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

[MavsDirk41]

Its gonna go down to the wire with Jokic and SGA. After a slow start Denver has been playing well but OKC is on pace to win 60+ games. But within the next couple of years Wemby is going to be getting some mvp consideration if San Antonio can add a couple pieces.

[Exp0sed]

“Jokic is far better player than lebron“ this is absolutely disgusting lol. Peak Jokic is a tier down from peak LeBron

How ?? Could you explain that. If I not remember wrong, he was never won anything without two top ten caliber player as his teammates except bubble with a top 5 teammate.


Could you think Jokic pass the ball Ray Allen instead Braun, pick and roll with the Wade, alley hoop with the Bosh ? Could you imagine that.

No jokic cant dunk not flashy.

not flashy?

https://youtube.com/shorts/7F9qZzybQR4?si=bCj8tlKV5iCcIIX3

[Snake3]

Saw on reddit that OKC is finally losing their minutes without SGA. And that it's only -0.39 net rating. Brah.

[Jaqua92]

Saw on reddit that OKC is finally losing their minutes without SGA. And that it's only -0.39 net rating. Brah.

Celtics are losing their non Tatum minutes as well. It's why his advanced numbers are so close to the top despite not having a career year box score wise

[Special_Puppy]

Saw on reddit that OKC is finally losing their minutes without SGA. And that it's only -0.39 net rating. Brah.

If you remove garbage time it’s +4.08 with SGA off and +19.81 with SGA on which is obviously still a monsterous on/off https://www.pbpstats.com/wowy-combos/nba?TeamId=1610612760&Season=2024-25&SeasonType=All&PlayerIds=1628983&Leverage=Medium,High,VeryHigh

[scrabbarista]

I'm back on Nikola today. Had Shai for 24 hours or so.

[Manimal]

SGA is a legitimate MVP candidate and probably the most legit we've seen in the past 5 years, not named Jokic. A great player on a 60+ win team is hard to deny. That said, Jokic is still multiple tiers above him. And while OKC is amazing, they'd still win 50+ games if SGA wasn't on the roster. Without Jokic, the Nuggets are lucky to win 25 games. To me that is the one major difference between them, and if Jokic can't still win 50+ this season, it's gotta be him once again for MVP.

[kazyv]

SGA is a legitimate MVP candidate and probably the most legit we've seen in the past 5 years, not named Jokic. A great player on a 60+ win team is hard to deny. That said, Jokic is still multiple tiers above him. And while OKC is amazing, they'd still win 50+ games if SGA wasn't on the roster. Without Jokic, the Nuggets are lucky to win 25 games. To me that is the one major difference between them, and if Jokic can't still win 50+ this season, it's gotta be him once again for MVP.

this is some alternative reality post. you're talking about denver here, right? the very same core of players that won it all 2 years ago?

i'm sorry, you don't get some extra points just because your team is lazy and doesn't show up in the regular season. maybe it's because jokic leads by example and doesn't give all of his effort either.

[Exp0sed]

SGA is a legitimate MVP candidate and probably the most legit we've seen in the past 5 years, not named Jokic. A great player on a 60+ win team is hard to deny. That said, Jokic is still multiple tiers above him. And while OKC is amazing, they'd still win 50+ games if SGA wasn't on the roster. Without Jokic, the Nuggets are lucky to win 25 games. To me that is the one major difference between them, and if Jokic can't still win 50+ this season, it's gotta be him once again for MVP.

this is some alternative reality post. you're talking about denver here, right? the very same core of players that won it all 2 years ago?

i'm sorry, you don't get some extra points just because your team is lazy and doesn't show up in the regular season. maybe it's because jokic leads by example and doesn't give all of his effort either.

why alternative reality? in the past 4-5 seasons the Nuggets without Jokic on the floor have been a Wizards level team. 25 wins is a pretty good assesment and it might even be a "generous" assesment. they started this season the same and even worse, 25 wins would be optimstic but lately have actually been playing better without him on the floor, would probably regress to their mean soon enough but def a change in a long time trend

they won a chip because Jokic is THAT good, there's ample data to support the notion they'd be a 25 wins team without him. they might be better than that this season tho, but they def have been at that level (without him) for the past 5 years

p.s - Jokic is a seasoned vet by now, while it's true he doesn't go all out every night - his effort is usually very consistent. might not be at a 100% (and it doesn't need to be) but he's def not "lazy", quite the opposite actually.

i've said multiple times that SGA is comfortably ahead atm but it's not about "extra points". did u see the OKC team without SGA and Iharte (and Chet obviously) holding the Mavs (without Luka) to like a 100 pts on a back 2 back, in Dallas? that's how good their defense is. Nuggets are just sad offensively AND defensively without Jokic and have been for years. they're not lazy, they just aren't good. his impact is immense and that's one of the ways to measure it, it's not about "extra points".

