NBA 2021-2022

TheMagicFoolBus said:
Well that seems a bit arbitrary. The Nuggets finished 3 games behind both the Bucks and Sixers who benefitted from playing in a conference with significantly worse bottom half teams. The Westbrook MVP award was ridiculous because it was down to the arbitrary stat chasing he had to get to triple doubles, and that he beat out someone in the same conference who finished 12 games ahead (Harden).

Any of Jokic, Embiid, or Giannis would have been worthy MVP winners. There's no one from a team significantly better than the Nuggets with a real case this year - I agree that team success should be a factor but it's not the be all end all when there is an overwhelming statistical case in favour of Jokic.
Click to expand...
If you looked at my awards picks. I picked Booker. Best player on best regular season team where his contribution was extremely "valuable."

It's like my pick for Most Improved Player, Jordan Poole. Ja Morant is definitely a better player but that's not the name of the award. The word "valuable" has got to mean something. Finishing 6th is not valuable.
 
Last edited:
JPRouve said:
The Nuggets would likely be fighting with the Rockets if it wasn't for Jokic. The fact that they were a playoff team should see him be named the 2022 Super-Duper NBA MVP.
Click to expand...
No argument from me on Nuggets being cellar dwellers without him. All I'm saying is that for a player just to lead a team to the playoffs IMLTHO should not be enough to make them the most valuable player in the entire league, no matter his contribution. Like I said, "not his fault, but not MVP either."
 
charlton66 said:
No argument from me on Nuggets being cellar dwellers without him. All I'm saying is that for a player just to lead a team to the playoffs IMLTHO should not be enough to make them the most valuable player in the entire league, no matter his contribution. Like I said, "not his fault, but not MVP either."
Click to expand...

But why? It’s most valuable player, he definitely is super valuable when he can take a mediocre team into playoffs basically by himself with minimal contribution here and there from other players. Philly would have been a play-in team without Embiid, maybe even playoffs, Bucks would have been a top 6 seed without Giannis too probably. It is a factor.
 
charlton66 said:
No argument from me on Nuggets being cellar dwellers without him. All I'm saying is that for a player just to lead a team to the playoffs IMLTHO should not be enough to make them the most valuable player in the entire league, no matter his contribution. Like I said, "not his fault, but not MVP either."
Click to expand...

But that's silly, you admit that they are terrible without him, you know that he somehow managed to dominate the majority of relevant stats and yet you think that he isn't the most valuable. He is so valuable that he turned a terrible roster into a playoff team. Durant, Irving and Harden barely made it while being largely together, Lebron James failed because his PF wasn't always around.

You know damn well that if Murray and Porter Jr weren't injured the Nuggets would have beat the brakes of almost everyone. Instead they "just" made the playoffs. I would take Jokic over every other NBA player, he is quite clearly the most valuable player in the league because he did something that most superstars genearlly fail to do on their own.
 
charlton66 said:
If you looked at my awards picks. I picked Booker. Best player on best regular season team where his contribution was extremely "valuable."

It's like my pick for Most Improved Player, Jordan Poole. Ja Morant is definitely a better player but that's not the name of the award. The word "valuable" has got to mean something. Finishing 6th is not valuable.
Click to expand...

I agree with your pick for MIP.

But as you allude to the word valuable is quite arbitrary - surely you'd agree that the Suns would trade Booker for Jokic tomorrow if they were presented the opportunity? Doesn't that say something about their value relative to one another? To be clear, I don't think this is the criteria through which the MVP should be decided; just don't agree with you dismissing finishing 6th as being inherently not valuable (especially when the Nuggets got a grand total of 9 games from 2 max salary slots).

I do think that team success has to be a factor and that empty stats are not reflective of value. With respect though, I think you have swung that pendulum a bit too far - I completely agree that the Westbrook MVP award was ludicrous but I don't think Jokic belongs in that same category and placing him there on the basis of where their teams finished devoid of any context is shortsighted.
 
JPRouve said:
But that's silly, you admit that they are terrible without him, you know that he somehow managed to dominate the majority of relevant stats and yet you think that he isn't the most valuable. He is so valuable that he turned a terrible roster into a playoff team. Durant, Irving and Harden barely made it while being largely together, Lebron James failed because his PF wasn't always around.

