# MJ unguardable under today's rules?



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Article found courtesy of PM from GB:

http://www.truehoop.com/



> *Joe Dumars: Michael Jordan Unguardable with Current NBA Rules*
> 
> One of the great triumphs of defense in recent decades was the 1990 Detroit Pistons' dismantling of young Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. Roland Lazenby talked to Dumars about that series, and Dumars admits that the way perimeter defense is being called these days, Jordan would not have been guardable at all (and presumably would have won the title in 1990, much as Dwyane Wade did in 2006). It seems a shame to miss out on stuff like this (originally from Lindy's Pro Basketball Annual, and quoted from Lazenby's blog):
> 
> ...





> Jordan had to dig deeper to respond to the Pistons, and his effort pushed his Bulls to six championships over the next eight seasons.
> The unfortunate footnote to this legacy is that under an interpretation of the rules adopted by the NBA last season, if Dumars were playing today he would not be allowed to guard Jordan so physically, or perhaps even guard him at all.
> Today Dumars is the chief basketball executive of the team he once led as a player. He’s an honest man, which means he chooses his words carefully.
> Asked in July if he could defend Jordan under today’s interpretation of the rules, Dumars first laughed, then offered a long pause before replying, “It would have been virtually impossible to defend Michael Jordan based on the way the game’s being called right now.”
> ...


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Well, put it together:

Wade=Gets calls left and right

Wade=Skillset compared to Jordan

Yeah, I think it's safe to say Jordan would have the upperhand on offense.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MJ would have found a way to become unguardable under any system.

However, if we're talking about early, mediocre-jump-shooting MJ, I think that whatever advantage he would have gained via the elimination of hand-checking would have been offset by the removal of the silly illegal-defense rules that MJ exploited to great advantage.

Back then, you had a choice -- rely on single defenders like Craig Ehlo to stop Jordan in clear-out situations, or send a wave of defenders at him early, whereby Jordan would pick you apart with passes to open cutters. 

If he was playing under today's rules, you could zone MJ a lot more effectively and have the threat of a double- or triple-team loom without selling out your entire D. That's basically what the "Jordan Rules" were -- a stout defender up front, and a team behind him that was trying to play zone without getting caught.

I don't dispute Dumars's/Winter's assertion that a single person wouldn't have been able to guard Jordan under the current system. But few single defenders could under the old system, and I think it would be possible to play better TEAM d vs. MJ under the new rules vs. the old.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Good points about the illegal d.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't dispute Dumars's/Winter's assertion that a single person wouldn't have been able to guard Jordan under the current system. But few single defenders could under the old system, and I think it would be possible to play better TEAM d vs. MJ under the new rules vs. the old.


''

You may misintrepreting what Dumar and Winters said.

Dumars was perhaps asked but neither explicitly mentioned individual vs. team defense. Not sure why you are assuming the former. Dumars said MJ would be unguardable. “It would have been virtually impossible to defend Michael Jordan based on the way the game’s being called right now.” Sounds like a team to me. 

I agree with Winters. "It's pretty hard to guard someone on the outside — especially a player with a lot of quickness — if you can't even touch them."

Even with the extra bodies getting closer to MJ without the illegal D call, the fact that you can't touch a player makes MJ unguardable *to an entire team IMHO.* We have assume that's what Dumars and Winters are saying as well.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think MJ always was basically unguardable unless there was a rule that he couldn't play I don't see any rule change having much effect on that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> ''
> 
> I believe you are misconstruing what Dumar and Winters said.
> 
> ...


I don't know -- Dumars seems to be lamenting the fact that players aren't allowed to put their hands all over everyone on the perimeter anymore. 

I'll maintain that no single player was ever able to guard the pre-jumper MJ. Dumars may have frustrated him more than anyone else, but what ultimately stopped MJ was that when he got by Dumars, everyone else on Detroit was waiting for him.

Here's a great comment by Kevin Pelton on the link TB provided:



> The "imagine what Jordan what have done with these rules" argument has become very popular in the last year or so, but I don't think it's quite accurate.
> 
> Obviously Joe Dumars has a better understanding than me, but the rule prohibiting handchecking is, to my understanding, a direct response to the Jordan Rules and their logical extension, the Knicks' mugging/defense under Pat Riley.
> 
> ...