[kazyv]

SGA is a legitimate MVP candidate and probably the most legit we've seen in the past 5 years, not named Jokic. A great player on a 60+ win team is hard to deny. That said, Jokic is still multiple tiers above him. And while OKC is amazing, they'd still win 50+ games if SGA wasn't on the roster. Without Jokic, the Nuggets are lucky to win 25 games. To me that is the one major difference between them, and if Jokic can't still win 50+ this season, it's gotta be him once again for MVP.

this is some alternative reality post. you're talking about denver here, right? the very same core of players that won it all 2 years ago?

i'm sorry, you don't get some extra points just because your team is lazy and doesn't show up in the regular season. maybe it's because jokic leads by example and doesn't give all of his effort either.

why alternative reality? in the past 4-5 seasons the Nuggets without Jokic on the floor have been a Wizards level team. 25 wins is a pretty good assesment and it might even be a "generous" assesment. they started this season the same and even worse, 25 wins would be optimstic but lately have actually been playing better without him on the floor, would probably regress to their mean soon enough but def a change in a long time trend

they won a chip because Jokic is THAT good, there's ample data to support the notion they'd be a 25 wins team without him. they might be better than that this season tho, but they def have been at that level (without him) for the past 5 years

how many games do u think that Dirk Mavs team would have won

p.s - Jokic is a seasoned vet by now, while it's true he doesn't go all out every night - his effort is usually very consistent. might not be at a 100% (and it doesn't need to be) but he's def not "lazy", quite the opposite actually.

i've said multiple times that SGA is comfortably ahead atm but it's not about "extra points". did u see the OKC team without SGA and Iharte (and Chet obviously) holding the Mavs (without Luka) to like a 100 pts on a back 2 back, in Dallas? that's how good their defense is. Nuggets are just sad offensively AND defensively without Jokic and have been for years. they're not lazy, they just aren't good. his impact is immense and that's one of the ways to measure it, it's not about "extra points".

i'm not questioning the impact of jokic, i'm just seeing it realistically. one way of doing it is looking at the number of wins the team gets. not in some hypothetical scenario. but in actual reality of what happened on the floor over the course of a season. and that doesn't involve imagining that the nuggets would win 25 games without jokic or some such. you don't get extra points for having a badly constructed team outside of your mvp. that's what he gets paid the big bucks for, lifting your team up.

OKC defense is good, as a group of defense oriented players. they aren't winning 50 games over the course of a season with that group though. that's just a bunch of mediocre players on offense. and even if they are, who cares?

the mvp award isn't about being mediocre. there's like 10+ team that can get 50 wins a year. few of those will get to 60+, even fewer to 65+. that requires that extra level of effort and togetherness AND impact from your star player or players.

i honestly don't mind saying that OKC has got the better team. that's is probably true and the reason they are winning more. but it's really annoying to keep reading that denver is just that bad outside of jokic. it's getting silly. you don't have to put down a championship team just to lift up jokic.

[Snake3]

SGA is a legitimate MVP candidate and probably the most legit we've seen in the past 5 years, not named Jokic. A great player on a 60+ win team is hard to deny. That said, Jokic is still multiple tiers above him. And while OKC is amazing, they'd still win 50+ games if SGA wasn't on the roster. Without Jokic, the Nuggets are lucky to win 25 games. To me that is the one major difference between them, and if Jokic can't still win 50+ this season, it's gotta be him once again for MVP.

Multiple? I don't know about that.

SGA is having one of the best guard seasons of all time. It's pretty historic to me in terms of two way play. This is really similar performance of what we would see from a MJ. He's not MJ good, but it's similar production for sure.

I don't mind saying Jokic is better though. But if you have tiers in the league, Jokic, Giannis and SGA are on the top of the list atm.

