Talk:Michael Jordan

super good friend

168.99.197.188, would you please explain the source and relevance of your recent addition to Michael Jordan ("He also enjoys playing basketball with his good friend, Will Smith and his super good friend, Aaron Klingensmith. In fact, Jordan often admits Klingensmith rivals him on the court. None the less, the two remain fantastic friends to this day.") If you cannot, I'd suggest removing this. Bbpen 21:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jordan's Skills

Hmmm. We have several paragraphs on Jordan's skills as a merchandise salesman, but very little on what made his play distinctive. From what I can recall, the man had a virtually flawless offence, but I didn't see enough NBA basketball to give a good discription. --Robert Merkel 03:30 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As a young player, he used speed and agility to fly to the hoop. He poured in points prolifically with a dizzying array of acrobatic dunks, layups, and a decent mid-range jumper. His long range touch was terrible though, and he shot awful three point percentages (under 20 percent some years!) But as he grew in maturity and gained muscle through vigorous off season work outs, he began to develop his all around game as well.

After his return to basketball following his first retirement, some of his amazing leaping ability had diminished, but he compensated with a sharper touch from long distance and a variety of post moves. These moves stymied larger, slower defenders with his ability to pump fake and elevate for the shot. They also overpowered smaller defenders who could not deal with his long, strong build.

A staple of his game has always been a focused aggressiveness. Whether on offense or defense, the opponents could be sure of Jordan bring 100% mentally and physically to the task. Scoring, defending, rebounding, and passing were all part of his repertoire; one that was unleashed constantly against all.

The page mentions Jordan's final 202 batting average, but omits the fact that he sat on the bench during his last game in order to protect his above-200 average.

Jordan's "signature" moves

As far as I can tell, two things distinguished Michael Jordan from the rest:

Tough perimeter defense: He constantly harrassed the ballhandler at the top of the key and rarely got beat off the dribble. He was excellent at stealing the ball, and was a very good shot blocker for a guard.

The "fadeaway" jumpshot: Michael Jordan's favorite "move" was to dribble to about 20 feet from the basket, then suddenly elevate over the defender and shoot the ball. Not unlike what Kobe Bryant does for the Lakers, for example. Then again, a lot of those 20-footers went in, so you can't fault him for taking them.

a couple of arguments

Using the word "unstoppable" in reference to his play on both sides of the court is a poor choice. He may have been good but not unstoppable. Maybe I am looking into it too much but I am tired of the seemingly deification of this guy as a basketball player. The vast public consensus is that he is the best ever, which is highly debatable. Also, the reference to Hollinger's player ratings, they do not imply that Michael Jordan is the second best player ever because they only go as far back as the 1989-90 season. Much more dominating players like Wilt Chamberlain had seasons that would dwarf Jordan's accomplishments.

True, but Wilt played in an era when centers over 6'10" were uncommon. He was great for his day, to be sure, but I wonder if he could have gotten that 100 point game with Shaq guarding him? Fact is, you must take into account a player's era--specifically, the level of his competition--when assessing his greatness. Still, this doesn't mean that modern teams and players are invariably better than their predecessors. I think the 86 Celtics might have struggled against Jordan's Bulls of 96-98 (imagine Ainge trying to guard Jordan and Bird chasing around Pippen. . . ugh), but at the same time, any of these teams would have annihilated the brutal teams that have uglied up the NBA in this decade (think Pistons and Spurs). It's fair to say that any defender from Cousy to Robinson to Tony Parker or Chauncey Billups would have struggled to contain Jordan. Even taking generational bias into account, it's not a stretch to proclaim him to be the best of all time.

I couldn't agree more with the second paragraph. Jordan WAS unstoppable in the era in which he played. If you do not believe this I suggest you go back and watch the tapes of Michael's games. There was not a single player who was able to compete at the same level as this man on a nightly basis. So therefore, it is safe to say that he was unstoppable.

Jordan's Personality

How about a section on his personality? He was the very definition of competitiveness - so much so, in fact, that he often went over the edge. His dealings with teammates at practice; his gambling sessions; and his relationship with Phil Jackson are all deserving of mention.

