LeBron James' 4-6 Record is Equally As Impressive as Jordan's 6-0

[twyzted]

I guess another way to think about it is if two players were to win 4 championships.

Would it be more impressive to go on to win 6 more conference championships but lose in the finals each time OR would it be more impressive to go on to 2 more conference championships and win both?

Well if we are talking about winning 6 titles in 8 years vs winning 4 in 10 years.

6 in 8 is more impressive.
Not that 4 titles in 10 isnt impressive because it is.

Putting it in that way is sort of disingenuous though given the overall context of the thread and I don't even care which one people find to be more impressive. In the context of the thread we are specifically comparing MJ going to 6 finals in 8 years and winning all 6, with a two year gap in the middle where he was retired to LeBron playing in 10 finals over a 14 year span and winning 4 of them. So it's basically 10 finals runs in total being compared to MJ's 6.

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

[Cavsfansince84]

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

*shrug* Like I haven't heard that comment uttered a million times before on the internet. Some people might agree with that. Others might say that winning three rounds in the playoffs can still be impressive without winning a championship. Honestly though I don't think you have to be some huge LeBron fan to be part of the latter group. Just as some might say they aren't impressed with Russell's rings because they only won 2 rounds for many of them. It's up to each person to decide that for themselves.

[Bidofo]

LeBron getting Westbrook a ring this year would be more impressive than all of 6-0

[picko]

13 players in NBA history have won 6 championships or more. Only 4 players have appeared in 10 finals.

Even if you exclude the Celtics (1950s/1960s), 4 players have won 6 championships or more and only two have appeared in 10 finals.

So reaching 10 finals is a more statistically improbable event.

Anyway, it is a shame that so many people on here spend so much time trying to diminish one player to enhance the achievements of another. You are historically dominant if you win 6-championships or if you win 4-championships. You are historically dominant if you make 6-finals or if you make 10-finals. If you can't appreciate that then that's just incredibly sad.

[HeartBreakKid]

Well if we are talking about winning 6 titles in 8 years vs winning 4 in 10 years.

6 in 8 is more impressive.
Not that 4 titles in 10 isnt impressive because it is.

Putting it in that way is sort of disingenuous though given the overall context of the thread and I don't even care which one people find to be more impressive. In the context of the thread we are specifically comparing MJ going to 6 finals in 8 years and winning all 6, with a two year gap in the middle where he was retired to LeBron playing in 10 finals over a 14 year span and winning 4 of them. So it's basically 10 finals runs in total being compared to MJ's 6.

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

I mean ...no? There would have to be context applied. Michael Jordan isn't the only person with 6 rings, yet he is the most popular goat candidate - so obviously there are other factors.

I have no idea what a participation award is - the NBA playoffs is a tournament... it's objectively better to be in the finals than in round 1. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

[migya]

In a vacuum, maybe. But would you rather build a dynasty through hard work, drive and determination.

Stacked Deck yet still played better teams in the Finals than his own in 2007, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Not really "stacking the deck"...or maybe LeBron James isn't good at card games.

Jordan played teams better than his in 1992 and 1993, arguably 1996.

Joining two top 10 players and losing the first season against an older and less talented team isn't a showing anything impressive

[twyzted]

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

*shrug* Like I haven't heard that comment uttered a million times before on the internet. Some people might agree with that. Others might say that winning three rounds in the playoffs can still be impressive without winning a championship. Honestly though I don't think you have to be some huge LeBron fan to be part of the latter group. Just as some might say they aren't impressed with Russell's rings because they only won 2 rounds for many of them. It's up to each person to decide that for themselves.

Did i say that four titles were unimpressive?
Did i say going to 10 finals were bad?

No i said neither.

Also Jordan went to 2ecf and lost to the eventual champions.

When russell won those titles there were a lot less teams in the nba... 8-14 teams... but Lebron fans would mention that because of expansion the league was diluted and void of talent.

[twyzted]

Putting it in that way is sort of disingenuous though given the overall context of the thread and I don't even care which one people find to be more impressive. In the context of the thread we are specifically comparing MJ going to 6 finals in 8 years and winning all 6, with a two year gap in the middle where he was retired to LeBron playing in 10 finals over a 14 year span and winning 4 of them. So it's basically 10 finals runs in total being compared to MJ's 6.

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

I mean ...no? There would have to be context applied. Michael Jordan isn't the only person with 6 rings, yet he is the most popular goat candidate - so obviously there are other factors.

