It seems like any time an NBA superstar reaches an extreme level of success at a young age — with LeBron James being the most recent case — basketball fans and sports media alike are eager to draw comparisons between these players and Michael Jordan. And the conclusion that these parties reach, regardless of the accolades or stats achieved by these players, is that Michael Jordan is in a league of his own. After all, they say, he put up untouchable numbers in an era supposedly much harder than today, and did it with less help than modern-day superstars had and with an unblemished record in the NBA Finals. Yet, when objectively looking at NBA league statistics over time, analyzing the era in which Jordan thrived and reasoning through some of these statements, it becomes clear that the claims of Jordan’s supremacy are nothing more than myths perpetuated by biased sports fans who seek to forever protect their idol’s image.
First and foremost, Michael Jordan played in a league filled with weak defense. Jordan fans point to hand checking and hard fouls and cite the “soft” calls players get today as evidence that he had it harder in the mid 1980s and 1990s. Some even say his stats would be astronomical if he played today.
But such statements have absolutely zero empirical backing. Teams throughout the ’80s and early ’90s consistently averaged over 100 points per game and shot 47 percent to 49 percent from the field. Compare that to the last 15 NBA seasons, in which teams hit over 100 PPG only three times and field goal percentages dipped to the mid- to low 40s. And those hand checking claims are downright wrong. When the NBA first removed hand checking in the 1994-1995 season, scoring averages and field goal percentages actually dropped.
Not only did teams score more during the Jordan era, but they also shot more free throws. In 1986, for example, the average NBA team shot more than 30 per game. This figure lingered in the low 30s and high 20s during Jordan’s time. For context, teams shot an average of 23 free throws per game last season. So while the fouls may have been more physical and flagrant fouls were harder to come by, referees still made plenty of calls and teams benefited from them even more than they do today.
On top of weaker defenses, the league in which Jordan played was watered down and deprived of talent. In 1986, the Bulls made the playoffs in the Eastern conference with the worst qualifying record for an NBA team in history: 30-52.
Furthermore, in the late ’80s and mid-’90s, the NBA added 6 new expansion teams in an effort to boost league competition and give franchises to new cities. When any expansion team first enters the league, it’s faced with prohibitively high fixed costs; thus, the talent pool on these teams tends to be scarce and filled with lower tier free agents and inexperienced young players. Look no further than the numerous losing seasons these teams posted during the 80s and 90s as proof of this. In fact, the league was so weak that when Jordan temporarily retired from basketball, the Bulls still managed to get to game seven of the conference semifinals without him. And there was little international talent; players like Dirk Nowitzki, the Gasol brothers, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Yao Ming and Steve Nash were few and far between.
The idea that Jordan won his championships alone reveals a similar disconnect between reality and the Jordan narrative. Over the course of his career, Jordan played with the NBA’s top-tier players. Here’s the short list: the two hall of famers Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman, the two all NBA defensive forwards Charles Oakley and Horace Grant, the seven-foot rim protector Bill Cartwright and the sixth man of the year Toni Kukoca.
The Bulls were so good that when Jordan left to play baseball, they posted a 55-27 record even without him — a mere one game below their clip with him. For context, the Miami Heat is currently battling for the last playoff spot without LeBron James, and the current Cavaliers are 2-10 when he doesn’t play. Deep rosters and great coaching win rings, and Jordan’s teams lacked neither.
Finally, the argument most often made for Jordan’s untouchable greatness is his perfect six out of six NBA Finals record. This is likely the laziest argument made by Jordan sympathizers. Without Pippen, Jordan was 1-9 in the playoffs with three first round exits. Though LeBron has never lost in the first round, his finals losses are wrongly held against him more so than MJ’s early exits are discussed. And this is unfair because it implies winning three playoff series and a minimum of 12 playoff games in the modern-day NBA is somehow worse than being one and done. Getting to the NBA Finals is an accomplishment worthy of praise, and perfection isn’t perfection if it needs to be conditioned and qualified under the logically unsound terms detailed by Jordan fans.
Ultimately, there is no measure by which Jordan is the undisputed greatest of all time. If rings are the criteria, Bill Russell almost has Jordan doubled with 11 to six. If all-around game is what matters, LeBron is a better passer and rebounder, a far better three-point shooter given the paltry 27 percent Jordan shot without the advantage of a shorter line, an equally efficient scorer and a more versatile defender. If a combination of stats and rings is the determinant, then Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s six rings and six MVPs beat Jordan’s six and five respectively, and Abdul-Jabbar holds the record for most points scored in NBA history.
There’s nothing wrong with idolizing Jordan and being a fan of the greatest shooting guard ever. He popularized and globalized the game of basketball and reached incredible heights during his career. But when the media and fans start to engage in revisionist history to discount the achievements of today’s greats, let’s not lose sight of the facts.
Jay Upadhyay ’15 is concentrating in economics and can be reached at jay_upadhyay@brown.edu.
