2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[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.

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.

Your perfectly open to your opinion, I would just like to pose this phrasing. As of now Jokic is in a battle with Giannis for #1 in per possession scoring. Jokic is averaging 40.2 pts per 100 possessions on 65.4 TS%. Curry is at 38.2 pts per 100 possessions on 60.8 TS%. Given the disparity in their scoring production, Jokic checking out as a better defender, and also being vastly greater as a passer, do you believe that Curry's gravity on offense is making up the gap between him and Jokic in this regard?

[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.

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?"

SOS shouldn't meaningfully change anything due to which games Jokic missed (IND/CHI/PHO/POR/MIL, with Stephs missed game against DET). I'd have to check numbers, but there's a chance Steph has played a marginally tougher SOS than Jokic to date. Edit: overestimated a bit here (think in my head some of the teams Jokic missed were stronger than they've been to date), but Jokic +0.1 Steph -0.9.

Nobody is going to make the bolded argument because it's a ridiculous argument. Winning games matters, you can't have an MVP of a team game discussion honestly without discussing the teams.

[eminence]

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.

Your perfectly open to your opinion, I would just like to pose this phrasing. As of now Jokic is in a battle with Giannis for #1 in per possession scoring. Jokic is averaging 40.2 pts per 100 possessions on 65.4 TS%. Curry is at 38.2 pts per 100 possessions on 60.8 TS%. Given the disparity in their scoring production, Jokic checking out as a better defender, and also being vastly greater as a passer, do you believe that Curry's gravity on offense is making up the gap between him and Jokic in this regard?

That wasn't really an opinion (I've offered plenty in this thread, but that was just a statement of facts).

My short answer would be, probably not quite. I think Jokic has outperformed Curry so far this season (at least on a per game basis, 4 extra games makes it a tossup overall for me, with both slightly behind Giannis as of now). I don't think it's by a huge margin.

[LukaTheGOAT]

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.

Your perfectly open to your opinion, I would just like to pose this phrasing. As of now Jokic is in a battle with Giannis for #1 in per possession scoring. Jokic is averaging 40.2 pts per 100 possessions on 65.4 TS%. Curry is at 38.2 pts per 100 possessions on 60.8 TS%. Given the disparity in their scoring production, Jokic checking out as a better defender, and also being vastly greater as a passer, do you believe that Curry's gravity on offense is making up the gap between him and Jokic in this regard?

That wasn't really an opinion (I've offered plenty in this thread, but that was just a statement of facts).

My short answer would be, probably not quite. I think Jokic has outperformed Curry so far this season (at least on a per game basis, 4 extra games makes it a tossup overall for me, with both slightly behind Giannis as of now). I don't think it's by a huge margin.

Right, I know you didn't say that, but you thought my statement that Jokic had a massive gap over Curry in terms of per possession impact was unfair so I was just curious on your thinking.

[falcolombardi]

whenever a player posts a historical regulsr season thst looks like somethingh never done before (2016 curry, 2020 giannis, 2019 harden) i feel like there is a current of thought that wants to pushback a bit against the praise

and is understandable because is too soon to fully evaluate it in hindsight, so we push against the possible recency bias, and in the process we may overcorect and have a case of anti recency bias, where histórical seasons happening in real time are not fully acepted as such until the dust settles

jokic 2021 may be such a season in hindsight or maybe it will be looked a bit more down later on if the results dont get replicated in the postseason or even in future seasons (which kinda happened to 2020giannis, 2019 harden, 2017 westbrook, 2016 curry, even 2009 lebron)

either way i am sure the basketball consensus will go back and forth over it for years to come

[eminence]

Bleh to the Luka injury, not really cheering for the Mavs after hiring Kidd, but still wanted a fun Doncic and this version hasn't been so far, hope he can really get healthy and right.

[Texas Chuck]

Bleh to the Luka injury, not really cheering for the Mavs after hiring Kidd, but still wanted a fun Doncic and this version hasn't been so far, hope he can really get healthy and right.

This whole Dallas season gives me serious 2004 vibes. Now if only it can be a one year blip on a path of continued ascension like 2004 was.

[LukaTheGOAT]

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....

I mean people can't disagree with your opinion? Anyone can make vague statements such as that. We already know you aren't a fan of KG around here, so why should we assume you are an objective voice? There are many questions that come to mind as to why people are skeptical. Someone already disagreed with you, and based off how the board thinks of KG, plenty of others do as well.

Per Backpicks "Before the stigma of the first-round curse and the collapse of the Timberwolves, KG was widely argued as an equal to Duncan and hotly debated as the game’s best player. From 2000 to 2005 he won an astounding nine Player of the Months (POMs), including six of nine starting in early 2003. For comparison, Shaq claimed five POMs in that time span, Kobe four and Duncan won three in his entire career.11 Garnett was second to peak Shaq in MVP voting in 2000, then claimed 73 percent of the share in 2003, narrowly losing out to peak Tim Duncan before grabbing 99 percent of the vote in 2004."

Based on that evidence, it certainly would seem that some people thought KG would have equal value as an asset. If you don't want to argue that is perfectly fine, but your statement isn't necessarily backed in reality.

[yoyoboy]

The Cavs have performed at an absolutely elite level in the non-Sexton minutes this year. Looks like him going down really was a blessing in disguise.

Garland, no Sexton:
724 MP
115.2 ORTG
101.7 DRTG
+13.5 Net

Garland + Mobley, no Sexton:
435 MP
114.4 ORTG
97.9 DRTG
+16.5 Net

Garland + Mobley + Allen, no Sexton:
435 MP
116.6 ORTG
95.8 DRTG
+18.8 Net

Rubio + Mobley, no Sexton:
337 MP
114.2 ORTG
98.4 DRTG
+15.8 Net

Rubio + Allen, no Sexton:
335 MP
115.3 ORTG
102.1 DRTG
+13.2 Net

Rubio + Mobley + Allen, no Sexton:
137 MP
120.7 ORTG
96.7 DRTG
+24.0 Net

Rubio + Garland + Mobley + Allen, no Sexton:
93 MP
135.4 ORTG
94.4 DRTG
+41.0 Net

Cavs, no Sexton, Pangos, Tacko (included the last two to effectively eliminate garbage time lineup minutes)
980 MP
111.3 ORTG
102.8 DRTG
+8.5 Net

The current starting lineup also has the 4th best net rating in the NBA among lineups with at least 100 minutes.

Garland-Okoro-Markkanen-Mobley-Allen:
127 MP
116.2 ORTG
96.9 DRTG
+19.3

[Outside]

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.

Yes, I understand your argument. I just disagree that the logic of the argument holds up. You are acting as if team record should not be a factor at all. My point is that, for me -- and I believe most people -- it is A factor but not THE factor. You think it should be no factor. Okay, that's fine, but you're coming across as if that's the only valid way to assess it, when it's not.

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.

That is not the sole advantage that Curry has over Jokic. As has been brought up multiple times in this most recent discussion (and has been a point of contention for a long time regarding Curry), Curry's indirect impact (or, if you prefer, gravity) is far greater than Jokic's. Curry's indirect impact is massive. It is difficult to quantify, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Just because Jokic is better when you look at box score stats and simple derivatives based on box score stats doesn't mean that's the end of the discussion.

I don't know if adjusted plus/minus metrics accurately capture Curry's indirect impact, but they certainly do a better job than box score stats alone, which don't account for it at all. Those metrics require a large data set to reduce noise (in fact, you could argue that a single season is too small a sample size), and most that I'm aware of haven't published any results yet for this season. We'll see what they show as the season goes along. At the moment, here's where they are for plus/minus per game:

11.9 - Curry
9.0 -- Jokic
8.7 - Giannis
8.6 - Gobert
8.5 - Donovan Mitchell

Here's plus/minus totals for the season, which obviously factors in games missed:

297 - Curry
224 - Gobert
217 - Giannis
213 - Mitchell
195 - Mikal Bridges
190 - Jordan Clarkson
189 - Jokic

I'm barely functional regarding advanced metrics -- other posters here know far, far more than I do -- and it's not a 1:1 that plus/minus leaders correspond to advanced metric leaders, but it bodes well for Curry.

