Reprinted from my website Secure Immaturity:A good sports book is one that, even if the ending is known, still builds suspense and doubt in the reader. In that regard, The Jordan Rules, by then-first time author Sam Smith is a failure. The book follows the exploits of the 1990-1991 Chicago Bulls. . .probably the least impressive of the six champion Bulls teams. The title comes from a phrase the Detroit Pistons used during their reign as an Eastern Conference power: the Jordan Rules were rules they used to shut the man down (hence their success in 1990 against the scrappy but inferior Bulls). The book’s thesis appears to be an all-access look at an NBA team who wins a title and how, even with victory on the doorstep, human nature plays its course in the locker room. The ending is never in doubt if you know sports history but the lack of suspense is dissapointing.The book also exists to disrupt the immaculate image of Michael Jordan. I don’t think the book was made to destroy Jordan on purpose though the main thought going through my head was ‘um, did Jordan bang Sam Smith’s wife or something’? The 1991 Bulls were a pretty disruptive, selfish group and while many of the odd eccentricities of some players comes out, all of them, save Jordan, seem to get realistic, honest approaches that end up evening out. Pippen might be kind of a baby and questionable in his work ethic (at least in 1991) but his rags-to-riches story and family life earn him major points, for example. Here is how The Jordan Rules read to me:“Horace Grant, a man who found God during his early playing days, finds discomfort in the locker room, especially amongst such selfishness. Grant’s gracious nature and need to excel at all costs makes him the perfect team player. . .but Jordan doesn’t let that happen. He’s playing golf and shooting 40 shots a game.”“Scott Williams was a UNC alumni like Jordan. He was having a rough time of things as late and his lack of playing time further exacerbated his awful personal problems. His father had killed his mother before killing himself and Williams, despite a decent paycheck and a good living, was finding that happiness was hard. . .especially in the locker room since Jordan shot 708 shots a game, punched Will Perdue and plays golf.”“Bill Cartwright is an aging philosopher. Despite his goofy elbows that knock out giants like Hakeem Olajuwon and Patrick Ewing, the man thinks about everything and can do no wrong. He is the antithesis of Jordan who never ever passes the ball, fucked John Paxson’s wife and sister and endlessly plays golf. . .and even cheats at it.“BJ Armstrong is a young kid who really wants to succeed. His toothy grin, boyish looks and immature but expected behavior make him an on again, off again player for the Bulls but one that is truly needed. Michael Jordan punches old ladies in the mouth.”The book, for the first 280 pages or so, endlessly drones on like this. The common theme is that Michael Jordan doesn’t pass the ball and everyone in the locker room hates everyone even though, deep down, they are all good people. Except Jordan. . .who is a selfish mad man. The story is set up brilliantly by its defeat to the Pistons in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals in 1990 and goes all the way to the 1991 NBA Finals where the Bulls won handily against the Lakers. The story about redemption against the Pistons plays well (they beat the Pistons 4-0 in 1991 in the ECF). . .but the story is so backward in its characterizations that you often wonder how the Bulls won 61 games and went 15-3 in the playoffs, ending the Pistons dynasty and the Showtime Lakers in the process. I’m sure Smith wanted to get this point across (that winning can come even with a lot of soul-crushing adversity) but he does it the wrong way: by telling a good story in a bad way and accidentally coming to the point by explaining facts from only one perspective.This is most apparent in the NBA Finals chapter where, it seems, Michael Jordan stops being the anti-christ and starts passing the ball to John Paxson. See. . .dear reader. . .if he passed earlier they would have gone 82-0 and never lost in the playoffs. . .get it! The problem is is that Smith is creating a fake story arc to show the decline and rise of Michael Jordan as a team player. The point, it seems, is to show that team work wins over all and Michael just didn’t realize it until the five game series against the Lakers. I don’t buy this for one minute. No team can win 61 games and 15 playoff games being as self destructive as the book indicates with its early set up. I imagine there were problems but I feel the problems were exacerbated for the book and the good things like, oh, I dunno, WINNING are put in the background.This brings me back to my point about suspense: though most people know Jordan’s Bulls won in 1991 (the first of three straight and six in eight years), the story tries to build tension first with the ECF loss to the Pistons in 1990 to early season troubles (starting out 3-3) and the inability to beat the Pistons during the regular season. This is all great stuff: it makes the ECF