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

[yongaz]

Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place. - For this case, I would not be impressed. Sure, he was a great athlete, but he was not a champion. Yet.

Following your logic: Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal?

The question is "Are you MORE or LESS impressed by Jordan if he went to the Finals two more times, but LOST?"... Not "Are you impressed (at all) by Jordan making the finals but losing?"

You're saying - "I'm not impressed at all by Jordan making the finals and losing..." DUH I'm not either. But I would've been more impressed if he actually got there than if he didn't, since his supporting cast was still pretty average at that point in time.

So for the last time, using your example - of course the French would not be impressed by their team making the Euro final and losing, but they would certainly be "happier" or "less disappointed" or "more impressed" if they had made the Final, than if they had lost earlier. However you want to spin it.

The problem is that you don't equate those three together based solely on narrative, which is fine. But to say that 6-0 is better 6-2, i.e. winning more is less impressive than winning less, is just... I'm sorry... asinine.

I seriously feel like people are totally trolling here lol. I guess I'll keep this up coz I'm really amused.

Ah of course.... when all else fails....

This has been amusing.

[FJS]

watch in this perspective. Magic Johnson won the west 9 Times in 12 seasons (13 if you count 96). Jordan won East 6 of 15 seasons (12 if you don't count 95 or Wizards years).
sure he won 6 of 6. Magic lost vs Pistons and Celtics who used to dominate Jordan too and Sixers 83 who would have dominate young Jordan Bulls too.

[KayDee35]

Don't see how losing in the finals is so impressive. Whether you lost in the first round or in the finals its the same thing in the end. No team is patting themselves in the back for losing in the finals because they got there.
Jordan went 6/14 in his career thats a pretty great percentage of winning it all in his career.
Lebron is currently 3/13
Kobe 5/20
Shaq 4/20
Bird 3/13
Imo that should be the standard.

Don't forget Bill Russell 11/13.
Sam Jones 10/12.
Havlicek 8/16.
Bob Cousy 6/13.

If that doesn't show you the flaw with using percentage of winning it all, I'm not sure what else I can do.

You're pretty much saying that MJ's career would have been better if he hadn't played with the Wizards. But he did things at an age that hadn't been done before, which adds to his legacy. But to someone like you, it somehow detracts.

You'd rather punish players for longevity?

Also, losing in the first round or the finals is not the same thing. The former would be a pretty big upset while the latter would be a loss to a good team.

Let's not forget Jerry West is 1/14 in his career. But also 1/8 in Finals. It's like people haven't taken a course on logic or stats when they'd rather that West be 1/1 in Finals. You do understand he had to beat other teams to get to the Finals? If he lost to those teams instead, you're saying that would be better or the same?

I do not have enough emotes with which to respond to the lack of basic logic and mathematical understanding in this thread.

[chyau.00]

Less impressed if he went 6-2. The Jordan I know didn't need a game 7, much less lose in the finals. If he went to the Finals 8 times, he would have been 8-0. My version of MJ would be better than this inferior version of MJ who is only 6-2.

When you have already won 6 championship, the question isn't about whether he could have won more championships. MJ himself thought he had won enough at the time and went through a couple retirements. The measuring stick for GOAT is whether he would falter and lose if he was put in a winning position. The answer is no. He wins all the time. 100% > 75%


Going by some of the logic here, ppl would say lenny wilkens and don nelson are better coaches than pop, pj and kerr.

[chyau.00]

Don't see how losing in the finals is so impressive. Whether you lost in the first round or in the finals its the same thing in the end. No team is patting themselves in the back for losing in the finals because they got there.
Jordan went 6/14 in his career thats a pretty great percentage of winning it all in his career.
Lebron is currently 3/13
Kobe 5/20
Shaq 4/20
Bird 3/13
Imo that should be the standard.

Don't forget Bill Russell 11/13.
Sam Jones 10/12.
Havlicek 8/16.
Bob Cousy 6/13.

If that doesn't show you the flaw with using percentage of winning it all, I'm not sure what else I can do.

You're pretty much saying that MJ's career would have been better if he hadn't played with the Wizards. But he did things at an age that hadn't been done before, which adds to his legacy. But to someone like you, it somehow detracts.

You'd rather punish players for longevity?

Also, losing in the first round or the finals is not the same thing. The former would be a pretty big upset while the latter would be a loss to a good team.

Let's not forget Jerry West is 1/14 in his career. But also 1/8 in Finals. It's like people haven't taken a course on logic or stats when they'd rather that West be 1/1 in Finals. You do understand he had to beat other teams to get to the Finals? If he lost to those teams instead, you're saying that would be better or the same?

I do not have enough emotes with which to respond to the lack of basic logic and mathematical understanding in this thread.

The logic is simple. If you cant make the playoffs or you lose in the 1st round, your team just plain sucks. If you are in the Finals, you are good enough to compete. The measuring stick is on how well you perform under pressure and whether you can outperform a team of similar caliber at the highest level.

[Cmon_Son-_-]

Don't see how losing in the finals is so impressive. Whether you lost in the first round or in the finals its the same thing in the end. No team is patting themselves in the back for losing in the finals because they got there.
Jordan went 6/14 in his career thats a pretty great percentage of winning it all in his career.
Lebron is currently 3/13
Kobe 5/20
Shaq 4/20
Bird 3/13
Imo that should be the standard.

