2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[falcolombardi]

In other news....is the unthinkable gonna happen? Will Andrew Wiggins be an all-star this year?

doubt it, even with the warriors record i dont think he merits an all star spot imo but i may be wrong

[falcolombardi]

luka first 3 seasons were literally the biggest efficiency scoring seasons ever at 112-110-110 offensive ratings and around 57~% true shooting across the league

now he is playing at a more normal 108.5~ off rating league with more normal 55% true shooting (post merger it hovers around 54% for most seasons)

i dont think he is being "Exposed" or anythingh like that

but the change in league reffing + health/conditioning issues + lack of off season rest may all be taking a toll in him so far

[ShotCreator]

Jokic is just better than everybody. And in a clear way.

[Colbinii]

Jokic is just better than everybody. And in a clear way.

Very clear #1 player in the NBA.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Jokic is just better than everybody. And in a clear way.

Very clear #1 player in the NBA.

If Jokic keeps playing like this and plays enough games, I probably would say this will be the greatest MVP robbery of all-time. Like there is just literally nothing else he can do other than to become a bonafide DPOY candidate I feel as this rate or make a copy or himself.

I mean, Jokic won the award last year, and his play wasn't as good as this year's version of himself. Steph (as of now, but I am sure it will correct itself as his 3 point shooting will stabilize), is playing worse than he did last year, yet he is the MVP candidate because of team record. I don't think you can legitimately say Steph has been better this year except for being better defensively due to a strong squad around him. If someone could actually make the argument that the player Steph is better, I would like to hear it.

[falcolombardi]

mvp has never been a outright "best player of the regular season" award

for better or worse team record is heavily considered and voters are humans who are influence by narratives over raw numbers/eye test

and that is fine for the most part

[LukaTheGOAT]

Sure, but if the Award is named Most Valuable Player, than idk of anyone who has been more vital to their team's success this year (when he has played) than Jokic. MVP doesn't really matter in how I evaluate players, but it matters to most people in their evaluations. And therefore I do believe their should be seismic shift in how people view. Just being honest.

[Texas Chuck]

Sure, but if the Award is named Most Valuable Player, than idk of anyone who has been more vital to their team's success this year (when he has played) than Jokic. MVP doesn't really matter in how I evaluate players, but it matters to most people in their evaluations. And therefore I do believe their should be seismic shift in how people view. Just being honest.

I think its what do we want. If its truly the most valuable player then we accept its boring and it looks like this:

Bird many years
Magic several years
Mike many years(dream still gets his 2)
Shaq many years
Duncan many years
Lebron forever

Seasons like 04 KG never get recognized because as good as he was, he wasn't more valuable than Duncan or Shaq. Kobe never gets recognized. Nor does Nash. Or Dirk. Or Harden or KD.

Right now Giannis with his age, locked up, playing at this level is the most valuable player in the league and there really isn't a second with apologies to Jokic/Steph.

But we've traditionally gone more with best season on a team considered good enough to be relevant. We have some exceptions like the Westbrook MVP, but generally if your great year doesn't lead to contention its not considered.

I have no issue with everyone interpreting how they want, but understand if its truly most valuable, its going to be the same guy year after year in most cases and lots of your favorites aren't ever in the running.

[Colbinii]

Jokic is just better than everybody. And in a clear way.

Very clear #1 player in the NBA.

If Jokic keeps playing like this and plays enough games, I probably would say this will be the greatest MVP robbery of all-time. Like there is just literally nothing else he can do other than to become a bonafide DPOY candidate I feel as this rate or make a copy or himself.

I mean, Jokic won the award last year, and his play wasn't as good as this year's version of himself. Steph (as of now, but I am sure it will correct itself as his 3 point shooting will stabilize), is playing worse than he did last year, yet he is the MVP candidate because of team record. I don't think you can legitimately say Steph has been better this year except for being better defensively due to a strong squad around him. If someone could actually make the argument that the player Steph is better, I would like to hear it.

The thing for me is both Curry and Jokic have similar on-court per 100 +/- [Jokic around +13 while Curry is around +15]. The difference is the Nuggets drop to -15 [Not a type] while the Warriors are still +5.

