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

[MartinToVaught]

Really helps explain why CP3 is so coddled and protected from criticism on here when this is the mindset. Meanwhile, players who have actually won championships are nitpicked to shreds.

Is he? I thought he's known as a perennial playoff choker. 2nd round CP3.

As someone who doesn't coddle him even though he's on my favorite team, I know from experience that you can't say anything critical of him without a bunch of CP3 fans jumping down your throat immediately.

[Johnlac1]

I've never understood why for so many people losing in the finals is supposed to be worse for a superstar's legacy than losing in the previous rounds. Just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I tend to give more respect to a player who hasn't taken his team to a finals even if he didn't win.
There are numerous great players in the league who have never even competed for a conf. title despite being on a decent team.
Getting to a finals for many players was tougher than actually playing in the finals. Chamberlain played on some excellent Philly teams that got beat by Boston in the conf. semis. Those teams would have had a 50-50 chance in the finals at worst.

[LeBird]

Imagine what kind of nonsense you have to convince yourself of where not making the finals is better than making it and losing.

[LeBird]

That's me though, and I understand if someone else disagrees. Lebron can win 8 rings and not lose another finals again, and the that pathetic display against the Mavs will always be a blackmark that will deny him a throne for Greatest of All Time. It's not fair, but when we are discussing GOAT, every inch, every hair, and every detail matters. That's how it goes.

You're right, first round exits for Jordan and poor regular seasons in his first few years matters...every hair and inch...ergo, he can't be the GOAT.

[OdomFan]

I've never understood why for so many people losing in the finals is supposed to be worse for a superstar's legacy than losing in the previous rounds. Just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I tend to give more respect to a player who hasn't taken his team to a finals even if he didn't win.
There are numerous great players in the league who have never even competed for a conf. title despite being on a decent team.
Getting to a finals for many players was tougher than actually playing in the finals. Chamberlain played on some excellent Philly teams that got beat by Boston in the conf. semis. Those teams would have had a 50-50 chance in the finals at worst.

Ill always have respect for the 2001-2002 Boston Celtics team that lost in the Eastern Conference Finals to the New Jersey Nets that went on to get swept by LA in the Finals that year. I believe Lakers win the series regardless but that Boston would have stood a better chance considering the fact that Boston beat the Lakers both times they played them in that season.

[doozyj]

Neither. A losing season is a losing season, whether the team is lottery bound, first round exit or a loss in the finals. The games is about championships.

[Jedi32]

Yeah less, it's nice to get to the finals alot of times but I'm sorry it loses value when you lose. Being whatever and 0 means every time you went you lead your team to victory and that means more.

It's such an odd way of thinking. It truly doesn't make any sense because we are saying that Jordan getting closer to the ultimate goal more often but losing sometimes in the final matchup would be less impressive than him never losing when he got to the final matchup, but not getting there as often. He's actually winning less in the second scenario, but because of the idea of being "perfect" at something and having that _ - 0 it is elevated higher.

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

4-3

See I think that's the disconnect here. He's actually not winning less imo, as I said earlier I've never seen players celebrated for just getting there. No one talks about Magic's 9 finals they talk about his 5 rings. People can continue to say it makes no sense to them and that's fine because the way you broke it down makes no sense to me. Now that's not a dig at you, that's just the way I was taught to evaluate and play basketball. In the NBA no one cares who comes in second. So I'm sorry just getting there doesn't= winning more to me. They both only won 6, the difference is when one guy got there he always walked away victorious and that says alot.

[Hornet Mania]

It's not really about when you lost, it's about the way you lost and who the opponent was.

Jordan didn't lose to teams he was expected to defeat, and that's very impressive. If Jordan was 6-2 in the Finals because he was upset twice by an underdog I would not be more impressed with his results. If Jordan went 6-2 in the Finals because he lost to clearly superior opponents and played well in defeat, as was generally the case with him, then it would be slightly more impressive but wouldn't move the needle all that much for me. It doesn't matter whether you lose to the champs (in his case Detroit) in the ECF or the actual Finals.

[ajdontwatchthat]

Whatever answer discredits Lebron more.

This.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

I think people misunderstand the undefeated Finals part of Jordan's legacy.

It is not that he was undefeated in the Finals. It was that Jordan won a title for 6 consecutive years in which he played a full season. If he had went 6-0 in the Finals, but his titles were in 1988,89,91,93,96,98 (spread out), then it would have diminished the accomplishment. It was about being unbeatable in his prime. If he lost in the Conference Finals in 97 and 92, but was still 6-0 in the Finals, his legacy would have been less because he would have been proven beatable.

[Emhoward]

If, in those 2 losses, he would have performed like LeBron in 2011 or 2014 I would have been less impressed.

If he performed like Lebron in 2015 I would have been more impressed.

