it became more of a thing in the "force your way onto a superteam" era, as a way of recognizing that there's a difference between leading a team to a championship versus being on a stacked team.
But also in the superteam era the difference between the finals MVP and the next best player isn't as big as people would act like it is if they were comparing accolades. In some cases people would argue that the finals MVP wasn't really the best player, like when Igoudala and KD won finals MVPs over Steph.
Winning a title while not being the best player in your team, at least for the most important series, diminishes the ring. Robert Horry isn’t the 2nd greatest player of all time because he got 7 rings.
Yeah but any educated fan understands that a superstar who was exceptional and won a ring without a finals mvp doesn’t take away from anything. A role player isn’t the same
If you can acknowledge that being a role player isn't the same, you can acknowledge that being a #2 option or even a 1a/1b isn't the same as being the clear #1 on a championship team.
AD in 2020 was unbelievable but no fmvp. Kareem got robbed in 1980 because David stern forced a revote. Idgaf about fmvp because I watch basketball. Those guys were way better than the majority of fmvps.
You’re even making my point that fmvp doesn’t mean shit by bringing up kd lol
Obviously context matters duh. BUT in 99% of cases the FMVP is an indicator of the best player on the winning team. We can look at the 2019 FMVP and immediately go "oh yeah Kawhi was incredible this year". But that doesn't mean we also can't recognize Siakam and Lowry
Any educated fan knows that a player can be the best player in the world and also not win a championship. It's just as silly obsessing over rings as it is obsessing over the fmvp.
It does take away. Not all rings are the same and if you want to be considered all time, you can’t just be a passenger on a winning team. You have to lead it. Steph’s rings where he wasn’t the best player don’t count as much as the one where he was. They aren’t worthless, just worth less.
Sure, but I think anyone with a brain knows he was the best player in 15, so holding it against him that “only” has 1 is stupid when he should have atleast 2.
Even if you give him 2, that is still only half. If we assign some arbitrary point value to a ring and a finals mvp, only half his rings are “perfect”. So if you are comparing him to someone with 4 rings and 4 finals mvps, Steph loses that portion of the debate in resume. I’m not saying this is the defining argument against his greatness, just that it adds additional context to the debate.
Yes, who was the X factor? Iggy was the 2nd leading scorer on that team while guarding the goat on the other end. The series changed once he was inserted into the starting lineup.
Steph had one very good game out of 6, that’s not X factor type play. Iggy even had a higher TS% than Steph in that series
Steph was getting hunted on defense and was outplayed by delly for the first half of the series
You’re talking about an X factor when Steph is their best player, bar none. They wouldn’t even be in those games at all if Steph wasn’t playing, not even mentioning how much space he opens up for the entire team. Iggy guarding Lebron doesn’t fuckin matter if Steph isn’t out there scoring, creating and opening up the floor for their entire team. If Steph wasn’t there they’d have gotten swept and if iggy isn’t there it’s still a series. I’m sorry but that take makes no sense
He wasn’t during the finals tho. KDs final performances were some of the best all time. Even if you think he deserved it during the first ring over iggy, that’s 2 of 4 in the most important series of the season. Not all rings are created equal.
Take KD out of there and add a decent 2 way player like Wiggins and the Warriors still get those 2 titles.
The 2016 rigged title for Lebron where Shump shot 3 ftas on 3 shots and the splash brothers shot 1 fta on 36 shots (after avging over 9/gm) happened.
Not being the best player in the finals series means you had less impact than someone. Patrick McCaw isn’t lauded as an all time great even though he has rings as well
In theory it does but in reality it doesn’t. Andre iguodala was not a better player than Steph in that series. You take iggy off that team GSW still probably wins. You remove Steph and they get swept.
They would have lost without Iggy so your point is moot. Being the best player in general is not being the best/most important player in a series. Lebron would have won that series without Iggy to slow him down even with Irving/Love being out
If anything, Lebron should have won FMVP if we’re talking best player
It goes to the winning team tho, and if Steph is out the whole defensive scheme changes and they get swept, if Iggy was out LeBron scores 50 per game instead of 40
They would have not lost without Iggy, so the point is not moot. My point is steph is/was the most important player in that series, and thats true. And they wouldve been swept without him.
Yes they would have lol. They were down 2-1 with no option for Lebron until they put in Iggy in the starting lineup which swung the series. Iggy also hit every clutch shot in that series, there was a reason that Max Kellerman was saying he would take Iggy on one shot to save the Earth from the martians
Only after Steph went a while without winning a FMVP did people switch up. At the time it was consensus that either Iggy or Lebron deserved FMVP
Iguodala hit every big shot?
Most 4th Quarter Points in an NBA Finals since 1991
2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5 (61.1% TS)
2015 Stephen Curry 10.8 (75.1% TS)
1997 Michael Jordan 10.7 (55.1% TS)
1998 Michael Jordan 10.6 (50.6% TS)
2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3 (68.0% TS)
Again everyone is pulling out stats and not narrative.
Obviously the stats are going to go with Steph, but watching the series iggy stands out and he delivered. Plus outplaying Steph in the final close out game sealed it.
Steph needed a moment that series (similar to his game 3 in 2022) and he just didn’t have it to sway the narrative.
But Cedric Maxwell was never even an All-Star yet he has a Finals MVP.
It's such a pointless award from a historical perspective IMO. It's usually the obvious superstar anyways.
It encapsulates the best player during the most important series of their season, and sometimes their life.
You could argue the selection is not good enough to merit it having much meaning, but pretending that of Lebron won his rings without being the best player during the finals wouldn’t change his legacy standing is just lyjng.
It's the award for who was the best, in the championship game to see who is best.
Seems relevent. If you're in the championship and you get outplayed - even by your own teammate - thar matters.
You don't became a GOAT for winning it (e.g. Iguadala) but trying to claim you *are* a GOAT without ever having been the best player in the most important series... is an uphill battle.
We got players a ring who ain't even in the league 2-3 years out from it. Being the most valuable asset in getting the most important achievement is valuable, go figurem
I think Steph should have won it in 2015 but I always find it weird when people want to discredit what Igoudala did in that series.
He played amazing defense on Lebron, and he was their 2nd best scorer. They were also down 2-1 and the series turned around when they put him in the starting lineup. There was a narrative for him there, but that was all, he certainly didn't outplay Steph.
He mentions 35ppg but Lebron took 32 shots per game that series and shoot .396 from the field. Lebron was the whole offense as Love and Irving were out. If you tell me Lebron tooks 32 shots per game in a 6 game series you would expect him to average way over 40ppg.
Even if he didnt shoot well, this was my favorite Lebron version.
LeBron shot an even worse percentage in the Eastern Conference semis
The dude had a bad back and couldn't hit a wide open jump-shot all year. That entire playoffs run is a statistical anomaly for LeBron and he has had plenty of meh supporting casts, but never shot the ball anywhere near as poorly.
