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

[GermanFan120]

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.

It's not the same thing if you lost in the first round or the finals. You are a lot closer to a championship if you lose in the finals compared to a team that gets knocked out in the first round. For instance, in the 2016 playoffs, would you rather be the GSW or Memphis? It's just simple logic.

Believe me, as a Mavs fan, I wish 2006 never happened. You know how much the Mavs fan base went through after 2006 (and 2007) when everyone called Mavs soft?

Best thing that 2011 we won in the best possible way. Imagine 2011 we didn't win, how that would hurt Dirk's legacy?

[GermanFan120]

If Jordan finished 6-2, that will only open a case which is that Jordan can be defeated in the final.

And that case will totally open the argument that player X is better than Jordan.

The fact Jordan is considered as GOAT is because of 6/6, 72-10, and his career numbers.

6/6 can never be overlooked. PERIOD.

[Iplaytolose]

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.

It's not the same thing if you lost in the first round or the finals. You are a lot closer to a championship if you lose in the finals compared to a team that gets knocked out in the first round. For instance, in the 2016 playoffs, would you rather be the GSW or Memphis? It's just simple logic.

Believe me, as a Mavs fan, I wish 2006 never happened. You know how much the Mavs fan base went through after 2006 (and 2007) when everyone called Mavs soft?

Best thing that 2011 we won in the best possible way. Imagine 2011 we didn't win, how that would hurt Dirk's legacy?

I still don't see the logic in how losing to Memphis in 2006 is somehow better than losing to Miami. I don't understand how losing to worse competition is somehow better for a team is beyond me. If I lose, I'd rather lose to the best, and not to a treadmill team, just sayin. I don't really think Dirk's legacy would have been affected that much if he lost in 2011. It's not like the expectations were really high for that team. They overachieved.

[GermanFan120]

It's not the same thing if you lost in the first round or the finals. You are a lot closer to a championship if you lose in the finals compared to a team that gets knocked out in the first round. For instance, in the 2016 playoffs, would you rather be the GSW or Memphis? It's just simple logic.

Believe me, as a Mavs fan, I wish 2006 never happened. You know how much the Mavs fan base went through after 2006 (and 2007) when everyone called Mavs soft?

Best thing that 2011 we won in the best possible way. Imagine 2011 we didn't win, how that would hurt Dirk's legacy?

I still don't see the logic in how losing to Memphis in 2006 is somehow better than losing to Miami. I don't understand how losing to worse competition is somehow better for a team is beyond me. If I lose, I'd rather lose to the best, and not to a treadmill team, just sayin. I don't really think Dirk's legacy would have been affected that much if he lost in 2011. It's not like the expectations were really high for that team. They overachieved.

Had Dirk never win a ring, he would be forever called SOFT. And NOBODY will put him in the all time PF list.
After Dirk won the ring, Chris Webber shut up. Charles Barkley shut up. People who called him soft all shut up.

I never said getting beaten by Memphis is better than getting beaten by Miami in 2006. What I am saying is there is light year difference between a champion and a runner up.

[madmaxmedia]

If he first lost two finals and then reeled off those same 6 in a row (not counting retirement years), it would be arguably more impressive than his real record.

If he lost 2 series in the middle, then joined someone else's superteam at the end of his career to win 2 more titles and go 6-2, it would be less impressive than his real record.

So it really all depends.

[Sgt P]

Depends on how he performed. If he performed well and made the Finals, I'd be more impressed of course.

Finals Record without context is the worst argument in Sports and a good way of telling people apart in terms of the quality of their basketball opinions.

great comment... however

6-0 Finals does not need context... only context could be it wasn't a Robert Horry stat line ( not being the main contributor )

it is the big boner of Adamantium...

A cosmic/celestial BBC... lol


Finals Record
Bill Russell 11 - 1 ( 12 Finals in 13 years )
Jordan 6 - 0 ( No question: Finals Perfection )
-------------------------
Kobe Bryant 5 - 2
Tim Duncan 5 - 1
*Lebron James 3 - 4

----
Notes on Lebron:
(1) He needs to win this year to stay in the elite of elites class above. He needs to average above 50%.
(2) Number if final appearances should increase but he hangs them up.

as an example to 6 - 5 by retirement would be a weak case to put alongside MJ or Russell..
but 7 - 5 ideal... ( 12 finals appearances like Russell and more rings than MJ )

I hope to see history like the days of MJ... anything less is not of becoming and nothing more than marketing hype

[Gibson22]

115 people think that losing a series is better than winning a series

[soxfan2003]

Chicago benefited a lot from NBA expansion.

