There's no doubt about it. Whether your a die hard Kobe fan who holds true that 24>23, an old geezer who believes Bill Russel is unmatchable with his 11 rings, or a stat stuffer who believes that no one should be able to argue with Wilt's 50 PPG, you can't deny that Michael Jordan's impact on the game of basketball has been greater than anyone else's, both before and after him, regardless of whether or not you believe he was the best to ever play the game. Jordan revolutionized basketball by adding a sense of individuality and athleticism that was unseen prior to his reign over the league. Even if you completely discount his contributions to the game on the court, there is no denying his influence off the court as he became the first true international star in basketball and became the only athlete to have his own brand within Nike. Jordan did it all, from guarding the best player on the other team, to shooting inspiring Nike commercials, to dominating in the playoffs with the flu. He was not only a complete basketball player but a complete individual, propelling the game of basketball to new crowds and creating new fans. He truly changed the game. But the question is, was it really better for the game itself?
Off the basketball court, it's hard to really see Jordan's contributions as controversial in any way, other than the fact that people have died waiting for new shoes to come out on Saturday mornings. That says more about us as a society than it does about Jordan and his impact on basketball. No, his off the court contributions have mainly been positive and aren't really what bother me. What bothers is how the focus of basketball changed from being on the team to being on the individual player after Jordan's reign. If you look at legendary basketball players before Jordan, you normally associate them with their respective teams. Magic Johnson's legacy is forever tied with the Showtime Lakers, Larry Bird and Bill Russell are always associated with their great Celtic teams, and Dr. J is always pictured as a 76er. Now this is not to say that people envision Michael Jordan in a uniform other than the red and black one in which he won six championships in, but when people think of Michael Jordan, that's all they think of. They think of the man who won six NBA championships, not the team that he did it with.
Fast forward to the summer of 2010 where the biggest story in basketball once again involves #23, the so-called resurrection of Michael Jordan, Lebron James. A couple of months ago, James and his Cavaliers had been manhandled by the Boston Celtics in the playoffs and now where James will play his basketball next year has become biggest story of the off-season. In fact, the story is so big, that James needed a Sportscenter Special to announce that he will be "taking his talents to South Beach." Now James has since then apologized for this act and said that he if he could go back in time, he would change his decision but the fact of the matter is that it's not even really his fault. The culture in basketball has shifted so much to the individual athlete that it only seemed fair for Lebron James, arguably the biggest marquee free agent in the history of the game, to announce his decision this way. James is not the cause of this paradigm; he is a mere result of it. Superstars before him (such as Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson) and the ones are in his generation (such as his teammate Dwayne Wade) are no different. They are all part of this basketball revolution in which it is the individual superstars, not the teams, that are the most important factors in the league. Look no further than the 2007 NBA Finals for a perfect example of this trend. In 07', the San Antonio Spurs and the Detroit Pistons, two of the most well-rounded teams in the NBA, competed for the Larry O'Brien trophy. It was a grueling series, that ended with the Spurs winning in 7. Now you would assume that any series that goes to seven games would have every game as a must-see thriller right? Well, when it was all said and done, this was the least watched NBA Finals since 1990. The reason for that was simple: neither team had any marquee superstars. Both the Spurs and the Pistons were really good, complete basketball teams who matched up well with each other. For one reason or another, that just wasn't good enough for us, the fans.
It's not fair to assume that Michael Jordan was the sole cause of this aforementioned shift but there's no denying his influence. Michael Jordan was easily the most complete basketball player the league had ever seen and he single-handedly made basketball relevant again with his superior athletic ability and his ability to deliver big plays in big moments. Team basketball is the price we paid for this relevance. Whether or not the price was too high is still yet to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment