Who do you think wins MVP this season? (2025-26 NBA MVP Discussion Thread)

[SA37]

shai already own the record of fewest turnovers by a 30ppg scorer in a season. in 2024 he scored 30ppg on 2.2 topg.

in 2025-26 he's on pace to shatter that record with 32 ppg and 1.8 topg.

1 - '24 shai 30 ppg, 2.2 topg
2 - '96 jordan 30 ppg, 2.4 topg
3 - '25 shai 32 ppg, 2.4 topg

along with shai there's markkanen also shattering that record with 30 ppg and 1.4 topg which just further tell how ridiculous what shai's doing is. 81% of shai's fgm are unassisted while only 16% of makkanen's fgm are unassisted.

What's nuts is he's only played the 4th quarter in about half the games OKC has played and he's still getting his full numbers. Absolutely wild.

[Doctor MJ]

I think Jokic has been the best player in the world for a while now, and I agree with most of your points.

I'm just saying, Jokic is a 3 time MVP. One of the 9 players all time to accomplish said feat.

If someone like Bron, Jordan, Bird or Magic lost two game 7s in consecutive years during their primes, I can't even imagine the convos happening.

The overindexing point I agree with, but that overindexing point gets made for the all time greats. Jokic didn't go through that as far as I could see.

Maybe once his career is done it'll get brought up more, I don't know.

So I'll give a nod to what someone else specifically said:

While his team was eliminated in Game 7's in two consecutive seasons, it wasn't two Game 7's in a row.

The Nuggets lost Game 7 against the Wolves in an upset loss.
The Nuggets won Game 7 against the Clippers in a series the Nuggets were expected to lose (though Game 7 was at home).
The Nuggets lost Game 7 against the Thunder in a series they weren't supposed to be close.

This is not the kind of overwhelming trend you're thinking you see, and this relates to why there's not even more hand-wringing about what happened.

Because you're chopping out the stuff before and during the "trend" that makes Jokic look good, what's left makes Jokic look worse than he actually looked to those with a wider view.

Further as you bring up guys from the past, let's note that LeBron & Magic got raked over the coals when they personally seemed to choke as their team got eliminated, which while it was overblown was a statement about actual basketball badness, whereas you're just talking about team performance specifically in series close enough to go 7 games.

We should note that Larry Bird's team made a habit of getting upset in the playoffs way more than Jokic, but this isn't something that everyone talks about when they talk about Bird's legacy. Why? In part, because it was less pinpointed to Bird making specific bad plays.

Re: Jordan. Well, the thing about Jordan is that he manages to get that 'perfection' narrative in a way only Bill Russell can match and surpass. It's a bit artificial - "He never lost once he started winning, and then when he started winning again, and let's just ignore Washington" - but frankly it's still enough that I tend to give him the nod for GOAT Peak.

So the wording on my and should have been better maybe, but what I meant was "exiting the playoffs two years in a row because of game 7 losses".

With regards to Bron, he got chewed to hell and back after 2011, but he did follow up with the 2012 title. Now if he lost the 2012 Finals too or got eliminated before reaching there even, I think the convo would have happened a lot differently, no?

Anyway, I think Jokic is a hell of a playoff performer on his own, and I, myself, don't fault him for his past 2 playoff exits myself. It's interesting that mostly everyone seems to think so, was my point.

Bron got chewed to hell in 2011 because it was his 3rd year in a row seeing his team get upset in the playoffs, the last two of which came with him having walkabout moments as he faced problems he didn't know how to solve.

You're taking a slice of Jokic's stuff that makes him look bad, still pointing to less that what people were pointing to with LeBron, and apparently just not knowing what all happened with LeBron.

You feel like someone who wasn't really paying close attention back then, which may not be the case, but if you were paying attention back then, then there's something specific about Jokic that makes you zero in on data points that tell a negative story in a way you didn't with LeBron.

[SA37]

shai already own the record of fewest turnovers by a 30ppg scorer in a season. in 2024 he scored 30ppg on 2.2 topg.

in 2025-26 he's on pace to shatter that record with 32 ppg and 1.6 topg.

1 - '24 shai 30 ppg, 2.2 topg
2 - '96 jordan 30 ppg, 2.4 topg
3 - '25 shai 32 ppg, 2.4 topg

along with shai there's markkanen also shattering that record with 30 ppg and 1.4 topg which just further tell how ridiculous what shai's doing is. 81% of shai's fgm are unassisted while only 16% of makkanen's fgm are assisted.