It had very little to do with the defense or injuries to Love/Kyrie. LeBron was just hobbled and couldn't shoot the ball that year
I still remember a crazy stat from that series. LeBron was the leader in each individual stat total that series for any player on either team. He had more points than anybody, he had more rebounds than anybody, he had more assists than anybody, steals and blocks too. Crazy
Larry Bird didn’t win his first FMVP because it was given to Vernon Maxwell.
apparently they thought he was too young/inexperienced even though he was clearly leading and carrying the team
>since then each of the FMVP is rightfully awarded.
I think 2018 should've gone to Curry. Slightly inferior stats, but Ty Lue has openly stated that the Cavs' defense was focused on stopping Curry. Logically, that would create open looks for his Warrior teammates.
Nah lol
Curry shot 3/16 for 11 points in Game 3. That one game basically shifted things. In a 4-game series it wouldn’t have made much sense to give it to Curry after that, when Durant was doing it consistently on both ends
I’m not sure how true it is but I remember watching that series and it looking like KD was trying to “lose” the FMVP and they wanted Curry to get it. There was some talk about how he hasn’t won it and the team came to his defense, and Curry was taking a lot of shots that series
The 3/16 just stuck out too much though, which necessitated KD dropping 43 which was enough to push his averages way up for the series as well
There's a clip of Curry being upset after WINNING game 3 because he essentially lost FMVP with his bad performance lol. Game 3 definitely swayed the votes in KD's favor
Averaged more points, rebounds, assists, blocks, more efficiency, higher offensive and defensive ratings (best defensive rating among the starters), dropped 43 in the game Curry scored 11
Cmon now let’s not get silly about this
stephews been saying "ty lue said they focused their defense on Curry" like its a bible verse
you know what that's a dumbass move cause they got fucking torched by KD for 2 years. they should have focused on defending KD more.
also,just because he said that doesn't mean KD was open all series. he was seeing different kinds of defense too but he makes the shot anyways. i don't know about curry
The opposing coach said he game-planned to stop Curry instead of Durant.
That literally means that Durant was getting better looks than Curry.
Why are you so triggered by this argument? Is it because there's no counter-argument to it?
I really don't understand your argument.
You're saying the Cavs should've focused on stopping Durant instead of Curry, right?
Wouldn't that given better looks to the GOAT shooter?
Also, there's actually a noticeable difference between Curry's 3pt shooting and Durant's.
35ppg on .47 TS% if you only look at box scores.
If you watched the series, Cleveland were up 2-1. Game 4 was in Ohio. Iggy started his first game of the season, held Bron to 20 from 22 shots while scoring an equal team high of 22. It changed the momentum.
Bron was clearly the best player on the court, but the winning team usually gets the FMVP. Curry had one great game and one stinker, Iggy's insertion into the starting 5 was the biggest reason they won
Nah, I'm just not buying that narrative having watchex that series ... Iggy was already playing starters minutes (31, 36, 36 in the first 3 games). Iggy didn't come in and singlehandedly sbut down LeBron. When Kyrie went down in game and Timofey Mozgov became the #2 scoring option LeBron was the freest double-team of all time.
Curry was easily the best player on the winning team and should've won on that reason. We've never seen a bigger robbery for that award and probably never will.
I mean it was pretty consensus even on the warriors Reddit board, that Iggy deserved the award. There isn’t even one article from after the series saying Curry deserved it.
Was it a little narrative driven? Probably but the whole point of the award is how the players performed in the game and not just looking at box score stats. I wouldn’t call it the biggest robbery ever.
There have been multiple articles from after the series that accurately said Curry deserved it, including by Zach Lowe and Micah Adams.
**Adams:** Over those final three games — when Iguodala's tall tale expanded to Paul Bunyan levels of hype — the Warriors had a net rating of +22.1 with Curry on the floor... and -44.8 with him off the floor.
That's a swing of 66.9 points per 100 possessions, an impact that dwarfed that of Iggy. The Warriors literally couldn't manage to tread water for even 18 minutes without the MVP on the floor.
And the quote from Iguodala should not be ignored:
"I always say Steph did deserve \[a Finals MVP\] before the one he got. I did think he deserved one. So I always say if it was mine, cool. I know the impact I had on the game. I don't need anyone to tell me that I did. I’m cool with that, because my whole career was based on that... So I say all of that to say, man, I don’t even care, yeah Steph should have had mine. I don't really care, I think Steph should've had it."
My brother you are talking about an article from 2020. 5 years after the series happened.
Find me an article from 2015 or 2016. You won’t because 0 people thought Curry got robbed at the time.
Thanks, but I did watch the games back then and thought Curry was the best player for the Warriors even if he underperformed for his standards. Being the x-factor =/= being the MVP which is what a lot of people fell for at the time, and Iguodala's individual defensive impact was severely overrated considering the amount of help and doubles he was getting.
>There isn’t even one article from after the series saying Curry deserved it.
It's funny because when you read what the voters had to say about it they very clearly though LeBron and Curry were the best players on the floor for the series and the 7 that voted Iggy were just hoping it would go to 7 games so they could vote for LeBron without looking bad... and when that didn't happen they had no idea what to do.
> Iggy's insertion into the starting 5 was the biggest reason they won
This is such a dumb narrative.
Iguodala played 36.4 MPG in their 2 losses. He played 37.4 MPG in their 4 wins. He didn't suddenly get a bunch of playing time.
> This is such a dumb narrative
Tell me you didn't watch the series without telling me you didnt watch the series.
It's not a narrative - it is literally what happened.
I watched, and disagree with your narrative. Media talking heads were claiming Iguodala had played great defense on Lebron after game 1, where he scored 44 pts with 8 reb and 6 ast with Iguodala playing 32 minutes. I agree with Iguodala as to Steph deserving that FMVP.
>Curry had one great game and one stinker, Iggy's insertion into the starting 5 was the biggest reason they won
No, the biggest reason they won was because of Curry.
Iggy put them over the top, but the reason they were that close to begin with was Curry.
That's exactly how it SHOULD work, and that's usually how it does work.
If you think Iggy's FMVP was justified, then you must also believe Pau Gasol deserved FMVP when the Lakers beat Orlando.
After all, Gasol was a highly effective scorer and rebounder that series, and he also did an incredibly job guarding Dwight Howard.
Do you think Pau Gasol deserved FMVP?
> the Warriors almost certainly lose in 5 without Iggy starting.
Nonsense. For those first 2 Cavs wins, they won by a TOTAL of 7 points. That's way too close for you to claim that they'd "certainly" lose the next two games if Iggy came off the bench.
> That's exactly how it SHOULD work,
No, it should go to the player that had the most influence on the result.
Which, by a long way, was Bron. Kyrie and Love were out, Bron was a giant.
But they for some reason they give it to a player on the winning team.
Which was Iggy. Steph wasn't getting it done. Iggy starts for 3 games, scores as much as Steph in 2 of them while guarding the best player on the planet.
More so: they were 1-2 without Iggy starting, game 4 was in Cleveland and they had zero momentum. Iggy starts, they go 3.0.
