iggymcfrack wrote:jokeboy86 wrote:eyeatoma wrote:They are 2 games ahead of Philly. Difference is negligible.
Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk
But the key word would be
ahead of Philly. I think out of Embiid, Giannis, Jokic whoever's team has the best record should win this year. There's no narrative this year of any of them missing their 2nd and 3rd best players for the entire season. It should come down to record this year.
Why are people so insistent on using the teams record instead of the record when the player plays? Like if Team A goes 50-20 with Candidate and 4-8 when he’s on the bench, isn’t that more impressive for the candidate than if Team B goes 49-21 with Candidate B and 8-4 when he doesn’t play? Yeah Team B has 57 wins to 54 for Team A, but Candidate A showed himself to be significantly more valuable. This year we have:
Jokic: 45-19
Nuggets w/o Jokic: 3-5
Giannis playing at least 10 minutes: 40-14
Bucks w/o Giannis playing at least 10 minutes: 11-6
Embiid: 39-18
Sixers w/o Embiid: 9-4
If we use the teams record without their stars as a baseline, the Sixers have won an extra -0.5 games in games Embiid played due to the value he provides. The Bucks have won an extra 5 games in the games Giannis played due to the value he provides. The Nuggets have won 21 extra games due to the value Jokic provides.
Like if you just take a tiny little bit of effort to look at this, it’s obvious who the most valuable player in the league is. It’s really not that close. This should honestly be a lopsided race in favor of Jokic. If none of these guys had won an MVP yet and the media didn’t get into all this stupid hot take racism ****, I bet Jokic would get at least 90% of the vote.
I find this line of thinking silly, because it happens every year. You people put this narrative that a players team needs to completely fall apart when that player is gone for a player to be MVP.
Let's look at this example for probably the single best player to pick up a basketball Michael Jordan.
From 1989-1999 during Jordan's decade long dominance of the nba, which included 5 MVps during that time... You know that the Bulls were over a .500 record without him? In fact they still made the playoffs in the season he completely missed.
This argument you make, makes it sound like MVP's can never be awarded to players who have a competent front office and a good coaching staff.
The Spurs in the 2000's without Duncan? Winning record.
The Thunder record without KD throughout his entire time in OKC? 40-41. 1 game under .500.
A team does not need to collapse without their star player for them to be the MVP of the league.
There are certain teams who center their entire offensive identity around 1 player. The Wade Heat, The Young LeBron Cavs, The Paul Hornets ext. Those kind of teams will always show a bigger drop off when their star isn't there. Jokic's Nuggets are the same way.
