The Last Dance

[owbc]

Who else is watching? We finally have some new sports-related entertainment so we may as well discuss it!

[pacopete4]

It was an interesting first two episodes. I was born in 84 so I do not remember Jordan of the 80's and just how special of a player he was during that time. It was awesome to see him tear up the Celtics to the tune of 49 and 63 points. It is also crazy that the team was torn apart for really no other reason than they couldn't get along from top to bottom.

[wallus]

I enjoyed seeing the highlights because the game has changed so much. Jordan took a lot of mid range shots and he got a lot of foul calls, just like I remembered him.

[CheezWizHed]

I've not seen the documentary, but I remember pretty much all of Jordan's career. He was an amazing player, but I think he "ruined" the game too. He was pretty much the start of the superstar-iso-and-foul era of the NBA.

 

He took advantage of the NBA's tight rules on man defense only and he simply wasn't guard-able in a one-on-one. But there were SO many touch fouls, especially if he missed a shot. The Bucks were a decent team at the time - annually in the 4-6 seed playoff spot. But were annually blocked by the Bulls.

 

I can't imagine Giannis playing in that era. Wow, he would've tore that up. Jordan had a better jumpshot and better at the FT line. But wow, the dunks that would've happened...

[Baldkin]

I've not seen the documentary, but I remember pretty much all of Jordan's career. He was an amazing player, but I think he "ruined" the game too. He was pretty much the start of the superstar-iso-and-foul era of the NBA.

 

He took advantage of the NBA's tight rules on man defense only and he simply wasn't guard-able in a one-on-one. But there were SO many touch fouls, especially if he missed a shot. The Bucks were a decent team at the time - annually in the 4-6 seed playoff spot. But were annually blocked by the Bulls.

 

I can't imagine Giannis playing in that era. Wow, he would've tore that up. Jordan had a better jumpshot and better at the FT line. But wow, the dunks that would've happened...

 

The 80's Bucks were amazing, but they only lost once to the Bulls, in 89-90. The 90's Bucks were horrible (They missed the playoffs from '92-98) and never lost to the truly great Chicago Bulls.

[owbc]

I enjoyed seeing the highlights because the game has changed so much. Jordan took a lot of mid range shots and he got a lot of foul calls, just like I remembered him.

 

It was fun to hear the Pacers talk about how hard it was to defend him. Although the circumstances that lead to the Bulls even making the playoffs was the real crazy part.

[patrickgpe]

I finally caught up the first 2 episodes. Pretty cool to see the old bucks footage from the MECCA. I was a little too young to remember most of the stuff they covered, so it was very interesting.

[HiAndTight]

I've not seen the documentary, but I remember pretty much all of Jordan's career. He was an amazing player, but I think he "ruined" the game too. He was pretty much the start of the superstar-iso-and-foul era of the NBA.

 

He took advantage of the NBA's tight rules on man defense only and he simply wasn't guard-able in a one-on-one. But there were SO many touch fouls, especially if he missed a shot. The Bucks were a decent team at the time - annually in the 4-6 seed playoff spot. But were annually blocked by the Bulls.

 

I can't imagine Giannis playing in that era. Wow, he would've tore that up. Jordan had a better jumpshot and better at the FT line. But wow, the dunks that would've happened...

 

 

I think it's completely backwards. Not in terms of Jordan's impact on ISO ball, but the defense. The adjustments and added emphasis to the hand check rules have allowed for wings to score much more easily since...what, 2004 than prior to that. Before that, the game was dominated by big men and Jordan's scoring was an outlier. Since then the scoring has been dominated almost primarily by wing players because the rules made it easier, not harder to score.

 

As for the touch fouls...I think you're being more than a little harsh with Jordan on that one. He was on the recieving end of SOO many fouls that would not be called flagrant and to infer that it's not only NOT different today or that it's not even worse today I'd refer you to one Harden, James.

 

Also...you could double team whenever you wanted when Jordan played. You just couldn't guard space. But the Dunks? I really don't see how it would have been easier for Giannis back than OTHER than more bigs played more regularly then and he'd have had an easier time getting around them. And he'd have paid a price far more often for going up.

[rickh150]

First off, the vulgar language could easily be bleeped out... no need for it on ESPN in prime time.

 

Second, the Bulls are breaking many types of team rules here. They were a great dynasty and now to back stab and reopen all kinds of old wounds, whether against opponents or within the team,..... for what? It makes them sound like a bunch of entitled whining middle school kids. Are we supposed to feel sorry for these guys? The GM and owner wanted to go a different direction, so be it. If they wanted to stay together, they could have found a way by all taking less $ and showing an ounce of humbleness and gratitude for the guys who put the team together. The owner and GM have some accountability in this too, no question.

 

I sure hope Jordan and the boys are enjoying all this new attention from the media and reliving glory days because I'm not sure why this is even on. Oh, it's interesting and all that in a soap opera sort of way. But Why does Jordan care about having all this go public (even though most is not new news)? Are we supposed to feel sorry for this team because it could have been so much more after The Last Dance? More typical people from Chicago....

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yeah, the Bulls players should have taken less money to stay together. That's where the blame lies. Scottie Pippen, after that 5/$18mm, should have taken less money...

 

You can watch it bleeped on ESPN3, btw.

[owbc]

I've not seen the documentary, but I remember pretty much all of Jordan's career. He was an amazing player, but I think he "ruined" the game too. He was pretty much the start of the superstar-iso-and-foul era of the NBA.

 

He took advantage of the NBA's tight rules on man defense only and he simply wasn't guard-able in a one-on-one. But there were SO many touch fouls, especially if he missed a shot. The Bucks were a decent team at the time - annually in the 4-6 seed playoff spot. But were annually blocked by the Bulls.

 

I can't imagine Giannis playing in that era. Wow, he would've tore that up. Jordan had a better jumpshot and better at the FT line. But wow, the dunks that would've happened...

 

I think it's completely backwards. Not in terms of Jordan's impact on ISO ball, but the defense. The adjustments and added emphasis to the hand check rules have allowed for wings to score much more easily since...what, 2004 than prior to that. Before that, the game was dominated by big men and Jordan's scoring was an outlier. Since then the scoring has been dominated almost primarily by wing players because the rules made it easier, not harder to score.

 

As for the touch fouls...I think you're being more than a little harsh with Jordan on that one. He was on the recieving end of SOO many fouls that would not be called flagrant and to infer that it's not only NOT different today or that it's not even worse today I'd refer you to one Harden, James.

 

Also...you could double team whenever you wanted when Jordan played. You just couldn't guard space. But the Dunks? I really don't see how it would have been easier for Giannis back than OTHER than more bigs played more regularly then and he'd have had an easier time getting around them. And he'd have paid a price far more often for going up.

 

After seeing those highlights from the '89 playoffs I strongly agree. Jordan was getting absolutely hammered by the Pistons. Some of those highlights looked more like a hockey game, refs intentionally looking the other way, etc. Not sure how you can watch that and not come out with more respect for MJ.

 

---

 

Some might read the banter as backstabbing, I see it as storytelling. And I'm loving it.

[rickh150]

Yeah, the Bulls players should have taken less money to stay together. That's where the blame lies. Scottie Pippen, after that 5/$18mm, should have taken less money...

 

You can watch it bleeped on ESPN3, btw.

 

I agree. The core group could have commanded less money in 1998-1999 to keep the team together. Money was more important for the core group (and management) so the group was broken up in a salary cap and profits built world. Jordan had half the cap (30+ mil) in 97-98, and the team had the highest payroll in 97-98 (61 mil) already.

https://hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago_bulls/1997-1998/

 

What realistic options did the Bulls have? Most say to pay Pippen, but how much would it have taken to keep him with an already expensive Jordan? I'm not an expert on NBA roster and cap management..... perhaps someone has a better plan that would work. I believe that the Bird rule would have applied to Pippen so the team could have gone over the cap to keep him. Then again, Pippen would have wanted a top 5 contract. Jordan would have wanted more. Rodman.. more.

