I can't either. But I do remember the context of the discussion was about Paul and Bryant. At least what you quoted was.
I guess so. If the MVP is only based on "on court" production. I guess it's up to the individual voters.
More info for your decision... STAT PAUL BRYANT Games 80 82 Starts 80 82 MPG 37.6 38.9 FG% .488 .459 3 pt.% .369 .361 FT% .851 .840 off .8 1.1 def 3.2 5.2 RPG 4.0 6.3 APG 11.6 5.4 SPG 2.7 1.8 BPG 0.1 0.5 TO 2.51 3.13 PF 2.30 2.80 PPG 21.1 28.3 Post Season PPG 24.6 33.5 RPG 5.60 5.30 APG 12.0 6.3 EFF +33.00 +30.75 Paul: 2nd year 6'-0" / 175 05/06/85 Bryant: 11th year 6'-6" / 205 08/23/78 KB led the league with 15 technical fouls and two ejections. CP had 11 technical fouls and no ejections. New Orleans won the Southwest Division with a 56-26 record. Los Angeles won the Pacific Division with a 57-25 record. The teams split the season series 2-2. KB was an All Star game starter. (0 pts, 0 assists) CP was an All Star game reserve. (16 pts, 14 assists)
you could add he was injured and was to see a physician but instead only came to new orleans to raise money for local charities and then left after the first dead ball of the game. fwiw regarding an earlier argument, paul was fourth in the league in techs. the thing about this mvp is their resume is almost identical...as far a preseason expectation, to records, to teammates, to leadership, to clutch plays...it is actually kind of scary. i would have no problem with it going to either person...it should not, however, go to kg and lebron shouldnt even be in the conversation.
I thought everybody knew he only played three minutes in the game. I didn't believe anyone would think he went scoreless in an entire game. I simply listed all the stats from the season, all star game and playoffs. I also didn't mention that Chris Paul missed two games this year. Paul finished in a six way tie for fourth in the league in technical fouls. Like we stated before, it should go to Bryant or Paul. I still believe penalizing Bryant for past sins is wrong. I believe rewarding him simply because he has never won it is just as wrong. I wish the voters would base their opinion on this year's (and only this year) performance. I think that's unlikely. Oh well...they've screwed up the Heisman, the AP trophy, the Grammys, and Oscars...so they'll probably find a way to screw this one up too. Maybe they should just cancel the awards. Also...James shouldn't have won the All Star MVP either. The East won that game due to one player down the stretch...Ray Allen. He was great but he's not named LeBron. Paul has been awesome as well but he's not named Kobe. We'll wait and see.
NBA not my ball-o-wax. However, Paul seems to me to be more valuable to his team than Kobe. Not that Kobe isn't a huge part of the Lakers success - obviously he is. But without Paul, the Hornets don't compete. Without Kobe, the Lakers are still stacked.
This is my main disagreement, and I think the fact that they play for the Lakers and are spotlighted a lot has something tom do with it...of course I could be incredibly wrong. Kobe played half the year without Gasol, but add him in there and he is similar to West. Other than that where is the difference? Odom had never done anything until he played with Kobe. Fisher can set up ft line extended and down because he doesnt have to handle the ball as much and is now as good as he has ever been -- wasnt a huge factor with the Jazz last year. So, the Lakers aren't nearly stacked to begin with if you take Kobe away. They definitely wouldn't make the playoffs - but I think people dont realize how much talent the Hornets have. Had players such as Peja played for the Knicks and not the Kings for a while I think people would have a completely different view of him, and others alike.
Fair enough. Like I said, not my obsession. But I seem to know a lot more about Laker players than I do about Hornet players, so I made an assumption...
