I’ve saved the best for last. “The Intangibles Effect” is the most important of the effects of the Michael Jordan Phenomenon (MJP). First, though, an update. Those who profess that Jordan is undeniably the best player ever have their viewpoints affected by five effects. The Bill Russell Effect causes people to elevate Jordan’s greatness simply because he has six championship rings. The Long Term Memory Loss Effect produces a neglect of great players who came before Jordan (like Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Wilt Chamberlain), while the Jim Brown Effect dismisses anyone who comes after him. The Amnesia Effect enables Jordan-worshipers to ignore the facts about his career that don’t fit their argument – i.e., his failures (yes, he had some).
Without a doubt, though, the most insidious of all effects is the Intangibles Effect. This is the one that has gripped more people and perplexed many other. The tendency of Jordan fans is to concentrate on the intangibles. Now I’m not talking about the stupid ones who blurt out, “He has six rings!” or “He just is the best – it’s so obvious!” Those are the uneducated ones who are deluded by the media and highlight videos. No, I’m talking about those who know the facts; they know that Jordan does not have the most rings or the most MVPs or any substantial statistical records, and yet still claim that he is without a question the best player ever and that no one else is in the mix. How do they come to this conclusion? Jordan’s intangibles.
Intangibles are – of course – not tangible. They can’t be measured. That means that they’re subjective in nature. Oh, statistics are somewhat subjective based upon era and team situations (among other things), but it’s undeniable that Jordan’s 6 rings and 5 MVP awards are fewer than Russell’s 11 rings and Abdul-Jabbar’s 6 MVP awards: that’s just simple math. We can all look at the numbers (see the page “The Michael Jordan Phenomenon above” and realize that there is no tangible evidence that Jordan should occupy the same position in basketball that Wayne Gretzky occupies in hockey: the greatest ever, no questions asked. Since there is no tangible evidence, these people turn to the intangibles.
- Winner/Champion - This term may be the most mysterious word used in sports. What is a “winner?” Is it someone who wins a title? Of course, but there are those who never win a pro championship who are described as winners. Then again, there are also those who have won multiple titles who are not labeled as winners. Jordan has been called by many, “The greatest winner ever.” I’m not even sure what that means. It may be because he won a title each time the Bulls made it to the finals. Does that make him more a winner than someone who made it to the finals more often but didn’t win the title as many times? This one is the most out of control: at the Olympics this year, Bob Costas compared Michael Phelps to the “greatest champions of all time” – the first person Costas listed was Jordan. Even ahead of Tiger Woods! Think about that for a minute. He was talking about personal accomplishment in Michael Phelps, and instead of beginning his list of great champions with Tiger Woods or Muhammad Ali or Jack Nicklaus or Roger Federer, he begins with an athlete on a team sport. I really wish I could talk to Costas sometime and ask him why Jordan is such a “great champion.”
- Leader – I’ve heard people say that no one impacted the play of his teammates like Jordan did. What evidence is there for that? Certainly none statistically. This one is tied in with the Amnesia Effect. When I asked someone online at Yappi once why Jordan’s stats were significantly better in 1986-87 to 1989-90 (non-championship seasons) than in 1995-96 to 1997-98 (second threepeat), he replied that Jordan was indeed a better player during the second threepeat. His reasoning was that – regardless of what the facts said – Jordan’s “leadership” made him better then. Huh? This person also said that the Bulls didn’t win titles early in Jordan’s career because he needed to “learn how to win.” That one’s a real mystery. The end of it all is that these Jordanites just ascribe the Bulls’ titles to Jordan’s leadership and other intangibles rather than a team effort. Tony Kornheiser made the foolish statement once that Jordan won those titles on his own. I guess that was the leadership, right?
- Clutch – Someone else on Yappi once said that Jordan “never missed a clutch shot.” That was a surprise to me; off the top of my head I could name three instances when he missed one. Jordan has been branded as “the best clutch player ever.” Why is that? Well, of course he did make plenty of key baskets in his career. Hey, there’s no denying that. But is he any more of a clutch player than Bird or Kareem or Magic? Jordan himself has reminded the masses that he missed more last second shots than he made. There are plenty of highlights of him making clutch shots, but the fact is that he took a huge amount – and no wonder, because the Bulls really didn’t have any other go-to guys. Magic and Kareem played together. Bird played with Dennis Johnson. Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal played together. There were multiple options on those teams, but not really on the Bulls: of course Jordan was going to take more shots, and the more you take, the more you make. Another element to remember in all this is that many of Jordan’s clutch moments came, well, in the clutch! What I mean is that the game has to be close in order to take a clutch shot. The Bulls had more close games – especially finals games – than other teams did. The more close games your team plays, the more opportunities your go-to player has to make clutch shots.
- Will – Without a doubt, this one is the most undefinable and yet the characteristic that is relied upon the most. The concept is that Jordan had some irresistible “will” that enabled him to win games on his own, regardless of what else was happening. It’s the idea that he was able to engineer victory by force of willpower alone. I’m really not sure who started this one, but it’s a favorite of Jordan nuts like Stuart Scott. When confronted with the facts, they quickly revert to the intangibles and say that “no one had a will like Michael.” What does that even mean? The truth is, no one really knows. When the proponents of this concept give actual examples where Jordan supposedly “willed” the Bulls to victory, I instantly point out other player who had similar moments. Confused, the Jordanite usually then says that Jordan’s will was stronger. What I want to know is why that mythical will was not enough to get the Bulls by the Pistons in 1989 and 1990 or the Magic in 1995.
The beauty of relying upon intangibles, of course, is that no one can really challenge you. They can’t be measured, so there’s no way to compare. There’s no way to quantify “will,” “leadership,” “clutch play,” and “champion play.” That makes it easy: just claim those qualities as your reasons, and your argument is free from deconstruction.
Just the fact that intangibles are needed shows that the argument is flawed, though. In the case of Gretzky, Jerry Rice, or even Babe Ruth, just the facts – statistical domination and achievements – are enough to warrant a label of “best ever.” Sure, there are intangible characteristics like work ethic and dedication, but no one has to rely on those to prove Gretzky is the best hockey player of all time: the facts speak for themselves. In the case of Jordan, the facts are woefully insufficient; in order to say he’s the best basketball player ever, one must rely upon something that cannot be measured, and that’s an atrocious flaw in logic.
