Bird played. Magic was a revolutionary player, the first of his kind. LMAO at guys trying to question his toughness and courage......1980 game 6 of the finals proved everything....and he was just a rookie.

Big clutch shot over 2 defenders....just see the Jr. skyhook he used to beat Boston in the finals.

[LeBird]

Let me preface this by saying that Magic is a GOAT candidate, top 5 (at least) and was a hell of a rival to Bird. But, honestly, breaking it down by skillsets and looking at their achievements in context I find it hard to not go for Larry.

Larry did everything at least as good as Magic (i.e. passing) and did all the others much better. Magic's difference to Larry was position but also his ability to play multiple positions. Bird was the better shooter/scorer, rebounder and defender.

Why do people tend to rate Magic higher? A lot to do with the fact that people's fading memories of Bird were as a cripple whereas Magic was still relatively on high before his abrupt end. His longevity aided his legacy as well as 2 more titles.

But, no matter what people wish to say, the Lakers were simply the better team - they had 2 GOAT candidates in their team. They're, IMO, the best dynastic team since Russell's Celtics. The fact that Bird won 3 in this span is incredible. He had his own illustrious teammates, but never the kind of partner Magic had and probably not the depth either.

Even in college, it was basically Bird and 4 other guys from a pick-up truck, with Larry carrying them all the way. Their performances in college are not even close - Larry was godlike. Magic, as was always the case in his career, simply had a better team than Larry and thus won the college title. Larry didn't have a good final - he was being double and triple teamed - but the rest of the season it was clear as day who was the best.

As Shaq has said, until around 87 Magic wasn't on Larry's level; he did get there and that is where the discussions really started.

However, as I said, even though I regard them as close, and respect Magic's talents; if there are two teams filled with generic clones, with average abilities (an 'all else being equal' scenario) and I had Larry in one team and Magic in another...I'd bet on Bird winning the hefty majority of times.

[game3524]

Explain higher peak.What category did Bird ever lead the league in ?

Bird averaged 26/10/6 with TS% of 59%. He won three MVP in that stretch. Magic is no slouch, he had a very good 5 year stretch (87-91), but Bird was slightly the more productive player at their peaks.

Anyway, I have Magic ahead of Bird in my rankings since while his peak wasn't as good, he simply was a more productive player for a longer period of time.

[Anaximandro1]

Why are people claiming Magic couldn't score? He was a mismatch nightmare. He had range, could get by bigger defenders, and posted up the smaller gaurds. He has the greatest post-up game of any gaurd all-time. Probably the best sweeping hook-shot of anyone.
Magic was an elite scorer.He was great in crucial situations.

Quality is more important than quantity,particularly when you play for a title contender.Morover Magic played point guard for the Showtime Lakers,so he operated with a pass first,score second mentality.

[Niquesports]

Let me preface this by saying that Magic is a GOAT candidate, top 5 (at least) and was a hell of a rival to Bird. But, honestly, breaking it down by skillsets and looking at their achievements in context I find it hard to not go for Larry.

Larry did everything at least as good as Magic (i.e. passing) and did all the others much better. Magic's difference to Larry was position but also his ability to play multiple positions. Bird was the better shooter/scorer, rebounder and defender.

Why do people tend to rate Magic higher? A lot to do with the fact that people's fading memories of Bird were as a cripple whereas Magic was still relatively on high before his abrupt end. His longevity aided his legacy as well as 2 more titles.

But, no matter what people wish to say, the Lakers were simply the better team - they had 2 GOAT candidates in their team. They're, IMO, the best dynastic team since Russell's Celtics. The fact that Bird won 3 in this span is incredible. He had his own illustrious teammates, but never the kind of partner Magic had and probably not the depth either.

Even in college, it was basically Bird and 4 other guys from a pick-up truck, with Larry carrying them all the way. Their performances in college are not even close - Larry was godlike. Magic, as was always the case in his career, simply had a better team than Larry and thus won the college title. Larry didn't have a good final - he was being double and triple teamed - but the rest of the season it was clear as day who was the best.

As Shaq has said, until around 87 Magic wasn't on Larry's level; he did get there and that is where the discussions really started.

However, as I said, even though I regard them as close, and respect Magic's talents; if there are two teams filled with generic clones, with average abilities (an 'all else being equal' scenario) and I had Larry in one team and Magic in another...I'd bet on Bird winning the hefty majority of times.

