MJ asks David Thompson to intro him to the HOF

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Dogs and cats can play together (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-thompsonjordan090709&prov=yhoo&type=lgns).

I saw several DT games in person back in the day. If you were lucky like I was to see him, it's not that hard to understand how this came about.

Good for MJ for giving the greatest ACC player ever some love.

*misspelled shorthand "intro" in thread title-can a mod fix that?

[Olympic Fan]

I've heard Jordan say that Thompson was his hero growing up.

It's kind of ironic -- David Thompson grew up worshipping UNC's Charlie Scott ... and he passed up UNC for State. Jordan grew up worshipping NCState's Thompson ... and he passed up State for UNC.

One correction in the story. Thompson didn't get the nickname "Skywalker" until he was in the pros. The movie "Star Wars " with its hero Luke Skywalker wasn't released until 1977, when DT was in his second year in the ABA.

However, growing up, Thompson did have a nickname. His older brothers compared his game to that of a former All-ACC guard and used to call him by that player's last name.

For 100 points and the ACC trivia challenge championship, what was David Thompson's original nickname?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

For 100 points and the ACC trivia challenge championship, what was David Thompson's original nickname?

Cunningham: Kangaroo Kid? :)

[MChambers]

I've heard Jordan say that Thompson was his hero growing up.

It's kind of ironic -- David Thompson grew up worshipping UNC's Charlie Scott ... and he passed up UNC for State. Jordan grew up worshipping NCState's Thompson ... and he passed up State for UNC.

One correction in the story. Thompson didn't get the nickname "Skywalker" until he was in the pros. The movie "Star Wars " with its hero Luke Skywalker wasn't released until 1977, when DT was in his second year in the ABA.

However, growing up, Thompson did have a nickname. His older brothers compared his game to that of a former All-ACC guard and used to call him by that player's last name.

For 100 points and the ACC trivia challenge championship, what was David Thompson's original nickname?

In college, Thompson was a far superior player to Jordan. I'm not criticizing Jordan by saying this, because only a handful of players ever dominated college b-ball like Thompson did.

Obviously, Jordan accomplished far more than Thompson in the pros. Thompson fell prey to his personal demons. While Jordan certainly has had his personal difficulties, they didn't seem to affect his NBA career.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

David Thompson - the best player to ever play in the ACC. I got to see him play three times in Cameron. It was a privilege! :cool:

[verga]

i too saw Thompson play in Cameron (or was it Duke Indoor Stadium at the time?), i've never seen anyone jump like him. He seemed to have another gear that mere mortals don't possess. He also had the softest jumper, it was like silk going through the nets. He was truly a one of a kind player. In regards to Cunningham, to this day, i've never seen a better bball player at unc and that includes MJ. He (Cunnigham) doesn't get the praise that he deserves, what a great player he was.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Was Cunningham the right answer? I'm just guessing.

I was a 5'6 HS 115lb soph with media tickets to the whole State season in '74, on the floor under the basket standing with the floor mop guy at Reynolds. Pass was from a DA lawyer uncle, have no idea how he got them.

Man, I know I saw some great games and players there that year, wish I had a better memory beyond just how huge Tommy Burleson was-Tim Stoddard too. DT had unusual -expressive?-eyes when he looked straight at you.
Memory, or what little things you do recall is a strange bird....

Here's some background on DT's NBA career (http://www.nba.com/history/thompson_bio.html)for you young guys.

[heyman25]

David Thompson - the best player to ever play in the ACC. I got to see him play three times in Cameron. It was a privilege! :cool:
I was a student at Duke He was incredible. Do you remember his block on Bill Walton in the NCAA semnifinals in Greensboro? The only players I saw play as well in Cameron was Gary Melchionni when he scored 39 points and Art Heyman when he scored 40 points against Carolina Senior Day.

I think Melchionni did that against Maryland.

Thompson had the most athleticism of anyone I have ever seen play basketball.:D

[MChambers]

I was a student at Duke He was incredible. Do you remember his block on Bill Walton in the NCAA semnifinals in Greensboro?
The play I remember is Thompson, being boxed out by Walton on a rebound, and just going up and up and up to tip the ball in over Walton without committing a foul.

[Olympic Fan]

Was Cunningham the right answer? I'm just guessing.



Wheat ... good guess with Cunningham, but no ...

Thompson's brothers called him "Wiedeman" as a kid because he was so skinny that he reminded them of former Wake Forest guard Dave Wiedeman, who played in the backcourt with Billy Packer.

Wiedeman was first team All-ACC in 1963 (along with Heyman, Mullins, Cunningham and N.C. State's Kenny Rohloff). He was second-team All-ACC in 1962.

[jv001]

[QUOTE=Wheat/"/"/";313342]Was Cunningham the right answer? I'm just guessing.

Maybe it was Billy, but I thought the Kangaroo Kid played forward. I do remember he had to bring the ball up the court against Duke's press one year. Someone mentioned Charlie Scott but I don't remember him having a nickname. I really have no idea. By the way, 3 of my favorite players were from unc. Billy C, Walter D and Bobby Jones. All were great players and great guys. Go Duke!

[Dawun]

"No great surprise that Michael Jordan is going into the Hall of Fame. When you run down the greats of the game, he’s at the top and perhaps only Bill Russell has an argument as a greater player (we’d be inclined to give it to Russell because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college except for two: he was injured in his second year in the NBA, and the other was the year Wilt Chamberlain’s 76ers briefly surpassed Russell’s Celtics. Toss in the 56 Olympics too)."

So, Russell is greater than Jordan because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college? How does that make Bill Russell greater than Jordan. That's a joke right? I know we are Duke fans, but come on. Jordan is the greatest player of all-time without a doubt. He changed the game and the NBA. He's influenced a countless number of professional athletes. People don't say you are the "Bill Russell" of a particular sport. They say you are the "Michael Jordan" of a particular sport. Russell is a legend without a doubt, but if anyone in his era is potentially greater than MJ, then it's Wilt or Oscar Robertson. For the record, they are not greater than Michael Jordan.

[brevity]

"No great surprise that Michael Jordan is going into the Hall of Fame. When you run down the greats of the game, he’s at the top and perhaps only Bill Russell has an argument as a greater player (we’d be inclined to give it to Russell because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college except for two: he was injured in his second year in the NBA, and the other was the year Wilt Chamberlain’s 76ers briefly surpassed Russell’s Celtics. Toss in the 56 Olympics too)."

So, Russell is greater than Jordan because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college? How does that make Bill Russell greater than Jordan. That's a joke right? I know we are Duke fans, but come on. Jordan is the greatest player of all-time without a doubt. He changed the game and the NBA. He's influenced a countless number of professional athletes. People don't say you are the "Bill Russell" of a particular sport. They say you are the "Michael Jordan" of a particular sport. Russell is a legend without a doubt, but if anyone in his era is potentially greater than MJ, then it's Wilt or Oscar Robertson. For the record, they are not greater than Michael Jordan.

One could argue that Bill Russell was a greater champion than Michael Jordan, and possibly any other player in team sports. But yeah, the person you quoted is obviously confused and given to hyperbole, like most people who think they can write.

EDIT: Why is there a separate post on this same subject in the Off Topic board?

[RainingThrees]

I agree. Russell wasn't even the greatest player of his era Wilt was. I hate it when people say Russell is better just because his team did better. People buy into the idea that more championships = better player. It can mean that, but I think it mostly means better team, not better player. For example Deron Williams is a better point guard than Raymond Felton, but who won the championship?

[roywhite]

"No great surprise that Michael Jordan is going into the Hall of Fame. When you run down the greats of the game, he’s at the top and perhaps only Bill Russell has an argument as a greater player (we’d be inclined to give it to Russell because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college except for two: he was injured in his second year in the NBA, and the other was the year Wilt Chamberlain’s 76ers briefly surpassed Russell’s Celtics. Toss in the 56 Olympics too)."

So, Russell is greater than Jordan because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college? How does that make Bill Russell greater than Jordan. That's a joke right? I know we are Duke fans, but come on. Jordan is the greatest player of all-time without a doubt. He changed the game and the NBA. He's influenced a countless number of professional athletes. People don't say you are the "Bill Russell" of a particular sport. They say you are the "Michael Jordan" of a particular sport. Russell is a legend without a doubt, but if anyone in his era is potentially greater than MJ, then it's Wilt or Oscar Robertson. For the record, they are not greater than Michael Jordan.

It's a team sport. And Russell's teams won an amazing number of championships. Russell was perhaps the greatest shot-blocker and defensive player in NBA history. He also won as a player-coach, which is a great achievement.

