2023-24 RealGM All-Season Awards Discussion Thread

[Colbinii]

I do not expect to consider him too seriously, but if Edwards drops off and the Mavericks are clearly struggling because of Gobert (like in those 2018/19 Rockets series), then I am willing to make a swap.

That's where I am at, and realize that if the +/- numbers are screaming Gobert!, then it is hard for me to turn my head and focus on lesser offensive players.

[trex_8063]

Speaking for myself, I have them:

#1 - Jokic
#2 - SGA
#3 - Luka (theoretically he could move up if he closes out the playoffs playing at an utterly insane level en route to the Finals [win or lose]; I suppose theoretically he could also fall to #4-5 if he plays like trash in the WCF and it costs the Mavs a trip to the Finals)

For the last two spots, I see a number of contenders:
Tatum
Brunson
Haliburton
Ant-Man
LeBron
AD

I'm almost wondering if Embiid deserves some dark-horse consideration, too, despite all the missed time. He was just so remarkable in the 39 rs games he DID play in, and also pretty darn good in the playoffs too. He likely won't make the cut for me, but jsia.

Donovan Mitchell misses out on consideration due to too much time, however. Even though he didn't miss quite as much as Embiid, he was also no where near as dominant as Embiid. For him, missing a third of the rs plus 2 [of 12] playoff games, is just too big a factor, since he's only a marginal candidate vs the guys listed above even if considering ONLY level of play WHEN AVAILABLE.

The only other guy I can think of who might deserve some consideration is Sabonis. Monster statistical season (and didn't miss a single game, fwiw); but the fact that he failed to lead the Kings to a playoff berth [with Fox as a wing-man] combined with his lackluster on/off is enough for me to probably leave him among the pool of honourable mentions. Can't see him making my top 5.

EDIT: And Kawhi Leonard. But again, the missed time (particularly when they needed him the most: in the playoffs) is likely too big a factor for him to have serious traction in my considerations.

No Gobert?

+8.6 Net Rtg in RS
+16.2 Net Rtg in PS
-7th in RS WS, 6th in RS WS/48
-Top 5 Rebounder in NBA
-Clear-Cut DPOY
-99/99 1st Team All-Defensive Votes
-Dominant Post-FG% Numbers and Paint Deterrence Numbers
-76 RS Games Player, Missed 1 PS Game due to Birth of 1st Child

Gobert posting a +16 or higher net (I have seen a few different numbers because apparently it is impossible to agree on what constitutes a possession) in the postseason is pretty wild considering there is a blowout win in that off-court sample. Going by PBP, which has him at +21 overall, the average of every other game has him at +32 overall. And even with that game included, he leads his teammates in both net and on-court rating.

I do not expect to consider him too seriously, but if Edwards drops off and the Mavericks are clearly struggling because of Gobert (like in those 2018/19 Rockets series), then I am willing to make a swap.

Fair enough. I did think of Gobert, though with the way Edwards has been playing, Rudy's sort of felt like the 2nd-best on his own team (and Ant-man is only a borderline candidate for me right now). Though it is sort of fun to watch opponents get the ball in the paint and just be like "nevermind"......and take it back out of the paint, whenever Gobert is in the game .

I suppose pending how he (and Edwards) close out the playoffs, he could indeed become a candidate for #5 (EDIT: I might "make the swap", as you both have said). He's worth an HM at least.

Presently I'm leaning toward two of Tatum, Brunson, and Haliburton as my #4 and #5. Though I could end up going with someone like LeBron, too, who was excellent in the rs and phenom in the playoffs, even if the Lakers lost in the 1st round (hard to put that squarely on his shoulders).

[Texas Chuck]

I'd find it hard to keep Rudy out of a top 5 right now. For me the question is how high can he get? He, Luka, and Tatum all figure to be jockeying for spots behind the big 2. And I guess if one of them just has 2 epic series leading his team to a title, I guess higher than that?

But hard for me to look at a team that wins on the strength of its defense with Gobert clearly showing to have the greatest on-court impact and giving to Edwards because he has cool dunks, scores the most points, and gives the most entertaining pressors (though I understand all of that stuff absolutely gets factored in).

