Jokic was the MVP last year but voters' fatigue and the controversy coming from that complete clown of Perkins' comments gave the trophy to Embiid. From the Joker to the Choker. This season, well, Jokic is still the best player in the world, hands down.
I thought Jokic won one year when Embiid deserved it and Embiid won the year Jokic deserved it. For most MVPs, I almost feel like it’s been lagged a year behind.
Analytics could be the best way to evaluate player impact and value -- BPM, VORP, PER, win shares, win shares / 48 min, eFG%. They're much more difficult to pad than basic stats like ppg and apg, for anybody who's solely driven to pad their stats for MVP consideration. Another argument for it is Jokic has led the league in at least 7 advanced stats over a 4-year stretch so far. LeBron did this over 5 years and MJ for 9 years. MJ won 5 MVPs during that stretch and LeBron 4. So advanced analytics seem to back up those all-time greats' multiple MVP cases.
My bored ass took an average ranking of win shares/48, PER, VORP and box plus minus…dropping the lowest one because some players had one where they ranked low……it aligned with the MVP every year except twice going back to 09….the only two were last year Jokic would have been first instead of Embid and 2011 Rose would have lost to Lebron…..Jokic is first in all 4 this year although Embid was ahead of him before he got hurt.
"Value" is such an arbitrary thing. Like would you just determine "value" from on/off numbers and give the MVP to the league leader in net on/off +/- ? Or is "value" determined by wins? Should they use wins added stats? Not coming at you specifically but I think the core of the problem is that the league/voters do not have a clear definition of value relating to the MVP Also +1 for adding an OPOY award
Actually I think it’s been pretty consistent, since 2017 the MVP winner has been determined by advanced metrics, with the exception of 2023 in which voter fatigue played a huge factor Voters got tired of Jokic so they just chose the guy with the 2nd best advanced stats, but according to this new formula, this should be Jokic’s 4th straight MVP
I'm a Mavs fan I believe Luka has more especially since the trade but to say he plays no defense tell me people haven't watch him this year he 7th in steals he improved.
The seeding thing is stupid though. Imagine it was Denver in the 3rd seed only 1 game behind OKC and Minnesota. Is Jokic really that much less valuable because of ONE loss???
Some wisdom from Dwyane Wade. "That's man-given. It can be taken away by man. I don't like getting things that can be taken away by man." The great seasons these players had are now in the history books. whether there's the pageantry of voted awards to recognize them or not.
I wouldn't dare call this a solution, but we could just have the players vote on it. That way, even if we disagree, I think it would be fair bc you've been selected by a jury of your peers, rather than a bunch of media hacks who are usually just trying to push specific narratives
The only thing is, they would push their own agendas as well. There has to be stipulations on what qualifies a player to be MVP and if players meet those qualifications, then you vote on those specific players.
I think that on the beginning of every season NBA should give instructions what will determine MVP for that year, so then it can change from season to season but with identity.
Great question, interesting video. I'd like to see a system of weighted requirements. Such as statical accomplishments: 20 pts, availability: 20 pts, winning record: 15 pts, eye test: 15 pts, defense: 10 pts, etc, etc. MVP w/b guy w/ most points. I love systems.
@@rgbjojozahau SEEDS are for LOW IQ People.. 1st seed in the East can have 50 wins and the 8th seed in the west 51 wins.. MAVS had the same wins has the 2nd SEED in the EAST. And 50 wins is basically the same has 57 wins. Its not 7 wins that make the difference, specially when players dont play every game. EMBIID had 43 wins last season not 54, proving his team was winning without him. MVP is the player who is MOST VALUABLE. FUNNY part is that SOME people say SGA had a great game and i said well thats LUKA AVERAGES. AND at the same time if LUKA has 30 points 5 assists 4 rebounds people already saying he had a bad game...
I definetly agree and while not having gone to culinary school im also quite impressive in the kitchen and have been fortunite to work in some very high quality places over the years
MVP is not so much an actual award anymore. It has just become one of the many ways the league advertise itself. They don’t care who is actually the MVP. They want the criteria to be vague and ever changing, because it creates more buzz on social media from people arguing with each other.
