Right now: Giannis, Curry and Jokic are lock top 3 players. KD, Luka, Embiid and Lebron are all borderline top 5

[mdonnelly1989]

Right now
Giannis, Curry and Jokic are top 3 players. Locked, sealed tightly.

And then Embiid, Luka, Lebron, KD are all borderline top 5 and interchangeable.

I'd go 40 worst player of all time. Best most recent player Lebron at a 99 all throoughout during prime.

Giannis 97

Curry 96
Jokic 96

Gap


Embiid 95
Luka 95
KD 95
Lebron 95

[falcolombardi]

Off topic but what do the numbers mean? Or is like a nba2k analogy ?

[euroleague]

Why would Curry be above Luka? Just because his team was way better?

Do you honestly think Luka, Klay Thompson, Andrew Wiggins, Jordan Poole, Draymond Green, and Kevon Looney wouldn't have won against Curry and the Mavs without Luka?

[SpreeS]

Why would Curry be above Luka? Just because his team was way better?

Do you honestly think Luka, Klay Thompson, Andrew Wiggins, Jordan Poole, Draymond Green, and Kevon Looney wouldn't have won against Curry and the Mavs without Luka?

If player monopolizes whole team offence he doesn't become better player. Can he play in Kerr system which build around Curry? Can he play with Looney/Green front court? Can he play off ball? What is Green role on offence?

[falcolombardi]

Why would Curry be above Luka? Just because his team was way better?

Do you honestly think Luka, Klay Thompson, Andrew Wiggins, Jordan Poole, Draymond Green, and Kevon Looney wouldn't have won against Curry and the Mavs without Luka?

If player monopolizes whole team offence he doesn't become better player. Can he play in Kerr system which build around Curry? Can he play with Looney/Green front court? Can he play off ball? What is Green role on offence?

I dont have luka above curry or on his level yet....but i dont think "can luka play as well as curry in curry's system" is the argument to make for it

The arguments to make could be than in spite of the huge boxscore numbers luka is arguably worse defender

who doesnt score efficiently enough to move the needle offensively as much as curry.

You could compare their offensive team results or impact metrics where curry is ahead of luka best impact metrics and team offense results

All of those angles would (imo) be better than wondering if luka could play the curry role/curry system as well as curry

[70sFan]

Why would Curry be above Luka? Just because his team was way better?

Do you honestly think Luka, Klay Thompson, Andrew Wiggins, Jordan Poole, Draymond Green, and Kevon Looney wouldn't have won against Curry and the Mavs without Luka?

Mavs team is built around Luka strengths. Doncic can't play like Curry and someone like Green would lose all of his offensive value next to Luka.

Of course, Curry wouldn't be that good in Luka place either. You build around your star's strength, such hypothetical swaps make no sense.

Why Curry can be called better than Doncic? Significantly more efficient scorer and shooter, galaxies ahead as an off-ball player, less exploitable defender, less turnover prone. You may still pick Luka if you want, but it's not hard to see Curry's case.

[euroleague]

Why would Curry be above Luka? Just because his team was way better?

Do you honestly think Luka, Klay Thompson, Andrew Wiggins, Jordan Poole, Draymond Green, and Kevon Looney wouldn't have won against Curry and the Mavs without Luka?

Mavs team is built around Luka strengths. Doncic can't play like Curry and someone like Green would lose all of his offensive value next to Luka.

Of course, Curry wouldn't be that good in Luka place either. You build around your star's strength, such hypothetical swaps make no sense.

Why Curry can be called better than Doncic? Significantly more efficient scorer and shooter, galaxies ahead as an off-ball player, less exploitable defender, less turnover prone. You may still pick Luka if you want, but it's not hard to see Curry's case.

Curry scored at 2% better eFG. That's not very significant, considering he scored less per game with a far better team demanding attention offensively.

They're both pretty exploitable on defense, but Curry has much less offensive responsibilities and USG - so of course his TO rate is lower. When he had more offensive duties, he had a high TO rate - like in 2014 before Draymond.

