Can LeBron win Finals MVP (if Warriors win)?

[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?

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.

That isn't my point.  This current series, I assume you believe Curry should win the MVP (if you don't let me know), but if you think that GS might still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry if his team could win without him.  You are saying James shouldn't win because his team didn't win, but if you think Golden State could win without Curry then it is basically the same thing.

[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.

That isn't my point.  This current series, I assume you believe Curry should win the MVP (if you don't let me know), but if you think that GS might still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry if his team could win without him.  You are saying James shouldn't win because his team didn't win, but if you think Golden State could win without Curry then it is basically the same thing.

In this hypothetical, are we assuming that Curry has been out the entire series or that Curry just misses tonight & Golden State still wins the series?

And how is it "basically the same thing" if we're comparing a guy in a losing situation versus a winning situation?   It's apples & oranges.  Losing is not the same as winning.  It's not "basically the same thing".

Since we're playing the hypothetical game here,  what if Lebron repeats his Game 4 fourth quarter performance of possible sulk mode and zero points and Golden State wins going away by 10-15 points.  Curry hits his series average of roughly 26/5/6 in a closeout game on the road.  Are we handing the best player on the losing team of the NBA Finals the championship series MVP or are we handing it to Curry?

[D.o.s.]

I think that's the dealbreaker. West finished Game 7 with 42-12-13 on 14-18 shooting. Not to keep harping but he's our only reference point here.

[BudweiserCeltic]

The problem with what LeBron is currently doing is that we're basically rewarding his aggregated cumulative stats that are in part as a consequence of having bad teammates.

It would be one thing if it was accompanied with at least a competent efficient shooting measure, but he's been quite bad on that regard.

So I find rewarding him for shooting A LOT and other stats that are in a large part a consequence of bad teammates (and an opponent that plays small), then I don't see this as the correct course of action when you have players on the winning side (at least so far) who have had a [dang] good series themselves in particular Curry and the unsexy Iggy who's defensive impact has been immense and has been quite productive and efficient offensively.

[BudweiserCeltic]

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 don't know why people are considering Curry's performance as up and down. In fact, absent of one game, he's been consistent.

LeBron in the other hand, has had 4 games so far under 45% shooting, 2 of those have been at 31% and the third one at 41%.

Curry in the other hand has had 3 games at 50%+ shooting, only one game under 45% shooting, and the other game was at 47% shooting.

All of this with an average so far of 26 points per game.

I mean, how is he not considered to be having a spectacular series so far? He's been very very good, and just one dud of a game in the process. I don't know how that's considered up and down. He's been good.

[D.o.s.]

The problem with what LeBron is currently doing is that we're basically rewarding his aggregated cumulative stats that are in part as a consequence of having bad teammates.

It would be one thing if it was accompanied with at least a competent efficient shooting measure, but he's been quite bad on that regard.

So I find rewarding him for shooting A LOT and other stats that are in a large part a consequence of bad teammates (and an opponent that plays small), then I don't see this as the correct course of action when you have players on the winning side (at least so far) who have had a [dang] good series themselves in particular Curry and the unsexy Iggy who's defensive impact has been immense and has been quite productive and efficient offensively.

This is actually brutally regressive, which is kind of funny given the context of the post.

You are penalizing a player for not shooting well. Think about this. You are ignoring everything thing else a player is doing and all context to say "he is shooting a lot and he is shooting poorly and so he is undeserving of any accolades."

For all of James's shooting woes, he is not (for example) shooting 41% from the line like Iggy is, he is not a defensive negative like Curry is, and while his usage rate is obscene he's got nearly double the AST% that Curry does despite his best weapon being J.R. Smith. This is over the course of the entire playoffs, by the way, not just this series.

So, ok, his eFG% is low, but the idea that the only way to contribute to an NBA team is by shooting (and the only way to measure a player's contribution is by his shooting) is asinine and backwards.


EDIT: Ok now it's two posts worth of overevaluation of shooting percentages. Point stands, and your argument is insipid: of course Curry is going to rate out as a better shooter -- he is a better shooter. That means dick in the greater context of the conversation.

http://bkref.com/tiny/HE3q0

[Neurotic Guy]

Would love to see Iggy have a great game tonight. He's already got to be in the MVP discussion, but unlikely to beat Curry, especially with Curry's performance in Game 5.   

If Iggy plays LBJ strong and puts up an 18-8-7 line, he's got to be in the discussion.

[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?

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.

That isn't my point.  This current series, I assume you believe Curry should win the MVP (if you don't let me know), but if you think that GS might still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry if his team could win without him.  You are saying James shouldn't win because his team didn't win, but if you think Golden State could win without Curry then it is basically the same thing.

In this hypothetical, are we assuming that Curry has been out the entire series or that Curry just misses tonight & Golden State still wins the series?

And how is it "basically the same thing" if we're comparing a guy in a losing situation versus a winning situation?   It's apples & oranges.  Losing is not the same as winning.  It's not "basically the same thing".

Since we're playing the hypothetical game here,  what if Lebron repeats his Game 4 fourth quarter performance of possible sulk mode and zero points and Golden State wins going away by 10-15 points.  Curry hits his series average of roughly 26/5/6 in a closeout game on the road.  Are we handing the best player on the losing team of the NBA Finals the championship series MVP or are we handing it to Curry?

You penalize James for losing, because how valuable can you be if your team loses, yet don't see how that is basically the same thing as rewarding a player for winning when you think his team could probably win without him anyway.  How valuable is player really if his team could win without him. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

The problem with what LeBron is currently doing is that we're basically rewarding his aggregated cumulative stats that are in part as a consequence of having bad teammates.

It would be one thing if it was accompanied with at least a competent efficient shooting measure, but he's been quite bad on that regard.

So I find rewarding him for shooting A LOT and other stats that are in a large part a consequence of bad teammates (and an opponent that plays small), then I don't see this as the correct course of action when you have players on the winning side (at least so far) who have had a [dang] good series themselves in particular Curry and the unsexy Iggy who's defensive impact has been immense and has been quite productive and efficient offensively.

This is actually brutally regressive, which is kind of funny given the context of the post.

You are penalizing a player for not shooting well. Think about this. You are ignoring everything thing else a player is doing and all context to say "he is shooting a lot and he is shooting poorly and so he is undeserving of any accolades."

For all of James's shooting woes, he is not (for example) shooting 41% from the line like Iggy is, he is not a defensive negative like Curry is, and while his usage rate is obscene he's got nearly double the AST% that Curry does despite his best weapon being J.R. Smith. This is over the course of the entire playoffs, by the way, not just this series.

So, ok, his eFG% is low, but the idea that the only way to contribute to an NBA team is by shooting (and the only way to measure a player's contribution is by his shooting) is asinine and backwards.


EDIT: Ok now it's two posts worth of overevaluation of shooting percentages. Point stands, and your argument is insipid: of course Curry is going to rate out as a better shooter -- he is a better shooter. That means dick in the greater context of the conversation.

http://bkref.com/tiny/HE3q0

I'm not ignoring anything. I think LeBron is having a [dang] good series, but at the same time efficiency is important. There's no way around that. That he's not having a decent shooting percentage is very key when considering MVP considerations. An inefficient player with the amount of shot attempts he's having is a bit toxic. That he's doing other things to make up for that? Sure, but I don't think it's enough. Problem is that his teammates are even worse in here.

I'm simply tired of all this MVP talk about how wonderful he has been and NO ONE in the media dares to even mention a pip of how inefficient he's been.

I mean, there's no more important stat for an NBA player than how efficient he is, particularly if he can keep up the efficiency in volume opportunities.

All these rebounds all this assists are simply empty for a player who has to do it all for a team, because he has the ball always, but can't score the ball in an efficient manner.

I mean, what he's doing to keep Cleveland alive is outstanding, I don't want to take away from that. But we're talking about MVP performance, and inefficient player just doesn't deserve it in my view.

And while we're at it, it discredits the incredible job Iggy is doing.

Edit: As for you link, consider that you're putting up playoffs totals... not Finals.

[mahonedog88]

My personal philosophy is that no player should win MVP if you're on the losing team.  I don't care if you average 45/12/12, if you're team loses, you aren't MVP.

It's Most Valuable Player...if you're on the losing the team, sure you can be valuable, but not quite valuable enough to win.

[Moranis]

The problem with what LeBron is currently doing is that we're basically rewarding his aggregated cumulative stats that are in part as a consequence of having bad teammates.

It would be one thing if it was accompanied with at least a competent efficient shooting measure, but he's been quite bad on that regard.

So I find rewarding him for shooting A LOT and other stats that are in a large part a consequence of bad teammates (and an opponent that plays small), then I don't see this as the correct course of action when you have players on the winning side (at least so far) who have had a [dang] good series themselves in particular Curry and the unsexy Iggy who's defensive impact has been immense and has been quite productive and efficient offensively.

This is actually brutally regressive, which is kind of funny given the context of the post.

You are penalizing a player for not shooting well. Think about this. You are ignoring everything thing else a player is doing and all context to say "he is shooting a lot and he is shooting poorly and so he is undeserving of any accolades."

For all of James's shooting woes, he is not (for example) shooting 41% from the line like Iggy is, he is not a defensive negative like Curry is, and while his usage rate is obscene he's got nearly double the AST% that Curry does despite his best weapon being J.R. Smith. This is over the course of the entire playoffs, by the way, not just this series.

So, ok, his eFG% is low, but the idea that the only way to contribute to an NBA team is by shooting (and the only way to measure a player's contribution is by his shooting) is asinine and backwards.


EDIT: Ok now it's two posts worth of overevaluation of shooting percentages. Point stands, and your argument is insipid: of course Curry is going to rate out as a better shooter -- he is a better shooter. That means dick in the greater context of the conversation.

http://bkref.com/tiny/HE3q0

I'm not ignoring anything. I think LeBron is having a [dang] good series, but at the same time efficiency is important. There's no way around that. That he's not having a decent shooting percentage is very key when considering MVP considerations. An inefficient player with the amount of shot attempts he's having is a bit toxic. That he's doing other things to make up for that? Sure, but I don't think it's enough. Problem is that his teammates are even worse in here.

I'm simply tired of all this MVP talk about how wonderful he has been and NO ONE in the media dares to even mention a pip of how inefficient he's been.

I mean, there's no more important stat for an NBA player than how efficient he is, particularly if he can keep up the efficiency in volume opportunities.

All these rebounds all this assists are simply empty for a player who has to do it all for a team, because he has the ball always, but can't score the ball in an efficient manner.

I mean, what he's doing to keep Cleveland alive is outstanding, I don't want to take away from that. But we're talking about MVP performance, and inefficient player just doesn't deserve it in my view.

And while we're at it, it discredits the incredible job Iggy is doing.

James is actually more efficient than the Cavs as a team.  As bad as you think he is shooting, he actually brings the Cavs percentages up. 

BTW, game 1 when Irving played was by far James most efficient game.  It isn't a coincidence.

[Rondo2287]

ESPN Logic

Russell Westbrook doesn't deserve the NBA MVP, his triple double's didn't help get his team to the playoffs, he is just the only good player on this team this year and somebody needs to score the points.

Lebron James needs to win the finals MVP even if his team loses, look at this triple doubles, he is doing it all on his own

[BudweiserCeltic]

The problem with what LeBron is currently doing is that we're basically rewarding his aggregated cumulative stats that are in part as a consequence of having bad teammates.

It would be one thing if it was accompanied with at least a competent efficient shooting measure, but he's been quite bad on that regard.

So I find rewarding him for shooting A LOT and other stats that are in a large part a consequence of bad teammates (and an opponent that plays small), then I don't see this as the correct course of action when you have players on the winning side (at least so far) who have had a [dang] good series themselves in particular Curry and the unsexy Iggy who's defensive impact has been immense and has been quite productive and efficient offensively.

This is actually brutally regressive, which is kind of funny given the context of the post.

You are penalizing a player for not shooting well. Think about this. You are ignoring everything thing else a player is doing and all context to say "he is shooting a lot and he is shooting poorly and so he is undeserving of any accolades."

For all of James's shooting woes, he is not (for example) shooting 41% from the line like Iggy is, he is not a defensive negative like Curry is, and while his usage rate is obscene he's got nearly double the AST% that Curry does despite his best weapon being J.R. Smith. This is over the course of the entire playoffs, by the way, not just this series.

So, ok, his eFG% is low, but the idea that the only way to contribute to an NBA team is by shooting (and the only way to measure a player's contribution is by his shooting) is asinine and backwards.


EDIT: Ok now it's two posts worth of overevaluation of shooting percentages. Point stands, and your argument is insipid: of course Curry is going to rate out as a better shooter -- he is a better shooter. That means dick in the greater context of the conversation.

http://bkref.com/tiny/HE3q0

I'm not ignoring anything. I think LeBron is having a [dang] good series, but at the same time efficiency is important. There's no way around that. That he's not having a decent shooting percentage is very key when considering MVP considerations. An inefficient player with the amount of shot attempts he's having is a bit toxic. That he's doing other things to make up for that? Sure, but I don't think it's enough. Problem is that his teammates are even worse in here.

I'm simply tired of all this MVP talk about how wonderful he has been and NO ONE in the media dares to even mention a pip of how inefficient he's been.

I mean, there's no more important stat for an NBA player than how efficient he is, particularly if he can keep up the efficiency in volume opportunities.

All these rebounds all this assists are simply empty for a player who has to do it all for a team, because he has the ball always, but can't score the ball in an efficient manner.

I mean, what he's doing to keep Cleveland alive is outstanding, I don't want to take away from that. But we're talking about MVP performance, and inefficient player just doesn't deserve it in my view.

And while we're at it, it discredits the incredible job Iggy is doing.

James is actually more efficient than the Cavs as a team.  As bad as you think he is shooting, he actually brings the Cavs percentages up. 

BTW, game 1 when Irving played was by far James most efficient game.  It isn't a coincidence.

I said as much in the first paragraph. I don't see why this needs to be rewarded.

Also, the first game was the game that Iggy least played in... what a coincidence in itself...

[GreenFaith1819]

I'd say YES - LeBron James can most definitely win Finals MVP if the Warriors win.

What he has done (minus KLove and Kyrie) is simply AMAZING.

He has shot nearly 40% from the field over 34% from deep. His Finals PPG is roughly 37, over 12 rebs, almost 9 assists, as well as a steals roughly 1 block (0.6 Blocks, I rounded up).

While he hasn't shot particularly well, he's had really just that one 11-35 FG game (and CLE won that one). He's done this without any "Stars" next to him.

Even with Kyrie's performance in Game 1, while good - he wasn't even 100% healthy as we've found out. I'm doubting that Kyrie was even close to 100%.

As I compared Jerry West' stats, while outstanding, when he won Finals MVP in a losing effort - he had Wilt AND Elgin present. My guess is that if LeBron James had either Kyrie or KLove present this series could be over, in CLE's favor - right now.

So, "IF" Steph gets the nod for Finals MVP - his stats are the following, for the 5 Finals games (Thus Far):

Over 26 pts, 6 assists and 5 rebounds. While great numbers, he has had Draymond, Klay and the rest of the team HEALTHY - as well as Home Court Advantage.

Both Steph and Lebron had 1 game this series where they both shot abysmally.

As a lifelong Celtics Fan who has enjoyed LeBron's past failings VS BOS and who derided him for his "Decision" - I have to give it up for the man in these finals:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9NIZOvfKpc

LeBron James can make a stronger case for himself TONIGHT - if he has another great game (and shoots well), and CLE wins he helps his case.

If CLE sends this series back to GSW LeBron James may not even need this discussion.

 

[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.

That isn't my point.  This current series, I assume you believe Curry should win the MVP (if you don't let me know), but if you think that GS might still win without Curry, then how valuable is Curry if his team could win without him.  You are saying James shouldn't win because his team didn't win, but if you think Golden State could win without Curry then it is basically the same thing.

In this hypothetical, are we assuming that Curry has been out the entire series or that Curry just misses tonight & Golden State still wins the series?

And how is it "basically the same thing" if we're comparing a guy in a losing situation versus a winning situation?   It's apples & oranges.  Losing is not the same as winning.  It's not "basically the same thing".

Since we're playing the hypothetical game here,  what if Lebron repeats his Game 4 fourth quarter performance of possible sulk mode and zero points and Golden State wins going away by 10-15 points.  Curry hits his series average of roughly 26/5/6 in a closeout game on the road.  Are we handing the best player on the losing team of the NBA Finals the championship series MVP or are we handing it to Curry?

You penalize James for losing, because how valuable can you be if your team loses, yet don't see how that is basically the same thing as rewarding a player for winning when you think his team could probably win without him anyway.  How valuable is player really if his team could win without him.

Yes,  I'm penalizing him (and anyone else) for losing. Also, I still have no idea if we're talking no Curry for the entire series or just tonight in your hypothetical.

If you don't win the series, I don't see how you can be the most valuable player no matter how ridiculous you play.  Your team didn't win! This concept really shouldn't be too hard to grasp.  Also this is the Finals MVP, not the Conn Smythe which certainly has more wiggle room (and even that whole concept can be debated to the end of time).

And, FYI,  you didn't answer either of my questions from earlier.