NBA MVP Discussion 20/21 (Fresh poll ➥ Vote)

[scrabbarista]

Milwaukee is only 7-10 against teams .500 and above. And 3 of those wins came against teams that are exactly .500 (Toronto, Dallas, Miami without Dragic and Butler) while another came against Golden State without Draymond when the team was playing terrible basketball.

Against the top 4 seeds in each conference (excluding Milwaukee), the Bucks are 1-7. So yeah I'm not personally overly impressed by Giannis and the Bucks beating up on bad teams to inflate their 2nd ranked SRS, even if they get the top record in the East. We already know Giannis and the Bucks can bully the average to bad teams. Show us you can actually hang with the elite competition; otherwise, who cares.

1-6.

Lost to BKN on the road on the second night of a back to back (with Harden and Durant) by 2.

Lost to PHO on the road by 1.

So, two more shots made, and that's 3-4. Further, if NYK drops any additional game all season, then they're not in 4th (MIA holds the tie-breaker), and then it becomes 4-5.

So, they're any combination of 4 makes or misses (between their own games and NYK's) away from three more wins than the 1 you cited. That's the nature of this kind of tiny sample size, which is why we have SRS in the first place: it accounts for every possession, instead of focusing in on the 1 out of 150 that can swing any given game, to the exclusion of the other 149.

[Packbuckman]

Milwaukee is only 7-10 against teams .500 and above. And 3 of those wins came against teams that are exactly .500 (Toronto, Dallas, Miami without Dragic and Butler) while another came against Golden State without Draymond when the team was playing terrible basketball.

Against the top 4 seeds in each conference (excluding Milwaukee), the Bucks are 1-7. So yeah I'm not personally overly impressed by Giannis and the Bucks beating up on bad teams to inflate their 2nd ranked SRS, even if they get the top record in the East. We already know Giannis and the Bucks can bully the average to bad teams. Show us you can actually hang with the elite competition; otherwise, who cares.

You act like these elite teams are kicking our ass Boston banks a 3 pointer at the buzzer to beat us Phoenix Giannis missed a gm winner at the buzzer and we lost to the nets. We easily could be in 1st plus Holiday missed 10 gms. I guarantee those numbers will change against the better teams.

[yoyoboy]

Milwaukee is only 7-10 against teams .500 and above. And 3 of those wins came against teams that are exactly .500 (Toronto, Dallas, Miami without Dragic and Butler) while another came against Golden State without Draymond when the team was playing terrible basketball.

Against the top 4 seeds in each conference (excluding Milwaukee), the Bucks are 1-7. So yeah I'm not personally overly impressed by Giannis and the Bucks beating up on bad teams to inflate their 2nd ranked SRS, even if they get the top record in the East. We already know Giannis and the Bucks can bully the average to bad teams. Show us you can actually hang with the elite competition; otherwise, who cares.

1-6.

Lost to BKN on the road on the second night of a back to back (with Harden and Durant) by 2.

Lost to PHO on the road by 1.

So, two more shots made, and that's 3-5. Further, if NYK drops any additional game all season, then they're not in 4th (MIA holds the tie-breaker), and then it becomes 4-6.

So, they're any combination of 4 makes or misses (between their own games and NYK's) away from three more wins than the 1 you cited. That's the nature of this kind of tiny sample size, which is why we have SRS in the first place: it accounts for every possession, instead of focusing in on the 1 out of 150 that can swing any given game, to the exclusion of the other 149.

i said top 4 seeds in each conference excluding Milwaukee which includes Boston in the equation.

Loss @BOS -1
Loss @NY -20
Loss UTAH -13
Loss @BRK -2 (without Kyrie)
Loss LAL -7
Loss PHO -1
Loss UTAH -14
Win LAC +5
____________
1-7 Record / Average Margin: -6.6

Sorry, but bringing up "a few misses here and there" doesn't fly. They've gotten solidly outplayed by the top teams in both conferences. SRS is a nice measure but again, it's also important to perform well against the best teams and Milwaukee has not. They're playing roughly like a -1.3 SRS team against the top teams in the East and West and like a +9.6 SRS team against everyone else. For someone like Giannis whose team in his past 2 MVP winning seasons has now underperformed in the postseason against 2 inferior teams who unleashed schemes that were able to neuter the effectiveness of him and the offense, I think it's especially important to show that he and the Bucks can actually beat the contenders.