It's not a given that Jordan is greater than Russell. It's an opinion, and not my opinion.

[Brian913]

"No great surprise that Michael Jordan is going into the Hall of Fame. When you run down the greats of the game, he’s at the top and perhaps only Bill Russell has an argument as a greater player (we’d be inclined to give it to Russell because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college except for two: he was injured in his second year in the NBA, and the other was the year Wilt Chamberlain’s 76ers briefly surpassed Russell’s Celtics. Toss in the 56 Olympics too)."

So, Russell is greater than Jordan because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college? How does that make Bill Russell greater than Jordan. That's a joke right? I know we are Duke fans, but come on. Jordan is the greatest player of all-time without a doubt. He changed the game and the NBA. He's influenced a countless number of professional athletes. People don't say you are the "Bill Russell" of a particular sport. They say you are the "Michael Jordan" of a particular sport. Russell is a legend without a doubt, but if anyone in his era is potentially greater than MJ, then it's Wilt or Oscar Robertson. For the record, they are not greater than Michael Jordan.

Wilt was probably a better athlete than Russell, but nowhere near the basketball player.

[Olympic Fan]

"No great surprise that Michael Jordan is going into the Hall of Fame. When you run down the greats of the game, he’s at the top and perhaps only Bill Russell has an argument as a greater player (we’d be inclined to give it to Russell because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college except for two: he was injured in his second year in the NBA, and the other was the year Wilt Chamberlain’s 76ers briefly surpassed Russell’s Celtics. Toss in the 56 Olympics too)."

So, Russell is greater than Jordan because he won the last game played every season since he was a junior in college? How does that make Bill Russell greater than Jordan. That's a joke right? I know we are Duke fans, but come on. Jordan is the greatest player of all-time without a doubt. He changed the game and the NBA. He's influenced a countless number of professional athletes. People don't say you are the "Bill Russell" of a particular sport. They say you are the "Michael Jordan" of a particular sport. Russell is a legend without a doubt, but if anyone in his era is potentially greater than MJ, then it's Wilt or Oscar Robertson. For the record, they are not greater than Michael Jordan.

Which record is that?

We've had this discussion several times. Michael Jordan is the product of the ESPN hype machine. Russell, who played long before there was a Sportscenter, was a far more dominant player than Michael Jordan.

And, yes, Russell changed the game as much or more than Michael Jordan ever did (the modern goaltending rules are a product of his shotblocking prowess).

Let's put it in simple terms: His teams won. They won far more often that Jordan's teams (or Wilt's teams or Oscar's teams).

Yeah, he had good teammates -- but so did the other guys. Look it up, Philadelphia was actually more successful before Wilt joined the team than the Celtics were before Russell joined the team. The Warriors won the 1956 NBA title without Wilt. The Celtics had never before reached the NBA finals (much less won a title) before Russell joined the team at midseason in 1956-57 (he joined at midseason so he could represent the US in the '56 Olympic games). After that, they never stopped winning until Russell retired. The '56 champion Warriors didn't win again, even after adding Wilt, until Russell retired.

It's worth noting that his San Francisco teams won back to back national titles in his last two years there -- that's more NCAA titles than Jordan, Wilt, Oscar, Jerry West or Larry Bird won COMBINED. Yeah, KC Jones was a teammate for the first title, but Jones was ineligible for the '56 playoffs.

Just for fun, someday look up Jordan's teammates in 1983 and 1984 and compare them with Russell's teammates in 55 and 56. You might be surprised what you find.

Let's see ... Russell was the best player on teams that won two straight NCAA titles, the Olympic Gold and Celtics teams that won the NBA title in 11 of his 13 seasons. The Celtics, which had never won anything before Russell, won the NBA title in his first two seasons (then he got hurt and the Celtics lost in the finals), then they won seven more titles in a row. They also won in his final year when Wilt faked an injury and hid on the bench. And the year after Russell retired, the Celtics -- with all those great players who are supposed to be the reason he won so many titles -- finished below .500 and failed to make the playoffs.

Russell is the greatest winner in the history of team sports -- his teams won the ultimate championship in 13 of his last 15 seasons (14 of 16 if you count the Olympics).

Jordan was a great player and a great winner too. We all remember that he hit the game-winner to help Dean Smith win his first championshp in 1982. But do you remember that James Worthy was the star of that team (and the Final Four MVP) and it also had three-time All-American Sam Perkins.

In the two college seasons after Worthy left, Jordan constantly choked in postseason -- to NC State and Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals; to Georgia in the Elite Eight and to Indiana in the Sweet 16.

Eventually, Jordan became a winner in the NBA, after a long apprenticeship. After the Bulls added Scottie Pippen. In contrast, Russell won right away and kept winning. Yeah, he won with Cousy (who had never won anything before Russell arrived) ... and he kept winning when Cousy retired. He won before Havlicek arrived and after he arrived.

Your comment that Oscar and Wilt were better than Russell suggest that you are mesmerized by individual stats -- the way Oscar and Wilt were. They put up great numbers. But they weren't winners. Oscar never got Cincinnati to the national title game, but they got there three straight times in the three years after he left (winning two titles). Can you really argue that a guy's the greatest player ever when his team gets better after he leaves?

Oscar won one NBA title, when late in his career, he finally hooked up with Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

Wilt choked against UNC in the 1957 title game and he was constantly beaten by Russell. Yeah, he had great numbers against the Celtics, but at crunch time, Russell ALWAYS shut him down. (Russell explained in his autobiography that during the game, he'd let Wilt get the ball where he wanted and take the shots he wanted -- until the game was on the line and Russell would beat him to the spot and deny him the shots he wanted. It always worked and Wilt -- being the mental midget he was -- never figured it out).

My point is that the object of the game is to win, not to score a lot of individual points or pile up a lot of stats. Who is to say that the things Russell did -- his ability to dominate games at the defensive end and on the boards -- were not more important than Jordan's ability to score points? The record that you talk about would seem to indicate that Russell's contributions led to more victories than Jordan's contributions.

Am I right that Russell is the greatest player in basketball history? I think so, but I'm not so arrogant as you are -- and so many other children of the ESPN era are -- to think that my opinion is fact and there's no room for debate.

Just understand that this IS a matter of opinion and there are plenty of varying opinions out there -- and it's not so crazy to suggest that Bill Russell and not Michael Jordan is not the greatest player of all time.

[FireOgilvie]

Bill Russell wasn't even the best offensive player on the NBA teams he played on. How is he the best player of all-time? Best winner? Sure. Best defender? Probably. Best overall player? I don't think so. Also, winning 11 championships with the ridiculous amount of Hall of Famers he had on his teams in the '50s and '60s is not as impressive as winning 6 NBA championships in the '90s. Bill Russell is a center that shot 44.0% FG for his career. Jordan shot 49.7% as a guard, which includes his Wizards years where his percentages were way down. I think the people that are saying Russell is better just can't admit that a Tar Heel could be the best player of all-time.

[JBDuke]

... I think the people that are saying Russell is better just can't admit that a Tar Heel could be the best player of all-time.

Well, I think people that are saying Jordan is better either get mesmerized by glorified statistics or lack historical perspective. So there. :eek:

Great post, OF! I agree with all of it. And while I'm not arrogant enough to say that my opinion on who is the NBA's best player ever has more merit than others, I'd put Russell on the top. Others I'd include: Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, Johnson, and Bird, with the Big O as my sixth man.

[roywhite]

Bill Russell wasn't even the best offensive player on the NBA teams he played on. How is he the best player of all-time? Best winner? Sure. Best defender? Probably. Best overall player? I don't think so. Also, winning 11 championships with the ridiculous amount of Hall of Famers he had on his teams in the '50s and '60s is not as impressive as winning 6 NBA championships in the '90s. Bill Russell is a center that shot 44.0% FG for his career. Jordan shot 49.7% as a guard, which includes his Wizards years where his percentages were way down. I think the people that are saying Russell is better just can't admit that a Tar Heel could be the best player of all-time.


I hope you'll read the post made by Olympic Fan preceding your post. He makes a great case for Bill Russell; that is subject to discussion; it's the type of thing that often does get hashed out on message boards. But he also makes the point that this distinction of "greatest player ever" is a matter of opinion and that a reasonable opinion well supported should be respected.

[rthomas]

Well, I think people that are saying Jordan is better either get mesmerized by glorified statistics or lack historical perspective. So there. :eek:

Great post, OF! I agree with all of it. And while I'm not arrogant enough to say that my opinion on who is the NBA's best player ever has more merit than others, I'd put Russell on the top. Others I'd include: Jordan, Abdul-Jabbar, Johnson, and Bird, with the Big O as my sixth man.

