Magic or Bird 80's

[colts19]

I see people all the time say Magic was the best player of the 80's. As someone who watched them both during that era, I don't understand how they come to that conclusion. I'll just point out that most people at that time thought Bird was the better player. What do I base that on?

Rookie of the year: Bird 63 votes Magic 3.
From 80 till 88, I don't count 89 because Bird missed the whole year.
1st place vote for MVP for those years. Bird 256 Magic 88
Total votes for MVP for those years. Bird 4221 Magic 2404.
Bird finished ahead of Magic for 8 of the 9 years.

So based on that I think it' clear. Bird was the best player of the 80's.

[yannisk]

Both Celtics and Lakers were loaded, it just happened that Lakers were more and played in a weaker conference, therefore Magic won more rings and based on that he is usually ranked higher.

I think Bird was better, he was better scorer, rebounder, defender while both were great passers.

[SNPA]

It’s weird how it’s become common for people to rank Magic over Bird. There’s a gap, and it’s clearly in Bird’s favor.

[GSP]

It’s weird how it’s become common for people to rank Magic over Bird. There’s a gap, and it’s clearly in Bird’s favor.

Its not really weird even if i dont agree. Magic was elite into the 90s. I mean he won Mvp in 1990 and was considered the best player by many before Mj "broke through". Plenty considered Mj the best before he won his first title but he was still considered unproven and a scoring champ while Magic was the top dog who won and made everyone better. He won more rings and was 2-1 in the finals against Larry. Magic was also more marketable, in a bigger market and Larrys last truly super elite season was 88. Then he had the injury and while had great seasons later Magic was at the literal top of the league. Lakers were basically only behind the Bad Boy Pistons in terms of being favorites to win the title from 89-91 while Boston dropped off from that tier of title contenders entirely and were more dark horses after Larrys injury. Losing an entire season as well didnt help perception. Magic has more memorable rivalries outside of the Boston and Larry one too and in general did more elite work at a later period while Larry declined so when ppl do rankings they dont factor in Larry being ahead when they came into the league and for years due to recency bias and seeing Magic finish much stronger at the top of the league in the late 80s early 90s while Larrys injuries declined him from that level. I think the misconception is that Magic and Larry were equals when they entered the league and then later Magic pulled way ahead and Magics iconic rookie game 6 title performance def plays a major factor there but Larry was ahead by a good margin for the first half of their careers

[70sFan]

It’s weird how it’s become common for people to rank Magic over Bird. There’s a gap, and it’s clearly in Bird’s favor.

One player is arguably the most immune offensive weapon to any defensive adjustments in NBA history and the other is Larry Bird.

[McBubbles]

It’s weird how it’s become common for people to rank Magic over Bird. There’s a gap, and it’s clearly in Bird’s favor.

One player is arguably the most immune offensive weapon to any defensive adjustments in NBA history and the other is Larry Bird.

Why does this sound so disrespectful

[rk2023]

A much more interesting way (for me, at least) to view Magic and Bird's career comparisons is going from end -> start for Magic and going from start -> end for Bird. Of-course Bird started out his career as a better and more valuable player, and Magic ended his (excluding 1996) as such. From a prime standpoint and career as well, I would take Johnson - but to each their own.

[70sFan]

It’s weird how it’s become common for people to rank Magic over Bird. There’s a gap, and it’s clearly in Bird’s favor.

One player is arguably the most immune offensive weapon to any defensive adjustments in NBA history and the other is Larry Bird.

Why does this sound so disrespectful

I respect Bird a lot and I understand people preferring him over Magic, but to most Bird fans it's a no contest and I definitely disagree. There are many reasons to pick Magic over Bird.

[FJS]

I think both have their reasons to be chosen.

Both have same MVPs, similar FMVP (MAgic had one more, but without injury KAJ was the FMVP).
Magic played in a KAJ team until more or less 85.So, he has 2 rings more than Larry, but Bird was playing in Bird's team since day one.

To me is very difficult to choose.

