This past week has been a litmus test of credibility for the NBA’s MVP award. Over the last couple of years the MVP voting has increasingly become an accolade of questionable merit. There were years in the ’80s and ’90s that had the NBA’s MVP award surrounded with a certain amount of dubiousness, but in awarding Steve Nash the Maurice Podoloff trophy for two consecutive years and then awarding it to Dirk Nowitzki the following year, as both players’ impact paled in comparison to other stars in the league who took teams with less talent to heights not expected, I am beginning to think that the voting criteria for the game’s single most prestigious honor should become more transparent and well-defined.

Other possible options are to implement a co-MVP system (with a Western Conference winner and Eastern Conference winner), a weighted system that takes into greater account league officials and coaches’ opinions over journalists, or to hold all voting until the end of all play-post NBA Finals. (This would alleviate regular season MVP winners being promptly dismissed in the playoffs.)

As of right now the MVP debate for the 2008 season has boiled down to two players: Chris Paul and Kobe Bryant. Both players present a rather strong case for their first award but the groundswell for Bryant has come on strong recently–following the wave of support that was befalling Paul, just weeks prior, and Lebron and Garnett earlier. And still what continues in this debate of Paul v. Byant is the underlying question of: What is the criteria? What is the clear rubric of measure?

If it (the award) is to go to the best player on the best team–determined by standings–as it mostly has, then that should be the well-defined threshold. However there have been MVPs that were only the best player on a contending team. It should not be a lifetime achievement award either. Karl Malone won the award in 1997 over Michael Jordan, who won the award the season prior, because it was felt that Jordan’s season which included his team winning 69 games of 82 (nearly tying their own historic record), the first recorded triple-double in the NBA All-Star game and a ninth scoring championship, wasn’t as meritorious as his MVP season the year prior. (Why that is remains a mystery.) And so the justification was Malone had a very impressive season, not necessarily to the level of Jordan’s, but his team was a legitimate contender and he had not won it yet. In essence a “he’s due” award.

Last season, Cleveland’s Lebron James put together a rather impressive regular season and took his team to its first NBA Finals birth, after many journalists predicted his team finishing fifth or lower in the conference and his team being ousted in the first round. Last year the award was given to the best player on the best team: Dirk Nowitzki. Nowitzki played spectacularly, of course, and his Dallas team had a great record, but what he did for his team, with a talented roster, was nowhere near what James did with his team of unseasoned upstarts that included himself.

The problem is that the award is highly subjective. Some take the route of measuring the championship contenders’ best player and then adding the test: “If you took x player off of that team, where would they be?” And that has been the traditional measure I have used as a more than casual fan of the NBA. That is by definition attempting to find the “most valuable player.” (And not the best player on the winningest team or one of the winningest teams.)

And so this is where and how I would cast my ballot– if I were a journalist with a vote. And it is by no surprise, to many who know me, that my vote is going to Kobe Bryant. While Bryant took a less talented 2005-2006 Lakers squad to a near-upset and into the second round after experiencing multiple injuries (team and personal) and was, I believe, robbed of an MVP; this season has legitimately brought the Bryant track record and answer to the test “if you took him off of the team where would they be?” into the starkness of broad daylight. The answer is nowhere. This Laker team would be nowhere. Bryant has singlehandedly kept the Lakers afloat in the toughest Western conference playoff race to date, as their vastly improved center Andrew Bynum–most likely the most important piece in the team’s early success this year–went down to a knee injury. At the time, the Lakers could have all of a sudden found their ship taking on the water of its opponents and sinking fast. That did not happen, however. Primarily due to Bryant.

Eventually the management did find help for Bryant and Co.- in the form of All-Star Pau Gasol. Which catapulted them back into elite status. That not withstanding, Bryant has finally sacrificed his game to the degree that his teammates are now extensions of his own arsenal, with an increased efficiency. He has shared for brief periods, through entire playoff runs and finals, through the olympic trials, through points in regular season play, but this season Bryant has done what many mean when they say “share,” and that is lead. He now creates shots for his teammates, partly because they are now worthy of his trust, as their ability to convert on passes for open shots has gone through the roof.

He has communicated well, led by example, and continued to give his body up for the good of the club, playing through a severely injured pinky finger on his shooting hand that will require surgery in the off-season. His defense for a player of his caliber has been beyond stellar, once again. At this point, he expends so much energy on defense that his star status is almost completely negated. He has the single mindedness on defense of a speicalist–ala Bruce Bowen and Shane Battier. Add to it the fact that he also plays the kind of roaming help defense that is reminiscent of defensive stalwart Scottie Pippen, not Michael Jordan, burning energy that would traditionally be asked for him to be conserved (by other coaches) to save for his offensive prowess, and you have the main reasons why Bryant whose team finished in first place in the toughest Western Conference playoff race to date, as my MVP.

Post-script:

This was written a couple of days ago and honestly lacks the head-to-head justification for why Bryant is the MVP over Paul. And so here goes…The last couple of games played this week should have been the deciding factor for most voters on the fence. With the New Orleans Hornets (Paul’s team) marginally holding the first place position just prior to my “MVP” blog draft, his team loses to the LA Lakers (Bryant’s team) who held the second seed in the conference in what was the most important matchup of the regular season for determining the path to the NBA championship, as it directly pit Paul’s team against Bryant’s and gave each the opportunity to have a great chance for their team to cement first place. (The first place team in a conference is also given the easiest road, statistically, to the finals by way of a playoff tree system that has them facing the highest number of lowest seeds possible–teams with lesser track records, as determined by their play through the season.) Paul’s team’s marginal lead in the seeding race, as a result, vanishes and the Lakers eclipse the Hornets to take the first spot, and did so with a large, convincing lead almost throughout that game.

But prior to going into that game, the Lakers also faced the current champion San Antonio Spurs and also dispatched them by double digits with Bryant playing to near-perfection, as he did in the Hornets’ test. While Paul whose season has been remarkable for a third year star of any generation, has had his team falter in the final games. Which is in great contrast to Bryant’s club who finished the regular season with impressive showings in all of its final tests–coming out victorious in all final “message games” and securing first place.

There is no doubt that what Paul has done this season by taking a team that was not even expected to be a sixth seed in an eight team race, to the top of the NBA West standings and holding that position through the course of (a third?) of the NBA season, is a testament to the kind of player he is and the historic level impact that he holds. What Paul has understood from day one is how to effectively mesh his skills to be the best, most effective team player in the league that he can be (the general criteria for MVP). And surely, he will hoist the award in the coming years, if he does not this year, as his team–in part, because of him– has found a way to compete beyond expectations.