Bleacher Report - Articles by Nate Smith

Los Angeles Lakers Need To Adjust For Pivotal Game 4 In Utah

Nate Smith — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:53:53 -0400

Kobe Bryant is unofficially known as the most clutch player on the planet. Last night, it was Deron Williams hitting the go-ahead bucket with 2.2 seconds to play setting up a last second shot by Bryant.

He had a good look at a 30 footer, but the ball was wide right. That just about summed up Bryant's night. For one of the best players in NBA history, he was peculiarly bad in this 88-86 loss to the Utah Jazz.

Bryant for his part shot a woeful 5-24. He took difficult shot after shot, failing to recognize that his jumper was off. Bryant was determined to find the bottom of the net by shooting the ball and he failed time after time after time.

Bryant's inability to recognize his own limitations game to game hurt his ballclub last night, but while the blame must lay at the feet of the superstar, he is far from the only reason the Lakers were bullied by a team they should have swept.

Derek Fisher has been a disaster. At least twice a game, Fisher decides that his teammates haven't been looking for him and instead of running the ball, he'll drive to the lane to shoot or jack up an ill-advised three. These selfish displays by Fisher rarely cost the team, but last night, they wasted crucial possessions for the Lakers.

Additionally, Fisher's desire to run a break on its own is just about as good as a turnover as he seldom converts in traffic. As bad as his decisions were on offense, Fisher's main liability was on defense. Williams got to the rim at will against Fisher.

On the pick and roll, Fisher was exploited and was always a step slow on his rotations. The Lakers could start Shannon Brown, who fights through screens and stays in front of Williams, but Williams toys with Brown's inexperience.

Brown anxious to prove himself jumps at even the slightest pump fake. Additionally, Fisher's leadership ability is underrated. Nonetheless, Fisher has got to recognize playoff basketball and find an extra gear to go to in order to limit William's penetration.

Pau Gasol might as well have been a pillow. He was bullied, pushed and prodded in his time on the floor. Milsap and Boozer took turns of making Gasol look like the weakest power forward in the league.

At some point, Gasol has got to abandon his finesse and show some strength. Perhaps Gasol should listen to Utah Coach Jerry Sloan when he implores his team to "get nasty" and take the advice as his own.

If he's going to be thrown around by undersized Milsap or Boozer, how is he going to fare against Greg Oden or Yao Ming should the Lakers advance? Finally, Gasol needs to develop some mental toughness and convert free throws on the road. His free throw shooting was absolutely inexcusable last night and he knows it.

He's got to step up in the playoffs especially on the road if they expect to win the Finals without homecourt advantage in Cleveland. These games are preparation for the tougher games to come.

Lamar Odom was a bright spot. With hustle, off the ball movement, offensive rebounds and assists, Odom was able to will his team to a competitive first half and help his team to a solid run in the third quarter.

With Bynum, understandably, having problems coming back into game shape in such high intensity games, it would probably be a better idea to start Lamar Odom. Let Bynum anchor the second unit where his passing and footwork will help the continuity of the bench.

Additionally, playing as a bench player will limit the fouls Bynum will pick up and will allow him to play in the final minutes when rebounding and defense is crucial.

As bad as this game was for the Lakers, they have to feel good that with such a dismal performance on the road they only lost by two. And give Utah credit, they are a much scrappier team at home.

They have heart and they believe they can win this series. If the Lakers don't make some adjustments for game four, they just might be right.

Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and Dwyane Wade: Analyzing the MVP, Pt. 1

Nate Smith — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:43:04 -0400

As the 2009 NBA regular season cools down, the debate about who the MVP should be has heated up.

LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade have dominated the discussion about league MVP—and with good reason.

These three players have been absolutely sensational on both ends of the court.

Wade, Bryant and James will each likely be selected to the All NBA first team and All NBA Defensive first team.

Fans and analysts from all over the globe have made arguments about which of these three is the most valuable. Unfortunately, many of the arguments proffered for these candidates don't make any sense.

Let's look at the case for each guy and in the process try to determine what a MVP is and what it really means.

Dwyane Wade

The flashy guard from the Miami Heat has hurled himself into the MVP race by producing what might be the best numbers of the trio. He has led his team to a 38-32 record so far this season which is more than double the win total the heat produced last year.

In the process, Wade has thrown up monster numbers doing just about everything for the Miami Heat in the process. His 29.9 points leads the NBA and he throws in 7.6 assists, 5.4 rebounds, two steals, and a block per game, just for good measure.

Proponents for Wade insist that given his strong play this season and the progress of the Heat from last year to this year, he should be awarded MVP.

The argument is silly. The Heat won 15 games last season and Wade was injured for most of it. This year, he is healthy. Of course the Heat are going to win more than 15 games. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that if you added a healthy Kobe Bryant or a healthy LeBron James to just about any team in the league, they would win significantly more than 15 games.

Coming back healthy and leading a team to a respectable record is not a MVP achievement—it is expected if you are at worst the third best player in the game today.

Consider this: if the Miami Heat won every single game from now until the end of the season, they still wouldn't win as many games as the Los Angles Lakers or the Cleveland Cavaliers have won today.

Wade fans protest that such an emphasis on winning is unfair. After all, it is beyond argument that Wade is playing with the worst supporting cast of the three. Both Cleveland and the Lakers have surrounded their stars with better players. They then argue neither that Kobe nor LeBron would be able to lead the Miami Heat to 55 wins (the usual minimum historically for a MVP). Even if we accept that to be true, it is a moot point.

Both Kobe Bryant and LeBron James have played on teams where they threw up monstrous and historical numbers, but failed to win over 50 games. You know what? They didn't win MVP.

And it isn't just Kobe and Lebron either. In 1988-89, Michael Jordan led the Chicago Bulls to 47 wins and averaged 32.5 points, 6.2 rebounds, eight assists, and three steals a game while shooting 54 percent. Magic Johnson won the MVP that year putting up less-impressive statistics, but leading his Lakers to 57 wins.

Michael had less help that season while Magic was playing with Kareem Abdul Jabber, Michael Cooper, James Worthy, and Byron Scott. In the final analysis, the MVP went to the guy who was winning.

Beyond precedent, there's a good reason why winning ought to be a prerequisite to winning a MVP: because you can't win a championship without winning. In my opinion, the most valuable player in the league is the one who most puts his team in a position to win a championship.

A championship has value to the fans, it has value to the player, it has value to the front office, it has value to coaches and it has value to society. Some people care about points and some people don't. Some people care about rebounds and some don't. Everyone cares about the championship.

If sportswriters rewarded players who didn't exhibit the ability to put their teams in a reasonable position to win a championship to garner MVPs, then you start a very dangerous precedent of undermining winning for personal glory and statistical dominance. And let's be honest, the Heat have virtually no shot to win a championship this season while the Lakers and Cavaliers are almost certain to be in the finals according to many predictive models.

Additionally, rewarding players on bad teams ignores the fact that great players often have to do more intangibles and fewer things that show up on the box score if a championship is to be won. Who here really thinks Kobe can't drop 50 anytime he wants to?

The question isn't why should we punish Wade for being on a poor team, the question is why punish LeBron or Kobe, who have been in Wade's position before and now are in a position to lead their teams to a championship.

In my profession, it doesn't matter how hard I work or how talented I am. My superiors care about that, but at the end of the day, my value is directly correlated to my results. The NBA is the same way and the only results that matter are Ws.

