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

[Joker]

The fact that Lebron's 2007 finals loss would somehow tarnish his legacy more than Jordan tarnished his own by losing in the 1990 conference finals is kind of absurd. That isn't to say that Lebron was better because he went further in the playoffs, but he certainly wasn't worse because he took a Finals loss.

[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.

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.

Did you even read my message? I said winning is better than losing in all circumstances, no matter what stages in the playoffs you play.

So for the record: I did not say "You are literally saying that winning the Conference Championship is worse than losing the Conference Championship."

and I also did not say "if you aren't going to win the title it is better to not make the playoffs at all."

[Kobeshow]

Winning the Eastern Conference has been meaningless for years, starting from the early 00's.

Since 2008 it has been about superteams except one year when Orlando won.

2007 east was probably the worst of the century with Miami and Detroit gone from the picture. Miami because Shaq was done at high level and Detroit because they were too old.

But since MJ retired the East Playoffs have been boring and pointless, because you had 1 good/great team and then.... nothing.

We know this thread is not really about MJ, but it's about LeBron meaningless Eastern Conference wins with his Superteams.

Nobody will remember 7 or 15 straight finals reached, if he ends up with a losing record in the NBA Finals....


Right now he's 3-4 career and 3-3 with superteams. Meh....

[GermanFan120]

The fact that Lebron's 2007 finals loss would somehow tarnish his legacy more than Jordan tarnished his own by losing in the 1990 conference finals is kind of absurd. That isn't to say that Lebron was better because he went further in the playoffs, but he certainly wasn't worse because he took a Finals loss.

Depends on how people view losses in the final.

You heard this sentence before: Team X or Player X choked in the playoffs.

Is choking worse than not choking? Absolutely yes.

Those team who don't make the playoffs don't choke. Yes. But that doesn't make them BETTER because people has another word to describe those teams - THEY SUCK.

Have you heard people say 76ers or Nets 'choked' in recent years?

[Joker]

The fact that Lebron's 2007 finals loss would somehow tarnish his legacy more than Jordan tarnished his own by losing in the 1990 conference finals is kind of absurd. That isn't to say that Lebron was better because he went further in the playoffs, but he certainly wasn't worse because he took a Finals loss.

Depends on how people view losses in the final.

You heard this sentence before: Team X or Player X choked in the playoffs.

Is choking worse than not choking? Absolutely yes.

Those team who don't make the playoffs don't choke. Yes. But people has another word to describe those teams - THEY SUCK.

Have you heard people say 76ers or Nets 'choked' in recent years?

You can count the 2011 finals as a choke -- and in that sense, Lebron's showing in the 2009 playoffs where he dominated but lost in the second round was better than 2011. But in 2007, the Spurs were just a far better team.

[thatoneguy2323]

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.

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.

Did you even read my message? I said winning is better than losing in all circumstances, no matter what stages in the playoffs you play.

So for the record: I did not say "You are literally saying that winning the Conference Championship is worse than losing the Conference Championship."

and I also did not say "if you aren't going to win the title it is better to not make the playoffs at all."

The logic from 44% of the people in the this thread is disheartening.

[jmomcc]

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.

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.

Did you even read my message? I said winning is better than losing in all circumstances, no matter what stages in the playoffs you play.

So for the record: I did not say "You are literally saying that winning the Conference Championship is worse than losing the Conference Championship."

and I also did not say "if you aren't going to win the title it is better to not make the playoffs at all."

You might not be literally saying it but what you are saying has that unavoidable implication.

These aren't discrete events and your argument relies on that.

[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.

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.

Did you even read my message? I said winning is better than losing in all circumstances, no matter what stages in the playoffs you play.

So for the record: I did not say "You are literally saying that winning the Conference Championship is worse than losing the Conference Championship."

and I also did not say "if you aren't going to win the title it is better to not make the playoffs at all."

By saying 6-0 is better than 6-2 that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

You are saying that losing twice in the Finals is a BAD thing compared to losing twice in the Conference Finals.

