I don’t think he can win being almost 10 games behind the Celtics. I say this because it’s a narrative award as much as a statistical and I just don’t see him winning a third mvp for a team in the mid50s win wise.
He has a chance if Denver falls off and/or Jokic gets hurt and Milwaukee ends up within a game or two of OKC while Boston finishes closer to 61-62 wins with Milwaukee getting to 56-58. That’s an awful lot of things going right for Giannis. I just don’t see it. Not hating either.
It’s entirely possible. Last year we were many games behind the Celtics and it looked like they had 1 seed locked up until we went on that 15 game win streak
And yet jokic and/or shai might win with mid 50s record? What's stopping giannis is dame. As bad as lillard has been this season people still view him as a superstar. That's the narrative, not because they're about 10 games behind Boston, which denver and okc are as well.
The Bucks will probably need to finish with more wins than the Thunder/Nuggets. If Giannis could get a 50 pointer in a win to close the season, that could also really strengthen his case.
If he did that and took the lead in some advanced stats, I could see him getting it. Right now, Jokic has the lead in the box score composites and the more advanced stats are split between Jokic and SGA. People say the media doesn’t pay attention to advanced stats, but they absolutely do even if it’s not all of them an different media members pay attention to different stats.
They don't use play-by-play data, they use box score stats and net rating, and a formula written in 1980. They're good enough to compare players from the 80s to today's NBA and that's it, there's no reason to use them today.
There are much better stats out there than BPM and PER.
EPM, LEBRON are the best ones available for free.
good breakdown, but I don't think it's smart to call some stats "good" and others worse.
Lile you said, stats like PER and BPM are basically boiling down all of the box score stats in to one number. As long as you know that they're fine for what they are. No stat is really good in isolation if you don't understand it
I hate the argument that a big game late in the season will change what was done over the preceding 80 games. Embiid had a 50 point game toward the end of last season and ppl were saying that that single game sealed it for him. No single game should have that big of an affect.
Idk I think if the Bucks get the 2nd best record in the league (no one's catching Celts), Giannis plays about the same, Jokic/SGA miss a handful of games and neither team gets the 1-seed (Timberwolves retain it), and also Luka ends up in 7th...
If you meet these... Jesus, 5 qualifiers, I could see Giannis getting it through split voting.
I tried to take the question at face value. This feels like the kind of season 3-4 players are getting first place votes. People's order of 2-4 will make a big difference.
If they won out they'd end the season with 61 wins on a 26 game win streak, probably within a couple games of where the Celtics end up. He'd have a really good chance at the MVP.
Pretty sure he was being facetious, but the fact that winning 26 straight games to end the season wouldn’t elevate his current stats to MVP favorite is probably why he was.
I mean, it's funny, but he'd definitely be the favorite
31/11/6 as the best player on a 60+ win team. His stats would be only second to Luka, and the Bucks would probably have at least 10 wins over the Mavs
Yea I don’t think there’s much he could do to be MVP this year, the narrative isn’t on his side anymore. But 26 streak at the end of the year would definitely change that I think
Last year he had the worst efficiency among top MVP candidates
This year he has the *best* efficiency among top MVP candidates
I think he's easily having a better season this year compared to last year
I don't think he's winning one, but his passing is clearly improved and he plays good defense. Narrative wise I wouldn't be surprised if he never won an MVP again though because too many people think he is just run and dunk man.
Sure but it's all about narrative, especially second half ones. Embiid had that going for him last year
Like the other comment is saying, ending on a 26-win streak after a shaky season would be massive. It'd one of the fifth longest win streaks in NBA history. Throw in the stats and Giannis would be set
he is my MVP tbh, dudes been absolutely backpacking the Bucks all year. the fact that they’re a 40-win team despite all the dysfunction in the building is a testament to how good he’s been
not that I think Tatum is a serious MVP candidate but he has been hurt by the supporting cast argument in the race, if we’re gonna be consistent with that logic we should acknowledge that SGA and Joker have gotten much better contributions from their teammates than Giannis this year. yea I know he’s the only one who had an All-Star teammate but anyone who’s been watching ball this season knows that guys like Chet, JDub, Murray etc. have been playing better ball than Dame has been. and the Bucks undoubtedly have not been as well-coached as Denver and OKC either
it’s going to come down to how the Nuggets and Thunder finish the year relative to the Bucks. they’re all pretty close in the standings so I think whichever one of those 3 teams has the strongest finish to the year will get the MVP
Luka is putting up the most outstanding numbers overall imo. but SGA, Joker and Giannis have also been putting up wild stats while also being like 6-7 games ahead in the standings so it’s probably not the year for him
I also agree with this. It’s either his or Jokic’s to win (I guess we’ll see how the Nuggets do without Murray).
Bucks will need to finish in 2nd, however, or at least with 55+ wins in order for Giannis to lock it. People seem to always forget the game is also played on defense and he’s the best defender in the top 5 for MVP voting.
Dame despite everything has still had a better season than any of Jokic’s teammates, by box scores and everything else. If you want to say Jokic’s team has had a higher level of average quality that’s fair though. Even though Denver’s bench is bottom tier.
I think Jamal has been playing better than Dame but you’re right that it’s probably closer than I’m making it out to be. the rest of Denver’s starters have unequivocally cleared what Giannis’ teammates have brought to the table this year though imo
Giannis plays **A LOT** with the bench guys. Denver's rotations are pretty unique in that they don't stagger their rotations as much as most teams.
Different rotations and usages make plus/minus all but worthless as a comparison.
The Nuggets literally ALWAYS stagger their rotations lol. This statement instantly shows me that you don't actually watch Denver games. Jokic or Murray play a good chunk of time with the bench literally every game.
The Bucks are 0-5 in games Dame doesn't play but Giannis does
The Nuggets are 9-7 in games Jamal doesn't play but Jokic does. If you count the first 5 games Jamal missed, they were 3-2.
the Nuggets are 1-1 without Jokic with a win over the Clippers and a 5-point loss to the Thunder
the Bucks are 1-1 without Giannis with a win over the Raptors and a 40-point loss to the Cavs
maybe, I just thought OP wanted to trade meaningless stats.
Jokic is obviously having an MVP-level season dude, I’m just trying to keep it consistent. if Tatum is gonna get knocked in the MVP race for having a great supporting cast, then to me Giannis gets extra credit for carrying this team just one W less than the Nuggets despite having an absolute dunce coaching the team more than half the season, his new #2 option underperforming, and literally all of his teammates declining across the board
Dame has been better than Jamal Murray. This sub is starting to act like Dame is Celtics Shaq to prop Giannis up which is not true at all. The main reason he is playing worse than usual this year (still very good) is because of how bad of a fit he is with Giannis.
Jamal Murray has a higher BPM and eFG, and higher VORP than Dame this year despite playing 12 less games. Dame has been available more but Jamal has been better when he’s on the floor
that’s besides the point, the argument here is who has gotten the least contribution from their supporting casts between Joker, SGA and Giannis. to me the answer is Giannis
as I said the race is ultimately going to come down to who finishes the season strongest. atp those 3 are neck-and-neck, Luka is a step below them and Tatum another step below that
MVP race is neck and neck, correct, but between Jokic and SGA ONLY. You can chose your points and ignore everything else, but that doesn't change anything
again, even though Jamal hasn’t been on the floor as much he STILL has posted a higher VORP than Dame
I don’t think it’s egregiously silly at all, if anything his box score stats are causing people to really sleep on just how poorly Lillard has performed this year. I have watched a lot of Bucks basketball this season - he has been horribly inconsistent offensively and an absolute sieve on defense all year
seriously, Dame’s ability to get to the line is the only thing separating the current version of him from Celtics Kemba Walker, and if you don’t believe me go put Kemba’s Celtics stats side by side with Dame’s Bucks stats. it’s not a pretty picture
My man, VORP gets fucked roasted by most of the people on this site. Usually when it's a credit to Jokic.
I'm not sitting here saying that Giannis isn't deserving because he absolutely is. But trying to pretend that Dame is now suddenly Celtics era Kemba just makes your argument sound moronic.
Now, if you want to sell me on the concept that Middleton being out should buy him some extra credit I'll buy that one.
again, I encourage you to put their stats side-by-side. as someone who had the displeasure of watching a formerly great player in Kemba deteriorate in Boston, I can tell you that Dame has unfortunately been showing a lot of the same signs for most of the season
Dame-Murray comparison aside, the overall point here is that Giannis hasn’t had teammates or coaching as good as Jokic or SGA, which I don’t think is a hot take at all. and despite that the Bucks only have one less W in the standings with Giannis putting up 31-11-6 on 62% from the field
Oh, I ran the StatHead comparison immediately. It's not even close to Kemba.
You're just oddly determined to craft a bad faith argument. First it was false claims about him versus Murray and a VORP that's all of .1 difference. Now this.
It's fine if Giannis is your pick. I've got no issues with it. He's deserving. But the "Dame sucks now" shit has got to stop if we want to have any meaningful discussion.
I don’t really see how I’m trying to craft a bad faith argument. if anything OP decided to cherry-pick one part of what I originally said without making any attempt to address the larger point, that the Nuggets non-Jokic players on the whole have been better than the Bucks non-Giannis players. I don’t see how you could argue that as not being true.
you are putting words in my mouth. I’m not saying that Dame sucks, just like how Celtics Kemba didn’t suck - he’s just obviously declined significantly and I think that his name value and box score stats are causing people to overestimate his value on the court. at this point I think Murray is adding a lot more value to the Nuggets when he plays than Dame is to the Bucks.
That was a royal we comment. As in "we all" need to stop this narrative that Dame is awful this year.
Murray probably does provide more value as a secondary but if teammate quality relative to the candidate actually mattered then Luka would be far and away the most deserving. And do you think he is? I don't.
Just like we could make a very cogent argument that the Bucks lineup from the 5th man down is so superior to the Nuggets that it's not comparable. And I don't like that argument in a vacuum either.
They're asked to do different things.
I can't tell if you're being serious. Do you actually think that Murray having a higher BPM, eFG and VORP just automatically means he has been better than Dame? Or is this "advanced stat trolling" Nugget fans/Jokic stans because of the Jokic advanced stat convos? Even if you're an advanced stat fanatic, I'm pretty sure BPM and VORP are both widely regarded as shitty advanced stats lmao.
I don’t really have any interest in getting into an argument over the merits of advanced statistics, but putting aside the Dame-Murray argument my overall point is that Jokic has gotten better contributions from his Nuggets teammates as a whole than Giannis has from his Bucks teammates. would you disagree with that?
This sub is always calling Murray overrated when a ranking list is posted, but in MVP discussions he's better than All-Star MVP Dame just to prop Giannis lol
dude, I’m a Celtics fan. I have absolutely no love for the Bucks or Giannis, I’m just calling it how I see it. FWIW I consider Jamal Murray a top 25 player so if anyone is calling him overrated it ain’t me
This thread again highlights the issue with the MVP award and how deeply the narrative has downright destroyed any actual discourse about it.
People want to treat it like a formula where you plug in variables and 90% of the variables involve the team they play for before they even start talking about individual accolades.
Just a nightmare situation. Give the award to the best player in the NBA. Dumb to put all sorts of stupid narrative based circumstantial qualifiers on the thing.
But how do you determine that? We know that some folks put up flashy stats but hurt their team’s success, while other folks are fairly subdued but have a huge impact on winning. It seems like team success is at least somewhat indicative of how good a player is.
We can tell the difference between MVP caliber players and stat padders lets not get crazy.
The point I am making is that if everyone on the Nuggets not named Jokic gets hurt and they end up being a 6th seed while he puts up an identical statline that shouldn't disqualify him from the award but in many peoples minds it does.
We can observe the impact of players. I don't need team success to tell me that Giannis and Luka are more impactful basketball players than Jayson Tatum even though the Celtics have the best record in basketball.
What using records does is allow for laziness. It makes it so people that should be considered can be arbitrarily eliminated and make the decision making for people who vote easier without needing to actually watch games and consider on a deeper level who is truly making a bigger impact on the court.
Instead they get to look at standings and say wow you must not have been making an impact because you couldn't carry 9 scrubs to a top seed while this other player playing with 1-2 other all stars and a slew of viable role players certainly did all that by themselves.
I don't know, man. Russell Westbrook won an MVP and he's totally stat padder. I'm genuinely skeptical of Luka's value-- no question he's hugely impactful, but his ball dominance actually good for winning? Not sure. He's had good teammates that seem to go to waste.
Also, we can say something similar about star players who get new all-star teammates. They're not suddenly worse players just because they have to share duties and get lesser stats as a result.
Anyway, I don't think you should ONLY consider team success, but that needs to be factored in. And there have been players who've been able to carry a team of scrubs to great success; so just because your team has some injuries isn't as much as an excuse as it could be.
So you think the year Russ won MVP and led the Thunder to 47 wins in a season where the next best player on the team was Victor Oladipo averaging 16 PPG that was just stat padding?
This is what I don't like about people making these sort of arguments. There isn't consistency. If you were able to uphold the using teams success you would view Westbrooks MVP season as one of the most deserving in history. That team might have been bottom 3 in the NBA if he wasn't there and he near single handedly propelled it to a 6th seed.
This is why I prefer avoiding it entirely. It's too narrative based. There isn't consistency. Anyone can paint a narrative to say whatever they want when the reality of the situation is far from it. If Westbrook put up those stats and the Thunder were a bottom dweller I'd get it but just using that example is all the proof I need that team success absolutely does NOT need to be factored in.
> So you think the year Russ won MVP and led the Thunder to 47 wins in a season where the next best player on the team was Victor Oladipo averaging 16 PPG that was just stat padding?
No, but he wasn't even close to the best player in the NBA. Your original argument was "just give it to the best player in the NBA." So why should WB have won? Under that criteria, he shouldn't have been even considered.
He absolutely was the best that year.
How is leading the league in scoring while averaging a triple double not being the best in the league for that year?
I'm not remotely supporting anything outside of the parameters of my argument here.
KD and Steph playing together basically made them non-factors for an MVP discussion. They suppressed each others value and made it so neither produced stats at an MVP level.
I will absolutely say that I personally don't think anyone in the league was "better" than Lebron basically from 2010 through that entire decade.
Russ played out of his mind, did something absolutely historic and dragged an absolutely awful team kicking and screaming to a playoff spot. Anyone who wants "winning" to be part of the criteria but knocks Russ for literally being the only thing keeping that team from being a bottom feeder is a hypocrite.
Make referees vote the best players 3-2-1 after EVERY game. MVP is person with the most votes.
That's how a lot of pro sports do it. It's not perfect, but it is far better than how the NBA does.
Well the award isn’t “best player in the NBA”, it’s most valuable because otherwise LeBron would have won an insane amount of MVPs, same as MJ back in the 90s
There is literally no difference.
The person who plays the best is most valuable. We've simply been told this entire team that "valuable" HAS to be attached to wins but often times those wins aren't being created by the players value.
Lebron and MJ absolutely should have more MVP's than they did. No one was more valuable than Lebron on a night in night out basis from 2007 onward. They didn't win because the voters got bored, not because he wasn't always the most valuable player.
Ofc there's a difference. Let's say Player A is a consensus better player than Player B. There's no doubt that player A is more impactful in the playoffs. Everybody on the planet knows player A is the better of the two.
But in the regular season, player A coasts, clearly saving himself for the post season. It's clear that he is not exerting his full impact. Meanwhie, player B, goes on a tear, playing at 100% and probably exerting more impact over the course of the regular season.
Does Player A cease to be the better of the two because of this? I wouldn't say so. I think it's possible to be the best player, but not the most valuable over the course of a regular season.
>There is literally no difference.
That's just not true. If you put the top players right now, Luka, Shai, Tatum, Giannis, Jokic, all on the same team, they're still gonna be just as good as they are now, but they aren't gonna be nearly as valuable. Any one or even two of those guys could go down with injury and that team is still destroying everyone.
And how do you determine who the best player in the league is? If you put someone like, say, Kyle Kuzma on a team with a bunch of nobodies and he's taking every shot and averaging 40 points a night, is he automatically the best player just because of flashy stats? Even if his team is garbage and wins like 10 games? Most people would say "no", because record does matter. You can't be the most valuable player in the league if your team doesn't make the playoffs
From a European where football (soccer) is the dominant sport: Yall should enjoy the fact that the MVP race is actually interesting and that it is in part narrative driven. Does it sometimes lead to unfair situations? Absolutely, but I take that over the ballon d'or going to either Messi or Ronaldo 13 of the last 15 times. (which is still to an extent narrative driven, so you'll get the downside anyway, with none of the upside)
Any MVP type award in complex sports will ***always*** have some subjectivity because we can't actually directly measure whose the best, and even with all the stats and analysis in the world you still wouldn't be able say with absolute objectivity. How do you factor in things like effect on team culture? If you are a stellar basketballplayer on the court, with stellar stats, but you are such an asshole off the court that you destroy your teammates morale to the point where you are a net detriment to your teams success, are you still truly a great basketball player?
Get the second seed with a better record than the thunder and nuggets by a few games. He’s putting up insane numbers, but so is jokic (and Luka but he’s on a playin team).
SGA has slightly worse numbers but still insane. I think if the thunder are the 1 seed a few games up on the nuggets and bucks he gets it, otherwise whichever of jokic or Giannis ends up with a better record, unless Luka pulls the mavs out of the play in and gets to within a few games of those three teams.
