Relative to other MVPs, how will Embiid's MVP season be remembered?

[Cubbies2120]

Obviously Embiid had a great season in 2022-23, but it was overshadowed by the media narrative that his PR team pushed out implying anyone voting for Jokic was "racist". Then, out of nowhere, Jokic's numbers downshifted and became pedestrian until the playoffs during which he showed the league who the best player was. However, during the entire last month Embiid made it his mission to basically throw petty insults at Jokic and have his lackeys (i.e. Perkins) do his bidding.

It certainly wasn't a manufactured MVP, but will it be looked at as fondly in 20 years as it is today? Or will people look back and be stunned at the media campaign, Embiid's disappointing playoff run (RS: 33/10 on 54%, PS: 23/9 on 43%), and Jokic's all-time great playoff run (30/10/10) and wonder how Embiid won MVP?

[Tim Lehrbach]

It may be remembered that way, but it's a narrative-driven award, not a "best player" award. Sometimes a great player just has that season when he shines brightest relative to the rest of his career, and a critical mass of media, fans, and MVP voters coalesce around him. It may not be "fair" or the best way to recognize top players, but it's how many voters vote. And they're not wrong, necessarily: there is no rubric stating how one has to vote, or what "most valuable" means. I know I haven't answered your question directly, and this isn't a defense of Embiid. I just don't think the MVP award is what a lot of people want it to be -- a definitive crowning of the best player in the NBA for that season.

[capfan33]

Probably will be some confusion on how Embiid won MVP because until he does something (literally anything) of substance in the playoffs, he will be looked at as irrelevant when it comes to legacy. Straight up at this point, his legacy is being the centerpiece of "The Process", not what he's done as a player. It's unfortunate but it is what it is.

[Cavsfansince84]

Similar to Harden's mvp I think. As in a pretty strong mvp season but not all time or anything. Maybe similar to McAdoo's mvp season historically speaking.

[AEnigma]

Too early to say, but the easiest immediate comparison continues to be Bob McAdoo in his total lack of playoff success as a star.

He is evidently “better” than someone like Derrick Rose… but Rose also led a conference finalist 1-seed, so his MVP could never be called an outright disappointment that way Embiid’s can be.

[One_and_Done]

Not as bad as Derrick Rose, Iverson or Kobe's MVP.

[tsherkin]

66 GP, considerably worse in the playoffs, one of the least-pleasant aesthetics to his game going with all the flopping... probably on the lower end.

RS was pretty good, though, when he was on the floor. Scoring title and fancy numbers, etc. But yeah, probably not the highest-ranked of MVP seasons for a couple reasons.

[LA Bird]

Embiid is far from the worst player to win MVP but narrative wise, he might end up being remembered as the worst.

- Jokic won two MVPs before and is about to win his second after him too. The only other time a MVP run was interrupted like this was 11 Rose after The Decision made everyone hate LeBron. Embiid's MVP wouldn't be out of place if there were different winners during the surrounding years but now it looks like he stole one in the middle of Jokic's reign.
- Jokic won a ring in dominant fashion while Embiid was injured and under-performed in a second round exit. It's a regular season award but playoffs definitely affect people's perception of whether a player deserved the award and Embiid's lack of any postseason success throughout his career only makes this worse.
- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.
- Finally, this might seem simple but basketball practically doesn't exist before the 80s for most non hardcore fans. It's pretty difficult for a player from that long ago to be remembered as the worst MVP when they aren't remembered at all in the first place.

Some of the weaker MVP winners might match one or two of the points above but Embiid is the only one to fit all of them. And at his current age and injury history, that MVP is probably only going to look worse over time as Jokic builds an even bigger lead.

[Tim Lehrbach]

- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.

I think the narrative was "Embiid is just as good as Jokic and isn't getting his due." A laughably wrong narrative, but it was out there in a big way around that time. Embiid was scoring like a madman, too, which is more "alpha" than Jokic's standard fare, or whatever.

[prolific passer]

Comparable to Cowens and Rose's MVP seasons but probably a little worse as he even admitted supposedly that Joker should have won it.

[Cubbies2120]

- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.

I think the narrative was "Embiid is just as good as Jokic and isn't getting his due." A laughably wrong narrative, but it was out there in a big way around that time. Embiid was scoring like a madman, too, which is more "alpha" than Jokic's standard fare, or whatever.

I don't think it was ever a serious argument for anyone other than Sixers fans, Embiid stans, and Jokic haters. On RealGM we had eyeatoma and hussen fatale claiming you were racist if you thought Jokic deserved a 3rd straight MVP.

[frica]

Embiid is far from the worst player to win MVP but narrative wise, he might end up being remembered as the worst.

- Jokic won two MVPs before and is about to win his second after him too. The only other time a MVP run was interrupted like this was 11 Rose after The Decision made everyone hate LeBron. Embiid's MVP wouldn't be out of place if there were different winners during the surrounding years but now it looks like he stole one in the middle of Jokic's reign.
- Jokic won a ring in dominant fashion while Embiid was injured and under-performed in a second round exit. It's a regular season award but playoffs definitely affect people's perception of whether a player deserved the award and Embiid's lack of any postseason success throughout his career only makes this worse.
- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.
- Finally, this might seem simple but basketball practically doesn't exist before the 80s for most non hardcore fans. It's pretty difficult for a player from that long ago to be remembered as the worst MVP when they aren't remembered at all in the first place.

Some of the weaker MVP winners might match one or two of the points above but Embiid is the only one to fit all of them. And at his current age and injury history, that MVP is probably only going to look worse over time as Jokic builds an even bigger lead.

The only one robbed in 2011 was Dwight.

[iggymcfrack]

Obviously Embiid had a great season in 2022-23, but it was overshadowed by the media narrative that his PR team pushed out implying anyone voting for Jokic was "racist". Then, out of nowhere, Jokic's numbers downshifted and became pedestrian until the playoffs during which he showed the league who the best player was. However, during the entire last month Embiid made it his mission to basically throw petty insults at Jokic and have his lackeys (i.e. Perkins) do his bidding.

It certainly wasn't a manufactured MVP, but will it be looked at as fondly in 20 years as it is today? Or will people look back and be stunned at the media campaign, Embiid's disappointing playoff run (RS: 33/10 on 54%, PS: 23/9 on 43%), and Jokic's all-time great playoff run (30/10/10) and wonder how Embiid won MVP?

This is a nonsense narrative that never actually happened BTW. Here's Jokic's last 6 games played during the regular season:

W @ BRK: 22/17/10 on .799 TS%
W @ WAS: 31/12/7 on .852 TS%
W vs. MIL: 31/6/11 on .624 TS%
W vs. PHI 25/17/12 on .789 TS%

At this point, the Nuggets had the same number of wins as #2 seed Memphis would ultimately finish with and the 1 seed was for all intents and purposes locked up. Jokic proceeded to miss 5 of the last 7 games with nagging injuries and play reduced minutes in the ones he played, finishing with these 2 games:

L @ HOU: 14/10/4 on .521 TS%
L @ UTA: 6/10/10 on .510 TS%

I always thought it was super lame that 2 bad games on a minute restriction recovering from injuries after the 1 seed was already locked up were used as justification to take the MVP away from Jokic. He certainly didn't have a bad month like it has oftentimes been stated or implied.

[Peregrine01]

On the low side but not anywhere near the worst. It's a regular season award after all. He's a more valuable player than a guy like Rose but didn't lead to as much team success as him. The worst thing was how few games he played as an MVP.

[lessthanjake]

I think it will be remembered as an MVP that was the wrong choice, but not one where the player wasn’t actually super good or deserving. People will think Jokic should’ve gotten it, but acknowledge that Embiid had a great season.

I think the best analogy for this would be Robinson’s MVP (but perhaps as if the Magic had won the finals instead of the Rockets, since Shaq was #2 in MVP voting and 2023 has no analogue to Hakeem’s head to head matchup against Robinson, since the Nuggets and Sixers didn’t meet).

[EmpireFalls]

If he doesn’t pull an all time disappearing act in Game 7 vs Boston that year it would’ve aged better.

[cupcakesnake]

- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.

I think the narrative was "Embiid is just as good as Jokic and isn't getting his due." A laughably wrong narrative, but it was out there in a big way around that time. Embiid was scoring like a madman, too, which is more "alpha" than Jokic's standard fare, or whatever.

I don't think it was ever a serious argument for anyone other than Sixers fans, Embiid stans, and Jokic haters. On RealGM we had eyeatoma and hussen fatale claiming you were racist if you thought Jokic deserved a 3rd straight MVP.

I'm speaking as someone who has 'voted' Jokic for MVP every season since 2021, including 2023. While the MVP discourse became disgusting and annoying that year, I do think Embiid had a pretty great MVP case as a guys scoring like Wilt Chamberlain while anchoring and 8th ranked defense. I don't think- performance wise- that it was hard to make a strong case for Joel Embiid.

Especially if you were really low on Jokic's defense. Another thing that happened that year in the media, was Kirk Goldsberry basically doing a hit job against Jokic's defense, releasing a stats backed paper painting Jokic as the worst rim defender in the league. The numbers were fine, but Goldsberry fundamentally misunderstood the way in which Jokic provides defensive value. That's another thing that looked stupid in the playoffs that year, when Jokic demonstrated he was more than fine contributing to a defense good enough to win a championship. He doesn't offer traditional rim protection, but his combination of hands, motor, size, and smarts allow him to force teams into bad shots and turnovers.

There was just enough stuff for people to say "yeah, why not Embiid?"

[OhayoKD]

- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.

I think the narrative was "Embiid is just as good as Jokic and isn't getting his due." A laughably wrong narrative, but it was out there in a big way around that time. Embiid was scoring like a madman, too, which is more "alpha" than Jokic's standard fare, or whatever.

I think the idea Embid was not a worthy MVP is pretty silly, especially given what we saw in 2024. Embid was as good or better than Jokic when he played in the regular season for 2 years, which is of course the only part of the seaosn that should actually matter for the MVP award

[Tim Lehrbach]

- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.

I think the narrative was "Embiid is just as good as Jokic and isn't getting his due." A laughably wrong narrative, but it was out there in a big way around that time. Embiid was scoring like a madman, too, which is more "alpha" than Jokic's standard fare, or whatever.

I think the idea Embid was not a worthy MVP is pretty silly, especially given what we saw in 2024. Embid was as good or better than Jokic when he played in the regular season for 2 years, which is of course the only part of the seaosn that should actually matter for the MVP award

Tbh, I regretted that post as soon as I made it. Indeed, it is a regular season award and is, as I stated earlier, driven by narrative. I think the narrative of it being Embiid's turn for an MVP because he is just as good a player as Jokic and thus was entitled to one was both widespread and a very poor narrative indeed. However, a case framed around him being an elite player at both ends, having a career year, and leading his team to title contention is a pretty typical narrative for MVP. In that respect, there is nothing objectionable about him winning it. And, an equally dumb narrative people have used against many an MVP candidacy is that one needs to prove oneself in the playoffs to validate a future selection. Again, it's a regular season honor, and the award is not a comparative ranking of player quality (unless a particular voter wants it to be) but usually a recognition of a storied individual and team campaign.

[lessthanjake]

- Most MVP winners who weren't the best player at least had some kind of narrative arguments, whether it was the team having the best record in the conference/league or some historical statistical achievement. Embiid had neither. Sixers were 3rd in the East, won at a higher rate without him, and he had fewer wins than Jokic in the regular season.

I think the narrative was "Embiid is just as good as Jokic and isn't getting his due." A laughably wrong narrative, but it was out there in a big way around that time. Embiid was scoring like a madman, too, which is more "alpha" than Jokic's standard fare, or whatever.

I think the idea Embid was not a worthy MVP is pretty silly, especially given what we saw in 2024. Embid was as good or better than Jokic when he played in the regular season for 2 years, which is of course the only part of the seaosn that should actually matter for the MVP award

Embiid was a worthy MVP in the sense that he had a season that was nowhere near the least good of MVP winners. And I think we’d be hard-pressed to find someone who has put together a stretch of regular seasons as good as Embiid did the last few years and didn’t end up with an MVP. So the fact that Embiid got an MVP feels fine to me.

But Embiid was not as good or better than Jokic in the regular season the last 2 years. The data pretty consistently says otherwise. For instance, nbarapm.com has two-year RAPM, and Jokic was #1 and Embiid was #2 with a number that was a little ways off (7.2 vs. 6.4). That RAPM measure had playoffs in it, but pure RAPM is actually good for Embiid in the playoffs the last two years, since he happened to have a super high playoff on-off. In any event, we also have thebasketballdatabase pure RAPM too (which doesn’t include playoffs), and the 2024 three-year RAPM has Jokic a good bit above Embiid. Jokic is noticeably ahead of Embiid in both relevant years in LEBRON. The same is true with EPM. RAPTOR didn’t exist last year, but Jokic was well ahead in RS RAPTOR in 2023. There’s a new box/RAPM hybrid called MAMBA (https://www.teemohoop.com/mamba/Blog%20Post%20Title%20One-mm8gk-cy9wh), which also has Jokic ahead both of the relevant years. While it’s not really intended for retrospective purposes, Jokic was also noticeably ahead in DPM both years. Jokic’s BPM was also higher both years, as was his win shares per 48 mins. Jokic’s AuPM/g was higher too (at least in 2023—I’d have to pay extra money to see the 2024 numbers). WOWY has a very small “off” sample for Jokic in this timeframe that makes it not a very useful measure, but the Sixers won at a 38-win pace without Embiid and a 58-win pace with Embiid, while the Nuggets won at a 36-win pace without Jokic and a 57-win pace with Jokic. It’s really hard to find anything that portrays Embiid as being “as good or better than Jokic when he played in the regular season for 2 years.” PER seems like perhaps the only thing having Embiid ahead over the course of those two years, but obviously is not a very good stat. Embiid was great, and I personally don’t really mind him having won MVP because in a vacuum he was definitely good enough recently to get an MVP. But he was not actually “as good or better than” Jokic.