LeBron James

LeBron James, according to some analysts, is having arguably the best season ever and who am I to argue? LeBron has put up numbers similar to past seasons, but has improved his defense. Some have even suggested that James should be a candidate for Defensive Player of the Year.

LeBron has improved his clutch play and his outside shooting has become more reliable even if it still needs work. This season, LeBron has shown us shades of Oscar Robinson, producing a triple double seemingly almost every other game.

LeBron James is a unique physical specimen with a combination of size, speed and skill never seen in basketball before and unlikely to ever be replicated. More than that, he has led his Cleveland Cavaliers to the best record in the league so far and his team is virtually unbeatable at home (32-1).

LeBron seems to have everything going for him in the MVP race, which is why it is so puzzling for me to hear such bad arguments for Lebron's MVP case. The least persuasive are ones that compare LeBron to Kobe.

Often, proponents of James will argue that if you took LeBron off the Cavs they would be much worse than if you took Kobe off the Lakers. Why resort to such a speculative argument? Neither team would make the playoffs—and if you're not going to make the playoffs, who cares?

The most recent analogue of the argument is that if you took Kobe off the Lakers, they'd still make the playoffs. Really? A team starting Derek Fisher, Sasha Vujacic, Trevor Ariza, Lamar Odom, and Pau Gasol, with Jordan Farmar, Shannon Brown, Luke Walton, Josh Powell and DJ Mbenga coming off the bench would make the playoffs in the West?

Seriously? If you honestly believe that, then I agree with the Obama administration that we should do every thing we can to curb illegal drugs from coming into the country.

Even if young stud Andrew Bynum was healthy, they still wouldn't make it. The teams in the West are just too good.

Remember, when you lose Bryant, you lose the best closer in the game and if you don't think Kobe's ability to take over in the closing minutes is important to the Lakers success, I suggest you look at the Bobcats game earlier this season where Kobe fouled out in over time and the Lakers folded immediately and went home with a L.

In any event, what the record of the Cavs or Lakers would be without LeBron or Kobe is speculative and irrelevant. The fact is, LeBron does play for the Cavs and Kobe does play for the Lakers. The argument makes just about as much sense as saying that LeBron would lead the Thunder to more wins than Kobe would on the Kings.

It is also perplexing that analysts continuously reference that the "Cavs would be worse off without LeBron than the Lakers would be without Kobe," without noting the fact that last season the Cavs failed to win 50 games, but with the mere addition of Mo Williams thety have the best record in the league.

The reality of the situation is that teams need more than one star to be dominant. It is not a knock on LeBron James to say that Mo Williams is a very good player. It is okay. Just say it. You know it is true. And it is okay to recognize the ability of Z to step out of the paint and hit jumpers, but to still be able to be a seven-foot presence on defense.

It is okay to say that LeBron James has very good players surrounding him. It doesn't diminish his brilliance at all. The point is, if you took Mo Williams off of the Cavs for the entire season, they wouldn't be nearly as good as they are.

Why not just focus on, what is in my opinion, the best argument for James: He's led his team to the best record in the league while simultaneously putting up the best statistics in the league. That's something no critic can argue with.

Kobe Bryant

The reigning MVP is Mr. Consistent. He is, in my mind, the most complete player in the game today. Every time I hear about LeBron James or Dwyane Wade being compared to Kobe as the best overall player in the game, I think back to earlier in the decade.

First, it was Kobe v. Vince Carter. Then it was Kobe v. Allen Iverson. Next is was Kobe v. Paul Pierce. Then it was Kobe v. Tracy McGrady. Next it was Kobe v. Ray Allen. In 2005-06, it was Kobe v. Wade and Kobe v. Gilbert.

It is truly remarkable how long Kobe has remained the standard among perimeter players.

Most analysts remark that this is perhaps Kobe's best season ever. Insiders credit Kobe with letting the offense come to him and reading the flow of the game more accurately. Bryant still puts up the numbers, but he is a more cerebral player now.

Instead of dominance, Kobe opts for precision.

What I most like about Kobe's game, as it has developed, is that he's less concerned about getting to his spots on the floor and more concerned with his teammates getting to their spots. It allows his teammates to invest in the game more while simultaneously creating easier opportunities for himself once the opposing team realizes they have to pick their poison.

As a result, the Lakers have positioned themselves to run away with the best record in the Western Conference—no small feat, given the quality of the teams in the West and the close seeding from two through eights.

Despite Kobe's longevity, three rings and five Finals appearences, he only has one regular season MVP to his credit. Why? Statistics.

Proponents of Kobe argue that there are three types of lies—there are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics. Maybe that is true, but at least statistics are objective. Isn't relying on stats more fair than relying on subjective proclaimations of a player's worth?

The reality of the situation is that Kobe's statistics are just not as impressive as Lebron's or Wade's. Still, there is something persuasive about the argument that the box score doesn't tell the entire story. You have to watch the games. That is why most analysts still call Kobe Bryant the best player in the game.

Basketball is defined by moments. Great players can dominate entire games, but legends dominate moments. That is what Kobe Bryant is. He is a guy that dominates moments.

He'll have a quiet game and then explode for 18 in the fourth quarter just to prove to Ron Artest and the Rockets that they have no shot come playoff time. He'll drop 61 in the Mecca of basketball just as to put on a show for the fans. He'll hit a timely three over the Spurs just to let them know a comeback won't be in the cards tonight.

And Kobe doesn't step into these moments once in a while. He steps into these moments and delivers almost every single game. As an observer, it is impressive because it rubs off on his teammates. They start to believe they cannot lose—not with this guy on the team. His killer instinct inspires them while demoralizing the opposition.

Still, is Bryant doing anything really more impressive than LeBron? Some have argued that Kobe has been better against top competition. After all, they are 2-0 against the Celtics and 2-0 against the Cavs, and gave Cleveland their only home loss of the season to date. LeBron hasn't been nearly as good against the best competition in NBA—and honestly, has played poorly against the best competition.

Indeed, it is often said that LeBron is doing more with less, but do people really take the time to realize how hard it is to win games in the West where the competition is stronger night after night?

Ask yourself this question: If the Lakers switched conferences and the Cavs switched conferences, what would the likely result be? Would we even be having a discussion on who the MVP is?

The Verdict

As I said before, my definition of a MVP is which player puts his team in the position to best win a championship. As of today, my 2009 NBA MVP is LeBron James. LeBron has just been too good to deny. His statistical production is off the charts and he has the best record in the league, which determines home court advantage in the finals.

If the Lakers end with the best record, it'll be Kobe. With the Lakers one game back and having to play most of their remaining games on the road, the Lakers will need luck, consistency, and smart play for Bryant to repeat.

Part II next week will look at the regular season MVP and how much it should matter in defining a player's legacy.

NBA All-Decade Team for the 2000s

Nate Smith — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:18:28 -0400

With the 2008-2009 season coming down to an end, it is time to name the All Decade Team. These are the top 10 players to play in this decade. Who's been better? Duncan or Shaq? AI or McGrady? This is just one man's opinion of who has been the most important, dominant and successful players of the last decade. Let's get to it!

Begin Slideshow

Why Kobe Bryant Should Repeat as MVP

Nate Smith — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:31:30 -0400

Let's be honest. There are only two legitimate MVP candidates: LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. No other players have meant more to their teams' success than these two individual players and no two players are playing at a higher level.

