2024-25 NBA MVP Discussion Thread (Pt. 3: Son of daughter of MVP thread)

[slick_watts]

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

to this point, shai units without any of chet holmgren, jalen williams, or isaiah hartenstein are outscoring opponents by 27 points per 100 possessions. these lineups are about 30% of shai's total minutes. shai himself is scoring 41.5 points per 75 possessions on 68% ts in those minutes.

so yeah. agreed.

[RRR3]

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

to this point, shai units without any of chet holmgren, jalen williams, or isaiah hartenstein are outscoring opponents by 27 points per 100 possessions. these lineups are about 30% of shai's total minutes. shai himself is scoring 41.5 points per 75 possessions on 68% ts in those minutes.

so yeah. agreed.

I mean I had a Jokic fan tell me that Cason Wallace was an example of how elite SGA's help was earlier in this thread lol, so idk if this'll convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced.

[AleksandarN]

So, reasonable perspective, but it also offers an entry point into the essence of the dilemma:

Jokic is having the best offensive season of all time.
Shai is also having an all-time great level offensive season, and doing so while also being a significant part of the best defense in the league.

The latter isn't necessarily more valuable than the former, but might it be? Yes, it's clearly possible.

Is it actually? Well, that's the question without consensus.

These are some of the dynamics, but also how much is it a question of "who has been the best player this season" v "relevance to team success". How do you weigh those factors?

Both Denver and OKC have lost key players to injury, but Jokic is the guy who isn't playing with a single other all-star. OKC is probably going to finish with ~10 more wins than Denver, but Cleveland has a similar record and no one is talking about any Cavs player for MVP (and rightly so). So to me, this pushes the convo towards giving more weighting to "who has been the best player this year"

And there, it's almost impossible to make a case for SGA over Jokic. Jokic is dominating across almost every statistical category AND is likely to end the season as only the 3rd player in history to average a triple-double for a season (and the 1st non-guard to do it). Jokic already has 4 of the 5 highest apg seasons for a center in NBA history and this year he is going to blow past that 9.8 mark.

I don't want to diminish SGA's season. He's been incredible. But I really get the feeling that there is a hunt for reasons to not give the MVP to Jokic.

Re: best player vs relevance to team success. From my perspective, MVP is about value to team, which seems like a synonym to "relevance to team success" but we might be thinking about it differently.

Re: ~10 more wins than Denver, Cleveland similar and no one's talking about Cavs.

I'll point to the raw +/- again. Leaders for the year:

1. Shai +769
2. Mobley +522
3. Jokic +520

Let's start by just noting that it's a hell of a lot more impressive for Jokic to be where he is than Mobley where he is. Given the Cavs' success, you'd think they'd have at least one player significantly ahead of Jokic, but they don't, which tells us that the difference in the Cavs & Nuggets success has everything to do with what the Cavs can do without Mobley compared to what the Nuggets can do without Jokic.

Then we look up at Shai's number, and his lead is not just big but completely unprecedented in the +/- era. It's not just that Shai has that lead over rivals from other teams, but the fact that none of Shai's teammates are up there with him. Just for comparison:

Top teammates of the 3 above by this metric, and how much of a gap there is between the 3 and their teammates:

Dort +427, 342 points below Shai.
Mitchell +500, 22 points below Mobley
Braun +396, 124 points below Jokic

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

I think two factors play into this. Games played and team depth. Jokic’s team when he is not on the court is almost always a negative so that eats away at his overal plus. Shai has the luxury how leaving the game and his still ends up as a plus.

[Exp0sed]

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

to this point, shai units without any of chet holmgren, jalen williams, or isaiah hartenstein are outscoring opponents by 27 points per 100 possessions. these lineups are about 30% of shai's total minutes. shai himself is scoring 41.5 points per 75 possessions on 68% ts in those minutes.

so yeah. agreed.

