What is krack Lack and fellow Thermo nuclear a efforts. I am Dan Valley
coming at you with the solo podcast episode. It will be a one question
episode. The very quick reminder though, if you're watching or listening to this
for the first time, please consider hitting that subscribe button YouTube, Spotify,
Apple, That will help us out of most but wherever you can see us
really helps us. And if you have done those things, tell people about
us, Shout us out on Twitter, quote tweet us, retweet our promos
on Twitter. But again, word of mouth goes a long way as well,
and finally join our discords. Link to that is in our podcast and
YouTube descriptions. Always good discussions going on there. And speaking of which,
it was this discussion that inspired this podcast. I want to take a break
from just talking about the everyday stuff and go macro here. But it's Allen
and our discord had essentially asked, why is the MVP debate so hotly contested
in the NBA, seemingly, you know, relative to other sports where it
doesn't become as vehema hit an issue in the NFL, or MLB or NHL.
And it was a fascinating question. I thought a lot about it.
We have a lot of great response in different people weigh in and so,
and I also think that this topic becomes like a little bit more relevant now.
I mean, it's relevant because we're talking about it, But I'm not
going to get into picks with Janis versus Yokich, versus MBID, versus Luca
versus Tatum versus whoever else you have in there. But the news comes from
Sham Sharani of The Athletic that the NBA Players Union actually approached the league about
maybe having implementing a game's minimum to be eligible for certain awards. We don't
have the exact details on what awards that might entail. We don't have the
exact details on whether that's gonna you know, will be all MBA as well,
will it be all defense? Is it for every single award? Is
only for certain awards? But the benchmark listed was fifty eight games. Now
to comment on that quickly, I'm not opposed to it. I understand what
it does from a game's played perspective. The league cares about load management and
stars playing in as many games as possible, so it's more valuable. While
I look at it and say, well, I'm going to prefer more total
minutes play. If someone plays I don't know, let's just say two thousand
minutes across sixty three games. Is does that make them substantially more valuable than
maybe someone who played like sixteen hundred across fifty three I don't like. I
don't even just throwing that out there. I think total minutes is a better
reflection of a player's value, but from a league perspective. In a player's
perspective, if they're worried about the season getting cut or their share being cut,
you want to appear in as many games as possible, because that's what
the fans are ultimately there to say. You want to be able to purchase
tickets in advance, and yes, is you know, is Steph or Jannis
or Luca or Yoki's more likely to play in every game if they need to
hit fifty eight as many games possible. They need to hit fifty eight to
be eligible for an award. That's not look Yokich is Ironman Dodges played in
the time of games normally. I'm just saying that's why the games played benchmark
is in place. It's not really about to me. It has nothing to
do with sort of rationalizing the awards discourse. It's more about, hey,
we want to figure out this load management issue, which is not a player
issue, to be clear, that's teams are in control of that, and
they're probably trying to ensure that their players as well rested as possible for the
games that matter most. I assume there's a whole bunch of medical staff they're
involved in making this decision, and that they've probably looked at research or historical
results or vitals and they've come to this decision. It's not the players alone,
most of whom I would argue ninety nine point nine percent of players always
want to play Go figure now. But so again, why do we care
so much about the MVP award in the NBA? And I do think it's
a shit tone of factors. And I think, first and foremost mine where
I land is that when you look across these four major sports, I do
think that the NBA is the one where a singular player can have the most
transformative impact. And you are playing both sides of the ball, and that,
for one, you know, makes it easier to separate from football.
Two, you're also dealing with only one MVP here, whereas in baseball we're
talking about al versus n L and then also, excuse me, so like
having to narrow down that field even further. I think absolutely matters as well.
The bigger thing is, though, and it is even in baseball.
You look at this in football, if we're gonna name QB the most valuable
player, can they have that profound impact on the team. Where if all
you have is this, if all you have is Aaron Rodgers, you're not
guaranteed to be one of the three to five best teams in the league,
or legitimate threat to win every game, or be it just a contender to
be put in that level. In the NBA, you can get there.
