Nikola Jokic wins MVP(again)

[Cubbies2120]

[url]k[/url]

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

Absolutely.
people want to nit pick stats but he essentially just stat padding on a non contender.
Now everything runs through him exponentially more, higher usage, remedial results in win loss column.
Basically rewarded the best player on a treadmill team,. its disgraceful.

Embiid: 37% USG rate
Jokic: 32% USG rate

Embiid: 45 wins
Jokic: 46 wins

I'll allow you to retract your statement about Jokic having higher usage.

Jokic didn't lose in the first round last year. Jokic lost to the WC Champs last year in the 2nd round, while missing his 2nd best player.

Embiid lost to the Hawks last year fully healthy.

Wanna talk about mediocre results?

[Raps in 4]

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

Absolutely.
people want to nit pick stats but he essentially just stat padding on a non contender.
Now everything runs through him exponentially more, higher usage, remedial results in win loss column.
Basically rewarded the best player on a treadmill team,. its disgraceful.

You'll have to explain to me how one stat pads impact and efficiency metrics.

[Cubbies2120]

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

Absolutely.
people want to nit pick stats but he essentially just stat padding on a non contender.
Now everything runs through him exponentially more, higher usage, remedial results in win loss column.
Basically rewarded the best player on a treadmill team,. its disgraceful.

You'll have to explain to me how one stat pads impact and efficiency metrics.

The guy has no idea what he's talking about. He said Jokic has higher usage and remedial results, when Jokic played in more wins and has a significantly lower usage rate than Embiid.

At this point they've got Jokic Derangement Syndrome

[eyeatoma]

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

So basically you are blaming the voters for not having prophetic abilities? Since the voting was done before the playoffs even started.

And for the millionth time, it's only a regular season award and it's not "Who is the best player in the world" award or "Who do you think will do best in the playoffs this season" award"? There is nothing tragic about the MVP losing in the first round.

They didn't need to be prophets. They just needed to look at the previous post season to see that his numbers weren't translating to real playoff wins.

[WarriorGM]

Actually

Jokic won 46 games in 2022
Embiid won 45 games in 2022
Giannis won 45 games in 2022

Jokic won more games than either Embiid or Giannis by 1 game. The difference in record for additional wins results from how each of their teammates played when those guys missed games.

Giving MVP based on wins means you either give it to Jokic or you give it to Embiid/Giannis based on games they never played in.

I guess the reason Curry isn't being mentioned here is that he has transcended MVP discussions and is MVP emeritus?

Not to mention no MVP in 44 years has missed more than 10 games except AI who missed 11. Curry missed 18.

I responded to that quote in particular because it was assigning number of games won to those players and by that basis Curry is right in the thick of it despite missing 18 games. Now if he can win a similar number of games with far less play that would suggest he is more efficient at winning and a more valuable player.

As for historical precedent, how many 6th seeds have been given the award?

[Freighttrain]

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

This makes my brain hurt. Embiid has better teammates and has faced worse opponents. You think he gets out of the first round if he played with Gordon and Barton and faced the Warriors?

He played in a tougher conference, so them being the 3rd seed compared to a weaker western conference as everyone alluded to should matter? Or doesn't it matter now? I'm getting confused.

And yes I think he would give the Warriors way more problems. Also, putting player x on team y and vice versa when both teams are specifically designed with players to be put around your skills doesn't work for your little soliloquy. Also if he wasn't a 6th seed he wouldn't have to play the Warriors, but the Nuggets were terrible and therefor had to play them.

[eyeatoma]

[url]k[/url]

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

Absolutely.
people want to nit pick stats but he essentially just stat padding on a non contender.
Now everything runs through him exponentially more, higher usage, remedial results in win loss column.
Basically rewarded the best player on a treadmill team,. its disgraceful.

Embiid: 37% USG rate
Jokic: 32% USG rate

Embiid: 45 wins
Jokic: 46 wins

I'll allow you to retract your statement about Jokic having higher usage.

Jokic didn't lose in the first round last year. Jokic lost to the WC Champs last year in the 2nd round, while missing his 2nd best player.

Embiid lost to the Hawks last year fully healthy.

Wanna talk about mediocre results?

Tear in the meniscus is fully healthy? Lol, keep making up your lies.

