Kobe & Kevin Blackistone

After listening to Kevin Blackistone drone on about all the things Kobe Bryant can do on a basketball court, I think I understand why the MVP voters in the media are so drawn to Kobe.

"He can score at will."

Cool.

He couldn't really do it against the Cs this year, having shot 12 of 46 over the course of two games in which the Lakers lost by a combined total of more than 30 points.

But I will concede that against everybody else, Kobe can score the rock.

And that makes him MVP?

It makes him fun to watch, no doubt. Just like it made Dominique fun to watch in 1988 when the Hawks won 50+ games.

But MVP?

Whatever.

NBAI: National Basketball Association of Intensity

Last October Around the Horn host Tony Reali asked his guests who they would rather start the 2007-08 season with, if the goal were to win a championship: Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James.

One guest said KG.

Why?

Intensity.

"Come on, Mariotti," Reali responded, "it's not the National Association of Intensity, it's the National Basketball Association."

That ended that discussion.

But it shouldn't have.

How many ways does intensity shape the outcome of pro basketball games?

I'm not sure we can count them all, but to answer that question, let's pose a few of our own.

--Why do teams like the Boston Celtics streak to a 29-3 start, including wins over good teams like the Los Angeles Lakers, Detroit Pistons, Utah Jazz, Houston Rockets, and Orlando Magic, but then go on to lose three of four against teams like the Washington Wizards and Charlotte Bobcats?

--Why do teams like the Boston Celtics win seven of nine without their star player in the lineup, take a week off for the all-star break, and then lose three in a row with their superstar back in the lineup?

--Why do teams like the Boston Celtics win four of five games on a brutal road trip that included tough wins over Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston only to return home and lose a game against an average team like Philadelphia?

--Why do teams like the 1985-86 Celtics post a 67-15 record that includes 11 losses against teams with records below .500?

--What does it mean to say "they won because they wanted it more"?

--What does it mean to say "they lost because they suffered a letdown"?

--Why does a moderately talented player like Dave Cowens make the Hall of Fame, while hundreds of more talented players don't last ten years in the NBA?

The common thread here, of course, is intensity. The energy, focus, commitment, discipline, and drive a player and his teammates bring to the floor play a significant role in determining the fate of that player and team. Yet all players are human, and no player can "elevate" their play for a big game without returning to earth against lesser competition, because by definition that is what it means to elevate your play.

Teams pay their superstars to perform all season, but they rely on them to perform big when it counts.

So with all due respect to Mr. Reali, Athletic greatness is determined, in part, by intensity, and NBA greatness is no different. If this weren't the case, then every player asked the question 'what makes the playoffs different?' would have to change their answer.

The Lastest in the MVP Soap Opera

Like sands through an hour glass, so runs the Days of our Lives...

According to the Boston Herald, KG is running fourth among four candidates for the 2008 NBA MVP award. I'm not sure how they tabulated the vote, but, for now, let's just take it at face value.

I'm probably not as plugged in as the Herald, but what I am hearing doesn't follow suit.

Initially, Kobe and LeBron were the sexy choices, taking turns scoring 40 and 50 points per game in February. Then Gasol got injured, the Lakers started losing games by the fist full. Meanwhile, LeBron had a couple of sub-par performances in Cavalier losses, and opponents were bragging about having "shut down the king."

Lately the attention of writers and broadcasters seems to have shifted.

Hubie Brown recently opined that the MVP race currently has two front runners, Chris Paul and Kevin Garnett, and some votes may hang in the balance until the following questions get answered:

1. Will the Hornets end up with the best record in the West?
2. Will the Celtics win 65-67 games?

The MVP debate may also be influenced by the Defensive Player of the Year Award discussions. Right now, it looks like Garnett will win that vote in a landslide. If so, it makes you wonder how winning that honor will influence the votes cast in the MVP race, since the Celtics defense is the number one reason they are the best team in basketball.

The fact that the Celtics won their 61st game of the season without any of their stars on the floor was not interpreted as a sign that they didn't need their stars to win, as was the case when they won games in KG's absence. Instead, it was interpreted to mean that the supporting cast was simply playing with the same toughness and intensity that KG has demanded from them all season.

Well, now.

Several media outlets are also taking notice of Garnett's accomplishments on the other side of the ball. In a recent LA Times column, the writer observed:

No one brings more attitude on the court than the Celtics, following the lead of Kevin Garnett, who has a chip on his shoulder the size of a redwood. It's a big reason they play so well in big games, as when Garnett outscored Detroit's Rasheed Wallace, 31-23, in the March 5 victory that gave Boston their season series.

Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon have both echoed these sentiments, saying it was on KG to prove he was the best player on the floor when the Celtics matched-up against the league's elite this year, and going 13-2 against those teams tells us he accomplished that objective.

So their is a shift underway, however imperceptible it may be, and it's a shift that favors KG. Whether it will be enough to bring home the MVP honors remains anyone's guess.

Kobe Leads League in Technicals

With two very pointless technical fouls against Charlotte this week, the Lakers' Kobe Bryant reached 15 for the season. One more and he draws a one-game suspension. Bryant leads the league in this dubious category, followed by Ricky Davis and Rasheed Wallace, each with 11.

And NBA writers will reward this clown with an MVP award?

Kobe for MVP

Bryant has been terrific and deserving, surpassing career averages in field goal and three-point shooting, steals, assists and rebounds. He's taking fewer shots than at any time in his previous six seasons but is second in the league in scoring (to James), averaging 28.2 points per game. His rebounding (6.0) is his best in five years (6.9 in 2002-03), his field-goal shooting (46 percent) is his highest in six years (47 in 2001-02), steals (2.0) second most in his career (2.2 in '02-03).

At 29, a year older than when Jordan won his first championship with the Bulls, Bryant is right there, the best player in the NBA and the player who overwhelmingly should be voted MVP.

++

Needless to say, I didn't pen this.

The MVP BS continues...

Gasoless Bryant Loses Three of Four

KG was the MVP front runner until he got injured and the Celtics went 7-2 during the games he missed. After he came back, suddenly it was as if Garnett had fallen off the face of the earth as far as the MVP discussion was concerned.

The new front runners were LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Chris Paul.

Bryant was thought to be the sentimental choice, since he had yet to win an MVP over his long career. Forget the fact that maybe he didn't deserve one earlier in his career when Shaq was the most dominant player on the planet. Also please ignore that the MVP award is not a lifetime achievement award. All of this bugs the hell out of me. But for now I'll go with it.

Then we move to LeBron. Wow, that dude can fill it up. Forty points here. Fifty points there. The LeBron-as-MVP talk stopped, of course, when the Cavs went on their current two-game losing streak and the King stunk up the joint against the Wizards.

This brings us to Chris Paul, a great player on a good team. Does he deserve to be in the discussion? Perhaps. Without Paul, the Hornets aren't even a .500 team. With him, they are in the hunt for the best record in the West. If the Hornets end up with the best record in the West, he should easily vault ahead of Bryant and James in the MVP race.

Which leaves us with KG.

The case for KG as MVP is well known, if underappreciated. He is the best player on the team with the best record in the NBA. The Celtics have had the league's best record the entire season, and are likely to make it a wire-to-wire job. Garnet is the fuel in his team's tank, and the quarterback of their league-leading defense. KG intimidates opponents, get in their heads, and gets his teammates on the same page, locked and loaded, and ready to play.

Despite what I said about Paul, I have little doubt that Bryant remains the MVP favorite. This puzzles me for a couple of reasons. Before the Lakers acquired Gasol, the Lakers were somewhere near the middle of the pack in the Western Conference. The Celtics had humiliated the purple twice in head-to-head match-ups.

The Lakers then acquire Gasol, go on a rampage against mostly lesser opponents, lose Gasol to injury, and promptly lose three of four.

So in the spirit of Bush 41:

Before Gasol: No winning.

With Gasol: Winning begins.

Without Gasol: Losing resumes

Sounds to me like if there is a Laker that should be in the running for MVP, his name is Gasol, not Bryant.

Bird, Like KG, Undervalued in First Year

With all of the talk about "29-loss" LeBron and "can't win-without-Gasol" Kobe leading the MVP race, I thought the below piece might present some solace to those of us who are a bit confused by KG's absence from the discussion.

++

Larry Bird is barely two thirds of the way through his first regular season in the NBA and already he is being taken for granted.