You forgot Jerry West. After all he is the logo.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3087/2301480294_fda1d32a4b.jpg?v=0

[FireOgilvie]

I hope you'll read the post made by Olympic Fan preceding your post. He makes a great case for Bill Russell; that is subject to discussion; it's the type of thing that often does get hashed out on message boards. But he also makes the point that this distinction of "greatest player ever" is a matter of opinion and that a reasonable opinion well supported should be respected.

I read it. Half of it talks about college, which I am ignoring (this is about the NBA HOF), and the other part doesn't convince me of anything. I'm not knocking Bill Russell here; I think he's great. He's just not the player Jordan is (I consider actually scoring points a key part of the game). Jordan has/had (Lebron might have snuck in there) the top statistically efficient seasons (PER) since that stat has been tracked (probably after Russell's day). Of course no one acknowledges any of my points (Russell shot a pretty low 44 percent FG, only averaged 15 pts for his career, Jordan averaged 30). Also, the game is completely different now. Jordan's 6 championships in the '90s with his teammates is just or more impressive as Russell's 11 with numerous HOF teammates. If Jordan doesn't play baseball, he might have even had another 1 or 2, which makes his 6 pretty unbelievable. Also, there's a difference coming into the lowly Chicago Bulls and completely turning the franchise around and coming onto the Celtics, who had FIVE future Hall of Fame players in Russell's first year (six with Russell). If you completely ignore statistics and look purely at winning, Robert Horry is also in the top 10 players of all-time.

[NSDukeFan]

I read it. Half of it talks about college, which I am ignoring (this is about the NBA HOF), and the other part doesn't convince me of anything. I'm not knocking Bill Russell here; I think he's great. He's just not the player Jordan is (I consider actually scoring points a key part of the game). Jordan has/had (Lebron might have snuck in there) the top statistically efficient seasons (PER) since that stat has been tracked (probably after Russell's day). Of course no one acknowledges any of my points (Russell shot a pretty low 44 percent FG, only averaged 15 pts for his career, Jordan averaged 30). Also, the game is completely different now. Jordan's 6 championships in the '90s with his teammates is just or more impressive as Russell's 11 with numerous HOF teammates. If Jordan doesn't play baseball, he might have even had another 1 or 2, which makes his 6 pretty unbelievable. Also, there's a difference coming into the lowly Chicago Bulls and completely turning the franchise around and coming onto the Celtics, who had FIVE future Hall of Fame players in Russell's first year (six with Russell). If you completely ignore statistics and look purely at winning, Robert Horry is also in the top 10 players of all-time.

And if you ignore defense and focus on stats, Shane Battier is not much of a pro player. Yet...his teams improve when he is on them and do worse when he leaves. I don't know for sure who is the greatest all time player, but to rule out probably the greatest defensive player ever and someone who made his teammates better, because he didn't have a great shooting percentage and didn't score as much, may also be a mistake. Personally, I rank 6-time MVP Abdul-Jabbar up there pretty high as well.

[verga]

I am of the opinion that Kareem-Abdul- Jabbar (Lew Alcindor) is the gretest bball player of all time. He played 3 years of college ball (freshmen couldn't play in his era), he won 3 NCAA Championships. They did away with the dunk because of him. He was the most written about hs player of all time. He won, i believe 4 NBA titles.? He is the leading scorer all time in the NBA, i believe. What makes everyone consider Jordan the best, try the media, commercials, endless tv time and exposure. I'm not saying Jordan wasn't great, he was in the NBA but i've seen many more players who had better collegiate careers. Although i think Jabbar was the greatest player of all time, if i were to start a NBA team, my first pick would be Magic johnson, if we were to pick teams and you gave me the first pick, he would be my choice. A lot of the posters on here obviously have never seen Oscar Robertson play, its a shame because he should be mentioned in the same breath with the greats we are talking about. As in all my posts, its just my opinion.

[sagegrouse]

In the 1960s the best players in the NBA were Russell, Chamberlain, Oscar, and West.

West, who was a money player, may have been on a slightly lower level than the others, but is an all-time great who was great to the day he retired.

The arguments about Russell vs. Chamberlain are legion. Russell has the championships to back up his claims, but Wilt had an enormous influence on the game, such as forcing the league to change the rules to limit his dominance. And he did average 50PPG one season.

Robertson was truly brilliant and the best all-around player I ever saw (only on TV, alas). Maybe Jordan was better and certainly had more championships. But Oscar was amazing.

I don't know how you can truly compare players across generations, although I suppose that's what bars and internet message boards are for.

sagegrouse

[Duvall]

I read it. Half of it talks about college, which I am ignoring (this is about the NBA HOF),

No such thing.

[Olympic Fan]

The arguments about Russell vs. Chamberlain are legion. Russell has the championships to back up his claims, but Wilt had an enormous influence on the game, such as forcing the league to change the rules to limit his dominance. And he did average 50PPG one season.

Not that it proves anything, but in 1962 -- the year that Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game (actually 50.4 with 25.7 rebounds a game) -- the players voted on the MVP.

Guess who won?

It wasn't the guy nicknamed the Stilt ... they didn't give it to the Big O, who averaged a triple double (30.8 ppg., 12.5 rpg. and 11.4 apg.).

Instead, the players gave it to perhaps the most unpopular guy in the league -- Bill Russell. And it sure wasn't a popularity contest -- nobody outside Boston liked Russell, while everybody was Wilt's buddy. Think about that ... they overwhelming voted the MVP award to a guy who averaged 18.9 points and 23.6 rebounds a game.

Actually, Russell may have averaged a triple double too -- several sources estimate that he averaged between 12-15 blocked shots a game in those years, but the NBA didn't keep blocks at that time.

Maybe his contemporaries weren't as stat-focused as the fans ...

[NSDukeFan]

Not that it proves anything, but in 1962 -- the year that Chamberlain averaged 50 points a game (actually 50.4 with 25.7 rebounds a game) -- the players voted on the MVP.

Guess who won?

It wasn't the guy nicknamed the Stilt ... they didn't give it to the Big O, who averaged a triple double (30.8 ppg., 12.5 rpg. and 11.4 apg.).

Instead, the players gave it to perhaps the most unpopular guy in the league -- Bill Russell. And it sure wasn't a popularity contest -- nobody outside Boston liked Russell, while everybody was Wilt's buddy. Think about that ... they overwhelming voted the MVP award to a guy who averaged 18.9 points and 23.6 rebounds a game.

Actually, Russell may have averaged a triple double too -- several sources estimate that he averaged between 12-15 blocked shots a game in those years, but the NBA didn't keep blocks at that time.

Maybe his contemporaries weren't as stat-focused as the fans ...

Thanks for the post. I didn't realize that Wilt's 50 point season was the same as Oscar's triple double season AND the players didn't vote for either one for MVP. That's a pretty impressive year. Makes me think of Ted Williams winning the triple crown but not getting voted MVP at least in part because someone had a 56 game hit streak the same year.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Assuming everyone in their prime...

Russell was a great player, one of the very best.

But I can think of many NBA players that I could match up with him and feel confident that he would not dominate the game and take my team out on his own. (Kareem, Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Duncan etc..off the top of my head.)

Who's going to match up with Jordan?

There are only two players even worthy of consideration, Kobe and LeBron, in my book.

And you can be sure Jordan is still a threat to take your team out all on his own, even with either of those two on him.

Jordan in his prime could not be stopped, but he could stop you with offense or defense. Kobe and Lebron would not enjoy Jordan defending them.

He became the best overall player the game has seen to this point, IMO.

[roywhite]

To the title of the thread, I like the idea of MJ asking David Thompson to introduce him. It certainly brings a strong ACC flavor to the moment.

I might have guessed Phil Jackson or Dean Smith would get the honor.

[Olympic Fan]

Thanks for the post. I didn't realize that Wilt's 50 point season was the same as Oscar's triple double season AND the players didn't vote for either one for MVP. That's a pretty impressive year. Makes me think of Ted Williams winning the triple crown but not getting voted MVP at least in part because someone had a 56 game hit streak the same year.

Just a small correction -- Williams didn't win the triple crown in 1941 (the year DiMaggio hit in 56 straight games). That was the year he batted .406. DiMaggio actually led the league in RBIs. One factor in the vote was that Williams missed 11 games, so while Williams had higher averages, DiMaggio had more hits and more total bases.

Actually, who am I kidding -- the reason Williams lost the MVP in 1941 was that the Yankees won the pennant. I'm not saying it's right, but during that era, the voters almost always favored a player off the winning team.

