Which is more prestigious: Regular Season MVP or Finals MVP?

[cotdt]

Which is more prestigious: Regular Season MVP or Finals MVP?

My take is that when a team has equally distributed talent (ie. Boston Celtics 2008), there is not one dominant player, hence Finals MVP is NOT as prestigious as the Regular season MVP, as the Finals MVP is simply the hottest player for he series that is on the winning team. The regular season MVP would be the more dominant player in this case, but happens to lose due to having a weaker team overall. However, he is more valuable to his team's (perhaps 2nd place) success than the Finals MVP is to his team's (perhaps larger) success.

On the other hand, when there is a clearly dominant player on the team that wins the NBA championship, the Finals MVP means a lot more than Regular season MVP, because he carries his team to Championship victory, and that is the most valuable thing a basketball player can do. MVP isn't about the "best" player, but the most valuable one. MVP is a measure of how valuable you are to a team's success. After all, what value are you if you can't give your team wins when it matters the most?

[Crash]

Finals.

Regular season MVP has turned into a joke. it used to go to the player that had the best statistical year, now it goes to whoever the media "feels" will get it from the beginning.

Finals.

[kap]

well who chooses the final MVP?

but i'd say reg season, because you are the best out of around 450 players.

the final you are only the best out of 30 players.

[S13M]

Regular season, because that means you played at a high level in 82 games.

[cotdt]

well who chooses the final MVP?

but i'd say reg season, because you are the best out of around 450 players.

the final you are only the best out of 30 players.

Considering that all players in the playoffs have the opportunity to become Finals MVP by getting their teams into the Finals, the pool usually includes all the top players in the NBA.

[mamba24]

Regular season, because that means you played at a high level in 82 games.


Finals MVP...Yes you played well for 82 games..but there is no pressure...the game is called differently...less physical...the past 6 MVP's have not won a NBA title...and their teams were ranked top 3 in the NBA.

the finals pits the two best teams in a 7 game series...and the player who wills his team to victory is the mvp...

it doesn't necessarily make him the best player in the world like pierce stated...but i will agree...he was the best player of that finals and his team won.

Also you earn the finals MVP...the regular MVP is a joke....not saying lebron didnt deserve to win it...but it was decided he would win it in pre-season and he dropped off from the no1 spot only for one week....

cmon...CP3, was carrying a banged up squad, Dwight was playin well....D-wade was just nuts....he should have been the actual MVP...

i mean one of those guys could have had a spot once or twice....but it was lebron thru the year...and kobe made a cameo when they beat the celts and cavs in the same week....

man marketing...media sucks....Wade is the real MVP....screw the team record...his cast was crap compard to lebrons...

[VCMVP1551]

The regular season MVP has been tainted by some obviously bad choices like Iverson over Shaq in 2001, Nash over Shaq in 2005, Malone over Duncan in 1999, Malone over Jordan in 1997, Barkley over Hakeem in 1993 ect.

[cotdt]

The regular season MVP has been tainted by some obviously bad choices like Iverson over Shaq in 2001, Nash over Shaq in 2005, Malone over Duncan in 1999, Malone over Jordan in 1997, Barkley over Hakeem in 1993 ect.

Well regular season MVP is decided by the media, and they want to create their stories... what did you expect?

I assume that by being a valuable player, you're bringing some sort of value to your team, ie. success. If your team gets kicked out 1st round in the playoffs, that's NOT success.

[Meticode]

I don't know personally, but when people and media speak of MVPs they always bring up regular season. You only hear Finals MVP if someone won it recently or they are listing a list of accomplishments of a player.

[cotdt]

I don't know personally, but when people and media speak of MVPs they always bring up regular season. You only hear Finals MVP if someone won it recently or they are listing a list of accomplishments of a player.

During these playoffs after Lebron already won the Regular Season MVP, fans are still chanting "MVP" every time Kobe or Dwight goes to the free throw line. I could only assume the fans mean the Finals MVP and not cheering for Lebron.

[sonics0034]

The finals mvp

At the end of the day, it is about winning the whole thing. This is like comparing the team who has the best record in the regular season to the team who wins the championship. No comparison.

[Mikaiel]

Why is it even debatable ? Do you really think LeBron wouldn't trade his MVP for a Finals MVP for example ? I'm sure Malone would trade his 2 MVPs for one Finals MVP, without any hesitation.


During these playoffs after Lebron already won the Regular Season MVP, fans are still chanting "MVP" every time Kobe or Dwight goes to the free throw line. I could only assume the fans mean the Finals MVP and not
cheering for Lebron.

What they mean is "That guy right there is the real MVP".

[QuestFor17]

There should be an MVP for all of the playoffs, not just the finals. I remember Bill Simmons wrote about this, and he made a valid point. There are 3 rounds of playoffs that aren

[guy]

Regular Season. Finals MVP can go to anyone who gets hot for a week or two. It would be one thing if Finals MVP was Playoff MVP, but its not.

[niko]

There is no question regular season is more prestigious. Finals means you played well for 7 games, Regular season means you are the best player in the league arguably.

I think you are all answering the question as "which would you rather have" which is of course finals because it means you won the damn finals 99% of the time. The question is not that, it's WHICH IS MORE PRESTIGIOUS, and that is clearly regular season.

Let's say you LOST and won finals MVP. Which would you rather have? You need to take the winning the finals out of it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Regular season MVP. Finals MVP is an overrated award. People always point to Nash winning two regular season MVP's and other "bad" winners but players like Tony Parker, James Worthy, and Joe Dumars have all won Finals MVPs. These guys never got close to winning a regular season MVP and for good reason. They are all very good players but they were never top 5 players in the league.

[MaxFly]

There is no question regular season is more prestigious. Finals means you played well for 7 games, Regular season means you are the best player in the league arguably.

Exactly...

Moreover, think of it like like this... Player A and Player B are on the same team. Player A averages 31/6/7 on 52% shooting through the first three rounds of the playoffs. Player B averages 20/6/2 on 50% shooting though the first three rounds. In the NBA finals, Player B averages 30/6/5 on 51% shooting... Player A averages 22/5/5 on 48% shooting. Who's winning the Finals MVP? Why?

[pethuel03]

I wonder why the people that thinks finals mvp are more prestigous are laker fans.. hmmm...


just kidding :oldlol:

[AJ2k8]

Kobe and Bron have Regular Season MVP's Paul Pierce has a Finals MVP...

[samballs]

Finals MVP... winning is everything!

[truethat23]

I would say Finals MVP because that means you more than likely (but not in all cases) were on the team that won the NBA championship and also you were the best player in the Finals.

There have been players who won regular season MVP awards but never won the NBA Championship. Ask Dirk which is more prestigous. When he was MVP, the Mavericks got knocked out of the first round by Golden State. The worst and most undeserving MVP in recent memory in my opinion.

[Bush4Ever]

In terms of legacy, the regular season MVP is more important.

Regular Season MVP = Ticket to the Hall.

All people eligibile for the HOF who won MVP are in.

Not so with the Finals MVP.

[Juges8932]

Finals MVP because it means you got the prize. All regular season MVP means is pat on the back, basically.

[Bush4Ever]

Finals MVP because it means you got the prize. All regular season MVP means is pat on the back, basically.

It also means you are pretty much a lock for the Hall of Fame.

It certainly isn't just a "pat on the back".

[jjayfive]

if you were ask all the players in the NBA which award they rather have, i bet all of them would say finals MVP..

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

ask lebron and kobe.

[Bush4Ever]

if you were ask all the players in the NBA which award they rather have, i bet all of them would say finals MVP..