If, hypothetically, Lebron and the Heat had lost to the Bulls in the conf. Finals, but LeBron played similar to how he did two years prior against the Magic, it would have been better had he not made it. Why? Because he didn't just play bad against the Mavs, perception is that he shrank. That really dinged him in some peoples eyes. When people bring up chinks in Lebrons armor, they don't bring up 2009 against the Magic, or 2010 against the Celts, they bring up the Mavs.

Or put it this way, would it have been better for Harden to lose against the thunder or to lose how he eventually did? Is advancing further better even when the step up in competition exposes a huge flaw in your game.

Or to use the Olympic analogy someone else brought up... In 2011, leBron won silver, but he won it with everyone in the basketball community saying under their breath "sure he won silver, but the guy doesn't have what it takes to win Gold". Perhaps Bronze> silver with an asterisk. Fortunately for LeBron he proved Gold wasnt out of reach.

Of course we don't know how Jordan performed in the two hypothetical finals loses. We weren't given that inforrmation, I was just trying to build an argument that advancing isnt ALWAYS better. Although 9 times out of 10, it is.

[og15]

Yeah less, it's nice to get to the finals alot of times but I'm sorry it loses value when you lose. Being whatever and 0 means every time you went you lead your team to victory and that means more.

It's such an odd way of thinking. It truly doesn't make any sense because we are saying that Jordan getting closer to the ultimate goal more often but losing sometimes in the final matchup would be less impressive than him never losing when he got to the final matchup, but not getting there as often. He's actually winning less in the second scenario, but because of the idea of being "perfect" at something and having that _ - 0 it is elevated higher.

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

4-3

See I think that's the disconnect here. He's actually not winning less imo, as I said earlier I've never seen players celebrated for just getting there. No one talks about Magic's 9 finals they talk about his 5 rings. People can continue to say it makes no sense to them and that's fine because the way you broke it down makes no sense to me. Now that's not a dig at you, that's just the way I was taught to evaluate and play basketball. In the NBA no one cares who comes in second. So I'm sorry just getting there doesn't= winning more to me. They both only won 6, the difference is when one guy got there he always walked away victorious and that says alot.

In which case are you wining more, losing in the second round or losing in the finals? Essentially we're saying that it would diminish Jordan's legacy for example if one of his earlier Bulls teams somehow broke through and lost to a better and more talented team in the finals.

Why does that make sense? Do you think lesser of Magic because the Lakers didn't win every finals he was in? Would you think better of him if he only went to the finals 5 times but was 5-0? Why? This would mean that the Lakers were losing series' in the WC against teams we would generally consider them to have the advantage against.

[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.

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?

The latter. The only hypothetical I'm using is their careers being reversed.

I'll also put this out there. If you guys think Lebron is The Goat from what he's done so far, (or what you think he will do), then you should have Kareem as The Goat already because his career looks more like Lebron's than Jordan's.

[Dupp]

Really helps explain why CP3 is so coddled and protected from criticism on here when this is the mindset. Meanwhile, players who have actually won championships are nitpicked to shreds.

Is he? I thought he's known as a perennial playoff choker. 2nd round CP3.

As someone who doesn't coddle him even though he's on my favorite team, I know from experience that you can't say anything critical of him without a bunch of CP3 fans jumping down your throat immediately.

I think you have a lot of fair criticism of cp3 but a lot of people don't. They just look at the results and not his play.

He's had a number of bad moments in key games but who hasn't? Harden just gave up, durants choked before. Cp3 has never really had a teammate step up big like some other guys even if he himself has a lot to answer for.

Even Lebron needed a big game from wade not to go down 3-1 to the pacers a few years back.

[MC3]

Jordan would never lose a Finals. Or he would never go into 7 game.

Do you know how I know that?

He was that good. Some say he was GOAT. So this scenario doesnt exist.

[TheGOATRises007]

If, in those 2 losses, he would have performed like LeBron in 2011 or 2014 I would have been less impressed.

If he performed like Lebron in 2015 I would have been more impressed.

If, hypothetically, Lebron and the Heat had lost to the Bulls in the conf. Finals, but LeBron played similar to how he did two years prior against the Magic, it would have been better had he not made it. Why? Because he didn't just play bad against the Mavs, perception is that he shrank. That really dinged him in some peoples eyes. When people bring up chinks in Lebrons armor, they don't bring up 2009 against the Magic, or 2010 against the Celts, they bring up the Mavs.

Or put it this way, would it have been better for Harden to lose against the thunder or to lose how he eventually did? Is advancing further better even when the step up in competition exposes a huge flaw in your game.

Or to use the Olympic analogy someone else brought up... In 2011, leBron won silver, but he won it with everyone in the basketball community saying under their breath "sure he won silver, but the guy doesn't have what it takes to win Gold". Perhaps Bronze> silver with an asterisk. Fortunately for LeBron he proved Gold wasnt out of reach.

Of course we don't know how Jordan performed in the two hypothetical finals loses. We weren't given that inforrmation, I was just trying to build an argument that advancing isnt ALWAYS better. Although 9 times out of 10, it is.