[AEnigma]

Edwards also plays the most minutes (by a significant margin), is frequently the sole source of offence on his team, and by most indications seems to be the team leader (which is not to say Gobert and Conley and Towns and SloMo do not have their roles as well). No objections if people want to reward Gobert instead, and there are more opportunities to show that it is currently “his team”, but for me it is Edwards’ elevation from the regular season that has brought them this far.

[Texas Chuck]

Edwards also plays the most minutes (by a significant margin), is frequently the sole source of offence on his team, and by most indications seems to be the team leader (which is not to say Gobert and Conley and Towns and SloMo do not have their roles as well). No objections if people want to reward Gobert instead, and there are more opportunities to show that it is currently “his team”, but for me it is Edwards’ elevation from the regular season that has brought them this far.

Sure, but its like Cassell for them in 04. They went on a deep run because he delivered far more than any other KG sidekick had ever managed. He deserves a ton of credit for the success of that team. But not more than KG just because the KG contributions were nothing new.

[Colbinii]

I'd find it hard to keep Rudy out of a top 5 right now. For me the question is how high can he get? He, Luka, and Tatum all figure to be jockeying for spots behind the big 2. And I guess if one of them just has 2 epic series leading his team to a title, I guess higher than that?

But hard for me to look at a team that wins on the strength of its defense with Gobert clearly showing to have the greatest on-court impact and giving to Edwards because he has cool dunks, scores the most points, and gives the most entertaining pressors (though I understand all of that stuff absolutely gets factored in).

I don't think anyone on here thinks Edwards Dunks or Pressers are the reason he is here. That seems like a slight to this board and belongs either on the General Board or Reddit--but not in serious, high level basketball discourse.

[AEnigma]

Edwards also plays the most minutes (by a significant margin), is frequently the sole source of offence on his team, and by most indications seems to be the team leader (which is not to say Gobert and Conley and Towns and SloMo do not have their roles as well). No objections if people want to reward Gobert instead, and there are more opportunities to show that it is currently “his team”, but for me it is Edwards’ elevation from the regular season that has brought them this far.

Sure, but its like Cassell for them in 04. They went on a deep run because he delivered far more than any other KG sidekick had ever managed. He deserves a ton of credit for the success of that team. But not more than KG just because the KG contributions were nothing new.

I am generally not assessing Gobert anywhere close to 2004 Garnett (would entertain post-injury Garnett), nor am I assessing 2004 Cassell as particularly close to Edwards (although the gap on that side is smaller).

[Texas Chuck]

I'd find it hard to keep Rudy out of a top 5 right now. For me the question is how high can he get? He, Luka, and Tatum all figure to be jockeying for spots behind the big 2. And I guess if one of them just has 2 epic series leading his team to a title, I guess higher than that?

But hard for me to look at a team that wins on the strength of its defense with Gobert clearly showing to have the greatest on-court impact and giving to Edwards because he has cool dunks, scores the most points, and gives the most entertaining pressors (though I understand all of that stuff absolutely gets factored in).

I don't think anyone on here thinks Edwards Dunks or Pressers are the reason he is here. That seems like a slight to this board and belongs either on the General Board or Reddit--but not in serious, high level basketball discourse.

I didn't say here. But in national discourse its absolutely why he's viewed higher. If it doesn't apply to you, you don't have to feel offended, right?

[Texas Chuck]

Edwards also plays the most minutes (by a significant margin), is frequently the sole source of offence on his team, and by most indications seems to be the team leader (which is not to say Gobert and Conley and Towns and SloMo do not have their roles as well). No objections if people want to reward Gobert instead, and there are more opportunities to show that it is currently “his team”, but for me it is Edwards’ elevation from the regular season that has brought them this far.

Sure, but its like Cassell for them in 04. They went on a deep run because he delivered far more than any other KG sidekick had ever managed. He deserves a ton of credit for the success of that team. But not more than KG just because the KG contributions were nothing new.

I am generally not assessing Gobert anywhere close to 2004 Garnett (would entertain post-injury Garnett), nor am I assessing 2004 Cassell as particularly close to Edwards (although the gap on that side is smaller).

I'm not trying to say Gobert equals peak KG (though I think a lot higher of 04 Cassell than most, well Cassell in general really. IF you look at his career, almost all his teams had their best years in like a 1/4 century span when he was there (Rockets, Bucks, Wolves for sure). Not a coincidence.

