2022-23 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt.1)

[Ron Swanson]

It's not even an argument just for someone like Giannis. It was literally used as an argument against Curry last year (even though ultimately I don't think his numbers were Top-2 MVP worthy). It was used as an argument against Kawhi in 2016-17 ("but look at what Russ and Harden are doing with those rosters").

People are just hedging their bets and preemptively building their narratives of "oh, look at their record against trash teams when he sits, you can't give him MVP" to use in March/April when a guy like Giannis' efficiency rises back up to his career norms, or when a guy like Ja inserts himself into the conversation. "Yeah, but Memphis beat a fully healthy Miami team without him back in December, blah, blah". It's just the laziest of all lazy arguments that hardly qualifies as any sort of analysis.

[Prez]

What if I told you the 2021 roster minus Curry was worse than the 2020 roster? It was.

What if I told you the chances of the Warriors nabbing Porter and Bjelica during the offseason were slim if Curry didn't go supernova in 2021?

The team was the team it was in 2022 because of Curry. The teams he's been on get much better because of Curry.

If you told me that, I’d disagree, because it wasn’t. Better version of Poole, 20 more games of Draymond, full season of Wiggins instead of just 12 games, 40 more games of Looney, and only 3 of the top 12 in minutes are out of the league vs 7 from the ‘20 team.

And no, I’m not giving Curry credit for the roster being transformed from loaded with G-league level players to filled with quality players. That’s a combination of Bob Myers/Lacob and the rest of FO/ownership, along with better health.

Most of the improvements you cite would be negated by simply being forced by management to play with a totally not ready Wiseman. Draymond is playing more minutes because Curry is around. Players like Burks and Cauley-Stein were also let go because the team wasn't in contention with Curry out of action. Wiggins had a lower BPM and VORP than Russell aside from not having the history of carrying a team to the playoffs like Russell. Moreover your cutoff of top 12 looks rather arbitrary. 13-15 in minutes in 2020 would be Wiggins, Toscano-Andersen, and Looney who are all still in the league while in 2021 that would be Wanamaker, Mannion, and Smailagic who are not.

Cool, thanks for acknowledging all these other differences between the ‘20 team and the subsequent two seasons. Just supporting my argument.

And I focused on the top 12 because the guys who are actually playing matter more, and who cares about the Warriors 15th man? I suppose yes, I could’ve cut it off at 10, 11, 13. But looking beyond the top 12 only reveals that Wiggins played a whopping 12 games and Looney 20 games for the ‘20 Warriors. And that they played 50 and 40 more games the next season, which doesn’t help you argument at all lol.

If you don't give Curry credit for attracting Porter and Bjelica then you are just blind. Bjelica made some pretty endearing comments about Curry that certainly gives the impression the prospect of playing with him was a major attraction. Wouldn't be the first time either. Iguodala and KD were probably sold on playing for Golden State as much by Curry as anything else. You think Myers' and Lacob's honeyed words did the trick?

I don’t give him credit for it because it’s nothing special whatsoever. Almost every great player can attract solid to potentially great role players, it’s on the front office too actually get it done. Like Giannis with Brook Lopez, Bobby Portis, Patty C, Joe Ingles, Wes Matthews, etc. Or Jokic this offseason with Bruce Brown, and KCP immediately signing an extension. Every role guy that signs with a team that has a superstar says favorable things about the team and how they’re excited to play with the superstar. It’s hilarious that you’re trying to spin something as totally normal as the signing of role players as some major achievement of Curry

[Cubbies2120]

It's not even an argument just for someone like Giannis. It was literally used as an argument against Curry last year (even though ultimately I don't think his numbers were Top-2 MVP worthy). It was used as an argument against Kawhi in 2016-17 ("but look at what Russ and Harden are doing with those rosters").

People are just hedging their bets and preemptively building their narratives of "oh, look at their record against trash teams when he sits, you can't give him MVP" to use in March/April when a guy like Giannis' efficiency rises back up to his career norms, or when a guy like Ja inserts himself into the conversation. "Yeah, but Memphis beat a fully healthy Miami team without him back in December, blah, blah". It's just the laziest of all lazy arguments that hardly qualifies as any sort of analysis.

