Jordan and LeBron

This is a tiny side-light of a story, the way I see it, in light of training camps opening, midseason in baseball, and the British Open. Honestly, I'd love to be writing about one of those things instead of this, but here I am. Why? Partly, I can't help it. Partly, because I know I'm right about this. Mostly, because I listened to ESPN radio and Eric Kusilias talked like an idiot about Michael Jordan's comments regarding LeBron James's recent move.

MJ's comments basically went along these lines (and I'll use quotation marks, even though this isn't a direct quote):
"In hindsight, I wouldn't have done anything like that. I wouldn't have called up Magic and Bird and try to join a team together... We were on the Olympic team together, and there was no animosity... I wanted to beat those guys."

I remember a few key phrases (perhaps not verbatim), so that's what I'll comment on. On the radio, Kusilias was making the argument that this makes it sound like MJ won his titles all on his own, when, in reality, he had great players around him. True. However, THAT'S NOT EVEN RELEVANT!! He says it's a small difference for him to join Wade rather than the other way around-- I see that as the WHOLE difference. Basically, I think that Jordan is right. Would he have wanted Bird or Magic on his team? Of course. But would he have stooped to the level of colluding with those players to join him so that he could get their help? No. Here's the reason:

James doesn't have the killer instinct of MJ. That's the thing. Jordan thought (read: KNEW) that he could win a title, even without the help of those guys. Did he need SOME help? Of course. But not the best players in the game. Look at Kobe. Call it arrogance, but he said he didn't need Shaq. When he had the chance to bolt to Chicago, he didn't. You absolutely have to give Kobe Bryant credit for one thing, if nothing else: he knows that every move he makes will be scrutinized, and that the tiniest little thing could impact his legacy forever. James is clearly not as image-conscious as Kobe, or Mike. We all thought he was. We were wrong.

Second, everyone is analyzing this Jordan statement from the perspective of MJ vs. James: who's better? What about the real way Jordan was probably thinking-- as person with a management perspective on the game of basketball. Here's what I mean: If players start colluding, and that becomes a big thing for free agents to do, it's bad for the other management in the NBA. However, if the greatest of all time comes out and calls you out for that, guess what? All of a sudden, image-conscious players may not be so willing to do that. So let's talk about this honestly. Yes, Jordan was knocking James as a player. That's clear. But let's not forget that there's more to MJ than just the player these days, and this may just be a sighting of MJ The Executive.

Long Time, No See

Okay, so first, I apologize for the long layoff. I've gotten married and moved in the last month, plus I'm working two jobs right now, not to mention being a newlywed. But here it is: the story big enough to get me out of my hiatus: LBJ. The Heat. However you want to call it. Here's what I think:

1. Money.
Here's what LeBron's thinking. He thinks he needs to win a title. This is true. He thinks that that's his best chance to become the billionaire he so wants to be. But here's the truth. He has no greater earning potential there than in Cleveland. That's the truth. He has no earning potential greater ANYWHERE than in Cleveland. But he doesn't see that. He sees an opportunity to win the championship. Unfortunately, what he doesn't realize is that NONE OF US will count this title. People will think about this as the time that three players colluded to win the championship without giving each team a fair shake. Dumb.

2. Expectations.
Unless the Heat win 70+ games and the title, they've underachieved. First of all, people are going to make the point that the bench will be weak. That actually doesn't matter. Many of the "great" teams in NBA history had bad benches. The 72 win Bulls had an AWFUL bench, and they were the best that ever played. So that doesn't matter. What does matter is that the Heat have made unreasonable expectations for themselves. Chris Broussard made the point tonight that we should respect these athletes for valuing winning over money. Wrong. You know what people value? EARNING a championship. That's the thing. Bringing three players in like this is unprecedented. And don't compare it to the Celtics three years ago-- that was done by a GM making smooth moves, not players getting together and deciding for themselves, so it's way, way different. I don't like how this smells-- not one bit.

