NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24 (Part 5: So who's winning MVP? )

[Bob8]

@bob8

oh and as to your "50 wins" part, you seem fine defending the Mavs poor lineups and injuries when it comes to propping up Luka for MVP, yet you don't pay Jokic the same courtesy and give him a leeway because of the amount of help he's recieved or the unique circumstances he had to operate in. why is that?

Jokic is the only MVP to have never played with an all-star

Denver has 56 win rn, likely will finish with 58
they had 53 last season
they had 48 when he was playing the entire season without his #2 and #3, two max salaries in street clothes, Barton and Campazzo in starting jerseyes
and they had 47 in the 72 games season (covid), that's 65% winrate the equivalent of 53-54 wins

Jokic didn't have a single all-star teammate during this 4 year span
you can argue about playoff Murray in the bubble and last season but that doesn't have anything to do with the rs

so your "50 wins" take is disingenious imo as they have in fact surpassed 50 wins in 3/4 seasons and the one they didn't was the no Murray no MPJ season, in which he won 48 with a G-league squad

when's the last time someone carried a team of role players to 4 straight rs seasons 50+ in this fashion meaning, while breaking every advanced stats record there is e broke BPM, PER, VORP, +- etc.

does that make him MJ? or as great as MJ? hell no..especially since we don't know what MJ could have done in this era and imo it would be just ridicilous and absurdly great (but that's just my opinion and guesswork)

MJ never accomplished this btw, when he was younger he had little help and when he was older he never had to cuz he had an all-time great supporting cast so he never had the chance to accomplish it and as great as he was invdivually he can't elevate scrubs on offense the way Jokic can with his vision, playamaking, rebounding and passing

defense is a different matter as having an ATG wing defender def elevates the entire squad on that end

Jokic deserved 4 straight MVPs, that's just a fact - it doesn't make him better than MJ (or anyone else who hasn't won 4 straight MVPs for that matter) and as i've said itt - MJ in this era would be...not like everything we've ever seen, eras are different and can't be directly compared

Sure and he got first 2 awards and he will get the 3rd. But you can't go much further just by narrative his teammates are not good enough for my team winning more. Not if you're supposedly on GOAT trajectory.

Luka wasn't even close to get a single award.

[Mr B]

Jokic and Luka's ranks in each stat

Bold = Jokic lead
Italics = Luka lead

Box score totals:
Points: Jokic 5th, Luka 1st
Rebounds: Jokic 3rd, Luka 16th
Assists: Jokic 2nd, Luka 3rd
Steals: Jokic 9th, Luka 12th
Blocks: Jokic 32nd, Luka 107th
Turnovers: Jokic 9th, Luka 1st

Advanced:
PER: Jokic 1st, Luka 4th
WS: Jokic 1st, Luka 5th
OWS: Jokic 1st, Luka 5th
DWS: Jokic 1st, Luka 16th
WS/48: Jokic 1st, Luka 5th
BPM: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
OBPM: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
DPBM: Jokic 1st, Luka 17th
VORP: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
Ortg: Jokic 4th, Luka 127th
Drtg: Jokic 6th, Luka 78th
TS%: Jokic 10th, Luka 39th
PIE: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
Net Rtg: Jokic 6th, Luka 100th
EPM: Jokic 5th, Luka 3rd

People like to pretend it's close but it isn't. Jokic is on a level by himself.

What about points per game?

Jokic has better stats in many many categories and almost across board, but using total numbers for assists, steals... instead of per game, per 36, or per 100 is kind of low and shows the insecure of some fans. Coby White, Franz Wagner has more points, and Paul Reed has more rebounds than Embiid this season.

Kind of seems like the fact that you have to bring up all these obscure stats to point out Joker deserves the award seems more insecure than what I asked. All I asked was who has more points per game. I mean points do matter right?

[Mr B]

Availability matters. End of.

This ^

Luka's lucky that they put the OFFICIAL # of games missed to be 17 to be eligible for awards.

Historical precedent has been, over the last 45 years, if you miss double digit games, you don't win MVP (only 1 exception to this rule, 2001 Allen Iverson). That's it. 45 years, only one player has won MVP missing 10+ games. Luka has already missed 10 this year, the fact that he's even somewhat in the conversation is the product of the 'Embiid rule'

Embiid won it last year while missing 16 games.