Then we need to start looking at "What is your team doing WITH you", and you don't get credit for the wins that happen without you.

What's the win % of each MVP candidate, rather than what's the team win %, because the latter can be HEAVILY impacted by your roster construction when you sit. See Morant last year. Stop looking at seeding (for the MVP discussions), look at what the team did with the player when he played (with some criteria of a cap on missed games...you can't be missing a ton of games and be a serious MVP candidate).

[Ron Swanson]

It's not even an argument just for someone like Giannis. It was literally used as an argument against Curry last year (even though ultimately I don't think his numbers were Top-2 MVP worthy). It was used as an argument against Kawhi in 2016-17 ("but look at what Russ and Harden are doing with those rosters").

People are just hedging their bets and preemptively building their narratives of "oh, look at their record against trash teams when he sits, you can't give him MVP" to use in March/April when a guy like Giannis' efficiency rises back up to his career norms, or when a guy like Ja inserts himself into the conversation. "Yeah, but Memphis beat a fully healthy Miami team without him back in December, blah, blah". It's just the laziest of all lazy arguments that hardly qualifies as any sort of analysis.

Then we need to start looking at "What is your team doing WITH you", and you don't get credit for the wins that happen without you.

What's the win % of each MVP candidate, rather than what's the team win %, because the latter can be HEAVILY impacted by your roster construction when you sit. See Morant last year. Stop looking at seeding (for the MVP discussions), look at what the team did with the player when he played (with some criteria of a cap on missed games...you can't be missing a ton of games and be a serious MVP candidate).

Makes perfect sense. But that's not what's been happening in this thread the last several years, and we all know this. What was the argument against Curry last season again when he had the Warriors playing at a +10.1 on-court net-rating? Oh right, it was "they're still a positive net-rating (barely) when he sits". What was the main Harden contingent argument against Giannis in the 2019 or 2020 seasons when he had them playing at a +12.1 and +15.8 on-court net-rating? Oh right, it was, they're still a good team when he sits (+3 net-rating).

Yes, Giannis won both those years anyways, but the amount of contrarian narratives that continue to this day (large amount of people think that Harden deserved to win one or both years, cuz box score heliocentrism) just strengthens the point. FYI, Jokic is probably my MVP at this point anyways, but this dumb penalizing MVP credentials for your roster not cratering when you're off the floor needs to die already.

[Peregrine01]

Jokic's ridiculous on/off is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it shows how good he is but on the other it shows how bad his team is.

[CharityStripe34]

Jokic's ridiculous on/off is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it shows how good he is but on the other it shows how bad his team is.

I'm surprised they don't stagger his minutes to play some with the benchers. Bud does the opposite with Gianni, where he'll start, then sit relatively early in the quarter, and be the first starter back off the bench to play with the bench squad early in the second/fourth quarters. Jokic and the starters play well, then the bench gets demolished and then the starters have to come back on and work overtime to keep it competitive.

[yoyoboy]

It's not even an argument just for someone like Giannis. It was literally used as an argument against Curry last year (even though ultimately I don't think his numbers were Top-2 MVP worthy). It was used as an argument against Kawhi in 2016-17 ("but look at what Russ and Harden are doing with those rosters").

People are just hedging their bets and preemptively building their narratives of "oh, look at their record against trash teams when he sits, you can't give him MVP" to use in March/April when a guy like Giannis' efficiency rises back up to his career norms, or when a guy like Ja inserts himself into the conversation. "Yeah, but Memphis beat a fully healthy Miami team without him back in December, blah, blah". It's just the laziest of all lazy arguments that hardly qualifies as any sort of analysis.

Then we need to start looking at "What is your team doing WITH you", and you don't get credit for the wins that happen without you.

What's the win % of each MVP candidate, rather than what's the team win %, because the latter can be HEAVILY impacted by your roster construction when you sit. See Morant last year. Stop looking at seeding (for the MVP discussions), look at what the team did with the player when he played (with some criteria of a cap on missed games...you can't be missing a ton of games and be a serious MVP candidate).