rematch have emotional resonance (as does its stunning finale when Isiah Thomas beat LeBron James to the punch 18 years early and walked off the court like a baby after getting swept) and makes you lick your chops to see how the Bulls will win. The problem: Smith keeps saying things like ‘later that year, when the Bulls would win the title’ or ’six months later when Jordan would win NBA Finals MVP’. This is fine if you are in the final chapter but Smith references these things in the middle of the season. Instantly you go from telling a gripping story to realizing its all going to end the right way (with the ‘heroes’ winning). A lot of times we know how stories end (like sports movies, for example) but its the journey, not the destination, that makes it fun. Smith always undermines the journey by sabotaging the story.I don’t doubt the author’s credentials. The book does have a lot of wondrous things to say about an NBA locker room, storytelling choices aside, but the characterization of Jordan is highly suspect and tarnishes the trust in the narrator. I realize now that Michael Jordan isn’t the poster child for human beings but despite my worship of his Airness I do separate the art from the artist. I think Jordan was a great team player who needed to feel confident in his players to proceed at a team level. Though this appears selfish, it actually makes sense. Why pass to guys who you know aren’t going to make it? Jordan had to build his trust with his team in 1991 and eventually did, winning a championship. Smith seems to not understand basketball is played on both ends of the court. He sows discontent into his story about the Bulls offense and how everyone hates it but he often references the Bulls stifling defense which was the best in the league: you have to play together to have a strong defense too. Something is missing here.The book isn’t bad though. The late-90s Bulls always overshadow those early Bulls teams and it was nice to go back in time to see a team that is almost forgotten by history compared to five other Bulls teams that performed better. The real insider stuff is with Phil Jackson, who is a joy to read about, and Jerry Krause, the hated Bulls GM who gets a worse wrap then Jordan in the book. Something tells me though that the hatred towards him is deserved. He’s annoying in text form.I’d like to do some studying on Smith and see where he was coming from with this book. There is an awkward afterword added to the latest edition of the book that hails Jordan as a person Smith wasn’t ‘unattracted’ to. But he also talks about how much he loves and respects good friend Horace Grant. . .a common foe of Jordan’s during the 1991 and 1992 season. I sense there is a bias and the writer’s prose and anti-human take on Jordan seems to indicate this. There will be some fantastic stuff to read about in The Jordan Rules so I recommend it for those looking for an insider’s glance on a winning locker room. But if you want a take on Jordan just check your sources. . .as I will.
His Airness®: The BookSam Smith may be the most boring singer ever, but the writer Sam Smith is a very good basketball writer. The Jordan Rules is a 1992 nonfiction book by the writer Sam Smith, not the boring Sam Smith. Also, Sam Smith is correct: He is not the only one (named Sam Smith). Fun Fact: Michael Jordan (not the actor) hates this book.Why does Michael Jordan hate this book? Simply, because the books paints him as an asshole. Okay, asshole might be sort-of a strong word. However, it doesn’t make people want to be Like Mike®, unless those people want to be a bullying (mean) teammate who purposely throws uncatchable (hard to catch) passes to expose (show) other players weaknesses. In this book, Michael Jordan is like the person who you think is your friend, but is actually just using you for his own gain. Smith paints this picture (shows) with extreme detail, and thus makes it so the reader has a clearer picture of Michael Jordan, the man, as opposed to Michael Jordan® (the media’s portrayal of Michael Jordan).This is the story of the 1990-91 World Championship Chicago Bulls. The Bulls were coming off of two consecutive conference finals losses to their arch-rivals (rivals), the Detroit Pistons, who used a defensive strategy called the “Jordan Rules” to contain Jordan. What were those rules? Put all the defensive pressure on Jordan, and make the rest of his team make shots. For those two years, the rest of the Bulls couldn’t come through in the clutch (last four minutes of a close game), and thus the Bulls lost.tWhen this book came out, some people (mostly die hard (big) Jordan® fans) argued that the book painted him as an unlikable (mean) person who no one would want to play with. The book does make Jordan seem like that. This portrayal, however, is also included in other books about Jordan, including the official biography of Jordan that was released earlier this year. Smith shows the world the non-registered trademark (®) Jordan, instead, he shows the person named Michael Jordan. The human Michael Jordan. He describes him like a person, not like a god, which is something that