With advanced statistics now readily monitored and calculated, why not use PIE (Player Impact Estimate), +/- or PER (Player Efficiency Rating). If there is a way to measure it just take the title out of voters' hands, as is the case with the top scorer. There were instances in the past where, especially for the top scorer or rebounder, a qualifying player would go that extra mile just to make sure he gets the honor. By advanced metrics, Nikola Jokić has the best PIE out of the five contenders (21.1, Luka 20.0, Giannis 19.7, SGA 18.7 and Tatum 15.5). With +/- it's Jokić again (8.6, with SGA and Tatum 8.2, and Luka and Giannis 4.6).
Embiid was MVP last year because of voter fatigue and because dummies did not give Lebron 5 straight or Jordan 9 straight. Jokic should be at 4 MVP soon, not 3. Jokic prime, right now, is up there with the best of all time.
The mvp is not completely on what the fans want. Wtf u talking about. Joel was literally the best player in 2023. U guys keep talking about playoff and how his bad team never been past the second round. Sixers record was almost as good as the Celtics before he went down. Now they the 8th or 7 seed.
Agree. The voting for MVP has never been consistent. MJ should have way more. Lebron should have more. Shaq and Kobe having 1 each while Nash has 2 still surprises me. It's the circle of life.
Formula is impossible but it should be someone who is either top 1-3 in BPM, VORP, WS/48, WS and PER. If tie-breaker is needed, then maybe team record.
Those stats are based on the box parameters which do not convey the defensive side of the gameplay well. If you wanna use advanced metrics then you should go deeper than BPM.
@@TrykusMykusyou're right and everyone who watches the game knows this, including the players. There's a reason why Embiid won and was the favorite this year until he got hurt. He's a defensive system by himself.
the mess with the MVP Award is why we need to bring back the IBM Award. the IBM Award can be for the most statistical pleasing player (ex. Luka) while the MVP Award can be for the best player overall (ex. Jokic)
Statistically pleasing? 😂 Well, Jokic is the best in both of those based on advanced metrics, and it's not that close. Unless you purely mean whose stats are closer to a triple double with high scoring.
@@benlazzopina-wy9om i think you meant Dennis Rodman. he won in 92. and the fact that MJ didn’t win a single IBM Award throughout the decade of the 90s meant something was wrong with the formula (overemphasis on rebounds).
@@markjackson6431 david robinson won it 5x and charles barkley won it 3x, but yeah something was clearly wrong with the formula if mj who was putting up the best stats in the league from like 1987-98 only won it twice
I absolutely hate that Jokic seems to be the undisputed MVP at this point. Luka is putting up some of the most dominant numbers ever, and earlier in the season the main argument was the Mavs’ record wasn’t good enough. They proceed to win 50 games in a loaded western conference, but somehow it’s still Jokic. If Luka can’t win this season it feels like he’s never gonna win.
it’s not about record, it’s about seeding and B4 you argue saying “it shouodjt be about the seed” or “the mavs would be a 2seed in the east” or “seeding doesn’t matter” only 2 players won mvp outside a top 3 seed in the past 5 years… if you wanna cherry pick Jokic and Russ winning it outside a top 3 seed then fine, but don’t forget the other 48 ppl
He is gonna win it in future, probably next season or some other seasons too, but even if he never wins it, do you know why that would be the case??? Because he plays in the era of the most valuable and the greatest statistical player in NBA history. Simply what Jokic is doing in his prime is just unbelievable, unreal, if someone had to play season of his life to average nearly the same numbers like Jokic, Jokic is the most valuable player on the court and he does it soo effortless, it is soo easy to him to be valuable and consistent that it's not real. Just look at his last 4 seasons amd compare them to Jordan's or Lebron's best 4 seasons. I think Jokic averages highest +/- than any of them without a doubt, he has highest value over replacement and probably he leads in einshares as well. It means, nobody in NBA history has played more perfect 4 seasons in his career likr Jokic is playing last 4 years. That's why nobody has a chance until he slows down after probably 2 or 3 years.
