Russell's Finals MVP's

[jlauber]

We know that Russell didn't win the first Finals MVP, but how would he have fared had that award existed his entire career?

Possibly Hondo in '67-68? (Clinching game six win with 40 points.)
Possibly Heinsohn or Sharman in '56-57?

Of course, Russell's rebounding and defense was a constant in all 11 of those titles.

BTW, Havlicek probably deserved consideration in the '69 Finals, as well.

In any case, Russell probably would have won a minimum of EIGHT Finals MVP's, and as many as TEN.

[pauk]

he would had probably all of them.... and if he did... GOAT... with a big ****in gap....

cmon... like 11 rings + up to 11 FMVP... :hammerhead:

[NugzHeat3]

he would had probably all of them.... and if he did... GOAT... with a big ****in gap....

cmon... like 11 rings + up to 11 FMVP... :hammerhead:
11 finals MVPs are impossible because the award existed in 1969 and he didn't win it.

Google is your friend.

[Legends66NBA7]

I was actually trying to do this one day. I was trying to find out all the players who played the best in the finals when the award did not exist, but i lost the data.

However, i do remember counting 8 or 9 Finals MVP's for Russell, so that sounds about accurate for him. The others ? Sam Jones, probably one for sure. Since Jerry West lost in the Finals and won the MVP in 1969, i also counted one for Bob Pettit for the losing team too vs the Celtics.

[jlauber]

And yes, I give Russell a FMVP in the '64 Finals, too. I would admit, however, that that was the only time when he was not the most dominant center in any of his Finals. BUT, he did play brilliantly in the biggest moments of that series, and he was the main reason his team won.

[StarJordan]

11 finals MVPs are impossible because the award existed in 1969 and he didn't win it.

there's no way he wins finals mvp 8 times and celtics get 6 hall of famers...its one or the other...he was a center and man shot 44% for his career lets not get carried away here

[StarJordan]

11 finals MVPs are impossible because the award existed in 1969 and he didn't win it.
if he didn't win finals mvp in '69 when he actually WON the championship, how would have have won 8 off remaining 10? by the same logic they gave jerry west finals mvp despite losing due to great individual performance, they would have given wilt chamberlain over bill russell a few times as well in some of those. Remainder would be split between various celtic HOFers...the 60s celtics weren't one superstar and everybody else..

[ThaSwagg3r]

11 finals MVPs are impossible because the award existed in 1969 and he didn't win it.

Google is your friend.
I told him this before and he gave me some idiotic response.....like usual. Expect another autistic response from the only autistic poster on ISH.

[ThaRegul8r]

We know that Russell didn't win the first Finals MVP, but how would he have fared had that award existed his entire career?

I have his entire 11 Finals wins laid down and written about in detail, as I was curious to see to many he would have won had the award existed. Thus, I believe that there is no one more qualified than myself to speak on the subject.


Possibly Hondo in '67-68? (Clinching game six win with 40 points.)

Possibly. Havlicek averaged 27.3 points, 8.7 rebounds and 6.7 assists during the '68 Finals, and his 40/10/7 Game 6 performance might have tipped it in his favor. Russell averaged 17.3 points (actually shooting for a higher FG% than Havlicek), 21.8 rebounds and 5.7 assists, is credited for sparking the second-half rally that led to Boston's Game 1 win, led Boston to victory in Game 3 with a near quadruple-double (25 points, 16 rebounds, 9 assists, 9 blocks), had 22 points, 25 rebounds and the clutch, game-clinching block of Elgin Baylor in Boston's Game 5 win, rejecting Baylor with Boston up by two, blocking the shot to teammate Don Nelson, who the Lakers were then forced to foul. Nelson made one of two free throws for Boston's 120-117 final margin. Perhaps co-MVPs is a possibility, since this was Russell's last big Finals performance (Havlicek definitely would have won in '69 if it had gone to a member of the winning team), but as I said, Havlicek's performance in the deciding Game 6 probably would have ultimately gotten him the nod.


Possibly Heinsohn or Sharman in '56-57?

Possibly Heinsohn, though he fouled out and was on the bench in Game 7 when the series was decided. Sharman absolutely not. He had big games in four of the first five games of the series, but had a horrible Game 7, going 3/20 for nine points, one rebound and three assists in 48 minutes (Boston's backcourt was worthless in the deciding game of the series

[chips93]

I told him this before and he gave me some idiotic response.....like usual. Expect another autistic response from the only autistic poster on ISH.

come on man, no need to go there, regardless of whether you're joking or not

[ThaSwagg3r]

:facepalm Autism doesn't make you stupid, in fact many autistic people are very logical. Autism impedes you socially, not mentally.
Do you enjoy arguing semantics with me or something? You lose in every argument with me, give it up. As a matter of fact have you ever won an argument on ISH or in your life for that matter?

I didn't say his autistic response = stupid response.

His posts are autistic because he makes a bunch of CAPS LIKE THIS AND THEN HE ENDS UP POSTING NORMAL AGAIN like this.....

[ThaSwagg3r]

You implied it, you dumbass. And you don't seem to understand autism at all. I've won every argument I've ever had....
Against you
:oldlol: Like Skip Bayless......giving yourself undeserve Ws.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Amazed you would insult your idol Skip Bayless, considering you sound so much like him you might as well be him. And you've never beaten me in an argument. All you do is go "HURR DURR LEBRICK!!!! HURR DURR I SO CLEVER! DUHHHH! WADE IS DA BESS PLAYA EVA! I WANNA SUCK HIS DICK! DURR!"
No wonder why you were so defensive with my autism comment. You have it yourself. Keep losing to me, It's fun :oldlol:

[chips93]

LOL U mad.

u gettin trolled bro

[ThaSwagg3r]

LOL U mad.
Does it look like it? :oldlol:

I know you are....


Amazed you would insult your idol Skip Bayless, considering you sound so much like him you might as well be him. And you've never beaten me in an argument. All you do is go "HURR DURR LEBRICK!!!! HURR DURR I SO CLEVER! DUHHHH! WADE IS DA BESS PLAYA EVA! I WANNA SUCK HIS DICK! DURR!"


You implied it, you dumbass. And you don't seem to understand autism at all. I've won every argument I've ever had....
Against you


:roll:

[ThaSwagg3r]

Yep. Mad. Sorry Wade shoots up nothing but bricks and can't win unless LeBron plays up to par. Yep, LeBron choked the worst, but Wade choked too, flubbing an inbounds pass from Mike Miller :roll: and chucking up bricks in the 4th quarters from three. Plus, Wade wouldn't have been in the finals if LeBron hadn't carried his bricklaying ass throughout the rest of the playoffs. Dwyane Wade listed as guard, because you can't put the word "shooting" anywhere near Wade. :roll:
:oldlol: Yup and I am the one who is mad.

You brought up a Wade-LeBron conversation out of the blue which you lose against me on a daily basis.

As of the 2011 off-season......Wade is the one that has one ring and one finals MVP and LeBron is the one with none. Deal with it.

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I have his entire 11 Finals wins laid down and written about in detail, as I was curious to see to many he would have won had the award existed. Thus, I believe that there is no one more qualified than myself to speak on the subject.



Possibly. Havlicek averaged 27.3 points, 8.7 rebounds and 6.7 assists during the '68 Finals, and his 40/10/7 Game 6 performance might have tipped it in his favor. Russell averaged 17.3 points (actually shooting for a higher FG% than Havlicek), 21.8 rebounds and 5.7 assists, is credited for sparking the second-half rally that led to Boston's Game 1 win, led Boston to victory in Game 3 with a near quadruple-double (25 points, 16 rebounds, 9 assists, 9 blocks), had 22 points, 25 rebounds and the clutch, game-clinching block of Elgin Baylor in Boston's Game 5 win, rejecting Baylor with Boston up by two, blocking the shot to teammate Don Nelson, who the Lakers were then forced to foul. Nelson made one of two free throws for Boston's 120-117 final margin. Perhaps co-MVPs is a possibility, since this was Russell's last big Finals performance (Havlicek definitely would have won in '69 if it had gone to a member of the winning team), but as I said, Havlicek's performance in the deciding Game 6 probably would have ultimately gotten him the nod.



Possibly Heinsohn, though he fouled out and was on the bench in Game 7 when the series was decided. Sharman absolutely not. He had big games in four of the first five games of the series, but had a horrible Game 7, going 3/20 for nine points, one rebound and three assists in 48 minutes (Boston's backcourt was worthless in the deciding game of the series

[ThaRegul8r]

if he didn't win finals mvp in '69 when he actually WON the championship, how would have have won 8 off remaining 10? by the same logic they gave jerry west finals mvp despite losing due to great individual performance, they would have given wilt chamberlain over bill russell a few times as well in some of those.

Fail. Russell and Chamberlain only met twice in the Finals, in '64 and '69. And in '69 neither Russell nor Chamberlain won FMVP.


Remainder would be split between various celtic HOFers...the 60s celtics weren't one superstar and everybody else..

Since you don't know much about either Russell or those Celtics teams, this statement means nothing. There is no one on this board who knows more about the subject than I do, so here is the informed opinion of someone who actually knows what he's talking about and can go into detail on every single one of Boston's 11 NBA Finals that they won.

Possibly Heinsohn in '57, Sam Jones in '64, and Havlicek in '68. Those are the possibilities for someone other than Russell winning Finals MVP for the years in which the award did not exist. It would not be "split between various Celtic HOFers." There are three possibilities for a Celtic other than Russell winning it, which means that the absolute worst case scenario has Russell with a record seven Finals MVPs. (And that's giving every single one of them the benefit that they would indeed win it over Russell. Sam Jones, for instance, had six points in Game 3 in the '64 Finals playing only 17 minutes, and had 18 points on 7/16 FG and 4/9 FT, 2 rebounds and 5 assists in the deciding Game 6, while Russell had 14 points on 5/11 FG and 4/5 FT, 26 rebounds, a team-high six assists, and the game-clinching dunk off an offensive rebound of a Tom Heinsohn miss with 12 seconds remaining. If performance in the deciding game is the tie-breaker, then Sam Jones would lose out, just as I said Russell would lose out to Havlicek in '68.) This is spoken with no agenda, no bias, only someone interested in the facts.

[ThaSwagg3r]

At least LeBron has a jump shot. :roll: Dwyane Wade the king of bricks gifted a ring from Shaq. :roll: Dwyane Wade was on a 15 win team :roll: Dwyane Wade shot below 20 percent from three one year :roll: Dwyane Wade has never won an MVP :roll: Dwyane Wade has never been first-team all defense :roll: Dwyane Wade shut down by Keith Bogans :roll: Dwyane Wade only won because of the refs giving him too many free throws.
You are no longer as amusing as you use to be. You are dismissed for now, wench.

[jlauber]

Fail. Russell and Chamberlain only met twice in the Finals, in '64 and '69. And in '69 neither Russell nor Chamberlain won FMVP.



And there was no way Chamberlain would have won it in '64, either, on a team that was beaten in five games.

[jlauber]

I think it would be safe to say that Russell is the ACTUAL FMVP record-holder.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think it would be safe to say that Russell is the ACTUAL FMVP record-holder.

This is correct. Which explains why the award was renamed in his honor.

[catch24]

At least LeBron has a jump shot. :roll: Dwyane Wade the king of bricks gifted a ring from Shaq. :roll: Dwyane Wade was on a 15 win team :roll: Dwyane Wade shot below 20 percent from three one year :roll: Dwyane Wade has never won an MVP :roll: Dwyane Wade has never been first-team all defense :roll: Dwyane Wade shut down by Keith Bogans :roll: Dwyane Wade only won because of the refs giving him too many free throws.

You alright, man?

[ThaRegul8r]

I was actually trying to do this one day. I was trying to find out all the players who played the best in the finals when the award did not exist, but i lost the data.

However, i do remember counting 8 or 9 Finals MVP's for Russell, so that sounds about accurate for him. The others ? Sam Jones, probably one for sure.

His best chance was '64. Though Russell had to contend with both Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond, who were the two other best defensive centers of the era. Sam Jones had a good Finals in '63 up until he was shut down to the tune of five points on 2-for-10 shooting in the deciding Game 6, in which Russell had a 10-block triple double.


Since Jerry West lost in the Finals and won the MVP in 1969, i also counted one for Bob Pettit for the losing team too vs the Celtics.

And what year would this be, exactly? (As I go through the Finals in which the Celtics and Hawks played.) And what does West winning Finals MVP on the losing team in '69 have to do with Bob Pettit? As if Pettit had a similar Finals performance or dropped 42/13/12 in defeat.

[pauk]

11 finals MVPs are impossible because the award existed in 1969 and he didn't win it.

Google is your friend.

i know... ?

my point is if it DID exist... he would have them... in probably / maybe all of his championship runs....

a funny fact... Finals MVP trophy is named AFTER BILL RUSSELL..... "Bill Russels Finals MVP".... you know veeeeeeeeeery well why its "his" trophy.... he would had the most Finals MVP's in NBA history if that **** existed back then :D

[pauk]

and how about DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR trophy then?? :lol

OMG.... you know very well he would had most of those to if that award/trophy existed back then..

[ShaqAttack3234]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I have his entire 11 Finals wins laid down and written about in detail, as I was curious to see to many he would have won had the award existed. Thus, I believe that there is no one more qualified than myself to speak on the subject.



Possibly. Havlicek averaged 27.3 points, 8.7 rebounds and 6.7 assists during the '68 Finals, and his 40/10/7 Game 6 performance might have tipped it in his favor. Russell averaged 17.3 points (actually shooting for a higher FG% than Havlicek), 21.8 rebounds and 5.7 assists, is credited for sparking the second-half rally that led to Boston's Game 1 win, led Boston to victory in Game 3 with a near quadruple-double (25 points, 16 rebounds, 9 assists, 9 blocks), had 22 points, 25 rebounds and the clutch, game-clinching block of Elgin Baylor in Boston's Game 5 win, rejecting Baylor with Boston up by two, blocking the shot to teammate Don Nelson, who the Lakers were then forced to foul. Nelson made one of two free throws for Boston's 120-117 final margin. Perhaps co-MVPs is a possibility, since this was Russell's last big Finals performance (Havlicek definitely would have won in '69 if it had gone to a member of the winning team), but as I said, Havlicek's performance in the deciding Game 6 probably would have ultimately gotten him the nod.



Possibly Heinsohn, though he fouled out and was on the bench in Game 7 when the series was decided. Sharman absolutely not. He had big games in four of the first five games of the series, but had a horrible Game 7, going 3/20 for nine points, one rebound and three assists in 48 minutes (Boston's backcourt was worthless in the deciding game of the series

[jlauber]

Originally Posted by Legends66NBA7
Since Jerry West lost in the Finals and won the MVP in 1969, i also counted one for Bob Pettit for the losing team too vs the Celtics.




I think you are actually referring to the series in which Pettit's team won in six games (and in which Russell played hurt.) Very few here would know that Pettit had a clinching game six performance of 50 points on 19-34 shooting and 12-15 from the line.

I'm reasonably certain that Pettit would have won THAT Finals MVP, in a series in which he averaged nearly 30 ppg.

[ThaRegul8r]

Since Jerry West lost in the Finals and won the MVP in 1969, i also counted one for Bob Pettit for the losing team too vs the Celtics.

I think you are actually referring to the series in which Pettit's team won in six games (and in which Russell played hurt.) Very few here would know that Pettit had a clinching game six performance of 50 points on 19-34 shooting and 12-15 from the line.

I'm reasonably certain that Pettit would have won THAT Finals MVP, in a series in which he averaged nearly 30 ppg.

Though the Hawks actually won that series (the only Finals Russell ever lost in his career), so if that's the one he's talking about, it wasn't in a losing effort.

[chazzy]

i know... ?

my point is if it DID exist... he would have them... in probably / maybe all of his championship runs....

Russell won a title in 69 and the FMVP went to West, so he's saying it would've been impossible for him to win 11

[jlauber]

I know that the MJ fans, of which there are many here, will challenge this...BUT, Russell has the best case as the greatest Finals performer in NBA history.

Factor in that he likely would have won somewhere around 10-11 DPOY's, and then add in his FIVE MVPs (in the Wilt-Oscar-West-Baylor era)...and Russell has a solid case as the GOAT.

[pauk]

Russell won a title in 69 and the FMVP went to West, so he's saying it would've been impossible for him to win 11

oh ok then... maybe not 11... how bout 10... :lol

[jlauber]

Though the Hawks actually won that series (the only Finals Russell ever lost in his career), so if that's the one he's talking about, it wasn't in a losing effort.

Even I am guilty of forgetting Pettit's overall resume in these "all-time" discussions. He was only one who could claim that he beat a Russell-led team in the Finals.

[catch24]

I know that the MJ fans, of which there are many here, will challenge this...BUT, Russell has the best case as the greatest Finals performer in NBA history.

Factor in that he likely would have won somewhere around 10-11 DPOY's, and then add in his FIVE MVPs (in the Wilt-Oscar-West-Baylor era)...and Russell has a solid case as the GOAT.

Not like it isn't debatable. Russell did play in 5+ more Finals, so he got to showcase his brilliance far more than Jordan did (although, MJ was quite easily the greatest offensive performer the Finals saw).

[jlauber]

Not like it isn't debatable. Russell did play in 5+ more Finals, so he got to showcase his brilliance far more than Jordan did (although, MJ was quite easily the greatest offensive performer the Finals saw).

No argument from me. MJ also has a solid case as the GOAT. If anything, those two are the all-time front-runners.

[pauk]

11 rings
5 mvps
up to 10 fmvps
up to 13 dpoys

imo it would be impossible for anybody in the future history to surpass that :hammerhead:

[jlauber]

11 rings
5 mvps
up to 10 fmvps
up to 13 dpoys

imo it would be impossible for anybody in the future history to surpass that :hammerhead:

That is as close to a certainty as there is.

[ThaRegul8r]

Good information, thanks. I had been planning on going back and looking at each finals in depth like that, but forgot and didn't complete it. I remember looking over the '57 series game by game, though and that one was tough to determine.

Yeah. Sharman and Cousy played like crap in Game 7, which automatically eliminates them. They were a combined 5-for-40 in Game 7, but what isn't so commonly known is that they also went a combined 11-for-40 in Game 6. So that's 16-for-80 (20%) in the last two games of the NBA Finals as the team is trying to win its first title. If either of them had big games, then they probably would have gotten the vote for being there during the Celtics' lack of playoff success, and being rewarded now that they finally won the big one.

Heinsohn was their leading scorer at 24 points a game and had 37 and 23 in Game 7, so it probably might be him, though he did foul out. It was also his defensive lapse for failing to box out Cliff Hagan which allowed Hagan to tip in Pettit's missed shot to give St. Louis a 96-94 win in Game 6. I just don't think it would be Russell yet, because he was a completely different kind of player than what everyone was accustomed to, and the fact that he didn't have big scoring numbers (13.3 ppg) might have worked against him. And Heinsohn had already won Rookie of the Year, and when you read the newspaper accounts, much of the hype is on Heinsohn, so I figure he probably would have won it. After Russell's first full season, though, it was clear to everyone that it was Russell who was the driving force behind the team's success (evidenced by him winning MVP).

[Legends66NBA7]

Though the Hawks actually won that series (the only Finals Russell ever lost in his career), so if that's the one he's talking about, it wasn't in a losing effort.

1957.

1961 was a back and forth battle but i give that to Russell.

I was only looking at incomplete box scores though and it was a while ago. And by me saying that since Jerry West got one in a losing effort, there should be others who had outstanding series but came up on the losing end. They should be rewarded in some what similar fashion. (well, under assumption). I just liste Bob Pettit as an example.

Though considering, i don't have the proper box scores and play by play, runs etc.. i don't even think 1957 giving Pettit the award would be correct, anyways.

[Legends66NBA7]

That is as close to a certainty as there is.

J, would you argue that Rick Barry would be in the talking of Finals MVP in the 1967 Finals ? It's not a bad line he had, although he did shot jack:

40.8ppg 8.8reb 3.3ast 40.0%fg 79.2%ft


Although, i think Wilt would probably had got it anyways, but what would Barry be in the talks ?

[ThaRegul8r]

Though the Hawks actually won that series (the only Finals Russell ever lost in his career), so if that's the one he's talking about, it wasn't in a losing effort.

1957.

1961 was a back and forth battle but i give that to Russell.

I was only looking at incomplete box scores though and it was a while ago. And by me saying that since Jerry West got one in a losing effort, there should be others who had outstanding series but came up on the losing end. They should be rewarded in some what similar fashion. (well, under assumption). I just liste Bob Pettit as an example.

Though considering, i don't have the proper box scores and play by play, runs etc.. i don't even think 1957 giving Pettit the award would be correct, anyways.

Hmm. As I look over my notes for the '57 Finals, you may be right. Pettit averaged 30.1 points per game for the series, and for the last four games of the Finals averaged 34.3 points and 18.3 rebounds. He had a game-high 39 points and 19 rebounds in Game 7, and his tip-in attempt of Alex Hannum's full-court inbounds pass off the backboard just missed. So if there was a problem with deciding which Celtics player to award the Finals MVP to, it might be a possibility to award it to Pettit over any of them, since he was the most consistent aside from an 11-point Game 2, and was consistently great over the last four games of the series.

I'll point out when someone is wrong, and I'll also give someone credit where's it due. After looking at it, you do have a point.

:applause:

[Legends66NBA7]

Hmm. As I look over my notes for the '57 Finals, you may be right. Pettit averaged 30.1 points per game for the series, and for the last four games of the Finals averaged 34.3 points and 18.3 rebounds. He had a game-high 39 points and 19 rebounds in Game 7, and his tip-in attempt of Alex Hannum's full-court inbounds pass off the backboard just missed. So if there was a problem with deciding which Celtics player to award the Finals MVP to, it might be a possibility to award it to Pettit over any of them, since he was the most consistent aside from an 11-point Game 2, and was consistently great over the last four games of the series.

I'll point out when someone is wrong, and I'll also give someone credit where's it due. After looking at it, you do have a point.

:applause:

I see. Where did you get the complete rebounding numbers and play by play's, if you don't mind me asking ? I can only find samples and incomplete ones, just not the whole body of work.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah. Sharman and Cousy played like crap in Game 7, which automatically eliminates them. They were a combined 5-for-40 in Game 7, but what isn't so commonly known is that they also went a combined 11-for-40 in Game 6. So that's 16-for-80 (20%) in the last two games of the NBA Finals as the team is trying to win its first title. If either of them had big games, then they probably would have gotten the vote for being there during the Celtics' lack of playoff success, and being rewarded now that they finally won the big one.

Heinsohn was their leading scorer at 24 points a game and had 37 and 23 in Game 7, so it probably might be him, though he did foul out. It was also his defensive lapse for failing to box out Cliff Hagan which allowed Hagan to tip in Pettit's missed shot to give St. Louis a 96-94 win in Game 6. I just don't think it would be Russell yet, because he was a completely different kind of player than what everyone was accustomed to, and the fact that he didn't have big scoring numbers (13.3 ppg) might have worked against him. And Heinsohn had already won Rookie of the Year, and when you read the newspaper accounts, much of the hype is on Heinsohn, so I figure he probably would have won it. After Russell's first full season, though, it was clear to everyone that it was Russell who was the driving force behind the team's success (evidenced by him winning MVP).

Yeah, I had planned on picking both my choices for Finals MVP and then who would have likely been selected.

As far as possible MVPs on losing teams? Elgin Baylor may have had a chance in 1962 as Bob Cousy called his finals series the best series he ever saw anyone play, but because Russell had a very good series himself, the big game 7 and most importantly, the victory, he'd be more likely.

[jlauber]

Some good points on the possibility of players from losing teams perhaps grabbing a FMVP in the Russell years. It does seem odd that in the very first Finals in which the award was created, that it came in Russell's last season, and it went to a player on a losing team.

I guess Pettit, Baylor, and Barry would all have had cases for winning it, but given the fact that we have only had one player from a losing team that actually ever won the award in all these years, it would probably have been unlikely that those three would have.

That actually might make a good topic overall...players on losing teams that perhaps deserved the FMVP, but didn't win. I think Kareem in '74 had a case, although being outplayed (barely) by Cowens in that game seven would have hurt his cause. Maybe there were some other examples, but I really can't think of any off the top of my head.

[ThaRegul8r]

Yeah, I had planned on picking both my choices for Finals MVP and then who would have likely been selected.

As far as possible MVPs on losing teams? Elgin Baylor may have had a chance in 1962 as Bob Cousy called his finals series the best series he ever saw anyone play, but because Russell had a very good series himself, the big game 7 and most importantly, the victory, he'd be more likely.

Baylor does not win over Russell in '62. Yes, Baylor averaged 40.6 points and 17.9 rebounds, had the Finals-record 61 points in Game 5, and 41 points and 22 rebounds in Game 7. But Russell averaged 22.9 points and 27 rebounds (setting the seven-game series Finals record, and becoming the first player in NBA history to average 20 or more points and 20 or more rebounds for an entire NBA Finals), had a triple double in Game 6 and had the historic 30/40 Game 7 after his entire front line fouls out. There's no argument against Russell winning. None of the usual criticisms of Russell detractors apply in this series:

Russell led the team in scoring (which seems to be the prerequisite for greatness) over Sam Jones (22.1 ppg) and Tom Heinsohn (19.3 ppg).

He made free throws, at 74.2 percent, including 14 of 17 in the deciding Game 7. (Russell's a poor free throw shooter.)

And also (the nail in the coffin for advanced statistics aficionados), he was the most efficient player in the series, at 60.5% true shooting. (Russell was inefficient.) Sam Jones averaged his 22.1 ppg on 46.1 percent true shooting. Heinsohn averaged 19.3 points on 43.4 percent true shooting. Baylor averaged his 40.6 points on 51.0 percent true shooting. West averaged 31.1 on 55.2 percent true shooting.

There is literally no aspect in which one can criticize Russell. His case for Finals MVP is bulletproof. There is no argument that can be made against him winning. In the one case we have of a player from the losing team winning Finals MVP, no one on Boston in 1969 played like Russell did in 1962.

[Psileas]

I noticed this topic a bit late, but my take is that Russell might only lose the '64 and '68 MVP's, and the first "loss" might only happen because of people getting tired of voting for him all the time (same with a hypothetical DPOY case between 1957 and 1966, maybe even harder to make a case against him - maybe Wilt in '64 or '66).

Baylor might have had a case if Russell hasn't been so prolific and efficient in 1962 (though I doubt all voters would consider shooting efficiency - no such thing as TS% back then, though it wouldn't be tough to fathom such a stat). In 1957, Cousy and Sharman were unstable, Heinsohn might have a case, but I don't think voters wouldn't split the awards after having given Heinsohn the ROY (mainly due to Russell's absence), despite people admitting Russell was a clearly more revolutionary player. Depending on when exactly the voting took place, Pettit might also have a chance...

But this is the absolute worst case for Russell, which still gives him 7 FMVP's (5 in a row). Best case? 10 (and that's if we accept the already written history of West having won in 1969. Yes, Havlicek would still be more deserving, but who's to say they wouldn't give it to Russell just to honor his retirement?).

BTW, I'm not the only one who thinks that there should exist some database containing the year-by-year FMVP voting results, right? I always wanted to see how the votes went in cases like the 1969 Finals (or others like 1974, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, etc). I mean, in theory, it should be easier to accumulate these results than the results of Regular Season MVP votings.

[guy]

It would be nice if the NBA got a bunch of old guys who saw these games from back then together to vote and officially award a Finals MVP for each of these Finals. Might be weird and crazy, but whats the hurt in doing it?

[Psileas]

It would be nice if the NBA got a bunch of old guys who saw these games from back then together to vote and officially award a Finals MVP for each of these Finals. Might be weird and crazy, but whats the hurt in doing it?

Haha, that's not even the weirdest thing to think: It reminds me of a case when, in the late 80's (I think), Harvey Pollack wanted to have a 1963 regular season game (Lakers-Warriors) re-played decades later, because the refs had screwed the Warriors by having Wilt tossed out with 3 techs, which was prohibited by the rules. David Stern had said "why not?", (former) players, including Wilt and West, had agreed as well, but he couln't manage to contact all the players, so the game didn't happen.

Maybe it's better it happened this way. Afterwards, he might want to have the whole rest of the season replayed. :D

[guy]

Haha, that's not even the weirdest thing to think: It reminds me of a case when, in the late 80's (I think), Harvey Pollack wanted to have a 1963 regular season game (Lakers-Warriors) re-played decades later, because the refs had screwed the Warriors by having Wilt tossed out with 3 techs, which was prohibited by the rules. David Stern had said "why not?", (former) players, including Wilt and West, had agreed as well, but he couln't manage to contact all the players, so the game didn't happen.

Maybe it's better it happened this way. Afterwards, he might want to have the whole rest of the season replayed. :D

LOL. I don't understand whats the point of that though? Whats the purpose? Just to see alter the regular season records of both teams? Not much really at stake it seems. I could understand if it was the playoffs.

[Pointguard]

I noticed this topic a bit late, but my take is that Russell might only lose the '64 and '68 MVP's, and the first "loss" might only happen because of people getting tired of voting for him all the time (same with a hypothetical DPOY case between 1957 and 1966, maybe even harder to make a case against him - maybe Wilt in '64 or '66).

But this is the absolute worst case for Russell, which still gives him 7 FMVP's (5 in a row). Best case? 10 (and that's if we accept the already written history of West having won in 1969. Yes, Havlicek would still be more deserving,

There is an element of human pyschology in all of this. Just as Jordan didn't sweep regular season MVP's despite it being pretty much clear cut. Social attitudes weren't the greatest in the '50's either. Plus they seemed to not like domination too much back then. But I see it pretty much as Psileas does 7to 10 if people are operating close to fair but five isn't crazy if the media wanted to do a spread the wealth campaign. What we see as logical now doesn't apply to logical then. I would like to see somebody outscore another player by 30ppg and outrebound him by 2, and shoot 50 percentage points higher in a league that was obsessed with offense and win an MVP over that guy in today's game. I would just like to see that.

[nycelt84]

There is an element of human pyschology in all of this. Just as Jordan didn't sweep regular season MVP's despite it being pretty much clear cut. Social attitudes weren't the greatest in the '50's either. Plus they seemed to not like domination too much back then. But I see it pretty much as Psileas does 7to 10 if people are operating close to fair but five isn't crazy if the media wanted to do a spread the wealth campaign. What we see as logical now doesn't apply to logical then. I would like to see somebody outscore another player by 30ppg and outrebound him by 2, and shoot 50 percentage points higher in a league that was obsessed with offense and win an MVP over that guy in today's game. I would just like to see that.

That's the thing that everyone else pointed out that for some reason you didn't take note of. Almost every single season and championship there were no other choices for Finals MVP except Russell. The only years that I don't see him winning are '68 which should have went to Havlicek should have won anyway and possibly '57.

[ThaRegul8r]

Baylor might have had a case if Russell hasn't been so prolific and efficient in 1962 (though I doubt all voters would consider shooting efficiency - no such thing as TS% back then, though it wouldn't be tough to fathom such a stat).

Yeah, I realized true shooting percentage didn't exist then, nor did the concept of efficiency. That was mainly for everyone else's benefit, in order to hammer home how well Russell played, since no one knew that other than me.

[Pointguard]

That's the thing that everyone else pointed out that for some reason you didn't take note of. :lol


Almost every single season and championship there were no other choices for Finals MVP except Russell. The only years that I don't see him winning are '68 which should have went to Havlicek should have won anyway and possibly '57.
LOL, ok. To you, there were no other choices. There were years where Sam Jones, Hondo, and Heinsohn were hitting a high volume of clutch shots and a player can gain a lot of momentum by such gestures. Jordan covered every aspect of the game and was top notch in nearly every area and he didn't win MVP's. Russell wasn't looked up to score alot and hit clutch shots - you could spin an MVP off of him easier than most. If today's Dirk was on those Celtic teams, with today's mentality Dirk wins near half of the MVP's. But I'm sure everybody else has already pointed that out :lol

The media can put a serious spin on upping some things and overlooking others. A lot of people remember Willis Reed coming out to play after an injury and that moment gets plays 40 years later. Most people remember that but few people know that Frazier had one of the best finals game ever on an excellent defender in West. In fact Reed didn't have much of a game at all. Frazier was an afterthought.

[Math2]

I think it would be safe to say that Russell is the ACTUAL FMVP record-holder.

I bet he'd win 9-11... No one is close....7 at the ABSOLUTE LEAST.

Maybe if the award had been around since, say 1951, then people would be used to how the award flows, and not necessarily give it to Jerry West that year, maybe the tradition of giving it to the winner would be formed.

[nycelt84]

:lol

LOL, ok. To you, there were no other choices. There were years where Sam Jones, Hondo, and Heinsohn were hitting a high volume of clutch shots and a player can gain a lot of momentum by such gestures. Jordan covered every aspect of the game and was top notch in nearly every area and he didn't win MVP's. Russell wasn't looked up to score alot and hit clutch shots - you could spin an MVP off of him easier than most. If today's Dirk was on those Celtic teams, with today's mentality Dirk wins near half of the MVP's. But I'm sure everybody else has already pointed that out :lol

The media can put a serious spin on upping some things and overlooking others. A lot of people remember Willis Reed coming out to play after an injury and that moment gets plays 40 years later. Most people remember that but few people know that Frazier had one of the best finals game ever on an excellent defender in West. In fact Reed didn't have much of a game at all. Frazier was an afterthought.

Point out those Finals then. Some of us have actually taken the time to look up the recaps of those actual NBA Finals and those who have all came to the same conclusion that Russell was the best player in most of those Finals.

And as you already know Russell had no problems winning MVPs anyway as he won 5 of them as I'm sure you might know including being the 1st player to ever win 3 in a row.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think it would be safe to say that Russell is the ACTUAL FMVP record-holder.

I bet he'd win 9-11... No one is close....7 at the ABSOLUTE LEAST.

As others have pointed out, it's impossible for him to have 11, because the award came into existence his last year in the league, and he didn't win it. Therefore, 10 is the absolute maximum he could have won, since he actually did not win it in 1969 when it existed to be won. If it hadn't gone to West, Havlicek would have won it.

[Math2]

As others have pointed out, it's impossible for him to have 11, because the award came into existence his last year in the league, and he didn't win it. Therefore, 10 is the absolute maximum he could have won, since he actually did not win it in 1969 when it existed to be won. If it hadn't gone to West, Havlicek would have won it.

Read the rest of my post.

[ThaRegul8r]

As others have pointed out, it's impossible for him to have 11, because the award came into existence his last year in the league, and he didn't win it. Therefore, 10 is the absolute maximum he could have won, since he actually did not win it in 1969 when it existed to be won. If it hadn't gone to West, Havlicek would have won it.

Read the rest of my post.

I read your post before I replied to it. Unlike many posters here, I actually read a post before I respond to it. The rest of your post does not change the fact of what I stated. There is no one here who knows more about Bill Russell's career than I do. He would not have 11 NBA Finals MVPs, because John Havlicek would have won it in 1969 if it had gone to a member of the winning team, which is what "the rest of your post" addressed. Whether West (as he did in actuality) or Havlicek (if there had been an established tradition of the winner getting the award), neither one is Russell, and thus Russell could not possibly have won 11.

It's insulting for someone who knows substantially less about a subject than I, who has not done the extensive research I have to bolster my already existing knowledge, to attempt to contend with me. I don't argue with people who know more about something than I do. I speak on what I know.

[Pointguard]

Point out those Finals then. Some of us have actually taken the time to look up the recaps of those actual NBA Finals and those who have all came to the same conclusion that Russell was the best player in most of those Finals.


You are a bit confusing. When I wrote that it wasn't about who is the most logical choice or who is the best player you said "everybody" here made that point. Now you are acting like that's a foreign concept in your very next post???

Opportunities for someone to sneak thru.
Hondo in ''68?
Heinsohn/Petite '57?
If they got tired enough - Jones in '65

[jlauber]

The media can put a serious spin on upping some things and overlooking others. A lot of people remember Willis Reed coming out to play after an injury and that moment gets plays 40 years later. Most people remember that but few people know that Frazier had one of the best finals game ever on an excellent defender in West. In fact Reed didn't have much of a game at all. Frazier was an afterthought.


One of the most disgraceful FMVP's of all-time. I wonder how many folks know that Reed basically missed half of one game, three-quarters of another, and completely missed yet another game in that series. Furthermore, the series was tied 2-2, and his team was TRAILING by 10 points in game five when he went down with that muscle tear. His team came back (albeit, behind some questionable officiating) to win that game five. And, in game seven, he basically played the role of a statue,...while his teammates hit 15 of their first 21 shots. Frazier played one of the greatest game seven's in NBA history (36 points and 19 assists), and yet I wonder how many here would know that? Meanwhile FMVP Reed hung 4 pts, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebs...and was hailed as a "hero."

[Lebron23]

Looking at his Finals stats. in basketball reference. he could have been a 5x or 6x Finals MVP.

Tom Heinsohn could have been a 2x Finals MVP.

[feyki]

7-8 .

[Carbine]

Looking at his Finals stats. in basketball reference. he could have been a 5x or 6x Finals MVP.

Tom Heinsohn could have been a 2x Finals MVP.

:roll:

7 minimum.