My point is not that the advanced metrics alone should determine who wins MVP. Box score stats matter. Metrics matter. For me and others, record is a factor. Add in a dose of eyeball test, and everyone has their own subjective sausage recipe to arrive at the MVP.

Last season, Jokic had box score stats, metrics, record, and eye test all in his favor. So far this season, he has box score stats and is basically tied in eye test with Curry and Giannis. It's way too simplistic to say "Jokic won MVP last year + his box score stats are even better this year + Curry's box score stats are worse = MVP for Jokic."

[LukaTheGOAT]

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.

Yes, I understand your argument. I just disagree that the logic of the argument holds up. You are acting as if team record should not be a factor at all. My point is that, for me -- and I believe most people -- it is A factor but not THE factor. You think it should be no factor. Okay, that's fine, but you're coming across as if that's the only valid way to assess it, when it's not.

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.

That is not the sole advantage that Curry has over Jokic. As has been brought up multiple times in this most recent discussion (and has been a point of contention for a long time regarding Curry), Curry's indirect impact (or, if you prefer, gravity) is far greater than Jokic's. Curry's indirect impact is massive. It is difficult to quantify, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Just because Jokic is better when you look at box score stats and simple derivatives based on box score stats doesn't mean that's the end of the discussion.

I don't know if adjusted plus/minus metrics accurately capture Curry's indirect impact, but they certainly do a better job than box score stats alone, which don't account for it at all. Those metrics require a large data set to reduce noise (in fact, you could argue that a single season is too small a sample size), and most that I'm aware of haven't published any results yet for this season. We'll see what they show as the season goes along. At the moment, here's where they are for plus/minus per game:

11.9 - Curry
9.0 -- Jokic
8.7 - Giannis
8.6 - Gobert
8.5 - Donovan Mitchell

Here's plus/minus totals for the season, which obviously factors in games missed:

297 - Curry
224 - Gobert
217 - Giannis
213 - Mitchell
195 - Mikal Bridges
190 - Jordan Clarkson
189 - Jokic

I'm barely functional regarding advanced metrics -- other posters here know far, far more than I do -- and it's not a 1:1 that plus/minus leaders correspond to advanced metric leaders, but it bodes well for Curry.

My point is not that the advanced metrics alone should determine who wins MVP. Box score stats matter. Metrics matter. For me and others, record is a factor. Add in a dose of eyeball test, and everyone has their own subjective sausage recipe to arrive at the MVP.

Last season, Jokic had box score stats, metrics, record, and eye test all in his favor. So far this season, he has box score stats and is basically tied in eye test with Curry and Giannis. It's way too simplistic to say "Jokic won MVP last year + his box score stats are even better this year + Curry's box score stats are worse = MVP for Jokic."

Never said my opinion is objective, just that to me it is clear who would get my vote.
To each their own. The metrics I referred to all incorporate plus-minus to some extent, and Jokic has a large lead this year in EPM, Backpicks BPM, AuPM/g, RAPTOR. I would expect Curry's plus-minus per game and total plus-minus to be bigger because the Warriors are the better team.

For instance this impresses me more:

In Nikola Jokic's last 7 games, the Nuggets are:
+189 when he's on the court.
-188 when he's off the court.