For the first half of the season, Lebron James was clearly the MVP. He was playing at a high level statistically, improved his defense and had the Cavs sitting at the top of the Eastern Conference.

Then the second half of the season came, Andrew Bynum once again got injured and Kobe Bryant took his game to an entirely different level once again.

The race between these two players is extremely close. LeBron has the statistical advantage and Kobe has the team success advantage. At the end of the day though, I give the edge to the reigning MVP.

If a player is going to win MVP, he has to take it from the reigning MVP. This year, Kobe's been better statistically and he's lead his Lakers to a better record so far at this point than he did in his MVP season.

Part of the problem is that we create premature expectations at the beginning of the season. The media prematurely pegged the Lakers to win 70 games without knowing if Andrew Bynum would be ready to dominate after coming back from a season ending injury.

Of course, Bynum was no where near his former self and as soon as he showed signs of becoming a dominant center again, he went down. Conversely, many underestimated the Cavs supporting cast.

All anyone ever hears is how LeBron has a poor supporting cast, but in reality it is a team that went to the finals. It is a team that took Boston to seven games in the playoffs last year. And it is a team that added Mo Williams. How then could the Cavs be predicted to be anything less than second in the Eastern Conference?

Sure, LeBron has been fantastic. Dominant even. But is his supporting cast that much better than the Lakers? Sure, Kobe Bryant has Pau Gasol, but part of Bryant's value is making Gasol a much better player than he ever was.

Gasol even won a player of the month award this season because of all the extra attention given to Bryant in the second half of the season.

And let's be honest. If you take Bryant off of the Lakers, the team looks eerily similar to the Gasol-led Memphis Grizzlies. How come when Bryant meshes and elevates the play of his teammates, everyone says he has so much help? But when Steve Nash does it, it is because he is a back-to-back MVP??

Truth be told, LeBron's Cavs have a collection of talent, experience, and depth that cannot be matched by the Lakers. The Lakers have Pau Gasol, but after that, the Cavs nearly run the table against the Lakers with the talent they have.

They have a guy who won the defensive player of the year award four times. Mo Williams is an all-star and is certainly better than Lamar Odom. Z has played at a higher level than Andrew Bynum. Most of the D-League is better than Luke Walton.

At the end of the day, it seems to me that the Lakers have the better offensive team and talent while the Cavs have the better defensive team and talent. Neither supporting casts are "better." The teams are just built for different purposes.

Having said all of that, why is Kobe the MVP? Simply because he's been a MVP in the most important games of the season. Kobe Bryant has led his team to wins over the Celtics twice this season and gaining home-court advantage in the playoffs just in case there is a tie in their record.

Kobe did the exact same thing against Lebron's Cavs this season.

LeBron by contrast has been mediocre at best in the most crucial games. He had two of his worst games of the season against the Lakers. And just this past Friday, he had another terrible game against a Garnett-less Celtics team.

The games against the Celtics and Lakers matter because homecourt advantage will likely determine the NBA Champion this season.

More than that, if LeBron plays his worst in the most crucial games of the season while Kobe plays his best during the most crucial games of the season, I fail to see how LeBron can still be considered more valuable to his team.

Then there's the fact that Lebron James has led his team to 48 wins in the East; while Kobe has led his team to 50 wins in the West. At the time of this writing, a team has to be at least .603 to get into the playoffs in the West.

That's right. Dallas in the eighth spot is 13 games above .500. In the East, you only have to have a .460 record to get into the playoffs. Chicago currently holds the eighth spot and they are five games BELOW .500. Clearly there is a huge disparity in the conference.

What does the conference disparity mean for the MVP race? It means, comparing Kobe's 50 wins to the Cavs 48 wins is not fair. If the Lakers had to play Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit and Miami night after night, they'd certainly have significantly more than 50 wins.

And does anyone really think that if the Cavs had to play the Spurs, Utah, Dallas, New Orleans four times a season they'd really be at 48 wins right now?

Simply put, Kobe is putting up comparable numbers to LeBron James while leading his team to the best record in the league, in a tougher conference while playing better in the most important games of the season. To me, that means the reigning MVP deserves to repeat.

NBA Mailbag and End of Season Awards

Nate Smith — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:28:13 -0400

Got a question? Send it to NateSmithBR@gmail.com

This is my first mailbag and I'll be answering questions that have been sent to me.

James (LA): I love your articles about Kobe. Do you think he'll be MVP this year?

Nate: Yes. While a number of sportswriters have a strong dislike for Kobe that will prevent them from being fair to him in MVP voting, I think the vast majority will place Kobe where they honestly think he should be based on his play this season.

Ricky (Philly): Kobe is a punk! Giving him the MVP sends the wrong message to kids about the role of being a good teammate.

Nate: Good catch. I do worry about rewarding Kobe after his offseason demands, but in my opinion they were off-season. I only look to what happens during the season.

In any event, had the Lakers imploded and stunk, Kobe would have (rightfully so) shouldered almost all of the blame. It is only fair that he gets some of the credit when then win.

Roland (no location specified): Who do you think is coming out of the East?

Nate: I think Boston is going to come out of the East. The one thing I look at is defense and point differential. Boston is an excellent defensive team that wins convincingly.

Detroit has not exactly built up an impressive rhythm going into the playoffs, and I think that's going to hurt them in the later rounds.

Eric (Ft. Lauderdale): Why can't Melo stay out of trouble?

Nate: Youth. Carmelo is good for one bonehead incident per year.

Jack (San Antonio): The Lakers win against the Spurs was impressive, but I still think San Antonio is the team to beat once they get healthy. Agree?

Nate: Absolutely. The problem with San Antonio is that they go through long dry spells where they can't score. It doesn't matter how good their defense is, teams are going to go on runs. If San Antonio cannot score, they aren't going to be able to whether those storms.

Nonetheless, the reintroduction of Brent Barry, Manu Ginobli, and perhaps Robert Horry will allow San Antonio to be much more effective scoring the basketball.

Laura (NYC): Fact or fiction, Isiah Thomas will be the coach in New York next season.

Nate: Fiction. I think the Isiah experiment has run its course. He has managed to go from worst GM in the league to worst coach in the league. He is an absolute disgrace to the game of basketball because New York deserves a team that is competing for a title.

They have the best fans in all of the NBA and hopefully they get a coach who can push them. They really need a coach of Nate McMillian caliber.

Jeremy (no location specified): How can you say Kobe is the best player in the league? LeBron owns him head to head, puts up better stats, and is more dominant because of his size.

Nate: LeBron is the second best player in the game in my opinion. LeBron doesn't have the multitude of moves that Bryant has and isn't as good from the charity stripe. Kobe has elevated his team to a higher status while playing through injuries that LeBron sat out, all while playing much better defense than LeBron.

This is not a knock on James. He just has a while to go before he can claim to be as skilled, as dominant, or as mentally tough at Kobe. He's on the right track though.

