MVP Watch 2008... Part 2.

[RobertGlory]

-= original quote snipped =-



Umm... How does he close the gap by posting up average numbers agaisnt one of the worst teams in the league?

And Kobes last game was 52-11-4 agaisnt the Mavs...

(And I believe he scored 22 of the Lakers 28 4th quarter points)

this is why nobody likes kobe fans

[Jules Winnfield]

-= original quote snipped =-



If by fantastic you mean .500 (http://www.nba.com/games/20071204/NJNCLE/boxscore.html)

Washington was also only.500 when the Cavs played them without LeBron and they are only .500 right now.

Then you have to take away Charlotte and Seattle too since he didnt play against those teams either.

Oh you mean the New Jersey team that lost to the Cavs without Lebron and the proceeded to beat the Cavs with Lebron about a week later?

Take away Charlotte and Seattle. The mere fact that he missed Boston has a pretty significant impact on SOS in the East. Not to mention, most of the Lebron fans don't want to count that Detroit game since he left it early.

[tsherkin]

I'm still inclined to look at Garnett as the MVP. 9 games missed or not, he's the anchor for the best defense in the league on the team with the best record. He's the best player on the best team (atm) and is still an MVP-caliber player even if his individual stats don't match up to Kobe or Lebron's.

Both Kobe and Lebron are, in my view, perfectly legitimate MVP choices but I think it's a four-man race right now and it is FAR from clearly any one of these guys.

Between the two, I'm inclined to wait and see what Lebron's record is from the point of the trade to the end of the season and compare winning percentages then to Kobe's overall season (as well as before and after the Gasol trade) because in terms of team help, you've got to factor roster into this conversation.

Who matches Gasol on Lebron's roster? Remember, Gasol's going for 20 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.71 bpg, shooting 58.4% FG, 78% FT (5.86 FTA/g) and has generally fit in perfectly as the second weapon on this team and allowed Odom to be a third/fourth option, which plays to his strengths and covers his weaknesses.

So I think the essentially idyllic construction of Kobe's squad gives him an advantage that Lebron does not share, even following the Hughes-and-co trade. Lebron still doesn't have a second scorer of Gasol's caliber, or a tertiary player of the caliber of Odom. Nor does he have a frontcourt presence of Bynum's caliber, which Kobe enjoyed earlier this season (for 35 games and 25 starts therein).

If you're discussing Kobe/Lebron, these factors can't escape your attention; it's true that Kobe generally does what he does individually regardless of team help, that much has been proven with Shaq, without Shaq, on crap teams with bad coaches, on decent teams with great coaches, on outstanding teams with great coaches... Kobe's Kobe, that's true, but when you're talking about MVP and you're allowing record and what-not to enter the discussion, team assistance cannot fail to be an important impact variable and it HEAVILY favors Kobe.

The Lakers are a MUCH better team than the Cavs in terms of roster composition on the basis of star power and roster balance. Lebron isn't alone, of course, but the Lakers are in a much better position to aid their star player and have a much, much better coach.

So don't forget that stuff.

And don't forget Garnett. 9 games is nothing and while it's true that the Celtics went 7-2, they dropped off noticeably in several areas and weren't playing the same kind of ball they had been earlier in the season. And the Celtics do have the best point differential in the league by a SIZEABLE margin. You can't ignore KG as a strong MVP candidate.

And the same can be said of Duncan; say what you will about the Spurs being average thus far this season, they're still a top 3-team in the West (with the highest winning percentage in the conference and only one win less than the Lakers), they are (as mentioned by someone else) the 3rd-best defense in the league...

And regardless of Manu's outstanding play, Duncan is still the centerpiece of this franchise. He's still a 20/12/3 player who blocks two shots a game, remember, still an elite defender. This year, if/when he gets selected to an All-Defensive Team, he'll tie Bobby Jones and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar for most such selections in a career at 11. But let's avoid career stuff because obviously this is seasonal, I'm rambling.

Tim Duncan? Still a dominant offensive weapon, still not A critical piece in San Antonio's defense but THE critical piece around which everything else orbits.

He's a classic MVP candidate and deserves to be considered as such.

[HouMac]

At this point, it's just a lot of excuse-making for why the Cavs don't have a better record.

Cleveland has a slightly worse record because LeBron doesn't have anywhere near the caliber of players and coaching around him that Kobe has. If this is considered an "excuse", then you Kobe boys are seriously out of touch with reality. I can't believe LeBron is actually expected to have a better record with that joke of a cast around him. There's absolutely no comparison between what he has and what Kobe has. Yet the fact that LeBron(had he not missed those 7 games) has led his team to a near Top 5 record in the league while also having one of the greatest seasons of all time(statistically better than any season Kobe's had) is a testament to his superiority this season. All Kobe has to show at the end of the day is a slightly better record w/ a far superior cast. LeBron has quite unbelievably not only come close to matching that record(once again, assuming they had gone 5-1 in that stretch he missed) but has FAR FAR superior numbers.

[NetsForce]

The Lakers without Gasol were still one of the top teams in the West (record wise)...

[Seanman]

^^ you're right - nobody's played more clutch minutes than LeBron and nobody has played better in the clutch than LeBron - isn't that what Most Valuable Players do?

