rtiff68 wrote:
I'm not upset, dude-- I'm just talking sports on a message board, and this has been an engaging topic.
Kobe was the main focus of Boston's defense, and he did win the award-- that doesn't prove that he had the better series than Gasol any more than a Gasol victory (which easily could have happened) would have proved that Pau was the best Laker in the Finals.
My main issue with you in this debate has been your declaration/assumption that FMVP necessarily means "best player in the Finals." It doesn't...any more than MVP necessarily means "best player in the league" any given year.
Actually, Kobe winning FMVP absolutely proved he had the better series, which is why he won it. Ditto for Iggy, despite what caveats you'd like to use "he only did well because of the attention Curry took off of him", etc.
I mean good for Curry for being a decoy out there. It resulted in him not receiving a single vote, but at least it shows what a great teammate he is.
So what does regular season MVP prove?
It proves that the winner had the best season overall (team record, great stats, etc).
Actually, Kobe winning FMVP absolutely proved he had the better series, which is why he won it. Ditto for Iggy, despite what caveats you'd like to use "he only did well because of the attention Curry took off of him", etc.
I mean good for Curry for being a decoy out there. It resulted in him not receiving a single vote, but at least it shows what a great teammate he is.
So what does regular season MVP prove?
It proves that the winner had the best season overall (team record, great stats, etc).
It proves that said player was the best player in the league that year?
...because that's what you're saying FMVP proves (Iggy's FMVP proves he was the best Warrior in the Finals).
876Stephen wrote:
Me disagreeing with you isn't foaming at bro. Another assumption.
And Westbrook, Durant, Harden, Paul, Griffin etc have all had stacked teams as well for much no longer than curry in fact. And all of them are ringless.
What does that tell you?
Yeah, you're angry as fuck lol. Your post looks like it was written by a 10 year old.
And the Clippers not winning tells me that they're the friggin' Clippers. They're choke artists and underachievers.
So why haven't durant, westbrook and harden been able to win a title with all the stacked as fuck teams they've played on?
How would I know? They're chokers? They had to face the Spurs? There are probably a multitude of reasons.
If it'll make you feel better, just type in the answer you want me to agree with in regards to the Thunder and I'll pretend to agree. Because quite frankly, you're starting to chase your tail in here and not make much sense.
876Stephen wrote:
Me disagreeing with you isn't foaming at bro. Another assumption.
And Westbrook, Durant, Harden, Paul, Griffin etc have all had stacked teams as well for much no longer than curry in fact. And all of them are ringless.
What does that tell you?
Yeah, you're angry as fuck lol. Your post looks like it was written by a 10 year old.
And the Clippers not winning tells me that they're the friggin' Clippers. They're choke artists and underachievers.
So why haven't durant, westbrook and harden been able to win a title with all the stacked as fuck teams they've played on?
It proves that the winner had the best season overall (team record, great stats, etc).
It proves that said player was the best player in the league that year?
...because that's what you're saying FMVP proves (Iggy's FMVP proves he was the best Warrior in the Finals).
The MVP had the best season, the FMVP had the best series. Both were the "most valuable" in their specific scenarios, yes.
You've now asked me this same question, or a variation of this question, multiple times now. What's confusing you in here?
I think you could easily argue that LeBron James was the MVP this season. Curry was deserving, but the fact that he "won" a voted upon award doesn't prove jack shit, as you've repeatedly claimed that it does.
I'm confused by a simple fact: that someone as intelligent as you are would argue that a voted upon award objectively proves who the "best" or "most valuable" player in a series or season was.
rtiff68 wrote:
It proves that said player was the best player in the league that year?
...because that's what you're saying FMVP proves (Iggy's FMVP proves he was the best Warrior in the Finals).
The MVP had the best season, the FMVP had the best series. Both were the "most valuable" in their specific scenarios, yes.
You've now asked me this same question, or a variation of this question, multiple times now. What's confusing you in here?
I think you could easily argue that LeBron James was the MVP this season. Curry was deserving, but the fact that he "won" a voted upon award doesn't prove jack shit, as you've repeatedly claimed that it does.
I'm confused by a simple fact: that someone as intelligent as you are would argue that a voted upon award objectively proves who the "best" or "most valuable" player in a series or season was.
That's all.
I'm actually amazed, personally, at the arrogance of those who basically think "the voters were wrong but I'm right", which is essentially what you that 876 broad were doing in here.
I mean it's a free country, you can disagree with anything your heart desires. But it's a fact that the FMVP resides with Iggy, the NBA history books will recognize Iggy as the FMVP, and all the hemming and hawing in the world won't change that.
Excuses and caveats mean nothing to me, TBH. Iggy did enough with his hustle, defense, and some decent statistical games to win the award. I personally think Lebron should've won the award, but I do understand that prescedent has been set in regards to a player on the losing team not winning the award anymore.
By the way, in regards to the MVP and Nash, I can still think Kobe was a better player at the time, but the fact is his teams didn't nearly have enough wins, so the voters got it right. Same deal with the FMVP; sure Curry is the better player, I've said so for pages now, but Iggy had a better series.
