Doctor MJ wrote:
Re: Bird. Echoing what others have said but with my own focus:
Bird's impact early on was not captured well by the box score. If we had +/- from the time, I'd be really surprised if he didn't have big numbers, by virtue of the way Boston became elite when Bird arrived, and the fact that Bird was the big minute player on the team.
I also think it's always important to look at extremely intelligent-looking play when considering non-box score impact. It's not a given - because highlights can skew perception - but if you have someone displaying extreme court awareness at all times, there's a good chance you'll find his +/- impact significantly surpasses the implication of the box score.
And of course there is the matter that we did see Bird become extremely efficient at volume eventually, so that along with the fact that we just plain know he was an incredible 3-point shooter based on the 3-point contests, really makes clear that Bird could see his volume/efficiency become outstanding in any subsequent era.
But his lack of great efficiency here does speak to something real that in a nutshell I'd put like this:
I think what Bird showed he could do is more impressive BBIQ-wise than his rival Magic...but I think Magic was taking an approach right from the beginning that was more optimal than Bird was. If you have an extremely good, quick decision maker on the court, you probably want them making as many of the on-ball decisions as possible, and while Magic insisted he be let to do this, Bird's instincts were to play smart within the off-ball role that you'd expect guys to play based on his size.
As a result, I think Magic has a pretty clear edge at having the better career back then, but I'm not sure this would still be true if they were drafted into the league today.
Thank you for the intel, am in the same boat regarding Miller and him being an under-appreciated legend (especially when it comes to scoring / shot-making).
As for Bird, I find this as very interesting food for thought. My personal take, more or less, is that they both had "Basketball IQ" - as subjective and intangible as it may be - to a spade in different ways, fully reflected in team success/impact and prime consistency we saw from them respectively.
Am fully in agreeance that a decent proportion of Bird's offensive goodness came from granular details that transcend the box score (eg. world class touch economy as a playmaker, outlier level floor spacing at either forward position, off-ball activity, the motor for rebounding) where a bad scoring night very well couldn't be as problematic it is, from an impact standpoint, opposed to how it could be for several other all-time greats.
Where I may see things somewhat differently is that I feel Bird not playing "Magic-ball" and not developing the efficacy of on-ball control that later prime Magic displayed isn't sub-optimal. In other threads, I've alluded to Bird's driving/paint pressure and his handle being the only concern I have with his game when it comes to offense. Perhaps this knowledge and awareness of Bird's own game and need to be deployed in a situation conducive to winning led to him adopting this "jack-of-all-trades" play style and improving as a shot-maker (Colbinii alluded to it well) and decision maker as his IQ and feel for the game grew over the years.
In contrast, Magic could have been more comfortable calling his own number, pushing pace, and having a better sense of scoring efficiently earlier on his career while having the same intelligence crystallization as Bird did en route to becoming (for my 2 cents) the best offensive engine to ever play.
With all of this said, I do have Magic as a comfortably better offense player whether it's peak/prime/career - and I would rank him higher in an all-time sense. Ultimately, I just found your post as a very intriguing thread-starter and felt strong enough on the topic to elaborate more
I love that acronym!