NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24

[Exp0sed]

I don’t have him in top ten- I think those are prisoners of the moment - cause ask them who they kicking out the top 10… shaq? Kobe? Curry? Hakeem? Who getting kicked out?!

I have him pushing the top 20

You don't think prime Jokic, the past 4 seasons, has been more valuable than Prime Kobe? Prime Shaq?

Its extremely hard to grade Jokic until he actually exits his prime. If be the best player in the world for 5 years that's different than being statistically the best player in the world for 10 years

it's pretty easy tho, if u compare him to someone like Kobe who has never been "statistically the best player in the world", no?

[ITYSL]

If Tatum keeps up what he's been doing, he'll probably get a little more love once we're further into the season and impact stats come out. The argument for him is weaker because of the supporting cast, so that may hurt him in the end.

[iggymcfrack]

What's the argument for Tatum being MVP if Jokic continues doing Jokic things? Is it just best player on best team? Will anybody seriously think that the Celitcs are a better regular season team because Tatum is a better regular season player than Jokic?

If anyone has a case against Jokic it’s Tatum. Celtics are +22.0 with him on the floor and -9.2 with him off for an on/off of +31.2. Next best on/off on the team is Derrick White at +14.9. Tatum’s an excellent defender and his impact metrics outperform his box stuff year after year. If the Celtics win 65+ games, I think he at least has a shot.

[ROballer]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

They go by record, strength of team(who does more with less) and stats.

There's also voter fatigue involved(I'd imagine people don't want to give it to Jokic/Embiid every year regardless of how much they deserved it or not) and even nationality in this case. I would argue some are itching to give it to an american for a change if they have a solid case.

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

[Special_Puppy]

What's the argument for Tatum being MVP if Jokic continues doing Jokic things? Is it just best player on best team? Will anybody seriously think that the Celitcs are a better regular season team because Tatum is a better regular season player than Jokic?

If anyone has a case against Jokic it’s Tatum. Celtics are +22.0 with him on the floor and -9.2 with him off for an on/off of +31.2. Next best on/off on the team is Derrick White at +14.9. Tatum’s an excellent defender and his impact metrics outperform his box stuff year after year. If the Celtics win 65+ games, I think he at least has a shot.

Jokic still comfortably outpaces Tatum in RAPM even if Tatum is the closest to Jokic https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mhwOLqPu2F9026EQiVxFPIN1t9RGafGpl-dokaIsm9c/edit#gid=923517192

[Genjuro]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

They go by record, strength of team(who does more with less) and stats.

There's also voter fatigue involved(I'd imagine people don't want to give it to Jokic/Embiid every year regardless of how much they deserved it or not) and even nationality in this case. I would argue some are itching to give it to an american for a change if they have a solid case.

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

The player with the highest PER has won the last 8 years, except last season that Embiid was second (Jokic was first). Haliburton is 14th right now. The last time someone won with such a low placement was Steve Nash, and there was nothing like prime Jokic around.

Advanced (or call them as you want) stats play a big role in the MVP race nowadays. There was never this much correlation.

[KGtabake]

Can't believe how heartless, soft, indifferent Anthony Davis is.
Wth is wrong with this dude.
All the talents in the world, the right city for his brand, the ideal team for him to flourish, one of the GOATs is giving him the reigns and he doesn't do anything.
Run for the MVP once in your career you worthless trash!

[iggymcfrack]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

They go by record, strength of team(who does more with less) and stats.

There's also voter fatigue involved(I'd imagine people don't want to give it to Jokic/Embiid every year regardless of how much they deserved it or not) and even nationality in this case. I would argue some are itching to give it to an american for a change if they have a solid case.

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

Advanced stats are a bigger deal than you think. Embiid was the first player to win MVP without leading in at least one major box score composite since Kobe in 2008. Also, doing better than expectations doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as just being on a top team. If Indiana wins 55 games and Denver wins 60, that’s really not gonna be much of an edge for Haliburton.

