2023-24 RealGM All-Season Awards Discussion Thread

[eminence]

It's due to a games played gap, but Sabonis is set to make the most passes this season, breaking Jokic's run. Haliburton the only player really close to either.

Last player to top Jokic was Simmons in '18, with his aversion to shooting contributing.

[Texas Chuck]

Re: Luka's teams dominate at...not dominating as much offensively as Jokic's teams tend to when he's on the floor, which is what they should be doing if that's the best approach, right? Maybe that's all in the process of changing, but in general the Jokic way has just worked better than the Luka way, and if this has nothing to do with Jokic's tendency to make quick passes - and thus lead the league in passing - that's pretty dang remarkable.

Luka had the most efficient offense of all-time(up to that point since surpassed many times) in year 2. I think he's fine. His offenses aren't as good as Jokic' mainly because he's not as good of a player. It's not that Jokic plays differently so much as Jokic plays better.

But we've been down this road. You think Kerr solved basketball. I think Kerr had a team that simply outclassed other teams in talent and he didn't mess it up. Jokic is the best player in the world. Luka isn't. Not more complicated than that really.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Shai was a 30 ppg scorer and 1st team All-NBA last year and somehow took an even bigger leap

Rim: 63% ➡️ 69%
Paint: 48% ➡️ 52%
Midrange: 42% ➡️ 49%
3pt: 34% ➡️ 37%

[Doctor MJ]

Re: Luka's teams dominate at...not dominating as much offensively as Jokic's teams tend to when he's on the floor, which is what they should be doing if that's the best approach, right? Maybe that's all in the process of changing, but in general the Jokic way has just worked better than the Luka way, and if this has nothing to do with Jokic's tendency to make quick passes - and thus lead the league in passing - that's pretty dang remarkable.

Luka had the most efficient offense of all-time(up to that point since surpassed many times) in year 2. I think he's fine. His offenses aren't as good as Jokic' mainly because he's not as good of a player. It's not that Jokic plays differently so much as Jokic plays better.

But we've been down this road. You think Kerr solved basketball. I think Kerr had a team that simply outclassed other teams in talent and he didn't mess it up. Jokic is the best player in the world. Luka isn't. Not more complicated than that really.

Well, I think you know I wasn't in any way a "Luka skeptic" during '19-20, so yeah, I'm talking about the last 4 years where Jokic has been the (arguably) most valuable player every season.

Re: he's fine, he's just not as good as Jokic. I don't disagree with the correctness of this statement, just to be clear.

I do really disagree though with the "it's not about different approaches to basketball, it's just about better/worse" perspective in both the Doncic/Jokic case and with the Warriors. I think the approach to basketball play is the foundation of everything else and drives the most understanding for what's going on. I also think refusing to look at such approach makes it seem like it would be utterly impossible for players to play differently and get different results.

With the Warriors the thing is we're basically talking about the same team playing in a new style with Kerr, and them taking an absolutely massive leap forward. Not saying Kerr could have that impact in a random basketball situation at all, but the idea that the leap forward would have been the same if Mark Jackson stayed as coach is something I fundamentally disagree with.

With Doncic & Jokic, I literally think Doncic could choose to play more like Jokic and Jokic could choose to play more like Doncic, and in doing so they'd be emphasizing somewhat different "basketball muscles".

But let me ask this: What specifically makes Jokic better than Doncic to you?

And I'll just say, if I were to answer this question, I'd tend to focus on stuff like how Jokic moves without the ball...but I think that's more about habit and learning than it is about fundamental ceilings of basketball goodness.

[Texas Chuck]

I do really disagree though with the "it's not about different approaches to basketball, it's just about better/worse" perspective in both the Doncic/Jokic case and with the Warriors. I think the approach to basketball play is the foundation of everything else and drives the most understanding for what's going on. I also think refusing to look at such approach makes it seem like it would be utterly impossible for players to play differently and get different results.

With the Warriors the thing is we're basically talking about the same team playing in a new style with Kerr, and them taking an absolutely massive leap forward. Not saying Kerr could have that impact in a random basketball situation at all, but the idea that the leap forward would have been the same if Mark Jackson stayed as coach is something I fundamentally disagree with.

