PDA

View Full Version : More Impressive: 6-0 in Finals or 5-4 in Finals



KnicksorBust
02-05-2014, 10:23 PM
People love to reference the fact that Jordan is 6-0 in NBA Finals but I've never seen anybody try and sell anyone on the validity of Magic Johnson's legacy because of his 5-4 record in the Finals. I don't even have one ounce of my body that is trying to argue Magic had a better career than MJ. All I'm saying is that getting to the Finals 9 times is more impressive than getting there 6 times. The question is does that extra championship make MJ's appearances superior to Magic's? I vote for getting there 9 times and winning 5 but I honestly have no idea what the rest of voters would say. Therefore, we have a thread. :) Looking forward to reading all responses.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 10:28 PM
I get where you are coming from, but Magic had chip help day 1. Jordan walks into that, he has 9-10 finals appearances as well...

You are also leaving out the fact that Mike walked away directly in the middle of his 6 year run

Shlumpledink
02-05-2014, 10:31 PM
magic did it in a more competitive era with less teams (could be argued either way, but i believe that more teams means less talent)

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 10:35 PM
magic did it in a more competitive era with less teams (could be argued either way, but i believe that more teams means less talent)

by that logic Russell is the GOAT.

there were 3 expansion teams in Jordan's era. Not that big of a deal imo.

ManRam
02-05-2014, 10:40 PM
This debate pops up frequently. I've yet to be swayed that the 5-4 scenario-type is worse than the 6-0 scenario.

I think winning one less, but getting there 3 more times is a more impressive team feat. Obviously there's some context that might help and maybe help justify those 4 losses or why that other team "only" made it 6 times, but yeah.

5-4 gets my vote. If we're comparing two 11 year stretches, then it's more obvious. You might as well call that 5-4 vs. 6-0-3 or something. Because losing before the Finals is worse than losing in the Finals.


Since it's obvious this is about two players, there's no reason to decide an answer to this question and deduce that the corresponding player is thus better.

KnicksorBust
02-05-2014, 10:41 PM
I get where you are coming from, but Magic had chip help day 1. Jordan walks into that, he has 9-10 finals appearances as well...

You are also leaving out the fact that Mike walked away directly in the middle of his 6 year run

MJ was only retired for 1 of those years. He got trounced by the Magic in 95. :) And I'm not sure he even beats that Houston Rockets team. Even if he didn't retire we might be lookin at 6-1. Pure projection. Magic doesn't need projection to have 9 finals...

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 10:43 PM
This debate pops up frequently. I've yet to be swayed that the 5-4 scenario-type is worse than the 6-0 scenario.

I think winning one less, but getting there 3 more times is a more impressive team feat. Obviously there's some context that might help and maybe help justify those 4 losses or why that other team "only" made it 6 times, but yeah.

5-4 gets my vote. If we're comparing two 11 year stretches, then it's more obvious. You might as well call that 5-4 vs. 6-0-3 or something. Because losing before the Finals is worse than losing in the Finals.

I will present it to you then. Imagine if Jordan walked into the help Magic had day 1. Imagine if Jordan didn't take 18 months off in his prime run?

You are holding Jordan's runs against him because of Magic's teammates and roster support early.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 10:44 PM
MJ was only retired for 1 of those years. He got trounced by the Magic in 95. :) And I'm not sure he even beats that Houston Rockets team. Even if he didn't retire we might be lookin at 6-1. Pure projection. Magic doesn't need projection to have 9 finals...

and why ignore my point about Magic being drafted into chip help day 1?

This argument needs to be put into perspective. Here it is:

With championship help, the Bulls with Jordan were 6-0.

With championship help, the Lakers with Magic were 5-4.

Kaner
02-05-2014, 10:45 PM
Am a little confused by the question, is it asking about in the context of Jordan and Magic careers whose finals record is more impressive? or just if this was like Robert Horry vs Steve Kerr and one of them went 6-0 while the other went 5-4 which is better? If it's the first one then easily Jordan the second is alot tougher for me although am still going with 6-0.

tredigs
02-05-2014, 10:47 PM
MJ was only retired for 1 of those years. He got trounced by the Magic in 95. :) And I'm not sure he even beats that Houston Rockets team. Even if he didn't retire we might be lookin at 6-1. Pure projection. Magic doesn't need projection to have 9 finals...
Lmao. He also didn't need projection to enter his rookie season with the MVP and a great supporting cast on his team. MJ had... Orlando Woodridge for 2 seasons then had to start building with the drafts of Grant and Pippen. Far different circumstances. I'll take the extra title with the perfect finals 10/10 all things considered.

P&GRealist
02-05-2014, 10:48 PM
What if Michael didn't retire and had to deal with the Hakeem led Rockets in the 94 and 95 finals?

What if Magic didn't break his leg against the 89 Pistons after the Lakers swept the first 3 rounds?

What if Magic never had HIV, which I presume he played with in the 91 finals (just didn't know it at the time) and if Worthy was healthy against MJ and the Bulls, would the result be different?


These are things I've always wondered concerning Magic and MJ.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 10:50 PM
What if Michael didn't retire and had to deal with the Hakeem led Rockets in the 94 and 95 finals?

What if Magic didn't break his leg against the 89 Pistons after the Lakers swept the first 3 rounds?

What if Magic never had HIV, which I presume he played with in the 91 finals (just didn't know it at the time), would the result be different?


These are things I've always wondered concerning Magic and MJ.

Magic's title days were over by the time Jordan started winning.

Again, this comes down to me at least, as Magic having chip help day 1, where as Jordan needed over half a decade to get his.

ManRam
02-05-2014, 10:52 PM
I will present it to you then. Imagine if Jordan walked into the help Magic had day 1. Imagine if Jordan didn't take 18 months off in his prime run?

You are holding Jordan's runs against him because of Magic's teammates and roster support early.

I don't disagree. I think using something like this to compare two players is silly. But, in a vacuum, over an identical 9 year span, I'll take the 5-4 over the 6-0.

But this stuff isn't in a vacuum and that's why I don't care too much when comparing the two.

JNA17
02-05-2014, 10:52 PM
What if Michael didn't retire and had to deal with the Hakeem led Rockets in the 94 and 95 finals?

What if Magic didn't break his leg against the 89 Pistons after the Lakers swept the first 3 rounds?

What if Magic never had HIV, which I presume he played with in the 91 finals (just didn't know it at the time) and if Worthy was healthy against MJ and the Bulls, would the result be different?


These are things I've always wondered concerning Magic and MJ.

That's the other thing most people forget too.

Would a tired MJ after a three peat beat the 94-95 Rockets?

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 10:53 PM
I don't disagree. I think using something like this to compare two players is silly. But, in a vacuum, over an identical 9 year span, I'll take the 5-4 over the 6-0.

But this stuff isn't in a vacuum and that's why I don't care too much when comparing the two.

I dont understand why you would take less titles in a 9 year chance versus a 6 year chance. Magic made more finals, but won less. Pretty easy choice for me.

KnicksorBust
02-05-2014, 10:54 PM
Lmao. He also didn't need projection to enter his rookie season with the MVP and a great supporting cast on his team. MJ had... Orlando Woodridge for 2 seasons then had to start building with the drafts of Grant and Pippen. Far different circumstances. I'll take the extra title with the perfect finals 10/10 all things considered.

What would Magic have had to do to top MJ's record? 6-3? 7-2?

KnicksorBust
02-05-2014, 10:56 PM
I dont understand why you would take less titles in a 9 year chance versus a 6 year chance. Magic made more finals, but won less. Pretty easy choice for me.

Getting to the Finals > Not getting to the Finals. MJ did his legacy a favor losing to the Magic a round earlier because if he had beaten them and then lost to the Rockets in the Finals somehow that would have made his legacy worse... That's what seems ***-backward to me.

Kaner
02-05-2014, 10:56 PM
Is a loss in the conference finals vs nba finals really that big of a distinction anyway? I mean nobody gives 2 craps about conference championship banners and such in the end the only thing that really adds to a franchise legacy is that championship trophy and rings.

tredigs
02-05-2014, 10:57 PM
What would Magic have had to do to top MJ's record? 6-3? 7-2?

I don't look at it like that. I'd have to look at them/their teams and the competition year by year and really break it down. No energy for that right now.

Hawkeye15
02-05-2014, 10:58 PM
Getting to the Finals > Not getting to the Finals. MJ did his legacy a favor losing to the Magic a round earlier because if he had beaten them and then lost to the Rockets in the Finals somehow that would have made his legacy worse... That's what seems ***-backward to me.

You asked the question, pertaining to finals only. If we expand to the rest of the playoffs, it gets even worse when bringing up chip help.

Name me one year where Magic didn't have a championship caliber roster. I can name multiple for Jordan.

And again, the fact that Jordan won more titles in 3 less chances makes it easily more impressive.

3RDASYSTEM
02-05-2014, 10:58 PM
magic did it in a more competitive era with less teams (could be argued either way, but i believe that more teams means less talent)

But it also could mean MAGIC had the RUSSELL effect in the 80's because him and BIRD's(83' SIXERS also) teams were super stacked so that means playing weaker opponents and easier path to get there being the stronger team(talent&chemistry&coaching wise), more competitive means nothing when you are on the short end of the talent barrel, the best players usually win out and usually have the more stacked talent, up and down the roster

Of course 9 trumps 6, in any way you look at it from rings to dollars, of course 6 for 6 is more impressive but i'd rather have more attempts at it so I give the edge to MAGIC, bottom line is JORDAN only had 6 chances and MAGIC had 9, but playing with ALCINDOR day 1 clearly helps him beat JORDAN as far as total trips, ALCINDOR vs PIPP is not fair since we all know ALCINDOR had like 3 nba mvp's already by the time he teamed up with MAGIC, PIPP was a developing player turned media top 50 'greatest' players all time

the hoarder wins this round vs the chucker

The_Jamal
02-05-2014, 11:03 PM
You really need to rely on your team to get to the finals. Once your there though is when the big boys have to come out and shine. LeBron with Cleveland is the perfect example. Only 1 finals appearance, despite being at min. a top 5 player throughout his time with them. That's not a diss on him, he just didn't have the team support needed.

That's why I think MJ's 6-0 is more impressive. Once he got the help, he absolutely locked it down in the finals. Just unprecedented excellence. It's what cements him as the unquestioned GOAT.Change his finals record to 4-2, or 3-3 and it would open the door for a handful of other guys to be argued as the GOAT

ManRam
02-05-2014, 11:06 PM
I dont understand why you would take less titles in a 9 year chance versus a 6 year chance. Magic made more finals, but won less. Pretty easy choice for me.

I'm not saying I would. I'm saying I would if the time frames were equal.

I honestly just read the OP now. He made it explicitly about those two. With the context known, yeah, I do think MJ's team success was more impressive. I shouldn't have been as vague about it as I was. My point is, we often criticize finals losses more than we should. I mostly see it in football. Just getting to a Super Bowl, for example, is a HUGE feat. It's an accomplishment every other team but one couldn't do. We treat Super Bowl losses like they're death sentences. They shouldn't be. Finals losses are the same. Just getting there is a huge feat. Soo...

If all things were equal I would favor the 5-4 career over the 6-0. All things being equal meaning the same time frame, assuming teams were equal, etc.


But in this context, I do think MJ's team success was a tad more impressive.

That's why it's not as simple as just saying 6-0 > 5-4 or vise versa. It never is.

NYSpirit1
02-05-2014, 11:20 PM
MJ was only retired for 1 of those years. He got trounced by the Magic in 95. :) And I'm not sure he even beats that Houston Rockets team. Even if he didn't retire we might be lookin at 6-1. Pure projection. Magic doesn't need projection to have 9 finals...

You're saying the Bulls wouldn't have won in 1999 and 2000 as well if he didn't retire culminating in them trading Pippen, releasing Rodman, trading Kerr and letting Phil go?

Please. Jordan could've won 8 in 10 years.

TheMightyHumph
02-05-2014, 11:36 PM
Depends on your POV

Tony_Starks
02-05-2014, 11:41 PM
To say Magic just walked into a chip is a huge reach. They weren't contenders before he got there, it was his play that MADE them contenders. It was basically KAJ, Wilkes, Nixon, and role players. Worthy and co didnt come along until years later. The year before Magic came they finished 47-35 and 3rd in the division. I would hardly call that a stacked team or a contender.

Not to mention that first chip was no easy feat. It took Magic having the best finals performance in history by a rookie, with their best player out at that, to seal the deal.....

JasonJohnHorn
02-05-2014, 11:53 PM
I'm rather come in first 6 times instead of 5.

That said, 9 trips to the finals is impressive. We see Bryant get drafted by a contender and he's only been in 7 times. Getting to the finals is often about the situation you come into and how good your GM is. So Magic was lucky in that respect, but he also managed to get his team into the finals 9 times, so that demonstrates that he was able to capitalize on his opportunities, which is something not all players do. Jordan had two legit shots to get to the finals and didn't make it against Detroit in 89 (6 games against Detroit) and 90 (7 games against Detroit). He lost to Detroit in 88 as well, but Detroit clearly had the better team that year.

He also missed out in 95. So of the 9 legit chances he had to get to the finals, he only made it 6 times.

Magic had 10 legit shots at the NBA finals and of those 10 times he made it 8, with his final appearance inthe finals coming in a season when few, if any, expect the Lakers to make it. The Trailblazers were clearly the better team that year, and the Lakers manages a huge upset beating that team.

So... Magic was 9/11 or 9/10 depending on how you look at it. Twice, with a solid, talented, healthy roster, they failed to reach the finals, but every other year they were there.

Jordan was 6/8 or 6/9.

Both very impressive, but both VERY lucky they had the talent around them to get there. They both capitalized on their opportunities as more than can be expected.

Hawkeye15
02-06-2014, 12:01 AM
To say Magic just walked into a chip is a huge reach. They weren't contenders before he got there, it was his play that MADE them contenders. It was basically KAJ, Wilkes, Nixon, and role players. Worthy and co didnt come along until years later. The year before Magic came they finished 47-35 and 3rd in the division. I would hardly call that a stacked team or a contender.

Not to mention that first chip was no easy feat. It took Magic having the best finals performance in history by a rookie, with their best player out at that, to seal the deal.....

go ahead and list MJ's initial supporting casts. Guarantee they didn't include a top 4 player ever.

Tony_Starks
02-06-2014, 12:21 AM
go ahead and list MJ's initial supporting casts. Guarantee they didn't include a top 4 player ever.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the notion that Magic just walked into this ready made championship. He made a decent team a instant contender.

And MJ had a lot to do with not getting more help in his early years. The first few years he's was widely viewed as a selfish player that was only out to get his that people didnt want to play with. As opposed to Magic being the guy that everyone wanted to play with because he made their job easy.

It wasn't until Phil came along and got MJ to buy into the system and trust his teammates that everything changed.

tredigs
02-06-2014, 12:35 AM
To say Magic just walked into a chip is a huge reach. They weren't contenders before he got there, it was his play that MADE them contenders. It was basically KAJ, Wilkes, Nixon, and role players. Worthy and co didnt come along until years later. The year before Magic came they finished 47-35 and 3rd in the division. I would hardly call that a stacked team or a contender.

Not to mention that first chip was no easy feat. It took Magic having the best finals performance in history by a rookie, with their best player out at that, to seal the deal.....
Whaaaat???

I don't think anybody is saying that any of his finals were an easy feat, only that he had the OPPORTUNITY (yes, he was a massive part of helping to create that opportunity) right from the get go that MJ did not have to play in the finals.

If you don't call a team that adds the best college player (back when they played their tenure and that meant something entering the NBA) to a team that has the MVP and 2 other All Star level starters and a bench piece in Cooper who was one of the top defensive wings of his generation a instant contender, I don't know what else to say. And yes, the prior year they did lose in the conference semi's to a Sonics team that smoked the Bullets in the finals for the chip.

You add an elite player to a core that solid, and yes, you had better be making a title run. You think Magic was going anywhere on the Bulls in MJ's place? **** no. Jordan joined the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Their entrance to the league was apples and ****ing spaceships.

mightybosstone
02-06-2014, 12:41 AM
Okay.... Let's consider a few things first. Michael did not have a viable No. 2 until Pippen joined in the 87-88 season. So, if we're counting every season in which Jordan and Pippen were on the court in the postseason (including 94-95), then Jordan's Bulls with a legitimate No. 2 had six NBA Finals appearances in 10 years, winning all six of them. Their Finals appearance % and Finals win percentage was 60%.

Considering Magic always had a legitimate No. 2 from 79-80 all the way to 90-91, whether it was Kareem or Worthy. He made nine finals appearances in 12 years, while winning five rings in 12 years. The 75% Finals appearance percentage is obviously far more impressive, but the 41.7% Finals win percentage isn't quite as impressive.

I'm not quite sure what we take away from this, but if you were to simply average out the percentages, Jordan would have a slight edge over LA. I think that's a stupid way to measure it, though. Let's just say in terms of success over a short period of time, both guys had similar Finals success. HOWEVER, let's throw another little wrench into the mix. How many of those 10 Bulls seasons was Jordan the No. 1 guy? All 10, right? I don't even think that's worth questioning. But what about Magic's 12 seasons? Kareem was clearly a better player Magic's rookie year, and you could make a case (not a great one) that Worthy was as good a player as Magic his final season in the league. So, Magic may have been the No. 2 guy in 1-2 of his 9 finals appearances, while Jordan was the unquestionable No. 1 for all six of his.

Bottom line, I think you have to give Jordan the advantage. He never faced a team in the Finals as talented as the Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics, but the Showtime Lakers never had an opponent in their conference like the Bad Boy Pistons in the late 80s. Jordan's six rings in 10 years is ridiculous, and the 6/6 in Finals appearances makes it all the more impressive. I'm not trying to take away anything from Magic, but his accomplishments aren't quite as impressive.

