Did Michael Jordan ruin the NBA?

Question

I've read questions where people are not going to watch a Spurs/Pistons series because it would be a defensive struggle and considered 'boring' by a lot of people. So my question stands: "Did Michael Jordan ruin the idea of basketball being a team sport by being such a great individual player?"

People talk about their favorite star and keep asking 'who is the next Michael?'

When the fact is that the three teams left are great 'teams'. Cleveland is considered (wrongly) a one-man show, but he makes the players around him better and they wouldn't be winning without the team defense they play.

This is a serious question and I'll boot whoever posts idiotic sarcasm.

I just read a question posted after mine about the decline in NBA ratings. Wow...I agree that when Michael was playing he certainly drew a serious fan base and attraction. Also, he DID inspire a lot of players to want to be Mike...but is that a good or bad thing? Ratings have declined A LOT.

BTW...these are some GREAT answers..I wish I could vote for more than one.

Man the response to this has been OUTSTANDING. Some really great answers.

BTW...I don't mean to accuse MJ of INTENTIONALLY ruining anything. I simply meant that was his individual work so good that is spoiled the core NBA fan.

MJ DID make everyone around him better, Kobe doesn't. I'm simply wondering if it caused a ME, ME, ME thing or what...

The proof is in the pudding though...NBA ratings have sunk A LOT.

Answer 1

I'm a Bulls fan. So with that being said I'll agree with you in part. MJ didn't ruin basketball being a team sport. His popularity based on his skills brought in lesser talented players with dreams of being the next MJ. And they forgot what got them to where they are now.

Allen Iverson, Vince Carter, Carmelo Anthony & to some extent Kobe Bryant have come in thinking that they are they only reason their teams will win titles, when they just like MJ needed help.

MJ won 6 titles (6-0 in NBA Finals) but he didn't do it alone. His team helped.

91 NBA Finals...Paxson goes 7-7 in the 2nd half with 20 points for the game for the Bulls 1st title.

92 NBA Finals...the bench brought the Bulls back from 19 down in the 4th quarter for Jordan & Pippen to be motivated to close the show in game 6.

93 NBA Finals...Paxson hits the game winner, but not before each player getting one touch of the ball. Horace Grant recorded the assist.

96 NBA Finals...Rodman should have been Finals MVP with his defense and offensive rebounding which just killed Seattle.

97 NBA Finals...Jordan had the flu game, and the game winner in game one, but Pippen was the player who dominated the series. Especially in game 3.

98 NBA Finals...Steve Kerr hit the game winner in game 6 after telling MJ that if they double he'll be ready.

MJ didn't ruin basketball...the incoming players who idolized him came in thinking he did it all himself. They're the ones to blame.

Answer 2

Michael Jordan did not ruin the NBA. There are so many factors that led to the demise of this once great game, that its almost impossible to go into.

Just to touch on a few...

Multi-million dollar contracts and endorsements given to players before they even play their first game. A college player is the number one draft choice, he signs a contract for 50 million dollars, and then one of the shoe companies gives him millions more, where is the motivation for this player?

The "Bad Boy" Detroit Pistons. They pioneered the theory that if you slow the game down to a crawl, play overly physical defense, and keep the scores under 100 points, you'll win games. Ever since their championships, that seems to be the motto for most teams ( boring basketball ).

Teams don't run anymore. The basic NBA philosophy now is to walk the ball up the court, throw it down in the post and wait for the double-team, then throw it back out a shoot and "three". How "not" exciting. Teams in the 70's and 80's ran, and it was fun to watch.

Lastly, a big problem is expansion. One of the posters above asked why the Bulls won 72 games. It's because the league added another 2 teams that year ( making it 29 ), thereby diluting the talent of the teams. Not to mention, weak players coming out of college too. The Bulls would not have come close to winning 70 games in the 80's,even Rodman has said that.

Instead of having championship teams with 3-4 hall of famers, you now have teams with maybe 1-2 superstars and that's it. Not very good quality b-ball.

