MVP Watch Part VI

[JordansBulls]

Look at the Spurs when Tony Parker was injured? THey struggled it doesn't mean that Tony Parker is the MVP of the league though does it?

KG turned that Celtics team around and made it the best defensive team in the league by getting Pierce and Ray to play defense this year.

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-
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.

I thought you were referring to Colorado/Shaq situations. Obviously, what happened in the offseason is relevant to this season. It clearly shows Kobe didn

[JordansBulls]

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.

I agree

Chris Paul was 2nd in PER this year and was 1st in Win Shares, Win Shares Above Average and Offensive Win Shares.

[SA37]

-= original quote snipped =-
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.

I was just showing that Stein was making the statement that it wasn

[Doctor MJ]

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?

The key thing is that he didn't lead a 66 win team, he led a 59 win team that won at a 64 win pace when he didn't play.

As for DPOY, Boston had the best defense in the league after not being close last year and Garnett was considered the bulk of that turnaround, so it makes a lot of sense to classify Garnett's impact as largely defensive. What took care of the rest is that there wasn't really any strong contenders on that front to take the award away from him. Camby got second while playing on a team often said to "not play defense" for example.

EDIT: I'll put it out there again - How many MVPs have watched from the sideline as their team won 7 or more games? Only one I can think of is Bill Walton, but he missed a lot more time and the team's record without him was actually terrible. I really doubt there's anyone in history who's won an MVP with a supporting cast whose done as well without their stars as the Celtics did without KG>

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Well if Random Guy says so, it must be. Some people have made some complex arguments, but Random Guy doesn't need to hear them to dismiss them because Random Guy is supersmart!

[Albanian Damien]

KG was out for 9 games. For 9 games role players can step up and play much better than they really are, when their superstar is out. It is not rare for a team to play just as well without it's superstar. However those role player can not keep it up for 82 games. That is why they are role players.

Or if you don't believe that you can look at it on the flip side that KG had made everyone around him better. Which is what an MVP should do.

[CBS7]

Missed 9 games, their record without him was still great, not the most impressive stats, ridiculously good supporting cast, and he's still a top 3-5 contender.

[superLuigi21]

when jason kidd came to the nets he lead the team to a similar turn around and also put up mvp caliber #s but lost the mvp to tim duncan.. he also did all this without the added help of a new comer like ray allen (kidd did this w/a rookie in RJ and todd macculough as new guys).. its a similar situation to garnetts, so i dont think KG just deserves it cuz of the teams turnaround in record and decent #s, i think cp3 kobe or lebron are deserving... KG had an amazing season and was the only option for DPOY tho, and i hope he finally wins a ring

[EJay33]

In addition to what has been said, KG was also the reason that Posey, House, Cassell, and PJ even considered signing with Boston. In years past, those players would've signed with contenders out west and not even sniffed Boston. Garnett was directly responsible for the improved supporting cast that performed so well when he was out with an injury.

Garnett also changed the culture of the team. The Celtics had a losing mentality prior to Garnett demanding more out of everyone and being someone who commands enough respect to get people to follow him. Without KG, the Celts wouldn't have sufficiently upgraded the supporting cast and likely would've finished around .500 with an aging, unlikable team. Now Celtics fans are talking championships. That is an MVP right there.

With that said, the MVP is a regular season award and I don't really like that. How many times have we seen someone get the MVP and then get shown up by someone in the playoffs. Playoff basketball is where reputations should be earned. David Robinson, Karl Malone, and Dirk Nowitzki come to mind. Those 3 MVPs are like a stain on the legacy of the award.

[drza]

Most of the wins without him were against terrible teams: Knicks (twice), Heat, Wolves, Clippers, Bobcats, Pacers, and the win margins weren't as large as when they played these teams with KG. You would expect a championship team to still beat the basement of the league without a main player...I dare to say if the Lakers were completely healthy outside of Kobe, they wouldn't have lost many games against these teams either.

Against decent teams the Celts went 2 - 2 without KG: they beat the Mavs and Spurs (without Parker) in close games at home and lost close games to the Cavs and Magic on the road. Against good teams WITH KG the Celts had a much better record than .500 and they also had larger win margins.

Bottom line: In a small sample size, the Celts were quantifiably worse without KG, they just played the vast majority of the games without him against the weakest part of their schedule. I agree that this stretch probably hurt him more than any one other factor in the MVP race, but only because most voters probably didn't look that deeply into it before casting their vote.

[drza]

when jason kidd came to the nets he lead the team to a similar turn around and also put up mvp caliber #s but lost the mvp to tim duncan.. he also did all this without the added help of a new comer like ray allen (kidd did this w/a rookie in RJ and todd macculough as new guys).. its a similar situation to garnetts, so i dont think KG just deserves it cuz of the teams turnaround in record and decent #s, i think cp3 kobe or lebron are deserving... KG had an amazing season and was the only option for DPOY tho, and i hope he finally wins a ring

This example actually strengthens KG's MVP claim. Kidd led a 26-game turnaround in 2002 and got second in the MVP vote to Duncan, who put up better numbers on a team with a better record. Nash led a 33-game turnaround in 2005 on a team that had the best record in the NBA and won the MVP vote over others with better stats.

KG led an NBA record-shattering 42-game turnaround on a team with by-far the best record in the NBA, and his individual stats are comparable to any of the other candidates this year if you factor in defense. On the scale of recent turnarounds, his MVP candidacy is much stronger than Kidd's (who got second) and Nash's (who won).