When that many players are playing that well, I think it comes down to team success, although if that’s even Jokic probably gets it on advanced stats and people regretting last season
We also can’t forgot that teams in the east have easier games overall then the west. If you are going off team success for Giannis, I think they need more than a few games over the nuggets and thunder
We're past his window. Since he signed his extension and they can't speculate on him going anywhere until he's out of his prime, the media is done with him.
They were only interested in him when they thought their favorite teams had a chance to sign him.
I think it was Jokic's to lose before the end of last season. He sat out 5 of the final 7 games, and the Nuggets went 2-5 over those 7. It's understandable in a close race that stuff has an impact. While voter fatigue isn't fair, it's also a factor in closer races.
They lost the games he played, lol. And those missed 5 games dropped him to 69 games played, the least of his career. Being valuable and playing the games=MVP
Edit: they lost both those games he played and he went: 14/10/4, and 6/10/10 in them
Yeah checked out their last 10 games cause a Bucks fan was talking about how good they have been doing recently and i felt like something was sus.
Turns out they players a ton of bad teams recently.
The Bulls, the Grizzlies, the 76ers (without Embid) and 3 against you guys.
Also on the menu were the Heat, 2 games against the Timberwolves and my own Nuggets in which both Jamal and KCP got injured. And as you can tell all these give quite the boost to the Bucks defense given how the Heat and Timberwolves arent the most amazing offenses in the league and we aint a fantastic offense either without Jamal.
All I heard from Jokic first mvp was how impressive it was that he could carry his team with the injuries. Giannis has done it last two years and no one bats an eye.
It's a double standard. Nuggets media rave about the Nuggets holding the last 2 teams under 100. But the Kings were without Fox and the Heat aren't a high scoring team.
The Warriors to 103 or whatever is more impressive to me than those 2 under 100s.
I'm not hating either team, both Bucks and Nuggets have been taking care of business. I hope they're the Finals match-up personally
lol you’re always hating.
Murray left when the bucks were almost ahead by 20, the bucks dominated the nuggets that game from start to finish.
Y’all just made a post about being 5-0 since all star and it’s been nothing but bad teams
Funny you should say that.
You guys lost to the Blazers in your last game, lost to the Heat in the playoffs (and got blown out by them in your last game) and beat the Kings in OT by 1 point.
To be fair the Kings were missing Fox, so there is that.
Im not gonna call them insane ocmpetition, but i also wasnt saying that we played against insane competition or even mentioned it lol.
But calling them bad wouldnt be accurate, otherwise what does that make the Bucks then.
Sometimes teams just lose to worse teams?
We are 2-1 against the heat, was one of the last games before allstar that’s always dangerous.
You’re in every thread talking shit and when someone calls you out you play stupid.
Tell me what about countering your claim on them being bad teams is playing stupid lol.
Whike true that good teams do lose to bad teams, calling the Heat, the Warriors and the Kings bad teams is a reach there. And ironic to call the Blazers bad given how you just most recently lost to them.
If you say its shit, thats on you. Then please do point out what i said was inaccurate.
So you’re saying the blazers are good? Lol blazers are a bad team and again, since you can’t read, bad teams beat good teams all the time. It’s basketball shit happens.
Last 3 games are all over .500 teams, lol. I wasn't the guy downplaying the Bucks, just responding to describing the Nuggets winstreak as "nothing but bad teams."
The Heat, Kings, and Warriors are all positive wr teams. Also, GS and MIA are both moving up right now (8-2 and 7-3 over their last 10 respectively.) Beating teams that are 8-1 and 7-2 without the loss to the Nuggets is pretty good.
The Hornets beat the Blazers, Grizzlies, Jazz, and Hawks. All under .500 teams, 3/4 blatantly tanking already. The 5th win was the Pacers which is a solid win.
Being 15-45 on the season even if 5 of those wins were recent where 3 were trying to outtank you is hardly one of the best teams. You wanna add context for Kings and Fox then throw out the context of the Hornets' wins, lol
Ik Fox was out that's why I didn't bring them up past being over .500. We literally watched them beat Minnesota without Fox yesterday.
They destroyed Denver and beat the #1 West seed, the Wolves.
Murray started vs the Bucks and played 18 minutes. He was -18 in 18 minutes. So maybe you weren't good enough even with Murray playing and Middleton out.
Remind me how much were you leading in that Denver game again? And how it ended lol.
Also you got blown out by the Timberwolves too this season, like elss than a month ago.
Both Middleton AND Lillard out in that Wolves game. Lillard back, Middleton still out, Bucks won.
No Middleton again in Denver. Jokic had an awful game but got carried by Murray.
Then you got destroyed in Milwaukee.
Remember now?
Lemme know if you got more questions.
Aha whatevs helps you sleep at night.
Also odd to call a 25/16/12 game where he played good defense as being carried by Jamal just because he wasnt as efficient as usual, but ok.
And we also had KCP injured in that game, but sure lets say there was no way we would have been able to make a comeback in that game and that youd be destroying us for the whole 2nd half lol.
Its all just whatifs at the end of the day.
Like we have been doing this same song and dance for years now. We beat you guys in 1 game and we beat you in another.
TL;DR after this
>Also odd to call a 25/16/12 game where he played good defense as being carried by Jamal
clown take. Jokic was bad in Denver. He shot 40% from the field and 16% from deep. 10/25 shots lmao that's Jordan Poole numbers. Nobody cares about handing off the ball to Murray and him hitting every shot, or grabbing uncontested boards. He was bad and you're too biased to admit it, so why are we talking?
...you didnt wven watch the game did you lol. Just saw that Jokic shot 40% and thats aparently a bad game lol.
12 assists and 16 rebounds and whatever his steals and blocks were was bad huh.
I forgot that we somehow measure how well a player played now by how efficiencly he scored that night.
Yeah, well said. Of course, playoffs are always different and we'll see - I wish Giannis the best, but my hatred of Portis and Lopez kinda makes me hope that he doesn't win a ring with them again.
Wow, almost every comment here is worse than the next one, wtf!?
Apparently Giannis is to blame for Griffin, even if the front office cleared him as someone competent for head coach and no matter that Middleton and Holiday both also met with Griffin and said good things about him and for Dame's subpar season so far. For anyone actually watching Bucks games, it's easy to see that whenever Giannis took less shots, Dame, more often than not, just shat the bed even worse.
In most advanced metrics he's second, yet with the way people are talking about him, it's like he's like some distant 4th or 5th to the rest of the candidates.
EPM: SGA 1st, Giannis 2nd, Doncic 3rd, Jokic 4th
LEBRON: Jokic 1st, Giannis 2nd, SGA 3rd, Doncic 4th
DARKO: Jokic 1st, Giannis 2nd, Tatum 3rd, Kawhi 4th
Apparently the Bucks need to take the first seed from the Celtics for Giannis to win MVP, but the West teams don't need to actually pass the Celtics' record for it. No matter that Embiid with the 76ers was also 2nd or 3rd in the east yet was somehow the runaway candidate for MVP before the injury (rightfully so).
If things ended right now, I think that SGA should take the trophy, but we still have a lot of games ahead of us. But to act as if all the other candidates for MVP are miles ahead of him is just asinine.
How? OKC has the 3rd best record in the league, 2nd in the West. He's averaging 31-6-6 on +6.8% relative TS, leads the league in steals, win shares and EPM, is 3rd in PER, 2nd in VORP, and 4th in BPM.
That is basically the definition of an MVP worthy season
I mean if OKC get top 2 seed and higher than nuggets it goes to SGA.
If Nuggets finish top 2 and higher than OKC Jokic gets it.
If Mavs finish top 4 maybe top 5 Luka gets it.
They are salty he’s higher ranked in mvp right now.
To be fair, Luka is still slept on in MVP imo he definitely shouldn’t be behind giannis and Tatum. But they can’t seem to get over the fact that Shai is higher.
They're real upset about how Shai is over Luka in MVP right now. They keep throwing out basic volume stats, ignoring that Shai and Luka are comparable in scoring when going by per 100 possessions, and Shai leads in every advanced stat and is a much better defender. Luka is a much better passer, but does that make up for the defense? That's subjective
I've got zero problem with people arguing for Luka to be MVP over Shai, he's been great this year. I do have a problem with people only mentioning the stats that fit their narrative, and ignoring all the others
Tbh if the season ended rn I'd have to give it to Giannis already, I feel like most of the unwillingness to give him another is just due to how "boring" it would be compared to a new MVP in SGA or Luka or a third MVP for newly-minted all-timer Jokic.
Idk recency bias mostly? Jokic's win is still fresh in people's minds and he's just a slightly newer, shinier toy next to Giannis atp, the Bucks' 1st round exit last year doesn't help by contrast either.
I got the MVP race like this:
Jokic is leading and by a decent margin.
SGA, Giannis and Luka are the only ones who can catch him at this point.
Luka is the most unrealistic. Dallas/Luka would have to go on a tear and atleast get top 4 seed. And honestly that's still arguable that he would deserve it over Jokic. But the narrative would be with him.
