2022-23 RealGM All-Season Awards - Discussion Thread

[Doctor MJ]

I agree.

It's reason 2,374 why I've never understood why anyone ever lets any of these +/- drive so much of their evaluation of players. There are so many problems with that approach, yet we still see really smart people start from here and try and work backwards. I don't get it.

I want to clarify something:

When I'm looking to understand players, I focus on their skills and their relative advantages without necessarily thinking about +/- at all.

But when I so holistic assessment of achievement, +/- is an essential part of it once the sample gets decently large. I find it to be at the very least a critical source of questions. A general kind of "What best explains this?". If there's significant sample and I can't explain it, then at the very least I'm going to tread cautiously.

[Texas Chuck]

I agree.

It's reason 2,374 why I've never understood why anyone ever lets any of these +/- drive so much of their evaluation of players. There are so many problems with that approach, yet we still see really smart people start from here and try and work backwards. I don't get it.

I want to clarify something:

When I'm looking to understand players, I focus on their skills and their relative advantages without necessarily thinking about +/- at all.

But when I so holistic assessment of achievement, +/- is an essential part of it once the sample gets decently large. I find it to be at the very least a critical source of questions. A general kind of "What best explains this?". If there's significant sample and I can't explain it, then at the very least I'm going to tread cautiously.

It's such a team and lineup construct though. If you want to take a season-long look at a team and look at which 5 man or even 4 man units are driving the success I think its a pretty useful tool in team evaluation.

But to try and parse out accurately the impact of one player using it is not without risk. Take this year's Knicks. +/- data tells us IQ and Hart were driving that team and that the team was better when Brunson was off the court. Same with Randle.

But while Hart was a timely addition and IQ is a good leader of a 2nd unit, its not correct he was more key to the team than Brunson. Stars like Brunson are asked to log big minutes and play against whomever. Backups and role players, the coach tries to find the most effective lineups and matchups to use those guys. We see this all the time.

It's only of limited value for individual players and generally in the context of what happens with their primary 5 man unit when they are replaced by another player. If that 5 man unit gets much better or much worse, then okay this player is probably pretty key or detrimental to that lineup. But its not telling us how good they are overall. Just how well they fit into specific lineups on a specific team.

Now over a ten year period if a guy's teams are always far better served with him on the court than off in all manners of lineups, then yeah let's say that the +/- data is telling on this guy. And yes with a massive sample size, I feel the same as you--it doesn't honestly matter if I can't personally figure out how they are having this impact--its pretty clear at that point that they are. And I subscribe wholeheartedly to a belief that impact comes in all kinds of ways. If yours is spacing on offense and switching on defense, great. If its quarterbacking elite offenses, great. If its unique gravity, awesome. If its elite off-ball defense, okay. Whatever. One isn't inherently more valuable except perhaps in terms of scarcity where you can't find someone else to fill a role.

[Colbinii]

I agree.

It's reason 2,374 why I've never understood why anyone ever lets any of these +/- drive so much of their evaluation of players. There are so many problems with that approach, yet we still see really smart people start from here and try and work backwards. I don't get it.

I want to clarify something:

When I'm looking to understand players, I focus on their skills and their relative advantages without necessarily thinking about +/- at all.

But when I so holistic assessment of achievement, +/- is an essential part of it once the sample gets decently large. I find it to be at the very least a critical source of questions. A general kind of "What best explains this?". If there's significant sample and I can't explain it, then at the very least I'm going to tread cautiously.

It's such a team and lineup construct though. If you want to take a season-long look at a team and look at which 5 man or even 4 man units are driving the success I think its a pretty useful tool in team evaluation.

But to try and parse out accurately the impact of one player using it is not without risk. Take this year's Knicks. +/- data tells us IQ and Hart were driving that team and that the team was better when Brunson was off the court. Same with Randle.

But while Hart was a timely addition and IQ is a good leader of a 2nd unit, its not correct he was more key to the team than Brunson. Stars like Brunson are asked to log big minutes and play against whomever. Backups and role players, the coach tries to find the most effective lineups and matchups to use those guys. We see this all the time.

Aren't you ignoring Doctor MJ's entire post?

When I'm looking to understand players, I focus on their skills and their relative advantages without necessarily thinking about +/- at all.

