2021-22 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt. 1)

[AmIWrongDude]

Your sense of things is probably a little off. This place is LeBron country. The 140 page and counting thread on him on the neighboring forum in a season he has so far been a non-factor is an indication of that.

The Warriors fans around here are rather placid. I'm probably the exception and only because I'm put off by how even the Warriors fans around here underestimate Curry and so readily buy the claptrap spouted about him by the media.

Ordinarily characterizing the Warriors' last victory as a poor shooting night on Curry's part in which his teammates bailed him out might be one I have no problem with. But the backdrop of the last few games, the tone of this thread, and the results providence has provided gives the perfect platform to highlight the inanity of the arguments against Curry.

Curry only wins because of his teammates? The second, third, and fourth highest scorers on the Warriors were unavailable when Curry and the Warriors swooped in on the home court of the team with the second best record in the league and won.

Curry only wins because of the defense Draymond (an MVP level guy if the Jazz's coach is to be believed) is mainly responsible for? Curry and the Warriors take out the Jazz and their third best record and best offense in the league on their home court too despite not having Draymond.

Curry cannot win the MVP because of his inferior stats? Curry and the Warriors win despite Curry scoring single digits on a night all the other leading MVP contenders score more than 25 but lose. It's delicious how fate has conspired to make it look like one big troll job.

Fair enough, I’m sure I’ll learn more about the specific fan bases in due course! For the record I think Giannis KD and Curry are almost neck and neck in whatever order (personally I have Giannis at 1), with KD and Steph not too far behind)… still plenty of time to go and it’s all up for grabs. I won’t comment on each of your specific points, mainly because anyone who questions Curry’s value is either a troll or clueless… but I do think you can be an objective poster and not think Curry is MVP front runner, which to some Curry fans comes across as sacrilege - it’s on a similar note to Lebron fans taking huge insult at people thinking he’s ONLY the second greatest player that ever lived…

It's sacrilege due to the history of excuses, moving goal posts and double standards used to deny Curry. Stats are what's important? Then how did Iguodala get the 2015 FMVP? Narrative is what is important? Then how did KD get the FMVP in 2018? Wins are what's important? Then how did Westbrook or anyone else get MVP in 2017? Stacked teams preclude a player from getting an MVP? Then why were LeBron or Davis mentioned in 2020 and why is KD a candidate this year? If Curry is denied yet again this year despite leading a team to the best record that two years ago was at the very bottom of the league I think the credibility of the MVP award is shot.

Dude you're talking about excuses, double standards, and credibility when the last couple of pages you've been trying to act like Steph had a great performance when he shot 3/17. Cmon now.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Giannis last 5 games:

33/11/7 + 1 steal / 1 block
57/22/73

IMO he has the slight edge in the MVP race for now, Curry has somewhat cooled down in the past 4/5 weeks.

... but I still think Curry will win the MVP, due to voter's fatigue on Giannis' behalf and the "beautiful" narrative surrounding Curry.

Next week will be fun for the Bucks with Nets and Warriors. Shouldnt matter as much as it does, but the media loves these head-to-head match-ups.

[WarriorGM]

Fair enough, I’m sure I’ll learn more about the specific fan bases in due course! For the record I think Giannis KD and Curry are almost neck and neck in whatever order (personally I have Giannis at 1), with KD and Steph not too far behind)… still plenty of time to go and it’s all up for grabs. I won’t comment on each of your specific points, mainly because anyone who questions Curry’s value is either a troll or clueless… but I do think you can be an objective poster and not think Curry is MVP front runner, which to some Curry fans comes across as sacrilege - it’s on a similar note to Lebron fans taking huge insult at people thinking he’s ONLY the second greatest player that ever lived…

It's sacrilege due to the history of excuses, moving goal posts and double standards used to deny Curry. Stats are what's important? Then how did Iguodala get the 2015 FMVP? Narrative is what is important? Then how did KD get the FMVP in 2018? Wins are what's important? Then how did Westbrook or anyone else get MVP in 2017? Stacked teams preclude a player from getting an MVP? Then why were LeBron or Davis mentioned in 2020 and why is KD a candidate this year? If Curry is denied yet again this year despite leading a team to the best record that two years ago was at the very bottom of the league I think the credibility of the MVP award is shot.

