What is LeBron's legacy if he loses 5 times in the finals?

[trojanfan12]

The question is whether Jordan would have been diminished with a Finals loss before his run of 6 ever began.

Tell me, who have you heard answer that question?

I've already answered the question. You just didn't grasp it.

 

[trojanfan12]

If Jordan were 4-2, he would be diminished. At 6-2 he would still reign supreme quite easily. Who else on that list has more than 3 Finals MVPs?

So, more speculation and what if's? What if MJ was 6-2 in the finals, but only had 4 finals MVP's? It's not just that he won 6 rings and 6 finals MVP's that makes his legacy what it is. It's also the fact that he never lost in the finals. Really not sure what's so hard to understand.

We don't know how much it would diminish him if he had lost because it didn't happen. It's pretty safe to say that he'd be diminished at least a little because he would no longer be unbeaten and wouldn't be seen as invincible. It might not diminish him enough to elevate someone else to GOAT. But it would eliminate part of his mystique.

 

[Flauge]

So despite ranking as high or higher than MJ in virtually every category, you think MJ is the GOAT because of 6 finals MVP's. Yet, you think he wouldn't be diminished at all if he had lost a finals or 2. Despite the fact that doing so, would likely also mean fewer finals MVP's.

So let's compare based on your finals criteria.

Kareem, 6-3 in the finals with 2 finals MVP's.
Kobe, 5-2 in the finals with 2 finals MVP's.
Magic, 5-4 in the finals with 3 finals MVP's.
Bird, 3-2 in the finals with 2 finals MVP's.
Lebron, 2-4 in the finals with 2 finals MVP's

So every single one of those players has as many or more finals MVP's as Lebron, with more rings and winning records in the finals. But somehow, Lebron is supposed to be ranked below only MJ?

The real question should be...why is Lebron even included in the discussion? Or are we going to have more of the "Well, if Lebron wins X number more championships" or "Well, such and such season shouldn't be counted against him because..." speculation and excuses?

I am not sure LeBron is only ranked beneath Jordan. I think a strong argument can be made for Kobe and a REALLY strong argument for Kareem being better (assuming LeBron finishes with 2 rings). But what about a guy like Bird? LeBron very well could be a top 15 rebounder/assist guy in NBA history and finish top 3 in scoring. I think he would pass Bird in these discussions even if he ends up 2-6 in NBA finals. Rings do separate the greats in this sport. But it isn't the only thing.

Russell has 11. He doesn't have any finals MVPs because they didn't give them out. But the award is named after him. Your sole argument that Jordan is 6-0 is the only factor gets blown apart when Russell is brought into the mix. Horry wasn't even a starter in some of those rings and certainly not the man on any of those teams. Big shot Bob was an amazing role player.. no one would bring him or Kerr up against Jordan. But Russell?

Russell..
11x champion
5 league MVPs
11 time All-Star...
his resume is probably a little better than Jordans if only finals and MVPs are considered. Other factors matter. Jordan is the goat.. But not for 6-0. Jordan was SWEPT out of the first round multiple times.

 

[trojanfan12]

Russell has 11. He doesn't have any finals MVPs because they didn't give them out. But the award is named after him. Your sole argument that Jordan is 6-0 is the only factor gets blown apart when Russell is brought into the mix.

No it doesn't. The Russell argument was blown out of the water years ago. He's not even discussed anymore because he played in Pleistocene era of the NBA. Nice try though.

 

[Wamu]

No it doesn't. The Russell argument was blown out of the water years ago. He's not even discussed anymore because he played in Pleistocene era of the NBA. Nice try though.

I bet if he had played for the Lakers all of his rings would mean something to you. Celtics Hater!

 

[trojanfan12]

I bet if he had played for the Lakers all of his rings would mean something to you. Celtics Hater!

About as much as George Mikan's do.

 

[Wamu]

No it doesn't. The Russell argument was blown out of the water years ago. He's not even discussed anymore because he played in Pleistocene era of the NBA. Nice try though.

I got George Mikan as the GOAT.

 

[trojanfan12]

I got George Mikan as the GOAT.

Well, he does have more rings than MJ.

 

[Wamu]

Well, he does have more rings than MJ.

Daaaaammmnnnn!!!!!

 

[tlance]

So, more speculation and what if's? What if MJ was 6-2 in the finals, but only had 4 finals MVP's? It's not just that he won 6 rings and 6 finals MVP's that makes his legacy what it is. It's also the fact that he never lost in the finals. Really not sure what's so hard to understand.