I think simply looking at team success as a product of W/L and SRS is way too narrow of a view. How is the team actually faring against their probable playoff matchups and possible Finals matchups? So far Milwaukee does not look like a team any more suited to advance far in the playoffs than they were in the past. You can bring up "but it's a regular season award" all you want but at the end of the day the regular season is about preparing for the playoffs and if your value is going towards a team that's not set up to be successful in the later rounds of the postseason, then I really don't care too much, compared to a player whose value is much more scalable against elite teams.

[scrabbarista]

Milwaukee is only 7-10 against teams .500 and above. And 3 of those wins came against teams that are exactly .500 (Toronto, Dallas, Miami without Dragic and Butler) while another came against Golden State without Draymond when the team was playing terrible basketball.

Against the top 4 seeds in each conference (excluding Milwaukee), the Bucks are 1-7. So yeah I'm not personally overly impressed by Giannis and the Bucks beating up on bad teams to inflate their 2nd ranked SRS, even if they get the top record in the East. We already know Giannis and the Bucks can bully the average to bad teams. Show us you can actually hang with the elite competition; otherwise, who cares.

1-6.

Lost to BKN on the road on the second night of a back to back (with Harden and Durant) by 2.

Lost to PHO on the road by 1.

So, two more shots made, and that's 3-5. Further, if NYK drops any additional game all season, then they're not in 4th (MIA holds the tie-breaker), and then it becomes 4-6.

So, they're any combination of 4 makes or misses (between their own games and NYK's) away from three more wins than the 1 you cited. That's the nature of this kind of tiny sample size, which is why we have SRS in the first place: it accounts for every possession, instead of focusing in on the 1 out of 150 that can swing any given game, to the exclusion of the other 149.

i said top 4 seeds in each conference excluding Milwaukee which includes Boston in the equation.

Loss @BOS -1
Loss @NY -20
Loss UTAH -13
Loss @BRK -2 (without Kyrie)
Loss LAL -7
Loss PHO -1
Loss UTAH -14
Win LAC +5
____________
1-7 Record / Average Margin: -6.6

Sorry, but bringing up "a few misses here and there" doesn't fly. They've gotten solidly outplayed by the top teams in both conferences. SRS is a nice measure but again, it's also important to perform well against the best teams and Milwaukee has not. They're playing roughly like a -1.3 SRS team against the top teams in the East and West and like a +9.6 SRS team against everyone else. For someone like Giannis whose team in his past 2 MVP winning seasons has now underperformed in the postseason against 2 inferior teams who unleashed schemes that were able to neuter the effectiveness of him and the offense, I think it's especially important to show that he and the Bucks can actually beat the contenders.

I think simply looking at team success as a product of W/L and SRS is way too narrow of a view. How is the team actually faring against their probable playoff matchups and possible Finals matchups? So far Milwaukee does not look like a team any more suited to advance far in the playoffs than they were in the past. You can bring up "but it's a regular season award" all you want but at the end of the day the regular season is about preparing for the playoffs and if your value is going towards a team that's not set up to be successful in the later rounds of the postseason, then I really don't care too much, compared to a player whose value is much more scalable against elite teams.

So, you could've just as easily included MIA, who has the same record as BOS. That would've added another win.

Bottom line is, you're dealing in a sample size of less than ten games, and you're arguing for the MVP Award based on your own personal projection of what's going to happen in the future (this season's playoffs). To anyone who doesn't accept the validity of the sample size or anyone who sees the playoffs playing out differently than you project, your two points are irrelevant. To anyone who does accept the validity of your sample size and does see the future the same way you do, then you've got good points - assuming they also think projecting the playoffs should even be a part of the MVP conversation, of course. I fall into the former camp, so you haven't done anything to even sway my opinions, much less actually change them.

