Do some people actually believe that it s better to lose before the finals than to...

[Dragonyeuw]

Its not 'better' to lose at any point. Losing and winning should be weighed in the context of winning when you're supposed to, and there's no shame in losing to a better opponent. Basketball is a team game no matter how you slice it.

[kennethgriffin]

its never good to lose. but you should always have more wins than losses if you're an all time great


more finals wins than losses

more wcf wins than losses

more 2nd round wins than losses

more 1st round wins than losses

more playoffs made than playoffs missed

more regular season wins than regular season losses


this is the resume of a top 10 all time great asside from wilt chamberlain due to the 60s celtics



if you make it that far.. we expect you to succeed more often than you fail when you get there. if your team is good enough to make the wcf's 6 times. we expect you to make atleast 3 nba finals

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Yep. I say this about a lot of things from time to time:

This debate is a great way to see whether someone can be taken seriously in any context. If you believe that losing before the Finals is better than losing in the Finals, then you lose all credibility when talking about basketball.

[SouBeachTalents]

This whole debate imo is solely attributed to Jordan. Every single top 10 player (besides Russell) has lost in the Finals, usually multiple times. But after Jordan went 6/6, with the 6 Finals MVP's to boot, every great player will always be held to this ridiculous standard that will honestly never be met.

[nba_55]

It hurts your legacy if you lose to an opponent you shouldn't have, regardless of the round. Dirk got MVP in 2007 and then got hammered by Golden state and subsequently by the media. His legacy didn't really recover until the 2011 title.

And since this is an obvious Jordan/ Lebron thread, Jordan lost to teams he had no business beating, like the 86/87 Celtics when he had mostly scrubs and the 88-90 Pistons, when he had a still developing Pippen and Grant playing against a prime Pistons squad. Lebron lost to a team he had no business losing to in the 11 Mavs and even worse, his terrible play was likely the difference in the series outcome. In his defense, he did have a lightning in a bottle moment in 2007 when his talent and 48 point game took out the Pistons, but then lost( as he should have) convincingly to the Spurs. The Spurs and Duncans legacy would have taken a hit if Lebron had won that series, because the Cavs had no business winning it nor the Spurs losing it.

I agree with this. People should look at the context instead of using records/stats without thinking.

[pauk]

lol, no, deep down inside i believe nobody is that stupid really.... its just trolling and/or criteria used against only Lebron due to whatever agenda (Lebron hater, Jordan stan, Kobe stan etc), which, really, is no different than trolling...

This thread/question is very good for one thing though, like Prometheus said.

[pauk]

Trying to bring some context & slither your way around this one (due to whatever agenda) doesnt work since the thing is no matter how you twist and turn it, its NEVER more prestigious to lose EARLIER.... wtf kindof logic is that? "But he/they were favorites to win it all"... yes but how the **** is it more prestigious to lose in the 1st round as a favorite to win it all? Just because the specific player doesnt have to be "0/1 in Finals"? Jesus, have some dignity will ya....