Dude you're talking about excuses, double standards, and credibility when the last couple of pages you've been trying to act like Steph had a great performance when he shot 3/17. Cmon now.

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

[Kurtz]

It's sacrilege due to the history of excuses, moving goal posts and double standards used to deny Curry. Stats are what's important? Then how did Iguodala get the 2015 FMVP? Narrative is what is important? Then how did KD get the FMVP in 2018? Wins are what's important? Then how did Westbrook or anyone else get MVP in 2017? Stacked teams preclude a player from getting an MVP? Then why were LeBron or Davis mentioned in 2020 and why is KD a candidate this year? If Curry is denied yet again this year despite leading a team to the best record that two years ago was at the very bottom of the league I think the credibility of the MVP award is shot.

Dude you're talking about excuses, double standards, and credibility when the last couple of pages you've been trying to act like Steph had a great performance when he shot 3/17. Cmon now.

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

This is really taking cherry-picking to a new level - completely dismissing the import of his teammates and placing everything at the altar of Curry. When he's great and the Warriors win, it's Curry. Fine. But when he's terrible and the Warriors win that makes him even more great? Really?

If Curry was this all-powerful entity capable of winning without quality support how did he miss the playoffs last year? Was last year less instructive than last week for some reason?

If the season ended today, Curry would almost certainly win the MVP. And it's true that Giannis has faced easier opposition this year. But when you aggrandize Curry even on days when he was terrible, you really undermine your argument.

[moderndarwin]

Dude you're talking about excuses, double standards, and credibility when the last couple of pages you've been trying to act like Steph had a great performance when he shot 3/17. Cmon now.

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

This is really taking cherry-picking to a new level - completely dismissing the import of his teammates and placing everything at the altar of Curry. When he's great and the Warriors win, it's Curry. Fine. But when he's terrible and the Warriors win that makes him even more great? Really?

If Curry was this all-powerful entity capable of winning without quality support how did he miss the playoffs last year? Was last year less instructive than last week for some reason?

If the season ended today, Curry would almost certainly win the MVP. And it's true that Giannis has faced easier opposition this year. But when you aggrandize Curry even on days when he was terrible, you really undermine your argument.

Well that’s where your argument falls apart. When Curry played those awful scrub Warriors were 37-26 last year. He didnt miss the playoffs due to lack of winning but rather lack of availability (being hurt).

[Kurtz]

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

This is really taking cherry-picking to a new level - completely dismissing the import of his teammates and placing everything at the altar of Curry. When he's great and the Warriors win, it's Curry. Fine. But when he's terrible and the Warriors win that makes him even more great? Really?

If Curry was this all-powerful entity capable of winning without quality support how did he miss the playoffs last year? Was last year less instructive than last week for some reason?

If the season ended today, Curry would almost certainly win the MVP. And it's true that Giannis has faced easier opposition this year. But when you aggrandize Curry even on days when he was terrible, you really undermine your argument.

Well that’s where your argument falls apart. When Curry played those awful scrub Warriors were 37-26 last year. He didnt miss the playoffs due to lack of winning but rather lack of availability (being hurt).

I don't think you've read my argument correctly - I've never called those other players scrubs - that was WarriorGm's insinuation. My point was the exact opposite.

Curry is playing worse this year than last year, but the team is considerably better (even compared to that 37-26 record). Why do you think that is?

[timO]

Giannis last 5 games:

33/11/7 + 1 steal / 1 block
57/22/73

IMO he has the slight edge in the MVP race for now, Curry has somewhat cooled down in the past 4/5 weeks.

... but I still think Curry will win the MVP, due to voter's fatigue on Giannis' behalf and the "beautiful" narrative surrounding Curry.

curry is shooting worst % of career

it will be a joke if he is the winner unless he goes 15/16 mode or at least last year

[nitric0]

I didn’t realize Curry was shooting 42% from the field. I just assumed it was around 48+%. Not sure how he’s top 3 in this race anymore.

