I refer to the Calvin & Hobbes in which Calvin's dad tells a story which goes nowhere and has no point (about escalators) and then Calvin hopes to himself that his childhood experiences won't someday be stories with no point.
Well, that's telling, ogged. I love me some Jordan as much as the next man, but the proper athletic referent for the over the backboard shot is, and always will be, Larry Bird. He hit at least one in a game (disallowed, IRRC) and used to hit the "behind the plane of the backboard" three with regularity.
For clarification, my "adorable" comment was directed at ogged. I have no opinion about this Jordan/Bird debate, since it seems to involve sports in some way.
Of course, when I was younger, I hated Larry Bird, but I've come to appreciate him.
I wonder if that's a "growing older and wiser" thing, b/c I've walked exactly that same road. I used to make the argument that, however good the mid-80's Celtics were, there was something irredeemably evil about them in a sort of "truth is beauty, beauty is truth" fashion.
Jordan - 13 seasons with the Bulls, 6 championship rings, 5 time MVP. Career avg :31.5 pts/gm, led the league in scoring 10 times. Nine times made the All-Defensive firrst team.
Bird - 13 seasons with the Celtics, 3 championship rings, 3 time MVP. Career avg: 24.3 pts/gm, was 2nd in the league in scoring once, third once, and fourth twice. Three times made the All-Defensive second team.
Bird led by a mile, though, in having a mustache that often seemed like an optical illusion. His only real competition in that category was former British Prime Minister John Major, who might be marginally ahead there because -- and this is deep -- he didn't have a mustache at all.
But do those sorts of highly individualistic statistics capture everything there is about being a good athlete in general and basketball player in particular?
It was supposed to be a condescending kind of thing, as in "it's so adorable that, like a child, you can't have your idols knocked for fear that your faith might be misplaced, even though you are outwardly an adult". You're the only one I adore.
Ah, Ben, you didn't grow up with slow suburban white boys telling you over and over that Bird was better than Jordan, because "a dunk is just two points."
But do those sorts of highly individualistic statistics capture everything there is about being a good athlete in general and basketball player in particular?
1. You really have to separate out "athlete" and "basketball player." Bird might have been the least athletic great player of the modern era. What offended me most about him was that he was manifestly great while looking like complete crap while he was playing; it was a sin against the laws of nature that he was that great.
2. It's not really a close call, even as a basketball player. Jordan is, and probably always will be, in the top 3-5 players you have to discuss when talking about "the greatest ever"; Bird's probably in the top ten.
Bird was a great shooter and a great scorer, but what made Bird special was that he understood the game so much better than everyone but Magic. So he picked up creme (like the steal from Isiah in the Eastern finals) that no one else recognized existed.
That's probably nearly as true about Jordan (see, e.g., the steal from Malone in the Finals), but he was so superior an athlete that he didn't have to resort to such insight nearly as much. He could just take people to the hole, or (at the end of his career) hit the fade-away jumper. His extraordinary performances weren't nearly as dependent (or at least as obviously dependent) on understanding the flow of everyone on the court.
Bird was a great shooter and a great scorer, but what made Bird special was that he understood the game so much better than everyone but Magic. So he picked up creme (like the steal from Isiah in the Eastern finals) that no one else recognized existed.
That's probably nearly as true about Jordan (see, e.g., the steal from Malone in the Finals), but he was so superior an athlete that he didn't have to resort to such insight nearly as much. He could just take people to the hole, or (at the end of his career) hit the fade-away jumper. His extraordinary performances weren't nearly as dependent (or at least as obviously dependent) on understanding the flow of everyone on the court.
See, I don't see an argument here for why that makes Jordan better. And I don't buy your separation of "athlete" and "basketball player"; what I meant by that was that one could talk about athletes in general (with different sorts of highly individual statistics coming into play depending on the sport) or specialize and just talk about basketball players. To say that Bird wasn't athletic because, what, he looked like crap? Does that mean he didn't seem to be exerting himself, or something? Well, you're willing to excuse Jordan from having to display a deep understanding of the game because of his overt—let's call it not athleticism, since that's under contention, but physicality, say—why not reciprocally excuse Bird from having display such physicality because of his overt deep understanding?
It seems weirdly anti-intellectual, almost, to characterize understanding the possibilities of a game as something one "resorts" to, because you're not good enough just to muscle your way to the forefront. (There was an article by Gladwell in the New Yorker some time ago about people who can just do things amazingly well—one of them was a brain surgeon who could perform intricate operations seemingly casually—which touched on Gretzky, saying basically that he was a such a great hockey player precisely because he understood "the flow of everyone on the court".) I propose that that's ridiculous, though it is of a piece with claiming that someone's a better player because he's scored more points.
