Should the NBA retire Jordan's number?
Two Thursdays ago, LeBron James -- playing in front of Michael Jordan -- announced that he would be changing his uniform number from No. 23 to No. 6 next season. He also urged fellow players to give up the number so that the NBA could retire it throughout the league. There are two cases of a league-wide number retirement in U.S. sports; Major League Baseball retired the No. 42 of Jackie Robinson, the racial pioneer, and the NHL retired the No. 99 of Wayne Gretzky, The Great One.
Since James' announcement, people have been asking if the league should really consider retiring M.J.'s 23. Few would argue that Jordan wasn't the greatest basketball player of all-time, and in terms of popularity and transcendent star power, he has no rival. But does that really make him worthy of such a prestigious honor?
If the league were to do it, they would do it under the Gretzky guidelines, meaning that it's something they'd only give to the greatest of all time. The problem with doing it for Jordan is that they can't totally ignore the Robinson guidelines either. In the NHL, which we would all agree is one of the whitest sports out there, racial diversity isn't one of their calling cards. They can get away with celebrating someone just for their talent.
The NBA, on the other hand, cannot get away with that. Many superstars came before Jordan who had to struggle with racism and bigotry, and ignoring them would not be appropriate. Players like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, and Oscar Robertson paved the way for Magic Johnson and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and eventually Michael Jordan. Although Jordan brought the NBA more popularity than any other player, it'd be hard to give him that distinction over the people who came before him.
It is for that reason that I can't imagine that the league would retire Jordan's No. 23. Maybe if David Stern sat down and had a talk with people such as Russell and Julius Erving and got their approval, maybe it could happen. But I doubt it.
0 recs |
3 comments
|
Comments
The league should not retire #23
There’s no Robinson factor with Jordan. That’s the only reason to retire a number sports wide in my opinion. I’m not a hockey fan, but I probably wouldn’t agree to the Gretzky number retiring. I also think the wounds are too fresh for what Jordan did. I think LeBron grew up a Bulls and Jordan fan, so he wouldn’t understand, but longtime Knicks fans, Cavs fans, Pistons fans, Jazz fans, and to a lesser extent Suns fans, Blazers fans, Pacers fans, they can still feel the wounds Jordan gave them.
I can admire his talent and his greatness, but I don’t want to go to Conseco Fieldhouse and see #23 hanging in the rafters when the meaning that number has to me is Ron Artest. I don’t want to celebrate the greatness of Michael Jordan by being constantly reminded that one of my franchise’s best teams lost to his dynasty.
Jordan was the most transcendent player and the best player ever, for sure, but he wasn’t the only player to further the game. How about guys like Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, or West, who helped define the game? Or the way Magic and Bird defined the decade that the NBA came to life despite Jordan playing in half of it?
The game has too much history and too many trailblazers to single out only one, even if he was the best. Just change your number, LeBron, and be done with it since I still have trouble overlooking the obvious slap to Russell’s greatness.
by goodlucksaturday on Nov 23, 2009 5:57 PM EST reply actions
i agree
if you retire Jordan then you have to retire Bird, Wilt, Baylor, Russell, Kareem, ect and many more who were arguably better than MJ. Plus MJ is a horrible GM so that should count against him
Gerald Wallace is the best player the Bobcats will have..... EVER

by 