[AmIWrongDude]

It's sacrilege due to the history of excuses, moving goal posts and double standards used to deny Curry. Stats are what's important? Then how did Iguodala get the 2015 FMVP? Narrative is what is important? Then how did KD get the FMVP in 2018? Wins are what's important? Then how did Westbrook or anyone else get MVP in 2017? Stacked teams preclude a player from getting an MVP? Then why were LeBron or Davis mentioned in 2020 and why is KD a candidate this year? If Curry is denied yet again this year despite leading a team to the best record that two years ago was at the very bottom of the league I think the credibility of the MVP award is shot.

Dude you're talking about excuses, double standards, and credibility when the last couple of pages you've been trying to act like Steph had a great performance when he shot 3/17. Cmon now.

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

It's ok to say he didn't play well and that his team still won. It happens. Curry this, Curry that, but the Warriors won the game - not Curry.

[rzzzzz]

Embiid named Eastern Conference player of the month? I’d say player of the month. (But Donovan Mitchell in the West.)

[Ron Swanson]

Embiid's recent stretch probably puts him in the conversation, but it's still Giannis then Jokic, then a pretty sizeable gap between everyone else IMO. Obviously Jokic won't and shouldn't win it if the Nuggets end the season a .500 basketball team, but until that happens I'll have Jokic as the primary challenger with his insane level of current play. Giannis has closed the gap in a lot of the big value and impact metrics though.

Giannis: 31.4 PER, .278 WS/48, 10.2 BPM, +13.9 on/off (+10.6 ON)
Jokic: 32.2 PER, .272 WS/48, 13.3 BPM, +22.8 on/off (+9.3 ON)

My issue with something like RAPTOR in particular is that it both probably undersells Jokic's offensive impact (2nd at +7.4) but comically oversells his impact on defense (+7.8 or nearly 3x higher than Draymond or Giannis).


Giannis
Jokic

(gap)

Curry
Embiid
Durant
Gobert
DeRozan

[WarriorGM]

Dude you're talking about excuses, double standards, and credibility when the last couple of pages you've been trying to act like Steph had a great performance when he shot 3/17. Cmon now.

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

It's ok to say he didn't play well and that his team still won. It happens. Curry this, Curry that, but the Warriors won the game - not Curry.

Except we keep hearing insinuations of this sort all the time whenever Curry is mentioned—and generally it is simply not true. It is a falser statement to apply to Curry than virtually any other player in the league. So no it is not okay to say it without acknowledging the overall picture. And that is what people are denying when they are currently saying this MVP race is close. It isn't nor as things currently stand should it be.

[michaelm]

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

It's ok to say he didn't play well and that his team still won. It happens. Curry this, Curry that, but the Warriors won the game - not Curry.

Except we keep hearing insinuations of this sort all the time whenever Curry is mentioned—and generally it is simply not true. It is a falser statement to apply to Curry than virtually any other player in the league. So no it is not okay to say it without acknowledging the overall picture. And that is what people are doing when they are currently saying this MVP race is close. It isn't nor as things currently stand should it be.

He is not getting the award if he continues to shoot this badly, but I would far prefer another title ahead of another MVP award anyway, particularly given he is already the only ever unanimous winner of the award, and so I am sure would he. This team is built around him, and he helped the team even last night when he shot so poorly, managing 10 assists for a start (despite not really being a PG as I am frequently told on this board) in a winning effort. I wonder why players want to play with him and are better playing with him ?, although he is not solely responsible for the team ethos imo, Green, Iguodala and Kerr also being important imo. He needs to shoot better than he has been for the last 4 or 5 weeks except for the odd game or the "gravity" thing will diminish. What is bizarre is that he seems to shoot better when not open, perhaps he is over thinking and/or being too deliberate on unaccustomed open shots as has been postulated elsewhere.

[WarriorGM]

Dude you're talking about excuses, double standards, and credibility when the last couple of pages you've been trying to act like Steph had a great performance when he shot 3/17. Cmon now.