I'm weary of all the arguments about the current rules, too. It's still possible to stop an elite offensive player (witness Bulls v. Wade, 2006 East semis), and offensive players still ran wild under the old rules (MJ, Karl Malone, Kareem, Larry Bird, Purvis Short, etc.).


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> MJ would have found a way to become unguardable under any system.
> 
> However, if we're talking about early, mediocre-jump-shooting MJ, I think that whatever advantage he would have gained via the elimination of hand-checking would have been offset by the removal of the silly illegal-defense rules that MJ exploited to great advantage.
> 
> ...


The Jordon rules were that any time Jordon drove to the basket Lambier, Mahorn or Rodman would level him. When Wade goes to the floor it's because he put himself there. But the Pistons threw Jordon to the floor deliberately with intention to cause bodily harm. If the NBA had had a flagrant foul rule at that time there would have been no Jordon rules. In fact it's that rule that is largely responsible for the fact that the Bad-boys defensive techniques have not been implemented today.

I agree that Jordon's driving game would have been less effective if zones were allowed. But he would have found another way to beat the opposition. The amazing thing about Jordon was that he would not have been phased by any rule change, and would have simply seen it as another challenge to overcome. The best example of that is how he learned to shoot when John Starks was allowed to hand-check his shooting arm on every shot -- it took him a while to adjust, but he did.

In the end, in the absence of anti hand-checking rules and the presence of flagrant foul rules he would have been impossible to stop, zone or no-zone. Most likely he would have gotten bored with scoring, and found another way to challenge himself like he did one season when he tried to string together triple double performances during a boring stretch of the season.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> MJ would have found a way to become unguardable under any system.
> 
> However, if we're talking about early, mediocre-jump-shooting MJ, I think that whatever advantage he would have gained via the elimination of hand-checking would have been offset by the removal of the silly illegal-defense rules that MJ exploited to great advantage.
> 
> ...


Good post. You also mentioned Ehlo, who wouldn't be caught dead caughting Jordan in today's era. You'd see guys like Bowen and Artest on Jordan. If those were allowed to hold and handcheck you, you'd never score. Jordan is no exception, I doubt if he'd score 25 a game if wing players who are 6'7, but also strong as hell and athletic as hell, were allowed to handcheck and hold. 

I think the rules changes are to nuetralize the evolution of the game and keep things fair to both the offense and defense. Offense isn't any easier than it was back then, because defensive concepts have evolved, team defense is improved because of the zone rulings, and you see a lot more big strong athletes who are just out there for defense. 

Jordan would be great in any era, but I don't think he'd be greater in this era than his own.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Good post. You also mentioned Ehlo, who wouldn't be caught dead caughting Jordan in today's era. You'd see guys like Bowen and Artest on Jordan. If those were allowed to hold and handcheck you, you'd never score. Jordan is no exception, I doubt if he'd score 25 a game if wing players who are 6'7, but also strong as hell and athletic as hell, were allowed to handcheck and hold.
> 
> I think the rules changes are to nuetralize the evolution of the game and keep things fair to both the offense and defense. Offense isn't any easier than it was back then, because defensive concepts have evolved, team defense is improved because of the zone rulings, and you see a lot more big strong athletes who are just out there for defense.
> 
> Jordan would be great in any era, but I don't think he'd be greater in this era than his own.



I have to disagree. Jordan of the late 80's was just a quick as Iverson. I remember the league was trying to determine if his 1st step was traveling because it was so quick. Even with strength and size, they wouldn't be able to stay in front of Jordan. Heck, defensive player knew Jordan was going to go right and still couldn't stop him. The only person who could stop Jordan was Jordan. There is no one player in the history of the game who could shut Jordan down.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ChiSox said:


> Jordan of the late 80's was just a quick as Iverson.


Rampant, unadulterated hagiography. That simply isn't true.

Jordan was exceptionally quick for his size, maybe, but let's not get carried away.