People have a hard time admitting the obvious. Out-of-towners are pretending that other rookies are his equal as a ballplayer when they are not. What's even more amazing is that many people locally are so casually accepting his greatness.

It has become, for example, a favorite pastime of some media folk to speculate on who is the Celtics Most Valuable Player. The popular favorite in some circles is Tiny Archibald, and that's all right, as long as you re-define the concept to read "Most Indispensable." Until Pete Maravich proves he can do the job, Tiny remains the only legitimate floor leader on this club. But he is not the best player.

Likewise, the Celtics need Dave Cowens to be a great team. While Dave is not the player of four years ago, he is still the team's best defensive player, and he is a true captain and leader. His prolonged absence would severely hamper this team. I have certainly not come here to knock Dave Cowens, who remains my all-time favorite player, and who is one of my favorite people as well.

But I wonder exactly what game people have been watching if they haven't noticed what Larry Bird has been doing. Hey, people, wake up. Larry Bird is the reason for the passing madness which has engulfed the Celtics. Larry Bird has given this team, which is neither very strong nor very swift, a dimension of full-court basketball it couldn't have otherwise. Without Larry Bird the Celtics would be much easier to defense. You must realize this.

Maybe the reason Bird has sort of slid out of the public consciousness is the low key reaction of the coach. Bill Fitch is a trained professional who sees both the good and bad in everyone. In this sense, he is the perfect coach for Bird at this stage of his career, for Fitch will make him work hard to overcome his weaknesses. Fitch points out that he is getting paid, in part, to find the things a Larry Bird can't do and thus find a way to eliminate or overcome those deficiencies. Therefore, Fitch has done anything but gush over Bird.

Well, somebody's got to, and I'm gonna. I know there are areas in which Bird can improve, but that's what is so exciting to me. All I can think of is what he is going to be, once he has a year's experience, once he ceases to become a media event and becomes merely a great athlete and once his damaged right index finger is fixed. Meanwhile, Larry Bird has scored 19 points a game (while often shooting far too little), has led the team in rebounds and has posed enormous defensive problems for every opponent.

I hate to mention the stats because their fraudulence is legendary. There is, for example, no category for what I call the "pass-before-the-pass." That's the pass which opens up the floor and which creates the assist. Not since Bill Bradley retired has anyone so consistently made this pass in a half court offense as has Larry Bird. And that's before mentioning his great outlet passes. How many times have you seen this? Bird rebounds and flings a pass some 50 feet to spring the Celtics for a two-on-one fast break. I submit that any two professionals, be they 7 feet 4or 5 feet 11, ought to be able to finish off a two-on-one nine out of 10 times. So one of them gets the basket and the other gets the assist. Bird gets nothing - officially.

What must be remembered is that Bird, though he can go one-on-one (did you see him take Sidney Wicks and throw that running lefty hook in his face?), is like John Havlicek, a team player. He is totally wired into the other four men, the result being that some of his achievements are subtle ones. Another factor is that people become so worried about what Bird might do that they leave themselves open to something else.

It's no accident that the smart opponents are the ones who appreciate him the most. Jamaal Wilkes was lavish in praise of Bird, and just the other day Bill Walton declared that Bird had done a lot more for the Celtics than Earvin Johnson had done for the Lakers because Bird had turned around a team while Magic had essentially augmented Kareem, and that Bird's approach to the game reminded him of Havlicek's. The flip side, of course, is that a moron like Joe Bryant declares that Bird is "too slow."

Bird is a prodigy who is just learning how to use his powers. In many ways he had been holding back, not wishing to dominate play, for whatever reason. But he has earned the respect of his peers (among other reasons, because he is so damn tough, in a football-hockey sense) and they would welcome a show of ego.

Lord, how lucky we hoop freaks have been in this town. From Russell to Cowens in one year, and now from Havlicek to Bird. We are truly the Hoop God's Chosen People

MVP LeBron Loses Again

Cavs lose to Nets, fall to 37-28. They are in fourth place in the Eastern Conference, and have lost four of their last ten.

Someone please show me the MVP credentials here.

M-V-P M-V-P

King James is the best player in the NBA. He is the most dominant player in the NBA. His ability to take over a game and impose his will is unmatched.

Oh wait.

The Cavs lost to the 25-36 Bulls by 11.

Never mind.

Link