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

[homecourtloss]

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

This.

[Tai]

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

It's more complex than that. If an all-time great player makes the finals, the stakes for him get significantly higher. Is this fair? Probably not, but once you are in the finals, it's a new game, new standards, new challenges. That's the monster the NBA created, the players, the writers, and we ourselves, by overrating the winners over and over again throughout the years.

So while technically, from a pure sports performance standpoint it is better to lose the finals than the conference finals, from a reputation standpoint, that's just not the case. And since reputation is so important on all-time lists, this has actual impact in the ranking. Because it's all subjective. If the NBA would create an official all-time ranking based of statistical data, this would not matter as much.

Even you to a degree don't answer the question. It's not a "new game, new standards, new challenges" from the Conference Semifinals to the Conference Finals? The casual eyeballs/ticket prices to games definitely increase from round to round.

What monster? MJ himself hasn't even won the most titles; are you taking Bill Russell over him? I didn't think so. So again, what is the monster you speak of, or is it just MJ's 6-0?

You even say reputation, but I've seen Lebron, as the glorious example these days, ripped plenty for not even making it to the NBA Finals in 2009 and 2010. To use your phrase, what constitutes "reputation" is subjective.

The real question is, what's gained from essentially giving credit to not making the NBA Finals over making it there?

[PDX MM]

I really don't care either way but I do really like the idea of the team out of the east losing in the 1990 finals. Someone needs to fire up the hot tub time machine and make that happen.

[ThaRegul8r]

....Why would I be less impressed?

So it's not even asking if Jordan won less in the finals, but got to more. It's he has the 6 championships, PLUS made the NBA Finals 2 other years he DIDN'T?

How is that not more impressive? Do the people who say they're less impressed understand what they're really implying?

Yeah, the 6 championships that he won remains unchanged. It's just that two additional Finals appearances are added in addition to what he did in actuality.

[dabonett]

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.

Ahahahah nobel price for sarcasm

[baldur]

Flawlessness matters and losing is losing.

[10DayContract]

I know this is a sneak Jordan vs. James thread, so let's consider this:

If you reversed the order in which they came into the league, meaning James played before Jordan, but their stats and accolades stayed the same, who would be viewed as The GOAT?

I still think it's Jordan, and I bet it would be even more obvious.

[B-Ball Freak]

One of the reasons why MJ is the basketball god is because his team went undefeated in the Finals...take that out and you have a mortal, still a legend but a mortal.

[Tai]

....Why would I be less impressed?

So it's not even asking if Jordan won less in the finals, but got to more. It's he has the 6 championships, PLUS made the NBA Finals 2 other years he DIDN'T?

How is that not more impressive? Do the people who say they're less impressed understand what they're really implying?

Yeah, the 6 championships that he won remains unchanged. It's just that two additional Finals appearances are added in addition to what he did in actuality.

Well I stand by my statement; I'm not sure why someone would be "less impressed" if Jordan MADE IT to two more NBA Finals, because that's two years he didn't even get there. We look at a team like the Clippers that are being looked at like "man, not even a Western Conference Final", and people are asking for Doc's job.

If anything, has it's been already alluded to in the topic, the question doesn't ask enough. Yes, in the losing efforts, did Jordan fade away Harden style, or just had great games in defeat?

[MartinToVaught]

I know this is a sneak Jordan vs. James thread, so let's consider this:

If you reversed the order in which they came into the league, meaning James played before Jordan, but their stats and accolades stayed the same, who would be viewed as The GOAT?

I still think it's Jordan, and I bet it would be even more obvious.

No way. You can't ignore how media coverage and fan expectations have changed since Jordan played. Reverse the order and Jordan would be the one getting nitpicked to shreds and LeBron would be the one with the untouchable mythos.

[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.

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.

Lol oh please, get off your high horse. It's easy to sit back and say that you would find 6-2 more impressive, it is obviously more impressive. The fact is though, if 6-2 were the case, Jordan would not be as highly regarded as he is at 6-0, narrative means something. And part of what makes people see Jordan the way they do is his aura of unbeatableness, which, although false because he lost every time he didn't make the finals, isn't how he is viewed, because narratively speaking it is the finals series that counts. I just don't buy that people would actually find 6-2 more impressive even if it is.

So yeah, I could bull and say I'd find 6-2 more impressive, but in reality, I think if 6-2 had happened, the story of MJ and how he is regarded would be different (though still considered GOAT) and that going undefeated in the finals contributes more to his legend.

[MartinToVaught]

Flawlessness matters and losing is losing.

Jordan wasn't flawless. He didn't win every year, he didn't make the Finals every year, hell, there were several years where he couldn't get past round one or even make the playoffs.

[SlowPaced]

The poll results so far is a testament to the quality of basketball discussion (or lack thereof) on the General Board.

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

What about people who think being 3rd is better than being 2nd?

