2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[eminence]

Players on mediocre teams can absolutely be the best player in the league (theoretically even an outright bad team, but not sure we've ever seen that).

Jokic is arguably the best player in the league and he was last season as well.

Some are giving crazy hot takes based off a 21 game on/off sample and box score stuffing.

[yoyoboy]

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

The difference between Jokic in 2021 and 2022 should tell you a little something about the limitations of single-season season plus/minus metrics. Unless you believe that Jokic this year is all of a sudden just VASTLY better as a player than he was last season, which I find completely ridiculous and borderline dishonest. Using the metrics as tools is helpful in finding out the story of what’s going on for players, but basketball isn’t just a checklist of who leads in on-off, RAPM, etc, the most. I hope you know I don’t have Jokic as the MVP just because he’s leading in things like EPM, RAPTOR, BPM, right?

But again, to get back to the point you’re blatantly ignoring, if you believe that Gobert was a more valuable player than Jokic last season, he should ABSOLUTELY be your MVP. And if he’s not because you have some other criteria that’s not simply the most valuable player, well then I just disagree with the rationale. Me not having Gobert as my MVP last season (I would have had him 4th or 5th) is because I just don’t believe he was a more valuable player than Jokic and I don’t take RAPM and on-off as gospel despite definitely taking them into account. Not because I’m not consistent with my reasoning for determining MVP. Those of you who make this out to be a best player on the best team award are the ones who are hypocrites for not having Gobert as MVP because the Jazz objectively had the best record and Gobert is pretty objectively the best player on that team. Assessment of who the most valuable player on the season, regardless of team performance, is a much more subjective affair, which you should be able to agree with even if you think I’m wrong for believing Jokic was the more valuable player last year.

[eminence]

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

The difference between Jokic in 2021 and 2022 should tell you a little something about the limitations of single-season season plus/minus metrics. Unless you believe that Jokic this year is all of a sudden just VASTLY better as a player than he was last season, which I find completely ridiculous and borderline dishonest. Using the metrics as tools is helpful in finding out the story of what’s going on for players, but basketball isn’t just a checklist of who leads in on-off, RAPM, etc, the most. I hope you know I don’t have Jokic as the MVP just because he’s leading in things like EPM, RAPTOR, BPM, right?

But again, to get back to the point you’re blatantly ignoring, if you believe that Gobert was a more valuable player than Jokic last season, he should ABSOLUTELY be your MVP. And if he’s not because you have some other criteria that’s not simply the most valuable player, well then I just disagree with the rationale. Me not having Gobert as my MVP last season (I would have had him 4th or 5th) is because I just don’t believe he was a more valuable player than Jokic and I don’t take RAPM and on-off as gospel despite definitely taking them into account. Not because I’m not consistent with my reasoning for determining MVP. Those of you who make this out to be a best player on the best team award are the ones who are hypocrites for not having Gobert as MVP because the Jazz objectively had the best record and Gobert is pretty objectively the best player on that team. Assessment of who the most valuable player on the season, regardless of team performance, is a much more subjective affair, which you should be able to agree with even if you think I’m wrong for believing Jokic was the more valuable player last year.

I voted Gobert for RS MVP last season. Because he was the best player in the regular season last season. He also happened to play on the best team.

I'm not unhappy with the general point that the Nuggets success or not should not be a large part of evaluating Jokic. But you've weakened your point with hyperbole and trying to defend it.

"Jokic has a massive lead in basically every box-score derived or “impact” metric there is." His lead this season in 'impact' stats other than basic on/off is not massive if it even exists. In anything longer than 1 season impact metrics, a fair number of players have significant 'impact' metric leads on Jokic. When I posted some stats along those lines you've deflected by saying they're not all that matter (which I agree with). But if you're making claims on stats you should probably check if they're true?

[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.

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.

I guess I am kind of grumpy, because when I see people use MVP as evidence that a player was the best player for a certain amount of time or specific year, and then I provide evidence to the contrary, people say I am dismissing experts' opinions. The reality is the experts who voted for a guy maybe didn't think he was the best player and even if they did, I don't have the highest opinion of some "analysts" and their votes...sorry if that sounds elitist but it just is the way it is.

Also has Colbini mentioned, I would probably push back on the idea that KG in 04 wasn't the most valuable RS guy. MVP is a RS award, and besides playing more games, KG certainly looked to give his team more lift than any other player in the league that year. As you mentioned, Duncan could still have been the better player if you want to transport guys in different simulations, etc., but I don't think anyone had a more impressive performance than what KG did to lift the 04 Wolves.

