[creepy]

It's a poll. Vote.

Without Chris Paul, The Warriors would still be playing.

Without Kobe, Phil Jackson wouldn't be coaching the Lakers.

Without Lebron, would Cleveland still have a team?

Without KG, Boston would only be annoying in 2 sports.

Without Baron Davis, the Warriors would be in the lottery. Whoops......

[Tommy]

Can anyone explain to me why anyone other than Paul is even being considered?

And can anyone explain to me how Garnett gets in the discussion coming off his worst season statistically in 10+ years?

Because if you're gonna do the "it's not about numbers" argument, Kobe and LeBron are eliminated immediately, because it's not like Cleveland improved at all over last year; and Kobe was a whiny bitch until he got Pau Gasol.

But hey, who's got numbers AND leadership?

Why it's Chris Paul!

[jetskid48]

I can't imagine there should even be a discussion between anyone other than Kobe and Paul. Garnett I thought for sure would be the MVP, and he probably means most than anyone else to turning a team around, but he didn't play nearly enough. Baron Davis is a joke. Great year by Lebron...in the West, he may not have made the playoffs.

When it comes down to it, Kobe and Paul are having great seasons, but I have no idea how Kobe is the Most Valuable Player to a team that he gave up on until they showed signs up life after the first 15 games of this year. Yeah, Kobe should get the MVP eventually, and stepped up his game, but we don't see many years like the one Paul threw up there this year. As a person that believed Kidd had to win one of those MVPs (the year Shaq beat him), I think Great PG's are still underrated even in the Nash era. Paul's the vote.

[BFG]

30 - 7.9 - 7.2...LeBron's stats are insane. So if you are going based on stats, the Bron Bron is your winner. But I agree it isn't about stats.

That's why KG wins. He's more valuable then Paul.

66 - 16 vs 56 - 26. Peja = Allen. West = Pierce. Chandler = who on Boston exactly? It's hard to put in to numbers how a player make guys better. Nash isn't just assists, it's that he gets people the ball in the perfect place and makes passing and running a team thing. KG did the same to Boston by adding hustle and defense. Boston allowed 90.3 points a game this year, a drop of 9 points. And it's not like Allen or Pierce suddenly became defensive player of the year.

Last year Boston was 4-12 in games decided by 3 points or fewer. This year? 7-6. You want to know why? Because they were 45-3 in games decided by 10 or more points. 45 times the Celtics beat their opponent by 10 or more points. This is one year after losing 20 games by 10 or more points.

Really, Boston won 42 more games this year then last. That kinda makes the Hornets 17 extra wins not seem all that special to me.

Oh and for anybody who thinks playing in the East is a shitload easier then the West...all NBA teams plays each other @ least 2 times a year. That means that 70% of the Celts and Hornets schedule was exactly the same. And add to that that Boston held an .833 winning percentage against the West, and I'd say they were just the better team.

And all of that is thanks to Kevin McHale being an idiot.

[madiq]

I think that Bill Simmons convinced me that Garnett deserves it, despite me campaigning for Kobe all year. Yes, Chris Paul is more Steve Nash/Jason Kidd than Steve Nash and Jason Kidd, but the Kevin Garnett acquisition was the lynchpin to Boston transforming itself from a league laughingstock to the NBA's best regular season team.

The other arguments are thus:

CHRIS PAUL's maturation into an elite player coincided with the evolution of New Orleans into an elite team. Problem is, the team was on track to be a playoff team this year; we just weren't sure how good they'd be.

KOBE BRYANT's maturation into an unselfish player coincided with the Lakers becoming an elite team, especially after the Supporting Cast both stepped up their games, and added Gasol to the fray.

LEBRON JAMES is an otherworldly talent, an elite player that keeps an otherwise unremarkable team in the playoffs. But they aren't elite, and for as long as I can remember, the NBA MVP award goes to a player from an elite team. Otherwise, Kobe would have won one, as well as guys like Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter, Chris Bosh, Paul Gasol, and Dominique Wilkins.

All in all, though, how much you value the various components of the MVP criteria determine who you think deserves it the most. If you're a "career achievement" guy, you lean towards Kobe; if you're a "best player on the best team" guy, you probably favor Garnett; if you're a "makes everyone around him better" guy, you're pulling for Paul, and if you're a "single-handedly keeping his team relevant" guy, it's LeBron's award until he gets out of Cleveland.

Me, I have to acknowledge that this has a been a great season, and a great MVP race, and any one of the above would be a deserving winner.

[Tommy]

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

30 - 7.9 - 7.2...LeBron's stats are insane. So if you are going based on stats, the Bron Bron is your winner. But I agree it isn't about stats.

Chris Paul: 21.1 pts, 4.0 reb, 11.6 asst (led league), 2.7 stl (led league), just 2.5 turn/game (5.5 to 1 asst to turn ratio), 48.8% FG (10th among guards), 85.1% FT and 1.1 3-pt/game at 37%

LeBron James: 30.0 pts, 7.9 reb, 7.2 asst, 1.8 stl, 3.4 turn/game (not even a 2 to 1 asst/turn ratio), 48.4% FG, 71.2% FT and 1.5 3-pt/game at 31.5 %

LeBron James does not have better stats than Chris Paul. He scored more points.

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

That's why KG wins. He's more valuable then Paul.

This is another bullshit argument. You won't find a bigger Celtics fan than me, but how does Kevin Garnett putting up his worst statistical season in 11 years (96-97) make him MORE valuable than someone who put up the single-best statistical season by a point guard in 50 years. Or even more than a forward who scored 30 points a game with no help around him?

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

66 - 16 vs 56 - 26. Peja = Allen. West = Pierce. Chandler = who on Boston exactly?

You obviously have watched very little of either team. Allen >>> Peja, Pierce just came off his best season ever, so he >>> West, who is very good. And if you want to compare Chandler to someone, how about Rajon Rondo, who put up a top-15 season amongst point guards? Garnett is on the team with two perrenial All-Stars (Allen - 8-time All-Star; Pierce - 6-time All-Star). Paul had Stojakovic (3-time All-Star, last appearance 2004), West (1 All-Star game, selected as a reserve this season due to injuries) and Chandler (No All-Star games).

So, Garnett had 2 players with a combined 14 All-Star appearances, and Paul had 3 players with a combined 4 All-Star appearances. Who had more to work with?

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

It's hard to put in to numbers how a player make guys better. Nash isn't just assists, it's that he gets people the ball in the perfect place and makes passing and running a team thing. KG did the same to Boston by adding hustle and defense. Boston allowed 90.3 points a game this year, a drop of 9 points. And it's not like Allen or Pierce suddenly became defensive player of the year.

Pierce was always a pretty good defender. Allen definitely stepped it up a bit, but mainly because he was usually shuttled off onto the weakest guy on that end of the floor. But seriously, Garnett added "hustle"? Are you serious? Garnett is a fantastic defender, and brings it on that end of the court every night. There's no denying he brought his leadership into the mix and the team was better because of it; but in contrast - Chris Paul accomplished the same thing in a far more difficult conference with less talent.

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

Last year Boston was 4-12 in games decided by 3 points or fewer. This year? 7-6. You want to know why? Because they were 45-3 in games decided by 10 or more points. 45 times the Celtics beat their opponent by 10 or more points. This is one year after losing 20 games by 10 or more points.

Of course, Pierce only played 47 games last year, and you had Sebastian Telfair and Brian Scalabrine taking big shots down the stretch for them last year. Comparing the two teams (the 06-07 Celtics vs the 07-08 Celtics) is very difficult because the two teams are completely different save for Pierce and Rondo.

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

Really, Boston won 42 more games this year then last. That kinda makes the Hornets 17 extra wins not seem all that special to me.

Ok, but you're going to pin both turnarounds on one guy? Last I checked there were 12 players on an NBA roster.

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

Oh and for anybody who thinks playing in the East is a shitload easier then the West...all NBA teams plays each other @ least 2 times a year. That means that 70% of the Celts and Hornets schedule was exactly the same. And add to that that Boston held an .833 winning percentage against the West, and I'd say they were just the better team.

