2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[IlikeSHAIguys]

No he didn't.

He was the best player last season and is likely even better this season on current form.

I don't know. Anyone who watched saw his defense was really bad and alot of his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him. All I see from people who say he's the best are spreadsheets or saying "aha he's the best its so obvious" like the first guy who replied to me. He choked in the playoffs and Shai should have won MVP anyway.

What do you use to determine how good a player out of curiosity?

Some combo of stats and winning and how much you carry your team but the RPOY has me thinking kind of different about things. Voting a bunch of bad stat guys 1 or 2 or 3 and seeing people go way deeper into it has me kinda not sure how much this stuff matters. Also in the 2023 POY there were lots of pretty deep arguments against Jokic despite his stats and I didn't feel like he was that good anyway.

[tsherkin]

Am I supposed to be hyped Jokic took a team he was expected to beat to 7? And that best defense missed the DPOY for one game and the Nuggets lost that game too.

You're supposed to pay attention to context.

Don't you think Minny having six double-digit scorers has something to do with Jokic kind of sucking on defense?

No, not at al.

Like his stats are cool but he played alot worse than his stats tbh. That defense didn't work vs Luka even though Luka was pretty banged up.

Kyrie was large in that series. As was Dallas' defense. Luka looked great because his 3 was falling, sure. And he ran that pick and roll quite well. But Gafford and Lively were big, and both Hardy and DJJ had great shooting performances.

Like, you need to appreciate the team contribution element of these discussions. Jokic was not at all the problem in the Minny series, and Dallas had a lot more going for it than Luka versus the Wolves...

[Special_Puppy]

I don't know. Anyone who watched saw his defense was really bad and alot of his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him. All I see from people who say he's the best are spreadsheets or saying "aha he's the best its so obvious" like the first guy who replied to me. He choked in the playoffs and Shai should have won MVP anyway.

What do you use to determine how good a player out of curiosity?

Some combo of stats and winning and how much you carry your team but the RPOY has me thinking kind of different about things. Voting a bunch of bad stat guys 1 or 2 or 3 and seeing people go way deeper into it has me kinda not sure how much this stuff matters. Also in the 2023 POY there were lots of pretty deep arguments against Jokic despite his stats and I didn't feel like he was that good anyway.

POY is different than "who was the most valuable player for that entire season". Like I'm pretty sure that LeBron James was better than Dirk in 2011, but Dirk won POY because of the Mavs legendary playoff run. I'm also pretty sure that Michael Jordan was the best player in the league in 1988, but the Bulls went out in 5 to the Pistons in the 2nd round so some people won't support Jordan for RPOY

[Texas Chuck]

I mean SGA lost in the 2nd round too. To that same Dallas team you think was injured Luka and nothing else.

Its cool you love SGA and don't like Jokic. Like who you want. But don't expect the rest of us to just go oh yeah Jokic sucks because reasons.

We did this with 2 posters who put way more work into their trolling 6 months ago. No need to go through this again with you.

[Clyde Frazier]

Jokic stopped being the best player last year. Idk why that's being debated

No he didn't.

He was the best player last season and is likely even better this season on current form.

I don't know. Anyone who watched saw his defense was really bad and alot of his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him. All I see from people who say he's the best are spreadsheets or saying "aha he's the best its so obvious" like the first guy who replied to me. He choked in the playoffs and Shai should have won MVP anyway.

This is bot level trolling

[OhayoKD]

No he didn't.

He was the best player last season and is likely even better this season on current form.

I don't know. Anyone who watched saw his defense was really bad and alot of his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him. All I see from people who say he's the best are spreadsheets or saying "aha he's the best its so obvious" like the first guy who replied to me. He choked in the playoffs and Shai should have won MVP anyway.

This is bot level trolling

There is zero coherent standard by which this is trolling and the three pro-jokic's poster's posts aren't.

[OhayoKD]

What do you use to determine how good a player out of curiosity?

Some combo of stats and winning and how much you carry your team but the RPOY has me thinking kind of different about things. Voting a bunch of bad stat guys 1 or 2 or 3 and seeing people go way deeper into it has me kinda not sure how much this stuff matters. Also in the 2023 POY there were lots of pretty deep arguments against Jokic despite his stats and I didn't feel like he was that good anyway.

POY is different than "who was the most valuable player for that entire season". Like I'm pretty sure that LeBron James was better than Dirk in 2011, but Dirk won POY because of the Mavs legendary playoff run. I'm also pretty sure that Michael Jordan was the best player in the league in 1988, but the Bulls went out in 5 to the Pistons in the 2nd round so some people won't support Jordan for RPOY

In the current thread, I think there's 1 voter who saw a distinction between best and player of the year for Magic vs Jordan

[Texas Chuck]

I don't know. Anyone who watched saw his defense was really bad and alot of his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him. All I see from people who say he's the best are spreadsheets or saying "aha he's the best its so obvious" like the first guy who replied to me. He choked in the playoffs and Shai should have won MVP anyway.

