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

[Catchall]

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?

Ha! You're right. He rejoined the team at the end of the 94-95 season and played a dozen or so games. Yeah, I forgot that. He came out of retirement in March.

[kabstah]

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.

No, my logic says that Iguodala had a better WCSF than Russell Westbrook, which is absolutely true. I said nothing about the season as a whole. Read more carefully before you reply next time.

[pwrshft99]

Suppose you date a beautiful woman for 5-6 weeks. After its over, your friends want to know if you scored...

Do you want to say you got lucky 6 times....or say you got lucky 6 times and two other times you couldn't get it up?? This is literally the same thing

[bwgood77]

Very strange that more than half of the people who voted thinks it was more impressive for Jordan to lose to Detroit in the ECF twice than beat them.

If somehow Kawhi Leonard went insane and led the Spurs to upset the Warriors but then lost in the finals, it's strange that more than half would consider it to be more impressive had he lost, knowing he would have lost in the finals anyway.

To me, Jordan's career was storybook and that plays a part in his legacy. It was the Bad Boys holding MJ back and once he broke thru, no one stopped him again except father time. No one cares about the first and second round, only a few more dedicated fans remember conference finals matchup. Its about the championship and once Jordan got to compete for the championship, he didn't lose.

You would have the same storybook had he knocked out the Bad Boys denying them any championships twice (which would have added to his accomplishments, and certainly not the opposite) and you could say it was Magic and the Showtime Lakers holding him back and when Magic tried to threepeat against them, he finally broke through in 91, denying Magic and the Lakers a three peat, taking them out in 5, and going on one of two three peats, and being unstoppable then. That would have actually been more impressive to me, leading his team to the finals in his 5th year in the league and winning the EC/making the finals 8 times, instead of only 6.

[mtron929]

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.

No, my logic says that Iguodala had a better WCSF than Russell Westbrook, which is absolutely true. I said nothing about the season as a whole. Read more carefully before you reply next time.

What are you talking about? This whole thread is about evaluating careers as a whole. And you replied to my post first where I talked about how 3-3 can be greater than 3-4 upon evaluating Lebron's career as a whole and when it comes to legacy. You are the one who is confused about the proper context of this argument.

[mtron929]

Later on, when we evaluate Lebron's 2017 season as a whole, we will take into account his regular season numbers and his playoff numbers and grade him accordingly. Just because he played in the finals, that does not mean that his 2017 season as a whole would be automatically viewed as greater than if he had not played in the finals due to being eliminated earlier on. For example, in the extreme case, let's say Lebron James misses every shot he takes in the Finals and averages 0 points on 0/80 shooting? Would it still be the case that Lebron's legacy is enhanced because he made the finals? Of course not. Context matters.

[kabstah]

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.

No, my logic says that Iguodala had a better WCSF than Russell Westbrook, which is absolutely true. I said nothing about the season as a whole. Read more carefully before you reply next time.

What are you talking about? This whole thread is about evaluating careers as a whole. And you replied to my post first where I talked about how 3-3 can be greater than 3-4 upon evaluating Lebron's career as a whole and when it comes to legacy. You are the one who is confused about the proper context of this argument.

For 3-4 to be worse than 3-3 for LeBron (or for anyone for that matter), it would have to necessarily be true that his performance in that 7th Finals is worse than not making the Finals and giving NO performance. I'm telling you that's plainly ridiculous.

Bad performance > No performance

If that weren't absolutely true, I could argue that I have had a better NBA career than some end of the bench scrub, because my lack of NBA play somehow trumps his bad NBA play.

[slothrop8]

It is incredible beating a great Pistons team two straight years and making the Finals would make Jordan less impressive to more than half the board so far. It hardly seems possible to be honest.

[INKtastic]

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

in 2015 LeBron lost his PF in the first round. He still carried his team to the finals, sweeping a 60 win, 4 all star hawks along the way with his all star PG sitting out most of that series.

Why does Jordan get an asterisk for not having an all star PF when he's the player who made the turnover that lost the series?

Why do people think a 3-4 finals record through this point in his career is worse than the 3-0 record Jordan had at this point?

[OdomFan]

Because 3-0 is better than 3-4 no matter how you try and spin it.

[INKtastic]

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 1994/95 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.

strange to call people who watched the games kids, then use wikipedia as your source. This game was May 18, 1995.

