2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[itsxtray]

That's fine. Still doesn't disprove the fact that Edwards is having a better 2-way series right now and that Jokic's sub-par paint protection is a big reason why.

So I'll just say:

1. I think first and foremost we should just all agree that Edwards has emerged again as a totally different beast in the playoffs compared to the regular season, and that if this is what we can expect from him going forward, we may well be looking at the best player of the upcoming era (ahem, kinda assuming the Wemby era is the next era after that).

Just looked up their birthdays, and wow, despite being only 2 years and 5 months older than Wemby, Ant's already played 4 NBA seasons to his one. Wemby's birthday is Jan 4th, so he had to wait another year to enter the draft. If he was born 4 days earlier, he could've been the youngest player in the 2021 draft. Ant has an August birthday, so he was able to enter the draft as a 19 year old. (Sidenote, this helps a player like Cooper Flagg as well, he has a December birthday so he'll enter the draft as a 19 year old as well) But anyway Ant & Wemby are definitely in the same era.

[Texas Chuck]

All the slander getting thrown Jokic's way in this thread really should be going towards Luka. He's basically been what people are pretending Jokic was for having two off games, except it's been nearly all postseason for Luka. He was moving fine last night too, so hard to say it was because he was hobbled.

Luka has been brutally bad offensively this playoffs. And while this thread hasn't spent time on it because the agenda boys have chosen Jokic this year(last year it was Giannis, so next year might be Luka's turn? ) the larger NBA discussion has killed Luka for it.

I think he's pretty clearly hurt. I would strongly disagree with well he moved okay in parts of last night's game so he's fine. Now that's doesn't excuse all of his poor play, but its obviously a factor.

[Ambrose]

All the slander getting thrown Jokic's way in this thread really should be going towards Luka. He's basically been what people are pretending Jokic was for having two off games, except it's been nearly all postseason for Luka. He was moving fine last night too, so hard to say it was because he was hobbled.

Luka has been brutally bad offensively this playoffs. And while this thread hasn't spent time on it because the agenda boys have chosen Jokic this year(last year it was Giannis, so next year might be Luka's turn? )

I think he's pretty clearly hurt. I would strongly disagree with well he moved okay in parts of last night's game so he's fine. Now that's doesn't excuse all of his poor play, but its obviously a factor.

Sure, don't mean to imply moving well =/= not hurt at all, but I also don't think he looked hobbled enough to continue to play this poorly and deserve to have it excused. As a fellow Luka fan, it's infuriating to watch. He'd probably had 7+ of his worst 10 career playoff games this postseason. It's crazy to me that the guy playing significantly better is the one getting trashed.

[lessthanjake]

, but the fact that those Gordon-on-Jokic-off minutes have gone well in the playoffs is the output of a super noisy tiny sample. In the regular season since Gordon arrived, the Nuggets have a -12.24 net rating in minutes where Gordon is on and Jokic is off, in games they both played. And that’s still -8.02 just in the last two seasons. So those staggered minutes with Gordon generally have gone quite badly (while the Jokic-on-Gordon-off minutes have gone well—+6.65 since Gordon arrived, and +7.51 in the last two seasons).

Well yes, teammates also tend to look worse without you when you're platooning and/or they're playing high minutes without key teammates

In the regular-season, since Jokic has had good on/off(crossed +10 in 2022):

-> Gordon has played more minutes without Jamal than with, nearly 2/3rds of his Jokic-less minutes are without Jamal.
-> Gordon has played nearly as many minutes without MPJ as with, and nearly 2/3rds of his Jokic-less minutes come without MPJ
-> Gordon has played nearly as many minutes without KCP as with, and more than 2/3rds of his Jokic-less minutes come without KCP

In the playoffs

-> Gordon has played 3 times with Jamal as much as he played without(970-274), Gordon has played roughly 5 times as many of his Jokic-less minutes with Jamal as without (176-39)
-> Gordon has played 2 times as many minutes with MPJ as without(808-405), roughly 5 times as many of his Jokic-less minutes with MPJ as without (88-16)
-> Gordon has played 2 times as many minutes with KCP as without (820-394), played roughly 1/2 as many of his Jokic-less minutes with KCP as without (67-148)

In the RS jokic-less minutes are largely throwaways played with bench pieces. In the playoffs, it is a deliberate strategy from the Nuggets to make-up for some of Jokic's offense with better defense when he isn't on the court. Some of this is also Jokic simply being a better rs defender than a playoff defender and Gordon playing better the other way, but that is why I said "in-between".