As far as voter fatigue goes, I’d say Jokic has negative voter fatigue this year since it’s pretty much universally recognized that he got robbed by Embiid last season. I’d compare it to the MVP race in ‘98. Yeah, Jordan had a lot of MVPs already but after losing the MVP to Malone and then clowning him in the Finals, it was gonna be hard for the voters to select anyone else. Jordan’s numbers were down in ‘98 and he didn’t lead in any advanced stats but he still got 92 out of 115 first place votes just to make up for a perceived mistake from the previous year.

[Special_Puppy]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

They go by record, strength of team(who does more with less) and stats.

There's also voter fatigue involved(I'd imagine people don't want to give it to Jokic/Embiid every year regardless of how much they deserved it or not) and even nationality in this case. I would argue some are itching to give it to an american for a change if they have a solid case.

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

The player with the highest PER has won the last 8 years, except last season that Embiid was second (Jokic was first). Haliburton is 14th right now. The last time someone won with such a low placement was Steve Nash, and there was nothing like prime Jokic around.

Advanced (or call them as you want) stats play a big role in the MVP race nowadays. There was never this much correlation.

It would be a good thing if PER was permanently abandoned in favor of other advanced stats

[ROballer]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

They go by record, strength of team(who does more with less) and stats.

There's also voter fatigue involved(I'd imagine people don't want to give it to Jokic/Embiid every year regardless of how much they deserved it or not) and even nationality in this case. I would argue some are itching to give it to an american for a change if they have a solid case.

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

The player with the highest PER has won the last 8 years, except last season that Embiid was second (Jokic was first). Haliburton is 14th right now. The last time someone won with such a low placement was Steve Nash, and there was nothing like prime Jokic around.

Advanced (or call them as you want) stats play a big role in the MVP race nowadays. There was never this much correlation.

I don't know where you got #14. He's 4th in PER at 29.74, which is more than enough considering the other narratives going on for him(way lesser supporting cast than anyone involved in the race + the other things I mentioned).

[Genjuro]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

They go by record, strength of team(who does more with less) and stats.

There's also voter fatigue involved(I'd imagine people don't want to give it to Jokic/Embiid every year regardless of how much they deserved it or not) and even nationality in this case. I would argue some are itching to give it to an american for a change if they have a solid case.

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

The player with the highest PER has won the last 8 years, except last season that Embiid was second (Jokic was first). Haliburton is 14th right now. The last time someone won with such a low placement was Steve Nash, and there was nothing like prime Jokic around.

Advanced (or call them as you want) stats play a big role in the MVP race nowadays. There was never this much correlation.

I don't know where you got #14. He's 4th in PER at 29.74, which is more than enough considering the other narratives going on for him(way lesser supporting cast than anyone involved in the race + the other things I mentioned).

My bad, I was looking last year's stars.

He's actually third right now at Basketball Reference. Still, I think he would need to have a similar record to the Nuggets in order to win. I mean, if the Pacers are at 55 Ws and the Nuggets get to 60, I think it's Jokic's.

[ROballer]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

They go by record, strength of team(who does more with less) and stats.

There's also voter fatigue involved(I'd imagine people don't want to give it to Jokic/Embiid every year regardless of how much they deserved it or not) and even nationality in this case. I would argue some are itching to give it to an american for a change if they have a solid case.

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

Advanced stats are a bigger deal than you think. Embiid was the first player to win MVP without leading in at least one major box score composite since Kobe in 2008. Also, doing better than expectations doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as just being on a top team. If Indiana wins 55 games and Denver wins 60, that’s really not gonna be much of an edge for Haliburton.

As far as voter fatigue goes, I’d say Jokic has negative voter fatigue this year since it’s pretty much universally recognized that he got robbed by Embiid last season. I’d compare it to the MVP race in ‘98. Yeah, Jordan had a lot of MVPs already but after losing the MVP to Malone and then clowning him in the Finals, it was gonna be hard for the voters to select anyone else. Jordan’s numbers were down in ‘98 and he didn’t lead in any advanced stats but he still got 92 out of 115 first place votes just to make up for a perceived mistake from the previous year.