I fully expected people spewed 6-0 as a flawed argument just to get under people's skin. To learn that people actually believe it to be so is horrifying.

[BdeRegt]

I don't get how 6-0 can ever be more impressive. It is always more impressive to make the finals than lose before the finals.

[Green89]

Why is losing in the finals often considered worse than losing in an earlier round?

[HotRocks34]

If Jordan had played in the 1994 or 1995 Finals, there's a very real chance that his perfect Finals record is gone.

[GermanFan120]

Why is losing in the finals often considered worse than losing in an earlier round?

Let's say you bought a lottery ticket, you have got 80% numbers correct and only missed one last number for the biggest jack pot.

Will you feel worse?

[jmomcc]

Why is losing in the finals often considered worse than losing in an earlier round?

Let's say you bought a lottery ticket, you have got 80% numbers correct and only missed one last number for the biggest jack pot.

Will you feel worse?

It's not a lottery ticket. It's not random. We literally judge players by their performance in the playoffs.

What you are implying is that if 3 people are in a competition and they come first, second, and fifth.. that fifth is better than second... for reasons you are finding it very hard to explain in any kind of coherent way.

[KFL]

Depends my age and agenda.

[GermanFan120]

Why is losing in the finals often considered worse than losing in an earlier round?

Let's say you bought a lottery ticket, you have got 80% numbers correct and only missed one last number for the biggest jack pot.

Will you feel worse?

It's not a lottery ticket. It's not random. We literally judge players by their performance in the playoffs.

What you are implying is that if 3 people are in a competition and they come first, second, and fifth.. that fifth is better than second... for reasons you are finding it very hard to explain in any kind of coherent way.

I keep saying no one said the highlighted part. It was you guys who forced to use it as your argument.

What I was saying is 1st is the best, and there is no better between 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th. For god sake, do you remember who finished as 4th or 5th in the past 7 years?

[Ganji]

why should I be more Impressed that he did not make it to finals 2 times? It's more impressive that he did not make it to finals two times? Does not matter how many times you make it to finals, only thing that matters is, how many rings you got.

[buckboy]

.

[buckboy]

why should I be more Impressed that he did not make it to finals 2 times? It's more impressive that he did not make it to finals two times? Does not matter how many times you make it to finals, only thing that matters is, how many rings you got.

So, by this inane logic, a guy who goes 6-0 in his 20 year career while making the playoffs 6 times has a better resume than a guy that goes 5-15 in the finals in his 20 years.

[jmomcc]

Let's say you bought a lottery ticket, you have got 80% numbers correct and only missed one last number for the biggest jack pot.

Will you feel worse?

It's not a lottery ticket. It's not random. We literally judge players by their performance in the playoffs.

What you are implying is that if 3 people are in a competition and they come first, second, and fifth.. that fifth is better than second... for reasons you are finding it very hard to explain in any kind of coherent way.

I keep saying no one said the highlighted part. It was you guys who forced to use it as your argument.

What I was saying is 1st is the best, and there is no better between 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th. For god sake, do you remember who finished as 4th or 5th in the past 7 years?

In what we are talking about, of course there's is a difference between 2nd and third, because 2nd got to the finals and third did not. They progressed an ENTIRE round further.

Also, this doesn't even jive with your argument. If all losses are equal, then a final loss is the same as a first round loss.. so being unbeaten in the final is worthless. The only thing that should matter is total wins. In that case 6-0 is the same as 6-2.

Your argument goes against the entire nature of team sports. It is never as good to lose early as it is to lose late. It is better to lose in the finals than in the first round because you made it further, won more games and got closer to the stated goal.

It is NOT the same to lose late as it is to lose early. The 2016 Warriors are not the same as the 2016 Hornets.

[Blazers-1977]

The reason people hold the finals against Lebron is not is record but his performance in the 2007 Finals, and 2011 NBA finals, and even 2014

His 2007 Finals were terrible, and his shooting percentage and efficiency was terrible that series

2011 was one of the biggest choke jobs ever

2014 was one where his stats clearly looked better then his play