I guess people misunderstood. I don't mean just the finals, but throughout the playoffs. I know there is a finals MVP, and I am not saying that it shouldn't be given. but take the Finals MVP out of the equation. Rather, my argument is that playoffs are when your team needs you the most, and if you cant lead your team to the promise land, than shouldn't your value be questioned? There is no right or wrong answer here.
2007-05-11 19:06:59 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Basketball
It would make sense. I have always questioned it.
2007-05-11 19:15:32 · answer #1 · answered by Jovanna 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Finals MVP IS the MVP of the whole playoffs, that's why the Finals MVP has always come from the winners of the NBA championship (except in 1969 when Jerry West won the award).
If the league awarded the regular season MVP depending on a player's playoffs performnance, then look at the list of regular season MVP's that may have not won the award:
1. Dirk Nowitzki
2. Karl Malone
3. Charles Barkley
4. Allen Iverson
5. David Robinson
6. Bob McAdoo
7. Julius Erving (Moses Malone was the best player on the 1983 champs. In 1981, when Dr. J won the MVP, the Celtics won the championship)
8. Oscar Robertson
2007-05-11 20:56:11 · answer #2 · answered by celticpal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DALLAS (AP) -- Dirk Nowitzki has been chosen as the NBA's MVP for leading the Dallas Mavericks to one of the best regular seasons in league history, a team official told The Associated Press on Friday.
The formal announcement will come Tuesday at a news conference, said the team official, who requested anonymity because the announcement is pending.
Nowitzki and the Mavericks went from a league-best 67 wins to a stunning first-round elimination by eighth-seeded Golden State, with the big German quite un-MVP-like for most of the series.
Voting was completed before the playoffs.
AWWWWW MAN! The MVP should be given after the NBA Finals. The Voting should also take place after the Finals. They should re-name the MVP as the MVP of the 2006-2007 NBA Season (regular and playoffs) and make another separately for the Finals only.
2007-05-11 19:21:52 · answer #3 · answered by prophessor 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Winning the finals is more about team, and less about MVP of the league. Who the best player in the NBA does not necessarily have anything to do with who wins the finals. Take the Pistons a few years ago. You think anyone on their champtionship team was actually the best player in the league? Definitely not. They were just a really good TEAM. Well-rounded. No superstar doing all the work. There was still an MVP for the playoffs, but it was separate from the league MVP... and well should it have been, because no one on that Detroit team was deserving of the MVP of the league. You are basically asking for them to redefine what the award is. There is no reason to. There is a Finals MVP for a reason. Why not have both? Not only is it the best thing to do, but it is what pretty much ALL the team sports do.
2007-05-11 19:14:24 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What they could desire to do is revise or appropriate define what the MVP certainly is. Is it the terrific participant on the terrific team..if so then what's the terrific team? Is it the guy meaning the main to his team? Is it the guy that, if got rid of, a triumphing team could be competing for the worst record interior the NBA? there is too lots of a grey section the place the MVP is in contact, as a result Jason Kidd grow to be robbed this year, as are the main deserving men (see Chauncey Billups final year) each and every season. they could desire to no longer, although, provide the award out after the NBA Finals...they already do this...it quite is observed as the NBA Finals MVP.
2016-10-15 10:52:33 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
can't get enough of dirk and the mvp thing, huh?!
no, i don't think it would make sense... stuff happen in the playoffs... good teams and good players sometimes make early exits when you least expect them to. if you were to give the mvp award after the finals chances are you'll be taking the people who made the exit just because they're team's out, which would mean that they weren't there when their team needed them... well in fact this was just 1 or 2 games and that all season long they've been there for the team and the team wouldn't have even made it to the playoffs if it weren't for them...
2007-05-11 22:06:42 · answer #6 · answered by trip21 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Theres aplayoff mvp, i believe.
DIrk WAS the MVP of the regular season, which is the award he won.
As much as i HATE gsw, i hope Baron gets it for the playoffs. If he doesn't, something s seriously wrong.
2007-05-11 19:30:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The player's value was not questioned during the regular season. There is a seperate award for the playoffs so that is what measures your value in the playoffs.
2007-05-11 19:10:37 · answer #8 · answered by jjc92787 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have a finals MVP don't they. Im no Dirk fan but he had a great season. Nash is also deserving as are a dozen others. Duncan, Kobe, Nash, Dirk, LeBron. Does it really matter? It's totally subjective.
2007-05-11 19:25:37 · answer #9 · answered by dager35 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think the reason why they give an MVP award for the regular season is to compare great players' performances for a regular season. they all get equal opportunities, about 82 games a year. and the one who plays the best wins it.
2007-05-12 01:24:13 · answer #10 · answered by Techno_titan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i guess that the awards were given to give regards to those who play hard during the regular season.. and to those who play hard during the post season... let's face the fact, many who was voted for the mvp for the regular season... were not able to lead their team to the nba finals and win championship.. but in the regular season... they played exceptionally well... it's just unfortunate for them that they lost..
2007-05-12 00:10:54 · answer #11 · answered by peter_chua_04 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