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

[ono]

More. It has to be more.

6-0 looks great but it can't outweigh 6-2 because losing in the finals is still more impressive than losing earlier in the playoffs.

If anything, negotiating his way past the Pistons with next to no help would have been remarkable.

[mtron929]

I understand averages just fine, the problem lies in that using average stats to evaluate Finals performance is just really, really stupid. There is no opportunity cost to playing in the Finals versus not playing in the Finals, therefore it can never, ever be worse to make the Finals versus not making the Finals. Decreased average stats don't matter at all.

Here's a simple thought experiment for you:

If we both start with $0 and someone gave you $20 million today, and gave me $20 million today and $1 tomorrow, that would make you poorer than me. If you tried to argue that you are richer by virtue of having a higher daily income, then you would be both poorer AND stupider than me.

Except this analogy is just irrelevant, because there is nothing subjective about making comparisons between who has more money. However, in terms of evaluating players and their legacies, then subjectivity does creep in. Moreover, I am not using averages to evaluate Finals performance vs no finals performance, I am using averages to compare the entire year's worth of games which may or may not include finals. Moreover, you are discounting the possibility that it is conceivable that a team can proceed further into the playoffs despite a specific player's bad performance in a playoff series. In this case, I look negatively on the player's contributions for that series because it actually made it more difficult for a team to proceed due to his poor performance. I think this is a more nuanced way of looking at this as opposed to having a simplistic point of view of perfectly correlating team's performance with individual's contributions.

You're looking for nuance in a question that leaves no room for nuance. The original question was if Jordan at 6-2 in the Finals is more impressive than Jordan at 6-0 in the Finals, assuming the rest of his career stays the same. At minimum you get 8 additional games of Jordan in the 6-2 scenario therefore his value is objectively greater regardless of how he plays in those additional games.

Now you can do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify why the objectively less valuable 6-0 Jordan is somehow still more impressive. That's your prerogative, but that's not nuanced. That's just dumb.

Well, now you are changing the argument. You stated that even if Jordan/Lebron/or whomever had a piss poor performance in the finals, that would still be looked at as being greater than had they not made the finals. Here is the nuance.

If Jordan went 6-2 and his finals perfomance was on par or better than roughly the average Jordan playoff performance, then yes, I do agree that it benefits his legacy (6-2 > 6-0).

If Jordan went 6-2 and his finals peformance was atrocious, then 6-0 > 6-2.

[Edrees]

Where's the option for equally impressed? Biased poll so I voted less impressed.

For the billion time I just don't give a crap how many finals appearances or losses you have.

if you made a poll "what's more impressive. New Jersey nets finals appearances in 2000 or Sacramento Kings wcf loss to the Lakers" almost everyone would find the wcf appearance more Impressive that year as everyone knows the king's would have swept the nets that year. At the same time I'm.not gonna fault the nets for beating up on poor competition. They did their job.

[jonjames]

Lebron James will never surpass Jordan lol.

[NormanDale]

If Jordan's career were the same with one exception - in 1989 and 1990 he had made it out of the East and then lost in the finals - everything else being the same - would his career be more or less impressive?

I will presume that in your hypothetical, Jordan's team is better than it actually was, given that in 1989 the entire non-Jordan Bulls roster had less than 26 WS (The 07 Cavs, for comparison, had a non-LeBron WS total of 39). Oh, and they were playing a Pistons team that won 63 in the regular season, didn't lose a single game in that postseason to a team that didn't have Michael Jordan on it, and are considered one of the best teams of all time (Bill Simmons, for example--no Pistons lover--ranked them 4th). Given your name, I assume you already know how good those Pistons were.

So in your hypothetical, the Bulls are good enough to beat that team, but they lose to a drastically inferior Lakers team in the Finals? Then the next year, they are good enough to beat that team again, but they choke to a Portland team that's again inferior to the one they just beat? You're asking if that would have helped Jordan's legacy?

Yea, I don't think it would. But I guess, according to the other posters on this thread, that makes me illogical.

[Rastas]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

Yes being 2nd is way worse than being 3rd , 4th , 5th , whatever.

[Prokorov]

it would depend how he played in the finals. his legacy isnt just the 6-, but the 6 finals MVPs/elite finals performances. if he was just as great in those 2 finals but they lost no tarnish for me. if he stunk up the joint major tarnish

[Rastas]

Stupid thread 6-1 is better than 6-0

People not understanding just how hard it is to even get to the finals , then they want to belittle you if you loose sheeesh!

[Laimbeer]

Poll is surprisingly close.

[OrlandoNed]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

Yes being 2nd is way worse than being 3rd , 4th , 5th , whatever.

If ya ain't 1st you're last.

Giving credit for Finals losses is like handing out participation trophies.

