How Much Objective Value Does a Finals' Loss Have?

[ropjhk]

If you instead think of it as conference title wins instead of finals losses it seems better. Losing in the finals has no value, but appearing in the finals does have value.

That said, 3 finals appearances do not equate to 1 championship. Also the quality of your conference opponents has to be considered as well. 5/6 of Lebron's finals losses don't hurt his legacy at all. Only the 2011 finals deserves to be marked as a stain on Lebron's legacy. Also those 6 finals appearances where he didn't win a ring help his legacy, but probably not as much as Lebron fans would like. Lebron played against mostly weak conference opponents which he was mostly expected to defeat. It would have been another stain on his legacy if he didn't make it to the finals in his years with the Heat and second Cavs run.

[Harcore Fenton Mun]

If you don't plan on going back with that squad, it has little value.

It has some value on a personal level, mostly experience. But, nobody wants to be seen as a loser.

[TheNG]

First, I'm not sure why you felt the need to exclude Russell. Give some respect to the elders

No one really cares about finals appearances because at the end there is only one team who is the champion, and that team beat 4 teams in the playoff in order to get that ring. We can never know which team would have won if the real winner were not there.

But if you really want to go into the details, then context matter. If a player repeatedly appears in the finals, and yet not able to win as much - it says something about him. He can't lead his team when the money is on the table. Some people call it a loser. Now, I don't think it's always true, but if that player is known to built super teams time after time with the best players in the league inside them, and still not able to get the rings expected from him - then yeah, something is wrong with him.

That's why I like history, it puts some perspective into things. No one remember who took the silver medal at the Olympics. Right now there is hype and talk about the current players, but 20 years from now, there will still be only 3 players with at least 6 rings and 5 MVPs (unless someone like Giannis/Luka/Zion/Kawhi/Durant/Curry will somehow join them):
Kareem, Jordan and Russell.

[Texas Chuck]

Looking at the story "objectively", the 2013 championship is a LeBron led team. He's the star player. They got the win and thus LeBron has +1 ring. But if Ray Allen doesn't hit the shot after Bosh grabbed a rebound, kicked it out, that's a -1 count on LeBron. It's not 0, it's -1.

What does that single possession have to do with LeBron James? It saved the Heat from elimination. At the end of the day we attribute a positive numerical value to LeBron for what transpired. But, consider if a less skilled 3 point shooter was in that corner-- how much negative value do we attribute to LeBron in the Finals now?

And then look at that same moment and it's impact on Duncan. If we recall, Duncan was shockingly not in the game to help rebound in that situation and lo and behold Bosh gets the ball out to Allen. Duncan now gets a -1 that he had no chance of preventing and it gets worse because many people hold it against him that he never repeated as champions which he would have in this case.


Or take the guy who always gets mocked in these discussions Robert Horry. He won all his titles playing with an all-time great big man--Dream, Shaq, Duncan. No question he was never the best or even 2nd best player on any of those championship teams.

But he wasn't Bill Wennington waving a towel either. Horry was regularly a big minute guy in the playoffs including seasons of 38 and 37 mpg. He doesn't deserve getting treated as the butt of a joke. He was a valuable member of all of those championship teams even 2007 where his defensive impact was still quite significant.

People just like the lazy, easy narratives. Plus all the Jordan guys like to reverse engineer the criteria to fit what makes him look best which is the only reason this whole Finals record thing is even a talking point. It just shows despite their insistence that Lebron has no case, they are very insecure and look to re-write the narrative to help their guy.

You don't have to resort to that when you have a strong case. You just present the strengths and weaknesses of everyone's case.

[Balllin]

[Balllin]

honestly, tho... how can something like a finals loss or even win for that matter have objective value? It is so dependent on circumstances as we can with Durants two finals mvps, which apparently have no value whatsoever. While LeBrons championship apparently made him a Top 3 player of all time at worst.

This is as subjective a topic as it gets. So my answer is that a finals loss has no inherent objective value.

[nikster]

If you consider scenario A [strong east/weak west] versus scenario B [weak east/strong west] in the case of Jordan and LeBron's careers, you would expect the results to be fairly in line with what actually happened, with MJ over-performing somewhat.

