Magic and Bird, the Great Debate

The other day my buddy Ryan Cahill asked me a very interesting question: If you had to choose between Larry Bird or Magic Johnson which one you want to build the team around? He also asked how many rings would they have won if they had played together for their entire careers. Let's tackle the first question to start because, lets face it, it's waaaay more complex and I have nothing else to do except break down one of the greatest player matchups of all time. And to answer your question, no I don't have a life. Moving on...


QUESTION 1: If you had to choose between Larry Bird or Magic Johnson, which one you want to build a team around?



Okay, this was a vague question, so I asked Ryan (who my friends and I call "The Wizard" for his basketball exploits...it's a long story) to make it a little clearer. We decided that it wouldn't be over the course of their careers, but instead at their respective peaks. Now that makes the question even tougher. Had it been "If you had to build a team around Magic or Larry's whole career knowing how it would turn out, who would you choose?" I probably would have to take Magic. I know, I know, I just committed Celtics heresy, but I'll repent later. Magic would be the pick in that scenario, simply because his body didn't give out like Bird's did. Both players had terrific careers, and Larry Legend definitely had the upper hand from 1980-1986. But back and leg injuries derailed Bird and gave Magic the opportunity to surge past him. The deciding factor for me was that you could still win a championship with Magic from 1980-86 when Bird was the consensus better player (the Lakers proved this by winning in 1980, 1982 and 1985), but you weren't winning a championship with Bird and his back problems from '88-'92 when Magic was the better player.

Now for the tougher matter. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, Magic's longevity as well as a 5 to 3 championship edge gives him the slight edge over Bird in terms of career success. But when talking about the two players at their peaks, the question changes. According to "The Book of Basketball" by Bill Simmons (a fantastic book if you're into the NBA. Bill Simmons is my hero. Okay I'm done now) Larry Bird had a 5 year peak in which he averaged 28 points, 10 rebounds, and 7 assists per game. Larry shot 51% from the field, and was a 90% free throw shooter over that stretch. Bird's 4 year playoff peak was equally as impressive. The Legend averaged 24-10-10 in postseason play during that peak. For the record, the book doesn't mention what years Larry peaked at, but I'm assuming its from '83-'87 seasons. During those five seasons Bird was the best player on two championship teams and two runner ups (he could have won another ring in 1987 too if, you know, Len Bias didn't OD on coke and rob the Celtics of continued domination into the '90s. Dammit.) , won three consecutive MVP awards from '84-'86 and was a runner up in 1983, played on the best team ever (the 1986 Boston Celtics), won two Finals MVP trophies ('84 and '86), and made the All-NBA First team five times. If that's not impressive I don't know what is. And that's not to mention that not only was Bird a sensational scorer, but he was a great rebounder, solid defender in his younger days (not so much as he got older and fell apart), and by far the greatest passing forward of all time.

That being said, Magic had an impressive apex himself. According to The Book of Basketball, during Magic's 3 year peak he averaged 22-7-12, and during his two year playoff peak of 19-7-15. Not to mention that he was 6-9 and played freaking POINT GUARD! (Quick tangent: I would kill to have Magic's size and basketball skills. I'm not kidding. I would literally take somebody's life if it meant could play like Magic. Unfortunately I'm 5-11 and white with no leaping ability whatsoever so that ship has probably sailed. Anyways...) Assuming that Magic's peak was from '87-'89, then during those years he won two championships, won 2 MVP awards (and won a third in 1990), won the Finals MVP in 1987, and made three All NBA First teams. I know that list isn't as long as Bird's, but keep in mind that Bird had two more years of being at top form.


So what's the verdict? I would hands down take Bird's peak over Magic's. First of all, it was two years longer, and more impressive statistically. Also, while Magic's career might have been longer, Bird was transcendent before the injuries took their toll. Magic was great, don't get me wrong, but Larry could do everything that Magic could do in his prime, except that Bird was a better scorer and rebounder. Of course, Magic's scoring numbers don't completely reflect his scoring ability since Johnson was the point guard after all, but to say that Larry didn't have the more complete offensive game from '80-'86 is foolish. I mean, the man took a 15 foot jumpshot with his left hand in a playoff game against the Pistons in '88 because he was bored. And he made the shot! There's a reason why he was called the Legend.

QUESTION 2: How many rings would they have won if they had played together for their entire careers?

Now this is easy. If they had played their whole careers on the same team (Would it have happened under any conceivable situation? No. But that's not the point) they would have won at least 10 titles. This is not debatable. In fact, it's more likely that they would have won every single year. Let me put it this way, if you put two of the top 5 players of all time on the court together, in their primes, they would probably win 70 games every year. Forget 72-10. That would be a habit for a team that featured Bird and Magic. The way that those guys played, they could score at will but were also the most unselfish players on the court. The NBA today needs more guys like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. I wish I could have seen them play. Because in the end, it doesn't matter who's the better player, all that matters is that we were fortunate enough to watch them compete at the highest level. If only I was around to see it.

