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

[dynamic duo]

94 lebron haters confirmed

[Winter]

It really depends on what happen in the 2 loss. Assume Jordan still performed unstoppable, just his team has bad luck, then that is one story. If Jordan disappeared or show weakness in even one of them, then I am pretty sure people will let us remember these two loss forever when talked about goat status

[yongaz]

If ya ain't 1st you're last.

Giving credit for Finals losses is like handing out participation trophies.

By that logic, the Spurs and the Nets have both had equally successful (or unsuccessful) seasons.

Wrong, Spurs is a great team, Nets suck. You can call one team is successful, the other is not.

But the question is would you be more impressed if a team goes to final and loses. Being successful doesn't mean more impressed.

For example: Apple is obviously a successful company. But am I more impressed about their recent products? Not so much.

Your logic and comparison with Apple is extremely faulty, like most other "logic" for those saying less impressed. You can say that it makes for a worst narrative, but how can you be less impressed with more success?

Your "logic" doesn't apply for the following reasons:

Apple as a company = Jordan as a player, as in overall picture
Products = matches, as in individual specifics.

The question is asking if you would be more impressed with a Jordan as a player, as in the overall picture, if he had more wins and got further.

The equivalent would be like asking if you were more impressed with Apple if they had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them, before the iPhone, or if they had nothing at all going on for them before that.

So yes in essence, it's really all about narrative, as per my previous post and not really common sense or logic in any way, shape or form. If I was Steve Jobs, no way would I say that "oh nah I'd rather not have competed with Nokia and lost... I mean sure if I had the opportunity to create a product and make tens of millions of dollars, but would probably not outsell Nokia... nah why would I?"

.... except with Jordan's case he DID compete, AND lost before the Finals, as in (using the same analogy), he not only didn't outsell Nokia, he came behind Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well.

This is REALLY doing my head in. If I ever get into an argument with people on RealGM, this thread will be a reminder of why you should never get into an argument on the internets.

[Myth]

It depends on his path to the Finals, his opponents in the Finals, and his performance in the Finals.

[GermanFan120]

By that logic, the Spurs and the Nets have both had equally successful (or unsuccessful) seasons.

Wrong, Spurs is a great team, Nets suck. You can call one team is successful, the other is not.

But the question is would you be more impressed if a team goes to final and loses. Being successful doesn't mean more impressed.

For example: Apple is obviously a successful company. But am I more impressed about their recent products? Not so much.

Your logic and comparison with Apple is extremely faulty, like most other "logic" for those saying less impressed. You can say that it makes for a worst narrative, but how can you be less impressed with more success?

Your "logic" doesn't apply for the following reasons:

Apple as a company = Jordan as a player, as in overall picture
Products = matches, as in individual specifics.

The question is asking if you would be more impressed with a Jordan as a player, as in the overall picture, if he had more wins and got further.

The equivalent would be like asking if you were more impressed with Apple if they had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them, before the iPhone, or if they had nothing at all going on for them before that.

So yes in essence, it's really all about narrative, as per my previous post and not really common sense or logic in any way, shape or form. If I was Steve Jobs, no way would I say that "oh nah I'd rather not have competed with Nokia and lost... I mean sure if I had the opportunity to create a product and make tens of millions of dollars, but would probably not outsell Nokia... nah why would I?"

.... except with Jordan's case he DID compete, AND lost before the Finals, as in (using the same analogy), he not only didn't outsell Nokia, he came behind Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well.

This is REALLY doing my head in. If I ever get into an argument with people on RealGM, this thread will be a reminder of why you should never get into an argument on the internets.

I won't be impressed if APPLE had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them. Why would I be impressed by that? Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal? LOL

[INKtastic]

It depends on his path to the Finals, his opponents in the Finals, and his performance in the Finals.

We know his path to the finals, he lost on those paths, the OP asked if he won on those paths, would it be more or less impressive than has having lost on those paths.

[Myth]

It depends on his path to the Finals, his opponents in the Finals, and his performance in the Finals.