When we compare the skills of Quickley and Brunson, it is obvious to anyone Brunson is more talented. It is obvious to anyone watching the games that Brunson, and to a lesser extent Randle, are the driving forces of a good New York Knicks team.

IQ and Hart had less responsibility on the teams offense and as such were lower in the pecking order in driving the teams success.

+/- in this situation is representative of IQ and Hart being excellent wheel greasers--they fill in the cracks left behind because of the flaws of Brunson/Randle as players [they are stars, not superstars].

Then, IQ showed an ability late in the year he could create offense--not at the level of Brunson--but still to a degree where the Knicks offense didn't crater when he was on the floor without Brunson.

None of this information or data is suggesting +/- can't or shouldn't be used, but as Doctor MJ said, we should first focus on a players primacy/role/skill-set before using +/- to draw definite conclusions.

[MyUniBroDavis]

The issue with +/- and that related data, is that it is useful but tends to be treated as the answer and people not really watching sometimes lol

+/- analytics are really a way to either test preconceived notions or deal with the fact that you can’t watch and rewatch every game a player plays, but instead their often treated as an end all be all. If you watch a player and their +/- data sucks, then you can rewatch and reevaluate with that lens But basketballs a sport where the right process might not equal the right results, sometimes it’s just noise


Oh also the lineup synergy thing not being accounted for is a big issue that gets handwaved away because generally speaking it isn’t that huge of an issue but on an individual level it absolutely is, I think denying that like I have seen some people online do through testing for general trends is a reason why analytics get such a bad rep, because there’s a tendency for a seperation between understanding basketball and understanding analytics. Lowkey applies to some people on here lol (not talking about you doc lol)

[Ambrose]

I'm with Chuck. Don't see any possible way Jokic isn't #1 at this point. Moving Jimmy over him for winning the finals would be peak overreaction. The gap between the two is massive, and to be honest, as time has gone on the postseason gap has grown big too.

So, this is reminding me of 2016 when people were saying that no matter what happened in the finals, Curry would be their #1 in the POY. Then the finals happened, and not only did people vote for LeBron instead, but people used that series as basically the definitive comparison between the two players in the years after.

As project runner, I'm not looking to tell anyone that a Curry-esque vote here for Jokic is wrong, but for myself, part of what I consider is how achievement is defined in the basketball culture. When Player A outperforms Player B in the finals and Player A wins, Player A gets the bragging rights, and that's just how it goes.

So personally I'm never going to say definitively that I know who my #1 is until all is said and done, and that means Butler is very much in play for that vote for me.

Do I have any debate between Jokic & Butler presently? Nope.
Will I give Butler the nod just because Miami wins the title? Nope.

But if Butler looks like the clear cut best player in the series and leads the Heat to the title, I'll be giving him strong consideration.

I would argue the difference is LeBron already had a long running reputation as the best player in the league, while that has not been the case for Butler.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I mean I doubt there’s any shot Jimmy outperforms Jokic since Jokic is better and bam is like a fun sized AD without the rim protection

But it kind of matters that the Nuggets in hindsight absolutely should be here and have the cast to be here and win the title and the heat really shouldn’t have lasted more than the first round

At the end of the day, that’s why 2018 bron doesn’t get flack for getting swept and 2016 Curry gets flack for choking a 3-1 lead even though neither were healthy those series.

[Ambrose]

I mean I doubt there’s any shot Jimmy outperforms Jokic since Jokic is better and bam is like a fun sized AD without the rim protection

But it kind of matters that the Nuggets in hindsight absolutely should be here and have the cast to be here and win the title and the heat really shouldn’t have lasted more than the first round

That makes for a great story. However, is the bolded not a positive for Jokic? If this cast of zero All Stars that went 5-8 without him is absolutely supposed to be here and win the title, is that not evidence of how great Joker is? I don't think anyone would deny Miami has a better story. Doesn't make Butler a better player.

[Texas Chuck]

Aren't you ignoring Doctor MJ's entire post?

No. I was having further dialogue with him. Were I ignoring his post, I wouldn't have quoted and responded. Honestly confused why you think I'm ignoring someone I'm quoting....

