2014 NBA Playoffs

[Lights Out]

Look dude, you want to knock Jordan down a peg so you can put James up on a pedestal. That's what it comes down to. It's not his fault that a generation of players with less talent them him tried to emulate his playing style. And to lump Kobe in with those "wannabe Jordans"?

No, I seriously dislike the mythical image of Jordan that the media has promoted since he retired. That has nothing to do with putting today's players on a pedestal, it's just a fact that his legacy has been blatantly revised in a way that no other athlete has been given before or since. And if you read my post, you'll see that I blame the media - not Jordan - for encouraging lesser players to try to "be like Mike" and watering down the sport in the process.

Kobe, by the way, has been by far the worst offender at trying to imitate Jordan. Everything from his style of play to his tough-guy/psychopath persona is directly cribbed from Jordan. He even adopted MJ's famous on-court habits, like chewing on his jersey and sticking his tongue out while driving the lane. It's borderline creepy.

[Lights Out]

Jordan wouldn't want to be friends with and play with Wade and Bosh. Jordan would want to beat them down because he knew he was the better player.

Jordan was friends with Charles Oakley and almost signed with the Knicks in '96 in part because they could be teammates again - along with Ewing and Houston.

Athletes are human beings with lives. They're going to have friends off the court, and some of those friends will be people from other teams around the league. It is what it is. The idea of players "hating each other" because of team rivalries is largely media hype and doesn't happen nearly as much as advertised.

[IceCap]

Look dude, you want to knock Jordan down a peg so you can put James up on a pedestal. That's what it comes down to. It's not his fault that a generation of players with less talent them him tried to emulate his playing style. And to lump Kobe in with those "wannabe Jordans"?

No, I seriously dislike the mythical image of Jordan that the media has promoted since he retired. That has nothing to do with putting today's players on a pedestal, it's just a fact that his legacy has been blatantly revised in a way that no other athlete has been given before or since. And if you read my post, you'll see that I blame the media - not Jordan - for encouraging lesser players to try to "be like Mike" and watering down the sport in the process.

Kobe, by the way, has been by far the worst offender at trying to imitate Jordan. Everything from his style of play to his tough-guy/psychopath persona is directly cribbed from Jordan. He even adopted MJ's famous on-court habits, like chewing on his jersey and sticking his tongue out while driving the lane. It's borderline creepy.

Again, your past "homerisms" make any attempt to debate Kobe Bryant's legacy pointless. The funny thing is you'd probably celebrate the guy if he had played for Charlotte/New Orleans and had, more or less, the same career. You don't like Bryant because he's a Laker, and you're a Clippers fan. That's that. It doesn't matter if he's one of the best of his generation, the fact that he was the face of the Los Angeles Lakers during a period of multiple title wins makes debate with you on the subject impossible.

As for Jordan's legacy? Look. The guy was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, players of all time. There's a reason so many players wanted to "be like Mike," and it's not because of the media.

Basketball was never my thing, but even kids as late as my generation wanted to play hockey like Wayne Gretzky. I imagine a very similar effect happened with kids of my generation and Michael Jordan when it came to playing basketball. It's not because of "the media." It's because Jordan was a dynamic, charismatic, and incredibly talented player.

Is he overrated? I don't think so. People like to celebrate greatness, and Michael Jordan was great. Is he the greatest of all time? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. There are candidates for those to be placed ahead of him, but I have not yet heard an argument in anyone else's favour that makes me go "you're right, he was better then Jordan."

Even if you feel like his legacy has been inflated though? You should still be able to distinguish between that and what Jordan was actually able to do on the court. And that's still pretty damn impressive.

Jordan wouldn't want to be friends with and play with Wade and Bosh. Jordan would want to beat them down because he knew he was the better player.

Jordan was friends with Charles Oakley and almost signed with the Knicks in '96 in part because they could be teammates again - along with Ewing and Houston.

