The MVP Award is a Mysterious Mess
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 кві 2024
- A breakdown of the history of MVP voting, and how it's got to a place where it makes no sense.
----------
Make sure to subscribe for more NBA History!
Follow Me on Instagram!
Instagram: / jonnyarnett. .
Interested in connecting more with the this Basketball community? Join up on Discord.
/ discord
______
The game of Basketball has been my passion since I was 5 years old. I grew up as a kid watching my dad's recorded VHS tapes of playoff games through the 70s and 80s, and collected all the Basketball cards. Something about the game and what it represents just hooked me from a very young age.
My love for the game only continues to grow as time goes on. I love studying and analyzing the game, with an unbiased perspective. Feel free to subscribe, follow me on social media, and celebrate this amazing game and it's rich history with me!
I post videos every week on NBA history, predictions, hypothetical scenarios and current NBA topics.
______
Intro Music: Turn On - RW Smith • Turn On - RW Smith (No...
-----
#nba #basketball #hoops - Спорт
Based on YOUR definition of the MVP, who should win the award??
Either Jokic or Luka. They both have valid arguments. I wouldn’t be mad either way.
I think Jokic should win, but I think Luka is also deserving
Jokic
Jokic and it's not close, the real question is who's 2nd?
it's luka's. even jokic would want luka to have it
MVP is just a Narrative Award and that's it.
Just hope perking keeps his trap shut this year
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.
Luka doncic has been the better player in the 2023/24 regular season. Hands down.
@@simonppp No.
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.
It's a fair win by Joel because he was robbed by Jokic in back to back years too
@@ND-OPS I don’t know about back-to-back-I think one of the years though.
If you are top five in the MVP race, you’ve had a pretty darn good year for yourself.
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.
@@vernlawu the hero we didn't know we needed
@@vernlaw finally someone who can read weighing in on the MVP race
It should be based on value. And we need an Offensive Player of the Year award as well.
"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
@@kingdeedee Wins, box +/-, and other stats that show value to a team
The player perceived as the most valuable is probably already great at offense.
@@fortynights1513 You could win both awards if you were that good
Scoring champion is the OFFENSIVE player of the year .
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
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.
How is shai ahead of luka while carrying less talent and putting up more…this award is a joke
luka has more help and plays absolutely no defense
you're just racist bro, it's time to admit that
@@wingsofdogshit5061 More help? No defense? Are you dumb? Also look at the stats, luka is better.
@@wingsofdogshit5061 Lol, I know you are, it's time to admit that.
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.
@@wingsofdogshit5061the guy didn't even bring up race u projecting
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???
It is dumb instead of seed it should be win loss record.
Well, they always talk about the winning thing and then never mention Shai.
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.
By far my favorite channel for entertainment, (I’m a chef)
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
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.
Very good argument. 100% agree. We need consistency.
you cant have consistency when you have HIDDEN AGENDAS..
SAS and K.PERKINS dont vote for white players.
Great video 🎉🥇🏆🏀🏀🏀
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.
Thats deep af shout out ta D Wade always a class act in my book definetly top 3 shooting guard all time
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)
The examples should be flipped but I agree
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.
wasnt ibm super inaccurate though and david robinson was winning it over michael jordan when mjs stats were better
@@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
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.
mvp was fine until people start talking about seeds instead of wins
@@onlyfacts3178 fact. Joker and Westbrook won their MVP from 6th seed and suddenly Luka can't because he's only 5th seed. Lmao
@@jojozahau 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...
Eye test is extremely vague. Flash is more entertaining, but it doesn’t mean it’s better or provides more value.
@TheMarkTEP25 eye test also allows you to rate leadership qualities.
It’s because narrative has been driving the award which is stupid. I think narratives are ruining the game.
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'm actually glad it's like this, makes it less predictive
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.
@@TrykusMykus BPM includes Defensive Box plus minus.
@@jonathansykes4986 Yes and I'm saying DBPM is very limited.
PER isnt that great because it includes FT attempts...so a player with a lot of rigged ft attempts and a lot of FG attempts has a higher PER
@@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.