[sp6r=underrated]

The flaw with +/- usage is not taking the sample size issue seriously enough. You need years of +/- data to draw serious conclusions. Parsing series +/- data for meaning is the equivalent of parsing 4 minutes of counting stats for evaluations.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I mean I doubt there’s any shot Jimmy outperforms Jokic since Jokic is better and bam is like a fun sized AD without the rim protection

But it kind of matters that the Nuggets in hindsight absolutely should be here and have the cast to be here and win the title and the heat really shouldn’t have lasted more than the first round

That makes for a great story. However, is the bolded not a positive for Jokic? If this cast of zero All Stars that went 5-8 without him is absolutely supposed to be here and win the title, is that not evidence of how great Joker is? I don't think anyone would deny Miami has a better story. Doesn't make Butler a better player.

I’m not saying Jimmy is the better player but I don’t understand this at all if you pay attention to the actual lineups

The Nuggets are built around Jokic as a catalyst probably more than any other team in the league, but there is absolutely no way you can say that their current playoff rotation isn’t good lol

Their bench was horrible and that hurt them in the regular season, but their starting lineup was always dominant

They are basically 7 deep now, so now the rotation is absolutely really good now lol

This isn’t a case of Jokic carrying some scrubs to the finals like 2018 lebron or something, every single one of those players (aside from Playoff Murray) are very strong role players that complement Jokic very well

Jamal Murray
Aaron Gordon
KCP
MPJ
Bruce Brown

1 of Braun or Jeff Green

That’s a pretty damn good cast around a superstar, outside of Murray there’s very limited shot creation and playmaking so obviously when Jokic is out they’ll struggle more (although i don’t think they’re a .500 team with those shortened rotations)

Like you can just evaluate those players individually and as a unit and it’s pretty obvious it’s a well constructed roster lol

[Ambrose]

I mean I doubt there’s any shot Jimmy outperforms Jokic since Jokic is better and bam is like a fun sized AD without the rim protection

But it kind of matters that the Nuggets in hindsight absolutely should be here and have the cast to be here and win the title and the heat really shouldn’t have lasted more than the first round

That makes for a great story. However, is the bolded not a positive for Jokic? If this cast of zero All Stars that went 5-8 without him is absolutely supposed to be here and win the title, is that not evidence of how great Joker is? I don't think anyone would deny Miami has a better story. Doesn't make Butler a better player.

I’m not saying Jimmy is the better player but I don’t understand this at all if you pay attention to the actual lineups

The Nuggets are built around Jokic as a catalyst probably more than any other team in the league, but there is absolutely no way you can say that their current playoff rotation isn’t good lol

Their bench was horrible and that hurt them in the regular season, but their starting lineup was always dominant

They are basically 7 deep now, so now the rotation is absolutely really good now lol

This isn’t a case of Jokic carrying some scrubs to the finals like 2018 lebron or something, every single one of those players (aside from Playoff Murray) are very strong role players that complement Jokic very well

Jamal Murray
Aaron Gordon
KCP
MPJ
Bruce Brown

1 of Braun or Jeff Green

That’s a pretty damn good cast around a superstar, outside of Murray there’s very limited shot creation and playmaking so obviously when Jokic is out they’ll struggle more (although i don’t think they’re a .500 team with those shortened rotations)

Like you can just evaluate those players individually and as a unit and it’s pretty obvious it’s a well constructed roster lol

I didn't say it wasn't well constructed or a great fit for Jokic. I'm pushing back on the "should absolutely be here" part and the awful 2018 LeBron analogy. No one would give this team a second thought if they didn't have the best player in the NBA. He is the reason "they should be here". Absolutely no one was saying "Man Jokic has an awesome cast" until after they mowed down everyone in the West. This isn't some historically good cast. With him they elevate each other, certainly.

It's a tight rotation that is well built around the strength of their star, but without him, they aren't relevant. I mean even in these playoffs the Heat cast have more WS and a higher VORP than the Nuggets cast does (yes, I realize that's partially because they've played more games).

[Texas Chuck]

I think it can and frequently is both. Like take my little Mavs and their only championship team. We actually got a decent sample size of that team minus Dirk that year and they couldn't score. Like at all. They would have been one of the worst teams in the entire Association that year without Dirk.

But we also know they had 3 NBA centers including one of the best defenders in the league and his backup probably a top 10-12 defensive center in his own right. They had 3 very quality wing defenders, they had two bench guards who supplemented the offense, they had end of rotation players with 10+ years of experience who played their roles well. They had the deepest coaching staff in the league.

