How would Larry Bird be viewed of Magic never existed

[migya]

If Magic never existed, how many championships would Larry have and how would that change how he's viewed alltime?

Good chance he wins six championships.

[penbeast0]

Dennis Rodman and Isiah Thomas on Larry Bird: "If He Was Black, He'd Be Just Another Good Guy."

"If Larry Bird played in this era, I think he'd be in Europe," Rodman said. "I'm just letting you know, man. He'd be somewhere over there." "His game was fit for Boston at that time in the '80s and stuff like that."

The above comments are just for fun, though people do get obsessed with the idea that old players weren't good in modern terms. If he has no competition to make him greater, people might see the NBA in the 80s the way they do the 60s, as Boston just having more talent 2-12 such that Bird becomes overrated. Generally, if Bird wins 6 titles, he's probably rated significantly higher.

[Owly]

If Magic never existed, how many championships would Larry have and how would that change how he's viewed alltime?

Good chance he wins six championships.

Granting that "IRL" is only one baseline, knock-on affects could occur etc

If using IRL as the baseline 6 seems bullish. And my guess would be this is the most conventional framing for the impact of Magic upon him whereas "run it 1000 times over ... and there's no Magic" starts to be more about something else.
The following based on something like Magic retiring before he plays a game, LA losing the pick they used on him, generally not being a major factor.
The most obvious view would be the 3 won. Plus a better shot at the '85 and '87 (West isn't great though messing up West seedings maybe gives Dallas [5.54 SRS] an easier first opponent [irl 9th, 8th and 6th seeds have worse SRSes than Seattle] a chance to emerge and have something more than a punchers chance [next best team is 2.57 SRS Portland who'd need to get very lucky, then multiple teams in the vicinity of 0]).
But even if you fully give them 85 and 87, unless I'm missing something getting to 6 is tricky off the "as it happened" baseline.

Getting to 6 would seem to be butterflying/"re-simming" it and at that point I think all bets are off, who knows what Boston's roster looks like. But maybe I missed something.

[OhayoKD]

If Magic never existed, how many championships would Larry have and how would that change how he's viewed alltime?

Good chance he wins six championships.

bird would look significantly better as a product of having a significantly better player out of the picture. Of course that could be said of anyone. Steph might be viewed as a goat candidate if he didn't run into Lebron. Wilt might have gone down as the goat if he didn't get spanked again and again by an actual goat candidate in Russell.

[70sFan]

Making your competition worse isn't a good way to become a better player.

[lessthanjake]

Well, he’d almost certainly have five titles, since I can’t see any other team in the Western Conference beating the Celtics in 1985 or 1987, when the Celtics made the finals and lost. There really wasn’t a good team in the Western Conference in those years except the Lakers, so, without Magic, the ECF would’ve basically been the de facto finals, and in reality Boston won the ECF five times. Five titles as the #1 player on a team would have Bird right up there around the top 5.

[Owly]

Well, he’d almost certainly have five titles, since I can’t see any other team in the Western Conference beating the Celtics in 1985 or 1987, when the Celtics made the finals and lost. There really wasn’t a good team in the Western Conference in those years except the Lakers, so, without Magic, the ECF would’ve basically been the de facto finals, and in reality Boston won the ECF five times. Five titles as the #1 player on a team would have Bird right up there around the top 5.

Mostly agree.

'87 it could possibly argued that Boston's (over)tight rotation is wearing down. They go 7 games twice narrowly outscoring Milwaukee whilst being outscored by 26 by Detroit. Dallas are closer to Boston's SRS than they are to either of those teams and are arguably much more a genuine threat than most of the non-Laker West in this window (or if Wilkins and Rivers had played up to standard in the Detroit series, Atlanta were defeated 4-1 but only narrowly net outscored by 6pts and subject to two 1pt defeats, they had a very strong regular season and could also be considered dangerous though just playing "as it was" they're in the East they're knocked out by Detroit and that doesn't change - in the West one could see seeds change and argue non-Laker eliminated teams would now emerge).