Damn you and your facts!

[Mr B]

Jokic and Luka's ranks in each stat

Bold = Jokic lead
Italics = Luka lead

Box score totals:
Points: Jokic 5th, Luka 1st
Rebounds: Jokic 3rd, Luka 16th
Assists: Jokic 2nd, Luka 3rd
Steals: Jokic 9th, Luka 12th
Blocks: Jokic 32nd, Luka 107th
Turnovers: Jokic 9th, Luka 1st

Advanced:
PER: Jokic 1st, Luka 4th
WS: Jokic 1st, Luka 5th
OWS: Jokic 1st, Luka 5th
DWS: Jokic 1st, Luka 16th
WS/48: Jokic 1st, Luka 5th
BPM: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
OBPM: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
DPBM: Jokic 1st, Luka 17th
VORP: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
Ortg: Jokic 4th, Luka 127th
Drtg: Jokic 6th, Luka 78th
TS%: Jokic 10th, Luka 39th
PIE: Jokic 1st, Luka 2nd
Net Rtg: Jokic 6th, Luka 100th
EPM: Jokic 5th, Luka 3rd

People like to pretend it's close but it isn't. Jokic is on a level by himself.

What about points per game?

It’s in italics. It’s one of the 2 categories that Luka’s leading. Joker leads in 19 categories.

So Luka averages more points per game than Jokic. What about assists?

[QPR]

Kind of seems like the fact that you have to bring up all these obscure stats to point out Joker deserves the award seems more insecure than what I asked. All I asked was who has more points per game. I mean points do matter right?

Luka, Giannis, SGA, Brunson, Durant, Booker, Tatum and Fox all have more PPG, to answer your question.

[Mr B]

Kind of seems like the fact that you have to bring up all these obscure stats to point out Joker deserves the award seems more insecure than what I asked. All I asked was who has more points per game. I mean points do matter right?

Luka, Giannis, SGA, Brunson, Durant, Booker, Tatum and Fox all have more PPG, to answer your question.

What about assists?

[QPR]

Kind of seems like the fact that you have to bring up all these obscure stats to point out Joker deserves the award seems more insecure than what I asked. All I asked was who has more points per game. I mean points do matter right?

Luka, Giannis, SGA, Brunson, Durant, Booker, Tatum and Fox all have more PPG, to answer your question.

What about assists?

Haliburton and Luka are the two ahead of Jokic.

Per 36, it's Haliburton and TJ McConnell, then Luka and Jokic are neck and neck in third.

[Exp0sed]

@bob8

Sure and he got first 2 awards and he will get the 3rd. But you can't go much further just by narrative his teammates are not good enough for my team winning more. Not if you're supposedly on GOAT trajectory.

Luka wasn't even close to get a single award.

stop it haha, that wasn't the actual case even in 2022 and certainly not in his other two MVPs meaning his first and this current season

nobody said anything about "GOAT trajectory", that's the fallacy u keep missing
just because past GOAT level players didn't manage to win as many MVPs (consequetively or all together) does not mean that a.) a player who does is a GOAT candidate or that b.) anyone who does accomplish that is better than those guys who haven't accomplished to win as many MVPs

circumstences vary!

your'e conflating MVP with "best"
Jokic has been the most valuable player in the NBA for at least 4 straight seasons, that doesn't even make him the best player during that stretch (tho he'd have a hell of an argument for it) and it certainly doesn't mean he's better than guys who didn't manage 4 straight seasons of being on a commulative basis - above their peers

as for Luka you were already pressed on availibility
Walton is the only MVP to win ever playing under 65 (and he deserved it but it was a huge outlier) and Iverson is the only one to win missing more than 10 games and tbh he won it because of his effect on the game at large and his popularity and not on merit

Luka played 70 games just once since his rookie season, in this current season
which is why he's 2nd and in the convo, the highest he's ever been

