2022-23 RealGM All-Season Awards - Discussion Thread

[70sFan]

I don't see Butler beating Jokic in the finals for the POY. He'd have to repeat his heroics vs Bucks and Jokic would have to underperform significantly. Don't see that happening though.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't see Butler beating Jokic in the finals for the POY. He'd have to repeat his heroics vs Bucks and Jokic would have to underperform significantly. Don't see that happening though.

I don't disagree. I'm not predicting it, just keeping my mind open to the possibility of it.

[jalengreen]

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.

Not really relevant to your point but a side point: I think Murray played well enough for Jokic to not be classified as "by far" the WCF MVP.

[70sFan]

I don't see Butler beating Jokic in the finals for the POY. He'd have to repeat his heroics vs Bucks and Jokic would have to underperform significantly. Don't see that happening though.

I don't disagree. I'm not predicting it, just keeping my mind open to the possibility of it.

Even then, Butler was much worse than Jokic in RS and much worse in the playoffs outside of Bucks series. The difference in finals would have to be drastic, I can't even imagine that to be honest. Jokic would have to have his 2007 Dirk performance (maybe even worse?), with Butler repeating his Bucks performance. Anything lesser won't give Butler POY in my eyes, because Jokic is just much superior player throughout the season.

[Outside]

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.

Not really relevant to your point but a side point: I think Murray played well enough for Jokic to not be classified as "by far" the WCF MVP.

Murray played great but owes a lot of his success to Jokic. Murray goes supernova in spurts, but Jokic is the one the team is built around, and he is the one carrying the load for the team -- not just scoring, but being the hub of everything they do and being the focus of the defense, plus rebounding and doing more on the defensive end than Murray. We've seen Jokic be a monster when they didn't have Murray or MPJ, but Murray would be in a world of trouble without Jokic.

The same goes for Butler and Caleb Martin. Martin has been fantastic, I'm so impressed, and the Heat desperately needed his excellent play to get to the finals. Martin had 19.3/6.4/1.7 on .738 TS% (!) plus excellent defense against Boston. But despite his poor shooting (.519 TS%), Jimmy had better totals in all three categories and also played great defense, and Jimmy being the focus gave Martin the freedom to do what he did.

SVG and Kevin Harlan gave Martin some love by saying he had a case for MVP of the series, but he really has a case for second-best player on the Heat. Same goes with Murray on the Nuggets.

[The-Power]

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

Others have alluded to it already but: this is not the Jimmy Butler show. Not after the first round at least.

Yes, he is their clear-cut best player. But this post makes it sound like Butler is doing an all-time carry job and completely ignores how incredible the role players have played and the influence that Spo has had. This team is not where it is only because Butler stepped up but because they stepped up as a unit. I don't see a good reason to look back at the expectations we had for the Heat before the playoffs, compare it to where they are now, and just decide to credit exclusively or even mostly Butler for outperforming those expectations.

Heck, just look at what this Heat team has been able to do with Butler off the court. Small sample and all, but it's been 200 minutes (i.e., more than 4 full games) and they have a +16.1 net rating in those. This is clearly not a one-man show but a well-oiled and perfectly calibrated machine.

[parsnips33]

I realize it's hyperbole, but there's really no "one-man shows" in basketball. Maybe it's just a shorthand for "one player making a disproportionate amount of contribution", but I don't think it serves to actually further people's understanding of the game, I think it does the opposite actually.

I wish vastly more of basketball discourse was concerned with teams (or at least 5 man units) than individuals, but I understand why that might not be the case. Some combination of American individualism, analytics (and all the antecedents it carries over from Sabremetrics in baseball), and shoe marketing probably

Apologies if this is not 100% on topic

[MyUniBroDavis]

Jimmy is playing hurt and thus the playoffs Jimmy agenda is back

[MyUniBroDavis]

I realize it's hyperbole, but there's really no "one-man shows" in basketball. Maybe it's just a shorthand for "one player making a disproportionate amount of contribution", but I don't think it serves to actually further people's understanding of the game, I think it does the opposite actually.

I wish vastly more of basketball discourse was concerned with teams (or at least 5 man units) than individuals, but I understand why that might not be the case. Some combination of American individualism, analytics (and all the antecedents it carries over from Sabremetrics in baseball), and shoe marketing probably

Apologies if this is not 100% on topic

It’s a player comparison forum lol

Outside of here people talk about teams a lot more other than bron

[Texas Chuck]

I realize it's hyperbole, but there's really no "one-man shows" in basketball. Maybe it's just a shorthand for "one player making a disproportionate amount of contribution", but I don't think it serves to actually further people's understanding of the game, I think it does the opposite actually.

I wish vastly more of basketball discourse was concerned with teams (or at least 5 man units) than individuals, but I understand why that might not be the case. Some combination of American individualism, analytics (and all the antecedents it carries over from Sabremetrics in baseball), and shoe marketing probably

Apologies if this is not 100% on topic

The Association has brought this upon itself a fair bit once it decided in the 80's to market itself primarily around individual players and not teams. Lakers/Celtics the only real exception. Even when we've had some amazing rivalries it became Lebron vs GSW or Dirk vs Duncan instead of being fully about the teams.

But I agree wholeheartedly that our arrogance in thinking we are accurately identifying statistically the influence of one player in a sport played with 10 is way misplaced. In some cases we are giving far too much credit to one player, but at others not nearly enough.

In the case of Jokic, I think even as he is largely seen as the best player in the world, I think we are still fairly badly understating his influence. And case is point is this attempted narrative that Murray is having nearly the same driving force on the team. Which just doesn't pass any kind of even cursory glance at the games. And its mostly here is a guy benefiting immensely from all the attention defending Jokic requires so he's having a solid run of volume/efficiency and those numbers exaggerate his impact thus downplaying Joker's.

These truly elite of the elite are just worth so much more than even like the 7th or 8th best player in the league. We understate the difference between the best 2 or 3 players and other all-NBA guys and then greatly overstate the difference between those players and all-star level players. The gaps are biggest at the very top in terms of how they influence the outcome of games.

[parsnips33]

I realize it's hyperbole, but there's really no "one-man shows" in basketball. Maybe it's just a shorthand for "one player making a disproportionate amount of contribution", but I don't think it serves to actually further people's understanding of the game, I think it does the opposite actually.

