Nikola Jokic - 23-24 NBA Thread - 23 Finals NBA MVP

[tsherkin]

Or maybe Jokic lost last year because Embiid had an incredible season and voters have been consistently resistant to MVP threepeats ever since Bird; who is to say.

Jokic's ridiculous and historic season deserved it last year, IMO, moreso than Embiid. But if he had to lose to someone, it could have been worse in terms of quality of play if you ignore availability.

That said, it was kind of BS. Embiid had the 6th-fewest GP of any MVP winner in league history, and 5th if you ignore the 99 lockout season. And when Cousy won it in 57, there were only 72 GP for the whole season and he played 64, so that only somewhat counts. Basically the only MORE BS MVP in that regard was Walton's.

[AEnigma]

Or maybe Jokic lost last year because Embiid had an incredible season and voters have been consistently resistant to MVP threepeats ever since Bird; who is to say.

Jokic's ridiculous and historic season deserved it last year, IMO, moreso than Embiid. But if he had to lose to someone, it could have been worse in terms of quality of play if you ignore availability.

That said, it was kind of BS. Embiid had the 6th-fewest GP of any MVP winner in league history, and 5th if you ignore the 99 lockout season. And when Cousy won it in 57, there were only 72 GP for the whole season and he played 64, so that only somewhat counts. Basically the only MORE BS MVP in that regard was Walton's.

And Jokic played only three more games and 39 more minutes (basically the equivalent of one tighter game).

I also have no strong opposition to Walton winning in 1978.

If I have a criticism of the outlier nature of Embiid’s win, it was that he won 43 games where the previous post-merger low mark had been 1982 Moses and 2017 Westbrook with 46 wins.

[tsherkin]

I also have no strong opposition to Walton winning in 1978.

I absolutely object to that 58-win MVP, regardless of his player quality. They were obviously much better with him (10-14 without him, 48-10 with him), but there is a bottom limit to what should count. But that's surely a conversation for another thread, to be fair.

If I have a criticism of the outlier nature of Embiid’s win, it was that he won 43 games where the previous low mark had been 1982 Moses and 2017 Westbrook with 46 wins.

That is also a contentious point, though there is a school of thought that we should be less-inclined to look at record when player value and impact are so significant.

[lessthanjake]

I think Embiid getting the award last year was less due to racism and more that people were reticent to give a guy the award three times in a row when he’d never even made the Finals before (let alone won). I think it just seemed like too historic an achievement to bestow on someone who a lot of people weren’t certain would prove to be at the appropriate level of greatness for it. In retrospect, of course, that rationale got undermined by what happened later—we know now that Jokic is at the appropriate level of greatness for that, because he is capable of winning a title in dominant fashion. But people didn’t know that when they voted (though I do think one could’ve looked at his prior playoff production and see that it was pretty likely to be the case). Which is all to say that I think the decision was wrong because the animating rationale was based on a premise that was quickly vitiated (not to mention that the animating rationale was about something outside the scope of regular season value that season).

That said, Embiid also had a great season. If Embiid didn’t exist, I think Jokic would’ve gotten the award regardless of peoples’ reticence to give him that three-in-a-row achievement before he showed playoff success (though *maybe* Giannis would’ve squeaked by him). But you had Embiid with a fantastic season that was generally MVP-worthy, and I think people just saw another clearly MVP-worthy candidate that they didn’t have the same is-this-guy-great-enough-to-win-three-in-a-row worry about, and so they gave it to him. I think the decision was wrong and made for the wrong reasons, but it’s not *that* bad IMO when the actual winner had a clearly MVP-worthy season. In that sense, I see it as similar to Karl Malone getting MVP above Jordan in 1997. The decision was wrong and made for the wrong reasons, but Malone had a season that, in a vacuum, was MVP-worthy so it’s hard to get too upset about it.

[tsherkin]

I think Embiid getting the award last year was less due to racism and more that people were reticent to give a guy the award three times in a row when he’d never even made the Finals before (let alone won).

That is the more likely case, no doubt.

I think it just seemed like too historic an achievement to bestow on someone who a lot of people weren’t certain would prove to be at the appropriate level of greatness for it. In retrospect, of course, that rationale got undermined by what happened later

It's also a dumb-ass narrative because the MVP is a RS award in the first place, but ridiculous and non-sensical narratives are what voted awards are all about, in the end.

[Peregrine01]

Maybe Kendrick Perkins kept his job because he is secretly the league’s most powerful media voice, capable of deciding award results with a single clip.

