RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #10 (Magic Johnson)

[ceiling raiser]

A question for everyone: Steph was #24 three years ago. Do you guys think the 2022 championship run was worth a 13-14 spot jump? Or do you think he was rated too low last time?

I would say definitely too low. I have viewed Steph's career on par with Shaq/Jordan in that third tier all-time for a few years. 2022 and 2023 add career value but it's more about cracking into that top 5 all-time with LeBron and the GOAT bigs.

[Dr Positivity]

A question for everyone: Steph was #24 three years ago. Do you guys think the 2022 championship run was worth a 13-14 spot jump? Or do you think he was rated too low last time?

I think the 3 more years longevity makes a big difference when it comes to Curry being acceptable as fringe top 10 player. I expect Jokic to make a similar jump from 23 to 26 list.

[Johnny Tomala]

I would like to have a vote from this round if it's possible.

[ceiling raiser]

My vote here is for Steph Curry. He loses in comparison to LeBron, but so does everybody else.

For me it's all about portability and how well a player translates to 2023. Open to arguments, but against this cast, it's pretty clear.

Steph Curry vs Larry Bird. Bird seems interesting from a modernism POV, but at the end of the day, he wasn't an all-time great shooter, with a completely open three point line. I don't think Bird is being held an unrealistic standard...if you expect somebody to be a disruptive, game-changing talent, they need to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities. Bird was a rare case of a player who did *not* have to worry about being benched by his coach, so that argument doesn't apply. His post game is...fine, but McHale and Maxwell were getting more defensive attention on the inside from defenders who had to guard against the jumper and the drive. Bird and Curry were comparable defenders at their positions (lacking in tools, but high effort), so this is a push.

Steph Curry vs Kobe Bryant. Bryant feels like he was nominated 8-10 spots early. This is a guy who peaked as a top 5ish offensive player in the league for a few years, but was in a higher leverage defensive position than Curry, and was a large net negative throughout his career in the regular season.

Steph Curry vs Magic Johnson. This is the main comparison at play, and I think Magic's playstyle in practice is a lot different than conventional wisdom. This is a guy who could play off-ball, was a tremendous cutter and screener, and could contribute the instant touch passes Bird was known for. With an effective shooting range under 15 feet, unless I can be convinced that he was an elite finisher, I'm passing over him by default. He's not as abysmal a defender as Bryant, but in the second half of his career, there were limitations in his foot speed.

Steph Curry vs George Mikan. I'm very much open to Mikan here, and I think Jokic (while is athleticism is underrated, he is not a decathlete by any stretch of the imagination) has really brough skills/strength to the forefront, but I don't see any indication that he was an outlier-level passer. The centers in my top 10 (Kareem, Duncan, Hakeem, Garnett, Shaq) either were very smart passers, or were all-time great defenders.

Alternate Vote: Magic Johnson. At the end of the day, this is probably the GOAT volume passer. From the historic limited sample RAPM data we have, he looks very similar to Michael Jordan. I think Jordan is a lock for top 10 and has an outside argument for top 5 all-time, and don't feel comfortable with he and Johnson being more than a few spots apart, given similar playoff resilience and playoff longevity.

Nomination: Dirk Nowitzki. I think Dirk is propped up often in an attempt to diminish Garnett's career by suggesting he is the closer comp than is Duncan, but that's a backwards way of looking at it. Nowitzki has a very, very strong top 10 all-time case, especially in the context of modernism, and is clearly the third best player of their era. The gap between Duncan/Garnett and Dirk is much smaller to me than between Dirk and Nash/Bryant. Would be very excited seeing their debate.

[lessthanjake]

.

.

AEnigma mentioned looking at the relative offensive rating compared to the opponents’ defensive rating rather than compared to league average. And while I brought up some objections/complications regarding that in a post above, I ran the numbers for that, once again in series against teams that either (1) had 4+ SRS, (2) made the finals, or (3) that beat Steph’s/Magic’s team in the series.

The results are below:

Lakers’ Playoff rORTG (compared to opponent’s RS DRTG) against good teams

1980 vs. SuperSonics: +4.2
1980 vs. 76ers: +5.9
1981 vs. Rockets: -5.4
1982 vs. 76ers: +4.6
1983 vs. 76ers: -1.2
1984 vs. Celtics: +7.6
1985 vs. Celtics: +6.0
1986 vs. Rockets: -0.2
1987 vs. Celtics: +11.6
1988 vs. Pistons: +3.6
1989 vs. Suns: +7.9
1989 vs. Pistons: +8.4
1990 vs. Suns: +5.7
1991 vs. Blazers: +7.6
1991 vs. Bulls: -0.7
1996 vs. Rockets: -5.4

Career Avg: +3.76 (or +4.37 without 1996)

Warriors’ Playoff rORTG (compared to opponent’s RS DRTG) against good teams

2013 vs. Nuggets: +5.8
2013 vs. Spurs: +1.1
2014 vs. Clippers: +5.7
2015 vs. Cavaliers: +1.0
2016 vs. Thunder: +2.2
2016 vs. Cavaliers: +4.0
2017 vs. Jazz: +10.8
2017 vs. Spurs: +18.7
2017 vs. Cavaliers: +11.0
2018 vs. Rockets: +8.4
2018 vs. Cavaliers: +12.7
2019 vs. Rockets: +5.0
2019 vs. Blazers: +5.9
2019 vs. Raptors: +3.0
2022 vs. Grizzlies: +0.8
2022 vs. Celtics: +3.9
2023 vs. Lakers: -2.3

Career Avg: +5.75

If anything, Steph actually looks even better if basing the rORTG on the opponents’ DRTG! By this measure, he only has one series in his entire career against a good team where his team had a negative rORTG (and it was this last series against the Lakers—whose regular season DRTG doesn’t really encompass what their defense was by playoff-time), compared to Magic having five. And, of course, the Warriors’ average rORTG against these teams is also higher.

