Steph Curry's MVP Unanimous Award Means Nothing During The Playoffs

Sometimes, in an argument, people will get stuck on a particular fact and forget what they are actually arguing about. During the NBA Playoffs, Stephen Curry, the MVP of the 2016 regular season has been struggling while Lebron James, arguably the most skilled player in the league, has played at an extraordinarily high level, seemingly better than he ever has in the playoffs. Because of this, people have questioned how Curry could have been unanimously voted as the league’s MVP if he isn’t even the best player in the league.

At the end of the 2015-16 NBA season, Stephen Curry was unanimously voted as the league’s Most Valuable Player, his second such award in the last two seasons. Curry became the first player to receive every first place MVP vote, which, for those who ask the question of how he became the first unanimous MVP, is how he became the first unanimous NBA MVP. Curry had a tremendous season; he led the league in scoring and led his team to a record 73 wins. As a result, everyone who had an MVP vote thought that Curry deserved their first place vote, making him the first unanimous MVP. However, while people are debating his performance in the playoffs, they supplement their arguments with their belief that Curry didn’t deserve to be the unanimous MVP, as if receiving all of the first place votes makes his MVP award greater than when Shaq won it in 2000 with all but one vote.

In discussing whether or not Curry is the most skilled player in the league, is the player having the best playoff run, or even who might wind up with the NBA Finals MVP Award, the fact that he received every vote for the regular season MVP award is irrelevant. Curry is the regular season MVP, and is attempting to win the MVP award and the NBA title for only the 24^th time in 61 NBA titles (the first title was 1950 but the first league MVP was 1956). However, since the regular season MVP has won the NBA title only 23 previous times in 61 tries means that the MVP seldom has the most impact on the NBA Championship. In fact, only 14 times has the league MVP also been the Finals MVP, and four of those were Michael Jordan. Therefore, it would not be uncommon for the regular season MVP, unanimous or otherwise, to not be the best player in the NBA Finals.

Steph Curry might win the NBA Championship he might not. Either way, his performance during the playoffs has no bearing on the fact that he won the 2015-16, regular season NBA Most Valuable Player Award. The fact that he received all 131 first place votes does not make his award any more or less special, and does not make him any more or less of a player. Just like stock brokers say when they warn potential investors, past results have no bearing on future performance. 

There Are Two Sides to Every Argument, but This Time, Both are Correct

After UFC 199, MMA Journalist Ariel Helwani was temporarily banned from covering UFC events because during the telecast, Helwani announced that former Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar would be fighting at UFC 200. Between fans and the media, there were supporters and detractors on both sides of the dispute, as just as many thought that Helwani had been wronged as felt that UFC was justified in banning the journalist, even though the ban was eventually lifted. In this instance, as in most arguments, there are two sides, but strangely, in this case, both sides were correct in their actions.

Ariel Helwani does not work for UFC, reporting for MMAFighting.com, so he has no true obligation to UFC. As a journalist, he is allowed to report on the sport as he sees fit. According to reports, he broke the Lesnar story before UFC was able to report the signing on their own. While this might seem cutthroat in nature, Helwani was correct if he simply received some information and informed the fans of MMA with the information.

On the other hand, covering UFC events is a right not a privilege. No one is pre-ordained to cover UFC events, as those decisions are made by the company’s power base. If UFC felt that Helwani violated some terms of covering the company’s events, they were within their rights to deny access. The story states that Helwani was forcibly removed from the premises and this should never be allowed, but beyond this, if UFC wanted him gone, it is their event and they make the rules.

As the story goes, Helwani had an agreement with UFC that he would not leak the story, and would allow the company to report on the signing in their own time. Without knowing if this is true, seemingly, both parties’ stances are valid in this case, Helwani, unless there was a previous agreement, had every right to announce the news, and UFC had every right to prevent him from covering their future events.

Taking sides is the nature of sports, but in this instance, both sides make valid points, and the best solution would be what has already occurred; the ban was lifted but UFC’s point in matters such as these was made clear.