You know damn well that if Murray and Porter Jr weren't injured the Nuggets would have beat the brakes of almost everyone. Instead they "just" made the playoffs. I would take Jokic over every other NBA player, he is quite clearly the most valuable player in the league because he did something that most superstars genearlly fail to do on their own.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point or my point anyway. I don't care how great he was. The point is his entire contribution was largely irrelevant because it only got the Nuggets up to 6th. That is valuable to the Nuggets, but in the big scheme of things they're still 6th. The Suns on the other hand were 8-6 without Booker and 56-12 when he played. Being the best player on the best team when your contribution is one of the main reasons they are the best team is far more valuable to me.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
I agree with your pick for MIP.

But as you allude to the word valuable is quite arbitrary - surely you'd agree that the Suns would trade Booker for Jokic tomorrow if they were presented the opportunity? Doesn't that say something about their value relative to one another? To be clear, I don't think this is the criteria through which the MVP should be decided; just don't agree with you dismissing finishing 6th as being inherently not valuable (especially when the Nuggets got a grand total of 9 games from 2 max salary slots).

I do think that team success has to be a factor and that empty stats are not reflective of value. With respect though, I think you have swung that pendulum a bit too far - I completely agree that the Westbrook MVP award was ludicrous but I don't think Jokic belongs in that same category and placing him there on the basis of where their teams finished devoid of any context is shortsighted.
Click to expand...
To be honest I don't think they'd trade Booker for Jokic because they already have Ayton but I think your point was that Jokic is the better player of the two and on that we agree. However, if the MVP was just the best player Giannis wins that one for 2022.
 
charlton66 said:
To be honest I don't think they'd trade Booker for Jokic because they already have Ayton but I think your point was that Jokic is the better player of the two and on that we agree. However, if the MVP was just the best player Giannis wins that one for 2022.
Click to expand...

Well, they have Ayton for now! We'll see given Sarver's stinginess - perhaps they wouldn't make that trade for this playoff run in particular but they'd 100% trade Ayton if they could to accommodate Jokic I reckon. Agreed with you though that Giannis is clearly the best player in the league at this point.

I think your perspective is fair enough although we disagree - I would absolutely consider team success when voting for MVP (e.g. I'd never give an MVP to someone whose team finished below .500 personally); I just think we are misaligned on weighting that factor in comparison to other arguments. And again, personally I think there is value in taking a dogshit roster and making it a playoff team - think we might just have to agree to disagree about the 6th seed cutoff.
 
charlton66 said:
You're missing the point or my point anyway. I don't care how great he was. The point is his entire contribution was largely irrelevant because it only got the Nuggets up to 6th. That is valuable to the Nuggets, but in the big scheme of things they're still 6th. The Suns on the other hand were 8-6 without Booker and 56-12 when he played. Being the best player on the best team when your contribution is one of the main reasons they are the best team is far more valuable to me.
Click to expand...

I got your point, I just have no respect for it. :D.

And Jokic win share was 15.2 against 7.6 for Booker, Booker his third among the Suns behind Paul and Bridges.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Well, they have Ayton for now! We'll see given Sarver's stinginess - perhaps they wouldn't make that trade for this playoff run in particular but they'd 100% trade Ayton if they could to accommodate Jokic I reckon. Agreed with you though that Giannis is clearly the best player in the league at this point.

I think your perspective is fair enough although we disagree - I would absolutely consider team success when voting for MVP (e.g. I'd never give an MVP to someone whose team finished below .500 personally); I just think we are misaligned on weighting that factor in comparison to other arguments. And again, personally I think there is value in taking a dogshit roster and making it a playoff team - think we might just have to agree to disagree about the 6th seed cutoff.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I think all the opposition to my POV is not unreasonable to be honest, but I've always thought that way. I'm a TN football fan for my sins, but I was one of the few in Tennessee to think Charles Woodson deserved the Heisman over Peyton Manning. He was the best player on the best team so for me he deserved it.
 
JPRouve said:
I got your point, I just have no respect for it. :D.

And Jokic win share was 15.2 against 7.6 for Booker, Booker his third among the Suns behind Paul and Bridges.
Click to expand...
To be honest your quoting of win shares just helps prove my point. Do you really think Mikal Bridges was more valuable to the Suns than Devin Booker, no matter what the stats say?
 
charlton66 said:
To be honest your quoting of win shares just helps prove my point. Do you really think Mikal Bridges was more valuable to the Suns than Devin Booker, no matter what the stats say?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. The Suns without their best wing defender and arguably the best wing defender in the league are a vastly inferior team, it's also someone that scores at a decent clip.
 
charlton66 said:
Fair enough. I think all the opposition to my POV is not unreasonable to be honest, but I've always thought that way. I'm a TN football fan for my sins, but I was one of the few in Tennessee to think Charles Woodson deserved the Heisman over Peyton Manning. He was the best player on the best team so for me he deserved it.
Click to expand...

