To the LeBron haters

[The Derski]

If you ain’t first, you’re last.

 

[LAD]

She's crazy

 

[True Lakers Fan]

It's a team stat.

If Michael Jordan were 6-3 instead of 6-0 absolutely no one would change their opinion of MJ.

I think it would because for most people - He never lost ever in the finals and had he played more years with the same team, most people believes that he would have won them. Michael Jordan is without any question the greatest of all time, Tim Duncan as well and Kareeem Abdul Jabaar and Magic Johnson

 

[tlance]

These are interesting points of view. But, I think if they start awarding the Finals MVP to a player on the losing team it would make your idea ineffective for the purpose of using as a tie breaker.

Not really.

It has happened once in the history of the league. It should have happened in 2015.

If a player from the losing team is so transcentendly superior that they earn Finals MVP anyway, that speaks to their dominance. This whole debate is about comparing individual players. Yes, winning matters a lot, but there are many variables to consider and team accomplishment and are just part of the formula. Not the end all be all some of you are trying to make it.

 

[tlance]

My point is if a team is 2-0 that is a winning record vs. being 6-7. It's about the stat only. Not any supporting factors such as being 6-7 means you've made the Finals more times than if a team is 2-0.

When I see a 6-7 record that immediately tells me that team loses more than it wins. I'm not saying, gee they've made the Finals 13 times. Reason being is because winning is more important to me than the # of attempts that end up in losses.

If the 6-7 record meant that they only played 13 times, I might agree with you. The problem is that you are completely neglecting the 39 series wins required to advance to 13 Finals before the 6-7 can happen.

A player would need a spectacular track record of winning in order to be 6-7 in NBA Finals series.

 

[tlance]

To further the point.

Let's make up 2 fictional players. Both play 15 seasons and we assume that every non-Finals trip averages out to a second rebound exit.

Player A: 3-0 Finals record
Player B: 3-10 Finals record

Player B has done way more losing, right?

Player A's overall playoff series record would be 24-12. That is pretty good.
Player B's overall playoff series record would be 44-12.

Are you really telling me that player B would be the loser in this? You have to win a lot to make the Finals. Only 2 teams do.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

To further the point.

Let's make up 2 fictional players. Both play 15 seasons and we assume that every non-Finals trip averages out to a second rebound exit.

Player A: 3-0 Finals record
Player B: 3-10 Finals record

Player B has done way more losing, right?

Player A's overall playoff series record would be 24-12. That is pretty good.
Player B's overall playoff series record would be 44-12.

Are you really telling me that player B would be the loser in this? You have to win a lot to make the Finals. Only 2 teams do.

How many parades were thrown for those extra playoff series wins?

 

[tlance]

How many parades were thrown for those extra playoff series wins?

That isn't the point.

People knocking LeBron down their list for "Finals record" are penalizing him for those extra series wins. You want to say he isn't the GoAT because he doesn't have enough championships, then I agree with you. Don't penalize him for getting close. 3 rings is enough to put him in the conversation given his other accomplishments.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

That isn't the point.

People knocking LeBron down their list for "Finals record" are penalizing him for those extra series wins. You want to say he isn't the GoAT because he doesn't have enough championships, then I agree with you. Don't penalize him for getting close. 3 rings is enough to put him in the conversation given his other accomplishments.

That is exactly the point.

You're giving him props for losing. What's next, the NBA going to hand out participation trophies?

"Well done, you made it to the finals. You didn't win but here's a trophy anyway - you tried your best little buddy"

Point is, he hand picked TWO teams, had two all star players on his team every season ever since "the decision", went through the whole Not One, Not Two... bullshit. And STILL lost five times.

How many championships do you think Magic would have if he joined the Celtics in free agency in the 80s. How about if Jordan picked up the phone and convinced Shaq and Gary Payton to join him in 1996?

 

[Black Adam]

That is exactly the point.

You're giving him props for losing. What's next, the NBA going to hand out participation trophies?

"Well done, you made it to the finals. You didn't win but here's a trophy anyway - you tried your best little buddy"

Point is, he hand picked TWO teams, had two all star players on his team every season ever since "the decision", went through the whole Not One, Not Two... bullshit. And STILL lost five times.

How many championships do you think Magic would have if he joined the Celtics in free agency in the 80s. How about if Jordan picked up the phone and convinced Shaq and Gary Payton to join him in 1996?

mostly like the "door prize" portion of this post. Imo she brings up a very good point...

 

[shopson67]

To further the point.

Let's make up 2 fictional players. Both play 15 seasons and we assume that every non-Finals trip averages out to a second rebound exit.

Player A: 3-0 Finals record
Player B: 3-10 Finals record

Player B has done way more losing, right?

Player A's overall playoff series record would be 24-12. That is pretty good.
Player B's overall playoff series record would be 44-12.

Are you really telling me that player B would be the loser in this? You have to win a lot to make the Finals. Only 2 teams do.

It's difficult to make a case for player B being the best player in the league even during his era if 10 times another team beat his.

You've definitely exaggerated the difference between Lebron and Jordan though. There's a huge difference between 3-0 and 6-0 (which most likely would've been 8-0 had he not "retired to play baseball"). Lebron is a dominating player for sure. My argument has always been that Jordan was more skilled and had more fire inside, and Lebron is the more dominant physical player (rare skill set for a player of his size, like a combo guard in Karl Malone's frame).

 

[larryjohn]

So you think the 2016 Knicks are on the same level as the 2016 Warriors because you don't think there should be different levels of losing?
What is going through your head??

And the Cleveland Browns are on the same level (last year) as the Atlanta Falcons.

 

[StanMarsh51]

How many parades were thrown for those extra playoff series wins?

So 2016 Knicks = 2016 Warriors in your view?

 

[larryjohn]

So 2016 Knicks = 2016 Warriors in your view?

The Browns had a parade for the team this year

... and the Heat had a parade after signing Bosch/Lebron -- before the even played a game.

 

[flyerhawk]

That is exactly the point.

You're giving him props for losing. What's next, the NBA going to hand out participation trophies?

"Well done, you made it to the finals. You didn't win but here's a trophy anyway - you tried your best little buddy"

Point is, he hand picked TWO teams, had two all star players on his team every season ever since "the decision", went through the whole Not One, Not Two... bullshit. And STILL lost five times.

How many championships do you think Magic would have if he joined the Celtics in free agency in the 80s. How about if Jordan picked up the phone and convinced Shaq and Gary Payton to join him in 1996?

I see we are moving the goal posts. The argument that you and LAD were making is that finals record matters. Now you want to argue that we are saying that finals appearances a really important, which wasn't the argument.

It is a perfectly reasonable argument to say that 6 championships matters more than 3. It is NOT reasonable to argue that losing in the finals somehow is worse than not making the finals.

As for your Magic hypothetical, you realize that Lebron isn't the only person who is able to build superteams up. And if you think that if the free agent rules were the same in 1996 as they are today, players would not have done the EXACT SAME THING, you are fooling yourself.

The league is very different today than it was in the 90s.

 

[flyerhawk]

It's difficult to make a case for player B being the best player in the league even during his era if 10 times another team beat his.

Actually a team beat player B's team 12 times in his hypothetical. Guess what? Another team beat player A 12 times as well. They just did it earlier.

You've definitely exaggerated the difference between Lebron and Jordan though. There's a huge difference between 3-0 and 6-0 (which most likely would've been 8-0 had he not "retired to play baseball"). Lebron is a dominating player for sure. My argument has always been that Jordan was more skilled and had more fire inside, and Lebron is the more dominant physical player (rare skill set for a player of his size, like a combo guard in Karl Malone's frame).

I don't think anyone is arguing that 3 is as good as 6.

But let's consider this hypothetical. Lebron goes off to San Antonio next year and winds up winning the next 3 championships. He would then be 6-5 in finals. Then the conversation gets interesting.

FTR, MJ is the GOAT at least at this time. Perhaps Lebron can change that but probably not.

 

[LAD]

If the 6-7 record meant that they only played 13 times, I might agree with you. The problem is that you are completely neglecting the 39 series wins required to advance to 13 Finals before the 6-7 can happen.

A player would need a spectacular track record of winning in order to be 6-7 in NBA Finals series.

No because winning 39 series to get to the Finals isn't getting the job done - so thus, I'm not using those stats as supporting factors in my debate. I am only looking at the performance once THEY MAKE IT to the big dance. It's obvious they would have to win 3 rounds of post play to get there, and should go without saying.

 

[LAD]

How many parades were thrown for those extra playoff series wins?

I'm just not sure why people want to include 3 rounds of playoff series when I've made it very clear I'm only rating WHAT IS DONE IN THE FINALS. Clearly anyone with a brain knows that making the Finals means they've won through 3 rounds already. IMO they want to include every game played because then it doesn't appear as if LBJ has lost more than others. But guess what, EVERY player, from the lowest tier to the top tier has fallen short of winning a championship. So, wouldn't it make sense to measure their ACCOMPLISHMENTS rather than their failures? When doing so LBJ falls short of the great(s) he's supposedly chasing.

 

[LAD]

That isn't the point.

People knocking LeBron down their list for "Finals record" are penalizing him for those extra series wins. You want to say he isn't the GoAT because he doesn't have enough championships, then I agree with you. Don't penalize him for getting close. 3 rings is enough to put him in the conversation given his other accomplishments.

Ok so after reading this it's clear we're debating different points. I'm not using his Finals record to debate whether or not I think he's top anything. All I'm saying is IMO I can't rate him GOAT because he has lost more than he's won on the big stage.

Personally, I don't make top 5 or top 3 lists because for me it's impossible. There were too many players that were great at different things. They've played different positions & in different eras where there have been different rules to the game.

 

[LAD]

mostly like the "door prize" portion of this post. Imo she brings up a very good point...

Unfortunately, this is what youth sports have been reduced to. I understand why it has been introduced - but don't agree with it. Sports are designed for competition. You can't encourage competition if EVERYONE is going to win regardless of their performance. It takes away the drive and/or motivation for one to do better if they weren't good enough to win.