That explains the much more bizarre 1942 vote -- when Williams DID win the triple crown, but lost the MVP to New York's Joe Gordon. The recently inducted Hall of Famer was the Dustin Pedroia of his day -- a solid hitter and the best defensive second-baseman in the game. But no way he deserves the MVP that season he was good (155 OPS-plus), but Williams was MUCH better (an incredible 217 OPS-plus). Gordan's superior defensive value couldn't make up that gap.

The same process worked against Williams again in 1947. He won the MVP in 1946 (when the Red Sox won the pennant). He won the triple crown again in 1947, but lost the MVP to DiMaggio. He lost again in 1948 to Lou Boudreau (the Derek Jeter of his day), who led the Indians to the pennant.

Williams did break through in a losing year in 1949, but that was an odd circumstance. He was the best player on the Red Sox team that choked the pennant away by losing the last two games to the Yankees. But the pennant winning Yankees didn't have a clearcut candidate. DiMaggio played barely half the season and still finished 12th. Rizzuto was second, Joe Page (the guy who probably should have won it) finished third. Heinrich finished 6th.

BTW, the trend to vote a pennant winner MVP didn't always work for the Yankees -- you always hear about Williams winning the triple crown and losing the MVP vote with the ill-informed explanation that it was New York bias in the vote or that the writers didn't like Williams. Well, how does that explain the 1934 vote? Lou Gehrig won the triple crown that year with .363 49 165 -- a 1.172 OPS (208 OPS-plus). But the voters gave the away to Detroit catcher Mickey Cochrane who played in just 129 games with a .320 average 2 home runs (!) and 76 RBIs. His .840 OPS was a mere 117 OPS-plus -- that's a bigger gap than between Gordon and Williams in 1942.

Gehrig was popular and he played in New York -- and was a much better player than Cochrane in 1934 (again, like Gordon in 1942, Cochrane gets a defensive edge, but no way it closes that offensive gap). If you look at it disappassionately, it's pretty obvious what was going on. The writers were (in their minds) picking an MVP award, not the Outstanding Player. Detroit won the 1934 pennant, therefore they had to pick a Tiger player for the award. Just as New York won in 1941, 1942 and 1947 -- so they had to pick a Yankee. Williams was actually lucky -- thanks to a split Yankee vote in 1949 -- that he won one more MVP than he did pennants.

I'm not saying it's right, just that that is the reason Williams was denied so often.

When you go back to the NBA MVP vote, there is some of that, but it's not so blatant. They did give MVP awards to Oscar, West and Wilt in years when their teams did not win it all or even finish with the best regular season record.

There's one big difference between the NBA MVP in that era and the baseball awards. In baseball, the writers made the picks. In the MVP, the awards were voted by the players (at least until 1979).

I understand the sentiment for Kareem as the greast player of all time. He did win more MVPs (six) than Jordan or Russell (five each) and two more than Wilt (four). I think he's the greatest collegiate player of all time.

But I still believe Russell had more impact on the pro game and since he's just a hair behind Kareem as a college player (it took him one season to achieve the same dominance that Kareem had a sophomore), I still argue that Russell is the No. 1 player of all-time. I do have Kareem at No. 2 and Jordan at No. 3.

[roywhite]

O.F. rocks!

We should get Continuing Education credits as sports fans just from reading his posts.

Thanks.

[NSDukeFan]

O.F. rocks!

We should get Continuing Education credits as sports fans just from reading his posts.

Thanks.

Thanks again O.F., I feel like a better sports fan now. The last .400 year, that's what I should have referred to in my original post and not a triple crown. Thanks for the correction.

[SupaDave]

I don't think I've ever seen MJ talk this much...

[Turk]

"There is no 'I' in 'team', but there is an 'I' in 'win'..." ROFL

[Turk]

As for "greatest player" discussions, I've never seen the point, other than they tend to serve as a mirror and bring out those traits which we ourselves value most, e.g., winning vs. stats, "best player" vs. "team player", etc.

I like to use a "top 5" approach - I think most fans would agree that MJ, Wilt, and Big O are locks. Russell is the 4th, but as noted above, a significant number might replace him with Kareem on their list. That 5th slot would bring some interesting names into play, such as Jerry West, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Elgin Baylor, etc. (Just to clarify, my "Top 5" definition doesn't have to be a team in the sense they have to take the floor as PG, SG, SF, PF, C).

[gep]

I like to use a "top 5" approach - I think most fans would agree that MJ, Wilt, and Big O are locks. Russell is the 4th, but as noted above, a significant number might replace him with Kareem on their list. That 5th slot would bring some interesting names into play, such as Jerry West, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Elgin Baylor, etc. (Just to clarify, my "Top 5" definition doesn't have to be a team in the sense they have to take the floor as PG, SG, SF, PF, C).

So... maybe the NBA got it "right" with their top-50.... :rolleyes: ... in the first 50 years? without any "ranking" to it. I actually liked this format... they were *all* great.

[NSDukeFan]

As for "greatest player" discussions, I've never seen the point, other than they tend to serve as a mirror and bring out those traits which we ourselves value most, e.g., winning vs. stats, "best player" vs. "team player", etc.

I like to use a "top 5" approach - I think most fans would agree that MJ, Wilt, and Big O are locks. Russell is the 4th, but as noted above, a significant number might replace him with Kareem on their list. That 5th slot would bring some interesting names into play, such as Jerry West, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Elgin Baylor, etc. (Just to clarify, my "Top 5" definition doesn't have to be a team in the sense they have to take the floor as PG, SG, SF, PF, C).

You are absolutely right, there is no point in greatest player discussions as they can never be proven. They are, however, a lot of fun for us fans who spend too much time thinking about such things, as you have proven with your subsequent top 5 discussion. I would be cautious in determining the locks that "most fans" would agree on as I would suggest that just as many would consider Kareem and Russell locks as some you have suggested. Also, if your top 5 doesn't have to have positions, why would Kareem need to replace Russell, why would they not both be on the squad? Again, it is all just fun and hypothetical. When is the Blue-White game again?

[roywhite]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-jordanhall091209&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It was a strange induction speech when Jordan was finally recognized.

From the Adrian Wojnarowski article:


Jordan wasn’t crying over sentimentality on Friday night, as much as he was the loss of a life that he returned from two retirements to have again. The finality of his basketball genius hit him at the induction ceremony, hit him hard. Jordan showed little poise and less grace.


Once again, he turned the evening into something bordering between vicious and vapid, an empty exercise for a night that should’ve had staying power, that should’ve been transformative for basketball and its greatest player. What fueled his fury as a thirtysomething now fuels his bitterness as a lost, wandering fortysomething who threatened a comeback at 50.

[RelativeWays]

Jordan doesn't really strike me as bitter as he is wistful. I think he is a classic type A personality that loves to compete. Jordan hadn't entered his prime when Bird and Magic were, Dr J and George Gervin had retired not long after. When he was in his prime, he had no real equal. Now he sees the NBA with Kobe, Lebron, Dwayne Wade, I honestly think he would sell his soul to be in his prime to play against them. You can admire his competitiveness to a degree, but I definitely think its a double edged sword. In a way, I feel bad for him that he does not know where to to funnel that competitive energy. I think he'd be a terrible coach because if something isn't working he'd rather put the burden on himself to fix it, rather than rely on his team. I don't think being an owner or GM is his style either because its not enough in the trenches. He could possibly be a one on one type mentor and I could see him trying to make another player better as a serious challenge.

[tecumseh]

Like his traveling transgressions as a player and his ineptitude as a general manager/coach (think Kwame Brown) Jordan gets a pass on this from most of all of the media. It was good to see a few writers call him for his latest violation.

Frankly I think he is an embarrassment to Carolina at this point, a great athlete yes but a mediocre human being.

[SupaDave]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-jordanhall091209&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

It was a strange induction speech when Jordan was finally recognized.

From the Adrian Wojnarowski article:

That article was foolish. Jordan was candid and revealing in his own way. His honesty was fresh and the sentiments expressed were genuine.

How much did I like it? I'll tell you what I remember from YESTERDAY off the top of my head...

-he gives Scottie a world of props and basically an endorsement for the hall of fame - "you didn't just see me - you saw Scottie Pippen"

-his love for his children and his understanding of the burden that his own life has placed on them. Some rich kids get drunk and party - his kids, like many basketball player,s kids, wanted to be like dad - a monumental task to say the least no matter how competitive they are.

-Leroy Smith - classy move b/c it shows just how one moment in time can link you to someone for life. I believe he was saying the Coach was wrong - not Leroy Smith. Smith had no power over who made the team.

