To the LeBron haters

[StanMarsh51]

There are no prizes for second place in basketball. You can get your team to the finals 10 times; if you only win two and lose eight, nobody will think of you as a 'winner'

But if you get your team to the finals only 2x and win both, are you more of a winner than making it 10x and losing 8x?

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

But if you get your team to the finals only 2x and win both, are you more of a winner than making it 10x and losing 8x?

Would you say Jerry West is more of a winner than Hakeem is?

 

[StanMarsh51]

Would you say Jerry West is more of a winner than Hakeem is?

West won 1x compared to Hakeem's 2x, so no.

If West had 2 wins, then yes (regardless of how many finals losses)...



I'm not saying that not winning a finals is better than winning the finals (obviously), but it's ridiculous that there's a stigma with losing in the finals but not with losing in the 1st/2nd/3rd round...

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

West won 1x compared to Hakeem's 2x, so no.

If West had 2 wins, then yes (regardless of how many finals losses)...

West also had 9 finals appearances over Hakeems 2

 

[StanMarsh51]

West also had 9 finals appearances over Hakeems 2

What's your point?


I'm not saying that not winning a finals is better than winning the finals (obviously), but it's ridiculous that there's a stigma with losing in the finals but not with losing in the 1st/2nd/3rd round...


If West won 1 more ring, is he not as good a winner because Hakeem made the finals less times? Can't agree with that logic....

 

[tlance]

Is losing in the conference finals (or even not making the playoffs) better than losing in the finals?

If Jordan were 6-7 in the finals as opposed to 6-0, should his legacy be worse? I wouldn't say so, as the 7 losses means that he went to 7 additional finals as opposed to being eliminated in an earlier round (or not making the playoffs).

I think it's completely logical to use finals wins as a barometer, but I don't see the logic in using finals losses as a detriment because it values not making the finals as being better than making the finals and losing.

Exactly.

A loss is a loss.

Yet, people act like Jordan Losing in the second round is somehow better than LeBron losing in the Finals. It isn't.

Championships are team accomplishments. Nobody wins them alone, and Pippen had every bit as much impact on some of those Bulls teams. It is ridiculous so many on here act like Jordan won those titles by himself. He didn't.

The talent gap between the Bulls and everybody else during that era was just as wide as the current gap between the Warriors and everybody else today. The best team wins in the NBA and I am sure if you sub LeBron for prime MJ on the current Cavs team, they still wouldn't have enough.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

What's your point?


I'm not saying that not winning a finals is better than winning the finals (obviously), but it's ridiculous that there's a stigma with losing in the finals but not with losing in the 1st/2nd/3rd round...


If West won 1 more ring, is he not as good a winner because Hakeem made the finals less times? Can't agree with that logic....

Again, no prizes for second place, that's my point.

I'd rather be 2-0 than 2-8. I think most would.

 

[LAD]

I don't agree....nobody would rather not make the finals than make the finals and lose.

Well apparently we'll just have to agree to disagree. But, I've never heard anyone (who actually plays in those games) say they felt better losing in the Finals vs. losing in the earlier rounds. The fact that they lost IMO is the only focus.

 

[LAD]

But if you get your team to the finals only 2x and win both, are you more of a winner than making it 10x and losing 8x?

Not "more" of a winner, but you're certainly not considered a "loser" having won both times you made it.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Again, no prizes for second place, that's my point.

I'd rather be 2-0 than 2-8. I think most would.

So you'd rather not make the playoffs than lose in the finals?

You seriously think most would want that?

 

[LAD]

So you'd rather not make the playoffs than lose in the finals?

You seriously think most would want that?

No that's not what we're saying. We'd prefer to have a winning record. It's pretty simple but you are putting an unnecessary twist on it. The ultimate goal is to win a CHAMPIONSHIP. One can't do that without winning in the Finals. So, the end result is either you won or you lost - regardless of how far you got before you lost.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

So you'd rather not make the playoffs than lose in the finals?

You seriously think most would want that?

Again, who's the bigger winner, Hakeem or West? 2 Finals appearances vs 9 finals appearances.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Again, who's the bigger winner, Hakeem or West? 2 Finals appearances vs 9 finals appearances.

Again, the one with more Rings is the better winner.... not necessarily the one with less losses.

Do you think Karl Malone is wishing he never went to the finals

 

[LAD]

But if you get your team to the finals only 2x and win both, are you more of a winner than making it 10x and losing 8x?

I think what you fail to realize is if you get your team to the Finals 10x but only win 2x you have clearly LOST more than you've won.

 

[LAD]

Again, the one with more Rings is the better winner.... not necessarily the one with less losses.

Well if we follow this logic then LBJ still falls short to ALL the greats - because they all have MORE rings than him.

 

[Black Adam]

Well apparently we'll just have to agree to disagree. But, I've never heard anyone (who actually plays in those games) say they felt better losing in the Finals vs. losing in the earlier rounds. The fact that they lost IMO is the only focus.

Someone should ask the Buffalo Bills, who lost 4 straight Super Bowls, how they felt about simply getting to a title game...

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Again, the one with more Rings is the better winner.... not necessarily the one with less losses.

Do you think Karl Malone is wishing he never went to the finals

Yes but Jerry made the finals nine times. Hakeem only twice.

See what your logic is

 

[StanMarsh51]

I think what you fail to realize is if you get your team to the Finals 10x but only win 2x you have clearly LOST more than you've won.

And if you didn't make the finals as opposed to making the finals and losing, how is that better?

Would Karl Malone have been better off being 0-0 in the finals than 0-3?

 

[tlance]

I think what you fail to realize is if you get your team to the Finals 10x but only win 2x you have clearly LOST more than you've won.

In the Finals.

But, you have to win 3 playoff series to get there. That, is a winning record.

In fact, LeBron's series playoff record since he went to Miami is 24-4. That is insanely good and could in no way be viewed as being a "loser".

 

[LAD]

And if you didn't make the finals as opposed to making the finals and losing, how is that better?

It's not. We're not saying it is. I'll say it again - IMO losing is losing if the goal is to win a championship.

Now your logic probably makes sense for some teams - those with lower expectations (an example would be a team rebuilding who doesn't expect to make the playoffs, let alone win a championship). Then winning in the playoffs - even if it ends in the early rounds might be a positive for them because they exceeded expectations.

But for a team that LBJ plays on the only expectation is a championship...and when you lose more times than you win in that conquest it matters.