NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2022-23 (pt 3)

[RRFB]

I mean yeah, if he wins a chip and decides to coast off of it for the rest of his career, then he shouldn't sniff another MVP. Where's the irony?

It does say a lot about a player when that is your expectation of him. Other greats didn't coast after winning - Lebron didn't, Giannis didn't, Kobe, Jordan, etc.

Again, if Jokic himself said he doesn't care about MVP, and his game shows it when he's constantly in third gear and doesn't mind putting up only 8 fga/game, then why is everyone else so gung-ho about shoving a 3rd MVP down his gullet? It's not like his numbers are blowing away the other 2 contenders for the award.

the irony lies in that in the 3 years he deserved it, his naysayers were claiming he doesn't deserve it because of lack of deep playoff success

If say, he'll get that playoff success this summer - their arguments will be invalidated but that's precisely when he'll stop playing like an MVP and turn to veteran coasting mode

that's the irony

Ok, that never really happened though. The past 2 years the award came down to Jokic vs Embiid, and neither guy has had playoff success, so how could that argument even be possible the last two years?

This is the first year this argument is being made, and it's made only because Jokic is going for a 3-peat. No player in NBA history has ever 3 peated as an MVP without a ring. This is no different from when Giannis had no real chance to get his 3rd MVP in a row because he kept getting bounced early. This is a standard that has always stood in place and Jokic would be a significant break from precedent if he were to win his 3rd.

There is no irony, it's straight up logical, precedent-based reasoning.

The problem is it’s an illogical precedent. One of the few (if not the only) clearly defined criteria of the MVP is that it’s a regular season award. I think pretty much everyone agrees on that. So why the insistence on applying postseason success where it doesn’t belong? Obviously that stuff matters immensely in other conversations, but not in the MVP debate.

You’re basically saying “Giannis and whoever else in the past was held to this stupid standard so we need to continue holding everyone to this stupid standard even though we all know it’s stupid and shouldn’t apply here.”

[Exp0sed]

Here are the players in NBA history who have had a 31 PER season:

Jordan..........4 seasons
Wilt.............3 seasons
LeBron..........3 seasons
Giannis..........2 seasons
Jokic.............2 seasons (working on 3rd)
Curry............1 season
Embiid..........1 season (working on 2nd?)


So if Jokic gets his third 31 PER season this year, the only player in NBA history who would have more such seasons would be MJ.

That's crazy.

you know i think Jokic is the clear cut MVP but that's the type of argument I don't adhere to and the type of argument that brings the trolls out of the woodwork lol

1.) PER is a seriously inherently flawed stat

2.) among other methodological blunders, the stat itself was invented after those Wilt and MJ seasons and you can say those were kind of reverse engineered. kind of dumb to drop a new stat that's supposed to encapuslate a player's contribution to winning while adjusting for pace, PT etc and having the Goats have a mediocre score, you know?

serious methodological issues

3.) notice how apart from the goats, all the seasons are by players of recent years
so obviously having 3 +31 PER seasons is much easier now that it has ever been, and while Jokic is still doing well even if we just compare him to his contemporary peers - it's still misleading to state that if he gets his 3rd he'll be the only one joining MJ in that feat. it's factually true, but in fact it's extretemly misleading to phrase it that way

4.) while not nesscesarily integral to the MVP race - PER is mostly an offensive stat that doesn't really capture defense, which is the main criticism of Jokic (rightfully or not)

and 5.) PER loves efficiency and the Joker is the king of efficiency. efficiency is important obviously and def contributes to winning games but there are other factors that get lost when you simplify things to that extent

for instance, the Joker could have played a bit differently, attack more and make some less optimal plays
that might result in more to's and a lower ts% but at the sime time have other indirect benefits for example - tiring the opponent, or getting the opponent into foul trouble \ getting to the bonus early etc

in this scenario, the Joker wouldn't have 31 PER - would he be a lesser player for it? will he win less? ofc not..

and other factors i won't list, it was just an example

the point is, if PER is your argument then it's a weak one
I get that ur only supporting the argument with it and it's not the basis of the argument, but when u phrase it like you did, it implies that if the Joker will get his 3rd 31+ per season and be in line with just MJ that he's...what, the 2nd best \ most impactful player ever?

he's the worthy 3 time MVP but he isn't in such rarified air and that implication (based on PER of all things) is exactly thw wrong type of argument imo (even if we totally agree about Jokic worthy of yet another MVP )

[Kurtz]

the irony lies in that in the 3 years he deserved it, his naysayers were claiming he doesn't deserve it because of lack of deep playoff success

If say, he'll get that playoff success this summer - their arguments will be invalidated but that's precisely when he'll stop playing like an MVP and turn to veteran coasting mode

that's the irony

Ok, that never really happened though. The past 2 years the award came down to Jokic vs Embiid, and neither guy has had playoff success, so how could that argument even be possible the last two years?

