RealGM

I'll have to think about Dame/Curry/Luka some tomorrow, they're all worthy enough, but no chance they all make it, probably still some wiggle room depending how deep the Clippers/Nuggets go. Embiid dropping pretty quickly for me, could see any of them finishing above him. As per usual, not really due to his play, but rather his lack of play.

Also, big congrats to the Clippers, I thought that series was done after the Mavs jumped out 2-0.

eminence wrote:I'll have to think about Dame/Curry/Luka some tomorrow, they're all worthy enough, but no chance they all make it, probably still some wiggle room depending how deep the Clippers/Nuggets go. Embiid dropping pretty quickly for me, could see any of them finishing above him. As per usual, not really due to his play, but rather his lack of play.

Also, big congrats to the Clippers, I thought that series was done after the Mavs jumped out 2-0.

It is good to reflect on these guys after their season is over and I respect someone who puts forth a change of opinion that doesn't fit with who won what series.

RE: Clippers. That series against the Mavs may end up being seen as a turning point for them. Happy for their fans.

Doctor MJ wrote:

Jaivl wrote:The Player of the Year is actually the Team of the Year, I see.

You see, very little.

First of all, is this a personal attack? Warning in your signature that you're gonna be salty doesn't make it ok.

Anyway, being preemptively reluctant to rank first-round dropouts highly because other players have the possibility to improve their standing based on their play in later, "more valuable" rounds is perfectly understandable (and flawless logic, I'd say). But the key is "based on their play", and I don't feel that's what's been happening lately.

Booker had a good series for his standards, a series in which he played at about the same level than LeBron. A series that's clearly worse than the performances of Luka, Giannis, Curry, Jokic, Lillard, Kawhi, Durant, Harden, etc. Now the Suns are playing the Denver Nuggets minus two starters, a series which they can most definitely win, and then suddenly Booker looks like a top 5 frontrunner, despite playing at a top 20 level. Meanwhile, Ja Morant (a weaker player than Booker in the RS, but much closer to Booker than what Booker was to LeBron) plays a better series against a much better team, but loses.

Luka Doncic just had a clear top 5 series, but, instead of strengthening his case, it's a dealbreaker because Hardaway got cold at the worst possible moment. You're not even waiting for others to outplay him before you reconstruct your narrative!

I think for now I'm keeping it Curry 1st of the 3 eliminated guys. Can't decide between Dame/Luka. If either the Nuggets/Clippers go deep and it becomes clear either put a serious scare into a contender then they likely move up, but for now I prefer the larger RS sample vs a great 1st round series.

Curry, Dame and Luka will definitely be an interesting discussion. I'm personally leaning Dame > Luka > Curry at the moment but you could really argue for any order between them. There is a chance that none of them will make it though. Jokic and Giannis are locks to me with how good their regular season was, how well they carried their performance over into the play-offs and with both of them still having an opportunity to add even more to their season. Kawhi is looking very good right now. An All-NBA 1st or 2nd team selection paired with the best statistical performance in the play-offs so far is hard to pass up for the top 5. Embiid and Harden are also in a good position to get a spot but their injuries make things a lot less sure for the both of them. Gobert is still a very realistic possibility as well but I don't think he'll make it without at least beating the Clippers. KD is probably the biggest enigma for me, he'll need a hell of a play-off run to get into the conversation but that does seem possible looking at his performance so far.

Jaivl wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Jaivl wrote:The Player of the Year is actually the Team of the Year, I see.

You see, very little.

First of all, is this a personal attack? Warning in your signature that you're gonna be salty doesn't make it ok.

Wow, you don't even see how I was simply reflecting back what you said to us? Okay, I'll explain:

1. Consider what kind of response you were expecting with your previous post. You came in and effectively said "You are all doing this wrong" without looking to engage specifically into what was being said. If you were expecting "Oh, we're doing it wrong, please elaborate to enlighten us", that's pretty obviously not realistic. The options were to ignore you, or push back against you.

2. You chose to be cute when you did this. You didn't say with analytical distance "I believe y'all are letting team results have a direct influence on your POY vote and this is a danger", you made a pithy oversimplification and then added "I see" at the end which put specifically brings yourself into it in a way that implies WE don't see what you do.

In other words, what I said in response is pragmatically precisely what you did to us. Don't like it? Don't do it.

3. You've been around long enough you should know that projects like these take a lot more effort than stand alone threads, and that negativity cascades from negativity. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but now you know.

4. I have that statement in my avatar because society is full of people acting like you're acting right now. You come in and slap people, you're going to get slapped back if only to wake you up to what you've failed to become cognizant of to this point.

