Can this really happen again? Can Kobe win the MVP if the Celtics win?

[Redz]

If it wasn't for the probability that it would most certainly require the series to go 7 games for this to happen, I'd almost like to see it happen as it would further accentuate the value of UBUNTU over the glory of individual glories. 

[Chris]

In contrast, each of KG, Pierce, Allen and - to a lesser extent - Rondo has been a no show in one or two games, including wins. How can you be a non-factor in multiple Finals games and be considered the MVP?

This is my biggest problem.  If your team can win without you playing great, then you are simply not the most valuable player.

Was Kobe great in Game 3?  34.5% shooting isn't exactly spectacular.  Yet the Lakers won, largely due to Derek Fisher making plays down the stretch.

OK, let me revise that.  If your team can win with you playing poorly (or beyond poorly in KG's case), then you are not the most valuable player.

[BballTim]

In contrast, each of KG, Pierce, Allen and - to a lesser extent - Rondo has been a no show in one or two games, including wins. How can you be a non-factor in multiple Finals games and be considered the MVP?

This is my biggest problem.  If your team can win without you playing great, then you are simply not the most valuable player.

Was Kobe great in Game 3?  34.5% shooting isn't exactly spectacular.  Yet the Lakers won, largely due to Derek Fisher making plays down the stretch.

This isn't about shooting percentages. FG% is just one factor of many. One could shoot 25% but average double figures in rebounds and assists and get lots of blocks and steals and could end up being a huge contributor.

Look, the point that I think Chris and I are converging on is that the MVP should be given to the one guy who best exemplifies the statement: "We can't or couldn't win without his contributions." In '08, the Celts don't win without Pierce. That's a true statement. But also, the Celts don't win without KG in '08. It's a judgment call - Pierce got it in '08 and that was great.

Fast forward to 2010. You just can't make that same claim about any one Celtic player. If you could, then by all means give the award to a Celtic regardless of what Kobe does. But in the meantime, you can say that thanks to Kobe, the Lakers made it a competitive series. If not for Kobe, the Lakers would have been swept.

I think we could make that statement about a lot of Celtics players this series.

We couldn't win without Pierce, or Rondo, or KG.  We need all of them to consistently win, just like every team needs its stars.  LA can't consistently win without Gasol.  LA has struggled since Bynum started being ineffective.

The fact is, in one of the LA wins, Kobe had a very mediocre game.  Missing 2/3 of the shots you take isn't exactly carrying your team to victory.  Without Derek Fisher, LA loses that game.  Since you're holding the Celtics players to that standard, I'd say that Kobe should be held to it, as well.

Roy, you do seem to be pretty hung up on shooting percentages. Fisher was key in that one game, but it's not like Kobe was a no show. In fact, until games 4 and 5, I was actually quite impressed with how Kobe was really trying to be the facilitator for the Lakers. You can't just write Kobe off because he didn't shoot well in a game or because Fisher happened to make some key plays down the stretch in one game. Kobe hasn't been a no show in any games. You can't say that about KG, Pierce or Allen (and maybe even Rondo).

But let me say this - it's not like I'm rooting for Kobe to get the MVP. I'd much rather it be KG or Rondo (or possibly Pierce).

  Don't you think it's pretty hard to be a no-show when you take 24 shots a game? I agree with Roy, he can score a lot of points (especially before the last 5-6 minutes of the game), be fairly inefficient as a scorer and still have had a bad game.

[Hoops]

This isn't about shooting percentages. FG% is just one factor of many. One could shoot 25% but average double figures in rebounds and assists and get lots of blocks and steals and could end up being a huge contributor.

Look, the point that I think Chris and I are converging on is that the MVP should be given to the one guy who best exemplifies the statement: "We can't or couldn't win without his contributions." In '08, the Celts don't win without Pierce. That's a true statement. But also, the Celts don't win without KG in '08. It's a judgment call - Pierce got it in '08 and that was great.

Fast forward to 2010. You just can't make that same claim about any one Celtic player. If you could, then by all means give the award to a Celtic regardless of what Kobe does. But in the meantime, you can say that thanks to Kobe, the Lakers made it a competitive series. If not for Kobe, the Lakers would have been swept.

I think we could make that statement about a lot of Celtics players this series.

We couldn't win without Pierce, or Rondo, or KG.  We need all of them to consistently win, just like every team needs its stars.  LA can't consistently win without Gasol.  LA has struggled since Bynum started being ineffective.

The fact is, in one of the LA wins, Kobe had a very mediocre game.  Missing 2/3 of the shots you take isn't exactly carrying your team to victory.  Without Derek Fisher, LA loses that game.  Since you're holding the Celtics players to that standard, I'd say that Kobe should be held to it, as well.

Roy, you do seem to be pretty hung up on shooting percentages. Fisher was key in that one game, but it's not like Kobe was a no show. In fact, until games 4 and 5, I was actually quite impressed with how Kobe was really trying to be the facilitator for the Lakers. You can't just write Kobe off because he didn't shoot well in a game or because Fisher happened to make some key plays down the stretch in one game. Kobe hasn't been a no show in any games. You can't say that about KG, Pierce or Allen (and maybe even Rondo).

But let me say this - it's not like I'm rooting for Kobe to get the MVP. I'd much rather it be KG or Rondo (or possibly Pierce).

  Don't you think it's pretty hard to be a no-show when you take 24 shots a game? I agree with Roy, he can score a lot of points (especially before the last 5-6 minutes of the game), be fairly inefficient as a scorer and still have had a bad game.

A "bad game" for Kobe still seems to be better - and more valuable - than good games by most other Laker players. Even Celtics fans have ridiculous high expectations of Kobe - just because he falls short and has a "bad" game doesn't mean that his contributions to the game weren't valuable. Kobe is AVERAGING 30+ pts. in this series. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

Scoring 10 points on 2-11 shooting (as Pierce did in game 2) isn't just a bad game, it's a no show - meaning that Pierce did little to affect the outcome of that game.

[Mike]

Pierce's 4 rebounds, 4 assists, a steal, a block, and tough defense in game 2 definitely affected the outcome of game 2, though it was his worst game of the series. 

If you base performances solely on scoring output, then yes, Pierce was a no-show in game 2, but it's hard to say that if someone else was on the floor instead of Pierce the Celtics still would have won.

[Chris]

I think this argument is moot anyways, since there is no way Stern will allow it to happen, because he doesn't want to have the awkward moment of having to present the trophy to Kobe, in an empty building, with the C's celebrating around him.  But I don't think winning the championship is a requirement to win the finals MVP.

[BballTim]

This isn't about shooting percentages. FG% is just one factor of many. One could shoot 25% but average double figures in rebounds and assists and get lots of blocks and steals and could end up being a huge contributor.

Look, the point that I think Chris and I are converging on is that the MVP should be given to the one guy who best exemplifies the statement: "We can't or couldn't win without his contributions." In '08, the Celts don't win without Pierce. That's a true statement. But also, the Celts don't win without KG in '08. It's a judgment call - Pierce got it in '08 and that was great.

Fast forward to 2010. You just can't make that same claim about any one Celtic player. If you could, then by all means give the award to a Celtic regardless of what Kobe does. But in the meantime, you can say that thanks to Kobe, the Lakers made it a competitive series. If not for Kobe, the Lakers would have been swept.

I think we could make that statement about a lot of Celtics players this series.

We couldn't win without Pierce, or Rondo, or KG.  We need all of them to consistently win, just like every team needs its stars.  LA can't consistently win without Gasol.  LA has struggled since Bynum started being ineffective.

The fact is, in one of the LA wins, Kobe had a very mediocre game.  Missing 2/3 of the shots you take isn't exactly carrying your team to victory.  Without Derek Fisher, LA loses that game.  Since you're holding the Celtics players to that standard, I'd say that Kobe should be held to it, as well.

