Finals winning percentage

[plowking]

How important is this stat? When did this stat become so important?

Is it better to go say 3/3, then say 3/6?

4/6 better than 4/12?

Is it justified to punish the guy who makes the finals more times?

[Dray n Klay]

It's important when it's the only thing you have going (Kobe)



For everyone else, MVPs + FMVPs is the true test of greatness









Ie. How many times do Kobe fans state 5/7? And even though Jordan has a better 6/6, Jordan stans don't talk about it as much, because they know it doesn't really mean anything

[SexSymbol]

How important is this stat? When did this stat become so important?

Is it better to go say 3/3, then say 3/6?

4/6 better than 4/12?

Is it justified to punish the guy who makes the finals more times?

obviously

[LilEddyCurry]

Missing playoffs > making finals, according to Kobe stans. The thing is because MJ is the GOAT, we often set him as the bar and he did go 6/6 in the finals.

[LBJ 23]

It's not about the stat
itself, it's about the thing Lebron is not great/perfect at. In the past it was regular season doesn't matter, only playoffs do(when he was crazy good in regular season, struggled against great teams in the playoffs around 07'-10'). Then his gamewinning layups did not count cuz you know, Kobe hit a few gamewinning jumpers around 10' and only jumper gamewinners counted, thats what Kobefans were saying. Then him winning with Heat didn't count cuz he had 2 all stars by his side even though those same people don't say a thing when it comes to Curry(even jumped on his bandwagoon) and his stacked/all star team. And the list goes on and on, they will always find something at what Lebron is not perfect at and that thing will get blown out of proportions, be applied only to Lebron and of course will be the most important thing when ranking Lebron, cuz it's something which is his achilles heel and will obviously be applied only to him and not other players.

[Bankaii]

Apparently winning>losing,
but winning the 1st round<losing the 1st round.

Trying to understand Kobetard logic is more difficult than Kobe shooting over 45%.

[fourkicks44]

It is only recently in a globalised, interconnected, social media driven age that 'lists' have become such a big part of peoples' curiosity. 'Top ten funniest cat videos', 'top twenty most shocking celebrity pictures', etc. The buzzfeed effect..

Naturally lists of the greatest players ever becomes a talking point and it is because of this debates about finals winning percentage becomes important for some ( particularly on ISH).

Ultimately winning is the one goal of the game of basketball with the parameter of a team game. So the conundrum of deciding who is the best must be a carefull balance between winning and individual performance/accolades. Jordan strikes that balance the best and is pretty much the undisputed GOAT.

Finals winning percentage while measures the individiuals greatness insofar as how much a player and his team is at the top of his conference and league and ultimately it exposes those who lose and those who win.

Ultimately winning is the goal of the game, not coming second more or less times than someone else.

[pauk]

When did this stat become so important?

Right after Lebron won his 1st championship

Directors/managers/vice-presidents: Kobetards.
To whom it only is important: Kobetards.



Is it better to go say 3/3, then say 3/6?

According to a sane logical basketball fan & human, no, thats 3 less conference finals championships hence also 3 times where the player showed lesser impact/performance by losing earlier with the same team.

According to Kobetards, yes, losing earlier / showing lesser impact-peformance and/or even missing playoffs entirely that year is actually more prestigious.... you should deliberately quit before Finals to protect your Finals % stat.... because losing earlier doesnt matter, there is no stat created for that.... playoffs is not finals... not the same stakes, i mean you wont be out of playoffs if you lose in any other series... i mean... o-oo-oops...

[Straight_Ballin]

You look at what the GOAT has done and that body of work establishes a baseline to be gauged upon. MJ went 6/6. So when you have a guy go 2/7, it's no where near 6/6, and you are not even in the conversation. It's no where near 5/7 either. Crying about regular season MVP awards to support your case is a joke as well...an award that Nash has won twice.

[pauk]

You look at what the GOAT has done and that body of work establishes a baseline to be gauged upon. MJ went 6/6. So when you have a guy go 2/7, it's no where near 6/6, and you are not even in the conversation. It's no where near 5/7 either. Crying about regular season MVP awards to support your case is a joke as well...an award that Nash has won twice.

Cmon man **** uuuu Jordan is the GOAT because of his 6 championships, 6 finals mvps, 5 mvps etc..... he would still have all that even if he was 6 of 15... actually he would create an even bigger gap between him and the next guys beneath because that means he now has 9 more Conference Finals Championships, 9 more instances where he showed higher impact/performance going further with the same team.... instead of losing earlier.... STOP IT....

John Havlicek is 8/8........ thats better than anybody.... why isnt he GOAT? Not enough accolades? Oh??? Contradictive... confusing...

Context my friend, context.... with just a small hint of... you know.... ****ing LOGIC

[Straight_Ballin]

Cmon man **** uuuu Jordan is the GOAT because of his 6 championships, 6 finals mvps, 5 mvps etc..... he would still have all that even if he was 6 of 15... actually he would create an even bigger gap between him and the next guys beneath because that means he now has 9 more Conference Finals Championships, 9 more instances where he showed higher impact/performance going further with the same team.... instead of losing earlier.... STOP IT....

John Havlicek is 8/8........ thats better than anybody.... why isnt he GOAT? Not enough accolades? Oh??? Contradictive... confusing...

Context my friend, context.... with just a small hint of... you know.... ****ing LOGIC

Stop melting down. 6/15....wtf are you talking about?! :lol Learn the difference between finals 6/6 PERFECTION and a "what if senario" that you put together in a desperate attempt to weakly justify Lebron's shitty 2/7 finals record. How many times does his team have to bring him to the finals and hand him the wheel only for him to fail. He wasnt even the best player on his team last night! Kyrie scored just as much and on better efficiency.

The 8/8 Havlicek argument was destroyed years ago, because Havlicek wasn't the man in all those finals. Just stop....there is no way in hell anyone can justify Lebron's failure, and using regular season MVP's and stat padded career of collusion to boost his rating may work for sheep that don't understand basketball, but any viewer of the game that actually understands what greatness is can clearly tell you lebron is NOT a top 3 player all time and never was.

[plowking]

It is only recently in a globalised, interconnected, social media driven age that 'lists' have become such a big part of peoples' curiosity. 'Top ten funniest cat videos', 'top twenty most shocking celebrity pictures', etc. The buzzfeed effect..

Naturally lists of the greatest players ever becomes a talking point and it is because of this debates about finals winning percentage becomes important for some ( particularly on ISH).

Ultimately winning is the one goal of the game of basketball with the parameter of a team game. So the conundrum of deciding who is the best must be a carefull balance between winning and individual performance/accolades. Jordan strikes that balance the best and is pretty much the undisputed GOAT.

Finals winning percentage while measures the individiuals greatness insofar as how much a player and his team is at the top of his conference and league and ultimately it exposes those who lose and those who win.

Ultimately winning is the goal of the game, not coming second more or less times than someone else.

That doesn't make sense though.

Making the finals is better than not making it though. You're in with a chance to win at the very least. In that sense, how is 5/5 better than 5/10? It isn't.

5/10 is far better than 5/5. It means you were consistently at the top of the game, you were always in the finals and in the running for the big prize.

But when exactly in the social media age did finals winning percentage become a huge part? I cannot remember finals losses being so heavily criticised before 2011 or 2012.

It just baffles me that consistency in being at the top of the game is somehow regarded as bad. Think of it this way. Which player is better:

15 year span.
1 player makes it 10 years and wins 5 times
Another makes it 5 times and wins 5.

Which is better? The guy that was constantly making it to the very end, or the one who made it far less but just so happened to win it when he made it? For me, it is a very obvious answer, and it is the guy who was consistently winning and getting to the finals.

[ImKobe]

both guys make 7 Finals

one wins 5, other wins 2

which one is more impressive?

thanks.

[aj1987]

both guys make 7 Finals

one wins 5, other wins 2

which one is more impressive?

thanks.
Both guys make 7 Finals

One wins 7, other wins 5.

Which on is more impressive?

Thanks.

[ImKobe]

Both guys make 7 Finals

One wins 7, other wins 5.

Which on is more impressive?

Thanks.

This one is pretty close, can we get the numbers and the teams both guys faced in these Playoffs?

thanks.

[Straight_Ballin]

both guys make 7 Finals

one wins 5, other wins 2

which one is more impressive?

thanks.

It's not so much the wins, but the massive gap between 2 and 7.

2/7 just looks bad


10 years from now fans will look at guys like MJ and be like "holy shit, this guy didn't know how to lose in the final and he didn't even know how to bring a finals series to 7 games" and then they will look at lebron's 2/7 and be like "wow... this guy really choked it all away despite having a team so damn good that it bought him all the way to the finals 7 times."

Losing in the finals is WASTED opportunity to get rings. It's hard enough to get to the finals and to get there that many times due to having a good enough team around you only to lose that much really speaks volumes about the quality of the leader of those losses. MJ understood the importance of this, that's why he made sure he won every single time.

[aj1987]

This one is pretty close, can we get the numbers and the teams both guys faced in these Playoffs?

thanks.
Before than can we do the same for the one you posted. Can we also post their teammates' numbers?

[pauk]

Stop melting down. 6/15....wtf are you talking about?! :lol Learn the difference between finals 6/6 PERFECTION

I told you the difference... thats the only one, however all of it proves that 6/15 > 6/6... you or ANYBODY has yet objectively, logically, rationally explained why the **** losing earlier than Finals is more prestigious... if you can, then go ahead, i beg you, please!


and a "what if senario" that you put together in a desperate attempt to weakly justify Lebron's shitty 2/7 finals record.