[Dutchball97]

I think Giannis and Jokic are a clear top 2 at the moment. Anything less than a MVP-type performance from them would be surprising and likely would only happen to due injuries.

I've then got Curry, Luka and Embiid together on the next tier. They're consistent All-NBA 1st team players who on their best day have serious arguments for best in the league but aren't as consistently dominant as Giannis and Jokic.

LeBron and KD are a bit harder to place, 6 and 7 feels fine now but I can't be the only one who sees it as more of a placeholder. It's not impossible to get 2021 KD and 2020 LeBron next year and that would see them rise again but it's also not outside the realm of possibility that last year's performances are signs that they're on the back end of their time on top.

I'd probably add Kawhi and AD to the LeBron/KD tier as guys who could be the best in the league but are hampered by injuries so it's not a given they'll be among the top players again.

Then you get the guys with top 10 arguments who are not in the best player conversation unlike the previous group. This would include guys like Tatum, Butler, Gobert, Ja, Trae etc.

Harden and Dame are also kind of wildcards. I wouldn't be surprised to see them around Kawhi/AD but they could also drop below the fringe top 10 group.

[70sFan]

Why would Curry be above Luka? Just because his team was way better?

Do you honestly think Luka, Klay Thompson, Andrew Wiggins, Jordan Poole, Draymond Green, and Kevon Looney wouldn't have won against Curry and the Mavs without Luka?

Mavs team is built around Luka strengths. Doncic can't play like Curry and someone like Green would lose all of his offensive value next to Luka.

Of course, Curry wouldn't be that good in Luka place either. You build around your star's strength, such hypothetical swaps make no sense.

Why Curry can be called better than Doncic? Significantly more efficient scorer and shooter, galaxies ahead as an off-ball player, less exploitable defender, less turnover prone. You may still pick Luka if you want, but it's not hard to see Curry's case.

Curry scored at 2% better eFG. That's not very significant, considering he scored less per game with a far better team demanding attention offensively.

They're both pretty exploitable on defense, but Curry has much less offensive responsibilities and USG - so of course his TO rate is lower. When he had more offensive duties, he had a high TO rate - like in 2014 before Draymond.

Curry scored at 60.1 TS% vs 57.1 TS% for Luka, which is actually 3 percentage points. The difference also stays the same in postseason. It's already a considerable gap, but you have to take into account that it was Curry's least efficient year since 2013, while for Doncic it's not that different from previous seasons.

Curry could be targeted against bigger and stronger players on defense, but he's a smart team defender and puts a lot of effort to keep the defense dangerous. He's also very smart at rotating and reading game without the ball. Doncic is just a poor defender, both on ball and even worse off-ball. It's again this mind trap that "neither is a great defender, so why should we bother?". You'd never use this argument while comparing their offensive games.

Yes, Doncic has a higher usage than Curry. The question I want to ask - is it good that Luka has the ball all the time? I don't know, but why should we always give more credit for the player who does everything with the ball and do nothing without it?

[euroleague]

Mavs team is built around Luka strengths. Doncic can't play like Curry and someone like Green would lose all of his offensive value next to Luka.

Of course, Curry wouldn't be that good in Luka place either. You build around your star's strength, such hypothetical swaps make no sense.

Why Curry can be called better than Doncic? Significantly more efficient scorer and shooter, galaxies ahead as an off-ball player, less exploitable defender, less turnover prone. You may still pick Luka if you want, but it's not hard to see Curry's case.

Curry scored at 2% better eFG. That's not very significant, considering he scored less per game with a far better team demanding attention offensively.

They're both pretty exploitable on defense, but Curry has much less offensive responsibilities and USG - so of course his TO rate is lower. When he had more offensive duties, he had a high TO rate - like in 2014 before Draymond.

Curry scored at 60.1 TS% vs 57.1 TS% for Luka, which is actually 3 percentage points. The difference also stays the same in postseason. It's already a considerable gap, but you have to take into account that it was Curry's least efficient year since 2013, while for Doncic it's not that different from previous seasons.

