Can LeBron win Finals MVP (if Warriors win)?

[Donoghus]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

Without James does Cleveland win any games in the Finals (if they are even there)?  Without Curry or any other one member of the Warriors do the Warriors still win the series (assuming the Warriors actually close it out tonight)?

You see it does in fact work both ways, if you believe the Warriors would still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry to the outcome.  Sure the Cavs would have still lost without James, but if the Warriors still win without Curry or Iggy or some other player, then it really does come down to overall impact and numbers.  That is where having stats that dwarf everyone else matters, even on the losing team.

You can try & justify it all you want. Plenty of the national media has put this very topic in the spin cycle.  I also know that you're probably the biggest pro-Lebron guy on these boards so I understand where you're coming from here.  I'm not surprised by your position on this.

The simple fact (and stat if you want to call it that) is who wins the series?  Plain & simple.  That's all I need to know.  How can you be the most valuable player in the series if your team doesn't win the actual series?  You're a heckuva lot more valuable if you're actually hoisting the trophy.  Guys like Iggy & Curry have done plenty to help carry Golden State in this series.  You see this during the games.  Especially the past two.   This is a championship series.  Not some regular season accolade.

Winning two games instead of one or zero games but no trophy?  Sorry, not MVP in my book even if the stat lines are eye popping. 

[Donoghus]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

The question is as old as the award itself, though. I don't think anyone argues with the idea that West deserved to win the inagural Finals MVP award.

It was 1969, who knows? Maybe some of the oldies here are better informed on it.    To me, I think its a bit silly to hand the MVP of a championship series to a guy who was on the losing team.    That's just me, though. 

[D.o.s.]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

The question is as old as the award itself, though. I don't think anyone argues with the idea that West deserved to win the inagural Finals MVP award.

It was 1969, who knows? Maybe some of the oldies here are better informed on it.    To me, I think its a bit silly to hand the MVP of a championship series to a guy who was on the losing team.    That's just me, though.

Well I think the thing is most of the time the best player in a series is on the winning team, particularly in the Finals. Some of that is undoubtedly confirmation bias (I wasn't alive in '69 so I have no idea about West) because their teams won but off the top of my head I can't envision a player doing what James has on a losing (so far) Finals team when the other squad hasn't offered someone categorically better.

LeBron in '07 and Iverson in '01 come close, but they're dealing with Duncan (even if Parker won the award) and Shaq outshining them, respectively.

[Donoghus]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

The question is as old as the award itself, though. I don't think anyone argues with the idea that West deserved to win the inagural Finals MVP award.

It was 1969, who knows? Maybe some of the oldies here are better informed on it.    To me, I think its a bit silly to hand the MVP of a championship series to a guy who was on the losing team.    That's just me, though.

Well I think the thing is most of the time the best player in a series is on the winning team, particularly in the Finals. Some of that is undoubtedly confirmation bias (I wasn't alive in '69 so I have no idea about West) because their teams won but off the top of my head I can't envision a player doing what James has on a losing (so far) Finals team when the other squad hasn't offered someone categorically better.

LeBron in '07 and Iverson in '01 come close, but they're dealing with Duncan (even if Parker won the award) and Shaq outshining them, respectively.

It wouldn't necessarily surprise me if Lebron did win it.  I just don't agree with the concept of a losing player winning it.  That's all.  I find it a bit counterintuitive.

[Moranis]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

Without James does Cleveland win any games in the Finals (if they are even there)?  Without Curry or any other one member of the Warriors do the Warriors still win the series (assuming the Warriors actually close it out tonight)?

You see it does in fact work both ways, if you believe the Warriors would still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry to the outcome.  Sure the Cavs would have still lost without James, but if the Warriors still win without Curry or Iggy or some other player, then it really does come down to overall impact and numbers.  That is where having stats that dwarf everyone else matters, even on the losing team.

You can try & justify it all you want. Plenty of the national media has put this very topic in the spin cycle.  I also know that you're probably the biggest pro-Lebron guy on these boards so I understand where you're coming from here.  I'm not surprised by your position on this.

The simple fact (and stat if you want to call it that) is who wins the series?  Plain & simple.  That's all I need to know.  How can you be the most valuable player in the series if your team doesn't win the actual series?  You're a heckuva lot more valuable if you're actually hoisting the trophy.  Guys like Iggy & Curry have done plenty to help carry Golden State in this series.  You see this during the games.  Especially the past two.   This is a championship series.  Not some regular season accolade.

Winning two games instead of one or zero games but no trophy?  Sorry, not MVP in my book even if the stat lines are eye popping.

You didn't answer my question.  Do you think Golden State still wins without Curry?

[Donoghus]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

Without James does Cleveland win any games in the Finals (if they are even there)?  Without Curry or any other one member of the Warriors do the Warriors still win the series (assuming the Warriors actually close it out tonight)?

You see it does in fact work both ways, if you believe the Warriors would still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry to the outcome.  Sure the Cavs would have still lost without James, but if the Warriors still win without Curry or Iggy or some other player, then it really does come down to overall impact and numbers.  That is where having stats that dwarf everyone else matters, even on the losing team.

You can try & justify it all you want. Plenty of the national media has put this very topic in the spin cycle.  I also know that you're probably the biggest pro-Lebron guy on these boards so I understand where you're coming from here.  I'm not surprised by your position on this.

The simple fact (and stat if you want to call it that) is who wins the series?  Plain & simple.  That's all I need to know.  How can you be the most valuable player in the series if your team doesn't win the actual series?  You're a heckuva lot more valuable if you're actually hoisting the trophy.  Guys like Iggy & Curry have done plenty to help carry Golden State in this series.  You see this during the games.  Especially the past two.   This is a championship series.  Not some regular season accolade.

Winning two games instead of one or zero games but no trophy?  Sorry, not MVP in my book even if the stat lines are eye popping.

You didn't answer my question.  Do you think Golden State still wins without Curry?

I think its pretty iffy at best.  Heck, this series is already pushed to Game 6 with Curry in there.  Without Curry? Who knows.  It's not outside the realm of possibility at all, to see the pendulum swung the other way in that hypothetical. 

I'm sure plenty of other hypothetical situations could be conjured up.  To me, it still comes down to the idea of whether or not the most valuable player of a championship series can really be a player from a losing team?  I just don't see how you can be the most valuable if you don't actually lead your team to a series victory.  Stats or no stats.  I also think part of "most valuable" are intangibles that can't exactly be quantified.  Part of the equation. 

[celticsclay]

I actually don't think they win the series without Curry. I think they clearly would have lost the last game without him and would be down 3-2 right now if the other games held the same. They could have very well lost the series already if they lose both overtime games without curry. Same could be said for Iggy.

[Moranis]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

Without James does Cleveland win any games in the Finals (if they are even there)?  Without Curry or any other one member of the Warriors do the Warriors still win the series (assuming the Warriors actually close it out tonight)?

You see it does in fact work both ways, if you believe the Warriors would still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry to the outcome.  Sure the Cavs would have still lost without James, but if the Warriors still win without Curry or Iggy or some other player, then it really does come down to overall impact and numbers.  That is where having stats that dwarf everyone else matters, even on the losing team.

You can try & justify it all you want. Plenty of the national media has put this very topic in the spin cycle.  I also know that you're probably the biggest pro-Lebron guy on these boards so I understand where you're coming from here.  I'm not surprised by your position on this.

The simple fact (and stat if you want to call it that) is who wins the series?  Plain & simple.  That's all I need to know.  How can you be the most valuable player in the series if your team doesn't win the actual series?  You're a heckuva lot more valuable if you're actually hoisting the trophy.  Guys like Iggy & Curry have done plenty to help carry Golden State in this series.  You see this during the games.  Especially the past two.   This is a championship series.  Not some regular season accolade.

Winning two games instead of one or zero games but no trophy?  Sorry, not MVP in my book even if the stat lines are eye popping.

You didn't answer my question.  Do you think Golden State still wins without Curry?

I think its pretty iffy at best.  Heck, this series is already pushed to Game 6 with Curry in there.  Without Curry? Who knows.  It's not outside the realm of possibility at all, to see the pendulum swung the other way in that hypothetical. 

I'm sure plenty of other hypothetical situations could be conjured up.  To me, it still comes down to the idea of whether or not the most valuable player of a championship series can really be a player from a losing team?  I just don't see how you can be the most valuable if you don't actually lead your team to a series victory.  Stats or no stats.  I also think part of "most valuable" are intangibles that can't exactly be quantified.  Part of the equation.

Iffy at best means you think Golden State might actually win without Curry.  In that case how valuable is Curry if his team could win without him?

[Donoghus]

To me, it's as simple as this;  how can you be the most valuable player if your team doesn't win the series? 

You can point out all the stats & metrics that you want, if you're on the losing side, I can't see how you're the most valuable.

The fact that this article is appearing before the Finals are even over gives me a chuckle.

Without James does Cleveland win any games in the Finals (if they are even there)?  Without Curry or any other one member of the Warriors do the Warriors still win the series (assuming the Warriors actually close it out tonight)?

You see it does in fact work both ways, if you believe the Warriors would still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry to the outcome.  Sure the Cavs would have still lost without James, but if the Warriors still win without Curry or Iggy or some other player, then it really does come down to overall impact and numbers.  That is where having stats that dwarf everyone else matters, even on the losing team.

You can try & justify it all you want. Plenty of the national media has put this very topic in the spin cycle.  I also know that you're probably the biggest pro-Lebron guy on these boards so I understand where you're coming from here.  I'm not surprised by your position on this.

The simple fact (and stat if you want to call it that) is who wins the series?  Plain & simple.  That's all I need to know.  How can you be the most valuable player in the series if your team doesn't win the actual series?  You're a heckuva lot more valuable if you're actually hoisting the trophy.  Guys like Iggy & Curry have done plenty to help carry Golden State in this series.  You see this during the games.  Especially the past two.   This is a championship series.  Not some regular season accolade.

Winning two games instead of one or zero games but no trophy?  Sorry, not MVP in my book even if the stat lines are eye popping.

You didn't answer my question.  Do you think Golden State still wins without Curry?

I think its pretty iffy at best.  Heck, this series is already pushed to Game 6 with Curry in there.  Without Curry? Who knows.  It's not outside the realm of possibility at all, to see the pendulum swung the other way in that hypothetical. 

I'm sure plenty of other hypothetical situations could be conjured up.  To me, it still comes down to the idea of whether or not the most valuable player of a championship series can really be a player from a losing team?  I just don't see how you can be the most valuable if you don't actually lead your team to a series victory.  Stats or no stats.  I also think part of "most valuable" are intangibles that can't exactly be quantified.  Part of the equation.

Iffy at best means you think Golden State might actually win without Curry.  In that case how valuable is Curry if his team could win without him?

Curry wouldn't be in the discussion of Finals MVP in that case.   If Golden State still won the series, naturally you'd assume that someone else stepped up and would subsequently get the trophy.   That would kinda have to happen in order to win the series.   

[Who]

For a player on a losing team to win the MVP, I think the following needs to happen:

(1) Nobody on the winning team can have a dominating series = so far so good for LeBron. Steph and Klay have been up and down. Iggy has been their best player from start to finish. Iggy has played very well but he hasn't been special. If Steph Curry has another massive game in game 6 to lead the Warriors to the title, that could swing things back his way. Dominant performances in deciding games will make up for his weak showing to begin the series.

(2) the losing player's best guy has to be extraordinary. Not just excellent but phenomenal. The type of performance that will be talked about for years to come. Which LeBron has most definitely been = extraordinary.

(3) The series has to be close. Cleveland did this early on but lost the last game by a big margin. If they lose in Game 6 by a big deficit again. I think that costs LeBron the title. If LeBron pushes this to a 7th game, I think he can win the MVP. If LeBron loses in a closely fought game 6 where he is superb, I think he can win MVP.

[GC003332]

Of course he can will it, if he doesn't look for the league to introduce a 'courage against all odds award' named in his honour.
 

[celticsclay]

For a player on a losing team to win the MVP, I think the following needs to happen:

(1) Nobody on the winning team can have a dominating series = so far so good for LeBron. Steph and Klay have been up and down. Iggy has been their best player from start to finish. Iggy has played very well but he hasn't been special. If Steph Curry has another massive game in game 6 to lead the Warriors to the title, that could swing things back his way. Dominant performances in deciding games will make up for his weak showing to begin the series.

(2) the losing player's best guy has to be extraordinary. Not just excellent but phenomenal. The type of performance that will be talked about for years to come. Which LeBron has most definitely been = extraordinary.

(3) The series has to be close. Cleveland did this early on but lost the last game by a big margin. If they lose in Game 6 by a big deficit again. I think that costs LeBron the title. If LeBron pushes this to a 7th game, I think he can win the MVP. If LeBron loses in a closely fought game 6 where he is superb, I think he can win MVP.

I rarely say this on here because we are obviously all talking about fairly unimportant stuff, but why are people particularly interested in this topic? It seems like moving the goal posts to me a bit. A week ago it was like, my god lebron just might win the title. Now the warriors win two games in a row and the Lebron finals MVP talk heats up. Maybe we should just celebrate the warriors if they win. They have had a really awesome season and are quite enjoyable to watch. I really don't think anyone will remember the second place team a few years from now (whichever team that ends up being)

[celticsclay]

Of course he can will it, if he doesn't look for the league to introduce a 'courage against all odds award" named in his honour.
 

outstanding

[D.o.s.]

For a player on a losing team to win the MVP, I think the following needs to happen:

(1) Nobody on the winning team can have a dominating series = so far so good for LeBron. Steph and Klay have been up and down. Iggy has been their best player from start to finish. Iggy has played very well but he hasn't been special. If Steph Curry has another massive game in game 6 to lead the Warriors to the title, that could swing things back his way. Dominant performances in deciding games will make up for his weak showing to begin the series.

(2) the losing player's best guy has to be extraordinary. Not just excellent but phenomenal. The type of performance that will be talked about for years to come. Which LeBron has most definitely been = extraordinary.

(3) The series has to be close. Cleveland did this early on but lost the last game by a big margin. If they lose in Game 6 by a big deficit again. I think that costs LeBron the title. If LeBron pushes this to a 7th game, I think he can win the MVP. If LeBron loses in a closely fought game 6 where he is superb, I think he can win MVP.

This is a good post.

Right now, for the entire postseason, LeBron is averaging 30/11/8 (well actually it's 29.9/10/9/8.4 but whatever). He is one of two players to touch those numbers in the playoffs, ever. The other is the Big O, who averaged 31/13/9 in 1962.

This is, in some ways, the most complete playoff run by an NBA player in 53 years. If anyone is going to get the nod on a losing team, it's James -- and I do think the Cavaliers are going to lose this series tonight. If you're interested in Basketball history in the slightest, this is a standout performance: the kind that elicit questions about giving the MVP award to the best player on a losing team.

http://bkref.com/tiny/3CUqv

[GetLucky]

For a player on a losing team to win the MVP, I think the following needs to happen:

(1) Nobody on the winning team can have a dominating series = so far so good for LeBron. Steph and Klay have been up and down. Iggy has been their best player from start to finish. Iggy has played very well but he hasn't been special. If Steph Curry has another massive game in game 6 to lead the Warriors to the title, that could swing things back his way. Dominant performances in deciding games will make up for his weak showing to begin the series.

(2) the losing player's best guy has to be extraordinary. Not just excellent but phenomenal. The type of performance that will be talked about for years to come. Which LeBron has most definitely been = extraordinary.

(3) The series has to be close. Cleveland did this early on but lost the last game by a big margin. If they lose in Game 6 by a big deficit again. I think that costs LeBron the title. If LeBron pushes this to a 7th game, I think he can win the MVP. If LeBron loses in a closely fought game 6 where he is superb, I think he can win MVP.

I rarely say this on here because we are obviously all talking about fairly unimportant stuff, but why are people particularly interested in this topic? It seems like moving the goal posts to me a bit. A week ago it was like, my god lebron just might win the title. Now the warriors win two games in a row and the Lebron finals MVP talk heats up. Maybe we should just celebrate the warriors if they win. They have had a really awesome season and are quite enjoyable to watch. I really don't think anyone will remember the second place team a few years from now (whichever team that ends up being)

The discussion is heating up because everyone dismissed LeBron's game 1 and 2, thinking, "There's no way he'll keep this up the entire series. The Warriors will blow the Cavs out once he comes back down to Earth." However, LeBron has kept the same numbers through 5 games while maintaining the same (albeit not good) efficiency, so everyone has been forced to reevaluate.