MVP Thoughts

As the NBA season winds down the MVP discussion heats up. So who is really the MVP of the NBA. I have come to the conclusion that there are three candidates that are a cut above the rest. They are in no particular order, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul and Kevin Garnett. The first thought that will occur to many people reading this is why no Lebron James? His Cavs are only nine games over .500 in a weak Eastern Conference. Following an impression run to the Finals last year Lebron and his Cavs have failed to establish themselves as one of the League's elite teams. If the candidate's team is not as strong as they should be, as is the Cavs situation, the candidate has to work themselves out of a big hole. Although Lebron has done everything in his power to win he simply can't measure up to the other candidate's resumes.

Kobe Bryant has never won an MVP and to me that is a crucial key in comparing him to the other greats. Of course he has had MVP like seasons in years past he has beaten out or overshadowed. This year his Lakers are atop one of the toughest Western Conferences of all-time. On top of that he is putting up Kobe like numbers and doing it when it matters most. Sure he has Pau Gasol, but he hasn't played for the Lakers the majority of the season and when he has played has forced defenses to play Kobe a little looser and Kobe has taken advantage. One of the most impressive parts to his season is his ability to play through injury, which was a big story around the All-Star break and has somewhat died down.

The next candidate is Chris Paul of the surprising New Orleans Hornets. As I fan I can't stand him and his blatant whining to the refs, but nowadays it seems all the great players do that. He has been the most impressive point guard in the west amongst other great point guards such as Tony Parker or Steve Nash. His team currently sits on top of the standings and have been there many times this year. Out of all the Western candidates that look like the weakest because of all the other stacked squads around them, but Paul has led his team brilliantly like an old vet. Creating more looks for shooters like Peja Stajakovic and feeding All-Star David West have led to his 11.4 assists per game, which leads the league. He also leads the league in steals because of his great vision and pure basketball instinct. All of these factors lead me to believe that he will be the MVP of the 2007 NBA season.

The final of the three players is Celtic's forward Kevin Garnett. Although his numbers aren't as impressive as the other candidates, the Celtics record and defensive ranks do all the talking. He has been the teams inspirational leader and has been huge at key times in the game. There are enough scorers on the Celtics where the ball gets spread around well. He is part of that, whether it is attracting double teams or finding the open man KG is the perennial team player. He has helped turn the Celtics around and gains a lot of praise for this. In the end I think he is most deserving of MVP, but will fall short behind CP3.

Player vs. Team: ESPN Version

I've noticed it for a while now, but this week has proved that ESPN has gone too far with their blatant love for individual performers. On a night where the two best teams in the NBA played each other the lead story was Lebron James scoring 50 points. Not to take anything away from Lebron, but he played against the Knicks and had already put up 45 points on them earlier in the year, so it's not like this was a new thing.

The real story of the night was the third meeting between the Pistons and Celtics this, with both teams winning on the road earlier in the year. This game was a much different feel than the previous two meetings as the Celtics took the lead earlier on and never surrendered. The Pistons made it an interesting game, but the Celtics prevailed. Yet this epic match up was somehow overshadowed by King James. Yes, he is great, but this isn't golf or tennis this is a team sport.

Then there is the football version and nothing bothers me more than watching Manning vs. Brady. They aren't even on the field at the same time. Sure comparing their accomplishments is interesting, but on an NFL preview show before the game they shouldn't be talking about Manning vs. Brady, they should be talking about Brady vs. the Colts defense and so on. For some reason the ESPN execs just love the individual star and when two of them meet up it will dominate the airwaves on all of the ESPN channels.

In my opinion the best time to preview the meeting between two great players is in baseball, when you have an ace vs. the slugger. You can't go wrong there because not only is it truly one-on-one, but it is arguably the key part of the game. If your star player can overpower their star player then you should have a good chance to win. The problem with ESPN is they apply this at the wrong times, in team sports the team should be the story.