Don't forget Bill Russell 11/13.
Sam Jones 10/12.
Havlicek 8/16.
Bob Cousy 6/13.

If that doesn't show you the flaw with using percentage of winning it all, I'm not sure what else I can do.

You're pretty much saying that MJ's career would have been better if he hadn't played with the Wizards. But he did things at an age that hadn't been done before, which adds to his legacy. But to someone like you, it somehow detracts.

You'd rather punish players for longevity?

Also, losing in the first round or the finals is not the same thing. The former would be a pretty big upset while the latter would be a loss to a good team.

Let's not forget Jerry West is 1/14 in his career. But also 1/8 in Finals. It's like people haven't taken a course on logic or stats when they'd rather that West be 1/1 in Finals. You do understand he had to beat other teams to get to the Finals? If he lost to those teams instead, you're saying that would be better or the same?

I do not have enough emotes with which to respond to the lack of basic logic and mathematical understanding in this thread.

There's a reason why no one considers Bill Russell or anyone from that era the Goat. Their road to finals was alot less challenging. Monopoly of talent,Less teams in the league, Less games played in the regular season and only a 3 round playoffs.

I don't know whats so hard to get, I don't put much stock into losing in the finals at the end of the day only the winning matters. To answer your question it doesn't make any difference to me when you lose in the playoffs. Chances are superstars didn't even lose in the 1st round much. I just don't feel the need to put a whole lot of stock into just making the finals when judging who won or who didn't.

At the end of the day I'm not saying we should measure greatness this way there are other factors too but if we're talking about winning then I'd take the winning/year played over any other metric.

[Woodsanity]

Assuming he played well more impressed.

Would destroy his mythos of being undefeated in the finals though even though a first round exit isn't better than making the finals though.

[ropjhk]

I really don't understand why it would be less impressive. I see why Lebron fans get so frustrated when they hear people say it would be more impressive if Lebron didn't make the finals in the years he didn't win the title.

The only way making the finals in 89 and 90 could possibly hurt MJ's legacy is if he played like complete ass in those finals. Lebron didn't do his legacy any favours by sucking it up on the court in 2007 and 2011, but I would say he didn't do any real lasting damage either. His losses in 2014 and 2015 added to his legacy IMO because he performed on the greatest stage.

Jordan making the finals in 89 and 90 and performing up to his usual level of performance would only enhance his status. Especially since his opponents in 89 and 90 would be the same opponents he defeats in 91 and 92.

[dtbrehm]

I can see hypothetical scenarios that support both sides.

If someone only makes a few finals and wins them, they could have had horrible teams the rest of their career, and just took complete advantage of the few years their team was good.

If someone makes a lot of finals and loses several of them, they could be carrying bad teams further before finally losing as an underdog.

So ultimately, 6-0 vs 6-2 on its own doesn't mean much to me. How those losses happened (overachieved just to get there, choked as the favorites, how Jordan performed in general) matter much more.

[ropjhk]

Less impressed if he went 6-2. The Jordan I know didn't need a game 7, much less lose in the finals. If he went to the Finals 8 times, he would have been 8-0. My version of MJ would be better than this inferior version of MJ who is only 6-2.

When you have already won 6 championship, the question isn't about whether he could have won more championships. MJ himself thought he had won enough at the time and went through a couple retirements. The measuring stick for GOAT is whether he would falter and lose if he was put in a winning position. The answer is no. He wins all the time. 100% > 75%


Going by some of the logic here, ppl would say lenny wilkens and don nelson are better coaches than pop, pj and kerr.

I got to say that this guy sort of has a point. The Pistons were the champions in 89 and 90. If Jordan's Bulls were good enough to win the East in 89 and 90 they should be good enough to win the championship in those years. Not winning the finals could take something away from our image of Jordan as a player (though I think you'd need to consider how he would lose).

Let's say Jordan played for the Wizards in 2000-2001 and took that team to a miracle run to the NBA finals only to lose in 5 to what most people consider to be one of the greatest teams of all time (2001 Lakers). There's no way such a run could not add to Jordan's legacy.

Lebron didn't play particularly well in 2007, but his team was never expected to win and had to pull off an upset to even get to the finals that year. The 2007 loss doesn't damage Lebron's legacy nearly as much as the 2011 loss where his team was a heavy favourite and Lebron was a huge disappointment.

[ropjhk]

I can see hypothetical scenarios that support both sides.

If someone only makes a few finals and wins them, they could have had horrible teams the rest of their career, and just took complete advantage of the few years their team was good.

If someone makes a lot of finals and loses several of them, they could be carrying bad teams further before finally losing as an underdog.

So ultimately, 6-0 vs 6-2 on its own doesn't mean much to me. How those losses happened (overachieved just to get there, choked as the favorites, how Jordan performed in general) matter much more.

