The votes are officially in, folks, and Kobe Bryant will be taking home his first NBA MVP award. Upon realizing this fact, two thoughts instantly came into my mind. First, I was happy for Kobe -- a player of his caliber can only go so long without taking home MVP hardware. Second, I still could not help but think the award undoubtedly went to the wrong guy. In his annual NBA MVP breakdown, Bill Simmons dubbed this year's race "the fourth-best in history"--a bold, but apt, declaration. There were four candidates with a shot to win: Kobe, Chris Paul, KG, and Lebron ... That leaves us with Paul and Kobe, and in the words of Shakespeare, "There's the rub." Hodes made it abundantly clear to me throughout the week that he was a Kobe-backer in this debate, and I was obliged to inform him that he was patently incorrect and that I would happily take the side of CP3.
First, I'll concede a point or two to Hodes. For the last several seasons Kobe has been the best player in the NBA on the whole. His performance has been nothing short of spectacular, including, in addition to all the scoring titles and the like, an appearance on the NBA's All-Defensive team in seven of the last eight seasons.
Acknowledgment of Kobe's perennial supremacy over the past decade or so might seem irrelevant in pur debate, seeing as our argument is over who was the superior player in the 2007-2008 season.
But make no mistake about it, there is something to be said for maintaining a huge degree of success over many years -- in any sport -- when it comes to MVP debates.
So, in light of these facts, what pushes a player in just his first dominant NBA season over the long-established, popular superstar? In reality, nothing, because Kobe won, but let me tell you why he should not have.
When all his accomplishments and their resulting outcomes are considered on the whole, the case for Chris Paul is an easy one to make.
His play this year was consistently dominant, particularly against top-notch competition. When going up against the other top players at his position in the league -- Steve Nash, in particular, comes to mind -- Paul was superb. Watching Paul on the court, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or even a basketball expert for that matter, to figure out that he's already got one of the best basketball IQs in the league, and as such, is the type of player who makes his team vastly better.
It's abundantly clear that as Paul goes, the team goes. If you question this assertion, consider New Orleans' record in 2006 and 2007. I'll do the math for you -- it was a combined 77-85.
It was not until this year, when Paul blossomed and fast became the top point guard in the league, that New Orleans was able to break through to the tune of 56 wins and a two-seed in the prestigious Western Conference.
Lastly, I'd like to make light of Paul's playoff performance thus far. His stat line (23 points per game, 12 assists, 5.3 rebounds, and 2.3 steals per game) is about on par with his brilliant regular season and included a stunning playoff debut in which he amassed 35 points while still managing to dish out 10 assists.
He also had a double"double in the Hornets' recent game one dismantling of the defendingchampion Spurs. If it's not painfully obvious to you from watching Paul in his first postseason that he's the most dynamic player in the NBA, I'm not sure you're watching closely enough. Kobe may be great -- superb in fact -- but Paul is a unique player, and is fast becoming the paragon for excellence in the NBA.
