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

[Braggins]

Its pretty much insane that even a single person voted "less impressed", let alone half the people who voted. There are so many dumb/illogical sports fans.

[Johnlac1]

This is just ridiculous. If I have an option of 6 golds and 2 silvers vs just 6 golds, I take the 6 golds and 2 silvers every time.

Pretty much the only team sport are in the Olympics where people care about who finishes 2nd, unless counting spots for Champions League or something like that.

So you'd be satisfied if your team finished in last place instead of losing in the conf. finals?....just so you didn't lose in the finals, right?

[Braggins]

Easily less impressed if he was 6-2.

Jordan being 6-0 can tell you a number of things. One, he never choked away a series.

Ummm, no... That isn't what this tells you at all. He "choked" away plenty of series, they just happen to be series before the finals, which are strictly worse losses than losing in the finals. How is this even a thread...?

[Johnlac1]

The real question the thread is asking is how is the left side better than the right side?

The number 1 flaw here is amount of games. There's nothing wrong with the fact that Jordan played College basketball rather than going straight to the NBA nor the fact that he chose to go out on top each time his teams completed the 3 peat regardless of why he chose to do it.

and as far Lebron being in the Finals more times then Jordan goes thats no accomplishment either considering the goal is to actually close out the series which is something Lebron and his team failed to do not once, not twice but 3 times. So with that said shame on whoever created that silly image. Lebron fans will create anything to try to keep their hero looking good.

Actually, Jordan failed to "close out the finals" seven times. You can't have a chance to win or lose a finals if you don't get there. You can't really make an argument that not getting into a finals (and therefore not losing a finals) is a better achievement than getting to a finals and losing.
If your team didn't even get to the finals, you've failed. Jordan failed seven times. But a team that makes it to the finals had a better year than a team that didn't. That's irrefutable.

[Braggins]

I have a new idea for a poll.

Which is less impressive?

1) Not making the playoffs
2) Making the playoffs, but losing in the 1st round

Somehow I get the feeling that 50% of people wouldn't vote that losing in the first round is less impressive than missing the playoffs. Yet that is essentially what is happening with the OT poll. Good job realgm...

[kabstah]

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.

I don't think you are understanding the concept of averages when it comes to evaluating a player. When we evaluate some player X, we take into account accumulated stats as well as averaged stats. Because of the latter, it is not necessarily true that playing more games is necessarily better than playing less games as bad performance can hurt your average stats and thus negatively affect your legacy. Accordingly, it doesn't make sense to compare just the bad performance and no performance.

I understand averages just fine, the problem lies in that using average stats to evaluate Finals performance is just really, really stupid. There is no opportunity cost to playing in the Finals versus not playing in the Finals, therefore it can never, ever be worse to make the Finals versus not making the Finals. Decreased average stats don't matter at all.

Here's a simple thought experiment for you:

If we both start with $0 and someone gave you $20 million today, and gave me $20 million today and $1 tomorrow, that would make you poorer than me. If you tried to argue that you are richer by virtue of having a higher daily income, then you would be both poorer AND stupider than me.

[mysticOscar]

Easily less impressed if he was 6-2.

Jordan being 6-0 can tell you a number of things. One, he never choked away a series.

Ummm, no... That isn't what this tells you at all. He "choked" away plenty of series, they just happen to be series before the finals, which are strictly worse losses than losing in the finals. How is this even a thread...?

His had some bad series in a losing effort. But what particular series would you say was his worst?

I mean from what i remember...all those losing efforts...MJ tried carried his team.

He may had one or two bad games in that series...but if u contrast it to what the rest of his team did....his overall series on those losing efforts was pretty much a one man show.

Pretty much guaranteed that the worst playoff series that Jordan ever had is better than 2 of lebrons worst playoff series.

Not that i really give Jordan any extra legacy credits for those losing efforts....but i certainly know Lebron fans magnify this aspect about Lebron carry jobs....but for MJ we dont even mention it...because u know what those carry jobs in losing effort is not what defines MJs legacy.

That to me is why i have MJ as GOAT (from wht i have seen).

No need for excuses or disclaimers to prop him up

[Biff]

If Jordan didn't retire he would've had 8 rings. Which is insane when you think about it.

I think Bulls would have beat the Rockets in 93-94 but not so sure about 94-95. Not unless Horace Grant stayed and didn't sign with the Magic. But then do they sign Rodman? Hard to rewrite history and know exactly how things would have turned out.

[Braggins]

Easily less impressed if he was 6-2.

Jordan being 6-0 can tell you a number of things. One, he never choked away a series.

Ummm, no... That isn't what this tells you at all. He "choked" away plenty of series, they just happen to be series before the finals, which are strictly worse losses than losing in the finals. How is this even a thread...?

His had some bad series in a losing effort. But what particular series would you say was his worst?

I mean from what i remember...all those losing efforts...MJ tried carried his team.

He may had one or two bad games in that series...but if u contrast it to what the rest of his team did....his overall series on those losing efforts was pretty much a one man show.

