LeBron James recently announced that he plans to switch his jersey number from 23 to 6 next season. The move would be made out of respect for Michael Jordan, and James thinks others around the league should do the same. He even went as far as to say “if I’m not going to wear No. 23, then nobody else should be able to wear it”, which I thought was pretty funny. However, I do agree with James in that Jordan’s number should be retired from the NBA.
The initial thoughts are that a league-wide retirement seems unlikely. Lakers coach Phil Jackson said that the move may step on the toes of Magic and Bird a little, and Charles Barkley stated that the two had a larger impact on the game than Jordan. Magic coach Stan Van Gundy feels that there are too many other deserving players and joked that pretty soon players will be wearing numbers like 373. I have to disagree with these statements.
What Van Gundy said was about as laughable as his appearance, so it doesn’t come as a surpirse to take what he says lightly. You don’t just retire a number from the league for great players or superstars (i.e. Kobe, Garnett, Wade, Duncan, etc. for this generation). You would do it for the greatest person to ever play the game, and that doesn’t happen 373 times.
The argument involving Magic and Bird, however, is a bit more meaningful. Not to take anything away from the two, but neither are considered the greatest player of all-time. Sure, they started a movement in the NBA and helped the game of basketball reach new heights, but it was through a rivalry. When I see players wearing the number 23 I immediately think of Jordan, and the same cannot be said for players wearing 32 (Magic) or 33 (Bird). Even when arguably the greatest player in the game today (James) wears 23, everyone still thinks Jordan, and the other players that also wear the number do so in honor.
Jordan’s brand also adds another dimension to the number, but I won’t get into that. The number 23 is no longer just a number, and it hasn’t been for some time now. There is an irrefutable aura that surrounds it, and that is why it should be retired.
I agree and I disagree. Yes Michael Jordan was the man. But what about Bill Russell, won 11 championships wearing number 6. His number doesnt deserve to be retired?
Bill Russell isn’t the face of basketball. Jordan is arguably the most popular player ever…of all sports. He’s up there along the lines of Ali.
Also, Russell played in the 50′s and 60′s. His numbers would not have been the same if he played in Jordan’s era.
Yeah I am not saying I dont agree with you. That was actually my dads argument and I responded the exact same way you did, but I did look at Bill Russells stats and they are pretty impressive. I think it would be interesting to see how he would have done in Jordans era, it could have been something to watch. But yeah I agree with you though, your second paragraph is like word for word what I said back to my dad. Michael Jordan is the face of basketball. Good article luc.
” Even when arguably the greatest player in the game today (James) wears 23, everyone still thinks Jordan”
Don’t you think that’s why LeBron is really changing his number, so he doesn’t live the shadow of MJ. Hmm…..
That’s also a good point.
This league-wide number retirement is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of. To use a very loose analogy, our country operates with some things being federal issues and some things being state issues. Likewise, it is important in sports to distinguish between what should be a league-wide issue and what should be a team-by-team basis issue.
Retiring jerseys is something an individual TEAM does, not what a league should be verbally browbeaten into doing by its so-called best player of the moment.
I assume if Lebron, 15 or 20 years from now and after a stint in baseball and a reretirement, becomes the NEW face of basketball, then his new number should also be retired, right? Since he would then be THE face of basketball, should Jordan’s then be unretired?
To further pursue the 20 years later hypothetical, perhaps another possibility is that only the number 23 stays retired since it was technically both Jordan’s AND Lebron’s (the new face of basketball’s) number; although a problem is that 23 wouldn’t be Lebron’s number at the time of him actually cementing his “new face” status.
So you don’t think Wayne Gretzky’s #99 should have been retired throughout the NHL?
who gives a shit about hockey? Mexicans know who MJ is. hell, even the little bastards in china know his number too. you wanna know why? they sewed all of his damn jerseys they sell. by hand. they remember. they know the importance of the American dream.
If you don’t understand how big Mj’s brand is. take a poll for yourself of 5 other popular sports stars. I bet you the only person that would get Mj’s number wrong would be a new born.
and the only reason why the baby would get it wrong is because no one explained the definition of basketball to him.
great players comes, we all know magic, larry, bill russel, but there is just one greatest.
the guy did not named “the greatest player ever played the game” for nothing.
with all do respect to the other great hall of famers, but they arent as great as MJ.
it doesnt mean if you retire 23 its unfair to bill, magic, larry and the others, they are great players, but we are talking about the greatest. the one that made a big difference, the one that made the nba a very popular sport that no one has ever done before. no.23 should be retired.