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

Swop MJ in for Wade in this years Finals and they'd have been over in 4 with Mike averaging 70ppg and 40fta...

i wish they'd go back to the old rules....the top defenders are being handicapped by all the touch fouls called, it detracts from their art and is as such unfairly biased to offensive players who drive to the basket constantly and initiate contact.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

gregorius said:


> Swop MJ in for Wade in this years Finals and they'd have been over in 4 with Mike averaging 70ppg and 40fta...
> 
> i wish they'd go back to the old rules....the top defenders are being handicapped by all the touch fouls called, it detracts from their art and is as such unfairly biased to offensive players who drive to the basket constantly and initiate contact.


Jordan's career FTA per game average- pre-second come back 8.7, career 8.5

Last Season (FTA's per game)
Arenas- 10.0
James- 10.2
Wade- 10.7
Iverson- 11.5
Kobe- 10.2
Pierce- 10.1
Carmelo- 8.9


----------



## BIG and little Ben (Jul 4, 2006)

i hate it when they call wade the next MJ !


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Good post. You also mentioned Ehlo, who wouldn't be caught dead caughting Jordan in today's era. You'd see guys like Bowen and Artest on Jordan..


]

The rules have changed much more than the caliber of defenders.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Rampant, unadulterated hagiography. That simply isn't true.
> 
> Jordan was exceptionally quick for his size, maybe, but let's not get carried away.


i agree, he had the perfect combo really.

if someone was faster than him then he would use his strength.
if someone was stronger than him then he could use his speed.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

This is why it would stink to be an official. As much as everyone complains about how much LeBron and Wade get away with, there are still people complaining about how much Bowen holds his man and plays shut-down defense by getting away with fouls. So the officials are calling both too many fouls and not enough fouls at the same time.

The game evolves, the way it's called changes with time. I wouldn't mind if it was a bit more physical than it is today, but the Badboy Pistons were taking legal cheap shots and the evolution into the Riley/Van Gundy Knicks and Heat games was just excruciating to watch. The bent arm elbow-checking at half court just had to go. Now it's probably swung too far the other way, but allowing hand-checking as long as it didn't impeed the ball-handler wasn't working either because there was too much difference in the interpretation.

Old school guys like Barkley compain about the stuff that gets called flagrant now and he's got a point, but I'd much rather watch the game as it is today than Knicks 67-Heat 64 circa mid-90's.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You'd see guys like Bowen and Artest on Jordan.


Yeah, but there's only one Bowen and Artest. Who else is there on the perimeter that plays consistent good D? Nobody.

btw, Bowen and Artest don't sniff a chance of containing MJ the way they contain some of the league's current superstars. He'd be much too quick and too smart for both. The players(Dumars, Payton, Starks, Malone) that guarded MJ best were usually shorter than him and thus had the quickness to somewhat be able to stay with him. Artest and Bowen have no chance.



> I doubt if he'd score 25 a game if wing players who are 6'7, but also strong as hell and athletic as hell, were allowed to handcheck and hold.


Is this a joke? A near-40 year old Jordan was averaging 25/5/5 halfway through the 01-02 season where the game was still pretty darn physical, maybe not to the extent it was 10 years ago but hardly what it was last year either. And Y do you keep saying how today's guys are more athletic as if being athletic translates into being a good defender? The game's best perimeter defenders(Artest, Kirk, Bowen) are no more athletic than guys MJ went up against. 

A prime MJ(that would be the early 90's) playing for the DYNASTY BULLS would put up 33/7/6/2/1 on 55% shooting under the 05-06 rules. He was unstoppable as it is under significantly tougher rules, and the current rules of zero contact allowed on the perimeter would make the game that much more easier for the greatest slasher, finisher and mid range shooter of all time.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I'm weary of all the arguments about the current rules, too. It's still possible to stop an elite offensive player (witness Bulls v. Wade, 2006 East semis)


Does anything in that jump out at anyone else but me?


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

step said:


> Does anything in that jump out at anyone else but me?



erm... maybe something about the East _semis_ which was really just the first round?
perhaps.


----------