Roy, you do seem to be pretty hung up on shooting percentages. Fisher was key in that one game, but it's not like Kobe was a no show. In fact, until games 4 and 5, I was actually quite impressed with how Kobe was really trying to be the facilitator for the Lakers. You can't just write Kobe off because he didn't shoot well in a game or because Fisher happened to make some key plays down the stretch in one game. Kobe hasn't been a no show in any games. You can't say that about KG, Pierce or Allen (and maybe even Rondo).

But let me say this - it's not like I'm rooting for Kobe to get the MVP. I'd much rather it be KG or Rondo (or possibly Pierce).

  Don't you think it's pretty hard to be a no-show when you take 24 shots a game? I agree with Roy, he can score a lot of points (especially before the last 5-6 minutes of the game), be fairly inefficient as a scorer and still have had a bad game.

A "bad game" for Kobe still seems to be better - and more valuable - than good games by most other Laker players. Even Celtics fans have ridiculous high expectations of Kobe - just because he falls short and has a "bad" game doesn't mean that his contributions to the game weren't valuable. Kobe is AVERAGING 30+ pts. in this series. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.

Scoring 10 points on 2-11 shooting (as Pierce did in game 2) isn't just a bad game, it's a no show - meaning that Pierce did little to affect the outcome of that game.

  I think you're placing too much value on volume shooting in the middle of the game. That 3rd quarter the other night was pretty impressive, but he also didn't have a field goal in the last 8 minutes or so.

[Roy Hobbs]

Pierce has been the second most consistent candidate for the C's.  He had an incredibly efficient, and close to dominating game 5 (when the C's needed it most), but he also was a bit of a no-show in games 2 and 3.  He also needs a big clinching game.

KG...his first two games disqualify him IMO.  He was beyond attrocious, and this series could be over alraedy if he had shown up in game 1.   

So KG and Pierce had two bad games. Ok, I agree. So, what about Kobe? Well, here are his stats in Games 2 and 3:

Game 2: 21 points, 6 assists, 5 rebounds, 5 turnovers, 8-20 shooting (40%).

Game 3: 29 points, 4 assists, 7 rebounds, 1 turnovers, 10-29 shooting (34%).

If you want to hand Kobe the MVP on the unlikely chance the Lakers do win Games 6 and 7, then I don't think anyone will argue with you. But for him to win the MVP in a losing series effort, he needed to do better than this in these two games. As it also stands, he has yet to score 40 points this series. Wanna look at what Jerry West did to get that Finals MVP despite not having a championship trophy to go with it?

Game 1 - 53 points, 10 assists, 21-41 shooting (51%)
Game 2 - 41 points
Game 3 - 24 points
Game 4 - 40 points
Game 5 - 39 points, 9 assists, 16-31 shooting (52%)
Game 6 - 26 points
Game 7 - 42 points, 12 assists, 13 rebounds

http://espndb.go.com/nba/finals/profile/_/id/1969/type/year/1969-nba-finals

West scored 40 points FOUR times that NBA Finals, and at least 35+ points 5 times, with a 50+ point game to boot. If Kobe did anything close to that, Lakers probably win the series anyways.  As I said again, though, Kobe hasn't even scored 40 points once this NBA Finals. That's just tangible stats. That doesn't include the fact that Kobe has done nothing the 4th quarter, or hasn't shown a ton of clutch.

At the end of the day, I can't sit here and say I care if Kobe gets Finals MVP or not even if the Lakers lose, but he hasn't done anything close to Jerry West to be close to that.

If you want my opinion on who on the Celtics should take, it may have to either be Pierce or Rondo. Rondo and Pierce had at least 10 points each game this series, with Pierce doing very well in Games 1 and 5, while Rondo did very well in Game 2 and 5. If either of them go off in Game 6, resulting in a Celtics win, that player probably gets Finals MVP.