Advanced stats count the very least out of all things involved in the judgement of the award, mentioned above. Record, quality of teammates, narrative, voting fatigue, etc all come first. Of course, I'm talking about a candidate who has enough stats(both raw and advanced) to make an argument for himself in the first place. But a guy beating a guy by x in something will not automatically win it if the first factors mentioned(or most of them anyway) are not in his favor as well. See Embiid, you just mentioned him.

If Hali's and Jokic' stats freeze right now exactly as they stand and the Nuggets win 60 and the Pacers win 55 games....you can bet anything you want on Jokic winning it based on every advanced in existance.

I will bet on Hali and take that money home. Even if that will be considered as a "Derrick Rose" type MVP or Kobe or whoever you might want to think of.

[ROballer]

The player with the highest PER has won the last 8 years, except last season that Embiid was second (Jokic was first). Haliburton is 14th right now. The last time someone won with such a low placement was Steve Nash, and there was nothing like prime Jokic around.

Advanced (or call them as you want) stats play a big role in the MVP race nowadays. There was never this much correlation.

I don't know where you got #14. He's 4th in PER at 29.74, which is more than enough considering the other narratives going on for him(way lesser supporting cast than anyone involved in the race + the other things I mentioned).

My bad, I was looking last year's stars.

He's actually third right now at Basketball Reference. Still, I think he would need to have a similar record to the Nuggets in order to win. I mean, if the Pacers are at 55 Ws and the Nuggets get to 60, I think it's Jokic's.

Maybe if Jamal Murray misses the whole year. If not, I don't think Jokic' better advanced stats will beat out what Hali has going on for him.

-both have top tier advanced stats. PER, BPM, TS% whatever you can find. Jokic has the overwhelming edge in everything but it's not like Hali is middle of the pack in every one either. If overall by all statistics on the deck alone, he's got a top 15-20 MVP type season of all time, he's certainly not Rose/Nash/Iverson/Kobe, not by a long shot.

Nobody has averaged 24/12 or 20/10 with 50/40/90 shooting splits. Haliburton has 3% on every shooting metric above that at the moment.

There have been only 17 instances of 12+ assists per game seasons(5 players). The lowest number of turnovers per game for the best one is 3.2. Hali's averaging 2.1 right now.

-Haliburton's 3rd leading scorer is averaging 12 points a game. His 2nd leading scorer(Turner) is very inconsistent and might damn well be near at 15-16 ppg by the end of the season. What else does he provide? The Pacers are not a good defensive nor rebounding team by any stretch, their bread and butter for which they are winning games is the O and Haliburton is the engine for that.
Turner is neither impacting the D very much, has abysmal rebounding numbers and his rim protection is down from past years.

Pacers are atrocious without Haliburton by all metrics involved, and the lone game he missed(and future games) is only proof of that.

+ the voter fatigue which some say it won't be a factor. But at the end of the day, Jokic still has 2 MVP's and the international market has provided the past 5 MVP's. You can say most won't care, but some will.


So yeah, 55 wins for Indiana vs 60 Denver. I'm still betting on Hali.

I guess we'll have to see who is right or wrong.

[Special_Puppy]

I don't know where you got #14. He's 4th in PER at 29.74, which is more than enough considering the other narratives going on for him(way lesser supporting cast than anyone involved in the race + the other things I mentioned).

My bad, I was looking last year's stars.

He's actually third right now at Basketball Reference. Still, I think he would need to have a similar record to the Nuggets in order to win. I mean, if the Pacers are at 55 Ws and the Nuggets get to 60, I think it's Jokic's.

Maybe if Jamal Murray misses the whole year. If not, I don't think Jokic' better advanced stats will beat out what Hali has going on for him.