With Doncic & Jokic, I literally think Doncic could choose to play more like Jokic and Jokic could choose to play more like Doncic, and in doing so they'd be emphasizing somewhat different "basketball muscles".

But let me ask this: What specifically makes Jokic better than Doncic to you?

Of course how you play matters-- but only so much. I do not believe any team is light years ahead of others from a strategy standpoint. There is simply too much video and data and too big of staffs for teams to fall too far behind. Talent is the major difference maker. And the Warriors had the most talent.

And what changed? Well Steph got healthy and move from all-star to MVP level player and Draymond emerged. There were some other changes too, but these are enormous changes beyond just Kerr. I have no idea if they win titles with Jackson--seems like he had issues bigger than X and O's that were holding him back. Kerr's genius isn't strategy, its dealing with people.

I mean Jokic is just better. I know that's a cop out answer, but he's a better scorer, passer, rebounder, defender. He's just a better basketball player.

And no Luka can't play like Joker. That size is such a huge advantage and Luka can't get that size. It's silly to ask him to try and replicate what only Jokic can do. Just like it would be silly to ask Jokic to shoot a half dozen step back 3's a game or spend 10 seconds hunting the right matchup to break down off the dribble.

I know you believe basketball can be solved and that there is an ideal way to play. I think its far too complex and random for that. And some of these players you want everyone to play like are simply 1 of 1's. There isn't another Nash, another Steph, another Jokic. They don't exist. So these other players still want to compete and win so they have to find their own ways. And that's okay. For as much as you hate how Lebron plays, its hard to argue with how successful he's been, no?

[Doctor MJ]

I do really disagree though with the "it's not about different approaches to basketball, it's just about better/worse" perspective in both the Doncic/Jokic case and with the Warriors. I think the approach to basketball play is the foundation of everything else and drives the most understanding for what's going on. I also think refusing to look at such approach makes it seem like it would be utterly impossible for players to play differently and get different results.

With the Warriors the thing is we're basically talking about the same team playing in a new style with Kerr, and them taking an absolutely massive leap forward. Not saying Kerr could have that impact in a random basketball situation at all, but the idea that the leap forward would have been the same if Mark Jackson stayed as coach is something I fundamentally disagree with.

With Doncic & Jokic, I literally think Doncic could choose to play more like Jokic and Jokic could choose to play more like Doncic, and in doing so they'd be emphasizing somewhat different "basketball muscles".

But let me ask this: What specifically makes Jokic better than Doncic to you?

Of course how you play matters-- but only so much. I do not believe any team is light years ahead of others from a strategy standpoint. There is simply too much video and data and too big of staffs for teams to fall too far behind. Talent is the major difference maker. And the Warriors had the most talent.

And what changed? Well Steph got healthy and move from all-star to MVP level player and Draymond emerged. There were some other changes too, but these are enormous changes beyond just Kerr. I have no idea if they win titles with Jackson--seems like he had issues bigger than X and O's that were holding him back. Kerr's genius isn't strategy, its dealing with people.

I mean Jokic is just better. I know that's a cop out answer, but he's a better scorer, passer, rebounder, defender. He's just a better basketball player.

And no Luka can't play like Joker. That size is such a huge advantage and Luka can't get that size. It's silly to ask him to try and replicate what only Jokic can do. Just like it would be silly to ask Jokic to shoot a half dozen step back 3's a game or spend 10 seconds hunting the right matchup to break down off the dribble.

I know you believe basketball can be solved and that there is an ideal way to play. I think its far too complex and random for that. And some of these players you want everyone to play like are simply 1 of 1's. There isn't another Nash, another Steph, another Jokic. They don't exist. So these other players still want to compete and win so they have to find their own ways. And that's okay. For as much as you hate how Lebron plays, its hard to argue with how successful he's been, no?

Re: Steph got healthy and went from all-star to MVP level. Steph was healthy the previous year and putting up largely similar production and impact numbers.

Re: Draymond emerged. The big improvement came on offense not defense. Dray was a part of that, but not because he was a better offensive player than David Lee in the abstract.

