The same thing that makes sports fun and engaging is the same thing that makes it hard to stomach on a sometimes. I've stated before, I love a great debate. Sometimes I get caught up in them without even trying. My friends continuously bait me with dumb one liners knowing I'm jumping in head first. The most recent is Jordan vs Kobe\Lebron for different reasons. Like I said, debates are fun, but it comes to a point when it becomes pointless one, both or all the parties involved get emotionally attached to their stance; ignoring reasoning (or hate for the emotionally attached).
Michael Jordan's career for all of his talent and dominance was the combination of talent and timing. While I do not want to seem like I'm "hating" on his career, because what he did was phenominal, some things, to me, have to be put into context. Let's for a second take the emotion and media influence out of it.
Athleticism
At the time he came in to the league, he was one of the most athletic players in the league, easily top 5. He was bigger than most players at his position. Most guards at that time were around 6'4 and under. 6'6 was more of a small forward than a 2-guard. Given his size and leaping ability (which we will discuss later) he was mostly defended by slower forwards or smaller guards. We've seen the highlight of Jordan dribbling between his legs then shooting a mid range shot over Larry Bird. But Bird was not in Jordan's league in terms of atheleticm. Besides, Dominque Wilkens and Clyde Drexler no one was. Except maybe Spud Webb. To do what he was doing at 5'7? Insane. But thats it. His highlight reels show him shooting over nobodies like Craid Ehlo and Brian Russell (who he pushed the hell out of).
Media
The NBA was dominated by the Lakers and the Celtics. Two world class franchises whom, while adored by fans, were annoying the hell out of the people watching the sport. People STILL hate the Lakers and Celtics to some degree. Here came the perfect person to bring excitement to the casual fan. he was young, with a flashy game and the ability to score. Jordan became the perfect cross between the "Showtime" Lakers and the foundamental Celtics all rolled into one. The League marketed him as if he didnt play on a team at all and the media loved him. His leaping ability was one of a kind (if you choose to leave out Wilkins, Webb, Drexler and Dr. J) which made him the perfect Nike pitch-man. He scored at an alarming rate (37 ppg in '86-'87), dunked without abandon and left it all on the floor. What's not to like? But his impression on fans came at a time when the league and media forced fed the people Jordan until you believed it or not, it just made sense.
Scottie Pippen
Remember the 37 points per game mentioned earlier? That came on a 40 win team. As you may know, thats less than .500 and considered a losing team. Scottie Pippen was drafted the following season. Granted, Scottie didnt start a single game that year while averaging a mere 8 ppg. But something was happening (I was 6 at the start of the season so dont ask me to explain it), but the Bulls never had a losing season again until the '98-'99 season when Scottie joined the Rockets.
Now back to the comparisons. Its not fair to put players like Kobe and Lebron in to the same category as Jordan. Not because they're not on his level, but because the environments are different. Kobe is not the most athletic player in the league as Jordan was. He is guarded by players his size or larger whose able to match his speed. He is required to out-skill anyone he faces. There is no physical advantage for him. I tried to make the case for Jordan thriving at a time when zone was not legal in the NBA. They said I was nuts, but MJ had a career 3pt percentage of 32%. There is no way Kobe and LBJ could thrive with numbers like that. The league now has a deeper 3 pt line and zone defense to protect against slashers. There is the defensive trend of flopping now. It's a different game at a different time.
I'm not making excuses for these guys, but their careers should be measured by their own accomplishments and the those of their peers. That way, the two environments are equal. MJ and current stars are not on the same playing field. Matter of fact, Jordan set the playing field for these players so his "greatness" isnt being questioned, just placed into context.
Hit me up and let me know what you think here or at proficy27@twitter.com
Well written dude, but An argument built on Definitions that are built on far reaching assumptions. Sounds like u chose players u like better then created an argument for it. Made to appear objective but actually isn't. U focus on an obscure definition of athleticism while ignoring the fact the defense today is not even a fraction of what it was in Jordan's day. That's not even debatable. By the way the way you describe Jordan only fits his early years and not his later years. I will honestly say though that I think the 90s had the best talent of any decade in MBA history. U May say I'm reaching here and I would respond nah, but even if I was that would just make us even.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the comment and point of view. Let me clear one thing up, I do not like Jordan, so I'm not being objective at all. The whole point I was trying to get at was I want to appreciate these players careers for their own merit, not how they compared to Jordan. While defenses were tougher then, I still believe the athleticism of that time is nothing compared to now. Everybody thought Jordan could "fly" because he jumped from the free throw line, now EVERYBODY jumping from the FT line. Its natural progression, we as humans are expected to get better over time. Again, I appreciate your response and hope it doesn't end here.
Delete