NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2022-23 (pt 2)

[Mickey8]

This! More people are going to bring this up as we get closer to the end of the season. Hoping common sense will prevail and a historically colossal **** up doesn't occur.

So youre saying playoffs should be a factor in the voting? Should we eliminate Embiid from the discussion then? Or does playoffs only matter because its his 3rd MVP?

There is a pattern and a tradition that’s been established. Giving a player a third straight MVP historically has suggested a level of dominance that Jokic frankly has not achieved. If you are going to single out a player in such a unique way, it should be consistent with the history of the award. That is all I am saying. Jokic does not stand out of a very deep crowd of incredible players as the single most dominant player in this era. There are others equally deserving - especially Luka this year.

He well deserved both mvp awards, he was dominant player carrying the crap teams. The first season they were eliminated in the second round , the second season even the worse and more crippled team was six in the west, its miracle that they made it to the play off's, no Lebron,KD,Steph or any other star in the league would be able haul that team to the play off's, the second leading scorer on that team was freaking Will Barton . I know majority people here see Jokic as the leading candidate for the MVP of this season and I don't, because he was more dominant in the prior two, I think he played better . But too say he's not comparable to some other players who won it multiple time is the garbage statement.

[_NoMas]

There is a pattern and a tradition that’s been established. Giving a player a third straight MVP historically has suggested a level of dominance that Jokic frankly has not achieved. If you are going to single out a player in such a unique way, it should be consistent with the history of the award. That is all I am saying. Jokic does not stand out of a very deep crowd of incredible players as the single most dominant player in this era. There are others equally deserving - especially Luka this year.

Lol, yeah, that's just like, your opinion, man.

To many (most?) people Jokic is head and shoulders above all others.

Jokic was the best player till now. The interesting question is, what would be the perception, if Luka's teammates would have won 3 games without Luka and Jokic's teammates would have lost all 5 games like Luka's? Mavs would have been on 3rd place with 28/19 and Nuggets would have had 30/16 and be on 2nd place. Not that big difference anymore.

Luka is in totally lost position, if his teammates don't start winning without him. Cheerleading counts for MVP too?

I mean I agree with your basic point, but your revised scenario is essentially just giving cheerleading points the other way. How about we just assess them both based on the actual games they’ve played. So 30-11 for Jokic, and 25-17 for Luka. It’s still a decent sized gap at this stage of the season, and likely to grow come April/May.

[Bob8]

Lol, yeah, that's just like, your opinion, man.

To many (most?) people Jokic is head and shoulders above all others.

Jokic was the best player till now. The interesting question is, what would be the perception, if Luka's teammates would have won 3 games without Luka and Jokic's teammates would have lost all 5 games like Luka's? Mavs would have been on 3rd place with 28/19 and Nuggets would have had 30/16 and be on 2nd place. Not that big difference anymore.

Luka is in totally lost position, if his teammates don't start winning without him. Cheerleading counts for MVP too?

I mean I agree with your basic point, but your revised scenario is essentially just giving cheerleading points the other way. How about we just assess them both based on the actual games they’ve played. So 30-11 for Jokic, and 25-17 for Luka. It’s still a decent sized gap at this stage of the season, and likely to grow come April/May.

Sure, having better teammates wins you more games, when you're playing and when you're cheerleading.

Mavs just **** up with not extending Brunson, when it was time. They would have been very near to Nuggets with him.

[Cubbies2120]

Jokic was the best player till now. The interesting question is, what would be the perception, if Luka's teammates would have won 3 games without Luka and Jokic's teammates would have lost all 5 games like Luka's? Mavs would have been on 3rd place with 28/19 and Nuggets would have had 30/16 and be on 2nd place. Not that big difference anymore.

Luka is in totally lost position, if his teammates don't start winning without him. Cheerleading counts for MVP too?

I mean I agree with your basic point, but your revised scenario is essentially just giving cheerleading points the other way. How about we just assess them both based on the actual games they’ve played. So 30-11 for Jokic, and 25-17 for Luka. It’s still a decent sized gap at this stage of the season, and likely to grow come April/May.

Sure, having better teammates wins you more games, when you're playing and when you're cheerleading.

Mavs just **** up with not extending Brunson, when it was time. They would have been very near to Nuggets with him.

I don't remember you posting about records when MVP candidates were out last year...why is that?

Ah wait the Mavs went 8-9 without Luka last year of course you wouldn't have brought that up last year

I'm certainly glad the Nuggets can beat:
- A struggling Clippers team without Paul George (and with Jokic beat them by 30+ WITH Paul George)
- Indiana without Haliburton
- Mavs by 1 point (and losing by 28 in the other game without Jokic) - in a game that Luka played pretty bad in...

I wonder how much of this is the product of Jokic being 30th in usage rating while Luka is 1st in usage rating, and so the team is suddenly unexpectedly without a guy who has the ball in his hands ALL game, they're more lost than when they play without a guy who shares it way more?

[Bob8]

I mean I agree with your basic point, but your revised scenario is essentially just giving cheerleading points the other way. How about we just assess them both based on the actual games they’ve played. So 30-11 for Jokic, and 25-17 for Luka. It’s still a decent sized gap at this stage of the season, and likely to grow come April/May.

Sure, having better teammates wins you more games, when you're playing and when you're cheerleading.

Mavs just **** up with not extending Brunson, when it was time. They would have been very near to Nuggets with him.

I don't remember you posting about records when MVP candidates were out last year...why is that?

Ah wait the Mavs went 8-9 without Luka last year of course you wouldn't have brought that up last year

I'm certainly glad the Nuggets can beat:
- A struggling Clippers team without Paul George (and with Jokic beat them by 30+ WITH Paul George)
- Indiana without Haliburton
- Mavs by 1 point (and losing by 28 in the other game without Jokic) - in a game that Luka played pretty bad in...

I wonder how much of this is the product of Jokic being 30th in usage rating while Luka is 1st in usage rating, and so the team is suddenly unexpectedly without a guy who has the ball in his hands ALL game, they're more lost than when they play without a guy who shares it way more?

Luka was never serious MVP candidate last year, because he took to much time off after Olympics and was out of the shape in the start of the season.

They were 8/9 and that only proves that they can win, if they have enough talent. Not the case this year.

Mavs are not only losing, if Luka is not playing. They're losing, if he's not playing great too. They have won only 2 games in which Luka has scored less than 30 points.

You're saying that he's having the ball too much in his hands, but strangely enough they can't win even Rockets at home without him? He's guilty that they can't play without him? I'm sure that you would have been ecstatic, if players like Powell, Bullock, DFS, THJ...would have started for your team.

[nikster]

This! More people are going to bring this up as we get closer to the end of the season. Hoping common sense will prevail and a historically colossal **** up doesn't occur.

So youre saying playoffs should be a factor in the voting? Should we eliminate Embiid from the discussion then? Or does playoffs only matter because its his 3rd MVP?

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

[eyeatoma]

So youre saying playoffs should be a factor in the voting? Should we eliminate Embiid from the discussion then? Or does playoffs only matter because its his 3rd MVP?

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

[nikster]

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

why does the criteria change after you've won a few? It's not like most of the field has any edge in playoff success, only Giannis and Curry do.

[Mickey8]

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

Voters have said no he doesn't . He wont win it this season either, it will be Doncic.

[LessEyeTest]

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

Too many other players having better seasons. He's probably somewhere between #4-6 in terms of candidates. If he didn't miss so many games he'd be a top 3 candidate.

[Statlanta]

Jokic winning a third MVP doesn't speak much about the level of his play but the level of his competition.

Curry, Davis, Leonard and Embiid are never consistently healthy in the regular season.
Giannis is declining while he's in his 20s.
LeBron James is too old.
Tatum almost had his team on the verge of a break up last season.
Morant and Williamson are too green and their teams win without them.
Doncic doesn't have the stamina to balance his international commitments with his NBA ones.

These guys let a un-athletic Serbian Center with no charisma repeat, and about to threepeat the Michael Jordan award because of their regular season deficiencies. That's how unspectacular the field is playing. The same media who markets MJ for being the GOAT votes on this.

[bradybunch]

Hold up.

Denver and Boston winning without Jokic and Tatum?

Not a good look.

Looking better for Luka when considered. (And it should be considered)

[RB34]

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

Playoff success only becomes a factor when you’ve already won an MVP?

[KGtabake]

Jokic winning a third MVP doesn't speak much about the level of his play but the level of his competition.

Curry, Davis, Leonard and Embiid are never consistently healthy in the regular season.
Giannis is declining while he's in his 20s.
LeBron James is too old.
Tatum almost had his team on the verge of a break up last season.
Morant and Williamson are too green and their teams win without them.
Doncic doesn't have the stamina to balance his international commitments with his NBA ones.

These guys let a un-athletic Serbian Center with no charisma repeat, and about to threepeat the Michael Jordan award because of their regular season deficiencies. That's how unspectacular the field is playing. The same media who markets MJ for being the GOAT votes on this.

This must be the first time in history that a player is declining while averaging a career high.
The other guy is so old that lately he drops 40ppg.
As for the 3rd bolded guy, you're right. He can't average even a 50/15/15 season. Clearly lack of stamina.
I should have Tatum on bold too since it's a fact that if a guy doesn't win a ring in the previous season, we should not take him seriously the year after.

[Cubbies2120]

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

Now hang on a minute here...lets address a few points here

- You're implying that 3rd straight MVP requires playoff success (I assume you are looking at historical precedent, because previous 3-straight MVP winners all had at least 1 ring

That's completely fine - if you want to use historical precedent, it's completely fine to do so.

However, lets also use historical precedent for MVPs missing games...

Zero MVPs in the last 45 years missed more than 11 games. That is historical precedent. Only one in that timespan won by missing more than 10 games (exactly 11). That is historical precedent.

Since you believe historical precedent is important, you cannot say that Embiid deserves an MVP because, according to historical precedent games played requirements, he has had exactly ZERO seasons playing enough games to even be considered.

Now, is historical precedent important (disqualifies both Embiid/Jokic this year), or is it not important? Just curious

Jokic hasn't done "jack **** in the playoffs", but lets examine who he has lost to in his last 3 runs where he was actually either getting MVP consideration or winning MVP:

- NBA Champions (Lakers)
- WC Champions (Suns)
- NBA Champions (Warriors)

In that same timeframe, Embiid has lost to:
- Celtics (Did not make Finals)
- Hawks (Did not make Finals)
- Heat (Did not make Finals)

So the only teams to beat Jokic were either the absolute best team in the NBA, or the 2nd best team. Not even mentioning the injuries.

The teams to beat Embiid were run of the mill non-top 2 worthy teams...

They. Are. Not. The. Same.

[eyeatoma]

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

why does the criteria change after you've won a few? It's not like most of the field has any edge in playoff success, only Giannis and Curry do.

Lol I'm not engaging in a conversation where you know the answer. If it's not obvious to you then not much I can do to help.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

[AleksandarN]

This! More people are going to bring this up as we get closer to the end of the season. Hoping common sense will prevail and a historically colossal **** up doesn't occur.

So youre saying playoffs should be a factor in the voting? Should we eliminate Embiid from the discussion then? Or does playoffs only matter because its his 3rd MVP?

Has he won an MVP yet? You're clearly trying to flip this when you're not getting the point. Jokic is up for number three and hasn't done jack **** in the playoffs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

You need to calm down bro. That much hate will make you unhappy.

[nikster]

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

why does the criteria change after you've won a few? It's not like most of the field has any edge in playoff success, only Giannis and Curry do.

Lol I'm not engaging in a conversation where you know the answer. If it's not obvious to you then not much I can do to help.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

I'm trying to understand. I guess it's just historical precidence. Strange to say that Embiid "deserves" the MVP only because we have to hold his main competitor to a different standard tho

[eyeatoma]

Do you think Embiid deserves MVP? Does playoff success only matter if you've already won a MVP?

When you're going for your 3rd MVP in a row and you have poor playoff success absolutely.

Yes, Embiid most definitely deserves an MVP.

Now hang on a minute here...lets address a few points here

- You're implying that 3rd straight MVP requires playoff success (I assume you are looking at historical precedent, because previous 3-straight MVP winners all had at least 1 ring

That's completely fine - if you want to use historical precedent, it's completely fine to do so.

However, lets also use historical precedent for MVPs missing games...

Zero MVPs in the last 45 years missed more than 11 games. That is historical precedent. Only one in that timespan won by missing more than 10 games (exactly 11). That is historical precedent.

Since you believe historical precedent is important, you cannot say that Embiid deserves an MVP because, according to historical precedent games played requirements, he has had exactly ZERO seasons playing enough games to even be considered.

Now, is historical precedent important (disqualifies both Embiid/Jokic this year), or is it not important? Just curious

Jokic hasn't done "jack **** in the playoffs", but lets examine who he has lost to in his last 3 runs where he was actually either getting MVP consideration or winning MVP:

- NBA Champions (Lakers)
- WC Champions (Suns)
- NBA Champions (Warriors)

In that same timeframe, Embiid has lost to:
- Celtics (Did not make Finals)
- Hawks (Did not make Finals)
- Heat (Did not make Finals)

So the only teams to beat Jokic were either the absolute best team in the NBA, or the 2nd best team. Not even mentioning the injuries.

The teams to beat Embiid were run of the mill non-top 2 worthy teams...

They. Are. Not. The. Same.

Last year he had enough though. 69 games is 1 game off. People aren't taking their magnifying glasses for this lol. No one brought it up. Also if you think it makes a difference why is he in the rankings at number 3 right now? Why does the MVP tracker on basketball reference have him in there? Why has he started to get recognition again? Unless it gets down to only a few games difference between the two. I don't disagree the missed games will ultimately do Embiid in. But Jokic does not deserve an MVP based on historical precedent. People have no problem including Giannis as an MVP candidate, and he's missed more games than Embiid at this point. Meanwhile Jokic might be missing his 2nd game in a row.

[eyeatoma]

why does the criteria change after you've won a few? It's not like most of the field has any edge in playoff success, only Giannis and Curry do.

Lol I'm not engaging in a conversation where you know the answer. If it's not obvious to you then not much I can do to help.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

I'm trying to understand. I guess it's just historical precidence. Strange to say that Embiid "deserves" the MVP only because we have to hold his main competitor to a different standard tho

The standards change for Jokic every season lol. The goal posts are constantly moved.