NBA MVP Discussion '20-'21, Part 2 (Poll created 21 March '21)

[DCasey91]

Jokic
Giannis
Curry
Doncic
Gobert

Would be my top 5 right now. Embiid will probably sneak in higher but he barely qualifies to be a stat leader (min 70% to enter). Part of being valuable is not dropping 0/0/0/0/0 statlines in 1/3 games since his rookie year. Love the big guy just be healthy for the playoffs don’t even try for RS awards it’s not going to end well. CP3/George could occupy the 5th position, Curry/Doncic could be higher too but I’m happy with the list.

[kuclas]

It’s just weird mvp voting. Westbrook follows his 2017 mvp with a 2018 season with 25/10/10 numbers and okc is higher seeded (4) than his previous mvp season. And Westbrook doesn’t finish in the top 3.

So no way Giannis is even in the top 3 this season. People just get mvp fatigued. And it’s not that Giannis is playing worst either.

[Heat4lyf]

1.Jokic
2. Giannis
3. Embiid
4. Doncic
5. Paul
6. Gobert
7. Klaw
8. Curry
9. Randle
10. Lillard

[warriorschamps]

It’s just weird mvp voting. Westbrook follows his 2017 mvp with a 2018 season with 25/10/10 numbers and okc is higher seeded (4) than his previous mvp season. And Westbrook doesn’t finish in the top 3.

So no way Giannis is even in the top 3 this season. People just get mvp fatigued. And it’s not that Giannis is playing worst either.

Honestly team record shouldn't be the deciding factor in MVP voting. This is an individual award not the best team award. Giannis may not be playing worse than last year but you have to take into account how other players are playing. For instance Curry wasn't even playing last year. And Jokic, Embid & others having better years this year than last year.

[clyde21]

Warriors are 35-26 with Steph this year, .57 winning percentage, would put them 7th in the West and 4th in the East...this is a team that won a whopping 14 games without him last yr...a total of 15-54 the last 2 yrs when he's sitting...

i think Jokic has this locked up, but if Steph is not #2 i'm throwin hands.

[FinnTheHuman]

Warriors are 35-26 with Steph this year, .57 winning percentage, would put them 7th in the West and 4th in the East...this is a team that won a whopping 14 games without him last yr...a total of 15-54 the last 2 yrs when he's sitting...

i think Jokic has this locked up, but if Steph is not #2 i'm throwin hands.

Draymond missed 26/69 games last year and he played 28 minutes per gsme, Wiggins played 12 games, Russell 33 games, you were playing G-league level players instead of Oubre, Bazemore, you didn’t have many decent bench players you have now. You were purposely tanking, playing scrubs big minutes because you didn’t care about winning. So idk why you keep pretending that the only difference between last year and this year is that Steph is playing. Completely deluded homers. Yes, Steph is playing great, but he didn’t lift a 15-win team to a .571 team, he is playing with a lot better teammates than what your roster was last season, so cut the bs.

[kazyv]

Warriors are 35-26 with Steph this year, .57 winning percentage, would put them 7th in the West and 4th in the East...this is a team that won a whopping 14 games without him last yr...a total of 15-54 the last 2 yrs when he's sitting...

i think Jokic has this locked up, but if Steph is not #2 i'm throwin hands.

Draymond missed 26/69 games last year and he played 28 minutes per gsme, Wiggins played 12 games, Russell 33 games, you were playing G-league level players instead of Oubre, Bazemore, you didn’t have many decent bench players you have now. You were purposely tanking, playing scrubs big minutes because you didn’t care about winning. So idk why you keep pretending that the only difference between last year and this year is that Steph is playing. Completely deluded homers. Yes, Steph is playing great, but he didn’t lift a 15-win team to a .571 team, he is playing with a lot better teammates than what your roster was last season, so cut the bs.

huh? russell isn't with the team anymore, so that's a selfown. to add on, wiseman played 39 games this year, one of the worst players of all times so far. so that's pretty much a wash with the wiggins games and draymond is barely an nba player without steph anyway. seeing how they went 1-7 without steph this year, 14 games on the year sounds quite good. they might have struggled to get there this year.