So I really don't think it makes sense to ding Steph as being more easy to prevent from having good playoff offense than Magic. It's actually the opposite!

[OhayoKD]

Yeah, this is not it chief

Offensively, I do like Magic's ability to exert control over a possession a little bit more than Curry's ability to break defenses with shooting gravity and think it has a bit more resiliency. There's been a few times where defenses have found little ways to chip away at Curry's value (not to the point where he still wasn't really **** good) in ways that I haven't perceived with Magic. Whether it was
jamming him on cuts, top locking, or switching actions, I've seen stuff work against Curry. If someone could give me a comparable example where Magic was stopped from producing elite playoff offense before the 90s.

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

Yeah, how about we adjust for opponent first:

Not really seeing why we would use league relative ratings rather than opponent relative ratings. Those opponent adjusted results have been pretty clear on who has the advantage on average (even with the Durant effect), and on an individual level, Magic has little to criticise over the course of his career:

Magic Johnson against -2+ relative defences (40.64% of playoff games): 40.9 mpg, 8.0 rpg, 11.2 apg, 4.0 tov, 18.8 ppg on 50.1% FG, 27.0% 3FG, 84.8% FT and 60.1% TS (+6.49% rTS)

Magic Johnson against -4+ relative defences (15.51% of playoffs games): 40.3 mpg, 8.2 rpg, 10.5 apg, 3.9 tov, 19.7 ppg on 51.9% FG, 19.2% 3FG, 83.3% FT and 59.5% TS (+5.96% rTS)

Yep, no. Not as good.

Here are how the offenses compare with opponent adjustment:

Spoiler:

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Outside of one of the KD-years, Magic's playoff offenses are much better.

Magic also has a strong case for having the best impact portfolio for the 80's and the 90's. Steph by contrast has a pretty weak case to even be top 3 in data-ball("but look at the single-year placement!!!").

Magic is also #1 in regular seaosn win percentage, #1 in playoff win percentage (curry lost that last postseason), has 5 rings, and 10 finals and is only really challenged by Duncan and Jordan for the mantle of "best-winner post russell".

Might vote steph in the next round, but pushing Steph's playoff offenses as comparable to Magic's based on "performance vs good opponents" without adjusting for said opponents is pretty disingenuous(and maybe speaks to how much stronger ervin's case is)

[Doctor MJ]

A question for everyone: Steph was #24 three years ago. Do you guys think the 2022 championship run was worth a 13-14 spot jump? Or do you think he was rated too low last time?

Oh I thought he was way too low last time, and said so at the time. Frankly I'm going to try to avoid being so strident this time around because I don't think it's helpful as a project runner to feel like he's potentially bullying participants.

So I'm not going to get into it much, but here's one way I would think about it:

With active players, we tend to hold them in something of an uncertainty bubble where we error on the side of not having to lower the players on a later list. If a player seems like he should rank somewhere between 40-50, we'll probably not push for him until 50 giving an effective tiebreaker to guys whose career is already over.

This isn't any kind of rule, it's just an impulse we have to be conservative and not overshoot.

With Curry, he's not just an active player, but a paradigm shifter with obvious relative weaknesses who has been in an extreme team situation. That made his uncertainty bubble even bigger, and thus allowed for a major jump forward in this run of the project.

Of course as I say all of this, and while I'm still expecting to vote Magic here as I've done for several votes, Curry's once again going to be lower on this list than on my list. If he gets in at the #11 spot though, while I think it's too low, I can't say I think it's crazy-low the way I thought about his 2020 finish.

[One_and_Done]

Curry was too low last time. Let's all learn from that and not rank Giannis too low this time around. That way we won't be justifying his crazy rise 3 years from now. Because being real I think in 3 years Giannis and KD will be the likely choices at #13-14 if not higher.

[cupcakesnake]

.

.

AEnigma mentioned looking at the relative offensive rating compared to the opponents’ defensive rating rather than compared to league average. And while I brought up some objections/complications regarding that in a post above, I ran the numbers for that, once again in series against teams that either (1) had 4+ SRS, (2) made the finals, or (3) that beat Steph’s/Magic’s team in the series.