[O_6]

Bird was 3 years older and better at the start of their careers. Bird's 3 year window from '84-'86 was something that the league truly considered legendary. It was enough to put Bird into GOAT discussions already. Magic was not anywhere near the GOAT picture by that point. However, he probably surpassed Bird as a player in '87 and was a top 2 player alongside MJ until '91 whereas Bird stopped being a superstar after '88. Take a look at the year-by-year RealGM POY Project rank and shares...

Using RealGM POY Shares

1980: Bird (3rd) -- Magic (5th) -- BIRD
1981: Bird (1st) -- Magic (NR) -- BIRD
1982: Bird (4th) -- Magic (3rd) -- MAGIC
1983: Bird (2nd) -- Magic (3rd) -- BIRD
1984: Bird (1st) -- Magic (2nd) -- BIRD
1985: Bird (1st) -- Magic (2nd) -- BIRD
1986: Bird (1st) -- Magic (2nd) -- BIRD

1987: Bird (2nd) -- Magic (1st) -- MAGIC
1988: Bird (3rd) -- Magic (2nd) -- MAGIC
1989: Bird (NR) -- Magic (2nd) -- MAGIC
1990: Bird (NR) -- Magic (2nd) -- MAGIC
1991: Bird (NR) -- Magic (2nd) -- MAGIC
1992: Bird (NR) -- Magic (Retired) -- BIRD

POY Shares 1980-88: Bird (6.15) -- Magic (4.97)
POY Shares 1989-92: Bird (0.00) -- Magic (2.14)
POY Shares Career: Bird (6.15) -- Magic (7.11)

Through '86, there was no question who was better. Magic hit another level in '87 and was significantly better than Bird from '89-'91 which has a lot to do with Magic being ranked ahead of Bird on a lot of lists. The same exact thing was reflected in NBA MVP Shares as well...

MVP Shares 1980-88: Bird (5.578) -- Magic (3.106)
MVP Shares 1989-96: Bird (0.034) -- Magic (1.998)
MVP Shares Career: Bird (5.612) -- Magic (5.104)

They just had different career trajectories. Bird was better early but Magic made up a lot of ground at the end. I rank Magic slightly ahead of Bird all-time (7th vs. 9th), but if I couldn't include the '90 and '91 Magic seasons then I would rank Bird ahead of Magic all-time. So if you are talking strictly about only the 1980's, then I would give the edge to Bird.

[Owly]

I see people all the time say Magic was the best player of the 80's. As someone who watched them both during that era, I don't understand how they come to that conclusion. I'll just point out that most people at that time thought Bird was the better player. What do I base that on?

Rookie of the year: Bird 63 votes Magic 3.
From 80 till 88, I don't count 89 because Bird missed the whole year.
1st place vote for MVP for those years. Bird 256 Magic 88
Total votes for MVP for those years. Bird 4221 Magic 2404.
Bird finished ahead of Magic for 8 of the 9 years.

So based on that I think it' clear. Bird was the best player of the 80's.

People will debate when decades start ... maybe one can argue that a Bird injury makes it "fairer" to do a time span with both healthy (though ultimately health is important and fwiw Magic missed a big chunk of '81 iirc) ... I don't see the case for the decade of the 80s ends with '88 because Bird missed the next year.

If the point was through '88 Bird has a very good case as the better player, otoh, I'd be much minded to agree. If you wanted to make it for the 80s ... well, you're adding a huge value swing year (elite Magic, near enough no Bird) but first glance, plausible enough. Overall as players that happen to be primarily from the 80s Johnson's great advantage is '89-91 when he racks up three of his top 4 productivity regular seasons (otoh), whilst Bird is absent and then significantly diminished and missing games. So the answer depends very much on the specifics of the question ... regardless I think the '89 isn't included in my definition of the 80s is ... a little off ... and distracts from more legitimate cases that could be made.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I see people all the time say Magic was the best player of the 80's. As someone who watched them both during that era, I don't understand how they come to that conclusion. I'll just point out that most people at that time thought Bird was the better player. What do I base that on?

Rookie of the year: Bird 63 votes Magic 3.
From 80 till 88, I don't count 89 because Bird missed the whole year.
1st place vote for MVP for those years. Bird 256 Magic 88
Total votes for MVP for those years. Bird 4221 Magic 2404.
Bird finished ahead of Magic for 8 of the 9 years.