[clyde21]

Warriors are 35-26 with Steph this year, .57 winning percentage, would put them 7th in the West and 4th in the East...this is a team that won a whopping 14 games without him last yr...a total of 15-54 the last 2 yrs when he's sitting...

i think Jokic has this locked up, but if Steph is not #2 i'm throwin hands.

Draymond missed 26/69 games last year and he played 28 minutes per gsme, Wiggins played 12 games, Russell 33 games, you were playing G-league level players instead of Oubre, Bazemore, you didn’t have many decent bench players you have now. You were purposely tanking, playing scrubs big minutes because you didn’t care about winning. So idk why you keep pretending that the only difference between last year and this year is that Steph is playing. Completely deluded homers. Yes, Steph is playing great, but he didn’t lift a 15-win team to a .571 team, he is playing with a lot better teammates than what your roster was last season, so cut the bs.

Oubre has been effectively a net negative player this entire season by every single metric, our starters On/Off ratings with Oubre and Wiseman have been brutal, so you're not making any real case that they are better options than what we had this year, and when Dray played last year we were a whopping 8-35, virtually identical record vs when he didn't play, so again, completely didn't matter until actually Steph was on the court...it's pretty evident the value Steph's added here...also I don't know what is 'delusional' here...you think having Steph as a top 2 or 3 MVP candidate is delusional? based on what?

[FinnTheHuman]

Warriors are 35-26 with Steph this year, .57 winning percentage, would put them 7th in the West and 4th in the East...this is a team that won a whopping 14 games without him last yr...a total of 15-54 the last 2 yrs when he's sitting...

i think Jokic has this locked up, but if Steph is not #2 i'm throwin hands.

Draymond missed 26/69 games last year and he played 28 minutes per gsme, Wiggins played 12 games, Russell 33 games, you were playing G-league level players instead of Oubre, Bazemore, you didn’t have many decent bench players you have now. You were purposely tanking, playing scrubs big minutes because you didn’t care about winning. So idk why you keep pretending that the only difference between last year and this year is that Steph is playing. Completely deluded homers. Yes, Steph is playing great, but he didn’t lift a 15-win team to a .571 team, he is playing with a lot better teammates than what your roster was last season, so cut the bs.

Oubre has been effectively a net negative player this entire season by every single metric, our starters On/Off ratings with Oubre and Wiseman have been brutal, so you're not making any real case that they are better options than what we had this year, and when Dray played last year we were a whopping 8-35, virtually identical record vs when he didn't play, so again, completely didn't matter until actually Steph was on the court...it's pretty evident the value Steph's added here...so I wouldn't talk about 'delusion' tbh

And you were 1-4 with Curry, losing 28 to OKC, 19 to LAC, 11 to Phoenix, 8 to Toronto, and winning vs NOP by 11.

And guys like Draymond, Russell and Wiggins sucked because your FO put this g-league garbage around them playing starter minutes, because you were tanking.

And yes, Oubre and Wiseman are better than guys like Glenn Robinson III who played 32 min per game and is one of the worst players in the league, Damion Lee, Mulder and Burks who all played around 28 mpg. Being a net negative player doesn’t mean you’re among the worst players, there’s layers to this. You are super delusional at best, but in reality lying to yourself and others because you’re on some dumb crusade to make people overrate Curry.

[clyde21]

Draymond missed 26/69 games last year and he played 28 minutes per gsme, Wiggins played 12 games, Russell 33 games, you were playing G-league level players instead of Oubre, Bazemore, you didn’t have many decent bench players you have now. You were purposely tanking, playing scrubs big minutes because you didn’t care about winning. So idk why you keep pretending that the only difference between last year and this year is that Steph is playing. Completely deluded homers. Yes, Steph is playing great, but he didn’t lift a 15-win team to a .571 team, he is playing with a lot better teammates than what your roster was last season, so cut the bs.

