Expert Roarer Ryan O’Connell
posted a great piece this week on Magic Johnson versus Michael Jordan (http://www.theroar.com.au/2012/07/12/was-magic-johnson-better-than-michael-jordan/),
which sure enough spurned some great debate.
I’d like to weigh in
with my two cents worth.
Sports fans love nothing
more than building lists and making comparisons (teams, players and/or eras).
While the life’s blood of being a fan might be barracking for your
colours, the fringe benefit is
the analysis, counter-analysis and psycho-analysis that come with following
your chosen sport.
Who are the top ten
left handed goalkeepers, Chris Evert or Martin Navratilova, list the top five
d#ckheads in squash, Wally Lewis or Brett Kenny, name the worst ten pin bowlers
over 117kg…the debates go on, and on, and on.
Ryan’s Magic versus
Michael is just another layer on a gigantic onion.
On face value it’s a
silly argument. Jordan is universally accepted as not only the greatest baller
of all time, but one of the greatest and most dominant sportspeople of them
all. And when you look through his resume it’s extremely difficult, nigh
impossible, to make an intelligent counter-argument.
Personally I was never
a Jordan fan. I’m not saying I don’t think he’s the best player it’s just that
I’m a Pistons fan. I grew up watching the Bad Boys knock Jordan on his arse
year after year, and I absolutely loved it. While everyone else was clamoring
for number 23 jerseys, I was cheering each time Laimbeer knocked down a three,
Rodman pulled down a board or Zeke crossed over for a lay-up.
I guess I’ve always
been attracted to teams or individuals with a bit of mongrel, and who rise
above their limited natural physical abilities to excel. It’s probably why Roy
Keane is my favourite Man U player above some of his sexier colleagues, or why Tim
Morrissey is my favourite Sydney King...I guess that says a lot (not entirely
good) about me.
I digress.
Whilst I can’t
honestly say I think Magic is a better player than Michael, I do think the
comparison is a hell of a lot closer than it appears on face value.
As Ryan rightly
pointed out statistically Jordan is well ahead of the game. And with the
advanced metrics available now, the argument for Jordan is pretty much tighter
than a nun’s…let’s just say watertight. But for mine stats only tell a microcosm
in this story.
Cricketers and
baseballer players live and die by their stats. It’s far easier to measure the
quality of players from static team sports, and then make an informed
comparison. Difficult to argue against a batsman who has over 10,000 careers
runs at an average of 50 plus, or to compare a player against Bradman even
though most of us never saw the great Don swing his bat in anger. A career average
a pubic hair below 100 will do that for your legacy.
In flowing team
sports, like football, league or basketball, comparisons are harder to make
because of so many variables, many of which aren’t measurable. Two things stick
out for me when looking at Magic and Michael:
1. The discrepancy in their ages/eras
2. They played different positions/roles
By the time Michael made
his first NBA finals appearance, Magic was a 10 year veteran with five
championships and three MVP awards. Sure they went head to head a few times in
the regular season, but unlike Magic versus Bird or Russell versus Wilt, there
isn’t a lot of head to head to go by. It can also be argued that Magic played
against much tougher competition in a pre-expansion NBA. The quality of teams
he went up against, whether it’s his arch nemesis Celtics or the Pistons,
Sixers or Rockets, were of a higher standard than the diluted 90’s league post
Magic and Bird.
More important though,
IMHO, is the fact that they played two very different roles for their
respective teams. As a point guard Magic’s primary role was as both a creator
and facilitator on offense – and he was arguably the greatest ever in this
capacity. Whilst he had the ability to score from just about anywhere – driving
the lane, posting up or shooting the three – his first priority was to ensure
his teammates were involved in the game. As good as guys like Cooper, Scott and
Worthy were I guarantee playing alongside Magic had a profound effect on how
their careers are measured. And this is one of the great intangibles that
cannot be calculated when you review Magic’s career. Put Worthy alongside a
different point guard in that era and sure he would still have been an
All-Star, but a Hall of Famer? There can be no conclusive answer, but I think
it’s a valid question. How do you quantify the impact Magic had on his
teammates? It can’t be done, but since basketball is a team sport, it’s a key
point when evaluating how good a player is/was.
I’m not trying to
build a case that Magic is better than Michael, I’m just trying to say (which
Ryan did far better than I) that it’s a lot closer than people might think.
There is a range of advanced
metrics that have been developed as part of player evaluation. PER, plus/minus
and adjusted points per iso can keep a stats geek very excited on a lonely
night. Whilst all of these are great (especially for the fans) a lot of them
don’t account for the flow of the game - tactics, coaching ability, foul
trouble, teammates and a range of other immeasurable that make up team sports.
If a player has been
saddled with 5 fouls and the coach keeps him on the floor, more than likely he’ll
play softer D so he doesn’t get fouled out. The stats will paint a certain
picture but it doesn’t make him a poor defender. If your guards can’t stay in front
of their man and you’re constantly challenging shots and getting called for
fouls it doesn’t necessarily make you foul prone. If a starter is stuck with
his bench warmers and the team is getting blown out his plus minus goes down.
If you put Kevin Love and Dwight Howard on the same team its likely no-one else
is going to get a board. Doesn’t make you a bad rebounder. If you’re the only
guy capable of dribbling and hitting a shot and you’re playing with four Ben
Wallace prototypes its more than likely you’ll put up 30 plus per game. You’re
not the next Kevin Durant though.
There are so many
facets to the game that aren’t visible when number crunching. So when you’re
comparing Magic versus Michael, it’s important to look past just the stats and
to read the story of their respective games.
Magic revolutionized basketball.
He made it possible for big men to be considered point guards. He had the
genuine capacity to play five positions on offense. He made his teammates
immeasurably better, and played in an era when the league was far more
competitive. Whilst he wasn’t a great on ball defender, his immensely high
bball IQ (now how do you evaluate that!!!) made him an excellent team defender.
He had genuine crunch time cojones and was, by all accounts, as obsessive about
winning as Michael, Bird and Russell. Five rings are testimony to that.
Michael will still be
the popular pick, and it’s probably the right one. But if you know anything
about team sports, it’s not a home run by any stretch on the imagination.