2021-22 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt. 1)

[Doctor MJ]

So, figure it's time for me to pop back in with some thoughts now that we're at the halfway point. Here are guys I'd consider for my top 10 right now:

Curry - As mentioned before, I do believe he displays a kind of impact that is hard for the human being to actually process by watching unless you specifically look for it, and does so on a level well beyond what we've ever seen from any other player. It also matters to me that he still has a gigantic lead in raw +/-. Whenever I see this, I take it seriously.

But what's also the case is that that rate of dominance has not held up. It's worth discussing what all may be involved with this, but we're no longer talking about Curry continuing to rack up insane +/- even on off shooting nights, and that's got everything to do with why the Warriors not only no longer have the best record in the league, but are now closer in record to the #4 seed than they are the #1.

These things don't kill Curry as a candidate for me, but they most definitely open the door for others such as...

Jokic - he's who I'd side with at the moment, and that's incredible given that his team is barely over .500. This makes us specifically ponder what the true basketball reasoning is for why we don't expect the NBA MVP to be unable to elevate his team to more elite records.

In basketball, one player can have so much impact, it actually feels reasonable to say that the very best players can elevate their teams to at least a very good record "by himself". Of course, this is not literally the case, and now that we have +/- stats, Jokic provides a key reason as to why:

Denver with Jokic on the court: +9.3 points per 100 possessions
Best team in the league: +8.0
Worst team in the league: -9.73
Denver with Jokic off the court: -12.6

Denver plays better than the best with Jokic, and worse than the worst without him.

This is not, in and of itself, a reason why I feel I "have" to vote for Jokic - notice that this is a statement that can be true of more than one player in the league (or even on a team) at the same time.

However, it does rebut the argument that his GOAT level box score statistics aren't actually leading to a team being "as effective as the should be". Inflated stats these are not. They are translating to outlier impact.

I would argue then that the only valid reason to be set against Jokic as MVP is if you're simply more impressed by another player's play.

Giannis - surely the first name that comes to mind - after reading that last line - to more folks than anyone else, and that's more than fine. I gave Giannis my Player of the Year vote over Jokic last year, so I do get why many will side with him.

But Denver's actually been better with Jokic than Milwaukee's been with Giannis this year. Only reason why Milwaukee's got the better record is because his team's done better with him on the bench. And that's noteworthy because by this point I think it's really clear that the Bucks are underperforming in this regular season compared with how good we expect them to be. Yes, they've had some injuries, but even when you normalize for that, they are underperforming.

And so here's a damning question in my mind:

If the Bucks had lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year, as they very nearly did, would Giannis be the MVP favorite right now?

I'll say on no uncertain terms, having analyzed the way the MVP gets decided through media discourse over the course of a season, the answer would be "No". Had they lost, we'd be seeing the Bucks as a team that had had its bites at the apple, failed repeatedly, and now was in the process of gradually sliding into irrelevancy.

Now of course, I'm not saying that this would be the "correct" MVP perspective for Giannis in either universe. I'm just saying that with Milwaukee this season, we are talking about a disappointing record that would be looming large in people's minds as a question that needed an answer to, and thus for any voter who makes their decision in part based on team success, Giannis would get tossed to the side if the championship of last year didn't flip a switch in these voters' minds that led them to treat the Bucks' record right now as if it meant something a lot rosier than it otherwise would.

Now you might say: Doesn't that hold true for Jokic even more so? It does, and anyone who wants to say they believe voters will vote for Giannis before Jokic, I don't actually disagree. What I'm trying to do here is to get folks to think about how events from last year - that could have gone otherwise - are influencing their perspective, and then to decide for themselves what that says about what's objectively being accomplished this year.

Gobert - Just like last year, really needs to be seen as one of the core contenders. Last year he never was, and I feel like he won't this year either, and I find all this to be damning about the process by which people are deciding who belongs in MVP consideration are using. Because voters wouldn't have ANY issue seeing Gobert this way in a pre-Jordan era. The idea that a non-offensive star couldn't possibly be the most valuable player in the league is a myth the basketball world has managed to devolve into as those who knew otherwise have aged out.

Embiid - he's rising quickly after the injury issues. Quite plausible to see him becoming a clear favorite for the award.

Paul - To me he was a Top 10 guy last year and I think he'll be it again this year. I won't be surprised if he gains narrative wind again like last year if the Suns pull away from the pack record-wise. I don't think he should be seen on that level, but he'll certainly be a strong candidate for All-NBA 1st team.

DeRozan - Is the big surprise of the season, and he has made me personally look like a bit of a fool. I actually think this is really cool, and I'm inclined to reward him as well as the coach & front office for this. I was wrong, they were right, and it really shows us that it's so important both for a) a player to keep refining his game and b) team context to be taken very seriously. Sometimes with volume scorers what we see is that the distance between being a very valuable volume scorer, and a literally negative value volume scorer, is precariously small. This doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it is critical for the organization (coaches, analytics, etc) to place their high volume actions under a microscope, identify what sources of friction exist, and determine the feasibility of the necessary fix. If you can't fix it, sell high on the guy. If you can, the payoff can be incredible.

Durant - Obviously falling over time with injury, but still worth a mention. As does...

LeBron - amazing still, but he's going to have his ceiling lowered on my ballot due to poor team performance. When superstars exert heavy influence on team construction, and that construction tilts sideways, I don't think it's appropriate to argue for that player based on how impressive it is he's continuing to fly while carrying lead balloons he tied to himself.

Lowry - While it's Jimmy Butler's team, Lowry has been the Heat's rock this season with Butler's injury as they have to this point had their best regular season as a franchise since LeBron was a Heatle.

Morant - People are going a little nuts on his MVP capability to this point, but I get it. Ja makes me giddy too. He's one of the most beautiful aerial basketball athletes I've ever seen, and I can't think of anyone truly like him. I'd love to see him and the Grizz become elite contenders and it seems likely to happen now.

Garland - He's still flying way under the radar as the NBA world has decided that Jarrett Allen is the one who should be pushed for all-star this year, but Garland is the leading scorer, main playmaker, biggest minute guy, and by far the highest by raw +/- on the team. I can't even imagine him becoming an actual official NBA MVP candidate this year, but yeah, he might be in my Top 10 right now.

[Infinite Llamas]

Team success really matters for the voters. I can't see how Jokic will win the MVP if the Nuggets dont end up at least 3th seed and for this to happen the chances are so few.. Probably Giannis will win it this time.

The fans here can vote for anyone they want but in the reality Jokic is so far away of being the MVP again. Just saying the obvious thing here..

The problem is, the west is more top heavy than the east. There are four teams in the west that would be the top seed in the east right now. So to me, it isn’t about seeding, but looking at relative team records. Denver isn’t that far off of the Bucks or 76ers and they have the easiest schedule remaining. The records looked skewed because Milwaukee has played five more games than Denver.

[DutchManDanFan]

The problem is, the west is more top heavy than the east. There are four teams in the west that would be the top seed in the east right now. So to me, it isn’t about seeding, but looking at relative team records. Denver isn’t that far off of the Bucks or 76ers and they have the easiest schedule remaining. The records looked skewed because Milwaukee has played five more games than Denver.

Denver is +2, Milwaukee is +11. If Denver wins the next 7 games then you can claim they're not far off the Bucks.

At this point we should be looking at the best player of the Suns for MVP.

[DutchManDanFan]

Giannis - surely the first name that comes to mind - after reading that last line - to more folks than anyone else, and that's more than fine. I gave Giannis my Player of the Year vote over Jokic last year, so I do get why many will side with him.

But Denver's actually been better with Jokic than Milwaukee's been with Giannis this year. Only reason why Milwaukee's got the better record is because his team's done better with him on the bench. And that's noteworthy because by this point I think it's really clear that the Bucks are underperforming in this regular season compared with how good we expect them to be. Yes, they've had some injuries, but even when you normalize for that, they are underperforming.

And so here's a damning question in my mind:

If the Bucks had lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year, as they very nearly did, would Giannis be the MVP favorite right now?

I'll say on no uncertain terms, having analyzed the way the MVP gets decided through media discourse over the course of a season, the answer would be "No". Had they lost, we'd be seeing the Bucks as a team that had had its bites at the apple, failed repeatedly, and now was in the process of gradually sliding into irrelevancy.

Now of course, I'm not saying that this would be the "correct" MVP perspective for Giannis in either universe. I'm just saying that with Milwaukee this season, we are talking about a disappointing record that would be looming large in people's minds as a question that needed an answer to, and thus for any voter who makes their decision in part based on team success, Giannis would get tossed to the side if the championship of last year didn't flip a switch in these voters' minds that led them to treat the Bucks' record right now as if it meant something a lot rosier than it otherwise would.

Now you might say: Doesn't that hold true for Jokic even more so? It does, and anyone who wants to say they believe voters will vote for Giannis before Jokic, I don't actually disagree. What I'm trying to do here is to get folks to think about how events from last year - that could have gone otherwise - are influencing their perspective, and then to decide for themselves what that says about what's objectively being accomplished this year.

This doesn't make sense at all. Giannis is the only player with stats comparable to Jokic. But Bucks record is much better than Nuggets record. This has nothing to do with last years playoffs.
Bucks record is not very impressive though. Giannis and the Bucks could play much better, but they don't care much it seems. That has a lot to do with the championship I guess.
I don't think Giannis should win it if they vote now. But certainly Giannis before Jokic.

[Doctor MJ]

Giannis - surely the first name that comes to mind - after reading that last line - to more folks than anyone else, and that's more than fine. I gave Giannis my Player of the Year vote over Jokic last year, so I do get why many will side with him.

But Denver's actually been better with Jokic than Milwaukee's been with Giannis this year. Only reason why Milwaukee's got the better record is because his team's done better with him on the bench. And that's noteworthy because by this point I think it's really clear that the Bucks are underperforming in this regular season compared with how good we expect them to be. Yes, they've had some injuries, but even when you normalize for that, they are underperforming.

And so here's a damning question in my mind:

If the Bucks had lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year, as they very nearly did, would Giannis be the MVP favorite right now?

I'll say on no uncertain terms, having analyzed the way the MVP gets decided through media discourse over the course of a season, the answer would be "No". Had they lost, we'd be seeing the Bucks as a team that had had its bites at the apple, failed repeatedly, and now was in the process of gradually sliding into irrelevancy.

Now of course, I'm not saying that this would be the "correct" MVP perspective for Giannis in either universe. I'm just saying that with Milwaukee this season, we are talking about a disappointing record that would be looming large in people's minds as a question that needed an answer to, and thus for any voter who makes their decision in part based on team success, Giannis would get tossed to the side if the championship of last year didn't flip a switch in these voters' minds that led them to treat the Bucks' record right now as if it meant something a lot rosier than it otherwise would.

Now you might say: Doesn't that hold true for Jokic even more so? It does, and anyone who wants to say they believe voters will vote for Giannis before Jokic, I don't actually disagree. What I'm trying to do here is to get folks to think about how events from last year - that could have gone otherwise - are influencing their perspective, and then to decide for themselves what that says about what's objectively being accomplished this year.

This doesn't make sense at all. Giannis is the only player with stats comparable to Jokic. But Bucks record is much better than Nuggets record. This has nothing to do with last years playoffs.
Bucks record is not very impressive though. Giannis and the Bucks could play much better, but they don't care much it seems. That has a lot to do with the championship I guess.
I don't think Giannis should win it if they vote now. But certainly Giannis before Jokic.

Hmm, I’m not being clear enough.

While the Bucks have been better than the Nuggets, the Nuggets with Jokic have been better than the Bucks with Giannis, hence an argument that sides with Giannis based on team result is essentially saying “Giannis has been more valuable than Jokic because his teammates perform better without him than Jokic’s teammates do without him”

Is the absurdity of that clear?

I’m not saying you can’t prefer Giannis, nor am I making a prediction against Giannis, only pointing out some of the true bones of the comparison as I see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[INKtastic]

S
Garland - He's still flying way under the radar as the NBA world has decided that Jarrett Allen is the one who should be pushed for all-star this year, but Garland is the leading scorer, main playmaker, biggest minute guy, and by far the highest by raw +/- on the team. I can't even imagine him becoming an actual official NBA MVP candidate this year, but yeah, he might be in my Top 10 right now.

I clicked on the thread to see if anyone mentioned him, this was the first post I saw. Pretty crazy to me how good Garland is right now. Both vs last year and even vs earlier this season when I already thought he took a big step forward this year. Some of his assists lately have been ridiculous, as have his assist numbers.

[AussieBuck]

Giannis - surely the first name that comes to mind - after reading that last line - to more folks than anyone else, and that's more than fine. I gave Giannis my Player of the Year vote over Jokic last year, so I do get why many will side with him.

But Denver's actually been better with Jokic than Milwaukee's been with Giannis this year. Only reason why Milwaukee's got the better record is because his team's done better with him on the bench. And that's noteworthy because by this point I think it's really clear that the Bucks are underperforming in this regular season compared with how good we expect them to be. Yes, they've had some injuries, but even when you normalize for that, they are underperforming.

And so here's a damning question in my mind:

If the Bucks had lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year, as they very nearly did, would Giannis be the MVP favorite right now?

I'll say on no uncertain terms, having analyzed the way the MVP gets decided through media discourse over the course of a season, the answer would be "No". Had they lost, we'd be seeing the Bucks as a team that had had its bites at the apple, failed repeatedly, and now was in the process of gradually sliding into irrelevancy.

Now of course, I'm not saying that this would be the "correct" MVP perspective for Giannis in either universe. I'm just saying that with Milwaukee this season, we are talking about a disappointing record that would be looming large in people's minds as a question that needed an answer to, and thus for any voter who makes their decision in part based on team success, Giannis would get tossed to the side if the championship of last year didn't flip a switch in these voters' minds that led them to treat the Bucks' record right now as if it meant something a lot rosier than it otherwise would.

Now you might say: Doesn't that hold true for Jokic even more so? It does, and anyone who wants to say they believe voters will vote for Giannis before Jokic, I don't actually disagree. What I'm trying to do here is to get folks to think about how events from last year - that could have gone otherwise - are influencing their perspective, and then to decide for themselves what that says about what's objectively being accomplished this year.

This doesn't make sense at all. Giannis is the only player with stats comparable to Jokic. But Bucks record is much better than Nuggets record. This has nothing to do with last years playoffs.
Bucks record is not very impressive though. Giannis and the Bucks could play much better, but they don't care much it seems. That has a lot to do with the championship I guess.
I don't think Giannis should win it if they vote now. But certainly Giannis before Jokic.

Hmm, I’m not being clear enough.

While the Bucks have been better than the Nuggets, the Nuggets with Jokic have been better than the Bucks with Giannis, hence an argument that sides with Giannis based on team result is essentially saying “Giannis has been more valuable than Jokic because his teammates perform better without him than Jokic’s teammates do without him”

Is the absurdity of that clear?

I’m not saying you can’t prefer Giannis, nor am I making a prediction against Giannis, only pointing out some of the true bones of the comparison as I see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure raw +/- is going to give you good info when Jokic and Giannis are used tactically almost the opposite as far as rotations go. Malone appears to be attempting to maximise the Nuggets chances by playing his starters together as much as possible and hoping the bench can survive. The Bucks typically play either 3 or all 4 of the other starters without Giannis and have Giannis be the glue holding together the scraps in the other lineup.

[Doctor MJ]

S
Garland - He's still flying way under the radar as the NBA world has decided that Jarrett Allen is the one who should be pushed for all-star this year, but Garland is the leading scorer, main playmaker, biggest minute guy, and by far the highest by raw +/- on the team. I can't even imagine him becoming an actual official NBA MVP candidate this year, but yeah, he might be in my Top 10 right now.

I clicked on the thread to see if anyone mentioned him, this was the first post I saw. Pretty crazy to me how good Garland is right now. Both vs last year and even vs earlier this season when I already thought he took a big step forward this year. Some of his assists lately have been ridiculous, as have his assist numbers.

He's very smart out there.

[Doctor MJ]

This doesn't make sense at all. Giannis is the only player with stats comparable to Jokic. But Bucks record is much better than Nuggets record. This has nothing to do with last years playoffs.
Bucks record is not very impressive though. Giannis and the Bucks could play much better, but they don't care much it seems. That has a lot to do with the championship I guess.
I don't think Giannis should win it if they vote now. But certainly Giannis before Jokic.

Hmm, I’m not being clear enough.

While the Bucks have been better than the Nuggets, the Nuggets with Jokic have been better than the Bucks with Giannis, hence an argument that sides with Giannis based on team result is essentially saying “Giannis has been more valuable than Jokic because his teammates perform better without him than Jokic’s teammates do without him”

Is the absurdity of that clear?

I’m not saying you can’t prefer Giannis, nor am I making a prediction against Giannis, only pointing out some of the true bones of the comparison as I see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure raw +/- is going to give you good info when Jokic and Giannis are used tactically almost the opposite as far as rotations go. Malone appears to be attempting to maximise the Nuggets chances by playing his starters together as much as possible and hoping the bench can survive. The Bucks typically play either 3 or all 4 of the other starters without Giannis and have Giannis be the glue holding together the scraps in the other lineup.

An excellent point. I'm certainly not suggesting that we should use raw +/- to the exclusion of all other things, but what I am pointing out is that anyone who actually thinks Jokic is failing to get the better of his opponents out there based on overall team record isn't looking closely enough.

However I will also say:

1. Jokic's current starting teammates have more in common with the Bucks bench than they do the Bucks' starters due to injury.
2. Jokic has massive +/- separation from all his teammates - meaning he sure doesn't seem to be all that dependent on them.
3. The RAPM metrics I see - which adjust for the concerns you mention - favor Jokic over Giannis.

[AussieBuck]

Hmm, I’m not being clear enough.

While the Bucks have been better than the Nuggets, the Nuggets with Jokic have been better than the Bucks with Giannis, hence an argument that sides with Giannis based on team result is essentially saying “Giannis has been more valuable than Jokic because his teammates perform better without him than Jokic’s teammates do without him”

Is the absurdity of that clear?

I’m not saying you can’t prefer Giannis, nor am I making a prediction against Giannis, only pointing out some of the true bones of the comparison as I see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure raw +/- is going to give you good info when Jokic and Giannis are used tactically almost the opposite as far as rotations go. Malone appears to be attempting to maximise the Nuggets chances by playing his starters together as much as possible and hoping the bench can survive. The Bucks typically play either 3 or all 4 of the other starters without Giannis and have Giannis be the glue holding together the scraps in the other lineup.

An excellent point. I'm certainly not suggesting that we should use raw +/- to the exclusion of all other things, but what I am pointing out is that anyone who actually thinks Jokic is failing to get the better of his opponents out there based on overall team record isn't looking closely enough.

However I will also say:

1. Jokic's current starting teammates have more in common with the Bucks bench than they do the Bucks' starters due to injury.
2. Jokic has massive +/- separation from all his teammates - meaning he sure doesn't seem to be all that dependent on them.
3. The RAPM metrics I see - which adjust for the concerns you mention - favor Jokic over Giannis.

I guess I should have been less lazy and provided more context but I'm a bit time poor today. I was just adding some info not arguing against you. I certainly don't think Jokic is at all dependent on his team, was commenting on the wildly different way the teams are dealing with being short of the ingredients needed to win over 48 minutes. The only problem I have with any Jokic over Giannis MVP argument is that I don't stand to win a lot of money on Jokic.

[falcolombardi]

Giannis - surely the first name that comes to mind - after reading that last line - to more folks than anyone else, and that's more than fine. I gave Giannis my Player of the Year vote over Jokic last year, so I do get why many will side with him.

But Denver's actually been better with Jokic than Milwaukee's been with Giannis this year. Only reason why Milwaukee's got the better record is because his team's done better with him on the bench. And that's noteworthy because by this point I think it's really clear that the Bucks are underperforming in this regular season compared with how good we expect them to be. Yes, they've had some injuries, but even when you normalize for that, they are underperforming.

And so here's a damning question in my mind:

If the Bucks had lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs last year, as they very nearly did, would Giannis be the MVP favorite right now?

I'll say on no uncertain terms, having analyzed the way the MVP gets decided through media discourse over the course of a season, the answer would be "No". Had they lost, we'd be seeing the Bucks as a team that had had its bites at the apple, failed repeatedly, and now was in the process of gradually sliding into irrelevancy.

Now of course, I'm not saying that this would be the "correct" MVP perspective for Giannis in either universe. I'm just saying that with Milwaukee this season, we are talking about a disappointing record that would be looming large in people's minds as a question that needed an answer to, and thus for any voter who makes their decision in part based on team success, Giannis would get tossed to the side if the championship of last year didn't flip a switch in these voters' minds that led them to treat the Bucks' record right now as if it meant something a lot rosier than it otherwise would.

