In the 2007-2008 NBA Season, the one we'll all remember for the Celtics teaming up three superstars for a run at the Championship, the contest for the MVP Trophy was just as hotly contested. The top three contestants, KOBE, GARNETT, and CHRIS PAUL all had an argument for winning. Kobe won.
No, Money Down:
This was one of the hardest MVPs to decide, as far as I could tell there was no front runner by the end of the season! Between the three, I actually thought Kobe was least deserving. What did he do? He rode that "best player in basketball" title to the MVP trophy, but that is not the definition of an MVP. In the "elevates your teammates to a higher level and is a great team player" department, Kobe didn't quite measure up. He was better, ok, better about that than years past, but still sorely lacking compared to the other two would-be MVPs. KG was everything you'd want: Great defense, firey comptietior, and still a "Can score at will guy" if need be. However, should he be downgraded because he didn't mean as much to his team as CP3 did? I'll say sure why not, Cp3 was the mvp.
This was an incredibly interesting MVP year. Kobe had the stats, the name, the history, the glamour. KG had the attitude, the sheer willpower, the huge improvement to the Celtics, not to mention Bill Simmons trumpeting his cause to millions every week. And then there's CP3. I have to choose him because that's how I roll. Slightly contrary. A hater of Kobe. KG had a bunch of all stars around him on a crazily stacked team that had no resemblance to the team from the previous year. CP3 all by his lonesome made his team good, a small PG playing the role of alpha dog. Nasty and nice. It feels like that was a long time ago and it worries me that Chris Paul, the man with two first names, is doomed to be on a team that isn't good enough for him to make great.