Oubre has been effectively a net negative player this entire season by every single metric, our starters On/Off ratings with Oubre and Wiseman have been brutal, so you're not making any real case that they are better options than what we had this year, and when Dray played last year we were a whopping 8-35, virtually identical record vs when he didn't play, so again, completely didn't matter until actually Steph was on the court...it's pretty evident the value Steph's added here...so I wouldn't talk about 'delusion' tbh

And you were 1-4 with Curry, losing 28 to OKC, 19 to LAC, 11 to Phoenix, 8 to Toronto, and winning vs NOP by 11.

And guys like Draymond, Russell and Wiggins sucked because your FO put this g-league garbage around them playing starter minutes.

And yes, Oubre and Wiseman are better than guys like Glenn Robinson III who played 32 min per game and is onne of the worst players in the league, Damion Lee, Mulder and Burks who all played around 28 mpg. Being a net negative player doesn’t mean you’re among the worst players, there’s layers to this. You are super delusional.

oh no, a 4.5 game sample size, you got me (just like how we started the year this year 1-3 with Steph...small sample sizes gonna small sample size).

and I don't understand why you keep talking about Draymond. with Draymond last year we were 8-35...that doesn't prove your point in any way.

and Wiseman/Oubre have been two of THE worst players in the entire league...I don't care about their names...by every metrics they've been terrible this year, Wiseman probably one of THE most destructive players that we've put on the court the last decade because of how terrible of a fit he was and how we spent the first half the season deviating away from what we do to accommodate what he does well.

and again...what's delusional exactly? that Steph is single handedly turning this team into a PO team? i mean, the numbers are right in front of you...'but Wiseman!' is not an argument.

[FinnTheHuman]

Oubre has been effectively a net negative player this entire season by every single metric, our starters On/Off ratings with Oubre and Wiseman have been brutal, so you're not making any real case that they are better options than what we had this year, and when Dray played last year we were a whopping 8-35, virtually identical record vs when he didn't play, so again, completely didn't matter until actually Steph was on the court...it's pretty evident the value Steph's added here...so I wouldn't talk about 'delusion' tbh

And you were 1-4 with Curry, losing 28 to OKC, 19 to LAC, 11 to Phoenix, 8 to Toronto, and winning vs NOP by 11.

And guys like Draymond, Russell and Wiggins sucked because your FO put this g-league garbage around them playing starter minutes.

And yes, Oubre and Wiseman are better than guys like Glenn Robinson III who played 32 min per game and is onne of the worst players in the league, Damion Lee, Mulder and Burks who all played around 28 mpg. Being a net negative player doesn’t mean you’re among the worst players, there’s layers to this. You are super delusional.

oh no, a 4.5 game sample size, you got me (just like how we started the year this year 1-3 with Steph...small sample sizes gonna small sample size).

and I don't understand why you keep talking about Draymond. with Draymond last year we were 8-35...that doesn't prove your point in any way.

and Wiseman/Oubre have been two of THE worst players in the entire league...I don't care about their names...by every metrics they've been terrible this year, Wiseman probably one of THE most destructive players that we've put on the court the last decade because of how terrible of a fit he was and how we spent the first half the season deviating away from what we do to accommodate what he does well.

and again...what's delusional exactly? that Steph is single handedly turning this team into a PO team? i mean, the numbers are right in front of you...'but Wiseman!' is not an argument.

The argument is that Curry didn’t turn a 15-win team into a .571 team. It was 69 games, not 82 last season for starters, you could’ve ended up an 18-20 win team easily if it was 82 games, then if your main guys played games and played big minutes you would’ve been around a 25-30 win team without Curry, but you simply tanked, your FO was making moves that were weakening the team, Kerr played trash players big minutes etc. So Curry didn’t fix a 15 win team, Curry and Draymond and Wiggins and Bazemore and Oubre and young role players maturing and many more experienced guys fixed that, so quit with this bs.

[clyde21]

And you were 1-4 with Curry, losing 28 to OKC, 19 to LAC, 11 to Phoenix, 8 to Toronto, and winning vs NOP by 11.

And guys like Draymond, Russell and Wiggins sucked because your FO put this g-league garbage around them playing starter minutes.