Or maybe Jokic lost last year because Embiid had an incredible season and voters have been consistently resistant to MVP threepeats ever since Bird; who is to say.

I would rather Embiid beat out Jokic last year than Luka or Shai beat out Jokic this year.

It's not Kendrick Perkins who's capable of doing that but the whole toxic race discourse that permeates the whole country can shift the entire tenor of something that's meant to be about sport.

I thought Embiid was very deserving of it last year but that's beside the point. The narrative last year that was willingly enabled by the country's largest sports network (that incidentally goes out of its way to be perceived as progressive as can be) was disgustingly racist.

[eminence]

If only they’d given Rudy his MVP, all would be right with the world.

[AEnigma]

Again I really do not care about the discourse on whether a largely white media is implicitly biased toward rewarding white players, but what you seem to call “toxic” I would call a recognition of obvious nationwide disparities, and an accusation that those nationwide disparities could be reflected within the community is not racist in itself, no.

That said, perhaps I missed multiple voters saying Embiid deserved MVP because he is black and therefore must be superior at basketball. Not my impression, but you seem to have kept much closer tabs on the discussion than I did.

[Colbinii]

If only they’d given Rudy his MVP, all would be right with the world.

You and me both. Would also help Shaiguy420's narrative regarding the MVP.

All would have been just in the world.

[Peregrine01]

Again I really do not care about the discourse on whether a largely white media is implicitly biased toward rewarding white players, but what you seem to call “toxic” I would call a recognition of obvious nationwide disparities, and an accusation that those nationwide disparities could be reflected within the community is not racist in itself, no.

That said, perhaps I missed multiple voters saying Embiid deserved MVP because he is black and therefore must be superior at basketball. Not my impression, but you seem to have kept much closer tabs on the discussion than I did.

We both agree that Embiid was deserving of MVP. So it seems that we're talking about two different things.

Perkins pointed to 1) the only players that won MVP and weren't in the top 10 PPG leaders were white and used 1) to imply that 2) white players are privileged and undeserving of those MVPs. Nevermind that 1) was completely false since Jokic was top 10 in PPG in 2022.

Imagine if these were comments that a white media member made of a black player and the outrage that would ensue. In this case, not only were they brushed under the rug, it became a recurring talking point that poisoned a discussion meant to celebrate the sport's best players. Moreover, the flames were inflamed by ESPN who allowed the guy who ignited the flame to remain a figurehead of their NBA coverage.

[AEnigma]

The exercise of “swapping racial scenarios” is rarely productive for a multitude of reasons, with the simplest being the obvious: clearly it does not apply. It would probably not be in the general policy of this forum for me to say much more than that.

It is apparent enough that people will vote at least in part based on some personal connection — if nothing else, Perkins is already proof of that — and in my experience no group is broadly immune from scoring bias anyway. At the time I highlighted how Perkins needed to say since 1990 because of Magic. But strictly speaking, yes, for whatever reason, ever since Magic we have seen a correlated focus on scoring that has applied less to white players.

1991/92: 1st
1993: 5th
1994: 3rd
1995: 3rd
1996: 1st
1997: 2nd
1998: 1st
1999: 3rd
2000/01: 1st
2002: 5th
2003: 7th
2004: 3rd
2005 (Nash): 42nd
2006 (Nash): 29th
2007 (Dirk): 11th
2008-10: 2nd
2011: 7th
2012: 3rd
2013: 4th
2014: 1st
2015: 6th
2016-18: 1st
2019: 3rd
2020: 5th
2021 (Jokic): 12th
2022 (Jokic): 6th
2023 Jokic would have been 18th

I agree Perkins was race-baiting and doing so as part of a campaign for his top candidate, but I am just as annoyed by those who give into the temptation to turn that broadcast into an even more ill-advised cultural referendum.

[Doctor MJ]

So tired of Luka being the beneficiary of racism against Jokic.

Know that this is a facetious remark but last year's MVP discourse was ABSOLUTELY racist. And the commentator igniting it not only shifted the MVP award but also somehow kept his job. Just imagine if this was a white guy talking about a black player like that.

I'll co-sign this, but I want to emphasize that "racist" has become such an inflammatory word that applying it correctly can get in the way of understanding.

What's happening here is that there's a dominant majority - Black Americans - who are seeing their dominance challenged by the globalization of the game, and like many dominant majorities that feel threatened, they are acting out in an emotionally biased way.