[LukaTheGOAT]

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.

Outside, what I was saying is that Jokic is playing better than he did last season (win he won MVP), and Steph is arguably playing worse than he did last year. Therefore, I don't really see why Steph should be ahead.

For example

21 Jokic (played all 72 games)
RAPTOR-9.6
Backpicks BPM-8.6
AuPM/g-5.3

21 Steph (played 63 games)
RAPTOR-6.8
Backpicks BPM-5.2
AuPM/g-3.8

Steph to me didn't deserve to not get MVP in 21 because of team record. My belief is that Jokic was the better RS player (which the award is based off of) in 21 and that is why he got it. Jokic looked better on a per-possession basis while also playing all available games.

Furthermore, I think on a per-possession basis Jokic has again been better. The thing that Steph is typically better, he isn't this year: scoring. Jokic is scoring more points per 75 on better efficiency. Things of course can change which why I said the caveat that Jokic continues to play this well, and he plays enough games, but I don't believe Steph has been better than Jokic when he has played this year.

[yoyoboy]

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

The difference between Jokic in 2021 and 2022 should tell you a little something about the limitations of single-season season plus/minus metrics. Unless you believe that Jokic this year is all of a sudden just VASTLY better as a player than he was last season, which I find completely ridiculous and borderline dishonest. Using the metrics as tools is helpful in finding out the story of what’s going on for players, but basketball isn’t just a checklist of who leads in on-off, RAPM, etc, the most. I hope you know I don’t have Jokic as the MVP just because he’s leading in things like EPM, RAPTOR, BPM, right?

But again, to get back to the point you’re blatantly ignoring, if you believe that Gobert was a more valuable player than Jokic last season, he should ABSOLUTELY be your MVP. And if he’s not because you have some other criteria that’s not simply the most valuable player, well then I just disagree with the rationale. Me not having Gobert as my MVP last season (I would have had him 4th or 5th) is because I just don’t believe he was a more valuable player than Jokic and I don’t take RAPM and on-off as gospel despite definitely taking them into account. Not because I’m not consistent with my reasoning for determining MVP. Those of you who make this out to be a best player on the best team award are the ones who are hypocrites for not having Gobert as MVP because the Jazz objectively had the best record and Gobert is pretty objectively the best player on that team. Assessment of who the most valuable player on the season, regardless of team performance, is a much more subjective affair, which you should be able to agree with even if you think I’m wrong for believing Jokic was the more valuable player last year.

I voted Gobert for RS MVP last season. Because he was the best player in the regular season last season. He also happened to play on the best team.

I'm not unhappy with the general point that the Nuggets success or not should not be a large part of evaluating Jokic. But you've weakened your point with hyperbole and trying to defend it.

"Jokic has a massive lead in basically every box-score derived or “impact” metric there is." His lead this season in 'impact' stats other than basic on/off is not massive if it even exists. In anything longer than 1 season impact metrics, a fair number of players have significant 'impact' metric leads on Jokic. When I posted some stats along those lines you've deflected by saying they're not all that matter (which I agree with). But if you're making claims on stats you should probably check if they're true?

Luck-Adjusted RAPM:

Jokic: +3.72 (#1)
Curry: +2.42 (#13)

EPM:

Jokic: +9.7 (#1)
Curry: +8.3 (#2)

Box-Score RAPTOR:

Jokic: +12.3 (#1)
Curry: +7.8 (#5)

On-Off RAPTOR:

Jokic: +12.0 (#4)
Curry: +11.1 (#11)

Box Plus-Minus:

Jokic: +14.1 (#1)
Curry: +8.3 (#4)

On-Court:

Jokic: +13.4
Curry: +16.4

On-Off:

Jokic: +29.1
Curry: +13.8

I mean...I guess you can nitpick the use of the word "massive" and say he doesn't have a massive lead in all the metrics over Steph, but pretty close to it, right? The point in bringing up his advantage in the box-score derived and plus/minus metrics wasn't to say that Jokic is the MVP because of them. It was to say, well if Jokic's team is performing almost as well with him on the court as Steph's with him on (and it's worth mentioning GS has faced a -1.1 SOS while Denver has faced a +0.7 SOS so perhaps that disparity in opposition closes the on-court gap even further), his box-score production is significantly better, and the "impact" metrics like him better, as well, it would seem that he has a pretty good case as the leading MVP candidate so far in spite of this team record stuff. Now, if you want to penalize Jokic for the extra missed games, that's an argument against him that's perfectly reasonable. Any any kind of subjective analysis of their play from watching the games might also lead one to prefer Steph, but I've personally been more impressed by Jokic's play, and I would prefer to hear from people why exactly they believe Steph has been better outside of just bringing up W-L.