The Sports Fan Strikes Back

I'm baaaaack!

After nearly a four month hiatus, during which the Patriots exploded (so much for that prediction), the Red Sox entered a "transitional" phase, and the Celtics continue to confuse everyone in the New England area with their inconsistant play, I have returned. And why? Well I'm not sure. But I did have to write a paper for my English class recently, and since I twisted the topic to be sports related, I figured now was the right time. So without further ado, I give you my take on what it takes to make a championship caliber basketball team.

Basketball is a magnificent sport. When played at its highest level, it is beautiful to watch. From elegant passing to high flying slam dunks to graceful post play to swarming defense, basketball can be a spectacular sight to see. Very rarely does a team reach this level of play, but when they do, it spells trouble for the rest of the league (an example of this would be the 1986 Boston Celtics, a team that had superior passing, defense, and scoring ability to everyone else that year). But how does a team reach that basketball nirvana? What pieces must be in place for a team to gel and reach the pinnacle of their abilities as a team? First, you need a star player. Second, you need at least one capable second fiddle. Thirdly, you have to surround those two or three players with role players. If those three criteria are met, you will have yourself a championship-caliber basketball team.

First off, in order to have a championship team, you have to have at least one star player, but no more than two. This is not debatable. Every great team has had at least one go to guy (Michael Jordan of the Bulls of the 90’s and Tim Duncan from the Spurs of the 00’s are two examples) and in some cases, two (Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant of the 2000-04). You need to have a star player because every team needs a player who can lead them on the court by carrying the team on his back when things get rough. Star players change the way the game is played, because they force the opponent to adapt to them and focus on them because if they don’t, he will beat them. A star player on a championship team also must be well rounded. He not only has to be able to score, but be able to stop his opponent from scoring as well. He must also be able to know when to defer to his teammates and make them better. If a superstar is too selfish, the team will go nowhere and will never win it all (*cough* Kobe pre 2009 *cough*).

Secondly, every superhero needs a sidekick. Even Batman had Robin to back him up. In basketball, the superstar of the team can’t do it all by himself (unless the star is LeBron James, who led a team that would have won about twenty games without him to the NBA Finals in 2007). Michael Jordan never would have won without Scottie Pippen and Shaquille O’Neal never would have been able to win three titles with the Lakers without a young Kobe Bryant. Therefore, it is logical to have a talented sidekick or two (preferably two) to help carry the load. This type of player often could be the leading man on his own team, but is the second banana to the star on this team. It’s important that this player knows his role and doesn’t try and undermine the hierarchy of the team, or else there will be an ugly end result both on and off the court. The sidekick (or sidekicks in the ideal case) has to be able to step up if the superstar has an off night. While he or they may not be able to carry a team at a championship level, the team definitely can’t win it all without them.

The third thing you need to do in order to have a transcendent basketball team is to surround the star and his sidekick(s) with solid role players that complement their skills. For example, if your star is an all-world power forward or center (like, say...Tim Duncan), and your sidekick is a gifted perimeter scorer, then it makes sense for you to fill out your starting five with a veteran point guard who can manage the game and make plays when called upon, a good perimeter defender who can give the opposing team’s best outside scorer headaches, and another big man who can rebound and play low post defense. As for the bench role players, it’s important that the team has a deep group with varying talents. The ideal bench usually features a sixth man (a fringe starter who contributes the most minutes of the bench players and can effectively fill in for a short stretch if someone is injured), a good perimeter defender, a lights out shooter, a well-rounded forward or center who can come in and score, rebound, and defend (Leon Powe of the 2008 Celtics was an excellent example of this) and a couple high energy guys who can give your team a spark. When a team has a supporting cast like that, they are very tough to beat.

That is the recipe to building a winning team. You need a superstar player to lead the way, a sidekick or two that will help lighten the load on the star, and role players that fill out the team and complement the more talented players’ abilities. But none of these factors will form a winning team unless they have one specific ingredient: selflessness. No team, no matter how talented they are, can win a championship without sacrificing for the good of the team. Many a team have never lived up to their potential (such as those same Lakers from the beginning of the 2000s; had Kobe and Shaq been able to coexist, they could have won three more titles) because the players couldn’t put the team first. However, if a team follows this guideline, it is guaranteed that they will reach the highest level that they can possibly reach, and at the end of the season they will be crowned a champion.

(Funny, I think I just described the San Antonio Spurs of the 2000's)