NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2022-23 (pt 3)

[dygaction]

Read on Twitter

I’m sure Embiid will appreciate his all NBA second team.

Nothing to be ashamed of. He could later tell the world he was 2nd in MVP voting only because he lost to Jokic's historic season. Karl Malone could have had like 7 scoring champions if it were not because of Jordan.

[iggymcfrack]

Here are the players in NBA history who have had a 31 PER season:

Jordan..........4 seasons
Wilt.............3 seasons
LeBron..........3 seasons
Giannis..........2 seasons
Jokic.............2 seasons (working on 3rd)
Curry............1 season
Embiid..........1 season (working on 2nd?)


So if Jokic gets his third 31 PER season this year, the only player in NBA history who would have more such seasons would be MJ.

That's crazy.

you know i think Jokic is the clear cut MVP but that's the type of argument I don't adhere to and the type of argument that brings the trolls out of the woodwork lol

1.) PER is a seriously inherently flawed stat

2.) among other methodological blunders, the stat itself was invented after those Wilt and MJ seasons and you can say those were kind of reverse engineered. kind of dumb to drop a new stat that's supposed to encapuslate a player's contribution to winning while adjusting for pace, PT etc and having the Goats have a mediocre score, you know?

serious methodological issues

3.) notice how apart from the goats, all the seasons are by players of recent years
so obviously having 3 +31 PER seasons is much easier now that it has ever been, and while Jokic is still doing well even if we just compare him to his contemporary peers - it's still misleading to state that if he gets his 3rd he'll be the only one joining MJ in that feat. it's factually true, but in fact it's extretemly misleading to phrase it that way

4.) while not nesscesarily integral to the MVP race - PER is mostly an offensive stat that doesn't really capture defense, which is the main criticism of Jokic (rightfully or not)

and 5.) PER loves efficiency and the Joker is the king of efficiency. efficiency is important obviously and def contributes to winning games but there are other factors that get lost when you simplify things to that extent

for instance, the Joker could have played a bit differently, attack more and make some less optimal plays
that might result in more to's and a lower ts% but at the sime time have other indirect benefits for example - tiring the opponent, or getting the opponent into foul trouble \ getting to the bonus early etc

in this scenario, the Joker wouldn't have 31 PER - would he be a lesser player for it? will he win less? ofc not..

and other factors i won't list, it was just an example

the point is, if PER is your argument then it's a weak one
I get that ur only supporting the argument with it and it's not the basis of the argument, but when u phrase it like you did, it implies that if the Joker will get his 3rd 31+ per season and be in line with just MJ that he's...what, the 2nd best \ most impactful player ever?

he's the worthy 3 time MVP but he isn't in such rarified air and that implication (based on PER of all things) is exactly thw wrong type of argument imo (even if we totally agree about Jokic worthy of yet another MVP )

PER has some weaknesses compared to other stats, but the one advantage it has is that it's adjusted to the league in a given year. League average is set at 15 no matter what and then it goes from there. People setting the standard higher in a more talented league than ever actually means that it's harder to get big PER numbers that in the past. The reason that we're seeing more big outlier numbers is that teams are running more of the offense through their stars than ever before. Hence Giannis this season having a higher USG than Kobe in 2006. The incredible numbers that Giannis, Jokic, and Embiid have put up the last few years shouldn't be written off as just a consequence of the new era inflating stats. The league-adjusted nature of PER shows that even relative to their peers, they're more dominant statistically and taking on bigger loads than all but a few stars of the past. The fact that Jokic puts up elite PER numbers despite a USG rate that would be more at home with past stars just shows he's a special once in a lifetime player since he's setting records without the other stars' volume boost.

[Sharkboy242]

On any given day Embiid can be the best center in the league, I wouldn't debate that. Jokic is more consistent and more available though.

The fact that Embiid has 4 more losses and 10 less wins is what's preventing him from being in the top of the conversation though. That's unequivocally worse.

[Wolfgang630]

I think if Embiid doesn’t win it this year then he’ll win it next year if he keeps this productivity.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

2.) among other methodological blunders, the stat itself was invented after those Wilt and MJ seasons and you can say those were kind of reverse engineered. kind of dumb to drop a new stat that's supposed to encapuslate a player's contribution to winning while adjusting for pace, PT etc and having the Goats have a mediocre score, you know?

no, it's not. it's actually extremely linear in the attempt to be objective to the point it's over simplistic

[Ryoga Hibiki]

That's a fair point. The problem is, like you alluded to, that there is no universal criteria for the award.

