Can LeBron win Finals MVP (if Warriors win)?

[D.o.s.]

@Budweiser: Does this mean that only players who shoot well and often can be Finals MVPs? What about Regular Season MVPs?

@Donghus: Can we only give out the regular season MVP award to the best player on the team with the most wins in a regular season?

@Anyone who was alive and watching: Did Hondo really deserve the Finals MVP nod over Kareem,or did he get it "just" because the C's won the title? I think Kareem is an interesting case here, since he averaged 32/15/5 (which is, I think, the most outstanding Finals stat line from a player who didn't win the award), but I'm too young to have firsthand impressions of the series.

[celticsclay]

I will say Lebron is far and away going to be the most impressive 2-4 careers final player of any player in history and should we rewarded for that if the Cavs lose. I think they should consider a second place trophy named for Lebron if this trend continues.

[Celtics4ever]

I do think LeBron has been the MVP whether his team wins or not and I do not like the guy.   But truth is truth.

[Donoghus]

@Budweiser: Does this mean that only players who shoot well and often can be Finals MVPs? What about Regular Season MVPs?

@Donghus: Can we only give out the regular season MVP award to the best player on the team with the most wins in a regular season?

@Anyone who was alive and watching: Did Hondo really deserve the Finals MVP nod over Kareem,or did he get it "just" because the C's won the title? I think Kareem is an interesting case here, since he averaged 32/15/5 (which is, I think, the most outstanding Finals stat line from a player who didn't win the award), but I'm too young to have firsthand impressions of the series.

No, and I'm certainly not making that argument, either.  Anywhere from 4-7 games to 82 games is certainly a big leap, don't you think?

Also, how do you define "best"?  Does it have to be stats, cut & dried?

[D.o.s.]

No. My personal MVP take (and I know I've talked about this with you and others so this should hardly come as a surprise) is that it should go to the most indispensable player on a competitive team in a given year. That's the standard I hold for the regular season as well as the playoffs and the Finals.

I just think that the idea of "The MVP has to be on the winning team" is shortsighted, myself, and I cannot get around it from any perspective other than "this is an article of faith to the person posting as to how they feel about sports, and is inarguable on that front."

[Donoghus]

No. My personal MVP take (and I know I've talked about this with you and others so this should hardly come as a surprise) is that it should go to the most indispensable player on a competitive team in a given year. That's the standard I hold for the regular season as well as the playoffs and the Finals.

I just think that the idea of "The MVP has to be on the winning team" is shortsighted, myself, and I cannot get around it from any perspective other than "this is an article of faith to the person posting as to how they feel about sports, and is inarguable on that front."

To me, if a game has a defined winner & loser, than a delineation can be drawn about who is most valuable.  And I don't think you can be the "most" if you fall short of a win. Individual or team sport. In this particular instance, the line is drawn with even more description by being a particular series MVP.  I don't think its short-sighted.  I think its perfectly reasonable.  That's my two cents. 

[Vox_Populi]

If it was Bryant averaging 37 points on 33 shots - what would the perception be? I don't think it'd be very good.

[SHAQATTACK]

It's clear LeBron is the best player on the court . Very few games during the season he is not.

That's not what the playoff  award is about .  We knew that before the series began.


If your team didn't win , then what is good is the meaning ..MVP ...it's hollow ...so what ..you're the best contributor on a losing effort.  ....that makes no sense to celebrate or to rejoice about.


The MVP has to come from the victor .  It makes no sense to award somebody for playing hard , but you lost......I wouldn't want the award if my team didn't reach it's goal.

Warriors play a TEAM type of basketball, with many people touching the ball.   It's a team sport. Hard to pick a MVP .....there is no ball hog.

The Warriors play ball the old fashioned way ......a team ball.....with a coach that controls the team,  plays ,  not a display of DWade and James thug street pickup basketball in the NBA.

The MVP....if we must have one should be from the winner. 

[D.o.s.]

If it was Bryant averaging 37 points on 33 shots - what would the perception be? I don't think it'd be very good.

If you've got a boner for scoring efficiency and don't care about anything else, sure.

That said, if Kobe (who was suspect in all his Finals MVP wins away) was also averaging 12.4 boards, 8.5 assists with a 53% assist rate and a 7% Turnover percentage while playing 46 minutes per game... and playing the best defense on his whole team(by metric or by eye test) it seems utterly asinine to focus on 37 points over 33 shots.

[celticsclay]

If it was Bryant averaging 37 points on 33 shots - what would the perception be? I don't think it'd be very good.

that he is a chucker and shot his team out of the championship.