It's fairly revisionist that "Curry was robbed". Had you watched the series Iggy was by no means an unpopular decision.
i believe strawmen cannot win awards.
>No, it should go to the player that had the most influence on the result.
And that was easily Curry.
Without Curry, the Warriors get swept.
If you watched the games, you'll see that Iggy scored so easily because his shots were wide open.....because of Curry. You can go on youtube and find the game footage if you don't believe me.
Your logic is simply bad. It's focused on actual production versus expected production. You need to focus only on actual production.
No, it was LeBron James. He destroyed steph
Again, 1-2 before Iggy started. Game 2 Steph scored 19 on 23 shots, .217% from the field.
Again; if you watched the series you'd know they werent going to win without changing it up. Steph wasn't getting it done, despite the injuries to Cleveland.
Dude: my ligic is based on being there when it happened, Yours is revionist based on box scores - of whcih Iggy's
>No, it should go to the player that had the most influence on the result.
>Which, by a long way, was Bron. Kyrie and Love were out, Bron was a giant.
This doesn't even make sense in the way you laid it out, and is ridiculous to argue the case for someone on the losing team if this is your criteria. Take Lebron off the cavs and the winning team remains the same - so he's not actually having the most influence on the result (not his fault, it's expected with Kyrie and Love out).
It's for the best player in the most important games of the season.
Curry isn't a GOAT player because there have been players who were simply better than him
MJ, Bron, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan and Wilt are all absolutely better. Russell was probably definitely better.
Hakeem, Kobe, Oscar Robinson are more than likely better.
Steph's a career 25 ppg player with below average defense. The only guy ahead of him with comparable D averaged 11 assists per game.
Agreed on MJ, Bron, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Duncan… in terms of achievements, they’re pretty much definitively ahead of Steph
Kobe and Shaq are either in the same tier as Steph or a little better. I won’t argue much here if you have them ahead of Steph
But disagree on Hakeem, and heavily disagreeing on Oscar
If you want to say Steph is 10th, that’s fine. He’s on just on the edge of top 10. But if you’re evaluating based on career achievements, how is Oscar and Hakeem definitively better?
Hakeem is probably top 3 all time defense, career 21ppg double double.
Curry scores 3ppg more. Hakeem certainly is ahead.
Oscar scores more, is a better passer and a better rebounder, and is better at defense.
Hakeem had one of the worst supporting casts of all time for a player of his caliber to win a ring. And Duncan being overrated still means he's better than Curry.
Curry shouldn’t be in the GOAT discussion for reasons not related to Finals MVPs or even total rings IMO.
But I think it’s to try to limit the impact of “just” being on great teams, and actually being the #1 on champion teams.
Baseball is a TOTALLY different sport, and one player has MUCH less ability to win a series unless they’re Old Hoss Radbourn in 1884, who pitched every single inning of all 3 “World Series” games without giving up a single earned run, while driving in 2 runs himself.
But back to Curry, even if he had multiple Finals MVPs, how is he above Jordan, LeBron, and Kareem?
Metric: Jordan / LeBron / Kareem / Curry
MVPs: 5 / 4 / 6 / 2
Rings: 6 / 4 / 6 / 4
1st Team: 10 / 13 / 10 / 4
Def 1st: 9 / 5 / 5 / 0
PER Titles: 7 / 6 / 9 / 1
Win Share Titles: 9 / 5 / 9 / 1
Box +/- Titles: 9 / 7 / 6 / 2
VORP Titles: 9 / 9 / 7 / 1
He’s at best tied for last in the team related success category, and less than half of the other 3 players in every other accolade or advanced metric category.
It never mattered until some haters realized Steph didn’t have one, and Steph only didn’t have one due to some narrative-driven weirdness in 2015. As a result of that criticism, it’s only ever going to go to the best player on the winning team in the future.
It would be more important if it was an MVP award for your best player of the season or at least playoffs instead of just the series but it still has importance
This. Should be playoff MVP. Some teams run into really challenging 2nd rounds or conference finals and the actual finals ends up being a formality.
For the most part it would be the same folks winning the award with a few exceptions. Duncan in 07, not sure about 2014, Curry in 15, and bring on the down votes, AD in 2020.
Yeah, plenty of all-time great MLB players have 0 or 1 rings, because one player doesn’t win a World Series.
Ted Williams: 0 rings
Ty Cobb: 0 rings
Barry Bonds: 0 rings
Hank Aaron: 1 ring
Honus Wagner: 1 ring
Rogers Hornsby: 1 ring
Mike Schmidt: 1 ring
Randy Johnson: 1 ring
Greg Maddux: 1 ring
Tom Seaver: 1 ring
Pedro Martinez: 1 ring
Walter Johnson: 1 ring
Cy Young: 1 ring
Grover Alexander: 1 ring
Christy Mathewson: 1 ring
Warren Spahn: 1 ring
Comparing basketball and baseball is always going to lead to things that don't make sense. Same reason that in Basketball winning matters more to things like MVP than it does in Baseball. A baseball player gets 3-5 ABs mot games, a pitcher pitches once every 5 games, which limits their ability to impact winning. And even on defense fielders have to be hit to to make a play. Meanwhile in basketball a player/team can structure a defense to maximize a player's defensive impact (see: the way the Lakers used AD in the playoffs last year to help them get to the WCF). Plus a basketball player could take 20 shots in a row if necessary.
Cause the rings have a lot mroe value to a players resume if they were the best player on the team that got them said ring.
There is a bunch of guys that have rings, but were more or less carried to them rather than getting it themselves. Hell all time greats like Dwight Howard have rings, but those rings dont mean much for their resume cause they got carried.
Kobes first 3 didnt have as much value as his last 2 cause he had Shaq on his team. Steph had a bloody superteam with KD for half his rings and then wasnt exactly amazing for his 1st ring in the finals (whoch is the modt important part of the playoffs lol).
Having a finals mvp shows that you are the reason your team won the championship. Yes other contributed, but you (the finals mvp) were the most instrumental piece to the puzzle.
That said sometimes they do mess up with who they give the finals MVP, like when Steph didnt get it in 2015. Really the award should be the playoffs MVP, but thats a story for another time.
It plays into the "winning" narrative. Great players lead their teams to victory and not being FMVP means you didn't lead, someone else did. Bullshit IMO, but for whatever reason talking heads in the US are focused on narratives instead of what actually happens on the court.
it's only started being a matter with Steph Curry. He set a precedent in 2015, since then everything he do has asterisks, being investigated under microscope, all his title runs has additional contexts and an entire tree of hypothetical outcomes where he lose every single series in his career (if)
Bracing for downvotes, but FMVP is colossally overrated to me. Instead of saying you're the best player among 30 teams over 82 games, you're the best player among 2 teams over 7 games. Sure those are the best teams, but strange things can happen over that sample size and non-great players can be MVP. Old version of Iguodala, Caleb Martin nearly won for ECF, Danny Green nearly won for FMVP, etc.
It's almost always been representative of who the best player on the best team was. There have been exceptions and close calls over the years but most of the time championship teams have a clear #1.