Michael Jordan helped usher in that "selfish" style of basketball that we see today, but he was only part of the problem.

Answer 3

Wow, great question, i've never thought of it like that. But now that i've took time to decipher what you just asked, i would have to agree with you. MJ in being so dominate, exciting, exhilirating, marketable, and so,.....well money has set the bar too high and the level of expectation on a given year since jordan left the bulls is through the roof.

The question now is, how long will the MJ hangover last in the NBA, has he created such a style of play and excelence that the old game we know can never recover?

I wonder if MJ has done to basketball what Babe Ruth did so long ago to baseball, the comparisons are similar. Jordan like babe completely dominated the sport in a way that no other had ever seen before, he captivated the imagination of aspiring atheletes all over the nation. Babe did it with the long ball, but MJ did it with the slam dunk and the tongue hanging out for all the world to see.

I think that for as long as the NBA exist, MJ will be the measuring tape for any great player that is comming into his own in the NBA. Think about it, before babe ruth baseball was a deadball game, then the babe came and introduced the world to the home run, now thats all the average fan cares about. Sure there will allways be NBA naturalist who enjoy a tough fight it out pistons vs spurs finals series with great team play, just like there are those pure baseball fans out there who enjoy a 1-0 pitching duel with bunts, steals, and sac fly's. I think that to ever get the masses to pay attention to the NBA again it will take a MJ like player to win it all, be it good, be it bad, thats just the cold hard facts.

Answer 4

No, I think it's not Jordan fault that he becomes a great individual star players.

It's NBA marketing team whose at fault here, they put the spotlight on MJ so bright that the public overlooked the achievements of MJ's teammate had done for the Bulls to win games. Every basketball purist knew this but just won't admit it.

When Jordan finally did retire, the whole NBA marketing team focuses and promotes "who will be the next Jordan" thing up until this day. They mislead the public about the concept of winning in the NBA and made the public believe that there will be another type of Michael Jordan another day in the future.

Answer 5

Eddie Jordan, the thief of Baghdad? He was was a good defensive player, but his jump shot was kinda low trajectory.. ohhhhh, THAT Jordan :)

I agree that Michael Jordan accidentally contributed to the league's current problems, but his contribution to it's demise is probably exagerrated, and his popularity is what grew the league during the post Magic-Bird era. Seriously, was there a better final in the 90's than Jordan's Bulls vs Barkley's Suns?

Unlike so many of today's straight-from-high-school players, MJ had great fundamentals and was a lockdown defender- credit his time at North Carolina. So I can't blame him for kids lacking fundamentals these days. If they truly wanted to be like Mike, they'd look at his decision making and defense.

I think the "boring" talk is a media creation for the ultra-casual TV and Internet audience, not the real NBA fans. I mean things have been a lot worse- we survived the Pat Riley Knicks era!

The NBA has always had stellar individual performers who were essentially one-man shows. Dominique Wilkins, George Gervin, Moses Malone, and what about Elgin Baylor's early Lakers?

But the presence of great individual talents didn't mean there weren't also great teams as well. Look at the early 80's with Dr. J's 76ers, Larry Bird's Celtics, Magic/Kareem with the Lakers, and those upstart Pistons.

So yes, Mike's heroics raised the bar and probably spoiled the most casual segment of the viewing audience, but real basketball fans who actually watch regular season games? No, they aren't bored watching two great defensive teams battle for the title.

Answer 6

No,he didn't ruin it. The problem is everyone always wants to compare one person to another. The media looks for the next big story constantly. People buy into it because sadly they are easily influenced. Jordan was like a pioneer of the "mostly one man game" in the recent era. There have been many dominant players throughout basketball (Mikan,Chamberlain, Russell,Erving,Gervin,Bird etc)) but he is the most recent so people always refer to him so people can relate. People don't realize that the game has changed. The 80's were a high scoring time when game scores were averaged around the 120-130s with crazy running and shooting team game. Then, came the 90's and the one man and possession game became popular. The slower game has also emphasized the importance of defense. People, in general, would rather see lots of shooting and passing(movement in general) to keep their attention. Everything happens at a much faster pace in the world today. So, when a game with two teams that emphasize defense and possession happens, people aren't usually really interested. So, when people keep asking who the next Jordan is, I believe they are looking for someone will bring a major change in the way the game is played and a new type of excitement. Hope this helps.....