(I actually picked MIL to win it all a few days ago, so I happen to disagree very strongly that there is nothing different about them this season. I also feel that projecting what's going to happen in the playoffs shouldn't be a part of the MVP conversation to begin with... but that's a whole separate discussion...)

[mademan]

1-6.

Lost to BKN on the road on the second night of a back to back (with Harden and Durant) by 2.

Lost to PHO on the road by 1.

So, two more shots made, and that's 3-5. Further, if NYK drops any additional game all season, then they're not in 4th (MIA holds the tie-breaker), and then it becomes 4-6.

So, they're any combination of 4 makes or misses (between their own games and NYK's) away from three more wins than the 1 you cited. That's the nature of this kind of tiny sample size, which is why we have SRS in the first place: it accounts for every possession, instead of focusing in on the 1 out of 150 that can swing any given game, to the exclusion of the other 149.

i said top 4 seeds in each conference excluding Milwaukee which includes Boston in the equation.

Loss @BOS -1
Loss @NY -20
Loss UTAH -13
Loss @BRK -2 (without Kyrie)
Loss LAL -7
Loss PHO -1
Loss UTAH -14
Win LAC +5
____________
1-7 Record / Average Margin: -6.6

Sorry, but bringing up "a few misses here and there" doesn't fly. They've gotten solidly outplayed by the top teams in both conferences. SRS is a nice measure but again, it's also important to perform well against the best teams and Milwaukee has not. They're playing roughly like a -1.3 SRS team against the top teams in the East and West and like a +9.6 SRS team against everyone else. For someone like Giannis whose team in his past 2 MVP winning seasons has now underperformed in the postseason against 2 inferior teams who unleashed schemes that were able to neuter the effectiveness of him and the offense, I think it's especially important to show that he and the Bucks can actually beat the contenders.

I think simply looking at team success as a product of W/L and SRS is way too narrow of a view. How is the team actually faring against their probable playoff matchups and possible Finals matchups? So far Milwaukee does not look like a team any more suited to advance far in the playoffs than they were in the past. You can bring up "but it's a regular season award" all you want but at the end of the day the regular season is about preparing for the playoffs and if your value is going towards a team that's not set up to be successful in the later rounds of the postseason, then I really don't care too much, compared to a player whose value is much more scalable against elite teams.

So, you could've just as easily included MIA, who has the same record as BOS. That would've added another win.

Bottom line is, you're dealing in a sample size of less than ten games, and you're arguing for the MVP Award based on your own personal projection of what's going to happen in the future (this season's playoffs). To anyone who doesn't accept the validity of the sample size or anyone who sees the playoffs playing out differently than you project, your two points are irrelevant. To anyone who does accept the validity of your sample size and does see the future the same way you do, then you've got good points - assuming they also think projecting the playoffs should even be a part of the MVP conversation, of course. I fall into the former camp, so you haven't done anything to even sway my opinions, much less actually change them.

(I actually picked MIL to win it all a few days ago, so I happen to disagree very strongly that there is nothing different about them this season. Although, I also feel that projecting what's going to happen in the playoffs shouldn't be a part of the MVP conversation to begin with... but that's a whole separate discussion...)

Bucks are bumslaying tho. What are they, like 7-10 against .500+ teams? Thats not that small of a sample size, especially when theyre proven supernova against the scrubs in the league. Theyre just thrashing bad teams

[scrabbarista]

i said top 4 seeds in each conference excluding Milwaukee which includes Boston in the equation.

Loss @BOS -1
Loss @NY -20
Loss UTAH -13
Loss @BRK -2 (without Kyrie)
Loss LAL -7
Loss PHO -1
Loss UTAH -14
Win LAC +5
____________
1-7 Record / Average Margin: -6.6

Sorry, but bringing up "a few misses here and there" doesn't fly. They've gotten solidly outplayed by the top teams in both conferences. SRS is a nice measure but again, it's also important to perform well against the best teams and Milwaukee has not. They're playing roughly like a -1.3 SRS team against the top teams in the East and West and like a +9.6 SRS team against everyone else. For someone like Giannis whose team in his past 2 MVP winning seasons has now underperformed in the postseason against 2 inferior teams who unleashed schemes that were able to neuter the effectiveness of him and the offense, I think it's especially important to show that he and the Bucks can actually beat the contenders.