When Shaquille O'Neal has children, and they are dunking over the children of Luc Longley and Will Perdue, he wants them to remember something.

"I want them to know I got to play against Michael Jordan," said O'Neal.

He might also regale them with tales of how his Magic team beat Jordan's Bulls, 108-102, in Game 6 to win their four-of-seven-game Eastern Conference semifinal series before a stunned crowd of 24,332 tonight at the United Center.

Has the jordan hype really gotten so out of hand that people actually believe these games didn't happen?

[INKtastic]

Because 3-0 is better than 3-4 no matter how you try and spin it.

so the 7 conference championship banners don't mean anything to you? Somehow LeBron would be considered better by having only won 3 of them? That epic game against the Pistons where he ripped out their soul somehow hurt his legacy?

[INKtastic]

Later on, when we evaluate Lebron's 2017 season as a whole, we will take into account his regular season numbers and his playoff numbers and grade him accordingly. Just because he played in the finals, that does not mean that his 2017 season as a whole would be automatically viewed as greater than if he had not played in the finals due to being eliminated earlier on. For example, in the extreme case, let's say Lebron James misses every shot he takes in the Finals and averages 0 points on 0/80 shooting? Would it still be the case that Lebron's legacy is enhanced because he made the finals? Of course not. Context matters.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Can't have him winning the conference finals because someone thinks, hey, maybe he'll go 0-80 shooting in the finals.

He wasn't good enough to beat the Pistons 2 years. he made the critical turnover to lose against the Magic one year. Make the plays to win two of those 3 times and come up short in the finals. That has to be better than not winning those series.

[D.Brasco]

Because 3-0 is better than 3-4 no matter how you try and spin it.

There's no way to spin anything.

Making a finals shouldn't be seen as a strike vs losing in the playoffs which is what you're describing.

Either way when it comes to championships only the final tally should matter. Nobody has ever used the 4 times Magic Johnson lost in the finals as a strike against his legacy because they only pay attention to the 5 rings he actually has.

The whole X out X finals is a meme LeBron haters came up with a few years back.

[Patches Perry]

I'm curious if Chris Paul's 0-0 finals record is more impressive than Kevin Durant's 0-1 finals record?

[INKtastic]

Magic Johnson was 5-4 in the finals. Kareem was 6-4 in the finals. How would those three players making it to fewer finals, playing the same number of seasons, but losing earlier in the playoffs, improve their legacy?

[D.Brasco]

I'm curious if Chris Paul's 0-0 finals record is more impressive than Kevin Durant's 0-1 finals record?

If players took up the mentality of some here they might actively want to start avoiding playing in the finals if not to blemish their perfect records.

Paul and the Clippers are really on to something with that.

[Jables]

Suppose you date a beautiful woman for 5-6 weeks. After its over, your friends want to know if you scored...

Do you want to say you got lucky 6 times....or say you got lucky 6 times and two other times you couldn't get it up?? This is literally the same thing

Ah, but many people don't care about scoring, they just people to know people are willing to screw them.

I think there's a difference between a loss because you just weren't good enough (and the team isn't if they can't even make it to the finals) though you gave it your all, and losing because you weren't prepared or didn't have the right mentality, once you make it to the finals there should be few excuses about the team not being good enough, though obviously with James 07's loss or Iverson's loss will never be held that harshly against them (or they will but only by idiots).

[OdomFan]

Because 3-0 is better than 3-4 no matter how you try and spin it.

There's no way to spin anything.

Making a finals shouldn't be seen as a strike vs losing in the playoffs which is what you're describing.

Either way when it comes to championships only the final tally should matter. Nobody has ever used the 4 times Magic Johnson lost in the finals as a strike against his legacy because they only pay attention to the 5 rings he actually has.

The whole X out X finals is a meme LeBron haters came up with a few years back.

I'm pretty sure plenty pay attention to magic and birds losses considering some of those Finals losses were against each other in the mids of their 1980s rivalry. Which was in fact a huge deal.

[OdomFan]

Because 3-0 is better than 3-4 no matter how you try and spin it.

so the 7 conference championship banners don't mean anything to you? Somehow LeBron would be considered better by having only won 3 of them? That epic game against the Pistons where he ripped out their soul somehow hurt his legacy?

impressive but not as impressive as 3-0.