Why is conference strength often ignored when comparing Magic and Bird?

[fpliii]

:confusedshrug:

Makes little sense to me. In his prime (rookie year through 88), here are the final in-conference opponents Bird's teams faced:

1980 PHI (59-23, 4.04 SRS, 13/22 O, 2/22 D)
1981 PHI (62-20, 7.76 SRS, 8/23 O, 2/23 D)
1982 PHI (58-24, 5.74 SRS, 5/23 O, 7/23 D)
1983 MIL (51-31, 4.32 SRS, 10/23 O, 6/23 D)
1984 MIL (50-32, 4.04 SRS, 12/23 O, 2/23 D)
1985 PHI (58-24, 4.17 SRS, 4/23 O, 11/23 D)
1986 MIL (57-25, 8.69 SRS, 4/23 O, 2/23 D)
1987 DET (52-30, 3.52 SRS, 9/23 O, 5/23 D)
1988 DET (54-28, 5.46 SRS, 6/23 O, 2/23 D)

Magic's teams (start with whichever year you like for his prime):

1980 SEA (56-26, 4.24 SRS, 8/22 O, 3/22 D)
1981 HOU (40-42, -0.20 SRS, 9/23 O, 16/23 D)
1982 SAS (48-34, 1.79 SRS, 3/23 O, 13/23 D)
1983 SAS (53-29, 3.10 SRS, 2/23 O, 15/23 D)
1984 PHO (41-41, 0.65 SRS, 10/23 O, 13/23 D)
1985 DEN (52-32, 2.05 SRS, 5/23 O, 15/23 D)
1986 HOU (51-31, 2.11 SRS, 5/23 O, 14/23 D)
1987 SEA (39-43, 0.08 SRS, 6/23 O, 17/23 D)
1988 DAL (53-29, 3.59 SRS, 3/23 O, 15/23 D)
1989 PHO (55-27, 6.84 SRS, 2/25 O, 5/25 D)
1990 PHO (54-28, 7.09 SRS, 3/27 O, 6/27 D)
1991 POR (63-19, 8.47 SRS, 2/27 O, 3/27 D)

Years they had common playoff opponents:

1980 PHI
1981 HOU
1982 PHI
1986 HOU
1988 DET

How is this not a huge deal? Was it talked about a ton at the time when the two were compared at the time?

[Kblaze8855]

It was always said that the east was the tougher conference far as physical toughness. The conference that played gritty ball. Nobody hated on magic for the weak west though. Maybe when I was too young to remember. Mid to late 80s I never heard it brought up.

[fpliii]

It was always said that the east was the tougher conference far as physical toughness. The conference that played gritty ball. Nobody hated on magic for the weak west though. Maybe when I was too young to remember. Mid to late 80s I never heard it brought up.
Oh, I'm certainly not trying to encourage that in this thread. But shouldn't it be a legitimate point of contention when people discuss the two? I'll hear it occasionally in comparisons, but only as an aside.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

It was always said that the east was the tougher conference far as physical toughness. The conference that played gritty ball. Nobody hated on magic for the weak west though. Maybe when I was too young to remember. Mid to late 80s I never heard it brought up.
That's still the case but the talent disparity just favors the West immensely.

[navy]

Oh, I'm certainly not trying to encourage that in this thread. But shouldn't it be a legitimate point of contention when people discuss the two? I'll hear it occasionally in comparisons, but only as an aside.
Considering how close people put Magic and Bird considering Magic's by far better postseason resume, I think it is acknowledged. :confusedshrug:

[gts]

One reason is the Lakers always played well against the Eastern Conference teams... Really well


Nobody with a brain tries to use todays weaker East against Lebron and Co...

Doesn't matter where you play when you win

[fpliii]

Considering how close people put Magic and Bird considering Magic's by far better postseason resume, I think it is acknowledged. :confusedshrug:
You'd think so, but I have a feeling that the vast majority of the board has Magic clearly ahead. Not that I have a problem with this, it just seems strange IMO.