This is the first year this argument is being made, and it's made only because Jokic is going for a 3-peat. No player in NBA history has ever 3 peated as an MVP without a ring. This is no different from when Giannis had no real chance to get his 3rd MVP in a row because he kept getting bounced early. This is a standard that has always stood in place and Jokic would be a significant break from precedent if he were to win his 3rd.

There is no irony, it's straight up logical, precedent-based reasoning.

The problem is it’s an illogical precedent. One of the few (if not the only) clearly defined criteria of the MVP is that it’s a regular season award. I think pretty much everyone agrees on that. So why the insistence on applying postseason success where it doesn’t belong? Obviously that stuff matters immensely in other conversations, but not in the MVP debate.

You’re basically saying “Giannis and whoever else in the past was held to this stupid standard so we need to continue holding everyone to this stupid standard even though we all know it’s stupid and shouldn’t apply here.”

That's a fair point. The problem is, like you alluded to, that there is no universal criteria for the award.

If you look at it historically, it's almost always won by a guy on a top 2 team, so you could say "the best player on the best team should win it". That's a straight-forward, fairly objective approach, but it was broken by Westbrook a few years ago. You can then say that was an outlier due to him achieving a triple double - a feat many would have deemed impossible at one time, and I would agree...but then Jokic won it last year as a 6th seed on the basis of having great numbers and carrying a trash team to the playoffs. This however isn't new - there's been a plethora of superstars who have carried mediocre teams, including Lebron who once carried a trash Cleveland team all the way to the finals.

In the absence of objective criteria, we're left with subjective debates. 3 candidates:

1. 24/12/10 on 63% shooting, questionable defense.
2. 31/12/6 on 54% shooting, elite defense
3. 33/10/4 on 54% shooting, strong defense

That seems ridiculously close to me, but if I had to give an edge, I would probably have to go with the guy in the middle with the elite defense. We can use team record as a tiebreaker, and while they're all close, the guy in the middle has the best record as well. The guy at the top has the better advanced stats - but do voters even look at those?

And yet the betting sites have #1 pulling away with it.

I don't know...it's close. Closer than some want to admit I think. That's why I think the remaining head to heads are going to matter.

[Exp0sed]

/quote]

That's a fair point. The problem is, like you alluded to, that there is no universal criteria for the award.

If you look at it historically, it's almost always won by a guy on a top 2 team, so you could say "the best player on the best team should win it". That's a straight-forward, fairly objective approach, but it was broken by Westbrook a few years ago. You can then say that was an outlier due to him achieving a triple double - a feat many would have deemed impossible at one time, and I would agree...but then Jokic won it last year as a 6th seed on the basis of having great numbers and carrying a trash team to the playoffs. This however isn't new - there's been a plethora of superstars who have carried mediocre teams, including Lebron who once carried a trash Cleveland team all the way to the finals.

In the absence of objective criteria, we're left with subjective debates. 3 candidates:

1. 24/12/10 on 63% shooting, questionable defense.
2. 31/12/6 on 54% shooting, elite defense
3. 33/10/4 on 54% shooting, strong defense

That seems ridiculously close to me, but if I had to give an edge, I would probably have to go with the guy in the middle with the elite defense. We can use team record as a tiebreaker, and while they're all close, the guy in the middle has the best record as well. The guy at the top has the better advanced stats - but do voters even look at those?

And yet the betting sites have #1 pulling away with it.

I don't know...it's close. Closer than some want to admit I think. That's why I think the remaining head to heads are going to matter.

well, best team best player is usually the norm (the fact there were outliers doesn't mean it's not the norm)

however, there is very little precedent to missing so many games and winning it
that's what ur 1-3 comparison misses out on

and that's been the case with these three candidates the last couple of seasons as well
Embiid was in the lead last season before he missed too many games
if he hadn't, Jokic wouldn't have won it with the 6th seed and the same goes for Giannis

it's no different this season

Iverson played 71, only real outlier was Walton back in 77-78'

even if we assume 1-2-3 are close statistically (i'm not sure that's true but even if it were) - Giannis and Embiid have missed too many games

you can't argue that Giannis has a better record and give him credit for games he didn't participate in

Jokic has won 4 more games this season than Giannis and 10 (!) more than Embiid
won, not played in

in fact the were two games where Giannis played just 6 and 9 mins and the Bucks won, he is credited with those wins as well but in reality it's more like 6 wins over Giannis and 10 over Embiid, that's quite a bit wouldn't u agree?

edit- i'll add to that one more thing:

you write Jokic as having questionable defense
first of all, statistically that isn't true. secondly, while his limitations are well known it's clear he has a defensive impact even if it is in indirect ways that stem from his offense (like generating a ton of made baskets that lead to less efficient half court sets of the opponents)

thirdly, MVP was always more offense oriented anyway
why not write (questionable) next to the Giannis and Embiid's offense?

they lead the league in usage basically, having a few more ppg while taking considerably more shots on considerably less efficiency isn't all that

The Bucks have about the 15th best offense
when is the last time an MVP was on a team who had offense in the lower half of the league?
Giannis is leading the league in usage while shooting just slightly above league average in terms of ts%
is that not questionable offense?

The 76ers are 4th offensively despite having an ATG offensive player alongside Embiid
meaning - the Jokic led Nuggets have a better offense than Embiid and Harden combined, so why is the "questionable" only in regards to Jokic offense?

facts are the Nuggets have a better offense and a better net rating than both the 76ers and the Bucks
and after tonight they will also be tied for 1st record wise with the Bucks

[antonac]

3.) notice how apart from the goats, all the seasons are by players of recent years
so obviously having 3 +31 PER seasons is much easier now that it has ever been, and while Jokic is still doing well even if we just compare him to his contemporary peers - it's still misleading to state that if he gets his 3rd he'll be the only one joining MJ in that feat. it's factually true, but in fact it's extretemly misleading to phrase it that way

This is kinda exactly the point why PER is useless when considered historically. The whole point of an advanced stat is quantify a players effectiveness into a numerical figure. The problem is that quantification us made entirely on our current understanding of what's most important. If that changes then players will be encouraged by coaches to play a different way and the information gathered to produce a new advanced stat would measure how well players met those criteria.

It's sort of like saying all the most fashionably dressed people in history are alive right now because their dress style conforms with this seasons fashion trends.

[Exp0sed]

3.) notice how apart from the goats, all the seasons are by players of recent years
so obviously having 3 +31 PER seasons is much easier now that it has ever been, and while Jokic is still doing well even if we just compare him to his contemporary peers - it's still misleading to state that if he gets his 3rd he'll be the only one joining MJ in that feat. it's factually true, but in fact it's extretemly misleading to phrase it that way

This is kinda exactly the point why PER is useless when considered historically. The whole point of an advanced stat is quantity a players effectiveness into a numerical figure. The problem is that quantification us made entirely on our current understanding of what's most important. If that changes then players will be encouraged by coaches to play a different way and the information required to gather the stat will change to reflect that.

It's sort of like saying all the most fashionably dressed people in history are alive right now because their dress style conforms with this seasons fashion trends.

that's exactly what Hollinger did

[antonac]

3.) notice how apart from the goats, all the seasons are by players of recent years
so obviously having 3 +31 PER seasons is much easier now that it has ever been, and while Jokic is still doing well even if we just compare him to his contemporary peers - it's still misleading to state that if he gets his 3rd he'll be the only one joining MJ in that feat. it's factually true, but in fact it's extretemly misleading to phrase it that way

This is kinda exactly the point why PER is useless when considered historically. The whole point of an advanced stat is quantity a players effectiveness into a numerical figure. The problem is that quantification us made entirely on our current understanding of what's most important. If that changes then players will be encouraged by coaches to play a different way and the information required to gather the stat will change to reflect that.

It's sort of like saying all the most fashionably dressed people in history are alive right now because their dress style conforms with this seasons fashion trends.

that's exactly what Hollinger did

Yeah exactly, the wording of the first paragraph I wrote there was a mess but you've caught it.