-Maybe I missed it but there was surprisingly no Barkley shout out

-Respect given to the Bulls organization. The rift between him, Krause, and the owner is widely known

-Apologizing to Bryon Russell while admitting that Russell gave him a goal. Russell should have never done that. On the court and in the bball world there are simply people you just don't say certain things too. (When I used to wrestle I used to get up particularly for certain opponents - even broke one guy's arm TWICE - no apologies).

-Dean Smith. For the first time in my life I saw Dean Smith as a cool old guy. He saluted MJ and MJ peppered Dean all over that speech. (just don't embarass anyone with that "swoooosh")

-The presence of his mother in his life and the fact that she still works two jobs. I'm sure she doesn't have to. Just maybe.

I could think of more but hey I enjoyed it...

[blueprofessor]

Like his traveling transgressions as a player and his ineptitude as a general manager/coach (think Kwame Brown) Jordan gets a pass on this from most of all of the media. It was good to see a few writers call him for his latest violation.

Frankly I think he is an embarrassment to Carolina at this point, a great athlete yes but a mediocre human being.


is an excellent refresher on Jordan's lack of personal class and grace, pettiness, and narcissism.
In the well-researched book Who's Better , Who's Best in Basketball,byElliott Kalb, forewords by Costas and Walton, Jordan is picked 3rd, with Wilt right ahead.Russell was 4th, Bird( the best forward) 6th, West 12th.
Stockton was remarkably self-effacing and obviously well-centered.:)

Best--Blueprofessor

[tecumseh]

Yeah Stockton and David Robinson on this team Jordan compares particularly poorly as those are two of the retired superstars who have it the most together. Funny Jordan says that without basketball we all would have struggled. Somehow I think David Robinson would have been successful without basketball, he is a very bright guy, religious, hard working, humble, family centered.

[dukemsu]

a person so competitive that it's not necessarily healthy. The slam on Krause was unnecessary and classless for that forum. Jordan is still angry about Krause and the breaking up of the franchise, and that has merit. But Jordan's refusal to get over slights, perceived or real, is not a healthy trait. This falls in line with the gambling habits that the media has conveniently glossed over for his entire career, except for a couple of gutsy reporters here in Chicago.

In terms of the best ever argument, well, sure, I doubt there was anyone who could match Jordan one on one in a game to 21. But I don't like to engage in best ever debates because it ignores the fact that basketball is a team sport. Was Jordan a better team basketball player than Magic Johnson? Nope. Was Magic a better individual force than Jordan? Absolutely not.

I prefer to say that there was no one better than Jordan, or Magic, or Bird, or Olajuwon, in my years of watching the NBA, which only go back to 1980. All had aspects of their game that trumped the others. But it's a team sport, Jordan's unreal individual greatness notwithstanding. Jordan, great as he was, often played in spite of his teammates as much as with them, IMHO.

dukemsu

[dukemsu]

Yeah Stockton and David Robinson on this team Jordan compares particularly poorly as those are two of the retired superstars who have it the most together. Funny Jordan says that without basketball we all would have struggled. Somehow I think David Robinson would have been successful without basketball, he is a very bright guy, religious, hard working, humble, family centered.

David Robinson would have been a success at anything he wanted to. Most of these guys would. I think Jordan sells them all short in that regard.

dukemsu

[Udaman]

I loved him as a player...but pretty much everything I've seen from him off the court shows a self-centered, egotistical, boorish jerk. His speech last night was about as petty and sophomoric as it comes - "Look at me, I'm the best ever. Anyone who ever doubted me is stupid." The only thing he didn't do was go "na na na na naaaa na" and stick out his tongue.

Uh - Michael, you proved you were the greatest. You don't need to rub it in everyone's face. You don't need to hold a grudge.

Sorry, but this guy is a loser. What little respect I had for him as a human being is now gone (and I think there are a lot of basketball players who feel the same way).

Jordan is one of the top 5 players ever. But he's not even in the top 500 of the best characters. Basically he's the Ty Cobb of basketball.

[SupaDave]

Sorry, but this guy is a loser. What little respect I had for him as a human being is now gone (and I think there are a lot of basketball players who feel the same way).

Please - show me that basketball player. Maybe you didn't see the audience. Maybe you didn't notice Jordan spoke last. Sometimes there's a reason for some things. There's also jealousy involved. I know a LOT of basketball players - REAL ones - and I couldn't show you that guy.

Trust me - I don't think Jordan is a saint by any stretch of the imagination. I'm from NC and I'm priviledged to information that the average individual isn't necessarily privy to.

But in my best A.I. impersonation - we talking basketball. Basketball. We talking about basketball. No one did it better...

There's no one who's worked harder and been more well-rounded. He is the blueprint for Lebron and Kobe. Dr. J and Thompson were MJ's blueprint.

Michael Jackson in basketball form. As real as it gets.

No offense to Robinson and Stockton (who he obviously has a good relationship with) but they just aren't as physically talented or driven as Jordan - and those guys are freaking phenomenal. But I think some of you are taking Jordan a little too figuratively - all of these guys are college graduates whose communities would have supported them adequately - and they in turn would have been representatives of their community. David Robinson has his own school and that speaks volumes for his commitment to the youth.

A bit self-absorbed? Sure. But he also created a brand. One that still exists today and to do that sometimes your personality isn't necessarily one that would allow Mary Poppins to be one of your best friends.

When you knock MJ I wonder if you've ever sat in "Time-out" in Chapel Hill and seen that big picture of MJ on the wall. Their chicken biscuits are the best and you don't know this unless you hang out in Chapel Hill a few times(which I have to admit has it moments - anyone remember the "apple chill"?). These are the things I grew up seeing.

Nonetheless, he's a great guy and if he offered you a ride in his Ferrari of the month I seriously doubt you'd say no...

[slower]

Like his traveling transgressions as a player and his ineptitude as a general manager/coach (think Kwame Brown) Jordan gets a pass on this from most of all of the media. It was good to see a few writers call him for his latest violation.

Frankly I think he is an embarrassment to Carolina at this point, a great athlete yes but a mediocre human being.

He was a great player, no doubt. But he has always been hugely over-rated as a human being, because he's pretty much of a megalomaniacal d-bag. However, this means little to the sportswriters whose careers benefitted from his exploits and to the legions of jock-sniffers who blindly idolize even the most reprehensible athletes. Par for the course in image-managed America.

[mapei]

He was a great player, no doubt. But he has always been hugely over-rated as a human being, because he's pretty much of a megalomaniacal d-bag. However, this means little to the sportswriters whose careers benefitted from his exploits and to the legions of jock-sniffers who blindly idolize even the most reprehensible athletes. Par for the course in image-managed America.

Exactly. I don't want him in his prime on my opponent's team, ever. He deserves all respect as a player and may well be the best ever.

But I root for humility, the good guys in sports, the people who show their opponents respect. I don't root for MJ.

[NSDukeFan]

He was a great player, no doubt. But he has always been hugely over-rated as a human being, because he's pretty much of a megalomaniacal d-bag. However, this means little to the sportswriters whose careers benefitted from his exploits and to the legions of jock-sniffers who blindly idolize even the most reprehensible athletes. Par for the course in image-managed America.

No doubt Jordan was an outstanding player and he has a huge ego and an enormous competitive streak. What pro athlete doesn't have a huge ego? Which pro athlete isn't hugely competitive? You don't get to the pros by being the nicest guy. Sure Jordan has a bigger ego and is more competitive than most if not all and it may hurt him in some ways as a person, but he is also someone who has not been in the media for carrying a handgun, no charges of rape, no illegal drugs. I realize he is no saint but, compared to other professional athletes and with the amount of scrutiny he has been under, I think he has done ok. I don't think you become the most marketable athlete by being a complete jerk.

[slower]

No doubt Jordan was an outstanding player and he has a huge ego and an enormous competitive streak. What pro athlete doesn't have a huge ego? Which pro athlete isn't hugely competitive? You don't get to the pros by being the nicest guy. Sure Jordan has a bigger ego and is more competitive than most if not all and it may hurt him in some ways as a person, but he is also someone who has not been in the media for carrying a handgun, no charges of rape, no illegal drugs. I realize he is no saint but, compared to other professional athletes and with the amount of scrutiny he has been under, I think he has done ok. I don't think you become the most marketable athlete by being a complete jerk.

If you have good PR people or if enough people are making money off of you, being a complete jerk is no barrier to success in any field. Jordan has been deified beyond almost any other athlete - or beyond almost any other human being, for that matter. Sure, he "has not been in the media" for any of those things (not saying that he HAS done any of them) - that's why rich and powerful people have handlers and fixers to get out of scrapes that the rest of us would get fried for.