Makes perfect sense. But that's not what's been happening in this thread the last several years, and we all know this. What was the argument against Curry last season again when he had the Warriors playing at a +10.1 on-court net-rating? Oh right, it was "they're still a positive net-rating (barely) when he sits". What was the main Harden contingent argument against Giannis in the 2019 or 2020 seasons when he had them playing at a +12.1 and +15.8 on-court net-rating? Oh right, it was, they're still a good team when he sits (+3 net-rating).

Yes, Giannis won both those years anyways, but the amount of contrarian narratives that continue to this day (large amount of people think that Harden deserved to win one or both years, cuz box score heliocentrism) just strengthens the point. FYI, Jokic is probably my MVP at this point anyways, but this dumb penalizing MVP credentials for your roster not cratering when you're off the floor needs to die already.

Curry was the clear frontrunner for the first half of last year, but he did himself no favors when he fell off hard in the second half of the season and also missed 18 games. The argument against his case wasn’t what you think it was. Jokic was just better on the whole.

[_NoMas]

It's not even an argument just for someone like Giannis. It was literally used as an argument against Curry last year (even though ultimately I don't think his numbers were Top-2 MVP worthy). It was used as an argument against Kawhi in 2016-17 ("but look at what Russ and Harden are doing with those rosters").

People are just hedging their bets and preemptively building their narratives of "oh, look at their record against trash teams when he sits, you can't give him MVP" to use in March/April when a guy like Giannis' efficiency rises back up to his career norms, or when a guy like Ja inserts himself into the conversation. "Yeah, but Memphis beat a fully healthy Miami team without him back in December, blah, blah". It's just the laziest of all lazy arguments that hardly qualifies as any sort of analysis.

Then we need to start looking at "What is your team doing WITH you", and you don't get credit for the wins that happen without you.

What's the win % of each MVP candidate, rather than what's the team win %, because the latter can be HEAVILY impacted by your roster construction when you sit. See Morant last year. Stop looking at seeding (for the MVP discussions), look at what the team did with the player when he played (with some criteria of a cap on missed games...you can't be missing a ton of games and be a serious MVP candidate).

THIS. Exactly what I was trying to say earlier - whilst we shouldn’t penalise players if there teams win without them, we shouldn’t be giving Giannis credit for the Bucks being 4-1 without him. Fact is the records of the 3 front runners is very similar right now:

Tatum: 21-8
Giannis: 18-7
Jokic: 17-9

[Peregrine01]

Jokic's ridiculous on/off is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it shows how good he is but on the other it shows how bad his team is.

I'm surprised they don't stagger his minutes to play some with the benchers. Bud does the opposite with Gianni, where he'll start, then sit relatively early in the quarter, and be the first starter back off the bench to play with the bench squad early in the second/fourth quarters. Jokic and the starters play well, then the bench gets demolished and then the starters have to come back on and work overtime to keep it competitive.

They've been staggering Jokic with Murray and Bones (their next two best creators) but it's been the same results.

[Peregrine01]

Jokic's ridiculous on/off is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it shows how good he is but on the other it shows how bad his team is.

I'm surprised they don't stagger his minutes to play some with the benchers. Bud does the opposite with Gianni, where he'll start, then sit relatively early in the quarter, and be the first starter back off the bench to play with the bench squad early in the second/fourth quarters. Jokic and the starters play well, then the bench gets demolished and then the starters have to come back on and work overtime to keep it competitive.

They've been staggering Jokic with Murray and Bones (their next two best creators) but it's been the same results.

For some added perspective on this:

[CharityStripe34]

I'm surprised they don't stagger his minutes to play some with the benchers. Bud does the opposite with Gianni, where he'll start, then sit relatively early in the quarter, and be the first starter back off the bench to play with the bench squad early in the second/fourth quarters. Jokic and the starters play well, then the bench gets demolished and then the starters have to come back on and work overtime to keep it competitive.

They've been staggering Jokic with Murray and Bones (their next two best creators) but it's been the same results.

For some added perspective on this:

The solution: have Ish Smith play 40 mpg.