I have no idea what a participation award is - the NBA playoffs is a tournament... it's objectively better to be in the finals than in round 1. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

When did i say making the finals was not impressive?
I said winning 6 titles is better then 4, regardless of making 10 finals vs 6.

Well obviously he is the most popular because he is the greatest. Titles, accolades, records etc etc.

Particition trophy is exacly what you are doing, trying to award some points for losing.

I dont go around bragging about when Liverpool came in 2nd with 98 points, or lost in cl finals the year before.

Why isnt Jerry West mentioned in the GOAT conversation?
Made 9 finals, has great stats, accolades.

[PistolPeteJR]

Lebron was the preseason favorite to win the championship more often than jordan was. You can’t believe that he is satisfied with only 4 titles considering everything. And yes, I know about injuries, Lebron has been hurt by and helped by them just like every other player.

I'm not arguing for or against OP, but this is a terrible argument.

What is more indicative of stacking the deck than being a preseason favorite. Not meeting expectations is pretty telling. I am not willing to chalk up all Lebron failures to injuries while ignoring the times when he ha similarly benefited. Dude is an amazing all time great but his legacy isn’t close to jordan.

Context is something I encourage you to look into.

[sansterre]

In a vacuum, maybe. But would you rather build a dynasty through hard work, drive and determination.

Stacked Deck yet still played better teams in the Finals than his own in 2007, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Not really "stacking the deck"...or maybe LeBron James isn't good at card games.

Jordan played teams better than his in 1992 and 1993, arguably 1996.

Joining two top 10 players and losing the first season against an older and less talented team isn't a showing anything impressive

Forgive me, your position is that the '92 Blazers were better than the '92 Bulls, and the '96 Sonics were better than the '96 Bulls?

[Gooner]

LeBron James played on multiple super teams and with some of the best players in the history of the game, there is no excuse for him losing 6 finals, if you want to call him the GOAT. His 2 Miami loses stand out in particular, Dallas loss was a choke against a less talented team, and Spurs demolished them in 2014 with the record margin in finals history. He also shot horribly in 2007 and 2015 finals, and came up short in pivotal games. I mean, Mozgov scored more than him in game 4 of 2015 finals against Golden State in Cleveland, when they had 2:1 lead and all the momentum against an inexperienced Warriors team at that time.

[Gooner]

Putting it in that way is sort of disingenuous though given the overall context of the thread and I don't even care which one people find to be more impressive. In the context of the thread we are specifically comparing MJ going to 6 finals in 8 years and winning all 6, with a two year gap in the middle where he was retired to LeBron playing in 10 finals over a 14 year span and winning 4 of them. So it's basically 10 finals runs in total being compared to MJ's 6.

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

I mean ...no? There would have to be context applied. Michael Jordan isn't the only person with 6 rings, yet he is the most popular goat candidate - so obviously there are other factors.

I have no idea what a participation award is - the NBA playoffs is a tournament... it's objectively better to be in the finals than in round 1. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

You have to look at the context. LBJ had superteams in a weak eastern conference. That's why he is judged mainly through his finals record. Jordan lost early in his career, once they built a proper team around him, he didn't lose. LBJ formed super teams and still lost a lot.

[Colbinii]

In a vacuum, maybe. But would you rather build a dynasty through hard work, drive and determination.

Stacked Deck yet still played better teams in the Finals than his own in 2007, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Not really "stacking the deck"...or maybe LeBron James isn't good at card games.

Jordan played teams better than his in 1992 and 1993, arguably 1996.

Joining two top 10 players and losing the first season against an older and less talented team isn't a showing anything impressive

Whats the argument for the 1996 Sonics being better than the 1996 Bulls?

The Bulls in 1996 are in discussions for the GOAT team...This is crazy...

Are you actually saying the 1992 Blazers were better than the Bulls? You are trolling.

[PistolPeteJR]

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

I mean ...no? There would have to be context applied. Michael Jordan isn't the only person with 6 rings, yet he is the most popular goat candidate - so obviously there are other factors.

I have no idea what a participation award is - the NBA playoffs is a tournament... it's objectively better to be in the finals than in round 1. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

You have to look at the context. LBJ had superteams in a weak eastern conference. That's why he is judged mainly through his finals record. Jordan lost early in his career, once they built a proper team around him, he didn't lose. LBJ formed super teams and still lost a lot.

You should really take the advice you offered and apply it to yourself. You may have begun on the right track, anddddddddd then agenda took over.

[HeartBreakKid]

How about 6 in 13 years vs 4 in 14? Still more impressive.
More titles is always better. Only people who really want to add this participation reward for losing are Lebron fans.