And yes, Oubre and Wiseman are better than guys like Glenn Robinson III who played 32 min per game and is onne of the worst players in the league, Damion Lee, Mulder and Burks who all played around 28 mpg. Being a net negative player doesn’t mean you’re among the worst players, there’s layers to this. You are super delusional.

oh no, a 4.5 game sample size, you got me (just like how we started the year this year 1-3 with Steph...small sample sizes gonna small sample size).

and I don't understand why you keep talking about Draymond. with Draymond last year we were 8-35...that doesn't prove your point in any way.

and Wiseman/Oubre have been two of THE worst players in the entire league...I don't care about their names...by every metrics they've been terrible this year, Wiseman probably one of THE most destructive players that we've put on the court the last decade because of how terrible of a fit he was and how we spent the first half the season deviating away from what we do to accommodate what he does well.

and again...what's delusional exactly? that Steph is single handedly turning this team into a PO team? i mean, the numbers are right in front of you...'but Wiseman!' is not an argument.

The argument is that Curry didn’t turn a 15-win team into a .571 team. It was 69 games, not 82 last season for starters, you could’ve ended up an 18-20 win team easily if it was 82 games, then if your main guys played games and played big minutes you would’ve been around a 25-30 win team without Curry, but you simply tanked, your FO was making moves that were weakening the team, Kerr played trash players big minutes etc. So Curry didn’t fix a 15 win team, Curry and Draymond and Wiggins and Bazemore and Oubre and young role players maturing and many more experienced guys fixed that, so quit with this bs.

thank you, I already know how many games were played last, that's why I specifically mentioned the record total for this year and last year without Steph (15-54), a whopping .21 winning % without Steph.

and you keep talking about Draymond as if he mattered at all last year, again he was 8-35 last year, a .18 winning %...the Warriors record was actually better WITHOUT Draymond in the lineup when Steph wasn't playing.

and of course we tanked, because this team was **** without Steph...pretty obvious, and if you think this year's team is any different because we had Wiseman on the team then, well, I'm not the one being delusional.

again...where would you put Steph on the MVP list? i'd like to know for reference, since we are so 'delusional'.

[FinnTheHuman]

oh no, a 4.5 game sample size, you got me (just like how we started the year this year 1-3 with Steph...small sample sizes gonna small sample size).

and I don't understand why you keep talking about Draymond. with Draymond last year we were 8-35...that doesn't prove your point in any way.

and Wiseman/Oubre have been two of THE worst players in the entire league...I don't care about their names...by every metrics they've been terrible this year, Wiseman probably one of THE most destructive players that we've put on the court the last decade because of how terrible of a fit he was and how we spent the first half the season deviating away from what we do to accommodate what he does well.

and again...what's delusional exactly? that Steph is single handedly turning this team into a PO team? i mean, the numbers are right in front of you...'but Wiseman!' is not an argument.

The argument is that Curry didn’t turn a 15-win team into a .571 team. It was 69 games, not 82 last season for starters, you could’ve ended up an 18-20 win team easily if it was 82 games, then if your main guys played games and played big minutes you would’ve been around a 25-30 win team without Curry, but you simply tanked, your FO was making moves that were weakening the team, Kerr played trash players big minutes etc. So Curry didn’t fix a 15 win team, Curry and Draymond and Wiggins and Bazemore and Oubre and young role players maturing and many more experienced guys fixed that, so quit with this bs.

thank you, I already know how many games were played last, that's why I specifically mentioned the record total for this year and last year without Steph (15-54), a whopping .21 winning % without Steph.

and you keep talking about Draymond as if he mattered at all last year, again he was 8-35 last year, a .18 winning %...the Warriors record was actually better WITHOUT Draymond in the lineup when Steph wasn't playing.

and of course we tanked, because this team was **** without Steph...pretty obvious, and if you think this year's team is any different because we had Wiseman on the team then, well, I'm not the one being delusional.

again...where would you put Steph on the MVP list? i'd like to know for reference, since we are so 'delusional'.

Somewhere in the top 5, but not top 2. Giannis is 2nd behind Jokic. And many guys have a case for 3-5.

All I’m saying is if your team was playing to win last season and doing everything to win like they are now, they would be a 25-30 win team in an 82-game season. Which means Curry imo turned a .330 team into a .571 team. Which is impressive, but doesn’t sound surreal, while turning a .200 team into a .571 team does sound surreal and no, he didn’t do that, he’s not that good.

