2021-22 NBA MVP Discussion (Pt.3)

[AleksandarN]

Why?

Never happened before in history. It represents excellence. When you've been excellent you need to critique other factors as well. Team record being one of the first.

It's kind of arbitrary but so is Embiid not winning last year because of missed games.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

If you're that excellent your GOAT stats should result in more than the damn 6th seed lol.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

You do know won that Kareem won a MVP with a record of 40 - 42? Kareem is probably the census 2nd best player to ever lace them up.

[Dutchball97]

Why?

Never happened before in history. It represents excellence. When you've been excellent you need to critique other factors as well. Team record being one of the first.

It's kind of arbitrary but so is Embiid not winning last year because of missed games.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

If you're that excellent your GOAT stats should result in more than the damn 6th seed lol.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Why are you so insistent on ignoring context? By your logic you're blaming Hakeem for only getting the 6th seed in 95 despite being without Drexler and Thorpe for over half the season. Kareem won MVP in 76 despite missing the play-offs entirely because it was still clear he provided the most value by carrying a terrible roster to around .500.

Jokic didn't miss his two top teammates for half the season, he missed them for the entire season and still did just as well as Hakeem. With Murray and MPJ out the 22 Nuggets are just as bad if not worse than the 76 Lakers and Jokic still got them to a better record than Kareem managed to do.

Even if the voters agreed with you that a 6th seed is too low for a MVP, it'd be Giannis getting the award anyway. Embiid had an amazing season that could've gotten him the MVP in plenty of seasons but he has the bad luck two other players had better seasons.

[eyeatoma]

Never happened before in history. It represents excellence. When you've been excellent you need to critique other factors as well. Team record being one of the first.

It's kind of arbitrary but so is Embiid not winning last year because of missed games.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

If you're that excellent your GOAT stats should result in more than the damn 6th seed lol.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

You do know won that Kareem won a MVP with a record of 40 - 42? Kareem is probably the census 2nd best player to ever lace them up.

Back to back, if not worth mentioning.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

[eyeatoma]

Never happened before in history. It represents excellence. When you've been excellent you need to critique other factors as well. Team record being one of the first.

It's kind of arbitrary but so is Embiid not winning last year because of missed games.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

If you're that excellent your GOAT stats should result in more than the damn 6th seed lol.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Why are you so insistent on ignoring context? By your logic you're blaming Hakeem for only getting the 6th seed in 95 despite being without Drexler and Thorpe for over half the season. Kareem won MVP in 76 despite missing the play-offs entirely because it was still clear he provided the most value by carrying a terrible roster to around .500.

Jokic didn't miss his two top teammates for half the season, he missed them for the entire season and still did just as well as Hakeem. With Murray and MPJ out the 22 Nuggets are just as bad if not worse than the 76 Lakers and Jokic still got them to a better record than Kareem managed to do.

Even if the voters agreed with you that a 6th seed is too low for a MVP, it'd be Giannis getting the award anyway. Embiid had an amazing season that could've gotten him the MVP in plenty of seasons but he has the bad luck two other players had better seasons.

I'm specifically talking about back to back MVPs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

[Wolfgang630]

Jokic is having an outlier year. It happens. We haven’t seen this circumstance before in NBA history.

[eyeatoma]

Jokic is having an outlier year. It happens. We haven’t seen this circumstance before in NBA history.

Outlier years should be recognized when there aren't two other candidates who are equally deserving.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

[eathb_au]

This is going to be an unpopular comment.

I believe Jokic's 27 PPG @ 66% TS makes him a more impressive scorer than Embiid's 30 PPG @ 61% TS.

I kind of wish Jokic was just an average level passer to be able to showcase his scoring.

[Exp0sed]

This is going to be an unpopular comment.

I believe Jokic's 27 PPG @ 66% TS makes him a more impressive scorer than Embiid's 30 PPG @ 61% TS.

I kind of wish Jokic was just an average level passer to be able to showcase his scoring.

I don't think it's an unpopular opinion..

it's not just 27\66% vs. 30\61% it's also on 2 less shots per game.

Ts% captures Embiid's best skill which is going to a line a lot and converting at an elite rate, and this season - Jokic has not shot the 3 well at all, the Fact that his TS% is so much higher even with going to the line a lot less (some of it ref related, not most of it ofc) and shooting so poorly for 3, we would expect a very different outcome and not a 5% advantage for Jokic..
but here we are..Jokic only scores a couple of points less per game while taking a couple of shots less and shooting at a considerably better clip.

If he was hell bent on padding he could have very easily just jacked up an extra 3 + extra sombor shuffle a game and gotten to 30 himself.

As u say, Jokic is a much better passer than Embiid so a few shots a game he could have easily taken..he preferes to set up his teamates. MVP...

[Dutchball97]

If you're that excellent your GOAT stats should result in more than the damn 6th seed lol.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

Why are you so insistent on ignoring context? By your logic you're blaming Hakeem for only getting the 6th seed in 95 despite being without Drexler and Thorpe for over half the season. Kareem won MVP in 76 despite missing the play-offs entirely because it was still clear he provided the most value by carrying a terrible roster to around .500.

Jokic didn't miss his two top teammates for half the season, he missed them for the entire season and still did just as well as Hakeem. With Murray and MPJ out the 22 Nuggets are just as bad if not worse than the 76 Lakers and Jokic still got them to a better record than Kareem managed to do.

Even if the voters agreed with you that a 6th seed is too low for a MVP, it'd be Giannis getting the award anyway. Embiid had an amazing season that could've gotten him the MVP in plenty of seasons but he has the bad luck two other players had better seasons.

I'm specifically talking about back to back MVPs.

Sent from my SM-S908E using Tapatalk

I'm just not sure why you have this idea that a back to back MVP win has to be accompanied by a better record than the first MVP. There are plenty of examples of the 2nd MVP in a back to back coming with a worse record than the year before. Even if that isn't an issue for you and you're specifically talking about a 6th seed not deserving to win a back to back MVP, once again where did you get that idea from? It isn't like this is a hard rule that has been upheld throughout NBA history. How often did the best player in the league have to carry his team without his 2nd and 3rd best players? I can't recall something like that ever happening off the top of my head and if it did I'd be surprised if that was a regular occurence in years where MVPs could win a 2nd MVP back to back.

If it had always been the case that players in the same position as Jokic didn't win the MVP then I agree that there shouldn't be an exception made for Jokic but again; what other player that got his team to a 6th seed or higher without his 2nd and 3rd best player, while also dominating statistically has there been?

[Exp0sed]

For him to be MVP, I'd say if he was a top 2 seed, I'd give it to him.

What if I told you he had the worst teammates, overall, of anyone having an all time great season since 1965 (Wilt Chamberlain)? Or, at least, since 1976 (KAJ)?

He's had that for 2 years. I feel like it would be more impressive if he got the team to the WCF, or the finals. But he wasn't able to do that, and they could lose soon in the playoffs this year as well.

What r u talking about?

He didn't have that last year, this year's roster is considerably worse.

Ofc they will lose in the Playoffs, it will be an amazing feat if they even make it out of the first round, they're horrible sans Jokic.
Besides, if WCF is all the rage, remind me how many ECF has Embiid been leading the 76ers to?

Last season when he was playing with a good roster and another all-star (Simmons but still ) and lost to the Hawks in the Semis?
Or managing to lose in the Semis to Toronto with a linuep of: Butler, Simmons, Harris and Reddick where Butler and Embiid barely stepping off the court in a 7 game series?

or r u refering to being swept in the bubble by the Celtics in the first round with Horford and Harris?

While we're on the Subject,The last (and only) time Jokic had some 'help' in the Playoffs - with Murray, 34 Yo Millsap, Harris and Grant (with mpj as a young backup) - he did make it to the WCF, beating the Clippers in the Semis in that memorable series.

So r we being real here? I don't think so...
Perhaps ur willling to admit that u just dislike Jokic or Like Embiid or both? cuz that's the only way this narrative makes sense

[velkisimo]

I'm specifically talking about back to back MVPs.

I was curious about this and decided to use my weak googling skills to see historically if there are instances where 2nd of back to back mvp seasons is worse then first (from team record standpoint). I leave open the possibility of me making a mistake (due to my pathetic research skill and since i did this on my phone) so feel free to correct me, but these are few examples i found:

Nash 05/06 - 62w to 54w (-8)
LeBron 09/10 - 66w to 61w (-5)
Wilt 67/68 - 68w to 62w (3rd in a row) (-6)
Russell 62/63 - 60w to 58w (3rd in a row) (-2)
Kareem 71/72 - 66w to 63w (-3)

So saying that second year of mvp has to be godly better than first year in order to win it back to back is not always true. Now granted, these are all really good records and downgrade is season 2 is not crazy, except maybe in Nash's case.

Anyways, was just curious...

[p0peye]

If only eyeatoma winning MVP argument on RealGM against majority of other posters is what is keeping Embiid from winning MVP this year... yeah, he still wouldn't be close.

Embiid had a hell of a season, but Jokić and Giannis had a better one. Maybe next season.

[mademan]

Why do you keep talking about Jokic being 6th seed? He will end up within 2-3 games of the Sixers/Bucks while missing his 2nd/3rd best players all season. If anything, team records being that close is a + for Jokic imo

[Wolfgang630]

Why do you keep talking about Jokic being 6th seed? He will end up within 2-3 games of the Sixers/Bucks while missing his 2nd/3rd best players all season. If anything, team records being that close is a + for Jokic imo

Ding. His competition isn’t up 7 or more games. Nobody in the East is running away with their wins.

[BoatsNZones]

I don’t think Embiid + Giannis’ 1st place votes combined will be more than Jokic’s first place votes.

[Madhouse]

The Joker is the MVP. it's over...

[Exp0sed]

Why do you keep talking about Jokic being 6th seed? He will end up within 2-3 games of the Sixers/Bucks while missing his 2nd/3rd best players all season. If anything, team records being that close is a + for Jokic imo

Denver is tied for 5th, technically

[Hussien Fatal]

This is going to be an unpopular comment.

I believe Jokic's 27 PPG @ 66% TS makes him a more impressive scorer than Embiid's 30 PPG @ 61% TS.

I kind of wish Jokic was just an average level passer to be able to showcase his scoring.

Jokic isn’t on the same level as embiid at all when it comes to scoring. Embiid is 1st all time in point per minute. He averages 26ppg in just 31mpg for his career while jokic doesn’t even average 20ppg for his career. Only reason Jokic has a higher ts is because he takes shot closer to the basket. The fact Embiid has a 61%ts on mostly mid range shots is impressive. Also Embiid gets doubled the most in NBA. Joel will earn his 1st scoring title, while Jokic will likely never win a scoring title.

As far as scoring and defense Embiid has a clear advantage.

[velkisimo]

This is going to be an unpopular comment.

I believe Jokic's 27 PPG @ 66% TS makes him a more impressive scorer than Embiid's 30 PPG @ 61% TS.

I kind of wish Jokic was just an average level passer to be able to showcase his scoring.

Jokic isn’t on the same level as embiid at all when it comes to scoring. Embiid is 1st all time in point per minute. He averages 26ppg in just 31mpg for his career while jokic doesn’t even average 20ppg for his career. Only reason Jokic has a higher ts is because he takes shot closer to the basket. The fact Embiid has a 61%ts on mostly mid range shots is impressive. Also Embiid gets doubled the most in NBA. Joel will earn his 1st scoring title, while Jokic will likely never win a scoring title.

As far as scoring and defense Embiid has a clear advantage.

This is the reason why noone takes you seriously.

-Not on the same level in scoring is 3pts per game more on worse efficience and higher usage?
-61% ts on mostly midrange? That's a fallacy, his 10-16ft is 43%. His 0-3ft and free throws boost his ts.
-Using career averages for comparison when one has been a starter from the beginning of his career and the other was bencher playing limited minutes.

You always give half the picture and ignore the other half.

[MoMan24]

The concept of seeding being tied to MVP was always because it was indicative of winning. If Jokic had MPJ on the team, his rebounding numbers wouldn't have taken off, and his VORP/GLORP/BPM/CRAPTOR would not have been at an all time high. He is an incredible player, future hall of famer, but there is a little bit of good stats/bad team going on here.

Not good stats. All-time great stats. Not bad team, good team that last healthy was great and went to the WCF. Sixers have 2 more wins, are they a bad team too?????? Yall Sixers fans really are becoming so unlikable on here. I don't want to dislike yall. SMH

Nuggets/Jokic fans should take a look in the mirror.

I'm a Raptors fan from Toronto. Just call it like I see it. No horse in this race.