Re: Kerr's genius isn't strategy. I think we need to draw a distinction between a tactical genius in all situations, and pushing a specific team in a new direction that turns out to be a considerably better fit with the talent on the roster. Ker isn't the former, but he literally did the latter.

Re: Luka can't play like Joker and Joke can't play like Luka. Well, to the extent that's true that tells us the story is more complicated than just better/worse, no?

That said, I'd emphasize that Luka could choose to make quick passes and then cut without the ball, and Jokic could choose to a more patient quarterback-like approach. These are not fundamentally impossible things.

Re: think basketball can be solved. I don't think that actually. What I think is that everything in the end needs to be judged based on how it fits into optimizing the 5-man game, and the scheme you use and its affect on the star and the other players is part of that.

Re: each star finds their own way. Sure in the details, but that doesn't mean we don't look at things in categories. The pivot passing style that Jokic now exemplifies has literally been around for 98 years, so while he's not exactly the same as what came before, we can and should identify identify what individual strengths allow a player to thrive in that role.

All this then to say that I don't deny that superstars are unique snowflake gifts from the basketball gods, but that doesn't mean they can't be analyzed with the same basketball structures as everyone else. In the end, they are beholden to the same scoreboard as everyone else.

Re: hate how LeBron plays. I don't really hate how he plays though. His approach makes sense with his skillset, and he has shown an ability to adjust it some depending on context. I do tend to get annoyed with him and other stars when they underrate what their teammates do for them and looked to ship role players out for other stars when they shouldn't.

I will acknowledge an aesthetic bias where I like seeing all the players on the floor being used up to their capabilities, and I'm fine with specialists doing a narrow set of basketball jobs, it bugs me more when they are treated like what they do doesn't really matter.

[The-Power]

Putting out my rankings/ideas prior to the playoffs to keep track of where players go from here:

POY - 1. Jokic, 2. SGA, 3. Luka (Luka's late-season push moved him clearly up for me and I'm comfortable with the top 3, but over the course of the season I still have SGA ahead who himself is a tad behind Jokic who is helped by his stronger finish; I struggle to see the case for anyone else to break up this trio right now and it would require a massive playoff run from someone (and perhaps also a disappointing run from one of the players currently in the top 3 for that to change). Most likely candidates for the last spot are Giannis and Tatum with Brunson and Kawhi perhaps being closest to them for me (shout-out also to Mitchell, George, Haliburton and the two engines behind Minnesota's run)

OPOY - 1. Jokic, 2. Luka, 3. Brunson (HM: SGA and Haliburton are both close; Haliburton is hurt a ton by his post-injury play but he was in the OPOY conversation before that and still had an incredible offensive season overall; SGA may deserve the 3rd spot, too, but I really felt like a shout-out to Brunson is in order with how he had the Knicks performing on offense with him on the court – if that translates to the playoffs, his argument to be on the ballot will be really hard to deny)

DPOY - 1. Gobert, 2. Victor, 3. Caruso (HM: Davis and Bam are close and I expect at least one and maybe both of them to move up but akin to Brunson, I feel like a big shout-out to Caruso is warranted; OG, Isaac and Green all played at a top 3 level when on the court but limited minutes hurt them for now – whoever has a strong defensive playoff run can easily make the ballot, though).

ROY - 1. Victor, 2. Chet, 3. Miller (Victor has pulled ahead after a couple months with his incredible performances, but Chet has of course been very impressive and would be the winner in most years – a very strong playoff run might still put him ahead but at this point I'd say it's unlikely to happen; 3rd place is up for grabs with Podz, Amen and Wallace in particular having a strong case – I opted for Miller mostly because he flashed the greatest star potential and had really impressive highs as a primary option while others impacted winning more (here it becomes a question of ROY philosophy))

MIP – Still thinking about how to approach this ranking. Avdija and Jalen Johnson took good steps towards becoming plus starters, but perhaps someone ascending closer to stardom should be honored here, such as Sengün or Maxey? Or is it even a superstar this year in SGA? What about Brunson? What about Jalen Williams? And do we think of MIP more in terms of maximizing impact, or focus on actual skill-development? I'm really open to all kinds of argument here.

