NBA Do you think the joker will win the NBA MVP this year?

[gspieler]

Historically the NBA generally doesn't just default to the best player. If that were the case, MJ, Lebron, and Wilt would all have like 10. Denver is ending the season on a sour note, and going to be a 3-6 seed. He is the best, and his stats are crazy good, but my money is on Joker not getting the nod this year.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Historically the NBA generally doesn't just default to the best player. If that were the case, MJ, Lebron, and Wilt would all have like 10. Denver is ending the season on a sour note, and going to be a 3-6 seed. He is the best, and his stats are crazy good, but my money is on Joker not getting the nod this year.

I deep dove in this about a year or so ago, and NBA generally does pick the guy that does the right mix of team winning and being the driver of the team winning.

There were years where MJ, Lebron etc were the best players on paper, but actually were not the best in terms of win share because their supporting case contributed so much whereas the winners had guys carrying their teams.

Jokic is obviously going to get jobbed this year. If Jokic puts up a SGA MVP level stat line in a game like 32-5-6, opponents would be happy they somewhat contained Jokic lol.

 

[gspieler]

I deep dove in this about a year or so ago, and NBA generally does pick the guy that does the right mix of team winning and being the driver of the team winning.

There were years where MJ, Lebron etc were the best players on paper, but actually were not the best in terms of win share because their supporting case contributed so much whereas the winners had guys carrying their teams.

Jokic is obviously going to get jobbed this year. If Jokic puts up a SGA MVP level stat line in a game like 32-5-6, opponents would be happy they somewhat contained Jokic lol.

I mostly agree, but I don't think there's strong arguments to support that Harden, Rose, Nash, Malone, Barkley, etc were ever the best in the league. Though, on a side note, I think Nash probably deserved both MVP's, when context is taken into consideration.

 

[Prex32]

Historically the NBA generally doesn't just default to the best player. If that were the case, MJ, Lebron, and Wilt would all have like 10. Denver is ending the season on a sour note, and going to be a 3-6 seed. He is the best, and his stats are crazy good, but my money is on Joker not getting the nod this year.

you cant mix mj with others
jokic and bronze both not clutch

 

[Madmick]

I mostly agree, but I don't think there's strong arguments to support that Harden, Rose, Nash, Malone, Barkley, etc were ever the best in the league.

That's a prudent understatement. Unquestionably those guys were never the best player in the league.

I deep dove in this about a year or so ago, and NBA generally does pick the guy that does the right mix of team winning and being the driver of the team winning.

There were years where MJ, Lebron etc were the best players on paper, but actually were not the best in terms of win share because their supporting case contributed so much whereas the winners had guys carrying their teams.

Jokic is obviously going to get jobbed this year. If Jokic puts up a SGA MVP level stat line in a game like 32-5-6, opponents would be happy they somewhat contained Jokic lol.

Is Jokic the primary driver of the team winning, though, if that is where his case is to be laid?

You mention win shares. MJ was #1 in Win Shares in the league every single year he played from 1987-1997. The only year he won MVP when he didn't lead was the final year the Bulls won, 1998, when he was #3, but the Bulls finished ahead of the Spurs and the Jazz, who had David Robinson and Karl Malone, the guys ahead of him, and Jordan was the scoring champion. Second, I'm not sure the advanced stats are where Jokic's argument as the primary driver of his team's wins is to be laid.

Team Record
OKC --> 64-14
DEN --> 47-32

SGA vs. Jokic
Raw Plus/Minus: +911 vs. +540
Win Shares: 16.5 vs. 15.8
DARKO Daily Plus/Minus: +6.4 vs. +6.5
Estimated Plus/Minus: +8.9 vs. +8.8
NetRTG: +16.8 vs. +9.9
VORP: 8.7 vs 9.4

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

That's a prudent understatement. Unquestionably those guys were never the best player in the league.

Is Jokic the primary driver of the team winning, though, if that is where his case is to be laid?

