NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24

[AleksandarN]

Jokic really is on his own tier for MVP. They really need Murray to comeback though to hold a high seed.

7-1 with Murray, 7-6 without him this season. They absolutely need him near- or at- 100% to contend for another championship, IMHO.

It’s a shame because Jokic is playing at an all around level almost never seen in NBA history, and I actually think Denver has a better all around roster this year vs last.

What are your thoughts?

Not just Murray missing AG missed games during the stretch defiantly need both AG is so important to the defense

[Mavrelous]

I thoght we were talking about on/off, mu bad, Luka isn't MVP he won only 1.5 PO series in his first 5 years, he clearly should've won more.

[Mavrelous]

1. I was frankly expecting that we'd see a much bigger on/off for Doncic after Brunson left. Didn't happen.
2. Agreed, this is part of the equation.
3. This is backwards. If you're impossible to replace as a star, and your team has built everything around you, the norm is that there's a big drop off whenever you leave.

Re: PO. Agree that this is a different thing, and this will eventually be what defines Doncic's legacy. We just have to know ahead of time that if Doncic becomes a playoff GOAT candidate given his regular season mediocre impact, I don't believe we'll have ever seen anything like this in the history of basketball.

Regarding 1, his on/off was very apparent before the trade, I don't have the partial number, but his team record w/o him was 0-7, including losses to bottom dweller like Houston.
About the PO, we can't predict the future, but we can adjust the past, his on/off in the PO has much less room for doubt compared to the RS.

[AleksandarN]

Like I said Jokic is even better than last year. Which is crazy to think about it

Read on Twitter

[Wolfgang630]

So people consider Giannis top 3 in mvp now?

[eminence]

I'd probably go with

1. Jokic
2. SGA
3. Tatum
4. Embiid

Not sure who I'd have #5 so far.

[Doctor MJ]

1. I was frankly expecting that we'd see a much bigger on/off for Doncic after Brunson left. Didn't happen.
2. Agreed, this is part of the equation.
3. This is backwards. If you're impossible to replace as a star, and your team has built everything around you, the norm is that there's a big drop off whenever you leave.

Re: PO. Agree that this is a different thing, and this will eventually be what defines Doncic's legacy. We just have to know ahead of time that if Doncic becomes a playoff GOAT candidate given his regular season mediocre impact, I don't believe we'll have ever seen anything like this in the history of basketball.

Regarding 1, his on/off was very apparent before the trade, I don't have the partial number, but his team record w/o him was 0-7, including losses to bottom dweller like Houston.
About the PO, we can't predict the future, but we can adjust the past, his on/off in the PO has much less room for doubt compared to the RS.

His On/Off at that time was not anything superstar-like. I understand they had a bad team record without him, and I don't want to dismiss that, but there are even bigger noise issues with team record than typical +/-, plus you're cherry picking here. They won the first game after the trade without either Luka or Kyrie.

Re: PO, adjust the past (RS). I think you're suggesting we should erase the data rather than interpret it. I'm trying to be crystal clear that there is a possibility that Luka could be the GOAT by virtue of the playoffs despite his mediocre RS impact, but even if we end up seeing this, it wouldn't mean the RS isn't happening, nor that we should ignore the RS in a RS MVP thread.

I think Mavs fans have a tendency here to try to find a justification for using Doncic's box score as the determiner of his MVP candidacy, ignoring his actual (lack of) impact based on him potentially having impact during some other unrelated sample. Understandable why they'd start thinking like this, but it is what it is.

You can't be the regular season MVP based on the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: PO. Agree that this is a different thing, and this will eventually be what defines Doncic's legacy. We just have to know ahead of time that if Doncic becomes a playoff GOAT candidate given his regular season mediocre impact, I don't believe we'll have ever seen anything like this in the history of basketball.

This is a bit weird to me that it's even being considered. As stated it's never happened and Doncic has won 1.5 playoff series in his career.

Excellent point. My only quibble is giving him the 0.5 credit. Doncic has led his team to one playoff series victory and been carried to another one along with his not-very-impactful regular season career.

So yeah, he really hasn't accomplished that much yet... and yet he remains absolutely terrifying as a playoff opponent for good reason.

[Genjuro]

7-1 with Murray, 7-6 without him this season. They absolutely need him near- or at- 100% to contend for another championship, IMHO.

It’s a shame because Jokic is playing at an all around level almost never seen in NBA history, and I actually think Denver has a better all around roster this year vs last.

What are your thoughts?

