MVP Watch Part VI

[semi-sentient]

Marc Stein alluded to Bryant finally having done what "we've asked" from him this season.

And what exactly is wrong with that? If he's done what we've asked (I'm assuming he means "we" as in voters), then doesn't that clearly state that he's finally deserving of the award?

I'm having trouble understanding how you can possibly see that as the type of comment/thinking that is going to unfairly give the award to Kobe. Here is what else Marc Stein had to say:

Lifetime achievement award? Stop it. Kobe is playing the team ball of his life at both ends for a squad everyone in the West deeply fears. He's also playing in an individual stratosphere only LeBron can touch. And Kobe's done it all while playing through a hand injury that still requires surgery, while Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol combined to miss more than 60 games. Add it all up and the game's best player has had the best season, too.

Oh, and:

For all of Paul's undeniable brilliance -- and for all of you who can't wait to angrily dismiss this as a lifetime achievement award for the guy considered the best player to never win an MVP award -- I'm sorry. But Bryant had to deal with and do more this season than even CP3.

I believe that's the article that you are referring to. He goes on to make a pretty convincing argument for Kobe, which is what most of the voters who have stated Kobe's past have done.

Gene Wojenowski is the guy who mentioned historical context and players being judged on the number of MVPs. Those are two I can think of off the top of my head. My response is, who cares?

In reality, it doesn't matter. Me, I see it as filler material since the author is obviously wanting to write more than just "Kobe is the MVP."

When I think of Chris Paul and the Hornets' season, I will remember their unexpected 2nd place finish in the west. And I will remember Chris Paul having a season for the ages at his position.

So it's not really unexpected that the Lakers finished 1st in the West? That's what they were supposed to do all along?

I know it's very memorable for me, because I didn't even see the Lakers winning the Pacific this year, healthy or not.

[SA37]

Are these writers that have votes or not? The writers who do have votes come out and say they have a vote.

I'm not sure if this guy has a vote or not. Some of the ones I have read do have votes, like Stein, others don't, like Kenny Smith.

Just depends.

[semi-sentient]

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that even though voters are mentioning past seasons, they are still making a real case as to why Kobe deserves their vote.

The way I see it, voters that give Kobe the nod based on the "lifetime acheivement" logic are easily canceled out by those who will vote "against" Kobe based on his negative past.

[Ronaldo/dinho]

such a blasphemy Kobe is leading the poll by that large margin. bunch of homers voting...you telling me this guys had a better season than Chris Paul? smfh......exit thread in disgust.

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-



So it's not really unexpected that the Lakers finished 1st in the West? That's what they were supposed to do all along?

I know it's very memorable for me, because I didn't even see the Lakers winning the Pacific this year, healthy or not.

I said the memorable thing about the Lakers was they finished at the top of the most competitive conference, possibly in history. Individually, though, nothing stands out from Bryant's season this year as opposed to anything he has done the last 3.

As for Stein, these are also some of his comments:

"Best Player In The Game status is not enough for us. Ditto for Best Player To Never Win The MVP Award status. Bryant answers to both, but you could just name him MVP on opening night if those were the primary criteria.

The MVP has to have the best overall season to get our vote."

Then he makes this argument:

"Working in the conference of the century and possibly carrying the league's greatest expectations -- all while drawing more attention from opposing defenses than just about anyone going -- Bryant is playing the best team ball of his life while playing at an MVP level individually. At both ends."

"Through two-thirds of the season, Chris Paul has been no less than the best point guard in a Western Conference teeming with great ones, thrusting New Orleans into the West's elite when pretty much no one expected that. It's also true that nobody handed Paul's Hornets anyone close to Pau Gasol -- or even Derek Fisher -- in what can only be classified as some rather, uh, fortunate roster business for the Lakers lately.

