MVP Watch 2008... Part 3.

[Blame Rasho]

Please continue discussing the MVP race within this thread...

Here are the links for the past threads

Link for Part 1

Link for Part 2

[Philly Fresh]

What's the need for locking the previous two threads? Who cares if it reaches 100 pages.

[Blame Rasho]

What's the need for locking the previous two threads? Who cares if it reaches 100 pages.

It has been asked by the higher ups due to technical reasons. You don't want slow boards do you?

[tsherkin]

Whoops, posted in part 2 and TD changed threads while I was doing that...

Here's my post:

I disagree and I'll try to outline why.


First, the Celtics were just as good defensively without Garnett and 9 games over 82 games is a pretty sizable sample. So yes, he anchors it, but it is clear they would be elite defensively without Garnett - or at least could sustain their defensive effort without Garnett for a stretch.

Err? No?

The Boston Celtics gave up 100+ points three times while he was gone and then in both of his first two games back while Garnett was still experiencing major rust and playing more limited minutes. Prior to that stretch, they'd given up 100+ points only twice the whole season over the first half of the season.

How you can see that and say they were just as good on D while he was gone do not reconcile with one another because you're blatantly incorrect.

It's EXCEEDINGLY clear that the Celtics suffer DRAMATIC drop-off in their defensive caliber without Kevin Garnett.

Second, your argument for Garnett doesn't make sense in light of your argument talking about the relative rosters of Kobe and Lebron. For the vast majority of the season, Bryant had not had nearly the help that KG has. I mean, Garnett has two legit franchise caliber players around him. So if you're going to factor roster into consideration, you can't simply apply it to Kobe v. Lebron, but not apply it to Garnett v. Kobe.

Neither Paul Pierce nor Ray Allen are franchise-caliber players, though they are admittedly a collection of top talent superior to what Kobe experienced before Gasol. The difference that evened things out to some degree is that their respective benchs were vastly different. The gulf in talent was immense until the Celtics started adding guys like Brown and Cassell, almost exclusively young, unproven talent like Big Baby, Rondo and so forth.

And remember, when I applied it to Kobe, I did not do so to DISQUALIFY him from consideration, only to add it to the discussion. It's certainly something to discuss relating to Garnett but it by no means takes him out of the top 4.

Third, Gasol has been more efficient and effective than he was in Memphis. And that was from day one. How you don't credit Kobe with getting Gasol comfortable and playing his best ball of the season is beyond me.

How you don't look at Gasol's career and look at the efficiency with which he played even on garbage teams is beyond me. Yes, Gasol's FG% is a direct product of the triangle offense and linking up with Kobe for a couple of easy buckets every game, but he is by no means responsible for how the offense generally uses Gasol in all of his favorite spots, how the coach employs him and his chemistry with the other players on the team. Kobe has absolutely contributed but he has not taken Gasol to an entirely new level; his passing, rebounding, shot-blocking and jump-shooting abilities were all on display before, even his post skills as well. Kobe's helping him, not creating of him a new player. I could say the same of what Garnett has made possible for various players on his roster as well and likewise for Lebron and how he impacts Daniel Gibson, Wally Z, Delonte West and all the other guys around him with the quality of play he evidences.

Look at Shaq and Kidd. Neither looks as comfortable as Gasol and they are considered better players. Give Kobe credit.

This is a ridiculous comment that makes no sense.

Fourth, when has roster of a team been a primary consideration? I didn't see Mchale or Parish deny Bird. I never saw Amare, Marion deny Nash. I never saw Magic's many options deny him. MVP has always been about taking what you have to an elite record. If Lebron gets to 55 wins, then I agree, let's talk about roster differentials. But if we talk about roster differentials, then let's talk about conference differentials and division differentials.

I'll address this later because it relates to the history of the award and how dramatically out of place this argument is.

Fifth, if you admit that Kobe is going to be Kobe regardless, your argument seems to unfairly punish Kobe's MVP chances for no other reason than he has a better roster around him than Lebron. That makes no sense at all. Kobe has to work with what he's given. You can't suggest that a guy who wins 50 games is better than a guy who wins 59 simply because of roster differentials if you agree that the individual play of the superstars are going to be comparable regardless.

This too relates.

I respect your opinion, tsherkin, but I think looking at the history of the award, you have to say Kobe has a pretty sizable lead in the MVP race right now. It could change if the Lakers drop games or there is an injury or some other unforeseeable thing happens (Lebron Cavs win 55 games). I think Chris Paul is the only other legitimate candidate right now with Lebron being in the conversation if he can win games at an extraordinary rate. I also think most of the media and analysts tend to agree with me.

The history of the award suggests nothing that favors Kobe. He's not clearly the best player in the league, nor is he the best player on the best team, both of which are traditional ways of measuring the MVP.

When Larry Bird was winning MVPs, he was pretty much unquestionably the best player in the league. He won 3 MVPs in a row from 83-84 through 85-86 and he deserved them but in that time, the Celtics won two titles and made the Finals every year because they were dominant teams, the best in the league. They had the best record in the league each year, too.

They were the best team in the league and he was the reason they were what they were. The Lakers today are NOT the best team in the league right now. They're close, but they aren't at Boston's level just yet.

Kobe Bryant is the best wing scorer in the game right now, he's bloody dangerous. He's one of the most versatile players in the league and this year, he's having a Hell of a season. He may well win the MVP award and if he does, he deserves it because, for the first time in a long time, there are a handful of guys who could legitimately win it. Kobe, Lebron, Garnett and Duncan (and yes, you could absolutely make the Paul argument, I can't BELIEVE I forgot to mention him...) are all viable options.

But you are DISMISSING these other options, or at least Duncan and Garnett (you didn't talk about Duncan but casually dismissed him by excluding his name from your list of candidates), which is an unpardonable sin.

You were factually incorrect about Boston's defense in the 9-game stretch without KG and that was a foundational component of your anti-KG argument, so your argument has already been shattered. Then you focused on historical trends which do not support your argument either, further ruining your stance.

[eatyourchildren]

Wait a minute, hold on here. A huge crux of your argument has been that Kobe hasn't distinguished himself as the best player in the league.

But that just isn't true. Other than some casual fans and observers, and maybe some blog writers, who isn't saying that Kobe is the best player in the league?

Sure, many people are saying LeBron is having the best statistical season, and there are other voices saying that CP is having the most success with spare parts, but my eyes and ears are retrieving enough from media sources that the coaches, gm's, ex-players, and current players all think Kobe is the best. Is this really up for debate?

Yes, we all have our loyalties, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me if you listen to all the quotes out there from knowledgeable talking heads.

[abarl]

In all seriousness it will be nice to have a winner from the group of Kobe, LeBron, and Paul

Im not sure how people can try to downgrade any of those 3 guys. I will be upset if Kobe wins it but LBJ doesnt erk me like Wade does. He is amazing and very humble.

[MagicFan32]

So why is Dwight Howard flying under the radar so much? He helped the Magic get off to a very good record early against a tough schedule, Now they have a lot of home games and play a lot of sub .500 teams, if his team gets to 50 wins why should he not be in the top 5? it's not like he's playing with legit all stars like KG or Kobe. Lebron is the only other player in this discussion that's not.

[shobe_81]

It's amazing how long this can go on when the answer is so simple. Memphis Grizzlies Organization has been the MVP from day one of the Trade of Gasol!

[tsherkin]

Wait a minute, hold on here. A huge crux of your argument has been that Kobe hasn't distinguished himself as the best player in the league.


Sure, many people are saying LeBron is having the best statistical season, and there are other voices saying that CP is having the most success with spare parts, but my eyes and ears are retrieving enough from media sources that the coaches, gm's, ex-players, and current players all think Kobe is the best. Is this really up for debate?

Absolutely; I'm not talking about popular opinion, I'm talking about some kind of measurable separation in effectiveness and it doesn't exist. Kobe hasn't lead his team to a better winning percentage or more overall wins, hasn't established statistical dominance in any category... He hasn't done anything to establish him as the best of the group.

He's a fantastic player and as I said, he deserves the MVP as much as any of the 4 others but I don't think he's done anything to distinguish himself from those 4 in such a fashion as to make it clear that he's the best player or the clear MVP choice.

[HouMac]

What are you talking about? Even if LeBron had not missed those 6 games and posted a 5-1 record in that time, they STILL wouldn't have near a top 5 league record. Where in the world are you coming up with this?

My mistake. For some reason I thought Cleveland had 36 wins instead of 34. With those 2 extra wins they'd indeed be less than a percent behind NO for the 5th best record in the league. Again, my bad.