I think simply looking at team success as a product of W/L and SRS is way too narrow of a view. How is the team actually faring against their probable playoff matchups and possible Finals matchups? So far Milwaukee does not look like a team any more suited to advance far in the playoffs than they were in the past. You can bring up "but it's a regular season award" all you want but at the end of the day the regular season is about preparing for the playoffs and if your value is going towards a team that's not set up to be successful in the later rounds of the postseason, then I really don't care too much, compared to a player whose value is much more scalable against elite teams.

So, you could've just as easily included MIA, who has the same record as BOS. That would've added another win.

Bottom line is, you're dealing in a sample size of less than ten games, and you're arguing for the MVP Award based on your own personal projection of what's going to happen in the future (this season's playoffs). To anyone who doesn't accept the validity of the sample size or anyone who sees the playoffs playing out differently than you project, your two points are irrelevant. To anyone who does accept the validity of your sample size and does see the future the same way you do, then you've got good points - assuming they also think projecting the playoffs should even be a part of the MVP conversation, of course. I fall into the former camp, so you haven't done anything to even sway my opinions, much less actually change them.

(I actually picked MIL to win it all a few days ago, so I happen to disagree very strongly that there is nothing different about them this season. Although, I also feel that projecting what's going to happen in the playoffs shouldn't be a part of the MVP conversation to begin with... but that's a whole separate discussion...)

Bucks are bumslaying tho. What are they, like 7-10 against .500+ teams? Thats not that small of a sample size, especially when theyre proven supernova against the scrubs in the league. Theyre just thrashing bad teams

21 games isn't that small. That's fair. (Still small enough to be swung hard by a few key possessions.) 9-11 also isn't that terrible. EDIT: I see you changed the numbers. To emphasize my point about sample sizes, if they're 7-10 after 17 games, they could easily be 11-10 after 21. And those four games could be swung by a few possessions - but the record looks very different at first glance.

I suspect that, as a Bucks fan, you're more interested in the "win it all" part of my post than the Antetokounmpo part. (And, tbf to myself, I have Antetokounmpo in third, so it's not like I'm arguing that he deserves the Award right now.)

Short answer, I think they're taking the same approach against good teams in the regular season that other good teams took against them in the regular season the past two years: they're willing to sacrifice a win here and there in order to experiment and troubleshoot potential problems in the playoffs. That, combined with Giannis' development and the upgrade of Holiday over Bledsoe, is why they're my pick to win it all - but, mostly, that. I think their main problem the last two seasons has been Coach Bud, and I think he's taking a different approach this season. To be clear, I'd easily take the field over them. The thread I picked them in was titled "if you had to bet on one team" etc., etc..

EDIT2: Eh, maybe you're not a Bucks fan? My bad, if so. It's not really essential to the points I was making.

[yoyoboy]

1-6.

Lost to BKN on the road on the second night of a back to back (with Harden and Durant) by 2.

Lost to PHO on the road by 1.

So, two more shots made, and that's 3-5. Further, if NYK drops any additional game all season, then they're not in 4th (MIA holds the tie-breaker), and then it becomes 4-6.

So, they're any combination of 4 makes or misses (between their own games and NYK's) away from three more wins than the 1 you cited. That's the nature of this kind of tiny sample size, which is why we have SRS in the first place: it accounts for every possession, instead of focusing in on the 1 out of 150 that can swing any given game, to the exclusion of the other 149.

i said top 4 seeds in each conference excluding Milwaukee which includes Boston in the equation.

