Winning Needs to Matter in MVP Conversation Again

[Jasen777]

I was told you can be an MVP if you are missing key players and lead your team to a lower seed. So what’s the difference.

I'm not denying the first sentence. I'm just saying the Jokic was better and deserved the MVP last season over Curry. (And also this season). I would make no arbitrary line that a team has to meet before a player can be MVP.

[maxpower8888]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

Well for one, the award is called the Most Valuable Player, not the Most Valuable Roster.

Yes, most valuable player, not best player. And I believe you are not providing enough value at 48 wins and the 11 seed.

Yes you are if you're team is statistically the worst in the league without you on the court.

[Cubbies2120]

It should be humiliating to Jokic MVP voters that the soon to be back to back league MVP is about to get embarrassingly swept two years in a row.

Winning matters. 48 win season should be automatic disqualification from the discussion.

Context should also matter in MVP conversations.

Dude is missing two 20ppg scorers, and 40%+ 3 point shooters. We saw what Murray is capable of in the playoffs.

He also won more games than the other top two MVP candidates. Unless we're going to credit Embiid/Giannis with games won when they were sitting on the bench/at home?

Context definitely matters, but it doesn’t excuse results. You cant use injuries to create a theoretically elite team led by Jokic that didn’t exist this season. We need to reward players for what they actually accomplished this year. How do you know that Jokics numbers don’t suffer if his role significantly changes by adding any two stars? How do you know top players on elite teams couldn’t put up better numbers with a depleted roster? The point is you can’t know, you can only project, and I believe we shouldn’t award mvp based on a projection.

So you're referring to a "Most successful" award, then?

Because that goes to Booker

He's certainly not the most valuable, but his team was winning the most.

Out of the consensus "Big 3" MVP candidates, Jokic played in the most wins. So, he had great results given his poor supporting cast. If you want to reward winning, why would you give it to Giannis or Embiid who won less games than him?

[NetsJets]

I was told you can be an MVP if you are missing key players and lead your team to a lower seed. So what’s the difference.

I'm not denying the first sentence. I'm just saying the Jokic was better and deserved the MVP last season over Curry. (And also this season). I would make no arbitrary line that a team has to meet before a player can be MVP.

Except he wasn’t better last season, if they swapped records Steph would’ve won it last year. They literally penalized Steph for his team record/roster. I can accept the unwritten rule but then you break your own rules for Jokic? That’s when it’s a problem to me.

[kenwood3333]

Thats why there are two seperate awards: regular season MVP and playoff (finals) MVP

[KyRo23]

What are you arguing for exactly? That Jokic shouldn't win MVP because his team won 3 less games than Giannis and Embiid? Because I don't think a 3 game differential is any significant disparity in wins here. (and as already pointed out, doesn't even account for the wins each was involved in)

Or are you arguing that Booker should win it over all 3 because of his team record when individually Jokic, Embiid, and Giannis had much better seasons than him?

I'd like to know the argument before I start debating it.

This post was dodged by OP, but it's really important

When you put it that way, there's no way to argue what he's arguing.

[ils411]

From an old man yelling at clouds, I get it. I grew up with the best player on the top 2 or 3 teams winning the MVP. MJ, Malone, Barkley, The Dream, Magic and so on. Their teams usually had records in the high fifty or even sixties.
Now we got guys winning MVP with teams with what? just a few wins over 40? I'd say nuts to that. But, and its a huge BUT, its called the MVP AWARD. Most valuable player, not best player on the best team award.

I look at it this way, if I take away Jokic, how many games would they have won? would they crash and burn and look like tanking for the 1st draft pick? Say, I take away booker, would the suns crash and burn too? if a 40 win team's best player is removed and they win 10, then compare it to a 60 win team and take away their best player and they win say 40, who's more valuable? I'd say the guy on the 40 win team because he added 30 more wins vs the other guy who added 20. The guy on the 40 win team made that team look half way decent and not a dumpster fire.

So, yeah, though I don't watch much, just highlights and just read stuff while at work coz I feel like slacking off, I don't see why its an issue for Jokic to win the MVP if he added that much wins vs the next guy.

[LBJKB24MJ23]

Who does Jokic have on his team? Their second best player missed the entire season. Their 3rd best player missed most of it.

Exactly. They have a mediocre team. Maybe Jokic could provide more value with a better surrounding cast, but the current reality is his team is mediocre, and achieved mediocre results, 11th best record and 48 wins. We shouldn’t be rewarding this type of value, we should be rewarding players who can lead their team to success. This isn’t to take anything away from Jokics individual performances this season, but don’t reward him with this prestigious an award two years in a row when it’s obvious his team is not very good.

no, we should be rewarding them or give them huge recognition. but he won't win MVP this year, its Embiid, most likely

[LAL1947]

From an old man yelling at clouds, I get it. I grew up with the best player on the top 2 or 3 teams winning the MVP. MJ, Malone, Barkley, The Dream, Magic and so on. Their teams usually had records in the high fifty or even sixties.
Now we got guys winning MVP with teams with what? just a few wins over 40? I'd say nuts to that. But, and its a huge BUT, its called the MVP AWARD. Most valuable player, not best player on the best team award.

