Jerry West & The Inaugural Finals MVP

[Andrew]

The first NBA Finals MVP award was handed out in 1969, and was awarded to Lakers legend Jerry West. Not only was it the first time the honour was awarded, it was the only time it went to a member of the losing team.

It was an interesting choice to make, given that Bill Russell's Celtics with the victors in a tough seven game series that was decided in Los Angeles. Russell was a player/coach and in his mid-30s, the Celtics as a team were aging and the Lakers were powerful and confident of victory. As the history books show, the Celtics provided an excellent farewell party to their Dynasty of the 60s.

The question is, should the Finals MVP have been awarded to Bill Russell? Should a player from the runner up be given consideration when it comes time to hand out the award? If so, do you think there are any other players from the losing team that might have been worthy of the honour?

[Stevan]

If the player in the losing team carries his team averaging ridiculous numbers, and his team actually challenges for the title (ie: 7 games) then he should be considered. He needs to put up numbers in every game, whether his team wins or loses.

[allamerican08]

Yeh i though about that one, its kinda weird. How would you feel if u've just won such an award but ut team lost!?

According to the name of the award then yes, it should me given to the best player, until they change it to MVP of the NBA Champions.
But like the regular season MVP is given to the best player ona winning team, this should also be given to the player on the winning team.

Great numbers cannot be the basis for the award. Like we saw with Pistons's defence tachtique, Let Shaq and Kobe score what they want, but limit others. Thsu Sahq or Kobe could have had major numbers (if they didnt hate each other).

No, team that win the Finals must have the MVP!

[Sauru]

my opinion is, if you lost, you were not the most valuable player in the series. i dont care if you averaged 50 a game, you still lost and being 2nd is never better than being 1st. basketball is a team game and a team wins not a player, there for i say only a champ can be finals mvp.

[air gordon]

the nba was an entirely different monster back then. if that finals series were to happen during this era, west would not have gotten MVP. there would have been a massive riot if that were to happen and humongous backlash against mr stern

[Sauru]

even though i hate to say and some might argue the point, but back them giveing the nba poster boy, who btw was white, probably seemed a better choice than giveing it to the black guy from boston. its sad really but back then this stuff happened. so many bad stories about shit bill had to go through dureing his playing years. no wonder the man didnt want to sign a damn autograph.

[Matthew]

I think Russel deserved it. West put up massive numbers, but with russel, it wasnt about numbers. his leadership and defense was why the celtics won. Theres no way, imo, that russel shouldnt have won.

[Sauru]

agreed. how many times did russel play vs wilt and wilt crushed him point wise but the celts took the victory. does this make wilt the player of the game each time? not imo. winning is the only result a player should strive for, in failing to win any stats you gained should not even be considering for a mvp/player of the game.

[magius]

that was the nba's learning period. You only learn from your fuck ups. I don't think russell really cares for the one lost champ mvp anyway, considering he has a couple more on his shelf .

[Sauru]

i think russel was enough of a team player to not even care if he had a single one. i think its the rings he wears that makes him happy.

[Rens]

If a player on the losing team has been more valuable for his team (keeping them in the race, whatever) than any individual on the winning team, why not?

[Andrew]

Russell doesn't have any Finals MVP awards since 1969 was the inaugural award and Russell's final year. Had the award existed previously or if they went back and awarded it retrospectively, I'm sure he would have been named the MVP for most of the Celtics' 11 championships in his 13 seasons. Likewise, he would surely have some Defensive Player of the Year trophies had the award existed during his career.

I think a player from the losing team should been given consideration - it's not an idea that is completely without merit and it wouldn't be unprecedented - but ultimately, the player who has led is team to victory has been the most valuable contributor in my opinion.

Answering my other question, I don't think there's been any other player from the runner up who deserved the MVP more than the person who won it. If there had been no individual standout on the Pistons as Billups did this year but they had still won, I wouldn't have been surprised to see the MVP go to Shaq for his number and name recognition, though it would have gone against the standard that has been established; a standard I think is pretty fair.