They ARE the better team. That said, how does that make Garnett the MVP? You conveniently leave out that he's in the same starting lineup as 14 combined All-Star appearances, as well as a few more coming off the bench in Cassell and PJ Brown.

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

And all of that is thanks to Kevin McHale being an idiot.

Or Danny Ainge being smart. More like Ainge saying "Fuck it, I have to save my job".

Saying "Garnett's the MVP because the Celtics are good" makes no sense to me.

[BFG]

Apr 19, 2008 14:50:42 GMT -5 Tommy said:

Apr 19, 2008 11:58:31 GMT -5 BFG said:

30 - 7.9 - 7.2...LeBron's stats are insane. So if you are going based on stats, the Bron Bron is your winner. But I agree it isn't about stats.

Chris Paul: 21.1 pts, 4.0 reb, 11.6 asst (led league), 2.7 stl (led league), just 2.5 turn/game (5.5 to 1 asst to turn ratio), 48.8% FG (10th among guards), 85.1% FT and 1.1 3-pt/game at 37%

LeBron James: 30.0 pts, 7.9 reb, 7.2 asst, 1.8 stl, 3.4 turn/game (not even a 2 to 1 asst/turn ratio), 48.4% FG, 71.2% FT and 1.5 3-pt/game at 31.5 %

LeBron James does not have better stats than Chris Paul. He scored more points.

He also grabbed more rebounds.

He also had a shitload of assist considering who he was passing to. Unless I just missed all those times he tossed the ball up to the air and Biz Z made a crazy ass dunk out of a bad pass. Having a center who can run the floor and do that is a great way to inflate assist stats.

And maybe I'm giving too much credit to Garnett, but I think the culture in Boston changed with one man, and I think making a team go from a joke to front runners for the title means something. Yes Paul is a good point guard (so is D-Will, and I still think Nash is the better player even if he didn't have the better season) and was the best player on the 2nd seeded Western Conference team.

But I think too many people are making a big deal out of what Paul did because the Hornets play in the West. These are the same people calling Manu the Spurs MVP.

Regardless of this bitchfest we've gotten in to, it doesn't matter because Kobe's gonna in it because he "has to win one".

[jetskid48]

Unless my math is off, Celtics went 9-2 without Garnett. I have a hard time feeling like this team wouldn't have improved either way without him (not as big of a difference, but probably closer to the 17 game difference Paul has had this year in the same situation) and if you look at both teams...is there anyway in hell the Hornets are going 9-2 without Paul (they went 1-1 without him this year)?

[Tommy]

Thank you Skid.

And BFG - LeBron had more rebounds because he's a forward and not a point guard. And Nash is probably the 4th best PG in the Western Conference now. He had an awful year.

[BC]

My vote goes to Paul. I hate stats, so I won't quote any. Paul is clearly the most valueable player to his team whch is what the award is called. Yes, the Hornets have some good players on that team, but they're there because of Paul. He's been good for several years now, when the Hornets had nothing. The fact that he was as good as he was drew players to New Orleans who might not have normally considered it (see Cleveland). Now they're one of the best teams in the NBA & Paul is playing out of his mind. So I give it to Paul based on not only this season, but the last few as well when he could have just phoned it in Gilbert Arenas style.

Oh...and fuck Kobe. Rapists don't deserve MVP's unless it's Most Valueable Prick

[madiq]

Apr 20, 2008 11:12:06 GMT -5 BC said:

My vote goes to Paul. I hate stats, so I won't quote any. Paul is clearly the most valueable player to his team whch is what the award is called. Yes, the Hornets have some good players on that team, but they're there because of Paul. He's been good for several years now, when the Hornets had nothing. The fact that he was as good as he was drew players to New Orleans who might not have normally considered it (see Cleveland). Now they're one of the best teams in the NBA & Paul is playing out of his mind. So I give it to Paul based on not only this season, but the last few as well when he could have just phoned it in Gilbert Arenas style.

Fuck that noise. It's a single-season award, and everything you can say about the Hornets' turnaround over the past few years, which you attribute to Paul, happened in Boston, and was attributable to Kevin Garnett. And it happened over ONE season. I'd say that the greatest single-season turnaround in NBA history, and resurrection of a storied franchise, makes the lynchpin of that pretty fucking valuable.

