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

[Tim_Hardawayy]

To think of this another way in smaller scope, people consider LeBron's 2011 Finals much worse than his 2014. But why? His team won an extra game, so clearly 2011 was better right? But ultimately he played so poorly he helped ensure his team's defeat, whereas in 2014 he was for the most part great and the team around him let him down.

So again, it really depends how MJ plays. If MJ coasts through the ECF and then disappears in the Finals while his team loses, that's absolutely worse than if he played great in the Conference Finals only to come up short.

[Jedi32]

If we are comparing finals records only then I really don't see what's so hard for many here to understand. One "finals record" is perfect and the other contains two losses. Unless there's an agenda I really don't see how someone could think losing twice is better than having a perfect record.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

If we are comparing finals records only then I really don't see what's so hard for many here to understand. One "finals record" is perfect and the other contains two losses. Unless there's an agenda I really don't see how someone could think losing twice is better than having a perfect record.

If you're simplifying it in that manner, 6-2 is obviously better than 6-0 because you got to the Finals 8 times and you won 6 either way. Getting to the Finals is not easy or guaranteed. The guy who goes 6-2 didn't get the opportunity for those 2 losses for nothing, they had to win 11-12 games to do so, at least in the modern era.

The nuance comes in when you examine how the individual player played along the way.

[mysticOscar]

At the end of the day...adding 2 finals losses is not gonna really add much to Jordans legacy.

Think the only real argument i see around here that i find somewhat remotely valid was his longevity compared to lets say Kareem.

So if Jordan performed his usual dominant fashion but his team just couldnt lift with him...then probably would add to his legacy especially from longevity point of view

[Johnlac1]

If we are comparing finals records only then I really don't see what's so hard for many here to understand. One "finals record" is perfect and the other contains two losses. Unless there's an agenda I really don't see how someone could think losing twice is better than having a perfect record.

You are obviously not looking at it the right way. Jordan played thirteen seasons with the Bulls. The goal of each player every season is to win the championship. He won six titles in those thirteen years. He wasn't six and zero, he was six for thirteen. Which is a tremendous record.
If you are somehow trying to say a player is more successful by losing in the conf. finals rather than winning the conf. finals and going to the finals, I'd suggest you think it through more closely.

[JLiv]

People wouldn't talk about a finals record if Jordan's wasn't perfect. Him going 6-0, combined with his overall excellence as a player, made the ring narrative relevant when questioning who the GOAT is. If he takes those 2 finals Ls, it raises his floor but lowers his ceiling in the all time conversation. Nevertheless, more finals appearances is better than less. But if we get to 2040 and no one eclipses Jordan, we'll start to see generational GOATS. 50 years later, idk how much Jordan will be worshipped. I find it kind of hard to relate to the nostalgia, seeing as how I was born in '97

[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.

Of course you put "finals" in there for that 8 years span, as his team lost in the playoffs in 1995. MJ's sojourn into minor league baseball is a whole other thing I guess.

But somehow losing in the EC playoffs is more prestigious than at least making it to the finals?

No, it's a simple argument. Every year that Jordan played during that time, he led his team to the Finals and won the Championship. That's his legacy. He was the most dominant player in the game and nobody could beat him in the 6 consecutive Finals that he played. No one has equaled that accomplishment.

If you're saying that there were years before Jordan won championships where his team lost in the playoffs, so what? There were years where Lebron's teams got swept in the 2nd round too. How many times has Lebron led his team to a championship? How many times has Lebron been beaten in the Finals? Lebron is a perennial All Star and MVP candidate. He's led his team to 3 championships. He's a historically significant player and has done things that few if any other players have done. He's just not the GOAT.

Shaq led the Lakers to three consecutive titles, then helped lead the Heat to win another. In total, Shaq had 6 Finals appearances and 4 championships.

Tim Duncan had 6 Finals appearances and 5 championships.

How about we compare Lebron's legacy to those guys for now.

