Is there any rational argument that Magic was better in his prime than Jordan?

[ceiling raiser]

Have been thinking about this recently. Argument would be something along the lines of:

• Similar +/- data from limited samples
• Jordan’s defensive impact overrated, Magic’s underrated by size
• Similar quality offensive players, Magic better at ceiling raising
• Magic succeeded in a stronger league (not conference…not a tenable case)

What does the argument look like, if it exists?

[tsherkin]

Have been thinking about this recently. Argument would be something along the lines of:

• Similar +/- data from limited samples
• Jordan’s defensive impact overrated, Magic’s underrated by size
• Similar quality offensive players, Magic better at ceiling raising
• Magic succeeded in a stronger league (not conference…not a tenable case)

What does the argument look like, if it exists?

Defensive value still favors Jordan over Magic pretty sizably even if you presume that Magic is somehow underrated. I would like to see that one, since he didn't have the speed against 2s and didn't do terribly well against athletic 3s.

Do we know that Magic was better as a ceiling raiser? We never really saw him on anything but good teams. Even the 91 Lakers were pretty damned good. Sure, we saw the echo of Magic in his brief comeback in 96, but that basically doesn't count.

His success in a stronger league, does it matter? He chewed through a brutally weak WC, can we really say his RS and postseason success were more impressive than the teams Jordan beat, even if the Bulls never had to handle the 83 Sixers or the 80s Celtics?

Just some Devil's Advocate questions.

[Jaivl]

Have been thinking about this recently. Argument would be something along the lines of:

• Similar +/- data from limited samples
• Jordan’s defensive impact overrated, Magic’s underrated by size
• Similar quality offensive players, Magic better at ceiling raising
• Magic succeeded in a stronger league (not conference…not a tenable case)

What does the argument look like, if it exists?

Maybe. Not one that incorporates the 4th point, though. Also don't know if he's a better ceiling raiser (not worse either).

Furthermore, I think the argument would have to go along the lines of Magic being better offensively than Jordan (similar is probably not enough) and Jordan not improving on defense since his younger, crazy horse years.

[Cavsfansince84]

I would think that the 92/96/97 Bulls sort of put the ceiling argument to rest though of course there's context but one thing I don't like about Magic's teams is how often they were being taken to 7 games by teams that they should have beaten in 5 or 6 games.

[penbeast0]

If there is, it is probably based on Magic being a guy that everyone loved to play with whereas Jordan was sort of toxically competitive and while he was successful in his situation, that might limit his ability to play in other environments. I have Jordan strongly ahead but that's probably the strongest argument in Magic's favor.

[OhayoKD]

I have Jordan ahead(playoff elevation/presumed defensive edge), but a pro-Magic argument probably goes something like...

Have been thinking about this recently. Argument would be something along the lines of:

• Similar +/- data from limited samples

Similar +/- Data, but Magic maintains a marginal but consistent advantage via "pure" signals. Concentrated stuff(largest impact sample we can get) favors Magic a bit. amd that advantage maintains if we look at averages(very small sample though, so take it a grain of salt):

Hakeem takes 33-win teams to 48 wins
Jordan takes 38-win teams to 53.5 wins
Magic takes 44-win teams to 59 wins

Keeping in mind that it's harder to lift better teams, Hakeem comes marginally behind Jordan, and slightly more behind Magic, but he's right up there with both.

Ben has his own(presumably more sophisticated) approach which likes Hakeem even better; "Prime WOWY" ranks Olajuwon 10th. Magic and Jordan rank 12th and 20th, respectively. Keep in mind the samples here are much, much smaller, but at least there aren't extraneous distortions to worry about as we may with something like WOWYR

For those who are interested, Magic also looks best of the three in WOWYR-stuff ranking #1 in Prime WOWYR, #2 in Scaled WOWYR, #1 in Career WOWYR, and T-1 in scaled GPM. I put very little stock in all that, but, FWIW, Magic does look like the best player ever by that approach.

Potential counterpoint might be Magic's arrival coinciding with the smallest team-improvement(rookie) stuff but eh...rotation changed significantly, and Magic was a teenager(hakeem and jordan were not)...so I wouldn't use that tbh.

• Jordan’s defensive impact overrated, Magic’s underrated by size

This would be the explanation though unibro has argued man defense has special situational value in the post-season. There are examples you can use to argue the opposite(the kawhi-led clippers may be the chief anti-example), but Jordan's defense may show up in the postseason in a way it doesn't with the d-ratings.