The results are below:

Lakers’ Playoff rORTG (compared to opponent’s RS DRTG) against good teams

1980 vs. SuperSonics: +4.2
1980 vs. 76ers: +5.9
1981 vs. Rockets: -5.4
1982 vs. 76ers: +4.6
1983 vs. 76ers: -1.2
1984 vs. Celtics: +7.6
1985 vs. Celtics: +6.0
1986 vs. Rockets: -0.2
1987 vs. Celtics: +11.6
1988 vs. Pistons: +3.6
1989 vs. Suns: +7.9
1989 vs. Pistons: +8.4
1990 vs. Suns: +5.7
1991 vs. Blazers: +7.6
1991 vs. Bulls: -0.7
1996 vs. Rockets: -5.4

Career Avg: +3.76

Warriors’ Playoff rORTG (compared to opponent’s RS DRTG) against good teams

2013 vs. Nuggets: +5.8
2013 vs. Spurs: +1.1
2014 vs. Clippers: +5.7
2015 vs. Cavaliers: +1.0
2016 vs. Thunder: +2.2
2016 vs. Cavaliers: +4.0
2017 vs. Jazz: +10.8
2017 vs. Spurs: +18.7
2017 vs. Cavaliers: +11.0
2018 vs. Rockets: +8.4
2018 vs. Cavaliers: +12.7
2019 vs. Rockets: +5.0
2019 vs. Blazers: +5.9
2019 vs. Raptors: +3.0
2022 vs. Grizzlies: +0.8
2022 vs. Celtics: +3.9
2023 vs. Lakers: -2.3

Career Avg: +5.75

If anything, Steph actually looks even better if basing the rORTG on the opponents’ DRTG! By this measure, he only has one series in his entire career against a good team where his team had a negative rORTG (and it was this last series against the Lakers—whose regular season DRTG doesn’t really encompass what their defense was by playoff-time), compared to Magic having five. And, of course, the Warriors’ average rORTG against these teams is also higher.

So I really don't think it makes sense to ding Steph as being more easy to prevent from having good playoff offense than Magic. It's actually the opposite!

I dig the theory but I'm not sure that looking at rOrtg for the whole team is selling this concept to me. Look at those 2017 and 2018 numbers for the Warriors (+10.8 to +18.7!). Now Magic played with some strong talent, but that "Hampton 5" Warriors team is an all-time outlier in terms of talent and offensive fit. 3 of the best shooters of all-time playing in the same lineups, 2 MVPs, and the top 4 players in their physical primes. That +18.7 is against a Kawhi-less Spurs and some other big numbers come against a very toothless Cavs defense.

I haven't gone in and nitpicked each of the Lakers series here so I'm not trying to close the door on what you're saying here, I'm just looking at some of the really ridiculous numbers and feeling like that +5.75 is getting goosed from a couple of prominent factors. The Lakers have some stacked squads as well, but this is about Lakers vs. Warriors more than Magic vs. Curry, even if those 2 are both the most integral factors to their team's offense.

[Doctor MJ]

Offensively, I do like Magic's ability to exert control over a possession a little bit more than Curry's ability to break defenses with shooting gravity and think it has a bit more resiliency. There's been a few times where defenses have found little ways to chip away at Curry's value (not to the point where he still wasn't really **** good) in ways that I haven't perceived with Magic. Whether it was jamming him on cuts, top locking, or switching actions, I've seen stuff work against Curry. If someone could give me a comparable example where Magic was stopped from producing elite playoff offense before the 90s.

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

1980 vs. SuperSonics: +0.1
1980 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1981 vs. Rockets: -4.2
1982 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1983 vs. 76ers: -5.0
1984 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1985 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1986 vs. Rockets: +0.2
1987 vs. Celtics: +10.1
1988 vs. Pistons: +0.9
1989 vs. Suns: +5.8
1989 vs. Pistons: +5.3
1990 vs. Suns: +3.8
1991 vs. Blazers: +4.0
1991 vs. Bulls: -3.4
1996 vs. Rockets: -5.6

Career Avg: +1.5

Given some of these negative numbers, I don’t think it’d be correct to think teams couldn’t chip away at Magic’s value, particularly in the early 1980s, where the Lakers playoff offenses against good teams really just weren’t very good. Indeed, the 1983 Finals was basically a horror show from Magic. And even the best series in that time period (i.e. 1984 vs. Boston) actually arguably hinged on Magic having some really serious problems at a bunch of key points.

Hmm. Well first off, I've chopped out the Curry numbers because I have no bone at all to pick there in your interpretation.

For the Magic numbers though, I can't help but notice that:

1. The bad numbers tend to come at the edge's of Magic's career (I mean, 1996, really?)
2. The first 3 runs came against teams with opposing bigs that had the advantage over Kareem.
3. The team seemed more resilient the more primacy Magic was given.
4. The toughest series in the Magic-first era was against those Bulls, and in that series basically all of Magic's smaller teammates had problems more so than Magic himself as a scorer. Full credit to the Bulls, but I have to wonder if the series goes differently if whoever the Lakers' perimeter scorers are - in this case Worthy & Scott - are at their best.

[Doctor MJ]

Curry was too low last time. Let's all learn from that and not rank Giannis too low this time around. That way we won't be justifying his crazy rise 3 years from now. Because being real I think in 3 years Giannis and KD will be the likely choices at #13-14 if not higher.

That awkward moment where I indicate someone I have higher than Giannis you probably don't expect.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah, this is not it chief

Offensively, I do like Magic's ability to exert control over a possession a little bit more than Curry's ability to break defenses with shooting gravity and think it has a bit more resiliency. There's been a few times where defenses have found little ways to chip away at Curry's value (not to the point where he still wasn't really **** good) in ways that I haven't perceived with Magic. Whether it was
jamming him on cuts, top locking, or switching actions, I've seen stuff work against Curry. If someone could give me a comparable example where Magic was stopped from producing elite playoff offense before the 90s.