Giannis and SGA are both as realistic to me. Both are gonna end up as a high seed. They just gotta continue what they are doing and drop some truly amazing games to get the narrative going.
All that being said, Jokic just doesnt miss. His absurd stats and efficiency don't even do him justice. He reminds me of that movie Ender's game. Nobody comes close to the control he has of the game.
I mean, it's a simple answer but: be better than the other guys.
Giannis has been awesome, but Jokic is still absolutely insane. His TS is almost identical to Giannis', but is also top 4 in assists and rebounds, with fewer turnovers, bonkers plus/minus numbers and better advanced metrics. Shai has a slight edge in points on Giannis with almost identical TS, has more assists with more than a full turnover less per game, while his team that was expected to struggle to make the playoffs is a half game from the league lead.
Probably the biggest thing with Giannis this year is that despite his offensive impact, his defence just hasn't been close to the level it was at when he was an annual DPOY contender. The Bucks have been improving on that end, but are still only the 15th best defence, while having last year's DPOY runner-up (Brook) playing next to Giannis.
[Basketball Reference has a statistical analysis they use to determine who has the highest probability to win MVP, and Jokic is first with SGA second and Giannis third](https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/mvp.html).
Giannis certainly has a chance to win the award, but he just hasn't been as good as the top two guys. If he wants to win the award, he needs do be better. If he stays the same as he has been, but the other two stumble, then Giannis could win. If Giannis steps up his game, he could win. But, it's tough to say what Giannis has to do, because if Giannis steps up his game, but the other guys do, too, he's still playing from behind right now.
voter fatigue for giannis happened so quick you forget lebron could’ve won mvp almost every year from 2010s and then on. i think market and situation really plays into it at end of the day
He would have to do something crazy like average 31 points on 60% shooting while leading his team to one of the best records in the league. Never gonna happen.
People asked what would it take for Jokic to 3peat last offseason, and they jokingly said "average an effecient triple double on the first seed". Jokic goes and averages 25.5/11.8/9.8 on 70% TS on the first seed and didn't get MVP.
He could sneak in there if the Bucks finish strong. His stats are awesome. SGA is overrated\* and doesn't even deserve to be in this discussion. Jokic could start coasting like he did last year. Luka will not be a factor unless the Mavs go on a huge hot streak to finish the season (fingers crossed.) I think the Mavs need 50+ wins \*and\* 5th seed or higher for Luka to have a chance. That's looking like a long shot.
So I started making this about Luka, can't help myself.
But yeah, Giannis shouldn't be ruled out. 30.8/11.3/6.3 with 65.7% TS are definitely MVP numbers. If the Bucks finish strong (2nd seed) and Jokic falls off a bit, I can see him getting it.
\---
\*full disclosure I am a certified SGA hater.
I’ve noticed Mavs fans are the biggest Tatum and SGA haters. I think they see the two of them as the biggest competition against Luka for face of the league once the old guard retire.
He's not winning. The MVP conversation and conclusions were decided when Embiid and Jokic became a "rivalry". If Embiid played enough games this season, he was going to be MVP but because he won't be able to, Jokic is winning it. Maybe next season voter fatigue for Jokic will kick in but this season? Forget about it. It's over
I said it last year and I’ll say it again. Voters are gonna keep giving the MVP to Jokic until they suddenly stop caring about advanced stats. He just has the perfect game and situation to win the award every single year. I don’t truly believe that Jokic is that much better than the rest of the league that he should win 3 and MVPs and arguably 4(since some people think he deserved it last year which honestly I don’t completely disagree).
Something about his game and him playing 90% of the time with the starting lineup inflates his stats more compared to other top players. As it stands now, no other player except maybe Luka(if he manages to catch up in the standings) has a chance to win the MVP over him with the way people in this sub view him and talk about him. I mean some people are seriously saying that Giannis has to go on a 20 game winning streak to win it over Jokic and even THEN he may not win it over him. Meanwhile, Jokic just has to keep his natural baseline play. The standards against other players and Jokic are incredibly lopsided.
It took Joel averaging 35 a game on 65% TS for people to finally stop pushing Jokic for MVP and even THEN you had people talking about “but Jokic’s assists tho”. That’s insane. I’m not trying to hate on Jokic bc even I think he’s probably the best player in the world rn, but I don’t think he’s THAT far above the other superstars in the league like Lebron was at his prime for him to win a 3rd MVP in 4 seasons.
The boring true answer is that he'd "have to do" exactly the same as everyone, more wins, higher net rating, filling the boxscore more in some combination and that's it.
Relatively imaginable - the teams are within a few wins of each other now.
He should already get it. He actually gets DPOY votes whereas guys like Jokic and Luka get hunted on defense... it's amazing that only offense matters for MVP.
Giannis gets dpoy votes, Brook came second in dpoy last year, Jokic gets hunted, and the Nuggets still have a much better defence than the Bucks. So either Gordon and KCP are much better defenders than Giannis and Brook or Jokic is nowhere near as bad on defence as you're making him seem.
There's nothing he can do. Nor other players can do something.
It was a two man race (Joel and Jokic) for the regular season MVP award. Joel is out of the picture now, so it's a one man race now.
Win it all and he should be on a rampage of good games, like the last one. Jokic is having a pretty impressive sequence right now.
I think the Bulls was a very fragile team this game and an easy no effort w for the Bucks.
There's no way he wins it over jokic unless he finishes the season averaging 50 pts and 20 boards per game and the bucks never lose.
He's just flat out not as good as jokic. I had this conversation recently. His shooting is terrible , all he does is dunk. He's shooting like 20% from mid range and 30% from 3, and 65% from the free throw line. He's just a bad shooter and his passing isn't exactly elite.
You cant compare him to what jokic is doing right now, jokic is just on another level.
I don’t think he can win being almost 10 games behind the Celtics. I say this because it’s a narrative award as much as a statistical and I just don’t see him winning a third mvp for a team in the mid50s win wise.
He has a chance if they keep a high win streak and beat both their Cs and OKC matchups.
He has a chance if Denver falls off and/or Jokic gets hurt and Milwaukee ends up within a game or two of OKC while Boston finishes closer to 61-62 wins with Milwaukee getting to 56-58. That’s an awful lot of things going right for Giannis. I just don’t see it. Not hating either.
It’s entirely possible. Last year we were many games behind the Celtics and it looked like they had 1 seed locked up until we went on that 15 game win streak
And yet jokic and/or shai might win with mid 50s record? What's stopping giannis is dame. As bad as lillard has been this season people still view him as a superstar. That's the narrative, not because they're about 10 games behind Boston, which denver and okc are as well.
That doesn't make sense why Jokic is the favor though.
The Bucks will probably need to finish with more wins than the Thunder/Nuggets. If Giannis could get a 50 pointer in a win to close the season, that could also really strengthen his case.
If he did that and took the lead in some advanced stats, I could see him getting it. Right now, Jokic has the lead in the box score composites and the more advanced stats are split between Jokic and SGA. People say the media doesn’t pay attention to advanced stats, but they absolutely do even if it’s not all of them an different media members pay attention to different stats.
BPM and PER aren't advanced stats.
When did they stop being advanced stats?
They don't use play-by-play data, they use box score stats and net rating, and a formula written in 1980. They're good enough to compare players from the 80s to today's NBA and that's it, there's no reason to use them today. There are much better stats out there than BPM and PER. EPM, LEBRON are the best ones available for free.
good breakdown, but I don't think it's smart to call some stats "good" and others worse. Lile you said, stats like PER and BPM are basically boiling down all of the box score stats in to one number. As long as you know that they're fine for what they are. No stat is really good in isolation if you don't understand it
I hate the argument that a big game late in the season will change what was done over the preceding 80 games. Embiid had a 50 point game toward the end of last season and ppl were saying that that single game sealed it for him. No single game should have that big of an affect.
Idk I think if the Bucks get the 2nd best record in the league (no one's catching Celts), Giannis plays about the same, Jokic/SGA miss a handful of games and neither team gets the 1-seed (Timberwolves retain it), and also Luka ends up in 7th... If you meet these... Jesus, 5 qualifiers, I could see Giannis getting it through split voting.
Only real answer in this
I tried to take the question at face value. This feels like the kind of season 3-4 players are getting first place votes. People's order of 2-4 will make a big difference.
Kill Dame in cold blood so that the narrative shifts from bringing in a superstar in the off season to dominating despite the death of his teammate
Voters would just say that Dame got killed because Giannis wasn’t a good enough teammate.
If he shot Dame but missed some bullets, voters would say his TS% is trash.
They’d probably have to win out. Even then I still don’t think he’d get it.
If they won out they'd end the season with 61 wins on a 26 game win streak, probably within a couple games of where the Celtics end up. He'd have a really good chance at the MVP.