I wish vastly more of basketball discourse was concerned with teams (or at least 5 man units) than individuals, but I understand why that might not be the case. Some combination of American individualism, analytics (and all the antecedents it carries over from Sabremetrics in baseball), and shoe marketing probably

Apologies if this is not 100% on topic

It’s a player comparison forum lol

Outside of here people talk about teams a lot more other than bron

I get that. I'm just saying, I think it distorts the way people think about basketball

Like if there was an "Equipment Comparisons" board with 50 threads comparing Spalding balls versus Wilson balls and their associated statistics, would we all think that the brand of ball was one of if not the most important factors in the sport? In the same way we think individual skill/accomplishment is one of if not the most important factors in analyzing a team sport?

[AEnigma]

The Finals are unlikely to majorly shift my ballot at this point, so I figured now would be an appropriate time to revisit my thoughts from the beginning of the postseason.

Player of the Year:
Jokic and Giannis are near locks barring catastrophe. Jokic might be a lock even if he misses the rest of the season from this point (will note that he would need to have his best ever playoff run for me to consider him at #1). Everyone else is heavily playoff dependent. Luka has a decent playoff track record by now, but if he misses the postseason, I will struggle to fit him into the top five. When healthy, Lebron, Steph, Kawhi, Davis, and Embiid all have historically been able to lay strong claim to a spot with their postseason performances. Durant struggled last year, but he will not see the same calibre of defence in the western conference unless he runs into the fully healthy Lakers, and he certainly will not face the same level of defensive attention. I have not been a Tatum believer, but he can prove me wrong. Butler has been more interesting, although he will be operating at a deficit based on Miami’s regular season. Donovan Mitchell would need an extraordinary run, as would most other players in his tier.

For reference, in 2022 my ballot would have been:
1/2. Giannis and Steph (likely leaning Giannis)
3. Jokic
4. Luka
5. Butler or Tatum (agonising decision but probably would lean Butler)

And that was with Lebron/Kawhi/Davis all absent from the postseason and Durant having what was likely his worst since 2013.

Offensive Player of the Year:
#1 will be Jokic, barring a Steve Nash level postseason run from someone else. Variable past that. Names in mind include Luka, Steph, Lillard (below Steph), Sabonis, Haliburton, Harden, Lebron… possibly Mitchell or Durant depending on the postseason… Brunson conceivably with some spectacular play… maybe Shai or Lauri, but without a postseason series that will be tricky.

For reference, in 2022 my ballot would have been Jokic, Steph, and Luka.

Defensive Player of the Year
Monitoring Giannis, JJJ, Davis, Draymond (well-earned postseason reputation), Bam, Brook, Claxton, Embiid, and Mobley. For reference, in 2022 my ballot would have been Draymond, Giannis, and Gobert.

Rookie of the Year:
Last year I think I had the same as the official results, although probably could have been swayed on replacing Cade. This year, looking at Banchero, Jalen Williams, Walker Kessler, and Benedict Mathurin. A nice postseason performance could help those latter three, as well as Keegan Murray.

Most Improved:
Always an odd philosophical question considering age. Lauri my likely frontrunner. Claxton likely to make my top three. Mixed on Shai’s candidacy. Less mixed on Brunson’s, but there too, never been a fan of awarding this simply to those who were given increased primacy. Probably would not have bothered with a ballot last year.
Regular Season:
I think I stand by Markannen as my #1 (again, much rarer to see that elevation in your sixth year at age 25) and Claxton as my #2. For #3, leaning toward Fox or JJJ (DARKO I think can a bit off with apportionment, and much of Steven Adams’s recent D-DPM spike should probably be attributed more to Jaren).

Sixth Man of the Year:
Quickley leading. Maxey needs to stay on the bench but can probably be second if he does. Prefer Grant Williams right now to Brogdon (so far more of a seventh man), but Reaves is my actual third choice and may even find a way to climb higher. Probably would not have bothered with a ballot last year.

Coach of the Year:
Not seriously considering this until the postseason is complete. Previous winners for me would have been 2021 Snyder/Lue and 2019/20 Nurse and Budenholzer. Probably would not have bothered with a ballot last year.
Regular Season:
1. Mike Brown
2. Taylor Jenkins
3. Will Hardy

Executive of the Year:
Never consider this until the postseason is complete. Philosophically, I am looking for moves which significantly improved a roster’s ability and likelihood to win a title, e.g. I would likely give it to McNair if the Kings made a run to the Finals. Previous winners for me would have been 2021 Horst (Bucks), 2020 Pat Riley, 2019 Masai, and 2018 Morey. Probably would not have bothered with a ballot last year.
Regular Season:
1. Koby Altman
2. Daryl Morey
3. If I had an official NBA ballot I would make this a throwaway vote. For the RealGM ballot, as I said, playoff results are paramount.
Ainge lost me a bit with that Conley/Vanderbilt trade. Possible he could not get more than a single distanced first, but that seems low value compared to what we have seen elsewhere.
Pelinka had a nice deadline, but this award is a long-term one for me, and there were plenty of errors preceding the Russell/Vanderbilt trade.
McNair will be a popular choice, and if the goal was returning to relevance as quickly as possible, then sure, he did a great job, but I still think that team made a poor move for its longer-term contention capabilities.
The Nuggets are finally complete, but the only additions you can attribute specifically to their current executive are KCP and Bruce Brown.
And then Leon Rose. The cloud looming over Rose for me is the Barrett contract. If he uses that contract to trade for a strong asset, then he may well be at the top of my ballot next year. And for RealGM purposes, if Brunson channels his 2018 NCAA self and takes the Knicks deep into the playoffs, then maybe I can overlook the Barrett extension. Right now, though, he has built a 5-seed without a clear path to greater heights, and I would like to see more than just that.

If Steph makes the conference finals then he will automatically be a strong contender for my Player of the Year (and that case would improve the further he goes), and I already had him pretty securely in my top three candidates for Offensive Player of the Year. However, I am not too invested on commenting on those ideas four games into the postseason.