This is a lot more impressive than getting a triple double, but the average guy in here will not understand this value, at all. Imagine playing against all the tenacious defenders, athletes and schemes in the NBA, and just turning it over 1.4 times a game so far as the obvious main offensive guy?

What does this random stat prove? Would you all be saying Shai was "exposed"/overrated/a fraud if he were getting the same points, but had 3.2to/game? Or even 4.2to/game? He'd still be outrageously impressive and 99.9% sure would make ZERO difference to OKC's record.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the guy who is getting 32ppg....and 11r 7a 1b 1s on 63-50-63 is worse than Shai because he is averaging 1.3 more to/game? I mean, really?

There is a big difference between "getting" a triple-double and AVERAGING a triple-double over a season when there have been only 2 other players to do so in the history of NBA basketball. Again, if Wembanyama were averaging Jokic's numbers, no one would be hand-waving away the accomplishment.

[lethalizer]

So I'll give a nod to what someone else specifically said:

While his team was eliminated in Game 7's in two consecutive seasons, it wasn't two Game 7's in a row.

The Nuggets lost Game 7 against the Wolves in an upset loss.
The Nuggets won Game 7 against the Clippers in a series the Nuggets were expected to lose (though Game 7 was at home).
The Nuggets lost Game 7 against the Thunder in a series they weren't supposed to be close.

This is not the kind of overwhelming trend you're thinking you see, and this relates to why there's not even more hand-wringing about what happened.

Because you're chopping out the stuff before and during the "trend" that makes Jokic look good, what's left makes Jokic look worse than he actually looked to those with a wider view.

Further as you bring up guys from the past, let's note that LeBron & Magic got raked over the coals when they personally seemed to choke as their team got eliminated, which while it was overblown was a statement about actual basketball badness, whereas you're just talking about team performance specifically in series close enough to go 7 games.

We should note that Larry Bird's team made a habit of getting upset in the playoffs way more than Jokic, but this isn't something that everyone talks about when they talk about Bird's legacy. Why? In part, because it was less pinpointed to Bird making specific bad plays.

Re: Jordan. Well, the thing about Jordan is that he manages to get that 'perfection' narrative in a way only Bill Russell can match and surpass. It's a bit artificial - "He never lost once he started winning, and then when he started winning again, and let's just ignore Washington" - but frankly it's still enough that I tend to give him the nod for GOAT Peak.

So the wording on my and should have been better maybe, but what I meant was "exiting the playoffs two years in a row because of game 7 losses".

With regards to Bron, he got chewed to hell and back after 2011, but he did follow up with the 2012 title. Now if he lost the 2012 Finals too or got eliminated before reaching there even, I think the convo would have happened a lot differently, no?

Anyway, I think Jokic is a hell of a playoff performer on his own, and I, myself, don't fault him for his past 2 playoff exits myself. It's interesting that mostly everyone seems to think so, was my point.

Bron got chewed to hell in 2011 because it was his 3rd year in a row seeing his team get upset in the playoffs, the last two of which came with him having walkabout moments as he faced problems he didn't know how to solve.

You're taking a slice of Jokic's stuff that makes him look bad, still pointing to less that what people were pointing to with LeBron, and apparently just not knowing what all happened with LeBron.

You feel like someone who wasn't really paying close attention back then, which may not be the case, but if you were paying attention back then, then there's something specific about Jokic that makes you zero in on data points that tell a negative story in a way you didn't with LeBron.

My team lost to Bron in the 2012 Finals, interesting to think I wasn't paying close attention back then.

Anyway, the tone of your comment made it a bit more personal this time around so I'll end this here, cheers.

[bbms]

shai already own the record of fewest turnovers by a 30ppg scorer in a season. in 2024 he scored 30ppg on 2.2 topg.

in 2025-26 he's on pace to shatter that record with 32 ppg and 1.6 topg.

1 - '24 shai 30 ppg, 2.2 topg
2 - '96 jordan 30 ppg, 2.4 topg
3 - '25 shai 32 ppg, 2.4 topg

along with shai there's markkanen also shattering that record with 30 ppg and 1.4 topg which just further tell how ridiculous what shai's doing is. 81% of shai's fgm are unassisted while only 16% of makkanen's fgm are assisted.

