2021-22 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt. 1)

[Dutchball97]

Gobert seems to be incredibly underrated as of now. EPM has him 5th in wins added, RAPTOR 3rd in wins added, LEBRON also has him 3rd in wins added, he's 6th in VORP and even leads the league in WS.

I would take Curry, Jokic and Giannis ahead of him still but it is getting harder to justify KD ahead of Gobert.

[WarriorGM]

The disassociation from reality around here can be seen when after defeating the team with the third best record in the league the one that is talked about is the one that triumphed over the team in 27th place. But hey triple double!

[shoresy69]

You're focused on what you can glean from the box score, but the box score doesn't capture anywhere near the entirety of the game.

Do you see the way defenses contort themselves around Curry and then other guys get easy buckets? I'd encourage you to really think through what that says about what is valuable in basketball.

I'm sorry to say but this is pretty ignorant. Don't you know what defenses have to do to have a chance of stopping Giannis? Building a wall of 2 or 3 players means they have to leave 1 or 2 others (wide) open. You might use the same kind of argument for Steph but not against Giannis.

Open threes are great shots but open layups are the best shot in basketball. That’s the difference between drawing attention in the paint versus drawing attention 5 feet beyond the arc.

[Ballerhogger]

If the bulls first in the east we have to discuss DeMar feel like he’s not getting any attention

[DutchManDanFan]

Open threes are great shots but open layups are the best shot in basketball. That’s the difference between drawing attention in the paint versus drawing attention 5 feet beyond the arc.

I trust Jrue to defend Steph 1 on 1. So no open layups with Giannis waiting inside.
The other way around? I don't see it. Giannis had many good games against GSW. Not surprisingly the first loss in the 73 win year was against the Bucks.

[nitric0]

If the bulls first in the east we have to discuss DeMar feel like he’s not getting any attention

The problem is Lavine is putting up very identical numbers. Demar getting the attention with these last-second plays but Lavine dropped 35 points vs. the Wiz to get it to that point.

[Doctor MJ]

You're focused on what you can glean from the box score, but the box score doesn't capture anywhere near the entirety of the game.

Do you see the way defenses contort themselves around Curry and then other guys get easy buckets? I'd encourage you to really think through what that says about what is valuable in basketball.

I'm sorry to say but this is pretty ignorant. Don't you know what defenses have to do to have a chance of stopping Giannis? Building a wall of 2 or 3 players means they have to leave 1 or 2 others (wide) open. You might use the same kind of argument for Steph but not against Giannis.

Well I didn’t say that this is something to only think about with Curry, I just said you have to think about.

You also have to think about where the star in question is considered a threat worth pulling away from other scorers.

In the case of Giannis, he’s only a threat on the interior so the theory is that teams are leaving 3-point shooters open - which is certainly not a bad idea for the offense, to be clear.

In the case of Curry, the threat is primarily beyond the arc, but that’s a ton of territory for the defense to cover - you see him frequently getting doubles from half court, which leaves a 4-on-3 matchup spread over everywhere else. And one of the most reliable ways to exploit this is with strong vs weak side. Strong side is wherever Curry is, and the easy bucket then tend to be available from the weak side.

I’m not here to claim with some kind of absolute certainty that one way has to be more effective than the other. When strategies differ, in the end, it’s about analyzing what is working better and the track record there is with Curry.

Now then, before you rush to try to rebut:

You sound silly calling some ignorant when you jump in to make an only slightly less superficial analysis with obvious gaping holes in it. Stop assuming that the people you encounter online have the dumbest possible way of understanding a subject simply because they didn’t go into as much nuance as they might have. We’re all trying to strike a balance between the true complexity of the game and what we think can be best understood in the context of the current discussion.

I can respect the opinions of those who rate Giannis as the MVP, but it’s hard to abide people who’ve almost always done far less analysis in player value than myself assuming that my different conclusions must be due to ignorance.

For everyone in this thread, if you think that the only people massively impressed by Curry’s value this year are people simply going by who is in first place, stop it. It’s not damning to think that that Giannis is the MVP, but you reveal your own ignorance if you can’t understand that there is a sophisticated analysis favoring Curry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Texas Chuck]

For everyone in this thread, if you think that the only people massively impressed by Curry’s value this year are people simply going by who is in first place, stop it. It’s not damning to think that that Giannis is the MVP, but you reveal your own ignorance if you can’t understand that there is a sophisticated analysis favoring Curry.