I look at it this way, if I take away Jokic, how many games would they have won? would they crash and burn and look like tanking for the 1st draft pick? Say, I take away booker, would the suns crash and burn too? if a 40 win team's best player is removed and they win 10, then compare it to a 60 win team and take away their best player and they win say 40, who's more valuable? I'd say the guy on the 40 win team because he added 30 more wins vs the other guy who added 20. The guy on the 40 win team made that team look half way decent and not a dumpster fire.

So, yeah, though I don't watch much, just highlights and just read stuff while at work coz I feel like slacking off, I don't see why its an issue for Jokic to win the MVP if he added that much wins vs the next guy.

Good stuff, agreed with you.

I only wish they had applied this logic in 2005-06 too and given it to the best player in the league, who averaged 35+ PPG, made All-NBA First Team Defense, and whose team would have crashed and burned the hardest without him.

[Hobo4President]

Disagree completely. If I had it my way MVP would be completely separated from team record.

And we could call the award the BS award. The Best stats award.

I mean yeah that'd be more valid than smoothbrains voting based on team record.

[Crives]

What are you arguing for exactly? That Jokic shouldn't win MVP because his team won 3 less games than Giannis and Embiid? Because I don't think a 3 game differential is any significant disparity in wins here. (and as already pointed out, doesn't even account for the wins each was involved in)

Or are you arguing that Booker should win it over all 3 because of his team record when individually Jokic, Embiid, and Giannis had much better seasons than him?

I'd like to know the argument before I start debating it.

This post was dodged by OP, but it's really important

When you put it that way, there's no way to argue what he's arguing.

No it’s not dodged, just to many replies to reply immediately. But I did reply to very similar question earlier.

I don’t want to derail by suggesting who should be mvp. I made my candidates and suggested criteria very clear all year in official mvp thread. Happy to discuss further there.

What I am proposing in this thread is that winning needs to matter again, many here are becoming more focused on narrative and stats, and barely considering results. Just look at the overwhelming number of replies here that all involve something along lines of “Jokic would have won more games if he had a better team, and we shouldn’t hold his inferior team and record against him”. This is where I am suggesting we have gone way to far down the road of wins do not matter

[ocelot17]

I blame all the analytics nerds like Zach Lowe. Analytics have their place, but it shouldn’t be the end all be all.

I don’t care if the analytics say jokic should be the mvp. The eye test tell you giannis, luka are better players but also more deserving of the mvp.

[UcanUwill]

Why is getting 6 seed in the worst western conference in a decade considered some great feat anyway? All the Nuggets did was beat up on bad teams. They had the worst record (20-26) against teams over 0.500 of any top 6 seed in either conference.

Didn’t the media learn their lesson with Westbrook MVP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seriously comparing Jokic to Westbrook? Some posters here are asinine, my god you people, winning does matter in MVP, it always has, look at the carrying job Jokic did, he lead the league and crushed like 50 historical and advanced stats. Look what that team is when he sits, even Luka's supporting cast is far far more advanced. Stop being stupid, people, goodness.

I don’t care if the analytics say jokic should be the mvp. The eye test tell you giannis, luka are better players but also more deserving of the mvp.

Well, stats arent subjective, eye test is. To me I dont see Giannis or Luka to be better than Jokic at all. Jokic is probably best player in the world right now.

[duppyy]

People getting hung up over an award that has no impact over their lives. Larry OB is the only trophy that matters at the end of the season.

[LakersLegacy]

Joker is the closest thing we have seen to Hakeem since then although he is a very different player. Bigs usually have an advantage getting the MVP award.

The Nuggets had some serious injuries. If it happens then it’s okay.

Dirk accepted his MVP after being eliminated. He didn’t prove his all time greatness until 2011. Eventually Joker should prove his winning like Dirk did

[Joao Saraiva]

Winning matters. Context matters too.

Did Jokic made the most out of this roster? If you say no then I guess you can say he didn't play winning basketball. If you say yes... then winning matters and Jokic made the most wins he could with what he had.

If Kobe won it in 06 would it be that unfair? Didn't he win the most he could with that squad?

[Tempe]

Why is getting 6 seed in the worst western conference in a decade considered some great feat anyway? All the Nuggets did was beat up on bad teams. They had the worst record (20-26) against teams over 0.500 of any top 6 seed in either conference.

Didn’t the media learn their lesson with Westbrook MVP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seriously comparing Jokic to Westbrook? Some posters here are asinine, my god you people, winning does matter in MVP, it always has, look at the carrying job Jokic did, he lead the league and crushed like 50 historical and advanced stats. Look what that team is when he sits, even Luka's supporting cast is far far more advanced. Stop being stupid, people, goodness.

