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

[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.

[INKtastic]

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.

[Johnlac1]

the idea of better losing before the finals instead of losing in the finals is one of the worst basketball arguments I have ever seen

being 6-2 in the finals is better than 6-0 because it means you were the best in the conference 8 times instead of 6 times

Yes. I don't know believe the people who say losing in the conf. finals and not losing in the finals reflects better on a player than getting to the finals and losing know how illogical that sounds.
They're actually saying it's good he lost in the conf. finals so he couldn't lose in the finals. That's ridiculous.

[Johnlac1]

I think a flawless Finals is what makes Jordan stand alone as the greatest. Two loses definitely brings him back to the pack.

But why? If MJ still plays well in those finals and loses, and then goes on to win 6 finals, then how does that hurt his legacy at all? He still has his iconic moments and huge numbers. The two finals losses are just added bonus points to his legacy.

Here's a hypothetical too: Let's say that MJ is able to get to the finals during his Wizards days, and he loses to prime Shaq. Why would that hurt MJ's legacy in the slightest?

The only reason why is people want to invent reasons that LeBron can't be as good as or better than Jordan, so they invent this strange idea that making the NBA finals and losing is somehow worse than losing before the NBA finals. Chris Paul should get all kinds of bonus points with this kind of logic, he's never lost a NBA finals or a conference finals.

Thank you..great points.

[jk31]

Of course I would be more impressed!

Being 6-0 instead of 6-2 just means a player lost before the finals 2 times. It's not that you can say Jordan went to the finals everytime he played in the playoffs - that would be pretty impressive. Instead he just lost in a round before the finals, which just doesn't reflect in a finals record. Getting to the finals is a greater achievement then losing in the conference finals/2nd round/1st round!

[shoefly1]

This is why Ali will never be the GOAT!!! He should have retired after his exile. What kind of loser only wins two out of three against Joe Frazier! Marciano is the true GOAT.

Jordan has a great argument as the GOAT, but this is just silly and makes the people who claim 6-0 is better than 6-2 look like they have an axe to grind.

[RCM88x]

I think people who vote 6-0 are delusional or just lemmings.

Let's finish 3rd/4th instead of 2nd because 6-0! Is all people care about!

[BayArea408415]

He didn't take on Houston, he turned the ball over and lost the game on the way there. The team went out and got him more help. He also never played against a team as good as last year's Warriors, much less this year's warriors.

Did Jordan ever play a team in the Finals with a key player/DPOY candidate suspended in a close out game? One who lost their best defensive center and was forced to give important minutes at the 5 to scrubs? Then had their Finals MVP from the previous year and best wing defender become a cripple in the final 2 games? Had their best player go through a ligament injury mid playoffs? As far as I'm concerned, Jordan would have waxed the "73-9" Warriors if those things went his way (even Game 7 would be a blowout if the series went that far). To be fair, he probably wouldn't have been 3-1 down in the first place. People need to stop hyping up the 2016 Finals Warriors. In Games 5-7, they were a far cry from the healthy 73-9 team they were during the RS.

End of the day, you can only play who is in front of you. That doesn't mean context be damned when you make comparisons.

As for the thread, obviously making the Finals and losing is better than not making the Finals at all. However, people need to look at Jordan's failures to not make the Finals within context as well. For example, he had a Championship quality/contender Pistons team in his way twice. Both years Jordan lost to the Badboy Pistons, they went on to win the title.

[D.Brasco]

The fact that Jordan took on all comers and remained undefeated in the Finals over a span of 8 years is extremely impressive. That's his legend and why he's GOAT.

After Lebron loses in this year's Finals, people will stop asking stuff like this.

Of course you put "finals" in there for that 8 years span, as his team lost in the playoffs in 1995. MJ's sojourn into minor league baseball is a whole other thing I guess.

But somehow losing in the EC playoffs is more prestigious than at least making it to the finals?

