NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24 (Part 3: Son of Daughter of MVP thread)

[dygaction]

Read on Twitter

It is not wise for Kidd to run him 45 min a game, 3 games in 4 nights.

[Exp0sed]

if luka and jokic switched places how much better would the mavs be ?

They'd probably be as good as Denver is now lol.

That's indeed going to make the Mavs a lot more formidable by solving big problems, even though I may watch more Den games
Kyrie
Exum
Jones Jr
Jokic
Lively II
Josh Green/Hardaway Jr./Grant Williams/Maxi/Powell

yeah, this team is extremely comparable to the one Jokic just led to a ring
with Jokic driving the bus that's a real contender

p.s, MPJ is at his best when he "borrows" Jokic's brain. that is, not make decisions on his own instead letting Jokic dicate his shots and play. THJ would benefit ALOT from a similar arragment with Jokic

if Murray works well with Jokic, no reason why Kyrie wouldn't be an awesome fit
KCP is better than Exum but the difference is neglible, maybe in the playoffs KCP's experience and leadership makes more of a difference who knows

Jokic can carry this team to the finals, I have no doubts about it

[Exp0sed]

Read on Twitter

It is not wise for Kidd to run him 45 min a game, 3 games in 4 nights.

which of these could he have sat more on?
West is a bloodbath, a minor injury here and there and they can miss the playoffs again..

I think Luka loves the high usage, heavy mins and all the attention. he relishes it, it's not like Kidd is forcing anything on him

[Archx]

Spoiler:

if luka and jokic switched places how much better would the mavs be ?

How I see things?

I see Luka & Jokic playing a very different style of play.

Luka plays intensely heliocentric, dominates the ball, struggles to get the most out of other on-ball talents, and doesn't give you much when he's off-ball.

Jokic plays a style that cannot easily be classified but has its roots in the pivot-passer model where he doesn't hold onto the ball long, allows other on-ball talents to shine, and moves without the ball in a way that provides all sorts of sneaky value.

In theory each team they are on is optimized around the respective star so we should expect some struggles if there was a shift...but then there's this matter that the Mavs never seem to do much better when Luka's out there compared to without him, while Jokic's teams generally show a night & day difference depending on whether Jokic is on the floor or not.

A variation on a simple stat I like to point to for perspective: Most times leading one particular franchise in +/- across the entirety of a season with the data going back to '93-94.

Nowitzki (DAL) 14
Duncan (SAS) 10
LeBron (CLE) 9
Curry (GSW) 8
Nash (PHX) 8

Other high scorers in the conversation here.

Embiid (PHI) 6
Jokic (DEN) 6 - and leading this year which would make 7
Tatum (BOS) 5
Giannis (MIL) 4 - and leading this year which would make 5

Other guys in discussion here tend to be young, but if the season were to end right now, all of Edwards, SGA, Hali & Kawhi would have non-zero tallies.

Doncic is the only one who has his own slot on this poll that would remain zero. We're now 6 years in, and we've seen basically no indicators that Doncic has massive impact as a matter of course the way we expect for MVP-level players.

Now don't get me wrong: I think the resilience of Luka-centrism is still very scary to playoff opponents, and in the end, that's the thing that truly matters to legacy. If Luka is never all that impactful in the regular season but proves more resilient than all comers in the playoffs, he can still be known as the best player of his generation.

But if you're skeptical that anyone could be making the Mavs considerably better than Luka has when you're watching them now, I'll tell you flat out that you're not actually looking at the impact, just the box score and the fact that Luka seems to be able to manufacture production in all situations with his preferred style of play. Because we're not talking about a close comparison between Jokic & Luka over the course of regular seasons.

Jokic is among the most impactful players we've ever seen, and Luka is perhaps the most surprisingly un-impactful guys we've ever seen.

I type all this and I think that if you're like most, you'll just roll your eyes. But this is something some of us have been watching unfold for years now and we're genuinely shocked by the lack of "they couldn't do anything without him" evidence Doncic continues to show. I don't think anyone expected to see this, and it's now a major 2020s phenomenon worthy of study in its own right.

Correct me if i am wrong.

The Dallas Mavericks have a 43% win percentage without Luka Doncic all-time.
The Denver Nuggets have a 40.5% win percentage without Nikola Jokic all-time.

The way you talk about +/- we would think Mavs would have at least 60% win rate without Luka but i guess that's not the case.

Luka had +32.6 On/Off vs LAC when they lost in 7 games. That's absolutely absurd number. If we would rely specifically on this, then Mavs should have never lost even a game. And he has +11 On/Off for his playoff career.

And if Luka is so bad for the team, why does he rank nr1 basically every year in half court offensive production? He's also been ranked nr1 basically every year in creating easiest shot chances for his team mates.

I'm just saying... Maybe there's something else in basketball than just +/-.

I think Luka loves the high usage, heavy mins and all the attention. he relishes it, it's not like Kidd is forcing anything on him

Yeah, he loves it so much that he had to ask Kidd for a sub himself vs Kings because Kidd couldn't comprehend how tired he is

Problem is, Mavs backourt players are always hurt. Mostly Exum and Kyrie, both missed a ton of games already and Mavs have no one else to take over as a playmaker. THJ is a complete joke as a PG and Hardy is simply still not ready though he did show some flashes recently.

[dygaction]

Read on Twitter

It is not wise for Kidd to run him 45 min a game, 3 games in 4 nights.

which of these could he have sat more on?
West is a bloodbath, a minor injury here and there and they can miss the playoffs again..

I think Luka loves the high usage, heavy mins and all the attention. he relishes it, it's not like Kidd is forcing anything on him

The 2nd night b2b against Kings he should have rested more. Playing 46 min with down 19 after 3rd quarter. 1/9 of 3s clearly showed he had heavy legs.
Good thing is his stamina atm appears to be really good, with heavy usage under tight defense and more effort on defensive end.

[Exp0sed]

[spoiler]

if luka and jokic switched places how much better would the mavs be ?

I think Luka loves the high usage, heavy mins and all the attention. he relishes it, it's not like Kidd is forcing anything on him

Yeah, he loves it so much that he had to ask Kidd for a sub himself vs Kings because Kidd couldn't comprehend how tired he is

Problem is, Mavs backourt players are always hurt. Mostly Exum and Kyrie, both missed a ton of games already and Mavs have no one else to take over as a playmaker. THJ is a complete joke as a PG and Hardy is simply still not ready though he did show some flashes recently.

I don't see the prob there, Luka is a big boy he can communicate just fine. Kidd doesn't have to guess, when Luka wants out he gives coach a headsup

and yeah, ofc he's needed more this season and def more than they planned on because of injuries but let's be honest, not like Kyrie or Exum are known ironmen, so that's par for the course. were they hoping guys like Hardy would be able to contribute more? sure, whihc team doesn't? just as the Nuggets were hoping guys like Braun and P-Watson can give them more because it's needed

they're def getting more than they could have hoped this early from Lively, which plugged the biggest hole their roster had these past few seasons

Mavs aren't as deep as some contenders, that's hardly news to anyone..so naturally they are more affected by guys on the sidelines. neither is Denver btw, every minor injury to a starter leads to pretty bad players getting mins and roles they shouldn't be getting on a contender thus far they've been pretty healthy overall

[iggymcfrack]

Well, the good news for Embiid fans is that he officially wasn’t ducking. This is the 3rd game in a row he’s out with the knee injury. The bad news though is that he’s officially out of the MVP race. This is his 13th missed game and who knows when he’s even coming back? New MVP ballot:

1. Jokic
2. SGA
3. Giannis
4. Kawhi
5. Luka

[Archx]

I don't see the prob there, Luka is a big boy he can communicate just fine. Kidd doesn't have to guess, when Luka wants out he gives coach a headsup

We all know players themselves can be their own worst enemies, that's why you have coaches who can properly asses the situation and make ajdustments. Rick rarely did what Kidd is doing with Doncic, he even sent him to the bench if he wasn't playing good.

were they hoping guys like Hardy would be able to contribute more? l

Hardy was made untouchable per Mavs front office before the season. Teams had interest in trading for him and it would have given Mavs a chance for an even bigger upgrade. But long story short, yeah everyone expected Hardy to make a significant jump. So if Kyrie and Exum are out, it's basically Curry and Hardy subbing Doncic. I can't even begin to say how bad does that look.

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

if luka and jokic switched places how much better would the mavs be ?

How I see things?

I see Luka & Jokic playing a very different style of play.

Luka plays intensely heliocentric, dominates the ball, struggles to get the most out of other on-ball talents, and doesn't give you much when he's off-ball.

Jokic plays a style that cannot easily be classified but has its roots in the pivot-passer model where he doesn't hold onto the ball long, allows other on-ball talents to shine, and moves without the ball in a way that provides all sorts of sneaky value.

In theory each team they are on is optimized around the respective star so we should expect some struggles if there was a shift...but then there's this matter that the Mavs never seem to do much better when Luka's out there compared to without him, while Jokic's teams generally show a night & day difference depending on whether Jokic is on the floor or not.

A variation on a simple stat I like to point to for perspective: Most times leading one particular franchise in +/- across the entirety of a season with the data going back to '93-94.

Nowitzki (DAL) 14
Duncan (SAS) 10
LeBron (CLE) 9
Curry (GSW) 8
Nash (PHX) 8

Other high scorers in the conversation here.

Embiid (PHI) 6
Jokic (DEN) 6 - and leading this year which would make 7
Tatum (BOS) 5
Giannis (MIL) 4 - and leading this year which would make 5

Other guys in discussion here tend to be young, but if the season were to end right now, all of Edwards, SGA, Hali & Kawhi would have non-zero tallies.

