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

[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.

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.

Oh, it should absolutely be part of it.  However, if Kobe carries his team to a 3rd win, and plays great in game 7, and none of the C's dominate, I think his resume is stronger, despite the fact that his team lost one more game.

I agree that winning is a big part of it, I just do not think that it has to go to the player on the winning team.  It is not the "best player on the winning team", it is the most valuable player.  To me, winning is only part of that, if they do everything they can to make their team win, but the rest of the team just is not up to the challenge.

[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.

[Mike]

I guess I just don't see how keeping a team close but still losing is a very valuable quality.

[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.

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.  

Keep in mind that Kobe shot 34% in one of the wins he's getting credit for.  In one of the losses, he had seven turnovers, and in another, he had 21 points on 40% shooting.

It's not like he's been uniformly great.  He's yet to shoot over 50% in any game this series, and he has four or more turnovers in four of the games.  Arguably, through the first three games -- when two of the wins occurred -- Kobe wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[LarBrd33]

I would be disgusted if the Celtics somehow pull this off and the NBA gave Kobe the MVP anyways.   Kobe's hero-antics in the 3rd quarter of game 5 actually doomed his team.  The rest of his team went ice cold and stopped trying on defense.   If the Lakers win the next 2, the award should go to Pau Gasol.  When he's dominant, the Lakers actually win.

[BballTim]

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.

  Saying the Cavs seris is not the finals is pretty meaningless. The Cavs won more games than the Lakers this year and were as good or better defensively. The link between Rondo's success and his teammates is more he makes them better than they make him better. Switch Kobe and Rondo and suddenly those other players aren't standing around watching Kobe dominate the ball, but they're getting open looks and easy baskets. The Lakers, not the Celtics, become the team with the big advantage in the transition game.

[Hoops]

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.

[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.

  I don't think you have to be the best player on your team in every win to get the MVP. But I think that making key plays should be important as well. Kobe's scored a ton of points but he hasn't carried his team to victory with great 4th quarters even though he's had multiple chances.

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[incoherent]

I really want Rondo to win the award, Pierce already has his.

I hope Rondo goes nuts and just doesn't hold back, drops a triple double and wins it all.

[Hoops]

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).

[Mike]

I don't recall Pierce ever being a no-show.  I do, however, recall one game where he picked up some fouls that shouldn't have been called which kept him out of the game.  When he was in he was effective.

[Hoops]

I don't recall Pierce ever being a no-show.  I do, however, recall one game where he picked up some fouls that shouldn't have been called which kept him out of the game.  When he was in he was effective.

He had foul trouble in game 3 - only had 15 pts., but didn't play poorly.

But look at game 2. 10 pts. on 2-11 in 40 minutes with only 4 boards and 4 assists. Sorry, but for Pierce, that was a no-show.

[Tai]

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.