So based on that I think it' clear. Bird was the best player of the 80's.

Is Nash > Shaq in the 2000s?

[LeBird]

Magic was always clearly 2nd to Bird until injuries derailed his career towards the end of the 80s. There really isn’t much Magic could do that Bird couldn’t, and often Bird was much better.

Magic is more of an old-school PG which makes him even less portable today and he wasn’t a great shooter - although he had great shot selection and knew his limitations. Bird is perfect for today’s NBA, basically any era.

For me Magic has a bit of Kobe. Great players that get rated a few places too high on all-time lists because they won a lot. But when you look at their circumstances it couldn’t have been more ideal for them. Ironically, Kobe won without Shaq but Magic needed Kareem to win.

Take Bird, or LeBron considering the Kobe example; they inherited garbage teams and made them title contenders/winners. For me, at a certain point this means more for how I evaluate players.

[Owly]

Magic was always clearly 2nd to Bird until injuries derailed his career towards the end of the 80s. There really isn’t much Magic could do that Bird couldn’t, and often Bird was much better.

Magic is more of an old-school PG which makes him even less portable today and he wasn’t a great shooter - although he had great shot selection and knew his limitations. Bird is perfect for today’s NBA, basically any era.

For me Magic has a bit of Kobe. Great players that get rated a few places too high on all-time lists because they won a lot. But when you look at their circumstances it couldn’t have been more ideal for them. Ironically, Kobe won without Shaq but Magic needed Kareem to win.

Take Bird, or LeBron considering the Kobe example; they inherited garbage teams and made them title contenders/winners. For me, at a certain point this means more for how I evaluate players.

I think Johnson is widely regarded to have passed Bird (as a player at the time, not all time obviously) in the 86-87 season. Do you disagree with this and still hold him "clearly second to Bird"? If not what injury do you think diminishes Bird at this time?

"Wasn't a great shooter" ... this depends on meaning (hard to read in just text - literally not in "great" tier, or "not great" as in "middling at best" or somewhere in between) but in latter years is arguably by any reading mean. From '85 on he's at .875 from the strip off 3992 attempts and he develops a 3 at the at the end of his career.

Not sure why what you said would be ironic. Not sure Magic "needed" Kareem to win. For instance, I think another, lesser name, center could for instance have fulfilled '88 playoff Kareem's role/production.

That landing on an already pretty good team in the solidly weaker conference may boost him in some (inc perhaps many mainstream) rankings or general perceptions is quite plausible to me, but in general some of the arguments here seem a mean assessment on Johnson.

[kendogg]

Bird Magic rivalry is the best in sports history because it was so close. You can make a case for either one. I personally think Bird peaked a touch higher, but Magic probably had the better career overall since he didn't have the injury issues Bird had, so the back half of his career was better. Though Magic also had somewhat of a slow start in his career, in terms of playing at an MVP level, while Bird hit the ground running. Being 4th in MVP voting as a rookie is practically unprecedented, aside from Wilt of course who was voted MVP as a rookie. Bird was also 2nd in MVP voting in his 2nd, 3rd and 4th seasons.

You could also argue that Magic had the better supporting cast and/or the best running mate though, and played in the weaker conference, which bolstered his career value, but that was also a fairly close call (both teams were absolutely two of the best NBA dynasties).

I think folks rank Magic's later seasons higher partially due to the fact that early in his career, Kareem was considered the best player on the Lakers, while the Celtics were always Bird's team, but once Kareem hit the very end of his career it was clear how much Magic was carrying the team as a lead guard which is also unprecedented for a pass first PG to win MVP (until Nash, and his were somewhat dubious). I guess you could also argue Cousy was pass first, but he was very much a chucker so I dunno, plus Cousy's single MVP came in Russell's rookie season, and you can definitely argue that Russ was the better player even as a rookie. Though unsurprisingly, Magic's first MVP season was when he had his highest scoring season and shot the most in his career.