[Snake3]

this is some alternative reality post. you're talking about denver here, right? the very same core of players that won it all 2 years ago?

i'm sorry, you don't get some extra points just because your team is lazy and doesn't show up in the regular season. maybe it's because jokic leads by example and doesn't give all of his effort either.

why alternative reality? in the past 4-5 seasons the Nuggets without Jokic on the floor have been a Wizards level team. 25 wins is a pretty good assesment and it might even be a "generous" assesment. they started this season the same and even worse, 25 wins would be optimstic but lately have actually been playing better without him on the floor, would probably regress to their mean soon enough but def a change in a long time trend

they won a chip because Jokic is THAT good, there's ample data to support the notion they'd be a 25 wins team without him. they might be better than that this season tho, but they def have been at that level (without him) for the past 5 years

how many games do u think that Dirk Mavs team would have won

p.s - Jokic is a seasoned vet by now, while it's true he doesn't go all out every night - his effort is usually very consistent. might not be at a 100% (and it doesn't need to be) but he's def not "lazy", quite the opposite actually.

i've said multiple times that SGA is comfortably ahead atm but it's not about "extra points". did u see the OKC team without SGA and Iharte (and Chet obviously) holding the Mavs (without Luka) to like a 100 pts on a back 2 back, in Dallas? that's how good their defense is. Nuggets are just sad offensively AND defensively without Jokic and have been for years. they're not lazy, they just aren't good. his impact is immense and that's one of the ways to measure it, it's not about "extra points".

i'm not questioning the impact of jokic, i'm just seeing it realistically. one way of doing it is looking at the number of wins the team gets. not in some hypothetical scenario. but in actual reality of what happened on the floor over the course of a season. and that doesn't involve imagining that the nuggets would win 25 games without jokic or some such. you don't get extra points for having a badly constructed team outside of your mvp. that's what he gets paid the big bucks for, lifting your team up.

OKC defense is good, as a group of defense oriented players. they aren't winning 50 games over the course of a season with that group though. that's just a bunch of mediocre players on offense. and even if they are, who cares?

the mvp award isn't about being mediocre. there's like 10+ team that can get 50 wins a year. few of those will get to 60+, even fewer to 65+. that requires that extra level of effort and togetherness AND impact from your star player or players.

i honestly don't mind saying that OKC has got the better team. that's is probably true and the reason they are winning more. but it's really annoying to keep reading that denver is just that bad outside of jokic. it's getting silly. you don't have to put down a championship team just to lift up jokic.

They are bad without Jokic though.

It's just a thing. It's been a thing. It's not like we haven't seen this type of thing before. We have the numbers. They were posting the numbers throughout the season that without Jokic they were the worst offense team in the league. If they were more competent without Jokic, they probably would be the best team in the league.

It's not like their the team of 16 or 17 GSW or anything. They could win playoff series without their best player. They aren't the Spurs in 13 or 14 either. They are bad without Jokic. Jokic has a +22.2 when he's on the court. That's insane. That's a bigger point differential than LeBron in 09. And jokic has a +20.0 on the court for like three straight seasons, including in 23 when Denver won the title.

They did get better compared to the beginning of the season though. It's a good thing for Denver because that was just not sustainable.

Even then, without Jokic the Nuggets would be a lottery team I think. I don't think they are better than the GSW without Jokic, and they are struggling to get into the POs. I don't think they are better than the T-Wolves or the Suns either. And if they aren't better than them, they are legit lottery team.

OKC is bad without SGA offensively too. They aren't that far behind the Nuggets. But their defense is way more competent. Even without SGA, they would still be the best defensive team in the league. Their offense sucks though. They are Wizards lvl offense without SGA. But Nuggets are worse than Wizards and they are worse defensively without Jokic. Not even in the middle of the pact.

Not to say they don't have talent. Some of the talent has been underwhelming, but they do have talent. However look at the Suns, GSW, the Kings and etc. They all have more talent than the Denver without Jokic, and they are struggling to make the play ins. But their offense normally dies without Jokic. It might be due to the coach system or Jokic is just that good, but Jokic definitely hides a lot of flaws. They would have to change that, but I don't know how. And it's mostly the bench than the starters. Jamal Murray too. He has been playing better as of late, but he always had the potential to be an all-star lvl player and potentially an all-nba 3rd team. He just never does it in the RS. Sometimes he does it in the playoffs. He has flashes, but never consistent.

But still, they aren't good. Jokic carries that team offensively harder than SGA carries OKC offensively. Jokic literally turns Denver into the best offense in the league with him on the court. That's crazy from going to worst than the Wizards to among the best ever offense in nba history.

