Jordan vs. Bird

What a shame to be a Boston sports fan born in 1983. Think about a child's cognitive abilities: when do they become truly aware of sports? For me, I really didn't start figuring it all out until I was 4 or 5 years old. That was when I realized the Larry Bird and the Chief were Celtics, that the Bruins had Cam Neely and Ray Bourque, and the Sox had Dewey Evans (with his sweet mustache), Wade Boggs, Jim Rice, the Gator, and the like. As for football, I didn't care about the Patriots in the late 80's and early 90's; those were some serious lean years. If anything, I was infatuated with the super-exciting gridiron exploits of Philadelphia's Randall Cunningham. But as a young Boston sports fan, I missed out. The Bruins got dusted by Edmonton in two trips to the Stanley Cup Finals; a couple years later Ulf Samuelsson decked my favorite hockey player of all-time and things were never the same. The Big Three got old. The Red Sox couldn't get past the steroid-pumping A's in two trips to the ALCS. And as we've already noted, the Patriots stunk. So in the 90's, a terrible decade in Boston sports, what was I forced to observe? The Jordan Years. The Chicago Bulls won 6 championships in 8 years; the Celtics won nothing, and I was constantly sick to my stomach wishing a 40-year-old man with a bad back and a wispy mustache could magically return, beat Jordan's Bulls, and put the Green back on top. Needless to say, it never happened. With last weekend marking Jordan's enshrinement into the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, MA, ("The Admiral" David Robinson, John Stockton, Jerry Sloan and C. Vivian Stringer went in, too - but nobody talks about them) I think it's time to revisit the Jordan vs. Bird argument one more time - if only because I'm arrogant, love the Celtics, and will never give up the fight.

Let's first look at the rise of Jordan. It was the perfect storm. The quality of play in the league in the 1980's was such that the NBA's popularity was at least that of the NFL and Major League Baseball, which was truly unprecedented. The TV deals were huge, first with CBS and then with NBC. Advertisers started getting on board with the product. Dr. J, Magic, Bird and Bernard King had laid the groundwork as true basketball superstars in the major media markets of the United States. The NBA's owners reaped the benefits of this spectacular era with expansion from 23 to 27 teams in 1988 and 1989, and then 29 teams in 1995. Players began to receive more lucrative, long-term contracts and sneaker deals. As Dr. J got old, King blew out his ACL, Larry's back stiffened and Magic retired abruptly due to the HIV virus, one man, one superhuman physical specimen, was anointed king of the empire and ruler of all sports. Michael Jordan literally was the face of the professional sports in the 1990's, as recognizable as the President and probably even giving Jesus Christ a run for his money.

Any real observer of athletics would be able to tell you that sports evolve, not necessarily for the better, but separating the game into eras that aren't easily comparable. George Mikan was a dominant big man in the 50's, but could he post up Wilt? Bill Russell was a tremendous defender, but could he guard Shaq? What would a Bob Cousy-Magic Johnson showdown look like? There are differences: the shot clock, the 3-second rule, the 3-point line, the extent to which fouls are called. The eras are so different that the players themselves become lodged in a time capsule, untouchable and canonized for their performances against the greats of their day.

That is why such passionate debate exists throughout sports: who was really the best home run hitter of all time? Was it Barry Bonds? How about Hank Aaron, who we know didn't take steroids? Babe Ruth had the record before Aaron - and he was so dominant in his era that he hit more home runs than entire teams. And what about Josh Gibson? He was said to have hit about 800 home runs but wasn't allowed to play in the Majors because he was black. Who's the best tennis player ever? Is it a guy like Bjorn Borg with his wooden racket or a guy like Roger Federer, using plutonium racket frames and high-tension strings? Is Wayne Gretzky the greatest or just a crazy-talented guy who benefited from a high scoring era, while Bobby Orr (wearing no helmet) revolutionized the game 15 years prior to Gretzky's arrival on the scene? Is Usain Bolt better than Jesse Owens, who once showed up Hitler? It's all relative.

