Between two players with an equal number of championships, whose record is more impressive: the one with fewer Finals appearances or the one with more?

[CandyCanes]

Should Finals appearances that don't result in championships count for or against a player's legacy? For example, would Magic's 5 for 9 record be considered more impressive than Duncan's 5 for 6 because he won three more conference titles than Duncan, or would Duncan's be considered more impressive since he only lost in the Finals once?
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

[the association]

My vote is for the player who had more NBA Finals appearances, and therefore lost more NBA Finals series, too ... I fail to see how being eliminated sooner in the season (or post-season) is a greater accomplishment, nor do I understand any argument for that position. I also reject conference arguments that some fans use to argue for devaluing a player's achievements in the R/S and postseason.

Jordan's 6/6 is impressive to me because he was Finals MVP each year, as well as the fact that he very likely would have eight rings and eight Finals MVPs right now if he hadn't retired for 1+ seasons in the mid-1990s. But Magic's 5/9 is generally more impressive to me (his opponents were better than Michael's opponents, too) ...

[CandyCanes]

[the association]

[lakersken80]

Magic unlike MJ didn't quit to take a year or two off....9 finals in 12 years is very impressive. The toll that takes on the body to play until June for so long is something that takes years off your career.

[SuperboyReformed]

i dont know why people insist on numerically figuring out if mj is better than magic or something. there's no way. the championships cant be used, nothing really can be used, because all the numbers have too many varying influences. you cant shortcut an understanding of basketball. you dont necessarily have to play, some guys just know without playing, but its VERY rare. i was going to say the van gundys but ive heard that even they can probably hold their own vs most casual ballers.

magic went to the finals almost every year. jordan did not reach the finals many of those same years, so theres that argument. jordan won all his finals, which is nice. but all that means is he lost in earlier rounds other years. why that is not considered in his perfect finals record is merely a marketing trick.

lebron has gone to a lot of finals. hes lost a lot. hes not nearly as popular as his predecessors like magic, mj, kobe, shaq. all arguments involving lebron are numerical, never about anything else. thats what he has going.

there are so many things making a numerical analysis impossible. like, lebron and all his stupid superteams. jordan not winning until the tail end of magic/bird. jordan playing with rodman, who kept him out of finals in earlier years. og dream team vs bronze. the insane amount of rule changes, i mean, its not even the same game really. its as different as horse is from 3 on 3.

my advice, if i may be so bold as to offer it, is to describe in words what makes one better than the other instead of just looking at the 6/6 5/9 numbers. what is there to say about that? this is all that can be said:
if you go by percentage, jordan is a higher percentage
if you go by number of appearances, magic has a higher number of appearances

neither of those tells someone which is "better". and im not being technical. its not even a little bit able to say that.

you can also say "The majority of public opinion would say that Jordan is the greatest ever." now that is technical. Jordan will say Kobe is better, and he says hes better than everyone else (like he will never say magic was better). Magic will say Jordan is better. Bird will say Jordan is better, and Bird also says Magic was better than him. Magic said Bird was better than him. Its sometimes difficult to separate what they are saying from just being polite vs whether they really believe it or not, but over the years that is what they have said.



for laker fans, its hard not to say magic wasnt the best (vs kobe). But we also know kobe is for sure a better basketball player overall, disregarding all those era arguments. big picture, everything being considered, its magic. magic played in the golden era, he was the reason for the golden era, he was the predecessor of not only the popular opinion GOAT JOrdan, but also the Laker predecessor for Kobe. With all those links, its hard not to see Magic as the most important character in pro basketball history.

[jodeke]

[SuperboyReformed]

[CandyCanes]

[activeverb]

[Mike@LG]

[activeverb]

[lakersken80]

Fatigue matters. You can't say they would have gotten 8 championships if MJ didn't retire....Remember when the Lakers looked invincible after they won 3 championships and then the next season got swept? Playing into June every season takes a toll on the players. Players bodies break down if they don't get adequate time to recuperate.

[SuperboyReformed]

[activeverb]

[SuperboyReformed]

[CandyCanes]

[lakersken80]

[CandyCanes]

[activeverb]

[activeverb]

[tox]

Depends on the context. For example, what LeBron did in 2007 shouldn't be held against him (except insofar to show the East has been weak for a long while). So if he were 6-1 in the Finals, I'd find that more impressive than Jordan's 6-0. On the flip side, going to the Finals and losing a team you should beat like the 2011 Heat did should be held against you, so if he were 6-1 in this circumstance, I'd find it less impressive than 6-0.

[jodeke]

[jodeke]

[jodeke]