ESPN Michael Jordan documentary 'The Last Dance' Official Discussion Thread

[ArbitraryWater]

The difference between the '98 Bulls and every other three-peat team is their best player had recently taking 2 years off (right before the run) and their second superstar just took half a season off.

Not just that, the biggest reason to their three-peat is, their competition did not get better a single bit.

In fact, rivals further decreased, the Jazz even got slightly worse, just as the Bulls did.

All other three-peat teams or aspiring three-peat teams faced their best competition yet in the third year, their toughest challenge...

teams got better to match up or simply because eventually some team was bound to be better.

In 2002 it was Sacramento, in 2011 Dallas (and just in case, Miami or even Oklahoma), in 2014 San Antonio, and in 2019 the competition for a healthy Warriors team stayed about the same in the Rockets, but they already got matched up by year #2 basically, when Houston was also better than any team they faced in 2017.

Nothing of such note in 1998... it was just an era going down the drain, everybody aging, about 2-3 competent teams left in this dying decade with fleeting talent...

The documentary is a Jordan-centered joke. Not just not mentioning teammates enough, downright dismissing them in the overrating and focus of Jordan. It's a 90's hype show for 90's people and casuals/newbies to basketball which are amazed by Michael's image and this documentary.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not just that, the biggest reason to their three-peat is, their competition did not get better a single bit.

In fact, rivals further decreased, the Jazz even got slightly worse, just as the Bulls did.

All other three-peat teams or aspiring three-peat teams faced their best competition yet in the third year, their toughest challenge...

teams got better to match up or simply because eventually some team was bound to be better.

In 2002 it was Sacramento, in 2011 Dallas (and just in case, Miami or even Oklahoma), in 2014 San Antonio, and in 2019 the competition for a healthy Warriors team stayed about the same in the Rockets, but they already got matched up by year #2 basically, when Houston was also better than any team they faced in 2017.

Nothing of such note in 1998... it was just an era going down the drain, everybody aging, about 2-3 competent teams left in this dying decade with fleeting talent...

The documentary is a Jordan-centered joke. Not just not mentioning teammates enough, downright dismissing them in the overrating and focus of Jordan. It's a 90's hype show for 90's people and casuals/newbies to basketball which are amazed by Michael's image and this documentary.

Good points. Look at all the teams that were contenders in the early 90's and ask where they were by 1997 or 1998. The Bulls and the Jazz, as a poor man's Bulls (who also had 2 HOF the entire time), were the only teams that lasted.

One thing that has come out in the doc and associated coverage is the defeatist attitude of opponents. If you have that mentality you aren't going to fight to improve. What did Portland, New York, Seattle, Phoenix, Cleveland, Utah, or Indiana do as their big move to try to catch the Bulls? The Warriors got KD, Houston traded for Paul and then Westbrook, Raptors traded for Kawhi, and you can list a lot more examples of major moves on the part of a contender in recent years to win after they had come up short (then you have examples like the Gasol trade in the 2000's). What did those 90's teams do?

The Jazz trading for Hornacek probably was the biggest move (outside of the Bulls themselves trading for Rodman). Houston traded for Drexler but that was in a league that didn't have MJ and there was temporary parity among the top teams.

[sdot_thadon]

The grind is severely underestimated. The amount of mental toughness and focus and physical conditioning it takes to 3-peat is immense. Klay and KD's bodies broke down for instance. As did Wade's in 2014 when the Heat went for the 3-peat.

That's why it's important to understand just the shear exhaustion MJ felt by 98'. Yet to come through anyways was beyond human.

I agree, it's a grind and imagine had Mj not taken time off.

[BigShotBob]

Not just that, the biggest reason to their three-peat is, their competition did not get better a single bit.

In fact, rivals further decreased, the Jazz even got slightly worse, just as the Bulls did.

All other three-peat teams or aspiring three-peat teams faced their best competition yet in the third year, their toughest challenge...

teams got better to match up or simply because eventually some team was bound to be better.

In 2002 it was Sacramento, in 2011 Dallas (and just in case, Miami or even Oklahoma), in 2014 San Antonio, and in 2019 the competition for a healthy Warriors team stayed about the same in the Rockets, but they already got matched up by year #2 basically, when Houston was also better than any team they faced in 2017.

Nothing of such note in 1998... it was just an era going down the drain, everybody aging, about 2-3 competent teams left in this dying decade with fleeting talent...

The documentary is a Jordan-centered joke. Not just not mentioning teammates enough, downright dismissing them in the overrating and focus of Jordan. It's a 90's hype show for 90's people and casuals/newbies to basketball which are amazed by Michael's image and this documentary.

Dumb.

Pacers were 8-9 deep.

Jazz had retooled and gotten even better.

Jordan was the difference. Period. Even after getting older and being more exhausted.

Stick to talking about anything after 2010.

[Roundball_Rock]

Surely the Pacers won after MJ retired then, right?

Jazz "retooling" was trading for Jeff Hornacek.

[BigShotBob]

Surely the Pacers won after MJ retired then, right?

Jazz "retooling" was trading for Jeff Hornacek.