End of Season Awards

MVP

1. Kobe Bryant

2. Chris Paul

3. Kevin Garnett

4. LeBron James

5. Amare Stoudamire

COY

1. Byron Scott

2. Doc Rivers

3. Nate McMillian

4. Jerry Sloan

5. Phil Jackson

ROY

1. Al Horford

2. Kevin Durant

3. Luis Scola

DPOY

1. Kevin Garnett

2. Marcus Camby

3. Kobe Bryant

4. Josh Smith

MIP

1. Hedo Turkoglu

2. Chris Kaman

3. Chris Paul

All NBA 1st Team

G - Chris Paul

G - Kobe Bryant

F - LeBron James

F - Kevin Garnett

C - Dwight Howard

All NBA 2nd Team

G - Deron Williams

G - Steve Nash

F - Tim Duncan

F - Amare Stoudamire

C - Marcus Camby

All NBA 3rd Team

G - Manu Ginobli

G - Chauncey Billups

F - Dirk Nowitski

F - Tracy McGrady

C - Tyson Chander

All NBA Defensive 1st team

G - Kobe Bryant

G - Bruce Bown

F - Josh Smith

F - Kevin Garnett

C - Marcus Camby

All NBA Defensive 2nd Team

G - Raja Bell

G - Chris Paul

F - Shane Battier

F - Tim Duncan

C - Tyson Chandler

Kobe Bryant Is the Clear MVP over Chris Paul

Nate Smith — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:40:21 -0400

The NBA MVP 2008 is Kobe Bryant and I'm going to explain why.

Everyone keeps saying Paul has a worse supporting cast than the Lakers and that the Hornets would be worse without Paul than the Lakers without Bryant.

Seriously?

Remember, Andrew Bynum has been out most of the season and so has Pau Gasol. Tyson Chandler and David West have been healthy all season and put up a player efficiency rating (PER) that is higher than Lamar Odom's this season. In fact, David West last year had a higher PER than Lamar Odom THIS season. Clearly, Paul has had the superior supporting cast for most of the season. More on this later.

And please stop saying Paul is the only reason his supporting cast is any good.

David West had the exact same PER that he has this season in 2005-06. And look at his stats last season. They are nearly identical to what he's doing this year.

Peja was only a frontrunner for league MVP a couple years back.

And Tyson Chandler's main contribution is rebounding - something Paul presumably doesn't help him do.

So people who are saying the Lakers without Kobe would be better than the Hornet's without Paul need a reality check.

The Lakers lineup without Kobe would look like this for most of the season: Derek Fisher, Sasha Vujacic, Vladimir Radmanovic, Lamar Odom and Ronny Turiaf.

The Hornets would look like this for most of the season: Pargo, Mo Pete, Peja, David West, Tyson Chandler.

Anyone who says the Lakers are better are mistaken. Remember Pau Gasol has not played for the Lakers most of the season and neither has Andrew Bynum.

Now let's look at why Kobe is clearly the MVP.

The Lakers are 1 1/2 games back of New Orleans (1st place).

The Lakers are only one game worse at home than New Orleans.

The Lakers are one game worse on the road than New Orleans.

The Lakers have a better division record and they have a better record against the Western Conference.

The Lakers have a larger margin of victory than the Hornets.

I think any reasonable person would look at the results of all this and conclude
that the Hornets and Lakers are roughly a similar quality team.

BUT: Pau Gasol has been a Laker for 31 games. That means he's been on the roster for about 41% of the Lakers season so far (31/75). He's missed 12 games. The 10th starting at New Orleans and ending with Washington, and he's missed two games where he was a Laker but hadn't been acclimated to the system (Toronto,
Washington), so he's missed 12 of those 31 games or 39% of the games he's been a Laker.

So look at that. Pau Gasol has been a Laker for over 40% of the Lakers' season,
but has missed over a third of the games he has been on the roster.

Andrew Bynum has been on the roster all year. He has played 35 games this
season. That means he has missed 40 games!

He has missed 53.3% of the season!

The Lakers have played 20 games without either Bynum or Gasol in the lineup.
That's 26% of the Lakers season! To put in perspective, that's over a quarter
of the Lakers' NBA season with almost no frontline.

Now look at the Hornets:

David West has played in 68 of 74 games. That means he's played in 92% of New
Orleans' games so far.

Tyson Chandler has played in 71 of 74 games. That means he's played in 96% of
New Orleans' games.

Peja has played in 69 of the 74 games. That means he's played in 93.2% of New
Orleans' games.

That would be enough to put the Lakers injury situation into context versus New
Orleans, BUT WAIT, there's more.

Peja missed games on 12/9, 12/12, 12/15, 12/17, 12/19

Tyson missed games on 11/21, 2/6, 2/9

West missed games on 1/5, 3/5, 3/7, 3/8, 3/16, 3/17

What is interesting here is that of Paul's top 3 supporting players, NONE OF THEM
EVER missed a game on the same day. Not once. It happened to Kobe for over a quarter of the Lakers' season (20/75). It NEVER happened to Paul.

Yet the Lakers are only 1 1/2 games back from first in the West.

That's not a very healthy margin over the Lakers considering the injury
situation.

But let's go a little bit deeper and look at the games Kobe has played without
Pau Gasol or Andrew Bynum.

First, it is important to note that 11 of the 20 games were on the road and 15
of the 20 opponents were above .500.

The Lakers played Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, San Antonio (rd), Dallas (rd),
Cleveland, New York, Detroit(rd), Toronto(rd), Washington(rd), Houston (Rd),
Dallas (Rd), Utah (Rd), Seattle(rd), Golden State (X2, 1rd) Washington,
Memphis, Charlotte without Bynum or Gasol. The Lakers went 10-10 (including the
loss to the Hornets which doesn't matter for this comparison) on this schedule
without Bynum or Gasol.

Let's look at Paul's record with these games:

Seattle (rd, hm) - W, W
Phoenix - W
Denver - W
San Antonio 2/23 (rd) - L
Dallas 12/14(rd) - L
Cleveland - W
New York - W

Detroit (rd) - L
Toronto (rd) - W
Washington (Rd, Hm) - L, L
Houston (rd) - L
Utah 2/4 (rd) - L
Dallas (rd) - (haven't played Dallas for a second time on the road yet)
Golden State - W, L
Memphis -W
Charlotte - W

The exact same games Paul went 2 games over .500.

He was 10-8 with a healthy Hornets squad.

So Paul with a healthy Hornets squad goes only 2 games over .500 while the Lakers
managed to go .500 WITHOUT Gasol or Bynum against the same exact teams.

Isn't that the very definition of doing more with less that defines a MVP?

Chris Paul v. Kobe Bryant: MVP?

Nate Smith — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:28:43 -0400

As early as two weeks ago the MVP race was seen as a two man competition between Kobe Bryant and Lebron James. Now, with Lebron suffering losses left and right he is no longer seen as a realistic candidate. Lebron has the numbers, but will not have enough wins to secure enough votes to be MVP.

As Lebron has fallen, Chris Paul in New Orleans has risen. Chris Paul is a truly spectacular talent leading his New Orleans Hornets to a tie with the Los Angeles Lakers for the top seed in the Western Conference.

While his team success has been the primary reason he has risen, his individual numbers are simply mind boggling. His player efficiency rating is a 28.88. That's good for the best PER for a point guard....EVER. Yes, better than Stockton's highest PER. Yes, better than Nash's higher PER. And Yes, even better than Magic Johnson's highest PER. His defense is fantastic and at the time of this writing, Paul was leading the league in steals.

He is a pure point guard. You can go ahead an pencil Paul in for 21 points and 11 assists per game. He's better than Steve Nash during both of his MVP seasons and he's doing it with less help than Nash ever had.

Yes, Tyson Chandler is the best rebounder in the league, Peja can shoot lights out and David West is a stud, but they are not Amare Stoudamire, Raja Bell, Joe Johnson or Shawn Marion.

