2015 NBA Playoffs

[♪alt13]

No, Lebron did not play well enough to justify a MVP on a losing team. If he had done everything he did on super high efficiency, maybe. The way he played, shooting below 40% in key games, no way.

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.

 

[moevillini]

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.

good point

 

[gregbroncs]

Finals MVP has been awarded to a player on the losing team before, so it isn't out of the question, and the statement is hardly fair. LeBron was clearly the most valuable player to either team individually. Iggy was a cog in a machine. A cog that played very well yes, but arguably replaceable.

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.

 

[Fabtrey]

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.

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.

 

[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.