James is the reason we even have a game 6 & 7. So there's value in that
what accomplishment would he be most valuable for? coming in 2nd place? they could come in 2nd place with him on the bench the entire time. they don't need him to come in second place.
and then if you say well they wouldn't have made it to game 7 or been this close to winning, or wouldn't even be in the playoffs without him, yeah you're right. but then we start to get into "participation" type levels of awards (and yes i realize it's not close to being a participation award, but you know what i mean).
It's called Most Valuable Player. Which he has been by far. If the scenario played out as I said, who for the Warriors would you give it to then over him?
I don't like participation awards, I think they're stupid. I can see where you're going with it, but I don't think it connects. He is the most valuable player (so far) no matter which team wins. This is a very rare stance for me honestly, but I also think so far it's the right one. I can't ignore how good he's been in the Finals.
Nobody cares about the loser.
There's really on scenario I can think of where this is really something we have to legitimately consider.
1) If Cleveland loses narrowly (say a point or two in last posession)
2) and Lebron has a monster game
3) and Curry has an un-Curry like game
If that happens, I think it has to be a consideration. It's game 7 and it's one possession margin of victory. How do you *NOT* give it to the guy that has set a historic level of play over an entire series? If the voters don't give it to him, then whoever gets it on the GSW side should man up and give it to the rightful owner.
Now if Cleveland loses by a lot, not even a contest.
If they win, not even a contest.
If GSW goes on and wins and Steph has somewhat pedestrian night, now you are running into an interesting discussion on the GS side. I personally think Thompson is their key player and the whole reason they even made it out of OKC. He's been the real motor and the only guy who is consistently trying to be aggressive. Unless Curry comes out and drops 40+ then I think Clay Thompson has to get it.
I'm a bit torn. While Lebron has outclassed everyone on the court this series, if he can't outclass them enough to win this last game, he didn't do enough.
I hate that mentality. If a guy goes off for 40 points, 10+ boards, 10+ assists, a couple steals and a couple blocks hits a go ahead shot to put them up and then a teammate fails a rotation or fouls on a 3 point shot to let the other team win...what more CAN that guy do? I mean there are 4 other players on the floor you play with. One guy really only can do so much.
yeah but the award isn't "who has the best stats in the series" it is for who is the "most valuable player". if your team can't get the W then it doesn't matter wtf you did because it was of no value to the end goal, which is to win.
In no way, regardless of what happens Sunday should Curry get the MVP though. I'd give it to Thompson over him. At least, Thompson played some defense.
Live and die by the 3. High risk, high reward. It's how they've lived all season. Chalk it up to overconfidence in a 3-1 series lead, the wear and tear of 2 back to back 7 game series, whatever - they better pray it comes together Game 7. Or have Green nutshot LBJ since there is no next game/suspension to worry about this time.
While you guys give some good evidence based on counting stats*, I actually feel Kyrie is right there over the last 4 games and the MVP race is obviously wide open with the Dubs. If anything, James should have won last year when he dragged a bunch of scrubs to the brink of a 3-1 series lead. His efficiency wasn't good and he eventually wore down, but IMHO he had a stronger case last year than now (admittedly with game 7 left to play).There's really on scenario I can think of where this is really something we have to legitimately consider.
1) If Cleveland loses narrowly (say a point or two in last posession)
2) and Lebron has a monster game
3) and Curry has an un-Curry like game
If that happens, I think it has to be a consideration. It's game 7 and it's one possession margin of victory. How do you *NOT* give it to the guy that has set a historic level of play over an entire series? If the voters don't give it to him, then whoever gets it on the GSW side should man up and give it to the rightful owner.
Now if Cleveland loses by a lot, not even a contest.
If they win, not even a contest.
If GSW goes on and wins and Steph has somewhat pedestrian night, now you are running into an interesting discussion on the GS side. I personally think Thompson is their key player and the whole reason they even made it out of OKC. He's been the real motor and the only guy who is consistently trying to be aggressive. Unless Curry comes out and drops 40+ then I think Clay Thompson has to get it.
That's a straw man. Nobody is talking about giving away a free championship to the loser of game 7 (or to Reggie Miller or any other retired player).But they are playing to win, not for stats. That guy who hits the 3 to win in your example has more value than the triple double losing effort. Why? Because they won. Winning > individual stats. This has always been the case, otherwise you'd see guys who have crazy good seasons on lottery bound teams get more MVPs. What good are all those stats when it doesn't win you the game? There's no value if the end result isn't a win. The NBA is no place for moral victories.
This isn't some little kids league where if you play good you get a prize win or lose. Hell no, this is professional basketball. Reggie Miller is a hall of famer who had an amazing career, but he never won a title. Does he "deserve" one just because he still had a great career? Nope, you either win it all and take home the trophy or you lose and get nothing. There are lots of other examples of amazing guys who played great but never won a ring, do they all deserve a championship? No, you have to actually win it.
The fact that after the 1st award was given to the losing player years and years ago and it never happened again shows that they learned their mistake.
It's called Most Valuable Player. Which he has been by far. If the scenario played out as I said, who for the Warriors would you give it to then over him?
I don't like participation awards, I think they're stupid. I can see where you're going with it, but I don't think it connects. He is the most valuable player (so far) no matter which team wins. This is a very rare stance for me honestly, but I also think so far it's the right one. I can't ignore how good he's been in the Finals.
I hate that mentality. If a guy goes off for 40 points, 10+ boards, 10+ assists, a couple steals and a couple blocks hits a go ahead shot to put them up and then a teammate fails a rotation or fouls on a 3 point shot to let the other team win...what more CAN that guy do? I mean there are 4 other players on the floor you play with. One guy really only can do so much.
in the case they lose, what is he the "most valuable player" at accomplishing?
Your last example is so idiotic that as vi edit said earlier, the argument ends here. Agree to disagree.I'm not saying is Lebron manages a quadruple double and loses that he isn't a fucking legend and the greatest player on the court. If he does that and still manages to lose by a last second shot or something, he isn't the MVP. Had he had just a slightly better (maybe missed two less shots), they'd have won. Every play has value in it. If Lebron has 100 points shooting 100%, 20+ of every other stat and they lose, he still wasn't the MVP. MVPs impact the game enough to win it.
I'm not saying is Lebron manages a quadruple double and loses that he isn't a fucking legend and the greatest player on the court. If he does that and still manages to lose by a last second shot or something, he isn't the MVP. Had he had just a slightly better (maybe missed two less shots), they'd have won. Every play has value in it. If Lebron has 100 points shooting 100%, 20+ of every other stat and they lose, he still wasn't the MVP. MVPs impact the game enough to win it.