Where would 1998 MJ rank today?

[AEnigma]

Good to know that bias is just a question of whether you can acknowledge a player meeting traditional MVP standards.

Jokic and SGA are basically tied in the traditional and advanced stats so having a relatively clear preference for SGA over Jokic in the MVP race is actually a pretty interesting opinion for someone who personally likes Jokic better

Those are not traditional MVP standards.

[Special_Puppy]

Good to know that bias is just a question of whether you can acknowledge a player meeting traditional MVP standards.

Jokic and SGA are basically tied in the traditional and advanced stats so having a relatively clear preference for SGA over Jokic in the MVP race is actually a pretty interesting opinion for someone who personally likes Jokic better

Those are not traditional MVP standards.

Whats traditional MVP standards? Just traditional stats and team wins?

[AEnigma]

Jokic and SGA are basically tied in the traditional and advanced stats so having a relatively clear preference for SGA over Jokic in the MVP race is actually a pretty interesting opinion for someone who personally likes Jokic better

Those are not traditional MVP standards.

Whats traditional MVP standards? Just traditional stats and team wins?

Effectively. The Thunder are on pace to finish fourteen wins ahead of the Nuggets. Across the typical history of the award, to give the award to Jokic despite that disparity would need to signify a much larger perceived individual gap between the two players than is justifiable.

That said, two of the past eight MVPs have been on 6-seeds (one of them Jokic himself), after zero in the preceding 34, so the standards have certainly loosened on that front.

[lessthanjake]

Those are not traditional MVP standards.

Whats traditional MVP standards? Just traditional stats and team wins?

Effectively. The Thunder are on pace to finish fourteen wins ahead of the Nuggets. Across the typical history of the award, to give the award to Jokic despite that disparity would need to signify a much larger perceived individual gap between the two players than is justifiable.

That said, two of the past eight MVPs have been on 6-seeds (one of them Jokic himself), after zero in the preceding 34, so the standards have certainly loosened on that front.

And that basically describes in brief form why I think SGA is MVP at the moment (though I certainly consider advanced stats too). But Jokic certainly has an arguable MVP case—indeed a whole lot of people argue strenuously that he should get it, and he got 30% of the first place votes in the latest ESPN straw poll of MVP voters. I think you’ll find that an actually biased person would basically always favor the player they like more in a situation where it’s debatable enough that a sizable minority of people favor that player. So yeah, the fact that I don’t and have actually posted about it repeatedly to argue the point is certainly a strong indicator that the accusations thrown my way were unfounded. And that’s just one example that happens to be recent. It’s just not a remotely fair criticism. And it was coming from someone who definitely seems to me to be throwing stones in glass houses.

[tsherkin]

And that basically describes in brief form why I think SGA is MVP at the moment. But Jokic certainly has an arguable MVP case—indeed a whole lot of people argue strenuously that he should get it, and he got 30% of the first place votes in the latest ESPN straw poll of MVP voters.

I think it's pretty clear that SGA has a good MVP case. He's playing at an MVP level and he's on a team which is crushing it.

I personally think Jokic is a better choice, but that doesn't always matter to the MVP, as we have seen many times in the past. Narrative and some stuff which is independent of actual player performance very regularly factor in. But if SGA were to win, it wouldn't be as poor a selection as Iverson or Rose or anything like that, you know?

[Special_Puppy]

And that basically describes in brief form why I think SGA is MVP at the moment. But Jokic certainly has an arguable MVP case—indeed a whole lot of people argue strenuously that he should get it, and he got 30% of the first place votes in the latest ESPN straw poll of MVP voters.

I think it's pretty clear that SGA has a good MVP case. He's playing at an MVP level and he's on a team which is crushing it.

I personally think Jokic is a better choice, but that doesn't always matter to the MVP, as we have seen many times in the past. Narrative and some stuff which is independent of actual player performance very regularly factor in. But if SGA were to win, it wouldn't be as poor a selection as Iverson or Rose or anything like that, you know?

