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

[12footrim]

In 1986 Michael Jordan played in 18 games and only started in 7 of them, and his team only made the playoffs because of him. Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao are much better players than anyone Jordan had on the 1986 team, and Jordan ended up scoring 63 points against the 86 Celtics, who are arguably the best team of all time. The 86 Celtics went 40-1 at home in the regular season and 12-0 at home in the playoffs, but Jordan took them to overtime in Boston by scoring more points than anyone has ever scored in a playoff game. Lebron got swept by the 07 Spurs, who aren't even close to the same level as the 86 Celtics.

Which is also why I mentioned the year after when he was even older than Lebron, played in every game, and his team went 40-42 and another 1st round sweep to a Celts team that didn't even win the title. Orlando Woolridge or Charles Oakley weren't nothing players either. Under .500. That's not a failure. Hey but losing in the finals as younger player with a nothing team to one of the greatest dynastic teams ever with a guy at his peak that won 5 championships is worse or some sort of stain in peoples worlds by comparison.

[NZB2323]

In 1986 Michael Jordan played in 18 games and only started in 7 of them, and his team only made the playoffs because of him. Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao are much better players than anyone Jordan had on the 1986 team, and Jordan ended up scoring 63 points against the 86 Celtics, who are arguably the best team of all time. The 86 Celtics went 40-1 at home in the regular season and 12-0 at home in the playoffs, but Jordan took them to overtime in Boston by scoring more points than anyone has ever scored in a playoff game. Lebron got swept by the 07 Spurs, who aren't even close to the same level as the 86 Celtics.

Which is also why I mentioned the year after when he was even older than Lebron, played in every game, and his team went 40-42 and another 1st round sweep to a Celts team that didn't even win the title. Orlando Woolridge or Charles Oakley weren't nothing players either. Under .500. That's not a failure. Hey but losing in the finals as younger player with a nothing team to one of the greatest dynastic teams ever with a guy at his peak that won 5 championships is worse or some sort of stain in peoples worlds by comparison.

I said that I agree in general that making the finals and losing is more impressive than losing earlier in the playoffs, but if Jordan and Lebron both played in the West during their respective eras, Jordan would have had more finals appearances and Lebron would have less.

I don't view 2007 by Lebron or 1987 by Jordan to be a failure. Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley weren't nothing players(neither were Varejao or Mo Williams) but they were going up against Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Bill Walton, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Larry Bird. The 87 Celtics may not have won a championship, but they lost in 6 to the 87 Lakers, one of the greatest teams of all time.

Jordan never lost a series when he had homecourt adtantage. Lebron lost in 2011 to the Mavs, in 2010 to the Celtics, and 2009 to the Magic. I think those are the series that people consider failures of Lebron.

[12footrim]

In 1986 Michael Jordan played in 18 games and only started in 7 of them, and his team only made the playoffs because of him. Mo Williams and Anderson Varejao are much better players than anyone Jordan had on the 1986 team, and Jordan ended up scoring 63 points against the 86 Celtics, who are arguably the best team of all time. The 86 Celtics went 40-1 at home in the regular season and 12-0 at home in the playoffs, but Jordan took them to overtime in Boston by scoring more points than anyone has ever scored in a playoff game. Lebron got swept by the 07 Spurs, who aren't even close to the same level as the 86 Celtics.

Which is also why I mentioned the year after when he was even older than Lebron, played in every game, and his team went 40-42 and another 1st round sweep to a Celts team that didn't even win the title. Orlando Woolridge or Charles Oakley weren't nothing players either. Under .500. That's not a failure. Hey but losing in the finals as younger player with a nothing team to one of the greatest dynastic teams ever with a guy at his peak that won 5 championships is worse or some sort of stain in peoples worlds by comparison.

I said that I agree in general that making the finals and losing is more impressive than losing earlier in the playoffs, but if Jordan and Lebron both played in the West during their respective eras, Jordan would have had more finals appearances and Lebron would have less.

I don't view 2007 by Lebron or 1987 by Jordan to be a failure. Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley weren't nothing players(neither were Varejao or Mo Williams) but they were going up against Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Bill Walton, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Larry Bird. The 87 Celtics may not have won a championship, but they lost in 6 to the 87 Lakers, one of the greatest teams of all time.

Jordan never lost a series when he had homecourt adtantage. Lebron lost in 2011 to the Mavs, in 2010 to the Celtics, and 2009 to the Magic. I think those are the series that people consider failures of Lebron.