hadn’t been done before.Enter 1990. Michael Jordan is hungry (wanting to win). Scottie Pippen is ready to win. Horace Grant has become a valuable role player. The rest of the Bulls are competent (okayish)… enough. And Sam Smith is granted unrestricted access to the Bulls. This results in one of the most in-depth books about one team ever. It’s more in-depth than The Breaks of the Game. It’s more in-depth than Seven Seconds or Less. It’s more in-depth than The Last Season.It’s also better than all of those books. Those books all follow a tragedy. The Breaks of the Game: the Trail Blazers lose reigning MVP Bill Walton for the season, and eventually lose in the playoffs. Seven Seconds or Less: the Suns lose Amar’e Stoudemire for the season, and the eventually lose in the playoffs. The Last Season: the Lakers as a feud grows between Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O’Neal, and eventually lose in the playoffs. The Jordan Rules: the Bulls come together as a team over the course of the season, vanquish (beat) their demons, and eventually succeed in winning the NBA championship against the Los Angeles Lakers. Smith shows, in great detail, how the Bulls eventually came together over the course of the season. He writes as though he were writing a fiction novel (NOTE TO ALL JORDAN® FANS: THIS IS NOT A FICTION NOVEL), and it’s super easy to read. Phil Jackson plays the role of the chessmaster (coach), trying to make the individual pieces of the Bulls move within his will; this playing style is known as the Triangle. The Triangle—a mystical (parameters unknown) offense strategy that is actually just telling people to pass more—values ball movement above anything else, which is kind of a problem when you have the greatest individual player in NBA history. Michael Jordan plays the role of the precocious (up and coming) youngster trying to prove that he can win by himself, which wasn’t true at all (as proved by previous seasons).In the background of all of the inner team tension, there is the Kukoc question. Jerry Krause, the Bulls General Managers, has been trying to bring foreign phenom (good player) Toni Kukoc over from Europe, while refusing to give a good contract extension to Scottie Pippen. So Krause is also one of the big evils in the book, along with Jordan’s demons, the team not congealing, and the Detroit Pistons.According to this book, Jerry Krause is like Barney from The Simpsons. He’s a bozo (dumb dude) who doesn’t know anything and is only focused on one thing. Is that portrayal incorrect? From other books that I’ve read, Jerry Krause is very much a buffoon (dumb dude). At least in this book, it shows that Krause is trying to make the team better, but he’s alienating (pushing away) everyone by trying to lure over Toni Kukoc. So Smith tries to show both sides of the story on the arguments about Kukoc, but it ends up painting Krause as a jerk.If the Pistons were a single person, they would be Bill Laimbeer. Bill Laimbeer was the Pistons starting center; like a boxer who only threw jabs, he just riled (annoyed) you up until you snapped and wanted to kill him (kinda like Joakim Noah, but eight thousand times worse). The Pistons represented the big bad in the story, the final battle that the Bulls had to win. Even though the Bulls still had to win the finals after they beat the Pistons, but whatever. Smith writes the story like a build-up to the fights against the Pistons, so it makes it seems like the real championship was being played when the Bulls were playing the Pistons.I would put a spoiler alert here, but it’s been twenty years since this season, so I won’t. The Bulls the Pistons. They not only beat the Pistons, they demolished (beat) them in a four game sweep, and the Bulls eventually win the title by beating the Pre-HIV Magic Johnson Lakers.Did the Pistons handle the sweep well? Aw hell naw (no). The Pistons walked off the court before the game actually ended and refused to shake any of the Bulls players hands or congratulating them on the win (In a later documentary, Isiah Thomas said that they meant no ill will to the Bulls. Sure). Everyone except for Joe Dumars, who was a chill dude (nice guy) who shook all of the Bulls players hands.Throughout the Conference Finals matchup, Smith writes a play by play for each game. These are extremely helpful for people who wanted to know about the feel of each game, and it shows how the Bulls won each game. Smith expertly (does a good job) captures each important moment of each game, and it makes the book much more of a delightful (good) read.The Jordan Rules is an exciting book that shines a light (shows) on the inner demons (problems) that the Bulls had to expunge (beat) to finally win a championship. Jordan once said, “Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships,” and it seems that he finally figured that out within the timeframe of this book. The Jordan Rules an extremely well written book, and it finally paints Michael Jordan like he had never been before: Human. So while Sam Smith may be the most boring singer ever, he sure knows how to write a good book. Wait, wrong Sam Smith.
