2024-25 NBA MVP Discussion Thread (Pt. 2)

[Ssj16]

It's reasonable to say that SGA is leading the MVP race so far One factoring in the entire picture. Team record, level of play, impact metrics, box score.

It's not reasonable to say that he is playing better basketball than Jokic lol.


SGA can be the MVP and Joker can be the best player on the planet. Both things can be true

This is where I'm at as well. Earlier in the season, I was giving the MVP to Jokic but now that OKC has continued to roll without Chet and SGA has been putting in work, I have to give the award to SGA.

Jokic would have to put up even crazier stats like 40, 15 and 10 and have a top 4 seed to change my mind.

That being said, I still think Jokic is the clear best player in the league and that Wemby is next in line.

[Exp0sed]

Imo Jokić should and will win MVP but Cason Wallace would NOT be 3rd best Nuggets player. He is worst at basketball than at least 5 Nuggets players. Guy today in nba is nothing but annoying on ball defender. Offers next to nothing on offense and his defense is still fairly limited because of his size. It's not like you will be switching him on SFs, PFs or Cs.

It's just current state of mind among nba fans, that is pretty much just anti- 2000s & 2010s basketball where people overrate on ball guard defenders, where in past they were brutally underrated. Truth is -basketball was and is two way sport. Guard who struggles to shoot, score, keep dribble alive, penetrate, attack closeout, has no floater to his game is nowhere near as valuable as some of people think and they aren't any more valuable than scoring guards who can't defend. There is good reason why guys like Roberson, Avery Bradley, KCP & Marcus Smart and many others dropped off map when they no longer had infrastructure of star players and ideal systems around them as safe net to hide their limitations.
Marcus Smart is probably poster boy of people overrating guard defense and justifying it by giving mythical attributes to player who's only offensive "strength" was highjacking offense due burning desire to prove himself something with hero ball shots. "leader, heart and soul, spiritual leader" ... In reality vastly overrated guard who without mythical aura, on Memphis, looks like third string scrub SG trying to hold onto nba job.

SGA has great supporting cast but man, guy is great player. You have to blind hater to not see it and appreciate it. OKC lost Holmgren as clear cut top 3 DPOY candidate and yet SGA and Jalen Williams hold that offense and keep winning.

I was being a bit hyperbolic and exaggerated to make a point. With that said, Wallace is NOT Avery bradley or Robreson, come on now...

He shot over 40% from 3 on 3 attempts per game as a 20 years old rookie...

Yeah, he's been shooting like as* all season but he'll come around. He's shooting 85% from the line and has good mechanics..he's no Robreson

By that logic Jokic is playing with Murray, a guy who's averaged 26 ppg on .59 TS in the playoffs. But that's not how voting for the MVP of the 24/25 season works, is it? And last I checked, Wallace is averaging 6.7, 2.6 and 1.7 on .503 TS in 27 minutes of play or what they call in the biz: not starter material

It feels like every time I check this thread, the OKC players outside of SGA are being wildly overrated. Let's be real here. OKC is where it's at because of their ONE outstanding player, SGA. Sure, they play well as a team and are coached well. But that doesn't make the invidividual players some world beaters. This is clearly a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts

I don't really follow ur logic tbh

Thunder have by far the best defence in the league. That means they are doing most of their "damage" on the defensive end, that's the main driver of their wins.

Are u arguing that's the result of one player whose a perimeter player that doesn't even guard the opponent's best player? cuz that's a ridicilous argument

we've established guys like J-Dub, Iharte and even Chet (before his injury) are all in the top 25 in EPM, the Thunder are not a one man show..far from it

it could be down to other factors btw, like coaching, schemes etc. or even the budding Thunder "culture", perhaps those guys (and further down the depth chart) are "system players" who wouldn't nessescarily excell in a different role on a different team, that's def possible and a very valid argument but the claim that the Thunder's success is mostly down to SGA's greatness (and he's great for sure) is false and is supported by zero evidence. the data we do have, strongly points in the opposite direction

[Exp0sed]

I was being a bit hyperbolic and exaggerated to make a point. With that said, Wallace is NOT Avery bradley or Robreson, come on now...

