Magic vs. Bird :: year-by-year

[Jimmy76]

I dont think you can claim Magic was better their rookie year. Magic was a 2nd-4th option while Bird turned a 29 win team into a contender, won rookie of the year, and made the 1st team while Magic didn't make all nba.

[That Nicka]

I dont think you can claim Magic was better their rookie year. Magic was a 2nd-4th option while Bird turned a 29 win team into a contender, won rookie of the year, and made the 1st team while Magic didn't make all nba.

Magic was much better in the playoffs though and performed epically on the biggest stage... During the season Magic is right there with Bird (statistically speaking) but good point about Bird being 1st option.. I'd say Magic was a 3rd behind Kareem and Wilkes. their PER for the regular season are identical

You may be right about being a 1st option being enough to tip in Bird's favor, but I was feeling that the playoffs tipped the advantage to Magic

[Jimmy76]

I dont think you can claim Magic was better their rookie year. Magic was a 2nd-4th option while Bird turned a 29 win team into a contender, won rookie of the year, and made the 1st team while Magic didn't make all nba.

Magic was much better in the playoffs though and performed epically on the biggest stage... During the season Magic is right there with Bird (statistically speaking) but good point about Bird being 1st option.. I'd say Magic was a 3rd behind Kareem and Wilkes. their PER for the regular season are identical

You may be right about being a 1st option being enough to tip in Bird's favor, but I was feeling that the playoffs tipped the advantage to Magic

One game doesn't make Magic better as impressive as it was

It's like comparing Kobe to Manu, Manu has better efficiency and often a similar PER but there's really no question which one is better

It wasn't without reason that the people actually watching them play thought Bird was better without question for the first half of the 80's

Magic walked onto a team with Jabbar, Wilkes, and Nixon its not really surprising he saw more team success. Bird taking his team to 61 wins from 29 without any other really significant additions is way more impressive to me.

[semi-sentient]

Can you say Magic was worse though because he was in a different situation? He was playing out of position a lot which I think speaks volumes about his versatility, particularly when you consider how productive he was. Yeah, he had a lot more help around him, but man... it's hard to ignore how well he played. Could Bird have done what Magic did in the Finals if given the opportunity? I seriously doubt it. Not as a rookie. Magic did exactly what was asked of him and did it brilliantly. The Lakers won a championship as a result.

That said, in the RPOY project I still voted for Bird in 1980 because there's more to it than just numbers or who was more versatile or who was the better player. Bird was also put in a position where he had to do more (and it was more about his impact on his teammates), and he exceeded expectations as well. It's very close all things considered, but I do give Bird an edge overall because I think the Celtics turnaround was more impressive.

[That Nicka]

I dont think you can claim Magic was better their rookie year. Magic was a 2nd-4th option while Bird turned a 29 win team into a contender, won rookie of the year, and made the 1st team while Magic didn't make all nba.

Magic was much better in the playoffs though and performed epically on the biggest stage... During the season Magic is right there with Bird (statistically speaking) but good point about Bird being 1st option.. I'd say Magic was a 3rd behind Kareem and Wilkes. their PER for the regular season are identical

You may be right about being a 1st option being enough to tip in Bird's favor, but I was feeling that the playoffs tipped the advantage to Magic

One game doesn't make Magic better as impressive as it was

It's like comparing Kobe to Manu, Manu has better efficiency and often a similar PER but there's really no question which one is better

It wasn't without reason that the people actually watching them play thought Bird was better without question for the first half of the 80's

I wasnt basing it off one game though... I was basing it off

18.3, 10.5, 9.4, 3.1, 59.6%TS, 22.1 PER in 16 games
vs
21.3, 11.2, 4.7, 1.6, 51.1%TS, 18.3 PER in 9 games

[Jimmy76]

Magic is 3rd on my all time list and Bird is like 7-8 so I'm not advocating Bird over Magic but imo its a revision of history to claim Magic was better than Bird their rookie years.

I think people get it confused because Magic became the Magic of later years and he won finals MVP that year but he really was more Manu than Kobe that year.