For example, and this has been touched on in the season discussion thread, right now Leon Rose is probably going to finish above Koby Altman for my Executive of the Year pick. Altman was my regular season selection because he made a series of moves culminating in a top two SRS team, but right now we are witnessing a failure to convert that into postseason success. If the Cavaliers pull off the 3-1 comeback, then that can spin right back around, but as it stands, the Knicks looks better constructed for the postseason. As another example, Mike Brown was my regular season coach of the year, but losing in the first round will severely hamper his chances to make my official ballot (potential exception: the better the Warriors look, the better the Kings look). Third example, Malcolm Brogdon was not on my regular season Sixth Man ballot, but four games into this postseason, he is back in the top three.

I might review key edits in my ballots after a series, but any edits during a series are probably too variable.

Executive of the Year
As stated previously, postseason over-performance makes Leon Rose look a lot better. Same for Pat Riley, with the Heat’s drafting (or rather, undrafted signings) shining through. Reluctant with Calvin Booth, but KCP and Brown have been outstanding pickups for that team, and had those moves not been made, entirely possible they end up looking to the Lakers or otherwise being in worse shape for what I expect to be a completed title run. Not sure on the timing for official voting, but if Morey re-signs Harden before the polls close, that will factor into my assessment and potentially make this a four-man race.

Coach of the Year
1. Spoelstra
2. Malone
3. Undecided between Mike Brown, who performed admirably with a lesser talent roster, and Thibodeau, who has adapted nicely. Can be swayed toward others, but those are the main two for me.

Sixth Man of the Year
Philosophical issue with this one. Reaves was a sixth man most of the year but was their third most secure player by the end. Quickley and Brogdon were true sixth men all year but for clearer positional reasons (Reaves would likely not have started for the Celtics in the postseason either, although he could have started over Grimes for the Knicks). Right now I do not think any other sixth men candidates stick out, so will probably remain with these three.

Most Improved:
JJJ impressed in the postseason with his improved offensive repertoire, as did Fox. That may be enough to move both over Claxton and even Lauri.

Defensive Player of the Year:
1. Davis
2. Draymond
3. JJJ

Offensive Player of the Year:
After Jokic, I am looking at two of Steph, Lillard, and Luka in some order. Respect to Booker, but I do not actually trust him to consistently generate better offence than those three; he can be the consolatory #5.

Player of the Year:
Discourse over this award has frustrated me immensely.
Everyone assesses this in different ways. Some heavily anchor the regular season, in which case their ballots are automatically going to be Jokic #1 and then Embiid, Giannis, Tatum, and Butler in some order. Fair enough. I think those first four were the most valuable regular season players in aggregate, and Butler was not too far behind (despite his paltry on/off and RAPM ). And then even when reducing aggregate weighings, Butler and Tatum would still be in my top ten per possession. I might ultimately have the same five names, because Giannis and Embiid started from such a high base, and I expect at worst I will have four of those five on my own ballot — after all, three of those names have strong overlap with a postseason heavy analysis.

Postseason analysis varies a little more dramatically. For raw accomplishments, the ballot could be as simple as Jokic, Butler, Tatum, Lebron, and Davis, or maybe you have Jamal Murray (or Caleb Martin? ) replace one of the Lakers. I think the latter would be a severe overreaction, but I understand the impulse. Most people do not take that approach and instead look to what they assess as a sort of “postseason production”. Main alternative names there are probably Booker, Jamal again, Steph apparently… maybe Brunson… and that is what rankles me more. I may not wholly agree with title belt mentality, but there is a consistency to it: winning is better than losing, I want to pick winners. Reductive, sure, yet in telling the “story of a season”, that will take you pretty far. However, the production aspect essentially makes it a game of hot-streaks. Booker stops missing for nine-games and that makes him a defining player of the season? Brunson has even less, with five superstar games playing well above his level (at that point may as well say Anthony Edwards — who I also I have watched people try to unironically argue above conference finalists ).

I recognise the inevitability that when people look back on this postseason, they will see Booker and Edwards with 10+ BPM. And hey, maybe those two will keep replicating that, and this will just constitute another few series in a long prime of superstar playoff production. Maybe someone like Jamal Murray really will go down as a Reggie Miller -esque playoff elevator. Nevertheless, we are documenting this in the moment. We are assessing the season as it happened, and in five years when people go back and see who we were identifying as the defining players of the year, I would hope that we could go beyond defining the season by a series or two of elevation.

And that brings me back to the Lakers. Davis was absolutely the team’s most important player in their two series wins, and therefore on balance probably their most important player for the entire postseason. He also was not their best player in the regular season, nor has he ever been. He was not the team’s leader. He was not the engine of the offence (again despite what I have seen claimed…). And if we are going to suddenly weaponise plus/minus and on/off against the guy who was, then we need to have a long conversation about whether Jimmy Butler belongs on the ballot either. It is really frustrating to see how flexible standards can become when an injured and “contentious” player fails to live up to their usual production, even while captaining a conference finals team. Booker and Edwards and Brunson are all are immortalised by BPM… but the guy right behind them was apparently too far below his regular season production to be taken seriously. Top ten in LEBRON, DPM, and EPM… ten in RAPM among stars, and eleventh in LA-RAPM… but oh, the regular season production was just not enough compared to someone like Steph (worse in everything except EPM). Oh, he is 38 and injured, so we know he cannot actively be that good anymore, results be damned, all hail the young wings, they are all basically the same on defence anyway.

I do not know whether Lebron will make my top five yet for the season, but the extent of dismissal so far has been inexcusable based on what a lot of people claim they value. Like, not to dump on Butler here, because he will probably be #2 for me, but this is now the third series where you could pretty convincingly argue Tatum outplayed him head-to-head, and no one cares. I do not know whether that speaks to people’s indifference to Tatum (he has likely fared worse than a young Lebron would in his place) or to a coddling of Butler, but it is tough to look at that and look at the discourse of how heroic Steph was despite Klay shooting poorly without considering how people are choosing to anchor their assessments.

[AEnigma]

As an addendum to that last paragraph:

Jimmy Butler averages against Jayson Tatum in the postseason: 23.3/6.9/4.9/0.6/2.1 with 1.7 turnovers on 54.4% efficiency
Jayson Tatum averages against Jimmy Butler in the postseason: 25.6/9.4/5.8/0.9/1.2 with 4 turnovers on 58.6% efficiency

And for Doc’s sake: Butler is +1, and Tatum is +65.