Haha well huge respect in that case for your consistency! I can only admire your dedication to not being a homer - I was born in Brooklyn and grew up in upstate NY for most of my life but my dad is from a long line of Bostonians so that explains my allegiances. And I'm far less rational than you are!
 
I tend to agree with @charlton66 that the MVP award should go to some player that plays for one of the top teams in the league. Usually, it was done this way, but not anymore.

So based on regular season, it is very hard to argue that Jokic did not deserve the MVP. For what is worth I think at best case he is only the third best player in the league, after Giannis and KD, and possibly there are a couple others better (like Curry). But this is about the most valuable player in the regular season, and that was Jokic.

Personally, I think it is a stupid award and should be given to the best player in the league. Which nowadays is Giannis.
 
JPRouve said:
Yes, I do. The Suns without their best wing defender and arguably the best wing defender in the league are a vastly inferior team, it's also someone that scores at a decent clip.
Click to expand...
I think Booker is going to be 1st or 2nd team all NBA this year so somebody obviously rates him.
 
charlton66 said:
I think Booker is going to be 1st or 2nd team all NBA this year so somebody obviously rates him.
Click to expand...

Fortunately no one suggested that he shouldn't be rated. Personally I have Paul, Bridges and then Booker, all three are excellent player but Paul and Bridges roles are more valuable in the NBA and they are among the very best in their respective roles.
 
JPRouve said:
Fortunately no one suggested that he shouldn't be rated. Personally I have Paul, Bridges and then Booker, all three are excellent player but Paul and Bridges roles are more valuable in the NBA and they are among the very best in their respective roles.
Click to expand...
I'll be surprised if Mikal Bridges or Chris Paul make 1st or 2nd team all NBA. I'll be extremely surprised if Devin Booker doesn't. When the team is a little better than 0.500 when you don't play and better than 0.800 when you do. I'd call that value.
 
Well Jokic is not winning a 3rd mvp unless his team goes 65+ wins. The NBA likes variety and we will probably get Ja next season.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Well that seems a bit arbitrary. The Nuggets finished 3 games behind both the Bucks and Sixers who benefitted from playing in a conference with significantly worse bottom half teams. The Westbrook MVP award was ridiculous because it was down to the arbitrary stat chasing he had to get to triple doubles, and that he beat out someone in the same conference who finished 12 games ahead (Harden).

Any of Jokic, Embiid, or Giannis would have been worthy MVP winners. There's no one from a team significantly better than the Nuggets with a real case this year - I agree that team success should be a factor but it's not the be all end all when there is an overwhelming statistical case in favour of Jokic.
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't.
 
charlton66 said:
In the same way I always defend Steph, I can depend on you to defend Russ. ;)
Click to expand...

:lol: always gotta defend our guys! Although, I would much prefer to have to defend Steph. Far more positive evidence on his side.


TheMagicFoolBus said:
I mean, yes it was. Westbrook hurt his team's rebounding by insisting they get funneled to him. Harden was miles better that year.
Click to expand...

You think it was because you've heard that narrative regurgitated by fans and certain media people. Westbrook was by far the most clutch player in the league that season. He was also on a team where Victor Oladipo or Steven Adams was the 2nd best player. That roster was hot garbage in a way similar to Jokic's Denver. He also increased his usage considerably and actually increased his efficiency (not saying his efficiency was amazing but on that usage it was good, similar to Harden). The triple-doubles played some part, but it was definitely not the sole reason he won it.

The rebounding also didn't hurt the Thunder. Adams was not a good outlet pass and our half-court offense was terrible because it was Westbrook surrounded by 3 non-shooters (Roberson, Adams, and Sabonis). It made sense for Westbrook to get the board and push the pace because if we didn't score in transition then we didn't score.
 
ZDwyr said:
You think it was because you've heard that narrative regurgitated by fans and certain media people. Westbrook was by far the most clutch player in the league that season. He was also on a team where Victor Oladipo or Steven Adams was the 2nd best player. That roster was hot garbage in a way similar to Jokic's Denver. He also increased his usage considerably and actually increased his efficiency (not saying his efficiency was amazing but on that usage it was good, similar to Harden). The triple-doubles played some part, but it was definitely not the sole reason he won it.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on writing the most condescending post in the thread.

