How long has the 6-0 Arguement for MJ been around?

[prophet_of_rage]

It started to skyrocket when Lebron became an actual threat to Jordan's legacy and old-heads wanted an argument that would permanently disable Lebron's chances (once you lose a 0...it's gone forever), no matter what he did in the future, because for once the idea of a player projecting beyond Jordan was possible to a non-trivial degree.

Reframing "winning" in terms of "not losing a Finals" essentially penalizes players who swim upstream to the Finals, while benefitting players who run downhill (or are in even odds situations).

The 6-0 argument is dumb. You shouldn't get penalized for making the finals and losing.

Now the argument that MJ won 6 titles in only 12 year span basically is a strong argument for how great he is.

There are two teams in the finals. That means you have a 50/50 chance of winning, just like whether you flip heads or tails. For Jordan to break that law and bat 100%, while Lebron under performed the expected number is a very important difference. That means Lebron performed worse than chance, meaning you replace him with a random player and they probably win more. The odds of winning 6 straight is 1 in 64 (which are the odds of flipping heads 6 straight times). That's insane.

And assumes that both teams are equal all the time which isn't at all the case. And Havlicek at 8-0 must be better than Jordan then?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[CobraCommander]

It started to skyrocket when Lebron became an actual threat to Jordan's legacy and old-heads wanted an argument that would permanently disable Lebron's chances (once you lose a 0...it's gone forever), no matter what he did in the future, because for once the idea of a player projecting beyond Jordan was possible to a non-trivial degree.

Reframing "winning" in terms of "not losing a Finals" essentially penalizes players who swim upstream to the Finals, while benefitting players who run downhill (or are in even odds situations).

old heads that watched both generally feel like MJs peak was better and MJ was much much much better than his peers during his peak 10 years and at no point in 10 years did anyone think anyone was remotely close to as good as MJ.

Lebron was better than his peers during his 15 year peak...but there were guys like Curry and KD that we close to or even Better than Lebron for a year or so...

but Lebron scored 40 as the youngest and he keeps dropping 40 as a 40 year old...wtf....i

Bird and Magic were better than MJ until he took his game to the next level in 1988. But from that point forward he didn't relinquish it while in his prime unlike Lebron who was surpassed by Kawhi, KD, Giannis and Jokic post 2016 and was behind Kobe in the beginning of his career.

Agreed - LeBron is second best cause his peak was so damn long- and for 21 years he has been anywhere for best to 15 in league and probably never worse than 15th for a year - this year he is still top 15-20…that’s crazy

[shotsquatch]

4-6 is more impressive than 6-0, and 8 consecutive finals appearances is the greatest NBA accomplishment ever outside of Russell.

People are dazzled by Jordan's record because 0 losses creates the perception of invincibility. But statistically speaking, a 5-1 record was probably just as plausible an outcome--which would lack that mythical aura and swing the conversation a bit.

Think about it this way: a few lucky bounces, and LeBron might be 5-5 instead of 4-6. One less ring than Jordan, four more finals appearances. My point here isn't to rewrite history; I'm highlighting how comparing narrow margins between limited samples can exaggerate the perceived differences between them.

You can play that game in both directions though. A few unlucky bounces in 2013 and 2016 and LeBron might easily be 2-8 in the Finals. If Pippen didn’t have a migraine in game 7 in 1990, Jordan could’ve been 7-0. And, either way, isn’t the question of “greatness” about what actually happened, rather than about some probabilistic assessment of what might’ve happened for each player if we reran history a bunch of times? Even if we thought one of them had more luck than the other, then to some degree isn’t that just the way the cookie crumbled for them for greatness purposes?

The point I'm trying to make is that the digit zero in 6-0 versus 4-6 exaggerates our perception of the difference between the two records, when in practical terms the actual difference is small. The way Jordan's record looks on paper also distracts us from how impressive it is to take ten teams to the finals.

It's a psychological thing: zero is a "perfect" number.

[kcktiny]

You like to talk down to people but then can't grasp the fundamental concept that there's more to basketball than scoring a bunch of points.

Try re-reading this thread, and working on your reading comprehension.

Everything you're saying boils down to rings, points, and appeals to authority.

Don't forget defense. Jordan's defensive resume is considerably better than Lebron's.

Whether it's Jordan or Irving or anyone else you feel the need to belittle the efforts of other players to justify your love affair for Lebron. You make every excuse for him while disparaging other players:

Kyrie Irving, a guy who has failed without a superior teammate every single step of the way

So when Irving doesn't win it's his fault.

46 wins a season and never making the Finals and losing to the same team 3 years in a row sounds like an almost death sentence to anyone else's legacy.

