Michael Jordan's Other Legacy

Michael T. Penn by Scribe Written on June 25, 2009
CHARLOTTE, NC - NOVEMBER 03:  Michael Jordan, part owner of the Charlotte Bobcats, smiles from the bench during their game against the Detroit Pistons at Time Warner Cable Arena on November 3, 2008 in Charlotte, North Carolina. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images) (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)



The Issue

A few days ago Randy Garcia wrote an intelligent article on the impact of Michael Jordan to the way in which the league has been marketed. This caused me to stop and think about some of the other ways in which Jordan's decade of domination may have affected the league since his second departure in 1998. The principle effect, I suspect, relates to the perceived value of scoring.

Scoring points is obviously important in the game of basketball. Many would in fact argue that it is the whole point of the game. Even if your viewpoint is that the aim is to outscore your opponent, meaning defense is the prerequisite for success, you must still score yourself to win. So we can all agree scoring is clearly paramount.

But on what level is it important?  The team level or the individual level?

This seems to be a principle cause of disagreement amongst basketball fans.

On the one hand you have those who see scoring as an output of the latter, of iso’s and "shot creation" and individual brilliance.

People of this opinion will tend to be forgiving of below average and even sometimes very poor shooting efficiency. They maintain that it is better for the high volume scorer to take that impossible shot than any of his teammates, teammates who they see as there principally to support that scorer.

The diametrically opposing view is the former—those who see scoring as an output of effective team play. 

Fans who ascribe to this perspective will still admit that scorers are valuable players, but only if they score with at least an average level of efficiency and contribute to other areas of the game simultaneously.

Fan's of this perspective when asked a question such as "who else on that team could make a shot like that with three defenders in his face?" would answer along the lines of "why would a player take that shot when two of his teammates are now open?" This is the basic duality in the two perspectives.


How does Michael Jordan relate to this argument? 

Single Page
(0)
...
Share This  
Crop_45x45
or to post this comment

11 Comments

There are no comments yet. Get the conversation started by leaving the first comment

Loading more comments...
posted just now
  • Loading...
  • Nobody has liked this comment yet
Cancel

This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete

165
reads

11
comments

written on June 25, 2009 Stats

The best newsletter on the web

Subscribe Now

We will never share your email address


CBS Sports Official Partner
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Getty Images.
Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Getty Images is strictly prohibited.