Glad to see someone else gets it. Context of the situation matters. Consider the following:

The 89 Bulls only won 47 games. 1989 is also the year of "The Shot" (which in Jordan's highlight history is actually 1 of 2 "The Shots"). The Bad Boy Pistons won 63 games and are remembered as one of the greatest teams of all time. Remember that the Bad Boy Pistons have winning playoff records against Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics and Jordan's Bulls. Pulling off the upset in 1989 only to lose to the Lakers in the finals would be a much better version of Lebron's 2007 run.

The 1990 Bulls won 55 games, whereas the Pistons won 59 that year. In game 7 ECF Jordan shot 13/27 while the rest of his team shot 15/63 including Pippen's 1/10 and Grant's 3/17. Imagine a hypothetical situation where the Bulls shot better and managed to eke out a game 7 win on a Jordan game winning shot against a defending champion Pistons. The Bulls go onto the finals but lose to the Trail Blazers due to injuries to Pippen and Grant. Would such a scenario hurt Jordan's legacy?

[buckboy]

If you voted 'less' you are dumb.

[joeyAdaMan]

If you voted 'less' you are dumb.

this...or you're just a Lebron hater

[buckboy]

Yes, 8 finals appearances is worse than 6. I mean.............

[ono]

Don't see how losing in the finals is so impressive. Whether you lost in the first round or in the finals its the same thing in the end. No team is patting themselves in the back for losing in the finals because they got there.
Jordan went 6/14 in his career thats a pretty great percentage of winning it all in his career.
Lebron is currently 3/13
Kobe 5/20
Shaq 4/20
Bird 3/13
Imo that should be the standard.

Don't forget Bill Russell 11/13.
Sam Jones 10/12.
Havlicek 8/16.
Bob Cousy 6/13.

If that doesn't show you the flaw with using percentage of winning it all, I'm not sure what else I can do.

You're pretty much saying that MJ's career would have been better if he hadn't played with the Wizards. But he did things at an age that hadn't been done before, which adds to his legacy. But to someone like you, it somehow detracts.

You'd rather punish players for longevity?

Also, losing in the first round or the finals is not the same thing. The former would be a pretty big upset while the latter would be a loss to a good team.

Let's not forget Jerry West is 1/14 in his career. But also 1/8 in Finals. It's like people haven't taken a course on logic or stats when they'd rather that West be 1/1 in Finals. You do understand he had to beat other teams to get to the Finals? If he lost to those teams instead, you're saying that would be better or the same?

I do not have enough emotes with which to respond to the lack of basic logic and mathematical understanding in this thread.

The logic is simple. If you cant make the playoffs or you lose in the 1st round, your team just plain sucks. If you are in the Finals, you are good enough to compete. The measuring stick is on how well you perform under pressure and whether you can outperform a team of similar caliber at the highest level.

Right. So if he takes a team that sucks to the NBA finals and loses, that is still more impressive than either failing to make the playoffs or bombing out before the finals with the same team.

Of course going 6-2 is more impressive. How's it even a debate. Especially for Jordan as I assume the 2 finals losses would have happened before he won his first championship....in which case 6-2 is irrefutably more impressive.

The only way 6-0 could logically be more impressive than 6-2 would be if you were comparing two separate players and player A went 6-0 in the finals while playing on a vastly obviously inferior team to player B who goes 6-2. Yes player B has reached two more finals but has done so with much more help than player A.

Given we are discussing one player, the player in question will have had exactly the same teammates and same help regardless of whether or not he went 6-0 or 6-2. So obviously 6-2 is better.

[Kobeshow]

About the same, still a great winning percentage....

[Pablo Novi]

What If MJ Was 6Ws - 9Ls In The Finals???
If MJ had made the Finals every year he played, all 15 of them, yet lost the other 9 he didn't win; he'd be 6Ws-9Ls in the FInals.

Imo, EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON (NBA fan or stats fan) would KNOW that 6-9 in 15 years is WAY THE BLEEP better than 6-0 (with 9 years not even making the Finals and during two of which your team didn't even make the Play-Offs).

Seemingly as the latest line of defense (of MJ) in this thread, we have the "new" reasoning that it's not whether you make the Finals or not; it's HOW you play in those Finals (regardless of how you played in earlier rounds, I suppose?).

So, let's add another option here. MJ makes the Finals ALL 15 years (with GREAT Post-Season play); but stinks up the Finals; or is at least not the fMVP of his losing teams). So, him making 15 Finals in 15 years is a bad thing under those circumstances??? Just because how you perform IN the Finals is the ONLY THING that matters?

P.S. It is quite a bit encouraging that the Poll results have recently gone from terribly negative to now positive - a step in the right direction, towards sanity (and away from MJ=God worship), imo

[ProfessorJM]

Easy test to distinguish the intellectual level of a basketball fan. Being fair, context and the actual performance in said Finals would matter too win or lose.

[Biased_Fan6425]

Yes.

One of the reasons why he is the goat is because of the 6/6 in the finals without a game 7.

[JordansBulls]

The issue isn't that he didn't lose in them it is he didn't lose with HCA and he has a better record in them then losses. Babe Ruth was 7-3 in World Series but if he was 4-6 how would he be looked at?
Brady is 5-2 in Super Bowls but if he were 3-4 what would be his case over Montana for instance.