In an award specifically designed to measure the impact of a single player? Yes they absolutely are. If I say Steph Curry is the MVP and you say James Harden is the MVP, are we not comparing their relative impact? That's my objection. Iggy had a great series. But LeBron put up literally historic numbers. It's not reasonable to say "well, his team lost, therefore he clearly doesn't have as much value as this guy who didn't even necessarily play the best on his own team." It's an absolutely absurd interpretation of what MVP means.
I'm not trying to erase anything but there's plenty of context to the 2 Finals losses with the Cavs. The 2011 loss is definitely on his shoulders although the Mavs were actually a pretty good team with excellent coaching.He made it to the Finals, didn't he? He's the "best player in the world", and is getting paid like it, right?
You just want to erase the 4 losses, or better still, the 2 with the Cavs?
Over recent decades in all major U.S. sports, MVPs very consistently go to the winning(est) teams. Whether it's the regular season award or the Finals award. The path to a Finals MVP in a losing effort is very unlikely, basically you have to put up insane numbers while the other team doesn't have a clear standout player. James may have put up some eye-popping numbers, but he did not shoot well in the playoffs or the Finals and he did have a relatively weak game 4.But why give the MVP award to the losing player on the losing team?
I recall James saying he wouldn't even want it if they lost. That could have factored into it.
Another BIG REASON Jordan is considered the best all time is because he had 8 seasons averaging over 30 points per game as a high-efficiency volume scorer shooting over 50% from the field, who could also rebound, and pass, and was the greatest defender ever at the position. If MJ had a career trajectory more like LeBron, where he doesn't get paired up with another top 25 all-time player in Pippen, and he drags a couple of overmatched squads to the Finals to lose to the Blazers or Jazz, does it tarnish his legacy? I don't think it does. Not with the videogame numbers he put up. Not with the highlight reel he was putting together every single time he stepped on the court. You could watch Jordan play and see that he was the best to ever play the game regardless of the outcome.
Magic lost in the Finals 4 times. Bird lost a couple. When great individual talent comes up against a great team, the team is going to win. That doesn't diminish the success of the individual. LeBron has shown that he's one of the best to ever play the game. And in a generation, no one is going to be looking at his record and saying "whoa, he lost 4 Finals? What a loser!" Just like no one does with Jerry West. Because it's an absurd argument.
Calm down, with THREE Cav's starters out the Warriors struggled to take down James + a buncha bench players. If Irving hadn't gotten injured no way would it have played out like this. Sans injuries they'll be back next year and kill whoever they face in the finals. Hell, with bench players they made a good run in these finals.
But why give the MVP award to the losing player on the losing team?
But I'm gonna call you on something. Iggy's RELATIVE impact was greater than James'.
James, while great, did NOT change the complexion of the series like Iggy did. The Cavs were winning the series UNTIL Iggy was starting.
I honestly think the Cavs were better with the injuries, as they played much better defensively and were able to control temp. If you have Irving and Love playing they aren't as good defensively, and you're not going to beat the Warriors running and gunning.
Warriors played pretty bad this series. Some of it was Cleveland's defense, but I don't think anyone played to their averages. Clay was basically a non factor in 5 out of 6 games.
Except when the Cavs took the series lead 2-1 solely because LeBron was playing like a man possessed? Let's not lie, the Cavs were completely overmatched... and they still stole one on the road and very briefly had a lead in the series. And they even managed to drag Game 1 to Overtime (but that was also cause Kyrie was playing well). A lot of people, myself included, thought, before the series started, that it would be a sweep or 5 games max. After Kyrie got injured in a losing effort, a sweep seemed guaranteed. LeBron James almost single-handedly willed his team to two games they had no business winning. So, no, Iggy didn't provide more relative impact. He just had better help.
Ok, but James kinda bagged it tonight, seriously, and if you watched the game, you'd saw that. He didn't play nearly as well as the first 5 games. He was passive (just like the 2010 Celtics series) and looked like he gave up.
So if they had a reason to give the MVP to Iggy, tonight was the reason.
Cavs were better without 2 of their elite starters, one of which who was an MVP candidate? LOL I've heard it all now, no just no. If that was the case it sure as shit doesn't say much about Irving & Love.
Well, no one under 50 ever watched Jerry West, so of course they don't make that argument.
People make that argument against Barkely and Malone, Ewing. I'm not sure you've been paying attention.
Well, no one under 50 ever watched Jerry West, so of course they don't make that argument.
People make that argument against Barkely and Malone, Ewing. I'm not sure you've been paying attention.
Ok, but James kinda bagged it tonight, seriously, and if you watched the game, you'd saw that. He didn't play nearly as well as the first 5 games. He was passive (just like the 2010 Celtics series) and looked like he gave up.
Well, there must be some reason he's the league's logo.
I dunno....
Well, there must be some reason he's the league's logo.
I dunno....
I agree that James had an off game (and he still put up silly numbers). He was completely gassed by the end. But the fact that an off game for James was 32-18-9 reinforces the point that without LeBron putting up 40 point triple doubles, Cleveland had no shot. He was pretty valuable to his team. You might say "the most valuable."
I agree that James had an off game (and he still put up silly numbers). He was completely gassed by the end. But the fact that an off game for James was 32-18-9 reinforces the point that without LeBron putting up 40 point triple doubles, Cleveland had no shot. He was pretty valuable to his team. You might say "the most valuable."
What? I don't think that's WHY he played like that. Dude simply didn't want to play a game 7 with this team, knowing he'd have to play like God with little help.
The same thing happened in 2010. He was exhausted, yes, but you can't tell me that he was tired the whole game, because he surely didn't look like it early, but he was looking to pass early as well.
I think Lebron kinda quit. Hell, no one's making shots, so what the hell?
I think it's a case of seeing what you want to see. He looked tired to me. Maybe he was just giving up. There was a sequence in the second quarter where LeBron had a couple wide open jumpers and clanked them off front iron. My immediate thought was "that guy has nothing left; even the simple act of putting up a jump shot he just can't quite get his muscles to respond any more." And he was shooting like that for most of the game. Looked like exhaustion, but it could have been mental. Who knows?
Yeah, Cavs should have just forfeited lol
Believe it or not, I didn't know he was the logo until this week...and I've watched the NBA going on 20 years now.
Found this chart pretty crazy:
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/X..._James_quote-578e75b88349197643d4161895de33db
And let's face it, those aren't easy minutes. Those are hard grinding, physical possessions that he is typically playing. Guy is a hell of an athlete.