Titan18 wrote:I'm sorry but I'm super fucking confused here. Only got through the first few pages but from what I gather everyone seems to agree that
A) Durant>Curry
B) Iggy deserved the finals mvp but Curry is still the best Warriors player
So what the fuck are you degenerates arguing about for 6 pages?
They're upset with me about "B". I said Iggy had the best series in the Finals and deserved the FMVP, they think Curry should've won it (or something..... TBH, they never clearly illustrated what their point was, the just kept going at me lol).
The MVP had the best season, the FMVP had the best series. Both were the "most valuable" in their specific scenarios, yes.
You've now asked me this same question, or a variation of this question, multiple times now. What's confusing you in here?
I think you could easily argue that LeBron James was the MVP this season. Curry was deserving, but the fact that he "won" a voted upon award doesn't prove jack shit, as you've repeatedly claimed that it does.
I'm confused by a simple fact: that someone as intelligent as you are would argue that a voted upon award objectively proves who the "best" or "most valuable" player in a series or season was.
That's all.
I'm actually amazed, personally, at the arrogance of those who basically think "the voters were wrong but I'm right", which is essentially what you that 876 broad were doing in here.
I mean it's a free country, you can disagree with anything your heart desires. But it's a fact that the FMVP resides with Iggy, the NBA history books will recognize Iggy as the FMVP, and all the hemming and hawing in the world won't change that.
Excuses and caveats mean nothing to me, TBH. Iggy did enough with his hustle, defense, and some decent statistical games to win the award. I personally think Lebron should've won the award, but I do understand that prescedent has been set in regards to a player on the losing team not winning the award anymore.
So, in your opinion, the player who should have won it did not, but the fact that another player did (in spite of your opinion) qualifies as objective proof?
If you're shocked at my "arrogance," (I don't feel I've been that way at all in this thread), then I'm shocked at your conformity (going against what your eyes and brain tell you because someone else voted that way).
Titan18 wrote:I'm sorry but I'm super fucking confused here. Only got through the first few pages but from what I gather everyone seems to agree that
A) Durant>Curry
B) Iggy deserved the finals mvp but Curry is still the best Warriors player
So what the fuck are you degenerates arguing about for 6 pages?
They're upset with me about "B". I said Iggy had the best series in the Finals and deserved the FMVP, they think Curry should've won it (or something..... TBH, they never clearly illustrated what their point was, the just kept going at me lol).
Meh
My point has been pretty clear: a voted upon award is not "proof" of anything, whether it be over the course of a season or a series.
You have been completely unwilling to concede that point.
I think you could easily argue that LeBron James was the MVP this season. Curry was deserving, but the fact that he "won" a voted upon award doesn't prove jack shit, as you've repeatedly claimed that it does.
I'm confused by a simple fact: that someone as intelligent as you are would argue that a voted upon award objectively proves who the "best" or "most valuable" player in a series or season was.
That's all.
I'm actually amazed, personally, at the arrogance of those who basically think "the voters were wrong but I'm right", which is essentially what you that 876 broad were doing in here.
I mean it's a free country, you can disagree with anything your heart desires. But it's a fact that the FMVP resides with Iggy, the NBA history books will recognize Iggy as the FMVP, and all the hemming and hawing in the world won't change that.
Excuses and caveats mean nothing to me, TBH. Iggy did enough with his hustle, defense, and some decent statistical games to win the award. I personally think Lebron should've won the award, but I do understand that prescedent has been set in regards to a player on the losing team not winning the award anymore.
So, in your opinion, the player who should have won it did not, but the fact that another player did (in spite of your opinion) qualifies as objective proof?
If you're shocked at my "arrogance," (I don't feel I've been that way at all in this thread), then I'm shocked at your conformity (going against what your eyes and brain tell you because someone else voted that way).
I'm not shocked or surprised or upset by Lebron not winning the award. Despite his statistical dominance, you don't win the FMVP in a losing effort, and I can totally get behind that. Now if they had given the award to Lebron after all, then I would've been fine with that. But seeing as how prescedent has already somewhat been established, I understand and fully support the award going to Iggy.
Titan18 wrote:I'm sorry but I'm super fucking confused here. Only got through the first few pages but from what I gather everyone seems to agree that
A) Durant>Curry
B) Iggy deserved the finals mvp but Curry is still the best Warriors player
So what the fuck are you degenerates arguing about for 6 pages?
They're upset with me about "B". I said Iggy had the best series in the Finals and deserved the FMVP, they think Curry should've won it (or something..... TBH, they never clearly illustrated what their point was, the just kept going at me lol).
Meh
My point has been pretty clear: a voted upon award is not "proof" of anything, whether it be over the course of a season or a series.
You have been completely unwilling to concede that point.
Why would I concede a point that's incorrect?
Curry winning the award proved he had the best season. His shooting and leading his team to 67 wins is proof of that.
I don't think he's a better individual player than Durant or Lebron, just like I don't think Iggy's a better individual player than Curry. But circumstances being what they were, the MVP was Curry and the FMVP was Iggy.
You're the one arguing against what factually is, not me. If it doesn't sit well with you, then boycott. Good luck to you with that.
I'm actually amazed, personally, at the arrogance of those who basically think "the voters were wrong but I'm right", which is essentially what you that 876 broad were doing in here.
I mean it's a free country, you can disagree with anything your heart desires. But it's a fact that the FMVP resides with Iggy, the NBA history books will recognize Iggy as the FMVP, and all the hemming and hawing in the world won't change that.
Excuses and caveats mean nothing to me, TBH. Iggy did enough with his hustle, defense, and some decent statistical games to win the award. I personally think Lebron should've won the award, but I do understand that prescedent has been set in regards to a player on the losing team not winning the award anymore.
So, in your opinion, the player who should have won it did not, but the fact that another player did (in spite of your opinion) qualifies as objective proof?
If you're shocked at my "arrogance," (I don't feel I've been that way at all in this thread), then I'm shocked at your conformity (going against what your eyes and brain tell you because someone else voted that way).
I'm not shocked or surprised or upset by Lebron not winning the award. Despite his statistical dominance, you don't win the FMVP in a losing effort, and I can totally get behind that. Now if they had given the award to Lebron after all, then I would've been fine with that. But seeing as how prescedent has already somewhat been established, I understand and fully support the award going to Iggy.
As I've said throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with that either.
I simply have a problem with the idea that Iggy winning the award "proves" that he was the best Warrior in the series, as I've repeated ad nauseam.
I was actually stoked to see Iguodala win the award-- he sacrificed the most of anyone on the team from the outset, and he ended up with the ultimate reward.
rtiff68 wrote:
So, in your opinion, the player who should have won it did not, but the fact that another player did (in spite of your opinion) qualifies as objective proof?
If you're shocked at my "arrogance," (I don't feel I've been that way at all in this thread), then I'm shocked at your conformity (going against what your eyes and brain tell you because someone else voted that way).
I'm not shocked or surprised or upset by Lebron not winning the award. Despite his statistical dominance, you don't win the FMVP in a losing effort, and I can totally get behind that. Now if they had given the award to Lebron after all, then I would've been fine with that. But seeing as how prescedent has already somewhat been established, I understand and fully support the award going to Iggy.
As I've said throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with that either.
I simply have a problem with the idea that Iggy winning the award "proves" that he was the best Warrior in the series, as I've repeated ad nauseam.
I was actually stoked to see Iguodala win the award-- he sacrificed the most of anyone on the team from the outset, and he ended up with the ultimate reward.
Really cool stuff.
He won the award because he had the best series. They don't hand out FMVP's as gifts, it's something you earn. Iggy earned his award, Lebron almost earned it, Curry didn't come close to earning it.
They're upset with me about "B". I said Iggy had the best series in the Finals and deserved the FMVP, they think Curry should've won it (or something..... TBH, they never clearly illustrated what their point was, the just kept going at me lol).
Meh
My point has been pretty clear: a voted upon award is not "proof" of anything, whether it be over the course of a season or a series.
You have been completely unwilling to concede that point.
Why would I concede a point that's incorrect?
Curry winning the award proved he had the best season. His shooting and leading his team to 67 wins is proof of that.
I don't think he's a better individual player than Durant or Lebron, just like I don't think Iggy's a better individual player than Curry. But circumstances being what they were, the MVP was Curry and the FMVP was Iggy.
You're the one arguing against what factually is, not me. If it doesn't sit well with you, then boycott. Good luck to you with that.
I never argued against what factually was (i.e. who won the award, and whether they deserved it, based up on the criteria typically used in such votes), I argued that a voted upon award is not factual proof of anything, and you continue to argue other wise for someone unknown reason.
George W. Bush and Obama being voted President PROVES that they were the best candidates for the job, right LNS?
rtiff68 wrote:
So, in your opinion, the player who should have won it did not, but the fact that another player did (in spite of your opinion) qualifies as objective proof?
If you're shocked at my "arrogance," (I don't feel I've been that way at all in this thread), then I'm shocked at your conformity (going against what your eyes and brain tell you because someone else voted that way).
I'm not shocked or surprised or upset by Lebron not winning the award. Despite his statistical dominance, you don't win the FMVP in a losing effort, and I can totally get behind that. Now if they had given the award to Lebron after all, then I would've been fine with that. But seeing as how prescedent has already somewhat been established, I understand and fully support the award going to Iggy.
As I've said throughout this thread, I don't have a problem with that either.
I simply have a problem with the idea that Iggy winning the award "proves" that he was the best Warrior in the series, as I've repeated ad nauseam.
I was actually stoked to see Iguodala win the award-- he sacrificed the most of anyone on the team from the outset, and he ended up with the ultimate reward.
Really cool stuff.
Being the best player =/= being the most valuable player in a series.
