I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it.
"If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
But without Lebron, Cleveland would have lost each game by 80.
(Well, GSW prob would have blown them out by the 2nd quarter and rested players but you get the point.)
I think Lebron impacted the series in a way that no other human on the planet could have. You can't say that about Iggy. I'd happily give Iggy runner up or at least 3rd place. He still played very well.
Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
But without Lebron, Cleveland would have lost each game by 80.
(Well, GSW prob would have blown them out by the 2nd quarter and rested players but you get the point.)
So you want to give it to the guy who helped his team lose close and not to the guy who stopped his team from losing? plus it wasn't just his defense it was his scoring passing and rebounding. He basically put up mini Lebron numbers while guarding the best player in the world and holding him down like no one else has. Maybe Jimmy Butler did as well but I don't have his numbers.
Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
But without Lebron, Cleveland would have lost each game by 80.
(Well, GSW prob would have blown them out by the 2nd quarter and rested players but you get the point.)
I think Lebron impacted the series in a way that no other human on the planet could have. You can't say that about Iggy. I'd happily give Iggy runner up. He still played very well.
Well the most valuable prize was the Championship trophy..Iggy was the reason GS got that trophy..LBJ put up great numbers but it wasn't enough to win the Championship..Iggy's play was a series changing event which led to victory..LeBron performance was also series changing which led to an entertaining series..
yellowboy90 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
But without Lebron, Cleveland would have lost each game by 80.
(Well, GSW prob would have blown them out by the 2nd quarter and rested players but you get the point.)
So you want to give it to the guy who helped his team lose close and not to the guy who stopped his team from losing? plus it wasn't just his defense it was his scoring passing and rebounding. He basically put up mini Lebron numbers while guarding the best player in the world and holding him down like no one else has. Maybe Jimmy Butler did as well but I don't have his numbers.
I want to give it to the guy who had the biggest impact without voting against the player due to the quality of his roster. It's gone to a player from the losing team before.
Or you could have the league change the rules so that the player must come from the winning team. Otherwise, everyone has to be eligible.
I don't really care about these things, but I think it would've been legit if Lebron got it. Can understand why Iggy got it though.
Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
But without Lebron, Cleveland would have lost each game by 80.
(Well, GSW prob would have blown them out by the 2nd quarter and rested players but you get the point.)
So you want to give it to the guy who helped his team lose close and not to the guy who stopped his team from losing? plus it wasn't just his defense it was his scoring passing and rebounding. He basically put up mini Lebron numbers while guarding the best player in the world and holding him down like no one else has. Maybe Jimmy Butler did as well but I don't have his numbers.
I want to give it to the guy who had the biggest impact without voting against the player due to the quality of his roster. It's gone to a player from the losing team before.
How do you quantify biggest impact. Okay, let me ask if Iggy was injured do you think the Warriors would stopped Lebron? I know hindsight is 20/20 but I doubt the Warriors even win game 1. Lebron would more than likely drove on anyone else instead of taking a step back jumper vs Iggy.
Folks expected much from the self-proclaimed "best player in the world," and they got a lot from him.
Folks expected much from Curry, and ended up with it, but he was inconsistent in some ways.
Folks expected much from Klay, and the did not get it at all.
Iggy was never a big blip on the radar before the series, but he went toe to toe with James and helped slow him down, and in the end, helped burn him out. James won his statistical battles with Iggy, who played pretty well on offense, but Iggy won the war, and you could see that James had nothing in the tank for much of game 6, despite a near triple double, and he wasn't able to up his game when it counted.
This uncovers a fundamental issue with the definition of MVP.
For years since I can remember, the MVP usually goes to the player on a team that has the best record (for example, Curry during the regular season). Should the MVP only go to a player from the championship team? or the most valuable player from either team?
It's a great question....
I think it should be from either team, because sometimes the coach can be the most valuable person on the team, based on his coaching strategies (and I think Kerr did a great job). If thats the case, with todays MVP unofficial rules, you have to find a person on the team the gets the trophy by default. But if it's really for the most valuable player, then it really should go to the most valuable player, and not just the best player from the winning team.
Iggy came off the bench all season. Then had to change his mind set and start during the finals. Not only that, he had to guard Lebron James 1 on 1 all series. Now some will argue that Lebron averaged close to 40 and a near triple double.....So it's a fair argument. The other person that deserves it would be Curry.....Without his production as a scorer and passer, I don't think they would've won, even with Iggy. Curry demanded the attention from the entire team. He actually opened the court for everybody else.
This is how the MVP thinking should be:
if you take Iggy out, I think GS still wins.......
If you take Curry out, I think GS lose.....
With that in mind, the MVP should go to Curry! Didn't he average like 28?
Good Discussion!
iggy was most consistent, curry should be 2nd but was inconsistent, iggy was consistent on both sides, as good as lebron was, cant give it to a guy who lost series
Lebron came very close to being the first player to get it on a losing team since Jerry West did it in 1969.
But in modern sports, you're just not as valuable if you represent the losing team.
The Cavs would've lost without him, and lost with him.
Lebron put up ridiculous numbers. But they weren't of any VALUE.
yellowboy90 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
But without Lebron, Cleveland would have lost each game by 80.
(Well, GSW prob would have blown them out by the 2nd quarter and rested players but you get the point.)
So you want to give it to the guy who helped his team lose close and not to the guy who stopped his team from losing? plus it wasn't just his defense it was his scoring passing and rebounding. He basically put up mini Lebron numbers while guarding the best player in the world and holding him down like no one else has. Maybe Jimmy Butler did as well but I don't have his numbers.
I want to give it to the guy who had the biggest impact without voting against the player due to the quality of his roster. It's gone to a player from the losing team before.
How do you quantify biggest impact. Okay, let me ask if Iggy was injured do you think the Warriors would stopped Lebron? I know hindsight is 20/20 but I doubt the Warriors even win game 1. Lebron would more than likely drove on anyone else instead of taking a step back jumper vs Iggy.
It's hard to say but they were + 43 and had wiggle room. I'm sure they would have at least had a shot.
yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
JR Smith was Golden States MVP. Without him playing for Cleveland GS doesn't win. LOL
Curry should have been the MVP. He was the focal point he was the one who opened up Igudala for open looks. Besides I felt Warriors would have blown Cavs out had it not been for the hack a Iggy. He was horrific from the line.
^Exacty Curry was MVP but people are too shortsighted to think outside of the box
gunsnewing wrote:^Exacty Curry was MVP but people are too shortsighted to think outside of the box
But not so shortsighted to forget to look inside the box scores and notice Iggy's impact on the game.
1-2 before the Iggy decision
3-0 after the Iggy decision.
I know they also threw around many stats which showed his impact on Lebron's scoring.
Bonn1997 wrote:yellowboy90 wrote:I'd still go with Iggy. I think he held Lebron to 33% shooting without him Lebron would have probably put up 60 points but don't tae my word for it."If you give me 37 shots in a game, I'd have 60...70," James said earlier this season, via Haberstroh. "I had [almost] 40 now with 18 shots, I mean ... If you give me 37 shots in a game, I’d put up 60. Easy."
Without Iggy Lebron scores those 60 pts efficiently and easily while getting Barnes, Green, and Thompson in foul trouble
But without Lebron, Cleveland would have lost each game by 80.
(Well, GSW prob would have blown them out by the 2nd quarter and rested players but you get the point.)
I think Lebron impacted the series in a way that no other human on the planet could have. You can't say that about Iggy. I'd happily give Iggy runner up or at least 3rd place. He still played very well.
you are arguing by negative means. is that the only way to assess value? it's just as valid to say what impact iguodala had by his presence viz a viz lebrons presence rather than couching it by lebrons absence.
Vmart wrote:Curry should have been the MVP. He was the focal point he was the one who opened up Igudala for open looks. Besides I felt Warriors would have blown Cavs out had it not been for the hack a Iggy. He was horrific from the line.
Iggy won it because his defense changed LeBron's dominance..Cleveland was winning the series until Iggy started and primarily defended LeBron..