Now, Tatum has also averaged more minutes, so we can restrict it a bit further to see what they produce when on the court with each other:
Butler = 23.5 points per 75 possessions on 55% efficiency, 110 Ortg
Tatum= 23.3 points per 75 on 58% efficiency, 114 Ortg

Again, I am not saying people should vote for Tatum over Butler. I just think it is worth asking whether people are being consistent with how they make their assessments. For my part, Tatum versus Butler continues to be a question, as it was last year, but if nothing else I do value that Butler has the best series and the more impressive postseason accomplishments, and that he seems to be a better team leader.

[OhayoKD]

Executive of the Year:
Never consider this until the postseason is complete. Philosophically, I am looking for moves which significantly improved a roster’s ability and likelihood to win a title, e.g. I would likely give it to McNair if the Kings made a run to the Finals. Previous winners for me would have been 2021 Horst (Bucks),

Was Horst really EOY-worthy? Feel Sean Marks did a lot better in the same year.

I get the Bucks won(largely due to unfortunate injuries for the nets), but if we look at what they actually did:

Bucks
->lost an asset due to incompetence,
-> could have easily lost their franchise player after whiffing on bogdonavich(probably would have if that was harden or kd instead of giannis), weighed against
-> a situationally useful bench defensive piece,
-> another bench guy,
-> a good 3rd banana
-> stuck with bud who, after getting badly outcoached in b2b playoff exits, nearly got the Bucks upset vs the crippled nets by leaving durant in single coverage

Nets
-> hired a new head coach who outcoached the bucks experienced pick
-> acquired a mvp-level performer in trade for a defensive anchor who
-> they then replaced with a guy thought was over-the-hill but ended up as a functional playoff defensive anchor
-> picked up a starting for-a-championship-team calibe piece in bruce brown(who was not expected to be anything)
-> survived having kd, and kyrie in the same lockeroom
-> were easily the best full-strength team in the rs
-> were cooking the bucks without said mvp-level performer because of unfacied role players like bruce brown and griffin until the second member of their big 3 also got hurt

What exactly is Horst's argument here outside the nets getting injured

[AEnigma]

Executive of the Year:
Never consider this until the postseason is complete. Philosophically, I am looking for moves which significantly improved a roster’s ability and likelihood to win a title, e.g. I would likely give it to McNair if the Kings made a run to the Finals. Previous winners for me would have been 2021 Horst (Bucks),

Was Horst really EOY-worthy? Feel Sean Marks did a lot better in the same year.

I get the Bucks won(largely due to unfortunate injuries for the nets), but if we look at what they actually did:

Bucks
->lost an asset due to incompetence,

If we are going to get on Doc’s case for concern-trolling over the “sabotaged future” of the 2018 Cavaliers, what do you feel should be the approach when you try to complain about a lost second basically because of Woj’s obsession with sending out information as soon as he comes across it.

-> could have easily lost their franchise player after whiffing on bogdonavich

(probably would have if that was harden or kd instead of giannis),

Beside the fact that an executive’s job is to incorporate their star’s preferences and personality into their team-building strategy, the fact Harden or Durant may have left after winning a title is irrelevant given that the title was won. Or were you under the impression that Giannis was a free agent tying his re-signing to Bogdan?

weighed against
-> a situationally useful bench defensive piece,
-> another bench guy,

Horst picked up three rotation players that year outside of Jrue: Bobby Portis, Pat Connaughton, and P.J. Tucker. Tucker was fourth on the team in playoff minutes, Pat was sixth, Portis was seventh, and the fifth — Brook — was Horst’s own signing back in 2019.

-> a good 3rd banana

Who was arguably better than Middleton, is certainly more impactful to the team than Middleton, and has been one of the best secondary stars in the entire league since his signing. May as well dismiss Kyrie as a decent 3rd banana.

-> stuck with bud who, after getting badly outcoached in b2b playoff exits, nearly got the Bucks upset vs the crippled nets by leaving durant in single coverage

As opposed to hiring whom? Udoka? That certainly played out well, but maybe your thought is that the Bucks beat the Celtics in 2022 then. Casting aside whether he even had the Bucks as his top choice, the problem here is that we can definitively say Budenholzer won a title, so any argument needs to be pretty strong that other coaches would have been more successful in his place.

Nets
-> hired a new head coach who outcoached the bucks experienced pick

And what coaching assessment are you making there? What is the schematic breakdown at play? I like Nash and hope he receives another shot, but what exactly has he proven as a coach? His team almost beat the title winners, wow, astounding.

-> acquired a mvp-level performer in trade for a defensive anchor

Yep, good gamble, even if it did not pay off. I am curious, though: how much of that is on Marks, and how much of that is on Harden forcing his way to play with Durant — whose targeting of New York hardly seems connected to just loving their front office.

-> they then replaced with a guy thought was over-the-hill but ended up as a functional playoff defensive anchor

Yes, Blake Griffin was very competent in the Bucks series. But worth noting: he played less than PJ Tucker and was finished as a relevant player immediately afterward. There too I think it is again worth asking how much is on Marks, and how much is on Blake’s desire to join a superteam trio who independently made the decision to play together.

-> picked up a starting for-a-championship-team calibe piece in bruce brown(who was not expected to be anything)

This is becoming extremely disingenuous. Brown can apparently start for a championship team because he played 25 minutes a game on an injured team against the Bucks, but PJ (a heavy minute starter), Portis, and Pat are all mere bench pieces.

-> survived having kd, and kyrie in the same lockeroom

What exactly did Marks do to help that? You do realise those two were and are friends who actively chose to team up, right?

-> were easily the best full-strength team in the rs

Lol, yes, in a ten-game sample, they were arguably better than the Lakers, Jazz, and Clippers. Hang the banner.

-> were cooking the bucks without said mvp-level performer because of unfacied role players like bruce brown and griffin until the second member of their big 3 also got hurt

Wow, a two-game sample size. I feel like a Giannis fan should know — on both sides of that deficit — why teams do not get buried down 2-0.

What exactly is Horst's argument here outside the nets getting injured

His argument is putting together a demonstrable championship team which did not implode in on itself. The goal is not to look like a championship team for sixteen games. Marks made a gamble which did not pay off. It was a fair gamble, but I am not rewarding that over the guy who put together a roster which actually met their goal, no.

[OhayoKD]

Was Horst really EOY-worthy? Feel Sean Marks did a lot better in the same year.

