2021-22 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt.2)

[Crives]

People who are arguing for Suns players should understand that if Embiid/Jokic/Giannis were coasting on a 1st seed team, they probably wouldn't be putting up MVP numbers either. The big numbers come from having to fill in voids within their teams.

I wouldn’t call phx coasting. Have you seen their record in the clutch? And how effective/efficient booker has been in the clutch to help them win games?

Is the mvp big numbers? Or helping win more games.

[DutchManDanFan]

If one of the Suns wants to become MVP they have to decide who has the best chance to win and start the lobby. If they split votes neither has a chance.
CP3 will get more votes so you should push for him.

[Crives]

If one of the Suns wants to become MVP they have to decide who has the best chance to win and start the lobby. If they split votes neither has a chance.
CP3 will get more votes so you should push for him.

Haven’t checked in a few games, but book is averaging somewhere around 31 pts the last 4-6 wks (started season slow with COVID and injuries).

[mediocrityrules]

Booker is having a great season, but there are players above him in the MVP race having historic seasons.

Maybe Booker has a stronger argument in a weaker year, but this year could be unprecedented in terms of the output of the top 3 in consideration for this award.

Booker is just not on that level this year.

[greekbuck34]

The Bucks will finish higher than the Nuggets. It's Giannis award to lose.

I went to check the LoLakers standings last night and I noticed that they have the same record vs .500 teams and above as the Jokic's Nuggets.

They both are 9-18

If you continue to perform as bad against good teams as the worst factioning team right now in the league you won't get up in the standings no matter how well your MVP is playing.

[Crives]

Booker is having a great season, but there are players above him in the MVP race having historic seasons.

Maybe Booker has a stronger argument in a weaker year, but this year could be unprecedented in terms of the output of the top 3 in consideration for this award.

Booker is just not on that level this year.

Historic season is not MVP though.

It’s fine to say or argue that Jokic/Embiid are having historic all time great seasons. But winning has to be a major factor for regular season mvp. the nba is about winning. When your projecting to win 18-20 less games then the top team who has a player giving mvp performances every night, you have to reward the winning player. Now if we were talking a 5-6 game difference, going with the better stats has merit, but an 18-20 win gap is to much to seriously consider.

[Ron Swanson]

Booker's numbers are basically identical to the last two seasons except that he's actually less efficient (55.8% TS) this year (to be fair, he has cut down on his turnovers). Suns are +2.9 points per-100 better with him on the court. Cool, I guess? Problem is they're still a +6.3 net-rating (basically a 55-win team) with him off the court. His MVP case is zero. He'd be a historically weak MVP in any year, let alone even being a legit candidate. Why are we talking so much about him again?

[Sharkboy242]

Who wins MVP without even putting up top 3 stats for that year? Who wins MVP with a PER of 21? lol.

I could see the argument for Booker if there wasn't a whole bunch of players with better raw stats above him. Typically MVPs don't have a bunch of players with better raw stats above them.

[Colbinii]

Who wins MVP without even putting up top 3 stats for that year? Who wins MVP with a PER of 21? lol.

I could see the argument for Booker if there wasn't a whole bunch of players with better raw stats above him. Typically MVPs don't have a bunch of players with better raw stats above them.

Steve Nash.

[Crives]

Booker's numbers are basically identical to the last two seasons except that he's actually less efficient (55.8% TS) this year (to be fair, he has cut down on his turnovers). Suns are +2.9 points per-100 better with him on the court. Cool, I guess? Problem is they're still a +6.3 net-rating (basically a 55-win team) with him off the court. His MVP case is zero. He'd be a historically weak MVP in any year, let alone even being a legit candidate. Why are we talking so much about him again?

Who wins MVP without even putting up top 3 stats for that year? Who wins MVP with a PER of 21? lol.

I could see the argument for Booker if there wasn't a whole bunch of players with better raw stats above him. Typically MVPs don't have a bunch of players with better raw stats above them.

You are overcomplicating this and ignoring the case for Booker winning MVP.

