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

[nba_55]

Do some people actually believe that it s better to lose before the finals than to lose in the finals?
If yes, i d like to hear their arguments on that.

[aboss4real24]

Losing in the finals hurts your legacy

Hell no losing in finals is better


losing b4 doesnt really hurt your legacy

u get no trophy 4 2nd place

[fpliii]

The argument is that if you make the Finals, you (you being the franchise player, here) had a supporting cast good enough to get that far (especially considering ECF/WCF are approximately as good as Finals opponents, since you're facing the best team in your conference, and the best team in the other conference), so the loss is on you. Not your supporting cast.

[nba_55]

Losing in the finals hurts your legacy

Hell no losing in finals is better


losing b4 doesnt really hurt your legacy

u get no trophy 4 2nd place


explain why losing the finals hurt you legacy and losing before it doesnt hurt it?

[nba_55]

The argument is that if you make the Finals, you (you being the franchise player, here) had a supporting cast good enough to get that far (especially considering ECF/WCF are approximately as good as Finals opponents, since you're facing the best team in your conference, and the best team in the other conference), so the loss is on you. Not your supporting cast.

If you make the 1st round, you had a supporting cast good enough to get that far... If you make the 2nd round, you had a supporting cast good to get that far....

The same logic could work for each round.

[fpliii]

This isn't to say I necessarily agree (though I don't necessarily disagree, either). There are some other factors coming into play:

[Roundball_Rock]

The argument is that if you make the Finals, you (you being the franchise player, here) had a supporting cast good enough to get that far (especially considering ECF/WCF are approximately as good as Finals opponents, since you're facing the best team in your conference, and the best team in the other conference), so the loss is on you. Not your supporting cast.

That is the argument but it is specious. One, what if someone's player helped a team overachieve to get to the Finals, like the 07' Cavs did? Would it be better for Lebron's legacy in bizarro world if they lost in the ECF as expected? Moreover, what about numerous instances of teams that were title contenders that failed to reach the Finals? Every year there are 4-6 legitimate title contenders; only 2 can make the Finals. Under the bizarre argument that you mentioned, LeBron losing in the Finals is worse than Durant losing in the WCF even though both had title contenders (and OKC actually had the better record) and the same seed. That is why that argument makes no sense. Another example:according to this it was better for Magic to lose in the WCSF in the first post-KAJ year despite having the league's best record than Kareem losing in Game 7 of the Finals in 74'.

[fpliii]

If you make the 1st round, you had a supporting cast good enough to get that far... If you make the 2nd round, you had a supporting cast good to get that far....

The same logic could work for each round.
Nope, because those team were not the best in their conference (unless you're a very low seed and upset a 1-2 seed early on, and face a weaker opponent in the Finals). Teams are seeded within their conferences, so you'll face two quality opponents at a minimum (ECF/WCF and Finals).

[fpliii]

That is the argument but it is specious. One, what if someone's player helped a team overachieve to get to the Finals, like the 07' Cavs did? Would it be better for Lebron's legacy in bizarro world if they lost in the ECF as expected? Moreover, what about numerous instances of teams that were title contenders that failed to reach the Finals? Every year there are 4-6 legitimate title contenders; only 2 can make the Finals. Under the bizarre argument that you mentioned, LeBron losing in the Finals is worse than Durant losing in the WCF even though both had title contenders (and OKC actually had the better record) and the same seed. That is why that argument makes no sense. Another example:according to this it was better for Magic to lose in the WCSF in the first post-KAJ year despite having the league's best record than Kareem losing in Game 7 of the Finals in 74'.
As I said in my second post, I don't necessarily agree. Just wanted to state the argument.

[nba_55]

That is the argument but it is specious. One, what if someone's player helped a team overachieve to get to the Finals, like the 07' Cavs did? Would it be better for Lebron's legacy in bizarro world if they lost in the ECF as expected? Moreover, what about numerous instances of teams that were title contenders that failed to reach the Finals? Every year there are 4-6 legitimate title contenders; only 2 can make the Finals. Under the bizarre argument that you mentioned, LeBron losing in the Finals is worse than Durant losing in the WCF even though both had title contenders (and OKC actually had the better record) and the same seed. That is why that argument makes no sense.

That argument is really dumb. The ''you had a good enough supporting cast to reach the finals'' logic could be used for each round. You could also say he had a good enough supporting cast to reach the 1st round, then, you should have gotten to the 2nd round.

[nba_55]

Nope, because those team were not the best in their conference (unless you're a very low seed and upset a 1-2 seed early on, and face a weaker opponent in the Finals). Teams are seeded within their conferences, so you'll face two quality opponents at a minimum (ECF/WCF and Finals).

So, it hurts your legacy to lose against the best teams, but it doesnt hurt it if you lose against weaker teams :biggums:
Unless this is not what you meant...

[coin24]

Damage control bran bout to go 2/5 in the finals :lol

No just getting there is the main thing, good job good effort :cheers:

[nba_55]

Damage control bran bout to go 2/5 in the finals :lol

No just getting there is the main thing, good job good effort :cheers:

I knew someone would mention Jordan, Lebron or Kobe. :lol
We cant have a thread without them.:facepalm

[diamenz]

Do some people actually believe that it s better to lose before the finals than to lose in the finals?
If yes, i d like to hear their arguments on that.

hi livinglegend. your typing gave it away. ;)

[fpliii]

So, it hurts your legacy to lose against the best teams, but it doesnt hurt it if you lose against weaker teams :biggums:
Unless this is not what you meant...
Again, I don't necessarily agree with it. See my second post in the thread:
[QUOTE=fpliii]This isn't to say I necessarily agree (though I don't necessarily disagree, either). There are some other factors coming into play:

[BigBoss]

There's a fundamental difference between a contender and a playoff team. If you make the Finals then you have the supporting cast, it's up to you as the superstar to win a championship. The onus is on YOU. If your on a team that isn't the best in your conference and can contend, then the onus cannot be entirely on you. In that regard, it hurts you legacy to lose in the finals. YOU weren't good enough to lead your supporting cast. Not the other way around.


