2021-22 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt.2)

[AussieBuck]

I wonder who the other 7 Curry voters are.

[AussieBuck]

MVP tracker:

Jokic 35.2%
Giannis 25.6%
Embiid 10.7%
Paul 10.2%
Gobert 4.6%
Curry 4.4%
Doncic 2.9%
Ja 2.6%
Booker 2.1%
DeRozan 1.8%

Paul's the biggest riser, Luka has now played enough games to enter the convo. If Paul seems high despite his team record he has played comfortably the most games. (14 more than Doncic)

[Dutchball97]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

[AussieBuck]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

He's probably had ~10 more crap games or so than the serious contenders. At some point the +/- argument doesn't really hold when he's 5-20.

[BoatsNZones]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

He'll need to go on his classic late season run or at least keep up his current pace to draw the media back in, but I agree with the Jokic or Curry angle. He's at 25/6/7 on 47/43/94 his past 7 games (67% TS). So back to his standard self it seems. But those shooting slumps matter in the narrative, so he will need to keep it up and continue to track his percentages back up in order to earn it. Him missing his 2nd and 3rd best players for massive amounts of the season while maintaining a top 2 record (far, far above expectations while no other candidate is exceeding expectations) certainly matters though.

[Dutchball97]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

He's probably had ~10 more crap games or so than the serious contenders. At some point the +/- argument doesn't really hold when he's 5-20.

To be fair you're probably right. Curry has 8 games with a gamescore below 10, while Giannis has only 1 such game and Jokic/Embiid have 0. If you set the limit at a gamescore of 15 (which should pretty much be the minimum for a star player) then Curry has 17 games below that, Giannis 7, Embiid 4 and Jokic 2.

I do think it still holds true that if the +- and team record arguments aren't enough to convince someone Curry deserves the award it should be Jokic based on his statistical dominance and insane consistency. Giannis and Embiid have a better chance than either Jokic or Curry to add to their case but as it stands at this moment they aren't there yet imo.

[greekbuck34]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

Reasons not to win the MVP(so far):

Curry : It's clear that Green is the MVP of their Defense almost as Curry is the MVP of their offense and that without either one they are not legit contenders.

Jokic : Low seed. His team also has worse record(9-19) vs good teams(.500 and above) than the crap Lakers(9-18).

Giannis : His team is not 1st in the east. With Pat Connaughton injury and the always big absense of Lopez the Bucks might not win the east in the end despite every team being so close to eachother right now.

Embiid : Now that his team has Harden he has to win the East since every team is so close to each other or atleast have Miami or the Bulls on top instead of the Bucks.

Luka: People forgot but he started really slow this season so he has/had a lot of catching up to do. He is rolling right now and if the Mavs take a top 3 seed he will be one of the top favourites.

[kazyv]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

Reasons not to win the MVP(so far):

Curry : It's clear that Green is the MVP of their Defense almost as Curry is the MVP of their offense and that without either one they are not legit contenders.

Jokic : Low seed. His team also has worse record(9-19) vs good teams(.500 and above) than the crap Lakers(9-18).

Giannis : His team is not 1st in the east. With Pat Connaughton injury and the always big absense of Lopez the Bucks might not win the east in the end despite every team being so close to eachother right now.

Embiid : Now that his team has Harden he has to win the East since every team is so close to each other or atleast have Miami or the Bulls on top instead of the Bucks.

Luka: People forgot but he started really slow this season so he has/had a lot of catching up to do. He is rolling right now and if the Mavs take a top 3 seed he will be one of the top favourites.

that might be, but the mvp is about winning in the regular season, not about being a contender. curry got the wins without klay and is now getting wins without green. if they keep winning, they clearly are doing it because of curry. there's no need to even mention green and mvp in one sentence

[ty 4191]

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team.

Great post.

From what I excerpted from your post...

Here's my thinking: It should be an individual award for the most valuable player. Not an award for the player- amongst all contenders- with the best teammates.

Worth considering:

“Denver has been thrashed by injuries, but it still plays like a historically dominant team (plus-12.8 points per 100) as long as Jokic is on the court; when he’s not, the Nuggets play like the worst team in NBA history (minus-15.2 per 100)."

[HardenandWilt]

Still, the best player has been Jokic, but he's going to have a tough time winning it as a 6 seed. This is still a race that will be decided post ASB. The same 4 are at the top; Curry/Jokic/Embiid/Giannis. I don't see anyone else making a strong case for it.

curry how?

[HardenandWilt]

I wonder who the other 7 Curry voters are.

its like we didnt just witness the worst shooting slump of his career. No way is he above cp3, luka or morant for me

[BoatsNZones]

I wonder who the other 7 Curry voters are.

its like we didnt just witness the worst shooting slump of his career. No way is he above cp3, luka or morant for me

And yet, easily more efficient on the season than each of the players you just listed lol.