• Similar quality offensive players, Magic better at ceiling raising

Eh...hard to see the case here if Magic and Jordan are tied on offense. Of course, it's not impossible to argue magic is better on that end. FWIW, his offenses held up significantly better than Bird or Jordans' against the Pistons. I haven't heard a ceiling raiser case for Magic actually(and am open to someone making it), though I'd be somewhat skeptical given that Magic is relatively limited off-ball, even in comparison to someone like Lebron, and doesn't really have the ability to compensate via defensive elevation.

Not dismissing it, but "magic played on better offenses" isn't moving me on its own. Though to that end...

I would think that the 92/96/97 Bulls sort of put the ceiling argument to rest though of course there's context but one thing I don't like about Magic's teams is how often they were being taken to 7 games by teams that they should have beaten in 5 or 6 games.

Keeping in mind being a "ceiling raiser" is about individual influence maintaining on better teams, not simply being on better teams, I'm not sure I would be citing the first three-peat as something that put's the conversation "to rest":

The 94 bulls actually had a +8.9 postseason srs which is almost the same as their 93 seasom +10 post season srs (+1 difference)

The 94 bulls also missed 20 combined games from their two stars and played a +4.7 srs when healthy in the regular season (+1.5 difference with the 93 bulls with jordan) and in a very generous best case scenario a (+5.3 difference with even the 92 bulls regular season)

If i average the 94 bulls (+4.7 at full strenght in regular season and +8.9 in playoffs) vs the 92 reg season + 93 playoffs combination draymomd used ([i]and please notice i am already picking and choosing the parts that help jordan more) the gap is only 5 points

That is not goat level.

Even by you guys own approach as it is below other all time greats lift in either absolute terms or in "ceiling raising" situations

TLDR: When we take your on sample of choice(+10 during the first three-peat), Jordan ends up looking like a [b]limited ceiling raiser. Kareem needs less steps to do as much with less in 71. Lebron does as much with far less in the 2015 playoffs(+10 PSRS without kyrie, love, or spacing). 08/09 KG does about as well with about as much. Can't really say someone is a better ceiling raiser when they're less valuable with a raised ceiling.

Feel like "x player is a ceiling raiser, y player is not" arguments are largely based on vibes than what can actually be well-supported.

• Magic succeeded in a stronger league (not conference…not a tenable case)

The conference imbalance sort of neutralizes that. Loss to the Rockets also may be the biggest team-level choke ever(rivalled by lumps taken by Erving and the Sixers).

As for leadership...

If there is, it is probably based on Magic being a guy that everyone loved to play with whereas Jordan was sort of toxically competitive and while he was successful in his situation, that might limit his ability to play in other environments. I have Jordan strongly ahead but that's probably the strongest argument in Magic's favor.

Feel like Magic gets some demerit for trying to mutiny because the team ran stuff through...maybe the greatest player ever? Suppose that's not as bad as the wizards stuff, but not hard to see other lockerrooms getting ruined by that sort of selfishness. Credit to Jabbar it didn't get that far though

[No-more-rings]

Not really unless you don’t care about defense or just have sort of agenda.

[LukaTheGOAT]

No, unless you believe Magic Johnson's leadership/intangibles are worth have a +1 or more advantage over Jordan. This is hard to prove, because we don't know how they would look in different team scenarios than the ones we were in.

I mean looking at 5-year primes in the PS:

89-93 MJ

Inflation Adjusted 34.5 pts per 75, rTS% of 5.8%. Estimated to have created about 12.9 shots per 100 possessions by Box-Creation.

Backpicks BPM-9.6% (100th percentile all-time)
Backpicks OBPM-7.4 (100th percentile all-time)


87-91 Magic

Inflation Adjusted 20.7 pts per 75, rTS% of 7.3%. Estimated to have created about 12 shots per 100 possessions by Box-Creation.

Backpicks BPM-7.5
Backpicks OBPM-5.7

Now, I just want to mention that even though Jordan is estimated to have potentially created more shots than Magic, I don't believe his playmaking value is close due to Magic being such a high-leverage passer (getting open layups and transition opportunities for teammates). However, I do think estimated shots created, do highlight just how special of a slasher MJ was, and how he was able to consistently pressure the rim and generate kick-outs. MJ for example is generating about 12.6 free-throws per 100 possessions to Magic's 9.4 free-throws per 100 possessions, and while yes MJ shot more, I think it is indicative of him being able to also get closer shots at the rim. Overall, MJ was a really good playmaker.