I'm sure many people are still not aware of his marital infidelities. Nor would they care, whereas they'd probably want to crucify one of their neighbors for the same behavior. Heck, I heard that he used to have his scouts go find women for him at UNC (heard from one of his conquests). And yeah, he's probably no worse than a lot of other athletes (or politicians or actors, etc).

But I don't idolize them, just as I don't idolize Jordan - unlike millions (billions?) of others.

The guy just lacks class and seems to always maintain an air of arrogance that I find offensive.

[Billy Dat]

I think Mike Wilbon's piece in the Washington Post made a great point.

Jordan was often criticized for "not letting us in". He gave very vanilla interviews and was afraid of alienating anyone because of his image and huge endorsement deals. Now, the guy shows us who he really is, lays it all out there, and we don't like what we see.

It's like the old saw about the sausage factory, I like to eat it but don't want to see how it's made. Jordan was driven by an unworldly will to win - there's an opportunity cost for that, it's not so easy to turn off at the end of the day.

As I watched Jordan's speech, I was shaking my head in disbelief at his honesty. Per the above, we'd never seen that from him. Would we really have rather seen another vanilla recitation?

I, for one, am happy that he let his guard down. And there's a lesson in there, too. If most people were given the opportunity to be Michael Jordan, they'd probably take it. But, what you saw Friday was a guy literally tortured by the fact that he doesn't have that competitive outlet anymore. Here's a guy who most of us would think has it all, yet he's probably a lot unhappier than most of us realize.

[SupaDave]

If you have good PR people or if enough people are making money off of you, being a complete jerk is no barrier to success in any field. Jordan has been deified beyond almost any other athlete - or beyond almost any other human being, for that matter. Sure, he "has not been in the media" for any of those things (not saying that he HAS done any of them) - that's why rich and powerful people have handlers and fixers to get out of scrapes that the rest of us would get fried for.

I'm sure many people are still not aware of his marital infidelities. Nor would they care, whereas they'd probably want to crucify one of their neighbors for the same behavior. Heck, I heard that he used to have his scouts go find women for him at UNC (heard from one of his conquests). And yeah, he's probably no worse than a lot of other athletes (or politicians or actors, etc).

But I don't idolize them, just as I don't idolize Jordan - unlike millions (billions?) of others.

The guy just lacks class and seems to always maintain an air of arrogance that I find offensive.

The funny thing about this is that if you go to a Maryland board you'll see pretty much the same sentiment about Coach K...

[allenmurray]

The funny thing about this is that if you go to a Maryland board you'll see pretty much the same sentiment about Coach K...

Coach K and David Robinson have something in common that MJ doesn't have.

[roywhite]

The funny thing about this is that if you go to a Maryland board you'll see pretty much the same sentiment about Coach K...

You'll have to explain that one, please...

Coach K is similar to Michael Jordan?

Maryland fans are a good judge of character?

Because one group of fans hates Coach K, that is equivalent to some people not liking MJ?

Between Coach K and Michael Jordan, I don't have any problem admiring one for ability and character.

[slower]

The funny thing about this is that if you go to a Maryland board you'll see pretty much the same sentiment about Coach K...

Oh, yeah...irrelevant. Look, you can idolize MJ all you want. You can even ride in his Ferrari, as you seem to want to. Everyone has their opinion.

[Turk]

~snip~
Jordan is one of the top 5 players ever. But he's not even in the top 500 of the best characters. Basically he's the Ty Cobb of basketball.

I beg to differ. The Ty Cobb of basketball is Bill Laimbeer.

As for MJ, what struck me about the speech was it was the most genuine and honest he's ever been in front of the general public (that I can recall). Parts were funny, moving, and sincere, and as noted above, he said some things that he probably shouldn't have said in that moment.

I hope he finds some channel for his competitive drive; otherwise in another 20 years we'll be hearing these bitter MJ quotes like we get from Jim Brown or Jim Rice from time to time.

[jafarr1]

I'm not sure what people expected. Somebody with a personality off the court as great as his performances on the court? Somebody who has driven himself to excel at the highest level and yet remains patently humble?

Let's be clear: my respect for Jordan didn't grow after the speech. Still, the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised. Those that lead in their chosen field, whether business or artist or athlete, are generally driven by traits and motivations that usually don't make for the most pleasant of personalities. Why are we surprised to see this in Jordan?

[SMO]

(When I used to wrestle I used to get up particularly for certain opponents - even broke one guy's arm TWICE - no apologies).


Easily one of the most disturbing things I've ever read on this board. :eek:

[SupaDave]

Easily one of the most disturbing things I've ever read on this board. :eek:

haha! It was all legal! This one kid in particular just brought out an aggression in me that I couldn't explain. The coaches wished I had brought it out more - which should disturb you more.

[SupaDave]

Coach K and David Robinson have something in common that MJ doesn't have.

Let me guess - the military!

[SupaDave]

I beg to differ. The Ty Cobb of basketball is Bill Laimbeer.

As for MJ, what struck me about the speech was it was the most genuine and honest he's ever been in front of the general public (that I can recall). Parts were funny, moving, and sincere, and as noted above, he said some things that he probably shouldn't have said in that moment.

I hope he finds some channel for his competitive drive; otherwise in another 20 years we'll be hearing these bitter MJ quotes like we get from Jim Brown or Jim Rice from time to time.

I'm thinking MJ is more Babe Ruth...

[SupaDave]

I'm not sure what people expected. Somebody with a personality off the court as great as his performances on the court? Somebody who has driven himself to excel at the highest level and yet remains patently humble?

Let's be clear: my respect for Jordan didn't grow after the speech. Still, the only thing that surprises me is that people are surprised. Those that lead in their chosen field, whether business or artist or athlete, are generally driven by traits and motivations that usually don't make for the most pleasant of personalities. Why are we surprised to see this in Jordan?

He was a basketball player talking about basketball things. As he said himself "what DON'T we know about him?" To focus on that speech and use it as one more "that's why l don't like that guy" is expecting him to go against everything that we DO know about him. It was HIS night - at least he didn't do a Peter Vecsey...

[Turk]

Here's what should happen: Al Franken should step out of his Senator character, reprise "Stuart Smalley", and have a nice chat with Michael. His bit with MJ years ago is one of my favorite all-time SNL skits. Now more than ever, Stuart can help MJ with his self-esteem issues!! ::eek::eek:

[sagegrouse]

Here's what should happen: Al Franken should step out of his Senator character, reprise "Stuart Smalley", and have a nice chat with Michael. His bit with MJ years ago is one of my favorite all-time SNL skits. Now more than ever, Stuart can help MJ with his self-esteem issues!! ::eek::eek:

Seriously, one role of SNL in public life is to let well-known people start the rehab of their reputation. Think of Janet Jackson (as Condi Rice) after the wardrobe malfunction, Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin (Tina Fey) and a host of others.

MJ should jump at the chance.

sagegrouse

[RelativeWays]

Another funny thing about Jordan's speech and how his ultra competitive type A personality turns people off. I can understand it to agree, but a lot of people are calling MJ a terrible person because of his attitude approaching primarily basketball. While he is known for marital infidelities (seems to be par for the course for a lot of athletes) we DON'T know much or anything about his family relationship, the friends he does have, the charitable works he does and money he donates. Again, I'm not saying all that absolves him either, but we still don't know all the dynamics there.

It seems disingenuous to me to say "if I was a tarheel fan, I'd be ashamed of Jordan." There's a guy we love who had a similar reputation for being a type A tyrant, completely driven in his will to succeed, especially here at Duke: Christian Laettner. I have no doubt that Laettner was a jerk to a lot of people, and he's STILL my favorite Duke player. Had he continued the same level of success in the NBA, I think he still would have been that guy.

[DukeBlueNikeShox]

I think it was sad and disturbing that Karl Malone managed to find time to see John Stockton, but he can't find time to meet his own son, who's in the NFL, or money to pay child support....

I hope they blackball Karl Malone and don't allow him in the HOF...

[bass-piscator]

Yo, supa

what's Jordan got to do with the Babe. Different worlds. If you want to get into this stuff lets talk West, Williams, etal.

[slower]

Yo, supa

what's Jordan got to do with the Babe. Different worlds. If you want to get into this stuff lets talk West, Williams, etal.

if you're talking about cultural impact and iconic status. I think that's where Supa was going with it.

[brsett]

I liked the speech. But then I gave up traditional jealousy several years ago. My brother-in-Law is way more successful than me -- I quickly decided that being jealous was foolish, and instead I decided to try and learn from his success and copy his own approaches to life where I could.