Which is why my vote for the "greatest basketball player of all-time" does not go to Michael Jordan. It was probably Oscar Robertson. But so many people are quick to call Jordan "the greatest." The media loves to shove Jordan down our throats. How do you think ol' Oscar feels? Dude averaged a triple-double one season - nobody else has ever done that. There's no arguing that Jordan was downright spectacular, perhaps even mythological. Whether we like it or not, he's an icon. But how do we measure greatness? Did Michael Jordan mean more to Chicago and the game of basketball than the greatest Boston players did playing in this city? The answer is no. Bill Russell for one - the greatest winner of all time with 11 championship rings, one for every finger, a thumb, and even a double-thumb like the one I had when I was born. The greatest defender in NBA history, without argument. A man who had the heart and the guile to stand up to Wilt the Stilt and win. The first black head coach (a player/coach to boot) in professional sports. And you can also be darned sure on a Boston sports website that I'm gonna run the argument out there for Larry Bird.

Jordan vs. Bird: One-on-One is more than just a video game from the 80's. It's an argument that has existed in my head for almost a decade. Once Jordan finally stopped hogging the spotlight and decided to retire once-and-for-all (though you can never be completely sure), I was able to look at the numbers and compare the body of work of these two great players. Well Fox, you might say, how can Bird top all of Jordan's scoring titles? Isn't scoring the most important statistic? Or is it championships? How can one even plead a case for Bird when the Bulls won six championships and Bird's Celtics only won three? Easy. Statistics aren't any good without the appropriate context. I'm going to give this argument context and explain the why behind the numbers. Additionally, a lot of the statistics actually favor Bird, fair and square. Surprised? Let's go.

To start it off: both won the Wooden Award as the top player in college basketball. Jordan, as a college freshman, was part of the North Carolina Tar Heels team that won the NCAA Championship. He was far from the best player on that team, and even though Bird carried the Indiana State Sycamores to the title game in '79, his team didn't cut down the nets. So if Jordan's college career is better than Bird's because he played third banana on a UNC team that won it all while Bird averaged 30 points and 13 rebounds for his college career and didn't win...I don't see it.
Edge: None

Both won the NBA Rookie of the Year Award.
Edge: None

Scoring: Jordan is the best pure scorer the game has ever seen. His 10 scoring titles attest to that.
Jordan: 30.1 ppg Bird 24.3 ppg Edge: Jordan

Field Goal Shooting:
I don't think there's a person in the room who doesn't see this as a wash.
Jordan: 49.7% Bird: 49.6% Edge: None

Free Throw Shooting:
Jordan was a terrific free-throw shooter. Bird led the league in percentage from the charity stripe four times, and is 7th all-time.
Jordan: 83.5% Bird: 88.6% Edge: Bird

Three-Point Shooting:
Bird's career began with the NBA adding the 3-point line in 1979. After a few rough years, Bird matured into a dominant marksman and 3-time Long Distance Shootout champion. Jordan was never a good 3-point shooter, posting his best totals when the league moved the 3-point line closer to the basket in the mid-90's.
Jordan: 32.7% Bird: 37.6% Edge: Bird

Passing: One of the most basic skills in the game. Bird is regarded as the "ultimate team player" while Jordan took a number of years to shake the "ball hog" tag. As an off-guard on a team that never had a true distributor, Jordan's dominance of the rock approaches Kobe levels.
Jordan: 5.3 apg Bird: 6.3 apg Edge: Bird

Rebounding: While Jordan, at 6'6" was an excellent rebounding guard, Bird's numbers as a small forward were both remarkable and amazingly consistent (between 8.5 and 11.0 rpg every full season of his career).
Jordan: 6.2 rpg Bird 10.0 rpg Edge: Bird

