Barking at the officials and his teammates --- when he wasn't missing 78 of the 131 shots he attempted against the Celtics in the NBA Finals --- Kobe Bryant gave critics plenty of ammunition to question his leadership abilities.Everything is magnified in the playoffs, but what order of enlargement would be necessary to find the Los Angeles Lakers' hearts?
To spot an NBA Finals performance worthy of his hype by Kobe Bryant, the league's alleged Most Valuable Player?
Watching Bryant, the alleged MVP, gripe at, berate and complain about his unworthy teammates recalled Michael Jordan's stormier moments, only without the body of work to support the poor behavior. The next time somebody makes the case of Kobe Bryant, team guy, I offer Game 2 of The Finals as the rebuttal.
You have seen this divisive player before, in the off-season, when Bryant tried to force his own trade, then tried to play general manager and trade Andrew Bynum. But apologists insisted he had changed. The leopard and his spots come to mind.
If LeBron James had been on the floor when the Cavaliers lost a 24-point lead at home in the NBA Finals, as Bryant was in Game 4, the criticism would never end. Swarmed by defenders, James got ripped from coast-to-coast for making the correct play and passing to a wide-open teammate for a game-winning 3-pointer that missed against Detroit in the 2007 playoffs.
Regardless of the MVP vote totals, LeBron James' true value can be measured by a simple question: What GM wouldn't trade his best player for a chance at James?Critics point to the "King of Ak" license plate, the "Chosen 1" tattoo on his back, and the third-person references. They say he's full of himself. It is true, to a point, but James has to believe in his own legend. Ego, when it does not become megalomania, helps talent grow.
His precocity records -- youngest to all those point totals, youngest to infinity and beyond -- make him a player who can't be just good or even great. He has to be phenomenal.
He is the age-group Wilt Chamberlain. By setting all the individual records, Wilt was vulnerable to criticism when he could not lead others to the top.
Except on rare occasions, however, Wilt did not play with as good a supporting cast as the Celtics or Knicks. The players around James also are not that good.
Even when James was bad, in the first game against Boston, he had nine assists. He always helps his team win in ways beyond scoring. His 45-point seventh game at Boston was one of his greatest playoff performances.
Yet in the MVP voting James got one first-place vote. It was a joke.
Kevin Garnett set a great defensive tone in Boston, but he finished ahead of James without a go-to move inside or a willingness to force contact around the basket and get to the line. Paul Pierce was Boston's playoff MVP.
Bryant thrived, but mostly after Memphis made the worst trade (Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown) since Ted Stepien's days here.
Chris Paul had a great year. It's hard to fault him.
But how do you define the MVP? The best player on the best team? The most talented player, period? The best "leader," a vague category that allowed Garnett voters to swoon over his screaming and jersey-popping?
How about the one guy any general manager would trade for, the one around whom you can build a contender most quickly, the one who kept an injury-ravaged team from imploding?
In age, size, talent, and willingness to be coached, it's LeBron.