Wait! You think this has to do with me defending Lebrons "finals record"!? Haaa!! Look, i will declare myself as a Lebron hater and everything you ever wish if you only would accept that i am only talking about that stupid Finals stat of your & your friends... even you know deep down inside how stupid it is, it doesnt disrespect just Lebron, but anybody in NBA history.... even Michael Jordan, if you think he wouldnt liked more Finals appearances those years he instead had early playoff exits then you are just a moron / just trolling....

I know you aint stupid, stop acting like it, you just wont let it slide because of Lebron hatred/insecurity agenda... you are a Jordan fan right? Why the **** would you be insecure / disrespect other players for his cause, Jordan will never be surpassed... and it has NOTHING to do with his god damn Finals stat...



How many times does his team have to bring him to the finals and hand him the wheel only for him to fail.

When has that ever happened??? Help me out here...



He wasnt even the best player on his team last night! Kyrie scored just as much and on better efficiency.

While Lebron also played far better defense, got far many rebounds... assists... not to downplay Kyrie's great night but he wasnt "best player" there... not to downplay the fact that Kyrie can outperform Lebron in a game, has happened... but he is not the best player there like you desperately want him to be... im sorry...






The 8/8 Havlicek argument was destroyed years ago, because Havlicek wasn't the man in all those finals. Just stop....

Neither was Kobe.... and infact Havlicek has only 1 less FMVP / MVP compared to him...

Why are they not ranked closely all-time then? Again, CONTEXT.... ***ing LOGIC....

[ImKobe]

Before than can we do the same for the one you posted. Can we also post their teammates' numbers?

Sure, why not. The guy that went 7/7 sounds like he would be on the same level with Jordan and Kobe.

[pauk]

both guys make 7 Finals

one wins 5, other wins 2

which one is more impressive?

thanks.

The guy who won 5...

But then, there is that damn annoying thing.. again... called context... which shows that guy who won 5 only won it as the man 2 times... as many as the guy who won 2... but with 4 less MVPs in his resume aswell....

Context is a partypooper... or else we would have Bill Russell as the GOAT, with the biggest gap ever....

If Kobe won 5 as the man/fmvp etc. i/we we would very reasonably debate about ranking him #2-#4 all-time somewhere.... i definitely would... even with 1 mvp... but that has not happened...

[ImKobe]

I told you the difference... thats the only one, however all of it proves that 6/15 > 6/6... you or ANYBODY has yet objectively, logically, rationally explained why the **** losing earlier than Finals is more prestigious... if you can, then go ahead, i beg you, please!



Wait! You think this has to do with me defending Lebrons "finals record"!? Haaa!! Look, i will declare myself as a Lebron hater and everything you ever wish if you only would accept that i am only talking about that stupid Finals stat of your & your friends... even you know deep down inside how stupid it is, it doesnt disrespect just Lebron, but anybody in NBA history.... even Michael Jordan, if you think he wouldnt liked more Finals appearances those years he instead had early playoff exits then you are just a moron / just trolling....

I know you aint stupid, stop acting like it, you just wont let it slide because of Lebron hatred/insecurity agenda... you are a Jordan fan right? Why the **** would you be insecure / disrespect other players for his cause, Jordan will never be surpassed... and it has NOTHING to do with his god damn Finals stat...




When has that ever happened??? Help me out here...



While Lebron also played far better defense, got far many rebounds... assists... not to downplay Kyrie's great night but he wasnt "best player" there... not to downplay the fact that Kyrie can outperform Lebron in a game, has happened... but he is not the best player there like you desperately want him to be... im sorry...






Neither was Kobe.... and infact Havlicek has only 1 less FMVP / MVP compared to him...

Why are they not ranked closely all-time then? Again, CONTEXT.... ***ing LOGIC....

are you seriously trying to compare Havlicek to Kobe? :oldlol:

the first 4 titles he won from age 22-25, he averaged 18 ppg on 39% shooting, was the 3rd best scorer on his team in at least half of his titles

who did he have as teammates? Prime Russell, Jones, Cousy

and this is from an era where you needed to win 2 (later 3) Playoff rounds for a championship :biggums: who did they beat that was noteworthy?

Kobe beat prime Duncan 4 out of 7 times he made the Finals :biggums: and was the best player in all of these series

are we really comparing Kobe's road to the Finals to a guy who's team needed to win 1 Playoff series to make the Finals for the first 3 of his 8 titles, where he wasn't even close to being the best player in the Playoffs? :roll:

What's next, you're going to compare Robert Horry's Finals wins to Kobe's?

[ImKobe]

The guy who won 5...

But then, there is that damn annoying thing.. again... called context... which shows that guy who won 5 only won it as the man 2 times... as many as the guy who won 2... but with 4 less MVPs in his resume aswell....

Context is a partypooper... or else we would have Bill Russell as the GOAT, with the biggest gap ever....

If Kobe won 5 as the man/fmvp etc. i/we we would very reasonably debate about ranking him #2-#4 all-time somewhere.... i definitely would... even with 1 mvp... but that has not happened...

you can argue that Kobe was the best or at least was 1a/1b in 2001, when he led the most dominant Playoff team of all-time in scoring through the first 3 rounds and was the best player overall on the road

b2b 45+ pt/10+ reb games on the road against Spurs/Kings, that's more impressive than if he did the same against the Sixers in the Finals, only that Shaq had the easier match-up because he wasn't going up against D-Rob/Duncan or Webber/Divac, so obviously he got more shots thus the FMVP

and kobe 2002 Finals, 27/6/5 on 51% shooting with 54% from 3, 8 ppg on 63% shooting in 4th quarters of that series, those are superstar numbers.

[pauk]

are you seriously trying to compare Havlicek to Kobe? :oldlol:

the first 4 titles he won from age 22-25, he averaged 18 ppg on 39% shooting, was the 3rd best scorer on his team in at least half of his titles

who did he have as teammates? Prime Russell, Jones, Cousy

and this is from an era where you needed to win 2 (later 3) Playoff rounds for a championship :biggums: who did they beat that was noteworthy?

Kobe beat prime Duncan 4 out of 7 times he made the Finals :biggums: and was the best player in all of these series

are we really comparing Kobe's road to the Finals to a guy who's team needed to win 1 Playoff series to make the Finals for the first 3 of his 8 titles, where he wasn't even close to being the best player in the Playoffs? :roll:

What's next, you're going to compare Robert Horry's Finals wins to Kobe's?

You clearly didnt get the point... i am talking about logic, context... much of the things you mentioned which sepparates somebody like Kobe from Havlicek that much.... because on paper 8/8 > 5/7... but using context, Kobe is far better...

Context, logic which yet again exposes the stupidty behind your fams "xofx in finals" stat creation....

...and i dont even mind that stupid stat, i just dont like contradiction it creates.... i mean if you truly believe the importance of the X of X in Finals, then go ahead and rank players like that all-time, strictly....... where John Havlicek is above Kobe.... and Jordan... and Lebron.... dont contradict yourself...

[ImKobe]

You clearly didnt get the point... i am talking about logic, context... much of the things you mentioned which sepparates somebody like Kobe from Havlicek that much.... because on paper 8/8 > 5/7... but using context, Kobe is far better...

yeah, but that's why 5/7 vs 2/7 is used when we debate Kobe vs. Lebron because both are all-time greats.. Lebron doesn't even have 7 Finals to his name if the East wasn't historically bad.. his best competition in the EC was a 56-win Raptors squad that was missing it's 3rd best player for almost all of the series

Kobe faced better competition en route to the Finals and beat the same teams Lebron lost to in 09 and 2010 despite Lebron having the better regular season record in both years and winning the MVP. That's why it's a legitimate argument when comparing players of same caliber.

It's not like Kobe faced trash teams in the Finals either, the two Finals losses were against all-time great defensive teams that had 4 HOF-level players in 04 Pistons and 08 Celtics. There's no shame in losing to the Warriors and I actually rooted for the Cavs to win these Finals but after Game 4 it was no question why they are going to lose the series. Lebron falls short in the 4th quarter for the 2nd straight year in the Finals. Even in the Game 5 that they won...he went 2/7 and his teammate closed the game out for him.

Just don't compare Lebron to Jordan after his teammate dropped 41 and scored 10 straight to close out the game in the 4th, Kyrie in Game 5 played more like MJ than Lebron ever has.

[aj1987]

Sure, why not. The guy that went 7/7 sounds like he would be on the same level with Jordan and Kobe.
Kobe who won 5 played with another dude who averaged 35/15/3/3 on 55%. Almost the same as the #2 and #3 options as 2/6, COMBINED. Shit level Finals against 50 win teams, while 2/6 is facing 73 win and 60+ win teams routinely in the Finals.


Just don't compare Lebron to Jordan after his teammate dropped 41 and scored 10 straight to close out the game in the 4th, Kyrie in Game 5 played more like MJ than Lebron ever has.
So, infinitely better than Chokebe?

http://s32.postimg.org/ld6q9c7bp/20131020_204849.jpg

6-24, carried not earned, etc..

[fourkicks44]

That doesn't make sense though.

Making the finals is better than not making it though. You're in with a chance to win at the very least. In that sense, how is 5/5 better than 5/10? It isn't.

5/10 is far better than 5/5. It means you were consistently at the top of the game, you were always in the finals and in the running for the big prize.

But when exactly in the social media age did finals winning percentage become a huge part? I cannot remember finals losses being so heavily criticised before 2011 or 2012.

It just baffles me that consistency in being at the top of the game is somehow regarded as bad. Think of it this way. Which player is better:

15 year span.
1 player makes it 10 years and wins 5 times
Another makes it 5 times and wins 5.

Which is better? The guy that was constantly making it to the very end, or the one who made it far less but just so happened to win it when he made it? For me, it is a very obvious answer, and it is the guy who was consistently winning and getting to the finals.

