I think we should all make a collective effort in this thread to define what "Finals MVP" means.
Some people seem to think points qualifies it, i think those people are as stupid as those who think ppg decides the regular season mvp.
But I think there is a weakness in the argument that "this team is duncan so he deserves mvp"...because in my opinion the award should be based on the finals series exclusively. And while the spurs start out living and dying by the Duncan, the dynamic of matchups and a series worth of adjustments change those things. Did we really start and end with Duncan in game 2? tonight? If duncan had not passed well tonight, he would have an overally subduncan series so far. Meanwhile Bruce Bowen is shutting down the "King" of the nba who put on one of the most dominant playoff performances of all time. LeBron's average is lower this series than any series this year. I say if Bowen shuts his ass down again, scores alot of threes, and we win, give him the award.
Besides the "starts and ends" argument also has another weakness: our record without duncan compared to our record without bowen.

Reply With Quote