He shot over 40% from 3 on 3 attempts per game as a 20 years old rookie...

Yeah, he's been shooting like as* all season but he'll come around. He's shooting 85% from the line and has good mechanics..he's no Robreson

Sent from my SM-A055F using RealGM mobile app

By that logic Jokic is playing with Murray, a guy who's averaged 26 ppg on .59 TS in the playoffs. But that's not how voting for the MVP of the 24/25 season works, is it? And last I checked, Wallace is averaging 6.7, 2.6 and 1.7 on .503 TS in 27 minutes of play or what they call in the biz: not starter material

It feels like every time I check this thread, the OKC players outside of SGA are being wildly overrated. Let's be real here. OKC is where it's at because of their ONE outstanding player, SGA. Sure, they play well as a team and are coached well. But that doesn't make the invidividual players some world beaters. This is clearly a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts

What’s their record with Hartenstein again? Team was shrewd for signing him and I think they would have fallen off a cliff if they didn’t have him after the Chet injury.

Correct

They're like 16-2 or something close to that with Ihart

[Special_Puppy]

Updated MVP odds
SGA -180
Jokic +140
Giannis +2000
Tatum +3300
Wemby +7500

[Jaqua92]

Imo Jokić should and will win MVP but Cason Wallace would NOT be 3rd best Nuggets player. He is worst at basketball than at least 5 Nuggets players. Guy today in nba is nothing but annoying on ball defender. Offers next to nothing on offense and his defense is still fairly limited because of his size. It's not like you will be switching him on SFs, PFs or Cs.

It's just current state of mind among nba fans, that is pretty much just anti- 2000s & 2010s basketball where people overrate on ball guard defenders, where in past they were brutally underrated. Truth is -basketball was and is two way sport. Guard who struggles to shoot, score, keep dribble alive, penetrate, attack closeout, has no floater to his game is nowhere near as valuable as some of people think and they aren't any more valuable than scoring guards who can't defend. There is good reason why guys like Roberson, Avery Bradley, KCP & Marcus Smart and many others dropped off map when they no longer had infrastructure of star players and ideal systems around them as safe net to hide their limitations.
Marcus Smart is probably poster boy of people overrating guard defense and justifying it by giving mythical attributes to player who's only offensive "strength" was highjacking offense due burning desire to prove himself something with hero ball shots. "leader, heart and soul, spiritual leader" ... In reality vastly overrated guard who without mythical aura, on Memphis, looks like third string scrub SG trying to hold onto nba job.

SGA has great supporting cast but man, guy is great player. You have to blind hater to not see it and appreciate it. OKC lost Holmgren as clear cut top 3 DPOY candidate and yet SGA and Jalen Williams hold that offense and keep winning.

I was being a bit hyperbolic and exaggerated to make a point. With that said, Wallace is NOT Avery bradley or Robreson, come on now...

He shot over 40% from 3 on 3 attempts per game as a 20 years old rookie...

Yeah, he's been shooting like as* all season but he'll come around. He's shooting 85% from the line and has good mechanics..he's no Robreson

Sent from my SM-A055F using RealGM mobile app

By that logic Jokic is playing with Murray, a guy who's averaged 26 ppg on .59 TS in the playoffs. But that's not how voting for the MVP of the 24/25 season works, is it? And last I checked, Wallace is averaging 6.7, 2.6 and 1.7 on .503 TS in 27 minutes of play or what they call in the biz: not starter material

It feels like every time I check this thread, the OKC players outside of SGA are being wildly overrated. Let's be real here. OKC is where it's at because of their ONE outstanding player, SGA. Sure, they play well as a team and are coached well. But that doesn't make the invidividual players some world beaters. This is clearly a case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts

OKC has the deepest talent outside of Boston. They're just young and hungry.

