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

[wildo05]

My take is this:

Let Kobe have the individual award. Winning the Larry O'Brien Trophy is more important to me. The TEAM achievement is so much more rewarding. I find it hard to believe a player from the losing team would win the MVP but who knows. I will take pride in the Celtics sending home: Dwayne Wade, Lebron James, Dwight Howard and Kobe Bryant.

[rjsuperfly66]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

Doesn't help when you have an injured starting center who can barely move, and a bunch of guys missing uncontested shots. 

Gasol also been playing like a girl recently, ala Tony Allen's block.

A great team effort will almost always beat an individuals effort.  Thats a fact.

[Chris]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

If you put Pierce, KG, or Rondo on the Lakers instead of Kobe, do they win a game?

[BballTim]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

  One could easily argue that, while Kobe has put up better stats and been more consistent than Rondo, Rondo's made more big plays late in games than Kobe. Coming up with big plays late in close games that you end up winning is pretty valuable.

[BballTim]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

If you put Pierce, KG, or Rondo on the Lakers instead of Kobe, do they win a game?

  Having watched the Cleveland series I'd say that moving Rondo to the other team could make a huge difference.

[Chris]

BTW, I am surprised so many people seem offended by this idea.  What is wrong with the fact that Kobe has been by far the best player (and most important to his team), while the C's have been the best team.  That is what I love about the C's.  They are a team.  I think it would be a tribute to this team if Kobe wins the MVP, and the C's win the championship, because it will be very symbolic of what actually happened on the floor, and will basically be the equivalent of giving the MVP award to the entire C's team.

[Chris]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

If you put Pierce, KG, or Rondo on the Lakers instead of Kobe, do they win a game?

  Having watched the Cleveland series I'd say that moving Rondo to the other team could make a huge difference.

Giving the fact that Kobe has still been great this series, despite the C's defense throwing everything at him, while Rondo has been mediocre for much of the series, while the Lakers back off him, and dare him to shoot, I would have to disagree.  Rondo is a very good player, but if you do not have great players around him, he simply cannot carry a team.

[Mike]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

If you put Pierce, KG, or Rondo on the Lakers instead of Kobe, do they win a game?

That's impossible to say... but using that logic, why not declare Kobe the finals MVP before the series even starts?  So the best player is automatically the MVP, regardless of performance and regardless of victory?

[Chris]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

If you put Pierce, KG, or Rondo on the Lakers instead of Kobe, do they win a game?

That's impossible to say... but using that logic, why not declare Kobe the finals MVP before the series even starts?  So the best player is automatically the MVP, regardless of performance and regardless of victory?

The player who is most valuable to his team in the series is the MVP.  So far, I think that has been Kobe. 

[Spilling Green Dye]

BTW, I am surprised so many people seem offended by this idea.  What is wrong with the fact that Kobe has been by far the best player (and most important to his team), while the C's have been the best team.  That is what I love about the C's.  They are a team.  I think it would be a tribute to this team if Kobe wins the MVP, and the C's win the championship, because it will be very symbolic of what actually happened on the floor, and will basically be the equivalent of giving the MVP award to the entire C's team.

I am offended, and I'll gladly explain why.

All "winning" awards should go to the winning team.  I also disagree that Kobe Bryant has been that much better than the rest of the players on the court.  In fact, part of the "disappearance" of his teammates is a result of Kobe's playstyle.  In addition, when it has mattered most (in the 4th quarter) Kobe has been VERY subpar by superstar standards.  

Going into this series there were many who said the Lakers will win b/c they have the better team.  To suddenly turn around and say "oh well the Lakers aren't winning b/c it's basically Kobe and a bunch of players not as good as the Celtics" is hypocritical.  This happened in the Cavs series too.

The only Laker performance that won a game for them was Derek Fisher's.  In fact, had it not been for that, the Celtics would have won the Championship by now.  What would have happened if Kobe sat out game 5?  Likely, but not assuredly, the same effect:  A Laker loss.

There are no consolation prizes.  The Celtics team deserves the championship, and it's player's accomplishments that led to winning should be recognized too.  

My personaly favorite, so far, to win the MVP is Kevin Garnett, and here is why:

-in 2008, according to statistics, production, and net value, KG should have won the MVP.  But, since Pierce was the lifelong Celtic, and played very well, he rightfully was first in line for the award.

-in 2009, without KG, the Celtics failed to make it to the Eastern Conference Finals.

-in 2010 the Celtics have KG and they are one win away.  He did not perform well in the first two games, but his game 5 performance was truley dominant (18, 10, and FIVE steals, on top of shutting down Gasol and disrupting every single passing lane).  KG is "next in line" and has performed well enough to deserve that personal accolade as a crowning achievement to his career.  Kobe Bryant, if he loses the series and continues to lose trust/respect from his teammates and coach, does not deserve such an accolade.  He deserves to go home and try again next year.

[Ersatz]

BTW, I am surprised so many people seem offended by this idea.  What is wrong with the fact that Kobe has been by far the best player (and most important to his team), while the C's have been the best team.  That is what I love about the C's.  They are a team.  I think it would be a tribute to this team if Kobe wins the MVP, and the C's win the championship, because it will be very symbolic of what actually happened on the floor, and will basically be the equivalent of giving the MVP award to the entire C's team.

I kind of wonder why I'm so offended by it also. Maybe I'll check in with my therapist. But for some reason, it really ticks me off. I think there are two reaons: One, Kobe has too many turnovers, all of which have resulted from his trying to get his own shot, not his teammates. Two, he's been terrible in the fourth quarter; MVPs, in my view, should be their best when it matters most. Kobe hasn't been.