"Bryant has to get some credit for Bynum's development as well as Pau's fast transition to a new team because his rivals in the MVP race are all getting the same kudos for the impact they have on their teammates. He's simply winning like he hasn't won since Shaq was a Laker, which is what separates this Kobe from the MVP outsider of the past three seasons."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... -080329-30

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime ... -080301-02

What I am curious about is this:

1. Why doesn't Paul get as much or more credit for being the only playmaker on the Hornets' roster and having the pressure of not only getting his teammates involved but also doing a good bulk of the scoring on his own?

2. Why doesn't Paul get more credit for leading a franchise with possibly the worst fan support in the league?

3. Has Chris Paul played at an MVP-level at both ends? The answer is yes, if he makes the All-NBA teams (both offense and defense), which is likely.

4. Why does the "partial credit" for Gasol's integration and, if you want, Bynum's improvement, trump the incredible boost it gave L.A. and Kobe's MVP candidacy? (Without Gasol, there is almost no conceivable way they suddenly stop playing .500 ball and stay atop the west.) That is a two-way street, isn't it? (Especially in Gasol's case.)

5. When you look at the big picture, isn't L.A. winning more just as attributable to the improvement of players and the acquisition of certain guys (Gasol and Fisher) as it is to Bryant's non-statistical improvements?

6. Bryant's leadership is a big thing for Stein, but haven't Garnett and Paul been better, especially since they weren't ripping teammates or management?

7. Why do all of Bryant's intangibles and relatively average season trump and absolutely amazing statistical season by Paul, one that includes many -- if not all -- the intangibles being touted for Bryant?


Basically, Stein makes a solid argument FOR Bryant, but he doesn't begin to explain how or why it trumps what Garnett has done for Boston or Paul has done in New Orleans.

I would have much rather him have addressed this than simply blown off CP and Garnett's cases.

[SA37]

I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that even though voters are mentioning past seasons, they are still making a real case as to why Kobe deserves their vote.

Absolutely agree. Like I said, for me, Kobe isn't the MVP, but I understand why some people feel he is.

The way I see it, voters that give Kobe the nod based on the "lifetime acheivement" logic are easily canceled out by those who will vote "against" Kobe based on his negative past.

The thing is, you don't see much written about his past as you do see written about him never having won the award and deserving

No offense, but I think that stigma is purely a Laker fan thing.

[Miami's Finest]

Does that mean Kobe isn't a deserving candidate? No. But I think going through and having read the arguments for Bryant from writers, almost none have been immune to the "when will Bryant ever win the MVP if not this year/Bryant deserves an MVP."

Marc Stein alluded to Bryant finally having done what "we've asked" from him this season. Gene Wojenowski is the guy who mentioned historical context and players being judged on the number of MVPs. Those are two I can think of off the top of my head. My response is, who cares?

You shouldn't win the award because you've weren't the best player on your team when you were winning titles and this is the first year you've been the leader of a top team since you've been in the league.

Bill Simmons said he felt Kobe's season hasn't been much different than any other season except his teammates are better. I think it is a bit overly simplistic, but he has a point.

Statistically, there is nothing spectacular about Bryant's numbers, especially in looking at the past 3 seasons. Bryant has made adjustments and has been more willing to accept his teammates and accommodate his play to their games, but why is it "special" when he does it but it is just a passing comment when discussing Garnett and Paul?

What's sad is Bryant has a great case to be MVP, but unless you're a Laker fan, there is no way you can say Bryant has had a clearly superior season to Chris Paul's, just like you can't say his impact has been greater than Garnett's on the Celtics.

When you look back at this season, what will you remember being so special about Kobe and the Lakers' regular season? The one thing I can think of that stands out is the fact the Lakers won the most competitive western conference race. However, on an individual level, I can't think of anything that particularly stands out. So, why give Bryant the MVP? Because he finally got good teammates? He had a relatively average season by his standards?

When I look back at Garnett and the Celtics' season, I will think of the turnaround they had. I will think of Garnett's effect on the franchise and their defensive identity. I will remember they had the best record in the league.

