Nikola Jokic wins MVP(again)

[Bergmaniac]

Great now it goes back to my original argument the MVP award was never based solely on stats until this year. So going forward should the award be given to the player who had the best statistical season?

MVP Westbrook says "Hi". That was way more of a case of an award based on stats.

He won based on averaging a triple double

Exactly, he won because of his stats.

[tsherkin]

First big since Shaq to win the scoring title.

Scoring title with 37.2 usg% and below average shooting is far from impressive. Such players are often called "ball hogs". There are many players who could win the scoring title if they were chasing awards.

More analytics no one cared about uSaGe RaTe when AI, Kobe, etc we’re winning the award.

Uh, what?

AI's inefficient gunning was brought up a lot. His was a very contentious MVP. Kobe's MVP had its discussions of the same. Shooting volume and proportion were definitely brought up...

[Bank Shot]

Read on Twitter

Shaquille O'Neal as well.

So what? Jokic is the one of the best players of all time, just like those guys are.

[dhsilv2]

Scoring title with 37.2 usg% and below average shooting is far from impressive. Such players are often called "ball hogs". There are many players who could win the scoring title if they were chasing awards.

More analytics no one cared about uSaGe RaTe when AI, Kobe, etc we’re winning the award.

Uh, what?

AI's inefficient gunning was brought up a lot. His was a very contentious MVP. Kobe's MVP had its discussions of the same. Shooting volume and proportion were definitely brought up...

Just crazy how much people forget. Duncan was heavily debated as the MVP in 2001 because AI was just a gunner. And Kobe for crying out loud, people said it was just a life time achievement award!

[cupcakesnake]

It's annoying how many people keep bringing up these goal post shifting arguments to support their guy and just refuse to look at it holistically. This thread, and the whole MVP discourse this year, was like the old story of the blind mice arguing over when an elephant is while each of them observe only 1 individual part of the elephant. If you don't know that story, it's just longer version of "missing the forest for the trees".

- Yes winning matters in the MVP award. The problem with this year was that the clear-cut top 3 NBA players all posted unspectacular win totals. If Jokic is disqualified for 48 wins, Embiid and Giannis aren't winning with 51. Unless you are proposing we draw the line exactly at 49-51 wins, which seems a little convenient for all your arguments.
- There was not an MVP level player on a team with an awesome record this year. If you want MVP to go to a 55+ win team, your options were Devin Booker, Ja Morant, or Chris Paul. So why are all these Embiid or Giannis fans here to plead their case.
- If Philidelphia or Milwaukee had won 60 games, we'd be crowning Embiid or Giannis while Jokic fans complained.
- Jokic winning does not mean Giannis or Embiid were unworthy. We were blessed with 3 strong MVP-level seasons. All of them were all-time historically great individual performances. Embiid scored like Wilt, 2x MVP Giannis had one of his best seasons ever, and Jokic gave us the biggest scoring/playmaking synergy season ever. At the end of the day, Jokic's statistical advantage was strong enough to win the award over 2 very deserving players.

[HardenToSixers]

It's annoying how many people keep bringing up these goal post shifting arguments to support their guy and just refuse to look at it holistically. This thread, and the whole MVP discourse this year, was like the old story of the blind mice arguing over when an elephant is while each of them observe only 1 individual part of the elephant. If you don't know that story, it's just longer version of "missing the forest for the trees".

- Yes winning matters in the MVP award. The problem with this year was that the clear-cut top 3 NBA players all posted unspectacular win totals. If Jokic is disqualified for 48 wins, Embiid and Giannis aren't winning with 51. Unless you are proposing we draw the line exactly at 49-51 wins, which seems a little convenient for all your arguments.
- There was not an MVP level player on a team with an awesome record this year. If you want MVP to go to a 55+ win team, your options were Devin Booker, Ja Morant, or Chris Paul. So why are all these Embiid or Giannis fans here to plead their case.
- If Philidelphia or Milwaukee had won 60 games, we'd be crowning Embiid or Giannis while Jokic fans complained.
- Jokic winning does not mean Giannis or Embiid were unworthy. We were blessed with 3 strong MVP-level seasons. All of them were all-time historically great individual performances. Embiid scored like Wilt, 2x MVP Giannis had one of his best seasons ever, and Jokic gave us the biggest scoring/playmaking synergy season ever. At the end of the day, Jokic's statistical advantage was strong enough to win the award over 2 very deserving players.

Jokic had a great season no doubt and is deserving even though I disagree. But I will never be able to take someone seriously who says Jokic deserved it because he broke the single-season PER record as if that is something anybody should actually care about or any all-encompassing, single-number metrics. It's lazy and takes all context out of discussion.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Great now it goes back to my original argument the MVP award was never based solely on stats until this year. So going forward should the award be given to the player who had the best statistical season?

it has always been a combination of things.
the only reason Jokic won it with just 48 wins is that the other two top candidates only won 51 games.
had sixers gone for like 55w there would have been no discussion, but unfortunately it was not the case.

