<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Celtic Fan @ Apr 14 2008, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 14 2008, 02:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We all know Kobe has been playing at a high level these last couple of seasons, but he didn't win enough games before. Again, the MVP is not based just on individual success. What part confused you? LeBron should not win the MVP merely because many players in his position have been ignored in the past. The MVP has been consistent in rewarding a great player on a great team. Giving him an MVP this year would be a slap in the face to many players. It is completely unrealistic to expect the MVP to somehow equal the best player in the NBA. Some years this may be the case, but it has awkward criteria that must be followed. LeBron also plays in the East, which has been shown to inflate numbers a bit. He's not on par with Kobe defensively and thus he's not in a unique case this season. He's kind of like Kobe a couple of years ago.</div> actually that part is not true, beyond the obvious stats, Kobe is holding opposing SG's to 3% below the league average for SG's and LeBron is holding SF's to 2% the league average for SF's so they're both doing about the same Job on their man on D. KG, is holding PF's at 13% below the league avg for PF's when they play him.. which is insane. I don't get how having the best record or one of the better records automatically makes you the MVP. That's how Dirk got an MVP and what a mess that was. More specifically I get it, I just don't agree with it. </div> Dirk is an exception to the rule. How many #1 seeds lose in six games in the first round? Even Hollinger had an article talking about Kobe's superior defense. I made a topic about that a few days ago. No one said the MVP has the right criteria, but if Kobe/MJ got screwed before, the requirements shouldn't just magically change.
The MVP award is a joke anyway. There usually is a group of 3-4 guys who are bringing to their team similarly important contributions. Basing the award largely on team success is pretty foolish, however it looks good for the league. How can your superstar that you award the MVP to not be successful in the NBA. However guys like KG, Tmac, Kobe for the last 3 years, etc, they were all playing top quality basketball, and their team record did not always reflect it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Trench @ Apr 14 2008, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hollinger obviously hasn't watched Kobe play enough this season. He's been the most consistent, and his game has completely taken a 360 with his unselfish play and willingness to facilitate rather than score. Kobe is the complete package this season. CP3 is the only real argument for MVP other than Kobe. Garnett is great, but sat out quite a bit so I think we take him out of the equation. Lebron? his team hasn't done very well this season IMO.</div> If he turns 360 hes back to where he was....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Trench @ Apr 14 2008, 03:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hollinger obviously hasn't watched Kobe play enough this season. He's been the most consistent, and his game has completely taken a 180 with his unselfish play and willingness to facilitate rather than score. Kobe is the complete package this season. CP3 is the only real argument for MVP other than Kobe. Garnett is great, but sat out quite a bit so I think we take him out of the equation. Lebron? his team hasn't done very well this season IMO.</div> fixed...
Statistically, Kobe is as everyone knows, not having his best individual season. Nothing wrong with that. However, he is contending with people who not only are having their best statistical seasons, but better seasons than Kobe's (Lebron, Paul-- at least statistically) In terms of team turnaround, the Lakers went from 42 to ~57 games won.. About a 15 game improvement. A pretty amazing accomplishment, but not one that can truly be attributed to Kobe's play this season. Like everyone said, Kobe has arguably been the league's best player for YEARS. He didn't change much about his game, he just ended up with an improved Bynum (whose play may or may not have given them a #1 seed by the end of the season without Memphis' help) and a freebie in Pau Gasol. The Hornets won 39 games last season (probably in large part due to injuries).. This year they have no major player acquisitions and are basically tied with the Lakers for the best record in the West. Chris Paul is averaging arguably the best point guard stats in modern professional basketball, leading the league in assists and steals and with a true shooting percentage of 57%. I frankly find it laughable that a Laker fanboy actually used the fact that NO players didn't get injured as the reason for Paul not being an MVP candidate.. Can I use the argument that Kobe got Gasol soon after Bynum went down, and had the Lakers floundering during the small period in which he didn't have a big man? That comparison is a wash AT BEST. Kobe has a better supporting cast, and the Hornets have basically the same record. Paul has better stats than Kobe. Paul by the nature of his position has a bigger impact on each of his team's possessions offensively (much like Nash in Phx). Paul leads the league in 2 statistical categories (one defensive, one offensive). I think it should be a horribly one-sided argument, and that if the Hornets were in Los Angeles and the Lakers in New Orleans, Paul would be the heavy favorite to win MVP.