Arguing staggering does not negatively effect on/off when you also admit the Nuggets do not have a viable backup center seems alot more "working backwards from a conclusion" to me.

Yes, Gordon is more likely to play with bench players in the regular season (as is essentially anyone, since bench players play a lot less in the playoffs). But we also have data on how the Nuggets have done in the regular season with Gordon on, Jokic off, and other starters on. Since Gordon arrived in Denver, in RS minutes with Gordon on, Jokic off, and at least two of Murray, MPJ, and KCP on, the Nuggets have been outscored. And that’s in a larger sample size of minutes than the playoff sample we have for that situation.

And, it’s further worth noting that if we look at situations where Gordon is on and at least two of Murray, MPJ, and KCP are on, Jokic’s RS on-off has still been a massive +13.1 (and I note that it’s +20.63 if we required all three of Murray, MPJ, and KCP to be on). And, again, that’s with a larger sample than the playoff data you’re basing your views about Jokic’s on-off on. You’re just basing your views on small-sample-size noisy data that isn’t borne out with larger-sample data. I wonder why.

In any event, this is largely just a straw man, since no one is arguing for Jokic merely on the basis of raw on-off. Not because Jokic’s raw on-off isn’t amazing, but because we have better and more reliable measures than that (precisely because of things like staggering and rotations in general affecting on-off).

And no, it really wouldn’t be to my chagrin for you to focus on RAPM, where Jokic is #1 for his career in the play-by-play era.

He is #1 in a career-sample from a JE set. He drops to 7th by that same source if you adjust for him playing far less minutes and having an unusually good start as an older arrival in the league, (and yes this was all shown to you only for you to promptly ignore it):

Jokic, like Steph before him, is not nearly as good by RAPM as you say if you use RAPM properly.

Apparently the “proper” way to use RAPM is just to layer on more adjustments until Jokic isn’t #1 anymore. Lol. In any event, even 7th is extremely good (remember: there’s significant confidence intervals on all this anyways), and the fact that layering on some controversial adjustments can move someone from #1 to #7 just demonstrates that methodological decisions can affect the output a good deal. Bottom line is that it’s certainly not to my “chagrin” to look at a type of data that, in one prominent formulation, has Jokic #1 in the data-ball era. Methodology can always be tinkered with to change the order, but obviously a type of stat makes a player look very good when that player can be #1 in the data-ball era in it. You can desperately try to chip away at his status as the #1 player by RAPM in the data-ball era, but that’s arguing from a position of weakness—it is certainly not to my “chagrin” to talk about it.

Speaking of which

Nor would it be to my chagrin for you to focus on WOWY, in which peak Jokic slightly outdoes peak LeBron in WOWY SRS impact once you take out end-of-season garbage off games for both (See the bottom of this post: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=112905068#p112905068). But I digress and would direct you to respond to such statistical comparisons between those players in the thread I just linked, rather than here.

And yet you felt the need to

A. Compare uneven samples(5 years of Lebron: 4 for Jokic)
B. Not choose the best sample for Lebron (swap 2013 for 2008 and...he peaks higher than Jokic)
C. gigantically shrink the sample in a way that throws out Lebron's best data

And the two are still basically tied.

The fact Lebron has multiple 5-year stretches comparable(and one better) to the 4-year one you picked for Jokic(15-17 would also be up there) is a big hint that these are not comparable players. And of course, if you were really worried about "end of season games", you could have always went with what was a similar off-sample with a similar rotation concentrated in a single year(making it a much larger sample per-season):

You are wanting to cherry-pick LeBron’s best time periods in different stats and compare a nonexistent-in-reality combination of those against what Jokic has actually done in one particular time period. When we are talking about stats that are inherently noisy (and a player that has had a very long career), that’s clearly an approach that’s very biased against Jokic. The correct and fair approach is to fix the time period for LeBron (which I did, using his pretty undisputed peak years) and compare data from just that time period to peak Jokic. Otherwise, you’re just cherry-picking amongst noisy data in different time periods, to create a data picture of LeBron that never actually existed.

Put differently, your approach is to basically create a Frankenstein version of all of LeBron’s best data points that didn’t simultaneously occur, and then compare them to what Jokic has actually done in one specific timeframe. This is a consistent theme with you. When I’ve pointed out that someone like Steph has vastly superior impact data to LeBron in the years of Steph’s prime (i.e. 2013-2014 onwards), you have repeatedly responded that those aren’t LeBron’s best years and we should be comparing Steph’s data to LeBron’s data in his peak 2009-2013 years. But then when I compare Jokic to LeBron’s peak 2009-2013 years, your retort is now that we should look at years outside of that for some of the data. Meanwhile, in another thread, when I said that years before 2009 were part of LeBron’s prime, such that they’d be relevant to a discussion about LeBron’s and Jordan’s playoff scoring resilience in their primes, you insisted that LeBron was not in his prime during that time period so we shouldn’t look at that data. But now you want to use data from 2008 as part of a comparison of LeBron’s and Jokic’s peak (and to use it instead of LeBron’s 2013 season that is this board’s consensus peak year for LeBron), simply because for this particular piece of data it happens to look good. It’s shameless stuff.

Come up with a LeBron time period that you want to compare peak Jokic to and stick with it across all types of data. I did that in the post I linked to, using LeBron’s consensus peak time period (2009-2013) and surveying tons of available data (including the aforementioned WOWY) and the comparison looked good for peak Jokic. You can complain that I used 5 years for LeBron and only 4 years for Jokic, but, as I explicitly explained in that post, that was done to *help* LeBron, because 2009 and 2013 are two of his very best years, so taking a 5-year peak for LeBron is better for him than if I compared 4-year peaks for both.

Lol, so, when assessing Jokic, you’re expressly only interested in a stat if it’s a granular stat that you think might paint Jokic negatively.

Was that what I said?

You're the party here interested in the outputs of advanced all-in-ones.My interest in metrics that do not count defenders dribbled by, or average time of possession, or carries, or paint-load/rim deterrence tracking for a player whose ball-handling is a potential major liability and whose limited paint-protection and lack of mobility is a potentially massive one excepting a rare combination of personell is close to nil because...they are basically useless for capturing what seperates Jokic negatively from other superstars.

Odd, I don't see "granular" anywhere in the passage you replied to.

To clarify, I am uninterested in all-in-one which do not factor in the major negatives for a player. That you are interested in such metrics is why I don't take you seriously.

Of course, not all the things you mentioned even *are* a negative (such as average time of possession, which for someone like Jokic is indicative of quick and decisive decision-making)

No, it's indicative of Jokic being a bad ball-handler relative to most offensive greats. I would reccommend rewatching the first 2 games of the series if you wish to cultivate a "deeper knowledge" on the matter.

But that’s all really beside the point, because you’re just explicitly telling everyone that your entire approach regarding Jokic is to not care about stats whatsoever unless they’re something that you think you can argue as being negative for Jokic

Factoring in negatives =/ only looking at negatives.

I don't know about everyone, but what you're telling me is you didn't read.

You’re playing word games here to defend having essentially confessed to having a totally agenda-driven approach. You say you are “uninterested in all-in-one which do not factor in the major negatives for a player,” but you don’t identify any all-in-one that *does* factor in those supposed negatives, and instead you just identify specific tracking data that you want to focus on. In other words, you say you are uninterested in stats that don’t account for certain things, but then don’t identify any stat that accounts for those things except for specific tracking data that gets at only those things in particular. So yeah, in reality, it’s pretty accurate to say that you’ve declared yourself only interested in specific data that you think might get at something negative for Jokic.

Of course, the irony here is that we actually *do* have an all-in-one that factored in lots of tracking data. Specifically, we have RAPTOR—which factored in a boatload of tracking data. But the problem for you is that RAPTOR makes Jokic look absolutely GOAT-like. So really, what you’re left being interested in is just ignoring that and instead looking at specific tracking data that you think might paint Jokic negatively and subjectively weighing that data very negatively and then basing your view of the player on that.

