|
On June 16 2014 12:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
28.2 PPG (57.1%/ 51.9% 3PT) 7.8 RPG, 2.0 SPG for Lebron
Hard to say, by pure stats yes but then you have to look at defense and overall impact on the game and in the latter Leonard probably beats him out (though not by much).
Though I guess we can look at Heat minus Lebron and Spurs minus Kawhi. In that case, definitely Lebron.
How valuable are you really when your team loses 4 out of 5 games, each by 15+ points? And the only game you win, you were 4 made free throws from losing?
Since winning is the ultimate goal, I don't think empty stats should get consideration for MVP.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 16 2014 15:00 Pacifist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 12:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
28.2 PPG (57.1%/ 51.9% 3PT) 7.8 RPG, 2.0 SPG for Lebron
Hard to say, by pure stats yes but then you have to look at defense and overall impact on the game and in the latter Leonard probably beats him out (though not by much).
Though I guess we can look at Heat minus Lebron and Spurs minus Kawhi. In that case, definitely Lebron. How valuable are you really when your team loses 4 out of 5 games, each by 15+ points? And the only game you win, you were 4 made free throws from losing? Since winning is the ultimate goal, I don't think empty stats should get consideration for MVP.
I wouldn't call them empty stats. It's not like he was putting up Carmelo 28ppg or not playing defense (most of the time.) There's just only so much a single player can do, and using the "games won" metric is also pretty silly because it's such a teamwork heavy game, especially when the Spurs are involved.
Jordan couldn't beat the Pistons until Pippen stepped up and there's no way Lebron was going to single handedly stay with a team as excellently balanced and coached as the Spurs unless his sidekicks stepped up, even if he was extremely valuable (which he was.)
Just because they lost in embarrassing fashion doesn't mean he wasn't extremely valuable.
There's no way he should be considered MVP unless it were a closer series, but let's not ignore how well he played.
Also, I guess this Spurs team is the most balanced in the history of the league. #2 were the 89 Pistons, and they weren't even that close.
http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/15/san-antonio-spurs-would-be-the-most-balanced-nba-champion-of-all-time/
|
I wasn't saying Lebron should have been MVP. I guess I should have been more direct and asked if you thought Lebron played better than Kawhi.
The problem with that metric is that it assumes the teams have an equal talent pool. Maybe the Spurs just had a lot of talent from top to bottom. Just because the Spurs were super deep doesn't mean they couldn't put out a very talented 5 man lineup. They shared the ball a lot and they purposely spread out the minutes. They didn't have any All Stars on their team because they took turns being the All Star any given night.
I also think this "All-Star vs Balanced" argument is silly because if you take away the top players from each team, they usually aren't that unequal and of course the team with the better best player is going to win in that scenario. There's no reason to think that a team with significantly more talent shouldn't beat a team even if they have their one best player. The Heat really needed Wade to be the second best player in the series and, with the way everyone else was playing, probably need Bosh to be the 3rd best player to have a chance.
|
|
|
On June 16 2014 19:36 RowdierBob wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tZOS8.gif)
haha predictions predictions 
|
|
|
Well you were right about it being your last prediction...
So happy, only followed the Spurs since a year before the Cleveland win... this one's soooo much sweeter. The amount of times they've been written off as too old is getting old. They'll be a serious repeat threat next season as I'd bet anything Duncan and Ginobili will be back.
The Ginobili dunk was like a fairytale finish after he killed us last finals. Didn't think they should've re-signed him for so much but he really earned it these playoffs, even at 36.
|
I remember people writing off the Spurs after the 2011 disaster as too old.
To think they're killing it 4 years later is crazy.
And Patty Mills, what a boss!
|
I wonder how Kawahi would have turned out if the Pacers don't trade him for George Hill.
Pacers have actually made two really Lol-bad trades in recent times:
* Kawahi for George Hill
* Plumlee and G Green for Scola
Could probably even add the Granger trade for how it maybe killed their locker room.
|
Belgium716 Posts
|
Well that was a stompy as it gets.
|
On June 16 2014 15:00 Pacifist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 12:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
28.2 PPG (57.1%/ 51.9% 3PT) 7.8 RPG, 2.0 SPG for Lebron
Hard to say, by pure stats yes but then you have to look at defense and overall impact on the game and in the latter Leonard probably beats him out (though not by much).
Though I guess we can look at Heat minus Lebron and Spurs minus Kawhi. In that case, definitely Lebron. How valuable are you really when your team loses 4 out of 5 games, each by 15+ points? And the only game you win, you were 4 made free throws from losing? Since winning is the ultimate goal, I don't think empty stats should get consideration for MVP.
I even thought it impossible to be MVP when your team loses. Has it ever happened? (in NBA finals)
|
On June 16 2014 15:54 Jibba wrote:There's just only so much a single player can do ![[image loading]](http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0aalp3AdS1qfl78wo1_500.png)
|
On June 16 2014 16:52 Jerubaal wrote:
I wasn't saying Lebron should have been MVP. I guess I should have been more direct and asked if you thought Lebron played better than Kawhi.
The problem with that metric is that it assumes the teams have an equal talent pool. Maybe the Spurs just had a lot of talent from top to bottom. Just because the Spurs were super deep doesn't mean they couldn't put out a very talented 5 man lineup. They shared the ball a lot and they purposely spread out the minutes. They didn't have any All Stars on their team because they took turns being the All Star any given night.
I also think this "All-Star vs Balanced" argument is silly because if you take away the top players from each team, they usually aren't that unequal and of course the team with the better best player is going to win in that scenario. There's no reason to think that a team with significantly more talent shouldn't beat a team even if they have their one best player. The Heat really needed Wade to be the second best player in the series and, with the way everyone else was playing, probably need Bosh to be the 3rd best player to have a chance.
One of the stats I saw was that in each game the Spurs, on average, passed the balls about 100 times and ran a total of a mile more than the Heat. While that could be attributed to simply having possession of the ball for that much longer (I haven't looked at the particular number), having such an incredibly deep bench and different lineups is what let the Spurs effectively run circles around the Heat.
Honestly though, Lebron is still the best player in the game but you could put him in with any lineup the Heat have, and Pop could probably throw something out that is still better. You could also put him in for 48 minutes every game, and he still wouldn't be able to carry his team.
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 16 2014 22:29 rei wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 15:54 Jibba wrote:There's just only so much a single player can do
I know you're joking, but even with his amazing numbers Wilt was like 2-4 in Finals appearances and had a losing record in conference semi's, because of the Celtics.
|
On June 16 2014 22:48 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 22:29 rei wrote:On June 16 2014 15:54 Jibba wrote:There's just only so much a single player can do I know you're joking, but even with his amazing numbers Wilt was like 2-4 in Finals appearances and had a losing record in conference semi's, because of the Celtics.
exactly. wilt got beat by the celtics nearly* every year. the two finals he won he was part of the stronger team
|
On June 16 2014 23:06 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 22:48 Jibba wrote:On June 16 2014 22:29 rei wrote:On June 16 2014 15:54 Jibba wrote:There's just only so much a single player can do I know you're joking, but even with his amazing numbers Wilt was like 2-4 in Finals appearances and had a losing record in conference semi's, because of the Celtics. exactly. wilt got beat by the celtics nearly* every year. the two finals he won he was part of the stronger team
And to add to this, Big-O only won 1 title, and he put up some of the most staggering individual numbers performances of anyone not named Wilt. He didn't even make it beyond the first round the year he averaged a triple double and 30+ points.
There really is only so much a single player can do.
|
On June 16 2014 22:01 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 15:00 Pacifist wrote:On June 16 2014 12:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
28.2 PPG (57.1%/ 51.9% 3PT) 7.8 RPG, 2.0 SPG for Lebron
Hard to say, by pure stats yes but then you have to look at defense and overall impact on the game and in the latter Leonard probably beats him out (though not by much).
Though I guess we can look at Heat minus Lebron and Spurs minus Kawhi. In that case, definitely Lebron. How valuable are you really when your team loses 4 out of 5 games, each by 15+ points? And the only game you win, you were 4 made free throws from losing? Since winning is the ultimate goal, I don't think empty stats should get consideration for MVP. I even thought it impossible to be MVP when your team loses. Has it ever happened? (in NBA finals)
Answer to my question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_NBA_Finals
This series is also notable in that West, with an average of nearly 38 points a game, won the Finals Most Valuable Player award, despite being on the losing team. This was the first year a Finals MVP award was given, and it remains the only time in NBA Finals history that the MVP was awarded to a player on the losing team.
|
On June 16 2014 13:34 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2014 12:19 Jerubaal wrote:
I mean Finals MVP, people. I realize that the winning team gets a large edge, so I said 'in a perfect world'. It's not a very valuable contribution if you team barely manages to take one game during the series, is it? MVP for a player on the losing team is reserved for those rare instances where the series is highly competitive and that player puts out a truly herculean effort.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_NBA_Finals
got beat. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
