No one ever "counted" losses until Lebron

[sdot_thadon]

It's completely relevant - you just don't want to hear it. You're trying to make the case that Lebron shouldn't be "penalized" for losing because he won a few times. And you assert that criticism for losing means he's being held to a different standard. I merely pointed out that your case is silly.

Jordan dropping 63 points while losing to Bird isn't the same as dropping 8 points while losing to the underdog. Unless, of course, you're a low IQ Bronie fluffer.

I have no clue how old you are but Lebron was being criticized long before 2011. And nah im all for blaming him for 2011, but at the same time hes done so much on the other side of the ledger that who effing cares? There's no competitor in any sport, in the history of competition that i can recall being called a loser that won 4 championships. Its retarded. He has more finals mvps than everyone to ever touch a ball but one guy. And you think he can somehow be seen as anything less than one of the greatest to ever do it?

[Soundwave]

Pretty sure Wilt took a lot of grief for losing a lot in the playoffs, ditto for Jerry West for that matter.

[StrongLurk]

Pretty sure Wilt took a lot of grief for losing a lot in the playoffs, ditto for Jerry West for that matter.

Lebron has 4 rings/4FMVPS, and there is still a large swath of haters who think Lebron is the biggest loser of all time because he has 6 second place finishes...unfortunately we can't fix stupid.

[sdot_thadon]

Pretty sure Wilt took a lot of grief for losing a lot in the playoffs, ditto for Jerry West for that matter.

Wilt took grief because he kept losing to a direct competitor, at his same position, one everyone knew he was better than. Also Russell ended up with 11, so "ONLY 2" was an acceptable reaction without context. And honestly it was silly then considering the talent Russell was surrounded with throughout his tenure. It would have been like Lebron losing to KD in the playoffs every year of his prime. Or Mj losing to.....Clyde i guess (crazy that he's the best direct competitor we can muster) Nuance is everything, but most fans only want to apply it to "their guy" and pretend they're still being objective....pretty much what this topic is about in a nutshell.

[Full Court]

I have no clue how old you are but Lebron was being criticized long before 2011. And nah im all for blaming him for 2011, but at the same time hes done so much on the other side of the ledger that who effing cares? There's no competitor in any sport, in the history of competition that i can recall being called a loser that won 4 championships. Its retarded. He has more finals mvps than everyone to ever touch a ball but one guy. And you think he can somehow be seen as anything less than one of the greatest to ever do it?

2011 wasn't his first epic choke - it was just the worst of them. He also had major chokes in 2007 and 2008, as I have documented in other threads.

So again, the criticism was merited. And when you declare yourself some kind of "chosen one", and THEN egregiously choke, you bring it on yourself. So stop acting like he's some kind of martyr.

[beasted]

Nah that part is definitely new. The people who actually remember Baylor always had him as elite. My stepdad sure did. The old guys never talked about finals record. Literally never. They might mention how many you won but how many you lost?

Never a real point till LeBron hit 2/5 and it became a thing on the internet.

Show me the rankings that have Baylor top 15-20 then. His stats unequivocally place him in that tier. If simply getting your team to the Finals was the litmus test for greatness, 8 Finals trips put him far beyond guys like Dirk, Hakeem, Dr. J, etc.

The guy holds the Finals scoring record to this day. If Duncan ever averaged 41 points and 18 rebounds across a Finals series many would call him the GOAT. And yet, NOBODY has Baylor top 20 because of LOSSES. Let's stop with the lying when it's convenient.

The answer is quite elementary: Losses mean something. They have always mattered the higher you go. When talking about Baylor in general without hesitation everyone would acknowledge he was an all-time great, first ballot HOF player. But, by contrast when you start trying to compare and rank amongst the best of the best, and take consideration as you measure successes and failures, the elephant in the room immediately becomes 8 losses and how much impact his stats really had if they resulted in Finals losses.

In the back of the mind, there is a subconscious revelation that said player was good enough to get their team into the race, but not good enough to be the best of that given season. And if a player repeatedly proves that he can't bring his team to be the best, then he as an individual player cannot be the best.

It's very simple deductive reasoning.

[StrongLurk]

Show me the rankings that have Baylor top 15-20 then. His stats unequivocally place him in that tier. If simply getting your team to the Finals was the litmus test for greatness, 8 Finals trips put him far beyond guys like Dirk, Hakeem, Dr. J, etc.

The guy holds the Finals scoring record to this day. If Duncan ever averaged 41 points and 18 rebounds across a Finals series many would call him the GOAT. And yet, NOBODY has Baylor top 20 because of LOSSES. Let's stop with the lying when it's convenient.

The answer is quite elementary: Losses mean something. They have always mattered the higher you go. When talking about Baylor in general without hesitation everyone would acknowledge he was an all-time great, first ballot HOF player. But, by contrast when you start trying to compare and rank amongst the best of the best, and take consideration as you measure successes and failures, the elephant in the room immediately becomes 8 losses and how much impact his stats really had if they resulted in Finals losses.