6MOY – Very rough field with a bunch of promising candidates becoming ineligible due to moving to a starter role (e.g., Hartenstein, Quickley, Reaves) while other impactful players are hurt by playing limited minutes (most notably Isaac). Is Naz Reid now the clear favorite? Who else is a viable candidate?

COY – Lots of choices here but I think I'm most impressed with Daigneault. I'm also super impressed by what Thibs has yet again managed to do with his team. Mosley and Carlisle did great things for their team's defense and offense, respectively, and I will always consider Spo a part of the candidate pool.

EOY - I'd need a good overview of all relevant trades and transactions to form a strong opinion here, but I will say that Boston's gambles are looking really good right now and if that team proves playoff-resilient it will be very tough to beat out Brad Stevens.

[Dutchball97]

Al Horford is right on the cusp of starting 50% of his played games this season. He's just above it now with 33 starts in 65 games but iirc it's under 50% across the whole season, including the play-offs, so that'd likely see him come in under the starts limit for 6MOY. Even if he has to be under 50% for both the regular season and post-season he could still make it if he comes off the bench in the final 2 regular season games. If he becomes eligible I'd reckon he'd be one of the frontrunners.

[Doctor MJ]

Al Horford is right on the cusp of starting 50% of his played games this season. He's just above it now with 33 starts in 65 games but iirc it's under 50% across the whole season, including the play-offs, so that'd likely see him come in under the starts limit for 6MOY. Even if he has to be under 50% for both the regular season and post-season he could still make it if he comes off the bench in the final 2 regular season games. If he becomes eligible I'd reckon he'd be one of the frontrunners.

If the Celtics are healthy in the playoffs, my expectation would be that Horford ends up eligible for 6MOY in our awards even if he doesn't quite make it for the NBA's. And yeah, he'll be a serious candidate if that happens.

[Texas Chuck]

MIP – Still thinking about how to approach this ranking. And do we think of MIP more in terms of maximizing impact, or focus on actual skill-development? I'm really open to all kinds of argument here.

I think this is one of the more interesting awards in terms of discussion because you see posters take radically different approaches. Some just take the guy who went from low minute,small role into big minutes, big production. This is the easiest to see and you can cite things like increase in scoring numbers etc... Then you have those who refuse to consider 2nd or even 3rd year players because they presume big jumps(I've never understood this presumption. Take Luka's year 2. He jumped from maybe a top 50 player to a borderline top 5 player. It was by far the biggest improvement in the league and not something that should have ever just been assumed). Then you have those who feel the jump to stardom/superstardom is the highest jump(I tend to mostly fall here) and would consider a player like SGA who was already really really good last year. And what do we do with players who finally find some health?

Leads to probably the most players getting consideration and some of the better discussion as we all bring those varied approaches to the mix.

[Colbinii]

Then you have those who feel the jump to stardom/superstardom is the highest jump(I tend to mostly fall here) and would consider a player like SGA who was already really really good last year. And what do we do with players who finally find some health?

I also think the biggest and most important jump a player can make is going from "Not possibly being the best player on a Championship Team" to "Can be the best player on a Championship team".

I believe Embiid did this in 2021 and I voted him then.

I'm not sure any player has made that leap this year though.

[OhayoKD]

Then you have those who feel the jump to stardom/superstardom is the highest jump(I tend to mostly fall here) and would consider a player like SGA who was already really really good last year. And what do we do with players who finally find some health?

I also think the biggest and most important jump a player can make is going from "Not possibly being the best player on a Championship Team" to "Can be the best player on a Championship team".

I believe Embiid did this in 2021 and I voted him then.

I'm not sure any player has made that leap this year though.

Embid was already there in 2019. This is a talking head catchphrase, not anything real.

[Colbinii]

Then you have those who feel the jump to stardom/superstardom is the highest jump(I tend to mostly fall here) and would consider a player like SGA who was already really really good last year. And what do we do with players who finally find some health?

I also think the biggest and most important jump a player can make is going from "Not possibly being the best player on a Championship Team" to "Can be the best player on a Championship team".

I believe Embiid did this in 2021 and I voted him then.

I'm not sure any player has made that leap this year though.

Embid was already there in 2019. This is a talking head catchphrase, not anything real.

Huh?

That's literally how I viewed Embiid.

[Owly]

Then you have those who refuse to consider 2nd or even 3rd year players because they presume big jumps (I've never understood this presumption...

Disclaimer: I don't care about this award ... (and I'm describing what I see, not arguing for it)

I'm not entirely clear what it is you don't understand but I'll try to cover what I think is going on.

I think what people expect depends on what they perceive and have been conditioned to expect the award to be for. Between 1991 and 2002 only a single second year player won the award. That was Don Maclean who had been the 19th pick. As such (and you seem to allude to this) I think it's regarded as a jump above expectations (as you noted, minutes and role often playing a factor too). For most of that spell it wasn't going to a player who would (even at the time) be expected to go on to be a star (even before that only KJ really emerged to that level, I would suggest, though it depends where one draws the bar).

Whether this makes sense as an award ... I'll leave to others. But I can understand some people thought of it as, maybe grew up with it as, an award for an unexpected year from a non-star, because it was that, and they just haven't changed mindset.

Now it's quite possible that you get this and it's the improvement being presumed not making sense in which case I guess it depends what you mean. Most players improve early on their career so projecting that in general makes a ton of sense, perhaps especially so for high picks and hyped players. Giving out an award based on what you as an individual privately expected and got wrong ... whether that's what you want to celebrate ... I guess it was nice story and an award for people who wouldn't get one/many otherwise, maybe but I can see how that doesn't necessarily seem like a coherent accolade. Then again, taking a face value version just looking at improvement implies a backhanded compliment of "of course you weren't very good last year" ... perhaps one could argue that's more reasonable and less of a jab for a less experienced player.

As before not really something I'm invested in, I seem to recall for a long time it was said to go to primarily a minutes increase guy rather than someone playing significantly better.

[AEnigma]

For me I am more interested in drastic and unexpected change. Maxey will win the official NBA award, and I expect he may win this forum’s award too, but his primary change is a matter of volume: he takes five more shots a game and he handles the ball more (even looking at how he played when Harden missed games). It is not a massive leap the way most seem to see it, but it is a notable enough evolution.

A guy like Coby White clearly made a bigger (although not necessarily more difficult) leap, going from 27 minutes a game over the past three seasons to 36 minutes a game while mildly increasing his per possession shot rate and offensive production. How people weigh the difficulty of Coby elevating while substantially increasing his minutes against the difficulty of Maxey seizing the reins of the 76ers’ offence is very much a matter of philosophy, but when I talk about raw improvement, the leap from bench to successful starter is typically less expected from an established player — which is usually the issue with the 2nd/3rd year player voting, where those types of leaps are expected naturally.

Jalen Williams is a sophomore. Big improvement from his rookie season… but rookies should improve. Suggs and Kuminga are now meaningful starters… but no one should have been burying them after two years in the league. Sengun went from high potential to realised potential, but again, third year, why would we not expect that? Then you have third year guys like Cam Thomas, forced into a certain role as the offensive leader of a bad team and accordingly seeing a significant increase in production between seasons… but who had clearly been producing like that when given the opportunity (39 points per game across four 2023 starts, 30 points per game across the eleven games where he played at least 29 minutes).

And then there are the situation change players. Here I am looking at RJ Barrett. On the Knicks, looked the same as he always has. On the Raptors, suddenly he is legitimately valuable scorer (even assuming 39% from three dips back down). Did he have an immense overnight improvement, or were the Knicks just not a good offensive fit?

I might not vote on this award — I did not last year and frequently do not bother with it — but if I do, all the above will go into my considerations for what it means to award someone for “improving”.

[lessthanjake]

Re: Luka's teams dominate at...not dominating as much offensively as Jokic's teams tend to when he's on the floor, which is what they should be doing if that's the best approach, right? Maybe that's all in the process of changing, but in general the Jokic way has just worked better than the Luka way, and if this has nothing to do with Jokic's tendency to make quick passes - and thus lead the league in passing - that's pretty dang remarkable.