The point i'm trying to make is that finals winning percentage is misleading. If a player is 5/10 and another player is 5/5 subjectively you can say the player that was 5/10 was better because his team was one of the best in the league for 10 years. But claiming he was better for ten year despite not winning a title for 5 of those years can be looked at only individually because the team did not win. History exalts the Champions. Basketball is about winning. Those that did not win, fail.

I'm not saying that those who fail in the finals are not great. What I am saying is if you want to 'rank' the best; finals losses are an indication of player and not the team. There has to be a balance between winning (a team achievement) and individual accolades (eg. MVP, scoring titles, statistical records) in judging who the greatest players are.

You can sit here and say Lebron's statistical achievements make him top 3 of all time even though he has only won two rings. The counter argument is that he made the finals 7 times, 6 in a row a feat not seen of since Bill Russel's Celtics. Those 5 times he lost should count as individual accomplishments because it is an incredible feat by one player BUT his team only won twice.

Remember the ultimate goal of basketball is to WIN and in each and every game there are two teams: a winner and a loser. To judge who is the best individual player you must weigh up winning with the individual accomplishments. Finals losses should be counted as individual accomplishments, if even that.

I will say, however that Jordan's 6/6 is particularly impressive because he 3peated twice (with only 95 as the asterisk that we can all honestly understand in its context), essentially in a row. He was on top for that long then retired (again), but that is just my opinion on Jordan's finals percentage and I'm sure many people here would try to rip that to shreds to peg up there modern era heros.

[aj1987]

The point i'm trying to make is that finals winning percentage is misleading. If a player is 5/10 and another player is 5/5 subjectively you can say the player that was 5/10 was better because his team was one of the best in the league for 10 years. But claiming he was better for ten year despite not winning a title for 5 of those years can be looked at only individually because the team did not win. History exalts the Champions. Basketball is about winning. Those that did not win, fail.
Exactly. The 5/5 player FAILED to win more games than the 5/10 player 5 MORE times. The 5/10 player won more games than the 5/5 player. How hard is that to understand?

[fourkicks44]

Exactly. The 5/5 player FAILED to win more games than the 5/10 player 5 MORE times. The 5/10 player won more games than the 5/5 player. How hard is that to understand?

Yes you are correct, however they still did not win a championship 5 times hence why the 5/10 stands for the amount of seasons and not the amount of games.

If 'winning' was the total amount of games played in a season then the Warriors would have already won the championship before the Finals even started.

[aj1987]

Yes you are correct, however they still did not win a championship 5 times hence why the 5/10 stands for the amount of seasons and not the amount of games.

If 'winning' was the total amount of games played in a season then the Warriors would have already won the championship before the Finals even started.
That would still mean that 5/10 won more in the PO's than 5/5. 5 Finals wins and 5 CF wins >>>>>> 5 Finals wins.

[Asukal]

You all acting like bronbron's 6 straight finals appearances is something out of this world when in truth its really not. The eastern conference is a joke, it's a guaranteed trip to the finals for bronbron every single year and you clowns know it. It's always best western team vs bronbron's collusion team every year until he decides to hang em up. 2/7 celebration incoming! :oldlol:

[fourkicks44]

That would still mean that 5/10 won more in the PO's than 5/5. 5 Finals wins and 5 CF wins >>>>>> 5 Finals wins.
Yes, i understand that but you're still not getting:

Championships > regular season or playoff wins.

[aj1987]

Yes, i understand that but you're still not getting:

Championships > regular season or playoff wins.
They both have the SAME number of championships! :facepalm

Only difference is that 5/10 has MORE wins in the PO's than 5/5. Getting further in the PO's is ALWAYS better than not.

[ballinhun8]

Plowking ask when did finals win percentage become so important and the first 10 responses, "kobetards" lmao.



Some people prefer there guys play the best when the absolute most is at stake. Hence why people prefer a high Finals win percentage. Admittedly I think MJ was what set the bar. I mean I don't believe in any professional sport there is/was a guy who was the undisputed best player of his team/league have an unblemished total record. I mean Montana has it but, it's arguable Rice was the best player on the team for his last two titles.

[LBJFTW]

MJ as the man went 6/6. Every time he had a team good enough to even make it to the finals, he ensured victory 100% of the time. Clearly won more than he lost because he never lost. The GOAT. The standard by which all else is measured against. Had MJ lost in the finals 9 times he would not have displayed perfection on the biggest stage. Anyone who can't understand that a display of perfection is greater than a display of 9 finals losses is clueless.

Kobe as a 1A/1B went to the finals 7 times and lost only twice. Every time he had a team good enough to even make it to the finals, he won far more than he lost. What makes his 7 finals appearances even more impressive than Lebron's is that he played in a more difficult conference. He took the shots that Lebron was never willing to take in order to do what was necessary to win. Because of this he has a lower fg%, but is a better WINNER than Lebron, period. He understood winning. He did it the right way. This isn't even up for debate. 20 years on the same team. The fact that he won WITHOUT Shaq renders any discussion regarding his rings won with Shaq as moot points, period.

Lebron as the man went to the finals 7 times. After these finals are over, he will have failed 5 times. That's all there really is too it. A 3-peat failure. That is just horrible anyway to you try to slice it, context or no context. He lost to better teams because he DIDN'T DO ENOUGH. You guys think 25 points is doing enough in the finals. It's not. Go look at what MJ did to ensure perfection in finals.

The context regarding LBJ relative to GOAT MJ or the better finals winner Kobe is that if you are the 1A/1B option on your team and you are fortunate enough that year to have enough team chemistry to make it all the way to the finals AND on top of that can lead your team to a finals victory MULTIPLE times, then you are in GOAT discussion. No one gives a damn about Horry or Hondo or Russel winning rings when they were not the clear cut 1A/1B option on their team, just like no one gives a damn about some guy during GOAT level discussion who made it to the finals 7 times and could only lead his team to a victory just 2 of those times because a majority of the time, he is not a winner. Using such context to support a viewpoint is weak as hell. Bottom line is that LeBron fooled everyone including myself in thinking that he is something that he is not. That is somehow GOAT tier? He is not. He has been exposed, made all the wrong decisions, and crumbles under pressure. Does this look like a GOAT tier player to anyone? Really?

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2016/0227/LeBronShootingInClutchTimeNEXTLEVEL.png

If you want even more proof, just watch what happens in game 6 when he's covered by someone that doesn't come off the bench.

This whole conversation is ridiculous and that is why bran stans will forever be the most clueless when it comes to understanding how bran really compares to guys like MJ and Kobe. Lebron wasn't even the best player on his team last night. If you haven't "gotten it" by now... all this time passed seeing this guy in his 7th appearance in the finals playing on the most expensive team in the league, you sadly never will. But keep believing the narrative that he is the 3rd best player all time when he can't even lead his team to more than 2 championships.

[fourkicks44]

They both have the SAME number of championships! :facepalm

Only difference is that 5/10 has MORE wins in the PO's than 5/5. Getting further in the PO's is ALWAYS better than not.

But this is why it is misleading.

Think about this: Say a player is 5/5 and made the playoffs 20 times in their 20 year career reaching the conference finals everytime and pushing each series to seven. The other player is 5/10 in his 15 year career and every Finals they lose they are swept in.

[tmacattack33]

How important is this stat? When did this stat become so important?

Is it better to go say 3/3, then say 3/6?

4/6 better than 4/12?

Is it justified to punish the guy who makes the finals more times?


Obviously it is better to make the Finals than go to round 1, 2, 3, or 0 (missing the playoffs).

It's not even a debate.

And any 2nd grade with any type of concept of numbers could tell you this.

[LBJFTW]

Obviously it is better to make the Finals than go to round 1, 2, 3, or 0 (missing the playoffs).

It's not even a debate.

And any 2nd grade with any type of concept of numbers could tell you this.

Yes, it's better to make the finals than to lose in the post season but that is largely inflated by how good the TEAM is around you. This is what people don't get. People try to use the whole "number of trips to the finals" to prop up lebron and it's not working. At least not against anyone who understands basketball.

If you made it past 3 teams in the post season all the way to the finals, it's because you were on a team talented enough to get to the finals in the first damn place. It's what you do when given that opportunity to be in the finals that matters most.

Anyone that thinks a guy who has only lead his team to 2 championships is top 3 all time regardless of how many times he's been on a good enough team to help him get to the finals in the first place, really has no clue as to what defines a champion.

[aj1987]

But this is why it is misleading.

Think about this: Say a player is 5/5 and made the playoffs 20 times in their 20 year career reaching the conference finals everytime and pushing each series to seven. The other player is 5/10 in his 15 year career and every Finals they lose they are swept in.
The still means that 5/10 player was able to win the CF's and get to the Finals, and whenever he had a good team, he won. 5/10 >>>>>>>>> 5/5.

In what retarded world is not making the Finals better than making the Finals and losing? ISH.... :facepalm :facepalm


.......
If you actually believe that crock of shit you just posted, you know absolutely NOTHING about basketball.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Yeah who cares about winning??

Such an obscure thing to care about. Great thread!!

[LBJFTW]

The still means that 5/10 player was able to win the CF's and get to the Finals, and whenever he had a good team, he won. 5/10 >>>>>>>>> 5/5.

In what retarded world is not making the Finals better than making the Finals and losing? ISH.... :facepalm :facepalm


If you actually believe that crock of shit you just posted, you know absolutely NOTHING about basketball.

Do you not understand basic math? 5/5 = 100% perfection. What's next, you telling us that shooting 5/10 is better than 5/5 because more shots were taken?

The levels bran fans will stoop to be proven wrong. Ridiculous.

Failing in the finals 5 times is now better than not failing at all with 5 rings on your hand. What a bunch of horseshit.