[The4thHorseman]

it would depend how he played in the finals. his legacy isnt just the 6-, but the 6 finals MVPs/elite finals performances. if he was just as great in those 2 finals but they lost no tarnish for me. if he stunk up the joint major tarnish

His performance against Seattle in '96 was far from elite. Put up 27-5-4 while shooting 41%

It could be argued that Rodman was the actual FMVP that year. Almost 15 rebounds per game and 41 of his 88 rebounds were on the offensive end, while playing lock down defense.

Dennis was playing like a man possessed that series.

[KnightofHyrule]

Lol this topic is silly. in other words.....

What's more Impressive?:

Beating the 1995 Hornets?
-OR-
Beating the 1995 Hornets, the 1995 Magic, AND the 1995 Pacers?

Jordan getting punked by Nick Anderson about playing like a 45 year old in the 2nd Round?
-OR-
Jordan losing a hard fought series to Houston in the Finals?

Anybody who believes that winning 1 playoff series is more impressive than winning 3 playoff series needs to get themselves checked.

Spoiler:

Pretty sure making it to the Finals is more impressive than having this on your resume as a contributor to your early playoff exit:

Watch on YouTube

[Goudelock]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

Yes being 2nd is way worse than being 3rd , 4th , 5th , whatever.

If ya ain't 1st you're last.

Giving credit for Finals losses is like handing out participation trophies.

By that logic, the Spurs and the Nets have both had equally successful (or unsuccessful) seasons.

[homecourtloss]

Nice to see rationality, logic, and sanity winning out with "more impressive" finally winning the poll.

[yongaz]

This is really mind boggling for all the reasons that have already been mentioned.

The only logical explanation is that people are confusing "less impressed" with any of the following:
- "makes for a worst narrative"
- "MJ can no longer claim to be undefeated, which is the only thing no other all time greats can't claim"
- "I will not longer have anything else to use for the case of LeBron vs MJ that's clear cut other than winning with HCA and bringing a title first to the city as the man before anyone else so I therefore am less impressed"

No way in hell would winning more games against more teams be in any way less impressive.

[Pablo Novi]

There's about two things that get me upset about basketball discussions: 1) treating a player like he's god; 2) the claim that it's better to NOT make the Finals than to make the Finals while losing there.

I've been a RABID NBL-NBA-ABA fan since the 1960 season; and I saw Wilt LIVE a number of times during the previous season with the Harlem Globetrotters. The last (and only) time I thought a player was god-like was Mikan - he was THAT dominant. Yet, I KNEW my belief was nonsense by the time Wilt had completed his first 2-3 years - Mikan was not even in Wilt's league.

In over 30.5 years of truly ecstatic marital bliss; there was only one period where I actually got upset with my one-in-a-million wife. She tried to insist that I babysit our kids during the Bulls Chips. I loved/admired MJ that much.

But MJ was no bleeping god. He was NOT the best TEAM-mate; he "only" made the Finals 6 times in the 19 years his career spanned; while KAJ (who I consider GOAT) made 10 Finals in his first 19 years. I have Magic as GOAT #2 because, in a TEAM sport, he was THE greatest TEAM-mate ever (well, before LeBron). And I value Magic's FOUR Finals where his team lost - way more than MJ's best four NON-Finals years - where he lost in earlier rounds.

I've run over 262,200 miles in the last not quite 40 years (more than the Earth-Moon distance). I had 4 separate years where I ran 10,000 bleeping miles (50 weeks of 28.5 miles a day X 7 days a week = 50 weeks of 200 miles a week; the other two weeks I didn't run). I've run the equivalent of 10,000 marathons (26.21875 miles each). The fact that I never won a single race does not make me a loser, people!

My fastest mile in high school was a 6:04. My fastest quarter mile ever was 66 seconds. My fastest mile ever was an uphill 5:18 early in a marathon (I paid for that mile later on in that marathon - just missing a 6 minute per mile average eventually - a 2:39:03 marathon (6:03.9 pace). I ran in a good number of races (mostly: marathons, half-marathons and 10ks); but I never came close to winning any of them.

I've been a huge fan of marathoning (and running in general). One of the greatest races I ever watched was one in which Boston Bill Rodgers finished 2nd (out of thousands of quality runners). They asked him afterwards, "How come you lost, Bill?" And he answered, "I lost because ..."

Back then Bill Rodgers was ranked #1 in the whole world for a string of years. No bleeping way him finishing SECOND means he lost (even if he himself thought so)!

It is this "MJ is God" creating and promoting and maintaining campaign that absolutely BLINDS people to what should be 100% obvious: Finishing 2nd (out of 30 or so teams) is better than finishing 3-4th (Conference Finals losers) which in turn is better losing in earlier rounds which in turn is better than not even making the Playoffs at all.

If it were any other sport, where the "God" narrative is not as strong; most people would have no problem recognizing that finishing 2nd is better (usually decidedly better) than finishing lower.