Beyond Paul's individual numbers, he's giving the city of New Orleans a breath of fresh air. A city rebuilding has a championship caliber team to be proud of and a MVP worthy franchise player. Certainly, Paul's play has been good for the city, the region and the country.

MVP?

Not quite.

Kobe's still the MVP and it really isn't close.

First, Kobe is simply a better player. On offense and defense, Kobe is a superior player to Chris Paul, period. Kobe's not a PG, so he doesn't get the double double, but you can pencil Bryant in for 28/6/5/2. Outstanding numbers in their own right. Kobe's all around game is much better than Paul's. To put into perspective, Bryant is considered by many the best player on the planet. Paul is not.

Second, Kobe has been playing a much tougher schedule than the Hornets with equal results. This tilts the bar heavily in favor of Bryant. Paul's hornets have played the 4th EASIEST schedule in the league so far while Kobe's Lakers have played the 4th toughest. Obviously, Kobe's led his team to the same record as Paul, but has done it playing against much tougher schedule. Let's see how Paul does when the schedule gets a bit tougher. The Lakers have only a few road games remaining while the Hornets have 10 of their last 15 on the road.

Third, Paul has been playing with a superior supporting cast all season. Yes, Bryant has Odom, Bynum and Gasol, but don't forget how many games they've played together.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

Kobe Bryant has led his team to the best record in the conference despite his top guys all missing time. Gasol has been out the last two games. Bynum and athletic swingman Trevor Ariza have been out the last two months. Luke Walton, Vladimir Radmanovic, and energetic bench man, Sasha Vujacic, have all missed significant time. It is really amazing the results Kobe has been able to produce with the constant lineup fluctuations he has been dealing with all season.

Fourth, Kobe has been playing with injuries all season. You have to give credit to a guy who plays through a torn ligament in his finger, a strained groin, a bum shoulder, the flu and a dislocated him in order to produce Ws for his squad. Bryant wants to win and he has that rare killer instinct. As the General of the Lakers, he has been willing to sacrifice his body to help lead his soldiers to victory. If I'm going into battle, Kobe's the first person I want on my team.

Fifth, cluth play. According to 82games.com, Kobe is arguably the best clutch player in the league. Paul is very good in the clutch, but he's simply not as deadly or as effective as Bryant in the closing minutes of the game and it isn't even close. What makes Bryant's clutch play so impressive is that he's led his team to a significant number of blow outs in which he didn't even play in the fourth quarter.

Sixth, Kobe's +/- stats are simply better than Chris Paul's. Yes, Paul Gasol has a high +/-, but Paul Gasol has played 80% of his minutes with the Grizzlies this season. He's played about as much time on the Lakers as Ryan Bowen has played for the Hornets. No other Laker, except Kobe Bryant, have a +5 while playing 40% of the team's minutes. The Hornets have 3 players other than Paul doing it.

Seventh and finally, Kobe's defense has been on another level entirely. Yes, Paul is leading the league in steals, but Kobe has been the best perimeter defender in the league. The Lakers are an elite defensive team with Kobe on the floor and a extremely poor defensive team with him off the floor. It isn't even clear that Paul is the best player on his team, much less being a better defender than Bryant. Chandler and David West have been outstanding this season defensively and are a primary reason for the Hornets' success.

Chris Paul is an exceptional player and certainly the best point guard in the league. There's absolutely no question about it. Indeed, Chris Paul is having a comparable, if not better, statistical season than Kobe Bryant. Nonetheless, if you look at the facts, it is almost impossible to make a case for Paul over Bryant. Bryant is a better player on both ends, plays better in the clutch, and has a more significant impact for his team than Chris Paul. In short, he is everything that you want in a MVP.

Kobe Bryant is the 2008 MVP right now with Paul, Garnett, Lebron and Dwight Howard close behind.

Los Angeles Lakers: Back to School

Nate Smith — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:01:23 -0400

After getting totally embarrassed in Houston, I think it is time to hand out some Laker report cards. The myth around the association is that the Lakers have a strong cast of talent that produces at every single position and that's simply not true. Yes, the Lakers have been downright nasty and dominant when even a little healthy.

Yes, this team is still the favorite to win the title, but there are some glaring weaknesses on this team that might prevent the Lakers from staying afloat while awaiting the returns of Trevor Ariza, Andrew Bynum, Chris Mihm and Pau Gasol.

Speaking of Andrew and Pau, has anyone noticed that the big injuries this year have come just when a tough western road trip was approaching?

Can the elite teams in the West be any luckier?

Here are my grades...

Derek Fisher - C

Derek Fisher is a veteran presence. He’s a strong leader and a great set shooter. He is virtually terrible at everything else including, but not limited to, passing, defense, creating his own shot, and finishing at the rim.

Kobe Bryant - A

He has MVP status. He’s great defensively and offensively. Please Kobe, stop yelling at the referees all the time and set a goal to get "only" 10 techs next season.

Lamar Odom- B

Lamar is an unappreciated asset to the Lakers. He does all the little things that go unnoticed. I'd like to see Lamar keep focused in the game and stop making silly mistakes.

Pau Gasol - B+

Pau is fantastic. He needs to get a little bit stronger and fight for rebounds. He needs to stop being pushed around inside. I'd expect him to be much more aggressive at his natural position of PF once Bynum gets back.

Andrew Bynum- A

Andrew is, in my opinion, one of the top 5 Centers in the game, period. He blocks shots and he shoots at a high percentage. He can finish over anyone, and he's got an edge to him that is going to make him a valuable contributor once he comes back.

Jordan Farmar - C

The Lakers should look to trade Farmar. He's really an under-sized shooting guard. All he does is shoot threes and play terrible defense. His play is often erratic and out of control. The Lakers are their worst defensively when he's on the floor.

Sasha Vujacic - B

The Machine is awesome. He plays pesky defense, runs the floor well, and shoots very well from the floor and beyond the arc. He's added a slashing component to his game. He’s a bit too trigger happy, but I like his confidence.

Luke Walton - F:

wish Bill Walton would spend less time criticizing Kobe and Shaq, and spend more time calling out the atrocious play of his son. Oh and to the Laker fans, stop saying LUUUUUUKE when he touches the ball. Start booing.

Ronny Turiaf - A

He plays to the best of his abilities every night. He blocks shots, rebounds, hits midrange jumpers, and he has an edge. Turiaf seems nice in interviews, but he's a tough cookie. Give me more guys like Turiaf and less guys like Walton. My one beef is that he's late on rotations and he wants to block every single shot so he ends up allowing a bunch of three-point plays.

Chris Mihm - F

Yeah, he's hurt. But he also suckered Lakers' management out of about a lot of money making them think he could actually play.

Trevor Ariza- B

I like his game. His quickness, his versatility, and his hustle are valuable. He has the ability to bring so many things to the court. The best thing about Ariza is that any time he gets minutes, means less time Luke Walton is on the court. Get well soon, Trevor.

DJ Mbenga - B-

DACO!

Vladimir Radmanovic - B

Good activity level. He also means Luke isn't starting which is a major bonus. His 3-point shot is often on automatic. I'd like to see him be more aggressive and take control of his role in the game.

Coby Karl - B

I like that he treats his rookie year seriously. He doesn't mope. He gets in the game whether its garbage time or quality minutes and tries to help the team in a positive way.

Phil Jackson - A+

He has the most bonehead rotations in all of the NBA, but he has more rings than all the active head coaches put together. So I'll give Phil an A+.

