I agree with your top 3, but the last two are 1969 and 1970. 1969 should have gone to either Wilt or Willis Reed who tied for 1st in WS. Wilt was 2nd in PER, Reed 4th. Wes Unseld finished 8th in WS and 20th in PER. The Bullets had the best record, but only by a couple games over the Lakers and Celtics. 1970 Should have gone to Jerry West. He finished 1st in WS, PER and PPG. He had to carry the Lakers team after Wilt tore his ACL in the 1969 playoffs and only played 12 games that season. Bill Walton was very deserving in 1978. The Blazers were 48-10 and threatening the Lakers single season wins record when Walton was hurt. They finished the season 10-14 showing just how valuable Walton was. I don't have a problem with a Celtic winning in 1973. They just gave it to the wrong player. John Havlicek was the Celtics MVP and should have won the award. There was a bias against non-centers in the 60s and 70s for MVP. From 1960-1980, centers won 20 of 21 MVP awards.
Over the past month or so I have literally gone from basically knowing nothing about basketball to going through hours and hours worth of its amazing history. And this channel is one of the major reasons for that. Thank you sir, keep up the amazing work! 👍
After everything that happened in NBA media this year I saw the Embiid MVP win coming, but for me it was the margin of 1st place votes he had over the Joker that really confused me. Not even mentioning the fact that Giannis was just swept out of the conversation in favour of the one who had been crying for 4 years.
Not really, Jokic deserved it last year and 2021, but you can't say that a player who puts up 33ppg while being top ten in blocks and rebounds doesn't deserve
crying? he averaged 33 ppg and back to back scoring titles. you can say someone else should have won, but saying he didn't deserve it is a stretch. at the end of the day, the MVP is with him anyways
I Wonder when will the analysts ever understand there is a correlation by usa‘s bad results internationally and the bunch of Europeans winning MVP‘s? The game is way to flashy, hardly anyone can play solid defense nowadays and the european teams especially are organised way too well to make individual talent the deciding factor.
I think technology has something to do with newer generations of American players not doing good compare to other countries basketball players, your country is so advance and rich that almost all of the kids had an access to a computer or console games while in other country having a computer or console is for the rich so kids still play basketball as a for of entertainment while in the US the newer generations are split between playing computer games and or playing basketball.
I was sure you were going to have Nash on this list for two reasons. A) you’re a Lakers fan, and B) the thumbnail. Way to stay as unbiased as possible. Big ups my guy
Lol. Thanks man. There was a slight bias for having him IN the thumbnail though. haha. At the very least though, Nash fit the formula... Nash was winning A LOT, and Kobe's team was not.
While Nash deserved to win the MVP in 2005 over Shaq - he had a FAR bigger impact on his teammates and winning and - I’m sorry - Nash at least led the league in assists (jumping over 3 apg) while Shaq didn’t lead any stat category and his numbers were an average 22/10 - he did NOT deserve the 2006 MVP over Kobe. While his team had a better record - by 9 games - they dropped from the previous year by 8 games, with virtually the SAME roster (minus Joe Johnson)…while Kobe took the WORST roster in the league to the playoffs…with far better stats, leading the league in scoring with the highest average ppg since MJ in ‘97…while making the All NBA plus the All-D 1st team…
@@twilitezn you’re missing the fact that Amare was out the whole season and they weren’t expected to do much, but they still won and Nash increased his numbers. That was the narrative at the time. If the Lakers had won even a few more games it would have easily gone to Kobe
@@twiliteznkobe didn’t deserve it because bro was a shot chucker and barely won anything plus nash was a better offensive player than he was for those 2 seasons
Thank you for not saying Nash. People always shyt on Nash cuz Shaq originally claimed on open Court that he should’ve won the award over Nash cuz he was averaging “28 and 15.” Now everyone always says it like it’s a fact that Shaq should’ve won over Nash when in reality Shaq was averaging like 20 and 10 not “28 and 15.” Thinking Shaq should have won is one thing but so many people say it so factual now as if Nash sucked.
Your take on On "People";and "Everyone Always" is 🧢 Your 'People' & "Everyone" must refer to a handful of teenagers playing 2k Because "People" had been saying Shaq deserved it more than a decade before Open Court ever existed.
To add to the comical nature of Russell winning the 1961-1962 MVP award over Chamberlain...Wilt's historic season resulted in the NBA basketball writers voting Chamberlain as the 1961-1962 1st Team All-NBA center whereas Russell was voted as the 2nd Team All-NBA center. The same NBA players who got their asses kicked on a nightly basis by Chamberlain voted Russell as the 1961-1962 league MVP. Not only did Wilt put up the greatest individual regular season in NBA history, he also put together 3 iconic performances in a row in January of the 1961-1962 season. 1/13/62 73 points 36 rebounds 29-48 from the field against HOF Center Walt Bellamy 1/14/62 62 points 28 rebounds 27-45 from the field against HOF Center Bill Russell 1962 NBA All-Star Game 42 points 24 rebounds 17-23 from the field in a time when the All-Star game was played in an all-out fashion
Totally agree. Wilt led the league in Win Shares 8 times. Here's just as quick analysis of the 1962 season between Wilt and Russell using Win Shares. Wilt had 23.1 Win Shares(first) and Bill had 15.5(fourth). For those that don't know how WS are calculated, the more your team wins, the more win shares available to earn. Wilt's team won 49 games and Bill's team won 60 games. If you figure WS per Game Won, then Wilt has a rating of .471and Bill has a rating of .258. Wilt was first in WSper48, OWS and second in DWS. Bill was first in DWS, third in WSper48 and 18th in OWS. Oscar was third in WS and OWS. Here's a little known fact. Wilt was the only non-Celtic to make the top 5 in DWS. lol Russell/Wilt/Cousy/Heinson/Sanders. KC Jones, Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey round out the top 10. The Celtics had 7 of the top 10 players in DWS.
I always thought Magic's last MVP in 1990 should have been won by Charles Barkley. Barkley had more first place votes than Magic but Barkley was not as popular as Magic ( some voters left Barkley completely off of their list) . Magic led Barkley in assists per game and FT% and Barkley led Magic in every other measurable metric in basketball. Barkley's "I am not a role model" and the spitting on a fan in the stands really hurt Barkley. No disrespect toward Magic, but from a strictly basketball on the court perspective, Barkley was more deserving IMO.
Agree on this. Both Barkley and Jordan had great cases in winning that year, and they were far and away better then Magic in every statistical category besides assists, while also leading their teams to winning records. Magic’s MVP season, while good, was far and away his weakest one statistically and he clearly only got it for team record alone.
Also bill Russell won that award while Oscar had the triple double avg that season which was much more of an accomplishment for not only back then, but even considered the benchmark for all around offensive play, through the 2000"s. I know the trip dub avg has lost some of its flare nowadays with the wide open gameplay and highly inflated stats letting many get near the mark, but even back as late as the year 2000, Oscar was still recognized as the 3rd greatest basketball player ever because of his trip dub avg , or being right there at the nark, for over 10 seasons there. Sporting news and sports illustrated had him number 3 behind Wilt and Jordan in 2000 but since these days more emphasis is put on rings and accolades, players like him and Jerry west have completely fallen out the top 10 and on most people list, even the top 20. No way Russell gets that award today.
As a huge fan, noticing you also have the tree of gondor in your add, makes me love your channel so much more, as a Basketball fan and LOTR fan, You are my favourite channel now
Was really worried Nash was going to be on this list. Good on you for appreciating what he did without Stoudemire that season. 54-28 after losing Joe Johnson & Amare & still making the Suns look like true contenders was insane.
It's been a while, but I seem to recall he wasn't all that deserving of the 2nd one, and was robbed of a third when he actually did deserve it? I think there was also some backlash of what a three peat means.
his 1st mvp was such an anomaly that they had no choice but to give him 2nd one considering he lost his best scorer, increased his production and still won 50 + games.
Aye Jonny you got your shyt off on this video! I hope this does NUMBERS 🫶🏾🔥🔥🔥 We should push to get Jonny a ballot in the NBA mvp voting 🤷🏾♂️ Jonny really cares about the mvp voting y’all
The most undeserving MVP I've seen is Bob McAdoo in 1975. Rick Barry had a great year in leading the GS Warriors to the chip and had great stats to back him up. Barry averaged 30 ppg, close to 6 assists a game, and 3 steals. Barry had a great year and led the Warriors to a sweep of the heavily favored Bullets in the '75 Finals. Barry, however, was an unpopular player and players were voting in '75.
Yea Rick Barry definetly had an amazing season that year, but the MVP is a regular season award, but overall I would give the slight edge to McAdoo because of defense.
@@superiorgaming9399 Barry was a terror in the passing lanes in '75 and 3 steals a game is a problem. I saw Barry play a lot that year and he was amazing. McAdoo had an excellent year but I don't think he had the year Barry had. Let's face it, Barry was unpopular with other players and the players were doing the voting.
@jingqi9106 Barry definitely had an MVP caliber season, I just think McAdoo had a better one. He averaged 35 and 14 and overall had marginally better defense. I'm not saying Rick Barry wasn't a great player or that he wasn't a good defender, but I just think McAdoo had a slightly better season.
