RealGM

slick_watts wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:I can't fathom the argument that says that a player is an MVP candidate if he raises a team that is potentially one of the bottom 4-5 in the league, to around .500. How is that a valid argument for MVP?

it is a simple concept. the nuggets aren't much worse than the bucks w/ giannis when jokic is on the court. why would you penalize him for the team being putrid when he sits, if this is the case?

mediocrityrules wrote:

slick_watts wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:I can't fathom the argument that says that a player is an MVP candidate if he raises a team that is potentially one of the bottom 4-5 in the league, to around .500. How is that a valid argument for MVP?

it is a simple concept. the nuggets aren't much worse than the bucks w/ giannis when jokic is on the court. why would you penalize him for the team being putrid when he sits, if this is the case?

It's not a simple concept at all. All of this is incredibly nuanced. It's why we have these debates.

I think someone else just posted it, but it's much easier to raise an awful team to mediocre, than a mediocre team to a championship.

Jokic has it easy right now. He doesn't have to win, just put up the numbers regardless and he gets MVP as far as you're concerned.

slick_watts wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:

slick_watts wrote:
my original post in this thread mentioned that in a fair and just world, jokic would win mvp in a landslide.

we do not live in such a world, we live in one where team success outside of the control of the individual players considered for an individual award is an important criteria. obviously, jokic won't win mvp if the nuggets are at or around .500. and that is dumb.

The fact that you can type that, and truly believe that he is head and shoulders above Giannis, KD etc? You said landslide. You think that Jokic is right now so far ahead of Giannis and KD?

yes, jokic is having one of the best seasons ever.

slick_watts wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:

slick_watts wrote:
it is a simple concept. the nuggets aren't much worse than the bucks w/ giannis when jokic is on the court. why would you penalize him for the team being putrid when he sits, if this is the case?

It's not a simple concept at all. All of this is incredibly nuanced. It's why we have these debates.

I think someone else just posted it, but it's much easier to raise an awful team to mediocre, than a mediocre team to a championship.

Jokic has it easy right now. He doesn't have to win, just put up the numbers regardless and he gets MVP as far as you're concerned.

lol except the nuggets are within 1-2pp100 as good as the bucks when jokic is actually on the court. such a glib counterargument. the nuggets are literally an elite team when jokic is in, irrespective of how bad they are when he is not.

some things never change, i guess. i remember these same talks 16 years ago on realgm.

KGtabake wrote:

slick_watts wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:
The fact that you can type that, and truly believe that he is head and shoulders above Giannis, KD etc? You said landslide. You think that Jokic is right now so far ahead of Giannis and KD?

yes, jokic is having one of the best seasons ever.

"In a landslide"?
You're hyperbolic.
Jokic is ahead of Giannis in plus minuses(all of them).
Giannis is ahead of Jokic in win shares (all of them).
PER was Jokic 32.2 Vs Giannis 31.7 before tonight's games. Pretty close, one game can change it.
Giannis had a meaningful TD tonight.
Against a primary contender.
He was the better player in the two matchups vs KD too.
He certainly is a legitimate contender.

I don't have a problem in picking anyone out of Curry, Jokic, KD, Giannis, Gobert or even DeRozan, Morant, LeBron at the end.
For each one, i get the narrative.
But "in a landslide"? No.

eyeatoma wrote:I have started a new thread with a new poll if people want to continue the discussion and vote in there.

Request that the mods can lock this thread so we can get the most accurate representation on where the votes are.


New thread with new poll
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2156442

Prez wrote:

eyeatoma wrote:I have started a new thread with a new poll if people want to continue the discussion and vote in there.

Request that the mods can lock this thread so we can get the most accurate representation on where the votes are.


New thread with new poll
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2156442

I reset the poll here, don't need a new thread, we're barely over 50 pages here.

mediocrityrules wrote:I can't fathom the argument that says that a player is an MVP candidate if he raises a team that is potentially one of the bottom 4-5 in the league, to around .500. How is that a valid argument for MVP? Especially looking at the other candidates and what they are also able to do and how they bring their teams up.

Jokic needs to have his team doing more to be in the top 3-4 players right now. He can't have his team go backwards from last year and win again. Voters aren't that stupid.

Infinite Llamas wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:I can't fathom the argument that says that a player is an MVP candidate if he raises a team that is potentially one of the bottom 4-5 in the league, to around .500. How is that a valid argument for MVP? Especially looking at the other candidates and what they are also able to do and how they bring their teams up.

Jokic needs to have his team doing more to be in the top 3-4 players right now. He can't have his team go backwards from last year and win again. Voters aren't that stupid.

