RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #10 (Larry Bird)

[Odinn21]

Firstly, why do you think that KG was better in 2004 or 2008 than in 2001-03 or 2005-07? He had better teams in these seasons, but I wouldn't call 2008 KG better player than 2003 KG for example.

I'd agree with the closing statement and wouldn't agree with the premise.
Top 3 seasons of Garnett for me are 2004, 2003 and 2008, in that order.

Even his RAPM numbers, the biggest case for Garnett, were not in the top tier in 2005 and 2006. He made it back to tier 1 in 2007 but I just don't see a good case over 2008 for 2007.
And taking 2001 or 2002 Garnett over 2008 version would be taking 1999 Duncan over 2007 Duncan IMO.

So, yeah, I'd go 2004, 2003, 2008 as for Garnett's top seasons.

[Doctor MJ]

Wanted to say:

I see some people who are disturbed by there being a gap between Magic & Bird.

I'll actually say that whenever I have contemporaries right next to each other, it makes me uncomfortable. If you have a pure mathematical formula you're using, you're typically not going to get those guys right next to each other, so it stands reason to ask whether there's something myopic in my/your/our analysis when we see these guys smashed together.

In the case of Magic and Bird, it's important to remember that these guys do not have anything like identical careers. Bird was a serious MVP candidate well before Magic, and then Magic has a huge advantage over their last half decade or so. Yes, in theory those gaps could cancel each other out, but the odds of that should be considered unlikely.

None of this is meant to justify "pushing Bird alone down the list", as I'm one of the folks who has KG above both Magic & Bird, but I'm just saying that the fact that there ends up potentially being a significant ranking gap between Magic & Bird doesn't set off alarm bells for me.

I'm more concerned with the fact that I always seem to end up putting Oscar & West right next to each other. Smacks of tradition rather than rationality. I'm not going to move them apart just to make to ape the appearance of rationality, but I am more concerned about having these contemporary rivals right next to each other than I am having them potentially apart.

[Dutchball97]

Winning bias would be putting Isiah Thomas ahead of Dirk because Isiah won 2 rings to Dirk's 1.

Taking Kobe over Dirk because he had more success in the play-offs than Dirk over their careers, however isn't winning bias.

Performance matters but so do results.

Kobe didn't perform better in the post-season than Dirk though. His team did have more success though, so...Winning Bias.

Kobe's teams didn't just win a lot by chance. Kobe was a big reason that they won that much.

Also Dirk being better in the post-season than Kobe is arguable but you're making it seem like Dirk was obviously much better. Which he wasn't.

[70sFan]

Firstly, why do you think that KG was better in 2004 or 2008 than in 2001-03 or 2005-07? He had better teams in these seasons, but I wouldn't call 2008 KG better player than 2003 KG for example.

I'd agree with the closing statement and wouldn't agree with the premise.
Top 3 seasons of Garnett for me are 2004, 2003 and 2008, in that order.

Even his RAPM numbers, the biggest case for Garnett, were not in the top tier in 2005 and 2006. He made it back to tier 1 in 2007 but I just don't see a good case over 2008 for 2007.
And taking 2001 or 2002 Garnett over 2008 version would be taking 1999 Duncan over 2007 Duncan IMO.

So, yeah, I'd go 2004, 2003, 2008 as for Garnett's top seasons.

That's fair and I want to hear about these differences between each seasons. I appreciate your response.

[Odinn21]

Winning bias would be putting Isiah Thomas ahead of Dirk because Isiah won 2 rings to Dirk's 1.

Taking Kobe over Dirk because he had more success in the play-offs than Dirk over their careers, however isn't winning bias.

Performance matters but so do results.

Kobe didn't perform better in the post-season than Dirk though. His team did have more success though, so...Winning Bias.

Dirk Nowitzki from 2002 to 2011; 5.3 obpm in r. season and 5.7 obpm playoffs, +0.4 change over 114 playoff games
Kobe Bryant from 2001 to 2010; 5.6 obpm in r. season and 5.6 obpm playoffs, 0 change over 148 playoff games

And while both had low points, Bryant's stature as playoff performer is not just about winning bias. His performance was also there to back it up. Here his numbers from 2008 to 2010;
4.9 obpm in r. season and 6.7 obpm in playoffs, +1.8 change over 67 playoff games

Very hard to agree with that assessment.