I seriously think Hollinger does not watch basketball and basis everything on the box scores. I would be surprised if he watched more than 1 game a week. Kobe deserves the MVP, no doubt in my mind anymore.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tradebark @ Apr 15 2008, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Statistically, Kobe is as everyone knows, not having his best individual season. Nothing wrong with that. However, he is contending with people who not only are having their best statistical seasons, but better seasons than Kobe's (Lebron, Paul-- at least statistically) In terms of team turnaround, the Lakers went from 42 to ~57 games won.. About a 15 game improvement. A pretty amazing accomplishment, but not one that can truly be attributed to Kobe's play this season. Like everyone said, Kobe has arguably been the league's best player for YEARS. He didn't change much about his game, he just ended up with an improved Bynum (whose play may or may not have given them a #1 seed by the end of the season without Memphis' help) and a freebie in Pau Gasol. The Hornets won 39 games last season (probably in large part due to injuries).. This year they have no major player acquisitions and are basically tied with the Lakers for the best record in the West. Chris Paul is averaging arguably the best point guard stats in modern professional basketball, leading the league in assists and steals and with a true shooting percentage of 57%. I frankly find it laughable that a Laker fanboy actually used the fact that NO players didn't get injured as the reason for Paul not being an MVP candidate.. Can I use the argument that Kobe got Gasol soon after Bynum went down, and had the Lakers floundering during the small period in which he didn't have a big man? That comparison is a wash AT BEST. Kobe has a better supporting cast, and the Hornets have basically the same record. Paul has better stats than Kobe. Paul by the nature of his position has a bigger impact on each of his team's possessions offensively (much like Nash in Phx). Paul leads the league in 2 statistical categories (one defensive, one offensive). I think it should be a horribly one-sided argument, and that if the Hornets were in Los Angeles and the Lakers in New Orleans, Paul would be the heavy favorite to win MVP.</div> If people didn't hate Jason Kidd so much, they'd see that Kidd has been the best guard since Jordan. Kidd > Chris Paul.
Why do they hire idiots like Hollinger anyway.... can they not see he has no clue what hes talking about...
Throughout the history of the MVP, team success has always factored into the equation, as well as what kind of career the candidates have had. There's a "regression to the mean" when it comes to superstars winning awards, with a huge importance placed on elite years already played. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tradebark @ Apr 15 2008, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Statistically, Kobe is as everyone knows, not having his best individual season. Nothing wrong with that. However, he is contending with people who not only are having their best statistical seasons, but better seasons than Kobe's (Lebron, Paul-- at least statistically)</div> LeBron doesn't qualify for the MVP criteria. The East has also proven to inflate numbers. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In terms of team turnaround, the Lakers went from 42 to ~57 games won.. About a 15 game improvement. A pretty amazing accomplishment, but not one that can truly be attributed to Kobe's play this season. Like everyone said, Kobe has arguably been the league's best player for YEARS. He didn't change much about his game, he just ended up with an improved Bynum (whose play may or may not have given them a #1 seed by the end of the season without Memphis' help) and a freebie in Pau Gasol.</div> Kobe got the Lakers in first with Andrew Bynum who plays about 30 minutes a night and virtually the same roster as last year. The Lakers having a better supporting cast is very debatable, Odom wasn't even that great when Bynum was out there and the Lakers still dominated. Paul's stats are great, but he's had a more consistent roster this year and assists depend on those around one as well. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Hornets won 39 games last season (probably in large part due to injuries).. This year they have no major player acquisitions and are basically tied with the Lakers for the best record in the West. Chris Paul is averaging arguably the best point guard stats in modern professional basketball, leading the league in assists and steals and with a true shooting percentage of 57%.</div> The Hornets only won 39 games last year, in large part due to injuries, just like you said. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I frankly find it laughable that a Laker fanboy actually used the fact that NO players didn't get injured as the reason for Paul not being an MVP candidate.. Can I use the argument that Kobe got Gasol soon after Bynum went down, and had the Lakers floundering during the small period in which he didn't have a big man? That comparison is a wash AT BEST. Kobe has a better supporting cast, and the Hornets have basically the same record. Paul has better stats than Kobe. Paul by the nature of his position has a bigger impact on each of his team's possessions offensively (much like Nash in Phx). Paul leads the league in 2 statistical categories (one defensive, one offensive).