It’s all hypothetical but Giannis and the Bucks are barely a .500 team with Aaron Gordon as his second best player. Teammates matter. Giannis and Jokic have similar impact and importance, but Giannis has better teammates. That’s pretty much the gist of it.

mediocrityrules wrote:

Infinite Llamas wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:I can't fathom the argument that says that a player is an MVP candidate if he raises a team that is potentially one of the bottom 4-5 in the league, to around .500. How is that a valid argument for MVP? Especially looking at the other candidates and what they are also able to do and how they bring their teams up.

Jokic needs to have his team doing more to be in the top 3-4 players right now. He can't have his team go backwards from last year and win again. Voters aren't that stupid.

It’s all hypothetical but Giannis and the Bucks are barely a .500 team with Aaron Gordon as his second best player. Teammates matter. Giannis and Jokic have similar impact and importance, but Giannis has better teammates. That’s pretty much the gist of it.

You're right, it's all hypothetical, which allows us to argue ad nauseam.

But somewhere we need to draw a line on what makes someone an MVP. The last few pages or so have gravitated towards a foundational measure being that teams have a certain number of wins/ladder position, because ultimate success in this game is shown by winning when it counts.

Do we then apply that to everyone but Jokic? Or do we throw winning out the window for this discussion, and focus solely on the individual?

mediocrityrules wrote:

Infinite Llamas wrote:

mediocrityrules wrote:I can't fathom the argument that says that a player is an MVP candidate if he raises a team that is potentially one of the bottom 4-5 in the league, to around .500. How is that a valid argument for MVP? Especially looking at the other candidates and what they are also able to do and how they bring their teams up.

Jokic needs to have his team doing more to be in the top 3-4 players right now. He can't have his team go backwards from last year and win again. Voters aren't that stupid.

It’s all hypothetical but Giannis and the Bucks are barely a .500 team with Aaron Gordon as his second best player. Teammates matter. Giannis and Jokic have similar impact and importance, but Giannis has better teammates. That’s pretty much the gist of it.

You're right, it's all hypothetical, which allows us to argue ad nauseam.

But somewhere we need to draw a line on what makes someone an MVP. The last few pages or so have gravitated towards a foundational measure being that teams have a certain number of wins/ladder position, because ultimate success in this game is shown by winning when it counts.

Do we then apply that to everyone but Jokic? Or do we throw winning out the window for this discussion, and focus solely on the individual?

WhatTheBuck wrote:Giannis 30 / 12 / 11 and 3 Blocks
Curry 12 / 8 / 4 / 2 Steals and lots of gravity, presence and something you just can't put your finger on.

I predict Curry will add to his MVP votes in this thread after this match.

WhatTheBuck wrote:Giannis 30 / 12 / 11 and 3 Blocks
Curry 12 / 8 / 4 / 2 Steals and lots of gravity, presence and something you just can't put your finger on.

I predict Curry will add to his MVP votes in this thread after this match.

eyeatoma wrote:

slick_watts wrote:

eyeatoma wrote:Are you really an MVP if the best you can do is raise your team to .500?

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

yes, he's raising his team to .500 from worst in the league. they are +8.0pp100 or something when he's in the game. that's a 21pp100 swing, which is absurd.

think about it. why do you even care about team record when it comes to mvp? the reason is that the most valuable players make their teams better. jokic makes his team better, objectively, more than anyone else this season, by far. only giannis is even in the same universe as him.

jokic has no control over what happens when he is not in the game, when the nuggets play like the worst team in the nba. it's silly to ignore this and just point to the team's record.

There are plenty of MVP candidates that raise their team from .500 or just below to best in the league.

Giannis, Embiid, Durant, etc.

Let's also look historically, most MVPs are on a very good team. Westbrook and Jokic being the rare exception. I think for Jokic to win it two years in a row he'll need to make his team better not worse than last year. Yes they're missing MPJ and Murray, but I just don't see voters doing it twice in a row.

Nash and Curry did it back to back and those were very good teams.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

The Lazy Potato wrote:

eyeatoma wrote:

slick_watts wrote:
yes, he's raising his team to .500 from worst in the league. they are +8.0pp100 or something when he's in the game. that's a 21pp100 swing, which is absurd.

think about it. why do you even care about team record when it comes to mvp? the reason is that the most valuable players make their teams better. jokic makes his team better, objectively, more than anyone else this season, by far. only giannis is even in the same universe as him.

jokic has no control over what happens when he is not in the game, when the nuggets play like the worst team in the nba. it's silly to ignore this and just point to the team's record.

There are plenty of MVP candidates that raise their team from .500 or just below to best in the league.

Giannis, Embiid, Durant, etc.

Let's also look historically, most MVPs are on a very good team. Westbrook and Jokic being the rare exception. I think for Jokic to win it two years in a row he'll need to make his team better not worse than last year. Yes they're missing MPJ and Murray, but I just don't see voters doing it twice in a row.

Nash and Curry did it back to back and those were very good teams.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Also Giannis did it most recently, back to back MVP i mean.