Ask ANY athlete: would he/she rather not make the Play-Offs, or make them and lose in the first round? Would they rather lose in the first round than lose in the 2nd round? Would they rather lose in the 2nd round rather than lose in the 3rd round? Would they rather lose in the 3rd Round ("Conf. Championships) or lose in the Finals? EVERY SINGLE ATHLETE would say - I'd rather lose in the Finals than lose earlier or not even make the Playoffs. (Again, it is ONLY because we're dealing with the MJ=God=GOAT narrative here that this is even a question.

When all of Montana, Bradshaw and Brady had 4 NFL Chips (but Brady had made additional Superbowls); MOST people already had Brady GOAT quarterback. Now that he has 5 Chips; his Superbowl losses are NOT held against him; but instead used as further proof of his greatness (except by die-hard Montana-fans).

The Buffalo Bills lost 4 Superbowls (in a row). Still, would one single player on those teams have preferred NOT making the Superbowl??? HOW BLEEPING RIDICULOUS. Were they "losers"; even "the greatest losers of all-time"? Of course not.

Elgin Baylor made EIGHT NBA Finals and lost all 8. Is he considered THE A-T Loser? No, of course he is not. Would Elgin be prouder if he had never made a single NBA Finals? Of course not.

Jerry West was 1 Win and 8 Losses in the NBA Finals. Is he considered the 2nd Greatest LOSER of All-Time? No, of course not.

Earlier in this thread, someone referred to Usain Bolt. Bolt was NOT undefeated. He LOST a number of important races (iirc 8 of them to the same guy). But iirc, he finished 2nd in those races. Do those 2nd place finishes to an All-Time Great runner diminish Bolt's career? NO BLEEPING WAY.

The Lakers have lost in the Finals FIFTEEN TIMES. Does that make them the All-Time Worst Losers??? Would all their players be happier/prouder if they had lost in earlier rounds so that their team's Finals records was 16-0? NOT ONE OF THEM WOULD!

I've just watched the highlights of the C's win in Game 7 over the Wizards. Anybody notice that the players on the WINNING team are a bit happier than those on the losing team?

Assuming that either team would lose to the Cavs; is there ONE SINGLE POSTER here who thinks that the Celtics' players would have rather lost to the Wizards (so as to avoid losing to the Cavs in the Conf. Finals)??? If the Cavs beat the C's and then lose to the Dubs (or Spurs); in hindsight, would the Cavs' players rather have lost to the Cs in the Conf. Finals so as to avoid losing in the Finals??? HELL NO!

btw My GOAT List goes:
1. KAJ (he not only has 4 more Finals than MJ, 67% more; he has about that % more WinShares & THE most clutch shot in history).
2. Magic (his nine best Play-Off years (5-4 in the Finals) rank higher in my book than MJ's best 9 (6-0 Finals plus 3 NON-Finals)
3. MJ (NOT a great TEAM-mate; he QUIT TWICE on his team (once because of gambling - imo, he gets penalized for that crap).
4. LeBron (but I have LBJ moving up one spot for each great Regular Season - so he'll probably pass MJ next year, in my book).
5. TD
6-10: Wilt, Dr J, Kobe, "O", Karl Malone
11-15: Shaq, Bird, West, Stockton, Pettit

[NormanDale]

Poll is surprisingly close.

Maybe because a lot of people are using the same logic I outlined in my previous post, which clearly demonstrates why the hypothetical you described in the original post woulf not make Jordan's career more impressive.

[jaypo]

More impressed. 6-0 is great, but he still only lead his team to 6 (and was swept in the early rounds a couple of times). 6-2 means he got to the pinnacle 8 times. Winning 6 of 8 is friggin' spectacular!

Sometimes, you are just up against a better TEAM. When MJ was losing to the Bad Boys, he was still the best player. The Pistons were just a better TEAM. I think that gets lost in a lot of GOAT discussions. Especially regarding Wilt and Lebron. Wilt ONLY has 2 rings, but there was no denying that he was the best player in the league during most of his career. If he wasn't, why hasn't anyone else averaged 50 and 20? Or scored 100 in a game? Or lead the league in assists just to prove he could? He just happened to be put up against the Celts dynasty.

Same with Lebron. He lead a group of pick up players to the finals early in his career and lost to a far better TEAM. The Dallas series, well, that's a mark on him. But in 15, he had to play a full strength Warriors team with his 2 and 3 gone. And he still kept them in it. He was the best player on the court. He was just outmanned.

[GermanFan120]

Yes being 2nd is way worse than being 3rd , 4th , 5th , whatever.

If ya ain't 1st you're last.

Giving credit for Finals losses is like handing out participation trophies.

By that logic, the Spurs and the Nets have both had equally successful (or unsuccessful) seasons.

Wrong, Spurs is a great team, Nets suck. You can call one team is successful, the other is not.

But the question is would you be more impressed if a team goes to final and loses. Being successful doesn't mean more impressed.

For example: Apple is obviously a successful company. But am I more impressed about their recent products? Not so much.

[Froob]

6-0 looks better, but it is not. Better to make a deeper playoff run.