And by the way, we’ve been over this Jokic ball-handling thing over and over. Jokic does not have a ball-handling issue. The man frequently runs the break. And I’ve pointed you to Ben Taylor talking about how Jokic’s ball-handling metrics are a complete outlier for centers, such that he looks like a guard in the data. Which is, of course, more valuable than a guard having that ball-handling skill, because ball-handling is significantly more valuable at a position that teams don’t normally have it. We’ve been over this before. It is a legitimate strength in Jokic’s game, which you have decided to latch onto as a perceived negative, likely because you’re struggling to come up with things to validate your preconceived views about Jokic. The fact that he had some turnovers in a couple games really doesn’t disprove this at all—obviously a couple games is basically meaningless for any broader argument about anything.

[Colbinii]

All the slander getting thrown Jokic's way in this thread really should be going towards Luka. He's basically been what people are pretending Jokic was for having two off games, except it's been nearly all postseason for Luka. He was moving fine last night too, so hard to say it was because he was hobbled.

Luka has been brutally bad offensively this playoffs. And while this thread hasn't spent time on it because the agenda boys have chosen Jokic this year(last year it was Giannis, so next year might be Luka's turn? ) the larger NBA discussion has killed Luka for it.

I think he's pretty clearly hurt. I would strongly disagree with well he moved okay in parts of last night's game so he's fine. Now that's doesn't excuse all of his poor play, but its obviously a factor.

Who are the agenda boys?

[Texas Chuck]

Who are the agenda boys?

It's the name of my new RealGM band. Texas Chuck and the Agenda Boys

Here are some cuts from our debut album:

Refs are why we lost
The Balkan boys: the Joker, the Smoker, and the Choker
The Lakers Would Have Beat Them
Regular Season Player
I hate Lebron James

[Colbinii]

Who are the agenda boys?

It's the name of my new RealGM band. Texas Chuck and the Agenda Boys

Here are some cuts from our debut album:

Refs are why we lost
The Balkan boys: the Joker, the Smoker, and the Choker
The Lakers Would Have Beat Them
Regular Season Player
I hate Lebron James

Who said the refs were why a team lost?

I was the most critical of the refs in this thread over the past week but I said Denver would have won game 3 regardless.

I do think it's funny people think the Lakers would have beat Minnesota. That's an even worse matchup than Denver for the Lakers.

Regular season players definitely exist but to me I see them in the vein of limited role players like Monte Morris, Kyle Anderson or Taurean Prince who can easily eat 20-25 MPG in the RS but in the PS have clear weaknesses where they get played off the floor. Calling stars RS players is always interesting to me. Scoring is always harder in the PS, especially for stars. A Stars efficiency going down in the PS is normal and expected. Players like Dirk, LeBron and Jordan who can maintain efficiency in the PS are incredible.

[Texas Chuck]

Who said the refs were why a team lost?
.

I mean you have to avoided all NBA talk to have not heard this. I don't even know how to respond to such a question.

Also none of this is that serious. I tried to make it clear this was a joke--obviously based on the typical narratives, but I get we live in a hot take time. And I definitely know fans look for reasons why their team lost other than being outplayed.

[Colbinii]

Who said the refs were why a team lost?
.

I mean you have to avoided all NBA talk to have not heard this. I don't even know how to respond to such a question.

I was in Ireland for 4 days and now Italy for the past 3 days and next week so yeah, I literally have been avoiding most NBA talk for the past week [Haven't listened to any podcast, haven't been active on NBA media except when I pop in here at random times when my GF is sleeping and I can't sleep].

[Special_Puppy]

Betting Markets implying that the Celtics are over 6-1 favorites to win the East and have a 2 to 1 chance of winning the finals conditional on them winning the East

[HadAnEffectHere]

All the slander getting thrown Jokic's way in this thread really should be going towards Luka. He's basically been what people are pretending Jokic was for having two off games, except it's been nearly all postseason for Luka. He was moving fine last night too, so hard to say it was because he was hobbled.

Is this a joke? He looked like he couldn't move at all. He got zero penetration or separation off the dribble.

Luka is extremely unlikable because he's constantly having a meltdown on the court, but come on, he's badly hurt.

[sp6r=underrated]

Who said the refs were why a team lost?
.

I mean you have to avoided all NBA talk to have not heard this. I don't even know how to respond to such a question.

+1. NBA fans routinely allege games are fixed by the referees. Rudy Gobert openly accused a ref of betting on games with an on-court gesture. It is a huge problem.