[mtron929]

Well, let's put it this way. Lebron is 3-4 in the finals. I think he would be better off if he was 3-3 in the finals without making the 2011 Finals. Some of you might think that 3-4 > 3-3 but because his 2011 finals performance was so bad, I think in terms of his legacy, it would have been better off if he didn't make the finals that year. So it is not simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0. Context matters.

[Patches Perry]

No, it's a simple argument. Every year that Jordan played during that time, he led his team to the Finals and won the Championship.

That's not actually true though? They lost in the ECF in 1994-1995.

[Catchall]

The OP is a meaningless hypothetical. Would people respect Jordan more if he had more Finals appearances and lost those Finals?

I'd say no. Why would they? But the point is moot. Nobody beat Jordan in the Finals. He did a repeat-threepeat. That shows how incredible and dominant he was.

How about the OP ask, "If Jordan made it to the Finals 6 times, but only won 3 championships instead of all 6, would people still think he's just as good?" I'm pretty sure the majority of people would say no to that one. And in that case, they'd be describing Lebron's present legacy.

[pwrshft99]

No, it's a simple argument. Every year that Jordan played during that time, he led his team to the Finals and won the Championship.

That's not actually true though? They lost in the ECF in 1994-1995.

That team was not built as a contender. Grant left, the was a huge whole at power forward. Had Jordan not came back, Pippen probably would have moved on. Jordans last 6 complete seasons with the Bulls ended in titles. 94-95 gets an asterisk

[Catchall]

No, it's a simple argument. Every year that Jordan played during that time, he led his team to the Finals and won the Championship.

That's not actually true though? They lost in the ECF in 1994-1995.

So Michael Jordan is being judged on his NBA performance when he wasn't even in the league? Michael Jordan didn't play in the NBA during the 94-95 season. Maybe you're a bit young to remember.

[toodles23]

No, it's a simple argument. Every year that Jordan played during that time, he led his team to the Finals and won the Championship.

That's not actually true though? They lost in the ECF in 1994-1995.

So Michael Jordan is being judged on his NBA performance when he wasn't even in the league? Michael Jordan didn't play in the NBA during the 94-95 season. Maybe you're a bit young to remember.

You sure about that?

[Patches Perry]

No, it's a simple argument. Every year that Jordan played during that time, he led his team to the Finals and won the Championship.

That's not actually true though? They lost in the ECF in 1994-1995.

That team was not built as a contender. Grant left, the was a huge whole at power forward. Had Jordan not came back, Pippen probably would have moved on. Jordans last 6 complete seasons with the Bulls ended in titles. 94-95 gets an asterisk

Sure, I agree, but it kind of cheapens the rhetoric if you have to put so many parameters on it and make Jordan's "unbeatable" aura dependent on his rosters.

Jordan made the finals and won every single year for 8 years*
*Except when his team had a hole at PF
*Except when he missed games in the regular season
*Except when he was retired

[kabstah]

Well, let's put it this way. Lebron is 3-4 in the finals. I think he would be better off if he was 3-3 in the finals without making the 2011 Finals. Some of you might think that 3-4 > 3-3 but because his 2011 finals performance was so bad, I think in terms of his legacy, it would have been better off if he didn't make the finals that year. So it is not simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0. Context matters.

No, it really is as simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0 and 3-4 > 3-3. By the same logic, anyone who tries to argue that being 0-0 is superior to being 0-1 would rightfully be called an idiot because even getting to that stage and having the opportunity to lose is an accomplishment in and of itself.

[Patches Perry]

No, it's a simple argument. Every year that Jordan played during that time, he led his team to the Finals and won the Championship.

That's not actually true though? They lost in the ECF in 1994-1995.

So Michael Jordan is being judged on his NBA performance when he wasn't even in the league? Michael Jordan didn't play in the NBA during the 94-95 season. Maybe you're a bit young to remember.

Who was the guy on the Bulls who averaged 31.5ppg, 6.5rpg and 4.5apg in 10 playoff games in 1994-1995?

