NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24

[Doctor MJ]

The question with Doncic has remained for many years now:

Why is it his team can do almost as well without him as they can with him? You cannot blame teammates for not being good enough as the reason why they do unexpectedly well without you.

Why IS his team almost as good without him than versus with him? (I'm actually asking you; this is non rhetorical).

All stats include the playoffs, and, complete careers. Just a few examples:

--Mavs are 29-38 all time (.433) without Doncic. They are .543 with him playing.

--The Nuggets are 17-25 all time (.405) without Jokic. They are .596 with him playing.

--The Sixers are 77-95 (.448) without Embiid, career. They are .637 with him playing.

--Warriors are 90-147 (.380) without Curry. They are .652 with him playing.

My general answer would be that basketball effectiveness needs to considered as a collection of 5-man units finding ways to do what needs doing on the court.

So if I have a player who can do everything - scoring, passing, rebounding - better than everyone else, but in his absence a team has a scheme that "picks up the slack" by re-allocating primacy in various domains pretty effectively, the drop off might not be what we'd expect.

All the more so if you're talking about a shift in scheme wherein no one player dominates the load the same way.

To be clear: Could be far worse than what we'd expect as easily as better than we expect. The critical thing is that if the ecosystem functions differently, it's hard to know what to expect until you see it.

[AleksandarN]

Jokic ain’t winning Jack lmao. Nugs not even a shoe in to come out the west. The way they drop games with Jokic playing well is a tell tale sign

Not like he isn’t the best player in the world and dominated the playoffs with a healthy team last postseason. Also context matters. I know you want to troll and get a reaction but there is an intelligent way to go about it. This unfortunately falls short. Your reply just illustrates your lack insight and knowledge. Please do better next time when you decide to troll for a reaction. Let’s have an intelligent discourse instead of this. Am I asking too much of you? If I am truly sorry.

Buddy, miss me with your garbage. Jokic has dominated for 1 season and has NEVER lead a team to 60+ wins. Do I think he’s the best player? Possibly. Do I think he’s by far and away the best player? Not a chance. Does being the best player mean that you’re MVP? Lmao no. Tons of players put up gaudy stats, it doesn’t matter lmao. We play to win the game. If Giannis or Embiid end up with a better record while Jokic is dropping games then they will win MVP simple as that. By mid season, Bucks’ chemistry will be sorted and I predict Giannis will run away with the MVP.

Again context matters. We play to win games? Yes and Jokic won the championship with a healthy roster. What’s your point? Now you want to put in “ifs” or the Bucks “will”. Man do better. You are easy work. I expected a more thoughtful and insightful reply. Again wanting more.

[AleksandarN]

Jokic ain’t winning Jack lmao. Nugs not even a shoe in to come out the west. The way they drop games with Jokic playing well is a tell tale sign

do ppl actually think this, that finishing 3rd or whatever would stop voters from voting for the Joker? huh..

Jokic was phenomenal vs. the Kings. It was a back to back (and te Nuggets eeked out a tough one in PHX the night before), they also played 9 games since November 20th, that's like 9 games in two weeks, most of which without Murray and AG and most of those were away from Denver, really brutal stretch even at full strength and they were missing their #2 and AG whose honestly their 3rd most important player

Jokic played in all but one of these iirc

If it were Joe L you can bet he'd be sitting out. instead Jokic actually showed up and played a monster game
they were up pretty big in the 1st when he went to the bench and instantly fell behind in just a few mins (as always)

he fueled a comback but alas those mins of rest in the 2nd half hurt them as well and the Kings at home is a tough game for anyone let alone on a b2b, he was +11 in a 6 points loss. Jokic and KCP were the only Nuggets with positive +- among starters or bench players

they are def not a shoe-in to win the West and personally I think they'd end up being 2nd or even 3rd
regardless what Jokic is doing is just bonkers, and after the fiasco of last season, if he'll keep this up he'll win it for sure (and rightfully so) even if they'd be 2nd, 3rd or whatever

I honestly don't think i'd take any floor general in history over this version of peak Jokic and that would have been unthinkable about any Center until Jokic came around

Again, the nuggets are easily dropping games. They can easily and I think they will end up in the bottom half of the western conference for standings when it’s all said and done.

