RealGM

Okay, the general consensus seems to be that, since the trades, LBJ and Kobe have made the MVP a 2 horse race. With the added talent, especially Gasol, the 2 teams have stepped it up to another level, and someone like Chris Paul has been left behind as a result.

If anyone disagrees with that as a general breakdown of perceptions, feel free to disagree with me at this point. But if you feel that is an accurate sense of how this has gone, and how, for example, Paul has fallen out of the race, then see if you can understand what I don't get:

If it's conceded the teams these 2 guys have improved because of talent added, how does that make those players (kobe/LeBron) more valuable?

Shouldn't it, if anything, make them less valuable?

I mean, if X + Y = 4, and X + Z = 7, isn't the natural conclusion that Z>Y by 3?

Sorry if I'm being oblique, I just don't get how Pau Gasol made Chris Paul less valuable than Kobe Bryant, if you see what I mean.

Anyone also confused about this, too?

I dunno what your talking about...Lakers were a number 1 seed in the West before Pau Gasol got traded.

Sting3r wrote:I dunno what your talking about...Lakers were a number 1 seed in the West before Pau Gasol got traded.

I'm not saying they weren't. I'm saying the perception is that their play since the trades has vaulted them to another level, and Kobe's MVP credit with it.

Good point.

Harry Palmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I'm not saying they weren't. I'm saying the perception is that their play since the trades has vaulted them to another level, and Kobe's MVP credit with it.

Well wouldnt Kobe still be in the MVP argument before Gasol? His team has been on top for the majority of the season.

Had Gasol not happended and had Bynum not got hurt then for the sake of the "MVP" race then the Lakers would still have been in the mix much like Pauls Hornets. I think Paul is still a candidate but I dont think the Kobe 'suddenly" is the favorite because of Pau. His team pre-Pau was impressive too.

Phil_2.0 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Well wouldnt Kobe still be in the MVP argument before Gasol? His team has been on top for the majority of the season.

Yes. He was. That doesn't address my point, which isn't that the Gasol trade has made Kobe an MVP candidate, but that it has moved him ahead of others. Of course he was always in the mix.

Had Gasol not happended and had Bynum not got hurt then for the sake of the "MVP" race then the Lakers would still have been in the mix much like Pauls Hornets. I think Paul is still a candidate but I dont think the Kobe 'suddenly" is the favorite because of Pau. His team pre-Pau was impressive too.

Okay, I suppose we have different perspectives on what is happening. Not this week but last, for example, in the NBA.com breakdown for race for the MVP, I recall the Paul comment being something like: 'In most years his season would be worthy of consideration, but with the recent moves working out so well, LBJ and Kobe have Paul on the outside looking in at a 2 horse race.'

That's the kind of thing I am talking about. Kobe as an MVP candidate is NOT new, no. Kobe and LeBron as THE MVP candidates is new, and would seem to have happened pretty concurrent with the moves their respective GM's made.

Well we all know the MVP award of NBA has quite a different values compare to most of the fans. We think MVP should be the one who help his team the most, get the best of his team.
but generally, the NBA likes to give it to the best player of the best team in regular season. See Dirk last year.
The Lakers 2 years ago had Kwame Brown and Smush Parker in the starting lineup. Both of them couldn't even play in Miami and Memphis. They still won 45 games in the tough west, and Kobe only got few votes. He was at least a top 3 MVP candidate that year IMO. Not saying Nash didn't deserve it, but I just think the voter of NBA has a different standard.

that's why the mvp race should be Paul vs Kobe

I don't know. I hope Kobe finally gets the award, but I still think NBA will give it to the best player on the best team. So it should be KG.

Harry Palmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Okay, I suppose we have different perspectives on what is happening. Not this week but last, for example, in the NBA.com breakdown for race for the MVP, I recall the Paul comment being something like: 'In most years his season would be worthy of consideration, but with the recent moves working out so well, LBJ and Kobe have Paul on the outside looking in at a 2 horse race.'

Ok, well , I think it has alot to do with the flawed MVP voting. Because no matter how well you do as an individual and to some extent a " team" .. you have to really excel in the win column to be considered. I think the system is flawed myself but I still think Paul is in the race.

That's the kind of thing I am talking about. Kobe as an MVP candidate is NOT new, no. Kobe and LeBron as THE MVP candidates is new, and would seem to have happened pretty concurrent with the moves their respective GM's made.