[eminence]

The big all in ones that include +/- type data (and I can find available right now) for the trio of Giannis/Curry/Jokic.

Raptor
Jokic +12.8
Giannis +9.9
Curry +8.8

EPM
Jokic +9.7
Curry +8.3
Giannis +7.5

Darko
Giannis +8.1
Jokic +5.8
Curry +4.8

DRIP
Curry +6.7
Giannis +5.5
Jokic +5.5

A geometric mean of the above
Jokic +7.9
Giannis +7.6
Curry +7.0

Next up would be LeBron at +5.5, with KD/Embiid/Gobert hanging around +5.0.

It's just a ridiculous claim to say Jokic has a massive lead on the Giannis/Curry duo in impact metrics this season. I believe these all include box stuff as well, I know the on/off portion of Raptor goes Giannis 12.9, Jokic 12.0, Curry 11.1.

[falcolombardi]

what is darko and DRIP? Had not heard of that before

also raptor is a boxscore/plus-minus mix i think although i am not sure on the details, it wouldnt be quite the same as a "pure" plus minus metric

[LukaTheGOAT]

what is darko and DRIP? Had not heard of that before

also raptor is a boxscore/plus-minus mix i think although i am not sure on the details, it wouldnt be quite the same as a "pure" plus minus metric

Darko Plus-Minus https://apanalytics.shinyapps.io/DARKO/

DRIP https://theanalyst.com/na/2021/10/nba-drip-daily-updated-rating-of-individual-performance/

Both try to predict future performance and use previous season(s) data to try and project a player's performance.

[LukaTheGOAT]

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).

Well I said it isn't close if Jokic continues to play this way and plays enough games. I still stand by that comment.

21 Jokic was ahead of Gobert in RAPTOR, EPM, AuPM/g, etc in the RS. Basically all available metrics that attempt to adjust for teammates had Jokic ahead except for regular RAPM, and I would argue that is potentially because it is pure plus-minus and needs a larger sample to be accurate.

[falcolombardi]

these acronyms get Wilder and wilder as they go

[LukaTheGOAT]

The big all in ones that include +/- type data (and I can find available right now) for the trio of Giannis/Curry/Jokic.

Raptor
Jokic +12.8
Giannis +9.9
Curry +8.8

EPM
Jokic +9.7
Curry +8.3
Giannis +7.5

Darko
Giannis +8.1
Jokic +5.8
Curry +4.8

DRIP
Curry +6.7
Giannis +5.5
Jokic +5.5

A geometric mean of the above
Jokic +7.9
Giannis +7.6
Curry +7.0

Next up would be LeBron at +5.5, with KD/Embiid/Gobert hanging around +5.0.

It's just a ridiculous claim to say Jokic has a massive lead on the Giannis/Curry duo in impact metrics this season. I believe these all include box stuff as well, I know the on/off portion of Raptor goes Giannis 12.9, Jokic 12.0, Curry 11.1.

DRIP and Darko use previous season(s) performance to project future performance. Jokic also had a huge lead in AuPM/G. In all the single season stats you posted, Jokic has a massive lead. If that isn't a massive lead, than Lebron in 13 didn't have a massive lead over every other guy in the MVP race that year and the same would be true of 2000 Shaq. That looks like a massive gap to my eyes.

[yoyoboy]

The big all in ones that include +/- type data (and I can find available right now) for the trio of Giannis/Curry/Jokic.

Raptor
Jokic +12.8
Giannis +9.9
Curry +8.8

EPM
Jokic +9.7
Curry +8.3
Giannis +7.5

Darko
Giannis +8.1
Jokic +5.8
Curry +4.8

DRIP
Curry +6.7
Giannis +5.5
Jokic +5.5

A geometric mean of the above
Jokic +7.9
Giannis +7.6
Curry +7.0

Next up would be LeBron at +5.5, with KD/Embiid/Gobert hanging around +5.0.

