2020-21 NBA Season Discussion

[Doctor MJ]

I don’t think it’s as simple as ”better rim protection -> better defender”.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I don't either. But Rudy Gobert is clearly the best defensive player in the league so hunting and searching for ways to justify Simmons is just outthinking it. I mean he's not even more impactful than his own teammate Embiid.

You can do enough defensively to be the best defender in the league without being an elite rim protector, but all things being equal rim and paint protection and deterrence is still the most valuable element of defense--even in a league that continues to spam 3's.

Was KG a better defender than Marcus Camby? Of course he was. But was he really better than Deke or Duncan or Robinson? I'm convinced he wasn't. And that's okay. Still an incredibly elite two-way player.

So yeah, I think it is as simple as "Gobert is the most impactful defender of the season, and no big minute player has a better on-court DRtg even before you remember that this has allowed the Jazz to be the best team of the regular season".

I'm honestly kinda offended by the Simmons candidacy, and I think there should be a rule that whenever Doc Rivers promotes one of his players, that players is automatically eliminated from consideration because it's his freaking fault that the players named DeAndre "Tell me what to do because I can't think for myself" Jordan won the player's DPOY.

I do understand that Gobert gets exposed by some elite players in the playoffs and this may end up - again - convincing me not to give him my vote for All-Season DPOY, but this is a regular season award, and Gobert deserves to be seen as one of the top candidates for MVP this year on the back of his defensive play.

Simmons? Probably won't ever deserve to be an MVP candidate despite the fact that he's much more of an offensive star.

[Doctor MJ]

Gobert still criminally underrated.

Definitely should be considered a dark horse for a top 3 MVP pick.
Not that I think Jokic clearly deserves it, but Gobert absolutely shouldn't be outside the top 3-5.

My correction: Dark horse for MVP, and absolutely should be a Top 3 MVP pick. I find this mockery I'm seeing directed toward Gobert as an MVP candidate to be a pretty clear litmus test between those who are actually judging player value and those who are looking to give the award to someone who scores a lot.

[bondom34]

Well by ESPN he's getting slghtly more attention than his own teammate which I don't get but hey here we are.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

[Doctor MJ]

Hope LMA gets his health sorted!

What predictions do folks have for All-NBA squads at this point? Here's my guess for the teams:

1st:
Stephen Curry
Luka Doncic
Kawhi Leonard
Giannis Antetokounmpo
Nikola Jokic

2nd:
Damian Lillard
James Harden
Jimmy Butler
LeBron James
Rudy Gobert

3rd:
Trae Young
Chris Paul
Paul George
Julius Randle
Joel Embiid

Pretty crazy that it's arguable the 3 best guys per minute this season have all been centers. Murray probably would've been on my 3rd team without the injury. Tatum/Zion/Conley probably my toughest excludes, but could all still make it.

I'd say I think about things pretty similarly up top. The two guards spots remain up in the air, but my feeling is that it needs to be between Curry, Doncic, and Lillard. Harden had a shot before his injury, but I really don't see any reason to see him as high as those 3 now.

The lower spots I'm not so set, but what you put doesn't seem crazy.

Thoughts on Zion?

[Doctor MJ]

Well by ESPN he's getting slghtly more attention than his own teammate which I don't get but hey here we are.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

If we existed right now soon after the Bill Russell years, Gobert would be seen as a major candidate. We haven't seen someone of this stripe be this valuable in decades (not counting the Olajuwons of the world who volume scored), and nowadays pretty much everyone other than rigorous thinkers just think in terms defined by Jordan. If you're not an offensive superstar...

[bondom34]

Well by ESPN he's getting slghtly more attention than his own teammate which I don't get but hey here we are.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

If we existed right now soon after the Bill Russell years, Gobert would be seen as a major candidate. We haven't seen someone of this stripe be this valuable in decades (not counting the Olajuwons of the world who volume scored), and nowadays pretty much everyone other than rigorous thinkers just think in terms defined by Jordan. If you're not an offensive superstar...

I still have him more in the 3-5 range myself I think, but seeing him and Mitchell considered this close is weird. Same for Booker and Paul.

Hearing Mark Jackson on ESPN asking why Booker wasn't in the MVP discussion had me ready to throw something.

[eminence]

I'd say I think about things pretty similarly up top. The two guards spots remain up in the air, but my feeling is that it needs to be between Curry, Doncic, and Lillard. Harden had a shot before his injury, but I really don't see any reason to see him as high as those 3 now.

The lower spots I'm not so set, but what you put doesn't seem crazy.

Thoughts on Zion?

I love me some Zion!