We know his path to the finals, he lost on those paths, the OP asked if he won on those paths, would it be more or less impressive than has having lost on those paths.

His performance still matters. Assuming he plays great but his team stinks, it would elevate his resume, especially since he got through great teams to get there.

I think it is clear that this question is getting at why people knock LeBron for multiple Finals appearances but losses. To me, one of the knocks on LeBron's Finals record isn't about the record itself as the record actually reflects the easy path LeBron had to the Finals, because it seems to be the first time he faces real competition in the playoffs. Praising extra Finals appearances only makes sense if the path itself was difficult and you still gave it everything once you are there.

[yongaz]

Wrong, Spurs is a great team, Nets suck. You can call one team is successful, the other is not.

But the question is would you be more impressed if a team goes to final and loses. Being successful doesn't mean more impressed.

For example: Apple is obviously a successful company. But am I more impressed about their recent products? Not so much.

Your logic and comparison with Apple is extremely faulty, like most other "logic" for those saying less impressed. You can say that it makes for a worst narrative, but how can you be less impressed with more success?

Your "logic" doesn't apply for the following reasons:

Apple as a company = Jordan as a player, as in overall picture
Products = matches, as in individual specifics.

The question is asking if you would be more impressed with a Jordan as a player, as in the overall picture, if he had more wins and got further.

The equivalent would be like asking if you were more impressed with Apple if they had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them, before the iPhone, or if they had nothing at all going on for them before that.

So yes in essence, it's really all about narrative, as per my previous post and not really common sense or logic in any way, shape or form. If I was Steve Jobs, no way would I say that "oh nah I'd rather not have competed with Nokia and lost... I mean sure if I had the opportunity to create a product and make tens of millions of dollars, but would probably not outsell Nokia... nah why would I?"

.... except with Jordan's case he DID compete, AND lost before the Finals, as in (using the same analogy), he not only didn't outsell Nokia, he came behind Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well.

This is REALLY doing my head in. If I ever get into an argument with people on RealGM, this thread will be a reminder of why you should never get into an argument on the internets.

I won't be impressed if APPLE had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them. Why would I be impressed by that? Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal? LOL

Ok try again, because why not.

Of course you won't be impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia. I bet you'd be even less impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia, AND Motorola, AND Sony Ericsson.

Which is what happened to Jordan.

So to use your analogy = Apple in fact DID come up with a phone, but it lost not only to Nokia but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson. Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place.

But WHAT IF, Apple only lost to Nokia. WHAT IF, Jordan got to the Finals, but lost. Would you be more or less impressed by that?

"Nah I'd be less impressed because Apple finally went head to head with Nokia, and lost. I'd be more impressed if Apple lost not just to Nokia, but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well."

"I'd be more impressed if Jordan had fewer wins and had less chances to compete for the title."

LOL seriously I don't know why I bother. I must be getting trolled hard... but I'm bored and can't sleep even though it's 1.30am here in Australia.

[yongaz]

Wrong, Spurs is a great team, Nets suck. You can call one team is successful, the other is not.

But the question is would you be more impressed if a team goes to final and loses. Being successful doesn't mean more impressed.

For example: Apple is obviously a successful company. But am I more impressed about their recent products? Not so much.

Your logic and comparison with Apple is extremely faulty, like most other "logic" for those saying less impressed. You can say that it makes for a worst narrative, but how can you be less impressed with more success?

Your "logic" doesn't apply for the following reasons:

Apple as a company = Jordan as a player, as in overall picture
Products = matches, as in individual specifics.

The question is asking if you would be more impressed with a Jordan as a player, as in the overall picture, if he had more wins and got further.

The equivalent would be like asking if you were more impressed with Apple if they had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them, before the iPhone, or if they had nothing at all going on for them before that.

So yes in essence, it's really all about narrative, as per my previous post and not really common sense or logic in any way, shape or form. If I was Steve Jobs, no way would I say that "oh nah I'd rather not have competed with Nokia and lost... I mean sure if I had the opportunity to create a product and make tens of millions of dollars, but would probably not outsell Nokia... nah why would I?"