</div> Kobe has a better supporting cast because he's making Gasol and those around him get easier looks. Because Gasol is opening up the lanes for Odom, Odom is starting to rebound better as well. Paul also choked at the end of the season when the Hornets needed to win, that sure doesn't help his case. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I think it should be a horribly one-sided argument, and that if the Hornets were in Los Angeles and the Lakers in New Orleans, Paul would be the heavy favorite to win MVP.</div> Horribly one-sided? That's the ridiculous statement in this thread. They are both at least comparable candidates. There's nothing fanboyish about the injury argument, Gasol + Bynum have only played about 60 games. Neither is putting up 20 and 10 either, and Gasol's per-possession production is at a career high because of Kobe. Again, the Triangle is not passer friendly either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Throughout the history of the MVP, team success has always factored into the equation, as well as what kind of career the candidates have had. There's a "regression to the mean" when it comes to superstars winning awards, with a huge importance placed on elite years already played.</div> By and large, the criteria Lakers fans put the most weight on is "injuries dealt to team".. Which should very much be irrelevant for any MVP discussion. And being the 2008 MVP should mean the most valuable player in 2008. Not "the most valuable player in 2008 who was pretty valuable in 2006 and 2007 too." <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LeBron doesn't qualify for the MVP criteria. The East has also proven to inflate numbers.</div> That's basically saying Jordan didn't qualify for MVP criteria during the years before his first championship.. Because those are basically the numbers that Lebron is putting up right now, and he still got his team to a 4 seed (though yes it is a horrible conference). The East isn't proven to inflate anything. It's funny that Lakers fans bring this up so much when Kobe himself has worse numbers playing against the East than he does the West (check the splits on 82games).. And while that wouldn't be the same as him playing in the Eastern conference, it certainly doesn't "prove" anything. He may not be a favorite, but saying Lebron isn't a top 5 MVP candidate is just irresponsible. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kobe got the Lakers in first with Andrew Bynum who plays about 30 minutes a night and virtually the same roster as last year. The Lakers having a better supporting cast is very debatable, Odom wasn't even that great when Bynum was out there and the Lakers still dominated.</div> A good stretch does not an elite team make, nor an MVP candidate. Houston and Portland had very long winning streaks this season and are still judged on their cumulative play and not a specialized sample of games. The Lakers got into first before Gasol arrived, but the Hornets were right up there with them (and got to first in the conference before the Lakers did, if I recall correctly). <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paul's stats are great, but he's had a more consistent roster this year and assists depend on those around one as well.</div> That's a pretty ludicrous statement. If every Lakers player played 82 games this past season, Kobe still wouldn't average 11.5 assists a night. There are no asterisks in these statistics. They are what they are and with good reason.. Read them again.. 21.1 pts, 11.6 asts, 2.7 stl, 2.5 TO. As a general rule, we don't say that Grant Hill would have averaged more points than Michael Jordan if his teammates never got injured or he had a better supporting cast. Kobe is never going to be the assist man that Paul is, just as Paul won't be the all around scorer that Kobe is. Trying to discount Paul's statistical accomplishment just reinforces the whole fanboy thing.. either that or you've never seen a Hornets game. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kobe has a better supporting cast because he's making Gasol and those around him get easier looks. Because Gasol is opening up the lanes for Odom, Odom is starting to rebound better as well.</div> Gasol was an all-star and one of the best PF/C's in the league long before he made it to Los Angeles. Odom was an all-star before going to Los Angeles. David West was a bust prior to Paul's arrival in New Orleans, and Tyson Chandler was considered a chronic underachiever which led to him being let go by Chicago. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Paul also choked at the end of the season when the Hornets needed to win, that sure doesn't help his case.