The Mavs series is a stain. Have at that one, but there is no shame in losing to those Celtics or the Magic when your running makes are Mo Williams and Varejoe considering what they were at the time.

The 2007 finals Varejoe was just a role player off the bench. Zadrunus Ilgasgas (sp) and Larry Hughes were his best teamates. They had to go through a Pistons team that had won a championship and been to a finals with in the previous 3 years and were a legit contender. That's not nothing to do at 22. The Celtics and Magic and Bulls were all legit contenders in that era as well.

40-42 ? Jordan couldn't even lead them to a winning record as a 23 year old averaging 37ppg and people want to talk about Lebron leading a team to the finals and losing as a 22 year old as some sort of stain on his career, because Jordan never lost in a finals. Come on. That's my point. No team Lebron is on was ever going to go 40-42 when he had become a top player in the NBA.

[NZB2323]

Which is also why I mentioned the year after when he was even older than Lebron, played in every game, and his team went 40-42 and another 1st round sweep to a Celts team that didn't even win the title. Orlando Woolridge or Charles Oakley weren't nothing players either. Under .500. That's not a failure. Hey but losing in the finals as younger player with a nothing team to one of the greatest dynastic teams ever with a guy at his peak that won 5 championships is worse or some sort of stain in peoples worlds by comparison.

I said that I agree in general that making the finals and losing is more impressive than losing earlier in the playoffs, but if Jordan and Lebron both played in the West during their respective eras, Jordan would have had more finals appearances and Lebron would have less.

I don't view 2007 by Lebron or 1987 by Jordan to be a failure. Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley weren't nothing players(neither were Varejao or Mo Williams) but they were going up against Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Bill Walton, Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Larry Bird. The 87 Celtics may not have won a championship, but they lost in 6 to the 87 Lakers, one of the greatest teams of all time.

Jordan never lost a series when he had homecourt adtantage. Lebron lost in 2011 to the Mavs, in 2010 to the Celtics, and 2009 to the Magic. I think those are the series that people consider failures of Lebron.

The Mavs series is a stain. Have at that one, but there is no shame in losing to those Celtics or the Magic when your running makes are Mo Williams and Varejoe considering what they were at the time.

The 2007 finals Varejoe was just a role player off the bench. Zadrunus Ilgasgas (sp) and Larry Hughes were his best teamates. They had to go through a Pistons team that had won a championship and been to a finals with in the previous 3 years and were a legit contender. That's not nothing to do at 22. The Celtics and Magic and Bulls were all legit contenders in that era as well.

40-42 ? Jordan couldn't even lead them to a winning record as a 23 year old averaging 37ppg and people want to talk about Lebron leading a team to the finals and losing as a 22 year old as some sort of stain on his career, because Jordan never lost in a finals. Come on. That's my point. No team Lebron is on was ever going to go 40-42 when he had become a top player in the NBA.

I get not holding 2007 against Lebron(although the Pistons weren't a legit contender without Ben Wallace), but holding 1987 against Jordan when it was his 2nd full year in the NBA, he had a PER of 30, and the 2nd highest PER on his team was Seadell Threat with 16 seems silly. The following year the Bulls won 50 games and from that point on Jordan's Bulls won 50, 60, or 70 games every year. Early in the 1990 season, the Bulls lost 3 games in a row. After that, the Bulls never lost 3 games in a row with Michael Jordan. In 2007, the Celtics, Magic, and Bulls weren't contenders, and the Heat's run was over after everyone was out of shape entering the season and they got swept in the first round.

Also, in 2010 and 2009 Lebron's team had home court advantage and were favorites. The Magic team he lost to wasn't some super team and the Celtics were old and their best player couldn't shoot. Jordan never lost a playoff series with homecourt advantage, and that gives him a leg up on Lebron.

[12footrim]

, but holding 1987 against Jordan when it was his 2nd full year in the NBA,

This point is always ridiculous, I knew it was coming. 23 is 23 years old. People always try to make these stupid arguments like this or about mileage. Probably 99% of these guys are in the gym working on their game every day from the time they are in grade school and at that age regardless if they are playing for Hall of Fame Dean Smith in college alongside of Worthy, Perkins, Kenny Smith etc or on the Cavs playing for Paul Silas/ Mike Brown.

There isn't a hill of beans difference in what they are or would have been by going early or later. You think Lebron would have been worse at 23 if he went to UNC for 3 or 4 years. Jordan came in and averaged 28ppg in his first season but by his 3rd year that was still some excuse. Dumbest excuses ever. I'm from NC, a lot of Tarholes would say Dean Smith made him better. Jordan even says it. I don't believe it but whatever it would go against your point.

