Moderators: cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285, Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid
yoyoboy wrote:I struggle to think of a time when someone on an average team with uninspiring impact stats ever got close to the MVP push that Luka is getting right now.
timO wrote:still talking about if luka makes the play-in chances?
this is mvp thread folks
Zespetjest wrote:timO wrote:still talking about if luka makes the play-in chances?
this is mvp thread folks
No, we are talking about if Shay can bring his team to playofs for very 1st time and maybe get's past 1st round.
Zespetjest wrote:timO wrote:still talking about if luka makes the play-in chances?
this is mvp thread folks
No, we are talking about if Shay can bring his team to playofs for very 1st time and maybe get's past 1st round.
timO wrote:Zespetjest wrote:timO wrote:still talking about if luka makes the play-in chances?
this is mvp thread folks
No, we are talking about if Shay can bring his team to playofs for very 1st time and maybe get's past 1st round.
maybe if luka can make play-in first, last year luka kyrie fail to even qualify, shai loses in last game without Chet all year and a pair of rookies starting, and a sophomore too
lets see if luka can make play-in this year, still in #8 and utah is only 4 games down
Bob8 wrote:timO wrote:Zespetjest wrote:No, we are talking about if Shay can bring his team to playofs for very 1st time and maybe get's past 1st round.
maybe if luka can make play-in first, last year luka kyrie fail to even qualify, shai loses in last game without Chet all year and a pair of rookies starting, and a sophomore too
lets see if luka can make play-in this year, still in #8 and utah is only 4 games down
Nah, he’s just blindly in love with his (very lucky health wise) teams’ current position in standings. The cruel reality will hit him hard.
You understand that Mavs have got Lively and Gafford for not making play-in?
Bob8 wrote:yoyoboy wrote:I struggle to think of a time when someone on an average team with uninspiring impact stats ever got close to the MVP push that Luka is getting right now.
How many times have you seen someone on average team having inspiring impact stats? Or have many times have you seen someone on very good team having uninspiring impact stats?
Bob8 wrote:iggymcfrack wrote:sisibilio wrote:Even more important than the absences of Irving were those of Lively since they had zero depth, Powell is a decent 3rd string C at best and Holmes all around terrible. Without Lively Mavs needed Luka in god mode just to survive.
22/14 record with Lively and 8/9 without him.
Now with Kleber finally back and the addition of Gafford things are much more balanced.
IWith Joel out of the picture, and barring more injuries, i think this is a 2 man race, if the Mavs record isn't too far from the Nuggets it's a coin toss between them, otherwise Jokic wins in a landslide.
It’s a 2-man race all right but it’s between Jokic and SGA unless Giannis or Luka gets their team the 1 seed. I don’t see any argument Luka has over SGA except one head to head game. SGA destroys him in every cumulative stat and has way better on/off, and his team’s playing better too. Honestly, LeBron has about as good of a case over Luka as Luka has over SGA.
I don't understand why +/- apologists are talking about 2 man race? Jokic has 18 on/off and SGA only 12? There is no real comparison there. Jokic should win easily. And interesting enough, all of us, who don't believe in +/-, won't have any problems giving MVP to Jokic. There's just no comparison between what Jokic is doing for Denver and what SGA is doing for OKC. First is the whole system, second is efficient scorer. Watching Jokic is poetic experience, watching SGA is watching someone, who's special in midrange shooting and drawing fouls. Just imagine, if the whole league would have been playing like that? There won't be anybody watching. I don't believe that being MVP is just about advanced stats, you should look as MVP too.
Bourne85 wrote:Luka is in another world talent wise compared to Shai. If Luka had OKC team they would be a real threat to the title. As opposed to now no one is afraid of OKC in the least. Now that could’ve changed, they had the assets to go get a game changer and decided to not do anything with them. That’s on them, no point in collecting picks like they were Pokémon’s if your not going to put them together and trade for a star. If Shai was knocking on that doorstep, okc would’ve been very aggressive at the deadline. Instead, they were very passive knowing good and well that they aren’t serious enough contenders to part with their picks yet. Maybe in another 2-3 years they will attempt to make a move.