If they had posted a 5-1 record to replace the missed LeBron games, they would be (i think) 39-21, which is good for 3rd in the East, and 9th best in the league.

8th best, not 9th. Kobe's LA is 4th best. LeBron's win % is .650 to Kobe's .700. These are all minor differences, wouldn't you say? Add in the fact that Kobe has a far superior cast around him(coach included) and that LeBron's putting up much better numbers....I think that more than makes up for a few extra wins in the tougher conference.

One thing everbody has to admit - Cleveland has no business winning as much as they've done this season when LeBron plays. They're a poorly coached team with very little talent. We also have the benefit of knowing just how bad(historically BAD) they are w/o LeBron. Any player who leads his team to an elite record while that team doesn't even look close to winning a game w/o him during a 7 game stretch. IMO, you just can't ignore something like that.

One final thing I wanted to mention. Cleveland also hasn't achieved this great win % w/ LeBron by beating up on the EC(which does feature 5 fairly good teams). They're in the Top 10 as far as win percentage against the WC is concerned.

[Diaper Dandy]

But that just isn't true. Other than some casual fans and observers, and maybe some blog writers, who isn't saying that Kobe is the best player in the league?

Sure, many people are saying LeBron is having the best statistical season, and there are other voices saying that CP is having the most success with spare parts, but my eyes and ears are retrieving enough from media sources that the coaches, gm's, ex-players, and current players all think Kobe is the best. Is this really up for debate?

There's only been a handful of players that were thought by a concensus to be the best in the league. Bryant is not of them right now. That you think it's not even debatable says alot about you and your biases.

[Benedict_Boozer]

Well, at least one talking head at ESPN thinks Lebron is the MVP right now:

Jason (Upland): Who is your MVP for this season? Last week you said Lebron, CP3, then Kobe, despite Lebron only having a subpar 34-26 record (8 games over .500) in the WEAK East (who's team won't even be in the playoffs if they were in the West), while both CP3 and Kobe have their teams a whopping 20+ games over .500 on the TOUGH West.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:12 PM ET ) First of all, a lesson on schedules -- 58 of the 82 games are identical regardless of which league you're in, so in terms of individual performance and team win-loss records they rarely make a large impact.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:13 PM ET ) Second, as far as MVP -- LeBron James's performance has been so far beyond that of any other player that, even with his team mired in fourth in the East, he HAS TO be the choice. Apologies to Kobe and CP3 and everyone else, but the guy is head and shoulders above the rest of the league right now.

Kobe : I am the best player on the planet, but some doubt my MVP acknowledgement. WHY?

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:13 PM ET ) Because you're only the second-best player on this planet. Hey, I'm just the messenger.

Majeed: LeBron and the Cavs remind me of the Lakers last year. Great player on a mediocre team who will go one & done in the playoffs.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:14 PM ET ) Cavs could easily be one and done, yes, especially if they get Toronto in the first round (and Bosh is on the court).

Gabriel (Bristol, CT): Any idea why the Kobe question is always so polarizing? People seem to either love him (the fanatical cult of Kobe) or hate him (he's selfish, whiny, etc). There doesn't seem to be alot of middle ground where people are just indifferent.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:17 PM ET ) You're right. He might be the most polarizing player to ever play the game. Everyone has an opinion on him, even people who don't really follow basketball much.

LeBron: Why does everyone think Kobe is better than me when in head to head matchups this season my team has won both, I have had better numbers, and even shut Kobe down in the forth (1-6 shooting + forcing a no-shot at the buzzer) while scoring 14 on Kobe?

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:19 PM ET ) Yes, everyone seems to have forgotten about that. Unfortunately, Kobe scored 52 on national TV yesterday, so he's got a lot of MVP momentum right now.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:19 PM ET ) Two days ago, I mean.

Doug (NJ): LeBron's performance has been that far beyond everyone else? What about Kobe's historical 05-06 season? By the way, who did you vote for the last three seasons? Dirk and Nash did NOT perform head and shoulders above everyone.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:20 PM ET ) My last three MVP choices were Garnett (05), LeBron (06) and Nowitzki (07). The margin between LeBron, Kobe, Dirk and Wade in '06 was infinitessimal, but they were clearly the top four players in the league; I really don't understand how the vote that year turned out how it did.