Yeah as Doc knows, I'm really high on Giannis, much higher on him offensively than most in fact. Giannis would be ahead(slightly) of Curry on my MVP ballot to this point.

But you guys should listen to Doc when he talks about Curry(anything actually). And listen. Don't assume he has some nefarious agenda. Don't assume that if he says something positive about Curry he means something negative about your favorite player. It can simply be a point about Steph.

I'll hop on my soapbox for one second and remind everyone none of this is zero sum. Curry being great in no way diminishes the greatness of Giannis or Jokic or.... And vice versa. Giannis being great doesn't mean Curry now can't be.

And its very much okay for players to be great in very different ways. James Harden and Rudy Gobert are both great players despite having little in common. This is fine. One is not inherently better than the other based on style. And if you disagree with me, you probably should stop treating basketball as mere theory that can be "solved". It can't.

[MindState]

At some point Curry has to start getting points for beating fully health top teams while being without Klay, Draymond and more.

I remember “who you beat” used to matter in the MVP race rather then just good stats.

[mediocrityrules]

At some point Curry has to start getting points for beating fully health top teams while being without Klay, Draymond and more.

I remember “who you beat” used to matter in the MVP race rather then just good stats.

Always does, always will.

It's why no one in here says that a .500 or so team will have an MVP on it. At the end of the season, you can't just beat the bad teams and be in the top 4 seed in either conference, and you'll struggle to find a cohesive argument that anyone has put up to suggest that this years MVP will be on a team outside the top 3-4 seed.

[mediocrityrules]

For everyone in this thread, if you think that the only people massively impressed by Curry’s value this year are people simply going by who is in first place, stop it. It’s not damning to think that that Giannis is the MVP, but you reveal your own ignorance if you can’t understand that there is a sophisticated analysis favoring Curry.

Yeah as Doc knows, I'm really high on Giannis, much higher on him offensively than most in fact. Giannis would be ahead(slightly) of Curry on my MVP ballot to this point.

But you guys should listen to Doc when he talks about Curry(anything actually). And listen. Don't assume he has some nefarious agenda. Don't assume that if he says something positive about Curry he means something negative about your favorite player. It can simply be a point about Steph.

I'll hop on my soapbox for one second and remind everyone none of this is zero sum. Curry being great in no way diminishes the greatness of Giannis or Jokic or.... And vice versa. Giannis being great doesn't mean Curry now can't be.

And its very much okay for players to be great in very different ways. James Harden and Rudy Gobert are both great players despite having little in common. This is fine. One is not inherently better than the other based on style. And if you disagree with me, you probably should stop treating basketball as mere theory that can be "solved". It can't.

Yeah, nah.

I do enjoy Doc's posts, but the passive-aggressive wack in this one to anyone that dares go against his opinion on Curry irks me. I understand where his argument is headed, but you can't come back with (to paraphrase horribly) "no one does more sophisticated analysis than me, so to go against my opinion shows you're ignorance to deep analysis and shows you have not spent sufficient time on the subject".

I know it's not the point he's trying to make, but that's how it came across to me, and will to others. And knowing the adversarial nature of Real GM, it's fuel to the fire.

In this thread especially, you do need to take all posts with a grain of salt, no matter how much they make you bristle. Weight of evidence will always win out in the end. Just be patient.

[Texas Chuck]

I do enjoy Doc's posts, but the passive-aggressive wack in this one to anyone that dares go against his opinion on Curry irks me. I understand where his argument is headed, but you can't come back with (to paraphrase horribly) "no one does more sophisticated analysis than me, so to go against my opinion shows you're ignorance to deep analysis and shows you have not spent sufficient time on the subject".

I know it's not the point he's trying to make, but that's how it came across to me, and will to others.

IF you know its not his point, then you are choosing to interpret thus and I would have that on you, no?

As to your point about Doc's posting style, I don't think I'm out of line in telling you that Doc is open about his views on his own approach. Sure it could be called arrogant and I don't think he'd disagree. But wouldn't you rather him be potentially a little arrogant than falsely modest? To pretend that he hasn't put in more work on this than the vast majority of posters?

[DutchManDanFan]

You're focused on what you can glean from the box score, but the box score doesn't capture anywhere near the entirety of the game.

Do you see the way defenses contort themselves around Curry and then other guys get easy buckets? I'd encourage you to really think through what that says about what is valuable in basketball.