Aust
02-06-2014, 12:43 AM
Generally more finals appearances = more impressive IMO. However, there are exceptions. It depends on the situation.

tredigs
02-06-2014, 12:56 AM
Okay.... Let's consider a few things first. Michael did not have a viable No. 2 until Pippen joined in the 87-88 season. So, if we're counting every season in which Jordan and Pippen were on the court in the postseason (including 94-95), then Jordan's Bulls with a legitimate No. 2 had six NBA Finals appearances in 10 years, winning all six of them. Their Finals appearance % and Finals win percentage was 60%.

Considering Magic always had a legitimate No. 2 from 79-80 all the way to 90-91, whether it was Kareem or Worthy. He made nine finals appearances in 12 years, while winning five rings in 12 years. The 75% Finals appearance percentage is obviously far more impressive, but the 41.7% Finals win percentage isn't quite as impressive.

I'm not quite sure what we take away from this, but if you were to simply average out the percentages, Jordan would have a slight edge over LA. I think that's a stupid way to measure it, though. Let's just say in terms of success over a short period of time, both guys had similar Finals success. HOWEVER, let's throw another little wrench into the mix. How many of those 10 Bulls seasons was Jordan the No. 1 guy? All 10, right? I don't even think that's worth questioning. But what about Magic's 12 seasons? Kareem was clearly a better player Magic's rookie year, and you could make a case (not a great one) that Worthy was as good a player as Magic his final season in the league. So, Magic may have been the No. 2 guy in 1-2 of his 9 finals appearances, while Jordan was the unquestionable No. 1 for all six of his.

Bottom line, I think you have to give Jordan the advantage. He never faced a team in the Finals as talented as the Bird/McHale/Parish Celtics, but the Showtime Lakers never had an opponent in their conference like the Bad Boy Pistons in the late 80s. Jordan's six rings in 10 years is ridiculous, and the 6/6 in Finals appearances makes it all the more impressive. I'm not trying to take away anything from Magic, but his accomplishments aren't quite as impressive.
Beyond that, you're considering a rookie Pippen who averaged 7.9/3.8/2.1 with a 49% TS a "legitimate 2nd option". He wasn't a true #2 for a few years.

Meanwhile when Magic got to LA, he was the #3/4 option and primarily stuck to playmaking (though obviously he could do it all on the offensive end, he's GOAT level for a reason). Teams couldn't afford to pressure him like they did to Jordan (not that it stopped him).

Kaner
02-06-2014, 01:01 AM
I guarantee the Lakers franchise, and magic both would trade those 4 final loses for another title.

"NBA Championship rings are all that matter; Jordan 6, Me 5, Bird 3, LeBron 2 and Dr. J 1."-Magic Johnson

FlashBolt
02-06-2014, 01:26 AM
Magic and Bird have some of the best teammates in the history. Jordan had no one until Rod. It's why I think Magic is overrated in many cases.

tredigs
02-06-2014, 01:57 AM
Magic and Bird have some of the best teammates in the history. Jordan had no one until Rod. It's why I think Magic is overrated in many cases.

Wouldn't go that far. The guy faced off with teams like Bird's Celtics in the finals, they weren't going to win them all. But he made the finals nearly every year he was in the league. He took full advantage of what advantages he had. Just like all GOAT level players do.

And, he had no one until "Rod", as in Rodman? I'll just assume I'm missing something and you mean something else.

mightybosstone
02-06-2014, 02:12 AM
Beyond that, you're considering a rookie Pippen who averaged 7.9/3.8/2.1 with a 49% TS a "legitimate 2nd option". He wasn't a true #2 for a few years.

Meanwhile when Magic got to LA, he was the #3/4 option and primarily stuck to playmaking (though obviously he could do it all on the offensive end, he's GOAT level for a reason). Teams couldn't afford to pressure him like they did to Jordan (not that it stopped him).

I was being as generous as possible to give Magic a halfway decent shot. But your points are well made. I think that no matter how you break down this argument, Jordan's accomplishments are more impressive.

numba1CHANGsta
02-06-2014, 02:31 AM
Id take 5-4 in the NBA Finals any day, the more Finals appearances the better, yeah MJ has one more ring than Magic but making 9 NBA Finals is crazy. LeBron is 2-2, Duncan 4-1, Kobe 5-2

effen5
02-06-2014, 03:39 AM
Id take 5-4 in the NBA Finals any day, the more Finals appearances the better, yeah MJ has one more ring than Magic but making 9 NBA Finals is crazy. LeBron is 2-2, Duncan 4-1, Kobe 5-2

What do you mean Lebron is 2-2? He made the finals with the Cavs.

And for me, I'll take whoever has the most titles, 6-6 is beyond ridiculous.

jerellh528
02-06-2014, 04:02 AM
6 beats 5. The ultimate goal is winning the finals, however I don't hold perfect records in finals in higher regard to finals losses if the number of championships is equal. For instance 6-0>5-4 but 5-4>5-0. This is of course, context withheld. Another example, when people use 6-0 in finals as a plus for Jordan, I don't look at the -0 as a positive, I look at the 6 rings as the positive. 6-3 would be more impressive than 6-0, so I take Jordan's 6 rings as very impressive but not because it was 6-0, it's because it's 6 damn rings lol

Drummond#1
02-06-2014, 07:01 AM
I think that Jordan's dynasty was more dominant. However, the Lakers dynasty should be considered as impressive. This can be said for a lot of other teams as well. I think the Pistons 2000s era is underrated as they were 1-1 in the Finals but made it to six consecutive conference Finals.

PhillyFaninLA
02-06-2014, 08:41 AM
You can't judge a player by rings only a team....so 9 Laker finals with 5 wins is more impressive than 6 Bulls appearances with no loses.

ATX
02-06-2014, 10:13 AM
Not getting into the whole Magic/Jordan thing, but just on the surface of which is more impressive 6-0 or 5-4, I'll take 5-4.

3RDASYSTEM
02-06-2014, 10:21 AM
I think that Jordan's dynasty was more dominant. However, the Lakers dynasty should be considered as impressive. This can be said for a lot of other teams as well. I think the Pistons 2000s era is underrated as they were 1-1 in the Finals but made it to six consecutive conference Finals.

9 finals out of 12yrs is pretty dominant dynasty no matter how you cut it

3RDASYSTEM
02-06-2014, 10:27 AM
To say Magic just walked into a chip is a huge reach. They weren't contenders before he got there, it was his play that MADE them contenders. It was basically KAJ, Wilkes, Nixon, and role players. Worthy and co didnt come along until years later. The year before Magic came they finished 47-35 and 3rd in the division. I would hardly call that a stacked team or a contender.

Not to mention that first chip was no easy feat. It took Magic having the best finals performance in history by a rookie, with their best player out at that, to seal the deal.....

well if he didn't walk into it then he damn sure engineered the decision to pick his team of choice between ALCINDOR/LA or Michigan state because he wasn't going to chi town had they won the coin flip back during that draft for no1 overall pick

MAGIC for damn sure knew lakers had rich tradition of winning/going to finals and Chicago had done much of nothing and sucked even worse, and how can a 47 win team who finished 3rd in division win 1st pick overall unless its rigged up or something?

you just nailed it on why he had to have the best game in finals by a rookie because the 3x nba mvp was out with injury so he stepped up like a legend is supposed to, it would have been way way more special/epic/legend had he went to Chicago and did the same thing but I highly doubt that would have happen, he would have been NASH in phx, post AMARE and co.

READ BELOW

And in the case of Magic Johnson, Mike has done his homework. He found a Mike Downey L.A. Times article from 1991:

Magic Johnson would have returned to Michigan State rather than play for the Chicago Bulls.

"I'd have stayed in school," he said here Tuesday, standing alone outside Gate 3 1/2 of Chicago Stadium, the house that could have been his. "A coin toss changed the course of my whole life." Chicago called heads in a 1979 coin flip with Los Angeles for the No. 1 pick in the NBA college draft. It came up tails.

Johnson signed with the Lakers after his sophomore year of college and proceeded to win five championships. The Bulls picked second, took UCLA's David Greenwood and have won no championships.

"I wouldn't have played here," Johnson said on the eve of Game 2 of the NBA finals between his team and the team that could have been his. "The only reason I came out was to play with Kareem and the Lakers."

Then Mike gets to comparing the Lakers who played with Johnson in his first seven years to the Cavaliers who played with James over the same period. Johnson's teammates, in aggregate, had: •Two first team All-Rookie selections (Byron Scott, James Worthy)
•11 All-Star appearances (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar seven times, Norm Nixon twice, Worthy, Jamaal Wilkes)
•Four All-NBA first team selections (Abdul-Jabbar)
•Two All-NBA second team selections (Abdul-Jabbar)
•Five All-Defensive first team selections (Michael Cooper three times, Abdul-Jabbar twice)
•Four All-Defensive second team selections (Cooper three times, Abdul-Jabbar once)
•One MVP Award (Abdul-Jabbar)
•In addition, Abdul-Jabbar, Worthy, Wilkes, Nixon, and Cooper all got votes for MVP at one point in time or the other during Magic's first seven years, and Cooper won defensive player of the year in Johnson's eighth year.

celtNYpatsHeels
02-06-2014, 10:34 AM
How many Finals do you think Jordan would have made if he was on a team with Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Cooper, Rambis, and Thompson?

hugepatsfan
02-06-2014, 11:28 AM
I don't think this is a question we should be asking as a comparison between two players specifically. I think this is more of a big picture issue. Nowadays everyone is quick to attach a star to his record. Not only that, but everyone likes to hold SB, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals, World Series record separate. Because of that I feel we've reached a point where a lot of people really don't seem to understand that losing in the final round/game is actually better than not making it at all. There are too many people out there that genuinely think going 1-0 in final rounds/games is better than going 1-1 because it means you never lost. That's ridiculously wrong. Going 1-0 instead of 1-1 just means you lost earlier than the final round.

Now to address the specific numbers in this thread. I'm not talking about the players. Just 6-0 vs. 5-4. Obviously the goal is to win championships so you always want as many as possible. However, just looking at those numbers in a vacuum, 5-4 seems to indicate a longer stretch of being a very successful team. I'd call 5-4 more impressive but I'd rather be on the team that went 6-0.

JordansBulls
02-06-2014, 09:12 PM
To say Magic just walked into a chip is a huge reach. They weren't contenders before he got there, it was his play that MADE them contenders. It was basically KAJ, Wilkes, Nixon, and role players. Worthy and co didnt come along until years later. The year before Magic came they finished 47-35 and 3rd in the division. I would hardly call that a stacked team or a contender.

Not to mention that first chip was no easy feat. It took Magic having the best finals performance in history by a rookie, with their best player out at that, to seal the deal.....

If you go to a team that has the guy who won league mvp that is walking to a chip.

JordansBulls
02-06-2014, 09:15 PM
Also the answer to this is 6-0 not because it was perfect but because of the organizations. One guy went to one of the worst franchises ever that had 0 finals appearances and had the 2nd worst record in the league prior to him arriving including an attendance of 6000 fans and he turned it into a dynasty whereas the other guy only came out of school to play for a winning organization that had already won 6 titles and been in 15 finals before he ever arrived along with the league mvp on the team. Not to mention one player managed to be the total reason his team got there whereas half the time Magic was not at least not in 1980 nor 1982.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-05/sports/sp-83_1_lakers


Magic Johnson would have returned to Michigan State rather than play for the Chicago Bulls.

"I'd have stayed in school," he said here Tuesday, standing alone outside Gate 3 1/2 of Chicago Stadium, the house that could have been his. "A coin toss changed the course of my whole life."

Johnson signed with the Lakers after his sophomore year of college and proceeded to win five championships. The Bulls picked second, took UCLA's David Greenwood and have won no championships.

"I wouldn't have played here," Johnson said on the eve of Game 2 of the NBA finals between his team and the team that could have been his. "The only reason I came out was to play with Kareem and the Lakers.

Raps08-09 Champ
02-06-2014, 09:17 PM
Disregarding the players involved and their team mates, that just means the player that made 6-0 wasn't good enough to make 3 more final's appearance.

I'd take 6 championships over 5 wins, but 9 finals appearance is more impressive IMO (not considering other factors like players involved). Better to have losses in the finals than loss in the 2nd round or something.

If it was 6-0 and 6-4, then it would be so easy, though I would like to see the people who try to argue 6-0 over 6-4.

tredigs
02-06-2014, 09:32 PM
Disregarding the players involved and their team mates, that just means the player that made 6-0 wasn't good enough to make 3 more final's appearance.

I'd take 6 championships over 5 wins, but 9 finals appearance is more impressive IMO (not considering other factors like players involved). Better to have losses in the finals than loss in the 2nd round or something.

If it was 6-0 and 6-4, then it would be so easy, though I would like to see the people who try to argue 6-0 over 6-4.

But why would you disregard the context of the teams and say that the "player wasn't good enough"? That makes no sense to me. It's basketball, not tennis.

But question to those voting for 5-4 and choosing to ignore context: Would you rather lose in the semi's or conference finals twice then win a title, or lose in the finals 3 straight seasons?

Bruno
02-06-2014, 09:35 PM
really interesting question. honestly don't have a strong opinion one way or another and totally understand votes on both sides.

Jamiecballer
02-06-2014, 09:35 PM
5-4

Bruno
02-06-2014, 09:40 PM
Also the answer to this is 6-0 not because it was perfect but because of the organizations. One guy went to one of the worst franchises ever that had 0 finals appearances and had the 2nd worst record in the league prior to him arriving including an attendance of 6000 fans and he turned it into a dynasty whereas the other guy only came out of school to play for a winning organization that had already won 6 titles and been in 15 finals before he ever arrived along with the league mvp on the team. Not to mention one player managed to be the total reason his team got there whereas half the time Magic was not at least not in 1980 nor 1982.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-06-05/sports/sp-83_1_lakers

Personally, I don't care about this one. i know you're big on it JB I just can't see how it makes a difference.

The Lakers won just a single championship between 1954 and Magics arrival in 1980. One championship over a 26 year period. I think its easy to sit and regard the Laker organization as the juggernaut they are now (winning 33% of all NBA championships over a 30 year period will do that), but at the time of Magics arrival were the Lakers titans of the league? One championship over a 26 year period?

Raps08-09 Champ
02-06-2014, 09:41 PM
But why would you disregard the context of the teams and say that the "player wasn't good enough"? That makes no sense to me. It's basketball, not tennis.

But question to those voting for 5-4 and choosing to ignore context: Would you rather lose in the semi's or conference finals twice then win a title, or lose in the finals 3 straight seasons?

I disregarded the teams for this example because the teams were not balanced.

When I said "player wasn't good enough", I was saying that with the idea that in the perfect world, the supporting cast talent is equal/comparable throughout.

Your example is too easy since the other person doesn't have a ring. I'd pick the ring of course. But if both situations had multiple rings, it would be a different conversation. There's a difference between what I would want as a player and what I think is more impressive an an observer.

JordansBulls
02-06-2014, 09:44 PM
The question is more interesting if both franchise were known as winning franchises or losing franchises. If one was a winning franchise and one a terrible franchise than the guy who took the terrible franchise to success is more impressive. If this is a Celtics vs Lakers than that is a different question. For instance, Celtics had a rough road to the finals in the 80's while the Lakers had a cake walk. So is going to the Finals 5 times when you got a difficult road more impressive than going 9 times when you got a cake walk?


Lakers WC opponents from 81-90

81
Houston Rockets: 40-42 (*** they lost this series)

82
Phoenix Suns: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 48-34

83
Portland Trail Blazers: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 53-29

84
Kings: 38-44
Mavericks: 43-39
Suns: 41-41

85
Suns: 36-46
Blazers: 42-40
Nuggets: 52-30

86
Spurs: 35-47
Mavericks: 44-38
Rockets: 51-31 (*** they lost this series)

87
Nuggets: 37-45
Warriors: 42-40
Sonics: 39-43

88
Spurs: 31-51
Jazz: 47-35
Mavs: 53-29

89
Blazers: 39-43
Sonics: 47-35
Suns: 55-27

90
Rockets: 41-41
Suns: 54-28 (*** they lost this series)

So in 10 postseasons, LA only had to face 6 teams of 50+ wins in total, with no team winning more than 55 games - and they lost to two of these 50 win teams (the '86 Rockets, '90 Suns) on top of that despite having a massive talent advantage. Compare that to the Bulls, who beat 10 teams of 50+ wins within their conference during their 6 title seasons, 6 of which won more than 55 games. Not even close to the same level of competition intra-conference. LA also beat zero teams headed by top 50 players all-time within their conference, and in fact lost both times they tried to do so ('81 Rockets w/Moses, '86 Rockets with Dream). Compare that to Chicago, who beat Barkley (twice), Ewing (4 times), Mourning (twice), Isiah, and Shaq within their own conference.

tredigs
02-06-2014, 09:48 PM
I disregarded the teams for this example because the teams were not balanced.

When I said "player wasn't good enough", I was saying that with the idea that in the perfect world, the supporting cast talent is equal/comparable throughout.

Your example is too easy since the other person doesn't have a ring. I'd pick the ring of course. But if both situations had multiple rings, it would be a different conversation. There's a difference between what I would want as a player and what I think is more impressive an an observer.

Ah on your 1st point you're just making it a perfectly even theoretical, gotchya.

So, then in the scenario where the players already have the 5 rings each, you would in fact prefer to lose in the finals 3 straight years rather than get knocked out a round or two earlier for 2 seasons, then win it all the 3rd?

edit: I'm just trying to make it a clearer picture of what people think is more impressive. Though actually including context of their particular teams, I personally don't think it's very close.

@JB, you can't control your opponents or road to the finals, only that you take full advantage of what advantages you have. Which is what they did.

3RDASYSTEM
02-06-2014, 10:17 PM
Personally, I don't care about this one. i know you're big on it JB I just can't see how it makes a difference.