[lessthanjake]

Betting Markets implying that the Celtics are over 6-1 favorites to win the East and have a 2 to 1 chance of winning the finals conditional on them winning the East

Yeah, I’ve been saying since the beginning of the playoffs that our baseline assumption should be that the +10.7 SRS team will likely win the title. And that’s especially true when that team is in the weaker conference.

The biggest concern with the Celtics is probably that their execution feels like it’s really bad sometimes. They have lots of possessions where they just dribble for a while and take a contested step-back. It can look bad/stupid sometimes, but the results have been there, so I don’t know how concerned to be. Like, maybe they’d be *even better* if they executed better, but they’ve been ridiculously good even without that. It does leave some lingering doubt about how they’d do down the stretch in close playoff games, but they really may just be so much better than other teams that it doesn’t really matter. Not to mention that execution down the stretch in a series can be pretty random—shooting variance and whatnot comes into play a lot—so they could do very well down the stretch in a series, even if we think they’re not good at it in general.

Another reason to have some doubt about the Celtics is that their net rating with their starters or almost all their starters didn’t look nearly as high as you’d expect from a +10.7 SRS team. A good bit of the reason they got such a high SRS is that the bench and deep bench actually pummeled teams too. And, when it comes to the playoffs, having an advantage in your bench performance matters less and what your starter-heavy lineups do matters more, because the rotation shortens a lot and starters play more. So it may be the case that, for playoff purposes, the Celtics aren’t really like a typical +10.7 SRS team. And that would leave them more vulnerable than we’d otherwise think.

Personally, assuming the Celtics make the Finals, I’ll probably be rooting for whatever team comes out of the West. But I’ll expect the Celtics to win, regardless of who they’re facing. That could get a little more complicated if Porzingis isn’t back, though.

[AEnigma]

All the slander getting thrown Jokic's way in this thread really should be going towards Luka. He's basically been what people are pretending Jokic was for having two off games, except it's been nearly all postseason for Luka. He was moving fine last night too, so hard to say it was because he was hobbled.

Luka has been brutally bad offensively this playoffs. And while this thread hasn't spent time on it because the agenda boys have chosen Jokic this year(last year it was Giannis, so next year might be Luka's turn? )

I think he's pretty clearly hurt. I would strongly disagree with well he moved okay in parts of last night's game so he's fine. Now that's doesn't excuse all of his poor play, but its obviously a factor.

Sure, don't mean to imply moving well =/= not hurt at all, but I also don't think he looked hobbled enough to continue to play this poorly and deserve to have it excused. As a fellow Luka fan, it's infuriating to watch. He'd probably had 7+ of his worst 10 career playoff games this postseason.

Not really seeing the basis for that. I have generally been impressed by how he has been reasonably effective despite visible limitations (at least relative to 2021/22).

It's crazy to me that the guy playing significantly better is the one getting trashed.

The other guy has higher standards by virtue of being a more established player and by virtue of being healthier.

And there is a point where playing through injury leaves you open to criticism — hello, Embiid! — but I similarly felt there was little cause to excessively rip on Giannis for last year’s Heat series. Being outplayed by Jimmy Butler is criticism in itself, just like being outplayed by Shai is criticism in itself, and Jokic generally being outplayed by Edwards and not clearly outplaying Lebron is criticism in itself.

Everyone wants to be ready with the hot takes, but if no one has a specific criticism of how Luka is playing, then no, he probably does not merit much of it. His defence has not been a particular liability outside of that first Clippers game. He is still creating good looks for his teammates, although I do feel a lot of that is a product of preexisting reputation rather than a reflection of what he can do right now. Ball control has been generally normal, although last game was rougher. So primary criticism I see is basically just shot-making, and… yeah, I am not really worried about healthy Luka’s ability to be an elite shot-maker. I do not see it as a real weakness teams can reliably exploit.

If the truth is that Luka just melts in the face of strong Canadian wing defenders, then that might be a long-term concern — but I will need a larger sample to call it a legitimate trend. If Luka goes on to become habitually injured in the postseason, then that is a long-term concern too. But as a relative one-off, where you are not articulating specific concerns in approach or ability, what is there to really say other than you hope he is in a better state next year.

[Ambrose]

All the slander getting thrown Jokic's way in this thread really should be going towards Luka. He's basically been what people are pretending Jokic was for having two off games, except it's been nearly all postseason for Luka. He was moving fine last night too, so hard to say it was because he was hobbled.