It just that with OKC being great defensively without SGA, and SGA carries the offense at a elite mvp lvl and what he contributes on defenses makes OKC a great team. He could even rival or surpass Jokic in some advance metrics. He's having a legendary season too.

[Exp0sed]

i'm not questioning the impact of jokic, i'm just seeing it realistically. one way of doing it is looking at the number of wins the team gets. not in some hypothetical scenario. but in actual reality of what happened on the floor over the course of a season. and that doesn't involve imagining that the nuggets would win 25 games without jokic or some such. you don't get extra points for having a badly constructed team outside of your mvp. that's what he gets paid the big bucks for, lifting your team up.

OKC defense is good, as a group of defense oriented players. they aren't winning 50 games over the course of a season with that group though. that's just a bunch of mediocre players on offense. and even if they are, who cares?

the mvp award isn't about being mediocre. there's like 10+ team that can get 50 wins a year. few of those will get to 60+, even fewer to 65+. that requires that extra level of effort and togetherness AND impact from your star player or players.

i honestly don't mind saying that OKC has got the better team. that's is probably true and the reason they are winning more. but it's really annoying to keep reading that denver is just that bad outside of jokic. it's getting silly. you don't have to put down a championship team just to lift up jokic.

well, one would argue from an FO standpoint that if you have a top 10 ATG player in his prime, whose also durable and can play heavy mins when called upon (for example - in the playoffs), then constructing a team that's really not suited to playing without their superstar but does really well with him, is a pretty sound team building strategy

Nuggets have some capable players for sure but all of them are guys that are very useful in their role (AG,MPJ,Murray etc.) but drop significantly when they get pushed up the pecking order. Murray would be Jordan Poole as a first option, MPJ would be abysmal as a 2nd option and so would AG. in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a big issue since Jokic routinely plays 75+ games a season and has the stamina to sustain playing 38 mpg on a deep playoff run, that makes relying on him (heavily) a pretty sound strategy and one that's already led them to their first ever chip

no1 is putting them down, Murray misses a decent chunk out of every season and AG isn't the picture of durability either. Murray is a bad defender when he isn't cooking offensively (and he wouldn't cook in a Jokic less Nuggets, we have a huge dataset to prove that) and MPJ has awful i.q and is an awful decision maker on both ends. when he has Jokic to direct him (that applies to defense not just to offense) and essentially make the decisions for him - he becomes a very useful player, when his strengths like shooting, length and mobility are maximized and his flaws are minimized but he'd be a huge net negative on the court without him. this isn't speculation, there's ample data to support that claim not to mention - the games themselves (the eye test).
a team whose best 3 players are Murray, MPJ and AG isn't winning more than 25-30 games that's just a fact

Jokic's level of impact (a top 10 all time level of impact) is widely considered to add say, 20 or even 25 wins to a team (generally speaking) and they tend to win 50-55 games with him, so 25-30 without him sounds about right

the Thunder would probably have the best defense in the league even without SGA, they probably don't make the playoffs in the West without him but they'd make the playoffs in the East easily imo and are likely to be a 0.500 (or maybe like 40-42) team even without him

in summation, I don't think anyone is "putting them down to lift Jokic". check out shooting %'s splits, turnovers and even defensive metrics for players (past and present) alongside Jokic and without him, those numbers are basically unprecedented

guys like Bruce Brown got PAID and are now barely contributing on bottom feeding teams, the same goes for KCP and holds especially true for all the non-NBA scrubs that are out of the league entirely, ones that Jokic elevated into playability while they were around. now consider that Murray and MPJ have never played for a different team, they've spent their entire careers with Jokic. the perception of them would be alot different had they switched teams, you can add Braun to that list too - they're system players and Nikola Jokic is that system

Jokic has a legit case for the ATG floor and teammate raiser. there isn't a single player who left the Nuggets and kept up his production, ignoring that is just silly imo, especially as this isn't just some hypotethical, we have a huge dataset of guys like Murray, MPJ, AG etc. in the non-Jokic mins and in the games Jokic doesn't play and the data is consistent and overwhelmingly supports this argument

[Stickmann]

Saw on reddit that OKC is finally losing their minutes without SGA. And that it's only -0.39 net rating. Brah.