I don’t care if the analytics say jokic should be the mvp. The eye test tell you giannis, luka are better players but also more deserving of the mvp.

Well, stats arent subjective, eye test is. To me I dont see Giannis or Luka to be better than Jokic at all. Jokic is probably best player in the world right now.

Yes I’m comparing this “MVP” campaign to Westbrook. Same seeding, same win loss record, same use of cherry picked stats and pre-season narrative to choose a winner. Both will be remembered as historically bad MVPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UcanUwill]

Why is getting 6 seed in the worst western conference in a decade considered some great feat anyway? All the Nuggets did was beat up on bad teams. They had the worst record (20-26) against teams over 0.500 of any top 6 seed in either conference.

Didn’t the media learn their lesson with Westbrook MVP?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seriously comparing Jokic to Westbrook? Some posters here are asinine, my god you people, winning does matter in MVP, it always has, look at the carrying job Jokic did, he lead the league and crushed like 50 historical and advanced stats. Look what that team is when he sits, even Luka's supporting cast is far far more advanced. Stop being stupid, people, goodness.

I don’t care if the analytics say jokic should be the mvp. The eye test tell you giannis, luka are better players but also more deserving of the mvp.

Well, stats arent subjective, eye test is. To me I dont see Giannis or Luka to be better than Jokic at all. Jokic is probably best player in the world right now.

Yes I’m comparing this “MVP” campaign to Westbrook. Same seeding, same win loss record, same use of cherry picked stats and pre-season narrative to choose a winner. Both will be remembered as historically bad MVPs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What if I told you it wont and you have no clue what you are talking about. Jokic's team fell short literally just few games behind other top MVP candidates' records. But what a surprise person who made this thread is a fan of a team that had best record exactly this season. Just say you are crying and discounting real MVP candidates, because they arent on your team. But why I bite on these troll jobs every time...

[ForeverTFC]

What are you arguing for exactly? That Jokic shouldn't win MVP because his team won 3 less games than Giannis and Embiid? Because I don't think a 3 game differential is any significant disparity in wins here. (and as already pointed out, doesn't even account for the wins each was involved in)

Or are you arguing that Booker should win it over all 3 because of his team record when individually Jokic, Embiid, and Giannis had much better seasons than him?

I'd like to know the argument before I start debating it.

This post was dodged by OP, but it's really important

When you put it that way, there's no way to argue what he's arguing.

No it’s not dodged, just to many replies to reply immediately. But I did reply to very similar question earlier.

I don’t want to derail by suggesting who should be mvp. I made my candidates and suggested criteria very clear all year in official mvp thread. Happy to discuss further there.

What I am proposing in this thread is that winning needs to matter again, many here are becoming more focused on narrative and stats, and barely considering results. Just look at the overwhelming number of replies here that all involve something along lines of “Jokic would have won more games if he had a better team, and we shouldn’t hold his inferior team and record against him”. This is where I am suggesting we have gone way to far down the road of wins do not matter

Sorry but you dodged it again. Why speak in hypotheticals when we can base this on reality.

The top 3 MVP candidates are separated by 3 team wins from each other. If you are making the wins argument, then all have to be out of the running. Therefore, you must be saying Booker should be MVP. Well, Booker's season was a tier below the 3. So in a season where we have 1 player with more team success but less individual contribution compared to 3 players with less team success but more individual contribution, how should we calibrate? Should team wins supersede individual contribution for an individual award?

[KyRo23]

This post was dodged by OP, but it's really important

When you put it that way, there's no way to argue what he's arguing.

No it’s not dodged, just to many replies to reply immediately. But I did reply to very similar question earlier.

I don’t want to derail by suggesting who should be mvp. I made my candidates and suggested criteria very clear all year in official mvp thread. Happy to discuss further there.

What I am proposing in this thread is that winning needs to matter again, many here are becoming more focused on narrative and stats, and barely considering results. Just look at the overwhelming number of replies here that all involve something along lines of “Jokic would have won more games if he had a better team, and we shouldn’t hold his inferior team and record against him”. This is where I am suggesting we have gone way to far down the road of wins do not matter

Sorry but you dodged it again. Why speak in hypotheticals when we can base this on reality.

The top 3 MVP candidates are separated by 3 team wins from each other. If you are making the wins argument, then all have to be out of the running. Therefore, you must be saying Booker should be MVP. Well, Booker's season was a tier below the 3. So in a season where we have 1 player with more team success but less individual contribution compared to 3 players with less team success but more individual contribution, how should we calibrate? Should team wins supersede individual contribution for an individual award?

It's the intentional vaguery. Just say what you want to say OP and maybe you wouldn't have an "overwhelming" number of replies disagreeing with you