And when Jordan doesn't win it's his fault.

LeBron averaged 54 wins a season from 06-10, with worse teammates

But when Lebron doesn't win it's always somebody else's fault.

Then when you don't have any evidence to back your opinion you make inane statements like this:

Jordan simply being that much better than anyone else, when nothing really supports him being that much better than everyone else... the reality is that, he had better teammates and coaching than his opponents

Care to substantiate this? Or this?:

46 wins a season and never making the Finals and losing to the same team 3 years in a row sounds like an almost death sentence to anyone else's legacy. LeBron averaged 54 wins a season from 06-10, with worse teammates

So because you say Lebron's team won more games with worse teammates than Jordan, in your mind that makes him a better player than Jordan, outside of a ton of other evidence? That sounds more like an excuse you have to make to yourself to convince yourself you're right.

And absolutely nobody is saying he wasn't the best player. His claim to greatness is mainly predicated on being one of the most dominant scorers of all time, obviously he's going to score a lot of points. He was awesome. But his team was awesome too. That's what people are missing here. LeBron's teams were often NOT awesome, and yet they made the Finals.

And it is you and only you that can define who's team outside of the star player is better. And for you it's always the team of the player not named Lebron.

And despite everyone who watched him played in 1987-88 and that voted for DPOY voted Jordan that award, here you are some 3+ decades later saying:

I don't think he was ever in the conversation for best defensive player in the league, despite the DPOY, which I don't think he deserved.

Again, you have no evidence that Lebron is a better player than Jordan, so you just disparage any and all of Jordan's accomplishments in an effort to try to convince yourself Lebron is better.

Jordan was getting dominated... in large part due to his gambling nature on defense.

9-time all-defensive 1st team, and this is your assessment of his defense. Far better defender than James, but this is what you have to do to convince yourself.

I'd be willing to bet you were not alive back then, did not see him play back then, and have never even watched him play a full game from back then start to finish, just highlights at most.

For someone who's apparently an old head

Actually all of me is old.

it's pretty basic and flawed logic that's already been addressed multiple times

Yes because your logic is so eloquent.

so I don't see the point in responding

Don't quit now, this is just getting to be fun.

Dismissing LeBron's accomplishments as simply participation awards and acting like the years winning the title are the only ones that matter in this comparison

Tell you what Sir Newton. Why don't you start a poll and ask how many would rather have their favorite NBA team go 6/6 on championships or 4/10? But you won't, because you know the answer.

just proves that age does not equal wisdom.

But it does mean I've watched for more NBA than you have. At least I have actually watched Michael Jordan play.

And I mean, if you can't recognize the clearly weaker competition in the 90s compared to the 80s

You are clueless. And certainly cannot substantiate this statement.

Especially if you can't then recognize the clearly stronger era of the 2010s as well.

Again clueless, and cannot substantiate this.

[Blame Rasho]

Yeah this is a lie… but keep lying to yourself.

Perceptions are relative. Can you provide a counterexample? This thread shows that I'm not the only person who feels the same way.

I’ve been watching the game for over 40 years, and debates about win-loss records in the Finals were never a major talking point—until MJ started challenging KAJ legacy.

See how easy it is to make a counter example?

The thread just shows bad posters posting and you can’t tell me that there aren’t some horrible posters on this thread.

The moment when MJ took the Bulls and made finals in his last year it was basically talked about. It really drove home in his last bucket, and basically sign and sealed the whole 6-0. Two separate 3 peats in the modern era along with at the time the best record.

[Blame Rasho]

I’ve been watching the game for over 40 years, and debates about win-loss records in the Finals were never a major talking point—until LeBron started challenging MJ’s legacy.

Yeah this is a lie… but keep lying to yourself.

Stop… it’s the truth except it started with Kobe trying to catch up and Lebron next. With Jordan, he was just clearly better than anything we had seen. With Kobe and Lebron, it obviously hasn’t been the case since Jordan existed.

Hey… a horrible poster on the internet is saying otherwise. Hey everyone, let’s listen to him…

[bledredwine]

Yeah this is a lie… but keep lying to yourself.

Stop… it’s the truth except it started with Kobe trying to catch up and Lebron next. With Jordan, he was just clearly better than anything we had seen. With Kobe and Lebron, it obviously hasn’t been the case since Jordan existed.

Hey… a horrible poster on the internet is saying otherwise. Hey everyone, let’s listen to him…

That’s a strange way to refer to yourself. I get it- you're upset about the posts showing Lebron's flaws as a fellow fan.
That's what happens when he's put in the GOAT debate. Same as Kobe.

But what I posted is the truth, if you've been following long enough.