.... except with Jordan's case he DID compete, AND lost before the Finals, as in (using the same analogy), he not only didn't outsell Nokia, he came behind Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well.

This is REALLY doing my head in. If I ever get into an argument with people on RealGM, this thread will be a reminder of why you should never get into an argument on the internets.

I won't be impressed if APPLE had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them. Why would I be impressed by that? Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal? LOL

And oh with the French, I bet they'd be even less impressed if they didn't make it to the Final... hence = more impressed if they made it to the final than if they didn't.

This is doing my head in lol.... though I have to say that I am very amused.

[GermanFan120]

Your logic and comparison with Apple is extremely faulty, like most other "logic" for those saying less impressed. You can say that it makes for a worst narrative, but how can you be less impressed with more success?

Your "logic" doesn't apply for the following reasons:

Apple as a company = Jordan as a player, as in overall picture
Products = matches, as in individual specifics.

The question is asking if you would be more impressed with a Jordan as a player, as in the overall picture, if he had more wins and got further.

The equivalent would be like asking if you were more impressed with Apple if they had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them, before the iPhone, or if they had nothing at all going on for them before that.

So yes in essence, it's really all about narrative, as per my previous post and not really common sense or logic in any way, shape or form. If I was Steve Jobs, no way would I say that "oh nah I'd rather not have competed with Nokia and lost... I mean sure if I had the opportunity to create a product and make tens of millions of dollars, but would probably not outsell Nokia... nah why would I?"

.... except with Jordan's case he DID compete, AND lost before the Finals, as in (using the same analogy), he not only didn't outsell Nokia, he came behind Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well.

This is REALLY doing my head in. If I ever get into an argument with people on RealGM, this thread will be a reminder of why you should never get into an argument on the internets.

I won't be impressed if APPLE had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them. Why would I be impressed by that? Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal? LOL

Ok try again, because why not.

Of course you won't be impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia. I bet you'd be even less impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia, AND Motorola, AND Sony Ericsson.

Which is what happened to Jordan.

So to use your analogy = Apple in fact DID come up with a phone, but it lost not only to Nokia but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson. Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place.

But WHAT IF, Apple only lost to Nokia. WHAT IF, Jordan got to the Finals, but lost. Would you be more or less impressed by that?

"Nah I'd be less impressed because Apple finally went head to head with Nokia, and lost. I'd be more impressed if Apple lost not just to Nokia, but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well."

"I'd be more impressed if Jordan had fewer wins and had less chances to compete for the title."

LOL seriously I don't know why I bother. I must be getting trolled hard... but I'm bored and can't sleep even though it's 1.30am here in Australia.

Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place. - For this case, I would not be impressed. Sure, he was a great athlete, but he was not a champion. Yet.

Following your logic: Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal?

[GermanFan120]

Your logic and comparison with Apple is extremely faulty, like most other "logic" for those saying less impressed. You can say that it makes for a worst narrative, but how can you be less impressed with more success?

Your "logic" doesn't apply for the following reasons:

Apple as a company = Jordan as a player, as in overall picture
Products = matches, as in individual specifics.

The question is asking if you would be more impressed with a Jordan as a player, as in the overall picture, if he had more wins and got further.

The equivalent would be like asking if you were more impressed with Apple if they had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them, before the iPhone, or if they had nothing at all going on for them before that.

So yes in essence, it's really all about narrative, as per my previous post and not really common sense or logic in any way, shape or form. If I was Steve Jobs, no way would I say that "oh nah I'd rather not have competed with Nokia and lost... I mean sure if I had the opportunity to create a product and make tens of millions of dollars, but would probably not outsell Nokia... nah why would I?"

.... except with Jordan's case he DID compete, AND lost before the Finals, as in (using the same analogy), he not only didn't outsell Nokia, he came behind Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well.