[CheezWizHed]

I've not seen the documentary, but I remember pretty much all of Jordan's career. He was an amazing player, but I think he "ruined" the game too. He was pretty much the start of the superstar-iso-and-foul era of the NBA.

 

He took advantage of the NBA's tight rules on man defense only and he simply wasn't guard-able in a one-on-one. But there were SO many touch fouls, especially if he missed a shot. The Bucks were a decent team at the time - annually in the 4-6 seed playoff spot. But were annually blocked by the Bulls.

 

I can't imagine Giannis playing in that era. Wow, he would've tore that up. Jordan had a better jumpshot and better at the FT line. But wow, the dunks that would've happened...

 

I think it's completely backwards. Not in terms of Jordan's impact on ISO ball, but the defense. The adjustments and added emphasis to the hand check rules have allowed for wings to score much more easily since...what, 2004 than prior to that. Before that, the game was dominated by big men and Jordan's scoring was an outlier. Since then the scoring has been dominated almost primarily by wing players because the rules made it easier, not harder to score.

 

As for the touch fouls...I think you're being more than a little harsh with Jordan on that one. He was on the recieving end of SOO many fouls that would not be called flagrant and to infer that it's not only NOT different today or that it's not even worse today I'd refer you to one Harden, James.

 

Also...you could double team whenever you wanted when Jordan played. You just couldn't guard space. But the Dunks? I really don't see how it would have been easier for Giannis back than OTHER than more bigs played more regularly then and he'd have had an easier time getting around them. And he'd have paid a price far more often for going up.

 

After seeing those highlights from the '89 playoffs I strongly agree. Jordan was getting absolutely hammered by the Pistons. Some of those highlights looked more like a hockey game, refs intentionally looking the other way, etc. Not sure how you can watch that and not come out with more respect for MJ.

 

I'll give you Detroit on the rough defense. The rest of the league wasn't close to the Bad Boys. And those series were pretty rough.

But that was more the exception than the rule. Jordan was the origin of the phantom call... I watched way too many games against the Bucks or in the playoffs where the refs bailed him out. That has continues with the superstars of today (Giannis included), but being able to play more zone ball does mitigates that somewhat.

 

If the 90s Detroit team had to play with today's rules, the whole team would be suspended 4 games into the season with Bill Lambeer in jail...

 

Teams with dominant centers on defense had to go chase the Bulls center had on the far side of the court and opened the lane up. When they did postup in the triangle offense, it was to setup a Jordan drive or jumper.

 

Toronto's defense against the Bucks in the 2019 playoffs was illegal in the 90s. They were floating half-way between Giannis and their man. Close enough to help either direction, but not close enough to either to be in "man". If they had to play with 90s rules, that extra step or two toward Giannis or their man would make a huge difference.

 

BTW, I prefer the current style of play. I never liked the 90s iso ball. If you didn't have a superstar, you automatically lost. Not to mention it was boring to watch. Jordan was an artist with the ball 1on1, but if felt like watching a pick-up game with 8 guys watching on the side.

[owbc]

BTW, I prefer the current style of play. I never liked the 90s iso ball. If you didn't have a superstar, you automatically lost. Not to mention it was boring to watch. Jordan was an artist with the ball 1on1, but if felt like watching a pick-up game with 8 guys watching on the side.

 

I agree for the most part, but I can't stand how many 3 point shots are attempted in today's game. Getting rid of the 3 pt line entirely would be nice. I miss the mid-range jump shot and there are simply too many games decided on the randomness of hot shooting. And too many blowouts when one team is hot and the other is cold.

[CheezWizHed]

Big Dog would be horrible in today's game. His offense was the antithesis of today's game.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Yeah, the Bulls players should have taken less money to stay together. That's where the blame lies. Scottie Pippen, after that 5/$18mm, should have taken less money...