I mean I had a Jokic fan tell me that Cason Wallace was an example of how elite SGA's help was earlier in this thread lol, so idk if this'll convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced.

have u considered the alternative explanation? that is - maybe these guys are better than you (or anyone) is giving them credit for?

[RRR3]

to this point, shai units without any of chet holmgren, jalen williams, or isaiah hartenstein are outscoring opponents by 27 points per 100 possessions. these lineups are about 30% of shai's total minutes. shai himself is scoring 41.5 points per 75 possessions on 68% ts in those minutes.

so yeah. agreed.

I mean I had a Jokic fan tell me that Cason Wallace was an example of how elite SGA's help was earlier in this thread lol, so idk if this'll convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced.

have u considered the alternative explanation? that is - maybe these guys are better than you (or anyone) is giving them credit for?

Yes, Cason Wallace is a superstar with his 7.8 PPG on 54.0 TS%

No one said OKC isn't a really good roster, but if you think SGA's help is historically notable lol

[falcolombardi]

These are some of the dynamics, but also how much is it a question of "who has been the best player this season" v "relevance to team success". How do you weigh those factors?

Both Denver and OKC have lost key players to injury, but Jokic is the guy who isn't playing with a single other all-star. OKC is probably going to finish with ~10 more wins than Denver, but Cleveland has a similar record and no one is talking about any Cavs player for MVP (and rightly so). So to me, this pushes the convo towards giving more weighting to "who has been the best player this year"

And there, it's almost impossible to make a case for SGA over Jokic. Jokic is dominating across almost every statistical category AND is likely to end the season as only the 3rd player in history to average a triple-double for a season (and the 1st non-guard to do it). Jokic already has 4 of the 5 highest apg seasons for a center in NBA history and this year he is going to blow past that 9.8 mark.

I don't want to diminish SGA's season. He's been incredible. But I really get the feeling that there is a hunt for reasons to not give the MVP to Jokic.

Re: best player vs relevance to team success. From my perspective, MVP is about value to team, which seems like a synonym to "relevance to team success" but we might be thinking about it differently.

Re: ~10 more wins than Denver, Cleveland similar and no one's talking about Cavs.

I'll point to the raw +/- again. Leaders for the year:

1. Shai +769
2. Mobley +522
3. Jokic +520

Let's start by just noting that it's a hell of a lot more impressive for Jokic to be where he is than Mobley where he is. Given the Cavs' success, you'd think they'd have at least one player significantly ahead of Jokic, but they don't, which tells us that the difference in the Cavs & Nuggets success has everything to do with what the Cavs can do without Mobley compared to what the Nuggets can do without Jokic.

Then we look up at Shai's number, and his lead is not just big but completely unprecedented in the +/- era. It's not just that Shai has that lead over rivals from other teams, but the fact that none of Shai's teammates are up there with him. Just for comparison:

Top teammates of the 3 above by this metric, and how much of a gap there is between the 3 and their teammates:

Dort +427, 342 points below Shai.
Mitchell +500, 22 points below Mobley
Braun +396, 124 points below Jokic

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

I think two factors play into this. Games played and team depth. Jokic’s team when he is not on the court is almost always a negative so that eats away at his overal plus. Shai has the luxury how leaving the game and his still ends up as a plus.

I think you are confused with this stat here

This only accounts for what happens to a team when a player is on the court, what happens with jokic on the bench is not factored

[AleksandarN]

Re: best player vs relevance to team success. From my perspective, MVP is about value to team, which seems like a synonym to "relevance to team success" but we might be thinking about it differently.

Re: ~10 more wins than Denver, Cleveland similar and no one's talking about Cavs.

I'll point to the raw +/- again. Leaders for the year:

1. Shai +769
2. Mobley +522
3. Jokic +520

Let's start by just noting that it's a hell of a lot more impressive for Jokic to be where he is than Mobley where he is. Given the Cavs' success, you'd think they'd have at least one player significantly ahead of Jokic, but they don't, which tells us that the difference in the Cavs & Nuggets success has everything to do with what the Cavs can do without Mobley compared to what the Nuggets can do without Jokic.

Then we look up at Shai's number, and his lead is not just big but completely unprecedented in the +/- era. It's not just that Shai has that lead over rivals from other teams, but the fact that none of Shai's teammates are up there with him. Just for comparison:

Top teammates of the 3 above by this metric, and how much of a gap there is between the 3 and their teammates:

Dort +427, 342 points below Shai.
Mitchell +500, 22 points below Mobley
Braun +396, 124 points below Jokic

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

I think two factors play into this. Games played and team depth. Jokic’s team when he is not on the court is almost always a negative so that eats away at his overal plus. Shai has the luxury how leaving the game and his still ends up as a plus.

I think you are confused with this stat here

This only accounts for what happens to a team when a player is on the court, what happens with jokic on the bench is not factored

Ok my bad. I retract my statement.

[Special_Puppy]

When was the last time the top 2 candidates were this strong?

[Jaqua92]

It’s just one stat, but it’s a stat that LOVES Jokic.

WS/48. Right now this season SGA is having the 7th best all time season, Jokic the 9th best (close enough where they have swapped multiple times this season).

This isn’t to say one is better or degrade one. But more in response to the people that will say Jokic is having a GOAT or all time season and pretend that SGA isn’t also. Even if Jokic is better, BOTH are top 10 all time seasons.

Here is how that stat is ranking all time seasons.

1. Kareem 72
2. Kareem 71
3. Wilt 64
4. Kareem 73
5. LeBron 13
6. Jordan 91
7. SGA 25
8. LeBron 09
9. Jokic 25
10. Curry 16
11. Jordan 96
12. Jokic 23

I think I could see the top 12 for sure. I’m surprised Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Hakeem or Bird didn’t make it once but these seasons are tough to top no doubt. Plus the gap between say 10 and 20th isn’t massive at this very top tier.

PS.. as a whole Jokic dominates the list outside of Kareem at the top with 5 of the top 20 all time seasons in WS/48.

Jokic is ahead of SGA in ws/48. And was ahead of him for most the season, until he had that 3 game skid vs LA. Now he's back ahead of him. Lol

[Himothy Duncan]

Why should Jokic win over SGA when Doncic didn’t win last year for having a worse record?

[Jaqua92]

So, reasonable perspective, but it also offers an entry point into the essence of the dilemma:

Jokic is having the best offensive season of all time.
Shai is also having an all-time great level offensive season, and doing so while also being a significant part of the best defense in the league.

The latter isn't necessarily more valuable than the former, but might it be? Yes, it's clearly possible.

Is it actually? Well, that's the question without consensus.

These are some of the dynamics, but also how much is it a question of "who has been the best player this season" v "relevance to team success". How do you weigh those factors?

Both Denver and OKC have lost key players to injury, but Jokic is the guy who isn't playing with a single other all-star. OKC is probably going to finish with ~10 more wins than Denver, but Cleveland has a similar record and no one is talking about any Cavs player for MVP (and rightly so). So to me, this pushes the convo towards giving more weighting to "who has been the best player this year"

And there, it's almost impossible to make a case for SGA over Jokic. Jokic is dominating across almost every statistical category AND is likely to end the season as only the 3rd player in history to average a triple-double for a season (and the 1st non-guard to do it). Jokic already has 4 of the 5 highest apg seasons for a center in NBA history and this year he is going to blow past that 9.8 mark.

I don't want to diminish SGA's season. He's been incredible. But I really get the feeling that there is a hunt for reasons to not give the MVP to Jokic.

Re: best player vs relevance to team success. From my perspective, MVP is about value to team, which seems like a synonym to "relevance to team success" but we might be thinking about it differently.

Re: ~10 more wins than Denver, Cleveland similar and no one's talking about Cavs.

