Winning Needs to Matter in MVP Conversation Again

[ropjhk]

If the Sixers or Bucks won over 55 games I don't think Jokic would be the leading MVP candidate. Winning still matters, it's just that this year 3 more wins is not enough to matter all that much.

[Cubbies2120]

You can’t have it both ways. If we’re praising him for carrying a team then you can’t absolve him of blame for losing with that same team. We’re going to look back on his B2B MVP campaign very differently.

You're right about the 2nd part. If they become contenders next year when healthy, we'll look back at it as "What if they were healthy during Jokic's ATG seasons..."

He's also had the misfortune of just running into the best team in the NBA or the best team in his conference (Lakers, Suns) and possibly another champion (Warriors) 3 straight seasons.

It's not like he's getting bounced by the Wolves (no disrespect Wolves fans).

He lost to Portland as well and they were no juggernaut. I guess we’ll have to see next year.

That was his first playoff series - I don't think we really hold that against any players? Does anyone hold losing to the Pistons in '06 against LeBron in his first playoffs? Or Giannis for losing to the Bulls? Embiid for losing to the Celtics?

Not many expectations for a first timer in the playoffs - every year since, the team he's lost to was either the champ, WC champ, or potentially future champ (Warriors).

[Cubbies2120]

If the Sixers or Bucks won over 55 games I don't think Jokic would be the leading MVP candidate. Winning still matters, it's just that this year 3 more wins is not enough to matter all that much.

Why?

Jokic played in more wins than Giannis/Embiid.

If the Bucks/Sixers won more games with Giannis/Embiid on the bench, how would that help their case at all? Would voters really reward them for wins they didn't participate in?

[Larry_Russell]

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.

swap jokic with any other player in the NBA and that team is far worse.

Jokic just put up a historic season, set records, and drug a team of tomato cans to the playoffs.

[ropjhk]

If the Sixers or Bucks won over 55 games I don't think Jokic would be the leading MVP candidate. Winning still matters, it's just that this year 3 more wins is not enough to matter all that much.

Why?

Jokic played in more wins than Giannis/Embiid.

If the Bucks/Sixers won more games with Giannis/Embiid on the bench, how would that help their case at all? Would voters really reward them for wins they didn't participate in?

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I didn't say anything about them winning games without Giannis and Joel. That wouldn't make sense. I'm talking about them winning more games with Giannis and Joel. My point is that winning still matters to a certain degree.

[Cubbies2120]

If the Sixers or Bucks won over 55 games I don't think Jokic would be the leading MVP candidate. Winning still matters, it's just that this year 3 more wins is not enough to matter all that much.

Why?

Jokic played in more wins than Giannis/Embiid.

If the Bucks/Sixers won more games with Giannis/Embiid on the bench, how would that help their case at all? Would voters really reward them for wins they didn't participate in?

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I didn't say anything about them winning games without Giannis and Joel. That wouldn't make sense. I'm talking about them winning more games with Giannis and Joel. My point is that winning still matters to a certain degree.

Your reference to "3 more wins" refers to the Bucks/Sixers as a team, not Giannis/Embiid as players, because both have less wins than Jokic does. That's why I thought you were referring to Bucks/Sixers over 55 games.

That's why I said I don't think their TEAM records matter whatsoever if they sit out a bunch of those games. If they had 60 wins, but Embiid/Giannis still had 46 or 45 wins or whatever, nothing changes. Jokic still wins the award.

[ty 4191]

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.

So Embiid, Jokic, and Giannis shouldn't be eligible for the MVP this year?

Team wins (while actually playing) this season:
Jokic: 46
Embiid: 45
Giannis: 45

Booker: 56

See everyone!? It's Booker, by far!! The Most Valuable Player award should go to the guy with the best teammates and on the best organization, every year!!

Really sound argument (and premise for a thread)!

[ropjhk]

Why?

Jokic played in more wins than Giannis/Embiid.

If the Bucks/Sixers won more games with Giannis/Embiid on the bench, how would that help their case at all? Would voters really reward them for wins they didn't participate in?

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I didn't say anything about them winning games without Giannis and Joel. That wouldn't make sense. I'm talking about them winning more games with Giannis and Joel. My point is that winning still matters to a certain degree.

Your reference to "3 more wins" refers to the Bucks/Sixers as a team, not Giannis/Embiid as players, because both have less wins than Jokic does. That's why I thought you were referring to Bucks/Sixers over 55 games.

That's why I said I don't think their TEAM records matter whatsoever if they sit out a bunch of those games. If they had 60 wins, but Embiid/Giannis still had 46 or 45 wins or whatever, nothing changes. Jokic still wins the award.

I'm not a voter so I don't keep a close eye on the numbers but if I was a voter I would take wins both with and without the MVP candidates into consideration. Wins with the candidates obviously matter, but wins without the candidate can also boost or hurt or be neutral to an MVP candidacy depending on the narrative on leadership. If the team record without the candidate is completely god awful then that doesn't reflect well on their leader. If the team record is too good it doesn't reflect well on the candidate's on court impact. If the candidate missed too many games that's not good either.

[ShazamDaShiznt]

Jokic is a top 3 player in the league.

The MVP voting is inconsistent. They used to give MVP to the guy of one of the top teams, like when Magic won it over Mike in 89 when Mike was a better player at that point already, but he had 47 win season.... Now they wanna give MVP's to lower place winners like Jokic or Westbrook. But when Kobe carried complete bums to the 06 playoffs oh noooo not enough wins let's give it to Nash.