I know people want to load up SGA as this sort of carry job to justify MVP over Jokic, but that's just not part of his case and it doesn't need to be.

You have a group of young hungry guys, playing playoff level intensity defense and offense..that's going to get you a regular season juggernaut

[Jaqua92]

It's reasonable to say that SGA is leading the MVP race so far One factoring in the entire picture. Team record, level of play, impact metrics, box score.

It's not reasonable to say that he is playing better basketball than Jokic lol.


SGA can be the MVP and Joker can be the best player on the planet. Both things can be true

This is where I'm at as well. Earlier in the season, I was giving the MVP to Jokic but now that OKC has continued to roll without Chet and SGA has been putting in work, I have to give the award to SGA.

Jokic would have to put up even crazier stats like 40, 15 and 10 and have a top 4 seed to change my mind.

That being said, I still think Jokic is the clear best player in the league and that Wemby is next in line.

Jokic doesn't need a 40,15,10 to be the MVP.

If he gets Denver to the 2 seed, I think it's his award again

SGA's production, and OKC's level of play isn't sustainable and at the end of the season, I think we will be able to look at the first 30 or so games as their best stretch of the season. Even if OKC finishes 67-15, their next 30 games would be weaker.

Jokic is playing better basketball and a 2 seed should make him the easy MVP.

I think if the race is close enough in that case, voter fatigue will come in.

[Special_Puppy]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

[EmpireFalls]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

I guess because these voters are human beings and most of them are the same ones who voted that way for the past 20 years?

[Special_Puppy]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

I guess because these voters are human beings and most of them are the same ones who voted that way for the past 20 years?

“Besides it’s just always been that way”

[Jaqua92]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

The case that the difference in team results ISNT supporting cast is ridiculous to make.

As far as what's the case for why voters should care about the record outside of "it's just always been that way?" There isn't. That's how it's been. Westbrook and Jokic have been exceptions to that - "X player's team is good enough, and production is so impressive that they deserve it". It does feel like moving the goalpost but Jokic, unlike Westbrook, has shown that the production isn't just production, its a result of being the championship winning best player in the world.

Taking bias out of it, the 2nd or 3rd best player on the season without an MVP, on the 1 seed is deserving of the MVP if the better players have already won it and aren't in the conference race. If Denver finishes the season hot, and gets the 2 seed, it's a race again, and Jokic is more deserving. Record doesn't matter, not to me. Regular season is regular season but it can set up seedings for the playoffs, so in the regular season, the seeding is more impressive than the number of wins.

If Denver finishes with the 2 seed just 3 games behind OKC, or if they finish with the 2 seed 8 games behind OKC, it's the same thing to me.

It's the NBA. It's 2024. There's always going to be some bit of storytelling/narrative drive behind some votes.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or if I'm answering your question though. SGA at this point is leading the race based on all historical criteria. But the criteria is evolving.

[Jaqua92]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

I guess because these voters are human beings and most of them are the same ones who voted that way for the past 20 years?

“Besides it’s just always been that way”

I'm not sure I get your point... There isn't a reason outside of "it's just always been that way". So if you're criticizing that, you're criticizing SGA's case as MVP.


You can also make a case that "it's just always been that way" is a legitimate reason for sustaining the core of the criteria.

[Special_Puppy]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

The case that the difference in team results ISNT supporting cast is ridiculous to make.

As far as what's the case for why voters should care about the record outside of "it's just always been that way?" There isn't. That's how it's been. Westbrook and Jokic have been exceptions to that - "X player's team is good enough, and production is so impressive that they deserve it". It does feel like moving the goalpost but Jokic, unlike Westbrook, has shown that the production isn't just production, its a result of being the championship winning best player in the world.

