mvps who have more titles than mvps vs mvps who have more mvps than titles

[kennethgriffin]

which is the more impressive list



equal or better:


jordan - 6 rings, 5 mvps
russell - 11 rings, 5 mvps
bird - 3 rings, 3 mvps
magic - 5 rings, 3 mvps
kobe - 5 rings, 1 mvp
duncan - 4.5 rings, 2 mvps
hakeem - 2 rings, 1 mvp
kareem - 6 rings, 6 mvps
shaq - 4 rings, 1 mvp
oscar - 1 ring, 1 mvp
garnett - 1 ring, 1 mvp
dirk - 1 ring, 1 mvp
robinson - 2 rings, 1 mvp
walton - 1 ring, 1 mvp
mcadoo - 2 rings, 1 mvp
cowens - 2 rings, 1 mvp
reed - 2 rings, 1 mvp
unseld - 1 ring, 1 mvp
cousy - 6 rings, 1 mvp



below:

lebron - 1.5 rings, 4 mvps
moses - 1 ring, 3 mvps
pettit - 1 ring, 2 mvps
nash - 0 rings, 2 mvps
rose - 0 rings, 1 mvp
iverson - 0 rings, 1 mvp
karl - 0 rings, 1 mvp
barkley - 0 rings, 1 mvp
durant - 0 rings, 1 mvp




to those who think its better to have more mvps than rings

history disagrees

nobody wants to be part of the 2nd list

its about rings by mvps. not mvps by ring winners or title virgins



and steph currys about to add his name to the top tier list

[kennethgriffin]

lebron - 1.5 rings, 4 mvps ( 1.5 for 6 in finals )
moses - 1 ring, 3 mvps ( 1 for 2 in finals )
pettit - 1 ring, 2 mvps ( 1 for 4 in finals )
nash - 0 rings, 2 mvps ( 0 finals )
rose - 0 rings, 1 mvp ( 0 finals )
iverson - 0 rings, 1 mvp ( 0 for 1 in finals )
karl - 0 rings, 1 mvp ( 0 for 3 in finals )
barkley - 0 rings, 1 mvp ( 0 for 1 in finals )
durant - 0 rings, 1 mvp ( 0 for 1 in finals )


its no surprise lebron ended up on this list

[coast2coast]

I think the better judging statistic is number of Finals MVPs won out of number of Finals that a player has won.

With .500 being the average statistic, it would help determine whether a player was a great player ( > .500 ), good player ( = .500 ) or role player ( < .500 ).

For example,

Jordan (6/6 - 1.000) - Great player for all titles

Duncan (3/5 - .600) - Greater player but closer to .500

Bryant (2/5 - .400) - role player for majority of titles

[kennethgriffin]

I think the better judging statistic is number of Finals MVPs won out of number of Finals that a player has won.

With .500 being the average statistic, it would help determine whether a player was a great player ( > .500 ), good player ( = .500 ) or role player ( < .500 ).

For example,

Jordan (6/6 - 1.000) - Great player for all titles

Duncan (3/5 - .600) - Greater player but closer to .500

Bryant (2/5 - .400) - role player for majority of titles

only problem is... kareem is the arguable GOAT with 2 fmvp's... and russell is another arguable GOAT with 0 fmvps


you cant punish 2 star lead teams like the 80s lakers and the kobe/shaq teams


jerry west deserves all the credit in the world for his title.. he didnt win fmvp


does 1 of larry birds titles not count? lol




kobes 2001 playoff run > tim duncans 2005 run... only duncan got a fmvp for those titles though


sorry. its about rings by mvps.

[Mr. Jabbar]

holy shit kenneth taking yet another huge dump on lestans chests

[kennethgriffin]

who in their right mind would wanna be part of this collection as apposed to the alpha list

[NumberSix]

Jordan has 11 MVPs. 5 regular season, 6 finals.

Kobe has 3 MVPs. 1 regular season, 2 finals.

LeBron has 6 MVPs. 4 regular season, 2 finals.

