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

[Dupp]

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

Yeah his supporting cast really isn’t very good at all either imo. It’s just ok.

[leolozon]

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.

Maybe it's harder, I'm really not sure about it.

The idea is that less teams are winning 63 wins, so as it's harder to get there so it makes the contribution more valuable. I agree that it's harder to get a TEAM to 63 wins than 50 wins. But it doesn't mean it's harder for ONE player to take a 45 win team to 63, than a 20 win team to 50. Personally, I really think that all the wins that are allowing you to make the playoffs are the most valuable. As an extreme example, if you exclude the idea of the record, the 68th-73rd win by the Warriors in 2016 weren't really valuable. So it's not always true that more wins = exponentially more value.

I really think that just looking at "wins" without looking at the supporting cast is missing the bigger picture. Now, most people won't vote for a guy on a 50 win team, that's for sure. So it's going to be in between Giannis, Harden and Lebron if the Lakers have the best record. But then the argument people will have against Lebron will suddenly take into consideration the bigger picture : "Lebron is playing with a top 10 player, so he doesn't deserve MVP even if his team wins 5-10 more games." Why is it really better to play with 1 great player and some average players, than play with 3-4 good players?

People will change their criteria depending of who they want to win. I want my guy to win, so he's better than this guy because the team has more wins, but he's also better than this guy even though his team has more wins, because the supporting cast of that other guy is better.

[truly]

I might bring in an MVP formula in the next week or two. I've been dabbling, and it looks like Harden and LeBron in some order at the top, Giannis not too far behind, and then no one. But things change very quickly this early in the season, so others might join them soon, or one of them might fall behind.

Same one you had last season?It was fun seeing it,hope you do it this season too.Maybe in the comps board since there are too many posts here.

[Ron Swanson]

It's really not that difficult to understand. MVP has never just been about stats and it's never just been about wins. They're not going to reward a guy for averaging 40 PPG on a 44-win team, and they're not gonna reward a guy for putting up 18/10/5 on solid efficiency just because he's the best player on a team that wins 65-games. As they shouldn't. Giannis was last year at the intersection of both (crazy box and impact stats plus wins) criteria. He is again this year, and somehow he's putting up even better numbers.

[makaveli_99]

It's really not that difficult to understand. MVP has never just been about stats and it's never just been about wins. They're not going to reward a guy for averaging 40 PPG on a 44-win team, and they're not gonna reward a guy for putting up 18/10/5 on solid efficiency just because he's the best player on a team that wins 65-games. As they shouldn't. Giannis was last year at the intersection of both (crazy box and impact stats plus wins) criteria. He is again this year, and somehow he's putting up even better numbers.

what if the person avging 40 a game gets 57+ wins?

i think it will come down to giannis harden again.

Lebron is definitely up there right now, but i see him falling out eventually. Also the AD factor being there.
Kawhi - will sit too many games
Doncic - team record won't be good enough

don't think any other candidate has a realistic shot.

[yoyoboy]

[Dupp]

This is great work. At this moment it looks like harden and lebron and “making their teammates better” more than the other two.

Lol at rondo and porzingarrzzzz is badddd


Edit - luka having to play so many minutes porzingis would really be tanking lukas overall net rating

[Jadoogar]

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.

In your example, i believe the second is way more valuable. Going from good to elite is much harder than going from terrible to good.

[Edrees]

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

Yeah his supporting cast really isn’t very good at all either imo. It’s just ok.

Interesting definition of "ok" considering Westbrook was voted #12 best player by RealGM itself during the off season. AD at #6, and his production on the offensive end so far this season doesn't live up to that. And nobody thinks that highly of the rest of LAL supporting cast. The difference is close enough that I'd give it to Lebron if he produces significantly more wins by season's end. If their win #'s are similar, I'd agree that bet is off though.

Giannis doesn't even have anyone else cracking the Top 25. I think Giannis wins the "not great teammates" angle.

[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.

In your example, i believe the second is way more valuable. Going from good to elite is much harder than going from terrible to good.