Nash gets so much crap for winning, and it's so underserved. He was the most VALUABLE to his team, because without him specifically, the team would fall apart and not even smell 60 wins. People act like you could plug and play anyone in that system, but they completely ignore the level of skill the man had. Take Shaq off the Lakers and you still have Kobe. Take Nash off the Suns, and you have the Knicks.
@@fullmetal1766 no, they're not. Look at Jo with the hawks...empty stats and no wins. Amare with the Knicks...empty stats and no wins. Matrix at Dallas...played with Dirk and JKidd.
@@RetroKid I see what your saying but Joe Johnson (Iso Joe) was a much better than average offensive player, he had good enough handles and knew how to use his superior height, strong body to get off clean look jumpers, off at the basket from mid-range and 3pt distance... My estimation, Joe Johnson was like Tracy McGrady without the highlight reel dunking, slashing abilities Joe Johnson (Atlanta Hawks team) was like a supremely skilled complementary player, he would have had a lot more playoff success & notoriety had he been paired with a Superstar big man (in my estimation)
The 2023 MVP was 50/50 between the two it could have gone to either Embiid or Jokic and it happened to be Embiid I don’t think it was undeserved especially since Jokic slowed down near the end of the season
@@CrazyxEnigmaOne thing I notice about the NBA community that I don’t see in other sports is that people cite playoff failures as a reason why someone doesn’t deserve an MVP. Ex: In the NFL, Fran Tarkenton had an excellent career, but performed about as poorly in the playoffs as any great quarterback has relative to the standards he set for himself. He won an MVP in 1975, a season where his team proceeded to go one and done in the playoffs. I don’t see anyone arguing he didn’t deserve the MVP because of that. And similarly, Peyton Manning also often underperformed in the playoffs save for a few select overlooked performances. He won five MVP’s in his career, including at least one in a season with an earlier playoff exit afterward, and while some have argued he didn’t deserve two or three of those MVP’s, I never see anyone citing his playoff performances as a reason why. Now back to the NBA, in my opinion the MVP should go to the player who had the most impactful regular season towards winning. From someone who thinks Nikola Jokic is the best player in the game nowadays and also thinks he should have won the MVP for that reason: If you think Joel Embiid didn’t deserve it, then tell me something he didn’t do in the regular season. Don’t get me wrong, performing poorly in the playoffs is a logical reason why a player isn’t the best in the game, but the player who puts up the most impactful regular season isn’t always the best player in the game overall. At least that’s what I think. What do you think?
SLOW DOWN?? when he secured the 1st seed lost 4 games and EMBIID lost 3 games ahahah FUNNY how EMBIID fans say that JOKIC slowed down and EMBIID who lost more games didnt slow...or why do you forget the 1st 2 months were EMBIID had a losing record. NBA MVP isnt for the last month but for the entire season.
The 1962 mvp race reminds me of the 90 mvp race with magic winning it. There’s a good case for several people that season. I could see Russell winning it that year
I disagree with the embiid one that’s easy to say now after the choke job he put up but during the regular season especially towards the end he really separated himself while jokic was kinda chillin and im pretty sure the 76ers went on some typa winning streak while the nuggets were either on a losing streak or they were kinda mid towards the end of the regular season
There are many problems with what you’re saying here. First, assuming you’re right, that doesn’t change the fact that Jokic played more games than Embiid, the Nuggets had a worse record without Jokic than the 76ers had without Embiid, and, besides ppg, Jokic was better than Embiid in basically every relevant statistic. But your reasoning above isn’t even relevant. The Nuggets were “chillin” toward the end of the season because they had already secured the number one seed. The 76ers did go on a bit of a run toward the end of the season, but it had no impact on the standings. They were the three seed before the run and ended the season at the three seed. If they had overtaken the Bucks for the top seed as a result of the run that would be more relevant, but it still wouldn’t justify giving the award to Embiid. There is one, and only one, reason to give the award to Embiid, and that’s his points per game. But if you think that’s enough to give him the award over Jokic, then I’m sorry to say that you don’t understand basketball whatsoever.
Thank you. Jokic was literally sitting out games towards the end of the season and lost to the garbage rockets (he was outplayed by some no name big man that game too). Everyone simply has revisionist history due to Embiid sucking in the playoffs.
In 1962 Wilt came 2nd in MVP-voting with his 50 points per game. In 1963 Wilt came 7th in MVP-voting with his 45 points per game scoring. Russell won the MVP both years. With 17 ppg in 1963.
@@penkima4923 lies. 1962 celtics had 7 hall of famers. 1962 warriors had 5. So youre saying wilt chamberlain wasn't good enough to make up the difference between the 7th man on the team? Give me a break. 1963 wilt won 30 games, you dont win mvp that way
I am now going to make a case for Bill Walton, who despite the time missed I think was a deserving MVP, and who actually provided historically good situational value to The Portland Trailblazers. And had a year of relatively weak competition for the award. So obviously the games played is obviously a legit reason to not vote for Bill Walton, but one thing I would like to mention is that the box score does not show how historically good Bill Walton was defensively, and this was still in the pre 3 point era where an amazing defensive center could provide comparable value on defense as the best offensive players in the world provide on offense, unlike today. I would actually argue that Walton provided more defensive value than any player that year provided offensively with the possible except of Kareem. One nice thing about Walton missing a bunch of games is we can see how impactful he was, because yes his team went 58-24(70% win rate) which was just barely the best record in the league, so it seems like if someone was on a team that was only slightly worse like George Gervin's 52-30 Spurs(63% win rate) that it makes sense to give them the MVP. But the thing worth noting is that despite playing an extra 24 games, Gervin only actually won 4 more games than Bill Walton that year. Because in the games Bill Walton played the Trailblazers went 48-10 for an 83% win rate. Then they went 10-14(42% win rate) for the 24 games he missed. Which is probably one reason he won, because it was very clear he had a team that without him was very very average, and with him they were by far the best team in the world. Box score advanced stats also really really struggle to capture Walton's value, because they can't capture his rim deterrence, his rim defense where he doesn't get the block but just makes people miss, and his outlet pacing leading to tons of transition points where he gets no direct assist. And his outlier playmaking from the center position. He was great at everything except scoring, and considering how much he effected his teams winning I think it is not a hard case that he provided more situational value to his team in 1978 in 58 games than Gervin did in 82. In general I think looking at games won makes more sense than games played. The MVP is I think supposed to be about situational value, how much value a player provided to their team in particular this year, not overall goodness. And players provide value by taking games that would have been losses and turning them into wins. Obviously if a team losses a game that player didn't turn that loss into a win. Walton played on a team that played at a 34 win pace without him, and got them to 58 wins. Obviously there is noise in on off, it's possible teammates simply played better for games Walton played for unrelated reasons, and worse in the games they lost. Or the opponents played worse in the Walton games just by missing wide open jumpers but there is a pretty good case that Walton got his team an extra 22 wins that year. Which is like....a lot. Now, it is possible that the Spurs would have been a 30 win team without Gervin, and he got them 22 extra wins, but I think it's probably unlikely. Since his value while there was somewhat one dimensional. He was a really good scorer, and as a guard a very very mediocre playmaker, and probably a slight negative on defense. That combination of skills has never lead to massive value on impact stats we only have for modern players. For the other candidates David Thompson actually won less games than Bill Walton, so unless you are saying he is more deserving because of all the games he lost that would be weird, and as much as I would love him to be the MVP because the Nuggets are my team, I just think Walton was so much more valuable. Thompson has a similar profile to Gervin, but just kinda slightly worse, so it would be weird to give him the MVP. Kareem played a similar amount of games as Walton, and his team was similarly good in the games he missed, but was not close to as good in the games he played. So IDK playing 4 more games for 11 less wins on a team that was equally good without him as the Blazers were without Walton seems like just a dubious case. His box score stats look better, but I think Bill Walton is in contention for the player in league historically that box score stats most fail to show the impact of. Up there with Bill Russell, and Steve Nash. Then no one else really had a case that year. So I think Bill Walton doesn't quite belong on this list, and there is a completely obvious pick for who should replace him, and it is unfortunate but like. Shaq was a lot better than AI in 2001. Like I would have it at 1 on my list. As iconic as AI is, he just wasn't more valuable than prime Shaq, prime Tim Duncan, or hell 2001 Kobe Bryant.
While your point is completely valid, a stat that's a somewhat good proxy for wins contributed - Win Shares - only have Walton at 19th that season. The difference between the leader (David Thompson at 12.7) and Walton (8.4) is a whopping 50% difference, and even if you think his defense is undervalued, the gap is hard to make up.
@7:08 This might be the worst take I've ever heard from this channel (which I have been following for a long time and really enjoy). Russell won MVPs because he was the best player in the league, as voted on by his peers (instead of the media). The more I look into the history of basketball, the more I'm convinced that Bill Russell was a singularity who was more valuable defensively than any other player has been on one side of the ball. I use Jokic and Embiid as a modern comparison, as a one-way center who was able to completely dominate on that side of the ball to the point where they were more valuable than their two way contemporary (Embiid and Wilt).