Didn't happen. Maybe it almost did, but it didn't. So you know, nice try? *shrug*

Athletes are human beings with lives. They're going to have friends off the court, and some of those friends will be people from other teams around the league. It is what it is. The idea of players "hating each other" because of team rivalries is largely media hype and doesn't happen nearly as much as advertised.

When everyone is everyone's friend it makes the whole league seem bland. Yeah, athletes will have lives beyond the sport, and they'll inevitably have friends elsewhere. Is it so much to ask for someone to say "I rather beat him then join him"? There's not enough of that. The NBA seems the worse for it.

[Lights Out]

Nobody's denying that Jordan was an impressive player. All I've said is that the media has elevated him to a mythical god-like status that is disrespectful to other NBA legends and has had an adverse effect on both the on-court product and how it is discussed/analyzed. That is all.

I would still dislike Kobe on any team in the league because I don't like his style of play or his selfishness and find his public persona to be annoying and contrived. Regardless, that has little to do with my original point on how Jordan has been marketed since his retirement.

You are reaching for biases that aren't there without getting what I'm actually saying, IMO.

[IceCap]

You are reaching for biases that aren't there without getting what I'm actually saying, IMO.

No, I'm getting what you're saying. I just disagree with it in the case of Jordan and find it suspect in the case of Bryant.

[Still MIGHTY]

Kobe, by the way, has been by far the worst offender at trying to imitate Jordan. Everything from his style of play to his tough-guy/psychopath persona is directly cribbed from Jordan. He even adopted MJ's famous on-court habits, like chewing on his jersey and sticking his tongue out while driving the lane. It's borderline creepy.

Five titles.

I'll say he did a better job than most at "imitating" Jordan.

[IceCap]

You are reaching for biases that aren't there without getting what I'm actually saying, IMO.

No, I'm getting what you're saying. I just disagree with it in the case of Jordan and find it suspect in the case of Bryant.

In fairness to Lights Out...

I get what you're saying about Jordan and his legacy. The thing is, I don't see a problem with any of it. The dude was, in my opinion, the best basketball player of all time. People like to celebrate greatness. It's why the NHL retired Gretzky's number league-wide when he retired. While I can understand your point re: the near-worship of Jordan I think you've failed to realize that this has happened because Jordan was so great. It didn't spring up in a vacuum, it grew out of a very real respect for a man who many believe to be the greatest of all time. So given that? It doesn't seem contrived, and it doesn't seem damaging or disrespectful to other NBA legends. No one's saying Magic Johnson was a bum because of Michael Jordan.

I also don't feel like the glorification of his playing style is a problem. LeBron James, like many others of his generation, want(ed?) to "be like Mike" but he has his own style that emphasize his own talents. He was inspired by Jordan's greatness but not held back by it. If a player is truly great enough to be inspired by Jordan but carve out their own identity then they will. It's on the players that fail to do that, not Jordan or the media.

Now Kobe Bryan? Bryant's stats back up the claim that he's one of the best of his generation. You may not like his playing style, but one should be able to say "well I don't like how he played, but damn it, he still put up results." Dominik Hasek always struck me as a prima donna, and his goaltending technique would make any goalie coach weep. I was never a fan of the guy, but I would never try to downplay what he accomplished.

Yet I've seen you try to downplay Bryant's career. Which, just by going by the numbers, is ridiculous. So why would you do that? Oh, you're a Clippers "homer"? That explains it.

So of course your history of bias will, in turn, colour how others see your posts. It's something anyone who has posted regularly in any online community has to deal with. I don't feel like I'm reaching here. Just applying what I've observed about your past posts to the ones you're making in the present. I get your argument. It's just that my own opinions, coupled with what I perceive your biases to be, leave me feeling like your arguments are lacking.

And It is blasphemy to simply suggest that he isn't the best player in NBA history (as evidenced by this thread)...