I have the up most respect for Bird and his fans. part of what makes Magic a top 5 is the rival with Bird. I think the rivary elevated both. Kinda like Ali,Frazier. With that being said Magic is Ali and the tough just wont go away Bird as Frazier.

I remember stay up late that Monday night in 1979. All year Bird got all the hype and ISU was the No 1 team. Never once can I recall anyone saying Bird's cast were a handicap if they matched a tough opponent. If someone can find an article from that time where some one said the ISU cast was weak. I will give you that . I dont remember that being the case.I hope no one is gonna think forget his name,MSU coach was such a genius that he was the first to double Bird.I guess the other games Bird was able to do ok on the double. Or was MSU just that good ? They sure werent rank to be that good.So until you can produce an article that said the ISU cast was "WEAK" try that with a yooung guy.

What made Magic better than Bird was how he could get 8 players in the game It wasn't that the Lakers were that deep. It was Magic would tell them just get where you can score and I will get you the ball. Really Kurt Rambis was made by Magic,Byron Scott was a 20ppg player.I think it was 87. The Lakers had 8 players avg double digits in points. It wasnt that the players were so much better than Bostons . It was Magic was able to get the best man open the ball. Get the man the ball where he can best score.Magic made his teammates look better than Bird's.

What people see is at the end of the game Bird might have like 27/12/6 Great game. Magic would have 18/9/14. From eye sight people would yell oh Bird was better see. Yet they dont see is that 7 other Lakers scored in double digits and of course as always Magic's team won.

Not to the same degree but it's kinda like Wilt and Russ. Look at the stat sheet Wilt looked like the better player he killed Russ. But look how Russ excelled his teamates which lead his team to victory. You see it isnt that Magic had better teammates as much as it was Magic was able to share the ball better.
If Bird was better at sharing the ball having that bad NCAA final he would had gotten the ball to the open man while he was getting "tripple" teamed. No coach in the world would double magic let alone triple him he would love that .

[Kblaze8855]

Never thought id see the day Larry Bird was being called out for not being better at sharing the ball or passing. Its clearly just been too long since the time in question. Every 5 minutes someone is claiming shit that goes directly in the face of what everyone watching at the time thought.

Next week someone is gonna tell me Moses Malone couldnt rebound like Patrick Ewing and im gonna build a fortress of solitude somewhere in the wild and never interact with humanity outside my family.

[1987_Lakers]

Never thought id see the day Larry Bird was being called out for not being better at sharing the ball or passing. Its clearly just been too long since the time in question. Every 5 minutes someone is claiming shit that goes directly in the face of what everyone watching at the time thought.

Next week someone is gonna tell me Moses Malone couldnt rebound like Patrick Ewing and im gonna build a fortress of solitude somewhere in the wild and never interact with humanity outside my family.
:oldlol:

[LeBird]

I find boxing analogies to basketball are misplaced. Boxing is 1v1 whereas basketball is a teammate dependent game. You're only going to go as far as your teammates allow you to. No one won titles without help.

I think you're revising history. Everybody and their uncle knew ISU without Bird was not getting anywhere near the finals. The only reason people had hyped them up was because of Bird and his godly performances - carrying them undefeated. It wasn't that you could simply double-team or triple-team Bird and any team would get by - Bird would still find a way to score. He had an off-game and when a team relies on a player the way they did on Bird that spells doom once that player has such a night. In Magic, and his teammates, Bird had opponents that wouldn't allow such a night to pass. On the whole, that was a mismatch - Magic's team was just that much better and in no way should the NCAA title mean that Magic was better than Bird in college. He wasn't, and it is not even close.

I take your point that Magic got guys involved and made scoring easier for them - but so did Bird, although I think for a PG to do this it affects your teams chances more. However, as good as the Celtics were; the Lakers were just that much better - even if for Kareem and Magic alone. Again, that Magic has more titles has to be seen in context. In all honesty, I think if the situations were reversed, and Bird ended up with the Lakers, he'd have ended up with more rings than Magic had - I truly believe that. Bird and Kareem would have been incredible.

Your other examples are simply poor. If 7-8 other players have scored double-digit points how does that all translate to Magic just having 14 assists (as you stipulate)? It doesn't, although Magic will have helped a lot out; he had the kinds of teammates that had the ability. Again, that Magic had the better team is not really debated - what made it debatable was that Bird kept the Celtics competitive despite the Lakers having 2 GOAT candidates.

