2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[The-Power]

A player on the losing team shouldn't get FMVP even if he is the best or ‘most valuable’ (in terms of raising the team's net rating). That was true for LeBron in 2015, and that's true for Curry in 2022. I just don't think it's in the spirit of the award and, honestly, it's also very awkward.

[Texas Chuck]

A player on the losing team shouldn't get FMVP even if he is the best or ‘most valuable’ (in terms of raising the team's net rating). That was true for LeBron in 2015, and that's true for Curry in 2022. I just don't think it's in the spirit of the award and, honestly, it's also very awkward.

I respect your position. In theory I feel like I have zero issues with it, but I wasn't around when West won so I can't say for sure how I'd react. But in my mind anyway, I feel like we have seen some performances by a player on a losing side that were clearly the most valuable in the series.

But yeah I wonder how the player would feel. Hey guys we lost, but check out this cool trophy I got. I don't know that you'd ever feel like celebrating that award ever.

The more I think about it the more I'm coming around to your side lol.

[Colbinii]

A player on the losing team shouldn't get FMVP even if he is the best or ‘most valuable’ (in terms of raising the team's net rating). That was true for LeBron in 2015, and that's true for Curry in 2022. I just don't think it's in the spirit of the award and, honestly, it's also very awkward.

They should create a new award--The Michael Jordan NBA Finals award for best player on the winning team

[falcolombardi]

A player on the losing team shouldn't get FMVP even if he is the best or ‘most valuable’ (in terms of raising the team's net rating). That was true for LeBron in 2015, and that's true for Curry in 2022. I just don't think it's in the spirit of the award and, honestly, it's also very awkward.

I respect your position. In theory I feel like I have zero issues with it, but I wasn't around when West won so I can't say for sure how I'd react. But in my mind anyway, I feel like we have seen some performances by a player on a losing side that were clearly the most valuable in the series.

But yeah I wonder how the player would feel. Hey guys we lost, but check out this cool trophy I got. I don't know that you'd ever feel like celebrating that award ever.

The more I think about it the more I'm coming around to your side lol.

is that any different that forcing the second place guys to get a silver medal and stand in the podium?

soccer has always had this controversy about finals losers refusing to receive their second place medals

[jalengreen]

in the hypothetical situation where the current brown/tatum/curry stats are maintained and the celtics win the series, i totally think curry should win FMVP over anyone on the celtics. like truly - i know the analogy people make is to 2015, well no one on the celtics has been as good as curry in those finals.

but if the celtics do end up winning, i think that'll probably require a celtics star to perform better / curry to drop off a bit in which case hopefully it'd be enough

[jalengreen]

i remember messi getting the golden ball award (for best player of the tournament) at the 2014 world cup right after losing the final to germany. lost the game that could've been the crowning achievement of his career and immediately had to get on stage to shake hands and accept an award. that was awkward

[Outside]

I think its funny how NBA twitter

Just wanted to point out where you made your mistake

[parsnips33]

I thought LeBron should have won FMVP in 2015 only if the series had gone to 7. I know it's completely arbitrary, but I don't think someone on the losing team should get it unless they came as close as you can get to actually winning it.

If we lose this year, I do hope a Celtic gets the award, there's something a bit embarrassing about getting it if your team loses. If we win, they could give FMVP to Bill Russell for I care

Also is it true that David Stern fudged the voting so that Magic got FMVP over Kareem when they won in '80? Saw that in the HBO show, not sure if it's something they made up for drama

[Texas Chuck]

I think its funny how NBA twitter

Just wanted to point out where you made your mistake

I mostly follow people for transaction news or who are entertaining like Wob or n3twork, but they do a lot of retweeting of silly arguments that I see on my timeline.

I'm okay with Steph getting it if the Warriors lose(I think I am, though I don't think he would want to win it in that case), but I hate him getting it to "right some previous wrong". I'm always against that.

But clearly he's been the best player in the series and I don't see a close 2nd atm honestly.

