Is LeBron better off losing in the ECF?

[J Shuttlesworth]

There's really no blow to his legacy if he loses to the Warriors. Finals record is one of the most fallacy-ridden arguments of all time. If LeBron was 3/3 instead of 3/7, his legacy isn't better because of it. Making 7 straight finals is an accomplishment no matter which way you slice it.

If you think MJ's legacy wouldn't be even more untouchable if he was like 8/12 instead of 6/6, you are delusional. Losing in the finals is the second best way you can end a season.

Now if he loses to the Warriors because he no-shows like 2011, that would be another black mark.

I think most everyone here saw the 2015 finals. That was a finals he lost, but still almost won FMVP. In 2007, he made the finals at 22 years old. Do you actually think those losses are negatives for his resume? Like losing in the third round in 2007 would have been better for his overall resume? That is laughable, but that's what so many people here argue.

Let's take the 2004 Finals between the Lakers and Pistons.

Did that help either Shaq or Kobe's legacy/perception? Does anyone say, "That was a good finals appearance for Shaq and Kobe".

I can't think of anyone who counts that series as a positive. I hear Shaq and Kobe won three straight finals, but they made it to four finals and this is the one where their legacy takes a hit.

If anyone criticizes Kobe in the finals, this is their go to example.

Do not act like if Cleveland gets destroyed in the finals, Durant/Curry dominate the series that it will not be a marker because it is.

This is not the only series this has happened:

Magic becoming Tragic Johnson in the 1984 finals
Shaq getting swept in the finals by Hakeem (sidebar Nick Anderson blowing four FT's)
Julius Erving and the Sixers losing to the Blazers

How you lose does affect the narrative......

I agree that 2004 wasn't a positive for Kobe/Shaq... really more negative for Kobe because they seemed to lose because of Kobe trying to do too much on his own. I was 16 when that series happened so correct me if i'm wrong about that. However, if the same thing happened in the ECF against the Timberwolves where Kobe/Shaq had too much drama and couldn't make the finals, I would consider that to be an even bigger underachievement.

But you're right, context matters. Let's say Shaq gets injured, and Kobe is leading the team. Kobe has a remarkable performance without Shaq and even has a couple of 40 pt triple doubles. Ultimately, he doesn't have enough talent around him because Shaq got hurt as well as a couple other key players.

To me, that would actually enhance Kobe's legacy. He'd still have the 3 rings with Shaq, but would also have probably his most impressive finals performance to date.

It's also different when your team is significant favorites like the Lakers were in 2004, or like the Heat were in 2011. THOSE type of losses don't enhance your legacy. Like I said, if the Cavs lose this year BECAUSE of LeBron no-showing a-la 2011, that definitely is not a plus for his legacy and definitely diminishes this particular trip to the finals. If he is clearly the best player on the court even against a team with 4 all stars, I would consider it a plus.

I know this might sound crazy to some people, but it's possible that when you asssess how great players are, you judge them by HOW THEY PERFORM, and not just what the result of the series is. I have my doubts that any ATG on the top 10 list would be able to beat these Warriors in a 7 game series in LeBron's place, even MJ. The one guy I think might be able to pull it off is Shaq. There's a reason that the Warriors are significant favorites to win, and it's not because LeBron isn't an ATG. It's because it's probably the most stacked team the league has seen.

There's a reason we consider MJ > Russell, or Bird > Wade. MJ has less rings than russell but an overall much better player. Wade and Bird have the same amount of titles but most consider Bird to the be the better player because of how he actually performed on the court.

And personally, I seem to notice Kobe gets most of his criticism in the finals during some of the wins. His most criticized game is 6/24. Kobe, in general, has been actually no so good by his standards in most of his finals. Personally, I consider that into my ranking and is part of the reason why I have Bird, LeBron, Magic, and Duncan over him even though those guys have less or = amount of titles.

[slothrop8]

There's really no blow to his legacy if he loses to the Warriors. Finals record is one of the most fallacy-ridden arguments of all time. If LeBron was 3/3 instead of 3/7, his legacy isn't better because of it. Making 7 straight finals is an accomplishment no matter which way you slice it.

If you think MJ's legacy wouldn't be even more untouchable if he was like 8/12 instead of 6/6, you are delusional. Losing in the finals is the second best way you can end a season.

Now if he loses to the Warriors because he no-shows like 2011, that would be another black mark.

I think most everyone here saw the 2015 finals. That was a finals he lost, but still almost won FMVP. In 2007, he made the finals at 22 years old. Do you actually think those losses are negatives for his resume? Like losing in the third round in 2007 would have been better for his overall resume? That is laughable, but that's what so many people here argue.

Let's take the 2004 Finals between the Lakers and Pistons.

Did that help either Shaq or Kobe's legacy/perception? Does anyone say, "That was a good finals appearance for Shaq and Kobe".

I can't think of anyone who counts that series as a positive. I hear Shaq and Kobe won three straight finals, but they made it to four finals and this is the one where their legacy takes a hit.

If anyone criticizes Kobe in the finals, this is their go to example.

Do not act like if Cleveland gets destroyed in the finals, Durant/Curry dominate the series that it will not be a marker because it is.

This is not the only series this has happened:

Magic becoming Tragic Johnson in the 1984 finals
Shaq getting swept in the finals by Hakeem (sidebar Nick Anderson blowing four FT's)
Julius Erving and the Sixers losing to the Blazers

How you lose does affect the narrative......

Right... but if they missed the playoffs entirely - that would be worse. "Remember in 2004 when Malone and Payton joined up with Shaq and Kobe an that team won 38 games! Hahahahahahaha" - that's what you'd hear instead. Or "remember in 2004 when Shaq and Kobe got bounced in the first round by Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley? Hahahaha!"

[Tai]

Warriors are a different animal and will likely handle either the Cavs or Celtics rather easily.

Given that over half this forum thinks that 3-4 in the finals is better than 3-5, do you think LeBron's legacy is better off by him losing in the conference finals rather than finals?

Especially interested in hearing from the half of users on this forum that I referenced earlier.

We now have had 3 threads about whether or not it is better to lose before the finals than to lose in the finals. Oddly enough, almost half of those out there think it is better to lose before the finals than in the finals.

I don't think new threads stating the same questions in different ways is going to give us a different result.

I think he's calling the bluff of those who thought 6-0 > 6-2. This topic definitely seems to have a purpose, and I'm all for it.

And to answer the question, the Cavs went up 2-0 in this series, and Boston's best player is out. Kyrie saved Lebron's legacy in Game 4; going back to Boston tied 2-2? The Garden will probably be rocking regardless, but man, talk about a nightmare scenario.

Lebron losing to the Celtics is better than losing to the Warriors? Yea sure, lemme sell ya the bridge next to TD Garden for $5 while we're at it.

[J Shuttlesworth]

There's really no blow to his legacy if he loses to the Warriors. Finals record is one of the most fallacy-ridden arguments of all time. If LeBron was 3/3 instead of 3/7, his legacy isn't better because of it. Making 7 straight finals is an accomplishment no matter which way you slice it.

If you think MJ's legacy wouldn't be even more untouchable if he was like 8/12 instead of 6/6, you are delusional. Losing in the finals is the second best way you can end a season.

Now if he loses to the Warriors because he no-shows like 2011, that would be another black mark.

I think most everyone here saw the 2015 finals. That was a finals he lost, but still almost won FMVP. In 2007, he made the finals at 22 years old. Do you actually think those losses are negatives for his resume? Like losing in the third round in 2007 would have been better for his overall resume? That is laughable, but that's what so many people here argue.

Let's take the 2004 Finals between the Lakers and Pistons.

Did that help either Shaq or Kobe's legacy/perception? Does anyone say, "That was a good finals appearance for Shaq and Kobe".

I can't think of anyone who counts that series as a positive. I hear Shaq and Kobe won three straight finals, but they made it to four finals and this is the one where their legacy takes a hit.

If anyone criticizes Kobe in the finals, this is their go to example.

Do not act like if Cleveland gets destroyed in the finals, Durant/Curry dominate the series that it will not be a marker because it is.

This is not the only series this has happened:

Magic becoming Tragic Johnson in the 1984 finals
Shaq getting swept in the finals by Hakeem (sidebar Nick Anderson blowing four FT's)
Julius Erving and the Sixers losing to the Blazers

How you lose does affect the narrative......