So you wouldn’t take Magic Johnson who has won multiple finals MVPs, multiple rings over Jokic who has won 1? You’re just flat out silly then.

Again, Giannis will be mvp when it’s all said and done.

The Bucks didn’t drop “easy” games? Like I said easy work

[Exp0sed]

Jokic ain’t winning Jack lmao. Nugs not even a shoe in to come out the west. The way they drop games with Jokic playing well is a tell tale sign

Again, the nuggets are easily dropping games. They can easily and I think they will end up in the bottom half of the western conference for standings when it’s all said and done.

So you wouldn’t take Magic Johnson who has won multiple finals MVPs, multiple rings over Jokic who has won 1? You’re just flat out silly then.

Again, Giannis will be mvp when it’s all said and done.

Easily? the Nuggets aren't a good road team that's been the case these past couple of seasons as well, they had a couple of weeks with a brutal stretch of the schedule mostly away from Denver and they played most of it without Murray and AG, the league is crazy rn u think many teams are winning alot of away games without 2 of their best players?

Denver won't be in the bottom half, but I could see them dropping to as low as #4. my money's on #2.

well, if i'd consider anyone as a floor general - Magic might be the one, if you have to go as high on the ladder as Magic to make your point then I guess Jokic is doing ok for himself as a playmaker haha

Rings have nothing to do with it, how many rings do you think Jokic would have had if he had Magic's teammates? and how many rings would Magic have with MPJ and Will Barton?

very tough to compare eras and Magic is one of my all time fav players but yeah - i'd take Jokic to run my offense over Magic, if that's silly then you got me, i'm silly

[Special_Puppy]

Jokic ain’t winning Jack lmao. Nugs not even a shoe in to come out the west. The way they drop games with Jokic playing well is a tell tale sign

Not like he isn’t the best player in the world and dominated the playoffs with a healthy team last postseason. Also context matters. I know you want to troll and get a reaction but there is an intelligent way to go about it. This unfortunately falls short. Your reply just illustrates your lack insight and knowledge. Please do better next time when you decide to troll for a reaction. Let’s have an intelligent discourse instead of this. Am I asking too much of you? If I am truly sorry.

Buddy, miss me with your garbage. Jokic has dominated for 1 season and has NEVER lead a team to 60+ wins. Do I think he’s the best player? Possibly. Do I think he’s by far and away the best player? Not a chance. Does being the best player mean that you’re MVP? Lmao no. Tons of players put up gaudy stats, it doesn’t matter lmao. We play to win the game. If Giannis or Embiid end up with a better record while Jokic is dropping games then they will win MVP simple as that. By mid season, Bucks’ chemistry will be sorted and I predict Giannis will run away with the MVP.

If the Bucks and 76ers have the better record because Giannis and Embiid respectively are more valuable than Jokic then they should win MVP yes. If the Bucks and 76ers have better records because the supporting casts around their superstars is better than the Nuggets then they shouldn't win MVP. Plain and Simple.

[dygaction]

The question with Doncic has remained for many years now:

Why is it his team can do almost as well without him as they can with him? You cannot blame teammates for not being good enough as the reason why they do unexpectedly well without you.

Why IS his team almost as good without him than versus with him? (I'm actually asking you; this is non rhetorical).

All stats include the playoffs, and, complete careers. Just a few examples:

--Mavs are 29-38 all time (.433) without Doncic. They are .543 with him playing.

--The Nuggets are 17-25 all time (.405) without Jokic. They are .596 with him playing.

--The Sixers are 77-95 (.448) without Embiid, career. They are .637 with him playing.

--Warriors are 90-147 (.380) without Curry. They are .652 with him playing.

My general answer would be that basketball effectiveness needs to considered as a collection of 5-man units finding ways to do what needs doing on the court.

So if I have a player who can do everything - scoring, passing, rebounding - better than everyone else, but in his absence a team has a scheme that "picks up the slack" by re-allocating primacy in various domains pretty effectively, the drop off might not be what we'd expect.