The NCAA example: are you saying Bird didn't share the ball or was a selfish player? As if the thought of giving it to other players didn't cross his mind? Have you seen Bird play? LOL

They were poor shooters, and scorers, which is why that team relied so heavily on him. I remember the Magic and Bird documentary; they literally described that team as Bird with 4 guys they found and drove around in a pick up truck. Also, there'd be no need to double or triple team Magic; he wasn't the primary scoring threat.

[colts19]

Never thought id see the day Larry Bird was being called out for not being better at sharing the ball or passing. Its clearly just been too long since the time in question. Every 5 minutes someone is claiming shit that goes directly in the face of what everyone watching at the time thought.

Next week someone is gonna tell me Moses Malone couldnt rebound like Patrick Ewing and im gonna build a fortress of solitude somewhere in the wild and never interact with humanity outside my family.
This:bowdown: :bowdown:

[necya]

i just don't get it.
Bird was on top from day 1, then Magic joined him in the middle of the 80's. They were on the same level for several years where they shared the pieces of cake depending on team success. Bird was perfect in 86, Johnson in 87, 88 was an incredible season with MJ, Magic & Bird on the same wave. then Bird had his back problems and Magic continued his road until 91.
Without injury, Bird could have been a top 3 players of the league for a decade.
Bird is just ahead, it's normal.

then you put Jordan on top, insert Jabbarahead of the Bird and Magic if you wanna honor the centers or put him at 4 and you have the 4 best players of this sport :D

[DJ Leon Smith]

The biggest lie in basketball was Bird's defense.

Replace Bird with Kobe and you're right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylPC8ojduiA

[Niquesports]

I find boxing analogies to basketball are misplaced. Boxing is 1v1 whereas basketball is a teammate dependent game. You're only going to go as far as your teammates allow you to. No one won titles without help.

I think you're revising history. Everybody and their uncle knew ISU without Bird was not getting anywhere near the finals. The only reason people had hyped them up was because of Bird and his godly performances - carrying them undefeated. It wasn't that you could simply double-team or triple-team Bird and any team would get by - Bird would still find a way to score. He had an off-game and when a team relies on a player the way they did on Bird that spells doom once that player has such a night. In Magic, and his teammates, Bird had opponents that wouldn't allow such a night to pass. On the whole, that was a mismatch - Magic's team was just that much better and in no way should the NCAA title mean that Magic was better than Bird in college. He wasn't, and it is not even close.

I take your point that Magic got guys involved and made scoring easier for them - but so did Bird, although I think for a PG to do this it affects your teams chances more. However, as good as the Celtics were; the Lakers were just that much better - even if for Kareem and Magic alone. Again, that Magic has more titles has to be seen in context. In all honesty, I think if the situations were reversed, and Bird ended up with the Lakers, he'd have ended up with more rings than Magic had - I truly believe that. Bird and Kareem would have been incredible.

Your other examples are simply poor. If 7-8 other players have scored double-digit points how does that all translate to Magic just having 14 assists (as you stipulate)? It doesn't, although Magic will have helped a lot out; he had the kinds of teammates that had the ability. Again, that Magic had the better team is not really debated - what made it debatable was that Bird kept the Celtics competitive despite the Lakers having 2 GOAT candidates.

The NCAA example: are you saying Bird didn't share the ball or was a selfish player? As if the thought of giving it to other players didn't cross his mind? They were poor shooters, and scorers, which is why that team relied so heavily on him. I remember the Magic and Bird documentary; they literally described that team as Bird with 4 guys they found and drove around in a pick up truck. Also, there'd be no need to double or triple team Magic; he wasn't the primary scoring threat.


Let me first say I was't saying Bird wasn't a great passer he was. I was just saying Magic was better.Like I said find me an article from 1979 where they were talking about how weak Bird's supporting cast was. Wasn't jay Vincent on that team?

If Magic was on Boston Mchale would be the Greatest PF of all time .So if they were to flip I guess DJ would go to the Lakers to take magic spot and Worthy would go to Boston to take Bird's spot. Now a team of Parrish C Mchale PF Worthy SF Anige SG Magic PG they may have broke Russ record.