Taking bias out of it, the 2nd or 3rd best player on the season without an MVP, on the 1 seed is deserving of the MVP if the better players have already won it and aren't in the conference race. If Denver finishes the season hot, and gets the 2 seed, it's a race again, and Jokic is more deserving. Record doesn't matter, not to me. Regular season is regular season but it can set up seedings for the playoffs, so in the regular season, the seeding is more impressive than the number of wins.

If Denver finishes with the 2 seed just 3 games behind OKC, or if they finish with the 2 seed 8 games behind OKC, it's the same thing to me.

It's the NBA. It's 2024. There's always going to be some bit of storytelling/narrative drive behind some votes.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or if I'm answering your question though. SGA at this point is leading the race based on all historical criteria. But the criteria is evolving.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that SGA straight up been more valuable than Jokic this season based on SGA’s lead in old EPM and LEBRON

[_NoMas]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

OKC are able to survive the non SGA mins (0.33 net rating, basically even).
Denver are -12.66 net rating without Jokic
Yes, the difference in team results is massively down to supporting cast

[lessthanjake]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

I think the answer is to think about why it’s always been that way. The award is about value, and we can easily argue that value derives from contributing to wins. If you play great and your team lost, there’s a very real case that you weren’t as valuable as a player who played similarly great and won, because in a very tangible sense if your team lost the game then your team didn’t ultimately benefit from you playing great. For a team, a loss is a loss. That’s some of the logic for caring about team wins. If two players play similarly well but one has better teammates and therefore his team wins more, then the fruits of that player’s great play simply came to fruition more often, and that in a sense makes them more valuable.

Of course, I think one can argue against this by saying that what matters is the number of marginal wins a player got their team, and the player with better teammates might not actually have provided more marginal wins for his team than the player with worse teammates. But I don’t think one *has* to think about it that way, and I think the fact that people haven’t really thought about it like that is why team records have always mattered so much.

There’s also the fact that people infer a player’s contribution from their team results. There’s definitely noise in impact metrics, so if a metric says two players are equally good, but one of them had a team that won more games, one might infer that the more impactful player was probably actually the guy whose team won more games. But that explanation does kind of just skirt around the assumption in your above post (i.e. that the difference in team results is due to difference in supporting cast).

[Exp0sed]

[/b]

OKC has the deepest talent outside of Boston. They're just young and hungry.

I know people want to load up SGA as this sort of carry job to justify MVP over Jokic, but that's just not part of his case and it doesn't need to be.

You have a group of young hungry guys, playing playoff level intensity defense and offense..that's going to get you a regular season juggernaut

exactly, well said

they're hungry, cohesive, well coached (schemes and coaching against the grain as well) and very talented. SGA is leading the race regardless, there's no need to try and claim he's doing some massive historically good carry job (he isn't, even tho he is far and away their best player) for him to be MVP, he's the frontrunner as it stands

his teammates don't need to suck for him to be MVP, he's averging 31\6\6 on awesome efficiency with great defense and low turnovers on a 30-5 team, including clutch performances and all you could ask from an MVP, apart from a little mishap in the NBA cup finals and he hasn't missed a game yet!

that doesn't change the fact that the Thunder are an historically good defense and that's not mainly due to SGA - it's the whole team

[RB34]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

The case that the difference in team results ISNT supporting cast is ridiculous to make.

As far as what's the case for why voters should care about the record outside of "it's just always been that way?" There isn't. That's how it's been. Westbrook and Jokic have been exceptions to that - "X player's team is good enough, and production is so impressive that they deserve it". It does feel like moving the goalpost but Jokic, unlike Westbrook, has shown that the production isn't just production, its a result of being the championship winning best player in the world.

Taking bias out of it, the 2nd or 3rd best player on the season without an MVP, on the 1 seed is deserving of the MVP if the better players have already won it and aren't in the conference race. If Denver finishes the season hot, and gets the 2 seed, it's a race again, and Jokic is more deserving. Record doesn't matter, not to me. Regular season is regular season but it can set up seedings for the playoffs, so in the regular season, the seeding is more impressive than the number of wins.