-both have top tier advanced stats. PER, BPM, TS% whatever you can find. Jokic has the overwhelming edge in everything but it's not like Hali is middle of the pack in every one either. If overall by all statistics on the deck alone, he's got a top 15-20 MVP type season of all time, he's certainly not Rose/Nash/Iverson/Kobe, not by a long shot.

Nobody has averaged 24/12 or 20/10 with 50/40/90 shooting splits. Haliburton has 3% on every shooting metric above that at the moment.

There have been only 17 instances of 12+ assists per game seasons(5 players). The lowest number of turnovers per game for the best one is 3.2. Hali's averaging 2.1 right now.

-Haliburton's 3rd leading scorer is averaging 12 points a game. His 2nd leading scorer(Turner) is very inconsistent and might damn well be near at 15-16 ppg by the end of the season. What else does he provide? The Pacers are not a good defensive nor rebounding team by any stretch, their bread and butter for which they are winning games is the O and Haliburton is the engine for that.
Turner is neither impacting the D very much, has abysmal rebounding numbers and his rim protection is down from past years.

Pacers are atrocious without Haliburton by all metrics involved, and the lone game he missed(and future games) is only proof of that.

+ the voter fatigue which some say it won't be a factor. But at the end of the day, Jokic still has 2 MVP's and the international market has provided the past 5 MVP's. You can say most won't care, but some will.


So yeah, 55 wins for Indiana vs 60 Denver. I'm still betting on Hali.

I guess we'll have to see who is right or wrong.

Pacers have basically no chance to crack 50 wins

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

Cavs were 4th in East and 51 wins, Like I don't see any way in they give it to him over Jokic, Embiid, Tatum, Giannis in that scenario assuming they all have 55+ wins.

2016-17 was an anomaly where KD/Steph cancelled each other out. There weren't really solid candidates on great teams. I think if voters went back they would give it to Harden/KL/Steph and think they ultimately made a mistake on it.
Other contenders were :
Harden: Probably should have got it but still only a 3 seed
KL: Was this media not giving him credit due to his personality?
IT: Boston was a 1 seed, but IT really?
LBJ: Only won 51 games

[BelgradeNugget]

I don't know where you got #14. He's 4th in PER at 29.74, which is more than enough considering the other narratives going on for him(way lesser supporting cast than anyone involved in the race + the other things I mentioned).

My bad, I was looking last year's stars.

He's actually third right now at Basketball Reference. Still, I think he would need to have a similar record to the Nuggets in order to win. I mean, if the Pacers are at 55 Ws and the Nuggets get to 60, I think it's Jokic's.

Maybe if Jamal Murray misses the whole year. If not, I don't think Jokic' better advanced stats will beat out what Hali has going on for him.

-both have top tier advanced stats. PER, BPM, TS% whatever you can find. Jokic has the overwhelming edge in everything but it's not like Hali is middle of the pack in every one either. If overall by all statistics on the deck alone, he's got a top 15-20 MVP type season of all time, he's certainly not Rose/Nash/Iverson/Kobe, not by a long shot.

Nobody has averaged 24/12 or 20/10 with 50/40/90 shooting splits. Haliburton has 3% on every shooting metric above that at the moment.

There have been only 17 instances of 12+ assists per game seasons(5 players). The lowest number of turnovers per game for the best one is 3.2. Hali's averaging 2.1 right now.

-Haliburton's 3rd leading scorer is averaging 12 points a game. His 2nd leading scorer(Turner) is very inconsistent and might damn well be near at 15-16 ppg by the end of the season. What else does he provide? The Pacers are not a good defensive nor rebounding team by any stretch, their bread and butter for which they are winning games is the O and Haliburton is the engine for that.
Turner is neither impacting the D very much, has abysmal rebounding numbers and his rim protection is down from past years.

Pacers are atrocious without Haliburton by all metrics involved, and the lone game he missed(and future games) is only proof of that.