[Tai]

Even you to a degree don't answer the question. It's not a "new game, new standards, new challenges" from the Conference Semifinals to the Conference Finals?

Clearly, and I add, very, very obviously not. No one cares about the first round, second round and conference final compared to the finals. No one knows who is the player who scored the most points in the first rounds, second rounds or even conference finals. And not only no one knows, no one cares, whereas most of us know who leads the all-time scoring in the finals, and what are the different records there. It's very obviously a whole different stage, and while technically there is a jump in importance between the second round and conference finals, no one cares about it.

So MJ with more finals appearances probably could have built on whatever records he has for the NBA Finals, but according to some in this thread, still isn't remembered as well if he loses a NBA Final. If so, why does it matter that we'll remember his stats in the Finals more than in the earlier round?

Russell played in a, what, 8-team league where there was no first round in the playoffs? Come on now. Competition matters, never said otherwise. What monster? The monster of "this is why we play". The monster of "heroes are made in the finals". The whole NBA finals is made to feel superior compared to every other round, and in a way, it is. You can become a legend with a great performance, and you can damage your reputation if you play bad. It's not even necessarily the losing. For example, I think Lebron gets more slack for his 2011 finals performance than he does for losing three finals.

Well, of course, because he was yet to win it, and because he was likely the most hyped athlete ever. Yes, it is subjective, and yet, for most fans the finals matter unproportionally more. Again, it's not like I came up with this idea, I'm just telling it how it is. Don't kill the messenger, man. Or don't you agree that writers and fans alike care much more about the finals than they do about any previous round?

My point about 2009 and 2010 was that clearly you don't need to be in the NBA Finals to see your reputation dropped. Clearly it wasn't "well at least it wasn't the NBA Finals" those years. But even in your post: because Lebron hadn't won a title yet, it meant more that he wasn't even getting back to the NBA Finals that time. So NOW, the earlier rounds mean something, and that's fine, but that's all I mean; how can you tell me no one cared about the earlier rounds then?

And I'm assuming for his 2011 finals performance he gets less slack? I'd actually agree with this line of thinking in general; that it matters just as much how you play. I think you'd also agree that Lebron doing as well as he did in the 2015 Finals would enhance his legacy if anything; I mean, he nearly won the Finals MVP! So I'm wondering why Jordan would get grief for making to a 7th NBA Final and despite a great performance (and building up on those Finals stats), end up losing?

No, that's not the right question, because you are thinking about this as a math equation, which it's clearly not. This is a business, a show, a form of entertainment, and it has artifical values that the NBA created. Are they wrong? Of course they are, but that's just the way it is. That's the reality, however unfair it is.

I'd like to think I expressed my opinions in a way that show I haven't boiled it down to math; I already gave you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't take Bill Russell over Lebron even tho he won more titles, mostly cause of what you said about playing in an earlier era. THAT SAID, clearly part of MJ's allure is that he's the superstar with the most titles in the modern era, adding in that he hasn't lost a Title Series. Still, the "6-0 > 6-2" definitely feels like a product of the media. Why didn't he make it to more NBA Finals, even if it meant just to lose them? He was better off, as Inktastic is saying, losing a Game 7 in the conference final? Why couldn't the media ask questions like that concerning his legacy, like today's media is now?

If the media really wanted to, they could have spun 6-2 to fit the GOAT narrative for Jordan back then, too.

[mademan]

Magic lost a chit ton of times in the finals. This wasnt even a thing until Lebron came along

[CobraCommander]

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.

Which is why the arguement that he needs to get more rings is valid.

[CobraCommander]

I think people who vote 6-0 are delusional or just lemmings.

Let's finish 3rd/4th instead of 2nd because 6-0! Is all people care about!

I cant take you serious or believe you are being objective because your avatar is Lebron James turning into a super sayian. You might have some bias sir. Would you feel the same if Lebron was winning all those rings in Miami?