Jokic is leading the league in many advanced stats by a wide margin, while also stuffing the stat sheet. You can hate it all you want, but Jokic is definitely the best player in the world right now, and it's not that close.
Great Video and Topic, Sir. We DO need clarification. Do not forget Voter Fatigue. Unfortunately, that seems to be a BIG factor although it should not matter at all. I have always wanted to believe that it is most important player to his team on a winning/good team. Not necessarily a top 2 seed. I do very much want defense to be a factor as well. Although I do not think of him as a defender at all & I am not a big fan of score first point guards, I think SGA probably deserves the award this year.
It should be a combination of team success, Regular stats AND advanced stats. Jokic is the only guy that has all 3 this year. The west is very stacked and Tatum just doesn't have that individual dominance. Nuggets are tied with Thunder in wins, but Jokic has the edge on the stats department on Shai. So we have only Luka left. Both are deserving but Jokic has both the better team success and the asvanced stats, while Luka has only the standard box score on his side, so the joker should win it, and he is literally the "most valuable" guy out there
Luka is top 3 in all advanced stats, while having BY FAR the best box score of the top 3 and is having a 50 win season while having the most injured team between MVP candidate BY FAR
I think the old system is the only way to stay consistent. Stats are so inconsistent from player to player and team to team. And we're seeing the inflation of stats make any historical comparisons super difficult. And determining who's more "valuable" is delving into hypotheticals. I always say "who had the best season". And winning plays a part in that
I thought that Paul Pierce said LeBron James was already the Goat after LeBalco scored 40,000 points in 21 years. Now Paul Pierce is saying that a ring this year makes LeBron the goat. Paul Pierce is just saying anything to be the new Shannon Sharpe to his new boss, Skip Bayless. Every year they figure out something new to push a Goat debate. Michael Jordan won 5 rings by Age 34 in 12 years, Kobe Bryant won 5 rings by Age 31 in 13 years, and somehow LeBron James winning 5 rings by AGE 39 in 21 years makes LeBron the goat??? Really??? Smh. 👀
My criteria for MVP (in order of importance): - Must lead your team in either points, assists, or rebounds. (Major statistical leader) - Must be a big improvement over your replacement (Not easily replaceable) - Must have a strong +/- (meaning you must elevate your team over the opponent) - Must be a top 8 seed in conference. The higher the seed the better. (Give your team the best chance to win a championship) - Being worthy of an all-defensive team (Bonus points for being two-way player)
It should be 1. Jokic 2. Luka 3. SGA also I don't think the league office should say anything, thats a dumb idea, then it should just be decided by a computer
@@taetrrtot6205ngl a computer could if you give it every single metric possible It would find who is the most valuable and ngl would be far more accurate than the actual award that’s being given
@@universalplayz7496 that'd work if we understood how to measure every aspect of the game with numbers but we don't so that method would mean overlooking multiple very important aspects of the game, stats can't tell you everything or take context into account. The best solution is for them to get more specific about the factors they consider important for deciding the MVP because right now there's as many interpretations as there are voters
Ain't nobody on SGA team as good as Murray and Uncle Drew that's what baffles me about this whole thing if Murray wasn't on the Nuggets they are a playin team if Kyrie not on the Mavs they probably wouldn't even make the playoffs but my man SGA doing it as a PG shooting 55% surrounded by babies
the thing about MVP is sometimes the voters and fans look at *_who is THE BEST in the league_* or *_who is THE MOST VALUABLE to the team._* Perfect example was Shaq not winning the first unanimous MVP because a voter claim Iverson was MORE VALUABLE to the team; which made sense if we are ONLY look at that. But awarding the MVP is not a linear thing. LOTS of things to consider.
Seems like who is best still factors in even in the latter case because one could make the argument most seasons for some players who floor raise otherwise terrible teams and who aren't necessarily anything that transcendant in reality but look crazy valuable for their bad team. So some degree of limiting the possible candidates to better teams seems to be involved regardless.
I think the MVP discussion, much like the GOAT debate, is less about a strict formula and is more about dissecting the differences between the top contenders and figuring out what attributes matter more in that circumstance.