We don't know how much it would diminish him if he had lost because it didn't happen. It's pretty safe to say that he'd be diminished at least a little because he would no longer be unbeaten and wouldn't be seen as invincible. It might not diminish him enough to elevate someone else to GOAT. But it would eliminate part of his mystique.

Dude. I understand exactly what you are saying. You are just not correct. You even stated earlier that none of the greats had answered my question.

 

[trojanfan12]

Dude. I understand exactly what you are saying. You are just not correct. You even stated earlier that none of the greats had answered my question.

Yeah, I'm incorrect when agreeing with the all-time greats because you say so. Also, I said they hadn't been asked your exact question and explained who it relates to your question. Your inability to grasp that is a you problem.

 

[tlance]

Yeah, I'm incorrect when agreeing with the all-time greats because you say so. Also, I said they hadn't been asked your exact question and explained who it relates to your question. Your inability to grasp that is a you problem.

You are confusing me not agreeing with you with me not understanding what you are saying.

I tell you what. Once you have polled the top 20 greatest living players with my question, let me know. My entire point is the you have misunderstood why 6-0 is so special. It isn't just because he was 6-0. It was because he was basically invincible for nearly a decade. Whether he lost a Finals series before or after would not have changed that. There might have be a couple greats who would agree with you, but I am also certain that many would agree with me. The fact is that you are interpreting their comments the way you want to, but you can't know for sure without asking that exact question.

I am done here.

 

[trojanfan12]

You are confusing me not agreeing with you with me not understanding what you are saying.

Every post you've made shows your lack of understanding.

 

[ChrisGar15]

Well, he does have more rings than MJ.

Laker fans take credit for the championships that were won in a city 2000 miles away in a era which included no blacks and really were in the dark ages of basketball. But they don't give credit to Bill Russell -- in an era where Boston dominated the Lakers ...

 

[OregonDucks]

Dwayne Wades Sidekick.

 

[tlance]

Every post you've made shows your lack of understanding.

I guess I would have to say the same about you then.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

@trojanfan12

You are stating that the reason Jordan is the GOAT is because of his Finals record. That is not true. It is part of the equation, but there is a lot more in play. I believe Jordan is the greatest because he was the best wing player on both sides of the ball for a span of about 10 years. He dominated his peers in route to 6 titles that easily could have been 8+ had he not retired after winning titles on multiple occasions.

Yes, his Finals record is impressive, but it is not the fact that he went 6-0. It is the fact that nobody beat him in an 8 year span (I don't count his return season from baseball). If the Bulls had beaten the Pistons and then lost to he Lakers in the Finals before his run started, it would have absolutely zero impact on his legacy. To state otherwise is naive.

LeBron has been the best player in the league over the last 7-8 years (not anymore), but it has not translated into championships, therefor he is well behind Jordan. If LeBron manages to win 2-4 more titles as his team's best player before he retires, the Finals losses will be irrelevant. If he does not get any more, he will go down as the best player of his generation, but will likely fall short of top 5 status all time.

I think the two go together really. Yes the regular season stats for both players are comparable equally great, but the nuances of the era they played in does keep them from being equal. It is a major accomplishment to get to the finals, but it is even a greater accomplishment to win in the finals and that is the final chapter in the book that completes it and going down the stretch, some how Lebron has failed to find ways to win at the most important time of all and that didn't happen just once. It has been a pattern of failure in the finals and yes He is going to be critiqued for it.

 

[tlance]

I think the two go together really. Yes the regular season stats for both players are comparable equally great, but the nuances of the era they played in does keep them from being equal. It is a major accomplishment to get to the finals, but it is even a greater accomplishment to win in the finals and that is the final chapter in the book that completes it and going down the stretch, some how Lebron has failed to find ways to win at the most important time of all and that didn't happen just once. It has been a pattern of failure in the finals and yes He is going to be critiqued for it.

I agree with most of that. He is 2-4 now. If he finishes his career at 6-6 in the Finals with 6 Finals MVPs, he will be in the conversation and the overall body of would be comparable to the very best. It is not as much the Finals losses holding him back as it is the lack of wins. There is no way in hell that what LeBron accomplished last postseason was bad for his legacy.

 

[trojanfan12]

Laker fans take credit for the championships that were won in a city 2000 miles away in a era which included no blacks and really were in the dark ages of basketball. But they don't give credit to Bill Russell -- in an era where Boston dominated the Lakers ...

What does claiming championships that belong to the franchise have to with Bill Russell? No one is claiming any Lakers players from that era are GOAT. Which is what the discussion was about. Additionally, it's not just Lakers fans not giving credit to Russell.

So, thanks for adding nothing.

 

[trojanfan12]

I guess I would have to say the same about you then.

Difference is, you'd be wrong.