Jaivl, you have every right to respond to me here on this, or in a PM, but I'll say without looking at the rest of your post that the rest of your post is what you should have posted right from the beginning if you wanted to talk basketball in this thread.

Anyway, being preemptively reluctant to rank first-round dropouts highly because other players have the possibility to improve their standing based on their play in later, "more valuable" rounds is perfectly understandable (and flawless logic, I'd say). But the key is "based on their play", and I don't feel that's what's been happening lately.

I'm going to respond to that content in another post to keep all this separate.

Jaivl wrote:Anyway, being preemptively reluctant to rank first-round dropouts highly because other players have the possibility to improve their standing based on their play in later, "more valuable" rounds is perfectly understandable (and flawless logic, I'd say). But the key is "based on their play", and I don't feel that's what's been happening lately.

Booker had a good series for his standards, a series in which he played at about the same level than LeBron. A series that's clearly worse than the performances of Luka, Giannis, Curry, Jokic, Lillard, Kawhi, Durant, Harden, etc. Now the Suns are playing the Denver Nuggets minus two starters, a series which they can most definitely win, and then suddenly Booker looks like a top 5 frontrunner, despite playing at a top 20 level. Meanwhile, Ja Morant (a weaker player than Booker in the RS, but much closer to Booker than what Booker was to LeBron) plays a better series against a much better team, but loses.

Luka Doncic just had a clear top 5 series, but, instead of strengthening his case, it's a dealbreaker because Hardaway got cold at the worst possible moment. You're not even waiting for others to outplay him before you reconstruct your narrative!

I completely agree that anyone dropping Luka because his team lost in the first round is using team results directly in their player evaluation, and while I'm not going to tell people they can't do that, I'd see this as an important pitfall to be aware of. You're pointing in the direction of something I consider to be an important thing to understand, and frankly it's good to have it come up.

I will say though that I don't believe anyone in the thread said that a) they previously had Luka in their Top 5 and b) not anymore because he's eliminated. If I'm wrong on that - which I could easily be, maybe I just didn't read someone carefully enough - then your point is both valid and relevant.

Speaking for myself, I never had Luka in my Top 5, and now his season is over. Hard for him to make up ground, y'know? That's all I'm saying - and I'll note that Curry was in my Top 5 and I stated he still was, but in danger, because his season is now over, and others have a chance to surpass him.

Re: Booker top 5 frontrunner. Who exactly said that? Sure looks to me like I'm the poster you must be referring to, and I most definitely did NOT say that. I said some positive things about Booker have a plausible route for getting there, but if my posts are what you're going by, then you basically skimmed the thread, simplified everyone else in your mind until you were left with a straw man, and then came in looking to set it on fire. I might suggest you read more carefully and look to reply specifically to the people you want to respond to to keep at bay your tendency to assume people are thinking more superficially than they are.

Jaivl wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

Jaivl wrote:The Player of the Year is actually the Team of the Year, I see.

You see, very little.

First of all, is this a personal attack? Warning in your signature that you're gonna be salty doesn't make it ok.

Anyway, being preemptively reluctant to rank first-round dropouts highly because other players have the possibility to improve their standing based on their play in later, "more valuable" rounds is perfectly understandable (and flawless logic, I'd say). But the key is "based on their play", and I don't feel that's what's been happening lately.

Booker had a good series for his standards, a series in which he played at about the same level than LeBron. A series that's clearly worse than the performances of Luka, Giannis, Curry, Jokic, Lillard, Kawhi, Durant, Harden, etc. Now the Suns are playing the Denver Nuggets minus two starters, a series which they can most definitely win, and then suddenly Booker looks like a top 5 frontrunner, despite playing at a top 20 level. Meanwhile, Ja Morant (a weaker player than Booker in the RS, but much closer to Booker than what Booker was to LeBron) plays a better series against a much better team, but loses.

Luka Doncic just had a clear top 5 series, but, instead of strengthening his case, it's a dealbreaker because Hardaway got cold at the worst possible moment. You're not even waiting for others to outplay him before you reconstruct your narrative!

I started this conversation. For me its simple. I had Luka outside the top 5 going into the playoffs and he was great that first round but so was Dame who started ahead of him. And I don't think either closed the RS gap that Curry or the 4 bigs had over them. Kawhi also started outside the top 5, played great in round 1 and has more time to make his case.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but I appreciate others take a different approach, have different opinions on each player. And admittedly I am a team results really matter guy, but not as simplistically as you made it sound.

My top five after one round:

Jokic
(gap)
Giannis
Curry
Gobert
Embiid

I think that's the same five I had at the end of the RS, though I may have had 2-5 in a different order, but they're really close, so I'm fine with that. Just outside the top five I have Luka, Dame, Chris Paul, and Kawhi. Curry, Luka, and Dame are obviously out and don't have a realistic chance to move up.