I'll allow you to retract your statement about Embiid being fully healthy.

[Raps in 4]

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

So basically you are blaming the voters for not having prophetic abilities? Since the voting was done before the playoffs even started.

And for the millionth time, it's only a regular season award and it's not "Who is the best player in the world" award or "Who do you think will do best in the playoffs this season" award"? There is nothing tragic about the MVP losing in the first round.

They didn't need to be prophets. They just needed to look at the previous post season to see that his numbers weren't translating to real playoff wins.

Why only the previous postseason? Why not the one before that?

[losmi]

It’s embarrassing the mvp came from a 6th seed

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

The bolded is not true, you don't even care to know the facts.

And the only "tragic" loss in past two playoffs was that to ATL. It's comical how Embiid's fans pretend he is some winner.

[dhsilv2]

[url]k[/url]

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

Absolutely.
people want to nit pick stats but he essentially just stat padding on a non contender.
Now everything runs through him exponentially more, higher usage, remedial results in win loss column.
Basically rewarded the best player on a treadmill team,. its disgraceful.

I'm so confused. You're agreeing with someone making an factual inaccuracy (this was the first time Jokic has EVER lost in the first round). Then you follow it up with an incorrect statement about Jokic having a higher usage. And then you claim he's stat padding which would mean that he's somehow making his teammates play worse when he's not on the floor to increase his +/- stats which are the stats everyone keeps talking about with him.

[Freighttrain]

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

The bolded is not true, you don't even care to know the facts.

And the only "tragic" loss in past two playoffs was that to ATL. It's comical how Embiid's fans pretend he is some winner.

Lets not forget Jamal Murray carried Jokic against the Jazz. And he got his lunch eaten by an old Dwight Howard.

[eyeatoma]

I prefer his scoring dropping. He is elite defensively and keeps getting doubled teamed because we are playing teams that are undermanned to handle his physicality. Quick passes out of the double team and focusing on defense and rebounding is the better way to play for us to win games thus far.

Not that I should actually expect hot take artists on the GB to have a nuanced discussion about anything or actually watch games.

I actually agree with what you wrote. For the Sixers to reach their potential, Embiid needs to do less and get his teammates involved. I was just giving you s*** because you're in a Jokic thread talking s***, so please don't act like you're above poor takes. If you were as nuanced as you claim to be you would understand that Jokic doesn't have the luxury of being able to drop his scoring production. Embiid has 3 teammates averaging over 18 PPG in the playoffs, Jokic didn't have a single player behind him sniff 15 PPG. Not to mention that the Warriors are simply way better than Toronto and Miami. Acknowledge the context, mr. nuance.

I'm in a Jokic thread talking **** because I'm fairly confident that the only reason he won MVP is because some idiots convinced themselves that using BPM PER and VORP as a barometer for who is the best player is actually a good idea and a bunch of media members are running with it.

I personally think that you would rather have Embiid than Jokic on a playoff run but understand it's very much up for debate between Jokic Embiid Giannis. I also think that Embiid's defense should give him the edge IMO over Jokic, because Embiid plays at his DPOY at important times throughout the year, vs. Jokic's defensive improvement is again based off of some advanced defensive metrics that are laughable at best.

And if it's a total toss up, I wish it would've gone to the guy who hasn't won one before, and who has been through so much in his career with people doubting he would ever play more games than times he's tweeted, after he had a remarkably healthy season.

I'm fine with anybody winning it but it seems like this conversation was dominated by people caring too much about advanced stats, particularly by people who refuse to watch a game and admit that Embiid is a tier above Jokic defensively and instead fall back on some kind of bogus metrics that are widely accepted by NBA minds as not actually being predictive.

Very well said. This really is it!

[Bergmaniac]

They didn't need to be prophets. They just needed to look at the previous post season to see that his numbers weren't translating to real playoff wins.

But they should have voted for Embiid, whose team was beaten at the same stage of the playoffs last season by a much worse team? How does this make sense?

[axeman23]

The real MVP is doing battle in Miami.

This

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Jimmy Butler? Or Tyler Herro?

[Cubbies2120]

[url]k[/url]

Absolutely.
people want to nit pick stats but he essentially just stat padding on a non contender.
Now everything runs through him exponentially more, higher usage, remedial results in win loss column.
Basically rewarded the best player on a treadmill team,. its disgraceful.

