Fair enough. You can vote him as player of the year, but I'll still consider him one of my top 3 MVP candidates.
If Shaq doesn't play, and play well, I can almost guarantee that the Lakers will not make the playoffs. IMO, that is very telling as to Kobe's worth.
I dont know about you guys...But watching the Lakers game tonight, everytime Kobe touched the ball, I **** in my pants. The guy is ridiculous right now.
As of now, they are a playoff team, tied with the Rox for the final spot as you probably know by now. And this is supposed to be Shaq's team. Shaq misses the game with a "Bum" knee and big toe and Kobe sinks 52 on the Rox while hobbling around on 1 leg to help his team win a game they needed to win! If this is Shaq's team and he is the MVP for the Lakers, how come he cant suck it up and play through the pain like Kobe did last night. This shold clearly show everyone that Kobe has more desire to win that Shaq does. This is what makes Kobe the leader of this team, his will and determination to succeed. I will admit, the "supporting cast" for the Lakers did help Kobe out on this night. I mean Mark Madsen came up huge with that OSCAR-winning flop (a la John Stockton style) at the end to foul out Yao. That was the worst call I have ever seen next to Karl Malone knocking out the Admiral cold with an elbow to the head with no call. But that is a completely different story for another section in the BBS forum. What was impressive is that they had control fo the game for most of the night and did this without Shaq. Tonight Kobe proved he was the real MVP of this team while Shaq watched.
1. no, they're not...if the playoffs started today, the rockets would knock the lakers out based on head-to-head play 2. this team was in the tank when shaq was injured...shaq came back and they've made a nice run. they won a big game last night. but without shaq, this team was down toward the very bottom of the western conference. kobe is not the real mvp of this team. the team makes the playoffs with shaq. without him, they're lottery fodder.
Kobe beating the Rockets on the road joins the illustrous company of the Cavs, Atlanta and Chicago of recent weeks. Take nothing away, he was great yesterday, but he will have to beat a lot better teams than that to warrant mention with TD or KG for MVP.
Alrighty then, how about Kobe, on the second night of a back to back without Shaq and with a sore leg against a playoff bound team at their place. How about having the Utah home faithful boo you for a little while and the begin chanting your name towards the end of the game and not in sarcasim either. Has TD or KG ever played like this ever in their careers? NO!!!!!!!!! GAME DAY RECAP Wednesday, February 19 Bryant's scoring binge goes full throttle -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RECAP | BOX SCORE | GAMECAST SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- A sore knee and exhaustion from playing two overtimes the night before weren't enough to end Kobe Bryant's torrid scoring run. Bryant scored 11 of Los Angeles' last 17 points and finished with 40 as the Los Angeles Lakers held off the Utah Jazz 93-87 Wednesday Bryant has scored 40 or more in seven straight games and has at least 35 in his last 11. The Lakers have gone 9-2 during his scoring binge. "I don't really know what it is,'' Bryant said of what's driving him during the streak. "All this has done is help us win games. Maybe when I retire I can look back and see what an accomplishment it was.'' When he finally does look back, Bryant will find himself in good company. The last player to score 40 in as many consecutive games was Michael Jordan, who did it in nine straight early in the 1986-87 season. Wilt Chamberlain scored at least 40 in 14 consecutive games early in the 1961-62 season. Bryant, who scored 52 the night before in a 106-99 double-overtime win over Houston, decided just before tipoff to play with a sore right knee as the Lakers were without Shaquille O'Neal for a third straight game. "Kobe was Kobe. He carried the load for two superstars tonight,'' said Rick Fox, who scored 11 for the Lakers. Bryant was booed throughout the night until the end, when the sellout crowd of 19,911 realized he was about to continue the streak. With the crowd chanting "KO-BE! KO-BE!'' Bryant got his 40th point on a free throw with 8.2 seconds left after the Jazz had no choice but to foul him. "I never thought I'd hear that,'' Bryant said. "It felt like the Staples Center out there.'' Bryant finished 15-for-29 from the floor and 4-of-6 on 3-pointers. Most of his points came from the outside because his knee was too sore to drive. Despite being tightly guarded by Calbert Cheaney and Andrei Kirilenko, Bryant kept hitting his shots. He's the best player in the game right now. He's playing as good of basketball as I've seen in my career,'' Jazz guard Mark Jackson said.