I don't know what to think about the system either, but I know two things - first, Joker deserved both titles with his game, records and statistics (advanced too), and especially since he introduced a revolution in the game of a center, which was recognized by voters and the entire public, and second , no one wants to watch basketball where enviable statistics are derived from an abnormally high number of free throws that last year silently brought home the MVP award(and probably will happen this year as well) ...
It's been proven alot of voters recently have been voting for the story/moment. In interviews and sometimes outright saying it, voters have said they don't think they're the MVP but this person deserves an MVP.
They always have. Narrative and other non basketball reasons have trumped what happens on the court. Kobe in 06 was hated for driving Shaq out of town and the rape case so many voters left him off the ballot entirely same thing happened to Barkley in 90, the spitting incident and the I'm not a role model speech irritated voters so enough left him off the ballot entirely he didn't win despite having more first place votes than anyone else. Even back when players voted they didn't like Wilt Chamberlain so didn't vote for him.
The no-formula is what creates the soap-opera-like buzz that causes all the attention, and makes it more popular in the media and social media. I can't see them wanting to change it to a more "boring" clear formula. For example I don't watch the media at all other than the occasional RU-vid video. I can't remember a single thing Perkins said in the history of existence... not sure if I've ever heard him... except that MVP thing last year. It got people to make videos about it, so it worked. How many videos would people make about someone choosing an MVP rationally...
And this is why I respect Bill Russell’s MVP’s far more than anyone else’s from the 80s and up players voted for who the MVP was back in his day unlike now
MVP would be determined by a combine of winning (at lesat being qualified to the playoffs, or division leader, or 1 to 4 seed) and stats (scoring stats + some advanced stats as winshares, box plus minus, player efficiency rating, value over replacement) to determine how much a palyer carries a winning team.
Team wins50+ games: avoids punishing great teams in stacked conference or if their teammates had injuries Player needs to have out-sized share of credit for team success: yes being on stacked teams hurts your case, doesn’t disqualify but hurts The lower in the standings the more outrageous your stats must be to make up, or the more mitigating factors must be present, team injuries ie Should be a consensus top 5 player in league or at least very close Defense is generally a tiebreaker unless they had an exceptional offensive season and defensive season
Personal opinion here: 1. Shai, leader of the youngest #1 seed of all time and the only real star on the Thunder 2. Luka, if the Mavs were a higher seed he'd be at 1 (plus he has Kyrie for help) 3. Jokic, the voters are tired of him I hope 4. Tatum, he'd have a better case if he didn't play for a juggernaut 5. Giannis, Doc Rivers ruined this season for him
I personally think that everything needs to be taken into account for example, if you are not a good defender than you’re offense must make up for it, if you are on a low seed than your stats must be historic. Voters should look at every aspect of a players game and decide who is most important AND who is best.
Yeah. Determining the MVP has just become a mess. Based on it's name, it should be the most valuable to their team. For example, Kobe drug a border line g league team to the playoffs. Twice. He should have been MVP both seasons, not to mention his Achilles tear season. There was season where Knicks Melo should have gotten it. Basically, the player's team makes the playoffs and is the most valuable to their respective team, should be the determining factor for MVP, IMO.
06 was the only year Kobe was a legitimate contender while the Lakers sucked. In 05 they missed the playoffs and in 07 won only 42 games and imo games won should matter more than seeding as conference strength fluctuates year to year. Take this year as an example the Lakers are again a seventh seed but won 47 games which is much more impressive than 42 in a hypothetical MVP argument.
My statistical model, which I built in 2010 and which has been working great for me since then, tells me that SGA is the MVP this year (with Jokic being the close runner up).
My proposal is the way the MVP should be decided is thus: Player Efficiency Rating * Minutes Played / Salary * Team wins / Team Losses No more votes, no more bloviators. Just objective stats we can count. Yes, it will still favor offense over defense. That's life, watching great scorers go up against great defenses is why we enjoy basketball. As for why I'm including salary in the calculation? Because that's what *value* means, and I think it would be interesting to give good players a reason to save their teams money. I could be convinced otherwise on the salary metric, if what you're looking for is the *greatest* player, regardless of their cost.
