MVP watch..

[Killakobe81]

Why wasn't CP3 deserving in 2007-08 based on how they have voted the past 20 years?

His stats made him at least as deserving as Kobe or LeBron that season. And the Hornets were the 2nd seed in the Western Conference. Based on what exactly didn't CP3 at least have as deserving a case as Kobe?

Here is how the MVP has been decided for the most part by media:

1. Leads a team that is not considered the best to a top 2 conference record (CP3 and kobe both had this)

2. Puts up some type of eye catching MVP numbers: top scorer, assist man or rebounder (Paul had assists and PER Kobe scoring numbers still a top notch defender when he was motivated)

3. Does more with Less: Paul it would appear at first to have owned Kobe in this category but people forget the Lakers had also went from first round fodder to a top west record BEFORE Pau was acquired but then Drew got hurt. Kobe was the constant But Paul had the edge. Lebron especially got votes for this when he won and rightfully so. But some folks exaggerated how weak his cast was. He surely did not have Pippen or Rodman on his side. Before the Pau trade To me this was fairly even but Paul benefited the most.

4. the breakout season: Lebron and Rose are great examples. Paul also had this going for him as well. a young star that cements himself as a superstar.

5. Lifetime achievement: A great player that is still great but they give it to him becuse he hasnt won one yet or he has a season that the media falls in love with Malone over MJ was a prime example, Kobe benefited as well.

6. Siganture monets/wins: Rose won the MVP partly because almost every big game on national TV against the other candidates ... Rose led his team to victory over the others. Back in 2008 the Lakers had a key game that locked up HCA and Kobe easily outplayed Paul. I think it clincehd the MVP for Kobe because at least that is how it was portred in the ...

7. The media: Whether it be due to voter fatigue (MJ and Lebron were penalized) a great media story (kobe has changed ... Derick Rose has arrived!! Nash has brought back the 80's) More than anything it has become a bull media award. And will be unless the stats heads take over. All the MVPs that have won have been great players. But they are shaping the MVP race ...a wave of suport starts and once it builds it is almost impossible to fight. Rose got this last year ...and Durant is getting it this one even though his season has not been MVP like.

I am not saying Paul couldnt have won. Im just saying based on all the factors especially the last three ... no way Paul was getting that from Kobe.

[JamStone]

You said based on the last 20 years, CP3 didn't deserve it. You just went on listing different variables that don't apply to all 20 previous MVPs. Lifetime achievement? That applies to the 20 other MVPs over two decades? Signature moments/wins? Really? Seriously? How about the win over the Lakers at Staples where CP3 dished 21 assists? How about orchestrating a 24 point win over San Antonio, also on the road? How about outdueling Steve Nash and putting up 42 points in a win against Phoenix, once again on the road?

You're reaching. That list was contrived and pretentious. CP3 filled all the requisites for a League MVP in 2008. He deserved it as much as anyone else in the league, including Kobe, including LeBron.

Everything else you listed applied to CP3 that year.

[Brazil]

And no one talks about his defense.

to be fair D is atrocious when tp is not on the floor.

not a good argument tbh

tp is a solid 5 thats it and yes I think cp3 is better

[DPG21920]

The argument is not CP3 v TP: I've ranked CP3 ahead. It's that TP is CLEARLY top 5 in MVP voting this year.

People who comment on his defense also have zero idea what they're talking about. He is one of the top PG defenders.

[Pelicans78]

The argument is not CP3 v TP: I've ranked CP3 ahead. It's that TP is CLEARLY top 5 in MVP voting this year.

People who comment on his defense also have zero idea what they're talking about. He is one of the top PG defenders.

At best he's 4th right now.

Is his defense really that good? I don't think it is.

But even if he is top 5 which he is not, it won't last if Manu comes back healthy. Plus eventually Rose will pass him too. He may get a few votes.

[DPG21920]

How can a team that plays better without Rose, make Rose the MVP ahead of TP?

TP's defense is very solid. Unless you watch the Spurs on a consistent basis or do advanced stat work, it's easy to ignore. He is a very solid defender and it makes it more special that he also carries the bulk of the offensive load for the Spurs.

People knock the Spurs for not being contenders, having rotation guys like Bonner, Blair, Danny Green & Richard Jefferson & a TOSB in Duncan yet TP has carried them without Ginobili to the 2nd best record in the West.

When TP is out, they lose. When Rose is out, the Bulls win.

[Pelicans78]

How can a team that plays better without Rose, make Rose the MVP ahead of TP?