In the back of the mind, there is a subconscious revelation that said player was good enough to get their team into the race, but not good enough to be the best of that given season. And if a player repeatedly proves that he can't bring his team to be the best, then he as an individual player cannot be the best.

It's very simple deductive reasoning.

Baylor isn't ranked high because he played a million years go. He also NEVER actually won a ring. Lebron has 4 very dominant rings and has a FMVP next to each one.

Wilt/Bill Russell are just listed as token gestures, but NO ONE actually thinks they are still top 10 players of all time.

Comparing Baylor's situation to Lebron is nonsensical.

[Nowoco]

Wilt/Bill Russell are just listed as token gestures, but NO ONE actually thinks they are still top 10 players of all time.

100%.

[Kblaze8855]

Show me the rankings that have Baylor top 15-20 then. His stats unequivocally place him in that tier. If simply getting your team to the Finals was the litmus test for greatness, 8 Finals trips put him far beyond guys like Dirk, Hakeem, Dr. J, etc.

The guy holds the Finals scoring record to this day. If Duncan ever averaged 41 points and 18 rebounds across a Finals series many would call him the GOAT. And yet, NOBODY has Baylor top 20 because of LOSSES. Let's stop with the lying when it's convenient.

The answer is quite elementary: Losses mean something. They have always mattered the higher you go. When talking about Baylor in general without hesitation everyone would acknowledge he was an all-time great, first ballot HOF player. But, by contrast when you start trying to compare and rank amongst the best of the best, and take consideration as you measure successes and failures, the elephant in the room immediately becomes 8 losses and how much impact his stats really had if they resulted in Finals losses.

In the back of the mind, there is a subconscious revelation that said player was good enough to get their team into the race, but not good enough to be the best of that given season. And if a player repeatedly proves that he can't bring his team to be the best, then he as an individual player cannot be the best.

It's very simple deductive reasoning.

you’re talking about shit right now. Right now people talk about finals losses. The point is they didn’t used to. Old rankings always had Baylor and West Way up there. But it’s hard to say it’s just because they didn’t count final losses. When I first got here, Jerry West or Baylor would often crack the top 10 we were making And those being posted online, and books and so on.

but I was here A bit after 911 so those List didn’t have Duncan Kobe LeBron Curry and so on to consider. The top 10 list from back then pretty much Always had Oscar with West and Baylor also being consistently up there.

Of course, as time goes on people just fall naturally.

but I was talking basketball literally 40 years ago and listening to people have these arguments. People were simply not using final losses against people like that. Jerry West was considered maybe the clutchest player ever and no one brought up his number of finals losses to dispute that.

you can even read old discussions from here. I can show you some of those discussions. Nobody was listing finals losses. They were absolutely listing the number of times somebody won, but not how many times they almost won as a negative.

Great players in general are hated on a lot more than they used to be. 30 or 40 years ago you would read about somebody being a winner because they made the playoffs in 10 seasons and won four division championships. Fans these days don’t remember but being the division champion used to actually matter to people.

The standards have completely shifted to champion or being a loser. You’re free not to believe it, but old fans were not calling Elgin Baylor, a loser because he lost in The finals eight times. It just wasn’t a point being made. He and Jerry were seen more tragic figures for being on the wrong side of the Celtics. But they weren’t really being shit on.

Jerry took the losing incredibly hard while the fans praised him for his play. Those guys were unbelievably well respected in a way they absolutely wouldn’t be now.

[Kblaze8855]

To reference a specific list the slam top 100 all time from 2011? Baylor and West were 11 and 12 and that List included Kobe and Tim Duncan who pushed them out of the top 10 and obviously would not have been on the list in the decades before that. Those guys were considered elite for 50 years with eight finals losses. Plenty of people have better finals records in that time to go ahead of them if anybody cared to. It just wasn’t the deciding factor people act like it is now. It really wasn’t some big thing until LeBron lost his third one.

Him being two and five made it a discussion overnight. Nobody mention how many times Kareem or Magic lost in the finals before that. Nobody had a reason to care.

[Full Court]

To reference a specific list the slam top 100 all time from 2011? Baylor and West were 11 and 12 and that List included Kobe and Tim Duncan who pushed them out of the top 10 and obviously would not have been on the list in the decades before that. Those guys were considered elite for 50 years with eight finals losses. Plenty of people have better finals records in that time to go ahead of them if anybody cared to. It just wasn’t the deciding factor people act like it is now. It really wasn’t some big thing until LeBron lost his third one.

Him being two and five made it a discussion overnight. Nobody mention how many times Kareem or Magic lost in the finals before that. Nobody had a reason to care.

There's a difference between losing in the finals to a better team....and being the CAUSE of your team losing in the finals, a la Lebron in 2011.

[Nowoco]

It really wasn’t some big thing until LeBron lost his third one.

Him being two and five made it a discussion overnight. Nobody mention how many times Kareem or Magic lost in the finals before that. Nobody had a reason to care.

There's some revisionist history here. Like most negatives that come LeBron's way, he brought it on himself.

