Is Michael Jordan's Wizards years that much of a black mark?

[eliasrapp98]

I was born in 1989 so I don't remember Jordan on the Bulls much at all. I sort of remember his Wizards days, but not enough to know the details. So... Why is that considered such a black mark on his career? I understand that he could've gone out a champion with his final shot being the finals game winner. That's story book right there, but isn't it also just as impressive that after 3 years off, at 38 and 39, he could still average 22 and 20 PPG with 1.5 SPG, more RPG than some of his final years with the Bulls. His FG% went down though. Also on a slightly related note, why was he an all star in his second year when he played just 18 games and started just 7 with worse numbers than his rookie year?

[myronbolitar]

No, it wasn't a black mark. That Wizards team won 19 games the year before he got there - I believe they won 37 when he joined the team. Still not great, but a huge improvement. They were over .500 in his first season and he was putting up 25/6/5 or so...there was even some MVP talk. Then, he went down with injury and they failed without him. He hit game winners, had 40+ pt games (even a 50+) and had some memorable performances. He was out of his prime, but still a top player from ages 38-40, which I consider pretty impressive.

[Quotatious]

I don't think it was a black mark at all. If anything, it was a proof of Jordan's greatness that, for example, he was still able to score 43 points after turning 40 years old, and even though he wasn't exactly a great player by that time (he was, to put it bluntly - a chucker), it's still pretty impressive that he was able to average over 20 PPG on such an old age. I really enjoyed watching MJ on the Wizards because sometimes he still showed flashes of the good old MJ, and because I wasn't able to enjoy the very prime of his career (only started watching in 1996), every game of MJ that I was able to see was very enjoyable because of the sentimental value, more than for a pure basketball value.

He was just an old man who wanted to have some fun during his stint with the Wizards. I don't really treat that as a serious career.

If you want to find a true black mark for MJ, it gotta be the '95 playoffs and the loss to Orlando in the second round, because he was a serious player back then. In the early 2000s, he was just getting out there onto the court for pure love for the game. Winning was a secondary or tertiary concern.

[Witzig-Okashi]

As a player, I don't think so.
I don't think many players that play for other franchises at the tail end of their careers suffer blemishes if they are a long time member for one franchise. Rocket fans don't hold anything against Hakeem joining the Raptors, and Knicks fans don't for Ewing playing for the Supersonics or the Magic.

Can't say the same for his reputation in basketball operations, though...

[trex_8063]

It's not a black-mark at all. In fact, I for one think it was pretty amazing: to shake off the rust after THREE YEARS in retirement at the ripe old age of 38, and still be able to come back and play two seasons at a legit All-Star level. Even if they didn't make the playoffs, he helped pull a team that hadn't managed 30 wins in ANY of the three previous seasons----heck, couldn't even manage 20 wins in two of them, including the one just prior to his arrival---up to a more respectable 37 wins for two years in a row (they immediately fell off to 25 wins again the year after he left, too). Also set NBA record for oldest chap to score >40pts in a game, etc.

imo, it ADDS a small nudge to his overall legacy.

It's only considered a "black-mark" by people (usually biased) who are really cherry-picking hard for things to criticize Jordan's career with (...."didn't even make the playoffs two years in a row"....).

Even if you don't think those two years add a damn thing to his legacy, I simply do not understand how coming back (particularly in All-Star fashion) can somehow negate what he did before. Makes no sense.

[john248]

It wasn't a black mark for his playing career, but it was for his front office work.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 3

[tsherkin]

It wasn't a black mark. He wasn't the same, rubbed some of his averages the wrong way and didn't have a ton of success but there were cool moments and throwback games, the 2003 All-Star game (damnit, JO!!!) and so on.

If Artest hadn't have busted his ribs, his 01-02 season would have probably been .500 with playoffs.

It's more that he's a derp as management from that era than that he played. It was worth it to see him again.

[ThunderDan9]

The fairy-tale narrative was hurt a little, though.
It's obvious that threepeating the second time (so winning 6 out of 6...), and finishing it with The Shot (the last of these ) would have been the perfect, mythical ending.

Of course, it's amazing how anyone could be a 20 ppg player in the NBA after three years of retirement at almost 40...

For me, the much more peculiar feature of his career is the retirement in 93. Call it a black mark, if you want.
Not a single player of that caliber took a one-and-a-half year vacation at the peak of his career. (Imagine Lebron retired last summer... )

[Reservoirdawgs]

It shouldn't be a black mark...rational people are able to put that time into context when comparing his career with others. The narrative was hurt a little, but narratives are basically worthless to begin with anyways. I would bet that most people forget he even played for the Wizards.