This is a lot more impressive than getting a triple double, but the average guy in here will not understand this value, at all. Imagine playing against all the tenacious defenders, athletes and schemes in the NBA, and just turning it over 1.4 times a game so far as the obvious main offensive guy?

What does this random stat prove? Would you all be saying Shai was "exposed"/overrated/a fraud if he were getting the same points, but had 3.2to/game? Or even 4.2to/game? He'd still be outrageously impressive and 99.9% sure would make ZERO difference to OKC's record.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the guy who is getting 32ppg....and 11r 7a 1b 1s on 63-50-63 is worse than Shai because he is averaging 1.3 more to/game? I mean, really?

There is a big difference between "getting" a triple-double and AVERAGING a triple-double over a season when there have been only 2 other players to do so in the history of NBA basketball. Again, if Wembanyama were averaging Jokic's numbers, no one would be hand-waving away the accomplishment.

first a turnover is a lot more hurtful to a team than a missed shot. first because a missed shot has around 25% of starting a new possession (offensive rebounding). second because most of the turnovers start the most efficient offense which is transition offense and the difference between transition and half court offense in terms of point per possession is pretty significant.

the fact that shai is a lot better in tov% than players with similar usage makes him even more efficient, just in case you don't think a 65 ts% isn't enough.

[CobraCommander]

This is a lot more impressive than getting a triple double, but the average guy in here will not understand this value, at all. Imagine playing against all the tenacious defenders, athletes and schemes in the NBA, and just turning it over 1.4 times a game so far as the obvious main offensive guy?

What does this random stat prove? Would you all be saying Shai was "exposed"/overrated/a fraud if he were getting the same points, but had 3.2to/game? Or even 4.2to/game? He'd still be outrageously impressive and 99.9% sure would make ZERO difference to OKC's record.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the guy who is getting 32ppg....and 11r 7a 1b 1s on 63-50-63 is worse than Shai because he is averaging 1.3 more to/game? I mean, really?

There is a big difference between "getting" a triple-double and AVERAGING a triple-double over a season when there have been only 2 other players to do so in the history of NBA basketball. Again, if Wembanyama were averaging Jokic's numbers, no one would be hand-waving away the accomplishment.

first a turnover is a lot more hurtful to a team than a missed shot. first because a missed shot has around 25% of starting a new possession (offensive rebounding). second because most of the turnovers start the most efficient offense which is transition offense and the difference between transition and half court offense in terms of point per possession is pretty significant.

the fact that shai is a lot better in tov% than players with similar usage makes him even more efficient, just in case you don't think a 65 ts% isn't enough.

I agree with bbms on turn overs being worse than a missed shot...because rebounds happen

I think the answer is great but to be specific Would you all be saying Shai was "exposed"/overrated/a fraud if he were getting the same points, but had 3.2to/game? Or even 4.2to/game? He'd still be outrageously impressive and 99.9% sure would make ZERO difference to OKC's record.

@SA37... you think if Shai avg 4 TO a game it wouldn't have a negative impact on winning????

[Doctor MJ]

So the wording on my and should have been better maybe, but what I meant was "exiting the playoffs two years in a row because of game 7 losses".

With regards to Bron, he got chewed to hell and back after 2011, but he did follow up with the 2012 title. Now if he lost the 2012 Finals too or got eliminated before reaching there even, I think the convo would have happened a lot differently, no?

Anyway, I think Jokic is a hell of a playoff performer on his own, and I, myself, don't fault him for his past 2 playoff exits myself. It's interesting that mostly everyone seems to think so, was my point.

Bron got chewed to hell in 2011 because it was his 3rd year in a row seeing his team get upset in the playoffs, the last two of which came with him having walkabout moments as he faced problems he didn't know how to solve.

You're taking a slice of Jokic's stuff that makes him look bad, still pointing to less that what people were pointing to with LeBron, and apparently just not knowing what all happened with LeBron.

You feel like someone who wasn't really paying close attention back then, which may not be the case, but if you were paying attention back then, then there's something specific about Jokic that makes you zero in on data points that tell a negative story in a way you didn't with LeBron.

My team lost to Bron in the 2012 Finals, interesting to think I wasn't paying close attention back then.

Anyway, the tone of your comment made it a bit more personal this time around so I'll end this here, cheers.

