2016 NBA Off-Season Thread part 2

[WiggyRuss]

Magic & Kareem were never judged by Finals record. None of the greats that came before Jordan were. No one cared that Bill Russell was 11-1 and Magic was only 5-4. No one ever cared that Jerry West was 1-9 or Wilt was 2-4. They talked about them "not getting it done"... but it had nothing to do with whether they lost in the Finals or the conference finals. They didn't compare Finals records. They compared championships and success and stats... but not finals records.

It wasn't until Jordan went 6-0 that it became a conversation at all. If Jordan had made it to the Finals earlier and lost... or made it to the Finals in 95 instead of going out to the Magic... it wouldn't be a thing.

The fact that Jordan won a ring 6 times in 6.5 seasons is super impressive and a key point to his resume/legacy. But the fact that he never made it to the Finals in a year that he failed to the win title is NOT a positive tick on his legacy.

great post and 100% on point.

the 6-0 thing for Jordan adds to his legacy without a doubt - but id be more impressed if he would have beaten the Pistons or whoever a couple years earlier and was 6-2 with 2 extra Finals appearances rather than losing in the Eastern Conference playoffs and made 8 Finals intead of 6.

It is never a BAD thing that should be held against you advancing farther and farther in the playoffs.

 

[trojanfan12]

Magic & Kareem were never judged by Finals record. None of the greats that came before Jordan were.

They are now and those losses count against them. It doesn't matter how the all-time greats were ranked in the past. It's how they are ranked now.

Personally, I would put Kareem as GOAT, but that's not what the majority of folks do and the reason MJ is considered GOAT is his 6-0 record in the finals.

Again, losing prior to the finals isn't held against any of the all-time greats, including Lebron, yet we're supposed to discount finals losses for him, but not for anyone else?

 

[gordontrue]

great post and 100% on point.

the 6-0 thing for Jordan adds to his legacy without a doubt - but id be more impressed if he would have beaten the Pistons or whoever a couple years earlier and was 6-2 with 2 extra Finals appearances rather than losing in the Eastern Conference playoffs and made 8 Finals intead of 6.

It is never a BAD thing that should be held against you advancing farther and farther in the playoffs.

Exactly

 

[trojanfan12]

great post and 100% on point.

the 6-0 thing for Jordan adds to his legacy without a doubt - but id be more impressed if he would have beaten the Pistons or whoever a couple years earlier and was 6-2 with 2 extra Finals appearances rather than losing in the Eastern Conference playoffs and made 8 Finals intead of 6.

It is never a BAD thing that should be held against you advancing farther and farther in the playoffs.

Not one thing in this post has anything to do with with what is actually counted when comparing the all-time greats. There is nothing re: losses prior to the finals that is counted against Lebron or any of the other all-time greats. It's all about the finals.

Again, why are we trying to use a different standard for Lebron?

 

[Heatles84]

Yep.

As of the today, the Warriors would be the consensus favorite in that matchup.

But "zero chance" is definitely overboard.

Yeah. I've learned my lessons betting against Lebron or any team that has him. When you have Lebron - at minimal, you have a puncher's chance.

 

[gordontrue]

They are now and those losses count against them. It doesn't matter how the all-time greats were ranked in the past. It's how they are ranked now.

Personally, I would put Kareem as GOAT, but that's not what the majority of folks do and the reason MJ is considered GOAT is his 6-0 record in the finals.

Again, losing prior to the finals isn't held against any of the all-time greats, including Lebron, yet we're supposed to discount finals losses for him, but not for anyone else.

Bottom line.

Winning Championship >> Losing in Finals > Losing Conf Finals > Losing 2nd Round > Losing 1st Round > Missing Playoffs


I really don't care if holding Finals losses against players - but not earlier losses - is "the standard" or not. Whether or not it is... its stupid.

 

[trojanfan12]

Bottom line.

Winning Championship >> Losing in Finals > Losing Conf Finals > Losing 2nd Round > Losing 1st Round > Missing Playoffs


I really don't care if holding Finals losses against players - but not earlier losses - is an "accepted standard" or not. Whether or not it is... its stupid.