So I would say the Mavs had a terrific supporting cast, perfectly built around Dirk. Those guys also could have done very very little without Dirk. Jason Terry can't anchor your offense for 82 games.

I think the Nuggets clearly have talented, smart pieces around Joker. But Ambrose is absolutely right, remove Joker and they aren't relevant to anything and almost certainly not a playoff team.

[MyUniBroDavis]

That makes for a great story. However, is the bolded not a positive for Jokic? If this cast of zero All Stars that went 5-8 without him is absolutely supposed to be here and win the title, is that not evidence of how great Joker is? I don't think anyone would deny Miami has a better story. Doesn't make Butler a better player.

I’m not saying Jimmy is the better player but I don’t understand this at all if you pay attention to the actual lineups

The Nuggets are built around Jokic as a catalyst probably more than any other team in the league, but there is absolutely no way you can say that their current playoff rotation isn’t good lol

Their bench was horrible and that hurt them in the regular season, but their starting lineup was always dominant

They are basically 7 deep now, so now the rotation is absolutely really good now lol

This isn’t a case of Jokic carrying some scrubs to the finals like 2018 lebron or something, every single one of those players (aside from Playoff Murray) are very strong role players that complement Jokic very well

Jamal Murray
Aaron Gordon
KCP
MPJ
Bruce Brown

1 of Braun or Jeff Green

That’s a pretty damn good cast around a superstar, outside of Murray there’s very limited shot creation and playmaking so obviously when Jokic is out they’ll struggle more (although i don’t think they’re a .500 team with those shortened rotations)

Like you can just evaluate those players individually and as a unit and it’s pretty obvious it’s a well constructed roster lol

I didn't say it wasn't well constructed or a great fit for Jokic. I'm pushing back on the "should absolutely be here" part and the awful 2018 LeBron analogy. No one would give this team a second thought if they didn't have the best player in the NBA. He is the reason "they should be here". Absolutely no one was saying "Man Jokic has an awesome cast" until after they mowed down everyone in the West. This isn't some historically good cast. With him they elevate each other, certainly.

It's a tight rotation that is well built around the strength of their star, but without him, they aren't relevant. I mean even in these playoffs the Heat cast have more WS and a higher VORP than the Nuggets cast does (yes, I realize that's partially because they've played more games).

Most teams without their best player aren’t relevant lol

This is kind of been my issue with discussions on here sometimes, people lack the ability to actually evaluate individual players skillset and how they fit a role.

The only way to evaluate a cast is not to see how they perform without him, if take 5 great actors and a great director and make a good movie and take out the director the movie aint gonna look so great

I’m not saying it’s an all time great supporting cast or that Jokic isn’t a historic level player or not a top 5 offensive player ever or anything, but yeah it’s a good cast lol

Role players exist to support and enhance the superstar talent, when you take out the superstar talent obviously it changes things

Do you understand how much having 2 highly effecient movement shooters, one of the best cutters in the league, and the playoff version Jamal Murray is literally like the exodia 4 to surround a post up playmaking superstar? Like if you have any semblance of understanding of how counters to certain defenses to pick and roll coverages and post offense in general you’d understand that’s incredible

It’s not just that the Nuggets are really good, and credit to them for getting the one seed of course before saying this, but look at who they faced lol, the west was absolute cheeks this year, which is what everyone has been saying all year. I really hope I don’t have to break it down by matchups but the ball knowledge is in hell if I have to respond to “Lakers were the number 1 defense!” Again lol

Do you understand how pointless it is to say that a team wouldn’t be in the finals without their best player lol

I’m not saying this is a juggernaut of a cast but the idea that they’re a bad supporting because they are very much built around him outside of super saiyan Jamal and “5-8” is all the analysis you need is silly lol

[MyUniBroDavis]

I think it can and frequently is both. Like take my little Mavs and their only championship team. We actually got a decent sample size of that team minus Dirk that year and they couldn't score. Like at all. They would have been one of the worst teams in the entire Association that year without Dirk.

But we also know they had 3 NBA centers including one of the best defenders in the league and his backup probably a top 10-12 defensive center in his own right. They had 3 very quality wing defenders, they had two bench guards who supplemented the offense, they had end of rotation players with 10+ years of experience who played their roles well. They had the deepest coaching staff in the league.

