2024-25 NBA MVP Discussion Thread (Pt. 2)

[Woodsanity]

Hilarious how anyone thought tatum was better than sga.

Just because tatum had more playoff success while not even able to win fmvp since he was mid in the finals.

[Mavrelous]

Jokic would legit win 75 games with team and waltz to the title.

It’s not even close. Jokic is just on a different level.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Last year Denver had KCP and Murray had the best season of his career, and finshed behind the Thunder.
SGA is good, really good, if anything, his supporting cast is overated offensively, he's having am insane carry job.

they might be overrated offensively but they're underrated defensively

they held the C's to 17 pts in the 3rd and 12 in the 4th, they've been doing it all season - is Shai doing that on his own too?

No, I actually consider him overrated as a defender and not really that good.

[itsxtray]

EDIT: He's the best player in the world , i'm not taking that from him. But we're changing basketball history here by awaring Joker the MVP no matter what happens in season.

Okay, so on the precedent of history, I'd distinguish:

a) It does go against precedent to vote for the "best player" without consideration of in season performance.
But:
b) We have seen a guy win MVP on a team with a worse record than Jokic's team does now.

I'd argue it's therefore precedent tells us that we should not be dismissing players simply because their team isn't good enough.

Let's get into the workings of this. Obviously, seasons aren’t the same. Just because one player won MVP as a 6th seed or whatever doesn’t mean that can translate to other seasons. How well did the other top players play that season? Were any teams playing at a historic pace? Did the higher seeded teams have any Mvp caliber players? People try to point out double standards and hypocrisy between seasons, but each season is different, and what earns you MVP in one season might not earn it in another.

So yeah, we have seen lower-seeded players win MVP, but not when another player’s team is on a 70-win pace and their metrics are comparable to the lower-seeded player’s.

[Kobe187]

1. Jokic
2. SGA
3. Giannis

4. Wembanyama
5. Tatum
6. Luka

[Snake3]

EDIT: He's the best player in the world , i'm not taking that from him. But we're changing basketball history here by awaring Joker the MVP no matter what happens in season.

Okay, so on the precedent of history, I'd distinguish:

a) It does go against precedent to vote for the "best player" without consideration of in season performance.
But:
b) We have seen a guy win MVP on a team with a worse record than Jokic's team does now.

I'd argue it's therefore precedent tells us that we should not be dismissing players simply because their team isn't good enough.

Let's get into the workings of this. Obviously, seasons aren’t the same. Just because one player won MVP as a 6th seed or whatever doesn’t mean that can translate to other seasons. How well did the other top players play that season? Were any teams playing at a historic pace? Did the higher seeded teams have any Mvp caliber players? People try to point out double standards and hypocrisy between seasons, but each season is different, and what earns you MVP in one season might not earn it in another.

So yeah, we have seen lower-seeded players win MVP, but not when another player’s team is on a 70-win pace and their metrics are comparable to the lower-seeded player’s.

That's Westbrook isn't it? But I guess you could argue that EPM wasn't used. We used other metrics. And he was the best or nearly the best in almost all advance metrics. But that's not the reason why he won. He won because it was the first since Oscar Robinson that triple double has been achieved.

And we don't know how many voters take into account of the metrics like that. It's the narrative that takes more into account. Like I don't think Stephen A Smith cares too much about the metrics.

[itsxtray]

Okay, so on the precedent of history, I'd distinguish:

a) It does go against precedent to vote for the "best player" without consideration of in season performance.
But:
b) We have seen a guy win MVP on a team with a worse record than Jokic's team does now.

I'd argue it's therefore precedent tells us that we should not be dismissing players simply because their team isn't good enough.

Let's get into the workings of this. Obviously, seasons aren’t the same. Just because one player won MVP as a 6th seed or whatever doesn’t mean that can translate to other seasons. How well did the other top players play that season? Were any teams playing at a historic pace? Did the higher seeded teams have any Mvp caliber players? People try to point out double standards and hypocrisy between seasons, but each season is different, and what earns you MVP in one season might not earn it in another.

So yeah, we have seen lower-seeded players win MVP, but not when another player’s team is on a 70-win pace and their metrics are comparable to the lower-seeded player’s.

That's Westbrook isn't it? But I guess you could argue that EPM wasn't used. We used other metrics. And he was the best or nearly the best in almost all advance metrics. But that's not the reason why he won. He won because it was the first since Oscar Robinson that triple double has been achieved.

And we don't know how many voters take into account of the metrics like that. It's the narrative that takes more into account. Like I don't think Stephen A Smith cares too much about the metrics.

The Rockets weren't on a 70-win pace, and Harden was the only other player to receive over 10 first-place votes. Westbrook's MVP was a novelty award, unique in NBA history, because he accomplished something people thought wouldn't be done again. However, it won't carry the same weight if someone else achieves it. For example, Jokic is just 0.3 assists away from averaging a 30-point triple-double. Is 0.3 assists really the difference between MVP and not for the people who have SGA over Jokic? I doubt it

[OkcSinceSGA]

I get it. Nerd stats have a place, but so do raw stats. SGA is not having a legendary run. Jokic is. The end of that comparison.

