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

[NbaAllDay]

The reason that 6-0 is important is because MJ never lost a single series after he won his first championship that didn't include him playing on baseball legs. That's why he is the GOAT.

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.

[therealbig3]

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

Like, does anyone realize that the Lakers were decimated by injuries in the 91 Finals, and Byron Scott on 1 leg was the only guy left standing that they could put on Jordan? And they still lost game 1 and if it wasn’t for Pippen, would have been in a world of trouble in that series. But nah, let’s just talk about how Jordan “learned how to win” in that series.

Basketball analysis needs to be better than that if you’re more than a casual. Which I think most of us are, since we care enough to post on a message board about it.

[AmIWrongDude]

The reason that 6-0 is important is because MJ never lost a single series after he won his first championship that didn't include him playing on baseball legs. That's why he is the GOAT.

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.

[Big J]

The reason that 6-0 is important is because MJ never lost a single series after he won his first championship that didn't include him playing on baseball legs. That's why he is the GOAT.

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.

[CIN-C-STAR]

I'm one of those who never hold Magic, Lebron, Kobe or Bird's Finals losses against them. It's just with Jordan it's not simply the 6-0 in the Finals but 3-peat repeat. In the realm of modern pro sports the only thing that probably rivals it is the Islanders and Oilers runs in the 80s.

The one thing I don't like about the citing of MJ going 6-0 is in the same breath no one ever wants to bring up Tim Duncan going 5-1 (best player on 4 of those teams) and yet they rank many players over Duncan pretty frequently.

Good post, but which title team are you saying Duncan wasnt the best player on?
D Rob was still awesome in ‘99 but even he has said Duncan was the better player by then and he had passed the torch.

[AmIWrongDude]

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.

100% agree with that but it seems like a lot of people take that too far sometimes. MJ is the GOAT but he didn’t get close to winning until he had a great roster. Random things like Scottie signing a terrible contract or the stars aligning with CBA to allow KD to go to the Warriors are always huge factors along with stuff like injuries. For every single championship, if one of the key guys gets injured they most likely don’t win but we still act like everything comes down to the superstar.

[Lalouie]

since he was 6and0

[kodo]

It wasn't talked about much really, it's only a factor if someone thinks Kareem should be GOAT over MJ and that's far from a common opinion.

I do remember there was some sentiment that Finals losses should count as well as championships as a way to argue Lebron over MJ, but that never got much support.

[DAWill1128]

Well 6 rings pushed him past Magic Johnson who was also battling with Bird for titles and best player in the NBA. By the time Jordan retired from the Bulls it shifted to Kobe and Shaq chasing his ring count. Duncan was more of a surprise. But Kobe won his first ring at like 21 years old so thought was at that time was that Kobe was a generational talent with the potential to top Jordan. Kobe carried the talk into 2011 after getting to 3 straight finals and winning 2. The Lakers were the Western Conference favorite going into 2011. I don't think LeBron was even considered till after 2016.

[dk1115]

Don't get me wrong, MJ is my GOAT anyway, but I always thought that argument was stupid.

If you have the best team in the NBA, or at least in the discussion for that, then you should be winning most of the time.
LeBron James, many times, has been on the CLEARLY second best team in the finals.

Wasn't Jerry West like 1-10 in the finals? His team was probably clearly the second best team every year.

[IamBBAnalysis]

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.

He really did though. It was obvious during his second run that he was just so much better than anyone during the time or before. Kareem is not a strong goat candidate at all.

[kcktiny]

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

This is absolutely true.

Despite 4 scoring titles, 4 time all-NBA 1st team, 3 times all-defensive 1st team his first full 5 seasons in the league (ages 21-27), this was the popular public narrative going into the 1990-91 season. Many of the so-called then media NBA experts were certain and stated it publicly that Jordan could not win a title playing the way he played.

The guy who wrote the article had the premise that Bird could do more things than any other player in NBA history.

When that article was written Bird had just won consecutive MVPs and was on his way that season to a 3rd MVP and a 3rd title. So lots of reasons to be called an all-time great. And in the article the author basically says he could be considered the greatest player of all-time.

But then again not many were going to read an article saying he was just the 6th or 7th all-time greatest player.

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.

Oh yes there were. Non-stop.

Jabbar vs. Chamberlain. Cowens vs. Reed. McAdoo vs. Jabbar. Frazier vs. West. During and after the 1972-73 season all we talked about when we hooped was Nate Archibald, Tiny, Nate the Skate. Was he the best ever? No one had ever done what he did (and still hasn't to this day).

Then later in the decade was the "best player ever" not even in the league? Then we got to see Julius Erving in the NBA and man oh man he did not disappoint.

We had a player play in the 70s (and 80s) that over a 10 year career played more than 2000 minutes in a season just once - yet there are those who even to this day consider him one of the greatest Cs ever (Bill Walton).

Chamberlain and Jabbar will always be in the GOAT conversation. Frazier will always be in the greatest PG discussion, Dr. J. in the greatest SF discussion.

Then there's Moses Malone, George Gervin, Artis Gilmore, Elvin Hayes. It was a great decade for the NBA.

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

Yes we do.

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... 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'.

You don't think a 6-0 record in the Finals in a league with 27-29 teams is very impressive? Especially when Jordan was Finals MVP in each one?

And no one I know "sweeps away" Russell's accomplishments. The difference is Jordan and James are close to similar players statistically when at their best, whereas in a Russell/Chamberlain comparison both were great defenders but Wilt's offensive numbers dwarf those of Russell. The argument has always been Russell's titles vs. Chamberlain's offensive output. Both are valid arguments.

