How long has the 6-0 Arguement for MJ been around?

[Blame Rasho]

I’ve been watching the game for over 40 years, and debates about win-loss records in the Finals were never a major talking point—until LeBron started challenging MJ’s legacy.

Yeah this is a lie… but keep lying to yourself.

[infinite11285]

I’ve been watching the game for over 40 years, and debates about win-loss records in the Finals were never a major talking point—until LeBron started challenging MJ’s legacy.

Yeah this is a lie… but keep lying to yourself.

Perceptions are relative. Can you provide a counterexample? This thread shows that I'm not the only person who feels the same way.

[Charlesareed]

I think this is kind of revisionist history or a mischaracterization of things. Lebron lost to the Spurs as an underdog in 2007. Next time he made the finals he lost in embarrassing fashion as a favorite while playing like ****. I don't think many people really started disqualifying him or using the "6-0" argument against him in earnest until that loss to DAL with Miami. Because people didn't really have it out for him until the decision. I think holding MJ's 6-0 as something Lebron can't match really started there, not with his one underdog loss to the Spurs in 07.

Some people had it out for LeBron since the day he entered the league and plenty of them have admitted it over the years. The people who put MJ or Kobe on a pedestal have basically hated on him his entire career. Some are able to still appreciate what he can do as a player but 6-0 is just one of many criticisms that have been made against LeBron in an effort to diminish what he actually has accomplished but having said that, I'm ok with him getting criticism for both the 07 and 2011 finals because he deserves some. It's just the idea of 6-0 as the defining point of argument that seems a bit ridiculous. The same way that Russell's 11-1 gets swept away because of 'only 8-10 teams in the league'.

This not true first things first I never liked LeBron still don’t like him but I have great respect for what’s he’s accomplished throughout his entire career wins or loses I’ve always given him his credit he’s a great player I don’t like the way he went about things and who his things teaming up with his competition it kinda ruins his mustige of being the goat without even counting his nba finals loses


That series against the Detroit pistons is still his greatest playoff performance ever even though he played great again the big 3 Celtics that pistons team was better then that Celtics team

MJ had some great playoff performances aswell even tho he lost more the he won up until he broke thru then he won 6 rings in a 8 year span that’s greatness 2-3peats is impressive and still haven’t been done again in no sport since then

MJ is the goat but not because he went 6-0 in the finals although most people use that argument MJ was simply larger than life it’s a reason why everybody wanted to be like Mike he was that great of a player a global icon he put the nba on a global scale where it’s still at today without MJ the nba probably would’ve folded not to mention MJ stopped hall of famers from winning a championship because he was that great yes it’s a team sport but MJ proved in those finals it was him vs everybody else


No one have ever diminished Bill Russell’s 11 rings or kaj 6 rings in the goat conversation it’s just MJ did it more dominant then them by beating his counterparts on the big stage

Lebron lost in the finals a lot yes but they reason ppl hold it against him is because they fashion he lost he stacked the deck in all but 1 finals run the 07 loss to the spurs don’t count against him in the goat argument it’s just a loss overall the 3 losses to gsw 2 are a wash because KD even tho he beat LeBron at his own game

The hearles years Lebron was so dominant yet his team went 2-4 in the finals and it was because of him they lost he played poorly in 2011 let players smaller then him outplayed him on defense and some times offensively

Lebron making 8 finals in a row is very impressive but winning 6-0 in the finals is more impressive

The 6-0 argument is just a excuse and a lazy way for ppl to avoid a real conversation and talk about the actual facts

Yes Lebron has all the top stats but he played long enough to accomplish that since that’s his way of saying what more I have to do to pass MJ as the goat when it wasn’t anything basketball related as to why MJ is the goat it’s just many people use the 6-0 argument when it’s more than just that

[Haldi]

It started to skyrocket when Lebron became an actual threat to Jordan's legacy and old-heads wanted an argument that would permanently disable Lebron's chances (once you lose a 0...it's gone forever), no matter what he did in the future, because for once the idea of a player projecting beyond Jordan was possible to a non-trivial degree.