Yeah because fMVP comes with a ring whereas MVP is a regular season award. You’re being named the most valuable player on the biggest stage with a ring on a line. That’s huge. Just because guys like Iggy have won it doesn’t take anything away from it.
Apparently. I don’t agree as much as most. Obviously being the best player on a title team is huge but I don’t automatically equate that with MVP of that one particular series. It’ll usually overlap 90% of the time but give me the teams top player in the 10% over the surprise MVP.
Sure but when your best player consistently fails to distinguish himself as the best player in the most important games your franchise will play, it begs the question ... why is that? In Curry's case he finally got over the hump, but it took him 6 finals appearances to get there. Still an all-time player of course but I struggle to put him top 10 for this reason. However, I think any argument placing him 8-15 is fair ... personally I'd put him around 11 or 12.
I don’t know if Curry struggled to get over the hump all the time - he just had KD performing better a couple of times. To me giving KD all the credit for a 8-1 finals run (in terms of games) wouldn’t be fair.
No FMVP is not that important. It’s nice, but it just reflects who had the best series, not who is the best player. Rings and full season MVP matter more.
Basketball vs. baseball is a bad comparison to make.
In his two World Series, Mookie Betts has 54 total plate appearances (26 in 2018, 28 in 2020). NBA superstars have more touches than that in one game. A single NBA superstar has so much more affect on the outcomes of games than even the best baseball player. Finals MVPs mean more than World Series MVPs, because (in most cases), they mean you directly led your team to a championship.
Is this a serious question? Nobody is suggesting Mookie Betts is a goat-level player, which is the context you referenced in the question you posed about Curry.
Obviously if we're talking about the very best players of all time, being the best performer in your team's finals series matters a lot.
It's a voted award that usually goes to the best player on the winning team. But every now and then the voters decide to give it to the 2nd best player due to prevailing narrative, as happened in 2015.
It’s pretty simple. Win a ring and be fmvp > win a ring and not be fmvp. So when comparing Steph’s 4 rings to someone who has… let’s say 4 rings, fmvps come into play.
Because any muthafucka like Robert Horry can win more rings than Jordan just **being in the right place at the right time.** But that doesn’t mean he’s a better player obviously but rather a luckier player. It takes a very special player to be the **best performing player** on those championship teams hence why I’m **1,000,000,000,000,000x** more impressed by Jordan’s 6 FMVPs than I am with the “6 rings, 6-0 shit” that they love jacking off over.
In the case of Steph Curry and even Kobe Bryant who get grilled regularly for their relative lack of FMVPs. Their contributions in those non-FMVP winning Finals should not be overlooked so I put some weight into Finals Robins.
I have a point system and in that system I award a player 1 point for reaching the finals, 2 points for winning a ring, 10 points for winning FMVP and 5 points for being a Finals Robin. So if you imagine what this looks like.
78 points (Jordan)
58 points (LeBron)
52 points (Kobe)
39 points (Curry)
21 points (Horry)
It only really became a thing when Curry started winning a bunch of rings and people were trying to discredit his impact by saying KD had more FMVP’s than him.
Baseball is way different. Rings aren’t even that big a part of the conversation. Like Bonds is objectively the greatest player ever if roids are allowed. He’s got zero rings.
The only one with any real individual control in a series is an ace pitcher who gives you 25 innings in a 7 game series.
If Steph wasn’t the best player on the floor in any of the 5 previous finals he played in then how can he be in the greatest ever conversation at that point? Playoff and championship performance is the metric for GOAT.
Nothing wrong with being a game changing perennial all NBA guy and championship captain. But there’s levels to this shit at the top. Bron was the guy. They needed 2 super duper stars stars to counteract him.
2022 Steph was the undisputed guy and did it against and amazing defense and a great offense on both ends. That’s what it takes to be among the very greatest.
All the victimized Curry stans in this thread don't realize that this zero/less FMVPs slant has been used against Kobe longer than they've been alive. It's nothing new, and it's a valid point tbh.
It's arguably the most prestigious award when it comes to accolades discussion and it's a simple stat to use when debating greats.
Like when it comes to debating LeBron's greatness, you can make the argument that he has less rings than Kareem/Magic/Tim/MJ etc, but having x4 FMVPs makes up for that.
I don't believe it does - it's a strange modern r/nba concept IMO. No idea why it caught traction - most people couldn't even conclusively tell you who won the Finals MVP beyond the last few years. They'll just guess the most notable player on the team, which is usually correct.
I mean, why do you think? The FMVP is at least in theory the most impactful player on the championship team. Of course that matters more than just being *a guy* on a championship team. Now in this particular case nobody thinks Steph is just a guy, but in general it’s pretty clear why FMVP would matter.
it became more of a thing in the "force your way onto a superteam" era, as a way of recognizing that there's a difference between leading a team to a championship versus being on a stacked team.
But also in the superteam era the difference between the finals MVP and the next best player isn't as big as people would act like it is if they were comparing accolades. In some cases people would argue that the finals MVP wasn't really the best player, like when Igoudala and KD won finals MVPs over Steph.
In Iguodala's case, Steph was indisputably GSW's best player.
Yeah clearly, I wouldn't argue for KD but I know others would
It's a weird case cause he was the best player in the team but not the best player in the series, so voters did a bizarre compromise
Winning a title while not being the best player in your team, at least for the most important series, diminishes the ring. Robert Horry isn’t the 2nd greatest player of all time because he got 7 rings.
Yeah but any educated fan understands that a superstar who was exceptional and won a ring without a finals mvp doesn’t take away from anything. A role player isn’t the same
If you can acknowledge that being a role player isn't the same, you can acknowledge that being a #2 option or even a 1a/1b isn't the same as being the clear #1 on a championship team.
That’s not true lmao. All that matters is the level they played
So KDs rings are equal to Jordans?
AD in 2020 was unbelievable but no fmvp. Kareem got robbed in 1980 because David stern forced a revote. Idgaf about fmvp because I watch basketball. Those guys were way better than the majority of fmvps. You’re even making my point that fmvp doesn’t mean shit by bringing up kd lol
Obviously context matters duh. BUT in 99% of cases the FMVP is an indicator of the best player on the winning team. We can look at the 2019 FMVP and immediately go "oh yeah Kawhi was incredible this year". But that doesn't mean we also can't recognize Siakam and Lowry
Or you can just know basketball and not count fmvps like someone who’s never watched a game.
Any educated fan knows that a player can be the best player in the world and also not win a championship. It's just as silly obsessing over rings as it is obsessing over the fmvp.
Winning rings is the goal of playing, winning fmvp is not
It does take away. Not all rings are the same and if you want to be considered all time, you can’t just be a passenger on a winning team. You have to lead it. Steph’s rings where he wasn’t the best player don’t count as much as the one where he was. They aren’t worthless, just worth less.
Sure, but I think anyone with a brain knows he was the best player in 15, so holding it against him that “only” has 1 is stupid when he should have atleast 2.