Luka had the most efficient offense of all-time(up to that point since surpassed many times) in year 2. I think he's fine. His offenses aren't as good as Jokic' mainly because he's not as good of a player. It's not that Jokic plays differently so much as Jokic plays better.

But we've been down this road. You think Kerr solved basketball. I think Kerr had a team that simply outclassed other teams in talent and he didn't mess it up. Jokic is the best player in the world. Luka isn't. Not more complicated than that really.

The Mavs offense functioned super well with Luka on the floor in that 2019-2020 season, but I do think that a big reason it was the most efficient offense of all time (up to that point, obviously) is that it also functioned extremely well with him on the bench. The Mavs with Luka on the bench would’ve been by far the most efficient offense in the NBA that season, and were not far off from the most efficient offense of all time! Which I think does suggest that the Mavs offensive greatness that year was probably more about the evolution of overall offensive efficiency in the NBA than anything else. That said, I am fairly sure that the Mavs’ offensive rating with Luka on the court that year was better than any other teams’ with their star on the court (I think the Clippers with Kawhi were close), so it’s a good data point for Luka!

[The-Power]

I was looking at legitimate 6MOY candidates because it's a tough award for me this season. Here's who I ended up with:

– Naz Reid
– Trey Murphy
– Bogdan Bogdanovic
– TJ McConnell
– Dante Exum

Other players I considered were Russell Westbrook, Norman Powell, Bobby Portis, Isaiah Joe, Payton Pritchard, Malik Monk, Amen Thompson, Ayo Dosunmu, Andre Drummond and Brandin Podziemski – but there are different reasons for each player that make me question whether they had the same kind of impact on their respective teams as the players I listed above.

Note that I only looked at players currently eligible, so there may still be changes (most notably Al Horford becoming eligible). Also note that to me, 6MOY is to a large part about players who immediately change the dynamics of the game to the positive for their team when they enter the court, and/or about players who manage to cover well for star players helping their teams not miss much of their beat. Especially the former part makes me heavily consider on/off numbers. Three of the five players above really stand out in that regard (Murphy, Bogdanovic, Exum) while the other two admirably helped their team cover for the absences and/or minutes on the bench of their respective team's star players (Reid and McConnell, with the latter also having a notably positive plus-minus signal and the former helping to keep his team's performance when replacing someone from the starting line-up).

Any thoughts, and am I missing someone?

-----
A quick additional comment on the unrelated discussion above:

Talent is the major difference maker. And the Warriors had the most talent.

While the statement that talent is the major difference maker is undoubtedly true, I don't think anyone had the Warriors as being the most talented team in the league (by a distance). That feels like a post-hoc conclusion, i.e., ‘the team has played great so obviously they must have the most talent’.

And what changed? Well Steph got healthy and move from all-star to MVP level player and Draymond emerged. There were some other changes too, but these are enormous changes beyond just Kerr. I have no idea if they win titles with Jackson--seems like he had issues bigger than X and O's that were holding him back. Kerr's genius isn't strategy, its dealing with people.

Kerr's main asset might indeed be his dealing with people. I'd say his most profound impact on the franchise was changing the culture. Part of that culture is reflected in how he wants his team to play basketball, however, so off-court and on-court components of his leadership cannot be completely divorced from each other. He is, however, not a tactical genius – that I'd agree with.

That being said, Kerr obviously overhauled the strategy. The Warriors turned from the team that passes the least (or close to it) to the team that passes the most (or close to it) over one summer and this coincided with a spike in offensive efficiency. I cannot think of a more dramatic shift from one season to the next that is very clearly driven by the coach considering that the protagonists on the court remained largely the same. Credit to the players for buying into that philosophy but that philosophy came from Kerr and it completely changed the team for the better.

[Texas Chuck]

Talent is the major difference maker. And the Warriors had the most talent.

While the statement that talent is the major difference maker is undoubtedly true, I don't think anyone had the Warriors as being the most talented team in the league (by a distance). That feels like a post-hoc conclusion, i.e., ‘the team has played great so obviously they must have the most talent’.