[lessthanjake]

Well, he’d almost certainly have five titles, since I can’t see any other team in the Western Conference beating the Celtics in 1985 or 1987, when the Celtics made the finals and lost. There really wasn’t a good team in the Western Conference in those years except the Lakers, so, without Magic, the ECF would’ve basically been the de facto finals, and in reality Boston won the ECF five times. Five titles as the #1 player on a team would have Bird right up there around the top 5.

Mostly agree.

'87 it could possibly argued that Boston's (over)tight rotation is wearing down. They go 7 games twice narrowly outscoring Milwaukee whilst being outscored by 26 by Detroit. Dallas are closer to Boston's SRS than they are to either of those teams and are arguably much more a genuine threat than most of the non-Laker West in this window (or if Wilkins and Rivers had played up to standard in the Detroit series, Atlanta were defeated 4-1 but only narrowly net outscored by 6pts and subject to two 1pt defeats, they had a very strong regular season and could also be considered dangerous though just playing "as it was" they're in the East they're knocked out by Detroit and that doesn't change - in the West one could see seeds change and argue non-Laker eliminated teams would now emerge).

The Mavs in 1987 were probably the best non-Lakers team in the West in those two years. They certainly were the best in SRS terms. They lost in the first round to the SuperSonics though, so it’s not at all clear they’d have made the Finals in a world without Magic Johnson. Presumably they’d have been seeded differently in that world, so maybe they’d have faced a different team in the first round and possibly gotten through, but I’m inclined to think that a team that lost not-very-close series to a 39-win team was probably not going to make the finals (or if they did make the Finals, probably wouldn’t have been a super tough out).

[Cavsfansince84]

I don't think he moves up too much. He doesn't add any mvps on paper and probably two rings and two more fmvps. I'd move him probably from near the back of the 6-11 group into closer to the front of it. The 80's would get looked at as a pretty damn weak era though without Magic and that rivalry.

[migya]

I don't think he moves up too much. He doesn't add any mvps on paper and probably two rings and two more fmvps. I'd move him probably from near the back of the 6-11 group into closer to the front of it. The 80's would get looked at as a pretty damn weak era though without Magic and that rivalry.

The Celts battling with the 76ers in the first half of the 80s is memorable. The East was stacked throughout that decade. I haven't seen anyone say the Lakers and Spurs in the 2000s have weak championships when the East was arguably the weakest conference post merger at least.

[Cavsfansince84]

The Celts battling with the 76ers in the first half of the 80s is memorable. The East was stacked throughout that decade. I haven't seen anyone say the Lakers and Spurs in the 2000s have weak championships when the East was arguably the weakest conference post merger at least.

Sixers-Celtics is seen as memorable. Lakers-Celtics still defined the decade though. I'd say the east was pretty strong but not really stacked in that decade. Basically two strong contenders plus one other pretty good team most years. Usually pretty mediocre teams past the 3 or 4 seed. It was a good to very good conf I would say. I'd say the west in the 90's was generally stronger but just lacking a top end team like the 83 Sixers or 86 Celtics. This isn't some kind of hill I am going to die on here though since this is largely based on what the word stacked means to a person.

[One_and_Done]

For all the 'they defined each others legacy' talk, I have to feel Bird having 5 titles would make people rate him higher. It's more of a marginal gain though, because most people are smart enough to see more than just rings.

The biggest loser would be the NBA, the biggest winner would be the 76ers and Dr J.

[Owly]

Well, he’d almost certainly have five titles, since I can’t see any other team in the Western Conference beating the Celtics in 1985 or 1987, when the Celtics made the finals and lost. There really wasn’t a good team in the Western Conference in those years except the Lakers, so, without Magic, the ECF would’ve basically been the de facto finals, and in reality Boston won the ECF five times. Five titles as the #1 player on a team would have Bird right up there around the top 5.

Mostly agree.