Reframing "winning" in terms of "not losing a Finals" essentially penalizes players who swim upstream to the Finals, while benefitting players who run downhill (or are in even odds situations).

The 6-0 argument is dumb. You shouldn't get penalized for making the finals and losing.

Now the argument that MJ won 6 titles in only 12 year span basically is a strong argument for how great he is.

There are two teams in the finals. That means you have a 50/50 chance of winning, just like whether you flip heads or tails. For Jordan to break that law and bat 100%, while Lebron under performed the expected number is a very important difference. That means Lebron performed worse than chance, meaning you replace him with a random player and they probably win more. The odds of winning 6 straight is 1 in 64 (which are the odds of flipping heads 6 straight times). That's insane.

Hold up, surely you missed the green font? You are actually saying that it's a 50/50 chance for both teams in the Finals?

Everything with 2 outcomes is only a 50/50 chance? Do I dare explain how silly this is to you? My flabbers are gassed at this one.

Legit one of the dumbest things I’ve read on this forum, and there’s a lot of competition lol. My flabbers were also gassed at this one

[Haldi]

What makes the first championship the reasoning for his continued success afterwards?

Does his team getting stronger outside of Jordan have anything to do with it?

Does the elite teams prior to him winning (Pistons/LA/Celtics) falling off at a similar time?

The narrative you have created here is that the sole reason for the Bulls 'remaining on top' was Jordan alone.

There is no argument that he was their most important player and had the most influence. It's just this argument wouldn't hold up if he lost to a better team. Like any of those teams that beat him prior to this.

Thankfully for him (obviously due to him as well) he had the better team in each run so this never occurred but it being used as an argument for his being better than x player doesn't hold any real weight as again, it's a team accomplishment and there are numerous factors than influence this outside of an individual player.

You said it yourself it’s just the “narrative.” MJ was the best and once he got the best supporting cast as well he won again and again. He didn’t magically become a way better player. It’s a team game like u said but everyone pretends it isn’t.

It’s a team game, but individual players have a greater impact on team success than any other team sport.

Still VERY MUCH a team game, even if what you say is true. The Bulls were a great team even without Jordan, and were the best team in the league with him.

[Djoker]

lessthanjake made a fantastic post on the 6-0 argument. The point behind the 6-0 line of thinking isn't the 6-0 record in a vacuum but converting on expectations. That's what in many eyes makes Jordan better than Lebron and other GOAT candidates. That he didn't leave opportunities on the table.

To me, the “6 for 6” stuff never made much sense, because of course it is better to lose in the Finals than to lose before the Finals. I get that people pay more attention to the Finals, so losing in the Finals maybe ends up worse practically speaking because more people see you fail. But if we’re really having a retrospective discussion about it, it’s not worse to lose in the Finals than to lose before the Finals.

That said, I don’t think the argument for Jordan really relies on the “6 for 6” thing in any meaningful way.

At a very basic level, winning 6 titles is of course better than winning 4 titles, regardless of whether the guy with 6 had meaningful failures or not.

But even looking beyond that, I think we could expand how we think about this to talk about how often these players converted having a legit contending team into a title. By that measure, Jordan isn’t 6 for 6 anymore, but he still looks much better than LeBron IMO.

For instance, in the years the Bulls didn’t win the title, the only years that their pre-playoffs title odds were +1000 or better were in 1990 and 1995. Their odds were +800 and +500 respectively in those years. They were not the favorites either year, but in those two years they were amongst the top few favorites. I think those years can be considered failures from Jordan, because he had a contending team and did not come away with a title. The other years, his team was not a contending-level team and was not given much of any chance of winning the title, despite how good Jordan himself was. So that leaves Jordan as basically being 6 of 8 in terms of titles while on a contending team.

In contrast, we have a lot more years where LeBron had a contending team and didn’t win. Let’s do the same analysis for LeBron. How many non-title years did his team have pre-playoffs title odds of +1000 or better? Eight years! LeBron had non-title-winning years where his teams’ pre-playoffs title odds were +160, +160, +200, +225, +300, +400, +405, and +800! That’s *a lot* more times failing with a contending team. By this measure, LeBron is 4 of 12 with a contending team, while Jordan was 6 of 8.