I think that what makes a player valuable is how they contribute to team success because the NBA is an association of basketball **TEAMS**, which is why I think that Win Shares should have been one of the primary stats assessed, especially when spread across 48 minutes (WS/48 on Basketball Reference). This particular stat makes it easier to compare players across eras to assess their performance within the set of regulations they were subjected to (eg. Jordan vs. LeBron GOAT debate). The next things I would consider have to do with the MVP candidates' team success: -Did their team qualify for the playoffs? -Did their team win at least 55% percent of the games in that season (at least 45/82 games in an 82-game season)? -How present was the candidate throughout the season (played 75% of games or 62/82 games in an 82-game season)? Then, I would look at individual non-advanced stats. They're way too much storyline and racial bias (*cough* Perkins *cough*) going on with MVP consideration. I saw one of Jonny Arnett's older vids of him redetermining the NBA MVP of each season, and I actually applied my considerations above and landed at what some might consider to be "hot takes". Here are a few: -Jordan is clearly the GOAT of the NBA -Kobe should not have won any MVPs -Steve Nash should not have won any MVPs, and his teammate Amar'e Stoudemire should've had stronger MVP consideration than Nash during those MVP years -Shaq was robbed of the MVP award the Iverson won S/O: Basketball Reference & Reddit for having these stats available and for allowing a forum to discuss such aspects of the game respectively.
MVP in my book: best two way player (common and advanced stats) on a play off contending team (top 8 each conference). Not a very creative definition, but highly measurable and objective. And you need to have played at least 30min in 70/82 games.
The answer to me has always been, for multiple sports, MVP should be about player'simpact on their team, and there should be a separate award for Player of the Year that's more about individual greatness
@TrykusMykus I agree lol, I'm fine with axing the most improved player. IMO, if you improved a bunch, the reward is going from 6th man -> all star -> all nba etc Also the conference final awards are ridiculous
The way I see it, it should go to the perceived best player of a team going to the playoffs. Now we have regular stats, advanced analytics and "eye test" for this. However there's also 1 component that now and then strikes, voter fatigue. This season it should be between Jokic and Luka. Shay has had a very good season but his production, when compared to Luka or Jokic, ain't enough. The way that Luka and Jokic manipulate the game, going on their own pace and pure game IQ its outstanding.
MVP is just what it is. Most VALUABLE player. Meaning of the 5 candidates who's team would struggle the most without them. That case can easily be made for Shai-Gil. Because he's the only one of the 5 candidates who doesnt have a true sidekick. Tatum has Brown, Giannis has Dame, Luka has Kyrie and Jocic has Murray.
yes and thats SGA edge over Jokic. with jokic case, they dominated the West before allstar week came. and played tag with OKC on who takes no. 1 spot after allstar week.
Brunson doesn’t get talked about enough in this convo, guy had injuries dealt to this team all season and still put up a historic end to the season and got 50 wins and the 2nd seed in the east. People just glaze over it.
The real answer: The MVP is based on who has the best narrative, that's the way its been decided for a while now, which is the only thing that explains the way MVP has been chosen more recently
True. Even in the 1990s, Jordan should had won one more MVP, but the narrative didn't supported him. Heck, even in 1962, Chamberlain didn't won while setting multiple offensive and rebounding records on an okay team.
@@david.tousignant20 I dont think the narrative thing applies to any of Wilts seasons because at the time the MVP was voted on by the players who weren't concerned with advancing a narrative for marketability like the NBA and media do today. I think they were just operating on a best player on the best team system, which is why he won it on the 76ers when the had the best record.
@@harrisontull8377 The narrative was that Chamberlain was obsessed with stats and didn't cared about winning. Russell debunked that false narrative during and after his playing career.
Lets be real here, the ONLY reason why this is even a dilemma is because of last year's MVP consolation winner. Because of RACE issues and the empowerment of 1 color over everything else mattered, it was given to someone who has less in statistics, played less games and won less games than the true, deserving winner. There's nothing else in NBA history that could tell you that Nikola Jokic (a white man) was robbed of a 3rd consecutive MVP. Oh and don't even get me started on foul baiting or being a foul merchant. Also Russell Westbrook deserved that MVP more than anything else averaging a triple double cor an entire season, something that hasn't been done in 56 years since Oscar Robertson did it. And at that, Russ did it on a historically harder timeline in which its more difficult to produce those stat line than it was in 1971. This year the only ones deserving this MVP award is Luka or Jokic and nothing else matters.