I am saying though you were seemingly giving Edwards a bump for elevating, which is fine, but I don't get elevating him over Gobert if even with that elevation to his game if Gobert is still better.

[Colbinii]

I'd find it hard to keep Rudy out of a top 5 right now. For me the question is how high can he get? He, Luka, and Tatum all figure to be jockeying for spots behind the big 2. And I guess if one of them just has 2 epic series leading his team to a title, I guess higher than that?

But hard for me to look at a team that wins on the strength of its defense with Gobert clearly showing to have the greatest on-court impact and giving to Edwards because he has cool dunks, scores the most points, and gives the most entertaining pressors (though I understand all of that stuff absolutely gets factored in).

I don't think anyone on here thinks Edwards Dunks or Pressers are the reason he is here. That seems like a slight to this board and belongs either on the General Board or Reddit--but not in serious, high level basketball discourse.

I didn't say here. But in national discourse its absolutely why he's viewed higher. If it doesn't apply to you, you don't have to feel offended, right?

I didn't realize National discourse would be brought into this discussion on this board, but I see it does matter to some.

I'm not offended, though on a related note to the General Board, my household likely has better Hispanic food than most of Dallas

[Texas Chuck]

I don't think anyone on here thinks Edwards Dunks or Pressers are the reason he is here. That seems like a slight to this board and belongs either on the General Board or Reddit--but not in serious, high level basketball discourse.

I didn't say here. But in national discourse its absolutely why he's viewed higher. If it doesn't apply to you, you don't have to feel offended, right?

I didn't realize National discourse would be brought into this discussion on this board, but I see it does matter to some.

I'm not offended, though on a related note to the General Board, my household likely has better Hispanic food than most of Dallas

Hey don't hate on my homer trolling itt. Chipotle is so bad, I was trying to bring the temperature down a bit with a bunch of nonsense.

But congrats on the good food. I've been dating a Mexican-American and man the food I have access to now is unbelievable. So I get it. Good Tex-Mex, Mexican food is just so so good.

[trex_8063]

I'd find it hard to keep Rudy out of a top 5 right now. For me the question is how high can he get? He, Luka, and Tatum all figure to be jockeying for spots behind the big 2. And I guess if one of them just has 2 epic series leading his team to a title, I guess higher than that?

But hard for me to look at a team that wins on the strength of its defense with Gobert clearly showing to have the greatest on-court impact and giving to Edwards because he has cool dunks, scores the most points, and gives the most entertaining pressors (though I understand all of that stuff absolutely gets factored in).

Edwards also plays the most minutes (by a significant margin), is frequently the sole source of offence on his team, and by most indications seems to be the team leader (which is not to say Gobert and Conley and Towns and SloMo do not have their roles as well). No objections if people want to reward Gobert instead, and there are more opportunities to show that it is currently “his team”, but for me it is Edwards’ elevation from the regular season that has brought them this far.

I feel [and this may not apply to you, Chuck.....you'll have to utilize self-assessment to determine for yourself] that there's an over-simplification of thinking that often occurs, along the lines of: "they win primarily because of their defense, and this is the best/most valuable DEFENSIVE player.....therefore he's clearly the best/most valuable guy on the team."

We see at least the fringes of this thinking every time someone wants to criticize Allen Iverson: they bring up that the '01 Sixers were good primarily because of their defense (which, fwiw, wasn't actually the case during the first 2-3 rounds of the playoffs: it was their OFFENSE that overperformed while their defense UNDERperformed, which carried them to the Finals ), and Iverson was one of the weaker defensive players in their primary rotation.
I've even seen person(s) argue that Dikembe/Ratliff was the best player on that team.

Couple things [opinions] I have regarding this line of thinking....
I feel one **Star Offensive** player can "carry" the offense (amid midling to poor help) better than one **Star Defensive** player can "carry" the defense (amid midling to poor help).

