2024-25 NBA Season Discussion

[OhayoKD]

Lol, I mean I guess that’s a compliment to him for you to say that (though obviously you’re doing so in order to support a negative argument), but he didn’t get a single first-place or second-place MVP vote prior to 2021. He was definitely an all-NBA level player in those years, but he wasn’t really an MVP-level player. He took a massive leap in the 2020-21 season and essentially anyone reading “since Jokic became an MVP-level player” would understand that to mean “from 2020-21 onwards.”

He wasn't an MVP when he finished 4th in MVP and led the 2nd best west team before putting up maybe the best offensive performance in the playoffs?

I understand why you want to make 2021 the line of demarcation, but that doesn't change this is nonsense revisionism.

No, he wasn’t an MVP-level player in 2019. No one thought he was a threat to win MVP. And no one voted him higher than 3rd place. He really wasn’t considered to be that level of player at the time, and I know that you know that. I don’t “want to make 2021 the line of demarcation.” It just obviously *is* the line of demarcation, since Jokic demonstrably improved massively that year. Of course, if you want to say Jokic was already “MVP-level” in 2019 and 2020, then I shudder to think what level you’d put him at in the past five years, given that he’s been a hugely superior player than he was in 2019 and 2020. I guess perhaps GOAT-level would be the correct term?

He literally played better in the 2019 and 2020 postseason than he did in the 2021 one. Why do you not even know the players you fawn over?

[lessthanjake]

He wasn't an MVP when he finished 4th in MVP and led the 2nd best west team before putting up maybe the best offensive performance in the playoffs?

I understand why you want to make 2021 the line of demarcation, but that doesn't change this is nonsense revisionism.

No, he wasn’t an MVP-level player in 2019. No one thought he was a threat to win MVP. And no one voted him higher than 3rd place. He really wasn’t considered to be that level of player at the time, and I know that you know that. I don’t “want to make 2021 the line of demarcation.” It just obviously *is* the line of demarcation, since Jokic demonstrably improved massively that year. Of course, if you want to say Jokic was already “MVP-level” in 2019 and 2020, then I shudder to think what level you’d put him at in the past five years, given that he’s been a hugely superior player than he was in 2019 and 2020. I guess perhaps GOAT-level would be the correct term?

He literally played better in the 2019 and 2020 postseason than he did in the 2021 one. Why do you not even know the players you fawn over?

This is stupid. It is very obvious Jokic was a significantly better player from 2021 onwards than he was in 2019 and 2020. You’re really not going to find people who dispute that, without them having some agenda they’re trying to satisfy in doing so (which is what you’re doing). Saying he played better in the 2019 or 2020 playoffs than he did in the 2021 playoffs is just trying to use small samples in different contexts to make an argument that is very obviously wrong. We have no idea how 2019 or 2020 Jokic would’ve done with the 2021 Nuggets roster against the 2021 Suns, but it probably wouldn’t have been better because 2019 and 2020 Jokic was a substantially less good player than 2021 Jokic. To the extent that that wouldn’t be the case, it’d really just be a small-sample-size thing. Jokic has been a substantially superior player from 2021 onwards than he was before that. Talking about how the Nuggets did in 2019 and 2020 as if that should tell us how 2021-onwards Jokic would’ve done in those same situations (which is the type of point you’re driving at) is just silly. It’s akin to looking at what 2005 LeBron did and saying it tells us what 2009 LeBron would’ve done in the same situation.

[EmpireFalls]

2019 Jokic was awesome in the playoffs I thought. The Bubble was actually a step down from that imo.

[Peregrine01]

There’s only one poster that’ll go to such lengths to prove himself right (even on the most trivial things) that he ends up contradicting himself

[bigboi]

Would it be crazy to say that Giannis has a worse supporting cast than Jokic? Dame > Murray for sure but I really do not like the rest of that roster

Giannis always had a worse supporting cast. It was never close. You had people on this very same forum calling brook lopez an elite defensive player. You see how fast that narrative disappeared?

[bigboi]

Luka is a generational chucker on the decline. You can point to the finals run but I dont think Luka played great those playoffs and abysmal in the finals. Yes, Tatum is definitively better than Luka and so is Shai. I had both over Luka since last season. Tbh, I might even make an argument for Tatum over Giannis as third. I think Bucks with Tatum would yield much better results than Celtics with Giannis

[70sFan]

You had people on this very same forum calling brook lopez an elite defensive player. You see how fast that narrative disappeared?

Lopez was an elite defensive player, what are you talking about?

[tsherkin]

You had people on this very same forum calling brook lopez an elite defensive player. You see how fast that narrative disappeared?

Because he HAS been an elite defensive player...

He was second in the DPOY vote in just 2023.

He is also now 36 years old, and in his 17th season in the league, so he's slowed down some. Not sure how you thought this was a cogent argument.

Luka is a generational chucker on the decline.

Or, and this is a little closer to reality, dealing with some injuries and the adjustment to a new team. That's not decline so much as it is something we should expect to normalize next season. He's already got his 3 back, he's finishing well inside the RA. He doesn't really look as if he's "declining" in any meaningful aspect, particularly as he recovers.

You can point to the finals run but I dont think Luka played great those playoffs and abysmal in the finals. Yes, Tatum is definitively better than Luka

But using the Finals to prop up Tatum over Luka is sort of clownish, because Tatum was a disaster clown in the Finals. That's a truly ridiculous position to advance.

[bigboi]

You had people on this very same forum calling brook lopez an elite defensive player. You see how fast that narrative disappeared?

Lopez was an elite defensive player, what are you talking about?

Lopez was always a fraud. What are you talking about? Lopez was known for his entire career as being one of the worst defenders in the league until he played alongside Giannis. He was never a good defender. Scheme and Giannis covered his flaws point blank period

[70sFan]

You had people on this very same forum calling brook lopez an elite defensive player. You see how fast that narrative disappeared?

Lopez was an elite defensive player, what are you talking about?

Lopez was always a fraud. What are you talking about? Lopez was known for his entire career as being one of the worst defenders in the league until he played alongside Giannis. He was never a good defender. Scheme and Giannis covered his flaws point blank period

Cool story, a shame it has nothing to do with what actually happened on the court.

[bigboi]

You had people on this very same forum calling brook lopez an elite defensive player. You see how fast that narrative disappeared?

Because he HAS been an elite defensive player...

He was second in the DPOY vote in just 2023.

He is also now 36 years old, and in his 17th season in the league, so he's slowed down some. Not sure how you thought this was a cogent argument.

Luka is a generational chucker on the decline.

Or, and this is a little closer to reality, dealing with some injuries and the adjustment to a new team. That's not decline so much as it is something we should expect to normalize next season. He's already got his 3 back, he's finishing well inside the RA. He doesn't really look as if he's "declining" in any meaningful aspect, particularly as he recovers.

You can point to the finals run but I dont think Luka played great those playoffs and abysmal in the finals. Yes, Tatum is definitively better than Luka

But using the Finals to prop up Tatum over Luka is sort of clownish, because Tatum was a disaster clown in the Finals. That's a truly ridiculous position to advance.

No, Lopez was never elite at defense. Once again, Lopez was regarded as being one of the worst defenders of the league until he got to play alongside Giannis. He is a result of scheme and another player, simple as that.

Secondly, I never had Luka ahead of Tatum. Off the simple fact alone because of Tatum’s defense. Tatum was guarding the bigs of Dallas the entire series and completely shut down the lob threat which was a big reason for Dallas’ success in the playoffs. Matter fact, Tatum in the Indiana series was practically a big too because Porzingis barely played. Tatum quite literally has played every role on the floor for the Celtics. Tatum may have been abysmal scoring, but he did everything else well. Luka’s offensive gap with Tatum isn’t enough to compensate for his terrible defense. We went from this board having the series split coming into the finals with people even seeing Kyrie is better than Tatum lmao to Dallas getting exposed for the trash team that they are. Tatum will keep winning rings while Luka will continue to play losing basketball. Oh well. Also Tatum’s resume is better than Luka as well lmao. Luka has missed the finals in his prime with Kyrie, that would never happen with Tatum. Tatum is pretty much a lock to the conference finals

[bigboi]

Lopez was an elite defensive player, what are you talking about?

Lopez was always a fraud. What are you talking about? Lopez was known for his entire career as being one of the worst defenders in the league until he played alongside Giannis. He was never a good defender. Scheme and Giannis covered his flaws point blank period

Cool story, a shame it has nothing to do with what actually happened on the court.

Cool story. It has everything to do with what happened on the court. Keep coping. Plus it’s literal common sense, if Lopez were truly elite defensively, he would’ve been a hot commodity and he was never that. If Lopez goes to any other team instead of the bucks, he would never mentioned as a good defender

[70sFan]

Lopez was always a fraud. What are you talking about? Lopez was known for his entire career as being one of the worst defenders in the league until he played alongside Giannis. He was never a good defender. Scheme and Giannis covered his flaws point blank period

Cool story, a shame it has nothing to do with what actually happened on the court.

Cool story. It has everything to do with what happened on the court. Keep coping

It's not my fault you don't understand what you are looking at. Lopez has been one of the best rim protectors in the league for years.

Lopez played 5348 min without Giannis in 2019-25 RS period and the Bucks had identical DRtg with him on and Giannis off as with Giannis on and Lopez off (7040 min) - 111 DRtg.

Giannis has always been the best Bucks defender, but acting like Lopez is horrible without him is silly. Lopez stopped being a negative defender almost 15 years ago, stop living in the past.

[ShotCreator]

Conveniently ignoring 2020 I see

Failed to read the phrase “since Jokic became an MVP-level player” I see.

Jokic was an MVP level player by 2019. What are you yapping about?

Jokic was not 2019 or 2020 Harden or Giannis level in the regular season.

