NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24 (Part 4: MVP Thread's Revenge)

[Handlez]

People are sleeping on Luka.

That team has been in disarray all year, but they've finally put together a solid cast for Luka. Kyrie is back to playing more. (Never know with him)

Jokic clearly has a better supporting cast. I'd take Murray over Kyrie, especially in the playoffs. Then you have Porter and Gordon, two fantastic role players that can go ham at anytime.

If Luka can get the Mavs to 50 wins with his insane stats, I don't see how he doesn't deserve MVP.

50+ wins and Luka is my MVP.

[Handlez]

Not sure what's there to ‘call out’. If you didn't believe in plus-minus patterns before, you shouldn't start just because it looks better for the player you support over a small sample. If you generally believe in plus-minus patterns, a small sample should not override the much larger sample we do have available.

That being said, of course this could be the start of a trend and Luka turning the corner when it comes to plus-minus based impact. So if that proves sustainable over a larger sample, I'm sure that Doc MJ will happily acknowledge that because – unlike some of Luka's fans seem to believe – he's not biased against their favorite player. It's simply too early to override all that could be observed before and, importantly, it also wouldn't mean that the previous data or conclusions were incorrect – it could just mean that Luka has found a way (possibly aided by a renovated roster) to impact the game more or more consistently.

Either way, the recent pattern certainly isn't some kind of ‘gotcha’ moment in the debate about Luka's regular season impact.

Oh, I didn't suggest he's biased whatsoever, I'm merely following up
obviously it's a small sample but I predicted this would happen and suggested it as a method to test the two differing models, so far so good

edit: small sample for sure, but let's say for agument's sake that this trend continues - don't u think that's a "gotcha" moment?
Luka has never played alongside an actual NBA level roster, until the deadline, 6+ seasons of data all from such flawed rosters, and for those 6+ seasons he has failed to impress in +-, def not MVP caliber +-, but the minute he gets an actual NBA level roster, with a healthy co-star and NBA level players at every position (on the bench as well),suddenly his +- "normalizes" to fit the eye test?
that's a heck of a coincidence

but yes, the sample is def way too small we'll see if this trend continues up to the end of the season

i'll keep following up

So, I appreciate you recognize it's small sample. As always, more will be revealed with time.

I will say that when you suggest that Luka recording high raw +/- with this set of teammates is something I said would not happen, I didn't say any such thing. To be clear: What we'll be looking for in this line of stats are more nuanced (on/off, regression, etc) stats showing a very new trend. This probably happens if Luka keeps recording +/- numbers like this, but it's not the actual stat we'd be looking for for evidence.

Re: "Luka has never played alongside an actual NBA level roster". Okay, so this is the thing you and so many others are just deluded about. It makes no sense to claim this when we see the quantity of Off +/- data we have for Luka over his career. The reality is that Luka just didn't have an extremely low quality of help around him. You're just saying this because you're trying to blame Luka's context for the fact that he wasn't having great team success, but it's objectively not true.

And to be clear: Does that contradict the idea that with the right set of teammates Luka could lead an elite contender? No.

Final thing here: I believe what we're really circling around here is the concept of team fit around a star. When you surround a star with a scheme and supporting cast with the right balance of skills, you can dramatically improve is impact. I'm not trying to insist the talent level of his teammates is staying the same, but if we see great success now - as we see in the case of a true home run of a acquisition - I think we'll be analyzing the success of the fit a great deal.

Jokic has a better supporting cast.

SGA has a better supporting cast.

Are you denying this?

There's no need to complicate it.

[kan_t]

People are sleeping on Luka.

That team has been in disarray all year, but they've finally put together a solid cast for Luka. Kyrie is back to playing more. (Never know with him)

Jokic clearly has a better supporting cast. I'd take Murray over Kyrie, especially in the playoffs. Then you have Porter and Gordon, two fantastic role players that can go ham at anytime.

If Luka can get the Mavs to 50 wins with his insane stats, I don't see how he doesn't deserve MVP.

50+ wins and Luka is my MVP.

I don't think people would say it's a robbery if Luka wins it. People sleep on him not because he doesn't deserve it. It's because people don't see him winning it in actual voting.

[QPR]

If Gordon and Porter "go ham" it's usually because Jokic is feeding them or drawing players. They're both finishers.

[B-easy]

The WS/48 leader has won MVP 11/13 times (Westbrook '17, Embiid '23). Last year was one of the worst MVP decisions in 30 years and the Westbrook one was also kind of bad.

Leaders this season.
1. Jokic .302
2. SGA .300
3. Giannis .249
4. Doncic .226

[ty 4191]

If Gordon and Porter "go ham" it's usually because Jokic is feeding them or drawing players. They're both finishers.