We've seen it with Lebron, We've seen it with Jannis, We've seen it
with Yo Kitchen. Yes, there are star pairings, but you're talking about
one playing both sides of the ball, which I know that they do in
baseball and hockey as well. Hockey's interesting too, because it doesn't seem like
it says contentious of debate. I just wonder if what also contributes to that
is the NBA in North America is going to be more popular, and so
there's not going to there's going to be more people invested in that interest.
But digressing to all these variety of factors, I think the bigger one is
though you look at all of these sports baseball where you know, pitchers they're
not you know, depending on the game, like they're not actually batting at
all, so they're not having this huge they're not having any impact on the
offense in some games, or even if you are like you're getting one at
bat every nine players, and so you're not having the consistent offensive impact.
You're not having an offensive impact every single inning no matter who you are.
And also splitting it up from the offensive defense having al versus an l MVP
having the say Young Award winner. Even in the NFL they name the this
is Rookie of the Year, they have the offensive and defensive player of Rookie
of the years. Jim doesn't separate it like that. And so like even
the Rookie of the Year debate Kennon Fury and it rarely becomes contentious. I
think the last one that was like a big deal was that was it like
the Malcolm Brogged in versus Joel embiid one? Maybe so like, but again
not having that separation, it definitely contributes to it. The other thing,
too, is that players are more recognizable in this sport. The league has
very much built. You know, reett Bauer pointed this out in the discord,
that there are fans of players, not necessarily of teams. There are
fans of teams, but there are fans of players that follow I have one
of my best friends in life is a Lebron James fan. He just brows
forward ever team Lebron James is on. There are those fans in football.
I'm sure. I know there are plenty of Tom Brady fans in football,
but I do think on the NBA it's at a different scale and even if
they meant to do it or not this way where I don't know that they
wanted to just create fans of players, but they definitely wanted to build up
and market around their stars, which they've done. And you can more easily
do that too, because they are just going to be inherently more recognizable.
Baseball wearing hats and helmets, Football you're wearing helmets. Hockey you're wearing helmets,
and so these guys aren't as front facing as they are as they would
be in the NBA the w NBA as well, Like you're seeing them,
even if it wasn't about marketing around the actual players, you're just you're seeing
them, and I think that develops a different type of connection, as does
the fact that you're dealing also with a smaller roster number. So like the
NBA, it's I'm not including people who could be dressed, but like the
NBA, you're going to have active roster spots that are barely more than a
dozen, and so you're looking at fifteen. I think it's the number they
ever elevated to sixteen number it was fifteen. How many active roster spots in
the NBA believe it's fifteen. I don't know why. Yeah, fifteen,
I don't know why I thought it because the two way players kind of so
what's seven. Let's call seventeen. That's the number that's screwing me up there.
So you talk about seventeen in baseball, that number is going to be
in the twenties and football that numbers in the fifties. In hockey, I
think it's Hockey's weird. It's like, I think you can have twenty players
maybe that can dress, but you can give up to like a ship ton
of contracts when you're factoring in the different levels of hockey. So just by
virtue though, when you're talking about the active roster, even if they're not
suitting up every night, like the rosters are just inherently smaller, and you
only have five players on the court at the same time, and there aren't
these line changes like there are in you'll forget about forget about football here where
they're splitting the side of the ball, but in basketball, like there's not
these line changes that there are in hockey. You have teams where it's like,
Okay, these guys are gonna log a ship ton of minutes. And
if you know you're a fan of the Toronto Raptors, let's say, like
you know that Pascal Siakam and Fred Vanfleet are gonna log if they're healthy,
like thirty seven thirty eight minutes a game or whatever it is, and so
you're you're spending more time just on the court in general. So I do
think all of those factors kind of they contribute to I don't want to say
a deeper connection, but more of an investment in the storylines surrounding these these
actual players, and I don't know that you're always going to have that in
all of these other sports. What I also think is that the MBA has
also kind of designed it this way when you really think about it, they're
one to date there has been no criteria and like, look the games played
thing, that's not really like okay, it's like it gives you a benchmark.
But is anyone who was playing in fewer than fifty eight games to begin
with really going to win MVP in this full in a full on season.
Yeah, I would argue probably not. And that's a different discussion to be
had and we'll probably get to it later. But just knowing that X,
you know, five players are going to be on the court for you know,
seventy five percent of the game or more like if you're talking about in
Pascal Siakam's case, like he's on the core from more than said yeah,
more than seventy five percent of the game every night, I'm saying he's in
the MVP discussion. But so there's there's that element. Well, and the
NBA has you know, it's engendered this debate by not having the criteria in
general, and I don't again, I don't think, like I said,
before the fifty eight games is going to clear that up in any way.
I mean, if you thought that, like, let's use an example,
Kyrie Irving's I'm recording this is playing in fifty one games, and so if
he wasn't theory in the MVP discussion, I guess would be like, oh,
he really has to like or Lucas at fifty seven, so they're going
to shut down for the rest of the regular season for some reason, or
Dame at fifty four. That could impact their placed the MVP voting, But
they're going to get there. There's enough of the season where you know they're
going to get there. And like in the case of Lebron James, where
he's probably not going to get there. He's at fourty seven games played.
That probably fucks with his all MBA chances if you set that benchmark. And
so that's what I probably wouldn't be a fan of is because I like the
idea value to me is different than all MBA when you're looking at MVP versus
all MBA, I like to just I mostly like to reward. Yes,
availability is part of the equation, but it's a smaller part of the equation
for me. I want to reward a more outstanding player, and so like
Lebron and I think would have a chance if you're gonna play in more than
half our games or get to fifty and like you were just super outstanding this
season. I know if people are going to put them on their all NBA
teams. I have not gone through this yet, so please nobody yet mad
at the moment. That's not going to make me, you know, angry
or to sleep. Whereas if you did vote him for MVP, then it's
just like, okay, well, part of value is availability. It's not
just a being outstanding. You're trying to encompass more. Maybe that's inconsistent thoughts
on my process, but that's where I land there. But the NBA has
created this ambiguity. There is no criteria, now that there's criteria across all
these other leagues, but just that ambiguity coupled with everything else. And the
other thing that I don't know that we give enough consideration too, is that
the NBA relative to MLB, relative to NFL, I would say, relative
to NHL. I'm actually not too familiar with their content sharing guidelines, but
the NBA has made their content more accessible and they really pushed the social media
element. NFL is a beast college football. It's probably even more popular than
the Yeah, I would I would think anyway. I'm sorry, I'm not
up to college football ratings, but I like, you have them constantly,
these players these highlights on social media, and you're you're distilling these highlights down,
you're taking them and you're digesting them. You're seeing quotes from players across
social media. And the fact that the NBA is just so ubiquitous on social
media and that they drive these it's not just about playing on the court,
but you're driving these storylines and narratives and like the way that debate shows are
set up, and yeah, they're gonna talk about other sports in the same
vein. But this is then connected with a league where they're very much promoting
not not rivalries, but like you're going to see inflammatory quotes elevated or you're
just going to see these these highlights elevated, and they're giving out consistently and
publicizing, like highlighting consistently players of the week versus players of the month,
and I think that's going to again contribute to people's emotional investment in the discussions.
So I would need to see this. I'm not plugged into enough of
other sports twitters, but when you have executives and employees really shilling for certain
players, like we know Daryl Mourray and going on as Joel and b campaign
on Twitter, or what the Rockets did with darn More wayback when for for
James Harden, I don't know if there's that level of propaganda across other other
sports. As someone else also pointed out our discord, like the NBA goat
debate feels like more of a thing, and so like when when you care
so much about the status of individual players, Yeah, you have that in
football with the QB, but do we have the same thing in baseball?
Like I guess that conversation happens tangentially. But is it because so many options
to choose from or it's harder to reach a consensus there? Is it just
overwhelmingly in favor when you're looking at the NHL is at just the point in
Gretzky, I don't even know the answer to, Like I'm just throwing the
name out there. So you're already invested in like these all time debates,
and so why wouldn't these single season awards matter a great deal to you,
and you're also Trump's season to season, like the MVP awards specifically, drives
so much of that agenda, whether it's just in the go debate or player's
place in the larger pantheon of the sport, and it's almost nothing. It's
replaced, Like we don't really view all Star births. I feel like we
still do, but we don't view them in that same vein like we used
too. They feel a little bit less valuable. And so if you're going
to detract value from another area, you're going to replace it or it's going
to be inflated elsewhere. And then what also can contribute to that is we've
gotten a lot more information in recent years and it's become a lot easier to
separate player performances from the overarching performance of their team and to contextualize it.
It's not just yes, looking at let's use last year as an example,
or even you know, Russ's MVP Kevin Durant leaves and look at the group
that he dragged to six in the West, or with Yokis didn't have Murray
Porter misses a bunch of time, look at what he was able to do
with that Nuggets team. Yes, that was always part of it than Eric,
but like we can really separate right down to there's on off numbers,
how teams are faring with them without players, how they're faring in certain lineups,
how the team's individual statistics, not just the team's individual statistics are with
a player versus on off, but also how that that player's impact on the
players around him with you know, as an example, players that are shooting
better with Nicole Yokich on the court, who are more efficient with Nkole Yokis
on the court individually, not as a team, and so being able to
look at that, to have that data just readily available, I think it
makes it easier to then devalue winning as part of it. And that's why
you know we saw someone like team winning because wins aren't a player stat That's
how you get an instance where Russell Westbrooklyn's MVP, Yokichwin's MVP. And I
don't it's not commenting on oh their team didn't win enough, they didn't deserve
it, but I think that there's more of an And I'm not saying this
is the right or wrong way. I do lean towards the faulting the best
player on the best team is kind of an oversimplification of this award. But
when you have so much information available in the ability to separate player performances versus
their team's overall performance, it can create situations where, you know, let's
use Damian Lillard or Shay Gether zugs Enter. One of those two guys is
going to make First Team All MBA. One of those guys, if not
both, are all unlikely they're going to be on a team that's below five
hundred this year specifically, speak might speak to the parody of the game,
but we're able to separate that player's impact from his team's record. And I
think because and I'm not saying that doesn't necessarily happen in other sports, but
because we're taking that in tandem with the fact that one player can have this
huge impact relative to other sports where either they're not playing both sides of the
ball, or they're just not spending as much time on the court, or
there's just there's only so much that they can do from a singular position.
And in football, it's like, yeah, QB can really define your entire
offense. Can't do that for your defense. Aside from limiting the amount of
time I guess that they have to spend on the field. And so yes,
QB can have a transformative impact on offense, can't that on defense?
Someone in Jannis and the NBA. And this is not for better, you
know it's for better or Bear's not saying the NBA superior to the NFL.
It's my favorite sport. The basketball is my favorite sport. That's why I
have covered it for as long as I have. But I'm not This is
not a critique of how other sports operate. It's just that someone like Jannie
is going to have can have a huge impact, to be the most about
we've seen it. He was the MVP and the Defensive Player of the Year
at one point, and so you can't have that in the NFL. You
can't even have that. I guess in theory. You know, Otani could
win Cy Young and like al MVP or like a triple Crown award. I
just don't. It's basketball is so different in that regard to me. And
then, as my co host Grant had pointed out when he was delivering his
response to this, another thing is how much harder it is to judge value
in basketball overall, then baseball. He said, this is a quote.
The latter is basically perfect. Baseball is basically perfect conditions for quantitative analysis.
Pitches and at bats are singular, similar and repeatable. They're static and super
easy to compare across players. Basketball is dynamic and has a zillion more complicating
variables, so there's just more room for debate. A baseball player's value can
be judged without considering teammates or situation. Not so easy for basketball. And
I think this brings up the eye test versus analytics debate a little bit here,
whether inadvertently or not from grant Is. In the NBA, you can
look at numbers both catch all the granule or the shooting percentages, scoring numbers
on off rating. But then you can also say, okay, well I
look at this player and I feel his impact. It's like Draymond Green's defense.
Anyone who watches Draymond Green on a regular basis knows what his value is
the Warriors. But if you just look at his stat line and you're not
watching him consistently or on a nightly basis, or just a bunch of his
games every single year, you're gonna ceo, you know, six points seven
assists or something like what is what is that actually doing? And there's more
context needed in basketball at least then hair to baseball, and maybe you can
even you know, you look at baseball and it's just like, yeah,
okay, this guy has his swing. The aesthetics look really good, but
his batting average or is on base percentage or slugging percentage is just in the
toilet. His team isn't necessarily impacting that. I guess you could say,
well, who's he batting behind or in front of? How does that change
the type of pitches he sees? What's situationally? How many times is he
up where there's no runners in scoring position? Does that change the way that
he's approaching is at battall? Yeah, those are definitely going to factor into
some decision making, But it's it's more binary than it is for basketball.
Again, not saying basketball is just superior. There from that and so there's
just so much room for interpretation in the NBA then there is for other sport
then there isn't. Let's use baseball specifically with a player's value, and you're
combining that with the fact they are going to have. Yes, baseball,
you can have an impact on both on both sides of the field, but
like the field is just so big and it's had a stand still that you
can't control in any way how your teammates are defending because you're playing first base.
And yes, you can really snag arrant throws and still get outs or
you know, save errors from happening, But like you can't elevate the play
of those around you as much as you can in basketball or even I would
say hockey, just like they those around you can't necessarily devalue your play as
much just they can. But it just feels like in MLB it's happening on
a smaller scale. In the NFL, it's happening in more of a vacuum
because of how the sides of the ball are separated. And I don't know,
you know, and I go back to the roster spot thing too,
is I just wonder if there would be more investment in to the NFL even
let's just say, like yes, the NFL MVP, Like, would there
be more investment in the NFL MVP award if there were a fewer roster spots
or if it didn't really almost default too. It feels like a position at
this point when it's when it's QB in the NBA, it hasn't necessarily defaulted
to that singular position. I think one of the final things I considered is
that the NBA regular season just might be this could be evidence that it's just
so long that we need other conversations to occupy us properly. MLB would probably
have the same issue, but they have so many roster spots. Again,
it's going to just not dilute the MVP field, But I think it changes
the context of the conversation, as does splitting it up by league inside of
the ball. But like they also have fewer playoff spots, and so like
every game not I guess it do. I say it matters more than every
single regular season game in the NBA, just because if we're looking at it
through the lens of the play in tournament. Yes, you have twenty teams
of the thirty in the league, they are going to make the playoffs,
so you have more of them in theory have more to compete for. But
when you're actually looking at getting into the postseason, being in the meat and
potatoes of the playoffs, the MLB is going to have fewer playoff spots and
you're still gonna have teams that are in tight contest with one another, and
how the series change change that just you're seeing teams play each other more often.
So maybe there's more investment there. But I think that when you're talking
about in MLB as well, when you're talking about the field of contenders in
the NBA, even with that twenty playoff field, it's almost thinner than it
would be in an MLB. In the NFL, where there's a scarcity of
product, to be sure, but in the NHL, where it feels like
there's going to be more upsets because of just the way that games are decided
by such these thin margins. Where yes, in the NFL it's just the
one off thing. The superior team can have a bad game and then you've
just you're out of the playoffs. Then in the NHL and MLB, yes,
you're dealing with best of seven series, and I would I don't again,
I don't know the statistics behind us, but I would argue like,
yes, the superior team or the better team coming in is probably going to
win most of the time. That being said, games are decided by these
one point goals, these one run scores, and yes an MLB you can
have you can hit a grand Slam and there's four runs right there, but
the margins of victory are so much thinner that it's going to open the door
from more upsets. And so you can have a regular season that's just as
law like in hockey, or a regular season that's longer like in baseball,
and it might not feel as meaningless as it's been to valued in basketball.