Loss @BOS -1
Loss @NY -20
Loss UTAH -13
Loss @BRK -2 (without Kyrie)
Loss LAL -7
Loss PHO -1
Loss UTAH -14
Win LAC +5
____________
1-7 Record / Average Margin: -6.6

Sorry, but bringing up "a few misses here and there" doesn't fly. They've gotten solidly outplayed by the top teams in both conferences. SRS is a nice measure but again, it's also important to perform well against the best teams and Milwaukee has not. They're playing roughly like a -1.3 SRS team against the top teams in the East and West and like a +9.6 SRS team against everyone else. For someone like Giannis whose team in his past 2 MVP winning seasons has now underperformed in the postseason against 2 inferior teams who unleashed schemes that were able to neuter the effectiveness of him and the offense, I think it's especially important to show that he and the Bucks can actually beat the contenders.

I think simply looking at team success as a product of W/L and SRS is way too narrow of a view. How is the team actually faring against their probable playoff matchups and possible Finals matchups? So far Milwaukee does not look like a team any more suited to advance far in the playoffs than they were in the past. You can bring up "but it's a regular season award" all you want but at the end of the day the regular season is about preparing for the playoffs and if your value is going towards a team that's not set up to be successful in the later rounds of the postseason, then I really don't care too much, compared to a player whose value is much more scalable against elite teams.

So, you could've just as easily included MIA, who has the same record as BOS. That would've added another win.

Bottom line is, you're dealing in a sample size of less than ten games, and you're arguing for the MVP Award based on your own personal projection of what's going to happen in the future (this season's playoffs). To anyone who doesn't accept the validity of the sample size or anyone who sees the playoffs playing out differently than you project, your two points are irrelevant. To anyone who does accept the validity of your sample size and does see the future the same way you do, then you've got good points - assuming they also think projecting the playoffs should even be a part of the MVP conversation, of course. I fall into the former camp, so you haven't done anything to even sway my opinions, much less actually change them.

(I actually picked MIL to win it all a few days ago, so I happen to disagree very strongly that there is nothing different about them this season. Although, I also feel that projecting what's going to happen in the playoffs shouldn't be a part of the MVP conversation to begin with... but that's a whole separate discussion...)

Sure, let's include Toronto and Miami to expand the sample size. They're 2-3 against them and now Milwaukee is 3-10 against the top teams in the East and the top teams in the West. Miami was also without their best player for both games. And really the other top teams in the East aren't even good in the first place outside of Brooklyn and Philly, one of which Milwaukee faced to without Kyrie and lost, and the other which Milwaukee hasn't faced yet.

The fact of the matter is we've seen elite teams be able to scheme Milwaukee out of what's been successful for them in the regular season two years in a row that Giannis won MVP and his team earned best record/SRS, and this season even in its early days doesn't seem to counter the notion that teams will simply be able to do it yet again in the playoffs. It's not about not giving Giannis an MVP because of the playoff troubles of the past. It's about taking a look at the team's model for success and determining if Giannis is providing value to a true contender or one that's beating up on terrible teams and struggling against good teams. The past simply provides a more informative context when we've already seen how it hasn't worked. Because two teams can have a 10 SRS but if one is at a .67 win percentage against the teams that don't matter and above .500 against the contenders while another team is at an .85 win percentage against the teams that don't matter and another is at a .20 win percentage against the contenders, guess which one I think is more valuable?

Now if Milwaukee starts destroying contenders in the next half of the season, then I'll have to adjust and rank Giannis higher regardless of how I think the team will ultimately perform in the playoffs. So again it's not about the playoffs. It's about determining if that value is actually scaling against the elite teams or if a disproportionate amount of the success he and the team are having this season is from annihilating bad teams. You may personally treat every game in the regular season as equally important, but I don't.

[scrabbarista]

i said top 4 seeds in each conference excluding Milwaukee which includes Boston in the equation.

Loss @BOS -1
Loss @NY -20
Loss UTAH -13
Loss @BRK -2 (without Kyrie)
Loss LAL -7
Loss PHO -1
Loss UTAH -14
Win LAC +5
____________
1-7 Record / Average Margin: -6.6

Sorry, but bringing up "a few misses here and there" doesn't fly. They've gotten solidly outplayed by the top teams in both conferences. SRS is a nice measure but again, it's also important to perform well against the best teams and Milwaukee has not. They're playing roughly like a -1.3 SRS team against the top teams in the East and West and like a +9.6 SRS team against everyone else. For someone like Giannis whose team in his past 2 MVP winning seasons has now underperformed in the postseason against 2 inferior teams who unleashed schemes that were able to neuter the effectiveness of him and the offense, I think it's especially important to show that he and the Bucks can actually beat the contenders.

