I like that you *don't* have Russell as FMVP in 1957, 59, 68. So many people just assume Russ was FMVP in all his championships. But if you look at the actual series, you can see he wasn't. I would argue, too, for Sam Jones over Russell in 1964. Sam shot .556, while his teammates shot .382 including Russell at .386. Sam also scored 2x what Russ did in 2/3 the MP. And Wilt dominated Russell in that series. 1959 is difficult bc so many Celtics played well in their domination of (4-0) of the Lakers. Cousy is a candidate, but he shot .308 FG% and .633 FT%, whereas Heinsohn, Sharman, and Ramsey all shot over. 471 and .808, and all had 22.5 PPG in 31.3 or fewer MP.
In 1967, imo, Wilt is the obvious choice: 18, 29, 7, 56% FG., and he held Thurmond to 34% FG. Barry scored a lot but on only 40%. And I just don't see giving the FMVP to player on a team that loses 2-4; maybe 3-4, but not 0-4, 1-4, or 2-4. If you're just giving the FMVP or "best player in Finals regardless of who won," then LeBron should have, what, 7 FMVPs? And you'd have to give it to Wilt in 1964, when he dominated Russell.
Why don’t the Philadelphia Warriors titles count towards the Golden State Warriors totals like the Minny Lakers titles do for the Lakers? The Philadelphia Warriors became the San Francisco Warriors and then the Golden State Warriors, right? Or was there a dissolution of an earlier Philly Warriors team and an expansion with the same name?
Also, I thought the Baltimore Bullets came from the Chicago Zephyrs in the early 1960s. Was there an earlier Bullets iteration that was dissolved?
The Philadelphia Warriors titles do count toward the Golden State Warriors' total. The Bullets team from the 1940s and 1950s is a completely different franchise. They folded 14 games into the 1954-55 season.
I didn’t realize those counted. All the warriors fans I know only talk of having 5 titles. And before the Steph era, they talked about the “title season” of ‘75. Interesting. Thanks!
Good article!
I like that you *don't* have Russell as FMVP in 1957, 59, 68. So many people just assume Russ was FMVP in all his championships. But if you look at the actual series, you can see he wasn't. I would argue, too, for Sam Jones over Russell in 1964. Sam shot .556, while his teammates shot .382 including Russell at .386. Sam also scored 2x what Russ did in 2/3 the MP. And Wilt dominated Russell in that series. 1959 is difficult bc so many Celtics played well in their domination of (4-0) of the Lakers. Cousy is a candidate, but he shot .308 FG% and .633 FT%, whereas Heinsohn, Sharman, and Ramsey all shot over. 471 and .808, and all had 22.5 PPG in 31.3 or fewer MP.
In 1967, imo, Wilt is the obvious choice: 18, 29, 7, 56% FG., and he held Thurmond to 34% FG. Barry scored a lot but on only 40%. And I just don't see giving the FMVP to player on a team that loses 2-4; maybe 3-4, but not 0-4, 1-4, or 2-4. If you're just giving the FMVP or "best player in Finals regardless of who won," then LeBron should have, what, 7 FMVPs? And you'd have to give it to Wilt in 1964, when he dominated Russell.
For a purely statistical look at the FMVP--which I don't entirely endorse--see this thread: https://twitter.com/grisingTRS/status/1260253352350281729
Why don’t the Philadelphia Warriors titles count towards the Golden State Warriors totals like the Minny Lakers titles do for the Lakers? The Philadelphia Warriors became the San Francisco Warriors and then the Golden State Warriors, right? Or was there a dissolution of an earlier Philly Warriors team and an expansion with the same name?
Also, I thought the Baltimore Bullets came from the Chicago Zephyrs in the early 1960s. Was there an earlier Bullets iteration that was dissolved?
The Philadelphia Warriors titles do count toward the Golden State Warriors' total. The Bullets team from the 1940s and 1950s is a completely different franchise. They folded 14 games into the 1954-55 season.
I didn’t realize those counted. All the warriors fans I know only talk of having 5 titles. And before the Steph era, they talked about the “title season” of ‘75. Interesting. Thanks!