With the NBA Playoffs quickly approaching, within a matter of weeks we should find out who the MVP is for the 2008 season? Some of the names being kicked around are Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Lebron James, Chris Paul, and Tim Duncan. However, while those are the major candidates this year, I think that only Bryant, Garnett, and Paul will finish in the top three in the votes. James is still young, and plays on a team that is still pretty inconsistent, and is seen as a one-man team who can exit the playoffs in any given series, in a lackluster conference like the East. Duncan is probably one of the most dominant big guys of all-time, but within the last couple of decades, the great big men of the league never do well in MVP-voting most years, and while picking Duncan and his Spurs are the smartest bet most years, he does not get the attention he deserves because he has a low profile type of personality. But who really deserves the Maurice Podoloff Trophy this year from the actual candidates who will get real consideration?
To begin with, the idea of selecting a league-wide MVP, is to acknowledge who is the most dominant player in that sport, or if you were running a team and could pick the one player you want on your team, you would pick this guy. While I do not think that the actual voting goes like that most years, if it did, Kobe Bryant probably should have been the MVP every year since 2000. This year is no exception. Bryant is the best player in the league every year, he plays amazing offense, and perhaps what is even more special, he matches that effort on the defensive side of the ball. Lots of players like Tracy McGrady and Vince Carter can put the ball in the hole, but get lazy on the opposite side, leaving them incomplete players, much less non-MVP’s.
This year Bryant should have his team in the hunt for the top seed in the West up until the final days of the season. When selecting an MVP, it is important to remember or consider what that player means to his team? With Bryant, the Lakers are one of the best teams in the league, if they didn’t have him, they would probably be one of the bottom five teams in the West. While a good amount of teams have another guy who could carry the team to a pretty good record, like if Tim Duncan went down, Tony Parker would keep the Spurs pretty competitive and still have a chance to get his team to June, when if Bryant were to go down, his team would exit in the first round most likely. He has become a better teammate this year too, no longer showing a great amount of reluctance to move the ball around. What is even more, is he still has an injured finger on his shooting hand but yet has still been able to play some of the best basketball of his already stellar career this season. Bryant does it all, he is even getting a long with one time nemesis, Phil Jackson. Bryant has many thinking that a fourth NBA Title under his tenure in L.A., is well within reach either this season or in the next few seasons for the Los Angeles Lakers. But seriously, Bryant is one of the most dominant players in the history of basketball, and all sports, and the fact that he does not win every year makes the award lose credibility I feel, but this year if the award means anything, it has to go to Bryant.
The other major player in the MVP-vote, is Kevin Garnett. The Celtics will enter the playoffs as the best team in the East, and some consider them the best team in all of the league, not just their conference. There is no question that Garnett gives his all every given night and I really appreciate that, because other “top” players slack on certain nights. While I have always found him overrated because of his record with the Timberwolves and being the franchise guy in that city, and overall, having such a poor playoff record, I have never seen him as the guy who would put the dagger in the hearts of opposing teams in the last two minutes of a pivotal game. He posts solid numbers, but almost never hits that big shot at the very end of the game. That is what an MVP does, they make you pay, they hurt you, they scare you when drawing up those last few plays at the end of a close game during timeouts. Garnett’s numbers have and will always be there. He too, is a good offensive player, and even better defender. But Garnett plays on the Celtics, he plays on a team with two other number one guys, and in the East. The Celtics would be a very good team without Garnett, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce have gotten their formerly Garnett-less teams to the playoffs before single-handedly in past years. If Garnett were to go down, no they probably wouldn’t be a title favorite, but possibly because their only legitimate competition is probably the Detroit Pistons they could still possibly be a favorite in a weak Eastern Conference. Not to take anything away from Garnett, but he is most likely the sentimental favorite because he plays on a team with two other number one players, which is so rare to have two number one guys, much less three, but plays in a city that has possibly been home to more great basketball players at some time in their respective careers than any other NBA franchise in history. But there is no way that most people, experts, and NBA executives, would rather have Garnett than Bryant, when it comes to every criteria other than being a lovable person and great all around teammate, Bryant is pretty superior in any other match-up with Garnett.
While I would love to see Chris Paul win the award, it is simply not going to happen this year. He has a chance based on what I have seen from him to win the award or possible multiple awards during what is sure to be a very good rest of his career, but he is still very young. This is his only his third season in the league, the MVP-voting is usually pretty unkind to anyone who is not more than five seasons in. What I find particularly impressive is the fact that he has taken a team with no other major superstars, who has finished at just below .500 during his two previous seasons with the team, and out of nowhere has had them at the top of what is the most competitive and difficult that the Western Conference has ever been. Like I already mentioned, one of the main criteria for determining the legitimacy of an MVP, is if that player were not on his team, how good would the team still be without the player in question? If you take Paul from the Hornets, they would be hard-pressed to win 25 games I would say, so that is where he makes his strongest argument for the award. Unfortunately, it is hard to vote someone the best player in the league, when it is difficult to vote him the best player at his position. He is an excellent point guard, but in no-way, can even begin to stack up with Steve Nash or Tony Parker at his own position, so he will not get those votes when it comes time to have that discussion in the coming weeks.
Kobe Bryant may not get the Larry O’ Brien Trophy come June of this particular year, but he should be a shoe-in for the Maurice Podoloff Trophy come May. I am still shocked that the guy has helped win three titles in Los Angeles and has yet to actually win an MVP through dominating just about every great player in the league over the last eight years on every night of the season and playoffs. It makes me wonder though, since Bryant has been this great and has won multiple titles and is just under 30, and if he retired today he would be one of the all-time greats regardless of a short career in that scenario, what does he have to do to win an MVP? As great as Bryant is, I do not think that he will ever be able to play at an even higher level than he already does, so if he does not get the award this year, it may never come?
No comments:
Post a Comment