MVP is not about PER or some fancy all in one stat that tries to grade players based on ambiguous actions like a rebound leading to a assist. It’s about picking the most valuable player for the regular season. NBA games are about winning, not who has the best stats. If the stat isn’t driving winning, how valuable should it be in regards to mvp equity? Keep ignoring that Booker has been the mvp and major driving force of a team tracking towards 67 wins. The Nuggets are on track to a mediocre 45 wins. Are we going to ignore Bookers dominant clutch time stats that drive wins because he has a lower PER?

[Sharkboy242]

Booker's numbers are basically identical to the last two seasons except that he's actually less efficient (55.8% TS) this year (to be fair, he has cut down on his turnovers). Suns are +2.9 points per-100 better with him on the court. Cool, I guess? Problem is they're still a +6.3 net-rating (basically a 55-win team) with him off the court. His MVP case is zero. He'd be a historically weak MVP in any year, let alone even being a legit candidate. Why are we talking so much about him again?

Who wins MVP without even putting up top 3 stats for that year? Who wins MVP with a PER of 21? lol.

I could see the argument for Booker if there wasn't a whole bunch of players with better raw stats above him. Typically MVPs don't have a bunch of players with better raw stats above them.

You are overcomplicating this and ignoring the case for Booker winning MVP.

MVP is not about PER or some fancy all in one stat that tries to grade players based on ambiguous actions like a rebound leading to a assist. It’s about picking the most valuable player for the regular season. NBA games are about winning, not who has the best stats. If the stat isn’t driving winning, how valuable should it be in regards to mvp equity? Keep ignoring that Booker has been the mvp and major driving force on a team tracking towards 67 wins. The Nuggets are on track to a mediocre 45 wins. Are we going to ignore Bookers dominant clutch time stats that drive wins because he has a lower PER?

I think you are the one who's overcomplicating this. MVP is an individual accolade.

Who are the Denver Nuggets without Jokic? Who are the Phoenix Suns without Booker?

If you can convince yourself that the Suns drop off further down in Booker's absence than the Nuggets would without Jokic, well that's good for you but the numbers don't really bear that out.

[Ron Swanson]

You don't even have to look beyond the most basic numbers/stats to understand that Booker doesn't belong in the MVP discussion. "Fancy stats like PER" lol. I think it's fine to expand the number of poll options and players discussed, but we're far enough into the season now where we don't need to be talking that seriously about the most fringe guys who end up with like, a single 5th place vote or something.

[Crives]

Booker's numbers are basically identical to the last two seasons except that he's actually less efficient (55.8% TS) this year (to be fair, he has cut down on his turnovers). Suns are +2.9 points per-100 better with him on the court. Cool, I guess? Problem is they're still a +6.3 net-rating (basically a 55-win team) with him off the court. His MVP case is zero. He'd be a historically weak MVP in any year, let alone even being a legit candidate. Why are we talking so much about him again?

Who wins MVP without even putting up top 3 stats for that year? Who wins MVP with a PER of 21? lol.

I could see the argument for Booker if there wasn't a whole bunch of players with better raw stats above him. Typically MVPs don't have a bunch of players with better raw stats above them.

You are overcomplicating this and ignoring the case for Booker winning MVP.

MVP is not about PER or some fancy all in one stat that tries to grade players based on ambiguous actions like a rebound leading to a assist. It’s about picking the most valuable player for the regular season. NBA games are about winning, not who has the best stats. If the stat isn’t driving winning, how valuable should it be in regards to mvp equity? Keep ignoring that Booker has been the mvp and major driving force on a team tracking towards 67 wins. The Nuggets are on track to a mediocre 45 wins. Are we going to ignore Bookers dominant clutch time stats that drive wins because he has a lower PER?

I think you are the one who's overcomplicating this. MVP is an individual accolade.

Who are the Denver Nuggets without Jokic? Who are the Phoenix Suns without Booker?

If you can convince yourself that the Suns drop off further down in Booker's absence than the Nuggets would without Jokic, well that's good for you but the numbers don't really bear that out.

MVP is not some theoretical award where you try to figure out which team would theoretically be worse off if you removed either player. That’s what I mean by overcomplicating this discussion. The MVP is to award the player that most helps propel their team to success. the # of wins should not be the only factor, but it should definitely be the most important. Jokic is tracking to be 20+ games behind Booker, he should not be considered if season ends today.

Booker is the best player on a team driving his team to a vastly superior season. Bookers clutch time performances have been insane this year and it’s shown directly in the win total.

I

[Sharkboy242]

You are overcomplicating this and ignoring the case for Booker winning MVP.

MVP is not about PER or some fancy all in one stat that tries to grade players based on ambiguous actions like a rebound leading to a assist. It’s about picking the most valuable player for the regular season. NBA games are about winning, not who has the best stats. If the stat isn’t driving winning, how valuable should it be in regards to mvp equity? Keep ignoring that Booker has been the mvp and major driving force on a team tracking towards 67 wins. The Nuggets are on track to a mediocre 45 wins. Are we going to ignore Bookers dominant clutch time stats that drive wins because he has a lower PER?

I think you are the one who's overcomplicating this. MVP is an individual accolade.

Who are the Denver Nuggets without Jokic? Who are the Phoenix Suns without Booker?

If you can convince yourself that the Suns drop off further down in Booker's absence than the Nuggets would without Jokic, well that's good for you but the numbers don't really bear that out.

MVP is not some theoretical award where you try to figure out which team would theoretically be worse off if you removed either player. That’s what I mean by overcomplicating this discussion. The MVP is to award the player that most helps propel their team to success. the # of wins should not be the only factor, but it should definitely be the most important. Jokic is tracking to be 20+ games behind Booker, he should not be considered if season ends today.

Booker is the best player on a team driving his team to a vastly superior season. Bookers clutch time performances have been insane this year and it’s shown directly in the win total.

I

That's literally what I just posted in the post you're replying to except you don't like the "over-complicated" methodology for gauging this because it would obviously paint Jokic as more impactful and not fit your agenda. Boiling it down to simply just wins is a disservice to what analytics have to offer us.

Jeez its as if voters should completely ignore the fact that the Nuggets are without two max contract players this season. People can contextualize why a team has a certain record you know, we aren't stupid.

You don't think it matters that Jokic is without MPJ/Murray or that Embiid is without Simmons?

[Johnny Firpo]

You are overcomplicating this and ignoring the case for Booker winning MVP.

MVP is not about PER or some fancy all in one stat that tries to grade players based on ambiguous actions like a rebound leading to a assist. It’s about picking the most valuable player for the regular season. NBA games are about winning, not who has the best stats. If the stat isn’t driving winning, how valuable should it be in regards to mvp equity? Keep ignoring that Booker has been the mvp and major driving force on a team tracking towards 67 wins. The Nuggets are on track to a mediocre 45 wins. Are we going to ignore Bookers dominant clutch time stats that drive wins because he has a lower PER?

I think you are the one who's overcomplicating this. MVP is an individual accolade.

Who are the Denver Nuggets without Jokic? Who are the Phoenix Suns without Booker?

If you can convince yourself that the Suns drop off further down in Booker's absence than the Nuggets would without Jokic, well that's good for you but the numbers don't really bear that out.

MVP is not some theoretical award where you try to figure out which team would theoretically be worse off if you removed either player. That’s what I mean by overcomplicating this discussion. The MVP is to award the player that most helps propel their team to success. the # of wins should not be the only factor, but it should definitely be the most important. Jokic is tracking to be 20+ games behind Booker, he should not be considered if season ends today.

Booker is the best player on a team driving his team to a vastly superior season. Bookers clutch time performances have been insane this year and it’s shown directly in the win total.

I

Booker has no case, whatsoever. When we are talking about factors in the MVP race, like team record and stats, advanced stats, it's all already under the assumption that the players in question are actually top 5 players, or borderline top 5 players. There is literally a single exception to this in the modern NBA (since the start of the Bird&Magic era), it's Derrick Rose. Other than him, you would have to go back to the 70's to find a case even remotely similar to Booker's. He is simply not good enough to be even considered above Joker, Giannis or Embiid, and the basketball world obviously thinks the same, considering that no one outside of Suns fans even brings him up (do not link any Suns beat writer's article please, it wouldn't really contradict my point, nor would the lone media person's opinion, I am obviously talking in hyperbole when I say "no one").

[Crives]

I think you are the one who's overcomplicating this. MVP is an individual accolade.

Who are the Denver Nuggets without Jokic? Who are the Phoenix Suns without Booker?

If you can convince yourself that the Suns drop off further down in Booker's absence than the Nuggets would without Jokic, well that's good for you but the numbers don't really bear that out.

MVP is not some theoretical award where you try to figure out which team would theoretically be worse off if you removed either player. That’s what I mean by overcomplicating this discussion. The MVP is to award the player that most helps propel their team to success. the # of wins should not be the only factor, but it should definitely be the most important. Jokic is tracking to be 20+ games behind Booker, he should not be considered if season ends today.

Booker is the best player on a team driving his team to a vastly superior season. Bookers clutch time performances have been insane this year and it’s shown directly in the win total.

I

That's literally what I just posted in the post you're replying to except you don't like the "over-complicated" methodology for gauging this because it would obviously paint Jokic as more impactful and not fit your agenda. Boiling it down to simply just wins is a disservice to what analytics have to offer us.

Jeez its as if voters should completely ignore the fact that the Nuggets are without two max contract players this season. People can contextualize why a team has a certain record you know, we aren't stupid.

You don't think it matters that Jokic is without MPJ/Murray or that Embiid is without Simmons?

MVP is an award. Respectfully, I think you are losing sight that mvp is an award. We are supposed to reward the player that most impacts winning, not theoretical winning. Again, it’s literally an award to say good job, you helped your team win the most. When the wins are close, eye tests and stats should be used to help determine MVP. When the wins are not close, it should be pretty straightforward.

In an extreme example, what if Jokic had more impressive stats, say 50pts, 20 assists, 20 rebounds per game, but he loses every game. You can theoretically try to predict how Jokic impacted winning, but why should we reward theoretical winning when no games are won?

[Crives]

I think you are the one who's overcomplicating this. MVP is an individual accolade.

Who are the Denver Nuggets without Jokic? Who are the Phoenix Suns without Booker?

If you can convince yourself that the Suns drop off further down in Booker's absence than the Nuggets would without Jokic, well that's good for you but the numbers don't really bear that out.

MVP is not some theoretical award where you try to figure out which team would theoretically be worse off if you removed either player. That’s what I mean by overcomplicating this discussion. The MVP is to award the player that most helps propel their team to success. the # of wins should not be the only factor, but it should definitely be the most important. Jokic is tracking to be 20+ games behind Booker, he should not be considered if season ends today.

Booker is the best player on a team driving his team to a vastly superior season. Bookers clutch time performances have been insane this year and it’s shown directly in the win total.

I

Booker has no case, whatsoever. When we are talking about factors in the MVP race, like team record and stats, advanced stats, it's all already under the assumption that the players in question are actually top 5 players, or borderline top 5 players. There is literally a single exception to this in the modern NBA (since the start of the Bird&Magic era), it's Derrick Rose. Other than him, you would have to go back to the 70's to find a case even remotely similar to Booker's. He is simply not good enough to be even considered above Joker, Giannis or Embiid, and the basketball world obviously thinks the same, considering that no one outside of Suns fans even brings him up (do not link any Suns beat writer's article please, it wouldn't really contradict my point, nor would the lone media person's opinion, I am obviously talking in hyperbole when I say "no one").

Top 5 player? How are we judging that? Sounds pretty arbitrary.
Are you judging based on counting stats or theoretical statistical predictions?
Are we looking at the most recent playoffs?
Are we looking at The most recent season?

Maybe we should give awards based on results?

[Sharkboy242]

MVP is not some theoretical award where you try to figure out which team would theoretically be worse off if you removed either player. That’s what I mean by overcomplicating this discussion. The MVP is to award the player that most helps propel their team to success. the # of wins should not be the only factor, but it should definitely be the most important. Jokic is tracking to be 20+ games behind Booker, he should not be considered if season ends today.

Booker is the best player on a team driving his team to a vastly superior season. Bookers clutch time performances have been insane this year and it’s shown directly in the win total.

I

That's literally what I just posted in the post you're replying to except you don't like the "over-complicated" methodology for gauging this because it would obviously paint Jokic as more impactful and not fit your agenda. Boiling it down to simply just wins is a disservice to what analytics have to offer us.

Jeez its as if voters should completely ignore the fact that the Nuggets are without two max contract players this season. People can contextualize why a team has a certain record you know, we aren't stupid.