Jokic is on pace to play 79 games this season..that matters for MVP.
if Luka had played 79 games and sustained his production, the Mavs would surely have a few more wins and better seeding and he'd have a good shot to win it this year, alas he hasn't

i'm not a +- guy as u well know, so not gonna use that argument against him
if u think Luka contributed to the Mavs success and has been more valuable to his team over 70 games than Jokic over 77 games..I just don't know what to tell u as it's categorically false no matter which metric or system you'd examine it under

back in the day when most stars played most of the games this wasn't really an issue unless there were real injuries
nowadays it's an issue because most superstars load-manage and Jokic does not - it gives him an advantage as far as MVPs go, because it's an award that's decided by the commulative production over the course of a full regular season

otherwise, guys like Giannis, Luka etc. would be alternating in winning the award
Tatum is the only elite player who doesn't load-manage but he isn't on Jokic's tier (or the other actual MVP calibre players aside from Jokic)

i don't see what's so hard to accept or understand about that
it doesn't make him better than those guys and it certainly doesn't mean he's the "GOAT" or on a "GOAT trajectory"
just means he has more MVPs and rightfully so

he should have four, last season was the most disgraceful vote in the history of the modern NBA

[ag3]

If this were the 1990s through 2005, Brunson would win the MVP.

He is the most deserving.

[Bob8]

@bob8

Sure and he got first 2 awards and he will get the 3rd. But you can't go much further just by narrative his teammates are not good enough for my team winning more. Not if you're supposedly on GOAT trajectory.

Luka wasn't even close to get a single award.

stop it haha, that wasn't the actual case even in 2022 and certainly not in his other two MVPs meaning his first and this current season

nobody said anything about "GOAT trajectory", that's the fallacy u keep missing
just because past GOAT level players didn't manage to win as many MVPs (consequetively or all together) does not mean that a.) a player who does is a GOAT candidate or that b.) anyone who does accomplish that is better than those guys who haven't accomplished to win as many MVPs

circumstences vary!

your'e conflating MVP with "best"
Jokic has been the most valuable player in the NBA for at least 4 straight seasons, that doesn't even make him the best player during that stretch (tho he'd have a hell of an argument for it) and it certainly doesn't mean he's better than guys who didn't manage 4 straight seasons of being on a commulative basis - above their peers

as for Luka you were already pressed on availibility
Walton is the only MVP to win ever playing under 65 (and he deserved it but it was a huge outlier) and Iverson is the only one to win missing more than 10 games and tbh he won it because of his effect on the game at large and his popularity and not on merit

Luka played 70 games just once since his rookie season, in this current season
which is why he's 2nd and in the convo, the highest he's ever been

Jokic is on pace to play 79 games this season..that matters for MVP.
if Luka had played 79 games and sustained his production, the Mavs would surely have a few more wins and better seeding and he'd have a good shot to win it this year, alas he hasn't

i'm not a +- guy as u well know, so not gonna use that argument against him
if u think Luka contributed to the Mavs success and has been more valuable to his team over 70 games than Jokic over 77 games..I just don't know what to tell u as it's categorically false no matter which metric or system you'd examine it under

back in the day when most stars played most of the games this wasn't really an issue unless there were real injuries
nowadays it's an issue because most superstars load-manage and Jokic does not - it gives him an advantage as far as MVPs go, because it's an award that's decided by the commulative production over the course of a full regular season

otherwise, guys like Giannis, Luka etc. would be alternating in winning the award
Tatum is the only elite player who doesn't load-manage but he isn't on Jokic's tier (or the other actual MVP calibre players aside from Jokic)

i don't see what's so hard to accept or understand about that
it doesn't make him better than those guys and it certainly doesn't mean he's the "GOAT" or on a "GOAT trajectory"
just means he has more MVPs and rightfully so

he should have four, last season was the most disgraceful vote in the history of the modern NBA

You might read this thread better, even today few writers are talking about Jokic having GOAT 4 years.

What about Barkley winning it? Or numerous others. If vote went only by advanced stats, players like MJ and LeBron would have had double numbers of MVPs.

[Exp0sed]

If this were the 1990s through 2005, Brunson would win the MVP.

He is the most deserving.

was it custmary in the 90's through 2005 to award MVPs to a player in a team that's 3rd in it's conference with 14 less wins than first place?

[Exp0sed]

You might read this thread better, even today few writers are talking about Jokic having GOAT 4 years.