Doncic is the only one who has his own slot on this poll that would remain zero. We're now 6 years in, and we've seen basically no indicators that Doncic has massive impact as a matter of course the way we expect for MVP-level players.

Now don't get me wrong: I think the resilience of Luka-centrism is still very scary to playoff opponents, and in the end, that's the thing that truly matters to legacy. If Luka is never all that impactful in the regular season but proves more resilient than all comers in the playoffs, he can still be known as the best player of his generation.

But if you're skeptical that anyone could be making the Mavs considerably better than Luka has when you're watching them now, I'll tell you flat out that you're not actually looking at the impact, just the box score and the fact that Luka seems to be able to manufacture production in all situations with his preferred style of play. Because we're not talking about a close comparison between Jokic & Luka over the course of regular seasons.

Jokic is among the most impactful players we've ever seen, and Luka is perhaps the most surprisingly un-impactful guys we've ever seen.

I type all this and I think that if you're like most, you'll just roll your eyes. But this is something some of us have been watching unfold for years now and we're genuinely shocked by the lack of "they couldn't do anything without him" evidence Doncic continues to show. I don't think anyone expected to see this, and it's now a major 2020s phenomenon worthy of study in its own right.

Correct me if i am wrong.

The Dallas Mavericks have a 43% win percentage without Luka Doncic all-time.
The Denver Nuggets have a 40.5% win percentage without Nikola Jokic all-time.

The way you talk about +/- we would think Mavs would have at least 60% win rate without Luka but i guess that's not the case.

Luka had +32.6 On/Off vs LAC when they lost in 7 games. That's absolutely absurd number. If we would rely specifically on this, then Mavs should have never lost even a game. And he has +11 On/Off for his playoff career.

And if Luka is so bad for the team, why does he rank nr1 basically every year in half court offensive production? He's also been ranked nr1 basically every year in creating easiest shot chances for his team mates.

I'm just saying... Maybe there's something else in basketball than just +/-.

Hello archx,

Well so first thing I'll say is that there's certainly more to understanding what's going on on the court than +/-...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to understand +/-. In a nutshell, once we get beyond small sample - and with Luka's career we're far beyond small sample - we need an explanation for why his team doesn't seem generally to do too much worse without him.

As I laid out: The post-season is king and so whatever we conclude about the regular season, it won't matter that much if the playoffs tell enough of a different story when it comes to Luka's legacy...but we still want to understand what happens.

And so I'll say to anyone who has a first thought of "This is ridiculous, we all know Luka's great!", try to figure out what's actually going on here. I have thoughts, but I'm also the guy pointing this stat out to you, so you probably think I'm biased. So then, what's you unbiased explanation for what's going on? When you try to answer, do keep in mind that if you think the answer is super-obvious, maybe skip that step. If it were super-obvious, not only would the rest of us know the answer immediately, but also no Doncic supporters would be surprised by this data, and the reality is they are constantly surprised by it.

Re "we would think Mavs would have at least 60% win rate without Luka". You might think that, but there's nothing I said leads to that conclusion without other assumptions. Please try to take care not to assume things from the messenger that are not actually in the message.

Re: playoff On/Off. Indeed, this was why I talked about the playoff stuff in my post. It doesn't change the fact that regular season-wise Doncic just isn't an MVP-candidate type of guy if value means actual regular season impact, but it might make the RS MVP moot when considering how to evaluate Doncic overall.

Re: "if Luka is so bad for the team". I didn't say he was bad for the team. I'm drawing a distinction between how top tier MVP candidates typically impact the regular season and Luka. Saying that Luka belongs classified, from an RS MVP perspective, with the vast majority of NBA players rather than the very best is not the same thing as saying his team is actually better without him.

There exist players that make their team dramatically worse whenever they step on the floor of course, but what's being pointed out here about Luka is more than he just doesn't seem to move the needle all that much.

Re: how mediocre impact with mega production? In a nutshell, consider 2 things:

1. When a guy makes a bucket, gets an assists, grabs a board, whatever, this doesn't mean that he manufactured those production stats out of nothing and that the team couldn't get any of them without the player. Basketball is not baseball, it's an actual in vivo team sport where having the ball in one guy's hands means it's not in his teammates' hands, and so he keeps them from greater production as a matter of course.

This is true even when a guy helps make his teammates more efficient to be clear. You can hinder a teammates production and still improve how valuable he is, and really it's only the latter that matters for the teammates just as it's all that really matters for the star in question. In the end, the team scoreboard decides who wins the game, not the individual box score.

2. Keep in mind that even when production does match impact as it's produced, it doesn't speak to what happens the rest of the time.

If I have a player who basically stands around doing nothing other than resting whenever he doesn't dominate the ball, then his teammates are forced to play 4 on 5. In such a circumstance, a superficial viewpoint will lead people to conclude "Wow, they're so much better whenever he has the ball, they should do that every possession!", but the problem is a) he doesn't have the stamina to do that, b) the more he does that, the more he coasts on the other possessions to get his wind back, and c) he's effectively sabotaging the apparent ability of teammates to lead possessions compared to what would happen if he actually conserved enough energy to give full effort on his off-ball possessions.