Think of:
*TMac on the '03 Magic-->that was actually the 10th-rated offense, despite the highest-minute supporting cast players being [in descending order of minutes]: Pat Garrity, aging Darrell Armstrong, Mike Miller, Jacque Vaughn, bloated Shawn Kemp, Andrew Declercq, Jeryl Sasser, and Gordon Giricek.
**Kobe on the '06 Lakers--->8th-rated offense with the following cast [again descending order of minutes]: Lamar Odom, Smush Parker, Kwame Brown, Devean George, Chris Mihm, Brian Cook, Sasha Vujacic, and Luke Walton.
Or.....
***Iverson on the '01 Sixers--->+0.6 rORTG 13th-rated offense [that way overperformed in the playoffs] with: Dikembe Mutombo/Theo Ratliff combo [Deke being the one around in playoffs], George Lynch, Aaron McKie, Tyrone Hill, Eric Snow, Toni Kukoc [though not for playoffs], Jumaine Jones, Kevin Ollie.


Vs (here going with "defensive stars" with BAD defensive casts):
*Draymond Green on the '20 Warriors--->26th-rated defense. I know he missed a lot of time, but even when he was on-court [note: not just "games he was present for", but when he was literally ON the court] their rDRTG was still +1.6 (would have been tied for 20th in the league). Cast was: Eric Pacshall, Glenn Robinson III, Damian Lee, Alec Burkes, Jordan Poole, Marques Chriss, D'Angelo Russell, Ky Bowman, Willie Cauley-Stein, and Omari Spellman.
**Dikembe Mutombo on the '00 Hawks--->tied for 25th [of 29] teams defensively with this cast: Alan Henderson, Jim Jackson, Isaiah Rider, Bimbo Coles, Jason Terry, LaPhonso Ellis, Lorenzen Wright, Roshown McLeod. Deke played a team-high nearly 3k minutes on that team, too.
***Nate Thurmond on the '74 Warriors--->+0.7 rDRTG, with Thurmond being a close 4th in total minutes. Cast was: Rick Barry, Cazzie Russell, Jeff Mullins, Butch Beard, Jim Barnett, Clyde Lee, *George Johnson, Charles Johnson, and Derrek Dickey. (*GJ was actually very good defensively, nor would I describe everyone listed here as flatly "bad" defensively; and yet...)


The reason for this phenomenon is [imo], that a single great defender can only clean up so many messes that the rest of the team creates. To his credit, a guy like Gobert can erase a number of sins. But to a greater degree, excellent TEAM defense is the product of a solid coordinated TEAM effort (especially in TODAY'S league).

Solid offense often relies upon solid team contribution, too; but an offensive star-level player can usually generate a decent(ish) look for someone even when everything else breaks down. And even in today's league, there are still A LOT of offensive possessions that come down to some iso ball action. Surprisingly(ish) (only because they're one of the best offenses in the league), you still see a lot of iso action on the current Celtics team (usually Tatum or Brown) . The Celtics are just able to compliment that with a plethora of shooters and guys who take really good care of the ball.
Lot of iso on the Suns this year, too.


So circling back to Gobert and Edwards on the TWolves:
Yes, Gobert is the most important defensive piece.......but that's actually still a pretty good defensive squad even without him. I know it's a 1-game sample, but look to game 2 against the Nuggets as evidence. That 1st half was possible the single-greatest team defensive performance I've ever seen; and Rudy wasn't even dressed!
McDaniels and NAW are both long, athletic, super-versatile perimeter defenders. KAT, when he's bought-in defensively, is a solid low-post defender. Naz provides some rim protection. Kyle Anderson is a savvy veteran defender; ditto Mike Conley (though small). And Edwards himself is a very respectable perimeter defender (so he's a significantly part of that defensive rating).

There almost isn't a true weak spot [on defense] amid their primary line-up.

On offense, they're far from "crap"; I don't want to imply that Edwards has "carried" the offense all season. But if you replaced him with, say......Reggie Jackson; that would have been a significantly below average offense, and likely would struggle MIGHTILY in the playoffs.
But because Edwards is who he is, this was actually a +0.3 rORTG team in the rs that performed as a monstrous +13.5 rORTG [relative to defense faced] in the 1st round, and a +1.6 rORTG in the WCSF.


Erase from existence EITHER player, and I'm sure the TWolves are not in the WCF. But I just don't think it's as simple as noting that they're largely dominant because of their defense and that Rudy is the best defensive player.

