Did MJ ever choked in the playoffs?

[LAZERUSS]

MJ played the "Bad Boys" in four playoff series, and he scored considerably less, and shot considerably worse from the field in those four series (and the Pistons in '91 were just a shell of what they had been.)

And in his last three Finals, MJ shot .455, .427, and mind-boggling .415 from the field.

His team's were swept by Bird's Celtics in two straight series, and in the '87 sweeping playoff loss to Boston, he shot .417 from the field. And in the last game of the '86 first round series against Boston, and in a blowout loss, he scored 19 points on 8-18 shooting.

He certainly had his share of post-season choke jobs...

[Simple Jack]

Everyone tries to give "choking" a meaning that will mean the least harm for his favorite players. I don't like using this term for this exact reason, that its meaning is so vague.
Does the lack of effort mean that someone choke? Even if it doesn't, look at game 4. Plus, this might mean something worse, it may mean that this player is practically sabotaging his team, purposefully underperforming to prove something. Or that he quit. It definitely can't be seen in a positive or neutral light. It never had been with others who would sporadically have a suspiciously passive game.

I agree. I'm just trying to get the root of what a choke means. I mean in other applications in life - I don't see a lack of effort as choking. If you play 1 on 1 in your local park vs some scrub and you barely contest his shots; leave him open for jumpers; don't jump to try to even rebound...is that a choke? I think "quitting" or "lack of effort" is a better way of explaining that situation. No one would say you CHOKED...they'd probably ask why you didn't play hard, but I don't think choking would be on the list of adjectives to describe your play.

And of course it wouldn't be positive or even neutral. A lack of effort probably worse than choking.

Defining it is hard but an objective definition is clearly better than stans/haters subjectively assigning meaning to it without any consistency.

[LAZERUSS]

Chamberlain's FT% drops from 51.1 to 37.5 and his PPG drops from 30.1 to 18.6 from regular season to the finals.

2-4 in the Finals
13-5 series with HCA

Find me another "GOAT" candidate who...

in his first 67 playoff games COMBINED...AVERAGED 30.4 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 4.5 apg, shot .515 from the field (and outshot the post-season league average by nearly 10% in the process), and most certainly had 8 bpg. Again...COMBINED. In fact, find me one who had ONE SERIES with those averages. Hell, you would be hard-pressed to find me one player who had ONE playoff GAME with a 30-27-5-8 .515 FG% statline.

And, for the record, Chamberlain had entire post-season's of 28.0 ppg, 29.3 ppg, 33.2 ppg, 34.7 ppg, 35.0 ppg, and 37.0 ppg. He also had playoff series of 37.0 ppg, 37.0 ppg, 38.6 ppg, and 38.7 ppg. And against Russell and the vaunted Celtic dynasty, Chamberlain had post-seasons of 28-30, 29-28, 30-26, 33-26, and 30-30. Not to mention another series of 22-32-10 .556 FG% against Russell in '67, when his Sixers annihilated the eight-time defending and 60-21 Celtics in the EDF's.

Oh, and aside from MJ, find me another "GOAT" who had FOUR 50+ point playoff games, THREE of which came in "must-win" games (and one against Russell.) Add another 46-34 "must win" game against Russell, and a 45-27 "must-win" Finals game (on a surgically repaired knee BTW.)

Or that Wilt, with West shooting .325 from the floor, carried the '72 Lakers to a title in '72, with a 19-23-4 .600 series, en route to a Finals MVP.

Or that Wilt either outplayed, or downright destroyed his opposing centers in those HCA series losses.

And again, Chamberlain's DEFENSE is never brought up by the "Wilt-bashers" in these playoff discussions. A Chamberlain who faced a HOF starting center in 105 of his 160 post-season games (and a multiple All-Star in another 26), and that he was DRAMATICALLY lowering THEIR post-season numbers.