Audel Del Toro, Los Angeles: So if you say Lebronis better than Kobe than if the game was on the line and you could pick Lebron or Kobe to take the game winner you would take Lebron???? (no way!)

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:22 PM ET ) Do you mean to take the shot ... or to do all the other stuff that leads to go a good shot for himself or a teammate? Kobe is a better pure scorer, but LBJ is the better playmaker.

[tkb]

Hollinger always votes after his PER ranking though. Last season he wanted to vote Wade over Dirk because Wade had a higher PER but dropped off Dwyane because of injuries if I'm not mistaken.

[Seanman]

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:19 PM ET ) Yes, everyone seems to have forgotten about that. Unfortunately, Kobe scored 52 on national TV yesterday, so he's got a lot of MVP momentum right now.

Hollinger is pimping his PER leader. Nothing more. But for a guy who relies so much on his formulas and offensive stats while leaving out intangible defensive stats, he sure doesn't mind dropping a biased comment out there to prop the leader of his equation and beat down the apparent media choice at this time.

Hack.

What does "unfortunately" have to do with anything right now?

[ab40]

So why is Dwight Howard flying under the radar so much? He helped the Magic get off to a very good record early against a tough schedule, Now they have a lot of home games and play a lot of sub .500 teams, if his team gets to 50 wins why should he not be in the top 5? it's not like he's playing with legit all stars like KG or Kobe. Lebron is the only other player in this discussion that's not.

because if GS would win a game tonight they'd be the no3 seed in the east and they'll be nr 3 out west, that's why. The best player and most defining player of the team with the best record at the end of the season will be KG. If either one of them wins it kobe or KG, I don't see either of those teams making the finals.

Detroit vs Spurs with the decision in game 7. you can quote me on that one.

[FlightNo.23]

Kobe : I am the best player on the planet, but some doubt my MVP acknowledgement. WHY?

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:13 PM ET ) Because you're only the second-best player on this planet. Hey, I'm just the messenger.

[Jules Winnfield]

Whoops, posted in part 2 and TD changed threads while I was doing that...

Here's my post:

-= original quote snipped =-



The history of the award suggests nothing that favors Kobe. He's not clearly the best player in the league, nor is he the best player on the best team, both of which are traditional ways of measuring the MVP.

When Larry Bird was winning MVPs, he was pretty much unquestionably the best player in the league. He won 3 MVPs in a row from 83-84 through 85-86 and he deserved them but in that time, the Celtics won two titles and made the Finals every year because they were dominant teams, the best in the league. They had the best record in the league each year, too.

They were the best team in the league and he was the reason they were what they were. The Lakers today are NOT the best team in the league right now. They're close, but they aren't at Boston's level just yet.

Kobe Bryant is the best wing scorer in the game right now, he's bloody dangerous. He's one of the most versatile players in the league and this year, he's having a Hell of a season. He may well win the MVP award and if he does, he deserves it because, for the first time in a long time, there are a handful of guys who could legitimately win it. Kobe, Lebron, Garnett and Duncan (and yes, you could absolutely make the Paul argument, I can't BELIEVE I forgot to mention him...) are all viable options.

But you are DISMISSING these other options, or at least Duncan and Garnett (you didn't talk about Duncan but casually dismissed him by excluding his name from your list of candidates), which is an unpardonable sin.

You were factually incorrect about Boston's defense in the 9-game stretch without KG and that was a foundational component of your anti-KG argument, so your argument has already been shattered. Then you focused on historical trends which do not support your argument either, further ruining your stance.

First, your KG argument is terrible. Holding people under 100 points isn't the mark of a good defensive team. Point differential is.

One of the games they gave up 100 points to without Garnett, they also gave up over a 100 points with Garnett (Cleveland). The other two, they won convincingly. They beat the Clippers by 11 and they beat the Knicks by 8. Most of the times when they gave up 100 with Garnett it meant they lost. Here it didn't seem to mean anything except against Cleveland where they lost again..

When Garnett came back and was rusty, they gave up over points like hot cakes to Golden State and Denver. Both of those teams can score. Yes, the Celtics held both teams to under 100 points earlier in the season, but against Golden State they didn't have Stephen Jackson and against Denver it was just the 3rd game of the season. Hardly persuasive. In any event, it was probably KG's rust more than the team itself that accounted for the defensive sloppiness once KG came back.