So I would say the Mavs had a terrific supporting cast, perfectly built around Dirk. Those guys also could have done very very little without Dirk. Jason Terry can't anchor your offense for 82 games.

I think the Nuggets clearly have talented, smart pieces around Joker. But Ambrose is absolutely right, remove Joker and they aren't relevant to anything and almost certainly not a playoff team.

I mean yeah but I never said that they would make the playoffs

I said in a hypothetical scenario where they playoff jamal is sustainable and that you could sustainably play 6-7 guys for an entire regular season they could be but you could say that for a lot of teams

But when we say they’re supposed to be here, sure, that’s built off the greatness of Jokic I agree

My issue is that it’s not like a glaring disparity come playoff time between the Nuggets supporting cast vs other teams supporting cast that they faced

I’d say it’s fair to say their supporting cast was better than the Suns one right? The Suns have like 2.5 good players and the 0.5 got hurt lol

This is gonna be pretty controversial but based on what happened that series they absolutely clear the Lakers one too, mainly because 2-3 of our guys were unplayable and denver undoubtedly had two of the best guys in the series (really tough matchup for AD for sure on defense, credit to Jokic for that, but ADs post defense vs girthier guys has always been a big weakness for him, so it’s not like a Jokic exclusive thing either, Embiid and Giannis absolutely kill him too).

Like I’ve think I said this before, but before I hear the #1 defense argument the Lakers were able to be such a dominant defense because of really good gameplanning using the versatility of AD, and that they didn’t have a way to attack our weaknesses which was that we only had one real guy that could guard guys who attack using ball screens and he’s my height, because Reaves had to be our 1st or second option offensively with bron playing on 0.75 feet and ADs bone spur issue which made him way less effective in the post since he came back from injury, and Vando dies on screens.

Vs the grizzlies we really just ran drop and helped off brooks lol, and they just didn’t do anything and though Ja attacking AD was a good idea. It was really stupid and kind of hilarious. Lowkey kennard for brooks was an issue

Vs the warriors from what I recall, high drop vs Curry because AD can contest and recover, and we don’t give up a numbers advantage and AINT nobody afraid of a Draymond without a numbers advantage, and against off ball cuts AD sags off non shooters and top locking so the back door cuts that gives up run into AD

Vs the Nuggets our post defense was successful, in the exact same ways our strategies against other teams had been successful. Some guys hit shots off of those but when we ran the bron or rui on Jokic AD help stuff, their post offense was limited the same way the Curry pick and roll was, not shut down but very limited (at least when we ran it).

Our pick and roll defense was horrendous because we literally don’t have a single player that can defend ball screens and not just get shot over by jamal lol. Of course, Jokic helps, but it was more jamal if ur talking about regular ball screen situations.

So like yeah we were a number 1 defense, but playoffs it relied heavily upon us being able to stop both of a teams main ways of attack, vs the Nuggets we couldn’t do that because of how bad our pick and roll defense was matched up to theirs (and I think that it was probably our best point vs the other two teams)

[Doctor MJ]

I agree.

It's reason 2,374 why I've never understood why anyone ever lets any of these +/- drive so much of their evaluation of players. There are so many problems with that approach, yet we still see really smart people start from here and try and work backwards. I don't get it.

I want to clarify something:

When I'm looking to understand players, I focus on their skills and their relative advantages without necessarily thinking about +/- at all.

But when I so holistic assessment of achievement, +/- is an essential part of it once the sample gets decently large. I find it to be at the very least a critical source of questions. A general kind of "What best explains this?". If there's significant sample and I can't explain it, then at the very least I'm going to tread cautiously.

It's such a team and lineup construct though. If you want to take a season-long look at a team and look at which 5 man or even 4 man units are driving the success I think its a pretty useful tool in team evaluation.

But to try and parse out accurately the impact of one player using it is not without risk. Take this year's Knicks. +/- data tells us IQ and Hart were driving that team and that the team was better when Brunson was off the court. Same with Randle.

But while Hart was a timely addition and IQ is a good leader of a 2nd unit, its not correct he was more key to the team than Brunson. Stars like Brunson are asked to log big minutes and play against whomever. Backups and role players, the coach tries to find the most effective lineups and matchups to use those guys. We see this all the time.

