THE MICHAEL JORDAN VIEW OF LeBRON
Michael Jordan has weighed in on the LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh "SuperFriends" team in Miami:
"There's no way, with hindsight, I would've ever called up Larry, called up Magic and said, 'Hey, look, let's get together and play on one team,' " Jordan said after playing in a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada. "But that's ... things are different. I can't say that's a bad thing. It's an opportunity these kids have today. In all honesty, I was trying to beat those guys."We start the article with a simple quote from MJ, telling us what we already knew, which is that he would not have been willing to go play with Magic and Larry Legend because ... wait for it ... he wanted to beat them, not join them. I know this news flash is tremendous, that MJ was hyper competitive, but I'm sure that True Hoop has a good reason for writing an article with this seemingly obvious quote as a starting point.
In so many ways, Michael Jordan is the most appropriate person in the world to comment on LeBron James and his legacy, but not for the reasons you might expect.
I'm sure that you're going to tell us why Michael Jordan is the most appropriate person in the world to comment soon. I must say that I hate this literary device: hint at something, then don't answer it, but instead tap dance around it. Let's see how long it takes them to get to the point.
He is helping to solve one of the biggest mysteries in sports.
Holy Crap Batman, really? One of the biggest mysteries in sports? Let's see: is he helping us solve why the Cubs can't seem to win? No? Then it must be that he is helping us solve the mystery of if Lance Armstrong used P.E.D.'s to help recover from testicular cancer and vault to seven Tour de France titles! No? ... Is he helping us determine what's wrong with Tiger's swing, or if Federer is washed up, or if Jay Cutler is ready to run Mike Martz' offense? Seriously, no?
The question is: When James announced that he was taking his talents to South Beach, why did he instantly become the guy sports fans love to hate? What's so reprehensible about joining a good team?
That's the question? That's the big mystery? I think I already answered that in this post, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion.
He's the man
Michael Jordan was, is, and will always be the man. Yes, in italics.
You don't need me to define that, but just for fun: It means essentially the most aggressive, victorious, macho, indomitable player in the sport. The most feared, and the most fearless.
This utter lack of restraint, in the face of any challenges, is no small part of how Jordan inspires us.
We are in agreement on this point: Jordan was the man, he feared no challenge, and he was the most feared person in the game. Just look at this picture of the Utah crowd as he took the final shot. He was bullet proof.
Hell no I don't need help.
It's a real and valid way to view the game. You have to respect the sheer number of players, former players, executives and coaches who see the game through this lens. The best player is the man. Basically, that's the guy who, of the few superstars who produce in huge numbers and win a lot of games, is most fearless and ferocious.
The list of players who were "the man" in NBA history is extensive: Jordan, Bird, Magic, Young Kareem, young Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin, young Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Kobe, Tim Duncan, John Stockton, and Hakeem Olajuwon to name a few.
This is often measured in terms of being willing to shoot with the game on the line.
Notice the key word here: often. In a moment our fearless writer will attempt to change "often" to "all the time" without telling us. I will agree with the fact that this is often measured in these terms, although it would be then measured incorrectly. Being "the man" simply means that you are the alpha dog on your team. Russell rarely shot the last shot, but nobody on those Celtics teams had any role confusion over who "the man" was. For that matter, neither did Wilt. The league knew it was Russell first, others after him.
When people heard that James was teaming up with Wade and Bosh, though ... wow. You know how men have this reputation as not being willing to pull over and ask for directions?
Hell no I don't need help.
Jordan, Barkley and others are making fun of James -- perhaps the most biting of all of Jordan's words was "kid" -- for getting help. If the whole idea is to show that you're the baddest man on the planet, what do we care about all these SuperFriends? (Similarly, Jordan said the other day that Bryant was the best player in the NBA. He's the most fearless, that's for sure.)
First, I don't sense that they are "making fun" of James, but rather that they are critiquing his move. Which is their right. I did it; they can do it as well. Quite honestly, Barkley and Jordan have more of a right to critique these guys than I do, and even more of a right than the sports writer who wrote this piece. They played the game, they know what it's like.
The problem with the critique is twofold. For one thing, he's not bad as the man. James shoots plenty with the game on the line, already produces like one of the two best players in NBA history (hitting at a better career rate than Bryant), wins a lot of games and even called himself leader of Team USA.