And it's also hockey super physical. So I don't want to say this,
but maybe with the line changes and if you're going to have your ice time
is fewer than forty minutes every single night, is allow you to play in
more games in baseball though, like is it? It definitely seems less physically
demanding, just because there's a lot of time that you're spending it a stand
still, so you're going to be able to play in more games. This
is easier to separate value for players when you've already broken down the award into
two separateiers in that regard, And so I do think there are all those
overarching factors that come down to where a lot of it, to me really
is the nature of the sport, the nature of the schedule. But I
also do for only believe that the MBA has created this by, if not
designed, by just the nature of how they try to promote the sport and
their players. And that's ultimately fine. I just I have a real problem
with the MVP discourse when it turns into a pissing contest or shitting over one
candidate to prop up the next. And I'm not I actually can't recall.
I don't think I ever did this. Maybe I probably that's just I did
this when you're younger, and like you're using, you know to and if
you're a fan, of course using you know, you're gonna use numbers or
anecdotal evidence to prop up your candidate versus someone else. And there's that intrinsic
desire to compare and contrast, which I get and there's a place for it,
but it feels like there are so many people that live and die on
singular arguments, or at least they are unwilling to admit that, hey,
this is complicated. And so this year's MVP debate specifically, and even last
year's MVPDDA, I think Yoki should have won. Yes, this year Yoki
could win, probably will win. That doesn't mean that he's the only Ryan.
Answer to me, A lot of people playing this as it's him and
that's it at this point. First of all, there's like fifteen games left
to play and Joel and Weid has been absolutely dominant. The Bucks are really
coming along under the way that Jannis has played. He goes through a little
bit of a slump. There's ebbs and flows to a season, and I
do think we all need to keep more of an open mind. We also
absolutely need to be prepared to have the conversation about implicit racial bias. I
do I agree the way that Kendrick Perkins went about it by you know,
using points per game as the crux of his argument. No, I think
you could talk there's an inherent scoring bias. You look at the six Man
of the Year award winner, there's an inherent bias already to the offensive production
in general. But we're talking about a sport that is dominated but that is
like we're talking about a sport that has a ton of black talent, Like
it's a sport that is dominated by black players. And you when you have
again ESPN came out retracted, there is more of a diverse voting pool media
pool than Perkins initially intimated app but you do as at let's use myself,
it's just a white media member. You have to at least ask yourself,
like, could I be at least acknowledged that there is implicit racial bias at
play, just in general, not even saying that you necessarily ascribe to it.
You don't automatically have to get defensive, and you could go yeah,
and maybe you should just keep that in mind or at least acknowledging as much
as you're going about making your picks. I don't think there's anything wrong with
that. We have to be prepared to have the discussion when it's a league
like this, and I think it makes some people uncomfortable. It makes me
uncomfortable to talk about. I do like listening to it, though, and
I want to keep an open mind as I go through these different types of
things. I don't know that that's necessarily why the MVP Award and the NBA
feels like it matters so much more. But that's just another element to the
levels of investment in this debate, especially it seems like this season. But
I don't like when it's just boiled down to something that's so binary. As
I mentioned before, this isn't ones and twos, This isn't it has to
be so and so, and there's no alternative choice. In a lot of
years, I'm sure that it could have went to one, two, or
three people, And my personal opinion, there's probably there's three, perhaps four
that I would accept as Okay. I see the argument for them, and
if you're gonna make it, make the argument for them, I'm not necessarily
going to agree. But I don't think I would call you egregious. If
I wouldn't call you, vote for your honest yanness might be my first pick
at this point when all said, and don't just seeing how the season kind
of closes this year, so I hope that the MVP debate can at least
get a little bit more productive. And I do think everyone's probably guilty of
adding to the toxicity in some level. There's some that definitely seem worse than
others. But just between the propagandizing coming from teams and executives and even just
fans and trainers, where it's not just about propping up their god, it's
creating a scenario where they're either denigrating someone else using anecdotal events that doesn't even
make any sense. And one of the big things is like Yokis needs to
do it in the playoffs is his and I'm not necessarily coming to his defense
here. The last time the Nuggets were fully healthy, he went to the
Western Conference finals. Zach Good also bunches this on his podcast, And I've
been driving home the point that Yokich's individual numbers and the playoffs are really good.