[That Nicka]

Magic is 3rd on my all time list and Bird is like 7-8 so I'm not advocating Bird over Magic but imo its a revision of history to claim Magic was better than Bird their rookie years.

I think people get it confused because Magic became the Magic of later years and he won finals MVP that year but he really was more Manu than Kobe that year.

I'm gonna lie and say I saw them both play their rookie years because I wasnt even around, which is why, in my post, I said I was going solely off numbers... Magic's playoff numbers are better than Bird's and their regular season numbers look about even. You did raise a good point about Bird being a first option though

[Jimmy76]

Magic is 3rd on my all time list and Bird is like 7-8 so I'm not advocating Bird over Magic but imo its a revision of history to claim Magic was better than Bird their rookie years.

I think people get it confused because Magic became the Magic of later years and he won finals MVP that year but he really was more Manu than Kobe that year.

I'm gonna lie and say I saw them both play their rookie years because I wasnt even around, which is why, in my post, I said I was going solely off numbers... Magic's playoff numbers are better than Bird's and their regular season numbers look about even. You did raise a good point about Bird being a first option though

I wasn't around either and I felt the same way until the 1980 rpoy thread

As good as Bird's numbers are imo they understate his impact especially in his early years

[Jordan23Forever]

Always funny to see how different the opinions of Laker fans are compared to, oh, EVERYONE ELSE when it comes to any Laker player. I especially liked the "1985 is a wash" comment.

[ElGee]

Now, I think Magic ran the GOAT fastbreak, but I don't think it's right to be overly impressed by his scoring/efficiency because he picks up a few extra layups in those spots.

Come on. Isn't the whole point to get easy buckets instead of taking more difficult shots? That's like critizing LeBron for getting easier scores than Kobe because he's the superior athlete and playing in an era that benefits his playing style.

Magic always pushed the ball, so he is largely responsible for his own efficient scoring and that of his teammates. There's no question that Bird was more skilled as a scorer, but the gap in scoring efficiency between Bird and Magic is too large to just ignore, at least in the early years noting that this came from your comments in 1980.

You're taking this out of context a little. Yes, that is the goal -- Magic gets credit for that, just I like I give him credit for raising team efficiency in running said fast break. But the point was in looking at those numbers, which people love to do, it's important to understand where the SHOT ATTEMPTS are coming from. And that, in those early years, Magic himself was getting layups, not necessarily because of Magic, but because of the team. So yes, when it's due to Magic literally pushing and scoring a layup, that's better efficiency than a 45% outside jumper. Otherwise, I expect the 3rd option whose attempts are on backcuts and putbacks to have a more consistent (and solid) TS%.

What blows me away about the early perceptions was that Bird was being praised heavily for making his teammates better instead of for his volume scoring/efficiency (which was not great at all), but Magic was just as good at making his own teammates better by getting them easier shots and a bit more versatile. I do think that Bird has an early advantage over Magic despite what the numbers say, but there the gap isn't big at all, especially when you consider that Magic had to play a variety of positions and did an exceptional job regardless of what he was being asked to do. IMO, Magic gets knocked because he had a lot more to work with compared to Bird, but he delivered results so what more was he supposed to do? CLEARLY he had the ability to put up even bigger numbers, but that wasn't what the Lakers needed on a full time basis, and quite frankly they weren't using him to the best of his abilities (yet he was still one of the best in the game).

Yes, because when you watch the games, you'll see that Bird is the centerpiece of the offense while Magic is a secondary or tertiary player in those years. Magic may have had the potential to be a centerpiece, but he wasn't. Bird was 23 and polished as a rookie -- people were amazed by him as a passer, creator and scorer. Magic was 20, and outside of G6 of the Finals, wasn't in the same breath...it's no knock that it took him a few years to catch up (and I have Magic improving for most of his career -- a testament to him as well).