You only think it's stupid and makes no sense because it doesn't work out for Lebron. What's truly stupid and makes no sense is trying to change things just to prop up one player whose career isn't over yet.

Also, using that same logic of winning championships being greater than everything else, it's still:

MJ - 6
Kareem - 6
Magic - 5
Lebron -3

So, Lebron is still a couple of titles away from being in there with Magic and Kareem.

 

[gordontrue]

Not one thing in this post has anything to do with with what is actually counted when comparing the all-time greats.

To try and tie it together...

Suppose Jordan made the Finals in '90 and '95 instead of flaming out earlier in the playoffs... and then lost in those 2 Finals. The rest of his seasons happened the same... with the 6 championships in 91,92,93 & 96,97,98.

Would his legacy be greater or worse?

Wiggy and I both strongly believe that would be more impressive and a greater legacy.

According to your "standard", though... Jordan's legacy would be diminished because he would be 6-2 in the Finals with 2 Finals losses to hold against him.

 

[gordontrue]

You only think it's stupid and makes no sense because it doesn't work out for Lebron.

Absolutely not.

I don't care if LeBron was 10-0 in the Finals or 0-10 in the Finals or never even made the Finals. I would have the same exact opinion.

You might not believe that but its the absolute truth.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Not one thing in this post has anything to do with with what is actually counted when comparing the all-time greats. There is nothing re: losses prior to the finals that is counted against Lebron or any of the other all-time greats. It's all about the finals.

Again, why are we trying to use a different standard for Lebron?

i dont understand what you even mean by a "different standard"- What are you actually talking about?

 

[gordontrue]

Also, using that same logic of winning championships being greater than everything else, it's still:

MJ - 6
Kareem - 6
Magic - 5
Lebron -3

So, Lebron is still a couple of titles away from being in there with Magic and Kareem.

Yep! This isn't about defending LeBron or trying to say he's the GOAT. I've said many times that I have Michael and Kareem well ahead of LeBron.

 

[trojanfan12]

To try and tie it together...

Suppose Jordan made the Finals in '90 and '95 instead of flaming out earlier in the playoffs... and then lost in those 2 Finals. The rest of his seasons happened the same... with the 6 championships in 91,92,93 & 96,97,98.

Would his legacy be greater or worse?

Wiggy and I both strongly believe that would be more impressive and a greater legacy.

According to your "standard", though... Jordan's legacy would be diminished because he would be 6-2 in the Finals with 2 Finals losses to hold against him.

It would likely drop MJ into the same category with Magic and Kareem, making the 3 of them interchangeable. Interestingly, it might even elevate someone like Kobe a little bit because of Kobe being 5-2 in the finals.

It's not my standard, btw. To me, Kareem is the GOAT. It's the standard that virtually everyone who isn't a Cavs fan or Lebroniac uses.

 

[WiggyRuss]

To try and tie it together...

Suppose Jordan made the Finals in '90 and '95 instead of flaming out earlier in the playoffs... and then lost in those 2 Finals. The rest of his seasons happened the same... with the 6 championships in 91,92,93 & 96,97,98.

Would his legacy be greater or worse?

Wiggy and I both strongly believe that would be more impressive and a greater legacy.

According to your "standard", though... Jordan's legacy would be diminished because he would be 6-2 in the Finals with 2 Finals losses to hold against him.

of COURSE his legacy would be greater. The farther you go in the playoffs- the better.

Is there someone out there who actually would make the argument its better to lose in the Eastern Conference Finals than win another Conference championship and lose in the Finals?---- that is completely and totally asinine.

 

[gordontrue]

It would likely drop MJ into the same category with Magic and Kareem, making the 3 of them interchangeable. Interestingly, it might even elevate someone like Kobe a little bit because of Kobe being 5-2 in the finals.

It's not my standard, btw. To me, Kareem is the GOAT. It's the standard that virtually everyone who isn't a Cavs fan or Lebroniac uses.

Then that is the perfect illustration of where this "standard" fails in epic fashion.