It's not "blasphemy" so much as people reacting to what they see as a silly statement. The vast majority of people do believe that Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time. And they likely think that because, looking back at his career, it seems obvious. You're not obliged to agree, but the notion that everyone else is just sheeple stifling your totally legit Greatest Ever discussion is silly. No one's stifling it. It's just that, to the vast majority of people, the answer is obvious.

[Lights Out]

Didn't happen. Maybe it almost did, but it didn't. So you know, nice try? *shrug*

It didn't happen because the Knicks got caught attempting to circumvent the salary cap with certain terms of the proposed contract (they tried to include $17 million in shares in the Sheraton Hotel chain as part of the deal), not because of anything Jordan did.

[IceCap]

Or didn't do, as the case is

You're dealing with counter-factual scenarios here. We can only discuss what happened. Not what may have happened.

[Lights Out]

I get what you're saying about Jordan and his legacy. The thing is, I don't see a problem with any of it.

So you're not okay with revising history when, say, the Bobcats decide to change their name to the Hornets and adopt the Hornets' history/records, but revisionist history is suddenly just fine with you when it's Jordan?

Jordan was great enough to stand on his own two feet. We don't need to pretend that he never choked, never had a bad game, and did it all on his own without help. Is an honest portrayal of the league's history really too much to ask for?

[IceCap]

I get what you're saying about Jordan and his legacy. The thing is, I don't see a problem with any of it.

So you're not okay with revising history when, say, the Bobcats decide to change their name to the Hornets and adopt the Hornets' history/records, but revisionist history is suddenly just fine with you when it's Jordan?

Well that Bobcats to Hornets thing was actually revisionist history. I'm not seeing how saying "Michael Jordan was pretty darn good" is revisionist. Unless someone actually said he single-handedly won six NBA Championships on his own. And if someone did say that I'd like a link to that video because it sounds hilarious.

Jordan was great enough to stand on his own two feet. We don't need to pretend that he never choked, never had a bad game, and did it all on his own without help. Is an honest portrayal of the league's history really too much to ask for?

Show me where someone said "Michael Jordan never choked" or "Michael Jordan never had a bad game." Show me where someone said "Michael Jordan won six NBA Championships on his own." Like I said, something like that would be hilarious.

Fact is people know he choked at times. People know he had bad games. People know he had a great supporting cast on those Bulls teams. And people still, by and large, consider him the greatest of all time. People aren't ignoring the bad when they state that.

[DnBronc]

I'd take both the '91 and '92 Bulls over the '96 team.

The 1991 and 92 Bulls teams were overrated. They weren't even the best team those years on paper. Portland was.

There were people at the time who didn't think the Bulls were that great. The day after they beat the Suns in 93, one of the ESPN commentators said that some people think of the Bulls as "two players and a bunch of stiffs".

That team won because of Phil Jackson and MJ.

They were similar to the 00-02 Lakers. Jackson was the main reason those teams won. They had more talent in 1998 around Shaq and Kobe, but were schooled by the overachieving Jazz in the WCF.

The Jordan-less Bulls of 1993-94 went 55-27 and were a Hue Hollins call away from advancing to their 6th straight Eastern Conference Finals where they would face a Pacers team they defeated 3 of 4 games during the regular season. Good chance they would have played the Rockets in the Finals.

They didn't have Jordan, but they still had Phil. That was one of his best coaching jobs. They couldn't have done that with most other coaches.

And, if they got by Indiana, I don't think they would have defeated the Rockets.

[Unocal]

I am so sick of the Heat and Spurs. If we have to watch this again, now I'll know how non-Buffalonians felt about SB 28.

I hate sequels and rematches in sports unless it involves my Bills/Sabres.

[Gary]

I am so sick of the Heat and Spurs. If we have to watch this again, now I'll know how non-Buffalonians felt about SB 28.

I hate sequels, rematches or anything Detroit in sports unless it involves my Bills/Sabres.

FYP

[DnBronc]

I am so sick of the Heat and Spurs. If we have to watch this again, now I'll know how non-Buffalonians felt about SB 28.

I hate sequels and rematches in sports unless it involves my Bills/Sabres.