Great point. Similar to how Kobe has never been considered for serious MVP accolades because of the moves ( or lack of ) that his GM has made.

I agree Harry. I'm a bit confused as to how adding more talent to the Cavs and Lakers has suddenly made Lebron and Kobe more valuable/clear cut choices for the MVP award. I guess that's ESPN for ya.

Well I still think Paul is in the race. I dont know what snippet you read but I dont think its a done deal between the 2 at this point.

Sting3r wrote:I dunno what your talking about...Lakers were a number 1 seed in the West before Pau Gasol got traded.

No, they weren't. They had just gone 5-5 and slipped in the standings a bit when the trade happened.

I had Kobe 3rd when the trade happened. I've moved him ahead of Paul myself since then. The reason is the lakers are on a tear - Gasol has helped, but Kobe's certainly done his share of closing out games. ALso, the hornets have slipped a bit lately and their SOS to date has been poor, so the assumption is they'll slip a bit more as the season progresses.

As for LeBorn, I don't think the cavs trade has anything to do with his MVP case one way or the other.

Phil_2.0 wrote:Well I still think Paul is in the race. I dont know what snippet you read but I dont think its a done deal between the 2 at this point.

I do think the perception of it being a 2 man thing is fairly common right now, but I don't necessarily disagree with you about it being a done deal. That's not really my point though, about whether or not this actually comes to pass...more I am confused about the reasoning going into it being thought so right now. It just seems contrary to logic for one player's addition to make another player more valuable. If anything it should make them less valuable to their team's success.

King Roosk wrote:I agree Harry. I'm a bit confused as to how adding more talent to the Cavs and Lakers has suddenly made Lebron and Kobe more valuable/clear cut choices for the MVP award. I guess that's ESPN for ya.

It might be due to an underlying assumption that the Cavs/Lakers will go on a big run, a young Hornets team may fall a few spots in the West, and then we can play the "you must be X high in the conference to be relevant" game to exclude Paul. Which is idiotic, especially as the Hornets as a team are leaps and bounds better than the Cavs.

FWIW, I have Paul a shade behind LeBron in the MVP race...and above Kobe.

Harry Palmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I do think the perception of it being a 2 man thing is fairly common right now, but I don't necessarily disagree with you about it being a done deal. That's not really my point though, about whether or not this actually comes to pass...more I am confused about the reasoning going into it being thought so right now. It just seems contrary to logic for one player's addition to make another player more valuable. If anything it should make them less valuable to their team's success.

Oh I agree. That is why I said the voting is flawed from before this. I wouldnt take this scenario as a catalyst into examining the MVP race. I think its been flawed for a long time.

My point with Kobe is... yes he added Gasol but he lost Bynum. Its not like he has added to his full strength team. He lost his 2nd option and gained his 2nd option. Had they added Gasol while still playing well and with Bynum would make sense to question.

King Roosk wrote:I agree Harry. I'm a bit confused as to how adding more talent to the Cavs and Lakers has suddenly made Lebron and Kobe more valuable/clear cut choices for the MVP award. I guess that's ESPN for ya.

Well, first, the Cavs didn't add basketball talent. Hughes and Gooden are more talented than anyone the Cavs got back. They're both just stupid basketball players.

But why ask a question you already know the answer to? Everyone knows you get the MVP with stats AND wins. How else does Dirk win it?

Schadenfreude wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



It might be due to an underlying assumption that the Cavs/Lakers will go on a big run, a young Hornets team may fall a few spots in the West, and then we can play the "you must be X high in the conference to be relevant" game to exclude Paul. Which is idiotic, especially as the Hornets as a team are leaps and bounds better than the Cavs.

FWIW, I have Paul a shade behind LeBron in the MVP race...and above Kobe.

That's how I've got it as well.

i think it has everything to do with the lakers and cavs being on national TV a combined 40 times, and the hornets only twice

I should start a new thread. What does Kobe Bryant have to do win an MVP?

I am actually serious. It seems like we can all agree that his talent is one of if not the best in the game.

He has taken bad teams in to the playoffs with some pretty big efforts.

He now has a team at the top of the tough WCF with clearly better talent.

I am ok with Paul or Lebron or Kobe winning but I have to wonder what it would take for Kobe to be an MVP in this league by you guys??