[Doctor MJ]

A player on the losing team shouldn't get FMVP even if he is the best or ‘most valuable’ (in terms of raising the team's net rating). That was true for LeBron in 2015, and that's true for Curry in 2022. I just don't think it's in the spirit of the award and, honestly, it's also very awkward.

Given that the first Finals MVP went to a guy on the losing team, I'd have to disagree with that notion of the original spirit.

[parsnips33]

Wow I am excited for tonight. Hopefully Draymond can keep the defense honest tonight, I'm really dying for a "shut the haters up" performance

[Doctor MJ]

I thought LeBron should have won FMVP in 2015 only if the series had gone to 7. I know it's completely arbitrary, but I don't think someone on the losing team should get it unless they came as close as you can get to actually winning it.

If we lose this year, I do hope a Celtic gets the award, there's something a bit embarrassing about getting it if your team loses. If we win, they could give FMVP to Bill Russell for I care

Also is it true that David Stern fudged the voting so that Magic got FMVP over Kareem when they won in '80? Saw that in the HBO show, not sure if it's something they made up for drama

So I'll tell you, while I respect those who sided with LeBron in the Finals MVP - and respect them considerably more than those who went with Iggy - LeBron's performance that series didn't fit with how I generally see a "Finals MVP on a losing team" candidate, and one of the reasons was the fact that the series in the end wasn't all that close.

It's not just that the series didn't go to 7. Over the last 3 games in the series, the Cavs with LeBron out there got out scored pretty handily, and I can basically guarantee you that no one would have seen LeBron as an MVP candidate if the entire series went like that.

Hence, LeBron's Finals MVP candidate there was largely based on the wins in Games 2 & 3, and what the Cavs excelled at in those two games better than any other game was their defense, not their offense. Their offense was weak the entire time putting up ORtgs that you basically can't expect to win with...yet if you ask basically anyone why LeBron was the guy who deserved the Finals MVP, they'll point to his offensive box score while ignoring his efficiency issues.

Now, LeBron's a great defensive player and deserves part of the credit for the team's defensive success...while they were still having defensive success. And for him to do that, playing all those minutes, taking such a heavy load on offense, is certainly very impressive.

But basically you're talking about a series with a young team being thrown a defensive-oriented lineup they weren't planning for, and then figuring it out and winning the rest of the series handily. Jerry West in 1969, this is not.

Coming back to the present: If the Celtics win the next two games handily, good chance I'll side with one of them over Curry for Finals MVP. On the other hand, if the Celtics win the next two games in hard fought games where Curry is clearly the most effective scorer by volume and efficiency, good chance I'll side with Curry. And of course, if Curry's awesome and it goes 7, that makes it all the easier to vote for him.

As I say all of that, I do feel I should say that I'll be surprised if Curry keeps up putting up numbers like he did in Game 4. The Celtics are putting tons of pressure on Curry by all reasonable standards, but you can always just do a hard, constant double on a guy if you conclude that's what you have to do. When you do that, you're daring the other teammates to beat you of course, but I'll be surprised if the Celtics keep doing what they've been doing with Curry the rest of the way if he keeps hitting shots like this.

[parsnips33]

I thought LeBron should have won FMVP in 2015 only if the series had gone to 7. I know it's completely arbitrary, but I don't think someone on the losing team should get it unless they came as close as you can get to actually winning it.

If we lose this year, I do hope a Celtic gets the award, there's something a bit embarrassing about getting it if your team loses. If we win, they could give FMVP to Bill Russell for I care

Also is it true that David Stern fudged the voting so that Magic got FMVP over Kareem when they won in '80? Saw that in the HBO show, not sure if it's something they made up for drama

So I'll tell you, while I respect those who sided with LeBron in the Finals MVP - and respect them considerably more than those who went with Iggy - LeBron's performance that series didn't fit with how I generally see a "Finals MVP on a losing team" candidate, and one of the reasons was the fact that the series in the end wasn't all that close.

It's not just that the series didn't go to 7. Over the last 3 games in the series, the Cavs with LeBron out there got out scored pretty handily, and I can basically guarantee you that no one would have seen LeBron as an MVP candidate if the entire series went like that.

