|
During the "Shaq/Kobe" era, the team was too stacked to single out one player as the most valuable player because you could always argue the team would still succeed if one of tehm went down.
I believe that was the case with Kevin Garnett. He had 2 other perennial all stars on his team and it was very debateable whether he was even the most valuable player on his own team. I think each of the big three had an important role. Ray Allen was the shooter/clutch player. Paul Pierce was the go-to guy when you needed a basket and also a clutch player. Garnett was the heart and soul of the team as well as the post presence and defensive center piece. When the game was on the line, Garnett was the 3rd option. As a result, I never really thought of him as the MVP, despite popular opinion early on in the season.
As for Chris Paul, he had a fantastic season. I would say he had a slightly better second half of the season then Kobe except for the last two weeks. I also think he received a lot of this credit because at the beginning of the season, no one expected it. Everyone already knew Kobe was going to average about 30-6-5. I think this added a lot to Chris Paul's case for MVP. At the end of the day, either player could have easily won MVP with minimal controversy, however Kobe stepped up at the end of the season when it mattered the most, and Chris Paul didnt.
On a side note, Chris Paul is playing out of his mind and it looks like they are definately going to advance to the next round. If Chris Paul can keep it up, he may be able to get a finals MVP, which IMO is much better then the regular season MVP. If they can take out the Lakers and win the championship, I think it will show who really had the better year.
|
