First, I better say right off the bat that this is not a Kobe-hating slam blog.  For anyone who remembers when I defended Steve Nash when he won it, I couldn't even begin to argue that Bryant didn't put up numbers that made him worthy of being MVP (I tried, believe me, but his stats were more than good enough to win the award both years).

What this is about, is the absolutely freakish season Chris Paul (commonly referred to as CP3) had, how it compares to the stats Nash put up both years he won it, and how both these player's stats compare to those of Bryant.

When Nash won the award, his offensive numbers were obviously all that the voters looked at in terms of his stats.  They made the claim that he made his teammates better on the offensive end, which he did.  But they failed to take into account how incredibly bad he was (and still is) as a man-to-man defender.

Bryant was, and still is, way better defensively, as an individual, than Nash ever was, is, or will be.

What I don't understand is this:  Paul put up better numbers overall (I won't even bother trying to post the stats, because it would just look like a pile of manure if I tried) than Nash did in either of his MVP seasons.  Not just offensively, but defensively as well.

Add to that the fact that Bryant's numbers are down this year compared to those 2 seasons (dramatically down in PPG, where I believe he averaged 35 per in 1 of those seasons, and managed "only" 28 or so this year).

So, my question to the voters is, how do you vote Bryant the MVP this year when CP3 had as good of a year overall, if not better, than Nash did in his back-to-back award-winning seasons when Bryant himself had marginal improvement in FG and 3PT %'s, rebounds and assists, but scored 7 fewer PPG than his "best" season when he averaged 35.4?

If anything, this only strengthens the arguement for Kobe and Laker fans that he should have won it at least 1 of the 2 years Nash did (possibly even last year when Dirk won the award).  I would have to agree with them on that.

Since we can't go back in time and give him the award for any of those 3 seasons, will you admit you're giving him the award this year based on either lifetime achievement or simply being sick of hearing all the "you're just a bunch of Kobe-haters" comments?

In conclusion, YES I now admit Kobe should have won the award any 1 season out of the last 3...which one is irrelevent in my book.  NO I don't think he should have won it this year, based on the stats he had compared to those seasons, plus the stats CP3 put up in comparison to Nash in his MVP seasons.

And once again, this is not to rip Bryant.  If anything, it's to rip the voters for doing a 180 in my opinion in how they determine who wins the award.

Is Bryant worthy of it this year?  You bet.  But in my opinion, Paul should have won it based on all the above information.

The overwhelming majority of people complaining about Steve Nash winning the MVP award just happen to be Kobe Bryant fans.  Understandable, being the two are facing each other in the Western Conference playoffs in a first round series.

Before you argue any more about how Kobe has changed his game in the playoffs to be more of a team player, and therefore should have won the MVP award, here's a newsflash.  THE MVP IS NOT FOR THE PLAYOFFS, IT IS BASED ON A THE REGULAR SEASON, AND NOT JUST INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT, even though the award is given to an individual player.   The reason I know the award is not based on anything in the postseason is simple.  If it were, they wouldn't hand it out until AFTER the playoffs.  I thought that was a pretty good indicator, but I guess sometimes people get caught up in the moment of a 1st round playoff matchup between 2 finalists, and base their thoughts on the few games played face to face.

What if LeBron James had won?  Would all the Kobe backers then claim the old standard West Coast bias?  What about if Dirk Nowitzki had won?  Would it be about him being a European caucasion? 

Listen, just because a guy scores more points per game doesn't automatically make him a better player, or more deserving of an individual award.  Michael Jordan, who so many consider the best player ever, didn't win the MVP when he averaged over 37 points per game.  If the Lakers had won 5 more games, or just been more consistent throughout the year, my guess is Kobe would have won.  Scoring 81 points in an unbelievable performance, and having games where 7-25 shooting the ball does not warrant MVP hardware.  Winning ball games does, and that's what Steve Nash and the Suns did, without the help of one Amare Stoudemire i might add.