[limbo]

Or you know, not everyone just agrees with the assertion that Kobe was rarely better than Dirk as you put it. I think most people would consider them pretty close, not a wipeout in favor of Dirk.

Kobe being rarely better than Dirk doesn't mean that they weren't close in a lot of the years. It just means that during their primes, there was only a handful of season where you could say Kobe was clearly better than Dirk, despite playing mostly on better teams.

Btw i don't get why people tend to dismiss winning so much as if it's something the player had nothing to do with.

Calling out winning bias is not about dismissing winning. It's about putting the proper context/perspective on how/why a certain player won. And no, Kobe was the best player on two title teams while Dirk was only on one is not context/perspective...

Isiah Thomas was the best player on two title teams but that doesn't make him a better player than either Oscar, West, Paul, Nash or Stockton... That's not me saying Isiah had 'nothing to do with' Pistons titles, no, he was one of their most important players, but i'm not going to be putting him over superior players on a list that asks to rank individual players, because he wasn't as good. The reason why he won two rings and Oscar won one was because of other factors beyond their control, which i'm trying to eliminate as best as possible when i'm talking about GOAT rankings.

I think 01 is clear cut in Kobe's favor, unless you want to just ignore his playoff run say it doesn't matter because he had Shaq. I'd feel comfortable putting Kobe ahead in 03 as well, especially when we consider injuries.

I gave 01 to Kobe, but it's definitely not 'clear cut'. They were close in RAPM during the RS (which is over 80% of the sample size). I don't ignore Kobe's playoff run, that's why i gave 01 to him, but i do believe Kobe was playing WAY above his level in that PS. I don't know if it was teams trying extra hard to focus on Shaq, Kobe getting super hot from the field or a combination of both, but regardless, i'm not going to discredit the man's results. Dirk was great in the Playoffs too that year, the rest of the team just dropped the ball completely, which is why the Spurs series wasn't competitive at the end. Not because Dirk was a worse player than Kobe and couldn't compete with the Spurs.

I'm not giving 03 to Kobe... Dirk had a +12.6 OnCourt and +20.4 On/Off during the RS compared to Kobe's +3.8 OnCourt and +10.0 On/Off... Dirk had better RAPM and better advanced stats too, not by much, but enough. Kobe doesn't even have the better Playoff performance. He beat up on below average Minnesota defense in the 1st round before being clamped by the Spurs. His Spurs series was not more impressive than Dirk was in terms of the impact he was having, despite playing more games and on a better team. Dirk at least eliminated the Kings in those Playoffs, who were the 2nd team based on SRS during the RS and he played good in that series, despite Webber getting injured. You're basically rewarding Kobe because Dirk got injured mid-way through the Spurs series... Despite Dirk playing more PS games overall and performing better in them against tougher defenses...There's nothing Kobe showed me during that PS that makes me put him ahead of Dirk who was simply better during the RS.

I think 06 is more or less a wash, but i could see picking Dirk.

Haha. So, let me get this straight. Kobe was comfortably better in 03, despite having a worse RS and not really doing anything of note against non below-average defenses in the PS, because Dirk got injured. But in 06, Dirk has a legendary postseason run all the way to the Finals while Kobe almost averages the same number of assists and has a worse series against the same Suns Dirk beats later on and 06 is a wash... LMAO

Kobe takes 08-10 if we're being fair. Otherwise we're just ranking Dirk on the hypothetical that he could've replicated Kobe's performances for 3 straight finals. He maybe could've but lets not turn this project into the top 100 what ifs of all time.

08-10 is Kobe's strongest stretch of his career and Dirk is a lot closer to Kobe in those years than Kobe is to Dirk outside of those years, despite Dirk playing on a mediocre team at best, while Kobe had arguably the best supporting cast in the league.