Playoff series against common opponents:

1980 PHI
Bird - 22.2/13.8/3.6 on 44% shooting
Magic - 21.5/11.2/8.7 on 57% shooting

1981 HOU
Bird - 15.3/15.3/7.0 on 42% shooting
Magic - 17.0/13.7/7.0 on 39% shooting

1982 PHI
Bird - 18.3/14.1/7.3 on 41% shooting
Magic - 16.2/10.8/8.0 on 53% shooting

1986 HOU
Bird - 24.0/9.7/9.5 on 48% shooting
Magic - 22.2/8.0/16.2 on 53% shooting

1988 DET
Bird - 19.8/12.2/6.2 on 35% shooting
Magic - 21.1/5.7/13.0 on 55% shooting

Head-to-head Finals matchups

1984 Finals
Bird - 27.4/14.0/3.6 on 48% shooting
Magic - 18.0/7.7/13.6 on 56% shooting

1985 Finals
Bird - 23.8/8.8/5.0 on 45% shooting
Magic - 18.3/6.8/14.0 on 49% shooting

1987 Finals
Bird - 24.2/10.0/5.5 on 45% shooting
Magic - 26.2/8.0/13.0 on 54% shooting


One reason is the Lakers always played well against the Eastern Conference teams... Really well


Nobody with a brain tries to use todays weaker East against Lebron and Co...

Doesn't matter where you play when you win

Do you think it was because they had mismatches (late prime Kareem earlier on, and the fast break for most of the rest of their run)? Or do you think they just showed up in the Finals?

[NBAplayoffs2001]

It was always said that the east was the tougher conference far as physical toughness. The conference that played gritty ball. Nobody hated on magic for the weak west though. Maybe when I was too young to remember. Mid to late 80s I never heard it brought up.

Not hating on it but it is pretty evident that it was weaker than the east at the time, IMO

[gts]

Do you think it was because they had mismatches (late prime Kareem earlier on, and the fast break for most of the rest of their run)? Or do you think they just showed up in the Finals?

The biggest reason was the Showtime Lakers were really good... they made 9 trip to the finals over the years, you don't do that unless you're a rock solid team... Lebron talks about how tough it is to make the finals 4 times, Kobe Shaq Jordan talked about the energy it took to make the finals 3 times, Lakers made it 9 times over that span and they had t beat some pretty good teams to do it

They matched up against anyone, could play fast or slow and they played defense every bit as tough as the Eastern teams...

People hear Showtime and think the team was some fast break juggernaut that only tried to run and that couldn't be farther than the truth... Their offense started on defense, they'd push the ball but just as often bring it down the floor and play inside out...

The beauty of Magic was it allowed the Lakers to be a very opportunistic team, he could thrive in any situation and they Lakers had a player for every situation. They had to be a tough team to game plan against

They were fun to watch, they'd play in Denver one night and the Nuggets would try and run the Lakers into the ground and the Lakers would run with them and beat them at their own game... two nights later they're grinding it out in a defensive battle

[fpliii]

The biggest reason was the Showtime Lakers were really good... they made 9 trip to the finals over the years, you don't do that unless you're a rock solid team... Lebron talks about how tough it is to make the finals 4 times, Kobe Shaq Jordan talked about the energy it took to make the finals 3 times, Lakers made it 9 times over that span and they had t beat some pretty good teams to do it

They matched up against anyone, could play fast or slow and they played defense every bit as tough as the Eastern teams...

People hear Showtime and think the team was some fast break juggernaut that only tried to run and that couldn't be farther than the truth... Their offense started on defense, they'd push the ball but just as often bring it down the floor and play inside out...

The beauty of Magic was it allowed the Lakers to be a very opportunistic team, he could thrive in any situation and they Lakers had a player for every situation. They had to be a tough team to game plan against

They were fun to watch, they'd play in Denver one night and the Nuggets would try and run the Lakers into the ground and the Lakers would run with them and beat them at their own game... two nights later they're grinding it out in a defensive battle
Good shit. Showtime ended a couple years before I started watching, and watching available playoff games doesn't allow one to get a perfect idea of what went on.

Thanks for the breakdown. :cheers:

[Rubio2Gasol]

Thing is, there wasn't a huge debate.

Most acknowledged Bird is better.

[fpliii]

Thing is, there wasn't a huge debate.

Most acknowledged Bird is better.
So what changed things then? Did Magic's play from 89-91 when Bird was no longer himself make the difference? Or is it revisionist history?

[ProfessorMurder]

So what changed things then? Did Magic's play from 89-91 when Bird was no longer himself make the difference? Or is it revisionist history?

