http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...4&sportCat=nba
Can't take the NBA MVP seriously anymore
By Jemele Hill
What movie did Al Pacino win Best Actor for?
(a) "Scarface"
(b) "Dog Day Afternoon"
(c) "The Godfather"
(d) "The Godfather: Part II"
(e) None of the above, because Academy Award voters are stupid
Pacino, a seven-time Oscar nominee, finally won Best Actor in 1992 for "Scent of a Woman." To date, it's Pacino's only Oscar, and any Pacino fan will tell you that seeing him win for "Scent of a Woman" was like seeing Ice Cube for the first time without his jheri curl. It just wasn't right. It didn't make sense. And you felt cheated.
Sadly, the NBA MVP race has become just as warped and backwards as the Academy Awards. The definition of MVP seems to change every year, and all too often players are rewarded for sentimental reasons and discredited using other ludicrous rationales.
It's no different this season, which somehow universally came to be known as "Kobe's year," even if the Lakers don't finish with the top seed in the Western Conference.
I'm sorry, but that's absurd. No question, Kobe has put up some unbelievable numbers this season. But if New Orleans finishes first in the West and Chris Paul doesn't win the MVP, this award officially can't be taken seriously.
It would be criminal to overlook one of the most brilliant seasons a point guard has ever had. Paul averaged 24 points, 13 assists and nearly 3 steals per game in March. In fact, he's on the verge of becoming the first point guard since John Stockton to lead the league in both assists and steals in the same season. Nobody expected anything from the Hornets, and they're poised to win perhaps the most compe ive conference we've ever seen in the NBA.
That's the very definition of MVP -- individual brilliance coinciding with team success. I'm a Kobe supporter, and I still stand by my assertion that Kobe is a more skilled player than Michael Jordan was. But giving Kobe the MVP just because "it's his time" or "he's learned to be a team player" is a disservice.
This is what has become most frustrating about the evolution of the MVP race. Over time, merit has become less of a factor.
In the 1996-97 season, the MVP was thrown in Karl Malone's lap strictly because voters seemed sick of giving it to Michael Jordan, who won the MVP five times. Before that, the benefactor of ABJ (Anybody But Jordan) was Charles Barkley, who was named the MVP for the 1992-93 season even though Jordan averaged 32 points, 6.7 assists and 5.5 rebounds.
LeBron James probably didn't get the consideration he deserved last season because of the "he has plenty of time to win an MVP" argument.
Two-time MVP winner Tim Duncan should have gotten stronger consideration last season, too. But Duncan is the NBA's version of Russell Crowe. After Crowe won Best Actor for "Gladiator," the Academy overlooked him for both "The Insider" and "A "Beautiful Mind." Crowe won't win another one because he's too consistently good. Same goes for Duncan.
And only in the NBA could Shaq, the most dominant center of all time, have one MVP while Steve Nash, who has never gotten his team to the NBA Finals, has two.
That's why it's difficult to argue against Kobe, knowing he was cheated out of at least one MVP -- the one Dirk Nowitzki shamelessly won last season.
But while Kobe's renewed commitment to team ball makes for a cute catchphrase, it's a misnomer. Obviously Kobe has matured, but he's a better teammate primarily because he's got a fellow All-Star in Pau Gasol, a deeper, more skilled bench, and an emerging star in Andrew Bynum. Teamwork becomes much easier when your teammates can actually do something with the ball.
Which brings me to another frustrating element of the MVP race. Why are good players considered stronger MVP candidates when they have more help? (See: Kevin Garnett, the 2003-04 MVP.) Isn't the concept of "value" based on doing more with less?
That should be the only criteria. And if it is, Paul is the MVP over Kobe, LeBron and KG. LeBron has had a fine season, and he certainly ranks high in the value department, but Cleveland's team success isn't significant enough to warrant LeBron winning. KG's presence transformed the Celtics, but it certainly helps that he has All-Star security blankets Paul Pierce and Ray Allen.
But, if recent MVP races are any indication, politics will win again.
So congrats, Kobe.
Jesus. I ing hate Jemele Hill.
1984. F. Murray Abraham rocked ass and deserved the Oscar. Why the would he have won for the Godfather? Are you that f-ing stupid Jemele Hill? Network kicked all kinds of ass in '76 and there is no way in Al's going to get the award for a character he was reproducing in a sequel. Go to Jemele Hill. Write about racism. It's all you're good at. And The Insider came before Gladiator...