This is something that White people did with Black basketball players back in the day, and it's also something that short people did with tall people - bemoaning that there wouldn't be a place for short people in the future of pro basketball...and of course they were basically right.

So on a broad level, this is something we should expect, and not something to get the pitchforks out about.

Now, do I wish Perk & SAS didn't exist in the basketball space? Yes, but it's not because they have this Black American defensiveness so much as the fact they are all about courting controversy and using emotional tone and argumentation to get attention for themselves. There are stories, for example, of SAS talking on the phone rathe than watching the first half of a game, and then coming in at halftime doing his schtick where he basically just comments on the box score relying upon his style to make it look like he has some authority on what he's saying. For someone like that to be the most highly paid basketball commentator in the world is just plain bad for the game, and for Perk to be able to come in, copy that approach, and have success, is infuriating.

[Peregrine01]

Now, do I wish Perk & SAS didn't exist in the basketball space? Yes, but it's not because they have this Black American defensiveness so much as the fact they are all about courting controversy and using emotional tone and argumentation to get attention for themselves. There are stories, for example, of SAS talking on the phone rathe than watching the first half of a game, and then coming in at halftime doing his schtick where he basically just comments on the box score relying upon his style to make it look like he has some authority on what he's saying. For someone like that to be the most highly paid basketball commentator in the world is just plain bad for the game, and for Perk to be able to come in, copy that approach, and have success, is infuriating.

If something's blatantly wrong, it should be called out. ESPN and its parent Disney has portrayed itself as a paragon of virtue and morality and enabled outright racist behavior. We should reserve the same animus toward this kind of stuff if it happened to be about a white player just like we would if it was about a black player. The problem of why we don't in this country is a big reason for the strained race issues that we have IMO.

[AEnigma]

I personally attribute it to the generations of systemic inequality and oppression, but yeah, ESPN not censoring Kendrick Perkins for saying there might be white bias in MVP voting is pretty high up there.

[falcolombardi]

So tired of Luka being the beneficiary of racism against Jokic.

Know that this is a facetious remark but last year's MVP discourse was ABSOLUTELY racist. And the commentator igniting it not only shifted the MVP award but also somehow kept his job. Just imagine if this was a white guy talking about a black player like that.

I'll co-sign this, but I want to emphasize that "racist" has become such an inflammatory word that applying it correctly can get in the way of understanding.

What's happening here is that there's a dominant majority - Black Americans - who are seeing their dominance challenged by the globalization of the game, and like many dominant majorities that feel threatened, they are acting out in an emotionally biased way.

This is something that White people did with Black basketball players back in the day, and it's also something that short people did with tall people - bemoaning that there wouldn't be a place for short people in the future of pro basketball...and of course they were basically right.

So on a broad level, this is something we should expect, and not something to get the pitchforks out about.

Now, do I wish Perk & SAS didn't exist in the basketball space? Yes, but it's not because they have this Black American defensiveness so much as the fact they are all about courting controversy and using emotional tone and argumentation to get attention for themselves. There are stories, for example, of SAS talking on the phone rathe than watching the first half of a game, and then coming in at halftime doing his schtick where he basically just comments on the box score relying upon his style to make it look like he has some authority on what he's saying. For someone like that to be the most highly paid basketball commentator in the world is just plain bad for the game, and for Perk to be able to come in, copy that approach, and have success, is infuriating.

How can a league with 29/30~ white owners, mostly white coaches and mostly white award voters and media talking heads be black dominated?

[TroubleS0me]

Read on Twitter

[Doctor MJ]

Now, do I wish Perk & SAS didn't exist in the basketball space? Yes, but it's not because they have this Black American defensiveness so much as the fact they are all about courting controversy and using emotional tone and argumentation to get attention for themselves. There are stories, for example, of SAS talking on the phone rathe than watching the first half of a game, and then coming in at halftime doing his schtick where he basically just comments on the box score relying upon his style to make it look like he has some authority on what he's saying. For someone like that to be the most highly paid basketball commentator in the world is just plain bad for the game, and for Perk to be able to come in, copy that approach, and have success, is infuriating.

If something's blatantly wrong, it should be called out. ESPN and its parent Disney has portrayed itself as a paragon of virtue and morality and enabled outright racist behavior. We should reserve the same animus toward this kind of stuff if it happened to be about a white player just like we would if it was about a black player. The problem of why we don't in this country is a big reason for the strained race issues that we have IMO.