Pretty sure people just tend to give Magic the bump because he has more titles and played flashier.

[Psileas]

The info on 1980 Magic is wrong. He faced the Sonics, who went 56-26 (and won in 5).

Conference strength is not necessarily ignored, but what can't be ignored either is what "forced" you to stop in 1988, while you covered almost all of Magic's career. Magic still swept 55 win Phoenix in '89, beat 63 win Portland without HCA and while you may argue that (for various reasons) he didn't win another title, neither did Bird in his last years (also for various reasons) while facing inferior teams compared to his prime seasons.
As for the other below 50 win opponents, the 1981 Rockets obviously weren't the most powerful Western team based on R.S wins, just the ones that beat the Lakers (Magic, having missed more than half the season, had arguably his worst series), for 1984 you have a point, in 1987, the Sonics upset the 55 win Mavs (this upset has been historically forgotten). Which brings us to the question: If we are to "discredit" a team like the Sonics who only won 40, but beat a 55-win team and the '81 Rockets, are we to do the same for 2 of the 5 Celtics' opponents in the Finals (both Rockets teams)? Based on records, neither had been powerhouses and, ironically, their 3rd title also came against a team that had a below their standards regular season, while they lost both Finals when the opponent had won 60+ games.

[navy]

So what changed things then? Did Magic's play from 89-91 when Bird was no longer himself make the difference? Or is it revisionist history?
Well it isnt really revisionist history. Magic shouldnt be brought down because Bird was no longer himself. I personally think Bird gets a huge boost because of how good his peak play was. :confusedshrug:

[Artillery]

1987 Lakers probably had the weakest run to a Finals in NBA history.

[fpliii]

The info on 1980 Magic is wrong. He faced the Sonics, who went 56-26 (and won in 5).

Conference strength is not necessarily ignored, but what can't be ignored either is what "forced" you to stop in 1988, while you covered almost all of Magic's career. Magic still swept 55 win Phoenix in '89, beat 63 win Portland without HCA and while you may argue that (for various reasons) he didn't win another title, neither did Bird in his last years (also for various reasons) while facing inferior teams compared to his prime seasons.
As for the other below 50 win opponents, the 1981 Rockets obviously weren't the most powerful Western team based on R.S wins, just the ones that beat the Lakers (Magic, having missed more than half the season, had arguably his worst series), for 1984 you have a point, in 1987, the Sonics upset the 55 win Mavs (this upset has been historically forgotten). Which brings us to the question: If we are to "discredit" a team like the Sonics who only won 40, but beat a 55-win team and the '81 Rockets, are we to do the same for 2 of the 5 Celtics' opponents in the Finals (both Rockets teams)? Based on records, neither had been powerhouses and, ironically, their 3rd title also came against a team that had a below their standards regular season, while they lost both Finals when the opponent had won 60+ games.
1) Thanks for the correction, fixed.

2) Are Bird 80-88 and Magic 80-88 relatively similar then, in your opinion?

3) 81 perhaps doesn't warrant inclusion due to strange circumstances (and in general, those mini series are super high variance).

4) I'm not trying to discredit so much, rather I'm trying to supply some baseline context. I do agree with you that the two Houston teams were weaker Finals opponents than the Lakers would face. But in order to get there, Boston did have to beat at least one very good team (Sixers, Bucks, and later on Detroit), and in some cases two.

[fpliii]

Well it isnt really revisionist history. Magic shouldnt be brought down because Bird was no longer himself. I personally think Bird gets a huge boost because of how good his peak play was. :confusedshrug:
Just wondering:

1) How close would you say the players would be if both their careers ended in 88?

2) How much do you feel Magic's play in 89-91 improved his legacy?

[Hands of Iron]

Bird and Magic would've been 2-2 H2H in the Finals had the Lakers not been knocked off by Houston in '86 (4-1) though that would've been a fifth consecutive Finals appearance which is quite a lot to ask looking at Boston in 1988. Hell, even the year before that they had to overcome absolute warfare in back-to-back seven game series against Milwaukee and Detroit with some legendary heroics from Bird and went limping into the Finals with nothing left in the tank.