[Donoghus]

If it was Bryant averaging 37 points on 33 shots - what would the perception be? I don't think it'd be very good.

that he is a chucker and shot his team out of the championship.

Too bad he didn't do that when he went 6 for 24.  Ugh....   

[D.o.s.]

No. My personal MVP take (and I know I've talked about this with you and others so this should hardly come as a surprise) is that it should go to the most indispensable player on a competitive team in a given year. That's the standard I hold for the regular season as well as the playoffs and the Finals.

I just think that the idea of "The MVP has to be on the winning team" is shortsighted, myself, and I cannot get around it from any perspective other than "this is an article of faith to the person posting as to how they feel about sports, and is inarguable on that front."

To me, if a game has a defined winner & loser, than a delineation can be drawn about who is most valuable.  And I don't think you can be the "most" if you fall short of a win. Individual or team sport. In this particular instance, the line is drawn with even more description by being a particular series MVP.  I don't think its short-sighted.  I think its perfectly reasonable.  That's my two cents. 

It's more common in the NCAA and the international circuit, but watching a team with a much nicer pedigree stomp on an obviously worse team does not make me think "their best player must be the most valuable player for this series," particularly if the losing team is only fielding one or two players that are legitimately up to the level of competition.

I still want the Warriors to win this series, but James has been the most valuable player on the floor for either team and to discredit his performance because he's all on his own is 110% shortsighted.

TL;DR: Vince Lombardi is a useless barometer when it comes to actually evaluating the performance on the field.

[35Lewis]

Lebron is playing insane basketball.  He's shooting crappy but it's still impressive.

That said, do you think Lebron would want the MVP if they lose? It's like a consolation prize and if I'm Cleveland, it's a slap in the face. 

In other words, I wouldn't have wanted Pierce to win MVP in 2010 because it would leave a bitter taste in my mouth...not that it didn't already.

[Donoghus]

No. My personal MVP take (and I know I've talked about this with you and others so this should hardly come as a surprise) is that it should go to the most indispensable player on a competitive team in a given year. That's the standard I hold for the regular season as well as the playoffs and the Finals.

I just think that the idea of "The MVP has to be on the winning team" is shortsighted, myself, and I cannot get around it from any perspective other than "this is an article of faith to the person posting as to how they feel about sports, and is inarguable on that front."

To me, if a game has a defined winner & loser, than a delineation can be drawn about who is most valuable.  And I don't think you can be the "most" if you fall short of a win. Individual or team sport. In this particular instance, the line is drawn with even more description by being a particular series MVP.  I don't think its short-sighted.  I think its perfectly reasonable.  That's my two cents. 

It's more common in the NCAA and the international circuit, but watching a team with a much nicer pedigree stomp on an obviously worse team does not make me think "their best player must be the most valuable player for this series," particularly if the losing team is only fielding one or two players that are legitimately up to the level of competition.

I still want the Warriors to win this series, but James has been the most valuable player on the floor for either team and to discredit his performance because he's all on his own is 110% shortsighted.

TL;DR: Vince Lombardi is a useless barometer when it comes to actually evaluating the performance on the field.

Handing it to a kid going 26/5/6 on a championship team (assuming they win) isn't much of a slap in the face, though.

Is the Lombardi thing at me? 

[BudweiserCeltic]

@Budweiser: Does this mean that only players who shoot well and often can be Finals MVPs? What about Regular Season MVPs?

@Donghus: Can we only give out the regular season MVP award to the best player on the team with the most wins in a regular season?

@Anyone who was alive and watching: Did Hondo really deserve the Finals MVP nod over Kareem,or did he get it "just" because the C's won the title? I think Kareem is an interesting case here, since he averaged 32/15/5 (which is, I think, the most outstanding Finals stat line from a player who didn't win the award), but I'm too young to have firsthand impressions of the series.

I few both awards differently. In the Finals it has to be more results oriented than in the regular season, and by that I mean results in the win-loss column of a team.

That's the first part.

Secondly, no not only players who shoot well and often can be Finals MVP. I do think though, that shooting well is that bare minimum a player on a losing team needs to have in order to be awarded the MVP trophy over someone in the winning team (exceptions could be studied if the winning team doesn't seem to have a player that seems deserving of the award, not the case this time around). Doing a lot of great things outside of this is not enough for me. Worth considering, but I don't think that a poor shooting LeBron James is a better candidate for MVP as a losing team, if they lose, than what Curry is currently doing while winning.

For example, I think Iggy has been extremely valuable, and until a couple of games ago, I would've put him ahead of Curry as my MVP candidate if Golden State won, but right now Curry has gone and solidified it for himself.