No, you're absolutely right, Tim. Kobe, McGrady, even the Carter of a few years ago, have physical gifts nearly equal Jordan's, but they're stupid. One of the things that was amazing about Jordan was his discipline: someone would score on him on the defensive end, and everyone expected Michael to come down and school the guy right away, but Jordan almost never did that; he'd run the offense, take the shot if it was there, but probably just wait--he was in control. (Eventually, of course, he always got his revenge.) The young players just can't help themselves.
I think you missed Tim's point, Ben. What he's saying is that people assume Jordan didn't have Bird's understanding of the game, because Jordan's physical gifts let him dominate in less subtle ways; but, in fact, Jordan did have the same sort of grasp of the game.
I think that's basically right. I will admit that Bird is the better passer. The short answer to why Jordan is the better player is: defense.
His only real competition in that category was former British Prime Minister John Major, who might be marginally ahead there because -- and this is deep -- he didn't have a mustache at all.
Basketball, whatever. This is a koan for the ages.
Look, even in *Boston* we recognize Jordan was better. It's not really close. I do think both Magic and Bird were more interesting players than Jordan (on offense). But that's like saying Jimmy Key is more fun to watch than Randy Johnson. It isn't really relevant to who was the more valuable player.
The suburban white boy phenomenon Ogged describes is soooo true. But then, don't we all valorize the players that (we think) our game most resembles? I was a big Sherman Douglas backer on this principle. This is a powerful force in male psychology. As evidence, I offer the claim in "Do the Right Thing" that Roger Clemens couldn't hold Gooden's jock. That's crazy talk.
Read the "technology" thread. You can still do direct links to comments, but just clicking the generic "comments" link at the bottom of the post takes you to the bottom, just as in days gone by. It's what you call a, a compromise, you know? Nice and easy. Compromise.
Good good. You think I have time to keep up with all the threads here? Well, ordinarily I do, but today people keep popping into my office to talk philosophy.
That's weird. Can't you explain to them that you're trying to do your job, and will be able to get back to the philosophy stuff after the working day ends?
I'm significantly more shocked that ogged's mom knew who Seikely was; I'm as now suspicious of all the (relatively ltd.) bitching you've done about your mom.
Oh, my mom can be cool, when she's not being unbearable. During Jordan's heyday, she was definitely a fan, and we watched some games in which Seikaly was playing.
When you tell a dumb story that has no point, and everyone just stares at you when you are finished, what do you say next? My four favorites:
And then I found my pen.
And then the cops came.
And then I realized my fly was unzipped.
And then I found twenty dollars.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 03- 3-05 9:25 PM
I refer to the Calvin & Hobbes in which Calvin's dad tells a story which goes nowhere and has no point (about escalators) and then Calvin hopes to himself that his childhood experiences won't someday be stories with no point.
Or I would if I ever told dumb stories.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 3-05 10:10 PM
what do you say next?
Anyhow, speaking of fucking corpses...
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 3-05 10:12 PM
...it's legal in California.
Anwho, what's with the title to this post? Is Ogged shooting from BEHIND the basket? I don't get it.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:27 AM
of course, metaphorically speaking, I understand Ogged shooting from behind the basket. This, however, doesn't seem like metaphor.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:28 AM
...it's legal in California.
Not any more, it isn't.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:39 AM
A victory for Feinberg, I suppose. But this could have unforseen consequences on Wolfson's choice of a graduate school.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:55 AM
what's with the title to this post? Is Ogged shooting from BEHIND the basket?
It reminds me of the old Bird/Jordan McDonald's commercials: Over the freeway... nothing but net.
Or it's maybe just another HORSE reference.
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 7:02 AM
Just like that, 27. The "over the backboard swish," Michael, is the shot with which I like to finish off my hapless opponents.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 8:50 AM
Is Ogged shooting from BEHIND
At the Mineshaft?
Okay, now I'm starting to annoy myself.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 8:53 AM
Well, that's telling, ogged. I love me some Jordan as much as the next man, but the proper athletic referent for the over the backboard shot is, and always will be, Larry Bird. He hit at least one in a game (disallowed, IRRC) and used to hit the "behind the plane of the backboard" three with regularity.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 8:59 AM
I remember that Bird shot. 'Twas a thing of beauty. Of course, when I was younger, I hated Larry Bird, but I've come to appreciate him.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:01 AM
Because, in the long run, he played better ball than Jordan?
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:05 AM
No, and don't bring that shit in here again.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:06 AM
That's adorable.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:06 AM
Because, in the long run, he played better ball than Jordan?
Good lord, woman.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:08 AM
Remember how, three minutes ago, we all liked girl27 so much for her porn naming prowess?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:09 AM
For clarification, my "adorable" comment was directed at ogged. I have no opinion about this Jordan/Bird debate, since it seems to involve sports in some way.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:18 AM
Of course, when I was younger, I hated Larry Bird, but I've come to appreciate him.