I think simply looking at team success as a product of W/L and SRS is way too narrow of a view. How is the team actually faring against their probable playoff matchups and possible Finals matchups? So far Milwaukee does not look like a team any more suited to advance far in the playoffs than they were in the past. You can bring up "but it's a regular season award" all you want but at the end of the day the regular season is about preparing for the playoffs and if your value is going towards a team that's not set up to be successful in the later rounds of the postseason, then I really don't care too much, compared to a player whose value is much more scalable against elite teams.

So, you could've just as easily included MIA, who has the same record as BOS. That would've added another win.

Bottom line is, you're dealing in a sample size of less than ten games, and you're arguing for the MVP Award based on your own personal projection of what's going to happen in the future (this season's playoffs). To anyone who doesn't accept the validity of the sample size or anyone who sees the playoffs playing out differently than you project, your two points are irrelevant. To anyone who does accept the validity of your sample size and does see the future the same way you do, then you've got good points - assuming they also think projecting the playoffs should even be a part of the MVP conversation, of course. I fall into the former camp, so you haven't done anything to even sway my opinions, much less actually change them.

(I actually picked MIL to win it all a few days ago, so I happen to disagree very strongly that there is nothing different about them this season. Although, I also feel that projecting what's going to happen in the playoffs shouldn't be a part of the MVP conversation to begin with... but that's a whole separate discussion...)

Sure, let's include Toronto and Miami to expand the sample size. They're 2-3 against them and now Milwaukee is 3-10 against the top teams in the East and the top teams in the West. Miami was also without their best player for both games. And really the other top teams in the East aren't even good in the first place outside of Brooklyn and Philly, one of which Milwaukee faced to without Kyrie and lost, and the other which Milwaukee hasn't faced yet.

The fact of the matter is we've seen elite teams be able to scheme Milwaukee out of what's been successful for them in the regular season two years in a row that Giannis won MVP and his team earned best record/SRS, and this season even in its early days doesn't seem to counter the notion that teams will simply be able to do it yet again in the playoffs. It's not about not giving Giannis an MVP because of the playoff troubles of the past. It's about taking a look at the team's model for success and determining if Giannis is providing value to a true contender or one that's beating up on terrible teams and struggling against good teams. The past simply provides a more informative context when we've already seen how it hasn't worked. Because two teams can have a 10 SRS but if one is at a .67 win percentage against the teams that don't matter and above .500 against the contenders while another team is at an .85 win percentage against the teams that don't matter and another is at a .20 win percentage against the contenders, guess which one I think is more valuable?

Now if Milwaukee starts destroying contenders in the next half of the season, then I'll have to adjust and rank Giannis higher regardless of how I think the team will ultimately perform in the playoffs. So again it's not about the playoffs. It's about determining if that value is actually scaling against the elite teams or if a disproportionate amount of the success he and the team are having this season is from annihilating bad teams. You may personally treat every game in the regular season as equally important, but I don't.

If you're scaling value to the elite teams, then it's either about the playoffs or it's about something else that you haven't mentioned yet (please let me know what it is). In the regular season, there is no extra value for beating good teams or less value for beating bad teams, unless you just arbitrarily decide there is, in which case, fine, but I hope you'd at least give a reason before expecting anyone else to agree with you.

Also, the Lakers are 7-8 against teams over .500, (which projects as a 2nd Round exit). I don't bring that up because I think it matters in the MVP race. I bring it up because you seem to think it matters in the MVP race.

And since you've gone from projecting forward to this playoffs to talking about the regular season and playoffs in the last two seasons - a strange way to talk about the 2021 MVP race, imo, but you do you - the Lakers were 19-12 against teams over .500 (if I counted correctly) last season. So, you can't say "they proved in last season's playoffs that they're better than their regular season record against good teams." This year, they're a different team. So is every other team.