I get the Bucks won(largely due to unfortunate injuries for the nets), but if we look at what they actually did:

Bucks
->lost an asset due to incompetence,

If we are going to get on Doc’s case for concern-trolling over the “sabotaged future” of the 2018 Cavaliers, what do you feel should be the approach when you try to complain about a lost second basically because of Woj’s obsession with sending out information as soon as he comes across it.

Did the 2018 Cavs violate league rules to do it? Are we unironically saying Lebron was his team's general manager? It speaks to incompetence and that is probably how you end up reading it if Giannis joins the mavs or the heat for an easy ring as everyone was expecting him to do in large part because the additions the Bucks made are not typically championship-calibre and also in large part because most superstars are not as patient. Imagine if it was KD, Harden, or Kyrie in Giannis's place.

I also did not get on doc's case on it, I told him to be consistent and give Lebron his due for getting the Lakers Anthony Davis, an mvp-level talent like James Harden(though substantialy less proven). Lebron's "management" for the lakers significantly outweighs his "management" with the cavs because ad>>>2nd round pick just like Harden is more valuable than everyone you mentioned combined unless he gets hurt. Considering that Harden at that point was one of the most durable players in the league, giving Marks less credit because Harden got hurt(thus the gamble failing) is the gm equivalent of saying a player shouldn't get credit for creating an open-look if the recipient happens to miss.

(probably would have if that was harden or kd instead of giannis)
Beside the fact that an executive’s job is to incorporate their star’s preferences and personality

Are we now giving Horst credit for having a less volatile centerpiece? Did Horst do something to make Giannis more docile than Durant or Harden?

weighed against
-> a situationally useful bench defensive piece,
-> another bench guy,

Horst picked up three rotation players that year outside of Jrue: Bobby Portis, Pat Connaughton, and P.J. Tucker. Tucker was fourth on the team in playoff minutes, Pat was sixth, Portis was seventh, and the fifth — Brook — was Horst’s own signing back in 2019.

So a team loses 2 of its 3 best players(1 for basically all of the series) and takes giannis+all the acquisitions you're hyping to overtime of game 7 and we're giving Horst the advantage in regards to role-players acqusition? You hype "under-the-radar" moves but the Nets role players overperformed while the bucks "co-stars" underperformed.

-> a good 3rd banana

Who was arguably better than Middleton, is certainly more impactful to the team than Middleton, and has been one of the best secondary stars in the entire league since his signing. May as well dismiss Kyrie as a decent 3rd banana.

But Kyrie was better?

-> stuck with bud who, after getting badly outcoached in b2b playoff exits, nearly got the Bucks upset vs the crippled nets by leaving durant in single coverage

As opposed to hiring whom? Udoka? That certainly played out well, but maybe your thought is that the Bucks beat the Celtics in 2022 then. Carlisle? Interesting thought there too, but casting aside whether either had the Bucks as their top choice, the problem here is that we can definitively say Budenholzer won a title, so any argument needs to be pretty strong that other coaches would have been more successful in his place.

Do you feel bud winning was a result of his coaching being advantaged relative to his opponents?

Nets
-> hired a new head coach who outcoached the bucks experienced pick

And what coaching assessment are you making there? What is the schematic breakdown at play? I like Nash and hope he receives another shot, but what exactly has he proven as a coach? His team almost beat the title winners, wow, astounding.

A x's and o's expert I am not, but unnecessarily leaving scoring wings in single coverage seems to be a consistent problem. And it led to a weird outcome here where Durant, a player who has consistently seen his efficiency drop when given greater primacy(without an increase in volume to counter-balance) put up the best scoring and creation of his life after losing Kyrie and Harden.

Since that series we have seen the Celtics, the Clippers, and the Nuggets straightjacket Durant with a healthy co-star. Two of those teams had worse defensive personnel, and two of those teams were also dealing with a red-hot Devin Booker. The Bucks got away with it here, but they were made to pay vs Tatum in 2022, Butler in 2020 and 2023, and Kawhi in 2019.

The Bucks also didn't try to target one-legged Harden in PNR's, barely deployed Giannis as a screen-setter or an off-ball cutter, and left Lopez on an island in drop as he was actively being torched. Idk if it was so much Nash proving himself or Bud doing the opposite, but this is not a one-off. Bud's teams doing worse than they should is a trend that dates back to the first round of 2015. And it happened in b2b playoffs with the Bucks before it happened again vs the Nets.

-> acquired a mvp-level performer in trade for a defensive anchor

Yep, good gamble, even if it did not pay off. I am curious, though: how much of that is on Marks, and how much of that is on Harden forcing his way to play with Durant — whose targeting of New York hardly seems connected to just loving their front office.

He was not Harden's only suitor and on surface I'm not seeing the Nets as necessarily more appealing to James than the Sixers. He also was clever with cap-space to open up the maxes for kyrie and kd, drafted the assets that turned into James Harden(Hammond, not Horst, drafted middleton and giannis), traded for dlo(turned into kyrie), and dug the Nets out of a kg-sized hole to build a decent team without superstar to help make the Nets a more appealing destination than the Knicks. Marks built a better roster and was more involved from top to bottom.

-> were easily the best full-strength team in the rs

Lol, yes, in a ten-game sample, they were arguably better than the Lakers, Jazz, and Clippers. Hang the banner.

The Nets went 29-7 with Harden and were close to the Bucks for the season despite kyrie being the only member of their big-three to play more than half the season. Than they went to 7 with the Bucks with Harden as a decoy and 3 games of Kyrie. They were clearly better than the Bucks barring injury.

-> were cooking the bucks without said mvp-level performer because of unfacied role players like bruce brown and griffin until the second member of their big 3 also got hurt

Wow, a two-game sample size. I feel like a Giannis fan should know — on both sides of that deficit — why teams do not get buried down 2-0.

You can extend this to the series, the playoffs, or the season as a whole. The Nets did not play down to what one would expect given all the time their top-end missed. The less-fancied guys overperformed all season. What sample size are you looking for?

What exactly is Horst's argument here outside the nets getting injured

His argument is putting together a demonstrable championship team which did not implode in on itself. The goal is not to look like a championship team for sixteen games. Marks made a gamble which did not pay off. It was a fair gamble, but I am not rewarding that over the guy who put together a roster which actually met their goal, no.