I wonder if that's a "growing older and wiser" thing, b/c I've walked exactly that same road. I used to make the argument that, however good the mid-80's Celtics were, there was something irredeemably evil about them in a sort of "truth is beauty, beauty is truth" fashion.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:22 AM
Well, Ben, running the numbers:
Jordan - 13 seasons with the Bulls, 6 championship rings, 5 time MVP. Career avg :31.5 pts/gm, led the league in scoring 10 times. Nine times made the All-Defensive firrst team.
Bird - 13 seasons with the Celtics, 3 championship rings, 3 time MVP. Career avg: 24.3 pts/gm, was 2nd in the league in scoring once, third once, and fourth twice. Three times made the All-Defensive second team.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:29 AM
Bird led by a mile, though, in having a mustache that often seemed like an optical illusion. His only real competition in that category was former British Prime Minister John Major, who might be marginally ahead there because -- and this is deep -- he didn't have a mustache at all.
Posted by peter snees | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:33 AM
But do those sorts of highly individualistic statistics capture everything there is about being a good athlete in general and basketball player in particular?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:33 AM
Of course they don't, bw. But I'm not allowed to say any more than that.
As for this...
For clarification, my "adorable" comment was directed at ogged.
I give up.
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:45 AM
It was supposed to be a condescending kind of thing, as in "it's so adorable that, like a child, you can't have your idols knocked for fear that your faith might be misplaced, even though you are outwardly an adult". You're the only one I adore.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:49 AM
Ah, Ben, you didn't grow up with slow suburban white boys telling you over and over that Bird was better than Jordan, because "a dunk is just two points."
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 9:59 AM
But do those sorts of highly individualistic statistics capture everything there is about being a good athlete in general and basketball player in particular?
1. You really have to separate out "athlete" and "basketball player." Bird might have been the least athletic great player of the modern era. What offended me most about him was that he was manifestly great while looking like complete crap while he was playing; it was a sin against the laws of nature that he was that great.
2. It's not really a close call, even as a basketball player. Jordan is, and probably always will be, in the top 3-5 players you have to discuss when talking about "the greatest ever"; Bird's probably in the top ten.
Bird was a great shooter and a great scorer, but what made Bird special was that he understood the game so much better than everyone but Magic. So he picked up creme (like the steal from Isiah in the Eastern finals) that no one else recognized existed.
That's probably nearly as true about Jordan (see, e.g., the steal from Malone in the Finals), but he was so superior an athlete that he didn't have to resort to such insight nearly as much. He could just take people to the hole, or (at the end of his career) hit the fade-away jumper. His extraordinary performances weren't nearly as dependent (or at least as obviously dependent) on understanding the flow of everyone on the court.
Yes, I think about this stuff way too much.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 10:11 AM
Bird was a great shooter and a great scorer, but what made Bird special was that he understood the game so much better than everyone but Magic. So he picked up creme (like the steal from Isiah in the Eastern finals) that no one else recognized existed.
That's probably nearly as true about Jordan (see, e.g., the steal from Malone in the Finals), but he was so superior an athlete that he didn't have to resort to such insight nearly as much. He could just take people to the hole, or (at the end of his career) hit the fade-away jumper. His extraordinary performances weren't nearly as dependent (or at least as obviously dependent) on understanding the flow of everyone on the court.
See, I don't see an argument here for why that makes Jordan better. And I don't buy your separation of "athlete" and "basketball player"; what I meant by that was that one could talk about athletes in general (with different sorts of highly individual statistics coming into play depending on the sport) or specialize and just talk about basketball players. To say that Bird wasn't athletic because, what, he looked like crap? Does that mean he didn't seem to be exerting himself, or something? Well, you're willing to excuse Jordan from having to display a deep understanding of the game because of his overt—let's call it not athleticism, since that's under contention, but physicality, say—why not reciprocally excuse Bird from having display such physicality because of his overt deep understanding?
It seems weirdly anti-intellectual, almost, to characterize understanding the possibilities of a game as something one "resorts" to, because you're not good enough just to muscle your way to the forefront. (There was an article by Gladwell in the New Yorker some time ago about people who can just do things amazingly well—one of them was a brain surgeon who could perform intricate operations seemingly casually—which touched on Gretzky, saying basically that he was a such a great hockey player precisely because he understood "the flow of everyone on the court".) I propose that that's ridiculous, though it is of a piece with claiming that someone's a better player because he's scored more points.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 10:22 AM
No, you're absolutely right, Tim. Kobe, McGrady, even the Carter of a few years ago, have physical gifts nearly equal Jordan's, but they're stupid. One of the things that was amazing about Jordan was his discipline: someone would score on him on the defensive end, and everyone expected Michael to come down and school the guy right away, but Jordan almost never did that; he'd run the offense, take the shot if it was there, but probably just wait--he was in control. (Eventually, of course, he always got his revenge.) The young players just can't help themselves.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 10:23 AM
I think you missed Tim's point, Ben. What he's saying is that people assume Jordan didn't have Bird's understanding of the game, because Jordan's physical gifts let him dominate in less subtle ways; but, in fact, Jordan did have the same sort of grasp of the game.