A shame that the Pacers lost to....another dynasty

They had him in 97. They just upped their play even more and got even better and were more poised.

Still couldn't beat the GOAT though.

[Roundball_Rock]

A shame that the Pacers lost to....another dynasty

They had him in 97. They just upped their play even more and got even better and were more poised.

They lost to an 8 seed the next year.

They did not up their play. The Jazz were worse in 98' than in 97' across the board. Less wins, worst in the finals, Stockton and Hornacek were much worse, etc. Only Malone improved and that is because he choked in the 97' finals. 10.7 PPG from your second highest scorer is pathetic in a finals. That has to be a record low.

The Jazz needed to make a move to get over the hump; they did nothing after losing in 97' and 98'. Same thing with the Pacers.

[BigShotBob]

They lost to an 8 seed the next year.

They did not up their play. The Jazz were worse in 98' than in 97' across the board. Less wins, worst in the finals, Stockton and Hornacek were much worse, etc. Only Malone improved and that is because he choked in the 97' finals.

The Jazz needed to make a move to get over the hump; they did nothing after losing in 97' and 98'. Same thing with the Pacers.

You mean the 8th seed that made it to the Finals?

Pacers lost to the Lakers the year after that so....

Two less wins? Marginal at best.

Maybe if Malone could hit his free throws the series would have been more even.

They didn't need to break up their core, just elevate their play. But they couldn't elevate past the GOAT even behind Malone going crazy.

[Roundball_Rock]

Malone in 97': 27/10/5 on 55%
Stockton in 97': 14/3/11 on on 55%
Hornacek in 97': 15/3/4 on 48%

Malone in 98': 27/10/4 on 53%
Stockton in 98': 12/3/9 on on 53%
Hornacek in 98': 14/3/4 on 48%

They got worse across the board (aging). In 97' Malone and Hornacek choked in the finals, in 98' it was Hornacek and Stockton.

[3ball]

Good points. Look at all the teams that were contenders in the early 90's and ask where they were by 1997 or 1998. The Bulls and the Jazz, as a poor man's Bulls (who also had 2 HOF the entire time), were the only teams that lasted.

One thing that has come out in the doc and associated coverage is the defeatist attitude of opponents. If you have that mentality you aren't going to fight to improve. What did Portland, New York, Seattle, Phoenix, Cleveland, Utah, or Indiana do as their big move to try to catch the Bulls?

In the 90's, the standard was 2-stars to make the Finals, so more teams were close to this standard and therefore alternated periods of brief dominance.. otoh, recent years saw a couple teams with "Big 3's" that dominated everyone else - this top-heavy league is easy to beat if you're one of the Big 3 teams.

[BigShotBob]

Malone in 97': 27/10/5 on 55%
Stockton in 97': 14/3/11 on on 55%
Hornacek in 97': 15/3/4 on 48%

Malone in 98': 27/10/4 on 53%
Stockton in 98': 12/3/9 on on 53%
Hornacek in 98': 14/3/4 on 48%

They got worse across the board (aging). In 97' Malone and Hornacek choked in the finals, in 98' it was Hornacek and Stockton.

MJ didn't even have a third scoring option and his second option in both 97' and 98' was atrocious.

Again, MJ was the difference. That's why he's the GOAT.

I know it might be hard for you to understand because we're in an era where players aren't difference makers like the GOAT is but go watch the games if you won't take my word for it.

[Roundball_Rock]

90's and 70's are the outlier decades and the difference is the 70's had multiple great teams that just didn't last. The 90's had one and then a revolving door of second tier contenders.

No need to theorize. We saw the NBA had parity at the top when MJ was removed.

[ArbitraryWater]

Dumb.

Pacers were 8-9 deep.

Jazz had retooled and gotten even better.

Jordan was the difference. Period. Even after getting older and being more exhausted.

Stick to talking about anything after 2010.

The Miller/Smits Pacers arent the type of team to end a dynasty, lol.


No shit Jordan made the difference.

The point is it just wasnt much of a difference to make, compared to other players/teams going for a 3-peat.

Competition was weak.

Why exactly would Karl/Stock be expected to beat MJ/Pip?

MJ never fought an uphill battle.

Or he did, but when he did, he lost. Always.

The difference he needed to make in the 2nd three-peat was far less than in the first. He was merely a volume scorer, saving defensive energy, with little playmaking.


Where as at other points in history, teams drastically improved league-wide to stop a three-peat or provide the biggest challenge yet.


Nothing of the sort happened in the watered down late 90's.

Teams just played it out.

retooled my ass. They didnt retool a single thing.

Fck are you talking about?

It isnt dumb. You judt don't like it.

[RockTheCradle]

I wish they went more in depth about the Cokeheads in MJs rookie season such as George Gervin and Artis Gilmore.

[Da_Realist]

Jerry West:

* MJ was a man's man.

* He's the best athlete I've ever seen in basketball. People are gonna make comparisons, but...I wonder today with the rules having changed today -- you can't handcheck, you can't touch anyone, you can walk all over the place, you can carry the basketball all over the place... -- if he could have added that to his game? My goodness, what would we see today?