Magic and Bird Plus Minus Numbers

[dankok8]

From Squared2020.

https://i.postimg.cc/0jqDzgd5/Magic-Johnson-Career-Regular-Season-Plus-Minus.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/B6ZG4bRJ/Larry-Bird-Career-Regular-Season-Plus-Minus.jpg

Magic looks amazing and Bird looks solid.

Not huge samples but not too small either with about two seasons worth of games. In the unsampled games, the MOV is higher for both so I'd expect the ON numbers to go up a bit and the ON-OFF numbers to drop by a decent amount with a full sample.

[1987_Lakers]

Lakers sill had a 62-42 record without Magic throughout the 80's. They were loaded.

Celtics were 56-47 without Bird in the 80's.

[Im Still Ballin]

Great post as always. Magic was a beast. Look at that 1987 on-court ORtg and on-off!

[dankok8]

Great post as always. Magic was a beast. Look at that 1987 on-court ORtg and on-off!

I'm more impressed that his ON-OFF is that good with a 169-game sample. Of course it's not a huge sample but it's a pretty decent size.

[dankok8]

3ball just deleted a post on how Bird is better than Magic. :lol

[jlip]

This is some good info. I'm just wondering why the site did not select Bird's '86 season which is almost universally viewed as his peak.

[Carbine]

3ball just deleted a post on how Bird is better than Magic. :lol

Yeah that was weird

[dankok8]

This is some good info. I'm just wondering why the site did not select Bird's '86 season which is almost universally viewed as his peak.

The 1986 data hasn't been logged yet. It probably will at some point.

[ralph_i_el]

I think it was probably more difficult to re-create Magic's style when he was on the bench, whereas Bird had McHale playing a lot of the minutes he was on the bench?

[tpols]

The way it looks to me is the reason for LAs #1 ranked offenses and assist ranks was Magic. And whoever his replacement was couldn't duplicate his impact. Where as the reason for Bostons top ranks was legit ball movement and teamwork. So when Bird hit the bench that still remained in some fashion. They weren't relying on Bird to "Luka" their offense like the Lakers were with Magic.

[Im Still Ballin]

The way it looks to me is the reason for LAs #1 ranked offenses and assist ranks was Magic. And whoever his replacement was couldn't duplicate his impact. Where as the reason for Bostons top ranks was legit ball movement and teamwork. So when Bird hit the bench that still remained in some fashion. They weren't relying on Bird to "Luka" their offense like the Lakers were with Magic.

Plausible. AKA the LeBron Ball effect. Hard for a team that's so heliocentric/ran through one guy who dominates the ball to operate without him. Minimal repetitions and habits developed for alternative strategies. Like a drug addiction and then the withdrawals.

[tpols]

Plausible. AKA the LeBron Ball effect. Hard for a team that's so heliocentric/ran through one guy who dominates the ball to operate without him. Minimal repetitions and habits developed for alternative strategies. Like a drug addiction and then the withdrawals.

Last sentence is a bit wild but somewhat true. :lol Teams that rely on one ball dominator for their "fix" go into withdrawals when he's out. Where as a team with multiple QBs and suppliers always has their dope on deck. Part of the reason they succeed more and don't hit those down swings. Magic is pretty much the only exception to the rule.

[HoopsNY]

This is why I say there can be some credence to having Steph in the top 10 (and maybe even top 5). Magic was not a great defensive player, and maybe not even a good one, but his offensive impact most certainly put him near the top and overall, he put up a fantastic career.

Steph is similar in this regard. You can't argue with his impact metrics and he also was never a solid defensive player. Like Magic, he played on a lot of stacked teams, but nonetheless put together a solid career.

We're now seeing the same with Jokic. I'd argue Jokic is in the same conversation and his impact can't be denied either. Does it put them in the top 5? Maybe, maybe not.

[tpols]

This is why I say there can be some credence to having Steph in the top 10 (and maybe even top 5). Magic was not a great defensive player, and maybe not even a good one, but his offensive impact most certainly put him near the top and overall, he put up a fantastic career.

Steph is similar in this regard. You can't argue with his impact metrics and he also was never a solid defensive player. Like Magic, he played on a lot of stacked teams, but nonetheless put together a solid career.

We're now seeing the same with Jokic. I'd argue Jokic is in the same conversation and his impact can't be denied either. Does it put them in the top 5? Maybe, maybe not.


People tend to value "all around" players higher than offensive dynamos because they think it's as simple as adding up attributes like 1+1+1+1=4. But it's been seen too many times that offensive genius can blow the doors off the more well rounded guys.

Dirk used to own KG, and I have no doubt Jokic would too. But if you added up their attributes overall it would look like Garnett was better. Same thing for Magic vs somebody like Chris Paul or Gary Payton.

[90sgoat]

Bird was pretty easily better than Magic and I'm tired of pretending it isn't the case.

Magic is a top 3 player, at the least a top 5 player, but Bird is as good as anyone who ever played the game and then better.

Bird had better shooting, better defense, better toughness, better everything but passing and yet Magic was better than Lebron.

[HoopsNY]

People tend to value "all around" players higher than offensive dynamos because they think it's as simple as adding up attributes like 1+1+1+1=4. But it's been seen too many times that offensive genius can blow the doors off the more well rounded guys.

Dirk used to own KG, and I have no doubt Jokic would too. But if you added up their attributes overall it would look like Garnett was better. Same thing for Magic vs somebody like Chris Paul or Gary Payton.

Very good point. In addition, we could say Russell climbed the ranks through defense (leadership and playmaking as well), but his impact was undoubtedly greater than someone like an Eligin Baylor.

Or even someone like Ben Wallace. You could probably list a host of 4s or 5s who were solid offensively and had some defense, but Wallace's defense put him just above them.

I mean, if Steve Nash has prime Ben Wallace instead of A'mare, what do those Suns teams look like?