I think that's basically right. I will admit that Bird is the better passer. The short answer to why Jordan is the better player is: defense.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 10:28 AM
His only real competition in that category was former British Prime Minister John Major, who might be marginally ahead there because -- and this is deep -- he didn't have a mustache at all.
Basketball, whatever. This is a koan for the ages.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 10:35 AM
Look, even in *Boston* we recognize Jordan was better. It's not really close. I do think both Magic and Bird were more interesting players than Jordan (on offense). But that's like saying Jimmy Key is more fun to watch than Randy Johnson. It isn't really relevant to who was the more valuable player.
The suburban white boy phenomenon Ogged describes is soooo true. But then, don't we all valorize the players that (we think) our game most resembles? I was a big Sherman Douglas backer on this principle. This is a powerful force in male psychology. As evidence, I offer the claim in "Do the Right Thing" that Roger Clemens couldn't hold Gooden's jock. That's crazy talk.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 10:41 AM
baa is, as ever, the voice of reason.
But, that Sherman Douglas mention, in context, makes me scared to meet you. He's one funny shaped dude (though I was a big fan).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 10:49 AM
Ok... Fair enough. There is a good chance I was just trying to get a rise out of Ogged.
How do y'all feel about Bill Laimbeer?
Posted by girl27 | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 11:45 AM
How do y'all feel about Bill Laimbeer?
Best elbows in the game.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 11:47 AM
Nah, Laimbeer didn't even have the best elbows in the game. He's outclassed by Mutombo, and even by Bill Cartwright.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 11:49 AM
And Karl Malone, who took more that a couple of players out of games.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 11:51 AM
Yes, but I have shamelessness as a part of my algorithm.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 11:54 AM
I deliberately left off Malone, because I didn't even want to give him props for his elbows, but yes, he belongs on the list.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 11:54 AM
Gotta agree with Ogged about The Elbow of Mutombo. However, the overall title goes to Malone, who expanded upon the elbow routine with all those kicks and knees to the nuts.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 11:57 AM
I imagine you, ogged, as a Rony Seikaly type presence.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:22 PM
Except that Rony Seikaly is married to this lass, while Ogged practically brags about his celibacy.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:26 PM
Also, it's all about Sherman's game all those unorthodox wrong foot floaters he took. That's my bread and butter.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:33 PM
baa-
My guy was Pearl Washington, for roughly the same reason. I used to try those "shovel" layups all the time.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:36 PM
I hate to say this, but I'm being taken to the end of this thread when I click the "comments" link.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 12:57 PM
Read the "technology" thread. You can still do direct links to comments, but just clicking the generic "comments" link at the bottom of the post takes you to the bottom, just as in days gone by. It's what you call a, a compromise, you know? Nice and easy. Compromise.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 1:00 PM
SCMT,
Nice! Digging deep into NBA arcana. Who will be the first to admit being influenced by Mark Eaton?
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 1:08 PM
Good good. You think I have time to keep up with all the threads here? Well, ordinarily I do, but today people keep popping into my office to talk philosophy.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 1:37 PM
That's weird. Can't you explain to them that you're trying to do your job, and will be able to get back to the philosophy stuff after the working day ends?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 1:41 PM
My mom used to say that I look like Rony Seikaly. Would have been more apt if I hadn't stopped growing when I was thirteen.
Take a look at this page about his wife and tell me it wasn't written by Fafnir.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:08 PM
That's NSFW, y'all.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:11 PM
So I discovered.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:12 PM
Shit, sorry.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:13 PM
I guess that fact that the URL is "http://elsa-benitez.nude-celebrities-site.com/" should have been more of a tipoff.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:14 PM
Ogged wasn't lyin', though.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:14 PM
I'm significantly more shocked that ogged's mom knew who Seikely was; I'm as now suspicious of all the (relatively ltd.) bitching you've done about your mom.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:33 PM
Oh, my mom can be cool, when she's not being unbearable. During Jordan's heyday, she was definitely a fan, and we watched some games in which Seikaly was playing.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:38 PM
I just want to try to write one full sentence without dropping or adding a word.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03- 4-05 2:39 PM
Re: 45; I feel ineluctably compelled to point out that I should have been reading the "Geek Help Needed" thread.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03- 6-05 10:21 AM