It is truly astounding though that of all the GOAT tier players in NBA history, the 2 most unselfish players and best passers both played in the same era, and started and nearly ended their careers in the same year. And also were rivals in college. And became good friends. Truly the best rivalry in sports history (though Wilt/Russell is massively underrated these days and is easily 2nd in NBA rivalries)

[LeBird]

I think Johnson is widely regarded to have passed Bird (as a player at the time, not all time obviously) in the 86-87 season. Do you disagree with this and still hold him "clearly second to Bird"? If not what injury do you think diminishes Bird at this time?

Magic was never a better player than Bird until 88 and beyond - and that is simply because he physically couldn’t play the same any more. From college to the NBA Magic always had a stacked team and won, whereas Bird inherited bums and made them champions. If Bird was drafted to the Lakers, the GOAT mentions would have come even earlier and might still be on for today.

“Widely regarded” basically means the media was pushing it. NBA has always been about ratings and narrative, Magic was supposed to be the future, the same with Jordan.

As actual players, it’s like the LeBron-KD comparison - if KD had simply been drafted to play with the Warriors his whole career. KD might’ve been more widely regarded. And while they’re not far off each other, when you break it down individually only one of them can raise the floor to the ceiling, taking bad teams and making them championship contenders/winners.

I’m fairly confident saying LeBron would have won as many if not more rings than KD if he were to take his place/teams. The same IMO for Bird Magic.

"Wasn't a great shooter" ... this depends on meaning (hard to read in just text - literally not in "great" tier, or "not great" as in "middling at best" or somewhere in between) but in latter years is arguably by any reading mean. From '85 on he's at .875 from the strip off 3992 attempts and he develops a 3 at the at the end of his career.

So he’s not a great shooter. He wouldn’t really take 3s at all for the grand majority of his career and his FT shooting got better as he played. But that goes to my point: he wasn’t a great or natural shooter. He was smart with his shot selection and got his spots, but he was nowhere in the same hemisphere as Bird is up there with the GOAT shooters - only Curry really has him.

Not sure why what you said would be ironic. Not sure Magic "needed" Kareem to win. For instance, I think another, lesser name, center could for instance have fulfilled '88 playoff Kareem's role/production.

It’s ironic because personally I rate Kobe less of the 4 players I was mentioning, yet he won without Shaq, with a different Lakers team.

That landing on an already pretty good team in the solidly weaker conference may boost him in some (inc perhaps many mainstream) rankings or general perceptions is quite plausible to me, but in general some of the arguments here seem a mean assessment on Johnson.

He played for a stacked team his entire career, getting drafted to play with the arguable GOAT. His team was so stacked if a lesser, but decent, C was available they probably still could have contended. Furthermore, the West was a cakewalk almost every year for decade whereas for Bird and the Celtics it was a dogfight every year.

Magic gets a hell of a lot of praise - deservedly because he is one of the GOAT figures in the NBA. At the same time, he got dropped in honey and his circumstances, and his actual game, need to be as analysed as much as how many rings he won. Same deal for Jordan. Once you go down that route “widely regarded” only means something if you don’t have the ability to regard for yourself.

[Owly]

I think Johnson is widely regarded to have passed Bird (as a player at the time, not all time obviously) in the 86-87 season. Do you disagree with this and still hold him "clearly second to Bird"? If not what injury do you think diminishes Bird at this time?

Magic was never a better player than Bird until 88 and beyond - and that is simply because he physically couldn’t play the same any more. From college to the NBA Magic always had a stacked team and won, whereas Bird inherited bums and made them champions. If Bird was drafted to the Lakers, the GOAT mentions would have come even earlier and might still be on for today.

“Widely regarded” basically means the media was pushing it. NBA has always been about ratings and narrative, Magic was supposed to be the future, the same with Jordan.

As actual players, it’s like the LeBron-KD comparison - if KD had simply been drafted to play with the Warriors his whole career. KD might’ve been more widely regarded. And while they’re not far off each other, when you break it down individually only one of them can raise the floor to the ceiling, taking bad teams and making them championship contenders/winners.

I’m fairly confident saying LeBron would have won as many if not more rings than KD if he were to take his place/teams. The same IMO for Bird Magic.