[AEnigma]

Sure, but its like Cassell for them in 04. They went on a deep run because he delivered far more than any other KG sidekick had ever managed. He deserves a ton of credit for the success of that team. But not more than KG just because the KG contributions were nothing new.

I am generally not assessing Gobert anywhere close to 2004 Garnett (would entertain post-injury Garnett), nor am I assessing 2004 Cassell as particularly close to Edwards (although the gap on that side is smaller).

I'm not trying to say Gobert equals peak KG (though I think a lot higher of 04 Cassell than most, well Cassell in general really. IF you look at his career, almost all his teams had their best years in like a 1/4 century span when he was there (Rockets, Bucks, Wolves for sure). Not a coincidence.

Well, it is kind-of a coincidence. He was useful on the Rockets — had he been present in 1993, they may well have won a title — but he also played less than half the game during those two title runs. Effective on the Nets, although would not characterise him as too distinct from Marbury in real effect on the team (1998 better team results than 1999/2000, but on an individual level they were pretty comparable). The 2001 Bucks are a good spike result but not exactly operating on that level in the surrounding seasons. Clippers briefly benefit from having a full season with a real point guard but again do not massively suffer the following season when he is more limited. And then his splits without Garnett are pretty brutal. He is fine. Deserved his 2004 recognition, but similarly deserved that being his only recognition. I would take Conley over most equal frames.

I am saying though you were seemingly giving Edwards a bump for elevating, which is fine, but I don't get elevating him over Gobert if even with that elevation to his game if Gobert is still better.

I had them as relatively even in the regular season, and the only reason I was even that low on Edwards was because of his youth and annoying shot selection.

[Doctor MJ]

Okay so I've taken a couple days break from discussion on here, but I owe a response here, in particular because there's a question involved.

That also means Heej that I'm kinda teeing off on you, and I'm sorry if that feels like escalation.

I want to emphasize that this isn't just about you - it's part of a broader phenomenon - but you're the one I'm interacting with at the moment, so it can't help but be directed back at you.

You certainly have the right to respond and call me out of hypocrisy, etc, but I do want to make clear that my perspective here is not based on an assumption that I personally represent an ideal, so much as me seeing where the force of the discussion is going and being disturbed by it.

While I know I come across as condescending at times, I truly am humbled by the game of basketball and its nuances, and I'd like to learn from others who can see things I cannot. But there's not a lot for me to learn when the takeaways I get from people are just about who got "exposed" in any given game. It's in the team play that I have most to learn, and unfortunately, I feel like we're actually getting less team analysis nowadays that in the past in the rush to crown GOATs and goats.

What does Riley fighting against the rules changes have to do with the fact that he correctly predicted the inevitable switchable positionless paradigm shift 40 years in advance? He was right that it would hold back offenses. It took NBA offenses 20 years to optimize methods to attempt to solve hybrid zone schemes. ESPN literally had an article called "Where did all the 20 point scorers go?" In the late 2000s blaming Thibs' pre-flooding the box gamebreaking paradigm as the ultimate consequence of allowing zones into the NBA. Riley wasn't wrong at all about either that or the ultimate shape the NBA will take in due time so I'm not sure what exactly your point is with that bruv.

No one painted pace and space itself as a gimmick LMFAO. They painted small-ball as the gimmick (and the 2 were somewhat synonymous at the time given that the NBA was undergoing a transition period).

So I'll break in here:

From my perspective there isn't one "positionless paradigm shift". It's something that ebbs and flows - for about a century now -depending on more acute changes - which are the things I see as paradigm shifts.

So I'm looking at the 21st century as having the most dramatic paradigm shift since the arrival of the big man, and it's not do to positionless basketball, it's due to pace & space. Doesn't mean we can't talk about positionless things coming into play with things like switchability, but from a perspective of talking visionaries seeing everything coming and applying this to specific player assessments in a tight 7 game series, the idea that thinking in terms of positionlessness 40 years ago is relevant just seems like focusing on one minor thing to try to claim a prescience that literally no one has.

Re: no one painted pace and space as a gimmick. They painted what the Suns were doing as a gimmick, which is the same thing. The fact that back then most were not using the term "pace and space" doesn't mean anything other than people were THAT behind the curve. Within the Suns, they were using the pace & space terminology right from the jump, and that's where the terminology spread from.