Embiid: 37% USG rate
Jokic: 32% USG rate

Embiid: 45 wins
Jokic: 46 wins

I'll allow you to retract your statement about Jokic having higher usage.

Jokic didn't lose in the first round last year. Jokic lost to the WC Champs last year in the 2nd round, while missing his 2nd best player.

Embiid lost to the Hawks last year fully healthy.

Wanna talk about mediocre results?

Tear in the meniscus is fully healthy? Lol, keep making up your lies.

I'll allow you to retract your statement about Embiid being fully healthy.

"Minor tear" that is treated with physical therapy not surgery.

Unless you think the same Sixers team that allowed him a 2 year vacation out of an abundance of caution would risk their best player if it was serious?

He was on the court. He played in the games. He didn't miss games like Jamal Murray did.

[Hobo4President]

Are Embiid stans so mad because they realise next year he might have more competition from the young guys like Luka, Tatum and Ja? It's gonna be tough for him to win.

[BelgradeNugget]

[url]k[/url]

Absolutely.
people want to nit pick stats but he essentially just stat padding on a non contender.
Now everything runs through him exponentially more, higher usage, remedial results in win loss column.
Basically rewarded the best player on a treadmill team,. its disgraceful.

Embiid: 37% USG rate
Jokic: 32% USG rate

Embiid: 45 wins
Jokic: 46 wins

I'll allow you to retract your statement about Jokic having higher usage.

Jokic didn't lose in the first round last year. Jokic lost to the WC Champs last year in the 2nd round, while missing his 2nd best player.

Embiid lost to the Hawks last year fully healthy.

Wanna talk about mediocre results?

Tear in the meniscus is fully healthy? Lol, keep making up your lies.

I'll allow you to retract your statement about Embiid being fully healthy.

Isn't he tearing something every POs?

[eyeatoma]

They didn't need to be prophets. They just needed to look at the previous post season to see that his numbers weren't translating to real playoff wins.

But they should have voted for Embiid, whose team was beaten at the same stage of the playoffs last season by a much worse team? How does this make sense?

Narrative, Embiid went through far worse **** and drama than Jokic, and had an all-time season.

[Raps in 4]

Nuggets won 48 games
Sixers/Bucks won 51
Does 3 wins make or break an MVP case?

Being a first-round exit team in back-to-back season as the back-to-back MVP is just tragic. We knew the Nuggets were bad, so why give it to Jokic? The argument he made that team is good is nonsense. They got a gentlemen's sweep in the first round. How is that any good? Congratz you're the 16th best team out of 32. He took a bad team and made them average. Any superstar can do that. Embiid is still in the playoffs and we see how big his impact is. "oh but he has a great supporting cast, Jokic doesn't". The Sixers were down 0-2 with that great cast until Embiid played again and now we're questioning Miami because of Embiid. Are we going to give him the MVP next year too if the analytics say he's as good a defender as Embiid? He had the highest PER or top 3 ever. Boy did that turn into playoff wins. Ugh.

I didn't mind him winning it the first time. But being a back-to-back MVP is special. Going out of the first round and pretending it's "just a regular-season award" is bogus. Other factors play a part too such as playoff success or narrative. Winning back to back should always lead to some success in the playoffs. At least make it out of the first round. It diminishes the MVP even more because people will barely remember what season he had because he didn't even make it past April. Or they will remember it because of that fact. It's just tragic.

The bolded is not true, you don't even care to know the facts.

And the only "tragic" loss in past two playoffs was that to ATL. It's comical how Embiid's fans pretend he is some winner.

Making the second round is basically a championship in Philadelphia.

[Cubbies2120]

So basically you are blaming the voters for not having prophetic abilities? Since the voting was done before the playoffs even started.

And for the millionth time, it's only a regular season award and it's not "Who is the best player in the world" award or "Who do you think will do best in the playoffs this season" award"? There is nothing tragic about the MVP losing in the first round.

They didn't need to be prophets. They just needed to look at the previous post season to see that his numbers weren't translating to real playoff wins.

Why only the previous postseason? Why not the one before that?

Because Embiid got swept without Ben there...by a team that didn't even make it out of the conference...and that doesn't fit his narrative...