NBA Awards

[NJTank]

http://sportsecyclopedia.com/tank/nba08/nbaawards2008.html

Comments?

[HedleyLamarr]

Atlanta Hawks draft-snub Chris Paul should be the MVP of the league. The Lakers didn't rise to the top until they traded for Pau Gasol.....

[ivan26278]

Atlanta Hawks draft-snub Chris Paul should be the MVP of the league. The Lakers didn't rise to the top until they traded for Pau Gasol.....

but you know Lakers and Kobe sell more than Chris Paul

[NJTank]

I hate Kobe Bryant but I think he is the MVP, Paul is a close second but I just think Kobe deserves it.

[ivan26278]

great for Manu by earning the best 6th man award

[The Nation]

This years awards have been easy to call.

As for MVP...one reporter put it best.

KG was the best player during the first half, Chris Paul best player the second half, But Kobe has been the second best the whole year.

Also to finish 1st in that Conference is a great achievement. I think if NOH finished first then Paul might have won.

[gingerbreadmann]

For the last time, it's not the Best Player Award. It's most valuable. And in that sense it just has to go to Garnett or Paul. IMO it has to go to Garnett (call me a homer, fine) because of how utterly awful this team was last year without him and the sheer impact of the man on this basketball team. What he and the Celtics have done this year has been supernatural; one of those once-in-a-lifetime deals. It's not about stats, boys.

I mean if it doesn't go to him, fine. Paul is certainly a worthy candidate. All that really matters is how the team does, and Garnett knows that better than anyone.

[Drew22]

Al Horford should win ROY. The Hawks are in the playoffs, and he put up 20 and 10 vs. the Celtics the other night in his first playoff game.

[ShinyHubCaps]

For the last time, it's not the Best Player Award. It's most valuable. And in that sense it just has to go to Garnett or Paul. IMO it has to go to Garnett (call me a homer, fine) because of how utterly awful this team was last year without him and the sheer impact of the man on this basketball team. What he and the Celtics have done this year has been supernatural; one of those once-in-a-lifetime deals. It's not about stats, boys.

I mean if it doesn't go to him, fine. Paul is certainly a worthy candidate. All that really matters is how the team does, and Garnett knows that better than anyone.

For the first time ever, I wouldn't mind if it were Kobe Bryant, simply because nobody had the Lakers winning the West. However, I don't like the idea that every year it will be the best player from the best team. Why even vote?

Here's why it's not Garnett. No MVP has ever won the award while finishing out of the Top 10 in points, assists, AND rebounds per game. Garnett is way out of all of those (20th in rebounds, 40th in points, way down in assists). Now I know you said it's not about stats, but sometimes you can take the "intangibles" a bit too far. In any quantifiable measure, it should not be Garnett. In one stretch that he was out of the lineup, the Celtics went 7-2. Besides, your explanation would also hold true for Ray Allen.

Besides, he just won Defensive Player of the Year. I'd say that most MVP voters will be like "OK, we rewarded him for his and his team's accomplishments," then give the MVP to someone else. It's been overwhelming how many people voted for KG for DPOY, and while the Celtics defense was staggering, he did not have that sound of individual stats.

And whether it's "Best Player" or "Most Valuable Player," the answer is Chris Paul. He took that team from little expectations to being better than the Suns, Spurs, Mavericks, Jazz, and more. I know the same is true for Kobe Bryant, but their expectations may have been a little higher.

[The Nation]

You know...I understand the difference between Valuable and Good....but you do have to be good to be valuable. And in the case of KG/CP/Kobe, all three are equally valuable to their teams. So the tiebreaker comes down to consistency, who's been better overall for 82 games.

[ShinyHubCaps]

For those into obscure statistics, Chris Paul has the highest win shares and win shares above average:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008.html

I feel that is a general indication of consistency.

[tohasbo]

ummm...okay?

[AJM]

Al Horford should win ROY. The Hawks are in the playoffs, and he put up 20 and 10 vs. the Celtics the other night in his first playoff game.

Preach. Horford has put up solid numbers all year.