Defense: Here's one that goes beyond the numbers. Jordan averaged 2.3 steals per game to Bird's 1.7 steals, and Jordan and Bird both averaged 0.8 blocks per game. However, Jordan received nine All-Defensive First Team nods, including the 1987-88 Defensive Player of the Year, while Bird made appearances on the All-Defensive Second Team three times. Bird was clearly no slouch on D, but Jordan was one of the better perimeter defenders of his generation.
Edge: Jordan

Intangibles: Here you can pick the "ultimate team player" and the guy Bill Walton would have you believe not only saved his career, but also his life (tongue in cheek - I love Bill Walton's malapropisms) or a guy known as the "greatest competitor" ever. Who would you rather have? And is there any way to define who was more "clutch?" The number of huge shots both of these guys made could each have their own DVD.
Edge: None

Excitement/Clutch: How can this one be quantified? Jordan was lightning fast and could pull off amazing dunks (2-time NBA Slam Dunk Champion). Bird was an awkward looking guy nicknamed "The Hick from French Lick" who was the best shooter in the league. The list of amazing moments Larry Bird provided in a Celtics uniform can stand up to Jordan's any day. Everyone loves to talk about how Jordan ended his career (well actually, he didn't, because he came out of retirement again three years later) by pushing off on Bryon Russell and hitting a jump shot to win the NBA Finals against the Jazz. But does that trump Bird's steal and assist to Dennis Johnson to defeat the Pistons in the '87 East Finals? Would you pick Jordan's shot over Ehlo in the '89 Eastern Conference first round or Bird's banker that won the '81 East Finals over Philly? The Jordan "flu game" and the 6 threes in the Finals against the Blazers, or the Bird "cheekbone game" in the playoffs against Indy and the showdown with Dominique Wilkins where Bird buried 20 points in the fourth quarter of a playoff game on 9 of 10 shooting?
Edge: None

Accolades: Jordan won five MVPs to Bird's three. Jordan (1) even beat out Bird (2) for the award in 1987-88, while Bird (1) finished ahead of Jordan (6) in 1984-85, Jordan's rookie campaign. Bird finished in the top four a total of 9 times (including his rookie year) while Jordan was there 8 times. But Jordan has more trophies so he wins this category. I could get my two cents in about MVP votes being incredibly subjective, how Bird had to take on Magic, Moses, Kareem and Dr. J in their primes while Jordan spent the 90's up against (in my opinion) weaker competition like Barkley, The Mailman, Hakeem and The Admiral, but these guys are all Hall of Famers and Jordan has the most trophies. So be it.
Edge: Jordan

Playoffs: This is easy, right? The 90's Bulls won six championships while the 80's Celtics only won three. Bird went 3/5 in Finals appearances while Jordan went 6/6. But the same way people discredit Bill Russell's 11 titles (there was no competition then!), I would argue there is more than meets the eye here. First, the NBA of the 80's was characterized by great teams of tremendous depth. Expansion during Jordan's career diluted the talent pool so the Bulls had a number of "cake walk" playoff matchups against teams with only one star player (or none). The Celtics, meanwhile, had a dogfight every year just to get out of the Eastern Conference: first, the Dr. J Sixers and later, the Bad Boy Pistons. The Bulls beat the washed-up Pistons, Ewing's Knicks, Zo's Heat, and Shaq and Penny's Magic as rivals. There's not even a comparison - those Philly and Detroit teams would not only have wiped the floor with the Bulls rivals, but also the Bulls themselves. Consider: the Celtics and Bad Boy Pistons beat Jordan's Bulls in five straight postseasons! "Well," you say, "the Bulls beat the Lakers in the Finals while the Celtics lost to the Lakers two out of three trips!" And you'd be kidding me, right? The Lakers teams in the 80's had Hall of Famers coming off the bench, while the 90-91 Bulls beat a Lakers team that started Sam Perkins and Vlade Divac. No comparison.