Curry could be targeted against bigger and stronger players on defense, but he's a smart team defender and puts a lot of effort to keep the defense dangerous. He's also very smart at rotating and reading game without the ball. Doncic is just a poor defender, both on ball and even worse off-ball. It's again this mind trap that "neither is a great defender, so why should we bother?". You'd never use this argument while comparing their offensive games.

Yes, Doncic has a higher usage than Curry. The question I want to ask - is it good that Luka has the ball all the time? I don't know, but why should we always give more credit for the player who does everything with the ball and do nothing without it?

Uh... do you know the difference between eFG and TS? Or can you not read where I say the difference is 2% eFG?

Curry is targeted because of his size, Doncic because of his movement. Neither of them are elite defenders, and they're both liabilities.

Someone has to have the ball on teams. Luka obviously plays well with Slovenia, and isn't so ball dominant in his international play. On the Mavs, it's definitely Luka who you want handling the ball. He plays very well with secondary ball handlers, so it's not like he's limiting the offense hugely.

[70sFan]

Uh... do you know the difference between eFG and TS? Or can you not read where I say the difference is 2% eFG?

I know the difference, why should we exclude FT shooting from the equation though?

Curry is targeted because of his size, Doncic because of his movement. Neither of them are elite defenders, and they're both liabilities.

The difference is that Curry has been targeted ineffectively last season, while Doncic got destroyed a lot of times on defense. Curry hasn't been a liablity defensively for years.

Someone has to have the ball on teams. Luka obviously plays well with Slovenia, and isn't so ball dominant in his international play. On the Mavs, it's definitely Luka who you want handling the ball. He plays very well with secondary ball handlers, so it's not like he's limiting the offense hugely.

Well, he played last year next to talented ball-handler in Brunson, so it's not like he was forced to run everything through him. It's not even a bad thing, but the question I have is what he does when he doesn't have the ball - and he doesn't bring much value here. I also fail to see your Slovenia example, Doncic played the same way in Eurobasket.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I think Doncic is in the discussion for top 3. So no sealed and locked.
I think Ja Morant is in the discussion for top 5.

[euroleague]

Uh... do you know the difference between eFG and TS? Or can you not read where I say the difference is 2% eFG?

I know the difference, why should we exclude FT shooting from the equation though?

Curry is targeted because of his size, Doncic because of his movement. Neither of them are elite defenders, and they're both liabilities.

The difference is that Curry has been targeted ineffectively last season, while Doncic got destroyed a lot of times on defense. Curry hasn't been a liablity defensively for years.

Someone has to have the ball on teams. Luka obviously plays well with Slovenia, and isn't so ball dominant in his international play. On the Mavs, it's definitely Luka who you want handling the ball. He plays very well with secondary ball handlers, so it's not like he's limiting the offense hugely.

Well, he played last year next to talented ball-handler in Brunson, so it's not like he was forced to run everything through him. It's not even a bad thing, but the question I have is what he does when he doesn't have the ball - and he doesn't bring much value here. I also fail to see your Slovenia example, Doncic played the same way in Eurobasket.

Players with that much USG rarely have the energy to play offball effectively. Lebron, Harden, Doncic - they just drift to a spot on the 3 point line and observe+conserve energy. Doncic is an elite shooter - he's not Curry, but he's not bad offball.

I exclude the FT line from efficiency because the way it's included in TS is flawed - it weights "and1" with nothing extra. Miss your "and1" and you're supposedly "less efficient" than if you made the shot and never even took the FT. It counts a fouled 3 potentially worse than a fouled 2 - make 2 FTs and miss 1, then your efficiency is "lower" than making 2 FTs off a missed 2.

In terms of what they did last season, it seems pretty obvious that Doncic did a lot more on a team with less help. In the regular season, the Warriors and Mavs actually had almost the same record - although Curry wasn't as healthy, availability is an important ability in which Doncic far oustripes Curry. The Warriors only got onto a level higher when Klay came back.