Even if i give Kobe 08-10 outright, Dirk from 02-07 beats Kobe with more room to spare. And then you also have to figure out what to do with 11-14 where Dirk absolutely destroys Kobe in impact...

There is no 'what if's' here... Dirk was individually a better basketball player than Kobe on aggregate from 00-14. All metrics say this. Why that hasn't manifested in more team success/titles is a different debate, but not really much of a debate, because everybody knows Kobe played with the best supporting cast in the league from 2000 to 2004 and 2008-2011, while Dirk not so much.

LeBron James was clearly better than Kevin Durant and Kawhi Leonard from 2010-2019, but all three have the same amount of titles during that span... That's how it goes.

[Dutchball97]

Wanted to say:

I see some people who are disturbed by there being a gap between Magic & Bird.

I'll actually say that whenever I have contemporaries right next to each other, it makes me uncomfortable. If you have a pure mathematical formula you're using, you're typically not going to get those guys right next to each other, so it stands reason to ask whether there's something myopic in my/your/our analysis when we see these guys smashed together.

In the case of Magic and Bird, it's important to remember that these guys do not have anything like identical careers. Bird was a serious MVP candidate well before Magic, and then Magic has a huge advantage over their last half decade or so. Yes, in theory those gaps could cancel each other out, but the odds of that should be considered unlikely.

None of this is meant to justify "pushing Bird alone down the list", as I'm one of the folks who has KG above both Magic & Bird, but I'm just saying that the fact that there ends up potentially being a significant ranking gap between Magic & Bird doesn't set off alarm bells for me.

I'm more concerned with the fact that I always seem to end up putting Oscar & West right next to each other. Smacks of tradition rather than rationality. I'm not going to move them apart just to make to ape the appearance of rationality, but I am more concerned about having these contemporary rivals right next to each other than I am having them potentially apart.

I actually agree. I brought up KG having a similar career to Duncan not being enough to put him right next to him in all-time rankings earlier and I still believe that.

I feel similarly as you do on Oscar and West. I find it hard to seperate them even though their career arcs were vastly different. Might be a case of not having all the data available from their playing days, giving us less things to make distinctions from.

I did bring up the Magic and Bird connection multiple times though. While I agree you don't have to put them right next to each other, the arguments used for Magic and against Bird were a bit weird. What makes Magic's longevity not a problem at all but Bird's longevity disqualifies him from the same discussion? My annoyance isn't so much about Bird probably not making the top 10 so much as it is the arguments being used to discredit him.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Winning bias would be putting Isiah Thomas ahead of Dirk because Isiah won 2 rings to Dirk's 1.

Taking Kobe over Dirk because he had more success in the play-offs than Dirk over their careers, however isn't winning bias.

Performance matters but so do results.

Kobe didn't perform better in the post-season than Dirk though. His team did have more success though, so...Winning Bias.

Dirk Nowitzki from 2002 to 2011; 5.3 obpm in r. season and 5.7 obpm playoffs, +0.4 change over 114 playoff games
Kobe Bryant from 2001 to 2010; 5.6 obpm in r. season and 5.6 obpm playoffs, 0 change over 148 playoff games

And while both had low points, Bryant's stature as playoff performer is not just about winning bias. His performance was also there to back it up. Here his numbers from 2008 to 2010;
4.9 obpm in r. season and 6.7 obpm in playoffs, +1.8 change over 67 playoff games

Very hard to agree with that assessment.

Even through just your simple statistical analysis supplied, how exactly are you concluding Kobe was better than Dirk?

Since you like using smaller samples, Dirk from 08-11 was 4.3 OBPM in the regular season and 5.9 in the post-season, +1.6 change. Dirks per-100 individual Ortg split over this sample is 121, Kobe was 115.

Nothing here supports the claim that Kobe was better and that is my point.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Winning bias would be putting Isiah Thomas ahead of Dirk because Isiah won 2 rings to Dirk's 1.

Taking Kobe over Dirk because he had more success in the play-offs than Dirk over their careers, however isn't winning bias.

Performance matters but so do results.

