MVP Discussion [19/20] [part I] - voting reopened

[Perseus1966]

I am a Harden and Lebron fan ,but i must admit Giannis is the mvp ...

[Archx]

I have it Giannis, then Harden, then Lebron, but Luka Doncic is quickly climbing up that ladder and if he keeps doing this and the Mavs win 50 games, he'll be a real threat to win it

It will be hard to win 50 games, unless they can make a significant trade. But right now, he's insanely good yes. Just wish they didn't have those two stinkers vs NY and refs didn't blew the LAL game.

Read on Twitter

[Dupp]

50 wins isn’t gonna come close to cutting it for mvp.

[leolozon]

50 wins isn’t gonna come close to cutting it for mvp.

True. But at the same time it's weird. They should just change the name to "Best player on a top 5 team".

The definition of the word "valuable" doesn't includes a threshold for wins. You can potentially be more valuable to your team despite your team winning less games.

What would be hypothetically more valuable, bringing a 20-win team to 50 wins and the playoffs. Or bringing a 45-win team to 63 wins and a 2nd seed. Not clear to me, even more in an era where seeding is not as important as it once was, considering some teams are taking it easy during the RS. Better record doesn't always mean better team nowadays.

[makaveli_99]

Everyone knows that I am a LeBron fan but Harden should win it easily. Only biased haters have LeBron or Giannis even in the race right now.
Harden is just not scoring a crazy amount of points, he is also carrying Rockets to wins. Rockets are only 1 game back of the Lakers.

If you think Harden isn't the clear cut MVP so far then you don't know basketball.

Sorry but if you don't think LeBron is MVP right now then you don't know basketball.

if you think lebron is ahead of harden for mvp right now... please check into a clinic asap.

[makaveli_99]

current MVP odds:
Giannis 3.80
Harden 4.00
Lebron 8.00

[truly]

50 wins isn’t gonna come close to cutting it for mvp.

True. But at the same time it's weird. They should just change the name to "Best player on a top 5 team".

The definition of the word "valuable" doesn't includes a threshold for wins. You can potentially be more valuable to your team despite your team winning less games.

What would be hypothetically more valuable, bringing a 20-win team to 50 wins and the playoffs. Or bringing a 45-win team to 63 wins and a 2nd seed. Not clear to me, even more in an era where seeding is not as important as it once was, considering some teams are taking it easy during the RS. Better record doesn't always mean better team nowadays.

There is an argument to be made that if you end up losing the game whatever you did in it has no value,so winning more games should play a role in determining the mvp.

[NY 567]

50 wins isn’t gonna come close to cutting it for mvp.

When you consider that Dallas has a very weak supporting cast and that it might take Porzingis most of the year to round back into form, I don't see why 50 wins wouldn't get the job done considering the much stronger supporting casts of the other mvp candidates

[leolozon]

50 wins isn’t gonna come close to cutting it for mvp.

True. But at the same time it's weird. They should just change the name to "Best player on a top 5 team".

The definition of the word "valuable" doesn't includes a threshold for wins. You can potentially be more valuable to your team despite your team winning less games.

What would be hypothetically more valuable, bringing a 20-win team to 50 wins and the playoffs. Or bringing a 45-win team to 63 wins and a 2nd seed. Not clear to me, even more in an era where seeding is not as important as it once was, considering some teams are taking it easy during the RS. Better record doesn't always mean better team nowadays.

There is an argument to be made that if you end up losing the game whatever you did in it has no value,so winning more games should play a role in determining the mvp.

Didn't say it shouldn't. I said that you can be more valuable if your team wins less game. So to say that "X" wins isn't enough in itself sounds problematic to me. It's all about context.

I'm pretty sure you think that Giannis has been more valuable than Kemba so far, despite the Celtics having a better record... right?

I was also talking about making the playoffs, which is ultimately the most valuable thing one can do in the first place. It's more valuable to go from 9th to 5th, than go from 6th to 2nd. Especially now that some teams are taking it easy and don't care that much about seeding (like the Clippers, or Cleveland or the Warriors in the past).

[Perseus1966]

you can go from 9th to 6th because the others are worst and not because you are better.