I'm sorry to say but this is pretty ignorant. Don't you know what defenses have to do to have a chance of stopping Giannis? Building a wall of 2 or 3 players means they have to leave 1 or 2 others (wide) open. You might use the same kind of argument for Steph but not against Giannis.

Well I didn’t say that this is something to only think about with Curry, I just said you have to think about.

You also have to think about where the star in question is considered a threat worth pulling away from other scorers.

In the case of Giannis, he’s only a threat on the interior so the theory is that teams are leaving 3-point shooters open - which is certainly not a bad idea for the offense, to be clear.

In the case of Curry, the threat is primarily beyond the arc, but that’s a ton of territory for the defense to cover - you see him frequently getting doubles from half court, which leaves a 4-on-3 matchup spread over everywhere else. And one of the most reliable ways to exploit this is with strong vs weak side. Strong side is wherever Curry is, and the easy bucket then tend to be available from the weak side.

I’m not here to claim with some kind of absolute certainty that one way has to be more effective than the other. When strategies differ, in the end, it’s about analyzing what is working better and the track record there is with Curry.

Now then, before you rush to try to rebut:

You sound silly calling some ignorant when you jump in to make an only slightly less superficial analysis with obvious gaping holes in it. Stop assuming that the people you encounter online have the dumbest possible way of understanding a subject simply because they didn’t go into as much nuance as they might have. We’re all trying to strike a balance between the true complexity of the game and what we think can be best understood in the context of the current discussion.

I can respect the opinions of those who rate Giannis as the MVP, but it’s hard to abide people who’ve almost always done far less analysis in player value than myself assuming that my different conclusions must be due to ignorance.

For everyone in this thread, if you think that the only people massively impressed by Curry’s value this year are people simply going by who is in first place, stop it. It’s not damning to think that that Giannis is the MVP, but you reveal your own ignorance if you can’t understand that there is a sophisticated analysis favoring Curry.

You reacted on a Giannis post with an argument for Steph, with the suggestion it only applies for Steph and so he is clear MVP. With zero nuance. Your claim to have a sophisticated analyses is nice but it's not the only sophisticated analyses. And probably not the best one either.

You can have your analysis favoring Steph. But it's still subjective. If you want to have a sophisticated analyses, then you should analyse the value Giannis has for the Bucks in the same mannor. In all aspects. But I don't see that from you. At all. Because you don't have it. If you had, then you'd know it's close (both very valuable but very different) and just a matter of taste (so subjective) what/who you like more.

What seperates the 2 is team record. That has a lot to do with injuries, covid, resting and not playing too many minutes because Bud doesn't seem to care about a loss more or less.
And that's why Steph still is the favorite. And that's fine.

[mediocrityrules]

I do enjoy Doc's posts, but the passive-aggressive wack in this one to anyone that dares go against his opinion on Curry irks me. I understand where his argument is headed, but you can't come back with (to paraphrase horribly) "no one does more sophisticated analysis than me, so to go against my opinion shows you're ignorance to deep analysis and shows you have not spent sufficient time on the subject".

I know it's not the point he's trying to make, but that's how it came across to me, and will to others.

IF you know its not his point, then you are choosing to interpret thus and I would have that on you, no?

As to your point about Doc's posting style, I don't think I'm out of line in telling you that Doc is open about his views on his own approach. Sure it could be called arrogant and I don't think he'd disagree. But wouldn't you rather him be potentially a little arrogant than falsely modest? To pretend that he hasn't put in more work on this than the vast majority of posters?

I know his point (but stand to be corrected if I have interpreted differently), but i'm talking about the delivery, and what came with it.

For your second point, to come from the standpoint that he is more researched than everyone else and use that as part of the rebuttal (or put-down) is of course sheer arrogance. You need to just take the hits as they come if you want to approach forums from that perspective.

And to your third point, yes I do prefer reading these forums when the posters come from a position of modesty rather than arrogance. It's the arrogance of the post that had me responding.

[Ballerhogger]

If the bulls first in the east we have to discuss DeMar feel like he’s not getting any attention

The problem is Lavine is putting up very identical numbers. Demar getting the attention with these last-second plays but Lavine dropped 35 points vs. the Wiz to get it to that point.