I now look at successful people, and try to figure out how they became so successful and use that in my own life. I got a lot from Jordan's speech. I often use slights against me as the opportunity to judge others character (if you're a jerk to me, I'll avoid interacting with you). Per Jordan, thats probably a lost opportunity. Instead I should use those slights as fuel, and rather than write those people off or let their behavior change me (avoidance, etc), I should use it as a motivation to refocus even more determinedly on my own goals -- and continue to work with those people as it benefits me.

Oh well, too personal for a message board. Sorry.

[SupaDave]

I liked the speech. But then I gave up traditional jealousy several years ago. My brother-in-Law is way more successful than me -- I quickly decided that being jealous was foolish, and instead I decided to try and learn from his success and copy his own approaches to life where I could.

I now look at successful people, and try to figure out how they became so successful and use that in my own life. I got a lot from Jordan's speech. I often use slights against me as the opportunity to judge others character (if you're a jerk to me, I'll avoid interacting with you). Per Jordan, thats probably a lost opportunity. Instead I should use those slights as fuel, and rather than write those people off or let their behavior change me (avoidance, etc), I should use it as a motivation to refocus even more determinedly on my own goals -- and continue to work with those people as it benefits me.

Oh well, too personal for a message board. Sorry.

Actually I thought this was great and TRUE. Many successful people have something that drives them and for a lot of those folks it's competition or proving themselves in some way. There are folks who reach a goal and then just stop and then there are others who hit their goals and find something new to conquer.

In Jordan's case, when you're working on a mediocre baseball career while you're still grieving your father (b/c people forget that this was the actual case), along comes Mr. Russell to shake you out of your shock, paranoia, delusion, and grief. All of a sudden you feel the urge to shoot 1000 3-pointers tomorrow b/c that comment just didn't sit right with you - especially right in front of his TEAMMATE.

In Jordan's own special way I think that was a thank you to Bryon - one of the reasons that Russell would even have a reason to be at the Basketball Hall of Fame. We KNOW those seats to be premium b/c Jordan actually told us how much they cost. I'm willing to bet Russell had never attended the function before.

And to be honest, I do the same thing. You tell me I can't do something and I proceed right to making sure I can. As a matter of fact, I have a personal slight that I'm using right now and I can't wait to win!!

[bill brill]

on friday afternoon. it was a long interview. MJ made it clear that he wasn't excited about going into the HOF now. he pointed out that it meant his career was officially over. I didn't see the HOF speech, but have heard numerous soundbites. most telling to me was when he told the audience not to laugh when he talked about playing when he was 50. I'll guarantee u he wishes that he could. it's going to be interesting to see what he does with the rest of his life. he hasn't been very good as an NBA executive. he's cut from a far different cloth than david robinson.

[SupaDave]

he hasn't been very good as an NBA executive.

What's wrong with the Charlotte Tarheels? Oh wait, is that an NBA team?

[BD80]

Assuming everyone in their prime...

Russell was a great player, one of the very best.

But I can think of many NBA players that I could match up with him and feel confident that he would not dominate the game and take my team out on his own. (Kareem, Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Duncan etc..off the top of my head.)

Who's going to match up with Jordan?

There are only two players even worthy of consideration, Kobe and LeBron, in my book.

And you can be sure Jordan is still a threat to take your team out all on his own, even with either of those two on him.

Jordan in his prime could not be stopped, but he could stop you with offense or defense. Kobe and Lebron would not enjoy Jordan defending them.

He became the best overall player the game has seen to this point, IMO.

Dumars did a nice job on MJ.

I am amazed that more isn't being said about MJ's baseball "hiatus," which occurred just as there was an investigation into his gambling problem. I am in the camp that believes his "retirement" for baseball was a secret suspension, a deal MJ and Stern reached but kept secret to preserve Mj's and the league's marketability.

Jordan played by a different set of rules, on and off the court. He was a great player, but he was so unstoppable because of the way the refs gave him an extra step (or two), an extra push, an extra whatever he needed. Jordan was the beneficiary of way too many foul calls.

At least some part of Jordan's success was given to him by the refs, it was recognized that he was the face of the NBA and his success benefitted the entire league. Russell played before there was such marketing pressure. If Russell had played with the benefit of the "Jordan Rules," he would have made 70% if his shots, because every time he was touched in the act of shooting a foul would have been called.

MJ was a great player, one of the four or five all-time greats, but not the player Russell was. IMO. (Never have figured out why some put that H in there.)

[Lord Ash]

Anyone else read Rick Reilly's piece about it, or see the real thing? Sounds like a train wreck...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=reilly_rick&id=4477759

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Dumars did a nice job on MJ.

I am amazed that more isn't being said about MJ's baseball "hiatus," which occurred just as there was an investigation into his gambling problem. I am in the camp that believes his "retirement" for baseball was a secret suspension, a deal MJ and Stern reached but kept secret to preserve Mj's and the league's marketability.

Jordan played by a different set of rules, on and off the court. He was a great player, but he was so unstoppable because of the way the refs gave him an extra step (or two), an extra push, an extra whatever he needed. Jordan was the beneficiary of way too many foul calls.

At least some part of Jordan's success was given to him by the refs, it was recognized that he was the face of the NBA and his success benefitted the entire league. Russell played before there was such marketing pressure. If Russell had played with the benefit of the "Jordan Rules," he would have made 70% if his shots, because every time he was touched in the act of shooting a foul would have been called.

MJ was a great player, one of the four or five all-time greats, but not the player Russell was. IMO. (Never have figured out why some put that H in there.)

I don't buy into any "problem" Jordan had with gambling. Sure he gambled, many people do, but I never saw any evidence of a problem he had, much less some sort of league conspiracy involving Stern.
I guess it sounds good if you are not a fan of MJ.

And Dumars did as good a job as anyone on MJ, but he couldn't guard him alone. Not even close.

You seem to be a little confused with what the Jordan rules were. They had nothing to do with some preceived bias from the refs.

Players that defenders can't handle get fouled, a lot.

The Jordan rules were written up by Detroit coach Chuck Daly to get his team to understand that they all had to work together if they hoped to contain Jordan, much less stop him. Any hope at all.

I quote from this article (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-jordandumars091109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns)...

" Chuck Daly transformed the NBA with the Jordan Rules, the defensive alignment that delivered help to Dumars on Jordan everywhere on the floor. From Bill Laimbeer to Dennis Rodman, Rick Mahorn to John Salley, the Bad Boys treated Jordan with a collaborative contempt."

And from Dumars himself...

"“Wherever he caught the ball, I knew where the help [defense] was going to be,” Dumars said. “I wouldn’t have to look around, or call for it, or force him one way or another. When you were defending him, it was a big deal that you didn’t have to look around and call for help. When you have to turn around and start pointing to spots for guys to go, you had no chance."

Jordan could not be stopped, that's just the way it was in his prime. But of course, there was no swine flu back then either. ;)

And Jordan could take any other wing player out of his game with his defense.

That's why, IMO, he's the best player the game has seen to this point.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I didn't see the HOF speech, but have heard numerous soundbites...

Here it is in three parts on YouTube:

Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owbYN3XstVQ)

Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDVFPn7BNX4)

Part 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8UtkcFZ_iA)

FWIW, I thought it was a very interesting speech that humanized the guy. The critics went too far looking for things that really weren't there, imo.

[throatybeard]

1) I don't like Laettner. There, I said it. So one could say even if I were a UNC fan, I wouldn't like Jordan.

2) I liked Jordan, Carolina or no Carolina, for most of his playing career. I actually rooted for the Bulls. Then he was a complete dick to us in the HBO documentary, and most of my respect for him went out the window.

3) Whether he's a butt or not, the DT pick was inspired on his part. First, for paying homage to DT, and second for getting him out of having to make an unwinnable decision between Phil and Dean.

[BD80]

1) I don't like Laettner. There, I said it. So one could say even if I were a UNC fan, I wouldn't like Jordan.

2) I liked Jordan, Carolina or no Carolina, for most of his playing career. I actually rooted for the Bulls. Then he was a complete dick to us in the HBO documentary, and most of my respect for him went out the window.

3) Whether he's a butt or not, the DT pick was inspired on his part. First, for paying homage to DT, and second for getting him out of having to make an unwinnable decision between Phil and Dean.

If you think Phil or Dean were options, you missed the gist of his speech. His teams won because of MJ and no other reason. Phil or Dean would have detracted from the MJ lovefest (MJ even bragged that he was the reason people came).

[slower]

FWIW, I thought it was a very interesting speech that humanized the guy.

it "humanized" him. Unfortunately, he's a sorry excuse for a human.