The Lakers won just a single championship between 1954 and Magics arrival in 1980. One championship over a 26 year period. I think its easy to sit and regard the Laker organization as the juggernaut they are now (winning 33% of all NBA championships over a 30 year period will do that), but at the time of Magics arrival were the Lakers titans of the league? One championship over a 26 year period?

They may have won only 1 ring in that span but the logo WEST went to like 10 FINALS alone as a player for lakers

The lakers were like the BILLS/MANNINGS COLTS 10x over of the nba during that 26yr period, the lakers are so rabid hungry they stole MIKAN-MINNY 5 titles and flaunt it like they came during California tenure

Im glad you pointed that drought out, now go add how many FINALS appearances and you can see why the 80's and 00's were kind to the Hollywood franchise

KnicksorBust
02-07-2014, 08:32 AM
I don't think this is a question we should be asking as a comparison between two players specifically. I think this is more of a big picture issue. Nowadays everyone is quick to attach a star to his record. Not only that, but everyone likes to hold SB, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals, World Series record separate. Because of that I feel we've reached a point where a lot of people really don't seem to understand that losing in the final round/game is actually better than not making it at all. There are too many people out there that genuinely think going 1-0 in final rounds/games is better than going 1-1 because it means you never lost. That's ridiculously wrong. Going 1-0 instead of 1-1 just means you lost earlier than the final round.

Now to address the specific numbers in this thread. I'm not talking about the players. Just 6-0 vs. 5-4. Obviously the goal is to win championships so you always want as many as possible. However, just looking at those numbers in a vacuum, 5-4 seems to indicate a longer stretch of being a very successful team. I'd call 5-4 more impressive but I'd rather be on the team that went 6-0.

One of the best posts in the thread.


Disregarding the players involved and their team mates, that just means the player that made 6-0 wasn't good enough to make 3 more final's appearance.

I'd take 6 championships over 5 wins, but 9 finals appearance is more impressive IMO (not considering other factors like players involved). Better to have losses in the finals than loss in the 2nd round or something.

If it was 6-0 and 6-4, then it would be so easy, though I would like to see the people who try to argue 6-0 over 6-4.

Exactly. The comparison between winning ONE more ring vs. the quality of making FOUR appearances and losing to me makes it extremely difficult.

redhorse
02-07-2014, 09:54 AM
Getting to the Finals > Not getting to the Finals. MJ did his legacy a favor losing to the Magic a round earlier because if he had beaten them and then lost to the Rockets in the Finals somehow that would have made his legacy worse... That's what seems ***-backward to me.


dude the bulls in that 1995 season were barely over .500 bfore jordan returned... jordan was out of basketball and pursuing another sport for a year and a half and cameback midseason...So of course in that 1995 season he was a little rusty... And if he retired after he lost to the magic or never won a championship again then u have a point but that didnt happen...jordan got motivated led the bullls 72-10..winning mvp...sweeping the magic... and winning three more titles...goat man...

tredigs
02-07-2014, 10:12 AM
One of the best posts in the thread.



Exactly. The comparison between winning ONE more ring vs. the quality of making FOUR appearances and losing to me makes it extremely difficult.

It's one more ring or three more appearances, not four.

3RDASYSTEM
02-07-2014, 10:18 AM
dude the bulls in that 1995 season were barely over .500 bfore jordan returned... jordan was out of basketball and pursuing another sport for a year and a half and cameback midseason...So of course in that 1995 season he was a little rusty... And if he retired after he lost to the magic or never won a championship again then u have a point but that didnt happen...jordan got motivated led the bullls 72-10..winning mvp...sweeping the magic... and winning three more titles...goat man...

Coming off a 50 plus win season without JORDAN right? along with JORDAN the others were champs/super motivated also in RODMAN/PIPPEN, and they kept solid old veteran leadership on top of JORDANs, and you hit it right on the head, the BULLS were barely over .500 and JORDAN really didn't make them no better getting beat in 2nd rd, didn't they regress from 94' season? so two yrs of nothing after 3peat im sure had them all highly motivated, PIPP/RODMAN were gamers day1, especially mentally and RODMAN was tested already as he could guard JORDAN/SHAQ in his badboy/Chicago days, even in SA he brought a fire to that team

it was the big 3 more so than JORDAN, RODMAN rebounding was equal important as JORDAN 28-30ppg as was PIPP flirting with a trip dub basically every game along with the snipers around him and avg big men who could step out and knock down a mid range jumper, along with PHIL/KRAUSE is the reason they won 72 games and that 96' title

RODMAN could have won co mvp of that 96' finals, he was avg like 20 rpg over first 3 games or so while JORDAN wasn't dropping his usual 35-42ppg in finals series, imagine that

a GOAT because he won 6 titles in 15yrs? congrats to JORDAN for that second 3peat to solidify the GOAT spot....wow

redhorse
02-07-2014, 10:42 AM
Coming off a 50 plus win season without JORDAN right? along with JORDAN the others were champs/super motivated also in RODMAN/PIPPEN, and they kept solid old veteran leadership on top of JORDANs, and you hit it right on the head, the BULLS were barely over .500 and JORDAN really didn't make them no better getting beat in 2nd rd, didn't they regress from 94' season? so two yrs of nothing after 3peat im sure had them all highly motivated, PIPP/RODMAN were gamers day1, especially mentally and RODMAN was tested already as he could guard JORDAN/SHAQ in his badboy/Chicago days, even in SA he brought a fire to that team

it was the big 3 more so than JORDAN, RODMAN rebounding was equal important as JORDAN 28-30ppg as was PIPP flirting with a trip dub basically every game along with the snipers around him and avg big men who could step out and knock down a mid range jumper, along with PHIL/KRAUSE is the reason they won 72 games and that 96' title

RODMAN could have won co mvp of that 96' finals, he was avg like 20 rpg over first 3 games or so while JORDAN wasn't dropping his usual 35-42ppg in finals series, imagine that

a GOAT because he won 6 titles in 15yrs? congrats to JORDAN for that second 3peat to solidify the GOAT spot....wow

to me hes the goat...why am i the only one that says that??

of course its a team effort ...what championship /great team didnt have a good supporting cast to build around their superstar....

KnicksorBust
02-07-2014, 03:31 PM
dude the bulls in that 1995 season were barely over .500 bfore jordan returned... jordan was out of basketball and pursuing another sport for a year and a half and cameback midseason...So of course in that 1995 season he was a little rusty... And if he retired after he lost to the magic or never won a championship again then u have a point but that didnt happen...jordan got motivated led the bullls 72-10..winning mvp...sweeping the magic... and winning three more titles...goat man...

You seem to be missing the point. This has nothing to do with whether or not Jordan is the "GOAT." It has more to do with the fact that I believe if Jordan had made it to the finals in 95 and lost to the Rockets then a Finals Record of 6-1 would look worse to many people than 6-0. Therefore, I'm using the comparison of Magic's 5-4 record of Jordan's 6-0 to see how much more valuable people consider that 1 title. Is it really more impressive to win 1 than making 4 finals?

KnicksorBust
02-07-2014, 03:32 PM
It's one more ring or three more appearances, not four.

No it's winning 1 ring vs. losing in 4.

Essentially 1-0 vs. 0-4. The only difference is I'm adding the fact that both players already have 5. That's why I described it as winning "ONE more ring."

Nats_vcu-Okc35
02-07-2014, 04:30 PM
Whaaaat???

I don't think anybody is saying that any of his finals were an easy feat, only that he had the OPPORTUNITY (yes, he was a massive part of helping to create that opportunity) right from the get go that MJ did not have to play in the finals.

If you don't call a team that adds the best college player (back when they played their tenure and that meant something entering the NBA) to a team that has the MVP and 2 other All Star level starters and a bench piece in Cooper who was one of the top defensive wings of his generation a instant contender, I don't know what else to say. And yes, the prior year they did lose in the conference semi's to a Sonics team that smoked the Bullets in the finals for the chip.

You add an elite player to a core that solid, and yes, you had better be making a title run. You think Magic was going anywhere on the Bulls in MJ's place? **** no. Jordan joined the 2nd worst team in the NBA. Their entrance to the league was apples and ****ing spaceships.

Hahaha, an apt comparison.

This and the fact that KAJ is also a top 3-5 all-time great, is what sways me to the Jordan 6-0 strictly from an individual comparison standpoint.

I can see that a case could be made either way though.

PowerHouse
02-07-2014, 04:52 PM
MJ's 6-0 record is barely more impressive. The reason why its only barely more is because Magic would have been 6-3 in the finals instead of 5-4 if an injury didnt keep him out of the 1989 finals.

hugepatsfan
02-07-2014, 05:30 PM
Ah on your 1st point you're just making it a perfectly even theoretical, gotchya.

So, then in the scenario where the players already have the 5 rings each, you would in fact prefer to lose in the finals 3 straight years rather than get knocked out a round or two earlier for 2 seasons, then win it all the 3rd?

edit: I'm just trying to make it a clearer picture of what people think is more impressive. Though actually including context of their particular teams, I personally don't think it's very close.

@JB, you can't control your opponents or road to the finals, only that you take full advantage of what advantages you have. Which is what they did.

I'd rather win the extra title. But I think getting to 3 straight is more impressive than than the first scenario you described. By definition there is one title team for every year the NBA has existed. Getting to 3 straight finals (even all losses) is something I think is harder to do than win one. I'd obviously rather be on the team that won but I think the team that went to 3 straight accomplished something harder to do.

MTar786
02-07-2014, 06:09 PM
That's the other thing most people forget too.

Would a tired MJ after a three peat beat the 94-95 Rockets?

we'll never know. but if you take out jordans mid season comeback year when he just came back. then you could look at it like this. jordans final 6 straight seasons of play. he won every year.

i would take 6 and 0 because people seem to not notice the fact that the 6 and 0 was over an 8 year span. 1 and a half years of which he wasn't even playing basketball. but just as a consolation prize though i would like to mention that the lakers team that went 5 and 4 saw much harder competition than the bulls did. the jazz teams were not that great. sonics were good but not hough experience.. and weren't as good as you may think. they never went back to the finals. that should say something. the suns team was good. the laker team was half of what they were. blazers.. i don't know enough about to say anything

3RDASYSTEM
02-07-2014, 07:04 PM
to me hes the goat...why am i the only one that says that??

of course its a team effort ...what championship /great team didnt have a good supporting cast to build around their superstar....

i never said to you he couldn't be, you worded it by saying they were barely .500 and blah blah and he came back and 3peated and goat, I responded by saying wow 6 titles in 15yrs with two 3peats make him the GOAT? I think his rookie yr and going for 44ppg vs C's 86' playoffs and 10 scoring titles make a case for being GOAT than his 6 team titles to be honest because he played that way when he was or not winning...that's called 'individual' game/impact

of course you are not the only one to spew that he is the so called goat(media goat for sure), but old school legends always say WILT Is the best(most dominant individually) ever so its not like its a one sided race, others will say MAGIC/ALCINDOR/OSCAR/RUSSELL and so on and on

DREAM comes to mind who had a good team but he made them back to back champs with his individual game/impact, couple other players led team to finals with fringe ymca offensive type talent

but of course the teams with top notch talent wins for most part, it's reason why I was telling someone on here how lakers didn't win but 1 title from a 26yr span but they went to multiple finals appearances because they had the 'logo' of the nba on their team and you know he had a damn good support cast to reach it that many times....duh

Raps08-09 Champ
02-07-2014, 09:07 PM
Ah on your 1st point you're just making it a perfectly even theoretical, gotchya.

So, then in the scenario where the players already have the 5 rings each, you would in fact prefer to lose in the finals 3 straight years rather than get knocked out a round or two earlier for 2 seasons, then win it all the 3rd?

edit: I'm just trying to make it a clearer picture of what people think is more impressive. Though actually including context of their particular teams, I personally don't think it's very close.

@JB, you can't control your opponents or road to the finals, only that you take full advantage of what advantages you have. Which is what they did.

What I would prefer and what I think is most impressive are 2 different things. As a player/fan of the team, I would take 1 ring and miss the playoffs 3 times (or whatever) over losing 4 finals. But making 4 finals is pretty impressive.

Pablonovi
06-11-2014, 07:29 PM
by that logic Russell is the GOAT.

there were 3 expansion teams in Jordan's era. Not that big of a deal imo.

Comparing The Relative Strength Of The 5.5 Last NBA Decades, Vis-A-Vis MajorExpansion

Hey Hawkeye, there were SIX expansion teams immediately before & during MJ's two 3-Peats:
2 New Teams in 89, Miami & Charlotte
2 New Teams in 90, Minnesota & Orlando (right before the first 3-Peat)
2 New Teams in 96, Vancouver & Toronto (the very year of the 72-10 (no wonder!) and the start of the 2nd 3-Peat).

Note also: 3 of the first 4 teams and 4 of the 6 teams overall were added to the Eastern Conference; 2 ended up in the Bulls' Division! (However, I've just finished a comparison of the Western Conf. VS the Eastern Conf. for all of NBA history. During the 1990's the two conferences were almost even vs each other; with the West slightly stronger in the first 5 years, and the East slightly stronger in the 2nd five years.)

What this tells us is that:
1) Contrary to popular belief, the Eastern Conf. was not tougher than the Western during the 2 3-Peats!
2) AND, the Bulls benefitted from the 6-team expansion more than any other contender; because their Division got more than the average number of expansion teams.

That was the NBA's third of three big expansion waves:
1st "Competing With The ABA" 67-71: 8 teams in 5 years (both numerically & %-wise the biggest expansion)
2nd "The End Of The ABA" 75-81: 6 teams in 7 years (tied for 2nd numerically; 2nd %-wise)
3rd "The Era Of MJ's 2 3-Peats" 89-96: 6 teams in 8 years (tied for 2nd numerically; 3rd %-wise).

Before 1962 the NBA had had 8 teams for a few years. They added one in 1962. Then did those 3 Big Expansions, then have only added one team in the last 18 years.

From this we can say:

That with each year forward since 1997, the NBA has gotten gradually stronger & stronger (no expansion while more talent had poured in). EASILY, THE 15 Year Period 2000-2014 is the STRONGEST ever.

Comparing the decades (just in terms of size & expansion-diluted or not):
1) 60's: only 9 teams for most of the decade.
2) 70's Weakened by expansions before and late-during
3) 80s: Weakened by 6-team expansion not long before. (In all, 14 teams had been added in 15 yrs heading into this decade).
4) 90s: Weakened by 6-team expansion during 90s. (In all, 20 teams were added in 30 years).
5) 00s & 10's: ONLY 1 team added in last 18 Years ! Thus, vis-a-vis Expansion's diluting effect, this has been the strongest era by far!

Pablonovi
06-11-2014, 07:38 PM
Keep in mind, the last year, 1993, of the 1st MJ 3-Peat, the Bulls were 57-25.
The next year, 1994, without him, and having to make season-long adjustments because of that, they were 55-27. So they lost MJ and only lost 2 more games!

Pierzynski4Prez
06-11-2014, 07:43 PM
So much context is involved in this that you can't compare MJ to Magic and get a definite answer.

The only thing you could compare is the 80s Lakers to the 90s Bulls and what run is more impressive.

KnicksorBust
06-11-2014, 07:58 PM
So much context is involved in this that you can't compare MJ to Magic and get a definite answer.

The only thing you could compare is the 80s Lakers to the 90s Bulls and what run is more impressive.

And what would your answer be to that?

Pablonovi
06-11-2014, 08:02 PM
In Post #72 above, I think I've made a GREAT case that, due to expansion right at the beginning and during MJ's 2 3-Peats; that his era was NOT tougher, more-competitive than other eras. One of the reason that era gives the impression that it was super-great; is because given all that expansion, the best teams won more games than they otherwise would have. That's why we saw 72-10 in exactly the year of the addition of two teams (1995-96), ON TOP OF the adding of 4 teams just a few years earlier.

Notice too, that with each year starting from 1996, the NBA started to recover from the latest expansion-dilution, the overall competition level rose and the Bulls' W-L record, surprise! went down:
96: 72-10 (the very year of the addition of still 2 more expansion teams)
97: 69-13
98: 62-20

A very similar pattern had happened in the last two years of the First 3-Peat:
91: 61-21
92: 67-15
93: 57-25

btw, I'm working on an analysis of the how the 3 Big Waves Of NBA Expansion affected W-L Records. I'm about half-way done. (It takes a bunch of hours). As soon as it's finished, I'll post it to PSD.

Pablonovi
06-11-2014, 08:12 PM
I guarantee the Lakers franchise, and magic both would trade those 4 final loses for another title.

"NBA Championship rings are all that matter; Jordan 6, Me 5, Bird 3, LeBron 2 and Dr. J 1."-Magic Johnson

Hey Kaner,
Magic's been known to say quite a few things (driven by some particular agenda at the given time) that were wrong too. Suppose, in this particular case, he figured that MJ had him beat GOAT career-wise. Then, instead of picking a hard-to-win battle, he decided to concede that MJ's career was better. But there were HUGE doubts about who was better between Magic & Bird. So, in THAT CONTEXT, Magic was CLEARLY making a STRONG case that his career was better than Bird's AND LeBron's AND Dr. J's. (btw, Dr. J. beat Bird 2-1 in NBA Finals; AND, he was even a good deal better during his ABA days - which count equal in my book because during those years the two Leagues were about equal.)

The ABA teams were winning more than half of the exhibition games between the two Leagues; and in the two Inter-League All-Star games, the ABA played the NBA just about even. Then when the 4 ABA Teams joined the NBA, they had over-all winning records (meaning they were on-average, better than the average NBA teams of that time!)

Pierzynski4Prez
06-11-2014, 08:28 PM
So much context is involved in this that you can't compare MJ to Magic and get a definite answer.

The only thing you could compare is the 80s Lakers to the 90s Bulls and what run is more impressive.

And what would your answer be to that?

I'm way to biased to give an answer to that.

Pablonovi
06-11-2014, 08:46 PM
So much context is involved in this that you can't compare MJ to Magic and get a definite answer.