[leolozon]

you can go from 9th to 6th because the others are worst and not because you are better.

The same thing is true from 5th to 2nd... so what's your point?

I feel like you didn't take into consideration what I wrote if that's the argument against it.

[Perseus1966]

easier to go from 9th to 6th and easier to go from 2nd to 6th (Blazers)

I feel like you didn't take into consideration what I wrote if that's the argument against it.

I did but its always more difficult to stay at top .

[RB34]

If Luka or Giannis win there are going to be so many salty posters.

[truly]

True. But at the same time it's weird. They should just change the name to "Best player on a top 5 team".

The definition of the word "valuable" doesn't includes a threshold for wins. You can potentially be more valuable to your team despite your team winning less games.

What would be hypothetically more valuable, bringing a 20-win team to 50 wins and the playoffs. Or bringing a 45-win team to 63 wins and a 2nd seed. Not clear to me, even more in an era where seeding is not as important as it once was, considering some teams are taking it easy during the RS. Better record doesn't always mean better team nowadays.

There is an argument to be made that if you end up losing the game whatever you did in it has no value,so winning more games should play a role in determining the mvp.

Didn't say it shouldn't. I said that you can be more valuable if your team wins less game. So to say that "X" wins isn't enough in itself sounds problematic to me. It's all about context.

I'm pretty sure you think that Giannis has been more valuable than Kemba so far, despite the Celtics having a better record... right?

I was also talking about making the playoffs, which is ultimately the most valuable thing one can do in the first place. It's more valuable to go from 9th to 5th, than go from 6th to 2nd. Especially now that some teams are taking it easy and don't care that much about seeding (like the Clippers, or Cleveland or the Warriors in the past).

I am not necessarily disagreeing with what you are saying here regarding context.You can be more valuable while winning less games but it should be close.A big enough gap is too much to disregard.In your first example taking a 45 win team to 63 is a lot harder imo than taking a 20 win team to 50.Winning 60+ is very hard and only elite teams do it.

As for Doncic specifically,he is playing great,but his competitors for MVP are posting even better numbers.So taking into account that the Bucks will probably win 60+ games,50 wins indeed are too low for MVP.

[mademan]

If Luka or Giannis win there are going to be so many salty posters.

If Luka wins, the posters will be right to be salty. Giannis is putting up ridiculous numbers and will likely win 60+ again. Only thing standing in his way is Harden and the Rox making a run at that top seed in the West

[Dupp]

50 wins isn’t gonna come close to cutting it for mvp.

True. But at the same time it's weird. They should just change the name to "Best player on a top 5 team".

The definition of the word "valuable" doesn't includes a threshold for wins. You can potentially be more valuable to your team despite your team winning less games.

What would be hypothetically more valuable, bringing a 20-win team to 50 wins and the playoffs. Or bringing a 45-win team to 63 wins and a 2nd seed. Not clear to me, even more in an era where seeding is not as important as it once was, considering some teams are taking it easy during the RS. Better record doesn't always mean better team nowadays.

I totally agree but I’m just saying how they vote.

[Dupp]

If Luka or Giannis win there are going to be so many salty posters.

Those two have way less haters than lebron and harden so I doubt it. They are both very well liked.

[truly]

If Luka or Giannis win there are going to be so many salty posters.

Those two have way less haters than lebron and harden so I doubt it. They are both very well liked.

You didn't see the salt mine called Houston Rockets after Giannis won last season?It extended all the way into the offseason and over to the start of this season.

[Dupp]

If Luka or Giannis win there are going to be so many salty posters.

Those two have way less haters than lebron and harden so I doubt it. They are both very well liked.

You didn't see the salt mine called Houston Rockets after Giannis won last season?It extended all the way into the offseason and over to the start of this season.

That’s gonna be true either way with harden vs giannis because both guys were very deserving winners. Some of the fans of the guy that misses out is gonna have issues with it.


Also I was probably wrong on luka. He is well liked but if he wins there will be some “salt” because I just see no way he will deserve mvp this year but we’ll see.

[RaptorsLife]

No way harden isn’t mvp rn. Dudes been **** crazy and good record