"Agreed. Free throws are my favorite because they're so intense and are really the best barometer of skill in the game of basketball." - darkieLaaawwwwl I miss darkie. I haven't changed my sig yet
Edit: wait my sig disappeared. Oh well.
"Agreed. Free throws are my favorite because they're so intense and are really the best barometer of skill in the game of basketball." - darkieLaaawwwwl I miss darkie. I haven't changed my sig yet
Edit: wait my sig disappeared. Oh well.
I like this take because it explains what an MVP award should represent. A “most valuable” player doesn’t always line up with “the best” player, and for this award you (the person nominating the players) should look at which players are the most valuable to their franchises and how much individual players’ performances are impacting their team’s relative strength. Case in point, Luka’s adding more value to the Mavs than any other player adds to their own teams, and claiming otherwise would be a disservice to the value of offensive and defensive talent that is being provided to a team that would otherwise be contending for the top lottery pick. Honestly the dude kind of reminds me of how Shohei Ohtani was (one of) the only notable player(s) on the LA Angels for a decent amount of time. You put someone with Luka’s talent on a contender team, and they’re going to have some high expectations no doubt.Luka Doncic is MVP and its not really close.
The stats:
PPG: 34.7 - 1st, 3.5 points above next highest (SGA)
Points (Total) - 1st, 1943 pts. SGA has 6 less points with 6 less games played.
RPG: 9.0 - 1st among point guards, 18th overall
APG: 9.8 - 3rd in league, averaging 8 points more than trae with 10.8 apg and 13.9 more than hali with 11.4 apg.
SPG: 1.5 - 9th in league. Keep saying he's a cone on defense though
The only caveat to these stats is his efficiency, Sike, he's basically shooting 50/40.
Defense:
0.53 pts per possession allowed when defending (1st in league)
0.79 pts per possession when defending in isolation (10th in league)
The eye test? Luka haters main point when calling him out is his defense. If you actually watch him play defense he's AT WORST average. There are a lot of lowlights due to Jason Kidd working him like a slave every night but most of the time he is good defending. You aren't automatically a bad defender because you don't guard the 1st option (He still does sometimes), especially when there are just better options to guard those players.
Team Success:
They are the 8th seed so far, sure, but this somewhat says more about Luka than if they were a top 3 seed. Without him, the team would make the pistons and wizards look pretty good. They are also literally 2 wins away from the 5th seed which would make it pretty easy to argue him for mvp.
It's worth noting that the MVP is typically said to be given to the "best-performing player" and not necessarily the player which adds the most value to their franchise. If the criteria you state was used, good players on superteams or even just good teams would never win MVPs, and good players on bad teams would win them all. This is exemplified by the fact that the NBA's current MVP ladder has Jokic and Shai at 1-2, as their performances stand out even among their already very good teams.I like this take because it explains what an MVP award should represent. A “most valuable” player doesn’t always line up with “the best” player, and for this award you (the person nominating the players) should look at which players are the most valuable to their franchises and how much individual players’ performances are impacting their team’s relative strength.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but in a similar manner to, say, the NFL regular season MVP, I feel like the existing selection criteria would lend itself better to a "best performance" award (we can call it the BPP award) as opposed to a "most valuable" award. If the league wants to keep the existing criteria in place, that's fine, but it would feel like a more accurate representation of the state of the NBA's 30 franchises if the two sides of this coin were differentiated. And if someone comes along and happens to win the hypothetical BPP and MVP awards in the same season, hey, good for them. As it stands, all that I know for certain is that having players like Jokic and Shai in the running sends a message to underperforming franchises that the MVP award isn't as much about individual players' talent as much as it is how he contributes to a contending roster- a solid premise for a hypothetical BPP award, but not for an MVP award where Luka's arguably done more for his team than either of those two examples mentioned earlier.It's worth noting that the MVP is typically said to be given to the "best-performing player" and not necessarily the player which adds the most value to their franchise. If the criteria you state was used, good players on superteams or even just good teams would never win MVPs, and good players on bad teams would win them all. This is exemplified by the fact that the NBA's current MVP ladder has Jokic and Shai at 1-2, as their performances stand out even among their already very good teams.
It should also definitely be noted that even with the NBA criteria in mind, the MVP is not always given to the best player on the best team, but it is damn hard to win it on a poor team. The only players since the turn of the century that have won MVP on a team below .600 are Westbrook and Jokic's first. Westbrook was a lock because he averaged a bona fide triple double; Jokic I would say is the outlier here. So, to summarize, to win an MVP you have to either 1. be the best player in the league on a team which is very good (and in spite of this, your talent shines through) or 2. you have to be so outlandishly good that you carry a team to seem like it is very good (as in Lebron's 09-10 MVP).
I will say that Luka has definitely leveled up this season, particularly on defense (bringing it to mediocre levels but not the outright travesty that were years of past) but also has just improved his game in many other ways; however, I don't really buy the argument that should Luka join an actually good team, his MVP stock would go up. I think depending on the team he goes to, his points and rebounds could decrease by a sizable amount; his assists would likely stay the same or perhaps even increase given he has more options to convert his passes.
The mvp also isn't going to the player with just the best stats either because we need to see your actual play contribute to winning.There is a sub 1% chance that mavs miss the playoffs according to http://www.playoffstatus.com/nba/mavericksstandings.html
If the mvp just went to the best player on the best team it would go to jayson tatum, who is averaging worse stats in every category incuding efficiency
A good inbetween is Jokic who is basically averaging an efficient 26 pt triple double, however, I find it hard to overlook what luka's done, and if luka was in jokers shoes in terms of having a great team surrounding him he would be a lot higher in standings.
The mvp also isn't going to the player with just the best stats either because we need to see your actual play contribute to winning.
If the award is about value, what stat proves Luka is contributing more wins to his team? What good is an mvp award if you are fighting for a play-in spot after being a top seed the first half of the season, going to the same position exactly a year later? What good is it to favor the MVP who, despite having 1% chance today, could still just lose two games and be out so as long as they aren't a top 6 seed? Great heliocentric offense and lazy defense will never win MVP unless you're James Harden with a top seed.
The balance between individual performance and win shares is necessary; that's why Tatum and Doncic aren't frontrunners. Jokic and SGA hold that balance much better while Tatum and Doncic operate at opposite ends.
MVP is strictly for individual legacy for a player and usually gets brought up when comparing some of the greatest of all time. That's genuinely it though.Since I'm kind of an NBA noob, take this hot take with lots of purifying salt, but I'm not sure I get the point or hype around the whole MVP thing.
To me, it seems to just show which teams put the most eggs in one basket.
Personally I rather be a fan of a team that has a culture of keeping a 'skill' / 'plus-minus' / whatever average pretty high among all its starters, instead of a team that like lives and dies by one player.
There's probably something big that I'm totally missing, though.
PJ HAD 6 FUCKING POINTSit hurt watching that mavs vs thunder game cus I know if luka was playing mavs would've won...that team is only like 2 real hitters luka and kyrie no one ever really goes for a big number expect like tim hardaway ive yet to see washington act as the 3rd best player on the team...