How many great players have had a great Game 7?

[BattleTested]

By Game 7 I'm referring to a Finals Game 7. The Superbowl of basketball. The only night where the Larry O'brien trophy is literally just waiting around in the building for a team to inevitably claim it. By my account here are the great players in history's contribution to Game 7's before this year.

Kobe Bryant in 2010 - 23/15/2 on 38% TS. Terrible, terrible game for Kobe. He played really good defensively and rebounded but dude isn't Kawhi Leonard. His main contribution is his ability to score and create opportunities for his teammates. As a Lakers fan I lost a lot of respect for Kobe on this night. To the point where I literally felt weird after the game, because my team had won but my childhood hero had played so horribly that it almost cast a dark cloud on it. Looking back, this is the moment I realized that the team will always be bigger than the players. Regardless, Kobe had a really **** game.

Tim Duncan in 2005 - 25/11/3 on 42% TS. Again a really inefficient game. Manu was the star of this one, much like Ron Artest bailed Kobe out in 2010.

Hakeem Olajuwon in 1994 - 25/10/7 on 44% TS. Following the trend, Hakeem misses most of the shots he takes in the biggest game of his career. His Rockets are the first team to get to 90 points among the 6 teams looked at so far, which indicates that as nerves and defensive effort increased scoring went down. This makes sense. Subpar game for Hakeem.

Patirick Ewing in 1994 - 17/10/1 on 43% TS. Ewing pretty much couldn't score on Hakeem the entire series so it wasn't like he had an abnormally bad game when the stakes were the highest. Still a poor performance for someone who was averaging 22/12/3 on 50% TS for the postseason.

Magic Johnson in 1988 - 19/14/5 on 76% TS. The first good game within the list. Magic brought it, although you'd be foolish to call him the best player on the floor, or even on his own team, as Worthy had the game of his life in posting a line of 36/16/10 on 68% TS. So among 5 elite talents we have looked at we see one good game but still no count where the best player on the team performs as such. Well maybe Hakeem played the best on his team, but he certainly did not perform up to caliber.

Isiah Thomas in 1988- I'm not even gonna count him because he was so badly injured. But he would definitely belong in this discussion if that weren't the case (although he might not have been in a Game 7 in the first place if he didn't get hurt in the 3rd quarter of Game 6.) His inclusion is just me trying to indicate the level of player that I'm attempting to analyze.

Larry Bird in 1984 - 20/12/3 on 6/18 from the field and 12/12 from the line (no TS percentage data.) Larry had an atypically inefficient night but got to the line more often than he usually did. Both follow in line with what other superstars did when the defense got really tight in this situation.

Magic Johnson in 1984 - 16/15/5 on 5/14 from the field and 5/8 from the line. Not up to Magic's standards on this night, although he did distribute the wealth as he always did. Still, he missed most of his shots and made a couple key errors down the stretch (he had 7 TO overall.)

I'm gonna stop at that point because it's the 30 year mark (and I'm too drunk to keep going.) Anyways what I'm getting at is that most superstar players play poorly in this context. Of my 7 examples only Magic in 88 had a good game. He was the only one who shot above 50% TS (I'm assuming Bird's 84 outing was below that number.) So in most cases, the superstar will score less than he usually does and will miss most of his shots. The relevance of this is something that I do not enjoy illuminating. As much as it pains me to do this, we should compare these numbers to Lebron's Game 7 performance-

Lebron James in 2013 - 37/12/4 on 70% TS. Not only did Lebron outscore every one by double digits, he did so on an efficiency that was nearly unparalleled. I really don't like the guy but we need to acknowledge that Lebron clearly had the best Game 7 performance that anyone under 40 has ever seen. A guy who we always liked to claim didn't have it in him to perform in the big moments did so at a level that is unparalleled in the last 30 years.

I know Russell had a 30/40 game somewhere along the line in one of his many Game 7's, and Jerry West had a triple double where he scored over 40. But this conversation is about post-merger ball. My question to you guys is, how does this affect Lebron's legacy? Is it as big a deal as my inner (primitive minded) basketball fan tells me it is? I'm honestly really taken back by how little this community has discussed how well this transcendent, highly criticized player performed in the pressure cooker that is a Game 7.