[/quote]
Impressively wordy way of saying "horst won, marks no". The problem is "outside of the nets getting injured" the roster horst put together was clearly worse than the one Marks built, and Horst was less involved, not more. "Built" is honestly generous when Hammond was arguably more important.

[AEnigma]

If we are going to get on Doc’s case for concern-trolling over the “sabotaged future” of the 2018 Cavaliers, what do you feel should be the approach when you try to complain about a lost second basically because of Woj’s obsession with sending out information as soon as he comes across it.

Did the 2018 Cavs violate league rules to do it? Are we unironically saying Lebron was his team's general manager? It speaks to incompetence

Most teams tamper, and I do not think you have an adequate understanding of what transpired there if you think that was some unique front office failure. No one cares about losing a second on that gamble, this is blatant concern-trolling.

and that is probably how you end up reading it if Giannis joins the mavs or the heat for an easy ring as everyone was expecting him to do

Lol do not confuse your fanfiction with reality.

in large part because the additions the Bucks made are not typically championship-calibre

Based on what? They added good pieces to a 60+-win team and significantly upgraded their most clearly problematic starter.

and also in large part because most superstars are not as patient. Imagine if it was KD, Harden, or Kyrie in Giannis's place.

Durant and Harden both spent longer with their franchises as superstars than Giannis had to that point. Harden only left when the roster had essentially bottomed out. This is more fanfiction.

Considering that Harden at that point was one of the most durable players in the league, giving Marks less credit because Harden got hurt(thus the gamble failing) is the gm equivalent of saying a player shouldn't get credit for creating an open-look if the recipient happens to miss.

I never said it was a bad gamble. If Luka missed the postseason because of a missed shot off a pass, guess what, he still missed the postseason. That has an effect. I do not care about assessing who is the “best” front office every year, I am looking at who had the most notable achievements. A second round exit is pretty limiting even if the process there was fine and commendable.

probably would have if that was harden or kd instead of giannis)

Beside the fact that an executive’s job is to incorporate their star’s preferences and personality

Are we now giving Horst credit for having a less volatile centerpiece? Did Horst do something to make Giannis more docile than Durant or Harden?

I am not penalising him for some absurd hypothetical where Giannis was one of the most mercurial stars in the league, no. What if he were Lillard. What if he were Dirk (one of the guys he constantly references and praises for staying on the same franchise). Stop pickings fights based on completely unserious assessments.

weighed against
-> a situationally useful bench defensive piece,
-> another bench guy,

Horst picked up three rotation players that year outside of Jrue: Bobby Portis, Pat Connaughton, and P.J. Tucker. Tucker was fourth on the team in playoff minutes, Pat was sixth, Portis was seventh, and the fifth — Brook — was Horst’s own signing back in 2019.

So a team loses 2 of its 3 best players(1 for basically all of the series) and takes giannis+all the acquisitions you're hyping to overtime of game 7 and we're giving Horst the advantage in regards to role-players acqusition? You hype "under-the-radar" moves but the Nets role players overperformed while the bucks "co-stars" underperformed.

Oh, so praise Marks for Griffin having an unexpectedly great series in a loss, but condemn Jrue for having a bad scoring series in a win. Brilliant. Was Jrue useful when Giannis missed the end of the Hawks series? When he was oscillating between shutting down Booker and shutting down Chris Paul? We are not here for moral victories. Griffin wanted to join a team with a trio of superstars who all conspired to be there, and he played well. Congratulations.

-> a good 3rd banana

Who was arguably better than Middleton, is certainly more impactful to the team than Middleton, and has been one of the best secondary stars in the entire league since his signing. May as well dismiss Kyrie as a decent 3rd banana.

But Kyrie was better?

Based on what, scoring? Do you have any principles here?

-> stuck with bud who, after getting badly outcoached in b2b playoff exits, nearly got the Bucks upset vs the crippled nets by leaving durant in single coverage

As opposed to hiring whom? Udoka? That certainly played out well, but maybe your thought is that the Bucks beat the Celtics in 2022 then. Carlisle? Interesting thought there too, but casting aside whether either had the Bucks as their top choice, the problem here is that we can definitively say Budenholzer won a title, so any argument needs to be pretty strong that other coaches would have been more successful in his place.

Do you feel bud winning was a result of his coaching being advantaged relative to his opponents?

I think he outcoached Monty in the Finals, and James Jones is probably the other executive finalist for me that year.

Nets
-> hired a new head coach who outcoached the bucks experienced pick

And what coaching assessment are you making there? What is the schematic breakdown at play? I like Nash and hope he receives another shot, but what exactly has he proven as a coach? His team almost beat the title winners, wow, astounding.

A x's and o's expert I am not, but unnecessarily leaving scoring wings in single coverage seems to be a consistent problem. And it led to a weird outcome here where Durant, a player who has consistently seen his efficiency drop when given greater primacy(without an increase in volume to counter-balance) put up the best scoring and creation of his life after losing Kyrie and Harden.

Since that series we have seen the Celtics, the Clippers, and the Nuggets straightjacket Durant with a healthy co-star. Two of those teams had worse defensive personnel,

Oh, so you are just bitter that the Bucks got upset this year again. Got it.

and two of those teams were also dealing with a red-hot Devin Booker.

Great name to mention. How exactly did he fare against the Bucks?

The Bucks got away with it here, but they were made to pay vs Tatum in 2022,

How so.

Kawhi in 2019.

I thought your usual move was to talk about how much Kawhi struggled when Giannis was on the court.

The Bucks also didn't try to target one-legged Harden in PNR's,

True.

barely deployed Giannis as a screen-setter or an off-ball cutter,

I am not committed to putting that on Budenholzer unless I see Griffin immediately start employing him that way.

and left Lopez on an island in drop as he was actively being torched.

Uh huh. What was your catch-all solution?

Idk if it was so much Nash proving himself or Bud doing the opposite, but this is not a one-off. Bud's teams doing worse than they should is a trend that dates back to the first round of 2015. And it happened in b2b playoffs with the Bucks before it happened again vs the Nets.

Lost to Lebron, lost to Lebron, lost to “Kawhi plus a 60-win team”… You are so desperate to slander the people around Giannis that you do not even care to think about the extent to which that contradicts your perpetual defence of Giannis himself.

-> acquired a mvp-level performer in trade for a defensive anchor

Yep, good gamble, even if it did not pay off. I am curious, though: how much of that is on Marks, and how much of that is on Harden forcing his way to play with Durant — whose targeting of New York hardly seems connected to just loving their front office.