We converted some of Jordan's losses into wins... made Jordan go further with his mediocre teams... and he ends up with a worse legacy. We made a couple of his less successful seasons more successful.... and the end result is he loses his GOAT status.

I disagree that it is only LeBroniacs that reject this failed logic... but again, I don't care. Whether everyone agrees with logic or no one does... I'm sticking with it.

 

[trojanfan12]

i dont understand what you even mean by a "different standard"- What are you actually talking about?

I'm pretty sure I laid it out clearly in post #1939.

But to recap, when comparing finals records, we hear from Cavs fans and Lebroniacs that "his first finals trip shouldn't count because the team didn't belong in the finals." Yet, that same argument could be used for Magic's last trip to the finals, but isn't.

We hear that the loss to the Warriors in the finals shouldn't count because Kyrie and Love were out. Yet, no one uses that argument in Magic's favor in the 1989 finals when both Byron Scott and Magic himself were out. That argument is also not used to defend Kareem in the 1989 finals.

I've even seen arguments that Lebron and the Heat's loss to the Spurs in the finals shouldn't count because no one was beating the Spurs that year.

That is a different standard.

 

[trojanfan12]

You might not believe that but its the absolute truth.

Might not?

 

[trojanfan12]

Then that is the perfect illustration of where this "standard" fails in epic fashion.

No it doesn't. Not even a little bit. That standard doesn't fail because it's based purely on finals performance. There is no "well, if he had a better team," "well, if so and so didn't get hurt," "well, if such and such team wasn't on a mission."

There is no conjecture about what "might have been." There is only the pure numbers of how each fared in the finals.

 

[gordontrue]

No it doesn't. Not even a little bit. That standard doesn't fail because it's based purely on finals performance. There is no "well, if he had a better team," "well, if so and so didn't get hurt," "well, if such and such team wasn't on a mission."

There is no conjecture about what "might have been." There is only the pure numbers of how each fared in the finals.

But my whole point is that "how they fared in the Finals" isn't worthy of our consideration. We should be considering how they fared... period. Narrowing it down to how they fared "in the Finals" is an unnecessary and useless filter that obfuscates reality and distorts our conclusion.

It can lead to things like you concluding that Jordan wouldn't be the GOAT if he had somehow dragged a 47-win Bulls team to a series victory over the Bad Boy Pistons in 1989.

I have no interest in making excuses for LeBron's failed seasons or trying to say that any of them don't count. I just have an issue with holding Finals losses as bigger negative than earlier playoff exits.. when the opposite is in fact true.

For example, LeBron losing to the Magic in the ECF in 2009 - with a 61 win Cavs team was a FAR bigger failure than losing to the Warriors last year or losing to the Spurs in 07.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yep! This isn't about defending LeBron or trying to say he's the GOAT. I've said many times that I have Michael and Kareem well ahead of LeBron.

Yeah, as I've said before, I have Kareem as GOAT. It used to be Magic, but when I look at Kareem's entire career, I have to go with him despite Magic being my all-time favorite player. In my estimation, Lebron could eventually be the GOAT (but he'd need at least 3 more titles for that).

I will say though, that while he may never be GOAT, there has never been a more talented player than Lebron. It's like if you took Karl Malone, gave him Magic's court vision and ball handling skills, made him one of the fastest players in the league and just for good measure...the ability to jump out of the gym as well. Dude's a freak and a half. lol

 

[trojanfan12]

But my whole point is that "how they fared in the Finals" isn't worthy of our consideration. We should be considering how they fared... period. Narrowing it down to how they fared "in the Finals" is an unnecessary and useless filter that obfuscates reality.

I have no interest in making excuses for LeBron's failed seasons or trying to say that any of them don't count. I just have an issue with holding Finals losses as bigger negative than earlier playoff exits.. when the opposite is in fact true.

For example, LeBron losing to the Magic in the ECF in 2009 - with a 61 win Cavs team was a FAR bigger failure than losing to the Warriors last year or losing to the Spurs in 07.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but virtually everyone else, including the all-time greats themselves use that standard. I'd suggest you take it up with them.