All the more so if you're talking about a shift in scheme wherein no one player dominates the load the same way.

To be clear: Could be far worse than what we'd expect as easily as better than we expect. The critical thing is that if the ecosystem functions differently, it's hard to know what to expect until you see it.

Did not look at the break down but the W/L difference with and without players above might also be related to how long the players have been in the league? Luka is 24 while the others have at least 4 more years of prime/peak over him thus making the winning percentage higher.

[Mavrelous]

Net On/Off Leaders Per 100 Possessions, 2023-2024, Among MVP Candidates

Jokic: +21.1
SGA: +12.5
Embiid: +3.7
Doncic: +0.3
Tatum: +4.7
Giannis: +2.3
Durant: +8.4
Haliburton: +7.7
Curry: -6.3
Booker: +12.0

So yeah, it's this type of data where Doncic has looked remarkably pedestrian his entire career - to the point where "noise" really doesn't seem like a realistic explanation any more.

In general I always try to emphasize that Doncic remains in my eyes remains a serious threat to prove effectively unstoppable in the playoffs in any series with the other 29 NBA teams, and that if he ends up getting there and staying there for years, his regular season +/- will not be a damning thing at all, but rather a fascinating quirk seemingly unlike anything we've ever seen before.

It would likely lead to a general conclusion that Doncic possessed a resilience to even the best defenses possible that allowed his team to outscore opponents as needed when the stakes are high.

But just taking the regular season numbers, it's illustrating a massive misalignment between production (box score) data and impact (plus minus) data. The type of fallacy is very much general phenomenon - the game has long been narrated as if box score stats are manufactured out of nothing by a player's force of will, but in actuality they are drastically shaped by the scheme the team uses, and so if you let one man dominate the ball, he's going to get big numbers while teammates often get small numbers, implying he's "doing it by himself", when in actuality you can run the team to similar regular seasons success without having a helio.

But I'll just go ahead and say:

I won't be taking Doncic as a serious MVP candidate unless either a) the +/- data starts looking better or b) the Mavs have such an outlier record I consider (a) to be moot. I don't think Doncic should be considered an MVP candidate simply for putting up big production numbers on non-elite teams, because to me, that's just not contributing extreme value.

But to be clear:

I'm more focused on how I evaluate players after the Finals, which leads to what I vote for in the PC board POY votes, and I won't hesitate to put Doncic at #1 if he beats all comers through the playoff gauntlet.

It's a legit question, that is usually answered in the PO, there are 3 main reason for Luka's tilted on/off:
1. His backups, he was backed up by Jalen Brunson, who is leading NYK now to their best stretch in 20 years, to be clear, Brunson wasn't this good in earlier years, but for a backup, he was very good, he's backed up by Kyrie Irving now, so going against starters with Luka and backups with Brunson/Irving makes the +/- look drastically different, we have very limited data set of him lacking a great backup, and that's when he was backed up by Dinwiddie, and in this limited data set he has very good on/off.
2. Luka always had stretches where he under performed in RS, for example, the 1st half of 21/22 season, it isn't just the backup, he played very bad during that stretch, to the extent where Mavs would go into deficits with starters and close them with backups.
3. Impossibility to replace him or his backup, the way the offense is constructed, makes it impossible to take regular PG and run without him, the PG needs to be a great iso scorer, and with great vision, that's why either he or Brunson have to stay on the floor, which has him playing in minutes other stars don't play, ETID: roster setup also plays major part, the roster around him is usually 3&D player who can't do anything else with the ball, DFS, Bullock, Kleber are very good in their prime at D and at 3, but not at anything else, his main off ball scorer is THJ who is also not great on ball.

In the PO, there is no such question, he constantly has good on/off even with great backup and in series where Brunson was totally ineffective (Clippers 20/21 series), Luka on/off skyrocketed to an unfathomable +32.6, this series was the main reason Jalen Brunson lost massive stock and wasn't extended, it was also the series that painted Luka in actually better picture than his actual impact, for this specific matchup, had he had Dinwiddie for example as backup, it would've been better for the team and worse for his on/off.

