Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Moderators: Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
- Jakay
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 29,793
- And1: 6,242
- Joined: Jan 27, 2003
- Location: Half out of my mind
- Contact:
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Yeah, losing in the finals is a total shame. The way I see it:
BEST
1. Win finals
2. 14th pick in the draft
3. Knocked out of first round as #1 seed
4. Sign Kevin Love
5. Lose finals
WORST
BEST
1. Win finals
2. 14th pick in the draft
3. Knocked out of first round as #1 seed
4. Sign Kevin Love
5. Lose finals
WORST
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,282
- And1: 316
- Joined: Jul 04, 2010
- Location: right here right now
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Tai wrote:spectacularmove wrote:
I think it really doesn't matter when they lose if Lebron is playing like he did against the Mavs. The thing is its pretty obvious that the stage had an impact on his performance, which somehow makes it worse. Dont you think?
As good as the Mavs were, I have never seen somone make a case for Dirk as the GOAT. As I said earlier, Lebron get this kind of blame because he is in the GOAT debate. This are GOAT standards.
I personally dont think you can blame or criticize him for any stuff he did in Cleveland (Perhaps the series against Boston in 2010), he was the reason that team was in the map.
Saying he had a bad time in the 2011 NBA Finals just because it was the NBA Finals is a pretty convenient assumption; the reason I mentioned 2009 and 2010, especially 2010, is because I remember Lebron being criticized for not carrying those teams further all the same, especially in 2010 because of bad games he had against the Celtics. Who said during those years "wellIf you were really at least he didn't lose in the NBA Finals, that would have been 10x worse"? It was more like "if he's really the GOAT, why can't he carry his team out of the East"?
For you to claim now that it's worse that he lose in the NBA Finals now that he's made 4 straight NBA Finals since coming to the Heat....how does that not come off as anything more than revisionist history? You admit you gave him the benefit of the doubt in Cleveland, so why does that change once he goes to the Heat?
Because Miami is much better that Cleveland? Thought that was pretty obvious. You are getting it wrong, for me his Dallas performance isn't worst because he was in the finals or not, is simply because he had the better team and the better team lost because of him, that was awful to watch. As bad as Lebron played in 2010, it wasnt the same.
When I said the stage had an impact on his performance, and that made it worse, its truth in a way, but for me the main reason is how he performed with the better team, the fact that he was in the finals I think it kinds of affect the narrative because it gives the impression he was afraid on that stage, but thats not (for me) the main reason why he should be blamed.
you are not your thoughts
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
- homecourtloss
- RealGM
- Posts: 11,488
- And1: 18,882
- Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Imagine each round of the playoffs is like a hot girl with each progressive round a hotter girl if you are a top seed
Round 1: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON SF: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this new hotter girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON F: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this even hotter girl . If you lose , it's as if she rejects you.
F: you know the drill.
Why would anyone think getting to **** three hot girls and getting rejected by the fourth would be worse than **** two hot girls and getting rejected by the third.
Hmm...OK, I've confused myself.
Round 1: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON SF: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this new hotter girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON F: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this even hotter girl . If you lose , it's as if she rejects you.
F: you know the drill.
Why would anyone think getting to **** three hot girls and getting rejected by the fourth would be worse than **** two hot girls and getting rejected by the third.
Hmm...OK, I've confused myself.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,016
- And1: 846
- Joined: Aug 25, 2010
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
doozyj wrote:Your agenda is crystal clear.
This. Why is it when the Heat lose, the "Heat choked", but when the Lakers lose, "Kobe choked"? Pretty clear agenda here.
No, getting beat by the champion and ONLY the champion is not really anything to be ashamed about. Getting beat by another team, who goes on to be dumped by a better team means you weren't even close usually.
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,016
- And1: 846
- Joined: Aug 25, 2010
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
kingjames623 wrote:Imagine each round of the playoffs is like a hot girl with each progressive round a hotter girl if you are a top seed
Round 1: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON SF: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this new hotter girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON F: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this even hotter girl . If you lose , it's as if she rejects you.
F: you know the drill.
Why would anyone think getting to **** three hot girls and getting rejected by the fourth would be worse than **** two hot girls and getting rejected by the third.
Hmm...OK, I've confused myself.
I dont think i understand you, but I think you should put in photos to demonstrate this "hot", "hotter". "ever hotter" girl to liven up this thread.

Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,313
- And1: 1,163
- Joined: Mar 19, 2011
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Losing in the Finals doesn't mean you had what it took and choked. It's not always that cut and dry. In fact, it usually isn't. It's the two best teams in the league. One has to win, and one has to lose. Period. Sometimes it comes down to one possession, or one missed opportunity. Hell, look at the two franchise still battling right now. Look at the Spurs in Game 6 last year. Look at how Miami completely choked away that Game 2 at home in 2011 by getting complacent; they had that game in hand and would have eventually ended up with a 3-0 series lead.
Wouldn't you rather be there and have a shot?