TP's defense is very solid. Unless you watch the Spurs on a consistent basis or do advanced stat work, it's easy to ignore. He is a very solid defender and it makes it more special that he also carries the bulk of the offensive load for the Spurs.

People knock the Spurs for not being contenders, having rotation guys like Bonner, Blair, Danny Green & Richard Jefferson & a TOSB in Duncan yet TP has carried them without Ginobili to the 2nd best record in the West.

When TP is out, they lose. When Rose is out, the Bulls win.

I agree about the Rose part.

But the advanced metrics don't make Parker a top 5 MVP, especially win looking at win share, which is not perfect, but usually a reliable marker. Also, his defensive rating is below league average, which again is just one marker, but usually reliable.

But I'll give Parker his due. And I do think the Spurs are a real contender whenever Manu is healthy.

[JamStone]

I think the Bulls winning without Rose has to be taken into proper context. The Miami win was impressive but also accompanied an all world performance by John Lucas that came out of the blue. Most of the other wins without Rose came against bottom feeders like Charlotte, Washington, Cleveland, and Sacramento. It speaks more to the depth of talent on the Bulls roster than an indictment of Rose's value. And they also lost to a bad Nets team.

[urunobili]

Durant...

[DPG21920]

I think the Bulls winning without Rose has to be taken into proper context. The Miami win was impressive but also accompanied an all world performance by John Lucas that came out of the blue. Most of the other wins without Rose came against bottom feeders like Charlotte, Washington, Cleveland, and Sacramento. It speaks more to the depth of talent on the Bulls roster than an indictment of Rose's value. And they also lost to a bad Nets team.

Sure, but this isn't exactly a small sample. They have played nearly 25% of their games without Rose and have won at over a 70% clip. I don't care which teams you play, if you play without your best player 25% of the time, winning at over 70% is ridiculous.

Rose is a better player than Parker. I'm not arguing that. I'm simply saying that this year, TP is a top 5 MVP candidate based on this season and all the factors involved IMO.

[JamStone]

Their only good win without Rose was against Miami, albeit a great win. And that's countered with a loss to New Jersey. They did also beat a schizo Boston team. All the other wins without Rose were against bad teams. I don't know how you don't factor that. Those games if losses would have had people on these boards loling the Bulls. I don't look at the winning percentage against mostly horrible teams as being impressive. I'm not arguing who is more MVP worthy, just that the argument that the Bulls win without Rose should be made in proper context.

[DPG21920]

Beating MIA without Rose is not countered by losing to NJ. One is way more impactful. They beat BOS. Plenty of teams lose to those same bad teams fully healthy which is why I don't factor it nearly as much as you do.

When you are missing your MVP and still win at 70%+, it doesn't matter who you play. That's what I don't get about you. It's still impressive as and speaks to how good CHI is.

[Pelicans78]

Beating MIA without Rose is not countered by losing to NJ. One is way more impactful. They beat BOS. Plenty of teams lose to those same bad teams fully healthy which is why I don't factor it nearly as much as you do.

When you are missing your MVP and still win at 70%+, it doesn't matter who you play. That's what I don't get about you. It's still impressive as and speaks to how good CHI is.

I'm gonna agree.

Listen, I didn't think Rose was the MVP last season. He has a good enough team around him to win it all. The Bulls are much deeper than the Heat. The problem is, he's not good enough to beat them.

[JamStone]

Is a 1 game sample good enough to make the contention that when Parker is out the Spurs lose?

[DPG21920]

No. That was a comment made about what I feel would happen if TP is out. TP is more important to the Spurs than anyone at this point. We know with Rose out, the Bulls can still win games. We don't know (and I don't believe) if the Spurs could win at the same clip with TP out (we know they can win because of TP with Manu out though).

[Killakobe81]

You said based on the last 20 years, CP3 didn't deserve it. You just went on listing different variables that don't apply to all 20 previous MVPs. Lifetime achievement? That applies to the 20 other MVPs over two decades? Signature moments/wins? Really? Seriously? How about the win over the Lakers at Staples where CP3 dished 21 assists? How about orchestrating a 24 point win over San Antonio, also on the road? How about outdueling Steve Nash and putting up 42 points in a win against Phoenix, once again on the road?

You're reaching. That list was contrived and pretentious. CP3 filled all the requisites for a League MVP in 2008. He deserved it as much as anyone else in the league, including Kobe, including LeBron.

Everything else you listed applied to CP3 that year.