[70sFan]

Uh... do you know the difference between eFG and TS? Or can you not read where I say the difference is 2% eFG?

I know the difference, why should we exclude FT shooting from the equation though?

Curry is targeted because of his size, Doncic because of his movement. Neither of them are elite defenders, and they're both liabilities.

The difference is that Curry has been targeted ineffectively last season, while Doncic got destroyed a lot of times on defense. Curry hasn't been a liablity defensively for years.

Someone has to have the ball on teams. Luka obviously plays well with Slovenia, and isn't so ball dominant in his international play. On the Mavs, it's definitely Luka who you want handling the ball. He plays very well with secondary ball handlers, so it's not like he's limiting the offense hugely.

Well, he played last year next to talented ball-handler in Brunson, so it's not like he was forced to run everything through him. It's not even a bad thing, but the question I have is what he does when he doesn't have the ball - and he doesn't bring much value here. I also fail to see your Slovenia example, Doncic played the same way in Eurobasket.

Players with that much USG rarely have the energy to play offball effectively. Lebron, Harden, Doncic - they just drift to a spot on the 3 point line and observe+conserve energy. Doncic is an elite shooter - he's not Curry, but he's not bad offball.

I exclude the FT line from efficiency because the way it's included in TS is flawed - it weights "and1" with nothing extra. Miss your "and1" and you're supposedly "less efficient" than if you made the shot and never even took the FT. It counts a fouled 3 potentially worse than a fouled 2 - make 2 FTs and miss 1, then your efficiency is "lower" than making 2 FTs off a missed 2.

In terms of what they did last season, it seems pretty obvious that Doncic did a lot more on a team with less help. In the regular season, the Warriors and Mavs actually had almost the same record - although Curry wasn't as healthy, availability is an important ability in which Doncic far oustripes Curry. The Warriors only got onto a level higher when Klay came back.

Doncic and Harden is a good comparison for off-ball play, but James did significantly more without the ball than either of them. Besides, have you ever thought that running everything through on guy without giving him any secondary roles isn't the best idea? Why should we Blake Curry for playing more well-rounded basketball than Doncic?

And1s are so rare that they bring almost no change here, come on. Even if you ignore and1s, Curry is significantly more efficient.

Doncic being elite shooter is based on what exactly?

[Texas Chuck]

I see no real case for Luka being better than Steph based on the last time we saw them in the NBA. Luka is fantastic, but he's not yet at the peak of his powers. Steph very much is and has been. We are talking about one of the absolute greatest offensive players of all-time at an age when he understands exactly how to exploit whatever defense teams try. Luka doesn't have it all figured out yet. He also has more weaknesses offensively than Steph.

fwiw I do think Steph is a better defender than Luka, but I don't think its relevant here. Luka isn't nearly as bad as he's made to be because he's a chunky white guy. He clears the glass, he's really smart off-ball, and has great hands. He does get beat on-ball on the perimeter(this is literally everyone btw) and does get targeted. So more of a liability than Steph for sure. But this isn't a Spida/Trae situation where he makes it impossible to play good team defense. The Mavs were good defensively with a Luka/Brunson backcourt last year.

[70sFan]

fwiw I do think Steph is a better defender than Luka, but I don't think its relevant here. Luka isn't nearly as bad as he's made to be because he's a chunky white guy. He clears the glass, he's really smart off-ball, and has great hands. He does get beat on-ball on the perimeter(this is literally everyone btw) and does get targeted. So more of a liability than Steph for sure. But this isn't a Spida/Trae situation where he makes it impossible to play good team defense. The Mavs were good defensively with a Luka/Brunson backcourt last year.

I don't think Luka problems are strictly related to his lack of quickness. I don't see him even close to "smart off-ball" and he's painful to watch on P&Rs. He also doesn't give much effort for most of the game.

Curry isn't a game changer on defense, but you don't have to worry about his defense in most matchups. Luka can be very problematic against most solid offensive teams. Dallas actually did a great job hiding him on that end for most of the season.