This is bot level trolling

There is zero coherent standard by which this is trolling and the three pro-jokic's poster's posts aren't.

He is claiming the only argument for Jokic is spreadsheets and and his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him.

I realize you have stake in this as you led the charge to say Jokic is just a regular season player last year, but you can agree with that Jokic is overrated (and be wrong ) while admitting his "arguments" are trolling.

Unless your position is simply it can't be trolling if they post a conclusion you like? But that's beyond pointless so....

[Special_Puppy]

I don't know. Anyone who watched saw his defense was really bad and alot of his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him. All I see from people who say he's the best are spreadsheets or saying "aha he's the best its so obvious" like the first guy who replied to me. He choked in the playoffs and Shai should have won MVP anyway.

This is bot level trolling

There is zero coherent standard by which this is trolling and the three pro-jokic's poster's posts aren't.

viewtopic.php?p=115523182#p115523182

"Jokic stopped being the best player last year. *Idk why that's being debated*"

[OhayoKD]

This is bot level trolling

There is zero coherent standard by which this is trolling and the three pro-jokic's poster's posts aren't.

He is claiming the only argument for Jokic is spreadsheets and and his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him.

I realize you have stake in this as you led the charge to say Jokic is just a regular season player last year, but you can agree with that Jokic is overrated (and be wrong ) while admitting his "arguments" are trolling.

Unless your position is simply it can't be trolling if they post a conclusion you like? But that's beyond pointless so....

Pretty sure my position is posts which have actual argumentation and cover actual basketball being considered trolling while posts which simply call other people biased not being trolling isn't a consistent standard. One you'd likely agree with if ILS made those same sorts of arguments in favor of Jokic.

How much you agree with ILS's take is of course, utterly irrelevant, to whether it's trolling or not.

[OhayoKD]

This is bot level trolling

There is zero coherent standard by which this is trolling and the three pro-jokic's poster's posts aren't.

viewtopic.php?p=115523182#p115523182

"Jokic stopped being the best player last year. *Idk why that's being debated*"

In response to "Jokic is and was the best player, there is no debate"

Calling one trolling and the other not violates the "coherent" in "coherent standard"

[Special_Puppy]

There is zero coherent standard by which this is trolling and the three pro-jokic's poster's posts aren't.

He is claiming the only argument for Jokic is spreadsheets and and his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him.

I realize you have stake in this as you led the charge to say Jokic is just a regular season player last year, but you can agree with that Jokic is overrated (and be wrong ) while admitting his "arguments" are trolling.

Unless your position is simply it can't be trolling if they post a conclusion you like? But that's beyond pointless so....

Pretty sure my position is posts which have actual argumentation and cover actual basketball being considered trolling while posts which simply call other people biased not being trolling isn't a consistent standard. One you'd likely agree with if ILS made those same sorts of arguments in favor of Jokic.

How much you agree with ILS's take is of course, utterly irrelevant, to whether it's trolling or not.

ILS starts out by saying that SGA is better than Jokic and that he isn't even sure why its a debate. He then provides 0 evidence or argumentation to back up a claim that he said is self-evidently true

[OhayoKD]

He is claiming the only argument for Jokic is spreadsheets and and his assists are just letting someone take the ball from him.

I realize you have stake in this as you led the charge to say Jokic is just a regular season player last year, but you can agree with that Jokic is overrated (and be wrong ) while admitting his "arguments" are trolling.

Unless your position is simply it can't be trolling if they post a conclusion you like? But that's beyond pointless so....

Pretty sure my position is posts which have actual argumentation and cover actual basketball being considered trolling while posts which simply call other people biased not being trolling isn't a consistent standard. One you'd likely agree with if ILS made those same sorts of arguments in favor of Jokic.

How much you agree with ILS's take is of course, utterly irrelevant, to whether it's trolling or not.

ILS starts out by saying that SGA is better than Jokic and that he isn't even sure why its a debate. He then provides 0 evidence or argumentation to back up a claim that he said is self-evidently true

He (or she) then proceeds to provide more argumentation than the poster he replied to making the same claim. You are applying two different standards to two different posters supporting two different players. Do better

[Texas Chuck]

There is nothing wrong with making a statement with no supporting argument if you believe one is not required. I don't feel the need to post why Jokic is the best when it seems super obvious. Or that Gobert and Draymond have been the best defenders of the past decade or that Lebron is the best player of his generation. Or Steph is the GOAT shooter.

OTOH if I posted Jokic is the best because he loves horses or is tall for his age. Well now I'm trolling. IF challenged by someone positing an actual argument other than I like player Y better than I'd be happy to provide more reasoning.