Let's also note that Barkley was still on TV saying "jump shooting teams can't win it all" a decade later. This is all part of the same phenomenon. People who cut their teeth in previous eras of the NBA largely didn't think long-range shooting was a recipe for top tier team play, and they were wrong. That's the big lesson of the 21st century, and while there were visionaries for this most important shift, Riley was not one of them.

Re: LMFAO. Simply put, I'm not someone to be laughed at. Not because I'm a mod or anything like that, I'm just a serious, respected person in my life who no one would dare talk like this to face to face.

Now, talk like this on the internet is common as air of course and I'm not so naive to suggest that by pushing back here no one will ever talk this way again. But folks here should not think that simply because people on the internet talk like this, the acronym doesn't mean what it literally means.

I've been on here for 2 decades trying to build the best basketball analysis culture I can, and while I don't want to blow a notion of accomplishment out of proportion here, if you're here in this discussion right now, you're here in part because of the work I've put in to try to give us a place we can talk about basketball meaningfully.

I'd ask you to remember that that's what I've been trying to do as you mock me.

There have been centers with guard-like skills since the dawn of competitive basketball.

Indeed it's been around since before Pat Riley was born waxing and waning in significance depending on the specific innovations of the era.

My "Ovethinking Basketball" jabs are for the people who purposely misunderstand the concept of portability and wield it as a cudgel to punish players they find aesthetically or ethically unpleasant. It just so happens this board has a raging hard-on for...

Dude, I'll just say, when people devolve into this they just look small and immature. It's in the water of the internet now of course so I don't want to imply it's just you, or that there aren't people acting badly you're responding to, but try not to let it pull you down into the muck if you want people to really listen to your ideas.

The Europeans saw all this coming way before Americans did. D'Antoni was just a natural expression of the inevitable revolution coming to basketball where bigger folks will inevitably get faster and more skilled

It's certainly true that Europe was ahead of the US strategically in recent decades.

Re: D'Antoni was... talking about pace & space first and foremost. He certainly understood that you'd rather have a bigger & faster guys than a smaller & slower guy, but that's because everyone has always understood this. The stuff you're talking about, in other words, while it was understood by D'Antoni, was only tangentially related to the actual new ideas that transformed the game.

The problem that Jokic ran into is that part of his processing speed advantage was taken away with his postups because everyone and their mama knew what the defense's next move was and Jokic was forced to play into the hands of the defense by resetting on a kickout. Ain't much advantage to be generated if everyone knows what the other person is gonna do, at that point it's just about executing on the most basic of fundamentals. The real problem was Jokic couldn't get KAT in foul trouble quickly enough to get them out of that alignment, nor could he prevent it by operating in a different manner on the floor for his go-to buckets.

I don't think this result was inevitable. This was an evenly matched slugfest between two teams that are juggernauts in their own ways. This just came down to Minny having a better answer for their superstar getting swarmed than Denver did, and the variance in shotmaking tilting towards the TWolves down the stretch because they were better able to generate easy looks in transition.

Emphasizing the part in bold which I'm so glad you said here.

I can acknowledge being a bit triggered by the post Game 7 responses, and the reason more than anything else is that it was a Game 7 in a 7 game series where hot/cold shooting had everything to do with the difference between the 1st & 2nd halves. Minnesota EARNED their win without question, but in terms of people pontificating about "things they knew" ahead of time, it makes me snort.

When series are this close, nobody predicts these things with the level of precision that I consider warranted in order to take a victory lap.

I'm quick to credit those who went out on a limb ahead of time as believers in what the Timberwolves were doing, and will acknowledge that my skepticism led me to be considerably lower on them than they deserved...but they still barely won this series, and did so on the back of a team effort where all sorts of supporting players shined. Not a reason to take anything away from that team...

but of course that gets back into what's setting me off here. What I'm seeing is a tendency to just use every game as a reason to tee off on whichever star is on the losing team, and those on these boards associated with that star/team.

That negativity is a choice - and an unwise one generally imho - but it's also absurd to me when we're talking about close series decided by complex team nuances that could have easily gone another way.