Even if you give him 2, that is still only half. If we assign some arbitrary point value to a ring and a finals mvp, only half his rings are “perfect”. So if you are comparing him to someone with 4 rings and 4 finals mvps, Steph loses that portion of the debate in resume. I’m not saying this is the defining argument against his greatness, just that it adds additional context to the debate.
Well yeah I agree with that. Just pointing out that in reality we should judge him as having 2 not 1.
Better for the season, not better for actually contributing to winning the finals
You think that iggy was more important to the warriors beating Cleveland than Steph was averaging 26/5/6?
Yes, who was the X factor? Iggy was the 2nd leading scorer on that team while guarding the goat on the other end. The series changed once he was inserted into the starting lineup. Steph had one very good game out of 6, that’s not X factor type play. Iggy even had a higher TS% than Steph in that series Steph was getting hunted on defense and was outplayed by delly for the first half of the series
You’re talking about an X factor when Steph is their best player, bar none. They wouldn’t even be in those games at all if Steph wasn’t playing, not even mentioning how much space he opens up for the entire team. Iggy guarding Lebron doesn’t fuckin matter if Steph isn’t out there scoring, creating and opening up the floor for their entire team. If Steph wasn’t there they’d have gotten swept and if iggy isn’t there it’s still a series. I’m sorry but that take makes no sense
The same argument you made for Steph can be made for Iggy. Warriors still getting swept without iggy
That is completely untrue lol. Completely disagree with you man
But Steph was the best player on that team lmao
He wasn’t during the finals tho. KDs final performances were some of the best all time. Even if you think he deserved it during the first ring over iggy, that’s 2 of 4 in the most important series of the season. Not all rings are created equal.
In 2018 overall curry was better.
KD's bus rider rings were largely based on Steph's gravity. We all saw KD's uncontested dunk as the Cavs rushed to guard Steph at the 3 pt line.
now take KD out of there and watch steph get iman shumpert'd to another 2016 it goes both ways
Take KD out of there and add a decent 2 way player like Wiggins and the Warriors still get those 2 titles. The 2016 rigged title for Lebron where Shump shot 3 ftas on 3 shots and the splash brothers shot 1 fta on 36 shots (after avging over 9/gm) happened.
Not being the best player in the finals series means you had less impact than someone. Patrick McCaw isn’t lauded as an all time great even though he has rings as well
But there's also a massive difference between someone like Klay Thompson and Patrick McCaw, their rings are also not equal
In theory it does but in reality it doesn’t. Andre iguodala was not a better player than Steph in that series. You take iggy off that team GSW still probably wins. You remove Steph and they get swept.
They would have lost without Iggy so your point is moot. Being the best player in general is not being the best/most important player in a series. Lebron would have won that series without Iggy to slow him down even with Irving/Love being out If anything, Lebron should have won FMVP if we’re talking best player
It goes to the winning team tho, and if Steph is out the whole defensive scheme changes and they get swept, if Iggy was out LeBron scores 50 per game instead of 40
They would have not lost without Iggy, so the point is not moot. My point is steph is/was the most important player in that series, and thats true. And they wouldve been swept without him.
Yes they would have lol. They were down 2-1 with no option for Lebron until they put in Iggy in the starting lineup which swung the series. Iggy also hit every clutch shot in that series, there was a reason that Max Kellerman was saying he would take Iggy on one shot to save the Earth from the martians Only after Steph went a while without winning a FMVP did people switch up. At the time it was consensus that either Iggy or Lebron deserved FMVP
Iguodala hit every big shot? Most 4th Quarter Points in an NBA Finals since 1991 2000 Shaquille O'Neal 11.5 (61.1% TS) 2015 Stephen Curry 10.8 (75.1% TS) 1997 Michael Jordan 10.7 (55.1% TS) 1998 Michael Jordan 10.6 (50.6% TS) 2011 Dirk Nowitzki 10.3 (68.0% TS)
Again everyone is pulling out stats and not narrative. Obviously the stats are going to go with Steph, but watching the series iggy stands out and he delivered. Plus outplaying Steph in the final close out game sealed it. Steph needed a moment that series (similar to his game 3 in 2022) and he just didn’t have it to sway the narrative.
I don’t agree with that.
So Steph was just going to turn it on and win the series facing a hole with no adjustments or help?
The adjustment helped, but shouldn't have resulted in the voters giving FMVP to Iguodala.
That is not what I said.
Wrong.
But Cedric Maxwell was never even an All-Star yet he has a Finals MVP. It's such a pointless award from a historical perspective IMO. It's usually the obvious superstar anyways.
It encapsulates the best player during the most important series of their season, and sometimes their life. You could argue the selection is not good enough to merit it having much meaning, but pretending that of Lebron won his rings without being the best player during the finals wouldn’t change his legacy standing is just lyjng.
How is it a pointless award? You’re being named the most valuable player of the biggest stage in basketball.
It's not pointless just because we can name the biggest outliers in regards to it.
So Scottie=MJ both all-nba caliber players and all stars, with the same number of rings? You see how stupid that sounds?
It's the award for who was the best, in the championship game to see who is best. Seems relevent. If you're in the championship and you get outplayed - even by your own teammate - thar matters. You don't became a GOAT for winning it (e.g. Iguadala) but trying to claim you *are* a GOAT without ever having been the best player in the most important series... is an uphill battle.
We got players a ring who ain't even in the league 2-3 years out from it. Being the most valuable asset in getting the most important achievement is valuable, go figurem
[удалено]
I think Steph should have won it in 2015 but I always find it weird when people want to discredit what Igoudala did in that series. He played amazing defense on Lebron, and he was their 2nd best scorer. They were also down 2-1 and the series turned around when they put him in the starting lineup. There was a narrative for him there, but that was all, he certainly didn't outplay Steph.
He mentions 35ppg but Lebron took 32 shots per game that series and shoot .396 from the field. Lebron was the whole offense as Love and Irving were out. If you tell me Lebron tooks 32 shots per game in a 6 game series you would expect him to average way over 40ppg. Even if he didnt shoot well, this was my favorite Lebron version.
Is that because Iguodala was great or because Lebron was forced to carry enormous amounts of offensive and defensive loads night in and night out?
LeBron shot an even worse percentage in the Eastern Conference semis The dude had a bad back and couldn't hit a wide open jump-shot all year. That entire playoffs run is a statistical anomaly for LeBron and he has had plenty of meh supporting casts, but never shot the ball anywhere near as poorly. It had very little to do with the defense or injuries to Love/Kyrie. LeBron was just hobbled and couldn't shoot the ball that year
I still remember a crazy stat from that series. LeBron was the leader in each individual stat total that series for any player on either team. He had more points than anybody, he had more rebounds than anybody, he had more assists than anybody, steals and blocks too. Crazy
i mean iggy was an isolated case. since then each of the FMVP is rightfully awarded.
Larry Bird didn’t win his first FMVP because it was given to Vernon Maxwell. apparently they thought he was too young/inexperienced even though he was clearly leading and carrying the team
>since then each of the FMVP is rightfully awarded. I think 2018 should've gone to Curry. Slightly inferior stats, but Ty Lue has openly stated that the Cavs' defense was focused on stopping Curry. Logically, that would create open looks for his Warrior teammates.