I bet if you asked them anonymously, a good chunk would say regular season MVP.

[NewYorkUSCtrojan]

I still can't belive Steve Nash won back 2 back MVP....Someone f up big time...!

[QuestFor17]

Whose award is more prestigious? Dirk's regular season MVP, or Pierce's Finals MVP?

[cured]

Dumb question, IMO. Finals is more important because it means the player received a ring. That goes much further with players around the league than who won it in the regular season. Nash won it twice and Nowitzki won it once and neither are mentioned in the same breath as Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Wade, etc...

[QuestFor17]

Dumb question, IMO. Finals is more important because it means the player received a ring. That goes much further with players around the league than who won it in the regular season. Nash won it twice and Nowitzki won it once and neither are mentioned in the same breath as Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Wade, etc...

That's my point exactly. I hold Pierce's accomplishment in higher prestige. He played his best on the ultimate stage against the best competition. Dirk bowed out in the first round.

[Bush4Ever]

Whose award is more prestigious? Dirk's regular season MVP, or Pierce's Finals MVP?

In the long run, it will be Dirk's.

All regular season MVPs are in the HOF.

Not so with Finals MVPs.

[cotdt]

In terms of legacy, the regular season MVP is more important.

Regular Season MVP = Ticket to the Hall.

All people eligibile for the HOF who won MVP are in.

Not so with the Finals MVP.

What makes making it to the HOF so important? Is that what is on the players' minds when they play?

[cotdt]

ask lebron and kobe.

I'm pretty sure that Kobe is picking up his Finals MVP a week from today. He would have both, in his case, the question is which MVP Kobe will value more.

If you compare Lebron's regular MVP this year, vs. Kobe's Finals MVP, Kobe gives his team more success than Lebron does year after year, so I would say that Kobe is more valuable as a player.

[niko]

50% of you are answering the question WHAT WOULD YOU RATHER WIN? That is not the question. Yes, ,winning finals MVP is probably better because it means you won the title but the question is WHICH IS MORE PRESTIGIOUS and there is no answer except Regular Season. 100% regular season MVP is a more prestigious award. There is not so much prestige with winning the finals MVP, its more about winning the title, and being a great player besides.

[Bush4Ever]

What makes making it to the HOF so important? Is that what is on the players' minds when they play?

The HOF is an indicator of someone's legacy, and for NBA players is pretty much an automatic validation of your greatness (some exceptions, but not many).

[Showtime]

IMO, Finals MVP because it's against better competition and in series play instead of a handful of regular season games where the situation is totally different.

[Roundball_Rock]

Nash won it twice and Nowitzki won it once and neither are mentioned in the same breath as Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Wade, etc...

Tony Parker, Joe Dumars, Cedric Maxwell, and James Worthy all have finals MVP's neither of these guys were ever top 10 players in the league. Nowitzki was on the all-NBA first team again this year and is probably still a top 5 player while Nash was top 5 in his prime. In order to win regular season MVP, or even come close to it, you have to be an elite player; this is not the case for finals MVP where you need a combination of luck, timing, and sometimes the voters getting tired of voting for the same guy for everything (i.e. Magic).

[UnbiasedGuy]

Sorry for bumping this 4 year thread, but was googling finals MVP and this came up.

To me, Finals MVP, along with Superbowl MVP, are the most prestigious individual awards in professional sports (excluding Olympics). I played high school sports, and winning volleyball MVP for a small tournament one year was a big deal. I couldnt even imagine what making, and then winning MVP of our provincials would of been like.

In all but some cases, (2008 celtics, 2007 spurs, 2004 pistons, etc), the Finals MVP was by and large the most dominant player in the series, carrying his team to the NBA Championship, ala 2011 Dirk, 00-03 shaq, 91-98 Jordan, Hakeem, etc. To me, this is the single greatest feat you can achieve as a basketball player. The FMVP recipient performed when the stage was the biggest, and resultantly brought the chip to his team. To me, this means that you were the greatest player on Earth that year.

[Mr Exlax]

Finals MVP is more prestigious, but Regular Season MVP is harder to get. Finals MVP can be won by a role player that just gets super hot for 1 series. I think it's happened a couple of times before.

[Kurosawa0]

I'd actually go with regular season MVP. I mean, does anyone really rank Tony Parker over someone like KG because he has a Finals MVP?

It's easier for a second or third guy to end up with a Finals MVP. MVP is going to always go to at least one of the very top players in the league that year.

For example, Wade could end up winning the Finals MVP, but has zero shot at the MVP.

[InfiniteBaskets]

I'd actually go with regular season MVP. I mean, does anyone really rank Tony Parker over someone like KG because he has a Finals MVP?

It's easier for a second or third guy to end up with a Finals MVP. MVP is going to always go to at least one of the very top players in the league that year.

For example, Wade could end up winning the Finals MVP, but has zero shot at the MVP.

Agreed. It's easier for a 2nd or 3rd option guy on a contender to win Finals MVP than regular season MVP.

[kshutts1]

Regular season MVP means nothing to me... Finals MVP doesn't mean too much, either.

[chazzy]

I mean, does anyone really rank Tony Parker over someone like KG because he has a Finals MVP?

Does anyone really rank Nash over Wade because he has 2 MVPs to his 0? It's all contextual

[Hoopz2332]

Agreed. It's easier for a 2nd or 3rd option guy on a contender to win Finals MVP than regular season MVP.


agreed

[Y2Gezee]

Finals MVP is more prestigious, but Regular Season MVP is harder to get. Finals MVP can be won by a role player that just gets super hot for 1 series. I think it's happened a couple of times before.

This. Everyman will tell you he'd prefer to win Finals MVP, and rightfully so.

But only the true elites are in the conversation for regular season MVP, just a bigger sample size, and you have to maintain dominance throughout a whole season. Health plays a bigger role too.

[ILLsmak]

Finals because by that point the season is over. You can win MVP and shit the bed in the first round.

When you win Finals you can be like Paul Pierce and proclaim yourself "the best player in the world." and nobody can say shit cuz not only did you win a ring, but you got the MVP.

People talk about "role players" winning Finals MVPs, but it's been a really long time since that happened and I would argue it won't happen again.

-Smak

[UnbiasedGuy]

Finals because by that point the season is over. You can win MVP and shit the bed in the first round.

When you win Finals you can be like Paul Pierce and proclaim yourself "the best player in the world." and nobody can say shit cuz not only did you win a ring, but you got the MVP.

People talk about "role players" winning Finals MVPs, but it's been a really long time since that happened and I would argue it won't happen again.

-Smak

in b4 chalmers 2013 fmvp :lol :lol

[Goldrush25]

Didn't think this was a serious question. How is Finals MVP not more prestigious?

[Ne 1]

If you're an MVP winner, than that's much more important than if you're a Finals MVP winner.

FMVP is a pretty useless award. It didn't even exist until 1969, had it did Bill Russell would have more than anyone.

Kareem was flat out robbed of the 1980 FMVP in favor of a popular, charismatic teammate and we are to act as if the award is legit? Paul Pierce, Tony Parker, Cedric Maxell, Joe Dumars, and Chauncey Billups all have FMVP's. Even John freaking Starks came within one shot of winning a FMVP.

[ILLsmak]

in b4 chalmers 2013 fmvp :lol :lol

impossobru.

-Smak

[kennethgriffin]

both are equally worthless without the other

you need a season mvp to get credit for your finals mvp

you need a finals mvp to get credit for your season mvp


but in the end. its number of titles by a guy who won season mvp that really defines a player

not the number of season mvps by a guy who won just 1 title


which is why moses malone is never ranked in the top 10 with 3 mvps and 1 ship

yet hakeem is top 9-10 all the time with 1 mvp and 2 ships

[UnbiasedGuy]

If you're an MVP winner, than that's much more important than if you're a Finals MVP winner.

FMVP is a pretty useless award. It didn't even exist until 1969, had it did Bill Russell would have more than anyone.

Kareem was flat out robbed of the 1980 FMVP in favor of a popular, charismatic teammate and we are to act as if the award is legit? Paul Pierce, Tony Parker, Cedric Maxell, Joe Dumars, and Chauncey Billups all have FMVP's. Even John freaking Starks came within one shot of winning a FMVP.

but hows this: if youre a FMVP, you are the #1 reason, or heavily biased #2 reason why your team won THE CHAMPIONSHIP

if youre regular MVP, you steammrolled the regular season

which would do you think is more prestigious? putting up numbers vs bobcats, wizards, raptors, sacramento, etc for half the games?

or

putting up numbers in the finals for 4-7 games?


both are equally worthless without the other

you need a season mvp to get credit for your finals mvp

you need a finals mvp to get credit for your season mvp


but in the end. its number of titles by a guy who won season mvp that really defines a player

not the number of season mvps by a guy who won just 1 title


which is why moses malone is never ranked in the top 10 with 3 mvps and 1 ship

yet hakeem is top 9-10 all the time with 1 mvp and 2 ships

I somewhat agree with this. But your previous and or current kobe slurping along with your clear agenda makes your points questionable, even if very reasonable.

[Ne 1]

Finals because by that point the season is over. You can win MVP and shit the bed in the first round.

When you win Finals you can be like Paul Pierce and proclaim yourself "the best player in the world." and nobody can say shit cuz not only did you win a ring, but you got the MVP.

People talk about "role players" winning Finals MVPs, but it's been a really long time since that happened and I would argue it won't happen again.

-Smak


That's why they should have a playoff MVP like in hockey, one rule is the winner has to make the Finals. You can't have a player knocked out in the Conference Finals or Semi Finals as the playoff MVP winner. But Finals MVP is just based on 4-7 games.

[UnbiasedGuy]

That's why they should have a playoff MVP like in hockey, one rule is the winner has to make the Finals. You can't have a player knocked out in the Conference Finals or Semi Finals as the playoff MVP winner. But Finals MVP is just based on 4-7 games.

And I dont think there's anything wrong with that. Lebron beasting for 3 series and shitting the bed in the finals is inexcusable, the reason theyre not threepeating, and probably the most downright disappointing and embarrassing moment in recent nba history

I would rather lebrick show up for first three series, then legawd show up for the finals to bring it home

[pauk]

The MVP is much more prestigious, its the same criteria as FMVP but the requirements to obtain it is by battling 30 teams, 450 players and 82 games...... where as the FMVP is between 2 teams, 11 players and 4-7 games and it always goes to the leader of the winning team, often ignoring if sometimes there was an actual best player of that series if he loses the series, even if he took it to 7 games......

If there was a "Playoffs MVP" instead of a "one series MVP" then it would be probably more prestigious than the MVP.....

Only the Championship is more prestigious & meaningful than the MVP.... the FMVP is only a story of context which tells that you were the leader/best player between those 2 teams in that Finals......... but so does the MVP also explain and does so even better....

[UnbiasedGuy]

The MVP is much more prestigious, its the same criteria as FMVP but the requirements to obtain it is by battling 30 teams, 450 players and 82 games...... where as the FMVP is between 2 teams, 11 players and 4-7 games and it always goes to the leader of the winning team, often ignoring the actual best player of that series if he loses the series...

If there was a "Playoffs MVP" instead of a "one series MVP" then it would be probably more prestigious than the MVP.....

Only the Championship is more prestigious & meaningful than the MVP.... the FMVP is only a story of context which tells that you were the leader/best player between those 2 teams in that Finals......... but so does the MVP also explain and does so even better....

again, possibly good points, similar to kenneth up there, but impossible to judge accurately given your posting history/bias

[kennethgriffin]

The MVP is much more prestigious, its the same criteria as FMVP but the requirements to obtain it is by battling 30 teams, 450 players and 82 games...... where as the FMVP is between 2 teams, 11 players and 4-7 games and it always goes to the leader of the winning team, often ignoring the actual best player of that series if he loses the series...

If there was a "Playoffs MVP" instead of a "one series MVP" then it would be probably more prestigious than the MVP.....

Only the Championship is more prestigious & meaningful than the MVP.... the FMVP is only a story of context which tells that you were the leader/best player between those 2 teams in that Finals......... but so does the MVP also explain and does so even better....


how do you explain hakeem being top 10 and moses only being top 15?


finals mvp is more valuable, championships are more valuable.. you just need a season mvp to validate your status 1st

[retaxis]

MVP is more valuable because it distinguishes the simple factor that your team/franchise may be a crappy franchise and does not allow you a great chance at a championship run but you still do the best in the circumstance

FMVP means that you performed well in a series.

e.g. if Lebron was drafted and played alongside with Shaq or Tim duncan this guy could have won maybe only 2/3MVPs but staring at his 4th FMVP by now

[Ne 1]

but hows this: if youre a FMVP, you are the #1 reason, or heavily biased #2 reason why your team won THE CHAMPIONSHIP

if youre regular MVP, you steammrolled the regular season

which would do you think is more prestigious? putting up numbers vs bobcats, wizards, raptors, sacramento, etc for half the games?

or

putting up numbers in the finals for 4-7 games?



Finals MVP is a nice but if you have 3+ really good games and your team wins the series then that's all it takes to win MVP of the Final series of the playoffs. Why is that award more prestigious than an award based on an entire 82 game season where every team plays each other 2-4 times?

Thinking MVP of the Final series of the playoffs is a better measure is a textbook example of the fallacy of small numbers.

[Nash]

Sorry for bumping this 4 year thread, but was googling finals MVP and this came up.

To me, Finals MVP, along with Superbowl MVP, are the most prestigious individual awards in professional sports (excluding Olympics). I played high school sports, and winning volleyball MVP for a small tournament one year was a big deal. I couldnt even imagine what making, and then winning MVP of our provincials would of been like.

In all but some cases, (2008 celtics, 2007 spurs, 2004 pistons, etc), the Finals MVP was by and large the most dominant player in the series, carrying his team to the NBA Championship, ala 2011 Dirk, 00-03 shaq, 91-98 Jordan, Hakeem, etc. To me, this is the single greatest feat you can achieve as a basketball player. The FMVP recipient performed when the stage was the biggest, and resultantly brought the chip to his team. To me, this means that you were the greatest player on Earth that year.
:facepalm There is a sport called soccer that is 100 times bigger than both the NBA and NFL, you should read a thing or two about it.

[Ne 1]

how do you explain hakeem being top 10 and moses only being top 15?


finals mvp is more valuable, championships are more valuable.. you just need a season mvp to validate your status 1st

Yeah, that's why number of MVPs isn't really all that significant. I think of MVP winners of more like a club... if you're truly great, you'll more than likely get at least 1 MVP, but it's not really about how many you win. Not to mention the media tends to boycott those whom they don't like very much after that first MVP... or absolutely wait until the last second to give them one...and they will hand it out multiple times to players they just like personally i.e. Steve Nash. Shaq, Kobe and Hakeem all only have 1 MVP but have multiple rings which is part of why they're considered to be top 10 players in NBA history, while Moses Malone isn't despite having 3 MVPs he only has 1 ring. Being an MVP winner + number of rings is what get's you recognition.

So while being an MVP is important, number of rings by MVP winners is the standard of which most are judged, not the other way around. Otherwise Moses's 3 MVPs, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and on par with Magic and Bird. But he's not. In all number of MVPs is just pretty much a popularity vote. If the media doesn't like you, good luck winning more than 1. But there is nothing the media can do to stop an MVP winner from winning multiple championship rings.

[UnbiasedGuy]

Finals MVP is a nice but if you have 3+ really good games and your team wins then that's all it takes to win MVP of the Final series of the playoffs. Why is that award more prestigious than an award based on an entire 82 game season where every team plays each other 2-4 times?

Thinking MVP of the Final series of the playoffs is a better measure is a textbook example of the fallacy of small numbers.

Because you were a large part of why your team won the championship. Isnt it all about winning?

I can see the point you are making though. Like pierce getting hot for some games in the finals, or parker, therefore winning it over (perhaps) more deserving PFs duncan and garnett. However, without their "getting hot" contribution, do they still win the title? I guess the reverse can be said about duncan and garnett, without them playing well, those teams have no chance in hell. In this case, the fmvp really isnt all that. You could of gave it to either duncan/parker, or any of the big three. Had lebron played normal in 2011, wade/lebron could of both won fmvp. Same for detroit.

I would argue that having ONE really good game in the finals, leading to a decisive win, eventually leading to your team winning the chip, is more important than having 50 really good regular season games (assuming you still make the playoffs, etc).

Do you see the point I'm trying to make? The only reason why I see it so prestigiously is because of the amount of games you have, and the eventual reward, the ring

[annbafan]

as been said, regular season mvp is virtually the same thing as finals mvp but to get it you have to play much more games. So one regular season MVP has a bigger value to a player's career than one finals mvp. A player who only has one finals mvp will never be ranked higher than the one with regular season mvp.

[dh144498]

as been said, regular season mvp is virtually the same thing as finals mvp but to get it you have to play much more games. So one regular season MVP has a bigger value to a player's career than one finals mvp. A player who only has one finals mvp will never be ranked higher than the one with regular season mvp.

arguable. But a player with multiple FMVPs and just 1 MVP will almost always be ranked higher than a player with multiple MVPs and just 1 FMVP.

[Doranku]

Would you rather have a player with 5 regular season MVPs or a player with 5 finals MVPs? :confusedshrug:

[LBJ 23]

Regular season MVP...harder to win it than FMVP

Like posters before me said, you can explode for 4-7 games and win FMVP even if you're just an average player. To win MVP you have to be consistently above average good and competition is much harder(more different teams with different superstars)

[Heavincent]

I've never really cared about regular season MVP.

[pauk]

If you have already set your mind about the FMVP where you think the FMVP is more prestigious than MVP no matter what, then you better look away now... you have been warned....

Because its a matter of only 4-7 games and only 10 players the FMVP can be won by "mistake".... which means the FMVP can go to the 2nd option or even the 3rd or 4th option of the team, he just needs to have the better stats... just by the leader/best player being unselfish during those 4 games he can lose the FMVP.....

The FMVP technically doesnt always go to the best player/leader of the team during those 4-7 games, but to the guy who had the best stats...........

How else do you explain this:

In 2007 Tony Parker won the FMVP over Tim Duncan......

In 1989 Joe Dumars won the FMVP over Isiah Thomas......

In 1988 James Worthy won the FMVP over Magic Johnson.....

In 1985 Kareem won the FMVP over Magic Johnson.... Kareem was good that year, but Magic was the leader/best player in that team and the best player in the NBA, that honor was rivaled only by Larry Bird....

In 1981 Cedric Maxwell won the FMVP over Larry Bird.......

In 1979 Dennis Johnson won the FMVP averaging 9-6-6 ....... he won it over Gus Williams...

In 1978 Wes Unseld won the FMVP averaging 9-11-4....... he won it over Elvin Hayes, there was at least 4-5 players in that Bullets team that were better than Wes Unseld that year and that Playoff run.......

In 1976 Jo Jo White won the FMVP over Dave Cowens & John Havlicek.....

In 1973 Willis Reed won the FMVP over Walt Frazier & Earl Monroe.... there were 4 players who were better than Willis Reed that year & that playoff run...

In 1969 Jerry West won the FMVP despite not winning the Championship.... he won it over Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Elgin Baylor..................


The leaders/best players of these teams worked the hardest there entire year to get their teams to that record and then playoff spot and then Finals with their impact, productions, performances, leadership.... just to win the Championship and NOT get awarded the FMVP....


The MVP does not make that mistake of going to the 2nd or 3rd or 4th or 5th option of the team because of the bigger working load/space to make the correct assessment of going to the actual leader/best player of the team.......... and when it does so, it does it based on 82 games, 30 teams and between 450 players.....

[Odinn]

In 1985 Kareem won the FMVP over Magic Johnson.... Kareem was good that year, but Magic was the leader/best player in that team and the best player in the NBA, that honor was rivaled only by Larry Bird....

Haven't you done with your lies?

Magic has a case over KAJ for the being better one. But Kareem was their go-to-guy in half-court. KAJ was the leader. KAJ was 'the Captain'.

---

Regular season MVP is far more prestigious. How many MVPs are there you can name he wasn't top 5 player in that season?

[lilgodfather1]

Would you rather have a player with 5 regular season MVPs or a player with 5 finals MVPs? :confusedshrug:
That really depends. And since there are so few people with either of those totals, I can only assume you mean would I rather have Kareem, or Jordan? If so can I have both?

[Ne 1]

Regular season MVP. Finals MVP is an overrated award. People always point to Nash winning two regular season MVP's and other "bad" winners but players like Tony Parker, James Worthy, and Joe Dumars have all won Finals MVPs. These guys never got close to winning a regular season MVP and for good reason. They are all very good players but they were never top 5 players in the league.
Great post. Totally agree.

[pauk]

Haven't you done with your lies?

Magic has a case over KAJ for the being better one. But Kareem was their go-to-guy in half-court. KAJ was the leader. KAJ was 'the Captain'.

At that stage Magic Johnson had already established himself as the best player in the NBA only rivaled by Larry Bird for that honor.... he was the Lakers floor general, their leader and best player... he orchestrated everything, anything they did was THROUGH the mind & hands of a certain Magic Johnson..... there is certain intangibles a statistic cant measure....



How many MVPs are there you can name he wasn't top 5 player in that season?

ZERO... i think all MVP winners were top 5 players in those seasons....

However, the FMVP....... can name you extremly many FMVP winners that were not Top 5 players in the NBA.... not even Top 10.... maybe not even Top 20.... :P


Or wait... do you mean Kareem or Magic?

[chazzy]

It's all about context and the level of player you are. You think Wade would trade his 06 FMVP for an MVP? Wouldn't Rose trade his '11 MVP for a 2011 FMVP? And vice versa for some of the lower tier FMVPs. A FMVP comes with a title so that's a big legacy boost to already great players.

[Kurosawa0]

Does anyone really rank Nash over Wade because he has 2 MVPs to his 0? It's all contextual

No, but I don't think it means the Finals MVP is more valuable than the regular season MVP.

I think it really depends on how it's won. LeBron's MVP this year is far, far more valuable than Paul Pierce's Finals MVP.

Just as a general rule, I value regular season MVPs more than Finals MVPs though.

[Kurosawa0]

It's all about context and the level of player you are. You think Wade would trade his 06 FMVP for an MVP? Wouldn't Rose trade his '11 MVP for a 2011 FMVP? And vice versa for some of the lower tier FMVPs. A FMVP comes with a title so that's a big legacy boost to already great players.

But see, to me, for example what makes KG better all-time than Paul Pierce is that KG was an MVP. The same for Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. At least for one season, a guy being recognized for the season MVP is bigger than shining for a two week series.

I guess you really could look at it like this, which award has had lesser players win it?

[eSOL]

Definitely Finals MVP.


Biggest stage in basketball with all that pressure to play well.

[Kurosawa0]

Honestly, I kinda look at the Finals MVP as an afterthought. After you get the ring, does it really matter?

Like if say Wade wins the Finals MVP this year. It doesn't change the fact that LeBron is Miami's best player. Just like I don't count it against Magic for James Worthy getting a Finals MVP.

I actually think it's kind of a needless award.

[K Xerxes]

If the finals MVP was changed to a playoff MVP, it'd be a lot more prestigious because of the bigger sample size on the biggest stage. As it stands, I'd probably take regular season MVP, but it goes without saying that no multiple finals MVP winner has ever been a role player or not one of the greatest.

[Kurosawa0]

If the finals MVP was changed to a playoff MVP, it'd be a lot more prestigious because of the bigger sample size on the biggest stage. As it stands, I'd probably take regular season MVP, but it goes without saying that no multiple finals MVP winner has ever been a role player or not one of the greatest.

I actually like the idea of consolidating the awards to just one MVP award at the end of the season. That would be awesome!

[chazzy]

But see, to me, for example what makes KG better all-time than Paul Pierce is that KG was an MVP. The same for Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. At least for one season, a guy being recognized for the season MVP is bigger than shining for a two week series.

I guess you really could look at it like this, which award has had lesser players win it?
Like I said, it's all about context. Yes, a FMVP could mean a good player had a great matchup in the finals and was the best player for that series, or it could mean a great player led his team throughout the playoffs to a championship.. which is often the case. Wouldn't KG's case over Pierce be stronger if he had won a FMVP+title in 04 as opposed to an MVP? For player's already recognized as great, FMVPs boost them into a higher tier all time. Imagine where Lebron would be right now if he swapped two of his MVPs for FMVPs.

[ILLsmak]

The MVP is much more prestigious, its the same criteria as FMVP but the requirements to obtain it is by battling 30 teams, 450 players and 82 games...... where as the FMVP is between 2 teams, 11 players and 4-7 games and it always goes to the leader of the winning team, often ignoring if sometimes there was an actual best player of that series if he loses the series, even if he took it to 7 games......

If there was a "Playoffs MVP" instead of a "one series MVP" then it would be probably more prestigious than the MVP.....

Only the Championship is more prestigious & meaningful than the MVP.... the FMVP is only a story of context which tells that you were the leader/best player between those 2 teams in that Finals......... but so does the MVP also explain and does so even better....

HMM. It's kind of like this... imagine you are the best bball player in the world... or boxer, whatever you want it to be. And you win every fight. Slowly, hype is building up for you. And some guy is like... let's go, we're going to make it a nationally televised event and I'm going to challenge you for your crown. Some guy that is not unknown but everyone knows you are better.

And you do it, and he beats your ass. How will you be remembered? How will he be remembered? You, at best, will be thought of as one of the best of all time that got massacred in your biggest match. And he will always be remembered as the person who beat you.

Players don't "try" in regular season. There are plenty of teams tanking. Guys even stat whore in regular season. I do think playoff MVP would be good, too... but Finals is even better. It's like MOP in NCAA. I'm generally not an "end result" guy, because there are so many factors, but a guy stepping it up in the playoffs and leading his team to victory is great to watch.

All of those so-called role players who won the Finals MVP have prestige. I bet everyone who watched those series was like ogod, too. For me, it's easier to remember who won FMVP than MVP. Plenty of players (ahem STEVE NASH) have won MVP that weren't worthy.

Edit: I mean, he was worthy, but he wasn't on "that level" as a player.

You gotta get to the finals AND win to be a FMVP. So, that's three criteria. Performing well being the last.

To win MVP you basically have to have great stats on a great team and play in... hmm. I wonder. 70 games?

-Smak

[BasedTom]

FMVP seems like a more credible award since there isn't "voter fatigue" and very rarely will people dispute whether a player got robbed of the award.

[Kurosawa0]

Like I said, it's all about context. Yes, a FMVP could mean a good player had a great matchup in the finals and was the best player for that series, or it could mean a great player led his team throughout the playoffs to a championship.. which is often the case. Wouldn't KG's case over Pierce be stronger if he had won a FMVP+title in 04 as opposed to an MVP? For player's already recognized as great, FMVPs boost them into a higher tier all time. Imagine where Lebron would be right now if he swapped two of his MVPs for FMVPs.

I think you're conflating the status of a ring with the Finals MVP. The ring is what carries the weight. We don't think any less of Tim Duncan because he's 3 out of 4 on Finals MVPs.

Like I said, it's honestly a needless award. Take LeBron last year. Did he even look like he cared about the Finals MVP trophy? No, he looked at the Larry O'Brien trophy like it was his newborn child though.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I think you're conflating the status of a ring with the Finals MVP. The ring is what carries the weight. We don't think any less of Tim Duncan because he's 3 out of 4 on Finals MVPs.

Like I said, it's honestly a needless award. Take LeBron last year. Did he even look like he cared about the Finals MVP trophy? No, he looked at the Larry O'Brien trophy like it was his newborn child though.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. MVP is dramatically of higher value and weight than a FMVP of one series. There shouldn't even be a discussion going on here. The award is an after thought. I didn't see it getting so much attention until I came to ISH. It's not a big deal.

Hell, I might've given the '96 FMVP to Dennis Rodman, or Gasol in 2010, would I dare say they were their team's best player? Absolutely not.

With that said, let's not act like the MVP hasn't been tainted in several seasons due to context, narrative, voter fatigue, campaigning, or "career achievment" award type seasons.

[zizozain]

playoffs MVP (12-21 games) is the most important one

[lilgodfather1]

FMVP seems like a more credible award since there isn't "voter fatigue" and very rarely will people dispute whether a player got robbed of the award.
Ray Allen? A small case for Pau Gasol, Any of the Detroit stars could have won it, etc.

The FMVP is just as disputed at times. If all things are equal statistically, the award goes to the best story.

Then again it's the same with MVP. Voter fatigue, I mean really?

Anyways I would love to see the award being a season award. An amalgamation of sorts between MVP, and FMVP would be nice.

As long as the award wasn't TOO heavily favoured for the best player on the team that won the title, which we all know it would be. For example in 2004 Billups winning it instead of Shaq would be a tragedy.

A truly tough one would be 2009. LeBron had a great regular season, highest non guard assists average ever, 66 win season, and in the ECF 38/8/8 in a losing effort. Kobe on the other hand led a 65 win team and had a great playoff run himself, winning the title.

Who does that amalgamated MVP go to? Can't really be mad at either selection, but someone is getting robbed.

[Euroleague]

It should be Finals MVP by far and away, but due to the retarded sports media, it's seen as the other way around. It really should be the exact opposite though.

[LJJ]

But see, to me, for example what makes KG better all-time than Paul Pierce is that KG was an MVP. The same for Tim Duncan and Tony Parker. At least for one season, a guy being recognized for the season MVP is bigger than shining for a two week series.

Waaaaaat.

Garnett and Duncan being better and greater players than Paul Pierce and Tony Parker has nothing to do with an award.

[DMV2]

Regular season MVP means more for other sports. Whereas championship(Finals) MVP means a lot more in the NBA than other sports. It's because the NBA is more glorified by individual players(superstars) than being a team sport.

So to me, Finals MVP over Regular Season MVP.

[SamuraiSWISH]

As long as the award wasn't TOO heavily favoured for the best player on the team that won the title, which we all know it would be. For example in 2004 Billups winning it instead of Shaq would be a tragedy.
The justification I give to that is a player would have to have an INSANE playoffs and not make the Finals either due to weakness of team, etc.

Jordan was quite easily MVP in '89 and '90, especially if you include playoff performance. But he didn't make it to the Finals, right?


A truly tough one would be 2009. LeBron had a great regular season, highest non guard assists average ever, 66 win season, and in the ECF 38/8/8 in a losing effort. Kobe on the other hand led a 65 win team and had a great playoff run himself, winning the title.
That is a tough one. LeBron had one of the best playoff runs ever, Kobe had a very good playoffs and won a ring. 2009 is a difficult pick. I choose LeBron for that season due to the regular season and insane playoffs. Kobe's regular season wasn't as good as LeBron's (or Wade's) and his playoffs from an individual standpoint was less impressive than LeBron's even though he went one round more and won a ring.

In comparison on that same note, I take Kobe's 2010 over LeBron's 2010 for the same reason. Kobe didn't have as great of a regular season, but his playoffs were absolutely better and he went two rounds deeper and lead his team to a ring. Where as LeBron pouted and quit on his team in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

The MVP absolutely has to take into account both regular season and post season in order to give a more accurate gauge of who was the best player in that particular season.

[Psileas]

I'd rather see a "Playoff MVP" instead of simply a Finals MVP or, as an alternative, an EC Playoff and WC Playoff MVP award, which would be awarded before the beginning of the Finals, where there would await the traditional Finals MVP. A (general) playoff MVP could be given to the player of (usually) the champions who performed the best throughout the whole playoffs. This way, we wouldn't be seeing cases like Maxwell, Parker, Worthy, etc.

As things are, you may not even have to play great ball during the whole Finals in order to win the award. In a tough, balanced series, with different protagonists in each game, just a couple of very good games and being decent in the rest of the series could be enough. That's not the case with the Regular Season award.

[And1AllDay]

Finals because by that point the season is over. You can win MVP and shit the bed in the first round.

When you win Finals you can be like Paul Pierce and proclaim yourself "the best player in the world." and nobody can say shit cuz not only did you win a ring, but you got the MVP.

People talk about "role players" winning Finals MVPs, but it's been a really long time since that happened and I would argue it won't happen again.

-Smak

You may be true Curry has been a role player on GSW and never won one :oldlol:

[tanibanana]

All season MVP are HOF worthy. A few FMVP are not even HOF worthy. I'll go with season MVP.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Rose isn't HOF worthy.

[tanibanana]

Rose isn't HOF worthy.
Could be the first... but it is more due to injury and not the player he is.

[Ainosterhaspie]

Could be the first... but it is more due to injury and not the player he is.
No argument there, and I agree with your overall point. There are more FMVPs who were lesser players, than regular season MVPs, in part because FMVP can be won with two or three quality games. That's much easier for a lesser player to pull off than being the best player for a whole season.

[ImKobe]

Rose isn't HOF worthy.

How is he not? ROY, MVP, multiple All-Star seasons, All-NBA season, two gold medals from World Cups. Worse players are in the Hall, he's still playing at a high level offensively (most points per 36 minutes in his career, still a 20+ PER guy) so it's not like he's close to being done yet.

[Smoke117]

How is he not? ROY, MVP, multiple All-Star seasons, All-NBA season, two gold medals from World Cups. Worse players are in the Hall, he's still playing at a high level offensively (most points per 36 minutes in his career, still a 20+ PER guy) so it's not like he's close to being done yet.

Yeah...he puts up numbers still...on losing teams going nowhere. Rose needs to actually contribute to a winning team for it to matter. Last time he was on one (Cavs) he was awful.

[Bronbron23]

The one that pretty much every player would chose if they had to.......fmvp

[houston]

finals mvp is more of a joke award....regular season by far

[3ball]

who has the most regular season MVP's in 3-pointer basketball?

who has the most Finals MVP's in 3-pointer basketball?

Who has the most total MVP's (reg season and Finals) in 3-pointer basketball?

[SouBeachTalents]

finals mvp is more of a joke award....regular season by far
Absolutely retarded take

[SouBeachTalents]

who has the most regular season MVP's in 3-pointer basketball?

who has the most Finals MVP's in 3-pointer basketball?

Who has the most total MVP's (reg season and Finals) in 3-pointer basketball?
And LeBron has the 2nd most total MVP's in 3 pointer basketball

[3ball]

And LeBron has the 2nd most total MVP's in 3 pointer basketball
but no higher than 4th in the skill category - behind MJ, Kobe, Bird.. and no higher than 117th in clutch/mentality... and no higher than 1035th in teamwork/brand of ball/team ceiling/viability on championship level

and no higher than 1 ring without teammate saving him or team-hopping, so no higher than 169th in winning

so not all that high

[SouBeachTalents]

but no higher than 4th in the skill category - behind MJ, Kobe, Bird.. and no higher than 117th in clutch/mentality... and no higher than 1035th in teamwork/brand of ball/team ceiling/viability on championship level

and no higher than 1 ring without teammate saving him or team-hopping, so no higher than 169th in winning

so not all that high
Except he's factually 2nd in total MVP's in the 3 point era. The rest is bullshit you conjured out of thin air :oldlol:

[3ball]

Except he's factually 2nd in total MVP's in the 3 point era. The rest is bullshit you conjured out of thin air :oldlol:
the team ceiling part isn't conjured

3/9 is real.. woat championship record

his skillset yields weaker brand of ball and ultimately team ceiling than other top guys, aka 3/9

So again, he's no higher than (insert high double or triple digit number) in teamwork/brand/championship record

When lebron was 12, the coach put the ball in his hands and said "do whatever you want kid".. and he's been running the low brand/low ball movement lebron-ball ever since, aka 3/9.. the weak brand can only win via talent (talent-based winning/team-hopping)

bron-ball is the only offense that needs extra playmakers (i.e. lebron always needs additional playmaking help, but curry doesn't.. Giannis doesn't.. but only lebron-ball does)

[Lebron23]

Lebron got the best of both Worlds. 4x MVP and 3x Finals MVP

[Stephonit]

The one that pretty much every player would chose if they had to.......fmvp

This would only be the case because of the understanding that an FMVP will come with a ring. If one was to say the FMVP came without a ring the value would plummet. It is the ring that is assumed to come with the award that is valuable. Even with a ring some FMVPs don't have the cachet of an MVP.

[Andrei89]

Lebron got the best of both Worlds. 4x MVP and 3x Finals MVP

Define best of both worlds since MJ got 5mvp and 6 fmvp. Isn't that the best of both worlds?

[GimmeThat]

well, regular season aren't broadcasted over the air, unless you count your local team, which means plenty of states are without coverage.

[Lebron23]

Define best of both worlds since MJ got 5mvp and 6 fmvp. Isn't that the best of both worlds?

I meant Lebron have a finals MVP, and Regular Season MVP. He is arguably a top 3 player of all time.

[Andrei89]

I meant Lebron have a finals MVP, and Regular Season MVP. He is arguably a top 3 player of all time.

Fucc what you meant boy. You twisting shit now. Is almost as you as so dumb to forget Jordan has 5x and 6x. Good brainfart right there

[Bronbron23]

This would only be the case because of the understanding that an FMVP will come with a ring. If one was to say the FMVP came without a ring the value would plummet. It is the ring that is assumed to come with the award that is valuable. Even with a ring some FMVPs don't have the cachet of an MVP.

Well yeah of course that comes along with it but its more than that. Its being the best player on the biggest stage usually against the best competition. The play is more physical and players are giving their absolute all unlike most regular season games. This is why you'll see alot of players struggle much more in the finals compared to the regular season. Steph is a good example of this. In the regular season he looks like a video game pretty much playing with the competition. In the finals he's still really good but the game is much harder for him. Hes still good dont get me wrong but its much more of a struggle and his number usually reflect this.

[ImKobe]

Well yeah of course that comes along with it but its more than that. Its being the best player on the biggest stage usually against the best competition. The play is more physical and players are giving their absolute all unlike most regular season games. This is why you'll see alot of players struggle much more in the finals compared to the regular season. Steph is a good example of this. In the regular season he looks like a video game pretty much playing with the competition. In the finals he's still really good but the game is much harder for him. Hes still good dont get me wrong but its much more of a struggle and his number usually reflect this.

The only time you could say he struggled was in 2016, when he had a knee injury mid-Playoffs and basically missed a month and had to go through a tough OKC series. He was great in the 3 other Finals, playing at a FMVP level in all of them.

[Bronbron23]

The only time you could say he struggled was in 2016, when he had a knee injury mid-Playoffs and basically missed a month and had to go through a tough OKC series. He was great in the 3 other Finals, playing at a FMVP level in all of them.

Well yeah was still great as i already said but relative to his own regular season play he did struggle more and it was more difficult for him to get clean looks. Again the numbers and eye test back it up.

Heres steph's efficiency every year compare to finals:

15- reg season fg 49% 3pt 44% finals fg 44% 3pt 39%
16- reg season fg 50% 3pt 45% finals fg 40% 3pt 40%
17- reg season fg 47% 3pt 41% finals fg 44% 3pt 39%
18- reg season fg 50% 3pt 42% finals fg 40% 3pt 42%
19- reg season fg 47% 3pt 44% finals fg 41% 3pt 34%

So as you can see his efficiency compared to most players still is pretty good but relative to his own reg season level of play he did indeed struggle more.

And he wasnt hurt anymore than most players are at the end of a long season. He was doing 360 dunks i warm ups dude. Ive sprained my knees before. You cant do 360 dunks if your knee is still sprained or hurt.

[LeCroix]

Harder to win mvp over fmvp

Cedric maxwell and andres igodoula have fmvps...

[LeCroix]

There is no question regular season is more prestigious. Finals means you played well for 7 games, Regular season means you are the best player in the league arguably.

I think you are all answering the question as "which would you rather have" which is of course finals because it means you won the damn finals 99% of the time. The question is not that, it's WHICH IS MORE PRESTIGIOUS, and that is clearly regular season.

Let's say you LOST and won finals MVP. Which would you rather have? You need to take the winning the finals out of it.

Co signed !!!

[Gougou]

Regular season MVP is still the most prestigious, if you have multiple of them you are best in the league (Lebron), also if you do have them it means you are clearly one of the best players in the league.

Finals MVP just means you are playing in a team that reached the finals, you are the most outstanding playing on that "roster", but not in the entire league, therefore I think regular season means more.

I mean imagine if Kawhi had those regular season MVPs, he can easily be top 20 players ever, but all those load managements holds him back.

[Mr Feeny]

Regular season MVP is still the most prestigious, if you have multiple of them you are best in the league (Lebron), also if you do have them it means you are clearly one of the best players in the league.

Finals MVP just means you are playing in a team that reached the finals, you are the most outstanding playing on that "roster", but not in the entire league, therefore I think regular season means more.

I mean imagine if Kawhi had those regular season MVPs, he can easily be top 20 players ever, but all those load managements holds him back.

The reverse argument is Steve Nash. I think both are valuable. The best situation is if you have led a team to a title at some point and also won an MVP at some point.

[Rysio]

Easily mvp. Fmvps are the most overrated accolades in nba. A role player can get hot for 4 to 5 games and win it.

[Mr Feeny]

Easily mvp. Fmvps are the most overrated accolades in nba. A role player can get hot for 4 to 5 games and win it.

Interesting. No wonder Kobe has 1 mvp in 20 years and an ill-deserved one at that, in a season in which he was outperformed by Chris Paul.

[brownmamba00]

Finals mvp to me is harder to get because as a player you go through 3x 7 game series and a 82 game season prior to that. At that point you are exhausted and banged up. So basically you're running on fumes. Which makes every possesion count. Jumpshooters get no lift and start missing open shots. Slashers start avoiding the paint because of the beating they get at the rim.

Basically it all comes down to fundamentals, bball iq and good coaching.

[Rysio]

Interesting. No wonder Kobe has 1 mvp in 20 years and an ill-deserved one at that, in a season in which he was outperformed by Chris Paul.

Kobe carried a shit team to number 1 seed for most of the season till gasol got there how did he get outperformed?

[CodeBreaker]

Consistent excellence for a whole season vs Greatness at the biggest stage

I'm going with Finals MVP... Curry can't get one lol

[Stanley Kobrick]

Consistent excellence for a whole season vs Greatness at the biggest stage

I'm going with Finals MVP... Curry can't get one lol
I agree with you codebreaker. plus not to mention Warriors won multiple playoff series without his existence at all during injury. which reveals his actual value on a NBA team

[Mr Feeny]

Kobe carried a shit team to number 1 seed for most of the season till gasol got there how did he get outperformed?

Why do you feel the need to constantly lie? They were 28-16 and had lost 5 of 8 before the game against Toronto. they were nowhere even close to the number 1 seed.

[Dr Hawk]

I would rather have an FMVP, because that would mean I also won a championship, but the MVP is more prestigious.

[LeCroix]

I would rather have an FMVP, because that would mean I also won a championship, but the MVP is more prestigious.

Its not which would you have, its which is harder / more prestigeous. Because would you want Jerry West's FMVP when he lost in 69 instead of an MVP? Nope. You are just valuing the ring aspect which makes sense, but take the ring out answer which is more presitgeous. Def the 82 game MVP over the 4 to 7 game MVP.

[Dr Hawk]

Its not which would you have, its which is harder / more prestigeous. Because would you want Jerry West's FMVP when he lost in 69 instead of an MVP? Nope. You are just valuing the ring aspect which makes sense, but take the ring out answer which is more presitgeous. Def the 82 game MVP over the 4 to 7 game MVP.

I did answer it at the end of my post. The MVP is definitely more prestigious to me, no doubt.

Would I rather have West's FMVP instead of an MVP? Big no. I would only put the FMVP ahead of the MVP if it included getting the ring.

[Overdrive]

All retired MVPs are HOFers, not all FMVPs are.

[Roundball_Rock]

Iggy, Cornbread Maxwell, 14' Kawhi (a role player then) have FMVP's. The list of all-star game MVP's is more impressive than the FMVP list. FMVP lost a lot of credibility when the clear best player in the series repeatedly doesn't win the award because his team lost. So it is not even a real award for the most valuable player in the finals.

[Rico2016]

This is the biggest knock on Kawhi's career. He has no shot at an MVP because he didn't do enough and rested up a lot.

I take Curry's 3 rings and 2 MVPs over Kawhi's 2 rings, 2 fmvp, and 0 mvps

[BigShotBob]

Finals MVP. Means you were the MVP on the biggest stage. There have been MVPs that lost in the first or second round, or who didn't even make it to the Finals. Let alone win a championship.

[ELITEpower23]

Finals MVP. Means you were the MVP on the biggest stage. There have been MVPs that lost in the first or second round, or who didn't even make it to the Finals. Let alone win a championship.

MVP: 82 games, best player among 30 teams
FMVP: 4-7 games, best player among 2 teams

[BigShotBob]

MVP: 82 games, best player among 30 teams
FMVP: 4-7 games, best player among 2 teams

82 Games among 30 teams (some teams injured, on a back-to-back, resting players, not putting in full effort, coasting, etc)

FMVP: 4-7 games, best player among the best 2 teams (even being the best/most impactful player on your own team)

FMVP wins

[Bronbron23]

Im surprised so many people say mvp. Its probably because its fits the narrative for their favorite player better. The regular season is to easy especially in this era. Guys like westbrook, Harden and curry who have all won mvp recently are consistently significantly worse come playoff time. You could probably throw greek in there 2 although with the growth of his game my guess is that wont happen much longer. playoffs and finals are a much truer test. Its more physical, refs let way more things go, defenses are usually one of the best in the league and teams have more time to focus on the best player and develop strategies ro stop them. Yeah your always gonna have an anomaly once in awhile like with iggy in 15 but usually its a decent reflection of who the best players in the league are.

[StrongLurk]

Regular season MVP.

[warriorfan]

Regular season mvp because the low iq voters screw up the fmvp half the time.

[Carbine]

Iggy, Cornbread Maxwell, 14' Kawhi (a role player then) have FMVP's. The list of all-star game MVP's is more impressive than the FMVP list. FMVP lost a lot of credibility when the clear best player in the series repeatedly doesn't win the award because his team lost. So it is not even a real award for the most valuable player in the finals.

'14 a role player to who? The guy who scored 3 more PPG?

It was a total team effort, Kawhi was one of the four major contributors. Danny Green was a role player, a good one. Kawhi was one of the main cogs on a true "team" oriented style offense.

[TheGoatest]

1 regular season MVP is probably better on your resumé than 1 Finals MVP, because there have been some really random one-time Finals MVPs in history, won by players who are clearly not true all-time greats.
But 2 or more Finals MVPs look better than the same amount of regular season MVPs.

[SouBeachTalents]

It's obv that FMVP is at times prone to have mere all-stars and even role players win the award. So while MVP can only really be won by superstar caliber players, what I find interesting is that when a legitimate superstar player does win FMVP, it seems to always be someone who's top 3 in the league or in the argument for BITW. Look at the last 30 years, who's the "worst" superstar to win FMVP; Dirk, Wade, Kawhi, Durant? All top 25 level talents, all top 3 players in the world the year that they won. Compare that to the worst MVP's, you see there's a clear drop off; Iverson, Nash, Rose, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis.

Not only that, look at the players on the top 10 list, over that same 30 year time period, not a single one has more MVP's; Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem & Kobe all have more FMVP's, while LeBron has the same amount of each. So in conclusion, while all-star caliber and even role players have won FMVP, which is no doubt a significant factor in this argument, there's a clear pattern of superstar caliber players separating themselves in the FMVP category more than MVP. Just look at the winners each year since '91, discounting the obvious outliers ('04, '07, '08, '14 & '15), which seasons are you taking the MVP over the FMVP? If you'd take anyone besides '09 & '10 LeBron I'd be extremely surprised

[Stephonit]

It's obv that FMVP is at times prone to have mere all-stars and even role players win the award. So while MVP can only really be won by superstar caliber players, what I find interesting is that when a legitimate superstar player does win FMVP, it seems to always be someone who's top 3 in the league or in the argument for BITW. Look at the last 30 years, who's the "worst" superstar to win FMVP; Dirk, Wade, Kawhi, Durant? All top 25 level talents, all top 3 players in the world the year that they won. Compare that to the worst MVP's, you see there's a clear drop off; Iverson, Nash, Rose, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis.

Not only that, look at the players on the top 10 list, over that same 30 year time period, not a single one has more MVP's; Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem & Kobe all have more FMVP's, while LeBron has the same amount of each. So in conclusion, while all-star caliber and even role players have won FMVP, which is no doubt a significant factor in this argument, there's a clear pattern of superstar caliber players separating themselves in the FMVP category more than MVP. Just look at the winners each year since '91, discounting the obvious outliers ('04, '07, '08, '14 & '15), which seasons are you taking the MVP over the FMVP? If you'd take anyone besides '09 & '10 LeBron I'd be extremely surprised

What's the difference between Dirk, Wade, Kawhi, Durant on one hand and Nash, Harden, Giannis on the other? Rings. Oh guess what the FMVP award does? It rides on the coattails of championship winners. It is not the FMVP award that is important—it is the ring. After the embarrassment of not being giving to Bill Russell it has been exclusively been given to a player on the winning team. It's a fake accomplishment that tries to pass itself off as a real one from the reflected glory of the true achievement.

[Stanley Kobrick]

does 3 nickelodeon awards = a couple fmvp votes?

[Airupthere]

does 3 nickelodeon awards = a couple fmvp votes?

How many in the history of basketball have won 3 nickelodeon awards? You may be underestimating the value of that award.

[Stanley Kobrick]

How many in the history of basketball have won 3 nickelodeon awards? You may be underestimating the value of that award.
stephen curry has 2 nickelodeon and 1 teen choice awards. that should be good for a couple fmvp votes

[Axe]

stephen curry has 2 nickelodeon and 1 teen choice awards. that should be good for a couple fmvp votes
No need for fmvp votes anymore, since nickelodeon kids/teens choice are more iconic than media-created awards like fmvp itself.

[dankok8]

It's obv that FMVP is at times prone to have mere all-stars and even role players win the award. So while MVP can only really be won by superstar caliber players, what I find interesting is that when a legitimate superstar player does win FMVP, it seems to always be someone who's top 3 in the league or in the argument for BITW. Look at the last 30 years, who's the "worst" superstar to win FMVP; Dirk, Wade, Kawhi, Durant? All top 25 level talents, all top 3 players in the world the year that they won. Compare that to the worst MVP's, you see there's a clear drop off; Iverson, Nash, Rose, Westbrook, Harden, Giannis.

Not only that, look at the players on the top 10 list, over that same 30 year time period, not a single one has more MVP's; Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem & Kobe all have more FMVP's, while LeBron has the same amount of each. So in conclusion, while all-star caliber and even role players have won FMVP, which is no doubt a significant factor in this argument, there's a clear pattern of superstar caliber players separating themselves in the FMVP category more than MVP. Just look at the winners each year since '91, discounting the obvious outliers ('04, '07, '08, '14 & '15), which seasons are you taking the MVP over the FMVP? If you'd take anyone besides '09 & '10 LeBron I'd be extremely surprised

I get your point and agree but many times you'd take the regular season MVP and quite clearly too.

2004 KG > Billups
2007 Dirk > Parker
2008 Kobe > Pierce
2014 Durant > Kawhi
2015 Steph > Iggy

... plus a whole bunch more debatable ones like 2009, 2010, 2018.

The way I'd answer the question is FMVP is more prestigious because it means you won a ring. Rings matter more than any single achievement in the sport and especially if you're the best player on the team which the FMVP usually is. But the regular season MVP award is also very meaningful and is a major award for sure.