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

Yeah, how about we adjust for opponent first:

Not really seeing why we would use league relative ratings rather than opponent relative ratings. Those opponent adjusted results have been pretty clear on who has the advantage on average (even with the Durant effect), and on an individual level, Magic has little to criticise over the course of his career:

Magic Johnson against -2+ relative defences (40.64% of playoff games): 40.9 mpg, 8.0 rpg, 11.2 apg, 4.0 tov, 18.8 ppg on 50.1% FG, 27.0% 3FG, 84.8% FT and 60.1% TS (+6.49% rTS)

Magic Johnson against -4+ relative defences (15.51% of playoffs games): 40.3 mpg, 8.2 rpg, 10.5 apg, 3.9 tov, 19.7 ppg on 51.9% FG, 19.2% 3FG, 83.3% FT and 59.5% TS (+5.96% rTS)

Yep, no. Not as good.

Here are how the offenses compare with opponent adjustment:

Spoiler:

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Outside of one of the KD-years, Magic's playoff offenses are much better.

Magic also has a strong case for having the best impact portfolio for the 80's and the 90's. Steph by contrast has a pretty weak case to even be top 3 in data-ball("but look at the single-year placement!!!").

Magic is also #1 in regular seaosn win percentage, #1 in playoff win percentage (curry lost that last postseason), has 5 rings, and 10 finals and is only really challenged by Duncan and Jordan for the mantle of "best-winner post russell".

Might vote steph in the next round, but pushing Steph's playoff offenses as comparable to Magic's based on "performance vs good opponents" without adjusting for said opponents is pretty disingenuous(and maybe speaks to how much stronger ervin's case is)

Lol, you might want to take a look at a post I’d *already* made by the time you posted this, which specifically went over the numbers while adjusting relative to the opponents’ defensive ratings, instead of relative to league average. If anything, it makes Steph look better.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Offensively, I do like Magic's ability to exert control over a possession a little bit more than Curry's ability to break defenses with shooting gravity and think it has a bit more resiliency. There's been a few times where defenses have found little ways to chip away at Curry's value (not to the point where he still wasn't really **** good) in ways that I haven't perceived with Magic. Whether it was jamming him on cuts, top locking, or switching actions, I've seen stuff work against Curry. If someone could give me a comparable example where Magic was stopped from producing elite playoff offense before the 90s.

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

1980 vs. SuperSonics: +0.1
1980 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1981 vs. Rockets: -4.2
1982 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1983 vs. 76ers: -5.0
1984 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1985 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1986 vs. Rockets: +0.2
1987 vs. Celtics: +10.1
1988 vs. Pistons: +0.9
1989 vs. Suns: +5.8
1989 vs. Pistons: +5.3
1990 vs. Suns: +3.8
1991 vs. Blazers: +4.0
1991 vs. Bulls: -3.4
1996 vs. Rockets: -5.6

Career Avg: +1.5

Given some of these negative numbers, I don’t think it’d be correct to think teams couldn’t chip away at Magic’s value, particularly in the early 1980s, where the Lakers playoff offenses against good teams really just weren’t very good. Indeed, the 1983 Finals was basically a horror show from Magic. And even the best series in that time period (i.e. 1984 vs. Boston) actually arguably hinged on Magic having some really serious problems at a bunch of key points.

For reference, here’s comparable numbers for Steph’s Warriors for his entire career:

Warriors Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

2013 vs. Nuggets: +5.0
2013 vs. Spurs: -3.2
2014 vs. Clippers: +3.8
2015 vs. Cavaliers: +1.7
2016 vs. Thunder: +1.4
2016 vs. Cavaliers: +2.1
2017 vs. Jazz: +7.3
2017 vs. Spurs: +13.4
2017 vs. Cavaliers: +12.5
2018 vs. Rockets: +5.9
2018 vs. Cavaliers: +16.0
2019 vs. Rockets: +5.3
2019 vs. Blazers: +6.0
2019 vs. Raptors: -0.3
2022 vs. Grizzlies: -2.2
2022 vs. Celtics: -1.2
2023 vs. Lakers: -3.2

Career Avg: +4.14

Steph’s Warriors never had a series as bad offensively as the Lakers had vs. the 1983 76ers, vs. the 1981 Rockets, or vs. the 1991 Bulls (or against the 1996 Rockets, but I don’t really consider that in any meaningful way for Magic). And the Warriors were essentially always good offensively in the playoffs against good teams (in fact, the Warriors were often extremely good), except in the last few years and in 2013, when he’s had substantially less help than Magic had. So I’m not sure it makes sense to say that Steph “was stopped from producing elite playoff offense” more than Magic was.

This is an interesting way of looking at things. By these parameters, Steph does look better. However, I will say there are multiple ways to compare offenses, and I suppose Magic impresses more.

For example, If you don't like using relative offensive rating to judge playoff offense, there is another method called common opponent offensive rating.
Common opponent offensive rating is comparing a team’s postseason play to other teams against that same given opponent (for that particular PS). The rORTG is also listed on the side too for those who, where a team’s playoff offensive rating is compared to it’s opponent’s regular season defensive ratings. The Cavs have the best common offensive rating of the time period.

The best 3-year offenses and defense (minimum of 20 games played across three postseason trips), we see the following unique team peaks in playoff offense per common offensive rating (cORTG) via Backpicks since 1984 (but only other potential contenders would be if you go back to Mikan days).

The 87-89 Lakers have the 3rd best 3-year peak per this measure, only behind the Cavs and Suns at +9.4. The Warriors are right behind them from 17-19 at +9.3.