Re: creates easiest shots for his teammates. Dirty little secret about that stat: The best way to max out that stat is to call your own number too often. Once the defense learns that the optimal defensive approach is to over-guard you, then you can pass to teammates and they'll be wide open.

As such, for a truly optimal playmaker, he shouldn't be making the shots for his teammates as easy as possible, but should be finding a balance so that the average shot taken by the entirety of the team (including himself) is as easy as possible.

Re: "I'm just saying...". You should consider whether assuming that others haven't thought about something obvious is really the best way to proceed, particularly when responding to someone who made clear he knew up front he was using a simple stat to help get people's head around stuff.

If what you want is something more sophisticated that raw +/-, it's existed for well over a decade. I could list that instead, but consider where we go next with that. Here I'm asking you to explain what's going on. If I give you RAPM data, what could you say other than "Yes I agree, or no I don't agree"?

[celtxman]

Jokic in command. Embiid drops to third.


free picture upload

I said weeks ago in this thread that the math of how many games Embiid has missed to come into play here. If Embiid gets 70 points in each of the next 4 games winning them all,, then misses the next 4 games his odds should significantly drop. He has to get to 65 games. If I was a bettor I would bet heavily against Embiid. He isn't going to make it and the odds makers have to look at this as much as his stats.

[Mavrelous]

Jokic in command. Embiid drops to third.


free picture upload

I said weeks ago in this thread that the math of how many games Embiid has missed to come into play here. If Embiid gets 70 points in each of the next 4 games winning them all,, then misses the next 4 games his odds should significantly drop. He has to get to 65 games. If I was a bettor I would bet heavily against Embiid. He isn't going to make it and the odds makers have to look at this as much as his stats.

Kawhi quietly has as good a case for MVP as everyone on that list.

[TheShow2021]

I agree that Dallas would be much better if they replaced Luka with Jokic, a legitimate title contender. Kidd would morph from being a "bad" coach, to a coaching prodigy.

The problem is, it's like solving a 9 x 9 Rubik's cube to get the right team for Luka, while on the other hand, Jokic could seamlessly elevate any .500 team to title contention, regardless of the parts (if they have a good center, they could trade him of course).

Luka is the hardest player to coach, and the hardest player to play with (if you are not a lob catcher.

Ideally he needs a long, athletic, rim running big man who can anchor a defense, and three 3 and D players who are OK with never dribbling the ball, and sacrificing offense to carry Luka on defense. Inevitably, (if you aren't a C) you are sacrificing stats and money to play with Luka, which is the exact opposite with Jokic, who elevates his players stats, perhaps more than anyone since the Jerry Sloan Utah Jazz. Bruce Brown owes Jokic $15 million. His stats without Jokic on the court last year were horrific.

And that goes for the rest of the team. I couldn't believe my eyes seeing the TS and net rating differentials with and without Jokic for the Nuggets.

[Mavrelous]

I agree that Dallas would be much better if they replaced Luka with Jokic, a legitimate title contender. Kidd would morph from being a "bad" coach, to a coaching prodigy.

The problem is, it's like solving a 9 x 9 Rubik's cube to get the right team for Luka, while on the other hand, Jokic could seamlessly elevate any .500 team to title contention, regardless of the parts (if they have a good center, they could trade him of course).

Luka is the hardest player to coach, and the hardest player to play with (if you are not a lob catcher.

Ideally he needs a long, athletic, rim running big man who can anchor a defense, and three 3 and D players who are OK with never dribbling the ball, and sacrificing offense to carry Luka on defense. Inevitably, (if you aren't a C) you are sacrificing stats and money to play with Luka, which is the exact opposite with Jokic, who elevates his players stats, perhaps more than anyone since the Jerry Sloan Utah Jazz. And Bruce Brown owes Jokic $15 million. His stats without Jokic on the court last year were horrific.

And that goes for the rest of the team. I couldn't believe my eyes seeing the TS and net rating differentials with and without Jokic for the Nuggets.

The ideal team around Luka in 2022 team with Derek Lively instead of Marqese Chriss, DJJ instead of sterling brown and Exum instead of Frank Ntilikina.
Jokic is a better player than Luka, Kidd is a bad coach regardless of Luka.

[phanman]

I agree that Dallas would be much better if they replaced Luka with Jokic, a legitimate title contender. Kidd would morph from being a "bad" coach, to a coaching prodigy.

The problem is, it's like solving a 9 x 9 Rubik's cube to get the right team for Luka, while on the other hand, Jokic could seamlessly elevate any .500 team to title contention, regardless of the parts (if they have a good center, they could trade him of course).

Luka is the hardest player to coach, and the hardest player to play with (if you are not a lob catcher.

