The 2008 MVP will be announced soon and I can't decide who should win. Kobe Bryant has never won the award and his team finished first overall in the West, but Chris Paul helped a team with no expectations finish with the second seed in the most difficult West in history all while leading the league in both assists (11.6) and steals (2.71).
Paul, not Bryant, is the more deserving MVP. It's easier to see the value that Paul brings to the Hornets because of what is around him compared to what players surround Bryant. The definition of "MVP" and even the trophy itself are both consistently called into question at this time of year. How the NBA MVP is decided each year is a mystery. The NBA MVP voters could pull the history card and select Bryant in order to cement his place amongst with the thought that Paul (since he's only 22) will have another MVP worthy season in his young career. Or voters could play the flash card and select Paul in order to play up his impact on the city of New Orleans and because he was the flashier pick.
The Lakers sans Bryant wouldn't be a lottery team, but the Hornets sans Paul wouldn't either.
As much as Bryant may have made teammates like Ronny Turiaf, Andrew Bynum and Jordan Farmar better, there is a good argument that Paul made every player on his team better. Paul has reserected what seemed like a lost career for Peja Stojakovic better by opening up the floor for him to sit at the three line. You could easily argue that he set up David West for a break-out all-star season. And Tyson Chandler looked amazing all season throwing down the oop for every Paul alley. Oh, sorry Byron Scott, I didn't mean to misquote you, "He's made David West Better. He's made Tyson Chandler Better. He gets Peja Stojakovic open shots. Without a doubt, if you take him off our team, we wouldn't be a .500 team."
Paul is the first player in 15 years to average more than 20 points and 10 assists (the last: Kevin Johnson) and he's proving it in the post season. Paul was quick to set a playoff record as the first player to post consecutive games of at least 30 points, 10 assists and three steals.
Any talk about Paul inevitably provokes comparisons to Isiah Thomas for their style, size and spirit. Paul might have some work to do to live up to Thomas, who won two championships and is in the Hall of Fame. But there is one thing that Paul doesn't want to share in common with Thomas -- not winning an MVP trophy.
Bryant, not Paul, will more than likely be the winner of this year's MVP. It is easy to say that Bryant had better players than Paul and that he was set-up to win this year's award. Maybe that's true. But match KB24 one-on-one against CP3 and see what happens. Not fair, I know. Match KB24's Lakers against CP3's Hornets and see what happens. Not fair again, I know. So, what makes Paul, not Bryant, the MVP again? Numbers. Look it up, Paul's numbers are arguably better than Bryant's, but also better than Steve Nash's numbers when he won the MVP in '06.
Now, before we cast our vote for Paul, consider who finished runner-up to Nash in '06 -- Bryant. In '05-'06 Bryant took a 34 win team and turned it into 45 wins and had a blistering league leading scoring average of 35.4 ppg. Nash had 18.8 ppg and 10.5 apg improving the Suns win total by eight and was given his second MVP in a row. Looking back, that should have been Kobe's trophy and this year would have gone to Paul without hesitation.
Haters get ready to hate. How can someone be named the MVP of a team he didn't want to be a part of at the beginning of the season? And how hard was it for the Lakers to win the West when a world-class basketball player falls into their laps in exchange for a couple of lousy bench warmers and some future late first round draft picks. In games with Gasol, the Lakers were 22-4. In games with Kobe, but without Gasol, the Lakers were 35-21. Some would argue Bryant isn't even the MVP of his own team. So what makes Bryant, not Paul, the MVP again? Career numbers. Look it up, Bryant's career numbers are as good if not better than any past MVP winner.
Bryant is the first player since Michael Jordan who can create and make a shot from anywhere inside 30 feet on any defender in the NBA. For that alone he's worthy of the MVP. Not since Jordan has there been a player who competes at the level that Bryant does, or wants to win like Kobe does, or plays under any circumstance, hurt or ill, the way that Kobe does (remember that his finger still needs surgery). Not since MJ has any dunk seemed possible again. Not since MJ has a team relied so confidently on one person and been successful. And not since MJ has the NBA had one player known as "the player".
Kobe Bryant came into the NBA playing for Magic's team with "next-Jordan" tattooed on his forehead. On the court Kobe has played comparable to both Johnson and Jordan, but in the awards department -- there is no comparison. MJ and MJ combined for eight MVP trophies (six straight between '87 and '92), while Kobe has none. After 11 years in the league, many of them being worthy of an MVP trophy (2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007), it seems appropriate to name Bryant this year's most valuable.
There are so many arguments for both players. And so many story-lines for both players. But ultimately there is only one winner.
...Or is there?
What about a co-MVP? In 2003, the NFL didn't decide between Peyton Manning and Steve McNair naming both quarterbacks the league MVP. Though, what usually happens is there's an MVP snub -- which is what I assume will be the case for this year's non-winner. I'm leaning towards Kobe for what I think will happen, but I feel like Paul had the "better" season. I can't decide...
No comments:
Post a Comment