You mention win shares. MJ was #1 in Win Shares in the league every single year he played from 1987-1997. The only year he won MVP when he didn't lead was the final year the Bulls won, 1998, when he was #3, but the Bulls finished ahead of the Spurs and the Jazz, who had David Robinson and Karl Malone, the guys ahead of him, and Jordan was the scoring champion. Second, I'm not sure the advanced stats are where Jokic's argument as the primary driver of his team's wins is to be laid.

Team Record
OKC --> 64-14
DEN --> 47-32

SGA vs. Jokic
Raw Plus/Minus: +911 vs. +540
Win Shares: 16.5 vs. 15.8
DARKO Daily Plus/Minus: +6.4 vs. +6.5
Estimated Plus/Minus: +8.9 vs. +8.8
NetRTG: +16.8 vs. +9.9
VORP: 8.7 vs 9.4

IIRC the WS/48 seems to fit better with who wins MVP as opposed to outright WS. Though to be fair, I don't recall how closely I went back to the 80s and 90s and might have just looked at the last 25 or so years.

MVP means different things to a lot of people, to me it's how much a team wins and how much you as an individual are contributing. I mean, you can be the best player on earth, but if the team ain't making the play in, I think I can say you might be generating a lot of value for your team, but it's actually probably worse long term because you need better draft picks lol. But if you are on a team that is indeed going to the post season and has potential to make a run, that crosses a hurdle for me.

SGAs raw +/- numbers are great because his supporting cast is great - the team is near perfectly constructed. OKC goes from amazing, to extremely good when he is not playing. Whereas Nuggets go from amazing to extremely bad when Jokic rests. I think the stat they showed was Jokic on court the Nuggets have all-time greatest offensive production, and when he sits near all time worst. And Denver has never had a back up that could prevent totally leaking points on defense, let alone the impossibility of matching Jokic's offense. Jokic is literally the player in the league who can least afford to get into foul trouble, has to play with the pressure of having carry the team in so many capacities almost constantly, and frankly all those stats we are looking at are still predicated on what's also obvious, SGA has one of the best whistles in the league, and Jokic has one of the worst "the Jokic rules" whistles, so frankly, I view the entire by the numbers analysis already tainted well in favor of Shai. I feel the same round Shaq to be honest; the league just let him get away with relentless amounts of dislodging fouls because Shaq was great for audiences. NBA and its media ecosystem just controlling the narrative they want to put out.

 

[Madmick]

IIRC the WS/48 seems to fit better with who wins MVP as opposed to outright WS. Though to be fair, I don't recall how closely I went back to the 80s and 90s and might have just looked at the last 25 or so years.

Total Win Shares makes more sense. Because it's about who produces more wins, it's not about efficiency, or figuring out who is the best player on the court only when he's on the court. Because a player could be miles better than anyone else, but if he gets injured 20 games into the season, and doesn't play another game, he sure as hell better not win MVP.

MVP means different things to a lot of people, to me it's how much a team wins and how much you as an individual are contributing. I mean, you can be the best player on earth, but if the team ain't making the play in, I think I can say you might be generating a lot of value for your team, but it's actually probably worse long term because you need better draft picks lol. But if you are on a team that is indeed going to the post season and has potential to make a run, that crosses a hurdle for me.

SGAs raw +/- numbers are great because his supporting cast is great - the team is near perfectly constructed. OKC goes from amazing, to extremely good when he is not playing. Whereas Nuggets go from amazing to extremely bad when Jokic rests. I think the stat they showed was Jokic on court the Nuggets have all-time greatest offensive production, and when he sits near all time worst. And Denver has never had a back up that could prevent totally leaking points on defense, let alone the impossibility of matching Jokic's offense. Jokic is literally the player in the league who can least afford to get into foul trouble, has to play with the pressure of having carry the team in so many capacities almost constantly, and frankly all those stats we are looking at are still predicated on what's also obvious, SGA has one of the best whistles in the league, and Jokic has one of the worst "the Jokic rules" whistles, so frankly, I view the entire by the numbers analysis already tainted well in favor of Shai. I feel the same round Shaq to be honest; the league just let him get away with relentless amounts of dislodging fouls because Shaq was great for audiences. NBA and its media ecosystem just controlling the narrative they want to put out.