The gap between them in the early years IS big. That's why it was considered big at the time by everyone watching. If it weren't big, implicitly, Magic would be in the Jordan/Russell we're-way-ahead-of-everyone GOAT tier. You said it best -- they might not have used him to the best of his abilities...that counted for me during RPOY (for reasons I've explained in detail more than once) -- and I'm not differentiating here between potential and performance.

1981 -- Magic missed must of the season, clashed with coaching/management, was described as a cancer...

So, who considered Magic a cancer? I think you are mistaken. I think there were times where Kareem and Norm might have been jealous (which is their problem, not Magic's) at all the media attention that he was getting (due to the injury), but that's a far cry from him being a cancer. The fans and everyone on the team, coaching staff included, absolutely loved the guy. I'm beginning to wonder if people were even reading those articles in the RPOY project.

Ugh. It's Saturday, c'mon. *I* don't think he's a cancer, but he had a rough rap in 1981 after "clashing" with Westhead and signing a huge contract (and yes, having teammates jealous of his attention). I can't find it, but there was another piece written that was fairly negative...I was just pointing out the perception.

Also, I was the one who posted those articles in the RPOY project.

This what I was referring to mostly, and it created a lot of negativity around Magic for a short period of time.

Two nights before, after the Lakers had beaten the Utah Jazz 113-110 for their fifth straight victory, Westhead had met with Johnson to express his displeasure over what he called a "lack of concentration on Magic's part." That reportedly meant that either Johnson hadn't listened to Westhead during a time-out late in that night's game or had failed to run a play to the coach's satisfaction. In the locker room after that meeting, Johnson told the press that he couldn't play under Westhead's system anymore and that he wanted to be traded. After the Lakers arrived back in Los Angeles the next morning, Buss called a press conference, and Westhead was gone, with the remaining three years of his four-year, $1.1 million contract guaranteed.

Sports Illustrated called him a 'greedy, petulant and obnoxious 22-year-old.'

"They booed him at home. They booed him on the road. The press hammered him. His signature smile faded away.

"He became 'decidedly less outgoing,' in the words of SI's Bruce Newman, who quoted Magic as saying, 'It has been tough as far as keeping myself together mentally and trying to concentrate. Before all that happened it was like having an understanding with the fans. They like having someone they could reach out to and call a friend.'"

Hell, Magic himself was clearly annoyed by all the media attention, so I'm not sure how anyone could call him a cancer due to something that is completely beyond his control.

Yeah, that's the point. The media writes stuff that' silly. Fans have whacky, irrational reactions and biases. Didn't realize you'd jump all over the word "cancer" -- did you not know what I meant or what I was referring to (Westhead, Kareem, Nixon, media and fan response)??

and was the goat of the playoff upset against Houston.

It's worth mentioning that the Lakers lost to the Rockets (in a best of 3, which makes it more flukey than anything) not because of Magic, but because of Lakers FC getting outplayed/rebounded.

Have you ever heard me say a team lost "because" of a star player? Again, Magic was considered the goat -- that last second air-ball was criticized, just like his dribbling out the clock in 84. The point was, it's silly to me to reduce these great careers to two or three perceived mishaps, like a "choke" or an "upset," which is something that, frankly, I see you and most Laker fans on realgm assert constantly in this discussion vis a vis Bird.

It's not enough that he's one of the most underrated, trashed stars of this generation, or that young people can't believe the slow white guy in tight shorts who can't jump was that good. For goodness sakes, really smart, quality posters actually cite HCA in this debate.

[ElGee]

Magic is 3rd on my all time list and Bird is like 7-8 so I'm not advocating Bird over Magic but imo its a revision of history to claim Magic was better than Bird their rookie years.

I think people get it confused because Magic became the Magic of later years and he won finals MVP that year but he really was more Manu than Kobe that year.

What drives me nuts -- and drove me nuts during the RPOY -- is really solid, reasonable posters ignoring the double-standard of arbitrarily emphasizing one game. (Note: Magic's G6 in the Finals is one of my favorite performances ever. It's awesome to watch.)