So the other candidates get penalized for only winning 3 more games? These reasons sound stupid.

???
what are you talking about?
Jokic played amazingly, the stats just back it up, and wins were not a factor

[Gusto1903]

It's annoying how many people keep bringing up these goal post shifting arguments to support their guy and just refuse to look at it holistically. This thread, and the whole MVP discourse this year, was like the old story of the blind mice arguing over when an elephant is while each of them observe only 1 individual part of the elephant. If you don't know that story, it's just longer version of "missing the forest for the trees".

- Yes winning matters in the MVP award. The problem with this year was that the clear-cut top 3 NBA players all posted unspectacular win totals. If Jokic is disqualified for 48 wins, Embiid and Giannis aren't winning with 51. Unless you are proposing we draw the line exactly at 49-51 wins, which seems a little convenient for all your arguments.
- There was not an MVP level player on a team with an awesome record this year. If you want MVP to go to a 55+ win team, your options were Devin Booker, Ja Morant, or Chris Paul. So why are all these Embiid or Giannis fans here to plead their case.
- If Philidelphia or Milwaukee had won 60 games, we'd be crowning Embiid or Giannis while Jokic fans complained.
- Jokic winning does not mean Giannis or Embiid were unworthy. We were blessed with 3 strong MVP-level seasons. All of them were all-time historically great individual performances. Embiid scored like Wilt, 2x MVP Giannis had one of his best seasons ever, and Jokic gave us the biggest scoring/playmaking synergy season ever. At the end of the day, Jokic's statistical advantage was strong enough to win the award over 2 very deserving players.

Jokic had a great season no doubt and is deserving even though I disagree. But I will never be able to take someone seriously who says Jokic deserved it because he broke the single-season PER record as if that is something anybody should actually care about or any all-encompassing, single-number metrics. It's lazy and takes all context out of discussion.

I remember you calling Embiids Season "one of the greatest seasons of all time" because he is a center that led the league in scoring.
I can quote you on that one lol. What is your definition of "greatest of all time seasons"?

[cupcakesnake]

I ask again.

Without mentioning or comparing Giannis and Jokic. What made Embiids Season "one of the best seasons of all time" and deserving the MVP Award? He has the Scoring Title. Thats it. Basically. What else?

First big since Shaq to win the scoring title.

There are 75 scoring champions in the history of the league. Why we single out centers?
Next please

It was a particularly potent scoring season. Embiid scored 45.1 points per 100 possessions. Only '87 Jordan, '19 Harden, and '06 Kobe have scored better than that.

Jokic got my vote, but Embiid did have one of the best scoring seasons EVER and that's nothing to dismiss.

[cupcakesnake]

It's annoying how many people keep bringing up these goal post shifting arguments to support their guy and just refuse to look at it holistically. This thread, and the whole MVP discourse this year, was like the old story of the blind mice arguing over when an elephant is while each of them observe only 1 individual part of the elephant. If you don't know that story, it's just longer version of "missing the forest for the trees".

- Yes winning matters in the MVP award. The problem with this year was that the clear-cut top 3 NBA players all posted unspectacular win totals. If Jokic is disqualified for 48 wins, Embiid and Giannis aren't winning with 51. Unless you are proposing we draw the line exactly at 49-51 wins, which seems a little convenient for all your arguments.
- There was not an MVP level player on a team with an awesome record this year. If you want MVP to go to a 55+ win team, your options were Devin Booker, Ja Morant, or Chris Paul. So why are all these Embiid or Giannis fans here to plead their case.
- If Philidelphia or Milwaukee had won 60 games, we'd be crowning Embiid or Giannis while Jokic fans complained.
- Jokic winning does not mean Giannis or Embiid were unworthy. We were blessed with 3 strong MVP-level seasons. All of them were all-time historically great individual performances. Embiid scored like Wilt, 2x MVP Giannis had one of his best seasons ever, and Jokic gave us the biggest scoring/playmaking synergy season ever. At the end of the day, Jokic's statistical advantage was strong enough to win the award over 2 very deserving players.

Jokic had a great season no doubt and is deserving even though I disagree. But I will never be able to take someone seriously who says Jokic deserved it because he broke the single-season PER record as if that is something anybody should actually care about or any all-encompassing, single-number metrics. It's lazy and takes all context out of discussion.

Jokic didn't win it because he broke 1 single-season PER record. He won it because almost every number we can think of all agree that this was one of the best seasons ever. People who give zero **** about PER voted for him. Your argument is one of the most wildly reductive things I've read on this site.

[BelgradeNugget]

First big since Shaq to win the scoring title.

