LeBron, Updated

The reason that Kobe is almost guaranteed the MVP at this point is the popular wisdom that he's the best player in the league; since he's been the best player in the league for years, and for each of them he was denied the MVP because of team performance, there's no way he can be denied when his team has the best record in the West. And I'll admit, the logic here is appealing. Except, Kobe's not the best player in the game. In every statistical category (save 3P% and FT%), LeBron is equal or noticeably better. This is even more pronounced when the game is on the line. And all next-gen stats have LeBron well above Kobe. So, why does everyone still think Kobe is better?

There are two main reasons. First (and this seems to be, at least partly, what Ric Bucher is getting at in his recent appearance on Bill Simmons's podcast) is that he so clearly has the potential to be the greatest player ever, that anything less than that is a disappointment. Obviously, this is an absurd argument.

Second, and more important, is that the way in which LeBron is dominating is just so new that nobody quite knows what to make of it. His game isn't as refined as it might be; he doesn't have the consistent shot from 18+, like a Kobe does, and yet he still shoots a higher percentage from the floor. He pretty much relies on his power and ability to get to the rim (his three-point shot is coming around, but still is hardly a deadly weapon). And up until now, this is just not enough to be a great player.

Up until now, a player that relies on getting to the rim can be stopped; he can be double-teamed or the whole defense can collapse; either way, he can be forced to pass or take a jump shot. This is why every important game winner up until now has been a jumper. At the beginning of LeBron's career, this threat would be enough to force him to pass to the open man when the defense collapsed, after the inevitable Donyell Marshall/etc wide-open miss, he would get criticized for not taking the big shot himself. After that, he settled for the jumper; sometimes he would hit (e.g. over Kobe the last time they met this year), sometime he would miss. Now, however, he has realized that he absolutely cannot be stopped going to the rim.

Best as I can tell, this just seems cheaper to people. We're so used to seeing jumpers a la Jordan's more famous shots, we assume that if you're not taking them, it's because you're not good enough to. Lay-ups seem to take less skill. But really, this is completely backwards. Jordan took jumpers not because his shot was better from 18 feet than it was on a lay-up, but rather because the defense could take the lay-up away.

More importantly, if you can get the lay-up, it's far more high-percentage than a jumper. When Bucher and others say that Bryant is a better player because his game is more well-rounded, they're missing the point. Why is it more impressive to have a better mid-range game if you end up shooting a lower percentage? Clearly, the whole point of having that as a weapon is that, when the defense takes the drive away from you, you can just pull up and bang a shot anyways. But a mid-range shot is only as important as its necessity. If the defense can't take the drive away, it's merely a luxury. And, as the clutch-time stats indicate (as do the overall stats), LeBron is better, even with his "less-well-rounded" game, than Kobe is.