Compare Luka's situation with someone like Jokic, who doesn't have a normal backup and impossible to have due his unique skill set and it explains why he has such a different on/off.

[CobraCommander]

I don't think someone can fluke their way to a net neutral on/off per 100 over 6 seasons/348 games. I agree with Doctor MJ, in that respect, and he knows 100x more about the NBA, and basketball stats, than I do.

That said:

Some superstars (Net) On/Off Per 100 possessions since 2018-2019:

Luka: +1.1

Jokic: +11.3
Embiid: +8.9
Giannis: +9.0
Curry: +9.9
Butler: +5.8
Tatum: +8.0
Harden: +4.1
LeBron: +8.6
Gobert: +8.0

"Which one of these things is not like the other?" -Sesame Street

Doncic scores a ton, he's super exciting to watch, he's a great passer, BUT........is he extremely valuable and impactful to wins and losses?

i also think Doncic is overrated, but to be fair he had the worst teammates out of all the guys above. by far

To be clear: That right there is On/Off data. If you are amazing and you have terrible teammates, you should have a massive number here. So the data is essentially disproving the factor you're bringing up in response to it.

The question with Doncic has remained for many years now:

Why is it his team can do almost as well without him as they can with him? You cannot blame teammates for not being good enough as the reason why they do unexpectedly well without you.

Interesting - take- I don’t think people should debate this with you lol. Well take the other side anyway.

[Exp0sed]

Net On/Off Leaders Per 100 Possessions, 2023-2024, Among MVP Candidates

Jokic: +21.1
SGA: +12.5
Embiid: +3.7
Doncic: +0.3
Tatum: +4.7
Giannis: +2.3
Durant: +8.4
Haliburton: +7.7
Curry: -6.3
Booker: +12.0

It's a legit question, that is usually answered in the PO, there are 3 main reason for Luka's tilted on/off:
1. His backups, he was backed up by Jalen Brunson, who is leading NYK now to their best stretch in 20 years, to be clear, Brunson wasn't this good in earlier years, but for a backup, he was very good, he's backed up by Kyrie Irving now, so going against starters with Luka and backups with Brunson/Irving makes the +/- look drastically different, we have very limited data set of him lacking a great backup, and that's when he was backed up by Dinwiddie, and in this limited data set he has very good on/off.
2. Luka always had stretches where he under performed in RS, for example, the 1st half of 21/22 season, it isn't just the backup, he played very bad during that stretch, to the extent where Mavs would go into deficits with starters and close them with backups.
3. Impossibility to replace him or his backup, the way the offense is constructed, makes it impossible to take regular PG and run without him, the PG needs to be a great iso scorer, and with great vision, that's why either he or Brunson have to stay on the floor, which has him playing in minutes other stars don't play, ETID: roster setup also plays major part, the roster around him is usually 3&D player who can't do anything else with the ball, DFS, Bullock, Kleber are very good in their prime at D and at 3, but not at anything else, his main off ball scorer is THJ who is also not great on ball.

In the PO, there is no such question, he constantly has good on/off even with great backup and in series where Brunson was totally ineffective (Clippers 20/21 series), Luka on/off skyrocketed to an unfathomable +32.6, this series was the main reason Jalen Brunson lost massive stock and wasn't extended, it was also the series that painted Luka in actually better picture than his actual impact, for this specific matchup, had he had Dinwiddie for example as backup, it would've been better for the team and worse for his on/off.

Compare Luka's situation with someone like Jokic, who doesn't have a normal backup and impossible to have due his unique skill set and it explains why he has such a different on/off.

Great post!

that's an intresting explanation

Idk what the real explanations for this phenomenon are but I know as a lifelong NBA fan that Luka is elite as they come
whatever stat is saying otherwise is simply misleading for one reason or another

i'm surprised u guys are even having this discussion..

