29 replies to this topic

[TheJamMasterJ]

MVP: Best in regular season over an extended amount of time (82 games)

FMVP: Best in post-season which is considered the most serious part of the year and winning it means you are the reason your team won and you were the key to their success

[The Logo]

To me, MVP does. You can be a good player (ex Billups, Parker, Maxwell) win the title and become the Finals MVP after having a good post season, but for the MVP award, you need to be the BEST player in the whole league at the time over a long period of time.

[Raza 10]

League MVP - 82 games
Finals MVP - 7 games max

[Way Of Nash]

MVP, means that you did well through the 82 games of the season and led your team to one of the best records in the league.

[Mirrors]

Regular season MVP imo. In the regular season you're selected from over 300 players while in the finals you're selected from 28 max. Also, winning regular season MVP shows that you have consistency to play well over an extended period of time (7 months) as opposed to the finals ( 2 weeks)

[Kobes 5th Ring]

Depends how you look at the question, the Finals MVP is definately more valuable to a player and team because of the championship of course. Also without that player you most likely would not have a championship, although the regular season MVP is the better player most of the time.

[probskN]

To me, MVP does. Longer haul, you can't just get hot. You have to perform as the best player in the league consistently for 82 games, that's tougher than having the best stats in a four to seven game span, no matter what the stakes.

[Jan_Sobieski™]

Give me the Finals MVP. I get that shiny ring too.

[BayArea510]

MVP means more because you're the main reason your team was so successful and not only got to the playoffs, but as a high seed. MVPs are usually on the team with the top seed in their respective conference. Finals MVP only means you did well in a 7 game stretch that ultimately lead to your team winning it all, and as important as that is, getting to the playoffs as a high seed plays a bigger part in a team's season.

[Djoker]

League MVP. 82 games vs. 4-7 games.

If you look at the list of winners for both award you'll see that the league MVP almost always has truly great players. Every MVP winner (except Rose who's still young) is a definite top 50 player all time.

Although I will say when you compare a larger number of awards (ex. 3 MVP's vs. 3 FMVP's) there is definitely much much more of a case for the FMVP because sample size becomes less of an issue.

[TheJamMasterJ]

But also in for league MVPs there's many days were you can be off then make up for it, FMVP you don't get that, one off game could cost you the series, consistency and high-quality play is a MUST.

[DJtheCap™]

The more valuable trophy is no doubt the MVP. You go down in the history books with an MVP, you are remembered and celebrated for a long time, whereas with a FMVP you may fade into obscurity pretty quick.

That's not to say that plenty of players would rather have the FMVP just for the likely ring.

[WrongIslander 2.0]

i'd take FMVP as has been said, you've got the ring and also how many MVP winners have gone on to check when it matters MOST?

It takes a special kind of mentality to take your A game to the post season and dominate.

[The Future]

Probably the Finals MVP.

Not only do you get honored as arguably the best player on a winning team, you get a title and to do that on the highest stage is no easy feat.

[Carolina Panthers]

Finals MVP. It's an indication that a person was the best player on the best team in the NBA at a specific year. Pretty significant.

[TeoTheGreek13]

Regular season MVP for sure.

Not only the gap in games is huge, but in order to win the RS MVP you gotta be a superstar.
On the other hand, winning is a team accomplishment so, there might be a FMVP that just had a better series than other equal to him players on his team. Dennis Johnson for example in 1979 or Cedric Maxwell in 1981 don't come close to any RS MVP in history.

But yeah, the 82 vs max7 games is the real reason here. Consistentcy is what counts.

[Bball_Jones]

To me, MVP does. You can be a good player (ex Billups, Parker, Maxwell) win the title and become the Finals MVP after having a good post season, but for the MVP award, you need to be the BEST player in the whole league at the time over a long period of time.

Agreed but

Give me the Finals MVP. I get that shiny ring too.

[Bball_Jones]

Regular season MVP for sure.

Not only the gap in games is huge, but in order to win the RS MVP you gotta be a superstar.
On the other hand, winning is a team accomplishment so, there might be a FMVP that just had a better series than other equal to him players on his team. Dennis Johnson for example in 1979 or Cedric Maxwell in 1981 don't come close to any RS MVP in history.

But yeah, the 82 vs max7 games is the real reason here. Consistentcy is what counts.

True

DJ was 5th in MVP voting in 1980 and 8th in 1981 though.

[celtic fan]

But also in for league MVPs there's many days were you can be off then make up for it, FMVP you don't get that, one off game could cost you the series, consistency and high-quality play is a MUST.

but that's due to a larger sample size, there will therefore be more irregularities. I also think that for most MVP's their drive didn't allow to take a night off, but moreso there was a better chance of them having a bad night due to the length of the season and all of the travel. In the Finals there are only 2 destinations and no back to back games.

[celtic fan]

as for MVP vs FMVP... to me it's a matter of which is more impressive. To play at a great level for 82 games or 4-7?

Both are great accomplishments, but I think being great for an entire season is more impressive. As Djoker mentioned when you look at the list of MVP's vs FMVP's there are outliers in the FMVP's list of very good players who had a great series.