Can the Suns overtake the Lakers as the Pacific Division leaders?

[dreamcastrocks]

Is that why Kobe has never finished higher than third? Even two years ago when he had one of the best seasons ever and led his team to the playoffs who, without him, probably would have finished dead last in the Western Conference?

A lot of writers are looking for a reason not to give it to Kobe, not the other way around.

Think about it this way. Steve Nash is having a better year, in many catagories, than his MVP years, yet he isn't even in the running for MVP.

 

[Darth Llama]

Two years ago, Lakers won 45 games. Hard to justify giving the award to someone on a team that barely made the playoffs.

Why? Isn't the award supposed to be the guy most valuable to their team?

They won 45 games, but without Kobe, they would have won maybe 12 tops.

The real problem here is how they decide MVP. Kobe and Chris Paul are both deserving, they're just going to give it to the guy who's team finishes higher in the standings.

 

[D-Dogg]

The media shouldn't even be voting on MVP.

It should be decided by the players and coaches. Everyone gets a vote, and you can't vote for someone on your team.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

The media shouldn't even be voting on MVP.

It should be decided by the players and coaches. Everyone gets a vote, and you can't vote for someone on your team.

Or maybe they should get a % of the vote, or something.

1/3 from players in the league
1/3 from media
1/3 from coaches/GM's

 

[abomb]

The media shouldn't even be voting on MVP.

It should be decided by the players and coaches. Everyone gets a vote, and you can't vote for someone on your team.

 

[Griffin]

Why? Isn't the award supposed to be the guy most valuable to their team?

They won 45 games, but without Kobe, they would have won maybe 12 tops.

I think the MVP should be based on how the player contributes to the team's success. So that includes personal performance as well as how the player makes his teammates better, leadership skills, and generally how well the team performs when he is on the floor as opposed to when he is not. But "success" there is the key word. The team has to have a fairly successful season.

The real problem here is how they decide MVP. Kobe and Chris Paul are both deserving, they're just going to give it to the guy who's team finishes higher in the standings.

The problem is that the difference in the NO and Lakers records will be very small if any. Both teams were successful this year. Both players have played a key part in that success. But the difference should not be prior accomplishments. Paul should not be penalized for being young and not having had seasons like this before.

 

[Darth Llama]

The problem is that the difference in the NO and Lakers records will be very small if any. Both teams were successful this year. Both players have played a key part in that success. But the difference should not be prior accomplishments. Paul should not be penalized for being young and not having had seasons like this before.

I agree totally man, I do. I don't think Kobe deserves it because of any reason outside of this year. I'll be the first to admit that I'm biased having the Lakers as my favorite team, and Kobe as my favorite player, I won't deny that. Still, the effect Kobe has had on the Lakers this year is undeniable. The Lakers started the year with a question of rather or not they would even make the playoffs, much less be the top seed. Kobe has done a great job putting up MVP quality numbers and keeping his team mates motivated and involved. I'll be the first to admit, Kobe didn't help his case the way he carried on in the off season with the trade demand, but the second the regular season tipped off, that was all behind him and he was the textbook perfect leader.

I know you could say the same for Chris Paul, and I would agree with you again. Paul makes everyone on the Hornets better, and he's the reason that team has risen from the NBA Cellar up to the top of the pack. It won't be an easy decision because both guys deserve it so much. If you just look at this year and this year alone, both men deserve MVP in my opinion. I think that they will likely use the standings as the tie breaker, just a gut feeling.

 

[D-Dogg]

Let me throw in my two cents into the Kobe MVP debate. I don't believe he is the MVP of this season, I think Paul is more deserving, though it is relatively close. But Kobe will win it, and only because of people like Wojnarowski who wrote in his column that Kobe should win the MVP over Paul because Paul hasn't been first-team all-NBA yet and hasn't been to playoffs yet. In other words, voters will treat the MVP award as a sort of a lifetime achievement award rather than an award recognizing the player who has accomplished more this season and this season alone. Voters had wanted to give the award to Kobe for a long time, but they could never really justify it until this season. Those voters won't look at who the true MVP is, they will give it to Kobe because this is as close as Kobe has ever been to winning the award, and they may not get another chance to vote for him in the future.