10+ wins over wilts teams even though wilt had 4 hof on his team. They claim wilt was superior to russell yet i can guarantee if he was on the celtics they would do worse since wilt would take up all the shots
@davidwilliams316 if Kendrick Perkins wouldn't have played the Race card their a strong argument Embid might not have gotten as overwhelming support as he did.
Making the 2023 MVP about race will forever tarnish that year’s award. Embiid had a good shot and a good argument at winning it, but bringing that into the mix put a huge asterisk on it. It also didn’t help that Jokic then went on to easily take the Championship further proving people’s argument for his overall gravity.
Lol. I'm just a bitter Kobe fan. These 5 were worse than that one though, no doubt. Plus I figure its more entertaining when the list is a bit of mystery as people are having it revealed to them
@@jonnyarnett 04 there is no case, nash was the MVP. Took them from winning 20 games to winning 60 and the top offense in the league. Then 05-06 nash lost stoudemire for the season and still won 14 more games than kobe, whose lakers were only like .500. Figured you'd be someone who could see past the normie "muh ppg" on horrible efficiency. Nash deserved it both years. Was almost more deserving the second time.
What about Bob McAdoo in 1978? That guy dragged his Knicks to the 4th place in the Conference. The Knicks where the second best player was old Monroe. Gervin had 21-10 Larry Kenon and 16-8 Billy Paultz that season. I would vote for McAdoo.
No one was saying Jokics regular season was the “greatest offensive season ever” or amazed by his “near triple double” He sat out the end of the season which heavily impacted his MVP stock. That’s why Embiid got all this momentum
He sat out for many reasons including rest and so he didn’t get injured before the playoffs but, a main reason is that once the media idiotically claimed he had only won the last two because the voters were of a certain color, he knew no matter how well he continued to play the award wouldn’t be given to him. He knew it and even mocked the reporting when they stupidly claimed he was stat padding.
Also when they had a head to head match at the end of the year Embiid thoroughly destroyed Jokic (Jan 28, 2023), which convinced a lot of voters that Embiid was the better player..
The 1977-78 Blazers were 48-10 in the games Walton played and the best team in the NBA. In the games he missed, they were just 10-14. An .828 Winning Pct vs .417 Winning Pct shows he was the definition of "Most Valuable".
I don't like that they (Celtics) gave up Grant Williams to Dallas, nice replacement for Marcus Smart another move I intially thought was a mistake... Yet I still don't trust Porzingus to stay healthy throughout the season and he may not be a good locker room fit (leadership & cohesion, personality wise).... Yet time will tell .....
It was their head to head match up on Jan 28th, 2023 which swayed most of the voters that Embiid was the better player. Embiid destroyed Jokic that game in efficiency and numbers. It was their only match up of the season and it stuck in voters heads when it came voting time. Embiid had a GameScore of 40.1 that game while Jokic had a GameScore of 21.1, Embiid nearly doubled Jokic's impact that game.
@@jonnyarnettI’ll say this your one of the only NBA UA-camrs who speak what they believe and I respect it. for example your like the only one who talks about Isiah Thomas which is a good thing as he is the most underrated player in NBA history. The only things I disagree with on this channel is saying that some players are way better than they actually are like putting Jokic on your top 30 greatest players list over legends who are way better
Also I feel like Giannis should’ve won last year, Walton should’ve still won,Kareem should’ve still won, I agree with you on Dave Cowens and on Bill Russel
For me, three most controversial MVP awards are: 1990 (I would put Barkley after Hakeem, Jordan and, probably, Robinson that year), 1998 (Karl’s Utah had the same 62-20 record and Malone just didn’t have any comparable help from his teammates as Michael got that season) and 2008 (LeBron’s 30-7-8 and 45-37 record with that Cleveland. Common, man! Kobe’s season wasn’t even close)
It's a regular season award so i think joel deserved it from that standpoint, he was incredible. If the playoffs were used to judge as well, then he's very undeserving lol
Jokic was way better in the regular season than Embiid was though, and the 76ers actually had a higher win% without Embiid than with him, so Jokic 100% should have won
He didn’t though. That’s the thing. It’s a similar case with Cowens. I get Russell had the “Intangibles” and “Leadership” but that’s really all people can argue for him winning MVP in 1962. For an individual standpoint, Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Elgin Baylor had much stronger seasons, and also lead their teams to wins as well. I understand Russell’s importance to the Celtics, but people need to realize that there were other players also deserving.
Cousy was the Team Captain until he retired in 1963. He also made All NBA 12 times and was an MVP. In 1962, Cousy, Heinsohn and Russell ALL made the All NBA second team. Cousy came in 8th in MVP voting in 1962. You guys act like Russell did it by himself. Cousy also was third in assists in 1962.
@@oldeskoolnewsreels9927 and Wilt had Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Guy Rodgers who were all know as great defenders/all around players, are in the HoF and made the all star team either that year or in Rodgers (and Tom Meschery) case the year after.
@@antipro4483 Here's just as quick analysis of the 1962 season between Wilt and Russell using Win Shares. Wilt had 23.1 Win Shares(first) and Bill had 15.5(fourth). For those that don't know how WS are calculated, the more your team wins, the more win shares available to earn. Wilt's team won 49 games and Bill's team won 60 games. If you figure WS per Game Won, then Wilt has a rating of .471and Bill has a rating of .258. Wilt was first in WSper48, OWS and second in DWS. Bill was first in DWS, third in WSper48 and 18th in OWS. Oscar was third in WS and OWS. Here's a little known fact. Wilt was the only non-Celtic to make the top 5 in DWS. lol Russell/Wilt/Cousy/Heinson/Sanders. KC Jones, Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey round out the top 10. The Celtics had 7 of the top 10 players in DWS.
Fun Fact: it happens 3 times in NBA history that the league season MVP missed the 1st All-NBA team: Cowens in '73 and Russell twice, in '61 and '62. And 2 of them are the (deserved) top spots of this video. The '62 MVP to Russell instead to Wilt is something unbelievable... that season was also the one when Chamberlain set the record for the most point in a season and the most point in a single game
It wasnt even a top 5 Wilt season. Bill was far more valuable to his team those years. 50ppg is nice but it didn't help his team win more games. Early in his career he was often unmotivated on defense and he was a black hole on offense. Bill Russell was the exact opposite
@@antipro4483 Here's just as quick analysis of the 1962 season between Wilt and Russell using Win Shares. Wilt had 23.1 Win Shares(first) and Bill had 15.5(fourth). For those that don't know how WS are calculated, the more your team wins, the more win shares available to earn. Wilt's team won 49 games and Bill's team won 60 games. If you figure WS per Game Won, then Wilt has a rating of .471and Bill has a rating of .258. Wilt was first in WSper48, OWS and second in DWS. Bill was first in DWS, third in WSper48 and 18th in OWS. Oscar was third in WS and OWS. Here's a little known fact. Wilt was the only non-Celtic to make the top 5 in DWS. lol Russell/Wilt/Cousy/Heinson/Sanders. KC Jones, Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey round out the top 10. The Celtics had 7 of the top 10 players in DWS.
Even if you do think they weren’t deserved you also have to admit that those two are talked about a lot in this context so his video wouldn’t exactly reveal much about either one.
Although Jokic was certainly deserving and probably the rightful winner of MVP, it was a little surprising to hear you say Embiid had no justification. It's a pretty significant shift in basketball philosophy for you to completely ignore the defensive end of the floor. Everything you cited in favor of Jokic was offensive only, and you have traditionally been great at acknowledging both sides of the floor. However, I guess when it comes to the 2023 MVP discussion, defense is completely irrelevant. I personally would have given the MVP to Jokic, but to say there was no justification when Embiid scored like 7 more PPG while playing significantly better defense seems like a bit of a reach.
I disagree on Embiid sure the events surrounding his MVP weren't ideal but he did play exceptionally well innthe regular season not to mention he was a threat on BOTH ends of the court which imo gives him the slight edge in 2023 over Jokic.
It was their head to head match up on Jan 28th, 2023 which swayed most of the voters that Embiid was the better player. Embiid destroyed Jokic that game in efficiency and numbers. It was their only match up of the season and it stuck in voters heads when it came voting time. Embiid had a GameScore of 40.1 that game while Jokic had a GameScore of 21.1, Embiid nearly doubled Jokic's impact that game
@@Flyhr Yes that played a role but towards the end of the season Jokic took his foot of the gas knowing how controversial the conversation of the MVP got. Embiid during that time went full speed ahead.
I strongly disagree with Bill Walton, the Blazers finished on the first place this season mainly thanks to Walton. With him they were at 48-10 and without him 10-14. You can hardly have a better measure of the impact he had on this team. Without him they were a 30 win team, with him a 60 win team.
But that’s the thing. They were valuable with Walton but he just missed way too many games. Anyone else who misses 24 games nowadays would get flamed by everyone and it would be looked at as the worst MVP ever. Walton was great and very valuable, but he just was gone for too long.
During the season: wow this is the closest mvp race we’ve seen in a while!! Jokic embiid and giannis are in a three way tie! Embiid wins: wow jokic was robbed. Embiid cried his way to the mvp. Worst mvp since nash I hate nba fans
I've said this so many times and i will say it again. The current regular season MVP should have been the Joker. With this, Jokic would have 3 MVPs in a row just like Larry Bird did, making another history and now Jokic even ended winning the championship with him being finals MVPs. This could have historic for both Jokic and the league. Besides points, Jokic has better stats on all other categories than Embiid. They made an absolute bad decision giving the MVP to embiid this year. They robbed Jokic of his 3rd straight MVP title.
I've already written my thoughts on Walton's prize (82% winning with him, 42% without). I wanna add something about Kareem's 1976 MVP: it's true that giving the trophy to a player of a losing team is weird, futhermore missing playoffs, but Lakers missed them with a record better than other's two team in their conference. The rules of the time were the real oddity.
MVP, that means most valuable player. How valuable was Kareem that his team had a record of 40-42? He did NOT deserve that award that season. You have to make a big impact for your team.
@@GTkGaeT … Yeah only 10 games. Larry Bird improved Celtics record from 29 wins to 61 wins in his rookie year… and he didn’t have McHale, Parish, or DJohnson on his team that season. That’s a MVP type season. Some people think Kareem should be considered GOAT candidate but I don’t think they really know him very well.
@timmyg831 "People don't know him very well." Kareem blew you off for an autograph years ago, huh, Tim? Kareem may be aloof and anti-social, but he has earned and deserves all the accolades he gets...and I'm sure he sends all his love. Nice talking to you, Timmy.
@@JAWrightonline …Yeah Kareem should thank Magic for 5 of those rings. Kareem couldn’t win for 9 straight years during his prime until Magic came to the Lakers his rookie season. Magic saved Kareem’s legacy, cold hard fact. Also Kareem once won a MVP in the ‘70s but his team was 40-42. Funny it is about accolades until you know the story behind it. He’s still a superb elite player but not goat level. A top 5.
@Johnny Arnett how did you miss 1969?? They gave it to Wes Undeld. Unseld was a rookie who averaged 13ppg, was his team's 5th leader scorer. He averaged 18rpg on a 57 win team but unlike Russell, he didn't even make all-defense. Not only was he not MVP but he wasn't the best rookie that season (Elvin Hayes).
It has to do with the narrative the Unseld completely turned around the Bullets as soon as he got there, but even that’s not true. They had already significantly improved the previous season by 15 games when Earl Monroe got there. Unseld was the last piece for the team, but they were already getting better before he got there.
Also Jokic's 1st mvp should be in this conversation. I think he fully deserved it last year over embiid and the year before, but that first one in 2021 was a toss up between Giannis, embiid, and jokic, with it heavily favoring giannis imo.
So context for 76 the Lakers only missed the playoffs due to arbitrary division rules at the time the two highest seeds for a division automatically make the playoffs and the Bucks and Pistons had 38 and 36 wins respectively, highest in their division.
Not having Iverson over Shaq on this list but having Kareem over McAdoo in '76 on this list is crazy...loved the video though! 1. Iverson '01 (over Shaq) 2. Cowens '73 (over Kareem) 3. DRose '11 (over LeBron) 4. Unseld '69 (over Willis Reed, Wilt, Bill Russell, or Jerry West) 5. Moses '79 (over Kareem)
Use code JONNYARNETT50 to get 50% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3LzzRFN!
Who do you think was an undeserving MVP?
W factor
@@williamethegod5013Uh if you watched the video Nash wasn't mentioned, it's just clickbait
I agree with your top 3, but the last two are 1969 and 1970. 1969 should have gone to either Wilt or Willis Reed who tied for 1st in WS. Wilt was 2nd in PER, Reed 4th. Wes Unseld finished 8th in WS and 20th in PER. The Bullets had the best record, but only by a couple games over the Lakers and Celtics.
1970 Should have gone to Jerry West. He finished 1st in WS, PER and PPG. He had to carry the Lakers team after Wilt tore his ACL in the 1969 playoffs and only played 12 games that season.
Bill Walton was very deserving in 1978. The Blazers were 48-10 and threatening the Lakers single season wins record when Walton was hurt. They finished the season 10-14 showing just how valuable Walton was.
I don't have a problem with a Celtic winning in 1973. They just gave it to the wrong player. John Havlicek was the Celtics MVP and should have won the award. There was a bias against non-centers in the 60s and 70s for MVP. From 1960-1980, centers won 20 of 21 MVP awards.
Allen Iverson. Iconic player, not more valuable than 2001 Tim Duncan, or 2001 Shaq.
@@williamethegod5013 watching a video before writing a comment is not so hard, you should try...
Over the past month or so I have literally gone from basically knowing nothing about basketball to going through hours and hours worth of its amazing history. And this channel is one of the major reasons for that. Thank you sir, keep up the amazing work! 👍
Literally same
same happened to me 3 years ago. now im hooked :D
He deserves it joker didn't deserve it
same !
He's very good at this!
After everything that happened in NBA media this year I saw the Embiid MVP win coming, but for me it was the margin of 1st place votes he had over the Joker that really confused me. Not even mentioning the fact that Giannis was just swept out of the conversation in favour of the one who had been crying for 4 years.
For me, Jokic should've be mvp. After all star break, he had multiple unreal games, making TD something so easy
Not really, Jokic deserved it last year and 2021, but you can't say that a player who puts up 33ppg while being top ten in blocks and rebounds doesn't deserve
@@joeytheant6731exactly
crying? he averaged 33 ppg and back to back scoring titles. you can say someone else should have won, but saying he didn't deserve it is a stretch. at the end of the day, the MVP is with him anyways
Giannis was injured in the first round. How do y’all forget this but say he got swept?
Fun fact. The MVP award hasn't been won by an American since 2018. Really shows just how amazing the international players are.
It shows how much the nba wants to grow the international market.
I Wonder when will the analysts ever understand there is a correlation by usa‘s bad results internationally and the bunch of Europeans winning MVP‘s?
The game is way to flashy, hardly anyone can play solid defense nowadays and the european teams especially are organised way too well to make individual talent the deciding factor.
I think technology has something to do with newer generations of American players not doing good compare to other countries basketball players, your country is so advance and rich that almost all of the kids had an access to a computer or console games while in other country having a computer or console is for the rich so kids still play basketball as a for of entertainment while in the US the newer generations are split between playing computer games and or playing basketball.
@@hiroshiueda1962 You make it sound like Europe is some desolate wasteland. The US isn't even the most advanced Western country.
@@satatay23 Cope more, the very top of the league is international guys like it or not
I was sure you were going to have Nash on this list for two reasons. A) you’re a Lakers fan, and B) the thumbnail. Way to stay as unbiased as possible. Big ups my guy
Lol. Thanks man. There was a slight bias for having him IN the thumbnail though. haha. At the very least though, Nash fit the formula... Nash was winning A LOT, and Kobe's team was not.
@@jonnyarnettNashs MVP only looks weird in retrospect. If he won a ring later nobody would question it really
While Nash deserved to win the MVP in 2005 over Shaq - he had a FAR bigger impact on his teammates and winning and - I’m sorry - Nash at least led the league in assists (jumping over 3 apg) while Shaq didn’t lead any stat category and his numbers were an average 22/10 - he did NOT deserve the 2006 MVP over Kobe.
While his team had a better record - by 9 games - they dropped from the previous year by 8 games, with virtually the SAME roster (minus Joe Johnson)…while Kobe took the WORST roster in the league to the playoffs…with far better stats, leading the league in scoring with the highest average ppg since MJ in ‘97…while making the All NBA plus the All-D 1st team…
@@twilitezn you’re missing the fact that Amare was out the whole season and they weren’t expected to do much, but they still won and Nash increased his numbers. That was the narrative at the time. If the Lakers had won even a few more games it would have easily gone to Kobe
@@twiliteznkobe didn’t deserve it because bro was a shot chucker and barely won anything plus nash was a better offensive player than he was for those 2 seasons
It's very disappointing that George Gervin didn't win the season MVP award.
He was a very strong scorer in the NBA in the 1970s.
WALTON was great that season..and he was the REAL MVP.
@@onlyfacts3178hell nah😂😂
When Walton played, the Blazers were 48-10. 10-14 in games he missed. Even missing 24 games, the Blazers had the best record by a wide margin over #2.
@@kevinsiu4956 thanks to Walton..if he had missed more games they would miss the play-offs..that team without him couldnt make the play-offs.
@@jzizizi do you understand what MVP means?😂😂its not the player who Scores more Points.😂
Thank you for not saying Nash. People always shyt on Nash cuz Shaq originally claimed on open Court that he should’ve won the award over Nash cuz he was averaging “28 and 15.” Now everyone always says it like it’s a fact that Shaq should’ve won over Nash when in reality Shaq was averaging like 20 and 10 not “28 and 15.” Thinking Shaq should have won is one thing but so many people say it so factual now as if Nash sucked.
It's a poor argument to begin with. Nash's impact on offense and winning goes beyond his raw numbers
Shaq can cry about 05 all he wants he wasn't the same player in Miami he was in LA. 06 is the only one of the two that's arguable.
My exact thought. I was worried it was going to be in the list. It shows that he knows basketball a lot.
Your take on On "People";and "Everyone Always" is 🧢
Your 'People' & "Everyone" must refer to a handful of teenagers playing 2k
Because "People" had been saying Shaq deserved it more than a decade before Open Court ever existed.