Good point. A lot could be added here really: "The Jordan Rules", his gambling addiction, his relationship with his wife (if anyone can find anything they can cite!), his relationship with Phil Jackson, more on UNC and his youth, more on the Wizards, something about controversy over how the referees treated him. I think any additions would have to be done by an especially fair and objective writer who could portray known and relevant facts without creating a firestorm among fans or detractors. As is I think this article is currently very neglectful of the controversial and the negative, and if it's still this way when I'm more confident in my editing, I may take a crack at it. --Mister Tattle 09:17, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seminumerical 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC) I am going to speak in this section, since there is a reference to his gambling here. The question is why was my reference to Michael's gambling reverted in the article. Let me preface this by saying that I admire him alot, that I lived in Chicago during the first 'peat, and the second, and that I lived in Santa Barbara CA when he came to teach a basketball camp, and worked a night at a bar on State Street for a charity function. I wasn't there, and I asked one of the bartenders if Michael drank nothing or drank alot, imagining that as a pro athelete he either drank nothing (in training, or can't be trusted, or making a statement) or drank too much (typical for many atheletes). I was amused to hear that Michael enjoyed the evening and had 4 scotches over a 6 hour period. Now back to the wikipedia entry that was deleted. I pointed out that, although it was never mentioned in the American press (so far as I know) an NBA official, interviewed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, observed very pointedly that Michael took a year off from basketball as a privately agreed punishment for gambling. I added that the baseball venture was to keep him in the news for marketing purposes, and keep him in training, and give him something to do (his "handlers" decision was my unfortunately rude way of putting this - perhaps I should have left that word out). There is sufficient evidence to back this up, so why was it removed? I like the guy but this is an encylopedia. Sports stars have their quirks. Let's not pretend that Michael's venture into baseball wasn't caused by his well known gambling problem.

LeBron James?

Anent the edit by 68.41.161.165: Is anyone seriously pointing to LeBron James as the best player ever? Not yet -- no matter how much potential James has, he's never played a single minute in an NBA playoff game. Bbpen 23:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"greatness is considerably diminished" What?

Perhapse I am missing something but why is this paragraph in this article?

"This greatness is considerably diminished by the fact that Jordan received regular assistance by the referees on a nightly basis. This was never more apparent than in the final game of Jordan's career with the Chicago Bulls. With the clock winding down and the bulls trailing the Utah Jazz by one point, Michael Jordan drove to the hoop, pushed Bryon Russell off with his free hand, then stepped back and buried the game winning jump shot. The officials swallowed their whistles and allowed one of the greatest acts of debauchery to go unpunished. Ever since that time, basketball minds have not been able to reflect on Jordan's career without an appropriate asterisk."

And why is it not editable?

It strike me that it is an accepted part of the sport of basketball that during the playoffs the refs let the players play, and it is also accepted that high profile vets get "more calls" then rookies and lower statue players. Never, be it on sports talk radio, or ESPN had some argue that Jordan's career was tarnished because he "pushed off" in the 1997 finals. They talk about his failed stint as owner of the Washington franchise yes, but not his abilty to draw and avoid fouls.

Hopefully, no one will edit the section on Jordan's shot in the 1998 Finals. I know many people (particularly Utah fans) think he got away with a pushoff on Russell immediately before the shot (he didn't--watch the video and the most Jordan does is brush Russell's leg with his left hand as he crosses over, hardly with enough force to push him backward), but missed call or not, the fact remains that Jordan hit the shot. Moreover, he made a clean steal seconds earlier. Both plays were among the most clutch in the history of the finals. 6/30/05

If you people claim that "push off" should have been called, then I suggest you go back to watch the Conference Finals, and the shot that Reggie "Chicken Wings" Miller gave Michael Jordan to get open for a jumper. Case dismissed.

