John Havlicek should have been a 3x NBA Finals MVP

[Lebron23]

1968 NBA Finals Stats

27.3 ppg on 42.1 FG%, 8.7 rpg, 6.7 apg

Celtics beat the Lakers 4-2.

1969 NBA Finals Stats


28.3 ppg on 46 FG%, 11.0 rpg, 4.4 apg

Celtics beat the Lakers 4-3

West won the finals MVP despite being on a losing team.

He finally won his first finals MVP in 1974

26.4 ppg on 43.1 FG%, 7.7 rpg, 4.7 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.0 bpg

[Marchesk]

He is top 20 all-time.

[jlip]

Great thread on the 1968 Finals (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275172). Many posters are torn between Russell and Hondo.

[Pushxx]

He is top 20 all-time.

No doubt. Best team player in sports history and one of the most underrated athetes ever.

[feyki]

Of course .

[ClipperRevival]

1968 NBA Finals Stats

27.3 ppg on 42.1 FG%, 8.7 rpg, 6.7 apg

Celtics beat the Lakers 4-2.

1969 NBA Finals Stats


28.3 ppg on 46 FG%, 11.0 rpg, 4.4 apg

Celtics beat the Lakers 4-3

West won the finals MVP despite being on a losing team.

He finally won his first finals MVP in 1974

26.4 ppg on 43.1 FG%, 7.7 rpg, 4.7 apg, 1.9 spg, 0.0 bpg

Reading up on the 1968 and 1969 finals, it's either Russell or Havlicek in 1968 and West or Havlicek in 1969.

Seems like many view Russell as still deserving in 1968 while most view West as the deserving winner despite losing because he was just that good and his teammates (Baylor/Ilt) laid complete eggs. So he just didn't have the proper support.

[bdreason]

We had people on ISH claiming Gordon Hayward would ball this guy up just last week. :facepalm

[bdreason]

And Finals MVP should never go to a player on the losing team, because it sets a bad precedent. It's the same reason you shouldn't reward losing teams with All-Star selections. Players should be encouraged to contribute to winning teams by any means necessary (sacrifice). Players who post high usage rates, and huge stat lines, but consistently lose games, should not be rewarded... because it promotes the player over the team.


I would also like to see the Finals MVP award changed to the Playoff MVP award. Players should be recognized for the entirety of their playoff contributions, not just the final 4-7 games, which can often be more a product of strategy and match-ups than individual performance. If this were the case, then I could see a player on the losing Finals team getting the award, because of their contributions in winning the 3 previous series.

[nba_55]

And Finals MVP should never go to a player on the losing team, because it sets a bad precedent. It's the same reason you shouldn't reward losing teams with All-Star selections. Players should be encouraged to contribute to winning teams by any means necessary (sacrifice). Players who post high usage rates, and huge stat lines, but consistently lose games, should not be rewarded... because it promotes the player over the team.


I would also like to see the Finals MVP award changed to the Playoff MVP award. Players should be recognized for the entirety of their playoff contributions, not just the final 4-7 games, which can often be more a product of strategy and match-ups than individual performance. If this were the case, then I could see a player on the losing Finals team getting the award, because of their contributions in winning the 3 previous series.

If they don't want to give the FMVP to the losing team's player regardless of how valuable he is to his team, then, they shouldn't name the award finals most valuable player.

[jongib369]

We had people on ISH claiming Gordon Hayward would ball this guy up just last week. :facepalm
Gordon Hayward is better than John Havlicek (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392387)

:banghead:

[ClipperRevival]

And Finals MVP should never go to a player on the losing team, because it sets a bad precedent. It's the same reason you shouldn't reward losing teams with All-Star selections. Players should be encouraged to contribute to winning teams by any means necessary (sacrifice). Players who post high usage rates, and huge stat lines, but consistently lose games, should not be rewarded... because it promotes the player over the team.


I would also like to see the Finals MVP award changed to the Playoff MVP award. Players should be recognized for the entirety of their playoff contributions, not just the final 4-7 games, which can often be more a product of strategy and match-ups than individual performance. If this were the case, then I could see a player on the losing Finals team getting the award, because of their contributions in winning the 3 previous series.

In most cases, i would agree but if one guy is literally lapping the field, you have to consider it. For instance, Bron for the first 3 games of the finals last year was putting up a legendary performance and had he continued that level of play, it's something to consider. But his play tailed off considerably in terms of efficiency. Some of that had to do with fatigue but it is what it is. West was so far better than anyone else in 1969. His HOF teammates in Baylor and Ilt laid eggs. All he needed was for them to be their average selves and the Lakers would've won. But context is key of course and in most cases, i would not give it to the losing team.

[dankok8]

In 1968 it's close between Russell and Hondo.

In 1969 it should have been Havlicek. It's not that West didn't deserve it but no other player won the award on a losing team.

[La Frescobaldi]

And Finals MVP should never go to a player on the losing team, because it sets a bad precedent. It's the same reason you shouldn't reward losing teams with All-Star selections. Players should be encouraged to contribute to winning teams by any means necessary (sacrifice). Players who post high usage rates, and huge stat lines, but consistently lose games, should not be rewarded... because it promotes the player over the team.


I would also like to see the Finals MVP award changed to the Playoff MVP award. Players should be recognized for the entirety of their playoff contributions, not just the final 4-7 games, which can often be more a product of strategy and match-ups than individual performance. If this were the case, then I could see a player on the losing Finals team getting the award, because of their contributions in winning the 3 previous series.
obviously it isn't a bad precedent since the first one went to a guy on the losing team and not one has ever since.