You would expect a great team (the Bulls) playing in a very strong conference to have a harder time making the finals, but to be hugely favored and to have a very good record once they got there. You would expect a great team (LeBron's teams...at least some of them) in a weak conference to make the finals a higher percentage of the time, but to win a much lower percentage when they got there. This is pretty much what happened.

MJ's teams consistently lost as the underdog and consistently won as the favorites. LeBron's teams did the same apart from 2011 when they were favored 56% to win but still lost, though the Lakers were the title favorites that season and got swept by the same team (avoiding the dreaded "finals loss" ), so perhaps those Mavs are still being underrated.

was Jordans East really a strong conference?

[VanWest82]

The fact that Dwight got to a Finals cements his legacy as a HOF worthy player. You can win all the individual awards you want but getting to the Finals as the best player on a team means more with the exceptions being winning MVP and maybe a few of those Cavs Finals appearances where the East was historically weak.

[Texas Chuck]

The fact that Dwight got to a Finals cements his legacy as a HOF worthy player. You can win all the individual awards you want but getting to the Finals as the best player on a team means more with the exceptions being winning MVP and maybe a few of those Cavs Finals appearances where the East was historically weak.

Howard's HoF case rests primarily on being the best defensive player in the league for a lengthy stretch of time. No doubt that one run helps, but it's his defensive prowess that defines his case.

[Dr Spaceman]

I like basketball a lot which means I follow a lot of these players and understand how hard they work, how dedicated they are, how seriously they take this stuff, and how much emotion and grit and luck goes into actually winning a championship. These guys all dream about making the Finals since they’re kids and have to outwork 99.999999%of basketball players in the world to make it happen.

Yes, making the Finals alone is an incredible accomplishment and deserves to be celebrated. Many great, great players work harder than almost everyone in the planet and still never get the chance to play in the Finals.

If you genuinely think that nothing besides a championship has any value I suggest you remember that these are your fellow human beings and learn to respect them. Acting like it’s Easy is ignorant. I was so happy for Kyle Lowry and Marc Gasol to make the Finals last year because I know how hard those guys work and how bad they want it and I’d feel the exact same way if they lost.

[Petergrifindor]

It's great to be someone who competes for the Championship for a good number of years, but no amount of Final appearances equal a single Ring.

[lakerz12]

Don't think you can convert it into a stable number applicable to every player, franchise, or team. Not all Finals losses carry equal value: same with championships won. It's highly contextual.

Off the top of my head:

Dirk's ring vs KD's rings
LeBron's 2016 championship
LeBron's loss in 2015

I'm not sure if Dirk's ring is +1 and KD's is +2. Not sure that LeBron's loss in 2015 is the exact same as his loss in 2011. They're different brands of wins and losses. If you follow the events of a championship loss/win, it's hard to reduce them into a number that compares flawlessly to other championship years/teams.

Player championship value has lost a lot of value over the years to me. Because basketball is very much a team sport, often a player's greatness or failing rests on who's around them or if they're healthy or hitting shots. It's like crediting a car's engine for winning a race instead of the whole car. You can have the greatest car in the world, but blow out a single wheel and your race ends there.

We like to simplify Finals into individual player accomplishments/failings, but it probably hurts more than helps. I look at Ray Allen's game 6 in 2013 as a reminder of the fragility of player greatness narratives.

Looking at the story "objectively", the 2013 championship is a LeBron led team. He's the star player. They got the win and thus LeBron has +1 ring. But if Ray Allen doesn't hit the shot after Bosh grabs the rebound and kicks it out, that's a -1 count on LeBron. It's not 0, it's -1.

What does that single possession have to do with LeBron James? It saved the Heat from elimination. At the end of the day we attribute a positive numerical value to LeBron for what transpired. But, consider if a less skilled 3 point shooter was in that corner-- how much negative value do we attribute to LeBron in the Finals now?

Agreed it's highly contextual and also somewhat subjective depending on how much value you attribute to winning the Championship vs. winning the conference Championship.

For some people it is more all or nothing (win the Ring or nothing), and for others they see the Playoffs as more of a progression where the Finals' is not that much more important than the Conference Finals.

At least with this poll and the replies I am hoping we can develop an approximate range of value for a Finals' loss/appearance.