Exactly.

Career Assist %, all Centers, NBA History, Min 20000 MP (This is HILARIOUS):



Playoffs, Career:

[Exp0sed]

The WS/48 leader has won MVP 11/13 times (Westbrook '17, Embiid '23). Last year was one of the worst MVP decisions in 30 years and the Westbrook one was also kind of bad.

Leaders this season.
1. Jokic .302
2. SGA .300
3. Giannis .249
4. Doncic .226

yes, the WB MVP and the fake MVPiid were the two worst choices (by far) in the last two decades. the Joe L MVP might have been the most egergious error ever, dude is just a part-time player. he played 66 games with insane usage..you can't give a player credit for raw stats that stem from insane usage - if he can't actually keep it up over a full season

not to mention players playing better, more and leading their teams to better seeds

SGA 0.300 for a guard is pretty sick tbh, what an awesome player
imo, SGA's almost immaculate season is the closest anyone has gotten to Jokic's level over the course of the season, since Jokic hit his peak stride. close but no cigar

there's still time for him to edge Jokic ofc, season's not over

[Celts17Pride]

In my opinion if the Celtics win 65+ games this year then I don't see how Jayson Tatum doesn't get it. Otherwise winning just doesn't matter.

[Crunch 99]

If Gordon and Porter "go ham" it's usually because Jokic is feeding them or drawing players. They're both finishers.

Exactly.

Career Assist %, all Centers, NBA History, Min 20000 MP (This is HILARIOUS):

Yes, that is astounding. Bill Walton had a career high, 22.8 AST% the season he won the MVP, 77-78, but was still a long ways from Jokic's career AST%. Walton also only played 58 games the year he won the MVP, so would have been ineligible with today's 65 game rule. Too bad the rest of Walton's career was limited by injuries.

Domantis Sabonis is at 23 career AST% and climbing.

[Special_Puppy]

In my opinion if the Celtics win 65+ games this year then I don't see how Jayson Tatum doesn't get it. Otherwise winning just doesn't matter.

Well the Celtics have about a 50/50 chance of winning 65+ games and Tatum's MVP odds are +3600 so I'd recommend betting a hefty amount on Tatum if you actually believe that

[Kurtz]

In my opinion if the Celtics win 65+ games this year then I don't see how Jayson Tatum doesn't get it. Otherwise winning just doesn't matter.

Phoenix won 64 games in 21-22, 8 more than any other team in the NBA.

Did Booker deserve the MVP that season?

[CD_41]

In my opinion if the Celtics win 65+ games this year then I don't see how Jayson Tatum doesn't get it. Otherwise winning just doesn't matter.

I think winning does matter. It is just not the only criterion.
Also 65 seems not to be a reasonable threshold.
Since the 1999-2000 season, there were only 7 MVPs that won at least 65 games with their team.

Also the way you're framing this is that Tatum is solely responsible for the Celtics team success.
That is obviously not the case. The relative contribution to a team winning plays usually a way bigger role.
That is why unsurprisingly Jokic is always at the top or near the top of the MVP ranking.

Listen, winning does play a role. But how much you contribute to your team success also plays a role.

[Wolfgang630]

In my opinion if the Celtics win 65+ games this year then I don't see how Jayson Tatum doesn't get it. Otherwise winning just doesn't matter.

Just like Booker didn’t win it with phoenix and it was justified. It would be the same with Tatum

[Homerclease]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

This is really just a two horse race between SGA and Jokic barring a miracle run by Giannis or Tatum or an injury

[Special_Puppy]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

This is really just a two horse race between SGA and Jokic barring a miracle run by Giannis or Tatum or an injury

Nah Luka and Giannis have great shots of winning

[Woodsanity]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

This is really just a two horse race between SGA and Jokic barring a miracle run by Giannis or Tatum or an injury

Tatum over Luka.

I can't take anyone seriously who rates Tatum this high just because his team improved.

He is worse than last season.... Improved record is due to adding Porzingis and Jrue....

[LeBronSpaghetti]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

This is really just a two horse race between SGA and Jokic barring a miracle run by Giannis or Tatum or an injury

Tatum is the most overrated player in the league. ESPN can’t help themselves because he’s American and on an iconic team. There is no other possible justification for him being ahead of Luka.

[Homerclease]

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

This is really just a two horse race between SGA and Jokic barring a miracle run by Giannis or Tatum or an injury

Tatum over Luka.

I can't take anyone seriously who rates Tatum this high just because his team improved.

He is worse than last season.... Improved record is due to adding Porzingis and Jrue....