[coast2coast]

only problem is... kareem is the arguable GOAT with 2 fmvp's... and russell is another arguable GOAT with 0 fmvps

That's a great point as the Final's MVP wasn't available until 1969 but I thought you'd be discussing the modern era player.

Let's reset using your criterion of titles and MVPs. The ideal ratio is 1.000 as you'd want it be a 1-1, Title-MVP showing a player was able to dominate the regular season as well as lead his team to the title.

Jordan (6/5 1.200) = great player. 6 titles and 5 MVPs. Almost able to capitalize every year.

Duncan ( 5/2 2.500 ) good player. Able to have season long dominance for close to half of title runs

Bryant ( 5/1 = 5.000 ) possible role player. too many titles without consistent impact throughout the entire season.

[kennethgriffin]

Jordan has 11 MVPs. 5 regular season, 6 finals.

Kobe has 3 MVPs. 1 regular season, 2 finals.

LeBron has 6 MVPs. 4 regular season, 2 finals.

nash has 2 mvps. 2 regular season, 0 finals

oscar has 1 mvp. 1 regular season, 0 finals

whos the better player





sorry bud. its about rings by mvps. and season mvps are worth less than winning a title with great playoff numbers


i guarantee nash would trade his 2 mvps in for 2 rings as a corner stone. even without fmvp

[kennethgriffin]

That's a great point as the Final's MVP wasn't available until 1969 but I thought you'd be discussing the modern era player.

Let's reset using your criterion of titles and MVPs. The ideal ratio is 1.000 as you'd want it be a 1-1, Title-MVP showing a player was able to dominate the regular season as well as lead his team to the title.

Jordan (6/5 1.200) = great player. 6 titles and 5 MVPs. Almost able to capitalize every year.

Duncan ( 5/2 2.500 ) good player. Able to have season long dominance for close to half of title runs

Bryant ( 5/1 = 5.000 ) possible role player. too many titles without consistent impact throughout the entire season.

how does that effect kareem?

[NumberSix]

nash has 2 mvps. 2 regular season, 0 finals

oscar has 1 mvp. 1 regular season, 0 finals

whos the better player





sorry bud. its about rings by mvps. and season mvps are worth less than winning a title with great playoff numbers


i guarantee nash would trade his 2 mvps in for 2 rings as a corner stone. even without fmvp

Kobe has NEVER won a ring as the MVP. LeBron has done it twice.

[catch24]

Damn actually a really good post.

About the list. Nash is the only MVP winner in NBA history to have never been in the finals. Is it his fault? The only answer I have for that is, the Mavs finally made it the finals once Nash was gone with arguably a worse team BUT against better competition. If he was truly making his team better wouldn't they at least have won the western conference at some point in time?

MVP for the most part is a popularity contest - where whatever the media's narrative is that year, they'll run with it.

[kennethgriffin]

Damn actually a really good post.

About the list. Nash is the only MVP winner in NBA history to have never been in the finals. Is it his fault? The only answer I have for that is, the Mavs finally made it the finals once Nash was gone with arguably a worse team BUT against better competition. If he was truly making his team better wouldn't they at least have won the western conference at some point in time?

MVP for the most part is a popularity contest where whatever the media's narrative is that year, they'll run with it.

rose too

[branslowski]

I think the better judging statistic is number of Finals MVPs won out of number of Finals that a player has won.

With .500 being the average statistic, it would help determine whether a player was a great player ( > .500 ), good player ( = .500 ) or role player ( < .500 ).

For example,

Jordan (6/6 - 1.000) - Great player for all titles

Duncan (3/5 - .600) - Greater player but closer to .500

Bryant (2/5 - .400) - role player for majority of titles

I'm starting to realize that you guys never watched Kobe's playoff runs during those Championships with Shaq...

[Ne 1]

Jordan has 11 MVPs. 5 regular season, 6 finals.

Kobe has 3 MVPs. 1 regular season, 2 finals.

LeBron has 6 MVPs. 4 regular season, 2 finals.

Bill Russell 5 regular season MVPs and approximately 7-10 Finals MVPs had the award existed during his tenure.