Magic had a great G6. Plenty of other players had great games throughout the project, and most people didn't really bat an eye. Why wasn't Bird elevated in 1988 for his Game 7 (15-24, 34 points, 9-10 4th Q)? Why wasn't Magic equally penalized for his G5 in 1980? 4-13 and a record 10 turnovers!

[That Nicka]

I especially liked the "1985 is a wash" comment.

Oh, you mean the other year where Magic was better in the playoffs and won the championship (over Bird).

Funny how Jordan fans are usually the ones harping about playoff dominance, excellence and winning...

[semi-sentient]

You're taking this out of context a little. Yes, that is the goal -- Magic gets credit for that, just I like I give him credit for raising team efficiency in running said fast break. But the point was in looking at those numbers, which people love to do, it's important to understand where the SHOT ATTEMPTS are coming from. And that, in those early years, Magic himself was getting layups, not necessarily because of Magic, but because of the team. So yes, when it's due to Magic literally pushing and scoring a layup, that's better efficiency than a 45% outside jumper. Otherwise, I expect the 3rd option whose attempts are on backcuts and putbacks to have a more consistent (and solid) TS%.

Fair enough.

Ugh. It's Saturday, c'mon. *I* don't think he's a cancer, but he had a rough rap in 1981 after "clashing" with Westhead and signing a huge contract (and yes, having teammates jealous of his attention). I can't find it, but there was another piece written that was fairly negative...I was just pointing out the perception.

I didn't say that you thought he was a cancer -- I asked you who considered him a cancer so that I could understand why you made the comment about him being described as a cancer.

Almost everything I've read from his teammates at the time seems to contradict that. Perhaps there's a few occasions here and there where things got testy, but a cancer generally destroys team chemistry because of the type of player he is, and Magic is anything but a player who destroys chemistry. A player getting booed doesn't suggest that he's a cancer either, and I'm certainly not about to take Bill Simmon's opinion on Magic seriously.

We're also talking about completely different seasons here. Your comments came in relation to 1981, and Westhead's firing (a good thing) and the booing happened in 1982 season.

Yeah, that's the point. The media writes stuff that' silly. Fans have whacky, irrational reactions and biases. Didn't realize you'd jump all over the word "cancer" -- did you not know what I meant or what I was referring to (Westhead, Kareem, Nixon, media and fan response)??

The use of the word cancer was simply inappropriate. Yes, I jump all over stuff like that because all it takes is for a comment like that to be made and suddenly other newer (dumber?) posters are starting threads about how Magic was a cancer early in his career, so I feel obligated to address it before others take it and run.

Have you ever heard me say a team lost "because" of a star player? Again, Magic was considered the goat -- that last second air-ball was criticized, just like his dribbling out the clock in 84.

I didn't say that you said that, I was just adding a bit of context to their loss. You've provided quite a bit of context on behalf of Bird when he lost, so I'm doing the same to balance things out.

The point was, it's silly to me to reduce these great careers to two or three perceived mishaps, like a "choke" or an "upset," which is something that, frankly, I see you and most Laker fans on realgm assert constantly in this discussion vis a vis Bird.

Show me where I've done that. I've mentioned that Bird's teams were upset (HCA is just an easy way to say it), but I didn't reduce his career achievements based on that. It's a combination of him getting upset while not performing at his usual RS level, and I don't completely ignore other factors either. It's not all about Bird either. If Magic has a dominant playoff run with the Lakers winning a title and Bird struggles while getting bounced in an earlier round, how can I not consider that? That's precisely why most people gave Magic higher marks than Bird in 1981-82.

I have never slammed Bird for a couple of poor sequences here and there. On the other hand, "Tragic Johnson" is brought up quite regularly and that nickname was derived from nothing more than a couple of bad possessions/decisions. Heck, even Riley has defended him dribbling out the clock (busted play), although I still believe he deserves to be criticized for not getting up a shot, at least.

It's not enough that he's one of the most underrated, trashed stars of this generation, or that young people can't believe the slow white guy in tight shorts who can't jump was that good. For goodness sakes, really smart, quality posters actually cite HCA in this debate.