Ideally he needs a long, athletic, rim running big man who can anchor a defense, and three 3 and D players who are OK with never dribbling the ball, and sacrificing offense to carry Luka on defense. Inevitably, (if you aren't a C) you are sacrificing stats and money to play with Luka, which is the exact opposite with Jokic, who elevates his players stats, perhaps more than anyone since the Jerry Sloan Utah Jazz. And Bruce Brown owes Jokic $15 million. His stats without Jokic on the court last year were horrific.

And that goes for the rest of the team. I couldn't believe my eyes seeing the TS and net rating differentials with and without Jokic for the Nuggets.

The ideal team around Luka in 2022 team with Derek Lively instead of Marqese Chriss, DJJ instead of sterling brown and Exum instead of Frank Ntilikina.
Jokic is a better player than Luka, Kidd is a bad coach regardless of Luka.

The ideal team for Luka is that 2011 championship supporting cast. Just swap him out with Dirk and you've got all the players to accentuate his strengths and minimize his weaknesses.

Or even take his rookie team in 2019 and put this version of Luka on it:
Luka/Matthews/Barnes/DFS/DJ

Brunson/THJ/Smith JR/Powell/Kleber

[dygaction]

Spoiler:

How I see things?

I see Luka & Jokic playing a very different style of play.

Luka plays intensely heliocentric, dominates the ball, struggles to get the most out of other on-ball talents, and doesn't give you much when he's off-ball.

Jokic plays a style that cannot easily be classified but has its roots in the pivot-passer model where he doesn't hold onto the ball long, allows other on-ball talents to shine, and moves without the ball in a way that provides all sorts of sneaky value.

In theory each team they are on is optimized around the respective star so we should expect some struggles if there was a shift...but then there's this matter that the Mavs never seem to do much better when Luka's out there compared to without him, while Jokic's teams generally show a night & day difference depending on whether Jokic is on the floor or not.

A variation on a simple stat I like to point to for perspective: Most times leading one particular franchise in +/- across the entirety of a season with the data going back to '93-94.

Nowitzki (DAL) 14
Duncan (SAS) 10
LeBron (CLE) 9
Curry (GSW) 8
Nash (PHX) 8

Other high scorers in the conversation here.

Embiid (PHI) 6
Jokic (DEN) 6 - and leading this year which would make 7
Tatum (BOS) 5
Giannis (MIL) 4 - and leading this year which would make 5

Other guys in discussion here tend to be young, but if the season were to end right now, all of Edwards, SGA, Hali & Kawhi would have non-zero tallies.

Doncic is the only one who has his own slot on this poll that would remain zero. We're now 6 years in, and we've seen basically no indicators that Doncic has massive impact as a matter of course the way we expect for MVP-level players.

Now don't get me wrong: I think the resilience of Luka-centrism is still very scary to playoff opponents, and in the end, that's the thing that truly matters to legacy. If Luka is never all that impactful in the regular season but proves more resilient than all comers in the playoffs, he can still be known as the best player of his generation.

But if you're skeptical that anyone could be making the Mavs considerably better than Luka has when you're watching them now, I'll tell you flat out that you're not actually looking at the impact, just the box score and the fact that Luka seems to be able to manufacture production in all situations with his preferred style of play. Because we're not talking about a close comparison between Jokic & Luka over the course of regular seasons.

Jokic is among the most impactful players we've ever seen, and Luka is perhaps the most surprisingly un-impactful guys we've ever seen.

I type all this and I think that if you're like most, you'll just roll your eyes. But this is something some of us have been watching unfold for years now and we're genuinely shocked by the lack of "they couldn't do anything without him" evidence Doncic continues to show. I don't think anyone expected to see this, and it's now a major 2020s phenomenon worthy of study in its own right.

Correct me if i am wrong.

The Dallas Mavericks have a 43% win percentage without Luka Doncic all-time.
The Denver Nuggets have a 40.5% win percentage without Nikola Jokic all-time.

The way you talk about +/- we would think Mavs would have at least 60% win rate without Luka but i guess that's not the case.

Luka had +32.6 On/Off vs LAC when they lost in 7 games. That's absolutely absurd number. If we would rely specifically on this, then Mavs should have never lost even a game. And he has +11 On/Off for his playoff career.

And if Luka is so bad for the team, why does he rank nr1 basically every year in half court offensive production? He's also been ranked nr1 basically every year in creating easiest shot chances for his team mates.

I'm just saying... Maybe there's something else in basketball than just +/-.

Hello archx,

Well so first thing I'll say is that there's certainly more to understanding what's going on on the court than +/-...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to understand +/-. In a nutshell, once we get beyond small sample - and with Luka's career we're far beyond small sample - we need an explanation for why his team doesn't seem generally to do too much worse without him.

As I laid out: The post-season is king and so whatever we conclude about the regular season, it won't matter that much if the playoffs tell enough of a different story when it comes to Luka's legacy...but we still want to understand what happens.

