What do you think of the statement, “The GOAT in basketball should have won more than 50% of the times he went to the finals” as a retort to people who claim Lebron is better than MJ?

I find that kind of a dumb measurement. Finals records were basically made to discredit Lebron – I have been following basketball for most of my life and I have never heard Finals records being used until around 2014 because that’s when Lebron went to his 6th Finals and haters brilliantly decided to turn what normally would be an achievement for any other player (going to the Finals) into a stain on his resume instead.

If Bron played in a weak conference like everyone says, then wouldn’t it logically make sense that he should be the underdogs in the Finals? The strongest team from the weak conference vs the strongest team from the strong conference.. who’s the underdogs here? So then logically, shouldn’t it follow that Bron should have a losing Finals record because he was the underdog most of the time and thus not expected to win? That’s what I don’t get.

Like.. this year Bron’s Lakers beat the Warriors against all odds (9 out of 12 ESPN analysts had the Warriors winning pre series) and then got swept by the Nuggets then everyone said Bron choked and got swept and I’m like.. why? He wasn’t supposed to make it there in the first place. And he was facing a 1 seed. Logically and probability wise it makes sense for him to lose, so why does he get more hate than Curry did for losing as the favorites? Its bizarre. Same with 2007, 2015, 2017, 2018. Those Finals he wasn’t expected to win and didn’t. It’s expected.

Now, the better case for Michael Jordan to be the GOAT over Bron would be: Jordan has a lead of 2 rings, 1 MVP, 2 FMVPs, 9 scoring titles, DPOY over Bron. That’s a whole hall of fame career over Bron. So that argument makes sense. But using Finals records as the argument? No, it’s missing too much context to make any sense.