People often use Finals Record to judge players. Like “Jordan is 6-0 and 6-0 is better than 4-6”. While people have the right to free speech, that doesn’t mean that what they say isn’t stupid. 

Using Finals Record to judge players shows a lack of understanding of the game.

It Rewards you for Losing Earlier 

This is the classic rebuttal, and it is classic for a reason – someone that has a “perfect” finals record, had multiple seasons where they FAILED TO EVEN QUALIFY for the finals.

Jordan is “6-0 in the Finals” partly because he won every Finals, but also because he LOST multiple conference finals. 

If losing in the Finals is bad, then isn’t losing in the CONFERENCE FINALS or 1ST ROUND WORSE?

You have this idea that “The Finals is the ultimate stage, you gotta win it”. So what does it say about it that Jordan was losing even earlier?

Not every championship is an even playing field

This is the big one. People that use Finals records act like every NBA Finals is an even playing field where the player that “wants it more” can overcome and win. 

That isn’t the case, and it is very obvious that it has nothing to do with that. Otherwise, Jordan would have won rings every year of his career.

The reality is that the NBA is very deterministic. Certain matchups or outcomes are obvious before they are even played. There are matchups where one team was never going to win, unless they caught injury breaks. (Which is another variable).

Not every Finals loss is a screw up by the player. A lot of times:

• Some years, the best teams in the league are all in one conference 
• Some years, the best team in the league is a historically great team (a la 2017 Warriors), and there’s nothing that could have been done
• Some years, a player can overachieve with their team, and then lose a Finals that they probably should not have even made (2018 Warriors).

Michael Jordan stans – which Championship Bulls team did Jordan overachieve with? You guys keep saying that Jordan was so great because he was always the best player and he made his team the best, but it ignores that in a league with other players… sometimes you can run into a team that collectively is better. 

That’s what happened with LeBron in the 2010s. He may have been the best player, but what can he do when the Warriors literally have the two next best players ON THE SAME TEAM? 

It Makes Individual Skill Mean Nothing

If a player has an all-around great skill-set, and still won multiple rings – why should it matter that they lost 1 championship?

It treats it as if you are a nothing player unless you win – like you aren’t great until you win, which is dumb.

Was Jordan not a great player in 1989, before he won his first ring? Was he not great?

Conclusion

Rings do matter. Don’t get it twisted. Championships are important, and they should weigh into the evaluation of a player. But people adhere too strongly to the record.

What matters more is how well you played relative to the competition