"Wasn't a great shooter" ... this depends on meaning (hard to read in just text - literally not in "great" tier, or "not great" as in "middling at best" or somewhere in between) but in latter years is arguably by any reading mean. From '85 on he's at .875 from the strip off 3992 attempts and he develops a 3 at the at the end of his career.

So he’s not a great shooter. He wouldn’t really take 3s at all for the grand majority of his career and his FT shooting got better as he played. But that goes to my point: he wasn’t a great or natural shooter. He was smart with his shot selection and got his spots, but he was nowhere in the same hemisphere as Bird is up there with the GOAT shooters - only Curry really has him.

Not sure why what you said would be ironic. Not sure Magic "needed" Kareem to win. For instance, I think another, lesser name, center could for instance have fulfilled '88 playoff Kareem's role/production.

It’s ironic because personally I rate Kobe less of the 4 players I was mentioning, yet he won without Shaq, with a different Lakers team.

That landing on an already pretty good team in the solidly weaker conference may boost him in some (inc perhaps many mainstream) rankings or general perceptions is quite plausible to me, but in general some of the arguments here seem a mean assessment on Johnson.

He played for a stacked team his entire career, getting drafted to play with the arguable GOAT. His team was so stacked if a lesser, but decent, C was available they probably still could have contended. Furthermore, the West was a cakewalk almost every year for decade whereas for Bird and the Celtics it was a dogfight every year.

Magic gets a hell of a lot of praise - deservedly because he is one of the GOAT figures in the NBA. At the same time, he got dropped in honey and his circumstances, and his actual game, need to be as analysed as much as how many rings he won. Same deal for Jordan. Once you go down that route “widely regarded” only means something if you don’t have the ability to regard for yourself.

On "widely regarded", that included media, but also for instance here, such as in retro Po(t)Y voting viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1021572. Now people interpret things differently, maybe some voted Magic for him having a better "year" but would still consider Bird the better player ... but it's near unanimous in putting (a) Johnson ahead of Bird and (b) Johnson first. That doesn't make it true, but this was people who cared enough to put time into sharing their opinions on the matter and it is people from the community you're talking to (albeit with huge turnover over time).

Huge tangent but if Durant were drafted to the Warriors, his early casts would noot have been as strong as Westbrook-Harden OKC; it wouldn't have stopped his injuries, presumably; the Warriors still presumably spike up with the emergence of Curry and Draymond (unless his primacy somehow alters this), he's perhaps still insecure about about his perception (e.g. blog boys, arguable desire to be seen as "the guy") ... I'm not sure it helps.

On shooter: again it depends what you mean but didn't take many threes could be thrown at most players. Heck Bird, in this spell, attempts 1 a game in 5 of the 9 years. He makes one a game in 3 of the 9. The three just wasn't a big part of the game then. If threes is a big part of this then is nobody a shooter until Ellis comes along? Pierce not a shooter? Jeff Malone? I don't have a book on Magic's shooting tendancies but from '85 on his percentage at the stripe is superb.

I would dispute only Curry "has" Bird as a shooter. Especially with a criteria that is willing to bend toward threes. Even "versus the league norms" not factoring in that it was just less influenetial, even with differing parameters for what is considered (e.g. creation included or not) ... I can see a case for many others.

I literally note the weakness of the west in my post. This is a given.

I don't know if you're trying to use my words (from the prior quote) with
"His team was so stacked if a lesser, but decent, C was available they probably still could have contend"
if that is from
"For instance, I think another, lesser name, center could for instance have fulfilled '88 playoff Kareem's role/production."
then yeah those statements are pretty far apart. If it's just an ad hoc "what I imagine to be the case" ... I don't see where it fits in as a reply.

"a stacked team his entire career". This, to me is false. I like, for instance, the '91 finals team "cast" I think perhaps more than most. But "stacked" is a very strong word (sometimes with connotations about top-end star talent). Vlade, Green, Perkins, Worthy, Scott are all solid, useful players. I don't know that I'd look at them and say they're "stacked". I'm not sure I'd call the late 80s "casts" stacked once Kareem's fallen off, though how one rates Worthy and Scott is entangled with how much one thinks they benefited from playing with Magic. Talk '90 and drop Perkins from the group, Vlade's playing less ... yeah I don't think that's a stacked cast.

