What criteria would someone have to have to have Magic in the GOAT conversation, Bird outside the top 15 all-time?

[ceiling raiser]

Just curious. Is this something that's possible while being logically consistent?

If so, what would someone have to value in particular to arrive at this kind of difference?

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't see it as possible, just having Bird outside the top 15 to me means someone has some sort of bias at work either against Bird or all players from before 2000. Having said that, the main thing I would say would be a heavy emphasis on Magic's more consistent playoffs performances and rings while also thinking he's a better leader while probably also being quite low on Bird's defense. Which wouldn't justify that much of a difference between them(such as 12+ spots) but could probably justify having Magic like 4-5th and Bird in the 10-13 range. I see them as very close with Magic just slightly ahead.

[No-more-rings]

It’s obviously a big stretch, but here’s a few things that might make them arrive at that.

1.) They see Magic Johnson as the clear offensive goat. There’s no way he could be in the overall goat convo if you didn’t think that.

2. Bird’s offense is overrated, and more easily slowed down in the playoffs compared to other offense first players.

3. 5 rings>3 rings

[Owly]

Just curious. Is this something that's possible while being logically consistent?

If so, what would someone have to value in particular to arrive at this kind of difference?

First glance response was no, not possible.

But ...

it depends what "in the GOAT conversation" means.
There's a fairly often cited top 4 here. If it meant breaking into that group either by kicking one down or just establishing themselves in that tier ... the gap would seem hard to swallow.
But "in the conversation" ... maybe that's just "warrants mentioning". And going really loose players mentioned in thread 100 of our "GOAT" lists. That's a "GOAT" conversation. Someone thought those players warranted mentioning. So it could be argued those players were considered to warrant mentioning in a GOAT conversation. But perhaps this is a technicality.
Alternately people might just have wider ranges of uncertainty. One version might go as follows. We can't be sure what people would do in different eras. We can't fairly compare them with certainty. Therefore any player who can seriously argued as the greatest at some time period of time has an argument for the greatest. If at this point you argue for two players per decade on average, 7.5 x 2 = 15 (if you had unique players for each 10 years). Thus if say Magic were considered the weakest GOAT candidate he could be 15, Bird 16 no gap [yes if we're doing calendar decades, with conventional decade allocations Bird is going to be the other guy for the 80s - maybe the decade is 84-93 so even comparing full careers he's competing with Magic and MJ (and Hakeem ...) or whatever].
This just one example of a possible high uncertainty model.

So whilst my first instinct was no ... it really depends what one means and whether one is really implying a very significant difference.

[edit: re logically consistent - seeing another's post ... logically consistent wouldn't require good, "I would respect these and find them to be thoughtful" criteria (individual boundaries on this will of course differ). So certainly possible by logically consistent criteria, though these could be utterly terrible.]

[Dutchball97]

The only way you could even consider Bird outside the top 15 is with a very heavy emphasis on longevity but if you do that you can't have Magic near the GOAT conversation either.

[ceiling raiser]

it depends what "in the GOAT conversation" means.

Yeah, good point.

To me personally, Jordan and Russell are strong GOAT candidates, while Duncan, LeBron, Kareem are weak GOAT candidates. I view GOAT as kind of a range though, so I think my 3-5 have an argument for being #1. Just very unlikely. Not sure if others view this exercise in a similar vein.

[Cavsfansince84]

it depends what "in the GOAT conversation" means.

Yeah, good point.

To me personally, Jordan and Russell are strong GOAT candidates, while Duncan, LeBron, Kareem are weak GOAT candidates. I view GOAT as kind of a range though, so I think my 3-5 have an argument for being #1. Just very unlikely. Not sure if others view this exercise in a similar vein.

I'd say that putting MJ, KAJ, LBJ and Russell all in a goat tier is pretty common on this board. Some might take out 1 or add Wilt and then obviously some have just 1-2 guys clearly above all the others.

[ceiling raiser]

it depends what "in the GOAT conversation" means.

Yeah, good point.

To me personally, Jordan and Russell are strong GOAT candidates, while Duncan, LeBron, Kareem are weak GOAT candidates. I view GOAT as kind of a range though, so I think my 3-5 have an argument for being #1. Just very unlikely. Not sure if others view this exercise in a similar vein.

I'd say that putting MJ, KAJ, LBJ and Russell all in a goat tier is pretty common on this board. Some might take out 1 or add Wilt and then obviously some have just 1-2 guys clearly above all the others.