He was not Harden's only suitor And on surface I'm not seeing the Nets as necessarily more appealing to James than the Sixers.

True, there was also interest from the 76ers, but the Rockets did not want Simmons. Guess they were perspicacious than Marks, apparently.

He also was clever with cap-space to open up the maxes for kyrie and kd, drafted the assets that turned into James Harden(Hammond, not Horst, drafted middleton and giannis),

True, he has generally done a good job.

traded for dlo(turned into kyrie),

Eh I am not sure that was a productive trade. D’Lo turned into Durant in the same sense that Simmons turned into Harden: the salary worked.

and dug the Nets out of a kg-sized hole to build a decent team without superstar to help make the Nets a more appealing destination than the Knicks.

Yep, props to him.

Marks built a better roster and was more involved from top to bottom.

Well, he built a better roster on paper, and then it fell apart. I can sympathise with the approach that executives should only be judged for the on paper results, but that is not my approach, and it is not one I use for any other award. Maybe Ty Lue was the best coach of the past three years, but on my ballot, his results hard cap him.

-> were easily the best full-strength team in the rs

Lol, yes, in a ten-game sample, they were arguably better than the Lakers, Jazz, and Clippers. Hang the banner.

The Nets went 29-7 with Harden and were close to the Bucks for the season despite kyrie being the only member of their big-three to play more than half the season. Than they went to 7 with the Bucks with Harden as a decoy and 3 games of Kyrie. They were clearly better than the Bucks barring injury.

Uh huh. Out of curiosity, who was your Player of the Year that year. Sure as hell better not be Giannis, considering how he was an inch away from being eliminated by a player with an absent third star and a motionless second star.

-> were cooking the bucks without said mvp-level performer because of unfacied role players like bruce brown and griffin until the second member of their big 3 also got hurt

Wow, a two-game sample size. I feel like a Giannis fan should know — on both sides of that deficit — why teams do not get buried down 2-0.

You can extend this to the series, the playoffs, or the season as a whole. The Nets did not play down to what one would expect given all the time their top-end missed. The less-fancied guys overperformed all season. What sample size are you looking for?

I think 16 wins in the postseason would be sufficient for me.

What exactly is Horst's argument here outside the nets getting injured

His argument is putting together a demonstrable championship team which did not implode in on itself. The goal is not to look like a championship team for sixteen games. Marks made a gamble which did not pay off. It was a fair gamble, but I am not rewarding that over the guy who put together a roster which actually met their goal, no.

Impressively wordy way of saying "horst won, marks no".

Yes, that tends to be a significant element of assessing the defining figures of the year.

The problem is "outside of the nets getting injured" the roster horst put together was clearly worse than the one Marks built, and Horst was less involved, not more. "Built" is honestly generous when Hammond was arguably more important.

I do not think 2017 Bob Myers, 2015-17 David Griffin, and 2020 Pelinka are de facto the best GMing jobs of the past forty years. Again, if we are talking on paper, maybe Marks is right up there. But one made a title roster and the other spent a bunch of picks for a second round exit. I can respect the process without crowning those results.

[Doctor MJ]

Some awards thoughts with one series to go:

POY

Jokic with the big lead obviously. I mean it when I say that I really try to look at things fresh after the finals are complete, and thus there's a non-zero chance someone else will get my vote...but it's honestly hard to imagine how it would end up happening based on what I've seen out there.

Spots 2-4 is a 3-man tier for me. After the RS, the trio would be Embiid, Tatum, and then a few slots later Butler. So now the question is whether the playoffs allowed these guys to switch places - beyond the fact that Butler has risen up to be in this tier.

Tatum & Embiid played against each other in the playoffs, and to me Tatum clearly had the better performance in the series. Embiid was injured of course, and one head-to-head series isn't everything, but it matters to me that Tatum elevated to finish the series to an iconic level I don't think I've ever seen from Embiid in the playoffs, to get once again to a round that he (Tatum) gets to as a matter of course but Embiid never does. I'm leaning Tatum there.

Butler is hard to take a definite stand on here. I think what Butler did against Milwaukee is a really big freaking deal, and people need to remember that in addition to this being the 2nd time he's spearhead a massive upset of Giannis' Bucks, Embiid's never led his team past teams at all on this level before in the playoffs. If Embiid had done that here, in other words, it would have been the greatest achievement of his career. Makes me want to give the nod to Butler here.

Butler vs Tatum, in the end I really needed to see Butler clearly outplay Tatum over the course of this series to give him the edge, and I don't think we saw that. I'm continuing to think on this, but as of now I think Tatum still has the edge.

For the 5th spot I continue to lean AD. Booker & Curry continue to be the other candidates I think most about.

OPOY

Jokic by a lot, and then likely Booker & Curry. I'm all for people supporting Dame here, but while I can get a perspective of Dame being the best per minute offensive player of the bunch this year, it's hard for me to see him actually achieving more out there when you factor in the playoffs.

DPOY

So, I actually find myself thinking about Mobley here. I had him 2nd in DPOY in the regular season, but it had everything to do with how much more he played than guys like JJJ, and I kinda thought guys would make me feel like those pre-playoff minutes weren't that important looking back after the dust settles...but right now it seems like no one did enough in the playoffs to move past him.

I say this after initially feeling like his candidacy dropped with the Cavs' first round exit. It certainly left the door open for other guys to move past him, but it really wasn't Mobley & the Cavs' defense that was the issue in that series.

So then after Mobley I'd have AD & JJJ. Were I to change my mind about minutes stuff, I'd expect them both to jump ahead of Mobley, but at this moment, I don't really feel like they did enough to make that leap.

ftr, #1 on my ballot after the RS was Brook. That first round loss did a number on Buck candidacies everywhere for me.

ROY

Still thinking Walker Kessler. Most valuable rookie by a good margin, which isn't everything for me with this award but is something I always take note of, and the best rookie shotblocker in a very long time.

After that I'm expecting I'd go with the mainstream Banchero & Williams duo.

MIP

No radical changes here either from the playoffs. Was mostly focused on Markkanen, SGA, JJJ & Fox during the regular season. I'd add Brunson to the mix now but I'm not sure if he'll make my ballot. Markkanen still feels like the pick here for me.

