Originally Posted by lilgodfather1
2 FMVP + 4 MVP >>>>>>> 2 FMVP
5 rings by an MVP winner > 1 ring by an MVP winner.
Kobe was deserving of MVP in 2006 when he didn't win it and was well deserving of it in 2008 as well despite what you say.
Besides number of MVPs isn't really all that significant since it's a media driven award. I think of MVP winners of more like a club... if you're truly great, you'll more than likely get at least 1 MVP but it's not really about how many you win. Not to mention the media tends to boycott those whom they don't like very much after that first MVP, or absolutely wait until the last second to give them one...and they will hand it out multiple times to people they just like personally i.e. Steve Nash or will award it to whoever the best "story of the year" is i.e. Allen Iverson. Shaq, Kobe and Hakeem all only have 1 MVP but have multiple rings which is part of why they're considered to be top 10 players in NBA history, while Moses Malone isn't despite having 3 MVPs he only has 1 ring. Being an MVP winner + number of rings is what get's you recognition.
So while being an MVP is important, number of rings by MVP winners is the standard of which most are judged, not the other way around. Otherwise Moses's 3 MVPs, 1 title would be top 10 all time and he would be ranked ahead of Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq and on par with Magic and Bird. But he's not. In all number of MVPs is just pretty much a popularity vote. If the media doesn't like you, good luck winning more than 1. But there is nothing the media can do to stop an MVP winner from winning multiple championships.