[Massamba]

They will tell you that LeBron was wide open. It's not right and false, they tried to make him shoot because he is unstoppable on penetration and opens the shooters. At the same time he wasn't wipe open all the time, maybe half of his shots. The reason they try to make him shoot is because he is 70% under the basket and has a great court vision. He passes the ball when there is a wide open shooter. Greg Popovich played on LeBron's only weackness and LeBron proved him that on do or die games he has no weackness anymore.

[BattleTested]

They will tell you that LeBron was wide open. It's not right and false, they tried to make him shoot because he is unstoppable on penetration and opens the shooters. At the same time he wasn't wipe open all the time, maybe half of his shots. The reason they try to make him shoot is because he is 70% under the basket and has a great court vision. He passes the ball when there is a wide open shooter. Greg Popovich played on LeBron's only weackness and LeBron proved him that on do or die games he has no weackness anymore.

I'm totally aware of how the Spurs played him. It was very obvious if you watched the series, or even if you just saw that GIF that documented all of Lebron's FG's. He's not a great, consistent outside shooter, and can be somewhat neutralized with effective zone techniques. That was the Spurs game plan, and it worked for 6 games. But that's beside the point. Magic's opponents played him the same way in his Game 7's. The Celtics doubled up on Kobe and dared him to beat him on tough shots. No one is perfect. Everyone has a weakness that the defense will try to exploit. The fact that Lebron's was so apparent and he conquered it in such a dominant fashion in the biggest game he will ever play in is more what I'm trying to get at.

If the Spurs had played Lebron straight up and not given him room, he would have driven into the lane and killed them throughout the series to the point that there probably wouldn't have been a Game 7.

This thread is about determining what it means in the context of Lebron's career that he performed so well in the highest pressure cooker that he could ever experience.

[flashwade33]

It's a great thing to have, that's for sure. Especially considering the fact that he was labeled as a "choker". Well, he definitely proved that he is not. Just because he wasn't able to perform a couple times does not make him a choker. He is one of the best at clutch moments in NBA right now, in fact I would easily take him over anyone else.

However, I don't think anyone would put Lebron over someone else in top 10 just because he performed so well in a Finals Game 7. Especially not above someone who hasn't played game 7's in the finals, namely Shaq and Jordan. One game is not a great way to evaluate a player, especially just looking at his box-score stats. Hakeem might have been inefficient in that game for example, but what about his defensive impact? Also he went up against one of the best centers of all time in Ewing, while for Lebron the defense dared him to shoot it, left him open at times.

Btw, KAJ in 1984 had 29 points 57% TS.

[dc]

Duncan's Game 7 vs. the Pistons was much, much better than his stats show. He dominated from the mid-3rd quarter and on.

[Massamba]

Kobe's weakness was his court vision and passing skills. They doubled up on Kobe's penetration and isolations, but he didn't passed the ball most of the time. It worked for the Celtics. Their plan can't work on LeBron as we saw in the 2011 and 2012 cletics heat series. At the same time the spurs plan on lebron in the 2013 finals can't work on Kobe. Kobe would score +30 each game.
In my opinion the difference between lebron's game 7 and the other is that LeBron stepped up and was unstoppable. Wade did the same, he raised his game and had no weackness this night.

[Donald Kaufman]

Truly great players shouldn't need a game 7 to begin with. MJ didn't need 7 games in the Finals.

[MaliBrah]

Truly great players shouldn't need a game 7 to begin with. MJ didn't need 7 games in the Finals.

so MJ is the only true great then? is that what you're implying?

[Johnlac1]

It was game 6 and not game 7, but Dr. J had a 40 pt final game against the Blazers in the '77 finals. The Sixers only lost that one by 2 pts. and had a good shot to tie the game up in the closing seconds. If they had won that game, the final game 7 would have been in Philly.