Hence, LeBron's Finals MVP candidate there was largely based on the wins in Games 2 & 3, and what the Cavs excelled at in those two games better than any other game was their defense, not their offense. Their offense was weak the entire time putting up ORtgs that you basically can't expect to win with...yet if you ask basically anyone why LeBron was the guy who deserved the Finals MVP, they'll point to his offensive box score while ignoring his efficiency issues.

Now, LeBron's a great defensive player and deserves part of the credit for the team's defensive success...while they were still having defensive success. And for him to do that, playing all those minutes, taking such a heavy load on offense, is certainly very impressive.

But basically you're talking about a series with a young team being thrown a defensive-oriented lineup they weren't planning for, and then figuring it out and winning the rest of the series handily. Jerry West in 1969, this is not.

Coming back to the present: If the Celtics win the next two games handily, good chance I'll side with one of them over Curry for Finals MVP. On the other hand, if the Celtics win the next two games in hard fought games where Curry is clearly the most effective scorer by volume and efficiency, good chance I'll side with Curry. And of course, if Curry's awesome and it goes 7, that makes it all the easier to vote for him.

As I say all of that, I do feel I should say that I'll be surprised if Curry keeps up putting up numbers like he did in Game 4. The Celtics are putting tons of pressure on Curry by all reasonable standards, but you can always just do a hard, constant double on a guy if you conclude that's what you have to do. When you do that, you're daring the other teammates to beat you of course, but I'll be surprised if the Celtics keep doing what they've been doing with Curry the rest of the way if he keeps hitting shots like this.

This is the most interesting question for me. Should we consider Udoka's gambit a success thus far? They've won two games with it and they haven't given any indication that they are switching things up

I initially thought there'd be a fairly high chance a nonSteph player would get FMVP in a Warriors win just because I assumed Celtics would play the same defense on Steph that Cleveland and others went with

[falcolombardi]

I thought LeBron should have won FMVP in 2015 only if the series had gone to 7. I know it's completely arbitrary, but I don't think someone on the losing team should get it unless they came as close as you can get to actually winning it.

If we lose this year, I do hope a Celtic gets the award, there's something a bit embarrassing about getting it if your team loses. If we win, they could give FMVP to Bill Russell for I care

Also is it true that David Stern fudged the voting so that Magic got FMVP over Kareem when they won in '80? Saw that in the HBO show, not sure if it's something they made up for drama

So I'll tell you, while I respect those who sided with LeBron in the Finals MVP - and respect them considerably more than those who went with Iggy - LeBron's performance that series didn't fit with how I generally see a "Finals MVP on a losing team" candidate, and one of the reasons was the fact that the series in the end wasn't all that close.

It's not just that the series didn't go to 7. Over the last 3 games in the series, the Cavs with LeBron out there got out scored pretty handily, and I can basically guarantee you that no one would have seen LeBron as an MVP candidate if the entire series went like that.

Hence, LeBron's Finals MVP candidate there was largely based on the wins in Games 2 & 3, and what the Cavs excelled at in those two games better than any other game was their defense, not their offense. Their offense was weak the entire time putting up ORtgs that you basically can't expect to win with...yet if you ask basically anyone why LeBron was the guy who deserved the Finals MVP, they'll point to his offensive box score while ignoring his efficiency issues.

Now, LeBron's a great defensive player and deserves part of the credit for the team's defensive success...while they were still having defensive success. And for him to do that, playing all those minutes, taking such a heavy load on offense, is certainly very impressive.

But basically you're talking about a series with a young team being thrown a defensive-oriented lineup they weren't planning for, and then figuring it out and winning the rest of the series handily. Jerry West in 1969, this is not.

Coming back to the present: If the Celtics win the next two games handily, good chance I'll side with one of them over Curry for Finals MVP. On the other hand, if the Celtics win the next two games in hard fought games where Curry is clearly the most effective scorer by volume and efficiency, good chance I'll side with Curry. And of course, if Curry's awesome and it goes 7, that makes it all the easier to vote for him.

As I say all of that, I do feel I should say that I'll be surprised if Curry keeps up putting up numbers like he did in Game 4. The Celtics are putting tons of pressure on Curry by all reasonable standards, but you can always just do a hard, constant double on a guy if you conclude that's what you have to do. When you do that, you're daring the other teammates to beat you of course, but I'll be surprised if the Celtics keep doing what they've been doing with Curry the rest of the way if he keeps hitting shots like this.

This is the most interesting question for me. Should we consider Udoka's gambit a success thus far? They've won two games with it and they haven't given any indication that they are switching things up

I initially thought there'd be a fairly high chance a nonSteph player would get FMVP in a Warriors win just because I assumed Celtics would play the same defense on Steph that Cleveland and others went with

one could argue they got unlucky with it

49% 3 point shooting is an anomaly even for curry with a bit more chance to shoot than usual

so if they lose the question will be whether the strategy was at fault or they got unlucky with curry having his goat shooting performance

has the celtics defense been the reason for curry shooting like this? to some degree probably, if only by allowing him to get in rythim shooting so many cleanish looks

so unless curry comes back down to earth in the next 2-3 games and the warriprs offense rating alongside him we will probably look back on this as a bad strategy or at best a high risk/ high rewars gamble that backfired

[falcolombardi]

also i know i talk way too much about bucks, but this is another reason i would have lpved to see their matchup with warriors

they would have employed a similar, maybe even more extreme, defense on curry

but i think jrue is a much better guard defender than smart when it comes to defending guards in the pick and roll or navegating screens and still contesting the shot

i would love to know if jrue, who i am absurdly high on his guard defense, could have slowed down curry in smart/white place so to speak

specially when warriors run more simple pick and roll sets which is where i think he is an all timer

[parsnips33]

So I'll tell you, while I respect those who sided with LeBron in the Finals MVP - and respect them considerably more than those who went with Iggy - LeBron's performance that series didn't fit with how I generally see a "Finals MVP on a losing team" candidate, and one of the reasons was the fact that the series in the end wasn't all that close.

It's not just that the series didn't go to 7. Over the last 3 games in the series, the Cavs with LeBron out there got out scored pretty handily, and I can basically guarantee you that no one would have seen LeBron as an MVP candidate if the entire series went like that.

Hence, LeBron's Finals MVP candidate there was largely based on the wins in Games 2 & 3, and what the Cavs excelled at in those two games better than any other game was their defense, not their offense. Their offense was weak the entire time putting up ORtgs that you basically can't expect to win with...yet if you ask basically anyone why LeBron was the guy who deserved the Finals MVP, they'll point to his offensive box score while ignoring his efficiency issues.

Now, LeBron's a great defensive player and deserves part of the credit for the team's defensive success...while they were still having defensive success. And for him to do that, playing all those minutes, taking such a heavy load on offense, is certainly very impressive.

But basically you're talking about a series with a young team being thrown a defensive-oriented lineup they weren't planning for, and then figuring it out and winning the rest of the series handily. Jerry West in 1969, this is not.

Coming back to the present: If the Celtics win the next two games handily, good chance I'll side with one of them over Curry for Finals MVP. On the other hand, if the Celtics win the next two games in hard fought games where Curry is clearly the most effective scorer by volume and efficiency, good chance I'll side with Curry. And of course, if Curry's awesome and it goes 7, that makes it all the easier to vote for him.

As I say all of that, I do feel I should say that I'll be surprised if Curry keeps up putting up numbers like he did in Game 4. The Celtics are putting tons of pressure on Curry by all reasonable standards, but you can always just do a hard, constant double on a guy if you conclude that's what you have to do. When you do that, you're daring the other teammates to beat you of course, but I'll be surprised if the Celtics keep doing what they've been doing with Curry the rest of the way if he keeps hitting shots like this.

This is the most interesting question for me. Should we consider Udoka's gambit a success thus far? They've won two games with it and they haven't given any indication that they are switching things up

I initially thought there'd be a fairly high chance a nonSteph player would get FMVP in a Warriors win just because I assumed Celtics would play the same defense on Steph that Cleveland and others went with

one could argue they got unlucky with it

49% 3 point shooting is an anomaly even for curry with a bit more chance to shoot than usual

so if they lose the question will be whether the strategy was at fault or they got unlucky with curry having his goat shooting performance

has the celtics defense been the reason for curry shooting like this? to some degree probably, if only by allowing him to get in rythim shooting so many cleanish looks

so unless curry comes back down to earth in the next 2-3 games and the warriprs offense rating alongside him we will probably look back on this as a bad strategy or at best a high risk/ high rewars gamble that backfired

Definitely hard to separate out "luck" from strategy. If Boston didn't go 50% on 40 threes in game 1 do we look at this all differently? That surely didn't have much to do with their defense

[parsnips33]

also i know i talk way too much about bucks, but this is another reason i would have lpved to see their matchup with warriors

they would have employed a similar, maybe even more extreme, defense on curry

but i think jrue is a much better guard defender than smart when it comes to defending guards in the pick and roll or navegating screens and still contesting the shot

i would love to know if jrue, who i am absurdly high on his guard defense, could have slowed down curry in smart/white place so to speak

specially when warriors run more simple pick and roll sets which is where i think he is an all timer

I think Draymond would have a much easier time offensively against Brook/Portis than Horford/Williams. Would have been interesting to see if they would have gone with Giannis at center

Alas, we'll never know

[falcolombardi]

This is the most interesting question for me. Should we consider Udoka's gambit a success thus far? They've won two games with it and they haven't given any indication that they are switching things up

I initially thought there'd be a fairly high chance a nonSteph player would get FMVP in a Warriors win just because I assumed Celtics would play the same defense on Steph that Cleveland and others went with

one could argue they got unlucky with it

49% 3 point shooting is an anomaly even for curry with a bit more chance to shoot than usual

so if they lose the question will be whether the strategy was at fault or they got unlucky with curry having his goat shooting performance

has the celtics defense been the reason for curry shooting like this? to some degree probably, if only by allowing him to get in rythim shooting so many cleanish looks

so unless curry comes back down to earth in the next 2-3 games and the warriprs offense rating alongside him we will probably look back on this as a bad strategy or at best a high risk/ high rewars gamble that backfired

Definitely hard to separate out "luck" from strategy. If Boston didn't go 50% on 40 threes in game 1 do we look at this all differently? That surely didn't have much to do with their defense

of boston lost game 1, game 2 may have been approached way differently by both teams and have boston

then if boston won game 2, game 3 may also be approached differently by warriors and so on and so on

so is never quite as simple as looking at somethingh unusual that happened in 1 game, the small sample size of the series itself gives a chance to a lot of unusual thinghs happening which makes it all the more trickier than "if curry didnt shot 50% or celtics didnt shot 50% in game 1"

what has been a constant all 4 games is curry thriving in a way he didnt against 3 defenses that are not in boston level

has it been worth it to slpw down the rest of the warriors in exchange? series defense rating says no

was it a good gamble with the info they had before tge series? (that of warriors offense thriving of curry gravity even if curry himself didnt go off) maybe, maybe not

that said there is still a lot of series left, if they do the same thingh the next two games and curry goes cold, the discussion will look very different on celtics approach being or not a mistake

[falcolombardi]

also i know i talk way too much about bucks, but this is another reason i would have lpved to see their matchup with warriors

they would have employed a similar, maybe even more extreme, defense on curry

but i think jrue is a much better guard defender than smart when it comes to defending guards in the pick and roll or navegating screens and still contesting the shot

i would love to know if jrue, who i am absurdly high on his guard defense, could have slowed down curry in smart/white place so to speak

specially when warriors run more simple pick and roll sets which is where i think he is an all timer

I think Draymond would have a much easier time offensively against Brook/Portis than Horford/Williams. Would have been interesting to see if they would have gone with Giannis at center

Alas, we'll never know

ia not impossible we get that matchup next year tho although how close will both teams be to their cureent form is in the air

[falcolombardi]

bad start for boston, warriors have all the momentum

they need to get on a run so they can calm their nerves

edit: that was smooth draymond