The big case against Garnett is his play in the clutch and his lack of numbers, although if you average it out to the 39-40 minutes he has normally played, it is about an average season for him. Individually he was this year's top defensive player, but little else stands out from his season this year.

When I think of Chris Paul and the Hornets' season, I will remember their unexpected 2nd place finish in the west. And I will remember Chris Paul having a season for the ages at his position.

Individually, Paul put up incredible numbers, leading the league in assists and steals, while finishing second in double-doubles. That is why he is my MVP: he stood out both individually and he had the prerequisite top-5 team.

You can make a great case for all 3. The above was my particular breakdown, but ultimately, the voters are going to decide what they feel deserves the most merit, and in the end I think they will pick Bryant for a lifetime achievement award, even if they won't admit that is what their tie-breaker is.

[Miami's Finest]

I think another factor is there is probably at least 100x more Laker fans than Hornet fans, which helps build up the hype machine. I know everyone doesn't agree, especially the people on here which is mostly Kobe homers, but Paul is much more deserving. What he has accomplished this season is historic and leading that team to where he has is remarkable.

[semi-sentient]

The thing is, you don't see much written about his past as you do see written about him never having won the award and deserving

No offense, but I think that stigma is purely a Laker fan thing.

Nothing about his past? What about what happened this past off-season? You haven't seen any of that mentioned? I'm not really talking about the Colorado or Shaq thing.

If you believe that he is going to receive the award (at least partially) based on his past, then it's fair to assume that certain writers are going to use their own bias to vote for someone else ahead of Kobe, whether that be Chris Paul or PJ Brown.

It's not exactly a secret that Kobe isn't very well liked by the media as opposed to other players. Does Peter Vescey have a vote?

Anyway, what it sounds like you're saying here is that the only biased voters are those who vote for Kobe and not against. Is that what you seriously believe?

Is there anything wrong with the following statement or do you find it an acceptable knock on Kobe? I'm pretty sure that has everything to do with what happened in the off-season.

and the first half of the season, when he was still feeling out whether he wanted to get with the program or not, still sits on his record.

What about this gem?

He gave us a phenomenal soap opera from start to finish: In the preseason, he was bashing teammates and demanding a trade.

[semi-sentient]

I think another factor is there is probably at least 100x more Laker fans than Hornet fans, which helps build up the hype machine.

So? You think that the actual voters read or care about what anyone on here has to say?

I know everyone doesn't agree, especially the people on here which is mostly Kobe homers, but Paul is much more deserving. What he has accomplished this season is historic and leading that team to where he has is remarkable.

Are you calling the hand-picked voters on RealGM who recently voted Kobe for MVP homers? I'm pretty sure they selected some of the more respectable posters from each teams fans base.

[semi-sentient]

As for Stein, these are also some of his comments:

Best Player In The Game status is not enough for us. Ditto for Best Player To Never Win The MVP Award status. Bryant answers to both, but you could just name him MVP on opening night if those were the primary criteria.

The MVP has to have the best overall season to get our vote.

You realize that he is responding to Dirk Nowitzki in that quote, right?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with those quotes.

Anyway, I'll take a stab at some of these questions since I don't think Marc Stein is going to answer you.

1. Why doesn't Paul get as much or more credit for being the only playmaker on the Hornets' roster and having the pressure of not only getting his teammates involved but also doing a good bulk of the scoring on his own?

Hasn't he? Everyone seems to be in agreement that he is having one of the best PG seasons in a long while, including Marc Stein.

2. Why doesn't Paul get more credit for leading a franchise with possibly the worst fan support in the league?

Oh, yeah: He also might have saved basketball in New Orleans by leading the Hornets to a franchise-record 55 (and counting) wins.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/stor ... VP08-Stein

My take on that? He is in a position that is unique to him and his team being that they don't have much fan support, but I really don't see why that should be used as a means to boost Paul. What does that have to do with being an MVP? How does that make him more valuable to his teammates?