Again, Chris Paul had a monster season. And if they wanted to go co-MVP's this year, I wouldn't bitch at all. But the strongest arguments against Garnett are that (a) his team did pretty well without him, and (b) he has already won one, so he can't play the "sentimental favorite" card. He played like an MVP, he was the leader of the team, and he turned a laughingstock into an elite team, one of the favorites to win the NBA Title. You do get extra points for that.

(BTW, I mapped out an elaborate fantasy scenario that was to illustrate my point, and it involved the Knicks signing Gilbert Arenas, and undergoing a similar turnaround. Problem was, I couldn't see them beating Garnett's Celtics.)

[jetskid48]

Apr 20, 2008 14:08:09 GMT -5 madiq said:

Apr 20, 2008 11:12:06 GMT -5 BC said:

Again, Chris Paul had a monster season. And if they wanted to go co-MVP's this year, I wouldn't bitch at all. But the strongest arguments against Garnett are that (a) his team did pretty well without him, and (b) he has already won one, so he can't play the "sentimental favorite" card. He played like an MVP, he was the leader of the team, and he turned a laughingstock into an elite team, one of the favorites to win the NBA Title. You do get extra points for that.

Paul's resume:

He played like an MVP: Check
He was the leader of the team: Check
He turned a laughingstock into an elite team (not even just a team that was down, but a team that has probably never been this good): Check
One of the favorites to win the title: Check (2 Seed in the West)

So that's pretty much equal to everything you can say about Garnett. Plus you can add at least the (A) part because it does matter how well a team could play without him. It makes him "less valuable" if they can play relatively the same without him. Any culture change has been the same, but if you want to bring that up, the Hornets have never been good and at least the Celtics have history to think they can get back there again. Couple that with a much weaker East, and Paul still leading his team to a 2 seed in the ridiculous West, and I don't know how Garnett compares with his off year and just a bunch of intangibles.

Not to mention, I didn't even have him second before this discussion started. I still think Kobe is second, and maybe even Lebron is 3rd.

[Tommy]

I agree, but the Hornets were good in the early-mid 90s when a healthy Grandmama and Zo were there. Not World Champs, but its not like they're the Grizzlies.

[madiq]

Last year, New Orleans won 39 games, and missed the playoffs by 3 games. Boston won 24, and missed the playoffs by 16 games. They had the second-worst record in the league, and were thought to be tanking games at the end in order to draft Greg Oden or Kevin Durant.

Furthermore, considering the whole Katrina thing, no one considered the Hornets a laughingstock at all. I call bullshit.

BTW, I'm not arguing AGAINST Chris Paul, I'm arguing FOR Kevin Garnett...

[Tommy]

Apr 20, 2008 16:10:54 GMT -5 madiq said:

Last year, New Orleans won 39 games, and missed the playoffs by 3 games. Boston won 24, and missed the playoffs by 16 games. They had the second-worst record in the league, and were thought to be tanking games at the end in order to draft Greg Oden or Kevin Durant.

Furthermore, considering the whole Katrina thing, no one considered the Hornets a laughingstock at all. I call bullshit.

BTW, I'm not arguing AGAINST Chris Paul, I'm arguing FOR Kevin Garnett...

You're also leaving an awful lot out about the Celtics.

1) Paul Pierce missed 35 games last year.

2) They did not have Ray Allen.

Neither Pierce or Allen get any credit at all in your scenario. Throw in the 9-2 record without Garnett in the lineup, AND the fact that Garnett had his worst numbers since 96-97 - Really, how is he the MVP? I don't even think he's the MVP of the Celtics, never mind the league. That honor belongs to Paul Pierce, who re-committed himself to his defense, and expanded his game to be more complete; having his best all around season ever.

[creepy]

Wasn't Chandler always kind of a bust before his years with Paul? Also, how good would West be without Paul? Would Peja had signed without Paul being in NO? He's the glue, KG is just an ingrediant, albeit a pivotal one. Boston would be in the playoffs with out Garnett, while New Orleans wouldn't.