It wasn't that Jordan's stats got inflated by expansion since expansion motivated teams to start emphasizing defense more but his team having a much easier time winning did.

Imagine a league right now without Lebron that added 5-6 teams in a short period of time but the Warriors got to keep their top 8 players.

Good luck to the rest of the league. They are F'd.

That is how the Bulls really dominated. They were truly great but most of their competition simply wasn't. David Robinson in his prime, never had his prime Pippen. Neither did Ewing. Neither did a bunch of other great players like a developed Barkley with Philly. The near great players that played with Shaq in Orlando wasn't even a great fit with Shaq and they still took down Jordan/Pippen when they didn't have Rodman.

It wasn't until around 2000 that the NBA really started to overcome that expansion that diluted the talent pool. You expand the league by even 20% of course it makes it easier for the team with the best young talent to dominate in the future if they are smart and don't get injured.

This is why its ridiculous to count championships but its fair to judge playoff performances _with context_. All of a players playoff games and not just finals should be judged since sometimes the two or even three best teams are in the same conference.

[jmomcc]

Assuming Jordan always wins 6, here is the list of hypothetical finals record from best to worst.

6-9
6-8
6-7
6-6
6-5
6-4
6-3
6-2
6-1
6-0

For someone who has won 6 titles and been to the playoffs 15 times, he has the least impressive possible record.

I still think he is the goat btw. Unbeaten in the finals is a super dumb reason to think he is the goat, however.

[jmomcc]

Depends on how he performed. If he performed well and made the Finals, I'd be more impressed of course.

Finals Record without context is the worst argument in Sports and a good way of telling people apart in terms of the quality of their basketball opinions.

great comment... however

6-0 Finals does not need context... only context could be it wasn't a Robert Horry stat line ( not being the main contributor )

it is the big boner of Adamantium...

A cosmic/celestial BBC... lol


Finals Record
Bill Russell 11 - 1 ( 12 Finals in 13 years )
Jordan 6 - 0 ( No question: Finals Perfection )
-------------------------
Kobe Bryant 5 - 2
Tim Duncan 5 - 1
*Lebron James 3 - 4

----
Notes on Lebron:
(1) He needs to win this year to stay in the elite of elites class above. He needs to average above 50%.
(2) Number if final appearances should increase but he hangs them up.

as an example to 6 - 5 by retirement would be a weak case to put alongside MJ or Russell..
but 7 - 5 ideal... ( 12 finals appearances like Russell and more rings than MJ )

I hope to see history like the days of MJ... anything less is not of becoming and nothing more than marketing hype

He could play like he has this year for the next 5 years and get beat by this Warriors team in the final 3/4/5 times and still be considered the best ever. Rings and team accomplishments can't be the main criteria when choosing the best players. Context is everything.

[F Saunders]

115 people think that losing a series is better than winning a series

I completely understand this logic; but at the same time, I look at it differently.

As great as MJ & Lebron are, they each still need a good team around them to win a title. If the team around them isn't that good, I won't hold it against the star for not winning a title. But typically, if your team makes the finals, they are good enough to win the title (I don't hold the '07 loss to the Spurs against Lebron).

The way I look at it, anytime Jordan's team was good enough to win a title, they won it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Jordan ever lost a series with home court advantage (Lebron has 3 times). Last year, Lebron was impressive as can be, but at the same time, he's lost series in which his team could and should have won. This is the biggest separator for me between Lebron & Jordan, and is why I view 6-0 to be greater than 6-2.

[NZB2323]

I didn't vote, because everything has to be taken with context. For example, the Bulls losing in 7 games against the NBA champion Detroit Pistons in 1990 I consider to be more impressive than the Cavs getting swept in the Finals by the Spurs, who lost games in all their other playoff series. Jordan was closer to a championship in 1990 than Lebron was in 2007, even though Lebron made the finals.

[HurricaneKid]

115 people think that losing a series is better than winning a series

I am BLOWN AWAY that 115 people think it would be worse to have beaten the Bad Boys then lost in the Finals to the Lakers than to have lost to the Bad Boys. Its just ignorant. You play to win the game, not to lose at an advantageous point.

Winning in the playoffs is always preferable to losing in the playoffs. That 45% of RGM thinks otherwise is a travesty.