That to me is striking but once again, to each their own. I simply view things through a baseball lense I suppose, where you can be the best player in the world (Shohei Ohtani/Mike Trout) yet your team is still garbage. I will say that if Curry's impact is so hard to gauge that plus-minus metrics can't properly tease it out, than I question how big it is really is considering plus-minus in the end is just telling you how much you improve your team. Like Luck Adjusted RAPM is pure plus-minus, and while I am not a big fan of single year RAPM, Jokic is #1 there.
Furthermore, much of the Warriors' success has been their defense, and while Steph has been good there, I am not sure he has been a huge piece in that equation.

Watch on YouTube

Good luck to Steph moving forward.

[eminence]

Sexton

How are you feeling about the Cavs potentially extending him at this point? What price point would you be comfortable with?

[GSP]

The Cavs have performed at an absolutely elite level in the non-Sexton minutes this year. Looks like him going down really was a blessing in disguise.

Garland, no Sexton:
724 MP
115.2 ORTG
101.7 DRTG
+13.5 Net

Garland + Mobley, no Sexton:
435 MP
114.4 ORTG
97.9 DRTG
+16.5 Net

Garland + Mobley + Allen, no Sexton:
435 MP
116.6 ORTG
95.8 DRTG
+18.8 Net

Rubio + Mobley, no Sexton:
337 MP
114.2 ORTG
98.4 DRTG
+15.8 Net

Rubio + Allen, no Sexton:
335 MP
115.3 ORTG
102.1 DRTG
+13.2 Net

Rubio + Mobley + Allen, no Sexton:
137 MP
120.7 ORTG
96.7 DRTG
+24.0 Net

Rubio + Garland + Mobley + Allen, no Sexton:
93 MP
135.4 ORTG
94.4 DRTG
+41.0 Net

Cavs, no Sexton, Pangos, Tacko (included the last two to effectively eliminate garbage time lineup minutes)
980 MP
111.3 ORTG
102.8 DRTG
+8.5 Net

The current starting lineup also has the 4th best net rating in the NBA among lineups with at least 100 minutes.

Garland-Okoro-Markkanen-Mobley-Allen:
127 MP
116.2 ORTG
96.9 DRTG
+19.3

Wow those numbers are RIDICULOUS Cavs should trade Sexton and find a way to get Ingram and Hart

[eminence]

Last summed up my thoughts from around the league about 3 weeks ago. Updating.

Blazers - I was cautiously optimistic last time... Not so much now, Dame has yet to really turn it around, CJ is out, and the whole team seems several steps closer to imploding. Still think they have an okay supporting cast (for making the playoffs), problems are at the top here.

Bucks - Yup, Jrue/Khris returned and they've stormed up the rankings. At this point I think they're my pick for #1 seed in the East, though certainly not a lock. Depth has been lacking this season, could really use a consistent 8th guy for the roster.

Bulls - Currently getting ripped up by health and safety protocols, but holding it together alright. Hope to see them all back and healthy soon.

Cavs - I was excited for the future with Garland/Allen/Mobley, should've been more excited for the now. Impressive stuff for the young guys. I'd probably be looking to move Sexton if they can get anything.

Celtics - So Jaylen wasn't really back I guess, they predictably continue to struggle to right the ship.

Clippers - Bit up and down since last time it seems, but I don't think I've actually watched them since then. Continue to be impressed by Lue.

Grizzlies - A hot streak with Ja out, nice for now, but a bit worrying for long-term. Overlaps a lot with Brooks' return though, so not very worried for now. Hope they can keep it up, I like JJJ.

Hawks - Have started to turn the corner a bit I think. Being forced to put Huerter into the starting lineup seems to have helped them out. The core group here still seems quite promising. I'm fairly out on Reddish at this point. The idea is nice.

Heat - Predictably struggling a bit with their top two missing significant time. Depth is showing more than I expected to keep them together. Herro falling back to earth a bit.

Hornets - Missing LaMelo, and without him there I don't watch.

Jazz - Look more engaged, still rolling. Don's best RS to date so far. Team has looked really strong since Gay has taken the last spot in the rotation.

Kings - A mini jumpstart from the coaching change? Fox continues to look rough.