 

You can watch it bleeped on ESPN3, btw.

 

I agree. The core group could have commanded less money in 1998-1999 to keep the team together. Money was more important for the core group (and management) so the group was broken up in a salary cap and profits built world. Jordan had half the cap (30+ mil) in 97-98, and the team had the highest payroll in 97-98 (61 mil) already.

https://hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago_bulls/1997-1998/

 

What realistic options did the Bulls have? Most say to pay Pippen, but how much would it have taken to keep him with an already expensive Jordan? I'm not an expert on NBA roster and cap management..... perhaps someone has a better plan that would work. I believe that the Bird rule would have applied to Pippen so the team could have gone over the cap to keep him. Then again, Pippen would have wanted a top 5 contract. Jordan would have wanted more. Rodman.. more.

 

I was being sarcastic. The blame for the Bulls coming unglued starts and stops with Krause. He deserves a lot of credit for building it, and all of it for the unraveling. There was no need to chase Phil Jackson out other than his own fragile ego.

 

They won six titles though so I'm not sure why anyone has to be "blamed."

 

I also found the whole "should we feel sorry for them" quite odd. That hasn't been the tone of the show...at all.

[rickh150]

There's been a lot of complaining about the Pistons, about writers not picking them to win, about management, about teammates being out of line (Rodman,Pippen). I don't know... it's a great story. I enjoy watching it. Yet, it reminds me of books written by players and coaches years after the fact, bringing up old frustrations and faults that would be best to just let be. There is a bitter undertone to the film, in my opinion.

 

The story also reminds me how good of a team that the Bulls had without Jordan. Jordan gets a lot of credit, and widely deserved. Yet, smaller stars like Pippen, Rodman, even Kukoc who would have been a star for the Bucks in the 90's, made it work. Like others including Jordan have said on the series, without Pippen there are no 6 titles.

 

This story is also told without the villain (Kraus) being alive to defend himself. I hope that the film makers get someone in the front office outside of Reinsdorf to stick up for some of his questionable decisions. I'd like to know what happened behind the scenes that led Kraus to want to go in a different direction, although the bloated financial aspects of the decision are telling. I'm hoping to see a reasonable defense from team Kraus in the coming episodes.

 

Considering how much credit men like Cashman, Epstein, and West get for building winners, Kraus gets so much less. I think there is a small part of prejudice in this too....people look at a short, fat man and they look down on him and minimize his worth because of it.

[rickh150]

And yes, Jordan was absolutely hammered by the Pistons.

On the other hand, he received SO many phantom calls that balanced it out when playing other teams. He was the king of grunting and calling for a foul while attacking the basket. He got so many more calls than Giannis gets when attacking the hoop.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I feel as though the doc has been quite clear that Krause was instrumental in building the team. Getting Jordan help, trading for Pip, firing Collins, etc. That's all there. It's also obvious though that he wasn't Belichick, he wanted some spotlight, and that he was getting tired of Phil and MJ getting the glory. He was a very insecure guy that needed to be acknowledged. It comes across even more during the scenes where Jordan is making fun of him and it's clear he doesn't know how to handle it.

 

That a third party forced Phil and MJ to separate prematurely is just the perfect example of what happens when a suit gets an inflated sense of self-importance.

 

I don't see any of it as a bitter undertone though. It's a story about the same human beings co-existing for 10 years. There are going to be some stories about conflict. They're mostly laughing about it during the show.

[owbc]

I feel as though the doc has been quite clear that Krause was instrumental in building the team. Getting Jordan help, trading for Pip, firing Collins, etc. That's all there. It's also obvious though that he wasn't Belichick, he wanted some spotlight, and that he was getting tired of Phil and MJ getting the glory. He was a very insecure guy that needed to be acknowledged. It comes across even more during the scenes where Jordan is making fun of him and it's clear he doesn't know how to handle it.

 

That a third party forced Phil and MJ to separate prematurely is just the perfect example of what happens when a suit gets an inflated sense of self-importance.