But seriously...I totally agree with the rest of the article.
Last edited by Kermit; 04-04-2008 at 02:19 PM.
Great article. Suns and Mavs fans won't be happy with this
I have to say... I agree with this guy 100%, even regarding Russell Crow!
I don't care if the Hornets don't even finish first, Chris Paul should get it regardless for making that team that good. People always are saying its Kobes year hes deserved it for a while...that argument doesn't work for me. I'd go as far as to say KG deserves it more even than Kobe.
I agree with most of what the guy says.
He's a she.
Is she's reggie miller's sister?... forget what i said i was confused
Last edited by DAF86; 04-04-2008 at 03:09 PM.
Only in a thread I start.
"That's the very definition of MVP -- individual brilliance coinciding with team success."
This could be said about KG, too, who I think should edge out Paul for the MVP, personally. I agree it should not go to Kobe or Lebron, however. Kobe has had too much help, even with all the injuries, and Lebron has no help but his team has been mediocre at best.
LeBron or Kobe should be the MVP. period.
Without them neither one of their respective teams would win 30 freaking games. Cleveland might not win 25 and they are in the EAST!
Beyond that it's CP3.
I don't care for Jemele Hill's articles, but I do agree that Chris Paul deserves MVP.
Kobe - Adversity galore, this was supposed to be a lottery season in the summer, broken finger, injuries to 2 starters. Lakers would be a lottery team without him. Kobe wins MVP as long as Hornets aren't #1. If Lakers grab the #1 seed, MVP race is over and congrats to a deserving Kobe.
Chris Paul - Amazing Season, no adversity, healthy team all year hurts his chances against Kobe, should only get MVP if he stays with #1 seed. Hornets would be nothing without him.
KG plays in the East. Celtics would still be a good team even without KG. Fails the "carry the team on his back" criteria.
LeBron, he's not winning. MVPs must win.
I thought Peja was out during the beginning of the season.
It looks like he was out 5 games in December.
New Orleans without Paul would also be a lottery team but they're 1st in the west with him, so for me is a no brainer.
Last edited by DAF86; 04-04-2008 at 03:28 PM.
I think it's between Kobe and CP3. The fact that CP3 is having a statistically great season for a PG shouldn't mean much. If stats weighed that heavily, we would see some really bad MVPs throughout history, like a Stackhouse or a Dominique Wilkins.
MVP is about contributing to your team's success in a way no other player can. I would put Kobe atop that list because he is that team's heart, soul and closer. No one can argue that any other player on that team affects its chances more than KB24.
If Kobe opted to have surgery on that pinkie (which no one could fault him for in their right mind), his career would not be threatened like it is now, playing with a shredded finger. My case in point is if Kobe were on the DL right now, we wouldn't even be talking about playoff chances for the Lakers, much less their entry into the 'Championship Contender' conversation. That's what an MVP does for a team.
The same reason she bags on Dirk's MVP last season is the exact same reason she is giving the award to CP3.
I have no problems with who people actually vote for, but at least be consistent with your argument. If you are are saying that individual brilliance + team success = MVP, Nowitzki deserved it last year. He put up amazing stats and the Mavs won 67 games.
Paul's importance to the hornets=Kobe's importance to the lakers
Dirk did deserve it last season. Nobody knew the Mavs were going to choke like that?
It's like when DRob one it in 1995 and then got schooled by Hakeem.
To me its a tie between Kobe and Paul. The Lakers are nothing w/out Kobe and same for the Hornets. Those two could go to another team in the dumps and easily turn that team around.
Paul's stats this season are better than Dirk's stats last season. And for me the Mavs last season without Dirk would have made the postseason the hornets without Paul this season would be a lottery team.
Kobe is going to get it barring a major collapse by the Lakers. I would say Paul and Bryant are equally deserving of it, Kobe will get the nod simply because he has not gotten one yet and will be seen as more deserving of it this season.
Any chances of CP3 and Kobe being co-MVP's like they did with McNair and Manning?
I would hate to see the Cavs without LeBron, using that reference. I think that the Lakers without Kobe and the Hornets without Paul are much better teams than the Cavs without LeBron.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
