LeBron's six consecutive trips to finals, Asterisk?

[GratefulCs]

Counterpoint:  Should all those Celtics players have an asterisk because there were only eight teams in the league?  No?  I didn't think so. 

It's kinda of a silly argument that any team/player should be forced to qualify their accomplishments in every conceivable way.  It's similar to how last years Warriors team catches crap because they didn't have to face the Spurs, Clippers, or a full strength Cavs to win the title.  Every team has to catch some major breaks to win a championship.  The '86 Celtics didn't have to play the Lakers in the Finals, still think that team is the best in history.  Bottom line: get outta here with your asterisks.

fewer teams in the league means it wasn't watered down

[Ed Hollison]

The word "asterisk " is overly harsh, but you have to acknowledge that this accomplishment occurred during one of the most skewed eras in NBA history in terms of one conference's domination over another. I think the Cavs were probably the 4th best team in the league this year after GSW, SAS, and OKC. And yet, they breezed to the finals.

The real potential asterisk comes years later, when it's revealed that PED use in basketball was rampant during this era, and that Lebron was a massive abuser. I just don't know when that report's coming out, but I'm certain it's in the pipeline.

[PhoSita]

Yeah, fewer teams in the league for the sixties Celts means the talent was more concentrated. In some ways that makes it more impressive.

But that's why you don't compare across eras. That was a different league.


As for Brons finals losses... I only think you can hold it against him to the extent that he lost series against lesser teams. I think the Heat were a more talented team than the Mavs. But they also stole one against a superior Spurs team in 2013.

In that sense I would agree you can't penalize him for the fact that he rarely faced any real contenders on his way to the Finals.

But to me that's the point here... Bron has made the Finals many times but his team has only been the best team in the league a couple times. Probably for more than a few of those appearances there was at least one superior team that got eliminated in the West by the eventual champion.

[Neurotic Guy]

If you consider Lebron to be a player/GM then he is perhaps not much different than Red who put together a super team that allowed for 8 consecutive championships and 11/13.  Shaq, as a lesser version of player/GM, elected to take less money so that one team in the NBA would have the top 2 players in the league -- leading to what probably would have been  6 straight finals had he stayed in LA. 

Lebron is a top 5 of all-time and requires no mitigating asterisk.  If he'd formed a super team with the Celtics we'd have a thread right now debating whether he, Russell or Bird should get first billing on the C's Mt. Rushmore.

[MBunge]

Lebron is a top 5 of all-time

Jordan.  Russell.  Magic.  Bird.  Duncan.  Shaq.  Kobe.  Kareem.  What possible basketball argument do you make to put LeBron above any of those guys?  Stats?  Well, that then brings in a whole ' nother class of players like Wilt and Oscar Robertson.  And Curry's just entering his prime with a stacked team around him.

This is the problem with LeBron.  He was declared and given credit as an all-time great before he did a thing and now that it looks like he's going to fall a bit short of the elite of the elite, the excuses come out because people think LeBron is entitled to greatness even if he doesn't really earn it.

Mike

[celticsclay]

Lebron is a top 5 of all-time

Jordan.  Russell.  Magic.  Bird.  Duncan.  Shaq.  Kobe.  Kareem.  What possible basketball argument do you make to put LeBron above any of those guys?  Stats?  Well, that then brings in a whole ' nother class of players like Wilt and Oscar Robertson.  And Curry's just entering his prime with a stacked team around him.

This is the problem with LeBron.  He was declared and given credit as an all-time great before he did a thing and now that it looks like he's going to fall a bit short of the elite of the elite, the excuses come out because people think LeBron is entitled to greatness even if he doesn't really earn it.

Mike

I agree he is definitely not there yet. You almost wonder how many titles a player like Barkley would have won if played 4 years with John Stockton and Dikembe 
Fact is Lebron played 4 years in his prime with a top 50 player of all time and a legit all star in bosh. Tons of players including Ewing, David Robinson (till his final year), Gary Payton, Reggie Miller etc never had that. Heck Malone and Stockton could have won a few titles with a third star.

[RockinRyA]

Eh, I don't know about that. But if he ends up 2 for 7 in the Finals after this year, then it will seriously harm his legacy as one of the all-time greats, especially after him hand picking teams like he has.

Jerry West went 1-for-8 in Finals.  Is his legacy diminished? 

EDIT:  Beaten to the punch.

No, but Jerry West isn't considered GOAT by people.

No asterisk, and I think he'll be considered a great player when all is said and done, but imho he shouldnt be considered in the GOAT conversation if he goes 2 for 7 while picking his own team.

[TheSundanceKid]

It surely has to be mentioned that he didn't have to beat a single team with a strong chance at winning a title to get there.

People never used to say that about Magic when he went up against Boston or Philly in the finals.