However, generally it seems as if Magic's Lakers are greater outliers than Curry's Warriors

For example, top 5, 3-year peaks

87-89 Lakers: +9.4

85-87 Lakers: +9.3

88-90 Lakers: +9

86-88 Lakers: +8.8

84-86 Lakers: +8.5


Steph's Warriors (Note, if we had the data for 2023 Lakers, I'm sure it would slot somewhere in #3-##5)

17-19: +9.3

16-18: +7.4

18-22: +7.1

15-17: +6.7

14-16: +3.9


Overall, it does seem like the Lakers did their fair share in punishing the same opponents their peers struggled with. Furthermore, I would highlight how you don't see any early 80s Lakers teams, as Magic was very much growing throughout the 80s. Your method is fine, however, I would say it leads to overvaluing offensive performance against teams that are good because of their offense, not so much their defense.

[lessthanjake]

Offensively, I do like Magic's ability to exert control over a possession a little bit more than Curry's ability to break defenses with shooting gravity and think it has a bit more resiliency. There's been a few times where defenses have found little ways to chip away at Curry's value (not to the point where he still wasn't really **** good) in ways that I haven't perceived with Magic. Whether it was jamming him on cuts, top locking, or switching actions, I've seen stuff work against Curry. If someone could give me a comparable example where Magic was stopped from producing elite playoff offense before the 90s.

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

1980 vs. SuperSonics: +0.1
1980 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1981 vs. Rockets: -4.2
1982 vs. 76ers: +1.6
1983 vs. 76ers: -5.0
1984 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1985 vs. Celtics: +4.4
1986 vs. Rockets: +0.2
1987 vs. Celtics: +10.1
1988 vs. Pistons: +0.9
1989 vs. Suns: +5.8
1989 vs. Pistons: +5.3
1990 vs. Suns: +3.8
1991 vs. Blazers: +4.0
1991 vs. Bulls: -3.4
1996 vs. Rockets: -5.6

Career Avg: +1.5

Given some of these negative numbers, I don’t think it’d be correct to think teams couldn’t chip away at Magic’s value, particularly in the early 1980s, where the Lakers playoff offenses against good teams really just weren’t very good. Indeed, the 1983 Finals was basically a horror show from Magic. And even the best series in that time period (i.e. 1984 vs. Boston) actually arguably hinged on Magic having some really serious problems at a bunch of key points.

Hmm. Well first off, I've chopped out the Curry numbers because I have no bone at all to pick there in your interpretation.

For the Magic numbers though, I can't help but notice that:

1. The bad numbers tend to come at the edge's of Magic's career (I mean, 1996, really?)
2. The first 3 runs came against teams with opposing bigs that had the advantage over Kareem.
3. The team seemed more resilient the more primacy Magic was given.
4. The toughest series in the Magic-first era was against those Bulls, and in that series basically all of Magic's smaller teammates had problems more so than Magic himself as a scorer. Full credit to the Bulls, but I have to wonder if the series goes differently if whoever the Lakers' perimeter scorers are - in this case Worthy & Scott - are at their best.

All fair points but I’d say the following:

1. I included the 1996 one for completeness, while also specifically mentioning I don’t find it all that meaningful. I did also include pre-prime Steph for completeness too, and the outcome of the analysis doesn’t hinge at all on including 1996. I wouldn’t say the rest of the bad numbers are at the edge of Magic’s career really. Magic was 3rd in MVP voting in 1983! He was injured for much of 1981 so he didn’t have any award recognition that year, but he was already an all-star even the year before and his numbers when he played that season were really good. And 1991 is on the edge of his career in the sense that he retired after that year, but it was also actually in his prime. He was runner-up in MVP voting that year! So I’m not sure I see the point here, except as it relates to 1996. The rest of it seems like fair game to me.

2. I wouldn’t really say these were all about opposing big men having the advantage. Moses was better than Kareem in 1981 and Kareem didn’t score efficiently, but Kareem wasn’t *terrible.* Meanwhile, Moses outplayed Kareem again in 1983, but Kareem was actually still good (scored a little more than his regular season average, on very slightly lower efficiency), and that series really was actually on Magic being bad. Not sure which other series you’re referring to, but I’m assuming 1986 vs. the Rockets. By this time, Kareem was 38 years old, so him being outplayed by Hakeem was pretty baked into the pie, and I don’t really think is a huge excuse (though Kareem wasn’t super efficient in his scoring).

3. I think this is true, and part of this is also that Magic was simply peaking in the late 1980s. But the first half of the 1980s was part of Magic’s career, and indeed was a part of it that I think both you and I agree he was one of the very best players in the NBA during, so I think he can be and should be judged on what happened in those years too. The bottom line is that I really don’t think the overall picture for Magic is one where his team was more consistently good offensively against good teams in the playoffs than Steph’s was. I think it’s really the opposite, though Magic’s teams performed fairly similarly in this regard to Steph’s if we just looked at 1985-1991 (where the average rORTG compared to good opponents’ defensive rating was +5.54 for Magic compared to +5.75 for Curry’s career).

4. I have some sympathy for this, but Magic is a pass-first guy whose whole game revolves around making his teammates play at their best, so his teammates being off is not completely independent of him. Regardless, though, this sort of thing can go both ways: For instance, I’d also wonder what the rORTG for the Warriors would’ve been in the 2019 Finals if Durant and then Klay hadn’t gotten hurt.