The only thing you could compare is the 80s Lakers to the 90s Bulls and what run is more impressive.

Hey Pierzynski4Prez,
In the expansion super-diluted 1990's the Bulls made 6 Finals & won 6 Chips in 10 years.
In the slightly less expansion-diluted 1980's the Lakers made 8 Finals & won 5 Chips in 10 years.

For ME, 8 Finals including 5 Chips is better than 6 Chips.

Additionally, the Lakers twice had to beat the 1980's Celtics which I consider a good deal better than ANY of the 6 Finals teams the Bulls beat. I'd say the same for Dr.J's/Moses Malone's 76er teams during that same decade.

So, just responding to your question:

The 80s Lakers Run Was More Impressive (To Me) Than The 90s Bulls Run

hidalgo
06-11-2014, 09:31 PM
6-0 is more impressive, & that 1 extra title by FAR is better than 4 lost finals (ask the buffalo Bills what they'd prefer, 1 title or 4 bitter SB losses, it's not even close). another deciding factor in this is the 1991 finals. had magic won that, he'd be 6-3, & MJ would be 5-1(assuming MJ still retired which i doubt if he lost in 91), that finals sealed it, MJ over Magic. also Worthy was playing great & only missed game 5 because he re-injured his ankle late in game 4 & that game wasn't close(he was just fine before that). Bulls were up 3-1 at that point, a healthy Worthy for game 5 wouldn't matter, & Elden Campbell scored 21 in Worthy's place that game, so he was James Worthy for that game. it's like Worthy played game 5 because Campbell wasn't getting any minutes before game 5 & played just like Worthy for that game.

and they swept the bad boys before that, unreal

also the Bulls came the closest to beating the bad boys in 89 & 90, so they could be considered the 2nd best team those 2 years. had Pippen not been KO'd in the first minute of game 6 in 89 & missed the whole game, who knows. and had Pippen not had his famous migraine in game 7 in 1990 who knows. but still, detroit won & they Bulls gave them severe payback in 91, with Pippen & Grant hitting their primes

anyway, 6-0 > 5-4

BobbyHillSwag
06-11-2014, 09:32 PM
6-0 is 10x more impressive. No losses and more rings

THE MTL
06-11-2014, 09:58 PM
I going to go with MJ because there is more to the story than just 6 finals appearances. He kept retiring. If he hadn't retired in 93 then he would def have 2 more finals appearances. So we would be talking 8-0 or 7-1 or 6-2 all of which are better than Magic's 5-4. And even in 1998, he was still at the top of his game and might have had another one in the tank for a 1999 or 2000 finals appearance.

I look at the 2002 Wizards Jordan who didnt play professional for 3 whole years who was a "shell" of himself who still averaged 23ppg 5apg 6rpg. Thats first team All-NBA numbers right there. So had he continued past 1998 into 2002, who knows

Putting all that aside, When its all said and done, 6 is more than 5.

Sadds The Gr8
06-11-2014, 10:54 PM
It depends. Since the op is strictly comparing mj and magic, I think mj is more impressive because he absolutely locked up that 90s era. If his 6 titles were spread out like Duncan's then I wouldn't see it as more impressive. But the fact that all his titles were so close shows that he just singlehandedly owned the 90s. Plus it is more rings...

5-0 vs 5-4 would be a more interesting debate.

Hellcrooner
06-11-2014, 10:57 PM
by that logic Russell is the GOAT.

there were 3 expansion teams in Jordan's era. Not that big of a deal imo.

wolves
magic
heat
hornets

then
grizzlies
raptors.

Make your math bro :cool:

ewing
06-11-2014, 11:01 PM
without context 5 and 4 is more impressive however the Bulls were unbeatable in there era. on paper they were. talent wise teams were matchable but no one could get it done.

DaBear
06-11-2014, 11:06 PM
More rings and no losses? I think the answer is obvious..

DaBear
06-11-2014, 11:09 PM
Don't really care for finals appearances. Every teams goal is to win the ship, not make it.

Hellcrooner
06-11-2014, 11:23 PM
ok lets look at it this way.


Your employer pays you

10 dollars if you fall at first round
20 dollars if you fall at second
30 dollars if you fall at conference finals
50 dollars if you fall at the final.
100 dollars if you win the ring.

You take a 10 year time span.

5 rings 500
4 finals 200
1 first round exit 10

you win 710 dollars

6 rings 600
1 conference finals 30
2 second round exits 40
1 first round 10

you win 680.

there you go 710> 680

i ****ing love science.

and tehres no way around it.

Hellcrooner
06-11-2014, 11:25 PM
Hey Kaner,
Magic's been known to say quite a few things (driven by some particular agenda at the given time) that were wrong too. Suppose, in this particular case, he figured that MJ had him beat GOAT career-wise. Then, instead of picking a hard-to-win battle, he decided to concede that MJ's career was better. But there were HUGE doubts about who was better between Magic & Bird. So, in THAT CONTEXT, Magic was CLEARLY making a STRONG case that his career was better than Bird's AND LeBron's AND Dr. J's. (btw, Dr. J. beat Bird 2-1 in NBA Finals; AND, he was even a good deal better during his ABA days - which count equal in my book because during those years the two Leagues were about equal.)

The ABA teams were winning more than half of the exhibition games between the two Leagues; and in the two Inter-League All-Star games, the ABA played the NBA just about even. Then when the 4 ABA Teams joined the NBA, they had over-all winning records (meaning they were on-average, better than the average NBA teams of that time!)
Not to be forgotten also that those ABA teams were accepted with limitations on Budget .
And that nets were FORCED to lose Dr J.
Same way that Kentucky COlones were supposed to join the nba ( and would have been a HEAVY contender) but Bulls owners ( and others) pressed in order they did NOT enter and had to surrender Artis Gilmore ( nba is STILL PAYING those Colonels owners because of the agreement).
Oh, and if you look in the web you can see Larry Brown talking bout how REFS screwed ex.-Aba teams on games on the first few years post-merger.

kobe4thewinbang
06-12-2014, 12:02 AM
Crazy thing is the Spurs could've wound up being 6-0 in the Finals, too.

*had they won last season, and if they win this season.

I think 5-4 is more impressive, though. That means your team was strong enough to be in the Finals over a longer period of time, even if your team came up short.

Pierzynski4Prez
06-12-2014, 12:15 AM
ok lets look at it this way.


Your employer pays you

10 dollars if you fall at first round
20 dollars if you fall at second
30 dollars if you fall at conference finals
50 dollars if you fall at the final.
100 dollars if you win the ring.

You take a 10 year time span.

5 rings 500
4 finals 200
1 first round exit 10

you win 710 dollars

6 rings 600
1 conference finals 30
2 second round exits 40
1 first round 10

you win 680.

there you go 710> 680

i ****ing love science.

and tehres no way around it.

6>5

I ****ing love Math.

Hellcrooner
06-12-2014, 12:18 AM
6>5

I ****ing love Math.
4>>>>>>>>>>0

I ****ing love Math.

Pierzynski4Prez
06-12-2014, 12:23 AM
What math is that? Losses? Just my opinion, but I don't care for losses. So for me, 0>>>>>>>4. I'll take 2-0 over 1-9 all day, 1-0 over 0-9. Just like I'd take 6-0 over 5-4.

todu82
06-12-2014, 12:23 AM
6 and 0

THE MTL
06-12-2014, 12:37 AM
4>>>>>>>>>>0

I ****ing love Math.

1 ring >>>>>>> 4 finals appearances. And you can ask ANY player in the NBA what would they prefer.

Hellcrooner
06-12-2014, 12:41 AM
1 ring >>>>>>> 4 finals appearances. And you can ask ANY player in the NBA what would they prefer.
problem is, that is not the question here.

we are talking the basis where in both cases they HAVE rings.

Hellcrooner
06-12-2014, 12:41 AM
btw

how bout 6 -5 vs 6-0?

BALLER R
06-12-2014, 02:37 AM
ok lets look at it this way.


Your employer pays you

10 dollars if you fall at first round
20 dollars if you fall at second
30 dollars if you fall at conference finals
50 dollars if you fall at the final.
100 dollars if you win the ring.

You take a 10 year time span.

5 rings 500
4 finals 200
1 first round exit 10

you win 710 dollars

6 rings 600
1 conference finals 30
2 second round exits 40
1 first round 10

you win 680.

there you go 710> 680

i ****ing love science.

and tehres no way around it.

Terrible math. But you can also add in another part to that. Your employer takes away 100 dollars for every ring you don't win.

Bruno
06-12-2014, 02:46 AM
I'd rather have gone 6/6 if I was a player. Might be able to argue that lots of more finals appearances is better for legacy but anyone would take 6/6 over 5/9 for themselves personally.

basketfan4life
06-12-2014, 02:59 AM
One is a 6 time nba champion, the other is 5. What is to argue about ? You reaally don't understand the meaning of "There can only be one".

Munkeysuit
06-12-2014, 03:07 AM
At the end of the day, we will all have our favorites...it's mostly perception these days when it comes to Basketball analysis, ESPECIALLY when it includes Michael Jordan, I mean the dude was 6-0 in the Finals which equates to 6 rings, Bill Russell went 11-0 in 13 seasons ...let your thoughts marinate on that for a second...this makes his legacy more than twice as impressive as MJ's, or so it should anyways.
We will never compare Jordan to Russell because it's blasphemous! there seems to be this mental block with most people when it comes to criticizing MJ and i am not saying he deserves any criticism, but we should hold him to the same standards that we hold Lebron, KD and Kobe.
I get MJ IS the standard we all set, but we need to key in on the driving force of this standard, which is the 6 titles! if Michael Jordan's 6 titles was factored out of the equation, would his legacy have the same type of impact? would you still buy Jordan shoes if he never won a title? if your answer is yes? than why do we treat every other player that has been compared with him, so unfairly?

basketfan4life
06-12-2014, 03:07 AM
Let's assume that Spurs wins it all this year. That means they beated both Miami and the Thunder. Both Lebron and Durant. But if you think 5-4 is more impressive than 6-0, that means LeBron going to finals is more impressive than Durants ECF. Thinking that they both lost to the spurs, how in the hell is one of that better than the other. It's just cronology there.

On the other hand, consider LeBron lost to Detroit in 2007 and didn't go to the finals. That means one less finals loss to him but how in the hell is that more impressive than beating the Pistons and going to the finals as an underdog?

So, you need context. But if i were a player i'd prefer 6-0 just because that means i won 6 ships and that is more than 5.

IKnowHoops
06-12-2014, 03:45 AM
People love to reference the fact that Jordan is 6-0 in NBA Finals but I've never seen anybody try and sell anyone on the validity of Magic Johnson's legacy because of his 5-4 record in the Finals. I don't even have one ounce of my body that is trying to argue Magic had a better career than MJ. All I'm saying is that getting to the Finals 9 times is more impressive than getting there 6 times. The question is does that extra championship make MJ's appearances superior to Magic's? I vote for getting there 9 times and winning 5 but I honestly have no idea what the rest of voters would say. Therefore, we have a thread. :) Looking forward to reading all responses.

Its more impressive to win 6 times than 5 times
Its more impressive to go 9 times than 6 times
Its more impressive to win a ring as rookie than get bounced out in the first round as a rookie
10 scoring titles are more impressive than 0
5 MVP's are more impressive than 2MVP's

The back and forth list goes on and on, but at the end of the day, Jordan was more impressive visually and statistically and so Jordan is better. You don't have to win more rings, and you don't have to go to the most championships to be better. To be better you just have to have a better totality of film and statistics.

arlubas
06-12-2014, 05:40 AM
I find it funny that the public perception has completely scrapped off his loss to the Magic in '95 just so they can grow MJ's myth even more. He's not 6-0 in a 6 year span, he's 6-1 in a 7 year span people.

The argument is that Jordan wasn't at full strength, yet he somehow was the second leading scorer in those playoffs trailing only Hakeem.

WingbowlMVP
06-12-2014, 06:54 AM
I question if Jordan ever played a team as good as that Celtics or Sixers team in the 80's. He probably played teams as good as the Pistons that won the titles.

I have to go with Magic only because, while the team was stacked he walked into he played against much better teams IMO than Jordan. Not penalizing Jordan for that, you can only beat who you play but I think 2 three peats would have been much more difficult if he faced a team like that Celtics team or the 83 Sixers team.

hidalgo
06-12-2014, 08:58 AM
they definitely beat teams as good as the bad boys, because they swept them in 1991. the Lakers of 1991 imo were better than the 1989 Lakers & equally as good as 1988 Lakers. the bulls from 88 to 89 were 3-1 vs those Lakers & the Bulls weren't even close to their prime(Scottie & Horace) so the 1991 & on Bulls i think would beat any showtime Lakers team(or any Lakers team in general, but this is about showtime) their defense would smoother them, & no answer for MJ. as the 1991 finals showed us, & 3-1 from 88 to 89, & MJ's overall winning record against Magic 11-7, the Lakers didn't match up well with the Bulls

the 1992, & 1993 knicks were bad boys level good, & barely lost the 1994 finals in a close game 7 (funny the 1992 knicks put the final end to the bad boys in a really close 5 game first round series when it was best 3 of 5. 4th seed knicks, vs 5th seed pistons. the bad boys didn't go without a major fight. Chuck Daly & the bad boys last stand) the knicks were the new bad boys after that

1998 Pacers were no joke, & took the Bulls to a close game 7(closest anyone came to beating the Bulls) best Pacers team ever imo

1997 & 98 Jazz. beat the super stacked Lakers like a drum Shaq, Kobe, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Horry, Fox, Fisher, Elden Campbell. 8-1 against them. beat the super team of Olajuwon, Barkley & Drexler 1997 Rockets. beat Tim Duncan & last true prime year David Robinson in 98. those Jazz teams did not fck around

1992 trail blazers. even more experienced & ready than the 1990 trail blazers detroit beat in the finals.

1993 Suns. honesty they could hang with any team

1996 super sonics. beat the 2 time champion Rockets, & had insane perimeter defense

1996 orlando Magic, best orlando Magic team ever, Shaq, prime Penny Hardaway, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant(would crush the 2009 magic) the Bulls swept them

i'm not a LeBron hater by any means, in fact he's probably my fav player now (MJ all time) but the Bulls did face a tougher east by far in their run. the west has given them real tough teams like MJ faced in the finals though

the 1986 Celtics would pose the biggest challenge of any team ever. i think the Bulls would win in 7 games, overtime, MJ game winner

i don't see how 5 titles could ever beat 6, especially when the Bulls 6 started with a win over the Lakers

Lo Porto
06-12-2014, 09:08 AM
You also have to factor in Jordan was 1-9 in playoff series without Pippen. That's pretty pathetic.

5-4 all day beats 6-0.

torocan
06-12-2014, 09:22 AM
They're impressive in different ways.

6-0 (2 3-peats) is more impressive from the perspective of the Roster for those given seasons (2 x 3peats).
5-4 is more impressive from an organizational perspective in terms of how hard it is to keep fielding consistently great teams and sustaining elite levels of play over the long haul.

They're both difficult, but in very different ways. One requires having the right talent, coaching, and peaking at the right time. The other requires longevity and sustained organizational excellence.

Byronicle
06-12-2014, 09:54 AM
go ahead and list MJ's initial supporting casts. Guarantee they didn't include a top 4 player ever.

Agreed.

Switch Pippen with Kareem

MJ w/Kareem is a way better looking team than Magic w/Pippen

ManRam
06-12-2014, 10:02 AM
Everyone is saying "no losses". That's a joke. The losses came earlier that the Finals. That's WORSE than losing in the Finals.

Why do people treat a Finals loss like it's something worse than losing earlier in the playoffs?

We know the context here and the obvious examples, but think more big picture:

Player A plays 10 seasons. Player B plays 10 seasons.
Player A makes 6 Finals. Player B makes 9 Finals.
Player A loses in the CF or earlier 4 times. Player B loses in the CF or earlier 1 time.
Player A loses in the Finals 0 times. Player B loses in the Finals 4 times.

I think 6-0 vs. 5-4 is tough. I voted for 5-4 but my hearts not into it.

Knowing the context, I think Jordan's team success was far more impressive than Magic's. But it's not merely because of the these numbers.

My heart would absolutely be into voting for 6-3 over 6-0, however. Yeah, you lost 3 times in the Finals, but the other guy was losing before the Finals, which again, is WORSE.

JordansBulls
06-12-2014, 10:17 AM
You also have to factor in Jordan was 1-9 in playoff series without Pippen. That's pretty pathetic.

5-4 all day beats 6-0.

Actually wrong. Beat Philly in 1990 game 4 without him on the Road against a team that had a greater SRS rating. Also beat Miami in 1997 game 5 with Pippen playing 5 minutes.
So no.


Hell you could add prime Pippen to the Bulls from 1985 to 1987 and they probably still go the same against the 1985 Bucks, 1986 and 1987 Celtics. Hell the peak Bulls themselves would be in a battle just trying to beat those teams.