Giannis, Gobert, and Embiid have a shot, but they need for their team to advance while they put in great performances. Embiid being hurt, yet again, does not help.

The Brooklyn guys, Trey Young, and Donovan Mitchell are wild cards that can insert themselves into the conversation, but it's going to be tough for them to unseat Jokic.

Kawhi is an interesting case. If he continues doing what he did against Dallas, I can see him breaking into the top five. I don't see the Clippers beating Utah, but if they did and the Clippers somehow got to the finals, I suppose it's possible that Kawhi could get to the top spot, depending on what Jokic does from here on out. But I don't see the Clippers doing that. Kawhi doing work is impressive though, no doubt about it.

So I've pretty much just declared Giannis as a lock but I'm really not sure if I could justify him as top 5 if the Bucks lose in 4 or 5 games with Giannis underperforming when the top 10 has been so close this year. Is it unfair to penalize him for his performance against an incredibly stacked Nets team when I had him second behind only Jokic after the first round?

I couldn’t say for sure on how much to drop Giannis, but I’m not sure I’d describe the Nets without Harden as incredibly stacked.

Hoping the Bucks bounce back myself.

eminence wrote:I couldn’t say for sure on how much to drop Giannis, but I’m not sure I’d describe the Nets without Harden as incredibly stacked.

Hoping the Bucks bounce back myself.

Not unfairly stacked, but definitely the most talented team still. They have Blake Grifin on a vet min and Joe Harris for 16 mill.

Dutchball97 wrote:So I've pretty much just declared Giannis as a lock but I'm really not sure if I could justify him as top 5 if the Bucks lose in 4 or 5 games with Giannis underperforming when the top 10 has been so close this year. Is it unfair to penalize him for his performance against an incredibly stacked Nets team when I had him second behind only Jokic after the first round?

It matters how he'll play for the rest of the series. He's quite bad so far in playoffs, but if he starts playing well, you shouldn't penalize him for losing. On the other hand, if he continues to play bad, he should be punished for that in the final ranking.

Personally, I don't see his case for top 3. His RS was great, but not the best and there has been plenty of better players in postseason right now. I'm not even sure if top 5 is right, but I don't want to downgrade him too much.

I know it's just one game, but man, this Utah-LAC series is set up for Gobert to excel, and he was mediocre at best in game 1. Nice contest and block on the last play, but that doesn't validate the rest of his performance. It's not a done deal yet, but I've got my finger on the button to nuke him from my POY conversation. If anyone else in consideration had a game like that, they'd get eviscerated, and rightly so.

That to me would say too much focus is being given to Gobert’s O. He was uninvolved on offense for the most part, set his screens, hit his FTs alright and that’s about it. On defense I think he had a fine game for his expectations, not a legendary performance for sure, but fine. Overall, below average might be a decent descriptor? I certainly don’t think it was a stinker. He was better than Kawhi, that’s for sure.

Outside wrote:I know it's just one game, but man, this Utah-LAC series is set up for Gobert to excel, and he was mediocre at best in game 1. Nice contest and block on the last play, but that doesn't validate the rest of his performance. It's not a done deal yet, but I've got my finger on the button to nuke him from my POY conversation. If anyone else in consideration had a game like that, they'd get eviscerated, and rightly so.

Gobert is like Curry in that his impact is there when the box-score may not be.

I definitely didn't think Gobert was particularly bad last night and definitely not bad enough for a one sample size game against a jump shooting team to change my thinking on him.

But its clear I react much slower than everyone else as a rule. I would make a terrible coach, but probably make fewer mistakes as a GM for that reason.

Gobert was fine as a contributing role player. But I was discussing him as POY candidate. He didn't have the kind of overall impact to make up for his mediocre box score stats. He wasn't close to being Utah's best or most impactful player. It's not like he shut down Morris and Zubac inside. He was good defensively, but not great, and I've seen him be far better offensively.

Maybe my expectations were too high for him in this series. I thought this was a series that he could step forward, be dominant, and justify the top five POY position that the advance stats showed for the regular season.

Roughly speaking Gobert has probably 3/4 of his impact defensively. I don’t understand how you can square saying he had a good defensive game and think his overall game was that poor?

Edit: And if the Jazz are ever in a position where Gobert’s job defensively is to shut down Zubac/Morris then something has gone seriously weird.

I’d say Goberts impact for the game was in the range of low-mid tier allstar? The only player that cleanly outplayed him was Mitchell, and I’d put Gobert above everyone else (either team)

I thought Gobert had a pretty impactful night defensively and also contributed to Clippers having a problem with Utah rebounding.