He knows what he's doing.

NBA to Give College Basketball Competition During March Madness

Nate Smith — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:53:10 -0400

It is that time of year where fans get all crazy about March Madness.

The NBA might finally have something to say about that.

Yeah, Tyler Hansbrough is a tearing up the ACC and Beasley is having a better all around season than Durant last year, but the NBA is where the action is at.

Better players, better coaching, and finally better team play.

With that groundwork, I'll lay out the top five things to watch as the NBA season winds down...

1. Kobe Bryant's Pinkie

Make no mistake about it. The NBA championship goes through Kobe. There's nobody on the face of the Earth that wants to win more now than Kobe. Pau down? No problem. Kobe can give you a couple 50 point games.

Andrew won't be back till April? So what? The Mamba led a team of Smush Parker and Kwame Brown to the playoffs in the West. After Kobe picks up his most deserved NBA MVP trophy, it will all be resting on his health and pinkie to see if he gets finals MVP as well.

2. The Second Round in the East

Let's be honest, whoever meets Cleveland in the second round is going to have to bring their A game every single night. Sure the Cavs stink, but they got LeBron James.

And for four games, LeBron James can be the best player who's ever played the game. He can play at that level for four games. He's done it before and he can do it again. If I'm Boston or Detroit, I don't want to play Cleveland at all. The rub here is that even if Boston or Detroit beats LBJ's Cavs, the winner will have to expend so much energy doing it that the other team will coast to victory.

3. Shaquille O'Neal and the Phoenix Suns

I watched the game against Golden State and the best thing that happened to Phoenix was that Shaq was in foul trouble. Methinks Phoenix stinks, but would love for the two teams that mortgaged their future to meet in the first round. Dallas in six.

4. Manu Ginobli

With apologies to D-Wade, Ginobli is by far the second best shooting guard in the league. It's a damn shame he doesn't have t-mobile commercials. Still, Manu is prone to erratic turnovers, terrible shots, and costly fouls in key moments of the game. Don't get me wrong, Manu is a champion, but for the first time he's the best player on the San Antonio Spurs. Can a Ginobli led team win the championship? If they do, will it be the first time a bench player is the Finals MVP?

5. The Houston Rockets

Methinks the Houston Rockets streak ends today against Los Angeles, but they are the classic inspirational tale. Everyone counted them out and now they are challenging for the best record in the West. Can they keep streaking and make this a Cinderella story? If so, is it time to get rid of Yao and his continuous injuries? Oh, and it's good to see Tracy McGrady on top of his game. You think LeBron is a beast. Remember what Tracy did in '02? Yeah. He was that good.

Commentary: PER Underrates Kobe Bryant, Part II

Nate Smith — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:47:04 -0500

There comes a time in every would be journalists life where he makes a critique that happens to be unfounded.

When this happens, you can either run, hide and pretend it never happened or you can man up and admit you were wrong.

Well this journalist knows when to admit he's mistaken.

I still think the Player Efficiency Rating underrates Kobe Bryant as a player vis-a-vis other players. PER doesn't do a good job taking into account Bryant's defensive prowess or leadership or other qualities that make Bryant one of the top two players in the league. But PER doesn't do that for any of the players. PER is designed to give fans and analysts a general idea of how effective a player is while he is on the court. Sometimes I have to remind myself that even though PER doesn't take into account Tim Duncan's or Bryant's defense and leadership, it is perhaps the most objective single statistic available. Just because a statistic doesn't validate our subjective biases doesn't mean it is flawed. With that in mind a statistical genius gave me an in-depth look at how pace, PER and Kobe Bryant all relate to one another.

My argument in part I was that PER underrates Kobe because he's spent so much time on the bench while the second unit plays at a higher pace than the first unit. Thus, my argument went, PER's adjustment for pace starts to work against Bryant in a way it does not for other players. While plausible theoretically, the argument probably isn't accurate practically.

Indeed, the second unit of the Lakers would have to be the fastest paced team of all time for it to have any meaningful impact on Bryant's Player Efficiency Rating. That means Jordan Farmar, Ronny Turiaf, Sasha Vujacic and company need to play at a pace higher than the Westhead-era Nuggets of the early '90s. Needless to say, Kobe's PER is probably accurate.

Once the math was done, my theory was shot down in a flame of blazing glory. I had challenged PER and failed. What's more I had put my mistake in writing. I had criticized John Hollinger for failing to put PER and its limitations into context, but he didn't need to. It was I who created a limitation and took his statistic out of context. It was a mistake; it happens.

So Manu, you are a superstar and while no statistic will ever get me to believe you are on Bryant's level, there's at least an argument to be made.

Commentary: PER Underrates Kobe Bryant

Nate Smith — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:21:45 -0500

John Hollinger, the stats guru and creator of the Player Efficiency Rating, has a new article on ESPN where he claims that Manu Ginobli's actual production is similar to that of Kobe Bryant's. You can see Hollinger's thought process—he's always thought that Ginobli is a superstar and what better way to prove it than compare him favorably with Bryant?

I don't dispute that Manu is a superstar. With apologies to Brandon Roy, it was clear that Ginobli should've been an All Star this year. Duncan is still the Spurs' best player, but Manu is their heart and soul.

The problem I have with Hollinger's analysis is that it purposely obscures the facts to make Ginobili seem more productive than he is vis-a-vis Bryant. Which, in turn, makes Bryant seem less productive than he is compared to other superstar players.

I am particularly concerned because so many basketball fans rely on the Player Efficiency Rating and John Hollinger's analysis. It is concerning because Hollinger makes no attempt to mention the limitation of his methodology or formula in his articles. PER, as with every stat, is useless without context.

So here I attempt to explain why PER underrates Kobe Bryant.

Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a stat designed to measure a player's impact per minute. It uses a variety of criteria like rebounding rate and true shooting percentage to determine just how effective a player is when he is on the floor. One of the most important variables is pace. Hollinger adjusts for pace so that players playing on a fast pace team aren't given a greater advantage over players that play on slower paced teams.

Hollinger uses pace as his primary argument for why Ginobili produces at a similar rate as Bryant. "Wait, it gets better. Kobe plays on one of the league's faster-paced teams; Manu is on the second-slowest. Plug Bryant's numbers into the Spurs' sluggish pace and you get 26.9 points, 5.9 boards and 5.2 assists, making the comparison a dead heat," Hollinger writes.

Normally, the stat works as it should. After all, most teams play at roughly the same pace throughout the entire game and run the same offense. Some teams, however, run a completely different offense and play at a different pace during different points of the game.

Take the Los Angeles Lakers for example. The Lakers starting unit at the beginning of the season was Derek Fisher, Kobe Bryant, Luke Walton, Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum. This unit ran the triangle offense, which is predicated on ball movement and a series of player movements based on the position of the ball. Indeed, the triangle is a half court offense and running it effectively takes time.

Contrast that to what has happened for most of the season beginning at the end of the 1st quarter. Coach Phil Jackson benches all of his starters except for Lamar Odom. Jordan Farmar, Sasha Vujacic, Ronny Turiaf and Trevor Ariza come into the game and Kobe sits for about six minutes. As Phil Jackson recently revealed, with the second unit on the floor the Lakers run a completely different offense similar to the Phoenix Suns'. It is run and gun designed to push the ball in transition and take shots early in the shot clock.

Until recently, Kobe Bryant had not been playing many minutes with the second unit. Prior to Ariza falling victim to injury, Lakers' Coach Phil Jackson would play the bench as a unit with Bryant sitting out.

The problem with Hollinger's argument is that PER is based on the pace of the team and not based on the pace when the player is actually in the game. To explain the concept another way, while running the triangle, the Lakers might be on pace for hypothetically 88 possessions per game. The second unit comes in, pushes the pace and now the Lakers play at a pace of 96 possessions per game. Obviously, if Kobe's playing on a unit that is playing at a different pace than the second unit, PER distorts his numbers to make him look worse than he actually is.

Another way to think about this is that 28/6/5 in 38 minutes with his true shooting percentage looks much better on a team that plays at a pace of 88 possessions versus a team that plays at a pace with 96 possessions.

Think I'm making this up? When Ariza went down, Bryant was 10th in PER. Now that he's playing more minutes with the second unit, his PER has shot to 7th in just 4 weeks. Indeed, pace heavily influences PER and one has to wonder what Kobe's actual PER is without this flaw.

Hollinger does nothing to account for this obvious discrepancy. Ginobili on the other hand, tends to speed up the game for the Spurs when he is on the floor but gets the benefit of playing on a slower paced team. Ginobili's PER overall is reflective of his per-minute contributions since he, alone, doesn't increase the pace of the Spurs' game significantly. Still, PER severely underrates Bryant and any analysis that tries to compare the two players based on PER and pace is bound to be inaccurate.

Obviously, the pace problem has larger implications because when you compare Bryant's PER to other elite players, it won't look like he is producing as effectively while on the court when in actuality, he is. It is a shame that Hollinger promotes his player efficiency rating without a discussion of the limitations of his formula.

While I think PER is a incredible statistical tool and useful in evaluating players, it is only useful when examined in the proper context.

Nate Smith is a regular contributor to Bleacher Report. He does a mailbag every Monday. Please send your basketball related questions or comments to NateSmithBR@gmail.com.

Shaq Trade: Suns' Gamble Likely To Fail

Nate Smith — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:02:14 -0500

When Suns' GM Steve Kerr decided to bring Shaquille O'Neal to Phoenix, he talked about Shaq rejuvenating the team. Kerr just didn't believe that the core of Steve Nash, Amare Stoudamire, and Shawn Marion could win a title. It wasn't that they weren't skilled enough; it was that they didn't have the right attitude.

So in comes Shaq and as it always is with him, hype followed. His personality is infectious. He gave writers a "new" phrase: The sun will rise in Phoenix. T-shirts were made and talk of bringing the title to the desert had resumed once again. A new era of hope had begun and Shaq was going to do what he did for two other franchises.

For his part, Shaq did rejuvenate the Phoenix Suns team. The problem is now they're simply not skilled enough to win a title.

In his first game as a member of the Suns, Shaq looked sharp in the second half. He ran the floor, set screens, and finished lobs. His presence in the paint makes little men think twice before waltzing in the lane. The Suns are more intimidating now with the big fella patrolling the paint.

Shaq played about as well as the Suns could have hoped and they still got beat handily by a very good Los Angeles Laker team. (Don't let the final score fool you, LA put the game out of reach late in the fourth.)

Shaq's subsequent games have been impressive. As a Phoenix Sun, he is averaging a double double (10.8 points and 10.4 rebounds) in only about 29 minutes a game. Not vintage Shaq, but pretty good for a player who is just returning from injury.

If Shaq is playing well, then why should Suns fans be concerned?

Because the Suns haven't won consecutive games since Shaq arrived. Because their gravest weakness—the inability to beat elite competition in the West—has not been remedied. Because their defense hasn't improved in any noticeable way and might be worse.

The Suns lost the season series to Pacific Division rival, Los Angeles, and then got swept in the season series by the Chris Paul led New Orleans Hornets.

Teams know that Shaq is intimidating when in the paint; that is why they simply bring him out of the paint. Shaq cannot play pick and roll defense. He's never been able to do it and never will. Los Angeles and New Orleans basically limited Shaq's effectiveness by running different variations of the pick and roll. Phoenix looked helpless and lost. It is kind of ironic in a way, since the pick and roll in past years had been Phoenix's greatest weapon.

Shaq's other glaring weakness is free throw shooting. Shaq is shooting a dismal 41 percent from the line as a Phoenix Sun. Phoenix has always relied on the superb free throw shooting of its personnel as a cushion.

Amare is a fantastic free throw shooter. Nash is perhaps the best free throw shooter of all time. Hill and Bell are equally reliable at the line. But Shaq? Let's just be honest, if a Suns' possession ends up with Shaq at the line, unless it is for a three-point play, the defense won.

Let's not lay all the blame at the feet of Shaq. He's doing his best. The real problem is that Steve Nash has never even been able to lead a team to the finals. That's right, I said it. His first MVP season he had a roster to die for: Amare, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, Quinton Richardson. A solid bench. Couldn't get them to the finals.

Last year he had Amare, two of the best perimeter defenders in Bell and Marion, a fantastic interior defender in Kurt Thomas, the fastest player in the NBA in Leandro Barbosa, and he still wasn't able to lead his team to the finals. I mean, here's a guy with basically the most talented team in the league in the last few years and he hasn't been able to marshal any postseason success.

Let's face it, Steve Nash is not nearly as effective playing in the halfcourt set. Ask his best friend, Dirk, who became a much better player and led his Mavs to the finals only after getting rid of Nash. The Mavericks weren't nearly as effective with Nash as the floor leader.

The Pheonix Suns run a style of ball that is conducive to making Steve Nash look great, but has proven time and time again ineffective in the playoffs.

With Shaq in the middle they'll be forced to play in the half court much more often. They were able to play uptempo against the Grizzlies, but then again...it's the Grizzlies.

Against good teams like the Spurs, Lakers, Jazz, Mavs, and Hornets they are going to have to find a way to score in the half court set. The elite teams play tremendous transition defense and Phoenix has had to over-rely on their three point shooting in order to try to produce victories against these teams. As the odds might suggest, Phoenix has lost the vast majority of their games against them.

Finally, Nash has simply got to find a way to play better defense. He has been, by far, the best point guard in the league over the past four years, but that means nothing when his stellar production is matched or exceeded by other elite point guards when playing head to head.

Tony Parker blows by Nash with regularity, creating easy opportunities for his teammates and finishing at the basket with gusto. Poor Shaq. Already prone to fouls, what is he going to do when Tony Parker comes blazing into the lane at breakneck speed?

Chris Paul dissected Nash for 25 points last night and added on 15 assists for good measure, as if to say "your time at the top is coming to an end." To add insult to injury, both Paul and Parker play incredible man defense. I know Steve Nash has been the MVP of the league, but I'll bet money the Spurs would rather have Parker and the Hornets would rather have Paul.

Unfortunately Shaq's inability to guard the pick and roll and his dismal foul shooting combined with Steve Nash's inability to be effective in the half court set and play any semblence of defense renders the Suns' title hopes...well just that—hope.

Maybe Next Year, LeBron—Kobe Bryant's the MVP

Nate Smith — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:53:23 -0500

With apologies to Chris Paul and Kevin Garnett, this year's NBA MVP race is boiling down to two candidates: Kobe Bryant and Lebron James.

Let's be clear, Lebron is a beast. He is a once-in-a-lifetime player. Lebron is an athletic freak.