JordansBulls
06-12-2014, 10:23 AM
Lakers WC opponents from 81-90

81
Houston Rockets: 40-42 (*** they lost this series)

82
Phoenix Suns: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 48-34

83
Portland Trail Blazers: 46-36
San Antonio Spurs: 53-29

84
Kings: 38-44
Mavericks: 43-39
Suns: 41-41

85
Suns: 36-46
Blazers: 42-40
Nuggets: 52-30

86
Spurs: 35-47
Mavericks: 44-38
Rockets: 51-31 (*** they lost this series)

87
Nuggets: 37-45
Warriors: 42-40
Sonics: 39-43

88
Spurs: 31-51
Jazz: 47-35
Mavs: 53-29

89
Blazers: 39-43
Sonics: 47-35
Suns: 55-27

90
Rockets: 41-41
Suns: 54-28 (*** they lost this series)

So in 10 postseasons, LA only had to face 6 teams of 50+ wins in total, with no team winning more than 55 games - and they lost to two of these 50 win teams (the '86 Rockets, '90 Suns) on top of that despite having a massive talent advantage. Compare that to the Bulls, who beat 10 teams of 50+ wins within their conference during their 6 title seasons, 6 of which won more than 55 games. Not even close to the same level of competition intra-conference. LA also beat zero teams headed by top 50 players all-time within their conference, and in fact lost both times they tried to do so ('81 Rockets w/Moses, '86 Rockets with Dream). Compare that to Chicago, who beat Barkley (twice), Ewing (4 times), Mourning (twice), Isiah, and Shaq within their own conference.

hidalgo
06-12-2014, 10:38 AM
nice research & facts there jordanBulls. interesting

i'll just add to that. the Bulls faced 7 60+ win teams (91-98) 7-0 vs them. the Lakers faced just 2 (80-91) 2-0 vs them

another interesting fact. the 64 win 1997 Jazz, & the 64 win 1996 super sonics have the most wins (64) by any losing finals team in nba history. both beat by the Bulls

Hellcrooner
06-12-2014, 11:44 AM
yeah jordanbulls.

cause its the same to have to deal with an nba of 23 teams than dealing with an nba with 29 teams , 66 of them being expansión wich completely alter the recordos of teams in regular season.

Hellcrooner
06-12-2014, 11:47 AM
and again.

Dont measure 6-0 agaisnt magics 5-4

measure it against Kareems 6-5

oh-

you dont want that

right¿

:rolleyes:

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 12:01 PM
It depends. Since the op is strictly comparing mj and magic, I think mj is more impressive because he absolutely locked up that 90s era. If his 6 titles were spread out like Duncan's then I wouldn't see it as more impressive. But the fact that all his titles were so close shows that he just singlehandedly owned the 90s. Plus it is more rings...

5-0 vs 5-4 would be a more interesting debate.

Hey Sadds The Gr8,
I've given this subject quite a bit of thought. Please permit to "challenge" your present idea with some alternative thinking:

1) Were The Buffalo Bills THE Greatest Losers Of All Time; Or Were They A Great Team?
The Buffalo Bills made (and lost) the Super Bowl 4 Straight Years. That means that they had a great regular season records four years in a row (not a small nor frequent accomplishment in itself); then they made it successfully thru the earlier rounds. In one of their Super Bowl losses, they lost one of the all time "heart-breakers" on a "wide right" field goal attempt.

Would anybody at all in their right mind (including the players, coaches, staff & owner(s), their fans, the experts, and impartial observers) really consider them "The Worst Team Of All-Time"? If each of those four years they had NOT even made the Play-Offs, nobody would even remember that team. If each of those four years they had NOT made it to the Finals; the same. It was only because they WERE SO GREAT, good enough for a Terrific 4-Year Reg. Season & Play-Offs Run; that they are even remembered at all. No other team has ever made 4 Super Bowls in a row.

imo, they were an All-Time Great NFL Team.

hail2skins4life
06-12-2014, 12:02 PM
It all depends. For example, reaching the Finals this year in the EC should not be an accomplishment.

BALLER R
06-12-2014, 12:19 PM
One can make the arguement that when you got to the finals when it mattered the most you didn't lose.

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 12:22 PM
Did 4-Time Winner, The Great Boston-Bill Rodgers, "Lose" The 1981 Boston Marathon?

I ran the 1980 Boston Marathon (unofficially - I didn't qualify that year, I did other years but couldn't make it to the race). Boston-Bill Rodgers (perhaps THE pre-eminent marathon runner in the world, won for the third straight time that year. Along with thousands of others, I watched him at the awards ceremony.

In 1981, he was back for an attempt at a "4-Peat" (and 5th win there overall). He ended up finishing 3rd, despite running faster than 5 minutes per mile for the 26.21875 miles. He finished 68 seconds behind Toshihiko Seko of Japan, who set a new Boston Marathon course record that day; and was in the World's Top 3 Marathoners in those years.

After the race, Boston Billy was asked why he didn't win that year and he said, "I lost the race because ...."

There were about 10,000 marathon runners in the race that year. You could NOT even run in the race unless you had, during the previous year, run a good enough qualifying race - not easy to do. So the field was special: several thousand elite runners. Boston Billy finished 3rd and he regarded that as "losing".

I was BIG into running marathons and BIG into marathon fandom. Boston Billy was, for many years, my favorite. But, I say he was dead-wrong. Finishing 3rd out of some 10,000 elite runners is the furthest thing from "losing".

Pierzynski4Prez
06-12-2014, 12:26 PM
Did 4-Time Winner, The Great Boston-Bill Rodgers, "Lose" The 1981 Boston Marathon?

I ran the 1980 Boston Marathon (unofficially - I didn't qualify that year, I did other years but couldn't make it to the race). Boston-Bill Rodgers (perhaps THE pre-eminent marathon runner in the world, won for the third straight time that year. Along with thousands of others, I watched him at the awards ceremony.

In 1981, he was back for an attempt at a "4-Peat" (and 5th win there overall). He ended up finishing 3rd, despite running faster than 5 minutes per mile for the 26.21875 miles. He finished 68 seconds behind Toshihiko Seko of Japan, who set a new Boston Marathon course record that day; and was in the World's Top 3 Marathoners in those years.

After the race, Boston Billy was asked why he didn't win that year and he said, "I lost the race because ...."

There were about 10,000 marathon runners in the race that year. You could NOT even run in the race unless you had, during the previous year, run a good enough qualifying race - not easy to do. So the field was special: several thousand elite runners. Boston Billy finished 3rd and he regarded that as "losing".

I was BIG into running marathons and BIG into marathon fandom. Boston Billy was, for many years, my favorite. But, I say he was dead-wrong. Finishing 3rd out of some 10,000 elite runners is the furthest thing from "losing".

Hey Pablonovi,

In the words of the great Ricky Bobby. "If you ain't 1st, your last."

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 12:31 PM
Was All-Time Great Elgin Baylor Really THE ALL-TIME NBA LOSER?
Elgin Baylor is almost universally regarded as being solidly in the NBA's All-Time Top 20 Greatest Players. I watched the entirety of his NBA career and he was THE FIRST in the line of "hang-timers". Elgin, then the "Hawk" (Connie Hawkins), the Dr. J., then MJ.

Elgin (alongside Jerry West) had the misfortune of playing his entire career during the era of the Celtics All-Star Team. The Celtics had on that one team, a higher percentage of the entire League's All-Stars than any other team ever AND FOR AN ENTIRE DECADE+.

The West-Baylor-led Lakers made 8 Finals during Elgin's career. They lost the first 7 to those Celtics All-Stars; and an eight to the Knicks.

THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE "LOGIC" OF MANY PSDers:

ELGIN BAYLOR WAS, WITHOUT A DOUBT, T H E GREATEST LOSER IN NBA HISTORY ???

Would you-all consider him greater if he had FAILED earlier in the PlayOffs each of those years?
How utterly ridiculous!

Lo Porto
06-12-2014, 12:48 PM
Actually wrong. Beat Philly in 1990 game 4 without him on the Road against a team that had a greater SRS rating. Also beat Miami in 1997 game 5 with Pippen playing 5 minutes.
So no.


Hell you could add prime Pippen to the Bulls from 1985 to 1987 and they probably still go the same against the 1985 Bucks, 1986 and 1987 Celtics. Hell the peak Bulls themselves would be in a battle just trying to beat those teams.

So Jordan did a good job winning a couple games without Pippen. What the hell is that worth? Give me a break. Jordan was nothing more than Tracy McGrady before he was teamed up with Scottie Pippen. That is a fact.

Lo Porto
06-12-2014, 12:51 PM
The Jordan idol worship is ridiculous. The NBA wasn't going to let that guy lose when he was the marketing cow. That's why he was 6-0 in the Finals. He averaged like 11+ free throws per game in his 6 Finals appearances. Hilarious how much he owned the NBA.

Jordan's signature moment is an offensive foul. Enough said.

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 12:51 PM
MJ MUST Have Been God; ONLY In His Case Do Losing & Quitting NOT COUNT VS HIM !

I watched virtually every single game MJ every played. I taped EVERY single Play Off game he ever played in. I watched those Play Off games LIVE on TV, and I re-watched them "endlessly".

The ONLY time I ever raised my voice with my wife of almost 30 years was during one of MJ's Bulls' Finals Games - I just didn't want to be distracted with our kids.

In other words, I absolutely LOVED MJ, from day 1; THRU to the end of his career.
I have MJ ranked in my NBA All-Time GOAT Top 3. What I felt for him then, and still feel for him to this day is the opposite of "hate".

Before MJ's time, I also loved such as: Wilt, West-Baylor, the Big "O", KAJ, Dr. J, Rick Barry, and Magic.
- - -
BUT YOU CAN'T GET CREDIT FOR THINGS YOU DID NOT DO !
AND YOU HAVE TO GET "PENALIZED" FOR ANY HUGE MISTAKES YOU DID MAKE !

In the 19 years of MJ's career, he did NOT play (due to HIS OWN FAULT !) 4.8 seasons.
You can NOT give him credit for Chips in the 4 full-seasons that he did not even play bball ! He could have gotten injured (it happens!); his team could have fallen short (it happens!); he could have been so exhausted from 8+ consecutive Finals appearances, that, while he might have won in 1994 and 1995, he might not have won in 1997 and 1998.

The facts are:
1) He did NOT play almost 5 full seasons because he chose NOT to play. WHY? Because he had been caught gambling! And he would have been perma-banned (and all his career erased and his reputation destroyed). That was 100% his fault. (Maybe even got his dad killed in retribution - that happens too!)

Then he QUIT for another 3 years.

All 4.8 years he CHOSE NOT TO PLAY, would almost assuredly been PRIME years! He threw almost 5 full PRIME seasons away. Instead of rewarding him for that; we should be condemning him for that.

2) MJ'S BULLS LOST 7 PLAY-OFF RUNS WITHOUT EVEN MAKING THE FINALS.
Isn't it 100% CLEAR that it's better to make the Finals and lose there; than to not even make the Finals; losing in earlier rounds to usually far-inferior opponents???

Not one NBA expert in a 100, would say that if MJ had made 13 Finals (winning 6, losing 7) that he had had LESS of a career. IF he had made all those 13 Finals (and despite losing 7 of them) the GOAT discussion would be OVER, then, and very possibly FOREVER. That would have been incredible individual dominance!

If he had made 10 Finals (winning 6 and losing 4); that would probably have been enough to end all debate vis-à-vis KAJ (who DID make 10 Finals, winning 6, like MJ; but making 4 MORE!).

3) His last 2 years, with the Wizards, his team didn't even make the Play Offs. If we are not "allowed" to "hold that against him" because he's "THE GOAT & ALWAYS WILL BE"; at the least, we should also NOT be allowed to give him any additional credit for not-qualifying just because he had not played for 3 years and/or because he was then pretty old NBA-wise.

cooters22
06-12-2014, 01:19 PM
I went 6-0 because that means he never lost in the finals. As a fan, losing in the Championship of anything hurts at times maybe more than not having been there at all. I'm still sick about one SB loss and have thought about it more than the times my team won the SB. I much rather have felt euphoric 6 times, than 4 times have a acidic pit sitting in my stomach, no doubt.

I think Magic did run into more fierce levels of competition. The East had some great teams that he went against.

valade16
06-12-2014, 03:05 PM
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is considered among the best players of all-time. That's who Magic was working with. There's no 2 players Jordan played with that equal KAJ.

Does anyone want to speculate on how many titles Jordan has playing with KAJ?

valade16
06-12-2014, 03:07 PM
MJ MUST Have Been God; ONLY In His Case Do Losing & Quitting NOT COUNT VS HIM !

I watched virtually every single game MJ every played. I taped EVERY single Play Off game he ever played in. I watched those Play Off games LIVE on TV, and I re-watched them "endlessly".

The ONLY time I ever raised my voice with my wife of almost 30 years was during one of MJ's Bulls' Finals Games - I just didn't want to be distracted with our kids.

In other words, I absolutely LOVED MJ, from day 1; THRU to the end of his career.
I have MJ ranked in my NBA All-Time GOAT Top 3. What I felt for him then, and still feel for him to this day is the opposite of "hate".

Before MJ's time, I also loved such as: Wilt, West-Baylor, the Big "O", KAJ, Dr. J, Rick Barry, and Magic.
- - -
BUT YOU CAN'T GET CREDIT FOR THINGS YOU DID NOT DO !
AND YOU HAVE TO GET "PENALIZED" FOR ANY HUGE MISTAKES YOU DID MAKE !

In the 19 years of MJ's career, he did NOT play (due to HIS OWN FAULT !) 4.8 seasons.
You can NOT give him credit for Chips in the 4 full-seasons that he did not even play bball ! He could have gotten injured (it happens!); his team could have fallen short (it happens!); he could have been so exhausted from 8+ consecutive Finals appearances, that, while he might have won in 1994 and 1995, he might not have won in 1997 and 1998.

The facts are:
1) He did NOT play almost 5 full seasons because he chose NOT to play. WHY? Because he had been caught gambling! And he would have been perma-banned (and all his career erased and his reputation destroyed). That was 100% his fault. (Maybe even got his dad killed in retribution - that happens too!)

Then he QUIT for another 3 years.

All 4.8 years he CHOSE NOT TO PLAY, would almost assuredly been PRIME years! He threw almost 5 full PRIME seasons away. Instead of rewarding him for that; we should be condemning him for that.

2) MJ'S BULLS LOST 7 PLAY-OFF RUNS WITHOUT EVEN MAKING THE FINALS.
Isn't it 100% CLEAR that it's better to make the Finals and lose there; than to not even make the Finals; losing in earlier rounds to usually far-inferior opponents???

Not one NBA expert in a 100, would say that if MJ had made 13 Finals (winning 6, losing 7) that he had had LESS of a career. IF he had made all those 13 Finals (and despite losing 7 of them) the GOAT discussion would be OVER, then, and very possibly FOREVER. That would have been incredible individual dominance!

If he had made 10 Finals (winning 6 and losing 4); that would probably have been enough to end all debate vis-à-vis KAJ (who DID make 10 Finals, winning 6, like MJ; but making 4 MORE!).

3) His last 2 years, with the Wizards, his team didn't even make the Play Offs. If we are not "allowed" to "hold that against him" because he's "THE GOAT & ALWAYS WILL BE"; at the least, we should also NOT be allowed to give him any additional credit for not-qualifying just because he had not played for 3 years and/or because he was then pretty old NBA-wise.

Once again your logic fails. We aren't considering him the GOAT because of what he could have done, but because of what he DID.

Last I checked 6 rings is more than 5.

If you can't give MJ credit for walking away then why on earth should we give credit to Magic for LOSING Finals?

sammyvine
06-12-2014, 03:13 PM
jordan is just a god send of a player

his career is almost perfect. to go 6-0 in finals is just unbelievable. Never seen a more competitive player in the history of sports

JordansBulls
06-12-2014, 03:22 PM
So Jordan did a good job winning a couple games without Pippen. What the hell is that worth? Give me a break. Jordan was nothing more than Tracy McGrady before he was teamed up with Scottie Pippen. That is a fact.

Pippen didn't do anything to make the Bulls successfull he came in as a role player on that team. Was coming off the bench and averaged 8 ppg and 4 rpg.

In the playoffs in 1988 that year MJ averaged 36/7/5/2/1 on 53% FG
In the playoffs in 1988 that year Pippen averaged 10/5/2/1/1 on 47% FG

In the first round that season in 1988 MJ averaged

MJ vs. Cleveland, 1988: 45 ppg/5 reb/5 ast/53% FG

Pippen vs Cleveland, 1988: 11 ppg/5 reb/2 ast/47% FG




In 1989 the two teams the Bulls upset MJ did this:

MJ vs. Cleveland, 1989: 40 pts/6 reb/8 ast/52% FG
Pippen vs Cleveland, 1989 15 pts/9 reb/4 ast/40% FG


MJ vs. NY, 1989: 37 pts/10 reb/9 ast/55% FG
Pippen vs NY, 1989: 15 pts/7 reb/5 ast/58% FG


MJ led the Bulls every year in PER, Win Shares, WS/PER 48 minutes and PPG and the league. Pippen in 1994 didn't even lead the Bulls in win shares in the playoffs. In fact he was 3rd.



Usually it's the youngins that bring up the "he's 1-9 without Pippen" argument because it throws away all context. MJ came to a losing franchise...not just a losing team...a losing franchise that had never won anything. The owner didn't know how to win. The GM (who left a year or two later) didn't know how to win. The coach (Kevin Loughery -- one of 3 coaches MJ had in his first 3 seasons) didn't know how to win, the fans (who averaged about 5,000 at the Stadium) didn't know how to win and the players (only one of whom had ever won a championship -- Sam Vincent, as a bench warmer on the 86 Celtics) didn't know how to win.

Tough to turn a whole ORGANIZATION around. Jordan came in producing from the start. People always bring up that Bird won 61 games his first season. That's great but although the C's had a losing record the year prior, they weren't a losing franchise. Auerbach knew what he was doing. The coaching staff knew what they were doing. And the players knew what they were doing. A little known fact -- Jordan's rookie year >> Bird's rookie year.

LB 21.3 pts, 4.5 asts, 10.4 rebs, 1.7 stls, 0.6 blks on 47 fg%
MJ 28.2 pts, 5.9 asts, 6.5 rebs, 2.4 stls, 0.8 blks on 52 fg%

Jordan produced more by a wide margin. He didn't win his first year because the ORGANIZATION wasn't ready yet.

That's a microcosm for his first few years. All this "he's 1-9 without Pippen" means nothing when he was holding it down for years as the only weapon the Bulls had offensively and defensively. How do you think Pippen and Grant had so much time to develop? He went out there and took his lumps every night even though he was severely out manned. No complaints. No threats to the front office that he wanted to be traded. Just business every night.

It took Pippen YEARS to develop into what he became. He had raw talent and work ethic, but he was soft as tissue paper in the beginning. That's why Detroit and New York made a concerted effort to attack him physically. Every year from 1988 through 1993, either the Pistons or the Knicks would come after what they thought was the weak link of the Bulls. How did he go from Charmin to steel? And how did he have so much time to develop without facing the burden of "superstar expectations"?

Because of Jordan. Jordan stood up for him against the Pistons and the Knicks. Jordan took the weight of expectations every night allowing Pippen and Grant to slide out the side door to avoid the crush of media. Jordan kept that team afloat as Scottie went from being soft to inconsistent to more consistent to probably the most versatile player in the league. If Pippen played his first few years somewhere else, he doesn't become the same player. Pippen had the talent and the work ethic, but Jordan gave him that toughness that helped the Bulls win championships.

Let's reverse the roles. Imagine if Pippen was drafted to the Bulls in 1984 and Jordan wasn't drafted until 1987. How many winning seasons would Pippen have without Jordan? Remember, he's playing against Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, Isiah's Pistons, etc. How many playoff games do they win? Let's add in the fact that Pippen would have had to deal with superstar expectations (something he struggled with as late as 1994 -- remember the sit-down incident?). Imagine soft, fragile Pippen dealing with loss after loss after loss and having to explain himself to the Chicago media after every failure. Not the 1994 All-World Pippen...I'm talking about the first few years version of Pippen. He would have folded like an armchair. By the time Jordan arrives in 1987, Pippen is on his way out either by his own desires or the team's.

By the time Pippen took over the team in 1994, he had already been through his rites of passage. Finally pushed the Pistons, Knicks, Sixers, etc back. Won 3 titles. Been to the Dream Team. That Bulls team had everyone back and added Kukoc (who btw, won game 3 against New York on a last second shot despite Pippen's "distraction". Who knows what would have happened had that game gone to overtime.) They had, for the most part, grown up together for years.

What they did was amazing but DIFFERENT than what was accomplished before. It's like MJ started a company from scratch and built it into an empire. The company is flushed with cash and has a great worldwide reputation. Jordan the CEO steps down and Pippen (his assistant) takes over and keeps the business afloat until MJ un-retires. This is a great accomplishment, but IT'S NOT THE SAME AS STARTING THE BUSINESS FROM SCRATCH. Pippen had cash, reputation, a proven "system" and he retained all the financial advisors that MJ hired to keep the business afloat. You're telling me that Pippen could have done this from the start? 1987 Pippen could have built this empire? Or did he learn the ropes from Jordan?

That's what we mean when we say Jordan helped Scott Pippen become SCOTTIE PIPPEN.

No more "Jordan was 1-9 without Pippen". It's complete Bull*****.

Jordan was playing in the 80's against stacked and loaded teams in the East. When MJ went to the Bulls the Bulls had the 2nd worst record in the league before he came. He went to an organization that was known for losing and known for not having many fans.
MJ took the team from the bottom to the top and built a dynasty.

When Pippen got the Bulls it was known as a winning franchise already and everyone on the team was in there primes.

Also when Pippen led the Bulls in 1994 the Hawks with no star player was the #1 seed.
Not to mention that Pippen was 3rd on the team in Win Shares in the playoffs in 1994 and was 3rd behind Grant in 1992 and 1993.

If you want to know, Bulls were the #1 seed in 1998 thru the first 35 games that Pippen missed during the season and this with a 35 year old leading the team.


Pippen was a 8 ppg and 4 rpg player a game as a rookie including coming off the bench and who finished 9th on the team in Win Shares PER 48 minutes, 7th in Win Shares and 7th in PER in 1988.



In 1990 the Bulls without Pippen won game 4 on the road against Barkley's Sixers in a blowout despite Philly having a higher SRS rating than the Bulls that year.
In 1997 the Bulls won game 5 of the ECF with Pippen playing 7 minutes.

Point is is that Jordan could win without Pippen, but you aren't beating all time great teams like the '86 Celtics or '87 Celtics without having a decent cast around you.

Bulls would have still probably been 1-9 against the 85 Bucks, 86 Celtics and 87 Celtics if you added Prime Pippen to those Bulls teams.

1985 Milwaukee Bucks --> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/1985.html

PTS/G: 110.9 (11th of 23) ? Opp PTS/G: 104.0 (1st of 23)
SRS: 6.70 (1st of 23) ? Pace: 99.7 (19th of 23)
Off Rtg: 110.5 (6th of 23) ? Def Rtg: 103.6 (2nd of 23)
Expected W-L: 58-24 (2nd of 23)

#1 SRS Rating, #1 Opp PPG and #2 in Defense and #2 in Expected Win Loss (and this against a Rookie MJ)


1986 Boston Celtics --> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1986.html (top 5 team all time, arguably greatest team ever)

PTS/G: 114.1 (8th of 23) ? Opp PTS/G: 104.7 (3rd of 23)
SRS: 9.06 (1st of 23) ? Pace: 101.2 (16th of 23)
Off Rtg: 111.8 (3rd of 23) ? Def Rtg: 102.6 (1st of 23)
Expected W-L: 63-19 (1st of 23)

#1 SRS Rating, #1 Def Rtg, #3 opp ppg, #1 Expected Win Loss (this against a 2nd year MJ who missed 64 games with a broken foot.
Jordan set the playoff record on Bird and the C's with 63 and averaged the following on Bird and the C's.

MJ vs. Boston, 1986: 44 pts/6 reb/6 ast/51% FG


1987 Boston Celtics --> http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1987.html

PTS/G: 112.6 (6th of 23) ? Opp PTS/G: 106.0 (4th of 23)
SRS: 6.58 (3rd of 23) ? Pace: 98.6 (19th of 23)
Off Rtg: 113.5 (3rd of 23) ? Def Rtg: 106.8 (9th of 23)
Expected W-L: 57-25 (3rd of 23)

#3 SRS Rating, #4 Opp PPG. #3 Expected Win Loss. This is the only year you can say he had a chance to win a game or so.
But then again, one team had a triple allstar lineup in

Larry Bird
Kevin McHale
Robert Parish

And MJ was the only allstar on the squad.

MJ vs Boston, 1987: 36 pts/7 reb/6 ast/42% FG

Hell the 1987 Celtics would beat the 2011-2013 Miami Heat as well.


When Lebron got swept by the 2007 Spurs it was a similar type of team compared to the league, #1 SRS rating, Expected Win - Loss, etc. The difference is that Lebron played like absolute trash while MJ at least still dominated.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FinalsPerformances-Worst



LeBron James, Cleveland, 2007
Cavs vs. Spurs -- James' PER 14.3
The King's first Finals visit wasn't a memorable one. Bruce Bowen hounded him into 35.6 percent shooting, and James committed 5.8 turnovers per game as San Antonio swept the Cavs in four. It didn't help that he couldn't get a whistle as he tried to draw a foul on a last-second 3-point try at the end of Game 3.

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 06:47 PM
Career-Wise KAJ Dominated MJ

Wilt & KAJ Clearly Had Better 3-Year & 5-Year PEAKS Than MJ Had

Wilt's Overall 13 Year Career Was The Most Era-Dominant In NBA History.
With the exception of George Mikan (who played in an era that was probably less than half as strong as Wilt's and subsequent eras), no one has ever dominated an era like Wilt did during his entire 13 years. He was FAR superior to his closest contemporaries: Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, and even more so over Bill Russell & Bob Pettit.

PERHAPS, KAJ’s 5 Year PEAK (70-74 or 71-75) was slightly better than Wilt’s.
Both’s PEAK 5 Years were greatly superior to any 5-Year Period in MJ’s career.

I'm not going to focus much on Wilt here in this post because almost no one (including myself) ranks him over MJ in the NBA GOAT discussions. I’ll just say that if only Wilt’s teams could have won some Game 7s over the Celtic All-Star teams, then I WOULD have him higher than MJ.
- - - - -

KAJ HAD, EASILY, T H E MOST REMARKABLE NBA CAREER EVER !

PEAK: KAJ's 2nd-4th Years, 71-73, rank as 3 of the 7 greatest Win Share years ever, so a very strong argument can be made that those 3 years were THE GREATEST 3-YEAR PEAK EVER.
MJ has not one single year amongst the top 8.

The year before, in 1970, he was tremendous & ROY and was 3rd (!) in the MVP voting. The year after, 1974, he was again tremendous. During the 7 years of 71-77, he won 5 MVPs and also finished 2nd & 4th. During his first 12 years, he won 6 MVPs, was in the NBA Top 5 ALL 12 years, with a MVP 2nd place, and two MVP 3rd places.

WIN SHARES (and winning is the name of the game): In KAJ's first 12 years, he led the entire NBA in Win Shares 9 TIMES!, including 4 straight years during his PEAK: 71-74 and 6 out of 7 years 71-77 (being "only" 2nd in 1975; the year he broke his hand).

WIN SHARES / 48 MINUTES (and, when it comes to individual dominance, WS/48 is the name of the game): In KAJ's first 12 years, he led the entire NBA in Win Shares / 48 minutes 9 TIMES!, including 4 straight during his PEAK: 71-74 and 5 more straight in 76-80. In 1975 he was "only" 2nd. In 70, his rookie year, he was "only" 5th! He was #1 in WS/48 in 6 out of the 7 years: 71-77 (being "only" 2nd in 1975).

PLAYER EFFICIENCY RATING (PER): During KAJ's first 12 years he led the entire League in PER 9 times, and was 2nd the other 3 times. (No one has ever had a 12-year run close to that good!) It is said (correctly) that PER has big weaknesses, particularly in under-emphasizing Defense. However, during those 12 years, he was in the top 9 in Defensive Win Shares ALL 12 Years, including 2 #1s and 3 #2s; and was in the top 7, 6 consecutive years from 74-79. He was THE most-complete player in the League during that entire span.

EFFECTIVE FIELD GOAL PERCENT (eFG%): For his first 18 YEARS straight (!) KAJ was in the Top 7 in the NBA in eFG%. In 15 of those years, he was in the Top 5 ! He was 1st once; and 2nd, 5 times.

KAJ: Rookie Sensation & Franchise-Maker*: His rookie year, he took the miserable expansion Bucks (27-55) way up the standings in only their 2nd year (56-26). THE Greatest 2nd Year Turn-Around In NBA History! In 71, only his 2nd year, he won the MVP, and led the Bucks to the Chip. This too was by far the fastest ever an expansion team has won the Title.

He dominated his era (his: first 5 years, PEAK, first 10-12 years, entire 20 year-career) FAR MORE than MJ did his (first 5, PEAK, first 10-12, entire chronological 19-year career).

This is really not all that surprising. Until recently, the Center-Position has always dominated the game AND still HUGELY dominates the All-Time GOAT Lists (For example: KAJ, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, DRob, Moses, Russell, Mikan, Gilmore).

ALL-NBA TEAMS (1st & 2nd) & MVP-Voting:
MVP-voting: KAJ won 6 MVPs (the most ever). He received MVP votes in his first 17 YEARS straight. He finished in the Top 5, 15 Years!

In contrast, MJ: Got 5 MVPs (one less than KAJ). He received MVP Votes in 13 Years. He finished in the Top 5 in 10 Years (5 years less than KAJ).

ALL-NBA TEAMS (1st-Team & 2nd-Team):
Compared to MVP results, I consider the ALL-NBA TEAMS results to be a much better, much, much more complete "record" of individual regular season performances. KAJ was ALL-NBA 1st Team 10 times (3rd all-time behind Kobe & K.Malone who each had 11. Bear in mind too, that KAJ faced MUCH tougher competition at his position than they did at theirs). KAJ also had 5 ALL-NBA 2nd-Teams Selections (his 15 combined 1st-Teams + 2nd-Teams, is best ever). This means that for 10 Years he was the BEST center in professional bball; and in 5 others, he was the 2nd best. No other center in all of history comes close to this.)

In contrast, MJ had 10 ALL-NBA 1st-Team (same as KAJ); but only 1 ALL-NBA 2nd-Team (KAJ=5).
In total ALL-NBA 1st+2nd Teams, KAJ had 15, while MJ had 11.

* Wikipedia:
"While it was expected that Alcindor would make the Bucks respectable almost overnight, no one expected what happened in 1969–70. They finished with a 56–26 record—a nearly exact reversal of the previous record. That was good enough for the second-best record in the league, behind the New York Knicks. The 29-game improvement was by far the best in league history [and remains, by far, the greatest 2nd year turnaround ever]... Alcindor was a runaway selection for NBA Rookie of the Year.

The following season, the Bucks got an unexpected gift when they acquired Oscar Robertson, known as "the Big O", in a trade with the Cincinnati Royals. Subsequently, in only their third season the Bucks finished 66–16—the second-most wins in NBA history at the time, and still the most in franchise history. During the regular season, the Bucks recorded a then-NBA record 20-game win streak. They then steamrolled through the playoffs with a dominating 12–2 record, winning the NBA Championship on April 30, 1971 by sweeping the Baltimore Bullets in four games. By winning it all in only their third season, the Bucks became the fastest expansion team in NBA history to win the championship, however four decades later, it remains the only title in club history.

The Bucks remained a powerhouse for the first half of the 1970s. In 1972, they recorded their third consecutive 60-win season, the first NBA team to do so. During the year, Lew Alcindor converted to Islam and changed his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Milwaukee beat the Warriors in the playoffs 4–1, but lost the conference finals to Los Angeles 4–2. Injuries resulted in an early 1973 playoff exit, but the Bucks were back in the 1974 NBA Finals against the Boston Celtics. In Game 6 of the series, Jabbar made a patented "sky hook" shot to end a classic double-overtime victory for the Bucks. The Bucks lost Game 7 and the series to the Celtics; as of 2013, they have not returned to the NBA Finals. As the 1974–1975 season began, Abdul-Jabbar suffered a hand injury and the team got off to a 3–13 start. After his return, other injuries befell Milwaukee, sending them to the bottom of their division with 38 wins and 44 losses."

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 07:32 PM
Once again your logic fails. We aren't considering him the GOAT because of what he could have done, but because of what he DID.

Last I checked 6 rings is more than 5.

If you can't give MJ credit for walking away then why on earth should we give credit to Magic for LOSING Finals?

4 Finals Losses Are Better Than Only 1 Finals Win PLUS 3 Defeats Before Even Getting To The Finals

Hey valade16,
First off, regarding: “Once again your logic fails.”
As far as I can remember (and I pay close attention to such things) neither YOU nor anybody else has previously proven (or even questioned) my logic. So until YOU or someone else does, please refrain from such prejudicial exaggeration .

Second, the MAIN POINT of my post was to propose people STOP giving MJ credit for what he did NOT do.
He did NOT even play 4.8 seaons,.
He did NOT even make the Play-Offs in 2 other years.
He did NOT make the Finals in 7 other years.
So, in the 19 years his career spanned,
he FAILED 13 years to even make the Finals.

In the 7 Years he was in the Play Offs but lost in earlier rounds; IF he had made it to the Finals, he would be held in even higher regard: IT IS WAY BETTER TO LOSE IN THE FINALS THAN IN EARLIER ROUNDS!

About 6 is great than 5.
Let’s examine the 9 Years that Magic made the Finals and the 9 Years that MJ did his best in the Play-Offs.
Magic: 9 Play-Off Runs Ending In 9 Finals (5 Chips; 4 other Finals)
MJ: 9 Play-Off Runs Ending In Only 6 Finals (6 Chips; 3 DEFEATS BEFORE THE FINALS).
So, taking each’s best 9 Play-Off Years, Magic Reached the Finals in 9, MJ in only 6.
9 DESTROYS 6.

IF We split their greatest 9 years into two groups:
Magic: 5 Chips PLUS 4 Other Finals
MJ: 5 Chips PLUS 1 Chip + 3 Failures to make the Finals; we can see that 5 Chips equals 5 Chips. So we should compare what remains:
Magic: 4 Finals Losses
Vs
MJ: 1 Finals Win (Chip) AND 3 Earlier-Than-The-Finals Losses.

4 Finals Losses, imo and most impartial people’s opinions, is better than 1 Finals Win Plus 3 Earlier-Than-The-Finals Losses.

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 07:47 PM
jordan is just a god send of a player

his career is almost perfect. to go 6-0 in finals is just unbelievable. Never seen a more competitive player in the history of sports

So, In Other Words, It's Better To Lose In The First Round Than In The Finals ???

Hey sammyvine,
So it was supposedly better that in 7 other years, Jordan LOST before the Finals? That's better than making the Finals in any of those years yet losing there?

In other words, it was better for MJ to lose 3 times in the First Round (like he did) than to have won those First Round match-ups? According to you, then:
1) IT'S BETTER TO LOSE BEFORE THE FINALS, THAN TO LOSE IN THE FINALS.
2) It's EVEN BETTER to lose in the Second Round instead of win in the Second Round and lose in the Third Round.
3) It's BEST OF ALL to lose in the First Round instead of win in the First Round and lose in the Second Round.

All because supposedly losing in the Finals is worse than losing earlier (against weaker opponents).

NOBODY can agree to that - it's not reasonable.

btw, "Never seen a more competitive player in the history of sports."
This is a HUGE statement. How you watched tons of sports for decades, so much that you can be sure of this? I bet there have been many, many equally-driven, equally-competitive sports participants. What about Mark Spitz or Michael Phelps in swimming. What about Edwin Moses who did not lose one single 100 meter hurdles race in a whole decade; winning 122 STRAIGHT RACES?
LINK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Moses

What about Wayne Gretzky?

What about Kobe (who's played thru many more injuries than MJ; and did NOT quit like MJ did twice)?

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 07:55 PM
When Tim Duncan & The Spurs Lost Last Year's Finals; That Hurt His/Their Reputation??

Many people consider last year's 2013 NBA Finals to be one of the Greatest Ever (Having watched 55+ NBA Finals, I agree completely). The Spurs came within a few seconds of being Champs.

Yet, many if not most of the posters in this thread would have us believe that Tim Duncan & the Spurs would have been better off NOT EVEN MAKING THOSE FINALS, because? Because they didn't win!

AMAZING !

He & they ADDED to their Great Legacy by GETTING TO THE FINALS.

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 07:56 PM
Haven't The HEAT Been Praised Greatly For Making 4 Straight Finals (Despite 1 LOSS)??

Aren't the HEAT being praised as one of the All-Time Great Teams because they've made 4 straight Finals (only 2 other Franchise had ever done it before, for a total of 3 separate times before).

4 Straight Finals is a Great Achievement (yet they had already lost one of them and there was/is no guarantee they'd win this one, the fourth).

valade16
06-12-2014, 08:13 PM
4 Finals Losses Are Better Than Only 1 Finals Win PLUS 3 Defeats Before Even Getting To The Finals

Hey valade16,
First off, regarding: “Once again your logic fails.”
As far as I can remember (and I pay close attention to such things) neither YOU nor anybody else has previously proven (or even questioned) my logic. So until YOU or someone else does, please refrain from such prejudicial exaggeration .

Second, the MAIN POINT of my post was to propose people STOP giving MJ credit for what he did NOT do.
He did NOT even play 4.8 seaons,.
He did NOT even make the Play-Offs in 2 other years.
He did NOT make the Finals in 7 other years.
So, in the 19 years his career spanned,
he FAILED 13 years to even make the Finals.

In the 7 Years he was in the Play Offs but lost in earlier rounds; IF he had made it to the Finals, he would be held in even higher regard: IT IS WAY BETTER TO LOSE IN THE FINALS THAN IN EARLIER ROUNDS!

About 6 is great than 5.
Let’s examine the 9 Years that Magic made the Finals and the 9 Years that MJ did his best in the Play-Offs.
Magic: 9 Play-Off Runs Ending In 9 Finals (5 Chips; 4 other Finals)
MJ: 9 Play-Off Runs Ending In Only 6 Finals (6 Chips; 3 DEFEATS BEFORE THE FINALS).
So, taking each’s best 9 Play-Off Years, Magic Reached the Finals in 9, MJ in only 6.
9 DESTROYS 6.

IF We split their greatest 9 years into two groups:
Magic: 5 Chips PLUS 4 Other Finals
MJ: 5 Chips PLUS 1 Chip + 3 Failures to make the Finals; we can see that 5 Chips equals 5 Chips. So we should compare what remains:
Magic: 4 Finals Losses
Vs
MJ: 1 Finals Win (Chip) AND 3 Earlier-Than-The-Finals Losses.

4 Finals Losses, imo and most impartial people’s opinions, is better than 1 Finals Win Plus 3 Earlier-Than-The-Finals Losses.

4 LOSSES is NEVER better than a win.

Which team would you have wanted to be a fan of? The 90's Bills or the 00 Ravens?

Losing in the finals, no matter how many times, does not equal winning it all. End of story.

Second, you damn any argument you might have had by arguing KAJ was better than MJ. Magic PLAYED with KAJ. That was his help. So how could a guy who has a teammate you say is more dominant than MJ and COULDNT win as many rings as MJ be as good as him?

Your logic here is very flawed.

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 08:55 PM
4 LOSSES is NEVER better than a win.

Which team would you have wanted to be a fan of? The 90's Bills or the 00 Ravens?

Losing in the finals, no matter how many times, does not equal winning it all. End of story.

Second, you damn any argument you might have had by arguing KAJ was better than MJ. Magic PLAYED with KAJ. That was his help. So how could a guy who has a teammate you say is more dominant than MJ and COULDNT win as many rings as MJ be as good as him?

Your logic here is very flawed.

Hey valade16,
Let's take MJ and "adjust" his Play-Off Record; to see if this might help clarify things and/or lessen the distance between us.

Let's say that he only won 5 Chips (if Magic had not been injured in the 1991 Finals, the Lakers might have won it.)
BUT, let's let MJ go to the Finals every year he played: to 15 Finals, including 10 straight (something that's never been done before!)

So in this scenario, MJ ends up with 5 Chips (one less than 6) but 10 Other Finals, 15 Finals in All.

Do you want to say that each & every one of those 10 (losing) Finals appearances would HURT rather than HELP his legacy?

Did Elgin Baylor's 8 Finals Losses Hurt His Legacy? No At All. Just the opposite.
Would Jerry West be considered greater if he had only made the Finals the one time he won; and not have 9 Total Finals appearances. NO WAY. (The two of them lost 7 Finals against the Celtics All-Star Team (they easily had a higher % of all the League's All-Stars than any other team in history AND for more than a decade. Losing to them was no shame, was no HUGE BLACK MARK against their Finals losing opponents.

hidalgo
06-12-2014, 10:18 PM
Magic wasn't injured whatsoever in the 1991 finals

(the 89 finals vs detroit he was injured & missed last 4th Q of game 2, & missed games 3 & 4) they were swept so he missed over 50% of that finals. yet nobody tries to take credit away from detroit

Pablonovi
06-12-2014, 11:57 PM
Magic wasn't injured whatsoever in the 1991 finals

(the 89 finals vs detroit he was injured & missed last 4th Q of game 2, & missed games 3 & 4) they were swept so he missed over 50% of that finals. yet nobody tries to take credit away from detroit

Thanx for the correction; I had just read it in some other post and repeated it without checking.
I just hate it when I do lazy crap like that!

btw, back then I WAS "taking credit" away from the Bad Boys. Didn't like their style of play at all; and suffered over the Lakers going from sweep-city to crushed by them in those Finals.

JordansBulls
06-13-2014, 12:01 AM
Kareem is a top 3 player all time but certainly not the GOAT, he played with another top 5 player all time and his teammate won more finals mvp's than he did and more league mvp's when they were together. Basically while together Magic won 5 titles, Kareem 5 titles, Magic 3 finals MVP's, Kareem 1 final's MVP, Magic 2 league mvp's and Kareem 1 league mvp.

JordansBulls
06-13-2014, 12:03 AM
Series with HCA


vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Jordan: 14-0 (100%)/ 10-0 (100%)
Jabbar: 11-3 (79%)/ 23-2 (92%)
Russell: 10-0 (100%)/ 12-1 (92%)* missed most of series lost
Wilt: 4-3 (57%)/ 9-2 (82%)
Magic: 9-2 (82%)/ 20-1 (95%)
Bird: 10-6 (63%)/ 14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/ 5-2 (71%)
Shaq: 11-3 (79%)/ 13-2 (87%)
Duncan: 16-5 (76%)/ 10-1 (91%)
Lebron: 3-3 (50%)/ 13-0 (100%)

Nikeman
06-13-2014, 12:05 AM
Jordan doesn't retire for baseball, he probably has 8 titles

AssistantCoach
06-13-2014, 12:06 AM
I would rather be 5-4 in the finals then 6-0 because that means you were talented enough to make the finals 9 times. And then add in the best era in basketball history makes it even more impressive compared to the weak era that Jordan played in (6 expansion teams.)

Lakerfan32
06-13-2014, 12:11 AM
That jazz team the Bulls had to cheat to beat never got past the Lakers.

Magic left after the Finals and his team became a terrible lottery team. Jordan's Bulls went to the Finals, he left, and they got back to the Eastern Conference Championship.

The Pistons and Celtics that Magic faced would routinely punish the Bulls.

For the teammate argument, I think people should research game six vs the sixers, as a rookie, starting for injured Captain

Tony_Starks
06-13-2014, 12:21 AM
Magic Johnson. 9 finals, 5 wins. Wouldve been 6 out of 9 if not for pulling a hammy against the bad boys. Losses only to some of the greatest teams in SPORTS history.

More impressive.

valade16
06-13-2014, 12:24 AM
Magic Johnson. 9 finals, 5 wins. Wouldve been 6 out if 9 if not for pulling a hammy against the bad boys. Losses only to some of the greatest teams in SPORTS history.

More impressive.

Yeah, I can't believe Magic somehow got to 9 Finals with KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR on his team .

How on earth could someone manage that? Must have been so hard...

Tony_Starks
06-13-2014, 12:24 AM
That jazz team the Bulls had to cheat to beat never got past the Lakers.

Magic left after the Finals and his team became a terrible lottery team. Jordan's Bulls went to the Finals, he left, and they got back to the Eastern Conference Championship.

The Pistons and Celtics that Magic faced would routinely punish the Bulls.

For the teammate argument, I think people should research game six vs the sixers, as a rookie, starting for injured Captain

Thank you for stating facts sir.

Tony_Starks
06-13-2014, 12:28 AM
Yeah, I can't believe Magic somehow got to 9 Finals with KAREEM ABDUL-JABBAR on his team .

How on earth could someone manage that? Must have been so hard...

First finals Kareem was hurt, Magic plays all 5 positions and in the clincher and wins the game.

Last Finals Kareem was retired, rookie Vlade Divac was the center.

Facts.

JordansBulls
06-13-2014, 12:42 AM
First finals Kareem was hurt, Magic plays all 5 positions and in the clincher and wins the game.

Last Finals Kareem was retired, rookie Vlade Divac was the center.

Facts.

Kareem averaged 33/14 and 5 bpg in the 1980 finals and was the mvp that season, not to mention game 7 he was coming back and it was going to be in LA.

Tony_Starks
06-13-2014, 12:56 AM
Kareem averaged 33/14 and 5 bpg in the 1980 finals and was the mvp that season, not to mention game 7 he was coming back and it was going to be in LA.

Was? What actually happened?

FOXHOUND
06-13-2014, 01:01 AM
I think this is obviously Jordan and Magic, and in that scenario Magic did lose in game 7 twice, but ultimately the goal is to win championships and the bigger number wins. To me the more wins the better, with losses in the Finals serving as a tie breaker.

6-0 is better than 5-4 because even though you had three more chances you ultimately won one less time. 5-4 vs 5-0? WAY better. The whole perfect Finals thing is overrated, it's better to make it and lose than not make it at all.

Now, let's talk about Kareem's 6-4, shall we? ;)

FOXHOUND
06-13-2014, 01:02 AM
Kareem averaged 33/14 and 5 bpg in the 1980 finals and was the mvp that season, not to mention game 7 he was coming back and it was going to be in LA.

Magic's game WAS game 7, that's one of the reasons it was so tremendous amongst everything else. It was the greatest game 7 performance in NBA history.

JordansBulls
06-13-2014, 01:14 AM
Magic's game WAS game 7, that's one of the reasons it was so tremendous amongst everything else. It was the greatest game 7 performance in NBA history.

It was not a game 7.

FOXHOUND
06-13-2014, 01:23 AM
It was not a game 7.

After double checking, you're absolutely right lmao.

Quinnsanity
06-13-2014, 06:17 AM
I don't look at making the Finals as an achievement. The whole goal is to WIN the Finals. 6-0 means that you achieved that goal six times. 5-4 means you accomplished it five times. Coming close four other times really doesn't mean that much to me.

DaBear
06-13-2014, 07:18 AM
The Jordan idol worship is ridiculous. The NBA wasn't going to let that guy lose when he was the marketing cow. That's why he was 6-0 in the Finals. He averaged like 11+ free throws per game in his 6 Finals appearances. Hilarious how much he owned the NBA.

Jordan's signature moment is an offensive foul. Enough said.

Lebron has been the nbas marketing cow. Yet he's going to be 2-3 in the finals. Cry me a river

DaBear
06-13-2014, 07:19 AM
The Jordan hate in here is real. Lebron fans are getting sour at the fact he'll have a LOSING record in the finals. He should be 1-4 actually if not for Ray Allen saving his *** last year

WingbowlMVP
06-13-2014, 07:55 AM
Series with HCA


vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Jordan: 14-0 (100%)/ 10-0 (100%)
Jabbar: 11-3 (79%)/ 23-2 (92%)
Russell: 10-0 (100%)/ 12-1 (92%)* missed most of series lost
Wilt: 4-3 (57%)/ 9-2 (82%)
Magic: 9-2 (82%)/ 20-1 (95%)
Bird: 10-6 (63%)/ 14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/ 5-2 (71%)
Shaq: 11-3 (79%)/ 13-2 (87%)
Duncan: 16-5 (76%)/ 10-1 (91%)
Lebron: 3-3 (50%)/ 13-0 (100%)



Fair point but can we agree that records like this while interesting only really work when comparing players of the same era. Different set of rules, different level of competition, how watered down or when a dip in talent occurs, are all factors. Some teams that won 50 games weren't as good as some teams that won 40.

Also they aren't playing one on one, the quality of teammates, health of them and teammates, and how well coached and balanced they are also play into this. Lebron on Cleveland and Lebron on Miami are completely different. I'd actually say his success in Cleveland was more impressive because of the reasons I have listed.

I'd also so Magic and Bird and perfect to compare because they played head to head with teams of similar talent quite a few times.

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 01:05 PM
Jordan doesn't retire for baseball, he probably has 8 titles

Hey Nikeman,
This statement is a HUGE stretch.
First off, he did play in the Play-Offs in 1995 and they didn't make it to the Finals.
Secondly, IF he had played in those 8 straight seasons w 8 STRAIGHT FINALS, the chances rise sharply that he/team would:

a) Got too tired to win some of those Chips, especially the later ones.
b) Suffer Injuries from playing all those extra regular season (during the 1.8 years he quit) & Play-Off Games
c) Lose Along The Way To A Hot Team &/or Difficult Match-Up (Shaq's Magic, Hakeems' Rockets, other teams that beat in the later years that that might not have been able to due to additional injuries / tiredness)

A much better word than "probably" imo would be "possibly".

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 01:08 PM
Jordan doesn't retire for baseball, he probably has 8 titles

Hey Nikeman,
It was PROBABLE, that if Jordan had not retired from the NBA, the NBA would have been forced to perma-ban him for GAMBLING! He had wagered humongous sums; and this information had become super-widely known - putting the NBA in the almost-untenable position of either: forcing him to "retire" or forcing perma-banning him (with the loss to him of all his stats & team-achievements; and with the loss to the League of its greatest "cash-cow" ever.)

Together they PROBABLY CHOSE "Temporary Retirement".

Wrigheyes4MVP
06-13-2014, 01:49 PM
The way I look at it is...

6 > 5

That is if we aren't putting the necessary amount of context into this discussion.

I'll take 6-0 over 5-4 in an idenctical 9 years though simply because I'd rather have the greater # of championships. If we are talking about 7-2... then I'd taker that over 6-0.

WingbowlMVP
06-13-2014, 02:37 PM
The way I look at it is...

6 > 5

That is if we aren't putting the necessary amount of context into this discussion.

I'll take 6-0 over 5-4 in an idenctical 9 years though simply because I'd rather have the greater # of championships. If we are talking about 7-2... then I'd taker that over 6-0.

Question.....not just for you but anyone that wants to chime in....

Lets say you knew for a fact that over the next 10 years you would either make 9 finals knowing you would not will all 9 but would win several or you new you would make the playoffs 6 times and win it all 6 and be bad the other 4 years (ok this did not happen with Jordan but that is not what I'm asking), what would you take. Keep in mind while you end up 5 - 4 in the 9 years you do not know that at the time but you know you will be competitive each year taking home multiple titles.

Personally I'd take the 9 finals with multiple titles because I know I would have a chance every year and with the 6 I know there are 4 irrelevant years.

FOXHOUND
06-13-2014, 04:46 PM
Series with HCA


vs 50 win teams/non-50 win teams
Jordan: 14-0 (100%)/ 10-0 (100%)
Jabbar: 11-3 (79%)/ 23-2 (92%)
Russell: 10-0 (100%)/ 12-1 (92%)* missed most of series lost
Wilt: 4-3 (57%)/ 9-2 (82%)
Magic: 9-2 (82%)/ 20-1 (95%)
Bird: 10-6 (63%)/ 14-1 (93%)
Olajuwon: 4-0 (100%)/ 5-2 (71%)
Shaq: 11-3 (79%)/ 13-2 (87%)
Duncan: 16-5 (76%)/ 10-1 (91%)
Lebron: 3-3 (50%)/ 13-0 (100%)


This is a cool chart, but there's one notable name missing... ;)

LeBron is lucky he didn't play in the west with that 50+ win record, yeesh.

FOXHOUND
06-13-2014, 04:52 PM
Question.....not just for you but anyone that wants to chime in....

Lets say you knew for a fact that over the next 10 years you would either make 9 finals knowing you would not will all 9 but would win several or you new you would make the playoffs 6 times and win it all 6 and be bad the other 4 years (ok this did not happen with Jordan but that is not what I'm asking), what would you take. Keep in mind while you end up 5 - 4 in the 9 years you do not know that at the time but you know you will be competitive each year taking home multiple titles.

Personally I'd take the 9 finals with multiple titles because I know I would have a chance every year and with the 6 I know there are 4 irrelevant years.

But then you're just talking 9 Finals appearances vs 6. If in the end you only win 5 out of 9 vs 6 out of 6 I think you still want the 6 because it's one more

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 05:13 PM
The way I look at it is...

6 > 5

That is if we aren't putting the necessary amount of context into this discussion.

I'll take 6-0 over 5-4 in an idenctical 9 years though simply because I'd rather have the greater # of championships. If we are talking about 7-2... then I'd taker that over 6-0.

Which Is Better(?): Losing In The Finals, Losing Earlier Than The Finals Or Not Even Making The Play-Offs?

Hey Wrigheyes4MVP,
Please trust me when I say that I don't ever make fun of people (even if I disagree with them severely).
Let's see if we can't make things as clear as possible for all concerned ...

WE START WITH THE SAME CHRONOLOGICAL 9 YEAR PERIOD (9 consecutive years).
9-0 In The Finals is undeniably THE best
but what about

8-0 in the Finals VS 8-1 In The Finals
Consider that if your team didn't lose in the Finals they would have necessarily lost BEFORE the Finals.
Wouldn't you say that it's better to lose IN the Finals than during a lower round (against a presumably weaker opponent)?

So, in 9 Years we Have 6-0 IN The Finals PLUS 3 Losses in Play-Off Rounds Earlier Than The Finals.
Wouldn't 6-1 In The Finals be better than 6-0 In The Finals PLUS an earlier-round Loss?
Wouldn't 6-2 In The Finals be better than 6-0 In The Finals PLUS TWO earlier round losses?
Wouldn't 6-3 In The Finals be better than 6-0 In The Finals PLUS THREE earlier round losses?

If we assume that you agree that it IS better to get as far as possible in the Play-Offs, then:
Given 6 Chips In a 9 Year Period, For The Other 3 Years, It's Better To Lose IN The Finals Those 3 Years rather than fail earlier OR NOT EVEN MAKE the Play-Offs. Right?

So, finally we get to:
9 Years WITH 6 Chips & 3 Failures At Getting Past All The Earlier Rounds (i.e. 3 years of not even REACHING the Finals)
VS
9 Years WITH 5 Chips & 4 Successes At Getting Past ALL The Earlier Rounds, Making The Finals (& Losing There).

For me:
5 Chips PLUS 4 Losses IN The Finals (i.e., 4 More "2nd-Place" Finishes (as losing Finalists)
beats
6 Chips PLUS 3 Losses BEFORE The Finals (perhaps not getting out of the 1st Round; perhaps not even making the Play-Offs at all.)
- - - -
Instead of a 9-Year Period, Let's Look At
In a 10-Year Period:
Wouldn't
6 Chips PLUS 4 Losses IN The Finals
beat
6 Chips Plus 4 Losses BEFORE The Finals (or, even much worse, not even making the Play-Offs?

Lastly, in the 9 Years he reached the Finals:
Jerry West won 1 Finals & Lost 8 Finals.
Wasn't that better for him than if
Jerry West won 1 Finals & Lost BEFORE the Finals in any or all those other 8 years?

Of course, it's better to make the Finals and fail there; than to not even make the Finals.

hugepatsfan
06-13-2014, 05:13 PM
Which team would you rather be a fan of…

Team A: Loses conferences finals, Loses finals, Loses conference finals, Loses finals, Loses conference finals

Team B: Loses 2nd round, Wins finals, Loses 1st round, misses playoffs, misses playoffs

Fans of team B get to watch their team win it all but over a 5 year stretch do you think they really had more fun watching their team than the fans of team A? If you could somehow quantify how much fun the average fan of each team had watching basketball games for those 5 years I bet team A would easily come out on top. But the happiest moment for the fans of either team would undoubtedly be when team B got to see their team win. Other than that one year though, their team really wasn't anything that exciting in terms of winning.

Kaner
06-13-2014, 05:44 PM
This is ridiculous, this thread has had enough people going 6>5 but honestly...

6>5!!!!!


Franchises, Players, and Coaches are all judged heavily by the amount of championships they win and their success in the playoffs comes down to did they win a championship or not.

Rarely are the Lakers 31 finals compared to the Celtics 21. When looking at them its the 17 championships vs 16.

Jerry West's legacy isn't particularly bolstered by making 9 finals and winning 1 it's judged off of the one and his personal performance with the 9 finals being an afterthought of his career.

Kaner
06-13-2014, 05:54 PM
Which team would you rather be a fan of…

Team A: Loses conferences finals, Loses finals, Loses conference finals, Loses finals, Loses conference finals

Team B: Loses 2nd round, Wins finals, Loses 1st round, misses playoffs, misses playoffs

Fans of team B get to watch their team win it all but over a 5 year stretch do you think they really had more fun watching their team than the fans of team A? If you could somehow quantify how much fun the average fan of each team had watching basketball games for those 5 years I bet team A would easily come out on top. But the happiest moment for the fans of either team would undoubtedly be when team B got to see their team win. Other than that one year though, their team really wasn't anything that exciting in terms of winning.

Team B. The euphoria of winning a championship> the bitter disappointment of coming up short every year. A fan of Team A might enjoy the regular season more and get their hopes up each year but if their teams coming up short deep in the playoffs every year then yeah fans of Team B are going to get better longer lasting memories of that championship season that will carry over for years. While a fan of team A is basically 2000s Phoenix Suns.

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 06:44 PM
[SNIP]
Jerry West's legacy isn't particularly bolstered by making 9 finals and winning 1 it's judged off of the one and his personal performance with the 9 finals being an afterthought of his career.

You Could NOT Be MORE WRONG About Why Jerry West Is Considered An All-Time Great

Hey Kaner,
You're just DEAD WRONG about this. West's making 8 additional Finals play a HUGE role in how highly he's evaluated. His personal performance in the one Finals they won was NOT even his best Finals performance by far! In MOST of the 8 Finals he lost, he played better than he did in the one they won.

He won the fMVP when they lost to the Celtics All-Stars; that's how great he played that year. So great, it's the first and ONLY time a player on a losing team has ever won the fMVP. AND HE REALLY DESERVED IT.

In those Play-Offs he did this:
"1969 -- Jerry West, Los Angeles
Averaged 30.9 points, 3.9 rebounds and 7.5 assists in 18 playoff games as the Lakers lost to the Boston Celtics, 4-3. West has been the only NBA Finals MVP to play for a losing team. "
http://www.nba.com/history/finalsmvps.html

In those Finals, which the C's won 4-3 (with 108-106 in Game 7) he did this:
"League Champion: Boston Celtics

Finals MVP: Jerry West (37.9/4.7/7.4)"

Baylor only scored 18 ppg; and Wilt only 11.7 ppg.

WEST TOTALLY DOMINATED BOTH TEAMS. Only one of the 7 games was won by more than 9 points. If West hadn't of gone absolutely GOAT-like, the Lakers would have easily lost 4-0!

But there were MANY other Play-Off Series & Finals in which West played incredibly great.

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 06:52 PM
I think this is obviously Jordan and Magic, and in that scenario Magic did lose in game 7 twice, but ultimately the goal is to win championships and the bigger number wins. To me the more wins the better, with losses in the Finals serving as a tie breaker.

6-0 is better than 5-4 because even though you had three more chances you ultimately won one less time. 5-4 vs 5-0? WAY better. The whole perfect Finals thing is overrated, it's better to make it and lose than not make it at all.

Now, let's talk about Kareem's 6-4, shall we? ;)

Hey FOXHOUND,
6-0 in 10 years (with 4 seasons where you don't even make the Finals) is not as good as
6-1 in 10 years (with 3 seasons where you don't even make the Finals) is not as good as
6-2 in 10 years (with 2 seasons where you don't even make the Finals) is not as good as
6-3 in 10 years (with 1 season where you don't even make the Finals) is not as good as
6-4 in 10 years.
So,
10 Years With 10 Finals Appearances with a 6-4 Record IS WAY BETTER THAN
10 Years With 6 Finals Appearances with a 6-0 Record AND with 4 LOSSES IN EARLIER ROUNDS!

In MJ's BEST 10 YEARS: he Won 6 Chips & Lost BEFORE THE FINALS 4 TIMES
In KAJ's BEST 10 YEARS: he Won 6 Chips & Lost IN THE FINALS 4 TIMES.

That's WAY better.
Also,
Over the 19 chronological years that MJ's career spanned, he made (& won) 6 Finals. That's less than 1/3rd the time.
Over the first 19 years of KAJ's (20 year) career, he made 10 Finals (& won 6). That's more than 1/2 the time!

In 19 Chronological Years, KAJ's 10 Finals Was Way Better Than MJ's 6 Finals !!!

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 07:03 PM
Team B. The euphoria of winning a championship> the bitter disappointment of coming up short every year. A fan of Team A might enjoy the regular season more and get their hopes up each year but if their teams coming up short deep in the playoffs every year then yeah fans of Team B are going to get better longer lasting memories of that championship season that will carry over for years. While a fan of team A is basically 2000s Phoenix Suns.

Buffalo Bills' Fans Are VERY PROUD Of Their Unique 4-Straight Super-Bowls
Hey Kaner,
You're DEAD wrong here too.

Fans absolutely LOVE it when their team repeatedly makes the Finals.
There's WAY MORE TO BE PROUD OF than in being a perennial Loser In the Early Rounds or even a non-Play-Off Team

Ask Buffalo Bills fans if they would have rather NOT made 4 Super Bowls In A Row; but instead either lose in earlier rounds or not even make the Play-Offs.

Just right before these Finals, all the media and fans were discussing the fact that the HEAT had just made 4 Consecutive Finals (which had not been done in almost 30 years, and had only been done 3 times by only 2 Franchises ever). Why all the discussion? Because MOST PEOPLE consider it a tremendous accomplishment. How can you NOT see that?

You're not really using your head enough here.

DaBear
06-13-2014, 07:36 PM
Buffalo Bills' Fans Are VERY PROUD Of Their Unique 4-Straight Super-Bowls
Hey Kaner,
You're DEAD wrong here too.

Fans absolutely LOVE it when their team repeatedly makes the Finals.
There's WAY MORE TO BE PROUD OF than in being a perennial Loser In the Early Rounds or even a non-Play-Off Team

Ask Buffalo Bills fans if they would have rather NOT made 4 Super Bowls In A Row; but instead either lose in earlier rounds or not even make the Play-Offs.

Just right before these Finals, all the media and fans were discussing the fact that the HEAT had just made 4 Consecutive Finals (which had not been done in almost 30 years, and had only been done 3 times by only 2 Franchises ever). Why all the discussion? Because MOST PEOPLE consider it a tremendous accomplishment. How can you NOT see that?

You're not really using your head enough here.

I don't think you're using your head enough. Most fans would rather see 1 championship in 5 years then continually come up SHORT every single year. Ask Jazz fans how they feel.

Mell413
06-13-2014, 07:40 PM
I'd take the ring even with the down years. The championship can help you get through the bad years. Banners do fly forever. The other scenario causes more heartbreak and you don't get the payoff. I suppose the answer could vary depending on the team you follow though.

Miltstar
06-13-2014, 07:57 PM
MJ got BORED of winning titles so tried his luck at baseball haha end of story

Kaner
06-13-2014, 08:46 PM
Buffalo Bills' Fans Are VERY PROUD Of Their Unique 4-Straight Super-Bowls
Hey Kaner,
You're DEAD wrong here too.

Fans absolutely LOVE it when their team repeatedly makes the Finals.
There's WAY MORE TO BE PROUD OF than in being a perennial Loser In the Early Rounds or even a non-Play-Off Team

Ask Buffalo Bills fans if they would have rather NOT made 4 Super Bowls In A Row; but instead either lose in earlier rounds or not even make the Play-Offs.

Just right before these Finals, all the media and fans were discussing the fact that the HEAT had just made 4 Consecutive Finals (which had not been done in almost 30 years, and had only been done 3 times by only 2 Franchises ever). Why all the discussion? Because MOST PEOPLE consider it a tremendous accomplishment. How can you NOT see that?

You're not really using your head enough here.

Lol and the Bills Franchise, fans, and players would all gladly trade those 4 superbowl appearances for 1 championship and 8-8 seasons.

Anyway I can't be DEAD WRONG about an opinion that is completely subjective with literally no evidence to support it one way or the other outside of our own expierences. so your DEAD WRONG about me being DEAD WRONG.

Obviously there is more to be proud of compared to a lottery team when you make the playoffs and go deep but that pride's not even CLOSE to the pride you can have in your team when they win a championship. One of the biggest reasons you can have pride in your team making it deep in the playoffs is that their is a promise of next year could be their year. If in retrospect you KNOW that the Bills are going to lose those 4 superbowls and never win one that would be depressing as **** as a fan.

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 09:24 PM
Lol and the Bills Franchise, fans, and players would all gladly trade those 4 superbowl appearances for 1 championship and 8-8 seasons.

Anyway I can't be DEAD WRONG about an opinion that is completely subjective with literally no evidence to support it one way or the other outside of our own expierences. so your DEAD WRONG about me being DEAD WRONG.

Obviously there is more to be proud of compared to a lottery team when you make the playoffs and go deep but that pride's not even CLOSE to the pride you can have in your team when they win a championship. One of the biggest reasons you can have pride in your team making it deep in the playoffs is that their is a promise of next year could be their year. If in retrospect you KNOW that the Bills are going to lose those 4 superbowls and never win one that would be depressing as **** as a fan.

Hey Kaner,
So, it'd be better if they never even came close to a Super Bowl than to have gone to FOUR of them?
Those fans can look around and see a number of teams that have never even been to the Super Bowl; the fans of those other teams would gladly trade four trips without a victory there, over never going there.

Pablonovi
06-13-2014, 09:30 PM
Lol and the Bills Franchise, fans, and players would all gladly trade those 4 superbowl appearances for 1 championship and 8-8 seasons.

Anyway I can't be DEAD WRONG about an opinion that is completely subjective with literally no evidence to support it one way or the other outside of our own expierences. so your DEAD WRONG about me being DEAD WRONG.

Obviously there is more to be proud of compared to a lottery team when you make the playoffs and go deep but that pride's not even CLOSE to the pride you can have in your team when they win a championship. One of the biggest reasons you can have pride in your team making it deep in the playoffs is that their is a promise of next year could be their year. If in retrospect you KNOW that the Bills are going to lose those 4 superbowls and never win one that would be depressing as **** as a fan.

Hey Kaner,
You might be right about 1 Chip being worth more to the fans than four Super Bowl trips with no Chips. Would be interesting to know how fans of such teams feel about it. I can't claim to know for sure.

What I do know about is that, back when the Lakers lost 8 Finals in a row, I watched all of those losses (7 times to the Celtics!). Still, once the temporary sting of each Finals loss faded; there was the next season of high hopes of again competing for the Chip. In those 8 years, no other team made it out of the West and to the Finals. I felt way proud of "my" team dominating our conference that way. I still feel proud of our team for making the Finals all those times; and for the total of 31 Finals (INCLUDING the 15 Finals losses); no team comes close to that many Finals. I bet most Lakers fans ARE proud of that number.

I DID go overboard with the use of "DEAD WRONG". I apologize for that.

TheMightyHumph
06-13-2014, 09:43 PM
People love to reference the fact that Jordan is 6-0 in NBA Finals but I've never seen anybody try and sell anyone on the validity of Magic Johnson's legacy because of his 5-4 record in the Finals. I don't even have one ounce of my body that is trying to argue Magic had a better career than MJ. All I'm saying is that getting to the Finals 9 times is more impressive than getting there 6 times. The question is does that extra championship make MJ's appearances superior to Magic's? I vote for getting there 9 times and winning 5 but I honestly have no idea what the rest of voters would say. Therefore, we have a thread. :) Looking forward to reading all responses.

Depends on what impresses you.

slashsnake
06-14-2014, 05:56 AM
Just right before these Finals, all the media and fans were discussing the fact that the HEAT had just made 4 Consecutive Finals (which had not been done in almost 30 years, and had only been done 3 times by only 2 Franchises ever). Why all the discussion? Because MOST PEOPLE consider it a tremendous accomplishment. How can you NOT see that?

You're not really using your head enough here.

Yes, but that's a side note that not really anyone cares about. Who else knew that it was the 80's celtics who last accomplished that? Now when we talk about threepeats, winning actual titles, or even last back to back champs, those ones stick out.

I'd take the 6-0. You came out on top 6 times in your career, the other guy came out on top 5 times. Ask those two how often they wear their Conference championship rings.

effen5
06-14-2014, 09:09 AM
6>5

6/6=100%
5/9=55%

It's simple math.

And at the end of the day we'll be judging lebron by how many finals he's lost not won at the end of his career.

Pablonovi
06-15-2014, 11:29 PM
6>5

6/6=100%
5/9=55%

It's simple math.

And at the end of the day we'll be judging lebron by how many finals he's lost not won at the end of his career.

I have NEVER seen any of the All-Time Greats judged by how many Finals they lost. Elgin Baylor lost 8 and won zero. And everybody still recognizes his Greatness; including making it to 8 Finals - which few have ever done.

Your simple math leaves out one of THE most important factors - what the guy did in the other 3 years he didn't make & win the Finals.
Take Magic's 9 years of 5-4 in the Finals.
Take MJ's best 9 years. He didn't even make the Finals 3 of those years; losing in earlier rounds (which is a lot worse than losing in the Finals. (If Baylor had made 0 Finals and lost 8 times in earlier rounds, his reputation would be a lot lower.

One can do other simple math:
9 years 9 Finals = 9/9 =100% or a rate of 0% failure to make the Finals
9 years 6 Finals = 6/9 = 67% or a rate of 33% failure to make the Finals.

And what about TD? You claiming that last year's loss hurts his reputation. I think the opposite. On Top of his 5 Chips, other Finals apperances can only help - because at least he got close in other years.

DaBear
06-15-2014, 11:31 PM
I have NEVER seen any of the All-Time Greats judged by how many Finals they lost. Elgin Baylor lost 8 and won zero. And everybody still recognizes his Greatness; including making it to 8 Finals - which few have ever done.

Your simple math leaves out one of THE most important factors - what the guy did in the other 3 years he didn't make & win the Finals.
Take Magic's 9 years of 5-4 in the Finals.
Take MJ's best 9 years. He didn't even make the Finals 4 of those years; losing in earlier rounds (which is a lot worse than losing in the Finals. (If Baylor had made 0 Finals and lost 8 times in earlier rounds, his reputation would be a lot lower.

One can do other simple math:
9 years 9 Finals = 9/9 =100% or a rate of 0% failure to make the Finals
9 years 6 Finals = 6/9 = 67% or a rate of 33% failure to make the Finals.

And what about TD? You claiming that last year's loss hurts his reputation. I think the opposite. On Top of his 5 Chips, other Finals apperances can only help - because at least he got close in other years.

Just give up man. Most people can compute simple arithmetic and say 6>5. Most people would rather watch 1 ship in 5 years and 4 bad years then to make it to the Finals every year and lose. No one cares about Finals appearances. You are judged on rings.

Im_in_Mia_bish
06-15-2014, 11:57 PM
Lol