NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24 (Part 4: MVP Thread's Revenge)

[jfs1000d]

Jokic is gonna win mvp, because he literally is the most valuable player in the league. Nuggets suck without him.

I find Luka an amazing talent, puts up huge numbers, but i just find the ball in his hands way too much.

Tatum should be 2. About Same age as Shai, and is the straw that stirs the drink in Boston. he isn’t like Luka, JOKIC, who get gaudy assists as it is one pass shot. But Tatum creates a ton of open looks on those hockey assists. Boston 45 wins without Tatum. They are 65 with him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mavrelous]

Jokic is gonna win mvp, because he literally is the most valuable player in the league. Nuggets suck without him.

I find Luka an amazing talent, puts up huge numbers, but i just find the ball in his hands way too much.

Tatum should be 2. About Same age as Shai, and is the straw that stirs the drink in Boston. he isn’t like Luka, JOKIC, who get gaudy assists as it is one pass shot. But Tatum creates a ton of open looks on those hockey assists. Boston 45 wins without Tatum. They are 65 with him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Celtics aren't a 45 w/o Tatum, they are 2-1 w/o him, very small sample size to extrapolate full season record, with the only loss coming to Indy in the middle of their hot streak when they beat MIL twice and the Knicks.
Tatum is a great player, but he doesn't have the statistical case for MVP, he averages 1 secondary assist per game, very good, but not top 10 even, barely top 20 and barely ahead of Jokic at 0.9.

[Exp0sed]

Oh I think the connection between Luka & Wilt is pretty striking. I understand how it could seem out of the blue and bizarre, but if you're looking to see where history repeats itself, it sticks out. Doesn't mean things will end up all that similar, but those points of divergence will be of interest.

In terms of "it" not happening recently, that's only the case because of the scale you imagined. In terms of a question of whether
a celebrated statistical footprint and lower seed would end up winning the MVP, we've seen things go both ways. Westbrook's triple double was huge in getting him that MVP, while Kobe's big scoring year didn't quite get him there. Kobe's PPG that year may not seem like a big deal now, but at the time it was. People weren't going around saying "But he didn't score THAT much", they were either raving about the PPG, or talking about the fact that there's more to basketball than scoring volume.

Re: Luka, stated your case plenty. Sounds to me like you're just seeing anything I say here is part of "my anti-Luka case", but I actually made a real point to emphasize in my most recent posts that this was a point different from my personal assessment of Luka. You may see me talking about the pragmatic weaknesses in Luka's MVP chances as something that goes along with me personally not thinking of him as delivering MVP levels of value, but they are two different things. A year ago at this it was starting to become clear that Embiid would likely win the MVP and I recognized that even as I personally didn't think he was that much of a challenger for the #1 spot.

Re: rhetorical questions about Luka's +/- getting better. As I've said, time will tell. That's not me being cynical about the possibility that things could change, it's just a recognition that the data is noisy.

I will say though as I alluded to in a recent discussion in this thread: If a change in teammates helps Luka be more impactful, then he'll be more impactful, and thus a stronger MVP candidate.

Re: scoring volume maybe not optimal for winning, but matters for MVP. It matters to the extent it lifts the team, and how impressive that lift is.

In terms of Luka just doing this because he has to, here's the thing:

Luka is the highest career Usage% player in the history of the NBA (min. 10K minutes). If Luka were only doing this because he had to, we'd expect that that meant he'd been playing with teammates less offensively capable than any supporting cast in history. But we have plenty of evidence to indicate this isn't the case.

So what we're talking about is a choice on Luka's part to become arguably the highest primacy player in the history of the NBA because he feels most comfortable playing playing this way. He may feel like he has to - that any other way would be worse - but if this is true it's really not about the teammates he's had, who really haven't been that abnormal over the course of his career to this point, but about his specific needs.

And again, none of this means Luka's wrong, and none of this means Luka can't emerge as the more playoff resilient star in the world and lead his team to a run of chips. But it does mean he plays in a way where he racks up his box score production for reasons other than his teammates being uniquely unable to get box score stats.

fwiw, I 100% agree on the usage part. Luka's usage is insane and counter productive.
however as we well know, many fans and voters don't really factor in usage as we just saw in the fake MVPiid season last year.

[Bob8]

Oh I think the connection between Luka & Wilt is pretty striking. I understand how it could seem out of the blue and bizarre, but if you're looking to see where history repeats itself, it sticks out. Doesn't mean things will end up all that similar, but those points of divergence will be of interest.

In terms of "it" not happening recently, that's only the case because of the scale you imagined. In terms of a question of whether
a celebrated statistical footprint and lower seed would end up winning the MVP, we've seen things go both ways. Westbrook's triple double was huge in getting him that MVP, while Kobe's big scoring year didn't quite get him there. Kobe's PPG that year may not seem like a big deal now, but at the time it was. People weren't going around saying "But he didn't score THAT much", they were either raving about the PPG, or talking about the fact that there's more to basketball than scoring volume.

Re: Luka, stated your case plenty. Sounds to me like you're just seeing anything I say here is part of "my anti-Luka case", but I actually made a real point to emphasize in my most recent posts that this was a point different from my personal assessment of Luka. You may see me talking about the pragmatic weaknesses in Luka's MVP chances as something that goes along with me personally not thinking of him as delivering MVP levels of value, but they are two different things. A year ago at this it was starting to become clear that Embiid would likely win the MVP and I recognized that even as I personally didn't think he was that much of a challenger for the #1 spot.

Re: rhetorical questions about Luka's +/- getting better. As I've said, time will tell. That's not me being cynical about the possibility that things could change, it's just a recognition that the data is noisy.

I will say though as I alluded to in a recent discussion in this thread: If a change in teammates helps Luka be more impactful, then he'll be more impactful, and thus a stronger MVP candidate.

Re: scoring volume maybe not optimal for winning, but matters for MVP. It matters to the extent it lifts the team, and how impressive that lift is.

In terms of Luka just doing this because he has to, here's the thing:

Luka is the highest career Usage% player in the history of the NBA (min. 10K minutes). If Luka were only doing this because he had to, we'd expect that that meant he'd been playing with teammates less offensively capable than any supporting cast in history. But we have plenty of evidence to indicate this isn't the case.

So what we're talking about is a choice on Luka's part to become arguably the highest primacy player in the history of the NBA because he feels most comfortable playing playing this way. He may feel like he has to - that any other way would be worse - but if this is true it's really not about the teammates he's had, who really haven't been that abnormal over the course of his career to this point, but about his specific needs.

And again, none of this means Luka's wrong, and none of this means Luka can't emerge as the more playoff resilient star in the world and lead his team to a run of chips. But it does mean he plays in a way where he racks up his box score production for reasons other than his teammates being uniquely unable to get box score stats.

fwiw, I 100% agree on the usage part. Luka's usage is insane and counter productive.
however as we well know, many fans and voters don't really factor in usage as we just saw in the fake MVPiid season last year.

In last 9 games in which Mavs struggled even against bad teams, Mavs are 3rd in offense and 30th in D, even though they supposedly have better defensive players after the trade. In that period Luka had 28.3 net rtg and Kyrie -8.6. Meaning, Kyrie has struggled immensely, when Luka was off court. It looks to me that putting the ball out of Luka's hands doesn't work for Mavs.

Is Luka's style of play really that problematic, if it can produce elite offense? Or just maybe we should focus more on the Mavs' D as the main culprit for their problems? Maybe we should start asking what Kidd is doing? There's no offense in the world that will help you, if your opponents are scoring 130+ points. Any half decent coach should be able to build the system that prevents that.

And before someone starts talking how Luka is the main factor for bad D. In last 9 games I was talking about, Mavs are 11 points worse in D, when he isn't playing.

[djizo]

In last 9 games in which Mavs struggled even against bad teams, Mavs are 3rd in offense and 30th in D, even though they supposedly have better defensive players after the trade.

I think this is the main point here. We can ravage about Doncic's high usage all day, but it is hard to argue, (i) that it does not deliver results (while improvements can always be made, the Mavs have consistently been one of the best offensive teams), (ii) that it is forced or usurped by Luka and not designed -- Kidd stresses often enough that Luka is the system. Also, Doncic is a willing passer as demonstrated with high numbers for his assists, potential assists as well as passes.

Their problem is defending. One can argue that teammates feel unmotivated to play defense, because they are excluded on the offensive side, or that they simply follow the defensive-casual stance of their leader.

Both arguments make Doncic look bad, but they are both rather week IMO, since they are hard to substantiate with numbers. Moreover, in the 6-game span between the trades and the AS break, their now-pathetic defense was fine. There seems to be something else going on.

With all that said, I think all of this discussion is moot, since right now, MVP is only for Jokic to lose. And absent injury, I do not see that happening.

[mpoo_sin]

Doncic will only win it if they go 16 and 2 at worst the rest of the way.

Pretty darn unrealistic : )

[Bob8]

In last 9 games in which Mavs struggled even against bad teams, Mavs are 3rd in offense and 30th in D, even though they supposedly have better defensive players after the trade.

I think this is the main point here. We can ravage about Doncic's high usage all day, but it is hard to argue, (i) that it does not deliver results (while improvements can always be made, the Mavs have consistently been one of the best offensive teams), (ii) that it is forced or usurped by Luka and not designed -- Kidd stresses often enough that Luka is the system. Also, Doncic is a willing passer as demonstrated with high numbers for his assists, potential assists as well as passes.

Their problem is defending. One can argue that teammates feel unmotivated to play defense, because they are excluded on the offensive side, or that they simply follow the defensive-casual stance of their leader.

Both arguments make Doncic look bad, but they are both rather week IMO, since they are hard to substantiate with numbers. Moreover, in the 6-game span between the trades and the AS break, their now-pathetic defense was fine. There seems to be something else going on.

With all that said, I think all of this discussion is moot, since right now, MVP is only for Jokic to lose. And absent injury, I do not see that happening.

It's Kidd. He's using the same defensive scheme last 3 years. It somewhat worked in 2021/22, when they played with the slowest pace in the league, it for sure doesn't work now. It's impossible to change the whole defensive system in last 18 games, but they for sure can play with slower pace, making things more difficult for opponents. Run&gun basketball against Indiana was embarrassing for coaching staff. Luka and Kyrie are capable to play half court offense as well as anyone in the league.

Yes, Jokic should win it.

[Archx]

Jokic is gonna win mvp, because he literally is the most valuable player in the league. Nuggets suck without him.

I find Luka an amazing talent, puts up huge numbers, but i just find the ball in his hands way too much.

Tatum should be 2. About Same age as Shai, and is the straw that stirs the drink in Boston. he isn’t like Luka, JOKIC, who get gaudy assists as it is one pass shot. But Tatum creates a ton of open looks on those hockey assists. Boston 45 wins without Tatum. They are 65 with him.

Something doesn't add up here. You're talking about hockey assists aka potential assist as it's labeled in statistics? I'm not sure Tatum's gravity is as good as you're suggesting compared to the rest.

Potential assists.

1. Hali = 18.8
2. Trae = 18.4
3. Luka = 16.8
.
.
Tatum = 8.7

Then you have points created from assists.

1. Hali = 29.6
2. Trae = 27.2
3. Luka = 25.1
.
.
Tatum = 12.7

And secondary assists aka hockey assists that you're probably talking about. Per game.

1. Durant = 1.3
2. Luka = 1.3
3. Maxey = 1.3
.
.
Tatum = 1.0

...and totals.

1. Schroeder = 73
2. Durant = 71
3. Luka = 71
.
.
Tatum = 57

In grand TOTAL, Luka creates 59.8 points for Mavs, no player is even close to that.

[Woodsanity]

Jokic is gonna win mvp, because he literally is the most valuable player in the league. Nuggets suck without him.

I find Luka an amazing talent, puts up huge numbers, but i just find the ball in his hands way too much.

Tatum should be 2. About Same age as Shai, and is the straw that stirs the drink in Boston. he isn’t like Luka, JOKIC, who get gaudy assists as it is one pass shot. But Tatum creates a ton of open looks on those hockey assists. Boston 45 wins without Tatum. They are 65 with him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where the heck are you getting 45 wins without Tatum?

No Tatum is not even top 3-4. Not nearly as high impact as the other guys, just has a stacked team.

Tatum is literally worse than he was last season....

But obviously adding Porzingis and Jrue will improve your team.

[Archx]

Jokic is gonna win mvp, because he literally is the most valuable player in the league. Nuggets suck without him.

I find Luka an amazing talent, puts up huge numbers, but i just find the ball in his hands way too much.

Tatum should be 2. About Same age as Shai, and is the straw that stirs the drink in Boston. he isn’t like Luka, JOKIC, who get gaudy assists as it is one pass shot. But Tatum creates a ton of open looks on those hockey assists. Boston 45 wins without Tatum. They are 65 with him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where the heck are you getting 45 wins without Tatum?

No Tatum is not even top 3-4. Not nearly as high impact as the other guys, just has a stacked team.

Tatum is literally worse than he was last season....

But obviously adding Porzingis and Jrue will improve your team.

You know what's even crazier? When Tatum plays they are +11.5 but when he sits, they are still +9.1 lol...

I am not so big on On/Off numbers since i prefer rather to check how lineups do within certain team but almost their ENTIRE team has positive ON the floor numbers. Only 1 players is in negatives... I can't remember ever seeing that. Now compare that to a team like Mavericks or Nuggets where more than half of the team is in red

[Infinite Llamas]

Jokic is gonna win mvp, because he literally is the most valuable player in the league. Nuggets suck without him.

I find Luka an amazing talent, puts up huge numbers, but i just find the ball in his hands way too much.

Tatum should be 2. About Same age as Shai, and is the straw that stirs the drink in Boston. he isn’t like Luka, JOKIC, who get gaudy assists as it is one pass shot. But Tatum creates a ton of open looks on those hockey assists. Boston 45 wins without Tatum. They are 65 with him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Where the heck are you getting 45 wins without Tatum?

No Tatum is not even top 3-4. Not nearly as high impact as the other guys, just has a stacked team.

Tatum is literally worse than he was last season....

But obviously adding Porzingis and Jrue will improve your team.

You know what's even crazier? When Tatum plays they are +11.5 but when he sits, they are still +9.1 lol...

I am not so big on On/Off numbers since i prefer rather to check how lineups do within certain team but almost their ENTIRE team has positive ON the floor numbers. Only 1 players is in negatives... I can't remember ever seeing that. Now compare that to a team like Mavericks or Nuggets where more than half of the team is in red

Tatum and Jrue usually exit the game in the first quarter about 6 minutes in and Horford and Hauser take their places. White shifts to point guard and the team doesn’t miss a beat, so that most likely explains the minuscule on/off difference. Boston is just a well oiled machine at this point.

That being said, Tatum doesn’t have the workload of some other stars so that puts a cap on his mvp chances. He’s really sacrificed his numbers this year for the good of the team but yeah…he isn’t a top 3-4 MVP.

[Exp0sed]

Tatum and Jrue usually exit the game in the first quarter about 6 minutes in and Horford and Hauser take their places. White shifts to point guard and the team doesn’t miss a beat, so that most likely explains the minuscule on/off difference. Boston is just a well oiled machine at this point.

That being said, Tatum doesn’t have the workload of some other stars so that puts a cap on his mvp chances. He’s really sacrificed his numbers this year for the good of the team but yeah…he isn’t a top 3-4 MVP.

the usage and workload is one thing but if he can sit and his team doesn't miss a beat means either his team is stacked or he isn't all that or as in this case - it's both, with the C's being stacked being the primary reason ofc

the fact that the C's don't miss a beat without him is something you categorically can't say and isn't true for any of his competitor's teams

p.s, you guys really think the C's aren't a 45 wins team without Tatum? that's odd..
you don't think Jrue\ White\ Jaylen\ Horford \ KP get u 45 wins in the East? it's a +0.500 team in the East for sure

the Magic are 37-28, Indy is 36-29..the Bulls are 31-33 and they are pretty awful

[Doctor MJ]

In last 9 games in which Mavs struggled even against bad teams, Mavs are 3rd in offense and 30th in D, even though they supposedly have better defensive players after the trade.

I think this is the main point here. We can ravage about Doncic's high usage all day, but it is hard to argue, (i) that it does not deliver results (while improvements can always be made, the Mavs have consistently been one of the best offensive teams), (ii) that it is forced or usurped by Luka and not designed -- Kidd stresses often enough that Luka is the system. Also, Doncic is a willing passer as demonstrated with high numbers for his assists, potential assists as well as passes.

Their problem is defending. One can argue that teammates feel unmotivated to play defense, because they are excluded on the offensive side, or that they simply follow the defensive-casual stance of their leader.

Both arguments make Doncic look bad, but they are both rather week IMO, since they are hard to substantiate with numbers. Moreover, in the 6-game span between the trades and the AS break, their now-pathetic defense was fine. There seems to be something else going on.

With all that said, I think all of this discussion is moot, since right now, MVP is only for Jokic to lose. And absent injury, I do not see that happening.

So, let's really be clear: In MVP conversations we're not talking about any star player being "the problem" on his team relative to his teammates. It's a question of whether the guy in question is the best of the best. The competition is brutal by definition, and it's why we see folks (such as myself in this case) make anti- arguments for guys. Not because we think any of the players here literally make their teams worse, but because we're implicitly comparing the players to other elite players.

Now, related to the specific usage question:

The point is not that ultra-high star usage is an inherently bad thing - it might actually be the right thing for the set of players in question - but that it runs the risk of making people overate the star and underate his teammates.

Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other star because his teammates are uniquely incapable of gaining more production themselves, and Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other stars because they are trying and failing to do what he's doing. He has these numbers because he's choosing to play in an ultra-extreme primacy way, and while it's fine for him to do this if it's the best move for his team, it doesn't mean his value increases in linear proportion to his volume.

This relates to why I brought Wilt earlier because these conversations with Wilt have been happening for forever.

Even after people acknowledge that Wilt's teams were better with him scoring less than he did at his peak, they still tend to see those peak numbers as a baseline for how good he was. And while it's certainly impressive that he could score so much, you really can't extrapolate from that scoring volume to figure out how valuable he was at his true value peak (which came later).

Luka is a very different player from Wilt in many ways, but in terms of extreme individual primacy in a team sport setting, they are very much cut from the same cloth, and so anyone looking to use the box score as their ground truth to assess their value will tend to overrate value.

[AleksandarN]

Incoming Jokic 10 10 10. I doubt Jokic will score much this game against a Rap team who is tanking missing like 8 players tonight

[Bob8]

In last 9 games in which Mavs struggled even against bad teams, Mavs are 3rd in offense and 30th in D, even though they supposedly have better defensive players after the trade.

I think this is the main point here. We can ravage about Doncic's high usage all day, but it is hard to argue, (i) that it does not deliver results (while improvements can always be made, the Mavs have consistently been one of the best offensive teams), (ii) that it is forced or usurped by Luka and not designed -- Kidd stresses often enough that Luka is the system. Also, Doncic is a willing passer as demonstrated with high numbers for his assists, potential assists as well as passes.

Their problem is defending. One can argue that teammates feel unmotivated to play defense, because they are excluded on the offensive side, or that they simply follow the defensive-casual stance of their leader.

Both arguments make Doncic look bad, but they are both rather week IMO, since they are hard to substantiate with numbers. Moreover, in the 6-game span between the trades and the AS break, their now-pathetic defense was fine. There seems to be something else going on.

With all that said, I think all of this discussion is moot, since right now, MVP is only for Jokic to lose. And absent injury, I do not see that happening.

So, let's really be clear: In MVP conversations we're not talking about any star player being "the problem" on his team relative to his teammates. It's a question of whether the guy in question is the best of the best. The competition is brutal by definition, and it's why we see folks (such as myself in this case) make anti- arguments for guys. Not because we think any of the players here literally make their teams worse, but because we're implicitly comparing the players to other elite players.

Now, related to the specific usage question:

The point is not that ultra-high star usage is an inherently bad thing - it might actually be the right thing for the set of players in question - but that it runs the risk of making people overate the star and underate his teammates.

Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other star because his teammates are uniquely incapable of gaining more production themselves, and Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other stars because they are trying and failing to do what he's doing. He has these numbers because he's choosing to play in an ultra-extreme primacy way, and while it's fine for him to do this if it's the best move for his team, it doesn't mean his value increases in linear proportion to his volume.

This relates to why I brought Wilt earlier because these conversations with Wilt have been happening for forever.

Even after people acknowledge that Wilt's teams were better with him scoring less than he did at his peak, they still tend to see those peak numbers as a baseline for how good he was. And while it's certainly impressive that he could score so much, you really can't extrapolate from that scoring volume to figure out how valuable he was at his true value peak (which came later).

Luka is a very different player from Wilt in many ways, but in terms of extreme individual primacy in a team sport setting, they are very much cut from the same cloth, and so anyone looking to use the box score as their ground truth to assess their value will tend to overrate value.