But, it would be interesting to see the team play with Shaq and without Kobe. I'd guess that they'd be even worse than they are when Kobe's playing and Shaq isn't.
Apparently me and Rezdawg arent the only ones voting for Kobe as MVP right now. Jack McCallum from SI.com is too! And to all KG and TD voters out there, he gives them props too, but explains why Bryant is better right now. He basically touches on every arguement that has appeared in this thread. Read and enjoy. Anatomy of an award After careful analysis, Kobe is the MVP ... maybe Posted: Wednesday February 19, 2003 1:25 PM Updated: Wednesday February 19, 2003 7:33 PM To justify my jumping the gun on the topic of this season's Most Valuable Player, I'll point out three things: First, the Heisman Trophy -- the single most annoying and overblown award in all of sports and probably all of the world -- gets talked about as soon as the college football season starts. Second, I showed undue restraint last week by not bringing up the MVP in a discussion about Kevin Garnett, who is an obvious candidate. Third, most of my colleagues have already started talking about it. So, taking into account the fact that we're past the midseason mark, I'm going to talk about it, too. As a further rationalization, the subject does seem particularly relevant these days, considering the apparent MVP performance being put on lately by the Los Angeles Lakers' Kobe Bryant. His dazzling 52-point double-overtime effort in Tuesday night's Shaq-less win against Houston marked the 10th straight game in which Kobe's scored more than 35 points, a run that can only be called Jordanesque. And remember that Bryant, like O'Neal, is not completely healthy, having suffered what he calls "jumper's knee," an ailment otherwise known as tendinitis. Sometimes, of course, picking the MVP is as easy as picking shrimp from the appetizer bar. In the 1995-96 season, the Chicago Bulls won 72 games and Michael Jordan was on the team. He was the MVP and a vote for any other player was just plain silly. But this is not one of the easy years, and anyone who pounds the table and claims he has a precise MVP formula is full of it. The debate over what exactly constitutes an MVP has long fascinated me. I remember being 10 years old and having an argument with my father about who deserved the award in major league baseball that season. We both loved Chicago Cubs shortstop Ernie Banks -- who wouldn't? -- but I held fast to the supposition that he should not be MVP because his team was so bad (an unusually precocious point of view, I hasten to add). My father countered by saying that the Cubs wouldn't have won 20 games without the guy, thereby presenting the he-who-does-the-most-for-his-team MVP idea. I agree that he-who-does-the-most-for-his-team is a pretty good definition of an MVP, but ultimately it's too vague. Perhaps Ricky Davis of the Cleveland Cavaliers is this year's MVP. Maybe the Cavs wouldn't have won five games without R.D. See, I still believe what I did when I was 10. Deciding on an MVP is usually so difficult that one must search for reasons to eliminate candidates, and one of the ways I do that is by looking with skepticism at players from bad, mediocre or even underachieving teams. In my ideal world, the vote would be taken later than the end of the regular season. (As should the Coach of the Year; true bench genius will be demonstrated by the guy who keeps his team together in May and June and figures out a way to beat a team in a seven-game series.) Alas, the voting is done in April, so the Ernie Bankses of the world, whose teams will not be there in prime time, have a chance to earn the MVP before they're forgotten. I can live with that even though my MVP will positively come from a playoff team and, further, one that has a chance to get beyond the first round. Now, I'm not claiming that the best player on the best team should necessarily be the MVP, though he might be. First of all, unless this vote is taken in June, how can you decide who the best team is? Record-wise, right now it's the Dallas Mavericks, whose best player is Dirk Nowitzki. But maybe it's the Sacramento Kings, whose best player is ... who? Mike Bibby? Chris Webber? Peja Stojakovic? Either way, those players have terrific supporting casts. Neither do I think that the plucky, single-talent player who lifts a