Now you might say: Doesn't that hold true for Jokic even more so? It does, and anyone who wants to say they believe voters will vote for Giannis before Jokic, I don't actually disagree. What I'm trying to do here is to get folks to think about how events from last year - that could have gone otherwise - are influencing their perspective, and then to decide for themselves what that says about what's objectively being accomplished this year.

This doesn't make sense at all. Giannis is the only player with stats comparable to Jokic. But Bucks record is much better than Nuggets record. This has nothing to do with last years playoffs.
Bucks record is not very impressive though. Giannis and the Bucks could play much better, but they don't care much it seems. That has a lot to do with the championship I guess.
I don't think Giannis should win it if they vote now. But certainly Giannis before Jokic.

Hmm, I’m not being clear enough.

While the Bucks have been better than the Nuggets, the Nuggets with Jokic have been better than the Bucks with Giannis, hence an argument that sides with Giannis based on team result is essentially saying “Giannis has been more valuable than Jokic because his teammates perform better without him than Jokic’s teammates do without him”

Is the absurdity of that clear?

I’m not saying you can’t prefer Giannis, nor am I making a prediction against Giannis, only pointing out some of the true bones of the comparison as I see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oddly enough this is an argument i have seen used against lebron and harden with the reasoning that by pounding the ball too much they make their teammates worse when off court

i thought it was pretty weak then and probably thinl the same now tbh

[Doctor MJ]

This doesn't make sense at all. Giannis is the only player with stats comparable to Jokic. But Bucks record is much better than Nuggets record. This has nothing to do with last years playoffs.
Bucks record is not very impressive though. Giannis and the Bucks could play much better, but they don't care much it seems. That has a lot to do with the championship I guess.
I don't think Giannis should win it if they vote now. But certainly Giannis before Jokic.

Hmm, I’m not being clear enough.

While the Bucks have been better than the Nuggets, the Nuggets with Jokic have been better than the Bucks with Giannis, hence an argument that sides with Giannis based on team result is essentially saying “Giannis has been more valuable than Jokic because his teammates perform better without him than Jokic’s teammates do without him”

Is the absurdity of that clear?

I’m not saying you can’t prefer Giannis, nor am I making a prediction against Giannis, only pointing out some of the true bones of the comparison as I see it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oddly enough this is an argument i have seen used against lebron and harden with the reasoning that by pounding the ball too much they make their teammates worse when off court

i thought it was pretty weak then and probably thinl the same now tbh

Oh I think it makes sense to consider the cost of developing a primary scheme that only works when a particular player is playing.

But it’s important that this doesn’t lead to an assumption that a player is directly causing the on-court play while he sits on his ass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hussien Fatal]

Joel 38 12 and 6 MVP Behavior!

[JAYZGOAT]

MVP or not, embiid is incredible.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

MVP or not, embiid is incredible.

Crazy how bad the rest of the process was for an Embiid led team with that many assets not to win multiple championships.

[AleksandarN]

Just appreciate that the 3 best players in the NBA are bigs

[kuclas]

MVP or not, embiid is incredible.

Embiid has to score 35 a night for sixers just to have a chance against a bad team. Plus be the defensive anchor.

The sixers team has been missing so many core players for so long. And I’m not even counting Simmons.

Out of the regular 8-9 man rotation. 3-4 of them are missing each night. If embiid goes down. Sixers will be in a tail spin again. 24-11 with embiid. 3-8 without him. And 9 of those games he missed were with Covid. He’s actually been healthy for the most part this season.

[Castle Black]

I don’t wanna hear any Steph Curry MVP chatter anymore. This dude’s been in a major slump for like 5-6 weeks now.

5-20 tonight for 13 pts on 1-13 from 3… Another turd-burger where his teammates had to drag him across the finish line.

[Bobbcats]

I don’t wanna hear any Steph Curry MVP chatter anymore. This dude’s been in a major slump for like 5-6 weeks now.

5-20 tonight for 13 pts. Another turd-burger and his teammates had to drag him across the finish line.

Shouldn't be All-NBA 1st team at this point based on the season up to now.

[Jazz9]

Yeah he's been shooting like crap for close to 2 months now, that's more than a slump
Won't stop many to think he's still MVP because of his hot start