Knicks - So, it wasn't just Kemba. I need to watch some more, cause I don't understand why their starters are so consistently getting run over.

Lakers - Bron is back and looks pretty decent, WB turning it around a bit too. If they can get AD on board I think they should be fine. There's certainly a path to the #4 seed at least.

Magic - Caught a couple of their games finally. Anthony looks great, Wagner is a promising rookie. Ross has tanked whatever trade deadline value he might have had. If it wasn't already it's time to start dreaming of lotto balls.

Mavs - Luka not really rounding into form and now out with injury, rough. KP's been better than I would've guessed and Brunson has seemed very solid, we'll see how they hold up without Luka for longer.

Nets - One of the more consistent squads. Continued strong play from KD, I'm pleasantly surprised by Aldridge's return. Beginning to wonder if Harden will bounce back, though still hopeful as of now.

Nuggets - Jokic is back and that's what they need to have a prayer. Man that MPJ situation still sucks.

Pacers - Hey, they've won 3 in a row? Wonder if they'll actually go through with trading any of the major pieces?

Pelicans - So, Zion doesn't seem to be getting right anytime soon. A bit of a resurgence with Ingram returning to full strength, but not enough for any sort of playoff push. Bummer, seems like a bit of a wasted season right now.

Pistons - Cade is still great. But oof, with Grant out that cast is extra rough. Hopefully Cade can learn from the losses.

Raptors - Siakam has been okay in his return, will they consider trading him long-term? OG/Barnes/he aren't the best fit all together I don't think. I'm a big fan of VanVleet.

Rockets - Break up the Rockets! Yeah, rookies are pretty bad usually, so not surprising they've improved at least a bit with Green out (though the degree was), don't worry, they'll turn this tank back around soon. Hope it drove up the value on a few of their vets a bit.

Sixers - Good to see Embiid back and playing relatively well. I'd like to see the Simmons situation resolved this season still, but I don't see a ton of good options right now, maybe Dame really will wind up available at this rate.

Spurs - Still playing decently, Murray still exciting, might be able to sneak into the play-in.

Suns - Rolling rolling rolling, Bridges might be one of the most underappreciated players in the NBA based off the contract extension he got. That'll be a great deal for years.

Thunder - Oof, took the biggest L in league history. That's no fun. Not much to do but let the youth grow though.

Warriors - Not quite as smooth as the start of the season, but still playing well. Personally I'm in the camp of looking to move Wiseman for somebody more ready to win now, but seem to be the minority with the success the team has had to date.

Wizards - Back to earth a bit. I've been impressed by Advija as a 2nd year guy, just looks like a solid 3rd/4th starter longterm.

Wolves - The core continues to perform, Russell seems to be more of a core part of it than I would've necessarily expected. A squad I'm rooting for to make the playoffs.

[Texas Chuck]

I mean people can't disagree with your opinion? Anyone can make vague statements such as that. We already know you aren't a fan of KG around here, so why should we assume you are an objective voice?

Of course people can disagree with me. Where have I ever said they couldn't?

You also don't have to think I'm objective. Though me saying KG was the best player that season and who I would have given the MVP to probably is at least some evidence that I'm not blinded by KG hate.

That said, I will stand by my opinion that Duncan was still more valuable as an asset at that time and I'm okay having a different opinion about that from El Gee. Who if we are going to play the biased game has a little known bias of his own on this topic.

Seriously though. I answered a question simply to explain how I thought it would look if we truly just picked the most valuable player as opposed to the way we do it now. I have made it clear in multiple posts that's not the method I support and I've praised KG repeatedly.

Somehow you are interpreting this to me not allowing other opinions(wut?) and bias against KG. So not sure how else to respond to you on this. You've seem to have put me in a box and no matter what I actually post you aren't going to let me out it appears.