You have stats to prove this? What is harder is being elite, not necessarily one player making a good team elite.

Also, even if it is harder, it doesn’t mean it’s more valuable. Bringing a bad team to be good enough to make the playoff could be more valuable even IF it is easier.

You saying it’s more valuable BECAUSE it is harder doesn’t make sense to me. It’s close to impossible to get to 82 wins, it doesn’t mean it’s incredibly valuable. Once you are first, you are first, any wins over that, however hard they are, could in fact be the opposite of valuable for a team.

[Jayt99]

Lebron probably gets more votes not only off play but narrative. If he keeps it as close as it is now he’ll get the MVP award. Comeback season and everyone calling him washed etc leads for the perfect story line.

[scrabbarista]

I might bring in an MVP formula in the next week or two. I've been dabbling, and it looks like Harden and LeBron in some order at the top, Giannis not too far behind, and then no one. But things change very quickly this early in the season, so others might join them soon, or one of them might fall behind.

Same one you had last season?It was fun seeing it,hope you do it this season too.Maybe in the comps board since there are too many posts here.

It will be a little different, but still one that matches the last eight MVP's.

[MarcusBrody]

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

Yeah his supporting cast really isn’t very good at all either imo. It’s just ok.

Interesting definition of "ok" considering Westbrook was voted #12 best player by RealGM itself during the off season. AD at #6, and his production on the offensive end so far this season doesn't live up to that. And nobody thinks that highly of the rest of LAL supporting cast. The difference is close enough that I'd give it to Lebron if he produces significantly more wins by season's end. If their win #'s are similar, I'd agree that bet is off though.

Giannis doesn't even have anyone else cracking the Top 25. I think Giannis wins the "not great teammates" angle.

I think the point in Lebron's favor is the team play eye test (currently backed up by the just posted graphs). With Lebron on the floor, the Lakers currently look like a well-oiled machine. They're not just playing very effectively; they're playing in a really aesthetically pleasing way, kind of Showtime reborn. Without Lebron on the floor, they look stagnant.

That's obviously partially because of their notable lack of a good second playmaker, but it still shows you how important Lebron is to the team. Harden and Giannis currently look more like one man armies, but there is a reason that Lakers highlights have been filling up this forum and r/nba recently and it isn't just because of the huge fanbase. If that keeps up it along with the record, it will count for something, even if Lebron doesn't have the PPG to match the other two. I'm not sure it's enough for him to overtake them, but it puts things closer than box score watchers would think.

[Dupp]

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

Yeah his supporting cast really isn’t very good at all either imo. It’s just ok.

Interesting definition of "ok" considering Westbrook was voted #12 best player by RealGM itself during the off season. AD at #6, and his production on the offensive end so far this season doesn't live up to that. And nobody thinks that highly of the rest of LAL supporting cast. The difference is close enough that I'd give it to Lebron if he produces significantly more wins by season's end. If their win #'s are similar, I'd agree that bet is off though.

Giannis doesn't even have anyone else cracking the Top 25. I think Giannis wins the "not great teammates" angle.

Sure but I think Westbrook when ranking as an individual will always go higher than what he kind of is in a team setting if that makes sense. Just because his motor and output. However meshing and particularly the horrid fit with harden I’d say Davis is way way better.

It’s not like Westbrook has started great either. Capela has been good, probably tucker too. Gordon has been nbas worst player and everyone else is pretty unappealing.

Nothing special so far.

[yoyoboy]

I never understand why people only seem to look at how good a team's second (and sometimes third) best players are when evaluating a star's supporting cast. Giannis isn't playing with trash just because he doesn't have another top 10 player next to him. Middleton was an All Star last year. Bledsoe is just a step below All Star level. Lopez is a great rim protector who also happens to be able to space the floor and knock down threes. That's a super valuable player in today's NBA regardless of raw box score numbers. George Hill is a a clear starter quality player who comes off the bench. DiVincenzo is looking good enough to send Wes Matthews to the bench after Mids returns. RoLo, Ilyasova, Connaughton, and Korver are great bench guys.