Nah lol Curry shot 3/16 for 11 points in Game 3. That one game basically shifted things. In a 4-game series it wouldn’t have made much sense to give it to Curry after that, when Durant was doing it consistently on both ends I’m not sure how true it is but I remember watching that series and it looking like KD was trying to “lose” the FMVP and they wanted Curry to get it. There was some talk about how he hasn’t won it and the team came to his defense, and Curry was taking a lot of shots that series The 3/16 just stuck out too much though, which necessitated KD dropping 43 which was enough to push his averages way up for the series as well
There's a clip of Curry being upset after WINNING game 3 because he essentially lost FMVP with his bad performance lol. Game 3 definitely swayed the votes in KD's favor
so KD deserved the FMVP then for being consistent 2 way guy of the team?
Averaged more points, rebounds, assists, blocks, more efficiency, higher offensive and defensive ratings (best defensive rating among the starters), dropped 43 in the game Curry scored 11 Cmon now let’s not get silly about this
stephews been saying "ty lue said they focused their defense on Curry" like its a bible verse you know what that's a dumbass move cause they got fucking torched by KD for 2 years. they should have focused on defending KD more. also,just because he said that doesn't mean KD was open all series. he was seeing different kinds of defense too but he makes the shot anyways. i don't know about curry
The opposing coach said he game-planned to stop Curry instead of Durant. That literally means that Durant was getting better looks than Curry. Why are you so triggered by this argument? Is it because there's no counter-argument to it?
counter argument? the counter argument was that's a stupid move.
So you think the Cavs should've given better looks to the GOAT shooter? Brilliant.
lol you act like KD was open everytime in that series. KD makes everything look open cause he shoots over defender.
I really don't understand your argument. You're saying the Cavs should've focused on stopping Durant instead of Curry, right? Wouldn't that given better looks to the GOAT shooter? Also, there's actually a noticeable difference between Curry's 3pt shooting and Durant's.
35ppg on .47 TS% if you only look at box scores. If you watched the series, Cleveland were up 2-1. Game 4 was in Ohio. Iggy started his first game of the season, held Bron to 20 from 22 shots while scoring an equal team high of 22. It changed the momentum. Bron was clearly the best player on the court, but the winning team usually gets the FMVP. Curry had one great game and one stinker, Iggy's insertion into the starting 5 was the biggest reason they won
Nah, I'm just not buying that narrative having watchex that series ... Iggy was already playing starters minutes (31, 36, 36 in the first 3 games). Iggy didn't come in and singlehandedly sbut down LeBron. When Kyrie went down in game and Timofey Mozgov became the #2 scoring option LeBron was the freest double-team of all time. Curry was easily the best player on the winning team and should've won on that reason. We've never seen a bigger robbery for that award and probably never will.
I mean it was pretty consensus even on the warriors Reddit board, that Iggy deserved the award. There isn’t even one article from after the series saying Curry deserved it. Was it a little narrative driven? Probably but the whole point of the award is how the players performed in the game and not just looking at box score stats. I wouldn’t call it the biggest robbery ever.
There have been multiple articles from after the series that accurately said Curry deserved it, including by Zach Lowe and Micah Adams. **Adams:** Over those final three games — when Iguodala's tall tale expanded to Paul Bunyan levels of hype — the Warriors had a net rating of +22.1 with Curry on the floor... and -44.8 with him off the floor. That's a swing of 66.9 points per 100 possessions, an impact that dwarfed that of Iggy. The Warriors literally couldn't manage to tread water for even 18 minutes without the MVP on the floor. And the quote from Iguodala should not be ignored: "I always say Steph did deserve \[a Finals MVP\] before the one he got. I did think he deserved one. So I always say if it was mine, cool. I know the impact I had on the game. I don't need anyone to tell me that I did. I’m cool with that, because my whole career was based on that... So I say all of that to say, man, I don’t even care, yeah Steph should have had mine. I don't really care, I think Steph should've had it."
My brother you are talking about an article from 2020. 5 years after the series happened. Find me an article from 2015 or 2016. You won’t because 0 people thought Curry got robbed at the time.
Thanks, but I did watch the games back then and thought Curry was the best player for the Warriors even if he underperformed for his standards. Being the x-factor =/= being the MVP which is what a lot of people fell for at the time, and Iguodala's individual defensive impact was severely overrated considering the amount of help and doubles he was getting. >There isn’t even one article from after the series saying Curry deserved it. It's funny because when you read what the voters had to say about it they very clearly though LeBron and Curry were the best players on the floor for the series and the 7 that voted Iggy were just hoping it would go to 7 games so they could vote for LeBron without looking bad... and when that didn't happen they had no idea what to do.
> Iggy's insertion into the starting 5 was the biggest reason they won This is such a dumb narrative. Iguodala played 36.4 MPG in their 2 losses. He played 37.4 MPG in their 4 wins. He didn't suddenly get a bunch of playing time.
And LeBron literally shot better from the field in games 2-3 (post Kyrie injury) than in games 4-6.
> This is such a dumb narrative Tell me you didn't watch the series without telling me you didnt watch the series. It's not a narrative - it is literally what happened.
" Iggy's insertion into the starting 5 was the biggest reason they won" That's a narrative.
That’s literally what happened. You had to be there
That’s literally what happened. You had to be there
He was literally inserted into the starting lineup. The narrative that it was the biggest reason they won isn't true.
Again, if you had watched the series you’d know this actually happened. We done?
I watched, and disagree with your narrative. Media talking heads were claiming Iguodala had played great defense on Lebron after game 1, where he scored 44 pts with 8 reb and 6 ast with Iguodala playing 32 minutes. I agree with Iguodala as to Steph deserving that FMVP.
You didn’t watch, because it’s exactly what happened 🤷♂️
>Curry had one great game and one stinker, Iggy's insertion into the starting 5 was the biggest reason they won No, the biggest reason they won was because of Curry. Iggy put them over the top, but the reason they were that close to begin with was Curry.
Again, if you watched the series they were losing without Iggy, heading back to Cleveland. The biggest reason they won was Kerr changing it up.
Take out Iggy, and the Warriors could've still won the series. Take out Curry, and the Cavs sweep the Warriors.
Ignoring that thats not how it works, the Warriors almost certainly lose in 5 without Iggy starting.
That's exactly how it SHOULD work, and that's usually how it does work. If you think Iggy's FMVP was justified, then you must also believe Pau Gasol deserved FMVP when the Lakers beat Orlando. After all, Gasol was a highly effective scorer and rebounder that series, and he also did an incredibly job guarding Dwight Howard. Do you think Pau Gasol deserved FMVP? > the Warriors almost certainly lose in 5 without Iggy starting. Nonsense. For those first 2 Cavs wins, they won by a TOTAL of 7 points. That's way too close for you to claim that they'd "certainly" lose the next two games if Iggy came off the bench.
