Can't we just accept that there is an unwritten rule that the MVP will always be the "MVP" of the winning team?
Then the award doesn't hardly have any meaning. And it's why the award is a joke, much like it is in other sports.
If you take out Iguodala and LeBron, then we're having a whole different conversation, Sly.
The only thing which would change is how quickly the Warriors would have defeated the Cavaliers.
You said Iguodala was the X factor...I'm just pointing out he was only the X factor for one team, not for the series.
I never said that LeBron didn't deserve the MVP.
I understand that. I just disagree with your assessment Iguodala was the X factor in the series.
No, it is one way of measuring performance in sports.
It's the almost exclusive way we evaluate statistics over a period of time.
Yet Steph Curry basically played the whole season and we will never know how his team would succeed without him.
Agreed. But we DO know how poorly the Cavaliers played without LeBron. Without LeBron they were 1-7 (or 2-9, if you want to count the last games or not), and with LeBron they were the 2nd seed in the East and the favorite to win the conference.
Sure we don't know what the Warriors would have been without Steph (though it is quite reasonable to assume they would have been good), but we do know how important LeBron was.
No, it only proves you have your own perception of what it takes to be the 2014-2015 Regular Season MVP compared to the most other basketball novices and experts alike.
So most other perceptions don't revolve around the best statistics and value brought to a team?
I'm pretty certain this is another one of those statements you'd like to retract, like your earlier statement about the "flexibility" of voters to only vote for someone of the winning team.
And Curry played in 97.5%.
But we aren't talking about Curry, we were discussing whether or not LeBron had played enough, which I proved he had. Don't be like Alastor, stick to just one topic.
But you brought it up anyways. Got it.
When has "this was the team's record without him" used to name an MVP?
Umm...all the time. Value to the team is always a primary component of MVP discussion and showing the difference in record in games played and games not played is fairly common in instances where it is appropriate.
Don't show up for work 16% of the year and then ask your boss how valuable you were during the year.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts if you ask 100 bosses around the country that if they had an employee who only worked 86% of the year, but managed to bring in 200% more profit than anyone else, every boss in the country would take it in a heartbeat.
What do you think?
Never mind, I forget you were a teacher.
That was weak.
Klay Thompson - 2015 All Star
Andre Iguodala - 2012 Olympic Gold Medalist
Draymond Green - I think it's safe to say he's a future All-Star
Andrew Bogut - 2015 2nd Team All Defensive team
David Lee - 2010, 2013 All-Star
Harrison Barnes - 2013 First team All-Rookie team
I think it's a pretty safe assumption, given the level of talent.
Nor have they proved they could not make the playoffs without Lebron.
They proved it for four years while LeBron was in Miami. And they weren't even close to making the playoffs. You know who didn't make the playoffs this year? Miami, after four straight years of being in the Finals with LeBron.
To ignore this evidence is quite silly.
But again, you take the award to be too literal.
How can the "Most Valuable Player" not be the most valuable player? If it's just the award we're going to give to the winning team or the flavor of the year, then we probably ought to change the name of the award.
And that would mean so much more if the Finals were Best of three.
No, it wouldn't. Both teams' goal was to win. LeBron was far more important to his team's goal than Iguodala was. The idea Iguodala is more important just because he had a better team around him is ridiculous.
I would like to know where I expressly stated that Andrew Bogut deserved MVP over Lebron. I know I expressly stated that Lebron winning MVP would have been fine but I don't remember stating anything close to resembling that Bogut deserved it more than Lebron.
You didn't, nor did I say you did. But you ARE saying that winning essentially erases any other accomplishment, so I asked you then if Andrew Bogut was more valuable than LeBron James because his team won.
You never answered the question, though I did answer the question for you at least once. But it sure would be nice if you could address how you validate the argument winning overcomes anything else but Andrew Bogut wouldn't have deserved MVP over LeBron.
You mean the liar you are not going to 'put up with' but you continue to go back and forth with.
I keep hoping he'll demonstrate some level of integrity. He's yet to do so.
And the "put up with" is far more about discipline than it is about response.
Nope not saying that at all. I'm not even sure how you made that leap.
Because your position (or at least the one from which you are arguing) is essentially that winning trumps all. Either winning trumps all or performance matters. Which is it? Because LeBron and Iguodala weren't even close in performance in the series, and no one is arguing they are. Which means the only argument left (and the one you've taken) is the winning argument. And if we go with the winning argument, then you have to explain how Andrew Bogut wasn't more valuable than LeBron James.
No, I'm saying winning is another metric that matters in selecting an MVP. A very important one, but not the end all be all. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Umm...that essentially IS your argument. Unless you want to make the laughable claim Iguodala outperformed LeBron James, then the only argument for Iguodala is that his team won. Because there's no doubt in anyone's mind that, all other things being equal, if the Cavs had won the series, then James would have been the MVP.
The only explanation for Iguodala winning over James is that his team won. Remove the team accomplishment criteria (pretending no team has won the series) and there is no disputing James is the MVP, likely unanimously.
There is no other metric by which Iguodala would have been Finals MVP.
Different sports with different criteria for different awards.
And most of them a joke.
Prove it. What are they biased against?
Not just biased against but biased for as well. And they want always want a fresh face, because a fresh face sells fresh copies. People get tired of the Patriots always winning, they get tired of the Cardinals and Giants and Yankees always winning. And they are tired of LeBron always winning.
Did he just lie about your position in the argument?
No, unlike you I'm not dishonest.