6-6, he missed the game against the Clippers.
It's weird, but Nuggets had better record w/o Murray 2 years ago, I think it's more about the league having more parity and is healthier.

What Marvelous said. In the past they seemed to beat these teams without Murray. But this year is different. They’re not able to pull out the wins and it’s because of the parity. There’s just better competition now and a superstar player can only do so much.

I think there are a number of reasons:

- Out of those 12 games, 8 were played away. Remember the Nuggets had a negative road record last season.

- The Nuggets have played more games than anybody else. Even four more games than some other teams.

- The team is readjusting to the loss of some key rotation players, there's a expectation that rookie and sophomore players will play significant roles (youngsters usually struggle more on the road) and Malone is still trying for bench lineups and solutions (he unexplicably put a team on the floor without a PG and Jokic again in the last game). Murray's injury just complicates matters, because there's not a decent third PG (not even an Ish Smith type of player).

- In the previous seasons, I think the Nuggets usually started kind of slow and tended to improve as the season went by.

[bisme37]

Read on Twitter

[Mavrelous]

1. I was frankly expecting that we'd see a much bigger on/off for Doncic after Brunson left. Didn't happen.
2. Agreed, this is part of the equation.
3. This is backwards. If you're impossible to replace as a star, and your team has built everything around you, the norm is that there's a big drop off whenever you leave.

Re: PO. Agree that this is a different thing, and this will eventually be what defines Doncic's legacy. We just have to know ahead of time that if Doncic becomes a playoff GOAT candidate given his regular season mediocre impact, I don't believe we'll have ever seen anything like this in the history of basketball.

Regarding 1, his on/off was very apparent before the trade, I don't have the partial number, but his team record w/o him was 0-7, including losses to bottom dweller like Houston.
About the PO, we can't predict the future, but we can adjust the past, his on/off in the PO has much less room for doubt compared to the RS.

His On/Off at that time was not anything superstar-like. I understand they had a bad team record without him, and I don't want to dismiss that, but there are even bigger noise issues with team record than typical +/-, plus you're cherry picking here. They won the first game after the trade without either Luka or Kyrie.

Re: PO, adjust the past (RS). I think you're suggesting we should erase the data rather than interpret it. I'm trying to be crystal clear that there is a possibility that Luka could be the GOAT by virtue of the playoffs despite his mediocre RS impact, but even if we end up seeing this, it wouldn't mean the RS isn't happening, nor that we should ignore the RS in a RS MVP thread.

I think Mavs fans have a tendency here to try to find a justification for using Doncic's box score as the determiner of his MVP candidacy, ignoring his actual (lack of) impact based on him potentially having impact during some other unrelated sample. Understandable why they'd start thinking like this, but it is what it is.

You can't be the regular season MVP based on the playoffs.

I am biased, but I'm trying to be sincere, my view is that he was impacrful despite his lower on/off compared to other stars, I don't think he ever was the regular season MVP for a full season, especially not this one, where he doesn't belong to the top 5 even.

[Doctor MJ]

Regarding 1, his on/off was very apparent before the trade, I don't have the partial number, but his team record w/o him was 0-7, including losses to bottom dweller like Houston.
About the PO, we can't predict the future, but we can adjust the past, his on/off in the PO has much less room for doubt compared to the RS.

His On/Off at that time was not anything superstar-like. I understand they had a bad team record without him, and I don't want to dismiss that, but there are even bigger noise issues with team record than typical +/-, plus you're cherry picking here. They won the first game after the trade without either Luka or Kyrie.

Re: PO, adjust the past (RS). I think you're suggesting we should erase the data rather than interpret it. I'm trying to be crystal clear that there is a possibility that Luka could be the GOAT by virtue of the playoffs despite his mediocre RS impact, but even if we end up seeing this, it wouldn't mean the RS isn't happening, nor that we should ignore the RS in a RS MVP thread.

I think Mavs fans have a tendency here to try to find a justification for using Doncic's box score as the determiner of his MVP candidacy, ignoring his actual (lack of) impact based on him potentially having impact during some other unrelated sample. Understandable why they'd start thinking like this, but it is what it is.

You can't be the regular season MVP based on the playoffs.

I am biased, but I'm trying to be sincere, my view is that he was impacrful despite his lower on/off compared to other stars, I don't think he ever was the regular season MVP for a full season, especially not this one, where he doesn't belong to the top 5 even.

Fair enough, and let me take more care with my words which are getting a bit chippy.