Of course the thing is: Had things gone another way, what would people have been doing? Crucifying Ant. If what people want is to find someone to tear down, they can always find in a game with a winner and a loser. And while it makes sense for us to discuss the winners and losers, when tight 7 game series still end up mostly as a reason to rip into whoever ends up on the losing end, to me it becomes clear that people are first and foremost looking to wallow in the muck.

This isn't an utterly new phenomenon of course, but dayum, is it LOUD now. It feels like it's swallowed the meaningful basketball conversation - and given that I don't think anyone is basketball media is getting paid more than Stephen A, I'd say it's more than just a feeling.

[Texas Chuck]

So Luka and Gobert take another step forward. Ant didn't help his case any for sure.

And another game where so much the talk is the drop and Rudy gets blamed for a scheme choice, the Wolves won Rudy's minutes convincingly. It was his 4th quarter rest where Dallas went on a big run and turned the game.

Luka with only one really bad turnover. Just in total control out there. A great example of how you can have a great game without great stats. He orchestrated against an elite defense while being defended by an all-D wing with great size with Rudy waiting for him in the paint.

Ant just seemed off all night. Reggie was right about him looking totally gassed. He also mentioned a grimace, but I never saw that or any obvious physical impairment other than fatigue. Tough to chase Ky around and be a first option.

[Ambrose]

That's the Luka I was hoping to see. Big at the end, and lots of great plays defensively. Great game.

[AEnigma]

Okay so I've taken a couple days break from discussion on here, but I owe a response here, in particular because there's a question involved.

That also means Heej that I'm kinda teeing off on you, and I'm sorry if that feels like escalation.

I want to emphasize that this isn't just about you - it's part of a broader phenomenon - but you're the one I'm interacting with at the moment, so it can't help but be directed back at you.

You certainly have the right to respond and call me out of hypocrisy, etc, but I do want to make clear that my perspective here is not based on an assumption that I personally represent an ideal, so much as me seeing where the force of the discussion is going and being disturbed by it.

While I know I come across as condescending at times, I truly am humbled by the game of basketball and its nuances, and I'd like to learn from others who can see things I cannot. But there's not a lot for me to learn when the takeaways I get from people are just about who got "exposed" in any given game. It's in the team play that I have most to learn, and unfortunately, I feel like we're actually getting less team analysis nowadays that in the past in the rush to crown GOATs and goats.

Doc, this would ring a lot truer if so much of the conversation crowning Jokic did not deliberately skirt past any real team analysis while much of the apparently “negative” conversation around him has revolved around the exact type of team analysis you just claimed you want to see more. When you say things like…

I can acknowledge being a bit triggered by the post Game 7 responses, and the reason more than anything else is that it was a Game 7 in a 7 game series where hot/cold shooting had everything to do with the difference between the 1st & 2nd halves. Minnesota EARNED their win without question, but in terms of people pontificating about "things they knew" ahead of time, it makes me snort.

When series are this close, nobody predicts these things with the level of precision that I consider warranted in order to take a victory lap.

I'm quick to credit those who went out on a limb ahead of time as believers in what the Timberwolves were doing, and will acknowledge that my skepticism led me to be considerably lower on them than they deserved...but they still barely won this series, and did so on the back of a team effort where all sorts of supporting players shined. Not a reason to take anything away from that team...

… I find myself asking, where exactly is the “team analysis” here? The Wolves “barely won” a series where they had wins of 7 points, 8 points, 26 points, and 45 points (and to your on-wins idea, those two closer wins saw the Nuggets close the deficit while Jokic was on the bench). The Wolves went on the road against the league’s best homecourt advantage and won three times, and every time they committed to what Heej calls the Ham scheme, the Nuggets’ offence would go completely stagnant if Murray was not hitting his shots (and then when he was hitting his shots, the Wolves would dial up the pressure on him from their bigger wings and dramatically reduce his effectiveness). But rather than analyse that, rather than engage with the thoughtful commentary (not saying it is all thoughtful, just that much of it is) from people who have spent months trying to gesture at these potential weaknesses… Here you are effectively waving it away as mere variance and luck. That is not analysis, Doc, and if you are going to “tee off” on people because you think that criticising Jokic’s limitations is too “negative”, then I really do not understand what example you think you are setting here.

