Winning Needs to Matter in MVP Conversation Again

[Peregrine01]

You can’t have it both ways. If we’re praising him for carrying a team then you can’t absolve him of blame for losing with that same team. We’re going to look back on his B2B MVP campaign very differently.

I doubt that most reasonable people are having it "both ways". Both your statements are true:

1. He carried a team that would be lotto bound to the 6th seed
2. His team just isn't good enough against any contenders

[dhsilv2]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

So lets try to put numbers with all this. I think we'd all agree all nba first team is a requirement of being MVP, right?

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2953933-predicting-2022-all-nba-first-second-third-teams

I grabbed this but I know a few people might move around Trae and even booker might have a shot, luka. It's a bit open. Even Ja has a good shot somewhere.

We also know that other than Nash, basically every full season MVP going back to the 80's has posted a WS of at least 13. Not a perfect metric but it's a simple metric that says "you were good AND you played a lot". Now WS doesn't work that well this year since only 1 player broke 13 so lets use 10, there hasn't been an MVP under 10 since 99 and Karl Malone in the 49 game season. That's a REALLY low number for MVP.

OK so who are our choices?

10 WS but Gobert and KAT aren't going to make all nba first team. Trae isn't likely but whatever lets leave him.

Jokic
Giannis
Embiid
Gobert
KAT
Trae

So how many wins did each player have?

Jokic - 46
Giannis - 45
Embiid - 45
Gobert - 44
KAT - 44
Trae - 40

So among guys who had stats even remotely close to historical stats the guy who won the most games was Jokic.

[Hussien Fatal]

Jokic is the most overrated player in the league. He’s so overrated we had people making threads saying he’s a better defender than Embiid lol.

[NetsJets]

You can’t have it both ways. If we’re praising him for carrying a team then you can’t absolve him of blame for losing with that same team. We’re going to look back on his B2B MVP campaign very differently.

I doubt that most reasonable people are having it "both ways". Both your statements are true:

1. He carried a team that would be lotto bound to the 6th seed
2. His team just isn't good enough against any contenders

This argument was why Steph couldn’t win MVP last year. Now we move the goalposts for him this year.

[Peregrine01]

You can’t have it both ways. If we’re praising him for carrying a team then you can’t absolve him of blame for losing with that same team. We’re going to look back on his B2B MVP campaign very differently.

I doubt that most reasonable people are having it "both ways". Both your statements are true:

1. He carried a team that would be lotto bound to the 6th seed
2. His team just isn't good enough against any contenders

This argument was why Steph couldn’t win MVP last year. Now we move the goalposts for him this year.

One team got into the playoffs. The other didn't.

[NetsJets]

I doubt that most reasonable people are having it "both ways". Both your statements are true:

1. He carried a team that would be lotto bound to the 6th seed
2. His team just isn't good enough against any contenders

This argument was why Steph couldn’t win MVP last year. Now we move the goalposts for him this year.

One team got into the playoffs. The other didn't.

Then why was Steph a finalist for MVP?

[Peregrine01]

This argument was why Steph couldn’t win MVP last year. Now we move the goalposts for him this year.

One team got into the playoffs. The other didn't.

Then why was Steph a finalist for MVP?

I'm confused. It seemed like you were trying to reconcile why Steph didn't win it last year with why Jokic is about to this year.

[WarriorGM]

In the end you'll realize Steph was the correct choice.

[NetsJets]

One team got into the playoffs. The other didn't.

Then why was Steph a finalist for MVP?

I'm confused. It seemed like you were trying to reconcile why Steph didn't win it last year with why Jokic is about to this year.

But isn’t the MVP “a regular season award” when Jokic is playing like garbage and getting exposed, I’m told this doesn’t matter for the regular season. Then how is Steph missing the playoffs meaningful as an MVP candidate for the regular season?

[Mr B]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

Everyone knows the MVP is just a stats award now. Winning doesn’t matter to the people that vote, only that you have the best stats.

[Harry Garris]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

In a sense what you're saying is that if the best player in the league happens to be on a team where the second and third best player on the roster get hurt and miss the entire season and playoffs he should be automatically disqualified from MVP contention. Even if he is objectively the best player and has the best case under standard MVP criteria.

I can't get on board with that. Winning does matter. It is one of the factors that play into the MVP vote. But so does context.

[Harry Garris]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

Everyone knows the MVP is just a stats award now. Winning doesn’t matter to the people that vote, only that you have the best stats.

Winning is not the most important factor to the people who claim to care about winning either. If winning is so important, why should Joel Embiid be the MVP? His team only won 51 games.

Devin Booker, Ja Morant, Steph Curry, Jimmy Butler and Luka Doncic all lead their teams to more wins than Joel Embiid did. So why is he more deserving of the MVP award than them? After all, winning is the only thing that matters so Joel should be no higher than 6th in MVP voting.