I'm just having a hard time following your reasoning. I see what you're saying, I just don't see why you're saying it. For me, personally (others can disagree), the MVP Award is about the regular season - not the previous regular season(s), not the previous playoff(s), not the future playoffs, not the regular season minus the games versus the bad teams... It's just about the regular season. I think there's already enough importance given to championships and playoff performances without bringing them into the regular season awards, too. The regular season is already devalued enough. There's no need to make the games matter even less than everyone thinks they already do.

[49erhokie827]

Kind of a joke that CP3 isn't even in the conversation for MVP. Not saying he should be the clear favorite but he should be getting some consideration.

[Ron Swanson]

Ah yes, the annual "they haven't beat enough elite teams" thing. Lakers are 1-4 vs. the Top-4 seeds in both conferences, and 17 of their 24 wins have come against teams currently out of the playoffs. Guess that shuts down Lebron's MVP case, huh?

[yoyoboy]

Ah yes, the annual "they haven't beat enough elite teams" thing. Lakers are 1-4 vs. the Top-4 seeds in both conferences, and 17 of their 24 wins have come against teams currently out of the playoffs. Guess that shuts down Lebron's MVP case, huh?

LeBron's not my MVP. He also had Davis and Schroder out for 2 of those losses. And unlike the other guy we know a system built around him is scheme-resilient while Giannis and the Bucks still have yet to prove it and this regular season has done nothing to make me think otherwise.

You don't have to place any importance on the quality of opponents you beat, that's fine. I do.

[SeniorWalker]

If there's no clear winner, LeBron might get another MVP. And he deserves another one. If it's deserved for this year or not.

Why does LeBron deserve another MVP in your view?

Can you name a year in which he was robbed of the MVP, when he was clearly the most deserving candidate?

Please don't generalize, give me at least one specific year and describe why.

[scrabbarista]

Jokic is now:

10th all-time in PER
11th all-time in WS/48
9th all-time in BPM

The only players above him in all three are:

'88 Jordan
'91 Jordan
'09 James
'13 James
'16 Curry

No Kareems, no Wilts, no Giannises - just those five.

If you know anything about NBA history, you know that's pretty good company.

[scrabbarista]

If there's no clear winner, LeBron might get another MVP. And he deserves another one. If it's deserved for this year or not.

Why does LeBron deserve another MVP in your view?

Can you name a year in which he was robbed of the MVP, when he was clearly the most deserving candidate?

Please don't generalize, give me at least one specific year and describe why.

2011, for one. But a better question is why that should matter. If you give it to someone this year because he deserved it ten years ago, then does that mean that ten years from now we have to give it to the player who deserved it this year? How about we just look at this year for this year's MVP? Granted, DutchMan did say, "If there's no clear winner," but I think Jokic is very clearly far ahead of everyone right now.

[Homer38]

Milwaukee is only 7-10 against teams .500 and above. And 3 of those wins came against teams that are exactly .500 (Toronto, Dallas, Miami without Dragic and Butler) while another came against Golden State without Draymond when the team was playing terrible basketball.

Against the top 4 seeds in each conference (excluding Milwaukee), the Bucks are 1-7. So yeah I'm not personally overly impressed by Giannis and the Bucks beating up on bad teams to inflate their 2nd ranked SRS, even if they get the top record in the East. We already know Giannis and the Bucks can bully the average to bad teams. Show us you can actually hang with the elite competition; otherwise, who cares.

1-6.

Lost to BKN on the road on the second night of a back to back (with Harden and Durant) by 2.

Lost to PHO on the road by 1.

So, two more shots made, and that's 3-4. Further, if NYK drops any additional game all season, then they're not in 4th (MIA holds the tie-breaker), and then it becomes 4-5.

So, they're any combination of 4 makes or misses (between their own games and NYK's) away from three more wins than the 1 you cited. That's the nature of this kind of tiny sample size, which is why we have SRS in the first place: it accounts for every possession, instead of focusing in on the 1 out of 150 that can swing any given game, to the exclusion of the other 149.

A loss is a loss, whether by 2 points or by 25 points.

Yesterday, it was their best win of their season and it's even close.

