Finals MVP: Should be it changed to Playoff MVP

[BubbaTee]

Keep it as is.

First, what do you do if a player is playing out of his mind but his team loses in the first or second round? Like Bonzi Wells on the Kings when they lost in the 1st round to San Antonio.

Second, the award is named after Bill Russell. When you think of Bill Russell you think championships, not how many first round playoff series he won.

Form separate Conference Playoff MVP awards if you want - like baseball, which has MVPs for the National and American LCS as well as the World Series - but keep the Finals MVP the Finals MVP.

[Blame Rasho]

LeBron every year he's been in the playoffs.

The playoff MVP would have to come from the NBA champions and I would say in almost all cases it would have been the same player that won Finals MVP.

Thanks for the good laugh...

[Blame Rasho]

I personally don't care about it.

I mean do people give alot of stock into the Finals MVP when Cedric Maxwell or James Worthy won? I mean most educated people would say that Bird and Magic were the more significant players.

[JordansBulls]

I personally don't care about it.

I mean do people give alot of stock into the Finals MVP when Cedric Maxwell or James Worthy won? I mean most educated people would say that Bird and Magic were the more significant players.

In games 3 and 4 Bird scored 8 points. In game 5 Bird scored 12 points. Maxwell averaged more than Bird in that series and shot better than him as well.
Same thing in 1988. Worthy averaged more and shot better and he had that triple double in game 7 of 36/16/10.

[C'mon Cavs]

It's really not that outragous of a statement. The best player in the NBA is not always on the NBA champion. I'm sure you Laker/Kobe fans would agree, because if this were the case, then Kobe has never been the best player in the NBA since Shaq was the best player on all 3 championship teams.

Ummm yes it is, just look at the competition, there's only been 2 tough series, and he only performed well in one of them (the Pistons one). The Boston series was pretty bad statistically, oh yea Cavs fans do like stats right?

So it is outragous to say that LeBron James has been the best player in basketball the last 3 seasons? I don't think it is. At worst, it's debatable. That doesn't mean he performed the best in the playoffs...Paul Pierce outperformed Kobe in the Finals, is Paul Pierce better than Kobe.

Whatever, it's irrelevant. We'll see what LeBron can do with a real team for the first time in the playoffs this year.

[Blame Rasho]

Yes... a guy who has shot 41% for the last two playoffs is the is clearly the MVP of the playoffs...

[An Unbiased Fan]

So it is outragous to say that LeBron James has been the best player in basketball the last 3 seasons? I don't think it is.

Yes, it is outrageous.

[Blame Rasho]

I personally don't care about it.

I mean do people give alot of stock into the Finals MVP when Cedric Maxwell or James Worthy won? I mean most educated people would say that Bird and Magic were the more significant players.

In games 3 and 4 Bird scored 8 points. In game 5 Bird scored 12 points. Maxwell averaged more than Bird in that series and shot better than him as well.
Same thing in 1988. Worthy averaged more and shot better and he had that triple double in game 7 of 36/16/10.

It doesn't really matter does it? The guys who were most responsible for the success of the Celtics and Lakers have been Bird and Magic. If people want to make one series out of four more than what it is... fine...

[Baller 24]

LeBron nor Kobe would be playoff MVPs.

[sp6r=underrated]

Same thing in 1988. Worthy averaged more and shot better and he had that triple double in game 7 of 36/16/10.

You do realized that Magic set him up for most of those shots and gave him open looks.

[Duiz]

I don't see the point of a Finals or Playoffs MVP. It is automatically given to the best player in the team that won the championship. While MVP can be given to someone who is not necessarily in the best team, but truly proved his point of being the most valuable player. IE, LeBron should have been the true finals MVP two years ago, not Tony Parker.

[An Unbiased Fan]

LeBron should have been the true finals MVP two years ago, not Tony Parker.

I see what you did there.

[richboy]

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?

Well, let's actually look at each of their series averages during the 2001 postseason:


vs. Blazers:

Shaq: 27.0 pts/15.7 reb/1.0 blk/48.3% FG

Kobe: 25.0 pts/4.3 reb/7.7 ast/48.1% FG


vs. Sacramento:

Shaq: 33.3 pts/17.3 reb (6.5 off. reb)/3.3 blk/59.8% FG

Kobe: 35.0 pts/9.0 reb/4.3 ast/47.3% FG


vs. San Antonio:

Shaq: 27.0 pts/13.0 reb/1.4 blk/54.1% FG

Kobe: 33.3 pts/7.0 reb/7.0 ast/51.4% FG


vs. New Jersey:

Shaq: 33.0 pts/15.8 reb/3.4 blk/57.3% FG

Kobe: 24.6 pts/7.8 reb/5.8 ast/41.5% FG


Now, to my UNTRAINED EYE, it looks like Shaq outplayed Kobe in 3 out of 4 series that postseason. But I know that Kobe fans tend to have much more discerning eyes. And the one series Kobe outplayed Shaq in (vs. SA), it wasn't by a large margin at all (a case can be made that Shaq played better). Further, Shaq was going up against two of the best big man defenders of all-time plus constant double/triple teams that series, while Kobe was going up against 63 year old terry Porter and Antonio Daniels. Shaq was a big part of why Kobe had such a great series, as he drew all the defensive attention, and Duncan/DRob were hesitant to help on Kobe's drives for fear of an assist to Shaq or an offensive rebound.

But anyway, let's just straight say that Kobe outplayed Shaq in the SA series. Fine. Shaq outplayed Kobe in the 3 other series, including decisively vs. Sac and NJ (the Portland series Shaq outplayed him, but not by a large margin). Yet somehow Kobe deserved a "playoff MVP" if one existed? Sounds like you need to check your facts before you speak.

LOL @ "Bryant steamrolled Portland, Sactown, and SA the first three rounds."

Really these look like 3 ties. Matter of fact I'm leaning toward giving Kobe the edge in the first 3 series. Because even the first series he getting 8 assist per game and almost the same amount of points.

[Baller 24]

Though in 3 of those series Shaq is averaging 60%FG, drawing nearly half of the teams attention, that's aside from averaging 13+ rebounds every series, while in the '01 playoff run, clearly anchoring the teams defense as they steamrolled through the western conference (facing all teams with 50+ wins), Shaq anchored the defense, drew the attention, shot nearly 60% FG. And those '01 Lakers are considered one of the greatest teams of all-time, all because of how motivated and dominant Shaq truly was during the end of that season/playoffs.

[richboy]

Kobe was the dominate player against the Kings and Spurs those series. Shaq also does what he does but Kobe playing that well made them unbeatable. Even Shaq called Kobe the best in the world that time. Kobe shredded the Kings and Spurs so much that they went out to get Bruce Bowen and Doug Christie. He had 48 and 16 to eliminate the Kings then had 45 and 10 to open against the Spurs. The Spurs never double team. They had to send multiple guys at Kobe that why he was getting all those assist.

[Jordan23Forever]

Looking at the number, Kobe did seem to dominate those 3 series where you could easily make a case for a co-mvp for those 3 series, is rebounds really difficult for Shaq (a center in his prime), he was in his prime and Pts? The guy got to the free-throw line at will. No one could stop him.

25Pts with nearly 8Asts against the Blazers
35Pts with 9Rebs against Sac-Town
33Pts with 7Reb and 7Ast against Spurs

And given that Kobe took over in late games to close out!

That's a pretty dominating 3 straight playoffs series, but then again, you deepthroat Jordan at will so I can see why you always trying to contradict everything Kobe does.

Yeah, way to restate the same exact numbers I posted. Take a look at my post again and tell me exactly how Kobe should/would have won a "playoff MVP" (if such a thing existed) for the 2001 postseason when Shaq outplayed him in 3 of 4 series (two of them substantially) and Kobe only outplayed Shaq in 1 (and not by as big a margin). Thanks.

Really these look like 3 ties. Matter of fact I'm leaning toward giving Kobe the edge in the first 3 series. Because even the first series he getting 8 assist per game and almost the same amount of points.

Get your eyes checked. By the way, we're not talking the first 3 series, we're talking the entire postseason. I know it's hard for you Kobe fans to stay focused, but please try.

Kobe was the dominate player against the Kings and Spurs those series.

Really? That's why Shaq CLEARLY outplayed him in the Sac series (including back-to-back 40+/20+ games, which is unheard of) and played nearly as well in the SA series. LMAO @ "Kobe was the dominate (sic) player against the Kings and Spurs."

The Spurs never double team. They had to send multiple guys at Kobe that why he was getting all those assist.

Actually, only Shaq was doubled for most of that series. Kobe got assists because he penetrated against Porter and Daniels' single coverage and dumped it off for guaranteed finishes to Shaq when DRob/Duncan came over to help (and when they didn't, because they were afraid of Shaq, he finished; this is why this series is one of only 3 or 4 series in Kobe's career that he's shot over 50% in).

Again, Shaq outplayed Kobe in 3 of 4 series that postseason, so if there was a "playoff MVP," it would have went to Shaq. Even if you think the Portland series was even, then we have the SA series where Kobe outplayed Shaq by perhaps 5-10%; that's countered by the Sac series where Shaq outplayed Kobe by at least 25% (if not more), and the NJ series, where Shaq dominated Kobe.

Grab a clue, Kobe fans.

[LLcoleJ]

Now its Teammates out playing eachother? Championship teammates at that.

They played different roles and put up big numbers. As Shaq says.. the greatest 1-2 punch of all time. I won't sit here and say Kobe was more important that Shaq,he wasnt. But the constant belittling of Kobe's play at every turn by J23F is sorry.

LOL, at J23F now resorting in pitting Kobe against Shaq. Pathetic.

[Jordan23Forever]

LOL @ Phil 2.0 taking issue with me posting FACTS rather than with RealGM Analyst, who insisted that Kobe would have won a "playoff MVP" if one existed in 2001. If you can't address the FACTS, which are that Shaq outplayed Kobe in more series than vice-versa that postseason (and to a greater degree), please find something better to do than respond.

I won't sit here and say Kobe was more important that Shaq,he wasnt.

Then why take issue with a post that was intended to demonstrate exactly that to a poster who was under the impression that this was not the case?

[ronnymac2]

Shq averaged 43.5 points, 20.5 rebounds, and 5 blocks in the first 2 games of the Sacramento series. Only Wilt Chamberlain himself had ever done 40-20 in consecutive games in the same playoff series. Then over the last 2 games, Shaq's numbers "decreased" to 23 points and 14 rebounds (shooting over 57% and getting to the line 13 times per game). I'm sorry, how does Kobe's series beat that exactly? Kobe was outrageous in game 4. He was very good in the first 3 games. Shaq displayed dominance that only Wilt Chamberlain displayed (and that was in a different era, about 40 years earlier....Kareem, Moses, Hakeem, and Robinson never did what Shaq did) during the first 2 games. He was dominant in the last 2 games. There isn't a question who played better in that series.

Obviously Shaq played better in the Sixers series.

Shaq killed Portland. They had no answer for him (and they stocked up on bigs just to prevent him from dominating). Shaq was the clear first option.

The only series where there is debate is the SA series. Shaq was going up vs. Duncan and Robinson, btw. The Spurs shot really bad in that series, and the Lakers owned the glass overall. Shaq was the first option on offense, but let's just say Kobe and Shaq were equal there. Shaq controlled the glass, defended Robinson/Duncan, went through Robinson/Duncan, and anchored the defense. Let's just give Kobe that series by a little, though I'd argue Shaq was the best player there.

So Shaq completely dominates everybody (including Deke, Duncan, and Robinson), and his team rolls through the playoffs playing through him while he anchors the defense. How is he not playoffs MVP?

The point is.....it's ludicrous to say Shaq wasn't the most dominant player of the 01 playoffs, when in actuality, he had one of the most dominant playoffs in NBA history.

[ronnymac2]

I forgot to add this, and it's important........those Lakers "played like a team" better than I have ever personally seen a team play. They did everytihng right, and they did everything together. The reason why they were so dominant is because everybody meshed into their roles. There was no bickering over who's team it was, the role players stepped up, Kobe played the role of attacker/facilitator/rebounder/closer/lock-down defender to perfection, while Shaq controlled the inside. Shaq and Kobe helped each other go off, and most importantly, helped everybody go off. They reached their absolute max potential, so that in turn makes EVERYBODY look great (and rightfully so, because for that to happen, everybody must reach their max potential ito of what they can do for the team). Kobe played ridicuously, Shaq played amazingly, Fox and Fisher were out of this world, Horry was clutch....it all clicked.

If EVERYBODY hadn't meshed into the team, nobody would have looked as good. Shaq should thank Kobe for helping him get all those numbers, and Kobe should thank Shaq.