Absolutely ring count would be an awful way of doing things, but you'll note that wasn't advocated for anywhere. Regarding "widely regarded" you'll note that was about trying to provide a starting point/framework for when Magic passed Bird and what injury it was that Bird that allowed Magic to pass him. The role of others opinions, indirect evaluation is of course tricky and will depend on what alternate tools are available. I tend to prefer "harder" more direct tools where possible. It's just that if you're somewhat on an island on Bird better in '87 ... you don't have to explain or clarify but the discussion won't go anywhere because most of your audience is starting from a different assumption and not really engaging on that will mean the discussion points won't land.

I think I'll leave the matter here, unless something compelling comes up.

[LeBird]

On "widely regarded", that included media, but also for instance here, such as in retro Po(t)Y voting viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1021572. Now people interpret things differently, maybe some voted Magic for him having a better "year" but would still consider Bird the better player ... but it's near unanimous in putting (a) Johnson ahead of Bird and (b) Johnson first. That doesn't make it true, but this was people who cared enough to put time into sharing their opinions on the matter and it is people from the community you're talking to (albeit with huge turnover over time).

Media opinions change all the time for all sorts of reasons. The players themselves are in on shaping the game and the marketing for it. Before Jordan won anything Bird was calling him “God” as the Celtics swept the Bulls. All these guys are company men. After 86 you heard GOAT talks for Bird and not really to the same degree for Magic later on - Jordan was coming. A lot of the fans here are too influenced by a lot of media talking points as well. It wouldn’t make sense to denigrate Magic for winning with such a stacked cast but that wasn’t the narrative those days because there were fewer teams and stacked teams were common - although Lakers of that era are about as stacked as the Durant GSW relative to the rest of the league.

Huge tangent but if Durant were drafted to the Warriors, his early casts would noot have been as strong as Westbrook-Harden OKC; it wouldn't have stopped his injuries, presumably; the Warriors still presumably spike up with the emergence of Curry and Draymond (unless his primacy somehow alters this), he's perhaps still insecure about about his perception (e.g. blog boys, arguable desire to be seen as "the guy") ... I'm not sure it helps.

I think you’re taking my example a little too literally here. I was just trying to say people know damn well that Durant winning with GSW is not in the same hemisphere as LeBron winning with Cleveland. Now even if he had been drafted to that situation from the get go and won more rings than LeBron, would that make him better?

Hell no. But as I said, people build narratives, legacies, ever-changing revisionism etc. Magic is just a much bigger brand; he was black; he was built for the lime-light; and he won a lot of titles. Was he the better player? No.

On shooter: again it depends what you mean but didn't take many threes could be thrown at most players. Heck Bird, in this spell, attempts 1 a game in 5 of the 9 years. He makes one a game in 3 of the 9. The three just wasn't a big part of the game then. If threes is a big part of this then is nobody a shooter until Ellis comes along? Pierce not a shooter? Jeff Malone? I don't have a book on Magic's shooting tendancies but from '85 on his percentage at the stripe is superb.

Players are shooting when they lay-up, which may help their efficiency, but no one considers these sort of players as shooters. Magic himself was not a score-at-will kind of player - #1 scoring option - and his play was to get others going and pick his spots, which helped his efficiency. He played in the post, had floaters and hooks; but he wasn’t pulling up mid-range.

Neither Magic nor Bird shot a lot of 3 pointers - as you’ve pointed out, era - although Bird even from the beginning was shooting more than Magic. Magic’s 3 point % looks OK because he made/took sweet f-all shots for most of his career until he made a 3rd of his career 3point makes in one year. Otherwise he was mostly sub 30% for most of his career. And that’s just looking at the RS. I could see someone saying Magic was a good shooter but great? Not if you’re comparing him with the greats.

I don't know if you're trying to use my words (from the prior quote) with
"His team was so stacked if a lesser, but decent, C was available they probably still could have contend"
if that is from
"For instance, I think another, lesser name, center could for instance have fulfilled '88 playoff Kareem's role/production."
then yeah those statements are pretty far apart. If it's just an ad hoc "what I imagine to be the case" ... I don't see where it fits in as a reply.