Also, in general it's such a lazy practice by people to degrade a guy's teammates in order to prop up the player, where it becomes this competition of "no, my guy is playing with worse players." Giannis is rightfully in the MVP conversation, but let's not get it twisted. He has a pretty good supporting cast, just like any star on a top performing team does. Other MVP candidates might have better secondary options on their teams, but do they have a better 3-15 than him? Because that's important, too.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

I never understand why people only seem to look at how good a team's second (and sometimes third) best players are when evaluating a star's supporting cast. Giannis isn't playing with trash just because he doesn't have another top 10 player next to him. Middleton was an All Star last year. Bledsoe is just a step below All Star level. Lopez is a great rim protector who also happens to be able to space the floor and knock down threes. That's a super valuable player in today's NBA regardless of raw box score numbers. George Hill is a a clear starter quality player who comes off the bench. DiVincenzo is looking good enough to send Wes Matthews to the bench after Mids returns. RoLo, Ilyasova, Connaughton, and Korver are great bench guys.

Also, in general it's such a lazy practice by people to degrade a guy's teammates in order to prop up the player, where it becomes this competition of "no, my guy is playing with worse players." Giannis is rightfully in the MVP conversation, but let's not get it twisted. He has a pretty good supporting cast, just like any star on a top performing team does. Other MVP candidates might have better secondary options on their teams, but do they have a better 3-15 than him? Because that's important, too.

There's a reason Rolo, Matthews and Korver signed for the minimum.

[ken6199]

I never understand why people only seem to look at how good a team's second (and sometimes third) best players are when evaluating a star's supporting cast. Giannis isn't playing with trash just because he doesn't have another top 10 player next to him. Middleton was an All Star last year. Bledsoe is just a step below All Star level. Lopez is a great rim protector who also happens to be able to space the floor and knock down threes. That's a super valuable player in today's NBA regardless of raw box score numbers. George Hill is a a clear starter quality player who comes off the bench. DiVincenzo is looking good enough to send Wes Matthews to the bench after Mids returns. RoLo, Ilyasova, Connaughton, and Korver are great bench guys.

Also, in general it's such a lazy practice by people to degrade a guy's teammates in order to prop up the player, where it becomes this competition of "no, my guy is playing with worse players." Giannis is rightfully in the MVP conversation, but let's not get it twisted. He has a pretty good supporting cast, just like any star on a top performing team does. Other MVP candidates might have better secondary options on their teams, but do they have a better 3-15 than him? Because that's important, too.

There's a reason Rolo, Matthews and Korver signed for the minimum.

Because 1) they are not 1st tier super stars 2) that Bucks team without them is already good enough as a contender which is always appealing to the ring chasing vets.

[ken6199]

Spoiler:

This is great work. At this moment it looks like harden and lebron and “making their teammates better” more than the other two.

Lol at rondo and porzingarrzzzz is badddd


Edit - luka having to play so many minutes porzingis would really be tanking lukas overall net rating

The Luka part reminds me of this.
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1907853

[red96]

Harden currently has the highest points per 100 possessions(ppp) since 1973, at 48.5.
'86 Jordan 46.4
'05 Bryant 45.6

[Jadoogar]

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.

In your example, i believe the second is way more valuable. Going from good to elite is much harder than going from terrible to good.

You have stats to prove this? What is harder is being elite, not necessarily one player making a good team elite.

Also, even if it is harder, it doesn’t mean it’s more valuable. Bringing a bad team to be good enough to make the playoff could be more valuable even IF it is easier.

You saying it’s more valuable BECAUSE it is harder doesn’t make sense to me. It’s close to impossible to get to 82 wins, it doesn’t mean it’s incredibly valuable. Once you are first, you are first, any wins over that, however hard they are, could in fact be the opposite of valuable for a team.

It being harder is not the only reason. There's a lot of 45-50 win teams and those teams don't win the championship often. There's very few 55+ win teams and that's a better indicator of contender status. Bringing a team to contender status is very valuable.