I dig the theory but I'm not sure that looking at rOrtg for the whole team is selling this concept to me. Look at those 2017 and 2018 numbers for the Warriors (+10.8 to +18.7!). Now Magic played with some strong talent, but that "Hampton 5" Warriors team is an all-time outlier in terms of talent and offensive fit. 3 of the best shooters of all-time playing in the same lineups, 2 MVPs, and the top 4 players in their physical primes. That +18.7 is against a Kawhi-less Spurs and some other big numbers come against a very toothless Cavs defense.

I haven't gone in and nitpicked each of the Lakers series here so I'm not trying to close the door on what you're saying here, I'm just looking at some of the really ridiculous numbers and feeling like that +5.75 is getting goosed from a couple of prominent factors. The Lakers have some stacked squads as well, but this is about Lakers vs. Warriors more than Magic vs. Curry, even if those 2 are both the most integral factors to their team's offense.

Well, but I thought your point was that Magic couldn’t be prevented from making his team a good offensive team in the playoffs and Steph could? Magic was, in fact, prevented from doing so more than Steph!

And we aren’t just talking situations where Magic isn’t to blame for this. For instance, the 1983 Finals really was on Magic—he was bad and the Lakers’ offense was bad as a result.

A few other notes on this:

- You mention a “toothless” Cavs defense, but the second set of numbers I provided are relative to opponents’ defensive rating, so that is generally already controlled for.

- The 2017 Spurs had a defensive rating that was actually better with Kawhi off the floor. In fact, they had an absolutely ridiculous -10.4 rDRTG in minutes Kawhi was off the floor. So I don’t think it makes much sense to discount what the Warriors offense did to them without Kawhi.

- Nor do I think it really makes sense to discount the 2017 and 2018 stuff in general. Were the Warriors really talented? Sure. But the 1980s Lakers were arguably the most talented team in history and had that talent for a much longer period of time than Durant was on the Warriors. Steph had a couple years with teams that were similarly talented (though I don’t even think those Durant Warriors were as talented offensively as a lot of those Lakers teams), but I think it’s pretty clear that Steph has spent the rest of his career with less offensive talent on his team on average than Magic had for most of his career. So, overall, I think one would be very hard-pressed to think that Steph’s the one here that benefited from being on more offensively talented teams on average.

[eminence]

Brief thoughts on the 3 guys I won't be voting for here.

Larry Bird: Love to watch him, one of the widest skillsets around, great prime from '80-'88, much underrated defender imo. Negatives - that longevity is not very good, '90-'92 adds some, but not a ton. Struggled with offensive consistency in the playoffs fairly broadly across his career.

Kobe Bryant: Strong offensive player, strong longevity ('99-'12/'13 relevant), strong team success. Negatives - not a good defender (ranging from above average to poor). Offense being only strong and not GOAT level combined with weak defense keeps him from the peak/prime levels others voted in/nominated so far have reached.

Stephen Curry: Great offensive player, led some of the best teams ever. Negatives - poor longevity, compounded even more so by fragility.

[OhayoKD]

Yeah, this is not it chief

When the Lakers faced good teams in the early 1980s, their playoff offenses were not actually very good.

For instance, here’s the Lakers’s rORTG (compared to RS league average that year) where either the Lakers faced: (1) a 4+ SRS team, (2) a finalist, or (3) they lost the series:

Lakers Playoff rORTG vs. good teams

Yeah, how about we adjust for opponent first:

Not really seeing why we would use league relative ratings rather than opponent relative ratings. Those opponent adjusted results have been pretty clear on who has the advantage on average (even with the Durant effect), and on an individual level, Magic has little to criticise over the course of his career:

Yep, no. Not as good.

Here are how the offenses compare with opponent adjustment:

Spoiler:

Curry:
2015 +4 (RS) +4.1(PS)
2016 +7.9(RS)+5.7(PS)
2017 +6.8(RS)+11.6 (PS)
2018 + 5.0(RS)+6.5(PS)
2019 + 5.5(RS)+5.4 (PS)
average: 5.85 (RS) 6.6(PS)
combined average: +6.2

Lebron
2013 +6.4 (RS) +7.2 (PS)
2014 +4.2 (RS) +10.6 (PS)
2015 +5.5(RS) +5.5 (PS)
2016 +4.5(RS) +12.5 (PS)
2017 +4.8 (RS) +13.7 (PS)
Average +5.1(RS) +9.9 (PS)
combined average: +7.5

jordan* (i had to use his first 5 championship seasons)
1991 +6.7(RS) +11.7 (PS)
1992 +7.3(RS) +6.5 (PS)
1993 +4.9 (RS) +9.8 (PS)
1996 +7.6 (RS) +8.6 (PS)
1997 +7.7(RS) +6.5(PS)
average +6.85 (RS) +8.6(PS)
combined average:+7.7

nash

2005 suns. +8.4(RS) +17 (PS)
2006 suns +5.3(RS) +9.5 (PS)
2007 suns +7.4(RS)+7.6 (PS)
2008 suns. +5.8(RS) + 3.1 (PS)
2010 suns +7.7(RS) +13.4 (PS)
Average +6.9(RS) + 10.1 (PS)
combined average: +8.5

shaq

1998 +6.9(RS), +10.1(PS)
1999 +5.4(RS), +4.7(PS)
2000 +3.2(RS), +9.3(PS)
2001 +5.4 (RS) +13.6(PS)
2002 +4.9(RS), +6.4 (PS)
Average +5.2(RS) +8.8(PS)
combined average: +7

bird

1984 +3.3 (RS) +6.4 (PS)
1985 +4.9 (RS) +3.9 (PS)
1986 +4.6 (RS) + 8.3 (PS)
1987 +5.2 (RS) + 8.7 (PS)
1988 +7.4 (RS) +4.2 (PS)
average +5.1(RS) +6.3(PS)
combined average: +5.7

magic

1986 +6.1(RS) +6.7
1987 +7.6 (RS) +10.7
1988 +5.1(RS) +8.3
1989 +6 (RS) +9.3
1990 +5.9(RS) +8.4
Average +6.1(RS), + 8.7 (PS)
combined average: +7.4

Outside of one of the KD-years, Magic's playoff offenses are much better.