So I don't even know where you were going with your KG argument. IF it is exceedingly clear, it is because you didn't take time to look at the actual games played and put the Celtics performance in context. That's on you.

Second, your argument about franchise players doesn't make sense either. Both Ray Ray and PP have done exceedingly well as franchise players with good help. And both, like KG, have done exceptionally poor jobs without help. So saying they aren't franchise players is your opinion, but certainly doesn't really hold up. In any event, your point about the respective benches doesn't make any sense because L.A.'s bench like the Celtics youngsters were unproven. Rondo, Big Baby have played very well even though they were question marks at the beginning of the season just like Andrew Bynum, Jordan Farmar and Sasha Vujacic were question marks. The Celtics starting lineup pre-Gasol was so far and away better than the Lakers starting lineup that to even mention the benches seem silly.


Third, and here's where your post really becomes baffling, is that you say I'm looking at Gasol when he played for Garbage teams. So what? Isn't that when you're supposed to be at your best individually? But ignore this year and last year and look at the years when he took Memphis to the playoffs. He's still playing more efficiently. To put it more directly, Shaq and Jason Kidd have gone from bad teams to elite teams and they don't look noticeably different. Gasol does.

Fourth, you need to really brush up on the history of the award. You mention that the traditional ways of measuring MVP are to be the best player on the best team or to be the best player in the league. This is a ridiculous statement. In the modern game, the award has almost never been given to simply the best player in the game unless he played on an elite team. Sometimes, the best player in the league has been on the best team in the league and hasn't won MVP.

For example, in 2001-02, Shaquille O'Neal was CLEARLY the best player in the league. The San Antonio spurs got the same amount of wins as the Lakers and even though Duncan wasn't as dominant as Shaq he was awarded with the MVP award.

In 2005-06, both Dirk and Duncan had superior season's statistically to Steve Nash. Both had more wins. Neither won MVP.

In 1996-97, most people thought that Jordan was the best player in the league and he led his team to 69 wins. Yet they gave it Malone.

The point is that the history of the award are riddled with "exceptions" to what you perceive to be "traditional ways" of measuring MVP.

Since you like statistics so much, you would understand that the ONLY criteria that correlates almost perfectly to MVP over the past 25 years have been 53 wins. At least 53 wins. The only exception was Jordan, when he was not only the best player in the league...but also had a season for the ages where he won DPOY and led the league in over nine statistical categories and was top 20 in FG%. Lebron is not on pace for 50 wins, that is why I eliminated Lebron.

The only other measurement that has a strong positive correlation is games played. In the last 25 years, the MVP to play the least amount of games is AI at 71. The next least is 75. The median games played for an MVP is 78. 82-9 =73. That's why I eliminated Garnett.

Thus, both of my reasons for excluding Garnett and Lebron are based in sounder reasoning that your weak empirical observation about Larry Bird.

Chris Paul meets the traditional criteria which are: 1) be one of the best players in the league; 2) play on an elite team (one that is going to win at least 53 games); 3) play in at least 75 (expected) of those games (i'd explain standard deviations here, but might be a bit complicated).

Kobe Bryant meets the same above criteria. And those are the only two right now who meet the criteria with Kobe being a good bit ahead of Paul right now given the positioning of their two teams.

You'd also be lying if you said that perception wasn't important in MVP voting and virtually no one thinks Duncan has a chance to be MVP. Ginobli is a darkhorse, but leaving out Duncan is not a stretch by any means.


I'll also note that you ignored my argument about differentials in the conference and division.

[Andrew Bynasty]

8th best, not 9th. Kobe's LA is 4th best. LeBron's win % is .650 to Kobe's .700.

Even if you left off the 6 games that LeBron missed, (which is absurd) that would leave his record at 34-20, a winning percentage of .629... And that would still leave the Cavs as the 10th best team in the league.

These are all minor differences, wouldn't you say?

Considering that the Cavs still wouldnt be in the playoffs if he were in the West, no, I wouldnt consider that a minor difference at all. Would you? Especially considering the Lakers are tied for 1st. The difference between 1st in the West and not in the playoffs in the West is definitly not minor.

One thing everbody has to admit - Cleveland has no business winning as much as they've done this season when LeBron plays.

Didnt nearly this identical team go to the Finals last year? And post a 50 win season? What suddenly changed that made LeBrons cast so horrible?

