Comments on: The Case for Michael Jordan

By: David Simpson

David Simpson — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:26:47 +0000

I don’t see LeBron James as MJ at all. He is more like Vince Carter or may I dare say it? Harold Miner. Take this to the bank LeBron will never ever win a championship.

The guy that always has fire in his eyes is Dwayne Wade. He has been injured for the last few years but when he is on, he is the best player in the league. Wade has looked awesome during the Olympics and the Heat will improve in the next year.

By: nathan

nathan — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:36:53 +0000

for real you all know out there that no one can hold MJ , he just like kobe cant be stop

By: cheese 4 ever

cheese 4 ever — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:51:36 +0000

he is a great basketball player and he will always be one.

heeeeeeeeee

rockssssssssssssssss

By: sweber

sweber — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:07:49 +0000

Just found this site via Yglesias, and need to get your book. I did something like this in about 1999, and as I recall, using available pre- and post-steady line-ups up to a 3-year max in either direction, and considering both joining and leaving a team, No 1 was actually Larry Bird. I think Magic was No. 2 or close, with Michael, Oscar Roberston and Jerry West right there. The single greatest impact I found was Oscar joining the Bucks and retiring, with Kareem, Dandridge et al pretty steady — it was like a 30 game difference both ways, as I recall. (I need to dig it out and update.)

I agree that Rodman was, indeed, a great player. Arguably, because the game changed so much — fewer shots, better percentage, resulting in about 40% fewer total rebounds to be grabbed in a game (roughly 85 in the modern era vs. 140 in the Russell-Wilt days) — Rodman was the best rebounder of all time considering time on the floor. Heresy? Yes, but the numbers support an argument: 13 boards in 40 minutes in 2000 was about the same percentage of available boards as over 20 in 48 minutes in the old days (Wilt never sat). But there was so much more to Rodman than just rebounding. He could defend anyone in the paint — even pissed Shaq off enough to lose effectiveness — and was a great passer. “Role player” is an insult. Michael was the most complete player of all time — Oscar right there, Kobe certainly (but with questionable ability in chemistry), James and Wade up-and-coming. But someone who could do all aspects of the game except scoring himself as well as Rodman is no “role player” — except that every player assumes some “role” on a team. But that’s like calling Russell a role player.

By: Harold Almonte

Harold Almonte — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:31:20 +0000

Everything we believe is not true?…everything we believe will be not true with these new perimeter rules. Defense is not winning championships. quick guard shooters rules the basketball now. Oh god ! ..I don´t like that basketball.

What do you think about it?

By: matt27

matt27 — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:59:29 +0000

Love the book guys. I have a question for you that’s basketball related, mostly about your “wins produced” statistic. The 76ers offense under Larry Brown was set up for Iverson to create a shot, thereby getting the defense out of position and allowing his teammates to get the follow up rebound and follow up shot. That is, his scores per shot rating would be low, but it would seem that he would be creating extra possessions. Is there any statistic you’ve covered that would measure this?

My apologies for this not being about Michael Jordan but I couldn’t find an appropriate forum.

By: zwichenzug

zwichenzug — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:29:45 +0000

I think the ‘fire in the eye’ stuff is exactly the kind of judgment that people get wrong, or, anyway, which they get right by making meaningless. Who has ‘fire in the eye’? What kind of evidence can there be for it?

Did MJ have fire in the eye? Of course, because he won championships. What about LeBron? Maybe we say yes, provisionally, but we’d decide we were wrong if he doesn’t end up winning championships. And, apparently, we say that Garnett doesn’t have it because he hasn’t won — though it’s ‘yet to be seen’ since he could still get a ring.

The point is that the ‘fire in the eye’ stuff doesn’t actually predict who’s going to win championships. Instead, it’s just something we say about champions. On one level, that’s fine — I like evocative metaphors as much as the next sports fan. But it doesn’t really stand in competition with attempts to approach player evaluation empirically.

By: Harold Almonte

Harold Almonte — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:51:55 +0000

The diference between a scorer specialist and a role player is perhaps like between pitchers and batters. Two different works in a same sport. You shouldn´t rate them together. As I said, teams that rely on guards shooters as main scorers, waste more possesions and need more deffense and second chances to compensate, or accelerate the tempo. Is here where these teams need a role player like Rodman in the front court. Teams with a strong scorer forward need a good point. It´s Iverson a good point?, maybe is only a good short SG.

By: scarter

scarter — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 12:18:16 +0000

You need a leader who has a fire in his eye to win. I see Lebron having this…MJ definitely had this; but KG? That has yet to be seen. Now it is up to the GM to find the right role players who can and will find the bowens, princes, howards, and rodmans who will come in and use their strengths to complement the greater good of the team.

rodman was a great role player and also very smart professionally in who he played a role for. the pistons, san antonio (before duncan), then the bulls and then the lakers. He joined teams he knew had a chance each year to compete. my question is, “how do you determine if a player has that fire and as a GM you should build around them?”