It's not as inconsistent as you make it out to be. A majority(something like 95%) of all MVP winners led the league in win shares per 48. The next closest correlating stat is PER, and it is around 86%. One player has led both categories the past 4 years straight, pretty easy to guess who. The reason record isn't important as it used to is because of the team hopping and superteam building that started occurring. Players who were doing historic things while solely carrying their teams were starting to get their credit over guys who put themselves on loaded teams.
It should be based of the players with the highest PER rating. Period. And it basically has been. The only years it didnt since the tuen of the century was nash over shaq in which it should have been shaq. Steph over AD in 2015. And embiid by .1 over jokic last year
Imo the awards get handed out like a WWE match, the best story wins. MVP : SGA Criteria: impact on winning, consistentency, defense, top 5-10 in analytics
They should come up with an offensive player of the year award to go to the statistical dominant player. And then go back to most valuable player as being the best player on the best team.
For me, picking the MVP should be as if you are starting a team and you can pick anyone in the NBA, with certain parameters, to be your first pick to build your team around. For me that is Jokic
@@arkadiuszrogala1359 His advanced stats are better than Luka's. =) Doncic takes the box stats, Jokic takes the advanced stats, Gilgeous-Alexander is consistently good across every metric, also more clutch than Luka (who has Kyrie) and at least as clutch as Nikola (who has Murray). There are so many factors to this discussion you can pick anyone of the 4 and make a case for them. OP wants more awards or for the award to be given by a set of criteria. IMO the award should stop existing. The hateful discourse over it is ridiculous and hurtful to the game and to the players.
@@TrykusMykus and shai has a chet lmao, you acting like he is playing alone, plus chet played almost every Game this season and both kyrie and Murray missed more than 20 games each, while chet had a fully healthy Season
@@TiredOfthisstuff I'm talking about who the ball goes to when the game is on the line. You can't blame Luka for usually not getting it, because Kyrie is clutch and iso king (his stats this season in clutch are insane), but the fact is, when the game is on the line for OKC, the ball usually goes to SGA and he does really well in those situations. Chet is a great player and he clutched at least 1 game this season, but he isn't on par with the impact of Murray, let alone Irving.
My definition would be the player who had the biggest impact that would be the hardest to replace to their team's success. With an emphasis on to their team's success because being really impactful and taking your team from terrible to ok to me is not what the MVP is for, but also giving it to a clearly less impactful player whose team is better is not what it is for. It should be the player who you think did the most to successfully make their team a good team. Also, to me right now the West has quite a few good teams because of how stacked it was, and I would say Luka did this the most post all star break, but for the entire year Jokic would have my vote, followed by Luka, and then between Giannis and Shai. Shai ended up with more success, but I think Giannis was better and more impactful for the success his team had. So for me it is an award based on a player with the most situational value, and who managed to cause their team to be successfull. Also I care a lot about games played because to me if it is about value, value is cumulative. If someone averaged 34/12/12 on 75%TS but then got hurt and only played 20 games, they would have played the best, but only had 20 games to provide value to their team.
Perhaps the NBA is turning in the MLB as it relates to the MVP award. Team record matters, but not if the stats are considered or perceived better than the competition (think Andre Dawson in 1987).
If his team wasn’t so inconsistent this year, Giannis would be the mvp. 2nd in ppg, 6th in rebounds, 14th in assists (while having his best playmaking season by far), first ever 30ppg 60fg%, 64.9% true shooting (0.1% behind Jokic, and the highest volume scorer in the league), while averaging only 3.4 turnovers per game (down 0.5 from last season), and having pretty good advanced stats (not that far behind Jokic). All that while being the best defender by a semi-significant margin among the other candidates, despite what the usual steals and blocks will tell you (which are still very solid too, 1.1 and 1.2).