He's just such a unique player. His inevitability on offense is something I don't feel like I've ever seen before (maybe folks felt this way about Moses?). How explosive he is in all directions is breath-taking to watch. Obviously still plenty of young player things to work on.

Overall wouldn't be at all surprised to see him on the 3rd team, and wouldn't mind it at all, though it might take getting the Pelicans into the play-in. In terms of level he's probably above Randle for me this season, but Randle's been such a ridiculous workhorse. The Randle vote here was at least partially as a shoutout to somebody I think is worthy of consideration but I expect won't get real consideration.

[Doctor MJ]

I still have him more in the 3-5 range myself I think, but seeing him and Mitchell considered this close is weird. Same for Booker and Paul.

Hearing Mark Jackson on ESPN asking why Booker wasn't in the MVP discussion had me ready to throw something.

The Gobert-Mitchell thing is a HUGE problem. To me it really displays a mindset wherein people feel entitled to vote based which players skills they respect more regardless of how valuable they are.

"Hearing Mark Jackson"... that was your first mistake.

[bondom34]

I still have him more in the 3-5 range myself I think, but seeing him and Mitchell considered this close is weird. Same for Booker and Paul.

Hearing Mark Jackson on ESPN asking why Booker wasn't in the MVP discussion had me ready to throw something.

The Gobert-Mitchell thing is a HUGE problem. To me it really displays a mindset wherein people feel entitled to vote based which players skills they respect more regardless of how valuable they are.

"Hearing Mark Jackson"... that was your first mistake.

I admit I usually don't listen to the games much and just have them on in the background but was thinking I was glad I don't hear him much.

Feels like something ElGee would have written about in terms of maybe a cognitive thing and how people view basketball. I was actually thinking similar from the other thread and it relates to Gobert (was from the Lillard thread, but its a topic I find fascinating on a lot of NBA players) and in some ways relates to how he's seen in MVP talk I might venture a guess. How players are perceived vs reality.

It came up with the idea of Lillard in the playoffs but works both ways and I'm not sure if it's a thing of how players are covered/talked about or just how people like/dislike guys or both, but have been in discussions with smart people who will say some things that just don't really follow up. Some of it seems to be coverage, but some may just be moments that stick in people's minds.

It ranges from the idea of Lebron not being "clutch", Jokic being a bad defender, Gobert being played off the court in the playoffs, Steph being a choker, Paul George being a bad playoff performer, there are tons more too). And it's not new (Dirk being a terrible defender, plenty of Jordan legends, and on and on). Just hit me again but it goes to some of the Booker stuff mentioned above too and in regards to his all time Suns rank even. It seems to run with how guys are perceived and covered at times.

Not sure if that makes sense, and just was sort of something I was thinking about more recently as it's a topic that really interests (and at times frustrates) me as part of me is just interested in how people perceive and think about stuff.

[BIGJ1ER]

I still have him more in the 3-5 range myself I think, but seeing him and Mitchell considered this close is weird. Same for Booker and Paul.

Hearing Mark Jackson on ESPN asking why Booker wasn't in the MVP discussion had me ready to throw something.

The Gobert-Mitchell thing is a HUGE problem. To me it really displays a mindset wherein people feel entitled to vote based which players skills they respect more regardless of how valuable they are.

"Hearing Mark Jackson"... that was your first mistake.

Seeing Mitchell and Booker even receive any MVP votes is just offensive imo, they're just not even close to top 10 level players nor are they the best players on their teams.

Like it's one thing for KD/steph or Lebron/AD to split some votes considering how good they all are, but when you have players on their levels receiving votes over a clearly superior teammate, it just makes you question who actually receives voting rights.

Like you said, I just don't think a lot of voters can separate themselves from the traditional view that a primary scoring option/volume scorer has to be the most valuable player on the team, when we have plenty of data that points us in a far different direction.

Those two (Mitchell and Booker) hit a particular soft spot for me since they clearly have absolutely no business being in these discussions, and seeing Mitchell marketed as Utah's best player over and over has just been frustrating to watch.

[Lost92Bricks]

So CP3 just had a 4 game stretch of 40 assists and 1 turnover. My question is did anybody (if you watched) notice him playing safe? I never notice it when watching, he just seems like a guy racking up alot of assists. It's only when you look at the boxscore that you notice he doesn't have a turnover.

[Doctor MJ]

I still have him more in the 3-5 range myself I think, but seeing him and Mitchell considered this close is weird. Same for Booker and Paul.

Hearing Mark Jackson on ESPN asking why Booker wasn't in the MVP discussion had me ready to throw something.

The Gobert-Mitchell thing is a HUGE problem. To me it really displays a mindset wherein people feel entitled to vote based which players skills they respect more regardless of how valuable they are.