Do You like book The Jordan Rules (1993)?
This review will be a little longer than most of my trademark short ones.First off, I am a little bias, as I am a huge Jordan fan. But I know Jordan can be kind of an asshole. If you don't know that, you don't know Jordan. You have to be kind of an asshole to be the greatest ever at anything.That being said, Sam Smith, wants you to think Jordan is a selfish asshole throughout this book.Things I liked about this book:- You get some valuable insight on every single player on the 1991 Bulls team, down to the last guy on the roster, as well as Phil Jackson, Jerry Krause (GM) and Jerry Reinsdorf (owner)- You get some cool behind-the-scenes stuff about the NBA and players you may enjoyThings I did NOT like about this book:- Sam Smith makes a point to talk about how all the other players on the Bulls were hard working guys who didn't care about their stats, etc, as long as they won, and how Jordan hogged the ball and didn't always want to play as a team (sidenote: the perception of Jordan would change a bit later in his career as they won more and more). However, he spends a lot of time on Pippen, Grant, and Paxson disliking their contracts. I thought they were all about winning? And oh yeah....The Bulls DID win, so am I supposed to feel sorry for these guys you have been praising this whole time as just wanting to win?- Sam Smith was super corny at times. For example: "Chuck Daly was dancing halfway down the court on the sideline; his dance would remind no one of Fred Astaire, though there was some Bobby Knight in it"....seriously????- Smith often misses opportunities to prove his point. In one passage on page 237, he goes on about how Phil Jackson admired Motta's (former coach) Bulls for their team play as much as he disliked the Bucks and their one-man approach to the game, but Smith NEVER ties this in with how Jackson is trying to change his Bulls from that Bucks style.- In the Acknowledgements, Smith basically kisses ass for every player about them being a "pleasure" to work with, etc.- The way Smith writes throughout the book, you would think the Bulls had the worst record in the league if he didn't remind you of all the games they were winning.This is more like a 2 star book, but there are several cool behind the scenes thing that made me give it an extra star.
—Neal
We live in an age where it's very, very easy to get caught up in the moment. There are so many news and pop-culture outlets, talking heads, and media programs that exist almost solely to provoke instant nostalgia and put current events into historical perspective. Every big game by an athlete was the GREATEST PERFORMANCE IN HISTORY and every crappy movie that comes out is the worst. movie. ever. It's easy to lose perspective.And so that's how LeBron James became the reason I read a nearly 20 year old book about Michael Jordan. After James's latest playoff disaster this past NBA season, as ESPN and sports talk radio bludgeoned James (not completely undeservedly, I might add) for his lackluster performances when it mattered most, I became curious how Michael Jordan was perceived in his time. Now that the narrative is written, it seems like it was always predestined--Michael Jordan was the greatest winner in NBA history (this side of Bill Russell). Of course he was going to win all those championships--the man refused to lose, simple as that. All my childhood memories of Jordan are that he was the best ever, and of course he would win the championship. The Knicks, Suns, Sonics, and Jazz, never stood a chance. Sure, they gave it a good effort, but once Jordan got going, I never thought he could be beaten. Ever. The Houston Rockets will always have an asterisk next to their titles as far as I'm concerned, because Jordan was off playing baseball the better part of those years. I remember thinking that when he came back to the NBA after his 2nd retirement to play with the hapless Washington Wizards that he was going to lead them to a championship. When pundits said they would be lucky to make the playoffs even with Jordan, I was incredulous! This is Michael Jordan! He's a one man-wrecking crew! Of course they'll make the playoffs, and they'll beat everyone else along the way too!Imagine my surprise when that didn't happen. Because that's the thing--the narrative takes over. The myth becomes greater than the man. Which is why it's good to gain some perspective on not only Jordan, but all the others who have followed in his wake. The narrative for LeBron James right now is that the can't win the big one; there's something in him that won't allow him to win a championship, much less multiple rings. But what if he wins...and then he wins again...and again...then what?That's what I discovered by reading The Jordan Rules. It was perfect timing for Sam Smith following the Bulls during the season that would end all doubts about Michael Jordan being a winner, and what's funny about it is the way that the old narrative is overtaken by the new narrative. It seemed to me that Smith went into the book with an impression of Michael Jordan as a gifted, but selfish player who would never win in the rugged NBA because he was a one man team who couldn't trust his teammates. However, as the season progressed, it