Facts , Steve Nash was amazing back then he was changing the game and winning lots of games while doing it , nobody deserved MVP more than him .
Never cease to amaze me with the amount of thoughtful content you pump out 👌🏻
To add to the comical nature of Russell winning the 1961-1962 MVP award over Chamberlain...Wilt's historic season resulted in the NBA basketball writers voting Chamberlain as the 1961-1962 1st Team All-NBA center whereas Russell was voted as the 2nd Team All-NBA center. The same NBA players who got their asses kicked on a nightly basis by Chamberlain voted Russell as the 1961-1962 league MVP. Not only did Wilt put up the greatest individual regular season in NBA history, he also put together 3 iconic performances in a row in January of the 1961-1962 season.
1/13/62 73 points 36 rebounds 29-48 from the field against HOF Center Walt Bellamy
1/14/62 62 points 28 rebounds 27-45 from the field against HOF Center Bill Russell
1962 NBA All-Star Game 42 points 24 rebounds 17-23 from the field in a time when the All-Star game was played in an all-out fashion
👏👏👏👏👏 Magnificent Commentary
Totally agree. Wilt led the league in Win Shares 8 times.
Here's just as quick analysis of the 1962 season between Wilt and Russell using Win Shares. Wilt had 23.1 Win Shares(first) and Bill had 15.5(fourth). For those that don't know how WS are calculated, the more your team wins, the more win shares available to earn. Wilt's team won 49 games and Bill's team won 60 games. If you figure WS per Game Won, then Wilt has a rating of .471and Bill has a rating of .258. Wilt was first in WSper48, OWS and second in DWS. Bill was first in DWS, third in WSper48 and 18th in OWS. Oscar was third in WS and OWS.
Here's a little known fact. Wilt was the only non-Celtic to make the top 5 in DWS. lol Russell/Wilt/Cousy/Heinson/Sanders. KC Jones, Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey round out the top 10. The Celtics had 7 of the top 10 players in DWS.
Celtics won 11 games more than Wilt... wilt had 4 hof on his team so i dont want to hear excuses
To take it full circle, Walton missed three times as many games in 1977-78 as Wilt missed *minutes* in 61-62.
AND PORTLAND got 10 wins - 14 losses when he didnt play.
PROVING that he was really the MVP.
Damn😢
Lol, poor Walton though. Talk about a what-if. Wilt was made of steel, Walton was unfortunately made of glass.
I always thought Magic's last MVP in 1990 should have been won by Charles Barkley. Barkley had more first place votes than Magic but Barkley was not as popular as Magic ( some voters left Barkley completely off of their list) . Magic led Barkley in assists per game and FT% and Barkley led Magic in every other measurable metric in basketball. Barkley's "I am not a role model" and the spitting on a fan in the stands really hurt Barkley. No disrespect toward Magic, but from a strictly basketball on the court perspective, Barkley was more deserving IMO.
Agree on this. Both Barkley and Jordan had great cases in winning that year, and they were far and away better then Magic in every statistical category besides assists, while also leading their teams to winning records. Magic’s MVP season, while good, was far and away his weakest one statistically and he clearly only got it for team record alone.
@@romanramirez7847The reasoning was that Kareem retired and Magic still led his team to 63 wins.
Mannnn that year was the closest MVP race ever; Jordan, Magic and Barkley all got at least 20 first place votes
@@facelessandnameless which was insane
Also bill Russell won that award while Oscar had the triple double avg that season which was much more of an accomplishment for not only back then, but even considered the benchmark for all around offensive play, through the 2000"s.
I know the trip dub avg has lost some of its flare nowadays with the wide open gameplay and highly inflated stats letting many get near the mark, but even back as late as the year 2000, Oscar was still recognized as the 3rd greatest basketball player ever because of his trip dub avg , or being right there at the nark, for over 10 seasons there.
Sporting news and sports illustrated had him number 3 behind Wilt and Jordan in 2000 but since these days more emphasis is put on rings and accolades, players like him and Jerry west have completely fallen out the top 10 and on most people list, even the top 20.
No way Russell gets that award today.
Great Comment
this has to be the smoothest bill Russell footage ive ever seen. looked 4K
I’ll let you have the Russell one as long as he gets his 11 Finals MVPs and 10 defensive player awards 😂
9 finals MVPs
@@JohnnyRodgers3imma be real I think he wins all of those because without russells defense they lose to wilt and lakets
@@Chris_fyn You mean Russell and an illegal zone defense.
As a huge fan,
noticing you also have the tree of gondor in your add,
makes me love your channel so much more,
as a Basketball fan and LOTR fan,
You are my favourite channel now
Good catch! You sound like my kind of people. We got those coasters while we were visiting Hobbiton in New Zealand :)
@@jonnyarnett That's amazing!
Thank you for your quality content keep it up Jonny,
Was really worried Nash was going to be on this list. Good on you for appreciating what he did without Stoudemire that season. 54-28 after losing Joe Johnson & Amare & still making the Suns look like true contenders was insane.
It's been a while, but I seem to recall he wasn't all that deserving of the 2nd one, and was robbed of a third when he actually did deserve it? I think there was also some backlash of what a three peat means.
I’m still of the thought it was about the system and how ahead of it’s time it was
@@FIRE-IN-THE-HOLE-i1l I think that system really only worked because of him
his 1st mvp was such an anomaly that they had no choice but to give him 2nd one considering he lost his best scorer, increased his production and still won 50 + games.
Yall crazy if u think Steve was ever the best player. Maybe best offensive player but never all around. And that's a hard maybe.
Aye Jonny you got your shyt off on this video! I hope this does NUMBERS 🫶🏾🔥🔥🔥
We should push to get Jonny a ballot in the NBA mvp voting 🤷🏾♂️
Jonny really cares about the mvp voting y’all
jonny been killing it lately with premium basketball content
Man, Kareem absolutely deserved that MVP. 27 points and 4 blocks is just insane.
Also, the Lakers improved by 10 games from the prevoius season
The most undeserving MVP I've seen is Bob McAdoo in 1975. Rick Barry had a great year in leading the GS Warriors to the chip and had great stats to back him up. Barry averaged 30 ppg, close to 6 assists a game, and 3 steals. Barry had a great year and led the Warriors to a sweep of the heavily favored Bullets in the '75 Finals. Barry, however, was an unpopular player and players were voting in '75.
Barry had a great season, but the playoffs don’t matter when it comes to MVP voting
Yea Rick Barry definetly had an amazing season that year, but the MVP is a regular season award, but overall I would give the slight edge to McAdoo because of defense.
@@jujuju948 True enough, but Barry had an MVP season.
@@superiorgaming9399 Barry was a terror in the passing lanes in '75 and 3 steals a game is a problem. I saw Barry play a lot that year and he was amazing. McAdoo had an excellent year but I don't think he had the year Barry had. Let's face it, Barry was unpopular with other players and the players were doing the voting.
@jingqi9106 Barry definitely had an MVP caliber season, I just think McAdoo had a better one. He averaged 35 and 14 and overall had marginally better defense.
I'm not saying Rick Barry wasn't a great player or that he wasn't a good defender, but I just think McAdoo had a slightly better season.
Nash gets so much crap for winning, and it's so underserved. He was the most VALUABLE to his team, because without him specifically, the team would fall apart and not even smell 60 wins. People act like you could plug and play anyone in that system, but they completely ignore the level of skill the man had. Take Shaq off the Lakers and you still have Kobe. Take Nash off the Suns, and you have the Knicks.
Interesting take that gave me a nice (truthful) chuckle☺️☺️
I agree.
Amare, Joe Johnson, Marion are all star with or without Nash weirdo
@@fullmetal1766 no, they're not. Look at Jo with the hawks...empty stats and no wins. Amare with the Knicks...empty stats and no wins. Matrix at Dallas...played with Dirk and JKidd.
@@RetroKid I see what your saying but Joe Johnson (Iso Joe) was a much better than average offensive player, he had good enough handles and knew how to use his superior height, strong body to get off clean look jumpers, off at the basket from mid-range and 3pt distance...
My estimation, Joe Johnson was like Tracy McGrady without the highlight reel dunking, slashing abilities
Joe Johnson (Atlanta Hawks team) was like a supremely skilled complementary player, he would have had a lot more playoff success & notoriety had he been paired with a Superstar big man (in my estimation)
The 2023 MVP was 50/50 between the two it could have gone to either Embiid or Jokic and it happened to be Embiid I don’t think it was undeserved especially since Jokic slowed down near the end of the season
Exactly plus Embiid really made a strong cas for MVP especially towards the end of the season.
People only say it was fraudulent because he played bad in the playoffs which has no bearing on a regular season award.
@@CrazyxEnigma Exactly his playoffs performance is a seperate matter all together
@@CrazyxEnigmaOne thing I notice about the NBA community that I don’t see in other sports is that people cite playoff failures as a reason why someone doesn’t deserve an MVP.
Ex: In the NFL, Fran Tarkenton had an excellent career, but performed about as poorly in the playoffs as any great quarterback has relative to the standards he set for himself.
He won an MVP in 1975, a season where his team proceeded to go one and done in the playoffs. I don’t see anyone arguing he didn’t deserve the MVP because of that.