Right... but if they missed the playoffs entirely - that would be worse. "Remember in 2004 when Malone and Payton joined up with Shaq and Kobe an that team won 38 games! Hahahahahahaha" - that's what you'd hear instead. Or "remember in 2004 when Shaq and Kobe got bounced in the first round by Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley? Hahahaha!"

lol... I also just realized i'm posting on the general board. Thought it was player comparisons.

I wouldn't have made that long post if I didn't realize it was TGB

[bwgood77]

Warriors are a different animal and will likely handle either the Cavs or Celtics rather easily.

Given that over half this forum thinks that 3-4 in the finals is better than 3-5, do you think LeBron's legacy is better off by him losing in the conference finals rather than finals?

Especially interested in hearing from the half of users on this forum that I referenced earlier.

We now have had 3 threads about whether or not it is better to lose before the finals than to lose in the finals. Oddly enough, almost half of those out there think it is better to lose before the finals than in the finals.

I don't think new threads stating the same questions in different ways is going to give us a different result.

I think he's calling the bluff of those who thought 6-0 > 6-2. This topic definitely seems to have a purpose, and I'm all for it.

And to answer the question, the Cavs went up 2-0 in this series, and Boston's best player is out. Kyrie saved Lebron's legacy in Game 4; going back to Boston tied 2-2? The Garden will probably be rocking regardless, but man, talk about a nightmare scenario.

Lebron losing to the Celtics is better than losing to the Warriors? Yea sure, lemme sell ya the bridge next to TD Garden for $5 while we're at it.

Yes, I'm aware of what he is doing, and the timing is good, because if you voted that Jordan should have lost earlier and not later, you should vote that it would be better for LeBron to lose now than to lose to a great team in the finals.

But it's still just another variation and I'm sure many will still say they think LeBron's legacy would be better if he lost now than if his finals record got worse.

I mean, if Jordan had led his team to the finals in every full year he played prior to making it, and losing the first five times, and then finally broke through and won the last six, I think that helps his resume "This guy, ever since he was a rookie, led his team to the finals every year, and finally broke through and won six straight after that in which he played the full season." 6-5 is even better than 6-2

[Hoopzilla]

2) Having four losses in the finals leaves him off the list of all time great players

Magic, Kareem, Wilt

but but but!

Never cherry picked. Wilt was traded. They still stay a rung above Lebron for not cherry picking.

[bmurph128]

There's really no blow to his legacy if he loses to the Warriors. Finals record is one of the most fallacy-ridden arguments of all time. If LeBron was 3/3 instead of 3/7, his legacy isn't better because of it. Making 7 straight finals is an accomplishment no matter which way you slice it.

If you think MJ's legacy wouldn't be even more untouchable if he was like 8/12 instead of 6/6, you are delusional. Losing in the finals is the second best way you can end a season.

Now if he loses to the Warriors because he no-shows like 2011, that would be another black mark.

I think most everyone here saw the 2015 finals. That was a finals he lost, but still almost won FMVP. In 2007, he made the finals at 22 years old. Do you actually think those losses are negatives for his resume? Like losing in the third round in 2007 would have been better for his overall resume? That is laughable, but that's what so many people here argue.

Let's take the 2004 Finals between the Lakers and Pistons.

Did that help either Shaq or Kobe's legacy/perception? Does anyone say, "That was a good finals appearance for Shaq and Kobe".

I can't think of anyone who counts that series as a positive. I hear Shaq and Kobe won three straight finals, but they made it to four finals and this is the one where their legacy takes a hit.

If anyone criticizes Kobe in the finals, this is their go to example.

Do not act like if Cleveland gets destroyed in the finals, Durant/Curry dominate the series that it will not be a marker because it is.

This is not the only series this has happened:

Magic becoming Tragic Johnson in the 1984 finals
Shaq getting swept in the finals by Hakeem (sidebar Nick Anderson blowing four FT's)
Julius Erving and the Sixers losing to the Blazers

How you lose does affect the narrative......

Weren't the Lakers favored over the Pistons?

That's a big difference. Losing 4-1 when being big favorites is a bad look.

Losing 4-1 TO a heavy favorite isn't as bad.