It's only of limited value for individual players and generally in the context of what happens with their primary 5 man unit when they are replaced by another player. If that 5 man unit gets much better or much worse, then okay this player is probably pretty key or detrimental to that lineup. But its not telling us how good they are overall. Just how well they fit into specific lineups on a specific team.

Now over a ten year period if a guy's teams are always far better served with him on the court than off in all manners of lineups, then yeah let's say that the +/- data is telling on this guy. And yes with a massive sample size, I feel the same as you--it doesn't honestly matter if I can't personally figure out how they are having this impact--its pretty clear at that point that they are. And I subscribe wholeheartedly to a belief that impact comes in all kinds of ways. If yours is spacing on offense and switching on defense, great. If its quarterbacking elite offenses, great. If its unique gravity, awesome. If its elite off-ball defense, okay. Whatever. One isn't inherently more valuable except perhaps in terms of scarcity where you can't find someone else to fill a role.

I think this is a great example for us to consider here, and not just for this year:

IQ has been the leader of raw +/- on the Knicks each of the last 3 years while being a bench player. What does that mean?

It certainly is not proof that IQ is the best player on the Knicks.
It might mean that the Knicks should have considered playing IQ more and with the starters, but it might not.

I think it does mean though that the Knicks' secondary units have been more successful against the competition they face than their primary units have against the competition they face. And given that Julius Randle has been the main guy they've run their primary unit offense around over this extended time period, I don't think anyone should see this as a fluke. IQ may not be able to be a guy who can do great things against starter level competition, but I don't think it's controversial among this group to assert that treating Randle like he's LeBron isn't the best plan for building a contender.

A thing to drill down on is whether the advantage we're seeing here comes from offense or defense. I'd argue it would be seen as particularly unlikely that we'd see a one & done guy from Kentucky land as a bench guy if he were an offensive superstar, so if this isn't noise, I'd expect we'd see more evidence of defensive impact than offensive from IQ even before we take in what we know about IQ specifically.

Using nbashotcharts's 3-year RAPM, IQ ranks 72nd in ORAPM in that time, and 8th in DRAPM. Yup, seems to be saying it's about the defense. Again, defending well against bench guys doesn't mean you're necessarily capable of being elite against starting level competition, but is it a surprise that a starting unit built around Randle doesn't fair as well defensively as secondary units not built around a guy known entirely for offense? Nope.

Zooming out: It's not actually super-common for bench guys to lead their teams in +/-. It happens maybe to 3-5 teams each year. When it happens you're typically not talking about teams with elite records, and a starting unit that isn't that strong.

Now, I've avoided talking about Brunson so far because I wanted to emphasize the 3-year trend that really isn't about Brunson. But what does +/- data tell us about Brunson this year?

Well, his ORAPM ranks 10th in the entire league which is better than any other Knick this year or in the previous two. So in terms of Brunson being the rightful offensive star of this team, the data really supports this.

So then it's a question of whether Brunson's bad defensive numbers (515th in DRAPM in the league) are something that can be fixed with lineup support and tactical shifts. Right now Brunson plays more than twice as many minutes with Randle than with IQ for example. Perhaps playing more with IQ would help Brunson be less of an exploitable weakness.

Last note: When it comes to assessing value and achievement, I do think it's possible for a bench guy to actually be the MVP of the team's regular season even if he's playing against weaker competition, and even if he couldn't do anything like that against the starter. It's really just math.

However, I am cautious about actually asserting this in individual cases. Maybe IQ actually is the MVP of the Knicks, but we don't get to do a true apples-to-apples comparison with his teammates. The real takeaway is just that if the coach doesn't realize this is happening, it should be brought to his attention, and he should then consider whether to move the bench guy into a larger role.

[Doctor MJ]

The issue with +/- and that related data, is that it is useful but tends to be treated as the answer and people not really watching sometimes lol

+/- analytics are really a way to either test preconceived notions or deal with the fact that you can’t watch and rewatch every game a player plays, but instead their often treated as an end all be all. If you watch a player and their +/- data sucks, then you can rewatch and reevaluate with that lens But basketballs a sport where the right process might not equal the right results, sometimes it’s just noise


Oh also the lineup synergy thing not being accounted for is a big issue that gets handwaved away because generally speaking it isn’t that huge of an issue but on an individual level it absolutely is, I think denying that like I have seen some people online do through testing for general trends is a reason why analytics get such a bad rep, because there’s a tendency for a seperation between understanding basketball and understanding analytics. Lowkey applies to some people on here lol (not talking about you doc lol)

Good thoughts here. I'll say a couple things:

- I do think one of the big value-adds of +/- data is the questions it raises. "What best explains this data?" is something I ask myself all the time, and certainly not just with +/- data.