FWIW I think it’s genuinely unclear who has been more valuable this year and anyone who tells you there’s a runaway MVP is lying.

[tsherkin]

FWIW I think it’s genuinely unclear who has been more valuable this year and anyone who tells you there’s a runaway MVP is lying.

I think it's pretty clear that Jokic is more valuable, personally, but like, SGA is still having a brilliant season. It's worth mentioning that Jokic isn't playing with an historic defense helping him out, which is altering perceptions of SGA. It is the same type of detail which people ignored with the AI and Rose MVPs, though of course SGA is legitimately an MVP-level player having an incredible season, which was not the case in those other scenarios.

If SGA wins, that's legitimate, for sure. But looking at what they both do on the court, I find it difficult to come to the conclusion that he deserves it more than Jokic, and feel similarly about deciding that he is as important. He's a centerpiece for his team, of course, and the driver of their O. You take him away, they get considerably worse, sure. But I don't think that what he does in his role is as high-impact as what Jokic does for Denver.

Anyway, that's I suppose another thing entirely, since we're here to talk about 34 year-old Jordan in today's game, with some injuries to his shooting hand and less quickness than when he was dominating in the 80s and early 90s.

[falcolombardi]

FWIW I think it’s genuinely unclear who has been more valuable this year and anyone who tells you there’s a runaway MVP is lying.

I think it's pretty clear that Jokic is more valuable, personally, but like, SGA is still having a brilliant season. It's worth mentioning that Jokic isn't playing with an historic defense helping him out, which is altering perceptions of SGA. It is the same type of detail which people ignored with the AI and Rose MVPs, though of course SGA is legitimately an MVP-level player having an incredible season, which was not the case in those other scenarios.

If SGA wins, that's legitimate, for sure. But looking at what they both do on the court, I find it difficult to come to the conclusion that he deserves it more than Jokic, and feel similarly about deciding that he is as important. He's a centerpiece for his team, of course, and the driver of their O. You take him away, they get considerably worse, sure. But I don't think that what he does in his role is as high-impact as what Jokic does for Denver.

Anyway, that's I suppose another thing entirely, since we're here to talk about 34 year-old Jordan in today's game, with some injuries to his shooting hand and less quickness than when he was dominating in the 80s and early 90s.

I think is reasonable to say jokic is better still, but saying shai impact is not comparable seems pretty wrong, even the on/off swings are similar (and theorically okc having a better floor without shai makes the huge lift to historical winning margins more impressive, not less, for shai)

Games like tonight show why, okc offense falls almost as badly when he sits as denver without jokic

Like sure, the defense is the reason okc is better than denver and shai is not the main driver there but he also remains a better defender than jokic who occupies the most valuable defense position in the gane so the relative to position defense value is even more clear of a gap
.
On the other hand i have serious doubts okc supporting cast is actually better -offensively- than jokic's specially without chet for most of the season

[Djoker]

Just want to add a point that I don't think was mentioned which is that accumulation of wear and tear doesn't just depend on the total number of minutes played but how those minutes are distributed. Playing higher minutes per game and/or playing more games in a season produces significantly more wear and tear than playing fewer minutes per game and/or fewer games per season. Although it is impossible to quantify I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, for instance, Wilt's 1962 season (82 games, 48 mpg, many more back to backs) produced as much wear and tear on his body as 3 seasons of a player playing 35 minutes per game for 65 games.

[AEnigma]

Whats traditional MVP standards? Just traditional stats and team wins?

Effectively. The Thunder are on pace to finish fourteen wins ahead of the Nuggets. Across the typical history of the award, to give the award to Jokic despite that disparity would need to signify a much larger perceived individual gap between the two players than is justifiable.

That said, two of the past eight MVPs have been on 6-seeds (one of them Jokic himself), after zero in the preceding 34, so the standards have certainly loosened on that front.

And that basically describes in brief form why I think SGA is MVP at the moment (though I certainly consider advanced stats too). But Jokic certainly has an arguable MVP case—indeed a whole lot of people argue strenuously that he should get it, and he got 30% of the first place votes in the latest ESPN straw poll of MVP voters. I think you’ll find that an actually biased person would basically always favor the player they like more in a situation where it’s debatable enough that a sizable minority of people favor that player. So yeah, the fact that I don’t and have actually posted about it repeatedly to argue the point is certainly a strong indicator that the accusations thrown my way were unfounded. And that’s just one example that happens to be recent. It’s just not a remotely fair criticism. And it was coming from someone who definitely seems to me to be throwing stones in glass houses.

Evidently not: pretty much everyone on the entire board here thinks Jordan should have at least four MVPs, and no one has tried to argue his peak is on the same tier as someone like Malone’s or Barkley’s, so that should suggest no bias against Jordan can be found… or at least not by comparison with someone who has unabashedly devoted half their account to inventing every new way they can imagine to undermine Lebron.

[Special_Puppy]

FWIW I think it’s genuinely unclear who has been more valuable this year and anyone who tells you there’s a runaway MVP is lying.

I think it's pretty clear that Jokic is more valuable, personally, but like, SGA is still having a brilliant season. It's worth mentioning that Jokic isn't playing with an historic defense helping him out, which is altering perceptions of SGA. It is the same type of detail which people ignored with the AI and Rose MVPs, though of course SGA is legitimately an MVP-level player having an incredible season, which was not the case in those other scenarios.

If SGA wins, that's legitimate, for sure. But looking at what they both do on the court, I find it difficult to come to the conclusion that he deserves it more than Jokic, and feel similarly about deciding that he is as important. He's a centerpiece for his team, of course, and the driver of their O. You take him away, they get considerably worse, sure. But I don't think that what he does in his role is as high-impact as what Jokic does for Denver.

Anyway, that's I suppose another thing entirely, since we're here to talk about 34 year-old Jordan in today's game, with some injuries to his shooting hand and less quickness than when he was dominating in the 80s and early 90s.

Like sure, the defense is the reason okc is better than denver and shai is not the main driver there but he also remains a better defender than jokic who occupies the most valuable defense position in the gane so the relative to position defense value is even more clear of a gap
.

If you do this kind of adjustment for defense you should do the same for offense too since PGs are better on offense than centers on average

[lessthanjake]

Just want to add a point that I don't think was mentioned which is that accumulation of wear and tear doesn't just depend on the total number of minutes played but how those minutes are distributed. Playing higher minutes per game and/or playing more games in a season produces significantly more wear and tear than playing fewer minutes per game and/or fewer games per season. Although it is impossible to quantify I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, for instance, Wilt's 1962 season (82 games, 48 mpg, many more back to backs) produced as much wear and tear on his body as 3 seasons of a player playing 35 minutes per game for 65 games.

This is a good point. I also think that if we’re going to talk about NBA minutes being the primary thing that could cause wear and tear because of how hard players play, then we should probably take into account whether a player is perceived to have “coasted” in the regular season. The whole point of “coasting” is actually to play less hard in order avoid injury and wear and tear. And the general mantra is that LeBron quite frequently coasted in the regular season, particularly after 2013. Of course, we can’t actually be sure exactly to what extent that’s right, but if that is true then that definitely is a material fact undermining the idea that NBA minutes played is a good measure of wear and tear, particularly in this instance. (And, of course, if we instead assume LeBron didn’t coast in the RS, then that would naturally have a more negative effect on our perception of those regular seasons, which people typically curve up a bit on the grounds of LeBron coasting).

[lessthanjake]

Effectively. The Thunder are on pace to finish fourteen wins ahead of the Nuggets. Across the typical history of the award, to give the award to Jokic despite that disparity would need to signify a much larger perceived individual gap between the two players than is justifiable.

That said, two of the past eight MVPs have been on 6-seeds (one of them Jokic himself), after zero in the preceding 34, so the standards have certainly loosened on that front.

And that basically describes in brief form why I think SGA is MVP at the moment (though I certainly consider advanced stats too). But Jokic certainly has an arguable MVP case—indeed a whole lot of people argue strenuously that he should get it, and he got 30% of the first place votes in the latest ESPN straw poll of MVP voters. I think you’ll find that an actually biased person would basically always favor the player they like more in a situation where it’s debatable enough that a sizable minority of people favor that player. So yeah, the fact that I don’t and have actually posted about it repeatedly to argue the point is certainly a strong indicator that the accusations thrown my way were unfounded. And that’s just one example that happens to be recent. It’s just not a remotely fair criticism. And it was coming from someone who definitely seems to me to be throwing stones in glass houses.

Evidently not: pretty much everyone on the entire board here thinks Jordan should have at least four MVPs, and no one has tried to argue his peak is on the same tier as someone like Malone’s or Barkley’s, so that should suggest no bias against Jordan can be found… or at least not by comparison with someone who has unabashedly devoted half their account to inventing every new way they can imagine to undermine Lebron.

Dude, just to give one example, there were just a bunch of people on this board who didn’t vote for Jordan as POY for 1991. To be fair, you weren’t one of them, but I think the idea that anti-Jordan posters don’t do the sort of thing I was referring to is pretty clearly wrong.

[Mazter]

Just want to add a point that I don't think was mentioned which is that accumulation of wear and tear doesn't just depend on the total number of minutes played but how those minutes are distributed. Playing higher minutes per game and/or playing more games in a season produces significantly more wear and tear than playing fewer minutes per game and/or fewer games per season. Although it is impossible to quantify I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if, for instance, Wilt's 1962 season (82 games, 48 mpg, many more back to backs) produced as much wear and tear on his body as 3 seasons of a player playing 35 minutes per game for 65 games.

That's a bit exaggerated, especially knowing that not all the minutes are the same. There are a lot of things to be considered in wear and tear. And although maybe the amount of minutes per game might be damaging, there are a lot of other factors in Wilt's time diminishing the accumulated wear and tear during his 1962 season, or career in general. In the end it cancels each other out a bit.

[lessthanjake]

On this discussion of NBA minutes as a measure of wear and tear, I just want to note that I came across the following video:

Watch on YouTube

The relevant part starts at about 5:20. Steve Kerr talks specifically about how back then they used to practice a lot harder. And he specifically ties this into longevity of players like LeBron and Jordan, saying that we are “smarter” now at “preserving players,” by not going as hard in practice. This, of course, aptly goes to the point that there’s a lot of wear and tear that happens on the body outside of NBA games, and it even raises the point that there was more such wear and tear outside of NBA games in the past than there is now, which further weakens an inference that a guy with more NBA minutes in a more recent era had more “mileage” on his body than a guy with less NBA minutes in an earlier era.

[RoyceDa59]

He’d be top [emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]][emoji[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]] for sure.

[homecourtloss]

lol we’re now at “practiced harder” somehow bridges a 22,000 minutes played gap, a total that’s greater than the minutes played by the vast majority of NBA players in their entire careers.

[lessthanjake]

lol we’re now at “practiced harder” somehow bridges a 22,000 minutes played gap, a total that’s greater than the minutes played by the vast majority of NBA players in their entire careers.

While you participated in the past discussion in this thread, you apparently didn’t follow it enough to recall what it was about. As should be obvious from the thread, this is about 1998 Jordan, and the prior discussion had been about LeBron being a very similar age in 2020 (they were 2.5 months apart). Thus, the discussion was about the minutes gap between the two players at that point in their careers. Which was definitely not 22,000. So yeah, your post is silly.

Perhaps more importantly, I think it is telling that your post ridicules a statement made by someone who is extremely well-placed to tell us about this—a thoughtful guy who played in Jordan’s era and coached in LeBron’s era. Not only does he say that teams practiced harder back then, but he specifically says he thinks that that has a causal effect on players’ longevity. Apparently you, sitting behind your computer, know a lot more about the wear and tear placed on NBA players’ bodies in practice over the last several decades than Steve Kerr does!