Prior to his deterioration, Bird also held a 3-1 advantage over Magic in MVP's. He evened the score in sort of a peculiar way though considering Jordan was probably the best player in basketball from '88 or '89 onwards.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
Great thread. Kobe said the same but more and more over the years we get more boxscore watchers who underrated Larry Legend:facepalm

[navy]

Just wondering:

1) How close would you say the players would be if both their careers ended in 88?

2) How much do you feel Magic's play in 89-91 improved his legacy?

I think it would be much closer (although it is already pretty close now) and would have also taken away the narrative that Magic passed the torch to Jordan. Which gives Magic another boost, perhaps unfairly over Bird.

[Hands of Iron]

Just wondering:

1) How close would you say the players would be if both their careers ended in 88?

2) How much do you feel Magic's play in 89-91 improved his legacy?

Not asking me, but:

1) Bird wins

2) It's when he pulled away. Two NBA MVP's is absolutely huge to a legacy. His achievements would look much different with 5 titles and 1 MVP compared to 3. He was also a little fortunate Kareem went down in 1980 for that Finals MVP but it is what it is. Larry's legacy will always be centered around his on-court skills (#1, always), impact, peak play, winning three consecutive MVP's and facing some of the greatest opposition of all-time (team-wise) in both the road to and in the NBA Finals. Larry Bird had only 8 healthy seasons beyond his rookie campaign to leave a Top 10 legacy and yet he's still Top 5 all-time in MVP voting shares. He never placed worst than 3rd from 1981-88 including four separate 2nd place finishes.

[Hands of Iron]

And I wouldn't even really describe him as healthy in '87-'88, it was more about playing through it at an elite level. He was ailing bad by the 1988 playoffs... I don't make excuses ordinarily and he had some bad series with absolutely nothing wrong physically, but really.

[Psileas]

1) Thanks for the correction, fixed.

2) Are Bird 80-88 and Magic 80-88 relatively similar then, in your opinion?

3) 81 perhaps doesn't warrant inclusion due to strange circumstances (and in general, those mini series are super high variance).

4) I'm not trying to discredit so much, rather I'm trying to supply some baseline context. I do agree with you that the two Houston teams were weaker Finals opponents than the Lakers would face. But in order to get there, Boston did have to beat at least one very good team (Sixers, Bucks, and later on Detroit), and in some cases two.

1) No problem
2) 80-88 Bird has a much better case of being ranked above 80-88 Magic than overall Bird vs overall Magic. Competition-wise, 80-88 Bird's in the East > 80-88 Magic's in the West, but it seems to even out if we include their latter years.
4) So, I guess we roughly agree that overall there's some relative balance between the competitions.

[Just2McFly]

man bird had some GARBAGE series :eek:

[JellyBean]

The biggest reason was the Showtime Lakers were really good... they made 9 trip to the finals over the years, you don't do that unless you're a rock solid team... Lebron talks about how tough it is to make the finals 4 times, Kobe Shaq Jordan talked about the energy it took to make the finals 3 times, Lakers made it 9 times over that span and they had t beat some pretty good teams to do it

They matched up against anyone, could play fast or slow and they played defense every bit as tough as the Eastern teams...

People hear Showtime and think the team was some fast break juggernaut that only tried to run and that couldn't be farther than the truth... Their offense started on defense, they'd push the ball but just as often bring it down the floor and play inside out...

The beauty of Magic was it allowed the Lakers to be a very opportunistic team, he could thrive in any situation and they Lakers had a player for every situation. They had to be a tough team to game plan against

They were fun to watch, they'd play in Denver one night and the Nuggets would try and run the Lakers into the ground and the Lakers would run with them and beat them at their own game... two nights later they're grinding it out in a defensive battle


:applause: Awesome comments. Folks sleep on the Lakers Showtime era defense all the time. When the Lakers used their 1-3-1 half court trap; with Cooper at the top, Magic and Worthy on the wing, Kareem in the middle, and either Wilkes/McAdoo at the bottom, they were deadly. Teams were no match for the Lakers.

[ArbitraryWater]

1981: WCF between Kansas City(5th) & Rockets(6th), two 41-41 Teams..
1984: WCF between the Lakers and the 41-41 Rockets
1987: WCF between the Lakers and the 39-43 Sonics...

The #3 seed in the West in 1987 won 49 games, 44 games were enough to get HCA in the first round with the #4 seed.

