Just watched the Starters since it's Kobe week and was very surprised Kobe only one MVP once and 07-08 was not even a great season for him. For someone who didn't start watching until 07-08, can someone explain why he didn't win it more? I only know the 05-06 discussion of Kobe vs. Nash, but would love to know arguments that were used at the time for Nash. Same for other seasons he didn't win it.
He had a killer instinct and was a resilient chucker at the end of his career. Maybe 1 more only if the competition is not strong. Kobe is a natural SG. Shaq is still better than Kobe. Kobe could never dominate several seasons. Only high scoring games against weaker competition. Nash is one of the best offensive PGs ever.....of course he is going to make more passes. He made the team click. PGs have a natural advantage to do that. MDA helped Nash to getting 2x MVP and WCF appearances.
Kobe was very clutch. But most years he was never the best player in the league. He was always the most CLUTCH....Give him the ball with 30sec down by 4 and he wasn't losing. But he would put up 31ppg 2apg and maybe 2rpg. Honestly besides a couple more pkg his stat line would look like a kyrie Irving. Nothing impressive but decent numbers. Harden should have 1mvp working on his 2nd. You can make arguments for 2mvp's but honestly they were not gonna give him 2. So you choose one. The 2015 MVP curry stole. Or the 2017 MVP Westbrook stole.
going by each individual season, probably 0. going by how the voters vote, 2008 probably makes as much sense as any other mvp vote.
I loved Steve Nash, but when he was given his 2nd consecutive MVP, that was kind of a joke. Kobe (who I didn't like) was the best player in the NBA by a wide margin.
Maybe Kobe should get 1 MVP for the season when he scored 80+ pts. But to be real all the MVPs before Lebron should've only gone to Shaq, Nash and TD. TD is so underrated on this forum. People forget Parker and Manu are not superstars yet TD dragged them to 5 rings and would probably have even more if Shaq and Kobe weren't on one team.
Kobe has never been higher 4th in Win Shares. Even the year he won won CP3, LBJ, and Amare had more win shares than him.
Realistically, 0 from 1996 to 2004 Shaq was the best player on the Lakers. You're not winning MVP being the 2nd best player on your team. in 2004-05 (first year without Shaq) the Lakers missed the playoffs. Before MVP Voters manipulated the criteria to give MVP to Russell Westbrook last year, usually you would have had to win 50+ games and be one of the top teams in your conference to have a shot at MVP. The Lakers only won 45 games despite an amazing season from Kobe. That is why Steve Nash won MVP over Kobe in 2005-06. People also forget that Amare was injured basically the whole season and the Suns still won 54 games. Interesting fact: Kobe actually finished 4th in MVP voting that year. 21 year old Lebron James finished 2nd that year. 2006-07 the Lakers only won 42 games. 2007-08 Chris Paul had a legit argument to winning MVP over Kobe. Chris Paul had statistically one of the greatest Point Guard seasons ever. 21.1 PPG .488% FG% .369% 3PT% .851% FT% 11.6 APG 5.5 RPG 2.7 SPG 2.5 TOPG Chris Paul was 2nd in the league in PER. Led the league in Assist per game, Steals per game, Offensive Win Shares, Win Shares, and Win Shares per 48 minutes on a team that had only 1 less win than the Lakers. Maybe they gave Kobe an MVP as a lifetime achievement award but who knows. 2008-09 and on It was all Lebron, so yeah......
Nash was one of the worst MVPs of all time, KG and Drik were the two best players in the game from 2003-2004 to 2006-2007, those two should have two each.
PHX went from 29 wins to 62 just by adding him wtf. Also Dirk and KG had never been better than Tim Duncan. The two of them just jad better supporting casts over the years but if they all had the exact same teammates TD would be the MVP between the 3 of them.
zero, he stole one from CP3 the one year he won. The one year he was like scoring a whole lot of points his team was like 7th seed or something
honestly he won the 2007-2008 MVP based on narrative and reputation, I give him credit because he actually took a back seat in offense once they acquired Gasol and was shooting way more efficiently and dishing out more assists. They ended up winning a lot of regular season games, and it was a seamless transition. but by individual achievements, CP3 should have won it.
I haven't been paying close attention to NBA at that time, so I can't get a full grasp at how good certain players were. But looking only at regular season statistics, it paints a different picture than I'm getting from your post and would be nice if you could elaborate. I mean...: After Shaq and before Gasol (pts/reb/ast/2p%/3p%) 2004/2005: 27.6 / 5.9 / 6.0 / 47.2 / 33.9 (played only 66 games) 2005-2006: 35.4 / 5.3 / 4.5 / 48.2 / 34.7 2006-2007: 31.6 / 5.7 / 5.4 / 49.7 / 34.4 After Gasol joined: 2007-2008 (Lost the finals) Bryant: 28.3 / 6.3 / 5.4 / 49.0 / 36.1 Gasol: 18.8 / 7.8 / 3.5 / 59.0 / 0 2008-2009 (Won the 'ship) Bryant: 26.8 / 5.2 / 4.9 / 49.6 / 35.1 Gasol: 18.9 / 9.6 / 3.5 / 56.7 / 0 2009-2010 (Won the 'ship) Bryant: 27.0 / 5.4 / 5.0 / 48.7 / 32.9 Gasol: 18.3 / 11.3 / 3.4 / 53.6 / 0 Now first of all, it doesn't look like his averages have been lost of points, 2 reb and 2 ast per game like someone here mentioned. Second, his assists per game were more or less the same before and with Gasol. Third, lots of posters here give the feeling that Kobe was never the best player on his team. I agree when he was with Shaq, but with Gasol? What's the story here? I'm not a Kobe fan, but I'm interested in years that I've missed. I read a lot of articles about first decade of 2000 that are probably mostly biased, so not sure where to turn to find the "truth". For example, in 20 years when somebody says Westbrook deservedly won MVP in 2016/2017, I'll have plenty of objective arguments on why this is not true. But when somebody says "Kobe won two championships in 2009 and 2010 because of Gasol who was best player on Lakers", I can't understand that. Statistically Kobe was obviously a much better player, at least in regular season, but we know stats are not everything. About MVP, I understand: in both years Nash won it, his team had a much better record than Lakers. Same with Dallas and Nowitzki. in 2009 and 2010 Cleveland had more or less same record as Lakers, but LBJ had slightly better stats and worse team.
hey you are probably right, I'm just purely going by memory here. I just remember he played really well when Gasol came and they won a lot of regular season games that season. I think he only got the nod that season due to wins, because LBJ and CP all had better stats.
