Would you be more or less impressed if Jordan was 6-2 in the finals?

[Optms]

the idea of better losing before the finals instead of losing in the finals is one of the worst basketball arguments I have ever seen

being 6-2 in the finals is better than 6-0 because it means you were the best in the conference 8 times instead of 6 times

The idea that making it out of the conference in a historically weak era relative to that conference somehow being more impressive is also a bad argument.

[Pablo Escobar]

If Jordan didn't retire he would've had 8 rings. Which is insane when you think about it.

[GermanFan120]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

[MagicMadness]

I guess it depends.

My respect for LeBron increased dramatically when he almost single-handedly took down the Warriors in 2015.

If a young Jordan went to the Finals twice in a row and averaged like 40ppg while his team lost to a juggernaut, then I guess it could (or should) add favorably to his mythology - or at the very least, not hurt what he's already established. Then when he 3-peated twice, people would probably look at those two losses as his stepping stone to GOAT status. The narrative would shift to him being able to overcome defeat at the highest level - while averaging MVP stats - to finally win and then dominate the league for the rest of his career.

So like I said, it depends. If he lost those two finals and played poorly, then it would negatively affect how we view him.

[pwrshft99]

I think a flawless Finals is what makes Jordan stand alone as the greatest. Two loses definitely brings him back to the pack.

I don't think it would have happen in Chicago, the team wouldn't have survived the loses and drastic changes would be made to the roster. Then your talking MJ leading a second group of guys to the promise land, that's a lot to consider.

[INKtastic]

Yeah less, it's nice to get to the finals alot of times but I'm sorry it loses value when you lose. Being whatever and 0 means every time you went you lead your team to victory and that means more.

how is winning the conference finals only to lose in the NBA Finals better than winning the conference finals and losing the NBA finals. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

[dynamic duo]

If Jordan didn't retire he would've had 8 rings. Which is insane when you think about it.

or maybe he wouldn't got another three-peat without the much needed rest

he did came back in 94-95 for 17 games and took an L in the playoffs you know

[INKtastic]

If Jordan didn't retire he would've had 8 rings. Which is insane when you think about it.

you do know he played one of those two years and lost in the playoffs, right? Personally making the critical turnover that lost the series. The team then went out and got Dennis Rodman.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think a flawless Finals is what makes Jordan stand alone as the greatest.

Then John Havlicek at 8-0 > 6-0 if a flawless Finals record is the deciding criterion.

But then people backtrack when that's pointed out because they weren't aware there was another player who was 8-0 in the Finals when they made the statement.

[nolang1]

the idea of better losing before the finals instead of losing in the finals is one of the worst basketball arguments I have ever seen

being 6-2 in the finals is better than 6-0 because it means you were the best in the conference 8 times instead of 6 times

The idea that making it out of the conference in a historically weak era relative to that conference somehow being more impressive is also a bad argument.

The whole point there is that if the Bulls had beaten the Pistons in '89 and '90 before losing in the Finals to two teams that were nowhere near as good as recent Spurs or Warriors teams have been, the East would have looked weaker than it does now.

Hell, the two years between Bulls three-peats saw a lower-seeded Rockets team beat the Eastern Conference champion both years. The 1994-95 Rockets have the least wins of any championship team in the modern era, and they had an easier time in the Finals against the 1-seed Magic than in any of their series against teams from the West. What does that say about how good the East was when Jordan played?

[Goudelock]

I think a flawless Finals is what makes Jordan stand alone as the greatest. Two loses definitely brings him back to the pack.

But why? If MJ still plays well in those finals and loses, and then goes on to win 6 finals, then how does that hurt his legacy at all? He still has his iconic moments and huge numbers. The two finals losses are just added bonus points to his legacy.

Here's a hypothetical too: Let's say that MJ is able to get to the finals during his Wizards days, and he loses to prime Shaq. Why would that hurt MJ's legacy in the slightest?

[smallgains]

So far 14 "lbj is better than Jordan" fans have voted more impressed lol

[INKtastic]

I think a flawless Finals is what makes Jordan stand alone as the greatest. Two loses definitely brings him back to the pack.

But why? If MJ still plays well in those finals and loses, and then goes on to win 6 finals, then how does that hurt his legacy at all? He still has his iconic moments and huge numbers. The two finals losses are just added bonus points to his legacy.

Here's a hypothetical too: Let's say that MJ is able to get to the finals during his Wizards days, and he loses to prime Shaq. Why would that hurt MJ's legacy in the slightest?

The only reason why is people want to invent reasons that LeBron can't be as good as or better than Jordan, so they invent this strange idea that making the NBA finals and losing is somehow worse than losing before the NBA finals. Chris Paul should get all kinds of bonus points with this kind of logic, he's never lost a NBA finals or a conference finals.

[dynamic duo]

So far 14 "lbj is better than Jordan" fans have voted more impressed lol

so you actually think lebron's 2015 run should have been better for his legacy if he got bounced in ecf?

he got 4 votes for finals mvp that year, curry got 0

[ISOBall]

He was lucky he never faced my Clutch City Rockets

[Tai]

....Why would I be less impressed?

So it's not even asking if Jordan won less in the finals, but got to more. It's he has the 6 championships, PLUS made the NBA Finals 2 other years he DIDN'T?

How is that not more impressive? Do the people who say they're less impressed understand what they're really implying?

[Johnny Firpo]

the idea of better losing before the finals instead of losing in the finals is one of the worst basketball arguments I have ever seen

It's more complex than that. If an all-time great player makes the finals, the stakes for him get significantly higher. Is this fair? Probably not, but once you are in the finals, it's a new game, new standards, new challenges. But once you are there, you better win... That's the monster the NBA created, the players, the writers, and we ourselves, by overrating the winners over and over again throughout the years.

So while technically, from a pure sports performance standpoint it is better to lose the finals than the conference finals, from a reputation standpoint, that's just not the case. And since reputation is so important on all-time lists, this has actual impact in the ranking. Because it's all subjective. If the NBA would create an official all-time ranking based of statistical data, this would not matter as much.

[Tai]

So far 14 "lbj is better than Jordan" fans have voted more impressed lol

I didn't wanna make it about Lebron in my previous post even though I strongly suspect the "less impressed" people did, but what year that Lebron made the NBA Finals and lost would he have benefited from not even making it that far?

[nikster]

I think a flawless Finals is what makes Jordan stand alone as the greatest. Two loses definitely brings him back to the pack.

But why? If MJ still plays well in those finals and loses, and then goes on to win 6 finals, then how does that hurt his legacy at all? He still has his iconic moments and huge numbers. The two finals losses are just added bonus points to his legacy.

Here's a hypothetical too: Let's say that MJ is able to get to the finals during his Wizards days, and he loses to prime Shaq. Why would that hurt MJ's legacy in the slightest?

The only reason why is people want to invent reasons that LeBron can't be as good as or better than Jordan, so they invent this strange idea that making the NBA finals and losing is somehow worse than losing before the NBA finals. Chris Paul should get all kinds of bonus points with this kind of logic, he's never lost a NBA finals or a conference finals.

exactly. Every season the goal is to win a title. In his career Jordan was 6-9 in trying to win the NBA title.

Now the real argument should be how are you elimianted. For example I do hold Lebrons Mavs Finals loss against him, because of how poorly he played and how passive he seemed. If he was eliminated in the ECF that year but had a phenomenal series than that would probably look better

[SF_Warriors]

Why would it change my perception at all? AT the end of the day, he still ends up with 6 rings and that is all that should matter.

Magic lost to MJ in the finals, but no one ever mentions that when talking about Magic, just that he has 5 rings and the greatest PG of all time.