It Looks Like the MVP Outcome is all but Officially Decided

[BrehWyatt]

The media is voting on what's presented in front of them on paper/TV, and not the court.

Based on that, Jokic should win, deservedly so and it may not be close. What they see, is a man who is averaging 27, 14 and 8 for a team that did not have two of its best five players all year long.

Their other options?
- The league's leading scorer who happens to play alongside a former MVP (that despite being considered a shell of himself, is giving out 21/10/8) and two guys averaging 17+ a game.

- The best player on the defending NBA champions and arguably the most dominant player in the league.

And yet, these three teams are within 3 games of each other or something.

Giannis probably wins this award if he and the Bucks do exactly what they're doing right now without Khris Middleton.
Embiid probably wins this award if he and the Sixers do exactly what they're doing right now without James Harden.
Booker probably wins this award if he and the Suns do exactly what they're doing right now without Chris Paul (or if he had led the league in scoring).
Ja probably wins this award if he and the Grizzlies do exactly what they're doing right now without him missing games.

Seems obvious which narrative they'd go with. Either way, Jokic will likely stop winning MVP once Jamal Murray is cleared to play. The award, by design, punishes players who are on well-built teams (hence no love for the likes of Booker, Ja, etc.).

MVP isn't a game of "if I'm starting a team/dynasty or playing a pickup game where my life is on the line, who do I pick first?" or a game of statistics. It's a game of narratives.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I said this before, you’re talking to people who came of age when Nash and Dirk won 3 straight MVPs over Kobe and LeBron over record. LMAO @Gil Scott-Heroin writing all that bullshyt and saying every season is different. Nah, Westbrook and a Jokic are outliers over the last 20 years.

Every MVP winner is essentially an outlier, because there is no norm when it comes to MVP winners. That's what happens when there's no set criteria. If there was, then things would be different. But there's not.

As I've stated many a time: Cap won MVP when his team didn't even make the playoffs, yet I don't see anyone keeping the same energy for him. Sometimes seasons align where players on lower-seeded teams end up being perceived as the MVP because they win at a similar rate to players ahead of them (three wins is all that separates Giannis, Jokic and Embiid), or because the players on teams ahead of them don't have a standout player or their team won consistently without them (Booker and CP3 stole votes off one another, and the Grizzlies had a great record without Ja).

If Ja played the entire season, and we didn't get to see his team perform without him, he would've been the MVP, but it was only because he missed over 20 games and his team went 20-5 without him, is why he didn't have a great enough argument. If Booker didn't have CP3 stealing votes off him, and the Suns won at a similar rate to where they were the #1 seed, he would've been the MVP.

Now see how you can't compare other seasons to this one? The three best players this season have been Jokic, Embiid and Giannis, and they all won a similar amount of games.

@Gil Scott-Heroin you really negged me for that you weirdo?

I negged you being a fukk nxgga. Nothing in my posts is bullshyt. You're just too damn stupid to see the truth.

 

[Ziggiy]

If Jokic gets that MVP it will be a DISGRACE to professional basketball.

 

[Biscayne]

How didnt Wade fit the criteria that year? He finished 3rd

Bron outpaced the league in every advanced stat like Jokic did this year and the Cavs won 66 games that season

if the Bucks or 76ers won 66 games this season, I would bet my life on Giannis or Embiid beating out Jokic for MVP with 66 wins

Wade finished 3rd in voting. My point exactly. He couldn’t even crack the top 2, because the seeding of LeBron and Kobe’s teams stood out more than anything. Even more than the advanced metrics. Even though both those 2009 Lakers and 2009 Cavs had a superior supporting cast than Wade had that year, the total number of wins and seeding made it so that you couldn’t just award the player putting up superior raw numbers with less talent, over the player who’s leading their team to the top conference seeding. Yes, while I understand that this Philly team isn’t 66 wins ala 09 Bron, I think the seeding of the nuggets is too low for that gap to not go into Embiid or Giannis favor. If Denver was even a 4th seed, could see the back to back argument. But we’ve seen players dominate for so long and not get the MVP. As for 2009 Wade, I meant his seeding didn’t fit the criteria for him to win MVP.

