Have we been underrating Luka?

[HotRocks34]

Ok we get it, this spate of Luka and MVP threads are part of the Luka campaign for MVP.

The MVP has become so watered down that I guess it may as well be spread around. Make it the superstar participation trophy.

I made the thread and I think Jokic will win MVP, and I think Jokic should win.

But Luka deserves his own just due, as well.

[wadenation305]

Ok we get it, this spate of Luka and MVP threads are part of the Luka campaign for MVP.

The MVP has become so watered down that I guess it may as well be spread around. Make it the superstar participation trophy.

I made the thread and I think Jokic will win MVP, and I think Jokic should win.

But Luka deserves his own just due, as well.

I'm a Heat fan and still think Jokic should win it. The dude is hands down dominant, and his team falls apart without him. Murray is nice but remove Jokic and they are not a title contender.

[zzzyyxyyxzzz]

I don't think those +7.3 ppg added on a way below average efficiency is that "HUGE" of a difference.

Way below average efficiency? Seriously?
You should have just finished the sentence after that third word.

[losmi]

I don't think those +7.3 ppg added on a way below average efficiency is that "HUGE" of a difference.

Way below average efficiency? Seriously?
You should have just finished the sentence after that third word.

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

[zzzyyxyyxzzz]

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

[Ambrose]

Ok we get it, this spate of Luka and MVP threads are part of the Luka campaign for MVP.

The MVP has become so watered down that I guess it may as well be spread around. Make it the superstar participation trophy.

Two bad choices for guys who still had great seasons in the last decade hasn't watered down MVP that much.

[Inspektor1312]

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

Read his post again, because that’s not what we said lmao

[zzzyyxyyxzzz]

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

Read his post again, because that’s not what we said lmao

I qouted him in my original reply. That is exactly what he said.

[Yuri36]

hasnt he been in the mvp conversation and all NBA teams to some extend for multiple years now? How is he underrated?

so being in the MVP conversations and in all NBA teams automatically means that he can't be underrated? That's a very flawed logic.

Imagine if MJ had been in MVP conversations and all NBA teams for 5/6 straight years without even getting one MVP, would you have dare saying that he was not underrated?

[og15]

Ok we get it, this spate of Luka and MVP threads are part of the Luka campaign for MVP.

The MVP has become so watered down that I guess it may as well be spread around. Make it the superstar participation trophy.

I made the thread and I think Jokic will win MVP, and I think Jokic should win.

But Luka deserves his own just due, as well.

I'm a Heat fan and still think Jokic should win it. The dude is hands down dominant, and his team falls apart without him. Murray is nice but remove Jokic and they are not a title contender.

This is 100% true, but this isn't the differentiating factor between Jokic and other MVP contenders as this holds true for basically every best player on a top playoff team.

[Joao Saraiva]

I don't know what you mean by "we" but I have him on GOAT candidate trajectory so far. Since there is no tier above that, I wouldn't say we've been underrating him. Idk about you, but I'm not guilty of that.

[og15]

hasnt he been in the mvp conversation and all NBA teams to some extend for multiple years now? How is he underrated?

so being in the MVP conversations and in all NBA teams automatically means that he can't be underrated? That's a very flawed logic.

Imagine if MJ had been in MVP conversations and all NBA teams for 5/6 straight years without even getting one MVP, would you have dare saying that he was not underrated?

All these things don't happen in a vacuum, so it would simply depend. Has Luka been deserving of the MVP OVER any other winner so far in his career? If the answer is no, then he's not being underrated for not winning.

Obviously not as a rookie

61/75 games in his second season on a 43-32 team (47 win pace) and got 4th - Giannis (63 games, 56-17)

66/72 games in year 3 on a 42-30 team (48 win pace) and got 6th - Jokic (72 games, 47-15)

65/82 games in year 4 on a 52-30 team and got 5th - Jokic (74 games, 48-34)

66/82 games in year 5 on a 38-44 team, and got 8th, obviously this one wasn't happening - Embiid (66 games, 54-28)

This season: could play 72/82 games, team could win 52 games, but obviously Jokic is in the way, and Embiid would have been in the way too if not for injury.

On the other hand, him being in the running every year is an acknowledgement that he is an MVP caliber player and therefore people understanding his level of performance and impact, but also saying, but you're not the only one, and the situation is working better for others.