And similarly, Peyton Manning also often underperformed in the playoffs save for a few select overlooked performances.
He won five MVP’s in his career, including at least one in a season with an earlier playoff exit afterward, and while some have argued he didn’t deserve two or three of those MVP’s, I never see anyone citing his playoff performances as a reason why.
Now back to the NBA, in my opinion the MVP should go to the player who had the most impactful regular season towards winning.
From someone who thinks Nikola Jokic is the best player in the game nowadays and also thinks he should have won the MVP for that reason: If you think Joel Embiid didn’t deserve it, then tell me something he didn’t do in the regular season.
Don’t get me wrong, performing poorly in the playoffs is a logical reason why a player isn’t the best in the game, but the player who puts up the most impactful regular season isn’t always the best player in the game overall.
At least that’s what I think. What do you think?
SLOW DOWN?? when he secured the 1st seed lost 4 games and EMBIID lost 3 games ahahah
FUNNY how EMBIID fans say that JOKIC slowed down and EMBIID who lost more games didnt slow...or why do you forget the 1st 2 months were EMBIID had a losing record.
NBA MVP isnt for the last month but for the entire season.
The 1962 mvp race reminds me of the 90 mvp race with magic winning it. There’s a good case for several people that season. I could see Russell winning it that year
I disagree with the embiid one that’s easy to say now after the choke job he put up but during the regular season especially towards the end he really separated himself while jokic was kinda chillin and im pretty sure the 76ers went on some typa winning streak while the nuggets were either on a losing streak or they were kinda mid towards the end of the regular season
Lol hilarious
Exactly I don't see why so hated. I SEEN much more mediocre..
There are many problems with what you’re saying here. First, assuming you’re right, that doesn’t change the fact that Jokic played more games than Embiid, the Nuggets had a worse record without Jokic than the 76ers had without Embiid, and, besides ppg, Jokic was better than Embiid in basically every relevant statistic. But your reasoning above isn’t even relevant. The Nuggets were “chillin” toward the end of the season because they had already secured the number one seed. The 76ers did go on a bit of a run toward the end of the season, but it had no impact on the standings. They were the three seed before the run and ended the season at the three seed. If they had overtaken the Bucks for the top seed as a result of the run that would be more relevant, but it still wouldn’t justify giving the award to Embiid. There is one, and only one, reason to give the award to Embiid, and that’s his points per game. But if you think that’s enough to give him the award over Jokic, then I’m sorry to say that you don’t understand basketball whatsoever.
Thank you. Jokic was literally sitting out games towards the end of the season and lost to the garbage rockets (he was outplayed by some no name big man that game too). Everyone simply has revisionist history due to Embiid sucking in the playoffs.
@@slaugmromni6743 Embiid SHOULD'VE won the year before....
ive watched your channel for awhile and i still just love your intro
You're also correct about Russell winning over Wilt.. when I first saw his stats, I couldn't believe he wasn't MVP that year.
Also it was that same season were Oscar Robertson averaged a triple double the entire season
In 1962 Wilt came 2nd in MVP-voting with his 50 points per game. In 1963 Wilt came 7th in MVP-voting with his 45 points per game scoring. Russell won the MVP both years. With 17 ppg in 1963.
@@penkima4923yeah because bill russell was leading teams to 10+ wins over wilts teams despite both having 4+ hofs on each team
@@bboywolf Hall of Fame teammates in 1962:
Wilt - 4
Russell - 7
HoF teammates in 1963:
Wilt - 3
Russell - 7.
@@penkima4923 lies. 1962 celtics had 7 hall of famers. 1962 warriors had 5. So youre saying wilt chamberlain wasn't good enough to make up the difference between the 7th man on the team? Give me a break. 1963 wilt won 30 games, you dont win mvp that way
When Moses Malone won his last mvp the players voted. So Kareem winning could have been players knowing he was the best.
I am now going to make a case for Bill Walton, who despite the time missed I think was a deserving MVP, and who actually provided historically good situational value to The Portland Trailblazers. And had a year of relatively weak competition for the award.
So obviously the games played is obviously a legit reason to not vote for Bill Walton, but one thing I would like to mention is that the box score does not show how historically good Bill Walton was defensively, and this was still in the pre 3 point era where an amazing defensive center could provide comparable value on defense as the best offensive players in the world provide on offense, unlike today. I would actually argue that Walton provided more defensive value than any player that year provided offensively with the possible except of Kareem.
One nice thing about Walton missing a bunch of games is we can see how impactful he was, because yes his team went 58-24(70% win rate) which was just barely the best record in the league, so it seems like if someone was on a team that was only slightly worse like George Gervin's 52-30 Spurs(63% win rate) that it makes sense to give them the MVP. But the thing worth noting is that despite playing an extra 24 games, Gervin only actually won 4 more games than Bill Walton that year. Because in the games Bill Walton played the Trailblazers went 48-10 for an 83% win rate. Then they went 10-14(42% win rate) for the 24 games he missed. Which is probably one reason he won, because it was very clear he had a team that without him was very very average, and with him they were by far the best team in the world.
Box score advanced stats also really really struggle to capture Walton's value, because they can't capture his rim deterrence, his rim defense where he doesn't get the block but just makes people miss, and his outlet pacing leading to tons of transition points where he gets no direct assist. And his outlier playmaking from the center position. He was great at everything except scoring, and considering how much he effected his teams winning I think it is not a hard case that he provided more situational value to his team in 1978 in 58 games than Gervin did in 82.
In general I think looking at games won makes more sense than games played. The MVP is I think supposed to be about situational value, how much value a player provided to their team in particular this year, not overall goodness. And players provide value by taking games that would have been losses and turning them into wins. Obviously if a team losses a game that player didn't turn that loss into a win. Walton played on a team that played at a 34 win pace without him, and got them to 58 wins. Obviously there is noise in on off, it's possible teammates simply played better for games Walton played for unrelated reasons, and worse in the games they lost. Or the opponents played worse in the Walton games just by missing wide open jumpers but there is a pretty good case that Walton got his team an extra 22 wins that year. Which is like....a lot. Now, it is possible that the Spurs would have been a 30 win team without Gervin, and he got them 22 extra wins, but I think it's probably unlikely. Since his value while there was somewhat one dimensional. He was a really good scorer, and as a guard a very very mediocre playmaker, and probably a slight negative on defense. That combination of skills has never lead to massive value on impact stats we only have for modern players.
For the other candidates David Thompson actually won less games than Bill Walton, so unless you are saying he is more deserving because of all the games he lost that would be weird, and as much as I would love him to be the MVP because the Nuggets are my team, I just think Walton was so much more valuable. Thompson has a similar profile to Gervin, but just kinda slightly worse, so it would be weird to give him the MVP. Kareem played a similar amount of games as Walton, and his team was similarly good in the games he missed, but was not close to as good in the games he played. So IDK playing 4 more games for 11 less wins on a team that was equally good without him as the Blazers were without Walton seems like just a dubious case. His box score stats look better, but I think Bill Walton is in contention for the player in league historically that box score stats most fail to show the impact of. Up there with Bill Russell, and Steve Nash. Then no one else really had a case that year.
So I think Bill Walton doesn't quite belong on this list, and there is a completely obvious pick for who should replace him, and it is unfortunate but like. Shaq was a lot better than AI in 2001. Like I would have it at 1 on my list. As iconic as AI is, he just wasn't more valuable than prime Shaq, prime Tim Duncan, or hell 2001 Kobe Bryant.
wow
While your point is completely valid, a stat that's a somewhat good proxy for wins contributed - Win Shares - only have Walton at 19th that season. The difference between the leader (David Thompson at 12.7) and Walton (8.4) is a whopping 50% difference, and even if you think his defense is undervalued, the gap is hard to make up.
@@joshuachang5210 win shares is a box score only stat and is extremely bad at capturing Walton's value
@@jakebishop7822 Win shares does use rebounds and blocks as a proxy for defensive impact so it's already slanted towards big men.
@@joshuachang5210 you should use winshare 48, total winshare are a accomalative stat
Been subscribed for a long time u made me live basketball the way I do ❤
Wes Unseld better be on this list.
I can’t believe he’s not…
@@VincentVincent_89
You’re based
Unseld was a mid ass player who got carried by great teammates (mainly Elvin Hayes)
I've watched this guy every day for the last 2 months
I appreciate it man!!
Great content. And we all know what was the deciding factor in gifting Embid the MVP.
Embiid may not have deserved the MVP, but there have been worse seasons by MVP’s in my opinion.
@7:08 This might be the worst take I've ever heard from this channel (which I have been following for a long time and really enjoy). Russell won MVPs because he was the best player in the league, as voted on by his peers (instead of the media). The more I look into the history of basketball, the more I'm convinced that Bill Russell was a singularity who was more valuable defensively than any other player has been on one side of the ball. I use Jokic and Embiid as a modern comparison, as a one-way center who was able to completely dominate on that side of the ball to the point where they were more valuable than their two way contemporary (Embiid and Wilt).
10+ wins over wilts teams even though wilt had 4 hof on his team. They claim wilt was superior to russell yet i can guarantee if he was on the celtics they would do worse since wilt would take up all the shots
Last season MVP was a disgrace and undeserving!