It's the team record, and that's it. Let's not pretend the two are on equal footing production wise.

That’s false. Both players are on a legendary run. SGA is putting up two way guard numbers and efficiency not matched since prime Jordan. That includes Kobe/Wade/Harden not doing it.

[OkcSinceSGA]

The shooting chart for SGA this year is mind blowing. Peak Jordan shot like 55% from 2, Kobe 51%. SGA? 59%.

He’s shooting 59% from 2 overall, 58% from short midrange and 46% from long 2 range. **** is insane. Has that kind of efficiency ever been seen for a non big man?

[EmpireFalls]

I get it. Nerd stats have a place, but so do raw stats. SGA is not having a legendary run. Jokic is. The end of that comparison.

It's the team record, and that's it. Let's not pretend the two are on equal footing production wise.

Seeing a Jokic fan disavow “nerd stats” is genuinely incredible. It’s like a Bill Russell fan saying rings don’t matter.

[Snake3]

The Rockets weren't on a 70-win pace, and Harden was the only other player to receive over 10 first-place votes. Westbrook's MVP was a novelty award, unique in NBA history, because he accomplished something people thought wouldn't be done again. However, it won't carry the same weight if someone else achieves it. For example, Jokic is just 0.3 assists away from averaging a 30-point triple-double. Is 0.3 assists really the difference between MVP and not for the people who have SGA over Jokic? I doubt it

I was referring to the Warriors. Not the Rockets in 17.

And I don't know. It's really compelling. If Jokic were to accomplish a triple double, that would compel some of the voters. His season is already being dubbed as the best offensive season ever by some people in the media. If he accomplish a triple double by season's end, that's a historic season right there. Only two players has achieved that. And Jokic plays center, so that adds a little more weight to it. It'll be close.

But SGA is playing great himself. I doubt it'll be unanimous or anything. I think this is SGA's mvp, but I won't surprise if Jokic steals it depending upon the seeding.

[Snake3]

The shooting chart for SGA this year is mind blowing. Peak Jordan shot like 55% from 2, Kobe 51%. SGA? 59%.

He’s shooting 59% from 2 overall, 58% from short midrange and 46% from long 2 range. **** is insane. Has that kind of efficiency ever been seen for a non big man?

Depends on what you mean by big. Non center? Adrian Dantley had 58% for 2s. I think that's the highest with volume other than SGA. Stockton had a 59% from 2pt land.

But SGA is killing it so far this season. It's crazy to see this type of consistent performance from a guard again.

edit: Curry had a 59% from 2.

[RRR3]

I get it. Nerd stats have a place, but so do raw stats. SGA is not having a legendary run. Jokic is. The end of that comparison.

It's the team record, and that's it. Let's not pretend the two are on equal footing production wise.

Seeing a Jokic fan disavow “nerd stats” is genuinely incredible. It’s like a Bill Russell fan saying rings don’t matter.

Nerd stats only good if Jokic is leading them

[Exp0sed]

EDIT: He's the best player in the world , i'm not taking that from him. But we're changing basketball history here by awaring Joker the MVP no matter what happens in season.

Okay, so on the precedent of history, I'd distinguish:

a) It does go against precedent to vote for the "best player" without consideration of in season performance.
But:
b) We have seen a guy win MVP on a team with a worse record than Jokic's team does now.

I'd argue it's therefore precedent tells us that we should not be dismissing players simply because their team isn't good enough.

Let's get into the workings of this. Obviously, seasons aren’t the same. Just because one player won MVP as a 6th seed or whatever doesn’t mean that can translate to other seasons. How well did the other top players play that season? Were any teams playing at a historic pace? Did the higher seeded teams have any Mvp caliber players? People try to point out double standards and hypocrisy between seasons, but each season is different, and what earns you MVP in one season might not earn it in another.

So yeah, we have seen lower-seeded players win MVP, but not when another player’s team is on a 70-win pace and their metrics are comparable to the lower-seeded player’s.

idk if ur trolling or not but that 2016/17 season, the Warriors were 67-15 and a 11.5 SRS team
back then, being on stacked teams made a difference I guess as WB's averging a trip double and carrying his team to the playoffs on his own (while having the impact metrics to support his contribution) was seen as better than Steph's 25\4.5\7, despite having 20 less team winsץ WB also closed the season very strong and had some insane stretches of memorable games

that season is a bad example to what ur trying to argue, imo

even if one wanted to punish the superteam Warriors for their unfair stacking of the deck, 25 years old KL led the Spurs to 61-21, that's 14 more wins than OKC. impact wise and from an advanced stats standpoint, WB was ahead in PER and VORP, Curry was 1st in RPM and LEBRON while Kawhi was 2nd in most metrics. Harden was also anywhere from 2nd to 5th in those metrics and led his team to 55 wins

[Exp0sed]

I get it. Nerd stats have a place, but so do raw stats. SGA is not having a legendary run. Jokic is. The end of that comparison.

