sixringz1:
The "Kobe for MVP talk" stopped only because the Kobe/MJ comparison became more intense and dominated the thread, with a limited # of participants.
I wasn't one of those who supported KB for MVP solely based on his scoring splurg, but I do support him for MVP, scoring splurg or not.
Before I go further my questions for you are :
1) Do U consider the thought of "KB for MVP based on his scoring rampage" nonsense, or do you believe to consider Kobe for MVP scoring rampage or not as "nonsense" ?
2) What is your definition of MVP( I don't believe the NBA has clearly defined it) ?
3) Who do you believe should be MVP and why?
I don't believe kobe should be MVP regardless. His team might very well not make the playoffs. This isn't baseball where you get 4 teams per league and a player like A Rod when he was in texas can get an mvp. More than half the teams in each conference go to the playoffs in the nba, and if you can't get your team to the playoffs, regardless of how talented you may be, there is NO WAY he can be a legit argument for mvp. I'd put TMac above kobe and he's not even in my top 3. But in terms of your questions:
1. My question was to the people who's ONLY ARGUMENT to why he should win MVP was to the ones that said "he scored 50 in 4 straight, nobody can do that", and supported it w/ NOTHING else.
2. My definition for MVP, ESPECIALLY IN BASKETBALL, is the most important person to their particular team that is in legit championship contetion because of them (my opinion). There is no way kobe should win MVP based on that. I understand what people are saying, that w/out him they are a lottery team. Well guess what, even with him there is a strong shot they are a lottery pick.
3. My choices for MVP are the obvious ones. Dirk and Nash. I will also throw Duncan in there.
Dirk is simple, he is the best player on the best team. Without him they would still be a good team. Probably around a 5-6 seed, but in no way are they championship contenders.
Nash is because when he's out of the game, even when he just goes to the bench for a few minutes, the offense just seems to sputter. They have a lot of talent on that team but with the way they play, he is a NECESSITY for that team to function. Now i can understand the argument that if they switch up the offense that they would be alright, but i'm not to sure about that. I think there would be a lot of people that would be less relavent if they did a half court offense. Raja Bell was fighting for playing time on every other team, and struggling when he got burn, but he becomes a legit offensive threat while playing in this offense. That also goes for players like barbosa, and mostly diaw. Diaw got no burn in Atlanta cause of the style they played, but he fits the suns style. I also think marion would suffer a little more because he wouldn't have the open space to maximize his athletic ability. The one person i think that would actually benefit from a half court offense is stoudamire because the offense would go through him. So the idea of the system makes the team is definitely one part, but if you take out the system and keep that same roster without nash, they'd be competing for a 7 or 8 seed as well.
Finally w/ Duncan. He's just so damn consistant. Offensively and defensively he just seems to always be in the conversation at the end of the year. And despite the fact they are a 3 seed, they might very well be the best team in basketball.
mont13
Log in to comment