I never said that entire list applied to every single MVP winner, that is why I provided different examples. I already said:
a.) I dont care about the award,
b.) CP3 was deserving as a candidate.
Read it again. I said the media was not GIVING that award to Paul based on the factors that I listed. IF you believe like I do (that it is media bull ), then why does it matter if Kobe took Paul's or Nash Lebron's? My list was more a summation of the factors the media uses to make the selection. The fact that Paul was deserving doesnt have to do with it. I am not "reaching" Im giving you my opinion, which despite you being one of the better posters on here is no more or less valuable than yours.
YOU asked me why I said what I said and I clarified. Just because you disagree, doesnt make it pretentious. My guess based on reading your posts we are not that far off in age. SO im pretty sure you have seen the last 20 MVP races.
So are you are saying that I am wrong? are you siitting here and telling me that over the past 20 years that we have not sen them repeatedly not pick the best player or the media riding the wave to push someone that they feel "deserves it?"... again, Malone over MJ was the most blatant but Rose being the most recent example ...

Your counter argument was to drop a few random games where yes, Paul played great but how many of those were on NATIONAL TV, where he could of swayed the media votes? Remember advance stats have gotten more traction (and Paul is a PER stud) ... the past few years but if it was the end all be all Rose doesnt win last year his advanced stats were good but I dont believe he was in the top 3. Those signature moments whether you want to acknowledge them or not they matter. Do you think it is just a coincidence that Dirk won his only MVP when the Mavs were featured on more national TV games AFTER they went to the Finals? Sure the record was a big factor, that is why listed it first ... but the exposure he gpot due to the increase of national TV games I BELIEVE helped him win.

Jam, I'm not here to start beef or anything. But just saying I dont get what exactly you have a problem with what I said. I said Kobe deserved his only because it was media bull . He may have deserved it another year and didnt get it he got this one ..who cares? I love ball so I gave you my opinion on why it's bull and what the voters seem to care about. You are the better poster here I feely admit that. So prove me wrong. Where is the MVP that has won without a decent number of big performances in national TV games?

and just for kicks found a few articles from various media folks who may or may not be voters but Im sure have some "sway":

During Tuesday's telecast, three members of ESPN's NBA Coast to Coast crew offered their takes on this year's exciting MVP race. All of them unhesitatingly chose Kobe Bryant as MVP.

Tim Legler said that Bryant has no weaknesses offensively and that on a nightly basis he guards the opponent's toughest player. Legler added that it is "unfathomable" that Bryant has not yet won an MVP but he expects that oversight to be corrected this season. Legler echoed points that I have made here on many occasions. The fact that Bryant has no weaknesses is very significant. Even LeBron James, as great as he is, has weaknesses: he is a below average free throw shooter, a poor perimeter shooter and not yet a consistently good defensive player. During last year's Finals, the Spurs contained James by cutting off all driving lanes and forcing him to shoot jumpers. That resulted in James shooting a poor percentage and committing a lot of turnovers. That kind of defensive strategy would simply not work against Bryant. In my post led Why Blogging is Booming and Newspapers Are Scrambling to Catch Up, I listed several specific areas that I mean when I say that Bryant does not have any weaknesses (this list is meant to be suggestive, not exhaustive; there could be further, more specific subcategories in several of these areas):

1.Finishes at the hoop with either hand
2.Dribbles well with either hand
3.Has excellent post moves and footwork
4.Draws fouls and shoots FTs very well
5.Has three point range
6.Can get off a good shot attempt even against good defense
7.Rebounds well for his position
8.Reads double-teams well and makes the correct passes, which don't always lead to assists for two reasons: the second pass out of the trap often leads to the assist and it is not possible for anyone to get an assist if the shot is not made
9.Excellent defender, as acknowledged by the league's head coaches in All-Defensive Team voting
10.Tremendous inner drive and will to win
Greg Anthony boldly suggested that James may be the most talented player in the history of the NBA but quickly added, "He is not the most skilled or the most valuable," two distinctions that Anthony bestowed upon Bryant. Anthony also emphasized that Bryant has no weaknesses.

Jamal Mashburn said that Bryant "is playing with passion, purpose and intensity." He also referred to Bryant's "pursuit of perfection," which is the same phrase applied to the New England Patriots during their unprecedented 16-0 season.