If Luka's style was unique, it would be a more complicated question but since we've seen guys like Harden do this with success (i'm leaving LBJ out because he was an all-world defender as well) and that includes high impact in these very same stats, i'm so confused by some folks here going by the outlier and not by common sense

ask any coach in the league, and player in the league and they'll tell ya right away what's what
u think everyone's blind?
u think Cuban who basically handed the reign over to the analytics guys, is building a team around Luka, paying him a supermax and they are all wrong because in actuality, Luka's play isn't conducive to winning to the extreme extent that his teams (which weren't great to begin with) are better\the same without him?

my god guys, that doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test

he needs more team wins and to create more seperation from other candidates to be a viable candidate for the actual MVP award but he's up there, in the top 5 where he was last couple of seasons as well

[baksuzz]

I don't think someone can fluke their way to a net neutral on/off per 100 over 6 seasons/348 games. I agree with Doctor MJ, in that respect, and he knows 100x more about the NBA, and basketball stats, than I do.

That said:

Some superstars (Net) On/Off Per 100 possessions since 2018-2019:

Luka: +1.1

Jokic: +11.3
Embiid: +8.9
Giannis: +9.0
Curry: +9.9
Butler: +5.8
Tatum: +8.0
Harden: +4.1
LeBron: +8.6
Gobert: +8.0

"Which one of these things is not like the other?" -Sesame Street

Doncic scores a ton, he's super exciting to watch, he's a great passer, BUT........is he extremely valuable and impactful to wins and losses?

i also think Doncic is overrated, but to be fair he had the worst teammates out of all the guys above. by far

To be clear: That right there is On/Off data. If you are amazing and you have terrible teammates, you should have a massive number here. So the data is essentially disproving the factor you're bringing up in response to it.

The question with Doncic has remained for many years now:

Why is it his team can do almost as well without him as they can with him? You cannot blame teammates for not being good enough as the reason why they do unexpectedly well without you.

so if someone has worse teammates playing with him(not the bench) he should have even higher +/- ? LOL
Mavs roster was by far the worst out of all the guys you mentioned.
even Utah roster with mitchell gobert conley bogdanovic ingles.. was very good back then.

Doncic has irving this season and played a bit with Porzingis who missed half of the games with injuries, and a young brunson who was his back up most of the minutes
Rest of that team was trash.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

[Hello Brooklyn]

I would go with Jokic right now. But its funny to me that Tatum is never seriously considered.

Hes putting up great numbers on the best team in the East with great defense.

What exactly is Luka doing that makes him better? I don't get it.

Obviously his elite passing/playmaking. Also, Tatum has a vastly better roster. I think the consensus is that if you give Luka the Celtics roster without Tatum, they will be the clear cut favorites for the championship.

Funny how thats the automatic assumption when Luka couldn't even get his team to the play in last year with a team that just went to the WCF.

Not to mention Tatum is an excellent defender and Luka is a bad one.

[Wolfgang630]

Jokic really is on his own tier for MVP. They really need Murray to comeback though to hold a high seed.

[ty 4191]

Jokic really is on his own tier for MVP. They really need Murray to comeback though to hold a high seed.

7-1 with Murray, 7-6 without him this season. They absolutely need him near- or at- 100% to contend for another championship, IMHO.

It’s a shame because Jokic is playing at an all around level almost never seen in NBA history, and I actually think Denver has a better all around roster this year vs last.

What are your thoughts?

[Mavrelous]

Jokic really is on his own tier for MVP. They really need Murray to comeback though to hold a high seed.

7-1 with Murray, 7-6 without him this season. They absolutely need him near- or at- 100% to contend for another championship, IMHO.

It’s a shame because Jokic is playing at an all around level almost never seen in NBA history, and I actually think Denver has a better all around roster this year vs last.

What are your thoughts?

6-6, he missed the game against the Clippers.
It's weird, but Nuggets had better record w/o Murray 2 years ago, I think it's more about the league having more parity and is healthier.

[Wolfgang630]

Jokic really is on his own tier for MVP. They really need Murray to comeback though to hold a high seed.

7-1 with Murray, 7-6 without him this season. They absolutely need him near- or at- 100% to contend for another championship, IMHO.

It’s a shame because Jokic is playing at an all around level almost never seen in NBA history, and I actually think Denver has a better all around roster this year vs last.

What are your thoughts?

6-6, he missed the game against the Clippers.
It's weird, but Nuggets had better record w/o Murray 2 years ago, I think it's more about the league having more parity and is healthier.