I'll point to the raw +/- again. Leaders for the year:

1. Shai +769
2. Mobley +522
3. Jokic +520

Let's start by just noting that it's a hell of a lot more impressive for Jokic to be where he is than Mobley where he is. Given the Cavs' success, you'd think they'd have at least one player significantly ahead of Jokic, but they don't, which tells us that the difference in the Cavs & Nuggets success has everything to do with what the Cavs can do without Mobley compared to what the Nuggets can do without Jokic.

Then we look up at Shai's number, and his lead is not just big but completely unprecedented in the +/- era. It's not just that Shai has that lead over rivals from other teams, but the fact that none of Shai's teammates are up there with him. Just for comparison:

Top teammates of the 3 above by this metric, and how much of a gap there is between the 3 and their teammates:

Dort +427, 342 points below Shai.
Mitchell +500, 22 points below Mobley
Braun +396, 124 points below Jokic

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

Hold on, hold on.

Historically the narrative is that plus minutes is absolutely a team/lineup kind of stat. Jayson Tatum for example, has always had good +/- on/on off numbers. And was discredited.

Last year the team was + with him off the court and he was dismissed for it, and we have also heard around his his +/- numbers were due to the talent around him. We also heard Jokic's +/- is impacted by the team around him - he plays with starters.

Now, SGA is being praised for the same thing?

Context.

On/off win probability and differential is a bigger indicator.

You know how leads the nba in ON?

1. SGA: 16.89
2. Evan Mobly: 13.78
3. Donovan Mitchell: 13.34
4. Jokic: 12.01
5. Jarrett Allen 11.77
6. Darius Garland 10.71
7. Jayson Tatum: 10.40

What do those all have on common? Playing on well constructed teams with the best net ratings/SRS, team Net... except Jokic.

Now let's add the "off" numbers


1. SGA: 16.89, 2.61
2. Evan Mobly: 13.78, 4.72
3. Donovan Mitchell: 13.34, 4.75
4. Jokic: 12.01, -3.69
5. Jarrett Allen 11.77, 8.22
6. Darius Garland 10.71, 7.29
7. Jayson Tatum: 10.40, 0.77

Jokic is the only one of these guys who's team is a flat out negative with him off the court. Now, unless we assume Mobly and Mitchell are better positive impact players, its reasonable to assume that, like Cleveland's guys, Jokic's on stats would be elevated too, as would his net rating.

But even atill, let's look at pure on off differential for these same guys

1. Jokic: 15.79
2. SGA: 14.29
9. Jayson Tatum: 9.63
12. Evan Mobly: 9.06
15. Mitchell: 8.69



The other two don't even make the top 50, which is understandable, theyre not elite impact players.

SGA's net rating/on numbers are impacted by the team around him, just like the Cleveland guys are, just like Jokic, just like Tatum. But when you factor the on off differential, what Jokic does is still more impressive.

[Jaqua92]

So, reasonable perspective, but it also offers an entry point into the essence of the dilemma:

Jokic is having the best offensive season of all time.
Shai is also having an all-time great level offensive season, and doing so while also being a significant part of the best defense in the league.

The latter isn't necessarily more valuable than the former, but might it be? Yes, it's clearly possible.

Is it actually? Well, that's the question without consensus.

These are some of the dynamics, but also how much is it a question of "who has been the best player this season" v "relevance to team success". How do you weigh those factors?

Both Denver and OKC have lost key players to injury, but Jokic is the guy who isn't playing with a single other all-star. OKC is probably going to finish with ~10 more wins than Denver, but Cleveland has a similar record and no one is talking about any Cavs player for MVP (and rightly so). So to me, this pushes the convo towards giving more weighting to "who has been the best player this year"

And there, it's almost impossible to make a case for SGA over Jokic. Jokic is dominating across almost every statistical category AND is likely to end the season as only the 3rd player in history to average a triple-double for a season (and the 1st non-guard to do it). Jokic already has 4 of the 5 highest apg seasons for a center in NBA history and this year he is going to blow past that 9.8 mark.

I don't want to diminish SGA's season. He's been incredible. But I really get the feeling that there is a hunt for reasons to not give the MVP to Jokic.

Re: best player vs relevance to team success. From my perspective, MVP is about value to team, which seems like a synonym to "relevance to team success" but we might be thinking about it differently.

Re: ~10 more wins than Denver, Cleveland similar and no one's talking about Cavs.

I'll point to the raw +/- again. Leaders for the year:

1. Shai +769
2. Mobley +522
3. Jokic +520

Let's start by just noting that it's a hell of a lot more impressive for Jokic to be where he is than Mobley where he is. Given the Cavs' success, you'd think they'd have at least one player significantly ahead of Jokic, but they don't, which tells us that the difference in the Cavs & Nuggets success has everything to do with what the Cavs can do without Mobley compared to what the Nuggets can do without Jokic.

Then we look up at Shai's number, and his lead is not just big but completely unprecedented in the +/- era. It's not just that Shai has that lead over rivals from other teams, but the fact that none of Shai's teammates are up there with him. Just for comparison:

Top teammates of the 3 above by this metric, and how much of a gap there is between the 3 and their teammates:

Dort +427, 342 points below Shai.
Mitchell +500, 22 points below Mobley
Braun +396, 124 points below Jokic

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

Hold on, hold on.

Historically the narrative is that plus minutes is absolutely a team/lineup kind of stat. Jayson Tatum for example, has always had good +/- on/on off numbers. And was discredited.

Last year the team was + with him off the court and he was dismissed for it, and we have also heard around his his +/- numbers were due to the talent around him. We also heard Jokic's +/- is impacted by the team around him - he plays with starters.

Now, SGA is being praised for the same thing?

Context.

On/off win probability and differential is a bigger indicator.

You know how leads the nba in ON?

1. SGA: 16.89
2. Evan Mobly: 13.78
3. Donovan Mitchell: 13.34
4. Jokic: 12.01
5. Jarrett Allen 11.77
6. Darius Garland 10.71
7. Jayson Tatum: 10.40

What do those all have on common? Playing on well constructed teams with the best net ratings/SRS, team Net... except Jokic.

Now let's add the "off" numbers


1. SGA: 16.89, 2.61
2. Evan Mobly: 13.78, 4.72
3. Donovan Mitchell: 13.34, 4.75
4. Jokic: 12.01, -3.69
5. Jarrett Allen 11.77, 8.22
6. Darius Garland 10.71, 7.29
7. Jayson Tatum: 10.40, 0.77

Jokic is the only one of these guys who's team is a flat out negative with him off the court. Now, unless we assume Mobly and Mitchell are better positive impact players, its reasonable to assume that, like Cleveland's guys, Jokic's on stats would be elevated too, as would his net rating.

But even atill, let's look at pure on off differential for these same guys

1. Jokic: 15.79
2. SGA: 14.29
9. Jayson Tatum: 9.63
12. Evan Mobly: 9.06
15. Mitchell: 8.69



The other two don't even make the top 50, which is understandable, theyre not elite impact players.

SGA doesn't have other players up there with him, but the team is still solidly positive with him OFF the court- and that adds weight to rating/on numbers. Just like the Cleveland guys are, just like Jokic, just like Tatum. But when you factor the on off differential, what Jokic does is still more impressive and is still ahead of him. If Jokic had a team that was, say, +1.0 with him off, most likely when playing WITH those guys, his on numbers would increase, just as it would in net rating.

Differential is just a better way to measure this. It captures the top guys in the way you say net does, but also accounts for context Net rating just doesn't.

[QPR]

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

to this point, shai units without any of chet holmgren, jalen williams, or isaiah hartenstein are outscoring opponents by 27 points per 100 possessions. these lineups are about 30% of shai's total minutes. shai himself is scoring 41.5 points per 75 possessions on 68% ts in those minutes.

so yeah. agreed.

