RealGM

The playoffs are coming soon and this raises a yearly issue for me. The Finals MVP is problematic award and should be changed to a playoff MVP for multiple reasons.

First, what you did in the first three rounds matters just as much as what you did in the finals. Second, some years the final series is not the real challenge, look at 2007 when the Spurs met their greatest test in Phoenix or 1990 when Detroit's greatest test was Chicago.

Third, sample size sometimes a player just gets hot or cold from the field for a 2-3 game stretch, which in one series is enough to change who gets the award. This is not really a problem when your talking about in 18-26 stretch of games.

There is precedent for this: the ABA awarded a playoff MVP.

Would you support changing the finals MVP to playoff MVP?

I say keep it the same.

because even if it was "playoff MVP" .. the player who stepped up during the finals will most likely still win it, so whats the point..

They could still have a separate award for playoffs MVP.

Ito wrote:I say keep it the same.

because even if it was "playoff MVP" .. the player who stepped up during the finals will most likely still win it, so whats the point..

Let's avoid being nihilists here. If you think Finals MVP is a better idea based on its merits, explain it to me beyond the voters will screw it up.

Then you have to take into account how many series a player plays in. Just to much confusion for everybody I think, just look at the debate a season long MVP award gets...

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:They could still have a separate award for playoffs MVP.

Nah, too many awards under that scenario. The finals MVP, would (or should) become like those player of the week awards, that are given out and then forgotten.

I would say "no", simply because the player who was most dominant and important in the playoffs isn't always the player who's team ends up winning the title, let alone actually makes it to the NBA Finals.

hsb wrote:Then you have to take into account how many series a player plays in. Just to much confusion for everybody I think, just look at the debate a season long MVP award gets...

This post seems like an example of status quo bias.

Edit: I would welcome a post that explain on its merits why we should exclusively focus on the finals and ignore what happened in the rest of the playoffs.

miller31time wrote:I would say "no", simply because the player who was most dominant and important in the playoffs isn't always the player who's team ends up winning the title, let alone actually makes it to the NBA Finals.

One, I think that is unlikely. A playoff MVP will at least have to get to the conference finals to win the award. Second, if a player truly dominates the entire playoffs what is wrong with him getting the award even if his team lost. Third, finals MVP has gone to the losers.

It would be tough to change it after all these years, but a playoff MVP would be preferred over Finals, or Superbowl MVP(which is ten times worse) for that matter.

That said, the only years over the last 20 I think this would have effected would have been Parker a few years back, arguably Billups in 04', Kobe would have got it in 01' and at least co-MVP in 02'. Other than that, you would have to go back to Worthy getting it in the late 80's.

RealGM Analyst wrote:It would be tough to change it after all these years, but a playoff MVP would be preferred over Finals, or Superbowl MVP(which is ten times worse) for that matter.

That said, the only years over the last 20 I think this would have effected would have been Parker a few years back, arguably Billups in 04', Kobe would have got it in 01' and at least co-MVP in 02'. Other than that, you would have to go back to Worthy getting it in the late 80's.

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:

RealGM Analyst wrote:It would be tough to change it after all these years, but a playoff MVP would be preferred over Finals, or Superbowl MVP(which is ten times worse) for that matter.

That said, the only years over the last 20 I think this would have effected would have been Parker a few years back, arguably Billups in 04', Kobe would have got it in 01' and at least co-MVP in 02'. Other than that, you would have to go back to Worthy getting it in the late 80's.

I'll admit his claims are dubious, but let's not draw this into a Bryant thread.

Tim_Hardawayy wrote:

RealGM Analyst wrote:It would be tough to change it after all these years, but a playoff MVP would be preferred over Finals, or Superbowl MVP(which is ten times worse) for that matter.

That said, the only years over the last 20 I think this would have effected would have been Parker a few years back, arguably Billups in 04', Kobe would have got it in 01' and at least co-MVP in 02'. Other than that, you would have to go back to Worthy getting it in the late 80's.

I don't understand the eyeroll. Bryant steamrolled Portland, Sactown, and SA the first 3 rounds. In the Finals LA exploited Philly in the post and Shaq was MVP of that series, but overall Kobe was the playoff MVP that year. In 02' they won their 3rd straight and again exploited Shaq against the centerless Nets.

What part of this is wrong?

First 3 rounds are garbage compared to the NBA Finals, I've seen chokers do well in the playoffs and then produce their worst basketball in the NBA Finals, so lets keep the Finals MVP sacred for it is a reward for greatness achieved on the very highest stage.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

hsb wrote:Then you have to take into account how many series a player plays in. Just to much confusion for everybody I think, just look at the debate a season long MVP award gets...

This post seems like an example of status quo bias.

Edit: I would welcome a post that explain on its merits why we should exclusively focus on the finals and ignore what happened in the rest of the playoffs.

I like status quo, yes, but hard to claim any bias. Don't assume anything, I gave a clear reason.

One, I think that is unlikely. A playoff MVP will at least have to get to the conference finals to win the award.

So you want to turn the finals MVP to a final 4 MVP? I don't see how that is significant enough. What if a player plays outstanding basketball in the first two rounds, but loses to a championship team in the semi-finals? Under your logic, how can you not put that player into consideration?

If there is something special about playing three rounds relative to two or one, wouldn't playing four round be even more special than playing three?

I'd support it. With most emphasis still being on the finals of course.

Maybe they could have an All-Playoff 1st and 2nd team, or something to that effect.

That'd be kind of neat.

So now the biggest names aren't good enough to lift their game in the NBA Finals so we have to change the rules so they can win a modified version of it, how typical of 'the soft era'.

LOOSeDAWG wrote:So now the biggest names aren't good enough to lift their game in the NBA Finals so we have to change the rules so they can win a modified version of it, how typical of 'the soft era'.

A playoff MVP should still be in the FInals and except for rare ocassions, win the title.

That said, the Finals isn't always the biggest series, in the early part of this decade the most improtant series happened out West and the Finals weren't as competitive. LA and SA pretty much battled to see who would win the title every year.

If it was playoff MVP Kobe probably wins it over Shaq on the second title.