Luka is as talented a player to ever grace the nba. If he had a great team they would be in the runnings for championships every year, sadly he landed in Dallas, a non FA destination spot, bad team construction, bad trades, bad coach, bad owner. His best bet is to leave them next chance he gets, if he’s serious about winning titles. Needs to get to a team with great leadership, or at the minimum a team that guys want to play for, think Miami or Lakers etc. As long as he’s in Dallas, he won’t be fighting for any rings. He will however be signing for absurd amounts of money, if that’s good enough for him, so be it.
INKtastic wrote:Bourne85 wrote:Luka is in another world talent wise compared to Shai. If Luka had OKC team they would be a real threat to the title. As opposed to now no one is afraid of OKC in the least. Now that could’ve changed, they had the assets to go get a game changer and decided to not do anything with them. That’s on them, no point in collecting picks like they were Pokémon’s if your not going to put them together and trade for a star. If Shai was knocking on that doorstep, okc would’ve been very aggressive at the deadline. Instead, they were very passive knowing good and well that they aren’t serious enough contenders to part with their picks yet. Maybe in another 2-3 years they will attempt to make a move.
Luka is as talented a player to ever grace the nba. If he had a great team they would be in the runnings for championships every year, sadly he landed in Dallas, a non FA destination spot, bad team construction, bad trades, bad coach, bad owner. His best bet is to leave them next chance he gets, if he’s serious about winning titles. Needs to get to a team with great leadership, or at the minimum a team that guys want to play for, think Miami or Lakers etc. As long as he’s in Dallas, he won’t be fighting for any rings. He will however be signing for absurd amounts of money, if that’s good enough for him, so be it.
The case for and against Luka is the same for and against LeBron years ago. LeBron was out of this world statistically in 06-07 and 07-08, and had the playoff success to support that, including a NBA finals trip, but didn't win the MVP until he elevated the cavs to a top team in 08-09. Dallas is on a 46 win pace.
Oscar9992 wrote:BigGargamel wrote:Oscar9992 wrote:Shai doesn't seem to impact the game the way Luka does. He is efficient scorer. That's it. Never led his team to the Playoffs yet & unproven yet.
I would rather face OKC than Clippers, Nuggets or Suns in the Playoffs.Zespetjest wrote:Lol at SGA over Luka. SGA was just lucky his team basicly had no problems with injuries so far, while Mavs were more or less whole season without at lest 2-3 starters, sometimes even without all 5.
Mavericks fans the most blatant homers on this board, I see.
Don't have to downplay SGA's season to up Luka's. Both are candidates.
What I've said isn't true? Shai never led any team to the Playoffs. We don't know how good is he in the Playoffs yet.
The-Power wrote:MyTake_1 wrote:Luka will not be MVP this year, but he will get his, that boy is a generational talent just like Joker.
SGA, and Embiid are amazing talents but not like the above two.
Ant is the one I am watching, will he be in the first or the second group? Time will tell.
Exp0sed wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:MyTake_1 wrote:Luka will not be MVP this year, but he will get his, that boy is a generational talent just like Joker.
SGA, and Embiid are amazing talents but not like the above two.
Ant is the one I am watching, will he be in the first or the second group? Time will tell.
“Just like Joker”
Luka may end up being the best player of his generation over Jokic - all it takes is the right playoff success - but we’ve got to be honest that much of the data that shows us what an outlier Jokic is makes Luka look far far worse.
I also feel like people are continuing to brush aside that Luka was winning pre-season MVP predictions before Jokic had ever been a serious MVP candidate himself, and we are now years later, Jokic should be a Top 2 candidate this year leading to his 4th straight MVP, while Luka’s candidacy has been stalled for years.
6 years of similar data just isn’t dismissable asnoise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I totally get where you're coming from, Luka has def been a total outlier in the +- dpt. and 6 seasons is alot but surely you can still assume that just because we don't know (for certain) the explanation - doesn't mean there isn't one
i'll give u an analogy:
once upon a time, common folks and scientists alike didn't know that all the continents were one big land mass originally
when that theory was first posited, it was laughed at by everyone. it took hundreds of years for the concept to take root.
scientists were scoffing at the idea because there was no known mechanism by which land could move in such a way i.e - break apart from each other
nowadays, every kid in kindergarden can see that the different continents fit perfectly like the pieces of the puzzle they once were..do u think the geniuses of old couldn't see that? but still, they insisted on their ridicilous error because no mechanism was known. didn't it make a lot more sense to argue that since it fits so perfectly and there's no way that's a coincidence, to just assume that such a mechanism exists, even if we don't yet know what that mechanism is?
eventually, tectonic movement was discovered and the continental drift theory became the "truth" known commonly and accepted universally by all as fact but that happened only after the mechanism was discovered! science has it's limitations, you're only as good as your assumptions
back to the NBA, it's def an interesting phenonmenon but some of the possible explanations floating around certainly make some sense in possibly explaining this anomaly
ask urself this, the Mavs have a 30-23 record which is pretty darn good considering how strong the league and the West is rn
Kyrie played only half the season, other starters missed plenty and Mavs rotation was filled mostly with mediocre to bad players
if Luka is indeed as his +- indicates, barely a net positive (if it all) - who has been winning all those games for the Mavs?
Luka played 45 game, Kyrie played 31
how many games do u think a lineup of: Josh Green, Lively, DDJ, Exum and Grant Williams wins this season? let's say half the games you replace Exum with Kyrie, how many they win then?
not alot, right?
Mavs are 3-5 without Luka this season iirc, so they're 27-18 with Luka
so how are they winning these games, is it DDJ or Josh Green who should be getting the credit? cuz +- tells us it's not Luka, so let's spread the love - who deserves the credit for these wins? who was producing those for the Mavs?
Luka is the real deal
there is a plausible explanation for the dissonance or a multitude of reasons that combine to create this outlier effect
I think u need to recheck ur assumptions, cuz ur out here insisting continents didn't drift apart just because +- tells you so, despite a plethora of other evidence not to mention the eye test and common sense that point to the contarary
Doctor MJ wrote:Exp0sed wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:
All you're doing is looking at one variation of a family of stats, seeing something positive there, not comparing it to any other player, and asserting that it contradicts another variation of the stat from there. The logic doesn't hold up.
Listen, if you want to talk about paradigm shifts such tectonic plates, I'm here for that, but this isn't a situation where I'm trapped in a box that y'all are not, it's a situation where I'm bringing up some facts y'all don't really know how to process, and then respond with sort of rebuttal that shows confusion..
Bob8 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:Bob8 wrote:What about SGA in previous year's? How you can totally dismiss his first 5 years, because he had great first half of this year? How is possible that your analytic mind doesn't at least have some doubt, how could he turned +/- overnight dramatically? Can someone have average +/- for 5 years and then suddenly becomes a monster? Why don't you look what has changed with Thunder's roster this season? Some new important players? Having the same starting lineup for 47 games? I'm asking you for the 3rd time, why SGA made this jump in year 6? Please for the answer.
I'm sure that you're not Luka hater, I just believe that your tool is wrong to evaluate single player impact. Your tool is useful for finding best lineups and evalute lineups in one roster. To have proper, realistic comparison between Luka and SGA, they should have played with the same roster. Or they at least have to have similar team construction, similar starting lineups, similar bench and similar problems with injuries. Mavs are total outliner in all all those areas in comparison to others playoffs teams. They have for years far the worst starting lineup and pretty good bench, Luka has for years great replacement, Brunson/Kyrie, on his position and they were hit the most with injuries this year. Please explain to me how +/- is adjusted to all those differences?
But what I accused you of, that you're totally dismissing all other data, eye test including, and blindly believe in just one tool. Yes blindly. Luka can average 70/30/30 with fantastic efficiency from now on and your numbers and you would still have SGA better.
