11/21/24
January 16, 2005
Charles Pierce on Michael Jordan: "He made some great plays and some pretty good commercials. Has anyone so completely dominated his sport and left so small a mark upon it?"
posted by rcade to basketball at 06:05 PM - 17 comments
I don't think history would be so hard on Jordan without his Wizards comeback attempt. We got to see all the worst aspects of his personality and declining skills. Now we think about all the crap instead of his amazing "final" performance against Utah.
posted by dusted at 06:40 PM on January 16, 2005
(Or his amazing final offensive foul, for the Jazz fans.)
posted by dusted at 06:41 PM on January 16, 2005
It strikes me as more of a reflection of the authors desire for his hero to not ever be human but to live out his existence for others to idolize. You can't take away what he did in the game and the nearly tangible excitement he always brought. Having Michael Jordan in a game meant something even when it was for the Wizards. For proof look at the ticket sales for the Wizards on the road.
posted by geekyguy at 07:03 PM on January 16, 2005
Yes, but it does suggest something that I've felt for a long time. Michael Jordan ceased being human some time ago and then existed solely to make tons of money. Space Jam? Shoes? Cologne? Raovac - for the love of god? Just a bald mechandising machine - never once stepping outside of the machinations of commerce. Even his name seems market-researched.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:26 PM on January 16, 2005
THIS MORON IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE GUY WHO COULDNT EVEN MAKE HIS HIGH SCHOOL TEAM AND NOW HAS THE AUDACITY TO CRITICIZE THE GREATEST THE SPORT HAS SEEN. TO SAY HE MADE A SMALL MARK IS INSANE! TO CRITICIZE HIM FOR TAKING ADVANTAGE OF GREAT MARKETING IS INSANE! AND TO JUDGE HIS ACTIONS OFF THE COURT IS UNFAIR TO A MAN WHO STAYED UNDER THE MICROSCOPE CONSTANTLY. (WHAT SKELETONS ARE IN YOUR CLOSET?) AT LEAST UNLIKE YOUR BOSTON LEGEND, LARRY BIRD, JORDAN ACKNOWLEDGED AND PROVIDED FOR HIS CHILDREN! GET A CLUE PAL.
posted by DGIL at 10:03 PM on January 16, 2005
DGIL: As one of the admins of this site, I'm begging: Stop posting in all caps. It's too hard to read.
posted by rcade at 11:08 PM on January 16, 2005
Hey, I didn't say he owed me money, or that he wasn't the best player of all-time. He just came across as souless to me. And I'm reasonably sure he ate babies.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:15 AM on January 17, 2005
DGIL, Michael was great but was he better than Chamberlin or Jabbar? Seriously.
posted by billsaysthis at 01:13 AM on January 17, 2005
Jordan left a big mark on the game. It's overshadowed at times by the news of the day -- Kobe rape trial, Kobe/Shaq/Phill battles, the malice at the palace brawl. But how many times have you heard some player "is going to be the next Michael Jordan." So far, nobody's measured up.
posted by roberts at 09:39 AM on January 17, 2005
Yo, I've created lists of the best NBA/ABA careers since 1952. You may view one here: http://hoopsanalyst.com/goodman30.htm Credit is given for totals, per-game and per-minute rates; playoff performance is heavily weighted, and titles are credited. Totals are adjusted to the milieu of players' teams' pace.
posted by mike goodman at 09:44 AM on January 17, 2005
I appreciate the Michael Jordan types. Many people were raised with the idea that it is better to keep your political opinions and personal affairs to yourself. I despise all of these actors and celebrities pushing their political views, even when I happen to agree with them. What makes them any more knowledgable about current affairs than the rest of us? Nothing. They just happen to have a mic. Shut up and act! I wish more athletes would worry about their public image and the example they're setting for kids. If more athletes conducted themselves the way Michael did, we would all be better off. And he didn't make a mark? That could be the single dumbest thing I've ever heard. This whole article was preposterous.
posted by mayerkyl at 11:05 AM on January 17, 2005
mike goodman.....cool site, but it sure would be nice if your stories were in a blog form so that we could subscribe to a site RSS feed...
posted by smithers at 12:20 PM on January 17, 2005
I wish more athletes would worry about their public image and the example they're setting for kids. Well, speaking for myself, I'd want my kids to see how important it is to use whatever you've accumulated in this world, be it fame, fortune, goodwill, karma, whatever, to make the world a better place. There's nothing, I repeat, nothing wrong with how Michael conducted himself. He just had an opportunity to be so much more. Not just more than he was, but more than most people ever get a chance to be. That's the lament here.
posted by chicobangs at 12:21 PM on January 17, 2005
Mike G, please elaborate on "The rates shown are "standardized" per-36-minute rates. These are added to get the "T-Rate"; and that number is equivalent to "how good" the guy was." Since the players are not listed in order of T-Rate, what is the formula?
posted by billsaysthis at 04:26 PM on January 17, 2005
The list I linked is one version of the only such list known to me that is actually 100% based on stats. Not on awards, popularity, or media exposure. I set as arbitrary "standards" team averages of 100 pts and 44 rebounds per game. It doesn't matter what these figures are for comparison purposes. If Wilt scored 50 PPG, playing 48 MPG for a team that gave up 120 PPG, that might be equivalent to a scorer getting (say) 32 pts in 36 min, on a 100 PPG-allowed team. (That's Jordan territory) Shooting % are also factored in to what I summarize as a "scoring rate". This gives relative rankings of "Scorers". They might be high-efficiency/low-volume; or low-eff/hi-vol. They aren't equal, but I can call them Equivalent. Scoring, rebounding, passing, and etc. are summed in the total rate. This is tantamount to quantifying a player's "productivity". Call it talent, skills, or game. Production per-minute. I get numbers I call "equivalent totals" by reconstituting per-minute equivalencies over minutes played. So Wilt's 4000+ points in 1962 might be equivalent to 3200 points in 100-pt games. Over a career, players' yearly "equivalents" are added. To compress the importance of career (equivalent) totals, I take the square root of it. Then I multiply that by the T-Rate. This skews the total ranking in favor of talent, over longevity. I do this for regular seasons and for playoffs, separately, then add them. A playoff overachiever like Reggie Miller ranks higher than a similarly accomplished regular-season guy like Buck Williams. A typical player might play 10% of his career minutes in postseason. That's a 9:1 ratio of regular-season to playoff. But by taking the square root of the totals, the ratio of importance is typically about 3:1.
posted by mike goodman at 08:08 PM on January 17, 2005
Thanks for the explanation. Not being a statistician or basketball fanatic I can't argue with the validity of the analysis. I still say Wilt and Kareem were better than MJ, LOL.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:23 PM on January 17, 2005
Small Mark!!?? Every player who has come through the league since has been compared to him. We're still waiting for the "next Michael Jordon" So far nobody fills the shoes.