 

I don't see any of it as a bitter undertone though. It's a story about the same human beings co-existing for 10 years. There are going to be some stories about conflict. They're mostly laughing about it during the show.

 

Yep. Although I will say that the "final year" thing was not necessarily bad strategy. It motivated everyone to go out and win another championship when decline was imminent. In some ways it reminds me of "Major League"...players/coaches motivated to prove the aloof executive wrong. Although it does seem pretty clear that Krause felt that he needed to get rid of Jackson/MJ and build another winner to give himself credit.

 

Another comparison I think of is Bud Selig, who in my opinion liked to intentionally play the role of the bad guy in order to advance the broader agenda of the organization. Selig was one step ahead of Krause though. Krause clearly wanted attention and credit while Selig was fine with just pointing at the numbers and letting people say whatever they wanted about him. Krause just needed to step back and wait for the credit, which would have come eventually.

[rickh150]

Someone who knows about quality documentaries...

https://sports.yahoo.com/ken-burns-michael-jordan-espn-the-last-dance-documentary-journalism-nba-000650647.html

[OldSchoolSnapper]

If I had a criticism about it, it's actually that. The alternative is the show not existing though. I went to J-School, so as I watch it I feel a lot of the same things, that Jordan has too much creative input. He wouldn't otherwise do the show, though.

 

I think it is possible to make something in this context and still have it be pretty fair, but if you're adhering to the laws of journalism, Burns is absolutely correct. I'm not sure this qualifies as journalism, though.

[pacopete4]

Has there ever been a documentary like this made where it hasn't been affected by one side or the other?

[HiAndTight]

 

Yep. Although I will say that the "final year" thing was not necessarily bad strategy. It motivated everyone to go out and win another championship when decline was imminent. In some ways it reminds me of "Major League"...players/coaches motivated to prove the aloof executive wrong. Although it does seem pretty clear that Krause felt that he needed to get rid of Jackson/MJ and build another winner to give himself credit.

 

Another comparison I think of is Bud Selig, who in my opinion liked to intentionally play the role of the bad guy in order to advance the broader agenda of the organization. Selig was one step ahead of Krause though. Krause clearly wanted attention and credit while Selig was fine with just pointing at the numbers and letting people say whatever they wanted about him. Krause just needed to step back and wait for the credit, which would have come eventually.

 

 

I don't think the decline was imminent. They had a young stud in Kukoc...not a guy who's going to get 30 a night, but he's just a great player to play in that role. The way he kept the ball moving and just always made smart decisions.

But Jordan was 34 and Pippen was 34. Rodman was 36 and that was his last great season, but if he has Jackson and someone who can manage his ego, I think he'd have been fine for another year.

 

The biggest argument against this though...they had to talk Phil into coming back just for that 6th year. Krause wanted him out BEFORE they even won the final title.

So obviously the decline was going to come at some point, but I don't see any reason they couldn't have won a 4th straight title at the very least(especially with the lockout).

And of course you're going to operate completely differently if you're trying to win another title or you're blowing the team up. So it's entirely possible they add another Ron Harper type player in free agency. Terry Porter for example...I know he went to Miami that year on a cheap deal.

 

Krause just seemed really intent on putting his own stamp on the team. Maybe because HE didn't draft Jordan. Either way, that's a dynasty you let die on it's own and I don't think Jordan's the type of player you need to give added motivation.

[HiAndTight]

If I had a criticism about it, it's actually that. The alternative is the show not existing though. I went to J-School, so as I watch it I feel a lot of the same things, that Jordan has too much creative input. He wouldn't otherwise do the show, though.

 

I think it is possible to make something in this context and still have it be pretty fair, but if you're adhering to the laws of journalism, Burns is absolutely correct. I'm not sure this qualifies as journalism, though.

 

 

It has a very similar tone as most of the 30 for 30 "docs" that ESPN does. They're almost all slanted. They're not these strict fact based historical documentary and sure, it does seem beneath what Burns would aspire to, but I'm just watching it as entertainment.