If you're going to ask that, then why doesn't Kobe get more credit for the Lakers being the 2nd most valuable franchise in the league?

4. Why does the "partial credit" for Gasol's integration and, if you want, Bynum's improvement, trump the incredible boost it gave L.A. and Kobe's MVP candidacy? (Without Gasol, there is almost no conceivable way they suddenly stop playing .500 ball and stay atop the west.) That is a two-way street, isn't it? (Especially in Gasol's case.)

I really haven't seen many people using that argument, so I don't see how it's getting trumped. I've seen him get some credit for those things, but certainly no one is making a really big deal about them.

It goes without saying that coming out of the West this season was going to require a strong team, and every single candidate minus LeBron has had serious help.

5. When you look at the big picture, isn't L.A. winning more just as attributable to the improvement of players and the acquisition of certain guys (Gasol and Fisher) as it is to Bryant's non-statistical improvements?

Sure it is, but why did those players improve? Why did the Hornets players improve? I suspect the answers are going to be very similar in that it's due partially to their star players and partially to their own improvement.

So what about the Hornets having great health this season? If your talking about how other players impact a teams improvement and boost Kobe's chances, then you have to say the same about Paul and the Hornets improvements. It's undeniable that a healthy roster has allowed the Hornets to play at a higher level all season long, and that's on top of the individual improvements by West, Chandler, and Peja. Of course Paul made it easier for those guys. That's his job. He didn't teach Chandler how to rebound or catch passes though (what if Chandler had Kwame hands?), nor did he teach Peja or West how to shoot. He made it easier for them to do what they do, and you can say the same about every single legit MVP candidate.

Anyway, I've already said this several times in other posts/threads, but this is not the MIP award, so I don't see why improving statistically from one season to the next should be taken into consideration. Doesn't this fall under the category of "voting based on the past" anyway?

6. Bryant's leadership is a big thing for Stein, but haven't Garnett and Paul been better, especially since they weren't ripping teammates or management?

No, they haven't, and now you're doing exactly what you're arguing against.

Remind me again how we shouldn't take past events into consideration?

Clearly Stein is referring to is Kobe's leadership during the regular season, which I suspect is the time period used when judging who should be the MVP. Am I wrong here?

And to answer your question, no, they haven't been better. If they have, tell me how. What do they do, as leaders, that Kobe doesn't. This question has been dodged time and time again.

7. Why do all of Bryant's intangibles and relatively average season trump and absolutely amazing statistical season by Paul, one that includes many -- if not all -- the intangibles being touted for Bryant?

Kobe had an average season? Just average?

Edit: Firefox=p00p

[GJense4181]

I'm not a Boston Celtics fan. I'm not necessarily even a Kevin Garnett fan anymore.
But how is he not the leading contender for the MVP award now that he's won the DPOY?
How can somebody be the best individual defender in the league, AND put up 19/9/3, AND be on a 66-win team, and not be the league's most valuable player?
His statistics are slightly deflated due to playing 5 minutes fewer than his career average and over 6 minutes fewer than last season. If he were playing 37.9 mpg (career average), he'd be averaging 21.2/10.4/5/1.6spg/1.8bpg, on good percentages.

Did they simply award him the MVP because they were leaning towards Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, or Chris Paul for MVP, and had to give the Celtics SOMETHING? Or because he is truly the best defensive player in the league? Because being the leader of the best team in the league with impressive statistics AND being an All-Defensive first-teamer SHOULD=MVP, correct?

[Basti]

I guess missing 9 games is a reason why he's not among the frontrunners

[bill curley II]

He did fully deserve the DPOY. There really wasn't much competition to that award this year, and you can see it by the second place finisher Camby, who really just got votes based on his block numbers and reputation.