"Hearing Mark Jackson"... that was your first mistake.

I admit I usually don't listen to the games much and just have them on in the background but was thinking I was glad I don't hear him much.

Feels like something ElGee would have written about in terms of maybe a cognitive thing and how people view basketball. I was actually thinking similar from the other thread and it relates to Gobert (was from the Lillard thread, but its a topic I find fascinating on a lot of NBA players) and in some ways relates to how he's seen in MVP talk I might venture a guess. How players are perceived vs reality.

It came up with the idea of Lillard in the playoffs but works both ways and I'm not sure if it's a thing of how players are covered/talked about or just how people like/dislike guys or both, but have been in discussions with smart people who will say some things that just don't really follow up. Some of it seems to be coverage, but some may just be moments that stick in people's minds.

It ranges from the idea of Lebron not being "clutch", Jokic being a bad defender, Gobert being played off the court in the playoffs, Steph being a choker, Paul George being a bad playoff performer, there are tons more too). And it's not new (Dirk being a terrible defender, plenty of Jordan legends, and on and on). Just hit me again but it goes to some of the Booker stuff mentioned above too and in regards to his all time Suns rank even. It seems to run with how guys are perceived and covered at times.

Not sure if that makes sense, and just was sort of something I was thinking about more recently as it's a topic that really interests (and at times frustrates) me as part of me is just interested in how people perceive and think about stuff.

I'm not sure if I understand all of what you're feeling here, but I'm certainly down to talk about cognition/perception.

I've been thinking a lot lately about schemas that aren't built bottom up - from truly well-grounded first principles.
What happens you build from the top down?

Well, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are certainly going to be endemic to the process, and it gets much worse when pride and identity get involved.

But as I say all that, I'd also contend that we don't actually get a choice about whether we make top-down connections, because in the end the brain seems to be much more of a link-making machine than it is a cause-identifying machine. And there's much that lives in the sea of our minds that got in there without us consciously processing the entirety of the splash it left in its wake.

So I don't believe we can prevent ourselves from getting attached to top-down ideas, and I think it would be great if we can all just gain skill and comfort at rooting out the things we know that are not so.

[bondom34]

The Gobert-Mitchell thing is a HUGE problem. To me it really displays a mindset wherein people feel entitled to vote based which players skills they respect more regardless of how valuable they are.

"Hearing Mark Jackson"... that was your first mistake.

I admit I usually don't listen to the games much and just have them on in the background but was thinking I was glad I don't hear him much.

Feels like something ElGee would have written about in terms of maybe a cognitive thing and how people view basketball. I was actually thinking similar from the other thread and it relates to Gobert (was from the Lillard thread, but its a topic I find fascinating on a lot of NBA players) and in some ways relates to how he's seen in MVP talk I might venture a guess. How players are perceived vs reality.

It came up with the idea of Lillard in the playoffs but works both ways and I'm not sure if it's a thing of how players are covered/talked about or just how people like/dislike guys or both, but have been in discussions with smart people who will say some things that just don't really follow up. Some of it seems to be coverage, but some may just be moments that stick in people's minds.

It ranges from the idea of Lebron not being "clutch", Jokic being a bad defender, Gobert being played off the court in the playoffs, Steph being a choker, Paul George being a bad playoff performer, there are tons more too). And it's not new (Dirk being a terrible defender, plenty of Jordan legends, and on and on). Just hit me again but it goes to some of the Booker stuff mentioned above too and in regards to his all time Suns rank even. It seems to run with how guys are perceived and covered at times.

Not sure if that makes sense, and just was sort of something I was thinking about more recently as it's a topic that really interests (and at times frustrates) me as part of me is just interested in how people perceive and think about stuff.

I'm not sure if I understand all of what you're feeling here, but I'm certainly down to talk about cognition/perception.

I've been thinking a lot lately about schemas that aren't built bottom up - from truly well-grounded first principles.
What happens you build from the top down?

Well, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are certainly going to be endemic to the process, and it gets much worse when pride and identity get involved.

But as I say all that, I'd also contend that we don't actually get a choice about whether we make top-down connections, because in the end the brain seems to be much more of a link-making machine than it is a cause-identifying machine. And there's much that lives in the sea of our minds that got in there without us consciously processing the entirety of the splash it left in its wake.

So I don't believe we can prevent ourselves from getting attached to top-down ideas, and I think it would be great if we can all just gain skill and comfort at rooting out the things we know that are not so.