[aj1987]

How do Kobe turds not understand that 4/12 player has won MORE than a 4/6 player? :facepalm


Do you not understand basic math? 5/5 = 100% perfection
What's next, you telling us that shooting 5/10 is better than 5/5 because more shots were taken? :confusedshrug:
Good god, you're retarded. 5/5 player has won 5 CF's and 5 Finals. 5/10 player has won 5 Finals and 10 CF's

Winning 5 Finals and 10 CF's >>>>>> 5 Finals and 5 CF's, you drooling retard.

[chazzy]

The only relevance of the stat is to counteract the overhyping of the accomplishment of winning the east. Otherwise it obviously doesn't matter much, although it's funny to watch stans get really upset by it :lol

[ArbitraryWater]

Bruh, 5-47 is the one stat Kobe fans can hang on lol... theres dozens of those for Kobe, way too many lol

[LBJFTW]

How do Kobe turds not understand that 4/12 player has won MORE than a 4/6 player? :facepalm


Good god, you're retarded. 5/5 player has won 5 CF's and 5 Finals. 5/10 player has won 5 Finals and 10 CF's

Winning 5 Finals and 10 CF's >>>>>> 5 Finals and 5 CF's, you drooling retard.

That only applies if it's the same exact TEAM vs TEAM.

We are talking individual impact relative to finals win loss ratios and failing 5 times in the finals on a team that got you there when it's your job as the best player to close out the games is far worse than being on a team that was only good enough to get you to the finals 5 times but each time you were fortunate enough to be on such a team, you were perfect in closing out the games.

Bran stans really are a clueless bunch. Learn to understand perfection and learn that 100% > 50%

If one guy as the alpha makes it to the finals 10 times and the other guy as the alpha only makes it 5, it's because one of the guys wasn't on a team that was as good as what the other guy had! All that matters is what you do on the biggest stage, especially when one conference is so much weaker than the other one.

[aj1987]

That only applies if it's the same exact TEAM vs TEAM.

We are talking individual impact relative to finals win loss ratios and failing 5 times in the finals on a team that got you there when it's your job as the best player to close out the games is far worse than being on a team that was only good enough to get you to the finals 5 times but each time you were fortunate enough to be on such a team, you were perfect in closing out the games.

Bran stans really are a clueless bunch. Learn to understand perfection and learn that 100% > 50%

If one guy as the alpha makes it to the finals 10 times and the other guy as the alpha only makes it 5, it's because one of the guys wasn't on a team that was as good as what the other guy had! All that matters is what you do on the biggest stage, especially when one conference is so much weaker than the other one.
What the **** are you even talking about? Are you on drugs?

[plowking]

If you made it past 3 teams in the post season all the way to the finals, it's because you were on a team talented enough to get to the finals in the first damn place. It's what you do when given that opportunity to be in the finals that matters most.



This doesn't work on the simple reasoning of backwards induction.

If a team is good enough to make the 2nd round, then they are good enough to win. Same as the round before, and the round after it. If that is the case for the finals, then it is the same for the rounds prior. it doesn't make sense.


Yeah who cares about winning??

Such an obscure thing to care about. Great thread!!

Can you explain anywhere in this thread where it was implied that winning didn't matter. I asked which was better in cases where the same amount of rings was won. So by that merit, the guy who made the finals won more. So would you agree that 6/12 is better than 6/6?

I don't get why people are getting so heated about the question. Explain your opinion and move on, or continue to discuss.


The point i'm trying to make is that finals winning percentage is misleading. If a player is 5/10 and another player is 5/5 subjectively you can say the player that was 5/10 was better because his team was one of the best in the league for 10 years. But claiming he was better for ten year despite not winning a title for 5 of those years can be looked at only individually because the team did not win. History exalts the Champions. Basketball is about winning. Those that did not win, fail.

So why is 5/5 looked at as better than 5/10 when both didn't win in that same time period?


I'm not saying that those who fail in the finals are not great. What I am saying is if you want to 'rank' the best; finals losses are an indication of player and not the team.

In what way? You just said it is about the team in terms of making the final, but then losing is somehow on individuals? That doesn't make sense.


You can sit here and say Lebron's statistical achievements make him top 3 of all time even though he has only won two rings. The counter argument is that he made the finals 7 times, 6 in a row a feat not seen of since Bill Russel's Celtics. Those 5 times he lost should count as individual accomplishments because it is an incredible feat by one player BUT his team only won twice.

Say if a player was to lead his team to the finals with a 45 win team 3 years in a row, but every time in the final he played a 70 win team and lost. You're telling me this is somehow a blemish on his record? Somehow he wasn't good enough individually?


Remember the ultimate goal of basketball is to WIN and in each and every game there are two teams: a winner and a loser. To judge who is the best individual player you must weigh up winning with the individual accomplishments. Finals losses should be counted as individual accomplishments, if even that.

Again, doesn't make sense. The losses that should be counted then are those who don't make the finals as well. It should be divided by the number of seasons you played total, and not just the times you made the final then.


By your logic, losing before the finals is an individual negative too, because you simply weren't good enough.

You think it was somehow better for Dirk's 67 win Dallas team to lose against GSW than in the finals? :oldlol:
This is the logic we're essentially putting down here. You're telling me that Dirk's title favourite team losing in the first round was somehow better for Dirk's "finals winning percentage" because he just sucked ass early? :oldlol:

[Papaya Petee]

What the **** are you even talking about? Are you on drugs?
Hes retarded. Just keep asking which one is a better season losing in the finals or losing in the first round. If anyone says first round just laugh.

[plowking]

That only applies if it's the same exact TEAM vs TEAM.

We are talking individual impact relative to finals win loss ratios and failing 5 times in the finals on a team that got you there when it's your job as the best player to close out the games is far worse than being on a team that was only good enough to get you to the finals 5 times but each time you were fortunate enough to be on such a team, you were perfect in closing out the games.

Bran stans really are a clueless bunch. Learn to understand perfection and learn that 100% > 50%

If one guy as the alpha makes it to the finals 10 times and the other guy as the alpha only makes it 5, it's because one of the guys wasn't on a team that was as good as what the other guy had! All that matters is what you do on the biggest stage, especially when one conference is so much weaker than the other one.

So if the guy that played in 10 finals kept making the finals with 40 win teams, but the other guy who made it to 5 finals got there with 65 win teams, somehow the one that went 5/5 is still better? :oldlol:

[plowking]

The reason I asked the question was looking back at discussions from 2010 and 2011, Magic was praised for making 9 finals, even though he lost in 4. At the time, and I won't bother bumping the thread since too many people will be embarrassed that now use the opposite logic, his dominance and ability to lead his team to the last series was looked at as dominance and giving his team a chance to win.

[LBJFTW]

So if the guy that played in 10 finals kept making the finals with 40 win teams, but the other guy who made it to 5 finals got there with 65 win teams, somehow the one that went 5/5 is still better? :oldlol:

Who said anything about reg season wins? I said good enough team to get you to the finals.

Making it to the finals multiple times in a weak conference on stacked teams only to lose in the finals doesn't impress anyone. I know you want to think its something special because it's all lebron stans have to make 2/7 appear less worse than it really is, but the fact is that being 1A/1B option and going 2/7 is horrible by comparison to 1A/1B option and going 6/6 and 5/7. Every bron Stan knows this that's why they were reaching for horry and hondo ring numbers. Just another L for the bran fam.

100% > 50%

[plowking]

So you can't explain then? Just don't post in the thread.

[feyki]

I guess , people criticize that ; If you have a enough team to make finals , you must win that championship . But it's not that simply . Competition is more important than you and your teammates .

[NBAGOAT]

ofc not. In most cases, someone would get more praise if he made the Finals. Imagine if Malone/Stockton didn't make the Finals. They would get even more choker references with people saying 2 top 30 players of all time couldn't even make the Finals once even though they were contenders fro 15 years. CP3 would get a lot less hate for his playoffs results if he had made a Finals or 2 even if his team lost.

[Wade's Rings]

How you play in the Finals matters too. He was horrible in 2007 and 2011. He wasn't as good as his numbers indicated in 2014.

[LBJFTW]

This doesn't work on the simple reasoning of backwards induction.

If a team is good enough to make the 2nd round, then they are good enough to win. Same as the round before, and the round after it. If that is the case for the finals, then it is the same for the rounds prior. it doesn't make sense.

No that is not correct. If a team is good enough to make the 2nd round, that hardly means that they are good enough to win. Your logic is easily debunked by the fact that the team they are playing in the 2nd round could be a worse team than what they would play in the conference finals, and so on.

Just because you have a team good enough to make 1st or 2nd round doesn't meant you are on a team good enough to make the finals.

Again, when comparing champions, all that matters is how they performed on the biggest stage and whether or not they did enough to lead their team to victory. MJ showed the world how to do this, and he showed that 6/6 perfection as the man is possible. Lebron is about to show us 3 peat failure.

That's what happens when you join only stacked teams only in the east to have an easier route to the finals. Bought, not built. The result is 2/7.

This is a really simple concept, you are either struggling with grasping it or just trolling. Either way I leave the conversation knowing that I am correct.

[SouBeachTalents]

I don't even care that much if people don't consider making the Finals to be an achievement, they didn't win the title like everybody else, so if you don't think making the Finals is a big deal, especially in the current East, that's fine. The problem I have is the retards who legitimately think making the Finals and losing is WORSE than losing earlier in the playoffs or missing the postseason all together. The Cavs losing to the Raptors, Hawks or Pistons is infinitely worse than losing to the 73 win defending champs, and anyone who says otherwise is truly stupid

[TheMarkMadsen]

If your team is good enough that it made the finals and you're a superstar then you're expected to win the series.

Not that hard to understand.

And yes, losing in the first round is worse when you're a championship contender... See the 07 mavs.

But if your team is consistently good enough where they are able to make the finals every and yet you hardly ever win the championship then that speaks on A) the level of competition in your conference or B) your play style/ability to take a team on the cusp of a championship to that next level. Or both.

