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

[LALifer49]

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.

And this whole time I'm trying to get people to grasp the implications of the thread. Why the Hell do you think this is even a question? And why do you think the poll is close? Do you think that people legitimately don't realize that 8 finals appearances is better than 6?

On my original post I was speaking generally, and you acted as though I was saying "i think since other people would consider 6-0 more impressive so do i durr" Now perhaps you're right, perhaps you wouldn't be swayed and would consider 6-2 more impressive, thats fine. But the question presented in the thread, if not delved into more deeply, is an extremely obvious answer, ofcourse 8 is better than 6. The fact is, the entire narrative, everything we think/know about MJ today would be different if his career had played out differently, and I don't think everyone is considering that and that many posters are using a form of bias in their answers. Now be done with this and don't reply or do, I don't care, though if you're gonna continue being as ass, I won't reply myself.

[D.Brasco]

There should be a third option no change.

Magic Johnson's legacy is based on his 5 rings not on the 4 finals where he didn't win. In the end it's just the final tally that counts.

[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.

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"

I agree with you on all counts (except that all athletes would pick the 1st option, for example don't think Usain Bolt or USA bball would.) But I think the narrative created by the fans/media sways people, especially over a prolonged period of time.

[INKtastic]

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.

wait, you think if LeBron's career was completed before Jordan (with however many more finals trips/championships LeBron might accumulate over the next few years already in the books), while Jordan was the recently turned 33 year old with 3 championships and about to play the team who eliminated him the year prior, Jordan would have a better argument than he has now?

Or are you somehow trying to set LeBron's incomplete career at an earlier time than Jordan's complete career?

[ShazamDaShiznt]

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.

so how come the basketball god could not make it to the finals in 80s era? how come the basketball god lost to the 95 magic team?

oh let me guess he was being generous and letting teams to win championships, jordan the basketball god thought 6 championships would be enough and he didnt try on the other years besides those 6

[SKTFaker]

I always make this comparison to normal people.

In college, if you pass 6 classes without failing... is that look better than passing 6 classes and failing 2?

[magicman1978]

I agree with you on all counts (except that all athletes would pick the 1st option, for example don't think Usain Bolt or USA bball would.) But I think the narrative created by the fans/media sways people, especially over a prolonged period of time.

Why would they not pick the first option - do you think they'd rather come in third than second?

[Johnny Firpo]

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?

Clearly, and I add, very, very obviously not. No one cares about the first round, second round and conference final compared to the finals. No one knows who is the player who scored the most points in the first rounds, second rounds or even conference finals. And not only no one knows, no one cares, whereas most of us know who leads the all-time scoring in the finals, and what are the different records there. It's very obviously a whole different stage, and while technically there is a jump in importance between the second round and conference finals, no one cares about it.

The casual eyeballs/ticket prices to games definitely increase from round to round.

So what? The finals is still a completely different animal.

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?

Russell played in a, what, 8-team league where there was no first round in the playoffs? Come on now. Competition matters, never said otherwise. What monster? The monster of "this is why we play". The monster of "heroes are made in the finals". The whole NBA finals is made to feel superior compared to every other round, and in a way, it is. You can become a legend with a great performance, and you can damage your reputation if you play bad. It's not even necessarily the losing. For example, I think Lebron gets more slack for his 2011 finals performance than he does for losing three finals.

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.

Well, of course, because he was yet to win it, and because he was likely the most hyped athlete ever. Yes, it is subjective, and yet, for most fans the finals matter unproportionally more. Again, it's not like I came up with this idea, I'm just telling it how it is. Don't kill the messenger, man. Or don't you agree that writers and fans alike care much more about the finals than they do about any previous round?

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

No, that's not the right question, because you are thinking about this as a math equation, which it's clearly not. This is a business, a show, a form of entertainment, and it has artifical values that the NBA created. Are they wrong? Of course they are, but that's just the way it is. That's the reality, however unfair it is.

[LALifer49]

I agree with you on all counts (except that all athletes would pick the 1st option, for example don't think Usain Bolt or USA bball would.) But I think the narrative created by the fans/media sways people, especially over a prolonged period of time.

Why would they not pick the first option - do you think they'd rather come in third than second?

Fair point, I guess my thinking was they'd rather not compete at all lol. Like Bolt, if he were to lose in the 100, I think it would hurt his reputation more than say not competing cuz he was injured, since his whole thing with the olympics is just wr holder, gold in every race, a bronze/silver medal would stand out amongst all the gold and kind of hurt his legacy as a perfect unbeaten olympic (he's not unbeaten career but olympics is the big ticket in track) racer. That said, Bolt's case is not the norm, yes many people would rather have the silver.

[magicman1978]

I always make this comparison to normal people.

In college, if you pass 6 classes without failing... is that look better than passing 6 classes and failing 2?

This analogy doesn't make sense. Even if you only count the 11 full seasons he played in Chicago, he won 6 championships out of those 11 seasons. There were 5 seasons he played where he didn't win (e.g., 5 classes he took where he "failed"). A more apt analogy would be of the 11 classes he took - he was the best in 6 of the classes. Now would it be better if he was also 2nd best in two other classes rather than being 3rd, 4th, 5th best or worst?

[INKtastic]

It's just bizarre the second option is actually winning this poll. That losing back to back conference finals 4-3, 4-2, was somehow better than winning those two years and losing in the finals. I guess Jordan's legacy dodged a bullet in 1990 when he lost game 7 by 19 points.

[Catchall]

The fact that Jordan took on all comers and remained undefeated in the Finals over a span of 8 years is extremely impressive. That's his legend and why he's GOAT.

After Lebron loses in this year's Finals, people will stop asking stuff like this.

[INKtastic]

I always make this comparison to normal people.

In college, if you pass 6 classes without failing... is that look better than passing 6 classes and failing 2?

no, it's more like saying 6 As and 2 Cs is somehow better than 6 As and 2 Bs

[INKtastic]

The fact that Jordan took on all comers and remained undefeated in the Finals over a span of 8 years is extremely impressive. That's his legend and why he's GOAT.

After Lebron loses in this year's Finals, people will stop asking stuff like this.

He didn't take on Houston, he turned the ball over and lost the game on the way there. The team went out and got him more help. He also never played against a team as good as last year's Warriors, much less this year's warriors.

[Dupp]

I can't believe people literally think it's better to lose in earlier rounds than the finals. Very logical.

[RamonSessions7]

It's just bizarre the second option is actually winning this poll. That losing back to back conference finals 4-3, 4-2, was somehow better than winning those two years and losing in the finals. I guess Jordan's legacy dodged a bullet in 1990 when he lost game 7 by 19 points.

Yeah I really don't understand how people could think option 2 is better.

[OdomFan]

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.

I don't think so because getting to the Big show means nothing to me if you don't get the job done. Jordans team made it to the Big Show 3 times in a row twice in a decade which is very impressive in itself.

[Black star]

Alas, if only all basketball fans could be so enlightened as to want to separate narrative and mythology from a game where men throw a ball into a hoop for entertainment. Clearly the best way to evaluate this entertainment business is through rigorous mathematical study and machine-like logical analysis. I would be less impressed if Jordan went 6-2 because going undefeated on the biggest stage sounds better than losing twice and that is important. It's not that complicated

[MisterHibachi]

This thread poll is not a good look for the GB.

[TankCommander17]

Depends on the context. What was the competition like? Was his team a favorite and he melted away at the moment? Or did he will his team to the finals only to lose to a stacked team?

Its sort of like how I view Bron's career. I see his 07 finals appearance as adding to his resume.

But his loss to Dallas and his disappearance in that game as taking away from it.