Notice how these analysts--each of whom played in the NBA--emphasize the importance of the fact that Bryant has no weaknesses. Determining who is the best player is not just a matter of crunching numbers or ranking who has racked up the most SportsCenter highlights. What we see with elite athletes in many sports--from the Patriots to Tiger Woods to Bryant--is that mastery of the "little things" (the fundamentals) leads to the ability to be a dominant performer. Look at how Bryant scored his 52 points against Dallas: three pointers, hard drives into the paint, a hook shot over 7-footer Dirk Nowitzki, an offensive rebound of a missed free throw, turnaround shots off of postup moves, pullup jumpers, drives after splitting double teams. Those things require a host of different fundamental skills, ranging from ballhandling to shooting to various kinds of footwork. Scoring 52 points does not prove that you are the best player in the NBA--but the skills that Bryant displayed while scoring those 52 points, not to mention that 30 of those points came in the fourth quarter and overtime, against a good Western Conference team, provide a snapshot of why Bryant is such unique player. It also should not be forgotten that while Bryant put his full scoring repertoire on display he also rebounded, passed and defended at a very high level.
The above is courtesy of ESPN ...

Like i said the media was NOT gonna give him the award not when Kobe had all of the things I listed plus stuff like the above on his side.

[Killakobe81]

Oh yeah, Hornets had 13 national TV games in 2008 ...the Lakers 25 and that schedule was made BEFORE Pau was traded ...

[JamStone]

For your b.) point...

Verbatim your first response post:

Won't matter. unless Clips move up quite a bit. Paul DID NOT DESERVE Kobe's MVP at least based on how they have voted the past 20 years ... I think the award is crap and if Lebron doesnt get it ...it will further prove my point.

Now you say he was deserving? He's either deserving or not deserving. My first post, the one you responded to with this post, said specifically that CP3 "probably deserved" it. I didn't claim Kobe wasn't deserving, only that CP3 probably deserved it.

I don't know how many of those games were nationally televised. I don't know where to get that info. I don't believe that last contest between the Lakers and Hornets where you suggested sealed the MVP for Kobe was nationally televised either. Should we disregard that as a determining game?

Your key points such as key MVP performances or games and the media bias doesn't really speak to a player being "deserving" or not. They speak more to why a candidate might not win even if he is deserving. There's a clear difference in what you want to qualify as deserving and what I think made CP3 a deserving candidate. In my subsequent posts, I've specifically said that CP3 was "at least as deserving" as guys like Kobe and LeBron. And to me, taking into other considerations, CP3 probably did deserve the award. "Probably" is the operative word as it infers that I'm not suggesting Kobe was undeserving. Yet as I pointed out, your first response post specifically stated CP3 "DID NOT DESERVE" the MVP.

[DPG21920]

I agree with Jam here. Might not have been what you meant, but it's how it came off Killa.

[JamStone]

No. That was a comment made about what I feel would happen if TP is out. TP is more important to the Spurs than anyone at this point. We know with Rose out, the Bulls can still win games. We don't know (and I don't believe) if the Spurs could win at the same clip with TP out (we know they can win because of TP with Manu out though).

v. Washington
@ Memphis
v. Phoenix
@ Cleveland
v. Charlotte
@ Charlotte
@ Boston
v. Sacramento
v. Boston
v. New Jersey
v. Miami

In your honest opinion, if TP was out all of those games, what would you expect the Spurs record to be in those 11 games? Just your guess.

Also, look at the Bulls record with and without Rose:

With Rose: 28-6, .824 winning percentage
Without Rose: 8-3, .727 winning percentage

Yes, they play well without Rose. They still play better with him. Again, it speaks more to their depth of talent, not Rose's value to the team.

[Pelicans78]

Doesn't matter what ESPN analysts thought back then. Paul was more valuable to the Hornets than Kobe was to the Lakers.

How good would Chandler, West, and Peja have been without Paul? Also, the Hornets had nothing else outside of those guys. No bench, no perimeter scorers. Paul carried that team the whole season. The Lakers had a much better bench that season as well.

[DPG21920]

spurs lose at least 6 games

[JamStone]

Lol really? I don't buy that at all. Only game I think they surely lose is against Miami. The only other questionable games would be at Memphis, at Boston, and against Sacramento. But they'd be a flip of the coin type of games. I'd expect the Spurs to win at the very least any combination of 7 of them.

[DPG21920]

I don't think you understand how important TP is on both sides of the ball for the Spurs. CHI can win without Rose because their defense is stout. Spurs don't have that luxury and even with TP they are mediocre. Without him, they have proven to be pretty significantly worse on that end. The numbers bear this out.

[LnGrrrR]

Steve Nash says o.

Steve Nash is white.