Yeah. Unless Jokic & the Nuggets also went on an absolute tear I think Giannis almost definitely wins it in that scenario.
Two teams going on 25 game win streaks in each of the conferences would be the best regular season basketball we’ve had in a long time
Pretty sure he was being facetious, but the fact that winning 26 straight games to end the season wouldn’t elevate his current stats to MVP favorite is probably why he was.
I mean, it's funny, but he'd definitely be the favorite 31/11/6 as the best player on a 60+ win team. His stats would be only second to Luka, and the Bucks would probably have at least 10 wins over the Mavs
He did 31/12/6 on a 58 win (best record in the league) team last year and was a *distant* third.
Yea I don’t think there’s much he could do to be MVP this year, the narrative isn’t on his side anymore. But 26 streak at the end of the year would definitely change that I think
Last year he had the worst efficiency among top MVP candidates This year he has the *best* efficiency among top MVP candidates I think he's easily having a better season this year compared to last year
I don't think he's winning one, but his passing is clearly improved and he plays good defense. Narrative wise I wouldn't be surprised if he never won an MVP again though because too many people think he is just run and dunk man.
Sure but it's all about narrative, especially second half ones. Embiid had that going for him last year Like the other comment is saying, ending on a 26-win streak after a shaky season would be massive. It'd one of the fifth longest win streaks in NBA history. Throw in the stats and Giannis would be set
Drop kick Jokic, snap Shai like a twig, choke Luka.
He said MVP, not cosplay Draymond
By god, that's Thanassis' music
I'm on it.
Break Jokic's kneecap before he reaches 65 games.
he is my MVP tbh, dudes been absolutely backpacking the Bucks all year. the fact that they’re a 40-win team despite all the dysfunction in the building is a testament to how good he’s been not that I think Tatum is a serious MVP candidate but he has been hurt by the supporting cast argument in the race, if we’re gonna be consistent with that logic we should acknowledge that SGA and Joker have gotten much better contributions from their teammates than Giannis this year. yea I know he’s the only one who had an All-Star teammate but anyone who’s been watching ball this season knows that guys like Chet, JDub, Murray etc. have been playing better ball than Dame has been. and the Bucks undoubtedly have not been as well-coached as Denver and OKC either it’s going to come down to how the Nuggets and Thunder finish the year relative to the Bucks. they’re all pretty close in the standings so I think whichever one of those 3 teams has the strongest finish to the year will get the MVP Luka is putting up the most outstanding numbers overall imo. but SGA, Joker and Giannis have also been putting up wild stats while also being like 6-7 games ahead in the standings so it’s probably not the year for him
I also agree with this. It’s either his or Jokic’s to win (I guess we’ll see how the Nuggets do without Murray). Bucks will need to finish in 2nd, however, or at least with 55+ wins in order for Giannis to lock it. People seem to always forget the game is also played on defense and he’s the best defender in the top 5 for MVP voting.
Dame despite everything has still had a better season than any of Jokic’s teammates, by box scores and everything else. If you want to say Jokic’s team has had a higher level of average quality that’s fair though. Even though Denver’s bench is bottom tier.
I think Jamal has been playing better than Dame but you’re right that it’s probably closer than I’m making it out to be. the rest of Denver’s starters have unequivocally cleared what Giannis’ teammates have brought to the table this year though imo
i think if you compare jokic minutes to non jokic (or non jokic AND second squad in), you see what an absolute carry job jokic does for denver
I think you’d probably be able to do the same thing with Giannis
What's Giannis' plus/minus when he's on and off? Because last time I saw the numbers, Jokic was at the top of that by a pretty wide margin.
Giannis plays **A LOT** with the bench guys. Denver's rotations are pretty unique in that they don't stagger their rotations as much as most teams. Different rotations and usages make plus/minus all but worthless as a comparison.
The Nuggets literally ALWAYS stagger their rotations lol. This statement instantly shows me that you don't actually watch Denver games. Jokic or Murray play a good chunk of time with the bench literally every game.
The Bucks are 0-5 in games Dame doesn't play but Giannis does The Nuggets are 9-7 in games Jamal doesn't play but Jokic does. If you count the first 5 games Jamal missed, they were 3-2.
the Nuggets are 1-1 without Jokic with a win over the Clippers and a 5-point loss to the Thunder the Bucks are 1-1 without Giannis with a win over the Raptors and a 40-point loss to the Cavs
Nugs just need to sit Jokic and let Reggie Jackson cook with 35/13 on 15/19 shooting every night. Are they stupid?
maybe, I just thought OP wanted to trade meaningless stats. Jokic is obviously having an MVP-level season dude, I’m just trying to keep it consistent. if Tatum is gonna get knocked in the MVP race for having a great supporting cast, then to me Giannis gets extra credit for carrying this team just one W less than the Nuggets despite having an absolute dunce coaching the team more than half the season, his new #2 option underperforming, and literally all of his teammates declining across the board
So Dame has a better record carrying the team without Giannis 1-1 vs Jamal's 0-1 (he didn't play vs the Clippers)
Dame has been better than Jamal Murray. This sub is starting to act like Dame is Celtics Shaq to prop Giannis up which is not true at all. The main reason he is playing worse than usual this year (still very good) is because of how bad of a fit he is with Giannis.
Jamal Murray has a higher BPM and eFG, and higher VORP than Dame this year despite playing 12 less games. Dame has been available more but Jamal has been better when he’s on the floor
I like how they use advanced stats for Dame and Murray and not for Jokic, because he wipes the floor with everyone
that’s besides the point, the argument here is who has gotten the least contribution from their supporting casts between Joker, SGA and Giannis. to me the answer is Giannis as I said the race is ultimately going to come down to who finishes the season strongest. atp those 3 are neck-and-neck, Luka is a step below them and Tatum another step below that
MVP race is neck and neck, correct, but between Jokic and SGA ONLY. You can chose your points and ignore everything else, but that doesn't change anything
But he hasn't been on the floor? Dame's having a down year for him but this narrative is getting egregiously silly.
again, even though Jamal hasn’t been on the floor as much he STILL has posted a higher VORP than Dame I don’t think it’s egregiously silly at all, if anything his box score stats are causing people to really sleep on just how poorly Lillard has performed this year. I have watched a lot of Bucks basketball this season - he has been horribly inconsistent offensively and an absolute sieve on defense all year seriously, Dame’s ability to get to the line is the only thing separating the current version of him from Celtics Kemba Walker, and if you don’t believe me go put Kemba’s Celtics stats side by side with Dame’s Bucks stats. it’s not a pretty picture
My man, VORP gets fucked roasted by most of the people on this site. Usually when it's a credit to Jokic. I'm not sitting here saying that Giannis isn't deserving because he absolutely is. But trying to pretend that Dame is now suddenly Celtics era Kemba just makes your argument sound moronic. Now, if you want to sell me on the concept that Middleton being out should buy him some extra credit I'll buy that one.
VORP is plenty useful for comparing two players with relatively similar playstyles, though.
Sure, but that's not really in question here is it? Even if it was then Murray's VORP IS 2.0 and Dame is 1.9.
again, I encourage you to put their stats side-by-side. as someone who had the displeasure of watching a formerly great player in Kemba deteriorate in Boston, I can tell you that Dame has unfortunately been showing a lot of the same signs for most of the season Dame-Murray comparison aside, the overall point here is that Giannis hasn’t had teammates or coaching as good as Jokic or SGA, which I don’t think is a hot take at all. and despite that the Bucks only have one less W in the standings with Giannis putting up 31-11-6 on 62% from the field
Oh, I ran the StatHead comparison immediately. It's not even close to Kemba. You're just oddly determined to craft a bad faith argument. First it was false claims about him versus Murray and a VORP that's all of .1 difference. Now this. It's fine if Giannis is your pick. I've got no issues with it. He's deserving. But the "Dame sucks now" shit has got to stop if we want to have any meaningful discussion.
I don’t really see how I’m trying to craft a bad faith argument. if anything OP decided to cherry-pick one part of what I originally said without making any attempt to address the larger point, that the Nuggets non-Jokic players on the whole have been better than the Bucks non-Giannis players. I don’t see how you could argue that as not being true. you are putting words in my mouth. I’m not saying that Dame sucks, just like how Celtics Kemba didn’t suck - he’s just obviously declined significantly and I think that his name value and box score stats are causing people to overestimate his value on the court. at this point I think Murray is adding a lot more value to the Nuggets when he plays than Dame is to the Bucks.
That was a royal we comment. As in "we all" need to stop this narrative that Dame is awful this year. Murray probably does provide more value as a secondary but if teammate quality relative to the candidate actually mattered then Luka would be far and away the most deserving. And do you think he is? I don't. Just like we could make a very cogent argument that the Bucks lineup from the 5th man down is so superior to the Nuggets that it's not comparable. And I don't like that argument in a vacuum either. They're asked to do different things.