Seattle did not have a single 50+ game winning season from 1983 until 1993. If 1987 were an anomaly for an otherwise very good team that would be something else but clearly that team was simply mediocre.

[Psileas]

1981: WCF between Kansas City(5th) & Rockets(6th), two 41-41 Teams..
1984: WCF between the Lakers and the 41-41 Rockets
1987: WCF between the Lakers and the 39-43 Sonics...

The #3 seed in the West in 1987 won 49 games, 44 games were enough to get HCA in the first round with the #4 seed.

Seattle did not have a single 50+ game winning season from 1983 until 1993. If 1987 were an anomaly for an otherwise very good team that would be something else but clearly that team was simply mediocre.

The Sonics didn't become anything special, but their postseason was. They beat the second strongest team in the West (according to their R.S record) and then took out the 1986 Finalists Rockets without HCA, as well. I'm not saying '87 Rockets were as good as the '86 Rockets, but it becomes evident that the Sonics were not some typical 39 win team that you could take as lightly as your typical 1st round team.
Oh, and the 1981 40-win Rockets still sent the series against the Celtics to 6 games.

[ArbitraryWater]

The Sonics didn't become anything special, but their postseason was. They beat the second strongest team in the West (according to their R.S record) and then took out the 1986 Finalists Rockets without HCA, as well. I'm not saying '87 Rockets were as good as the '86 Rockets, but it becomes evident that the Sonics were not some typical 39 win team that you could take as lightly as your typical 1st round team.
Oh, and the 1981 40-win Rockets still sent the series against the Celtics to 6 games.


so you basically just explained the sonics making the conference finals by telling us they defeated a high seed team?

groundbreaking.

[jlip]

Because arguments of that nature are to be used primarily against Lebron only.

[Psileas]

so you basically just explained the sonics making the conference finals by telling us they defeated a high seed team?

groundbreaking.

Unlike you, who didn't even care to explain how the 1987 Sonics were a mediocre team - oh, wait, they were mediocre because they didn't perform well in the following seasons. Brilliant.

[SHAQisGOAT]

True, stuff like that gets "swept under the rug" many times... Context, period, gets overlooked time and time again, some people will neglect countless facts when it interests them or their argument, then turn and mention the same type of stuff in other discussions.

Facts are:
- Bird played in a tougher (arguably the GOAT) conference
- Larry got drafted into a team (falling apart) with the 2nd worst record in the league and no superstar to speak of, plus had to be the main-man, the leader and superstar from the get-go (very different from Magic's "predicament")
- When they were both healthy, Larry was almost always (considered) the better player, had a better peak too
....

[Pointguard]

There are reasons why Magic developed later.

Magic was the best game adapter the league probably ever had. Til this day nobody has been better at getting easier baskets, nobody got the ball to players with great precision involving where they like to shoot, catch the ball and how close to the basket.

Bird had his team built around him. Magic didn't. In fact Kareem was a bit of a pain to Magic in the beginning.

Magic's prime came later because Kareem was kind of in the way. So this 1988 cut off point is unfair to Magic who was like two plus years younger.

Magic played out of position the first four years. Yet Magic was more efficient, more steady, more dependable, and played better in the finals the first four years than Bird.

Magic was definitely the better step up player than Bird the first four years. He was more clutch and more efficient.

Had Magic not been splitting MVP votes and tip toeing around a player management told him to be nice to, he would have gotten plenty more MVP votes.

The one time the Laker's lost to the Celtics it was moreso considered the Laker's losing the game, not the Celtic's winning it. Magic beat Bird twice in his healthy prime. The only lost was a game seven in which Magic was strangely not himself at the end of the game.

While Bird had an all time great prime year, Magic definitely outplayed him 1985 finals in one of Birds best all around years. And the conference argument has no place here. Boston played all bad teams and eliminated Philly with only one lost in the ECF.

Magic was finally the central point of the offense in 1987 and he outplays healthy Bird in his prime again in the finals.

The conference stuff doesn't mean much because he was outplaying Bird in Bird's prime manu a manu in the finals.

Bird's prime was not Magic's prime. Yet Magic was beating Bird in his healthy prime.

[Hey Yo]

There are reasons why Magic developed later.