There are 75 scoring champions in the history of the league. Why we single out centers?
Next please

It was a particularly potent scoring season. Embiid scored 45.1 points per 100 possessions. Only '87 Jordan, '19 Harden, and '06 Kobe have scored better than that.

Jokic got my vote, but Embiid did have one of the best scoring seasons EVER and that's nothing to dismiss.

Now that is a real argument. Appreciate it.

[HardenToSixers]

It's annoying how many people keep bringing up these goal post shifting arguments to support their guy and just refuse to look at it holistically. This thread, and the whole MVP discourse this year, was like the old story of the blind mice arguing over when an elephant is while each of them observe only 1 individual part of the elephant. If you don't know that story, it's just longer version of "missing the forest for the trees".

- Yes winning matters in the MVP award. The problem with this year was that the clear-cut top 3 NBA players all posted unspectacular win totals. If Jokic is disqualified for 48 wins, Embiid and Giannis aren't winning with 51. Unless you are proposing we draw the line exactly at 49-51 wins, which seems a little convenient for all your arguments.
- There was not an MVP level player on a team with an awesome record this year. If you want MVP to go to a 55+ win team, your options were Devin Booker, Ja Morant, or Chris Paul. So why are all these Embiid or Giannis fans here to plead their case.
- If Philidelphia or Milwaukee had won 60 games, we'd be crowning Embiid or Giannis while Jokic fans complained.
- Jokic winning does not mean Giannis or Embiid were unworthy. We were blessed with 3 strong MVP-level seasons. All of them were all-time historically great individual performances. Embiid scored like Wilt, 2x MVP Giannis had one of his best seasons ever, and Jokic gave us the biggest scoring/playmaking synergy season ever. At the end of the day, Jokic's statistical advantage was strong enough to win the award over 2 very deserving players.

Jokic had a great season no doubt and is deserving even though I disagree. But I will never be able to take someone seriously who says Jokic deserved it because he broke the single-season PER record as if that is something anybody should actually care about or any all-encompassing, single-number metrics. It's lazy and takes all context out of discussion.

I remember you calling Embiids Season "one of the greatest seasons of all time" because he is a center that led the league in scoring.
I can quote you on that one lol. What is your definition of "greatest of all time seasons"?

go ahead and quote it you're talking out of your ass. don't even know what point you're trying to make but I never said that.

[Gusto1903]

Jokic had a great season no doubt and is deserving even though I disagree. But I will never be able to take someone seriously who says Jokic deserved it because he broke the single-season PER record as if that is something anybody should actually care about or any all-encompassing, single-number metrics. It's lazy and takes all context out of discussion.

I remember you calling Embiids Season "one of the greatest seasons of all time" because he is a center that led the league in scoring.
I can quote you on that one lol. What is your definition of "greatest of all time seasons"?

go ahead and quote it you're talking out of your ass. don't even know what point you're trying to make but I never said that.

O nevermind, that was another Guy with a sixers logo. Nvm bro.

[Cubbies2120]

Remember guys, the 30 advanced stats that Jokic led in don’t matter (starting this year), but stats like most points per minute” regardless of efficiency are relevant to the discussion.

[HardenToSixers]

It's annoying how many people keep bringing up these goal post shifting arguments to support their guy and just refuse to look at it holistically. This thread, and the whole MVP discourse this year, was like the old story of the blind mice arguing over when an elephant is while each of them observe only 1 individual part of the elephant. If you don't know that story, it's just longer version of "missing the forest for the trees".

- Yes winning matters in the MVP award. The problem with this year was that the clear-cut top 3 NBA players all posted unspectacular win totals. If Jokic is disqualified for 48 wins, Embiid and Giannis aren't winning with 51. Unless you are proposing we draw the line exactly at 49-51 wins, which seems a little convenient for all your arguments.
- There was not an MVP level player on a team with an awesome record this year. If you want MVP to go to a 55+ win team, your options were Devin Booker, Ja Morant, or Chris Paul. So why are all these Embiid or Giannis fans here to plead their case.
- If Philidelphia or Milwaukee had won 60 games, we'd be crowning Embiid or Giannis while Jokic fans complained.
- Jokic winning does not mean Giannis or Embiid were unworthy. We were blessed with 3 strong MVP-level seasons. All of them were all-time historically great individual performances. Embiid scored like Wilt, 2x MVP Giannis had one of his best seasons ever, and Jokic gave us the biggest scoring/playmaking synergy season ever. At the end of the day, Jokic's statistical advantage was strong enough to win the award over 2 very deserving players.

Jokic had a great season no doubt and is deserving even though I disagree. But I will never be able to take someone seriously who says Jokic deserved it because he broke the single-season PER record as if that is something anybody should actually care about or any all-encompassing, single-number metrics. It's lazy and takes all context out of discussion.

Jokic didn't win it because he broke 1 single-season PER record. He won it because almost every number we can think of all agree that this was one of the best seasons ever. People who give zero **** about PER voted for him. Your argument is one of the most wildly reductive things I've read on this site.

Plenty of people have repeated it on numerous threads. And that wasn't close to my main argument for why Embiid should be MVP over Jokic. It was more me trying to express a microcosm of how much weight people in favor of Jokic are placing on advanced metrics (PER or otherwise) that Jokic rates highly in while ignoring critical discussion or any kind of context.

And yes, I stand by the fact that anybody who even mentions PER as if that has any kind of real predictive value on who had a better season doesn't know what they are talking about. We have tracking data for christ sake and people are still citing a statistic that Hollinger created in the 90s.

[Los_29]

At the end of the day no player made more of an impact to winning than Jokic and that's what the award is ultimately about. Many can argue that Jokic put up one of the greatest seasons of all-time. He did this while playing with the likes of Monte Morris, Aaron Gordon and Austin Rivers. Joel Embiid played a third of the season with one of the greatest offensive players of all-time in James Harden.

People just conveniently forget that Denver has been missing their 2nd and 3rd best players and ignoring the fact that Embiid threw his teammate under the bus last year which led to him not showing up to Philly this year. Even without Simmons, Embiid's supporting cast was better and is most certainly better now with the addition of Harden.

Embiid is an excellent player but Jokic is simply better.

[Duke4life831]

It's annoying how many people keep bringing up these goal post shifting arguments to support their guy and just refuse to look at it holistically. This thread, and the whole MVP discourse this year, was like the old story of the blind mice arguing over when an elephant is while each of them observe only 1 individual part of the elephant. If you don't know that story, it's just longer version of "missing the forest for the trees".

- Yes winning matters in the MVP award. The problem with this year was that the clear-cut top 3 NBA players all posted unspectacular win totals. If Jokic is disqualified for 48 wins, Embiid and Giannis aren't winning with 51. Unless you are proposing we draw the line exactly at 49-51 wins, which seems a little convenient for all your arguments.
- There was not an MVP level player on a team with an awesome record this year. If you want MVP to go to a 55+ win team, your options were Devin Booker, Ja Morant, or Chris Paul. So why are all these Embiid or Giannis fans here to plead their case.
- If Philidelphia or Milwaukee had won 60 games, we'd be crowning Embiid or Giannis while Jokic fans complained.
- Jokic winning does not mean Giannis or Embiid were unworthy. We were blessed with 3 strong MVP-level seasons. All of them were all-time historically great individual performances. Embiid scored like Wilt, 2x MVP Giannis had one of his best seasons ever, and Jokic gave us the biggest scoring/playmaking synergy season ever. At the end of the day, Jokic's statistical advantage was strong enough to win the award over 2 very deserving players.

Jokic had a great season no doubt and is deserving even though I disagree. But I will never be able to take someone seriously who says Jokic deserved it because he broke the single-season PER record as if that is something anybody should actually care about or any all-encompassing, single-number metrics. It's lazy and takes all context out of discussion.

That is one stat of many that people have pointed to with Jokic on why he should've won, I dont think anyone is saying the only argument needed for Jokic is PER. Whether its VORP, BPM, WS/48, RAPTOR, or practically all of the advanced metrics. The vast majority of them all had Jokic as the leader. Many people point to his dominance in all these advanced metrics as an argument on why he won. Again I think the number of people who think he deserved to win only off his PER is extremely low.

When it comes to Jokic the argument is pretty easy to understand and the vast majority are making the same argument. The fact that Jokic had such a fantastic season statistically (raw and advanced), then add in he was without his 2 best teammates, then add in the other two MVP contenders didnt have much of a separation in the win column (again Jokic actually played in more wins). When you combine it all, Jokic is the MVP. That is the argument that the vast majority of Jokic fans (or people who just thought he deserved to win) are making.

[Big J]

He's the MVP of the season, but it's one of those weak MVP type years that people will look back at without context and wonder how the hell he won it that year.

[Cubbies2120]

He's the MVP of the season, but it's one of those weak MVP type years that people will look back at without context and wonder how the hell he won it that year.

And then their temporary amnesia will pass and they will see the record books and see that pretty much every statistic out there indicated he was superior in the regular season out of the big 3, including wins. And they will remember “Ah yes he put up numbers we haven’t seen before or since”.

Before you say “Sixers had more wins tho!!”, let’s remember what it means for legacies if you start counting games that players didn’t play… would hate to say that Embiid gets credit for being on one of the worst teams of all time during the process right ? Or should we only credit him with wins he didn’t participate in and ignore losses he didn’t participate in?

[floppymoose]

Congrats to Jokic. He had a good case for MVP. I would have been fine with any of the top 4 rapm guys getting it. (Tatum, Curry, Jokic, Embiid)