GSW wouldn't win this series without Iggy. You can mark that. Iggy was their true MVP. Curry is their best player, but Iggy is the Warriors' game changer simply b/c of his defense on Lebron. If it was Barnes or Green, Lebron would have made more of his shots b/c he would have gone into the paint at will. Iggy made him take tough tough shots.
I will never award the MVP to anyone on the losing team. It's a team sports, there should only be a team award. On a side note, while Cavs had James handled the ball majority of the time, aka Harden with the Rockets, the Warriors' played a different style, the ball moves to whoever was open. You won't see anyone on a Warriors to put up 30+ shots, that's just not team basketball.
On a side note, Harden put up over 30 shots just 2x in the regular season both wins over the Kings, one of which he had to play 48 minutes On the another side note, Chef Curry averaged 18 fga/36 in the playoffs and Harden averaged 16.
The dubs are so deep it didn't matter if curry or Thompson had a off game. They had Iggy, barbosa, Lee, green, Barnes, etc. Someone was going to step up.
lebron basically won MVP 4 times in his 5 Final's appearance, he won two, he earned the other two by playing so great of an all around game on a losing team that people have to give the MVP award to the guy who defended him on the other team, this year it's Iggy, and last year, it's Kwi, go figure
A little trivia for you. Anybody know who was last player to win the Most Outstanding Player award in the NCAA tournament while playing for a losing team?
why so many people had their minds already preset that the award ABSOLUTELY cannot be given to a player on a losing team? it's arbitrary. it's illogical. it doesnt make sense.
I thought Lebron had a Westbrook esque, high minute, high usage, high raw stat, low efficiency series. He in no way, shape or form, deserved MVP. My vote would have gone to Iggy.
You seems to be too old to have a good argument. The winning team always have a MVP in the current sports, stop smoking, then come back to have a good discussion.
And to think, a lot of this would be solved if we nutted up and called ALL MVP awards "Best Player" award. The word "valuable" is what screws everything up and adds a layer of subjectivity that can be debated ad nauseam. But, that's most of the fun.
That's really not it, what screws things up is that people assume that the award has to go to a team that wins instead of looking at players value independent of team success. Would the Cavs be better off if they had Iggy instead of Lebron? If Iggy really was the most valuable player in that finals, they would have been.
I do post here to suggest that he should be a starter after the game 1 since Lebron had 44 points. Maybe their coach saw my post. I also picked GS in six. I was right on both points, but I do not like either team very much, just need follow the basketball.
This is true. But while we do have to factor in that it's the East, the difference is Lebron did that while, generally, winning. Not to the point of winning the Finals, but getting to the Finals and then winning two games and keeping others close into the 4th consistently, when he would just tire out. Whereas, even without Durant, Westbrook still seemed to have talent around him - Serge until his injury, trades to bring in more talent - and couldn't find a way to win. I think it should have gone to Curry or Lebron. I understand why people voted for Iggy... but it also makes no sense. For one, if his greatest attribute was his defense, then how come Lebron played well enough to garner 4 votes and even consideration as an MVP on a losing team? For two, even with his solid though not spectacular defense, he got votes because he was balling offensively as well. But he was balling in the sense that by the time he got the ball, it was 3 on 2 Warriors. He had open looks, or a big closing out on him. That all happened because of Curry, and the attention he draws. I'd think of the award as who contributed the most to wins. And the answer there was Curry. Offensively, he is the cog that drives their whole system. He's not great defensively, but he's so so good offensively, that Kerr CAN then go with other defensive lineups that work even if those players aren't great offensively, because Curry creates the offense for them. Replace Curry with PBev, and it doesn't matter how good defensively the Warriors are. They won't score enough, which would force Kerr's hand to play more offensive players - Lee, Barbosa - which would make them worse defensively. It's circular in that way... I would have no problem with Lebron winning it here, though. Historic - as in best ever - Finals numbers, despite the poor efficiency.
Agreed. The world "value" creates enough subjectivity to me that I don't see how anybody can argue LeBron shouldn't have won the Finals MVP. Without him, that team is the Knicks and has no prayer of being competitive any game of the Finals, much less five of them. To extend the thought, I think these Finals cast even more doubt on Curry's MVP. LeBron proved over the course of the playoffs that he is the best individual player in the league. And, because I am a homer, I still think Harden was more "valuable" in the vacuum of the regular season than Curry.
Low efficiency on fg% only. 12+ boards and 8+ assists per game passing to the teammates he had is quite a feat. He got tired playing heavy minutes in the playoffs carrying his team and I think that affected his shooting (along with great defense by Iguodala). He looked a lot less unstoppable this year on offense compared to years past. That can't all be from Iguodala.
Except "valuable" has context in terms of real-life wins. It's not a theoretical concept of who would be the best in some mythical situation. It's who actually helped produce wins for their actual team.
Okay, so you are saying that you think Iggy is a more valuable player than Lebron? You think there is ANY way to defend that statement?