I am sick of the Heat and Spurs as well, but I want to see SA win (which they will). I am so sick of the bandwagon Heat fans, and I want them to shut up.

And, that was a good point about SB 28. I was pissed off at the time that the Bills went back in 93. I felt that their last two SB appearances were handed to them because of an extremely flawed AFC. There were a lot of messed-up teams representing the AFC from 1984-94.

[Unocal]

I am so sick of the Heat and Spurs. If we have to watch this again, now I'll know how non-Buffalonians felt about SB 28.

I hate sequels and rematches in sports unless it involves my Bills/Sabres.

I am sick of the Heat and Spurs as well, but I want to see SA win (which they will). I am so sick of the bandwagon Heat fans, and I want them to shut up.

And, that was a good point about SB 28. I was pissed off at the time that the Bills went back in 93. I felt that their last two SB appearances were handed to them because of an extremely flawed AFC. There were a lot of messed-up teams representing the AFC from 1984-94.

On the flip side, would you say that the NFC had messed-up teams from 1971-1983? Hell, there was a famous SI cover that summed up the previous era:

[PhantomDreamer]

I'd take both the '91 and '92 Bulls over the '96 team.

The 1991 and 92 Bulls teams were overrated. They weren't even the best team those years on paper. Portland was.

There were people at the time who didn't think the Bulls were that great. The day after they beat the Suns in 93, one of the ESPN commentators said that some people think of the Bulls as "two players and a bunch of stiffs".

That team won because of Phil Jackson and MJ.

They were similar to the 00-02 Lakers. Jackson was the main reason those teams won. They had more talent in 1998 around Shaq and Kobe, but were schooled by the overachieving Jazz in the WCF.

The Jordan-less Bulls of 1993-94 went 55-27 and were a Hue Hollins call away from advancing to their 6th straight Eastern Conference Finals where they would face a Pacers team they defeated 3 of 4 games during the regular season. Good chance they would have played the Rockets in the Finals.

They didn't have Jordan, but they still had Phil. That was one of his best coaching jobs. They couldn't have done that with most other coaches.

And, if they got by Indiana, I don't think they would have defeated the Rockets.

Unless Olajuwon got in the way of one of Cartwright's elbows.

[Kramerica Industries]

The NFL has always been incredibly cyclical with which conference is stronger than the other.

Between roughly 1971-1983, it was AFC superiority. Then 1984-1996 was NFC, then 1997-2008 or thereabouts tilted back to the AFC. Since 2009, it's started to lean back to the NFC, although not to an extent of any of those aforementioned stretches, I would say.

[Unocal]

The NBA playoffs were a whole lot more compelling when LeBron was chasing a title.

It's no fun watching him win win win all the time. Say what you want about the Pacers, but I'm officially tired of LeBore. Save for game 6 vs. Dallas 2011, he ALWAYS wins.

If anything, I could make the case that game 6 vs. Boston in 2012 was the most crucial NBA game of the post-Bulls era.

Think about it- LeBron going into that was CHOKER CAN'T WIN THE BIG ONE FAILS IN CRUNCHTIME

Now, it's YOU DON'T MESS WITH LEBRON HE ALWAYS COMES THROUGH

What a difference 2-3 years makes.

The NFL has always been incredibly cyclical with which conference is stronger than the other.

Between roughly 1971-1983, it was AFC superiority. Then 1984-1996 was NFC, then 1997-2008 or thereabouts tilted back to the AFC. Since 2009, it's started to lean back to the NFC, although not to an extent of any of those aforementioned stretches, I would say.

The last 5 Super Bowls from 2009-present, the NFC is only up 3-2. Last year was the tiebreaker.

I remember after the game people claiming NFC superiority and that SF-SEA was the real Super Bowl.

So, going by that logic, was NY-SF the real SB in 2011-12?

[Unocal]

Break a leg, LeBron. Literally.

Seriously, the NBA was more fun before you showed up.