[Jadoogar]

I'm surprised they don't stagger his minutes to play some with the benchers. Bud does the opposite with Gianni, where he'll start, then sit relatively early in the quarter, and be the first starter back off the bench to play with the bench squad early in the second/fourth quarters. Jokic and the starters play well, then the bench gets demolished and then the starters have to come back on and work overtime to keep it competitive.

They've been staggering Jokic with Murray and Bones (their next two best creators) but it's been the same results.

For some added perspective on this:

Geez Gordon and Bones have been a disaster without Jokic. Bones was supposed to be the guy to carry the second unit but he's a second year player, we're expecting to much from these guys. Definitely need Murray to get back to his normal standards.

[DCasey91]

Gordon is barely an above average player and he’s the one who has any semblance of continuity on the team with Jokic lol. Porter/Murray can’t get healthy

Bones is a second year player and he’s a kid.

Just take that into consideration before anyone argues for somebody else.

Tatum has Brown and a squad whose balling out of his mind. Bucks are really good with or without Giannis for years now.

Jokic can probably take a full list of G leaguers to the playoffs. And for me only him and Luka possesses that type of offensive load on the league right now due to their ATG playmaking abilities and score creation. Absurd production from each on a nightly basis because if they slip for one game their team is staring down the barrel.

Curry has always sat in a numerous amount of games in blowouts in the 3rd/4th quarter.

Still remember the Celtics game last year when Jokic was basically soloing but whenever he sat the Celtics was destroying them. It literally looked like the Nuggets didn’t know how to play basketball. It’s been that way for what 3 straight years?

He doesn’t miss games, offensive genius, carries harder and better than everyone else due to circumstance bar Luka what more do you want?

It terms of value there’s no one really close to that.

Every other MVP candidate can’t touch Jokic’s durability fwiw.

Still and always believe Turner is the perfect player with Jokic. I don’t want him to hedge ever again, sit his big lard in the paint and Turner is the hedge man. Conserves energy both way. The wing players that rotate to protect the rim aren’t shot blockers nor they are particularly physical/great at defensive pressure. Then Jokic’s rebounding value will take another climb because he’s always been great a rebounding.

[moderndarwin]

Joker most overrated player i’ve ever seen. I used to really be a big fan of his too but it’s gotten out of control.

[Exp0sed]

They've been staggering Jokic with Murray and Bones (their next two best creators) but it's been the same results.

For some added perspective on this:

Geez Gordon and Bones have been a disaster without Jokic. Bones was supposed to be the guy to carry the second unit but he's a second year player, we're expecting to much from these guys. Definitely need Murray to get back to his normal standards.

do you have these stats for other players? would be intrested to see how Embiid impacts his teammates

[Exp0sed]

If the Nuggets can hang on to this win, I think i'm finally ready to change my vote and put Jokic ahead for now

[Exp0sed]

Gordon is barely an above average player and he’s the one who has any semblance of continuity on the team with Jokic lol. Porter/Murray can’t get healthy

Bones is a second year player and he’s a kid.

Just take that into consideration before anyone argues for somebody else.

Tatum has Brown and a squad whose balling out of his mind. Bucks are really good with or without Giannis for years now.



It terms of value there’s no one really close to that.

Every other MVP candidate can’t touch Jokic’s durability fwiw.

Still and always believe Turner is the perfect player with Jokic. I don’t want him to hedge ever again, sit his big lard in the paint and Turner is the hedge man. Conserves energy both way. The wing players that rotate to protect the rim aren’t shot blockers nor they are particularly physical/great at defensive pressure. Then Jokic’s rebounding value will take another climb because he’s always been great a rebounding.

>

100%

I really like the Turner idea, watching Jokic rush out to contest (slowly and ineffectively) and relinquishing his rebounding position as aresult - is painful

Turner would be ideal (and gettable)

[Sgt Major]

That was an intentional pass off the backboard.

Sent from Asus Zenfone 9

[Young gun 6]

Jokic coming...

If Denver maintains No.1 seed in the West, don't see how you can't give it to Jokic again.

Carrying a bad team, leading the league in TS% and averaging 26/11/9 with the highest On/Off in the league.

[eyeatoma]

I'd love to see the hoops people jump through to justify how this pedestrian Jokic triple double is some all time MVP worthy performance.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk