2021-22 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt. 1)

[Kurtz]

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

Yea, one of those 3 is walking away with it. KD is the 2nd favourite currently, but now that Harden is back in shape and getting all the calls again, he's gonna start racking up numbers on par or better than KD, which will take KD out of the race.

DeMar/Gobert wont be in the conversation when all is said and done, as great as they've been.

[Marrrcuss]

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.

So pretty much, we only considered a player on an 8th place team last year because it was our beloved.

This year, we're back to the usual criteria?

This is also the first year ever ive seen people talk about strength of schedule in the NBA. It will even out eventually but i think people want the votes in before it does. Yall REALLY REALLY want that trophy.

[WarriorGM]

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.

So pretty much, we only considered a player on an 8th place team last year because it was our beloved.

This year, we're back to the usual criteria?

This is also the first year ever ive seen people talk about strength of schedule in the NBA. It will even out eventually but i think people want the votes in before it does. Yall REALLY REALLY want that trophy.

Did Curry get the MVP last year?

The league should really really want Curry to get it because he has the ability to embarrass it as badly as he did the doubters here in the Curry exposed thread and if he does that all the recent MVP winners will look fake.

[Marrrcuss]

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.

So pretty much, we only considered a player on an 8th place team last year because it was our beloved.

This year, we're back to the usual criteria?

This is also the first year ever ive seen people talk about strength of schedule in the NBA. It will even out eventually but i think people want the votes in before it does. Yall REALLY REALLY want that trophy.

Did Curry get the MVP last year?

The league should really really want Curry to get it because he has the ability to embarrass it as badly as he did the doubters here in the Curry exposed thread and if he does that all the recent MVP winners will look fake.

Giannis and Jokic embarrassed it? Oh wait, i forgot about this boards Westbrook obsession, you meant him, right?

[WarriorGM]

So pretty much, we only considered a player on an 8th place team last year because it was our beloved.

This year, we're back to the usual criteria?

This is also the first year ever ive seen people talk about strength of schedule in the NBA. It will even out eventually but i think people want the votes in before it does. Yall REALLY REALLY want that trophy.

Did Curry get the MVP last year?

The league should really really want Curry to get it because he has the ability to embarrass it as badly as he did the doubters here in the Curry exposed thread and if he does that all the recent MVP winners will look fake.

Giannis and Jokic embarrassed it? Oh wait, i forgot about this boards Westbrook obsession, you meant him, right?

All the winners since Westbrook have been iffy. They have all been selections indicating an aspiration for finding the next star more than rewarding accomplishment. Giannis has been the only one of those selections so far who has justified that faith because of his championship last year. But even then let's say Antetokounmpo gets a third MVP this year without leading the team with the best record. What's his best player in the world lineage? Beating KD in the second round because KD's shoe size was too large? If Giannis were to never win a championship again that third MVP will look like a joke. He'd have more MVPs than Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Harden and Paul who all quite bluntly have been more significant historical players in this era up to this point. As a historical reference the MVP would be trash.

[old skool]

I think it is a fruitless exercise to cite an endless number of facts to support one's preconceived conclusion that one phenomenal superstar is more deserving of the MVP than another. Especially when one has a rooting interest in a certain player or will celebrate if that player wins the award.

It should surprise no one that after extensive research, Warrior fans conclude that Curry is the MVP leader, Bucks fans have Antetokounmpo, Nuggets fans pick Jokic and Bulls fans like Zach Derozan.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[old skool]

Did Curry get the MVP last year?

The league should really really want Curry to get it because he has the ability to embarrass it as badly as he did the doubters here in the Curry exposed thread and if he does that all the recent MVP winners will look fake.

Giannis and Jokic embarrassed it? Oh wait, i forgot about this boards Westbrook obsession, you meant him, right?

All the winners since Westbrook have been iffy. They have all been selections indicating an aspiration for finding the next star than rewarding accomplishment. Giannis has been the only one of those selections so far who has justified that faith because of his championship last year. But even then let's say Antetokounmpo gets a third MVP this year without leading the team with the best record. What's his best player in the world lineage? Beating KD in the second round because KD's shoe size was too large? If Giannis were to never win a championship again that third MVP will look like a joke. He'd have more MVPs than Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Harden and Paul who all quite bluntly have been more significant historical players in this era up to this point. As a historical reference the MVP would be trash.

Winning multiple MVPs just means that a player had multiple phenomenal regular seasons. MVPs are not validated or negated by after the fact playoff success or lack there of. Antetokounmpo's MVPs were not illegitimate because his teams were better in those regular seasons than they were in the playoffs. Nor should they be delegitimized if his injury had kept him out of last year's Finals. There is no Go Back In Time Machine.

The "beauty" of MVP discussions is that without a definitive criteria for what constitutes MVP, people can quickly shift the focus of the discussion from counting points, to team success, to strength of schedule, to defensive rating, to games missed, to advanced stats on and on.



Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

[WarriorGM]

Giannis and Jokic embarrassed it? Oh wait, i forgot about this boards Westbrook obsession, you meant him, right?

All the winners since Westbrook have been iffy. They have all been selections indicating an aspiration for finding the next star than rewarding accomplishment. Giannis has been the only one of those selections so far who has justified that faith because of his championship last year. But even then let's say Antetokounmpo gets a third MVP this year without leading the team with the best record. What's his best player in the world lineage? Beating KD in the second round because KD's shoe size was too large? If Giannis were to never win a championship again that third MVP will look like a joke. He'd have more MVPs than Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Harden and Paul who all quite bluntly have been more significant historical players in this era up to this point. As a historical reference the MVP would be trash.

Winning multiple MVPs just means that a player had multiple phenomenal regular seasons. MVPs are not validated or negated by after the fact playoff success or lack there of. Antetokounmpo's MVPs were not illegitimate because his teams were better in those regular seasons than they were in the playoffs. Nor should they be delegitimized if his injury had kept him out of last year's Finals. There is no Go Back In Time Machine.

The "beauty" of MVP discussions is that without a definitive criteria for what constitutes MVP, people can quickly shift the focus of the discussion from counting points, to team success, to strength of schedule, to defensive rating, to games missed, to advanced stats on and on.

There is a reason leading a team to the best record in the regular season is so closely tied with the MVP: It is an objective tangible accomplishment that is above arbitrary made up indicators like triple doubles.

I disagree when you say MVPs are not validated or negated after-the-fact. They are because the credibility of the award itself is either enhanced or undermined by the choices made.

The "beauty" you refer to is there for the ones giving it to shift the narrative as they please but once it becomes obvious they are putting out nothing but bull the award's value likewise goes to the gutter.

[cupcakesnake]

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.

Yeah, nah.
This wasn't arrogant. Sports discussion (whether it be here on a message board or amongst paid professionals) is a constant grey area between objective and subjective analysis. We blend data and narrative and every fan and analyst is a little different. We never get enough evidence to make many conclusive statements, but there's nothing wrong with trying to bring things back center once they veer too far into a group of people's overindulgence in a narrative they love or hate. Keep pointing out the process issues and adding a touch of method to the madness of basketball banter.

There's nothing wrong with clapping back after getting called ignorant. It's irritating on this site, when you feel you've put enough thought into something, to have another poster treat you like you're giving a superficial hot take. It's fine and great for us to disagree, but "knowing the adversarial nature of Real GM" expect people to go back at someone who calls them ignorant and to do it with maybe a little chip on the shoulder. I'm fine with people bristling. You're expecting posters to be some sort of benevolent angel here?

The Giannis vs. Curry discussion is a good one. Don't step away too long Doc!

[Bmaasse]

All the winners since Westbrook have been iffy. They have all been selections indicating an aspiration for finding the next star than rewarding accomplishment. Giannis has been the only one of those selections so far who has justified that faith because of his championship last year. But even then let's say Antetokounmpo gets a third MVP this year without leading the team with the best record. What's his best player in the world lineage? Beating KD in the second round because KD's shoe size was too large? If Giannis were to never win a championship again that third MVP will look like a joke. He'd have more MVPs than Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Harden and Paul who all quite bluntly have been more significant historical players in this era up to this point. As a historical reference the MVP would be trash.

Winning multiple MVPs just means that a player had multiple phenomenal regular seasons. MVPs are not validated or negated by after the fact playoff success or lack there of. Antetokounmpo's MVPs were not illegitimate because his teams were better in those regular seasons than they were in the playoffs. Nor should they be delegitimized if his injury had kept him out of last year's Finals. There is no Go Back In Time Machine.

The "beauty" of MVP discussions is that without a definitive criteria for what constitutes MVP, people can quickly shift the focus of the discussion from counting points, to team success, to strength of schedule, to defensive rating, to games missed, to advanced stats on and on.

There is a reason leading a team to the best record in the regular season is so closely tied with the MVP: It is an objective tangible accomplishment that is above arbitrary made up indicators like triple doubles.

I disagree when you say MVPs are not validated or negated after-the-fact. They are because the credibility of the award itself is either enhanced or undermined by the choices made.

The "beauty" you refer to is there for the ones giving it to shift the narrative as they please but once it becomes obvious they are putting out nothing but bull the award's value likewise goes to the gutter.

So does leading your team to the best record in the NBA validate the MVP or does winning the title?

The Bucks had the best record for the 2 years that Giannis won the award, but it only became justified when the Bucks were able to win the chip last year? I'm confused, should the MVP have to do both to be valid?

Also what has Paul and Harden done that makes them more significant in a historical context?Neither one of them has rings so what's their "best in the world lineage"? And why should Giannis take a back seat to either of them? Seems like your goalposts are all over the place.

[old skool]

All the winners since Westbrook have been iffy. They have all been selections indicating an aspiration for finding the next star than rewarding accomplishment. Giannis has been the only one of those selections so far who has justified that faith because of his championship last year. But even then let's say Antetokounmpo gets a third MVP this year without leading the team with the best record. What's his best player in the world lineage? Beating KD in the second round because KD's shoe size was too large? If Giannis were to never win a championship again that third MVP will look like a joke. He'd have more MVPs than Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Harden and Paul who all quite bluntly have been more significant historical players in this era up to this point. As a historical reference the MVP would be trash.

Winning multiple MVPs just means that a player had multiple phenomenal regular seasons. MVPs are not validated or negated by after the fact playoff success or lack there of. Antetokounmpo's MVPs were not illegitimate because his teams were better in those regular seasons than they were in the playoffs. Nor should they be delegitimized if his injury had kept him out of last year's Finals. There is no Go Back In Time Machine.

The "beauty" of MVP discussions is that without a definitive criteria for what constitutes MVP, people can quickly shift the focus of the discussion from counting points, to team success, to strength of schedule, to defensive rating, to games missed, to advanced stats on and on.

There is a reason leading a team to the best record in the regular season is so closely tied with the MVP: It is an objective tangible accomplishment that is above arbitrary made up indicators like triple doubles.

I disagree when you say MVPs are not validated or negated after-the-fact. They are because the credibility of the award itself is either enhanced or undermined by the choices made.

The "beauty" you refer to is there for the ones giving it to shift the narrative as they please but once it becomes obvious they are putting out nothing but bull the award's value likewise goes to the gutter.

So, if I understand you, you are saying that Antetokounmpo's two MVPs are valid because he was able to recover from his 2021 playoff injury and win a championship, but if he had not recovered from the injury in time to play in the Finals, those MVPs would be invalid, even though he would still be the same player today and his performances in 2019 and 2020 would remain the same?

I respect the opinion but don't embrace it. That seems like a carnival fun mirror world to live in, where reality cannot exist in the present and can only be understood at some point in the future, and even then can be questioned or negated by the shifting sands of future events.

[DutchManDanFan]

Yeah, nah.
This wasn't arrogant. Sports discussion (whether it be here on a message board or amongst paid professionals) is a constant grey area between objective and subjective analysis. We blend data and narrative and every fan and analyst is a little different. We never get enough evidence to make many conclusive statements, but there's nothing wrong with trying to bring things back center once they veer too far into a group of people's overindulgence in a narrative they love or hate. Keep pointing out the process issues and adding a touch of method to the madness of basketball banter.

There's nothing wrong with clapping back after getting called ignorant. It's irritating on this site, when you feel you've put enough thought into something, to have another poster treat you like you're giving a superficial hot take. It's fine and great for us to disagree, but "knowing the adversarial nature of Real GM" expect people to go back at someone who calls them ignorant and to do it with maybe a little chip on the shoulder. I'm fine with people bristling. You're expecting posters to be some sort of benevolent angel here?

Doc claimed Steph was obvious MVP with an argument that applies in a same way for Giannis. But he didn't mention this at all. He only mentioned his analysis is sophisticated and favors Steph. Not very convincing to me. I called it (pretty) ignorant to ignore the impact Giannis has, the way he did (with zero nuance). Someone else called it arrogant.

