fuller4379 wrote:Without Luka the Mavs would be on the same level as the Hawks.
The Hawks still have Trae and had a lot of bad luck with injuries to their starters. Mavs without Luka would be worse than Hawks since they still have Trae.
Check the Sixers and Bucks combined home record vs the other teams: 21-1 + 20-1 = 41-2
Check their record vs the Mavs without Luka: 0-2
What are the chances...
They lost Luka, fell into a hole, but were able to come back from 20 down vs Miami. To build a 30 point lead vs Raptors. To be competitive vs Celtics. There have been multiple games where Luka was chilling on the bench and the other guys built up a big dead.
Just recall the plus/minus thing hah ---by the way, as expected this has been looking "better" for Luka as well. Back when that "impact" topic was created, the numbers suited that narrative. Now, you can clearly see the drop off in the offensive rating.
Just by heart, I think back then the offensive rating with Luka on or off was about the same. Then the team started to play even better and his offensive rating sky-rocketed and there's a clear difference now between Luka ON, Luka OFF.
Assuming the Mavs wouldn't intentionally tank, there is no way that the Mavs would be 10-34 without Luka.
This just means the Mavs without Luka play better basketball than the Hawks. Thank god for Luka. I don't think I'd enjoy seeing Trae jacking up some of the shots he takes that much. Not to mention offering no resistance on defense. Anyway, Luka is great, but I never really see much need to tear up the rest of the team, especially when it's quite obvious that as a collective unit, the Mavs have done a good job on the year.