But you look at in beads and yokis playoff numbers, Yoki's playoff numbers
individually, you're just gonna look better than it beats. Yes, you can
factor defense into the equation, but like we act like there's some huge separation
between one candidate or the other, when oftentimes there's not. Yeah, there
can be years where it's just you know, Steph Curry had the unanimous MVP
in twenty sixteen. There are absolutely years where it's like that. But more
and more, as we have more information, as the league gets deeper,
as we're not necessarily i don't want to say waiting team success, but at
least being able to incorporate different elements of information. That's available to us.
These races are going to get more complicated, and so one way, I
kind of embrace the complexity, but I really hate seeing, watching and listening
to people try to boil it down to this just either or proposition when it's
not always that simple. Whereas player X like is worse than player why like,
that's how it's not this is why player wise my pick. It's player
X is better than player why, and that's why player why shouldn't win.
It's how it almost feels a lot of the time, and that could be.
This is going to be debate shows are going to have these conversations about
I'm not going to confess to watch, you know, these hockey debates or
I've definitely seen NFL goat debates or MVP debates, but MLB MVP debates.
Yeah, the debate shows are going to are going to have, you know,
those types of conversations regardless. The nature of those conversations going to be
the same, regardless. But in the MBA in particular particular, excuse me,
is I have a hiccup there? Since I mentioned before that so many,
so much of its model is rooted in its reach on social media and
attracting attention and fandom and evoking interest in a span of clips. It feels
like that analysis if we see something from ESPN or Fox Sports or just someone
talking on a podcast where you see it all the time with people clipping Bill
Simmons, uh, you know, like the recordings on their phone. They're
putting these snippets up, and it feels like it spreads more because that's like
how basketball fandom is kind of the it's not the genesis of it, but
it's part of its fabric, and so you're going to information is disseminated more
in that way, and then it spreads more quickly in that way. This
this is just my opinion based off no studies whatsoever, and I don't know.
It's because of the nature of the way that the league has promoted itself
on social media and the way that these debates are this is all part of
It's like stacking one on top of the other. We've got a Russian nesting
dollar situation. Maybe I don't know if that's the right way to frame it,
or a domino effect or build up effect, whatever, But because stuff
spreads on social media like that, because it's like because engagement has generated that
way, you have more of an incentive to talk about this in the first
place. But it also creates this cycle of well, are we hate listening
or hate watching? And it's like, yeah, I dunk on things that
I disagree with on Twitter all the time, and they're from shows that I
won't even regularly watch this because they don't play stock in them and I don't
know that I ever did, but certainly not now. But yet it's out
there on social media and it's going to spread and liked. My tone is
very tongue in cheek where I'm not going to take it too seriously, but
there are people that take it really seriously, and that's again I'm not even
criticizing that, but I think the investment there into the social media, to
the very clippy nature of the way this league is covered, that's going to
contribute to this debate. And so if maybe you disagree and you think that
the MVP maybe I'm too in my MBA basketball bubble about this, so feel
free to get I mean there, but that's the only thing I wanted to
tackle, and I thought it was topical given the fact that the league changing
that fifty eight were considering the players lead. Talking about that fifty eight game
minimum for awards, I wonder if that will have a material impact on the
way that the awards are actually picked. And the only thing that I could
see it changing is I guess it could increase a player's desire to be available
for an amount of time. But I'm wondering would it actually make voters more
open to voting for someone who has only appeared in fifty eight or fifty nine
games because that number is there, whereas right now I don't think and there's
just like, look, there's not a candidate that's really good follower of this
umbrella. So any example I say here is going to kind of suck.