3. Dwight Howard.
He tweeted (according to Sportscenter) that it was "messed up" that Cleveland fans were burning LeBron's jersey. He was just doing "what's best for him" and that he gave them "7 good years." Well you know what? They gave HIM 7 good years. And they were doing what was best for THEM, which was purging their bedroom of their girlfriend's picture after they found out she was sleeping with someone else. But no. The FANS don't have feelings, do they, Dwight? I don't have a problem with athletes playing where they want to play-- and this is as a Packer fan who thought that Favre and the Packers were inseparable. But here's the thing: if the players are free to do whatever they want, so are the fans. If LeBron gets booed in Cleveland for the rest of his career, and the people of Cleveland hate him, and he can't walk downtown in his own hometown-- well, that comes with the territory. Now, if people commit acts of vandalism against him or people stalk him or harass him, that's too much. But barring those CRIMINAL things, the people of Cleveland owe LeBron NOTHING right now. He had the chance to stay there, and he decided it wasn't good enough for him. That he couldn't win there, and that he didn't want to work as hard as he would have had to to build a winner there. That's fine. That's his prerogative. But don't feed me that garbage that suddenly everybody owes somebody something. No no no. This was a clean break, and it's over. LeBron made his decision, and, inevitably, there are consequences. Now it's time for him to deal.

4. The NBA.
Well, I guess it's prediction time. You have to make the Heat the team to beat in the East, but I bet they won't win it all. They'll start off hot (because every team starts the season without chemistry, and the most talented teams always start well), but then they'll struggle. They'll come in to the playoffs with a big, fat target on their backs, and they'll lose in the Eastern Conference Finals, or maybe the Finals (if they're lucky). Orlando, Boston, and Milwaukee will be incredibly tough, and whoever comes out of the West will be good. Jordan can attest to the fact that, the night Boston got KG and Ray, I said they would win the Finals, and have a three-year run. I know he can attest to it, because he agreed with me. Well, I was right (although their run may actually last longer than I initially stated). Let's see if my gut is right again.

5. The Letter.
Loved it. I hope the Cleveland owner Dan Gilbert is right. I also heard a Clevelander say that LeBron would never be Jordan, Bird, or Magic. Frankly, at this point, it's hard to see him being as good as Kobe, or maybe even Wade, depending on how things work in these upcoming years. Now, right now, I would say that LeBron is no-doubt better than Kobe RIGHT NOW. But in terms of legacy? I have a hard time believing that LeBron will EVER eclipse him-- and I remind you, I'm a Kobe-hater. Maybe this is just emotions talking, but I think LeBron will have a hard time overcoming the fact that it appears that he "cheated" to get it. That's pretty much how it works.

6. Cliff Lee.
If the trade of Pennant-Ace-for-Hire Cliff Lee gets completely forgotten because of LeBron, I'm gonna be mad.

The Ultimate #2?

Is Scottie Pippen over- or underrated?

I kind of think there are two ways of looking at this particular issue. The first way is the following: what did Scottie Pippen do? Okay, he was clearly one of the best defenders of all-time. Few guys had his length, his quickness, and his instincts. He is the only player I can remember who would guard slashers or perimeter players, and who was comfortable against any opponent his size or smaller. I mean, there aren't a whole lot of small forwards who you'd want guarding point guards, and yet Scottie was more than capable. In addition, he was a player you could throw down low to body up on the big guys-- not that this was his forte, but he was capable, at least within reason. But, has Scottie's defense been overrated? Do we take a guy who really didn't have that many skills and turn him into a great all-around player? Let's look at the record. Was Scottie a great scorer? No. A very good scorer, but not great. It's quite possible that the only players who have been historically better-regarded than Pippen to have also been worse scorers are Bob Cousy and Bill Russell. Cousy, though, basically invented the point guard position, and Russell's job was so different that it really isn't fair. Additionally, Russell really was that good defensively to justify him. I mean, NO ONE else could shut down Wilt. Only Russell. And that's unique. Could Pippen shut down any opponent on a given night? Yes. But what would have clinched it for him is if there were someone NO ONE else could shut down, and Pippen was the only one. Fortunately for Scottie, though (or unfortunate, for the purposes of this debate), the only "little guy" who fits that bill was on Scottie's own team. You know who I mean. Anyway, being in company with Cousy and Russell is excellent, but perhaps not merited. The 1990s Bulls were not as offensively-balanced as the 1960s Celtics. There were a lot of players on those Celtics teams who could score. They weren't exactly loaded with 40-year-old-John-Salleys and Jud Buechlers and Bill Wenningtons. Pippen was option #2 on an offense with no other legitimate options, and his scoring numbers don't seem to merit the acclaim he's gotten as an offensive player.