I mean ...no? There would have to be context applied. Michael Jordan isn't the only person with 6 rings, yet he is the most popular goat candidate - so obviously there are other factors.

I have no idea what a participation award is - the NBA playoffs is a tournament... it's objectively better to be in the finals than in round 1. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

You have to look at the context. LBJ had superteams in a weak eastern conference. That's why he is judged mainly through his finals record. Jordan lost early in his career, once they built a proper team around him, he didn't lose. LBJ formed super teams and still lost a lot.

So then you agree? You have to look at context, it's not as simple as saying 6 > 4, that would be obtuse. Steph Curry has more rings than Wilt Chamberlain and Hakeem Olajuwon, it doesn't mean he's automatically better

I'm arguing about the premise of his point not the specifics (though your point overall is still silly, because his teams weren't stacked relative to his actual competition; ie the west - your point would hold more weight if he lost in the East).

Also, Jordan did lose....

[Colbinii]

This thread has half the people arguing about the premise of Finals Record being flawed and the other is angry mobsters pointing out superteams.

It's really interesting when one side is articulating points and the group is blatantly yelling from emotion. Its like the two sides of American politics.

[Amares]

Record 4-6 against competition LeBron had and with multiple franchises is even more impressive. Also fact that he made 8 finals in a row (Jordan retired after barely 3) is additional factor for LeBron here. But at the end this x-x result is not really important, from player vs player comparison perspective what matters is how they performed in these finals and thats where LeBron is the winner either. Teams win rings, not single players.

[Mazter]

Joining two top 10 players and losing the first season against an older and less talented team isn't a showing anything impressive

Bosh ranked 10th in All star voting, tied 12th (with 4 others) in MVP voting and 16th in All-NBA voting. At best he would be a top-15 player that season, and that's closer to 15 than 10.

About talent, yeah sure, LeBron-Wade-Bosh, we could all agree on them. But how about the other 2 starters, Chalmers and Joel Anthony, how good were they really? And was there anything really worth mentioning on the bench?

I mean, besides Dirk the Mavs did have 2 veteran stars in Kidd and Marion. They had a 6th man in Terry and a All D center in Chandler. Butler and Stojakovic were former All Stars. So I don't really know about less talented. But more so, their core with the exception of Chandler, had been together for multiple seasons.

Edit: not even mentioning the internal struggle which would obviously have been present in 2011 Heat. The MVP and best player in the league and the home town hero who had a county named after him just a year earlier. Which one should lead the Heat into the Finals. They shared the rock until then. It wasn't until the 2011 debacle that Wade took a decision he should have taken a year earlier.

[Gooner]

Record 4-6 against competition LeBron had and with multiple franchises is even more impressive. Also fact that he made 8 finals in a row (Jordan retired after barely 3) is additional factor for LeBron here. But at the end this x-x result is not really important, from player vs player comparison perspective what matters is how they performed in these finals and thats where LeBron is the winner either. Teams win rings, not single players.

I don't think playing on multiple franchises adds to the difficulty. It's easier to go on another team and start over from 0, with plenty of cap space available and trading young players and picks for superstars. Especially when you have your own agency like clutch sports. Jordan winning all 6 with the same team is more impressive.

[Gooner]

I mean ...no? There would have to be context applied. Michael Jordan isn't the only person with 6 rings, yet he is the most popular goat candidate - so obviously there are other factors.

I have no idea what a participation award is - the NBA playoffs is a tournament... it's objectively better to be in the finals than in round 1. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

You have to look at the context. LBJ had superteams in a weak eastern conference. That's why he is judged mainly through his finals record. Jordan lost early in his career, once they built a proper team around him, he didn't lose. LBJ formed super teams and still lost a lot.

So then you agree? You have to look at context, it's not as simple as saying 6 > 4, that would be obtuse. Steph Curry has more rings than Wilt Chamberlain and Hakeem Olajuwon, it doesn't mean he's automatically better

I'm arguing about the premise of his point not the specifics (though your point overall is still silly, because his teams weren't stacked relative to his actual competition; ie the west - your point would hold more weight if he lost in the East).

Also, Jordan did lose....

It's not as simple as 6>4, and I never claimed that. It can't be ignored though, and we have to look at the context, and context doesn't favor LeBron. There are plenty of other reasons why MJ is superior to LBJ aswell, just looking at the skill level, the era and the rules and degree of difficulty to play etc. But to stay on point, rings don't define everything but, again, we can't ignore it. It's the same with statistics, they are not everything, context matters.