Lebron was better in the 2014 finals than 2015.

His 2015 finals is severely overrated.

The exact same stick people give Westbrook now, that was basically Lebron in 2015.

[Emhoward]

If, in those 2 losses, he would have performed like LeBron in 2011 or 2014 I would have been less impressed.

If he performed like Lebron in 2015 I would have been more impressed.

If, hypothetically, Lebron and the Heat had lost to the Bulls in the conf. Finals, but LeBron played similar to how he did two years prior against the Magic, it would have been better had he not made it. Why? Because he didn't just play bad against the Mavs, perception is that he shrank. That really dinged him in some peoples eyes. When people bring up chinks in Lebrons armor, they don't bring up 2009 against the Magic, or 2010 against the Celts, they bring up the Mavs.

Or put it this way, would it have been better for Harden to lose against the thunder or to lose how he eventually did? Is advancing further better even when the step up in competition exposes a huge flaw in your game.

Or to use the Olympic analogy someone else brought up... In 2011, leBron won silver, but he won it with everyone in the basketball community saying under their breath "sure he won silver, but the guy doesn't have what it takes to win Gold". Perhaps Bronze> silver with an asterisk. Fortunately for LeBron he proved Gold wasnt out of reach.

Of course we don't know how Jordan performed in the two hypothetical finals loses. We weren't given that inforrmation, I was just trying to build an argument that advancing isnt ALWAYS better. Although 9 times out of 10, it is.

Lebron was better in the 2014 finals than 2015.

His 2015 finals is severely overrated.

The exact same stick people give Westbrook now, that was basically Lebron in 2015.

Yeah you're right, I'm not sure why I threw that in there.

[MartinToVaught]

Is he? I thought he's known as a perennial playoff choker. 2nd round CP3.

As someone who doesn't coddle him even though he's on my favorite team, I know from experience that you can't say anything critical of him without a bunch of CP3 fans jumping down your throat immediately.

I think you have a lot of fair criticism of cp3 but a lot of people don't. They just look at the results and not his play.

He's had a number of bad moments in key games but who hasn't? Harden just gave up, durants choked before. Cp3 has never really had a teammate step up big like some other guys even if he himself has a lot to answer for.

Even Lebron needed a big game from wade not to go down 3-1 to the pacers a few years back.

Chandler and West stepped up against the Spurs in '08. Especially Chandler, with the phenomenal defense he played on Duncan.

As for Paul's Clippers days: Blake gets a ton of flak, but there's been several series where he's been our best player or it's been 1A and 1B between him and Chris.

Paul's biggest issue hasn't been not having enough help. It's been his own inconsistency. I think the Jazz series is a microcosm of that: for most of the series, he was the aggressive, dominant, clutch player we all want him to be come playoff time. But then, as he did in Games 1 and 7, he'll come out refusing to shoot and expecting proven scrubs like Jamal to bail him out.

I don't buy that it's because he's too small to be a scorer, as is the common explanation. He has had playoff performances that prove otherwise, and more than ever before, the game is geared towards small point guards. I think it's a mental issue.

[Dupp]

As someone who doesn't coddle him even though he's on my favorite team, I know from experience that you can't say anything critical of him without a bunch of CP3 fans jumping down your throat immediately.

I think you have a lot of fair criticism of cp3 but a lot of people don't. They just look at the results and not his play.

He's had a number of bad moments in key games but who hasn't? Harden just gave up, durants choked before. Cp3 has never really had a teammate step up big like some other guys even if he himself has a lot to answer for.

Even Lebron needed a big game from wade not to go down 3-1 to the pacers a few years back.

Chandler and West stepped up against the Spurs in '08. Especially Chandler, with the phenomenal defense he played on Duncan.

As for Paul's Clippers days: Blake gets a ton of flak, but there's been several series where he's been our best player or it's been 1A and 1B between him and Chris.

Paul's biggest issue hasn't been not having enough help. It's been his own inconsistency. I think the Jazz series is a microcosm of that: for most of the series, he was the aggressive, dominant, clutch player we all want him to be come playoff time. But then, as he did in Games 1 and 7, he'll come out refusing to shoot and expecting proven scrubs like Jamal to bail him out.

I don't buy that it's because he's too small to be a scorer, as is the common explanation. He has had playoff performances that prove otherwise, and more than ever before, the game is geared towards small point guards. I think it's a mental issue.

He's had good game 7s too but yeah that jazz loss is on him.

Has Blake really had more than one good playoff run? Blakes also choked in big moments.

I don't really buy they've had enough help. Maybe it's both because Paul's had his bad moments but your team has not offered great support often.

I didn't even consider 08 on my thinking. Paul was pretty great in that series and very young.

[LeBird]

Lebron was better in the 2014 finals than 2015.

His 2015 finals is severely overrated.

The exact same stick people give Westbrook now, that was basically Lebron in 2015.

Except Westbrook has more help and probably would have been swept.