How sound were Jordan's fundamentals on both ends?

[ceiling raiser]

I've been watching a bit of MJ tape recently, don't really see a ton of gambling on defense. Doesn't miss rotations, get caught out of position, or get blown by when reaching.

Offensively very low turnovers. Safe ball-handling. Smart passing. Tremendous shot selection. Dunked with power. Only real complaints are some showboaty layups (though a lot were with contact), and the flat arch on his jumper.

Thoughts?

[rk2023]

Not to nitpick too much really, as we are talking about a Mount Rushmore guy all-time here in Jordan, but agree regarding the arc on the jumper. Being that vertically gifted and bodily fluid made him the GOAT mid-range scorer (imo), even if tapping into *that* a ton didn’t quite polish his arc as much - rubbing off into his 3-point shooting proficiency more often than not. On defense, I think the gambling and sub-optimal position was a thing and will present itself more empirically on film.

Unsure if this boils down to fundamentals and think this is rather more of a topic under the umbrella of tendencies and decision making, but I’m not the most keen on Jordan’s offensive process pre full implementation of the triangle. As 1988 hit and until the turn of the 90s decade came, I think he still left some reads on the table. Doing “more with less” I believe were the final polishes on Jordan’s offensive game as he hit his peak on that side.

This may seem like a lot, but I think it goes to show there’s no such thing as a perfect player - rather than being a significant knack at Jordan himself.

[Lost92Bricks]

His low turnovers don't get talked about enough.

He had a couple seasons with more steals than turnovers. While still averaging over 30. Insane.

He didn't even have to shoot a good percentage alot of the time. He could go 12-27 and still have a great game.

[70sFan]

I think his insane athleticism often made people forget that he was very fundamentally sound offensive player. He had excellent handles, elite post game, outstanding footwork, great jumpshot. Basically any skill you want from a guard.

On defense though, he's anything but fundamentally sound. He relied heavily on his athleticism and often took unnecessary risks.

[frica]

His low turnovers don't get talked about enough.

He had a couple seasons with more steals than turnovers. While still averaging over 30. Insane.

He didn't even have to shoot a good percentage alot of the time. He could go 12-27 and still have a great game.

I think they get talked about plenty here.

Jordan's turnover rate is outlier great.

[migya]

His low turnovers don't get talked about enough.

He had a couple seasons with more steals than turnovers. While still averaging over 30. Insane.

He didn't even have to shoot a good percentage alot of the time. He could go 12-27 and still have a great game.

I think they get talked about plenty here.

Jordan's turnover rate is outlier great.

Especially with all the attention he got and offensive load he had.

[TheGOATRises007]

His low turnovers don't get talked about enough.

He had a couple seasons with more steals than turnovers. While still averaging over 30. Insane.

He didn't even have to shoot a good percentage alot of the time. He could go 12-27 and still have a great game.

I think they get talked about plenty here.

Jordan's turnover rate is outlier great.

I'd say it still barely gets mentioned when comparing players outright.

[AEnigma]

I've been watching a bit of MJ tape recently, don't really see a ton of gambling on defense. Doesn't miss rotations, get caught out of position, or get blown by when reaching.

Depends on the seasons sourcing that tape. Second threepeat Jordan had pretty outstanding fundamentals across the board, as tends to be the case with players aging and looking for ways to offset any losses in raw athleticism. Before that first retirement, he was a little more lackadaisical defensively — although when he had good backline support like with Oakley or prime Pippen/Grant, that “defensive playmaking” suited the team fine, much like how Erving’s suited the 76ers or how Payton’s suited the Sonics.

[SHAQ32]

I've been watching a bit of MJ tape recently, don't really see a ton of gambling on defense. Doesn't miss rotations, get caught out of position, or get blown by when reaching.

Offensively very low turnovers. Safe ball-handling. Smart passing. Tremendous shot selection. Dunked with power. Only real complaints are some showboaty layups (though a lot were with contact), and the flat arch on his jumper.

Thoughts?

Remember watching Kobe back in the day, circa 2001, and would see people say the biggest thing that separated him from Jordan was athleticism, that even Kobe at his athletic peak was comparable to maybe ~93 MJ. But to me, the biggest difference was Jordan's shot selection and fundamentals. Jordan would never have taken some of those shots, lol. Even the pass to Kerr, for example, Kobe's taking that shot.

[tsherkin]

I've been watching a bit of MJ tape recently, don't really see a ton of gambling on defense. Doesn't miss rotations, get caught out of position, or get blown by when reaching.

Offensively very low turnovers. Safe ball-handling. Smart passing. Tremendous shot selection. Dunked with power. Only real complaints are some showboaty layups (though a lot were with contact), and the flat arch on his jumper.

Thoughts?

Remember watching Kobe back in the day, circa 2001, and would see people say the biggest thing that separated him from Jordan was athleticism, that even Kobe at his athletic peak was comparable to maybe ~93 MJ. But to me, the biggest difference was Jordan's shot selection and fundamentals. Jordan would never have taken some of those shots, lol. Even the pass to Kerr, for example, Kobe's taking that shot.

Im with this. Athleticism was a big deal: Jordan was more explosive, had a stronger base, etc. But Kobe liked to flash diversity of skill too much and MJ just liked to get his bread and butter and crush you. He had some head-shaker shots too, no doubt, but he was more specific in his approach and chased his go-tos a lot more.

[henshao]

On defense though, he's anything but fundamentally sound. He relied heavily on his athleticism and often took unnecessary risks.