[Mikey111690]

Truly great players shouldn't need a game 7 to begin with. MJ didn't need 7 games in the Finals.

So Magic isn't great? Bird isn't great? Hakeem isn't great? Timmy isn't great? Kobe isn't great? LeBron isn't great?

This is such ridiculous logic.

[theFRANCHISE]

Wow you put Kobe's game 7 from 2010 you better watch the game again. If artest and fisher don't make shots in that game people would have called that game a choke for kobe. His shooting was terrible! You should add game 7 of conference finals too I've seen some great performances on that stage as well.

[IrishBeatdown]

Amazing statline for Worthy. Of course he was good, but that game 7 production.....just wow. I had forgotten that game 7 triple double.

[tidho]

Truly great players shouldn't need a game 7 to begin with. MJ didn't need 7 games in the Finals.

So Magic isn't great? Bird isn't great? Hakeem isn't great? Timmy isn't great? Kobe isn't great? LeBron isn't great?

This is such ridiculous logic.

Do you like the logic better if the same thing is said another way? ...Great players don't let lesser teams take them to seven.

[flashwade33]

Truly great players shouldn't need a game 7 to begin with. MJ didn't need 7 games in the Finals.

So Magic isn't great? Bird isn't great? Hakeem isn't great? Timmy isn't great? Kobe isn't great? LeBron isn't great?

This is such ridiculous logic.

Do you like the logic better if the same thing is said another way? ...Great players don't let lesser teams take them to seven.

So great players don't get swept either right? Or lose a playoff series? By that logic there are no great players in the NBA whatsoever...

[diablerouge]

the flaw with jordan's 6-0 record is that people are actually implying that it's better to get knocked out earlier than to lose in the finals. in some people's mind, losing to olajuwon in the finals would have hurt jordan's legacy more than losing to orlando when he came back from baseball.

[kobe808lak]

Wow you put Kobe's game 7 from 2010 you better watch the game again. If artest and fisher don't make shots in that game people would have called that game a choke for kobe. His shooting was terrible! You should add game 7 of conference finals too I've seen some great performances on that stage as well.

Do you know how to read?? The OP said he played a terrible game.

[tidho]

Do you like the logic better if the same thing is said another way? ...Great players don't let lesser teams take them to seven.

So great players don't get swept either right? Or lose a playoff series? By that logic there are no great players in the NBA whatsoever...

That's not really what I said. Losing a series to an equal or better team - no shame in that. Being taken to seven by a clearly lesser team - that isn't 'greatness'.

[Flash Falcon X]

Do you like the logic better if the same thing is said another way? ...Great players don't let lesser teams take them to seven.

So great players don't get swept either right? Or lose a playoff series? By that logic there are no great players in the NBA whatsoever...

That's not really what I said. Losing a series to an equal or better team - no shame in that. Being taken to seven by a clearly lesser team - that isn't 'greatness'.

So you're saying the Spurs suck?

The Spurs seemed pretty good to me, which is why it went to 7 games in the first place.

[tidho]

So great players don't get swept either right? Or lose a playoff series? By that logic there are no great players in the NBA whatsoever...

That's not really what I said. Losing a series to an equal or better team - no shame in that. Being taken to seven by a clearly lesser team - that isn't 'greatness'.

So you're saying the Spurs suck?

The Spurs seemed pretty good to me, which is why it went to 7 games in the first place.

An epidemic of poor reading comprehension is sweeping through this place.

I'm not saying the Spurs suck. The only way you could reach that conclusion given what I actually said is if you believe the Heat are a 'clearly lesser team'. I don't believe that to be the case.

[flashwade33]

Do you like the logic better if the same thing is said another way? ...Great players don't let lesser teams take them to seven.

So great players don't get swept either right? Or lose a playoff series? By that logic there are no great players in the NBA whatsoever...

That's not really what I said. Losing a series to an equal or better team - no shame in that. Being taken to seven by a clearly lesser team - that isn't 'greatness'.

Spurs wasn't a clearly lesser team...