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=2r3K1qCL2UmIu9zb8OVdDw

[Doctor MJ]

Oh, I didn't suggest he's biased whatsoever, I'm merely following up
obviously it's a small sample but I predicted this would happen and suggested it as a method to test the two differing models, so far so good

edit: small sample for sure, but let's say for agument's sake that this trend continues - don't u think that's a "gotcha" moment?
Luka has never played alongside an actual NBA level roster, until the deadline, 6+ seasons of data all from such flawed rosters, and for those 6+ seasons he has failed to impress in +-, def not MVP caliber +-, but the minute he gets an actual NBA level roster, with a healthy co-star and NBA level players at every position (on the bench as well),suddenly his +- "normalizes" to fit the eye test?
that's a heck of a coincidence

but yes, the sample is def way too small we'll see if this trend continues up to the end of the season

i'll keep following up

So, I appreciate you recognize it's small sample. As always, more will be revealed with time.

I will say that when you suggest that Luka recording high raw +/- with this set of teammates is something I said would not happen, I didn't say any such thing. To be clear: What we'll be looking for in this line of stats are more nuanced (on/off, regression, etc) stats showing a very new trend. This probably happens if Luka keeps recording +/- numbers like this, but it's not the actual stat we'd be looking for for evidence.

Re: "Luka has never played alongside an actual NBA level roster". Okay, so this is the thing you and so many others are just deluded about. It makes no sense to claim this when we see the quantity of Off +/- data we have for Luka over his career. The reality is that Luka just didn't have an extremely low quality of help around him. You're just saying this because you're trying to blame Luka's context for the fact that he wasn't having great team success, but it's objectively not true.

And to be clear: Does that contradict the idea that with the right set of teammates Luka could lead an elite contender? No.

Final thing here: I believe what we're really circling around here is the concept of team fit around a star. When you surround a star with a scheme and supporting cast with the right balance of skills, you can dramatically improve is impact. I'm not trying to insist the talent level of his teammates is staying the same, but if we see great success now - as we see in the case of a true home run of a acquisition - I think we'll be analyzing the success of the fit a great deal.

Jokic has a better supporting cast.

SGA has a better supporting cast.

Are you denying this?

There's no need to complicate it.

Hmm. Well I think the really important thing is that to have a meaningful MVP discussion more complication is required. One star having a worse supporting cast doesn't mean we ignore actual team performance.

But to the actual question, I don't think it's so simple. I mean, Jokic's team has done considerably worse with him on the bench than Luka's has with him. I would not claim that alone defines "worse supporting cast", but it's kind of a big part of the set of facts to be considered.

[bisme37]

Haven't posted in this thread for a couple months at least but I feel compelled to talk my guy Tatum up for a minute. Then you guys can put me on a terrorist watchlist for not posting about Jokic, SGA or Luka and I'll be on my way haha.

There is no defined criteria for MVP. Seems like most people nowadays just look at who has the gaudiest stats but I've always thought of it as Most Valuable to Winning. If you don't agree with my criteria you will likely not agree with my case for Tatum but keep in mind I don't really agree with your criteria either lol.

The Celtics have been the best team in the NBA this season by a comfortable margin. Best record, best net rating, best offensive rating in history, massive point differential, etc. On pace for about 65 wins.

Jayson Tatum leads the Celtics in points, rebounds, assists and steals. He's efficient. And the C's are significantly better when he's on the court.

3 players have had Tatum's stats for a team that won 75% of its games - Giannis, Malone and Kareem. All 3 won MVP.

There was a thread a week or two about Tatum's MVP chances and basically everyone said he can't win MVP because the Celtics are so stacked. But there was a thread yesterday about All NBA and a grand total of zero people had the Celtics getting anyone else on the All NBA team. They had two all-stars this season just like numerous other teams, and people also think they have no bench and no coach. So how are the Celtics even good? One of life's great mysteries lol.

Then I've heard people here and in the media say he can't win an MVP until he wins a ring. But that wasn't the case for Jokic or Giannis or Embiid, and no one says it about Luka or SGA. So it just seems like the goalposts and reasoning changes for Tatum in ways that somehow don't apply to anyone else.

If y'all don't watch the Celtics or don't put much stock in winning as it pertains to MVP, you're not going to get it, but JT is playing the best basketball of his career on both ends for the best team in the league. We know he can average 30 but his game is much smarter and team oriented than earlier in his career, and he's leading the team and winning. Which is the whole point of this iirc.

There are other great players and other great candidates, and he admittedly will likely not win MVP this year. But I have no idea how he's not regarded as a very strong candidate.