Honestly surprised #1 has never leaked. Nothing. Zilch.I am convinced of two things.
1. There is something not revealed about Jordan leaving to play baseball. Either a suspension or the very least an nba investigation. Stern had to do something.
2. Without his embarrassing failure in baseball he is not driven to be great again, and gets exhausted, bored. With his personality he had to reestablish dominance.
it's all a Bill Simmons-stoked trope at this point. He hasn't let go of that one or the Ewing "frozen envelope" theory. Fanatic about it: he won't change his mind and can't change the subject.I do feel like there's no smoking gun to the whole "NBA secretly suspended Jordan" thing, though. There are clear hints that he was doing some serious gambling of course, but as for the NBA being behind the suspension, I am not aware of anything leaking that would point to that being the case. Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't buy it.
I dont know, he seemed pretty believable even adding the "back then" qualifier when he talked about it, implying that he had partaken at some point. Why lie if you are also implying that you tried later on?Was Jordan full of shit about never doing blow or partying with his teammates? Seems like he drinks a lot and has the gambling troubles, usually people who go for 2, hit the trifecta.
I don’t see why he’d let it into the interview if there was something to hide. I’d have to imagine Falk and his PR firm went through the scripted questions with a magnifying glass.Was Jordan full of shit about never doing blow or partying with his teammates? Seems like he drinks a lot and has the gambling troubles, usually people who go for 2, hit the trifecta.
FWIW, Simmons and Russillo were talking about the gambling "suspension" theory in their podcast last Sunday night, and Simmons is now firmly in the "probably not a conspiracy" camp.it's all a Bill Simmons-stoked trope at this point. He hasn't let go of that one or the Ewing "frozen envelope" theory. Fanatic about it: he won't change his mind and can't change the subject.
Correct. He also admitted the Durant Dubs were a better team than the 86 Celtics. He has a shtick, but he's more self-aware than people give him credit for.FWIW, Simmons and Russillo were talking about the gambling "suspension" theory in their podcast last Sunday night, and Simmons is now firmly in the "probably not a conspiracy" camp.
It is one of those 'where the is smoke there is fire' and there is plenty of smoke. I do wonder if the glossing it over rather than addressing it in detail will lead to more internet speculation (beyond me).Maybe it's like believing the moon landing was fake but Stern suspending Jordan is the one "conspiracy theory" that I believe in 100%. I think he had a double goal of wanting to punish MJ for the gambling fiasco and of helping the Knicks, who were the other top team in the East at the time, win a championship.
they wouild had lost to SA in the 99 Finals they cant guard C and SA had 2 of the best of all timeEverybody saw the ‘99 lockout coming and knew the season would be shortened. Krause should have had the foresight to see a Jordan led Bulls team would dominate a 50 game schedule and win a 4th title. I get wanting to rebuild, be a year early instead of a year late, but his biggest mistake was not holding that group together for one more season and title #7.
latther took shaq spotWasn't it Laettner that took Zeke's spot, not Stockton? Stockton was an automatic pick, if you ask me.
yeah feel awful for hornets fansYou could make another 10 part documentary on the bad decisions Jordan has made with the Wizards, Bobcats/Hornets. He is a terrible owner and evaluator of talent, but escapes any criticism or repercussions because of who he is.
kemba wouild had stayed but jordan did not want the pay the taxIt also is mystifying to me that Jordan has zero cache in getting players to come play for him. He can’t recruit star players, maybe that’s only the geography but it’s still weird. He couldn’t even keep Kemba from bolting to the C’s.
he traded for a washed up AI in 2008 as wellAh, Dumars. I knew I was forgetting someone noteworthy. Definitely a big success although I believe he also Darko’d a draft.
the rockets beat the bulls in 93-94 and 94-95 jordan had a dinner with rudy t and said as muchA fun ‘what if’ that doesn’t get addressed in the documentary is how a Jordan led Bulls team would have done against the 94-95 Rockets teams. Those Bulls team never really faced a team with a low post player like Olajuwon. Chicago would have had to throw double teams of Bill Cartwright and Horace Grant at him all series, leaving all of Houston’s great 3 point shooters open. At the very least, those Rockets team would have taken Jordan to 7 games and maybe beat them straight up in one of those two years, especially the ‘95 team with Drexler.
MJ must have been referring to the actual '94 and'95 playoff Bulls. There's no way he concedes that the Rockets would have beaten any of the 6 Championship teams.the rockets beat the bulls in 93-94 and 94-95 jordan had a dinner with rudy t and said as much
If you had told me the suspension theory would have received as much coverage as it did before this series started, I would have been shocked. None of the principles are ever going to say "Okay, you've got us!" So where can they really go with it?Oof, Tito citing RBI as a measure of success while noting he just broke .200 in AA. C;mon man.
Can't help but wonder if Jordan agreed to this by limiting any talk of the double secret suspension. It got like 2 lines.
Of course not, but the documentarians could have had others (non MJ) discuss it.If you had told me the suspension theory would have received as much coverage as it did before this series started, I would have been shocked. None of the principles are ever going to say "Okay, you've got us!" So where can they really go with it?
As for RBIs and BA, that's what they paid attention to back then. When I think back to watching Dave Stewart and George Bell killing the Red Sox when I was growing up, I don't remember what their FIP and OPS+ were.
Oh, I'm sure they would have put any spin possible on his baseball career since it's an MJ-sponsored documentary. At the same time, it was pretty damn impressive for someone who hadn't played baseball at any level in what...15 years? I'm fine with them not dunking on Jordan for not being an elit baseball star.Of course not, but the documentarians could have had others (non MJ) discuss it.
And fair point about 90s baseball stats - but Tito was interviewed within the last year. I wouldnt expect him to spout off MJ OPS in AA - but he would likely know the rbi measurement isnt helpful. My cynical side says the makers wanted to put a positive slant on the lackluster AA time and so asked Tito to mention that.
You're over-focusing on the particular thing Tito grasped for to praise Jordan being dropped into AA as a rookie and actually not embarrassing himself, which totally deserved the praise he gave him. Who cares if he hit .200 and the only thing he accumulated much of was RBIs (and games played)? The important thing was his dedication to the craft, the fact that he was able to compete against some legit prospects, showed steady improvement, etc. Reinsdorf of course is going to say he'd have made the majors, hell if he'd stuck in baseball he might've been Tebowed up to it if he wasn't really deserving. But Tito isn't going to blow smoke up someone's ass, even if that someone is Michael Jordan. How many legit non-pitching prospects are wrecking AA by the end of their rookie year? Not very many, and those who are are probably future all-stars. If Tito says he was on a track to the bigs, I believe him.Of course not, but the documentarians could have had others (non MJ) discuss it.
And fair point about 90s baseball stats - but Tito was interviewed within the last year. I wouldnt expect him to spout off MJ OPS in AA - but he would likely know the rbi measurement isnt helpful. My cynical side says the makers wanted to put a positive slant on the lackluster AA time and so asked Tito to mention that.
Yeah, but the Jordan/Pippen combo would have dominated the perimeter. It would have been a fun battle and a great test of both coaches.they wouild had lost to SA in the 99 Finals they cant guard C and SA had 2 of the best of all time
I've been struck by that too. Mid-50's Jordan doesn't seem to give any fucks about what he says about anyone, and has been incredibly revealing about himself. His interviews have put this over the top into being a classic for me.Good rundown of tonight's episodes over on SI by Jack McCallum.
Given how prickly he was with the press, it's kinda amazing that Hehir has gotten such a steady series of thoughtful, introspective, real-feeling answers out of Michael Jordan on so many different topics.
