So I figure Paul Pierce won Finals MVP because he has been on team through the hard times. Although he had good stats, he did not have the best series.
My MVP is Ray Allen. He is the only member of the Boston Three Party to not have a bad game. Pierce only had one bad game, but it was awful. In Game 3 he had 6 points on 14 fga. If Garnett or Pierce had even a mediocre game 3, with Allen leading the way (25 points on 13 shots) the Celtics may have swept.
Garnett really only had 2 good games, so he is out of the running. Pierce choked away his best game. Kobe picked his pocket twice in the last few minutes of game 5, negating the 38 points he had scored (16 from the stripe). So let's compare their final stats:
Allen: 20.3 ppg, 73 fga, 51% fg, 5.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.3 spg, 0.7 bpg, 1.8 topg
Pierce: 21.8 ppg, 88 fga, 43% fg, 4.5 rpg, 6.3 apg, 1.2 spg, 0.3 bpg, 3.7 topg
The only stat where Pierce has a real advantage is assists. Ray Allen was consistent. Ray Allen was the man. He just doesn't have the star power Garnett and Pierce have. He couldn't just play better than those 2 and win MVP, he had to absolutely stand out, which he didn't. Oh well, I am sure Ray is just happy to have a championship.
1 comment:
I totally, one hundred percent agree. Who was the last Finals MVP to have a game where their team woul dhave been better if they were on the bench. That was the story in Pierce's 6 point stinker. I can't imagine showing up for work 5 out of 6 days and being called the best if someone else showed up for all 6 and played just as well and more consistently. Pierce played great defense, but Allen did not play badly at that end. Put simply, you are right.
Post a Comment