Magic also has a strong case for having the best impact portfolio for the 80's and the 90's. Steph by contrast has a pretty weak case to even be top 3 in data-ball("but look at the single-year placement!!!").

Magic is also #1 in regular seaosn win percentage, #1 in playoff win percentage (curry lost that last postseason), has 5 rings, and 10 finals and is only really challenged by Duncan and Jordan for the mantle of "best-winner post russell".

Might vote steph in the next round, but pushing Steph's playoff offenses as comparable to Magic's based on "performance vs good opponents" without adjusting for said opponents is pretty disingenuous(and maybe speaks to how much stronger ervin's case is)

Lol, you might want to take a look at a post I’d *already* made by the time you posted this, which specifically went over the numbers while adjusting relative to the opponents’ defensive ratings, instead or relative to league average. If anything, it makes Steph look better.

Just saw. Comparing Steph over 8 years to Magic over 16 years is pretty dubious. As noted, compare them over a similar time-frame and Magic's opponent adjusted offenses are much better...

[lessthanjake]

This is an interesting way of looking at things. By these parameters, Steph does look better. However, I will say there are multiple ways to compare offenses, and I suppose Magic impresses more.

For example, If you don't like using relative offensive rating to judge playoff offense, there is another method called common opponent offensive rating.
Common opponent offensive rating is comparing a team’s postseason play to other teams against that same given opponent (for that particular PS). The rORTG is also listed on the side too for those who, where a team’s playoff offensive rating is compared to it’s opponent’s regular season defensive ratings. The Cavs have the best common offensive rating of the time period.

The best 3-year offenses and defense (minimum of 20 games played across three postseason trips), we see the following unique team peaks in playoff offense per common offensive rating (cORTG) via Backpicks since 1984 (but only other potential contenders would be if you go back to Mikan days).

The 87-89 Lakers have the 3rd best 3-year peak per this measure, only behind the Cavs and Suns at +9.4. The Warriors are right behind them from 17-19 at +9.3.

However, generally it seems as if Magic's Lakers are greater outliers than Curry's Warriors

For example, top 5, 3-year peaks

87-89 Lakers: +9.4

85-87 Lakers: +9.3

88-90 Lakers: +9

86-88 Lakers: +8.8

84-86 Lakers: +8.5


Steph's Warriors (Note, if we had the data for 2023 Lakers, I'm sure it would slot somewhere in #3-##5)

17-19: +9.3

16-18: +7.4

18-22: +7.1

15-17: +6.7

14-16: +3.9


Overall, it does seem like the Lakers did their fair share in punishing the same opponents their peers struggled with. Furthermore, I would highlight how you don't see any early 80s Lakers teams, as Magic was very much growing throughout the 80s. Your method is fine, however, I would say it leads to overvaluing offensive performance against teams that are good because of their offense, not so much their defense.

I’ve admittedly not done a deep dive into this specific data/methodology you posted, but I’ll just note that any analysis of what Magic’s teams did in the playoffs is IMO very likely to be skewed by the fact that his teams absolutely destroyed a load of bad teams in the Western Conference. Even by the method I looked at, if you expand out the consideration set to include all playoff opponents, I think Magic’s teams would have a higher average rORTG than Steph’s teams, because the Lakers were very frequently stomping bad teams in a very weak Western Conference, producing really efficient offense while they did so. Steph’s teams didn’t face nearly as many weak teams, and when they did, they didn’t actually tend to destroy them quite as much. However, when Steph’s teams faced actually good teams, their rORTG stayed much more steady (indeed, barely going down at all compared to what they did against weaker teams), while when Magic’s teams faced actually good teams their average rORTG went down a huge amount, such that it was clearly below what the Warriors did against good teams. In other words, the Warriors offenses were better and more resilient against good playoff opponents than the Lakers’ were, while the Lakers’ offense smashed weaker playoff opponents by more than the Warriors did (and also faced weaker playoff opponents much more often) but struggled more often against good playoff opponents. Personally, I much prefer greater offensive resilience against good playoff opponents over destroying weaker opponents by even more.

[lessthanjake]

Yeah, this is not it chief

Yeah, how about we adjust for opponent first:

Yep, no. Not as good.

Here are how the offenses compare with opponent adjustment:

Spoiler:

Outside of one of the KD-years, Magic's playoff offenses are much better.

Magic also has a strong case for having the best impact portfolio for the 80's and the 90's. Steph by contrast has a pretty weak case to even be top 3 in data-ball("but look at the single-year placement!!!").

Magic is also #1 in regular seaosn win percentage, #1 in playoff win percentage (curry lost that last postseason), has 5 rings, and 10 finals and is only really challenged by Duncan and Jordan for the mantle of "best-winner post russell".