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.
you‘re speaking out my mind. that‘s with 100% accuracy what I told a friend of mine a few days back.
Good video
Well said.
Have a terrific Friday!!!
Good take
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 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 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 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.
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
@@llg34slldifference is that jokic and russ happened recently. The tides are turning
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.
@@nathanlowenstein7464 I don’t care lmao
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.
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).
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 UA-cam 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...
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
Stop comparing Lukas 5th seed with Jokic's 6th seed without any context ffs
@@DR-110what would be the context lol
@@DR-110if you want the context Jokic won 48 games Luka won 50
@@Robert-el7wn Jokic’s second and third best players played like 4 and 16 games respectively
He won it because he did it without his second and third leading scorers
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.
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.
By the media, for the media
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.
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
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’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.
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.
Simple, game changer. Who change teams game overall
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.
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.
joel wasnt even close to jokić in 2023, you just have a casual take
@@cone17_ I don't see jokic ever having a 70 point game
Had nothing to do with voter fatigue. Jokic was on top until Kendrick said some flagrantly racist shit that made the media play politics.
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.
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.
It is
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
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
Luka at 1
A computer can't accurately make a decision like that
@@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
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
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)
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
Any award decided by media members instead of coaches/players is always sus.
You acting like It was better before lmao, i think you forgot that voters gave the award to Bill r. Who put up less than 20 points when wilt had fucking 50
Coaches and players have their own biases.
@@TiredOfthisstuff He was the best player on the best team. He owned the decade. He is the single reason Boston went from the worst defensive team to the best defensive team for a whole decade and he owned def wins shares and adv metrics. He was at worst the best player in 6 out of 12 finaks for his team. He avg a triple double if you count blocks and would likely be top 2-3 in rebs, blks and stls for the whole decade and all time in they tracked them.
He guarded a HOF Centers which were the best players and is the reason Wilt Chamberlain isn't the undisputed goat. Probably had a few quad doubles and countless triple doubles every season. If they had dpoty back then he'd have like 5 of those too.
You do realize Russell won the title in 4/5 of his mvp campaigns?
@@CrazyxEnigma media members are paid first and foremost to run with a narrative. Coaches and players play the game for a living. Media makes narratives for a living. I'll take the coaches and players.
@@andrewcook1246 yeah he was the best defensive player, agree with you on that BUT the thing IS this, just based on regular season (because again, the mvp is a regular season award) there is no justification for that robbery, wilt was also an elite defensive player and probably had similar blocks to Bill, the difference IS that wilt was galaxies better than him Offensively, Bill just had the luxury of playing with 11 hof, but that season wilt only won a couple less games anyways, so what is your argument 💀
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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).
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
Voters should be tired of Jokic because he is the clear MVP like last year, wow great logic 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.
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.
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.
2023 to Jokic was like 2011 to LeBron. Got robbed due to voter's fatigue.
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.
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 this is a kinda hard problem to solve because I’m pretty sure baseball has dealt with this same dilemma before.
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.
So best player on a bad team, got it.
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.
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.
Facts... Too much narative into MVP these days
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
The media should not be the voters. The players should be the voters.
MVP= 40% individual stats, 30% team success, 15% individual impact on team success, 10% is it his turn?, 5% flare/style/entertainment value
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.
MVPs shouldn't count as highly towards player's all time status as it does. It really is just a popularity contest.
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.
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
The Giannis carry at 3:03 is wild
Seems fine since he's starting his dribble off the catch there.
They need to change the vote process and voters
🏀
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
There should be less awards instead of more awards. You're gonna run into the same problems with more awards.
@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 mvp used to be decided by players and coaches, after 1980 it stopped mattering
For me, the mvp is the player they had the biggest impact on winning.
stats usually when it seemed like but I have to say Nicola I will get it this year
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.
I’m a Thunder fan so I’d be happy with SGA. But I think Jokic should probably get it.
Why do we pay so much attention to this award and downplay it at the same time 😂
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 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).
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
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.
Luka had a historic season. No one deserves to be in the same sentence as Luka.
The criteria should be who is the most valuable player to his team, regardless of where they place or end up.
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.
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