2015 NBA Playoffs

[gregbroncs]

let's say bron forces game 7 and lost in a close game while putting up 40/12/10 series average with 42% fg. do you really think voters will vote iggy over bron? i don't think so. bron did get 4 votes out of 11 even with so-so performance in game 6. and his overall number took a hit with poor game 4.

it really could happen if the series is about a complete team vs. 1 man show.

I'm not going to guess the votes of the guys who vote. But I think they would be wrong if they did. Again he was the best player in the series. But bottom line is that your value for the series is diminished if you lose. I can't understand why it's even a debate. The award is not best player, it's not for the best stats. It's for the Most VALUABLE Player.
.
I agree it could happen. But it shouldn't, not ever, and the one time it did it shouldn't have.

 

[carolinajazz]

Again he was the best player, though really inefficient.

...best player though "inefficient"? Say what???

 

[LogGrad98]

A member of the losing team should never get MVP, no maybe.

Can you Imagine Lebron head hung low being called up to the podium surrounded by celebrating Warriors to accept the MVP. That would be dumb.

Those of us who do not worship LeBron would have found that humorous indeed.

 

[LogGrad98]

And it was wrong then and that is why they have never done it again. It's not the MVP for a given team, It's the MVP of the series. And to win that you should be valuable enough to actually win the series. Again he was the best player, though really inefficient. But he lost, my statement is fair. Win or you can not be the MVP of a series.

I firmly disagree. If this is the case then it really isn't an MVP award, it is a best player on the winning team award.

If your team is gutted of talent due to injury and you put up a performance for the ages to make it competitive you are the most valuable player in the series. Period. The situation matters too. If the team had been fully functional and still lost the same way with LeBron putting up the same numbers then I am fully on board, but you have to take it on a case by case basis or it isn't legitimate. Just call it a most valuable player on the winning team award and that's fine. But you can in no way say it reflected the best player in the series if the best player cannot win it. The regular season MVP is not always the best player on the best team. It is the player that most impact his team's success. You cannot argue that LeBron was not the most valuable of any player on either team in the series. Take him away and it is a 4 game series with 30 pt blow-outs. Take away Iggy and the Warriors still probably win. Take away even Curry and they still have a shot. Take away LeBron and there is no chance in hell that Cavs team wins even one game, maybe even not a single quarter.

I guess it depends on your definition of "most valuable".

 

[moevillini]

How's this for a solution - two awards!
One is a Finals MVP that is awarded at the end of the final game, and the other is a Playoff MVP announced a day or two later.

Might be the same player winning both but maybe not.

Works for me.

 

[fishonjazz]

I firmly disagree. If this is the case then it really isn't an MVP award, it is a best player on the winning team award.

If your team is gutted of talent due to injury and you put up a performance for the ages to make it competitive you are the most valuable player in the series. Period. The situation matters too. If the team had been fully functional and still lost the same way with LeBron putting up the same numbers then I am fully on board, but you have to take it on a case by case basis or it isn't legitimate. Just call it a most valuable player on the winning team award and that's fine. But you can in no way say it reflected the best player in the series if the best player cannot win it. The regular season MVP is not always the best player on the best team. It is the player that most impact his team's success. You cannot argue that LeBron was not the most valuable of any player on either team in the series. Take him away and it is a 4 game series with 30 pt blow-outs. Take away Iggy and the Warriors still probably win. Take away even Curry and they still have a shot. Take away LeBron and there is no chance in hell that Cavs team wins even one game, maybe even not a single quarter.

I guess it depends on your definition of "most valuable".