What Marvelous said. In the past they seemed to beat these teams without Murray. But this year is different. They’re not able to pull out the wins and it’s because of the parity. There’s just better competition now and a superstar player can only do so much.

[Doctor MJ]

Why IS his team almost as good without him than versus with him? (I'm actually asking you; this is non rhetorical).

All stats include the playoffs, and, complete careers. Just a few examples:

--Mavs are 29-38 all time (.433) without Doncic. They are .543 with him playing.

--The Nuggets are 17-25 all time (.405) without Jokic. They are .596 with him playing.

--The Sixers are 77-95 (.448) without Embiid, career. They are .637 with him playing.

--Warriors are 90-147 (.380) without Curry. They are .652 with him playing.

My general answer would be that basketball effectiveness needs to considered as a collection of 5-man units finding ways to do what needs doing on the court.

So if I have a player who can do everything - scoring, passing, rebounding - better than everyone else, but in his absence a team has a scheme that "picks up the slack" by re-allocating primacy in various domains pretty effectively, the drop off might not be what we'd expect.

All the more so if you're talking about a shift in scheme wherein no one player dominates the load the same way.

To be clear: Could be far worse than what we'd expect as easily as better than we expect. The critical thing is that if the ecosystem functions differently, it's hard to know what to expect until you see it.

Did not look at the break down but the W/L difference with and without players above might also be related to how long the players have been in the league? Luka is 24 while the others have at least 4 more years of prime/peak over him thus making the winning percentage higher.

Jokic & Embiid are guys who showed massive signs of impact basically as soon as they stepped on the court leading their team in +/- as a matter of course. Curry took a bit longer, but he also didn't have a healthy season as alpha until his 4th year in the league, and then became an impact matchine.

Doncic is in his 6th year now and the story has been basically identical every single year: He doesn't seem to provide regular season impact like we'd expect given how astonishing his skills are.

Again I'll say: Doesn't mean Doncic won't prove to be the guy who leads his team to the most chips, but if the question is "What you thought about this factor?" to try to explain away lack of +/- impact in the regular season, yes, it's all been noted for years now. We're without question at the point where it says something real about Doncic and his approach as it pertains to the regular season.

[Doctor MJ]

Net On/Off Leaders Per 100 Possessions, 2023-2024, Among MVP Candidates

Jokic: +21.1
SGA: +12.5
Embiid: +3.7
Doncic: +0.3
Tatum: +4.7
Giannis: +2.3
Durant: +8.4
Haliburton: +7.7
Curry: -6.3
Booker: +12.0

So yeah, it's this type of data where Doncic has looked remarkably pedestrian his entire career - to the point where "noise" really doesn't seem like a realistic explanation any more.

In general I always try to emphasize that Doncic remains in my eyes remains a serious threat to prove effectively unstoppable in the playoffs in any series with the other 29 NBA teams, and that if he ends up getting there and staying there for years, his regular season +/- will not be a damning thing at all, but rather a fascinating quirk seemingly unlike anything we've ever seen before.

It would likely lead to a general conclusion that Doncic possessed a resilience to even the best defenses possible that allowed his team to outscore opponents as needed when the stakes are high.

But just taking the regular season numbers, it's illustrating a massive misalignment between production (box score) data and impact (plus minus) data. The type of fallacy is very much general phenomenon - the game has long been narrated as if box score stats are manufactured out of nothing by a player's force of will, but in actuality they are drastically shaped by the scheme the team uses, and so if you let one man dominate the ball, he's going to get big numbers while teammates often get small numbers, implying he's "doing it by himself", when in actuality you can run the team to similar regular seasons success without having a helio.

But I'll just go ahead and say:

I won't be taking Doncic as a serious MVP candidate unless either a) the +/- data starts looking better or b) the Mavs have such an outlier record I consider (a) to be moot. I don't think Doncic should be considered an MVP candidate simply for putting up big production numbers on non-elite teams, because to me, that's just not contributing extreme value.

But to be clear:

I'm more focused on how I evaluate players after the Finals, which leads to what I vote for in the PC board POY votes, and I won't hesitate to put Doncic at #1 if he beats all comers through the playoff gauntlet.

