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]

[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]

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 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 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.