PDA

View Full Version : Are Defense/Intangibles COMPLETELY ignored when selecting a F.MVP?



Chronz
03-16-2013, 11:48 AM
Ben Wallace, KG, Duncan, Bird

These are players who have arguably been overlooked for their contributions in the Finals. With the exception of Ben Wallace, its pretty clear that these were their Championship teams best players. But each one of them missed out on a Finals MVP because they had teammates who finished with prettier per game averages. But as we all (should) know by now, better counting stats doesn't always imply better play or even better production. Defensively, with the exception of Bird, these were the anchors. On 1 end of the ball, they were completely irreplaceable. Now Im not saying they should have won it just because of their defense, but your telling me in all these years, they have never seen a defender standout enough to win the award despite slightly lesser statistics? Hard to believe but possible;


When Cedric Maxwell won the Finals MVP, it was not only because he played great, but also because Bird struggled with his shot. Still, he was without a doubt the guy who drew all the attention, rebounded and executed the fast break, number 1 hustler and from what I can tell, was their teams best trapper in the post.

In other words, one of the greatest intangible players was showing off his complete game, (grabbing 21 rebounds+9 assists in G1) he just couldn't score much (8PTS-13Reb+10 assists+5steals in G3).

For the series, he averaged 15-15-7Ast but shot just 42% vs 57% and 18PPG for the man they called "Cornbread". Im a big fan of efficiency but should it have been the deciding factor in this series?



The stories for KG+Duncan are somewhat similar, Duncan was the guy drawing all the attention watching TP shred the Cavs. KG was actually the most productive player in the Finals on top of being their best defender, but Pierce got the award because he was their best offensive player in the Wins, the "Go to guy" if you will.


Im not saying being the primary defensive focus+anchor should overlook any statistical gap, but it has to be pretty significant for me to buy it. Like when Wade won Finals MVP, he was without a doubt a statistical beast, the likes of which we may never see again, but make no mistake about it, Shaq was the Mavs number 1 target defensively. They committed hard doubles (implies bigs on big), he was such a focus that Wade had to change the mentality that got them to the Finals in the first place. He told Shaq something to the effect of, "If they keep playing you like this, Im going to take advantage".



I guess the question Im asking is this, in how many of the Finals mentioned above (81, 04, 07, 08) did you feel the MVP should have gone to the better defender/intangibles guy? Or do you disagree with my premise and feel that some of those awards were rightly deserved?

Bruno
03-16-2013, 02:13 PM
i think that making the finals MVP more of a general playoff MVP cuts down on the chances of stuff like this happening. the anchors and best players wouldn't get over looked for MVP by a player who happened to have prettier numbers in the finals.

Parker gets MVP over Duncan because he had a prettier four game stretch in the finals? Duncans numbers obliterate Parkers for the playoffs in 2007. As did KGs over Pierce in 2008.

In the case of Wallace, the stats don't give him full recognition for his impact; he's the hardest one here.

Maxwell and Birds '81 playoff numbers are surprisingly close, but as you said there's no denying who was commanding the bulk of the coverage and defensive schemes.

OceanSpray
03-16-2013, 02:30 PM
Yes but that is because no one pays attention to defense compared to offense.

JordansBulls
03-16-2013, 02:56 PM
Ben Wallace, KG, Duncan, Bird

These are players who have arguably been overlooked for their contributions in the Finals. With the exception of Ben Wallace, its pretty clear that these were their Championship teams best players. But each one of them missed out on a Finals MVP because they had teammates who finished with prettier per game averages. But as we all (should) know by now, better counting stats doesn't always imply better play or even better production. Defensively, with the exception of Bird, these were the anchors. On 1 end of the ball, they were completely irreplaceable. Now Im not saying they should have won it just because of their defense, but your telling me in all these years, they have never seen a defender standout enough to win the award despite slightly lesser statistics? Hard to believe but possible;


When Cedric Maxwell won the Finals MVP, it was not only because he played great, but also because Bird struggled with his shot. Still, he was without a doubt the guy who drew all the attention, rebounded and executed the fast break, number 1 hustler and from what I can tell, was their teams best trapper in the post.

In other words, one of the greatest intangible players was showing off his complete game, (grabbing 21 rebounds+9 assists in G1) he just couldn't score much (8PTS-13Reb+10 assists+5steals in G3).

For the series, he averaged 15-15-7Ast but shot just 42% vs 57% and 18PPG for the man they called "Cornbread". Im a big fan of efficiency but should it have been the deciding factor in this series?



The stories for KG+Duncan are somewhat similar, Duncan was the guy drawing all the attention watching TP shred the Cavs. KG was actually the most productive player in the Finals on top of being their best defender, but Pierce got the award because he was their best offensive player in the Wins, the "Go to guy" if you will.


Im not saying being the primary defensive focus+anchor should overlook any statistical gap, but it has to be pretty significant for me to buy it. Like when Wade won Finals MVP, he was without a doubt a statistical beast, the likes of which we may never see again, but make no mistake about it, Shaq was the Mavs number 1 target defensively. They committed hard doubles (implies bigs on big), he was such a focus that Wade had to change the mentality that got them to the Finals in the first place. He told Shaq something to the effect of, "If they keep playing you like this, Im going to take advantage".



I guess the question Im asking is this, in how many of the Finals mentioned above (81, 04, 07, 08) did you feel the MVP should have gone to the better defender/intangibles guy? Or do you disagree with my premise and feel that some of those awards were rightly deserved?


I think Ben Wallace was definitely hosed on the finals mvp in 2004. He was the whole reason they were as great defensively and was the heart and soul of that squad.

Chronz
03-16-2013, 03:27 PM
I think Ben Wallace was definitely hosed on the finals mvp in 2004. He was the whole reason they were as great defensively and was the heart and soul of that squad.

I actually think it was his offensive contributions that stood out that series, he made an embarrassment of the Lakers (namely Shaq but not limited to him) on the offensive glass from what I remember. Shaq had his way with him on the other end tho, completely undressed him in G.4 IIRC. But the fact that he played Shaq 1 on 1 and Shaq only wound up going for a few of those monster games is a testament to his defense, and some say Kobe's selfishiness that series.

ColtsSpursTerps
03-16-2013, 08:45 PM
Of course they are. they're even overlooked with Defensive POY specifically. intangibles are always overlooked. I'm semi- irrelevant ranting because I think Duncan has easily been an arguable top 3 DPOY basically his whole career, and Bowen got snubbed on DPOY many times. (I guess not 'snubbed', just him having great competition for the award..aka Ben Wallace existing)

HouRealCoach
03-16-2013, 09:06 PM
I thought Detroit all played great as a TEAM.. Couldn't go wrong with Billups, or either one of the Wallace's as Finals MVP

Couldn't really go wrong with Paul Pierce either, dude was holding defense, setting the tone, and making plays

To be honest though, I have never seen a Finals MVP where I can say "They got that one wrong"

Chronz
03-16-2013, 11:05 PM
the one time the league looked to an intangibles guy, they had a real hard time doing so. When the Bullets won the title, the Big E was the resident AllStar but he was such a choker they were forced to look elsewhere. Their upstart PG was the team's most productive player but rumor has it that the league thought it would be best served promoting the long-standing Unseld.

amos1er
03-16-2013, 11:07 PM
Yes they are ignored. KG should have been the finals MVP in 2008 for sure.

Guppyfighter
03-17-2013, 12:47 AM
No, they aren't ignored. If they were Melo would be an MVP candidate.

Chronz
03-17-2013, 01:29 AM
No, they aren't ignored. If they were Melo would be an MVP candidate.

FINALS MVP

Bro

tdg823
03-17-2013, 01:57 AM
Maybe I'm baised as a defense/intangibles guy myself, but they are always drastically undervalued. Scoring a bucket then giving one up is a wash, but somehow that gets lost. It's all about how many you scored individually, screw how many you gave up, let alone how many you contibuted to with great picks, hockey assists,, off. rebounds, tip outs, keeping the play alive, rotating defensively,50/50 plays, contesting shots, closing out, setting the tone with hustle and effort, etc.... You have do do 3x as much in those ways to get the credit of a soulless scorer

JasonJohnHorn
03-17-2013, 07:49 AM
An argument could be made for Ben Wallace as well. His defence and rebounding anchored that team, without it the Pistons wouldn't have even been in the finals, but Billups hit some big shots and had a higher scoring average. I'm not saying Billups didn't deserve it, but I am saying Wallace was equally deserving.