Wouldn't you rather be there and have a shot?
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,313
- And1: 1,163
- Joined: Mar 19, 2011
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
kingjames623 wrote:Imagine each round of the playoffs is like a hot girl with each progressive round a hotter girl if you are a top seed
Round 1: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON SF: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this new hotter girl. If you lose, it's as if she rejects you.
CON F: if you win, it's like you get to sex up this even hotter girl . If you lose , it's as if she rejects you.
F: you know the drill.
Why would anyone think getting to **** three hot girls and getting rejected by the fourth would be worse than **** two hot girls and getting rejected by the third.
Hmm...OK, I've confused myself.

Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 1,074
- And1: 587
- Joined: Mar 18, 2014
-
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
I'd rather be tortured and watch my family be killed than lose in the Finals. If you lose in the Finals, you should have to make out with Flavor Flav for two weeks straight. If you lose in the conference finals, you should get a gold watch. It's really a no-brainer.
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
- Nowascki
- Senior
- Posts: 669
- And1: 526
- Joined: Mar 26, 2012
-
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
It's possible for a player to improve his legacy losing in the first round and it's possible for a player to hurt his legacy winning a championship (maybe not in the eyes of a casual fan that only values a player because of his rings, but that doesn't matter. A legacy should be more than a popularity contest). It's all about context, basketball is a team sport after all.
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
- Posts: 45,496
- And1: 26,048
- Joined: Jun 29, 2006
-
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Ask anyone who lost in the first round (including Jordan himself, multiple times) how they felt about it and see how many times you get the answer "well, at least I didn't win three rounds and then lose in the Finals! Phew, really dodged a bullet there!"
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,016
- And1: 846
- Joined: Aug 25, 2010
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
And also check how many teams get to the Finals and then come back the year later to win or at least compete again. You cant say that for teams that get ousted in the first round. Being in the Finals and losing still means you have the pieces to get there and some fine tuning or more experience might be enough to get you to the top. First round fodder have no such luxury.
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 916
- And1: 1,037
- Joined: Jun 01, 2013
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Also, just a reminder: for as great as the 2011 Heat may or may not have been, they were starting two of Joel Anthony, Zydrunas Ilgauskas the year before he retired, and Mike Bibby's decomposed corpse. Starting. That team was horribly imbalanced and thin, and it was the Big 3's first season together.
If you can excuse Jordan for losing in 7 in the ECFs in 1990 with a team that went on to three-peat over the next 3 years, then how can you not excuse LeBron for basically the same thing, but in the actual Finals?
If you can excuse Jordan for losing in 7 in the ECFs in 1990 with a team that went on to three-peat over the next 3 years, then how can you not excuse LeBron for basically the same thing, but in the actual Finals?
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 4,439
- And1: 3,416
- Joined: May 21, 2003
- Location: Miami
-
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
Would you rather contest a dunk and risk being "posterized," or duck out of the way to save yourself potential embarrassment?
I think I know which one the OP would choose.
I think I know which one the OP would choose.
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,326
- And1: 1,605
- Joined: Jan 21, 2012
-
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
If West's record is brought up, so should Baylor's. Baylor was zero for eight in the finals. Ironically, he retired shortly after the start of the '71-72 season where West won his first and only title. But people should know West and Baylor weren't just going up against Russell. They were going up against the team with the best system in the league. And Havlicek and Sam Jones were two superstars in their own right. West lost four seven game finals, three of them by one or two points. And in 1970 if West's legendary 50 foot shot against the Knicks had won the game rather than just sent it into ot., the Lakers would have won that series. So instead of just one title, West and Baylor could very easily have three or four titles between them.
West and Baylor just were not very lucky players. In 1965 with Baylor out from a knee injury, West averaged about 40 ppg in the finals against Boston. The Lakers still lost. What more could he have done? Nobody knocks Jordan for playing on poor teams his first six years in the league. It was only after Boston and LA declined and the Bulls added Pippen that Jordan started winning titles. Luck and circumstance play major roles in who wins titles.
West and Baylor just were not very lucky players. In 1965 with Baylor out from a knee injury, West averaged about 40 ppg in the finals against Boston. The Lakers still lost. What more could he have done? Nobody knocks Jordan for playing on poor teams his first six years in the league. It was only after Boston and LA declined and the Bulls added Pippen that Jordan started winning titles. Luck and circumstance play major roles in who wins titles.
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
-
- Senior Mod - NBA TnT Forum
- Posts: 45,496
- And1: 26,048
- Joined: Jun 29, 2006
-
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
abark wrote:Would you rather contest a dunk and risk being "posterized," or duck out of the way to save yourself potential embarrassment?
I think I know which one the OP would choose.
Whichever one LeBron doesn't.
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
- PCProductions
- Lead Assistant
- Posts: 5,763
- And1: 3,989
- Joined: Apr 18, 2012
-
Re: Is it really better to make the finals and lose?
*Lebron hate intensifies*