Iawtp

 

[Fabtrey]

I'm not going to guess the votes of the guys who vote. But I think they would be wrong if they did. Again he was the best player in the series. But bottom line is that your value for the series is diminished if you lose. I can't understand why it's even a debate. The award is not best player, it's not for the best stats. It's for the Most VALUABLE Player.
.
I agree it could happen. But it shouldn't, not ever, and the one time it did it shouldn't have.

or your value for the series goes up sky high if you really are a 1 man show who took his awful team to game 7 and loses in a heartbreaking OT while putting up 45/13/10/4/3 50% 40% 90% for the entire series and he is not a reason why they lost. he is the reason why they weren't getting blown out by 30pts. and other team is the ultimate team with no obvious mvp - 10 deep team with nobody playing more than 30 min/15pts.

will we ever see that kinda player? probably not in my life time. that player is basically this year's Bron + MJ with 40% 3pt shooting ability. and this year's bron had a chance to make this happen if he wasn't so bad at shooting the ball from outside.

and this player would rewrite the word 'value'. and yes, it's for the MOST VALUABLE PLAYER, not MOST VALUABLE PLAYER FROM WINNING TEAM.

 

[Fabtrey]

A member of the losing team should never get MVP, no maybe.

Can you Imagine Lebron head hung low being called up to the podium surrounded by celebrating Warriors to accept the MVP. That would be dumb.

or maybe bron is a gracious loser and just congrats the winning team and entire warriors and the fans give bron a standing ovation.


this year's bron came really close. i just think he blew his load in game 3. and then 1 day rest between game 3 and 4 really hurt his chance. his leg wasn't there in his jumpers in game 6. kerr changing the lineup changed everything.

 

[Ron Mexico]

i just think he blew his load in game 3.

Same game as the dick flash?

 

[gregbroncs]

I firmly disagree. If this is the case then it really isn't an MVP award, it is a best player on the winning team award.

If your team is gutted of talent due to injury and you put up a performance for the ages to make it competitive you are the most valuable player in the series. Period. The situation matters too. If the team had been fully functional and still lost the same way with LeBron putting up the same numbers then I am fully on board, but you have to take it on a case by case basis or it isn't legitimate. Just call it a most valuable player on the winning team award and that's fine. But you can in no way say it reflected the best player in the series if the best player cannot win it. The regular season MVP is not always the best player on the best team. It is the player that most impact his team's success. You cannot argue that LeBron was not the most valuable of any player on either team in the series. Take him away and it is a 4 game series with 30 pt blow-outs. Take away Iggy and the Warriors still probably win. Take away even Curry and they still have a shot. Take away LeBron and there is no chance in hell that Cavs team wins even one game, maybe even not a single quarter.

I guess it depends on your definition of "most valuable".

We will have to agree to disagree. To me MVP should not lose, the value of their play was not such that they could win. I've already said he was the best player. And what he did was impressive. But I can't fathom a case where the MVP of a series was from the losing side.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

He lost. End of story to me. You are not the most valuable if you lose. Best yes, most valuable no. I'm not a LeBron hater, kind of like him. But he lost.
.
Also give him Kyrie and Love I still think they lose. I'm not sold those guys fit together all that well.

The problem with this is that it's a team game. If LeBron is playing with a bunch of shrubs because 2 all stars are injured, that is beyond his control. The Cavs had no business even being in that series, but where due to LeBron being such a phenomenal player. He deserved the mvp. Also, they should do away with regular season mvp and finals mvp crap. Just name the best player in the league as mvp and be done with it. LeBron is the best in the NBA, and it shouldn't even be a discussion. Giving these awards to other players is kind of a joke.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Same game as the dick flash?

Dick flash? I saw a wrinkled little thing in that game too, but I'm pretty sure it was actually Joey Crawford? You might want to take a closer look... or maybe not.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Dick flash? I saw a wrinkled little thing in that game too, but I'm pretty sure it was actually Joey Crawford? You might want to take a closer look... or maybe not.

Lebron definitely flashed his dick in this series. I cant/dont want to post a link or pic.

 

[fishonjazz]

Lebron definitely flashed his dick in this series. I cant/dont want to post a link or pic.