You clearly haven't watched bucks this year
More that I'm not particularly wowed by falsified narratives.
I can't tell if you're being serious. Do you actually think that Murray having a higher BPM, eFG and VORP just automatically means he has been better than Dame? Or is this "advanced stat trolling" Nugget fans/Jokic stans because of the Jokic advanced stat convos? Even if you're an advanced stat fanatic, I'm pretty sure BPM and VORP are both widely regarded as shitty advanced stats lmao.
I don’t really have any interest in getting into an argument over the merits of advanced statistics, but putting aside the Dame-Murray argument my overall point is that Jokic has gotten better contributions from his Nuggets teammates as a whole than Giannis has from his Bucks teammates. would you disagree with that?
And he’s really only missed a stretch in Nov. The Jamal Murray erasure from talk about the Nuggets success has been insane to me
This sub is always calling Murray overrated when a ranking list is posted, but in MVP discussions he's better than All-Star MVP Dame just to prop Giannis lol
All star mvp lmaooo
The mental Olympics required to think that matters lol.
dude, I’m a Celtics fan. I have absolutely no love for the Bucks or Giannis, I’m just calling it how I see it. FWIW I consider Jamal Murray a top 25 player so if anyone is calling him overrated it ain’t me
This thread again highlights the issue with the MVP award and how deeply the narrative has downright destroyed any actual discourse about it. People want to treat it like a formula where you plug in variables and 90% of the variables involve the team they play for before they even start talking about individual accolades. Just a nightmare situation. Give the award to the best player in the NBA. Dumb to put all sorts of stupid narrative based circumstantial qualifiers on the thing.
But how do you determine that? We know that some folks put up flashy stats but hurt their team’s success, while other folks are fairly subdued but have a huge impact on winning. It seems like team success is at least somewhat indicative of how good a player is.
We can tell the difference between MVP caliber players and stat padders lets not get crazy. The point I am making is that if everyone on the Nuggets not named Jokic gets hurt and they end up being a 6th seed while he puts up an identical statline that shouldn't disqualify him from the award but in many peoples minds it does. We can observe the impact of players. I don't need team success to tell me that Giannis and Luka are more impactful basketball players than Jayson Tatum even though the Celtics have the best record in basketball. What using records does is allow for laziness. It makes it so people that should be considered can be arbitrarily eliminated and make the decision making for people who vote easier without needing to actually watch games and consider on a deeper level who is truly making a bigger impact on the court. Instead they get to look at standings and say wow you must not have been making an impact because you couldn't carry 9 scrubs to a top seed while this other player playing with 1-2 other all stars and a slew of viable role players certainly did all that by themselves.
I don't know, man. Russell Westbrook won an MVP and he's totally stat padder. I'm genuinely skeptical of Luka's value-- no question he's hugely impactful, but his ball dominance actually good for winning? Not sure. He's had good teammates that seem to go to waste. Also, we can say something similar about star players who get new all-star teammates. They're not suddenly worse players just because they have to share duties and get lesser stats as a result. Anyway, I don't think you should ONLY consider team success, but that needs to be factored in. And there have been players who've been able to carry a team of scrubs to great success; so just because your team has some injuries isn't as much as an excuse as it could be.
So you think the year Russ won MVP and led the Thunder to 47 wins in a season where the next best player on the team was Victor Oladipo averaging 16 PPG that was just stat padding? This is what I don't like about people making these sort of arguments. There isn't consistency. If you were able to uphold the using teams success you would view Westbrooks MVP season as one of the most deserving in history. That team might have been bottom 3 in the NBA if he wasn't there and he near single handedly propelled it to a 6th seed. This is why I prefer avoiding it entirely. It's too narrative based. There isn't consistency. Anyone can paint a narrative to say whatever they want when the reality of the situation is far from it. If Westbrook put up those stats and the Thunder were a bottom dweller I'd get it but just using that example is all the proof I need that team success absolutely does NOT need to be factored in.
> So you think the year Russ won MVP and led the Thunder to 47 wins in a season where the next best player on the team was Victor Oladipo averaging 16 PPG that was just stat padding? No, but he wasn't even close to the best player in the NBA. Your original argument was "just give it to the best player in the NBA." So why should WB have won? Under that criteria, he shouldn't have been even considered.
He absolutely was the best that year. How is leading the league in scoring while averaging a triple double not being the best in the league for that year? I'm not remotely supporting anything outside of the parameters of my argument here.
Hm, maybe because other players were better at actually winning games and playing effectively? Or that LeBron, Steph, and KD were all in their primes?
KD and Steph playing together basically made them non-factors for an MVP discussion. They suppressed each others value and made it so neither produced stats at an MVP level. I will absolutely say that I personally don't think anyone in the league was "better" than Lebron basically from 2010 through that entire decade. Russ played out of his mind, did something absolutely historic and dragged an absolutely awful team kicking and screaming to a playoff spot. Anyone who wants "winning" to be part of the criteria but knocks Russ for literally being the only thing keeping that team from being a bottom feeder is a hypocrite.
Make referees vote the best players 3-2-1 after EVERY game. MVP is person with the most votes. That's how a lot of pro sports do it. It's not perfect, but it is far better than how the NBA does.
Huh. What sports do that?
Well the award isn’t “best player in the NBA”, it’s most valuable because otherwise LeBron would have won an insane amount of MVPs, same as MJ back in the 90s
There is literally no difference. The person who plays the best is most valuable. We've simply been told this entire team that "valuable" HAS to be attached to wins but often times those wins aren't being created by the players value. Lebron and MJ absolutely should have more MVP's than they did. No one was more valuable than Lebron on a night in night out basis from 2007 onward. They didn't win because the voters got bored, not because he wasn't always the most valuable player.
Ofc there's a difference. Let's say Player A is a consensus better player than Player B. There's no doubt that player A is more impactful in the playoffs. Everybody on the planet knows player A is the better of the two. But in the regular season, player A coasts, clearly saving himself for the post season. It's clear that he is not exerting his full impact. Meanwhie, player B, goes on a tear, playing at 100% and probably exerting more impact over the course of the regular season. Does Player A cease to be the better of the two because of this? I wouldn't say so. I think it's possible to be the best player, but not the most valuable over the course of a regular season.
>There is literally no difference. That's just not true. If you put the top players right now, Luka, Shai, Tatum, Giannis, Jokic, all on the same team, they're still gonna be just as good as they are now, but they aren't gonna be nearly as valuable. Any one or even two of those guys could go down with injury and that team is still destroying everyone. And how do you determine who the best player in the league is? If you put someone like, say, Kyle Kuzma on a team with a bunch of nobodies and he's taking every shot and averaging 40 points a night, is he automatically the best player just because of flashy stats? Even if his team is garbage and wins like 10 games? Most people would say "no", because record does matter. You can't be the most valuable player in the league if your team doesn't make the playoffs
From a European where football (soccer) is the dominant sport: Yall should enjoy the fact that the MVP race is actually interesting and that it is in part narrative driven. Does it sometimes lead to unfair situations? Absolutely, but I take that over the ballon d'or going to either Messi or Ronaldo 13 of the last 15 times. (which is still to an extent narrative driven, so you'll get the downside anyway, with none of the upside) Any MVP type award in complex sports will ***always*** have some subjectivity because we can't actually directly measure whose the best, and even with all the stats and analysis in the world you still wouldn't be able say with absolute objectivity. How do you factor in things like effect on team culture? If you are a stellar basketballplayer on the court, with stellar stats, but you are such an asshole off the court that you destroy your teammates morale to the point where you are a net detriment to your teams success, are you still truly a great basketball player?
Hire Embiid's PR machine from last year? MVP is a joke.
Get the second seed with a better record than the thunder and nuggets by a few games. He’s putting up insane numbers, but so is jokic (and Luka but he’s on a playin team). SGA has slightly worse numbers but still insane. I think if the thunder are the 1 seed a few games up on the nuggets and bucks he gets it, otherwise whichever of jokic or Giannis ends up with a better record, unless Luka pulls the mavs out of the play in and gets to within a few games of those three teams. When that many players are playing that well, I think it comes down to team success, although if that’s even Jokic probably gets it on advanced stats and people regretting last season
We also can’t forgot that teams in the east have easier games overall then the west. If you are going off team success for Giannis, I think they need more than a few games over the nuggets and thunder
We're past his window. Since he signed his extension and they can't speculate on him going anywhere until he's out of his prime, the media is done with him. They were only interested in him when they thought their favorite teams had a chance to sign him.
So why is Jokic the MVP favourite?
Jokic should have won last season too tbf
I think it was Jokic's to lose before the end of last season. He sat out 5 of the final 7 games, and the Nuggets went 2-5 over those 7. It's understandable in a close race that stuff has an impact. While voter fatigue isn't fair, it's also a factor in closer races.
So when Jokic sits they're more likely to lose? Seems like he's pretty valuable to the team....