So, I'll say first that I understand you seeing this as a personal slight and I'm sorry for this.

But do keep in mind that you began the conversation by pointing us to history saying in effect that the treatment of Jokic wasn't in line with what players in the past would have gotten had they had analogous failures. This is not a thing you say unless you think think people are either ignorant, forgetful, or misunderstanding of history, right?

So what you're taking objection to is not me doing anything different from what you were already doing, I just stated the implication explicitly rather than leaving it implicit. One might say that leaving it implicit is a kindness of norms that I then violated, and thus provoked the feeling of a personal slight, and I do again apologize for that.

But when you bring up history in this way, and the history you bring up is at best spotty, you coming across like you don't know the history that well is precisely the risk you are taking.

[SA37]

@SA37... you think if Shai avg 4 TO a game it wouldn't have a negative impact on winning????

The impact would be minimal and SGA would still overwhelmingly be a net positive because there are just too many positives to his game. How many games would OKC have lost in the last 3 years if you assume SGA has 1 more TO per game and the other team scores 3 points off of that turnover?

Here are the top-10 TO guys last year (in order): T Young, Cade Cunningham, James Harden, LeBron James, Jokic, Westbrook, Edwards, Giannis, Durant, Poole. Other notables: Tatum 13th, Curry, 16th.

Same for 2023-2024: Doncic, Wemby, LeBron, Giannis, C Cunningham, Scoot Henderson, Sabonis, Durant, Banchero, Edwards. From there it's Jokic, Towns, Curry.

If you keep looking, you'll notice Giannis, Jokic, Curry, Donic, C Cunningham, LeBron...etc are perennially in the top-10-15 in TOs. And they're perennially all-NBA guys + MVP candidates. (Cunningham is headed in that direction.) The number of games these guys' teams lose if they each have 1 more TO and the other team scores 3 points off of every single one of those turnovers is minuscule.

[bbms]

What does this random stat prove? Would you all be saying Shai was "exposed"/overrated/a fraud if he were getting the same points, but had 3.2to/game? Or even 4.2to/game? He'd still be outrageously impressive and 99.9% sure would make ZERO difference to OKC's record.

Just out of curiosity, do you think the guy who is getting 32ppg....and 11r 7a 1b 1s on 63-50-63 is worse than Shai because he is averaging 1.3 more to/game? I mean, really?

There is a big difference between "getting" a triple-double and AVERAGING a triple-double over a season when there have been only 2 other players to do so in the history of NBA basketball. Again, if Wembanyama were averaging Jokic's numbers, no one would be hand-waving away the accomplishment.

first a turnover is a lot more hurtful to a team than a missed shot. first because a missed shot has around 25% of starting a new possession (offensive rebounding). second because most of the turnovers start the most efficient offense which is transition offense and the difference between transition and half court offense in terms of point per possession is pretty significant.

the fact that shai is a lot better in tov% than players with similar usage makes him even more efficient, just in case you don't think a 65 ts% isn't enough.

I agree with bbms on turn overs being worse than a missed shot...because rebounds happen

I think the answer is great but to be specific Would you all be saying Shai was "exposed"/overrated/a fraud if he were getting the same points, but had 3.2to/game? Or even 4.2to/game? He'd still be outrageously impressive and 99.9% sure would make ZERO difference to OKC's record.

@SA37... you think if Shai avg 4 TO a game it wouldn't have a negative impact on winning????

im not a teenager that think in a binary world that everything needs to be either fraud or goat, there's a world in this between.

if shai averaged 4 topg, he would be a substantially less efficient player and of course his impact would be worse.

a player of his usage, driving as often as he is, making shots at the clip he's making, getting doubled and trapped as often as he's getting and turning the ball as rare as he's turning, that's exactly what makes him as good as he is, specially how important winning the turnover battle is for the thunder to win basketball games.

[bbms]

@SA37... you think if Shai avg 4 TO a game it wouldn't have a negative impact on winning????

The impact would be minimal and SGA would still overwhelmingly be a net positive because there are just too many positives to his game. How many games would OKC have lost in the last 3 years if you assume SGA has 1 more TO per game and the other team scores 3 points off of that turnover?

Here are the top-10 TO guys last year (in order): T Young, Cade Cunningham, James Harden, LeBron James, Jokic, Westbrook, Edwards, Giannis, Durant, Poole. Other notables: Tatum 13th, Curry, 16th.