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

This was not the common narrative back then in the 60s. Chamberlain's stats were outrageous, even to this day. It was always acknowledged back then that the Celtics simply had better teams.

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

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

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.

The 6-0 argument is probably the most illogical point frequently used in basketball discussions. Jordan reached the playoffs 11 times in his career. Following the logic of the 6-0 argument, if Jordan had made it to the NBA Finals in the five years when the Bulls were eliminated in the first or second round, it would have damaged his legacy. Name one other situation in which winning more games is somehow damaging to your legacy?

James has been to the Finals 10 times in a 2+ decade career. Jordan 6 Finals in 11 seasons. That's half of their seasons, and quite impressive.

Had Jordan (or anyone) made it to the Finals 11/11 seasons in the league, even if he went 6-5 in the Finals, would be far more impressive, especially considering how great Jordan was on both sides of the ball, as opposed to Russell who was great on one side of the ball.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[ScrantonBulls]

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.

He really did though. It was obvious during his second run that he was just so much better than anyone during the time or before. Kareem is not a strong goat candidate at all.

[kazyv]

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.

that's exactly it. rings will always be used when generational players come about. it most definitely was used against MJ. the difference is that MJ crushed that argument while lebron failed.

[Charlesareed]

It doesn’t matter when or why it started it’s not the reason he’s the goat also as Lebron continues to stack the deck and play with hofers and either don’t make the playoffs or win another championship as he continues to pad his stats in year 22 proves why MJ is the goat by the way in MJ era no other teams dominated the league winning 4/6 championships (gsw) 3-1 against LeBron along so yeah that 6-0 argument does kinda hold weight and has legs

[AmIWrongDude]

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.

that's exactly it. rings will always be used when generational players come about. it most definitely was used against MJ. the difference is that MJ crushed that argument while lebron failed.

Good thing rings are only part of the equation and are team accomplishments. They matter and they matter a lot but there’s much more than that in play. It’s not like years a player wins are the only ones that count.

[Johnny Bball]

Since the Bulls won six championships. in eight years. where he wasn't playing for two of them.

[bledredwine]

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

This is absolutely true.

Despite 4 scoring titles, 4 time all-NBA 1st team, 3 times all-defensive 1st team his first full 5 seasons in the league (ages 21-27), this was the popular public narrative going into the 1990-91 season. Many of the so-called then media NBA experts were certain and stated it publicly that Jordan could not win a title playing the way he played.

The guy who wrote the article had the premise that Bird could do more things than any other player in NBA history.

When that article was written Bird had just won consecutive MVPs and was on his way that season to a 3rd MVP and a 3rd title. So lots of reasons to be called an all-time great. And in the article the author basically says he could be considered the greatest player of all-time.

But then again not many were going to read an article saying he was just the 6th or 7th all-time greatest player.

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.

Oh yes there were. Non-stop.

Jabbar vs. Chamberlain. Cowens vs. Reed. McAdoo vs. Jabbar. Frazier vs. West. During and after the 1972-73 season all we talked about when we hooped was Nate Archibald, Tiny, Nate the Skate. Was he the best ever? No one had ever done what he did (and still hasn't to this day).

Then later in the decade was the "best player ever" not even in the league? Then we got to see Julius Erving in the NBA and man oh man he did not disappoint.

We had a player play in the 70s (and 80s) that over a 10 year career played more than 2000 minutes in a season just once - yet there are those who even to this day consider him one of the greatest Cs ever (Bill Walton).

Chamberlain and Jabbar will always be in the GOAT conversation. Frazier will always be in the greatest PG discussion, Dr. J. in the greatest SF discussion.

Then there's Moses Malone, George Gervin, Artis Gilmore, Elvin Hayes. It was a great decade for the NBA.

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

Yes we do.

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... 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'.

You don't think a 6-0 record in the Finals in a league with 27-29 teams is very impressive? Especially when Jordan was Finals MVP in each one?

And no one I know "sweeps away" Russell's accomplishments. The difference is Jordan and James are close to similar players statistically when at their best, whereas in a Russell/Chamberlain comparison both were great defenders but Wilt's offensive numbers dwarf those of Russell. The argument has always been Russell's titles vs. Chamberlain's offensive output. Both are valid arguments.

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

This was not the common narrative back then in the 60s. Chamberlain's stats were outrageous, even to this day. It was always acknowledged back then that the Celtics simply had better teams.

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

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

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.

The 6-0 argument is probably the most illogical point frequently used in basketball discussions. Jordan reached the playoffs 11 times in his career. Following the logic of the 6-0 argument, if Jordan had made it to the NBA Finals in the five years when the Bulls were eliminated in the first or second round, it would have damaged his legacy. Name one other situation in which winning more games is somehow damaging to your legacy?

James has been to the Finals 10 times in a 2+ decade career. Jordan 6 Finals in 11 seasons. That's half of their seasons, and quite impressive.

Had Jordan (or anyone) made it to the Finals 11/11 seasons in the league, even if he went 6-5 in the Finals, would be far more impressive, especially considering how great Jordan was on both sides of the ball, as opposed to Russell who was great on one side of the ball.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

That’s a damned good post.

[Charlesareed]

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.

MJ has 5 MVP Karl Malone won 1 in 97 despite the bulls going 72-10 MJ did go on to beat Malone in b2b nba finals tho

[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. Previous debates focused on just winning the big game; now, it’s about the number of times the big games are won in (x) number of attempts and how long it took to do so.