Citing HCA isn't a bad thing just because it's been abused by others. You personally might not give it any weight, but it's something that should be thought about along with everything else. Obviously if Bird is missing games due to injury then it holds far less weight (if any), but recall that my original post was quoting someone bringing up the 1989 NBA Finals as a way to criticize Magic for getting swept.

[Shot Clock]

Show me where I've done that. I've mentioned that Bird's teams were upset (HCA is just an easy way to say it),

Upset is a bit misleading and gets tossed around here like it was some major issue when it was nothing. The same thing you strive to avoid when it comes to Magic.

Is a team really "upset" when they lose to Philly twice (58 win teams) they lost to Milwaukee who had 51 wins to their 56 and the Lakers who had 62 wins to their 63 and they had just gone through the Pistons and another 58 win Philly team. I've seen "upsets" where the team with the lower record is heavily favored and loses. These were all tough series.

I have never slammed Bird for a couple of poor sequences here and there. On the other hand, "Tragic Johnson" is brought up quite regularly and that nickname was derived from nothing more than a couple of bad possessions/decisions. Heck, even Riley has defended him dribbling out the clock (busted play), although I still believe he deserves to be criticized for not getting up a shot, at least.

If it was just the play you mentioned then sure.

How about 1981 vs Houston (and lets be clear this wasn't twin towers Houston this was <.500 40 win Houston)
Final game, score tied at 85, :30 left. Magic blew two of three free throws. After the Rockets scored to go up 87-86, the Lakers go to Magic again. With :03 left, he drives the lane and puts up and airball jumper.

The to the series you mentioned (1984) While Game 2 was unforgivable he also blew games 4 and 7.

Game 7
LA's trying to mount a run down 5 in the last couple minutes and Magic gets stripped twice.

Game 4
Misses both his FT in OT tied game, 35 seconds left. They go on to lose.

Game 2
tie game end of regulation (Laker's are up 1 game to none in Boston)
13 seconds they call timeout and Magic dribbles out the clock and doesn't even try to get a shot off.

They lose in OT

Sure he redeemed himself but by 1984 there were plenty of questions about him being able to carry a team like Bird.

but recall that my original post was quoting someone bringing up the 1989 NBA Finals as a way to criticize Magic for getting swept.

Getting swept twice in the Finals is pretty embarrassing.

[JordansBulls]

I especially liked the "1985 is a wash" comment.

Oh, you mean the other year where Magic was better in the playoffs and won the championship (over Bird).

Funny how Jordan fans are usually the ones harping about playoff dominance, excellence and winning...

I'd take Magic over Bird. In fact, I voted Magic #1 in 1985 because he won the title over Bird without HCA.

[JordansBulls]

I posted his in the summary thread, but it's probably more relevant here even though it's a response to another poster.

So the argument for Bird is that he had tougher competition in his conference, and the argument against Magic is that he had better teammates early on and played longer?

Bird losing didn't have anything to do with his numbers typically falling off in the playoffs and getting upset, which happened in 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1985?

Anyway, Bird had no business getting votes above Magic in 1982-83. The Lakers had the better record, superior offense (which is where these two impact the game), and Magic was better in the playoffs, plain and simple. The Lakers got swept in the Finals against a team widely regarded as one of the GOAT teams, while Bird got swept (upset) in the 2nd round by the Bucks. Criticizing one over the other for getting swept is kind of shady, and the truth of the matter is that it wasn't either guys fault for coming up short. Kareem got owned by Moses and Bird was sick I believe (missed a game).

Bird deserved it in 1983-84, without question, and no matter how you slice it you have to knock Magic for his choking on the biggest stage. He was directly responsible for some of those losses.

What about 1984-85? Celtics have a better record by a single game in the RS, but gets beaten by Magic and the Lakers in the Finals. Bird has the better RS, and Magic has a better post-season run. Magic was considerably better in the Finals when their teams met. The Lakers are again the top offense in the league, but somehow Bird is the POY despite losing in Finals with HCA, all while not living up to his RS standards (again)?