Like…

but of course that gets back into what's setting me off here. What I'm seeing is a tendency to just use every game as a reason to tee off on whichever star is on the losing team, and those on these boards associated with that star/team.

… this is reductive, disrespectful, and dismissive. What exactly are people supposed to do? Shrug and say, oops, variance, move on, see if the ball falls their way next year? Is that your idea of analysis? Earlier you posted Jokic’s statline and asked how people could criticise him. That is your idea of analysis?

That negativity is a choice - and an unwise one generally imho - but it's also absurd to me when we're talking about close series decided by complex team nuances that could have easily gone another way.

What nuances. The only analysis of “complex team nuances” I have seen is from the people who have paid specific attention to what each team changes game to game, what coverages are working, what each player is actually doing for what purpose and in what role. And I have not been seeing that from you during this series or from most of the “anti-Jokic negativity” crowd. These lectures go nowhere without an example of what you actually want or expect.

Of course the thing is: Had things gone another way, what would people have been doing? Crucifying Ant. If what people want is to find someone to tear down, they can always find in a game with a winner and a loser. And while it makes sense for us to discuss the winners and losers, when tight 7 game series still end up mostly as a reason to rip into whoever ends up on the losing end, to me it becomes clear that people are first and foremost looking to wallow in the muck.

Again, this is reductive, disrespectful, and dismissive. It is also ludicrous when we had another tight seven game series conclude on the same day, and strangely, I did not see any particular “ripping” on Brunson. Tight six-game series with the Thunder and Mavericks, and no real “ripping” on Shai. At this point I need to ask, are you just upset that people are targeting Jokic? If so, why? If you think they are being unfair, in what way specifically as it pertains to his play (rather than to what we all can see on the end of game stat summary). How are these criticisms wrong? Answering any of that seems significantly more productive than this moralistic tirade that manages to avoid saying anything about the series beyond “well it was close and a tale of hot/cold shooting”. Is there any explanation why players may have experienced a shift in their shot-making coming out of half-time? Anything we can examine? Anything that may be gleaned from seeing that it happened twice in this series, both times with the Nuggets suddenly finding themselves unable to score on their own home court in the second half? Any “complex nuances” there?

Or is your preference to characterise it as mere luck and variance and then scold those suggesting something else was at play.

And in the same vein that you are “teeing off” on Heej as a representative for all the negative Nancys, I hope you will permit this teeing off on you as a representative for all the people whose reaction to analysis of the loss was to immediately start a coddling process where any comprehensive criticism must be mean-spirited and unfair and excessive. And hey, maybe some of it was — but that tends to happen when contrary voices get deliberately drowned out by effusive yet empty praise.

[OhayoKD]

I'd ask you to remember that that's what I've been trying to do as you mock me.
.

Laughing at an idea you propose is not the same as mocking you, and isn't meaningfully different from this:

I can acknowledge being a bit triggered by the post Game 7 responses, and the reason more than anything else is that it was a Game 7 in a 7 game series where hot/cold shooting had everything to do with the difference between the 1st & 2nd halves. Minnesota EARNED their win without question, but in terms of people pontificating about "things they knew" ahead of time, it makes me snort.

Think I covered the rest with my previous reply.

[Special_Puppy]

I don't really understand how someone could be materially lower on Jokic after the Wolves series. I think its much more reasonable to be materially higher on him after the series! Taking a +6.3 SRS team that just brutally swept a +3.1 SRS team the previous round to 7 games (and being outscored only by +3.4 points per 100 in non-garbage time minutes) is actually really freaking good considering how poorly the non-Jokic Nuggets besides Aaron Gordon did. By basically all the traditional and advanced stats, Jokic basically carried his team in incredibly tough circumstances this series. And honestly the evidence to the contrary is mostly just on/off analysis on very small samples, the "eye test", and fairly questionable qualitative analysis

[clearlynotjesse]

Jokic discourse is good for the board. He has the aestheic/demeanor, box score stuffing, and impact signals that everyone can rally around. But we now have the tools, data, and just ball knowledge to look at the next layer and recognize some problems in his game. Also recognize that almost all the Jokic critics have him at the top of their lists anyway. He can be the best without being infallible.