HotRocks34 wrote:slick_watts wrote:HotRocks34 wrote:Not in the least. And my guess is Holmgren's presence is a big part of SGA's efficiency jump.
we don't have to guess. shai's just as efficient with 10% higher usage during his 700+ minutes without chet this season.
Unless Holmgren gets hurt this year (he hasn't missed a game), we will never know how the Thunder would have performed without Holmgren.
All we know for sure is that OKC was 40-42 with Shai at 31/4/5 last year and now they're on pace for 57-25 with Shai at 31/5/6 but now they have Holmgren and last year they didn't.
Shaq, Miami, 2004 vs 2005. Great big men change the trajectory of teams.
Holmgren isn't Shaq (even an older Shaq), but also Shaq didn't shoot 39% from three and Holmgren has some ability to switch on defense whereas Shaq had very little ability at that.
Shai is great but Holmgren appears to be overshadowing his candidacy.
I think what you're arguing is more of a commentary on how we tie team success with awarding the MVP.
OKC was an average team last season (at least based off of record). They've clearly improved this season, currently sitting first in the west.
You argue that Shai's impact or stats are the same or similar as last year (as already shown here by others, they have improved) and that the reason is due to Chet.
That can all be true and isn't relevant to this year's MVP candidacy.
It's not an award for "catalyst to a team's improvement".
It's the award for most valuable player to a team that usually coincides with a high seeding. That's Shai.
Maybe Shai would have been considered for MVP last year if the Thunder record was better, but clearly voters didn't like the 40-42 record and Embiid was the choice.
Chet being a significant reason for Thunder improvement isn't really relevant.
