Bob8 wrote:Wolfgang630 wrote:Special_Puppy wrote:
Would Luka be the favorite for MVP if Jokic won it last year?
No
Do you really believe they would have given 4 in a row to Jokic? No way. Maybe they would have given MVP to Shai, sure not Jokic.
People, who are sure that advanced stats are everything, should check how Barkley got award in front of Jordan, who was with total dominance in advanced stats, the best scorer and 2nd defensive player of the year, only 3rd.
Nobody in the history of the game did it and they would have given 4 in a row to Jokic?
I think that main reason that he didn't get 3 in a row wasn't campaign for Embiid but the fact that only 3 players before have got 3 in a row.
You can't put someone , who didn't win anything at that point, in front of MJ or LeBron.
that's not what you're doing tho. for one, it's a rs award so "didn't win anthing..' is immaterial
secondly, it hasn't happend in the past because these circumstences never came to pass, not because there's some rule or innate prerequisite, to win 3,4 or 10 for that matter
culture is dynamic
just because voters in the 70's or 90's went with certain reasonings and criterias doesn't mean that 2020's voters will as well
i'll give u a recent example
Giannis won back to back MVPs, in the next season he played just 61 games and despite playing 10% more mins than his prior MVP season, he had considerably less rebounds, less points etc. no MVP other than Walton even won playing less than the 65 threshold, right? thus, they didn't give it him
now imagine that Giannis was healthier (and better) that season, say Giannis played 82 games that season and would have led the Bucks to the 1st seed (they were 3rd only a couple of games back, it's very reasonable to assume if Giannis was heathy they would have led the East) - do u think they wouldn't have given it to him just so he could be excluded from some mythical group of guys who have 3 back to back? mind you, Giannis has also "never won" up to that point, his ring came in the playoffs following this selection
that doesn't make a lick of sense, sorry
Jokic is both durable and consistently great, since emerging as a superstar he hasn't had a down season yet..perhaps other superstars in the past weren't as consistent? that's no reason to hold it against him
let's say Jokic finishes his career with 6 MVPS, does that mean he's better than all the guys who won less MVPs? ofc not...
it just means, he had more seasons whenconditions were met and won out
say an a top 5 ATG player has to share his career with another top 5 ATG player, thus throughout their peaks they split career accolades and alternate MVPs.
another top 15 ATG player has a decade all by his lonesome and he gobbles up more MVPs than both of the top 5 - does that make him "better"? ofc not..
my point is circumstences dictate these things so things that "never happened" in the past and have no precedence can def happen, when circumstences are different