Retired number

I distinctly remember one season (probably the season that the Bulls beat the Sonics in the finals) that Michael Jordan defied the retirement of his old number and started wearing #23 again, incurring fines from the NBA. Anyone else have more details? — Phil Welch 16:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep "dissenting" link

This link (A dissenting view of Michael Jordan) has been deleted several times without comment. I believe it's a good addition to an encyclopedic article because the site it links to presents a well-reasoned against-the-grain take on a near-universally praised Jordan. Its arguments could well stand presentation in the Wikipedia article itself. Let's keep the link. Bbpen 23:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

While on the one hand it provides needed information, on the other hand it's a moronic and childish website. I'd prefer some external link that doesn't look like it was written by a 12 year old in 1998. — Phil Welch 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, let's only keep the link until we find another page that presents the same cogent arguments in a more up-to-date format. Bbpen 01:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I read this entire web page, and the one thing i noticed while reading was, in his comparrisons of why Jordan is not the greatest player of all time, he used four different players to express his point. I think one of the main reasons Jordan is considered the greatest is his overall career, to prove that he is not the best you would need to compare his career to ONE other player's career, not find four different players whose careers were better than Jordan's in certain areas.

I removed the dissenting view link for several reasons. 1) It is not a reputable article or site. It is very unprofessional and is quite inflammatory especially if you visit its "sister site" which is hosted in a sub-folder (includes pictures of "demonic" Jordan). 2) The site contains gross a great many problems and spelling errors make it look even worse. It is hosted on Tripod, so it doesn't lend to credibility. If we want an "alternate view" of Michael Jordan, the I suggest looking for articles written by sports writers and by groups that specifically work in the sports field. 3) If our own article is to remain NPOV, it is probably best to avoid linking any external article that is so inflammatory. 4) The individual has their opinion that Wilt Chamberlain is the best player ever (see the rest of his site) and as such is presenting a very biased view. Also if we include his article, do we not need to add every argument for anyone being the best player over Michael Jordan? In closing, if the site is added back by an anon, I believe it is best for us to err on the side of caution for self promotion. If anyone wants to add the link back it should be done logged in, and there should be a good source that doesn't believe in just calling Michael Jordan names. -Thebdj 02:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the link. Despite their less-than-slick presentation and strident tone, the site's arguments are well-reasoned and well-supported, which should be the measure of a "reputable" source. The link makes this article more NPOV, not less, because it explores counterarguments to the various "best ever" assertions. (It does, after all, appear just beneath a link to "an online multimedia tribute"; how's that NPOV?) I agree with the suggestion to find a more authoritative and neutral presentation of such arguments; after we find one, this link can go. Bbpen 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Both links should be removed then. I have searched and searched and cannot find any reputable source from an sports authority that says that Michael Jordan is not one of the greatest players ever. If we include a single site whose sole purpose is to argue is he not the greatest player then we would begin opening the door for just about every opinion. I also stick by my first point, because of the material on the same site that is not only unprofessional, it is borderline classless. If we want to maintain NPOV in this case, it is sufficient to make sure the references in the article to his "greatness" are listed as arguable or defined as "one of the" and not "the". Also, their well-reasoned, well-supported arguments are not so much. The numbers he provides are verifiable, but he does not reference his sources. He uses "unofficial" numbers from unnamed resources on at least one page to make arguments. View around some more of the site and you will see why I think we should not be linking it to wikipedia, especially if we are to appear credible ourselves. -Thebdj 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You searched for the wrong thing. The dissenting site does not argue that Jordan is not one of the greatest; rather, it offers reasons why he should not be considered the greatest. These are valuable additions to our Wikipedia article, because noting that "some say" Jordan is the best is not particularly NPOV if there exist good arguments that he is not. And if you want to dismiss as useless any Web page that does not cite its sources, you'd better start with this one. Bbpen 20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the author needed so many different players in order to prove his point, it not only proves Jordan's completeness, but also it says that he is in fact the greatest; there is not a single player out there that the author can use that has performed ALL the feats of Michael Jordan. It is simple as that. This is why MJ is the greatest, and why the article should be burned. -Srivatsan