Same for 2023-2024: Doncic, Wemby, LeBron, Giannis, C Cunningham, Scoot Henderson, Sabonis, Durant, Banchero, Edwards. From there it's Jokic, Towns, Curry.

If you keep looking, you'll notice Giannis, Jokic, Curry, Donic, C Cunningham, LeBron...etc are perennially in the top-10-15 in TOs. And they're perennially all-NBA guys + MVP candidates. (Cunningham is headed in that direction.) The number of games these guys' teams lose if they each have 1 more TO and the other team scores 3 points off of every single one of those turnovers is minuscule.

of course you are completely wrong.

these guys record high turnover numbers because of the amount of time they spend with the ball making aggressive/creative plays. but to think that, just because the creme of the nba "turn the ball over a lot" (they don't, they're among the best with the ball), that turnover is any less than a key stat is just a fundamentally wrong believe.

thunder's offense (2025-26):

16th in 3pm
21th in 3p%
16th in ft/fga
23rd in fta
11th in ftm
13th in eFG%

23rd in oreb%

2nd in offensive TOV% (second best team in protecting the ball)
1st in defensive TOV% (best team at forcing turnovers)

guess the result of this mixed bag of average to poor shooting in all categories and elite turnover differential:

5th on offensive rating.
1st in net rating.
1st in defensive rating.

the thunder just won a championship by bruteforcing opponents with a low turnover rate, gigantic turnover differential and average/poor shooting, that should tell all.

[bbms]

@SA37... you think if Shai avg 4 TO a game it wouldn't have a negative impact on winning????

The impact would be minimal and SGA would still overwhelmingly be a net positive because there are just too many positives to his game. How many games would OKC have lost in the last 3 years if you assume SGA has 1 more TO per game and the other team scores 3 points off of that turnover?

Here are the top-10 TO guys last year (in order): T Young, Cade Cunningham, James Harden, LeBron James, Jokic, Westbrook, Edwards, Giannis, Durant, Poole. Other notables: Tatum 13th, Curry, 16th.

Same for 2023-2024: Doncic, Wemby, LeBron, Giannis, C Cunningham, Scoot Henderson, Sabonis, Durant, Banchero, Edwards. From there it's Jokic, Towns, Curry.

If you keep looking, you'll notice Giannis, Jokic, Curry, Donic, C Cunningham, LeBron...etc are perennially in the top-10-15 in TOs. And they're perennially all-NBA guys + MVP candidates. (Cunningham is headed in that direction.) The number of games these guys' teams lose if they each have 1 more TO and the other team scores 3 points off of every single one of those turnovers is minuscule.

care to explain why the lakers shoot so much better than these other offenses, but are closer to league average in offensive rating right now than to any of those offenses?:

lakers 25/26
ts: 61.7%
eFG: 57.1%
TOV: 15.2%
Offensive Rating: 116.9

celtics 25/26
ts: 55.7%
eFG: 52.9%
TOV: 9.7%
Offensive Rating: 118.3

thunder 25/26
ts: 59.6%
eFG: 55.1%
TOV: 10.9%
Offensive Rating: 119.2

knicks 25/26
ts: 58.8%
eFG: 54.9%
TOV: 11.6%
Offensive Rating: 122.6

[SA37]

@SA37... you think if Shai avg 4 TO a game it wouldn't have a negative impact on winning????

The impact would be minimal and SGA would still overwhelmingly be a net positive because there are just too many positives to his game. How many games would OKC have lost in the last 3 years if you assume SGA has 1 more TO per game and the other team scores 3 points off of that turnover?

Here are the top-10 TO guys last year (in order): T Young, Cade Cunningham, James Harden, LeBron James, Jokic, Westbrook, Edwards, Giannis, Durant, Poole. Other notables: Tatum 13th, Curry, 16th.

Same for 2023-2024: Doncic, Wemby, LeBron, Giannis, C Cunningham, Scoot Henderson, Sabonis, Durant, Banchero, Edwards. From there it's Jokic, Towns, Curry.