Is this a joke? He looked like he couldn't move at all. He got zero penetration or separation off the dribble.

Luka is extremely unlikable because he's constantly having a meltdown on the court, but come on, he's badly hurt.

Last night? No.

[sp6r=underrated]

Betting Markets implying that the Celtics are over 6-1 favorites to win the East and have a 2 to 1 chance of winning the finals conditional on them winning the East

Yeah, I’ve been saying since the beginning of the playoffs that our baseline assumption should be that the +10.7 SRS team will likely win the title. And that’s especially true when that team is in the weaker conference.

The biggest concern with the Celtics is probably that their execution feels like it’s really bad sometimes. They have lots of possessions where they just dribble for a while and take a contested step-back. It can look bad/stupid sometimes, but the results have been there, so I don’t know how concerned to be. Like, maybe they’d be *even better* if they executed better, but they’ve been ridiculously good even without that. It does leave some lingering doubt about how they’d do down the stretch in close playoff games, but they really may just be so much better than other teams that it doesn’t really matter. Not to mention that execution down the stretch in a series can be pretty random—shooting variance and whatnot comes into play a lot—so they could do very well down the stretch in a series, even if we think they’re not good at it in general.

Another reason to have some doubt about the Celtics is that their net rating with their starters or almost all their starters didn’t look nearly as high as you’d expect from a +10.7 SRS team. A good bit of the reason they got such a high SRS is that the bench and deep bench actually pummeled teams too. And, when it comes to the playoffs, having an advantage in your bench performance matters less and what your starter-heavy lineups do matters more, because the rotation shortens a lot and starters play more. So it may be the case that, for playoff purposes, the Celtics aren’t really like a typical +10.7 SRS team. And that would leave them more vulnerable than we’d otherwise think.

Personally, assuming the Celtics make the Finals, I’ll probably be rooting for whatever team comes out of the West. But I’ll expect the Celtics to win, regardless of who they’re facing. That could get a little more complicated if Porzingis isn’t back, though.

I loathe the Celtics but they're due for a title given how elite they've been this year. And frankly they've been about as well run as a franchise can be.

I don't think the 2024 Celtics get quite the credit they deserved because their profile doesn't fit the profile of an ATG team. Most ATG NBA teams have a player who is considered best in the NBA by at least many fans. Tatum is great but essentially no one believes he is the best NBA player

[ronnymac2]

The Celtics are probably the sixth-best team still remaining if everybody is healthy. Boston is the fakest "Good team" of the modern era - maybe of all-time. Low IQ offense, good but overrated defense. Average coaching (being generous there).

Let me try to phrase this correctly: Relative to the player quality you would expect for each role on a 64-win, 10 SRS team, they have one player who meets expectations - Jrue Holiday. That's it. Jayson Tatum isn't an upper-echelon superstar. Kermit Brown shouldn't even be your fifth-best player if you're interested in winning. Kristnaps Porzingis is soft with a low basketball IQ. White hustles at least, and on another team I think he'd have potential, but on this team, he's allowed to exercise his worst habits on offense (chucking). It's disgraceful that Al Horford is considered a "big" man considering how awful he is at rebounding and how dirty he is as a player.

What's nauseating is how boring they are. Not that I'm a huge Steph Curry defender, but when these two franchises met in the 2022 Finals...think about the heavy lifting Steph had to do to draw fans in. Steph is top-3 of the era in terms of popularity, so he got the job done, but still. You think any casual is going to watch Boston play and go "Man, I want to see them again"?

Like...did everybody forget that a very similar Boston core...heck, a better Boston core considering they had Rob Williams, injury-plagued as he was/is...got smoked by an injured eighth seed less than 365 days ago.

They aren't that great. I'm not disputing that single-season SRS over an 82-game sample is historically an accurate indicator of who should be the favorite to win the title in that given season.

But if there was such an obvious exception...here it is.

[Ambrose]

Luka has been brutally bad offensively this playoffs. And while this thread hasn't spent time on it because the agenda boys have chosen Jokic this year(last year it was Giannis, so next year might be Luka's turn? )

I think he's pretty clearly hurt. I would strongly disagree with well he moved okay in parts of last night's game so he's fine. Now that's doesn't excuse all of his poor play, but its obviously a factor.

