If the Warriors win title #4 but Steph has no FMVP's, how does that affect his legacy?

[HotRocks34]

Ok I did some more research on this topic and wanted to share it.

First let's take a look at Bill Simmons' Hall Of Fame Pyramid (basic overview of the top players ever in his view). The chart is from 2010 and I'm sure he's modified it since then. I'm going to place LeBron in the top 10 and bump Oscar out of the top 10. Curry is not on this list although Simmons may have him in his Top 20 now, I'm not sure.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/simmons_pyramid.html

Here are the top 18 names (adjusted to add LeBron). All of them won a title. The names in blue are players who did not win a FMVP. Bill Russell is excluded from the "no FMVP" list because FMVP was not available until his final year in the league. If FMVP had been available before then, he would have won many of them IMO (which is probably why the FMVP award is named for him). Also excluded is Bob Pettit, who played before FMVP's were given out. Both Russell and Pettit are marked with "*" to denote they were not playing when FMVP's were given out (Russell only eligible in his final season at age 34).

01. Jordan
02. Russell*
03. Kareem
04. LeBron (just randomly putting him here; Simmons list in 2010 has him at 20)
05. Magic
06. Bird
07. Wilt
08. Duncan
09. Kobe
10. West
11. Oscar
12. Hakeem
13. Shaq
14. Moses
15. Havlicek
16. Baylor
17. Erving
18. Pettit*


Thus, on this list of the top 18 players of all time, only three of those players who were eligible to win the award (played in the right era) do not have FMVP awards.

Let's take a look at the cases of Oscar, Baylor and Erving.

Each of those men won 1 NBA title apiece. That means each only had one realistic shot at the award. Here are their approximate ages when they won a title, as well as their teammate who did win the award and the approximate age of the teammate. I'm not counting Erving's 2 ABA titles (or his corresponding 2 ABA Most Valuable Playoff Player awards) here.


Oscar (33 years old).....................Kareem (24)
Baylor (38 years old)....................Wilt (36)
Erving (33 years old)....................Moses (28)


What we see is that each of the three non-FMVP's lost out to a teammate younger than them who also happens to be higher up on the Pyramid list. That is, as great as Oscar/Baylor/Erving were, they were (at least at that point in their careers) the "sidekick" of the teammate who won the FMVP over them. In the case of Wilt/Baylor, they had several other very good players on their team (West, Goodrich, McMillian, Hairston) as well. But Wilt had the standout Finals performance. Baylor, 38, was in his final season as a player.

On Simmons' list, then, to be a Top-10 guy all-time (given that LeBron is top 10 and Oscar likely gets bumped down to at least 11) you need to have a FMVP. And so this is where a potential lack of FMVP might hurt Steph.



Second, here is the list of players who won multiple MVP awards:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Most_Valuable_Player_Award#Multi-time_winners


Kareem
Russell
Jordan
Wilt
LeBron
Moses
Bird
Magic
Pettit
Karl Malone
Duncan
Nash
Curry
Giannis
(Jokic?)


Looking at that list, here are the players who have won titles. The name in blue indicates a player who played in an eligible era who has not won a FMVP. "*" means player did not play in the FMVP era.

Kareem
Russell*
Jordan
Wilt
LeBron
Moses
Bird
Magic
Pettit*
Duncan
Curry
Giannis

I think the point is clear without having to discuss it further.


I hope if the Warriors do win the title this year (or sometime in the future while Steph is still playing) that Steph wins a FMVP award. It's the one hole in his trophy case he has yet to fill. A hole that doesn't exist for a number of other all-time greats, particularly the most elite of the elite.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

There's what I think it should be (doesn't affect his legacy) and then there's what I think it would be (medium hit)

It would be a talking point without a doubt. And that's regardless of people such as myself who believe a) he clearly should've won 2015 FMVP, and b) any ounce of nuance would suggest he was the indirect FMVP in 2017 and 2018

[WarriorGM]

Here are the top 18 names (adjusted to add LeBron). All of them won a title. The names in blue are players who did not win a FMVP. Bill Russell is excluded from the "no FMVP" list because FMVP was not available until his final year in the league. If FMVP had been available before then, he would have won many of them IMO (which is probably why the FMVP award is named for him). Also excluded is Bob Pettit, who played before FMVP's were given out. Both Russell and Pettit are marked with "*" to denote they were not playing when FMVP's were given out (Russell only eligible in his final season at age 34).

As you say Russell was eligible in his final season so to say they were not giving out FMVPs when Russell played is technically false. They could have given it to Russell but chose not to. The circumstances of it are illuminating so one should not gloss over it. That was the year the FMVP was given to Jerry West in a finals series in which he lost and Russell won.

That begs the question why was the FMVP given to West and not Russell?

A look at the kinds of players that get it shows there is an inherent bias in the award towards certain kinds of players. Assuming Russell would have received it if they had started giving it out earlier is presumptuous because Russell doesn't fit the common mold of FMVP recipient. Naming the award after him is a fig leaf to cover up the embarrassment of such a prolific winner not actually having one.

I am actually in favor of Curry never receiving the award. The award is a creation of the media to promote player profiles. It helps in the manufacture of a player's resume. Curry doesn't need it. Curry has better than media created tokens. Curry has records. Curry leading a 73-9 team is way more impressive than some participation trophy decided upon by 11 media personalities beholden to a broadcast network that has paid billions to have the right to show and influence the NBA presentation. I can point to a number of "superstars" that can be accused of largely being media creations. Curry not having a FMVP which is one of the more easily manipulated of the media awards would stand it stark contrast to the nonpareil achievements he has and raise the questions that would reveal the bias he's working against. Anyone realizing that would then clearly see his accomplishments are even more impressive than commonly acknowledged.

[PizzaSteve]

Here are the top 18 names (adjusted to add LeBron). All of them won a title. The names in blue are players who did not win a FMVP. Bill Russell is excluded from the "no FMVP" list because FMVP was not available until his final year in the league. If FMVP had been available before then, he would have won many of them IMO (which is probably why the FMVP award is named for him). Also excluded is Bob Pettit, who played before FMVP's were given out. Both Russell and Pettit are marked with "*" to denote they were not playing when FMVP's were given out (Russell only eligible in his final season at age 34).

As you say Russell was eligible in his final season so to say they were not giving out FMVPs when Russell played is technically false. They could have given it to Russell but chose not to. The circumstances of it are illuminating so one should not gloss over it. That was the year the FMVP was given to Jerry West in a finals series in which he lost and Russell won.

That begs the question why was the FMVP given to West and not Russell?

A look at the kinds of players that get it shows there is an inherent bias in the award towards certain kinds of players. Assuming Russell would have received it if they had started giving it out earlier is presumptuous because Russell doesn't fit the common mold of FMVP recipient. Naming the award after him is a fig leaf to cover up the embarrassment of not having such a prolific winner not actually having one.

I am actually in favor of Curry never receiving the award. The award is a creation of the media to promote player profiles. It helps in the manufacture of a player's resume. Curry doesn't need it. Curry has better than media created tokens. Curry has records. Curry leading a 73-9 team is way more impressive than some participation trophy decided upon by 11 media personalities beholden to a broadcast network that has paid billions to have the right to show and influence the NBA presentation. I can point to a number of "superstars" that can be accused of largely being media creations. Curry not having a FMVP which is one of the more easily manipulated of the media awards would stand it stark contrast to the nonpareil achievements he has and raise the questions that would reveal the bias he's working against. Anyone realizing that would then clearly see his accomplishments are even more impressive than commonly acknowledged.

Good points. I would offer that Curry and LBJ are players cut from a mold of 'can dominate a game but enjoy succeed moreso by facilitating the success and development of their team mates.' If anything, they deserve some sort of Team Building and Leadership to Drive Championship Success Award. Clearly these guys are dominant in the era of kids raised to facilitate team work, which is a very Millenial thing.

My older generation very much placed emphasis on individual performance, and it was reflected in most jobs, performance reviews and also in sports. These days the business world has evolved to understand that team compensation awards vs individual performance awards may facilitate better corporate outcomes. Likewise, I think the idea to facilitate somewhat outdated individual awards for nastalgia and continuity of NBA history fails to recognize the evolution of the league. Playing the proper team role is MORE important to championships than dominant individual accomplishments, hence for a legacy of a great player I would argue that the role of the MVP awards should not be as influential as they are.

But people are hierarchical herd animals, so we like to rank stuff and annoint Kings. That said, basketball is a team sport and perhaps recognizing team play is harder to assign on an individual basis. True greatness in support roles are often less recognized.

In the topic, I feel another championship without an FMVP must enhances his greatness on the list. Poole's development and the fact that Curry is supporting a guy in his actual position getting 30 per playoff game, and makimg sure Klay is getting his shots too, getting him ready for advancing, while he is more than able to force both of them into a lesser role by starting, shows his way of being great.

I predict that Curry will continue to allow others space like this, promote team success over himself, and perhaps if they win do it all again (its a bit long odds to me) may again lose out on the i dividual awards, but this enhances his claim IMHO.

[benson13]

It'll just hurt the legacy of the finals mvp. Much like Duncan never winning defensive player of the year doesn't hurt his legacy, it hurts the legacy of the award.

Tim Duncan doesn't have a defensive player of the year?!?

Yeah these awards are going down in value in my eyes, probably never should have given as much value as I did. Draymond has only won it once. Regular season only Gobert has 3, it's just nuts.

RACHEL NICHOLS voted for Finals MVP. Like who cares what she and other bad media members think.

I get what you're saying, but they're on TV and a lot of people listen to them. The media would probably lose their minds if the fans got to pick those awards because we're not "experts" like they are.

Winning another title, regardless of who gets FMVP, would help Steph's legacy. I don't put a lot of stock in what award anyway. It's the player who might have been the best in one series. I don't think Iggy was the best player in the 2015 Finals, but he was clearly no the best player on the Warriors that year.

In 2007 Tony Parker won the Finals MVP. Does anyone use that to claim Timmy wasn't the guy on the Spurs that year?

[Mephariel]

He gets 4th ring, and it will somehow impact his legacy negatively?

Only Steph haters would think that.

[Heat4lyf]

I still think steph was better than kd for majority of their time together but If steph had 3 fmvp to go with 2 mvps he'd be a unanimous top 10 all time kinda player.

So the no fmvp justified or not matters. It doesn't hurt his legacy winning obviously but it's not the same positive impact without that regardless of performance

[WarriorGM]

I still think steph was better than kd for majority of their time together but If steph had 3 fmvp to go with 2 mvps he'd be a unanimous top 10 all time kinda player.

So the no fmvp justified or not matters. It doesn't hurt his legacy winning obviously but it's not the same positive impact without that regardless of performance

Same positive impact on what? The public perception? So the perception is more important than the actual performance? That sounds like a philosophical question. But if you are one who knows that one is mere perception and it does not correlate with the actual performance what is your role in this? To perpetuate the misleading perception? Or to relate the actual performance?