Pretty much guaranteed that the worst playoff series that Jordan ever had is better than 2 of lebrons worst playoff series.

Not that i really give Jordan any extra legacy credits for those losing efforts....but i certainly know Lebron fans magnify this aspect about Lebron carry jobs....but for MJ we dont even mention it...because u know what those carry jobs in losing effort is not what defines MJs legacy.

I put "choked" in quotes in my post to use the words of the poster I was quoting. I wouldn't say MJ necessarily choked because his teams lost before the finals. I was just disputing the logical basis of people trying to say that losing in the finals is worse than losing before the finals. I had no intention of knocking MJ for his playoff losses. I was just pointing out that he has lost his fair share of series, just not any final series.

[mtron929]

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.

I don't think you are understanding the concept of averages when it comes to evaluating a player. When we evaluate some player X, we take into account accumulated stats as well as averaged stats. Because of the latter, it is not necessarily true that playing more games is necessarily better than playing less games as bad performance can hurt your average stats and thus negatively affect your legacy. Accordingly, it doesn't make sense to compare just the bad performance and no performance.

I understand averages just fine, the problem lies in that using average stats to evaluate Finals performance is just really, really stupid. There is no opportunity cost to playing in the Finals versus not playing in the Finals, therefore it can never, ever be worse to make the Finals versus not making the Finals. Decreased average stats don't matter at all.

Here's a simple thought experiment for you:

If we both start with $0 and someone gave you $20 million today, and gave me $20 million today and $1 tomorrow, that would make you poorer than me. If you tried to argue that you are richer by virtue of having a higher daily income, then you would be both poorer AND stupider than me.

Except this analogy is just irrelevant, because there is nothing subjective about making comparisons between who has more money. However, in terms of evaluating players and their legacies, then subjectivity does creep in. Moreover, I am not using averages to evaluate Finals performance vs no finals performance, I am using averages to compare the entire year's worth of games which may or may not include finals. Moreover, you are discounting the possibility that it is conceivable that a team can proceed further into the playoffs despite a specific player's bad performance in a playoff series. In this case, I look negatively on the player's contributions for that series because it actually made it more difficult for a team to proceed due to his poor performance. I think this is a more nuanced way of looking at this as opposed to having a simplistic point of view of perfectly correlating team's performance with individual's contributions.

[DeandreJordan]

Making it is impressive. Some players never do. Though 6-0 looks better

[Jedi32]

Honestly Bron fans if you want to call him the goat just do it. Trying to move goal posts and throwing lame insults at the intelligence of those who disagree with you is not needed. To some just getting there doesn't cut it, now you can disagree but it is what it is. I don't see people propping up players like reggie Miller for going to the finals.

[dabonett]

Why it's less impressive:
If you have an easy path to the finals it's easier to win the titles. It's statistics as the probability of winning two consecutive series with 50% prob each is lower than one at 40% for instance.
Moreover it's a nonsense talking about number of finals when a conference is a joke.
Clutch factor. When it matters the most you don't choke
A mere winning record 100% vs 75%. Which is better?
Retirement factor and college ( as you all are comparing mj vs Lbj). At 35 you will have six more seasons.

[r3demption]

Do players like Charless , A.I, and Reggie Miller get some kind of award for just making it to the finals?

[Coxy]

Trick question, the Bulls would be 8-0.

[Capn'O]

This is a proxy LeBron argument.

LeBron needs to win more titles to get GOAT consideration. Period. His receipts are impressive but not as impressive as Jordan's yet.

LeBron has the exact same number of championships at this age as Jordan had at the same age.

Cool. Now all he needs are three more, ideally with some of them consecutive. Then those other Finals appearances start to mean something. Should be a breeze for the greatest player of all time.

[Braggins]

Honestly Bron fans if you want to call him the goat just do it. Trying to move goal posts and throwing lame insults at the intelligence of those who disagree with you is not needed. To some just getting there doesn't cut it, now you can disagree but it is what it is. I don't see people propping up players like reggie Miller for going to the finals.

Not getting there by losing before the finals also "doesn't cut it", but it is objectively worse than getting there and losing. This isn't rocket science.

[deneem4]

Would lebron have a better legacy if he was 3-0 or 3-4

[homecourtloss]

Its pretty much insane that even a single person voted "less impressed", let alone half the people who voted. There are so many dumb/illogical sports fans.

It's stunning, really.

[mysticOscar]

I think its really simple...if the losses in the finals in the 80s against lets say the Lakers...that means MJ would have beaten the Celtics and Pistons...then absoloutely its more impressive.

But if lets say the losses happened around the 90s...then no its not ias mpressive. Its hard to explain for ppl that didnt really follow NBA at that time. MJ and the Bulls had the aura...like they were invinsible...with globally the biggest athlete and arguably the most popular team at the time.

If they lost twice in that span...that aura would be diminished somewhat.

Yes logically u can say but 6-2 is better than 6-0...but theres a human element to it.....otherwise....for Lebrons fans...lets say Lebrons championship last year is = to any championship because 1=1.

Actually hard to explain to ppl that didnt follow nba back then