It's the team record, and that's it. Let's not pretend the two are on equal footing production wise.

Seeing a Jokic fan disavow “nerd stats” is genuinely incredible. It’s like a Bill Russell fan saying rings don’t matter.

Nerd stats only good if Jokic is leading them

meh, it's not like Jokic always leads in both raw and advanced, right? haha

u make it sound like Jokic is the king of raw stats and is awful in the advanced ones
fwiw, most "nerd stats" are in one way or another a regression of what it takes to win NBA games. a team that wins alot of NBA games (like the Thunder) is gonna result in some great stats for their players

if you check out the advanced stats for the Thunder u may be tempted to think they're a team of superstars. who knows, maybe they are and guys like J-Dub, Cason Wallace are the next OKC Harden while Dort is the next Ben Wallace

[iggymcfrack]

SGA is amazing and he deserves it so far, there would be no asterisk if he'd won it on a 65-70 wins team. with that said, Jokic has been better thus far and it's kinda of hard not give it to a player whose team is the best in the NBA (or very close to it) when he's on the floor and are the worst team in the league (literally) when he's off the floor, even if they are only a 4th-5th seed or whatever

we've never seen anyone do what Jokic is doing this season, completely nuts and if u watch the games - they speak louder than the stats. Jokic just had two back to back Sombor 40 pts triple doubles, against the best defensive Center in the league.

unreal stuff, he makes everyone around him significantly better and impact almost every single play in a truly unprecedented way.

This is a team sport, where we try to rank individuals, I have no problem with the opinion Jokic has been the better player this year, but I wouldn't state it as a fact.

Calling SGA the MVP is one thing, disputing Jokic being the best player in the world as fact is something else. And that's outrageous.

SGA is closer to Tatum than he is to Giannis, nvm Jokic lol

Because SGA >> Tatum > Giannis, right? Riiiight?

[kazyv]

I get it. Nerd stats have a place, but so do raw stats. SGA is not having a legendary run. Jokic is. The end of that comparison.

It's the team record, and that's it. Let's not pretend the two are on equal footing production wise.

isn't leading your team to 70 wins as the sole star a legendary run? how many players have done that, ever?

[iggymcfrack]

So this year's narrative for Jokic is everyone has too much help let's give him another mvp for winning games at a play in rate? (AGAIN)

It worked for Jokic's 1st MVP so Jokic stans think it will work again this season. But SGA's case for MVP is too strong. It will be one of the biggest injustice in NBA, if he does not win MVP this season.

I need Calvin Booth to test the limits of these guys , give us a 10th seed Denver year and I swear to god we will have people saying Jokic should be MVP because this team should be 15th.

EDIT: He's the best player in the world , i'm not taking that from him. But we're changing basketball history here by awaring Joker the MVP no matter what happens in season.

You can't punish him for how the team falls apart with him on the bench. If you just look at how the team performs when he's on the floor, he's right in line with previous MVPs:

2025 Nuggets with Jokic: +11.2
2024 Nuggets with Jokic: +11.6
2023 Sixers with Embiid: +9.1
2022 Nuggets with Jokic: +8.4
2021 Nuggets with Jokic: +6.6
2020 Bucks with Giannis: +15.8
2019 Bucks with Giannis: +12.1
2018 Rockets with Harden: +10.5
2017 Thunder with Westbrook: +4.0

Basically, Jokic's supporting cast has played twice as bad as Westbrook's when he's on the bench and he still has them playing better when he's on the floor than the 65 win Rockets did with Harden. That's not propaganda. That's a bad team playing shockingly well with their superstar on the floor.

[RRR3]

When LeBron had crazy on/off ratings I was told it was because he forces his team to rely on him by being the whole system. I guess that only applies to him eh

[Johnny Firpo]

I get it. Nerd stats have a place, but so do raw stats. SGA is not having a legendary run. Jokic is. The end of that comparison.

It's the team record, and that's it. Let's not pretend the two are on equal footing production wise.

isn't leading your team to 70 wins as the sole star a legendary run? how many players have done that, ever?

SGA likely has the best supporting cast in the league. Much, much better than the Nuggets supporting cast. Like, isn't even close. I would probably take his supporting cast over the Celtics' too. And I don't even see how there is an argument against that (Celtics maybe the exception).

[MMyhre]

Another showing in why its been sga> tatum.

Also a reminder that hes the mvp. Not the best player. Its not a best player award. But the mvp nonetheless.

And doing it without chet.

His #2 optiom continues to struggle in big games and big moments...doesn't matter.



Sent from my SM-G960W using RealGM mobile app

THIS IS THE THING!!! Jalen Williams has actually been really disappointing and not really stepped up his production, and OKC are STILL ROLLING, without Chet who was looking like an All NBA candidate early in the season. Its crazy how consistent SGA is, and doing it on both ends, as the only big volume scorer on this team. Its so impressive.