Tbh the fashion analogy was the only bit that made sense

[chudak]

its funny how people, instead of arguing with reasons why Giannis/Embiid/anyone SHOULD win MVP, are arguing why Jokic shouldnt...

and all because Barkley got an MVP over Jordan in 1993

people also seem to be forgeting that LeBron would have 5 in a row if it was not for Derrick Rose in 2010, but the reason why Rose won that year was that he carried the Bulls (which were also dealing with some injuries to Noah and Boozer) to 62 wins over LeBron who had 58 wins after leaving Clevelend for Miami

so LeBron, after winning two MVPs left Clevelend to join Wade and Bosh in Miami and lost out on the vote

Voters did not ignore LeBron because he was black and they wanted him to miss out on a three peat, they were reluctant because after winning 2 MVPs he formed a superteam and his stats suffered from playing with two other superstars, while at the same time they failed to take the no one seed in the east

after that he won 2 more MVPs with Miami, and his first MIami MVP also came in the season when he won his first ring, so prior to him winning it all

[chudak]

3.) notice how apart from the goats, all the seasons are by players of recent years
so obviously having 3 +31 PER seasons is much easier now that it has ever been, and while Jokic is still doing well even if we just compare him to his contemporary peers - it's still misleading to state that if he gets his 3rd he'll be the only one joining MJ in that feat. it's factually true, but in fact it's extretemly misleading to phrase it that way

This is kinda exactly the point why PER is useless when considered historically. The whole point of an advanced stat is quantify a players effectiveness into a numerical figure. The problem is that quantification us made entirely on our current understanding of what's most important. If that changes then players will be encouraged by coaches to play a different way and the information gathered to produce a new advanced stat would measure how well players met those criteria.

It's sort of like saying all the most fashionably dressed people in history are alive right now because their dress style conforms with this seasons fashion trends.

I agree in general but it was always important to score more points and concede fewer points

This does not mean that MJ and Jokic are the 2 GOAT players, it just means that players today know how to play more effectively and that is not a knock on older generations, its just that we know more now + have better shooters in the league (on average)

PER is still a flawed stat though and of course trends in the league do matter and everything should be seen in context

[HotRocks34]

This is the "individual wins" data for each of the top 4 guys (sorry Luka) before Tuesday 3/7 games:


Jokic.............43-14.................754 winning percentage
Tatum............43-18.................705 winning percentage
Giannis..........39-13.................750 winning percentage
Embiid...........33-18.................647 winning percentage


Embiid way behind here.

Giannis right on Jokic's heels in win percentage, but 4 wins down.

[eyeatoma]

Most talented and skilled SCORING center ever. There I said it...

Completed eviscerated a 3 time DPOY. Yesterday, he destroyed Myles Turner, another excellent defender.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

But, grrrr, he flops.


MVP

[eyeatoma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

So true!

[Wolfgang630]

Amazing they don’t bring up Magic Johnson

[PennSports]

lol

"a few more points on vastly superior efficency"

its 10 more points on 65% TS. That is not a small difference. If you give credit to Joker for his passing you need to give credit for Embiids volume scoring. Dont put him in the category of giannis who is bordering on below league average efficiency, the gap between him and embiid is the game as it is between Embiid and Jokic except they are on similar volume. Jokic takes way less shots and it is categorically proven that efficiency decreases with volume.

Leading scorer on 65% TS is basically unheard both at his position and in general. Youll jerk each other over a center passing but just roll your eyes at Embiid leading the league in scoring twice in a row on great efficiency and volume (something shaq never even did)

[eyeatoma]

lol

"a few more points on vastly superior efficency"

its 10 more points on 65% TS. That is not a small difference. If you give credit to Joker for his passing you need to give credit for Embiids volume scoring. Dont put him in the category of giannis who is bordering on below league average efficiency, the gap between him and embiid is the game as it is between Embiid and Jokic except they are on similar volume. Jokic takes way less shots and it is categorically proven that efficiency decreases with volume.

Leading scorer on 65% TS is basically unheard of. Youll jerk each other over a center passing but just roll your eyes at Embiid leading the league in scoring twice in a row on great efficiency and volume (something shaq never even did)

Yup, this!

[Wolfgang630]

As much as I think Giannis is above Embiid you see these Embiid performances and you see how great the Bucks are without Giannis. Embiid truly wants the MVP.

[Kurtz]

p.s - Denver doesn't do drop coverage anymore

I missed this gem. Uhmm...yes, that's all they do. Jokic doesn't play up on screens ever. That's why Phoenix will eviscerate them.

[eyeatoma]

Read on Twitter

[Profound23]

As much as I think Giannis is above Embiid you see these Embiid performances and you see how great the Bucks are without Giannis. Embiid truly wants the MVP.

As a Bucks fan I have no issue with Embiid as MVP!

[Infinite Llamas]

Read on Twitter

I’m sure Embiid will appreciate his all NBA second team.