I'll add another: The guy he's been guarding is shooting nearly 50% for the series and considering how much he sags off his man, his help defense has been noticeably absent.

[BballTim]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

If you put Pierce, KG, or Rondo on the Lakers instead of Kobe, do they win a game?

  Having watched the Cleveland series I'd say that moving Rondo to the other team could make a huge difference.

Giving the fact that Kobe has still been great this series, despite the C's defense throwing everything at him, while Rondo has been mediocre for much of the series, while the Lakers back off him, and dare him to shoot, I would have to disagree.  Rondo is a very good player, but if you do not have great players around him, he simply cannot carry a team.

  Like he didn't carry the Celts in any of the Cleveland games? Like he didn't carry the Celts down the stretch in game 2? I think your opinion of Rondo is pretty outmoded.

[Chris]

Kobe has had the better individual statistics, but it just wouldn't seem right to give it to him in the event that Boston wins this thing.

Kobe's stats are not good. Look it up. He just takes a ton of shots and so it looks like he's good.

Hollinger isn't an idiot. He's worse: he's a stooge.

Really?  I have looked them up.  30 points, 6 rebounds, 4.4 assists, 2 steals, and 1 block per game.  Sure, 42.5% shooting is not great, but its not terrible either.  And he is shooting 38% from 3, and 92% from the line.

Yes, those are not the most efficient numbers ever, but they are VERY good, especially when you consider how little help he has had.

To the same point, who in Green has had better stats than Kobe's? But I don't even think stats are the key component here. To those who don't think Kobe deserves Finals MVP, I again ask the question: Who has been more valuable over the course of the entire series? Kobe has been by far the most valuable player for the Lakers in every game of the series. If the Celtics had one player who was similarly valuable throughout the series, then you give it to the guy from the winning team. But Boston hasn't had one guy who's been consistently valuable, win or lose, throughout this series.

I will say that of all the Celtics, Rondo probably has the best shot at MVP, followed by Pierce. If Rondo has a huge game tonight (and we win) AND Kobe has an ordinary game, then Rondo could get it. Same thing if Pierce has a huge game while Rondo and Kobe are ordinary. But if nobody in Green stands out tonight (total team effort, which is just fine with me) and Kobe goes for 35+ with 6 boards and 5-6 assists and single-handedly keeps LA in the game, I'd be surprised if Kobe wasn't the MVP.

I would argue that Pierce, KG, and Rondo would all be more valuable to their team than Kobe if the Celtics win.  How valuable are you really if you can't lead your team to victory?

If you put Pierce, KG, or Rondo on the Lakers instead of Kobe, do they win a game?

  Having watched the Cleveland series I'd say that moving Rondo to the other team could make a huge difference.

Giving the fact that Kobe has still been great this series, despite the C's defense throwing everything at him, while Rondo has been mediocre for much of the series, while the Lakers back off him, and dare him to shoot, I would have to disagree.  Rondo is a very good player, but if you do not have great players around him, he simply cannot carry a team.

  Like he didn't carry the Celts in any of the Cleveland games? Like he didn't carry the Celts down the stretch in game 2? I think your opinion of Rondo is pretty outmoded.

The Cavs series is not the finals.  And Rondo did play great down the stretch in game 2.  However, to me, that is irrevalent in this question.  Rondo's success is directly linked to his teammates.  Kobe's is much less so.  So I personally think if you had those players switch positions, the Lakers would not come close to winning ANY games in this series.

[Roy Hobbs]

BTW, I am surprised so many people seem offended by this idea.  What is wrong with the fact that Kobe has been by far the best player (and most important to his team), while the C's have been the best team.  That is what I love about the C's.  They are a team.  I think it would be a tribute to this team if Kobe wins the MVP, and the C's win the championship, because it will be very symbolic of what actually happened on the floor, and will basically be the equivalent of giving the MVP award to the entire C's team.

If part of the reason for the award is to determine who is most "valuable", shouldn't part of that "value" be measured in wins and losses?

I mean, if a player averages 30/10/5 in a playoff series, but his team gets swept, should he win the award?  History suggests not.  The award generally goes to the best player on the winning team, and I think that's how it should remain.

[Hoops]

BTW, I am surprised so many people seem offended by this idea.  What is wrong with the fact that Kobe has been by far the best player (and most important to his team), while the C's have been the best team.  That is what I love about the C's.  They are a team.  I think it would be a tribute to this team if Kobe wins the MVP, and the C's win the championship, because it will be very symbolic of what actually happened on the floor, and will basically be the equivalent of giving the MVP award to the entire C's team.

If part of the reason for the award is to determine who is most "valuable", shouldn't part of that "value" be measured in wins and losses?

I mean, if a player averages 30/10/5 in a playoff series, but his team gets swept, should he win the award?  History suggests not.  The award generally goes to the best player on the winning team, and I think that's how it should remain.

Generally, yes. But it's not a rule. Strictly measuring value by wins and losses isn't fair, in my opinion. Kobe should get credit for 2 wins, but he also single-handedly kept LA close in 2 of 3 losses. He was very valuable in those loses. If anyone else on his team had made even a minor contribution, his huge contributions could have netted the Lakers another win or two.

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?

Again, this is all conjecture at this point because several Celtic players have a chance to make a strong case for MVP tonight. If any one of Rondo, Pierce or KG has a heroic or legendary game, I will have no problem seeing them get the MVP. But if everyone plays decent but not great and Kobe keeps his team in the game by putting up monster numbers across the board, Kobe wins.