Not that difficult to understand.

[dankok8]

In what way is losing in the finals worse than losing before? Just because a team is in the finals doesn't mean it is good enough to win. Just like a team that makes the playoffs isn't necessarily good enough to win the 1st round. Often a 7th or 8th seed has practically zero chance.

A better measure of winning is the titles/total seasons played. So Lebron is 2/12 and probably 2/13 after this year.

But even winning must be looked at in context.

[plowking]

If your team is good enough that it made the finals and you're a superstar then you're expected to win the series.

Not that hard to understand.

And yes, losing in the first round is worse when you're a championship contender... See the 07 mavs.

But if your team is consistently good enough where they are able to make the finals every and yet you hardly ever win the championship then that speaks on A) the level of competition in your conference or B) your play style/ability to take a team on the cusp of a championship to that next level. Or both.

Not that difficult to understand.

So someone like Magic or Kareem weren't good enough to take a team on the cusp of a championship to the next level like Kobe or Duncan were?

It is hard to understand. You simplify making the finals into nothing. If you keep playing a team that is better than you in the finals, how is that a negative compared to someone who is a runaway favourite and loses sometimes?

Would you fault Hakeem if he kept making the finals and lost to Jordan 3 times in a row, rather than if he just maintained his 2/3 record in the finals?

Your first sentence doesn't even make sense. If you're a superstar on a team in the finals, you're expected to win? So both Curry and Bron are "expected" to come out winners in this? :oldlol:

Are you going to sit there and tell me that Nets team that went to the finals that won less than 50 games was expected to beat the Spurs or Lakers? :oldlol:
You "expected" Kidd to pull that off did you? Do you think of him less now that he is 1/3 rather than if he had lost earlier and just been 1/1 now?

[LBJ 23]

Here OP, 2/7 is not in fashion anymore. Now Lebron sucks cuz he had to have(if that even happens) game 7!!! :oldlol:


http://s31.postimg.org/k0djr75ln/ish.jpg

[GrapeApe]

The finals win % stuff actually started with Jordan. When he retired (in 1998) a lot was made of his unblemished finals record. It actually began to pick up steam before the finals. Most people believed he would retire if the Bulls won, and one of the narratives was that Jordan would possibly finish his career undefeated in the finals.

In terms of Lebron, I think his finals record being such a big issue has to do with playing in the east. His detractors think it validates the fact that he plays in an inferior conference. The ironic thing about that is if he played in the west and was 2/2 in the finals, he'd be criticized for not reaching the finals more often.

[NBAGOAT]

The finals win % stuff actually started with Jordan. When he retired (in 1998) a lot was made of his unblemished finals record. It actually began to pick up steam before the finals. Most people believed he would retire if the Bulls won, and one of the narratives was that Jordan would possibly finish his career undefeated in the finals.

In terms of Lebron, I think his finals record being such a big issue has to do with playing in the east. His detractors think it validates the fact that he plays in an inferior conference. The ironic thing about that is if he played in the west and was 2/2 in the finals, he'd be criticized for not reaching the finals more often.

simpler than that, just detractors being hypocritical. I also think part of the reason the detractors hate him for going to Miami is they just hate that he won 2 rings so they can't hold that against him anymore. There's no way they would give him less shit if he stayed in Cleveland the whole time and went ringless even if he played at a MVP level like he did in Miami. All detractors do this however for whoever they haye.

[StrongLurk]

Wow the Kobetards are SHOCKING in this thread.

I love Kobe AND Bron, but the people shitting on Bron are displaying terrible logic.

I can't even reply to them because it would be futile. Why is it hard to accept that Lebron has been JUST AS GOOD OR BETTER than Kobe in the finals?

[LBJFTW]

Would you fault Hakeem if he kept making the finals and lost to Jordan 3 times in a row, rather than if he just maintained his 2/3 record in the finals?

Absolutely. Just like we fault malone, stockton, ewing and miller. All ringless because they failed against MJ and MJ got the better of them. This "everyone needs to be a winner" "no child left behind" new era of thinking is bullshit.


If you're a superstar on a team in the finals, you're expected to win? So both Curry and Bron are "expected" to come out winners in this? :oldlol:

Yes. Do you think they are in the finals just to put on a show for their families? They are expected to come out winners. They are the BEST teams of their respective conferences. They are absolutely EXPECTED to come out a winner, and there can be only one so whoever LOSES got bested. That's why having a losing finals record is a very good reflection on the capability of the player. Do you think it's coincidence that MJ despite being the best player in the game, also just so happens to have a perfect 6/6 finals record? It's not.


Are you going to sit there and tell me that Nets team that went to the finals that won less than 50 games was expected to beat the Spurs or Lakers? :oldlol:
You "expected" Kidd to pull that off did you? Do you think of him less now that he is 1/3 rather than if he had lost earlier and just been 1/1 now?

Are you going to sit there and tell us that the purpose of having 2 teams face each other in the finals is so that we can watch one team lose since they aren't expected to win? That's a flawed business plan if I ever saw one then. Then what would be the point of having 2 conferences to begin with? You may as well just do away with the 2 conferences and have the top 16 teams be seeded against each other in a bracket in accordance with their win/loss ratio instead of splitting them up.

Lebron CHOSE to play in the weaker east. You can't praise a guy for making the finals in the weaker conference multiple times and then not hold him accountable for delivering in the finals. Both go hand in hand.

This whole praise a guy for failing in the finals is the mentality of current era. Fans like myself who know better based on experiences in past eras get the full picture.

[TheMarkMadsen]

So someone like Magic or Kareem weren't good enough to take a team on the cusp of a championship to the next level like Kobe or Duncan were?



I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post until you explain this garbage.

Magic and Kareem have a combined 11 rings

How you could read my post and then come back with something about a 5x and 6x champion not being good enough to take a team to a championship is honestly concerning.

Seriously, what the hell.

[StrongLurk]

Absolutely. Just like we fault malone, stockton, ewing and miller. All ringless because they failed against MJ and MJ got the better of them. This "everyone needs to be a winner" "no child left behind" new era of thinking is bullshit.



Yes. Do you think they are in the finals just to put on a show for their families? They are expected to come out winners. They are the BEST teams of their respective conferences. They are absolutely EXPECTED to come out a winner, and there can be only one so whoever LOSES got bested. That's why having a losing finals record is a very good reflection on the capability of the player. Do you think it's coincidence that MJ despite being the best player in the game, also just so happens to have a perfect 6/6 finals record? It's not.



Are you going to sit there and tell us that the purpose of having 2 teams face each other in the finals is so that we can watch one team lose since they aren't expected to win? That's a flawed business plan if I ever saw one then. Then what would be the point of having 2 conferences to begin with? You may as well just do away with the 2 conferences and have the top 16 teams be seeded against each other in a bracket in accordance with their win/loss ratio instead of splitting them up.

Lebron CHOSE to play in the weaker east. You can't praise a guy for making the finals in the weaker conference multiple times and then not hold him accountable for delivering in the finals. Both go hand in hand.

This whole praise a guy for failing in the finals is the mentality of current era. Fans like myself who know better based on experiences in past eras get the full picture.

Every NBA player EVER has failed - no one has won every single year. So I guess no one deserves praise. Is failing in the finals losing? What if Lebron averaged 10 points a game, but his team won? You would praise him then?

You are saying that only Michael Jordan deserves praise, since he never lost in the finals. Pippen too I suppose.

[Hey Yo]

How important is this stat? When did this stat become so important?

Is it better to go say 3/3, then say 3/6?

4/6 better than 4/12?

Is it justified to punish the guy who makes the finals more times?
Reggie Miller was asked this by Dan Patrick a couple weeks go.

He basically said he's rather be in LeBron's position (2-4) than be 2-0, citing how hard it is and have things go just right to even get to the Finals let alone win it.

Basically saying what most others think. It's better to get more opportunities to play in the Finals and win or lose, than it is not to have the opportunity or just make a few appearances.

[LBJFTW]

Every NBA player EVER has failed - no one has won every single year. So I guess no one deserves praise. Is failing in the finals losing? What if Lebron averaged 10 points a game, but his team won? You would praise him then?

You are saying that only Michael Jordan deserves praise, since he never lost in the finals. Pippen too I suppose.

How did you draw that conclusion? If Lebron averaged 10 points a game then he wouldn't be the leader of the series and it would be no different than saying Shaq wasn't the leader of the Heat in 06. This discussion is about finals wining percentage and how it impacts the legacy of the 1A/1B player. Just because you are a good basketball player in the regular season doesn't mean you know how to win when the pressure is at it's highest point.

If the spurs won this year it would do nothing for how Tim Duncan is viewed as a player. His ranking would not go up or down. He wouldn't have been the 1A/1B player.

What I'm saying is that Jordan deserves the most praise. I'm also saying that someone who lead their team to only 2 championships and is about to 3-peat lose in the finals despite having enough talent around them to get them to the finals is no way in hell a top 3 player of all time. The logic doesn't get any more sounder than that. Why are we pretending that this guy didn't play in a weak conference and choose to play on the most stacked teams of those conferences each year such that at the start of the season, the vegas odds were in favor of whatever team he was on winning the conference finals. Had Lebron joined the bobcats instead of the cavs last year do you think everyone would have been saying bobcats win the ECF? No way in hell. This guy joins stacked teams in a weak conference on teams expected to make the finals only to lose in the finals and that is praise worthy? Dafuq? :biggums:

[branslowski]

Damage control thread stating winning in the finals isn't important cause dey know 2/7 coming.🐸☕

[LBJFTW]

Damage control thread stating winning in the finals isn't important cause dey know 2/7 coming.🐸☕

Nope. Winning in the finals isn't important. We should dumb down winning in the finals by praising the guy who also made it to the finals only to lose 3 times in a row.

ISH logic.

[StrongLurk]

How did you draw that conclusion? If Lebron averaged 10 points a game then he wouldn't be the leader of the series and it would be no different than saying Shaq wasn't the leader of the Heat in 06. This discussion is about finals wining percentage and how it impacts the legacy of the 1A/1B player. Just because you are a good basketball player in the regular season doesn't mean you know how to win when the pressure is at it's highest point.

If the spurs won this year it would do nothing for how Tim Duncan is viewed as a player. His ranking would not go up or down. He wouldn't have been the 1A/1B player.

What I'm saying is that Jordan deserves the most praise. I'm also saying that someone who lead their team to only 2 championships and is about to 3-peat lose in the finals despite having enough talent around them to get them to the finals is no way in hell a top 3 player of all time. The logic doesn't get any more sounder than that. Why are we pretending that this guy didn't play in a weak conference and choose to play on the most stacked teams of those conferences each year such that at the start of the season, the vegas odds were in favor of whatever team he was on winning the conference finals. Had Lebron joined the bobcats instead of the cavs last year do you think everyone would have been saying bobcats win the ECF? No way in hell. This guy joins stacked teams in a weak conference on teams expected to make the finals only to lose in the finals and that is praise worthy? Dafuq? :biggums:


Who are your top 3 players of all time? Also, you contradict yourself saying Lebron had enough talent to get to the finals and win, but then say the conference he played in was weak, which he why he made the finals.

You can't have both. You can't say he only made it to the finals because the east is weak, then blame Lebron for losing to the best team out of the West, saying "his team was good enough to get there, so they should win".

[StrongLurk]

Nope. Winning in the finals isn't important. We should dumb down winning in the finals by praising the guy who also made it to the finals only to lose 3 times in a row.

ISH logic.

Just accept that Lebron is a better player than Kobe, in the regular season, playoffs, and Finals.

Just accept it.

[LBJFTW]

Who are your top 3 players of all time? Also, you contradict yourself saying Lebron had enough talent to get to the finals and win, but then say the conference he played in was weak, which he why he made the finals.

You can't have both. You can't say he only made it to the finals because the east is weak, then blame Lebron for losing to the best team out of the West, saying "his team was good enough to get there, so they should win".

That's my whole point. If you are going to choose to stan a guy who plays in the east on stacked teams and then think he is deserving of a free pass simply because he lost in the finals to the western team that came from a more difficult conference, you are a hypocrite. Praise lebron if he played in the west and beat the WCF team to advance to the finals and then won, not for this shit he's doing now. Going 2/7 in the east on stacked teams only to lose. That's not praise worthy.


Just accept that Lebron is a better player than Kobe, in the regular season, playoffs, and Finals.

Just accept it.

Yes, let's accept something as fact even though the evidence supports the fact that Kobe is the better winner who played in the more difficult conference. I'm sure that logic will get you far....

[StrongLurk]

That's my whole point. If you are going to choose to stan a guy who plays in the east on stacked teams and then think he is deserving of a free pass simply because he lost in the finals to the western team that came from a more difficult conference, you are a hypocrite. Praise lebron if he played in the west and beat the WCF team to advance to the finals and then won, not for this shit he's doing now. Going 2/7 in the east on stacked teams only to lose. That's not praise worthy.



Yes, let's accept something as fact even though the evidence supports the fact that Kobe is the better winner who played in the more difficult conference. I'm sure that logic will get you far....

I am not a Lebron "stan". I grew up watching second three peat Jordan and mu****in FROBE dude! I love them! You are the one stanning and hating on one of the best players ever. Seriously, you never gave me your top 3 players?

Who are they, and how do they stand up to the criticism you give Lebron?

Can't be Magic since the west was even weaker back then than the east is now ANd he played with Kareem. Can't be Bird since Birds numbers and accolades are worse than Lebron's. So you got Jordan and who else as top 3?

[LBJFTW]

I am not a Lebron "stan". I grew up watching second three peat Jordan and mu****in FROBE dude! I love them! You are the one stanning and hating on one of the best players ever. Seriously, you never gave me your top 3 players?

Who are they, and how do they stand up to the criticism you give Lebron?

Can't be Magic since the west was ever weaker back then than the east is now. Can't be Bird since everything Birds numbers and accolades are worse than Lebron's. So you got Jordan and who else as top 3?

I never said you were a lebron stan. I said that those who are lebron stans are hypocrites. I'm presenting you with the facts and helping everyone see past this media fabricated bullshit. You seriously think Bron ranks higher than Magic and Bird? How can you condone that 2/7 through collusion is somehow better than anything Magic or Bird ever accomplished? Don't let yourself get mindfvcked by the social media of today man. Lebron is well deserving of every bit of criticism that he receives and this is coming from someone that's been to many Cavs games that Lebron has played in. It is just shameful that people have allowed the media to enable them to think that Lebron is more than someone who colluded to chase rings by only playing in the weak eastern conference and came up very short. Those are the facts and anything else is damage control.

[GoatBoy]

5/7 > 2/7

[livinglegend]

1-9.
If you make the first round and you are a superstar, you are expected to win.
2/7 > 1/10

[StrongLurk]

I never said you were a lebron stan. I said that those who are lebron stans are hypocrites. I'm presenting you with the facts and helping everyone see past this media fabricated bullshit. You seriously think Bron ranks higher than Magic and Bird? How can you condone that 2/7 through collusion is somehow better than anything Magic or Bird ever accomplished? Don't let yourself get mindfvcked by the social media of today man. Lebron is well deserving of every bit of criticism that he receives and this is coming from someone that's been to many Cavs games that Lebron has played in. It is just shameful that people have allowed the media to enable them to think that Lebron is more than someone who colluded to chase rings by only playing in the weak eastern conference and came up very short. Those are the facts and anything else is damage control.

Oh...you are talking about colluding...so you are one of "those" posters.

I mean if you are going with that, Kobe "colluded" before he even played a game in the NBA by forcing himself to the Lakers. Same with Magic, who only came out of college so HE could play with Kareem in the Lakers.


You do realize both Kobe and Magic did that, right? And that they went to teams with 2 of the three most dominant big men ever?

Also...who are your top 3 players? Heck make it top 10 players.

[branslowski]

Just accept that Lebron is a better player than Kobe, in the regular season, playoffs, and Finals.

Just accept it.

LeBron stat padding and losing got yawl gassed up, seriously. It's like this, LeBron swears he's the greatest in the sack cause he smashed 3 hoes in one night but f*cked each of them for a total of 40sec each. Meanwhile Kobe smashed only one hoe dat night, but smashed for 2hrs made her cvm 3 times. LeBron is a sh!tty fvcker while Kobe is a legendary fvcker but Bron stans like "LeBron is Goat cause he f*cked 2 more hoes check the stats".. Smh...LeBrons career numbers are just like his game 4 play in a nutshell, finished with 25-13-9 and if your're boxscore watchin then thats amazing, but watching the game we all knew he came up short. But just like Stephen A said, his numbers do a great job of tricking the nerds.

Kobe>>>LeBron

[StrongLurk]

LeBron stat padding and losing got yawl gassed up, seriously. It's like this, LeBron swears he's the greatest in the sack cause he smashed 3 hoes in one night but f*cked each of them for a total of 40sec each. Meanwhile Kobe smashed only one hoe dat night, but smashed for 2hrs made her cvm 3 times. LeBron is a sh!tty fvcker while Kobe is a legendary fvcker but Bron stans like "LeBron is Goat cause he f*cked 2 more hoes check the stats".. Smh...LeBrons career numbers are just like his game 4 play in a nutshell, finished with 25-13-9 and if your're boxscore watchin then thats amazing, but watching the game we all knew he came up short. But just like Stephen A said, his numbers do a great job of tricking the nerds.

Kobe>>>LeBron

The thing is Lebron averages more points than Kobe does in the regular season, playoffs, and finals, and on better percentages. So yeah, your analogy doesn't work.

[plowking]

Damage control thread stating winning in the finals isn't important cause dey know 2/7 coming.🐸☕

The thread doesn't state that at all.

It simply states, winning the same amount, but going to the finals more is better than having some unblemished record or less losses on your record.

There hasn't been one viable answer as to explain why being 5/12 is worse than 5/5 for example. Not one.

[plowking]

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of your post until you explain this garbage.

Magic and Kareem have a combined 11 rings

How you could read my post and then come back with something about a 5x and 6x champion not being good enough to take a team to a championship is honestly concerning.

Seriously, what the hell.

Well because the other two have a better finals win percentage, while having nearly identical rings. That is how I'm told it works.

Kobe's 5/7 is better than Magic's 5/9. Is that not correct? :oldlol:

[fourkicks44]

So why is 5/5 looked at as better than 5/10 when both didn't win in that same time period?

I don't know, I never said that. I think 'finals winning percentage' is misleading particularly without additional qualitative analysis to provide context.




In what way? You just said it is about the team in terms of making the final, but then losing is somehow on individuals? That doesn't make sense.

Because winning is a team accomplishment and losing is not because it is NOT AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. If you or anyone else believe 'finals winning percentage' indicates the 'greatness' of a player than it is used as individual measure is it not? It is a measure that I think is misleading and ambiguous.

Do you honestly rank the greatest teams by how much they lost or how much they won? You probably could but it is not they way I would. Good luck to you.




Say if a player was to lead his team to the finals with a 45 win team 3 years in a row, but every time in the final he played a 70 win team and lost. You're telling me this is somehow a blemish on his record? Somehow he wasn't good enough individually?

If he was better individually maybe his team would have won? I don't know, not much to go by with only 'finals winning percentage' to analyse this. All I know is he and his team lost, when their aim was to win.

I am not a fan of 'finals winning percentage' as an indicator of individual greatness. I don't know if I made it clear enough earlier. But if you are using it does it not indicate blemishes on an individuals record? You tell me.



Again, doesn't make sense. The losses that should be counted then are those who don't make the finals as well. It should be divided by the number of seasons you played total, and not just the times you made the final then.

I agree, if you are trying to 'prop up' a player's 'legacy' that is 5/10 in the Finals by proving that he is a better 'winner' than another player that is 5/5 why not use 'Conference Finals Winning Percentage'? It will indicate how they are a better 'winner'.

Once again I will say it again 'Finals Winning Percentage' is misleading.



By your logic, losing before the finals is an individual negative too, because you simply weren't good enough.

You think it was somehow better for Dirk's 67 win Dallas team to lose against GSW than in the finals? :oldlol:
This is the logic we're essentially putting down here. You're telling me that Dirk's title favourite team losing in the first round was somehow better for Dirk's "finals winning percentage" because he just sucked ass early? :oldlol:

Once again I'm not the fan of 'finals winning percentage', I'm a fan of championships. Ultimately it only proves how many times an INDIVIDUAL has lost in the finals. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough earlier.

[LBJFTW]

5/7 > 2/7

Getting to the finals multiple times on stacked teams in weak conferences is shit compared to being drafted by a team, having it built around you, and having a respectable finals record of 5/7, 6/6, or 5/6 etc as the 1A/1B option. Anyone can leave their team, form a stacked team, and make it to the finals. :lol

No one should try to justify 2/7 failure. It's laughable. Literally any superstar in the history of the game could have ran to the most stacked team of a historically weak conference and gone to the finals 7 times.

There were numerous years where Kobe had shit teams. He didn't conspire to form a stacked team, he instead had Shaq leave and proved that he could win without him. His alphaness is up there. All he ever wanted to do was be a laker regardless of who was on the team and anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless.

[StrongLurk]

5/7 > 2/7

Getting to the finals multiple times on stacked teams in weak conferences is shit compared to being drafted by a team, having it built around you, and having a respectable finals record of 5/7, 6/6, or 5/6 etc as the 1A/1B option. Anyone can leave their team, form a stacked team, and make it to the finals. :lol

No one should try to justify 2/7 failure. It's laughable. Literally any superstar in the history of the game could have ran to the most stacked team of a historically weak conference and gone to the finals 7 times.

There were numerous years where Kobe had shit teams. He didn't conspire to form a stacked team, he instead had Shaq leave and proved that he could win without him. His alphaness is up there. All he ever wanted to do was be a laker regardless of who was on the team and anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless.

PROTIP - improve your OWN life so you aren't so invested in others. A high school diploma and welfare checks will lead to a miserable life.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Well because the other two have a better finals win percentage, while having nearly identical rings. That is how I'm told it works.

Kobe's 5/7 is better than Magic's 5/9. Is that not correct? :oldlol:


Each have 5 rings dude, proven winners and won in more finals series than they lost.

[West-Side]

It's not so much the wins, but the massive gap between 2 and 7.

2/7 just looks bad


10 years from now fans will look at guys like MJ and be like "holy shit, this guy didn't know how to lose in the final and he didn't even know how to bring a finals series to 7 games" and then they will look at lebron's 2/7 and be like "wow... this guy really choked it all away despite having a team so damn good that it bought him all the way to the finals 7 times."

Losing in the finals is WASTED opportunity to get rings. It's hard enough to get to the finals and to get there that many times due to having a good enough team around you only to lose that much really speaks volumes about the quality of the leader of those losses. MJ understood the importance of this, that's why he made sure he won every single time.

Exactly why LeBron's 7 trips is overrated.
6 of those came playing with a stacked team, in a historically weak conference.

:rolleyes:

[plowking]

Each have 5 rings dude, proven winners and won in more finals series than they lost.

Stop avoiding the question.

Which is better?

[Straight_Ballin]

Exactly why LeBron's 7 trips is overrated.
6 of those came playing with a stacked team, in a historically weak conference.

:rolleyes:

This is exactly what I was getting at. Anyway you try to slice it, Lebron is worse than Kobe.

[toprange]

the actual point of the game is to win it ALL. Preparing your team to win it ALL. Even if it means sacrificing your numbers and losing games during the regular season. Stop mocking the game

[TheMarkMadsen]

Stop avoiding the question.

Which is better?


Stop avoiding what question? Some huge leap of logic that you are reaching for because you couldn't actually respond to my original post without melting down and bringing up tons of hypotheticals?

If I was going to compare the two I would break down each run, competition, level of play, etc. etc.

But a comparison of Magic and Kobes run has nothing to do with your thread, your question has been answered in this thread and has been thoroughly broken down for you.

Just because you're too dense to see that doesn't change the fact that your original question has been answered for you.

[Born Sinner]

Missing playoffs > making finals, according to Kobe stans. The thing is because MJ is the GOAT, we often set him as the bar and he did go 6/6 in the finals.
You little girls keep throwing this shit hoping it will stick :roll:
No ***, no one says that. If youre going to make the finals you might as well win it.

Kobe 5/7

Lebron 2/7

This shit affects your personal life. Its just a game bro

[ArbitraryWater]

Jesus Mark... whats so hard? What is better? 5/7 or 5/9?

[West-Side]

Jesus Mark... whats so hard? What is better? 5/7 or 5/9?

Depends on the context dumbass.
It depends on the competition you faced to get to the NBA finals.

[Hey Yo]

Exactly why LeBron's 7 trips is overrated.
6 of those came playing with a stacked team, in a historically weak conference.

:rolleyes:
So that means Magic's 9 trips are overrated considering how weak the West was? Beating teams in 1987 who were a combined 118-127 to get to the Finals being one example?

Kareem overrated also?

[ArbitraryWater]

Depends on the context dumbass.
It depends on the competition you faced to get to the NBA finals.

this discussion is clearly devoid of all context.. on a pure ground level, whats better?

[Psileas]

How important is this stat? When did this stat become so important?

Is it better to go say 3/3, then say 3/6?

4/6 better than 4/12?

Is it justified to punish the guy who makes the finals more times?

Plus:
1) Why are the Finals the only series that is counted percentage-wise? How about 1st rounds? Conference Finals? Also, how about counting seasons making the playoffs? How about seasons someone wins the title?
2) Why wasn't ever this stat widely used before Jordan's second 3-peat?

[MEB2kDeez]

So winning in the Finals is something to be frowned upon, there we have it

[knicksman]

You bran stans love fg% and efficiency so much so we gave you a taste of your own medicine.

[knicksman]

Usually, statpadders are losers(see wilt,oscar, and even west). So if you wanna bring up stats to prove that bran>kobe then we too will bring up a stat(2/6, 5/7)to counter your arguments. Its that simple.

[plowking]

Stop avoiding what question? Some huge leap of logic that you are reaching for because you couldn't actually respond to my original post without melting down and bringing up tons of hypotheticals?

If I was going to compare the two I would break down each run, competition, level of play, etc. etc.

But a comparison of Magic and Kobes run has nothing to do with your thread, your question has been answered in this thread and has been thoroughly broken down for you.

Just because you're too dense to see that doesn't change the fact that your original question has been answered for you.

The question. Which is better? 5/7 or 5/9?

What huge leap in logic? It is a thread about finals winning percentage. You entered a thread I made lol... So answer the question which is 100%, directly related to the topic at hand. Which is better out of the two? Don't avoid it. :oldlol:

What hypotheticals am I bringing up when asking you in particular the question? I am talking to others in this thread as well, not just you. I'm asking about finals win percentage and if it is important. Then I ask you which is better and gave you two options. Answer the question if you want, or don't. I can see why you wouldn't want to as it doesn't fit with the rest of your agenda.

In what world does Kobe and Magic have nothing to do with this thread? They have plenty to do with it. They are guys that have been to the finals, and both won and lost.

[plowking]

So winning in the Finals is something to be frowned upon, there we have it

Where was that mentioned in the thread? The question indirectly asks another question. Essentially asking is it better to not make the finals at all, then to make it and lose.

Would you rather make the finals every year and only win 5. Or would you rather make the finals only 5 times and win all 5?

[Stringer Bell]

There's a certain mystique that goes with players like Michael Jordan and Joe Montana that they always won at the championship/Super Bowl level. Montana has video game numbers in the Super Bowl, his stats are crazy. It shows their ability (and their team's ability) to rise and come through in the biggest of all games.

But I agree than in itself, getting to the Finals/Super Bowl and losing there is better than losing in the conference semifinals or conference finals or whatever. Obviously everything has to be taken into context and each situation is different.

The 1983 49ers were the underdog against the 14-2 Redskins in the NFC Championship. They were losing 21-0, then came back to tie it 21-21, and lost 24-21 on some controversial calls. The Redskins ended up being upset against the Raiders in the Super Bowl, 38-9. Just dominated by the Raiders. It the 49ers had beaten Washington and then lost to LA in the Super Bowl, Montana would be 4-1 in the SB, and in some ways he'd lose some of the mystique based on the fact that he and the team had actually made a great comeback and upset the Redskins the game before.

A little unfair, but that's the way it is. Let's say Jordan and the Bulls were able to pull off another upset in the 89' ECF against the Pistons (they were up 2-1 at one point). The Lakers had gone 11-0 in the postseason, but Pat Riley put them on a mini-camp before the finals, overworking them, and Scott was lost for the series, then Magic tore his hamstring in game 2. Hypothetically let's say the Lakers stay healthy and beat the Bulls in the finals. Jordan wouldn't have his undefeated finals record, but he would deserve a ton of credit for leading a less talented Bulls team that far. Hell, the Bulls were not even expected to get out of the first round, but they upset both the Cavs and the Knicks.