One weird thing: It doesn't entirely make sense to me that I have Mobley over JJJ in my DPOY but below him in MIP. That's something I need to think more about and consider whether I'm really being consistent, but there are two factors I would point to that at least partially explain it: 1) JJJ's become a significantly better offensive player in addition to growing as a defensive anchor, and 2) I think I'm penalizing JJJ for minutes more in DPOY than I am for MIP because the difference in goal in the two accolades.

6MOY

Man, I cannot believe Austin Reaves wasn't on my radar as an eligible 6th man candidate until reading Aenigma's post. He's absolutely eligible and I don't even have a philosophical qualm about it - I don't care if part of your season was as a starter as long as you were awesome in that majority when you were coming off the bench. I think Reaves is my pick, and if so, 2nd year in a row a guy went from not being on my ballot to the top of my ballot as a result of reading others posts deep in the playoffs.

I'm really impressed with Bruce Brown and had been thinking he'd be my 6MOY vote. Likely falling to #2 now.

IQ grabs the last spot, and with Brown still playing could conceivably rise back up one spot if Brown plays bad enough. He was my clear choice for #1 in the regular season, and while he had a soft playoffs, I don't feel like it discredited his candidacy. Just opened the door and a couple guys got through.

And no, I don't think Brogdan got through it, though I was watching for that.

COY

Feels like it's got to be Spoelstra at this point. I was super impressed by Mike Brown's season on the whole, but taking a team from the play-in to the finals with rave reviews of his tactical genius makes Spo a special kind of candidate we don't get every year.

3rd guy on my list likely Michael Malone and I'll absolutely listen to arguments for him going higher. I've always felt like he's gotten too much criticism for not handily building with Jokic perfectly when such wasn't a realistic expectation.

EOY

The guy who pops into my mind every time I think of this award is Jazzy Ainge. I'm on record saying I really don't like giving EOY to guys doing teardowns, but I think maybe a better way to express my bent is to say that I'm looking to be impressed by a guy's handling of actual basketball people rather than draft picks. Him acquiring the guy who will probably be my ROY who I didn't see coming, the guy who will probably be my MIP who I didn't see coming, and hiring a new coach who seems excellent, is more impressive work than anyone else in the league I think. By all means try to sway me toward another candidate, but there's just no doubt that Ainge made impressive basketball moves.

From there the draft picks he got are not a huge deal to me in this award, but it certainly matters that he did this while better setting his team up for the future rather than mortgaging the future to try pump up the present.

Leon Rose came off like a rose, and he's someone I'm certainly looking for arguments for. I think you can definitely argue that he got his franchise over a bigger hump than Ainge did this year (who was kinda sliding back down that hill as noted), but I suppose I'm still not quite convinced that the Knicks really have a coherent plan here that should lead us to think of this seasons growth as something that will continue to being a contender in the future.

I could certainly imagine a scenario where the Knicks find a way to unload Randle for just the perfect stuff...and if that happens then Rose would become a stronger candidate.

Calvin Booth's Nugget moves this year were exquisite role player additions - KCP & Brown - that I'm definitely impressed by, but I'm really reluctant to reward a GM for icing someone else's cake. Jokic, Murray, Porter & Gordon were all acquired by Connolly, and that's who is mostly deserving credit for the shine we feel like giving Nugget people right now.

Still I'm not sure if anyone else seems like a better candidate to me.

Altman over in Cleveland was my #1 guy after the regular season, but as I said then, I really needed to see them in a playoff context to know whether their zag-while-they-zig building approach with 2 bigs, 2 smalls, and not much in between really seemed sturdy enough. And I came away with concerns. I really don't know if acquiring another scoring guard was really the right way forward for the Cavs.

Pat Riley is very, very good at his job and I'm certainly looking trying to see more evidence of this with his moves this year...but his big move I believe was just re-signing Caleb Martin. Martin was great for the Heat, don't get me wrong, but I don't think re-signing is typically one of the things a GM gets major credit for, with the main exception being when the relationship between the player and GM was central to why the player remained there, which I don't think was the case here.

I'm still really reluctant to give Pelinka too much credit for making a move to undo what he had previously done, and the more it becomes clear that it really was more about addition by subtraction with Westbrook than anything else the more it feels like that's really all he did. But I realize I'm spending more time focused on the negatives among the guys who have done good things, than I am the good things, and that's a shame. So let me acknowledge that the real reason why the addition by subtraction was so stark was because the Lakers had Reaves, and it's certainly a feather in Pelinka's tenure that they got Reaves.

[jalengreen]

OPOY

Jokic by a lot, and then likely Booker & Curry. I'm all for people supporting Dame here, but while I can get a perspective of Dame being the best per minute offensive player of the bunch this year, it's hard for me to see him actually achieving more out there when you factor in the playoffs.

Is this mostly from the perspective of weighing playoffs high enough to the point where Booker clearly > Dame? Because minutes wise, Lillard is at 2107, while Booker's at 2294 (1835 RS, 459 PS). Those 459 postseason minutes were absolutely legendary, but I think Lillard also built a massive advantage over Booker in the regular season. Of course, the postseason should be given extra weight, but I'm not sure if that's enough for Booker honestly. From the POY perspective I think Lillard is clearly behind these two primarily because he's the worst defender of the three, but offensively I think there's a case to be made for him over Booker.

[Doctor MJ]

OPOY

Jokic by a lot, and then likely Booker & Curry. I'm all for people supporting Dame here, but while I can get a perspective of Dame being the best per minute offensive player of the bunch this year, it's hard for me to see him actually achieving more out there when you factor in the playoffs.

Is this mostly from the perspective of weighing playoffs high enough to the point where Booker clearly > Dame? Because minutes wise, Lillard is at 2107, while Booker's at 2294 (1835 RS, 459 PS). Those 459 postseason minutes were absolutely legendary, but I think Lillard also built a massive advantage over Booker in the regular season. Of course, the postseason should be given extra weight, but I'm not sure if that's enough for Booker honestly. From the POY perspective I think Lillard is clearly behind these two primarily because he's the worst defender of the three, but offensively I think there's a case to be made for him over Booker.

Yeah, I'd say that describes my path fairly well.

Completely understand if you don't think it was enough to put Booker's offensive season ahead of Dame's. I like seeing Lillard get some love.