[Colbinii]

Sure, but if the Award is named Most Valuable Player, than idk of anyone who has been more vital to their team's success this year (when he has played) than Jokic. MVP doesn't really matter in how I evaluate players, but it matters to most people in their evaluations. And therefore I do believe their should be seismic shift in how people view. Just being honest.

I think its what do we want. If its truly the most valuable player then we accept its boring and it looks like this:

Bird many years
Magic several years
Mike many years(dream still gets his 2)
Shaq many years
Duncan many years
Lebron forever

Seasons like 04 KG never get recognized because as good as he was, he wasn't more valuable than Duncan or Shaq. Kobe never gets recognized. Nor does Nash. Or Dirk. Or Harden or KD.

Garnett in 2004 was clearly the highest impact and best player that season, even if you for some reason higher on Duncan this year [As Duncan missed 14 games].

Same for 2018 Harden and 2007 Dirk.

Right now Giannis with his age, locked up, playing at this level is the most valuable player in the league and there really isn't a second with apologies to Jokic/Steph.

I disagree.

Jokic is having arguably the greatest season ever. We have never seen someone finish around +13 on-court rating with a On/Off around +28. These numbers are truly absurd.

For the All-in-one metrics we see Jokic crushing the PER record in a year where offensive output is trending down from recent years.

[Texas Chuck]

Sure, but if the Award is named Most Valuable Player, than idk of anyone who has been more vital to their team's success this year (when he has played) than Jokic. MVP doesn't really matter in how I evaluate players, but it matters to most people in their evaluations. And therefore I do believe their should be seismic shift in how people view. Just being honest.

I think its what do we want. If its truly the most valuable player then we accept its boring and it looks like this:

Bird many years
Magic several years
Mike many years(dream still gets his 2)
Shaq many years
Duncan many years
Lebron forever

Seasons like 04 KG never get recognized because as good as he was, he wasn't more valuable than Duncan or Shaq. Kobe never gets recognized. Nor does Nash. Or Dirk. Or Harden or KD.

Garnett in 2004 was clearly the highest impact and best player that season, even if you for some reason higher on Duncan this year [As Duncan missed 14 games].

Same for 2018 Harden.

Right now Giannis with his age, locked up, playing at this level is the most valuable player in the league and there really isn't a second with apologies to Jokic/Steph.

I disagree.

Jokic is having arguably the greatest season ever. We have never seen someone finish around +13 on-court rating with a On/Off around +28. These numbers are truly absurd.

For the All-in-one metrics we see Jokic crushing the PER record in a year where offensive output is trending down from recent years.

Again, I covered this. 04 KG had the best season. But the Spurs would have never traded Duncan for him but the Wolves almost certainly would have done the reverse. Duncan more valuable.

And Giannis because of his age, play, and contract holds the most value. Jokic being the better player is fine, but 2 extra years of a player of Giannis' caliber can't be brushed aside. More valuable.

That's why I think MVP the way it currently is done is just fine. Because then we get into the weed and people get upset because its the same guy year after year and what about this guy or that guy. Value doesn't change drastically year to year except in case of injury or contract status.

[eminence]

We have never seen someone finish around +13 on-court rating with a On/Off around +28. These numbers are truly absurd.

DrayGOAT +19/+26 for ''16.

[Doctor MJ]

what are your worries with him?

I worry that in general I'm still not seeing the Mavs do amazing with him on the floor, and aren't seeing them really suffer without him.

This may not stop Doncic from willing teams to championships - because all he has to do is beat 4 opponents by any amount and that will do the trick - but for a guy called a savant, we've yet to see the kind of separation from the mean that I'd have hoped to see by now, particularly when the franchise has basically sold out everything else in the name of building around him.

He was out of shape (still is) and then has been bothered by knee/ankle injuries(already out for tomorrow). Admittedly he's been a disappointment this year though after his first 3 years being realistically more than could have been asked of him. I'm hoping that the coaching change and the physical concerns are a primary reason rather than a Luka just isn't as great as we thought. But admittedly that's always a possibility.