Kobe should win it because this team is 1 or 2 in the tough west, despite losing Bynum for half the season, Pau missing 11 games, and Kobe playing with a taped together shooting hand that will be operated on in the offseason. In spite of all that, the Lakers have been at the top or near it all year long. Kobe also has exactly one all-star on his team in Pau, who was only an A.S. one time and he's only had Pau for what, 20 some games? You also can't deny that this Laker team has taken on Kobe's mentality, especially guys like Jordan Farmar, Sasha and Ronny, a crew of gym rats. You can take some Farmar quotes and put Kobe's name as attribution and it would be believable. This team exudes his businesslike, "nothing personal just have to kill you" mentality.

The one constant this year has been Kobe, and he is driving this young team forward.

 

[elindholm]

The MVP isn't that much different from All-Star selections. It's pretty much an arbitrary accolade for whoever the voters feel like voting for. Fans argue until they're blue in the face about what the criteria are, but the simple truth is that there are no objective criteria: voters vote for the player they want to vote for.

The person who wins the MVP "deserves" it by definition, because you can always come up with a set of criteria that point to that person above all others, no matter who it is (assuming it's a legitimate candidate, of course). For example:

Bryant deserves it because he is the leader on the West's best team, on a roster relatively short of star talent.

Paul deserves it because he is the engine that drives the most surprising, best balanced team in the league and because he is the best teammate in the world.

James deserves it because he puts up the biggest numbers across the board and is most responsible for any success his team has.

Garnett deserves it because he transformed a moribund franchise and anchors a defense that has led to the league's best record.

Stoudemire deserves it because he is the most dominant scorer on an elite team that survives only through its dominant offense.

And so on.

Pick the player you want, lay out the criteria you're using to justify your choice, and move on. That's what the voters are doing and that's all anyone can ask. The main reason the league will never establish objective criteria is because they know that the debate sparks fan interest. I personally am sick of the NBA jerking me around just to prop up its fraud of entertainment marketed as true athletic competition, and that will be true even if the officials decide to let the Suns win this year.

It's fun when someone from your team wins MVP, but it's really a pretty hollow victory in the grand scheme of things, because all it really tells you is which player the voters felt like honoring this time around.

 

[nowagimp]

Who has the best team if you:

subtract garnett from the celtics (they would be a defensive sieve, wouldnt make the playoffs in the EC)

subtract paul from the hornets (this team is NOT deep, and only west gets his own shot)

subtract kobe from the lakers (this is still a pretty good team, and the win total includes part of the season with bynum). With bynum, the lakers are probably a playoff team without kobe.

subtract lebron from the cavs (they'd be real bad)

If the criteria is who makes their team better by the largest margin Id say that it would be garnett or paul, probably garnett. But we all know defensive players dont get MVP, do they? Kobe is the BEST player, but not the most valuable, since his supporting cast is more talented and skilled than any of the others. Lebron puts up huge numbers and they'd be bad without him, but they arent good enough to win the EC with him. When Lebron hits the outside shot consistently he will be the best player in the NBA.

that said I still think Kobe gets the MVP, but neither he or anyone else is "like MJ". MJ shot 50+% FG's(+5% over kobe) while scoring 30ppg, thats a level or two above anyone who ever played guard.

 

[cobbler]

The media shouldn't even be voting on MVP.

It should be decided by the players and coaches. Everyone gets a vote, and you can't vote for someone on your team.

I completely agree. You could even include a top one or two scouts per team as they know the game as opposed to the media hype.

 

[cobbler]

Two years ago, Lakers won 45 games. Hard to justify giving the award to someone on a team that barely made the playoffs.

Then how do you justify all the Lebron talk this year?

 

[cobbler]

Im sorry, but im not buying into the past experience not playing a role theme. So basically, we have Kobe and CP3 as the front runners. You can make valid arguments for either. Both have led their teams (slotted for 7th or 8th finish in preseason) to the top two in the west (as of this second). So for arguments sake, lets say its a tie. Both made their teams better. Both had statistically great years. So how do you break the tie? The one game difference in records?

So can you tell me why you wouldnt take the guy who has argubaly been the "best" player for 4 or 5 years over the new commer? I dont get it.

If i have two employees working for me. one for 10 years, one for 2. They have incredible years in sales and pretty much match each other. I have one promotion to give. I give it the rookie? No way!