My current thoughts are this: 1) MVP for best player on team with best record 2) DPOY for best overall defensive player 3) *OPOY for best overall offensive player 4) FMVP for best player on championship winning team
Jokic, obviously. He played a significant portion of the games with no costar, still almost got the one seed. Destroying advanced stats, just won a championship. It’s not really close. Luka would get it most years, not saying he or SGA isn’t worthy, but it’s definitionally Jokic.
It is hard but I am personally comfortable with any of the top 3 mentioned winning it. I like SGA because he is the top player on a young team that became the #1 seeded team this year in the West that was nowhere near that mark the previous season. That to me is real value.
The actual most valuable player to their team is Jalen Brunson. They are the second seed with an injured lineup. Divencenzo is the second best player there right now.
It would be interesting if not just the Media has a vote. If there is somewhat a formula that divides the voting into four different sections. Giving Media votes, but also Coaches, Executives, and Players. The last three obviously can’t vote for anyone on their team. But giving Coaches and Players vote would at least give some respect.
I think its pretty obvious the voters just go with who has best advanced stats overall. Embiid was an outlier because he’d have one of the most impressive 3 year runs ever and it seemed like a travesty that he never won an MVP, and the fact that the media mostly got on the “you cant be a 3x MVP without even a Finals appearance to your name” bandwagon against Jokic. Which is BS cause it’s a regular season award.
People always care about who the MVP will be, and always care about the discussion. You might want the criteria to never change, or be like it used to be in certain facets, or have more narrow rules enforced that don’t let the voters have much of a voice and determine their own criteria for voting. But for better or worse, media members get to vote and besides the new 65 game rule, they are given the freedom to vote as they see fit. I agree there used to be almost this unwritten rule that the player had to be the best player on a team with a realistic chance of winning a championship based on regular season seeding, and I actually like that logic to an extent, but change is ok.
I actually agree with the winner most years. I don't see it as all that controversial really. I have Jokic as my M.V.P. this year and I think that Embiid deserved it last year unlike a lot of other Joker fans as I felt that Denver lost too many easy road games down the stretch. I know that's not very scientific, but it was in line with the consensus of the media. It's ultimately subjective...sort of like determining which artist made the best album that year.
It’s a subjective award and it’s judged on a per season basis. Westbrook’s was valid because that’s what made sense in that specific context. It’s not any more complicated and people who point to perceived inconsistencies year to year are being stubborn.
No Westbrook’s wasn’t valid. He got beat in almost every metric by the runner ups that year. He just had the best story (historic triple double season) and the “analysts” translated that to being super valuable to his team. There’s plenty of examples like this that suggest that having crazy stats doesn’t automatically translate to team success, and I thought team success was the main principle behind proving value. So why is it that Russ was given an exception that year? The only logical answer you can produce is that the media just REALLY liked him that year, so they gave it to him anyways.
It’s between Luka or SGA in my opinion. To take okc in a loaded west after no making it to the playoffs the season before averaging 30 is impressive and luka stats speak for themselves only thing that work against him is being in the west.
As much as I see that you need to be a high seed or at least in the playoffs, stats also matter but advanced stats matter than most. Also a reason why I had Jokic > Embid in 2023 and Jokic this season as well.
Russ winning it as the 6th seed kinda made the updated definition to be "a player whose team will not reach the playoffs if he didn't play". That takes Shai and Tatum out immediately because their teams are stacked.
Thats a fantastic point. Makes me think of like Iverson winning it in 01 where that 76ers team would have been sucking pond water without him. Jokic could be arguably in the race by that metric because as good as the Nuggets are he is clearly the driving force of their dominance. Luka probably looks like the strongest candidate in that case tho id have to imagine, unless they look too closely at the weird disconnect between his production and team improvement.
That takes Shai out immediately?? They missed the playoffs last year without Chet. You take Shai off the thunder they are a bottom 5 team in the league. They are far from stacked
Seeding argument was trumped by narrative(KD abandoning him) and doing what hasn't been seen since Oscar Robertson, averaging a triple double for a season he then did again for another three seasons in a row and now nobody cares about triple doubles anymore lol.