As opposed to Harden who had...Eric Gordon? And who blew Westbrook away in terms of win shares?

There's a zero percent chance Westbrook wins that MVP without averaging a triple double. Voters spoke openly about how meaningful that arbitrary stat was for them. Narrative is always a part of an MVP campaign but Westbrook was a terrible choice for MVP that year and it's been borne out in subsequent seasons.
 
Mike Brown coaching the Dubs tonight. Steve Kerr in Health and Safety protocols with Covid.
 
AL HORFORD YOU BEAUTY - just put up a 30/8/3 on 78/71/75 splits while defending Giannis 1v1 at the other end regularly. Unbelievable from him.

 
This is the worst game of the playoff so far.

Warriors can’t shoot and keep being careless with the ball. Grizz are just not good.
 
This is shit on a stick basketball, going to end up 85-81 or something.

somewhere Jeff van Gundy is loving this. (Although it looks more like Stan)

1kjig0.jpg
 
I’ve never seen a playoff game where both teams have been this bad for 20min straight.
 
Was checking most of mainstream shows and must say, the disrespect going around this whole MVP shit is so funny, the variety of it, some are direct, some are sumblinimal, some are shameless, not to mention ex players on socials. The outrage makes me believe even if Jokic was in top 2 seed, something else would be found to knock him down. Also, if we wanna hang on seeds and personal value in those wins, should we count only wins/loses you took part in it.

Dunno, personally wish he didnt won, now he is being shit on for stuff he has nothing to do with, outrage because certain NBA legends have won only one and this fecker has two, outrage/hunt/shaming on people who voted for him, like he was lobbying for bloody thing, imagine if he said that he should win and if not, that would mean you hate him. Only positive out of all this is that he wont see MVP reward anytime soon, if at all, regardless of his seed, stats, narrative and other shit.
 
Don't know what to say really. When one team is shooting 20% from 3 and is still twice as good as the other team. I think that about says it all.

As for Jokic, I don't think he's undeserving I just wouldn't have voted for him.
 
Just turned game on, why 3rd Q 10 min left, why score is like its European game, where are the buckets
 
R'hllor said:
Was checking most of mainstream shows and must say, the disrespect going around this whole MVP shit is so funny, the variety of it, some are direct, some are sumblinimal, some are shameless, not to mention ex players on socials. The outrage makes me believe even if Jokic was in top 2 seed, something else would be found to knock him down. Also, if we wanna hang on seeds and personal value in those wins, should we count only wins/loses you took part in it.

Dunno, personally wish he didnt won, now he is being shit on for stuff he has nothing to do with, outrage because certain NBA legends have won only one and this fecker has two, outrage/hunt/shaming on people who voted for him, like he was lobbying for bloody thing, imagine if he said that he should win and if not, that would mean you hate him. Only positive out of all this is that he wont see MVP reward anytime soon, if at all, regardless of his seed, stats, narrative and other shit.
Click to expand...
If Jokic was american, he would never get criticized the way he has.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Congratulations on writing the most condescending post in the thread.

As opposed to Harden who had...Eric Gordon? And who blew Westbrook away in terms of win shares?

There's a zero percent chance Westbrook wins that MVP without averaging a triple double. Voters spoke openly about how meaningful that arbitrary stat was for them. Narrative is always a part of an MVP campaign but Westbrook was a terrible choice for MVP that year and it's been borne out in subsequent seasons.
Click to expand...

No chance that was the most condescending post in the tread!

Eric Gordon, Trevor Ariza (before he was washed), Capela, Lou Williams (before washed), Beverley, and Montrezl Harrell is a decent supporting cast. Far superior to Westbrook's for sure. The Houston roster was at least conducive to their best player's strengths. The best 3-point shooter in the OKC starting line-up was Oladipo who is a 35% career shooter.

Anyway, I'm not saying that the triple-double had nothing to do with it. It absolutely did. I don't even mind if you think Harden deserved it. I was just saying that it was not solely down to the triple-double as there were other factors at play.
 
Memphis probably wishes Brooks did get suspended for more than one game.
 
Dillon Brooks was involved in basically every mistake made by the Grizz in the 4th quarter, :lol: :lol: :lol: , awful player who will always show up once every 50 games against the team you support but be gash the other 49 times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.