You don't think it matters that Jokic is without MPJ/Murray or that Embiid is without Simmons?

MVP is an award. Respectfully, I think you are losing sight that mvp is an award. We are supposed to reward the player that most impacts winning, not theoretical winning. Again, it’s literally an award to say good job, you helped your team win the most. When the wins are close, eye tests and stats should be used to help determine MVP. When the wins are not close, it should be pretty straightforward.

In an extreme example, what if Jokic had more impressive stats, say 50pts, 20 assists, 20 rebounds per game, but he loses every game. You can theoretically try to predict how Jokic impacted winning, but why should we reward theoretical winning when no games are won?

We are not calculating theoretical wining, that's a straw-man argument.

We're looking at the net difference in who the Nuggets are without Jokic and who the Suns are without booker. If the net difference is greater in the case of Jokic, then he simply has more impact. I don't get why this is so hard for you to grasp.

[BoatsNZones]

I think you are the one who's overcomplicating this. MVP is an individual accolade.

Who are the Denver Nuggets without Jokic? Who are the Phoenix Suns without Booker?

If you can convince yourself that the Suns drop off further down in Booker's absence than the Nuggets would without Jokic, well that's good for you but the numbers don't really bear that out.

MVP is not some theoretical award where you try to figure out which team would theoretically be worse off if you removed either player. That’s what I mean by overcomplicating this discussion. The MVP is to award the player that most helps propel their team to success. the # of wins should not be the only factor, but it should definitely be the most important. Jokic is tracking to be 20+ games behind Booker, he should not be considered if season ends today.

Booker is the best player on a team driving his team to a vastly superior season. Bookers clutch time performances have been insane this year and it’s shown directly in the win total.

I

Booker has no case, whatsoever. When we are talking about factors in the MVP race, like team record and stats, advanced stats, it's all already under the assumption that the players in question are actually top 5 players, or borderline top 5 players. There is literally a single exception to this in the modern NBA (since the start of the Bird&Magic era), it's Derrick Rose. Other than him, you would have to go back to the 70's to find a case even remotely similar to Booker's. He is simply not good enough to be even considered above Joker, Giannis or Embiid, and the basketball world obviously thinks the same, considering that no one outside of Suns fans even brings him up (do not link any Suns beat writer's article please, it wouldn't really contradict my point, nor would the lone media person's opinion, I am obviously talking in hyperbole when I say "no one").

I'd agree with this in general, and even add that D Rose definitely had a pretty strong case for top 5 in that season; His per game stats were solid along with teams clearly keying in on him defensively as the sole offensive leader on his over-achieving team. He finished top 5 in BPM/WinShares/VORP and was close in RPM (before they muddled/ruined their formula). He certainly crushed the level that Booker is at in any advanced metrics (or eye test for that matter. D Rose was pretty scary that season).

I understand certain Suns fans feeling like they should have a player in the discussion this season, but there's just no clear case for them; they're a well rounded juggernaut. To put it simply, if you're not in the discussion for All NBA 1st Team, you're not going to be in the discussion for MVP.

[The-Power]

We're looking at the net difference in who the Nuggets are without Jokic and who the Suns are without booker. If the net difference is greater in the case of Jokic, then he simply has more impact. I don't get why this is so hard for you to grasp.

Obviously MVP is fairly undefined and on-court impact does not necessarily equal value (although I'd agree it should be a large part of it) because different people define value differently. Also, not all impact is the same. It's generally harder to improve good teams by the same margin as bad teams, and turning good teams into great ones is also more valuable than turning bad teams into average ones because the ultimate goal of the sport is to win titles.

That being said, I completely agree that there is zero case for Booker. Not only is he a clearly worse player than the top candidates, he also adds less value to his team. Now, it is completely fine to factor in wins to some degree. But to use this as the main point means you not only disregard the differences in ‘goodness’ between the players and how important they are to their teams, but also to completely neglect context in favor of an overwhelming winning bias (and even then, you could just as easily take CP3 from that Suns team, which just further illustrates the point).

So yes, Booker deserves more credit than he has in the past for being a main contributor to the best team in the league. But no, that does not mean he's a legitimate MVP candidate. Inclusion in one of the All-NBA teams? Now that's more realistic and a conversation worth having, albeit in a different thread I suppose.