This is REALLY doing my head in. If I ever get into an argument with people on RealGM, this thread will be a reminder of why you should never get into an argument on the internets.

I won't be impressed if APPLE had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them. Why would I be impressed by that? Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal? LOL

And oh with the French, I bet they'd be even less impressed if they didn't make it to the Final... hence = more impressed if they made it to the final than if they didn't.

This is doing my head in lol.... though I have to say that I am very amused.

French won't be less impressed if they didn't make it to the final. They would be more disappointed.

[ShazamDaShiznt]

People who think being 2nd is impressive are losers.

picking 6-0 finals record instead of 6-2 finals record is what losers would pick. For a simple reason if you are winner you go as hard for your goal as possible, Losing earlier with the mindset of "2nd place or last place is the same" is a loser mentality. You got to crawl before you walk, and 2nd place is the best motivation for somebody to get that 1st place next year.

and since the topic is giving scenario of jordan beating detroit pistons in the 80s but then losing to the lakers I am pretty sure MJ himself would rather take the opportunity at the finals instead of losing earlier in the conference. Nobody wants to lose early.


I swear when some of yall read 6-0 you think MJ played 6 years in the league and with 6-2 he played 8 years in the league. Like none of the other seasons actually exist

[Dino-Might]

Let's take Jordan's 6-0 out of the equation and just consider the two years that are changed. Is it more impressive to make it to the finals and lose than to lose earlier? Would Steve Nash's legacy be greater if he had gotten to the finals and lost those two MVP years, instead of losing in the Conference Finals? Of course.

So why should the fact that Jordan was 6-0 on his previous trips to the finals make any difference?

The narrative around Jordan's 6-0 is that he was a champion and never lost in the finals.

Well, it's not like he won a championship every time he had a chance to win the championship. Every year, every NBA player tries to win the championship. It's not like he only played 6 seasons in the NBA and won a ring every time. A lot of years, he didn't even make it to the finals because his team was not good enough. You can't just erase those seasons and pretend he didn't try to win or didn't have an opportunity to win a ring. Considered this way, Jordan is actually 6 -9. He won rings in 6 years and lost before winning the championship in 9 years. Still super impressive, but it's not like was invincible.

[J Shuttlesworth]

Even if he didn't play well in those two finals, it's still better to have won the conference finals than to have lost them.

Pick just about any team... I guarantee you the 2017 Celtics would rather make the finals and lose than lose to the Cavs in the ECF. Any players legacy is improved by a finals trip.

This whole mythology that making the finals isn't a positive unless you win is simply stupid.

[guy1]

Losing in the finals shouldn't get the amount of criticism as it gets. At the same time, the amount of credit players are getting just for making the finals and losing is incredibly stupid as well. It's literally gotten to the point where people on these forums and/or the media are starting to equate it actually winning the title.

Both of these dumb arguments actually deserve each other.

[yongaz]

I won't be impressed if APPLE had actually come up with a phone that was a second best seller to Nokia, but never quite beat them. Why would I be impressed by that? Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal? LOL

Ok try again, because why not.

Of course you won't be impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia. I bet you'd be even less impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia, AND Motorola, AND Sony Ericsson.

Which is what happened to Jordan.

So to use your analogy = Apple in fact DID come up with a phone, but it lost not only to Nokia but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson. Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place.

But WHAT IF, Apple only lost to Nokia. WHAT IF, Jordan got to the Finals, but lost. Would you be more or less impressed by that?

"Nah I'd be less impressed because Apple finally went head to head with Nokia, and lost. I'd be more impressed if Apple lost not just to Nokia, but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well."

"I'd be more impressed if Jordan had fewer wins and had less chances to compete for the title."

LOL seriously I don't know why I bother. I must be getting trolled hard... but I'm bored and can't sleep even though it's 1.30am here in Australia.

Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place. - For this case, I would not be impressed. Sure, he was a great athlete, but he was not a champion. Yet.

Following your logic: Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal?

