Only douchebags hate on legends

On Monday, the most inevitable event in the history of professional sports became a reality: Michael Jordan was elected into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.  Jordan openly acknowledged his bittersweet feelings about the honor.

“I always want to be able to have you thinking I can always go back and play the game of basketball and put your shorts on,” Jordan joked. “Hall of Fame to me is like, OK, it’s over and done with.”

Jordan may only be half-joking.  As a player, he was defined by his ultra-competitive nature.  His desire to play – and win – is the primary reason that only his third retirement was actually permanent. 

Many sports commentators were quick to mock the notion of a third comeback by M. Jeff.  They believe that the rotund, 45-year-old version of Jordan couldn’t compete at the game’s highest level.  Some went as far as suggest that he was essentially finished before he returned to play for the Washington Wizards in 2001. 

Jordan’s two years playing for the Wizards have become a common punch line in sports circles.   Many believe that his career stint in DC diminishes his legacy.  The same is said of Brett Farve’s single season with the New York Jets.

To consider Jordan’s years with the Wizard as a failure is a great fallacy.  Granted, he was unable to perform at anywhere near the level that he did while leading the Chicago Bulls to six titles.  However, a quick look at the stats reveals that Jordan put up solid numbers.

Jordan’s first season with the Wizards was marred with injury.  As a result, he did not log enough minutes to be include on the lists of league statistical leaders.  If he were, his 22.9 points per game would rank ninth on the list of scoring leaders.  This placed him amongst the likes of Karl Malone, Gary Payton and Ray Allen.  He even ranked ahead of Kevin Garnett, who was named to the All-NBA second team that season.  Jordan also ranked 30th in steals; while this does not place him amongst the league’s elite, his performance was far from the mediocre. 

The following season, Jordan’s output dropped slightly.  He struggled to keep his offensive output up in order maintain a career average of 30 points per game.  He finished the season with averages of 20 points and 6.1 rebounds per game.  He was ranked sixth in rebounds among guards and 25th in scoring overall.

Jordan’s stats would suggest that he was one of the top 30 players in a league that employs approximately 400 players.  Even at the nadir of his career, Jordan was better than 90% of the players in the NBA.  This is a far cry from the 1990s, when he was unquestionably the best player on the planet.  However, to suggest that Jordan was washed up by the time he donned a Wizards uniform simply ignores the facts.

::

There are a greater number of immature douchebags at sports desks compared to any other journalistic specialization; after all, their careers are focused on what are essentially children’s games.  That is not to say that the field is devoid of intelligent writers, but many sports commentators gleefully relish in diminishing the accomplishments of great athletes, such as Jordan or Farve. 

In many ways, this is a manifestation of the idea that “we built you up, we can take you down.”  The phenomenon is not unique to sports – the national news media took the same tactic during the 2004 Presidential primaries, when the campaign of Howard Dean (D-Woo-hoo!) was brought to its knees by a 23-second sound bite.

Journalists must realize that the power to reach a massive audience comes with a great responsibility.  When one shirks that responsibility, they can easily be perceived as a vindictive megalomaniac with Tourette’s and a megaphone, shouting every angry, reactionary thought that enters their simple mind. 

Or perhaps I am wrong.  Perhaps Americans enjoy a daily diet of the shallow, obtuse drivel churned out by many sportswriters and political pundits.

respond/react

name (required)

email address (required; will not be published)

website