- Lineup synergy needs to be accounted for. Synergy, or fit, is a tricky philosophical thing. From a player scouting perspective it's absolutely essential to consider the synergistic effects of a particular situation a player is in.

From an achievement perspective, I'm often reluctant to look to normalize for fit though. The guy I always think of here is late prime Dirk. His +/- impact goes through the roof in later years in a way that screams, "The team recognized his strengths and weaknesses, and built around him effectively." It's correct to note that Dirk wouldn't be able to have impact like this dropped in a new situation...but from an achievement perspective, he's benefitting from exactly what you'd hope that staying on one team your whole career would yield.

- Separation between understanding basketball and understanding analytics. There certainly is, and while I certainly make no claims to understand basketball on an elite level compared to others here, what I can say is that the reason I settled here rather than APBRmetrics is because I found them to be too detached from the reality of the sport, and I've often been critical of specific movements that have originated there - as well as other analytically-inclined places, with Dave Berri's Wage of Wins being the most egregious of the bunch.

[Ambrose]

I’m not saying Jimmy is the better player but I don’t understand this at all if you pay attention to the actual lineups

The Nuggets are built around Jokic as a catalyst probably more than any other team in the league, but there is absolutely no way you can say that their current playoff rotation isn’t good lol

Their bench was horrible and that hurt them in the regular season, but their starting lineup was always dominant

They are basically 7 deep now, so now the rotation is absolutely really good now lol

This isn’t a case of Jokic carrying some scrubs to the finals like 2018 lebron or something, every single one of those players (aside from Playoff Murray) are very strong role players that complement Jokic very well

Jamal Murray
Aaron Gordon
KCP
MPJ
Bruce Brown

1 of Braun or Jeff Green

That’s a pretty damn good cast around a superstar, outside of Murray there’s very limited shot creation and playmaking so obviously when Jokic is out they’ll struggle more (although i don’t think they’re a .500 team with those shortened rotations)

Like you can just evaluate those players individually and as a unit and it’s pretty obvious it’s a well constructed roster lol

I didn't say it wasn't well constructed or a great fit for Jokic. I'm pushing back on the "should absolutely be here" part and the awful 2018 LeBron analogy. No one would give this team a second thought if they didn't have the best player in the NBA. He is the reason "they should be here". Absolutely no one was saying "Man Jokic has an awesome cast" until after they mowed down everyone in the West. This isn't some historically good cast. With him they elevate each other, certainly.

It's a tight rotation that is well built around the strength of their star, but without him, they aren't relevant. I mean even in these playoffs the Heat cast have more WS and a higher VORP than the Nuggets cast does (yes, I realize that's partially because they've played more games).

Most teams without their best player aren’t relevant lol

This is kind of been my issue with discussions on here sometimes, people lack the ability to actually evaluate individual players skillset and how they fit a role.

The only way to evaluate a cast is not to see how they perform without him, if take 5 great actors and a great director and make a good movie and take out the director the movie aint gonna look so great

I’m not saying it’s an all time great supporting cast or that Jokic isn’t a historic level player or not a top 5 offensive player ever or anything, but yeah it’s a good cast lol

Role players exist to support and enhance the superstar talent, when you take out the superstar talent obviously it changes things

Do you understand how much having 2 highly effecient movement shooters, one of the best cutters in the league, and the playoff version Jamal Murray is literally like the exodia 4 to surround a post up playmaking superstar? Like if you have any semblance of understanding of how counters to certain defenses to pick and roll coverages and post offense in general you’d understand that’s incredible

It’s not just that the Nuggets are really good, and credit to them for getting the one seed of course before saying this, but look at who they faced lol, the west was absolute cheeks this year, which is what everyone has been saying all year. I really hope I don’t have to break it down by matchups but the ball knowledge is in hell if I have to respond to “Lakers were the number 1 defense!” Again lol

Do you understand how pointless it is to say that a team wouldn’t be in the finals without their best player lol

I’m not saying this is a juggernaut of a cast but the idea that they’re a bad supporting because they are very much built around him outside of super saiyan Jamal and “5-8” is all the analysis you need is silly lol

I don't know why you're arguing some of these points that have little to nothing to do with what I've actually said. I took issue with your silly proclamation that Miami wasn't supposed to be here and Denver was, and somehow that is a positive for Butler, and not the other way around. You threw out the 2018 Cavs as an analogy which couldn't be less relevant. Then you turned it into something about me not understanding his supporting cast.

Things I've admitted: Yes, they fit well and compliment Jokic. Their skillsets are fantastic for all sorts of counters, which is why their offense is so consistently strong. The majority of your post for some reason completely ignores that I said this, multiple times. Read Chuck's post and it is exactly my opinion. Great fit and also heavily reliant on their superstar.

Things that are also true: Individually they are nothing special. Amongst all time finals supporting casts, they do not stand out in any meaningful way. They don't even stand out from their upcoming opponents. So I do not understand how your original statement is anything but a positive for Jokic. I want you to clarify and justify that statement. I don't care about you ranting about things I never said about Denver's cast.

[Doctor MJ]

I'm with Chuck. Don't see any possible way Jokic isn't #1 at this point. Moving Jimmy over him for winning the finals would be peak overreaction. The gap between the two is massive, and to be honest, as time has gone on the postseason gap has grown big too.

So, this is reminding me of 2016 when people were saying that no matter what happened in the finals, Curry would be their #1 in the POY. Then the finals happened, and not only did people vote for LeBron instead, but people used that series as basically the definitive comparison between the two players in the years after.

As project runner, I'm not looking to tell anyone that a Curry-esque vote here for Jokic is wrong, but for myself, part of what I consider is how achievement is defined in the basketball culture. When Player A outperforms Player B in the finals and Player A wins, Player A gets the bragging rights, and that's just how it goes.

So personally I'm never going to say definitively that I know who my #1 is until all is said and done, and that means Butler is very much in play for that vote for me.

Do I have any debate between Jokic & Butler presently? Nope.
Will I give Butler the nod just because Miami wins the title? Nope.

But if Butler looks like the clear cut best player in the series and leads the Heat to the title, I'll be giving him strong consideration.

I would argue the difference is LeBron already had a long running reputation as the best player in the league, while that has not been the case for Butler.

Quite reasonable to point that out, but I actually think it's really important when doing season-specific achievement analysis not to let reputation dominate thought process.

[HeartBreakKid]

This is great and all but the Heat just won a series with Butler playing relatively poorly. So like...doesn't that mean his teammates aren't actually bad?

The Heat might have a worse roster but not by such an astronomical margin that if they win that means Butler is God. The fact is the Heat's roster was undervalued, that isn't even subjective they are undrafted players.

It feels like the Heat beating Nuggets and thus Butler > Jokic is saying POY and FMVP are the same thing. Because even if Jokic played substandard and Butler played better that would make their playoff runs roughly equal with Jokic's RS better than Jimmy's. As of now Jokic's playoff stats are a bit ahead of Butlers so it would likely just even out.

[Doctor MJ]

This is great and all but the Heat just won a series with Butler playing relatively poorly. So like...doesn't that mean his teammates aren't actually bad?

The Heat might have a worse roster but not by such an astronomical margin that if they win that means Butler is God. The fact is the Heat's roster was undervalued, that isn't even subjective they are undrafted players.

It feels like the Heat beating Nuggets and thus Butler > Jokic is saying POY and FMVP are the same thing. Because even if Jokic played substandard and Butler played better that would make their playoff runs roughly equal with Jokic's RS better than Jimmy's. As of now Jokic's playoff stats are a bit ahead of Butlers so it would likely just even out.

I think it's actually really good to point out that while Jokic was by far the WCF MVP, Butler maybe should have to give that trophy to Martin. Believe me when I say that I'm reluctant to rank Butler as the top POY candidate from the East simply because his team won out, and I'll certainly be strongly considering Jokic for POY even if his team loses to the Heat.

But Jimmy is just clear cut the best player in the Finals and leads his team to victory, yeah, I'll be considering him too.