I think this probably speaks more to how deep OKC's roster is, as SGA often stays in longer than the other OKC starters (eg - he generally plays the entire first quarter) so a lot of those minutes are probably against an opponent's bench unit, and with players like Wiggins, Joe, Caruso etc on the floor with him.

Still an impressive stat of course.

[Doctor MJ]

These are some of the dynamics, but also how much is it a question of "who has been the best player this season" v "relevance to team success". How do you weigh those factors?

Both Denver and OKC have lost key players to injury, but Jokic is the guy who isn't playing with a single other all-star. OKC is probably going to finish with ~10 more wins than Denver, but Cleveland has a similar record and no one is talking about any Cavs player for MVP (and rightly so). So to me, this pushes the convo towards giving more weighting to "who has been the best player this year"

And there, it's almost impossible to make a case for SGA over Jokic. Jokic is dominating across almost every statistical category AND is likely to end the season as only the 3rd player in history to average a triple-double for a season (and the 1st non-guard to do it). Jokic already has 4 of the 5 highest apg seasons for a center in NBA history and this year he is going to blow past that 9.8 mark.

I don't want to diminish SGA's season. He's been incredible. But I really get the feeling that there is a hunt for reasons to not give the MVP to Jokic.

Re: best player vs relevance to team success. From my perspective, MVP is about value to team, which seems like a synonym to "relevance to team success" but we might be thinking about it differently.

Re: ~10 more wins than Denver, Cleveland similar and no one's talking about Cavs.

I'll point to the raw +/- again. Leaders for the year:

1. Shai +769
2. Mobley +522
3. Jokic +520

Let's start by just noting that it's a hell of a lot more impressive for Jokic to be where he is than Mobley where he is. Given the Cavs' success, you'd think they'd have at least one player significantly ahead of Jokic, but they don't, which tells us that the difference in the Cavs & Nuggets success has everything to do with what the Cavs can do without Mobley compared to what the Nuggets can do without Jokic.

Then we look up at Shai's number, and his lead is not just big but completely unprecedented in the +/- era. It's not just that Shai has that lead over rivals from other teams, but the fact that none of Shai's teammates are up there with him. Just for comparison:

Top teammates of the 3 above by this metric, and how much of a gap there is between the 3 and their teammates:

Dort +427, 342 points below Shai.
Mitchell +500, 22 points below Mobley
Braun +396, 124 points below Jokic

Not saying this alone clinches the argument, but any notion that Shai's just benefitting from great teammates doesn't hold up.

Hold on, hold on.

Historically the narrative is that plus minutes is absolutely a team/lineup kind of stat. Jayson Tatum for example, has always had good +/- on/on off numbers. And was discredited.

Last year the team was + with him off the court and he was dismissed for it, and we have also heard around his his +/- numbers were due to the talent around him. We also heard Jokic's +/- is impacted by the team around him - he plays with starters.

Now, SGA is being praised for the same thing?

Context.

On/off win probability and differential is a bigger indicator.

You know how leads the nba in ON?

1. SGA: 16.89
2. Evan Mobly: 13.78
3. Donovan Mitchell: 13.34
4. Jokic: 12.01
5. Jarrett Allen 11.77
6. Darius Garland 10.71
7. Jayson Tatum: 10.40

What do those all have on common? Playing on well constructed teams with the best net ratings/SRS, team Net... except Jokic.

Now let's add the "off" numbers


1. SGA: 16.89, 2.61
2. Evan Mobly: 13.78, 4.72
3. Donovan Mitchell: 13.34, 4.75
4. Jokic: 12.01, -3.69
5. Jarrett Allen 11.77, 8.22
6. Darius Garland 10.71, 7.29
7. Jayson Tatum: 10.40, 0.77

Jokic is the only one of these guys who's team is a flat out negative with him off the court. Now, unless we assume Mobly and Mitchell are better positive impact players, its reasonable to assume that, like Cleveland's guys, Jokic's on stats would be elevated too, as would his net rating.