But as you know I follow Dallas pretty close and I'm a huge team-building nerd. The Mavs have absolutely not come close to selling out in terms of building around him. They made one big gamble on KP that failed and everything else has been around the margins. There will be another big move at some point, but thinking this is what Cuban and co envisioned as the final team around Luka couldn't be more wrong. No idea where you are getting that?

Oh to be clear, what I was - confusingly - thinking about is that the franchise is that since drafting Doncic, the basketball leadership of the Mavs has effectively been forced out. It may not be that this was what Doncic actually wanted, but the disrespect with which he treated Carlisle - one of the most respected coaches in the game - is central to why this occurred imho.

So while you can argue that the Mavs have more bullets in their gun - and I'm always cheering for this, I want every franchise to succeed in building something great when they are fortunate enough to get their hands on true clear-cut franchise players - but in terms of "long-term vision", right now the only thing I'm seeing is really "keep Luka happy", and it seems like it's been backfiring and likely to continue backfiring.

With all that said, they haven't tried just turning the Mavs into Team Slovenia. If Luka likes and responds to a coach or coaches from his side of the Atlantic, then respond accordingly.

Re: out of shape. Absolutely. I do think he'll get back in shape, and I do think that there's a distinct possibility that Doncic will prove to be far greater as a "just beat the other team" mode of the playoffs than he is in the "optimize the regular season" mode.

On the other hand, with Luka and Zion both I'm really stunned by how quickly they put on weight. I think we need to take the fat-shaming out of this for a second and just recognize that some people are much quicker to gain weight than others. Me personally, there's literally no way I could put on weight as quickly as those guys no matter how hard I partied for a few weeks, and I'd consider myself somewhere in the middle of the spectrum here because I certainly know people who stay thin no matter what they do.

I think of a guy like Dwight Howard who most definitely was doing everything possible to wreck his body with bad consumption habits, and yet that's not what killed his prime, a back injury (not brought out by being obese) did.

These guys are going to have to commit themselves ASAP to staying in shape 12 months a year - in a way that most superstars really don't until their 30s - if they are going to come anywhere close to living up to their potential.

[Outside]

Jokic is just better than everybody. And in a clear way.

Very clear #1 player in the NBA.

If Jokic keeps playing like this and plays enough games, I probably would say this will be the greatest MVP robbery of all-time. Like there is just literally nothing else he can do other than to become a bonafide DPOY candidate I feel as this rate or make a copy or himself.

I mean, Jokic won the award last year, and his play wasn't as good as this year's version of himself. Steph (as of now, but I am sure it will correct itself as his 3 point shooting will stabilize), is playing worse than he did last year, yet he is the MVP candidate because of team record. I don't think you can legitimately say Steph has been better this year except for being better defensively due to a strong squad around him. If someone could actually make the argument that the player Steph is better, I would like to hear it.

The logic isn't that Steph finished third in MVP last season and is box score worse this season, therefore he cannot be first in the MVP race. The logic is that Steph didn't do as well in the MVP race last year because his team was 39-33, which was only good enough for eighth in the West and 14th in the league, while this year, the Warriors are 21-5, which is second in the West and second in the league.

Qualifications for MVP are not defined. It's whatever voters feel it should be. It's some combination of counting stats, team record (top three in the conference seems to be the usual floor), the player's impact on winning, and narrative. Sometimes the brute force of counting stats can overcome a team not winning, but the Russell Westbrook MVP is the rare exception (it also helped that he had the triple-double narrative).

You can't dismiss Steph for last season because he team didn't have a good enough record and then say it should be Jokic this season despite the Nuggets being .500, seventh in the West, and 15th in the league. I don't know if you personally dismissed Steph for that last season, but surely you are aware this was a determining factor for many people here and many MVP voters.

Jokic has a case. But his on-off being so high is an indicator of how mediocre the team is. His counting stats matter, but they're just part of the story. Maybe someday we can drop PER as a thing because it's such a crude measuring stick compared to others that we have, but for now, it's just a combo counting stat. We have impact metrics, and while Jokic does very well in those and I expect him to be at or near the top when those metrics have enough data for this season, it's nowhere near the same picture that net plus/minus or PER give.