Oh absolutely its a conclusion we reached after the fact, but I'm not sure its just they won the title so we then conclude they have the most talent. We knew Draymond was a useful role player, but we had absolutely no idea he was what he's become. That was a massive revelation, right? And we definitely didn't know that the only player of his generation we could consider a better playoff performer would be Lebron. Draymond in the playoffs has just been otherworldly.

Now I'm willing to accept that pre-Durant the Warriors weren't necessarily the most talented overall team, though I personally think they were. Curry was at worst the 2nd best player in the world, and Draymond was probably a top 5 player, though I'd knock that down to top ten since some are troubled by his lack of scoring. And top end talent wins playoff series more than anything else.

And I don't want to knock Kerr. He's a very smart guy. I don't think he's a bad X and O's coach and I feel confident he listens to his assistants who specialize in certain areas. And he's the best guy since Phil at managing stars and challenging personalities. Not every coach by a long shot could manage a Draymond Green alone.

I just know Doc believes that Kerr came in and created a brand new style of basketball that shocked the world and was the reason for their success. That they essentially perfected basketball. I just can't get there. But obviously tons of respect for that entire organization for that run of dominance. And having to contend with Lebron James as the final boss every single year. (until the last title)

[itsxtray]

Talent is the major difference maker. And the Warriors had the most talent.

While the statement that talent is the major difference maker is undoubtedly true, I don't think anyone had the Warriors as being the most talented team in the league (by a distance). That feels like a post-hoc conclusion, i.e., ‘the team has played great so obviously they must have the most talent’.

Oh absolutely its a conclusion we reached after the fact, but I'm not sure its just they won the title so we then conclude they have the most talent. We knew Draymond was a useful role player, but we had absolutely no idea he was what he's become. That was a massive revelation, right? And we definitely didn't know that the only player of his generation we could consider a better playoff performer would be Lebron. Draymond in the playoffs has just been otherworldly.

Now I'm willing to accept that pre-Durant the Warriors weren't necessarily the most talented overall team, though I personally think they were. Curry was at worst the 2nd best player in the world, and Draymond was probably a top 5 player, though I'd knock that down to top ten since some are troubled by his lack of scoring. And top end talent wins playoff series more than anything else.

And I don't want to knock Kerr. He's a very smart guy. I don't think he's a bad X and O's coach and I feel confident he listens to his assistants who specialize in certain areas. And he's the best guy since Phil at managing stars and challenging personalities. Not every coach by a long shot could manage a Draymond Green alone.

I just know Doc believes that Kerr came in and created a brand new style of basketball that shocked the world and was the reason for their success. That they essentially perfected basketball. I just can't get there. But obviously tons of respect for that entire organization for that run of dominance. And having to contend with Lebron James as the final boss every single year. (until the last title)

Credit to Zach Lowe, he saw it coming. From Jan 14, 2014:

https://grantland.com/features/why-not-the-warriors/

The Warriors, fresh off a 10-game winning streak and one of the great road trips in NBA history, look more and more like a true-blue contender. They certainly think of themselves that way. “The playoffs was the goal for us last season,” Bogut says. “But this season, we’re trying to get to the pinnacle of the NBA, and that’s winning a championship.”

The numbers don’t look championship-worthy at first glance. First off, Golden State has outscored opponents by 4.9 points per 100 possessions — a solid number, but only the eighth-best in the league, per NBA.com. Second, they’re fifth in the West, five games behind Portland and Oklahoma City in the loss column.

But look a bit deeper, and you see the outlines of something. Golden State is 20-7 with Iguodala in the lineup, and in those 27 games, the Warriors have outscored opponents by about 7.5 points per 48 minutes — a mark that would rank behind only Indiana and San Antonio, per NBA.com. They’re fourth overall in points allowed per possession, and they’ve been better by that measure with Iguodala available than everyone but the ridiculous Pacers. Their starting lineup has outscored opponents by nearly 21 points per 100 possessions, by far the best margin of the 50 lineups in the league that have logged at least 150 minutes this season. In simple terms: Golden State’s starting five may well be the best lineup in the entire NBA.