Magic's finals record fell from 5-3 to 5-4 after the 1991 playoffs, but the Lakers were an underdog against a more talented Blazers team, and beat them before losing in the finals to the Bulls. Magic deserves a lot of credit for leading the Lakers that far even if his finals winning percentage went from .625 to .555. Say Kobe had led the 2012 Lakers to a win over a more talented Thunder team, then lost in the finals to the Heat. He would deserve praise for getting to the finals even if his finals winning percentage went down.

Naturally LeBron will come up in this debate. The 2007 Finals loss came as a result of the Cavs going farther than expected and LeBron having an epic game 5. If LeBron doesn't go bananas in that game, Cleveland probably loses again to Detroit. I don't hold that against him for the Cavs overachieving that year and making the finals and being swept by a far better Spurs team. LeBron struggled in those Finals, but 2011 was way worse. That was a very winnable series, and LeBron choked big-time. He was far less than productive than usual, did squat in the 4th quarters, and 3 of the 4 losses were still up for grabs going into the last minute (including the game 2 collapse).

Everyone is so extreme with players, especially LeBron, it's so much praise for the repeated finals experience or all bashing because the East is weaker. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It's still a very impressive achievement to win 6 straight conference finals, but not nearly as impressive as doing it in the West.

[LAZERUSS]

There's a certain mystique that goes with players like Michael Jordan and Joe Montana that they always won at the championship/Super Bowl level. Montana has video game numbers in the Super Bowl, his stats are crazy. It shows their ability (and their team's ability) to rise and come through in the biggest of all games.

But I agree than in itself, getting to the Finals/Super Bowl and losing there is better than losing in the conference semifinals or conference finals or whatever. Obviously everything has to be taken into context and each situation is different.

The 1983 49ers were the underdog against the 14-2 Redskins in the NFC Championship. They were losing 21-0, then came back to tie it 21-21, and lost 24-21 on some controversial calls. The Redskins ended up being upset against the Raiders in the Super Bowl, 38-9. Just dominated by the Raiders. It the 49ers had beaten Washington and then lost to LA in the Super Bowl, Montana would be 4-1 in the SB, and in some ways he'd lose some of the mystique based on the fact that he and the team had actually made a great comeback and upset the Redskins the game before.

A little unfair, but that's the way it is. Let's say Jordan and the Bulls were able to pull off another upset in the 89' ECF against the Pistons (they were up 2-1 at one point). The Lakers had gone 11-0 in the postseason, but Pat Riley put them on a mini-camp before the finals, overworking them, and Scott was lost for the series, then Magic tore his hamstring in game 2. Hypothetically let's say the Lakers stay healthy and beat the Bulls in the finals. Jordan wouldn't have his undefeated finals record, but he would deserve a ton of credit for leading a less talented Bulls team that far. Hell, the Bulls were not even expected to get out of the first round, but they upset both the Cavs and the Knicks.

Magic's finals record fell from 5-3 to 5-4 after the 1991 playoffs, but the Lakers were an underdog against a more talented Blazers team, and beat them before losing in the finals to the Bulls. Magic deserves a lot of credit for leading the Lakers that far even if his finals winning percentage went from .625 to .555. Say Kobe had led the 2012 Lakers to a win over a more talented Thunder team, then lost in the finals to the Heat. He would deserve praise for getting to the finals even if his finals winning percentage went down.

Naturally LeBron will come up in this debate. The 2007 Finals loss came as a result of the Cavs going farther than expected and LeBron having an epic game 5. If LeBron doesn't go bananas in that game, Cleveland probably loses again to Detroit. I don't hold that against him for the Cavs overachieving that year and making the finals and being swept by a far better Spurs team. LeBron struggled in those Finals, but 2011 was way worse. That was a very winnable series, and LeBron choked big-time. He was far less than productive than usual, did squat in the 4th quarters, and 3 of the 4 losses were still up for grabs going into the last minute (including the game 2 collapse).



Montana had his share of playoff failures too...three straight miserable performances, and later on a 4th...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198512290nyg.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198701040nyg.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198801090sfo.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199401230buf.htm

Played poorly in the first one, while "leading" his team to 3 pts; Knocked out in the second one while being blown out 28-3 at the time; and BENCHED in the third and fourth games for doing absolutely nothing.





His career playoff record is 16-7.

[Stringer Bell]

Montana had his share of playoff failures too...three straight miserable performances, and later on a 4th...

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198512290nyg.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198701040nyg.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198801090sfo.htm

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199401230buf.htm

Played poorly in the first one, while "leading" his team to 3 pts; Knocked out in the second one while being blown out 28-3 at the time; and BENCHED in the third and fourth games for doing absolutely nothing.

His career playoff record is 16-7.

He got a concussion in the last one against Buffalo. He wasn't playing well up to that point and the Chiefs were overmatched, but it wasn't a benching. I don't think they would have trusted old Dave Krieg any more than old Montana. Montana did have 2 good come-from-behind games before that against the Steelers and Oilers. He took a pounding against Buddy Ryan's Oilers but the Chiefs rallied. Those were fun to watch games although the AFC back then sort of like the NBA's Eastern Conference of the past 17 years.

He actually got knocked out of 2 playoff games against the Giants on some brutal hits by Jim Hurt (his future teammate) and Leonard Marshall.

The loss to the Vikings was one of the worst games Montana played ever. It was a huge upset, and led to the QB controversy with Steve Young. Young played much better in that game against the Vikings, but the deficit was too large to overcome. Montana had played poorly in 3 straight postseason losses, and the one against Minnesota was huge because the 49ers were by far the best team in the regular season. It wasn't like the 1986 season where the Giants were way better than the Niners.

Then the 49ers started off 6-5 in 1988 and Montana was struggling more with injuries. The late season surge that year by the 49ers was big for Montana. He went from being an injury-prone QB possibly to be replaced by Young to winning another 2 Super Bowls.

[LAZERUSS]

He got a concussion in the last one against Buffalo. He wasn't playing well up to that point and the Chiefs were overmatched, but it wasn't a benching. I don't think they would have trusted old Dave Krieg any more than old Montana. Montana did have 2 good come-from-behind games before that against the Steelers and Oilers. He took a pounding against Buddy Ryan's Oilers but the Chiefs rallied. Those were fun to watch games although the AFC back then sort of like the NBA's Eastern Conference of the past 17 years.

He actually got knocked out of 2 playoff games against the Giants on some brutal hits by Jim Hurt (his future teammate) and Leonard Marshall.

The loss to the Vikings was one of the worst games Montana played ever. It was a huge upset, and led to the QB controversy with Steve Young. Young played much better in that game against the Vikings, but the deficit was too large to overcome. Montana had played poorly in 3 straight postseason losses, and the one against Minnesota was huge because the 49ers were by far the best team in the regular season. It wasn't like the 1986 season where the Giants were way better than the Niners.

Then the 49ers started off 6-5 in 1988 and Montana was struggling more with injuries. The late season surge that year by the 49ers was big for Montana. He went from being an injury-prone QB possibly to be replaced by Young to winning another 2 Super Bowls.

My point was that almost everyone points to his 4-0 record in his SB's, but ignore some of his playoff failures. Having said that, though, he is a Top-5 QB, and has a case for #1.

I realize that this is an NBA forum, but since we have mentioned great QBs...I grew up in the 60's, and virtually in every game that Unitas played in in that decade, he was always held reverently. But the reality was, he was a HUGE choker in the entire decade, and even into the early 70's. Was horrific in every big regular season, or post-season game in which he played...including a SB win (in which he was benched at halftime.)

Meanwhile, you very seldom read much about Bart Starr, who was magnificent in every post-season game. In fact, last I checked, he still had the highest QB rating in NFL post-season history.

Which brings me to John Elway. Again...when someone brings up Elway, he is considered this "clutch" leader...who in fact, routinely had post-season flop jobs. Even in "the Drive", he led a 5 minute drive that simply tied the score. But, lost in that comeback, was the fact that he had been just awful in the first 55 minutes of that game. Hell, even in his first SB win, at the time he had the lowest rating ever by a SB QB.

In any case, these "heroes" often have had their share of choke jobs.

[Stringer Bell]

My point was that almost everyone points to his 4-0 record in his SB's, but ignore some of his playoff failures. Having said that, though, he is a Top-5 QB, and has a case for #1.

I realize that this is an NBA forum, but since we have mentioned great QBs...I grew up in the 60's, and virtually in every game that Unitas played in in that decade, he was always held reverently. But the reality was, he was a HUGE choker in the entire decade, and even into the early 70's. Was horrific in every big regular season, or post-season game in which he played...including a SB win (in which he was benched at halftime.)

Meanwhile, you very seldom read much about Bart Starr, who was magnificent in every post-season game. In fact, last I checked, he still had the highest QB rating in NFL post-season history.

Which brings me to John Elway. Again...when someone brings up Elway, he is considered this "clutch" leader...who in fact, routinely had post-season flop jobs. Even in "the Drive", he led a 5 minute drive that simply tied the score. But, lost in that comeback, was the fact that he had been just awful in the first 55 minutes of that game. Hell, even in his first SB win, at the time he had the lowest rating ever by a SB QB.

In any case, these "heroes" often have had their share of choke jobs.

That's the way most athletes are. They're gonna have their ups and downs, and only the real nerds/historians will remember all of them. Most people will just remember a select few, the ones that always get talked about on highlight videos.

Elway also played poorly in his first Super Bowl win. Everyone yaps about his helicopter play, but he was mediocre at best throughout the game and almost cost Denver dearly with a dumb INT deep in Packer territory. He played like that whole "game manager" role that people bash a lot, and fortunately for him Terrell Davis had an awesome game. Elway did play a good game in his last career game, the SB win over Atlanta, but that was really his only good SB performance in 5 tries.