Of course, one retort to this may be that title odds take into account how good the star is, so LeBron’s teams only had such good odds because of how good he was. That is true. But I think to believe that that created this difference in conversion rate between Michael Jordan and LeBron James, you’d have to believe that LeBron James was considered far better individually than Jordan was—which is not something that strikes me as being plausible. LeBron being on his teams wasn’t moving those odds way more than Jordan being on his teams did.

Another retort to this would be that LeBron had to face the dynasty Warriors. But the Warriors being incredible was baked into the odds in those years (i.e. LeBron’s Cavaliers had worse odds because everyone knew how good the Warriors were), and is relevant for less than half of those listed years anyways.

In any event, I think one can find various excuses for LeBron’s vastly worse conversion rate while being on a contender, but ultimately that conversion rate is part of the story of their greatness, even if you think there’s ways to explain why LeBron converted so much less. Greatness is about what happened. And part of what happened is that Jordan’s teams almost always won the title when they were a contender, and LeBron’s teams usually didn’t win the title when they were contenders.

[hugepatsfan]

I honestly don’t remember going 6-0 being a talking point until LeBron became a GOAT candidate and lost in the Finals as an underdog a bunch of times.

The thing is, people wanted to write off LeBron so bad after the 2011 Finals, and then he ended up dominating the league after that, so Finals record became the only thing to grasp onto.

Rings themselves were never a thing until Jordan either. Wilt was considered a GOAT candidate despite only having 2 rings. Bird was a GOAT candidate despite only having 3 rings.

The rings argument is funny though because people act like Kareem doesn’t have 6 also and that Russell doesn’t nearly double them up with 11. But I guess since he was 11-1 in the Finals it’s not the same as 6-0? We also get into people disrespecting the 60s because they realize their rings argument for Jordan falls apart when they have to give proper respect to Russell’s rings.

I think this is kind of revisionist history or a mischaracterization of things. Lebron lost to the Spurs as an underdog in 2007. Next time he made the finals he lost in embarrassing fashion as a favorite while playing like ****. I don't think many people really started disqualifying him or using the "6-0" argument against him in earnest until that loss to DAL with Miami. Because people didn't really have it out for him until the decision. I think holding MJ's 6-0 as something Lebron can't match really started there, not with his one underdog loss to the Spurs in 07.

People absolutely started disqualifying LeBron from GOAT prior to The Decision. He was dragged mercilessly for how his 2009 and 2010 seasons ended.

And those seasons ended before the finals. I'm not trying to say people have been fair and balanced towards Lebron. I'm just saying that the whole "he can't be as good as MJ because he's lost in the finals" aspect of the criticism didn't really start until the loss to Dallas with MIA. You can find exceptions, but I don't think many serious or even casual fans/commentators really crucified him for that first finals loss like that.

[Hornet Mania]

6-0 has been an argument for MJ as GOAT since 1998, as mentioned.

I first heard it in relation to Lebron, since that's the real point of this thread, when he choked and the Heat were upset by the Mavs in 2011.

[dautjazz]

Since the memory of losing to shaq and penny in the 95 playoffs became inconvenient

Losing to the Pistons doesn't matter either. Don't get me wrong, 6-0 in the finals is amazing, but if they played the 2016-18 Warriors instead of the 91 Lakers, 92 Blazers, and 93 Suns, then MJ wouldnt be 6-0, he'd have fallen short to atleast two of those teams.

[bledredwine]

I’ve been watching the game for over 40 years, and debates about win-loss records in the Finals were never a major talking point—until LeBron started challenging MJ’s legacy.

Yeah this is a lie… but keep lying to yourself.

Stop… it’s the truth except it started with Kobe trying to catch up and Lebron next. With Jordan, he was just clearly better than anything we had seen. With Kobe and Lebron, it obviously hasn’t been the case since Jordan existed.

