PDA

View Full Version : How different would history look if we replaced The Finals MVP with a Playoff MVP?



Chronz
10-27-2012, 12:44 AM
Most years very little changes but you would see far fewer examples like Cedric Maxwell winning an MVP or Tony Parker. Perhaps you might even see guys like Worthy and Chauncey lose theirs.


Chauncey had a spectacular finals but you could argue that Ben Wallace was their playoff MVP, even Richard Hamilton as the teams leading scorer has a case.


Then you get to the big time debates, West vs Wilt. Shaq vs Kobe in 01. Manu vs Duncan 05. Pierce vs KG. Kareem vs Magic a few years. Do you see any change in history?

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-27-2012, 12:46 AM
Kobe 2001, hands down.


Oh, and OP, you mad brah? :eyebrow:

mvb815
10-27-2012, 12:48 AM
as long as it's still a player on a team in the finals i would be all for this

it would mean a lot more in baseball though

Andrew32
10-27-2012, 12:50 AM
Shaq vs Kobe in 01.

Not dissing Kobe but that isn't even close to being debatable imo.
The only one who think it is either weren't watching basketball back then or have their views/opinions tainted by bias.

Shaq was better statistically in 3/4 series and his impact that year went well beyond his stats.
Plus many other factors that need to be taken into account that widen the already noticeable gap.

It really isn't even close in my eyes.

Kobe has a fair/reasonable case for #2 but Shaq was far and away the #1 that year when looking at the overall playoffs or just the Finals alone.

People really forget just how Dominant Shaq was that year.

Rylz
10-27-2012, 12:52 AM
Remember, the Finals MVP doesn't even necessarily have to be on the winning team, though it's only been given to a loser once (Jerry West, 1969). Changing it from finals to playoff MVP could technically allow a player who lost in the conference finals to win. I can't think of any examples, though, of anyone who's been deserving.

seikou8
10-27-2012, 12:58 AM
Not dissing Kobe but that isn't even close to being debatable imo.
The only one who think it is either weren't watching basketball back then or have their views/opinions tainted by bias.

Shaq was better statistically in 3/4 series and his impact that year went well beyond his stats.
Plus many other factors that need to be taken into account that widen the already noticeable gap.

It really isn't even close in my eyes.

Kobe has a fair/reasonable case for #2 but Shaq was far and away the #1 that year when looking at the overall playoffs or just the Finals alone.

People really forget just how Dominant Shaq was that year.

wait your a knicks fan

Andrew32
10-27-2012, 01:04 AM
wait your a knicks fan

And? lol.

amos1er
10-27-2012, 01:13 AM
Kobe would have a great case in 2001:

West Conference playoffs (where Lakers faced their BY FAR the toughest competition):

Kobe (11g): 31.6 PTS (.577 TS%), 7.0 REB, 6.2 AST, 1.6 STL, 0.5 BLK, 3.0 TOV
Shaq (11g): 29.3 PTS (.558 TS%), 15.3 REB, 2.5 AST, 0.5 STL, 1.9 BLK, 3.4 TOV

The NBA finals where Lakers faced a pathetic team that would be eliminated in first round of West conference playoffs:

Kobe ( 5g): 24.6 PTS (.501 TS%), 7.8 REB, 5.8 AST, 1.4 STL, 1.4 BLK, 3.6 TOV
Shaq ( 5g): 33.0 PTS (.575 TS%), 15.8 REB, 4.8 AST, 0.4 STL, 3.4 BLK, 4.0 TOV

Andrew32
10-27-2012, 01:31 AM
The NBA finals where Lakers faced a pathetic team.

Kobe ( 5g): 24.6 PTS (.501 TS%), 7.8 REB, 5.8 AST, 1.4 STL, 1.4 BLK, 3.6 TOV
Shaq ( 5g): 33.0 PTS (.575 TS%), 15.8 REB, 4.8 AST, 0.4 STL, 3.4 BLK, 4.0 TOV

This "pathetic team" had DPOY Mutombo and the MVP Iverson.
This "pathetic team" is the only team that didn't get swept by the Lakers.

No team that makes the Finals is "pathetic" anyways.

Kobe put up his by far his best stats against the Spurs in the WCF who had arguably the worst perimeter defense in the entire league once Daniels went down with injury earlier that year.

So if you want to ignore what Shaq did against the defensive player of the year then you should also ignore what Kobe did against 6,3 PG Antonio Daniels and 6,3 / 38 year old Terry Porter.

Not to mention Shaq was getting constant triple teams while Kobe was facing mostly single coverage.

The fact is Kobe played poorly in the Finals and if not for Shaq's utter dominance Philly might have pushed them to 6-7 games or even won the series straight out.

Shaq was better statistically in 3/4 Western Conference Series.
Shaq was the Lakers defensive anchor and his defensive impact was far greater then Kobe's or any other Laker.
Shaq was the primary focus of the opposing defenses and kept them off balance which greatly aided Kobe, Fisher and the other Lakers.
Shaq was the one facing the constantly double and triple teams.

So please... Kobe was not the MVP of the Western Conference Series let alone the entire playoffs.

Chronz
10-27-2012, 01:32 AM
Not dissing Kobe but that isn't even close to being debatable imo.
The only one who think it is either weren't watching basketball back then or have their views/opinions tainted by bias.

Shaq was better statistically in 3/4 series and his impact that year went well beyond his stats.
Plus many other factors that need to be taken into account that widen the already noticeable gap.

It really isn't even close in my eyes.

Kobe has a fair/reasonable case for #2 but Shaq was far and away the #1 that year when looking at the overall playoffs or just the Finals alone.

People really forget just how Dominant Shaq was that year.
Im with you, but that was Kobes best year alongside Shaq so of all their years together this would be the one you would attempt to argue (you=prospective posters)

Chronz
10-27-2012, 01:33 AM
Remember, the Finals MVP doesn't even necessarily have to be on the winning team, though it's only been given to a loser once (Jerry West, 1969). Changing it from finals to playoff MVP could technically allow a player who lost in the conference finals to win. I can't think of any examples, though, of anyone who's been deserving.

Thats a good point, I was thinking of that but its really hard to remember such instances. I remember Duncan going nuts one year he didn't win. Shaq went off vs Detroit (offensively). Still the times have changed and we would never vote for a loser again.

Andrew32
10-27-2012, 01:44 AM
Im with you, but that was Kobes best year alongside Shaq so of all their years together this would be the one you would attempt to argue (you=prospective posters)

I agree with this I just don't think its even arguable to begin with.

That is just because of how great Shaq was that year and not because Kobe wasn't amazing in his own right.

Kobe was fantastic in 2001.
That was his best year prior to 06 imo.

Raidaz4Life
10-27-2012, 08:17 AM
If we did, I would make a case that you shouldn't necessarily have to make the finals to get the award which would make it a lot more interesting

I have never liked the notion of a finals MVP because it is too small of a sample size to award an "MVP" over.

Chavacano
10-27-2012, 08:56 AM
If we did, I would make a case that you shouldn't necessarily have to make the finals to get the award which would make it a lot more interesting

I have never liked the notion of a finals MVP because it is too small of a sample size to award an "MVP" over.

A player could still win the proposed Playoffs MVP if he had a monster series in the first round.

StarvingKnick22
10-27-2012, 09:04 AM
Patrick Ewing. 1993.

JordansBulls
10-27-2012, 09:23 AM
Patrick Ewing. 1993.

Not a chance in hell.

JordansBulls
10-27-2012, 09:26 AM
The problem is how many games does a player have to play to get it? Might as well either keep it as Finals mvp or make it where the playoff MVP has to be someone who makes it to the finals.

Bravo95
10-27-2012, 02:26 PM
Maybe Terry Porter in '90.

Chronz
10-27-2012, 02:35 PM
Maybe Terry Porter in '90.

Did you ever get the feeling like he and Drexler would switch roles in crunch time?

Bravo95
10-27-2012, 03:27 PM
Did you ever get the feeling like he and Drexler would switch roles in crunch time?
Not really. TP earned more opportunities though.

mightybosstone
10-27-2012, 03:27 PM
Patrick Ewing. 1993.

93-94 or 92-93? Because Jordan's numbers crush Ewing's in 92-93 and Hakeem's similarly destroy Ewing's in 93-94. Either way you're wrong.

bagwell368
10-27-2012, 09:00 PM
KG in 2008.

KnicksorBust
10-27-2012, 09:02 PM
Tony Parker wouldn't have any Finals MVPs. Neither would Cedric Maxwell. I mean there's definately a handful of examples. Simmons brings this up in the book of basketball and I happen to agree. Why is there one random stretch of games (1st round to conference finals) which awardless? You can't believe a Finals MVP without somebody getting you to the Finals in the first place.