Kobe didn't perform better in the post-season than Dirk though. His team did have more success though, so...Winning Bias.

Kobe's teams didn't just win a lot by chance. Kobe was a big reason that they won that much.

Also Dirk being better in the post-season than Kobe is arguable but you're making it seem like Dirk was obviously much better. Which he wasn't.

I never said Dirk was obviously much better.

You said that taking Kobe over Dirk because of post-season success isn't winning bias. It is the definition of winning bias actually.

[70sFan]

What makes Magic's longevity not a problem at all but Bird's longevity disqualifies him from the same discussion? My annoyance isn't so much about Bird probably not making the top 10 so much as it is the arguments being used to discredit him.

Magic had better longevity, for some the difference might be enough to have Johnson higher.

[Dutchball97]

What makes Magic's longevity not a problem at all but Bird's longevity disqualifies him from the same discussion? My annoyance isn't so much about Bird probably not making the top 10 so much as it is the arguments being used to discredit him.

Magic had better longevity, for some the difference might be enough to have Johnson higher.

This feels unproductive. I've already argued in multiple threads how I don't think the longevity advantage Magic has over Bird is as impactful as some would have you believe. Yeah sure maybe it's enough for some people but does that mean I can't point out how I disagree with that line of thinking?

[70sFan]

What makes Magic's longevity not a problem at all but Bird's longevity disqualifies him from the same discussion? My annoyance isn't so much about Bird probably not making the top 10 so much as it is the arguments being used to discredit him.

Magic had better longevity, for some the difference might be enough to have Johnson higher.

This feels unproductive. I've already argued in multiple threads how I don't think the longevity advantage Magic has over Bird is as impactful as some would have you believe. Yeah sure maybe it's enough for some people but does that mean I can't point out how I disagree with that line of thinking?

Of course you can disagree, I'm just trying to provide some agruments for having Magic clearly higher.

If someone thinks that prime Magic was as good (or slightly better) as prime Bird, that Magic has longevity advantage (which is objectively true) and values Magic's postseason consistency more (which is also fair, although people have to remember that Bird usually faced much better competition - at least in 1984-88 period) then I don't think it's that unfair to have Magic a few spots higher than Bird.

Personally, I do have Magic inside top 10 (although a bit lower) and I have Bird outside of it.

[Dutchball97]

Kobe didn't perform better in the post-season than Dirk though. His team did have more success though, so...Winning Bias.

Kobe's teams didn't just win a lot by chance. Kobe was a big reason that they won that much.

Also Dirk being better in the post-season than Kobe is arguable but you're making it seem like Dirk was obviously much better. Which he wasn't.

I never said Dirk was obviously much better.

You said that taking Kobe over Dirk because of post-season success isn't winning bias. It is the definition of winning bias actually.

Bias is something bad though. Evaluating how good players were in the post-season is something productive and necessary.

Winning is important and good players make teams win. Disregarding team success seems like a good way to jump the shark on player evaluation.

[Dutchball97]

Magic had better longevity, for some the difference might be enough to have Johnson higher.

This feels unproductive. I've already argued in multiple threads how I don't think the longevity advantage Magic has over Bird is as impactful as some would have you believe. Yeah sure maybe it's enough for some people but does that mean I can't point out how I disagree with that line of thinking?

Of course you can disagree, I'm just trying to provide some agruments for having Magic clearly higher.

If someone thinks that prime Magic was as good (or slightly better) as prime Bird, that Magic has longevity advantage (which is objectively true) and values Magic's postseason consistency more (which is also fair, although people have to remember that Bird usually faced much better competition - at least in 1984-88 period) then I don't think it's that unfair to have Magic a few spots higher than Bird.

Personally, I do have Magic inside top 10 (although a bit lower) and I have Bird outside of it.

I think the difference mainly comes from evaluation of their respective primes. If you think they were exactly as good or that Magic was better then it makes sense to see a longevity advantage, no matter how slight it may be, as enough to justify Magic ahead of Bird. I have Bird's prime as better than Magic's prime though and I don't think the longevity quite makes up for it.