And so I'll say to anyone who has a first thought of "This is ridiculous, we all know Luka's great!", try to figure out what's actually going on here. I have thoughts, but I'm also the guy pointing this stat out to you, so you probably think I'm biased. So then, what's you unbiased explanation for what's going on? When you try to answer, do keep in mind that if you think the answer is super-obvious, maybe skip that step. If it were super-obvious, not only would the rest of us know the answer immediately, but also no Doncic supporters would be surprised by this data, and the reality is they are constantly surprised by it.

Re "we would think Mavs would have at least 60% win rate without Luka". You might think that, but there's nothing I said leads to that conclusion without other assumptions. Please try to take care not to assume things from the messenger that are not actually in the message.

Re: playoff On/Off. Indeed, this was why I talked about the playoff stuff in my post. It doesn't change the fact that regular season-wise Doncic just isn't an MVP-candidate type of guy if value means actual regular season impact, but it might make the RS MVP moot when considering how to evaluate Doncic overall.

Re: "if Luka is so bad for the team". I didn't say he was bad for the team. I'm drawing a distinction between how top tier MVP candidates typically impact the regular season and Luka. Saying that Luka belongs classified, from an RS MVP perspective, with the vast majority of NBA players rather than the very best is not the same thing as saying his team is actually better without him.

There exist players that make their team dramatically worse whenever they step on the floor of course, but what's being pointed out here about Luka is more than he just doesn't seem to move the needle all that much.

Re: how mediocre impact with mega production? In a nutshell, consider 2 things:

1. When a guy makes a bucket, gets an assists, grabs a board, whatever, this doesn't mean that he manufactured those production stats out of nothing and that the team couldn't get any of them without the player. Basketball is not baseball, it's an actual in vivo team sport where having the ball in one guy's hands means it's not in his teammates' hands, and so he keeps them from greater production as a matter of course.

This is true even when a guy helps make his teammates more efficient to be clear. You can hinder a teammates production and still improve how valuable he is, and really it's only the latter that matters for the teammates just as it's all that really matters for the star in question. In the end, the team scoreboard decides who wins the game, not the individual box score.

2. Keep in mind that even when production does match impact as it's produced, it doesn't speak to what happens the rest of the time.

If I have a player who basically stands around doing nothing other than resting whenever he doesn't dominate the ball, then his teammates are forced to play 4 on 5. In such a circumstance, a superficial viewpoint will lead people to conclude "Wow, they're so much better whenever he has the ball, they should do that every possession!", but the problem is a) he doesn't have the stamina to do that, b) the more he does that, the more he coasts on the other possessions to get his wind back, and c) he's effectively sabotaging the apparent ability of teammates to lead possessions compared to what would happen if he actually conserved enough energy to give full effort on his off-ball possessions.

Re: creates easiest shots for his teammates. Dirty little secret about that stat: The best way to max out that stat is to call your own number too often. Once the defense learns that the optimal defensive approach is to over-guard you, then you can pass to teammates and they'll be wide open.

As such, for a truly optimal playmaker, he shouldn't be making the shots for his teammates as easy as possible, but should be finding a balance so that the average shot taken by the entirety of the team (including himself) is as easy as possible.

Re: "I'm just saying...". You should consider whether assuming that others haven't thought about something obvious is really the best way to proceed, particularly when responding to someone who made clear he knew up front he was using a simple stat to help get people's head around stuff.

If what you want is something more sophisticated that raw +/-, it's existed for well over a decade. I could list that instead, but consider where we go next with that. Here I'm asking you to explain what's going on. If I give you RAPM data, what could you say other than "Yes I agree, or no I don't agree"?

Teams centered around players like Embiid and Jokic, there is a gigantic drop off between them and their sub. Mavs' problem is backcourt heavy and front court thin/injury. They always had deep guards rotation, Luka/Brunson/Dinwiddie/Hardaway/Kyrie but below average and injury prone front court - Porzingis/Powell/Maxi/Bertans/Boban/Wood... It is easy to bridge the ~10min time without Luka due to their strong guards rotation but hard to maintain 36 min competitiveness even with Luka with the front court year in and year out. The Mavs this year have Lively II, Dwight Powell, Richaun Holmes, Maxi Kleber, Markieff Morris, OMax Prosper taller than 6'7, but only Lively and Powell (barely playable) have been able to play with periodic injury. Backcourt of Luka/Kyrie/Exum/THJ/Green/Derrick Jones Jr/Hardy/Seth Curry are overloaded. A trade has to happen for them to get bigger and be better positioned.

[Exp0sed]

Jokic in command. Embiid drops to third.

Kawhi quietly has as good a case for MVP as everyone on that list.

as everyone? nah
I have him 5th, maybe 6th. his team is stacked, is he the best player on that team? sure is, that's true in general and true this season by raw stats or any metric we can think of basically but he does have PG13 and Harden, with PG playing a 1B role at a very high level as well. how high is PG13 on the MVP ladder, 15th? 20th?

same goes for Booker and KD, Giannis and Dame or Tatum\Brown\KP
KL has been great but his raw stats and his impact is a clear notch below the top tier. is team success enough to overcome that?
we'll see if they can create some real seperation atop the West, it'll be more of a discussion then imo

[Bob8]

Spoiler:

How I see things?

