One of the most remarkable rivalries in sports transpired between basketball Hall of Famers, Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. Ever since college, their names have always been connected. From their match-ups in college to their prime time NBA Finals battles, Magic and Larry always put on a show.
To this day, their rivalry is always recognized as one of the best. To get the best understanding of this rivalry, I would recommend watching ESPN’s film 30 for 30: Celtics/Lakers – Best of Enemies. They give the best in-depth look at what their rivalry was really like.
NBA fans have always compared the two players, always comparing their strengths and weaknesses. Magic was the superior passer while Larry was the elite shooter. Each had respectable amounts of wins, making it difficult to name the superior player out of the two.
In this graphic, I decided to take a deeper dive into the advanced statistics of the two legends. Instead of comparing their scoring or assisting averages, I wanted to compare their player efficiency ratings (PER). This advanced statistic rates every player’s statistical performance and boils it all down into one number.
The PER for each season is the average PER of all the games played that season. I took the PER from each season from 1980-1991 since 91’ was the final year they simultaneously played in the league.
Larry Bird had both the highest and lowest PERs between the two. In 1988, Larry had a PER of 27.8, and in 1989, Larry had a PER of 19.8. Though slightly inconsistent throughout this time, Larry still had a powerful impact on the Celtics, giving his all even when injuries struck.
To put things into perspective, the majority of stars in the NBA have always had a PER over 20.
Throughout Magic’s career, he had a consistent PER in the mid-20’s. This consistency helped the Lakers win multiple championships, while also cementing Magic into the Hall of Fame.
Yet again, there is no clear distinct winner in another statistical comparison between the two. This allows the debate between who the better player was, to continue.
Oscar's Blog 