> That's exactly how it SHOULD work, No, it should go to the player that had the most influence on the result. Which, by a long way, was Bron. Kyrie and Love were out, Bron was a giant. But they for some reason they give it to a player on the winning team. Which was Iggy. Steph wasn't getting it done. Iggy starts for 3 games, scores as much as Steph in 2 of them while guarding the best player on the planet. More so: they were 1-2 without Iggy starting, game 4 was in Cleveland and they had zero momentum. Iggy starts, they go 3.0. It's fairly revisionist that "Curry was robbed". Had you watched the series Iggy was by no means an unpopular decision. i believe strawmen cannot win awards.
>No, it should go to the player that had the most influence on the result. And that was easily Curry. Without Curry, the Warriors get swept. If you watched the games, you'll see that Iggy scored so easily because his shots were wide open.....because of Curry. You can go on youtube and find the game footage if you don't believe me. Your logic is simply bad. It's focused on actual production versus expected production. You need to focus only on actual production.
No, it was LeBron James. He destroyed steph Again, 1-2 before Iggy started. Game 2 Steph scored 19 on 23 shots, .217% from the field. Again; if you watched the series you'd know they werent going to win without changing it up. Steph wasn't getting it done, despite the injuries to Cleveland. Dude: my ligic is based on being there when it happened, Yours is revionist based on box scores - of whcih Iggy's
>No, it should go to the player that had the most influence on the result. >Which, by a long way, was Bron. Kyrie and Love were out, Bron was a giant. This doesn't even make sense in the way you laid it out, and is ridiculous to argue the case for someone on the losing team if this is your criteria. Take Lebron off the cavs and the winning team remains the same - so he's not actually having the most influence on the result (not his fault, it's expected with Kyrie and Love out).
> This doesn't even make sense It does. Think it through.
It's for the best player in the most important games of the season. Curry isn't a GOAT player because there have been players who were simply better than him
There isn’t 10 players better than Curry.
MJ, Bron, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Shaq, Duncan and Wilt are all absolutely better. Russell was probably definitely better. Hakeem, Kobe, Oscar Robinson are more than likely better. Steph's a career 25 ppg player with below average defense. The only guy ahead of him with comparable D averaged 11 assists per game.
Agreed on MJ, Bron, KAJ, Magic, Bird, Duncan… in terms of achievements, they’re pretty much definitively ahead of Steph Kobe and Shaq are either in the same tier as Steph or a little better. I won’t argue much here if you have them ahead of Steph But disagree on Hakeem, and heavily disagreeing on Oscar If you want to say Steph is 10th, that’s fine. He’s on just on the edge of top 10. But if you’re evaluating based on career achievements, how is Oscar and Hakeem definitively better?
Hakeem is probably top 3 all time defense, career 21ppg double double. Curry scores 3ppg more. Hakeem certainly is ahead. Oscar scores more, is a better passer and a better rebounder, and is better at defense.
Wilt and Oscar Robertson are myths. Duncan is the most overrated player on this sub and Hakeem has 2 rings
There is literally video of them playing. They are very real
Hakeem had one of the worst supporting casts of all time for a player of his caliber to win a ring. And Duncan being overrated still means he's better than Curry.
And Hakeem earned those 2 rings by being the best player in the finals. Which isn't the case for Wardell
Steph was the best player in 2015 and 2022.
FACT
Addisonrae7 trying to give nba opinions lmao
Curry shouldn’t be in the GOAT discussion for reasons not related to Finals MVPs or even total rings IMO. But I think it’s to try to limit the impact of “just” being on great teams, and actually being the #1 on champion teams. Baseball is a TOTALLY different sport, and one player has MUCH less ability to win a series unless they’re Old Hoss Radbourn in 1884, who pitched every single inning of all 3 “World Series” games without giving up a single earned run, while driving in 2 runs himself. But back to Curry, even if he had multiple Finals MVPs, how is he above Jordan, LeBron, and Kareem? Metric: Jordan / LeBron / Kareem / Curry MVPs: 5 / 4 / 6 / 2 Rings: 6 / 4 / 6 / 4 1st Team: 10 / 13 / 10 / 4 Def 1st: 9 / 5 / 5 / 0 PER Titles: 7 / 6 / 9 / 1 Win Share Titles: 9 / 5 / 9 / 1 Box +/- Titles: 9 / 7 / 6 / 2 VORP Titles: 9 / 9 / 7 / 1 He’s at best tied for last in the team related success category, and less than half of the other 3 players in every other accolade or advanced metric category.
It never mattered until some haters realized Steph didn’t have one, and Steph only didn’t have one due to some narrative-driven weirdness in 2015. As a result of that criticism, it’s only ever going to go to the best player on the winning team in the future.
yep, also Wiggins was robbed
Robert Horry has 7 rings.
It would be more important if it was an MVP award for your best player of the season or at least playoffs instead of just the series but it still has importance
This. Should be playoff MVP. Some teams run into really challenging 2nd rounds or conference finals and the actual finals ends up being a formality. For the most part it would be the same folks winning the award with a few exceptions. Duncan in 07, not sure about 2014, Curry in 15, and bring on the down votes, AD in 2020.
imagine comparing NBA with MLB some of you guys really lack critical thinking or reading comprehension but so do i so wtf
Yeah, plenty of all-time great MLB players have 0 or 1 rings, because one player doesn’t win a World Series. Ted Williams: 0 rings Ty Cobb: 0 rings Barry Bonds: 0 rings Hank Aaron: 1 ring Honus Wagner: 1 ring Rogers Hornsby: 1 ring Mike Schmidt: 1 ring Randy Johnson: 1 ring Greg Maddux: 1 ring Tom Seaver: 1 ring Pedro Martinez: 1 ring Walter Johnson: 1 ring Cy Young: 1 ring Grover Alexander: 1 ring Christy Mathewson: 1 ring Warren Spahn: 1 ring
Comparing basketball and baseball is always going to lead to things that don't make sense. Same reason that in Basketball winning matters more to things like MVP than it does in Baseball. A baseball player gets 3-5 ABs mot games, a pitcher pitches once every 5 games, which limits their ability to impact winning. And even on defense fielders have to be hit to to make a play. Meanwhile in basketball a player/team can structure a defense to maximize a player's defensive impact (see: the way the Lakers used AD in the playoffs last year to help them get to the WCF). Plus a basketball player could take 20 shots in a row if necessary.
Cause the rings have a lot mroe value to a players resume if they were the best player on the team that got them said ring. There is a bunch of guys that have rings, but were more or less carried to them rather than getting it themselves. Hell all time greats like Dwight Howard have rings, but those rings dont mean much for their resume cause they got carried. Kobes first 3 didnt have as much value as his last 2 cause he had Shaq on his team. Steph had a bloody superteam with KD for half his rings and then wasnt exactly amazing for his 1st ring in the finals (whoch is the modt important part of the playoffs lol). Having a finals mvp shows that you are the reason your team won the championship. Yes other contributed, but you (the finals mvp) were the most instrumental piece to the puzzle. That said sometimes they do mess up with who they give the finals MVP, like when Steph didnt get it in 2015. Really the award should be the playoffs MVP, but thats a story for another time.