His combination of speed, strength, and agility are unmatched in the game of basketball.

He's the best finisher in the game using his runningback upperbody strength to take any amount of contact and still make the shot. And one. Gotcha.

The kid is only 23, but looks like a man amongst boys. Nobody even comes close to his statistical production.

To put it into perspective, there are only two players in the history of the game to average 30 points per game, 7.5 assists and 8 rebounds while keeping a player efficiency rating of at least 30.

Lebron this season and Michael Jordan in 1988-'89.

Think about that, at age 23, Lebron is about to have a season that only he and the greatest player ever could accomplish.

Call Dr. J, cause that right there is sick.

So he's gotta be the MVP right?

Wrong.

In fact, Kobe is clearly the MVP of the league right now.

Despite Lebron's all-world talent and his obvious statistical dominance, he's still only the second-best player in the NBA.

Kobe is the best.

But forget the "who's better?" debate. Save that for the message boards and the talking heads.

MVP has never been about the best player in the league. If it were, Steve Nash wouldn't have two and Dirk Nowitzki wouldn't have one. MVP is about leading an elite team.

Take a look at Lebron's Cavs. They are 32-24, good for a .571 win record. Not bad, but not great either. Over the course of an 82-game season, that translates to 47 wins.

Remember that only other guy who had a season like Lebron is having this year? Jordan.

Yeah, that guy averaged 32 points, 8 rebounds, 8 assists, and 3 steals on 54 percent shooting and 85 percent from the line in 1988-'89.

As impressive as Lebron is this year, his numbers don't even come close to Jordan's '88-'89 season. That year the Bulls won 47 games, and Jordan didn't get MVP.

Didn't get MVP with stats that impressive? I told you, it is all about wins.

A guy named Magic Johnson captured MVP that season leading his Lakers to a .695 win percentage good for 57 wins. As sheer coincidence would have it, there is another Los Angeles Laker leading his team to a .695 win record this season...

You have to respect what Lebron did carrying his merry band of scrubs before Cavs management got a clue and traded for some respectable teammates.

Still, that doesn't make you a MVP.

Kobe led a team with Smush Parker running the point to the playoffs for two consecutive years in the West. And don't forget, the starting center was Kwa-MAY Brown!

Kobe had to be Superman to get his team into the playoffs.

Score 81, 62 in 3 quarters? Check. Avergage 40 for a month? Check. He was dropping 50 so often that when he got 40, it was like an off night. Like, "Damn, Kobe, they must've had Bruce Bowen on you tonight. You only got 44."

In the last 25 years, only two players have gotten MVP playing on a team with less than 55 wins. Michael Jordan, who led the league in over nine different categories, while also winning defensive player of the year, got the MVP in '88 with 50 wins, and Nash got it while "only" winning 54 games two seasons ago.

Now, Lebron's game is tight, but it isn't as tight as Jordan in '88.

That means the King needs to get to 54 wins to really have an argument. It doesn't help that his team would be in 10th place in the West.

That's right. If he played in the West, his team wouldn't even make the playoffs.

This is huge. I mean, think about it.

If a player in the West has to at least make the playoffs to be a legit MVP candidate, then why would a player who plays in an easier conference be an MVP candidate when they wouldn't make the playoffs in the other conference?

Look, I'm not saying that Lebron has to play on a team that would be elite in both conferences, but at least be on a team that would be in the top eight.

In the last 25 years, every single MVP played on a team that would've made the playoffs in both conferences.

Lebron understands. When asked about his MVP chances, he responded, "I know I don't have a shot if Kobe's never won it."

So why Kobe?

Well, because he changed the mindset of a mediocre team to one that has championship aspirations.

The guy was tired of simply getting into the playoffs. He doesn't play for the playoffs, he plays for championships.

Give credit to Andrew Bynum, Jordan Farmar, and Sasha Vujacic for coming ready to play this season, but give Kobe credit for being relentless and unsatisfied with anything less than a championship-caliber ball club.

And I'm not talking about Kobe's trade demands or his ametur video calling out AB17.

I'm talking about the only thing he said when he was introduced at training camp: "Hi, I'm Kobe Bryant, and I want to win a championship now."

I'm talking about trimming his usage rate and shot attempts to allow others to showcase their skills. I'm talking about his DPOY-worthy defense this year. I'm talking about leadership, baby!

Kobe's energy, drive, and killer instict have been infectious on this Laker ball club and they're good. Damn good.

The transformation has been amazing.

The Lakers have gone from the seventh best offense and the 24th best defense last year to the second best offense and the fifth best defense this year.

The improvement has shown in the results as the Lakers currently sit atop the Western Conference in what is perhaps the most competitive season ever.

Then, there is the Pau Gasol factor.

Pau was a steal, but consider this: when they are on the floor together, Pau has the highest true shooting percentage of his career. When Kobe is not on the floor, he shoots the worst true shooting percentage of his career.

Of course, 10 games is a small sample, but it shows how playing with Kobe can elevate your game so seamlessly, even in a new and unfamiliar system.

Yeah, yeah. But what about Kobe's statistics?

Kobe stats are fine.

Look, only the very best players can put up 28/6/5, but I agree his stats don't look as good as his 35/5/4 in '05-'06. I'll give you that.

But would you believe me if I told you that Kobe is playing the best ball of his career?

I'm not lying.

The man is better than he was in '02 when he averaged 30/7/6.

He's better than he was in '05-'06 when he dropped 81.

He's better than he was last year when he had four straight 50-point games.

Hear me out.

First, his defense has been incredible.

Let's be honest, Kobe didn't deserve his defensive team selection last year, but this year? I won't bore you with the stats, but the Lakers are Spurs-good on defense when Kobe is on the floor.

When he's off the floor?

They are bad. Really bad. Like New York Knick bad.

Second, Kobe's playing less minutes.

He's been so good, that he's gotten his team into the habit of destroying opposing teams early.

Just to put things into perspective, adjusted for minutes, Kobe and Lebron's statistical production looks relatively similar with Lebron and Kobe both averaging over 35 ppg, and Kobe getting about 1.5 less rebounds and two less assists per 48 minutes.

For MVP purposes, I have to take Kobe's stats and his 22 games above .500 over Lebron's stats and eight games above .500.

Like I said, it's all about the wins.

Finally, not only is Kobe the most skilled player in the game, he is also the most durable.

Listen, I don't fault Lebron or Garnett for sitting out games with injuries. Health is the most important asset in an athlete's world.

Still, a player who plays is always more valuable than a player who sits.

Yeah, I know Lebron sat and his team lost every game he sat.

But does anyone truly believe that the Lakers would win many ballgames in the competitive Western Conference if Kobe sat out? Truth be told, if Lebron and the Cavs lost every single game from here to the end of the season, they would be 32-50.

That's good for a .390 win record and good for 11th in the East if things stay as they are (Bulls .393).

If the Lakers lost just the same amount of games that the Cavs have lost without Lebron (seven), they'd go from the best record in the West to out of the playoffs completely. That's how tight the West is.

So you can see why Kobe has played with a bum shoulder, strained groin, the flu, and a finger that literally is falling off his hand.

In short, he's a warrior. The guy wants to win every single game no matter the emotional or physical toll it takes on his body.

He is passionate about his profession, and though he's made plenty of mistakes, no one can deny that he shows up to work every single day with one mission on his mind: to win a championship.

Well, Kobe is already a champion. It is now time to recognize his value.