[Dutchball97]

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team.

Great post.

From what I excerpted from your post...

Here's my thinking: It should be an individual award for the most valuable player. Not an award for the player- amongst all contenders- with the best teammates.

Worth considering:

“Denver has been thrashed by injuries, but it still plays like a historically dominant team (plus-12.8 points per 100) as long as Jokic is on the court; when he’s not, the Nuggets play like the worst team in NBA history (minus-15.2 per 100)."

One thing to consider is that it is easier to rack up insane stats on bad teams than it is on stacked teams generally. It isn't always the case but it isn't uncommon for all-time greats to have some of their best statistical seasons in years where their team isn't that great because they're expected to do it all. Plus minus is also pretty significantly effected by the quality of the back ups and boy is Denver's bench unit bad this season.

Jokic' case is helped by Embiid and Giannis also starting off the season without a lot of help and while their records are slightly better, it isn't enough to overcome the statistical difference imo. If either of them were a dominant 1st seed or at least close 2nd the case for Jokic would already become more difficult. Honestly the Suns being such a great well rounded team without a clear superstar carrying them might just snatch the award from Curry as the Warriors far in first might've swayed enough voters. All in all we're simply dealing with a year without a clear frontrunner due to the best players not being on the best teams.

[ty 4191]

One thing to consider is that it is easier to rack up insane stats on bad teams than it is on stacked teams generally. It isn't always the case but it isn't uncommon for all-time greats to have some of their best statistical seasons in years where their team isn't that great because they're expected to do it all. Plus minus is also pretty significantly effected by the quality of the back ups and boy is Denver's bench unit bad this season.

Jokic' case is helped by Embiid and Giannis also starting off the season without a lot of help and while their records are slightly better, it isn't enough to overcome the statistical difference imo. If either of them were a dominant 1st seed or at least close 2nd the case for Jokic would already become more difficult. Honestly the Suns being such a great well rounded team without a clear superstar carrying them might just snatch the award from Curry as the Warriors far in first might've swayed enough voters.All in all we're simply dealing with a year without a clear frontrunner due to the best players not being on the best teams.

Who is the MVP this season, to you, and what metrics and criteria, specifically, are you using to make your determination thus far?

What are your thoughts on team record vs. who is objectively the most valuable player in the NBA (albeit: not necessarily the MVP Award Winner)? Specifically, how much should a team's record be factored in?

Also, I (might) disagree on players generally having better stats on average or bad teams. I know there are examples (1985-1988 MJ being a great one), but generally, I don't know that advanced impact metrics decline with better teammates. Can you provide examples both for and against, or studies about this? I'm genuinely curious.

Also, you really don't think Jokic very likely would have (even better) advanced and traditional metrics with a healthy MPJ and Jamal Murray in the lineup all season? You think he'd fair worse?

That, I disagree with. But I haven't studied this, so I'm certainly open to new information/persuasion.

[Bobbcats]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

The niche he was occupying of best player on best team is gone. With his slumping his team has lost more and CP3 closed the gap statistically so you can't even clearly say best stats on a top 2 team, so you have to go full gravity and the less mainstream advanced stats to find an argument for Curry.

[Dutchball97]

One thing to consider is that it is easier to rack up insane stats on bad teams than it is on stacked teams generally. It isn't always the case but it isn't uncommon for all-time greats to have some of their best statistical seasons in years where their team isn't that great because they're expected to do it all. Plus minus is also pretty significantly effected by the quality of the back ups and boy is Denver's bench unit bad this season.

Jokic' case is helped by Embiid and Giannis also starting off the season without a lot of help and while their records are slightly better, it isn't enough to overcome the statistical difference imo. If either of them were a dominant 1st seed or at least close 2nd the case for Jokic would already become more difficult. Honestly the Suns being such a great well rounded team without a clear superstar carrying them might just snatch the award from Curry as the Warriors far in first might've swayed enough voters.All in all we're simply dealing with a year without a clear frontrunner due to the best players not being on the best teams.

Who is the MVP this season, to you, and what metrics and criteria, specifically, are you using to make your determination thus far?

What are your thoughts on team record vs. who is objectively the most valuable player in the NBA (albeit: not necessarily the MVP Award Winner)? Specifically, how much should a team's record be factored in?

Also, I (might) disagree on players generally having better stats on average or bad teams. I know there are examples (1985-1988 MJ being a great one), but generally, I don't know that advanced impact metrics decline with better teammates. Can you provide examples both for and against, or studies about this? I'm genuinely curious.

Also, you really don't think Jokic very likely would have (even better) advanced and traditional metrics with a healthy MPJ and Jamal Murray in the lineup all season? You think he'd fair worse?

That, I disagree with. But I haven't studied this, so I'm certainly open to new information/persuasion.

1. My MVP right now is Jokic. The main reason for this is because my opinion is mostly based around an average of the widely available advanced stats. In order of importance for my evaluation it is EPM > RAPTOR > LEBRON > BPM > WS > PER, not that this matters too much this season since Jokic is first in every single one of the metrics.

2. I do think record should matter somewhat. If a player goes off statistically but his team misses the play-offs I don't think that player is the MVP since those stats didn't end up bringing the team something tangible at the end of the day. The Nuggets are the 6th seed so directly seeded into the play-offs so that's fine by me but drop to the play-in and I don't think I could still back Jokic as MVP. Anything above the 6th seed is pretty much a bonus with the most significant jump for me being the 4 seed for HCA in the first round. Outside of wanting a team to be in the play-offs I mostly use seeding as a tiebreaker between players with near identical stats. I think a pretty important reason for Giannis winning the MVP over Harden in both 2019 and 2020 was the Bucks being the 1 seed and the Rockets a 4 seed.

3. Kareem having some of his most dominant years in the mid 70s (74-77) while playing on teams that struggled to even make the play-offs is another example. Wilt had his most impressive statistical seasons on the Warriors despite playing with significantly better teammates on the Sixers and Lakers. Duncan went off in 02 and 03 when Robinson was falling off, while Manu and Parker were just coming into the league. LeBron in 09 is the most impressive statistical season ever on one of the worst teams he's been on. Shaq was at his best before Kobe truely broke out as a star. Curry's stats nosedived when KD joined as well. It isn't a hard rule but it generally does seem more common for advanced stats to be better on bad teams than on stacked teams.

[ty 4191]

Win Shares:
Jokic: 10.1
Giannis: 9.1
Embiid: 7.6

Win Shares Per 48 Mins (WS/48):
Jokic: .302
Giannis: .286
Embiid: .256

Value Over Replacement Player (VORP):
Jokic: 6.6
Giannis: 5.1
Embiid: 4.1

Player Efficiency Rating (PER):
Jokic: 32.8
Giannis: 31.8
Embiid: 31.4

Box Plus Minus:
Jokic: 14.3
Giannis: 11.0
Embiid: 9.4

True Shooting %:
Jokic: .659
Giannis: .623
Embiid: .604

Defensive Rating:
Jokic: 103.8
Embiid: 104.0
Giannis: 104.4

Player Impact Estimate (PIE):
Jokic: 23.2
Embiid: 21.2
Giannis: 21.1

RAPTOR Wins Above Replacement (RAPTOR WAR):
Jokic: 14.9
Giannis: 8.2
Embiid: 6.8

Estimated Plus Minus (EPM):
Jokic: 9.2
Giannis: 7.3
Embiid: 7.1

Win Probability Added (WPA):
Jokic: 5.25
Embiid: 4.49
Giannis: 3.78

Daily Plus Minus (DPM):
Giannis: 7.7
Embiid: 6.1
Jokic: 5.8

Floor Impact Counter (FIC):
Jokic: 1316
Giannis: 1099
Embiid: 951

What other metrics are out there? Which are best? Where are they located?

Thanks for the input and edification, everyone.

[cpower]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

The niche he was occupying of best player on best team is gone. With his slumping his team has lost more and CP3 closed the gap statistically so you can't even clearly say best stats on a top 2 team, so you have to go full gravity and the less mainstream advanced stats to find an argument for Curry.

CP3 without the slump (57%TS) is not shooting better than Curry with the slump(59%TS) and also CP3 is probably only 5% better than the 2nd best player on his team. The suns having a great season but CP3 is just having a ok season. Its the media trying to push for him, he does not deserve it.

Curry obviously having a fantastic season, why would you think their team is 2nd in the league without most of Green and Klay played?

[falcolombardi]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

why does it have to be one criteria only? it usually is a combination of factors (stats, record, narrative, perceived value,etc)

[Dutchball97]

I do find it a bit surprising how Curry seemingly has dropped from the MVP convo. His boxscore stats might not be the most spectacular but he's still like 9th in WS and 5th in VORP. Then look at the advanced stats incorporating +- (EPM, RAPTOR and LEBRON) and he's really only behind Jokic.

To me it looks like you go for Jokic if you strictly vote for the best/most valuable player or Curry if you want a top player on a top team. Giannis and to a lesser extent Embiid have a path to the award as well but I'm not sure based on what criteria you could vote for them over Jokic and Curry right now.

I guess the slump has damaged the publics perception too much for Curry to get his due.

why does it have to be one criteria only? it usually is a combination of factors (stats, record, narrative, perceived value,etc)

It is always a combination of factors but you can't win MVP if you don't stand out from your competition in at least one major way. Sure you can go with Giannis or Embiid because they have a slightly better record than Jokic and slightly better stats than Curry but at that point you're nearing nitpicking to create an argument for your preferred candidate.