[Blaze94]

I don’t even think he’s leading right now but I think he wins it before the end of the season. You went from a fan to obsessing over how much you don’t like him and his fans. It stems from something and I don’t even wanna know. Sad stuff. Work on that, it might consume a lot of your time, sport

lmao at you getting me banned just cause i talked about your hero. sad that a man makes you react like that

I have no idea what you're talking about. You don't look banned nor did I do anything that would get you banned.

We both got warnings is all I see lol

some bronsexual got me banned for a day lmao
but we'll see. lebron aint winning mvp

Warned

Continues to try to bait and derail the thread.

[scrabbarista]

Milwaukee is only 7-10 against teams .500 and above. And 3 of those wins came against teams that are exactly .500 (Toronto, Dallas, Miami without Dragic and Butler) while another came against Golden State without Draymond when the team was playing terrible basketball.

Against the top 4 seeds in each conference (excluding Milwaukee), the Bucks are 1-7. So yeah I'm not personally overly impressed by Giannis and the Bucks beating up on bad teams to inflate their 2nd ranked SRS, even if they get the top record in the East. We already know Giannis and the Bucks can bully the average to bad teams. Show us you can actually hang with the elite competition; otherwise, who cares.

1-6.

Lost to BKN on the road on the second night of a back to back (with Harden and Durant) by 2.

Lost to PHO on the road by 1.

So, two more shots made, and that's 3-4. Further, if NYK drops any additional game all season, then they're not in 4th (MIA holds the tie-breaker), and then it becomes 4-5.

So, they're any combination of 4 makes or misses (between their own games and NYK's) away from three more wins than the 1 you cited. That's the nature of this kind of tiny sample size, which is why we have SRS in the first place: it accounts for every possession, instead of focusing in on the 1 out of 150 that can swing any given game, to the exclusion of the other 149.

A loss is a loss, whether by 2 points or by 25 points.

Yesterday, it was their best win of their season and it's even close.

I agree. And a win is a win, whether it's against the Jazz or the T-Wolves.

[PhoenixMilwauke]

Jokic is now:

10th all-time in PER
11th all-time in WS/48
9th all-time in BPM

The only players above him in all three are:

'88 Jordan
'91 Jordan
'09 James
'13 James
'16 Curry

No Kareems, no Wilts, no Giannises - just those five.

If you know anything about NBA history, you know that's pretty good company.

Best 2020 so far (imo)
Jokic > Embiid > Giannis > Kawhi > Steph

Embiid has only 920 mins vs Jokic's 1100+ for Jokic, Giannis, Steph. So, my list would be
Jokic > Giannis > Steph > Embiid > Kawhi

[scrabbarista]

Jokic is now:

10th all-time in PER
11th all-time in WS/48
9th all-time in BPM

The only players above him in all three are:

'88 Jordan
'91 Jordan
'09 James
'13 James
'16 Curry

No Kareems, no Wilts, no Giannises - just those five.

If you know anything about NBA history, you know that's pretty good company.

Best 2020 so far (imo)
Jokic > Embiid > Giannis > Kawhi > Steph

Embiid has only 920 mins vs Jokic's 1100+ for Jokic, Giannis, Steph. So, my list would be
Jokic > Giannis > Steph > Embiid > Kawhi

Jokic has that much of a lead on Embiid in total minutes, and yet all three of the stats I cited are per-minute/per-possession stats. I think it's Jokic so far, with the proverbial "and it isn't close." There's still a lot of season left to play, though.

[Homer38]

Jokic is now:

10th all-time in PER
11th all-time in WS/48
9th all-time in BPM

The only players above him in all three are:

'88 Jordan
'91 Jordan
'09 James
'13 James
'16 Curry

No Kareems, no Wilts, no Giannises - just those five.

If you know anything about NBA history, you know that's pretty good company.

Jokic would be almost a lock if the Nuggets have a very good record, but unfortunately for him it is not the case right now

Each of his players on your list, their team had won 60 games or more outside of Jordan in 1988(50 wins and 3rd seed in the east).The Nuggets need to win more game no matter what