Is my having Duncan in that tier an outlier POV? Curry isn't in that tier yet, but will be if he plays at this level for 3-5 more years.

[Cavsfansince84]

Is my having Duncan in that tier an outlier POV? Curry isn't in that tier yet, but will be if he plays at this level for 3-5 more years.

Not too much of an outlier. A lot of people do have him at 4 or 5. So very close to being in that group. I have him at 5 myself.

[trex_8063]

The only way you could even consider Bird outside the top 15 is with a very heavy emphasis on longevity but if you do that you can't have Magic near the GOAT conversation either.

As you know from previous conversations, longevity IS very important to me.......but even I can't get Bird out of the top 15. Maybe in a few years (I could conceivably see guys like Curry, Giannis, Jokic, or Durant surpassing Bird eventually; but it hasn't happened yet [for me]).

[falcolombardi]

I love that you can add a 4th "to have" and it still makes grammatical sense

Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo vibes

[penbeast0]

A few more possibilities:

(a) Team/racial bias. I remember during Bird's career, Isiah and Rodman made comments that if Bird were black, he would be considered just an average player. OR, they could be Laker stans/Celtics haters, something very common during the 80s.

(b) Intangibles. Magic has a rep of being an extremely positive, warm person, someone you really enjoy being around. Bird has a rep as a sarcastic trash talker to teammates as well as opponents. You could make an argument based on that (of course, then I wonder where Jordan ends up on your list).

(c) HIV v. injury. You could feel that injury is part of the NBA game and Bird's was self-inflicted and should thus penalize him for longevity. While, some of my friends feel that HIV is more a cultural/societal thing and are adamantly opposed to penalizing anyone for having contracted it. (Admittedly I've never had much of a basketball conversation with any of these particular friends so not sure if it counts for a polygamous straight man.)

Just a few oddball takes on the issue.

[sp6r=underrated]

Just curious. Is this something that's possible while being logically consistent?

If so, what would someone have to value in particular to arrive at this kind of difference?

If I were to make the argument, it'd be based an argument that (i) Magic's retirement was due to highly unusual circumstances; (ii) societal prejudice; (iii) we can project the lost years of Magic Johnson; (iv) that we should weigh the lost years as his retirement is sui generis; (v) those extra years push Magic into GOAT level territory as he would have maintained his top 2-3 status until 93 or 94.

For Bird you go hard at (i) everything post- back injury; (ii) downgrade his peak years; and (iii) try to slightly lower 80/81.

[Cavsfansince84]

If I were to make the argument, it'd be based an argument that (i) Magic's retirement was due to highly unusual circumstances; (ii) societal prejudice; (iii) we can project the lost years of Magic Johnson; (iv) that we should weigh the lost years as his retirement is sui generis; (v) those extra years push Magic into GOAT level territory as he would have maintained his top 2-3 status until 93 or 94.

For Bird you go hard at (i) everything post- back injury; (ii) downgrade his peak years; and (iii) try to slightly lower 80/81.

Still though, this sort of comes across as a methodology designed to elevate Magic and denigrate Bird. Not so much one that could be used as a general way of ranking players. I mean I get saying Magic was cut short while still in his prime but giving him credit for hypothetical seasons seems like taking things a bit far. I mean you could probably do that for someone like Walton too given how good we know he was for a few years.

[sp6r=underrated]

If I were to make the argument, it'd be based an argument that (i) Magic's retirement was due to highly unusual circumstances; (ii) societal prejudice; (iii) we can project the lost years of Magic Johnson; (iv) that we should weigh the lost years as his retirement is sui generis; (v) those extra years push Magic into GOAT level territory as he would have maintained his top 2-3 status until 93 or 94.

For Bird you go hard at (i) everything post- back injury; (ii) downgrade his peak years; and (iii) try to slightly lower 80/81.

Still though, this sort of comes across as a methodology designed to elevate Magic and denigrate Bird. Not so much one that could be used as a general way of ranking players. I mean I get saying Magic was cut short while still in his prime but giving him credit for hypothetical seasons seems like taking things a bit far. I mean you could probably do that for someone like Walton too given how good we know he was for a few years.

I am playing devil's advocate but to continue with the argument.

This isn't the case of Jordan voluntarily retiring. Magic wanted to play. This isn't a case of guy being unable to play like Walton. Walton's body was incapable of making it through NBA seasons consistently. It fell apart in from his rookie year until the end. Magic could play professional basketball. Nor is this a case of a guy being long-term suspended for a good reason, ala Stern ending Artest's 04 season. Even in 1991 the medical community knew there was little to no risk of transmission. The only reason he was forced to retire was bigotry. Should we really ratify bigotry? I think not.

His final 3 seasons, he was top 3 in BPM. The lakers after his retirement went from a 6.73 SRS to -.9. That is very strong evidence his impact was enormous in those years.

And given the player projection statistical tools we have available, why not use statistical metrics to project his decline?

[Colbinii]

Explain Yourself

[OhayoKD]

The only way you could even consider Bird outside the top 15 is with a very heavy emphasis on longevity but if you do that you can't have Magic near the GOAT conversation either.

As you know from previous conversations, longevity IS very important to me.......but even I can't get Bird out of the top 15. Maybe in a few years (I could conceivably see guys like Curry, Giannis, Jokic, or Durant surpassing Bird eventually; but it hasn't happened yet [for me]).

to push bird out of the top 15 based on longetvity you'd probably need to rate someone like dirk higher. How do you think dirk/bird compare peak wise

[OhayoKD]

If I were to make the argument, it'd be based an argument that (i) Magic's retirement was due to highly unusual circumstances; (ii) societal prejudice; (iii) we can project the lost years of Magic Johnson; (iv) that we should weigh the lost years as his retirement is sui generis; (v) those extra years push Magic into GOAT level territory as he would have maintained his top 2-3 status until 93 or 94.

For Bird you go hard at (i) everything post- back injury; (ii) downgrade his peak years; and (iii) try to slightly lower 80/81.

Still though, this sort of comes across as a methodology designed to elevate Magic and denigrate Bird. Not so much one that could be used as a general way of ranking players. I mean I get saying Magic was cut short while still in his prime but giving him credit for hypothetical seasons seems like taking things a bit far. I mean you could probably do that for someone like Walton too given how good we know he was for a few years.

I am playing devil's advocate but to continue with the argument.

This isn't the case of Jordan voluntarily retiring. Magic wanted to play. This isn't a case of guy being unable to play like Walton. Walton's body was incapable of making it through NBA seasons consistently. It fell apart in from his rookie year until the end. Magic could play professional basketball. Nor is this a case of a guy being long-term suspended for a good reason, ala Stern ending Artest's 04 season. Even in 1991 the medical community knew there was little to no risk of transmission. The only reason he was forced to retire was bigotry. Should we really ratify bigotry? I think not.

His final 3 seasons, he was top 3 in BPM. The lakers after his retirement went from a 6.73 SRS to -.9. That is very strong evidence his impact was enormous in those years.

And given the player projection statistical tools we have available, why not use statistical metrics to project his decline?

you're saying "to play devil's advocate" but tbh it's a pretty compelling case

[flaco]

Explain Yourself

I genuinely believe Magic is the GOAT. My case is rather simple. Basketball is a team game. The whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. Magic was the greatest at elevating his teammates, hence he's the greatest at elevating his team in general.

Not sure who said Bird is outside of the top 15. If you ask me, I'm sky high on Bird as well. I believe it's totally reasonable to argue that Bird was better than Magic/Jordan/LeBron/Kareem/Wilt/Russ/you name it. I consider all these guys legit GOAT candidates. As great as Bird was in the 80s, he would have been even better in today's game cause he was a lethal shooter. Btw, I believe Magic would have been a Point Center in the pace-and-space era, sort of like a rich man's Jokic.

[Dutchball97]

The only way you could even consider Bird outside the top 15 is with a very heavy emphasis on longevity but if you do that you can't have Magic near the GOAT conversation either.

As you know from previous conversations, longevity IS very important to me.......but even I can't get Bird out of the top 15. Maybe in a few years (I could conceivably see guys like Curry, Giannis, Jokic, or Durant surpassing Bird eventually; but it hasn't happened yet [for me]).

to push bird out of the top 15 based on longetvity you'd probably need to rate someone like dirk higher. How do you think dirk/bird compare peak wise

To me longevity should only be a factor when comparing players of a similar level but others have different views on it. Though that is also subjective as I believe the likes of Karl Malone, Dirk and Kobe were never on the same level as prime Bird but others might see a bunch of MVPs and deem it close enough for the longevity to make the difference.

This is also mainly why I hate the season counting approach some people use, since there is a never a clear line when it is or isn't applicable. Like why would you use longevity to push Karl Malone into the top 15 but then have Artis Gilmore somewhere around 50th, if that even?