I start to see this article veering to the side here, so let's break it down:
1) James may not be "bad" as the man, but he has proven time and again to not be willing to take the game over himself. Michael passed to a number of teammates at the end of games, but if those teammates hadn't taken the shot or wanted the ball Jordan was not going to hide from it. LeBron has and will. Jordan was willing to let Bill Wennington win the game he scored 55 at Madison Square Garden, or Steve Kerr win the 5th title, or John Paxson the 3rd title, but he wasn't opposed to taking over. James is.
2) The argument that James "called himself leader of Team USA" is kindergarten style: who cares what he called himself? At the end we know Kobe took over and James just watched. In International competition that's fine, but using "he called himself leader of Team USA" carries as much weight as if I call myself leader of Team USA.
3) There is, and always will be, a huge difference between "producing" like one of the two best players in NBA history and being one of the best of all time. This isn't baseball where you can produce at astounding levels and be considered great. Wilt produced unlike anyone ever, and others had stat lines that were far superior to "the greats" but were held back by the fact that they only produced, they didn't win. Karl Malone had amazing stat lines for his entire career, but he fell short when it mattered, and faded in close games: that's why Stockton was "the man" in Utah.
But more importantly, how do we know James' end goal is to be the man?
We don't; in fact, we now know the opposite. James' goal is to win without having to be "the man." Also known as Karl Malone syndrome. It's not as bad as Wilt Chamberlin syndrome (where the player cares more about being "the man" than winning), but it's a heck of a lot worse than Russell-Magic-Larry-Michael syndrome. Also, I'm not quite sure which group Kobe fits in, but that's a post for another day.
It's a team game. Jordan and Bryant are self-reliant types who didn't come naturally to the idea that crunch time ought to be played as a team. Both have had to be coached into passing with the game on the line.
In fairness to Michael, did you SEE the players he was asked to pass to early on? What a craptastic combo! As for Kobe, that is a large part of why I'm not sure if he fits the MJ class, or is more in the Wilt class.
But that they think like that doesn't mean we all have to go along. In your personal life, do you find it true that real men don't pass the ball, or share, or have friends, or smile or all that? The Jordan/Bryant way was one way to do it, but it's hardly the only way to get the job done.
This isn't the real world; this is sports. Of course Michael Jordan's leadership model won't work in my professional or personal life, but then again I don't get paid to play a kids game. This is a silly argument.
When Jordan started passing -- to open teammates like Steve Kerr and John Paxson -- the Bulls started winning titles. Bill Russell owned basketball to the tune of 11 titles and he never thought it was his job to take the last shot. He was a different kind of "man," and won plenty.
Men who pull over and ask for directions may lose hombre points, but we all agree they waste less time driving around, right?
This misses the point: Jordan and Russell had control of their locker rooms equally. Jordan was a far superior offensive player to Russell, but if Bill Russell had thought his team's best chance to win was to score 50 he probably would have done it. He just looked at the talent surrounding him and said "we'll win if I do this." Jordan had no scoring talent around him, but a bunch of tough defenders and passers, along with some great spot up shooters. So he used that in the same way the Russell used Cooz and Tommy.
The man vs. the team
Sometimes you have to ask yourself what your end goal is: To win the individual sport of being the man, or the team sport of basketball? They usually go together. There's a reason Bryant and Jordan have all those championship rings.
I feel obligated to tell you that Jordan and Bryant have all those championships for entirely different reasons. Jordan was the best, Kobe had Shaq for three.
But sometimes the best thing for basketball is to not put everything on your shoulders, and instead get some help.
Think about Kevin Garnett. There are several different really smart analyses to show that when he was in Minnesota losing all those games he was literally the best player in the NBA (the same analysis, over the last two years, would say James is that player now). If you use some kind of smart objective metrics, Garnett's is the name that comes up most from those years. But Garnett had no help! After he grew distraught with the team's endless rebuilding, the Timberwolves found him a home in Boston with some serious help in the form of Ray Allen and Paul Pierce. Even though Garnett did not play his best basketball in Boston, he did his best winning there, and the result has been a profound transformation of both how the world sees Garnett and how the city of Boston feels about basketball in the 2000s. It's a model anyone would want to copy -- a new home with talented teammates became a story of pure, unrestrained basketball joy for all involved who aren't Timberwolves fans.