Sure, don't mean to imply moving well =/= not hurt at all, but I also don't think he looked hobbled enough to continue to play this poorly and deserve to have it excused. As a fellow Luka fan, it's infuriating to watch. He'd probably had 7+ of his worst 10 career playoff games this postseason.

Not really seeing the basis for that. I have generally been impressed by how he has been reasonably effective despite visible limitations (at least relative to 2021/22).

It's crazy to me that the guy playing significantly better is the one getting trashed.

The other guy has higher standards by virtue of being a more established player and by virtue of being healthier.

And there is a point where playing through injury leaves you open to criticism — hello, Embiid! — but I similarly felt there was little cause to excessively rip on Giannis for last year’s Heat series. Being outplayed by Jimmy Butler is criticism in itself, just like being outplayed by Shai is criticism in itself, and Jokic generally being outplayed by Edwards and not clearly outplaying Lebron is criticism in itself.

Everyone wants to be ready with the hot takes, but if no one has a specific criticism of how Luka is playing, then no, he probably does not merit much of it. His defence has not been a particular liability outside of that first Clippers game. He is still creating good looks for his teammates, although I do feel a lot of that is a product of preexisting reputation rather than a reflection of what he can do right now. Ball control has been generally normal, although last game was rougher. So primary criticism I see is basically just shot-making, and… yeah, I am not really worried about healthy Luka’s ability to be an elite shot-maker. I do not see it as a real weakness teams can reliably exploit.

If the truth is that Luka just melts in the face of strong Canadian wing defenders, then that might be a long-term concern — but I will need a larger sample to call it a legitimate trend. If Luka goes on to become habitually injured in the postseason, then that is a long-term concern too. But as a relative one-off, where you are not articulating specific concerns in approach or ability, what is there to really say other than you hope he is in a better state next year.

The difference in standards is lesser than the difference in quality of play so far. One guy is the best player in the world and has arguably been the best player in the postseason. The other is top 3 player who wouldn't make all playoff 3rd team.

List of specific concerns for you: settling for far too many jumpers, mid-range and post-game have tanked, too careless with the ball, repeated blow bys are constantly stressing the team's help defense (LAC G1, G4, last night off the top of my head), not putting nearly enough pressure on defenses himself, way too many silly fouls, and taking himself out of plays with whining that's over the top even for him. If you want to handwave away shot-making from the league's top scorer, fine, but I'll hold him to a superstar standard, which for some reason only applies to Jokic, even though he's playing like one.

Not sure how you can say the bolded then critique Jokic, a better playoff performer, with more past success, more current success, and doing more against better competition, all by a wide margin. I won't even humor LeBron having an argument for outplaying Jokic, but as far as Ant goes, he's having the run of his career so far and all that's led to is a tied series. **** happens. No top player has been the best player in every series they've played, and he still may win that series regardless, by being the best player. For how much of "a liability" his defense has allegedly been, it's weird how both LA and Min are below their RS ORTG, and Denver keeps winning, despite an injured/underperforming 2nd option, a complete no-show from one of the starters this postseason, and on a team with worse depth.

When Jokic is bad, like in games 1-2, I hold him accountable. When Luka is bad, which he has been basically all postseason, I hold him accountable. Sure, I try to have a nuanced opinion, like if Luka can barely walk, you probably can't expect MVP play. But that wasn't the case last night. When they are good, I say so. It'd be nice to see more of that from others. Otherwise, it's the same dumb stuff I saw people wrongfully hold against LeBron in his prime.

[Doctor MJ]

Who are the agenda boys?

It's the name of my new RealGM band. Texas Chuck and the Agenda Boys

Here are some cuts from our debut album:

Refs are why we lost
The Balkan boys: the Joker, the Smoker, and the Choker
The Lakers Would Have Beat Them
Regular Season Player
I hate Lebron James

I do appreciate you urging some perspective as we all get to ratcheted up at this time of the year.

[AEnigma]

None of the top five SRS teams even made the Finals last year, and the Celtics were the only one to make the conference finals. Over the past 20 postseasons, the #1 SRS team has won 7 times (2005, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2017). It is a better marker than having the most wins (6 times) or having the MVP (4 times), but telling how all people seem to be able to do with the Celtics is blandly say they are 10 SRS and therefore by rule should be favoured over the western conference representative (again, this is a separate thought from them having the best odds because they are the most likely team to reach the Finals).