Is it really better to make the finals and lose?

[soxfan2003]

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.

1990 the Bulls had a team very capable of winning in all but not a team that should have been expected to.

1989 I think was just a team moderately better then the 2007 Cavs team so they shouldn't have been expected to win it all.

When Chicago won their 6 titles, they were usually far better then the competition and were operating with a lot of room for error in the Finals. They never even faced a 7th game.

[MisterWestside]

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.

I posted this elsewhere.

Since James is still playing his career, his not-so-noteworthy games will be seen as him being "passive" and not "wanting" to win. As if the man literally decided to sabotage his teams on purpose by not scoring. The interesting thing, however, is that when Jordan was dropping 40 a night and his Bulls were perennial 1st round exits and/or got bounced by Detroit, he was seen as a selfish, ballhogging prick who chased scoring stats, froze out his teammates, and didn't play team basketball. He was everything unlike his winning contempraries in Johnson, Bird, amd Thomas. Nice how that narrative flipped as he grew into a winner.

Before Jordan won, there was no such thing as "He was great; his teammates just sucked" or "Those Pistons and Celtics teams were amazing, can't blame MJ for that". It was "He didn't get it done". This was before social media, but he was being labeled a loser who didn't know how to win in a team sport. Scoring POINTS! wasn't helping his case.

[Sixteen]

according to RealGM the only 2 acceptable scenarios for a team is winning the championship or having a top 3 overall pick.

Most of us arent Heat, Lakers, or Spurs fans. Excuse us for not wanting to be lunch meat for these teams every season.

[sipclip]

lol no agenda here.

Let's rephrase your question. Is it better to lose in the conference finals or the NBA finals?

That is what analysts would lead you to believe. I'm not saying Lebron is better than Jordan but I find it funny that most analysts believe that he can never catch Jordan because he has lost twice in the finals. If Lebron wins 6 titles but also loses 2 or 3 times in the finals he will be penalized.

[r3demption]

The further you go the more it hurts for sure on a personal note.

[Torres]

More like people say the opposite ala the argument of 6 for 6

IMO It depends how a star plays in a finals loss.

[disenfranchised]

Spurs are plenty good enough to win the title, but they choked again tonight. They choked last year as well.

Definitely not a dynasty, IMO.

[southern wolf]

according to RealGM the only 2 acceptable scenarios for a team is winning the championship or having a top 3 overall pick.

Sums up this forum perfectly.

[southern wolf]

Spurs are plenty good enough to win the title, but they choked again tonight. They choked last year as well.

Definitely not a dynasty, IMO.

Well this is a different era, but the Spurs of 99-07 were absolutely a dynasty team.

[Tai]

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.

I guess my question is wouldn't it had looked that much worse if the Heat lost in 2011 before the NBA Finals? You're telling me it wouldn't look worse to not even get out of the East?

So what about the 2007 Mavs? They're not frowned upon more for losing in the 1st round?

And people seemed to crap on Lebron in excess for not getting out of the East from 2009 and 2010. Are you and even the OP trying to argue that those weren't black eyes in his playoff career?

[B2Bhoops]

You don't need an agenda with Lebron playing in that east. Losing your one decent series per year is pretty fail.

[spectacularmove]

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.

I guess my question is wouldn't it had looked that much worse if the Heat lost in 2011 before the NBA Finals? You're telling me it wouldn't look worse to not even get out of the East?

So what about the 2007 Mavs? They're not frowned upon more for losing in the 1st round?

And people seemed to crap on Lebron in excess for not getting out of the East from 2009 and 2010. Are you and even the OP trying to argue that those weren't black eyes in his playoff career?

I think it really doesn't matter when the 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.

[Tai]

I think it really doesn't matter when the 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?

[vanboening21]

Well if you are good enough to make the Western/Eastern Conference Finals, aren't you good enough to win it? So wouldn't losing in the Conference Finals or any playoff series you make it to be considered a failure? No, losing in the Finals is the second best thing to do.

[BigtimeNBAfan]

Of course it is better to make the finals than to not make the finals just as it is better to make the second round and lose than to lose in the first round.

Michael Jordan is the greatest player ever, but one of the most overrated MJ stats is his 6 for 6 in the finals. Yes winning 6 titles is extremely impressive, but going undefeated in the finals is. You are telling me MJ's legacy is better that he went undefeated in the finals than had he beat the Pistons the 3 previous years and ended 6-3 in the finals? Give me a break.

If the Heat lose this year, people will rip Lebron for being 2-3 in the finals. While he may deserve some criticism for not getting it done, 2-3 in the finals is helluva lot more impressive than 2-0 with 3 first round exits.

[HeatFanSince87]

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.'

What god awful logic... You sound like Skip Bayless

[HeatFanSince87]

Of course it is better to make the finals than to not make the finals just as it is better to make the second round and lose than to lose in the first round.

Michael Jordan is the greatest player ever, but one of the most overrated MJ stats is his 6 for 6 in the finals. Yes winning 6 titles is extremely impressive, but going undefeated in the finals is. You are telling me MJ's legacy is better that he went undefeated in the finals than had he beat the Pistons the 3 previous years and ended 6-3 in the finals? Give me a break.

If the Heat lose this year, people will rip Lebron for being 2-3 in the finals. While he may deserve some criticism for not getting it done, 2-3 in the finals is helluva lot more impressive than 2-0 with 3 first round exits.

Finally someone with logic. Jordan was amazing, but the Jordan fanatics will turn anything pro Jordan just to save his GOAT image. Why not just appreciate both LBJ and Jordan for how amazing they are / were as basketball fans?

So it would have been better for Lebron to not carry his Cavs team past the 07 pistons in the ECFs at 21 to get to the finals? It would have been better for Lebron to have lost in 3 straight first rounds until he actually had a legit player to help like Jordan?


It's just nuts these days. It really is.

[doozyj]

Spurs are plenty good enough to win the title, but they choked again tonight. They choked last year as well.

Definitely not a dynasty, IMO.

Well this is a different era, but the Spurs of 99-07 were absolutely a dynasty team.

Dynasties defend titles, that's all I'm saying.

[dho4ever]

Spurs are plenty good enough to win the title, but they choked again tonight. They choked last year as well.

Definitely not a dynasty, IMO.

Can a mod please ban this guy? These cannot be serious thoughts.

According to this clown:

If the miami heat lost, it's because Lebron isn't as good as Jordan.
If the Spurs lost, it's because they choked.

[Le Chef]

its the opportunity of winning it even if you lose in the finals. not all players has the privilege to experience that. its better to reach the finals than not at all.