+ the voter fatigue which some say it won't be a factor. But at the end of the day, Jokic still has 2 MVP's and the international market has provided the past 5 MVP's. You can say most won't care, but some will.


So yeah, 55 wins for Indiana vs 60 Denver. I'm still betting on Hali.

I guess we'll have to see who is right or wrong.

Thanks man for really good analysis and argumentation for your candidate. We need more posts like this, new player in the conversation backed with great stats.

[ROballer]

Is this thread about who we think should be MVP? Or who we think the actual voters will cast their vote towards?

Because if the Pacers somehow win 50-55 games and a top 4 seed and Haliburton keeps his current stats or even slightly less, you can bet your houses he's getting it regardless of what advanced stats or other whatnots are pulled out of arses in this thread.

Voters don't go for that. The best statistical line(both raw and advanced) has won it in the past, but it's hardly a rule.It actually isn't more often than not(see Steve Nash/Derrick Rose/Allen Iverson/Kobe winning it in the past).

I mean Westbrook won it with just 47 wins for his team a few years ago..

Cavs were 4th in East and 51 wins, Like I don't see any way in they give it to him over Jokic, Embiid, Tatum, Giannis in that scenario assuming they all have 55+ wins.

2016-17 was an anomaly where KD/Steph cancelled each other out. There weren't really solid candidates on great teams. I think if voters went back they would give it to Harden/KL/Steph and think they ultimately made a mistake on it.
Other contenders were :
Harden: Probably should have got it but still only a 3 seed
KL: Was this media not giving him credit due to his personality?
IT: Boston was a 1 seed, but IT really?
LBJ: Only won 51 games

Tatum has arguably 4 teammates better than the best teammate of Hali. Giannis has Lillard + Lopez/Middleton

All 3 are very close statistics wise, with either one having advantages or disadvantages over the others in some or the other categories.

Do you really think less than 5 wins difference as you pointed out will offset the "supporting cast" narrative?

I mean really? Bruce Brown/Obi Toppin/Ben Mathurin and Myles Turner start for the Pacers. Only one averages over 12 points per game, without the possibility of making an argument over world class defensive contributions either.

Should I post the supporting cast of Tatum and Giannis again?

Jokic/Embiid have both the statistics on their side and the lesser burden of the "supporting cast". Their team depth is still better than Indiana but not Boston/Milwaukee better. Thus the only two guys I think can beat Haliburton if the Pacers win 50 games and he sustains the same rhythm(a longshot, as others suggested).

[Kurtz]

There is no voter fatigue with Joker as he didn't win it last year. If anything, a few of the voters might be regretting not giving it to him last year. I think sentiment is on his side.

Westbrooks' win was an outlier due to him recording the first triple double season in 50+ years. Nash is currently widely seen as not deserving of 2 MVPs, and Shaq and Duncan were not as dominant those years as the Joker is today.

Joker is currently the best player in the league, I don't think anyone would argue that. His team will probably finish 1st in the West. There just isn't a case for any other player right now as long as Joker is healthy and Denver is running as the top dog.

Tatum probably has the next best case being clearly the best player on a team that might have the best record in the league.

If you actually think Hali has a case, go put some money on him in Vegas where he currently pays 80:1 to win MVP. Those are the 20th best odds in the NBA. I do think he's undervalued at the moment, but those odds should give you some idea of how realistic his chances are.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

Tatum has arguably 4 teammates better than the best teammate of Hali. Giannis has Lillard + Lopez/Middleton

All 3 are very close statistics wise, with either one having advantages or disadvantages over the others in some or the other categories.

Do you really think less than 5 wins difference as you pointed out will offset the "supporting cast" narrative?

I mean really? Bruce Brown/Obi Toppin/Ben Mathurin and Myles Turner start for the Pacers. Only one averages over 12 points per game, without the possibility of making an argument over world class defensive contributions either.

Should I post the supporting cast of Tatum and Giannis again?