OP doesn't get that. No intellect detected.

[nba_55]

There's a fundamental difference between a contender and a playoff team. If you make the Finals then you have the supporting cast, it's up to you as the superstar to win a championship. The onus is on YOU. If your on a team that isn't the best in your conference and can contend, then the onus cannot be entirely on you. In that regard, it hurts you legacy to lose in the finals. YOU weren't good enough to lead your supporting cast. Not the other way around.


OP doesn't get that. No intellect detected.

What if your supporting cast doesn't show up in the finals? The loss is still on you?
What if you don't show up in the conference finals and your supporting cast show up? The loss in on them and you get a pass?

[stalkerforlife]

I keep hearing "it is better to make the finals and lose than to not make the finals at all." While I agree to an extent, I don't think it's that cut and dry.

My take...

IMO, if you have a team good enough to make the finals, you have a team good enough to win the title. (Most of the time) There are exceptions, obviously. However, if you don't even make the finals, then you absolutely had no chance to win the finals. (Most times) Therefore, if you make the finals and lose, you have failed because your team was good enough and you choked. The Heat, for example, were good enough in 2011 and choked. The Heat are good enough to win it all this year and if they don't, it'll be another choke. The Lakers in 2004 were good enough, but Kobe choked. If you lose before the finals, you usually just weren't a good enough team and there is no shame in that.

Why isn't Wilt considered better than Russell? Think about it. Why isn't West considered better than Kobe? Some players get it done when the lights are the brightest, while others fail because they don't have the 'alpha gene.'

[Black and White]

What if your supporting cast doesn't show up in the finals? The loss is still on you?

Depends, are you talking Allen Iverson level of supporting casts??


Nobody bashes Dirk for getting eliminated in the 1st round this year, just an example, its not detrimental to his career.

[CavaliersFTW]

The argument is that if you make the Finals, you (you being the franchise player, here) had a supporting cast good enough to get that far (especially considering ECF/WCF are approximately as good as Finals opponents, since you're facing the best team in your conference, and the best team in the other conference), so the loss is on you. Not your supporting cast.
Yeah that's not really a valid argument though if we're all being honest here. It's completely unsupportable every team that has ever made the Finals has been different, there is no blanket argument for any Finalist player or team.

[fpliii]

Yeah that's not really a valid argument though if we're all being honest here. It's completely unsupportable every team that has ever made the Finals has been different, there is no blanket argument for any Finalist player or team.
Oh I agree with what you said (see my second post in that thread), just stating what the argument is.

[nba_55]

Depends, are you talking Allen Iverson level of supporting casts??


Nobody bashes Dirk for getting eliminated in the 1st round this year, just an example, its not detrimental to his career.

According to some members in this thread, we should blame Iverson for Sixers defeat against the Lakers because he had a supporting cast good enough to make the finals. It was his responsibility to make them win the championship.:facepalm

[Black and White]

According to some members in this thread, we should blame Iverson for Sixers defeat against the Lakers because he had a supporting cast good enough to make the finals. It was his responsibility to make them win the championship.:facepalm

They must be trolling, Iverson was an exception to this theory, just like LeBron against the Spurs in 2007, they just so happened to make the finals when they didnt have the roster to compete at that level, discard those two cases and then the theory is more understandable.

[Threethrows]

Sorry but only complete morons think losing before the finals is better than making it to the finals and losing.

[Prometheus]

Sorry but only complete morons think losing before the finals is better than making it to the finals and losing.

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.

[Threethrows]

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.

However, it's that sort of nonsensical reasoning that helped Carlin's act :applause:

[SwayDizzle]

Let's put it this way, if you never make the finals, you will never have a legit argument for to being compared with the GOATs. You can be a regular season warrior with tons of MVPs but if you can't convert success into a ring, you will never crack the top 10 GOAT list. Of course it is not better to lose before the Finals. But if you have a losing record in the Finals then that will prevent you from bumping others with similar accolades that do have a winning record in the Finals.

[PsychoBe]

let's call it like it is. this is an argument to excuse bran from his 07' finals performance and just sweep it under the rug. dude averaged damn near 9 to's per game and shot a miserable 40% (if that, i'm going off memory).

sorry but no, his performance was pretty pathetic and he was one of two teams to be swept in the finals the entire decade (the other being the nets).

it's inifinitely better to win 6/6 in the finals and lose 1000000000 times before that than to win 10000000000000 times and get to the finals only to lose every single time. obviously at that point you're just not good enough to win a championship.

as many will tell you, your team will help you get through the regular season, but your superstar(s) will get you to a title. at the end of the day, as the player who makes the most money, gets the most credit, gets all the endorsements, it's on you to put your team on your back and gift those less talented players who went to war with you a championship because they would not be able to do so without "you" (the superstar).

it's also about context too but we'll get into all that later. the agenda was obvious though.

[Dragonyeuw]

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.

[Mr Exlax]

It is always better to lose in the Finals than before. People that disagree are usually idiots.

[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.

:applause:

[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....