I see Luka & Jokic playing a very different style of play.

Luka plays intensely heliocentric, dominates the ball, struggles to get the most out of other on-ball talents, and doesn't give you much when he's off-ball.

Jokic plays a style that cannot easily be classified but has its roots in the pivot-passer model where he doesn't hold onto the ball long, allows other on-ball talents to shine, and moves without the ball in a way that provides all sorts of sneaky value.

In theory each team they are on is optimized around the respective star so we should expect some struggles if there was a shift...but then there's this matter that the Mavs never seem to do much better when Luka's out there compared to without him, while Jokic's teams generally show a night & day difference depending on whether Jokic is on the floor or not.

A variation on a simple stat I like to point to for perspective: Most times leading one particular franchise in +/- across the entirety of a season with the data going back to '93-94.

Nowitzki (DAL) 14
Duncan (SAS) 10
LeBron (CLE) 9
Curry (GSW) 8
Nash (PHX) 8

Other high scorers in the conversation here.

Embiid (PHI) 6
Jokic (DEN) 6 - and leading this year which would make 7
Tatum (BOS) 5
Giannis (MIL) 4 - and leading this year which would make 5

Other guys in discussion here tend to be young, but if the season were to end right now, all of Edwards, SGA, Hali & Kawhi would have non-zero tallies.

Doncic is the only one who has his own slot on this poll that would remain zero. We're now 6 years in, and we've seen basically no indicators that Doncic has massive impact as a matter of course the way we expect for MVP-level players.

Now don't get me wrong: I think the resilience of Luka-centrism is still very scary to playoff opponents, and in the end, that's the thing that truly matters to legacy. If Luka is never all that impactful in the regular season but proves more resilient than all comers in the playoffs, he can still be known as the best player of his generation.

But if you're skeptical that anyone could be making the Mavs considerably better than Luka has when you're watching them now, I'll tell you flat out that you're not actually looking at the impact, just the box score and the fact that Luka seems to be able to manufacture production in all situations with his preferred style of play. Because we're not talking about a close comparison between Jokic & Luka over the course of regular seasons.

Jokic is among the most impactful players we've ever seen, and Luka is perhaps the most surprisingly un-impactful guys we've ever seen.

I type all this and I think that if you're like most, you'll just roll your eyes. But this is something some of us have been watching unfold for years now and we're genuinely shocked by the lack of "they couldn't do anything without him" evidence Doncic continues to show. I don't think anyone expected to see this, and it's now a major 2020s phenomenon worthy of study in its own right.

Correct me if i am wrong.

The Dallas Mavericks have a 43% win percentage without Luka Doncic all-time.
The Denver Nuggets have a 40.5% win percentage without Nikola Jokic all-time.

The way you talk about +/- we would think Mavs would have at least 60% win rate without Luka but i guess that's not the case.

Luka had +32.6 On/Off vs LAC when they lost in 7 games. That's absolutely absurd number. If we would rely specifically on this, then Mavs should have never lost even a game. And he has +11 On/Off for his playoff career.

And if Luka is so bad for the team, why does he rank nr1 basically every year in half court offensive production? He's also been ranked nr1 basically every year in creating easiest shot chances for his team mates.

I'm just saying... Maybe there's something else in basketball than just +/-.

Hello archx,

Well so first thing I'll say is that there's certainly more to understanding what's going on on the court than +/-...but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to understand +/-. In a nutshell, once we get beyond small sample - and with Luka's career we're far beyond small sample - we need an explanation for why his team doesn't seem generally to do too much worse without him.

As I laid out: The post-season is king and so whatever we conclude about the regular season, it won't matter that much if the playoffs tell enough of a different story when it comes to Luka's legacy...but we still want to understand what happens.

And so I'll say to anyone who has a first thought of "This is ridiculous, we all know Luka's great!", try to figure out what's actually going on here. I have thoughts, but I'm also the guy pointing this stat out to you, so you probably think I'm biased. So then, what's you unbiased explanation for what's going on? When you try to answer, do keep in mind that if you think the answer is super-obvious, maybe skip that step. If it were super-obvious, not only would the rest of us know the answer immediately, but also no Doncic supporters would be surprised by this data, and the reality is they are constantly surprised by it.

Re "we would think Mavs would have at least 60% win rate without Luka". You might think that, but there's nothing I said leads to that conclusion without other assumptions. Please try to take care not to assume things from the messenger that are not actually in the message.

Re: playoff On/Off. Indeed, this was why I talked about the playoff stuff in my post. It doesn't change the fact that regular season-wise Doncic just isn't an MVP-candidate type of guy if value means actual regular season impact, but it might make the RS MVP moot when considering how to evaluate Doncic overall.