[AleksandarN]

Jokic is the most overrated player in the league. He’s so overrated we had people making threads saying he’s a better defender than Embiid lol.

Links. I would love to see people saying he is a better defender. No one has claimed he is a elite defender. A lot said he improved defensively. No one to my knowledge said he was an elite defender

[DonaldSanders]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

In a sense what you're saying is that if the best player in the league happens to be on a team where the second and third best player on the roster get hurt and miss the entire season and playoffs he should be automatically disqualified from MVP contention. Even if he is objectively the best player and has the best case under standard MVP criteria.

I can't get on board with that. Winning does matter. It is one of the factors that play into the MVP vote. But so does context.

I think part of the issue is that to a lot of people the following is true:
Jokic earned the MVP, but I don't think he is the best player in the league. The regular season is different enough from the post season that I don't care that much about MVP anymore. It's like yes give Jokic the MVP for the performance he did, but in the post season I'd rather have Giannis or Curry (not that either guy could sub in for Jokic and win the series).

[Phystic]

It's tough to judge. Should it be the player that did the most with the least? Best player on best team? Beat player on team with biggest turnaround? Beat individual stats? Player that team wouldn't succeed without at all?

All similar questions but slightly different answers. Never going to have a system that will make everyone happy.

[Harry Garris]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

In a sense what you're saying is that if the best player in the league happens to be on a team where the second and third best player on the roster get hurt and miss the entire season and playoffs he should be automatically disqualified from MVP contention. Even if he is objectively the best player and has the best case under standard MVP criteria.

I can't get on board with that. Winning does matter. It is one of the factors that play into the MVP vote. But so does context.

I think part of the issue is that to a lot of people the following is true:
Jokic earned the MVP, but I don't think he is the best player in the league. The regular season is different enough from the post season that I don't care that much about MVP anymore. It's like yes give Jokic the MVP for the performance he did, but in the post season I'd rather have Giannis or Curry (not that either guy could sub in for Jokic and win the series).

That's why the MVP award is rightly separated from postseason performance, and why it's so frustrating how every season people still retroactively use the playoffs to criticize the MVP selection. Lately MVP winners haven't come from the most talented teams. Logically it makes sense because multiple stars on the team makes for less opportunity to have a truly standout season than a team with a single star. But in the playoffs that team with multiple stars on it is going to win every time.

[MrGoat]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

Everyone knows the MVP is just a stats award now. Winning doesn’t matter to the people that vote, only that you have the best stats.

Winning is not the most important factor to the people who claim to care about winning either. If winning is so important, why should Joel Embiid be the MVP? His team only won 51 games.

Devin Booker, Ja Morant, Steph Curry, Jimmy Butler and Luka Doncic all lead their teams to more wins than Joel Embiid did. So why is he more deserving of the MVP award than them? After all, winning is the only thing that matters so Joel should be no higher than 6th in MVP voting.

Booker would be the case here. Ja, Luka, and Butler missed a few too many games to be seriously considered, Embiid actually has more total wins than those guys just because he played in more games.

Booker: 56-12
Curry: 45-19
Embiid: 45-23
Luka: 43-21
Butler: 38-19
Ja: 36-21

[DonaldSanders]

That's why the MVP award is rightly separated from postseason performance, and why it's so frustrating how every season people still retroactively use the playoffs to criticize the MVP selection. Lately MVP winners haven't come from the most talented teams. Logically it makes sense because multiple stars on the team makes for less opportunity to have a truly standout season than a team with a single star. But in the playoffs that team with multiple stars on it is going to win every time.

Yeah, I don't disagree at all. It just feels weird and leads to a different discussion compared to say every MVP for LeBron, Shaq or MJ, the seasons they won the MVP they were also clearly the #1 player.

[sdeezy]

It definitely a difficult situation. But i'll be honest, as a fan it doesn't feel right that we're about to have a back to back MVP that literally everyone knows doesnt have a chance in hell at making a deep playoff run. Not only that, he's not playing up to his regular season standards and the games arent even competitive. I know its an individual regular season award but the whole thing feels very wrong.

I can't think of a similar situation that has occured in any of the other major professional sports (I dont follow hockey)

[USWAY]

I agree with the premise. The issue is that the other two clear MVP candidates didn't win enough games to separate themselves from a games won perspective. Giannis only won 3 more games with a proven championship roster. Embiid only won 3 more games, and unfortunately for him he was penalized for getting Harden (even though 90% of the world believes that Harden is washed, so that one didn't make much sense).

Somebody mentioned it already in this thread and I mentioned it yesterday's game thread, but all you don't have to look hard to see that the Nuggets just beat up on bad opponents and we're poor against the good ones. But voters aren't looking that hard at that stuff.
'
In my opinion though, there's a clear gap between all three of this years front runners and someone like Booker; probably the best player on the best team.