[guy1]

No it wasn't. No one really gives a ****. Maybe the most overrated belief in sports is the idea that a player playing at such an old age at such a shell of themselves and sometimes for another team then the one they spent the best years of their career is such a black mark on their career. No one really cares that Jordan, Shaq, Barkley, Hakeem, Ewing, etc didn't just retire earlier then they did then play at such a decline. And Jordan, Malone, Ewing, Hakeem, Montana, Rice, Emmitt, Favre, Manning aren't any less associated and/or worshipped by the franchises they left then they would've been had they stayed the whole time (maybe Favre, but that won't last.)

[ThunderDan9]

I would bet that most people forget he even played for the Wizards.

Ewing as a Sonic and Magic, anyone?

[MojoPharoah]

The only 'black mark' for that is for ex-Bulls GM Jerry Krause, who essentially forced Jordan out by refusing to keep PJax & Pip and wanted to forge his own legacy. Jordan decided to quit, but hadn't wanted to leave then, which is why he ended up coming back again.

[colts18]

What Wizards years?

[MojoPharoah]

The fairy-tale narrative was hurt a little, though.
It's obvious that threepeating the second time (so winning 6 out of 6...), and finishing it with The Shot (the last of these ) would have been the perfect, mythical ending.

Of course, it's amazing how anyone could be a 20 ppg player in the NBA after three years of retirement at almost 40...

For me, the much more peculiar feature of his career is the retirement in 93. Call it a black mark, if you want.
Not a single player of that caliber took a one-and-a-half year vacation at the peak of his career. (Imagine Lebron retired last summer... )

I never had a problem with the 1st retirement, because you see how bored he was going through the third leg of the 3-peat. He was hitting game-winners in the PS and his face showed almost no emotion. For a guy who runs on competitive fire, you could almost watch him trying to manifest ways to feel that burn, but he couldn't quite get there(except for maybe the NY series and the Finals), and still won anyway. Once his father died, he didn't have the drive to go through it anymore.

As an example, everybody talks about LeBron coasting this year as if it were something acceptable, but Jordan was never willing to just coast. He said it himself:

"I always said to the people that have known me that when I lose that sense of motivation and that sense that I can prove something, it's time for me to leave."

[AussieBuck]

He managed a 36USG season at 47TS% which is pretty hilarious.

[MacGill]

It was amazing him coming back and seeing his last farewell tour! I remember every arena being so excitied as many who never got to actually see him, had a chance, however far removed from his prime.

The only black mark to me was that he really couldn't change his style of game from 'destroyer mode' and while he certainly helped the Wizards, it went from being mentor of players to being (I still think I am MJ in 98). He was being iced down on the bench with ice around his knees, and while it was very impressive, at the end of the day, regardless of his age, he came back and against his own self, it paled in comparison.

To me, I would have rather seen a more 'take the backseat approach' MJ and really help develop the talent he had, even at the cost of more losses. People would have paid to see him regardless. Now, before other's chime in and say, well who else was there, I get it that he loved the game, and what he did at that age etc, and if he wasn't the GOAT or top 2-3 candidate, I may feel a little different. But unlike many other greats in other sports, Gretzsky for example, he didn't have the same transition with his game to me and oh course, his competitiveness would never allow him to concede.

So it's a bit to me, and mainly because I feel like I lost out more in his prime years and got the cheap a$$ prize instead

[PCProductions]

He managed a 36USG season at 47TS% which is pretty hilarious.

He was actually mentioned in Tom Haberstroh's "Brick Index" article today, and, by his own formula, Jordan's 2002 season was the third most toxic chuck-fest by any player since 2000.

[andremcosta]

No. People often exagerate the need to finish a career as a great player.

A sports career is short. 20 years in the league is considered a big accomplishment, but is nothing compared to a regular career, and at 40 you are still a young person.

As soon as the guy can contribute in some way, even playing 10 minutes in a secondary role, that's nothing wrong with that.

Also, for some fans it's an opportunity to see a legend playing.

I see Tim Duncan as the best player of his generation and I wasn't able to see him play live. Maybe I'll be able in the next couple of years, and I don't care if he will be very productive or not. Just seeing some goats playing is a great deal for some fans.

I think ring chasing is a little different, but I still respect guys like Gary Payton and Karl Malone as true legends and I still rank them as high as always despite of that. So in the end, even ring chasing is not that much of a black mark.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I don't think the fact that his decline in level of play should be seen as a black mark, that's to be expected at that age.

However the fact that a lot of his teamates grew weary of his outbursts and zoned him out makes me question how much of his yelling and berating of guys that he made a career of doing during his Bulls tenure would work hypothetically in many other greats' shoes on teams they made successful? He needed to be surrounded by guys that wouldn't get in his way offensively.....wouldn't challenge his authority or else they were in his bad books or as good as gone from the team.

And that'll always be a black mark to me with regards to Jordan. Unlike a few of other all-time greats I just don't think Jordan's game/persona would mesh well with any and anybody if I'm looking at this so-called: "GOAT" thing. Looking back at NBA history, would I draft Jordan number one to start a team over anyone that ever played the game?

Absolutely not.