[Ron Swanson]

Fun random lineup stat of the day. The Wolves most used 5-man rotation of Beverly/D-Lo/Edwards/Vanderbilt/KAT is a ludicrous +50 net-rating in 108 minutes. It's hard to comprehend how awful the bench lineups have been given how great the core and starters have played. Towns is once again trending as an elite impact guy (his defense is still meh, I know, I know) and they really need to sell off some of their youth (Beasley, Bolmaro, Reid, McDaniels) for some win-now pieces and go all-in at the trade deadline. Get some actual veteran role-players around KAT/Edwards and watch that team flourish.

[yoyoboy]

Sexton

How are you feeling about the Cavs potentially extending him at this point? What price point would you be comfortable with?

Honestly none. I’m probably in the minority of Cavs fans on this though. I want to see us get whatever the best asset or rotation player we can get for him. And if no one is willing to trade anything, I would be fine just letting him walk for nothing. I’ve seen a lot of Cavs fans make the argument that when you’re a franchise that isn’t a free agent destination you have to keep as much talent as you can and that he’d work better in a sixth man role, but we have over three seasons worth of data now that the Sexton experiment isn’t working. Even when Garland is off the floor. So I don’t think it’s worth paying him really any amount to come off the bench, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

I can definitely envision Sexton being a positive contributor in the right scenario. I don’t see it happening here though and I don’t think it’s worth the trouble trying to make that happen when the team has such great synergy on the court and chemistry off it. I really think the front office feels closer to the way I do, as well.

[ShotCreator]

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?"

SOS shouldn't meaningfully change anything due to which games Jokic missed (IND/CHI/PHO/POR/MIL, with Stephs missed game against DET). I'd have to check numbers, but there's a chance Steph has played a marginally tougher SOS than Jokic to date. Edit: overestimated a bit here (think in my head some of the teams Jokic missed were stronger than they've been to date), but Jokic +0.1 Steph -0.9.

Nobody is going to make the bolded argument because it's a ridiculous argument. Winning games matters, you can't have an MVP of a team game discussion honestly without discussing the teams.

Bringing up team record would not create a discussion at all. How much depth is it possible to have with that method?

[eminence]

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

SOS shouldn't meaningfully change anything due to which games Jokic missed (IND/CHI/PHO/POR/MIL, with Stephs missed game against DET). I'd have to check numbers, but there's a chance Steph has played a marginally tougher SOS than Jokic to date. Edit: overestimated a bit here (think in my head some of the teams Jokic missed were stronger than they've been to date), but Jokic +0.1 Steph -0.9.

Nobody is going to make the bolded argument because it's a ridiculous argument. Winning games matters, you can't have an MVP of a team game discussion honestly without discussing the teams.

Bringing up team record would not create a discussion at all. How much depth is it possible to have with that method?

I'm sure Doc or fpliii or Chuck or BG or drza or ElGee or etc could have plenty of good discussion involving both individual players and their team success.

Nobody in this thread has pushed for any Suns players to be serious MVP candidates.

And it's not a method. But yet another discussion point. Calling it a method is bordering on insulting too.

[Texas Chuck]

It's a team game. Not an individual one. And it has a clear goal--for the team to win games, series, and championships. The goal should never be individual statistical glory. So I would find it unfair to the players to judge them solely on individual numbers when the object of the entire endeavor is team success. I believe it would be pointless to attempt to evaluate star players while ignoring how well their teams performed.

I should not have to say this, but I will because I know how this goes, this does not mean we look solely at team success to decide who the best individual player is. But absolutely we don't ignore it.

Tim Duncan's teams won and won and won. So did Bill Russell's. And Lebron's. We can't and shouldn't ignore that. When Jason Kidd changed teams as he did a number of times his new teams instantly got way better(20+ wins better) and his old teams got way worse. And Kidd was never traded for futures--always traded for win now players. We can't and shouldn't ignore that Jason Kidd regardless of his stats, was having enormous positive impact on the success of the team. If we judged him solely by individual numbers we would completely miss the boat on him.

The goal is team-oriented and so if we are going to judge players, we owe it to them to judge them on how well they meet that goal.