[Texas Chuck]

fwiw I do think Steph is a better defender than Luka, but I don't think its relevant here. Luka isn't nearly as bad as he's made to be because he's a chunky white guy. He clears the glass, he's really smart off-ball, and has great hands. He does get beat on-ball on the perimeter(this is literally everyone btw) and does get targeted. So more of a liability than Steph for sure. But this isn't a Spida/Trae situation where he makes it impossible to play good team defense. The Mavs were good defensively with a Luka/Brunson backcourt last year.

I don't think Luka problems are strictly related to his lack of quickness. I don't see him even close to "smart off-ball" and he's painful to watch on P&Rs. He also doesn't give much effort for most of the game.

Curry isn't a game changer on defense, but you don't have to worry about his defense in most matchups. Luka can be very problematic against most solid offensive teams. Dallas actually did a great job hiding him on that end for most of the season.

Well I'm sure I'm more inclined to be charitable since I have a rooting interest. And I agree his effort does wane at times in the regular season. But in the playoffs and big matchups he plays hard.

And I disagree Dallas can hide everyone. Brunson undersized and slow too, Powell was actually okay defensively this year, but he's been a bad rim protector/post defender/rebounder throughout his career. That's 60% of the starting lineup. Which means Luka likely isn't hurting the defense nearly as much as your eye test suggests he is. And even off the bench the only proven defender was Kleber.

So scheme helped, but if the coach can fix your defense by scheming, with other poor defenders on the court with you all the time, you probably aren't that big a liability. Especially because he's big, he can match up against more guys.

Again, not a good defender. But I wouldn't say the difference between Curry and Doncic defensively should much of a factor here. Let Luka catch Steph offensively and then we can say okay but Curry is a better defender. That's an afterthought here.

[CharityStripe34]

Per the OP's title, yeah that's pretty evident.

[70sFan]

Again, not a good defender. But I wouldn't say the difference between Curry and Doncic defensively should much of a factor here. Let Luka catch Steph offensively and then we can say okay but Curry is a better defender. That's an afterthought here.

I may be wrong with my Luka evaluation (as I mostly watched him in the playoffs), but I suggest to stop thinking this way. It makes people think that defensive evaluation doesn't matter and nothing is further from the truth. You can have two defenders who don't give you a ton of value, but the difference between them can be significant.

We have seen teams trying to hunt Curry and it came out to be ineffective way to play. Of course that's mostly because Curry had a great defensive team around him, but he also could put up resiliance. Luka was also hunted on defense, but it usually paid off. Again, maybe that's because Luka doesn't have Green behind him, but Curry usually stepped up in those possessions.

I think we should always take defense into account, even when offense is clear.

[Texas Chuck]

Again, not a good defender. But I wouldn't say the difference between Curry and Doncic defensively should much of a factor here. Let Luka catch Steph offensively and then we can say okay but Curry is a better defender. That's an afterthought here.

I may be wrong with my Luka evaluation (as I mostly watched him in the playoffs), but I suggest to stop thinking this way. It makes people think that defensive evaluation doesn't matter and nothing is further from the truth. You can have two defenders who don't give you a ton of value, but the difference between them can be significant.

We have seen teams trying to hunt Curry and it came out to be ineffective way to play. Of course that's mostly because Curry had a great defensive team around him, but he also could put up resiliance. Luka was also hunted on defense, but it usually paid off. Again, maybe that's because Luka doesn't have Green behind him, but Curry usually stepped up in those possessions.

I think we should always take defense into account, even when offense is clear.

What about my posting history suggests I don't think defense matters?

I am on here standing up for Russell and Duncan 24/7. I've pushed back harder against PG defense doesn't matter harder than anyone and rate Stockton and Kidd much higher than most in part because of that.

But in this case, the offensive value of these specific players dwarfs their defensive contributions. And if Steph is the better offensive player still, and I personally believe he is. And I've conceded he is also a better defensive player then I don't need to further parse the difference in their defense to conclude Steph is the better player.

None of that is saying defense doesn't matter, and I feel like I'm too well established on this board for valuing defense for this response, no?