[Marcolopolis5]

He one DPOY because he didn't win MVP

They had to give him something.

[AWalkerREMIX]

He is not the MVP because the Celtics wouldn't fall apart without him like the Cavs, Lakers, and Hornets would do without their stars. Even if KG sat out half of the year, the Celtics would likely still be #1 or #2 in the East.

[Magz50]

Two names why. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.

Same reason why Duncan doesn't get it anymore, parker and Manu are jsut as important to winning than he is. Same reason Kobe doesn't deserve it, Gasol was just as important to getting to where they are.

[superLuigi21]

-= original quote snipped =-



This example actually strengthens KG's MVP claim. Kidd led a 26-game turnaround in 2002 and got second in the MVP vote to Duncan, who put up better numbers on a team with a better record. Nash led a 33-game turnaround in 2005 on a team that had the best record in the NBA and won the MVP vote over others with better stats.

KG led an NBA record-shattering 42-game turnaround on a team with by-far the best record in the NBA, and his individual stats are comparable to any of the other candidates this year if you factor in defense. On the scale of recent turnarounds, his MVP candidacy is much stronger than Kidd's (who got second) and Nash's (who won).

fair points, except kobes defense and cp3's steals #s were also amazing, its definitely possible and i wouldnt be shocked to see KG w/another mvp, i just dont see it happening this yr

[HMFFL]

KG certainly put up outstanding numbers against the Western Conference, but voters will look at the talent on his team, and the fact that KG plays for the East now won't help him. Chris Paul is the hottest thing right now and many people are wanting Kobe to have his due.

[drza]

-= original quote snipped =-
fair points, except kobes defense and cp3's steals #s were also amazing, its definitely possible and i wouldnt be shocked to see KG w/another mvp, i just dont see it happening this yr

From the accounts of the media (who actually do the voting), I agree with you that KG probably won't win this year. But that's a different question from whether he SHOULD win this year. I can (and have) argue(d) for days that when you look at Kobe's, Paul's, and KG's resumes this season and stack it up with the way the MVP has historically been voted KG easily has the best MVP case. Paul and Kobe both have cases that are stronger than most of the recent winners, but KG has a case that hasn't lost since 1960 (if ever).

But, the public perception that its a race between Kobe and Paul will probably turn out to be reflected in this year's vote. That doesn't mean that I have to agree, though

[conleyorbust]

-= original quote snipped =-



This example actually strengthens KG's MVP claim. Kidd led a 26-game turnaround in 2002 and got second in the MVP vote to Duncan, who put up better numbers on a team with a better record. Nash led a 33-game turnaround in 2005 on a team that had the best record in the NBA and won the MVP vote over others with better stats.

KG led an NBA record-shattering 42-game turnaround on a team with by-far the best record in the NBA, and his individual stats are comparable to any of the other candidates this year if you factor in defense. On the scale of recent turnarounds, his MVP candidacy is much stronger than Kidd's (who got second) and Nash's (who won).

All true.

The biggest knock on KG is that his team was too good.

Ironically, the question about the team going into the season was whether the backups would get murdered every time the starters went out. The backups played their asses off though and made up for the starters going out of the game.

A bunch of young guys that had never experienced winning or playing at a certain level of intensity brought it every night and played with confidence. The difference between the Hawks and the Celtics is KG, he changed the way Pierce and Allen are percieved as players, he changed the way Doc Rivers is percieved as a coach and he helped turn a bunch of question marks (Rondo, Perkins, Powe, Big Baby) into exclaimation points.

Obviously you can question how much of this can be attributed to KG and how much can be attributed to other factors. KG and Tom T both helped the defense go from 16th to first, of course Tom T wasn't out on the floor screaming at guys to get on their man. Paul Pierce and Ray Allen bought into the "team concept" like never before, you can say that they did that because this was the best team they'd ever been on and it was a natural progression or you can say that your play should mirror the play of the best guy on your team and KG has always been the epitomy of "team first". Unproven role players stepped up and played every game like it was their last, you can say that Ainge did a great job at bringing guys together who would fill roles and play their hearts out or you can say that being around the one of the most intense vocal leaders in the history of the game had an impact on guys who might otherwise be content to come off the bench, play a little, and collect a paycheck.

Look, at the end of the day you pick the MVP based on what you saw on the court, not some convoluted argument about who had the least amount of help. When I watched Paul, I saw an engine, a guy running a goofy offensive system to absolute perfection. Paul made that team go. When I watched Kobe, I saw an amazing player fitting into a scheme perfectly and then stepping out and taking over when he had to. When I watched KG, I saw a man change the players around him, his presence made them play like they hadn't played before.

All three are legit candidates in my mind. I like KG the most but can understand why someone else wouldn't, I just think its silly to discount his candidacy because his team was too good (by the way, are PP and Ray Ray THAT much better than West/Peja/Chandler or Gasynum/Odom, does that REALLY discount KG's impact?).

[Basti]

Most of the wins without him were against terrible teams: Knicks (twice), Heat, Wolves, Clippers, Bobcats, Pacers, and the win margins weren't as large as when they played these teams with KG. You would expect a championship team to still beat the basement of the league without a main player...I dare to say if the Lakers were completely healthy outside of Kobe, they wouldn't have lost many games against these teams either.

and that game was very close. the celtics won by 2...