And for the record, I don't hold that finals loss against Kobe and Shaq, at all.

[ProfessorJM]

If LeBron plays well in these Finals but loses, I won't hold it against his legacy at all because I believe the Warriors are a superior team and LeBron is a decided underdog coming into the series. His 2015 performance elevated him in my eyes even though he lost because of his performance against a much more complete team that was also healthy. Context matters a lot. His 2011 loss is very bad because I believe the Heat were the superior team and the Heat were rightfully favorites and LeBron's actual play on the court justified criticism.

It's not often that a defending champion is such a decided underdog, but I think this year that applies.

[Birth of the Cool]

How is this even a serious question?!? LeBron losing to a depleted Boston Celtics team after a 2-0 lead would harm his legacy FAR GREATER than losing to the Warriors who are clear favourites to win the Title this year. Even if LeBron lost to the Warriors in the Finals it would be expected and the fact that he continues adding to his finals appearances is a positive, not a negative to his legacy except for those who want to dislike him already or have a agenda against him (particularly for comparisons to MJ).

[Hoopzilla]

Warriors are a different animal and will likely handle either the Cavs or Celtics rather easily.

Given that over half this forum thinks that 3-4 in the finals is better than 3-5, do you think LeBron's legacy is better off by him losing in the conference finals rather than finals?

Especially interested in hearing from the half of users on this forum that I referenced earlier.

The fact that he is 3-4 right now says a few things about his legacy:

1) He is not an all time great (top 10) as he has had to cherry pick his way to titles in both Cleveland and Miami.
2) Having four losses in the finals leaves him off the list of all time great players, he cannot even be dominant (title-wise, not stat-wise) when cherry picking during his own era.

Lebron is a great all around talent, but it would be irresponsible to put him up their with the best of all time when they didn't jump from team to team to stack the deck in their favour. And the others still have better records without the luxury of cherry picking. Lebron will never come close to being the GOAT, as Jordan was 6 for 6 and there was never a doubt at any point during that time who the best player was and who was going to win those titles.

Quick exercise:

Rank the best players that each of the following players played with:

Jordan
Magic
Bird
Russell
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron

He may have "stacked the deck", but the best player he played with is still probably the worst on that hypothetical list.

Pippen is worst than Wade hands down. Pippen is one of the most overrated players in league history. Never should have been part of the 50 greatest of all time, not even close. Also, Lebron is the only player on this list to be helped out by another player on this list past his prime. Lebron played with Shaq. If Jordan ever had a Hall of Fame center, in their prime or not, titles would have come forthwith for many more years to come. Lebron's deck stacking is what he should be known best for, this guy is sad if you try and compare him to the all time best.

[Patches Perry]

I'm glad people are starting to understand that losing before the finals actually is...still...losing, and a finals record with a number of wins and many appearances (6-2) is better than a finals record with that same number of wins and no other appearances (6-0).

Getting beat in the ECF doesn't somehow give you a pass and allow you to skate on a "perfect" finals record. That's insanely arbitrary and cherry-picked.

[MartinToVaught]

Pippen is worst than Wade hands down. Pippen is one of the most overrated players in league history. Never should have been part of the 50 greatest of all time, not even close.

Pippen was a quarter away from beating the dynasty Shaq Lakers without Jordan at age 34. He was also thisclose to beating the Knicks and advancing to the ECF with Pete Myers starting at the 2 instead of MJ. If they had been able to start anyone half-decent at the 2 instead of a journeyman who had been out of the league for two seasons, they may very well have won it all behind Pippen's leadership. Pippen is actually underrated by hardcore Jordan stans who bought into the marketing narrative that MJ did it all on his own.

Wade never won anything without Shaq or LeBron. The best he could do without either of them was a bunch of early playoff exits with flashy statlines.

Also, Lebron is the only player on this list to be helped out by another player on this list past his prime. Lebron played with Shaq. If Jordan ever had a Hall of Fame center, in their prime or not, titles would have come forthwith for many more years to come. Lebron's deck stacking is what he should be known best for, this guy is sad if you try and compare him to the all time best.

Did you watch Shaq that year? He wasn't the prime, unguardable Shaq anymore. He was old and washed at that point. If trading for a 37-year-old Shaq who could barely move anymore is considered "stacking the deck," I'd love to know what you think of Curry, Klay and Draymond begging Durant to come join their 73-win team.

[SlowPaced]

Wade never won anything without Shaq or LeBron. The best he could do without either of them was a bunch of early playoff exits with flashy statlines.

I disagree with the guy you're responding to, but this is ridiculous in relation to what you said about Pippen. Shaq averaged 13.7 PPG in the Finals in 2006, compared to Wade's 34.7.

[The_Hater]

Warriors are a different animal and will likely handle either the Cavs or Celtics rather easily.

Given that over half this forum thinks that 3-4 in the finals is better than 3-5, do you think LeBron's legacy is better off by him losing in the conference finals rather than finals?

Especially interested in hearing from the half of users on this forum that I referenced earlier.

I get what your saying. People like to focus on the finals record of these all time greats while comoletley ignoring all the times they fall short of the finals completely. It's one of the stupidest statisitcs people circulate as some sort of proof of greatness.

I personally see it the opposite. If the Cavs lose to this clearly inferior Celtics team that will be a huge black mark on Bron's record. Losing to one of the best teams ever assembled in the finals shouldn't be.

[MartinToVaught]

Wade never won anything without Shaq or LeBron. The best he could do without either of them was a bunch of early playoff exits with flashy statlines.

I disagree with the guy you're responding to, but this is ridiculous in relation to what you said about Pippen. Shaq averaged 13.7 PPG in the Finals in 2006, compared to Wade's 34.7.

They don't even make it to the Finals in 2006 without Shaq dominating the Pistons in the ECF (averaged 22/11/2 against that legendary frontcourt). In the deciding Game 6, while Wade was sick with the flu, Shaq put up 28, 16 and 5 with a series-clinching block and dunk to carry them to the win.

[madmaxmedia]

It's not just that Jordan went 6 for 6 in championships series, it's that he won 6 championships in consecutive 'full' seasons (so excluding a retirement year and a comeback year in which he only played 17 regular season games.)

If the Bulls were like the Spurs and spread out 6 titles over 12 years, Jordan's 6 for 6 wouldn't nearly be as impressive overall. Maybe noteworthy in other ways (like the Spurs themselves), but not nearly as dominant.

[SlowPaced]

They don't even make it to the Finals in 2006 without Shaq dominating the Pistons in the ECF (averaged 22/11/2 against that legendary frontcourt). In the deciding Game 6, while Wade was sick with the flu, Shaq put up 28, 16 and 5 with a series-clinching block and dunk to carry them to the win.

Ehh, Dwyane Wade was the better player even in that series. Put up 26 PPG on a ridiculous 61% FG, Pistons simply couldn't stop him getting into the lane.

[G35]

Warriors are a different animal and will likely handle either the Cavs or Celtics rather easily.

Given that over half this forum thinks that 3-4 in the finals is better than 3-5, do you think LeBron's legacy is better off by him losing in the conference finals rather than finals?

Especially interested in hearing from the half of users on this forum that I referenced earlier.

I get what your saying. People like to focus on the finals record of these all time greats while comoletley ignoring all the times they fall short of the finals completely. It's one of the stupidest statisitcs people circulate as some sort of proof of greatness.

I personally see it the opposite. If the Cavs lose to this clearly inferior Celtics team that will be a huge black mark on Bron's record. Losing to one of the best teams ever assembled in the finals shouldn't be.

There is a difference in how we judge things...I can't think of the right word to encompass this but if I were Lebron or any athlete playing, I do not judge my record the same way a fan, media, someone not playing the game would judge my record.

There can be legitimate reasons for losing, we can get into the analysis all day long, but I will tell you as a competitor, I do not care about who is favored or not in a series/game.

Call it the Manu Ginobli mindset, call it the Boston Celtics mindset in G3, call it the 2004 Pistons mindset in the finals.

But when you play a game, it is a game of chance, there are no sure things, and as long as I have a chance I do not care what my odds are, I play to win. There is a rational way of thinking and competitor's way of thinking. In fact it is the reason why everyone's panty's are in a bunch about Kevin Durant. People think he should not have joined the Warriors because it stacks the deck.