Gretzky’s dominated his game like nobody else. He’s the greatest athlete of all time, no doubt.
well go spread the word eric.
Well put, Oby.
Eric – you’re correct; I believe that it was wrong to retire Gretzky’s number.
I also think a lot of this comes down to this whole “face of the sport” thing. I think it is a logical fallacy to say that person X, who is the “face of the Y sport” is the greatest ever of the Y sport. One reason is because a lot of “face” criteria depends on things out of the player’s control. For example, merchandise sold/marketability/charisma (which has little to do with actual stats)/likeability factor, etc. Yes, Jordan is a household name but being a household name doesn’t mean that you’re automatically the best. Coca-Cola is a household name but that doesn’t mean it’s the best soda and that no other soda should ever come in a red can. Even though it is a very high quality soda, it is still arguable that it’s the “BEST.” I realize that that is far from an airtight analogy but I am just trying to illustrate the point a little.
“Making a big difference” and “making the NBA a very popular sport,” I would say, are not valid criteria to judge a player’s greatness. The former, “making a big difference,” is largely subjective unless substantiated. The second fails to explain why making the NBA a very popular sport has anything to do with being the best player of that sport. I suppose the argument which is very very minorly hinted at is that ‘only the best player in the sport could make the sport so popular’ but I think that isn’t true, it’s the same fallacy I mentioned above.
Should baseball have retired 42?
No.
Why should any sport retire a number league-wide? It gives way too much deference to a player. Sports are bigger than the players, despite what some players like Chad Ochocinco (and all his unsold, worthless jerseys) and Terrell Owens think.
While certain players make a big difference in a sport, doing so does not also mean they are the best ever. I would say on average, most people seem to choose other players than Jackie Robinson as the greatest ever. At the very least, even those who pick Robinson as the greatest will admit that it is arguable. Don’t get me wrong, though, I love Jackie, especially given me partiality to infielders.
Now of course, Jackie made a remarkable difference in the sport but I think it is frustrating to differentiate between “remarkable differences” and reject some in favor of others…obviously, MJ signaled a major resurgence in basketball interest and arguably saved the NBA (arguably because there were a lot of other great players around at the time…without them to be on opposing teams, a more Superman-esque Jordan could have become boring to watch). However, what if, say, baseball became very unpopular (probably due to blown calls) and was in danger of disbanding (the MLB); suddenly, a new player who is kinda good has a lot of charisma and kids like him so he ends up arguably “saving” MLB. Should his hypothetical number be retired? If no, then it seems odd to make a distinction for Jordan but not for Hypothetical Guy.
Well that depends. Let me start off by saying the number 42 should not have been retired in baseball. If you’re going to retire the number of the first black guy in baseball, you have to do the same for the first white guy, right? Anyway, I doubt you will ever see a number in baseball be retire due to the fact that it’s such a team sport. Where in basketball, if you have one great player your team will succeed year in and year our. More of an individual sport, more recognition for that one player (i.e MJ). So it’s harder for just one player to ‘save’ baseball than it would be to save basketball. I know you’re just speaking hypothetically, but thats a biggggg difference.
Basketaball is not an individual sport, do you honestly think Jordan could have pulled off what he did without the supporting cast he had. I mean Pippen, Rodman, Harper, Steve Kerr etc. They were a great team. Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball of all time, but I honestly do not think he would have won 6 nba championships if it was not for those guys help.
Kobe is another example, look at the team he has around him now with the addition of Artest. I mean you cant win it all by yourself, even if you are michael Jordan. Look at the Oklahoma Thunder, they have a Kevin Durant, now he is no Michael Jordan of course but he is a great player. They dont succeed much at all. There are plenty of teams in the NBA that have a great players on their team that dont succeed.
I concur (obviously) Ricky, though I would suggest an even stronger example than Kevin Durant would be when Kevin Garnett was on the T’Wolves.
I do agree with you Eric that basketball is more an individual sport but it is not a complete individual sport. As Ricky mentioned, there are other players (not to mention coaches, though they have less of an effect, they still have an effect. I will say that bad coaching is often more obvious than good coaching). It is very difficult for one player, even one of the arguable “greatests” to win a championship all on their own. Lebron may be a good example of that principle.
I’m just saying its easier as an individual to carry your team in basketball than baseball.
Could Jordan have won 6 titles without that help, yeah he probably could have. We’ll never know, but I eouldn’t bet against it and Ricky I know you wouldn’t either. Like Bobby mentioned, Garnett taking his team to the conference finals, and you haveIverson and LeBron taking their team to the finals. They had no help whatsoever. Those three, as individuals, succeed whitout a supporting cast. Now yes I know it takes more then that to win a championship in the NBA, but when is the last time a baseball team with just ONE star succeed? The NBA is all about the big stars. When you think LA you think Kobe. Whenyou think Miami you think Wade, When you think Denver you think Melo.
Yeah they took their team to the finals but did they win? no. Michael Jordan took his team to the finals, and won 6 championships because of the guys around him. Lebron hasnt won one yet and Iverson didnt. It is about the Big stars, but when I think Chicago I think Michael Jordan and scottie pippen, because without scottie pippen there is no way he would have won 6 NBA championships. I am not saying he wouldnt have won any, but definitely not 6. Look at Kobe, would he have won those without shaq? I mean yeah he won last year but look at his team, Gasol, Bynum, Odom. I mean common now, kobe didnt do it by himself. But I guess we’ll see if Lebron can pull it off this year with shaq. To be honest I would love to see Wade or dwight win one, but I dont think anyone is gonna beat the Lakers.
Kobe and Shaq is wayyyyy better then what LA had last year. I would love to see my man J.J and V.C get a ring =)
So Bobby who is the greatest of all time in the NBA then if it isn’t Jordan?
Well you could make arguments for a number of players really, though not so much if one uses the “he changed the NBA and gave it ratings” argument which I’ve tried hard to debunk. A lot of people and especially Celtic-loving frontrunners will say Russell. I think though that you can make a very good case for Wilt Chamberlain, who proved he could excel in multiple aspects of the game, leading the league in scoring and then, in assists the next year if I recall correctly. He was definitely in another world stat-wise. A lot of people might say Kareem as well.
I personally like other top-tier guys that usually don’t get mentioned in terms of “greatest” like Barkley (yeah I know he’s probably not the greatest but I love this guy,) and especially Reggie Miller. There’s an underrated guy if I ever saw one. His accuracy was off the charts.
Yes all those players were great, I am not saying that at all. But none of them are the greatest basketball player of all time. They all did great things for the game of basketball when they played, but none of them compare to what Jordan did for the game of basketball. I mean do kareem or wilt have their own shoe or clothing brand that is remotely close to as popular as the jordan brand is. That is just one of MANY reasons why Jordan is the greatest of all time! Here are plenty of other reasons to refreshing your memory and yes I am copying and pasting it because it would take too long to type and I honestly can not think of everything the man has done off the top of my head lol. But here it is:
Six-time NBA champion (1991-93, 1996-98); NBA MVP (1988, ’91, ’92, ’96, ’98); 10-time All-NBA First Team (1987-93, 1996-98); All-NBA Second Team (1985); Defensive Player of the Year (1988); Nine-time All-Defensive First Team (1988-93, 1996-98); Rookie of the Year (1985); 14-time All-Star; All-Star MVP (1988, ’96, ’98); One of 50 Greatest Players in NBA History (1996); Two-time Olympic gold medalist (1984, ’92).
Does that help your decision on who the greatest player of all time is? I mean once again I am not taking away anything from what those guys did, because they were all great players, but the numbers don’t lie. Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time plain and simple!
Bobby –
Just so you know, I can’t name any of the jersey numbers of the guys you named… What does that tell you?
Ricky – The last two things (50 greatest and gold medals) don’t help the case any. Being selected as One of 50 greatest just means that there are 49 other “great” players who are all worthy of consideration for “greatest.” Performing well in the Olympics has absolutely zero bearing on how great someone is in the NBA; it’s a different game with different players, isn’t a league and isn’t in any way even really analogous to the NBA, other than that they throw an orange ball through a hoop. It would be like trying to use “Jordan was good in college” as criteria for him being great in the NBA. It’s two different things which aren’t readily comparable.
Other than that, I am not denying his stats but I can give you stats of my guys too and they will look impressive too. What seems to set Jordan over the edge for you (and forgive me if I’m wrong) is this whole “transcendence appeal,” that Jordan had, exemplified when you offer a clothing/shoe brand as “one of MANY reasons why Jordan is the greatest of all time.” I’m sorry, but I can’t see that holding weight. Having a successful brand has little correlation to stats, and lots to do with great marketing and charismatic appeal. Put it this way: Sean Combs has a very successful clothing brand that most people know is associated with him. But that has absolutely no bearing on whether he was the greatest rapper of all time or not. Recognizabiliity does not necessarily equal greatness and cannot itself be an arbiter of greatness.
Luca-
That doesn’t tell me or anyone else anything. Just because YOU can’t, doesn’t mean that other people can’t. Just because the older guys didn’t have the TV market and larger-than-life court personality of Jordan doesn’t make them any worse players. Just because you can remember the number of one of the biggest sports brands of all time doesn’t mean anything. Who knows, if say Wilt had a global market to market shirts, shoes etc, he might have better marketing numbers than Jordan. Then what, does it mean he’s a better player? No, it doesn’t, because marketabiliity has a lot to do with executives, ratings, culture and charismatic appeal, and less to do with statistical greatness or technical precision.
Bobby- First off you never even answered my question, all you did was name a bunch of great players. Second off ok take those last 2 things off his resume, big deal noone else compares to what he did while he played in the NBA. The clothing has nothing to do with the edge of him being greater than everyone else, that just adds to the fact that he is the greatest. The impact that Jordan had on the game makes him the greatest, Its like they said above “Mexicans know who Michael Jordan is, even the little bastards in China know who he is.” Everyone knows who Michael Jordan is and what he did while he played in the NBA. You gotta be the greatest player of all time, when Lebron James (arguably the best player in the NBA now) will not wear his number because of the respect that he has for Michael. But yet he wants to change his number to 6, and I am pretty sure one of your “great” players (aka Bill Russell) wore that number. I guess he looked over that fact. I have no idea what number kareem, wilt or any of those players wore, I mean they were great players dont get me wrong, but you are putting Michael Jordan in the same category as them, and I am pretty sure everyone in the whole world, that is a sports fan of course, could tell you what number Michael Jordan was. That has to tell you something.
Well now, I answered your question by saying that the “greatest” is arguable, not decided. Hence why I can see people being able to make reasoned arguments for any of those guys I named with the exception of maybe Barkley (though he was great). I don’t see the point in me having to pick, all I was doing was making the point that it’s very possible Jordan’s not the greatest.
“The impact that Jordan had on the game makes him the greatest”
Why? Mark McGwire and/or Sammy Sosa had a huge impact on the way the game was played but that doesn’t mean they’re the greatest. Even with good stats.
The impact a player has on the game is very hard to quantify. As I pointed out, there’s no way of knowing that if the rest of the league sucked and Jordan was the only player worth watching, if people would still tune in to the Superman show year after year. My best guess though is that they would not.
Everyone knows who Yao Ming is – that doesn’t mean he’s the greatest. Everyone knows who Lebron James is – that doesn’t mean he’s the greatest. Being memorable isn’t an indicator of greatness though whatsoever. Darko Milicic is a more known name than almost anyone other than the token “star” on any of these teams: Sacramento, Oklahoma, Charlotte, New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, etc.
It really doesn’t tell me anything that everyone knows who someone is. Everyone who watches TV and keeps up with current celebrity drivel knows who Adam Lambert is. That doesn’t mean anything other than popularity. It is not necessarily indicative of talent, though the person in question may indeed be great. Everyone knows who Hulk Hogan is. That doesn’t mean he’s the best pro wrestler or entertainer or actor (definitely not actor, his movies are brutal lol).
lol Well we can both keep going back and fourth but it all is based on opinion anyway right?
“Why? Mark McGwire and/or Sammy Sosa had a huge impact on the way the game was played but that doesn’t mean they’re the greatest.”
Neither of those two are they greatest because neither of them are named Barry Bonds who had a bigger impact with better stats.
Fair enough Ricky
Eric – That’s a good point, though I would say none of those three could be the greatest because they roided. All-time I think Ruth has to be the greatest because of his unheard-of stats…but that was of course a different era. In a more modern context, I’m very partial to Pete Rose. Love that guy!