OX1947 wrote:These win arguments that some of you people pull out of your yahoos drives me up the wall. Kobe lead smush parker, KWAmay Brown luke walton and Lamar Odom to within one rebound of beating the #2 seed. And more then likely would have beatin the Clippers in the second round and Kobe owned Dallas that entire year had they met in the WCF. Would coulda shoulda, ya but Kobe was the most valuable player in 2006.
And 2009, his team swept everyone, they won 65 games, he scored 61 in MSG, lakers were a 1 seed in the west and the Cavs won one more game then them in the useless east. Come on, give me a freakin break. Kobe's MVP's are sitting in a room that doesn't belong there for 2006 and 2009. Pure and simple.
Well, first, I think it's kind of unfair to be using postseason accomplishments for a regular season award.
Second, I do agree that Kobe was an MVP candidate because he simply had an amazing individual season. And for me, so spectacular, that I think it makes sense to overlook the medicore team record a bit.
Having said that, I do think there was one other equally viable candidate that year and that was Steve Nash. Remember, that season, he had no Amare Stoudemire the whole year. I think Amare played like 40 mins the entire season. Nash led that team to 54 wins, 1st place standing in the Pacific and a 2 seed in the West. So neither player had a lot of help but Nash did lead his team to a much better record and ultimately, the game is about winning (not why you couldn't) and so I think that was the difference there. (And if you want to include postseason success, Nash led an Amare-less team to the WCF that year as well). You get a few extra brownie points if you don't have amazing teammates around you but you get even more brownie points (and probably should) if you have success in spite of it.
So for me, there were two players that deserved it and I did want Kobe to win it because he had such an amazing year, but after all, the game is about winning and Nash did a better job of that and so I understand why he was the winner.
As for 2009, it's the same story. Two viable candidates. The voters are essentially the same as the season prior. I mean, I don't see how Lebron was not an MVP candidate that year. To me, it was him and Kobe and no one else. Why did Lebron win it? He did more, with less and put up ridiculous numbers while doing so. The second best player he had on that team was Mo Williams who is a nice player no doubt, but, not what you'd expect from a 66-win team coached by a guy who we all said was so bad as a coach that ANYBODY would be better. So what's the difference between 2006 Kobe and 2009 Lebron then since both players did a lot, with little? Wins. Bottom line. That too, was a year I wanted Kobe to win it, but I knew the other potential candidate was Lebron because of he was able to win a lot of games in spite of his inferior team (as opposed to, not winning a lot of games because of his inferior team).
You have to have a lot of wins. That's always been the case. That's what the game is all about. We might argue that wins shouldn't matter in the game (the same argument happens in baseball with the Cy Young award), or that stats should be favored over winning, or that having inferior teammates is more important than winning, and SOME arguments I do think hold water but at the end of the day, the league wants to promote winning and IMO, they should.
IMO, the reason Kobe doesn't have more MVPs has nothing to do with him being hated, or, him not being deserving. A lot of it has to do with bad luck so to speak. What I mean by that is just the timing of things. He was never going to win playing next to Shaq (although he was an MVP in our eyes for sure), and then you had Lebron enter the league to contend with. At the end of the day, it's the rings that really matter (because again, the game is about winning period) and no one can take those away from him.