I'm just going to drop this though and hope Bird at least makes it in at #11 so I can finally move on to other players.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Kobe's teams didn't just win a lot by chance. Kobe was a big reason that they won that much.

Also Dirk being better in the post-season than Kobe is arguable but you're making it seem like Dirk was obviously much better. Which he wasn't.

I never said Dirk was obviously much better.

You said that taking Kobe over Dirk because of post-season success isn't winning bias. It is the definition of winning bias actually.

Bias is something bad though. Evaluating how good players were in the post-season is something productive and necessary.

Winning is important and good players make teams win. Disregarding team success seems like a good way to jump the shark on player evaluation.

You are making a lot of assumptions here...

[Dutchball97]

I never said Dirk was obviously much better.

You said that taking Kobe over Dirk because of post-season success isn't winning bias. It is the definition of winning bias actually.

Bias is something bad though. Evaluating how good players were in the post-season is something productive and necessary.

Winning is important and good players make teams win. Disregarding team success seems like a good way to jump the shark on player evaluation.

You are making a lot of assumptions here...

The only "assumption" I can see here is winning is important. I'd like to see you try and disprove that assumption. Why do you think Bill Russell got in before the statistically more dominant Wilt? Or do you disagree with that ranking as well?

[Jordan Syndrome]

Bias is something bad though. Evaluating how good players were in the post-season is something productive and necessary.

Winning is important and good players make teams win. Disregarding team success seems like a good way to jump the shark on player evaluation.

You are making a lot of assumptions here...

The only "assumption" I can see here is winning is important. I'd like to see you try and disprove that assumption. Why do you think Bill Russell got in before the statistically more dominant Wilt? Or do you disagree with that ranking as well?

I had Russell ahead of Wilt for a variety of reasons, notably because his impact was higher.

In my extensive time spent preparing for this project and over the past decade I have not been impressed by Kobe's impact metrics while I have been impressed with Dirk's footprint in that regard.

Let's not use logical fallacies here, pointing at Wilt/Russell and attempt to draw parallels to a Kobe/Dirk comparison--those parallels don't exist.

[limbo]

Why don't you use the same criteria for other limited players though? I mean, you're the biggest critic of Shaq's offensive game because he couldn't shoot but why did it matter if his teams dominated the league across decade?

Shaq's skillset forces you to play through him in the post. You either take it or leave it. Which isn't a bad in most scenarios, because he's able to dominate the game offensively from that set, but sometimes maybe you get Twin Towered by Robinson/Duncan or some team stacks two elite interior defenders and you're going to be in trouble, especially if you don't have elite perimeter offensive players to counteract that (something Shaq was lucky to have all of his prime)...

Shaq can still be valuable as a finisher inside and on the glass, but ultimately it comes down to flexibility and Dirk's shooting (as well as his ability to put it on the floor and drive) just makes him a more flexible player on offense with fewer counters...

Shaq's lack of outside shot is a weakness, but it's not too relevant against most offensive players in NBA history, because they don't bring enough to the table. Dirk does.

Dirk is one of the best offensive players ever, but we're comparing him to other candidates for offensive GOATs. If you want to criticize Shaq for shooting, Moses for turnovers, Kobe for scoring efficiency then I see no reason to make it different with Dirk's passing which clearly reduced his ceilling as an offensive anchor to some degree.

I don't know about Moses, but Shaq and Kobe are definitely up there somewhere... I just think Dirk was better, and is more portable/scalable.

If Dirk was an elite passer he'd arguably the GOAT offensive player... That would make him like a more resilient/better scoring (higher %, low TO) version of Larry Bird that is a better isolation scorer and a more difficult matchup to defend.

Dirk never played without decent perimeter creators. He didn't play with elite rosters all the time, but he had excellent coaches and deep teams more often than not.