If Denver finishes with the 2 seed just 3 games behind OKC, or if they finish with the 2 seed 8 games behind OKC, it's the same thing to me.

It's the NBA. It's 2024. There's always going to be some bit of storytelling/narrative drive behind some votes.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or if I'm answering your question though. SGA at this point is leading the race based on all historical criteria. But the criteria is evolving.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that SGA straight up been more valuable than Jokic this season based on SGA’s lead in old EPM and LEBRON

Are EPM and LEBRON the only things that matter in 2025?

[Exp0sed]

*IF* you think that the difference in teams results between the Nuggets and Thunder is almost entirely due to the difference in supporting cast (and there's a case that its not since SGA outperforms Jokic in some advanced stats like Old EPM and LEBRON) then what's the case for why voters should care about the record difference between the two teams besides "its just always been that way"?

there isn't one..but that's the way it's always been and to a large extent, that's the way it still is

the case for SGA rn (if we disregard the record and assign in to differences in the degree of "help") is that he's played every game while Jokic is likely to miss his 5th tonight, that's 16.66% more games played - a significant number, so he's ahead anyway u wanna slice it. add that to the fact that his team is #1 and much better record wise than the Joker's you're left with very little to argue against him

if it was reversed, Jokic had played more games and had equal individual wins to SGA (due to less GP) there would be more of an argument but as it stands, there really isn't any true argument imo

and just to clarify, old EPM or not, i'm on the camp that thinks Jokic has been better (not by much) individually this season but yes - the MVP has never been a strictly individual award...

what Jokic is doing is absoultely insane and the Nuggets are 19-12 with him, despite Murray missing 6 games, AG missing half of the season and scrubs playing meaningful mins all season long - that's a way more ridicilous carry job, these Nuggets would be a bottom 3 without him but you can't argue with 30-5

[brackdan70]

The case that the difference in team results ISNT supporting cast is ridiculous to make.

As far as what's the case for why voters should care about the record outside of "it's just always been that way?" There isn't. That's how it's been. Westbrook and Jokic have been exceptions to that - "X player's team is good enough, and production is so impressive that they deserve it". It does feel like moving the goalpost but Jokic, unlike Westbrook, has shown that the production isn't just production, its a result of being the championship winning best player in the world.

Taking bias out of it, the 2nd or 3rd best player on the season without an MVP, on the 1 seed is deserving of the MVP if the better players have already won it and aren't in the conference race. If Denver finishes the season hot, and gets the 2 seed, it's a race again, and Jokic is more deserving. Record doesn't matter, not to me. Regular season is regular season but it can set up seedings for the playoffs, so in the regular season, the seeding is more impressive than the number of wins.

If Denver finishes with the 2 seed just 3 games behind OKC, or if they finish with the 2 seed 8 games behind OKC, it's the same thing to me.

It's the NBA. It's 2024. There's always going to be some bit of storytelling/narrative drive behind some votes.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking or if I'm answering your question though. SGA at this point is leading the race based on all historical criteria. But the criteria is evolving.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that SGA straight up been more valuable than Jokic this season based on SGA’s lead in old EPM and LEBRON

Are EPM and LEBRON the only things that matter in 2025?

Also wins, VPM and DPM.

[Special_Puppy]

I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that SGA straight up been more valuable than Jokic this season based on SGA’s lead in old EPM and LEBRON

Are EPM and LEBRON the only things that matter in 2025?

Also wins, VPM and DPM.

Jokic is ahead in VPM and DPM, but SGA is reasonably close

[Snake3]

Some of the stuff is a little be shaky with epm. I wouldn't rely on it too much to determine the defensive impact. Especially when comparing players across seasons or different teams. Otherwise, you'll say Kris Dunn is the most impactful defensive player in the league and it's historic.