In the discussion he’s having a great year . Without him Zach isn’t leading this team 1st in the east right now . Zach has been out as well for little bit

[nitric0]

If the bulls first in the east we have to discuss DeMar feel like he’s not getting any attention

The problem is Lavine is putting up very identical numbers. Demar getting the attention with these last-second plays but Lavine dropped 35 points vs. the Wiz to get it to that point.

In the discussion he’s having a great year . Without him Zach isn’t leading this team 1st in the east right now . Zach has been out as well for little bit

Without Zach, Demar isn’t leading this team to the first seed either. That’s my point, both are having incredible seasons. Demar just in the spotlight. Zach has been the Curry of the East.

[Doctor MJ]

For everyone in this thread, if you think that the only people massively impressed by Curry’s value this year are people simply going by who is in first place, stop it. It’s not damning to think that that Giannis is the MVP, but you reveal your own ignorance if you can’t understand that there is a sophisticated analysis favoring Curry.

Yeah as Doc knows, I'm really high on Giannis, much higher on him offensively than most in fact. Giannis would be ahead(slightly) of Curry on my MVP ballot to this point.

But you guys should listen to Doc when he talks about Curry(anything actually). And listen. Don't assume he has some nefarious agenda. Don't assume that if he says something positive about Curry he means something negative about your favorite player. It can simply be a point about Steph.

I'll hop on my soapbox for one second and remind everyone none of this is zero sum. Curry being great in no way diminishes the greatness of Giannis or Jokic or.... And vice versa. Giannis being great doesn't mean Curry now can't be.

And its very much okay for players to be great in very different ways. James Harden and Rudy Gobert are both great players despite having little in common. This is fine. One is not inherently better than the other based on style. And if you disagree with me, you probably should stop treating basketball as mere theory that can be "solved". It can't.

Yeah, nah.

I do enjoy Doc's posts, but the passive-aggressive wack in this one to anyone that dares go against his opinion on Curry irks me. I understand where his argument is headed, but you can't come back with (to paraphrase horribly) "no one does more sophisticated analysis than me, so to go against my opinion shows you're ignorance to deep analysis and shows you have not spent sufficient time on the subject".

I know it's not the point he's trying to make, but that's how it came across to me, and will to others. And knowing the adversarial nature of Real GM, it's fuel to the fire.

In this thread especially, you do need to take all posts with a grain of salt, no matter how much they make you bristle. Weight of evidence will always win out in the end. Just be patient.

I'll take the criticism and step away from the thread for a while.

Re: evidence will always win out in the end. Oh, I think we're seeing all over our society that this is not so. The reality is that talk of "evidence" in a debate implies much shared thought process. Hence my tendency to point out process issues, which I've yet to really figure out how to do on the internet without risking mutual irritation.

[shoresy69]

Open threes are great shots but open layups are the best shot in basketball. That’s the difference between drawing attention in the paint versus drawing attention 5 feet beyond the arc.

I trust Jrue to defend Steph 1 on 1. So no open layups with Giannis waiting inside.
The other way around? I don't see it. Giannis had many good games against GSW. Not surprisingly the first loss in the 73 win year was against the Bucks.

Curry has played well against Jrue throughout his entire career. I'm also not sure that reducing it down to GSW-MIL matchups is the best way to determine a player's effect.

[Ballerhogger]

I think it’s still curry , Giannis , Jokic in top 3 after that you can Embiid and DeMar are outside looking in

[DutchManDanFan]

Open threes are great shots but open layups are the best shot in basketball. That’s the difference between drawing attention in the paint versus drawing attention 5 feet beyond the arc.

I trust Jrue to defend Steph 1 on 1. So no open layups with Giannis waiting inside.
The other way around? I don't see it. Giannis had many good games against GSW. Not surprisingly the first loss in the 73 win year was against the Bucks.

Curry has played well against Jrue throughout his entire career. I'm also not sure that reducing it down to GSW-MIL matchups is the best way to determine a player's effect.

I agree. But in this case it's the best way to see if Doc's sophisticated analyses has any truth or not that the impact Steph has on defences is much bigger than that of Giannis.

I think it comes down to the simple question who of them can be guarded 1 on 1. For Giannis I think it's known nobody can. Nobody tries anymore, so we see high 3P% for players like Portis, Connaughton and Allen.
If someone can defend Steph 1 on 1 it probably is Jrue. What happens then, even if Steph still hits a decent amount of 3's (lets say 6-14)? GSW might still win but it won't be because they get more open layups (like you said), certainly not against Giannis' defense.