What about Barkley winning it? Or numerous others. If vote went only by advanced stats, players like MJ and LeBron would have had double numbers of MVPs.

you're just repeating urself now and not addressing the points brought up at all

so one last time:

1.) I'm not an advanced stats guys and it shouldn't be the end all be all for MVP consideration. over countless posts itt (not just this season) I have never argued that Jokic should win an MVP solely because of "advanced stats" and neither do actual voters, otherwise Luka wouldn't be in 2nd place rn

2.) if advanced stats were the main criteria, MJ and LBJ would have double MVPS - I already agreed with you on that. that statement is factually true

but I asked u a follow up question - do two wrongs make a right?

ur argument is basically this:
since MJ, LBJ (and others) were robbed of their double MVPs, they only have the amount they have. thus, if we start awarding correctly now and hand out MVP's to Jokic every season he deserves it, dude might end up with 8 MVPs

since the voters of the past screwed us and robbed MJ and LBJ of their MVP's, we now have to screw Jokic cuz otherwise he'd have more MVPs then them, which shouldn't happen unless he's better than them (and he's not)

so that's ur argument basically, that we need to do a wrong now, to fix the wrong that's been done in the past but it just doesn't work that way

[Bob8]

You might read this thread better, even today few writers are talking about Jokic having GOAT 4 years.

What about Barkley winning it? Or numerous others. If vote went only by advanced stats, players like MJ and LeBron would have had double numbers of MVPs.

you're just repeating urself now and not addressing the points brought up at all

so one last time:

1.) I'm not an advanced stats guys and it shouldn't be the end all be all for MVP consideration. over countless posts itt (not just this season) I have never argued that Jokic should win an MVP solely because of "advanced stats" and neither do actual voters, otherwise Luka wouldn't be in 2nd place rn

2.) if advanced stats were the main criteria, MJ and LBJ would have double MVPS - I already agreed with you on that. that statement is factually true

but I asked u a follow up question - do two wrongs make a right?

ur argument is basically this:
since MJ, LBJ (and others) were robbed of their double MVPs, they only have the amount they have. thus, if we start awarding correctly now and hand out MVP's to Jokic every season he deserves it, dude might end up with 8 MVPs

since the voters of the past screwed us and robbed MJ and LBJ of their MVP's, we now have to screw Jokic cuz otherwise he'd have more MVPs then them, which shouldn't happen unless he's better than them (and he's not)

so that's ur argument basically, that we need to do a wrong now, to fix the wrong that's been done in the past but it just doesn't work that way

You used term the most disgraceful MVP vote. It clearly wasn't.

I doubt very much that Jokic deserves or will get 8 MVPs, unless he becomes real GOAT, which I doubt very much too. I'm all for having a bet about that with you.

Don't you think it would be funny, if he ends with far the most MVPs in the history and wins only few titles?

Hype about Jokic went too far, he has 1 title being 29 years old, not exactly something extraordinary.

[Mr B]

Luka, Giannis, SGA, Brunson, Durant, Booker, Tatum and Fox all have more PPG, to answer your question.

What about assists?

Haliburton and Luka are the two ahead of Jokic.

Per 36, it's Haliburton and TJ McConnell, then Luka and Jokic are neck and neck in third.

So Luka is ahead of Jokic in points and assists, the two main stats that matter.

Didn’t Jokic win this award as a 6th seed? What seed are the Mavs in again?

[Wolfgang630]

Blows my mind nba.com has Sabonis over Brunson. They’ve been falling and he’s overrated as hell

[jc23]

Kenny and Shaq were pushing SGA pretty heavy last night.

[Woodsanity]

What about assists?

Haliburton and Luka are the two ahead of Jokic.

Per 36, it's Haliburton and TJ McConnell, then Luka and Jokic are neck and neck in third.

So Luka is ahead of Jokic in points and assists, the two main stats that matter.

Didn’t Jokic win this award as a 6th seed? What seed are the Mavs in again?

22 Jokic PER: 32.8

24 Luka PER: 28.1

Jokic had no Jamal Murray or MPJ either so yea cute comparison but Luka isn't on 22 Jokic level. Remove his top two players and he is low 40s win count at most considering he is only at 50 right now with Kyrie.