[Gibson22]

115 people think that losing a series is better than winning a series

I completely understand this logic; but at the same time, I look at it differently.

As great as MJ & Lebron are, they each still need a good team around them to win a title. If the team around them isn't that good, I won't hold it against the star for not winning a title. But typically, if your team makes the finals, they are good enough to win the title (I don't hold the '07 loss to the Spurs against Lebron).

The way I look at it, anytime Jordan's team was good enough to win a title, they won it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Jordan ever lost a series with home court advantage (Lebron has 3 times). Last year, Lebron was impressive as can be, but at the same time, he's lost series in which his team could and should have won. This is the biggest separator for me between Lebron & Jordan, and is why I view 6-0 to be greater than 6-2.

Jordan was 2-1 up against the Pistons, but he played two terrible games, went down 2-3, he lost.
Jordan arrived to game 7 against the pistons, he played well, but he just didn't win.
He had the team to beat a team the swept the lakers and won 4-1 against portland (I think, i don't wanna check). He had the chance. He just didn't do it.

[mixerball]

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.

It's not the same thing if you lost in the first round or the finals. You are a lot closer to a championship if you lose in the finals compared to a team that gets knocked out in the first round. For instance, in the 2016 playoffs, would you rather be the GSW or Memphis? It's just simple logic.

i bet all the warriors would like to forget about last year.

[xfactor]

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.

It's an emotional construct. Not easy to explain. In competitive sports, losing in the championship game is weighs more on you then losing in prior rounds.

[GermanFan120]

People who voted more impressed just don't understand the question.

In all categories (even if you play a pick up game on your backyard), winning is better than losing. - To winners only

Therefore, 6-0 is better than 6-2 because 6-0 is undefeated in the final.

Now people will ask what happens to those stages/rounds prior to final?

Again, apply the same rules. In conference final, winning is better than losing, 6-0 in conference final is again better than 6-2 in conference final.

Same concepts apply to the 2nd round, then the 1st round, then even making the playoffs.

You can argue that Jordan only made it to the final 6 times, Lebron made it 7 times. Therefore Lebron is more impressive since he won more conference finals. Yes, you can compare that. But it is not what is being asked in OP's question. That's just another comparison.

OP is comparing 6-0 vs 6-2 in the final. Being UNDEFEATED in the final is obviously MORE impressive.

[Joker]

The Finals is the series closest to winning the championship, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most critical or pressure-laden, or the best gauge of a player's championship performance or will to win. When people think of Shaq's playoff legacy, they think about his performances against the Spurs, Kings, and Blazers --- not the formality of beating up on the New Jersey Nets in the finals.

Some players have wars in their own conferences and the finals becomes a mere formality. For other players, the first 3 rounds are a formality and they have to face an opposing dynasty in the finals. To not consider this context is kind of crazy.

[HurricaneKid]

People who voted more impressed just don't understand the question.

In all categories (even if you play a pick up game on your backyard), winning is better than losing. - To winners only

Therefore, 6-0 is better than 6-2 because 6-0 is undefeated in the final.

Now people will ask what happens to those stages/rounds prior to final?

Again, apply the same rules. In conference final, winning is better than losing, 6-0 in conference final is again better than 6-2 in conference final.

Same concepts apply to the 2nd round, then the 1st round, then even making the playoffs.

You can argue that Jordan only made it to the final 6 times, Lebron made it 7 times. Therefore Lebron is more impressive since he won more conference finals. Yes, you can compare that. But it is not what is being asked in OP's question. That's just another comparison.

OP is comparing 6-0 vs 6-2 in the final. Being UNDEFEATED in the final is obviously MORE impressive.

Your math is all wrong.

Winning in the NBA Finals >>> Losing the NBA Finals. No one would ever suggest otherwise and certainly no one is doing so here.

By extension this also means that winning the Conf Championship is also >>> Losing the Conf Championship. Yet 45% of voters are saying that is not the case.

You are literally saying that winning the Conference Championship is worse than losing the Conference Championship. By that logic wouldn't it be better to not make the Conference Championship? By extension, what you are really saying is that if you aren't going to win the title it is better to not make the playoffs at all.

The abject lack of logic in this thread hurts my head.

[Iplaytolose]

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.

It's an emotional construct. Not easy to explain. In competitive sports, losing in the championship game is weighs more on you then losing in prior rounds.

Do you think those all-time great Utah Jazz teams that played Jordan in the finals would have had a better legacy if they didn't lose to Jordan in the finals and instead lost in a earlier round?