 

[WMG the 2nd]

Based on?

You nasty for even asking

 

[rbksNgirbauds]

There are expectations for Embiid because they literally traded for a perceived superstar in Harden
There are expectations for Giannis because he has arguably the two best sidekicks in Jrue and Khris, and one of the best support casts in the league.

The expectations for Jokic would be entirely different if he actually had a healthy support cast and legitimate talent, and not rolling into the postseason with a bunch of marginal role players. Embiid would have the same expectations as Jokic had Philly not made that trade. Bron would be the only player held to a winning-standard in a similar situation, and that wouldn't be based on anything reasonable -- it would come from a place of hate.

Westbrook won MVP in 2017, yet there were no expectations for him to win in the playoffs; Kareem won MVP in 1976 and he didn't even make the playoffs.

This is the problem when discussing who's MVP for a particular season, is that y'all compare what happened in the past to the now, when every season is different, with different players, with different circumstances, all in a difference environment. Nothing is ever the same from season to season. Just because MVP winners of the past have been on contending teams with expectations doesn't mean that's always going to be the case every season. The criteria is in constant randomization from season to season, and honestly, that's the way it should be. Players should be awarded on their merits during that season, and not compared to what players did in previous seasons. Nothing will ever line up exactly to what happened in the past for someone to win, for obvious reasons that the MVPs that have already been awarded throughout history are all different (it's too late now to start trying to set a standard to the past; it'd be like finding footprints in the sand when the waves have washed them away), and because it's logistically impossible for that to happen.

Jokic's MVP campaign isn't a feel good story. He's been arguably the most dominant and consistent player this season, doing shyt we've never seen before.

I'm not sure what the fukk this even means.

Jokic's play is basically team play. He's essentially a Dr. Dish machine automatically spitting out basketballs in the right spot at the right time for his teammates to get easy scoring opportunities, all the while scoring at an historically efficient rate on high volume and not infracting on any of his teammates' games. Jokic could literally play with any type of player of varying talent level, so to say that it's "a slap in the face to players that have to balance and mesh their talents with better players" actually goes against the very existence of how the MVP is awarded.

Do you even realise how ridiculous it sounds that you're basically penalising Jokic for having a weaker support cast than Giannis, while winning at a similar rate? He's doing the same thing Giannis is, but with less help, yet somehow, that should be subtracted away from his campaign all because his teammates aren't good enough? Make that make sense.

Lol bro, all of that would be nice and well if this were just a one off. My contention is with him being rewarded to not have expectations in back to back years. That's my only contention. Your points would be more poignant if I stated I had an issue with him getting it last year. But that's not the case. It's him getting it last year AND this year running on the same campaign that's contrary to how the award has historically been given out

Not really interested in the hero ball vs not hero ball in the prism of Jokic's game because I already stated, it was necessary. That doesn't change what it is tho, it just sounds shock value because the context people use it in is usually a negative connotation. But that doesn't make it a negative thing. Only difference between his hero ball, and say Russ in 2016 or Kobe in 2004 or something, is that he has to. Russ 2016, Kobe 2004, Jokic 2021&2022 all embodying the archetype of the hero tho. It's just a different spectrum on a particular colors' color chart. Light red. Blood red. It's still red. To better illustrate that it's not necessarily a bad thing, is that Steph played hero ball as well last year. And you know Steph is my guy. Hero ball is hero ball. Whether it was justified or not. Everything on almost every possession is going through you. That is literally playing the hero

As a matter of fact, let me put you on the spot. Two questions:
1.) Should Steph had got MVP over Jokic last year? I'm sure you've already addressed this so apologies in advance, but I don't really keep up with or remember everything that goes on on here

2.) Are we not penalizing players who had to tame and mesh their talents with a better supporting cast for the sake of winning and being perceived as contenders by giving consecutive MVP awards to a player that didn't?