Also, I think the league likes the idea of one player on the winning team holding the championship trophy, and another holding the MVP trophy right beside him. Think Duncan + Robinsion, Shaq + Kobe, Pierce + KG, or even Kobe holding both at the same time in '09. I think that's good TV to them. They don't want to see a championship trophy showered with champagne in one locker room, and then someone else, Kobe as an example, being interviewed in the "loser's corner" of the building somewhere else, holding a Finals MVP trophy with grimace, being asked how he feels about holding that MVP trophy and not celebrating with his teammates with the other trophy. I think sometime later, David Stern would be asked about this and be told "excuse me" while he loses his lunch in some basket.

Nice post.  TP.

[Jon]

Honestly, there's a sadistic part of me that kind of wants Kobe to win the MVP in a losing effort.  Ordinarily, the losers can kind of slink away.  Now, Kobe would have to stand out on his homecourt and hoist a trophy while the C's celebrated around him.  Then, he'd be expected to talk about it.  Talk about a kick in the nuts. 

However, for the sake of the NBA, I hope it doesn't happen.  Is Kobe the most talented player on the court?  Sure.  However, I have trouble giving a guy who sat there and jacked up horrific shots in the third quarter of last game to such an extent that he disengaged the rest of his team.  Sure, he got lucky, but doing that lost the players and lost the game.  Kobe is an incredible talent, but not being able to engage teammates certainly takes him out of the running for most valuable. 

[wiley]

Honestly, there's a sadistic part of me that kind of wants Kobe to win the MVP in a losing effort.  Ordinarily, the losers can kind of slink away.  Now, Kobe would have to stand out on his homecourt and hoist a trophy while the C's celebrated around him.  Then, he'd be expected to talk about it.  Talk about a kick in the nuts. 

However, for the sake of the NBA, I hope it doesn't happen.  Is Kobe the most talented player on the court?  Sure.  However, I have trouble giving a guy who sat there and jacked up horrific shots in the third quarter of last game to such an extent that he disengaged the rest of his team.  Sure, he got lucky, but doing that lost the players and lost the game.  Kobe is an incredible talent, but not being able to engage teammates certainly takes him out of the running for most valuable. 

Not sure what he did in the third was a negative.....he may have single-handedly prevented a blowout.......

But I loved Doc's approach to Kobe going off and I agree with you that there can be (doesn't have to be) a downside to a player going off....(entering the zone for a long stretch of the game).....I do see where you are coming from....Pierce also has the ability to enter a zone and do amazing things...but a little part of me worries about the play that follows......you still have to take it when it comes, I would argue....

[Jon]

Honestly, there's a sadistic part of me that kind of wants Kobe to win the MVP in a losing effort.  Ordinarily, the losers can kind of slink away.  Now, Kobe would have to stand out on his homecourt and hoist a trophy while the C's celebrated around him.  Then, he'd be expected to talk about it.  Talk about a kick in the nuts. 

However, for the sake of the NBA, I hope it doesn't happen.  Is Kobe the most talented player on the court?  Sure.  However, I have trouble giving a guy who sat there and jacked up horrific shots in the third quarter of last game to such an extent that he disengaged the rest of his team.  Sure, he got lucky, but doing that lost the players and lost the game.  Kobe is an incredible talent, but not being able to engage teammates certainly takes him out of the running for most valuable. 

Not sure what he did in the third was a negative.....he may have single-handedly prevented a blowout.......

But I loved Doc's approach to Kobe going off and I agree with you that there can be (doesn't have to be) a downside to a player going off....(entering the zone for a long stretch of the game).....I do see where you are coming from....Pierce also has the ability to enter a zone and do amazing things...but a little part of me worries about the play that follows......you still have to take it when it comes, I would argue....

I get it to an extent.  If it was the 4th, I'd be totally on board.  But when you know you can't sustain that for an entire half and that the team will eventually have to support you, I really question it.  Especially those shots.  He was throwing up shots with multiple hands in his face.

Also, I was somewhat combining my initial assertion with how Kobe treated his teammates after the game.  Play and attitude like that isn't MVP worthy.