[MindState]

If steph just had one secondary guy on his team he would have been MVP easily this year. Crazy.

[BoatsNZones]

The 2-4 vote will be extremely close imo. Joel started great, but in the last 32 Sixers games (effectively half the season), Embiid has missed 13 of them and posted 28/9/2 +0.5 st / 1.4 blk on 51/32/86. Pretty underwhelming stretch as far as any MVP narrative goes. In that same stretch Curry has kept the Warriors afloat while averaging 35/5/6 on 50/44/90 (on the highest volume of 3's made per game in NBA history). He was also in early season talks regarding MVP. Tough to imagine Embiid has kept his distance over him from March through mid-May after what Curry is doing (still averaging 38/5/5 on a 65% TS with the Warriors 5-1 in May after the blistering April), but record often reigns supreme to voters (granted, less so when they're voting 2-5).

It will be Jokic by a mile, then likely Curry/Embiid in some order, and then Giannis, with those 3 being very close vote wise imo. Fifth from the voters will probably be a close mix of CP3/Dame/Luka/Gobert. Thinking the voters lean CP3 (I'd have him closer to 10).

[WarriorGM]

The argument is that Curry didn’t turn a 15-win team into a .571 team. It was 69 games, not 82 last season for starters, you could’ve ended up an 18-20 win team easily if it was 82 games, then if your main guys played games and played big minutes you would’ve been around a 25-30 win team without Curry, but you simply tanked, your FO was making moves that were weakening the team, Kerr played trash players big minutes etc. So Curry didn’t fix a 15 win team, Curry and Draymond and Wiggins and Bazemore and Oubre and young role players maturing and many more experienced guys fixed that, so quit with this bs.

thank you, I already know how many games were played last, that's why I specifically mentioned the record total for this year and last year without Steph (15-54), a whopping .21 winning % without Steph.

and you keep talking about Draymond as if he mattered at all last year, again he was 8-35 last year, a .18 winning %...the Warriors record was actually better WITHOUT Draymond in the lineup when Steph wasn't playing.

and of course we tanked, because this team was **** without Steph...pretty obvious, and if you think this year's team is any different because we had Wiseman on the team then, well, I'm not the one being delusional.

again...where would you put Steph on the MVP list? i'd like to know for reference, since we are so 'delusional'.

Somewhere in the top 5, but not top 2. Giannis is 2nd behind Jokic. And many guys have a case for 3-5.

All I’m saying is if your team was playing to win last season and doing everything to win like they are now, they would be a 25-30 win team in an 82-game season. Which means Curry imo turned a .330 team into a .571 team. Which is impressive, but doesn’t sound surreal, while turning a .200 team into a .571 team does sound surreal and no, he didn’t do that, he’s not that good.

Even the current team wasn't doing everything to win as its priority all season. If it was it wouldn't have played a rookie so much trying to develop him resulting in awful WOWY numbers. Fact of the matter is the Warriors were a sub-20-win team last season. Your speculation on how they'd have finished if they'd done all they could to win is just that: speculation. It's not as if most teams in their situation last year would try to go all out to win either.

But for the sake of argument let's say they were actually a 25-30 win team. Who has brought such a team that wasn't tanking previously to a better record?

Curry is as good as anyone ever at carrying a team.

[dygaction]

thank you, I already know how many games were played last, that's why I specifically mentioned the record total for this year and last year without Steph (15-54), a whopping .21 winning % without Steph.

and you keep talking about Draymond as if he mattered at all last year, again he was 8-35 last year, a .18 winning %...the Warriors record was actually better WITHOUT Draymond in the lineup when Steph wasn't playing.

and of course we tanked, because this team was **** without Steph...pretty obvious, and if you think this year's team is any different because we had Wiseman on the team then, well, I'm not the one being delusional.

again...where would you put Steph on the MVP list? i'd like to know for reference, since we are so 'delusional'.

Somewhere in the top 5, but not top 2. Giannis is 2nd behind Jokic. And many guys have a case for 3-5.