The question is "Are you MORE or LESS impressed by Jordan if he went to the Finals two more times, but LOST?"... Not "Are you impressed (at all) by Jordan making the finals but losing?"

You're saying - "I'm not impressed at all by Jordan making the finals and losing..." DUH I'm not either. But I would've been more impressed if he actually got there than if he didn't, since his supporting cast was still pretty average at that point in time.

So for the last time, using your example - of course the French would not be impressed by their team making the Euro final and losing, but they would certainly be "happier" or "less disappointed" or "more impressed" if they had made the Final, than if they had lost earlier. However you want to spin it.

The problem is that you don't equate those three together based solely on narrative, which is fine. But to say that 6-0 is better 6-2, i.e. winning more is less impressive than winning less, is just... I'm sorry... asinine.

I seriously feel like people are totally trolling here lol. I guess I'll keep this up coz I'm really amused.

[yongaz]

I swear when some of yall read 6-0 you think MJ played 6 years in the league and with 6-2 he played 8 years in the league. Like none of the other seasons actually exist

That pretty much sums it up lol.

[GermanFan120]

Ok try again, because why not.

Of course you won't be impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia. I bet you'd be even less impressed if Apple came up with a phone that lost to Nokia, AND Motorola, AND Sony Ericsson.

Which is what happened to Jordan.

So to use your analogy = Apple in fact DID come up with a phone, but it lost not only to Nokia but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson. Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place.

But WHAT IF, Apple only lost to Nokia. WHAT IF, Jordan got to the Finals, but lost. Would you be more or less impressed by that?

"Nah I'd be less impressed because Apple finally went head to head with Nokia, and lost. I'd be more impressed if Apple lost not just to Nokia, but to Motorola and Sony Ericsson as well."

"I'd be more impressed if Jordan had fewer wins and had less chances to compete for the title."

LOL seriously I don't know why I bother. I must be getting trolled hard... but I'm bored and can't sleep even though it's 1.30am here in Australia.

Jordan in fact DID lose, not in the Finals, but even before that. There was no chance to even get to second place. - For this case, I would not be impressed. Sure, he was a great athlete, but he was not a champion. Yet.

Following your logic: Ask those French people, are they impressed by their team for making to the Euro final and lost against Portugal?

The question is "Are you MORE or LESS impressed by Jordan if he went to the Finals two more times, but LOST?"... Not "Are you impressed (at all) by Jordan making the finals but losing?"

You're saying - "I'm not impressed at all by Jordan making the finals and losing..." DUH I'm not either. But I would've been more impressed if he actually got there than if he didn't, since his supporting cast was still pretty average at that point in time.

So for the last time, using your example - of course the French would not be impressed by their team making the Euro final and losing, but they would certainly be "happier" or "less disappointed" or "more impressed" if they had made the Final, than if they had lost earlier. However you want to spin it.

The problem is that you don't equate those three together based solely on narrative, which is fine. But to say that 6-0 is better 6-2, i.e. winning more is less impressive than winning less, is just... I'm sorry... asinine.

I seriously feel like people are totally trolling here lol. I guess I'll keep this up coz I'm really amused.

[Cmon_Son-_-]

Don't see how losing in the finals is so impressive. Whether you lost in the first round or in the finals its the same thing in the end. No team is patting themselves in the back for losing in the finals because they got there.
Jordan went 6/14 in his career thats a pretty great percentage of winning it all in his career.
Lebron is currently 3/13
Kobe 5/20
Shaq 4/20
Bird 3/13
Imo that should be the standard.

[Jedi32]

Don't see how losing in the finals is so impressive. Whether you lost in the first round or in the finals its the same thing in the end. No team is patting themselves in the back for losing in the finals because they got there.
Jordan went 6/14 in his career thats a pretty great percentage of winning it all in his career.
Lebron is currently 3/13
Kobe 5/20
Shaq 4/20
Bird 3/13
Imo that should be the standard.

Welcome to realgm where if my favorite player hasn't won more than the player he's compared to , we try to find a way to turn losing into winning.