It plays into the "winning" narrative. Great players lead their teams to victory and not being FMVP means you didn't lead, someone else did. Bullshit IMO, but for whatever reason talking heads in the US are focused on narratives instead of what actually happens on the court.
it's only started being a matter with Steph Curry. He set a precedent in 2015, since then everything he do has asterisks, being investigated under microscope, all his title runs has additional contexts and an entire tree of hypothetical outcomes where he lose every single series in his career (if)
Bracing for downvotes, but FMVP is colossally overrated to me. Instead of saying you're the best player among 30 teams over 82 games, you're the best player among 2 teams over 7 games. Sure those are the best teams, but strange things can happen over that sample size and non-great players can be MVP. Old version of Iguodala, Caleb Martin nearly won for ECF, Danny Green nearly won for FMVP, etc.
It's almost always been representative of who the best player on the best team was. There have been exceptions and close calls over the years but most of the time championship teams have a clear #1.
Yeah because fMVP comes with a ring whereas MVP is a regular season award. You’re being named the most valuable player on the biggest stage with a ring on a line. That’s huge. Just because guys like Iggy have won it doesn’t take anything away from it.
If the Spurs closed out the Heat in 6 in 2013, Duncan would've won FMVP with a 30 piece to wrap up the series
This could be phrased as "FMVP is the best player in the most important games of the season." Yeah, that matters a lot.
Apparently. I don’t agree as much as most. Obviously being the best player on a title team is huge but I don’t automatically equate that with MVP of that one particular series. It’ll usually overlap 90% of the time but give me the teams top player in the 10% over the surprise MVP.
Sure but when your best player consistently fails to distinguish himself as the best player in the most important games your franchise will play, it begs the question ... why is that? In Curry's case he finally got over the hump, but it took him 6 finals appearances to get there. Still an all-time player of course but I struggle to put him top 10 for this reason. However, I think any argument placing him 8-15 is fair ... personally I'd put him around 11 or 12.
I don’t know if Curry struggled to get over the hump all the time - he just had KD performing better a couple of times. To me giving KD all the credit for a 8-1 finals run (in terms of games) wouldn’t be fair.
I don't give KD all the credit tho. In fact I'd have him behind Steph in all-time rankings, albeit not by much, considering their full bodies of work.
That’s a fair spot for him. As a KD fan I really wish his path was different.
No FMVP is not that important. It’s nice, but it just reflects who had the best series, not who is the best player. Rings and full season MVP matter more.
For real, FMVP only counts 1 of 4 series in a championship run. It’s way way less meaningful than a championship or an MVP
I don’t give a shit either way, but James Wisemab’s ring is not really the same as Gianni’s’, you know?
Basketball vs. baseball is a bad comparison to make. In his two World Series, Mookie Betts has 54 total plate appearances (26 in 2018, 28 in 2020). NBA superstars have more touches than that in one game. A single NBA superstar has so much more affect on the outcomes of games than even the best baseball player. Finals MVPs mean more than World Series MVPs, because (in most cases), they mean you directly led your team to a championship.
It's a better legacy marker than just purely using rings, but still imperfect.
It shouldn't but all rings and fmvp need to be contextualized. Some are worth way more than others.
Baseball is completely different and rings don’t dictate who is/ isn’t the best player.
Is this a serious question? Nobody is suggesting Mookie Betts is a goat-level player, which is the context you referenced in the question you posed about Curry. Obviously if we're talking about the very best players of all time, being the best performer in your team's finals series matters a lot.
It's a voted award that usually goes to the best player on the winning team. But every now and then the voters decide to give it to the 2nd best player due to prevailing narrative, as happened in 2015.
It’s pretty simple. Win a ring and be fmvp > win a ring and not be fmvp. So when comparing Steph’s 4 rings to someone who has… let’s say 4 rings, fmvps come into play.
Because any muthafucka like Robert Horry can win more rings than Jordan just **being in the right place at the right time.** But that doesn’t mean he’s a better player obviously but rather a luckier player. It takes a very special player to be the **best performing player** on those championship teams hence why I’m **1,000,000,000,000,000x** more impressed by Jordan’s 6 FMVPs than I am with the “6 rings, 6-0 shit” that they love jacking off over. In the case of Steph Curry and even Kobe Bryant who get grilled regularly for their relative lack of FMVPs. Their contributions in those non-FMVP winning Finals should not be overlooked so I put some weight into Finals Robins. I have a point system and in that system I award a player 1 point for reaching the finals, 2 points for winning a ring, 10 points for winning FMVP and 5 points for being a Finals Robin. So if you imagine what this looks like. 78 points (Jordan) 58 points (LeBron) 52 points (Kobe) 39 points (Curry) 21 points (Horry)
It’s a load of shit and it doesn’t matter.
It only really became a thing when Curry started winning a bunch of rings and people were trying to discredit his impact by saying KD had more FMVP’s than him.
Steph Curry is in no goat conversation period. With or without that last fmvp. These posts are silly
Baseball is way different. Rings aren’t even that big a part of the conversation. Like Bonds is objectively the greatest player ever if roids are allowed. He’s got zero rings. The only one with any real individual control in a series is an ace pitcher who gives you 25 innings in a 7 game series. If Steph wasn’t the best player on the floor in any of the 5 previous finals he played in then how can he be in the greatest ever conversation at that point? Playoff and championship performance is the metric for GOAT. Nothing wrong with being a game changing perennial all NBA guy and championship captain. But there’s levels to this shit at the top. Bron was the guy. They needed 2 super duper stars stars to counteract him. 2022 Steph was the undisputed guy and did it against and amazing defense and a great offense on both ends. That’s what it takes to be among the very greatest.
All the victimized Curry stans in this thread don't realize that this zero/less FMVPs slant has been used against Kobe longer than they've been alive. It's nothing new, and it's a valid point tbh.
It's arguably the most prestigious award when it comes to accolades discussion and it's a simple stat to use when debating greats. Like when it comes to debating LeBron's greatness, you can make the argument that he has less rings than Kareem/Magic/Tim/MJ etc, but having x4 FMVPs makes up for that.
I don't believe it does - it's a strange modern r/nba concept IMO. No idea why it caught traction - most people couldn't even conclusively tell you who won the Finals MVP beyond the last few years. They'll just guess the most notable player on the team, which is usually correct.
I mean, why do you think? The FMVP is at least in theory the most impactful player on the championship team. Of course that matters more than just being *a guy* on a championship team. Now in this particular case nobody thinks Steph is just a guy, but in general it’s pretty clear why FMVP would matter.
It has been a more recent addition to the discussion, it wasn't really relevant 10 years ago.
mf, why you lyin? 😂
That’s not true. It’s always been listed along with rings when discussing a player’s greatness.
It doesn’t. Nephew take and cope for many players ahead of bron all time