Can LeBron win Finals MVP (if Warriors win)?

[GratefulCs]

I'm not sure giving the series MVP to someone from the losing team is ever a good idea.

 

So it really is not the MVP but the MVP of the winning team in your eyes?

The trouble with MVP awards is that everyone defines it differently and their is no consensus on what constitutes the MVP.

this is gonna sound weird, but..

As valuable as lebron is to his team, if he wasn't on the cavs, they would have the same outcome of losing the finals (probably without winning a game though)


Without iguodala, the warriors may have lost

[bdm860]

I'm not sure giving the series MVP to someone from the losing team is ever a good idea.

 

So it really is not the MVP but the MVP of the winning team in your eyes?

The trouble with MVP awards is that everyone defines it differently and their is no consensus on what constitutes the MVP.

I wonder if it would change people's opinion if they called it the Most Outstanding Player award like they do in the NCAA, where I believe there have been 12 guys to win the MOP award on the losing side, though none since Hakeem in '83.  There's also several examples in the conference tournaments of the MOP coming from the losing side  (Big East: Johnny Flynn ‘09, Victor Page ‘96, Alonzo Mourning ‘92, Pac-12: Leon Powe ‘06, Salim Stoudamire ‘05, Big 12: Kevin Durant '07, SEC: Allan Houston '91, John "Hot Plate" Williams '86 - this is the most interesting one as his team wasn't even in the championship game!).

For those against the MVP coming from the losing team, if it was renamed/redefined as Most Outstanding Player instead, would you still be as opposed?

[Moranis]

James was the first player in NBA history to lead the finals in points, rebounds, and assists (not just his team, but both teams).  He edged out T. Thompson by 2 rebounds but had a sizable lead on Curry in points (59) and assists (15). 

[Donoghus]

For those against the MVP coming from the losing team, if it was renamed/redefined as Most Outstanding Player instead, would you still be as opposed?

Are we talking M.O.P of just the finals or expanding the award to cover the entire playoffs?

[D.o.s.]

You can argue that LeBron's relative worth was less than Iggy's, Moranis, because without Iggy the Cavaliers have a good shot at winning the series (particularly after game 4).

But, yes, definitely the most impressive statistical performance from a losing player in the history of the NBA.

[chambers]

Lebron James replecates Oscar Robinson and they give the MVP to a role player.

Absolute crap!

whoah whoah whoah




The big O shot 39%?




And besides, iggy held lebron to around 30% shooting when he was guarding him

It was 38%.  James was at like 44% without Iggy on him.  So yeah, Iggy did well, but it wasn't a herculean defensive effort as compared to the rest of his team. 

So for the record the Finals MVP did not lead his own team in scoring, did not lead his own team in rebounding, did not lead his own team in assists, or steals, or blocks, or FG%, or 3PT% and in fact only led his team in missed foul shots (he had 18 misses the rest of the Warriors combined only missed 26 the entire series).  The MVP was such a bad foul shooter that he had to be removed on offensive possessions so he wouldn't be fouled during portions of the game.  Yep, that strikes me as the most valuable player right there. 

And I know he got the MVP for defensing James, but as indicated above he held James to about 6% less shooting percentage and while guarding James, James still managed to basically average 36/13/9 in the series.  But he shot only 40% and just 38% with Iggy guarding him.  Yeah well the Cavs were 10 of 54 from the field when James wasn't in the game and just 37.5% overall.   That great defense on James and James still brought the overall FG percentage of the team up.

They might as well just throw away the Finals MVP by awarding it to Iggy.  A man who couldn't even lead his own team in any meaningful category in the Finals.  It is now a meaningless award.  I would have voted for James, but if you give the award to a Warrior it has to be Curry.  He was their best and most valuable player all season AND all series long.

couldn't agree more.
To take that squad of role players to 6 games was truly epic.

Lebron averages 36 13 8 and iggy averages 16 points, 6.4 rebounds and 4 assists.
I don't care if he shot 39%, he played 45 mins a game and mozgov as his wing man.
Iggy was MVP of the Warriors and they won.
Lebron was MVP of the NBA finals but doesn't get it because they lost. Lebron James overall effort was much more valuable Imo.

But hey, they cant give it to a losing team's player these days.

[kozlodoev]

Without iguodala, the warriors may have lost

Yeah, he did such a great job defensively that LeBron almost won the MVP while losing the Finals.

He was also so pathetic from the FT line (<40%) that the Cavs played hack-an-Iguodala more than once.

Please. That pick is horrible.

[D Dub]

Most Valuable Player

Definition of Value - relative worth, merit, importance

Definition of Valuable - having qualities worthy of respect, admiration or esteem OR of considerable use, service, or importance

Funny I don't see anything about winning.  At the end of the day Lebron James had by far the most relative worth, merit and importance in the series.  He also by far had the most considerable use, service, or importance and was worthy of the most respect, admiration or esteem.  Strange how people put all of these factors into something and don't actually look at the definition.

in my mind, value is wasted when the team loses.  it feels like the most value is captured by the players who delivered the win to their city. 

[bdm860]

For those against the MVP coming from the losing team, if it was renamed/redefined as Most Outstanding Player instead, would you still be as opposed?

Are we talking M.O.P of just the finals or expanding the award to cover the entire playoffs?

Let's say MOP of just the Finals.  NCAA tournament 6 games, Conference tourneys 4-5 games, NBA Finals 4-7 games.  That would be pretty apples-to-apples I'd think.

(Though I'm up for the discussion of extending the MVP award to cover the whole playoffs instead of just the Finals too).

[Donoghus]

For those against the MVP coming from the losing team, if it was renamed/redefined as Most Outstanding Player instead, would you still be as opposed?

Are we talking M.O.P of just the finals or expanding the award to cover the entire playoffs?

Let's say MOP of just the Finals.  NCAA tournament 6 games, Conference tourneys 4-5 games, NBA Finals 4-7 games.  That would be pretty apples-to-apples I'd think.

(Though I'm up for the discussion of extending the MVP award to cover the whole playoffs instead of just the Finals too).

I certainly think "Outstanding" & "Valuable"  are two different things.  I think there is little doubt that Lebron would've been the M.O.P. of these finals (heck, the entire playoffs).  Like D Dub mentioned above though, I find it hard to find someone most "valuable" if their team loses the series.  Where's the "most" value added in that?   To me, that's a simple concept to grasp.

I know there are some people kicking & stomping their feet about the Lebron thing but I also see the award going above just statistics and simply being the best player on the floor.  Especially when its a "Finals" MVP.  Lebron was valuable.  Just not the "most" valuable.  His team didn't win.

[Moranis]

Most Valuable Player

Definition of Value - relative worth, merit, importance

Definition of Valuable - having qualities worthy of respect, admiration or esteem OR of considerable use, service, or importance

Funny I don't see anything about winning.  At the end of the day Lebron James had by far the most relative worth, merit and importance in the series.  He also by far had the most considerable use, service, or importance and was worthy of the most respect, admiration or esteem.  Strange how people put all of these factors into something and don't actually look at the definition.

in my mind, value is wasted when the team loses.  it feels like the most value is captured by the players who delivered the win to their city.

but that isn't the actual definition of the word chosen for the award. 

[soap07]

Iggy, as great a series as he played, is the third best player on the Warriors. Third. Part of the Cavs game plan last night was to leave AI open and live with the results. When LeBron puts in record numbers and is far and away the best player in the series, I find it hard not to give him the MVP. It doesn't matter in the long run though.

[D.o.s.]

In the end it didn't matter because Game 6 was only competitive after the "most valuable" contributions from the referees and J.R. Smith. Cleveland's play (from all parties) certainly didn't deserve to be down 2 points at halftime and have the final margin of victory boosted by nine largely meaningless J.R. Smith threes.

That's my reasoning why James doesn't get the nod. Had it ended in five I would have given it to him.

[Vox_Populi]

Every year people argue about the semantics over the MVP and Finals MVP. And for 30+ straight season, no player has won the regular season MVP without being a top 3 seed. And no player except one has won the Finals MVP while losing. Since the award doesn't go the statistically most valuable player and clearly has undefined context  - namely winning -we might as well define the award by the overlying, overwhelming precedent.

Which means James was not the Finals' most valuable player, even if he was in fact, the Finals' most valuable player.

[GratefulCs]

definitely the most impressive statistical performance from a losing player in the history of the NBA.

lebron's legacy




Classic


Brings a tear to my eye