Either way...the the 6-0 is more about once Jordan became a champion he took control of the league and no one challenged him period. No one but some serious rockets fans feel like Houston could have stood up to the Bulls with Jordan. Lebron has been to the mountain top a lot and come home empty handed. Once Jordan ascended to the top, only baseball was able to dethrone him (or his gambling suspension). This is why most of us consider him the greatest of all time... when Lebrons all done...lets have a conversation about GOAT. Btw...if its just rings...its not jordan anyway...and the GOAT IS Jordan...for now

[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.

how is winning the conference finals only to lose in the NBA Finals better than winning the conference finals and losing the NBA finals. That makes absolutely no sense at all.

What are you talking about? I said getting to the finals alot of times is nice, but basically having a perfect record is better imo. Not seeing what's so hard to understand about that.

[ShazamDaShiznt]

I think people who vote 6-0 are delusional or just lemmings.

Let's finish 3rd/4th instead of 2nd because 6-0! Is all people care about!

I cant take you serious or believe you are being objective because your avatar is Lebron James turning into a super sayian. You might have some bias sir. Would you feel the same if Lebron was winning all those rings in Miami?

Either way...the the 6-0 is more about once Jordan became a champion he took control of the league and no one challenged him period. No one but some serious rockets fans feel like Houston could have stood up to the Bulls with Jordan.

but he lost to orlando magic in 1995, jordan's record after he took control of the league is 6-1, I mean I get it its accomplishment that wont be repeated for a long time. But people talking like Jordan was 6-0 in his era, he shouldn't have come back for that middle of season then. It's not a flawless record. Everyone trying to forget that jordan #45

[YogurtProducer]

Well this shows RealGMs knowledge base.

3rd or worse is better than 2nd?

[OdomFan]

Magic lost a chit ton of times in the finals. This wasnt even a thing until Lebron came along

It's all just things Lebron fans try to create to keep their hero looking strong despite the fact that he lost in the NBA finals multiple times.

[mtron929]

Pretty interesting question. That is, let's say in some of these playoffs, Jordan played even better in the playoff games leading up to the finals (which is a plus for his legacy) but played relatively mediocre during the finals (which might be a negative for his legacy). Is that better than not making the finals? I don't have a good answer here. So for example, let's say player A has these two hypothetical scenarios.

Scenario #1
player A: averages 28/8/8 with 60% TS and his team gets eliminated in the semifinals.

Scenario #1
player A: averages 35/10/10 with 65% TS in the semifinals and his team gets to the finals. However..
In the finals, player A averages 25/7/6 with 55% TS and his team loses in the finals.

What is better?

[JordansBulls]

All depends. Did he lose with HCA/better record? Was he dethroned as the champion?

[DanTown8587]

The problem is that arguments like how good the best players in the history of the sport require a ton of nuance. Trying to reduce them to simple statements makes it hard because it's not true. For example

"Jordan being 6-0 is impressive". Well if James was 7-6 in the Finals, you really going to tell me 7-6 isn't more impressive? You shouldn't get credit for losing early and maintaining a "clean" record. Like if James loses the 2008 ECF to the Pistons, the 2011 ECF to the Bulls, the 2014 ECF to the Pacers, and the 2015 ECSF to the Bulls, we really going to say "well James is 3-0 in the Finals"? That's preposterous.

If you think LOSING in the Finals makes you a WORSE player than losing BEFORE the Finals, you're an idiot. Clearly every series you win adds to your legacy where as certain loses take away from it.

To me, James has a chance to pass Jordan's accomplishments in terms of value (i.e if he wins 5 titles) but I don't think you'd ever be able to call him GOAT simply because of a few poorly timed series (mainly 2011 and 2014 Finals and how they went). But I mean, is being the second or third best player ever really a slight? I mean it was only like what, three or so years ago when people were still having legitimate "Kobe v LeBron" arguments and right now there simply isn't a reasonable argument to be made for Kobe?