Is it really better to make the finals and lose?

MiltownHawkeye · Post #21 » by **MiltownHawkeye** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 6:20 pm

If making the finals and losing means a team was good enough to win it, that means that team choked, as per OP's logic.

So that means every team the 90s Bulls beat in the Finals was a choker.

How can Jordan be considered the best if every team he beat choked?

DwnShft2Xcelr8 · Post #22 » by **DwnShft2Xcelr8** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 6:32 pm

LeBron taking his team to 4 straight Finals has rattled the cage. Jordan stans have gone into deep hate mode. Anything they can use against LeBron is fair play to them now.
Next, they'll be saying, "Well, LeBron never starred in a cartoon movie! Lololololol Jordan GOAT!!!"
People need to stop being worried about another man's legacy.

Ettorefm · Post #23 » by **Ettorefm** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 6:38 pm

This guy's agenda is so blatantly clear that it's disgusting. Nothing to see here folks

NBA82 · Post #24 » by **NBA82** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 6:49 pm

Jordan stan arguments:

1) LeBron making the Finals four times in a row isn't even impressive, the East is terrible.

2) LeBron making the Finals out of the East proves that his team was so good that they should win the championship and any time they don't, choke job. Mo Williams, Scottie Pippen, stop splitting hairs.

3) Jordan's teams were only good enough to win the championship in the years they actually won the championship. Pay no attention to the Game 7 loss in the ECFs in 1990 or the blown 2-1 series lead in the ECFs in 1989.

4) ???

5) Jordan GOAT

XxIronChainzxX · Post #25 » by **XxIronChainzxX** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 6:53 pm

The east sucking argument is interesting, because during the Showtime Lakers era the West was pretty garbage.

Ettorefm · Post #26 » by **Ettorefm** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 6:55 pm

XxIronChainzxX wrote:The east sucking argument is interesting, because during the Showtime Lakers era the West was pretty garbage.

.
We can do that in almost every year, including judging the top team from that conference.

The 3 peat lakers faced the Pacers, 76ers and Nets, none of which are better ( IMHO) than the Spurs/Miami the last two seasons, so it's not like they had a very difficult title (they had difficulties in their conference, but the finals was pretty easy). Those teams are not even top 5 runner ups in the decade for me, maybe the Pacers
.
What I want to say is that we can nitpick every title and find something to diminish their accomplishments. So let's not.

SichtingLives · Post #27 » by **SichtingLives** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 6:56 pm

In the short term you'll get more respect for making the finals and losing. In the long term, nobody's gonna care or remember who had the most second place finishes unless they're comparing players/teams who didn't win a ring.

SlowPaced · Post #28 » by **SlowPaced** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 7:38 pm

Agenda is clear.

pass first · Post #29 » by **pass first** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 7:41 pm

abark wrote:So all other series are decided by who the better team is, but the NBA Finals is decided by who chokes the least?

Nice Bulls logo OP...

You mean logic, right?

dho4ever · Post #30 » by **dho4ever** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 7:45 pm

disenfranchised wrote:I keep hearing "it is better to make the finals and lose than to not make the finals at all." While I agree to an extent, I don't think it's that cut and dry.

My take...

IMO, if you have a team good enough to make the finals, you have a team good enough to win the title. (Most of the time) There are exceptions, obviously. However, if you don't even make the finals, then you absolutely had no chance to win the finals. (Most times) Therefore, if you make the finals and lose, you have failed because your team was good enough and you choked. The Heat, for example, were good enough in 2011 and choked. The Heat are good enough to win it all this year and if they don't, it'll be another choke. The Lakers in 2004 were good enough, but Kobe choked. If you lose before the finals, you usually just weren't a good enough team and there is no shame in that.

Why isn't Wilt considered better than Russell? Think about it. Why isn't West considered better than Kobe? Some players get it done when the lights are the brightest, while others fail because they don't have the 'alpha gene.'

Requesting ban.

number1joker · Post #31 » by **number1joker** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 7:47 pm

I only read the title of this thread

NO!

XxIronChainzxX · Post #32 » by **XxIronChainzxX** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 7:53 pm

Ettorefm wrote:
XxIronChainzxX wrote:The east sucking argument is interesting, because during the Showtime Lakers era the West was pretty garbage.

.
We can do that in almost every year, including judging the top team from that conference.

The 3 peat lakers faced the Pacers, 76ers and Nets, none of which are better ( IMHO) than the Spurs/Miami the last two seasons, so it's not like they had a very difficult title (they had difficulties in their conference, but the finals was pretty easy). Those teams are not even top 5 runner ups in the decade for me, maybe the Pacers
.
What I want to say is that we can nitpick every title and find something to diminish their accomplishments. So let's not.