If you keep looking, you'll notice Giannis, Jokic, Curry, Donic, C Cunningham, LeBron...etc are perennially in the top-10-15 in TOs. And they're perennially all-NBA guys + MVP candidates. (Cunningham is headed in that direction.) The number of games these guys' teams lose if they each have 1 more TO and the other team scores 3 points off of every single one of those turnovers is minuscule.

of course you are completely wrong.

these guys record high turnover numbers because of the amount of time they spend with the ball making aggressive/creative plays. but to think that, just because the creme of the nba "turn the ball over a lot" (they don't, they're among the best with the ball), that turnover is any less than a key stat is just a fundamentally wrong believe.

thunder's offense (2025-26):

16th in 3pm
21th in 3p%
16th in ft/fga
23rd in fta
11th in ftm
13th in eFG%

23rd in oreb%

2nd in offensive TOV% (second best team in protecting the ball)
1st in defensive TOV% (best team at forcing turnovers)

guess the result of this mixed bag of average to poor shooting in all categories and elite turnover differential:

5th on offensive rating.
1st in net rating.
1st in defensive rating.

the thunder just won a championship by bruteforcing opponents with a low turnover rate, gigantic turnover differential and average/poor shooting, that should tell all.

No idea why you're carrying on about team stats when we're talking about individual players and their turnovers. Again, 1 or 2 more turnovers per game by SGA would have a minuscule effect on OKC's winning, and that is largely the case with the individual players I mentioned in my post.

As you point out, these elite NBA players don't turn the ball over much relative to the time they have the ball in their hands. And this is precisely why I am saying it is irrelevant if they have 1 or 2 more turnovers per game.

Sure, you could find games where they had a high amount of turnovers and it cost their team; that's bound to happen. But that is why I said if you were to look at the last ~3 years for these players on their respective teams, even in a worst-case assumption of an extra turnover per game where each turnover leads to 3 points for the opposing team, most of the outcomes for these teams would not change radically. You'd likely be looking at a handful of games, so something like 1 or 2% of ~270 games (including playoffs).

[Castle Black]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[CobraCommander]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

what if we just add up the player of the week awards and give the guy with the most the mvp?

[CobraCommander]

first a turnover is a lot more hurtful to a team than a missed shot. first because a missed shot has around 25% of starting a new possession (offensive rebounding). second because most of the turnovers start the most efficient offense which is transition offense and the difference between transition and half court offense in terms of point per possession is pretty significant.

the fact that shai is a lot better in tov% than players with similar usage makes him even more efficient, just in case you don't think a 65 ts% isn't enough.

I agree with bbms on turn overs being worse than a missed shot...because rebounds happen

I think the answer is great but to be specific Would you all be saying Shai was "exposed"/overrated/a fraud if he were getting the same points, but had 3.2to/game? Or even 4.2to/game? He'd still be outrageously impressive and 99.9% sure would make ZERO difference to OKC's record.

@SA37... you think if Shai avg 4 TO a game it wouldn't have a negative impact on winning????

im not a teenager that think in a binary world that everything needs to be either fraud or goat, there's a world in this between.

if shai averaged 4 topg, he would be a substantially less efficient player and of course his impact would be worse.

a player of his usage, driving as often as he is, making shots at the clip he's making, getting doubled and trapped as often as he's getting and turning the ball as rare as he's turning, that's exactly what makes him as good as he is, specially how important winning the turnover battle is for the thunder to win basketball games.

fair...like I said...I kinda agree with you. I think SGA not turning the ball over is a massive net positive. It doesn't mean that the other high usage guys are BAD for turning it over more...it just means if 3.5 is the avg for the good high usage guys...then SGA being 1.5 or whatever is a net positive compared to the avg...its one more reason why OKC Is the champion and 2 years straight they had the best record in the league.

[hagredionis]

This obsession with stats is really becoming grotesque. What difference does it make if somebody has 2 rather than 3 TOs? It's nothing really, it's like one block, games don't get decided by that.

[Wolfgang630]

I fear for Wemby. An injury. It may seem like a small thing now, but at his height these are more worrying

[bbms]

This obsession with stats is really becoming grotesque. What difference does it make if somebody has 2 rather than 3 TOs? It's nothing really, it's like one block, games don't get decided by that.

what is the difference between having 5 and 10 defensive rebounds a game? lmao at comparing turnovers to a block

[Patches Perry]

This obsession with stats is really becoming grotesque. What difference does it make if somebody has 2 rather than 3 TOs? It's nothing really, it's like one block, games don't get decided by that.

They literally do.

[Handlez]

Jokic just lost MVP tonight.

Unbelievable.