Magic was the best game adapter the league probably ever had. Til this day nobody has been better at getting easier baskets, nobody got the ball to players with great precision involving where they like to shoot, catch the ball and how close to the basket.

Bird had his team built around him. Magic didn't. In fact Kareem was a bit of a pain to Magic in the beginning.

Magic's prime came later because Kareem was kind of in the way. So this 1988 cut off point is unfair to Magic who was like two plus years younger.

Magic played out of position the first four years. Yet Magic was more efficient, more steady, more dependable, and played better in the finals the first four years than Bird.

Magic was definitely the better step up player than Bird the first four years. He was more clutch and more efficient.

Had Magic not been splitting MVP votes and tip toeing around a player management told him to be nice to, he would have gotten plenty more MVP votes.

The one time the Laker's lost to the Celtics it was moreso considered the Laker's losing the game, not the Celtic's winning it. Magic beat Bird twice in his healthy prime. The only lost was a game seven in which Magic was strangely not himself at the end of the game.

While Bird had an all time great prime year, Magic definitely outplayed him 1985 finals in one of Birds best all around years. And the conference argument has no place here. Boston played all bad teams and eliminated Philly with only one lost in the ECF.

Magic was finally the central point of the offense in 1987 and he outplays healthy Bird in his prime again in the finals.

The conference stuff doesn't mean much because he was outplaying Bird in Bird's prime manu a manu in the finals.

Bird's prime was not Magic's prime. Yet Magic was beating Bird in his healthy prime.
Maybe because Bird carried his team since he was a rookie and Magic didn't have to exert the energy to do so until later in his career.

[eliteballer]

Magic was 3 years younger than Bird.....

...and the media was even more white dominated and east coast biased back then regarding MVP voting.

Magic outplayed PEAK Bird in the Finals repeatedly even though he was 3 years younger...even his numbers in the 84 finals dominate Bird.

Magic as a 20 year old rookie in 1980 beat the DEFENDING CHAMPION Sonics and the Super Team Sixers putting up numbers in the playoffs and finals that are comparable to ANYTHING Bird did in his entire CAREER.

....and Magic beat all the Phillies and Detroits that came out of the East.

and let's not act like Philly and Detroit were good AT THE SAME TIME. Philly was good early in the decade and the Pistons later on.

Magic had to deal with teams like:

Gervin/Gilmore Spurs
Defending Champion Sonics
Hakeem/Sampson Rockets
Stockton/Malone Jazz
early 80's Suns getting 50 wins every year
Drexler Blazers
Blackman Mavs

Bird lost to the Bucks in the 83 playoffs but I don't see anyone talking about that....or the fact that injuries screwed over the Lakers in 81, 83, and 89

[Kblaze8855]

I suspect that the Bucks alone had near as many 55 win seasons during Birds career as all those teams you mentioned combined did during Magics. If not its close.

The Twin Towers sure as hell never won that much. The Mavs...maybe one year...maaaaybe. The Jazz in maybe 88? The Blazers that year they won 63 and the Suns knocked the Lakers off and in 92 Magic was gone already.

The Spurs were never that good till Drob came later.

The Suns ill give 1 year with DJ and a couple with KJ at the end of the 80s...and they beat the Lakers.

It might end up 9-5 your 7 teams vs just the Bucks bigtime winning seasons wise and thats with me counting some versions of the team you were not talking about.

Its close enough your instinct is to look into it. Its close enough to be amusing you mentioned those 7 teams like they were powerhouses.

Some would beat up other eras.....but they just were not that good for 80s teams.

The west was on a platter for the Lakers for a decade. If todays east had TWO sub.500 conference finals teams in a season you would be laughing your ass off.

Lakers aside the west won 2 rings in the 20 years after Magic was drafted. The Lakers or the east won for like 15 years. There was nobody else to be taken serious for a good run there.......

[Pointguard]

I suspect that the Bucks alone had near as many 55 win seasons during Birds career as all those teams you mentioned combined did during Magics. If not its close.

The Twin Towers sure as hell never won that much. The Mavs...maybe one year...maaaaybe. The Jazz in maybe 88? The Blazers that year they won 63 and the Suns knocked the Lakers off and in 92 Magic was gone already.

The Spurs were never that good till Drob came later.

