Tag: Michael Jordan

Via ESPN's Darren Rovell

You can bid on Michael Jordan’s expired AMEX card


You know the memorabilia market for an athlete is out of control when…

Pretty soon, you’ll be able to bid on owning an expired Michael Jordan American Express card. To be fair, the card does have his signature on the back, which increases it’s value. Why did Jordan sign the card? In case someone stole the card and then tried to pretend they were Michael Jordan when buying an off-the-rack suit at Macy’s? I don’t see how that plan could backfire.

The card will be put up for auction by Goldin Auctions (hat tip to Ball Don’t Lie) and the starting bid is $1,000. But you can expect to pay a whole lot more than that if you want to own a piece of plastic with Michael Jordan’s name on it.

My question — how does Jordan only have a standard green AMEX card, the same as you or I? He should have the American Express Centurion Card — the legendary “black card” — that is the status symbol card for people where money is no object. The card you can buy an Aston Martin with. You’re telling my MJ just has the same card you and I can get, not the high roller one? Sure he does.

But you can get Jordan’s old AMEX. Of more interest might be the game-worn Jordan jersey from the ’95-96 Bulls season (the 72 win season). And if you win the bidding for that, put it on your American Express.

Jordan brand showing up as part of NASCAR

Federated Auto Parts 400 - Practice
Leave a comment

Michael Jordan is a basketball icon. The Jordan Brand is a business, it’s part of Nike, and like any brand it needs to expand its markets.

But to NASCAR? Yes. It may seem like an odd marriage — the sport with the most urban of fan base and the one with the most middle-American and rural — but right now the leading NASCAR driver Denny Hamlin sports the “jumpman” Jordan brand logo on his shoulder, back, belt and racing gloves.

And it started with a personal relationship. Hamlin — the current leader in the Sprint Cup Series standings — became a Bobcats season ticket holder a few years back (courtside, of course). And as he explained at NBA.com, he ran into Jordan at a game back in 2010.

I kind of walked by him at halftime whenever I went to a little bar area behind the court. So he was there one time, and he actually stopped me to congratulate me on my race the previous week. I don’t know if we had won or been in contention to win. I was like, ‘You watch NASCAR?’ And he said, ‘Yeah, I watch it every single week.’ And he started asking me a couple questions like, ‘What about this guy? Was this is a good move when that guy did this?’ And I started thinking, ‘Wow. This guy actually knows what’s going on in our sport.’

So from that point on, we just started a texting conversation for the next few months, and basically I asked permission from him to represent the Jordan brand in NASCAR.

This is a deal that works out well for both sides, explains an article at Forbes.com.

This relationship between Hamlin and Jordan is very significant not only for the Jordan Brand, but for sports endorsements in general. First of all it shines light on the Jordan Brand as more than just a sneaker brand. Also, it could be a stretch, but the sponsorship might actually help mesh the fan base of more urban sports, like basketball, and racing, which would be a big leap racially. Only six black drivers have raced in NASCAR’s 64-year history coming into 2012. Darrell Wallace Jr. made a name for himself this summer as a Drive for Diversity Program participant and is vying to become just the second African American Sprint Cup driver since 1986. The 18-year-old Wallace is also helping with another category of fan demographics, as the median age of NASCAR fans, according to Nielsen, is currently 51.6.

One guy wearing the Jumpman logo is not going to make basketball a hot red state sport, nor is it going to mean every inner city youth is going to want to grow up to be Jeff Gordon. (Should anyone want to grow up and be Jeff Gordon?)

But it’s a step. A small but important step. You combine that with the Thunder drawing big in Oklahoma City and you start to see some little changes. Little seeds. That’s where it starts.

And, of course, Nike and Jordan will be there to capitalize on it and make money.

The Inbounds: Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade and the actualization of scorers

2012 NBA All-Star Game

Does Kobe Bryant need to be more like Dwyane Wade? Or does Dwyane Wade need to be more like Kobe Bryant? Neither? Both? Hungry? Who’s hungry?

The biggest challenge for any player in the NBA is the same one so many children struggle with: how to play with others. Particularly those whose talents are self-mobilized. When you think about it, much of the NBA is centered around essentially de-actualizing human beings.

Self-actualization is a concept used in psychology usually in regards to the maximizing of one’s potential. It features ideas like “autonomy,” “spontanaeity,” “comfort with solitude,” and “peak experiences.” It’s built around the idea of being all that you can be, essentially. But the key there is that it’s you being all that you can be. It’s about lifting your personal potential to the fullest measure, while still being able to live comfortably with other human beings. And part of that is accepting who you are.

So if you’re Dwyane Wade, or Kobe Bryant, or even Tyreke Evans, what is the most self-actualized that you can be as a basketball player? I’d argue that it’s clearly being an independent scorer who’s able to break down the defense and create offense based off your own isolation abilities. In other words, a volume shooter. In other words, a ball hog. We (rightfully) view that approach as negative when we talk about it conceptually. We want our players to be selfless, to make their teammates better, to be the kind of guy who always makes the right play.

At least, that’s what we tell ourselves.

In reality, we reward results. Michael Jordan is lauded for being able to make his teammates so much better, essentially a revisionist history built around the fact that the jump he made starting in 1991 had more to do with efficiency and production as it did with selflessness and “getting it.” Kobe Bryant is put over the flames for the decisions that he makes, but only when they result in a loss. “It’s a make or miss league” extends to the way we view players as well. Bryant hits the game winner (which statistically, he doesn’t do very often), and no one’s going to criticize him for taking the shot, because, well, he made it. You look stupid talking about someone in those terms after he just stepped up and drained a jumpshot in the closing seconds of a professional basketball game that meant the difference in a win and a loss. You just do.