I had Jokic as the clear MVP last season. I have him as third so far this season. For me, MVP is the player with the greatest impact on winning. It's not Jokic's fault that Denver has had rotten luck with injuries, but that's the way it goes. Denver was 47-25 last season and .500 so far this season. It matters.

[yoyoboy]

I don’t get why it’s almost controversial to believe that the MVP should go to the player who provided the most value in the season, regardless of how good the team on the whole, which has 14 other players on it, is.

Steph shouldn’t have won it last year, not because his team wasn’t good enough, but because Jokic was clearly the better player. That’s it. And similarly, Jokic shouldn’t get disqualified this year just because his team isn’t as good as Steph’s. Jokic has a +12.9 on-court barely behind Steph’s +15.1 and that’s super impressive to me considering the disparity in supporting cast strength and I’d argue coaching as well. All you can control is how you perform when you’re on the court. It seems ridiculous to penalize Jokic because his team performs worse than the 2012 Bobcats (-15.8 versus -15.2) when he’s off the court despite his team playing almost as well as the Warriors when he’s on the court.

Jokic has a massive lead in basically every box-score derived or “impact” metric there is. I know it breaks people’s brains to imagine that the best player in the NBA can be playing on a .500 team but it is what it is.

[eminence]

I don’t get why it’s almost controversial to believe that the MVP should go to the player who provided the most value in the season, regardless of how good the team on the whole, which has 14 other players on it, is.

Steph shouldn’t have won it last year, not because his team wasn’t good enough, but because Jokic was clearly the better player. That’s it. And similarly, Jokic shouldn’t get disqualified this year just because his team isn’t as good as Steph’s. Jokic has a +12.9 on-court barely behind Steph’s +15.1 and that’s super impressive to me considering the disparity in supporting cast strength and I’d argue coaching as well. All you can control is how you perform when you’re on the court. It seems ridiculous to penalize Jokic because his team performs worse than the 2012 Bobcats (-15.8 versus -15.2) when he’s off the court despite his team playing almost as well as the Warriors when he’s on the court.

Jokic has a massive lead in basically every box-score derived or “impact” metric there is. I know it breaks people’s brains to imagine that the best player in the NBA can be playing on a .500 team but it is what it is.

Hope you voted Gobert for MVP last season.

[ShotCreator]

Very clear #1 player in the NBA.

If Jokic keeps playing like this and plays enough games, I probably would say this will be the greatest MVP robbery of all-time. Like there is just literally nothing else he can do other than to become a bonafide DPOY candidate I feel as this rate or make a copy or himself.

I mean, Jokic won the award last year, and his play wasn't as good as this year's version of himself. Steph (as of now, but I am sure it will correct itself as his 3 point shooting will stabilize), is playing worse than he did last year, yet he is the MVP candidate because of team record. I don't think you can legitimately say Steph has been better this year except for being better defensively due to a strong squad around him. If someone could actually make the argument that the player Steph is better, I would like to hear it.

The logic isn't that Steph finished third in MVP last season and is box score worse this season, therefore he cannot be first in the MVP race. The logic is that Steph didn't do as well in the MVP race last year because his team was 39-33, which was only good enough for eighth in the West and 14th in the league, while this year, the Warriors are 21-5, which is second in the West and second in the league.

Qualifications for MVP are not defined. It's whatever voters feel it should be. It's some combination of counting stats, team record (top three in the conference seems to be the usual floor), the player's impact on winning, and narrative. Sometimes the brute force of counting stats can overcome a team not winning, but the Russell Westbrook MVP is the rare exception (it also helped that he had the triple-double narrative).

You can't dismiss Steph for last season because he team didn't have a good enough record and then say it should be Jokic this season despite the Nuggets being .500, seventh in the West, and 15th in the league. I don't know if you personally dismissed Steph for that last season, but surely you are aware this was a determining factor for many people here and many MVP voters.

Jokic has a case. But his on-off being so high is an indicator of how mediocre the team is. His counting stats matter, but they're just part of the story. Maybe someday we can drop PER as a thing because it's such a crude measuring stick compared to others that we have, but for now, it's just a combo counting stat. We have impact metrics, and while Jokic does very well in those and I expect him to be at or near the top when those metrics have enough data for this season, it's nowhere near the same picture that net plus/minus or PER give.

I had Jokic as the clear MVP last season. I have him as third so far this season. For me, MVP is the player with the greatest impact on winning. It's not Jokic's fault that Denver has had rotten luck with injuries, but that's the way it goes. Denver was 47-25 last season and .500 so far this season. It matters.

Wait a second, why is greatest impact on winning determined by wins?


Isn’t that just saying who wins the most?

And if winning the most is the determining factor in MVP above literally anything else, obviously, give the award to Chris Paul.

[yoyoboy]

I don’t get why it’s almost controversial to believe that the MVP should go to the player who provided the most value in the season, regardless of how good the team on the whole, which has 14 other players on it, is.

Steph shouldn’t have won it last year, not because his team wasn’t good enough, but because Jokic was clearly the better player. That’s it. And similarly, Jokic shouldn’t get disqualified this year just because his team isn’t as good as Steph’s. Jokic has a +12.9 on-court barely behind Steph’s +15.1 and that’s super impressive to me considering the disparity in supporting cast strength and I’d argue coaching as well. All you can control is how you perform when you’re on the court. It seems ridiculous to penalize Jokic because his team performs worse than the 2012 Bobcats (-15.8 versus -15.2) when he’s off the court despite his team playing almost as well as the Warriors when he’s on the court.

Jokic has a massive lead in basically every box-score derived or “impact” metric there is. I know it breaks people’s brains to imagine that the best player in the NBA can be playing on a .500 team but it is what it is.

Hope you voted Gobert for MVP last season.

Huh? Gobert for MVP last year is actually consistent with the flawed best player on the best team approach that people in here want to take, so that just helps my case. Not sure how you’d figure I would have needed to have Gobert as my top guy last year if we’re strictly talking about “most valuable player” for the season. Gobert was not a more impactful player than Jokic. But if you believe he was, then yes he should have been your MVP because that’s all that should matter. I guess you would have to really prioritize single-year RAPM to a higher degree than everything else to come to that conclusion, but again I’m fine with people having Gobert as last year’s MVP if they think he was the most impactful player. And I can guarantee you I had him higher than the vast majority of people. Absolutely top 5.

It’s hilarious to me that the discussion around this can what is when the criteria for MVP is quite literally implied by the name: most valuable player. If you think it should be anything but that, then call it most valuable player on a top 3 seed or something because if you’re going to disqualify players for being on garbage teams, you’re not being true to the name of the award and you’re blatantly disregarding the fact that players 2-15 contribute just as much to a team’s record as any one individual player, if not more. I don’t believe that Steph is suddenly a much better player than he was last season and that’s why the Warriors went from a non-playoff team to title favorites. And that proves that even when you play at what people would argue to be MVP level, sometimes your supporting cast is just the difference between middling team performance and best in the league team performance.

[eminence]

I don’t get why it’s almost controversial to believe that the MVP should go to the player who provided the most value in the season, regardless of how good the team on the whole, which has 14 other players on it, is.

Steph shouldn’t have won it last year, not because his team wasn’t good enough, but because Jokic was clearly the better player. That’s it. And similarly, Jokic shouldn’t get disqualified this year just because his team isn’t as good as Steph’s. Jokic has a +12.9 on-court barely behind Steph’s +15.1 and that’s super impressive to me considering the disparity in supporting cast strength and I’d argue coaching as well. All you can control is how you perform when you’re on the court. It seems ridiculous to penalize Jokic because his team performs worse than the 2012 Bobcats (-15.8 versus -15.2) when he’s off the court despite his team playing almost as well as the Warriors when he’s on the court.

Jokic has a massive lead in basically every box-score derived or “impact” metric there is. I know it breaks people’s brains to imagine that the best player in the NBA can be playing on a .500 team but it is what it is.

Hope you voted Gobert for MVP last season.