became clear that Jordan and the team were evolving, in no small part thanks to new coach Phil Jackson. This new narrative clashes with the old narrative, though, as Smith often seems to be following the old narrative in his words, while the new narrative takes shape in the results. Smith seems to constantly be alluding to players viewing Jordan in a negative light, painting dissension amongst the ranks, and making Jordan look like an all-around bad guy, while the Bulls continue to dominate the NBA en route to winning the championship while losing all of 3 games in the playoffs. It makes for a strange dichotomy.The biggest takeaway I got from this book was a newfound respect for Phil Jackson. I'd always been of the belief that anyone could win a boatload of titles with the guys that Jackson coached in his career, but that was never true for the coaches who had those players before Jackson, and it wasn't true of the coaches after Jackson either. He came off very, very well in this book. He really seemed like a person who understood how people think, and seemed to be a master manipulator, which is maybe more important than Xs and Os when you're dealing with multi-millionaire egos. I take back everything most of the bad things I've said about Jackson. The guy is a legitimately great basketball coach.It was refreshing to see how a legend like Jordan was received in his own time. I hope someone writes a similar book about LeBron James someday. Despite Twitter, Facebook, and all the other opportunities we have to interact with famous athletes and celebrities, in many ways it feels like they keep us at a distance more than ever. We glean what we can from magazine articles and post-game interviews, but their true selves are rarely seen in more than a glimpse (LeBron walking off the court without shaking hands with his opponents after losing to Orlando in the Conference Finals, comes to mind), and I can't help but think that a big reason for that was this book. The blowback Jordan received due to his characterization in this book contributed in many ways to the sophistication and refined media presence of the modern athlete, from Jordan to Tiger Woods, to LeBron. We only get from them what they want to give, which makes us all the more blood-thirsty when we do get something unexpected. As much as I root against LeBron (for all the same reasons as everyone else), or maybe because I root against LeBron, I'm fascinated by him. I almost hope he does get his title, just to see how the narrative will shift. I just hope his book is as timeless.
—Patrick
I enjoyed this book about a year in a pro basketball team. Besides a successful year, the 1990-91 season in which the Chicago Bulls won the NBA. However, as says the book cover “the inside story of a turbulent session”, that was a difficult year with problems, complaints, envy...The most interesting theme I find in this book is not strictly sports, but psychology. The insight of a pro team, their life together and the relationships existing between them. Between everyone, not only the players, but also the coaches, the general manager, the owner and even the journalists who follow the team and write about it everyday.Sam Smith tell us the road to that success. It begins one year before whit the construction of the team and continues game after game once the season starts.The reason I've loved this book is that Smith isn't trying to sell us a wonderful world where everyone is a great person and there is no problems. “We win because we are a team and we are all good friends” is a topic, not a reality. In the real world there are problems, many problems we have to solve to achieve the main goal.In pro basketball the players earn much money, but not everyone the same. In pro basketball a team can win more than lose, but there always is a someone playing less minutes than he thinks he deserve. In pro basketball players are public figures exposed to the opinion of others. All these are sources of conflict which we usually don't know about a team. But in this case, thanks to Smith, we discover everything about a NBA team.Through the pages Smith tell us about all the main and secondary actors. From Michael Jordan until Scott Williams. And Phil Jackson, Jerry Reinsford and Jerry Krause, Tex Winter, even Toni Kukoc who actually do not get to part of the Bulls that year. We know about the doubts of MJ about his teammates and the triangle-offense of Jackson/Winter. And the concerns of Pippen for his contract. And the complaints of Grant or Cartwright for their few shots and Jordan monopolizing the offense. And the doubts of the less important players as they are not having minutes of time. And the strategies of Jackson to motivate the team and achieve an unselfish play. And how stubborn Krause is, prioritizing the signing of Kukoc and almost forgetting his own player. And so many other things.It's not a spoiler: eventually all these problems mean nothing and the Bulls win the title. Jordan had been struggling for a few years with a bad company, driving too often to the rim himself and playing selfishly, but finally he found the help he needed in Pippen, Grant and the others and, after beating the Pistons, he could achieve success playing more like a team.
—Paulo Glez Ogando
