Would you rather make to the finals every year and win 50% or half the time and win 100%

[Ben-N1ce]

I think Bill Russell would rather have more Finals berths and fewer titles. He can't even wear all the rings on his fingers.

[twyzted]

People are framing losing the Finals in the wrong way. Imagine if winning the Finals is a Gold medal and losing means Silver. I would rather have 5 Golds and 5 Silvers than 5 Golds.

Its more like the players are not happy if they dont win...
You see players in soccer just take their silver medal straight off some even throw them away or give it to a fan.
I would rather not make the finals then losing in the final because then you know that you were so close but not close enough

[-Sammy-]

'Never lost in the Finals' is good basketball analysis in the same way that a hamburger is a delicious way to serve ham: it sounds right but in fact makes no sense.

The only way the argument works is if the Finals are the only round that matters. But if they're the only round that matters, then teams shouldn't put effort into any other rounds, which is obviously absurd. You don't get to put effort into trying to get to the Finals, then devalue the results if you don't make it. By putting in the effort, you are tacitly admitting that those pre-Finals rounds do matter, and you can't take it back retroactively just because the result isn't what you wanted.

A good analogy is that I can't give my broker money to invest in a stock, then invalidate the investment as 'not really counting' and request my money back if the stock loses value.

'Never lost in the playoffs' is what people are really after, and because 'never lost in the Finals' seems so similar, people fixate on it as though it's close enough to be meaningful. But it isn't-- it's a semantic bait-and-switch, and most people who use it don't even really believe it; they only use it because they have a particular agenda and because the tricky wordplay obscures its obvious flaw.

Not to get too abstract, it's like a basketball version of Anselm's ontological argument-- a clever semantic twist that doesn't actually have any discursive force.

[shakes0]

People are framing losing the Finals in the wrong way. Imagine if winning the Finals is a Gold medal and losing means Silver. I would rather have 5 Golds and 5 Silvers than 5 Golds.

Spot-on.

Horrible analogy. Last I checked all those people with silver medals actually have silver medals. The team that LOSES the NBA finals gets the exact same hardware as the team that finishes dead last in the regular season. I.e. NOTHING NADA ZIP.

[whatever_]

People would crucify me for losing so many finals, I would be a choker etc.

Give me the 50% and I'll be the clutchest, most cold-blooded palyer ever.

That's the narrative with Jordan at least

[otwok]

The one where I win the most championships.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[-Sammy-]

People are framing losing the Finals in the wrong way. Imagine if winning the Finals is a Gold medal and losing means Silver. I would rather have 5 Golds and 5 Silvers than 5 Golds.

Spot-on.

Horrible analogy. Last I checked all those people with silver medals actually have silver medals. The team that LOSES the NBA finals gets the exact same hardware as the team that finishes dead last in the regular season. I.e. NOTHING NADA ZIP.

The analogy works for the same reason that people who disparage silver medals are wrong. A silver medal is an accomplishment, even if it's not the most impressive one.

There's no actual award or consensus for being the GOAT of basketball, but most of us agree that it's MJ and hold him in high esteem accordingly, even though there's no formal reason to do so. But none of us would say that we don't respect the other nine players in the top-ten just because they aren't the GOAT, and none of us would say that Kareem and Shawn Bradley are basically worth the same since neither is the GOAT.

Championships are binary, but greatness isn't. Some are greater than others, but everyone is striving for greatness, we admire it whenever we see it, and those who achieve it treasure whatever they can get, even when it isn't quite as much as what the next guy up has.

[rzzzzz]

i'd rather be Bill Russell and win titles almost all the time for every team i played for.

[Lockdown504090]

Love a good proxy thread

[CeltsfanSinceBirth]

Spot-on.

Horrible analogy. Last I checked all those people with silver medals actually have silver medals. The team that LOSES the NBA finals gets the exact same hardware as the team that finishes dead last in the regular season. I.e. NOTHING NADA ZIP.

The analogy works for the same reason that people who disparage silver medals are wrong. A silver medal is an accomplishment, even if it's not the most impressive one.

There's no actual award or consensus for being the GOAT of basketball, but most of us agree that it's MJ and hold him in high esteem accordingly, even though there's no formal reason to do so. But none of us would say that we don't respect the other nine players in the top-ten just because they aren't the GOAT, and none of us would say that Kareem and Shawn Bradley are basically worth the same since neither is the GOAT.

Championships are binary, but greatness isn't. Some are greater than others, but everyone is striving for greatness, we admire it whenever we see it, and those who achieve it treasure whatever they can get, even when it isn't quite as much as what the next guy up has.

Nah. In the words of the great Ricky Bobby...

Watch on YouTube

[Anticon]

If you know you'll get another shot, losing in the finals is fine.

But finals losses without a redemption title later are just painful.

You're honestly better off losing in the conference finals. Happy to be there sounds great but isn't when you're four games from being in the history books.

[-Sammy-]

Horrible analogy. Last I checked all those people with silver medals actually have silver medals. The team that LOSES the NBA finals gets the exact same hardware as the team that finishes dead last in the regular season. I.e. NOTHING NADA ZIP.

The analogy works for the same reason that people who disparage silver medals are wrong. A silver medal is an accomplishment, even if it's not the most impressive one.

There's no actual award or consensus for being the GOAT of basketball, but most of us agree that it's MJ and hold him in high esteem accordingly, even though there's no formal reason to do so. But none of us would say that we don't respect the other nine players in the top-ten just because they aren't the GOAT, and none of us would say that Kareem and Shawn Bradley are basically worth the same since neither is the GOAT.

Championships are binary, but greatness isn't. Some are greater than others, but everyone is striving for greatness, we admire it whenever we see it, and those who achieve it treasure whatever they can get, even when it isn't quite as much as what the next guy up has.

Nah. In the words of the great Ricky Bobby...

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Capn'O]

More fresh, innovative takes on a topic not yet explored on this forum.

[shakes0]

Spot-on.

Horrible analogy. Last I checked all those people with silver medals actually have silver medals. The team that LOSES the NBA finals gets the exact same hardware as the team that finishes dead last in the regular season. I.e. NOTHING NADA ZIP.

The analogy works for the same reason that people who disparage silver medals are wrong. A silver medal is an accomplishment, even if it's not the most impressive one.

There's no actual award or consensus for being the GOAT of basketball, but most of us agree that it's MJ and hold him in high esteem accordingly, even though there's no formal reason to do so. But none of us would say that we don't respect the other nine players in the top-ten just because they aren't the GOAT, and none of us would say that Kareem and Shawn Bradley are basically worth the same since neither is the GOAT.

Championships are binary, but greatness isn't. Some are greater than others, but everyone is striving for greatness, we admire it whenever we see it, and those who achieve it treasure whatever they can get, even when it isn't quite as much as what the next guy up has.

you're right, a silver medal is an accomplishment which is why they give you an actual medal for it. No one gives you **** for losing the NBA finals. No one hangs a banner for that.

[bondom34]

But if you don't get an award for 2nd place why is it better to lose earlier? More losing is better?

[RyderMike]

Or you just be like Patrick McCaw and make the finals every year and win every year

[Catchall]

How many rings does Robert Horry have?

[-Sammy-]

Horrible analogy. Last I checked all those people with silver medals actually have silver medals. The team that LOSES the NBA finals gets the exact same hardware as the team that finishes dead last in the regular season. I.e. NOTHING NADA ZIP.

The analogy works for the same reason that people who disparage silver medals are wrong. A silver medal is an accomplishment, even if it's not the most impressive one.

There's no actual award or consensus for being the GOAT of basketball, but most of us agree that it's MJ and hold him in high esteem accordingly, even though there's no formal reason to do so. But none of us would say that we don't respect the other nine players in the top-ten just because they aren't the GOAT, and none of us would say that Kareem and Shawn Bradley are basically worth the same since neither is the GOAT.

Championships are binary, but greatness isn't. Some are greater than others, but everyone is striving for greatness, we admire it whenever we see it, and those who achieve it treasure whatever they can get, even when it isn't quite as much as what the next guy up has.

you're right, a silver medal is an accomplishment which is why they give you an actual medal for it. No one gives you **** for losing the NBA finals. No one hangs a banner for that.

Re-read the rest of comment; I addressed this. And for what it's worth, what does a conference championship banner represent to the Finals loser, if not second place?

[Benedict_Boozer]

This is a veiled Lebron vs Jordan Finals thread.

Lebron's problem is some of his were unavoidable, you have to apply context.

I'd actually say 4 of LBJ's 6 finals losses you could swap in MJ and he is taking the same L. 2015 would be like taking Pippen and Grant out and expecting MJ to win against a 100% healthy Finals opponent. 2007 would be like MJ in his 3rd or 4th year and expecting him to beat a HOF stacked squad of veterans.

And all of the Durant Warriors losses would be L's for anybody in history taking his place on those Cavs teams, those squads were all time stacked due to a cap anomaly that will never be repeated.

Now what you would not have seen - to be fair, and this is why you can give MJ a clear nod over Lebron in terms of Finals performance - is MJ would never have gone down like LBJ did in 2011, and I also don't see him getting rolled in 2014 like the Heat did - Lebron didn't play bad in that series but Jordan wasn't getting spanked like that, can't see it happening.

[jackman]

Hypothetically 2 players can have this career path coincidentally.

OP said eg. over 20 year span, so....

A) East team makes the finals 20 years but wins 10 titles
B) West team makes it to 10 finals but wins them all..

This is why context is so important when making comparisons.

Other posters mentioned the Olympic analogy which fits above scenario where..
A) Wins 10 gold and 10 Silver
B) Wins 10 gold only

..but there's no Silver in NBA. We don't recall the losers of the finals and use that experience as evidence to whether a team is a dynasty. It only hinders the discussion.