Second, on the Scottie-is-overrated front is this critical argument: what is Scottie without MJ? What's interesting about this particular argument is that's its analog does not exist anywhere else in sports. Gehrig without Ruth would have been... a little better than Jimmie Foxx. Which is exactly what we think of him now. Stockton without Malone still would have been great. He would have been extremely underrated, but it's really, really hard to believe that Stockton wouldn't still be a top-5 PG of all time, even without the Mailman. Likewise for Malone without Stockton-- that situation is definitely not analogous, because it's difficult to even determine who the better player of the two was. Magic without Kareem still wins titles, as long as there's a capable center. Rice without Montana would be fine. I mean, seriously-- there isn't another situation like this. You know who the best analog might be? Kobe without Shaq/Gasol. Great player, great statistically, but how great all-time? Top 50? Most definitely. Top 25? If you're very, very generous and blood-related to the guy, then yeah, maybe you leave room for him. Like, somewhere above Grant Hill and below Allen Iverson. That's where you're left. And don't the Blazers/Rockets/inter-Jordan years of Scottie's career confirm this? It's hard to argue against it. Those teams pathologically underachieved. Each time, Scottie was a key component (or even the key component), and couldn't come through to bring those teams over the hump.

And yet, in spite of all of that, I'm going to argue that those principles, while somewhat true, are misguided, misapplied, and that Scottie Pippen is one of the most underrated basketball players of all time. Let's start with the most common argument first: the "who-is-Scottie-without-Michael?" argument. I want to first turn it on its head. An equally important question is this: Who is Michael without Scottie? As I see it, MJ would still be a statistical wunderkind. Like Wilt in the 60s or LeBron today, though, I don't know that it gets him much more than that. Maybe he'd have picked up some sort of mercy-title like The Big O did at the end of his career, but Jordan without Pippen means that the 90s were not the Bulls dynasty. If I were to be asked the following: what the most important thing to Michael Jordan's legacy and what made him so great-- what really separated him from other players? I would say that it's 100% got to be Scottie Pippen. I mean, there are so many things that people usually name: the endorsements (even though other people had them-- look at the LeBron empire today. It's very analogous-- but you don't hear anyone saying that LeBron is Jordan-- and you won't until he gets his Scottie. Of course, that may have just happened with the Antawn Jamison trade, but I digress), the competitiveness (but that was still there when he wasn't winning titles), Phil (this is a good answer, but while Phil is a great coach, even he can't do something with nothing), or his flare (but c'mon: nobody talks about Pistol Pete or even Magic the way they do about Mike). But really, without Scottie, all of those things amount to no titles. Period. Now, does propping up the Jordan empire make Scottie an all-time great, in and of itself? No. But let's examine the facts.

In the one full season Jordan didn't play, Scottie led the Bulls in ALL FIVE MAJOR STATISTICAL CATEGORIES. That's right. All of them. Scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. All. I believe Dave Cowens is the only other player to do this, and him for the '78 Celts. Why does this matter? Because first of all, it proves how great he was at everything there is to do on a basketball court. Second, and more important, is that it proves what Scottie gave up. Scottie allowed himself to be, essentially, a glorified role player in order to win titles. Who else has done that? Cousy, Russell, and (to a lesser extent, and certainly only when he was a Laker) Chamberlain. This fact proves that, the lofty company I mentioned earlier is appropriate for Scottie. I mean, how many basketball players do that? He would probably be a starter on an all-time team of great "team players." That's something special. If you look at that one season of Scottie's career, and you create a normal career arc around a player with a season like that, you're talking about a truly outstanding player. Probably in the top-20 of all-time.

Additionally, let's look at some of the other major things against Scottie Pippen. First, there's the whole "Blazers/Rockets/inter-Jordan" argument. In the Blazers and Rockets years, was it really Scottie's fault, or a problem of too many cooks in the kitchen? Additionally, he was old. And he wasn't even the oldest player on the team at the time. But those teams were quite old, and Scottie wasn't in his prime anymore. As for the inter-Jordan Bulls, name a time when a team with Horace Grant as its second-best player would have ever won a title. The answer is: never. Ever. In history. That team would have had trouble competing when people were still using peach baskets-- okay, maybe I've gone too far. Grant was a solid player. But just that. Solid. Not the #2 of a championship-caliber team. Frankly, if anything, it's possible that those inter-Jordan Bulls teams actually over-achieved. And Scottie would be the man responsible.

I don't know. Perhaps the arguments in my first two paragraphs are more persuasive to you, but for me, Scottie Pippen is one of the greatest players of all time, and certainly in the top 4 or 5 at his position. In my opinion, he has been drastically underrated and merits a review. Decide for yourself, but this is what I believe.