[NZB2323]

, but holding 1987 against Jordan when it was his 2nd full year in the NBA,

This point is always ridiculous, I knew it was coming. 23 is 23 years old. People always try to make these stupid arguments like this or about mileage. Probably 99% of these guys are in the gym working on their game every day from the time they are in grade school and at that age regardless if they are playing for Hall of Fame Dean Smith in college alongside of Worthy, Perkins, Kenny Smith etc or on the Cavs playing for Paul Silas/ Mike Brown.

There isn't a hill of beans difference in what they are or would have been by going early or later. You think Lebron would have been worse at 23 if he went to UNC for 3 or 4 years. Jordan came in and averaged 28ppg in his first season but by his 3rd year that was still some excuse. Dumbest excuses ever. I'm from NC, a lot of Tarholes would say Dean Smith made him better. Jordan even says it. I don't believe it but whatever it would go against your point.

So you don't think that having experience in the NBA helps you perform in the NBA? Also, 1987 isn't a failure by any means. Jordan had a PER of 30, and the 2nd highest PER on his team was Sedale Threatt with 16. Sedale Threatt was a 6th round pick. Jordan got swept in the playoffs to the 87 Celtics, which was a great team.

Since you're fixating on regular season record so much for 1987, should it matter that in 2017(When Lebron was 32) the Cavs only won 51 games and when Jordan was 32 he won 72 games?

[Arp590]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

So you're saying it's more impressive to finish 3rd, 4th, or lower than to make it to the finals?
Because that's what Jordan did when he couldn't even make it out of the conference finals, he finished worse than second.

[GermanFan120]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

So you're saying it's more impressive to finish 3rd, 4th, or lower than to make it to the finals?
Because that's what Jordan didn't when he couldn't even make it out of the conference finals, he finished worse than second.

You are too dumb to understand what I posted.

Everyone, please refrain from personal attacks such as this one unless you want a strike.

[NO-KG-AI]

If he played well, I'd be impressed. If he played like LeBron did against Dallas, less impressed.

[Arp590]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

So you're saying it's more impressive to finish 3rd, 4th, or lower than to make it to the finals?
Because that's what Jordan did when he couldn't even make it out of the conference finals, he finished worse than second.

You are too dumb to understand what I posted.

Oh no, believe me I understand it. If I don't understand it, then your post was poorly worded.

"People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers."
Interprets to: People that are impressed by making it to the finals & losing are losers.

So are we supposed to be impressed that Jordan didn't make it to the finals a few years & avoided being placed "2nd".

[GermanFan120]

So you're saying it's more impressive to finish 3rd, 4th, or lower than to make it to the finals?
Because that's what Jordan did when he couldn't even make it out of the conference finals, he finished worse than second.

You are too dumb to understand what I posted.

Oh no, believe me I understand it. If I don't understand it, then your post was poorly worded.

"People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers."
Interprets to: People that are impressed by making it to the finals & losing are losers.

So are we supposed to be impressed that Jordan didn't make it to the finals a few years & avoided being placed "2nd".

You don't need to interpret it so hard.
Winning is more impressive than losing - that's ALL what I was saying.

[Arp590]

You are too dumb to understand what I posted.

Oh no, believe me I understand it. If I don't understand it, then your post was poorly worded.

"People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers."
Interprets to: People that are impressed by making it to the finals & losing are losers.

So are we supposed to be impressed that Jordan didn't make it to the finals a few years & avoided being placed "2nd".

You don't need to interpret it so hard.
Winning is more impressive than losing - that's ALL what I was saying.

Okay then, so it was very UN-impressive that Jordan couldn't even make it to the finals those 2 years.

[GermanFan120]

Look at the poll, 55% vs 45%

How can either side not see the other side of the truth?

[GermanFan120]

Oh no, believe me I understand it. If I don't understand it, then your post was poorly worded.

"People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers."
Interprets to: People that are impressed by making it to the finals & losing are losers.

So are we supposed to be impressed that Jordan didn't make it to the finals a few years & avoided being placed "2nd".

You don't need to interpret it so hard.
Winning is more impressive than losing - that's ALL what I was saying.

Okay then, so it was very UN-impressive that Jordan couldn't even make it to the finals those 2 years.

Yes. If MJ was asked this question: Are you impressed about this season but losing to the Bad Boys at the end? I bet he will say no.

