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

[Special_Puppy]

Was it a talking point before 2014 or so? Did people care about finals records before MJ (as opposed to just how many rings someone won)?

[boomershadow]

Since 1998

[Yoshun]

This has been around since he retired (the 2nd time). Especially when Kobe started to get "Best player ever?" attention. Then again when the same questions started swirling around LeBron early in his career.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Since the dawn of human stupidity. probably mid-late pleistocene.

[dockingsched]

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

[Sealab2024]

Right around the time the 5-0 argument stopped.

[therealbig3]

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.

[Bush4Ever]

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).

[Bank Shot]

Since 1998

[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.

[NZB2323]

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.

The rings argument was used against Jordan. His critics said he was a great individual player, but not a team player like Bird or Magic and he would never win a championship because you can’t lead the league in scoring and win a championship, even though Kareem had done it before.

The GOAT debate really started in 1986 when the NBA was gaining popularity with this SI article:

https://vault.si.com/vault/1986/03/03/as-nearly-perfect-as-you-can-get

The guy who wrote the article had the premise that Bird could do more things than any other player in NBA history. The next year Magic was great and won MVP and the author was wondering if he should write an article about Magic being the GOAT.

Before the 80s people talked about the MLB, NFL, college basketball, college football, and boxing way more than the NBA. I don’t think a lot of NBA GOAT debates happened in the 70s.

After Bird won his 3rd ring many considered him the GOAT. Then Magic won championships back-to-back which Bird had never done and had 5 championships and people were arguing him as the GOAT. Magic vs. Bird was the main NBA talking point of the 80s. Some people considered Jordan the GOAT when he won 3 in a row which Magic and Bird had never done. Others considered him the GOAT after he got 6.

Some old heads still claim Wilt or Russell as the GOAT.

The 6-0 argument was also used against Kobe after 2004 when some people were calling him the GOAT when he was scoring 40 and 50 a bunch of nights, while others said he’d never win a championship without Shaq.

[Cavsfansince84]

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'.

[bledredwine]

Was it a talking point before 2014 or so? Did people care about finals records before MJ (as opposed to just how many rings someone won)?

Since Kobe.

Fans made it a way to catch Jordan. Prior to Jordan, they weren't counting. They saw that he was better than anything they've seen and were simply waiting for his first championship to start addressing him as the best ever.

You heard it more and more in 92, then solidified after his 2nd.

[Dr Aki]

When Kobe got close 5/7

[The Big O]

Was it a talking point before 2014 or so? Did people care about finals records before MJ (as opposed to just how many rings someone won)?

Since Kobe.

Fans made it a way to catch Jordan. Prior to Jordan, they weren't counting. They saw that he was better than anything they've seen and were simply waiting for his first championship to start addressing him as the best ever.

You heard it more and more in 92, then solidified after his 2nd.

Except he wasn't. Kareem was and still is a strong GOAT candidate, so no, Jordan wasn't something that the NBA had never seen before as in he never dominated the game to an extent to make himself the only GOAT candidate in the history of the sport.

[TheGeneral99]

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.

[TheGeneral99]

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.

The counter-argument is that Lebron deliberately created a super team with another superstar in Wade and another all-star in Bosh and they got beat by a lesser talented Mavericks team in 2011.

Then Lebron left the Heat once Wade started declining to join with a young superstar in Kyrie and forced Cleveland to trade the #1 pick for another all-star in Love.

Lebron also played in a very weak Eastern Conference where he had little resistance...had Lebron played in the West he wouldn't have the finals 9 times.

Lebron is obviously phenomenal, arguably the GOAT and undisputed #1 or #2, but he has manufactured his teams unlike some other superstars.

You have to look at a combination of rings, stats, individual accolades, advanced stats, wins, production, longevity. You look at Jordan's prime years and his stats were absolutely insane...multiple scoring titles, multiple leader in steals, 6 time MVP, defensive player of the year, routinely averaging between 33-37ppg in his peak seasons on excellent efficiency, averaging 6-8 rebounds a game...it's not like Jordan just won 6 championships and his stats aren't great.

The reason why people don't put Russell in the GOAT conversation is because the league only had 6 teams when he played, the rules were way different and no 3 point line. It's very hard to judge before 1980 with how different the league was and the fewer teams there were. Not sure what you are talking about...Wilt was putting video game numbers compared to Bill Russell, but most people had Russell ahead of Wilt because Russell's gameplay translated to wins.

Rings were always important to consider...not the be all and end all, but important. Wilt is considered a top 10 player because his stats are insane even though he only has 1 ring. Dirk is considered a top 20 player even though he has 1 ring because he didn't have another superstar next to him and led the Mavericks to one of the greatest ring runs ever. Karl Malone is usually considered a top 20 player even though he doesn't have a ring.

[UglyBugBall]

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

Was that the finals?

[UglyBugBall]

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.

[MrGoat]

It really kicked into gear when Kobe got his 5th