[Big J]

Since the memory of losing to shaq and penny in the 95 playoffs became inconvenient

Losing to the Pistons doesn't matter either. Don't get me wrong, 6-0 in the finals is amazing, but if they played the 2016-18 Warriors instead of the 91 Lakers, 92 Blazers, and 93 Suns, then MJ wouldnt be 6-0, he'd have fallen short to atleast two of those teams.

MJ himself said he would have beaten those Warrior teams. I’ll trust him more than someone on a forum.

[dautjazz]

Since the memory of losing to shaq and penny in the 95 playoffs became inconvenient

Losing to the Pistons doesn't matter either. Don't get me wrong, 6-0 in the finals is amazing, but if they played the 2016-18 Warriors instead of the 91 Lakers, 92 Blazers, and 93 Suns, then MJ wouldnt be 6-0, he'd have fallen short to atleast two of those teams.

MJ himself said he would have beaten those Warrior teams. I’ll trust him more than someone on a forum.

Im sure he also said that he was going to lose to the 1989 Pistons, 1990 Pistons and 1995 Magic. Look, MJ is a beast, but the best teams he faced early in his career, Bird's Celtics and the Bad Boys Pistons were beating his Bulls teams. I don't think the 1991-93 Bulls stood a chance to the 1986 Celtics, forget the 2017 and 2018 Warriors. I'm quite convinced those Warrior teams were the best teams of all time.

[Liam_Gallagher]

Unpopular opinion: 6-0 in the Finals is worse than 6-(any number higher than zero).

[OdomFan]

Two 3 peats in the time frame inside a full decade will always be very impressive to me. Jordan and the Bulls built something great and its incredible that it still hasn't been surpassed nearly 30 years later. They took losses together, learned from said losses, and kept moving forward to accomplish those 3 peats.

[dautjazz]

Unpopular opinion: 6-0 in the Finals is worse than 6-(any number higher than zero).

I think context is what matters the most. For example, the 2007 Cavs were a 50 win team that had no business in the NBA finals vs the Spurs. 2011 Finals was definitely a choke job on Lebron's part. 2015, Lebron was without Irving and Love against a 67 win Warriors team, so obviously he lost, going 6 games is a hell of a achievement considering how short handed they were. 2014 Heat, Wade and Bosh stunk in the Finals, and that Spurs team was DAMN good, their offense was like clockwork. Lebron had two bad NBA Finals, including his first where he was just 22 and way overwhelmed. So it's not like Lebron was bad in the finals often, just the two times out of ten finals. MJ had easier opponents in the Finals than Lebron.

[druggas]

The 6-0 argument is dumb. You shouldn't get penalized for making the finals and losing.

Now the argument that MJ won 6 titles in only 12 year span basically is a strong argument for how great he is.

6-0 and two 3peats. Impressive!

[KGtabake]

When he raised his 6 fingers right after game6 in Utah in '98. It's on tape.

[therealbig3]

Tell that to Wilt, or Jerry West, or Karl Malone, or Charles Barkley.

We shouldn't penalize them though. We should evaluate what they did as individual players, if they could have played better, if they could have played differently, if they played as well as they possibly could and still lost, etc. I think reducing everything to wins and losses in a team game misses the point.

Now the argument that MJ won 6 titles in only 12 year span basically is a strong argument for how great he is.

That along with his numerous other accolades. Only adds to the GOAT conversation.

Yes, Jordan had a remarkable career and won a lot. He's a worthy GOAT candidate. But we overvalue the winning, when winning is a team accomplishment with a ton of context involved beyond Jordan simply being that much better than anyone else, when nothing really supports him being that much better than everyone else. We're mythologizing him the same way we did with Kobe just because they were on winning teams, when the reality is that, he had better teammates and coaching than his opponents, while also being the best player in the league (more debatable for Kobe, but I think it's clear there was a clear period of time when Jordan was the best individual player, no argument there). But he was the best player in the league before he had the best team and his team didn't win. Which proves that there's a lot more to winning than being the best player. Jordan was probably a better player in 89 and 90 than he was afterwards.