Sure, but this year it's not really close, just looking at history.
Last year sure it was.
Two years ago games played shut down all discussions, but Joel was arguably better per minute.
This year the only real arguments are voter fatigue, how come LeBron didn't do it, nonsense stat padding accusations, he didn't win a ring or white privilege.
Also the defense part, I have no issue that Giannis and Embiid peak can be considerably higher. Not so sure they bring it in the RS, Joel in particular. But I think we're underrating how much better Jokic is than them on offense, at least over the course of RS. They seem close, in the classical volume vs efficiency debate, but they aren't.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

This is the "individual wins" data for each of the top 4 guys (sorry Luka) before Tuesday 3/7 games:


Jokic.............43-14.................754 winning percentage
Tatum............43-18.................705 winning percentage
Giannis..........39-13.................750 winning percentage
Embiid...........33-18.................647 winning percentage


Embiid way behind here.

Giannis right on Jokic's heels in win percentage, but 4 wins down.

in two of his wins Giannis played single digits minutes

[eathb_au]

Read on Twitter

I’m sure Embiid will appreciate his all NBA second team.

And Jokic legitimately was first in players vote lol.

[baksuzz]

This is the "individual wins" data for each of the top 4 guys (sorry Luka) before Tuesday 3/7 games:


Jokic.............43-14.................754 winning percentage
Tatum............43-18.................705 winning percentage
Giannis..........39-13.................750 winning percentage
Embiid...........33-18.................647 winning percentage


Embiid way behind here.

Giannis right on Jokic's heels in win percentage, but 4 wins down.

So 76ers record without Embiid is 9-4, a better win pct then with him

Denver is 2-5 without Jokic

[Exp0sed]

I think if Embiid doesn’t win it this year then he’ll win it next year if he keeps this productivity.

he won't..
he'll miss too many games and be too inconsistent when he does play

you don't get MVP's for 5-6 awesome games in a season

[Exp0sed]

Here are the players in NBA history who have had a 31 PER season:

PER has some weaknesses compared to other stats, but the one advantage it has is that it's adjusted to the league in a given year. League average is set at 15 no matter what and then it goes from there. People setting the standard higher in a more talented league than ever actually means that it's harder to get big PER numbers that in the past. The reason that we're seeing more big outlier numbers is that teams are running more of the offense through their stars than ever before. Hence Giannis this season having a higher USG than Kobe in 2006. The incredible numbers that Giannis, Jokic, and Embiid have put up the last few years shouldn't be written off as just a consequence of the new era inflating stats. The league-adjusted nature of PER shows that even relative to their peers, they're more dominant statistically and taking on bigger loads than all but a few stars of the past. The fact that Jokic puts up elite PER numbers despite a USG rate that would be more at home with past stars just shows he's a special once in a lifetime player since he's setting records without the other stars' volume boost.

don't conflate "usage" with "load"

getting more touches and chucking up more shots isn't carrying more load
they are also load-managing heavily and regularly coasting on defenseit

much easier to funnel everything thru one player and then have him sit the next day on a back to back
a guy that knows he has to play tomorrow night as well - is in a different situation

while true that there's more running and elaborate schemes involved now, there is also alot let hurt \ phyisicality and sports science, nutrition. training regimes etc have all evolved to allow that added movement

and yes, if teams of the past would have employed helio-centric offenses - those players would have higher raw stats AND higher PER

ur right that PER adjusts for the current season but like u say - it doesn't adjust for the scheme and strategy changed

it also doesn't account for one major thing and that's FG%
it accounts for current league pace, pts, PF's etc (a long list) but it doesn't account the differeneces in efficiency

the fact that the NBA has been won over by analytics and players are taking better shots than ever (on the whole) is NOT accounted for and that's the main reason Jokic (and to a lesser extent his peers) are breaking PER records

not because they are better

you guys are barking up the wrong tree, PER is the weirdest of hills to die on imo
just use common sense instead:

are Jokic\Embiid\Giannis 3 of the top 5-6 players ever? (at least in the rs, let's stick to the rs)
because if PER accounts for "era" and we can compare between different seasons reliabily - that would mean these 3 guys have a huge % of the best regular seasons ever played

that's ludicrous and it doesn't pass the laugh test
this era's increased efficiency is the culprit here

Jokic is not having the best season ever, and Embiid \ Giannis aren't having top 10 seasons (or whatever)

chill out guys

[Ryoga Hibiki]

it also doesn't account for one major thing and that's FG%
it accounts for current league pace, pts, PF's etc (a long list) but it doesn't account the differeneces in efficiency

Yes it does, in two ways:
- VOP (value of possession) gets ricalculated every season
- PER is normalized to that 15 will be the average, every season.

The issue is more on the fact that players now are on the court for less minutes hence their per possession impact (what PER tries to measure) is applied to less possessions and hence it's less valuable overall.

