why rings>>>RS MVPs

[knicksman]

because rings are alphaish. Alphas enjoy challenges so they want to prove wrong what betas think about rings being a team accomplishment

[moe94]

[navy]

Rings are won by the entire team. Beta.

MVPs are won by individuals. Alpha.

FMVPs are won by individuals who get the rings. Alpha as fvck.

You mad bro?

[knicksman]

Rings are won by the entire team. Beta.

MVPs are won by individuals. Alpha.

FMVPs are won by individuals who get the rings. Alpha as fvck.

You mad bro?

We have the same thinking brah .. But I have higher standards. FMVPs are the only alpha for me. MVPs are beta. So Me>>>You

[knicksman]

Oh hi there my beta follower.

[NumberSix]

MVP = best player
Ring = best team
FMVP = best player on best team

[Trollsmasher]

another strong thread by the OP

[Skyscraper]

We have the same thinking brah .. But I have higher standards. FMVPs are the only alpha for me. MVPs are beta. So Me>>>You

Kahwi Leonard, Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker alpha?

More like right place right time

[Skyscraper]

MVP = best player
Ring = best team
FMVP = best player on best team

MVP =/= best player all the time

If so, Lebron would win every year.


MVP is a MEDIA AWARD.
Players don't vote on it
Coaches don't vote on it

the MEDIA ****-ysts rely on context and their "gut feeling" (as well as whole selection of different sauces) to tell them who to vote for

If MVP were truly best player, JOrdan would have won like 10.



MVP is just a pissing contest. CAn't rely on that

All Star MVP is just who ballhogs best




However, MVP begins to have some value when added onto a ring that year and most powerful it makes the FMVP more legitimate

[NumberSix]

MVP =/= best player all the time

If so, Lebron would win every year.


MVP is a MEDIA AWARD.
Players don't vote on it
Coaches don't vote on it

the MEDIA ****-ysts rely on context and their "gut feeling" (as well as whole selection of different sauces) to tell them who to vote for

If MVP were truly best player, JOrdan would have won like 10.



MVP is just a pissing contest. CAn't rely on that

All Star MVP is just who ballhogs best




However, MVP begins to have some value when added onto a ring that year and most powerful it makes the FMVP more legitimate

MVP+FMVP is the ultimate. You don't luck into that. You're never going to see an ok player have a MVP+FMVP season.

[SouBeachTalents]

because rings are alphaish. Alphas enjoy challenges so they want to prove wrong what betas think about rings being a team accomplishment

Well then by this rationale every Knick since the mid 70's has been beta as ****

[SouBeachTalents]

MVP+FMVP is the ultimate. You don't luck into that. You're never going to see an ok player have a MVP+FMVP season.

You can't ever "luck" into an MVP, you might not be the most deserving winner, but you still have to have a very good season as well as lead your team to a top record. Finals MVP is definitely more prone to being won in a fluky fashion, Danny Green could've been Finals MVP last year

[knicksman]

For a superstar, its easier to win MVPs than rings. Iverson, rose, bran, wilt, nash has proven that. Whereas its harder to win a ring. Even bran has to cheat to get it and still needed the refs and ray allen to get it.

[Skyscraper]

You can't ever "luck" into an MVP, you might not be the most deserving winner, but you still have to have a very good season as well as lead your team to a top record. Finals MVP is definitely more prone to being won in a fluky fashion, Danny Green could've been Finals MVP last year

It's all context driven.

Steve Nash 2006 was not the best player but most deserving of MVP as his team was ravaged but he proved he was the Suns system that year

[J Shuttlesworth]

MVP+FMVP is the ultimate. You don't luck into that. You're never going to see an ok player have a MVP+FMVP season.

True.

But you also never see an okay player win MVP. You do see okay players win a ring, or even FMVP sometimes (Leonard)