Would the perception of Jordan change if he had gone 3-6 in the finals?

[hateraid]

Let's say Jordan lost one to Utah, lost to Phoenix (which may have happened had Paxson not lit up Phoenix in game 6 at the end) and to the Lakers in their first appearance.

How would Jordan's legacy looked like? Is he still perceived as the general greatest of all time?

[SexSymbol]

Let's say Jordan lost one to Utah, lost to Phoenix (which may have happened had Paxson not lit up Phoenix in game 6 at the end) and to the Lakers in their first appearance.

How would Jordan's legacy looked like? Is he still perceived as the general greatest of all time?
obviously it changes and he has no argument against the likes of kareem, russell and barely any against magic and Bird.

[I know you are]

It would change so much. It isn't just about the record, but the feeling of helplessness teams had against Jordan and the Bulls. If they had only won half, then teams would not have feared him as much and felt there was a chance.

[raprap]

obviously it changes and he has no argument against the likes of kareem, russell and barely any against magic and Bird.
He was regarded as the goat after his first 3 rings so I don't know how another 3 loses in the finals keeps him out of the discussion of the Goat.

[tpols]

He was regarded as the goat after his first 3 rings so I don't know how another 3 loses in the finals keeps him out of the discussion of the Goat.

re-read the OP.. if jordan lost 2/3 of his first three finals nobody wouldve had him as GOAT at that point.. the thread is silly though because jordan never even came close to losing any of these times, and was completely dominant.

other players have literally came one shot away from winning or losing the whole thing so it may make sense to use this argument on them, but not on jordan.

[BlkMambaGOAT]

At least it isn't ***/7

[K Xerxes]

obviously it changes and he has no argument against the likes of kareem, russell and barely any against magic and Bird.

Funnily enough a resume of 3 rings 3 FMVPs and 5 MVPs is still easily better than Bird's.

As long as he didn't shit the the bed in these hypothetical finals losses, he would still have a strong case for GOAT considering his stats and dominance on both ends of the court. In itself, that speaks volumes to just how incredible his current resume is.

[SexSymbol]

He was regarded as the goat after his first 3 rings so I don't know how another 3 loses in the finals keeps him out of the discussion of the Goat.
he was 3/3 at the time and his team on paper wasn't even the best in the league.

[LostCause]

I don't think it would remove him from the debate, he was already being touted as a GOAT prior to the 3-peat.

However what also has to be taken into account here is that people wouldn't put as much value into the Finals record as they do. Jordan going 6-0 is largely why Lebron gets criticized for his Finals record, without Jordan doing that there won't be much debate about said records. So it in turn elevates the status of guys like Chamberlain, Lebron and Jordan himself

[Doranku]

Absolutely. He'd probably be ranked 2nd or 3rd, rather than fist, if he went 3-6. I'd see no reason why anyone would put him above Kareem if he were 3-6.

[Da_Realist]

Let's say Jordan lost one to Utah, lost to Phoenix (which may have happened had Paxson not lit up Phoenix in game 6 at the end) and to the Lakers in their first appearance.

How would Jordan's legacy looked like? Is he still perceived as the general greatest of all time?

I don't know about "lit up". Paxson hit one shot the whole 4th quarter. And I still, along with any other sensible person, would have favored the Bulls in game 7.

But the answer is yes. A large reason why the Bulls beat the Jazz, Suns and Lakers is because Jordan was Jordan. So for him to go 3-6 would imply he was a lesser player or he did not play his best when it mattered the most. So yeah, the perception of him would be different because he would have been a lesser player for the conditions you outlined to have been met.

[Showtime80']

Da Realist makes a great point!!!

Going 6-0 and playing at the INSANE AND CLUTCH level he did just to for his team to be competitive. The durability, stamina, perseverance, killer instinct and just SHEER DOMINANCE!!! Like it said above, Jordan had to be Jordan in all those Finals for the Bulls to even stand a chance! The Warriors had a 3-1 lead in this year's Finals playing LIKE CRAP for the first 4 games!

And that mark of 6/6 is something that he can ALWAYS hang above his contemporaries like Magic, Bird, Kareem, Isiah, Dr J, Olajuwon, Duncan, Robinson, Shaq and Kobe!!! I'm sure Kareem, Kobe and Magic still think about the 6th and 7th rings the eluded them in the 80's and 00's.

Just loosing once and going 5-1 would've brought Jordan back down to earth a little bit but still probably the greatest ever, going 4-2 puts him right back in the pile with Magic, Larry, Olajuwon, Duncan, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, Kobe and Shaq and could be HEAVILY DEBATED between the 1 and 4 positions all time.

Going 3-3 would've put his place in the top 5 up for HEAVY DISCUSSION but would've still been there in my opinion.

That 6-0 is just unbelievable and just another diamond in Jordan's GOAT crown!

[BigKAT]

Yes. It would definetly change alot.

6/6 is unpercedented.
It creates the aura that Prime Jordan was unbeatble.

[jstern]

How did Paxon lit up Phoenix. He hit one shot, Jordan lit Phoenix up, since he was the only other person able to score that quarter.

[Rake2204]

Yes. It would definetly change alot.

6/6 is unpercedented.
It creates the aura that Prime Jordan was unbeatble.Not to be that guy, but shouldn't we count the years when Jordan's Bulls didn't make the Finals as well? And I don't ask that as a means of knocking Jordan, for I feel the same should go for every other player, too. Sometimes it just seems certain folks would value a team going 2-for-2 in Finals appearances over a team who went, say, 4-for-8 over a similar span.

Specifically on-topic, yes, Jordan's Bulls winning just three rings would have changed people's perceptions, because it would have been half of what his team ultimately accomplished. That said, whether such perception change would have been warranted would depend upon what Jordan himself accomplished and contributed over that stretch.

For instance, while Jordan's Bulls may have come up empty in '89, his play was incredible regardless, and nearly pushing the Pistons to the brink in the Eastern Conference Finals while dropping 32 points and 13 assists in the finale shouldn't necessarily result in a knock to his reputation.

Similarly, if those 90's Bulls had lost a Finals series here or there because John Paxson sucked, or Scottie Pippen was injured, or Luc Longley missed some key free throws, it shouldn't necessarily count against Jordan, but it probably would anyway, because that's how a lot of people are.

[SexSymbol]

Not to be that guy, but shouldn't we count the years when Jordan's Bulls didn't make the Finals as well?
That wouldn't be very smart, because we would put players who didn't have a good team around them in a particular year vs players who did.
That's why finals record is very important, because when you have a team that is competent enough to do it all you have to succeed.
Nobody is expecting 06 lakers or last years sixers to make the finals, that's why it doesn't make sense to compare them to 08 celtics or 02 nets for example.

[jlip]

Nope. I doubt it.

Finals record was not considered, by most people, a criterion for greatness or GOAT status before MJ's career ended. Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, and Magic were all receiving GOAT talk at some point in their careers before MJ. Rarely were people bringing up Finals record as the justification for who was better all time. Number of rings...Yes. Head to Head against each other...Yes. Record in the Finals...Not really. After MJ's career ended the GOAT criteria basically became... "whatever or however MJ did it."

Also. Think about it. If MJ had overachieved and had gotten past the Pistons in '88 but lost to the Showtime Lakers in the Finals, why would that be worse than losing in the ECF to the Pistons?

[SexSymbol]

Nope. I doubt it.

Finals record was not considered, by most people, a criterion for greatness or GOAT status before MJ's career ended. Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, and Magic were all receiving GOAT talk at some point in their careers before MJ. Rarely were people bringing up Finals record as the justification for who was better all time. Number of rings...Yes. Head to Head against each other...Yes. Record in the Finals...Not really. After MJ's career ended the GOAT criteria basically became... "whatever or however MJ did it."
Because nobody had done it previously.

You don't consider 10/10 in finals with 10 fmvps a gold standard until somebody does it.

[ClipperRevival]

Kind of an obvious question isn't it there OP? A big factor for MJ's GOATness is his perfect finals record and the fact that he raised his level of play when it mattered most.

[jlip]

Because nobody had done it previously.

You don't consider 10/10 in finals with 10 fmvps a gold standard until somebody does it.

Technically Bill Russell had done it. He was 11/12, and the only Finals he lost was one where he missed half of the time due to injury. So he never lost a healthy finals.

Honestly I don't care about finals record. It means nothing to me. Growing up it never dawned on me that Magic was 5/9 in the Finals or that Kareem was 6/10. All I knew and cared about is that Magic won 5 rings and Kareem had won 6. To me, Tim Duncan losing in the first round to a 46 win 8th seed in 2011 was more damaging to his legacy than losing in the Finals to the 66 win Heat which tarnished his "perfect Finals record."

[GimmeThat]

there's a pretty great chance that it would be the SG position being discussed more than Jordan the person

[Da_Realist]

Not to be that guy, but shouldn't we count the years when Jordan's Bulls didn't make the Finals as well? And I don't ask that as a means of knocking Jordan, for I feel the same should go for every other player, too. Sometimes it just seems certain folks would value a team going 2-for-2 in Finals appearances over a team who went, say, 4-for-8 over a similar span.

Specifically on-topic, yes, Jordan's Bulls winning just three rings would have changed people's perceptions, because it would have been half of what his team ultimately accomplished. That said, whether such perception change would have been warranted would depend upon what Jordan himself accomplished and contributed over that stretch.

For instance, while Jordan's Bulls may have come up empty in '89, his play was incredible regardless, and nearly pushing the Pistons to the brink in the Eastern Conference Finals while dropping 32 points and 13 assists in the finale shouldn't necessarily result in a knock to his reputation.

Similarly, if those 90's Bulls had lost a Finals series here or there because John Paxson sucked, or Scottie Pippen was injured, or Luc Longley missed some key free throws, it shouldn't necessarily count against Jordan, but it probably would anyway, because that's how a lot of people are.

YES! Great explanation. It will fall on deaf ears because it calls for people to think. But good try anyway. I totally agree.

[Da_Realist]

Technically Bill Russell had done it. He was 11/12, and the only Finals he lost was one where he missed half of the time due to injury. So he never lost a healthy finals.

Honestly I don't care about finals record. It means nothing to me. Growing up it never dawned on me that Magic was 5/9 in the Finals or that Kareem was 6/10. All I knew and cared about is that Magic won 5 rings and Kareem had won 6. To me, Tim Duncan losing in the first round to a 46 win 8th seed in 2011 was more damaging to his legacy than losing in the Finals to the 66 win Heat which tarnished his "perfect Finals record."

Agreed. In fact, I say the same thing about stats in general. I did not grow up counting how many shots someone missed or how many assists someone had. I just watched the game. John Stockton was lapping the field in assists per game for years, including Magic Johnson, and no one cared! Not one person outside Utah compared him to Magic.

Today, numbers is all people talk about. We've left behind real analysis for the numbers. We treat NBA basketball like the Major Leagues.

[Rake2204]

That wouldn't be very smart, because we would put players who didn't have a good team around them in a particular year vs players who did.
That's why finals record is very important, because when you have a team that is competent enough to do it all you have to succeed.
Nobody is expecting 06 lakers or last years sixers to make the finals, that's why it doesn't make sense to compare them to 08 celtics or 02 nets for example.This actually kind of taps into a larger issue when it comes to tying an individual player's ability directly to the number of championships their team has won.

1992 Michael Jordan was incredible, not because his team won a championship, but because skill & execution-wise, he was peerless. He led a team that would have been so-so without him to championship glory with him.

In contrast, had you placed him on the 15-win 1992 Timberwolves (the early 90's equivalent to the 2016 76ers), we can likely conclude he would not have led that team to a championship in 1992. However, that wouldn't mean Jordan wasn't as excellent a player as he was in Chicago, just that his supporting cast was clearly worse. Leading a 15-win team to, say, 54 wins and berth in the Western Conference Finals could be almost just as telling when it comes to judging an individual player's greatness and positive effect on a team. Subsequently, I don't see how it can be as black & white when it comes ranking individual ability by just counting team championships.

That said, I reckon that's what led you to making your initial statement—counting championships only on the years teams make the finals because it theoretically would suggest a player had a supporting cast strong enough to win a ring. However, I find such a conclusion to be an oversimplification missing out on an endless stream of nuance.

For example, I don't think LeBron James had an NBA Finals-ready team around him 2007. Had the Detroit Pistons disposed of them like I figured they would (even jumping out to a 2-0 series lead), your theory suggests LeBron James would have been better off losing that ECF series instead of reaching the NBA Finals and falling to the Spurs, since the latter would count against his Finals record while the former could have just been written off as, "Well, his team wasn't good enough to make it so it shouldn't count against him."

The truth is, that Cavaliers team probably shouldn't have made the finals in 2007. Yet on the shoulders of LeBron James' incredible play against Detroit, the Cavaliers were able to over-achieve and reach an unforeseen plateau (an NBA Finals appearance). I feel that moment in James' career should be treated as a positive, far eclipsing whatever he did in '06 and '05. Instead, it's often treated as a net negative.

In contrast, whereas he had to beast in order to push a team to the finals that had no business being there in 2007, James had a much wider range for error in 2011 on the Super Heat. His teams reached the Finals in both cases ('07 and '11), but the circumstances and supporting casts couldn't have been any more different. That's part of why judging only off of NBA Finals results is such an incomplete assessment. Sometimes taking a team to the finals in the first place is the magical achievement; other times, it's to be expected; and more times still, it's somewhere in-between.

To bring it back to MJ, I'll harken back to 1989, when his Bulls team lost 8 of their last 10 in the regular season. They were dead in the water. Then Michael Jordan did Michael Jordan stuff, averaging 35, 7, and 7 in the postseason, leading a miraculous upset against a Cavs team that'd been one of the league's best all year, toppling New York, and nearly taking down the eventual NBA champions. And had Scottie Pippen not absorbed an elbow to the chops just a few minutes into Game 6, maybe Chicago could have reached the finals that year. Unlikely, but not out of the question. Yet, even then, had the Bulls lost to Magic Johnson and the Lakers in '89, I think that playoff run should have been treated as a mark of achievement for Jordan, taking that type of supporting cast as deep as he did, as opposed to somehow punishing his individual greatness for dragging an unready team to the finals.

[Steven Kerry]

I think Shaq would have been propped up more if this was MJ's record.

[Da_Realist]

This actually kind of taps into a larger issue when it comes to tying an individual player's ability directly to the number of championships their team has won.

1992 Michael Jordan was incredible, not because his team won a championship, but because skill & execution-wise, he was peerless. He led a team that would have been so-so without him to championship glory with him.

In contrast, had you placed him on the 15-win 1992 Timberwolves (the early 90's equivalent to the 2016 76ers), we can likely conclude he would not have led that team to a championship in 1992. However, that wouldn't mean Jordan wasn't as excellent a player as he was in Chicago, just that his supporting cast was clearly worse. Leading a 15-win team to, say, 54 wins and berth in the Western Conference Finals could be almost just as telling when it comes to judging an individual player's greatness and positive effect on a team. Subsequently, I don't see how it can be as black & white when it comes ranking individual ability by just counting team championships.

That said, I reckon that's what led you to making your initial statement—counting championships only on the years teams make the finals because it theoretically would suggest a player had a supporting cast strong enough to win a ring. However, I find such a conclusion to be an oversimplification missing out on an endless stream of nuance.

For example, I don't think LeBron James had an NBA Finals-ready team around him 2007. Had the Detroit Pistons disposed of them like I figured they would (even jumping out to a 2-0 series lead), your theory suggests LeBron James would have been better off losing that ECF series instead of reaching the NBA Finals and falling to the Spurs, since the latter would count against his Finals record while the former could have just been written off as, "Well, his team wasn't good enough to make it so it shouldn't count against him."

The truth is, that Cavaliers team probably shouldn't have made the finals in 2007. Yet on the shoulders of LeBron James' incredible play against Detroit, the Cavaliers were able to over-achieve and reach an unforeseen plateau (an NBA Finals appearance). I feel that moment in James' career should be treated as a positive, far eclipsing whatever he did in '06 and '05. Instead, it's often treated as a net negative.

In contrast, whereas he had to beast in order to push a team to the finals that had no business being there in 2007, James had a much wider range for error in 2011 on the Super Heat. His teams reached the Finals in both cases ('07 and '11), but the circumstances and supporting casts couldn't have been any more different. That's part of why judging only off of NBA Finals results is such an incomplete assessment. Sometimes taking a team to the finals in the first place is the magical achievement; other times, it's to be expected; and more times still, it's somewhere in-between.

To bring it back to MJ, I'll harken back to 1989, when his Bulls team lost 8 of their last 10 in the regular season. They were dead in the water. Then Michael Jordan did Michael Jordan stuff, averaging 35, 7, and 7 in the postseason, leading a miraculous upset against a Cavs team that'd been one of the league's best all year, toppling New York, and nearly taking down the eventual NBA champions. And had Scottie Pippen not absorbed an elbow to the chops just a few minutes into Game 6, maybe Chicago could have reached the finals that year. Unlikely, but not out of the question. Yet, even then, had the Bulls lost to Magic Johnson and the Lakers in '89, I think that playoff run should have been treated as a mark of achievement for Jordan, taking that type of supporting cast as deep as he did, as opposed to somehow punishing his individual greatness for dragging an unready team to the finals.

Excellent. :applause:

[Big164]

Jordan was the GOAT after ring #2.

Like WIlt he had the God Exception, cuz his stats were just that much better than everyone else.

[3ball]

Let's say Jordan lost one to Utah, lost to Phoenix (which may have happened had Paxson not lit up Phoenix in game 6 at the end) and to the Lakers in their first appearance.

How would Jordan's legacy looked like? Is he still perceived as the general greatest of all time?


Your question isn't feasible.. Jordan's goat level of scoring and efficiency wields too much control in close games - so when he has a team with sufficient teamwork and/or talent to keep the games close (and make the Finals), he doesn't lose.

MJ scored 43.3 points per 100 possessions over the course of his playoff career.. The number 2 wing (Lebron) is at 36.4 - that's a 20% gap between the #1 and #2 guy, and Jordan's points were scored at higher shooting (ts) and per possession efficiency (ortg).


SIDENOTES: No all-time great led their team in scoring for every playoff series of their career, let alone by an average margin of 15.4 (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=406920) ppg like Jordan.

In addition to Jordan's goat scoring load, he also led the Bulls in assists most years, and led the Bulls in assist percentage for both (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713121&postcount=49) 3-peats - so he assisted on the highest percentage of teammate field goals during the 6-peat.. Ultimately, Jordan's goat scoring load, team-leading passing, and best-ever defense at his position is the best performance and biggest load ever carried.

[3ball]

That said, I reckon that's what led you to making your initial statement—counting championships only on the years teams make the finals because it theoretically would suggest a player had a supporting cast strong enough to win a ring. However, I find such a conclusion to be an oversimplification missing out on an endless stream of nuance.


The theory of using rings to compare players doesn't work if one the players comes from an abnormally bad, "JV" conference.. Naturally, the winner of the "JV" conference gets immunity from criticism when they invariably lose the Finals to the "varsity", which isn't fair.

And that's what happened to Lebron - this team-hopping beta wins the "JV" conference every year, and then sneakily gets a free pass when he mostly loses to the varsity in the Finals... And you guys fall for it by giving him undue props for being king of the JV conference - rinse and repeat next year.





For example, I don't think LeBron James had an NBA Finals-ready team around him 2007. Had the Detroit Pistons disposed of them like I figured they would (even jumping out to a 2-0 series lead),


Lebron made the 2007 Finals because his conference was the "JV" and his opponents were weak - the #1 seed Pistons won the least games ever for a 1 seed (53), largely because they were old and replaced their best player (4-time DPOY and RAPM king Ben Wallace) with dilapidated Chris Webber..

Overall, the weak teams in the conference allowed Lebron to make the Finals by averaging 24 ppg on 42% in ecsf, and 25 ppg on 45% in ecsf against the aforementioned Pistons.. Jordan could never have made the Finals with those stats at any point in their career, because the tougher teams in his conference wouldn't have allowed it.





your theory suggests LeBron James would have been better off losing that ECF series instead of reaching the NBA Finals and falling to the Spurs, since the latter would count against his Finals record while the former could have just been written off as, "Well, his team wasn't good enough to make it so it shouldn't count against him."


Bigger Overachievement: Jordan's 1989 Playoff Run vs. Lebron's 2007


Jordan's Bulls were 47-25 and the 6 seed.
Lebron's Cavs were 50-32 and the 2 seed.


1st Round Jordan: CLE...(#3 seed, 57-25, #2 ranked defense... 40.0.. 6.0.. 8.1.. 51.8% FG)
1st Round Lebron: WSH (#7 seed, 41-41, #28 ranked defense.. 27.0.. 8.5.. 7.5.. 42.5% FG)

2nd Round Jordan: NYK (#2 seed, 52-30, #10 ranked defense... 35.5.. 9.5.. 8.3.. 55.0% FG)
2nd Round Lebron: NJN (#6 seed, 41-41, #15 ranked defense... 24.7.. 7.3.. 8.5.. 42.3% FG)

Conf. Finals Jordan: DET (#1 seed, 62-30, #3 ranked defense... 30.0.. 5.5.. 6.5.. 46.0% FG)
Conf. Finals Lebron: DET (#1 seed, 53-29, #7 ranked defense... 25.7.. 9.1.. 8.5.. 44.9% FG)


NO COMPARISON..

[Psileas]

Great points, Rake+Jlip. Jordan's Finals' record became the standard #1 argument for his GOAT status among fans, but it's not the thing that actually made fans believe he was the GOAT in the first place. It's, honestly, something much more individualistic: Being the highest and most exciting scorer in the league. While he was more than that, including being a great defender, being a great and exciting scorer is something that has no equal among basketball skills in the hearts of most fans. Jordan had been considered the GOAT by many before he had even got to 3 rings and 3 MVP's. Objectively, less than 3 rings and 3 MVPs is not the resume of a really strong GOAT candidate, if we compare it to what Russell or Kareem did. It's not even that people anticipated that he'd become the GOAT if he continued winning titles, they wanted to crown him the GOAT as fast as possible. Because, as mentioned, Jordan was the most elite scorer in the league and this mattered the most, even when his Finals record wasn't better than Willis Reed's. Nowadays, most seem to want to neglect this simple fact and focus on his 6/6 record.

Want an anti-example that confirms this? Tim Duncan started with 3/3, with 3 F.MVP's. He could have even gone 5/5 with 5 MVP's, had Parker played a little worse (the Spurs would still beat the Cavs) and Ray Allen missing that 3. Yet, almost nobody ever seriously considered him a strong GOAT candidate. Not after 3/3/3, not after he was going for his 4th ring and still had a case for F.MVP. They were/are only calling him the GOAT PF, the only position that seems to have no legitimate GOAT candidate. And we all know the reason. Without being either a high scorer and, preferably, an exciting one, you're going to face trouble in such a race.
Ask Bill Russell, whom some even rank below their top 10 (not on this board, but generally - even this board ranked him lower in older years). Not a high scorer? Not a serious GOAT candidate in many people's eyes. Magic as well has started getting some flak due to him not being an elite scorer, especially since LeBron won his 3rd title. Thankfully for him, Magic was still an extraordinarily entertaining player, at least among people who recognize passing and ball movement as highly entertaining. Else, he might have ended up in the Russell/Duncan category.

[Hey Yo]

Great points, Rake+Jlip. Jordan's Finals' record became the standard #1 argument for his GOAT status among fans, but it's not the thing that actually made fans believe he was the GOAT in the first place. It's, honestly, something much more individualistic: Being the highest and most exciting scorer in the league. While he was more than that, including being a great defender, being a great and exciting scorer is something that has no equal among basketball skills in the hearts of most fans. Jordan had been considered the GOAT by many before he had even got to 3 rings and 3 MVP's. Objectively, less than 3 rings and 3 MVPs is not the resume of a really strong GOAT candidate, if we compare it to what Russell or Kareem did. It's not even that people anticipated that he'd become the GOAT if he continued winning titles, they wanted to crown him the GOAT as fast as possible. Because, as mentioned, Jordan was the most elite scorer in the league and this mattered the most, even when his Finals record wasn't better than Willis Reed's. Nowadays, most seem to want to neglect this simple fact and focus on his 6/6 record.

Want an anti-example that confirms this? Tim Duncan started with 3/3, with 3 F.MVP's. He could have even gone 5/5 with 5 MVP's, had Parker played a little worse (the Spurs would still beat the Cavs) and Ray Allen missing that 3. Yet, almost nobody ever seriously considered him a strong GOAT candidate. Not after 3/3/3, not after he was going for his 4th ring and still had a case for F.MVP. They were/are only calling him the GOAT PF, the only position that seems to have no legitimate GOAT candidate. And we all know the reason. Without being either a high scorer and, preferably, an exciting one, you're going to face trouble in such a race.

:applause:

[guy]

I don't know about "lit up". Paxson hit one shot the whole 4th quarter. And I still, along with any other sensible person, would have favored the Bulls in game 7.

But the answer is yes. A large reason why the Bulls beat the Jazz, Suns and Lakers is because Jordan was Jordan. So for him to go 3-6 would imply he was a lesser player or he did not play his best when it mattered the most. So yeah, the perception of him would be different because he would have been a lesser player for the conditions you outlined to have been met.

This. People acting like he just dumb lucked his way into titles :oldlol:

[raprap]

Great points, Rake+Jlip. Jordan's Finals' record became the standard #1 argument for his GOAT status among fans, but it's not the thing that actually made fans believe he was the GOAT in the first place. It's, honestly, something much more individualistic: Being the highest and most exciting scorer in the league. While he was more than that, including being a great defender, being a great and exciting scorer is something that has no equal among basketball skills in the hearts of most fans. Jordan had been considered the GOAT by many before he had even got to 3 rings and 3 MVP's. Objectively, less than 3 rings and 3 MVPs is not the resume of a really strong GOAT candidate, if we compare it to what Russell or Kareem did. It's not even that people anticipated that he'd become the GOAT if he continued winning titles, they wanted to crown him the GOAT as fast as possible. Because, as mentioned, Jordan was the most elite scorer in the league and this mattered the most, even when his Finals record wasn't better than Willis Reed's. Nowadays, most seem to want to neglect this simple fact and focus on his 6/6 record.

Want an anti-example that confirms this? Tim Duncan started with 3/3, with 3 F.MVP's. He could have even gone 5/5 with 5 MVP's, had Parker played a little worse (the Spurs would still beat the Cavs) and Ray Allen missing that 3. Yet, almost nobody ever seriously considered him a strong GOAT candidate. Not after 3/3/3, not after he was going for his 4th ring and still had a case for F.MVP. They were/are only calling him the GOAT PF, the only position that seems to have no legitimate GOAT candidate. And we all know the reason. Without being either a high scorer and, preferably, an exciting one, you're going to face trouble in such a race.
Ask Bill Russell, whom some even rank below their top 10 (not on this board, but generally - even this board ranked him lower in older years). Not a high scorer? Not a serious GOAT candidate in many people's eyes. Magic as well has started getting some flak due to him not being an elite scorer, especially since LeBron won his 3rd title. Thankfully for him, Magic was still an extraordinarily entertaining player, at least among people who recognize passing and ball movement as highly entertaining. Else, he might have ended up in the Russell/Duncan category.
Quality post :applause:

[kamil]

3/6 makes MJ still better than LeBron* but somehow we have total ****wads that think 3/7 is better than 6/6???

[OldSchoolBBall]

obviously it changes and he has no argument against the likes of kareem, russell and barely any against magic and Bird.

Let's not get crazy with the bolded. Jordan would have still had far better numbers than either, was a far better defender than either, and would have had equal team success to Bird.

[iamgine]

Didn't Bird and Magic already said Jordan was the greatest even before he was winning rings?

[Da_Realist]

It's not just the 6 for 6. It's also worth noting that over the course of his career, MJ's team never lost when it was expected they'd win. I guess it also bears mentioning that MJ won 6 consecutive titles when he played a full season. Not a title here and another one two years later and another one 3 years after that. Those things make it seem like you're unbeatable.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Every team LeBron beat in the Finals was miles better than every team Jordan beat. 6 for 6 is great. But than you remember the inferior competition in the Finals. Not to mention Jordan's greatest rivals in the East were Ewing, a poor man's Ray Allen in Reggie Miller, and Craig Ehlo :oldlol:

[eeeeeebro]

basketball is a game the biggest stat is the W you cannot be dominant if you cant win them....

[eeeeeebro]

boy that pheonix and jazz team...

[eeeeeebro]

lakers with magic johnson

[ILLsmak]

Not to be that guy, but shouldn't we count the years when Jordan's Bulls didn't make the Finals as well? And I don't ask that as a means of knocking Jordan, for I feel the same should go for every other player, too. Sometimes it just seems certain folks would value a team going 2-for-2 in Finals appearances over a team who went, say, 4-for-8 over a similar span.

Specifically on-topic, yes, Jordan's Bulls winning just three rings would have changed people's perceptions, because it would have been half of what his team ultimately accomplished. That said, whether such perception change would have been warranted would depend upon what Jordan himself accomplished and contributed over that stretch.

For instance, while Jordan's Bulls may have come up empty in '89, his play was incredible regardless, and nearly pushing the Pistons to the brink in the Eastern Conference Finals while dropping 32 points and 13 assists in the finale shouldn't necessarily result in a knock to his reputation.

Similarly, if those 90's Bulls had lost a Finals series here or there because John Paxson sucked, or Scottie Pippen was injured, or Luc Longley missed some key free throws, it shouldn't necessarily count against Jordan, but it probably would anyway, because that's how a lot of people are.

6 rings is huge in the modern era, and the 6/6 works mainly because it was 2 three peats that were almost back to back, for all intents, a 6peat.

Russell won more, Kareem won 6, and that's it, right? Talkin about top 10 guys. Russell did something amazing, and Kareem got wins, but MJ was always the best player on his team.

So, in summary, normally it is assumed that people played many more years than they won championships, altho for mj... it was almost half, eh (not counting Washington, and if you don't count 94-95 it IS half, right?)

MJ has the most sexy resume, obviously 3/6 would not be as good.

-Smak