Luka and SGA has played 2 games against each other this year. And it was total domination by Luka, not only by numbers, but with the way he led his team. Anyone could see the difference. Unfortunately for Mavs, roster construction and problems with injuries count in basketball too. Not even MJ could do much without proper help. Your answer would be small sample size, my would be, why would have meaningless blowout games bigger impact thsn head2head? This is basketball, the best players play, when game is on the line, when every possession matters, not when their team leads by 20+. You can have negative +/- and be far the most impactful player on the court. MJ was not special because he dominated scoring from his first year, but because he made the basket every time, when it was the most important and D knew that he's taking last shot, but couldn't do anything about that.
You're implying how in playoffs everything might change. But it shouldn't, if your tool is working right. The most impactful player of the RS, should be in the top in playoffs too. But I have a feeling that especially SGA's impact will fall off dramatically. No more blowups, more minutes, more double teams for him, less FTs...and very likely first round exit.
Re: what about Shai's previous years? I mean, a young star is supposed to get better.
Re: dismiss first 5 years. Not when I talk about Shai's career. But when talking about the MVP this season, I tend to focus on this season. (May seem different because of the Luka conversation, but we get into earlier seasons there largely because people try to use small sample size as a reason to dismiss this season's +/- data on its own.)
Re: how could he turned +/- overnight dramatically? Well, that's the most valuable question, and also a very complicated answer that I wouldn't claim to have any monopoly on. Thread-worthy, in other words.
Wherever you see a guy with high primacy & big minutes spike like this, there's a meaningful set of causes to look into and understand.
I can speak to it more later, but try to avoid looking to discredit the data by discrediting me. You should try to explain the data yourself without looking to dismiss it as being an improvement of everything except Shai and see what you come up with.
Re: 70/30/30 and you'd still ignore. I don't and wouldn't ignore any of this data. I just recognize that it doesn't capture the entirety of the competition, and that if that data doesn't match other data, there's other stuff going on that is significant.
Re: Luka beat Shai badly! Cool, and the data for those games exist, just as the data for all the other games do. The head-to-head may end up deciding a playoff series, but what happens against the other 28 opponents matters too.
Re: can be most impactful with negative +/-. In a game this is not common but possible. In a season, in the NBA, this is very, very unlikely.
Re: Jordan. Jordan has outstanding +/- by what we see, just like we'd expect.
If you're making a case about your model for 1 player, saying that 6 years data confirms your thesis, you can't dismiss first 5 years of other player and be impressed by only first 3 months of current year. At least you should give me a viable explanation for that big change. And btw, SGA is born in 98, so he's not that young either.
SGA's sudden rising is basically death sentence for your model, that's why you don't want to talk about it. Yes players get better, but you're not average, by your model, and then become monster overnight. Like Thunder is not become top Nba team, just because SGA's became better, basketball is a team sport, single player, no matter how good he's, alone can't do much. So I would look for explanation in the changes of Thunder's roster, development of other players and not put everything on SGA's overnight rise. But there's the catch, isn't it? If we say that roster is partially to blame for sudden rise of SGA's +/- than we admit that +/- is measuring impact of lineup not a single player.
If someone is averaging 70/30/30 and you don't see him as impactful player, I believe you should watch more basketball and less numbers.
Data for yesterday's game in which Luka had 32/8/9 with 81% TS, + 18, in only 3qs is saying that he had negative on/off, because he didn't played in q4, when lead ballooned from 21 to 35. Whoever has watched yesterday's game and saw what was Luka doing to Thunder as playmaker and as scorer can just laugh at that data. And no, you can't say it's only 1 game, problem is much bigger, if you can't trust single game data, you can't trust seasonal data either. +/- data is over the place, because it measures impact of 5 men lineup not impact of the single player. And yes, players of good teams have normally good +/-, because their lineups are the best.
You have by quality very different starting lineups, by quality very different replacement players, very different benches, different team success and data, which is over the place in single games and we're only at the players team lineup, what about opponents? They play with different lineups too, have good or bad night... And after all those variables you want to represent that data as all in one measurement for impact of a single player? Really?
I would say that knowledgeable observer can see pretty good, what impact the best players have on their teams. Seeing and measuring impact of role players is much more difficult.
Doctor MJ wrote:Bob8 wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:
