Apparently the NBA has decided to give the MVP award to Kobe Bryant. I've long considered the MVP award to be a bit asinine in a team sport, but most years you can look and see at least one person who was the key cog in the team's success.
But that person isn't Kobe Bryant.
There will be apologists; there always are. They will say "but look at what he's done!" Or, "He deserves it because he's the best not to win one," or something of that nature. Then there will be the people who look at it from a pseudo-technical aspect: "He's the best player on the team that was the best in the toughest division," or some such crap. It's all a load, and it's all just justification to let a me-first, screw those around me, I need to be the center of attention narcissist allow other people to pay attention to him for a little bit.
I remember the All Star Game in Philadelphia some 10 years back where Bryant was named MVP of the game and the crowd booed. Kobe was asked if it upset him at all, and he said yes. He thought that they should show him some respect because he did so well, and because he's from Philadelphia. It doesn't matter what, if anything, he gave them, it matters what he's owed. And that's the rub with him. It's about Kobe. It's not about winning (really), it's about being the focal point of the winning team. He'd rather lose and be the star than win as the Ed McMahon.
"But look at this year - he was a teammate and they did better!" You're right. He was a teammate, and they did do better. But that was after all other options were gone.
"But he didn't have good enough teammates before to win." This actually is an argument against Kobe winning the MVP. How can someone legitimately be considered the player most valuable to a team's success when he's the constant? It was the addition of role players such as Gasol and Fisher (whose calming presence and legitimate third option is more likely what triggered the team's success, and by extension makes him more legitimately the Most Valuable Player to his team's success) that made that team better, not Kobe Bryant. He had more success because of those pieces of the puzzle, not vice-versa.
Kobe is a good basketball player. He's not a good teammate because he's incapable of grasping the difference between being a good basketball player and being a great team player. Sure he showed the potential this year, but are baby steps really worthy of Most Valuable Player honors?
I think not.
4 comments:
Someone sure is a hater... he helped lead his team to the #1 seed in the Western Conference. His stats have gone down for the sake of winning and for someone that's such a horrific teammate the rest of the team sure has stepped up and done will with him around.
Is he perfect? No but he has matured somewhat over the years if you can't give the man credit for his game then how credible are you?
Of all the teams in the league and all the players in the league that played this year, was he the person most important to his team's success?
The addition of Derrick Fisher, the development of Andrew Bynum, the acquisition of Pau Gasol - these all were keys to the team's improvement, necessary for Kobe to be able to have his stats go down.
Look to New Orleans, a team with one of the greatest single season turnarounds in history and the number 2 seed in the West. Look at how pivotal the performance of Chris Paul was to that success. Consider how much stronger a team the Lakers were after the addition of Derrick Fisher, who makes the teams he's on better.
I don't begrudge Kobe Bryant his talent in playing basketball. But Most Valuable Player, as trite an award as it is, is an annual award. It goes to the player most important to his team's success that year. It's not a barometer of someone who has matured. Bryant's consideration should not be based on comparisons to how Bryant has performed in previous years. Nor should it be considered as compared to his status as a "superstar" who has yet to win the MVP award. I abhor the idea of giving an award to anyone simply because they haven't gotten one yet, and he or she is "due." Kobe may be valuable to his team, and he may be the best player on his team, or even in the league, but that does not make him the most valuable player.
Yes he was because imagine the Lakers without Kobe they probably wouldn't make the playoffs. This season he had too deal with injuries of Bynum and Ariza, easing Gasol into the system and he was on the worst team in the league before he joined the Lakers. Many thought the Lakers wouldn't make the playoffs after this past summer but they did and they went to the top in the competitive West.
This isn't about his past achievements its what he and the team have dealt with the entire season. CP3 has a healthy supporting cast but Kobe for the most part did not and they still went to the top of the West.
Ergo I have no issue with him winning it this year. Then again if he didn't win it wouldn't bother me either only because the MVP is an award the media votes for how stupid is that?
I just find your argument to be rather "haterish"
I have to agree with Steve, CP3 was more valuable than Kobe. The Hornets won just one less game than the Lakers and the Lakers finishing first in the West was more foreseeable than the Hornets finishing second.
Post a Comment