For their careers, Jordan played in 37 playoff series while Bird played in 33 (the NBA had a shorter playoff format early in Bird's career). Let's measure the difficulty of the competition. How many Hall-of-Famers did each player beat during their careers in the playoffs? I've included shoo-ins who aren't yet eligible for induction.

Jordan: Karl Malone, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman, Gary Payton, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Dominique Wilkins, Alonzo Mourning, Shaquille O'Neal, Chris Mullin. Total: 15

Bird: Moses Malone, Calvin Murphy, Rick Barry, Julius Erving, Charles Barkley, Akeem Olajuwon, Magic Johnson, James Worthy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bob McAdoo, Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Adrian Dantley, Dennis Rodman, Bob Lanier, Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, George Gervin, Michael Jordan. Total: 19

The website www.basketball-reference.com has a Hall-of-Fame probability function that lists the likelihood of a particular player to make the Hall. Amongst players that aren't already enshrined and aren't shoo-ins, are the following players, all with a greater than 25% chance of making the Hall. They might not all make it, but they certainly represent the toughest competitors of their era. In the playoffs, Jordan beat Chris Webber, Tim Hardaway, Mark Aguirre and Kevin Johnson. Bird beat Bernard King, Spencer Haywood, Jamaal Wilkes, Marques Johnson, Jack Sikma and Sidney Moncrief. Who faced tougher competition? Even in fewer matchups? Larry Legend.
Jordan: 19 Bird: 25 Edge: Bird

Everyone loves to laud Jordan for his 63-point outburst in a playoff game against the Celtics in 1986. Do they ever mention who won the game? The Celtics. Sure, Larry said after the game, "that was God disguised as Michael Jordan," but Larry also knew the Celtics were moving on to the second round of the playoffs and the Bulls were headed home to play golf. Jordan's Bulls never won a single game against Bird's Celtics in the playoffs in two matchups ('86 and '87). Jordan must have really honed his golf game those years.

Who's the greatest team of all-time, the '96 Bulls (72 wins) or the '86 Celtics (68 wins)? Depends who you ask. All I know is the Bulls got to play the expansion Toronto Raptors and Vancouver Grizzlies a total of six times that season (they went 5-1). Another example of talent dilution. Even the '86 Knicks, the worst team the Celtics had to face that year, had Patrick Ewing at center. Nobody is talking about Oliver Miller or Bryant "Big Country" Reeves, the big men that faced off against the '96 Bulls. I'd say the Celtics were better with DJ, Ainge, Bird, McHale and Parish (Wedman and Walton off the bench) against Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Longley (with Kukoc and Kerr off the bench). But maybe I'm showing my Boston bias. I apologize.

MJ was once asked who he would want to take a shot with the game on the line, other than himself. Before the question could be finished, he answered, "Larry Bird." Although Bird wins by my measure, 5-3, I'm not sure if I can actually say "Larry Bird was better than Michael Jordan" without getting positively skewered. So I won't. Even though I just showed you how he was. I can tell you they are equals in the pantheon of basketball greats. Bird was a better shooter, passer and rebounder who played (and won) against tougher competition. Jordan was a better scorer and defender who was more decorated. Just put away this "The Greatest" garbage. That's for Muhammad Ali. Otherwise, it's just a way to sell magazines. Jordan had the advantages of playing against a weaker league, referees giving him calls (admit it - Bird posted up half the time and averaged 5.0 free throw attempts per game; Jordan, a guard, averaged 8.2), and all the media hype. He deserved the media hype; he was awesome. But Michael Jordan, the supernova himself, was clearly a product of the 90's superstar infatuation, while Bird shared the spotlight with another transcendent talent in Magic Johnson. Nobody can ever convince me that Jordan was better than the greatest winner of all-time, our guy Bill Russell. And nobody can ever convince me that MJ was any better than the Hick from French Lick, Larry Bird. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it. Feel free to disagree in the comments section below.