2006 Dallas Mavericks:
111.8 ORtg (1/30), +5.6 rORtg

Team assists: 18.0 per game (29/30)

Jason Terry: 3.8 apg
Devin Harris: 3.2 apg
Jerry Stackhouse: 2.9 apg
Dirk Nowitzki: 2.8 apg


Come one, fam... Jason Terry was the biggest shot creator outside Dirk on these teams and he averaged 3.8 apg, 1.7 TO, which isn't bad, but it's Smush Parker levels of creation... and Kobe stans have been trashing Smush for being garbage for 15 years now... Howard, Stack, Harris were just NOT GOOD perimeter creators, and the Center Dirk played with had no value on offense.

So that's Dampier/Diop (no value), Howard/Stack/Harris, bad perimeter creators, and Terry who is Smush Parker level creator...

If Dirk was working with decent perimeter creators i'm curious which player in NBA history had comparable or worse creators on his team on a +5.5 rOTG team... Certainly not Kobe or Shaq.

When did I say that he wasn't strong playmaker? The question is if he's better playmaker than someone like Kobe (or Bird, or West, or Oscar) and that's entirely different question.

Which is what i'm proving to you in the last two pages... without receiving any substantial arguments in Kobe's defense. Because there are non, outside of Stepbacker's cherry-picked txt document of Kobe's/Lakers impact in the 2009 Playoffs against Chuck Hayes Houston Rockets...

Again, you're saying that Dirk wasn't worse because he played with worse teammates. I don't think that's enough to conclude who's better defensive player.

No, i'm saying Dirk wasn't worse because when we saw Dirk used properly on defense (not playing as the sole rim protector with below bad/historically bad backcourt defenders), Dirk recorded larger defensive impact than Kobe did. And the sample size isn't small, it goes from 2006 to 2012, despite this including 2009/2010 where Dampier declined into oblivion and then Dallas experimented with Brandon Bass at C for a year.

If you're not tunnel-visioning on results with no context, this should be rather obvious.

Dirk played at center because Nelson tried to maximize Dallas offense in exchange of defense, so if you want to praise him for high efficient offenses from the early 2000s - I see no reason to criticize him for defense as well.

This could be a legit argument if Dirk didn't went on to post elite offenses with Erick Dampier immediately after. So it's kind of moot. I'm not someone who uses those early Mavs offenses to push Dirk above other players. That's just a data point for me in terms of Dirk's scalability with other ball-dominant players.

Also - Dirk didn't play like Durant on defense because he was poor perimeter player. He couldn't guard small players - it's as simple as that.

Not like Durant is a dominant perimeter defender, lol.

And i didn't say Dirk plays like Durant on defense, or whatever. I just said would you use Durant as a rim protector (playing behind historically bad defensive players) on defense against elite offensive teams and use that against him as a defensive player when his team would get destroyed? Probably, not. So why you're doing it with Dirk?

It would be one thing if Dirk was actually never a part of good defenses in his career. Then you could say ''we never saw Dirk be a good defender, your theory of him being 'misused/miscast' on defense is just pure speculation''... BUT WE DID SEE DIRK BE A GOOD DEFENDER... MULITPLE TIMES IN HIS CAREER.

First time it was in 2001, where the Mavs ranked 13/29 on defense, but with Dirk on the floor the opposing teams had a 101.1 ORtg, without Dirk it was 109.0 ORtg...

2003, similar story 9/29 defensively, much better with Dirk on the floor.

Then it was 2006 and 2007 with a whole different cast of players. Their defense in 2006 Playoffs was only below Miami and Detroit... And in 2007 they finished 5/30 in the league in DRtg...

Then again in 2010-2012, Dirk was part of very good defenses, and all the best Dallas lineups had Dirk in them in them.

What more proof do you want?

"To most knowledgeable people" - so you assume that anyone who has Kobe over Dirk wasn't knowledgeable? That's silly argument...

If they were following basketball from 2000 to 2015 and they are familiar with how stats, plus/minus metrics work, then yes, they should know Dirk was a better player than Kobe.

I don't even have a problem with people ranking Kobe over Dirk if they admit their ranking is heavily based on winning bias and 5 > 1. But don't try to re-write history and pass it off like Kobe was a better player than Dirk like No More Rings is trying to do.