"Because otherwise it seems like people are simply picking their own personal favorites" - if you mean "favorites regarding who the MVP is" then that's exactly what it should be :D. Generally speaking, for me the MVP should be the best overall player. The MVP being the most valuable player for their team can be a problem because that team could be a bottom feeder team and have one great player, for example - and that great player doesn't even have to be among the best in the league but just great enough to outshine the rest of his team. When it comes to determining what "the best overall player" means, that is where you run into problems in general, because not everything that is done on the court is tangible by a stat. Just look at someone like Rodman, who most people agree is a top10 all-time defender, but besides his crazy rebound numbers that would not show in most stats. So when it comes down to it who you vote for as MVP is more or a less "an educated feeling" and everybody feels a bit differently, which is what makes it interesting after all :D.
I think that what makes a player valuable is how they contribute to team success because the NBA is an association of basketball **TEAMS**, which is why I think that Win Shares should have been one of the primary stats assessed, especially when spread across 48 minutes (WS/48 on Basketball Reference). This particular stat makes it easier to compare players across eras to assess their performance within the set of regulations they were subjected to (eg. Jordan vs. LeBron GOAT debate). The next things I would consider have to do with the MVP candidates' team success: -Did their team qualify for the playoffs? -Did their team win at least 55% percent of the games in that season (at least 45/82 games in an 82-game season)? -How present was the candidate throughout the season (played 75% of games or 62/82 games in an 82-game season)? Then, I would look at individual non-advanced stats. They're way too much storyline and racial bias (*cough* Perkins *cough*) going on with MVP consideration. I saw one of Jonny Arnett's older vids of him redetermining the NBA MVP of each season, and I actually applied my considerations above and landed at what some might consider to be "hot takes". Here are a few: -Jordan is clearly the GOAT of the NBA -Kobe should not have won any MVPs -Steve Nash should not have won any MVPs, and his teammate Amar'e Stoudemire should've had stronger MVP consideration than Nash during those MVP years -Shaq was robbed of the MVP award the Iverson won S/O: Basketball Reference & Reddit for having these stats available and for allowing a forum to discuss such aspects of the game respectively.
Yes, there should be rules to determine the MVP and other awards. Only then there can be a clear and fair assessment of the winner. My assumption is that this is the precise reason, why there are no rules. The league wants an eternal discussion about who should have won, because that´s generating posts and likes and clicks and thus money. They want the drama to continue. Rules are cryptonite to drama.
I think there has been a shift to looking at advanced metrics. Embiid won last year because of voter fatigue, I feel like there is somewhat of an agreement among the voters that players can't win 3 in a row. I personally believe MVP should be the best player on a top 3 team und have the best numbers in all metrics, especially those that look at impact, (Jokic this year). But I belive if someone has such incredible record breaking stats and there is no player on a top 3 team that comes close a lower seeded player can win (like Jokic 22).
IF there was a formula, there would be no vote There would only be one answer - like you said in the vid for example, let's say "based on advanced analytics": jokic would win. how could anyone vote against it? it would be like running a 100m sprint, personA finishing first, but us voting that the person3 who finished 3rd is the winner. The same applies for stats, best player on top seeded team etc. thus the league would loose its ability to create narrative, sports bets, intrigue and give the journalists and fans a bone
To me on the winning part a top 5 seed in your conference as long as youre averaging historic numbers better than the guys on better teams you should win the mvp as much as defense matters i cant ignore lukas insane statlines
This is easy, Jokic. His team doesn’t even sniff the playoffs without him. If he doesn’t win it the voters need to have their privilege taken from them. He clearly was the mvp last season and they refused to give it to him. Two years in a row would be a complete travesty.
@@DreDaDon16 SGA plays the same position as both though I see what you're saying. Chet will get to that caliber of a #2 soon and if for some reason he doesn't JDub probably will instead.
The MVP award in the NBA should be changed to a format that assesses not just personal statistics, but how a player is able to make his team play better as a team.
The name of the award itself hints it should belong to the player who better contributes to the success of his team. Though i'm always inclined to think it's meant to be given to the player who plays the best basketball.