Shouldn't Most Valuable Players keep their teams out of those situations AND play better when they are in them?

Yes Kobe's cast is better than LeBron's right now. Don't forget that before the season even started the talking heads were giving James' crew the props while projecting the lakers to the EIGHTH AND NINTH seed in the west.

It makes me sick to hear people claim media conspiracy or media bias. The media LOVES LeBron, and Kobe has been maligned for years. Claiming a Kobe love fest is idiotic.

[Jules Winnfield]

I'm still inclined to look at Garnett as the MVP. 9 games missed or not, he's the anchor for the best defense in the league on the team with the best record. He's the best player on the best team (atm) and is still an MVP-caliber player even if his individual stats don't match up to Kobe or Lebron's.

Both Kobe and Lebron are, in my view, perfectly legitimate MVP choices but I think it's a four-man race right now and it is FAR from clearly any one of these guys.

Between the two, I'm inclined to wait and see what Lebron's record is from the point of the trade to the end of the season and compare winning percentages then to Kobe's overall season (as well as before and after the Gasol trade) because in terms of team help, you've got to factor roster into this conversation.

Who matches Gasol on Lebron's roster? Remember, Gasol's going for 20 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 2.9 apg, 1.71 bpg, shooting 58.4% FG, 78% FT (5.86 FTA/g) and has generally fit in perfectly as the second weapon on this team and allowed Odom to be a third/fourth option, which plays to his strengths and covers his weaknesses.

So I think the essentially idyllic construction of Kobe's squad gives him an advantage that Lebron does not share, even following the Hughes-and-co trade. Lebron still doesn't have a second scorer of Gasol's caliber, or a tertiary player of the caliber of Odom. Nor does he have a frontcourt presence of Bynum's caliber, which Kobe enjoyed earlier this season (for 35 games and 25 starts therein).

If you're discussing Kobe/Lebron, these factors can't escape your attention; it's true that Kobe generally does what he does individually regardless of team help, that much has been proven with Shaq, without Shaq, on crap teams with bad coaches, on decent teams with great coaches, on outstanding teams with great coaches... Kobe's Kobe, that's true, but when you're talking about MVP and you're allowing record and what-not to enter the discussion, team assistance cannot fail to be an important impact variable and it HEAVILY favors Kobe.

The Lakers are a MUCH better team than the Cavs in terms of roster composition on the basis of star power and roster balance. Lebron isn't alone, of course, but the Lakers are in a much better position to aid their star player and have a much, much better coach.

So don't forget that stuff.

And don't forget Garnett. 9 games is nothing and while it's true that the Celtics went 7-2, they dropped off noticeably in several areas and weren't playing the same kind of ball they had been earlier in the season. And the Celtics do have the best point differential in the league by a SIZEABLE margin. You can't ignore KG as a strong MVP candidate.

And the same can be said of Duncan; say what you will about the Spurs being average thus far this season, they're still a top 3-team in the West (with the highest winning percentage in the conference and only one win less than the Lakers), they are (as mentioned by someone else) the 3rd-best defense in the league...

And regardless of Manu's outstanding play, Duncan is still the centerpiece of this franchise. He's still a 20/12/3 player who blocks two shots a game, remember, still an elite defender. This year, if/when he gets selected to an All-Defensive Team, he'll tie Bobby Jones and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar for most such selections in a career at 11. But let's avoid career stuff because obviously this is seasonal, I'm rambling.

Tim Duncan? Still a dominant offensive weapon, still not A critical piece in San Antonio's defense but THE critical piece around which everything else orbits.

He's a classic MVP candidate and deserves to be considered as such.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, but I just disagree.

[eatyourchildren]

-= original quote snipped =-



Cleveland has a slightly worse record because LeBron doesn't have anywhere near the caliber of players and coaching around him that Kobe has. If this is considered an "excuse", then you Kobe boys are seriously out of touch with reality. I can't believe LeBron is actually expected to have a better record with that joke of a cast around him. There's absolutely no comparison between what he has and what Kobe has. Yet the fact that LeBron(had he not missed those 7 games) has led his team to a near Top 5 record in the league while also having one of the greatest seasons of all time(statistically better than any season Kobe's had) is a testament to his superiority this season. All Kobe has to show at the end of the day is a slightly better record w/ a far superior cast. LeBron has quite unbelievably not only come close to matching that record(once again, assuming they had gone 5-1 in that stretch he missed) but has FAR FAR superior numbers.

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?

As of right now, they are 34-26, which is 4th in the East, and 12th best in the league

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.


Does any of that sound like top 5 record to you?

[INKtastic]

great spin there Jules -

you dismiss KG with a better record than Kobe because the team won without him. The Celtics record with KG is so good that even had they lost every game he missed, they'd be right there record wise with the Lakers.

You dismiss LeBron with a worse record than Kobe because they lost every game without him when had they won at the rate they win with him, they'd be right there record wise with LA (roughly 3 games apart) even though the Lakers have the better supporting cast.

[Blame Rasho]

Please see part three of the new stickied MVP thread to continue the discussion

[tsherkin]

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.