Lord_Chief_Rocka
Superstar
All on real gm and Reddit. Not sifting through all my shyt. At least not now. Basically the consensus is 6-0 doesn't matter
So when did being the best loser become more valuable than winning it all?
- Thread starter Lord_Chief_Rocka
- Start date
onelastdeath
Banned
There's no argument for 3-4 being better than 6-0All on real gm and Reddit. Not sifting through all my shyt. At least not now. Basically the consensus is 6-0 doesn't matter
The argument is that it's better to lose early than to lose at the last minute
6-4 would be better than 6-0 though
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
All on real gm and Reddit. Not sifting through all my shyt. At least not now. Basically the consensus is 6-0 doesn't matter
If it's all on RealGM and Reddit, there's no need for you to make this thread on TheColi. I sense you're really just trying to
LeBron stans with a straw man.
He was to beat 1 team from the West that's the point
He plays one real series all playoffs
Which is the finals
He's coasting through the playoffs
Who cares? Beating the best of the west matters more than beating playoff scrubs if the West.
Switch the Cavs and the Warriors playoff schedule and that shyt is going exactly the same. The Cavs would ass-smash the Blazers and the Jazz plus beat the Spurs just like Golden State would.
All on real gm and Reddit. Not sifting through all my shyt. At least not now. Basically the consensus is 6-0 doesn't matter
No one argues that shyt. All other things equal, making the finals is better than not.
3-3 > 3-0
No because Bron does not have to go through the wear and tear of the playoffs he has it easy
Switch warriros and Cavs same happens this year because Durant fukked everything up
West is trash now too
In a vacuum, I've literally never seen anyone argue this, anywhere.
In context, it could "possibly" be right. Like, Bill Russell was 11-1 or some shyt, but 6-4 Kareem or 5-4 Magic are still way better. Because of teammates and competition and era and all that.
But if we're just talking straight up, like they played in the same era under similar circumstances on similar teams, then just about everyone would take 6-0 over 3-4.
But why does "did they make the Finals" decide whether the year counts or not?
Why do 2007 and 2015 count against, Lebron, when he had no business making the Finals either year?
But 1990 and 1995 don't count against Jordan, even though those teams had a good amount of talent?
Lebron wasted 8 years of his career on teams with absolute shyt talent, and still has 3 titles in 13 years. Jordan only had 4-5 years like that (plus 2 in Washington), made the most of the good years and the expansion era and has 6 titles in 15 years. Magic had basically zero years where his team wasn't stacked well, and ended up with 5 titles in 12 years. So you can't compare like to like. Teammates are different, coaching is different, competition faced is different.
Lord_Chief_Rocka
Superstar
The expansion era argument is so fukking stupid,especially since a huge part of the expansion was due to the interest Jordan responsible for creating.
And why do y'all act like he played played the whole season in 1995
Lastly, 1990 bulls were sooooooooooooooooo stacked with talent
.....1989-90 Chicago Bulls Roster and Stats | Basketball-Reference.com
954UAlreadyknow
All Star
NOBODY says thisNope I see 3-4 > 6-0
Cavs road to the finals last season = Warriors road to the finals.
All on real gm and Reddit. Not sifting through all my shyt. At least not now. Basically the consensus is 6-0 doesn't matter
This the type of nikka that will walk into Best Buy with receipts from Target trying to get a refund.
Lucky_Lefty
Dreams Are Colder Than Death...
This is the same era where a man averaged a triple double for a season and nerds couldn't type fast enough that it's the most overrated stat. Also, one title in Cleveland equaled 2 or 3 anywhere else. It's like living in an alternate universeAll on real gm and Reddit. Not sifting through all my shyt. At least not now. Basically the consensus is 6-0 doesn't matter