I was wondering when we'd get to the Kevin Garnett analogy. By the time Garnett went to Boston nobody could begrudge him because he had tried, and failed, so many times. But there is a large subcontext here: Garnett's biggest failing as a player is the same as LeBron's. Both are the best player in the league, and both are afraid to take over the game at the end to ensure a win. Garnett was roundly, and correctly, criticized for this. It's why he won't crack the top twenty greatest players of all time although he had the talent to be top five. Those Minnesota teams could have gone farther if KG was willing to dominate. He wasn't. The same can be said for Cleveland the last three years.
Similarly, before the Lakers got Pau Gasol, Bryant was among the most unhappiest campers in NBA history and was caught on camera phone talking about the inadequacy of his teammates and his willingness to be traded. When Gasol arrived, Bryant started winning more than ever, and he was proved absolutely right that he could win a lot more with more with help.
As I mentioned before, Kobe straddles a weird place between Wilt and MJ, and so much of this only serves to amplify that. Bryant vacillates frequently between a desire to be "the man" in the way Wilt was (scoring all the time, carrying the team by himself) and a realization that he needs help (Shaq, then Gasol). Jordan didn't have that same uncertainty, certainly not by Kobe's current age.
Imagine if you will, crazy as it may sound, that back in the day, Jordan had somehow charmed Barkley or David Robinson to join the Bulls?
By the metrics of being the man, Jordan would have been a failure. Talk about pulling over to ask for directions. But Jordan would have been a better winner. He'd be more valuable to his team and his fans in every way if somehow he had pulled that off.
He would have been more valuable to his team and fans? How? Robinson was soft and wanted to be a second banana for sure, but Barkley wanted to win one as the alpha dog, and wouldn't have fit well. Either way, how much more valuable could Jordan have been? He won six titles in his last six full years. That's about as valuable as you can be.
Hell no I don't need help.
If refusing help when it's available is the end goal, then in my mind we have cooked up one silly, old-fashioned definition of being the man.
Again, our author is confusing the real world with the sports world. He's also missing another defining point: that the great players stay in one place long enough to win, and that those who need to move to get help are inevitably viewed as lesser. That's why Wade will come out of this smelling better than LeBron: Miami is his town, has been his town, and he's simply getting help to further his legacy. That LeBron had a quick one pulled over on him by Wade is one of the funniest running subplots in this entire deal.
Playing executive is smart
Jordan is affixed in our minds as the portrait of a winner, but take the long view of not just his playing days, but his life to date.
Through all the millions, the TV ads, the golf games and the casino trips, maybe there's nothing to regret.
But something funny happened in Springfield, Mass. Remember his Hall of Fame acceptance speech? Didn't we all come away from that with the news that life inside Jordan's shoes is not all peachy? He's bitter! About a lot of things! With the world's blessing to discuss whatever he wanted, Jordan mostly just spat insults.
I covered this here, and as I said there, what we loved most about Jordan is what we don't feel quite comfortable with now. It's just the way he's built. He is hyper-competitive, but it's what fueled the fire. We can't have our cake and eat it too; Jordan is that guy who we loved in sports but not as much in the real world. That's why this is sports we are talking about, and not a non-for-profit organization.
One of the first things he brought up was the guy who built the Bulls team he won all those titles with, Jerry Krause. "Jerry’s not here," explains Jordan. "I don’t know who’d invite him. I didn’t. ... " All this bitterness, even though they won championships together!
The reason I bring this up is: Jordan proved right there and then that letting someone else build the roster for you can make you a very bitter man, even if you win six titles.
Players have the power of free agency, which, James and Wade have demonstrated, is one new way to solve that problem.
Jordan's career is widely seen as an example of why James and Wade ought not play together. It costs them both points as the man.
But you can also see Jordan's life to date as a textbook case of why building your own roster might be the smartest thing you can do, even if it isn't how things used to be done.
This is an interesting argument in the end: because Michael was bitter and couldn't separate fantasy (Jerry Krause is sticking it to me so I need to win) from reality (Jerry Krause is an idiot, but he got me the talent I needed), now LeBron needs to build his own dynasty? Where's the fun in this? And ... wait a minute. Is that the mystery Michael helped us to understand? This article ends abruptly, but as near as I can tell we are supposed to love LeBron for giving up on Cleveland and running to D-Wade for help, and we are supposed to feel sorry for Michael for doing it on his own and winning in a dominate fashion that only Bill Russell could relate to. I'm totally confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment