FMVP is the most overrated individual award

[livinglegend]

People act like it s the most important and valuable individual award by far. Let s be real it s not. A player can play like shit the whole regular season and the first 3 rounds of the playoffs. Then, he can go off for 4/5 games in the finals and win FMVP. 1 series is too small of a sample.

[Beastmode88]

So what about players who show up the entire season and playoffs then just blow the finals? :confusedshrug:

[Magic 32]

Playoffs MVP.

[r15mohd]

People act like it s the most important and valuable individual award by far. Let s be real it s not. A player can play like shit the whole regular season and the first 3 rounds of the playoffs. Then, he can go off for 4/5 games in the finals and win FMVP. 1 series is too small of a sample.


how often has it been where the players is mediocre all season and the 1st three-rounds, then win the FMVP? it rarely happens...it's been pretty consistent in the best player from the team winning it year after year, give or take a few

[livinglegend]

So what about players who show up the entire season and playoffs then just blow the finals? :confusedshrug:

it sucks for them. Those players should be the ''real'' FMVP.

[Magic 32]

how often has it been where the players is mediocre all season and the 1st three-rounds, then win the FMVP? it rarely happens...it's been pretty consistent in the best player from the team winning it year after year, give or take a few

Paul Pierce
Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups
Joe Dumars
James Worthy
Cedric Maxwell

[livinglegend]

how often has it been where the players is mediocre all season and the 1st three-rounds, then win the FMVP? it rarely happens...it's been pretty consistent in the best player from the team winning it year after year, give or take a few

no often, but FMVP is still 1 series award. Even if a player plays well the whole playoffs, the FMVP acknowledges his great play for one series. He gets rewarded for one series.

[r15mohd]

Paul Pierce
Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups
Joe Dumars
James Worthy
Cedric Maxwell


6 out of how many FMVP awards...the percentage is single digits, no? the FDA has approved medication with higher percentage failure rates than this :rolleyes:

[Magic 32]

The problem is this....

2008

KG vs Kobe?

[Magic 32]

6 out of how many FMVP awards...the percentage is single digits, no? the FDA has approved medication with higher percentage failure rates than this :rolleyes:

18% since 1981

And that's not including Wade in 06.

[r15mohd]

18% since 1981

And that's not including Wade in 06.


and what about since 1969 when it began...not to mention Billups being questionable as the Pistons best player, even Paul Pierce.

[livinglegend]

6 out of how many FMVP awards...the percentage is single digits, no? the FDA has approved medication with higher percentage failure rates than this :rolleyes:

who cares about the percentages? It doesnt change the fact that it s one series award and that it s a very flawed award. The FMVP only tells which player was the best during the finals( 5-6 games mostly). It doesnt tell the whole playoffs story.

[DMV2]

Paul Pierce
Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups
Joe Dumars
James Worthy
Cedric MaxwellHe added give or take a few...

So 3 out of the last 25 Finals and 6 out of the last 35 Finals. It's pretty consistent if you ask me, especially when compared to the World Series or Super Bowl MVP's.

[-Lebron23-]

OP sh

[Magic 32]

and what about since 1969 when it began?

Don't know enough about 70's basketball for that job.

[rule1223]

Paul Pierce
Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups
Joe Dumars
James Worthy
Cedric Maxwell
these are still all great players, lets not act like scrubs can just come off the bench and win a finals mvp, these players are all more than capable of being the best player in any given series. FMVP is not as great a feat as a season MVP but it is still indicative of a great player

[r15mohd]

who cares about the percentages? It doesnt change the fact that it s one series award and that it s a very flawed award. The FMVP only tells which player was the best during the MVP during the finals( 5-6 games mostly). It doesnt tell the whole playoffs story.


it's such a small percentage of discredit that it's overlooked...just as most other scenario's you'd like to draft up

[r15mohd]

Don't know enough about 70's basketball for that job.

so agenda based response, not actual facts...:rolleyes: :facepalm :no:

[DMV2]

who cares about the percentages? It doesnt change the fact that it s one series award and that it s a very flawed award. The FMVP only tells which player was the best during the MVP during the finals( 5-6 games mostly). It doesnt tell the whole playoffs story.
But it usually is won the best player(s) of that entire season, or players who have a case of being the best player that year.

Those 6 names are probably the only exceptions.

[livinglegend]

[QUOTE=-Lebron23-]OP sh

[r15mohd]

But it usually is won the best player(s) of that entire season, or players who have a case of being the best player that year.

Those 6 names are probably the only exceptions.


it's really more like 3-4 names since '69...Pierce and Billups can equally be named the best player of their respective teams

[livinglegend]

But it usually is won the best player(s) of that entire season, or players who have a case of being the best player that year.

Those 6 names are probably the only exceptions.

it may be won by the best player or players, but it doesnt change the fact that the award itself rewards the player for 5-6 games.

[r15mohd]

it may be won by the best player or players, but it doesnt change the fact that the award itself rewards the player for 5-6 games.


so you really want an award for overall basketball season...RS MVP, FMVP and overall best player?

[Magic 32]

so agenda based response, not actual facts...:rolleyes: :facepalm :no:

No agenda.

Just a look at modern basketball history.

[DMV2]

it may be won by the best player or players, but it doesnt change the fact that the award itself rewards the player for 5-6 games.
But those possible 4-7 games are the biggest games of the year. It defines legacies of legends, HOFers and superstars.

Malone would be in Top 10 All-time if he won those 4-7 biggest games of the season.

[livinglegend]

so you really want an award for overall basketball season...RS MVP, FMVP and overall best player?

no, a regular season MVP and a playoffs MVP.

[livinglegend]

But those possible 4-7 games are the biggest games of the year. It defines legacies of legends, HOFers and superstars.

Malone would be in Top 10 All-time if he wasn't a playoff choker.

they are as big as all the other games in the playoffs. If you lose in the 1st, you still lose the championship.

[r15mohd]

no, a regular season MVP and a playoffs MVP.

you'd be basing a playoffs MVP between 2 teams...and as you initially claim about the sample size being too small, so is this :facepalm

[Magic 32]

A playoffs MVP would be more meaningful than a regular season MVP.

[DMV2]

no, a regular season MVP and a playoffs MVP.
So do you reward LeBron with the 2009 Playoff MVP without playing a single game in the Finals?

[livinglegend]

you'd be basing a playoffs MVP between 2 teams...and as you initially claim about the sample size being too small, so is this :facepalm

it s not 2 teams, but 16 teams

[r15mohd]

No agenda.

Just a look at modern basketball history.

why is 1980-81 the start of the modern era when all these below are just as important timelines?

54 (shot clock)
76 (merger)
79 (Magic/Bird)
84 (Jordan)
92 (Dream Team)
98 (post-Jordan)
01 (zone defense)

[livinglegend]

So do you reward LeBron with the 2009 Playoff MVP without playing a single game in the Finals?

no, your team has to win, it s just like the regular season MVP ( your team has to be 1st or 2nd seed to win it)

[Legends66NBA7]

Rookie of the year is the most overrated individual award, IMO.

Not many players pan out to be that good at times and other players in their draft class could go on to have a better career.

[DMV2]

they are as big as all the other games in the playoffs. If you lose in the 1st, you still lose the championship.
Nobody really cares (or rather remembers) about 1st, 2nd Round or ECF though.

[r15mohd]

it s not 2 teams, but 16 teams


obviously the teams in the finals will have the player who's to win the "playoffs MVP"...in which case would more than likely be the Finals MVP too :confusedshrug:

[livinglegend]

Nobody really cares (or rather remembers) about 1st, 2nd Round or ECF though.

why?
They should because to get to the finals, you have to win the 1st, 2nd, CF.

[Magic 32]

why is 1980-81 the start of the modern era when all these below are just as important timelines?

54 (shot clock)
76 (merger)
79 (Magic/Bird)
84 (Jordan)
92 (Dream Team)
98 (post-Jordan)
01 (zone defense)

Because Cedric Maxwell was the first obvious one after Bird and Magic entered the league.

You can add Magic in 1980 if you want to.

[DMV2]

I don't think OP has a legitimate reason....he's just complaining to complain. :lol

[livinglegend]

obviously the teams in the finals will have the won the "playoffs MVP"...in which case would more than likely be the Finals MVP too :confusedshrug:

The difference is that the award would actually acknowledge and reward the player for 20-25 games instead of 5-6 games.

[DMV2]

why?
They should because to get to the finals, you have to win the 1st, 2nd, CF.
Don't google...

Who did the Nets beat in the 2002 ECF?

[DonDadda59]

All star game MVP is by far the most useless and meaningless award, except for maybe the one Magic won after he came back from his forced retirement but that was a rare circumstance.

Also, they have a Christmas Day MVP now. C'mon son :lol

The finals is the biggest stage in basketball. Let's not make believe it's the same as the first round. Whoever shines brightest when the big lights come on deserves to be praised and exalted.

[rule1223]

why?
They should because to get to the finals, you have to win the 1st, 2nd, CF.
if u cant understand why a finals game is more important then a first round game, you are retarded... they may be "worth" the same but the context is completely different, the first basket of the game is worth the same as a game-winner but tell me how many first baskets of a game you remember vs how many game winners

[livinglegend]

I don't think OP has a legitimate reason....he's just complaining to complain. :lol

you didnt answer me. Why are 1st , 2nd and CF less important than the finals?

[Magic 32]

KG or Kobe in 2008? (playoffs MVP)

[Legends66NBA7]

79-80 is usually regarded as the start of the "modern era" since it introduced the 3 point line, thus having all the statistical criteria and parameters we see and read about today.

[DMV2]

you didnt answer me. Why are 1st , 2nd and CF less important than the finals?
In retrospect of a *player's career, it is much less important.

*HOFers, legends, superstars as I mentioned are defined by championships which is played in those 4-7 Finals games.

[livinglegend]

if u cant understand why a finals game is more important then a first round game, you are retarded... they may be "worth" the same but the context is completely different, the first basket of the game is worth the same as a game-winner but tell me how many first baskets of a game you remember vs how many game winners

you talking about pressure? There s more pressure in the finals?

Then, what about game 6 of 2012 ECF? Lebron had more pressure game 6 of ECF or game 5 of the finals?

[livinglegend]

In retrospect of a *player's career, it is much less important.

*HOFers, legends, superstars as I mentioned are defined on championships which is played in those 4-7 Finals games.

that s a dumb statement. Championships are not played in the finals only. Each round is a part of that championship. Game 6 of ECF 2012 was very important for Lebron s legacy. Wasnt it?

[r15mohd]

Because Cedric Maxwell was the first obvious one after Bird and Magic entered the league.

You can add Magic in 1980 if you want to.

SN is Magic 32, Magic enters in 1980 and modern era is 1980-onwards for you :rolleyes: enlighten yourself a little...



The game of basketball was invented in the 1890's. And by the late 1890's college's were already playing it. By the 1920's there were professional teams. The NBA, itself, began in 1946.

And the reality is, the game has changed very little since it's inception. It is still played with roughly the same size ball; with the same size basket, and at the same height; on courts with the same size dimensions; and with the same number of players.

True, there have been rule changes throughout the years, but the two main rule changes were the shot clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt shot in the late 70's (although the ABA was playing it in the late 60's.)

Basketball was already integrated in the early 50's, but by the late 50's, the best basketball players were playing in the NBA, whether white, black, or any other color. I have read those that claimed that there was a "quota" but IMHO, it it existed at all, it certainly would not have involved high-level players.

And for those that claim that the players of the 50's couldn't dribble...how about this footage taken from 1962?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soLH6bau9uo

Here again, the Globetrotters had been performing those feats long before that footage was taken.

Shooting? The jump shot originated sometime in the early 40's. Granted, the NBA in the 50's and early 60's, shot poorly from the field. But, there were many reasons for that. The venues were often cold, and in some cases, even breezy. There is documentation of a Chicago Bulls game being played in FREEZING conditions in the late 60's. The ball, itself, did not become uniform until the late 60's. I personally remember playing in city leagues in the 60's in which none of the balls on a rack were identical. Some were heavier, some lighter, and some were even lopsided. There are photos of NBA players playing with bald basketballs. And perhaps the most significant reason for the relatively poor shooting, was the brutal scheduling. As an example, in Wilt's 61-62 season, he played a ton of B2B games; six separate stretches of three-in-a-row; another three separate stretches of four-in-a-row; and even one other separate stretch of five-in-a-row, and in which two of the games in the middle of that run were on the road.

The scheduling is really significant, too. A couple of years ago the NBA went on strike, and when the season started, they played a condensed schedule to squeeze in as many games as they could. The impact was immediate. Scoring and shooting dropped significantly, and only when the schedule returned to a more reasonable rate, did the numbers slowly rise.

In any case, there was no question that SOMETHING affected the shooting in the NBA in the early 60's (and before.) I have never had anyone come up with a reasonable explanation as to why, player after player, of those that played in the early 60's and into the late 60's, or beyond, shot better, to MUCH better, in the latter parts of those seasons. Take a look at the footage of the '62 NBA ASG. In it you will see Jerry West shooting his patented jump shot. the shot would be identical in his entire NBA career, and yet, in the early 60's he was shooting .419 and .445. By the late 60's he was shooting .514.

There were a ton of other examples, as well. Elgin Baylor would shoot as low as .401 in the early 60's, and as high as .486 in the late 60's. Johnny Green is a great example. In the early 60's he had seasons of .430 and .436. In that .436 season he averaged 15.9 ppg. In his 69-70 season he averaged 15.6 ppg on a league-leading .559 FG%. He would also have seasons after that of .587 and even .599. How about Darrall Imhoff? In the early 60's he had three straight seasons of .394, .386, and an unfathomable .314. By his 69-70 season he was shooting .540. And John Havlicek was perhaps the best example. He played 16 seasons in the NBA, evenly split between the decade of the 60's and the 70's. Guess what, he shot better every season in the 70's, than his best season in the 60's. In fact, in the mid-60's he even had a season as low as .399. Then, there was Wilt. Believe it, or not, in his rookie season he shot .461. It would be the only time in his career in which he would shoot less than .506. But as the decade went on, his FG%'s rose, and by the mid-60's he had dramatic increases. In 66-67 he averaged 24 ppg on a .683 FG%, and in a league that had an eFG% of .441.

And you can carry that argument for those players whose careers spanned the 60's into the 70's. Again, almost player-for-player, an increase. However, the next major jump, and again with no real explanation, occurred two years after the ABA merged, when the league eFG% rose from .469 to .485 in 78-79. Here again, FG%'s just went thru the roof.

Kareem played ten seasons in then decade of the 70's, and ten more in the decade of the 80's. In the 70's he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513 (and right in the middle of the decade of the 70's BTW.) And yet, and not including his last two years in the NBA (at ages 41 and 42), he shot .564, or higher, every single season in the 80's, including a career high of .604, and even .599 at age 37. Dantley's FG%s sky-rocketed. And how about Artis Gilmore? In the 70's, a 27 year old Gilmore averaged 18.6 ppg on a .522 FG%. At age 35 he averaged 19.1 ppg on a .623 FG%. In between, and from '81 thru '84, he put up seasons of .626, .631, .652, and even .670.

Then, in the late 80's, and into the 90's, FG%'s leveled off, and even declined. Granted, the 3pt shot affected the overall FG%'s, but how do explain the great centers of that period, whose careers spanned the 80's and into 90's, DECLINING? Hakeem had his FG% season of his entire career in his rookie season. Ewing had his three highest seasons in the 80's, with a career high .567 in '89, and then as low as .466 a few years later at age 33. David Robinson didn't come into the NBA until 89-90, but he had his career high of .551 in his third season, and after that, a steady decline.

And then, to make this shooting even more perplexing...in the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line. Last year the NBA shot .753 from the line, and in fact, the current NBA is also shooting .753 from the line. Hell, in the 73-74 season the NBA was shooting as high as .771.

Take a look at the footage of Pistol Pete, who was scoring 44 ppg in college in the 60's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfWkiO2Iz08

And how about this interesting fact...from a 6-4 white player who was playing in the 1940's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pollard



In the NBA, Pollard was considered one of the best forwards in the 1940s and 1950s, and was known for his leaping ability[1] (Pollard would occasionally dunk from the free throw line during warmups[2]) earning him the nickname "The Kangaroo Kid".

And players like Gus Johnson were shattering rims in the mid-60's with ferocious dunks. Dr. J, Dr. K, David Thompson, and many others were doing spectacular dunks in the late 60's and into the 70's. And how about this. from a 5-9 Calvin Murphy, who was playing college ball in the 60's?

http://www.syracuse.com/poliquin/ind...did_one_g.html



"He could run. He could dunk two-handed behind his head. He could shoot. And the fans would go absolutely wild. I mean, they were crazy for him."

In any case, the bottom line, is that the game has changed VERY LITTLE since the 1890's.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9576214&postcount=29

[Legends66NBA7]

All star game MVP is by far the most useless and meaningless award, except for maybe the one Magic won after he came back from his forced retirement but that was a rare circumstance.

Also, they have a Christmas Day MVP now. C'mon son :lol

The finals is the biggest stage in basketball. Let's not make believe it's the same as the first round. Whoever shines brightest when the big lights come on deserves to be praised and exalted.

True, but I believe most realize that those awards are useless. I don't see anyone propping them up (well, usually...), so I don't really catagorize either as overrated.

[r15mohd]

79-80 is usually regarded as the start of the "modern era" since it introduced the 3 point line, thus having all the statistical criteria and parameters we see and read about today.

3pt line available to the ABA way before 79, why is that discredited?

[livinglegend]

All star game MVP is by far the most useless and meaningless award, except for maybe the one Magic won after he came back from his forced retirement but that was a rare circumstance.

Also, they have a Christmas Day MVP now. C'mon son :lol

The finals is the biggest stage in basketball. Let's not make believe it's the same as the first round. Whoever shines brightest when the big lights come on deserves to be praised and exalted.

im sure the biggest/hardest stage for 2002 Lakers wasnt the finals against the Nets.

[Magic 32]

Playoffs MVP

2013 - Lebron
2012 - Lebron
2011 - Dirk
2010 - Kobe
2009 - Kobe
2008 - ????
2007 - Duncan
2006 - Wade
2005 - Duncan
2004 - ????
2003 - Duncan
2002 - Shaq
2001 - Shaq'ish?
2000 - Shaq

[Legends66NBA7]

SN is Magic 32, Magic enters in 1980 and modern era is 1980-onwards for you :rolleyes: enlighten yourself a little...

Might want to read my post from the start of this thread.

[r15mohd]

Might want to read my post from the start of this thread.


you're not in the start of the thread...what's your alt? :lebronamazed:

[Legends66NBA7]

3pt line available to the ABA way before 79, why is that discredited?

Because I only included the NBA, since the topic is about a NBA award.

[DMV2]

that s a dumb statement. Championships are not played in the finals only. Each round is a part of that championship. Game 6 of ECF 2012 was very important for Lebron s legacy. Wasnt it?
No doubt 2012 ECF was important to LeBron's legacy but so was 2011 Finals, which actually was a bigger legacy for the wrong reasons. If he didn't beat OKC after that 2012 ECF series, nobody would be talking about the ECF series, they'd be talking about how much of a Finals choke artist he is.

So 2011 and 2012 were extremely important to LeBron's career. One for the wrong reasons, the other for finally get it done. More so than the 2012 ECF. He just happened to have his best playoff series statistically during that ECF series.

[Legends66NBA7]

you're not in the start of the thread...what's your alt? :lebronamazed:

:oldlol:

Meant page 4.

[rule1223]

you talking about pressure? There s more pressure in the finals?

Then, what about game 6 of 2012 ECF? Lebron had more pressure game 6 of ECF or game 5 of the finals?
the finals is a bigger stage, plain and simple, people remember the gold medal match not the quarter finals or the semis, the fact the people define lebrons 2011 playoffs by how he shit the bed in the finals rather than how brilliant he was in the previous series' should show you how people see these things. It's not fair but i dont see how you can argue that the finals series is not the most important

[DonDadda59]

im sure the biggest/hardest stage for 2002 Lakers wasnt the finals against the Nets.

What the hell are you talking about? It's the finals. Doesn't matter if the WCF opponent is viewed as 'harder', doesn't change the fact that it's where the gold is won.

The finals is the biggest stage in NBA basketball, hence it is viewed as more important than any other round for obvious reasons.

[Magic 32]

Maybe conference finals MVP's would be a good idea.

I mean they give conference championship right?

[r15mohd]

:oldlol:

Meant page 4.


:roll: :roll: :roll:

so should all stats be diminished prior to 1980? if the modern era is the tell-all of the NBA, what does prior to 1980 mean to anything :confusedshrug:

[DMV2]

Maybe conference finals MVP's would be a good idea.

I mean they give conference championship right?
But it'll be still be overlooked and overshadowed by the Finals MVP.

[-Lebron23-]

Maybe conference finals MVP's would be a good idea.

I mean they give conference championship right?
Yeah, East would be like the Special Olympics but in principle I agree with this.

[TheMan]

In b4 Bron wins another FMVP and OP does a 180...

[Legends66NBA7]

r15mohd gave me an interesting idea. I wonder who exactly would be Finals MVP from 68-76 in the ABA.

[livinglegend]

What the hell are you talking about? It's the finals. Doesn't matter if the WCF opponent is viewed as 'harder', doesn't change the fact that it's where the gold is won.

The finals is the biggest stage in NBA basketball, hence it is viewed as more important than any other round for obvious reasons.

the media has really brainwashed you guys. They made you guys feel that the most important round for obvious tv ratings and money. But in reality it s really simple: It s not the most important because if you dont win the 1st, 2nd or 3rd, you dont get play in the finals. The finals is the closest stage but not the most important. All the rounds are equally important.

[livinglegend]

In b4 Bron wins another FMVP and OP does a 180...

im not a lebron stan

[Legends66NBA7]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

so should all stats be diminished prior to 1980? if the modern era is the tell-all of the NBA, what does prior to 1980 mean to anything :confusedshrug:

Oh, I didn't mean it like that. I think all stats and awards should be recognized and I've always said that awards that didn't exist (like Finals MVP and DPOY) should be attempted to be recognized since it's inception. Such attempts have been started in threads by knowledgeable posters:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157369

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190992

And here's a post about Dr. J's 74 and 76 Finals runs, since I like the point about a potential Finals MVP for the ABA:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6474710&postcount=2

I only say 79-80 is regarded as the "modern era" since it included the 3 point line. Never really took at as a shot at basketball before that mark, I'm in actually agreement with that post you had.

[chocolatethunder]

People act like it s the most important and valuable individual award by far. Let s be real it s not. A player can play like shit the whole regular season and the first 3 rounds of the playoffs. Then, he can go off for 4/5 games in the finals and win FMVP. 1 series is too small of a sample.
That's why it's called the FINALS MVP. It's not that complicated.