I'm somewhat amused by the way some people "admire" only what takes place on the court/field and others are more impressed by what happens off the court. Maybe what we "admire" says just as much about ourselves as the objects of our admiration.

[NSDukeFan]

FWIW, I thought it was a very interesting speech that humanized the guy. The critics went too far looking for things that really weren't there, imo.

I agree with you that it was an interesting speech from a hypercompetitive guy. I also think the critics went too far in some cases (Reilly lives for that kind of stuff). He isn't the best guy in the world, but few elite athletes are.


Assuming everyone in their prime...

Russell was a great player, one of the very best.

But I can think of many NBA players that I could match up with him and feel confident that he would not dominate the game and take my team out on his own. (Kareem, Shaq, Robinson, Wilt, Duncan etc..off the top of my head.)

Who's going to match up with Jordan?

There are only two players even worthy of consideration, Kobe and LeBron, in my book.

I do have to disagree with your above comparison of MJ and Russell. I think you are right that other players could match up with Russell (especially when you mention 2 other top 5 players in NBA history, the best PF and the absolute athletic freak that was Shaq in his prime) and he would not dominate offensively. The issue with Russell though, is he made everyone else better and dominated defensively, actually a lot like Duncan. And won at a historical rate that cannot be mere coincidence.

I agree Jordan would have the better numbers, be a nightmare in any kind of match-up, (though others could probably be considered Big O included) but feel Russell would dominate defensively, block (to his teammates) and alter a lot of shots, grab most of the rebounds, make the solid outlets, etc and his team would win.

Of course this is all my impression and I don't have a firm opinion on who was the best all time of Russell, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, but figure it is probably those 4 in some order.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

If you think Phil or Dean were options, you missed the gist of his speech. His teams won because of MJ and no other reason. Phil or Dean would have detracted from the MJ lovefest (MJ even bragged that he was the reason people came).

I took the gist of the speech to be that he loved the game and was ultra-ulta competitive, with players, coaches, family and everything else in his life.

He wants to win at everything, so bad, all the time. And it's no act.

MJ is not a great speaker, so I thought it was interesting that he didn't use a prepared speech. Maybe he shoud have to avoid the critics laying it the tall grass. He bacically used a few notes to try and keep himself on track and went through most of the twenty minutes+ just on stream of consciousness. He did close with something prepared, but I thought that was the worst part of the speech. It was stiff. He was better when he was just talking to everyone as if he was hanging in a locker room.

The stories he told were little things, for the most part, that he used every day to keep motivated. The Pat Riley story was great. Gave us a little insight into how much he respected Riley for his competitiveness, which rival's MJ's.

The Russell thing was just some trash talk between players and he was having some fun with it still, letting us know he used it as motivation. I certainly didn't take it as some put down of Russell.

I could go on, but I've been long winded enough lately. Bottom line is I liked the speech and think the critics are full of it.

Yea, he could have been more gracious, he could have thanked everyone a thousand times, yada yada, yada,...But we wouldn't have the feel for who he is that many of us have now.

MJ is MJ.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

it "humanized" him. Unfortunately, he's a sorry excuse for a human.

I'm somewhat amused by the way some people "admire" only what takes place on the court/field and others are more impressed by what happens off the court. Maybe what we "admire" says just as much about ourselves as the objects of our admiration.

Who we admire does offer some insight. As does an expression of disdain.

I admire great athletic skill. I love to watch the Jordan's, the Armstrong's, the Bolt's, the the Pele's etc... of the world.

I also admire great people, and some, like David Robinson, happen to be great athletes.

Can't we can't admire both ways in context?

[chrisheery]

Who we admire does offer some insight. As does an expression of disdain.

I admire great athletic skill. I love to watch the Jordan's, the Armstrong's, the Bolt's, the the Pele's etc... of the world.

I also admire great people, and some, like David Robinson, happen to be great athletes.

Can't we can't admire both ways in context?

Wheat, you have to be one of the most even-handed, thoughtful people I've ever interacted with. I'm always impressed. Its an excellent point and makes me feel guilt for the disdain I expressed about Jordan after his speech. I love him intensely and was so disappointed with his more recent decisions and his speech, that I judged someone I really do not know. Thanks for pointing that out so elegantly.

[slower]

I took the gist of the speech to be that he loved the game and was ultra-ulta competitive, with players, coaches, family and everything else in his life.

He wants to win at everything, so bad, all the time. And it's no act.

MJ is not a great speaker, so I thought it was interesting that he didn't use a prepared speech. Maybe he shoud have to avoid the critics laying it the tall grass. He bacically used a few notes to try and keep himself on track and went through most of the twenty minutes+ just on stream of consciousness. He did close with something prepared, but I thought that was the worst part of the speech. It was stiff. He was better when he was just talking to everyone as if he was hanging in a locker room.

The stories he told were little things, for the most part, that he used every day to keep motivated. The Pat Riley story was great. Gave us a little insight into how much he respected Riley for his competitiveness, which rival's MJ's.

The Russell thing was just some trash talk between players and he was having some fun with it still, letting us know he used it as motivation. I certainly didn't take it as some put down of Russell.

I could go on, but I've been long winded enough lately. Bottom line is I liked the speech and think the critics are full of it.

Yea, he could have been more gracious, he could have thanked everyone a thousand times, yada yada, yada,...But we wouldn't have the feel for who he is that many of us have now.

MJ is MJ.

I'm guilty of violating one of the cardinal rules of opening one's mouth to speak. I criticized Jordan without having watched his speech.

Now that I've watched it, I must agree with Wheat. It DID humanize him. I still don't think he's in the moral/ethical league of Arthur Ashe, David Robinson and others, but then neither am I.

It really wasn't that bad. As others have said, it's just who the guy is, for better or worse.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I do have to disagree with your above comparison of MJ and Russell. I think you are right that other players could match up with Russell (especially when you mention 2 other top 5 players in NBA history, the best PF and the absolute athletic freak that was Shaq in his prime) and he would not dominate offensively. The issue with Russell though, is he made everyone else better and dominated defensively, actually a lot like Duncan. And won at a historical rate that cannot be mere coincidence.

I agree Jordan would have the better numbers, be a nightmare in any kind of match-up, (though others could probably be considered Big O included) but feel Russell would dominate defensively, block (to his teammates) and alter a lot of shots, grab most of the rebounds, make the solid outlets, etc and his team would win.

Of course this is all my impression and I don't have a firm opinion on who was the best all time of Russell, Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, but figure it is probably those 4 in some order.

The way I try look at this debate, (who is the best player of all time?), is to throw out all their accomplishments.

Let's mentally put them all in a room, in their prime, start from scratch and start picking.

I try to consider their play on the court, looking at this as the athletes going at it with a clean slate.

People can argue we should consider wins, and championships, awards etc...and that's valid, but I like to look at them by their on court skills, athleticism, and how they played.

To me Russell was a great player. Somewhere around 6'9 215lbs. Intense, excellent timing and a great nose for the ball. Had the gift as a great team player too, he did make those around him better.

But, we are talking about all time best player, not team mate.

I question that if I put Russell in the NBA today, how whould he look? Much less against me cherry picking some of the best players ever for him to match up with.

I'm sure he would be very good, but...besides all the other players I mentioned I could match up with him, what if I put Dwight Howard on him? (6'11" 240lbs) and played him face up in the post. Or put Dirk Nowitzki (7' 235lbs) on him and drew him out of the post? I question how he could handle those matchups.

I think he would look more like a Dennis Rodman (6'7" 210) on steriods as player on the floor in todays game myself, and I don't want to demean Russell's great play here. Rodman impacted many big games. Their play, and size, is just so similar.

And then I also begin to wonder, for no real reason other than I have an over active imagination, that if we sent a prime time Rodman back to the '50s, would he look like Russell on the floor? Against the players of that era, I'd have to think Rodman would be a monster too. Unlikely at the Russell level, of course, but a beast none the less if he played back then.

There are just too many questions for me to stand up and say Russell is the best player of all time.

I really don't have any question that no one can match up with Jordan. In any era.

I just can't see any arguement that would leave MJ off an all time starting five.

I do see where there are arguements for different players at the other four positions.

By my reasoning, MJ would have to be considered the best of all time in that case.

[BD80]

The way I try look at this debate, ...

By my reasoning, MJ would have to be considered the best of all time in that case.

May I say, recognizing the great measure of respect you have earned with your contributions to this board over the years, that such passionately articulated "reasoning" has been the basis for more than one restraining order ;)

The good news is that I believe that MJ is still single. :rolleyes:

Just so you realize you are not the only one with such obsessions, I'll admit that I firmly believe that Laettner was a better college player than MJ.