But let's just as an example, Luca don Chich plays in two more games
the rest of the year, and the MAVs win both of them, they
climb up the Western Conference standings, whatever, he'll be at fifty nine games
played. Are you going to you? I don't think he would vote for
him this season if you're talking about your other options, which would have been
primarily if you're looking at a as a good example here, like how many
games is they're not even on the minutes thing? So in beat he's already
he's actually been a fewer games in Luke at this point. But if if
Embad had played sixty three sixty five versus Luca's fifty nine, if you know
Yokich is gonna play in this is probably it could definitely in misregard, Yokich
is in sixty games played right now, if he finishes with seventy versus Luca
at fifty nine, I don't think that Luca would beat Yokich if that was
just the two, if those were the two candidates, it's not. That's
not how I's breaking down. Does this invite more of that though? Or
more consideration for a Luca in this case where it would be okay, like
he reached the minimum, why are you even signing it anymore? You could
cite that Yokis played all these more minutes, but Luca hit the fifty eight
game minimum. Why shouldn't he be considered? And so maybe it could change
the way awards are voted for in that regard, I can't really picture it
having this material impact, and turn if it doesn't, is it going to
have this meaningful dent on player availability? Fourteen teams? Because teams will not
fuck with the things that they won't do. At least if John Morant was
going to make an All NBA team and he was available for the Grizzlies right
now, which he's not. He's checked into a counseling facility. I don't
know why we need to know the location. I hope he's fine and gets
all the help he needs and comes back, and I wish nothing but the
best for him. But the getting the location of it was weird by the
way the side tension there. But just as John Morant, if he makes
All NBA this year, like his contract gets elevated, the supermax teams aren't
good a bench players in general. If they have that much money on one,
that would be just catastrophic for player team relationships. Where it be like
if if this was last year and Shay was going to make an All NBA
team so that the All NBA contract bump would have come into play, the
sound aren't even doing that. Now they're talking about monitoring his ave injury,
but they wouldn't even do that. Now he's on track to make an All
NBA team this season, They're not going to do anything to jeopardize that.
So if if teams are already thinking that way. What does the fifty eight
game minimum really does make it more likely then that they're if it was Lebron
and he had to come back, the layers is going to rush him now
unless there's contract incentives at play, I don't really know how much of a
different difference that makes from a player and team thinking perspective of available, like,
oh, I need to get out there and play, not that players
don't want to play again, but unless again, unless we get to a
point where it's, oh, they hit that fifty eight game in him,
I'm so I'm going to vote for them, and we actually have a fifty
nine game over in eighty two game season, he won the MVP Award,
and so now my incentive is, yeah, like he was probably gonna play
fifty one, but he's gonna really get to that fifty eight game mark,
and so I'll be interesting if there's any material change there. I still think
we should value total minutes played more than anything. And I also don't know
that the total playing time needs to matter as much in the all MBA when
you miss as many games as the Zion Williamson has this season, for example,
Okay, like, yes, he shouldn't be eligible for all NBA and
he's not going to make All MBA. But you know, Lebron, if
he gets to fifty appearances and like, his minutes are still up there where.
I don't even know why he's played as many minutes as he has this
season, but you're you're talking about him averaging over thirty six minutes per game
at the at his age thirty eight season, and even as of now,
if the season ended today like he's gonna be at seventeen hundred minutes. It's
not an insubstantial sample side, So that's right ly in on that though,
why I think the MVP discussion matters more and is more toxic and evokes more
emotion and response. It seems anecdotally at least in the NBA than it does
compare to other sports. If you follow me this rant this long, please
remember to subscribe if you haven't already, tell people about us, word of
mouth, re tweeters, shout us out on Twitter, any thoughts at all,
hit us in the discord. The link to that is in the podcast
and a YouTube description, and you can follow us on the socials at Hardwood
Knox on Twitter and TikTok at Hardward, Underscore Knox on Instagram. I will
note I do put up unique content across all of TikTok and Instagram, so
go ahead and follow us accounts, YouTube, Spotify, Apple, the whole
nine. Appreciate every single one of you as always and until next time,
I think you've got a two one, the only, the indelible, the
real different be O Frank gild