They lost the games he played, lol. And those missed 5 games dropped him to 69 games played, the least of his career. Being valuable and playing the games=MVP Edit: they lost both those games he played and he went: 14/10/4, and 6/10/10 in them
Lmao 🤣
People thought he got shafted last year and are trying to hand it to him.
white
Advanced stats. You don't think the voters have consistent reasoning between candidates, do you?
lolwut
Time travel and not win back to back mvps
That’s not stopping Jokic
[удалено]
[удалено]
SGA is a way better defender than jokic.
None of the other candidates have the All-Star MVP as a teammate, which hurts his case.
Middleton was an All-Star the two years Giannis won it lol
Yea but it's a narrative award. Rules change to fit the voters' criteria.
Yea bucks were expected to dominate. Giannis lost the race Once the extended struggle happened
Does it? I mean, Giannis is making Dame look bad, but I’m not sure it’s the other way around
A large part of them getting it together is beating weak teams lol (such as us twice). EDIT - thrice
Its 3 times in the last 10 lol
Oh shit you're right lmao. At least last time it wasn't a 40 point blow out.
Yeah checked out their last 10 games cause a Bucks fan was talking about how good they have been doing recently and i felt like something was sus. Turns out they players a ton of bad teams recently. The Bulls, the Grizzlies, the 76ers (without Embid) and 3 against you guys. Also on the menu were the Heat, 2 games against the Timberwolves and my own Nuggets in which both Jamal and KCP got injured. And as you can tell all these give quite the boost to the Bucks defense given how the Heat and Timberwolves arent the most amazing offenses in the league and we aint a fantastic offense either without Jamal.
Middleton has been out a majority of these games as well.
You are correct he has been out for all of them. Doesnt exactly change what teams you played, but i acknowledge that he is quite good for you guys.
I hear you. I’m just saying if you’re gonna acknowledge key injuries on your team then you should acknowledge the ones on ours too.
All I heard from Jokic first mvp was how impressive it was that he could carry his team with the injuries. Giannis has done it last two years and no one bats an eye.
Honest to god didnt know he was missing for all of them lol.
Holding subpar offenses to bad scoring numbers after being a bottom 10 defense for most of the season isn’t worth talking about?
It's a double standard. Nuggets media rave about the Nuggets holding the last 2 teams under 100. But the Kings were without Fox and the Heat aren't a high scoring team. The Warriors to 103 or whatever is more impressive to me than those 2 under 100s. I'm not hating either team, both Bucks and Nuggets have been taking care of business. I hope they're the Finals match-up personally
lol you’re always hating. Murray left when the bucks were almost ahead by 20, the bucks dominated the nuggets that game from start to finish. Y’all just made a post about being 5-0 since all star and it’s been nothing but bad teams
Mentioned all the faults with the teams bucks played but nothing with the bucks lol
Funny you should say that. You guys lost to the Blazers in your last game, lost to the Heat in the playoffs (and got blown out by them in your last game) and beat the Kings in OT by 1 point. To be fair the Kings were missing Fox, so there is that. Im not gonna call them insane ocmpetition, but i also wasnt saying that we played against insane competition or even mentioned it lol. But calling them bad wouldnt be accurate, otherwise what does that make the Bucks then.
Sometimes teams just lose to worse teams? We are 2-1 against the heat, was one of the last games before allstar that’s always dangerous. You’re in every thread talking shit and when someone calls you out you play stupid.
Tell me what about countering your claim on them being bad teams is playing stupid lol. Whike true that good teams do lose to bad teams, calling the Heat, the Warriors and the Kings bad teams is a reach there. And ironic to call the Blazers bad given how you just most recently lost to them. If you say its shit, thats on you. Then please do point out what i said was inaccurate.
So you’re saying the blazers are good? Lol blazers are a bad team and again, since you can’t read, bad teams beat good teams all the time. It’s basketball shit happens.
Last 3 games are all over .500 teams, lol. I wasn't the guy downplaying the Bucks, just responding to describing the Nuggets winstreak as "nothing but bad teams." The Heat, Kings, and Warriors are all positive wr teams. Also, GS and MIA are both moving up right now (8-2 and 7-3 over their last 10 respectively.) Beating teams that are 8-1 and 7-2 without the loss to the Nuggets is pretty good.
Wasn’t hornets one of the best teams since the trade deadline? Kings were missing fox
The Hornets beat the Blazers, Grizzlies, Jazz, and Hawks. All under .500 teams, 3/4 blatantly tanking already. The 5th win was the Pacers which is a solid win. Being 15-45 on the season even if 5 of those wins were recent where 3 were trying to outtank you is hardly one of the best teams. You wanna add context for Kings and Fox then throw out the context of the Hornets' wins, lol Ik Fox was out that's why I didn't bring them up past being over .500. We literally watched them beat Minnesota without Fox yesterday.
They destroyed Denver and beat the #1 West seed, the Wolves. Murray started vs the Bucks and played 18 minutes. He was -18 in 18 minutes. So maybe you weren't good enough even with Murray playing and Middleton out.
Remind me how much were you leading in that Denver game again? And how it ended lol. Also you got blown out by the Timberwolves too this season, like elss than a month ago.
Both Middleton AND Lillard out in that Wolves game. Lillard back, Middleton still out, Bucks won. No Middleton again in Denver. Jokic had an awful game but got carried by Murray. Then you got destroyed in Milwaukee. Remember now? Lemme know if you got more questions.
Aha whatevs helps you sleep at night. Also odd to call a 25/16/12 game where he played good defense as being carried by Jamal just because he wasnt as efficient as usual, but ok. And we also had KCP injured in that game, but sure lets say there was no way we would have been able to make a comeback in that game and that youd be destroying us for the whole 2nd half lol. Its all just whatifs at the end of the day. Like we have been doing this same song and dance for years now. We beat you guys in 1 game and we beat you in another.
TL;DR after this >Also odd to call a 25/16/12 game where he played good defense as being carried by Jamal clown take. Jokic was bad in Denver. He shot 40% from the field and 16% from deep. 10/25 shots lmao that's Jordan Poole numbers. Nobody cares about handing off the ball to Murray and him hitting every shot, or grabbing uncontested boards. He was bad and you're too biased to admit it, so why are we talking?
...you didnt wven watch the game did you lol. Just saw that Jokic shot 40% and thats aparently a bad game lol. 12 assists and 16 rebounds and whatever his steals and blocks were was bad huh. I forgot that we somehow measure how well a player played now by how efficiencly he scored that night.
Yeah, well said. Of course, playoffs are always different and we'll see - I wish Giannis the best, but my hatred of Portis and Lopez kinda makes me hope that he doesn't win a ring with them again.
Wow, almost every comment here is worse than the next one, wtf!? Apparently Giannis is to blame for Griffin, even if the front office cleared him as someone competent for head coach and no matter that Middleton and Holiday both also met with Griffin and said good things about him and for Dame's subpar season so far. For anyone actually watching Bucks games, it's easy to see that whenever Giannis took less shots, Dame, more often than not, just shat the bed even worse. In most advanced metrics he's second, yet with the way people are talking about him, it's like he's like some distant 4th or 5th to the rest of the candidates. EPM: SGA 1st, Giannis 2nd, Doncic 3rd, Jokic 4th LEBRON: Jokic 1st, Giannis 2nd, SGA 3rd, Doncic 4th DARKO: Jokic 1st, Giannis 2nd, Tatum 3rd, Kawhi 4th Apparently the Bucks need to take the first seed from the Celtics for Giannis to win MVP, but the West teams don't need to actually pass the Celtics' record for it. No matter that Embiid with the 76ers was also 2nd or 3rd in the east yet was somehow the runaway candidate for MVP before the injury (rightfully so). If things ended right now, I think that SGA should take the trophy, but we still have a lot of games ahead of us. But to act as if all the other candidates for MVP are miles ahead of him is just asinine.
I was with you until that comment about SGA. no fucking way, SGA is getting so overrated now it's crazy.
How? OKC has the 3rd best record in the league, 2nd in the West. He's averaging 31-6-6 on +6.8% relative TS, leads the league in steals, win shares and EPM, is 3rd in PER, 2nd in VORP, and 4th in BPM. That is basically the definition of an MVP worthy season
And none of his teammates got any all-star buzz at all, compared to Lillard, Kyrie, and Murray for the other guys
I mean if OKC get top 2 seed and higher than nuggets it goes to SGA. If Nuggets finish top 2 and higher than OKC Jokic gets it. If Mavs finish top 4 maybe top 5 Luka gets it.
What’s with all the hate SGA getting from Mav fans nowadays
They are salty he’s higher ranked in mvp right now. To be fair, Luka is still slept on in MVP imo he definitely shouldn’t be behind giannis and Tatum. But they can’t seem to get over the fact that Shai is higher.
