[23AJ]

Originally Posted by f22egl

I think Kobe showed what work ethic it took to be an all star year in year out much like how Arenas has done in Washington. But Caron Butler struggled to fit in with that Lakers team, because at the time Butler could not find his way into the starting lineup.

I think it's also deceiving to say Butler had a career year since it was his 3rd year in the league where he averaged 15.6 ppg compared to only 15.5 ppg in his rookie season. His numbers could have been lower if Kobe had played all 82 games that season.

Still, I find it compelling that LeBron has not allowed for any players he has played with to have a career year. But I would attribute to some of this to the front office and the personell they have surrounded LeBron with. The team blew it's only other other lottery pick after LeBron on Luke Jackson. LeBron has also not played with a solid point guard in his tenure in Cleavland.

I think LeBron made Boozer a better player. But I think Deron Williams, along with the coaching of Jerry Sloan, has made Boozer much better than what LeBron on his own could ever do.

All great points, and I agree with them.

However I think the writers mere point is to show how the media, and fans have made the imprint perception that Kobe clearly doesn't make any of his players better, but yet LeBron is better then Kobe because he makes his teammates better. Even though the statistics don't back that up. However the media saying it enough, and his fans combined, and people believe it. So there for Kobe has a disadvantage at how he's rated, and viewed because of this.

[TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife]

Originally Posted by jokeaward

Lebron is doing better, though probably not statistically significantly better.

If Kobe were the "Mr. 4th Qr 10 PPG" with more rebounds and assists, he'd be supported even more fervently. .

How often are the Lakers even down in the 4th quarter? Many times has played sparingly in the 4th because the outcome is already a foregone conclusion. He doesn't need the 4th quarter comebacks because the team is at times up by 15 or more.

[EHL]

Regardless of the validity of the the OP's analysis of the MVP award (which I only partially agree with but don't feel like going into great detail in at the moment), I think most will agree that the MVP award hasn't ever really meant much during its existence. It has little bearing on reality for the simple fact that the best players on the best teams are picked an inordinate amount of times over clearly superior players that just happen to play on poor supporting casts, through no fault of their own.

In terms of who deserves it more, I agree that LeBron is having a tremendous season statistically and should get serious consideration. To say LeBron clearly deserves the award, as those such as Hollinger proclaim based entirely on statistical data, ignores a slew of observational data (such as his D or his actual impact), where Bryant has the clear edge. Hell, James consistently proclaims Bryant as the best player in the league. In any case, based on the voters' poor criteria for MVP (best player on the best team), Bryant should win the award this season hands down with the only other players getting serious consideration being KG and Paul (who is too young to win it). I am assuming the Cavs win 50 or fewer games and the Lakers win 60 or more games in my analysis, however, so take that as you will.

[TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

I turned off when it said Lebron was only an average defender.
Also I dispute whether or not that Laker team that Kobe got 47 wins on was worse than this Cavs team. Remember this Cavs team has been missing large chunks of it's rotation all year.

The only players who have consistently been there are Damon Jones, Devin Brown, and till he was traded Eric Snow. AV and Pavlovic both held out. Lebron got injured for 6 games. Hughes was injured for about a month and a half. Pavlovic promptly got injured before the all-star break, so did Varejao. Gibson got injured right after the break. Zydrunas has been injured the last week or so. They made a major chemistry affecting trade.

I realize injuries played their part in that Laker team underachieving that year as well, but I think saying Kwame Brown and Smush Parker were the next two best players on that team after Kobe is a bit misleading.

None of that is even that important. Because I've always said it should go to the best player not the best player on the best team. I thought Kobe or Lebron should have won one of Nash's MVPs. Maybe both of them. Dirk was a slightly okayish choice, but again the two best players were Lebron and Kobe.

At any rate, yeah...calling Lebron merely an average defender does not accurately reflect the impact that he has on that side of the court in every single game.

Whether they were the 2 best after Kobe doesn't matter because neither guy plays much in the league anymore if at all and Kobe took them to two playoffs. The voters who are also the writers of the league, had the Lakers pegged to be 11th or 12th in the western conference the last 2 seasons. He takes them beyond the voters expectations and its not good enough?

Kobe has been the best player the last 2 seasons by far.

[TakUrBalzBakFrmUrWife]

Originally Posted by EHL

Regardless of the validity of the the OP's analysis of the MVP award (which I only partially agree with but don't feel like going into great detail in at the moment), I think most will agree that the MVP award hasn't ever really meant much during its existence. It has little bearing on reality for the simple fact that the best players on the best teams are picked an inordinate amount of times over clearly superior players that just happen to play on poor supporting casts, through no fault of their own.

In terms of who deserves it more, I agree that LeBron is having a tremendous season statistically and should get serious consideration. To say LeBron clearly deserves the award, as those such as Hollinger proclaim based entirely on statistical data, ignores a slew of observational data (such as his D or his actual impact), where Bryant has the clear edge. Hell, James consistently proclaims Bryant as the best player in the league. In any case, based on the voters' poor criteria for MVP (best player on the best team), Bryant should win the award this season hands down with the only other players getting serious consideration being KG and Paul (who is too young to win it). I am assuming the Cavs win 50 or fewer games and the Lakers win 60 or more games in my analysis, however, so take that as you will.

Can you explain why people use it as a partial gauge when discussing ones greatness?

[EHL]

^ Because many people believe the MVP award represents the informed consensus of a player's impact, while the reality is that often just the opposite is true. MVPs like David Robinson in 1995 or Dirk in 2007 are merely two examples of paper tiger MVPs that clearly did not deserve it when it came to winning time; both being bounced in terribly embarrassing fashion during their postseasons. And while I understand that it's meant to be a regular season award, the criteria should also take into account circumstance, how good that player is against particular types of competition, and what that player has actually achieved beyond their statistical impact on the whole (i.e. their defense, which can't be measured statistically all that well, or their night-in night-out consistency).

And while statistics measure what actually happens on the court, they only tell you so much; to quote an old saying I once heard, statistics tell you everything except how they were achieved. Nonetheless, statistical analysis is vital in drawing informed conclusions, but clearly no where near the whole picture. Intangibles, including defensive impact and execution in the clutch and under special circumstances, play a vital role when it comes to winning time; which is what should be heavily weighted in determined an MVP.

FYI, winning time = playoffs.

[HKF]

David Robinson lost in the Conference Finals in 6 games. I think you need to remove his name from Dirks.

[EHL]

^ I didn't say they were equals impact-wise. Besides, Dirk lost in the Finals the year before.

[HKF]

Yeah but D-Rob simply lost to a better player in his prime. Dirk, well you can't really say anything for that. David Robinson was a bad example. His MVP was deserved.

[EHL]

^ Come on, seriously? Drob made a career of coming up short in the playoffs. He was the ultimate regular season player whose play and stats went down precipitously in the playoffs. At least Dirk got to a Finals and beat a championship team to get there. Drob never did that.