To answer the OP no it doesn't diminish it at all. It's an incredibly good achievement. In some cases you can say he's dragged the teams further than they should have got. However 2 from 7 will not support his claims to be top 5 if he loses again this year. It's kind of like Wilt where he was dominant but rarely got past the Celtics. Sure you can call them top 5 and it be accepted but there are many more who would say otherwise

[Greyman]

He will be regarded as great, but nowhere near Jordan. 6 finals is shadowed by 2 wins, 3 will improve that if he can get the Cavs there. There is no point comparing him to the Celtics who played 6 in row. I believe there will always be a sense that he underachieved in the finals if he can't get one with the Cavs. That may be unfair but it is what it is. He has a bit of time to change things.

[Moranis]

It surely has to be mentioned that he didn't have to beat a single team with a strong chance at winning a title to get there.

I don't know about that Chicago was a 62 win team that first year in Miami.  That year they also beat a 56 win Celtics team in the 2nd round.  They took out Boston again the following year.  The next two ECF were against a very strong Indiana team.  Even last year, Atlanta won 60 games. 

The East isn't as strong as the West, but that doesn't mean there aren't good teams in the East or even teams capable of winning a title. 

[PhoSita]

I think that Bulls team was the best one LeBron has faced in the East during this run.

Even then, the Bulls lacked dangerous scorers aside from Rose. Still, that was a decent accomplishment.

As for beating a 56 win Celts team in 2011, I'm going to assume you havent forgotten that Shaq couldn't play and Rondo dislocated his elbow during that series.

The Celts the next year were a last gasp team that probably would have been run off the floor by OKC had they made it past the Heat.


The Pacers, Hawks, and Raptors don't impress me. Solidly second tier teams that dominated weaker opponents in the regular season with depth and balance. Not a threat to go far. Not teams we will be talking about years later in terms of what they were able to accomplish.


Its a far cry from 2008 when you had the new Big Three Celts, the Cavs, Dwight's Magic, and the former champion Pistons.

[PhoSita]

It surely has to be mentioned that he didn't have to beat a single team with a strong chance at winning a title to get there.

People never used to say that about Magic when he went up against Boston or Philly in the finals.

To answer the OP no it doesn't diminish it at all. It's an incredibly good achievement. In some cases you can say he's dragged the teams further than they should have got. However 2 from 7 will not support his claims to be top 5 if he loses again this year. It's kind of like Wilt where he was dominant but rarely got past the Celtics. Sure you can call them top 5 and it be accepted but there are many more who would say otherwise

What was Magic's record in the Finals, though?

If Bron had an easy path to the Finals each year but his team usually won when he got there, this would just be sour grapes. You beat the best in the other conference, that undermines the argument that your team wasn't actually very good.

But if you dominate your own conference and then get smoked in the championship, that looks more like you just came out of a weak conference and weren't tested prior to the championship round.

[TA9]

Where is the love for James Jones???

[Moranis]

It surely has to be mentioned that he didn't have to beat a single team with a strong chance at winning a title to get there.

People never used to say that about Magic when he went up against Boston or Philly in the finals.

To answer the OP no it doesn't diminish it at all. It's an incredibly good achievement. In some cases you can say he's dragged the teams further than they should have got. However 2 from 7 will not support his claims to be top 5 if he loses again this year. It's kind of like Wilt where he was dominant but rarely got past the Celtics. Sure you can call them top 5 and it be accepted but there are many more who would say otherwise

What was Magic's record in the Finals, though?

If Bron had an easy path to the Finals each year but his team usually won when he got there, this would just be sour grapes. You beat the best in the other conference, that undermines the argument that your team wasn't actually very good.

But if you dominate your own conference and then get smoked in the championship, that looks more like you just came out of a weak conference and weren't tested prior to the championship round.

Magic was 5-5.

James' teams have been favored just twice in the Finals though.  It isn't like his teams are supposed to win.  Favored twice (split them) and won once as an underdog.

[pearljammer10]

It adds, not takes away from his legacy. No matter where he goes, he makes the team MUCH better (championship level) and the team he leaves gets worse.

And why is hand-picked a negative? The fact that he is the de facto GM doesn't lessen his talent. Every team needs a GM.  Ownership still pays the salaries.  Geez, any excuse to beat on LeBron.

Counterpoint: When he left the Miami Heat they had just done four straight NBA Finals. This leaves a toll on the team. It can be argued that he took his tired legs to a fresh team that had been out of the playoffs for years, and thus had both the fresh legs and the hunger to make a run in the playoffs. This is quite different from taking the same team with the same tired legs and the target on their chest to six straight finals.

This is just grasping at straws to me at this point trying to further taint Lebron. I hate Lebron as much as the next guy. But he's been to six straight finals. Period. That's impressive.

Personally I think its even more impressive that he has done it with two teams, not less impressive. Just shows that even as the number one guy. Whatever team he goes to he turns it into a contender (yes with the help of other really good players).

Like I said I can't stand Lebron. I hope he never wins another championship. But six straight NBA finals is impressive and there is no reason to take away from the accomplishment despite the way you feel about him.