What Seasons Was Kobe The Best Player in the NBA

[midatlantic09]

05-06
06-07
07-08

Nash winning MVP over Kobe in 05-06 is a total joke and was basically a gift from the media to Nash.

[Punpun]

>Liking this list

Sure, Let's not act like Duncan is EVERYWHERE, while Kobe isn't. And oh god, the author of that list is a known Kobe hater AND a Duncan ******ger.

[LAClipsFan33]

Nash winning MVP over Kobe in 05-06 is a total joke.

Lakers won 45 games

[midatlantic09]

Lakers won 45 games

Doesn't matter. Let's look at Kobe's stats, including PER, win shares, etc. He was clearly the best player in the league and the most valuable player that year.

The award is called the "Most Valuable Player" award, not the "best player on the team with the best record in the NBA" award. Take Kobe off of that 05-06 Lakers team and they would have been like 29-53.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

And the next dilemma that becomes clear here is: can you really rank a player in the all time top 10 who can only legitimately claim one, maybe two MVP awards?

Ever heard of Shaq?

[Sakkreth]

Never.

[SilkkTheShocker]

05-06
06-07
07-08

Nash winning MVP over Kobe in 05-06 is a total joke and was basically a gift from the media to Nash.

You can't win MVP by leading your team to the 7th seed. His supporting cast was trash, but you need to generate more wins than 45. Smush parker or not.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Doesn't matter. Let's look at Kobe's stats, including PER, win shares, etc. He was clearly the best player in the league and the most valuable player that year.

The award is called the MVP, not the best player on the team with the best record in the NBA award. Take Kobe off of that 05-06 Lakers team and they wouldn't have even been .500.

I don't think you understand the MVP award. The best player in the league doesn't always win it. If that were the case, Shaq would have a shit-load more MVPs and guys like Rose and Nash would have none.

[Mr Know It All]

Doesn't matter. Let's look at Kobe's stats, including PER, win shares, etc. He was clearly the best player in the league and the most valuable player that year.

The award is called the "Most Valuable Player" award, not the "best player on the team with the best record in the NBA" award. Take Kobe off of that 05-06 Lakers team and they would have been like 30-52.

Umm, Dirk led the league in PER and win shares that year, AND his team won 60 games to the Lakers 45.

Dirk Nowitzki:
PER: 28.1
Win Shares: 17.7
Win Shares Per 48: .275

Kobe Bryant:
PER: 28.0
Win Shares: 15.3
Win Shares per 48 Minutes: .224

Amazing years from both guys though.

[DirtySanchez]

2000
1.Shaq
2.Duncan
3.K. Malone

2001
1.Shaq
2.Duncan
3.Kobe

2002
1.Shaq
2.Duncan
3.Kobe or Garnett

2003
1.Duncan
2.Garnett
3.Shaq

2004
1.Garnett
2.Shaq
3.Duncan

2005
1.Duncan
2.Shaq
3.Nash

2006
1.Kobe
2.Wade
3.Dirk or Duncan or Nash

2007
1.Kobe
2.Duncan (acutally Kobe and Duncan interchangable imo. rs: Kobe, po: Duncan)
3.LeBron

2008
1.Kobe
2.Paul
3.LeBron

2009
1.LeBron
2.Wade
3.Kobe
G
2010
1.LeBron
2.Kobe
3.Wade

2011
1.LeBron
2.Dirk
3.Wade

2012 (until now)
1. LeBron
2. Durant
3. CP3 (Kobe has a case to be ranked in top 3 but I think top 5 is more accurate for him.)


If you disagree with this list too much, you have an agenda or you're just too ignorant.

Love the list....agreed with everything but 09....I got Kobe at 2 and Wade 3

[midatlantic09]

I don't think you understand the MVP award. The best player in the league doesn't always win it. If that were the case, Shaq would have a shit-load more MVPs and guys like Rose and Nash would have none.

And I think it should be based on who the best and most valuable player is; not just given to the best player on the team with the best record (or top 2-3 record) in the league.

I decide who the MVP should be by analyzing how much worse a team would be without a particular player regardless of the team's record. Even if a team finished 30-52, if the team would have finished something like 9-73 without a particular player, that player should receive the MVP because they are clearly the most valuable player in the league.

[SilkkTheShocker]

And I think it should be based on who the best and most valuable player is; not just given to the best player on the team with the best record (or top 2-3 record) in the league.

I decide who the MVP should be by analyzing how much worse a team would be without a particular player regardless of the team's record. Even if a team finished 30-52, if the team would have finished something like 9-73 without a particular player, that player should receive the MVP because they are clearly the most valuable player in the league.

the thing is, I don't really disagree with you. I thinks its a shame Nash has 2 MVPs and Rose has one. Nash only really deserves maybe one. If they were doing it our way though, Lebron would probably have at least 5 or 6 MVPs by now considering what he had to work with in Cleveland. Kobe and Shaq definitely would have more also.

[pauk]

NEVER............ Players like first Shaq, Iverson, then T-Mac, Duncan, Garnett, Wade and Lebron have made it tough for him to be "The unquestionable best player in the NBA".... it was mostly Lebron who was the reason to that

[chazzy]

06 07 08, arguably top 2 or 3 in 01, 02, 09 and 2010

[Dictator]

2000-2001 : And yes, Kobe was better than A.I.(stat wise)
2002-2003
2005-2006
2006-2007

These can't be dipsuted