But I'll tell you like I told Colt. Bird would never accept a cop out of Magic's teammates were just better. He even said I just didnt play well. That what a winner says .So are you a winner or a cop out. Magic just excelled his team better than Bird. So I guess Magic had the better team every year but 86 huh. The team some call the best ever. But all the other years magic had the better team. That argument is so weak.Oh yea that why ya'll say Magic was better thats when Bird started getting hurt after Magic and the Lakers ran them off the court.

[LeBird]

How the **** am I going to find an article from 1979?

LOL @ breaking Russ's record. Are you seriously saying that Bird had a better team than Magic? That the Celtics were better than the Lakers in the 80s? Because Magic already won 5 with the Lakers - which people, with some sense - say had the better roster. They were holding him back from another 7 titles? LOL. So why did Bird only win 3? I thought you just admitted that they were close? Bird should have at least won half of what Russ did, right? Pfft.

The thing with Bird, and what made him great, is that he never used excuses. He tried to better himself. He tried to overcome the odds. Which is why he was so brilliant at so many things. Which is why carrying a team like ISU or even the early Celtics was nothing to him. He wasn't waiting in college for Kareem - unlike Magic - he would have tried to find a way. All that being said; it doesn't change the reality; he had an inferior team to Magic's which goes a lot in describing why he won 2 less titles than he did. As I said, that he won 3 titles, considering the Lakers roster - nevermind the other great teams of the era - is a testament to how great Bird is. I'm not sure that Magic would have won 3 (I doubt it, actually) with the Celts but I am fairly confident in saying that Bird would have at least won 5 with Kareem. That team would have been absolutely devastating.

[Niquesports]

How the **** am I going to find an article from 1979?

LOL @ breaking Russ's record. Are you seriously saying that Bird had a better team than Magic? That the Celtics were better than the Lakers in the 80s? Because Magic already won 5 with the Lakers - which people, with some sense - say had the better roster. They were holding him back from another 7 titles? LOL. So why did Bird only win 3? I thought you just admitted that they were close? Bird should have at least won half of what Russ did, right? Pfft.

The thing with Bird, and what made him great, is that he never used excuses. He tried to better himself. He tried to overcome the odds. Which is why he was so brilliant at so many things. Which is why carrying a team like ISU or even the early Celtics was nothing to him. He wasn't waiting in college for Kareem - unlike Magic - he would have tried to find a way. All that being said; it doesn't change the reality; he had an inferior team to Magic's which goes a lot in describing why he won 2 less titles than he did. As I said, that he won 3 titles, considering the Lakers roster - nevermind the other great teams of the era - is a testament to how great Bird is. I'm not sure that Magic would have won 3 (I doubt it, actually) with the Celts but I am fairly confident in saying that Bird would have at least won 5 with Kareem. That team would have been absolutely devastating.


Each year Kareem was getting older and older. To the point Moses was punking him. A young MAgic and a Prime Mchale and Parrish would have for certain without question won more than just 3 rings. Then 2 of them were agaisnt 2 of the worst finals teams of all time. Young Magic,young Mchale,young parrish = at least 7-8 titles

[Kovach]

Yes. There is a such thing as correct. Shaq winning the 2000 MVP is correct. winning the 2000 finals MVP...correct. You really want to tell me there is a case otherwise? some decisions...are right. Some are not. simply saying that ____ won ___ does not prove they should have. Merely that it happened.
True, but that does not mean the 1980 decision was incorrect, assuming that is what you were implying.

[Niquesports]

Looking into this Bird's college cast was so weak . I knew there was one other guy Carl Nicks a fairly good PG that got 17 in the finals ISU other schooter shot worst than Bird Bob Heaton shot 4-14. The truck boys carried ISU over Bradley beating them despite Bird only scoring 4 pt. Not bad for some truck boys to carry The Legend. So put that Bird had a weak cast behind us. I love the internet.

[colts19]

Let me first say I was't saying Bird wasn't a great passer he was. I was just saying Magic was better.Like I said find me an article from 1979 where they were talking about how weak Bird's supporting cast was. Wasn't jay Vincent on that team?

If Magic was on Boston Mchale would be the Greatest PF of all time .So if they were to flip I guess DJ would go to the Lakers to take magic spot and Worthy would go to Boston to take Bird's spot. Now a team of Parrish C Mchale PF Worthy SF Anige SG Magic PG they may have broke Russ record.

But I'll tell you like I told Colt. Bird would never accept a cop out of Magic's teammates were just better. He even said I just didnt play well. That what a winner says .So are you a winner or a cop out. Magic just excelled his team better than Bird. So I guess Magic had the better team every year but 86 huh. The team some call the best ever. But all the other years magic had the better team. That argument is so weak.Oh yea that why ya'll say Magic was better thats when Bird started getting hurt after Magic and the Lakers ran them off the court.
Jay Vincent was on Magics team.

[colts19]

Looking into this Bird's college cast was so weak . I knew there was one other guy Carl Nicks a fairly good PG that got 17 in the finals ISU other schooter shot worst than Bird Bob Heaton shot 4-14. The truck boys carried ISU over Bradley beating them despite Bird only scoring 4 pt. Not bad for some truck boys to carry The Legend. So put that Bird had a weak cast behind us. I love the internet.
Since I watched every game larry played in college I think I know a lot more than you about that team. Bradley team that held Bird to 4 points was because he hardley shot the ball. He passed it since they sent 3 to 4 (yes I said 4) guys to guard him when ever he had the ball. MS could play much better D than Bradley. Get serious:no: :no: :no:

Carl Nicks was a good player, that would not have started on Mich
State. the rest of that team was very limited. It was the most amazing thing I ever saw when larry carried the team to an undefeated season.

Carl Nicks wasn't a pg but a shooting guard.
So you can have your opinion, but when you post things like Jay Vincent was on ISU. You just show you have no knowledge of the facts, thus your opinion on this subject are a JOKE.

[Harison]

"Why was Magic better than Bird?"

He wasnt. They both came at the same time to NBA, and head-to-head Bird was always seen as a better player (only die-hard LA/Magic fans thought otherwise), till Bird started declining due to severe back issues.

What concerns ranking, Magic have a bit more accolades due to a better team, as well as LA have the most fans overall, hence Magic more often than not wins over Bird in the popularity contests. Recent voting for All-time stars confirmed it as well :D

[DKLaker]

"Why was Magic better than Bird?"

He wasnt. They both came at the same time to NBA, and head-to-head Bird was always seen as a better player (only die-hard LA/Magic fans thought otherwise), till Bird started declining due to severe back issues.

What concerns ranking, Magic have a bit more accolades due to a better team, as well as LA have the most fans overall, hence Magic more often than not wins over Bird in the popularity contests. Recent voting for All-time stars confirmed it as well :D

LMFAO, Bird's teams were just as good or better than Magic's, Kareem couldn't even make it down the court on a regular basis......they would call Kareem to come down court only when they needed him.....that's why they ran so much. Dumbass kids who never saw these teams play live :banghead:

[Niquesports]

Since I watched every game larry played in college I think I know a lot more than you about that team. Bradley team that held Bird to 4 points was because he hardley shot the ball. He passed it since they sent 3 to 4 (yes I said 4) guys to guard him when ever he had the ball. MS could play much better D than Bradley. Get serious:no: :no: :no:

Carl Nicks was a good player, that would not have started on Mich
State. the rest of that team was very limited. It was the most amazing thing I ever saw when larry carried the team to an undefeated season.

Carl Nicks wasn't a pg but a shooting guard.
So you can have your opinion, but when you post things like Jay Vincent was on ISU. You just show you have no knowledge of the facts, thus your opinion on this subject are a JOKE.
My knowledge of the fact that Magic's team won and magic out played Bird is a FACT.

[colts19]

My knowledge of the fact that Magic's team won and magic out played Bird is a FACT.
So it would be a good idea for you to stick to that fact, instead of the following.

Red had his team tank to get Bird. Not a fact
Media Bias is why Bird won rookie of the year. Not a fact
Jay Vincent played for ISU. Not a fact
Carl Nicks was a pretty good PG. Not a fact
People didn't think ISU had a weak supporting cast. Not a fact
You know more than me about that ISU team. Not a fact.

You just throw things out there to hide your lack of knowledge and when someone calls you on it, you never admit you were wrong. You just talk your way around it.

Facts on that ISU team
Center Brad Miley. 3 rebounds in that game. O points
Forward Alex Gilbert 4 rebounds 4 points
Bob heaton 6th man 4 for14 fg
SG carl nicks 17 pts fouled out half way thru 2nd half when ISU was behind by 3
PG steve reed 8 points.

After carl nicks fouled out the game was over because then they had nobody that could score.

[Niquesports]

So it would be a good idea for you to stick to that fact, instead of the following.

Red had his team tank to get Bird. Not a fact
Media Bias is why Bird won rookie of the year. Not a fact
Jay Vincent played for ISU. Not a fact
Carl Nicks was a pretty good PG. Not a fact
People didn't think ISU had a weak supporting cast. Not a fact
You know more than me about that ISU team. Not a fact.

You just throw things out there to hide your lack of knowledge and when someone calls you on it, you never admit you were wrong. You just talk your way around it.

Facts on that ISU team
Center Brad Miley. 3 rebounds in that game. O points
Forward Alex Gilbert 4 rebounds 4 points
Bob heaton 6th man 4 for14 fg
SG carl nicks 17 pts fouled out half way thru 2nd half when ISU was behind by 3
PG steve reed 8 points.

After carl nicks fouled out the game was over because then they had nobody that could score.


Red Tanked to get Bird Fact
Media bias always had Bird ahead of magic even though Magic clearly out played Bird in the finals FACT
Carl NIcks was a Good G in College Fact
I have tried to find an article where they said the ISU support cast was weak couldn't find one Fact
Magic's team won more than Bird's fact
More people voted Magic the better player than Bird Fact
Danny Manning was able to win with a weak supporting cast against a superior team because he steped up on the big stage Bird couldn't FACT

Now here is how you think
Magic had a better support cast Opinion
ISU support cast was weak Opinion
Bird was better than Magic opinion

Again you have a fan mind set.
Real Winners: look I played well or I played bad .
You as a fan : Hey guys cheer up they had a better team than we did
It's really a joke that thats the best you can do. Magic had a better team.
Thats a disservice to Bird's greatness and dissrespectful to Magic's.

[colts19]

Red Tanked to get Bird Fact
Media bias always had Bird ahead of magic even though Magic clearly out played Bird in the finals FACT
Carl NIcks was a Good G in College Fact
I have tried to find an article where they said the ISU support cast was weak couldn't find one Fact
Magic's team won more than Bird's fact
More people voted Magic the better player than Bird Fact
Danny Manning was able to win with a weak supporting cast against a superior team because he steped up on the big stage Bird couldn't FACT

Now here is how you think
Magic had a better support cast Opinion
ISU support cast was weak Opinion
Bird was better than Magic opinion

Again you have a fan mind set.
Real Winners: look I played well or I played bad .
You as a fan : Hey guys cheer up they had a better team than we did
It's really a joke that thats the best you can do. Magic had a better team.
Thats a disservice to Bird's greatness and dissrespectful to Magic's.

So everything you say is a fact. But everything I say is opinion. Even though I live in Terre Haute and went to every game he played. You know more than I do about that ISU team.

Real Winners: On the HBo special Magic and Bird. Bird said when they were talking about that game that Magic just had the better team. Its not an excuse its a fact, and all your ranting won't change that.

I lived that expierence and everyone I knew back then knew the only chance that team had was if Larry carried them. I don't have a newspaper clippings from the time but locally itwas pretty common knowledge that team had very little chance in any game if bird didn't carry them.

If you believe Magic was better, thats fine with me. I think Magic was better after 87. But you will never convince me that ISU was equal to MS in 79 because I know better.

It's OK to be a fan.

[eliteballer]

Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.


Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.


Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.


Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.


Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.


Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.


Magic: More versatile because of his handle. Could legitimately play all 5 positions. A bigger matchup problem. A more efficient scorer. When that big freight train was coming down the lane has near impossible to stop. At least an equivilent rebounder. He doubled up Bird in assists, but Bird as a forward didnt double up Magic as a PG in rebounds.

LOL at you guys using defense. Bird was a horrible man defender. Magic could at least guard guys around his own size. Bird couldnt guard anyone. Magic also led the league in steals.

Oh yeah, Magic was 3 years younger than Bird and completely outplayed Peak Bird in 2 out of 3 finals.

:hammerhead:

[Niquesports]

So everything you say is a fact. But everything I say is opinion. Even though I live in Terre Haute and went to every game he played. You know more than I do about that ISU team.

Real Winners: On the HBo special Magic and Bird. Bird said when they were talking about that game that Magic just had the better team. Its not an excuse its a fact, and all your ranting won't change that.

I lived that expierence and everyone I knew back then knew the only chance that team had was if Larry carried them. I don't have a newspaper clippings from the time but locally itwas pretty common knowledge that team had very little chance in any game if bird didn't carry them.

If you believe Magic was better, thats fine with me. I think Magic was better after 87. But you will never convince me that ISU was equal to MS in 79 because I know better.

It's OK to be a fan.


I have never said I know more about ISU than you do. What I said is I don't recall at the time anyone saying MSU was a better team,and that Bird's cast was weak. All the talk was Bird vs Magic.
All day I been surfing the web to try and find it I couldn't . That weak cast thing came up years later by Bird fan's.Maybe somewhere there was an article all I read was that most didn't know much about ISU or Bird.Lastly I may not know ISU in 79. But I do know basketball. ISU went like 33-0 something like that. They beat a Sidney Monchief Arkansaw (a very good team). They beat DePaul a very good team. It takes more than just one man to win in basketball . I don't care if it is Bird. The other 4 had to have contributed. Lastly Bird had a bad game that is fact. Maybe it was just MSU maybe if they played again the next day Bird would had been great. But that night on the big stage and under the bright lights Bird played bad and Magic played well.

[LeBird]

Each year Kareem was getting older and older. To the point Moses was punking him. A young MAgic and a Prime Mchale and Parrish would have for certain without question won more than just 3 rings. Then 2 of them were agaisnt 2 of the worst finals teams of all time. Young Magic,young Mchale,young parrish = at least 7-8 titles

Embarrassing. :facepalm


So it would be a good idea for you to stick to that fact, instead of the following.

Red had his team tank to get Bird. Not a fact
Media Bias is why Bird won rookie of the year. Not a fact
Jay Vincent played for ISU. Not a fact
Carl Nicks was a pretty good PG. Not a fact
People didn't think ISU had a weak supporting cast. Not a fact
You know more than me about that ISU team. Not a fact.

You just throw things out there to hide your lack of knowledge and when someone calls you on it, you never admit you were wrong. You just talk your way around it.

Facts on that ISU team
Center Brad Miley. 3 rebounds in that game. O points
Forward Alex Gilbert 4 rebounds 4 points
Bob heaton 6th man 4 for14 fg
SG carl nicks 17 pts fouled out half way thru 2nd half when ISU was behind by 3
PG steve reed 8 points.

After carl nicks fouled out the game was over because then they had nobody that could score.

:bowdown: someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

[tmacattack33]

The defense argument is the complete opposite of pointless, because it has a huge impact on the game. Unless you think that defense just doesn't make as large of an impact as offense, it's a big issue, and Magic was awful on it and probably a large part of why his teams were never elite on that side of the floor.
Steve Nash is a far more impactful player then Payton to me. Payton's defense is of course better, but Nash is among the top 15 or so offensive player ever.

I'm not sure which side of this you are on...but anyway...

Defense is indeed "half of the game", but one guy can affect the offensive side of the game a lot more than the defensive side, because it is the offense that chooses where they want to go with the ball.

So, Steve Nash can touch the ball 90% of the time on offense if his team wants him to do (and Phx basically did indeed do this).

If you are a great defender though like Payton, you can't just choose to be involved with 90% of your defensive plays...the offense chooses where they want to go (of course though, if Payton forces a team to go away from the guy he is guarding, that is a huge accomplishment...but still...the team can still find offense else where).


So, if i had to turn everything into a number for a guy (like in a video game), if he's a perimeter player, i'd say his value and overall rating would be made up of 60% offense and 40% defense.

[Clifton]

If you are a great defender though like Payton, you can't just choose to be involved with 90% of your defensive plays..
I think the point you're making here is right for perimeter players. But not for big men. There's a reason Dirk was never as good as Duncan. The difference in their defensive abilities simply wouldn't have been that great if both players were 6'7.

[tmacattack33]

I think the point you're making here is right for perimeter players. But not for big men. There's a reason Dirk was never as good as Duncan. The difference in their defensive abilities simply wouldn't have been that great if both players were 6'7.

This is true. A big man owning the paint on defense is definitely an exception to what I said.

[TheBigVeto]

Crap removed