The 3Peat Lakers are a bad comparison becuase they faced elite teams in their run up to the finals. Those Spurs, Blazers and Kings teams were so far above the East, they would have blown out the entire conference.

justinandimcool · Post #33 » by **justinandimcool** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 7:53 pm

Thread is BS, but that being said I'd rather get eliminated every other way than how the Spurs did last year.

pylb · Post #34 » by **pylb** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 8:01 pm

I believe 98% of the time, there's no such thing as choking at this professional level. It's just a handy narrative.

Also, have this little tidbit of math and probabilities:

...if one team is good enough to warrant beating another in 55% of its games, the weaker team will nevertheless win a 7-game series about 4 times out of 10. And if the superior team could beat its opponent, on average, 2 out of 3 times they meet, the inferior team will still win a 7-game series about once every 5 match-ups. There is really no way for a sports league to change this. In the lopsided 2/3-probability case, for example, you’d have to play a series consisting of at minimum the best of 23 games to determine the winner with what is called statistical significance, meaning the weaker team would be crowned champion 5 percent or less of the time. And in the case of one team’s having only a 55-45 edge, the shortest significant “world series” would be the best of 269 games, a tedious endeavor indeed! So sports playoff series can be fun and exciting, but being crowned “world champion” is not a reliable indication that a team is actually the best one.

Johnny Firpo · Post #35 » by **Johnny Firpo** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 8:53 pm

PaulieWal wrote:What if Miami loses with LeBron having a great series? It's not as simple as losing with a "team that was good enough to win". At the end of the day it is still a team game and he will need contributions from Bosh/Wade and Chalmers/Allen/Lewis/Birdman etc.

Sure, in that case, he'll get a pass from the educated fans, no doubt about it, and he should if that happens. If he doesn't play great however, i think it's fair game.

Johnny Firpo · Post #36 » by **Johnny Firpo** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 8:57 pm

MisterWestside wrote:Also, the '89 and '90 Bulls were good enough to beat those Pistons teams. Average margin of victory was 4 and 3 points, respectively; the '90 series went seven games. When you also consider the fact that homecourt is worth about 3 points, then you can say that the Bulls were in prime position to represent the East in both seasons.

What if those teams were overachieving teams? They were certainly young, and relatively inexperienced. Just asking for the argument's sake. As far as i'm concerned, those teams get a pass the same way as Lebron gets a pass for the 2007 finals. I don't think it was expected of that Cavs team to win in the finals, and i don't think it was expected from that Bulls team to win, at least not before they could finally do it, by the time their roster got better and more experienced.

DumbyTheWizard · Post #37 » by **DumbyTheWizard** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 9:02 pm

and if you had a good enough team to make it to the first round, then you were good enough to make it to the second round? and if you are good enough to make it to the second round you are not good enough to make it to the conference finals? and so on..?

spectacularmove · Post #38 » by **spectacularmove** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 9:31 pm

IMHO Lebron should never be critiziced for losing the 2007 Finals, that team belonged nowhere near the finals and got beaten by the better team.

As for the ones implying the 90 Bulls were ready for the finals because they went to 7, that's ridiculous, they (except MJ) didn't even shoot 25% from the field in that 7th game, that team wasnt ready to win.

Now 2011 its another story. Lebron clearly had the most talent and the Heat not only lost, but lost because of him. That is a black mark in his career whether you like it or not.

Why its a black mark? because he is so good that he is in the GOAT debate, and in that debate the standards are so high that something like that is (and should) be a factor.

DwnShft2Xcelr8 wrote:LeBron taking his team to 4 straight Finals has rattled the cage. Jordan stans have gone into deep hate mode. Anything they can use against LeBron is fair play to them now.
Next, they'll be saying, "Well, LeBron never starred in a cartoon movie! Lololololol Jordan GOAT!!!"
People need to stop being worried about another man's legacy.

Yes because he losing in the finals has not come up until now. Give me a break.

PaulieWal wrote:What if Miami loses with LeBron having a great series? It's not as simple as losing with a "team that was good enough to win". At the end of the day it is still a team game and he will need contributions from Bosh/Wade and Chalmers/Allen/Lewis/Birdman etc.

If thats the case, he should get no blame at all. The thing is I dont see him having a good series and not winning. Wasn't there a stat thats said every time Lebron got 30 or more he won against the Spurs?

baubo · Post #39 » by **baubo** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 9:32 pm

Sports is about relative expectations, not absolute expectations. If your team wins 30 games for 5 years, winning 50 and going to the 2nd round may bring you as much joy as a perennial contender like the Spurs winning the championship. I bet you Raptors fans probably had more joy this year than Indiana fans.

So you need context and expectation level before saying whether a certain achievement is good or bad.

Archerbro · Post #40 » by **Archerbro** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 9:35 pm

To me, that 07 year in the east was so bad that I pretty much knew it was going to be mavs spurs or phoenix as champions.

You can't really punish lebron for that, there was one decent East team the PIstons, and Lebron had one of the greatest games on his career. More than likely, that 07 cavs team doesn't make the playoffs (in some years) in the west