The reason everyone focused on his finals losses was because of leaving Cleveland (fairly or unfairly), the Decision and most of all, the "not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6" crap. No-one blamed the 2007 Finals loss on him and it didnt affect his legacy. It was only after he put a target on his back did the backlash come and it was fully deserved.

Then in 2016 when he was at his highest point, he had to come out later on and say that "it made me the GOAT". Just when people were giving him credit and all was forgiven, he again created his own negative narrative.

[beasted]

you’re talking about shit right now. Right now people talk about finals losses. The point is they didn’t used to. Old rankings always had Baylor and West Way up there. But it’s hard to say it’s just because they didn’t count final losses. When I first got here, Jerry West or Baylor would often crack the top 10 we were making And those being posted online, and books and so on.

but I was here A bit after 911 so those List didn’t have Duncan Kobe LeBron Curry and so on to consider. The top 10 list from back then pretty much Always had Oscar with West and Baylor also being consistently up there.

Of course, as time goes on people just fall naturally.

but I was talking basketball literally 40 years ago and listening to people have these arguments. People were simply not using final losses against people like that. Jerry West was considered maybe the clutchest player ever and no one brought up his number of finals losses to dispute that.

you can even read old discussions from here. I can show you some of those discussions. Nobody was listing finals losses. They were absolutely listing the number of times somebody won, but not how many times they almost won as a negative.

Great players in general are hated on a lot more than they used to be. 30 or 40 years ago you would read about somebody being a winner because they made the playoffs in 10 seasons and won four division championships. Fans these days don’t remember but being the division champion used to actually matter to people.

The standards have completely shifted to champion or being a loser. You’re free not to believe it, but old fans were not calling Elgin Baylor, a loser because he lost in The finals eight times. It just wasn’t a point being made. He and Jerry were seen more tragic figures for being on the wrong side of the Celtics. But they weren’t really being shit on.

Jerry took the losing incredibly hard while the fans praised him for his play. Those guys were unbelievably well respected in a way they absolutely wouldn’t be now.

I honestly can't believe you're trying to dig in your heels on this. All things in basketball have always been about percentages and averages. That's literally the basis of basically every basketball statistic -- how many positives out of a total.

You're really trying to sell me on the idea that win/loss records in the Finals is the one exclusion?

So, answer me this: Players since the beginning of time have been heavily judged for their Finals performance regardless of whether they won or lost. I can run through a number of critiques from decades ago, even against the winner. We even have an example in 2010 when Kobe not only won, not only won Finals MVP, but that made it his 5th title and even he did not escape criticism for his stats. This 2010 run was back when LeBron only had 1 Finals appearance to his name.

But, again, the criticism was not a new thing in 2010, I want to make that clear. I only use it as the prime example because it shows that even a great with 5 finals wins, and on the winning side of the equation was not exempt.

So, are you really trying to completely reimagine media history where negative criticism had always been socially accepted for STATS in a Finals, but actual LOSS of a Finals was NOT judged with any criticism and simply never existed? Do you not recall the heavy criticism Kobe faced in 2004 after being a 3-peater (this is even before LeBron ever had a Finals loss)? And you're still saying losses didn't matter?

If your answer is still that losing never mattered, I'll give it a rest, because there's no hope for you. It would either mean you've lied to yourself so long it's become your reality, or you have severe memory loss.

[beasted]

The other fact of the matter is, even if this is a "new" thing (which it's not), the fault is only on LeBron for creating this environment himself.

Prior to LeBron's decision to leave a 60+ win team, you could probably count on no hands the amount of times a player left a #1 seed that was offering them a max contract to stay.

Lebron is the one who assisted the media in defining success as championship or bust, and anything short of a title being evaluated as a failure.

[3ba11]

you’re talking about shit right now. Right now people talk about finals losses. The point is they didn’t used to.

Humans often get smarter with time, so now people realize that looking at a player's record against Finals teams (the best teams) is a good idea.

It's quite revealing given a sufficient sample size... For example, it's clear that a player with a 22-33 record (lottery record) against Finals teams produces weaker team ceilings than players that produced a 24-13 record in the Finals (MJ, Curry or Kobe).. The difference is ball-domination, since Magic has a losing 24-26 record in the Finals just like Lebron - essentially, ball-dominators have losing Finals records (Lebron, Magic, Westbrook, Harden, Luka, etc), while highly-assisted skillsets like bigs or jumpshooters produce more sophisticated ball movement and levels of team offense so they have winning Finals records (Kareem, Duncan, MJ, Curry, Kobe)... SGA is the first winning primary ballhandler in the Finals but he isn't really a high-assist player - he actually closes a lot of possessions himself via mid-range assassin, so he's more like Kobe/MJ despite his primary ballhandler role and low assisted rate.

btw, in addition to having all the winning Finals records, highly-assisted skillsets like bigs or jumpshooters are the 1st option for all the best teams, aka dynasties (3 in 5), or dominant title runs (1 loss average per round, 4 losses max).