1985-86 is easily Bird, just like 1986-87 is easily Magic.

After that, it's Magic and there was no looking back at all. Bird was not going to be getting any younger, so even had he not gotten injured there would have been little reason for him to be considered better. Magic was tearing it up in the RS, PS, and especially NBA Finals, year after year, so I'm not sure why those years wouldn't matter in the Magic vs. Bird debate. They absolutely should, and do.

It also ignores how much tougher the East was. LA could cakewalk to the Finals to face a beat up Celts.

Bird's Celtics got upset 4 times, so what difference does it make? The Lakers were mostly beating the teams they were supposed to beat.

Bird's Celtics got upset 7 times. 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990 and 1991.

I consider an upset when you lose with HCA.

[Reasonable Fan]

Bird's Celtics got upset 7 times. 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990 and 1991.

I consider an upset when you lose with HCA.

And is there a context to some of those "upsets"? Were some of the teams perhaps better than their records indicated, just like the 2003 or 2010 Lakers for instance... were some of those teams only a handful of games ahead, an amount so small you'd be unsurprised if it didn't necessarily reflect which team was better, factors like "injuries one expects in the course of the regular season" and other trivial variables.

Come on, let's have a little honesty here... Bird was not a choker whose team got beaten by inferior teams that many times... a few maybe, but there's a context here you're intentionally ignoring by just saying "7 times". It's annoying, and makes you look biased.

[ElGee]

Ugh. It's Saturday, c'mon. *I* don't think he's a cancer, but he had a rough rap in 1981 after "clashing" with Westhead and signing a huge contract (and yes, having teammates jealous of his attention). I can't find it, but there was another piece written that was fairly negative...I was just pointing out the perception.

A player getting booed doesn't suggest that he's a cancer either, and I'm certainly not about to take Bill Simmon's opinion on Magic seriously.

Yes that's true - I wasn't trying in invoke Simmons opinion, I just couldn't find the quote that he provided.

We're also talking about completely different seasons here. Your comments came in relation to 1981, and Westhead's firing (a good thing) and the booing happened in 1982 season.

Yes - it was fall of 1981 (the 1982 seasons). I overlooked the difference because the events were connected in terms of Magic's Q ratings...spring of 81 and then the Westhead business in the fall of 81 when they returned from the summer. Good clarification.

Yeah, that's the point. The media writes stuff that' silly. Fans have whacky, irrational reactions and biases. Didn't realize you'd jump all over the word "cancer" -- did you not know what I meant or what I was referring to (Westhead, Kareem, Nixon, media and fan response)??

The use of the word cancer was simply inappropriate. Yes, I jump all over stuff like that because all it takes is for a comment like that to be made and suddenly other newer (dumber?) posters are starting threads about how Magic was a cancer early in his career, so I feel obligated to address it before others take it and run.

Fair enough - sloppy word choice. Like I said, it's Saturday.

Have you ever heard me say a team lost "because" of a star player? Again, Magic was considered the goat -- that last second air-ball was criticized, just like his dribbling out the clock in 84.

I didn't say that you said that, I was just adding a bit of context to their loss. You've provided quite a bit of context on behalf of Bird when he lost, so I'm doing the same to balance things out.

If I was one-sided in contextual detail, it was because the typical criticism on this site is levied against Bird. Obviously it's good to tell the whole story -- we've done that collectively in statistical threads before -- I just misinterpreted the direction of your comments.

The point was, it's silly to me to reduce these great careers to two or three perceived mishaps, like a "choke" or an "upset," which is something that, frankly, I see you and most Laker fans on realgm assert constantly in this discussion vis a vis Bird.

Show me where I've done that. I've mentioned that Bird's teams were upset (HCA is just an easy way to say it), but I didn't reduce his career achievements based on that.

I thought you were implying it here:

Bird losing didn't have anything to do with his numbers typically falling off in the playoffs and getting upset, which happened in 1980, 1982, 1983, and 1985? ...