How why?
Joel deserved it
@@davidwilliams316he literally cried and complained for 3 years to get that award
@davidwilliams316 if Kendrick Perkins wouldn't have played the Race card their a strong argument Embid might not have gotten as overwhelming support as he did.
Sadly BLM pushed that sorry MVP to Embiid.
“At the end of the day, there was no legitimate reason to give the award to Embiid over the Joker.”
Yes, 100%.
First like, then watch... With ma brother Jonny
Making the 2023 MVP about race will forever tarnish that year’s award. Embiid had a good shot and a good argument at winning it, but bringing that into the mix put a huge asterisk on it. It also didn’t help that Jokic then went on to easily take the Championship further proving people’s argument for his overall gravity.
Letsgoooo Jonny I see you getting that Factor_ bag! Proud of you king keep going strong 💪🏽
JONNY WIT ANODA BANGAAAAAAAA
*sees Steve Nash on a thumbnail*
not on the list or honorable mention
W clickbait 👍
Lol. I'm just a bitter Kobe fan. These 5 were worse than that one though, no doubt. Plus I figure its more entertaining when the list is a bit of mystery as people are having it revealed to them
@@jonnyarnettsame, Kobe should've easily deserved 05-06, and maybe even Shaq shouldve deserved it in 04-05 lol
@@osh-420I’m giving Kobe 06 but I defend Nash’s 05 MVP. Shaq deserved neither lol
@@jonnyarnett 04 there is no case, nash was the MVP. Took them from winning 20 games to winning 60 and the top offense in the league. Then 05-06 nash lost stoudemire for the season and still won 14 more games than kobe, whose lakers were only like .500. Figured you'd be someone who could see past the normie "muh ppg" on horrible efficiency. Nash deserved it both years. Was almost more deserving the second time.
@@jonnyarnett Why does excluding Nash feel like a Strategic business move Mr Arnett?
What about Bob McAdoo in 1978? That guy dragged his Knicks to the 4th place in the Conference. The Knicks where the second best player was old Monroe. Gervin had 21-10 Larry Kenon and 16-8 Billy Paultz that season. I would vote for McAdoo.
Calling out the 70s NBA players for being coke heads is too much man 😂😂😂😂
Hey, they started it by not voting better. lol
That's fine, but look at "Modern players" completely soft. Only practice shooting bc soft.. and weed scarred lungs, can't play 82 anymore.
Soft/weak
The more time that goes by the more people will realize the value Steve Nash brought to those Suns teams
Bob Mcadoo doesn't get any love
Idk why but hearing "averaging a goofy" took me out. Sum bout hearing the word goofy
Here's another Jonny. The 97 MVP Karl Malone. Even as a teen/young man, I new that was the wrong choice.
Karl would have liked you back then
I’ve heard some say he should have gotten 98 and 99 instead of 97 and 99.
@@fortynights1513 Questionable?
Please dont ever stop talking about basketball
No one was saying Jokics regular season was the “greatest offensive season ever” or amazed by his “near triple double”
He sat out the end of the season which heavily impacted his MVP stock. That’s why Embiid got all this momentum
Because media has to be pro-black nowadays. Simple as that
Facts.
He sat out for many reasons including rest and so he didn’t get injured before the playoffs but, a main reason is that once the media idiotically claimed he had only won the last two because the voters were of a certain color, he knew no matter how well he continued to play the award wouldn’t be given to him. He knew it and even mocked the reporting when they stupidly claimed he was stat padding.
Also when they had a head to head match at the end of the year Embiid thoroughly destroyed Jokic (Jan 28, 2023), which convinced a lot of voters that Embiid was the better player..
The 1977-78 Blazers were 48-10 in the games Walton played and the best team in the NBA. In the games he missed, they were just 10-14. An .828 Winning Pct vs .417 Winning Pct shows he was the definition of "Most Valuable".
He was the most valuable player in the games he played - he just didn't play enough games.
Jrue Holiday traded to the Celtics!
I don't like that they (Celtics) gave up Grant Williams to Dallas, nice replacement for Marcus Smart another move I intially thought was a mistake...
Yet I still don't trust Porzingus to stay healthy throughout the season and he may not be a good locker room fit (leadership & cohesion, personality wise)....
Yet time will tell .....
Bring back our Sonics!
The Embiid slander is crazy
Because he cried and bitched for MVP
It was their head to head match up on Jan 28th, 2023 which swayed most of the voters that Embiid was the better player. Embiid destroyed Jokic that game in efficiency and numbers. It was their only match up of the season and it stuck in voters heads when it came voting time. Embiid had a GameScore of 40.1 that game while Jokic had a GameScore of 21.1, Embiid nearly doubled Jokic's impact that game.
Joel's trophy should be known as the CrybabyMVP. Followed by his signature move, the 2nd round exit.
I swear Johnny is either really right or really fucking wrong this is one of those videos
Lol. How would change things??
@@jonnyarnettI’ll say this your one of the only NBA UA-camrs who speak what they believe and I respect it. for example your like the only one who talks about Isiah Thomas which is a good thing as he is the most underrated player in NBA history. The only things I disagree with on this channel is saying that some players are way better than they actually are like putting Jokic on your top 30 greatest players list over legends who are way better
Also I feel like Giannis should’ve won last year, Walton should’ve still won,Kareem should’ve still won, I agree with you on Dave Cowens and on Bill Russel
For me, three most controversial MVP awards are: 1990 (I would put Barkley after Hakeem, Jordan and, probably, Robinson that year), 1998 (Karl’s Utah had the same 62-20 record and Malone just didn’t have any comparable help from his teammates as Michael got that season) and 2008 (LeBron’s 30-7-8 and 45-37 record with that Cleveland. Common, man! Kobe’s season wasn’t even close)
Wes unseld or nash not being here but Joel being here is a different type of hating 😂
Nash deserved it
It's a regular season award so i think joel deserved it from that standpoint, he was incredible. If the playoffs were used to judge as well, then he's very undeserving lol
He did not. In my honest opinion he did not deserve it, just take his direct confrontations with the Nuggets and how he dissappears in clutch time
Jokic was way better in the regular season than Embiid was though, and the 76ers actually had a higher win% without Embiid than with him, so Jokic 100% should have won
@@marceloasensiofilho3833In the regular season he was very clutch.
@marceloasensiofilho3833 ummmm he destroyed jokic in their 1st match-up of the season lol he showed up big time in that regard
@@colewrld901 And where was Embiid in Denver the last 4 years?
Jonny we need a part 2 for this.
The 1962 Celtics were the first 60 win team in NBA history.
If we value winning over stats, I think Russell deserved that award.
He didn’t though. That’s the thing. It’s a similar case with Cowens. I get Russell had the “Intangibles” and “Leadership” but that’s really all people can argue for him winning MVP in 1962. For an individual standpoint, Wilt, Oscar Robertson and Elgin Baylor had much stronger seasons, and also lead their teams to wins as well. I understand Russell’s importance to the Celtics, but people need to realize that there were other players also deserving.
@@romanramirez7847baylor only played 48 games. Oscar didn't win enough and Wilt scoring a bunch didn't help his team winning
Cousy was the Team Captain until he retired in 1963. He also made All NBA 12 times and was an MVP. In 1962, Cousy, Heinsohn and Russell ALL made the All NBA second team. Cousy came in 8th in MVP voting in 1962. You guys act like Russell did it by himself. Cousy also was third in assists in 1962.
@@oldeskoolnewsreels9927 and Wilt had Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Guy Rodgers who were all know as great defenders/all around players, are in the HoF and made the all star team either that year or in Rodgers (and Tom Meschery) case the year after.
@@antipro4483 Here's just as quick analysis of the 1962 season between Wilt and Russell using Win Shares. Wilt had 23.1 Win Shares(first) and Bill had 15.5(fourth). For those that don't know how WS are calculated, the more your team wins, the more win shares available to earn. Wilt's team won 49 games and Bill's team won 60 games. If you figure WS per Game Won, then Wilt has a rating of .471and Bill has a rating of .258. Wilt was first in WSper48, OWS and second in DWS. Bill was first in DWS, third in WSper48 and 18th in OWS. Oscar was third in WS and OWS.
Here's a little known fact. Wilt was the only non-Celtic to make the top 5 in DWS. lol Russell/Wilt/Cousy/Heinson/Sanders. KC Jones, Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey round out the top 10. The Celtics had 7 of the top 10 players in DWS.
Best basketball Chanel on UA-cam
Fun Fact: it happens 3 times in NBA history that the league season MVP missed the 1st All-NBA team: Cowens in '73 and Russell twice, in '61 and '62.
And 2 of them are the (deserved) top spots of this video.
The '62 MVP to Russell instead to Wilt is something unbelievable... that season was also the one when Chamberlain set the record for the most point in a season and the most point in a single game
It wasnt even a top 5 Wilt season. Bill was far more valuable to his team those years. 50ppg is nice but it didn't help his team win more games. Early in his career he was often unmotivated on defense and he was a black hole on offense. Bill Russell was the exact opposite
He also played every minute of every game played that year, if I remembered correctly.