I think it was the way the question was posed - do you think part of the sacrifice you made with your intensity was giving up the ability to be perceived as a nice guy? - and he took it as a question of defending his intensity, making an ends-justify-the-means argument. What probably brought the emotion out was the word "sacrifice", because reflecting on the sacrifices he made is probably a pretty laden thing for him.I was surprised to see MJ tear up when addressing the idea he wasn't considered a nice guy.
The Bulls' 3P% was inflated by the shorter three-point line. They can't be directly compared.1995-96 Bulls vs. 2016-17 Warriors
Bulls
G - Jordan
G - Harper
F - Pippen
F - Rodman
C - Longley
Warriors
G - Curry
G - Thompson
F - Green
F - Durant
C - Pachulia
Some delicious matchups there...
Jordan vs. Curry
Pippen vs. Klay or Pippen on Durant
Rodman vs. Durant or Rodman and Green banging the hell out of each other
Thompson or Green guarding Jordan
Key subs
Chicago:
Kukoc (supersub: 13 points, 4 rebounds, 3.5 assists)
Kerr (.515 from three)
Wennington (7'0" body)
Salley
Simpkins
Golden State:
Iguodala (would come in to guard Jordan or Pippen)
Barnes (another tough, hard-nosed player)
Livingston (imagine him trying to post up against Jordan or Pippen..what a matchup that would be)
McCaw
Clark
West
I think the Warriors are deeper. But I love the Jordan-Pippen-Rodman vs. Curry-Klay-Durant trio. I like the Bulls in terms of coaching. And Jordan, as we all know, is a stone cold assassin, which would matter in a series with so many alphas on the court. Jordan is just the most alpha of alphas. And he'd show it.
Durant would be a handful for anyone on Chicago, but Pippen has enough length and athleticism (and his wiry frame isn't a negative against equally wiry Durant) to probably bother KD as much as anyone can. Or Rodman, who is an all-time great defender in his own right, could bully KD.
Imagine Rodman and Green battling each other. Their fight, their tempers...holy crap that would be incredible theater.
Then you've got Curry and Kerr knocking down a million threes.
And though the Bulls didn't favor the three-point shot, as a team they did shoot 40.3% from three that year. This Warriors team? 38.3%. I think the line was closer in for the Bulls but still...the outside shooting in this matchup is actually close.
Would be a hell of a matchup.
That same podcast made a good point - can you imagine what MJ and Pippen would have thought when Steph and Klay were taking their pregame shooting drills? Aliens from Space Jam showing up would have made more sense. All silly talk, but it's amusing how much the game has changed in such a relatively short time.I think the Warriors would be the Bulls relatively easily. Like in 5 games or something; the difference in three point volume is just so staggering. The Bulls, with Jordan/Pippen/Rodman/Harper are probably better equipped the most other pre-2000 teams when it comes to athletically and physically trying to defend Curry/Klay/KD, but the gap in three point shooting is enormous, one team shot 16.5 attempts per game, and the other team attempted 31 threes per game.
Another key aspect that was mentioned in a Simmons/Russillo podcast was that offenses back then didn't exploit mismatches the way they do today with trying to get favorable switches on offense. The Bulls would like to get Curry switched onto Jordan, but would the offense be sophisticated enough to do that, or would they just have Jordan go iso against Klay or Durant? That to me is a huge advantage for the Warriors.
If the Warriors were to go back in a time machine and had some sort of cap where they could only attempt 20 threes a game, I think the Bulls would be favored, but as things currently stand, I'd think the advancement in efficiencies on offense would be a huge deciding factor between two great teams from different eras.
Yeah I think this is a case were the differences between the modern team vs the classic team is really in playing style and not in athleticism, which is typically the reason modern teams are favored over older teams.That same podcast made a good point - can you imagine what MJ and Pippen would have thought when Steph and Klay were taking their pregame shooting drills? Aliens from Space Jam showing up would have made more sense. All silly talk, but it's amusing how much the game has changed in such a relatively short time.