Not looking to defend Disney/ESPN here, but I will say that if you think they're the most egregious example of this among major media companies, you're mistaken. This is essentially Disney/ESPN following the trail blazed by competitors in non-sports domains prioritizing short-term profits over the good of society.

[OhayoKD]

Again I really do not care about the discourse on whether a largely white media is implicitly biased toward rewarding white players, but what you seem to call “toxic” I would call a recognition of obvious nationwide disparities, and an accusation that those nationwide disparities could be reflected within the community is not racist in itself, no.

That said, perhaps I missed multiple voters saying Embiid deserved MVP because he is black and therefore must be superior at basketball. Not my impression, but you seem to have kept much closer tabs on the discussion than I did.

We both agree that Embiid was deserving of MVP. So it seems that we're talking about two different things.

Perkins pointed to 1) the only players that won MVP and weren't in the top 10 PPG leaders were white and used 1) to imply that 2) white players are privileged and undeserving of those MVPs. Nevermind that 1) was completely false since Jokic was top 10 in PPG in 2022.

Imagine if these were comments that a white media member made of a black player and the outrage that would ensue. In this case, not only were they brushed under the rug, it became a recurring talking point that poisoned a discussion meant to celebrate the sport's best players. Moreover, the flames were inflamed by ESPN who allowed the guy who ignited the flame to remain a figurehead of their NBA coverage.

Imagine:

[url]

Read on Twitter

[/url]

Wait no, we don't have to.

There was plenty of outrage towards Kendrick's comment, more so than there was towards the above clip which is...far more transgressive.

Now, do I wish Perk & SAS didn't exist in the basketball space? Yes, but it's not because they have this Black American defensiveness so much as the fact they are all about courting controversy and using emotional tone and argumentation to get attention for themselves. There are stories, for example, of SAS talking on the phone rathe than watching the first half of a game, and then coming in at halftime doing his schtick where he basically just comments on the box score relying upon his style to make it look like he has some authority on what he's saying. For someone like that to be the most highly paid basketball commentator in the world is just plain bad for the game, and for Perk to be able to come in, copy that approach, and have success, is infuriating.

If something's blatantly wrong, it should be called out. ESPN and its parent Disney has portrayed itself as a paragon of virtue and morality and enabled outright racist behavior. We should reserve the same animus toward this kind of stuff if it happened to be about a white player just like we would if it was about a black player. The problem of why we don't in this country is a big reason for the strained race issues that we have IMO.

Personally. I think your assumption racism against white players in the nba receives more animus may speak to a bigger reason there are strained race relations in that country.

[Doctor MJ]

Know that this is a facetious remark but last year's MVP discourse was ABSOLUTELY racist. And the commentator igniting it not only shifted the MVP award but also somehow kept his job. Just imagine if this was a white guy talking about a black player like that.

I'll co-sign this, but I want to emphasize that "racist" has become such an inflammatory word that applying it correctly can get in the way of understanding.

What's happening here is that there's a dominant majority - Black Americans - who are seeing their dominance challenged by the globalization of the game, and like many dominant majorities that feel threatened, they are acting out in an emotionally biased way.

This is something that White people did with Black basketball players back in the day, and it's also something that short people did with tall people - bemoaning that there wouldn't be a place for short people in the future of pro basketball...and of course they were basically right.

So on a broad level, this is something we should expect, and not something to get the pitchforks out about.

Now, do I wish Perk & SAS didn't exist in the basketball space? Yes, but it's not because they have this Black American defensiveness so much as the fact they are all about courting controversy and using emotional tone and argumentation to get attention for themselves. There are stories, for example, of SAS talking on the phone rathe than watching the first half of a game, and then coming in at halftime doing his schtick where he basically just comments on the box score relying upon his style to make it look like he has some authority on what he's saying. For someone like that to be the most highly paid basketball commentator in the world is just plain bad for the game, and for Perk to be able to come in, copy that approach, and have success, is infuriating.

How can a league with 29/30~ white owners, mostly white coaches and mostly white award voters and media talking heads be black dominated?

I'm talking about basketball generally not about the NBA.

The game of basketball has been dominated by Black Americans beginning with Bill Russell.

From a business perspective, of course its dominated by Whites at the top. All American industries are.

[eminence]

Such thought provoking stuff guys...

It did inspire me to wonder if Tom Gores considers himself white I guess.

But seriously, PC board is once again a questionable place for the entire discussion.