ISH posters need to talk to...

[Prometheus]

... Olympic athletes. We need to explain to them that silver medals are very bad for athletes. There is a simple formula for gauging how good an Olympic swimmer/wrestler/skier is: just compare the number of gold medals they win to the number of silver medals they win.

For example, if a wrestler wins six gold medals, but in other years fails to medal at all, then he is 6-0 (six golds and zero silvers) which is VERY good. Extremely dominant. Probably the GOAT wrestler.

If a wrestler happens to medal thirteen times, but wins gold six times and silver seven times, then he is 6-7 (six golds and seven silvers) which is pretty bad. It's good that he won six gold medals, but really it makes him a loser since he got more silvers than golds.

Olympians don't seem to understand this :facepalm ... they have this childish idea that gold medals are the best but silver medals are the second best. We at ISH, as an enlightened community of sports analysts, have a responsibility to somehow persuade Olympians that silver medals are in fact shameful blemishes on their resumes and legacies as athletes.

[Inferno]

2/5?

[Legends66NBA7]

I think it's the whole "If your not first, your last" mentality.

[Prometheus]

I think it's the whole "If your not first, your last" mentality.

Yeah, but that's over-simplifying it. If you place 15th, then you didn't medal and therefore had a campaign that doesn't count for anything - neither good nor bad. Only gold and silver medals are taken into account: if you're not first, then it's okay to be anything other than second. If you're second, then you're a loser.

[Prometheus]

2/5?

I assume you're talking about LeBron James' Finals record, in which case yes, this is exactly my point. 2 Finals wins and 3 Finals losses is pathetic. Leading your team to the Finals only to lose makes you a bum and a loser. **** LeBron.

[Inferno]

I assume you're talking about LeBron James' Finals record, in which case yes, this is exactly my point. 2 Finals wins and 3 Finals losses is pathetic. Leading your team to the Finals only to lose makes you a bum and a loser. **** LeBron.

:roll: just joking around man

[CelticBalla32]

I think it's the whole "If your not first, your last" mentality.

http://i.qkme.me/3sf8b2.jpg

[MastaKilla]

translation:

"stop making fun of my boyfriend pls :cry: :cry: "

[Prometheus]

translation:

"stop making fun of my boyfriend pls :cry: :cry: "

srsly, I <3 Jerry West and it breaks my heart what you assholes say about him

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

If there supposed to be a correlation among the NBA finals and Olympics? With one, you actually receive medals - silver, gold or bronze depending on your placement. Just making an NBA finals...gets you a pat on the back (in other words, big ****ing whoop. :oldlol:)

[rule1223]

lebron has played in the baby soft east, making the finals is a given... this is more comparable to the chinese in pingpong, the competition is shitty so you better make the finals and if you dont win gold then you're a failure

[Mr. Jabbar]

2/5 lel

[LAZERUSS]

I have always maintained that MJ killed his 30-52 team in the '86 playoffs against the 67-15 Celtics. He only averaged 43.7 ppg on a .505 FG%. Had he played better, his team would not have been swept.

Same with Kareem in the '77 WCF's. 30.3 ppg on a .607 FG%, and in a series in which he was swarmed by the Blazers, and his guards couldn't get the ball past half-court. Again, had he played better, his team would not have been swept.

Or Wilt putting up a 34-27 series, and taking a 49-31 team to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 Celtics team. And then a few years later he would take a 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtics team, in a series in which he averaged 30-31 .555. Had he played better in both series, and clearly, they would have won them both.

[Prometheus]

I have always maintained that MJ killed his 30-52 team in the '86 playoffs against the 67-15 Celtics. He only averaged 43.7 ppg on a .505 FG%. Had he played better, his team would not have been swept.

Same with Kareem in the '77 WCF's. 30.3 ppg on a .607 FG%, and in a series in which he was swarmed by the Blazers, and his guards couldn't get the ball past half-court. Again, had he played better, his team would not have been swept.

Or Wilt putting up a 34-27 series, and taking a 49-31 team to a game seven, two point loss against a 60-20 Celtics team. And then a few years later he would take a 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtics team, in a series in which he averaged 30-31 .555. Had he played better in both series, and clearly, they would have won them both.

Dude I agree with you, but what in the hell does that have to do with this thread? Besides, they didn't make it to the Finals, so it's okay.

[LAZERUSS]

Dude I agree with you, but what in the hell does that have to do with this thread? Besides, they didn't make it to the Finals, so it's okay.

True, but in Wilt's case, at least, he was three points away from beating the eventual champion, twice.

But I agree with your overall point. Hakeem is regarded as a top-5 player by some here, and his team's went 2-1 in his three Finals in his 18 season career. And in one of those, the real best player in the league took the year off, and his team still went 55-27 without him, and then lost a close game seven to a Knicks team that would lose a close game seven to Hakeem's Rockets (and outscored them in the series.) BTW, while Hakeem shot 40% in that game seven, his teammates collectively shot 50%. And in the '95 Finals, while Hakeem had a TS% of .508, in a post-season NBA that shot a TS% of .541, his teammates collectively shot an eFG% of .589.

Yet, Hakeem was a loser in EIGHT FIRST ROUND series, and was blown out in FIVE of those.

[stalkerforlife]

2/5.