Would you be more or less impressed if Jordan was 6-2 in the finals?

[Laimbeer]

If Jordan's career were the same with one exception - in 1989 and 1990 he had made it out of the East and then lost in the finals - everything else being the same - would his career be more or less impressive?

[Warriorfan]

Less. Part of Jordan Legacy is performance in finals.

[Dr Spaceman]

I mean, depends on his level of play, but almost definitely higher. Beating those Pistons teams were no joke, I think I'd have to up my appraisal of how good Jordan was those seasons.

[Jedi32]

Yeah less, it's nice to get to the finals alot of times but I'm sorry it loses value when you lose. Being whatever and 0 means every time you went you lead your team to victory and that means more.

[SlowPaced]

Depends on how he performed. If he performed well and made the Finals, I'd be more impressed of course.

Finals Record without context is the worst argument in Sports and a good way of telling people apart in terms of the quality of their basketball opinions.

[pace31]

I really don't think it matters much at all, but 6-0 looks better than 6-2

[Warriorfan]

Less. Part of Jordan Legacy is performance in finals.

[Ambrose]

If Jordan beats those Pistons teams they never win a title and aren't remembered as favorably. So it wouldn't really benefit his legacy. Though as a general rule I think 6-2 should be greater than 6-0.

[ThaRegul8r]

Less. Part of Jordan Legacy is performance in finals.

How do you know how well Jordan performs in this hypothetical? Literally the only information you're given is that he makes it to the Finals and loses.

If Jordan beats those Pistons teams they never win a title and aren't remembered as favorably. So it wouldn't really benefit his legacy. Though as a general rule I think 6-2 should be greater than 6-0.

But the Pistons wouldn't have won until 2004 because of Jordan. Isn't that what's said about Malone, Barkley, etc? Why would that not be applicable in this instance?

As far as this topic, fortunately I have criteria for this. So I simply apply it since that's the entire point of having it.

11. Playoff Advancement. The object of the game is to help your team win. In lieu of actually achieving that objective, helping your team get as close to it as possible. Helping your team get to the semifinals > losing in the opening round; helping your team get to the conference finals > losing in the semifinals; helping your team get to the Finals > losing in the conference finals. Getting closer to the ultimate goal of winning is always a positive. Finishing farther away from it is always a negative. Helping your team get to the Finals but losing is always better than losing in an earlier round.

9. Individual Contribution. The only thing of relevance is how a player helps his team win, which means the player in question’s performance will be evaluated. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player receives no bonus for his teammate bailing him out. Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be assessed, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty. However, if he was instrumental in his own team’s defeat, he will be penalized accordingly.

[bwgood77]

More impressed of course. Losing in the ECF or before obviously isn't as impressive as had they won those series those years. Not sure how anyone could argue it's more impressive to lose earlier.

[slothrop8]

More impressed. Making the Finals is better than not making the Finals. Somewhat hilarious that this is even a question. More hilarious still that some are voting the opposite.

[NyKnicks1714]

The fact that this is even a question is just a big middle finger to logical thought.

[LALifer49]

I don't believe any of the people who say more impressed. While logically speaking, it would be more impressive since in those 2 years where he didn't make it he didn't advance as far, that is not how people see it narratively, and 6-0 undefeated in the finals is a huge part of his "unbeatable" narrative. This kind of thinking influences us more than thinking purely logically imo.

[oikosnomos]

Whatever answer discredits Lebron more.

[Ambrose]

Less. Part of Jordan Legacy is performance in finals.

How do you know how well Jordan performs in this hypothetical? Literally the only information you're given is that he makes it to the Finals and loses.

If Jordan beats those Pistons teams they never win a title and aren't remembered as favorably. So it wouldn't really benefit his legacy. Though as a general rule I think 6-2 should be greater than 6-0.

But the Pistons wouldn't have won until 2004 because of Jordan. Isn't that what's said about Malone, Barkley, etc? Why would that not be applicable in this instance?

As far as this topic, fortunately I have criteria for this. So I simply apply it since that's the entire point of having it.

11. Playoff Advancement. The object of the game is to help your team win. In lieu of actually achieving that objective, helping your team get as close to it as possible. Helping your team get to the semifinals > losing in the opening round; helping your team get to the conference finals > losing in the semifinals; helping your team get to the Finals > losing in the conference finals. Getting closer to the ultimate goal of winning is always a positive. Finishing farther away from it is always a negative. Helping your team get to the Finals but losing is always better than losing in an earlier round.

9. Individual Contribution. The only thing of relevance is how a player helps his team win, which means the player in question’s performance will be evaluated. If that player has a poor performance and another player picks up the slack to help his team win, then that player receives no bonus for his teammate bailing him out. Conversely, just as a doctor can try to the best of his ability to help keep a patient alive but fail, so can a player try to the best of his ability to help his team win but ultimately fail. His individual performance will be assessed, and if he didn’t help his team lose, he will incur no penalty. However, if he was instrumental in his own team’s defeat, he will be penalized accordingly.

[/quote]

That's a fair point. Though nobody is going around claiming Jordan ever beat any historic teams (Barkley's Suns, Malone's Jazz, etc) and I don't think him knocking off those two Pistons teams during their two titles years changes that agenda whether it's accurate or not. Unless it was a one-man carry job. Realistically going 6-2 should help him out.

[NyKnicks1714]

I don't believe any of the people who say more impressed. While logically speaking, it would be more impressive since in those 2 years where he didn't make it he didn't advance as far, that is not how people see it narratively, and 6-0 undefeated in the finals is a huge part of his "unbeatable" narrative. This kind of thinking influences us more than thinking purely logically imo.

I agree that without any context 6-0 looks prettier. If that's all you need then so be it.

[ShazamDaShiznt]

the idea of better losing before the finals instead of losing in the finals is one of the worst basketball arguments I have ever seen

being 6-2 in the finals is better than 6-0 because it means you were the best in the conference 8 times instead of 6 times

[Tacoma]

The Pistons won the Championship both 1989 and 1990. So in your hypothetical, had the Bulls beat Detroit in those years, they likely would've been more than good enough to beat the Western representative as well and MJ would be 8-0 instead of 6-2.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't believe any of the people who say more impressed. While logically speaking, it would be more impressive since in those 2 years where he didn't make it he didn't advance as far, that is not how people see it narratively, and 6-0 undefeated in the finals is a huge part of his "unbeatable" narrative. This kind of thinking influences us more than thinking purely logically imo.

So is this about whether you would be more impressed (whoever the "you" is that reads the topic), or about what most people would think?

There's no point in having a brain if you let other people think for you.

And if you know what "most people do," then it falls upon you to use that knowledge to think and act more intelligently. If you don't use what you know to improve yourself, then what's the point of knowing it?

"I know what makes more sense logically, but since most people don't think that way, I'm not going to either."

Sad.

[Scizzup]

I know it doesn't make much sense but that just how it is. People look at him as a "flawless" player that never lost in the finals or even needed a game 7. That's a big part of his legend.