Not to mention Jokic was only 3 wins behind Embiid with better stats

While Doncic has lesser stats than Jokic and is 6 wins behind.

[whatever_]

While Player Efficiency Rating (PER) is a widely used metric in basketball analytics, it has been criticized for several flaws:

Focus on Box Score Stats: PER heavily relies on traditional box score statistics like points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. This focus may not fully capture a player's defensive impact, leadership, or other intangible contributions to the team.

Weighting of Statistical Categories: The specific weights assigned to each statistical category in PER are not publicly disclosed by its creator, John Hollinger. As a result, there's ambiguity about how each statistic is valued and whether those weights accurately reflect a player's impact on winning.

Treatment of Efficiency Stats: PER treats all efficiency statistics (such as field goal percentage, free throw percentage, and turnovers) as equally important, without considering the context of how they are generated. For example, a high field goal percentage from a player who takes mostly easy shots may inflate their PER, while a player who takes difficult shots but has a lower percentage may be undervalued.

Lack of Context: PER does not account for situational factors such as a player's role within their team's system, the quality of their teammates and opponents, or the pace of the game. A player's PER can be influenced by these external factors, leading to potential misinterpretations of their true impact.

Limited Defensive Metrics: While PER includes blocks and steals as defensive contributions, it doesn't adequately capture a player's overall defensive performance. Metrics like defensive rating, defensive box plus/minus, and impact on opponents' field goal percentage provide additional insights into a player's defensive abilities.

Inflation of PER in High-Usage Players: PER tends to favor players with high usage rates (those who take a large number of shots or have the ball in their hands frequently). This can lead to inflated PERs for players who prioritize individual scoring over team play, without necessarily contributing to winning basketball.

Not Adjusted for Positional Differences: PER treats all positions equally, which may not accurately reflect the different roles and responsibilities of players at different positions. Centers, for example, are often judged by different standards than guards or forwards, but PER treats their contributions identically.

Despite these flaws, PER remains a valuable tool for evaluating individual player performance, particularly when used in conjunction with other advanced statistics and qualitative observations.

[Mr B]

Haliburton and Luka are the two ahead of Jokic.

Per 36, it's Haliburton and TJ McConnell, then Luka and Jokic are neck and neck in third.

So Luka is ahead of Jokic in points and assists, the two main stats that matter.

Didn’t Jokic win this award as a 6th seed? What seed are the Mavs in again?

22 Jokic PER: 32.8

24 Luka PER: 28.1

Jokic had no Jamal Murray or MPJ either so yea cute comparison but Luka isn't on 22 Jokic level. Remove his top two players and he is low 40s win count at most considering he is only at 50 right now with Kyrie.

Not to mention Jokic was only 3 wins behind Embiid with better stats

While Doncic has lesser stats than Jokic and is 6 wins behind.

Per means he didn’t do it though right? We’re talking about actual production vs would have, could have, should have stats. Being available for your team is a huge part of the MVP award. So if Jokic COULD have gotten better numbers by playing 36 min a night, then why didn’t he? The fact is he didn’t play 36 min a night and therefore his stats are not as good as Luka’s.

[Duke4life831]

Ya no shot at Luka, I just dont really see the argument for him this year. Lets say Jokic had never won a MVP before this season and we looked at both of these guys for what they did just this year. What exactly is the argument for Luka over Jokic?

Jokic has the #1 seed in the West and #2 overall record. Luka is sitting at the 5th seed in the West. And before people say well Jokic won it as a 6th seed. Yes, but Jokic's individual stats were so far ahead of anyone else's, it was almost impossible not to give it to him. Im sure if there was a guy putting up similar individual stats as Jokic that year but was on a #1 seeded team, Jokic wouldnt have won.

Jokic has played in 54 wins this year compared to the 46 for Luka.

Luka has the advantage in scoring, while Jokic has the advantage in rebounding. Assists theyre pretty even. But then Jokic has the advantage in efficiency (eFG% and TS%). Then it seems like the majority of advanced metrics have Jokic with a comfortable lead.

Im just not sure what the argument is for Luka over Jokic this year. Again no shot at Luka at all, he just happens to be playing during Jokic's prime and Denver is winning a lot of games.