Comments on: 2011 NBA Finals Series Win Probability After Game 3

By: huevonkiller

huevonkiller — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 17:50:09 +0000

Anon definitely has a point, the Conference Finals means a lot more for the 2002 Lakers for example.

The 2011 Bulls are a lot better defensively than the Mavericks, since people focus mostly on offense that's more to consider.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:59:19 +0000

"yea but the finals do mean more than the previous rounds."

Depends on the perspective you use for this topic.

By: greyberger

greyberger — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:31:50 +0000

Many would have been a good 05 finals mvp too. Heck they could have given it to Robert Horry or Bowen the award and I don't think the fans or teammates would care. That was a finals that was as close as it gets and the spurs were deliriously happy to escape with the trophy.

By: P Middy

P Middy — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 13:33:21 +0000

#20 - Seems that the Playoffs MVP would be superfluous. Consider that the sportswriters and analysts that vote heavily weigh winning as their primary criterium, they will likely go with the best player in the Finals anyway, when considering the whole playoffs.

In most cases, they'd probably be right! More so than weighing it so heavily for the regular season, anyway. This is the only season of which I can think that they MIGHT give a hypothetical Playoffs MVP to one guy (James) and the Finals MVP to another (Wade) - but only if they win, of course.

By: cort

cort — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:56:25 +0000

hmm ok we can agree to disagree, but how many of those duncan offensive rebounds were off his own missed layups or bunnies? i just remember while watching it that duncan did not have a vintage series, and missed a lot of FTs and easy shots.
ginobili's worth is more intangible than tim's in general, i think, because of his savvy floor game and clutch play, not to mention his underrated defense. there is no stat for floor game other than a negative one, turnovers, and to a lesser extent, assists. but manu is the type of guy who stimulates the offense with passes that dont go down as assists, such as the pass before the pass "hockey" assist.
parker got the playoff mvp in 2007 but is probably the worst player ever to win the honor. billups in 2004 and maxwell in 1981 are probably the others, although all are fine players.
when the chips were down in the biggest and decisive contest (game 7), it was manu who was the main reason SA won, not duncan. 10-27 (37 percent) for a big man is quite poor. manu scored only 2 less points (23) on 14 less shots. and made some big shots, as i recall, in a close game.
when SA needed a big bucket, they clear out and let manu create for himself or a teammate with his penetration and passing. not timmy d.

By: Greyberger

Greyberger — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:44:48 +0000

Tim definitely deserved the '05 Finals MVP. Sure, he struggled to score some games against the impeccable Detroit defense, but he compensated with it with 4.7 offensive rebounds a game in the series. His game-by-game scoring looked like this: 24-18-14-16-26-21-25. But he won the award on his defense.

Manu had his struggles too, in game three he was just 2-6 with 6 TO and zero assists. Tim and Manu are very polished offensive and defensive players but couldn't score from the field with any consistency against Detroit. Duncan was more productive on offense, Ginobili more efficient, but it was still about the clash of the defensive titans (Duncan, Ginobili and Bowen vs. Detriot)

By: cort

cort — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 04:13:29 +0000

anon
yea but the finals do mean more than the previous rounds. it is the championship series.
jerry west won the first post-season MVP award in 1969 - still the only player from a losing team to win it. i agree that a player from the losing team can be MVP, but he has to be extraordinary, like west was. and boston, other than havlicek, didnt have a star playing great in his prime when they upset LA in 1969. russell and sam jones retired after that series.
cant think of another person who should have won MVP from a losing team off the top of my head though. i guess moses malone might have won it in 1981, but he shot poorly and the entire rocket offense ran through him so he could run up the numbers. plus half his offensive rebounds were off his own missed bunnies.
bird deserved some MVP consideration in 1987, as well as isiah thomas in 1988. his 25-point third quarter in game 6 on a sprained ankle was an all-time performance.

i thought ginobili should have won it in 2005, not duncan. tim missed a ton of FTs and easy shots. manu was clearly the best player all-around, he had 23 points 5 boards and 4 assists on 8-13 shooting in game 7. duncan scored 25 points but was only 10-27 from the floor in an 81-74 win. not to mention manu's fine floor game and clutch play.
duncan missed 7 FTs in a row in game 5 i believe, and blew a 2-inch tip in at the buzzer that would have won the game in regulation. SA went on to win in OT by one, but manu was the bigger reason.
NBA and the voters werent ready to give the MVP to a balding foreigner/south american i guess. duncan made just 43% from the field (54-125 i believe) in the series and was only over 50% once, and barely at that at 8-14. he had games of 5-15, 5-17 and 10-27 shooting in the series, despite most of his shots coming close to the basket. won the MVP on reputation and because he was likable.
id like to see some retroactive playoff MVP awards given. 1958 would be Pettit for sure, and russell would have several in the 1960s im sure. baylor might have even won one in a losing cause in 1962 when he had the 61-point game in the finals at boston. wilt would have gotten it in 1967 for sure. mikan probably 2-4 MVPs in the 1950s when the minneapols lakers won five titles in 6 years from 1949-54.

By: sean

sean — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:45:52 +0000

@ #24... Anon, I like the POSTSEASON MVP idea, myself. @ #23... HK, I wonder if Dallas is afraid to double Wade---fearing what LBJ might do. I'm a fan of neither team---I'm just enjoying the series and drama of the last 2 games. I probably would like to see Dallas win, but I'm not rooting against Miami. That neber does anyone any good anyway. Lol. I'd like to see a long series. I don't know if Dallas is up to it.

By: Raoul

Raoul — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:30:57 +0000

Great website/blog! Here's a stat question. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask.) Last night the Heat outscored the Mavs in the paint, and yet the Mavs go to the line more. How often has that happened in the playoffs?

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:10:50 +0000

"You don't need a playoffs mvp award to recognize Duncan as the Spurs' MVP in 2007, even though Tony Parker ended up with the Finals MVP. Just like you don't need a Finals MVP to see that LBJ was great in the postseason - especially in an ECF that Wade didn't play well in. It's great fodder for the casual fan/media though. "LBJ wins ring but not Finals MVP! Robin!" People aren't even that interested in the Dirk/rings debate with the LBJ sideplot, but you've seen that since LBJ joined the Heat. This season exposed alot of "conventional basketball wisdom" for its (mostly) irrational views of the game.