It's not a great performance. It's an instructive performance. The past week was very instructive. Curry can beat top teams without his primary supporting scorers. Curry can beat top teams without his primary defensive support. Curry can be effective without scoring. In contrast others present another leading candidate producing monster numbers against teams at the bottom of the league and we're led to believe this is what a leading MVP contender should look like. Really? Do I even need to mention the loss against the worst team in the league? Cmon now indeed.

This is really taking cherry-picking to a new level - completely dismissing the import of his teammates and placing everything at the altar of Curry. When he's great and the Warriors win, it's Curry. Fine. But when he's terrible and the Warriors win that makes him even more great? Really?

If Curry was this all-powerful entity capable of winning without quality support how did he miss the playoffs last year? Was last year less instructive than last week for some reason?

If the season ended today, Curry would almost certainly win the MVP. And it's true that Giannis has faced easier opposition this year. But when you aggrandize Curry even on days when he was terrible, you really undermine your argument.

Last year should have been very instructive too and it's quite clear you guys didn't understand what was happening in front of you because I didn't see any of you at the start of the season predicting the Warriors would be close to having the best record this year like I did.

How did the Warriors miss the playoffs last year? Good question. They shouldn't have, even as they were sporting a roster full of G-Leaguers and journeymen.

One clear reason is that the league changed the qualification criteria for the playoffs. The Warriors would have made the playoffs any other year using previous criteria. Being required to play a team that was the previous champion and another that is currently the 7th best in the league in one game series didn't help either.

Another is that Warriors management gave Curry dead weight with its desire for development. The other Warriors fans around here will deny it but management's priorities probably shifted when news of Klay's second injury that would cause him to miss another season came. Curry was leading his team on a 60-win pace when they optimized the lineup as lineup data earlier in the year indicated they should have sooner.

Speaking of lineup data did any of you look at the lineup analysis posted earlier or that was available last year? Or the on/off data during the Warriors' KD years? If you understand what any of that analysis indicated none of these questions regarding Curry vis a vis his teammates should be asked. Indeed if any of you even basically grasped the import of Curry year in and year out leading his team to a 60+ win pace to a degree no one else in history has done it should be obvious who is the most responsible for the Warriors' success. I struggle to think of any other player whose presence or lack of it paints such a stark black and white picture.

Is it aggrandizing Curry when as you say he plays terrible but finishes with an even plus-minus in a victory against a top 8 team? Then what are we to call bigging up a -12 performance in a loss to the last place team?

[Ballerhogger]

Embiid's recent stretch probably puts him in the conversation, but it's still Giannis then Jokic, then a pretty sizeable gap between everyone else IMO. Obviously Jokic won't and shouldn't win it if the Nuggets end the season a .500 basketball team, but until that happens I'll have Jokic as the primary challenger with his insane level of current play. Giannis has closed the gap in a lot of the big value and impact metrics though.

Giannis: 31.4 PER, .278 WS/48, 10.2 BPM, +13.9 on/off (+10.6 ON)
Jokic: 32.2 PER, .272 WS/48, 13.3 BPM, +22.8 on/off (+9.3 ON)

My issue with something like RAPTOR in particular is that it both probably undersells Jokic's offensive impact (2nd at +7.4) but comically oversells his impact on defense (+7.8 or nearly 3x higher than Draymond or Giannis).


Giannis
Jokic

(gap)

Curry
Embiid
Durant
Gobert
DeRozan

Jokic has to finish top 3 in west have a shot .. DeRozan has had better year than Gobert

[Bmaasse]

There is a reason leading a team to the best record in the regular season is so closely tied with the MVP: It is an objective tangible accomplishment that is above arbitrary made up indicators like triple doubles.

I disagree when you say MVPs are not validated or negated after-the-fact. They are because the credibility of the award itself is either enhanced or undermined by the choices made.

The "beauty" you refer to is there for the ones giving it to shift the narrative as they please but once it becomes obvious they are putting out nothing but bull the award's value likewise goes to the gutter.

So does leading your team to the best record in the NBA validate the MVP or does winning the title?