And like always, you're totally ignoring, why Mavs aren't top Nba team. The problem is not in ofense, but in D. They have better offensive rtg than Nuggets and only 22nd defensive rtg. Nothing you have written about addresses Mavs D. What is the point of talking about Luka's impact in offensive side not being enough, if Mavs' opponents averaged 126 points in last 8 games? There's no player in the world, who can lead his team to wins, if their D is disastrous.

In last 8 games in which they were 3:5, they had 3rd offensive rtg and 30th defensive rtg. Mavs were 10.2 points worse in D, when Luka was off the court and they were 20 points worse in offense, when he was off the court. + 30.2 net rtg for Luka and Mavs have lost 5 games. So please tell me, what more can do a player to help his team winning? 37/10/11 with 64.5 TS% is evidently not even enough for the winning record. Maybe he should be better cheerleader, like Tatum for example.

[Doctor MJ]

I think this is the main point here. We can ravage about Doncic's high usage all day, but it is hard to argue, (i) that it does not deliver results (while improvements can always be made, the Mavs have consistently been one of the best offensive teams), (ii) that it is forced or usurped by Luka and not designed -- Kidd stresses often enough that Luka is the system. Also, Doncic is a willing passer as demonstrated with high numbers for his assists, potential assists as well as passes.

Their problem is defending. One can argue that teammates feel unmotivated to play defense, because they are excluded on the offensive side, or that they simply follow the defensive-casual stance of their leader.

Both arguments make Doncic look bad, but they are both rather week IMO, since they are hard to substantiate with numbers. Moreover, in the 6-game span between the trades and the AS break, their now-pathetic defense was fine. There seems to be something else going on.

With all that said, I think all of this discussion is moot, since right now, MVP is only for Jokic to lose. And absent injury, I do not see that happening.

So, let's really be clear: In MVP conversations we're not talking about any star player being "the problem" on his team relative to his teammates. It's a question of whether the guy in question is the best of the best. The competition is brutal by definition, and it's why we see folks (such as myself in this case) make anti- arguments for guys. Not because we think any of the players here literally make their teams worse, but because we're implicitly comparing the players to other elite players.

Now, related to the specific usage question:

The point is not that ultra-high star usage is an inherently bad thing - it might actually be the right thing for the set of players in question - but that it runs the risk of making people overate the star and underate his teammates.

Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other star because his teammates are uniquely incapable of gaining more production themselves, and Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other stars because they are trying and failing to do what he's doing. He has these numbers because he's choosing to play in an ultra-extreme primacy way, and while it's fine for him to do this if it's the best move for his team, it doesn't mean his value increases in linear proportion to his volume.

This relates to why I brought Wilt earlier because these conversations with Wilt have been happening for forever.

Even after people acknowledge that Wilt's teams were better with him scoring less than he did at his peak, they still tend to see those peak numbers as a baseline for how good he was. And while it's certainly impressive that he could score so much, you really can't extrapolate from that scoring volume to figure out how valuable he was at his true value peak (which came later).

Luka is a very different player from Wilt in many ways, but in terms of extreme individual primacy in a team sport setting, they are very much cut from the same cloth, and so anyone looking to use the box score as their ground truth to assess their value will tend to overrate value.

And like always, you're totally ignoring, why Mavs aren't top Nba team. The problem is not in ofense, but in D. They have better offensive rtg than Nuggets and only 22nd defensive rtg. Nothing you have written about addresses Mavs D. What is the point of talking about Luka's impact in offensive side not being enough, if Mavs' opponents averaged 126 points in last 8 games? There's no player in the world, who can lead his team to wins, if their D is disastrous.

In last 8 games in which they were 3:5, they had 3rd offensive rtg and 30th defensive rtg. Mavs were 10.2 points worse in D, when Luka was off the court and they were 20 points worse in offense, when he was off the court. + 30.2 net rtg for Luka and Mavs have lost 5 games. So please tell me, what more can do a player to help his team winning? 37/10/11 with 64.5 TS% is evidently not even enough for the winning record. Maybe he should be better cheerleader, like Tatum for example.

You're bringing stuff like it contradicts what I say, but it doesn't. We can talk about what you bring up, but it's not really the same thing as the point I was speaking to.

To your points:
1. Defense is of course the Mavs' "problem", in the sense that the Mavs are better on offense than on defense, just like Luka is.

2. While it may seem like I'm focusing on the wrong thing when I'm quibbling about the nuances in Luka's approach to offense, I'm only talking about Luka in this thread because I'm seeing a lot of people who think Luka simply has to be the best player in the world because of his offensive box score. Such people would acknowledge Lukas's defensive limitations but are stuck on the idea that those offensive numbers must overwhelm everything else. Thus it's my assessment that the thing that they need to understand most is their misconception of the area that dominates their holistic assessment.

3. But to be clear, things like Luka's less than stellar off-ball mold in this conversation. It's just that these things don't result in debates because no one really looks to fight this, because those who advocate for Luka are convinced by his offense and thus focus their attention there.

4. While the Mavs may have a better offensive rating than the Nuggets, they don't at this time have a Top 5 offense, and they haven't had a Top 5 offense since '19-20. I've seen some posts from folks here implying they think the Mavs always have an elite offense, but that's really not been the story in the Luka years.

(If this seems like a contradiction given my tendency to support Jokic, we can discuss further, but obviously it has something to do with how jaw-dropping Jokic's on/off & RAPM numbers have looked compared to Luka's over the course of their time in the NBA.)

5. Re: last 8 games. This tendency of Luka supporters to want to focus on this most recent small sample in this debate while dismissing the same stats in broader samples just isn't logically coherent. My response on all of this small sample size stuff is the same: Time will tell, and if things change, then things will have changed.

6. What more could Luka do? Well, since you ask, it would certainly be nice if he could defend like a big given that he's sometimes the heaviest guy in the lineup for the Mavs. There's something similar going on with Jokic so that gives us reason to hope for the Mavs that you can get away with someone that big who isn't a great defender in the modern NBA, but yeah, as you bring up defense, that is the biggest concern with Luka specifically, and it's something people seem to miss because Luka is classified as a guard.

So yeah, it's possible that the issues relating to Luka the defender will make it impossible for Luka the offender to emerge as the star of a champion, and that's just how it goes. It's not enough to keep Luka from leading a good team - we know that already - but reaching the top is hard.

[Bob8]

So, let's really be clear: In MVP conversations we're not talking about any star player being "the problem" on his team relative to his teammates. It's a question of whether the guy in question is the best of the best. The competition is brutal by definition, and it's why we see folks (such as myself in this case) make anti- arguments for guys. Not because we think any of the players here literally make their teams worse, but because we're implicitly comparing the players to other elite players.

Now, related to the specific usage question:

The point is not that ultra-high star usage is an inherently bad thing - it might actually be the right thing for the set of players in question - but that it runs the risk of making people overate the star and underate his teammates.

Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other star because his teammates are uniquely incapable of gaining more production themselves, and Luka doesn't have these huge numbers like no other stars because they are trying and failing to do what he's doing. He has these numbers because he's choosing to play in an ultra-extreme primacy way, and while it's fine for him to do this if it's the best move for his team, it doesn't mean his value increases in linear proportion to his volume.

This relates to why I brought Wilt earlier because these conversations with Wilt have been happening for forever.

Even after people acknowledge that Wilt's teams were better with him scoring less than he did at his peak, they still tend to see those peak numbers as a baseline for how good he was. And while it's certainly impressive that he could score so much, you really can't extrapolate from that scoring volume to figure out how valuable he was at his true value peak (which came later).

Luka is a very different player from Wilt in many ways, but in terms of extreme individual primacy in a team sport setting, they are very much cut from the same cloth, and so anyone looking to use the box score as their ground truth to assess their value will tend to overrate value.

And like always, you're totally ignoring, why Mavs aren't top Nba team. The problem is not in ofense, but in D. They have better offensive rtg than Nuggets and only 22nd defensive rtg. Nothing you have written about addresses Mavs D. What is the point of talking about Luka's impact in offensive side not being enough, if Mavs' opponents averaged 126 points in last 8 games? There's no player in the world, who can lead his team to wins, if their D is disastrous.

In last 8 games in which they were 3:5, they had 3rd offensive rtg and 30th defensive rtg. Mavs were 10.2 points worse in D, when Luka was off the court and they were 20 points worse in offense, when he was off the court. + 30.2 net rtg for Luka and Mavs have lost 5 games. So please tell me, what more can do a player to help his team winning? 37/10/11 with 64.5 TS% is evidently not even enough for the winning record. Maybe he should be better cheerleader, like Tatum for example.

You're bringing stuff like it contradicts what I say, but it doesn't. We can talk about what you bring up, but it's not really the same thing as the point I was speaking to.

To your points:
1. Defense is of course the Mavs' "problem", in the sense that the Mavs are better on offense than on defense, just like Luka is.

2. While it may seem like I'm focusing on the wrong thing when I'm quibbling about the nuances in Luka's approach to offense, I'm only talking about Luka in this thread because I'm seeing a lot of people who think Luka simply has to be the best player in the world because of his offensive box score. Such people would acknowledge Lukas's defensive limitations but are stuck on the idea that those offensive numbers must overwhelm everything else. Thus it's my assessment that the thing that they need to understand most is their misconception of the area that dominates their holistic assessment.

3. But to be clear, things like Luka's less than stellar off-ball mold in this conversation. It's just that these things don't result in debates because no one really looks to fight this, because those who advocate for Luka are convinced by his offense and thus focus their attention there.

4. While the Mavs may have a better offensive rating than the Nuggets, they don't at this time have a Top 5 offense, and they haven't had a Top 5 offense since '19-20. I've seen some posts from folks here implying they think the Mavs always have an elite offense, but that's really not been the story in the Luka years.

(If this seems like a contradiction given my tendency to support Jokic, we can discuss further, but obviously it has something to do with how jaw-dropping Jokic's on/off & RAPM numbers have looked compared to Luka's over the course of their time in the NBA.)

5. Re: last 8 games. This tendency of Luka supporters to want to focus on this most recent small sample in this debate while dismissing the same stats in broader samples just isn't logically coherent. My response on all of this small sample size stuff is the same: Time will tell, and if things change, then things will have changed.

6. What more could Luka do? Well, since you ask, it would certainly be nice if he could defend like a big given that he's sometimes the heaviest guy in the lineup for the Mavs. There's something similar going on with Jokic so that gives us reason to hope for the Mavs that you can get away with someone that big who isn't a great defender in the modern NBA, but yeah, as you bring up defense, that is the biggest concern with Luka specifically, and it's something people seem to miss because Luka is classified as a guard.

So yeah, it's possible that the issues relating to Luka the defender will make it impossible for Luka the offender to emerge as the star of a champion, and that's just how it goes. It's not enough to keep Luka from leading a good team - we know that already - but reaching the top is hard.

You're talking like basketball is individual sport. Especially in D singular player can't do 0.

Like expected Luka's +/- skyrocketed with better bigs. His on court/ off court net rating in last 15 games is + 23.6.

What do you think would have happened with Shai's defensive numbers if he had to play with Kyrie, THJ and Powell?

[Exp0sed]

4. While the Mavs may have a better offensive rating than the Nuggets, they don't at this time have a Top 5 offense, and they haven't had a Top 5 offense since '19-20. I've seen some posts from folks here implying they think the Mavs always have an elite offense, but that's really not been the story in the Luka years.

(If this seems like a contradiction given my tendency to support Jokic, we can discuss further, but obviously it has something to do with how jaw-dropping Jokic's on/off & RAPM numbers have looked compared to Luka's over the course of their time in the NBA.)

5. Re: last 8 games. This tendency of Luka supporters to want to focus on this most recent small sample in this debate while dismissing the same stats in broader samples just isn't logically coherent. My response on all of this small sample size stuff is the same: Time will tell, and if things change, then things will have changed.

I wonder why the Mavs haven't had a top 5 offense with Kleber, Bullock and Dwight Powell hmm, must be that awful Luka guy...

as for the small sample, it's getting bigger with each game my friend. tonight Luka was +34 with the 2nd best starter with +19.

[Exp0sed]

Jokic with a monster 3rd quarter brought the Nuggets back to 5 from 20 down, the most points in a quarter in his career.
such a stark difference from guys like Embiid...

now he's on the bench so they'll probably dig a hole even Jokic can't get them out of
are the Nuggets really going for that March opossum act again?

[AleksandarN]

Incoming Jokic 10 10 10. I doubt Jokic will score much this game against a Rap team who is tanking missing like 8 players tonight

Ok I was a bit off