Lowe did what I talked about earlier i.e. Tatum on 1st team All NBA, but Brunson ahead of him in 5th on his mvp ballot.
https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/39970480/lowe-naming-2023-24-all-nba-all-defense-all-rookie-teams
• The first four spots are a given. The final first-team spot came down to Tatum, Brunson and Davis. I had Brunson fifth -- over Tatum -- on my (theoretical) MVP ballot. Flipping them here reflects the difference in what the respective awards symbolize -- and the power of that pliable word "valuable."
Factoring in Tatum's superior defense, the two had more or less equal seasons. Brunson had to do a bit more heavy lifting on a less talented team that lost three starters to injury for much of the season. That's where valuable came in on the MVP ballot.
Remove team context and Tatum's size and positional versatility -- plus his track record -- make him a slightly better overall player. That's what matters most for All-NBA. Team success factors in too. Boston ran away from everyone; if it's close -- and it is -- it deserves the last first-team spot.
This is an interesting perspective by Lowe. It is fair to interpret "most valuable" differently than "best". The difference is not clearly defined and will be interpreted differently by each of the people who score this, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that there is some difference. To me, 1st team or the 5 best players is easy:
Jokic
Giannis
Tatum
SGA
Doncic
I don't see any issue with this. It gets harder when you start debating "most valuable". MVP traditionally implies team performance is a factor, not just individual stats. Is it that the team is better because the best player is more valuable, or is it just that the team is better and the best player is not the most valuable? It doesn't really matter if you think Tatum is more or less valuable (how ever you define valuable) than Brunson. Jokic is going to be the MVP, it is a winner take all award. This debate is nothing new. Even this year, it is really one player out of the top 6 in the MVP race that may fall out of the 1st team. This mostly lines up.
But the argument that Brunson is more valuable on a lesser team but Tatum is a better player, is backwards from how the MVP has been traditionally applied. By this logic, if you viewed Brunson and Tatum as exactly equal in terms of "best" you would give the MVP to the player on the lesser team, not the one on the better team. So Tatum is a better player (per Lowe) but because he is on a better team, a team that won a lot more, he is somehow ranked lower in the MVP. I can't wrap my head around that.