But even atill, let's look at pure on off differential for these same guys

1. Jokic: 15.79
2. SGA: 14.29
9. Jayson Tatum: 9.63
12. Evan Mobly: 9.06
15. Mitchell: 8.69



The other two don't even make the top 50, which is understandable, theyre not elite impact players.

SGA's net rating/on numbers are impacted by the team around him, just like the Cleveland guys are, just like Jokic, just like Tatum. But when you factor the on off differential, what Jokic does is still more impressive.

You’re equating me with other people and thus assuming I’m inconsistent, but my methods have generally been consistent. I’m typically higher on Tatum’s MVP candidacies than most ftr, but I don’t see his candidacy in any year as being in the same league as Shaun right now, and this is not unrelated to why he’s never quite been my MVP pick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[iggymcfrack]

I vividly remember Jokic stans insisting one game didn't mean anything and now it does

No consistency.

If one game means nothing, then all the games mean nothing. That doesn’t even make sense.

[falcolombardi]

Apparently after years of talk about ceiling raising and how much harder it is to elevate better teams
Now all that matters is having a slightly larger on/off?

If we are being consistent with that reasoning mikal bridges had the highest on/off swing in 2022 (way ahead of other suns stars) and embiid was the best in 2021

[SA37]

Apparently after years of talk about ceiling raising and how much harder it is to elevate better teams
Now all that matters is having a slightly larger on/off?

If we are being consistent with that reasoning mikal bridges had the highest on/off swing in 2022 (way ahead of other suns stars) and embiid was the best in 2021

Both SGA and Jokic would be deserving MVPs. With so many metrics available, people can come up with all manner of arguments.

As I've said in this thread before, I don't think most people could name OKC's starting 5. That said, OKC has a deep team of pieces that fit REALLY well together. Denver has names people know, but their depth is non-existent.

For me, the distance/difference in their respective value to their team is microscopic. You have to look at their individual numbers, and Jokic has, imo, and indisputable case here because his individual dominance is just so overwhelming regardless of how you turn the kaleidoscope of metrics and stats.

[DrModesty]

Jokic's On/Off has been artificially high for years because of the absolute dross they have backing him up at the center position. When he is off the court they are bringing on centers that are just scraping the top 60 of the position. On top of that Jokic plays more with his other starters than most stars in the league which further pumps up the On/Off numbers.

It would be very high even with a good back up center, and if he did play more with bench players, because Jokic is a fantastic player and the team is built around his talent and skill set. But it is a stat that is warped in his favor, and this has been a known thing for years at this point.

[AleksandarN]

Jokic's On/Off has been artificially high for years because of the absolute dross they have backing him up at the center position. When he is off the court they are bringing on centers that are just scraping the top 60 of the position. On top of that Jokic plays more with his other starters than most stars in the league which further pumps up the On/Off numbers.

It would be very high even with a good back up center, and if he did play more with bench players, because Jokic is a fantastic player and the team is built around his talent and skill set. But it is a stat that is warped in his favor, and this has been a known thing for years at this point.

Even if he had a decent backup it doesn’t take into account of how much of a multiplier Jokic is. Jokic is the offense on the team. He does everything. He even coaches players abs draws up players on the bench. So no matter who you have as a back up you are going to have a huge drop off. This is not a specific Nuggets problem. Just look at the Olympics. This is the definition of most valuable

Read on Twitter

[OkcSinceSGA]

Read on Twitter

Pretty damn accurate. SGA has one letdown game or Jokic has a supernova game and that’s what causes these big yo-yos. But I’m confident SGA finishes this barring injury. He’s got that MJ/Kobe competitiveness. He may claim he doesn’t care… but he’s not about to lose MVP this close to the end. Don’t be surprised if he averages 40 for the month or goes for 50 a bunch more times.

I remember just a couple months ago he hadn’t scored over 42… and suddenly he has like four recent 50+ games including multiple in 3 quarters.