Russell's Finals MVP's

[Psileas]

I noticed this topic a bit late, but my take is that Russell might only lose the '64 and '68 MVP's, and the first "loss" might only happen because of people getting tired of voting for him all the time (same with a hypothetical DPOY case between 1957 and 1966, maybe even harder to make a case against him - maybe Wilt in '64 or '66).

Baylor might have had a case if Russell hasn't been so prolific and efficient in 1962 (though I doubt all voters would consider shooting efficiency - no such thing as TS% back then, though it wouldn't be tough to fathom such a stat). In 1957, Cousy and Sharman were unstable, Heinsohn might have a case, but I don't think voters wouldn't split the awards after having given Heinsohn the ROY (mainly due to Russell's absence), despite people admitting Russell was a clearly more revolutionary player. Depending on when exactly the voting took place, Pettit might also have a chance...

But this is the absolute worst case for Russell, which still gives him 7 FMVP's (5 in a row). Best case? 10 (and that's if we accept the already written history of West having won in 1969. Yes, Havlicek would still be more deserving, but who's to say they wouldn't give it to Russell just to honor his retirement?).

BTW, I'm not the only one who thinks that there should exist some database containing the year-by-year FMVP voting results, right? I always wanted to see how the votes went in cases like the 1969 Finals (or others like 1974, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, etc). I mean, in theory, it should be easier to accumulate these results than the results of Regular Season MVP votings.

[guy]

It would be nice if the NBA got a bunch of old guys who saw these games from back then together to vote and officially award a Finals MVP for each of these Finals. Might be weird and crazy, but whats the hurt in doing it?

[Psileas]

It would be nice if the NBA got a bunch of old guys who saw these games from back then together to vote and officially award a Finals MVP for each of these Finals. Might be weird and crazy, but whats the hurt in doing it?

Haha, that's not even the weirdest thing to think: It reminds me of a case when, in the late 80's (I think), Harvey Pollack wanted to have a 1963 regular season game (Lakers-Warriors) re-played decades later, because the refs had screwed the Warriors by having Wilt tossed out with 3 techs, which was prohibited by the rules. David Stern had said "why not?", (former) players, including Wilt and West, had agreed as well, but he couln't manage to contact all the players, so the game didn't happen.

Maybe it's better it happened this way. Afterwards, he might want to have the whole rest of the season replayed.

[guy]

Haha, that's not even the weirdest thing to think: It reminds me of a case when, in the late 80's (I think), Harvey Pollack wanted to have a 1963 regular season game (Lakers-Warriors) re-played decades later, because the refs had screwed the Warriors by having Wilt tossed out with 3 techs, which was prohibited by the rules. David Stern had said "why not?", (former) players, including Wilt and West, had agreed as well, but he couln't manage to contact all the players, so the game didn't happen.

Maybe it's better it happened this way. Afterwards, he might want to have the whole rest of the season replayed.

LOL. I don't understand whats the point of that though? Whats the purpose? Just to see alter the regular season records of both teams? Not much really at stake it seems. I could understand if it was the playoffs.

[Pointguard]

I noticed this topic a bit late, but my take is that Russell might only lose the '64 and '68 MVP's, and the first "loss" might only happen because of people getting tired of voting for him all the time (same with a hypothetical DPOY case between 1957 and 1966, maybe even harder to make a case against him - maybe Wilt in '64 or '66).

But this is the absolute worst case for Russell, which still gives him 7 FMVP's (5 in a row). Best case? 10 (and that's if we accept the already written history of West having won in 1969. Yes, Havlicek would still be more deserving,

There is an element of human pyschology in all of this. Just as Jordan didn't sweep regular season MVP's despite it being pretty much clear cut. Social attitudes weren't the greatest in the '50's either. Plus they seemed to not like domination too much back then. But I see it pretty much as Psileas does 7to 10 if people are operating close to fair but five isn't crazy if the media wanted to do a spread the wealth campaign. What we see as logical now doesn't apply to logical then. I would like to see somebody outscore another player by 30ppg and outrebound him by 2, and shoot 50 percentage points higher in a league that was obsessed with offense and win an MVP over that guy in today's game. I would just like to see that.

[nycelt84]

There is an element of human pyschology in all of this. Just as Jordan didn't sweep regular season MVP's despite it being pretty much clear cut. Social attitudes weren't the greatest in the '50's either. Plus they seemed to not like domination too much back then. But I see it pretty much as Psileas does 7to 10 if people are operating close to fair but five isn't crazy if the media wanted to do a spread the wealth campaign. What we see as logical now doesn't apply to logical then. I would like to see somebody outscore another player by 30ppg and outrebound him by 2, and shoot 50 percentage points higher in a league that was obsessed with offense and win an MVP over that guy in today's game. I would just like to see that.

That's the thing that everyone else pointed out that for some reason you didn't take note of. Almost every single season and championship there were no other choices for Finals MVP except Russell. The only years that I don't see him winning are '68 which should have went to Havlicek should have won anyway and possibly '57.

[ThaRegul8r]

Baylor might have had a case if Russell hasn't been so prolific and efficient in 1962 (though I doubt all voters would consider shooting efficiency - no such thing as TS% back then, though it wouldn't be tough to fathom such a stat).

Yeah, I realized true shooting percentage didn't exist then, nor did the concept of efficiency. That was mainly for everyone else's benefit, in order to hammer home how well Russell played, since no one knew that other than me.

[Pointguard]

That's the thing that everyone else pointed out that for some reason you didn't take note of.

Almost every single season and championship there were no other choices for Finals MVP except Russell. The only years that I don't see him winning are '68 which should have went to Havlicek should have won anyway and possibly '57.

LOL, ok. To you, there were no other choices. There were years where Sam Jones, Hondo, and Heinsohn were hitting a high volume of clutch shots and a player can gain a lot of momentum by such gestures. Jordan covered every aspect of the game and was top notch in nearly every area and he didn't win MVP's. Russell wasn't looked up to score alot and hit clutch shots - you could spin an MVP off of him easier than most. If today's Dirk was on those Celtic teams, with today's mentality Dirk wins near half of the MVP's. But I'm sure everybody else has already pointed that out

The media can put a serious spin on upping some things and overlooking others. A lot of people remember Willis Reed coming out to play after an injury and that moment gets plays 40 years later. Most people remember that but few people know that Frazier had one of the best finals game ever on an excellent defender in West. In fact Reed didn't have much of a game at all. Frazier was an afterthought.

[Math2]

I think it would be safe to say that Russell is the ACTUAL FMVP record-holder.

I bet he'd win 9-11... No one is close....7 at the ABSOLUTE LEAST.

Maybe if the award had been around since, say 1951, then people would be used to how the award flows, and not necessarily give it to Jerry West that year, maybe the tradition of giving it to the winner would be formed.

[nycelt84]

LOL, ok. To you, there were no other choices. There were years where Sam Jones, Hondo, and Heinsohn were hitting a high volume of clutch shots and a player can gain a lot of momentum by such gestures. Jordan covered every aspect of the game and was top notch in nearly every area and he didn't win MVP's. Russell wasn't looked up to score alot and hit clutch shots - you could spin an MVP off of him easier than most. If today's Dirk was on those Celtic teams, with today's mentality Dirk wins near half of the MVP's. But I'm sure everybody else has already pointed that out

The media can put a serious spin on upping some things and overlooking others. A lot of people remember Willis Reed coming out to play after an injury and that moment gets plays 40 years later. Most people remember that but few people know that Frazier had one of the best finals game ever on an excellent defender in West. In fact Reed didn't have much of a game at all. Frazier was an afterthought.

Point out those Finals then. Some of us have actually taken the time to look up the recaps of those actual NBA Finals and those who have all came to the same conclusion that Russell was the best player in most of those Finals.

And as you already know Russell had no problems winning MVPs anyway as he won 5 of them as I'm sure you might know including being the 1st player to ever win 3 in a row.

[ThaRegul8r]

I think it would be safe to say that Russell is the ACTUAL FMVP record-holder.

I bet he'd win 9-11... No one is close....7 at the ABSOLUTE LEAST.

As others have pointed out, it's impossible for him to have 11, because the award came into existence his last year in the league, and he didn't win it. Therefore, 10 is the absolute maximum he could have won, since he actually did not win it in 1969 when it existed to be won. If it hadn't gone to West, Havlicek would have won it.

[Math2]

As others have pointed out, it's impossible for him to have 11, because the award came into existence his last year in the league, and he didn't win it. Therefore, 10 is the absolute maximum he could have won, since he actually did not win it in 1969 when it existed to be won. If it hadn't gone to West, Havlicek would have won it.

Read the rest of my post.

[ThaRegul8r]

As others have pointed out, it's impossible for him to have 11, because the award came into existence his last year in the league, and he didn't win it. Therefore, 10 is the absolute maximum he could have won, since he actually did not win it in 1969 when it existed to be won. If it hadn't gone to West, Havlicek would have won it.

Read the rest of my post.

I read your post before I replied to it. Unlike many posters here, I actually read a post before I respond to it. The rest of your post does not change the fact of what I stated. There is no one here who knows more about Bill Russell's career than I do. He would not have 11 NBA Finals MVPs, because John Havlicek would have won it in 1969 if it had gone to a member of the winning team, which is what "the rest of your post" addressed. Whether West (as he did in actuality) or Havlicek (if there had been an established tradition of the winner getting the award), neither one is Russell, and thus Russell could not possibly have won 11.

It's insulting for someone who knows substantially less about a subject than I, who has not done the extensive research I have to bolster my already existing knowledge, to attempt to contend with me. I don't argue with people who know more about something than I do. I speak on what I know.

[Pointguard]

Point out those Finals then. Some of us have actually taken the time to look up the recaps of those actual NBA Finals and those who have all came to the same conclusion that Russell was the best player in most of those Finals.

You are a bit confusing. When I wrote that it wasn't about who is the most logical choice or who is the best player you said "everybody" here made that point. Now you are acting like that's a foreign concept in your very next post???

Opportunities for someone to sneak thru.
Hondo in ''68?
Heinsohn/Petite '57?
If they got tired enough - Jones in '65

[jlauber]

The media can put a serious spin on upping some things and overlooking others. A lot of people remember Willis Reed coming out to play after an injury and that moment gets plays 40 years later. Most people remember that but few people know that Frazier had one of the best finals game ever on an excellent defender in West. In fact Reed didn't have much of a game at all. Frazier was an afterthought.

One of the most disgraceful FMVP's of all-time. I wonder how many folks know that Reed basically missed half of one game, three-quarters of another, and completely missed yet another game in that series. Furthermore, the series was tied 2-2, and his team was TRAILING by 10 points in game five when he went down with that muscle tear. His team came back (albeit, behind some questionable officiating) to win that game five. And, in game seven, he basically played the role of a statue,...while his teammates hit 15 of their first 21 shots. Frazier played one of the greatest game seven's in NBA history (36 points and 19 assists), and yet I wonder how many here would know that? Meanwhile FMVP Reed hung 4 pts, on 2-5 shooting, with 3 rebs...and was hailed as a "hero."