It looked like dried up white dog poop

 

[gregbroncs]

The problem with this is that it's a team game. If LeBron is playing with a bunch of shrubs because 2 all stars are injured, that is beyond his control. The Cavs had no business even being in that series, but where due to LeBron being such a phenomenal player. He deserved the mvp. Also, they should do away with regular season mvp and finals mvp crap. Just name the best player in the league as mvp and be done with it. LeBron is the best in the NBA, and it shouldn't even be a discussion. Giving these awards to other players is kind of a joke.

Yes it's a team game. But one guy in a basketball game can make a huge difference. I just can't get behind giving the MVP to the losing side. If Curry had not been in this series the GSW would have lost horribly as well. He was their best player and the defense by the Cavs was directed exclusively to stopping him.

 

[LogGrad98]

We will have to agree to disagree. To me MVP should not lose, the value of their play was not such that they could win. I've already said he was the best player. And what he did was impressive. But I can't fathom a case where the MVP of a series was from the losing side.

The problem with this is that it's a team game. If LeBron is playing with a bunch of shrubs because 2 all stars are injured, that is beyond his control. The Cavs had no business even being in that series, but where due to LeBron being such a phenomenal player. He deserved the mvp. Also, they should do away with regular season mvp and finals mvp crap. Just name the best player in the league as mvp and be done with it. LeBron is the best in the NBA, and it shouldn't even be a discussion. Giving these awards to other players is kind of a joke.

Again the differences are in the definition of the word "valuable". Does it mean most valuable to their team's success? Is it just the best player even if they don't impact their team's success as much as another player might? Is it the player that nets the league and their team the most money? To me it is the first one, most valuable to their team's success. I think during the regular season this year it was Curry, hands down, but with LBJ a close second. But in the finals that player was LBJ, no question. So it all hinges on how you choose to define the award.

 

[fishonjazz]

Again the differences are in the definition of the word "valuable". Does it mean most valuable to their team's success? Is it just the best player even if they don't impact their team's success as much as another player might? Is it the player that nets the league and their team the most money? To me it is the first one, most valuable to their team's success. I think during the regular season this year it was Curry, hands down, but with LBJ a close second. But in the finals that player was LBJ, no question. So it all hinges on how you choose to define the award.

Yep.

James was the mvp in the finals.

Curry or iggy was the mvp on the winning team.


I have no problem with the argument that the mvp has go to a player from the winning team though.

 

[gregbroncs]

Again the differences are in the definition of the word "valuable". Does it mean most valuable to their team's success? Is it just the best player even if they don't impact their team's success as much as another player might? Is it the player that nets the league and their team the most money? To me it is the first one, most valuable to their team's success. I think during the regular season this year it was Curry, hands down, but with LBJ a close second. But in the finals that player was LBJ, no question. So it all hinges on how you choose to define the award.

To me Valuable in a series means the most impact in leading to a win. So I completely disregard anybody who's impact did not lead to a win.
.
For example if LeBron had been more efficient in this series it's likely his team would have won. Not that it would have been easy, because after game 3, the Warriors entire defensive plan was to make somebody besides Lebron beat them. So I agree it probably comes down to the meaning you apply to the word valuable. In my definition a win is the 1st criteria.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

We could always give the MVP to the flat out best player on the winning team, which would have been Curry, but I just like the idea of Iggy winning it. Even if Curry shot terribly all series, they still would have won and he still would have been the best player on the team. If Igoudala doesn't hit his open shots and play amazing D, they lose for sure. I feel like the Warriors defense was much more important than their offense, so Igoudala's game became more valuable in the grand scheme of things since he kind of became their defensive leader

I always felt his presence and affect the game throughout the series. He, to me, was the key in slowing down Lebron and making him inefficient. Whenever they needed a big shot, Iggy seemed to come up pretty clutch (besides the FT's, lol). I didn't really feel that with Curry. I felt like Iggy had a bigger presence emotionally on the court for the Warriors. When he really got rolling, that got Curry going. Curry did a good job of burying the Cavs off the momentum that I felt Igoudala created.

 

[Douchebag K]

until this debate is whether Rudy is the finals MVP i don't give a fat rats clacker