'87 it could possibly argued that Boston's (over)tight rotation is wearing down. They go 7 games twice narrowly outscoring Milwaukee whilst being outscored by 26 by Detroit. Dallas are closer to Boston's SRS than they are to either of those teams and are arguably much more a genuine threat than most of the non-Laker West in this window (or if Wilkins and Rivers had played up to standard in the Detroit series, Atlanta were defeated 4-1 but only narrowly net outscored by 6pts and subject to two 1pt defeats, they had a very strong regular season and could also be considered dangerous though just playing "as it was" they're in the East they're knocked out by Detroit and that doesn't change - in the West one could see seeds change and argue non-Laker eliminated teams would now emerge).

The Mavs in 1987 were probably the best non-Lakers team in the West in those two years. They certainly were the best in SRS terms. They lost in the first round to the SuperSonics though, so it’s not at all clear they’d have made the Finals in a world without Magic Johnson. Presumably they’d have been seeded differently in that world, so maybe they’d have faced a different team in the first round and possibly gotten through, but I’m inclined to think that a team that lost not-very-close series to a 39-win team was probably not going to make the finals (or if they did make the Finals, probably wouldn’t have been a super tough out).

I agree with (and covered) that you'd need things to change in the West, the Lakers change giving some leeway etc).
I'd suggest
- (to me) you're over indexing on a small sample if that makes a big difference (perhaps somewhat akin to looking at Boston-Detroit, the points dif)
- Depends on intonation regarding "not super close" its not ... super close. But a 4pts per game difference could easily have been 2-2 one game is very easily flipped and that's if we are re-running or relying on this sample.
- I don't think Schrempf plays that bad typically (in a given series or a rerun of that one) or over a larger sample (e.g. longer playoff run)
- I believe Donaldson had an injury (don't know where I'd know that from other than he missed a game, minutes are down - obviously their contender status is contingent on health)
-39 wins underrepresents Seattle (42 pythag wins off points diff, probably 41 off SRS), noted previously all surrounding options seem a bit weaker
- If one is heavily playoff inclined, the MacLeod coached version of much the same team the next year gets to the conference finals and go down 3-4 to the Lakers. It's not "super close" but not wide open either.
- Maybe Ellis versus his former team is an X factor (that one's a bit of a reach after the fact)

I'm not saying they'd be favorites. But in a sea of sub-3 SRS teams, this one stands out in looking like a team that wouldn't need to be lucky to be competitive.

[migya]

The Celts battling with the 76ers in the first half of the 80s is memorable. The East was stacked throughout that decade. I haven't seen anyone say the Lakers and Spurs in the 2000s have weak championships when the East was arguably the weakest conference post merger at least.

Sixers-Celtics is seen as memorable. Lakers-Celtics still defined the decade though. I'd say the east was pretty strong but not really stacked in that decade. Basically two strong contenders plus one other pretty good team most years. Usually pretty mediocre teams past the 3 or 4 seed. It was a good to very good conf I would say. I'd say the west in the 90's was generally stronger but just lacking a top end team like the 83 Sixers or 86 Celtics. This isn't some kind of hill I am going to die on here though since this is largely based on what the word stacked means to a person.

Add the Bucks at least. Pistons later 80s.

I really think many would say he's top 5 ever. He probably wins mvp in 87 with the championship, which would be four straight mvps, unmatched. The perceptions would be big on him.

[Harry Palmer]

In a macro sense, does the league survive/flourish without that rivalry?

[Cavsfansince84]

Add the Bucks at least. Pistons later 80s.

I really think many would say he's top 5 ever. He probably wins mvp in 87 with the championship, which would be four straight mvps, unmatched. The perceptions would be big on him.

It's not necessary to add the Bucks and Pistons by name when I already referenced them in what I said. Bird came in 3rd in mvp voting in 87 so adding a title(well after voting already took place) wouldn't change that as far as I can see. I think there would be some push back from voters so far as letting him get 4 straight mvps anyhow. Some people probably would have him as top 5. That isn't a huge stretch to say when some people even now have him in their top 5.