[mtron929]

Well, let's put it this way. Lebron is 3-4 in the finals. I think he would be better off if he was 3-3 in the finals without making the 2011 Finals. Some of you might think that 3-4 > 3-3 but because his 2011 finals performance was so bad, I think in terms of his legacy, it would have been better off if he didn't make the finals that year. So it is not simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0. Context matters.

No, it really is as simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0 and 3-4 > 3-3. By the same logic, anyone who tries to argue that being 0-0 is superior to being 0-1 would rightfully be called an idiot because even getting to that stage and having the opportunity to lose is an accomplishment in and of itself.

No it isn't, because how you play during these games affect the legacy. If Lebron goes to the finals and have following stats (10/5/3 30% shooting, 6 turnovers per game) in a 4 game sweeping loss, then making the finals will surely not enhance his legacy and make it worse. So 3-5 will not be better than 3-4 in this case.

[kabstah]

Well, let's put it this way. Lebron is 3-4 in the finals. I think he would be better off if he was 3-3 in the finals without making the 2011 Finals. Some of you might think that 3-4 > 3-3 but because his 2011 finals performance was so bad, I think in terms of his legacy, it would have been better off if he didn't make the finals that year. So it is not simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0. Context matters.

No, it really is as simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0 and 3-4 > 3-3. By the same logic, anyone who tries to argue that being 0-0 is superior to being 0-1 would rightfully be called an idiot because even getting to that stage and having the opportunity to lose is an accomplishment in and of itself.

No it isn't, because how you play during these games affect the legacy. If Lebron goes to the finals and have following stats (10/5/3 30% shooting, 6 turnovers per game) in a 4 game sweeping loss, then making the finals will surely not enhance his legacy and make it worse. So 3-5 will not be better than 3-4 in this case.

That's stupid.

You're saying that 0/0/0 on 0% shooting is better than 10/5/3 on 30% shooting. Going by that asinine logic, I had a better performance in the 2016 NBA Finals than Matthew Dellavedova.

[Catchall]

Okay, I'm dealing with kids here, probably kids from Cleveland. For those who are interested in learning about Michael Jordan's career, please refer to his wikipedia page here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan

Michael Jordan retired briefly from basketball during the 1993/94 and 1994/94 seasons. He didn't play. Whatever the Bulls did those seasons had nothing to do with him. He wasn't on the team.

So I'll repeat what I said -- Every year that Michael Jordan played between 1991 and 1998, he led his team to the Finals and won. He achieved a reapeat-threepeat with a perfect 6-0 record. He didn't just reach the Finals, he won every time he played the season.

Would he be even greater if he reached the Finals more and lost? The answer depends on whether you think championships are all that matters. In any case, it's a moot point. Jordan never lost in the Finals and he won 6. Wake me when someone gets close to achieving that.

[mtron929]

No, it really is as simplistic as 6-2 > 6-0 and 3-4 > 3-3. By the same logic, anyone who tries to argue that being 0-0 is superior to being 0-1 would rightfully be called an idiot because even getting to that stage and having the opportunity to lose is an accomplishment in and of itself.

No it isn't, because how you play during these games affect the legacy. If Lebron goes to the finals and have following stats (10/5/3 30% shooting, 6 turnovers per game) in a 4 game sweeping loss, then making the finals will surely not enhance his legacy and make it worse. So 3-5 will not be better than 3-4 in this case.

That's stupid.

You're saying that 0/0/0 on 0% shooting is better than 10/5/3 on 30% shooting. Going by that asinine logic, I had a better performance in the 2016 NBA Finals than Matthew Dellavedova.

Your logic is the asinine one. According to your logic, Andrea Iguodola had a better season than Russell Westbrook because Westbrook is 0-0/0 on 0% shooting in the 2nd/3rd/finals of the playoffs whereas Iguodola is putting up stats in the later rounds of the playoffs. Doesn't compute.