Mark Jackson had already figured out the defende but Lowe did point out the problems with the offense:

If you’re looking for weaknesses, you have to start on offense, where Golden State has been a disappointment relative to the hype. They’re just 13th in points per possession, and they actually improved a hair on that end with Iguodala out. They should be better, and some of the kinks that have dogged them should be at least semi-correctable.

They go through puzzling bouts of stagnancy for a team blessed with brilliant passing all over the floor. The Warriors post up a lot, even though their post-ups produce a middling scoring efficiency, per Synergy Sports.3 The Warriors have a lot of solid post players, including Thompson and Barnes, who often have exploitable size advantages. But they fall too much in love with attacking matchups that appear favorable, taking the offense out of rhythm, and forcing plays that often lead to contested midrange jumpers.

A lot of Golden State’s bad possessions start with something good — a Curry/Lee pick-and-roll, or Thompson rocketing off a baseline screen, Ray Allen–style. But if that first action fails to produce a good shot, the Warriors too often devolve into one-on-one nothingness — even when they have lots of time left on the shot clock. Check out this Curry/Bogut pick-and-roll against Houston. Curry drives right, meaning that Thompson, spotting up on the left wing, is on the weak side — and that his defender, Chandler Parsons, has the responsibility of helping in the paint if Bogut rolls. You can see Parsons checking out the action in the middle, allowing Thompson to drift away, as the play unfolds: This is pretty typical: A defense forces the pick-and-roll ball handler (Curry) to kick out to a spot-up shooter (Thompson), and it recovers to that shooter in time to discourage him from launching off the catch. The best offenses go from here into something else — another pick-and-roll, a dribble handoff, or an immediate pump-and-go drive from Thompson.

But Golden State’s offense stalls out in a lot of these situations. Thompson and Barnes are ball stoppers, not yet confident enough in their dribbling or passing to attack right away or run a functional pick-and-roll. They like to hold the ball, size up their defender, and then begin a haze of crossovers, spins, and step-backs that lead nowhere. Thompson and Barnes aren’t quick enough to blow by prepared defenders, even bigger guys caught on switches, and so they often end up forcing difficult shots.

Even with the issues the starters were already scoring 118 pts/100 in 2014 and David Lee was already doing the Draymond short roll release valve roll.

This team relies on ball movement, and ball movement is risky. They don’t have a physical, tall dribble-drive point guard like John Wall or Russell Westbrook, nor a killer one-on-one scorer who can get low-risk buckets. This is part of what makes the much-derided Lee important. He’s the rare big man comfortable catching the ball 20 feet from the hoop if teams trap Curry, taking a couple of dribbles into the paint, and distributing or scoring from there. He’s an important arc-to-rim cog on a team that doesn’t have a ton of them. The criticism of Lee’s defense is justified, and there is some merit to the idea that the organization would be better off dealing him, playing more small ball, and getting a piece in return. But that day may not be now. “Our starting lineup is off the charts in terms of points and points allowed per possession,” Myers says. “And to assume you can replace someone who is a part of that — well, you don’t just replace someone like that. A lot of his detractors have been proven patently wrong, and they should admit they jumped the gun.”

Despite these issues, you wonder how much of this is regular-season nit-picking. The starting lineup has scored nearly 118 points per 100 possessions, an endless drunken orgy of points, and things should stabilize once Jackson gets a better handle on the rotation. A bunch of promising lineups have barely played together — small lineups with Bogut as the lone big instead of Lee, and hybrid lineups featuring multiple starters alongside the unreliable bench guys. “We can improve,” Myers says, “as far as playing together, and finding out more about which lineups work and which don’t.”

[rk2023]

Where I am for POY right now:

Jokic
Luka

Shai/Giannis (somewhat a gap due to their end of year injuries)

The fifth spot is completely up in the air as the RS ends. I wouldn’t mind going with Embiid even with him on playing 40 games, as we had a very clear snippet of his impact on Philly and how good they were with him playing.

Otherwise, I believe that Brunson Kawhi and LeBron all have cases.