I'm just highlighting if you anchor a "driver of wins" arguments in statistics, not a more fluid analysis based on watching the games, I wouldn't know what the latter would say, there's a strong case for SGA over Jokic.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Total Win Shares makes more sense. Because it's about who produces more wins, it's not about efficiency, or figuring out who is the best player on the court only when he's on the court. Because a player could be miles better than anyone else, but if he gets injured 20 games into the season, and doesn't play another game, he sure as hell better not win MVP.

I'm just highlighting if you anchor a "driver of wins" arguments in statistics, not a more fluid analysis based on watching the games, I wouldn't know what the latter would say, there's a strong case for SGA over Jokic.

Interesting. Maybe we are talking past each other, when I say "driver of wins" I mean who is responsible for most of the winning slice of the pie (second step), not the total size of the pie (first step). I think statistically it's very apparent Jokic's portion of the Denver smaller slice is a higher ratio than SGA's portion of the OKC bigger slice. Jokic's portion of his team's slice is possible the highest ratio of all time.

In other words (making up numbers cuz I'm lazy) Denver wins 66% of the time, and Jokic is responsible for 90% of that 66%. OKC wins 85% of the time, and SGA is responsible for 70% of that winning. I think the numbers clearly show that with the on-court, off-court metrics.

Anyhow, it's all kind of weird these MVP discussions, lot of folks online have said the narrative constantly changes to favor Jokic, but I think it's really just ridiculous. BR has a pure narrative free stats model and every year for the past 5 years it's always pointed to Jokic being MVP, this year no different. This is the second year the NBA and its media ecosystem has been completely hellbent on using narrative to make it sound like it's a slam dunk for someone else (and it will be - SGA will win in a landslide), but the agenda at play is clear .

 

[Madmick]

An added observation along the "driver of wins" angle.

2023-24, Philadelphia
w/Embiid: 31-8 (79.5%, projects to 65-17 season, would have been #1 in league)
w/o Embiid: 16-27 (37.0%, projects to 31-51 season, would have been #23 in league)

2024-25, Philadelphia [thru 80 games]
w/Embiid: 8-11 (42.1%)
w/o Embiid: 16-45 (26.2%)

Even a hobbled half-blind Embiid nearly doubles Philly's winrate alone. Too bad he seems to be one of those guys doomed to injury.

 

[Corona]

No but he probably should. The nba would rather give it to lil nas x 2.0. This is why we stand.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

An added observation along the "driver of wins" angle.

2023-24, Philadelphia
w/Embiid: 31-8 (79.5%, projects to 65-17 season, would have been #1 in league)
w/o Embiid: 16-27 (37.0%, projects to 31-51 season, would have been #23 in league)

2024-25, Philadelphia [thru 80 games]
w/Embiid: 8-11 (42.1%)
w/o Embiid: 16-45 (26.2%)

Even a hobbled half-blind Embiid nearly doubles Philly's winrate alone. Too bad he seems to be one of those guys doomed to injury.

Yep, healthy Embiid (which now sounds like an oxymoron) has definitely been neck and neck with Jokic in terms of being the best regular season baller out there the past 4 or so years. He was actually getting even better before his recent injuries by upping his assists game and playing a bit more Jokic-like. Thing is he self-admittedly doens't play ethical hoops and would foul merchant and doesn't have the same decision making ability, and that has really really hampered his playoff success where the whistle isn't as generous and the double teams truly do frustrate him.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

No but he probably should. The nba would rather give it to lil nas x 2.0. This is why we stand.

yeah, reg season is pretty much over, and the BR tracker is in its usual spot.

2024-25 NBA MVP Award Tracker | Basketball-Reference.com

NBA MVP Award Tracker

www.basketball-reference.com

Don't mind SGA winning, but is annoying that it will be lopsided to make it seem like there shoulnd't have ever been a debate, which is crazy.