CP3 deserves it more than Kobe for his ability to be a leader. All Kobe did before the season was demand a trade and create doubt about his dedication to the Lakers. CP3 is the future of the NBA. If he doesn't win, he'll surely win in the future.

[LEWJ]

I agree, Chris Paul should be MVP hands down. If anything, Pau Gasol deserves it more than Kobe.

The Lakers were screwed up until they got Pau Gasol.

I sure would've loved to see LeBron get it.

Oh, and how is it that Tracy McGrady comes in 9th?! I know his numbers are low, but dude, he led the Rockets to 21 straight wins, without Yao!

[gingerbreadmann]

For the last time, it's not the Best Player Award. It's most valuable. And in that sense it just has to go to Garnett or Paul. IMO it has to go to Garnett (call me a homer, fine) because of how utterly awful this team was last year without him and the sheer impact of the man on this basketball team. What he and the Celtics have done this year has been supernatural; one of those once-in-a-lifetime deals. It's not about stats, boys.

I mean if it doesn't go to him, fine. Paul is certainly a worthy candidate. All that really matters is how the team does, and Garnett knows that better than anyone.

For the first time ever, I wouldn't mind if it were Kobe Bryant, simply because nobody had the Lakers winning the West. However, I don't like the idea that every year it will be the best player from the best team. Why even vote?

Here's why it's not Garnett. No MVP has ever won the award while finishing out of the Top 10 in points, assists, AND rebounds per game. Garnett is way out of all of those (20th in rebounds, 40th in points, way down in assists). Now I know you said it's not about stats, but sometimes you can take the "intangibles" a bit too far. In any quantifiable measure, it should not be Garnett. In one stretch that he was out of the lineup, the Celtics went 7-2. Besides, your explanation would also hold true for Ray Allen.

Besides, he just won Defensive Player of the Year. I'd say that most MVP voters will be like "OK, we rewarded him for his and his team's accomplishments," then give the MVP to someone else. It's been overwhelming how many people voted for KG for DPOY, and while the Celtics defense was staggering, he did not have that sound of individual stats.

And whether it's "Best Player" or "Most Valuable Player," the answer is Chris Paul. He took that team from little expectations to being better than the Suns, Spurs, Mavericks, Jazz, and more. I know the same is true for Kobe Bryant, but their expectations may have been a little higher.

Well why let history dictate who wins an award? That can not be an argument against him and would be unfair if it was a reason he lost. There were never any sophmore Heisman winners. Before Tim Tebow. Besides, how can you quantify value? With all due respect to Ray Allen, he is not the force or personality the KG is to the team. Ray is a drop-dead shooter and is a star but he doesn't lead this team like Pierce or Garnett do at all.

Why can't a guy win two awards in the same year? That would be ridiculous for someone think like that and I don't see how that is an argument why he should not win. It could be an argument (though just as bad) why he won't win but not why he shouldn't. That's just stupid. Also, you're going to completely disagree with this, but his defensive presence is immeasurable. It just is. I don't know if you've watched them at all, but there's really no way to quantify it, and that's what the MVP voters will (well, should) be looking for in addition to stats.

I think this Peter May article from a few weeks ago is incredibly relevant. I will quote some important parts.

But let's take a closer look at Garnett, and some of the arguments against him.

# His numbers are down: Well, duh. Have you seen what his team is doing to other teams? It has been a season-long objective of Doc Rivers to keep Garnett's minutes down so he will be as fresh as possible for the playoffs. He has been able to do that because the Celtics (a.) started 29-3 and basically had the division wrapped up by New Year's and (b.) have had so many lopsided victories. The sight of Garnett in warm-ups in the fourth quarter has not been a rare one. This is a case where the team numbers are what should count. The Celtics have been the best team, record-wise, all season and the best defensive team, statistics-wise, all season. There's one main reason: Garnett. As Kenny Smith told his TNT audience last Thursday, "Kevin Garnett has changed the culture of the Boston Celtics. Last year, you could get layup after layup after jump shot after anything you wanted [against the Celtics]. He's a guy that will guard your point guard and he's a guy that will guard your center. I think Kevin Garnett is the best defensive player in the NBA."

