I think there should be a Playoff MVP Award. The team who wins the championship has to go through four rounds of competition, not just one. Just because the Finals is the last round, it's not necessarily the most competitive. Look at Ginobili when Spurs won their third MVP. If Rockets win it all and say McGrady doesn't really outshine the other guys, who wins the MVP?
A finals MVP is the only player to lead his team to win through four rounds. It might seem a little trite to have a finals mvp, playoff mvp, regular season mvp, all star mvp...
Isn't that just a name? I am fairly sure there are players who have been 'finals MVP' without actually getting to the finals. The award is for the whole playoffs. ...Or maybe I'm confusing something.
No, you're just confused. A player has to make it to the Finals inorder to win Finals MVP. But they don't have to win the championship though.
I gues some scrub can come off the bench in the finals and put up 28 points, 8 rebounds 6 assists, 3 blocks, 3 steals and get swept, and be finals MVP.
Well, if you give him more minutes per game, that scrub could probably do someday. It's all about mpg and PER. Hollinger is the only one who understands that scrubs are better than they appear.
Change the Finals MVP to a Playoffs MVP. As it stands, a guy can do nothing for 3 rounds and get a good match-up for the Finals and win an MVP. It'd make more sense to judge the MVP on play throughout the playoffs.
Final MVP makes more sense. Who cares if somebody averaged 60 points in 1st 3 rounds but failed to do anything in Final, that's the definition of a choker.
There's no playoff MVP because amongst the players eligible (all who participate in the playoffs), there's too much variation in games played and opponents faced.
but this should never happen. The Finals MVP is the most valuable player in that series. If your team fails to win a game, you essentially have no value to your team. If your team gets swept and you play, your team can not be any worse without you.
