So...Jokic with 1 title and 3 MVPs probably overtake Moses all time right?

[1987_Lakers]

Not only did Dances with Wolves win best picture over Goodfellas, but Kevin Costner won best director over Scorsese that same year, what is wrong with this world?

I get it, Goodfellas was violent which might have been off-putting to some of the hollywood voters, but in no way is Dances With Wolves a better movie.

[Phoenix]

If that's the metric being used you could probably put him over anyone outside who we generally accept as top 10 players. I mean, just off those accolades what cases do guys like West or Oscar have over him? Or Dr.J ( in terms of his NBA career)? Is he ahead of David Robinson, Dirk, Garnett? Should he be soon if not already? Where are we ranking Steph and KD nowadays?

The criteria on how we're ranking these guys has no consistency.

[SouBeachTalents]

Nash has 2.
Malone has 2.

Plenty of guys who were better only have 1.

Of course, you're going to find outliers in every metric, and I'm not advocating MVP is the end all be all, I just disagree with the notion that they don't matter at all like you're claiming. They definitely have at least some significance, and it's not a coincidence the majority of the ATG's have won it multiple times.

[Baller234]

Of course, you're going to find outliers in every metric, and I'm not advocating MVP is the end all be all, I just disagree with the notion that they don't matter at all like you're claiming. They definitely have at least some significance, and it's not a coincidence the majority of the ATG's have won it multiple times.

The award has significance if you're comparing Jokic to someone like John Stockton. You can argue that because Stockton was never even in consideration for the award, it's probably an indicator he wasn't as good.

It doesn't have significance if you're comparing Jokic to someone like Kobe or Shaq. You can't just say "Well they only have 1 MVP so they weren't as good..."

[Phoenix]

For the most part the MVP award has gone to a guy who had a case for being the best player or at worst a top 3 player, and that was coupled with balancing individual impact with quality of teammates. You can be 2003 Tmac good but you're not cracking 50 wins with rookie Mike Miller, Pat Garrity and Darrell Armstrong, so no MVP award for him even if the few guys considered better also had considerably better rosters.

Outside of that, there were narrative wins like Westbrook getting the first triple double year since Oscar leading a lower seed team, Rose leading the Bulls to the top of the east in 2011, or Nash turning around the Suns in 2005, then having a better individual season in 06 without Amare while keeping Phoenix in the hunt so it made no sense not rewarding him again.

[FultzNationRISE]

The accolade argument comes and goes when it’s convenient for the opinion being defended..

This.

[Baller234]

For the most part the MVP award has gone to a guy who had a case for being the best player or at worst a top 3 player, and that was coupled with balancing individual impact with quality of teammates. You can be 2003 Tmac good but you're not cracking 50 wins with rookie Mike Miller, Pat Garrity and Darrell Armstrong, so no MVP award for him even if the few guys considered better also had considerably better rosters.

Outside of that, there were narrative wins like Westbrook getting the first triple double year since Oscar leading a lower seed team, Rose leading the Bulls to the top of the east in 2011, or Nash turning around the Suns in 2005, then having a better individual season in 06 without Amare while keeping Phoenix in the hunt so it made no sense not rewarding him again.

Ok so let's run with this.

If you have an MVP award, it means either:

- You were at worst top 3

- You weren't top 3 but the media was taken in by a feel good story


Translation = the award is mostly meaningless.

The lesson I take away from this is to not get caught up in MVP discussions or use it as a criteria for comparing greats.

[tpols]

For the most part the MVP award has gone to a guy who had a case for being the best player or at worst a top 3 player, and that was coupled with balancing individual impact with quality of teammates. You can be 2003 Tmac good but you're not cracking 50 wins with rookie Mike Miller, Pat Garrity and Darrell Armstrong, so no MVP award for him even if the few guys considered better also had considerably better rosters.