You know the difference between Kobe Bryant and Tyreke Evans in terms of how they play and the role they execute, at this point in their careers? Kobe’s a lot better at it. He’s not a different player than Evans, and while he’s got a lot more under the hood in terms of mental awareness and skills to turn to, they still do essentially the same thing. They have similar assist numbers (though Bryant has a higher assist rate, a more accurate determinant). They don’t always shoot, because that’s going to get you yanked (well, it would have, Bryant could have and often did completely ignore such ideas last season but no one was going to blame him, and also, at this point, it’s Kobe, who’s going to?). But what’s their instinct?

If these players were truly “self-actualized” in terms of their game, they would allowed to simply be autonomous, independent scorers.

Wade’s much the same way. Like Bryant and Evans, Wade is at his best when he’s using a pick to get a poor fool on an island. His best seasons came when the Heat were most reliant on him, dependent on his skills. I’m not saying that Wade, Evans, Bryant aren’t playmakers, they can be and often are. In fact, their teams are often at their best when they filter more of their skills towards playmaking while also using their unique scoring advantage. But if we’re talking about making them into the most they can be, those things are brilliant for them, but not conducive towards winning.

Which is what Wade discovered last year. Wade struggled last year due to injury and age, but he also shifted how he operated in the offense. Just because he wasn’t shooting didn’t mean that he turned into LeBron facilitator. If anything, James’ facilitated Wade the most (James assisted on Wade scores 85 times in the regular season, 33 times in the playoffs, more than double the next closest assist-maker for Wade – by comparison, Wade assisted James the most, but the margin between he and Mario Chalmers was much more narrow). But Wade moved to working off-ball, to working on offensive rebounds, to slashing to draw defenders and give James room. You can say it was because James is the superior player, but even if he wasn’t, Wade would have gone to that approach. Why? Because of that word again: results. It just worked.

Bryant faces a similar situation in Los Angeles this year. You can debate about whether Dwight Howard is a better player than Bryant, or whether Steve Nash is, or whether Pau Gasol is. But that shouldn’t be the determinant in how you approach your offense. It should be based on results. If giving Steve Nash the ball and letting him freelance is the best approach to the team, then that should be the model. If it’s running the pick and roll with Howard, then that’s the model. Equal distribution between Howard and Gasol, Nash and Bryant in the pick and roll, whatever it is, that’s the key. It’s not based off of what your best weapons are, because that doesn’t always work. Otherwise, the Bucks would be better.

It’s unlikely that a system that self-actualizes Bryant is going to be the optimal, is the point. More weapons creates more stresses on the defense, which produces easier mechanisms which produces higher percentage looks and easier shots, which is going to produce more efficiency. This seems like a really complicated way of saying “ball movement and playing as a team is better” which is a stupidly simple concept that’s been reinforced a million times in sports and sports film history. But the modern NBA demands a bit more exploration. Because we’ve specifically seen players self-actualizing their individual, anti-team talents and have great success. The Spurs’ championship offense began and ended with Tim Duncan. Yes, the terrific supporting players and ridiculously good system built by the coaching staff had an impact, but the model was for Tim Duncan to be the star that the Spurs’ universe rotated around. (2007 may be the exception to this, the year Parker rightfully earned Finals MVP status, but it wasn’t as if you could say Duncan wasn’t the focus, just that Parker was simultaneously splitting that role.)

Jordan. Olajuwon. The model of having one guy go bonkers really did work from 1991 (maybe even further if you want to make the argument for Isiah’s Pistons), all the way to 2008. Then the Celtics kicked off this arms race, and here we are.

Think about it. How many times has a team won the title with their point guard the best player, with the facilitator the best player on the floor? We have to go back to either the 2007 Spurs team, and that one is clearly rife with mitigating factors, or to Isiah’s Pistons, dependent upon beating the crap out of the other team. What we’ve seen is self-actualization, letting guys do their thing, works.

But the environment has changed. And it’s less about all the other star-studded teams because those teams aren’t putting up 125 offensive ratings and having three guys score 40 a night. It’s not the talent. The defensive systems have changed, which kick-started the accumulation of talent to override that. But now the defenders are better, because the talent is better. It’s a vicious cycle. And the solution is to get back to the idea of ball movement and of team-actualization.

A key element in actualization is an “efficient perception of reality.” And on the singular level, this is difficult to translate to team success. This is manifested, essentially, as confidence. The “you want guys who aren’t afraid to take that shot?” is built out of their own knowledge that they can make that shot. They may not have an efficient perception of reality, but in that sense, those players are not self-actualized. This is essentially the difference between J.R. Smith and Kobe Bryant. Smith and Bryant both feel they can hit that shot. The difference is that Bryant has been able to. And the slide that’s occurred with Bryant’s standing in the league mirrors his ability to convert just those shots, the pull-up 40-foot three.

But on the team level, the best teams are those that have an efficient perception of reality when it comes to what they do well. The Mavericks in 2011, by example, knew what they did well. The Heat in 2012 discovered this very thing in the playoffs. They stopped trying to force their reality, to be the villains they said they wanted to be in 2011, to be a team that played with a traditional center, a team that resisted everything going through LeBron, and instead accepted reality. He is not just the best player, but the player most capable of creating quality offense.

Bryant may find himself in a similar situation as Wade this year, having to accept coming off screens to shoot, having to be used to spread the floor. It’s a test of what he has always said about himself, that he just wants to win. By his definition, for him to really be self-actualized, he must do whatever leads to victories. In the past, he’s always been able to justify his shooting as in pursuit of that goal, even if it was simply an extension of his own self-actualization as a player. Now he may have to de-actualize his own game to team-actualize and bring the title.

If we consider the hierarchy of needs, he has what he needs, but that’s a subject for tomorrow.