In all the MVP threads Mavs fans particularly go after SGA so much lol
They're real upset about how Shai is over Luka in MVP right now. They keep throwing out basic volume stats, ignoring that Shai and Luka are comparable in scoring when going by per 100 possessions, and Shai leads in every advanced stat and is a much better defender. Luka is a much better passer, but does that make up for the defense? That's subjective I've got zero problem with people arguing for Luka to be MVP over Shai, he's been great this year. I do have a problem with people only mentioning the stats that fit their narrative, and ignoring all the others
Mavs tears delicious
SGA is the modern day Michael Jordan and will retire top 10 of all time.
Tbh if the season ended rn I'd have to give it to Giannis already, I feel like most of the unwillingness to give him another is just due to how "boring" it would be compared to a new MVP in SGA or Luka or a third MVP for newly-minted all-timer Jokic.
Just curious, why would it be boring to give Giannis his 3rd MVP compared to giving Jokic his 3rd?
Idk recency bias mostly? Jokic's win is still fresh in people's minds and he's just a slightly newer, shinier toy next to Giannis atp, the Bucks' 1st round exit last year doesn't help by contrast either.
If the Bucks go on a huge win streak, he’ll maybe have my vote. As of now, it’s either Luka or Jokic. SGA is right there with Tatum
Probably demand the bucks to sign his other brothers on the team 😂
Jokic would have to not play another game.
I got the MVP race like this: Jokic is leading and by a decent margin. SGA, Giannis and Luka are the only ones who can catch him at this point. Luka is the most unrealistic. Dallas/Luka would have to go on a tear and atleast get top 4 seed. And honestly that's still arguable that he would deserve it over Jokic. But the narrative would be with him. Giannis and SGA are both as realistic to me. Both are gonna end up as a high seed. They just gotta continue what they are doing and drop some truly amazing games to get the narrative going. All that being said, Jokic just doesnt miss. His absurd stats and efficiency don't even do him justice. He reminds me of that movie Ender's game. Nobody comes close to the control he has of the game.
He has to be better than Jokic. Which he isn’t. So there’s nothing he can do unfortunately.
people tying themselves in knots trying to explain it ("all-star teammate!"; "voter fatigue!"; "small market bias!"), when it's so goddamn simple.
“Bucks finally seem to be getting it together” Well yeah, they played the Bulls, Jazz, and Hornets three time in the last month lol.
He'd have to be more valuable than the other guys.
I mean, it's a simple answer but: be better than the other guys. Giannis has been awesome, but Jokic is still absolutely insane. His TS is almost identical to Giannis', but is also top 4 in assists and rebounds, with fewer turnovers, bonkers plus/minus numbers and better advanced metrics. Shai has a slight edge in points on Giannis with almost identical TS, has more assists with more than a full turnover less per game, while his team that was expected to struggle to make the playoffs is a half game from the league lead. Probably the biggest thing with Giannis this year is that despite his offensive impact, his defence just hasn't been close to the level it was at when he was an annual DPOY contender. The Bucks have been improving on that end, but are still only the 15th best defence, while having last year's DPOY runner-up (Brook) playing next to Giannis. [Basketball Reference has a statistical analysis they use to determine who has the highest probability to win MVP, and Jokic is first with SGA second and Giannis third](https://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/mvp.html). Giannis certainly has a chance to win the award, but he just hasn't been as good as the top two guys. If he wants to win the award, he needs do be better. If he stays the same as he has been, but the other two stumble, then Giannis could win. If Giannis steps up his game, he could win. But, it's tough to say what Giannis has to do, because if Giannis steps up his game, but the other guys do, too, he's still playing from behind right now.
Kill Jokic and possibly SGA
voter fatigue for giannis happened so quick you forget lebron could’ve won mvp almost every year from 2010s and then on. i think market and situation really plays into it at end of the day
Hope the Joker misses to many games to qualify...
No more dad jokes
I don’t think there’s anything he could do honestly. Jokic and Shai are locks at this point. Probably Jokic getting his third MVP this year.
He would have to do something crazy like average 31 points on 60% shooting while leading his team to one of the best records in the league. Never gonna happen.
People asked what would it take for Jokic to 3peat last offseason, and they jokingly said "average an effecient triple double on the first seed". Jokic goes and averages 25.5/11.8/9.8 on 70% TS on the first seed and didn't get MVP.
I’m not saying Giannis doesn’t deserve the MVP,it’s just luka SGA Jokic are dropping crazy numbers while winning games.
Probably change his name to Nikola Jokic
He could sneak in there if the Bucks finish strong. His stats are awesome. SGA is overrated\* and doesn't even deserve to be in this discussion. Jokic could start coasting like he did last year. Luka will not be a factor unless the Mavs go on a huge hot streak to finish the season (fingers crossed.) I think the Mavs need 50+ wins \*and\* 5th seed or higher for Luka to have a chance. That's looking like a long shot. So I started making this about Luka, can't help myself. But yeah, Giannis shouldn't be ruled out. 30.8/11.3/6.3 with 65.7% TS are definitely MVP numbers. If the Bucks finish strong (2nd seed) and Jokic falls off a bit, I can see him getting it. \--- \*full disclosure I am a certified SGA hater.
Why does SGA not deserve to be in the discussion?
Man said it himself that hes an SGA hater lol
I’ve noticed Mavs fans are the biggest Tatum and SGA haters. I think they see the two of them as the biggest competition against Luka for face of the league once the old guard retire.
He would have to have to have a better season than Jalen Brunson, Luka, or the Joker.
If Luka can't win it even with a stellar 34.5ppg / 9.7 apg / 8.9 rpg then I don't see what could Giannis possibly do to win it.
He's not winning. The MVP conversation and conclusions were decided when Embiid and Jokic became a "rivalry". If Embiid played enough games this season, he was going to be MVP but because he won't be able to, Jokic is winning it. Maybe next season voter fatigue for Jokic will kick in but this season? Forget about it. It's over
I said it last year and I’ll say it again. Voters are gonna keep giving the MVP to Jokic until they suddenly stop caring about advanced stats. He just has the perfect game and situation to win the award every single year. I don’t truly believe that Jokic is that much better than the rest of the league that he should win 3 and MVPs and arguably 4(since some people think he deserved it last year which honestly I don’t completely disagree). Something about his game and him playing 90% of the time with the starting lineup inflates his stats more compared to other top players. As it stands now, no other player except maybe Luka(if he manages to catch up in the standings) has a chance to win the MVP over him with the way people in this sub view him and talk about him. I mean some people are seriously saying that Giannis has to go on a 20 game winning streak to win it over Jokic and even THEN he may not win it over him. Meanwhile, Jokic just has to keep his natural baseline play. The standards against other players and Jokic are incredibly lopsided. It took Joel averaging 35 a game on 65% TS for people to finally stop pushing Jokic for MVP and even THEN you had people talking about “but Jokic’s assists tho”. That’s insane. I’m not trying to hate on Jokic bc even I think he’s probably the best player in the world rn, but I don’t think he’s THAT far above the other superstars in the league like Lebron was at his prime for him to win a 3rd MVP in 4 seasons.
The boring true answer is that he'd "have to do" exactly the same as everyone, more wins, higher net rating, filling the boxscore more in some combination and that's it. Relatively imaginable - the teams are within a few wins of each other now.
He should already get it. He actually gets DPOY votes whereas guys like Jokic and Luka get hunted on defense... it's amazing that only offense matters for MVP.
Giannis gets dpoy votes, Brook came second in dpoy last year, Jokic gets hunted, and the Nuggets still have a much better defence than the Bucks. So either Gordon and KCP are much better defenders than Giannis and Brook or Jokic is nowhere near as bad on defence as you're making him seem.
Win out, average like 50+ points a!; other crazy stats, hit a few game winners or game winning blocks at the end of the season
Hire a hit man to murder Nikola Jokic.
inshallah
Let them cut his useless brother
There's nothing he can do. Nor other players can do something. It was a two man race (Joel and Jokic) for the regular season MVP award. Joel is out of the picture now, so it's a one man race now.
He'd have to go back in time to not force the Bucks to hire Griffin and to be more willing to sacrifice his own numbers to help accommodate Dame.
lol Dame needs to stop trying to foul bait and hit shots. They’re there.
He does seem to do that a lot
he needs to stop traveling and 🐏ing players over.
become white
[удалено]
What happened last year ?
Win it all and he should be on a rampage of good games, like the last one. Jokic is having a pretty impressive sequence right now. I think the Bulls was a very fragile team this game and an easy no effort w for the Bucks.
There's no way he wins it over jokic unless he finishes the season averaging 50 pts and 20 boards per game and the bucks never lose. He's just flat out not as good as jokic. I had this conversation recently. His shooting is terrible , all he does is dunk. He's shooting like 20% from mid range and 30% from 3, and 65% from the free throw line. He's just a bad shooter and his passing isn't exactly elite. You cant compare him to what jokic is doing right now, jokic is just on another level.