seemingly mediocre team to respectability should be the MVP. Sports Illustrated's recent story that presented Detroit's defensive demon Ben Wallace as MVP was interesting, but, unless the Pistons reel off 20 wins in a row or something, Wallace will not get my vote. An MVP has to have a lot more game than the Pistons center has. Having said that, I don't think that the best player in the NBA should necessarily be the MVP, though he might be. The best player in the league right now, in my opinion, is Bryant, and not just because of his recent explosion. Garnett is second, Tracy McGrady is third, and Tim Duncan is fourth. But what constitutes "best"? I usually proclaim the versatile players -- those who can shoot, dribble, pass, rebound and defend -- as "best," but some consider the best player to be the most dominant player. That player is clearly O'Neal, though his injuries have obviously taken him out of any MVP consideration this season. Well, that's enough piddling around. How would I decide my MVP? As I said, I'd do it by eliminating candidates and seeing who is left. (Keep in mind this is subject to change, because there are several more weeks before my ballot must be cast.) I know that McGrady has precious little help down in Orlando, especially with injuries to Grant Hill, but the Magic just aren't good enough for him to get my vote. Ditto for Allen Iverson of the Philadelphia 76ers and both Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker of the Boston Celtics. Jason Kidd of the New Jersey Nets? He's terrific, but he has too many bad shooting nights and the Nets may not be as good as last year. Nowitzki? It's a Karl Malone-John Stockton kind of thing. How good would the Dirkster be without Steve Nash? It's too close to call, though that could change in the future, so I probably won't go with Dirk. Team balance does, in fact, hurt the Kings' candidates. I don't think it's possible to isolate a player who most distinguishes himself on that club, though, if this year's playoffs are anything like last year's, it will clearly be Bibby. But the vote isn't taken in May and June, so no Kings will be crowned as my MVP. This explains everything Which leaves us with three candidates -- Bryant, Garnett and Duncan. Night in and night out, the latter two are routinely dependable and, more often than not, spectacular. They fill up boxscores. They play hurt. Their teams, the Minnesota Timberwolves and San Antonio Spurs, respectively, are not just better because those players are on the court; they're much, much better. The supporting casts for Garnett and Duncan are adequate but not great. I voted for Duncan last season when he won the MVP, and, perhaps for that reason, I would put Garnett slightly ahead of Duncan right now. As for Bryant, for all his stellar play, the fact remains that the Lakers are 4-10 without O'Neal in the lineup, leading some to wonder if Kobe is even the most important player on the team. But at some point individual brilliance becomes a key criterion for MVP. Also, consider what's happened in L.A. this season. The Lakers appeared to be on the verge of a civil war as late as the first week of January, but they've pulled together, and Bryant, playing with pain, has clearly become their leader. So he would get my vote right now.
I still stick with Kobe. When he has the ball, there is no bigger threat in the NBA right now. If the Lakers do not make the playoffs, Garnett will probably win it. If they do make the playoffs, Kobe should take the award.
I hate to admit it. Kobe is playing incredibly right now. Yet, I think you guys aren't giving the Lakers supporting cast due credit. I mean, Fox, George, Horry and Fisher are all very capable players. Even the rookie Kareem Rush is pretty good. (BTW, I don't include Samaki Walker among the "capable players." He is pretty much like our Cato before this year.) The reason why the Lakers were so dominating the past 3 years was because this supporting cast always made you pay when you focused on Kobe and Shaq. Kobe couldn't beat us alone in regulation and OT 1. They beat us in OT 2 when the role players stepped up. Right now, their supporting cast is deferring too much to Kobe (all the Lakers analysts in LA agree with this). When they start to assert themselve more, they are no worse than the supporting casts of the Spurs and the Wolves.