Obviously a few factors, the lowest percentage of games played for MVP in the last 30 years was Embiid 66/82 (80%). You have to go all the way back to Bill Walton in 77-78 go have fewer games. So some of the seasons like year 2 (shouldn't have won it then regardless) and year 4, games played could factor into evaluation.

The average MVP winner is in a top 3 team in their conference, with a few exceptions (eg: Westbrook, Jokic). It's tougher to win an MVP without a lot of wins unless it's a lower competition year or domination or a good narrative. Jokic basically playing 70+ games every season means there isn't going to be a low competition year.

That isn't a sign of underrating. It would be if we can pinpoint a certain time and say he "should" have won and he was overlooked, but so far we can't, yet...next year might be the year though IMO, we'll see, but competition for MVP isn't even through the years. Many MVP winner who aren't superior or more impactful players than other MVP caliber guys who didn't win.

[dhsilv2]

I made the thread and I think Jokic will win MVP, and I think Jokic should win.

But Luka deserves his own just due, as well.

I'm a Heat fan and still think Jokic should win it. The dude is hands down dominant, and his team falls apart without him. Murray is nice but remove Jokic and they are not a title contender.

This is 100% true, but this isn't the differentiating factor between Jokic and other MVP contenders as this holds true for basically every best player on a top playoff team.

Replace Jokic with a solid allstar. They're not a contender. Replace Tatum with a solid allstar and I think they're still one. Just remove any star and of course the team drops off.

[losmi]

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

I'll put it in another way.

In terms of scoring, Luka = Jokic + another player who averages 7ppg on 50 TS%.

[Johnny Firpo]

Ok we get it, this spate of Luka and MVP threads are part of the Luka campaign for MVP.

The MVP has become so watered down that I guess it may as well be spread around. Make it the superstar participation trophy.

I made the thread and I think Jokic will win MVP, and I think Jokic should win.

But Luka deserves his own just due, as well.

I'm a Heat fan and still think Jokic should win it. The dude is hands down dominant, and his team falls apart without him. Murray is nice but remove Jokic and they are not a title contender.

They would be a lottery team without him, for sure. In this west? Even if Murray plays 82, no way they are catching the Warriors or the Lakers.

[Johnny Firpo]

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

I'll put it in another way.

In terms of scoring, Luka = Jokic + another player who averages 7ppg on 50 TS%.

Doncic is very efficient, it's just that Jokic is likely the offensive GOAT, or 2nd best behind MJ. That doesn't make Luka inefficient.

[losmi]

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

I'll put it in another way.

In terms of scoring, Luka = Jokic + another player who averages 7ppg on 50 TS%.

Doncic is very efficient, it's just that Jokic is likely the offensive GOAT, or 2nd best behind MJ. That doesn't make Luka inefficient.

I'm not saying that he isn't efficient this season, just that his +7 ppg that were glorified few pages ago as a "HUGE" factor over Jokic aren't that impressive as ppg watchers think.

[og15]

I'm a Heat fan and still think Jokic should win it. The dude is hands down dominant, and his team falls apart without him. Murray is nice but remove Jokic and they are not a title contender.

This is 100% true, but this isn't the differentiating factor between Jokic and other MVP contenders as this holds true for basically every best player on a top playoff team.

Replace Jokic with a solid allstar. They're not a contender. Replace Tatum with a solid allstar and I think they're still one. Just remove any star and of course the team drops off.

Tatum was my thought of an example of an exception, that's why I chose to say basically vs just every other haha

But in general you take the top guy away and the team isn't going to be a contender, even some who would still be good team, but that's not simply why Jokic is MVP as other guys can lay claim to that too.

[dygaction]

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

I'll put it in another way.

In terms of scoring, Luka = Jokic + another player who averages 7ppg on 50 TS%.

How and when did you replace "7.3 more points on 5.6 more shots" with "Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots"? Does not get there by just simple rounding... That's not 50TS%.

[zzzyyxyyxzzz]

Did you read what I wrote? Luka scores 7 more points on 7 more shots. That may be good for his team, but not overly impressive as an argument against Jokic.

Did you read what I wrote?

You stated Luka has "way below average efficiency". I just asked if you were serious, because that statement is patently false.

I'll put it in another way.

In terms of scoring, Luka = Jokic + another player who averages 7ppg on 50 TS%.

I'll take that as "I wasn't serious and was just making stuff up." (since you still didn't answer my question).

Unfortunately, basketball is a 5 on 5 game, you can't replace one player with two.