It's just a ridiculous claim to say Jokic has a massive lead on the Giannis/Curry duo in impact metrics this season. I believe these all include box stuff as well, I know the on/off portion of Raptor goes Giannis 12.9, Jokic 12.0, Curry 11.1.

I've personally never heard of DRIP or DARKO, so I guess I apologize for not being aware of all the all-in-one metrics in existence? As I posted right above this, from the metrics I looked at, it did seem like Jokic had a pretty substantial lead on Steph in them collectively, and the point was, to reiterate, if Jokic's team is performing almost as well with him on the court as Steph's with him on (along with GS having faced a -1.1 SOS while Denver has faced a +0.7 SOS meaning it's possible the disparity in opposition closes the on-court gap even further) despite the huge disparity in supporting cast strength, his box-score production is significantly better, and the "impact" metrics like him better, as well (even if they the inclusion of those two make that lead less so), it would seem that he has a pretty good case as the leading MVP candidate so far in spite of this team record stuff. So I just want to hear from people why they believe Steph is the clear MVP above Jokic without resorting to bringing up team record. That's all. Jokic hasn't missed enough games for me to harshly penalize him just yet because by season's end I don't expect the extra 4 games to matter too much in the discussion, but if by the end of the year it is substantial, I'll certainly have to take that into consideration. And I understand if people want to talk about the MVP frontrunner in terms of most valued provided up until this point, and since Steph has played 25/26 games while Jokic has played 21/26, Steph can win out even if his average play has been a little worse just because of the cumulative value. But from what I've seen, that doesn't seem to be the argument people are using. It's generally just this tiring discussion revolving around "well Steph didn't win it last year because team record and now Jokic can still win it this year despite team record?"

[eminence]

Well I said it isn't close if Jokic continues to play this way and plays enough games. I still stand by that comment.

21 Jokic was ahead of Gobert in RAPTOR, EPM, AuPM/g, etc in the RS. Basically all available metrics that attempt to adjust for teammates had Jokic ahead except for regular RAPM, and I would argue that is potentially because it is pure plus-minus and needs a larger sample to be accurate.

I still object then. Giannis/Curry are certainly not well behind him in individual play (if Giannis is even behind).

I don't think I necessarily disagree with you on '21 Jokic vs Gobert, but I'd get into the argument of predictive vs descriptive numbers there. The all in ones are at least somewhat better predictive stats than the simpler +/-'s, but that doesn't necessarily make them better descriptive stats. Personally I strongly prefer to give awards descriptively and avoid past impressions/future expectations. Basically the whole better overall player vs better individual season argument (I take Dirk's '11 over LeBrons even if I'd never take Dirk the player over prime LeBron building a team) re-done with stats in place of players.

[Texas Chuck]

Also has Colbini mentioned, I would probably push back on the idea that KG in 04 wasn't the most valuable RS guy. MVP is a RS award, and besides playing more games, KG certainly looked to give his team more lift than any other player in the league that year. As you mentioned, Duncan could still have been the better player if you want to transport guys in different simulations, etc., but I don't think anyone had a more impressive performance than what KG did to lift the 04 Wolves.

I already stated itt that KG had the best season in 2004. But in terms of player value, Duncan was more valuable. And the easiest way to make that clear is that Minnesota would likely have traded KG for Duncan given the chance. Spurs would have never even given it one second of consideration. Because we had so much data prior to 04 where Duncan was the better player every year. He was younger. He was paid less. All these things factor into value.

And I argued against just giving it to the most valuable player over the best season too. I wasn't advocating for that, just illustrating what it would look like. And I stated it would upset people. As it has you.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Yeah, if Jokic keeps playing at such a historic level, this forum is going to hate me. But I say conservatively right now, there are not more than 5 players who have ever reached the heights of current Jokic.

[yoyoboy]

Well I said it isn't close if Jokic continues to play this way and plays enough games. I still stand by that comment.

21 Jokic was ahead of Gobert in RAPTOR, EPM, AuPM/g, etc in the RS. Basically all available metrics that attempt to adjust for teammates had Jokic ahead except for regular RAPM, and I would argue that is potentially because it is pure plus-minus and needs a larger sample to be accurate.

Worth mentioning Jokic was also #2 in Luck-Adjusted RAPM (2.93) just barely behind Gobert (3.16). Much closer than the standard RAPM would indicate (5.41 versus 2.71) would indicate.