The Bucks had the best record for the 2 years that Giannis won the award, but it only became justified when the Bucks were able to win the chip last year? I'm confused, should the MVP have to do both to be valid?

Also what has Paul and Harden done that makes them more significant in a historical context?Neither one of them has rings so what's their "best in the world lineage"? And why should Giannis take a back seat to either of them? Seems like your goalposts are all over the place.

Leading a team to the best record in the league is an accomplishment. So is winning a championship. One is a regular season accomplishment the other a playoffs accomplishment. The latter fulfills the promise of the former.

While the idea of awards in the view of those who create them is to validate accomplishments, as far as I'm concerned what a player does exists independently of the award. What an award is really doing is hopping on the halo created by someone else and validating itself. That's why you can have an eleven time champion who never received a particular award and the ones who were embarrassed when he didn't receive it when he was eligible was the award so much so they named it after him.

There are four players who for the most part contested most of the championships of this recent era: LeBron, Curry, Durant, and Kawhi. Beating them in the playoffs would more easily carry on the reputation their contests against each other established. I consider Harden and Paul as arguably still more historically significant so far than Giannis because they've had more battles against these four and it is around those battles that one tends to go to adequately explain the recent era.

Yeah, this makes zero sense as all of the players you mentioned have been in the league much longer so they have had more opportunities. Plus most of these guys have teamed up with each other and still lost. Harden & Paul, Harden & Durant, Durant & Curry. We already know the story on LeBron, and Kawhi won his first chip playing next to Duncan.

Meanwhile Giannis has accomplished more in a shorter time frame, not to mention that he beat Harden, Durant, and Paul en route to the championship.

Give my man his flowers.

[shakes0]

Trae is definitely top 5 if the Hawks can improve their record and move into a top 6 playoff spot.

[Wilfried]

https://www.nba.com/news/joel-embiid-demar-derozan-lead-list-of-top-clutch-scorers

[WarriorGM]

So does leading your team to the best record in the NBA validate the MVP or does winning the title?

The Bucks had the best record for the 2 years that Giannis won the award, but it only became justified when the Bucks were able to win the chip last year? I'm confused, should the MVP have to do both to be valid?

Also what has Paul and Harden done that makes them more significant in a historical context?Neither one of them has rings so what's their "best in the world lineage"? And why should Giannis take a back seat to either of them? Seems like your goalposts are all over the place.

Leading a team to the best record in the league is an accomplishment. So is winning a championship. One is a regular season accomplishment the other a playoffs accomplishment. The latter fulfills the promise of the former.

While the idea of awards in the view of those who create them is to validate accomplishments, as far as I'm concerned what a player does exists independently of the award. What an award is really doing is hopping on the halo created by someone else and validating itself. That's why you can have an eleven time champion who never received a particular award and the ones who were embarrassed when he didn't receive it when he was eligible was the award so much so they named it after him.

There are four players who for the most part contested most of the championships of this recent era: LeBron, Curry, Durant, and Kawhi. Beating them in the playoffs would more easily carry on the reputation their contests against each other established. I consider Harden and Paul as arguably still more historically significant so far than Giannis because they've had more battles against these four and it is around those battles that one tends to go to adequately explain the recent era.

Yeah, this makes zero sense as all of the players you mentioned have been in the league much longer so they have had more opportunities. Plus most of these guys have teamed up with each other and still lost. Harden & Paul, Harden & Durant, Durant & Curry. We already know the story on LeBron, and Kawhi won his first chip playing next to Duncan.

Meanwhile Giannis has accomplished more in a shorter time frame, not to mention that he beat Harden, Durant, and Paul en route to the championship.

Give my man his flowers.

Giannis has already been given bouquets.

No one is saying Giannis hasn't achieved more in a shorter time frame. But the MVP accolades are still ahead of the rings. The first MVP has been paid off. The second one hasn't and you are already expecting he should get a third. The body and quality of the rest of his output so far does not warrant it.

[MeloNY]

Don't sleep on Lebron James. The key is health. If he continues to play well and the Lakers have a top 4 record in the east (not out of the realm of possibility as they are currently one percentage point from being 5th in the West), he has a real shot.