I don't want to imply that Doncic is not at all impactful, but the fact remains that in the regular season there's now a pretty established track record that I just don't think can be dismissed as noise. It may not matter if the playoffs can make up for it, and it also may not continue in the future, but it's weird, and it's something that we first started scratching our heads about around 4 years ago now

[Mavrelous]

Fair enough, and let me take more care with my words which are getting a bit chippy.

I don't want to imply that Doncic is not at all impactful, but the fact remains that in the regular season there's now a pretty established track record that I just don't think can be dismissed as noise. It may not matter if the playoffs can make up for it, and it also may not continue in the future, but it's weird, and it's something that we first started scratching our heads about around 4 years ago now

Fair enough, your skepticism is warranted, and if there ever become a point where Luka's level of play actually warrants MVP consideration, we'll revisit this topic, but since there have been other comments in this thread, that misunderstood my view and distorted it, I'll summarize it with this, the circumstances which accompanied Luka during mos of his career were:
He has a great backup.
His backup was by far the second best on the team, definitely since year 3 and onwards.
His team can't function at all, as a basketball team, if one of the 2, he or his backup, are on the floor due to the roster makeup.

These circumstances are very unique, hard to reproduce with other stars, and made his minutes which are primarily against starters, compared to his backup, which big portion were against inferior lineups, tilt this specific metric, because this is what the metric measure.
I also argued that the shift in this specific metric, in the PO, not because Luka has won championships, which he hasn't, but because the metric in the PO is much less prune to noise, shows he is more impactful than this metric says in RS, during the same years.

[Exp0sed]

You can't be the regular season MVP based on the playoffs.

no doubt you can't be the rs MVP based on the playoffs

i'm trying to better understand how you actually interpert this anomaly\connundrum as i'm having a hard time following your logic, perhaps you can shed some light:
the on\off stats (consistently and over a multi-season sample) are painting him in a certain light, if we give credence to these stats, especially since there aren't any other examples of such anomalies, then why does the argument stop at "not MVP calibre"?

I mean, his numbers don't paint him as more "pedestrian" than an MVP - they paint him as a slightly above average player.
is that what ur saying, that he's been an average or slightly above avg player in the rs?

[Doctor MJ]

You can't be the regular season MVP based on the playoffs.

no doubt you can't be the rs MVP based on the playoffs

i'm trying to better understand how you actually interpert this anomaly\connundrum as i'm having a hard time following your logic, perhaps you can shed some light:
the on\off stats (consistently and over a multi-season sample) are painting him in a certain light, if we give credence to these stats, especially since there aren't any other examples of such anomalies, then why does the argument stop at "not MVP calibre"?

I mean, his numbers don't paint him as more "pedestrian" than an MVP - they paint him as a slightly above average player.
is that what ur saying, that he's been an average or slightly above avg player in the rs?

Good philosophical question.

Plus minus in general is most useful for identifying outliers. Those who are not so extreme that they seem to guarantee impact are not only part of the fat bulge of around the mean but tend to have their impact vary a great deal based on the situation.

As such I’d be much less likely to use plus minus to try to rank players who aren’t tippy top impactors.

Beyond that there’s the matter of role. Two guys might have similar impact numbers but if one guy is showing the ability to be the lead primacy guy on the court and the other guy is more limited in what he’s demonstrated, I wouldn’t want you to equate them like they are doing the same thing.

Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take a more limited player over a high primacy star, but in such cases it would be in no small part a statement that the high primacy star is fool’s gold.

So an example of this are draft mates DeMar DeRozan and Danny Green. DeRozan is the better high primacy star, but not good enough to play that role on an NBA contender, so who would I rather have during their prime if I were trying to win a chip? The one who had a place on a championship team.

Am I calling Doncic a DeRosan though? Nope. Doncic scares his opponents, DeRozan depresses his fan base come playoff time.

In terms of where to place Doncic given all this, hard to say other than that there’s a certain echelon of top tier impact that we expect from MVPs that he’s never been close to, and so until that changes he won’t be in that discussion for me.

Dip below that level of guy and Doncic has a case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Champ1on]

The question with Doncic has remained for many years now:

Why is it his team can do almost as well without him as they can with him? You cannot blame teammates for not being good enough as the reason why they do unexpectedly well without you.

Why IS his team almost as good without him than versus with him? (I'm actually asking you; this is non rhetorical).

All stats include the playoffs, and, complete careers. Just a few examples:

--Mavs are 29-38 all time (.433) without Doncic. They are .543 with him playing.

--The Nuggets are 17-25 all time (.405) without Jokic. They are .596 with him playing.

