whiteathlete33
Hall of Famer
Here is another reason I hate the NBA. Egotistical maniacs like Michael Jordan making outrageous claims.
<h2 ="title" property="dc:title">Jordan: 'I could have scored 100 points' in today's NBA</h2> By Kelly Dwyer</span></span>
In the buildup to the release of the NBA 2K11 video game, Chicago Bulls legend Michael Jordan (who is prominently featured in the game, and in the advertising hyping up the game), sat down with USA Today's Game Hunters blog to discuss Michael Jordan.
This snippet stood out:<blockquote>
How has the game changed from your playing days?
It's
less physical and the rules have changed, obviously. Based on these
rules, if I had to play with my style of play, I'm pretty sure I would
have fouled out or I would have been at the free throw line pretty often
and I could have scored 100 points.</blockquote>
Yeah.
Michael
Jordan's the greatest player ever. His presence on my hometown team is
the reason I do what I do for a living, and I'd be one of the dozens to
go broke in betting against him. But I'm betting against him. He
wouldn't have gotten 100. He needed overtime to make it to 69 points, once, and that was his career high.
And,
yes, in a league with a few more possessions per game, and in a world
without overt hand-checking, yes, Michael Jordan would have scored more
in this era than he actually did in the 1980s and 1990s.
But he wouldn't have scored 100. Why? Because Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game was an absolute farce.
[Related Video: Kobe drafts MJ to the Lakers]<a name="remaining-"></a>
Wilt was a 7-2 dominant force going up against a 6-10 backup center on the New York Knicks back in 1962. He was able to put up 63 shots and attempt 32 free throws mainly because the pace was so, so much faster back in that era, and because his Philadelphia Warriors team was intentionally fouling
the Knicks down the stretch in order to get Wilt the ball every time
down court in a contest that was a 16-point game at the end of the first
quarter.
It was an absolute joke of a "contest," and though Wilt
is to be commended for his brilliance, there's a reason why nobody has
come very close in the 48 years since Wilt's 100-point game.
[Related: NBA stars top 'all overrated' list]
The closest? Kobe Bryant(notes),</span> in a performance that I think was more impressive than Wilt's, mainly because he wasn't a man amongst boys (just an MVP-level performer, playing against a pretty crummy team in the Toronto Raptors),
and because 90 percent of his points came in competitive action. His
Lakers (beyond Kobe, they were very, very bad back then) were losing
through 2 1/2 quarters, and until the final couple of minutes, the
Lakers needed every one of Kobe's 81 points.
On top of that,
Bryant made 7-13 3-pointers on his way to 81. That's the quickest way
toward 100, these days, and Jordan was never much of a 3-point shooter
-- 29 percent career, when you take away the nearly 2 1/2 seasons Jordan
played with the shorter 22-foot 3-point line. Sure, hand-checks would
send you to the line more often, but that many times? Enough to get to
100?
It's OK to "just" be the best ever, MJ. It's OK to be the
all-around player you were. And it's OK to wonder if you could top
Kobe's 81. But 100 points? Who cares? Wilt's night was impressive, but
it was an aberration. A freak show. A gimmick, and not entirely the
proudest moment in this league's history (again, the Warriors fouled the
Knicks to get the ball back!).
It's OK, MJ. They're still making video games about you. Nobody's forgotten anything.
[Rewind: NBA player takes a swing at a record and misses]
<h2 ="title" property="dc:title">Jordan: 'I could have scored 100 points' in today's NBA</h2> By Kelly Dwyer</span></span>
In the buildup to the release of the NBA 2K11 video game, Chicago Bulls legend Michael Jordan (who is prominently featured in the game, and in the advertising hyping up the game), sat down with USA Today's Game Hunters blog to discuss Michael Jordan.
This snippet stood out:<blockquote>
How has the game changed from your playing days?
It's
less physical and the rules have changed, obviously. Based on these
rules, if I had to play with my style of play, I'm pretty sure I would
have fouled out or I would have been at the free throw line pretty often
and I could have scored 100 points.</blockquote>
Yeah.
Michael
Jordan's the greatest player ever. His presence on my hometown team is
the reason I do what I do for a living, and I'd be one of the dozens to
go broke in betting against him. But I'm betting against him. He
wouldn't have gotten 100. He needed overtime to make it to 69 points, once, and that was his career high.
And,
yes, in a league with a few more possessions per game, and in a world
without overt hand-checking, yes, Michael Jordan would have scored more
in this era than he actually did in the 1980s and 1990s.
But he wouldn't have scored 100. Why? Because Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game was an absolute farce.
[Related Video: Kobe drafts MJ to the Lakers]<a name="remaining-"></a>
Wilt was a 7-2 dominant force going up against a 6-10 backup center on the New York Knicks back in 1962. He was able to put up 63 shots and attempt 32 free throws mainly because the pace was so, so much faster back in that era, and because his Philadelphia Warriors team was intentionally fouling
the Knicks down the stretch in order to get Wilt the ball every time
down court in a contest that was a 16-point game at the end of the first
quarter.
It was an absolute joke of a "contest," and though Wilt
is to be commended for his brilliance, there's a reason why nobody has
come very close in the 48 years since Wilt's 100-point game.
[Related: NBA stars top 'all overrated' list]
The closest? Kobe Bryant(notes),</span> in a performance that I think was more impressive than Wilt's, mainly because he wasn't a man amongst boys (just an MVP-level performer, playing against a pretty crummy team in the Toronto Raptors),
and because 90 percent of his points came in competitive action. His
Lakers (beyond Kobe, they were very, very bad back then) were losing
through 2 1/2 quarters, and until the final couple of minutes, the
Lakers needed every one of Kobe's 81 points.
On top of that,
Bryant made 7-13 3-pointers on his way to 81. That's the quickest way
toward 100, these days, and Jordan was never much of a 3-point shooter
-- 29 percent career, when you take away the nearly 2 1/2 seasons Jordan
played with the shorter 22-foot 3-point line. Sure, hand-checks would
send you to the line more often, but that many times? Enough to get to
100?
It's OK to "just" be the best ever, MJ. It's OK to be the
all-around player you were. And it's OK to wonder if you could top
Kobe's 81. But 100 points? Who cares? Wilt's night was impressive, but
it was an aberration. A freak show. A gimmick, and not entirely the
proudest moment in this league's history (again, the Warriors fouled the
Knicks to get the ball back!).
It's OK, MJ. They're still making video games about you. Nobody's forgotten anything.
[Rewind: NBA player takes a swing at a record and misses]