Because what I instead see all too often is simply comments like "Finals' loss is better than a first round loss", without an actual explanation or agreement on how much more value it actually has.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

[gigantes]

First, I'm not sure why you felt the need to exclude Russell. Give some respect to the elders

Respect is good, but I don't think Russell belongs to the modern era. He played on consistently stacked teams in a tiny league, for a coach who was a step ahead of his peers. Their dominance shouldn't be forgotten IMO, but things just don't work that way anymore.

[lakerz12]

honestly, tho... how can something like a finals loss or even win for that matter have objective value? It is so dependent on circumstances as we can with Durants two finals mvps, which apparently have no value whatsoever. While LeBrons championship apparently made him a Top 3 player of all time at worst.

This is as subjective a topic as it gets. So my answer is that a finals loss has no inherent objective value.

Certainly it does have objective value. You wouldn't say it has no value, right? It has some objective value, it's just very difficult or impossible to determine exactly what that value is.

Because I agree it is also a topic affected by subjectivity and context.

If you want, you can remove the word "Objective" and give your opinion of how much value you think it has. That's essentially what I'm asking.

And, through a combination of educated opinions, we can develop a range --- and somewhere within that range is probably the objective value.

If not totally objective value, it could be considered the consensus or majority opinion.

For example, if 80% of people feel a Finals' appearance/loss is worth somewhere from .2 Championships to .5 Championships, at least we have a range instead of just the generalizations we normally see.

[dhsilv2]

First, I'm not sure why you felt the need to exclude Russell. Give some respect to the elders

Respect is good, but I don't think Russell belongs to the modern era. He played on consistently stacked teams in a tiny league, for a coach who was a step ahead of his peers. Their dominance shouldn't be forgotten IMO, but things just don't work that way anymore.

And the 80's celtics and lakers could happen today without any crazy free agency? Just randomly have two teams, one in each conference, with a lineup of hall of fame players.

[gigantes]

First, I'm not sure why you felt the need to exclude Russell. Give some respect to the elders

Respect is good, but I don't think Russell belongs to the modern era. He played on consistently stacked teams in a tiny league, for a coach who was a step ahead of his peers. Their dominance shouldn't be forgotten IMO, but things just don't work that way anymore.

And the 80's celtics and lakers could happen today without any crazy free agency? Just randomly have two teams, one in each conference, with a lineup of hall of fame players.

Not sure what your point is, assuming you have one.

The 80's Lakers and Celts were plenty dominant without necessarily winning every year or remotely going on a run like Russell's Celts did. Jordan's Bulls probably come the closest if he hadn't retired in the middle, i.e. he had a reasonable shot to run off eight straight titles. Then there's the recent Splash Bros Dynasty, arguably the best team in the modern era, who still only managed 3/5. In other words, through luck or through other factors, no modern team has accomplished anything like Auerbach's dynasty.

The point remains though, that they played in a tiny league with probably more aggregate HOFers during their run than any modern team is likely to ever have. Sure it's impressive, but it's a much different reality compared to later eras.

[KrAzY3]

Context is everything, and it's also relative to what sort of standard we're holding someone to.

It's a big deal that Dwight Howard made it to the Finals as the only superstar on his team, heck the second best guy was a barely an all-star, and beat LeBron's 66 win team in the process. That's arguably the most important accomplishment of his career, even if the Lakers did demolish his team in the Finals.

But, let's say you're trying to make a claim to being the best of all time. Losing in the Finals arguably hurts, because some will see it as a failure. So it's a different thing if you are expected to be the best, because that's the biggest stage.

What are the expectations? What are you trying to prove? What's your role?

[NBAFan93]

Welcome to RealGM, where a 1st round loss is better than a Finals one!

No - missing the playoffs but having efficient shooting and good advanced stats Is the best alternative. It’s either that or you must win the finals. All other options are complete failure.

[Beethoven]

No one really remembers how high you went as something of an accomplishment value, if you don't win the whole thing. Like for us here in Los Angeles the Dodgers are just kind of looked upon as a team that struggles a lot. Not a world series 2nd place winner two years in a row.

[freethedevil]

The funniest thing is basketball fans who think playing well or impact is a hypothetical because it ruins their silly baseless narratives.