It's a legit question, that is usually answered in the PO, there are 3 main reason for Luka's tilted on/off:
1. His backups, he was backed up by Jalen Brunson, who is leading NYK now to their best stretch in 20 years, to be clear, Brunson wasn't this good in earlier years, but for a backup, he was very good, he's backed up by Kyrie Irving now, so going against starters with Luka and backups with Brunson/Irving makes the +/- look drastically different, we have very limited data set of him lacking a great backup, and that's when he was backed up by Dinwiddie, and in this limited data set he has very good on/off.
2. Luka always had stretches where he under performed in RS, for example, the 1st half of 21/22 season, it isn't just the backup, he played very bad during that stretch, to the extent where Mavs would go into deficits with starters and close them with backups.
3. Impossibility to replace him or his backup, the way the offense is constructed, makes it impossible to take regular PG and run without him, the PG needs to be a great iso scorer, and with great vision, that's why either he or Brunson have to stay on the floor, which has him playing in minutes other stars don't play, ETID: roster setup also plays major part, the roster around him is usually 3&D player who can't do anything else with the ball, DFS, Bullock, Kleber are very good in their prime at D and at 3, but not at anything else, his main off ball scorer is THJ who is also not great on ball.

In the PO, there is no such question, he constantly has good on/off even with great backup and in series where Brunson was totally ineffective (Clippers 20/21 series), Luka on/off skyrocketed to an unfathomable +32.6, this series was the main reason Jalen Brunson lost massive stock and wasn't extended, it was also the series that painted Luka in actually better picture than his actual impact, for this specific matchup, had he had Dinwiddie for example as backup, it would've been better for the team and worse for his on/off.

Compare Luka's situation with someone like Jokic, who doesn't have a normal backup and impossible to have due his unique skill set and it explains why he has such a different on/off.

1. I was frankly expecting that we'd see a much bigger on/off for Doncic after Brunson left. Didn't happen.
2. Agreed, this is part of the equation.
3. This is backwards. If you're impossible to replace as a star, and your team has built everything around you, the norm is that there's a big drop off whenever you leave.

Re: PO. Agree that this is a different thing, and this will eventually be what defines Doncic's legacy. We just have to know ahead of time that if Doncic becomes a playoff GOAT candidate given his regular season mediocre impact, I don't believe we'll have ever seen anything like this in the history of basketball.

[Doctor MJ]

i also think Doncic is overrated, but to be fair he had the worst teammates out of all the guys above. by far

To be clear: That right there is On/Off data. If you are amazing and you have terrible teammates, you should have a massive number here. So the data is essentially disproving the factor you're bringing up in response to it.

The question with Doncic has remained for many years now:

Why is it his team can do almost as well without him as they can with him? You cannot blame teammates for not being good enough as the reason why they do unexpectedly well without you.

so if someone has worse teammates playing with him(not the bench) he should have even higher +/- ? LOL
Mavs roster was by far the worst out of all the guys you mentioned.
even Utah roster with mitchell gobert conley bogdanovic ingles.. was very good back then.

Doncic has irving this season and played a bit with Porzingis who missed half of the games with injuries, and a young brunson who was his back up most of the minutes
Rest of that team was trash.

You seem to be confused as to the difference between On/Off and +/-.

On/Off contrasts team performance when you're on and off the court.
+/- is the base tool we're typically talking about when we refer to On/Off, but it just refers to your On court metrics.

As I've said to so many before:

If you think you can poke a hole in these arguments with 5 seconds of thought, you're probably someone who hasn't put the time in to understand the basics of the conversations and should switch to asking sincere questions so that you can actually contribute on the topic you want to think you're an expert at.

[eminence]

Re: PO. Agree that this is a different thing, and this will eventually be what defines Doncic's legacy. We just have to know ahead of time that if Doncic becomes a playoff GOAT candidate given his regular season mediocre impact, I don't believe we'll have ever seen anything like this in the history of basketball.

This is a bit weird to me that it's even being considered. As stated it's never happened and Doncic has won 1.5 playoff series in his career.