LeBron's six consecutive trips to finals, Asterisk?

[dannyboy35]

I'll be happy when he's gone but impressive for sure.

[Surferdad]

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.

Yes, TP, thanks for coming to my defense.  My hate for LeBron has actually softened just a bit (not a lot).  I would add that whatever team he leaves gets worse too.  You really can't argue with the cause-and-effect.  That said, I do not feel LeBron is top-10 all time just yet.  Following on from MBunge, these 10 guys are ahead of him (in my book):
Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Olajuwon, Duncan.

[greece66]

I see 'asterisk' a lot these days and  I must say I am a bit puzzled.

Looks like a way of saying X accomplished Y, but it doesn't really count.

[PhoSita]

I see 'asterisk' a lot these days and  I must say I am a bit puzzled.

Looks like a way of saying X accomplished Y, but it doesn't really count.

That's exactly what it is, and it's silly.

But every attempt to provide context is not an asterisk.  Context helps us to better understand the true significance of an achievement.  That's a good thing.

[Mr Green]

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.

Magic was 5-9.

[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.

Magic was 5-9.

you are right he only lost 4 so Magic was 5-4 in the Finals.

[Grindfather]

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

 

It also means you had a 25% chance of being on a finals team. Those Celtics teams and players were amazing, but they only had to be better than the Warriors, Nationals, and Knicks to make the finals.

[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

 

It also means you had a 25% chance of being on a finals team. Those Celtics teams and players were amazing, but they only had to be better than the Warriors, Nationals, and Knicks to make the finals.

true


But i'd wager those warriors, nationals, and knicks teams had more contemporary talent than the eastern teams lebron has faced the last six years