--The Sixers are 77-95 (.448) without Embiid, career. They are .637 with him playing.

--Warriors are 90-147 (.380) without Curry. They are .652 with him playing.

My general answer would be that basketball effectiveness needs to considered as a collection of 5-man units finding ways to do what needs doing on the court.

So if I have a player who can do everything - scoring, passing, rebounding - better than everyone else, but in his absence a team has a scheme that "picks up the slack" by re-allocating primacy in various domains pretty effectively, the drop off might not be what we'd expect.

All the more so if you're talking about a shift in scheme wherein no one player dominates the load the same way.

To be clear: Could be far worse than what we'd expect as easily as better than we expect. The critical thing is that if the ecosystem functions differently, it's hard to know what to expect until you see it.

Looking at that stat it's crazy how many games Embiid missed for how long he's been in the game that you would have over a 150 game sample.

[dygaction]

Why IS his team almost as good without him than versus with him? (I'm actually asking you; this is non rhetorical).

All stats include the playoffs, and, complete careers. Just a few examples:

--Mavs are 29-38 all time (.433) without Doncic. They are .543 with him playing.

--The Nuggets are 17-25 all time (.405) without Jokic. They are .596 with him playing.

--The Sixers are 77-95 (.448) without Embiid, career. They are .637 with him playing.

--Warriors are 90-147 (.380) without Curry. They are .652 with him playing.

My general answer would be that basketball effectiveness needs to considered as a collection of 5-man units finding ways to do what needs doing on the court.

So if I have a player who can do everything - scoring, passing, rebounding - better than everyone else, but in his absence a team has a scheme that "picks up the slack" by re-allocating primacy in various domains pretty effectively, the drop off might not be what we'd expect.

All the more so if you're talking about a shift in scheme wherein no one player dominates the load the same way.

To be clear: Could be far worse than what we'd expect as easily as better than we expect. The critical thing is that if the ecosystem functions differently, it's hard to know what to expect until you see it.

Looking at that stat it's crazy how many games Embiid missed for how long he's been in the game that you would have over a 150 game sample.

That's not including the 164 games he missed at the first two full seasons. It is a miracle that he came back and is now healthy enough to dominate at an MVP level.

[Wolfgang630]

At this point there seems to be 8 guys in contention. Nobody else I see entering top 3 ever.

Jokic
Embiid
Giannis
Tatum
Hali
SGA
Luka
KD/Booker

Anthony Edwards I don’t see in contention. Best record is great, but Gobert has been hugely impactful. KAT is probably having his best season ever. Fox is a great player, but not in the conversation.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

At this point there seems to be 7 guys in contention. Nobody else I see entering top 3 ever.

Jokic
Embiid
Tatum
Hali
SGA
Luka
KD/Booker

Anthony Edwards I don’t see in contention. Best record is great, but Gobert has been hugely impactful. KAT is probably having his best season ever. Fox is a great player, but not in the conversation.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/mvp.html
Why you leaving Giannis out of contention:
30PPG on 64%TS, 11 boards, 5 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.4 blocks; Team has won 70% of games.

Like I'm not going to sit here and argue he should be 1a/1b with Jokic but I don't get why people keep leaving him off a broader list. What has Luka done that puts him in a different class?

[Exp0sed]

At this point there seems to be 7 guys in contention. Nobody else I see entering

Why you leaving Giannis out of contention:
30PPG on 64%TS, 11 boards, 5 assists, 1.4 steals, 1.4 blocks; Team has won 70% of games.

Like I'm not going to sit here and argue he should be 1a/1b with Jokic but I don't get why people keep leaving him off a broader list. What has Luka done that puts him in a different class?

he wasn't up there to start the season and he's still lagging a bit behind but he's up there already
thing with Giannis is that the Bucks trading for Dame hurts him alot, it's the way it's always been in the NBA

we can quibble about Dame but he was widely seen as a top 10-12 player in the league and is a top 10 offensive player for sure. he was 7th in MVP voting as late as 2021, so that's a big deal

as an MVP candidate, sharing the court with another top 10 superstar is def an issue.
Dame is shooting just 33% from 3, that would be a career low for him if the season ended today and obviously he's an amazing shooter and we will see a regression to the mean later in the season. he is still avging 25\5\7 and when started shooting closer to his standards, he'll be avging like 30\7\5...

so the Bucks need to really dominate and be head and shoulders ahead of the league for Giannis to really have a case, it's just the way it is and the way it's always been