# The team's 8-2 record in the 10 games he missed: The two losses, both close ones on the road, were to Cleveland and Orlando, two of the better teams in the East. Both also beat the Celtics with KG. Two of the big home wins (San Antonio, Dallas) came with the opponent also missing key player(s). How about this: The Celtics are 55-14 in the games Garnett has played. That's still a better winning percentage than any team in the league. And do you know how many times the Celtics have lost by 10 or more points? Three. That's the same number of double-digit losses the last Celtics title team (1985-86) had.

What if the Garnett deal had not gone down and we had Al Jefferson et al along with Ray Allen and Paul Pierce? How good do you think the Celtics would be?

Garnett has been the best player on the best team and has totally transformed that team in the process. In most years, that's argument enough.

Link

Like I said, I'd have no problem if Paul wins. I just think Garnett is a tad more deserving. Really, besides that the only knock on Paul I can think of is that it was basically the same team last year and they weren't that bad.

You know...I understand the difference between Valuable and Good....but you do have to be good to be valuable. And in the case of KG/CP/Kobe, all three are equally valuable to their teams. So the tiebreaker comes down to consistency, who's been better overall for 82 games.

Well if you think about it that way, wouldn't the Celtics win?

[Telemundo219]

Garnett- Nah. Come on. A team with three all...no.....SUPERSTARS. Garnett is good and valuable to an extent but I'm sure the C's would've probably been a playoff team w/o him.

Kobe- Maybe. Overall, he's the best player. Hands Down.

But with that like someone earlier said, the award is called M.V.P. not M.B.P., M.O.P., OPP, ABC, whatever. It's the most valuable player. The guy who has impacted his team in ways people didn't think they could. So with that my vote goes to....

CP3- Seriously, when I thought about the season before it began, I pictured New Orleans as team anywhere from 7th to 9th seed in the West. But what they have done this season is remarkable. And most..if not all (in basketball terms) of that credit goes to Chris Paul. The guy's a great player and ambassador for the league. If he wasn't there, the Hornets would've been retracted from the NBA. The only reason Byron Scott is in contention for coach of the year is probably because of Chris Paul.

P.S.- With that last comment, as much as I despise this team, the COY should go to Mo Cheeks. Look at Philly's roster. Practically a bunch of role players w/ AI2, and Miller, who play really hard and defied huge odds against them. Someone has to get the credit.

[ShinyHubCaps]

Well why let history dictate who wins an award? That can not be an argument against him and would be unfair if it was a reason he lost. There were never any sophmore Heisman winners. Before Tim Tebow. Besides, how can you quantify value? With all due respect to Ray Allen, he is not the force or personality the KG is to the team. Ray is a drop-dead shooter and is a star but he doesn't lead this team like Pierce or Garnett do at all.

Why can't a guy win two awards in the same year? That would be ridiculous for someone think like that and I don't see how that is an argument why he should not win. It could be an argument (though just as bad) why he won't win but not why he shouldn't. That's just stupid. Also, you're going to completely disagree with this, but his defensive presence is immeasurable. It just is. I don't know if you've watched them at all, but there's really no way to quantify it, and that's what the MVP voters will (well, should) be looking for in addition to stats.

I think this Peter May article from a few weeks ago is incredibly relevant. I will quote some important parts.

Well it's pointless to argue, mostly because you're from Boston, but essentially:

I don't have a problem with a person winning two awards in the same year. However, Garnett is still no MVP. They could get Executive of the Year, perhaps. I just feel that their accomplishment of a turn-around was pretty big. They do deserve an award to show for it. However, the MVP is a more prestigious award and should not be wasted solely on intangibles. If it's part of the argument, like Steve Nash's two MVPs, that's one thing. However, MVP should have at least some stats to show their worth. And, as mentioned, I am automatically against the MVP merely going to the best player on the best team (unless, of course, they had mind-boggling stats to back it up, which Garnett does not).