M2J wrote:
It's not taking that seriously in other leagues for instance. MLB gives out to a year and pitchers get their own version of it. It's only going to one position in the NFL, which diminishes it some.
However the NBA MVP awards traditionally go to true all-time greats, and provides a lot of historical merit on who reconsider the greatest of all time. NBA is special in that the greatest players list consist of all positions.
Historically of course players like LeBron and Jordan and Kobe and Shaq should have more. But you go up and down that list and essentially besides Steve Nash we're talking about the greats of the greats. Jokic getting three in a row will be a joke. I think this statistical phenomena that he is definitely deserved at least one. I don't think Joel Embiid should have been a three in a row MVP either. Players with multiple MVPs are guys like magic and bird and Duncan and Jordan.... Guys with championship rings. Jokic being a center that can't rim protect, may prevent him from winning a championship even if he does join another elite player.
I agree about the Jokic comment but i don't know if MVP is that serious...
I mean yes, all time great guys end up winning MVP but the list also has a ton of dubious winners not only Nash, Rose won an MVP by narrative over Chris Paul who is not gonna sniff one and because voters didn't wanted to give Lebron 3 in a row, Westbrook won one padding stats on a 40% USG over Harden, KD and Curry got disqualified for years because they were on the same team, etc.
Even looking at Jokic himself, his first MVP was basically won on the shoulders of everyone else not having enough games to mount a real candidature