 

[green machine]

Who has the best team if you:

subtract garnett from the celtics (they would be a defensive sieve, wouldnt make the playoffs in the EC)

subtract paul from the hornets (this team is NOT deep, and only west gets his own shot)

subtract kobe from the lakers (this is still a pretty good team, and the win total includes part of the season with bynum). With bynum, the lakers are probably a playoff team without kobe.

subtract lebron from the cavs (they'd be real bad)

If the criteria is who makes their team better by the largest margin Id say that it would be garnett or paul, probably garnett. But we all know defensive players dont get MVP, do they? Kobe is the BEST player, but not the most valuable, since his supporting cast is more talented and skilled than any of the others. Lebron puts up huge numbers and they'd be bad without him, but they arent good enough to win the EC with him. When Lebron hits the outside shot consistently he will be the best player in the NBA.

that said I still think Kobe gets the MVP, but neither he or anyone else is "like MJ". MJ shot 50+% FG's(+5% over kobe) while scoring 30ppg, thats a level or two above anyone who ever played guard.

The mid-90s Bulls made the playoffs when Jordan retired, so I guess his impact wasn't that great either.

 

[sLapzsHaQ]

I thought this thread is about the Pacific Division. It turned out it's MVP talk

 

[Griffin]

Then how do you justify all the Lebron talk this year?

Lebron will finish in the voting exactly where Kobe finished two years ago.

 

[Bufalay]

MVP should be the guy who has the most money. That is an objective way of measuring value.

Every year I hear a bunch of dumb reasons why such and such guy is the MVP. Each year a new reason catches on and people run with it.

Last year I kept hearing that "Kobe is the best player, but Dirk is the best player on the best team." So? Or how about "Nash makes everyone else better."

Why don't they just let fans vote and then talk about how Yao is the greatest player of all time?

 

[Griffin]

Im sorry, but im not buying into the past experience not playing a role theme. So basically, we have Kobe and CP3 as the front runners. You can make valid arguments for either. Both have led their teams (slotted for 7th or 8th finish in preseason) to the top two in the west (as of this second). So for arguments sake, lets say its a tie. Both made their teams better. Both had statistically great years. So how do you break the tie? The one game difference in records?

So can you tell me why you wouldnt take the guy who has argubaly been the "best" player for 4 or 5 years over the new commer? I dont get it.

But there cannot be a tie since you cannot measure MVP-worthiness quantitatively. The voters will just pick someone based on whatever criteria they choose to apply, if any. Now, in case you have a tie in the votes, then you have co-MVP's.

I think the reason why you shouldn't use prior accomplishments as a criterion is fairly obvious: MVP, like all the other hardware they hand out, is a regular season award for the current season only. By your argument, if both Kobe and Paul have the same sort of success next year, then Kobe again should win it because he has accomplished more in the past. That is not what the award was intended for.

 

[Darth Llama]

Im sorry, but im not buying into the past experience not playing a role theme. So basically, we have Kobe and CP3 as the front runners. You can make valid arguments for either. Both have led their teams (slotted for 7th or 8th finish in preseason) to the top two in the west (as of this second). So for arguments sake, lets say its a tie. Both made their teams better. Both had statistically great years. So how do you break the tie? The one game difference in records?

So can you tell me why you wouldnt take the guy who has argubaly been the "best" player for 4 or 5 years over the new commer? I dont get it.

If i have two employees working for me. one for 10 years, one for 2. They have incredible years in sales and pretty much match each other. I have one promotion to give. I give it the rookie? No way!

Good point, I never thought of it that way, but I agree with you. I also use the fact that Kobe is 1st team NBA all defense, even though you could say CP3 should have been as well, he leads the league in steals.

I thought this thread is about the Pacific Division. It turned out it's MVP talk

Probably because the race for the pacific is over.

 

[D-Dogg]

Why don't they just let fans vote and then talk about how Yao is the greatest player of all time?

lol

 

[cobbler]

But there cannot be a tie since you cannot measure MVP-worthiness quantitatively. The voters will just pick someone based on whatever criteria they choose to apply, if any. Now, in case you have a tie in the votes, then you have co-MVP's.

I think the reason why you shouldn't use prior accomplishments as a criterion is fairly obvious: MVP, like all the other hardware they hand out, is a regular season award for the current season only. By your argument, if both Kobe and Paul have the same sort of success next year, then Kobe again should win it because he has accomplished more in the past. That is not what the award was intended for.

I wasnt really referring to a tie in votes. I meant if a voter really has the two equal (for the given year), then maybe the player that has been at that level longer or more consistantly gets the nod.....for that vote.

Again, as you say, there is no quantitative way choose. Its all about opinions and the medias opinions at that. I truly belive the coaches, players, and scouts should vote.