Celtics are losing their non Tatum minutes as well. It's why his advanced numbers are so close to the top despite not having a career year box score wise

Tatum always hovers in the top 5-7 for advanced stats, but for reference, the gap in EPM this season between the number 1 player and Tatum is larger than the gap between Tatum and the 89th (!!!) player. Just different tiers

[Stickmann]

Saw on reddit that OKC is finally losing their minutes without SGA. And that it's only -0.39 net rating. Brah.

Celtics are losing their non Tatum minutes as well. It's why his advanced numbers are so close to the top despite not having a career year box score wise

Tatum always hovers in the top 5-7 for advanced stats, but for reference, the gap in EPM this season between the number 1 player and Tatum is larger than the gap between Tatum and the 89th (!!!) player. Just different tiers

[RRR3]

“Multiple tiers above SGA”

[Ssj16]

SGA is a legitimate MVP candidate and probably the most legit we've seen in the past 5 years, not named Jokic. A great player on a 60+ win team is hard to deny. That said, Jokic is still multiple tiers above him. And while OKC is amazing, they'd still win 50+ games if SGA wasn't on the roster. Without Jokic, the Nuggets are lucky to win 25 games. To me that is the one major difference between them, and if Jokic can't still win 50+ this season, it's gotta be him once again for MVP.

this is some alternative reality post. you're talking about denver here, right? the very same core of players that won it all 2 years ago?

i'm sorry, you don't get some extra points just because your team is lazy and doesn't show up in the regular season. maybe it's because jokic leads by example and doesn't give all of his effort either.

I think it's debatable how bad Denver actually is without Jokic. One thing that's absolutely not debatable is whether Jokic puts in effort day in and out. The dude is a consummate professional and you can't be averaging the numbers that Jokic averages without putting in work.

I've mentioned this before but if you watch Denver games you will see Jokic get heated with his teammates, coaches and the refs. Don't let the cool demeanor fool you.

[Exp0sed]

SGA is a legitimate MVP candidate and probably the most legit we've seen in the past 5 years, not named Jokic. A great player on a 60+ win team is hard to deny. That said, Jokic is still multiple tiers above him. And while OKC is amazing, they'd still win 50+ games if SGA wasn't on the roster. Without Jokic, the Nuggets are lucky to win 25 games. To me that is the one major difference between them, and if Jokic can't still win 50+ this season, it's gotta be him once again for MVP.

this is some alternative reality post. you're talking about denver here, right? the very same core of players that won it all 2 years ago?

i'm sorry, you don't get some extra points just because your team is lazy and doesn't show up in the regular season. maybe it's because jokic leads by example and doesn't give all of his effort either.

I think it's debatable how bad Denver actually is without Jokic. One thing that's absolutely not debatable is whether Jokic puts in effort day in and out. The dude is a consummate professional and you can't be averaging the numbers that Jokic averages without putting in work.

I've mentioned this before but if you watch Denver games you will see Jokic get heated with his teammates, coaches and the refs. Don't let the cool demeanor fool you.

100% this

Jokic holds himself to a very high standard and he's the epitome of "leading by example",he's also been very vocal these past couple of seasons and it's very obvious he's holding his teammates accountable. sometimes he does it with anger etc. and sometimes with honey but he's obviously very respected in that regard in the lockeroom. that's very easy to see just from the interaction\body language etc and also from his past teammates like Jeff Green, Bruce Brown etc. who have openly discussed this more than once and so have his current teammates

I still remember him getting the Nuggets role players to wear suits to games as a way of demonostrating and exhibiting professionalism. he talks the talk but also walks the walk. these past couple of season he's been a de-facto assistant coach, I doubt he'd ever had interest in it because he'd want to retire to play with his horses and not travel around and be away from his family in his 40's and 50's but man, that dude would make a hella of a head coach

[Doctor MJ]

Crazy Shai Stat:

Highest raw +/- over first half (41 games) for our records which go back to '96-97:

1. '15-16 Curry +570
2. '15-16 Green +551
3. '14-15 Curry +546
4. '24-25 Shai +521
5. '08-09 LeBron +513

Obviously the first two guys were teammates.

'14-15 Curry's top teammate was Klay at +484.
'08-09 LeBron's top teammate was Delonte West +407.

Shai's top teammate is Lu Dort at +314.

What's happening with Shai is really something different. Still not crazy to prefer Jokic, but what Shai's doing so far this year is very much NOT just another guy getting pushed as an alternative.

[UglyBugBall]

Jokic is not in the running. You cannot have 4 MVP's with only one title. The most people will vote for is up to 3 MVP's per title. History proves this and it's the correct precedent