I don't think inclusion of this link is supported by WP:EL. This is just some guy's Tripod website. He's not a sportswriter or other sports figure. In other words, while his opinion may be valid and interesting, it's not important. Surely a better link can be found that describes a dissenting view by someone who matters, and that isn't so sloppily presented. android79 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is so far above linking to this sort of webpage anyway. — Phil Welch 16:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not the guy's presentation that's important, it's his ideas. And I agree with Android79 -- there must be a site out there that presents these ideas better. Still, it's the only thing we got at this moment. PRRfan 22:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Presentation is important. Inclusion of this link may have the effect of coloring all "dissenting" views as fringe and unprofessional. After all, if J. Random Webguy's opinion is the only one we can find regarding Jordan's status as "best ever", then it must really be a fringe viewpoint, right? If this is a fringe view, then it needn't be included, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If it isn't, then the article is better off without the link until we find a better one. android79 22:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not insensitive to design, but I think it's also possible to get past the cover before judging a book. Dissenter's arguments are actually pretty empirical, as these things go. He takes the common arguments for Jordan's "bestness" and shows their inconsistencies. Anyway, just for fun, I googled "Jordan not best ever," and got this as the first hit. So I'm pretty sure these arguments are not fringe. PRRfan 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It actually is pretty fringe. You have one google link. Look at all the ones around it and they all still talk about Jordan being the greatest. We have two links which hardly removes it from being fringe. All these arguments ignore completely the actual arguments people use for Jordan or the ones they use to discredit their own arguments. The dissenting link actually makes some statements that so a lack of knowledge of basketball. If you want to keep a dissenting view I say the link you presented is more appropriate then the immature and poor link we currently have. -Thebdj 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so now we have J. Random Webguy and Vineet Radhakrishnan (who?) and Mr. Radhakrishnan sounds like he was cribbing from somewhere else, possibly Webguy's site. I'm open to having a dissenting view on this in the article, but we need to find this opinion being espoused by someone who matters. I did a little searching, and this column on this book shows some promise. Shaq as the best player ever is certainly a dissenting view... android79 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Early career

I made a few minor edits today, and will try to add more content to the section on Jordan's early (pre-1994) NBA career, as it gets hardly any coverage in the article. Don't have time right now, so hopefully someone will beat me to it... Hippo43 19:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Grades?

I noticed in one of the edits that someone changed "B+" to "A+" in reference to his school days? Is this cited? Or was this a reversion and the "B+" was wrong? I doubt the credibility of the change since it is rare to hear of an "A+" average, such a student is normally described as "Straight A" and I feel it ought be changed back to "B+". JesseRafe 07:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I know he never had an A+ average. If memory serves me, from various books I've read long ago, a B+ sounds right. PS2pcGAMER 08:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Badly worded sentence

"The next season, despite a 32.6/6.7/5.5 season, Jordan failed to win the MVP for the third year in a row, losing the award to his friend, Charles Barkley."

Could some please fix this sentence up?

Early NBA Career

I wrote the original last paragraph. Someone edited it, very good job thank you!Better grammer, less conclusion more presenting of the facts!

                                                  FTF

I liked the first edit, the next edit removing Isiah Thomas does not make me happy! Isiah won the national championship at Indiana as a sophmore and then entered the draft early. Jordan and Isiah had a real fued. They played against each other more than bird or magic played each other. Isiah played bird I think more than magic played him. Overcoming Isiah and the pistons was more critical to Michaels assention to the greatest than any other single factor b/4 and maybe after! remember I placed this in the Early NBA B/4 Jordan Rules! The way I see it the first Edit was just that, an edit, what I see now is a unnecessary rewrite! Write your own paragraph don't overwrite mine you have a differnt point follow up don't rewrite?

Here is the paste of the good edit, change is OK but come on.

During the 70's the NBA suffered financially because of a lack of interest from the fans. The impression of wide spread drug use and mediocre play fueled fan apathy. However, the NBA had rebounded somewhat in popularity prior to Jordan's arrival due to stars such as Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and Isiah Thomas. In order to capitalize on this newfound popularity, the NBA changed several gameplay rules (some would say they were changed for Jordan). The two most significant changes involved the definitions of charging and traveling. The travelling rule was changed in such a way that players were allowed to take steps prior to putting the ball on the floor. They were also allowed to continue walking after stopping their dribble (beyond the traditional 1-½ steps). Many players, and particularly Jordan, were able to take particular advantage of these two rules. Whereas previously driving into the lane would result in a call for charging, the new rules resulted in either no call at all or a foul on the defender. For a more in-depth discussion, see the article NBA.

I'm not changing it yet want opinions, no point in I change you change we all change! FTF

I was not the one who edited out Isiah, but I happen to agree with whoever did. I think that if you talk to anybody about the resurgence of the NBA in the 1980's, they'd mention two names as the primary catalysts: Magic and Bird. Now, maybe you'd see Jordan thrown in as well, but I don't think that Isiah Thomas is going to come up nearly as often (provided you're not polling Pistons fans), because: a) he was not as popular as those other three (no offense -- it'd be hard for any player to be); and b) he wasn't as good a player. Magic, Mike, and Larry won six of the ten MVP awards in the 1980's; Isiah won none. Isiah made 1st team All-NBA only three times in the '80's; compare that with Bird (9 times!), Magic (7 times), and Jordan (3 times, but didn't even start playing until 1984-85). If you like statistical measures, Jordan, Bird, and Magic far outpace Isiah in virtually every category (including complex ones like Player Efficiency Rating and Win Shares). Basically, if you're talking about the NBA's Eighties revival, you're talking Bird, Magic, and (to a degree) Jordan.

Not that Isiah doesn't have his place, though. His Pistons were the team standing between Mike and the title in the late 1980's. There was (and is) a serious feud between the two stars. But that gets mentioned under the "Jordan Rules" section, which is where it should be. Davis21Wylie 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand and will leave as is I might disagree a little but hey, thanks for input. FTF

OK With All Do Respect I accepeted the first two edits! Some Knuckle head inserts shit with no comment of course I'm not happy!!!! if you want to add explain!!!! Waneing, what a word!!! how about waxing!! your unnamed contribution did not help! and your changes are not needed!!!!!!

Ok I "waxed & I waned" but I put the 2nd edit back in!! I feel better!!

Michael Jordan's 23 Jersey

Someone asked or mentioned about when Jordan went back to his #23 jersey after it had already been retired. This instance came during a first round playoff game against the Orlando Magic in '95, a few months after he returned back from baseball. In one of the games, Nick Anderson, guard for the Magic stripped the ball from Michael Jordan and went on to score an easy basketball. Following the game, Anderson basically told a group of reporters that he would have never stolen the ball had Jordan been wearing the #23 jersey. So the next playoff game, Jordan started the game in his #23 jersey. Later on, his was fined a certain amount by David Stern.

similar players

that is in there, i think, (as i didn't start the category) to show wikipedians players that have had similar careers to jordan, in terms of stats and accomplishments... determining which players are similar to jordan is the task given to basketball-reference.com which uses various formulas (which can be accessed at the site) that i don't understand

It's original research. If there's a separate site that does these listings based on a statistical analysis, then the proper thing to do is create an external link. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Jordan is God!!

this site is way out of control!!! it talks about Micheal which is fine, but any mention that is critical gets talked about with "Wilt' or "Bill" and they get mentioned like tomato cans, Jordan never played against these guys!! Would ah, should ah and coulda are my 1st cousins and they think your all full of it! It was mentioned before about Jordan's struggles with the Pistons, his contemparary rivals were mentioned, now all that is gone! If Jordan is god, fine!! But just start the article that way! this article should be in people magizine not in a encyclopedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is so biased can't even edit. Michael is God!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.15.68.142 (talk • contribs)

If you see the article as one sided, then make changes! Just back up any claims you make with sources. If sources aren't used for controversial topics, the changes will probably be removed. Please also sign your comments with ~~~~. Happy editing! -PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"He was cut from his varsity basketball team during his sophomore year."

Is that supposed to be baseball, or football. Or am I just an idiot?