Many people do no think you should join the competition, not sleep with the enemy. Yet, then we excuse losses in the finals as if it is ok to ever lose. There are excuses....I will never accept excuses, not me personally. You either win or you lose, the narrative is just something to make you feel better about the loss. There is always a chance to win, the Cavaliers and Lebron showed that last year. So I do not think that a reigning champion that plays against the same team has any alibis for losing. It is not as if CLE sat pat and did not try and improve their team as well, stop the whining and play the game. You want to be the GOAT, then excuses are never valid.......

[Patches Perry]

Warriors are a different animal and will likely handle either the Cavs or Celtics rather easily.

Given that over half this forum thinks that 3-4 in the finals is better than 3-5, do you think LeBron's legacy is better off by him losing in the conference finals rather than finals?

Especially interested in hearing from the half of users on this forum that I referenced earlier.

I get what your saying. People like to focus on the finals record of these all time greats while comoletley ignoring all the times they fall short of the finals completely. It's one of the stupidest statisitcs people circulate as some sort of proof of greatness.

I personally see it the opposite. If the Cavs lose to this clearly inferior Celtics team that will be a huge black mark on Bron's record. Losing to one of the best teams ever assembled in the finals shouldn't be.

There is a difference in how we judge things...I can't think of the right word to encompass this but if I were Lebron or any athlete playing, I do not judge my record the same way a fan, media, someone not playing the game would judge my record.

There can be legitimate reasons for losing, we can get into the analysis all day long, but I will tell you as a competitor, I do not care about who is favored or not in a series/game.

Call it the Manu Ginobli mindset, call it the Boston Celtics mindset in G3, call it the 2004 Pistons mindset in the finals.

But when you play a game, it is a game of chance, there are no sure things, and as long as I have a chance I do not care what my odds are, I play to win. There is a rational way of thinking and competitor's way of thinking. In fact it is the reason why everyone's panty's are in a bunch about Kevin Durant. People think he should not have joined the Warriors because it stacks the deck.

Many people do no think you should join the competition, not sleep with the enemy. Yet, then we excuse losses in the finals as if it is ok to ever lose. There are excuses....I will never accept excuses, not me personally. You either win or you lose, the narrative is just something to make you feel better about the loss. There is always a chance to win, the Cavaliers and Lebron showed that last year. So I do not think that a reigning champion that plays against the same team has any alibis for losing. It is not as if CLE sat pat and did not try and improve their team as well, stop the whining and play the game. You want to be the GOAT, then excuses are never valid.......

This mentality is what you should have as a player. You should feel like you can beat anyone and fight them as though you can, even if the task is impossible.

As objective observers, it is irresponsible to not take into account all factors.

[bmurph128]

The fact that he is 3-4 right now says a few things about his legacy:

1) He is not an all time great (top 10) as he has had to cherry pick his way to titles in both Cleveland and Miami.
2) Having four losses in the finals leaves him off the list of all time great players, he cannot even be dominant (title-wise, not stat-wise) when cherry picking during his own era.

Lebron is a great all around talent, but it would be irresponsible to put him up their with the best of all time when they didn't jump from team to team to stack the deck in their favour. And the others still have better records without the luxury of cherry picking. Lebron will never come close to being the GOAT, as Jordan was 6 for 6 and there was never a doubt at any point during that time who the best player was and who was going to win those titles.

Quick exercise:

Rank the best players that each of the following players played with:

Jordan
Magic
Bird
Russell
Shaq
Kobe
LeBron

He may have "stacked the deck", but the best player he played with is still probably the worst on that hypothetical list.

Pippen is worst than Wade hands down. Pippen is one of the most overrated players in league history. Never should have been part of the 50 greatest of all time, not even close. Also, Lebron is the only player on this list to be helped out by another player on this list past his prime. Lebron played with Shaq. If Jordan ever had a Hall of Fame center, in their prime or not, titles would have come forthwith for many more years to come. Lebron's deck stacking is what he should be known best for, this guy is sad if you try and compare him to the all time best.

Magic played with Kareem. Bird with multiple HOFers for the Celtics. Shaq and Kobe literally played together.

Pippen is not overrated, at all. Look at what he did without MJ. Is he better than Wade? Not sure. Wade never won a title without anyone on this list either....hard to judge.