Perhaps they’d challenge? Win? Doubtful. Win, if Larry was drafted to those Lakers/with Kareem? Well, he isn’t winning 5. Besides the ring argument I don’t see where else Magic is supposed to be the better player?

"a stacked team his entire career". This, to me is false. I like, for instance, the '91 finals team "cast" I think perhaps more than most. But "stacked" is a very strong word (sometimes with connotations about top-end star talent). Vlade, Green, Perkins, Worthy, Scott are all solid, useful players. I don't know that I'd look at them and say they're "stacked". I'm not sure I'd call the late 80s "casts" stacked once Kareem's fallen off, though how one rates Worthy and Scott is entangled with how much one thinks they benefited from playing with Magic. Talk '90 and drop Perkins from the group, Vlade's playing less ... yeah I don't think that's a stacked cast.

All his title winning teams were stacked. Even the one you’re (91) mentioning above could’ve won if his teammates were fit. I think getting to play every year of your career in a team that can win a ring is a huge advantage - especially when your conference is much easier than your main rivals.

Absolutely ring count would be an awful way of doing things, but you'll note that wasn't advocated for anywhere. Regarding "widely regarded" you'll note that was about trying to provide a starting point/framework for when Magic passed Bird and what injury it was that Bird that allowed Magic to pass him. The role of others opinions, indirect evaluation is of course tricky and will depend on what alternate tools are available. I tend to prefer "harder" more direct tools where possible. It's just that if you're somewhat on an island on Bird better in '87 ... you don't have to explain or clarify but the discussion won't go anywhere because most of your audience is starting from a different assumption and not really engaging on that will mean the discussion points won't land.

The idea one player passes another for like 2 years because he won some MVPs while the other one suffers from career debilitating injury when for the other 8 years he was the league’s daddy makes no sense to me. I don’t care so much about opinions because I’ve watched a lot of sporting history unfold with narratives I’ve disagreed with for ages. As I said earlier, Bird was getting GOAT talks from 86. Magic got it after Bird got injured and it was never really a thing because Jordan arrived. If you want corroborating evidence the posted in this thread already mentioned the MVP voting.

[The Master]

I don't think these debates of the best players of 80s or 00s are any relevant considering that you have to make some weird gymnastics and exclude Magic's '90/'91 seasons/Bryant's 10's season and so on to fit the criteria.

Bird could've been probably better if you exclude Magic's '90-91 seasons, to answer OPs question, obviously career value of Magic without couple of superstar MVP-worthy seasons would be lower. In general, Magic was better.

Re: Bird vs Magic in general, this is actually quite funny, because when you started to follow basketball or analyze stuff from deeper perspective within, let's say, our generation's discussions - the narrative at the beginning was that they're equal (due to Celtics-Lakers rivalry) or Bird may be even better. From analytical perspective, it was more and more obvious with time that Magic is a step ahead (a bit better longevity and simply better playoff resilience, if you consider Bird's early/late struggles in PS as a scorer/offensive facilitator), so now I guess it is very consensual to have Magic ahead by a slim, but distant margin - I missed the moment when Magic started being ranked ahead of Larry Legend in mainstream narratives as well. Maybe it's a misperception of mine, but just a thought.

[OhayoKD]

I see people all the time say Magic was the best player of the 80's. As someone who watched them both during that era, I don't understand how they come to that conclusion. I'll just point out that most people at that time thought Bird was the better player. What do I base that on?

Rookie of the year: Bird 63 votes Magic 3.
From 80 till 88, I don't count 89 because Bird missed the whole year.
1st place vote for MVP for those years. Bird 256 Magic 88
Total votes for MVP for those years. Bird 4221 Magic 2404.
Bird finished ahead of Magic for 8 of the 9 years.

So based on that I think it' clear. Bird was the best player of the 80's.

So your argument for bird being the "clear" best player of the 80's is that...people thought he was the best player of the 80's?

Yeah, that's not going to cut it