His best year pre-2021 was his 2017 year IMO. He more or less hovered below that level for years.

But he was definitely not breaking games like this lose two before 2021.

There’s not even going to a metric of any kind that puts him on that level. First time I’ve ever seen this implied.

[ShotCreator]

Over the past three years the Nuggets are 11-16 (-3.4) without Jokic, which makes the idea that they are some horrific team without him pretty untenable. A roster is not bad just because it is starter heavy (see also the 1997 Hawks, the 1997 Jazz, the 2013 Pacers…).

That’s about a 50 loss team that is bad on both ends.

How is that anything but an objectively bad team?

That’s much closer to horrific than even average.

What am I reading here?

[tsherkin]

No, Lopez was never elite at defense.

So that's just objectively wrong. Denying reality isn't going to produce quality discourse here.

Luka’s offensive gap with Tatum isn’t enough to compensate for his terrible defense.

So again, that's wrong. Tatum did a very good job of shutting down the lob threat, but the larger reason that the Celtics won was that Dallas couldn't hit open threes. And Tatum's horrendously-bad performance as a scorer in that series tanked their offense in a huge way, which would have been a problem if the shooting variance bug hadn't struck the Mavericks. That is a relevant note.

Luka has missed the finals in his prime with Kyrie, that would never happen with Tatum.

So yes, in the season of the trade, where Kyrie played 20 games, the Mavs missed the Finals. The team had a pile of issues in 2023, mostly health. And then immediately after in 2024, they made the Finals. So I'm not really sure what it is about your remark that you thought was profound, but there was nothing of substance there. The Mavs weren't a particularly impressive team prior to the trade, but Luka had them at .500 when he was healthy anyway. They had a whole bunch of roster turnover, Kleber missed more than half the season, their frontcourt was a disaster, and they had just lost Jalen Brunson, which was a big drop-off for the Mavs. Then they acquired Kyrie, and then after the season ended, they acquired Lively. They acquired PJ Washington mid-season, as well as Daniel Gafford, they added DJJ for a season, so there were some noteworthy improvements to help off-set the loss of a major second player.

Leaving out context to advance an agenda is always a bad move.

Tatum wouldn't have done anything better with that team, particularly at that phase of his career. Like, no disrespect to Tatum on that front. You build around your stars specific ways based on their talents. But his floor-raising isn't that significant because he isn't the same kind of on-ball guy as Doncic and the offensive gap is very, very large between the two. The defensive gap is notable, but you're back to comparing team results with non-comparable team quality, which is another non-starter.

[ShotCreator]

A healthy Murray usually stepped up in a big way (2020 and 2023). He was either out or playing through injury in 2021, 2022, and 2024.

I mean, I’m not sure how Jokic’s supporting cast has been worse than Giannis’s.

Have any of Giannis’s teammates since his first MVP season ever played as well as playoff Murray in 2020 or 2023? And Aaron Gordon continues to be one of the most underrated role players in the league.

They didn’t have to.

Giannis had teams with prime George Hill coming off the bench as a 5th option and used Nikola Mirotic as a throw away player. Milwaukee was extremely deep on both ends in 2019 and 2020.

[Special_Puppy]

Failed to read the phrase “since Jokic became an MVP-level player” I see.

Jokic was an MVP level player by 2019. What are you yapping about?

Jokic was not 2019 or 2020 Harden or Giannis level in the regular season.

His best year pre-2021 was his 2017 year IMO. He more or less hovered below that level for years.

But he was definitely not breaking games like this lose two before 2021.

There’s not even going to a metric of any kind that puts him on that level. First time I’ve ever seen this implied.

FWIW this is where I had Jokic ranked in the league from 2016 to 2020 in my composite of advanced stats
2016: 14th
2017: 14th
2018: 9th
2019: 4th
2020: 7th

Think this is mostly a semantics debate though.

[therealbig3]

Over the past three years the Nuggets are 11-16 (-3.4) without Jokic, which makes the idea that they are some horrific team without him pretty untenable. A roster is not bad just because it is starter heavy (see also the 1997 Hawks, the 1997 Jazz, the 2013 Pacers…).

That’s about a 50 loss team that is bad on both ends.

How is that anything but an objectively bad team?

That’s much closer to horrific than even average.

What am I reading here?

They wouldn’t be bad defensively.

And 30+ wins out of a supporting cast when you just completely remove their best player without any sort of replacement is not a bad supporting cast.

[Special_Puppy]

Over the past three years the Nuggets are 11-16 (-3.4) without Jokic, which makes the idea that they are some horrific team without him pretty untenable. A roster is not bad just because it is starter heavy (see also the 1997 Hawks, the 1997 Jazz, the 2013 Pacers…).

That’s about a 50 loss team that is bad on both ends.

How is that anything but an objectively bad team?

That’s much closer to horrific than even average.

What am I reading here?

They wouldn’t be bad defensively.

Nuggets are ranked 24th in the league on defense right now. You expect they’d get significantly better on defense if they removed Jokic?