[Exp0sed]

it also doesn't account for one major thing and that's FG%
it accounts for current league pace, pts, PF's etc (a long list) but it doesn't account the differeneces in efficiency

Yes it does, in two ways:
- VOP (value of possession) gets ricalculated every season
- PER is normalized to that 15 will be the average, every season.

The issue is more on the fact that players now are on the court for less minutes hence their per possession impact (what PER tries to measure) is applied to less possessions and hence it's less valuable overall.

I actually didn't remember that value of possesion part at all

your second point while interesting, I actually don't see it as a big issue

i mean, no1 think that Giannis will perform worse per possession if he had to play 3-4 more mins, not in any significant way anyway
not just Giannis that applies to the other as well, he's just playing the least

edit: i'll add that it leaves us mostly with efficiency
Jokic is dominating PER because he is ultra efficient and i agree that's very important during the rs and it's encapsulated well in team wins, as he is consistently winning games even when surrounded by weaker casts

[slick_watts]

here's my complicated argument for jokic over embiid for mvp.

sixers w/ embiid in: +8pp100
sixers w/o embiid: +0pp100

nuggets w/ jokic in: +13.7pp100
nuggets w/o jokic: -10.6pp100

like.. what are we doing here?

[HoopsterJones]

Embiid has been balling. He’s climbed up to #2 right now behind Jokic and ahead of Giannis IMO.

Key thing is for him to stay healthy and play the rest of the regular season (except maybe the last game or two if seeding is already settled)

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

This is the "individual wins" data for each of the top 4 guys (sorry Luka) before Tuesday 3/7 games:


Jokic.............43-14.................754 winning percentage
Tatum............43-18.................705 winning percentage
Giannis..........39-13.................750 winning percentage
Embiid...........33-18.................647 winning percentage


Embiid way behind here.

Giannis right on Jokic's heels in win percentage, but 4 wins down.

in two of his wins Giannis played single digits minutes

1. Thats still a 74 winning percentage
2. He was +14 in those 15 minutes in those 2 games. He wasnt the only reason why they won but he still had an impact.

[Kurtz]

here's my complicated argument for jokic over embiid for mvp.

sixers w/ embiid in: +8pp100
sixers w/o embiid: +0pp100

nuggets w/ jokic in: +13.7pp100
nuggets w/o jokic: -10.6pp100

like.. what are we doing here?

That's been brought up before and folks have pointed out that Malone's rotations are different from other coaches - he likes to do full line changes. Which is why you'll see for example Michael Porter Jr. at +14.6 in that stat. In other words, while other teams will always have 2-3 starters on the floor, smoothing out the on/off disparity, Denver will play their entire bench (or bench + Murray) and their second unit gets pummeled as a result.

[Kurtz]

That's a fair point. The problem is, like you alluded to, that there is no universal criteria for the award.

Sure, but this year it's not really close, just looking at history.
Last year sure it was.

Why isn't it close though? The only big dif I see is an improved team record + more games played.

Joker's efficiency is up but on less shots and less ppg. He's getting 2 less boards and 2 more assists. All of this makes sense given that he has better teammates this year.

But Embiid is also scoring more and more efficiently (though his rebounding is down slightly). Giannis is scoring more but slightly less efficiently.

If it was close last year it has to be close this year too. Again, massive stat lines and great records for all 3, so I'm not sure why Joker is pulling away at this point.

[slick_watts]

here's my complicated argument for jokic over embiid for mvp.

sixers w/ embiid in: +8pp100
sixers w/o embiid: +0pp100

nuggets w/ jokic in: +13.7pp100
nuggets w/o jokic: -10.6pp100

like.. what are we doing here?

That's been brought up before and folks have pointed out that Malone's rotations are different from other coaches - he likes to do full line changes. Which is why you'll see for example Michael Porter Jr. at +14.6 in that stat. In other words, while other teams will always have 2-3 starters on the floor, smoothing out the on/off disparity, Denver will play their entire bench (or bench + Murray) and their second unit gets pummeled as a result.

yes i know the variance involved here, but the net difference is larger than the variance imo. by a lot, i think. this is also why jokic annihilates embiid on apm based metrics.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

here's my complicated argument for jokic over embiid for mvp.

sixers w/ embiid in: +8pp100
sixers w/o embiid: +0pp100

nuggets w/ jokic in: +13.7pp100
nuggets w/o jokic: -10.6pp100

like.. what are we doing here?

That's been brought up before and folks have pointed out that Malone's rotations are different from other coaches - he likes to do full line changes. Which is why you'll see for example Michael Porter Jr. at +14.6 in that stat. In other words, while other teams will always have 2-3 starters on the floor, smoothing out the on/off disparity, Denver will play their entire bench (or bench + Murray) and their second unit gets pummeled as a result.

different but not enough to justify the spread.
you can check also more granular data and you see how it's predominantly Jokic driving the +/- of the others, and not the opposite.