This just proves that the FMVP is significantly overrated as an award. There's no reason that an award with 11 voters should be regarded in the same ballpark as an award with hundreds of voters. Also, Iggy as FMVP didn't even make sense. Curry did the heavy lifting, and Iggy was the x-factor that put them over the top. it makes no sense that the x-factor won FMVP over the workhorse. Do the Warriors win without Iggy? Maybe, maybe not. Do they win without Curry? Not a chance.
Iggy's, and to an extent Durant's FMVP was merely an expression of LBJ being the best player. The logic goes like: in case LBJ loses, those who were GUARDING the best player must then be the NEXT most valuable.
I disagree. All the all time greats have finals MVPs on their resume, excluding Russell just because it wasn't an award back then. It's important. It doesn't seem like you remember the details of that series. Not a single voter picked Curry, and they just came out with an article recently which revisited the issue and the consensus was the same. Please read this: https://www.si.com/nba/2022/06/12/stephen-curry-2015-nba-finals-mvp-voters-roundtable KD didn't guard LBJ most of the time in his FMVP years.
Curry has more MVP awards than Olajuwon, in addition to more titles. It's definitely a toss-up as to who's "more accomplished" (FMVPs was never something people used to care about until Curry didn't have one and then suddenly people who didn't like Curry began using it as some crucial accolade). As far as on-court impact, that's also up to question. Olajuwon was far more impactful on defense, but Curry is far more impactful on offense--Curry, in addition to his individual numbers, improved his team's offenses (based on on/off court measures) far more than Olajuwon did. Curry isn't currently a slam dunk top-ten guy, but he's very much in the discussion. As I mentioned before, I think his case is very similar to those of Magic and Bird--players who both were great offensive players themselves and improved their team's offenses a ton, while being smart, hard-working defenders with some physical limitations.
Interesting read. Seems like a lot of the voters who voted for Lebron would've voted for Curry, including JVG and Lowe. Just as interesting, many of the voters don't think the finals mvp matters all that much to Curry's legacy (this was before Curry won it). As for Hakeem vs Curry. In terms of talent and peak performance - I'd give the edge to Hakeem. 7 footers with the agility of guards/forwards are rare, those that can dominate on offense, defense and shoot/dribble/pass are literal unicorns. In terms of legacy and career accomplishments - I'd give the edge to Curry. The guy was the best player on a 73 win team. The greatest regular season ever in the history of the NBA by a team was far from the talents of the Jordan Bulls or Magic Lakers, Shaq Lakers, Bird celtics, yet they won the most games ever. He's reached 6 finals winning 4 (2 without another top 75 player). He's a 2 time MVP, only unanimous MVP and GOAT shooter. He's also 8x All-NBA and 2x scoring champion as well as the most efficient high volume scorer/off-ball threat in the history of the NBA. All that and he is 6"2. (6"3 w/shoes).
At the end of the day, there is no dynasty without Curry. But any of those 3 fMVPs, there is a high chance that Warriors could have replaced them with another player and would've still won the championship. Wiggins proved it for us. This type of logic makes the fMVP look like an inconsequential award. Also some of the voters suggested that they would've voted for Curry if they didn't decide to vote for Lebron. And some said that it was a toss up between him and Igoudala. And what kind of a nonsensical award is it where a player from losing team can be spotlighted - this is a ridiculous thing to even be considered in a team sport further undervaluing the fMVP trophy. Perhaps if the series went all the way to 7 and was decided by a thread, then you could give a loser some spotlight. This is is some westbrook sh*t all over again when he won an MVP with a losing win-loss record. Championships and ability to inspire teammates to play winning basketball is the thing that should count far more than MVP awards especially ones that were made in a spur of a moment - based on fleeting emotions and some media fed storylines. edit: maybe not in 2018
I remember the series just fine. Curry did the heavy lifting, and Iggy was the x-factor. It's ridiculous that the guy who did the heavy lifting didn't get the FMVP. Just shows how overrated the FMVP is.
Kobe Bryant didn't win a Finals MVP until 2009, his fourth championship. Maybe someone can produce all the articles from before 2009 asking, "When will Kobe win a Finals MVP award to complete his career?"
I guess I'm in the minority because I've always used FMVPs as a barometer: how many rings can actually be attributed to you and how many times did you perform at your best in the Finals? I've always hated the "rings" argument because basketball is a team sport. Horry has more rings than MJ. He's not too dissimilar to those guys except those guys (outside of having more FMVPs) had a more sustained prime with more All-NBA first teams (Curry only has 4). Well I appreciate you reading the article lol. You could certainly argue that for 2017 and 2018, but I don't think 2015. Iguodala's impact was irreplaceable IMO. If you read the article and still feel that way then there's no way we will agree so I'll stop the discussion here.
Sure thing. If you're unable to defend your position and instead refer me to an article, you're not worth having a discussion with.
https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...ls-game-1-jersey-sells-203330-101-bid-auction @jerryclark @RocketsDraftTV aka @HardenVolumeOne how much for the James Frauden jersey?
They will not win anything this year but you have to give this guy credit. He is a shooting cheat code