I think a lot of it is just an interest in cognitive bias and seeing some at work, as well as just some mental effects (not sure the correct term as it's not my field). Just thinking of some of the examples given, and I know I've had to check myself in the past because the numbers and reality don't match up with how things are sometimes perceived in terms of how players really did/do perform. I was thinking along the lines of the Lillard/George back and forth we had, but it goes further into a guy like Gobert being called out for being played off the court in the playoffs (really he hasn't, he had a bad matchup or two but that happens to a lot of players). Or even seeing people I respect say things about Curry's playoff performances being worse than Lillard's.

It goes to off court stuff too. I've heard plenty of quotes from players where fans have no reaction or a positive one, and I know pretty confidently that if another player said the same they'd be put to task.

And I'd mentioned it earlier and it's a largely separate issue but does have to do with how a player is perceived and skews things a ton but anchoring bias is absolutely a big one each season. Every year a player starts hot or cold and that suddenly becomes how people see them the rest of the year no matter what. I've had to look into stats for a few guys to check because I thought they were particularly good/bad and they really weren't.

Guess its a mix of I'm interested in basketball and have started to get interested in cognitive biases and how they happen and work and now am a bit interested in seeing them intertwined.

[Colbinii]

So CP3 just had a 4 game stretch of 40 assists and 1 turnover. My question is did anybody (if you watched) notice him playing safe? I never notice it when watching, he just seems like a guy racking up alot of assists. It's only when you look at the boxscore that you notice he doesn't have a turnover.

Phoenix posted a 130, 110 (Miami Defense), 123 and 127 Offensive Ratings. Maybe if he was a bit more reckless they could have been better against Miami

[Woodsanity]

Well by ESPN he's getting slghtly more attention than his own teammate which I don't get but hey here we are.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

If we existed right now soon after the Bill Russell years, Gobert would be seen as a major candidate. We haven't seen someone of this stripe be this valuable in decades (not counting the Olajuwons of the world who volume scored), and nowadays pretty much everyone other than rigorous thinkers just think in terms defined by Jordan. If you're not an offensive superstar...

I still have him more in the 3-5 range myself I think, but seeing him and Mitchell considered this close is weird. Same for Booker and Paul.

Hearing Mark Jackson on ESPN asking why Booker wasn't in the MVP discussion had me ready to throw something.

Scoring tends to be overvalued and defense and playmaking undervalued. So its no surprise that people have Mitchell close to Gobert in value and Booker close to CP3 in value. At least Gobert is actually ahead of Mitchell and CP3 is ahead of Booker. It could be a lot worse.

The Straw Poll results actually look better than I thought they would.

[The-Power]

So its no surprise that people have Mitchell close to Gobert in value and Booker close to CP3 in value.

One is not like the other, though.

Booker ON, Paul ON (1160 minutes): 119.1 ORTG (111.1 DRTG, +8.0 NetRTG)
Booker ON, Paul OFF (557 minutes): 121.0 ORTG (110.4 DRTG, +10.6 NetRTG)
Booker OFF, Paul ON (544 minutes): 111.4 ORTG (102.5 DRTG, +8.9 NetRTG)

I think it's far less obvious that Paul has been a lot more impactful this season than Booker compared to the Gobert-Mitchell pairing.

[Woodsanity]

So its no surprise that people have Mitchell close to Gobert in value and Booker close to CP3 in value.

One is not like the other, though.

Booker ON, Paul ON (1160 minutes): 119.1 ORTG (111.1 DRTG, +8.0 NetRTG)
Booker ON, Paul OFF (557 minutes): 121.0 ORTG (110.4 DRTG, +10.6 NetRTG)
Booker OFF, Paul ON (544 minutes): 111.4 ORTG (102.5 DRTG, +8.9 NetRTG)

I think it's far less obvious that Paul has been a lot more impactful this season than Booker compared to the Gobert-Mitchell pairing.

I am not sure how much stock I would put in on off numbers since its heavily lineup dependent. I would value RAPM more to be honest though yes it would be closer than Gobert-Mitchell.

Most advanced stats put Chris Paul decently higher.

[bondom34]

Yeah I think Booker/Paul is closer than Mitchell/Gobert, but that's probably more a testament to Gobert than anything.

FWIW, LEBRON through last update:

Gobert: 6.26
Paul: 3.53
Mitchell: 2.33
Booker: 1.54

3 year RAPM:

Gobert: 4.93
Paul: 5.5
Booker: 2.59
Mitchell: 0.37

Its definitely a bit weird to me people don't want to take Gobert as Utah's best player. But the Paul/Booker gap is at least a bit smaller by both.

[eminence]

Hope Don is back and ready to go by the playoffs.

Rudy's MVP window opened up another centimeter though.

[HeartBreakKid]

I saw Suns vs Kings the other day and it kind of confirmed my opinion that CP3 is better than Booker. He just made the game look so easy.