Also, yeah, Jordan won a ton after he broke through. We all know this. Why does that erase the fact that his team lost a lot before that? Again, this kind of hand waving away doesn’t happen with other greats.

Jordan's first 5 full years in the league his teammates that played the most minutes were John Paxson, Dave Corzine, Horace Grant, and Scottie Pippen - one HOFer.

Bird's first 5 years in the league (2 titles) his teammates that played the most minutes were Cedric Maxwell, Robert Parish, Nate Archibald, and Kevin McHale - three HOFers. Not to mention HOFer Dennis Johnson in 1983-84.

Magic's first 5 years in the league (2 titles) his teammates that played the most minutes were Jamaal Wilkes, Jabbar, Norm Nixon, Michael Cooper - three HOFers.

You don't see a difference here? Or you just don't want to acknowledge it?

Also the Bulls did not "lose a lot". Those 5 seasons they averaged 46 wins a season. It's not like they went 20-62 each year.

First of all, I never compared Jordan's pre 91 teams to Magic and Bird, who both clearly walked into very fortunate situations.

But he had a team that made the playoffs without him in 86 basically. And those aren't bad teammates by any stretch. Grant was an All-Star later in his career and was a really, really good all-around player who is historically underrated. Pippen we can acknowledge was a great player, although not quite at his peak yet. He was an All-Star in 1990 though, and was also signed to an extremely underpaid contract that allowed the Bulls a ton of flexibility with their roster, which is also something that you can't attribute to Jordan.

46 wins a season and never making the Finals and losing to the same team 3 years in a row sounds like an almost death sentence to anyone else's legacy. LeBron averaged 54 wins a season from 06-10, with worse teammates, going up against his era's Bad Boy Pistons (06 Pistons, 07 Pistons, 07 Spurs, 08 Celtics, 10 Celtics), he actually made the Finals with a team nobody expected to get there...and those years are looked at with a lot less fondness than Jordan's first 5 full seasons.

LeBron overachieving and getting some of the teams he’s had as far as he has is every bit as impressive as 6-0 in the Finals.

It's very impressive. And why he is in the conversation for GOAT.

Just not as impressive as going 6-0 in the Finals and being named Finals MVP each time.

Says who though? That's winning bias. LeBron was the Finals MVP in every championship he won as well. He was also the best player on the court in every Finals he played outside of 07 and 11. That's 8 times he was the best player on the court, win or lose. It IS just as impressive to me, if not moreso just given the longevity of it all.

There is no argument that he was their most important player and had the most influence. It's just this argument wouldn't hold up if he lost to a better team.

But he didn't lose. That's the whole point.

In the 6 years the Bulls won the Finals they played 116 playoff games. In those 116 games Jordan played 41 min/g and scored 32.6 pts/g. No other Bulls player scored more than 19 pts/g. Jordan alone scored 1/3 of the Bulls total playoff points those 6 seasons. And he did this while also being 2nd on the team in rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks.

What part of his performance over 6 seasons being totally dominant are you missing?

And absolutely nobody is saying he wasn't the best player. His claim to greatness is mainly predicated on being one of the most dominant scorers of all time, obviously he's going to score a lot of points. He was awesome. But his team was awesome too. That's what people are missing here. LeBron's teams were often NOT awesome, and yet they made the Finals. The context is important.

Thankfully for him (obviously due to him as well) he had the better team in each run so this never occurred

Because he was - by far - the best player on the team, when combining his contributions on both offense and defense.

He was the best player in 88 and 89 and 90 as well. I think he actually likely peaked in 89 or 90 as well. They didn't result in championships. Why?

but it being used as an argument for his being better than x player doesn't hold any real weight

Those 6 seasons the Bulls were the best defensive team in the playoffs (just 101.8 pts/100poss allowed) due first and foremost to him and Pippen.

I don't think Jordan was ever more than the 3rd best defensive player for his championship teams. Grant and Pippen were more valuable defensively in the first 3-peat, and Rodman and Pippen were more valuable in the 2nd 3-peat.

I mean this gets into Jordan's reputation defensively and just how good was he on that end of the floor. He was very good, but I don't think he was ever in the conversation for best defensive player in the league, despite the DPOY, which I don't think he deserved. I also think those Bulls teams were pretty stacked defensively, with strong defenders up and down the lineup. Not to mention the coaching with Phil Jackson and Tex Winter.

as again, it's a team accomplishment and there are numerous factors than influence this outside of an individual player.

Like what? How about you explaining these numerous factors for the Bulls' 6 year run of titles.

Jordan was getting dominated when he was trying to guard Magic Johnson 1 on 1 in the 91 Finals, in large part due to his gambling nature on defense. It was why the Bulls were having trouble slowing down the Lakers offense...until Pippen started sharing responsibilities, and freed up Jordan to spend more energy on offense and be more of a roamer defensively. Phil Jackson's Triangle offense was instituted for all 6 championships btw, and although Jordan individually really didn't see much of a difference in terms of his statistical production, the rest of the team played better. The Bulls in 95 also struggled against the Magic front court and lost. The addition of Dennis Rodman, which essentially replaced the loss of Horace Grant from the 1st 3-peat resulted in a historically good defense that played a huge role in their 2nd 3-peat. Especially since Jordan's offensive production clearly dropped off compared to the 1st 3-peat.

Scottie Pippen stepped up as a point forward as well and took on a lot more responsibilities in the offense, while also emerging as the league's best perimeter defender. This is the same guy that also led the Bulls to back to back winning seasons without Jordan, finishing top 5 in MVP voting the first year. His team went to game 7 of the 2nd round that year too. Not a lot of championship winning teams could lose their best player out of nowhere and still play that well. Especially if Jordan was as instrumental as you're saying.

I mean, Jordan also avoided Hakeem’s Rockets. And started winning when the Celtics/Lakers/Pistons got old and injured.

So what are you trying to infer here? That the Bulls waltzed to 6 titles? That they didn't play anyone good?

In the Finals they beat teams with W-L records of 58-24, 57-25, 62-20, 64-18, 64-18, and 62-20.

In 2022-23 Denver beat a team in the Finals that had a W-L record of 44-38.

What's your point?

I think Denver had weak competition in 23 tbh.

Also, I don't think the Bulls competition was anywhere near as strong as it was even the year prior. Injured Lakers team, decent but flawed Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, and Utah teams. I think there's a clear dropoff from them and the Showtime Lakers, Bird's Celtics, and the Bad Boy Pistons from the 80s. I think the Warriors and Spurs teams that LeBron has lost to wipe the floor with any of them tbh, and I think the Mavs team he lost to in 11 was at least as good as any of them.

But nah, let’s just talk about how Jordan “learned how to win” in that series.

Jordan - just one player - scored 1/3 of the Bulls' total playoff points while at the same time being their best or second best defender over 6 years and 116 playoff games.

Basketball analysis needs to be better than that if you’re more than a casual.

Well then tell us, how did the Bulls win 6 titles over an 8 year period?

He didn’t magically become a way better player.

But he was in fact a way better player than pretty much everyone he played against in those 6 playoff runs.

I pretty much addressed all these points. Jordan was great, but was he greater than what LeBron has shown? Don't really see the evidence for that, other than winning bias. LeBron did have a lower low in 2011 than Jordan ever did, but I also find what LeBron accomplished in 2016 more impressive than anything Jordan did. And I'd put LeBron's other accomplishments in 2009, and 2012-2018, and 2020 right up there with anything Jordan did, even in the years he lost.

[hksazn]

If he never stepped away, it could have been 8-0. In those two years he retired the Rockets won the title back to back.

Bulls finished 3rd in the East both those years. The Bulls record was 34-31 record for the 1994-95 season. Before he said "I'm back" and won another 3 titles.

[Big J]

The funny thing is that if any current star player won basically 6 straight finals and hit multiple clutch shots along the way they would be considered the undisputed GOAT by fans. That was MJ in the 90s, it's just weird that people want to find ways to knock him nowadays.