The MVP Award is a Mysterious Mess 

Based on YOUR definition of the MVP, who should win the award??

MVP is just a Narrative Award and that's it.

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.

If you are top five in the MVP race, you’ve had a pretty darn good year for yourself.

It should be based on value. And we need an Offensive Player of the Year award as well.

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.

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

How is shai ahead of luka while carrying less talent and putting up more…this award is a joke

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.

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???

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

It’s because narrative has been driving the award which is stupid. I think narratives are ruining the game.

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.

Very good argument. 100% agree. We need consistency.

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.

By far my favorite channel for entertainment, (I’m a chef)

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)

Great video 🎉🥇🏆🏀🏀🏀

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

It should be luka easily. That man has been so dominant and is the 5th seed. Jokic won it as the 6th seed. Its lukas time in my opinion

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) ...

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. 👀

I'm actually glad it's like this, makes it less predictive

you‘re speaking out my mind. that‘s with 100% accuracy what I told a friend of mine a few days back.

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.

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.

Good take

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.

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.

Good video

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...

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

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.

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

Well said.

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).

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.

Have a terrific Friday!!!

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.

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.

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.

The NBA can keep the MVP, but we need a BMF title for the baddest mfer alive like the UFC at this point

I think the change since 2016 is a good thing, as the most 'valuable' player in the league doesn't necessarily come from a top seeded team

2023 to Jokic was like 2011 to LeBron. Got robbed due to voter's fatigue.

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.

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.

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.

MVP= 40% individual stats, 30% team success, 15% individual impact on team success, 10% is it his turn?, 5% flare/style/entertainment value

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

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.

I think they are following the best advance stats, they just had voter fatigue last year as Jokic would win his 4rth strait this season

How about how absolutely ugly and stupid the award looks? Ironic as the award itself is as ugly as the mess they ve turned the qualification for the award into

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).

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

mvp should be mot surprising player or best storyline cuz if it was just the best player jordan would have 10 and there would be no variety

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.

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

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 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.

Any award decided by media members instead of coaches/players is always sus.

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.

It is

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.

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

MVPs shouldn't count as highly towards player's all time status as it does. It really is just a popularity contest.

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).

Facts... Too much narative into MVP these days

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

I think this is a kinda hard problem to solve because I’m pretty sure baseball has dealt with this same dilemma before.

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.

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

Simple, game changer. Who change teams game overall

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.

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

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.

Any of the top 3 guys are deserving imo. Jok is the best player in the world right now though so he probably gets a huge advantage from that fact.

Using “the eye test” from media members doesn’t seem so bad in a tight race like this

The V in MVP was never taken seriously until recent years: whoever had the best season should determine the winner period

The media should not be the voters. The players should be the voters.

The mvp used to be decided by players and coaches, after 1980 it stopped mattering

The Giannis carry at 3:03 is wild

Luka had a historic season. No one deserves to be in the same sentence as Luka.

stats usually when it seemed like but I have to say Nicola I will get it this year

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.

TBH,the old design of the league MVP trophy was great at least it made great sense, but this MVP trophy doesn't make any sense

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.

The criteria should be who is the most valuable player to his team, regardless of where they place or end up.

If the MVP had more parameters, computers could vote and there would be no interest. The NBA likes that it's vague, it creates controversy and content. Example A, this video. It's changed recently because of the statistical revolution. But you need to have a narrative as well. But. I think it should be Lukas this year.

Why do we pay so much attention to this award and downplay it at the same time 😂

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

By the media, for the media

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.

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

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.