Might vote steph in the next round, but pushing Steph's playoff offenses as comparable to Magic's based on "performance vs good opponents" without adjusting for said opponents is pretty disingenuous(and maybe speaks to how much stronger ervin's case is)

Lol, you might want to take a look at a post I’d *already* made by the time you posted this, which specifically went over the numbers while adjusting relative to the opponents’ defensive ratings, instead or relative to league average. If anything, it makes Steph look better.

Just saw. Comparing Steph over 8 years to Magic over 16 years is pretty dubious. As noted, compare them over a similar time-frame and Magic's opponent adjusted offenses are much better...

Huh? I literally included every single playoff opponent they had in their entire career that satisfied the criteria I’d set forth. It was a complete list, not limited to any particular timespan for either of them. And you can feel free to delete the 1996 data point if you want, and Steph will still look better.

[Doctor MJ]

All fair points but I’d say the following:

1. I included the 1996 one for completeness, while also specifically mentioning I don’t find it all that meaningful. I did also include pre-prime Steph for completeness too, and the outcome of the analysis doesn’t hinge at all on including 1996. I wouldn’t say the rest of the bad numbers are at the edge of Magic’s career really. Magic was 3rd in MVP voting in 1983! He was injured for much of 1981 so he didn’t have any award recognition that year, but he was already an all-star even the year before and his numbers when he played that season were really good. And 1991 is on the edge of his career in the sense that he retired after that year, but it was also actually in his prime. He was runner-up in MVP voting that year! So I’m not sure I see the point here, except as it relates to 1996. The rest of it seems like fair game to me.

I'm not too concerned, but when you used it calculate an average it felt pretty weird to me.

2. I wouldn’t really say these were all about opposing big men having the advantage. Moses was better than Kareem in 1981 and Kareem didn’t score efficiently, but Kareem wasn’t *terrible.* Meanwhile, Moses outplayed Kareem again in 1983, but Kareem was actually still good (scored a little more than his regular season average, on very slightly lower efficiency), and that series really was actually on Magic being bad. Not sure which other series you’re referring to, but I’m assuming 1986 vs. the Rockets. By this time, Kareem was 38 years old, so him being outplayed by Hakeem was pretty baked into the pie, and I don’t really think is a huge excuse (though Kareem wasn’t super efficient in his scoring).

I think it's reasonable to argue that 1981 shouldn't be taken as a big deal because it was a best-of-3 and there was a lot of noise, it's just that the throughline with Moses is not insignificant.

I'd object to the idea that 1983 was about "Magic being bad". I think Kareem getting out rebounded 18.0 to 7.5 by the opposing center was a significant factor too. Now, regardless, losing in a sweep is losing in a sweep, so I don't want to come off like this was solely about Kareem, but when the opposing star is the MVP and he is your counterpart, it's weird to me to think that we should be looking to blame others.

Re: Kareem was old by 1986. Right, but the Lakers were still treating him like he should be their primary scoring option. The Magic Lakers really reach their potential the next year when Magic becomes both the main scoring and assisting guy.

Yes this is all part of Magic's career and we can knock him along those lines, but if we're just talking about Magic's playoff resiliency, I think it matters how the Lakers were using him.

3. I think this is true, and part of this is also that Magic was simply peaking in the late 1980s. But the first half of the 1980s was part of Magic’s career, and indeed was a part of it that I think both you and I agree he was one of the very best players in the NBA during, so I think he can be and should be judged on what happened in those years too. The bottom line is that I really don’t think the overall picture for Magic is one where his team was more consistently good offensively against good teams in the playoffs than Steph’s was. I think it’s really the opposite, though Magic’s teams performed fairly similarly in this regard to Steph’s if we just looked at 1985-1991 (where the average rORTG compared to opponents’ defensive rating was +5.54 for Magic compared to +5.75 for Curry’s career).

Ah, okay, similar to the point I was making at the end. I don't want to imply that what happened didn't happen, and I'm also not really looking to knock Curry.

4. I have some sympathy for this, but Magic is a pass-first guy whose whole game revolves around making his teammates play at their best, so his teammates being off is not completely independent of him. Regardless, though, this sort of thing can go both ways: For instance, I’d also wonder what the rORTG for the Warriors would’ve been in the 2019 Finals if Durant and then Klay hadn’t gotten hurt.

I think we need to take care not to knock team-oriented guys simply because they are more at the mercy of their teammates' makes and misses in any given small sample. When people do that they tend to think that the best one-on-one players are the best players, and I just fundamentally disagree with this view of the team sport.

[trelos6]

I’ll start by posting this Ben Taylor image as it shows 3 of the 4 candidates.

Curry dominates the scoring / efficiency, while also being close with Magic in creation and turnovers.

This isn’t too surprising to me, as I have Curry’s peak a touch higher than Bird and Magic.

All 3 have 8 MVP level years, an additional weak MVP level year. I give Magic 2 extra All-Star seasons, Larry 1, and Steph 0, but it’s negligible considering their 9 year primes.

I also grade Larry Bird as the best defender of the 3, however he grades out significantly worse in creation metrics.

Of course, career wise, Magic was a better creator overall, as seen in this dataset below.



Onto my official vote, for which I cannot deny the high scoring and high efficiency from Steph Curry.

#10. Steph Curry
#11. Magic Johnson

Nomination: David Robinson