[Pioneer10]

Originally Posted by MLKG

I don't know that the Cavs without Lebron would be that much worse than the Hornets without Paul.

Originally Posted by MLKG

Take away a strong playmaker and Chandler and Peja become garbage. Without Chris Paul, New Orleans would completely fall apart. They have NOBODY capable of creating anything for other players (Julian Wright, maybe, but not at a winning level). Chris Paul has the ball in his hands probably 80% of the time he's in the game. There isn't a player in the league that handles it more than him. Not Lebron, not Iverson, not Nash.

No, New Orleans without Paul wouldn't be AS bad as the Cavs without Lebron, but that's because they have a better team to begin with. They would win more games, but the fall off from where they are to where they would end up would be comparable to the fall off for a Lebron'less Cavs.

I'm not saying Chris Paul is the MVP or anything, just saying the "he's the entire team" argument works just as well for him as it does for Lebron.

Even with Lebron the Cavs are struggling to hold onto the 4 seed. They're going to win what, 45 games? Come on. He's completely carrying the team, but he's not exactly carrying them to great heights. If you're going to make a "the team is good, but everybody except one player sucks" MVP argument, the team has to actually be good.

Umm what exactly are you trying to argue here? You completely step back from the first statement you made which is what I objected to: the Hornets have better overall talent after there star player. I think I personally would vote for KG as MVP: his per possesion numbers are top 5 and he's the best defensive player by far of any of the MVP candidates. That being said I already stated in other threads that Paul would be my second choice but first if KG is not in the equation. But that's neither here nor there as that's not really what your first post was about and had nothing to do with what I posted. I'm not really sure there would be anybody who would take Z/Wallace/West/Brown or Z/Gooden/Hughes/pavlovic over Chanderl/West/Peja/Pargo

[Brandname]

Originally Posted by MLKG

That had something to do with the fact that he put together the 3rd highest non-Chamberlain scoring season in NBA history.

Right. And Lebron's having a season this year that is at least as good as Kobe's that year, so the situations aren't all that different.

[Undefeated82]

Originally Posted by MLKG

Take away a strong playmaker and Chandler and Peja become garbage. Without Chris Paul, New Orleans would completely fall apart. They have NOBODY capable of creating anything for other players (Julian Wright, maybe, but not at a winning level). Chris Paul has the ball in his hands probably 80% of the time he's in the game. There isn't a player in the league that handles it more than him. Not Lebron, not Iverson, not Nash.

No, New Orleans without Paul wouldn't be AS bad as the Cavs without Lebron, but that's because they have a better team to begin with. They would win more games, but the fall off from where they are to where they would end up would be comparable to the fall off for a Lebron'less Cavs.

I'm not saying Chris Paul is the MVP or anything, just saying the "he's the entire team" argument works just as well for him as it does for Lebron.

Even with Lebron the Cavs are struggling to hold onto the 4 seed. They're going to win what, 45 games? Come on. He's completely carrying the team, but he's not exactly carrying them to great heights. If you're going to make a "the team is good, but everybody except one player sucks" MVP argument, the team has to actually be good.

lol Why do you make a point then backtrack on it? I don't agree with any of this by the way. There is no doubt that Paul has a better suppoting cast then Lebron. D.West, Peja and Chandler can create offense for themselves. Peja was a highly considered MVp not so long ago, Chandler gets a lot of points working the boards/putbacks and catching lobs from not just CP but from others as well, and D.West we all know how much his game has improved. Then on the other hand we have the Cavs who have absolutely looked terrible with Lebron out the line-up. His team is so bad that even with him putting up monster career numbers they don't win in a lackluster conference.

[MLKG]

I said I don't know that the Cavs would be that much worse than the Hornets because they would both be bad, they would both be out of the playoffs, and in a stacked West New Orleans would struggle to win games just as much as the Cavs would in the East.

And I reserve the right to step back from any statement I make in casual posts at any time. Although I don't see how I've done that here because I don't consider starting a sentence with "I don't know that..." a real strong basis for establshing an argument. All I was saying is if you're going to give Lebron MVP points for carrying a bad team, you have to give just as many to Paul.

[MLKG]

Originally Posted by Undefeated82

lol Why do you make a point then backtrack on it? I don't agree with any of this by the way. There is no doubt that Paul has a better suppoting cast then Lebron. D.West, Peja and Chandler can create offense for themselves. Peja was a highly considered MVp not so long ago, Chandler gets a lot of points working the boards/putbacks and catching lobs from not just CP but from others as well, and D.West we all know how much his game has improved. Then on the other hand we have the Cavs who have absolutely looked terrible with Lebron out the line-up. His team is so bad that even with him putting up monster career numbers they don't win in a lackluster conference.

New Orleans is overrated. If they don't get the 1 seed they will lose in the first round. Even if they do get the 1 they'll have a battle.

Their entire offense is pick and roll, they don't have a second guard, and their defense is suspect. San Antonio, Dallas, Phoenix, LA, and Utah would roll over them. The only teams they can beat are Houston and Denver/GS, and that's not a given.

[MLKG]

Originally Posted by Brandname

Right. And Lebron's having a season this year that is at least as good as Kobe's that year, so the situations aren't all that different.

I strongly disagree.

[Pioneer10]

Any team that loses there star could be considered "bad". The Spurs w/o Duncan would be a lottery team but that wouldn't suddenly make Parker/Ginobili a bad backcourt. The Hornets clearly have talent: it's kind of funny that people are so willing to dismiss a guy like Peja. He's 30 and in his prime and healthy: it's like because he was hurt for a few years he suddenly became a scrub. Having Paul helps any teammate just like having any great player generally helps teammates: but that didn't stop him from creating solo big shots for the Hornets like the game winner he had over the Suns

[Pioneer10]

Originally Posted by MLKG

I strongly disagree.

On what basis? Kobe scored more per game that year but Lebron was slightly more efficient scoring and Lebron this year has big advantages in terms of assists and rebounding. Lebron's PER is almost 30 this year (it was above till he got hurt) which is a truly remarkable year

[The Enigma]

Originally Posted by PauloCatarino

The meaning of the MVP Award is always subject to discussion.

But it hasn't been the "player-whose-team-would-suffer-the-most-without-him". If that would be the case, i agree Lebron should win it this year. If replaced in the line-up with an average player, the Cavs would be bottom-dwellers. That reasoning would exclude KG from MVP talks (considering he plays with Pierce and Allen), and Kobe (Odom and Pau), Duncan (Parker and Gino) and Paul's (West, Peja) merits to the award would take a hit.
Even if we go far back, one can see how the Bulls did without perennial MVP candidate Michael Jordan when he was replaced in the line-up for Pete Myers.

So, IMHO, that argument doesn't stand much ground considering the MVP Award winners' history.

Maybe it's something like "fracnhise-player + great individual season + good team winning record"...

Interestingly enough that argument was one of the selling points during the two-season Nash MVP crusade. A span of games in which Nash did not play and the Suns lost while scoring fewer points was hammered away to help prove that Nash meant more to his team then just numbers. The argument that his presence "made everyone better", that without him Stoudemire, Marion and the Phoenix Suns would simply cease to exist.
That is the most recent example of “player-whose-team-would-suffer-the-most-without-him” being utilized on the behalf of an individual in the general MVP discussion.

----------------

This quote of yours...

"So, IMHO, that argument doesn't stand much ground considering the MVP Award winners' history."

... Sounds good, but it is inaccurate if Nash is taken into consideration. Why does such a claim hold weight for Nash and not for others?