Jokic/Embiid have both the statistics on their side and the lesser burden of the "supporting cast". Their team depth is still better than Indiana but not Boston/Milwaukee better. Thus the only two guys I think can beat Haliburton if the Pacers win 50 games and he sustains the same rhythm(a longshot, as others suggested).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't think it will matter.
All I'm saying that assuming everyone is healthy, you will have 4 guys all on the same level with their team doing significantly better. Like if they are a 3 seed in the East with 54+ wins (Like the Sixers), yes that will be close enough that record won't have an impact. I just don't see voters going for Hali as a 4 seed with lower 50 wins when there are other great candidates available. One or more of Jokic, embiid, Tatum or Giannis will have the stats and the record will be the tie-breaker. It's not like the top teams don't have qualified candidate.
.....And this is all based of an extremely hot 11 game start. If his stats drop a little than he isn't even in the top 5 at the end of the season.

[ROballer]

Tatum has arguably 4 teammates better than the best teammate of Hali. Giannis has Lillard + Lopez/Middleton

All 3 are very close statistics wise, with either one having advantages or disadvantages over the others in some or the other categories.

Do you really think less than 5 wins difference as you pointed out will offset the "supporting cast" narrative?

I mean really? Bruce Brown/Obi Toppin/Ben Mathurin and Myles Turner start for the Pacers. Only one averages over 12 points per game, without the possibility of making an argument over world class defensive contributions either.

Should I post the supporting cast of Tatum and Giannis again?

Jokic/Embiid have both the statistics on their side and the lesser burden of the "supporting cast". Their team depth is still better than Indiana but not Boston/Milwaukee better. Thus the only two guys I think can beat Haliburton if the Pacers win 50 games and he sustains the same rhythm(a longshot, as others suggested).

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't think it will matter.
All I'm saying that assuming everyone is healthy, you will have 4 guys all on the same level with their team doing significantly better. Like if they are a 3 seed in the East with 54+ wins (Like the Sixers), yes that will be close enough that record won't have an impact. I just don't see voters going for Hali as a 4 seed with lower 50 wins when there are other great candidates available. One or more of Jokic, embiid, Tatum or Giannis will have the stats and the record will be the tie-breaker. It's not like the top teams don't have qualified candidate.
.....And this is all based of an extremely hot 11 game start. If his stats drop a little than he isn't even in the top 5 at the end of the season.

Again, I'm basing my opinion on the history of voting for the award and the arguments made, outliers, narratives and others.
I'm voicing my opinion based on how I think voting will go down, not on how I MYSELF think is more deserving or not. Because that's a moot point honestly, only the result will stand out in time, not my opinion about the result.

You caring or not about a player or two having a considerable advantage in piling up "wins" due to a vastly better supporting cast(since you say record will determine it) doesn't faze me, since you don't have a single say in this in the end. I don't have a homer view or bone in this anyway, I don't support the Pacers(Lakers fan).

It's the most valuable player award. Not who is the better player. Not who wins the overall most games.

The fact that you say a measly 5 game difference in the standings will be enough, in an 82 game season....when the stats might even favor Haliburton in the end as well.

But the supporting cast:

Celtics are winning 45-50 without Tatum.
Bucks are winning 40-45 without Giannis.

Assuming good health for the rest of the roster of course.

Indiana are winning less than 20 without Hali.

If you don't think that matters, or you "don't care"....well the guys that actually vote, trust me, they do.


I don't have the problem for the cases of Jokic/Embiid. I still stand with what I said earlier BUT I can very much admit I could be wrong.

But for the others, no, sorry. If you think Celtics/Bucks winning 5 more games(or less, you said record will be the tiebreaker , might be even 1 game in your opinion), after being pegged as the greatest juggernauts to start the season...against a Pacers team most didn't even give a chance to make the playoffs in the first place, are enough to push Tatum/Giannis over Haliburton in the overall race, then I'm sorry for you, you'll be dissapointed.