All I’m saying is if your team was playing to win last season and doing everything to win like they are now, they would be a 25-30 win team in an 82-game season. Which means Curry imo turned a .330 team into a .571 team. Which is impressive, but doesn’t sound surreal, while turning a .200 team into a .571 team does sound surreal and no, he didn’t do that, he’s not that good.

Even the current team wasn't doing everything to win as its priority all season. If it was it wouldn't have played a rookie so much trying to develop him resulting in awful WOWY numbers. Fact of the matter is the Warriors were a sub-20-win team last season. Your speculation on how they'd have finished if they'd done all they could to win is just that: speculation. It's not as if most teams in their situation last year would try to go all out to win either.

But for the sake of argument let's say they were actually a 25-30 win team. Who has brought such a team that wasn't tanking previously to a better record?

Curry is as good as anyone ever at carrying a team.

Active players, not more than 5. I think LeBron, Harden, and Westbrook have showed they can. Luka, Jokic, and Giannis maybe.

[levon]

It's Jokic, Curry, Giannis, and Embiid for me in that order.

I think if everyone was healthy it would be Lebron, Harden, Jokic/Curry (Nuggets not being a top 4 seed would less attention on Jokic), Embiid, Giannis

[Impuniti]

Anyway, a random video popped up where Chris B. was arguing with the 3 idiot Stooges at FOX who all were apparently hopping CP3 of all people is the MVP. Can't tell if the media is just doing this for clicks to desperately try to bring in excitement, but the counter argument is that Nick Wrong is an idiot, and the NFL partner he has literally knows nothing about the game of basketball. It was amusing watching Chris shut it all down as all of them were trying to make it seem like CP3 deserves it and Jokic isn't the absolute clear frontrunner (didn't know these idiots were making this case until this video, I'm assuming they've spent time propping Paul up).

The argument is that Curry didn’t turn a 15-win team into a .571 team. It was 69 games, not 82 last season for starters, you could’ve ended up an 18-20 win team easily if it was 82 games, then if your main guys played games and played big minutes you would’ve been around a 25-30 win team without Curry, but you simply tanked, your FO was making moves that were weakening the team, Kerr played trash players big minutes etc. So Curry didn’t fix a 15 win team, Curry and Draymond and Wiggins and Bazemore and Oubre and young role players maturing and many more experienced guys fixed that, so quit with this bs.

thank you, I already know how many games were played last, that's why I specifically mentioned the record total for this year and last year without Steph (15-54), a whopping .21 winning % without Steph.

and you keep talking about Draymond as if he mattered at all last year, again he was 8-35 last year, a .18 winning %...the Warriors record was actually better WITHOUT Draymond in the lineup when Steph wasn't playing.

and of course we tanked, because this team was **** without Steph...pretty obvious, and if you think this year's team is any different because we had Wiseman on the team then, well, I'm not the one being delusional.

again...where would you put Steph on the MVP list? i'd like to know for reference, since we are so 'delusional'.

Somewhere in the top 5, but not top 2. Giannis is 2nd behind Jokic. And many guys have a case for 3-5.

All I’m saying is if your team was playing to win last season and doing everything to win like they are now, they would be a 25-30 win team in an 82-game season. Which means Curry imo turned a .330 team into a .571 team. Which is impressive, but doesn’t sound surreal, while turning a .200 team into a .571 team does sound surreal and no, he didn’t do that, he’s not that good.

What you're saying is a guess not based on reality. The reality is that last season, the Warriors were the worst team in the league. Stop pulling random numbers out of your ass like they mean anything.

[The Rebel]

It's Jokic, Curry, Giannis, and Embiid for me in that order.

I think if everyone was healthy it would be Lebron, Harden, Jokic/Curry (Nuggets not being a top 4 seed would less attention on Jokic), Embiid, Giannis

Who is to say that if everybody was healthy the Nuggets are not a top 3 seed? Murray played half of his games injured and than got injured worse, MPJ missed time with covid and struggled for a few weeks when he came back, we have been missing our entire guard rotation for weeks. While Jokic has stayed healthy our team has had plenty of injuries.