[eminence]

The big all in ones that include +/- type data (and I can find available right now) for the trio of Giannis/Curry/Jokic.

Raptor
Jokic +12.8
Giannis +9.9
Curry +8.8

EPM
Jokic +9.7
Curry +8.3
Giannis +7.5

Darko
Giannis +8.1
Jokic +5.8
Curry +4.8

DRIP
Curry +6.7
Giannis +5.5
Jokic +5.5

A geometric mean of the above
Jokic +7.9
Giannis +7.6
Curry +7.0

Next up would be LeBron at +5.5, with KD/Embiid/Gobert hanging around +5.0.

It's just a ridiculous claim to say Jokic has a massive lead on the Giannis/Curry duo in impact metrics this season. I believe these all include box stuff as well, I know the on/off portion of Raptor goes Giannis 12.9, Jokic 12.0, Curry 11.1.

DRIP and Darko use previous season(s) performance to project future performance. Jokic also had a huge lead in AuPM/G. In all the single season stats you posted, Jokic has a massive lead. If that isn't a massive lead, than Lebron in 13 didn't have a massive lead over every other guy in the MVP race that year and the same would be true of 2000 Shaq. That looks like a massive gap to my eyes.

He's trailing Giannis in the on/off portion of Raptor (and Quickley/Rose, but not super relevant). I believe he still trails both Steph/Giannis in raw RAPM (or even more basic forms like simple +/-)

Simply stated - Jokic is gaining his massive leads in the x portion of xRAPM, not the PM portion.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Also has Colbini mentioned, I would probably push back on the idea that KG in 04 wasn't the most valuable RS guy. MVP is a RS award, and besides playing more games, KG certainly looked to give his team more lift than any other player in the league that year. As you mentioned, Duncan could still have been the better player if you want to transport guys in different simulations, etc., but I don't think anyone had a more impressive performance than what KG did to lift the 04 Wolves.

I already stated itt that KG had the best season in 2004. But in terms of player value, Duncan was more valuable. And the easiest way to make that clear is that Minnesota would likely have traded KG for Duncan given the chance. Spurs would have never even given it one second of consideration. Because we had so much data prior to 04 where Duncan was the better player every year. He was younger. He was paid less. All these things factor into value.

And I argued against just giving it to the most valuable player over the best season too. I wasn't advocating for that, just illustrating what it would look like. And I stated it would upset people. As it has you.

I'm not mad, if anything more weirded out by your assumption that I am than anything.

Anyway, your statement " But in terms of player value, Duncan was more valuable. And the easiest way to make that clear is that Minnesota would likely have traded KG for Duncan given the chance. Spurs would have never even given it one second of consideration," is based on your opinion and you actually can't prove that the Minnesota front office would trade KG for Duncan.

[Texas Chuck]

Also has Colbini mentioned, I would probably push back on the idea that KG in 04 wasn't the most valuable RS guy. MVP is a RS award, and besides playing more games, KG certainly looked to give his team more lift than any other player in the league that year. As you mentioned, Duncan could still have been the better player if you want to transport guys in different simulations, etc., but I don't think anyone had a more impressive performance than what KG did to lift the 04 Wolves.

I already stated itt that KG had the best season in 2004. But in terms of player value, Duncan was more valuable. And the easiest way to make that clear is that Minnesota would likely have traded KG for Duncan given the chance. Spurs would have never even given it one second of consideration. Because we had so much data prior to 04 where Duncan was the better player every year. He was younger. He was paid less. All these things factor into value.

And I argued against just giving it to the most valuable player over the best season too. I wasn't advocating for that, just illustrating what it would look like. And I stated it would upset people. As it has you.

I'm not mad, if anything more weirded by your assumption that I am than anything.

Anyway, your statement " But in terms of player value, Duncan was more valuable. And the easiest way to make that clear is that Minnesota would likely have traded KG for Duncan given the chance. Spurs would have never even given it one second of consideration," is based on your opinion and you actually can't prove that the Minnesota front office would trade KG for Duncan.

Yes, I uniquely post my opinion unlike anyone else. Who only ever post straight facts even over things that don't have a truly 100% objective answer. Just me is ever a little subjective.

Of course its my opinion. But its a pretty safe one. But man I have you in your feelings over something I'm not even in favor of. I said I don't want to do this. I said 04 KG was the best player that year. But still somehow I'm crazy for realizing that Tim freaking Duncan was a more valuable asset....