The Suns ill give 1 year with DJ and a couple with KJ at the end of the 80s...and they beat the Lakers.

It might end up 9-5 your 7 teams vs just the Bucks bigtime winning seasons wise and thats with me counting some versions of the team you were not talking about.

Its close enough your instinct is to look into it. Its close enough to be amusing you mentioned those 7 teams like they were powerhouses.

Some would beat up other eras.....but they just were not that good for 80s teams.

The west was on a platter for the Lakers for a decade. If todays east had TWO sub.500 conference finals teams in a season you would be laughing your ass off.

Lakers aside the west won 2 rings in the 20 years after Magic was drafted. The Lakers or the east won for like 15 years. There was nobody else to be taken serious for a good run there.......
Lets see if competition/attrition ever played a role later in the playoffs.

The first year in '80 Philly is just better than the Celtics and beats them handily. Magic makes all the correct adjustments to handle Philly. Magic shows that he is big league ready and has one of the best finals games ever.

In '81 Boston did have to play Philly and it cost them three loses. Boston wins it all. No attrition argument can be given here either.

In '82 they are eliminated by Philly in the second round, but Lakers beat Philly. Sorry no attrition argument can be given.

In '83 the Bucks sweep Boston. Philly was on a mission and beats the Bucks and the Lakers in big fashion.

In '84 Boston beats the Lakers who make a lot of mistakes like attrition affected them.

We are half way thru the decade and attrition doesn't play a role once.

In '85 Boston did lose 2 games to Detroit in the second round but it wasn't a grueling series. They played two more games than LA did before losing to them in the finals. Losing four games is about average on a trip to the finals. This year, I think every playoff team outside of Miami hit that mark 2 games into the second round. Not really an argument here.

In '86 Boston loses only 1 game before beating Houston.

Now in '87 the case can be made. A peaking Bucks team and an up-and-coming Detroit team take Boston to the max before the Lakers beat them.

However, in '88 the Lakers go the max route for the last three series before beating the Pistons that beat the Celtics. More games in the playoffs than the Celtics played in the decade.

Boston rarely played teams to long series. Philly twice and the Knicks once in the first 4 years. LA in '84. then that tough stretch in '87. The Hawks in '88.

It might be a question of attrition in one year. The same could be said for the Lakers except they won it that year. In nine years you might expect one to be really challenging. Most of the time the Lakers were beating the team that beat Boston pretty handily.

To me this conference strength argument is only a reality when its really taxing and maxing games to 6 or 7 extra games before the finals which happened once to that Celtic's team and once to the Laker's team in the OP's time period.

[Hands of Iron]

Considering Bird put up 27/14/4 on 60% TS in the 1984 Finals, I wouldn't necessarily say he was getting "dominated" by anybody in that series. The Conference strength does play a role and probably none bigger than in the 1987 playoffs. The Sidney Moncrief-led Buck teams tend to get slept on for some reason, but Milwaukee actually boasted the third best winning percentage of the decade behind only the Lakers and Celtics. Detroit was already on the cusp by '87 and would find themselves in the Finals each of the following three seasons.

The Celtics - marching toward their fourth consecutive Finals appearance and with McHale playing through a fractured foot the entire postseason - had two grueling, back-to-back seven game series against both of the aforementioned just to get into the Finals. The Lakers opposition to the dance was absolute cupcake material by comparison. Bird's performances in the Conference Finals that year against the Pistons are nothing short of legendary. With the series tied up at 2-2 and Bird being held in check for the majority of the series up to that point, he puts up 36/10/7 on 57% FG/66% TS over the last three games while playing 47, 47 and 48 minutes respectively. This included a 37/9/9 Game 7 performance and the famous inbounds steal on Thomas and pass to DJ under the basket to win Game 5. It's really nothing short of amazing that Boston was able to reach the Finals and they came limping in with little left in the tank aside from pride.

[cltcfn2924]

Thing is, there wasn't a huge debate.

Most acknowledged Bird is better.


Whoa there. I'm a Bird fan, but you could only say that in his absolute prime, which was shorter than Magics'. Both had IQ off the charts, Bird just learned how to win earlier. Magic was more physically gifted, Bird had to play recklessly. Doesn't mean he gave more effort than Magic, Magic was just more gifted. I will tell you this, neither team wins a chip without these guys.