MVP though? Not a chance. His raw numbers just don't stand a chance to CP3 or Kobe or Bron, and his play wasn't as impressive in the second half once the Celts started coasting knowing full well they were going to be the number 1 seed.Kobe and CP were fighting it out for seeding in the West the entire season, put up much better offensive stats, and while they're not the defensive players that KG is, its hard for voters to account for that since there really isn't a stat to show KG's importance and excellence in that area.

[may191988]

honestly this is something that had been troubling me and im very glad u brought it up. im here in SoCal where all the talk is about kobe and while i think kobe is very deserving of the award i think garnett this year (EVEN MORE SO THAN HIS MVP YEAR IN 2004) epitomizes completely what an MVP should be. He unquestionably has been the DPOY no doubt about it. He has led the biggest turnaround in history and im positive that it all falls on Garnetts shoulders and i think he ought to receive more credit because the one he did better than anyone else is make a whole team of perennial losers truly believe and maximize their potential and buy into a winning system. this was evident when he was out with ab strain and the team continued to play at a very high level because there was no longer a defeatist attitude. Theres plenty of credit to go around but it all starts with Garnett. I think though he might finish 2nd in MVP voting hes not gettin much pub but not everyone in the media has an mvp vote.

[may191988]

He did fully deserve the DPOY. There really wasn't much competition to that award this year, and you can see it by the second place finisher Camby, who really just got votes based on his block numbers and reputation.

MVP though? Not a chance. His raw numbers just don't stand a chance to CP3 or Kobe or Bron, and his play wasn't as impressive in the second half once the Celts started coasting knowing full well they were going to be the number 1 seed.Kobe and CP were fighting it out for seeding in the West the entire season, put up much better offensive stats, and while they're not the defensive players that KG is, its hard for voters to account for that since there really isn't a stat to show KG's importance and excellence in that area.

that is a really great point stats do of course matter and i dont think theres a number that can quantify the impact KG has had (tho maybe 66 wins...) but also of course it hurts him that hes won it b4 and kobe hasnt. if it was the other way around there would certainly be more of an urgency to get KG his one "overdue" award. No problem with Kobe winning it though its such a close call tho. Im sure KG will be much happier once hes hosting the finals mvp.

[NO-KG-AI]

He did fully deserve the DPOY. There really wasn't much competition to that award this year, and you can see it by the second place finisher Camby, who really just got votes based on his block numbers and reputation.

MVP though? Not a chance. His raw numbers just don't stand a chance to CP3 or Kobe or Bron, and his play wasn't as impressive in the second half once the Celts started coasting knowing full well they were going to be the number 1 seed.Kobe and CP were fighting it out for seeding in the West the entire season, put up much better offensive stats, and while they're not the defensive players that KG is, its hard for voters to account for that since there really isn't a stat to show KG's importance and excellence in that area.

Thing is, his numbers do match up to Kobe's, his PER, WS, WSAA.

Look at their numbers per 36, and it looks a lot closer, and when you factor in defensive impact, KG does have a compelling case.

[Usuyami]

I'm not partial to either player, but I would say KG deserves it more. An award is an award. I'm sure KG and Kobe would rather win this year's championship.

[noido]

I also think being in the east hurts him.
I know their record in the west was good, but its easier to get up for the big games when there arent as many of them on the schedule.
Also his team went well without him, just like Nash won his first because his team did poorly without him, KG wont win this time because of how well the Celtics did.
Lastly, without a doubt Kobe is a career achievement award. He deserved it two years ago, but didnt get it purely because his team wasnt a high enough seed, now the voters IMO will rectify it.
Some of those reasons arent justified, some are, but that is the way it works. KG should have had 2-3 MVP's by now IMO, but he didnt get it until the Wolves were a number one, Kobe is now in a similar boat.

[BobbySura]

celtics stayed afloat despite him missing a handful of games

that really hurt his chances.

he's my third choice, but kobe and cp3 are just tons more important to their teams wins.

kg is important to his team but he doesn't NEED to be on the floor for them to win games.