Re: "if Luka is so bad for the team". I didn't say he was bad for the team. I'm drawing a distinction between how top tier MVP candidates typically impact the regular season and Luka. Saying that Luka belongs classified, from an RS MVP perspective, with the vast majority of NBA players rather than the very best is not the same thing as saying his team is actually better without him.

There exist players that make their team dramatically worse whenever they step on the floor of course, but what's being pointed out here about Luka is more than he just doesn't seem to move the needle all that much.

Re: how mediocre impact with mega production? In a nutshell, consider 2 things:

1. When a guy makes a bucket, gets an assists, grabs a board, whatever, this doesn't mean that he manufactured those production stats out of nothing and that the team couldn't get any of them without the player. Basketball is not baseball, it's an actual in vivo team sport where having the ball in one guy's hands means it's not in his teammates' hands, and so he keeps them from greater production as a matter of course.

This is true even when a guy helps make his teammates more efficient to be clear. You can hinder a teammates production and still improve how valuable he is, and really it's only the latter that matters for the teammates just as it's all that really matters for the star in question. In the end, the team scoreboard decides who wins the game, not the individual box score.

2. Keep in mind that even when production does match impact as it's produced, it doesn't speak to what happens the rest of the time.

If I have a player who basically stands around doing nothing other than resting whenever he doesn't dominate the ball, then his teammates are forced to play 4 on 5. In such a circumstance, a superficial viewpoint will lead people to conclude "Wow, they're so much better whenever he has the ball, they should do that every possession!", but the problem is a) he doesn't have the stamina to do that, b) the more he does that, the more he coasts on the other possessions to get his wind back, and c) he's effectively sabotaging the apparent ability of teammates to lead possessions compared to what would happen if he actually conserved enough energy to give full effort on his off-ball possessions.

Re: creates easiest shots for his teammates. Dirty little secret about that stat: The best way to max out that stat is to call your own number too often. Once the defense learns that the optimal defensive approach is to over-guard you, then you can pass to teammates and they'll be wide open.

As such, for a truly optimal playmaker, he shouldn't be making the shots for his teammates as easy as possible, but should be finding a balance so that the average shot taken by the entirety of the team (including himself) is as easy as possible.

Re: "I'm just saying...". You should consider whether assuming that others haven't thought about something obvious is really the best way to proceed, particularly when responding to someone who made clear he knew up front he was using a simple stat to help get people's head around stuff.

If what you want is something more sophisticated that raw +/-, it's existed for well over a decade. I could list that instead, but consider where we go next with that. Here I'm asking you to explain what's going on. If I give you RAPM data, what could you say other than "Yes I agree, or no I don't agree"?

Can you please tell me what would have happened with Luka's +/-; on/off, if he would got 4 very good starters, and his bench would have been worse? My wild guess is that bad starting 5, who are injured a lot, has a lot with those numbers. Mavs bench on the other hand is pretty solid with THJ&co. I doubt very much that Jokic could have had much better results playing with Green, Hardy, DDJ, Williams, Exum...Kyrie is injured nonstop.

Mavs have far the worse starters between playoffs teams, when Kyrie is out, that's a lot of the time, Luka basically plays with bench players all the time against opponents starters. Kinda difficult to have good +/- in this circumstances.

SGA is a great example for that. Very bad +/-; on/off and he gets proper starters and his +/- suddenly skyrockets. Coincidence? I don't think so. All players with great +/- have great starting units.

Those debates are academic anyway, nobody cares about +/- or RS games. Luka needs to win a title or two, if he wants to be recognised as a great player, unfortunately he can't with the roster he has at the moment, +/- is right there.

[QPR]

Fairly or unfairly, there will be a narrative that the Clippers didn't properly "click" until Harden settled in. Kawhi is a monster but it's pretty difficult to win MVP on teams that are seen as being stacked (goes for Tatum as well).

[AleksandarN]

murray was the one of the best players in the playoffs. lillard wouldn't have kept up.

lillard is a career 40% shooter in the postseason, murray has been about 50% in last 40 postseason games.
murray as 33/5/6 on 53% shooting in the series against the lakers that put them in the finals.

There are several options, can you imagine Curry or Luka. Booker, SGA, just to point out some obvious choices.

so you admit jokic is playing with an mvp-calibre player.

Murray an MVP calibre player. Murray hasn’t been an allstar or all nba player. How is he an mvp player?

[AleksandarN]

murray was the one of the best players in the playoffs. lillard wouldn't have kept up.

lillard is a career 40% shooter in the postseason, murray has been about 50% in last 40 postseason games.
murray as 33/5/6 on 53% shooting in the series against the lakers that put them in the finals.

Giving Murray credit for Jokic's success is silly.

if murray is injured jokic wouldn't even reach the 2nd round.

Man just stop. Jokic made it to the second round without Murray. The beat the Blazers. What was his starting backcourt and where are they now? Actually name the top 8 players on that team.