But bad reasons are much more trolling than no reasons when not really in a debate but simply pointing out the obvious. Again, you may think it not obvious that Jokic is the best in the world. Whatever. But he is.

[DCasey91]

Dude who died and made you king on authority

Makes up his own tennis net, plays with it and is overtly critical just for self amusement.

Troll is a troll

Its not even an uphill battle to claim X is better than Y it's evident its basically impossible. Jokic is the best player in the world

You may not agree with it that's fine. That does not mean you are right in your own beliefs and thoughts, biases

If you can't defend the position then the position isn't strong to start/the persuasion isn't good enough

If you troll then be prepared to be ridiculed

[OhayoKD]

There is nothing wrong with making a statement with no supporting argument if you believe one is not required. I don't feel the need to post why Jokic is the best when it seems super obvious. Or that Gobert and Draymond have been the best defenders of the past decade or that Lebron is the best player of his generation. Or Steph is the GOAT shooter.

OTOH if I posted Jokic is the best because he loves horses or is tall for his age. Well now I'm trolling. IF challenged by someone positing an actual argument other than I like player Y better than I'd be happy to provide more reasoning.

But bad reasons are much more trolling than no reasons when not really in a debate but simply pointing out the obvious. Again, you may think it not obvious that Jokic is the best in the world. Whatever. But he is.

This is alot of words to say "rules for thee, but not for me". What you deem "obvious" is obviously irrelevant to whether a stance is genuine or not. You just wanted an excuse to attack people who disagreed with you.

In hindsight restricting my involvement on this forum to player-projects and film-tracking was a pretty good decision

[DCasey91]

Dude are you okay? Feel free to pm if you like

[Special_Puppy]

There is nothing wrong with making a statement with no supporting argument if you believe one is not required. I don't feel the need to post why Jokic is the best when it seems super obvious. Or that Gobert and Draymond have been the best defenders of the past decade or that Lebron is the best player of his generation. Or Steph is the GOAT shooter.

OTOH if I posted Jokic is the best because he loves horses or is tall for his age. Well now I'm trolling. IF challenged by someone positing an actual argument other than I like player Y better than I'd be happy to provide more reasoning.

But bad reasons are much more trolling than no reasons when not really in a debate but simply pointing out the obvious. Again, you may think it not obvious that Jokic is the best in the world. Whatever. But he is.

This is alot of words to say "rules for thee, but not for me". What you deem "obvious" is obviously irrelevant to whether a stance is genuine or not. You just wanted an excuse to attack people who disagreed with you.

In hindsight restricting my involvement on this forum to player-projects and film-tracking was a pretty good decision

You don't see why people want more upfront evidence and arguments for relatively new, bold, controversial claims? And are fine with less upfront evidence and argumentation for claims that are relatively consensus and have easily accessible evidence for?

[Texas Chuck]

There is nothing wrong with making a statement with no supporting argument if you believe one is not required. I don't feel the need to post why Jokic is the best when it seems super obvious. Or that Gobert and Draymond have been the best defenders of the past decade or that Lebron is the best player of his generation. Or Steph is the GOAT shooter.

OTOH if I posted Jokic is the best because he loves horses or is tall for his age. Well now I'm trolling. IF challenged by someone positing an actual argument other than I like player Y better than I'd be happy to provide more reasoning.

But bad reasons are much more trolling than no reasons when not really in a debate but simply pointing out the obvious. Again, you may think it not obvious that Jokic is the best in the world. Whatever. But he is.

This is alot of words to say "rules for thee, but not for me". What you deem "obvious" is obviously irrelevant to whether a stance is genuine or not. You just wanted an excuse to attack people who disagreed with you.

In hindsight restricting my involvement on this forum to player-projects and film-tracking was a pretty good decision

No

No, this just isn't hard.

Anyone makes a statement. They don't have to give advanced stats and post 20 video examples. They just post what they think. We all do this and its fine.

Someone challenges said statement. Obviously also fine.

But when their reasoning is that silly, its okay to not take it seriously. Just as you are free to not take any statement seriously if you think to have an opinion you must also post a thesis with it. But this thread is for non so serious posts. It's a catch all, not meant to be a scholarly discussion.

But you know all this.

[GSP]

Bucks fans wont like to hear this but Giannis is more of a Marcus Camby level Dpoy than a generational one.........i remember the Hakeem comps lol............he is a good defender but massively overrated on that end. He wasnt better than Ad when he won Dpoy too. Not a better defender than Ad or Bam in general yet has the Dpoy they dont. Mobley, Wemby, Chet are prolly already better defenders than Giannis ever was too. Bucks defensive collapse after Jrue got traded has been alarming his defensive prime is prolly higher than Giannis too