Answer me this:
How many back-to-back MVP winners in their second season ending up having expectations of winning in the playoffs when they were without their #2 and #3 options?
You're the homie, but you're saying a whole lot without saying a whole lot: dressing up semantics of some trivial label that has absolutely nothing to do with anything, all because you're desperately trying to find a reason to subtract away from Jokic's MVP campaign, knowing damn well what you're saying doesn't make one bit of sense, but you're continuing to dig that hole as it's too late to walk that shyt back now. Players have been awarded MVP in the past for "hero ball" because they didn't have the right balance of help. The vast majority of Bron's MVPs were awarded because of hero ball; Rose won an MVP because of hero ball; Westbrook won an MVP because of hero ball; Steph won an MVP because of hero ball; the majority of MJ's MVPs were awarded because of hero ball; the majority of Cap's MVPs were awarded because of hero ball.
In fact, the precedent has been set that most MVPs have been awarded on the basis of hero ball, which only makes sense, because that is the very nature of the award. It's an individual award based upon ONE player's value/performance. Please tell me, how many times has the MVP been awarded to a player because of "team play"? I can guarantee it won't be as many times as a player was awarded it for hero ball.
I don't think anybody should've won it over Jokic, because obviously, he had the strongest narrative and was deserving. If somebody else was awarded MVP last season, and you asked me should Jokic be awarded it over them, I'd be saying the same thing. To me, MVP is meaningless, and only distracts us from discussing what really matters and appreciating players as they are. Take this thread as example - instead of discussing how great Jokic's season has been, it's devolved into a discussion of whatever the fukk this is. Now, that's not to say Steph wasn't deserving of winning MVP, but I can't say he should have won it over Jokic. Same applies to this season, Giannis and Embiid are both deserving, but if Jokic wins, neither of them should have won it instead, again, just as if Embiid or Giannis end up winning it, I'm not going to say Jokic should have won it either.
If a deserving player wins MVP - that's all that matters, in this context. After all, only one player can win it, and there's typically multiple players who are deserving.
I'll answer this question by reiterating:
How many back-to-back MVP winners in their second season ending up having expectations of winning in the playoffs when they were without their #2 and #3 options....
And I'll also throw it back to you - tell me what you think Jokic should improve on to where he could put his team in a better position of winning where he could drag this team to a deeper playoff run, and tell me which players currently could do that? Also, why is the onus on Jokic to improve the support cast and not the front office? Why are you penalizing him because he's not surrounded by better talent? How's he supposed to "mesh" his talent with better players if he's not being surrounded by better players?