There's an analogy that comes to mind for me with baseball, the difference between a "contact" hitter and a "power" hitter. One guy does everything by the book, makes contact with the ball, rarely gets struck out on pitches and forces the other team to make plays at first base. If a home run happens or not so be it. The other guy goes down swinging for a home run even if he gets struck out the majority of the time. In basketball there is staying in front of a guy and keeping your hands up and corralling him to help, and also gambling on passing lanes and trying to pick pockets and leaving your feet to block shots.

I would argue it requires good fundamentals to be a great power hitter, because anybody can swing the bat hard but you still have to actually hit the ball. Really it comes down to success rate that separates them.. What do you think? Am I splitting hairs?

[tsherkin]

s and leaving your feet to block shots.

I would argue it requires good fundamentals to be a great power hitter, because anybody can swing the bat hard but you still have to actually hit the ball. Really it comes down to success rate that separates them.. What do you think? Am I splitting hairs?

It depends. High BB% and overall OBP% and OPS+ will separate you from normal power hitters who have a high K rate and otherwise just whiff a lot. Gambling in passing lanes isn't the fundamental play, so that's objectively wrong, but if you're athletic enough to do it and recover, then it gets fuzzier if you aren't actually getting burned when you do.

[70sFan]

On defense though, he's anything but fundamentally sound. He relied heavily on his athleticism and often took unnecessary risks.

There's an analogy that comes to mind for me with baseball, the difference between a "contact" hitter and a "power" hitter. One guy does everything by the book, makes contact with the ball, rarely gets struck out on pitches and forces the other team to make plays at first base. If a home run happens or not so be it. The other guy goes down swinging for a home run even if he gets struck out the majority of the time. In basketball there is staying in front of a guy and keeping your hands up and corralling him to help, and also gambling on passing lanes and trying to pick pockets and leaving your feet to block shots.

I would argue it requires good fundamentals to be a great power hitter, because anybody can swing the bat hard but you still have to actually hit the ball. Really it comes down to success rate that separates them.. What do you think? Am I splitting hairs?

I am afraid I am useless in baseball analogies, because I have no knowledge about baseball and haven't watched a single game in my life...

[NO-KG-AI]

I think his insane athleticism often made people forget that he was very fundamentally sound offensive player. He had excellent handles, elite post game, outstanding footwork, great jumpshot. Basically any skill you want from a guard.

On defense though, he's anything but fundamentally sound. He relied heavily on his athleticism and often took unnecessary risks.

I don't think his fundamentals were bad though. Jordan loved to help on bigs in the paint, but his recovery speed and ability to close is basically second to none at his height and length, it's worth the gamble when you can make it back at the speeds he can. Definitely didn't always work, but I think his gambles helped way more than they hurt, and pinning himself to a single man and not utilizing his ability to terrorize passing lanes and as a shotblocker would make him a worse player, not better, even if it misses sometimes. 3.2 steals(1st) and 1.6 blocks(16th in the league) is still a mind boggling number to me.

But his footwork, movement, hand placement, ability to contest, bother ball handlers without fouling all were top notch.

[tsherkin]

On defense though, he's anything but fundamentally sound. He relied heavily on his athleticism and often took unnecessary risks.

There's an analogy that comes to mind for me with baseball, the difference between a "contact" hitter and a "power" hitter. One guy does everything by the book, makes contact with the ball, rarely gets struck out on pitches and forces the other team to make plays at first base. If a home run happens or not so be it. The other guy goes down swinging for a home run even if he gets struck out the majority of the time. In basketball there is staying in front of a guy and keeping your hands up and corralling him to help, and also gambling on passing lanes and trying to pick pockets and leaving your feet to block shots.

I would argue it requires good fundamentals to be a great power hitter, because anybody can swing the bat hard but you still have to actually hit the ball. Really it comes down to success rate that separates them.. What do you think? Am I splitting hairs?

I am afraid I am useless in baseball analogies, because I have no knowledge about baseball and haven't watched a single game in my life...

I've got you on that one

[70sFan]

I think his insane athleticism often made people forget that he was very fundamentally sound offensive player. He had excellent handles, elite post game, outstanding footwork, great jumpshot. Basically any skill you want from a guard.

On defense though, he's anything but fundamentally sound. He relied heavily on his athleticism and often took unnecessary risks.

I don't think his fundamentals were bad though. Jordan loved to help on bigs in the paint, but his recovery speed and ability to close is basically second to none at his height and length, it's worth the gamble when you can make it back at the speeds he can. Definitely didn't always work, but I think his gambles helped way more than they hurt, and pinning himself to a single man and not utilizing his ability to terrorize passing lanes and as a shotblocker would make him a worse player, not better, even if it misses sometimes. 3.2 steals(1st) and 1.6 blocks(16th in the league) is still a mind boggling number to me.

But his footwork, movement, hand placement, ability to contest, bother ball handlers without fouling all were top notch.

I think he has very refined fundamentals for things like shot contests, use of hands, positioning etc. His footwork was also elite, although I wouldn't call his technique top notch.

The problem is without the ball. It's not about him just picking his spots. Jordan was a constant ball-watcher and huge gambler. He often left his man wide open to get steals or blocks. With hiw crazy motor and athleticism, it often worked but that's not how a fundamentally sound defender helps off-ball. It's visible when he got older and slower (especially in Wizards years) when his off-ball rotations often got exposed.

It doesn't mean he was a bad defender, I think he was well taught and a lot of that was his choice, but he never got away from his gambling tendencies which were very visible in his first years in the league (when he wasn't really good defensively).