[C3H6N6O6]

People wouldn't talk about a finals record if Jordan's wasn't perfect. Him going 6-0, combined with his overall excellence as a player, made the ring narrative relevant when questioning who the GOAT is. If he takes those 2 finals Ls, it raises his floor but lowers his ceiling in the all time conversation. Nevertheless, more finals appearances is better than less. But if we get to 2040 and no one eclipses Jordan, we'll start to see generational GOATS. 50 years later, idk how much Jordan will be worshipped. I find it kind of hard to relate to the nostalgia, seeing as how I was born in '97

The only thing your comment proves is that marketing works and all sports fans who don't like overly religious people should start believing in religion because they believe in marketing over logic.

[C3H6N6O6]

You don't need to interpret it so hard.
Winning is more impressive than losing - that's ALL what I was saying.

Okay then, so it was very UN-impressive that Jordan couldn't even make it to the finals those 2 years.

Yes. If MJ was asked this question: Are you impressed about this season but losing to the Bad Boys at the end? I bet he will say no.

It doesn't matter what MJ thought or thinks. It matters what an educated person thinks when using logic to solve problems is something that is taught in schools from an early age.
You are literally telling me that you would take 6 As and 2 Cs over 6 As and 2 Bs.
Use your brain. Do you ask Nike whether you should buy their new $300 sneakers or do you buy them only if you like them ?
Jordan is GOAT because of how well he played and because he has 6 rings and 6 FMVPs. 6-0 argument is used by people who can't think for themselves and rely on marketing and ESPN to tell them how to think.
Logical people blame LeBron for 2011 finals loss. Illogical people blame him for 2014 finals loss. There are illogical people who think that he is already the GOAT.

The only advice i'd give you is that silver is better than bronze and it doesn't change even if MJ screamed it from the rooftop.

[DoItALL9]

I highly doubt many people would be more impressed if he had lost those two to Houston in 94 & 95.

[GermanFan120]

People wouldn't talk about a finals record if Jordan's wasn't perfect. Him going 6-0, combined with his overall excellence as a player, made the ring narrative relevant when questioning who the GOAT is. If he takes those 2 finals Ls, it raises his floor but lowers his ceiling in the all time conversation. Nevertheless, more finals appearances is better than less. But if we get to 2040 and no one eclipses Jordan, we'll start to see generational GOATS. 50 years later, idk how much Jordan will be worshipped. I find it kind of hard to relate to the nostalgia, seeing as how I was born in '97

The only thing your comment proves is that marketing works and all sports fans who don't like overly religious people should start believing in religion because they believe in marketing over logic.

I don't see anything wrong from what he said.

[GermanFan120]

Okay then, so it was very UN-impressive that Jordan couldn't even make it to the finals those 2 years.

Yes. If MJ was asked this question: Are you impressed about this season but losing to the Bad Boys at the end? I bet he will say no.

It doesn't matter what MJ thought or thinks. It matters what an educated person thinks when using logic to solve problems is something that is taught in schools from an early age.
You are literally telling me that you would take 6 As and 2 Cs over 6 As and 2 Bs.
Use your brain. Do you ask Nike whether you should buy their new $300 sneakers or do you buy them only if you like them ?
Jordan is GOAT because of how well he played and because he has 6 rings and 6 FMVPs. 6-0 argument is used by people who can't think for themselves and rely on marketing and ESPN to tell them how to think.
Logical people blame LeBron for 2011 finals loss. Illogical people blame him for 2014 finals loss. There are illogical people who think that he is already the GOAT.

The only advice i'd give you is that silver is better than bronze and it doesn't change even if MJ screamed it from the rooftop.

You are too young to give advice son.

[C3H6N6O6]

Yes. If MJ was asked this question: Are you impressed about this season but losing to the Bad Boys at the end? I bet he will say no.

It doesn't matter what MJ thought or thinks. It matters what an educated person thinks when using logic to solve problems is something that is taught in schools from an early age.
You are literally telling me that you would take 6 As and 2 Cs over 6 As and 2 Bs.
Use your brain. Do you ask Nike whether you should buy their new $300 sneakers or do you buy them only if you like them ?
Jordan is GOAT because of how well he played and because he has 6 rings and 6 FMVPs. 6-0 argument is used by people who can't think for themselves and rely on marketing and ESPN to tell them how to think.
Logical people blame LeBron for 2011 finals loss. Illogical people blame him for 2014 finals loss. There are illogical people who think that he is already the GOAT.

The only advice i'd give you is that silver is better than bronze and it doesn't change even if MJ screamed it from the rooftop.

You are too young to give advice son.

You are either in your 90s or in your teens given how you worship athletes instead of using your brain.