Answer 7

Jazbac says: "His style of play was not conducive of excellent team basketball." If that is the case, then how come the Bulls had the greatest team record ever; 72-10? And if Michael was the Bulls whole team, then how come Scottie Pippen is among the top 50 players of all time? And don't forget about Rodman, he contributed to the Bulls success.
By the way, the Spurs and the Pistons are great basketball teams, but people don't like to watch them because they're defensive teams, for at least one reason.
Offense wins games, defense wins championships. MJ and Scottie's Bulls had both.

Answer 8

i wouldn't say he ruin basketball at he was a great individual player but he was also a team player He made ere body around him look better than they really were if you take a look Scottie pippen what he do without mike? mike made bill Cartwright look like a all star center bj Armstrong, john Paxon, will perdue he made all those guys look better than they really were and the reason people call the piston-spurs boring is because they play simple basketball using simple fundamentals you dint get no excitement unless manu get the urge to show what he can really do.so if you ask me no basketball is not ruined and no the finals will not be boring and I'm a watch all 7 games even though I'm not a fan of either team. Detroit dint play defense like they use to the year they won the title they solid d this time around its more of a lets just out score lebron that's why its 2-2

Answer 9

In a way, yes.
But, then again, he also kind of saved it.



I do agree with your statemment about people considering a defensive game boring. It isn't as exciting as the WArriors and Pheonix play, but it is the true style.

And, I do not like that everyone is considered to be the next ?Michael. The one thing I will always remember: when Monta Ellis was selected in the draft, an interviewer asked an expert if Monta would be th enext Michael and he said ... yes! Therefore, I think Michael did ruin the game. Yet still, he redifined scoring and what it meant to be a great offensive player. Therefore, I believe he sumply reinvented the game, and whether or not you like it is a personal opinion.

Answer 10

I'm a Bulls fan and I love Mike. As a Chicagoan, I'll always love him for all the blood and sweat he spilled just to bring glory to our town. That game against Utah when he had the flu seriously made me tear up.

The problem is that through no fault of his own, he's remembered for the things that take away from good, fundamental basketball. Despite being a team player who passed up a winning shot to Steve Kerr, he's remembered more for dunking on Patrick Ewing or knifing through four New Jersey Nets in the paint. Despite being an a member of the NBA All-Defensive team, he's known more for kissing the rim in the '88 dunk contest.

When I hear football fans talk about their sport, I hear them discussing strategy and plays. They talk about seams in the defense, zone vs. man, exploiting match up problems, etc. When it comes to basketball fans, rarely anyone talks about defending high screen and rolls, executing ball movement out of the post, or making good back cuts against defenders who tend to gamble. Instead I hear them saying that in order to win, the star of their team just needs to "take over the game." Its as if MJ's outrageous 63 point performance against Boston is now a legitimate strategy in their minds.

Mike's influence on the younger generation is also obvious. Even though he was in fact, a very good mid range jump shooter, kids grew up only wanting to dunk like him or drop threes from the beyond the arc. A guard working and curling for a sixteen foot J is in fact a rarity these days.

Also, keep in mind that no one discussed the "two superstar" theory until Mike and Pippen came around. Their success became the unquestioned model for success. And though it worked for the Kobe and Shaq, I was very glad to see more team oriented clubs like the Pistons and Spurs win. Personally, I think that mentality is why the US has lost so many games in international competition.

At the end of the day, I think the rest of us have taken away the wrong lessons from an incomparable great like Michael Jordan. There are ten players on the floor and twenty four total guys wearing uniforms. While some are more talented than others, we need to remember that we can dunk and cross over as much as we like, but without a true team concept, we're not going to win.