The Giannis vs. Curry discussion is a good one. Don't step away too long Doc!

I agree with this. But I don't think a good comparison is possible, because the differences between them are enormous. Both with very high impact.

[DutchManDanFan]

So you look at stats, team result, help from team mates, but there's no sophisticated formula to calculate the MVP.
Although I know someone here thinks he has a very good formula.

[shoresy69]

I think the main reason Curry is still the Vegas favorite, besides his popularity, is the expectation that both his stats and his team's record will only get better as the season progresses. This is his poorest 2P% and 3P% since becoming an all-star and I can't imagine most people think it's going to stay that way. With multiple players returning from injury they will probably stay on track or even improve on their current 65 win pace.

[Doctor MJ]

Doc claimed Steph was obvious MVP

Wait, where did I say that?

[DutchManDanFan]

In my analysis, which certainly takes way more "brain" than the vast majority of opinions out there, Curry's an easy choice over Giannis so far.

[cupcakesnake]

In my analysis, which certainly takes way more "brain" than the vast majority of opinions out there, Curry's an easy choice over Giannis so far.

Using that quote on its own makes Doc look like a jerk, but remember he was responding to:

Ya objectively Giannis is easily number 1. Best combination of play/stats/impact/wins of everyone. ATM he seems like the no brainer pick

and making a basic play on words (no brainer).

EDIT: I also don't think it's arrogant to say that one's opinion is more thoughtful than the vast majority. Considering what the vast majority of opinions are, all you have to do to accomplish that is think for 5 seconds
(seriously though, ever like... read the comments section in an Instagram basketball post, or facebook comments section. I'd say the vast majority of realgm posters can feel free to make the same statement).

[Doctor MJ]

Hmm, we've got to peel back the onion here.

DutchManDanFan said:

Doc claimed Steph was obvious MVP with an argument that applies in a same way for Giannis. But he didn't mention this at all. He only mentioned his analysis is sophisticated and favors Steph. Not very convincing to me. I called it (pretty) ignorant to ignore the impact Giannis has, the way he did (with zero nuance). Someone else called it arrogant.

I then asked where I said this, and he responded by cutting the bolded part below out of the larger post below:

Doctor MJ wrote:
In my analysis, which certainly takes way more "brain" than the vast majority of opinions out there, Curry's an easy choice over Giannis so far.

Ya objectively Giannis is easily number 1. Best combination of play/stats/impact/wins of everyone. ATM he seems like the no brainer pick

I think it's interesting the way you think of play/stats/impact/wins as different categories of things.

To me "valuable" is about value, which is either a synonym for impact, or something built-from impact.

Your play is about achieving impact.
Your stats are relevant to the extent they cause impact.
Wins are a team thing, but your job as a player is to add to team wins through impact.

In my analysis, which certainly takes way more "brain" than the vast majority of opinions out there, Curry's an easy choice over Giannis so far. For me, Jokic is the only other guy at the moment that offers a serious debate at the moment.

None of that is meant as a general criticism for Giannis, who has been my MVP twice and my POY twice, nor as a prediction against Giannis going forward. But to this point, I think Curry's been the more valuable player.

I think it's pretty clear that when you take my words out of context it sound like I'm the one bringing "brains" and "ignorance" into the discussion, when what's actually happening is that others are throwing these words out against those who share my beliefs, and then I use their parlance, people call me arrogant.

When folks look at my actual post, I hope it's clear that I'm trying to be quite respectful to Giannis and Giannis supporters.

Also, me saying it's an easy choice for me isn't the same thing as calling it "obvious". Obvious implies that I'm saying people are obtuse for not coming to the same conclusions as me. All I'm saying is that based on how I evaluate value, Curry is coming out on top (over Giannis) pretty cleanly.

[mediocrityrules]

Glad you haven't stepped away Doc

[art_tatum]

Curry
KD
Giannis
DeMar
Jokic

Those are the serious contenders. I doubt joker's gonna get the nuggets better than 5th seed, most likely 7-8th at the end of the season like curry last year.
Giannis might get voter fatigue
Imo it's really going to end up KD or curry.

I'm rooting for DeMar tho who will most likely end up 4th or 5 the in voting.