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

[fairweatherfan]

Won't happen, it'd take a pretty epic performance for a losing player to win again, and Kobe hasn't done that.

Not a bad problem to have though.

[MattD]

If we win it would be great if they gave the MVP Award to the Celtics Team Defense. I get very tired of the NBA's obsession with individual awards.

[Green Pride]

It should be like when the 2002 Patriots were introduced as a team -- they should just give the Celtics as a whole the MVP. That would be fitting, given that the theme of the series is team over individual.

[Chris]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

[Bankshot]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

Why would you give Kobe the MVP when he hasn't played well enough (aside from one game) to deserve the MVP?  Makes no sense.

[Hoops]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

Why would you give Kobe the MVP when he hasn't played well enough (aside from one game) to deserve the MVP?  Makes no sense.

I think he's played pretty darn well. Besides, who in Green has played better? Who has been more valuable than Kobe in the Finals?

[Rondo2287]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

I think we have a simmons anti jinx here...

[CelticsWhat35]

All I care about is the Celtics winning it all.  But here's my feeling on awarding the Finals MVP to a player on the losing team.

If the guy isn't on the team, they lose.  But if he is, they still lose.  When the ultimate goal is to win it all, where's the value??

[Roy Hobbs]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

Why would you give Kobe the MVP when he hasn't played well enough (aside from one game) to deserve the MVP?  Makes no sense.

I think he's played pretty darn well. Besides, who in Green has played better? Who has been more valuable than Kobe in the Finals?

The standard isn't who has played the best, though.  I mean, if it was, Kobe would have earned the MVP in 2008 as well, right?

I think the MVP needs to go to the team that helped his team win the most, not the guy with the best stats.  I'd never give a loser the MVP, but I guess I could accept it if a guy was absolutely dominant (i.e., 40 points per game with good efficiency or something.)  That hasn't been Kobe.

[Chris]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

Why would you give Kobe the MVP when he hasn't played well enough (aside from one game) to deserve the MVP?  Makes no sense.

He has played better than everyone else in the series, and I personally think it hasn't been close.  Unfortunately, his teammates have not held up their end of the agreement so far.

And no, this is not some anti-jinx, this is just the way I see it.  Kobe has been the most valuable player for his team in this series.  He is the only reason the series was not over in 4 games.  You can't say that about any 1 player on the C's.

[Fafnir]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

Why would you give Kobe the MVP when he hasn't played well enough (aside from one game) to deserve the MVP?  Makes no sense.

I think he's played pretty darn well. Besides, who in Green has played better? Who has been more valuable than Kobe in the Finals?

The standard isn't who has played the best, though.  I mean, if it was, Kobe would have earned the MVP in 2008 as well, right?

I think the MVP needs to go to the team that helped his team win the most, not the guy with the best stats.  I'd never give a loser the MVP, but I guess I could accept it if a guy was absolutely dominant (i.e., 40 points per game with good efficiency or something.)  That hasn't been Kobe.

I think KG/Pierce both had comparable series overall than Kobe in 2008. He did not shoot well at all that series, kind of like this one.

[Jon Niednagel]

It should be like when the 2002 Patriots were introduced as a team -- they should just give the Celtics as a whole the MVP. That would be fitting, given that the theme of the series is team over individual.

I keep hoping the C's will request to be introduced as a team, just like the 2002 Patriots. The Staples Center crowd, wrapped up in all their look-at-me glory, wouldn't know what hit them.

[Jaycelt]

For a stats guy like Hollinger to completely ignore FG% in his arguement is rediculous.

For most of this series all we heard was how Pierce was struggling offensivley, when he really only had one bad game and the Celtics barely went to him in that game anyway cause Ray was so hot.  Yet Pierce was shooting better than Kobe and we never heard a word about Kobe struggling.

Let's put this into perspective.

Pierce is shooting 46.4% on 69 shots
                   38.5% on 13 shots




Kobe is shooting 42.5% on 120 shots.
                 37.8 3pt% on 37 shots
                
Bocks are equal
Kobe has more steals
Pierce has the better assist to turnover ratio
Kobe has played more minutes and has more rebounds.

It's obvious that had Pierce been taking as many shots as Kobe this series we wouldn't be talking about Kobe for MVP in a losing cause. 

[Chris]

Based on what we have seen so far, I would vote for Kobe as the MVP, even if the C's win.  You can't give the entire C's team the award, and Kobe really has been the only consistently great player on either team.  I think it would be fitting, and the parallels with 1969 would be even greater.

Why would you give Kobe the MVP when he hasn't played well enough (aside from one game) to deserve the MVP?  Makes no sense.

I think he's played pretty darn well. Besides, who in Green has played better? Who has been more valuable than Kobe in the Finals?

The standard isn't who has played the best, though.  I mean, if it was, Kobe would have earned the MVP in 2008 as well, right?

I think the MVP needs to go to the team that helped his team win the most, not the guy with the best stats.  I'd never give a loser the MVP, but I guess I could accept it if a guy was absolutely dominant (i.e., 40 points per game with good efficiency or something.)  That hasn't been Kobe.

I think KG/Pierce both had comparable series overall than Kobe in 2008. He did not shoot well at all that series, kind of like this one.

Exactly.  As did Ray, who I think had as strong an argument as anyone in 2008 for the MVP.  This year, the C's players have all been either rather ordinary, or incredibly inconsistent.  Let's break down their resumes.

Rondo has been the most consistent of the C's candidates, however, the Lakers have done a great job of limiting his effectiveness.  He has not had any really terrible games, but he also has not completely dominated like an MVP should.  I think if he has a big clinching game, he has the strongest argument on the C's.  But he still needs that big game (I know, I know, he had a triple double, but it really was not a dominating performance, and was greatly overshadowed by Ray's shooting that game).

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.  

Ray...complete no-show in game 3, and below average in 4 and 5.  1 game does not make an MVP.

This is not the same as 2008, when guys were stepping up all over the place, and really, 3 different guys on the C's deserved it.  So far, no one on the C's really deserves it.  

[Brendan]

My thought is losing team can have it, if there is a HUGE gap between best player from losing team to best player from winning team.

As long as Pierce, KG, or Rondo plays well in a win - they will win it. They are all pretty comparable right now. I think KG has been SNEAKY good last three games, Pierce started out letting the team do things and has been taking over more as the series progressed, wouldn't be surprised to see a monster game 6 "at home" for PP. Pierce's man has done nothing all series and he had several HUGE plays.

Rondo has been consistent, his game 1 was stats wise OK, and he was great in game 2. He's been good in 3-5, but I think he was a bit out of control in game 5. He also was covering Fisher when Fish went off to win end of game 3.