Outside of that, there were narrative wins like Westbrook getting the first triple double year since Oscar leading a lower seed team, Rose leading the Bulls to the top of the east in 2011, or Nash turning around the Suns in 2005, then having a better individual season in 06 without Amare while keeping Phoenix in the hunt so it made no sense not rewarding him again.

Nash was legit. He made those suns teams a powerhouse GOAT level offense. #1 ranked offense and #1 in team assists for many years in a row. Best PnR player ever imo and they got robbed of a title in 2007.

[Phoenix]

Ok so let's run with this.

If you have an MVP award, it means either:

- You were at worst top 3

- You weren't top 3 but the media was taken in by a feel good story


Translation = the award is mostly meaningless.

The lesson I take away from this is to not get caught up in MVP discussions or use it as a criteria for comparing greats.

Wasn't always the case until those scenarios I mentioned cropped up. Generally speaking, the players who have the most MVP awards like Kareem, Russell, Jordan, Lebron, Magic and Bird are or were considered the best or among the very best so it was more 1:1 with MVP= best player than Steve Nash winning two in a league that had Shaq, Kobe, Dirk, Duncan, Garnett all at or near their primes.

So is it all bullshit? Ultimately, it's just a bullet point but like any other achievement in these conversations often lacks context but not bias.

[Phoenix]

Nash was legit. He made those suns teams a powerhouse GOAT level offense. #1 ranked offense and #1 in team assists for many years in a row. Best PnR player ever imo and they got robbed of a title in 2007.

Nash being legit or not wasn't the point of what I said. I said typically most MVP awards went to the player generally considered the best player or a top 3 player at worst. Nash was neither when he won, but it doesn't mean his weren't valid. It just means the voting criteria went against the usual grain.

[tpols]

Nash being legit or not wasn't the point of what I said. I said typically most MVP awards went to the player generally considered the best player or a top 3 player at worst. Nash was neither when he won, but it doesn't mean his weren't valid. It just means the voting criteria went against the usual grain.

Nash was as good as anybody in the league in the mid 2000s. Unlike Westbrook and Rose who were phonies in the playoffs, Nash actually showed up when it counted.

[elementally morale]

I'm not sure where MVP awards should catapult you but Jokic was more deserving last year than this year. Had he won last year and if he goes on and get it this year we would look at 4 MVPs in a row. That's a legacy in itself. At any rate, if by the end of the season it will be: Jokic 3, Giannis 2, Embiid 1, I think that is a fair representation big picture wise.

Based on ability, Jokic is clearly a top 10 player to me but to get there legacy wise he needs more FMVPs and some longevity at the top. Another 5 years and two more rings should do it. The way he plays he can be effective for quite a few years especially given today's care. The bigger question is whether he will want to do it. If he will sign another contract he is going to honor that. I'm not sure he will sign another contract though. I rarely say this but in his case I simply hope he is or will get greedy enough to stay in it for the money.

Right now I'd say he is a top 15-20 player all time but still has a potentially very long way to go. If we are not talking legacy just ability to play he is as good as anybody I've ever seen play basketball. No need to compare him to players of eras far away. He just needs to prove he is the best to do it in the 2020s. So far he absolutely is but the decade is young. More Finals, rings, FMVPs and seasons is the way to go.

[elementally morale]

Nash being legit or not wasn't the point of what I said. I said typically most MVP awards went to the player generally considered the best player or a top 3 player at worst. Nash was neither when he won, but it doesn't mean his weren't valid. It just means the voting criteria went against the usual grain.

I think Nash was top 3 for a couple of years.

[ArbitraryWater]

Nash has 2.
Malone has 2.

Plenty of guys who were better only have 1.

So what?


All that means is they were better than their contemporaries, not the other.

Bird could have 0 MVPs if he played his career next to MJ under similar teammates and Nash could have 3 reasonable MVPs and it still wouldnt make the MVP "wrong".

[Phoenix]

Nash was as good as anybody in the league in the mid 2000s.

Sure, if you ignore Duncan, Garnett, Kobe, Dirk, 2005 Shaq, 2006 Wade, 2006 Lebron.