One final thing I wanted to mention. Cleveland also hasn't achieved this great win % w/ LeBron by beating up on the EC(which does feature 5 fairly good teams). They're in the Top 10 as far as win percentage against the WC is concerned.

You gotta look at more than just the surface stats.

The Cavs are 5-10 agaisnt Western Conference playoff teams...

The Lakers are 12-7 agaisnt Western Conference playoff teams...
(24-9 overall)

And another thing I want to mention... Why are people so quick to now point out how amazing Kobe's cast is? He had almost the exact same cast as last season pre-Gasol trade and the Lakers were still in 1st before Bynum went down. Now we trade for Gasol and people are clamouring about how Kobe has TOO MUCH help? I dont get it...

[Jules Winnfield]

Didnt nearly this identical team go to the Finals last year? And post a 50 win season? What suddenly changed that made LeBrons cast so horrible?

This is the question i've been asking from day 1.

[Jules Winnfield]

Well, at least one talking head at ESPN thinks Lebron is the MVP right now:

Jason (Upland): Who is your MVP for this season? Last week you said Lebron, CP3, then Kobe, despite Lebron only having a subpar 34-26 record (8 games over .500) in the WEAK East (who's team won't even be in the playoffs if they were in the West), while both CP3 and Kobe have their teams a whopping 20+ games over .500 on the TOUGH West.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:12 PM ET ) First of all, a lesson on schedules -- 58 of the 82 games are identical regardless of which league you're in, so in terms of individual performance and team win-loss records they rarely make a large impact.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:13 PM ET ) Second, as far as MVP -- LeBron James's performance has been so far beyond that of any other player that, even with his team mired in fourth in the East, he HAS TO be the choice. Apologies to Kobe and CP3 and everyone else, but the guy is head and shoulders above the rest of the league right now.

Kobe : I am the best player on the planet, but some doubt my MVP acknowledgement. WHY?

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:13 PM ET ) Because you're only the second-best player on this planet. Hey, I'm just the messenger.

Majeed: LeBron and the Cavs remind me of the Lakers last year. Great player on a mediocre team who will go one & done in the playoffs.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:14 PM ET ) Cavs could easily be one and done, yes, especially if they get Toronto in the first round (and Bosh is on the court).

Gabriel (Bristol, CT): Any idea why the Kobe question is always so polarizing? People seem to either love him (the fanatical cult of Kobe) or hate him (he's selfish, whiny, etc). There doesn't seem to be alot of middle ground where people are just indifferent.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:17 PM ET ) You're right. He might be the most polarizing player to ever play the game. Everyone has an opinion on him, even people who don't really follow basketball much.

LeBron: Why does everyone think Kobe is better than me when in head to head matchups this season my team has won both, I have had better numbers, and even shut Kobe down in the forth (1-6 shooting + forcing a no-shot at the buzzer) while scoring 14 on Kobe?

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:19 PM ET ) Yes, everyone seems to have forgotten about that. Unfortunately, Kobe scored 52 on national TV yesterday, so he's got a lot of MVP momentum right now.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:19 PM ET ) Two days ago, I mean.

Doug (NJ): LeBron's performance has been that far beyond everyone else? What about Kobe's historical 05-06 season? By the way, who did you vote for the last three seasons? Dirk and Nash did NOT perform head and shoulders above everyone.

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:20 PM ET ) My last three MVP choices were Garnett (05), LeBron (06) and Nowitzki (07). The margin between LeBron, Kobe, Dirk and Wade in '06 was infinitessimal, but they were clearly the top four players in the league; I really don't understand how the vote that year turned out how it did.

Audel Del Toro, Los Angeles: So if you say Lebronis better than Kobe than if the game was on the line and you could pick Lebron or Kobe to take the game winner you would take Lebron???? (no way!)

SportsNation John Hollinger: (3:22 PM ET ) Do you mean to take the shot ... or to do all the other stuff that leads to go a good shot for himself or a teammate? Kobe is a better pure scorer, but LBJ is the better playmaker.

Are you sure you want to quote him for support? He says 58 of the games are identical....that means 24 are not. That's about 30% of a NBA season. In other words, it is pretty significant. Only an idiot would say 30% of the season has a small impact on W-L over the course of a season. Then you take into account the large discrepancy between an average east team and average west team and it's obvious, he has no idea what he's talking about.

He also said KG should've been MVP in 05, which means that he's off the reservation with his idea of what makes a MVP.