2008 NBA Most Valuable Player
- Thread starter Purple Reign
- Start date
Hey, did you know that you were wrong? Just checking on that -- sometimes I get confused on how much of this bunk is willful self delusion, and how much is simply not knowing how it works.
Lakers beat Hornets. At that point the Lakers were still behind the Hornets by half a game. You looked at the standings, it was Hornets #1. Lakers #2. The Hornets were 55-24, the Lakers 55-25. The Lakers could not catch them in the loss column unless somebody else came along and beat the Hornets.
Then Ron decides that this is his game of the week, and that somebody else became us. The next morning the Lakers are ahead of the Hornets. Tied at 55-25, but with the tiebreaker.
Its really quite a simple progression. I'm quite sure I could take it into an elementary school, and the kiddies would understand the relationship instantly. And of course the ridiculous part of all this is that if the realtionships had been reversed, adn wee had beat the Lakers Satruday to knock them out of first, there is not a person on this board who would have tried to deny the relationship between our win and their demise. We would have reveled in it.
Now, if you want to argue that Kobe gets the MVP because of the Laker win on Friday, even if the Hornets go on to beat us and hang on to the top seed, feel free. But by far the most likely scenario in the Paul/Kobe race has been that whichever player's team nabs first in the West becomes the frontrunner. Thanks to us, that team is currently the Lakers. That we of course beat the Hornets directly to knock them from first with a bad off night for CP3 only adds an extra nail. If we can pull off the upset tommorow night, re-muddy the waters, and open the door for the Hornets to maybe sneak back in and steal the #1 spot back, perhaps it can be averted. If we go down and get spanked around in a glorified coronation for the Lakers, then we have not only been a player, but been THE major player in deciding what had been widely considered a neck and neck MVP race going into the weekend. Just a final little yummy irony to a wonderfully yummy season.
Last edited:
Since I'm waiting to the last second to cast my ballot let me go with a sort of prediction. I think Chris Paul has faded a bit in the eyes of voting sports writers who will decide the MVP. That has caused others to move up a bit or maybe jump a lot. LeBron James at this point is nearing the level of so-called ons on favorite Kobe Bryant. Kevin Garnett I don't think was ever in the top 2 among finalists (as fluid as they've been) because even Paul Pierce and Ray Allen will get some MVP votes. I personally would rate Dwight Howard a slight notch above Garnett this season. King James (or Garnett, Howard) might also suffer because the Eastern conference is so terribly weak compared to the powerful West. Lastly, did little PG Paul have the kind of dominant season that little PG Steve Nash did when he won back-to-back MVP's?
I think Paul has actually been more dominant than Nash (the numbers support it at least, including the fact he plays both ways), but his team hasn't. And that's huge. Also why LeBron won't win it. Same reason Kobe didn't when he averaged 35. MVP has pretty much always been "best player on an elite team". Kobe's team was a 45 win type team when he had the huge year, so he was out. This year LeBron's team won't even get to 45, so he's out too despite the individual brilliance.
We definitely helped, but I honestly don't think the MVP race was all that close to begin with. I don't think Chris Paul would have won it over Kobe even if the Lakers had lost Friday, not unless Paul carried his team on his shoulders, had a triple-double, scored 30+, hit the game tying three pointer in regulation and the game-winning three pointer in overtime, and proposed to his girlfriend, all in the same game on the same night. I think it was Kobe's to lose going into that game, not Paul's to win.
That having been said, the fact that Chris Paul shot poorly Friday night in a Battle of the Candidates, then played poorly again the next night, that probably knocked him down a notch or two. So we are the second half of Chris Paul's late-season disqualification. But even if we deny the Lakers the top seed and Kobe plays terribly, he's still clearly the frontrunner, and nothing short of an "MJ meets the love child of Jerry West and Elgin Baylor who looks like Tiger Woods"-like performance by Chris Paul over the last five games of the season would have changed that, I don't think. Kobe was the frontrunner all season long. Two games don't exactly make or break your MVP candidacy, even if they are at the end of the season.
That having been said, the fact that Chris Paul shot poorly Friday night in a Battle of the Candidates, then played poorly again the next night, that probably knocked him down a notch or two. So we are the second half of Chris Paul's late-season disqualification. But even if we deny the Lakers the top seed and Kobe plays terribly, he's still clearly the frontrunner, and nothing short of an "MJ meets the love child of Jerry West and Elgin Baylor who looks like Tiger Woods"-like performance by Chris Paul over the last five games of the season would have changed that, I don't think. Kobe was the frontrunner all season long. Two games don't exactly make or break your MVP candidacy, even if they are at the end of the season.
Regarding Kevin Garnett, I can't imagine anyone voting for him in first place. He's on a team that had the biggest turnaround in NBA history, but it's also a team that made huge changes in the offseason, not just the Kevin Garnett trade. Paul Pierce has been just as important to their success this season as Garnett, and Ray Allen hasn't been so bad himself.
I'm not saying that he's not worthy, but I don't think that he's more worthy than Bryant or Paul, or even LeBron or Nash or Duncan. Great turnaround by his team from one season to the next, but I can't say that he's more valuable to the Celtics than those other guys are to their respective teams. I'd argue, in fact, that he's not.
I'm not saying that he's not worthy, but I don't think that he's more worthy than Bryant or Paul, or even LeBron or Nash or Duncan. Great turnaround by his team from one season to the next, but I can't say that he's more valuable to the Celtics than those other guys are to their respective teams. I'd argue, in fact, that he's not.
Yeah, I guess there's no way to know what would have been if they had lost to the Hornets, and what all the variables would have been to see Chris Paul leapfrog Kobe in the debate, but I didn't expect to see anyone but Kobe win it anyways.
I'd love to see Chris Paul get it, especially since this is probably the best chance Kobe has ever had and he'd probably pitch a fit if he didn't win, so that would be fantastic for me. But I don't expect that to happen.
Since you're a walking NBA history book, tell me: When is the last time a third year player (or less) won the MVP?
I'd love to see Chris Paul get it, especially since this is probably the best chance Kobe has ever had and he'd probably pitch a fit if he didn't win, so that would be fantastic for me. But I don't expect that to happen.
Since you're a walking NBA history book, tell me: When is the last time a third year player (or less) won the MVP?
Big Lew is the first inclination after Reed. Moses won in 79 but I'm not sure what year he started without cheating. McAdoo won it within a year or two. It's either one of those 2.
That was back when the players voted, not the media, which is essentially why Kareem won 6 and one of them came in a 40 win season. A pretty bold choice in retrospect, but probably as fair as giving it to Shaq or Jordan any given year. Kareem probably should've won it in 73 as well over Cowens. I can't speak much on that because I wasn't around then, but I assume it was due to Boston winning 68. They lost Havlicek in the playoffs that year to an elbow injury. Celt fans still alive bemoan that. They were, iirc, the only 67+ win team not to win the title until Dallas last year.
That was back when the players voted, not the media, which is essentially why Kareem won 6 and one of them came in a 40 win season. A pretty bold choice in retrospect, but probably as fair as giving it to Shaq or Jordan any given year. Kareem probably should've won it in 73 as well over Cowens. I can't speak much on that because I wasn't around then, but I assume it was due to Boston winning 68. They lost Havlicek in the playoffs that year to an elbow injury. Celt fans still alive bemoan that. They were, iirc, the only 67+ win team not to win the title until Dallas last year.