EDIT: @Brozay the bolded addresses the hero ball vs non hero ball conversation you seem to be so fixated on instead of evvvvverrrything else that was stated in my original post that you quoted. Didn't wanna post the same thing on two separate post. So no disrespect intended

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

you’re talking like they’re the Magic or old Bobcats.

just because a player isn’t well known means they trash. Memphis has a team full of nobodies as well and they’re in 2nd place

Tell me what these players have done prior to playing next to Jokic:

Aaron Gordon
Monte Morris
Will Barton
Jeff Green
Austin Rivers
JaMychal Green
Bones Hyland
Facundo Campazzo.

The irony of you bringing up the Magic is, those players listed above could literally be a version of the Magic from recent years (all you'd need to do is add Vucevic).

That Memphis team "full of nobodies" went 20-5 without their superstar this season; the Nuggets went 2-6 without Jokic this season. Marinate on that.

 

[Biscayne]

for me, its not worth having a conversation that attempts to qualify Jokic's play as 'hero ball' and criticize him for not adhering to 'team play'

so what is this showing? it shows that Jokic leads the league in touches per game

now look at the time of possession, avg seconds per touch & avg dribble per touch relative to the other leaders in touches per game

Jokic is getting the ball and is immediately making decisions with the ball (whether passing/scoring) at INSANE efficiency from the Center position

to qualify his play style as 'HERO BALL' doesnt need anymore discussion tells me you either dont watch the Nuggets play, or you aren't comprehending what hes doing on the court

This is what I call the novelty MVP. The novelty of Jokic doing what he’s doing at the center position, makes it difficult for voters to not lock him in for back to back MVP seasons. Even if the more traditional center in Embid is carrying his team just as well through strife, injuries, etc. How can you not give the mvp to the center with eyes in the back of his head?

 

[Brozay]

Wade finished 3rd in voting. My point exactly. He couldn’t even crack the top 2, because the seeding of LeBron and Kobe’s teams stood out more than anything. Even more than the advanced metrics. Even though both those 2009 Lakers and 2009 Cavs had a superior supporting cast than Wade had that year, the total number of wins and seeding made it so that you couldn’t just award the player putting up superior raw numbers with less talent, over the player who’s leading their team to the top conference seeding. Yes, while I understand that this Philly team isn’t 66 wins ala 09 Bron, I think the seeding of the nuggets is too low for that gap to not go into Embiid or Giannis favor. If Denver was even a 4th seed, could see the back to back argument. But we’ve seen players dominate for so long and not get the MVP. As for 2009 Wade, I meant his seeding didn’t fit the criteria for him to win MVP.

the seeding isnt what stopped Wade from getting MVP

Bron had a better season, outpaced Wade in basically every advanced stat and his team won 66 games

there really was no way around Bron getting that MVP

I dont see how these situation are comparable

 

[NoMorePie]

Nothing but walls of text.

This shouldn't really annoy any of ya

 

[AlbertPullhoez]

What's the argument against him? What's the controversy?

There is none. nikkas on here mad cause Jokic is white and about to win back to back MVP's

 

[T.he I.nformant]

Jokic the first player EVER to have 2,000 points, 1,000 rebounds, and 500 assists and ONLY player this year to be in the top 10 for the categories all while carrying his team who is without their 2nd and 3rd best players to 48 wins and a playoff spot and brehs are seriously questioning how someone could vote him as MVP

 

[Sugar]

Emiid just had a 30 point season with the scoring title. Last since Shaq and Moses. Jokic is an executioner in the 4th quarter. Philly without Embiid is still a better record than the Hawks lol I think both players are gonna cope just well with that.

 

[Big Boss]

 

[No1]

How didnt Wade fit the criteria that year? He finished 3rd

Bron outpaced the league in every advanced stat like Jokic did this year and the Cavs won 66 games that season

if the Bucks or 76ers won 66 games this season, I would bet my life on Giannis or Embiid beating out Jokic for MVP with 66 wins

My mans said every advanced stat - having a better team may just have something to do with that. What was Wade’s flaw that year?