What about 1984-85? ... The Lakers are again the top offense in the league, but somehow Bird is the POY despite losing in Finals with HCA, all while not living up to his RS standards (again)?

It's not enough that he's one of the most underrated, trashed stars of this generation, or that young people can't believe the slow white guy in tight shorts who can't jump was that good. For goodness sakes, really smart, quality posters actually cite HCA in this debate.

Citing HCA isn't a bad thing just because it's been abused by others. You personally might not give it any weight, but it's something that should be thought about along with everything else. Obviously if Bird is missing games due to injury then it holds far less weight (if any), but recall that my original post was quoting someone bringing up the 1989 NBA Finals as a way to criticize Magic for getting swept.

(1) I basically give it ZERO weight, other than performance declining by a small amount on the road. I give altitude of game played or time of day the same amount of weight essentially.
(2) There isn't a case where it's more abused than with Larry Bird, is there?

1980 - the newly formed Celtic team loses to the championship-leve (and tested) 76ers...who were a whopping 2 games behind them in the standings. Was that even an upset in Vegas?

1982 - 7 game loss to 58-win Philadelphia again (the "beat LA game" in G7). I happened to think this was a bad series/postseason from Bird relative to his play...

1983 - Injured team, 2 injuries for Bird, Celtics were struggling...again, 5 games better than a really good Milwaukee team.

1985 - 1 game better than LA, who closed 31-4. Again, Bird injured...lost in highly competitive Finals.

1988 - 3 wins better than Detroit...the team 1 quarter away (and an Isiah Thomas anke?) away from a 3-peat. I'm still not convinced the 88 Celtics had a bench. I mean, literally, I think the coaches just stood.

1990 - Old/injured Bird loses in deciding game to Knicks. Bird misses a critical reverse in the 4th Q because he can't even jump -- typical of that season. Yet people cite this as a knock against Bird (as if it has anything to do with Bird the player from 80 to 88.)

1991 - Old/injured Bird again loses again...this time to back-to-back champion Detroit (a team they never matched up with will anyway). Bird's back was an issue at this point in time and he missed G1...which Detroit won to "steal" HCA!

So when people say he was "upset" 7 times in 11 years as some damning criticism, yes, I find it ridiculous. Similarly, saying the same thing about Magic Johnson in 89 or him getting swept twice seems equally as silly. His *teams* were swept twice, and it's possible to still play well and be swept. It's possible to play like garbage and be swept and still be an all-time great NBA player or the best player within a season.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Come on, let's have a little honesty here... Bird was not a choker whose team got beaten by inferior teams that many times... a few maybe, but there's a context here you're intentionally ignoring by just saying "7 times". It's annoying, and makes you look biased.

Bird's Celtics were actually only 10-10 against 50+ win teams. Most of his PS wins came against subpar teams who won less 50 games, in which his record was 14-1.

[Jordan23Forever]

Bird's Celtics were actually only 10-10 against 50+ win teams. Most of his PS wins came against subpar teams who won less 50 games, in which his record was 14-1.

This is interesting coming from a Laker fan when the Lakers in the 80's had basically a guaranteed spot in the Finals due to terrible comp in the WC playoffs each year. They were typically beating 35-45 win teams every year to make the Finals, with maybe a couple of exceptions all decade. Here's a list of the win totals for each of their WC playoff opponents from 1983-1990:

1983 - 46 wins, 53 wins
1984 - 38, 42, 43
1985 - 36, 42, 52
1986 - 35, 44, 51 (*lost series)
1987 - 37, 42, 39
1988 - 31, 47, 53
1989 - 39, 47, 55
1990 - 41, 54 (* lost series)

And even looking past the W/L totals for their playoff opponents, the wide open, fastbreak style of many WC teams led to LA being less fatigued going into the Finals as compared to the EC Finalist. EC basketball was gritty, rugged, halfcourt ball - much more so than the WC. The Lakers had no Bucks, Sixers, and Pistons in the WC to challenge them in their own conference before even making the Finals.