Huh? Gobert for MVP last year is actually consistent with the flawed best player on the best team approach that people in here want to take, so that just helps my case. Not sure how you’d figure I would have needed to have Gobert as my top guy last year if we’re strictly talking about “most valuable player” for the season. Gobert was not a more impactful player than Jokic. I can guarantee you I had him higher than the vast majority of people however. Absolutely top 5.

Bull.

Jokic
'21: +6.6 net, +6.4 on/off, (bbref), Box Raptor +10.3, On/Off Raptor +2.8 (538)
'22: +12.9 net, +28.7 on/off, Box Raptor +12.3, On/Off Raptor +12.0

Gobert '21
+16.6 net, +19.1 on/off, Box Raptor +6.2, On/Off Raptor +12.3

Curry '22
+15.1 net, +10.7 on/off, Box Raptor +7.8, On/Off Raptor +11.1

Gobert +10, +12.7, +9.5 over Jokic in the '21 measures.
Jokic -2.2, +17.0, +0.9 over Curry in the '22 measures.

And somehow Jokic is over both the others, and it's apparently not close (at least in '22).

[Outside]

If Jokic keeps playing like this and plays enough games, I probably would say this will be the greatest MVP robbery of all-time. Like there is just literally nothing else he can do other than to become a bonafide DPOY candidate I feel as this rate or make a copy or himself.

I mean, Jokic won the award last year, and his play wasn't as good as this year's version of himself. Steph (as of now, but I am sure it will correct itself as his 3 point shooting will stabilize), is playing worse than he did last year, yet he is the MVP candidate because of team record. I don't think you can legitimately say Steph has been better this year except for being better defensively due to a strong squad around him. If someone could actually make the argument that the player Steph is better, I would like to hear it.

The logic isn't that Steph finished third in MVP last season and is box score worse this season, therefore he cannot be first in the MVP race. The logic is that Steph didn't do as well in the MVP race last year because his team was 39-33, which was only good enough for eighth in the West and 14th in the league, while this year, the Warriors are 21-5, which is second in the West and second in the league.

Qualifications for MVP are not defined. It's whatever voters feel it should be. It's some combination of counting stats, team record (top three in the conference seems to be the usual floor), the player's impact on winning, and narrative. Sometimes the brute force of counting stats can overcome a team not winning, but the Russell Westbrook MVP is the rare exception (it also helped that he had the triple-double narrative).

You can't dismiss Steph for last season because he team didn't have a good enough record and then say it should be Jokic this season despite the Nuggets being .500, seventh in the West, and 15th in the league. I don't know if you personally dismissed Steph for that last season, but surely you are aware this was a determining factor for many people here and many MVP voters.

Jokic has a case. But his on-off being so high is an indicator of how mediocre the team is. His counting stats matter, but they're just part of the story. Maybe someday we can drop PER as a thing because it's such a crude measuring stick compared to others that we have, but for now, it's just a combo counting stat. We have impact metrics, and while Jokic does very well in those and I expect him to be at or near the top when those metrics have enough data for this season, it's nowhere near the same picture that net plus/minus or PER give.

I had Jokic as the clear MVP last season. I have him as third so far this season. For me, MVP is the player with the greatest impact on winning. It's not Jokic's fault that Denver has had rotten luck with injuries, but that's the way it goes. Denver was 47-25 last season and .500 so far this season. It matters.

Wait a second, why is greatest impact on winning determined by wins?


Isn’t that just saying who wins the most?

And if winning the most is the determining factor in MVP above literally anything else, obviously, give the award to Chris Paul.

It's not quite that simple. Some people may treat it (sort of) that simply, where team success is the main determining factor, but for me (and I suspect for many people), the idea of MVP is figuring out who has the most significant impact that results in helping his team win, and that having that impact on a team with a top record is more significant than doing on a team with a mediocre record. Maybe a player who does that on a mediocre team could also do it on a top team, but most can't.

The idea is that an MVP provides the most impact at giving their team a chance at winning. Winning is the objective, and if your team doesn't win that much compared to other teams, you need a lot more to make up for that.