Here are POY results from 2000-12 period:

I actually think that Dirk's a bit underrated by these results, but there is no reason to believe that Dirk was much better than Kobe in both primes. A lot of knowledgeable posters actually have Kobe above Dirk overall (including ElGee).

Kobe's popularity and reputation (as well as Dirk's lack thereof) carries him severely in these types of 'fan vote' things... It's totally useless to even bring it up.

Kobe's reputation was so strong that he made the NBA media believed he deserves 9 All-NBA defensive 1st teams... which is the most in NBA history (tied with Garnett).

''Kobe tricked y'all like he playing defense man... He don't guard nobody, just running around doing nothing''

[Hal14]

What makes Magic's longevity not a problem at all but Bird's longevity disqualifies him from the same discussion? My annoyance isn't so much about Bird probably not making the top 10 so much as it is the arguments being used to discredit him.

Magic had better longevity, for some the difference might be enough to have Johnson higher.

I think when you take a deeper look, it's actually pretty debatable which one had better longevity...and if you do think one guy had better longevity, the edge would be so small that it couldn't really use that as a reason to rank one over the other on an all-time list.

Let's first look at MPG. Simply put, Bird played more minutes per game, which helps explain the context behind why Magic was better in years 11 and 12 compared to Bird - Magic had more gas left in the tank since he was conserving his energy all of those years that he played less minutes than Bird. Bird played 40+ MPG during the playoffs 10 times. Magic did that only 7 times.

If we look at just total amount of minutes played, Magic played more total playoff minutes (7,538 minutes for Magic, 6,886 playoff minutes for Bird.

But in the regular season Bird played 34,443 total minutes compared to just 33,245 total minutes played by Magic.

Additional context to help explain both player's longevity:
-Bird's body took more of a pounding over the years than Magic's because
a) Bird played in the paint much more frequently, he was banging around with opposing bigs more frequently, battling under the boards more frequently, and taking shots inside more frequently whereas Magic played much more frequently out on the perimeter where there was less contact - and when he was out on the perimeter Magic would typically be guarded by a dude much smaller than him so any contact his defender applied would result in less wear and tear on Magic and
b) Bird simply played the game differently than Magic. While both of them played hard, Bird played with a reckless abandon, a run through the wall, dive on every loose ball style that has been unmatched by pretty much anyone, ever. Meanwhile, Magic - for the most part - wasn't the type of player to get his nose dirty, he wasn't the type of player diving into the stands for loose balls or doing this type of stuff that Bird did routinely:

Watch on YouTube

-Bird played in the tougher conference. So during the regular season he played more games against the tougher astern conference teams, less games vs the weaker western conference teams. In the playoffs, same thing - more games vs the tougher eastern conference teams, less games vs. the weaker western conference teams. For Magic, it was the opposite.
-Playing a long playoff series takes more of a toll on your body and mind. Bird played in 7 series that went the full 7 games, going 5-2 in those series. Magic played in just 4 series that went the full 7 games, going 3-1 in those series.
-It was also easier for Magic to be better late in his career, because Magic is older than Bird. Bird turned 23 very early in his rookie season, whereas Magic played his entire rookie season at age 20. So in the 90-91 season, yeah Magic was better than Bird that season but he was also 30 years old during that entire season, whereas Bird turned 33 very early in the season.

Number of seasons in the league: Bird 13, Magic 12
Number of full seasons (playing in more than 1/2 their their team's games and playing more than 1/2 the game in the same season = Bird 12, Magic 11
Number of seasons on the all-star team = Bird, 12, Magic 12
Number of seasons where they made either 1st or 2nd all NBA team = Bird 10, Magic 10

Factor it all in, and I'd say longevity between these 2 is a wash. If you're going to say 1 is better than the other in longevity, it would be such a small difference that it wouldn't really make sense to use it to justify ranking one over the other on an all-time list.

[70sFan]

Yeah, so anybody who disagree with mister limbo just isn't knowledgeable enough...

As I said, I'm not Kobe supporter so I won't waste time on supporting opinion I don't necessarily agree with. Just again, your arguments are used in biased way and you don't use the same standards for all players.