</div> Last I checked, we're looking at the MVP of this year, not last year. If you really want to go along this line of thought, should we deduct points from Kobe for demanding to be traded? How about for berating management for not trading Andrew Bynum for Jason Kidd? How about absolutely choking against Phoenix in the deciding game of that series? Can I keep going? Don't bring up irrelevant BS, it just makes you look bad. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 15 2008, 02:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's nothing fanboyish about the injury argument, Gasol + Bynum have only played about 60 games. Neither is putting up 20 and 10 either, and Gasol's per-possession production is at a career high because of Kobe. Again, the Triangle is not passer friendly either.</div> Your main argument for Kobe deserving the award more than Paul is that the Lakers have a great record "despite injuries." Before Bynum got hurt, the Lakers and Hornets had essentially the same record (LAL 25-11, NOH 25-12). After he got hurt, the Lakers went 5-5. Then Gasol got picked up, and you know the rest. Later in the year, Gasol got hurt and the Lakers proceeded to go 5-5 again.. And then he came back and they started winning again. So basically without Bynum or Gasol, the Lakers are a .500 team. How this makes Kobe MORE deserving of the MVP award is completely beyond me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tradebark @ Apr 15 2008, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>By and large, the criteria Lakers fans put the most weight on is "injuries dealt to team".. Which should very much be irrelevant for any MVP discussion.</div> Why should it be irrelevant? If Kobe's team was healthy all year, the #1 seed would have been locked up long ago. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's basically saying Jordan didn't qualify for MVP criteria during the years before his first championship.. Because those are basically the numbers that Lebron is putting up right now, and he still got his team to a 4 seed (though yes it is a horrible conference). The East isn't proven to inflate anything. It's funny that Lakers fans bring this up so much when Kobe himself has worse numbers playing against the East than he does the West (check the splits on 82games).. And while that wouldn't be the same as him playing in the Eastern conference, it certainly doesn't "prove" anything. He may not be a favorite, but saying Lebron isn't a top 5 MVP candidate is just irresponsible.</div> Yeah the criteria is fucked up isn't it? But why should the requirements change now? LeBron doesn't have a chance at winning this award, and he plays empircally worse against the West anyway. Kobe got screwed two years ago, so will this youngster. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>A good stretch does not an elite team make, nor an MVP candidate. Houston and Portland had very long winning streaks this season and are still judged on their cumulative play and not a specialized sample of games. The Lakers got into first before Gasol arrived, but the Hornets were right up there with them (and got to first in the conference before the Lakers did, if I recall correctly).</div> No the point is Kobe has maximized the value of his teammates all year. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's a pretty ludicrous statement. If every Lakers player played 82 games this past season, Kobe still wouldn't average 11.5 assists a night. There are no asterisks in these statistics. They are what they are and with good reason.. Read them again.. 21.1 pts, 11.6 asts, 2.7 stl, 2.5 TO. As a general rule, we don't say that Grant Hill would have averaged more points than Michael Jordan if he had someone like Scottie Pippen on his team.</div> Lol when did I say Kobe would average that many assists? Why does Kobe have to average 11.5 assists anyway? They have different games. Paul has a great supporting cast, I would say better than Kobe's; and definitely when taking Games played into account. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Gasol was an all-star and one of the best PF/C's in the league long before he made it to Los Angeles. Odom was an all-star before going to Los Angeles. David West was a bust prior to Paul's arrival in New Orleans, and Tyson Chandler was considered a chronic underachiever which led to him being let go by Chicago.</div> Tyson Chandler has put up very similar stats before, he just didn't play as many minutes. Gasol's per-minute/possession numbers are easily his highest of his career. David West was also very young when he was a "bust". <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Last I checked, we're looking at the MVP of this year, not last year. If you really want to go along this line of thought, should we deduct points from Kobe for demanding to be traded?</div> The MVP has always taken career numbers/awards into account. Pretty much everything. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Your main argument for Kobe deserving the award more than Paul is that the Lakers have a great record "despite injuries."</div> That's simply one of my arguments. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Before Bynum got hurt, the Lakers and Hornets had essentially the same record (LAL 25-11, NOH 25-12). After he got hurt, the Lakers went 5-5. Then Gasol got picked up, and you know the rest. Later in the year, Gasol got hurt and the Lakers proceeded to go 5-5 again.. And then he came back and they started winning again. So basically without Bynum or Gasol, the Lakers are a .500 team. How this makes Kobe MORE deserving of the MVP award is completely beyond me.</div> You're the one that opened his mouth and said this race isn't even close, which is laughable. The Lakers have almost the same supporting cast as last year, it's amazing they were in that position. Why are you downplaying LA's ability to be 26-12 with Andrew Bynum like it was so easy? The Lakers have no depth at all in the frontcourt, which accounts for their other struggles. But given a chance, Kobe has taken his team far when he's had weapons, which is precisely why he's the MVP. David West and Tyson Chandler have played 151 combined games, that's about 90 more than the starting LA PF-C combo. What Kobe's done with his starting guys is more amazing than anyone else this year. Paul also had a much stronger case a couple of weeks ago, but it's not Kobe's fault the Hornets choked it all away.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Why should it be irrelevant? If Kobe's team was healthy all year, the #1 seed would have been locked up long ago.</div> By your standards, Kobe would not be the MVP if no one on the Lakers got injured. Because in just about every other regard, Paul is either on even ground or superior.. How exactly does that make sense? You're pretty much pushing for the exact same reasoning that Lakers fans hated when Nash got the MVP while leading the Suns to a great record sans Amare Stoudamire. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No the point is Kobe has maximized the value of his teammates all year.</div> And Paul hasn't..? I'm fairly certain that leading the league in assists is a pretty good indicator of maximizing the value of his teammates, along with finishing the season ONE game behind the Lakers for the top seed in the West. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Tyson Chandler has put up very similar stats before, he just didn't play as many minutes. Gasol's per-minute/possession numbers are easily his highest of his career. David West was also very young when he was a "bust".</div> This is a classic example of failing to correctly apply statistics and praise in general. Pau Gasol was an ALL-STAR. Considered a top 5 player for his position in the league. I dare you to find anyone who actually thought Tyson Chandler was a top tier player prior to being moved to New Orleans.. And let's not even get into how no one knew who David West was until the last 2 years. It reeeeeeeeks of fanboy bs when you are actually trying to convince me that Chandler and West would have been as good as they are without Paul, and Gasol would not without Kobe. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The MVP has always taken career numbers/awards into account. Pretty much everything.</div> Absolutely not. Otherwise Jordan should have won MVP every year his team won a championship (and probably some of the years before that too).. Or Shaq while he was in his prime, etc. etc. Part of why giving this award to Kobe is a travesty is because it's being used as a lifetime achievement award rather than a true MVP trophy. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Why are you downplaying LA's ability to be 26-12 with Andrew Bynum like it was so easy? The Lakers have no depth at all in the frontcourt, which accounts for their other struggles. But given a chance, Kobe has taken his team far when he's had weapons, which is precisely why he's the MVP. David West and Tyson Chandler have played 151 combined games, that's about 90 more than the starting LA PF-C combo. What Kobe's done with his starting guys is more amazing than anyone else this year. Paul also had a much stronger case a couple of weeks ago, but it's not Kobe's fault the Hornets choked it all away</div> Because they were 26-12. They didn't win 57 games with just Andrew Bynum. Just as I'm not giving T-Mac MVP consideration for having the Rockets win 22 games in a row without Yao Ming. Or Brandon Roy for getting the Blazers' 17 game win streak against all odds. You're telling me that Kobe has taken his team far "when he's had weapons" Which is also what you're telling me Chris Paul did.. he took them far "because he's had weapons" And again, to reiterate.. The Hornets finished the season 1 game behind LA.. That's a couple of rimmed out baskets for either team away from being a completely different outcome, hardly a convincing argument for who had the better season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>By your standards, Kobe would not be the MVP if no one on the Lakers got injured. Because in just about every other regard, Paul is either on even ground or superior.. How exactly does that make sense? You're pretty much pushing for the exact same reasoning that Lakers fans hated when Nash got the MVP while leading the Suns to a great record sans Amare Stoudamire.</div> No he would indeed still be the MVP, because he would have a lot more wins than Paul if everyone is healthy and the MVP is also about team success. It's not all about stats either way, and Kobe is a better defender. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And Paul hasn't..? I'm fairly certain that leading the league in assists is a pretty good indicator of maximizing the value of his teammates, along with finishing the season ONE game behind the Lakers for the top seed in the West.</div> Not as much as Kobe. Of course Paul is a great candidate though, no one said he wasn't. Kobe's had less to work with and less fashions in which to acquire victories. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This is a classic example of failing to correctly apply statistics and praise in general. Pau Gasol was an ALL-STAR. Considered a top 5 player for his position in the league. I dare you to find anyone who actually thought Tyson Chandler was a top tier player prior to being moved to New Orleans.. And let's not even get into how no one knew who David West was until the last 2 years. It reeeeeeeeks of fanboy bs when you are actually trying to convince me that Chandler and West would have been as good as they are without Paul, and Gasol would not without Kobe.</div> You're the one failing to correctly apply statistics. Tyson Chandler has had the same Rebound Rate and PER before, no Paul didn't make him better he's just getting more minutes. It's not an opinion, but empirical fact. Peja has been an all star three times, David West was an All Star this year. Pau Gasol was great for the Lakers, but in just 27 games though. Saying David West was a bust is misleading as well. He struggled his first two seasons in the NBA, and slowly developed, like most players in the NBA. You're criticizing him for not IMMEDIATELY out of college, averaging a certain amount of points or boards, which is unfair. This wasn't some guy who was in the league for five or so years and couldn't do jack, this was a kid who recently got drafted and merely needed a little time to adjust to the league. Paul has something to do with this, but so did West. Not everyone explodes onto the scene nor is that the norm. Gasol's PER this year (especially when he was not injured with the ankle) was a career high. He's never had great PER on a good team before either, his career year being on a 20 win team in 2006-2007. Offensively speaking Gasol was in the barely all-star tier those other years. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Absolutely not. Otherwise Jordan should have won MVP every year his team won a championship (and probably some of the years before that too).. Or Shaq while he was in his prime, etc. etc.</div> Uh yes it has, that's why Karl Malone won the MVP over Jordan later in his career (they both had very similar credentials but Malone didn't have the MVP), and Shaq only has one MVP for similar reasons (people knew he had the award and felt they should focus on other people). Tim Duncan was completely ignored last year but was arguably just as valuable as Dirk or Nash. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Part of why giving this award to Kobe is a travesty is because it's being used as a lifetime achievement award rather than a true MVP trophy.</div> And it's happened before. It would be a travesty if they weren't comparable candidates, but that's not the case. Kobe was clutch in the biggest games this season, with all the pressure on him. That's what the voters love to see and is what cost Paul the MVP. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Because they were 26-12. They didn't win 57 games with just Andrew Bynum. Just as I'm not giving T-Mac MVP consideration for having the Rockets win 22 games in a row without Yao Ming. Or Brandon Roy for getting the Blazers' 17 game win streak against all odds.</div> Kobe's been the most consistent player all year. The Hornets and Paul spiraled down at the end of the season, with a completely healthy roster which never occurred with the Lakers. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You're telling me that Kobe has taken his team far "when he's had weapons" Which is also what you're telling me Chris Paul did.. he took them far "because he's had weapons"</div> Of course he did, but not to the same degree imo. I never said Paul was the Fourth MVP candidate or whatever, he's great competition in this race. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And again, to reiterate.. The Hornets finished the season 1 game behind LA.. That's a couple of rimmed out baskets for either team away from being a completely different outcome, hardly a convincing argument for who had the better season.</div> The Hornets finished just one game back because Kobe didn't have David West and Tyson Chandler to play with him when those other two "stars" were injured. Kobe had a star for 62 games (actually not even that, since Gasol was injured for a few of those games when he was trying to come back), Lamar Odom was good the last 30 games or so, and then everyone else was absolutely nothing special at all. He was money at the end of the season too unlike Paul, and is in the third tier of defensive SGs according to empirical articles. The Voters simply wanted to see what Kobe could do with a decent roster all these years and now he'll be rewarded nicely.