[ThaRegul8r]

Lol oh please, get off your high horse. It's easy to sit back and say that you would find 6-2 more impressive, it is obviously more impressive. The fact is though, if 6-2 were the case, Jordan would not be as highly regarded as he is at 6-0, narrative means something. And part of what makes people see Jordan the way they do is his aura of unbeatableness, which, although false because he lost every time he didn't make the finals, isn't how he is viewed, because narratively speaking it is the finals series that counts. I just don't buy that people would actually find 6-2 more impressive even if it is.

So yeah, I could bull and say I'd find 6-2 more impressive, but in reality, I think if 6-2 had happened, the story of MJ and how he is regarded would be different (though still considered GOAT) and that going undefeated in the finals contributes more to his legend.

It's easy for me to say what I think about... anything, since I'm me. I posted my actual pertinent criteria.

But, again, what does what other people would or wouldn't say have to do with what you find impressive?

Do you have a mind of your own?

Can you form your own opinion?

Either you find it more impressive, or you don't.

It's as simple as that. Anything else is irrelevant.

You're still harping on how he would or wouldn't be regarded when this question is asking what do you think.

Smh...I'm done with this.

[THKNKG]

Narrative is a powerful force.

[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

It's more complex than that. If an all-time great player makes the finals, the stakes for him get significantly higher. Is this fair? Probably not, but once you are in the finals, it's a new game, new standards, new challenges. But once you are there, you better win... That's the monster the NBA created, the players, the writers, and we ourselves, by overrating the winners over and over again throughout the years.

So while technically, from a pure sports performance standpoint it is better to lose the finals than the conference finals, from a reputation standpoint, that's just not the case. And since reputation is so important on all-time lists, this has actual impact in the ranking. Because it's all subjective. If the NBA would create an official all-time ranking based of statistical data, this would not matter as much.

this terrible narrative was created by the jordan marketing machine

bird, magic, kareem, all those legends lost in the finals prior to jordan era. I think only bill never lost in the finals either, I might be wrong though

so as jordan set the bar so high the media keeps pushing this flawless in the finals narrative as if losing in the finals is actually embarrasment now, which is beyond stupid. There are lots of sports where winning a silver or bronze medal is a honour, unless the athlete/team is a really heavy favourite for a gold medal. In nba not every finals series has two closely equal teams, pretty often there is one favourite, so when a weaker team loses their whole trip to the finals still should be considered a big achievement

so the same applies to the jordan in here, like the topic says, if he actually beat those pistons in his earlier years he would be the underdog in the finals series against lakers. And losing to them would be better than losing to pistons because it shows that the team took it further in the playoffs

jordan in his 6 championship run never been the underdog, in 80s there were teams better than mj's 80s bulls. Like the celtics, pistons and lakers. Him overcoming one of those in the 80s would have been a big accomplishment, even if it meant losing to the lakers in the finals.

[LALifer49]

In this hypothetical thread, we are comparing 2 Jordans, one that went 6-0, and one that went 6-2. I think this premise is flawed. In reality only one of these Jordans can have existed, so let's say that Jordan had gone 6-2 in real life, that was his career. In that case, I still think he'd be considered GOAT, but don't think he'd be looked at as favorably as he is today having gone 6-0. In this scenario you have to pretend 6-0 Jordan doesn't exist. Like I've said a few times, is 6-2 objectively more impressive? Yes. But narrative and legacy matter, and I don't think people would consider a hypothetical Jordan that had gone 6-2 as a more legendary/impressive player than the real Jordan.

[ShazamDaShiznt]

In this hypothetical thread, we are comparing 2 Jordans, one that went 6-0, and one that went 6-2. I think this premise is flawed. In reality only one of these Jordans can have existed, so let's say that Jordan had gone 6-2 in real life, that was his career. In that case, I still think he'd be considered GOAT, but don't think he'd be looked at as favorably as he is today having gone 6-0. In this scenario you have to pretend 6-0 Jordan doesn't exist. Like I've said a few times, is 6-2 objectively more impressive? Yes. But narrative and legacy matter, and I don't think people would consider a hypothetical Jordan that had gone 6-2 as a more legendary/impressive player than the real Jordan.

if the athlete is asked to choose either 6 gold medals with 2 silver medals or just 6 gold medals without any other medal. Every athlete would pick the 1st option

in nba there is very little prestige of winning 2nd place. But the logic clearly says that 2nd place is better than any other place below that. Its a really bad narrative created by the media that "its better losing early in the playoffs than losing on the biggest stage in finals"

[NyKnicks1714]

Let's simplify things:

What's better, a silver medal or a bronze medal?

[magicman1978]

Depending on how he performs in the finals, I'd probably be more impressed if he was able to take his team past the Pistons those two years. I can't even understand the logic behind the "flawless" finals record.