“You’re always the reason the team lost” – Former Bulls center criticized Michael Jordan for scapegoating his teammates originally appeared on Basketball Network.
There was no mystery to who the Bulls were counting on in the 1990 NBA playoffs.
Advertisement
Michael Jordan had elevated himself to another level that season, winning the scoring title again and posting career highs in multiple categories. But when it came time to beat the Detroit Pistons, Chicago’s biggest hurdle, the team still came up short. And once again, Jordan’s teammates were the ones stuck answering for it.
“The team believed he’d let them down by failing to face the media after such a crucial loss,” Sam Smith wrote in “The Jordan Rules.”
It wasn’t the first time Jordan vanished from view after a tough defeat. But this one hit harder. Chicago had just blown a chance to take control of the series. Jordan played poorly by his standards, and no one could find him after the final buzzer.
Advertisement
Smith described how the Bulls locker room quietly shared a sense of frustration with Jordan’s silence.
“The players agreed: We hear it from him when we don’t play well, but when he doesn’t play well it’s still our faults?”
That feeling wasn’t new either. Former Bulls center Dave Corzine once summed it up in a single line: “It’s hard playing on a team with Michael Jordan because you’re always the reason the team lost.”
That idea had taken root years before Chicago ever started winning titles. Jordan’s greatness was never in question, but the way he treated teammates during difficult moments began to wear people down. When the Bulls lost to the Pistons in 1988, 1989 and 1990, it was rarely Jordan’s name that carried the blame. And inside that locker room, everyone noticed.
Advertisement
Jordan’s greatness often overshadowed the rest
The problem was simple. When Jordan dominated, the Bulls were lauded for having the best player on the planet. When the team fell short, the issue was never Jordan. That dynamic created a quiet tension inside the locker room, according to Smith.
“It certainly couldn’t be Jordan’s fault, everyone usually agreed; he was the best, wasn’t he?” Smith wrote. “There was not much anyone on the team could say publicly.”
Advertisement
The Pistons were a different kind of opponent. They pushed, shoved, baited and wore teams down. Jordan fought back and often delivered huge scoring nights, but Detroit’s game plan never changed. The more physical the series became, the more pressure Jordan seemed to place on his teammates to back him up.
When they didn’t, things got uncomfortable behind the scenes.
By 1990, that dynamic had taken a toll. Jordan still led by force, but trust within the team had grown fragile. The Pistons would knock the Bulls out again that year, and Jordan’s postgame disappearance didn’t go unnoticed.
Advertisement
What made it harder for the other players was the silence that followed.
Jordan often kept to himself after losses, while others had to answer questions. And when those teammates didn’t perform well, they often heard about it directly from him.
Leadership style that left scars
Jordan’s leadership approach had been built on confrontation and pressure. Some players responded well. Others shut down. But the thing that stuck with many was how the blame always seemed to roll downhill.
Advertisement
Corzine’s quote captured what many around the team believed but rarely said out loud. Being teammates with the greatest basketball player in the world meant accepting a double standard. And unless you were one of the few he trusted, your mistakes were always going to be louder than his.
This was the environment that existed just one season before the Bulls finally broke through.
In 1991, they would sweep the Pistons and go on to win the first of six titles. But before that moment arrived, there was real doubt inside the locker room about what it would take to get there — and whether the team would ever be on equal footing with the man leading them.
Advertisement
This story was originally reported by Basketball Network on Aug 6, 2025, where it first appeared.