If we are picking MVP's no matter what team they have, a guy like KG would probably have two MVP's instead of one. His 03 season statistically was monstrous. I mean heck, T-Mac in that same year had a statistically amazing season too and he lead his team to 1st round exit.

[ropjhk]

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.

So Embiid, Jokic, and Giannis shouldn't be eligible for the MVP this year?

Team wins (while actually playing) this season:
Jokic: 46
Embiid: 45
Giannis: 45

Booker: 56

See everyone!? It's Booker, by far!! The Most Valuable Player award should go to the guy with the best teammates and on the best organization, every year!!

Really sound argument (and premise for a thread)!

In all seriousness though Booker probably deserves more mention in the MVP discussion.

Winning matters but it shouldn't be the only criteria. Booker is #1 when it comes to wins and that's something worth mentioning.

[AbeVigodaLive]

If the Sixers or Bucks won over 55 games I don't think Jokic would be the leading MVP candidate. Winning still matters, it's just that this year 3 more wins is not enough to matter all that much.

It's more than just 3 more wins though. Just look at the HUGE disparity in the playoffs that we're seeing:

25.0 ppg / 13.0 reb / 2.0 apg / 45.2% fg / 0.0 stl / 0.5 blk
vs.
25.5 ppg / 10.5 reb / 5.0 apg / 46.7% fg / 2.0 stl / 1.5 blk

Embiid >>>>>>>>>> Jokic.






and it's not close.

[ty 4191]

..

[AleksandarN]

Jokic is the most overrated player in the league. He’s so overrated we had people making threads saying he’s a better defender than Embiid lol.

Links. I would love to see people saying he is a better defender. No one has claimed he is a elite defender. A lot said he improved defensively. No one to my knowledge said he was an elite defenders

What do you have to say about that link? You kinda quite now. Like i said especially on this board he is extremely over rated.

Thanks for the link. Definitely in the minority that think Like that. Majority think he is the mvp but some take it to the extreme like the Larry Bird thread. Majority rate him just fine. It seems that some people on both sides Take it to the extreme. Still deserving of mvp this year. According to Vegas.

[AleksandarN]

Embiid >>>>>>>>>> Jokic.

and it's not close.

The Nuggets are playing the team that had the best defense in the NBA this season, and the Warriors literally played two of the best games they've played all year. They're finally fully healthy and their FIFTH best player is an All Star who is MUCH better than anyone on the Nuggets (not named Jokic).

The Sixers and Embiid are playing the team with the 11th best defense in the NBA this season. And, 10th in Net Rating (Point Differential).

But yeah, let's base the MVP (a regular season award!!) solely on TWO games.....in the FIRST round of the playoffs.

That's really sound reasoning.

I think he was being sarcastic. If you look at his numbers

[Wigginstime]

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

The funny thing is most people were thrilled in 2017 when Westbrook won MVP.

In 2017 Kevin Durant joined the Warriors to form arguably the most stacked team in the history of the NBA. The Warriors won 67 games and stomped the playoffs, but no one wanted to give Curry or Durant the MVP because it felt like they were cheating by forming such a power comp.

Westbrook getting a talent depleted Thunder to a 6th seed while averaging the first triple double in years felt far more deserving of MVP than a Curry/Durant power combo stomping the league.

I get the Westbrook has fallen out of the good graces of the league, but did Curry or Durant really deserve the MVP in 2017? The spurs were the only other team in the league above 60 wins that year; however, Kawhi missed several games due to load management. You could have given it to Lebron but his team only won 51 games in an extremely weak East compared with the Thunders 47 wins in the West.

Exactly what lesson was there to learn about Westbrook winning the MVP in 2017???

[ty 4191]

I think he was being sarcastic. If you look at his numbers.

Hopefully, he was.

[AbeVigodaLive]

I think he was being sarcastic. If you look at his numbers.

Hopefully, he was.

Yeah. Hopefully.

[Alatan]

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.

Do you acknowledge the teams 2nd and 3rd best players are gone, and somehow, carrying them to the playoffs, to you, doesn't represent "value".

This isn’t to take anything away from Jokics individual performances

You should write Adam Silver and remind him it's the Most Valuable Players award.

It is definitely a regular season award though, otherwise Maxey has it locked up.

First I don’t think MPJ is a top 3 player on the nuggets. His terrible defense offsets his special shooting.

But to your question, how should we reward players for carrying their team if they are missing multiple top players? I think that’s trying to reward Jokic for a theoretical team that didn’t exist this year. Why not let the mvp be an actual award and reward someone who led their team to an elite season instead of a mediocre season? Do you really want to reward mvp each year to players putting up massive stats carrying heavy loads due to injuried rosters instead of rewarding elite players leading their teams to elite seasons?

How do you know who led the team? What if the team has no leaders? What if the coach was the leader? What if the team has multiple superstars that collided together to crush the league and get easy rings? Didnt think this through bloke.

[Alatan]

Nobody would beat this Warriors team with his cast. No MVPs in the league.

Easy solution. No MVP if the team is mediocre, even if that is due to bad role players. Reward winning.

What is a mediocre team and why should we award a single player for a team accomplishment?

[Lalouie]

winning matters but doesn't DEFINE the mvp and never should. history itself has proven it