@@antipro4483 Here's just as quick analysis of the 1962 season between Wilt and Russell using Win Shares. Wilt had 23.1 Win Shares(first) and Bill had 15.5(fourth). For those that don't know how WS are calculated, the more your team wins, the more win shares available to earn. Wilt's team won 49 games and Bill's team won 60 games. If you figure WS per Game Won, then Wilt has a rating of .471and Bill has a rating of .258. Wilt was first in WSper48, OWS and second in DWS. Bill was first in DWS, third in WSper48 and 18th in OWS. Oscar was third in WS and OWS.
Here's a little known fact. Wilt was the only non-Celtic to make the top 5 in DWS. lol Russell/Wilt/Cousy/Heinson/Sanders. KC Jones, Sam Jones and Frank Ramsey round out the top 10. The Celtics had 7 of the top 10 players in DWS.
@@oldeskoolnewsreels9927 already replied to your other comment
What about this one?
Make a part 2.
Thank you.
Thank you for not including Nash and Rose in this list. They truly deserves their award.
Even if you do think they weren’t deserved you also have to admit that those two are talked about a lot in this context so his video wouldn’t exactly reveal much about either one.
Wow Jonny no mention of 2005-2006 Kobe vs Nash?
I honestly think Joel Embiid deserved the award. He was the scoring leader with 33ppg and top ten in blocks and rebounds.
There is a reason the scoring title exists.
But Jokic’s overall stats and even Giannis’ stats were better
@@pyotrbagration2438 Yeah and people who win the scoring title usually have a better chance of winning mvp
Clown
@@visualizeme-tz3ng how is that a clown take he literally won the award
Great video!
Just wanna help the video 🎉
That’s dope. You really check comments and make videos from them 💯 do ya research. Lol
Jonny we agree on most things except for your Wilt praise.
Although Jokic was certainly deserving and probably the rightful winner of MVP, it was a little surprising to hear you say Embiid had no justification. It's a pretty significant shift in basketball philosophy for you to completely ignore the defensive end of the floor. Everything you cited in favor of Jokic was offensive only, and you have traditionally been great at acknowledging both sides of the floor. However, I guess when it comes to the 2023 MVP discussion, defense is completely irrelevant.
I personally would have given the MVP to Jokic, but to say there was no justification when Embiid scored like 7 more PPG while playing significantly better defense seems like a bit of a reach.
Good and interesting take.
I disagree on Embiid sure the events surrounding his MVP weren't ideal but he did play exceptionally well innthe regular season not to mention he was a threat on BOTH ends of the court which imo gives him the slight edge in 2023 over Jokic.
his defence was terrible this season
JOKIC was on both sides of the court as well.
@@onlyfacts3178 Not to the level Embiid but he does suprpass Embiid offensively(the most complete offensive player imo)
It was their head to head match up on Jan 28th, 2023 which swayed most of the voters that Embiid was the better player. Embiid destroyed Jokic that game in efficiency and numbers. It was their only match up of the season and it stuck in voters heads when it came voting time. Embiid had a GameScore of 40.1 that game while Jokic had a GameScore of 21.1, Embiid nearly doubled Jokic's impact that game
@@Flyhr Yes that played a role but towards the end of the season Jokic took his foot of the gas knowing how controversial the conversation of the MVP got. Embiid during that time went full speed ahead.
I think you can put an argument that all 3 players that were behind Bill in the MVP race could've won it over him
Yes it was probably the most stacked MVP race in league History
I strongly disagree with Bill Walton, the Blazers finished on the first place this season mainly thanks to Walton. With him they were at 48-10 and without him 10-14. You can hardly have a better measure of the impact he had on this team. Without him they were a 30 win team, with him a 60 win team.
You anticipated me. I think this is a strong reason to recognize Walton's impact on his team as league MVP.
But that’s the thing. They were valuable with Walton but he just missed way too many games. Anyone else who misses 24 games nowadays would get flamed by everyone and it would be looked at as the worst MVP ever. Walton was great and very valuable, but he just was gone for too long.
During the season: wow this is the closest mvp race we’ve seen in a while!! Jokic embiid and giannis are in a three way tie!
Embiid wins: wow jokic was robbed. Embiid cried his way to the mvp. Worst mvp since nash
I hate nba fans
I thought Kendrick Perkins won it last year
Finally a good comment down here.
STEVEN NASH!!!!! SHOULD BE ON THE LIST!! But number 1 has always stuck out to me
I've said this so many times and i will say it again.
The current regular season MVP should have been the Joker.
With this, Jokic would have 3 MVPs in a row just like Larry Bird did, making another history and now Jokic even ended winning the championship with him being finals MVPs. This could have historic for both Jokic and the league. Besides points, Jokic has better stats on all other categories than Embiid. They made an absolute bad decision giving the MVP to embiid this year. They robbed Jokic of his 3rd straight MVP title.
MVPity should thank Perkins for his MVP award
I've already written my thoughts on Walton's prize (82% winning with him, 42% without).
I wanna add something about Kareem's 1976 MVP: it's true that giving the trophy to a player of a losing team is weird, futhermore missing playoffs, but Lakers missed them with a record better than other's two team in their conference. The rules of the time were the real oddity.
MVP, that means most valuable player. How valuable was Kareem that his team had a record of 40-42? He did NOT deserve that award that season. You have to make a big impact for your team.
@@timmyg831 I didn't write he deserved it (although he helped team increasing from 30 to 40 victories). I wrote about unfair rules.
@@GTkGaeT … Yeah only 10 games. Larry Bird improved Celtics record from 29 wins to 61 wins in his rookie year… and he didn’t have McHale, Parish, or DJohnson on his team that season. That’s a MVP type season. Some people think Kareem should be considered GOAT candidate but I don’t think they really know him very well.
@timmyg831 "People don't know him very well." Kareem blew you off for an autograph years ago, huh, Tim?
Kareem may be aloof and anti-social, but he has earned and deserves all the accolades he gets...and I'm sure he sends all his love.
Nice talking to you, Timmy.
@@JAWrightonline …Yeah Kareem should thank Magic for 5 of those rings. Kareem couldn’t win for 9 straight years during his prime until Magic came to the Lakers his rookie season. Magic saved Kareem’s legacy, cold hard fact. Also Kareem once won a MVP in the ‘70s but his team was 40-42. Funny it is about accolades until you know the story behind it. He’s still a superb elite player but not goat level. A top 5.
BILL WALTON deserved the MVP.
WITHOUT WALTON :
10 wins - 14 losses.
I think the most undeserved pronunciation of all time is the Celtics being pronounced "Seltics"
had us there with Nash thumbnail
#1 most undeserving.. Russell Westbrook 2017.
- Sympathy MVP bc KD left.
- #6 seed.. 1st round exit guaranteed.
- Steven Adams gifting numerous rebounds every game.
That's exactly what I think as well. Not to mention his turnovers and terrible advanced stats. Russ has always been severely overrated.
Personally I think Unseld in 69 is the most undeserving in NBA history. A rookie who averaged like 14ppg? Get out of here.
Not Embiid in the thumbnail 🤣🤣🤣
@Johnny Arnett how did you miss 1969?? They gave it to Wes Undeld. Unseld was a rookie who averaged 13ppg, was his team's 5th leader scorer. He averaged 18rpg on a 57 win team but unlike Russell, he didn't even make all-defense. Not only was he not MVP but he wasn't the best rookie that season (Elvin Hayes).
69 was pretty bad.
It has to do with the narrative the Unseld completely turned around the Bullets as soon as he got there, but even that’s not true. They had already significantly improved the previous season by 15 games when Earl Monroe got there. Unseld was the last piece for the team, but they were already getting better before he got there.
Very well explained...👍🏻
The way I see it, Embiid should’ve won the previous year while Jokic should’ve won this past season.
9:50 you can say the same argument about Kareem at #3... His record sucked because of the team around him, doesn't make him crappy 🤷♂️
Also Jokic's 1st mvp should be in this conversation. I think he fully deserved it last year over embiid and the year before, but that first one in 2021 was a toss up between Giannis, embiid, and jokic, with it heavily favoring giannis imo.
Shaq approves this thumbnail 👌
Underserved? Extra R in the title
Coz they failed to served probably 😂
Lol. Its fixed now
Great Video !!!!
This video contradicts a previous video of yours named "If MVPs Were Given To the BEST Player (1960s-Present)"
Thought Nash was gonna be the top! Was gonna be so mad.
*undeserved
pe Shcelgeuslu
So context for 76 the Lakers only missed the playoffs due to arbitrary division rules at the time the two highest seeds for a division automatically make the playoffs and the Bucks and Pistons had 38 and 36 wins respectively, highest in their division.
Thank You. The league was struggling at the time just before the merger.
Ergo: It’s a player winning the MVP on the equivalent of a low seeded playoff team today who wouldn’t have made it at the time.
Embiid cried for that MVP
Not having Iverson over Shaq on this list but having Kareem over McAdoo in '76 on this list is crazy...loved the video though!
1. Iverson '01 (over Shaq)
2. Cowens '73 (over Kareem)
3. DRose '11 (over LeBron)
4. Unseld '69 (over Willis Reed, Wilt, Bill Russell, or Jerry West)
5. Moses '79 (over Kareem)
Nas was undeserving on one of those two mvp awards awards
Yep